AlexAussieSub
Posts: 70
Joined: 10/13/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: LotusSong
My point was the immediate aggresive reaction of the detractor. I found this YEARS ago and found it enlightening. This is something I've shared before.:
Male vs. Female Dominance - A Difference of Style
The fact that men and women are different is obvious. What may not be so obvious is the effect that this difference makes in the creation of a Dominant persona.
As any honest Dominant will tell you, role-playing is a vital aspect of the BDSM scene. By role-playing, I do not mean that the Dominant's persona is in any way an act; rather, that the persona is a consciously enhanced aspect of that person's character. These character traits are often emphasized to create the proper mood for a scene, which assists the submissive in entering sub space. Or the Dominant may emphasize a character attribute in order to explore His own psyche--to see where certain emotions and thought patterns might lead, and thereby learn something of Himself.
Gender role differences appear in terms of what aspects of character male and female dominants tend to emphasize. Men and women tend to display stereotypical gender role differences with remarkable regularity in their Dominant personae.
Female Dominance is often characterized by strong psychological Dominance. Because most women are usually physically weaker than their male partners, Dominance and control cannot be primarily physical. Instead, the feminine charms are employed to seduce the submissive male into willingly surrendering control.
In My experience, this is most often done by a sort of Lysistrata syndrome, wherein the submissive is taught to crave the Domina's body or sexual favors, and then denied them until the Domina's demands are met.
Orgasmic denial (as differentiated from control) is a common tool. This is a form of Dominance that works extremely well on men, but poorly on most women. There are a vast number of reasons for this, but the two primary reasons are as follows.
Most men are not multiorgasmic. Denial maintains the sexual tension. Once orgasm is achieved, the games are usually over.
Men are primarily goal-oriented. Denial games provide a tangible goal to work towards.
Another form of seductive Dominance includes manipulating the submissive into submission. For example, some female Dominants will tease a submissive to bring him to a fever pitch. Then, the Domina will encourage him to enter some form of restraint, implying that doing this for Her will bring the submissive closer to his orgasmic goal.
Psychological threats are often employed as well. For instance, a slave may be required to accept some task or punishment (i.e. an enema) to which he is resistant. Implied threats of displeasure, perhaps even overt ultimatums of being expelled from the Domina's presence, are then used to bring the slave into line.
Subbing to someone who can't beat me up seems totally weird and has no appeal to me at all. This is why the whole bondage thing works. Even if the girl was a supermodel it couldn't happen.
I would not call "using feminine charms to seduce the submissive male" a dominant activity. Reason is that granting these sorts of sexual favours is in itself a submissive act, so someone who's only card is sex cannot be a Domme. Even if they're not actually granting any of these favours, they're still playing the the same card, which doesn't make them a Domme (though I've met a lot of women who I would consider Dommes who would do this sort of stuff to guys if they were vulnerable to it, but they're Dommes because they have more to offer). Wouldn't a stripper be a Domme by your logic?
Also the whole thing evaporates if the guy refuses to have sex with the girl. Subs have little ways of testing how dominant someone really is, one way I can think of is to knock back the "rewards" and see how her self-esteem holds up. What about the Subs who think of sex with their Domme as a limit and refuse to do it? What about the guys who want to continue being Subs after orgasm? How does these people fit into your theory?
Isn't the definition of a Domme that they have value that comes from somewhere other than where a guy can stick it? This means that if a guy is being submissive because he wants sex he's pussy-whipped, which doesn't make him a Sub.
Hopefully this will lead to an interesting discussion 
|
RE: Style differences between male/female dominants - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread