RE: The Sexual Objectification of the Male Submissive

RE: The Sexual Objectification of the Male Submissive (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Ask a Mistress

Message

DavanKael -> RE: The Sexual Objectification of the Male Submissive (10/3/2009 7:14:15 PM)
Interesting thread, Otters. :> When I am on the s-side of the kneel with a male partner, while I may present in a way that suggests ojectification (I would actually consider this an 'armor' of sorts but with my partner, I would not be objectified in a pervasive way or I would not be his partner terribly long. In thinking on a boy who behaved overtly in submisson to me, I could see him as being livid at an event where he felt his masculinity was compromised in any way, so the not interacting could be part of the idea of not wanting to be anything less than in charge around males (Which wouldn't have to contradict his submission to me per se). While I might stylize an appearance (As a dominant may desire me to do as I noted above), actually treating a partner as an object doesn't appeal to me in any strong way. Davan

Andalusite -> RE: The Sexual Objectification of the Male Submissive (10/3/2009 9:05:45 PM)
shrugs Most of my attraction is based more on chemistry and reactions than clothes. I strongly dislike the "stoic" type of submissive - I want him or her to whimper, moan, growl, squirm, and so forth. Just being still and not making a sound would be boring! There are lots of different "looks" that are hot/eye candy, though. Kilts (traditional or utili-), the Goth boy look (PVC, fishnet, stuff like that), jock straps, Ren Fair/SCA garb, business suits, etc. are all good options - some looks work better for certain people than others. I'm generally not as into guys when they're cross-dressed, but there have been a few exceptions.

Venatrix -> RE: The Sexual Objectification of the Male Submissive (10/3/2009 9:21:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Andalusite I'm generally not as into guys when they're cross-dressed, but there have been a few exceptions. Like Tim Curry in the Rocky Horror Picture Show? [:D]

Wheldrake -> RE: The Sexual Objectification of the Male Submissive (10/4/2009 12:07:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pyroaquatic Perhaps she was trying to get your ManGoat, Wheldrake. Sweeping Generalizations are good for eliciting responses such as... "HEY I'M NOT THAT WAY" But of course, such responses are always good for broadening the horizons of the person in question, who will invariably avoid making sweeping generalisations in the future. Anyway, I'd better go - I think I'm being attacked by a ManGoat, whatever that is.

sissylover22 -> RE: The Sexual Objectification of the Male Submissive (10/4/2009 5:54:26 AM)
Sub bottoms are more in need of attention than dom men. Sub men are attention seekers and not really as woman pleasers like dom men. Strange how it's backwards where you wouldn't think it's the dom men who really enjoy women and seeing them satisified.

Lashra -> RE: The Sexual Objectification of the Male Submissive (10/4/2009 7:20:36 AM)
Ok I maybe breaking the female code by admitting this BUT, yeah I do look at men as sexual objects sometimes (ok a lot of the time). If he has a nice ass, yes I'm thinking to myself ohhh I'd like to tap that. If he is tall and good looking, I'm thinking to myself oh baby I'd love to fuck you silly, you nasty little whore. I have had these type of thoughts since I was younger. I notice a lot of women look at a man for his provider ability or if he is the type her family would approve of. I was never like that and I guess it is because I'm wired a bit differently. My sub loves being a sex object, my playtoy. He has learned over the years to grin at a swat on the ass in public from me, to enjoy having his leg (and more) felt up under the table in a restaurant and being called "sexy" in public. He grins, he smiles because he loves the attention. He relishes being wanted, desired, lusted over and in our case, loved. So yeah I think some men take to it once they are introduced to it. ~Lashra

aidan -> RE: The Sexual Objectification of the Male Submissive (10/4/2009 8:08:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sissylover22 Sub bottoms are more in need of attention than dom men. Sub men are attention seekers and not really as woman pleasers like dom men. Strange how it's backwards where you wouldn't think it's the dom men who really enjoy women and seeing them satisified. Hey, weren't we all just complaining about sweeping generalizations that are false? At least Shakti's statement has basis in actual psychological data.

aidan -> RE: The Sexual Objectification of the Male Submissive (10/4/2009 8:10:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lashra My sub loves being a sex object, my playtoy. He has learned over the years to grin at a swat on the ass in public from me, to enjoy having his leg (and more) felt up under the table in a restaurant and being called "sexy" in public. He grins, he smiles because he loves the attention. He relishes being wanted, desired, lusted over and in our case, loved. Oh yeah, I'm the exact same way. Mistress has actually had to gently correct me a few times for enjoying it a bit too much in public. ;)

pyroaquatic -> RE: The Sexual Objectification of the Male Submissive (10/4/2009 8:15:50 AM)
I guess my training was all for naught, Sislova [:D] So my attention seeking ways (dress slacks that hug my hips and I pull them down so one may see the V but nothing more.... how sultry) cannot lead me to pleasure giving? Something strikes me off here.

LadyPact -> RE: The Sexual Objectification of the Male Submissive (10/4/2009 8:37:49 AM)
A few random thoughts...... The dress code. I agree that there really aren't a lot of choices for males when compared to females when it comes to public dungeons. If a male isn't into fetish wear, there aren't a whole lot of options that will be acceptable according to the establishment. On that one, I have to admit that I favor the club's right to do so. They are trying to maintain a certain atmosphere for public play. I tend to think there are fewer options for males out there on either side of the kneel due to the fact that there isn't the same kind of interest generated in dressing for the occasion. Something else that occurred to Me comes from one of the ideas that came up in the difference between F/m dynamics as opposed to M/f ones. I think you have to take into consideration that there are a higher number of dynamics where males subs are not permitted to have sex with the person they are serving. This is in contrast to female subs where sexual service is almost always a requirement in serving a male Dom. Realistically, if you are at a large function and you are people watching, it's going to be noticeable where that sexual energy doesn't transpire. That means you are going to see some number of males sitting at a female's feet without a sexual charge between them. This is not to say that the male submissive doesn't especially want to be desired or even objectified. However, as the females in charge, we're more likely to introduce the sexual component as we see fit. Some of us will chose to wait until it is a long term dynamic or until we are taking our rights as the owner of our property. One of the perks of being a Dominant is that we get to make those decisions. Once it has been introduced, I don't think we as Dominant women are less likely to use our males in a sexual sense. We may be less likely to be especially concerned about if he is dressed in what might be called fetish attire. The power we have over our s type is a much better aphrodisiac than just about any outfit he could put on anyway.

OttersSwim -> RE: The Sexual Objectification of the Male Submissive (10/4/2009 9:52:09 AM)
Thank you all for your most excellent input! My Lady and I were discussing it all this morning and I commented that in almost all situations of our physical interactions I am finding myself in the "traditional female" positions, while She takes the more "traditional male" positions. For me, this is also part of the sexual objectification. I lay with my head on Her chest when we snuggle, when we sleep her arm is over me and gripping one of my arms, She often bends me back for kissing, she pulls my hair and manipulates me into compromising positions where She can have her way...all that makes me feel very oriented for her sexual pleasure. It is simply bliss for me as that's how I roll, ya'know? [;)]

DesFIP -> RE: The Sexual Objectification of the Male Submissive (10/4/2009 10:03:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact We may be less likely to be especially concerned about if he is dressed in what might be called fetish attire. The power we have over our s type is a much better aphrodisiac than just about any outfit he could put on anyway. But isn't part of this that women tend to be less visual?

pyroaquatic -> RE: The Sexual Objectification of the Male Submissive (10/4/2009 10:23:31 AM)
Hey Now delectable otter that sounds like fun! ....and DesFIP I would like to believe that females are no more or less visual than males. and when it comes to the senses the olfactory units (nose) are the strongest when it comes to memory and drives. Unless I am incorrect on this. Please feel free to correct when needed. I don't see the difference between the sexual objectification of males or females either. Perhaps I need to go to a fetish club or bar with a few friends.

Wickad -> RE: The Sexual Objectification of the Male Submissive (10/4/2009 10:47:59 AM)
(fast reply) Greetings, Well, there are a few things that come to mind with this topic ... and thank-you for posting it, might I add. First of all, I do see men as sexual objects. I am a big fan of people watching and I do appreciate a well put together guy. Now, what do I see as well put together - toned, well groomed, well dressed (for body type and situation), confident, masculine and either rugged or pretty. So, ... what do I think about these strangers as I sit in a coffee shop drinking my dark roast w/cream ... usually, wow, you'd look good at my feet, you'd look great over a bench, I'd like to shove a few things in some of your orifices, etc. I'm not really thinking about long conversations about really deep topics at that point. Now, that all being said, what really turns me on about the men I play with is not so much what they look like (as above) but their focus on me. I enjoy the conversations and the long talks and exploring their minds. I'm turned on by obedience and viewing their inner conflict as they struggle to fulfill my instructions. I am aroused by their need to please. Finally, I think comparing men and women and how they are objectified is not really accurate. It's akin to comparing apples and oranges. - they are two very different things. It strikes me as obvious that men would find women who appear open to sex desirable because women have been trained to not be open to sex. Men have had to work for, fight for, and pursue women in order to get sex. Women on the other hand have not had to work so hard to get sex, thus an 'open to sex' man is seen as somewhat vulgar. After all, men are perceived as always being open to sex, with almost anyone, so what is the big deal. Thus, it seems to me, that women desire men who are focused on them, to the exclusion of all others. Men who are loyal and obedient and do not go wandering off at the first sign of a pair of pretty legs or a nice rack. In fact, ignoring other women to focus on their partner alone is a very sexy male submissive trait. These are just my thoughts and I'm sure some will disagree but ... hopefully it gives folks something to think on. Wickad

LadyNTrainer -> RE: The Sexual Objectification of the Male Submissive (10/4/2009 12:19:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hardbodysub quote: And in a nutshell, this is why I do not feel desire for the vast majority of men. They are not natively comfortable with the concept of displaying themselves as a potentially desirable sex object ... Wow, your "vast majority of men" is from a whole different universe than virtually all the men I know. Aggressive courtship displays do not interest me. The key word here is "object". I am seeking a possession, a slave, a toy, someone who is softly seductive and yielding, charming and deferential, eager to be pretty and pleasing. He strives to be wanted so fiercely that he will be hunted down and taken savagely, and kept in ropes and chains to show his value and the extent to which he is desired. That is why he displays himself, submissively, helplessly, yearning to be taken. That's the mindset it takes to get me interested. Any other mindset and I'm turned off. Very few men are able to get into this mindset, probably because society teaches that this is not how men are supposed to think or act.

Wheldrake -> RE: The Sexual Objectification of the Male Submissive (10/4/2009 1:01:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pyroaquatic ....and DesFIP I would like to believe that females are no more or less visual than males. I seem to remember that there is some psychological evidence that men are on average more spatial and visual in their thinking, and women more verbal, but it's one of those small statistical differences that allows for a lot of individual exceptions. Most of us probably know women who are very good with concrete shapes and images, and men who are very good with words and abstractions.

ShaktiSama -> RE: The Sexual Objectification of the Male Submissive (10/4/2009 1:28:28 PM)
quote: All men? With due respect, this is one of those sweeping generalisations that sort of sets my teeth on edge. I suppose being looked at with desire would be sort of nice, but engaging intellectually and emotionally with other people (rather than physically and visually) really is a lot more important to me. I do go around in bland, body-concealing clothes, but I don't think I have too much of a bland Stoic fake persona. I'm sure this makes me come across as dull and unappealing to people who are more focused on the visual, but one can't have everything. Perhaps I could learn to make myself physically attractive, but I suspect it would take a lot of work, and I'd much rather cultivate other sides of myself instead. I guess I'm not really doing my bit to keep the world interesting from a photographer's perspective, but I can only apologise. With all due respect? People who approach me with their teeth on edge are never going to see the best side of me in response. So take the following reply with that in mind. The fact that you assume that appreciating the beauty that surrounds you in the world is shallow, and that seeing the beauty in another human being is something that ALWAYS happens immediately and easily because their beauty is a superficial quality of their outward appearance, rather than something that comes out as a RESULT of "engaging intellectually and emotionally" with people? Is sad and pathetic and probably an aspect of the self-esteem damage that you strongly telegraph in the last line of your post. Sorry you feel ugly. It's not my fault that you feel ugly, and I'm not going to apologize for the fact that every man I have ever made feel beautiful, wanted and sexy by the way I looked at him has absolutely loved it, regardless of whether he started out being super confident in his appearance. It's more than "sorta nice" to be sexy in a woman's eyes, once you experience it. [;)]

LadyPact -> RE: The Sexual Objectification of the Male Submissive (10/4/2009 2:21:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesFIP quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact We may be less likely to be especially concerned about if he is dressed in what might be called fetish attire. The power we have over our s type is a much better aphrodisiac than just about any outfit he could put on anyway. But isn't part of this that women tend to be less visual? I don't know if it has to do with females being less visual. No offense to our male counterparts, but I do think more often we are whole package types. It isn't always just the outside that makes a person attractive to us. Something like obedience will make a person more attractive to us no matter what the outer form looks like.

Wheldrake -> RE: The Sexual Objectification of the Male Submissive (10/4/2009 2:30:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama With all due respect? People who approach me with their teeth on edge are never going to see the best side of me in response. So take the following reply with that in mind. Fair enough. Sorry about the teeth - I have a congenital allergy to statements that begin "all men", "all women", "all economists", or whatever, which is purely a quirk in my psychological makeup. quote: ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama The fact that you assume that appreciating the beauty that surrounds you in the world is shallow, and that seeing the beauty in another human being is something that ALWAYS happens immediately and easily because their beauty is a superficial quality of their outward appearance, rather than something that comes out as a RESULT of "engaging intellectually and emotionally" with people? I got the impression from your original post that you were talking for the most part about purely visual beauty (and I wouldn't necessarily call that superficial - it's just a quality that I personally don't value all that greatly, in myself or others). It sounds like I misunderstood you, and again, I'm sorry. If you were actually talking about a broader concept of beauty that can include things like attitude, humour and intellect, then yes, I generally do my best to be beautiful and desirable. Is that better? quote: ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama Is sad and pathetic and probably an aspect of the self-esteem damage that you strongly telegraph in the last line of your post. Self-esteem damage? I hope not. I was just trying to acknowledge, however clumsily, that my priorities might not align with everyone else's. quote: ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama Sorry you feel ugly. No worries... quote: ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama It's not my fault that you feel ugly... Of course not... quote: ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama ...and I'm not going to apologize for the fact that every man I have ever made feel beautiful, wanted and sexy by the way I looked at him has absolutely loved it, regardless of whether he started out being super confident in his appearance. Nor should you, obviously. And I absolutely love feeling beautiful, wanted and sexy too - I just don't associate those things quite so much with looking.

ShaktiSama -> RE: The Sexual Objectification of the Male Submissive (10/4/2009 3:44:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Wheldrake Fair enough. Sorry about the teeth - I have a congenital allergy to statements that begin "all men", "all women", "all economists", or whatever, which is purely a quirk in my psychological makeup. I have a congenital allergy to people who are so eager to pick a meaningless fight that they actually edit my statements, in their own heads and otherwise. It's not a quirk in my psychological makeup, it's a necessity for courteous and well-reasoned discourse. So for the record, here's what I actually said: quote: My personal experiences over many years tell me that all men want to be looked at, and looked at with desire--they want this in general, but especially from the right woman. Let me repeat that for you, so that you can see how the statement actually began. Not with the words "All men" or "all women". The words at the beginning of the sentence are: My personal experiences over many years Have we got that? Are we clear that NO categorical or absolute statement of "reality" for all humankind can EVER begin with those words, because they immediately establish that the parameters of the discussion are confined to personal experience? Great. Turning to more relevant things: there is a lot of out-moded, poorly researched pseudoscience bs accumulating in this thread, most of it sexist and having to do with how "un-visual" women are. I've already said that women are TRAINED to be non-visual, as part of their overall social conditioning to be submissive--and if you don't think that the power to look is an issue of social dominance, think again! There's a reason that "eye contact restrictions" are listed on the D/S activities of this site. Who gets to look at who, and when, is very much an issue of power. Many dominant women have spoken up already in this thread to say that they are inclined to seize that power--they most definitely look, even when they aren't going to pounce. And some of us do both. winks at Aidan As soon as our prey is within striking range, of course.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875