The Chaste Femdom Future the Libertarians Want?

A thought experiment in legal frameworks for Chastity and Femdom

It’s fun — and illuminating — to imagine realistic alternate worlds in which Femdom relationships and inescapable chastity have an official framework, and in which we would realistically want to live.

Historical-style slavery is out on both counts. It’s so morally repugnant it’s hard to imagine it making a return, and we wouldn’t want to live in that kind of world anyway. Most malesubs have at least one abusive ex in their past; imagine being owned by her. Ugh.

A realistic official Femdom framework would be the by-product of otherwise sensible seeming legal changes. It would significantly increase the cost of withdrawing-consent. However, for us to realistically want to live there, these costs would not prevent us from walking out of an abusive situation.

Of course, in established Femdom relationships, there is already a cost to withdrawing consent. The kink might go away! And if the relationship is built on kink, then that too might go away. However, the domme also shares these costs, making them the not-so-useful nuclear option. In an ideal Femdom framework, there would be flexible costs that fall primarily on the malesub.

Chastity, meanwhile, is simpler. We just need inescapable chastity devices that potentially stay on subject to the Femdom framework

So the ideal Chastity and Femdom framework would…

• Emerge from legislation that’s not overtly kinky.

• Empower the domme by supporting nuanced punishments (i.e. costs) for the sub.

• Nevertheless have an escape route for the sub.

• Include inescapable escape male chastity devices.

There are two ways to get to this place. The first is possibly not in good taste. Sorry.

Chastity and Femdom: Progressive Version

It actually wouldn’t take much for progressive legislation to take us to a Chastity and Femdom Framework.

Chastity would have to be recognised as a relatively cheap treatment for some kinds of body dysmorphia (which it arguably is), with “chaste”, or some other term, falling under the non-binary spectrum (which actually seems reasonable).

From there, it’s not much of a leap to imagine medically prescribed hi-tech chastity devices. (Riffing on this, I made a fake record card for NHS chastity.) These would involve laser PA piercings, and be sufficiently secure for removal to require special tools and a minor operation, after counselling and cool-off periods of course. Insurers and/or waiting lists would add further delays.

Meanwhile, Femdom marriages would be supported as a by-product of a law creating Her Right to Throw Him Out: a no-questions-asked power to temporarily evict her partner: she makes the call, the Police — or perhaps private security contractors — arrive, and he spends the night in a hostel or on a friend’s couch, or a hotel if he has the money.

Just the threat of that non-nuclear option would be enough to tilt the balance of power decisively in the domme’s favour. It also has the advantage of not in itself being a kinky punishment: “Get out, I’ve had enough of you for now.” And, if he won’t leave, it becomes about the violation of her rights, and of course she’ll call the Police.

Given the way society seems to change, I don’t think either of these tweaks are particularly unrealistic. I’d certainly sign up, especially for the official chastity device. Imagine not having to worry about going through security?

Chastity and Femdom: Libertarian Version

Ironically, the libertarian version of the Chastity and Femdom Framework takes us to a far kinkier place.

There’s an idea knocking around libertarian circles that criminal law could be privatised. The state punishes crimes by massive fines. These, however, are paid by a special kind of insurer called a Voucher, who then has the contractual right to punish you… the prospect of punishment is supposed to deter you from committing a crime:

voucher-client contracts will pretty much always authorize the voucher to use offensive force against their client, both to punish them, and to prevent clients from causing harm. And the rest of us don’t need to decide what kinds of force should be allowed there, if those two are the only parties effected by their choice.

Everybody has to have a Voucher, or suffer very serious punishment.

So far so libertarian. Here’s where it gets potentially kinky:

To lower your voucher premiums, you might agree to… prior limits on your freedom like curfews, travel restrictions, ankle bracelets, and their reading your emails…

At minimum, this easily supports Her Right to Throw Him Out as a preventative measure, but plausibly stretches to him spending one or more nights in the Voucher’s cells. In accord with the actual libertarian proposals, there could even be beatings. Basically, she can have a what in pre-Revolutionary France used to call a lettre de cachet: the arbitrary ability to have him imprisoned, perhaps even if he’s not in their shared home.

Add to that the ability to sell on his contract, you can create a kind of libertarian chattel slavery. He has a choice of submitting to his fate, or spending the balance of his Voucher contract in detention. That sets an upper limit on how unpleasant she can make things for him, especially if she paid his insurance and wants to protect her investment.

Insurance companies being what they are, once he has any kind of track record, it’s hard for him to get insurance that didn’t include lettres de cachet. In any case, women in general might limit their dating pool to men with that kind of Voucher Insurance.

This would certainly create a real power imbalance, with plenty of room for nuanced escalation. Though it’s much nastier, it’s also using a paid-for private provision, so a dominant female parter might actually use it more casually than she would the progressive version (above).

Chastity naturally fits into this. We would expect that actuarially, a man in

chastity is less likely to commit interpersonal crimes than his unchaste brethren. That would certainly provide a pretext for a Voucher to enforce chastity on its clients. You’d have to be kinky and/or dysmorphic (see above) to sign up, but then it would be in the Voucher’s interest to ensure that you remained locked. Changing to a non-chastity contract might be difficult: “Why do you suddenly want out of your device? Were you just pretending to be a chaste? What are you intending do to?”

How unrealistic is all this?

I don’t think we’ll ever see wholesale reconfigurations of anybody’s legal system along libertarian lines. It’s just too politically ambitious for a multitude of reasons.

However, it might happen in a Charter City. Once you have the Voucher system, milder versions of the lettre de cachet are plausible. If the Charter City was hard-core libertarian, and had a large enough population for kinky critical mass, then people would deliberately hack the system to support Hard Femdom. And we can imagine a Charter City that deadpan laundered full Female Supremacy through a tangle of libertarian legal systems.

Would I realistically want to sign up for any variant of all this?

On the one hand, I’m not a libertarian. I wouldn’t want this to happen to the UK. But, suppose Xena got a juicy contract in a Femdom Charter City? Yes. I wouldn’t be able to say no.

It’s an interesting thought experiment! I think I may have to write one or both of these…

While I’m doing that, click through to read my hard-edged Femdom erotica!