The hunt for information
. . . in which an adolescent shadowbrook hunts for information about her sexuality . . .
by shadowbrook

I'm switching to third person in this part of the narrative just to see what happens

Thus far in our story, the adolescent shadowbrook has come to understand that what she refers to as "her thing" is a something that might have a name. This became clear when a high school friend said, very uncomfortably, "Isn't that kind of . . . kinky?" She froze and put on her "I hope nobody catches me liking this" face and shrugged and said, "I don't know." She also came to understand it is dangerous, because somebody told her a story about a girl who agreed to get tied up and was then f*d multiple times but the courts said it wasn't rape because she agreed to be tied up.

So she hunted for information. She looked in a rather unfortunate place: a psychology textbook. At the time, BDSM was classified in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) as a disorder. This was disturbing, but at the same time, it was a bit of a relief to know that other people practiced it. There was something about dungeons and she was both fascinated and worried about herself for being fascinated.

She saw other people around her acting a bit kinky. Once some guys from the affluent "in crowd" duct-taped a girl's wrists and the girl took it all in fun. Shadowbrook was quite shocked that someone would do this in the open and looked away, very afraid that someone would catch her liking that kind of thing. It didn't occur to her that the girl really had no socially acceptable way to say "no" to this, and that she had to take it in fun whether she liked it or not. Ironically, shadowbrook had to pretend that she didn't like it, and this other girl had to pretend she did. Fortunately, the girl was released shortly. Now shadowbrook looks back and wonders what might have happened to such girls at more private parties.

This was the extent of shadowbrook's information until halfway through college, when the Internet arrived and a friend introduced her to, a Usenet newsgroup. That helped a great deal.

Times have changed now, and the Internet is a source of information for those who look. But still, I worry about our adolescents. What kind of information are they getting? When they seek an understanding of their sexuality, where do they look first? We need to know this because we need to be making appropriate information accessible, wherever they are looking. Do they have enough places to look that will help them understand how to practice their sexuality safely? Do they understand that there is a community that will be friendly to them?

Indeed, is there a community that will be friendly to them? Or are most BDSM communities oriented toward adults?

Let's help our youth.

P.S. What I Wish I'd Had Available To Me

Here are a few resources I wish I'd had available to me as a youth.

My Secret Garden by Nancy Friday - the result of interviews about women's sexual fantasies. My goodness, I had no idea we had such rich inner lives!

Wikipedia! Sex-positive movement, sex-positive feminism, consent (bdsm)

What else? Which resources would you recommend? Please comment!

The line between sexy and horrific
by shadowbrook

One aspect of my sexual development as a kink-oriented person is that the line between sexy and horrific is sometimes razor-thin. It is very upsetting when it is crossed. In adolescence, this was extremely confusing and led to a great deal of shame.

I talk about this a little in "Growing up Queer." There's consensual and nonconsensual tying up, whipping, and so forth. It gets complicated. As a child I was aroused by the kind of nonconsensual tying up that happens, for instance, in a Nancy Drew book. But as a teenager, the Pedro Almodavar movie "Tie Me Up, Tie Me Down" upset me a lot. What is the difference? It isn't nonconsensuality. I think that in Nancy Drew and other adventure fiction, you know that the person who got tied up is going to get lose, be safe, and suffer no emotional scars from the experience. There are strict boundaries. I can trust the author not to hurt me.

Of course, in real life if a person gets tied up by a bad guy, they aren't going to be safe and they are going to suffer emotional scars. The first time I saw this depicted in a movie was a real shock. The movie was "The Collector." It was an adult movie from 1965, designed as a titillating psychological thriller. There was a woman, and she was captured by a man and held hostage with her wrists tied. I was both scared for her and aroused at the same time. I fully expected that she would get free at the end. But she didn't. She was killed.

Of course that is messed up in so many ways. Additionally, it sent me the message that something is very wrong with kink, and that deep down, I was a shameful person.

Over the years I've learned, more or less, how to turn off my sexuality when something crosses the line from sexy to horrific. But mainstream culture hasn't. It still shows nonconsensual kink in sexy ways. We are given some conflicting messages: first, that it is not okay to be kinky, and so we had better hide it. And second, that nonconsensual kink is acceptable or that it is an urge that is impossible to resist. This is contributing to rape culture.

Here is an interesting movie that attempts to navigate these contradictions: Secretary. It tells the story of a relationship between a sexually dominant man (Grey) and his submissive secretary (Lee). In the beginning, the sexually dominant man is very, very ashamed of his proclivities and does them anyway. There is a sense that he can't help it. He uses his position as the secretary's boss to dominate her, as he has done to other secretaries before her. It turns out that she is oriented toward submission and masochism. In the end she learns more about her kink, consensually chooses to be with him, and fights hard to convince him that their relationship is all right.

This is certainly an improvement over "The Collector" movie. And it's a really accurate picture of how kinky people struggle with consent. It's a good contribution to the conversation. It's great that in the end, Grey is shown how he can exercise his sexuality without hurting anybody. And that Lee comes to understand and choose to exercise hers. Their personal growth is great.

For me, though, it crossed that line between sexy and horrific in deeply confusing ways. Boss/secretary domination is super sexy and super awesome to me, unless it gets too real.

And that line-crossing deeply problematic on a societal level. In the beginning of the movie, Grey really did abuse her sexually. And the viewers were led to view that abuse with sexual arousal.

As a culture, we need to somehow sort this out. We need to teach our adolescents that there really are safe and moral ways to exercise their sexuality. The truth is that kink is okay. And that for many people, kink is an unchangeable facet of their sexuality that will not be denied, wish it or not. Pretend nonconsensual kink play (or even "no safeword" play between partners with a deep level of trust) is okay. Rape and assault is not.

We need to get to this understanding. But we're not there yet.

Should I use the word "queer" for kink?
by shadowbrookwho

Understanding my sexuality has been a long hard road, with inadequate support from the world around me. I talked a little about it in "Growing Up Queer," but let's jump ahead to my mid-30s, when I already understood there was such a thing as BDSM that was practiced by people who were not mentally ill. I knew it was central to who I was, but I didn't understand it could be a sexual orientation.

(Some people still don't understand that, including people who should know better, like Dan Savage, who said this: "straight, gay, bi, or lesbian is something you are, BDSM is something some of each of the above do." Dan, if you're speaking for yourself, fine, but how dare you claim to understand what I am? I've got some links at the bottom of the page that explain why BDSM-ishness is an orientation for some people. Go read them.)

And I didn't know it could have a name. "BDSM" is a name for an activity, and "kink" is a name for a lifestyle or preference, but what would be the name for the orientation? BDSM-oriented? Kinky? Both are inadequate. Plus, people hearing them and looking at me would automatically imagine me in all sorts of situations and activities I'd rather they didn't.

Then somebody told me that the word "queer" was sometimes used for non-normative sexuality. It was a gift. Having a name for my orientation validated me in a way nothing else could. The word "queer" also puts me into a family where I feel I belong. I am bisexual. I go to gay pride parades. I support marriage legislation. I understand what it's like to have to hide your sexuality. I approve of all body shapes, sizes, pairings, and consensual activities.

Some people in the LGBTQ community accept this use. The use of the word queer to include sexual minorities is legitimate in some circles.

And not by others. Some people feel that my using the term for myself somehow de-emphasizes their oppression. It's true that LGBT people face terrible oppression and violence, and are stigmatized when they openly love who they love or show their true genders in public. People who practice BDSM, however, can safely do it behind closed doors with nobody the wiser.

Or . . . can they? People who identify as "subs" but lack an understanding of consent are at increased risk of sexual assault, rape, and confusing sexual encounters in which neither party understands what the sub consented to. This is rape culture we're talking about here.

That's just one example of how it hurts us to stay in the closet. It's true that heterosexual people who are BDSM-oriented do get "heterosexual privilege" and all that entails. But they suffer in other ways. They are oppressed in specific ways that has many commonalities with oppression against LGBT people. Using the word "queer" to define a BDSM orientation puts us in a community of people who are like us.

Another reason that the use of the word queer is controversial is that the word "queer" has historically been a slur and has led to violence against gays and lesbians. That's a real, legitimate concern. The word is in the middle of being reclaimed for positive uses and there is some feeling that using it for BDSM is therefore oppressive. Is it? Will using the word "queer" for BDSM practitioners and other sexual minorities harm the reclamation movement? This is a very complicated question, especially since there is debate within the reclamation movement itself as to whether the name can be reclaimed for positive uses. Here is an article that discusses just a few of the complexities.

I don't know the answer. I know that people who practice BDSM are not the only sexual minorities who believe they belong under the "queer" umbrella. And if people are wanting to use the term in a positive sense, that is perhaps an indication that the reclamation movement is succeeding.

Consider this as well: a lot of people who are BDSM-oriented are also lesbian, gay, bi, or trans. As I mentioned before, I am bi. I'm also in a heterosexual relationship, so if I want to, I can hide being bi just as well as I can hide my BDSM-ishness. So do I get the name "queer" for being bi, but not for being kinky? What if my bisexuality is inseparable from my kink: that is, if I find people of all genders sexy, but only when associated with kink?

And finally . . . remember that not all of us who orient toward BDSM practice it. And we're not all adults. I was, um, interested in such things well before adolescence. Calling me kinky would have been icky and creepy. Calling me queer (with its current positive connotations) would have made me feel proud.

Thanks for listening! Please comment. Do you agree? Disagree? I moderate, and please be polite. Thank you.

P.S. Read more about BDSM as a sexual orientation.

Clarisse Thorne, "BDSM as a sexual orientation, and complications of the orientation model."

Sea, "Is BDSM a matter of sexual orientation?"

His Beloved Submissive, "BDSM as Sexual Orientation"

Lipstickandligature, "BDSM Orientation and Ways of Loving"

P.P.S. Here's more about the use of the term queer.

"Queer theory" - which aims to rip apart heteronormativity - argues that the word "queer" refers to marginalized sexuality.

Here's a bit about the concern over the historically derogative use of the term "queer".

Finally, here's an overview of the ways the word "queer" has been used.

Explaining River Song's Queerness
by shadowbrookwho

On the Internetz, the argument over the character of Doctor Who's River Song rages on. Is she a strong female character? Too smarmy or smug? A Mary Jane? Some love her, some hate her. But I'm betting that most people don't know her. So here's a one-sentence explanation.

Just as Captain Jack Harkness is flamboyantly omnisexual, River Song is flamboyantly queer.

She is queer because she is bisexual. She likes men and women, and robots too. (And apparently horses? I'll have to go watch "The Pandorica Opens" for that one.)

More fundamental to her orientation, though, is that she is kinky. Over-the-top, flamboyantly kinky. There is a great deal of controversy over whether kink fits within the "queer" umbrella. There are people who believe it should be restricted to LGBT people, and for good reasons. There are others within the LGBT community who use the word queer to describe "people whose sexual orientations or activities place them outside the heterosexual-defined mainstream," -- in this case, BDSM.

doctor forest of dead

It's not just about what she does (handcuffs!) but also about her identity, and where she positions herself in her interpersonal relationships. She's a top, a bottom, and a switch.

Every time River Song plays the game of one-upmanship with the Doctor, that's topping. For example, in "The Time of Angels," when she tramps into the TARDIS for the first time and hangs her high-heels on the console, she's "topping" the Doctor. When she insults his ability to fly the TARDIS, she's, again, topping. She's inviting the Doctor into a game, and he plays along.

river song hangs shoes

And she also "bottoms." For example, in "Night and the Doctor," when she says, "Oh, you've gone all strict -- not that I mind", she's making a joke about the Doctor dominating her. And in "The Wedding of River Song," when she says, "What am I doing?" and he says, "What you're told," he's topping.

river doctor wedding

Because she both tops and bottoms, she is a switch.

There are fans who are upset about her treatment of the Doctor, but he doesn't mind. Not one bit. They are compatibly kinky because he is the ultimate "toppy bottom." Next time he gets tied up, check out what he's saying. Is he bossing everybody around? He sure is. (This is explicit in "Nightmare in Silver", when he says, "Somebody tie me up!")

It's extremely over the top, in a fabulous way. That's how it looks to me, since I understand all the innuendo and signals and so forth. I can only wonder how she would look to someone who is non-kinky. Offensive and rude, I suppose. But to me, it's wonderful.

Not only wonderful, but also groundbreaking. As I wrote in "Steven Moffat Queerness & Kink", adventure TV often includes BDSM. But the sexual component of it is usually downplayed. Even when it is shown as sexual, there are certain types of interpersonal relationships you see and others you don't. You see a lot of "the girl gets tied up" (Avengers!) or "gay men play bondage games" (Torchwood!) or "a sexy woman ties up our hero but she's a villainess" (Catwoman!). But to have a strong, powerful heroine doing the tying up? (Wonder Woman!) That's rare.

And it's basically unheard of in adventure TV to portray a relationship where a man and a woman take turns handcuffing each other -- and taking pleasure in it. Maybe it's never happened before? Or am I missing out on some fandom? If so, please do tell me.

Even more groundbreaking is that this BDSM relationship is out in the open, rather than disguised as a plot point. As wonderful as Wonder Woman is, she never used her golden lasso unless strictly necessary to catch a crook. And it was never used on her except by crooks. This kind of thing sends a message that something is wrong with liking BDSM.

However, the River Song character sends the very different message that BDSM is perfectly okay and enjoyable. And the Doctor, hero of the show, validates it. He married her after all. Thank you, Moffat!

So there she is. River Song. Love her or hate her, that lady is queer.

Steven Moffat Queerness & Kink
by shadowbrookwho

A lot of people on the Internetz are complaining, and rightly, about Steven Moffat's moments of sexism and creepiness in Doctor Who. I said that to acknowledge it, but I have something different to talk about now. To quote a recent article in Slate:

"And let's not forget that this is the writer who introduced sexual freedom as a theme in Doctor Who. It wasn't Davies, it was Moffat, in “The Empty Child,” who introduced the first really gay content in Doctor Who."

Wow, did he! Captain Jack is more than gay. moved way beyond that: he's omnisexual.

Not just that. He introduced some groundbreaking kink too. Adventure stories often have a touch of BDSM, but it's almost always covert. It's also often hard to tell whether or not it was written with sexual gratification in mind. Did our hero get tied up only because it was necessary to the plot . . . or was there something else going on as well?

In Doctor Who, until Steven Moffat started writing, any tying up was usually played straight. But that changed in "The Empty Child," the same episode that introduced bisexual Captain Jack Harkness. In "The Empty Child," Harkness rescues Rose Tyler by bringing her on board his ship. They flirt, and then he takes a look at her hands, which have been burned, and wraps a ribbon loosely around her wrists. She's understandably concerned, but he shushes her and heals her with nanites. The ribbon was completely gratuitous to the plot but it made a whole lot of kinky fans squee! To those in the know, the message was out in the open.

captain jack rose empty child 2

In a later episode, "Forest of the Dead," archaeologist River Song handcuffs the Doctor to a post. The handcuffs serve a plot purpose, but they are also about as overtly BDSM as you can get in a show with an underage audience. "Why am I handcuffed? Where did you even get handcuffs?" the Doctor says. River gets this look on her face and says, "Spoilers!" It's a tease, and a promise of lots of fun to be had.

why do you even have

The relationship between River Song and the Doctor went on to deliver on its promises. The handcuffs turned up most of the time, worn by one or the other while a lot of wink-wink-nudge-nudge went on. The relationship was unique in certain ways. In adventure TV, you see a lot of "the girl gets tied up" or "the gay men play bondage games" or "a sexy woman ties up our hero and it's okay because she's a villain." But to have a relationship where a man and a woman take turns handcuffing each other -- and taking pleasure in it -- that's rare.

These are not isolated incidents. Oh, no. There is a definite pattern of kink in Steven Moffat episodes, and it is much appreciated! Not only because it's exciting, but because it represents recognition of a facet of our sexuality that is so often denied.  (Here's why that is so important to me.)

But it might be going over some people's heads. I can easily imagine, if you're not watching out for that sort of thing (and watching it and rewatching it . . .) you would miss it, or, worst case, find it annoying. So here are a couple of moments that were all about recognizing kink. Steven Moffat wrote most of them, and was otherwise the showrunner for the episode. I'm only counting moments where the bondage was gratuitous or accompanied by innuendo.

"The Eleventh Hour" - Did the Doctor really have to be handcuffed . . . by a kissogram?

"Flesh and Stone" - The Doctor says, "You. Me. Handcuffs. Must it always end this way?" (This, by the way, is an example of breaking the fourth wall with an aside comment.)

"The Wedding of River Song" - River says, "Cuff him!" and the Doctor says, "Oh, why do you always have handcuffs?"

Later, the Doctor and River wrap a length of cloth around their hands as part of their marriage ceremony. And River says,"What am I doing?" and the Doctor replies, "As you're told."

"Day of the Moon" - The Doctor says, "Oh, stop it!" and River says, "Make me." and the Doctor says, "Maybe I will."

"Night and the Doctor - First Night" - The Doctor says, "River, from now on there are rules." and River says, "Oh, you've gone all strict. Not that I mind . . ."

"Night and the Doctor - Last Night" - River says, "What else you gonna do? Spank me?"

"Nightmare in Silver" - The Doctor says, "Somebody tie me up!" (That's the ultimate "toppy bottom"!)

"The Name of the Doctor" - When Clara asks about River knowing the Doctor's name, River says, "I made him. It took a while." (I can imagine so many ways she got that name out of him!)

This was all fun, but more than fun. For people who are kinky, and not out, and maybe as confused by adventure-story bondage as I once was, it's a lot of little messages saying, "Hey, I know what you like . . . and it's okay."

Thanks, Moffat!

Growing up queer
The LGBTQ movement has come a long way, baby. But some parts of it are still shrouded in shadow and shame, and still illegal. Let me tell you what it was like for me, growing up queer in a culture that denied and still denies its kink. Maybe some of you will identify. Maybe some of you will get a little better understanding of us.

(I need to pause here for a minute and explain my use of the word "queer." It is a controversial usage. Some people believe it should be limited to people who are LGBT, and for very good reasons. Others use it as an umbrella term for sexual minorities. Under this usage, kink is queer for some people. I am queer because I am bisexual, but I also believe I am queer because I am kinky. More about this here.)

Where do I start? I'm into BDSM. I didn't choose this facet of my sexuality and couldn't erase it if I tried. (Which I did.) It's very important to me. And I bear a lot of shame for it.

It was confusing from the get-go because nobody ever talked about it. Have you ever noticed that Nancy Drew gets tied up in almost every single novel? Well, as a pre-teen, I certainly noticed it. I was aroused. And I always wondered: Do other people get aroused by the same thing? Did the author? Or was it just me? There was no way to tell. Over and over again, in children's adventure stories and shows, somebody is restrained or given pain bracelets. But it's deadpan. There's no indication that anybody is expected to feel aroused, and so when I did, I was confused. That was the beginning of shame.

But the larger shame came later. It came when I read a book that included real-world nonconsensual torture. It was a book of first-person stories from American slaves who had been freed. And I was aroused by something in it. Can you imagine how terrible I must have felt? Guilty? Ashamed?

There is a line between play slavery and real slavery, and that line is consent. Two consenting adults can safely play pretend slavery, and that's okay. Real slavery is a horror, a crime, and one of the biggest marks of shame that our culture bears. That's the shame that comes back to haunt me again and again. It's true that I did not and would never do that to anyone. But somebody did. Some people still do.

Maybe that's why nobody talks about BDSM.

In addition to feeling ashamed about my BDSM orientation, I felt unsafe. There is a fine line between consensual BDSM and rape, and I came to understand, correctly, that openly disclosing my BDSM would be unsafe. More about this here.

I manage the contradictions as best I can. I am "out" to some people, though not to most. I write queer fanfiction. But people like me will never be truly whole until as a culture we heal ourselves of the shame of slavery and continued racial oppression, and until we have a much better handle on consent, and that will be a long time coming.

In the meantime, more children will grow up like me. More teenagers will be confused and ashamed and wondering. If I could say one thing to them, and if I could go back to my adolescent self, I would say, "Hey. It's okay. It's okay to have fun with Nancy Drew and Star Trek and Doctor Who. Value, understand, and exercise consent. Work to end oppression. And then go ahead and enjoy yourself!"

And believe me, I do!

Doctor Who Fanfic: How Do I Know If I Can Trust You?
Doctor Who Fanfic: How Do I Know If I Can Trust You?
Characters: Doctor, Clara, possibly ? and possibly ?
All Ages

Clara has a very special locket. What does it mean? Choose one of two possible endings.

"See you next Wednesday!" Clara said as she walked out of the TARDIS.

"Well - next Wednesday or last Wednesday or . . . a Wednesday," said the Doctor. He mentally slapped himself on the forehead. He knew he should just stick to adventures and not try to, well, date her, but . . .

He walked over to the TARDIS console and whispered, "Next Wednesday, Sexy, can we do that?"

It was a Wednesday, anyway. Clara walked into the TARDIS with a bounce in her step and a smile on her face. And something different. He couldn't quite put his finger on it. New haircut? Maybe she'd aged? Or was younger?

Clara caught his eyes and her smile faded.

"What is it, Doctor?" she asked.

"I'm not sure," he said. "Something's different. Same haircut, same makeup, but something. What is it?"

Clara put her hand to her neck and fingered a gold chain. "It's my locket!" she said. "I found my locket. I haven't opened it yet, not sure why. Wanted to wait for a special . . . a special . . . " She looked thoughtful and slid her fingers down the chain toward the locket.

The Doctor ran to her and grabbed her hands. "Don't!" he said.

"Let go!" she said. She jerked her hands away from his and stood there, fists balled, glaring. Then she took a deep breath. "Doctor, you're scared. Why?"

"No, Clara, no, you can't, it can't be," the Doctor whispered. Panic rose in his chest and he swallowed it. "Please, oh please don't let it be."

"Stop it!" she said. "Tell me what's wrong. NOW."

"The last time a friend of mine opened something like that, he loosed a demon," said the Doctor. He wanted to stop there, but she deserved the truth. He steeled himself to continue. "He was a Time Lord gone mad. Not like me. Not madcap. Terrible mad. He mutilated my TARDIS and hurt my friends and . . . and . . ." He stopped to catch his breath and wipe a tear from his eye. "Don't ever open that locket. Please."

"Chill out, Doctor, it's just a locket. I've had it ever since I was a little girl."

He stared searchingly into her eyes and then reached around to unclasp the necklace. The chain fell into his hand and he imprisoned it in his grip. "I'm going to lose you if you open that locket. The demon, Clara, the demon was him. He was a good man, Clara, except that the Time Lord part of him was mad."

Clara shivered but got that determined look in her face. "It's mine, Doctor. It's my fate. Let me open it."

He knew it was true. He could delay the inevitable, but it was going to happen, and at least he could contain whatever was inside her if he opened it now.

"Okay," he said. "Chair. Now."

She sat down in a passenger chair, her eyes never wavering from the locket. He opened a compartment in his console and pulled out a pair of restraints. "It's necessary," he said. "You understand that."

She narrowed her eyes. Warily, she asked, "How do I know I can trust you?"

"Trusting me has always worked before?" he asked. She shook her head no.

"You'll just take the locket and run, I know you will," she said.

"You know me better than that," he said. "Curiosity's killed the Time Lord ten times already."

"Okay," she said. He cuffed her hands behind her back, looping the chain behind the chair.

"You'll keep me safe, won't you, Doctor? Promise?"

"No," he said slowly. "I can't promise you that. Sure you won't change your mind?"

She looked terrified but shook her head no.

The Doctor opened his palm and looked at the little gold locket with the initials C.O. "Probably just baby pictures," he whispered. He licked it. "Not baby pictures. Okay. Here goes nothing."

He slid his fingernail between the two halves of the locket and drew them apart. Golden time energy streamed from the locket and into her mouth and nose. She closed her eyes and inhaled deeply with a smile on her face, drawing every last particle inside her body. Then she opened her old, old eyes and said,

Ending #1: "It's been a long time, Doctor."Collapse )

Ending #2: "I've been planning this a long time, Doctor."Collapse )

Doctor Who Fanfic: How Did the Doctor . . .
Fanfic: How Did the Doctor Get Tied Up? (scroll down on the page until you see the title)
Characters: Tenth Doctor, The Master (Simm), Wilfred Mott
Warnings: Adult, BDSM, Explicit, Non-Con

Missing Scene from "Last of the Time Lords." What happened after the Master activated the infinity device and turned all of humanity into copies of himself? The Doctor got tied up. But how did it happen? And did the Master take advantage? (Yes.)

Doctor Who Fanfic: A Sweet Little Holiday
Fanfic: A Sweet Little Holiday (click the link, then scroll down on the page until you see the title)
Characters: Eleventh Doctor, River Song
Warnings: BDSM

River and the Doctor have a sweet holiday. Where do they go? Somewhere with mithril, lembas, and Ents. But it's not Middle-Earth. Consensual BDSM, fluffy.

Doctor Who Fanfic: Revenge
Revenge (scroll down on the page to find the entry "Revenge")
Characters: Eleventh Doctor, River Song
Warnings: Adult, BDSM, Non-consensual

Time travellers can take revenge for something that hasn't happened yet. It's a terrible idea, which is why the Doctor couldn't resist. A note for the unwary: This one is intense.


Log in