racyredraven:Boy does this look uncomfortable. Hogtied with tight, thin, rough cords; ankles pulling
racyredraven:Boy does this look uncomfortable. Hogtied with tight, thin, rough cords; ankles pulling on a cord that chokes you at any sign of weakness; boobs squashed against the cold concrete floor beneath you, prompting further wriggling side-to-side; mouth stuffed full of cloth and held firmly in place with a tight web of buckles.It’s bondage like this that makes me realise Insex was a different breed of bondage productions. Where other sites were all about the aesthetic and putting on a good show for their viewers, Insex was all about the girl’s experience. Challenging her with real bondage and mind-fucks. Making things extra uncomfortable just to mess with her further, to provoke her, to break her.It’s hard to imagine they even adhered to two of the biggest tenets of BDSM: safe and sane. It was obviously consensual, but I do wonder sometimes how much the girls’ consent was bought for.But hey, at least her shoes look comfy. Very well put regarding Insex. It was experiential more than presentational. Truly creative, harsh, strict, and cruel. Anyone who saw it, will always remember it. I also agree. Just even the choice of thin rough cords for bondage is its own statement. It’s about what that feels like to her more than what it looks like on camera. I just love the neck tied from the ankles. That makes me shudder in approval. -- source link