Dreams of Spanking: fairtrade spanking, corporal punishment and discipline fantasies by Pandora Blake. Join us »

 

Orgasm control and what feels natural

A couple of weeks ago, when I had the pleasure of introducing you to Zak Jane Keir and Charlie Forrest’s style of loving dominance, there was something pretty significant I was holding back: the ending.

Part one was a gorgeous sensual spanking – with all the kissing, touching and caressing that makes me fall in love with spanking videos that feature real-life BDSM play partners. But I was also itching to tell you about part two…

I held back from revealing too much of what (and who) comes in part 2. There are so many moments of hotness: Charlie’s straining erection, aching desire, and that subtle gasp-moan as he tries not to come. Sometimes it’s hard to hold back, but I managed it, so today I get to talk to you about the second part of Zak and Charlie’s scene, and the beauty of orgasm control.

Femdom orgasm control in Please, Mistress at Dreams of Spanking

Orgasm control is one of those kinks that I feel everyone must understand. Regardless of whether they participate in it, the key lust triggers are things that most sexual people have experienced at some point in their life. The look on the face of someone who is desperate to orgasm, or the throbbing sensation in your own cock or cunt as you’re balanced precariously on the edge. At points wondering if you’ll be able to restrain yourself or you’ll just explode everywhere.

The second part of Charlie and Zak’s scene captures all of this – much of it through Zak’s eyes. We get her point of view, looking down or up at Charlie’s face as he bites his lip. We get lingering, delicious close-ups of his cock, which is rock-solid and twitching in anticipation of permission.

“Please may I come, mistress?”

That phrase is loaded with so much – especially in light of the playful way Zak’s been teasing Charlie with her hands, mouth, and breasts. It’s not just a polite request, or a ritual, or an impassioned plea: it’s also performative. Charlie knows, even in the moment when he’s so turned on he has to rush to get the words out all in one quick breath, that he has a role to play too. His role is to come exactly when – and only when – Zak allows it.

Femdom orgasm control in Please, Mistress at Dreams of Spanking

But the beauty of Zak and Charlie’s style of loving dominance is that orgasm control doesn’t have to follow the strict (and samey) roles that you’d expect from mainstream porn: he begs, she says no, he comes anyway, she beats him. Or from a Top 10 Ways To Dominate Someone advice guide: tease, deny, let him come explosively, then reward him afterwards. No, Zak pushes Charlie through one explosive orgasm, as he moans and screws his face up at the cathartic feeling of pleasure and failure. And then… she comforts him and consoles with the same soft words and gentle admonishment that you’d expect from a partner who knew their lover well.

Orgasm control is often something that you think of in one particular way: we know the rules and how it goes, and expect certain things. But Zak and Charlie have a natural flow, and their natural flow seems to come not from a standard checklist of things to do or say, but from what feels utterly right to them in the moment. Yesterday Charlie wrote an incredible blog post – about belonging and not belonging, and how his experience shooting porn with Zak and Pandora made him feel.

“I felt indestructible after that, a feeling that what we'd done was something I could be truly proud of. I was filled with the idea of a sort of defiant vulnerability, if that makes sense? Because in that moment I was utterly unapologetically me. Not the cleaned up compromised presentable version, but me as I am.”

Femdom orgasm control in Please, Mistress at Dreams of Spanking

Defiant vulnerability is such a brilliant way to put it. The way Charlie looks when Zak pushes him through his first orgasm, and even as she contemplates wringing a second out of his trembling body. I won’t spoil the surprise as to whether that happens, because the incredible thing about Zak and Charlie is that whatever unfolds, it all feels natural. From the initial teasing and sensual spanks right through to orgasm – somehow not what you expect, but so perfect that when it happens you know it’s exactly right.

Sorry, I’ve gone on about it there in probably far too much detail when I’m sure you’re itching to just watch the awesome, orgasmic scene already. Like I said at the beginning, though: sometimes it's hard to hold back.

Where do the AVMS guidelines come from?

When I talk to someone about the AVMS guidelines, which control what content it is now legal to distribute online in the UK, their first question is always how on earth these regulations came to pass. Why is facesitting banned, but not gagging on cock? Why can UK video producers not show female ejaculation, but male ejaculation is permissible? Why are the guidelines weirdly specific on the details of a high number of niche activities only found within female domination porn - such as trampling, ballbusting, facesitting, scissoring, wrestling, urethral sounds, anal insertion and BDSM pain play - but no mention is made of countless other obscure fetishes?

A preview photo from Femme Fatale Films, which definitely doesn't depict any of ATVOD's banned acts.

After I describe these inconsistencies, the person I'm talking to usually makes a face as they try to imagine how such a bizarre list of banned acts could possibly be compiled. Perhaps they envisage a group of old white men sitting in a boardroom, listing all the fetishes they can think of on a whiteboard, deleting some and underlining others. Half the fetishes on the internet they have never heard of, so they don't get a mention. None of these old white men have ever made a woman squirt, so the consensus is that female ejaculation is a myth, and probably urine - better ban it. But perhaps some of them have guiltily visited a dominatrix or watched femdom porn, so those activities are on their radar - along with all the attendant anxiety of a repressed sexuality. It's potent stuff, they might think, but it's also clearly morally suspect. Best to remove the temptation and ban it all together.

But it's a little more complicated by that. In fact these regulations weren't intentionally assembled by ATVOD or by any other organisation - the truth is weird, convoluted and spans fifty decades of case law. To understand quite how the AVMS guidelines arose we need to go back in time to 1959, when the Obscene Publications Act was passed. This became famous the following year during the trial of Lady Chatterley's Lover, and it defines a publication as obscene if its effect is: 

to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it. 

Lady Chatterly's lover - obscene in the 1950s, filmed by the BBC in 1993 There are two relevant points here. Firstly, the definition of obscenity as something that "depraves or corrupts" is not an absolute standard, but a moving one. We are neither depraved nor corrupted by seeing things that we have grown up seeing; depravity and corruption refer to things that are unusual, shocking. So this standard changes with the standards of the times: imagery which would have been considered depraved or corrupt in 1959 might now be considered positively modest, or at least perfectly conventional, and is often plastered all over billboards and posters in our public spaces.

In 1959, any depiction of sexual intercourse in a cinematic work was illegal. So was having gay sex in the privacy of your own home. 1959 standards of obscenity are not current standards.

So it's a little weird that since the OPA, which itself was a dramatic reform of obscenity law in the UK, the law has not been updated. The Act was amended in 1964 - but only regarding what sort of material might be considered a "publication", not in the definition of obscenity itself. The "National Campaign for the Repeal of the Obscene Publications Acts" (NCROPA) was set up in 1976 and operated until the late 1990s, but it was unsuccessful, and the OPA stands. Meanwhile the moving standard of "deprave or corrupt" has evolved via legal precedent in a series of test cases. The most recent of these was R v Peacock, with obscenity lawyer and Backlash advisor Myles Jackman (successfully) representing the defendant, resulting in an acquittal.

Since individuals are still being prosecuted under a law as outdated as the OPA, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has developed guidelines on how the Act should be interpreted. So even though the standard of obscenity defined in the OPA bears no relation to current social norms, there are knock-on effects which still significantly impact English law. One instance of this is the list of activities prohibited by the British Board of Film Classification.

I warned you this was complicated.

Some background: In the UK it's illegal to sell DVDs, videos or other physical video media unless the film has been classified by the BBFC, which is the UK film regulator. UK film producers have to send their film to the BBFC, pay a fee per minute for them to watch it, and then the BBFC either classify it, or send you feedback on what you would need to change to get it classified.

The CPS guidelines on what can be classified as R18, and which acts are considered too obscene to ever be shown, are based on an interpretation of the Obscene Publications Act.

R18 is the highest BBFC classification, higher than 18. Hardcore porn is classified as R18, or - if it contains acts which are deemed "obscene" - it is refused classification unless those acts are removed. Hardcore pornography depicting real, unsimulated sexual intercourse was unclassifiable under R18 until the year 2000. This is five years after internet porn became a household thing during the dot com boom. English law is way behind the times.

What happened in December last year with the introduction of the Audiovisual Media Services (AVMS) Regulations 2014 is that a statutory instrument was passed, transposed from an EU directive, which brought the law regarding online video on demand services in the UK in line with the existing BBFC regulations controlling what you could sell on DVD. Until this law was passed, internet business had been unregulated. Niche fetish video prohibited by the BBFC moved online, and became a thriving industry. That is, until two decades worth of UK video on demand sites were criminalised in one fell swoop.

So if you challenge ATVOD about the ludricrous, inconsistent and sexist nature of the AVMS regulations, they will pass the buck: oh, they say, the guidelines are from the BBFC, they've been in place for years, they aren't new, we're just applying them to the internet now to level the playing field. If you ask the BBFC where this list comes from, they will say oh, it's not up to us, they're based on the CPS guidelines. That is, the list of categories of material most commonly prosecuted under the OPA, which is published by the Crown Prosecution Service and developed in consultation with the police.

And if you ask the CPS when they last updated their list? Well, they certainly haven't changed it in response to recent obscenity trials. As Myles Jackman writes of R v Peacock:

My client was tried for publishing supposedly obscene DVDs of male fisting, urination and BDSM; and was found Not Guilty by the jury. Despite being widely reported and commented upon in the media, the CPS have not yet updated their Guidance on the OPA in the light of this landmark jury decision.

So let's recap.

The only way continued reference to the 56-year-old OPA by UK authorities is justifiable is if the CPS Guidance is continually updated in response to legal precedent, as juries rule on new cases. That case law is how the moving standard of what is likely to "deprave or corrupt" is maintained in a changing world.

In 2012 - three years ago now - a jury of Michael Peacock's peers ruled that the hardcore gay BDSM fisting DVDs he was offering for sale were not likely to deprave or corrupt anyone who watched them. The consensus seemed to be that you wouldn't watch it unless you were already into it. The jury, having watched them in the courtroom, felt neither depraved nor corrupted; and certainly no more likely to go out and try these activities than they had been beforehand. However, three years after this legal ruling, "fisting" is still a prohibited activity listed in the CPS Guidance on the OPA.

And that list informs the BBFC guidelines; and that list has now been applied to online video on demand services.

If the BBFC guidelines had been updated before the AVMS 2014 slapped them onto a whole new sector of industry, affecting thousands more small UK businesses - or if the CPS had revisited and updated their guidelines to accurately reflect the current state of English case law before the AVMS was brought in - then this would be more tolerable. But the CPS have not done this. Perhaps they, along with many other public services, are feeling the pinch of UK austerity.

It is ridiculous to haul out old, outdated guidelines which do not accurately represent the current state of English case law, and use them to criminalise a whole sector of the creative industry which had never before been regulated. It is shocking that these regulations were passed as a statutory instrument, without any due democratic process, by unelected civil servants, and not debated in Parliament by our elected representatives. It is unforgivable that an unelected quango like ATVOD - a private company that pays its directors healthy salaries and which didn't exist a few years ago - should be set up as an official regulator of previously legitimate businesses, enforcing out-of-date regulations and operating what amounts to a protection racket, extorting fees from business owners for the privilege of being censored.

But that is exactly what's happening in the UK right now.

Point of view (POV) porn – the intimacy of being involved

In this blogpost I want to talk about intimacy. There are a million different ways you can establish intimacy with a partner, but establishing intimacy in art is a much trickier thing. How do you invite the viewer into a particular book, play or, in this case, porn scene?

Well, Pandora does just that in this week's video – she literally invites people in.

Lodger Wanted is a POV femdom tease – Pandora Blake plays the sexy landlady who invites you, the viewer, into her home. From the beginning you're placed directly into the scene, with the camera showing your first-person perspective as you follow her from room. Pandora also gives you some pretty intimate instructions -  “I think there might be a stain on the back of my skirt, can you have a look?" - and some angry words if you're caught peeking.

POV femdom tease with Pandora Blake at Dreams of Spanking POV femdom tease with Pandora Blake at Dreams of Spanking

The concept of viewer involvement in porn is pretty fascinating - it wasn't until very recently that POV porn has been possible. For most of human history pornographic material was necessarily something you'd see remotely – in paintings or drawings or woodblock prints. I'm not aware of any of this material taking a 'point of view' angle – although I'd be interested to know if it ever has. Are there woodblock prints drawn from the point of view of someone receiving oral sex? I suspect it wouldn't have occurred to the artist to do it. Perhaps those who were rich enough could afford live performances, but most people could only be as close to the performers as pen and ink would allow.

I tried to find out when the first POV porn was made, and it looks like – as withmany porn innovations – it first appeared in Japan. In the late 1980s it started as a niche concept, then gradually took off.

Now, though, there are a number of ways in which porn producers and performers share intimacy with their audience. From camming to blog comments, twitter and video blogs, many performers speak directly to their viewers, sometimes as recorded messages and sometimes as live interaction. The internet is an interactive medium, and now more than ever porn consumers are able to collaborate in the porn they watch - make suggestions, request customs, and submit ideas that can be turned into hot new films. Lodger Wanted is one of a growing number of viewer requested scenes on Dreams of Spanking - others include Bathtime and The Stableboy.

Then there's POV porn – like this femdom tease video which invites the viewer to play the part of the prospective lodger, shown around Pandora's home while she flirts and teases, sashaying through the house and deliberately bending over to show off the way the tight skirt hugs her round bottom, and eventually removing her stockings and suspenders, before lounging naked on the bed and scolding you for watching her.

POV femdom tease with Pandora Blake at Dreams of Spanking

I like the idea of POV porn for a whole heap of different reasons. Firstly, it's pretty inclusive when you think about it – in this scene the "lodger" could be anyone, of any gender or body type. Secondly, there's an extra-sexy thrill from the feeling that the performer is addressing you directly. You're not a voyeur, you're a participant - the main character (in this case Pandora's coquettish landlady) is flirting with you.

POV femdom tease with Pandora Blake at Dreams of Spanking

A long time ago, playing Grand Theft Auto with a partner (I know, I know, it's not exactly the most PC of video games) we ended up in a discussion about strip clubs in games versus stripping at the cinema. Obviously there are some mainstream films with stripping scenes that are intensely hot – Salma Hayek performing a striptease with a live python in From Dusk Til Dawn, for instance – but there was something about visiting the strip club in Grand Theft Auto that both of us found more arousing. Even though it was repetitive, unrealistic, and nothing like a real strip club, it was happening to us in a way that film stripteases we'd seen had struggled to capture.

Part of it came from our involvement - we'd pressed the buttons to get our character into the club in the first place - but another significant factor was the fact that it was shot from our point of view. We were looking directly through our character's eyes, and having what felt like a more immediate interaction.

The same is true of other video games I've played. I'm not a fan of running around shooting things to collect random points, but give me a game like Mass Effect, where you build relationships with other characters and – if you're charming enough – eventually have sex with them? I'm sold.

I'm not the only one either – games developers and designers are currently working on innovative ways to use virtual reality to make our porn dreams come true. From simple POV sex videos to full-on interactive games, virtual reality hardware like the Oculus Rift means that a few years down the line, there'll be even more ways for producers to conjure the same feeling of intimacy.

Although sometimes it's good to sit back and watch, safe and sound behind a fourth wall that performers never break, there's something hot about putting yourself directly in the picture.

And if you agree, well, go and knock on Pandora's door – she's very welcoming.

POV femdom tease with Pandora Blake at Dreams of Spanking

View all content tagged 'femdom'

View all scenes »