|
Rochsub2009 -> RE: The Over-Fetishization of the Dominant Woman (1/5/2010 8:21:11 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika
To the submissive men, have you ever felt torn about this? Have you ever honestly felt you were over fetishizing a Domme? Why do you think that was? How did you work through this? If applicable, how did a Domme help you work through this?
Lady Angelika,
Sorry to be late to this party, but i was away for the holidays. Now that i'm back from vacation, i am getting caught up on my reading. (BTW, happy New Year, Luv).
Before making my comments, i must admit that this thread is very long, so i didn't read all of it. Thus, i apologize if i repeat something that has already been said.
i definitely think that dominant women are over-fetishized (is that a word?). But in many cases, it is both innocent and understandable. i'd use the analogy of a professional football player. Take Tony Romo for example (since even non-football fans are aware of who he is). To the outsider, Tony Romo is the guy in pads and a helmet who throws touchdowns for the Dallas Cowboys. This image is accurate, and it is the image that 90% of the world thinks of when they hear the name Tony Romo.
However, when Jessica Simpson thinks of Tony Romo, she probably envisions the guy in jeans and a t-shirt that she goes shopping with on Saturday afternoons. Or the guy in his pajamas who kisses her goodnight. Or the guy with drool running down the side of his face when he falls asleep in his La-Z-Boy.
Both images of Tony Romo are correct. But the first one is the perception of outsiders who only have a limited view/understanding of Tony Romo. To them, he is always the hero on the field. He always wears pads and a helmet. This is the sports equivalent of being over-fetishized.
Jessica Simpson's view of Romo is much deeper. She sees the person beneath the pads. She knows that he is still a Dallas Cowboy even when he is at home wearing khakis. She sees the real person.
The leather-clad, bossy, dominatrix in 5-inch heels is analogous to Tony Romo in his football uniform. It is the first image that pops into people's minds when they think of a Domme. It is not necessarily inaccurate. However, it is a limited, surface-level view. It fails to recognize the many facets of the person underneath the costume.
Novices and "do-me" subs probably envision Dommes in leather and latex 24/7. But more experienced subs get the "Jessica Simpson view" of their Domme.
I can't remember the last time one of my Dommes wore leather or latex or thigh-high boots. But that didn't make them any less dominant. Of course, my relationships tend to be far more vanilla than most BDSMers. No leather. No latex. No over-fetishization. Just 24/7 TPE. No costumes or stereotypical behaviors are necessary.
IMO, true dominance comes from the inside, not from a leather outfit. i remember one particular Domme that i lived with for 2 years (or more accurately, She lived with me). In all that time, we NEVER wore BDSM attire of any type. We lived together in a female-led relationship. When She ordered me to run a hot bath for Her, or to make breakfast for Her, or to give Her a massage, i said "Yes Ma'am". No whips or leather were required. She was the boss, even when She was wearing ratty pajamas.
To be honest, it took me a long time to reach this point. When i was younger, i probably did envision Dommes in stereotypical, over-fetishized ways. But that changed with experience.
i believe that the over-fetishization is more prevalent in those subs who merely have sessions with Dommes (though i have no data to prove this). IMO, sessions are more like fantasy role playing, and so costumes are appropriate. But when you are in a LTR, it is difficult and impractical to be in costume all of the time. So the costumes tend to disappear, and all that is left is the real people underneath the outfits.
(BTW, i apologize if my sports analogy was lacking. It made sense in my head, but it may not be quite so clear here on the written page. i also apologize to those like LadyPact who enjoy wearing leather. i did not mean to imply that those who enjoy leather and latex are somehow less than those who don't wear those items).
|
|
|
|
