Maybe it's because Book Frodo is such a proper, buttoned-up English gentleman and suffers with such stoic fortitude in Mordor. One wonders what he would be like should those emotional restraints come off. *brain sizzles at the thought*
I think this is exactly what the last three fics were doing (the ones I just read) that featured Frodo restrained. It was even seconded, Pearl, in the sex manual I mentioned above, the one that I checked out of the library for the illustrations done in coloured pencil. I was reading the book in the bath last night (I always try to bring some "easy reading" along when I loll in a hot tub), and there was a section on fantasy and sexuality and a big one on bondage. It talked about how well most non-neurotic people responded to incorporating a little restraint-scenarios in their lovemaking, if they would try it. Most would refuse, thinking it was the same thing as S&M and therefore what they would consider really deviant.
The book made a point very like what you just said. A lot of people really don't feel they can permit themselves to just let themselves go in anything, including sex. The typical normal-person reasons are that they are afraid how they will appear to the other person (sex fiend), or because they are so hyper-vigilant about everything they do with their lover being even-steven. Men, especially, are supposed to suffer from this: feeling they are responsible for the doling out of sexual pleasures, so that they feel guilty and selfish if they just get "done to." Women tend to suffer from the thing where they feel they have to cater or please the other and so are unwilling to let themselves be pampered, or else worry that they will appear too assertive or grabby for sexual thrills (since they are supposed to be selfless, etc.). Both types, then, said the book, tend to really love getting [safely, by a loved one] tied up and done to. Assertive men enjoyed being bound so that they could be forced to let the other person do everything, make all the choices, and drive them crazy. If they weren't bound, they would feel compelled to reciprocate or even take charge. Women liked to be bound for similar reasons, but also to take the responsibility off them for being pleasing all the time. They also liked the fantasy thrill of it, that is, experiencing the other's dominance in a safe way. I remember when I was a teenager in the 60's, one of my huge fantasies was a tumble in the haystack in which the male of my dreams pretty much forced me to submit, since I was raised to feel that "good girls shouldn't". The scenario made it possible for me to imagine the sexual encounter without the societal guilt for having been "easy." Maybe some of that still lingers; I hear that girls still get called sluts for being as sexually free in their ways as their male counterparts.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-03-20 01:00 am (UTC)I think this is exactly what the last three fics were doing (the ones I just read) that featured Frodo restrained. It was even seconded, Pearl, in the sex manual I mentioned above, the one that I checked out of the library for the illustrations done in coloured pencil. I was reading the book in the bath last night (I always try to bring some "easy reading" along when I loll in a hot tub), and there was a section on fantasy and sexuality and a big one on bondage. It talked about how well most non-neurotic people responded to incorporating a little restraint-scenarios in their lovemaking, if they would try it. Most would refuse, thinking it was the same thing as S&M and therefore what they would consider really deviant.
The book made a point very like what you just said. A lot of people really don't feel they can permit themselves to just let themselves go in anything, including sex. The typical normal-person reasons are that they are afraid how they will appear to the other person (sex fiend), or because they are so hyper-vigilant about everything they do with their lover being even-steven. Men, especially, are supposed to suffer from this: feeling they are responsible for the doling out of sexual pleasures, so that they feel guilty and selfish if they just get "done to." Women tend to suffer from the thing where they feel they have to cater or please the other and so are unwilling to let themselves be pampered, or else worry that they will appear too assertive or grabby for sexual thrills (since they are supposed to be selfless, etc.). Both types, then, said the book, tend to really love getting [safely, by a loved one] tied up and done to. Assertive men enjoyed being bound so that they could be forced to let the other person do everything, make all the choices, and drive them crazy. If they weren't bound, they would feel compelled to reciprocate or even take charge. Women liked to be bound for similar reasons, but also to take the responsibility off them for being pleasing all the time. They also liked the fantasy thrill of it, that is, experiencing the other's dominance in a safe way. I remember when I was a teenager in the 60's, one of my huge fantasies was a tumble in the haystack in which the male of my dreams pretty much forced me to submit, since I was raised to feel that "good girls shouldn't". The scenario made it possible for me to imagine the sexual encounter without the societal guilt for having been "easy." Maybe some of that still lingers; I hear that girls still get called sluts for being as sexually free in their ways as their male counterparts.