Well Adjusted Kinksters?

Here at the UCTMW World HQ, Mistress and slave enjoyed a low key Sunday, catching up on some work, and spending a lot of time in bed. Mistress even let me take another photo of her in her new V-Day panties to share in response to widespread reader demand (Well at least one of you asked for more!)

Meanwhile, in the mainstream media, where sharing shots of your wife’s firm and hot ass are not quite as prevalent, the world is still focused on the premier of “50 Shades”, with coverage from all sorts of angles. One I noticed was an article posted on Psychology Today titled The Surprising Psychology of BDSM. It concluded that only about 2% of us engage in bondage or physical discipline in real life, but that more than a majority of us dabble in domination or submission in our fantasy lives:

1. How many people are into S&M?

According to researchers, the number likely falls somewhere between 2 percent and 62 percent. That’s right: Somewhere between 2 percent and 62 percent. A pollster who published numbers like that would be looking for a new job. But when you’re asking people about their sex habits, the wording of the question makes all the difference.

On the low end, Juliet Richters and colleagues (2008) asked a large sample of Australians whether they had “been involved in B&D or S&M” in the past 12 months. Only 1.3 percent of women and 2.2 percent of men said yes.

On the high end, Christian Joyal and colleagues (2015) asked over 1,500 women and men about their sexual fantasies. 64.6 percent of women and 53.3 percent of men reported fantasies about being dominated sexually—and 46.7 percent of women and 59.6 percent of men reported fantasies about dominating someone sexually.

So while most of you out there reserve domination and submission to hot masturbatory otherwise  undisclosed fantasies, it’s not something particularly unusual.  And while the M/f style of submission may be slightly more prevalent, the research shows that more than 40% of women harbor a secret longing for some hapless male to grovel at their feet or be chained to their bed to serve their carnal needs.

Does this mean that more of us are fucked up than we’d like to admit. Not at all, dear readers.  The research also shows that habitual BDSM’ers are better adjusted psychologically than your average vanilla guy or lady:

Pamela Connolly (2006) compared BDSM practitioners to published norms on 10 psychological disorders. Compared to the normative samples, BDSM practitioners had lower levels of depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), psychological sadism, psychological masochism, borderline pathology, and paranoia. (They showed equal levels of obsessive-compulsive disorder and higher levels of dissociation and narcissism.)

Similarly, Andreas Wismeijer and Marcel van Assen (2013) compared BDSM practitioners to non-BDSM-practitioners on major personality traits. Their results showed that in comparison to non-practitioners, BDSM practitioners exhibited higher levels of extraversion, conscientiousness, openness to experience, and subjective well-being. Practitioners also showed lower levels of neuroticism and rejection sensitivity. The one negative trait that emerged? BDSM practitioners showed lower levels of agreeableness than non-practitioners.

So maybe we’re not all that “agreeable”…. Less likely to just go along with the flow? But isn’t that better than being depressed, paranoid or anxious?

There are trade-offs, even for those of us who’d rather lick our devoted wives’ feet than go to a baseball game with the guys.

Photo Shoot

The arctic blast that descended on the heartland yesterday did not cool the passions of V Day here in our UCTMW empty nest.

There was your not too early morning wake-up sex.  Then, after we both dealt with our respective mothers at lunch time, a rejoinder between the sheets for a nice nap and more sex to while away the afternoon. Mistress's lover Jay was out of town this week, but they did not connect by phone as we lay in bed in a post-coital glow. And then there was her ex-College boy friend. also wishing her a happy V-Day on the phone before we headed out for movie and a dinner in the neighborhood last evening.

So while Mistress had to make do with only the attentions of her Slave yesterday, at least she knew she was top of mind with some of her other suitors as well.

It may not be the sunny delight of our SW hideaway, but who can complain?

And there was time for a photo shoot, too so Mistress could display one of the panties that her V Day cupid brought her..... all wrapped up by that Saks Lingerie Biddy I mentioned yesterday.

What do you think?  Should I get Mistress to model the other two pair for display later this week?

Love Is In the Air

Happy Valentine's Day from the UCTMW media empire!

Here in River City, Slave slipped away from work yesterday to pick up some V Day tribute for my lovely Mistress. I guess I waited a little too long because the lingerie department at our local verstigal Saks store was a little thin by the time I arrived. Apparently V Day is to sexy undies what the 4th of July is to fireworks....

I did find three colorful panties that would seem to suit Mistress, and handed them to the matronly biddy who was presiding at the cash register.

"Would you like me to wrap these for you?"

"That would be nice. Thank you."

"Should I wrap them separately, or together."

"Hmmm..... I guess it's possible they're for three different women....., but in this case, just one box will do".

She gave me a little biddyish smile.

"You'd be surprised what you  hear when you work in the lingerie department...."

She even commented on my selection with approval.....

"I received some hanky pankies a few years back as a gift..... always a nice selection."

Was this lingerie department small talk?  Somehow I didn't want to think of this biddy in the type of sexy undies I just picked out for Mistress.

I snatched my wrapped box and got out of there quickly.  Maybe we've taken this whole V Day thing a little too far.

Yesterday, on our stayed old public radio station, there was an "announcement from a sponsor". It was about where and how to acquire a special V Day 50 Shades of Grey teddy bear. That is "accessorized".  I was wondering what those accessories are?  Cuffs? Whips? Chains?

Actually, only blind folds and cuffs:

I did see in the Washington a special V Day article entitled everything-you-ever-wanted-to-know-about-love-in-25-maps-and-charts.

Here's a few things I learned:
1) Despite all that talk about "family values" those former slave states down south have a higher percentage of divorced and separated households then us Yankee states.
2) Marriage is not as popular as it used to be. Less than 50% of us think marriage and kids should be a priority.
3) More than 38% of us have used on-line matchmaking systems to find lovers, though there is no specific mention of Ashley Madison.
4) More Democrats think an unsatisfying sex life is  a problem for a marriage then Republicans do.
5) Less than half of "White Main Line Protestants" think an unsatisfying sex life is a problem in a marriage, confirming my working theory that Episcopalians are more likely to have sticks up their asses than the rest of us. (Did I get that theory from watching Downton Abbey with Mistress?)
6) A map of common words that folks use to attract others to their on-line profiles betrays certain regional predilections:

So if you're from Kentucky, the word "basketball" is used as your "honey trap". In Michigan and Ohio you seduce around a "bonfire". In Alabama, Mississippi and Georgia you invite your date for some "grilling", which I suppose is better than a "Lynching". (Fortunately, there was no on line dating in the earlier half of the 20th Century.)

There are states, like Louisiana, Arkansas and the Dakotas where the first date is  to take your new match "hunting". And then in Jersey the word is "Lounge". Bada Bing!

In Texas and Oklahoma, folks actually think the word "Oil" will lubricate their romantic prospects. Can "fracking" be far behind?

Sadly, the words "cuckold" , "submit" and "femdom" have not amde the cut yet.

Maybe next year.

Fifty Shades of Marketing

Yesterday the local River City Gazette featured on the front of the "local" section a full page "spread" on the new movie version of "50 Shades of Grey", that BDSM novel for sorority girls and tweeners that has become an international publishing sensation. The article had a 1/2 page still from the movie to take up space that might have otherwise been filled by the words of recently laid off reporters. There was another teaser photo on the front page to make sure you didn't miss the article.

What was the local rag's excuse for what to many eyes would appear to be paid advertising?

It turns out that our local Catholic Archbishop had issued an edict to his "flock" directing them to boycott said movie. The Archbishop's statement read in part:

"In this movie, a young Miss Steele is urged to sign a contract becoming a sex slave and agreeing to an abusive and degrading relationship" which, he pointed out "is in diret contrast to the Christian message of God's design for self-sacrificing love, marriage and sexual intimacy."

The comments section under this article was filled with lots of choice suggestions on the temerity of this edict, including several suggesting that it made some folks more likely to see the movie, and wondering where said Archbishop  was when all those randy Priests were encouraging altar boys to enter into "abusing and degrading" relationships.

But my take was as follows: was this paid advertising, or "earned media"? Either way it was bound to have the opposite effect from what the Archbishop claimed he was trying to accomplish. It made you wonder whether the Diocese would get a cut. You can't have better viral marketing, particularly as folks shared the article with saucy comments on Facebook and Twitter.

It flashed me back to the pre-social media days of my youth in upstate NY in the late 1950's.  The only sermon I can remember from those days was a Priest railing against a new movie called "Baby Doll", which he described as sordid and sinful, and which all good Catholics were told to boycott or otherwise face eternal damnation.  Even at 8 or 9 it sure made me curious about what I was missing.

This morning I pulled up the original movie poster and learned that the movie the Priest was demanding that my parents boycott was based on a book written by Tennessee Williams, and featured crusty old Karl Maldon, who, you may recall, played a Priest himself in "On the Waterfront" and later starred opposite Michael Douglas on "The Streets of San Francisco".  How could old good old Karl have been in a porn flick?

It makes me want to see if I can find it on Netflix.

I suspect that, as with 50 Shades, the Catholic Church's "ban" of "Baby Doll" just helped sell more tickets. You can't get better free advertising than that!

In the meantime, Mistress had been invited to attend an advance screening of 50 Shades tonight with a former work colleague. It's a benefit sponsored by a local purveyor of sex toys called "Pure Romance". I wonder if they invited the Archbishop?  Last night Mistress heard that her friend can't make it. She was offered the tickets and told to bring a friend, but has decided to pass. Of course Mistress may be the only woman under 70 left in America who has not read "50 Shades". She seems completely uninterested in seeing the movie too.

I think she's waiting for the F/m sequel.