Replying to a comment of mine about orgasm fetishes, of Miss Calico, who occasionally works as a professional dominant, raises a paradoxical point (emphasis mine.)
I think I have been extra, super put off by the post-‘70s reactive feminist stuff because so many submissive men fetishize it. I mean I’ve literally had men come to me and tell me how they were “raised by feminists to be submissive to women”. (What does this entail? Lots of humiliating them, telling them how they can’t please a woman, and kicking them in the balls, apparently. Because not being pleased is ever so pleasing to me.)
Um. Yeah. All the feminists I know raise their boys to be submissive. Because, you know, that’s all feminism is about, right? Yup. Oh wait!
There’s only one way to be heterosexual in this world: one partner has to be dominant, the other has to submit; if the man can’t be top in a relationships the only possible alternative is to be the bottom. Feminism is about women not always being submissive, therefore feminism must logically be about men becoming subs.
Or…
Maybe they’re full of it. Maybe they’re just making shit up.
Because… you know, even long before I started figuring out my relationship to feminism I knew a lot of feminists. Many of the women in my hometown church called it “women’s lib,” and a few, now in their 70s, 80s, and even 90s, still do. Many of my early partners would listen to feminist musicans and talk about whether they would “come out” if the musician did. In college there many, many feminist women including a noticeable handful of stereotype-embodying, Birkenstock-and-wool-sock wearing, man-hating, political-lesbian, turkey-baster-self-inseminating separatists. I know feminist programmers, feminist document handlers, feminist bloggers, feminist minister, feminist lawyers, artists, athletes, parents, and even feminist sex workers. Many or most of my partners both sexual and otherwise have been somewhere between Shulamith Firestone quoting to “I’m not a feminist, but” feminists. And yet… and yet…
Y’know? Sex with feminists is pretty much like sex with anyone else. Events leading up to sex are often decidedly different since if it’s going to happen there’s often a lot less bullshit to wade through (compare and contrast what worked and didn’t work for Holly) but since when did “steers clear of assholes” equal “demands submission?”
Another follow-up along the same lines of dominance/submissiveness stereotype-breaking I started digging into yesterday. Bitchy Jones of Bitchy Jones’s Diary really struggles with assumptions about what it’s supposed to mean to be a dominant woman.
I am no good at being dominant. Here’s why. I have emotions. Emotions are your enemy when you want to stomp all over your partner for lame kicks. Empathy? Forget it. That’s helping no one. Remorse? Get thee behind me. Love?
Basically it’s hard enough making ‘I love you‘ and ‘I want to hurt you’ fit into the same person’s box in my brain without the entire world of femdom adding to my troubles by going out of its fucking way to completely ignore questions of love and actual adult human relationships (and essentially anything that doesn’t come up in the prodom/client dynamic).
Femdom hates the feminine: clothing and behaviours that signify it are used to degrade. [i.e. men by forcing them to adopt feminine attire or behaviors. Whereas dominant women are supposed to wear non-conventional feminine attire… like black catsuits.—fl Emotions associated with femininity – like loving and caring – are ignored.
Where is love? Truly. You tell me, in this world of kink that venerates women as it hates and grinds them down. As it worships cunts and feet and immaculate beauty? As it rejects female desire, female sexuality, cunts that aren’t framed in a queening stool like an object d’art. That is okay with the clit and it’s erectile properties and love of friction and down with the hatin’ on the vagina and its dirty ache for penetration. And where is the woman – who is me – falling in love with this man who is her dirt, her filth, hers to grind to powder and crumble to dust.
You know me and you know that when I see him like that my heart burst open like bruised fruit. Not for male submission in general, not for my kink made flesh, but for him. The actual him inside the hurt. I love the one I’m with and I wouldn’t have it any other way.
So in other words once again the cultural concepts of dominance and/or sadism is so closely tied to masculinity, and submission and/or masochism so linked to femininity that an actual dominant, erotically sadistic, and (gasp!) monogamous and loving heterosexual woman winds up being the odd duck out. Kind of interesting, no?
—-
Aside: this might be an interesting place to bring up a different post, by Em and Lo of Daily Bedpost respond to a letter from a reader
[Dear] Em & Lo
ÂÂ
I am a 31-year-old male in California and have been married for 6 1/2 years. Back in March, my wife came to me one night and said she would like to discuss something with me…I knew it was something serious but never imagined she’d say, “What do you think about an open marriage?” She is conservative by nature so this took me by complete surprise. I have dated her since she was 18, she is now 28, and we have two kids. She says she doesn’t want to leave me or the kids, but admits to feeling trapped — like she never lived out her early 20’s. We have discussed it over the last couple of months: she is persistent in wanting this. What are the positives of this and can it be healthy for a marriage?
ÂÂ
Confused HusbandDear C.H,
First, can we just say we love that you’re concerned, cautious and confused about your wife’s request? The cliché male response would be to immediately jump at an opportunity like this. “I can get a free pass from my wife to sleep with other women?!? Hells yes!” Of course, not all men are immune to the powerful bonds of traditional, monogamous marriage. They too can cherish the stability and intimacy that comes from dedicating your life to someone, body and soul…OR, they’re so riddled with jealousy that they couldn’t stand the thought of their wife sleeping with anyone else and would just prefer to secretly cheat behind her back so they can have their cake (they sleep around) and eat it too (their wives don’t).
For the sake of courtesy, let’s assume you fall into the former category…
It’s a safe assumption that most men would jump at the chance. But then, as Bitchy Jones laments, it’s also a safe assumption that dominant women don’t love men, enjoy refraining from sex enough to effortlessly deny it of their despised partners, wear 22-inch high-heels, and ought to be charging money for it since they’re “a natural at it.”
In fact extraordinary numbers of men are contentedly monogamous (even in the stereotypically promiscuous gay male community approximately half are in or would prefer to be in exclusive relationships with a single partner.)
Stereotypes matter. Unfortunately.
—-
Speaking of stereotypes, though, and turning to another point in BJ’s post, she addresses another stereotype about love, fidelity, and fantasies about “femdoms”
I actively reject the idea that most femdom relationships are conducted by an arch uninterested woman and a series of men who are dropped into the piranha pit as soon as they displease her.
I am still a real person in my fantasies and I care about him. Him. He is not some faceless, exchangeable nothing, he is the most desirable creature that exists. That is who I fantasise about having at my beck. Oh, I know you are going to make noises about am army, a mass of most-desirables, but my desire doesn’t work that way. I am obsessive. I have focus.
He cannot easily be replaced. And who would want a man that could?
Deep down I think this idea of the disposable submissive man is one of those ideas that looks like it is about keeping the man down, sexily in his place, but at the expense of erasing (or nonsensifying) the desire of the dominant woman.
Keen point about erasing desire, and even autonomous desire, in dominant women. (I think it’s significant that there’s a consensus among nearly all concerned, including law enforcement, that being dominatrixes doesn’t really count as prostitution.**)
Another point, though, about the male fantasy of disposability: it models the same stereotype of men that they “pay prostitutes not for the sex but to go away after.” In other words it’s a common (though not universal) male fantasy, and a dominant stereotype of them, to rack up multiple partners with as few encumbrances and complications as possible. Being “used” and discarded by a string of “femdom” women, however “humiliating,” is still about as convenient a way to move from one bed (ok, or dungeon) to the next as it gets.
My guess, though, is that outside of pro-dom (a.k.a. compensated) relationships it’s probably as complex for men as it is for Bitchy Jones.
I bring all this up, sometimes over and over, not because I’m a closet submissive (Like a lot of people I’m attentive, and sometimes quite deferential, and occasionally passive-aggressive, but far more warm to topping than not) but because, as I’ve mentioned before, I think BDSM — even more than feminism — is on the cutting edge of this kind of gender analysis. And I bring it up because while the construction of gender, and the stereotypes and assumptions that are it’s bricks and mortar, feel like jail for women like Jones, or men like Maymay, they confine all of us.***
[** In fact it might be really significant, not just from a law-enforcement perspective but from a feminist one: what does it say if male erotic male gratification carried out on a “submissive” women through penetration is “sex” but equally intense erotic gratification carried out by a dominant woman isn’t? Just curious. Also, it seems a lot like the Larry Craig-style defense that “He doesn’t count as ‘homosexual’ because he only penetrates other men.” —fl]
[*** And just to be clear, I’m not saying gender isn’t fun, interesting, or even necessary. And goodness knows I’m not saying folks should all just switch to unisex clothes and bathrooms! I am saying, though, that it’s generally constructed too small to move freely… that to really make the most of the genders we’ve got we shouldn’t have to keep choking on it. —fl]

Photo “Little Spectator” by Flickr user Proggie. Used under a Creative Commons license.
[Note: Big update below — I originally, and possibly shamefully, looked at only one side of the question. —fl]
Matisse of Mistress Matisse’s Journal answers a question from a reader. Her answer’s spot on.
“...my best friend is actually a very beautiful lesbian with whom I have a lot of chemistry, but who obviously would never have sex with me. She is a very materialistic girl, and I’ve found that nothing makes me happier than to make her happy and to talk to her. I actually don’t even like pursuing straight girls anymore because I’m intrigued by how she makes me feel. And of course, the fact that she’s unavailable makes her more tantalizing, but that’s one of the things I want to understand.”
if you’re just asking for my opinion in general, I’d say that just based on the situation you’re describing… you’re an emotional masochist. And that’s not a good thing.
That’s not a real psychological term, of course, and it’s not a BDSM term, either. But you’re engaging in an unrequited love/lust thing with a bitchy-but-beautiful lesbian who doesn’t return your feelings. You imply that you’re giving her money or gifts or something? And you’re not even trying to find a woman who might love you back? I call that emotional masochism, my friend. I will bet you any amount of money that the situation you’re describing is not going to end in you being happy and getting what you want.
Given my fondness for my theory that men indoctrinate ourselves to perceive women as the“no-sex” class, the dominant paradigm wherein women are perceived as disinterested in sex… and therefore fair game for any and all attempts to leverage it out of them, either in exchange for something else or, sometimes, by brute force. I ought to nominate Matisse’s correspondent as a classic case since he’s constructed an attraction wherein pretty much anything he does isn’t going to work. Or, if for some reason she every says yes, that he can consider the ultimate “score” of his efforts to be “worthy” enough for her. And if he had a really bad case of it then it would also make sense that a woman who was interested in him (for instance, um, isn’t a lesbian for crying out loud?) might seem too “easy” and therefore not “worthy” of his attention.
The real clue for me? He says “I actually don’t even like pursuing straight girls anymore because I’m intrigued by how she makes me feel.” Because, you know, if it was personal — just her — then you’d expect him to say something like “I don’t feel like pursuing any other girls because of how she makes me feel.” Instead the schematic qualification of “straight girls” i.e. “women actually likely to be interested in him.”
But I dunno… if I knew more than what she wrote I might be more sure. It’s also the case that a lot of people — men and women — get “imprinted“ duckling-style on one particular characteristic of their first major crush or first serious partner and then keep cycling deeper and deeper trying to recapture that feeling. Or possibly he, like more men than I think people recognize, finds obsession with an unachievable potential partner is a convenient way to avoid sexual relationships altogether. Who knows?
I do have to say Matisse is right, though, that since his dynamic with this woman really isn’t satisfiable, and since if he pursues it or something like it really does subject himself not so much to domination but abuse, he really should consider a little talk therapy to clarify for himself what’s going on.
Update: Doh! I need to get out of the house a little more often I guess. After getting the children off to school this morning I took a long walk home. Thinking about the situation I outlined last night I realized I’d been thinking way too much in terms of the letter writer and how his affectation… well… affects him. Upon reflection it occurs to me that what he really needs to get off his affection/obsession is the effect it has on the women or women he’s decided to impossibly dream about.
My only excuse is one I mentioned last night: I only know what he wrote... in other words we only know his side of the story. And inside his framing then yeah, he’s parked himself in.
We don’t know her side, however. He sees her as his best friend. Is this how she sees him? He sees her as “materialist” and any acts he performs or gifts he brings as making himself happy by making her happy. Does she see herself as materialist? Is she happy when he thinks she’s happy? He talks about wanting to be the controlled submissive in a full-time D/s withholding relationship with her. Does she see him as wanting to be controlled or as already controlling?
Again, I dunno. Since we only have his side of his story we can’t know, eh?
In the extreme case she may see him as a stalker, in which case, considering how miserable unsuccessful things like restraining orders are (“wow, now she’s really playing hard to get”) talk therapy would really, really be good idea! (And if not talk therapy then more drastic interventions would be entirely called for — my experience of the aftermaths of “successful” stalkers and their survivors is that it’s the epitome of senseless tragedy.)
But a deeper lesson might be learned if he isn’t a stalker and is instead just really sunk in the worthiness trap. Because what the ordinary supplicant sees only as striving for worthiness often appears to others as entitlement. And the suitor’s expressions of frustration? More entitlement? And why not — after all who’s usually setting the terms? “If I only do this she’ll realize…” or “Maybe if I help her move…” or even “if she only knew how I felt about her she’d…” are all setting the terms, and reward that one believes “should” slay the dragon of indifference and “earn” the longed-for kiss.
Getting back to the “no-sex” class paradigm one can see how actual women’s agency or genuine desire beyond “yes or no” would only interfere with or even frustrate the internal cycles of the male worthiness trap.
One hopes talk therapy helps with that too.

Photo by Flickr user sicoactiva. Used under a Creative Commons license.
JR of SilkenVoice echos Bitchy Jones and other independently sexual women who look at the world in one more Onion-style ‘Cosmopolitan’ Institute Completes Decades-Long Study On How To Please Your Man** way to please one’s male partner. (See, especially, the exchange in the last few seconds of that video.)
Recently I overheard a conversation between two women with whom I am acquainted, a conversation that ended with: “....and he forgot to take out the garbage two weeks in a row! So that’s it. No sex for a week.” I shook my head. I said. “Oh, I’d handle that very differently.” She said “Oh?” I said “Yes,” and then waited. She took the bait. She said, “What would Kay do?” I grinned and said, “I’d tell him we were going to have sex morning and night every day for two weeks.” “That’s not a punishment!” she exclaimed. “Really?” I said and arched an eyebrow. “I didn’t say he could cum.” That shocked her speechless. Hee hee. She said it here.
Yup. Even if it was a good idea to sexualize punishment why on earth pick the method that most thoroughly cements every conventional gender stereotype in the book? And definitely if one was going to use sex for punishment why punish one’s self as well as one’s partner?
[** Onion link va Dr. Petra Boynton. —fl]

Photo by Flickr user massdistraction. Used under a Creative Commons license.
Holly of The Pervocracy raises an excellent point about a recent, highly… uh… stylized Psychology Today cover photo on “seven taboos that are perfectly natural.”
By using a model so conventionally sexy, they dodge the question of why the kink itself is sexy. Everyone already knows why a slinky blonde in vinyl with a whip is hot; it’s a lot more provocative to explore why a short pudgy dude in cotton underwear with a whip is hot. She said it here.
I mean think about it. In the “no-sex” class world a stereotyped hottie with a whip is just a slightly different verse of the same old “prove yourself worthy or I say no” song we straight men teach ourselves to believe every partner sings.
The erotic appeal of pudgy boy in y-fronts and a whip, though, cuts right to the heart of actual, you know, kink.
This is a follow-up on an earlier post about androcentrism in BDSM. Smack My Nuts, a submissive man commenting on “On Being Straight” on Bitchy Jones of Bitchy Jones’s Diary said something seriously interesting about yet another “it’s about the men” / “getting penetrated equals submission” quirk that shows up, evidently a lot, in dominant woman / submissive man fantasies.
I feel like this is all connected to the idea that dildo-anal sex is automatically dominating sex because the person penetrating is the dominating one and the one getting penetrated is the submissive one. I’ve never really bought into that idea because it would suggest that women are somehow inherently submissive since they don’t come with their own penises and that in order to become dominant, they have to go buy an artificial penis. And I just can’t accept that idea.To me, orgasm denial sex, sex in which the woman is allowed to come, but the guy isn’t, would be far more sexy and dominating. If there’s going to be a strap on involved, I’d much rather see a guy with a raging hard-on forced to fuck the girl with the strap-on, leaving his own needs completely unsatisfied while she gets off as much as she wants. Although I think that even that isn’t as sexy as the couple having intercourse together until she gets off, but the guy is then left with a hard cock bobbing in the air. That’s sexy as all get out.
His fantasy is still, well, rather obviously his fantasy but he’s clearly distinguishing that just because he’d gets his kicks from orgasm denial doesn’t mean his dom would automatically want the same thing.
I’m really liking Bitchy Jones. And by extension many of her commenters.
Richard of Down on My Knees has restored my sense of place in the panoply of BDSM-ery with a reflection on a post by Eileen of A Place To Draw Blood Laughing on what she calls being a “service top” or, as she calls it, a reaction top.
“Service top” is one of those bugaboo phrases. Probably invented by some online wanker in order to disparage someone one disagreed with him. Another weapon for that fatuous army of people who tell others they aren’t ‘real.’
While some dominants fear they lack in compassion others fret they’ve failed to pass Fascist Behavior 101. Relationships worth sustaining are beyond slogans.
Look. If I’m a service top … It doesn’t mean I’ll let you control the scene.
But it does mean that if I like you, I might make some of your fantasies come true. It does mean I want to know your buttons, and I want to push them again, and again, and again.
“Some online wanker” sounds about right. I’ve played BDSM-ish games with partners who wanted me to be the bottom because I’m endlessly fascinated with, and extraordinarily turned on by, that which gets a partner’s motor running. Oh yeah, and also because I think it’s fair and, finally, because I think it’s healthier. But! Given my druthers I’m just so much more inclined to be dominant but dominant for the same reason — I get extraordinarily turned on by getting a partner’s motor running and there are just way, way more creative opportunities — for me anyway — to explore that when I’m on top. But I was told that that made me a mere service top and not a real top at all.
For instance, as I understood it, a “real” top wants to dominate any partner and not just those who’s pulse quickens just talking about it. And at least since puberty I’ve never had much interest in binding or otherwise topping anyone who wasn’t interested.
I know I shouldn’t feel like I need outside validation for something that given me and a handful of submissive and/or switchy partners some very good times… but it is nice to hear it from Richard and Eileen. And now that I’m feeling better about it… hmm… who’s interested? :-)
Update: When I asked “who’s interested” I just meant who thinks it’s interesting, not who wants to arrange a play date. (He said, blushing.)