RE: The "alpha female" femdom, now with less than 1% kink!

RE: The "alpha female" femdom, now with less than 1% kink! (Full Version)

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

Message

seekingOwnertoo -> RE: The "alpha female" femdom, now with less than 1% kink! (2/21/2011 7:38:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: Tantriqu Alpha doesn't mean kinky, but I think alpha = stronger libidos. Really? I've found the exact opposite. I've come across a few of the same species: stressed out high-flying women, uptight, with ultra-conservative outlooks . . . pillow-slobs in the bedroom. Sex is just a relaxation technique. Boring, boring, boring. Might be more of a Brit phenomenon, though. ROFL ... that "species" is not unique to Brit's! [:D] There are many across the pond, from you, too! Yet as far as "Sex is just a relaxation technique" ... i can fall into that trap, too! Another reason why I seek a mental, emotional as well as physical relationship ... with kink ... nothing like the bite of a lash ... to avoid the trap! [;)]

ChrisP2175 -> RE: The "alpha female" femdom, now with less than 1% kink! (2/22/2011 12:57:15 PM)
Akasha, I see this phenomenon too, in my professional and academic world. I think it has something to do with a lack of internal awareness about raw eroticism, and I think (in general terms) girls and then women are "steered" away from that awareness by how culture shapes them (as it shapes all of us). The women who I know who possess such awareness may or may not be kinky, but they are all empowered by their sexual energy, and don't mind wielding it for their own pleasure. Lol, even the submissive ones can say things like "you didn't tie me up tight enough; I want to do it tighter next time". Striving for accomplishment is unconnected to that sexual awareness, but somehow the sexual awareness is always connected to quick wit and native intelligence (and most of the time fairly sophisticated social skills). It's a part of looking beneath the surface of things, and finding deeper understanding there. I used to think it was probably related to the individual genetics of the woman in question and the phenotypical expression of those genes. Now I realize that it's probably due to her being a Capricorn. Chris

littlewonder -> RE: The "alpha female" femdom, now with less than 1% kink! (2/22/2011 3:00:39 PM)
Alpha does not equal kink but what you describe isn't alpha to me either...it just screams bitchy woman who thinks she's hot shit, a woman who doesn't care about her own partner..nothing alpha about that at all to me.

PeonForHer -> RE: The "alpha female" femdom, now with less than 1% kink! (2/22/2011 3:16:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: littlewonder Alpha does not equal kink but what you describe isn't alpha to me either...it just screams bitchy woman who thinks she's hot shit, a woman who doesn't care about her own partner..nothing alpha about that at all to me. I really can't go with this term 'alpha', littlewonder. It might be good for wolves, gorillas and baboons, but last time I checked, humans did things in a different way to such other species. The last person I met who considered himself an 'alpha' was a short fat bloke who wore sunglasses even in the rain and couldn't walk more than 100 yards without demanding to get into his farty little sports car.

sexyred1 -> RE: The "alpha female" femdom, now with less than 1% kink! (2/22/2011 3:18:55 PM)
I have no idea what this thread is about, really. I love a good philosophical debate as much as anyone, but to me this entire thread smacks of labeling. There is no way to agree on any of these terms because we are dealing with individuals. It is as bad as when talking about strong submissive women. Am I an alpha at work, but not at home, can I be both if I am submissive, am I kinky and alpha, or not kinky, what is my percentage of kink, blah blah blah. I just wish people would try to understand themselves and those they choose to relate with in a relationship and not foster such generalizations of the Uber Bitch Alpha Fem Domme or Sub. While all generalizations have truth in them, again, on a site like this where you have so many looking for partners, I think it will only serve to confuse everyone even more than they already are, and or, justify the anger out there.

Steponme73 -> RE: The "alpha female" femdom, now with less than 1% kink! (2/22/2011 3:41:52 PM)
An extremely interesting thread. I do not think there is any connection between "Alpha" and kink. You can be a leader in business, personal life, private life without having one bit of desire to be kinky. Conversely a woman working at home could be extremely kinky and not demostrate the Alpha charateristic in the outside world. Leaders can come in various colors...so can dominant women who like to be kinky!

SexyBossyBBW -> RE: The "alpha female" femdom, now with less than 1% kink! (2/22/2011 3:44:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lockit Alpha doesn't have to mean kinky. However, not being kinky or sadistic or being just a little of either or neither... doesn't mean some of the things you said could happen. Many alpha women may not deny sex or act as you have described. Many do not do the kink to get the right kind of devotion or type of relationship they think will bring what they want in other areas. I wouldn't find it an alpha personality if they did compromise in such a manner. Alpha doesn't have to mean making the rules in the bedroom or anywhere else. It could simply mean she is a leader type personality and leads in that direction with people who wish to go in that direction. That doesn't mean there isn't compromise, but it doesn't mean manipulation or force and doing something of no interest for the sake of getting what they want. I really don't care for dominant women, whatever their kink desires are or lack of them, being presented in some of the ways you have categorized them. It helps continue a few falsies. [sm=applause.gif][sm=applause.gif]What she said, because I couldn't have said it better. I don't understand why you, Akasha, would pander to this type of stereotyping. If she's a leader, she must also be into delivering kinky sex, or else, she's just a byotch bullchit. Any woman, should be herself, and relate to any man as it works for her. No woman, should learn to be kinkier, so she can be properly dominant. If said woman should find some kink to be enjoyable for her and him, more power to her. Not being kinky in the bedroom, is not a defect, and certainly does not detract from a powerful woman. M

AAkasha -> RE: The "alpha female" femdom, now with less than 1% kink! (2/22/2011 8:54:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SexyBossyBBW quote: ORIGINAL: Lockit Alpha doesn't have to mean kinky. However, not being kinky or sadistic or being just a little of either or neither... doesn't mean some of the things you said could happen. Many alpha women may not deny sex or act as you have described. Many do not do the kink to get the right kind of devotion or type of relationship they think will bring what they want in other areas. I wouldn't find it an alpha personality if they did compromise in such a manner. Alpha doesn't have to mean making the rules in the bedroom or anywhere else. It could simply mean she is a leader type personality and leads in that direction with people who wish to go in that direction. That doesn't mean there isn't compromise, but it doesn't mean manipulation or force and doing something of no interest for the sake of getting what they want. I really don't care for dominant women, whatever their kink desires are or lack of them, being presented in some of the ways you have categorized them. It helps continue a few falsies. [sm=applause.gif][sm=applause.gif]What she said, because I couldn't have said it better. I don't understand why you, Akasha, would pander to this type of stereotyping. If she's a leader, she must also be into delivering kinky sex, or else, she's just a byotch bullchit. Any woman, should be herself, and relate to any man as it works for her. No woman, should learn to be kinkier, so she can be properly dominant. If said woman should find some kink to be enjoyable for her and him, more power to her. Not being kinky in the bedroom, is not a defect, and certainly does not detract from a powerful woman. M If anything, in this thread I was trying to illuminate why the stereotype of women as leaders/women as alpha = femdom. And more to the point, women who are leaders, women who like female-led relationships, and women who are "alpha" aren't necessarily open to kink. How many times have sub men gotten into relationships with women who were "alpha" in hopes they were kinky, only to find they were nowhere near it, or open to it? I think there are a lot of stereotypes and protocols that are developing that are unrealistic and counter productive. Especially the whole service = submission, and masochists/bottoms are not "submitting" but are just "bottoming" - as if that's not a valuable thing. But the thing really that is simmering in my head, is the concept of what the combination of bottoming + submitting, as an act of surrender, should be defined as, and how when a man struggles (in a good way) to submit physically, or desires a femdom who exerts power to solicit his physical submission or desires a femdom who tops from a place of playful cruelty, not merely mechanics is not "just a bottom." I can't begin to put it into words, but when a man tries to communicate that his physical submission doesn't come naturally, even though he desires it on some level, he is called a bottom or a "smart assed masochist." He is unable to communicate that he likes to be "taken down" without coming across as difficult or deliberately challenging. Yet there is a type of man that doesn't just need to "submit" and he's not just a simple "masochist," he needs a woman to peel away his resistance and revel in it - sadistically, but fairly, and with affection, yet she's clearly enjoying his growing vulnerability. To me this isn't a bottom, or a man that just is a masochist, and he's not fixated on the "acts" but he needs to be physically dominated (he doesn't have a fetish for x, y or z - but has a fetish for a woman using all the tools in her arsenal to make him feel helpless or suffer -- because she enjoys it). This is the kind of man that is slapped with the label of "bottom," but if this were the case, he'd just go see a pro femdom, but he can't, because the physical acts must not be of his choosing, or the pace, or the concept in the back of his head that she may be enjoying the process for something other than pure, delicious sadism and delight in seeing him broken down a little at a time. He is clearly interested in "physical acts" and an active femdom (vs. just serving, or doting, or acts of service or massage, for example), and a woman that delights in the process of his surrender. This is the kind of man that I think is drawn to "alpha" women because he is attracted to active, open, aggressive, assertive "can do" women who seem to demand/desire obedience by her demeanor. She may, however, not have a sadistic bone in her body. How can a man who is wired this way define himself? Not as a "sub" or as a "bottom" and not a "smart assed masochist" simply because he doesn't just endure pain, but wants to be coerced into enduring it - and not on his terms, but within his wider boundaries of consent. I want to find a label for this kind of guy, because I want to be able to identify it, and for these men to be easy to spot (haha). Sorry of it this comes off a bit..."rambly." edited to add: This kind of man also often gets shut down for trying to characterize his submission/bottoming as a "gift," but it is. To a woman who is a hungry sadist, and wants to dominate a man who does not submit naturally and easily, this is indeed a gift, but that is a whole can of worms. And a man goes into dangerous territory when he uses the "g" word to describe how he wants his submission to feel. Akasha

SexyBossyBBW -> RE: The "alpha female" femdom, now with less than 1% kink! (2/22/2011 9:18:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AAkasha I think there are a lot of stereotypes and protocols that are developing that are unrealistic and counter productive. Especially the whole service = submission, and masochists/bottoms are not "submitting" but are just "bottoming" - as if that's not a valuable thing. But the thing really that is simmering in my head, is the concept of what the combination of bottoming + submitting, as an act of surrender, should be defined as, and how when a man struggles (in a good way) to submit physically, or desires a femdom who exerts power to solicit his physical submission or desires a femdom who tops from a place of playful cruelty, not merely mechanics is not "just a bottom." For myself, a submissive is a person who submits. If he struggles with submission, he can see a counselor, or talk to me about it, but he must submit, or leave (or be left). quote: Yet there is a type of man that doesn't just need to "submit" and he's not just a simple "masochist," he needs a woman to peel away his resistance and revel in it - sadistically, but fairly, and with affection, yet she's clearly enjoying his growing vulnerability. To me this isn't a bottom, or a man that just is a masochist, and he's not fixated on the "acts" but he needs to be physically dominated (he doesn't have a fetish for x, y or z - but has a fetish for a woman using all the tools in her arsenal to make him feel helpless or suffer -- because she enjoys it). This is the kind of man that is slapped with the label of "bottom," but if this were the case, he'd just go see a pro femdom, but he can't, because the physical acts must not be of his choosing, or the pace, or the concept in the back of his head that she may be enjoying the process for something other than pure, delicious sadism and delight in seeing him broken down a little at a time. He is clearly interested in "physical acts" and an active femdom (vs. just serving, or doting, or acts of service or massage, for example), and a woman that delights in the process of his surrender. This is the kind of man that I think is drawn to "alpha" women because he is attracted to active, open, aggressive, assertive "can do" women who seem to demand/desire obedience by her demeanor. She may, however, not have a sadistic bone in her body. Yes, I have met one or two men who must be coerced against their better senses to submission... They were good looking pain in the derrieres, whom I wouldn't recommend any dominant woman touch with a ten foot pole, because they are simply too much work, and too self centered. quote: How can a man who is wired this way define himself? Not as a "sub" or as a "bottom" and not a "smart assed masochist" simply because he doesn't just endure pain, but wants to be coerced into enduring it - and not on his terms, but within his wider boundaries of consent. I want to find a label for this kind of guy, because I want to be able to identify it, and for these men to be easy to spot (haha). I'm a kinky man, who enjoys, X, Y, and Z. If you are a lady who gets down with that, how about dinner Saturday night? quote: sexyred1 I have no idea what this thread is about, really. I love a good philosophical debate as much as anyone, but to me this entire thread smacks of labeling. If I were a betting woman, I would say, it's about getting more traffic, because I can get you a fix for whatever it is you desire. I could be wrong, and YMMV. M

Charles6682 -> RE: The "alpha female" femdom, now with less than 1% kink! (2/22/2011 10:29:17 PM)
There are clearly many Females who are natural leaders.Throughout history this has been a fact.As a male submissive who likes the "Female Led Relationship",I clearly know the difference.It does not always have to be in the D/S term either.I have come across many Females who are just naturally Dominant,yet have no kink bone in their body.I have come across many "Female Led Relationships",yet that dosen't mean that couple goes home and beats her husband.I can see how a male submissive may unintentionally seek a D/S relationship with a "Alpha Female" but it just clearly wouldn't work,unless kink was apart of her life.That and that is the particular type of relationship she was seeking.Words do have meaning to them.

enani17236 -> RE: The "alpha female" femdom, now with less than 1% kink! (2/23/2011 1:55:41 AM)
I think a lot of the confusion and disagreement here originates in the fact that most posters do not differenciate between "behavior" and "personality" and "status". In animal behavior science (in which I am quite well versed), an "alpha" is a title that is given to the most dominant individual in the pack. But the dominance is generally NOT shown or confirmed through application of force or punishment or pain amongst the subordinates. Only humans can believe in that kind of stupid leadership. In the wolf's world, for instance (which is very closely related to the human world), the alpha is ELECTED by the subordinates, because he is smart and kind and a good provider and teacher! It is THEIR BENEFIT TO FOLLOW THE ALPHA! They CHOOSE to show him submission in order to gain his acceptance. A strong real alpha dog or wolf (or human) hardly EVER shows aggressive behavior or applies force!!!!!! Only the weak wannebe's do that! Mind you, the natural subordinates are always decentants of the mating couple, so they are BORN into this situation... And it remains that way until they choose to dispatch and start their own pack, typically over what humans might call "teenage problems". In our modern human society, there are no natural parents. Government has taken all their power away. I am not arguing here whether this is bad or good. Just take it for a fact of life, for now. A little more animal behavior science: A puppy from 3 years ago who remains in the pack now has several generations of younger pups as his/her subordinates! But this individual remains very submissive to its own parents... My point is this: The very same individual (and I have this demonstrated on video) can shift from dominant behavior in one half second to submissive behavior the next second, and back and forth, for ten or fifty times or more! Is this individual "alpha"? Answer: NO. This has nothing to do with status. Is it dominant? Answer: Yes. Is it submissive? Answer: YES! Is it confused? Answer: NO! Because dominance, as well as submission are BEHAVIORS that BOTH are combined in all individual, but they are triggered by different external events. Sure, some individuals have more dominance tendencies in their gene make-up than others, and vice versa. This is nothing more than a matter of the strength of the stimuli required to trigger the specific behavior. But Nature is about BALANCE, and there is no balance when zeroes are involved. So, for Nature, there is no such thing as an individual that has NO dominance - or NO submission. I don't for one second believe that humans are any different. The organization of all businesses and all armed forces demonstrate how stable this structure is of COMBINING submission to our superiors with dominance over our subordinates. If this would frustrate everyone as "unnatural", it would not be just about the ONLY way we humans can build a strong and powerful organization. So, all this standard talk about "a sub" and "a dom" is meaningless when we try to make those description into labels for an individual's PERSONALITY!!!! We are talking about situation-specific BEHAVIORS. Not personalities. In principle, we are all switches! We might all have our tendencies towards one end or the other of this spectrum, but very few of us are void in either capacity. It is a matter of what we are exposed to. Now, this is superimposed by CHOICE.... The way I see it is this: Largely BECAUSE we have no natural reference to parent authority (no government can substitute a good parent), then we have three options: A. Dispatch and start our own pack as Alpha, creating a family where our dominance is available, treasured, and nurtured. And we will generate contentment from that, because it satisfies a whole bunch of fundamental needs. B. Find a subsitute parent, so we can nurture our submissive sides, as those are more predominat than our dominant sides. This way we can find peace in a relationship that satisfies a lot of our fundamental needs, by relating to a new "parent". Again, we find contentment. C. Remain confused and rootless without having a social bonding to anyone, but applying dominant behaviors where they appear appropriate and submissive behaviors where they appear appropriate, without identifying ourselves with either side. Here, contentment is tough to find, because "everything is unstable". This is where you find your typical "career person" in the 'nilla world. A personal example to illustrate this: I am a very dominant (many call it aggressive) businessman. In that capacity, I use a lot of dominance. Not by force, but by having everybody else acknowledge that I know more than them about this stuff, so they listen to ME! Many even fear me, even though I am extremely peaceful and non-violent. my power is my knowledge and what it can do to help other people. Pretty much as an alpha wolf's hunting experience... And I like it! I thrive on it. But home... That's my "puppy time", where I am more than happy about surrending ALL power to my Mistress/wife and let Her take complete control of me, totally absorbing myself into submissive behaviors. And if I had to make a choice, I would say "F*** business!" anytime... Reality does not let me, though. But I am OK with that, because there is NO CONFLICT in my soul because of this!!!! I am dominant like hell, and I am submissive like hell - but NEVER at the same time. And I am not a switch! Don't ask me to dominate my wife - I can't. But anyone else...! When I say that I am schizzophrenic, am I truly joking, because I actually feel BALANCE in this. Back to OP's original question. It is the wrong question. It is assuming things that are not correct. It is implying that there is a personality connection between "alpha" and "dominant" and "kinky", and there isn't. The last two represent BEHAVIORS (often manifested as PREFERENCES), but they are NOT personalities. Same thing with "Alpha". It is a social TITLE, a social STATUS - and it has nothing to do with PERSONALITY, again. So, no offense intended, discussing the personality connections between the three corresponds to discussing the connection between "rainbow" and "art" and "fish". Sure, we can find common features and overlap - but it doesn't matter, because those fundamentals are incommensurable - they cannot be directly compared - they are out of different dimensions REGARDLESS of the fact of them often occuring in shared appearences, so we THINK they are related. They are not. No wonder that people are confused - because all standard teminology around this is basically wrong... Words are used in meanings that are not justified. But when a lie is repeated often enough, people will believe in it as the truth. So, when "submissive" and "dominant" are constantly used to descripe a PERSONALITY, even to classify a STATUS, people will eventually believe that this is true - and it is not. Including "alpha" in this is just one more mistake of the same scope - it is NOT a personality trait - it is a social status, and it has nothing to do with behavior. But when we mistake all those fundamental abstract values for being what they are not, then all kinds of confusion results.

MsJoy2752 -> RE: The "alpha female" femdom, now with less than 1% kink! (2/23/2011 4:44:56 AM)
enani - Very well put.

PeonForHer -> RE: The "alpha female" femdom, now with less than 1% kink! (2/23/2011 4:58:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AAkasha Sorry of it this comes off a bit..."rambly." Akasha, My god - now I'm beginning to get what you're driving at. How fascinating . . . . My own, initial and (probably even more) 'rambly' thoughts: Firstly, bummer that we got onto the 'alpha' discussion. My point of view - bit of an old-hat distraction from the important and interesting stuff. (People will always pounce on the familiar bones of contention, just as indeed have I, so far. C'est la vie.) Secondly, I'm beginning to understand why some femdoms go for 'new' subs. Thirdly, I think this implies some new way of looking at all those 'forced' debates here on CM. These, to be honest, tire the hell out of me. They always end up with the question 'how can it be forced if it's wanted?'; the proponent of forced X (whatever X is) is unable to present a coherent argument in return . . . . then the thread dies, with everyone going off comfortably to settle back into exactly the belief (and desire) that he or she had before. Fourthly, your points suddenly whisked me back a few years, to a time before I joined CM. I think, then, that I really did believe that D/s was all about contradictory feelings - of a sub who was offering a kind of semi- or superficially- unwilling submission (and probably did, indeed, see that as a gift) and a dominant who really did want the challenge of peeling away the layers. I honestly do think we'd all get a lot further in all this if we recognised that D/s is inherently contradictory and the essence of it is about the tensions that such contradictions entail. As far as I can see, it's precisely such tensions that so many in D/s love. People present arguments here that so often seem to go, 'You see D/s as being about both A and B, but A and B are mutually exclusive. It has to be one or the other'. Logic satisfied, so many dead horses all flogged over and over again . . . and nobody's emotional life remotely touched by said 'logic'. I mean, really, sometimes I think, why do be bother even to try articulate it all in the way that we do - as though there was some tidy logic just waiting behind a wall, and we could get to it if only we hammered hard enough at that wall? Thousands of years of novels, poems and plays haven't been able to do that with regard to vanilla love and relationships - so what chance have we got, here, with D/s love and relationships? Heh. Your comments instantly brought to mind Shakespeare's 'The Taming of the Shrew' - but with the roles flipped and the man now the 'shrew'. To me that play, whatever its faults, did a great job of highlighting just this world of contradictory feelings. And maybe that's all that can really be done with them: highlight them, recognise them and own them. There. I did promise that I'd ramble more than you, didn't I? [;)]

LadyPact -> RE: The "alpha female" femdom, now with less than 1% kink! (2/23/2011 9:36:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AAkasha If anything, in this thread I was trying to illuminate why the stereotype of women as leaders/women as alpha = femdom. And more to the point, women who are leaders, women who like female-led relationships, and women who are "alpha" aren't necessarily open to kink. How many times have sub men gotten into relationships with women who were "alpha" in hopes they were kinky, only to find they were nowhere near it, or open to it? Probably about the same amount of males who start relationships with any woman hoping to convert them. It is literally a gamble. Seeing a woman with power and control in another aspect of life (work, leader in community service, etc) gives a hope that said woman will want control in other areas, such as the bedroom. Of course, we know this to be an incorrect line of thinking. However, with the imbalance of males to females who are interested in kink, I'm sure there are those that feel they need to try something. quote: I think there are a lot of stereotypes and protocols that are developing that are unrealistic and counter productive. Especially the whole service = submission, and masochists/bottoms are not "submitting" but are just "bottoming" - as if that's not a valuable thing. But the thing really that is simmering in my head, is the concept of what the combination of bottoming + submitting, as an act of surrender, should be defined as, and how when a man struggles (in a good way) to submit physically, or desires a femdom who exerts power to solicit his physical submission or desires a femdom who tops from a place of playful cruelty, not merely mechanics is not "just a bottom." You're entitled to your own opinion, of course, but I can't say that I'm in agreement with you. I suppose it is like anything else that is phrased according to being in greater supply than there is a demand. To Me, it's just water because it's readily available everywhere I look and very easy to acquire. I might feel differently if I were thirsting to death or I was in the desert. The value changes because the circumstances have changed. quote: I can't begin to put it into words, but when a man tries to communicate that his physical submission doesn't come naturally, even though he desires it on some level, he is called a bottom or a "smart assed masochist." He is unable to communicate that he likes to be "taken down" without coming across as difficult or deliberately challenging. Yet there is a type of man that doesn't just need to "submit" and he's not just a simple "masochist," he needs a woman to peel away his resistance and revel in it - sadistically, but fairly, and with affection, yet she's clearly enjoying his growing vulnerability. To me this isn't a bottom, or a man that just is a masochist, and he's not fixated on the "acts" but he needs to be physically dominated (he doesn't have a fetish for x, y or z - but has a fetish for a woman using all the tools in her arsenal to make him feel helpless or suffer -- because she enjoys it). I mentioned a short response on a similar thread yesterday. Such scenarios are great for play, but I find life another matter. I'm led to think that we actually have this in common because neither of us are looking for a primary partner. We already have the stuff that fulfills our lives on the relationship level. In fact, isn't your husband the one who tends to the house so that you can focus on your career? That situation has greater benefits than what you are discussing here. For both of us, the play is just the extras. quote: This is the kind of man that is slapped with the label of "bottom," but if this were the case, he'd just go see a pro femdom, but he can't, because the physical acts must not be of his choosing, or the pace, or the concept in the back of his head that she may be enjoying the process for something other than pure, delicious sadism and delight in seeing him broken down a little at a time. He is clearly interested in "physical acts" and an active femdom (vs. just serving, or doting, or acts of service or massage, for example), and a woman that delights in the process of his surrender. This is the kind of man that I think is drawn to "alpha" women because he is attracted to active, open, aggressive, assertive "can do" women who seem to demand/desire obedience by her demeanor. I don't think you're hitting the primary reason of why such men don't visit pros. You're touching on it, but it's not quite all there. It's like ordering up an escort, paying for the 'happy ending' but wanting to be seduced. Whether the chemistry is there or not, the outcome is predetermined. In attempting to create the chemistry, the client keeps paying for the process. As long as the money is involved, the client never really knows how much the pro is really enjoying the sessions. She might be to varying degrees, but most pros recognize their business arrangements for what they are. Unlike clients who tend to delude themselves into believing they are more significant to the pro's life (as opposed to her pocketbook) than they are in reality. quote: She may, however, not have a sadistic bone in her body. We do agree on this. quote: How can a man who is wired this way define himself? Not as a "sub" or as a "bottom" and not a "smart assed masochist" simply because he doesn't just endure pain, but wants to be coerced into enduring it - and not on his terms, but within his wider boundaries of consent. I don't see a thing wrong with the way you phrased it right there. quote: I want to find a label for this kind of guy, because I want to be able to identify it, and for these men to be easy to spot (haha). No, I don't believe we need another label. I think what most folks need to do are check boxes on the internet less and talk with people in real life more. quote: Sorry of it this comes off a bit..."rambly." edited to add: This kind of man also often gets shut down for trying to characterize his submission/bottoming as a "gift," but it is. To a woman who is a hungry sadist, and wants to dominate a man who does not submit naturally and easily, this is indeed a gift, but that is a whole can of worms. And a man goes into dangerous territory when he uses the "g" word to describe how he wants his submission to feel. Akasha Such terms are in the eye of the receiver. You can call something a diamond all day long, but if it's really just a rock, then that's all it is; a rock.

wyngedbyste -> RE: The "alpha female" femdom, now with less than 1% kink! (2/23/2011 1:28:12 PM)
Aakasha, I know exactly what you mean. I characterize these men as alpha males with a submissive side they need to reveal, but only to someone who feels safe to them. Someone who "gets" it. I hate the whole "gift" thing. Not sure what other word to use, though. These are the males I prefer. They submit to me because I bring out their submissiveness, not because I'm just another dominant female. YMMV Byste

enani17236 -> RE: The "alpha female" femdom, now with less than 1% kink! (2/23/2011 10:40:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer I honestly do think we'd all get a lot further in all this if we recognised that D/s is inherently contradictory and the essence of it is about the tensions that such contradictions entail. As far as I can see, it's precisely such tensions that so many in D/s love. I think you are very right on this. Everybody loves tension, of some kind. All games are about that - not knowing the outcome. Hunting. Gambling. Flirting. Watching movies. And it is most definitely one of the things I crave in my private life, and I get it by NOT knowing what comes next. In a D/s relationship, it is possible, when I surrender my control. In a vanilla relationship, it is almost non-existent, because everything happens in accordance with my own wishes - and that makes it all so damned boring predictable! It also ties to your comment on being forced to do something you actually consented to in the first place. Your question, "How can it be forced, when you agree to it?" does indeed have an answer: The element of unpredictability gives a tension that will not be there, if the D were to ask every time. But it is there when permission is granted as a blanco check up front. Example: If I am asked if I like to do X, then I might answer "yes". If I will do it all the time? Answer: "No, of course not." Being asked further, if I like doing X ANY TIME OF SOMEONE ELSE'S CHOICE, then I would answer "Hell NO!" But the deeper truth is that, when it is my Mistress' wish, and Her wish has to be fulfilled RIGHT NOW, and She tolerates no hesitation or objection, then the tension in me from never knowing when She will make me do that keeps me in a state of arousal I love - and when She makes it happen, without even showing any concern for my possible consent or lack of same, then it feels incredibly good! It is gasoline on my internal fire, and it shows me that She "takes me for granted" - which I see as a token of Her love to me. But, if She would first ask me if I wanted to do it, then the answer most likely would be, "no, I don't feel like that right now", simply because I have my mind set to something else.... The whole thing would be watered down because of the lack of that tension - and we would end up doing MUCH less "fun stuff" and much more mundane stuff we both enjoy less. But I do this to Her, because I love Her. Try to make me do it to someone else, and you would see me fight it... Except maybe, if She made me do it and I was sure that She would enjoy watching it. It is impossible to experience this with a pro - or during agreed or planned "play" time. It only works because the tension is created by me never knowing WHEN or HOW it is going to strike next.

AAkasha -> RE: The "alpha female" femdom, now with less than 1% kink! (2/24/2011 7:32:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer Fourthly, your points suddenly whisked me back a few years, to a time before I joined CM. I think, then, that I really did believe that D/s was all about contradictory feelings - of a sub who was offering a kind of semi- or superficially- unwilling submission (and probably did, indeed, see that as a gift) and a dominant who really did want the challenge of peeling away the layers. I honestly do think we'd all get a lot further in all this if we recognised that D/s is inherently contradictory and the essence of it is about the tensions that such contradictions entail. As far as I can see, it's precisely such tensions that so many in D/s love. People present arguments here that so often seem to go, 'You see D/s as being about both A and B, but A and B are mutually exclusive. It has to be one or the other'. Logic satisfied, so many dead horses all flogged over and over again . . . and nobody's emotional life remotely touched by said 'logic'. I mean, really, sometimes I think, why do be bother even to try articulate it all in the way that we do - as though there was some tidy logic just waiting behind a wall, and we could get to it if only we hammered hard enough at that wall? Thousands of years of novels, poems and plays haven't been able to do that with regard to vanilla love and relationships - so what chance have we got, here, with D/s love and relationships? Heh. Your comments instantly brought to mind Shakespeare's 'The Taming of the Shrew' - but with the roles flipped and the man now the 'shrew'. To me that play, whatever its faults, did a great job of highlighting just this world of contradictory feelings. And maybe that's all that can really be done with them: highlight them, recognise them and own them. There. I did promise that I'd ramble more than you, didn't I? [;)] Unfortunately it's really had to get into a discussion about surrender, power exchange, and men who don't submit easily without having them labeled as bottoms or "brats" when that's not it at all. There's a type of man that craves surrender and submission but what he wants most of all is to be overpowered; that doesn't mean he is going to be deliberately difficult. He is entirely going to cooperate. But it's going to be difficult for him to cooperate, and that's what makes it so damned amazing - that's when the whole "gift" thing comes into play. As a dominant woman, and a sadist, when I see a man is submitting to me physically under difficult circumstances, that's when I get my best "femdom high" - that's the hot part, that's the holy grail, and I don't get that very often. Sure, a man can enjoy being beaten or whipped, get a kick out of bondage and be a good egg and participate, and be vocal and expressive and interesting to me. That's good, fun, rewarding S&M. But a man who has identified that submission, on some levels, is difficult for him, and he willingly goes there, he does COOPERATE, it's just difficult. He finds a way through it, because he wants to submit, despite it being a little unnatural for him. When a man tries to articulate this to women in places like this or in email, he gets labeled as "too alpha" or "maybe just a bottom," or "you just want it your way," or "you want to submit to a 'bitch femdom'." The reality is that he wants it HER way, so much her way, that he has no choice, really. He surrenders because he's trying to get to that place, and he can't get to that place alone - he needs to surrender to authentic sadism, a woman who is honestly doing it to him because she gets off on his suffering, and that's what makes him go on and take more. I guess it could just be labeled sadist/masochist, but I don't buy that. I'm a sadist, and I get nothing out of playing with masochists, unless the man is a very good actor and can make his submission seem totally authentic. And yeah, I get it, that "masochists still feel pain," but I am talking about the desire to strip a man's resistance away through dominance, to make him feel pain and fear, and have that put him in a vulnerable place that he both desires and is terrified of. That, to me, isn't mere masochism; it's a man who desires a type of power exchange that's so thick in the air, you can feel it dripping from your skin when you are in it. I just wish men had a way to phrase this better; I know it's out there. The other unfortunate thing is that it is dangerously close to the "ambivalent" sub/bottom, which is similar, but bad news. This is the man that hates himself for being kinky and goes into total self loathing after the BDSM is done -- I am not talking about a man who is conflicted about the fact that he enjoys it, I am talking about a man who is conflicted when he's enjoying it, and the fact that he endures this conflict for the woman he adores just makes him feel incredible. Akasha

ElanSubdued -> RE: The "alpha female" femdom, now with less than 1% kink! (2/25/2011 9:52:09 AM)
Akasha, quote: However, most of these women are 100% NON KINKY. These are women that subs may target as potential femdoms as they are controlling, assertive, drive the courtship process, state what they want, and want to be the leader in their relationship. But aside from unintentional "denial" of his orgasms (meaning she isn't playing chastity games, she's simply too tired from working her ass off and sex is a low priority), there's 0 kink in the bedroom. Bondage, S&M? FORGET IT! These women are not afraid to lay the rules in the bedroom, and those rules are often, "Sex when I want it and leave me alone, and whatever you do, don't whine about it." If a man were to make any suggestions for a little variety in the bedroom even in the form of light roleplay or bondage, he'd be shut down in a heartbeat as she's strong enough to say, "Hell no. Don't bring it up again, either." I've yet to meet any partner good in the bedroom (alpha, beta, or otherwise) who wasn't interested in my sexual pleasure - that's actually a fundamental component that contributes to great sex. This, of course, works in reverse too (i.e. my interest in my partner's sexual pleasure is usually fundamental to her sexual enjoyment and satisfaction). Without a mutual appreciation of and a desire for each other's pleasure, sex becomes more like a business transaction. Yep. Place a checkmark beside the "had sex this week" activity on the to-do list and get on with monitoring the stock market. The ability to share and discuss sexual ideas and turn-ons is another area where sex tends to fall flat if this isn't present. It has been my experience that people who approach sex in the fashion you described are not constrained to the alpha camp. This seems to be more a sexual preferences and style of sexual communication issue than one of alpha versus beta type. Elan.

PeonForHer -> RE: The "alpha female" femdom, now with less than 1% kink! (2/25/2011 4:06:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AAkasha Unfortunately it's really had to get into a discussion about surrender, power exchange, and men who don't submit easily without having them labeled as bottoms or "brats" when that's not it at all. There's a type of man that craves surrender and submission but what he wants most of all is to be overpowered; that doesn't mean he is going to be deliberately difficult. He is entirely going to cooperate. But it's going to be difficult for him to cooperate, and that's what makes it so damned amazing - that's when the whole "gift" thing comes into play. The language is there, A, but I just think it needs to be flipped over. Earlier, I mentioned Shakespeare's The Taming of The Shrew. Now, I remember this play coming up a couple of years ago and ShaktiSama slating it for, amongst other things, being a depiction of sexual stereotypes. She was right - it was exactly that. The Shrew was a woman who was 'made' to submit, but that desire to submit was all covered with prickles. But versus Shakti: People have often said that part of Shakespeare's genius was precisely in his ability to reflect so well the experiences of humanity (at least as it was then) - and I think that was true. The Shrew, Katherina, wanted to submit, deep down, but there were those thorns for the male suitors to fight their way through . . . . In male subs, we have that position reversed, but there are bound to be many more thorns to deal with because men aren't encouraged to submit - they don't have the background for it. A man may, deep down, very, very much want to submit - but he just can't, not straight away and not easily. He feels he has to guard his sense of self, as society has painstakingly slotted it in place for him. It is not always a comfortable experience for him to submit to a woman. Very far from it. Hmmm. When I first came to CM, my knee-jerk feeling about femdoms who talked about 'do-me subs' was that it was they, the femdoms, who were at fault. I thought, 'Stop being such a bunch of wimps. Deal with the thorns and get on with it. For feck's sake, that's what men have been dealing with for aeons when they've wooed women that they've finally dominated (if they were lucky), so get used to it. You want to be dominant? So dominate. Stop whimpering about men who won't roll over and instantly submit to you.' Now, OK, before I precipitate a maelstrom: I do understand, now, that there's a (big) class of malesubs whose willingness to submit has got stuck at a particular stage - they get turned on by very specific images and fantasies of submission (one particular kink or another) and will entertain no other kind.. The femdom just services that kink - and that's that. I've always felt that those are submales who can only let their defences down so far and no farther. I've also always had the feeling that such submales lack bollocks, that they could realise such bigger dreams if only they could gain the guts to 'free up' their submission, to de-restrict it from just that one kink. But people are as they are. I've seen that many submales won't move beyond that. They'll always be what you femdoms call 'do-me' subs. That's all such submales can handle. The bigger dream is too hot for them to hold. But I do agree that there's a class of submales who are up for going beyond that. It's just that it's not a nice, comfy, flat road, that's all. Regarding those submales - well, I'll go back to my original, pre-CM position: that the ball is firmly in the femdom's court. If she's able to recognise that a submale is actually in that class (which, admittedly, may take some high degree of perspicacity on her part) . . . then it's up to her, the femdom, to woman-up and develop the requisite, er, bollocks for the challenge. Or, if she can't do that and/or doesn't want the hassle, stick with the malesubs who've done all the work for themselves - cut down their own thorns, that is. I haven't formed an impression of what such 'ready-made submales' are like . . . other than the fact that they're very, very thin on the ground and not-at-all readily-distinguishable from the submales who are just pretending to be like that.

enani17236 -> RE: The "alpha female" femdom, now with less than 1% kink! (2/25/2011 7:52:44 PM)
Akasha, I think I understand you now - thank you for clarifying! It is indeed an interesting perspective, and I can relate quite well to it. Personally, I do not "look for an excuse" to submit. It takes a very special woman for me to do it - and my enjoyment of it is completely subject to my sensing that SHE enjoys it! If She is doing it for my sake, then forget it - I just can't stay in the role then; I would feel stupid. And She most definitely has to be someone worthy of me, in my eyes. But I have a feeling that you are asking the impossible. I do not see how the featured scenario can come to reality without a very strong relationship between the two. For a casual encounter or on terms of "play", I just can't see it happening, as there has to be a driving force in the male in order for him to allow you to pull this through. You do not seem to be one looking for a LTR, so you won't have an easy time finding it... In order for him to not be ticked off by your making him go through something he has serious trouble accepting, but does anyway because he gets off on YOUR getting off on the power you exercise over him - there has to be a strong driving force behind that, because it is NOT sustaining itself! Sure, that force could be what people call love... But, lacking that, there must be some other force in place inside him, and it is not a natural one. What I am saying is that the features you are looking do not appear like ready-made personality traits for any male I would know of or could relate to; they are personality traits you can ONLY expect to "develop" when there is a serious bond in place first, at least on the male's part. But, on that term, I can see it happen, at least for me. What you want is something I think you have to create - it is not something anyone can just harvest by screening applicants. And if you really just want to pick it like a rose from a bush, then good luck to you - because I think you will need a lot of that. (I am not trying to be a party pooper, but I think you ignore the reasons why things could be the way you would like them to be.) I could be mistaken, and if so, then I would certainly be curious about an example of how it CAN work, with no strong bonding created first. Or maybe there are men out there who will "fall in love" in a matter of minutes - and thus create that force you need?

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625