A short note about my perception of a Kinbaku scene
Recently, I was confronted with the question of how to explain the experience of tying. Whilst I tend to intellectualize every detail in my “free time”, I try to shut down my conscious thinking during a bondage scene. Hence, it is not trivial to explain somebody how I experience a scene.
In order to explain anything, I should be once more open about my background in thinking to make the argumentation consistent. I see the world basically from two perspectives. The first perspective is a linguistic perspective, which is very much influenced by the historical works of French structuralism and post structuralism. Roughly spoken, the importance of language cannot be overestimated and everything is language. The second perspective is the one of a mathematical physicist, who tries to find the analytical structure of a more or less complex system. After a few glasses of gin and tonic, in a funny, a little bit nerdy mood, one could ask, where is the difference? Well, without anticipating the point of my thoughts, I would say, exactly in this difference lies the explanation of how I experience a Kinbaku scene.
Of course, a Kinbaku scene is highly sexualized and it means a lot for me, when I’m able to create a situation within which my partner and I have a great time. Of course, I like the power relationship, that is created and, when I tie, directed by me. But these feelings, and many others, expressed by terms like enjoy, turn on, like, energy etc. are obvious. Therefore the “of course”. These are not what I am looking for, when I ask myself, how the experience of tying can be expressed. The difference of the thing and its expression from a pervert’s perspective turns out to be a topic for my next writing. Here I want to focus on my perception of a Kinbaku scene.
As I pointed out earlier, I see a scene as an interview that ideally combines the discourses of communication and power. When we ask ourselves, what each and every interview consists of, we will be led to the answer, that all interviews requires some, not necessarily specified kind of language in order to have an interaction between the people involved. It requires some set of symbols which are exchanged and those symbols are learned. In my worldview (I wouldn’t dare to try any kind factual description) nobody enters the world of living creatures and is already equipped with a consistent set of symbols. You have to learn language and you learn it in your social and cultural environment.
With a huge set and an immense variety of known symbols one enters the age at which sexual interaction is legally practiced. Hence, when I interact with someone, not only but of course also through ropes, I communicate with this person by using several sets of symbols which have been acquired in the past of this person as well as in the past of myself. We are both not able to use anything that lies in the future or in other words, the future doesn’t exist. It cannot exist. What we are doing, lies in the past at any moment and not only this:
When I tie, it’s past directed. It has nothing to do with the future and it has nothing to do with the presence. It is something, that shows me the past – of me as well as of my partner’s past. Tying is an interview for me. I ask questions. The questions I ask, with my rope, with different tensions, different distances, different exposures and so on and so forth, aim for answers in the past. The physicist in you (and in me, too!) now yells at me and says “No way! Even if the answers are built with symbols that have been learned, you get the answers now, ie in the presence!” Well, from the perspective of time as a coordinate, you are right. But I don’t experience a Kinbaku scene as a mathematical physicist. I rather see it as a pervert linguist and historian – one could say as an archeologist of personalities. And as such, I am not only interested in the past, I see life as an ongoing chain of past directed loops.
Every moment we live, the way we see the past changes, or, the past is a function of the presence – historialité, as Derrida has called it. When I tie with somebody, when I ask this person certain questions, I experience it as a time machine, that shows me this person’s past. The answers I get, change the way my partner sees his/her own past and it changes the way I see my past.
Ropes offer a possibility for me to interact, to communicate with people in a way that leads deeper into anybody’s, also into my own, history, than anything else. As such a past directed medium, it often creates more curiosity and interest in me, than spoken language. That’s how I experience a rope scene. As the most intense conversation about who my partner is and who I am. And we both are not in the future. We are our history, like everybody is his/her history, every individual consists of his/her past.*
I can imagine Paolo Coelho et al in rage now, if he would read this. What about the dreams of a future? Isn’t it that what constitutes a human? Well, where are the dreams built? What a human is dreaming of, is learned. When? In the past.