The Reading Room -- Fic: Monopoly by Kitty Fisher

[sc-fossil.livejournal.com]

http://www.thecircuitarchive.com/tca/archive/5/monopoly.html
or
http://hatstand.slashcity.net/kitty/mono.html

Monopoly by Kitty Fisher hits all of my buttons. It's what I consider gritty BDSM but gritty really makes me happy in this case. I will read almost any BDSM story that is fully consensual and I can take a lot of rough sex between two men. This story gives us two hard men fucking to within an inch of their lives. I fully realise that this isn't a story for everybody. It's definitely an acquired taste. *g*

I think the first few paragraphs nicely set up the scene. It's not love, we're led to believe from the lead in paragraphs. It's dirty sex between two men.

Doyle is waiting:

Doyle straightened, listening to almost silence as the TV clicked off. Without the brash noise the alley seemed to close in. Shadowy, like the molasses his nan had used to make ginger cake; thickly cloying, shiny, sweeter for his own anticipation of the final result. He licked his lips, and plucked at the untucked hem of his T-shirt, wafting air. He was lightly dressed. No gun. No jacket. Nothing to get in the way... of whatever was coming. Whatever Bodie brought. Wanted. Gave...

This paragraph is just about perfect to me. I really like the description of what Doyle thinks of Bodie's confidence anywhere :

A shadow-shift at the edge of his perception, and a figure approached from his left. Unexpected when the road was a dog-leg of alley to his right. Left was... what? Nothing. Something. Somewhere Bodie knew. But then Bodie was at home in the strangest of places. In back alleys. In the secret hours between midnight and dawn.

And this description of Bodie makes me all tingly:

Black polo neck under a black biker's jacket, scratched and dulled with age, black jeans, boots. Unsmiling, his face hollowed and sharpened in the muted streetlight. Doyle knew -- just from the tension in the wide shoulders -- that Bodie was hard. Needy. He felt his sphincter tighten, felt his balls crawl upwards as his cock surged. Hungry Bodie. A dark night and a secluded alleyway. And games as expiation, as benediction. The slow twist of time stopped, here.

The game starts and we're treated to lines like this:

Not fighting. Lost on the cusp of the illusion of helplessness, the reality of submission, Doyle shivered. Hot night air on his skin. Nipples hard, sensitised beyond belief. When Bodie smiled Doyle arched into him, whimpering helplessly, saliva wet on his wide-stretched lips, cooling on his chin.

And just so further emphasise that this is consensual, we're told:

Jesus, he wanted this so much. Wanted Bodie. To fuck him. Hard. Though the tongue was making thought impossible. Making everything impossible, except simple need. Enough to make him sob. Breathlessly, wordlessly begging, the tension rippling in his arms as he held on, stretched and bent, held just as Bodie wanted him.

There is pain and pleasure, and hard fucking and more pain, until Doyle gets what he wants. Until we find out why they picked this night, this alley, this time together to celebrate:

Looking up he (Doyle) caught a smile that showed a flash of white teeth. "I'm alive. I didn't die."

"Just as well." Doyle slid his face between the jacket and Bodie's neck. Snuffled skin. Sweat and animal and scent. Life in the pulse of blood. "Don't scare me, cretin. It's not good for me."

And then the lads toddle off together to head to home and another sort of game and maybe Doyle will now get his turn.

So... Rough story, pain mixed with pleasure, some straight-out painful moments, and by the end, trust and love. I've read almost every story in my three fandoms classified as BDSM and I consider this one the best short story in the genre. I like the timing of the sentences and the way the author constructed them. I like the "textures" we're given of the entire experience: the alley and the clothes and the sex, their reactions and feelings. And for me the complete trust we know exists between Bodie and Doyle is clearly conveyed.

Everything in this story is so easily pictured here for me, so them for me that every time I read it, I'm left with a good feeling that they'll always be there for each other and always cover each other's backs -- in more ways than one.

Comments

[lysimache.livejournal.com]

Right, thank you for this which goes a long way to answer my question and to explain the attraction of the ball bit. So, it does seem to be partly a physical thing as much as emotional? That then I can understand.

Yep, I think all restraints have a physical and a mental/emotional component. It's very hard to separate the two aspects, for me, anyway. Each feeling reinforces the other. *Allowing* someone else to have that kind of control is a huge rush.

I noticed you seem to think it would 'look silly'? I think there's a large element of, hmm, theater in a lot of BDSM play: props, costumes, scenery all contribute to the overall eroticism of the scene. Any one element on its own (or heck, in context, depending on one's own predilections) can *definitely* seem silly. That's not necessarily a bad thing! It's okay to find some of it a bit silly, even while it's a turn-on, or whatever. It's not Deadly Serious! It's fun! And not everyone is going to find all of the fetishistic parts interesting/appealing/attractive, etc. It is even possible to like BDSM and not find, say, leather, inherently sexy (no, really!). So the ball gag is just one prop in the whole scene that's being set up in the story: the alley, the clothes, the nipple clamps, etc.

and the attraction of being able finally to *control* that danger and then coming down from it in their own way.

I think this was *exactly* what the story was trying to portray. You've hit it exactly. :)

But I feel slightly that there's contradiction here as well: that even though the submission of one person to the other is based on a mutual willingness or consent, the situation rests upon a fundamental inequality - no matter how temporary - for the whole scenario to work i.e. it involves the submission and subjugation of one partner to the other, and in turn, a feeling of extreme - if not total - power on the part of one person over the other and this seems to contradict the end-product of this story which does have them in complete accord and equals. The need for a temporary loss of power on the part of one person in order to have complete equality for two seems a strange psychology.

Power exchange *is* sexy! :) And yes, I can't imagine how it could ever work in a relationship in which the participants were not on an equal basis to start. If one doesn't have absolute faith that power is shared equally outside of the agreed upon times, how could there be the trust that would allow the bottom to cede control to the top? Bodie and Doyle, in their relationship, are definitely equals, and therefore they can temporarily give up power to each other and it's awesome: but it would really squick me if I were reading a story where either of them bottomed to Cowley. The fundamental inequality there would, for me, negate the trust necessary for meaningful consent. (Others, of course, might find it hot. And that's cool, for them.) The negotiated consent of BDSM gives a safe space to explore power dynamics that otherwise we do have little healthy outlet for. But like I said, for me, if that didn't start with a completely equal relationship, the specter of coercion would taint it too much to enjoy. I see the equality coming first, and then from it, the ability to play with power dynamics in a safe/supported way.

Thank you for this explanation and I really liked your Latin poem at your journal!

Glad it helped! :) I'd be totally willing to take a stab at explaining anything else I could about this sort of thing, if anyone wants or thinks it might help.

And that great that you liked the poem! I'm a Latin teacher, so I love having people say they like Latin: it makes my day. :)

[sc-fossil.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the information. I've really been enjoying the discussion.

[shooting2kill.livejournal.com]

I think there's a large element of, hmm, theater in a lot of BDSM play: props, costumes, scenery all contribute to the overall eroticism of the scene. Any one element on its own (or heck, in context, depending on one's own predilections) can *definitely* seem silly. That's not necessarily a bad thing! It's okay to find some of it a bit silly, even while it's a turn-on, or whatever. It's not Deadly Serious!

You see I find that kind of thing just plain boring, almost on a par with wearing party hats and bursting balloons – it’s just a big turn off for me! And when reading a story, if it starts to go down the 'master' and 'slave' route then I'm off as it just doesn’t interest me. I’m not opposed to it, or even disapproving of it, I'm happy for others to enjoy it but the whole dressing up as nazis, school girls, whipping etc doesn’t do a thing for me.

But from what you say the attraction of S&M does seem to lie largely in the inequality of power – even if it’s exchanged and temporary - and on one person at any given time having power over another? If so, then I think I’m disappointed that Bodie and Doyle need to experience that kind of thing vis a vis each other because isn’t it all around us and something we’re all striving to escape?. An imbalance of power within a relationship is nothing new, all of us throughout our lives and throughout our daily lives are exposed to this, whether it be child/parent/teacher/pupil blah blah so it’s nothing new or different and I really want them to be different - I thought they were - and to get off on something different to that which is, arguably, no more than an extension of patriarchy, not to mention the hundreds of other inequalities within society. I want them to have great sex (and to find happiness) in other, less negative ways i.e. without the need to make each other suffer or to impose control.

Thanks for this!

[sc-fossil.livejournal.com]

It's been a good discussion, hasn't it?

I do think that there are some things that can't be really explained very well, and let's face it, there's no need to convince you that "this" is good and "that" isn't. So I think that we'll have to agree that we each see the underlying premise of the story (Doyle's submission to Bodie) as something you see as negative and I don't. I see both boys as entirely equal. Both have to say yes to whatever is going to happen, be it a gag or a set of handcuffs or those nipple clamps. And both have their own reasons for being in the positions they find themselves, which I do think the writer clearly told us. It's up to the reader to buy it, of course.

And I think they did have great sex and there wasn't anything negative to me. In this story, the pain isn't negative to either party, it's essential to them to move past what had happened. Now to a reader, that's an entirely different ballgame whether they agree with that premise as written.

Thanks!

[shooting2kill.livejournal.com]

So I think that we'll have to agree that we each see the underlying premise of the story (Doyle's submission to Bodie) as something you see as negative and I don't.

Sorry, but I don't see this discussion as being about you or me! I'm trying to think about and discuss certain points which have been made by several people and which came up in the story. I hope you don't feel offended because I don't share the same views as you or that I was interested enough to ask questions about the story? I'm just trying to take part in the discussion, that's all, and to show interest in your choice! And I don't feel that I was that negative or disapproving of the S&M aspects, merely puzzled that people would want to spend their time on that kind of activity and I've stressed more than once that it's probably my problem! I thought I'd been pretty fair and openminded about the whole thing.

[sc-fossil.livejournal.com]

I thought I'd said it was a good discussion and I enjoyed it. I don't see anything wrong about folks having different opinions. And I did say I wasn't here to convince anybody of anything. I was saying that I saw it differently than you, since it's you and I who are posting. It's hard to keep every single post general, so if you felt I was being negative towards you, I apologize.

[shooting2kill.livejournal.com]

I thought I'd said it was a good discussion and I enjoyed it. I don't see anything wrong about folks having different opinions.

Well neither do I but you seem to be annoyed because I didn't share your position.

I wasn't here to convince anybody of anything. I was saying that I saw it differently than you, since it's you and I who are posting.

My last two posts were actually directed at comments made by lysimach not anything you'd said.

[sc-fossil.livejournal.com]

Again, I'm sorry. I wasn't looking at which post you were replying to. I didn't mean to make you feel the least bit as if I was annoyed. If it came across that way, I sincerely didn't mean that at all.

[shooting2kill.livejournal.com]

You don't have to apologise and yes I think it is a good discussion! Thanks.