Why Male Subs Are Crap 1: Transactional Analysis and Femdom Styles

"...all I want is a full body massage
and dinner I don't have to cook..."

Submissive men are mostly crap and getting worse.

A domme friend of mine posted:

Guy asks to worship my boots, but all I want is a full body massage and dinner I don't have to cook/pay for.

And increasingly (it seems) dommes are complaining of being treated as "kink ATMs" or cheaper alternatives to a pro domme. This can manifest in one-handed email and IM exchanges and then no further contact, through to actual in-person encounters where the "sub" is mostly manipulating to get his particular kinks (perhaps using safe words as a sort of skip track button).

Finally, male subs seem to feel the need to position themselves as losers, as if diminishing themselves will make them more rather than less attractive.

As a first step to understanding what's going wrong. it's worth revisiting the transactional analysis ego state model.

Short explanation:
We all have three mental places we stand - Ego States. How we behave is determined mostly by behaviour we've learned from other people. So when I'm in my "Parent" ego state, I'm usually nurturing, but at other times disapproving or judgemental. When I'm in my "Child" I can be playful but also needy and brattish. When I'm in "Adult" I'm - supposedly - above all this, though I may carry around funny ideas of what an adult does (look for "contaminated adult").

Interactions between people are actually transactions between their ego states. For example, an Adult-Adult transaction can be super sensible and productive, a Child-Child interaction can be playful, and an Parent-Child interaction can be patronising or nurturing depending on the people and situation. And of course, people can shift between states, sometimes in weird ways, which gives us Games People Play.

It strikes me that most BDSM activities belong to a single transaction. This doesn't tell the whole story. For example, Adult-Adult covers both two kinksters trading kinky pleasures and the core of a coldly instrumental owner-slave relationship. Even so, it gives a sense of where people are at when they do stuff and why, for example, Xena likes me to be stoical when she beats me.

When I look at this, I can see three ways that wannabe male subs screw up both when approaching self-identified dommes (and when trying to bring onboard a vanilla partner, but that's a different topic).

It's not entirely their fault, though a little critical thinking might help.

The trouble stems from the way two kinds of kinky transactions that get more prominence than they should:

#1 BDSM Culture encourages Adult-Adult conversations about kinky activities

Adult-Adult conversations about kinky activities

This is a good thing and fits in with the wider emerging consent culture.

The snag is that online BDSM culture puts so much emphasis on these conversations and how to have them (because they can be difficult and require both assertiveness and shared terminology) that to an outsider, it appears that all BDSM is about the activities, and that all  kinksters like to be approached this way.

This is where, "Hello I like face sitting and golden showers and want to be your submissive plz" comes from.

Some kinksters do like to be approached this way, especially if you're part of the same community of trust (anonymous subs often seem to miss that part!).

However, most dominants are interested in a particular dynamic (because power exchange) and have their own kinks that reflect that. Also - tragically - most male subs are in reality also more interested in dynamic than particular fantasies, if only they'd stop and reflect. The Adult-Adult conversations are just there to permit the power exchange to go ahead.

Thus, opening with particular requests without context is like trying to pick up vanilla women by boasting about your oral skills: it's at once not enough information and too much information. It's also cold and unengaging.

There's also the problem that unreflective men presuming a reciprocity of fantasies: that what gets them hard and sweaty will get a domme hot and wet. (The reality, of course, is that much D/s is asymmetric at any given moment, which can be hot.)  That's one of the reasons why some men think stating a list of their own kinks is enough, that announcing you like being feminised is the equivalent of sending up a flare.

This partially explains the "domme as kink ATM" attitude. However, there's another factor...

#2 The high visibility of Pro Dommes emphasises Parent-Child transactions (meet the Kink Fairy)

 (Let's be very clear, I'm talking the ego states of consenting adults here. Also, what follows is not a criticism of pro dommes! They are often community leaders, they push the boundaries in terms of skills and toys, and - most importantly - stop some men going crazy. They also have a right to sell erotic services to consenting adults without having to justify it by being useful.)

Combined facilitator and personal trainer,
therapist and local guide. 

The top prodomme is a Kink Fairy: combined facilitator and personal trainer, therapist and local guide.

The Kink Fairy helps the sub embrace and fulfil his kinks, expand his limits, and possibly expand his horizons. For example, she may make his complex feminisation fantasy come true, "torture" him in highly technical ways using expensive equipment, and then parade him around at a BDSM club.

The sub in question may be middle aged, feel unattractive, and insecure about his sexuality... the pro domme is a kind of rescuer. A good thing.

The Kink Fairy dynamic is, of course, focused on Parent-Child (and not unique to pro dommes).

The snag is that the high visibility of articulate and mesmerising pro dommes makes the mainstream media treat the Kink Fairy as the default for Femdom, and confirms this view when male subs look online.

To add to the confusion, to an outsider, the lines between pro dommes and non-pro dommes can seem blurred. Pro dommes often teach activity focused classes attended by other dommes. They also often have non-paying relationships. Nobody makes a big thing about who is or isn't a sex worker (nor should they!) . And many of the most visible non-pro dommes are also Kink Fairies.

So it's easy for wannabe male sub, who possibly already feels insecure about his kinks, to assume that all dommes are happy Kink Fairies, with non-pros being cheaper but less well-equipped alternatives to pros who can, however, be approached in the same manner.

This is where the weird supplicatory self-infantalising fantasising approach comes from: "I'm weak and dirty and need somebody to control my masturbation and sit on my face..."

The sub assumes that the Child Ego state is the right one for the initial approach. They are playful - don't differentiate between their fantasies and their real self - and at the same time needy, demanding a bit entitled, and above all else, too immediately intimate.

Presumably a pro-domme plays along with this she is there to provide a service and knows how to move the client to where he needs to be. Just about everybody else, however, goes "Ewwww.... BLOCK."

#3 Focusing on a Single Transaction whether Adult-Adult or Parent-Child

Even a kinky relationship is more than
just its kink...

Finally, even a kinky relationship is more than just its kink, and the kinky dynamic needs to cover more than one type of transaction. This is especially true when kink and vanilla are interwoven.

Xena and I - who do this 24/7  - go through the whole range of kinky transactions kink:

Sometimes I'm the long-suffering slave to her brattish mistress (Parent-Child), sometimes she's guiding and disciplining me (Child-Parent), sometimes we have serious conversations with serious consequences (Adult-Adult), and sometimes she toys with me in delicious ways (Child-Child).

So any approach that obsessively fixates on a single transaction - "let's trade kinks" or "rescue me, Kink Fairy!" - feels neither like it comes from a real person nor that he is treating the domme as one. It certainly doesn't suggest that any kind of relationship is possible.

---

Learn how to how to walk the 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.)

Problems with the Submissive Personality type

I have a theory. I can't prove it, but I swear someday somebody will.

I've noticed, that in most
relationships, one partner
leads and one follows

I've noticed, that in most relationships, one partner leads and one follows. The followers - it's as often the male as it is the female - seem to share some broad similarities; though they are not doormats and are often leaders in the outside world, they are facilitators and champions with a tendency to orbit other people or causes. Where I know their kink preference, they are invariably submissives or service tops.

I'm pretty sure that this represents a Submissive Personality Type (link). Not all people of this type are sexual submissives, but I think a core category of what we think of as sexual submissives fit this type.

The first problem with this is that people get cross if you suggest it!

"the kinkster doth protest too much"

Really! They will jump all over your head, and not in a kinky way.

Most of the jumpers will be subs because the last thing that they want to be told is that their desire to - to take an extreme example - be peed on and called a slut or have their sexual organs insulted - has any relevance to their day-to-day life.

I share that defensiveness. Just because I will do my wife's bidding doesn't mean I'll do yours... or does it?

To me, this outright denial of any link is "the kinkster doth protest too much".

Ask somebody about any other hobby or passion and they'll cheerfully tell you how it scratches a more general itch. Nobody who likes model railways, for example, is going to say, "Oh I just like model trains. How dare you suggest I might be detail orientated or like making things with my hands."

So just because suggesting a link causes a problem, doesn't mean that the link doesn't exist!

The second problem is that there are two flavours of kinkster who seem to invalidate the type.

service tops who are really
dominating in a submissive way

There sexual submissives who are actually what used to be called bottoms or even masochists. Let's call them masochistic submissives (and bear in mind the masochism may be non-physical).

For masochistic submissives, submission is a route to BDSM thrills, or is itself a masochistic thrill. Over time, through repetition, they develop a fetish for submitting in its own right. They may also find it's a psychologically comfortable place to go to escape the stresses of work and daily life. Even so, it's not who they are, otherwise it wouldn't give them such a kick.

I'd expect masochistic submissives to be adventurous and tend towards the physical. However I wouldn't expect them to have a submissive personality even though they might identify as a submissive.

There are what's known as service tops who are really dominating in a submissive way. Yes, they do BDSM from a dominant posture, but they focus on playing their submissive partner like a musical instrument.

I would expect service tops to have a submissive personality type even though they identified as a dominant.

So the bottom can say, "I'm a submissive and I don't fit your type" and the service top can say, "I'm a dominant and I don't fit your type." Both can choose to feel insulted.

However, if you set these two flavours aside and focus just on what I'll diplomatically call, deep submissives - people who feel very comfortable submitting and enjoy BDSM primarily as an expression of dynamic, then you do seem to have a cluster of very similar people.

The third problem is that there are other non-kink parameters, e.g. introvert/extrovert,

 "knight" might do if only it were
not such a gendered concept

bold/timid, passionate/subdued... people have personalities!

For this reason, you can't easily sum up the submissive type with a single archetype, though "knight" might do if only it were not such a gendered concept.

Because of this, non-sexual submissive behaviour isn't always obviously submissive. You find deep submissives in top leadership roles as well as in more lowly supporting roles. In relationships, deep submissives can be doormats, or a tower of strength.

Even so, I think deep submissives exist on a spectrum of...

Champion - Facilitator - Pleaser.

The fourth and final problem is that deep submissives often fight and deny their nature, flipflopping between being too selfless and too defensive.

This muddies the waters with respect to their underlying type. It also confuses everybody, and is the reason why it would be helpful for them to be more aware of their personality type so they can embrace and manage it...

...or so goes my theory.

---

Learn how to how to walk the 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.)

Does being a submissive make you vulnerable to abuse?

My first girlfriend used to punch me.

We were young - I won't say how young because google - and this wasn't youthful BDSM experimentation. She would fly into rages and punch me because she was angry and it hurt and I would cry.

The worst of it was it would feel right. I think it even turned me on.

Because back then I had the idea that I was different and that perhaps this kind of fucked up situation was my destiny.

Let's not blame her. She had her own issues with anger and sex. She was definitely a victim of at least emotional abuse and I doubt I helped. However, the result was that our relationship was abusive.

She was also wilfully unattractive, the more so as our relationship progressed. Her personal hygiene sucked. Her underwear... ugh. There was even an element of violation in our sexual fumblings.

So, this was as low as I have ever been, and I don't mean in a dark and kinky way. Thank God we never discovered kink together. She would have used against me.

I didn't learn either.

After that, I routinely sought out fucked up domineering rather than dominant partners.

I can also think of several real life friends - male and female - I know to be submissive, Most have similar "romantic" histories of putting themselves in the position of being treated like dirt... up until the point where they embraced their kink and worked out how to enjoy it.

The problem is that though consensual BDSM is very different from abuse, it still satisfies dark urges. Many BDSM dynamics are really nerfed, sexed up and firewalled versions of abusive vanilla relationships.

It follows that if you have a submissive orientation, it's very easy to "accidentally" drift into relationships with an abusive potential, because those are the ones that feel right - the spark is there.

If we introduce kink to the relationship, this can even make things worse because it will erode our negotiating position and, in the hands of somebody ruthless, make us feel even more insecure.

So yes, we submissives are particularly vulnerable to abuse because we have a tendency to put ourselves in harm's way.

(NB This does not justify the treatment: an unlocked door is not an invitation to burglary. Also, the moral equation changes as we get older. An adult submissive who continually seeks out and feeds dysfunctional relationships is an enabler...)

However, if we know we are submissive, if we embrace it, then we can manage it.

We can date dominant, broad minded people, bring up kink early and with pride, or get involved with the BDSM scene.

We don't need to be vulnerable. There has never ever been a better time to be a sexual submissive.

So submissive you give up your submission? Why meta submission is horseshit

Does the fantasy
of submitting to a
life of only
vanilla sex get you
hard and/or drippy?

Call it "meta submission".

It's a glib little meme, but all the more toxic for it. Subrugbylad articulates it beautifully:

...they said, “it could be the ultimate submission, giving up your kinky side to please your partner”.

The kink world variant is:

If they are truly submissive, then they will obey when you order them to dominate you.

There's a hole in this logic - a category mistake, I think.

However the real problem is that it comes from too much clever reasoning and not enough reality, so let's start with the reality instead:

Would you actually masturbate 

over submissive fantasies of submissively 

giving up your submission? 

Do you jerk (or jill) off over 

binning your chastity device, burning your 

whips, recycling your chains? 

Does the fantasy of submitting 

to a life of only vanilla sex get 

you hard and/or drippy?

No?

Then, no matter how clever the spin, meta submission isn't going to make you feel very fulfilled as a person, so probably don't want to do it.

If that's not convinced you that meta submission his horseshit, then read on...

So, do subs have particular emotional or relationship issues? (A personal view)

...subs -- who would have
guessed? -- get cross if
you imply that we are in any
way inferior or broken

A while back I started a thread of this name on the Reddit SubSanctuary. I had thought it being a sanctuary for subs it would be a safe space for this kind of discussion. However, it I accidentally pushed some buttons; subs -- who would have guessed? -- get cross if you imply that we are in any way inferior or broken!

The dismissive responses and my considered responses made in the... sanctuary of my own blog were pretty much along the lines of:

• "We're just the same as everybody else, just with a different way of doing sexuality!" - But the difference must logically mean we have specific issues. Not more or less, just specific to us.
• "A study proves we're really emotionally healthy!" - I'm sure we are. I'm just interested in the landscape we have to negotiate.
• "How dare you imply we're different!" - LOL. I'm typing this response while wearing a chastity device my wife "makes" me wear. You're probably sporting whip marks and pierced privates. of course we're the same as everybody else. Really.

The more engaging but contrary responses (again, with my considered responses), were:

• "Purely erotic submissives - bedroom subs and bottoms - don't seem to have any specific problems." - Presumably because the kink is compartmentalized. 
• "You can be submissive and still not have a bad-boy/bitch fixation, meanwhile vanilla folks can suffer from this." - I wonder how vanilla the dynamic of the bad-boy/bitch fixation really is.

Two subs, however, both said something that indicated:

• "Some subs derive self-worth from service". 

So an interesting thread, but ultimately not one that reflects what I actually see on the Sub Sanctuary and elsewhere on BDSM Reddit.

My take on the main emotional or relationship issues for subs

Sexual submission, however,
does look weak.

Here's what I think the main emotional or relationship issues are for subs:

Our submissive kink is almost by definition humiliating and can make us look weak (and for female subs,  anti-feminist etc) 

If somebody discovers you are a sexual dominant, they may decide that you are wicked or evil, but they won't think you're weak or pathetic. Sexual submission, however, does look weak.

I think this leads to issues like shame, secretiveness and defensiveness. It can take us forever to bring up our needs with a partner, and we can often do it in such a tentative way that we irritate rather than entice them.

I certainly wasted years trying to spin my submissive nature as merely being sexually adventurous.

Since submission can be a gift, we sometimes mistake all our kinks for gifts

If I clean Xena's shoes then
that's a gift. If I lick them
clean, then that's just me
being a fetishist 

Doing things for another person, building them up, treating them like a god... that can be a gift, especially if that person identifies as a dominant.

However, many of our submissive kinks and fantasies don't offer much benefit to the dominant.

For example, if I clean Xena's shoes then that's a gift. If I lick them clean, then that's just me being a fetishist unless she specifically likes the idea. This is very true of kinks that require any kind of effort from the dominant.

I see lots of posts where people complain that their significant other isn't dominant enough, doesn't put effort into protocol, punishment, edging, forcing them to dress funny etc. These all stem from this issue.

Supply and demand makes some of us emotionally vulnerable

Some of us don't just want a
dominant to dominate us,
we want a dominant to be
part of our lives.

As a young man, I spent years yearning for a dominant, not know where I could find one, or fixating on any girl who would tie me up once.

Some of us don't just want a dominant to dominate us, we want a dominant to be part of our lives. It's an emotional need as well as a sexual one. It's quite different to a specific sexual fetish and similar to being gay in that it pervades our existence and requires another person to form the other half of a relationship.

This need makes us vulnerable because, unless we are young and attractive and move in particular circles, there are not  a lot of visible dominants to go around! We're often pathetically grateful and compliant when we do find somebody to dominate us.

This explains threads about subs being utterly heartbroken by purely online relationships, or acting like doormats in relationships, or letting a dom push their boundaries past what's sensible.

It's simply hard to discern where
being giving and supportive leaves
off and being submissive to the
demanding or needy begins.

Because giving is one of our traits, we may drift into non-sexual submissive behavior during "normal" life

I've done this and I've seen at least one post describing the experience. No matter how assertive and take-charge we are usually, sometimes we encounter a situation or person that makes us neglect our boundaries or run around after them.

It's simply hard to discern where being giving and supportive leaves off and being submissive to the demanding or needy begins.

Is there truly a difference?

We can be drawn to eroticizing and enabling domineering partners

This describes my early sex life.

Domineering is what happens when you not only let somebody push you around, you subtly encourage it. If you're young and haven't embraced your submissive sexuality, then it's very very easy to drift into this. If you're inexperienced, it's also sometimes hard to distinguish between "good domination" and domination which is really abuse.

Why I think we subs are not broken people but face challenges

No wonder, then, that subs have a
harder time than their vanilla friends

As people pointed out on that thread, we really have the same problems as vanilla people, just different variables. I once craved a dominant so badly it hurt. A vanilla friend meanwhile craved a girlfriend so badly it hurt. Ultimately, we were both lonely and looking for The One. 

You can take each of the above issues and find a vanilla equivalent. We subs really aren't broken people!

However, I think these issues are more pressing for subs because we lack role models and established norms, especially when we're young.

 It's true the online and offline kink community offers these. However, online, there's a lot of "noise" from one-handed typists, and hooking up with the offline kink community is often not practical or emotionally viable. 

Meanwhile, society prepares us for vanilla dating from an early age and as early teenagers we rehearse for the real thing via books and soap operas. 

No wonder, then, that subs have a harder time than their vanilla friends.

---

Don't resign yourself to just getting off on other people's adventures! When we started out, my wife was vanilla. Use my manuals to help you walk the same Femdom path! There's one for him, and one for her. 

The problem with Vanilla Subs

A dominant mate of mine was told by his vanilla ex - "Thank god I don't have to do any of that nasty stuff again."

Privately, he reckoned this was rubbish. “Orgasms don’t lie,” he said.

As a sub myself, I think it’s more complicated.

Even though it’s consensual, D&S simulates evil and feels real to the primitive parts of the brain. (Yes, I know there’s also fluffy stuff in there about trust and intimacy.)

This simulated evil is at least half the fun. However, it creates problems with vanilla people who haven’t had the years to work it through.

Bad for a vanilla dom to whom it simply *feels* morally wrong. Worse for the vanilla sub.

The vanilla sub experiences the simulated evil direct and unmediated… the violation of will and body, the humbling and humiliation, the forced intimacy…

…and they get off on it.

This is a supremely dark place to be and one that challenges a person’s very identity, especially if they’ve had to fight for self determination in this big mean world of ours.

I think the best approach is to be very careful how you “frame” the D/S part of your relationship.

Are you all D/S is darkly romantic, authentic, significant?

Perhaps it would be better to cushion your sub by treating it as just a bit of fun: no big thing, just make believe or an erotic sport. Joke that you do most of the actual work and she gets most of the orgasms.

Most of all, in the immediate aftermath of your sessions, get back to normal as quick as possible!

The lure of the Dark Lady

 The downside of being a sub is the lure of the Dark Lady.

She's the super bitch who will take your submission as a victory in the battle of the sexes, use and abuse you, then - when there's no fight left in you - leave you in a bleak darkness.

You know the relationship is doomed, you know that she will break your heart--

--and that's why you stay. Not because every moment is precious, but because every moment is an adventure. You don't know when you will be slapped or slapped down, when she'll make you weep, or when you'll make love to her as you weep.

She'll never make you happy, never mistreat you in the way you want to be mistreated, but she pushes all your buttons, and so you stay as long as she does.

Later, will you look back with nostalgia?