 |
| A million miles and 2000 years from a fetish dominatrix... |
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.
 |
| ..and yet capable of spreading their legs and ordering "lick" without even thinking about the slave's reaction. |
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.
Giles, how can you describe a Roman Mistress slaveowner as being "vanilla"? You say "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."
ReplyDeleteIf she has total power over a slave she owns, and can order the slave to fulfill her every need, just how is she still describable as "vanilla"?
It seems to me that she's much more of a "natural dominant" in her world than a "vanilla" anything. She's dominant because of her place in the society of her day, and I just can't see how she'd ever be considered vanilla by anyone, including herself, even if such a term were in existence back then. So, why are you calling her "vanilla"?
Thanks for posting!
ReplyDeleteI think of them as "vanilla" because they get their kicks or pleasure from the activities themselves, rather than the buzz of power, and because those activities are an extension of their everyday selves.
In our modern world, a vanilla woman can use a vibrator, enjoy a massage, flirt outrageously, act bitchy or controlling, or take out her anger on somebody or something else.
Add slaves to the mix and you get a Roman slave mistress. As long as e.g. a backrub is just a backrub, then she's vanilla.
So it's the "buzz of power" that makes the difference? I see your point, and it's an interesting one. Thank you for the clarification.
ReplyDeleteIf we had the advantage of a time machine, it would be interesting to observe our Roman slave mistress, and see just how much of a buzz of power was actually involved. It might be a bit less mundane than you're imagining. There's something about wielding a whip that generates quite a buzz of power (at least for me) in both a metaphorical and actual sense. I'm not certain that it could be avoided when a woman dominates a man, no matter where the "theater of operation" happens to be.
Absolutely. But that buzz might not be a conscious one, and hidden behind the ostensible purpose of the activities.
ReplyDeleteThe modern vanilla woman probably works the same way. She may not be aware of or comfortable with the buzz of power, so there's not much point offering that to her. Better to offer the vanilla benefits and see what happens. Hence my book.
Thanks for raising this. I think I may expand on this in a blog post.