One of the major surprises of my new condition is how it feels 100% just right - like it had been the natural state of affairs all along, and I had just failed to see it. Like coming home. "There and back again", indeed.
(For those who haven't read the other posting and won't, the short of it is that I started into a very loving, very gentle, device-less version of bdsm-style male chastity, and it is precious.)
As the title written on the beautiful belly of the young lady on top of this blog suggests, I will not move to generalize, out of a few moments of private enjoyment, that all guys in relationships should always be in a state of courtship, encouraged by "enforced" bdsm-type chastity. Duh.
I will, however, allow myself to indulge in those ideas for a while, just because they are so sexy. I believe that your own beliefs can very much be a part of your joyful kinky adventures, as long as you are prepared to admit that this is what you are doing. It is a kind of extended (or in-tended?) roleplay.
I will also allow myself to deliver a few hypotheses, in the firm knowledge that they are not at all conclusive or scientifically sound, but just my own private adhoc speculations.
The question is, of course, why the heck does it feel so good? And moreover, why does it feel so natural?
I'm guessing that modern neurobiology might have something to say about that -- Marnia Robinson seems to cover that in "Cupid's Poisoned Arrow", but I have not read the book yet. From what I have heard, it is probably something to do with the brain's reward circuits.
It is at least a curious occurrence how basically all of the romantic media industry revolves around this one very subject: Pair bonding, and male persons' apparent inability to accept it, live it, enjoy it, submit to it and become monogamous in the process, mostly because of their need for "indepencence", i.e., freedom to mate with everyone else.
I don't believe for a second that monogamy is the natural order of human affairs, period. There is far too much evidence to the contrary (see "Sex At Dawn", by Christopher Ryan).
In the light of what I have experienced in my life, and specifically what I am experiencing right now, I should say that there are two distinct modes of pleasure with regard to sex and relationship: Marnia Robinson would call them "mating" and "bonding" modes. Both are probably related to one or the other of two different hormones *), and you can get a high from either, as well as get hooked on them.
This might imply that, contrary to what we are generally taught, there is really not only one source of happiness with regard to sex, but there are two: orgasm is one, and deliberate delay of orgasm is the other. One triggers the satisfaction of mating, the other brings in the rewards for bonding. **)
If so, that would mean that we humans are probably only half-monogamous, the other half being polyamorous: driven by a sex impulse to procreate no matter what, but at the same time, longing for life-long bonding. Would that not explain an awful lot in terms of our pervasive issues with relationships? Like, why we have seen a need for using religions (the other strongest force on the planet) for millennia now to regulate them, why we tend towards serial monogamy rather than straight-up polyamory in the face of failing societal rules for relationships, and why so many very happy, very committed monogamous relationships tend to fall apart after quite a huge amount of time.
It would also mean that we get to... well, not precisely choose between those two modes, but probably rather... surf them. Go more for one at a time, rather than assuming that real happiness is only real once you have both. Realize that it's not your partner who is to blame when things start to go a bit boring, nor yourself, but your biology -- but also that, rather than being a slave to your body, you now have a choice to do something about it.
That would be awesome indeed.
Of course, all of this does not explain at all why there seems to be such a massive difference between men and women -- how much of it is related to nurture rather than nature.
Since these are just ad-hoc thoughts from a few days of experience, it may very well be that this is all really just a reflection of my personality and upbringing. Yay for catholic education! Hooray for christianity!
But wouldn't it just be way more interesting the other way?
*) or, more probably, complex circuits involving one or the other of those, among other substances
**) Marnia Robinson, as far as I see, advocates for a kind of sexual restraint, otherwise known as "karezza", for both sexes. As this opposes my kinky malesub view, I choose to ignore the female side of the equation for now...