Yet Another Femdom Myth

I frequently see people online saying things like, “If you want to play, you have to offer the dom something of value, whether it’s services, money, or a gift.” How about stepping away from the crack pipe a minute and looking for the logic in that statement?

First off, it assumes that play isn’t anything of value. This feeds into the wildly popular internet myth of submissive men outnumbering dominant women by 100-to-1. (Online, that may be true. In the real world, it’s not.) The fact is that submissive men are worth something. So is our effort, our time, and our pain. There are people out there who appreciate these things.

That way of thinking also assumes that she won’t be enjoying it. If that’s the case, then yes, you’ll need to offer something in exchange for her doing something she doesn’t want to do. But I’m going to let you in on a little secret. There are people out there called “sadists”. They actually enjoy bdsm. They don’t need to be paid off in any way. They like to inflict pain or erotic humiliation. It’s pleasurable for them to do so. This means there’s no need for anything to change hands. It’s a mutually beneficial experience. Both people get something out of it. There’s no need for payment in a situation like that.

When you pay a domme in any way for playing, she becomes a pro-domme. Is that the type of relationship you want? If so, go for it. Or would you prefer playing with someone who is more of a regular friend or lover?

There’s no need for bribery. Women who enjoy playing are out there.

Can You Explain Something?

What’s the appeal of online play? To me, it seems like it’d be one person typing to another what they would do in a scene. Or telling the other person what to do to himself. I just don’t get it. For someone who has no real-time experience with bdsm, I guess online play would be a step up, but how is it that people who do this in real life are also into online play? What’s the allure?

The Sexist Bumwads Strike Again

I hear a lot about how femdom is supposedly related to chivalry and romance. The big strong knight doing lots of manly-man things for his queen. Personally, I take a different approach; my submission comes from love, not from gender.

I make an effort to treat whoever I’m with well. Again, I do it out of love, not because she’s female. The romance is bilateral. I take the initiative to do nice things for the one I’m with, to be romantic, and to make her feel special. It’s a sign of love. If she’s not doing the same, then I have to question her underlying feelings.

Some women have a sense of entitlement when it comes to romance. Because they were born a certain way, many feel they are owed something which they themselves won’t give.

Is someone said, “Men deserve to make more money than women”, most people would recognize the sexist assbaggery being demonstrated therein. Yet plenty of women say, “Women deserve more romance than men” and no one thinks twice about it. They try to justify it by saying that men don’t like to be on the receiving end of romance or that we enjoy “the hunt”. Oh. Right. Thanks for telling me how I feel. And by the way, you’re wrong, jackass.

Femdom and chivalry are two different things. Unless you’re one of the online female-superiority wankers. In that case, they’re one and the same. And some couples do see the romantic man / non-romantic woman thing as being a form of power exchange. From my experience though, “chivalry” is often an attempt to justify greed and selfishness within a relationship.

Romantic women are gems. If you are with one, relish her.

I have yet to encounter a valid explanation as to why one gender should be entitled to more romance (pay, cookies, etc.) than another.

Blasphemy!

There’s a discrepancy in some peoples’ logic which is prevalent in the community. And, like approximately 39,603 other things out there, it irritates me.

There are doms who complain about subs who just use the doms to get their fetishes/interests fulfilled without regard to the dom’s desires. No argument from me there; I’ve seen it, and it hurts people as well as casting a bad light on subs in general. Using people is never good.

But then these same doms say that “it’s not real submission”, that the sub should give up some of his/her desires for the dom. In other words, they think it’s okay for the dom to use the sub without regard to the sub’s desires. They don’t see that it’s the exact same thing. It has nothing to do with d/s; It’s never okay to use someone like that without taking that person’s desires into consideration. Both people need to be getting what they want in order for it to work out. Being submissive doesn’t mean I’m supposed to give up my desires or that the dom is more deserving of hers. There are plenty of people out there who feel that my thoughts on this are heretical. To that I say this: You’re a doo-doo head.

The “it’s not real submission” approach baffles me. We all have different ideas over what submission is supposed to be, what it feels like, what it entails. Often when someone says that it’s not real submission, they mean that it’s not their particular way of doing it. There are too many variables to assign a strict definition to submission. That’s why I don’t understand how people can say that it’s not submission just because someone doesn’t fit into their little idea of what “real” submission is. “Real” can usually be translated as “my particular way of doing it”. Just because it doesn’t feel like submission to you doesn’t mean that others are perceiving it the same way.