Bondage as art? A tied woman as a pretty erotic sight?
Or functional bondage? A woman tied to put her, and keep her, right where you want her, in the position you want her in, helpless to prevent whatever you want to do to and with her?
The Bondage Blog motto was carefully chosen to suggest both: “Taking pleasure in the beauty of restrained women” can mean “by looking at them” or it can mean something rather less passive.
Carrie Ann at A View From The Floor has this to say:
I can’t seem to get into the whole “let’s tie some pretty ropes around you, it’ll take three hours to get a lot of pretty knots and a great design and then we’re done” thing. But lately I’ve been thinking a lot about another kind of bondage.
The kind of bondage where you’re tied down and cut off from movement or escape.
The type of bondage where you’re you’re leashed or tied off or caged because he doesn’t want you to move, because that’s the spot he wants you in.
I don’t want pretty rope dresses or fancy knot work.
I want a collar and leash that only lets me go so far.
I want a spreader bar that forces my legs to stay open no matter what he does.
I want cuffs that keep my hands out of his way.
I want rope and chain that immobilize me or simply keep me where I”m supposed to be.
My own view is that we like “bondage-as-art” precisely because it suggests the functional side. But of course, the world is full of kinky people who aren’t quite willing to “own” their own kinks. “I like bondage, but it’s just an aesthetic appreciation, I’m not one of those serious perverts who wants to tie up girls so he can fuck them like that….”
Sure. Yeah, right. Whatever.