Article: The Healthy Female Submissive

[YourCaptor]

What does education have to do with this? I didn't say physically enslaved I said submissive.

Look cute, don't raise your voice, smile a lot and make sure everyone else is happy before you are.

Make sure any male egos in proximity are salved all the time. or else you're a bitch.

Being liked is much more important than being right, if you don't reproduce and give your life up for your kids you're just not ever going to be "really fulfilled" - did you think the messages somehow stopped?

As much as I feel bad that other women are made to feel freaky and damaged about their submissive sexuality the implication that a dominant sexuality is somehow more socially backed up is a giant HA.

I would have to disagree. Yes maybe a dominant women is a bit out of the norm amongst other women, and just blending in as a cute one is the easy route, but a woman who will submit to getting her ass beat is gonna be subject to far more scrutiny.

 

[00Syd]

I would have to disagree. Yes maybe a dominant women is a bit out of the norm amongst other women, and just blending in as a cute one is the easy route, but a woman who will submit to getting her ass beat is gonna be subject to far more scrutiny.

I think your missing what she's saying.

 

[Netzach]

I would have to disagree. Yes maybe a dominant women is a bit out of the norm amongst other women, and just blending in as a cute one is the easy route, but a woman who will submit to getting her ass beat is gonna be subject to far more scrutiny.

Than one who decides where her husband can work, if he's allowed to go for a promotion and what he eats for dinner?

Can I please have at whatever you are smoking?

 

[Homburg]

Than one who decides where her husband can work, if he's allowed to go for a promotion and what he eats for dinner?

Can I please have at whatever you are smoking?

I'm conflicted on this one. I think the dominant-ish woman is culturally more acceptable than the submissive woman. If you accept the "television as mirror to culture" hypothesis, examine role models there. How many of the women presented on TV are submissive nodders? More often, the acceptable role model is the tough girl, or the mom/wife who wears the pants in the family.

Seems to me like the woman wearing the pants in the family (though not to the extent that we see from capital "D" Dominant women) is more acceptable these days than the doormat whose husband walks all over her. Hell, I've seen it in my own non-kinky friends. One of my friends' wives actively dislikes viv solely because she defers to me (talking socially, kink is not a contributor to that dislike). Said woman is firmly in charge of her husband and household too. Other women in our social circle react to it as well, based on their own predilections, but I doubt that a single one would approve if they knew the whole picture. Yet the afore-mentioned dominant-ish woman who has her husband's balls firmly in her purse? No one even bats an eye.

Kink-wise, I don't know. Neither is all that acceptable, though the "dominatrix" (term used on purpose) imagery is becoming more and more mainstream.

 

[JMohegan]

I think that "dominant-ish" anybody is more likely to be respected in our society than someone who defers. Our culture just fails to value the follower as much as it does the leader or independent.

This leads to all kinds of problems in a lot of contexts. At the relationship level, it means that neither the one perceived to be the hen-pecked husband, nor the one perceived to be the doormat wife, get much in the way of positive regard.

 

[Homburg]

I think that "dominant-ish" anybody is more likely to be respected in our society than someone who defers. Our culture just fails to value the follower as much as it does the leader or independent.

This leads to all kinds of problems in a lot of contexts. At the relationship level, it means that neither the one perceived to be the hen-pecked husband, nor the one perceived to be the doormat wife, get much in the way of positive regard.

In our circle of friends, I am one of the very few people that still respects the chap married to said dominant-ish woman. They're relationship may not be verbalised and acknowledged as ours might be, but it is still a power exchange relationship in his own way. To an extent, the fact that I don't give him the hell that our other friends do has lead to more acceptance from dominant-ish, uber feminist wife.

 

[Netzach]

I'm conflicted on this one. I think the dominant-ish woman is culturally more acceptable than the submissive woman. If you accept the "television as mirror to culture" hypothesis, examine role models there. How many of the women presented on TV are submissive nodders? More often, the acceptable role model is the tough girl, or the mom/wife who wears the pants in the family.

Seems to me like the woman wearing the pants in the family (though not to the extent that we see from capital "D" Dominant women) is more acceptable these days than the doormat whose husband walks all over her. Hell, I've seen it in my own non-kinky friends. One of my friends' wives actively dislikes viv solely because she defers to me (talking socially, kink is not a contributor to that dislike). Said woman is firmly in charge of her husband and household too. Other women in our social circle react to it as well, based on their own predilections, but I doubt that a single one would approve if they knew the whole picture. Yet the afore-mentioned dominant-ish woman who has her husband's balls firmly in her purse? No one even bats an eye.

Kink-wise, I don't know. Neither is all that acceptable, though the "dominatrix" (term used on purpose) imagery is becoming more and more mainstream.

No. Our values are quite clear in our fiction.

Power in women is tolerated only up until the point where it conflicts with and threatens to eclipse male power. Please. The "pants wearing mom" is never actually going to say "you know, honey, you're just not good at this stuff so just let me do it, we'll both be happier." "OK honey, I'm relieved." No, it's all about the secretive disgusting little nod nod wink wink aren't I a silly boy *undermining* of said "power" for thirty minutes a night. He may be stupid, but she's a bitch, so we root for him.

Any woman who is really truly, more in power than "our hero" has to be eliminated.

If she's "overly submissive" she's sick and sad, but if she's more powerful than the most powerful male we're supposed to empathize with either she's shown not to *really be* more powerful, just a cute bitch in tight black clothes who's secretly going to roll over for him (good girl, that's how to do it)

or she's psychotic

or she's tragic and helps him and dies

or she has to be killed.

As I see it there's a narrow bell curve of acceptable human behavior when it comes to power. If "total control" is a six and zero is "total subservience" the peak for women is maybe a 2 or 2.5 in western postindustrial culture. For a man it's 3.5 or 4.

You tell me how someone like myself is supposed to have a healthy self-image surrounding her sexuality. No one's writing any articles for me. It's somehow assumed that the mainstream of feminist culture is somehow more down with my needs than a submissive woman's - but clearly those assumptions are being made by people with no concept whatsoever of what the mainstream of feminist culture actually is except whatever the right wing spins it as. Big surprise - not the case. Not by a long shot.

AND, in addition, also, imagine never seeing anything you can relate to in mainstream culture. Not romance novels. Not movies. Not anything unless you spin it and twist it so much you feel weird getting off on it by the time you are done. (Like I said, I watch movies where shit blows up, because I like seeing men in pain and I'm never really going to get to see men in the kinds of pain and duress I like because a woman keeps him there except in fleeting dysfunctional glimpses.)

That's a bit of a LONG way to go to invent yourself.

 

[BiBunny]

I'd say women's sexuality, period, is considered abnormal, disgusting, or stupid if she wants anything more than to show up with beer and give blowjobs.

And don't get me started on what happens if your sex drive is higher than that of the man you happen to be fucking.

 

[Netzach]

I'm just tired of the endless pile of text on the theme of "waah feminism hasn't sanctioned my sex life."

It hasn't exactly sanctioned anyone else's unless your a lesbian satisfied to hold hands and talk about power struggle.

 

[00Syd]

I'm conflicted on this one. I think the dominant-ish woman is culturally more acceptable than the submissive woman. If you accept the "television as mirror to culture" hypothesis, examine role models there. How many of the women presented on TV are submissive nodders? More often, the acceptable role model is the tough girl, or the mom/wife who wears the pants in the family.

Seems to me like the woman wearing the pants in the family (though not to the extent that we see from capital "D" Dominant women) is more acceptable these days than the doormat whose husband walks all over her. Hell, I've seen it in my own non-kinky friends. One of my friends' wives actively dislikes viv solely because she defers to me (talking socially, kink is not a contributor to that dislike). Said woman is firmly in charge of her husband and household too. Other women in our social circle react to it as well, based on their own predilections, but I doubt that a single one would approve if they knew the whole picture. Yet the afore-mentioned dominant-ish woman who has her husband's balls firmly in her purse? No one even bats an eye.

Kink-wise, I don't know. Neither is all that acceptable, though the "dominatrix" (term used on purpose) imagery is becoming more and more mainstream.

Keep in mind that on most TV shows where the woman wears the pants its used as a comedic device.

 

[BiBunny]

I'm just tired of the endless pile of text on the theme of "waah feminism hasn't sanctioned my sex life."

It hasn't exactly sanctioned anyone else's unless your a lesbian satisfied to hold hands and talk about power struggle.

Oh, no doubt about it.

 

[Homburg]

No. Our values are quite clear in our fiction.

Power in women is tolerated only up until the point where it conflicts with and threatens to eclipse male power. Please. The "pants wearing mom" is never actually going to say "you know, honey, you're just not good at this stuff so just let me do it, we'll both be happier." "OK honey, I'm relieved." No, it's all about the secretive disgusting little nod nod wink wink aren't I a silly boy *undermining* of said "power" for thirty minutes a night. He may be stupid, but she's a bitch, so we root for him.

Any woman who is really truly, more in power than "our hero" has to be eliminated.

If she's "overly submissive" she's sick and sad, but if she's more powerful than the most powerful male we're supposed to empathize with either she's shown not to *really be* more powerful, just a cute bitch in tight black clothes who's secretly going to roll over for him (good girl, that's how to do it)

or she's psychotic

or she's tragic and helps him and dies

or she has to be killed.

I'm not really buying into this. "Married With Children" being an example. The wife was in charge there. Not in charge to your extent, sure, but Bundy did what was good for him. Their friend, Marcy, was even mor ein charge in her relationship. Sure, they used it for joke fodder, but it's a sit-com. They make jokes.

Can I point to solid, dominant women in TV, nope. I'm not that into TV, but the submissive icons of 60's TV are gone. There are far more men saying "Yes, dear" in sit-coms than the other way around.

As I see it there's a narrow bell curve of acceptable human behavior when it comes to power. If "total control" is a six and zero is "total subservience" the peak for women is maybe a 2 or 2.5 in western postindustrial culture. For a man it's 3.5 or 4.

Are we talking power period, or sexual power?

You tell me how someone like myself is supposed to have a healthy self-image surrounding her sexuality. No one's writing any articles for me. It's somehow assumed that the mainstream of feminist culture is somehow more down with my needs than a submissive woman's - but clearly those assumptions are being made by people with no concept whatsoever of what the mainstream of feminist culture actually is except whatever the right wing spins it as. Big surprise - not the case. Not by a long shot.

AND, in addition, also, imagine never seeing anything you can relate to in mainstream culture. Not romance novels. Not movies. Not anything unless you spin it and twist it so much you feel weird getting off on it by the time you are done. (Like I said, I watch movies where shit blows up, because I like seeing men in pain and I'm never really going to get to see men in the kinds of pain and duress I like because a woman keeps him there except in fleeting dysfunctional glimpses.)

That's a bit of a LONG way to go to invent yourself.

Fuck if I know. I beat my wife and girlfriend on a regular basis, and get my rocks off on doing all sorts of nasty things to them, and other random women as well. Every college campus and public school in America has posters on the wall warning girls to stay away from guys like me, and offering numbers where they can get help, report my ass, etc. So tell me where I'm supposed to go to get validation for my predilections? Not from the posters on the walls of the campus police station in MIS University. Not from the police officer talking to kids in my daughter's school about domestic violence. Not even from my own mouth, as I tell my son "You don't hit girls. It's just not how you act."

Yeah, man as corporate manager type, man as world leader, man as head doctor, and all sorts of other power roles are de riguer. But bust your wife across the ass for talking back, and you are suddenly an abuser.

If you want to argue that women in social/business power is not well accepted, I'm right there with you, but arguing that women in power in their relationships is not accepted? No, I'm not really with you on that one.

 

[Homburg]

Keep in mind that on most TV shows where the woman wears the pants its used as a comedic device.

That's what they do. They make comedy. so, yeah, it's used as a comedic device, but it is there. And the butt of the joke is commonly the man. Yes, the women is painted as a bit of a shrew, but the guy is laughed for being henpecked. Does it present some completely positive role model for burdgeoning female dominants? No, of course not. It's a comedy. It's not a good model for anyone, except on how not to do things.

I am thinking more and more that it is a function of age and/or length of time together/married. So many guys cede more and more power to their SO's as time goes on. The sit-coms use those guys as jokes, but it also allows the guy watching to feel a little bit better. Yeah, his wife tells him when he can go out, but she doesn't run his ass like that poor schmuck on the TV.

 

[00Syd]

I'm not really buying into this. "Married With Children" being an example. The wife was in charge there. Not in charge to your extent, sure, but Bundy did what was good for him. Their friend, Marcy, was even mor ein charge in her relationship. Sure, they used it for joke fodder, but it's a sit-com. They make jokes.

Can I point to solid, dominant women in TV, nope. I'm not that into TV, but the submissive icons of 60's TV are gone. There are far more men saying "Yes, dear" in sit-coms than the other way around.

Yes, they are sitcoms and they make jokes, but the jokes stem from a "haha, she sure wears the pants" *nudge nudge wink wink. The only sort of "dominant" (and of course by dominant, we just mean independent) woman that I can think of on TV right now is the mother from Weeds, but she is an incompetent mother due to her "dominance." I cannot think of a single example of "no strings attached" female dominance (or equality) on TV. Usually when there is a women who wears the pants in a sitcom family, she's a nagging bitch and we laugh about it along with her husband and his friends, and then he reasserts himself by the end of the episode and she says "Oh I love you honey" The End. The sheer fact that the woman wearing the pants is used as a joke indirectly furthers accepted gender rolls. There is nothing on TV, even "strong" female characters, that challenges them. We honestly haven't come that far from Leave It To Beaver in the realm of female equality on TV, it just looks like we have.

 

[JMohegan]

No one's writing any articles for me.

I see articles like Tolvah's as part of the fetishization of the vulnerable submissive female. Needs to be molded by a pseudo-parental figure for her own good! Prone to frenzies! And so on. The message always seems to be that submissive females are somehow more vulnerable and in need of rescuing than anyone else.

On the flip side are all those articles targeting males. If he doesn't coddle and care for her every need, then he's not a Dom but a bully or prick.

I'm not trying to diminish your sense of frustration here, Netzach. Just saying that I don't generally see these articles as advancing anyone's self-image in a balanced or "healthy" way.

 

[Netzach]

I'm not really buying into this. "Married With Children" being an example. The wife was in charge there. Not in charge to your extent, sure, but Bundy did what was good for him. Their friend, Marcy, was even mor ein charge in her relationship. Sure, they used it for joke fodder, but it's a sit-com. They make jokes.

Can I point to solid, dominant women in TV, nope. I'm not that into TV, but the submissive icons of 60's TV are gone. There are far more men saying "Yes, dear" in sit-coms than the other way around.

Married with Children is to mainstream sitcom as South Park is to Sesame street. Can you point to solid dominant women in TV, of course not. There being none.

Are we talking power period, or sexual power?

Neither. Sexual power being that thing you do with your gf and not "omgz she's so HOT he just can't help himself he'll do ANYTHING and buy her ANYTHING." Which is pretty much the extent of female sexual "power" I've seen in most depictions.

Fuck if I know. I beat my wife and girlfriend on a regular basis, and get my rocks off on doing all sorts of nasty things to them, and other random women as well. Every college campus and public school in America has posters on the wall warning girls to stay away from guys like me, and offering numbers where they can get help, report my ass, etc.

So tell me where I'm supposed to go to get validation for my predilections? Not from the posters on the walls of the campus police station in MIS University. Not from the police officer talking to kids in my daughter's school about domestic violence. Not even from my own mouth, as I tell my son "You don't hit girls. It's just not how you act."

Yeah, man as corporate manager type, man as world leader, man as head doctor, and all sorts of other power roles are de riguer. But bust your wife across the ass for talking back, and you are suddenly an abuser.

If that's not something she wants and expects and desires as acceptable in the relationship, you are. No one, including me, is getting props for enjoying anything violent.

As for power - If you are talking about validating the desire to be in control of the relationship, the sexually active party, the final word in the relationship, the door-opener and protector - that's not validated all over the place?

If you want to argue that women in social/business power is not well accepted, I'm right there with you, but arguing that women in power in their relationships is not accepted? No, I'm not really with you on that one.

I guess since the acceptance doesn't have to fall on you personally and since I don't have a "Polly" in my corner that's not forthcoming.

 

[Netzach]

That's what they do. They make comedy. so, yeah, it's used as a comedic device, but it is there. And the butt of the joke is commonly the man.

Are you serious? The butt of the comedy is really "HA HA HA we know it's not LIKE that out here!"

 

[Netzach]

I see articles like Tolvah's as part of the fetishization of the vulnerable submissive female. Needs to be molded by a pseudo-parental figure for her own good! Prone to frenzies! And so on. The message always seems to be that submissive females are somehow more vulnerable and in need of rescuing than anyone else.

On the flip side are all those articles targeting males. If he doesn't coddle and care for her every need, then he's not a Dom but a bully or prick.

I'm not trying to diminish your sense of frustration here, Netzach. Just saying that I don't generally see these articles as advancing anyone's self-image in a balanced or "healthy" way.

Wow.

I'm gonna put on my checked apron and bake you a whole sheet of cookies.

 

[JMohegan]

Wow.

I'm gonna put on my checked apron and bake you a whole sheet of cookies.

Okay, I like cookies. But why?

 

[Netzach]

Okay, I like cookies. But why?

Every time someone points out the "can I kiss the boo boo of your pathology" in the SM world it makes me oddly happy.

 

[JMohegan]

Every time someone points out the "can I kiss the boo boo of your pathology" in the SM world it makes me oddly happy.

Well I'm pleased to make you happy, even if oddly so!

Do you have chocolate chips?

 

[Homburg]

We honestly haven't come that far from Leave It To Beaver in the realm of female equality on TV, it just looks like we have.

My perspective here is limited, so I won't go any farther on it.

--

If that's not something she wants and expects and desires as acceptable in the relationship, you are. No one, including me, is getting props for enjoying anything violent.

That is basically the point I am making. No one is getting validation.

As for power - If you are talking about validating the desire to be in control of the relationship, the sexually active party, the final word in the relationship, the door-opener and protector - that's not validated all over the place?

No. Maybe it is my experience only, but I remember being told as a young boy to open doors for ladies, then as a teenager that a woman didn't need men to open the door for her. I was told as a young boy that men should protect women, then the message got turned around again when I got older. Yep, lots of legacy literature points to male power, but, again, a whole lot of that got turned around when I was growing up.

You didn't tell your girlfriend that you expected sex. You petitioned for it. You did not tell a girl that she would accompany you to the movies, you asked, and it was expected that she be given the option to chose the movie. You don't tell your SO that you are going out with the guys, you check with her first to make sure it's okay. Yeah, plenty of dickheads out there (like me) that do the things they aren't supposed to do, but that was not how society told me I was to act around a woman. The vast majority of sexual and romantic situations were handled in ways that made explicitly clear that the woman had the power to make the critical decisions, and maintained constant veto authority.

In the world I grew up in, the manly-men that ran their households with an iron fist were considered to be jerks, and the women that did the same? Well, more often than not, it was just desserts.

So, no, in my view, the way I run my relationship is not validated all over the place. Barefoot and pregnant died a long time ago.

I guess since the acceptance doesn't have to fall on you personally and since I don't have a "Polly" in my corner that's not forthcoming.

Hell, I'll validate you all day long. I think what you're doing, while not my personal cup of tea, is bad-ass. I just don't see culture and society constantly reinforcing that women should be meek. Vacuous, shallow, and image-obsessed, sure, but meek? No. Not really.

Are you serious? The butt of the comedy is really "HA HA HA we know it's not LIKE that out here!"

Yeah, serious. You've said many times that you don't do guys that are straight. Do you hang out with them? It can be tiresome, I admit, but I have a lot of male friends that are straight, and they're your average schmucks. There is not one bit of "We know it's not like that out here." The closest thing is exactly what I said above: "At least I'm not as bad as that guy."

I could list probably twenty guys that I know personally that are currently in relationships, and the majority of them do what their wife/girlfriend tells them to do. Is it an obvious and acknowledged power exchange? Nope, but the woman still holds the reins, and the guys, at most, grumble about it.

Maybe it is because the vast majority of the guys I hang out with are over-educated slackers like myself, but I don't see the stereotypical ball-scratching "Bitch, fetch me a pot pie" guys in my life. Even the non-over-educated non-slackers that I deal with on a regular basis tend to provide contextual clues about the power in their relationships when they talk about their wives/girlfriends.

See, I deal with a lot of blue collar regular joes in my line of work, and most that I've gotten to know are very practiced at saying "Yes, dear" and meaning it. The ones that aren't? They're usually divorced.

 

[intothewoods]

I agree with Netzach, and I would say most of the wives on TV with power seem to get that power by, yes, being cute, or being devious or a master manipulator. I haven't watched a lot of sitcoms recently, so I'm struggling to think of female head of household decision-makers.

In my various circle of friends, irrational controlling spouses are frowned upon, regardless of gender.

I don't know if it's who I attract as friends or what, but most wives I know lean toward submissive, and they are not in the kink scene. Being the perfect wife is something we all praise, even if sometimes it's in a half-joking manner.

 

[intothewoods]

Wow.

I'm gonna put on my checked apron and bake you a whole sheet of cookies.

Did we just enter bizarro world? If the apron has metal studs, I will feel better.

 

[intothewoods]

Yeah, serious. You've said many times that you don't do guys that are straight. Do you hang out with them? It can be tiresome, I admit, but I have a lot of male friends that are straight, and they're your average schmucks. There is not one bit of "We know it's not like that out here." The closest thing is exactly what I said above: "At least I'm not as bad as that guy."

I could list probably twenty guys that I know personally that are currently in relationships, and the majority of them do what their wife/girlfriend tells them to do. Is it an obvious and acknowledged power exchange? Nope, but the woman still holds the reins, and the guys, at most, grumble about it.

Maybe it is because the vast majority of the guys I hang out with are over-educated slackers like myself, but I don't see the stereotypical ball-scratching "Bitch, fetch me a pot pie" guys in my life. Even the non-over-educated non-slackers that I deal with on a regular basis tend to provide contextual clues about the power in their relationships when they talk about their wives/girlfriends.

See, I deal with a lot of blue collar regular joes in my line of work, and most that I've gotten to know are very practiced at saying "Yes, dear" and meaning it. The ones that aren't? They're usually divorced.

Wow, I have not had that experience. I don't know many "bitch fetch me a pot pie" type husbands, but most wives I know do not call the shots.