LadyAngelika
Posts: 8070
Joined: 7/4/2004 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: AAkasha I can't help but think some of this debate/discussion about how a man CAN be "submissive" and at the same time be "a man" -- or, assertive, aggressive, self confident, ambitious -- isn't also rooted from the problem of the * perception of male submission based on male fantasy and porn*. Specifically, it's the men who idealize/eroticize "submission" as anti-masculine, or glorify the "pathetic worm," or worse, emphasize the ideal that being submissive means freedom from the responsibility of choice, freedom from risk (especially emotional risk), freedom from INITIATIVE. Meanwhile, when you look at women who have (independent of all influence of male porn) developed a taste for female domination, and our ideals about what a "man" is (a man we desire to dominate, as well as the "man he becomes" when he is under our influence) are very different from the meek, the unassertive, the groveling type who seeks total and complete control from an uber-bitch. I think, while our tastes very, we all pretty much seek the same qualities we do in a vanilla partner, but often with a heightened emphasis on chivalry, self confidence, and self sufficiency. I've struggled hard to come up with good words to define my ideals. In mean, I seek "capability" as a core component. What I seek to get from him, as a result of my dominance, is "authentic vulnerability" - and this does not mean he's weak, pathetic or useless. Moreso, it's BETTER when achieved from a man who is, at the same time, incredibly strong of character, unwavering, and devoted in that he offers THIS submission to one person : ME. Akasha As always, right on the money Akasha! - LA
_____________________________
Une main de fer dans un gant de velours ~ An iron hand in a velvet glove
|