|
BootyBoy -> RE: Courting a male submissive (1/8/2012 4:20:10 PM)
|
I did.
I think it would look differently because we're all effected by our environment, our upbringing, and our culture, and these imprint us all with certain a priori assumptions that effect our world understanding. For example: If a 5 foot 3 inch, 128 lb. submissive woman meets a 6 foot 2 inch, 210 lb. Dominant for coffee for the first time, she automatically is looking for reassurances that this guy is not unbalanced. She is immediately aware that to submit to him is to put herself at risk, and she is looking for assurances of trust and sanity. At least she should be, if she has any sense.
On the other hand, if a 6 foot 2 inch, 210 lb. submissive male meets a 5 foot 3 inch, 128 lb. Dominant woman, he is much less worried about his safety. In fact, his primary concern is whether or not this little woman can really dominate him—now, obviously not in every case, but very often. But, of course, THAT IS A MISTAKE. Once the 5 foot 3 inch woman has him in restraints, she could just as easily rob, murder, or mutilate him as he could her. She could drug him. She might have several accomplices using her as a lure. The feeling of relative safety is, in fact, an illusion THAT iS REALITY.
However, REALITY does not matter where conditioning has set the stage. Even though the strapping sub SHOULD be thinking about his safety, he isn't because society has taught him that a strapping man has nothing to worry about when it comes to his safety, especially from a smaller woman. In fact, he's probably even been conditioned to think that worrying about his safety too much is unmanly and a sign of weakness. Therefore, if a Dominant woman in her courtship of him tries to to assure him of his safety, he either misses it, is mildly amused by it, or may even consider it to be a kind of insult to his manhood. He may certainly tolerate it without comment, but it will not mean the same thing to him as if things were the other way around.
This can be applied to safety.
It can be applied to demonstrating that she can provide for his needs (the giving of tokens and gifts).
It can be applied to her guardianship over his emotional well being.
You might say that this is the result of a long-held patriarchal society, and that would be true, but it doesn't make the psychology of it any less real. So you can court a man, as if he were a woman, giving to him all of the same tokens, conventions, and promises, but it is not likely to mean the same things to him as a man, who has been socialized with certain impressions of his manhood. That is why I have said that "courtship" in this scenario should take into account the reality of the prevailing social construct and adapt accordingly to conventions that will be a better fit. It's no good asking why men don't generally react the same way to chocolates and flowers in the same way that women do. They simply don't, because they were taught differently. The other alternative is to try and unprogram an entire lifetime of social conditioning that will continue to be reinforced in the society around you, in which you both must live.
|
|
|
|
