The Great Enforced Chastity Contradiction

Almost every guy who even thinks about enforced chastity goes device shopping. Fantasies always include the penis being locked securely into a device that effectively prevents erection and ejaculation. That makes sense up to a point. The fantasy device can’t be removed by anyone but the keyholder. Once locked in, the male’s life is filled with providing his keyholder with endless orgasms. He rarely, or never has orgasms of his own. That’s the chastity portion of our fantasy. Many fantasies include humiliating activities like wearing panties, doing housework, etc. Some also feature stern discipline from the keyholder.

The one thing that fantasies have in common is that the activities are sexually arousing to the person imagining them. Chances are he masturbates while visualizing these activities. What’s wrong with this picture? Why would a fantasy about not being allowed to get an erection and ejaculate be so sexually arousing? Perverse, isn’t it? I have to admit that my fantasies had a similar effect on me. In fact, when I got my first device I was too hard to put it on. Many guys report this reaction. If it is arousing to imagine being locked in a chastity device, what happens when the male is actually locked in one by a keyholder? No matter how arousing being locked up feels, he is unable to do anything about it. That denial, in itself, is very arousing.

Is the motivation for enforced chastity, sexual arousal? I think it is, at least in the beginning. This isn’t ordinary arousal. It’s arousal with the expectation that it will not be satisfied. That’s why being locked in a device can cause an erection. Not very logical, at least on the surface. It seems that we caged males are highly illogical critters. We get turned on by not being allowed to be turned on. Actually, we aren’t illogical at all. We are turned on by the power exchange with our keyholders. At this point it is way too easy to say, “Oh yeah. They’re subs.” It’s possible that a caged male is also submissive, but I don’t think it is a requirement for enforced chastity.

There is no question that enforced chastity is consensual power exchange between the caged male and his keyholder. The general assumption is that the person receiving the power is dominant and the giver is submissive. That’s true in the literal sense of the words. In the context of male sexual expression, the caged male submits to the will of his keyholder. If a chastity device is used (one is not required for enforced chastity), the caged male is physically unable to experience erection or orgasm. The chastity device “enforces” his agreement to surrender power. In reality, the real restraint on unauthorized sex is the agreement between the keyholder and caged male. The device, like a wedding ring, is more symbol than bondage.

I think a lot of people are confused by the arousal males feel when they practice enforced chastity. Maybe we are all toddlers at heart. If mommy tells us we can’t go into that cabinet, we will move heaven and earth to get in. When a keyholder says you can’t masturbate, what do you want to do: jerk off, right? If Mrs. Lion tells me that I won’t be allowed to ejaculate for another week and then edges me over and over, what happens? I want to come each and every time she plays with my penis. I know intellectually that I won’t be allowed to come, but most of the time I hope and strain to ejaculate anyway. Every time I think about the fact that I have a device locked on my penis that won’t let me get sexual satisfaction, I want the satisfaction I am denied. How strange am I. I asked to be locked in a device that prevents me from sexual activity. Before asking, I knew that wearing that device would make me more desperate for the satisfaction it denies. That is the enforced chastity contradiction.

 

 

 

 

Male half of a happy couple practicing enforced male chastity and FLR with discipline. Locked since 1/2014. FLR 3/2015. Lion's first mouth soaping was 7/17.

2 comments on “The Great Enforced Chastity Contradiction
  1. Schnoff says:

    > Many fantasies include humiliating activities like wearing panties, doing housework, etc.

    I feel a rant coming on. And I may yet rant about this in my own space. The general form of that rant would be “to think of housework as degrading is deeply ingrained misogyny, and to think of panties as degrading is likely that plus some heteronormative bullshit about maleness.”

    And where do you stand? I noticed you stuck those “many fantasies” in there unreflected. That might be because that particular rant wasn’t the point of the post. Or it may be you share the idea that housework is humiliating, but didn’t have cause to reflect on why that might be so.

    • Caged Lion says:

      In a previous post I made the same points you just articulated. I pointed out that I have always shared the housework and that sharing has nothing to do with power exchange.I don’t see housework as demeaning in any way.There has been a longstanding double standard about clothing. Many (probably most) people of both sexes consider that a male who wears women’s clothing to be degrading and humiliating. I think it all goes back to the very old fashioned belief that women are inferior. So when a woman wears men’s clothing, she is cute. When a man wears hers, he is assuming a lesser status. I don’t agree with that at all. I think it is amusing that men who are in a supposedly female dominant relationship feel that wearing panties is humiliating. Shouldn’t they feel empowered by wearing clothing their superior wears? At the moment I don’t have the links to my previous posts where I discuss this very same topic. One last point: If someone feels that doing housework and wearing women’s underwear to be humiliating, then being “made” to wear them would fit into a sexual fantasy that includes power exchange.

What do you think?