Humiliation/Embarrassment

[KoPilot]

Sure, broader society, and, when i was a youth feeling out my sexuality, i often assumed that because i felt submissive, i should express that by being more feminine (but, my body had other plans and turned /very/ masculine as i grew up). Eventually I realized that the femme domme dynamic reverses those cultural roles - femininity is elevated, and masculinity is lowly. It's not like Dommes dress like men - corsets, garter belts, high heels, are all stereotypical parts of the 'uniform.' Feminine trappings become emblems of power - i could see being uncomfortable in them because it would imply stepping out of the msub role, but feeling /more/ submissive in the same fetish gear as Her? Doesn't hold together.

Most men don't seem to understand why pedestalization is oftentimes no better than belittlement. The "Domme uniform" is an exaggeration of femininity in line with what the man wants and expects to see. (You'd think being dominated by a masculine-presenting woman would be more "humiliating" because of the implications of teh gayness, but most of them don't get boners over that so no uber-kinky-gender-norm-fuckery fantasy there.) Lots of fdoms don't give a crap about the "uniform".

I once asked about masculinization as a means of humiliation here, and it got no bites except for Stella, who basically said such a thing doesn't exist in BDSM (to our chagrin). What does that tell you? For me, the ultimate "humiliation" would be to have my sex and gender completely and utterly ignored so that I could pretty thoroughly occupy that mythical space between human and inhuman. Where putting me in gendered clothing of any sort becomes absurd and endearing, like dressing up the dog, and where wearing a 3-piece suit is just as offensive as putting me in a miniskirt.

 

[BrightlyGo]

Sorry for the following tangent...

Most men don't seem to understand why pedestalization is oftentimes no better than belittlement.

because it could also be objectification, obviously.

I can see how that could be conflated with power exchange. A man putting a woman on a pedestal and a sub surrendering power to a Domme could appear similar from the outside.

(You'd think being dominated by a masculine-presenting woman would be more "humiliating" because of the implications of teh gayness, but most of them don't get boners over that so no uber-kinky-gender-norm-fuckery fantasy there.)

Gayness aside, if the normative symbolism held for Femme Domme, you would expect Dommes to wear masculine attire - suits, biker jackets, flannel shirts & jeans, whatever. But, that's not how it works, Dommes don't dress up like men to assume the dominant role.

So, unless you're suggesting that it's all just a male fantasy and dominant women don't really exist, Femme Domme breaks the broader cultural feminine = submissive association.

I once asked about masculinization as a means of humiliation here, and it got no bites except for Stella, who basically said such a thing doesn't exist in BDSM (to our chagrin). What does that tell you?

It's consistent: In M/f, the masculine is associated with the dominant, so dressing a sub like her Dom wouldn't be 'humiliating,' just role-inappropriate.

 

[DVS]

I haven't read the whole thread, so if somebody has already mentioned this, I'm sorry. But, it's not nice to force vanilla people to unwillingly participate in your fetishes. We need to understand that they already think we are pretty damn strange and if we are ever going to get BDSM to become mainstream sex play, we have to limit unnecessary exposure to a minimum.

Try to limit your public sessions to groups of people who are at least aware of what's going on. Maybe they could even participate in the humiliation. Humiliation for fun is one thing. Causing shock in the eyes of those who would rather not see the humiliation is totally another.

It's a little like seeing the ass crack of a plumber or an overweight woman in a thong...two things I would really rather not participate in. You know?

 

[AlbertShufflebottom]

Ashley what sex are you? What sex is your slave? Apparently you are female and you have a male partner.

('The gender factor really comes to play here. For example, he's positively mortified when I order his food for him at the restaurant. He practically crawls under the table, whereas a girl might not respond as much.')

I expect that you've done these but if not!

Suck him off, keep his semen in you mouth then kiss him hard with loads of tongue.

Alternatively. let him make love to you/fuck you/all stations in-between, until he spurts; preferably copiously: do not come. Next, lay him on his back. Now straddle him and make him lick you until you do come, ideally over and over. If you're a meany straddle him with your bum hole nearest his nose.

If these are mainstream to you both PM me and I'll put my thinking hat on.


Albert.

 

[Netzach]

Sorry for the following tangent...

because it could also be objectification, obviously.

I can see how that could be conflated with power exchange. A man putting a woman on a pedestal and a sub surrendering power to a Domme could appear similar from the outside.

Gayness aside, if the normative symbolism held for Femme Domme, you would expect Dommes to wear masculine attire - suits, biker jackets, flannel shirts & jeans, whatever. But, that's not how it works, Dommes don't dress up like men to assume the dominant role.

Except when we do. Not exactly the most monolithic bunch, but since everyone is assuming a real Domme looks like a cartoon Domme there are "sooooo few" of us.

So, unless you're suggesting that it's all just a male fantasy and dominant women don't really exist, Femme Domme breaks the broader cultural feminine = submissive association.

Take a step back from the individuals, and you will see that jack shit is "broken". Femme Domme is a variation of sexuality in a sexually broken shit stew of sexist culture. That's it. Nothing more. It happens to be my variation of choice, but I'm not so delusional as to think my fuckstyle does anything for anyone but me.

It's consistent: In M/f, the masculine is associated with the dominant, so dressing a sub like her Dom wouldn't be 'humiliating,' just role-inappropriate.

Believe me, there are girls who would be mortified. Not all of them transgender girls either.

 

[Netzach]

It's a little like seeing the ass crack of a plumber or an overweight woman in a thong...two things I would really rather not participate in. You know?

And yet you have and everyone survived.

I'm of two minds. People should not have to be confronted with icky other people's sex life, but people can also STAND to be confused or confronted with difference once in a while, or God forbid, bad taste.

You used to see some genuine weirdness on the street in NYC or SF till Bed Bath and Beyond assimilated the entire world, as a kid I'm certain that this was good for me.

Personally, I try to keep anything public in the weird but less overtly sexual camp - things like acting like a bitch or crossdressing that doesn't rely on skimpiness and nakedness to be titillating. Another godsend is the fact that bars are a kid-free zone, where most people behave like oversexed idiots anyway, so that's always fun to fuck with.

 

[hd8001]

I don't think I saw it here but have him paint his toes nails a very girly color and make him wear sandels the next time you go out so others see it.

 

[BrightlyGo]

Except when we do.

But you don't have to. A Domme dressing feminine is still dominant (and no less so than one dressed masculine or casual - possibly moreso, since iconic Domme imagery is feminine). But, her sub dressed identically is a "sissy." That's inconsistent.

Take a step back from the individuals, and you will see that jack shit is "broken".

"Breaks with" instead of "breaks," then. The symbolism of Femme Domme breaks with that of the broader culture in that feminine dress is associated with power.

Believe me, there are girls who would be mortified [if dressed as men]

Yet it's not a 'thing' in BDSM the way the sissy thing is. That's inconsistent.

Femme Domme is a variation of sexuality in a sexually broken shit stew of sexist culture. That's it. Nothing more.

So, "because: sexism."

OK, the broader society has been grappling with sexism for a very long time now. Go back a good century or so and you'd find that a woman dressing like a man or man dressing like a woman was scandalous (ie: strong policing of sex roles). Fast forward through suffragettes, flappers, Rosie the Riveter, feminism, radical feminism, and post-feminism, and a woman can dress like a man without comment, but the closest men come to the reverse was 80s androgyny or the (current? passe? - I'm not that hip, I don't know) 'metro-sexual' look.

So, there are still traditional gender roles, and they are still policed right down to tiny kink sub-cultures like Femme Domme, but they're policed much more strongly for men than for women?

OK, that describes the inconsistency in a broader context, but it doesn't exactly explain it...

 

[KoPilot]

I can see how that could be conflated with power exchange. A man putting a woman on a pedestal and a sub surrendering power to a Domme could appear similar from the outside.

My own father has done this to me my whole life and it pairs very nicely with his Fox News-flavored abuse. Putting someone on a pedestal doesn't always work that way, but it does most of the time.

Fast forward through suffragettes, flappers, Rosie the Riveter, feminism, radical feminism, and post-feminism, and a woman can dress like a man without comment, but the closest men come to the reverse was 80s androgyny or the (current? passe? - I'm not that hip, I don't know) 'metro-sexual' look.

Yes, it's true that women are generally allowed to wear pants now without backlash (there's still backlash, btw), and men can't wear skirts. But on a scale of "I want to make babies with them" to "fucking disgusting", tomboys and effeminate men are still mostly in the same place. Tomboys don't exist in the popular BDSM consciousness because of basically this: women who adorn the symbols of power (i.e. masculinity) have a much harder time being seen as attractive, and for most folks kink is about sex.

Not trying to tell you that you and your relationship are bad and you should feel bad, but you asked a question and this is the answer.

 

[KoPilot]

And yet you have and everyone survived.

I'm of two minds. People should not have to be confronted with icky other people's sex life, but people can also STAND to be confused or confronted with difference once in a while, or God forbid, bad taste.

You used to see some genuine weirdness on the street in NYC or SF till Bed Bath and Beyond assimilated the entire world, as a kid I'm certain that this was good for me.

Personally, I try to keep anything public in the weird but less overtly sexual camp - things like acting like a bitch or crossdressing that doesn't rely on skimpiness and nakedness to be titillating. Another godsend is the fact that bars are a kid-free zone, where most people behave like oversexed idiots anyway, so that's always fun to fuck with.

Yeah, this is the slippery slope, innit.

And yeah, most people are major prudes and it would probably do the world a whole lotta good to challenge them on that. At the same time, they're sort of entitled to feel their feelings, and if those feelings affect them negatively, then what?

 

[Netzach]

Yeah, this is the slippery slope, innit.

And yeah, most people are major prudes and it would probably do the world a whole lotta good to challenge them on that. At the same time, they're sort of entitled to feel their feelings, and if those feelings affect them negatively, then what?

Making someone feel weird is just the price of being in a society with differences. "Feel negatively" is something a lot of us just have to suck up and survive, as you know.

Something is going to make every person feel weird or bad - if it doesn't involve getting naked or making overtures or, particularly not taking "no" for an answer, then I don't think variation is a personal assault on other people.

Again, it's all context. If I'm in rural MN or in a super Muslim 'hood here, I'm sensitive to community norms to some degree. If I'm in MY 'hood I'm going to expect others to deal to a higher degree, but still not the same as if I'm in NYC, where I don't feel like anyone is entitled to be the taste police.

If I'm in a douche-y hotel bar, I feel like I can mess with the world a bit, because the rules are relaxed for "them" enough in such space. Again, I'm not going to stick my head up and be the tallest weed of sexuality there either. I don't know. I think we should be sensitive but not terrified of having any fun.

Don't cheat yourselves out of having any good stories in your old age because the children, even when the children aren't present.

 

[BrightlyGo]

Yes, it's true that women are generally allowed to wear pants now without backlash (there's still backlash, btw), and men can't wear skirts. But on a scale of "I want to make babies with them" to "fucking disgusting", tomboys and effeminate men are still mostly in the same place.

We have the word 'tomboy' to use because it's pretty common for girls to play like boys, now - and, likewise, women have access to prettymuch the full range of once-male options, from fashion to career. You'll find tomboys in every schoolyard in America, mostly getting along fine with other kids. You won't find boys in dresses - if you do, they'll get the crap beat out of them by the other kids.

So that's the sexism, and, yes, it extends into the BDSM subculture in the sense that we were discussing.

But it's not an explanation. The Femme Domme kink turns sex roles on their ear: why should it's fans ascribe to mainstream sexism?

(i suppose i should this let this go. It doesn't make sense to me, but i'm in danger of painting myself into a corner and having to conclude that the guys into the sissy thing "aren't real submissives," and i don't want to go there. i've been hurt in the past by the suggestion that what i am/need isn't "real" in that same sense, and i don't ever want to be the one dishing that out. i don't get it and i guess i'm not going to, but it doesn't matter, it's just me. i hate not understanding something, but i'll just have to accept that i can't always do so.)

Tomboys don't exist in the popular BDSM consciousness because of basically this: women who adorn the symbols of power (i.e. masculinity) have a much harder time being seen as attractive, and for most folks kink is about sex.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see it that way, at all. Men (hetero-normative or hetero-kinky) like women - not what women wear or what symbols they adorn themselves with. A hot chick doesn't become less hot because she's wearing business attire, holding an M-16, or driving a BMW. Now, you may have heard that powerful or successful women have it rough attracting men because men are 'intimidated' by them, but that's not the same thing as not being seen as attractive.

Besides, the point of the sissy thing isn't to make the msub more attractive, so that doesn't map, either.

Not trying to tell you that you and your relationship are bad and you should feel bad, but you asked a question and this is the answer.

Thanks, but i wasn't getting that impression from you, at all. No worries. In fact, i've read a lot of your posts, and you always come off as simply honest. i respect that.

Though, i still don't find "because: sexism" a complete answer.

 

[KoPilot]

You'd probably get a better response if you made a new thread for the question. :V

ETA: I will say this, though. When I came out to my husband as transgendered and expressed a desire to dress androgynously much of the time, with the occasional goal of presenting as male, he actually had to ask how all that fit in with my submissive tendencies because he didn't understand how both could exist simultaneously.

 

[Netzach]

I'm really tired of the experiences of butch and non-femme-normative women being erased because women have been allowed to wear pants in school since the 60's. Yeah, they DO get "beat up" and they DO NOT get a free pass just because there's slightly more ambiguity about it all. Look how women athletes, you'd think icons of power, are policed into being "feminine".

"The Femme Domme kink turns sex roles on their ear: why should it's fans ascribe to mainstream sexism?"

Um, it doesn't and um they do. Not all of them, because it *can* but believe me, it fails most of the time, because we have all gotten the same brainwashing memo, I don't care who you are.

Look at the fantasies of "female supremacy" - they all read like Victorian Temperance manifestos. That's super duper for women to live up to? Really?

Virtually none of Femdom is articulated or created by Femdoms.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Thank you, NEtz.

FemmeDomme is a male fantasy. The rules were written by men, (mostly in Penthouse Letters, as far as I can tell) and historically, they hinge on the woman being uninterested in sex and scorning men because men are horndogs. How is that fair? Fuck you, Baron Sacher-Masoch.

The guys "into the sissy thing" most of them, are NOT "real submissives," anymore than I am. Like me, they get off on a fantasy of being controlled, under specific circumstances, I.E. in a dress. They might want to indulge in that fantasy most of the hours in a day, but it's still set in a compartment apart from their identity as men.

And here's the thing-- as per Go-Brightly, it IS "real." My fantasy desires are real. Indulging them makes me a happier Stella than denying them ever would. We don't need to need something 24/7 to make it a legitimate part of our psyches.

 

[Allyourbase]

Hey, how did I miss that this convo was going on here? Interesting.

(...) On a scale of "I want to make babies with them" to "fucking disgusting", tomboys and effeminate men are still mostly in the same place. Tomboys don't exist in the popular BDSM consciousness because of basically this: women who adorn the symbols of power (i.e. masculinity) have a much harder time being seen as attractive, and for most folks kink is about sex.

After an argument with someone on Fetlife about representation, I realized I don't see femme men and butch women in kink imagery. Lesbians? Sure, but Kink.com won't show us *butch* girls in either D or s situations.

Now, I'm not a lesbian, but I do present rather butch these days. I have a kink-based sex life with my partner, who is a straight man. Accepting that he actually likes my expression, and also that he likes subbing for butch me, has taken some time. Female bodied Domming is femme, and straight men don't like butch girls. Right?

I once asked about masculinization as a means of humiliation here, and it got no bites except for Stella, who basically said such a thing doesn't exist in BDSM (to our chagrin).

I read a story about exactly that, here on Lit, but couldn't find it now.

 

[BrightlyGo]

Now, I'm not a lesbian, but I do present rather butch these days. I have a kink-based sex life with my partner, who is a straight man. Accepting that he actually likes my expression, and also that he likes subbing for butch me, has taken some time. Female bodied Domming is femme.

The stereotype femme domme 'uniform' is, but Netzach was quick to point out that it's hardly a required uniform. Maybe i'm just projecting my own feelings of what i need in a Domme, here, but a Dominant doesn't need to attract a submissive. As the active partner, the Dominant chooses and pursues - it's the submissive, as the passive partner, who needs to be desirable.

straight men don't like butch girls. Right?

I don't feel too bad about speaking for all straight men when I say that we like women, and the presentation is secondary. Just like there are kinky fetishes, there are guys with a fetish for a particular conventional look. And, while there are societal expectations, a woman who flaunts them is no less attractive - she may seem less approachable, or there may be social consequences, or she may freak out less secure men, but the attraction is still there.

There have been studies into what men find attractive, and there's only two common threads I've heard coming out of them. In spite of all the preferences different men profess and in spite of all the varied cultural ideals of beauty, virtually all men find one specific feature attractive: hips wider than your waist (a damn near universal human female characteristic - yes, even 'apples,' it's just less obvious). And, in spite of the common perception that all men care about is looks, the other most consistent thing that makes a woman attractive: confidence.

 

[KoPilot]

The stereotype femme domme 'uniform' is, but Netzach was quick to point out that it's hardly a required uniform. Maybe i'm just projecting my own feelings of what i need in a Domme, here, but a Dominant doesn't need to attract a submissive. As the active partner, the Dominant chooses and pursues - it's the submissive, as the passive partner, who needs to be desirable.

That's... not universal by any stretch of the imagination. Every D/s relationship is different because the people in them are different. This isn't even relevant to dating.

I don't feel too bad about speaking for all straight men when I say that we like women, and the presentation is secondary. Just like there are kinky fetishes, there are guys with a fetish for a particular conventional look. And, while there are societal expectations, a woman who flaunts them is no less attractive - she may seem less approachable, or there may be social consequences, or she may freak out less secure men, but the attraction is still there.

Again, you are really, really projecting your own outlook here. All of us female-bodied people here? We have lots of lived experience that makes your stance look like ivory tower navel gazing completely removed from reality. If you're trying to be comforting, you're not doing a very good job.

There have been studies into what men find attractive, and there's only two common threads I've heard coming out of them. In spite of all the preferences different men profess and in spite of all the varied cultural ideals of beauty, virtually all men find one specific feature attractive: hips wider than your waist (a damn near universal human female characteristic - yes, even 'apples,' it's just less obvious). And, in spite of the common perception that all men care about is looks, the other most consistent thing that makes a woman attractive: confidence.

I really don't trust a lot of studies that proclaim to know "what [gender] wants" for obvious reasons. Most of the time they're wrong and scientifically dishonest. Again, I don't think any of us are going to find this comforting. It's glossing over a lot of the nitty-gritty details of doing gender in the context of BDSM, actually. I'm glad it justifies your and your relationship, but once again, it ignores the reality of the roles that masculinity and ambiguity have to play for the female-bodied.

 

[Allyourbase]

The stereotype femme domme 'uniform' is, but Netzach was quick to point out that it's hardly a required uniform. Maybe i'm just projecting my own feelings of what i need in a Domme, here, but a Dominant doesn't need to attract a submissive. As the active partner, the Dominant chooses and pursues - it's the submissive, as the passive partner, who needs to be desirable.

Honestly, in my experience, the sub has a lot more weight in the balance than that. I don't play with gender unless I'm certain it gets my sub hot. It's sensitive enough as it is already. Sure, I could just whip out my cock and binder during play when someone is expecting a femme Domme, but unless they really end up loving that, it'd likely happen only once. Probably because of me.

But your mileage may vary.

I don't feel too bad about speaking for all straight men when I say that we like women, and the presentation is secondary. Just like there are kinky fetishes, there are guys with a fetish for a particular conventional look. And, while there are societal expectations, a woman who flaunts them is no less attractive - she may seem less approachable, or there may be social consequences, or she may freak out less secure men, but the attraction is still there.

O.k. so now I'm curious what makes you write this reassuring piece of text.

I mean, I could relate my own anecdotes with straight men. Most of my experiences are pretty boring and okay, because it's incredibly nice and quiet walking around invisibly like this. I don't get harassed by strangers, nor do I get hit upon. Thank god I'm not looking for a date, though.

There's the odd moments, like my ex-roommate who said he'd do me, hypothetically speaking, if I still presented femme, but not like this, this was 'such a shame'. Or a wasted session trying to reason with a therapist who wondered why a 'beautiful woman' like me would so actively try to 'hide that' and 'repel people'.

But maybe you have some stories of your own, that tell totally different tales. Diversity is good. Please add.

There have been studies into what men find attractive (...): hips wider than your waist.

Ugh, hips.

You do realize that the hip-waist ratio is something a boyish person like me is actively trying to fuck up, right?

And (...) the other most consistent thing that makes a woman attractive: confidence.

Well, yeah, but that's not just produced out of thin air. If people systematically call you undesireable, and then tell you that you could solve that by radiating some confidence, that's a bit of a mixed message, you see.

 

[Allyourbase]

I once asked about masculinization as a means of humiliation here, and it got no bites except for Stella, who basically said such a thing doesn't exist in BDSM (to our chagrin).

Omg, KoPilot, what are the odds, I found that story this reminded me of. Machoification. It's about forced masculinization, in the lesbian section.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Omg, KoPilot, what are the odds, I found that story this reminded me of. Machoification. It's about forced masculinization, in the lesbian section.

Whoah, check out her submissions page
http://www.literotica.com/stories/memberpage.php?uid=873984&page=submissions

Allyourbase, I heartily agree with every word you have written in this thread. Like, i don't have much more to say about it because you already have

 

[Allyourbase]

Whoah, check out her submissions page
http://www.literotica.com/stories/memberpage.php?uid=873984&page=submissions

Allyourbase, I heartily agree with every word you have written in this thread. Like, i don't have much more to say about it because you already have

*tips hat* You do exactly that for me more often than I can count.

And that submission page... Oh. My.... hadn't clicked there yet.
GOLDMINE.

 

[theGM26]

I haven't read the whole thread, so if somebody has already mentioned this, I'm sorry. But, it's not nice to force vanilla people to unwillingly participate in your fetishes. We need to understand that they already think we are pretty damn strange and if we are ever going to get BDSM to become mainstream sex play, we have to limit unnecessary exposure to a minimum.

Try to limit your public sessions to groups of people who are at least aware of what's going on. Maybe they could even participate in the humiliation. Humiliation for fun is one thing. Causing shock in the eyes of those who would rather not see the humiliation is totally another.

It's a little like seeing the ass crack of a plumber or an overweight woman in a thong...two things I would really rather not participate in. You know?

This. While you and your sub will be consensual to the whole task (well hopefully you both are), the people witnessing the task in public are not. They may not want to see what you looking like under your clothes regardless of how amazing you look.

 

[KoPilot]

If people systematically call you undesireable, and then tell you that you could solve that by radiating some confidence, that's a bit of a mixed message, you see.

BOOM

I'm gonna read the hell out of that story, btw.

 

[BrightlyGo]

Maybe i'm just projecting my own feelings of what i need in a Domme, here, but a Dominant doesn't need to attract a submissive. As the active partner, the Dominant chooses and pursues - it's the submissive, as the passive partner, who needs to be desirable.

That's... not universal by any stretch of the imagination. Every D/s relationship is different because the people in them are different.

Sure, as every relationship is different. But there are also commonalities within a role. Conceptually the submissive role is a passive one, and the Dominant, active. The Dominant decides, the submissive obeys, the Dominant initiates, the submissive responds.

i know that's a general concept, and i really want to steer away from "what's a 'real' submissive." But, among others, isn't that a perfectly valid form for the dynamic? That assertiveness, say, can easily make up for a Dominant being less than conventionally alluring, or eschewing the 'uniform?'

Again, you are really, really projecting your own outlook here. All of us female-bodied people here? We have lots of lived experience that makes your stance look like ivory tower navel gazing completely removed from reality. If you're trying to be comforting, you're not doing a very good job.

i do put a lot of myself into these posts, as the forum is a rare outlet for me, yes. i didn't get the impression anyone was looking to be comforted, so that wasn't my intent. I was just being honest about what I - as a straight man, rather than i as a submissive - have in common with my gender, in general, when it comes to women and what's attractive about them.

And, I'm afraid a big part of that is the mere fact of being "female-bodied."

I really don't trust a lot of studies that proclaim to know "what [gender] wants" for obvious reasons.

Studies just collect data. Where there are correlations and patterns, they're just that. It's a good attitude not to trust them or assume that a finding a correlation means "knowing" something definitively.

Again, I don't think any of us are going to find this comforting. It's glossing over a lot of the nitty-gritty details of doing gender in the context of BDSM, actually.

Might it actually be more comforting to think that you could put on a binder and dress 'butch' and /not/ have random men still find you attractive?

I'm glad it justifies you and your relationship, but once again, it ignores the reality of the roles that masculinity and ambiguity have to play for the female-bodied.

In part, i am here looking for some sort of validation, i admit. But this particular bit wasn't it.