Exploring My Style of Play

On Tumblr, @jonsmisu recently asked about where people get their ideas for hypnosis play, and in writing out my initial response, I realized I'd derail a good bit... so I revised my response, but what I was saying was still stuff I wanted to talk about... so here ya go!

A lot of people focus on what their hypnosis suggestions are gonna be, are they gonna tie the subject up, freeze them, give them pleasure, orgasms, orgasm denial, etc.  I... only touch on that, really.  I figure out the barebones on-the-spot or briefly beforehand in considering what I know of them and what we negotiated (ex. "Ok, no touching, ok with imaginary sensations in erotic areas, they love bondage, want to be dominated, sexual pleasure's fine but not a goal...") and figure out a short list of things I enjoy or would enjoy doing that tick those boxes for them.  Basic stuff, right?  I'd say yes, but never underestimate what'll give someone a revelation.  So yea, I touch on what the suggestions in general will be... but that's not my main focus, generally.

So, then, where is my focus, then, right?

A lot of my energy and focus is in the following questions:

• “How can I word this to allow artistic license by the subject’s subconscious while taking care of all the safety details?"
• "How can I fuck around with this or their expectations after they come out of trance (while still being fully within what we negotiated)?"
• “How do I do authoritative without it just being me giving them a 'step-by-step scene construction manual'?”

Note: Safety and consent should always be primary focus, with fun and enjoyment intended.  The rest of this post is about my fun and enjoyment focus once safety and consent feel handled for each suggestion and the play as a whole.

Allowing Artistic License

When I say that, I mean I often times leave little “holes” in my suggestions, but generally minor details so all safety/comfort pieces are there while they can put a personal spin on it... or can find loopholes.  Not defining a term fully or at all and letting them figure out wtf it means (example, “have a reverse orgasm”) is an example of this, although not everyone responds well to not having a known definition... know your audience.  Setting up a basic trigger or suggestion (ex. "as I trail my finger along your body [like this], you'll feel like you're being bound where my finger is trailing in a way that is always safe, but restrictive"), leaving out details of the how the thing will happen (how're they bound? Rope? Specific type of rope? Frozen in place? Duct tape in the hair? Really?).  Then there's leaving in loopholes and there's following up post-hypnotically by exploring all about how they respond in various ways... more on those in a moment.

And with someone new to me... well, I'll allow that artistic license... but it'll probably be not quite as open than someone I know fairly well.

Fuck Around with Expectations

Doing this kind of also requires allowing artistic license regardless, but it is its own category, really.

While I'm post-hypnotically exploring responses/reactions, I often give waking suggestions that a change in how I trigger a thing might make things happen differently.  People who’ve seen my version of “Kinky Human Tricks” have seen me teach this concept in setting up the suggestion "when I snap my fingers, [X happens]," then asking if there’s any difference when I snap fingers with my right hand vs. my left vs. both at the same time, loud vs. quiet, rapidly vs. slowly, muffled vs. clearly, etc.  There doesn't have to be a difference... but by asking, I'm subtly suggesting there may be, and then they look for how.  They don't always notice a thing, and sometimes they do, and either way, I'm having fun, and whatever their response, well, "Works for me, this is fun," because why else would I be doing it?

And if loopholes are found by your subject?  Give'em a chance to exploit them, to have fun, let a brat brat a bit... aaaand then plug'em up, so-to-speak (the loophole, not the brat, unless you're both into that, you do you).  An example might be being told "It won't work if I don't hear it," let them get away with it for a moment, followed by directing their gaze and gesturing/mouthing without making a sound, with that look that just says "oh yes it will," and just watch in amusement.

Authoritative without Over-Detailing

Some people love mindlessly following an entire list of details by rote.  Others... do not.  And I'm not a fan of giving that rote list.  "Then this will happen, then this, then that, and here are the restrictions, and here are goals," and it just feels so... well, when you're working with a submissive that wants to do as they're told, if all you do is just list off "this is what you'll do," then why even bother with hypnosis at that point?  (psst: don't make them wonder this, unless you intend to fuck with it later)  But, if you're dealing with a submissive who wishes to be submissive in that moment... you shouldn't overdo permissive, either... they want to be told what to do, not what can happen if you might say something in a way that may possibly line up a certain way if they notice the phase of the moon tonight... mind you, I do plenty of permissive and there's nothing wrong with it, just saying: don't overdo it, especially not with someone who wants to be told what to do.

So, how do you get that authoritative without just the experience just simply being a list of trigger/response?  Well, there'll generally be some level of listing trigger/response, believe me, despite my paragraph above, I definitely do a decent amount of that... but put some personality in, even when just giving instruction!  Use phrasing that allows some play.  It's not "...and this will trigger pleasure," it's "...and this will trigger... hmm... pleasure..." with some intonation on that word... not with intent to trigger on that word... but with intent for them to notice something about it, and for that example, you can also note that "pleasure" is a fairly vague concept.  I had asked Confetti her perspective on what I do here, and she indicated that sometimes it almost sounds like a question but not a question... it's hard to describe without auditory examples.  That said, also playing into the scene is so important, not just, say, "<while looking into their eyes> Looking into my eyes makes you go so much deeper," but (while just fresh after mentioning asking non-questions) "<while looking into their eyes> And looking into my eyes just makes you go sooo much deeper, now doesn't it?" with that tone that, while asked like a question, it's really more of a statement, an "of course it does" feeling to how the question was asked.  There's gestures, there's looks and expressions, there's other shifts in tone and voice... so many ways to get an authoritative feeling without reading out a manual of what will happen next step-by-step.

Conclusion

I do wish to note that this is not the entirety of my style, not everything about how I play, nor the only ways I consider myself different, nor that it is different... but there various things in my style that I just don't tend to see, or don't see fleshed out, which I have people comment on as enjoyable or refreshing, so I wanted to bring them up to a wider audience.  Honestly, a lot is just instinct and gut and this is merely my attempt to put into words what I do by mostly instinct, that feeling of "this fits right."  And I do different things with different people, which often fit this mold, and yet comes off as entirely different.  Ya can't boil down everything about what someone does into a written page as instruction (despite Bandler and Grinder trying to do so with Erickson... but I digress...), but ya can try to poke at the things that you just don't tend to see, to see if something falls out from doing so.