As you might imagine from the title, it's based on the (very hot) idea that Ancient Roman ladies routinely owned male slaves for pleasure!
What Roman slavery can teach us about enjoying modern Femdom
Why the obsession with Ancient Roman slave owners?This -
Yes, a Roman lady... enjoying her slave.
Authentic slavery means kink for him, vanilla for her
From her point of view, nothing kinky is going on. She's just enjoying a quick licking the way a modern woman might take out her vibrator.
From his point of view... well, it ticks many of the Femdom boxes: Oral Service, Male Nude Female Clothed, Humiliation, Objectification, Denial, Teasing (accidental) and, if he's wearing a theca, Male Chastity! If she's feeling playful, then there will be other kinks as well.
Roman-style slavery just works!
This asymmetry is a revelation! What if, instead of trying to tune in to her submissive husband or boyfriend's fantasies, the modern vanilla dominatrix simply treated him as an authentic slave?
Sure, it wouldn't deliver everything he'd spent years imagining, but it would give him a dose of 100% authentic slavery - no guilt, no second guessing, just service and suffering.
Better yet, she'd know exactly what to do with her slave, because she'd be entirely suiting herself and relying on the situation to generate the kink for him.
And that's what my book "How to be a Roman Dominatrix" is about.
I wonder, how would you describe the type of man that is necessary to make such a relationship work?
ReplyDeleteDoes he have to be very submissive? Service-oriented?
Or do you think this type of relationship could appeal to other types of men, as well?
If so, what character traits do you think are necessary/desirable? And which ones would be detrimental?
How high do you estimate the percentage of men that might be interested in such a relationship?
Ooo. Interesting questions.
ReplyDeleteIn general, I think male subs will take what they can get and be grateful for it. What % of men are subs? Not sure.
Being any sort of arse would be detrimental, including being a bottom masquerading as a sub.
However, the point of this approach is that the lady gets the kink that she wants, and that's an extension of her vanilla tastes. However, that extension means that there's a good chance that her man - since he's with her in a vanilla relationship - will get what he wants. If she likes flirting, and he likes T&D, for example, then she will take him to a very happy place.
If what you really mean is where do you start from as a single female who doesn't want to just date within the fetish community.... some thought required.
Thanks for your answer.
DeleteDo you think all subs like the idea of being a slave?
What about people who prefer to see themselves as servants, knights, pets? etc. Are those people "bottoms masquerading as subs"?
Something else that I would like to know:
Is this book based on your own relationship?
Thanks for the questions!
ReplyDeleteIn HTBARD I use "slave" generically because that's what Domina's owned.
Not all subs are comfortable with the concept of "slave". I suspect this is in part because it is uncomfortable confronting the implications of the power relationship. However, fantasies vary and people do have different styles.
The precise style depends on the couple, and ultimately the modern domina. If she wants a knight or a pet or a servant, she can have that.
I hope the book makes it clear that (1) there is no one true way, and (2) in this approach, the sub has to just accept what’s on offer and console himself that at least it’s 100% authentic.
By "bottoms masquerading as subs" are I mean men who ask loudly for domination, but really want e.g. a particular bondage scene while wearing particular fetish clothing.
The book is based in part on my own relationship - we're currently deciding how much of ourselves to explicitly reveal - and partly based on the experience of others, some of it related face to face; I may not be "scene" but I have RL kinky friends with whom I share experiences.