Using Toilet Restriction to Punish

[This guide discusses bodily functions in a tasteful manner but those offended by them should read no further.]

For Jen and Megs, who do understand

Many dominants do not employ toilet restriction as a disciplinary tool but those who do recognize its effectiveness in changing behavior of submissives for the better. In some circles it may even be derided as a "ladies' punishment" because it does not involve any kind of hitting or striking as corporal punishment does.

Nevertheless, in view of the extreme embarrassment and outright humiliation that restriction of toilet use may produce, it is a useful punishment mechanism that belongs in every dominant's repertoire. Other objections to its use may involve either squeamishness or outright dislike of anything involving products of bodily functions. While these feelings are understandable, I hope this article shows those considering use of toilet restriction that their own involvement with and certainly contact with the objectionable substances, viz., feces, urine, and menstrual fluid, may be minimized or avoided altogether.

Required: Willing Submissive. First, it must be understood that toilet restriction is a punishment only suitable for submissives who will obey orders. It is much more effective when a sub knows and accepts that he or she must not even enter the bathroom, although they are not physically restrained, than where the bathroom must be locked or the sub placed under restraint. Enforcing this punishment for subs who will either resist or seek to circumvent its impact will prove frustrating for the dominant; if the sub is likely to engage in any of these avoidance behaviors, further training in submission is clearly advisable before engaging in use of toilet restriction.

Levels of restriction. Second, there are different levels of restriction. The most lenient is merely setting specific times when toilet use will be permitted or specifying a set number of times per day that the submissive may use the toilet. This punitive level may be increased by limiting the number of times such use is permitted to a very few times each day, such as once in the morning, once at midday and once in the evening. Setting specific times, such as 7, 12, and 8 increases the intensity as well, because the submissive may not need to use the toilet at those times but now will realize that he or she has lost the chance to do so for several more hours.

Restrict not prohibit. When the number of times toilet use is allowed is drastically limited, for example, to twice or less per day, the dominant should appreciate that this level is close to ensuring that the submissive will fail to control his or her functions. There is a psychological impact of failing to conform to a severe regimen such as being limited to using the toilet to twice a day or to two specific times, such as 8 in the morning and 8 at night (as before, the latter is more severe). I suggest that this level of punishment has a greater psychological impact that merely telling the submissive that they have lost all privileges of using the toilet. This last level of course guarantees failure and thus may result in the submissive's feeling less trepidation than if he or she fails to retain the bodily function products until the permitted use or time.

Uncertainty. Another refinement is not to specify how many times a day or at what times toilet use will be allowed but to require the submissive to request permission each time he or she needs to use the toilet. This adds a desirable degree of uncertainty to the situation and the submissive will only be thinking of how long he or she will be made to wait and if they will be able to hold off having an accident. Experienced dominants will likely respond to initial requests with rather offhanded denials, such as "This isn't a convenient time" or "I think you need to wait until you really need to use the toilet."

Observation. Still another refinement is to require the dominant to accompany the submissive to the bathroom and for the dominant then to observe the submissive's use of the toilet. This embarrasses most submissives and may even make it difficult for them to use the toilet; women, in particular, may be very ashamed and find it difficult to let their urine stream to begin. With regard to male submissives, women dominants especially often require males to use the seated position to urinate, as this implies that they are being subjected to a degree of feminization; this also has another less-frequently observed effect in that men have more difficulty emptying their bladders when urinating in the seated position so may find they need to use the toilet again sooner. Both sexes are likely to be highly embarrassed by the dominant's observing defecation. Submissives have told me that this act is regarded as more intimate and private than even intercourse.

Clothing adjustment. Yet another refinement—one can see that this punishment has many variations and versions—involves requiring the wearing of special clothing that will affect use of the toilet. Male submissive may be made to wear tight panties or other constricting feminine garments, or pantyhose, that will require more time to pull down or remove prior to using the toilet. Similarly, women forced to wear slacks rather than skirts may take longer to unzip or unbutton them than they do to lift their skirts and pull their panties down quickly. Taking longer to adjust clothing before using the toilet is also when the submissive is likely to encounter a kind of "urge incontinence" in that the mental processes connected with urination or defecation begin to go into high gear faster than the submissive is capable of freeing himself or herself from the tight or different clothing. This may result in the submissive's releasing urine before he or she has actually lowered panties or undershorts, for example.

Intimate inspections. As a further punishment or humiliation, some dominants, primarily women, will require the submissive to wear a pantiliner in the crotch of the panties or undershorts. The liner is likely to display any urine or feces released by the submissive prior to receiving permission to use the toilet or while adjusting clothing to do so. It will also show wet stains produced by excitement of the female or male genitalia.

Dominants may intensify the punishment by requiring the submissive at any time to lower pants or lift skirts and then to lower panties or undershorts so that the dominant may inspect the liner to see if it has been soiled. Detection of stains or any soiling may be followed to inspection of the vulva, penis, or anus. Such inspection is obviously easier and more embarrassing for women since insertion of fingers, gloved or ungloved, may be the operative method. But men are also likely to be embarrassed when they develop erections when female dominants are inspecting their private parts.

Retention. Two other variations of this punishment feature forced retention, as when an enema is administered and the submissive is made to retain it, whether plugged or not, and when anal insertion of a suppository such as a glycerin one speeds the need for defecation. It would seem that use of enemas is a different punishment topic but denial of permission to use the toilet after insertion of the anal suppository appears to be a variation on toilet restriction.

Diapers. The dominant must also decide whether to administer this punishment while having the submissive wear normal clothing, the kinds of restrictive and feminine garments mentioned earlier, or actual diapers and plastic pants. Requiring the wearing of diapers does signal to the submissive that failure is quite likely and may even diminish the fear of an accident although the sheer embarrassment of being put into diapers is highly embarrassing. Some dominants, again usually mistresses, institute a graduated system of underclothing, where a submissive may be reduced to diapers, and gradually promoted based on good behavior to wearing little girl panties, then very brief panties, full-sized panties, and, if male, male underwear.

Changing. Mistresses who employ diaper discipline usually do not shrink from using the changing table and its accoutrements when necessary. This does involve closer contact with the bodily products than some might wish, so they are cautioned that for submissives, being changed is horribly humiliating but the process will likely mean the dominant must deal with the contents of the diaper.

Spanking after accidents. Post-accident punishment is also an alternative for dominants. Mistresses especially sometimes enjoy taking the submissive who has filled his or her panties over the dominant's lap where a spanking right over the shameful bulge may press it down and increase the humiliation felt by the submissive's having already failed to retain his or her bodily products.

Public display—use of the corner. In a similar fashion, exhibiting the submissive who has had an accident by forcing him or her to stand in the corner, optimally with filled and bulging panties on display, adds more embarrassment. Visiting dominants are likely to make cutting comments while observing the submissive such as "Well, it looks like this young lady needs more toilet training."

Making men both wear panties and then display them bulging with their bodily products surely is likely to curb the poor attitudes of the most arrogant male who is being subjected to this punishment. It should be added that submissives should not be left wearing soiled and filled underclothing for lengthy periods so as to avoid irritation and infection. This is an important health-related caution and should be scrupulously followed. Thus post-accident punishment must be promptly administered or display made in short order.

Sometimes being forced to wear diapers or especially humiliating panties may even subject submissives to embarrassment when gathered with other submissives at a party or other get-together. A dominant may ask all those wearing diapers to so identify themselves—often causing their faces to redden. Those men wearing panties may also be singled out for attention. With women, deprivation of wearing panties at all usually results in similar humiliation when they are called out in a group and made to expose their pantiless privates.

Potty use. Another related feature of toilet restriction may involve requiring the submissive to squat on a child's plastic or wooden potty to do their business. Dominants usually have the potty visible in the living room so that all are on notice that one or more submissives may be required to use the potty n front of everyone. Men are humbled by yet another situation in which they are required to sit down like a woman to urinate and both sexes, when performing either function, are likely to expose their frontal genitalia to all present. Usually the submissive is required to remove the potty for emptying and cleaning after use, mostly because the dominant and certainly guests will not find the continuing smell after use to be pleasant.

Providing toilet service to dominants is another related punishment but the motivations and considerations are sufficiently different to suggest that it is more appropriate for a separate discussion.

The menstrual taboo. Restricting menstruating women's use of feminine hygiene products, however, is yet another kind of toilet restriction. Male dominants engaging in this punishment may find that female dominants resent male intrusion into this quintessentially feminine activity, but women submissives often recognize the high degree of humiliation they feel when a male dominant restricts their use of pads or tampons. They have spent their whole life, after all, keeping their menstrual period secret from men. Breaking this taboo can be itself a highly powerful disciplinary tactic.

Women dominants are likely to employ this punishment more particularly. They may require the female submissive to use a less absorbent tampon than she normally wears or allow her only a small pantiliner when her flow normally requires her to wear a large thick maxipad. Again, having the male or female dominant observe the menstruating submissive in the act of changing her tampon or pad is itself a major humiliation. Even the announcement by the dominant to other dominants or submissives that a female submissive is having her period is a punishment in terms of embarrassment.

Interruption of functions. Somewhat related to this is a practice used in my experience largely by dommes, which is literal restriction of urination or defecation by ordering the male or female submissive to start or stop the process. Dominant women I know may delight in allowing a submissive to start urinating and then just when, especially a woman, has managed to start the stream, suddenly say or shout "Stop." This is very frustrating and often difficult for the submissive to obey.

Obviously, sanctions for failure to stop urinating immediately are part of this punishment. I have been told that one of the homoerotic practices in Army basic training is telling soldiers being trained that when they hear the call for a formation while they are on the toilet and in the process of defecating, that they must "cut it off" (viz., the bowel movement) and pull up their uniform trousers to hurry to the lineup.

Final comments. As noted earlier, one aspect of toilet restriction is an inevitable need for someone to clean the mess up, but obviously this is the responsibility and the added shame of the submissive. On the whole, many of the features and refinements of toilet restriction as a punishment involve a broad swath of humiliating techniques, and include aspects of feminization and infantilization.

The sheer surprise and consequent embarrassment that occurs when a dominant interferes with a submissive's use of the toilet for normal bodily functions can clearly be utilized by the skillful dominant to produce improved behavior. Few submissives will not pay more attention to complying with rules set by their dominants when threatened with toilet restriction and its many variations and refinements.

Insightful dominants may wish to consider using toilet restriction because punishments such as spanking, caning, flogging, strapping, and the like all involve physical castigation and can only be employed so often. While it is humiliating to be taken across a dominant's lap for a spanking, just the fear that a dominant may follow through on a threat to impose toilet restriction at any level may well exceed the impact of the other punishments.

I would certainly rank the impact of a dominant's saying "Your use of the toilet is going to be restricted" with "You have behaved badly and are going to be caned." Both inspire fear, albeit of different kinds, but the former also carries with it the prospect of certain embarrassment and humiliation.