dominant women

"Superiority" as Status Quo

Even if she didn’t reference the no-sex class outlook by name (blush) I’d have to quote this post by Kink In Exile

[M]y sexuality is not a political statement. I have seen too many blogs in recent weeks about how all women are superior to all men. Matriarchy is the salvation of humanity and I must immediately demand the gentleman behind me at the grocery checkout fall to his knees and lick my boots while we both await the pimply kid behind the register.

To borrow a line from Sarah Jones — your revolution will not happen between these thighs.

What all of these ideas of female domination lack is respect for my desires. I’m going to say this again because it’s really important: if in seeking do submit to women you refuse to acknowledge the fact that not all women want to dominate you you have missed a really huge point. If you refuse to acknowledge the fact that some women get off on submission to men you have shown blatant disrespect for female sexuality. If you insist on calling me mistress despite the fact that I do not enjoy the title you have missed the point. If you are, in fact, unaware of the amount of effort and energy that I invest into the scenes I top then you are taking me for granted and have not moved one inch past the women as no-sex class issues endemic to patriarchy.

She said it here.

M’yeah, funny how that whole pedestalizing business works. You get to be all superior and “admirable” and chaste and aloof and “statuesque” in order for me to stay perpetually horny. Gee, how gender-bendery is that!?!?!?!?

Y’know rule #1, that says it’s simultaneously inconceivable and intolerable for women to feel sexual desire? Given how intensely prowess is engrained into men’s sexual identities who do you think is more invested in women’s sexual restraint? Who’s more invested in keeping men “teased” into perpetual arousal. Who’s more invested in “pro femdoms” wearing sexualized but actual-sexually impenetrable leather cat suits, whacking men with floggers, chastising them for having “dirty” thoughts, and (I love this) not defining the activities as sex because there’s no “contact?” Who’s more invested in women spending days, weeks, or months keeping men “on fire” through orgasm denial?

Yeah, that’s where the “inconceivable” part of rule #1 comes in.

Y’know rule #1, that says it’s simultaneously inconceivable and intolerable for women to feel sexual desire? Let’s turn that around for a minute and ask what would become of men’s identities as horny animals if women wolf-whistled us into elevators, lurked naked in desk wells waiting to give us blowjobs, begged us to undo their bikini tops… and bottoms… so they’d tan “evenly” all the way down every beach, texted at all hours for hot 8-way sex with their sorority sisters and/or nursing shift and/or bridge club, and otherwise manifested every viagra-spam email title on the planet?

And, m, yeah, hello, refractory period? Bye bye men as the sex class. That’s where the “intolerable” part of rule #1 comes in.

Point being that claims that “women are superior,” whether as saintly inviolable mothers, or “outa yer league” supermodels with “a boyfriend who could break you in half,” or as whip cracking, spit-when-you-walk-past man haters (or, clue, even as “hairy legged” separatists feminist lesbians) it’s all about keeping the status quo as completely and utterly conventional as possible.

The Fallacy of "Forced Feminisation"

A seriously steamed dominant female (and manifestly not “femdom”) Bitchy Jones of Bitchy Jones’s Diary explains why she shouldn’t have to explain why the BDSM practice of “forced fem,” the practice of giving men jollies by making them adopt “humiliatingly” feminine clothing or behavior is not like (as a commenter of hers evidently keeps insisting) like a Jewish person getting off on role-playing Nazi victimization.

Who has the power outside the bedroom is relevant. Taking something that oppresses you in daily life and making it your sexual power source is a valid and often useful thing to do. And hot. Taking something you use to oppress other people and then making some parody of it to stroke off some ideas you have that wouldn’t it be dirty to be a slutty women, ain’t the same thing. That’s why I can say it isn’t okay and not be oppressing the way some oppressed groups make sexual fantasies of their oppression.

It is a different thing.

Look, you know that bit in the America version [of] the office where Steve Carrell’s character takes off a Chris Rock routine and it’s horrifying? That’s the same thing. Rock takes some language and ideas that oppress the group he comes from in real life, and makes them funny. Carrell takes some ideas that oppress a group that he has power over in real life and that makes it horrifying. That’s the difference.

And that’s not even getting started on forced fem’s prevalence in femdom enforcing shitty little ideas about femininity and submission being, like, what, fucking interchangeable, or something. Just stop. Really. If everything we do in femdom equates the ideas that femininity is what submission really is and dominance requires a cock and no emotional engagement, femdom will never stop being a joke, a sickness, a wrong, wrong thing.

Read the quote in context here.

Just to be clear, there’s nothing wrong with getting your own jollies by indulging or even sharing your partner’s fantasies. Just don’t confuse that with either dominance or sadism. And for crying out loud don’t assume that’s what dominant women are “supposed” to want to do.

As I’ve mentioned in the past I think dominant women like BJ, and submissive men like Maymay, are even closer to the cutting edge of gender-awareness on this particular gender issue than mainstream or even radical feminism because they face erasure from all directions.

—-

Update: Two other points:

- One common assumption (that also drives BJ nuts) is that heterosexual “femdoms” hate men. But what assumptions should we make about men who think being forced to act feminine is to be (erotically!) humiliated?

- It’s unusual (not to mention redundant) to say “she’s a woman doctor” or, going further back, “she’s doctoress” because “she’s a doctor” is sufficient. So what does it say about gender entrenchment that we say things like “He’s a male submissive” or “she’s a female dominant?”

More About Dominant Women, "Femdom," and the No-Sex Class

Bitchy Jones, by way of acknowledging May and Eileen’s Male Submission Art sums it up very nicely.

Femdom is a depressing place, but is there anything quite as depressing as the way that submissive men are continually represented as unattractive, unmanly and unfuckable? The sheer jaw droppingness of the fact that within femdom no attention is given to appealing to straight women’s sexuality at all, is the simple and single reason why there are so few dominant identified straight women.(Name one. Okay, that’s me. Name another.)

The fact that women are meant to be lured into this sexual world by the promise of diamond necklaces rather than hot prospects on their knees is shameful, disgusting (in it’s contempt for active female desire) and utterly fucking stupid. Wonder why het femdom isn’t working? Because no aspect of it is enticing to straight dominant women. You’d have thought submissive men (like every other male species ever) would have worked out that being attractive and therefore attracting potential female mates might be slightly a good idea for there to be functional relationships happening around here. But that idea? That men should be appealing sexually to women? That women should have specific desires (beyond ‘being kinky’ and acquiring necklaces)? Apparently, completely fucking radical within femdom.

She said it here.

Me not being a submissive male you’d think it ought to be none of my business. But even if you weren’t interested in breaking gender constructions, male, female, and all the rest, out of their narrow little packages, and even if you didn’t care that, as BJ so nicely puts it, the current model there’s still empathy: what if the shoe was on the other foot.

(Aside: You’d think this would be a total non-stretch no-brainer for MRAs since, to a man, they behave as if the same diamond-necklace-but-no-sexual-satisfaction is their inevitable lot in life. And yet… nothing. It would probably be more of a scandal if she was getting more support other quarters.)

There Being More Than One Way to Do It and All...


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]

For Once How About *Not* What About the Menz?

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.

Read his comment here.

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.

Dominatrixes and the "No-Sex" Class

Bitchy Jones of Bitchy Jones’s Diary, a very BDSM-dominant woman, points out how thoroughly conventional stereotypes of domineering women coincide with the thickest elements of the “no-sex” class paradigm.

[Of c]ourse frustrated denial is rampant in femdom. Except that usually the thing that Goddess Marvelous (or, as I saw the other day Madame von Bitch – I am not lying, and, oh, but how this stuff is beyond my parodic skills) is denying is herself. You don’t get to touch me. That crap. Like dominant women have evolved beyond that lame human weak spot where being touched is nice. That we are so empowermented now that we cover our weak woman-skin with rubber and climb up safe on a pedestal. Untouchable, unfuckable… what misery – no wonder they never crack a painted smile.

That – The Untouchable Madame von Bitch – is just a lazy version of frustration based on mansub’s dumb misogynistic pro-and-porn fuelled ideas of what dominant women ever are. (Just like forced feminisation is such a lazy version of humiliation based on so much useless double think it falls apart with one little poke)

I like to be touched. ...

She says it here.

I mean sure, it makes sense in a couple of dimensions that professional dominant women**, might choose withholding contact for their own benefits (legality, hygiene issues with multiple partners, convenience, they’re doing it online anyway.) But assuming a normal, healthy adult sex drive it’s harder to imagine a dominant woman — one who’s actually the dominant partner — getting all her kicks while keeping her partner at arm’s length.

And yet look at most (written-for-men) pornography, look at most (photographed for men) porn sites, look at most (customers are men) pro-dom women’s routines. The guy might have to act funny, or get whacked around a lot, or wind up in humiliating circumstances, or even pay money not to have sex. But except for particular narrow circumstances submission as constructed for men by men equals no sex… which by definition also means domination for women means no sex as well. Bingo! Because, you know, inside the “no-sex” class a woman agreeing to sex is submitting to her partner.

Oh, right, and while I promise I’m not a huge expert but in most male-submissive scenarios when he does get to have sex (or even just get to have an orgasm via masturbation or something) it’s only after — bingo again — he’s “earned it” performed some set of humilating, painful, or costly acts.

In both those cases, though, it would be all about him. Hmm.

I like Jones quite a bit.

[** I think if you’re not a sub addressing your dom as she specifies it’s probably more appropriate to speak of dominant women as, well, dominant women, or just dominants or doms instead of dragging out a gendered variant. We no longer call women doctors “doctoress” nor women pilots as “aviatrixes.” We do, however, refer to more subservient professions by their gendered alternatives as in “waitress,” “stewardess,” and “seamstress.” Ironic, at least in the context of Jones’s article, that anyone would use a service ending for domination! —fl]

Syndicate content