Masculinerised subs? (20)

TuvaOrBust wrote: mia wrote: For me, the idea of being feminised is the opposite of how traditionally men are seen to be attractive; strong, manly, rugged, smart, etc. Not that the men are necessarily being turned into what women actually look or act like. With this in mind, then the opposite of actually being feminine as an image or society prescribed concept is not masculinity, but is something or someone stripped of the glamour, the need to be protected, etc. So for me, the opposite of feminine is someone or something more like this. Which both i and my domly one think is pretty hot. x I still find the woman in that image to be very feminine. Perhaps that's an indication that what I consider to be feminine or masculine, at least when it comes to aesthetics, is primarily based on the facial and body features that are 'typical' for each sex. And I agree: she is hot!

Oh i do too, in fact more feminine than someone dressed up as a woman in a 'frilly frock'. However, she is clearly not the image of femininity as we're sold it. If a male sub was told he was going to be 'feminised', for example, i'm sure he wouldn't be the only one surprised if he got his head shaved and shoved in a potato sack!

x

Now where were we? Ah, yes - abject humiliation!
@Modified_Bodies
@O_and_P
@LGB_Forum

Yeah; see by my understanding/appreciation of feminine aesthetics, a man would have be to put on a diet + routine + hormones to encourage the loss of muscle mass and assumption of a body shape more 'typical' of a woman to be 'feminised'.

Clearly the word 'feminisation' is more commonly used to refer to a more superficial change based on cultural stereotypes, usually involving a simple change of clothes, addition of makeup, etc.

If there is anyone reading this who enjoys taking part in that kind of feminisation - whether on the receiving end or dishing it out - I would really appreciate your perspective on something that I have never really properly understood: if I understand correctly, this act is meant to be humiliating, or at the very least humbling. For that to be the case, surely you have to be of the opinion that to appear feminine is somwhow degrading or subtracts from you as a person? And if so, how do you square that with it being meted out by a dominant female?

Don't think it would work - only way I could think of was making them submit to a woman who is completely lesbian.

Should I expect a torrent of abuse for this comment?

I've been pondering these questions, because it's one of the things that really bothers me about the way crossdressing as a sub tends to be portrayed: it's as though people think it is inherently humiliating to be viewed as more feminine. So I want there to be an inverse form.

One thought is the inverse of sissification being "slobbification" - enforced dressing down completely and sitting in slouchy poses and such. Not sure what the sexual thrill would be for the top in that, but who knows - there's probably someone out there for whom it would be a turn on.

Another thought is to focus on other experiences of masculinity - having to knuckle under to an ungrateful and uncaring boss to keep a boring and laborious job you don't really want anyway but you've got to pay the bills: I can see that as a roleplay option.

Other "lifestyle" options might be recreating master/servant roles as a mirror of feminised "maids": you could have "masculinerised" farmhand/serving staff/mechanic/etc roles with the whole forelock-tugging routine and so on, with grubby overalls or butlering outfits and so on: think class as well as gender as a mimicked axis of oppression to produce the power-exchange and/or humiliation aspects.

Hmm. I now have a fantasy of a sex toy designed like a feeldoe but with a floppy external "penis" to mimic what a man has when he's not aroused. The wearer has inserted, a stiffer dong that shifts and strokes inside her as the external thing wobbles and shifts in her pants through her walking and working, to create a frustrating sense of arousal and awareness of her dick.

If you reverse that then masculinising a female submissive surely makes them more assertive and powerful? Therefore less submissive?

Well I don't see women that way.

But the idea has it's interest.

I quite like the thought of taking a professional, feminine female and putting her in a situation where she has to take on the tasks of a working male.

So yes you might be wearing your pencil skirted power suit and heels but you're still going to get under that car and do an oil change and bleed the brakes. Then you're going to catch that spider and put it outside and when you've finished that you're going to put up some shelves using this large heavy frighteningly powerful hammer drill and screwdriver. Plus any other dirty, sweaty, manual, technical work that people can think of. Let's play up to the stereotypes here. If you're successful I might reward you with a steak and kidney pie and a pint of bitter and a game of dominoes at the local.

Taking someone out of their comfort zone is a big D/s theme and that kind of gender stereotype swap works really well for putting people at a loss as to how to cope.

Plus I think I just totally got off on the idea of taking a really well dressed girly girl getting really dirty. And sweaty. With torn clothes.

BRB

------------------- [-_-] Ohmmmmmmmm
Free online storage and file synchronisation

Nan starts dressing as a boy as a cabaret act, then when she falls on hard times works the streets dressed as a boy. She gets picked up by a rich femme woman who keeps her as her "tart", and introduces her to a whole scene of rich lesbians who keep young girls and dress them as boys. They also make her pose in various tableauxs (barely) dressed as boys from history and mythology, often featuring "Monsieur Dildo".

Of course the dynamic between lesbians is different than heteros, but I think this is interesting in that it subverts the assumption that being feminine is about losing power, and being masucline is about gaining it. I guess it's different from the "forced feminisation" people are talking about here, as Nan actually enjoys wearing men's clothes and would do so all the time if she could (of course in those days it wasn't an acceptable thing for a lady to do at all). It is much more about the dominant woman dressing up her "tart" in a way that is pleasing to her and her friends (mostly to make them jealous) so she can be like a trophy, and Nan not having any say in this.

Incidentally I'd really recomend the book (I do find the telivised version of it kinda amusing though!

bear with me, I will get to the point ....

From a current social perspective, there is a theme that women are empowered to wear pretty much what they like from super sexy to prim and proper to male/androgynous and all points in between. The female image is used to promote almost every product and very often men are the fall guys in advertising not to mention that male clothing is very samey/boring style wise.

I feel there is a delicious conflict for men wearing women's clothing between the humiliation/thrill of the forbidden and the simple pleasure of the feel of the fabrics including the constricting nature of some and the flowing/exposure of others.

For me, I love the way I am forced to move when wearing panties and tights, and the feel of the constriction of tighter [than normal male] underwear is constant reminder of the sexual thrill to come. It is almost like hours and hours of foreplay! The feel of the satins and floaty materials of skirts and dresses against my skin is exquisite and as a lover of the female form (I do admire nice male forms but I am definitely hetero) I love the look and feel of the female shape and having a sort of facsimile to fondle myself is also fantastic.

Then we add in the thrill of submission (LSP telling me what to wear in the morning), and the possible humiliation of detection and the overlay of the intellectual exercise of getting clothes to fit when I can't simply go shopping and trying on clothes and we see that understanding the why's and wherefore's is rather complex.

Now to the point: For women the reverse must be true but [in western 'permissive' society] without many of the overlays. Women can wear men's clothes either in their 'correct' men's sizes for that androgynous or 'dyke' look or in a 'boyfriend' style. They can also wear normal men's sizes for that 'I look cuter in your shirts than you do' look. If a woman can wear pretty much what she likes in polite company then the humiliation is harder to impose and the threat of exposure is almost non-existent. You can even get Y-front style panties! I suppose you are then left trying to make them pass for genuine males which may work best in a lesbian dynamic?

IF I had the time I could philosophise about this all day ... and get myself terribly worked up in the process!

The humiliation does not come from the idea that being female is less than being a man, it comes from being 'made' to wear socially inappropriate clothing. It gives me a thrill and no more rationalisation is actually required!