Assumed Mysogyny and BDSM.

[homewa]

This thread is in response to a personal ad posted that got me thinking. I'm admittedly not the most experienced person in the BDSM lifestyle (I've had one partner that was into that sort of thing, and sadly we never got to explore it in any great detail).

In any case the woman was equating dominance with misogyny, which is obviously not a correct stance. However that got me wondering, if there are any (although I realize that asking if there are any people aroused by something is probably a pointless endeavor) people who work a sort of straw misogyny into their dominance, essentially acting out misogynistic viewpoints to further degrade their partner (supposing of course that particular partner is into degradation).

And naturally the reverse could be as easily true with a woman taking on misandristic viewpoints to degrade a male submissive. I'm just curious if this is something that anybody has ever experienced, since it seems like a possibility for something interesting.

 

[Feminist123]

That would be my personal ad then, and no, no the woman wasn't equating Dominance and misogyny, read the fucking advert again and you will see that I was asking to talk to a dominant misogynist, at no point in my advert did I equate the two. The very fact I asked to speak to one rather than just a dominant, shows that I see a big difference between the two and was just asking to talk with a certain strand of dominant guy, one with a misogynistic outlook.

So it's your stance, or more accurately ability to read and interpret information that is wrong.

 

[homewa]

That would be my personal ad then, and no, no the woman wasn't equating Dominance and misogyny, read the fucking advert again and you will see that I was asking to talk to a dominant misogynist, at no point in my advert did I equate the two. The very fact I asked to speak to one rather than just a dominant, shows that I see a big difference between the two and was just asking to talk with a certain strand of dominant guy, one with a misogynistic outlook.

So it's your stance, or more accurately ability to read and interpret information that is wrong.

Well I stand corrected. I believe you posted your clarification after I had posted this, but I'm not entirely sure, although to be fair that doesn't invalidate my question either. It wasn't intended as an attack on your viewpoint, but rather a curiosity of my own.

 

[Feminist123]

You have every right to ask the question and in fact I'm going to follow this thread with interest.

I took exception to you saying I was equating Dominance and misogyny which was obviously wrong. Equating dominance and misogyny is wrong, however, I wasn't doing that.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Real dominance demands chauvinism NOT misogyny. Females are as simple as screwdrivers and hammers, and useful, and a good carpenter never blames his tools.

 

[DesEsseintes]

Real dominance demands chauvinism NOT misogyny. Females are as simple as screwdrivers and hammers, and useful, and a good carpenter never blames his tools.

Right. Because there are no Dommes, or male submissives?

In actual BDSM in the UK - as opposed to online fantasies - there are far more male submissives than female. Make of that what you will. It has long interested me, that apparent disparity on Lit.

 

[homewa]

Real dominance demands chauvinism NOT misogyny. Females are as simple as screwdrivers and hammers, and useful, and a good carpenter never blames his tools.

This isn't asking actual misogyny though, but rather playing at misogyny as way to enhance the experience of the other partner. Of course, there likely few who would be aroused by that, but I'm curious about it now, since it's been referenced elsewhere.

Edit: Also I imagine that you wouldn't be chauvinist if you were dominant. A submissive should be much more than a screwdriver or a hammer, admittedly I've only had the one relationship, but it was a relationship. I didn't feel that my desire to take charge in sexual things made me better than her, nor that her desire to be controlled made her less.

Right. Because there are no Dommes, or male submissives?

In actual BDSM in the UK - as opposed to online fantasies - there are far more male submissives than female. Make of that what you will. It has long interested me, that apparent disparity on Lit.

It's not really related but I wonder if that has to do with the number of women here who are in relationships (admittedly I haven't been around for that long, but a large percentage of women seem to be married). So while sub men might be unmarried and able to actually play the field, it's possible that a greater number of sub women are married and can only live out their fantasies in this sort of venue. Which would explain the disparity, of course that's pure idle speculation on my part.

 

[seela]

In actual BDSM in the UK - as opposed to online fantasies - there are far more male submissives than female. Make of that what you will. It has long interested me, that apparent disparity on Lit.

That's the case here as well, or at least used to be. I haven't been to any events or gatherings for quite a while now.

Local online forums are mostly populated by female submissives or at least they're the most active writers and even the kink organizations are in large part run by female submissives, but in events there seem(ed) to be more male submissives.

It is intriguing, indeed.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Right. Because there are no Dommes, or male submissives?

In actual BDSM in the UK - as opposed to online fantasies - there are far more male submissives than female. Make of that what you will. It has long interested me, that apparent disparity on Lit.

My mother was domme, my dad was submissive. She steered him around like a lawn mower but got nowhere with me. And the few times he pushed back were always when I agreed with his sentiments and made them clear to her.

 

[homewa]

My mother was domme, my dad was submissive. She steered him around like a lawn mower but got nowhere with me. And the few times he pushed back were always when I agreed with his sentiments and made them clear to her.

I don't think that's exactly what we're discussing. That sounds more like an unwilling browbeaten husband and a henpecking wife, rather than two people engaged in consensual sexual activities utilizing one person's enjoyment of degradation by a particular method.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I don't think that's exactly what we're discussing. That sounds more like an unwilling browbeaten husband and a henpecking wife, rather than two people engaged in consensual sexual activities utilizing one person's enjoyment of degradation by a particular method.

Your conformity issue isn't my concern. I don't salute every flag half-wits hoist.

 

[homewa]

Your conformity issue isn't my concern. I don't salute every flag half-wits hoist.

Well since you're commenting on my thread, actively moving away from the topics that it was supposed to discuss would be seen as a sign of shitty behavior, but if that's your goal, then fucking go for it!

And I might be half-witted, but I doubt it.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Well since you're commenting on my thread, actively moving away from the topics that it was supposed to discuss would be seen as a sign of shitty behavior, but if that's your goal, then fucking go for it!

And I might be half-witted, but I doubt it.

Trust me, you are.

 

[homewa]

Trust me, you are.

I'll take your word for it.

 

[UtopiaBound]

Back to the OP...

I imagine there are a fair amount of abusive types who try to make their behavior acceptable under the blanket of BDSM. I'd assume, though I could be wrong, that that's where the majority of the mysogymists would be found.

I wonder how many are dominant naturally and started out young as abusive before they could fathom possessing a willing submissive. Or how many still are because they are trying too hard to be 'normal'.....

 

[homewa]

I imagine there are a fair amount of abusive types who try to make their behavior acceptable under the blanket of BDSM. I'd assume, though I could be wrong, that that's where the majority of the mysogymists would be found.

I wonder how many are dominant naturally and started out young as abusive before they could fathom possessing a willing submissive. Or how many still are because they are trying too hard to be 'normal'.....

Well in this case it wouldn't be actual abuse though, the same way as spanking a willing participant wouldn't be abusive. I don't know if this sort of thing ever happens, since those viewpoints are typically viewed as reprehensible, then again a lot of behavior that might be reprehensible in other contexts can be rendered fine with willing participants.

Edit: Of course, there might not be this sort of behavior, but it's just something that I'm now wondering about.

 

[UtopiaBound]

Absolutely they would truly be abusive, but in their twisted mind they might try to say otherwise and probably be able to convince some people who are naive about consensual bdsm. Repressed behaviors and desires too often come out in explosive, extreme actions. Also, abusers often justify their actions by thinking 'if it was so bad, they would have left'. Twisted thought patterns I've had the displeasure of dealing with at times...

 

[UtopiaBound]

On the flip side, and this is in no way meant to diminish or degrade victims, I imagine a naturally submissive type who is ashamed to admit that they are turned on by bdsm might be more susceptible to fall victim to an abuser.... So many people have it drilled into their head that it's never okay to hit a woman. Hitting, spanking, public shaming for pleasure.... They can bring true shame to the participants in the general community.

 

[homewa]

Absolutely they would truly be abusive, but in their twisted mind they might try to say otherwise and probably be able to convince some people who are naive about consensual bdsm. Repressed behaviors and desires too often come out in explosive, extreme actions. Also, abusers often justify their actions by thinking 'if it was so bad, they would have left'. Twisted thought patterns I've had the displeasure of dealing with at times...

Would you argue that spanking a woman is abusive? Or any number of more extreme BDSM is abusive?

It's possible that it would be thought processes that they actually hold, but I can certainly say things I don't feel, even with conviction. Particularly if I thought it would be to another's benefit to do so.

We aren't discussing an extreme explosive reaction though either... We are discussing a way to degrade a person that asks to be degraded. I'm aware that not all submissives enjoy that experience, in fact the lady who was so inclined who I dated, did not. And other ladies I've had who had leanings did not as well. But from what I've researched and read there are certainly women that do.

How is degrading somebody's femininity any different than calling them names, or degrading them in any other way, in the context of consensual behavior with a safeword and safeguards in place?

On the flip side, and this is in no way meant to diminish or degrade victims, I imagine a naturally submissive type who is ashamed to admit that they are turned on by bdsm might be more susceptible to fall victim to an abuser.... So many people have it drilled into their head that it's never okay to hit a woman. Hitting, spanking, public shaming for pleasure.... They can bring true shame to the participants in the general community.

The same is likely true for people that enjoy degradation or being reduced. And those people certainly exist. And naturally they would enjoy it on their terms.

 

[UtopiaBound]

Would you argue that spanking a woman is abusive? Or any number of more extreme BDSM is abusive?

It's possible that it would be thought processes that they actually hold, but I can certainly say things I don't feel, even with conviction. Particularly if I thought it would be to another's benefit to do so.

We aren't discussing an extreme explosive reaction though either... We are discussing a way to degrade a person that asks to be degraded. I'm aware that not all submissives enjoy that experience, in fact the lady who was so inclined who I dated, did not. And other ladies I've had who had leanings did not as well. But from what I've researched and read there are certainly women that do.

How is degrading somebody's femininity any different than calling them names, or degrading them in any other way, in the context of consensual behavior with a safeword and safeguards in place?

I think maybe I didn't type it clearly. Forgive me for that. I see no limits to what can be done consesually. If consent is there, it's not abuse. Period. Doesn't matter what anyone else thinks.

I'm talking about people perverting what bdsm is in their mind to justify themselves. Or people who haven't been able to accept this part of them ending up in destructive situations. Destructive to themselves and others.

I agree with JBJ that mysogymists aren't what I'd consider dom material. Not sure I agree with the chauvinism part of his declaration though...

 

[homewa]

I think maybe I didn't type it clearly. Forgive me for that. I see no limits to what can be done consesually. If consent is there, it's not abuse. Period. Doesn't matter what anyone else thinks.

I'm talking about people perverting what bdsm is in their mind to justify themselves. Or people who haven't been able to accept this part of them ending up in destructive situations. Destructive to themselves and others.

I agree with JBJ that mysogymists aren't what I'd consider dom material. Not sure I agree with the chauvinism part of his declaration though...

Well let me rephrase my original statement. I wasn't talking about an actual misogynist, but rather a man acting as a misogynist in order to arouse a woman. This resulted from an ad where a lady posted that she was looking for a misogynist dom, which later turned out to be not her intention, but it got me wondering it that sort of thing is something anybody looks for. Mostly as an idle curiosity thing.

Are there women out there who would be turned on by a man acting like a misogynist in a dominant sexual way? I mean I'm sure that somewhere there probably are, but I was just wondering about it, since the personal ad seemed interesting enough to merit discussion.

 

[UtopiaBound]

Well let me rephrase my original statement. I wasn't talking about an actual misogynist, but rather a man acting as a misogynist in order to arouse a woman. This resulted from an ad where a lady posted that she was looking for a misogynist dom, which later turned out to be not her intention, but it got me wondering it that sort of thing is something anybody looks for. Mostly as an idle curiosity thing.

Are there women out there who would be turned on by a man acting like a misogynist in a dominant sexual way? I mean I'm sure that somewhere there probably are, but I was just wondering about it, since the personal ad seemed interesting enough to merit discussion.

I'm pretty sure no matter what it is, there is someone who gets aroused by it! Not sure it's my cup of tea but I have no idea where I'll be led as this is a new dynamic for me....

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I imagine there are a fair amount of abusive types who try to make their behavior acceptable under the blanket of BDSM. I'd assume, though I could be wrong, that that's where the majority of the mysogymists would be found.

I wonder how many are dominant naturally and started out young as abusive before they could fathom possessing a willing submissive. Or how many still are because they are trying too hard to be 'normal'.....

I'm reading an analysis of the American Civil War. The author complained how Southern boys followed natural leaders while Northern boys followed designated leaders.Its a false distinction. All people prefer to follow leaders they know and respect, naïfs (meaning strangers) know no one and defer to leaders appointed by officials. That is, the South had few immigrants whereas the North had many immigrants from Ireland and Germany. Boys from rural Northern areas wanted leaders they knew, too.

 

[homewa]

I'm reading an analysis of the American Civil War. The author complained how Southern boys followed natural leaders while Northern boys followed designated leaders.Its a false distinction. All people prefer to follow leaders they know and respect, naïfs (meaning strangers) know no one and defer to leaders appointed by officials. That is, the South had few immigrants whereas the North had many immigrants from Ireland and Germany. Boys from rural Northern areas wanted leaders they knew, too.

Not at all related, but it had nothing at all to do with that. The vast majority of the best NCOs and Officers were from the South, so when the North and South split, they went with their respective states. So the "natural leaders" in the South were in reality "experienced and proven leaders", the ones in the North were filling billets, without oftentimes the necessary experience. I've been in the military, leadership as with many skills (dominance I imagine as well) isn't any more a natural skill than throwing a ball or shooting, some people have more natural aptitude initially, yes, but it's a learned skill.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Not at all related, but it had nothing at all to do with that. The vast majority of the best NCOs and Officers were from the South, so when the North and South split, they went with their respective states. So the "natural leaders" in the South were in reality "experienced and proven leaders", the ones in the North were filling billets, without oftentimes the necessary experience. I've been in the military, leadership as with many skills (dominance I imagine as well) isn't any more a natural skill than throwing a ball or shooting, some people have more natural aptitude initially, yes, but it's a learned skill.

WRONG.
In a combat event most officers and non-coms defer to natural leaders. These people are often non-coms but I've witnessed majors and captains defer to corporals when the mortars are thick.