Is a novel by a Marthe Blau, a French lawyer from Paris which is allegedly based in true events. When in 2005 it was published it allegedly sent shockwaves through the French legal établissement with its frank portrayal of kinky sex and all that jazz.

It sent shockwaves through me too for its frank portrayal of totally unbelievable derp and complete failure to be believable or erotic. So I borrowed a copy off my mother (don't ask) and set to reviewing it here.

Executive Summary

"I NEED HIS COCK INSIDE ME." Capitalisation not mine.

A bit more detail if you wouldn't mind?

Elodie is a Parisian avocat with a loving husband and a small son. One fine day she meets Him (again, capitalisation not mine) at court and he presses into her hand a note instructing her to be at a certain place at a certain time wearing stockings, suspenders, and a G-string. She wonders what she's doing there.

What is she doing there exactly? Because turning up in Ann Summers' finest simply because a handwritten note from some bloke told you to do it is not what a rational person does at any time, least of all a hard-nosed high-flying Parisian lawyer with a family. But nevertheless, this intrepid reviewer just had to find out. What she does do is meet Him and, amongst other things, he puts a clothes peg on her clacker. Which she finds a mite uncomfortable. He also fails to actually shag her, and thus begins the rest of the novel, on which barely a page passes without one of the following things:

  • She longs for him to shag her and to feel his cock inside her.
  • She sits around waiting for him to call so he'll tell her where to go and she'll get to feel his cock inside her.
  • She goes shopping for fancy lingerie and then imagines him disrobing her and getting his cock into her.
  • Etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

On the occasions that He does meet up with her (we never find out his name, but he seems a right git), he does not shag her, not once, but contents himself with ordering her to go round her normal legal business with a variety of items in her orifices. These are a poor substitute for His cock, of course. Needless to say, going around with various BDSM paraphernalia about one's person attracts undue attention, as does His insistence on being round her at functions and deriving glee from her subservience, however this attention is either ignored (there's one bit where she's chained to a restaurant balcony by way of punishment which attracts no undue attention) or, surprise surprise, all her mates are into this as well. She then goes off to St Tropez where she discovers she also likes a spot of casual lesbionics as well. How convenient!

He doesn't shag her ever by the way, and apparently this is deliberate because this way he can spoil her for everyone else ever.

Thankfully the novel isn't too long, because it was annoying me lots. After all, why would a supposedly rational person succumb to a seduction method which is technically right out of The Macc Lads' playbook - that of being told that He is going to have her. If I knew that I could pull tasty French lawyers in this matter, I'd be trying to find an adequate translation for "Spread yer legs an' get yer knickers down. Spread yer legs an' don't make a sound. I'm God's Gift to Women in this fuckin' town!" when I was up at the Sorbonne rather than hanging around pretentious bars in the Latin Quarter trying to blag my knowledge of literature and philosophy. And why would she continue to do things like go to the hotel room He directed her to, change into the latex fetish gear provided for her, stuff the butt plug so furnished up her tan track, and assume the position, especially after the first time she did this he completely failed to to turn up whatsoever. Similarly, how can she pine for someone who treats her so horribly, ordering her about, sticking a clothes peg on her labia and humiliating her in public with no sniff of a safe word or suchlike and who we don't ever see whatsoever and so can't determine whether he's worth it or not, and then threatens to irreversibly wreck her career and life and family if she rejects him.

But despite all this, SHE NEEDS HIS COCK INSIDE HER.

I'm dreadfully sorry, but this is not believable whatsoever.

Right, I think that's quite enough. I'm gonna see if I can score with one of my former Sorbonne partners in crime right now. I'll send her a message on Facebook which reads, "Écarte les cuisses et retire ta culotte. Écarte tes cuisses et tais-toi - chut. Je suis le cadeau divin aux femmes dans ce merdeux endroit!" Yes, the rhyming is iffy and the scansion faeculent but if this novel is to be believed, I can't fail.

Submission is a dirty word in this world.

In fact, the reason it holds so much erotic power in certain contexts is that it's taboo.

It rarely ever has a positive one. You're making someone else the boss of you - you're doing what other pack animals only do to preserve their own lives - to roll over exposing throat and abdomen. To accept another man's genitals into your body in jail to avoid being stabbed in the eye with a sharpened toothbrush. To be humiliated, to be lessened. To be put in your place, evoking the kind of visceral emotional reaction that leads to the kinds of fights that either make you consume yourself or smash someone else's nose in with your elbow. It's something forced upon you, and you either have to survive it or fight back. It's the way a fight ends. It's the way someone enforces his will on you. It's not a happy word in the English language.

But it's not just Christianity that uses that language. The Abrahamic religion Islam contains it right in its name. The word "Islam" means submission - many Muslims take the name "Abdullah" which translates to, roughly, "slave of (the) God." (Allah is short for Al-Illah, "The God")

The truth of the matter is - you're ruled by something, and you submit to something. Even the most gangster out there - be they the Vice Lords or the biker gangs who preach individuality - adhere to a far stricter code than you'd expect, and this is enforced by violence. People choose to be enslaved to tobacco, to sugar. Even the business owner is beholden to the customers. The koan about the stone cutter applies. It might be argued that the only ones without any fetters at all are the transient homeless. If you don't like the world "ruled" use a similar one: "governed". 

The langauge used in the Bible is nebulous - Adon and Kyrios translate to "Lord" - which my personal research didn't explain how it maps to the social structures of the time. But from what I gather in terms of what little I could glean, both the Hebrew and the Greek imply a kind of relationship in which the "lesser" party doesn't have the legal status to properly execute things. In the Israelite culture we're talking slavery, and in the Greek the title was also used to imply a paterfamilias who would execute legal or other decisions on behalf of the women and children of a household, who had no innate legal status.

So when you see those words applied to the relationship between God and Man, you have to look for the connotations and the imagery of the metaphor.

israelite slavery was an interesting thing, as well - it wasn't what we would understand in America, the horror of African slavery - most sold themselves to someone for a limited time to resolve a debt they had chosen to incur - and the slavery was not permanent, unless the person involved CHOSE to remain in that state - and some did because of how well that worked for them. And although it's not necessarily the most politically correct assertion in 2015 that women and children really don't deserve their own rights and need someone else to act for them by proxy - it wouldn't have been assumed by the audience the Bible was directed at that the person doing so was a tyrannical jerk trading his children like Pogs.

Here's a sobering metaphor from 1 Corinthians 6:20 - "you were bought at a price." This suggests that you actually belonged to someone before - there wasn't a time that you were ever free. 

To a Jewish audience - the message is clear - a debt was paid, a price was incurred to relieve you from who or what owned you before, and brought you into a new household. How does this new master treat you? He washes your feet, and dies horribly for you. The only thing he asks of you is to be thankful and grateful, and to treat other people with kindness, charity and respect.

Yeah, I can totally, absolutely, and completely VOLUNTARILY sign on to that deal. I have no problems agreeing to this lifestyle as opposed to any other. I have no problems following someone whose sincerest desire for the world is to love it even unto his own sacrifice. In fact, nothing could be further from the hostile, fear-of-punishment, abuse of power that the word connotates in English.

I'm just saying.








Sub*mis"sion (?), n. [L. submissio a letting down, lowering: cf. F. soumission.]


The act of submitting; the act of yielding to power or authority; surrender of the person and power to the control or government of another; obedience; compliance.

Submission, dauphin! 't is a mere French word; We English warrious wot not what it means. Shak.


The state of being submissive; acknowledgement of inferiority or dependence; humble or suppliant behavior; meekness; resignation.

In all submission and humility York doth present himself unto your highness. Shak.

No duty in religion is more justly required by God . . . than a perfect submission to his will in all things. Sir W. Temple.


Acknowledgement of a fault; confession of error.

Be not as extreme in submission As in offense. Shak.

4. Law

An agreement by which parties engage to submit any matter of controversy between them to the decision of arbitrators.

Wharton (Law Dict.). Bouvier.


© Webster 1913.

Log in or registerto write something here or to contact authors.