Growing Up Kinky: Straight Malesub as a Sexual Minority

Dommes have a much longer
road to travel thanks

Recently I was taken to task for commenting:

...I was thinking, "What would it be like if mainstream (liberal) culture was as affirming of young malesubs as it is of the rest of LGBTQ+?"
And the answer was, "Not much better" because dommes have a much longer road to travel thanks to gender roles and the way femdom is portrayed.

Roughly: Malesubs aren't actively persecuted, we can pass as normal, can safely hold the hands of our partners in public, and how dare I even think about calling for the same amount of support? (Which I wasn't; you'll see why in a moment.)

As mysticlez218 puts it, "Every minority faces their own struggles which are unique to them with no one being worse or better. They all suck in different ways."

I want to talk about the experience of being a straight malesubs and how we are a sexual minority, and in some specific contexts, a disadvantaged one.

This matters because, though we are low priority in the grand scheme of things, we still have to live our lives.

The Problem with Femdom is that it has no History

Dominant women exist throughout history,
but have no history.

The problem with Femdom is it has no history.

A cam site - who lifted some of my text without attribution - compiled a History of Femdom. Here's some of it, with my highlights:

• 1580: English poet Christopher Marlowe: "When Francus comes to solace with his whore, / He sends for rods and strips himself stark naked; / For his lust sleeps, and will not rise before / By whipping of the wench it be awaked. / I envy him not, but wish I had the power, / To make his wench but one half hour." 
• 1676: The Virtuoso, a play by Thomas Shadwell: Old man Snarl wants to be whipped, which is done by a young prostitute. He likes it because it reminds him of his schooldays-punishments. 
• 1682: Venice Preserv'd, a play by Thomas Otway: Prostitute Aquilina spits on Senator Antonio, treats him like a dog, kicks and whips him.
• 1704: London Spy, book by by Edward Ward: In a whorehouse, a sixty year old enjoys a whipping.

Then we have the recent History & Arts of the Dominatrix. Here's the table of contents (source):

....included exerts of a hymn to the Goddess with rites of gender transformation, punishment, pain and ecstasy, linked to the high-priestess named Enheduanna, and images of the Goddess. 

Into the English history record, the secular profession appears in books from the 17th Century, with flagellation prints of the Dominatrix in role of 'Whipstress' and 'School-Mistress'. The ladies providing birch discipline were interlinked with royalty, nobility, parliamentarians and secret societies. By the 19th Century, London held 20 sumptuously appointed discipline houses, run by 'Governess' Dominatrices, one of whom invented a special machine for whipping, known as the Berkley Horse.

In the 20th Century, the book presents rare vintage snapshots of mid-20th Century ladies of the 'bizarre underground' in time, space and place, from London, New York, The Hague and The Herbertstrasse. Lastly, Nomis examines the contemporary occupation of the modern-day Dominatrix, and contributes a theory of their 'Seven Realm Arts' characterizing their practices. This book is the seminal work on the subject of the Dominatrix, her history and her arts as a unique craft."

It looks like an incredible read! However, are you seeing what I'm seeing?

The Dominatrix as in prodomme has a long and fascinating history, as has men's masochism, which, until Sacher-Masoch's fumbling attempts was framed in terms of male pleasure or atonement.

Dominant women? They appear in all of history - you don't need a scold's bridle unless you have a scold. Some allegedly dominant women, like Cleopatra, are high profile.

But female dominance as in women being actually in charge sexually and getting what they want has no developing body of thought, no undercurrent like - say - Christianity or Democracy. Not even a secret tradition.

Empress Theodora didn't pick up Messalina's mantle. Catherine the Great didn't retrieve the Femdom Banner and hoist it over her palace.

So though Femdom activities have a history, the Femdom dynamic, even without the kink, doesn't. Since the activities exist to simulate the dynamic, it follows that the dynamic itself is the authentic form of Femdom.

Therefore, Femdom has no history.

And that's a problem.  We have no established role models to look to, no tried and tested courtship traditions to follow, no ancient relationship wisdom to draw on.

The traditions we do have, really belong to the prodomme, an often noble calling verging on that of therapist, yes, but not a guide to making Femdom work outside the client/service-provider model.

Worst of all, we have no word for a kinky dominant women who is not a prodomme. That's as if the only available word for sexually active woman was "sex worker". For the ramifications, see the unhappiness unfolding on the kinky Internet.

---

Learn how to how to walk the same Femdom path with your partner! 

GET THE "FOR HIM" MANUAL RIGHT NOW!
GET THE "FOR HER" MANUAL RIGHT NOW!

CLICK HERE to download my Femdom Erotica (all written while chaste!)

(For ebook format, 

Lulu or iTunes.)

Friendzone or Subzone? Femdom, Feminism and One-Way Romances

Friendzone. The classic description is something like this:

He provides emotional support, platonic companionship, helps her out with practical things, once tidied her apartment so she could host a party, gives her lifts in his car. One time he came into town specially just to rescue her when she got herself into a state. Sometimes she falls asleep on him while they watch TV together. She appreciates his friendship, doesn't have sex with him, but dates other guys...

Gosh, darn, doesn't that sound awfully familiar from a zillion Femdom blogs? Let me help you out by adding some more text:

He provides emotional support, platonic companionship, helps her out with practical things while she sits around in a silk robe doing her nails. Often he cross-dresses as a French maid and tidies her apartment. She keeps him focused by directing the action with a whip. He gives her lifts in his car when she goes on dates. One time he came into town specially just to rescue her when she got herself into a state. Sometimes she falls asleep on him while they watch TV together. If the show gets her horny, she has him go down on her. She appreciates his friendship  service , doesn't have sex with him, and holds the key to his chastity device. She dates other guys but if he's lucky he gets to clean up after. 

Seriously... DUH!

OK back up a bit.

The term Friendzone describes a real phenomenon I noticed well before it had a name.
However, the surrounding male-entitlement culture is unpleasant, let's call it a One-Way Romance (OWR), which is also a more accurate term.

The basic OWR is a situation in which you experience "unrequited love for somebody who regards you as a close friend". It's easy to go there when you're young and inexperienced. Thanks to patriarchy, he may read her culturally-mandated gentle rejection as a "maybe" or - worse - "playing hard to get", and then later succumb to male entitlement and feel cheated.

If that's your situation, you should do as Cara Sutra says and grow the hell up. Value and preserve the friendship but move on romantically. (It was Cara Sutra's great article that got me thinking about this.) You should also consider ceasing to profess friendship as a way of putting off the scary moment where you open your heart and make yourself vulnerable.

We can hope that, by empowering people to communicate clearly and by removing entitlement, Feminism will consign this kind of OWR to the dustbin of history.

However, it's not always that simple. How could it be?

What about people who keep getting themselves into an OWR? Or the ones who stay there for months and years? I've been there, and I've observed it with both men and women, but let's focus on the man-in-friendzone scenario.

If a man keeps putting himself in the same uncomfortable situation, or gets stuck there, isn't that usually because on some level that's where he wants to be? Aren't we really seeing vanilla Femdom hidden in plain sight?

To me, the full blown long-term version of the OWR is just the natural hazard of having an unacknowledged submissive streak, of being a Champion rather than a Commander.

The loud complaining is disingenuous, just the vanilla version of malesub tears:

"Wah wah look at the demeaning situation I'm in that however turns me on so much hang on I have to go and jerk off..."

What about the women?

For the OWR relationship to be stable, both partners must want to be there. What's in it for her?

I think it's also disingenuous to insist that adult women are never aware of men orbiting them since (a) the idea is really common, and (b) most people have enough emotional intelligence to read all those non-verbal cues. They're not evil exploiters. Most take the quite correct attitude, "He knows the score but seems happy to do stuff for me so why not?" (Or, "LOL men are silly.")

But why? Why put up with a man hanging around like an overgrown Labrador puppy? Surely his presence makes it harder to strike up a real romance?

Control.

Even now in the 21st century, there's a sense that women give up control when they enter a committed relationship and can no longer ration out their sexual favours.

Most women - most people! - want a measure of control. Those near the Commander end of my Champion-Commander spectrum - need it. Keeping a devoted man orbiting in the OWR while dating elsewhere seems pretty much the perfect solution to this.

I don't think Feminism alone will make this go away, though it may make men feel better about doing the orbiting. Women who need control will still balk at entering a peer relationship.

I do think that what both OWR partners really need is a way to have a hierarchical relationship that is sexual and probably monogamous (not necessarily with each other, though.)

We'll only really see the back of One-Way Romances - the Friendzone, if you must - when Female Led Relationships (or Male Led, if the other way around!) are mainstream enough for people to go looking for them explicitly.

Unfortunately, that means tackling the elephant in the room: that not everybody wants or needs an equal relationship.

---

Learn how to how to walk the same Femdom path with your partner! 

GET THE "FOR HIM" MANUAL RIGHT NOW!
GET THE "FOR HER" MANUAL RIGHT NOW!

CLICK HERE to download my Femdom Erotica (all written while chaste!)

(For ebook format, 

Lulu or iTunes.)

Being kinky doesn't make us queer, but kinksters are still oppressed

The illusion of choice.
(We don't have a choice,either.)

There's a nice article by Carolyn Yates in AutoStraddle : Being Kinky Doesn’t Make You Queer.

She makes a valid point: queer and kinky have resonances, but are distinct and we shouldn't blur the terminology.

However, much of the article seems taken up with making a distinction between (a) transgressing normative gender and gender preferences, which is queer and OK to do in public, and (b) transgressing normative power relations, which is kink and not OK to do in public.

The implication is that queer is real and nice but kink is just a game and nasty.

In particular I disagree with this:

But you can hide your kinks. And, in public spaces, with non-participants present, you should. Kink involves consent.

So, being out in public is automatically a consent violation? 

I find that preposterous.

Sure, it's a consent violation if you force your intimacy on other people or use them as an audience. But that's also true for vanilla couples of all orientations as well: e.g. fucking on a park bench on a Sunday afternoon while people were out with their families is wrong whatever your preferences.

However, things like wearing a collar or using verbal protocol - if that's what you do at home - are no more a consent violation than two men holding hands. (That doesn't make these wise activities.)

The illusion perpetrated by the article is that kinksters have a choice, that we can opt in or out of our orientation. 

She conflates the persecution suffered by queer people with the opt-in, opt-out activities with which we kinksters express out dynamics:

As a kinky person, you can opt in, you can opt out, you can play, you can exchange, you can give, you can take, you can end it at any time. Power is everywhere, whether or not you’re practicing power play. It is yours to leave or to take. But as a queer person, you can’t opt into or out of those systems of power. You can’t end them at any time. There’s no safeword for your parents kicking you out before you’ve finished high school. For your new grandma-in-law getting homophobic and transphobic at your wedding reception.

Yes, it's easier to be kinky than queer since it's easier and way less inconvenient to hide. 

Repressing our sexuality
also has consequences

Yes, queer rights are a much, much, more pressing issue than kink rights. I'm happy to be at the back of the queue.

However, we don't actually have a choice about being kinky, and repressing our sexuality has consequences similar to those suffered by all those closeted  queer folk of yesteryear: wasted lives, collateral damage to straight spouses, stress, illness, dysfunctional relationships, compartmentalisation...

Ours is still a love that dare not speak its name. 

In an ideal world, people would wear their collars, call their partner "Sir/Madam" and nobody would bat an eyelid. 

In a slightly less ideal, but still better, world, being outed as a kinkster would have no professional or personal consequences.

We don't live in either of those worlds now. I doubt we ever will. 

Ours is still a love that dare not speak its name. The ease of concealment does not detract from the fact there are still consequences if that concealment fails.

So, we kinksters will always be an oppressed sexual minority. At the very least, this should make us sensitive to LGBTQ rights. It would also be nice if some of that sensitivity would flow both ways. 

---

Learn how to how to walk the same Femdom path with your partner! 

GET THE "FOR HIM" MANUAL RIGHT NOW!
GET THE "FOR HER" MANUAL RIGHT NOW!

CLICK HERE to download my Femdom Erotica (all written while chaste!)

(For ebook format, 

Lulu or iTunes.)

Thoughts on Feminism and Femdom for International Women's Day

Vanilla culture treats dominant
women as alluring but daunting.

Dominant women are sexy in a primal way.

Vanilla culture treats dominant women as alluring but daunting, flames attracting orbiting moths.

Unfortunately, vanilla culture doesn't know what to do with dominant women.

...to be tamed, defeated, or shown
their place...

In movies, they still exist to be tamed, defeated, tragically slain, or shown their place... which is odd since the ending always destroys the very thing that the makes them sexy.

In Notting Hill, for example, Julie Roberts's movie star spends the story trying to submit to Hugh Grant's mild mannered bookseller. (Wouldn't it have been better if, at the end, she'd said: "You know the problem? I'm a Hollywood star. I really need a supportive wife." And he'd said, "OK. I can do that.")

...good for an onscreen tumble

These days, dominant women are good for an onscreen tumble, but - with honourable exceptions like Castle -  screenwriters have difficulty imagining what an actual (implicit) female led relationship would look like.

However, the nice thing about vanilla culture is that it treats a woman's dominance as an innate attribute, one that can be dialled up or down, but one that is still innate.

Ironically, BDSM culture, which does know what to do with dominant women, often seems to do everything it can to avoid admitting that the dominance is real.

No latex comfort blanket.

In much of BDSM culture (as it appears online), dominance is fetishwear mantle a woman can put on at the request of her lover. It's a performance that she can learn at workshops. Or it's the result of her ability to manipulate through sex.  Or it's a scripted simulation based on detailed negotiation.

That candle and moth scenario?

There's no flame. The moths are circling the sexy lampshade. Or, yes, they are circling a flame, but only because the moths are tied to a thread with just the right knots, or because the flame is flickering just right, or because it's in the script.

It's easy to see why. 

Femdom transgresses traditional gender roles. Put bluntly, she gets to be bad, he gets to be a wimp. It must often be psychologically - culturally! - easier on both parties to pretend the action is for his benefit, and that there is no real power exchange. 

It's a shame though. 

It would be nice if Femdom culture could lead the way: shed the latex comfort blanket and embrace the idea of a dominant woman being sexually dominant and still being herself, and that being OK. 

Fellow male subs. Let go! You have
nothing to lose but your
self entitlement...

Femdom isn't automatically feminist, or good for Feminism. However, as I've argued elsewhere, this kind of authentic or "hard" Femdom is empowering for the women involved - my wife would certainly tell you this if she weren't too busy being an executive - and also expands the range of culturally acceptable behaviour out in the vanilla world.

That doesn't mean that male hard submissives like me deserve a medal "for heroic self-sacrifice to the Feminist cause". Our reward is simply better, more intense, Femdom.

Fellow male subs. Let go! You have nothing to lose but your self entitlement...

---

Learn how to how to walk the same Femdom path with your partner! 

GET THE "FOR HIM" MANUAL RIGHT NOW!
GET THE "FOR HER" MANUAL RIGHT NOW!

CLICK HERE to download my Femdom Erotica (all written while chaste!)

(For ebook format, 

Lulu or iTunes.)

Mistress Butterfly: A horrible thought about subs and dommes

Are dominant women trapped in the Victorian
fallen woman experience?

I read Ava's post on Things Subs Say and wanted to box some ears. Particularly over this bit (my cuts):

You thought this was something different than it was. You were a way to get it out of my system... You’re not relationship material. You’re part of my private life, not my real life. You were just a fantasy... You were someone I didn’t have to pay. You’re just one thing I wanted to try.

What if, I thought, men treated Romantic Love the same way?

What if only some women were considered available for Romantic Love? What if romantic and mainstream culture colluded to treat them as at least potential sex workers?

What if elaborate artificial courtship rituals were established, ones that loudly proclaimed the woman's romantic power while demonstrating the man's actual material power?

 What if her role were "performative"? Posturing, heightened emotional display and exaggerated costume mandatory, fuzzy slippers forbidden?

What if suitors entered a different headspace, over-promised, over-committed, then walked away and thought that was OK because: "Love is just a game, right? You shouldn't have taken me so seriously."

I was going to write a satire piece, only I realised: we've already seen this world in the great romantic operas of the 19th century.

Fuzzy slippers forbidden...

I've often said that our culture traps male subs in the 1950s gay male experience: the tyranny of traditional masculinity forces us into denial and compartmentalisation with inevitable blow back and collateral damage.

However, I now see that male subs are trapping dominant women in the Victorian fallen woman experience.

Go read Ava's whole post.  A few word substitutions and it could come from La Traviata or Madame Butterfly.

It's the same damn things at work.

The man operates outside his privileged respectable world, but carries practical and assumed male privilege with him.

Dominant woman's edition? Ugh.

The woman is the Other whether she likes it or not.

Her availability for the desired mode of relationship makes her special, but also an expendable, deniable, outsider, and a liability to male reputation.

Just like the 19th-century mistress, those things that make a dominant woman desirable are also those things that can be used to rationalise rejecting her.

I am seriously unimpressed by the state of male subs. And yet, I grieve for them. We really do need another round of sexual revolution, one that confronts and embraces the different dynamics people need. I'm damned if I know how to help this along.

In the mean time, I have a horrible feeling that dominant women might do well to adopt retro dating strategies to filter out the lightweights and the fantasists - a horrible retrograde thought. Ugh.

---

Learn how to how to walk the same Femdom path with your partner! 

GET THE "FOR HIM" MANUAL RIGHT NOW!
GET THE "FOR HER" MANUAL RIGHT NOW!

CLICK HERE to download my Femdom Erotica (all written while chaste!)

(For ebook format, 

Lulu or iTunes.)

Is Angry Femdom a Feminist Issue?

It came up again today on Reddit: Is it OK for a dominant to administer a whipping in anger?

In the particular case, it was probably a bad idea.

However, one of the replies summed up the BDSM "establishment view" and went a bit like this:

Whipping in anger is wrong because you are out of control, and showing lack of respect and compassion for the other person. All this makes it abusive.

The implication is that you can only whip somebody if you are dispassionate, respectful and nurturing, in other words, a service top.

This is bollocks disingenuous.

What's happening is that dominants want to think of themselves as good people, and submissives don't want to think of themselves as losers.

Kinksters want the experience, but they want to pretend it's not real, as if the monkey brain that turns us on has a grasp of context and ethics.

Service topping is OK, but there are only three authentic dominant motivations for hurting a submissive (as opposed to scratching their masochistic itch from a position of power):

Instrumental: To get what you want, usually by punishing non- compliance or failure.

Anger: Because you feel angry with them or with what they are.

Sadism: Because it gives you pleasure to inflict pain.

None of these is a nice motivation. That's the point. This is the dark side.

Despite the service assumption, sadism seems acceptable in most real world BDSM circles. However, can you be truly sure that your sadism is not tainted by... gasp... anger?

Can you be truly sure that your 

sadism is not tainted by... 

gasp... anger? 

Also, though there is debate about its efficacy, lifestyle BDSM people also use whippings as punishment. How can they be sure that their instrumental motivation is not mingled with irritation?

And is sadism really any safer than anger?

Aren't you actually more likely to get carried away if inflicting pain makes the blood rush from your brain to your genitals than if you are merely venting your anger, given that anger spends itself?

Oh dear!

The possibility of committing a thought crime! Better to attend a workshop on consent or do BDSM online than wield a whip if your motivations are not guaranteed 100% pure.

Your pardon if as a submissive this service culture leaves me cold.

I want to actually submit, not pretend-have-you-bean-a-naughty-boy submit.

I like it when Xena wields the whip in anger. It's not just the thrill of genuine fear, it's also the reassurance that our D/s relationship won't just fall apart when things go wrong between us.

And, if service top is the gold standard, what of dominants who have the urge to actually dominate with whip and flogger?

Homing in on Femdom, I think there's a feminist issue emerging:

Just as the Sexual Revolution mostly "freed" sexually active women to act like unpaid prostitutes, is the modern Kink Revolution in danger of "empowering" dominant women to act like unpaid pro-dommes?*

*Not of course that there's anything wrong with sex workers! 

---

Learn how to how to walk the same Femdom path with your partner! 

GET THE "FOR HIM" MANUAL RIGHT NOW!
GET THE "FOR HER" MANUAL RIGHT NOW!

CLICK HERE to download my Femdom Erotica (all written while chaste!)

(For ebook format, 

Lulu or iTunes.)

Why Feminism and Femdom are good for each other

Femdom long predates Feminism

I am a feminist, not because I am a submissive man, but because I am not an arse.

Being a male sub doesn't automatically make you a feminist. There are plenty of pushy self-entitled subs, and Femdom long predates Feminism: Victorian gents who paid for female domination did not rush out to throw bricks with the Suffragettes (though I am sure they masturbated over fantasies involving them).

Nor is Femdom the natural end point of Feminism. Feminism is about equality and freedom of choice. Wanting women to be in charge of society is to be a Female Supremacist, not a Feminist.

Even so, I think Feminism and Femdom are good for each other.

Why Feminism is good for Femdom

...a would-be domme would
need to learn new unladylike
behaviour. 

Feminism is good for Femdom because Feminism undermines the gender roles forced on us by the old patriarchy.

Feminism says it's OK for women to take charge in the world, be assertive in a relationship, seek pleasure in bed, and be forthright about all that.

In the once-upon-a-time of subtle manipulation, feminine wiles and coy hints, a would-be domme would need to learn new unladylike behaviour just to achieve a baseline of dominance. Nowadays she merely has to temporarily stop being polite and fair, to transition from "Please go down on me and I'll give you a blow job" to "Go down on me".

So Feminism may not generate dommes, but it does make it easier for women to develop or express a dominant streak.

Feminism also says it's OK for men not to be strong, and for us to be facilitating in a relationship, and giving in bed. The male sub of yesteryear had to cope not only with the shame of being unmanly, but also with his wife's horror (if she found out). Now he merely has to turn the conversation to shared fantasies or suggest kinky activities to "spice things up".

Of course Feminism does not turn men into subs! However, it does give those of us with a submissive streak a much easier ride.

Feminism says, "Pick your own roles, be yourselves" and that makes it easier for us Femdom people to do just that.

Why Femdom is good for Feminism

Being in charge can only be empowering

I have to be careful here. I don't think Feminism is a reason to do Femdom! I'm also aware that Femdom can be presented as an erotic parody of Feminism with the implication being that only women who are latex clad hyper-vixens can be empowered.

All that said, I think Femdom can have a feminist effect within a relationship and thus the existence of Femdom is good for Feminism.

Being in charge, even if just for bedroom roleplay, can only be empowering. Despite improvements, we still have casual and structural sexism, and the remnants of patriarchy. Exploring a sexually dominant role must have the same benefits for a woman's confidence and assertiveness as would taking a leadership position in, say, a sports club or charitable organisation.

The existence of dommes as an extreme example also potentially makes it easier for vanilla women just to ask for what they want in bed, or in a relationship, and thus become more empowered in general. Dominatrices demonstrate that women can take charge and the world doesn't end!

And, anything that empowers women in the personal sphere also helps to empower them in the wider world, which is good for the Feminist cause in general.

So, it's not like political lesbianism (though the idea of "Political Femdomism" as a college movement is... exciting). However, in a small way I think Femdom helps the Feminist cause.

---

Learn how to how to walk the same Femdom path with your partner! 

GET THE "FOR HIM" MANUAL RIGHT NOW!
GET THE "FOR HER" MANUAL RIGHT NOW!

CLICK HERE to download my Femdom Erotica (all written while chaste!)

(For ebook format, 

Lulu or iTunes.)