data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/34a1a/34a1a33d9cd5e50bf372e0fd7f3ad6c1adafd1da" alt="" |
A million miles and 2000 years
from a fetish dominatrix... |
So, what's so special about Roman women?
If you read forum Femdom advice, it's all about how he can
persuade her to do this or that, or how she can
make him feel something, usually "used", "objectified" or "denied".
If you're
persuading and she's
making you feel something, then it's all an illusion! For example, she can't be using and objectifying you, because in setting out to create that effect she is treating you as a person.
And another one; how can she
become more dominant? If you're truly submitting, why would she need to be dominant?
There's nothing wrong with her setting out to create a kinky effect on you, but now we're in the territory of
Femdom as service - fine if she's already kinky, or has the time an energy to be playful, but not so easy when she just wants to kick back and relax, or if she doesn't regard Femdom as a hobby.
It's also true that the reality is darker and more enticing than the game. Wouldn't it be nice to truly be used, objectified, or toyed with and tormented? To be a
real slave, if only for a short time and with a safety net?
I decided to explore this in some erotica about Ancient Rome, where women really did own male slaves. However, what I found catapulted me into completing the
femdom manual I'd been tinkering with.
In a nutshell, the
Femdom fantasies were all true!
Some Roman women
did casually use their male slaves as sex toys or lovers, and
did keep them in male chastity belts called "thecas" or "seedpods". There's even good evidence for male prostitutes, presumably slaves, providing cunnilingus to female clients.
Real slavery is nasty and evil, but the Romans didn't see things that way. They took it for granted. So these all-using, all-objectifying Roman dominatrixes weren't kinky fetishists. Nor did they have to negotiate, or dress up in thigh boots and strut. They were just vanilla women who took for granted that they had power over a male slave.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/6b00b/6b00b117a8f4dd81fdfa56be66ec7abaad7a0475" alt="" |
..and yet capable of spreading their legs and ordering "lick"
without even thinking about the slave's reaction. |
The women may have been vanilla, but the results were kinky!
Plenty of accidental teasing and denial, permanent chastity, corporal punishment, objectification and worship. Better yet, the men - the
slaves - didn't have to plead or nag for it.
Now, I'm sure many or most of those real slaves were utterly miserable. However, imagine if you had a chance to take one's place for a day...?
And that's what's important about the Roman slave mistress.
Her power is real, she is utterly unselfconsciously self-centred in her dealings with her slave, and yet that genuine power relationship generates awesomely hot femdom action.
Better yet, she is actually prepared to
pay for a slave - a far cry from modern wives and girlfriends having one foisted on them by drooling partners acting like double-glazing salesmen!
Despite being vanilla, the Roman mistress
chooses to keep a male slave because her total power over him ensures that she can get what she wants
and no more. The benefits far outweigh the inconvenience of managing a slave.
Wouldn't it be... interesting... to offer your partner the same sort of power, with the rider that if she wants you to act like a slave, then she must also treat you like one? That's what
The Vanilla Dominatrix is all about.
UPDATE: I've also written a book for female readers - How to be a Roman Dominatrix.