Theory: Why Dommes are scarce. (95)

This post is on the Other BDSM web board.

21 Feb 08, 11:25 PM
IndelibleMarker
UK(N), 4 yrs

scott_s wrote:
very good job, IM!
Because I managed to traverse CollarMe for 10 minutes without killing myself? It was a struggle...
Tuam matrem feci,
Patrick
IndelibleMarker

21 Feb 08, 11:45 PM
The_Perfect_Sadist
UK(PO), 2 yrs
Y!

Deviant_Mind wrote:
Theory: Why Dommes are scarce.
I am curious what everyones theory is to why good dommes are so rare?
What's your theory?
OK, I cannot resist a free kick at an open goal, so here goes - this is my theory of female sexuality.
If you want to know what women are "really" like, you have to look at the roles in society that are generally not permitted (or are frowned on, or require balls to swim against the currents of orthodoxy) for everyone, regardless of gender, and then look at how many women have decided to break the rules anyway, in comparison with men.
For instance, how many female bank robbers are there? How many female rapists? How many female muggers? How many female paedophiles?
Certainly they exist, but in every case they are very rare. But, you reply, that's because female liberation is still in its infancy. No, bank robbing is against the rules full stop. It's not cultural. You either have the balls for it or you don't. No one gives you permission.
Much the same applies when you come down the scale of trangression against norms. How many great female playwrights are there? How many great poets? How many great painters? Certainly they exist, but again, they are far fewer than males and this is also an area where no one gives you permission - you either have the balls for it or you don't. Some men do. Most women don't. I blame testerone.
How many Dommes are there? I think the answer is fewer than even your question suggests. Most Dommy women are simply fat bossy cows who are sexual impostors, trading on the fact that there are so many wimpy men around

21 Feb 08, 11:46 PM
sirguym
UK(HR), 4 yrs

I came across a little insight into the animal world some time ago which made me chuckle through the possible analogies with our world.
Apparently male salmon are considerably bigger than female salmon. So they counted the males and they counted the females, as they went up the river, by their size and there appeared to be twice as many females as males.
Then somebody looked a little more closely. A quarter of the 'small' salmon turned out to be male; i.e. there is a recessive gene for 'smallness' amongst male salmon.
Which makes sense when you understand the way they mate.
All the females congregate at one end of the pool in a huddle and lay their eggs. The males congregate at the other end, with the biggest closest to the females, and so with the best chance his milt will fertilise the eggs,
Meanwhile the 'small' males are amongst the females, quietly passing on their heritage, without having to fight for it.
It seems to me that 'sub' men are often trying to pull a similar trick; adopting a more passive, non-threatening appearance to avoid having to compete with other males to get attention from the females.
Its an interesting hypothesis anyway, and I would be interested in what people think of it.
Academy Incorporated: turning fantasy into reality Miss Prim's Muir Academy, Muir Academy For Maids, The Academy Club and The Tawsingham Society: fast friendly, helpful, discreet service, with integrity www.tawse.com www.muir-academy.com guy@tawse.com PO Box 135, Hereford, HR2 7WL, UK +44(0)143

21 Feb 08, 11:55 PM
IndelibleMarker
UK(N), 4 yrs

SpecialSundae wrote:

IndelibleMarker wrote:
However, the low value for Domme:sub(F) does give the impression that women are naturally far more inclined to walk the submissive route.
I'm not going to put my balls on the line as to whether that's caused by nature or nurture though!
I don't think that women are naturally submissive.
Well that's fine but the figures don't really hold to that. There are without question more submissive women in the scene than there are Dominant women. Whereas there are relatively equal numbers of Dominant men in comparison to women.
So maybe it's that the submissive men are putting the women off... I really have no idea if it's nature, nurture of something else!

Bitchy wrote:
Next time you want to use the <i>ug, it's natural, ug</i> caveman arguments maybe you might want to check out the fact that this is kinky sex. It's full of PVC and electros and internets. Gawd.
This is just stereotyping what BDSM has to be. You could just as easily argue that the very fact that it is engaged in by humans, a part of nature, using all naturally found materials from trees, animals and hydrocarbons etc, that it is intrinsically natural as we choose to do it.

Bitchy wrote:
But really, if you must go there, all arguments for no dominant women because of hard wired nonsense *would* *also* *apply* *to* *submissive* *men*. And they seem to get made just fine. Despite all their muscle and testosterone and inbuilt need to fight mammoths. Submissive men still manage to exist so hardwired laws of the sexes cannot be the reason.
Submissive men and Dominant women are not the same thing. Men and women are not the same thing. If you really want to get into sexist tripe like this then it could just as easily be argued that men have grown past the social barriers of being defined to a specified role whereas women havn't. I don't personally believe that is the reason by the way. The existence of submissive males can't be directly correlated to the lack of Dominant females within the scene.

Bitchy wrote:
The reason is more simple. And so obvious. Femdom culture is toxic, misogynistic and offensive to women. Very few women stick around who aren't being paid to be because it is way horrible. And people expect you to dress like a slutty goth. And you don't get to get fucked. Double crappy whammy. I have to dress up *and* I get no dick!
This is not only surely very offensive to many Dommes, but also wrong.
Tell that it to the feminists who find the idea of submissive women abhorrent.
Some people, Dommes included, actually enjoy dressing up and looking sexy. Nobody expects anything in terms of the way they dress other than the hope they will feel comfortable in themselves. Ask some submissive males what they expect their Dommes to wear and tally the responses. They get fucked, if they want to get fucked.

SpecialSundae wrote:
many of the male subs who are on these sites are either snivveling little fantasists who only care for their own pleasure, married men looking for a (not-so) cheap thrill or men with so many issues that you want to run screaming (I've come up against all of those categories on here in the last 48 hours).
I was actually saying to a friend of mine this morning that I've run into a lot of arseholes in the scene (a lot of wonderful people as well) but that 95% of them have been men (both sub and Dom). I don't know why that is, perhaps I'm just more tollerant with women or because there's more men around. But I'm sorry, the vast majority of people who have been lying/sneaking/cheating etc have been guys.
Tuam matrem feci,
Patrick
IndelibleMarker

21 Feb 08, 11:58 PM
Tanos
UK(M), 12 yrs
Y!

Bitchy wrote:
But I have to say, god, all this craptastic sociobiology stuff is depressing to see.
Some people found the idea that the earth rotates too scary to accept. We don't get to pick and choose reality according to what ideas feel comfortable.

But really, if you must go there, all arguments for no dominant women because of hard wired nonsense *would* *also* *apply* *to* *submissive* *men*.
"No dominant women"? People who are right do not need to set up strawman arguments to knock down.
As to the number of submissive men, one major complaint that dominant women have made here over the years is that submissive men (as opposed to men who want to be treated in a particular way until they come) are hard to find...
Tanos
www.tanos.org.uk

22 Feb 08, 12:07 AM
Queen_of_Hearts
UK(PO), 2 yrs

Ishmael wrote:
There's every danger of this whole thing getting very patronising and negative, but actually I think the sollution is actually fairly simple. Rather than trying to find partners that are on The Scene already, sub men should be looking outside of it.
If you want somebody that treats you as her personal, private sex-slave, the very least you can do is treat her like a princess, and that probably includes sweeping her off her feet, which can be tricky if you start off on your knees.
Nicely said...
QofH
Bespoke corsets for Dommes, TVs and subs www.queen-of-hearts.co.uk

22 Feb 08, 12:11 AM
emark
UK, 6 yrs
MsKitti wrote:
Subs arent always primary relationships, in fact most Dommes on the scene have more than one sub and often none are primaries.
If I have a primary partner, a "boyfriend", I will do whatever we both want, that may still not include penetrative sex, all depends on what is agreed and desired between the parties involved.
True, obviously people have the right to advertise for what they like, but this is I think the point being made - that dommes seem more like to put in such limits than male doms, so the available number is often reduced further for male subs where as it doesn't seem to be for female subs.

sirguym wrote:
My hypothesis is that if anyone is reasonable well socialised, solvent, personable, level headed, non-judgmental, self-aware, mature, reasonably good-looking, unprejudiced, clean in your person and whatever good things people look for in a life partner, (and it will vary from person to person of course), then if you want a primary relationship you've already got one. ... As for the rest, they have to sort their lives out, get solvent, get savvy, get clean, learn to spell, punctuate, write more than a sentence in a message, and all the good stuff involved in how to be a gentleman and not a slob.
If only it were that simple! Many factors playing in starting a relationship, but they rarely involve these qualities (and good looking is probably far less of a factor men than it is for women). There are lots of the pathetic profiles you describe, but it doesn't follow that everyone who is single must be one of these. I fear that this is a myth that gets perpetuated - people in relationships love to believe it, whilst single people fear challenging it as they'll be labelled one of these "slobs".

Deviant_Mind wrote:
Ok, if that is the reason that dommes are scarce. Why are Femsubs a much larger group?
Surely Male dom stereotyping is far more mysogynistic, toxic and demeaning to women than the far more subtle and implied mysogyny and demeaning nature of femdom?
That's a good question - I guess one possibility is that the stereotypical negative gender roles of women play more into the role of being submissive - e.g., obeying men, dressing to look pretty/slutty.
This is also what gets female submission a bad name among radical feminists. But the important distinction is that's it's wrong to say someone should behave in a certain way because of their gender, but it's okay if they choose it.
So for dommes, this is somewhat of a contradiction - e.g., they're supposedly the dominant, but they have to dress in a way that's erotic to the man.
The "getting dick" idea is interesting - I mean, I thought it was the dommes saying they don't want sex with male subs, whilst I'm sure male subs would be happy to give it? But perhaps this ties into the stereotype again - women are put off by the assumption that male subs aren't interested in sex? Much of the problem is that sex is traditionally seen as a dominant act for the male, and submissive for the female. I dislike the idea that therefore we must avoid normal sex - it's quite possible to still keep the woman in charge, and I would rather the act be reclaimed as something that dommes and male subs can do.

sirguym wrote:
-snip salmon mating
Yes, I've heard similar things with all sorts of animals, in that some males use a strategy of mimicing females in order to mate without having to fight the dominant males. I think one can make some analogy with humans, though it's far more complex as you also have issues such as social gender roles.
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/extreme-images/

22 Feb 08, 12:32 AM
De_Luxe
UK, 3 yrs

Ishmael wrote:
And there was me thinking that after the whole internet thing had happened, the playing field might be getting a bit more level, and since it hasn't, that suggests an intrinsic problem.
You see I don't know that a male demonstrating all the aspects of submission is as attractive *at a purely animal level* as one demonstrating dominance, and I think the animal in us is a lot stronger than we often like to admit.
The female animal thinks 'Ah, this one's big and strong and brave; if another male tries to rape me and murder my children, he will protect me, wheras that little shy one over there, while he looks kinda cute is unlikely to be much cop when the bad guys from the next valley show up'.
Obviously we're a little more sophisticated nowadays, witness that around 1600, a little guy, who was kinda cute, despite his hair loss, was attempting to beat the doxies off with a shitty stick with one hand, while writing the sonnets that implied that he was an impassioned yet tender and inventive lover with the other. I've no idea if he was also a submissive, but he created some fantastic fem-dom characters - Regan, Cleopatra (yeah she was real, I know), Titania, Katherina...
On the other hand, more recently, one woman I know hooked up with the biggest meanest-looking guy she could find for all the 'I want him to protect me' reasons, and he was very protective of her - sometimes he wouldn't let her out of the house. So we don't always learn.
There's every danger of this whole thing getting very patronising and negative, but actually I think the sollution is actually fairly simple. Rather than trying to find partners that are on The Scene already, sub men should be looking outside of it.
If you want somebody that treats you as her personal, private sex-slave, the very least you can do is treat her like a princess, and that probably includes sweeping her off her feet, which can be tricky if you start off on your knees.
Hmmm. Well the female animal will often tackle anything that threatens her young so it's a bit debatable that we need protecting much when roused from our pleasant nurturing selves.
I certainly agree that it would put me in the mood for going to town on my valued partner / slave / knight in slightly shiny armour if treated like a princess.

22 Feb 08, 12:39 AM
MistressRouge
UK(B), 4 yrs
£

Abaddon wrote:

Deviant_Mind wrote:
A domme who doesn't fuck sub men is a bad domme to me. In my criteria for a relationship.
A Domme who doesn't fuck sub men has standards. A sub who expects to be fucked by a Domme doesn't

Bravo

22 Feb 08, 1:10 AM
De_Luxe
UK, 3 yrs

The_Perfect_Sadist wrote:
How many Dommes are there? I think the answer is fewer than even your question suggests. Most Dommy women are simply fat bossy cows who are sexual impostors, trading on the fact that there are so many wimpy men around
In which case they deserve each other and leave the field open for Dommes who don't advertise and when single are very capable of looking after themselves, have busy lives and aren't desperate to take anything that kneels.
If a woman is so frightfully concerned about what society thinks and what good girls do they aren't quite catch of the day for a sub who has thrown idiotic societal constructs out the window. I took a long time to find D/s and BDSM but I wasn't looking for it because I didn't need it. I stumbled in by accident. I think if it isn't in the woman though no amount of teaching will make her a Domme.

Next page


	©1997-2010 Informed Consent