|
Zonie63 -> RE: ProDoms are fake? (2/1/2012 12:15:22 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: xssve
And at that point, how is it any different than Dom/Sub?You've got women being told their entire life what to do, and getting their ass whipped, they grow up and become capable of making their own decisions, but they're not comfortable unless somebody's telling them what to do, and whipping their ass, so they decide to find somebody to do that for them so they're not sitting around agitated all the time.
You can call that predatory too, money is not the only criteria, time is money - you can also call it life in the big city, the human condition, etc., etc.
It grounds some people, it's no different for men, other than when women do it to men, the sexual component is often downplayed, prodommes are just filling a need by including an explicit sexual component, even if sex isn't directly involved.
Only conflict I can see (at Awareness), is if you're laboring under the delusion that men are supposed to be strong, women are supposed to be weak, it's some kind of natural law - natural selection doesn't work that way, whatever works, works, that's all, and while we tend to specialize in slightly different areas overall according to gender, there's plenty of overlap. Diversity is natures way of hedging her bets, and it's there because... it works!
I guess it really depends on whose ox is gored. As for the delusion that men are supposed to be strong and that women are supposed to be weak, I've found that (if it is a delusion) it's a delusion shared by much of society. Since the rise of feminism, women have had greater choices in society, in that they can choose to be either strong or weak, dominant or submissive - whatever they want. That's all well and good, but men are always expected to be strong no matter what, lest they be subject to societal scorn and ridicule. For example, a man who is "henpecked" or (in some cases) even physically abused by his wife, it's treated like a big joke in society. Likewise, if a man blows all his money on a pro-domme, then it must be his fault. No sympathy there, either. After all, he's a man and should be able to handle it, right?
In this forum, I've seen common complaints about men thinking of women as fetish-delivery systems, and that seems to imply "strong" men compelling the "weak" women to cater to their sexual fantasies, so why shouldn't they make some money out of the deal? I can see a case being made for that.
I can also see the argument that a lot of men get their ideas about Female Domination from porn mostly produced by and for men. I don't think that's strictly true, at least not in my case, as I was more into science fiction anyway. (Producers of porn should hire sci-fi writers instead of constantly regurgitating the same old unimaginative crap.) Some of it may have been inspired by the women's movement as a way of demonstrating to men, through science fiction, what women have to put up with by reversing the roles and putting men in the weaker position. But to be honest, a lot of it turned me on and revved up my imagination, even without leather costumes or anything overtly sexual. (If it's made for TV, they can't really go that far anyway.) No doubt my mind was corrupted rather early in life by multiple conflicting influences.
Likewise, I grew up at a time when women were striving for equality, many of whom were driven to aggressively compete with men in every area, summed up by phrases like "The Battle of the Sexes." Almost none of the girls in my school ever wore dresses; they insisted on wearing pants and dressing and acting just like the guys do. By the 1980s, women were wearing business suits and shoulder pads and taking on very dominant personalities in the business world and elsewhere in society. Some men felt threatened and reacted negatively, while other men welcomed it because they thought were being relieved of their responsibilities of "manhood" and the pressures which come with it.
But that's probably what turned out to be the real "delusion" in this whole mix. A lot of women wanted equality with men, but they didn't seem willing to take on the responsibilities and pressures which come with it. They wanted to have their cake and eat it, too, and that's probably where complaints from some men (like Awareness) come from. It's just like the line from the movie Under Siege where Erika Eleniak's character is saying "I'm the girl, why should I have to carry all this stuff?" Then Steven Seagal's comeback was, "I believe in women's lib, don't you?" And then she says, "Only when it works to my benefit."
As a submissive male, I've had to face certain bleak truths about the reality of the situation, especially when there are so many more submissive men than there are dominant women. There are plenty of women who have found me physically attractive and wanted me sexually (more so when I was younger), but not in that way, not as a submissive. They're just not into it. It doesn't turn them on, so I figure that's that. Of course, I've mostly lived in a conservative, somewhat parochial area. Even though gender equality is mostly accepted on a societal level, most of the views on dating, sex, and relationships are still quite provincial.
I agree that it does no good to whine about it, as it is what it is. That's just the way the cookie bounces, as the saying goes.
So, when the subject of pro-dommes or findommes comes up, then the question remains: Are they really dominant or aren't they? Are they doing this because it's what they want to do and that it genuinely turns them on? Or are they just catering to a male fantasy? Is it just an illusion, a "fake"? Is it something that they would only consent to unless they're given some sort of monetary remuneration? Given that a lot of submissive males might have a history of facing scorn and contempt for their proclivities, along with facing the harsh truth that most women just aren't into dominating men, then the question might remain in the back of their minds: Are they really into it, or is it just some sort of gimmick?
The money may only be a peripheral issue, since I know of many vanilla relationships where the women control the family finances, for any number of possible reasons. That was what I originally thought "financial domination" meant, until I came to this site and was proven wrong.
You can call it whining and sour grapes if you wish. Start up the violins. [sm=boohoo.gif] (Do you take requests?)
But if some people want to have their cake and eat it too, then those left without any cake might end up feeling a bit bitter over it. That comes part of the bargain too, and I still consider it a valid position, even if some men might let their bitter feelings get the better of them and start lashing out randomly (such as the OP). I try to stay in control myself, and normally direct my bitterness and venom at the government and society in general. It's a lot more fun that way. [;)]
|
|
|
|
