Paper and Crumpling and Intent

the ever-developing saga of how touch works for this fluxy-repulsed–hypersexual grey being

so i’ve written about being paper, about exploring paper maché, about getting wires crossed around maybe it’s more that i’m subby, maybe it’s about dissociating feeling like a tool and like having to make decisions/be Skilled and like too focused on orgasm + someone else

(…i think i’ve written about all that; maybe not so much the last batch)

well now i feel like i’ve been deepening understanding / changing perspective for a bit, and an update feels useful in a journal way, share-y way, and self-organizing way. thus! post. hi.

---

it really does feel like maybe it’s primarily that i don’t… vanilla. i don’t sex on its own, really. it’s… that’s like shibari on its own. lot of people seem to be into that, but i’m just, why? where is everything else? why would i do that without pain and/or erotic humiliation and/or power exchange and/or a narrative &etc, except i guess when i really really miss one specific feeling i can probably technically get from that thing by itself if that’s the only way it’s on offer?

so that’s probably a big part. and i mean. throw in genital repulsion/apprehension, and stuff around Desire and expectations, and look there’s so much to throw in okay everything affects sexuality tbh.

but the paper stuff. especially as i’m toying with, hey, i am a sadist, maybe i can switch/top sometimes–but not changing with the same person, i think, at least not for a while, that was an issue before and expectations and balance scales in my head and no–but also, not really dom nonono, not into that side of power exchange, but can super enjoy being in a kind of – don’t @ me – beta role and cotopping in a way where i’m clearly subordinate and could cobottom as well…

…as all that’s kinda shaking up in a way that’s Good and Feels Right and Makes Sense and Oh God How Explain When Meeting People – i’m having a harder time explaining paper and where i’m at with it, but it doesn’t feel in change.

in fact, if anything, i feel happier and more at peace with paper as a good descriptor than i have in a while, even as it’s the subject of some miscommunications i’m not sure how to fix.

---

a lot of it has to do with finding a good goddamn match, tbh, and in gradually learning more about their flavor of stone, and shiny sparkly steven universe eyes at how well we fit together dang.

like, okay. i like being affected by stuff. being in subspace. being an object acted upon, not a subject. which ironically(?) often looks like being The Subject Of The Scene.

a lot of this can revolve around being for somebody else’s use+pleasure, and that’s been Difficult because, um, what if it’s a thing i don’t really like, or what if i get out of subspace but they’re into It (Not Me) and i feel Guilty and blahblahblah

WELL. and here we have Crumpling.

because, okay. “paper,” when people have a sense of what it means – “stone” means no-touch, meaning you don’t touch them, right, so “paper” means they don’t touch you? right? NO FUCK I KNOW MY DEFINITIONS KINDA REIFIED THIS BUT NO AAAA

paper is way more… like… “touching should be primarily about me.” which ugh guilt-twinge sounds-bad-selfish no shut up brain, listen. stone can be “i don’t want you to touch me for me, for my reactions, i don’t want it to be about me, that’s actually your thing.” right? i’ve gleaned that from reading stone perspectives. so… paper can be, “i don’t want to touch you for you, for your reactions. i want touch to be about my reactions.”

and so- crumpling, is this lovely metaphor, of taking paper at its surface definiton of doesn’t-give-touch, and doing some powerplay erotic humiliation stuff in a, for example, “oh, you don’t like giving [oral]? guess what you’re doing because i wanna watch what it does to you” way – where it’s still about reactions/effect.

and it works, beautifully well, with a flavor of stone that goes “i can be technically being touched, but that’s about the way it affects them, and i am not the primary recipient there, they are.”

intent and framing and what the parties want out of it, way more than the actual material happenings.

---

my main pondering now is how in/compatible this me-thing seems versus is for folks who aren’t stone, if i’m presenting it wrong/in a way that isn’t getting past misconceptions about paper, or if it really is that a lot of people want mutual desire and investment in their pleasure in a visceral sexuality way (not in the “i care about you and am grateful and can maybe do this not super appealing thing for you” way, as yknow comes up repeatedly in ace contexts and continues to feel like a major sticking point).

i dunno – does this articulation help me interface better with non-stone folks? maybe? maybe some kinky people can get behind crumpling. maybe just the consensual non-consent crowd. hm.

it’s really cool to feel like i’m figuring out synergy and confidence, though.