He's still "that guy," if that guy is someone who has sex with women who have been irresistibly compelled to do so.
You’re not wrong, but that’s an inherent aspect of the very concept of mind control fantasies, isn’t it? Emphasis on “fantasy.” We the readers identify with the mind controller because we can’t conceive of getting great sex through our looks or charm. Some of us just want to be able to identify with the kind of character we’d like to see ourselves as. If your kink is to be the “male pursuer,” fine. Others of us like the idea - which, again, we know must not exist outside fantasy - of being able to make woman want to pursue us.
Uh, speak for yourself. I'm no Casanova but I do ok. There's absolutely nothing wrong, and plenty hot, with fantasizing about what you're describing, and I'd probably enjoy it if it was being presented as a male character surreptitiously mind controlling a female character into pursuing him. The issue is Stephen isn't even doing that - he's just being *passive*. Which is fine, to each their own, but the difference between him and his father isn't whether or not they take advantage of mind controlled cuties, it's whether or not they're passive. And so this talk in a meta context about how Stephen isn't "that guy" because he's passive, and that you feel like it's morally icky to imagine yourself as a non-passive guy, is what I'm talking about. I'm here for mind control kink and maledom; if you find it icky, or find male sexuality in general icky, it's going to be hard for us to see eye to eye or like the same things. You might find this site works for you, though.
To use an analogy, it's like if someone found a thousand dollars on his dad's dresser after he passed, and knew his dad had stolen it from somebody and who that person was. If he goes and spends that money instead of returning it, he's still the asshole, he doesn't get himself out of responsibility for that because his dad stole it first, and it would make this hypothetical person morally pathetic to argue that.
Dude, if you think that "The inheritance" shows male sexuality in negative way but (say) "The Hidden Knowledge" doesn't, I really don't know what to say to you.
At this point, Haight, I really have to ask: Why do you subscribe? It seems like a lot of money to spend to be disappointed (and apparently now offended) every week.
A story can work with the moral framing of "mind controlling women with a magic book made of human skin is wrong" without saying anything negative (or anything at all) about male sexuality. Janice's husband doesn't realize that people are being mind controlled, so he isn't culpable, of course, but in my mind he's the least interesting sideplot, and he doesn't do anything to advance the main plot.
The idea of "male characters who do anything but sit and wait for women to pursue them are unlikable/evil" is what I'm not comfortable with. It's like being subjected to a gender-flipped version of someone's madonna/whore complex. "Male characters getting pursued by women is hot" is great, though. Even if that's not always my vibe. The former is sex-negative; criticizing someone for vibing with the latter is also sex-negative.
I left for a bit, and there's still some good stories on this site, but overall I'm thinking of making my exit. I like MC kink, and some of the other content, but there's so much more elsewhere that's interesting and up my alley compared to this.
Seeing this discussion/disagreement made me reflect a bit on the kink. As I see it, there are two attractive elements to MC: devotion and domination. I think SJI has two characters that exemplifies the dissonance between the two: Adrian represents devotion while Jakob represents dominance. I'm much more attracted to the former, and I don't really see appeal when the women are turned into mindless bimbos. I like the direction this story goes.
Hidden Knowledge is an interesting one, as I feel like it sort of straddles both. It seems to be headed in the domination direction, but some of the relationships (i.e. Janice) still hit the devotion tone I enjoy.
I'd be interested in seeing a poll on which is more interesting to the subscriber base.
There's plenty to domination without the degradation and dehumanization that characterizes Jakob (or Waiting Room). I think conflating the two is a mistake, and I think it's wrong to assume that a guy has to degrade or dehumanize his partner to be dominant, though that's beside the point; clearly some people like that dehumanization and degradation. I don't see the appeal in women being turned into mindless bimbos, either, but I don't see the appeal in a guy sitting around and waiting for women to come to him, and I *definitely* don't see the appeal in saying that men who don't sit around and wait are evil, especially when the goal is to enjoy the benefits of the actions of the men who don't sit around and wait.
If you want to see how that poll might turn out, I'd recommend the book "Men in Love" by Nancy Friday, who made a collection and commentary of mens' sexual fantasies. She's done a couple on women as well.
I think it's also worth considering the fact that this is a kink that we all consume though fiction. My friends I know who do more traditional BDSM, for example, are primarily expressing their kink with a partner and are thus able to do all the appropriate aftercare and checking in that lets them know that their partner is enjoying what they are doing. I suspect that the "ethical/unintentional controller" stories have such a big demand among the MC kinkster audience specifically because we can't do any of this for real with someone else and thus can't actually get that same kind of reassurance.
I disagree, otherwise you'd see consensual mind control being a bigger thing in stories ("Mindfuck me, it always feels amazing when you do it, honey"). I find that incredibly hot when it happens - Catherine's "I want it all" in Beyond Rubies is a *sizzling* hot line. But for the same people that seem to like the "accidental controller," it seems to be a huge turnoff.
We are all in the situation of having a fantasy that (largely) has almost no morally-acceptable real-world expression. Given that, I think it's pretty unwise to try to read a real-world morality play into anything here. If we're going to start getting concerned about that kind of stuff, what "Waiting Room" says about… just about anything ranks far higher in my list of problematic situations than what "The Inheritance" might say about male sexuality.
As a woman who enjoys fantasizing about subbing (among many other things), I assure you I enjoy fantasizing about a Stephen a lot more than I enjoy fantasizing about a Charles. And if you don't find the interaction between Stephen and Lucinda sweet, well, too bad because I love it. :-)
Well, Waiting Room doesn't really say anything about the morality of the characters involved, but some of them seem to be pretty bad people. The Alchemist just seems to be a playful take that doesn't worry about the morality of things, and that's fine. It's fine to throw out the morality of it and enjoy the kink - and it's fine to take morality seriously, depending on how realistic you want the story to be. What seems wack to me is when it's applied unevenly. Like "Women mind controlling is sexy fun and isn't a problem, but a man even thinking about it is a monster" - thankfully that isn't too common here. But you get the stuff where you've got a guy and his female partner, and he doesn't mind control her, but she's mind controlled by a third party who could snap his fingers and take away all her love and desire for her partner, and that's somehow portrayed as sexy - I just don't vibe. In this case Stephen's dad is dead (we presume), but... I just can't find Stephen's relationship with Lucinda sweet. Stephen is selfish and hypocritical.
I'm not here to audit your fantasies, that would be weird, I'm just pointing out how I relate to this stuff, and if I'm receiving sex-negative messaging it sucks.
