Mistresses and "Manhood"

[3113]

Greetings kind Doms and subs. I've another writer's question and would very much appreciate any insights or input you might have on the topic. I know most of you won't be able to give me personal experience with this, but I'm hoping that you have knowledge from friends or friends-of-friends and can pass on some second-hand insights at least.

I understand the appeal to many men of being out of control, and how a visit to a Dominatrix, or being sub to a wife/girlfriend Mistress can be a real release. Especially to a guy who is normally in charge and responsible for bossing people around. I also know there are guys who get a thrill out of being stripped of their "manhood." Of being told they're weak and girly and such. My question, however, is: can a guy who doesn't get to feel like much of man in everyday life, be given that feeling by serving a Mistress? Can serving and obeying that girlfriend or wife make a man feel more "manly"?

I suspect that most people who are not part of the lifestyle would think not, but I recall an older thread about chivalry toward a women. What struck me is that Dom guys said the same thing as sub guys. That they both wanted to assist their ladies out of the car, pull their chairs back, etc. Now, granted, they had different motivations. The Doms said, "This is my precious property and I take care of it," while the subs said, "This is my Mistress and I wouldn't dare let her open her own door." But it still left me wondering, even with a different motivation and lacking the "I'm in charge" aspect of "manhood"--didn't this sort of relationship give the male sub an old fashioned feeling of being a man?

Likewise, I've come across discussions about how a sub surrendering to a Mistress takes a great deal of courage and, yes, masculinity.

As a writer, it's very easy to create that rather cliché character of the meek husband who finally gets aggressive with his wife and so feels like a "man." What I'm wondering is if it can't go the other way. Can a man discover feelings of "manhood" by obeying a Mistress? I'm not at all sure if the answer is "yes" by the way. For all I know, the main desire here might be freedom from "manhood," not experiencing feelings of "manhood."

What are your thoughts/experiences/first-hand knowledge on the topic? And many thanks in advance for taking the time to discuss it.

 

[subwannabe]

I would not think that a man would feel more manly if he served a mistress. As you said, I would think almost all cases are stronger men needing some relief by having an alter ego experience with a dom.

 

[Pure]

3113,

if you ask about 1) male subs, and 2) those who don't feel manly, it's a bit like asking for postings from bank robbers... who've shot hostages.

i think what you are missing here is that 'manly' is a contextual thing.

as one who's been on the top and the bottom, i'd remind you that the top, supposing it's a woman, here, and one demanding the ultimate surrender is going to define 'manly' herself, and mold the subject accordinginly. he would then, if his mind is ready to be molded, become 'manly', but on her terms.

you can see that his original idea of it might be drastically altered or destroyed.

it's also to be noted that not every top is going to "buy" (subscribe to) the gender divide, even redefined. again, supposing the top is a woman she may choose or construct a bottom who is feminine/womanly, or even neuter. such a case might correspond to what you describe hypothetically as a sub who wishes to be free of manhood, either in the sense of being womanly, or in the sense of being neuter.

you can see that what looks like an obvious meaning of an act can shift. supposing the bottom is to serve as a toilet: is that because he's so manly he can surrender [IOW the mistress wants someone manly enought to accept such degradation]? or because he's been neutered? clearly this is primarily in the top's hands [IOW the mistress desires that 'manhood' disappear from the scene and subject], though the bottom's reactions and ability to be trained, molded comes into play.

 

[BiBunny]

I'm going to say yes, it can happen, depending on the dynamic between the two people involved.

I like very manly men myself, Doms and subs. When I play with subs, my goal is not to strip them of their manliness. For example, I'm really not interested in things like cross-dressing at all for that reason. Now, I know that's not precisely the question you asked, but I thought I'd relay my rather limited experience.

I love the idea of a big, strong man taking care of me, for lack of a better phrasing. As you said in your post, things like, "This is my Mistress, and I wouldn't dare let her open her own door." I'm nowhere near the stereotypical cold-hearted bitch Mistress. I let them spoil me, and I spoil them in return. I think such treatment could, theoretically, make a less manly man feel more manly, but I could also be talking out of my ass, too.

 

[JMohegan]

I suspect that most people who are not part of the lifestyle would think not, but I recall an older thread about chivalry toward a women. What struck me is that Dom guys said the same thing as sub guys. That they both wanted to assist their ladies out of the car, pull their chairs back, etc. Now, granted, they had different motivations. The Doms said, "This is my precious property and I take care of it"

No, that's not what I said.

Here is a link to that thread, in case you'd like to refresh your memory.

Can serving and obeying that girlfriend or wife make a man feel more "manly"?

What traits, aspects, qualities, or feelings do you consider to be "manly"?

 

[3113]

No, that's not what I said.

Um...I didn't say that's what you said. You weren't the only Dom or sub on that thread discussing the matter. That quote there is my, granted, very general distillation of what was very generally said and, from re-reading the thread I don't think I'm wrong. Not about those Doms--though your milage may vary.

So why attack the messenger?

 

[3113]

What traits, aspects, qualities, or feelings do you consider to be "manly"?

Immaterial. I'm asking if you or anyone else know of men who have said, "Serving my mistress makes me feel more like a man than at any other time in my life."

In short, it matters not at all what I think the traits, aspects or qualities or feelings of manhood are. It's up to the sub who feels it while serving a Mistress...if there are any of those who exist. That is all I'm really asking in the end. If such exist. You may well tell me that every male sub you've ever known has told you, "I like feeling like an object rather than a man," which is their aim and desire in this relationship--and that will pretty much answer my question.

 

[JMohegan]

Um...I didn't say that's what you said. You weren't the only Dom or sub on that thread discussing the matter. That quote there is my, granted, very general distillation of what was very generally said and, from re-reading the thread I don't think I'm wrong. Not about those Doms--though your milage may vary.

So why attack the messenger?

In your first post, you wrote: "As a writer, it's very easy to create that rather cliché character..."

One way to create a "cliché character" is to create a "general distillation" that ignores the fact that one size does not fit all.

My post was not an attack, but an attempt to help you avoid the tendency you claim to resist.

 

[JMohegan]

Immaterial. I'm asking if you or anyone else know of men who have said, "Serving my mistress makes me feel more like a man than at any other time in my life."

In short, it matters not at all what I think the traits, aspects or qualities or feelings of manhood are. It's up to the sub who feels it while serving a Mistress...if there are any of those who exist. That is all I'm really asking in the end. If such exist. You may well tell me that every male sub you've ever known has told you, "I like feeling like an object rather than a man," which is their aim and desire in this relationship--and that will pretty much answer my question.

Aren't you the writer, and therefore the creator of this fictional guy? As such, it seems to me that your concept of what it means to be "manly" matters a great deal.

That was not an attack or a challenge, but merely an explanation of why I asked the original question.

 

[3113]

My post was not an attack, but an attempt to help you avoid the tendency you claim to resist.

Ah. I see. I appreciate that, and thank you very much for re-posting that thread. I'm sorry if my generalization made it seem like I was heading toward another cliché. I do my best to avoid such things and that's why I come here asking questions.

Aren't you the writer, and therefore the creator of this fictional guy? As such, it seems to me that your concept of what it means to be "manly" matters a great deal.

Heh. You have a point. But it is problematic. I mean, imagine if I were writing up a character who was a priest. Now I come to the point where my character must get that religious calling to join the priesthood. Hm. What does that feel like? I dunno. I've never had such a feeling. I can say what I *think* a priest should be like and do, what a religious calling should, in my opinion, be like...but I can't say what it really feels like.

I have two choices. I can make it up from whole cloth, just use my imagination and personal experience, or I can ask a priest for help--several priests, preferably. Now, I don't know about other writers, but I prefer to have a realistic jumping off point--they're usually very inspirational and stimulating to my creativity. So I go to a religious forum and I ask a priest or two: "What does it feel like? Can you describe it in any way I might understand?" Obviously, I'm not going to "get it" from the inside. But, at the very least, it will help me understand why my priest character might want to live a life of poverty and obedience, why he'd want to preach in front of a congregation, etc. Such insights, I hope, will help me to create the character far better than my own, myopic assumptions of what a religious calling might or should be like.

Which brings us to the second problematic aspect: Ever read a story where a guy did something and you said, "This must have been written by a girl!" because the guy just wasn't acting or thinking or feeling like a real guy? He was coming across as the female author wearing guy clothing? I fear that my understanding of "manhood," what it is, feels like, etc., is currently too narrow (too cliché?) right now to create this particular character. Or at least, create him in a such a way that he'll connect with readers, rather than having readers see me there, pulling the strings.

I'm hoping people here can broaden my understanding of it so that when/if I do write up this character, he comes to life as a real boy rather than staying a wooden puppet.

 

[JMohegan]

Ah. I see. I appreciate that, and thank you very much for re-posting that thread. I'm sorry if my generalization made it seem like I was heading toward another cliché. I do my best to avoid such things and that's why I come here asking questions.

No need to apologize. Glad we cleared that up.

Heh. You have a point. But it is problematic. I mean, imagine if I were writing up a character who was a priest. Now I come to the point where my character must get that religious calling to join the priesthood. Hm. What does that feel like? I dunno. I've never had such a feeling. I can say what I *think* a priest should be like and do, what a religious calling should, in my opinion, be like...but I can't say what it really feels like.

I have two choices. I can make it up from whole cloth, just use my imagination and personal experience, or I can ask a priest for help--several priests, preferably. Now, I don't know about other writers, but I prefer to have a realistic jumping off point--they're usually very inspirational and stimulating to my creativity. So I go to a religious forum and I ask a priest or two: "What does it feel like? Can you describe it in any way I might understand?" Obviously, I'm not going to "get it" from the inside. But, at the very least, it will help me understand why my priest character might want to live a life of poverty and obedience, why he'd want to preach in front of a congregation, etc. Such insights, I hope, will help me to create the character far better than my own, myopic assumptions of what a religious calling might or should be like.

Which brings us to the second problematic aspect: Ever read a story where a guy did something and you said, "This must have been written by a girl!" because the guy just wasn't acting or thinking or feeling like a real guy? He was coming across as the female author wearing guy clothing? I fear that my understanding of "manhood," what it is, feels like, etc., is currently too narrow (too cliché?) right now to create this particular character. Or at least, create him in a such a way that he'll connect with readers, rather than having readers see me there, pulling the strings.

I'm hoping people here can broaden my understanding of it so that when/if I do write up this character, he comes to life as a real boy rather than staying a wooden puppet.

I'll give you the concept of "manliness" with which I identify as an individual, though I'm not sure it will help (since I ID on the wrong side of the coin.) For whatever it's worth, here you go.

In the context of a personal relationship, "manly" (to me) connotes a combination of protectiveness (keeping her safe from the outside world), physical aggressiveness (taking what is mine, when I'm in the mood to do so), and being in charge.

In the opening post, you asked: "Can serving and obeying that girlfriend or wife make a man feel more 'manly'?" My answer, pertaining to me as an individual, is: No.

One could stretch the meaning of "serving", pointing out that I ultimately address her needs as much as she addresses mine - and in a sustainable relationship that would be true. (Otherwise, why would she stay?) But if "serving" is shorthand for "serves, defers to, or waits on, according to the directions of...", then this concept is anathema to my personal sense of manliness.

I'm laughing as I write this, because it sounds so very cliché! Unfortunately, I can't give you even indirect feedback from a guy on the flip side of the coin. I do know submissive males, but I've just never asked them this question.

 

[FurryFury]

I can't speak from experience but I see no reason why being submissive can't make a man feel more manly and/or more true to themselves.

There are so many different definitions of manly and none of them really matter except the individual's internal definition.

There are also so many different ways to be submissive.

I think there is room for it bringing about a sense of being more manly.

I'd love to see a male submissive or 20 speak out about this from their perspective.

 

[Pure]

note re jm

nice postings, my friend!

I'll give you the concept of "manliness" with which I identify as an individual, though I'm not sure it will help (since I ID on the wrong side of the coin.) For whatever it's worth, here you go.

In the context of a personal relationship, "manly" (to me) connotes a combination of protectiveness (keeping her safe from the outside world), physical aggressiveness (taking what is mine, when I'm in the mood to do so), and being in charge.

In the opening post, you asked: "Can serving and obeying that girlfriend or wife make a man feel more 'manly'?" My answer, pertaining to me as an individual, is: No.

One could stretch the meaning of "serving", pointing out that I ultimately address her needs as much as she addresses mine - and in a sustainable relationship that would be true. (Otherwise, why would she stay?) But if "serving" is shorthand for "serves, defers to, or waits on, according to the directions of...", then this concept is anathema to my personal sense of manliness.

----

suppose, for the sake of argument, we adopt the approach that the issue depends on some agreed, commonplace conception of manliness. you say it includes agressiveness, when in the mood, and clearly that's opposed to serving, as deferring to.

yet some simple cases that make the qualities situational, would question this approach. [Example 1] take a junior person in the marine corps. he trained is deference and obedience (and steadiness under fire). yet his duty is to be aggressive in a combat situation, according to the precise dictates of his superiors. similarly he will be protective of his fellows, his country, his family, through his service.

can his service increase his manliness. i think so. taking pride in his obedience and in his learned abilities, can't he become more agressive in combat, as demanded by the situation? his training has 'hardened' him, though absolute deference to a superior is demanded.

this sort of situation also calls up some alternate definitions, again within the framework of agreed defintions: i personally think of manly as strong and calm. steady under fire. strong means things like able and courageous, perservering.

but, you will say, most of this, is just 'good character'; it could be womanly as well. perhaps. if pressed for the difference, i think of the male strength more connected to something abstract: i will do my duty. i see womanly strength as more adaptable, ready to negotiate, concretely deal with the problems. similarly the man's steadiness suggest more control of emotions, whereas a woman's is to work with them, adapt them flexibly, as they change; more sympathetic at one time and less at another.

in any case, using my terms--strong and calm. steady under fire. strong means things like able and courageous, perservering-- i think the contrast you drew becomes more problematic. some of the reasons are drawn from my experience on the bottom. some of these reasons relate back to my 'marine' example.

IF there is a master demanding the above, and a subject who is molded in that way, he may become more calm and steady, i think, in some cases. the master--who may be a female-- demands it.

so, for example [Example 2], in an outside context, the subject, let's say a classroom teacher, is simply less willing to be intimidated by a classroom bully. we will suppose that his master wishes him to 'handle' the situation, and he knows that. as a result of some training, he does it.

if we look at 'emotional control,' that too might be furthered. supposing the experience under the master induced various emotions, e.g. fear, sadness, etc.. yet there are clear expectations.
though afraid of doing x, you will do x.

----
there is much to be said for the 'commonplace definition' approach, and i think i've indicated areas where the conclusion of lack of consistency [aggression/ deference] is not so sure.

but what i want to add briefly, already said in my earlier posting, is that the master, in my view and experience, *chooses* the characteristics. some of these are in accord with 'commonplace defintions', hence there is overlap.

but it's clear that at least the appearance of manliness-- to the outsider-- might be affected. if the subject is to serve as a toilet, that demands some steadiness, surely. let us suppose that steadiness is approved by the master, and seen as 'manly.' outside viewers will disagree. SO, leave that situation aside: It is plausible, argue, that the subject's steadiness will transfer to outside situations. then the subject is clearly 'manly' by this definition, as example 2 indicated; he is, we suppose unmoved by the tactics or threats of a bully. and perhaps he learned this and is proud.

in any case, jm, nice chatting with you!

 

[3113]

In the context of a personal relationship, "manly" (to me) connotes a combination of protectiveness (keeping her safe from the outside world), physical aggressiveness (taking what is mine, when I'm in the mood to do so), and being in charge.

Those are very clear and make a lot of sense. Thanks for that insight. I'll be interested to see what others say on the subject.

 

[3113]

[Example 1] take a junior person in the marine corps. he trained is deference and obedience (and steadiness under fire). yet his duty is to be aggressive in a combat situation, according to the precise dictates of his superiors. similarly he will be protective of his fellows, his country, his family, through his service.

can his service increase his manliness. i think so. taking pride in his obedience and in his learned abilities, can't he become more agressive in combat, as demanded by the situation? his training has 'hardened' him, though absolute deference to a superior is demanded.

I'm glad you brought this up as it did occur to me. And in the situation of the Leather community (as I understand it and I'm certainly no expert), there is a desire for just this sort of relationship. For the slave to be more like a military or fraternity underling enduring hazings, orders, bootcamp humiliations and grueling tasks, etc., and so prove himself the more manly for enduring all that. Most Masters in the Leather community (again, as I understand it), see their position as teaching their boys how to be men (sic). In that most old fashioned sense: "Endure this, it'll make a man out of you." And when the boys do succeed, they not only please the Master, but feel the more manly for doing it. And more a part of that elite, macho club.

But I'm not altogether sure that this goes for a heterosexual slave with a Mistress. We'll grant that it's certainly possible, but--and yes, we're going to generalize again--it's a rare Mistress, I think, who takes on a sub with the intent of "making a man" out of him.

if the subject is to serve as a toilet, that demands some steadiness, surely.

Well, but there we've got that Leatherman vs. Dominatrix distinction again. There is a pecking order quality and male marking of territory when it comes to one guy pissing on another. It's very primal, isn't is, for one man to let himself be pissed on to show his subservience to the alpha male, and be marked as part of the pack. But if the Mistress uses her slave as a toilet, she isn't playing alpha male; she's telling the slave that he's an object, her toilet. And, I'm guessing here, that if the slave relishes this it's because he is released and completely free of any obligation to be a human being.

Just to clarify, by the way, I'm playing devil's advocate here. My hope is that if we plug the holes we'll bring into focus what kind of sub this would be who gains masculinity from serving a Mistress. Men usually look to other men to confer masculinity on them. A woman, traditionally, doesn't confer masculinity on a man so much as allow him to prove it to the both of them. If that makes sense. So we need to examine the relationship a little closer to make it holds water...or piss if you prefer

Hm...maybe I'm going at this backwards. Maybe we need to consider the Mistress before the man?

 

[RJMasters]

I think often the whole notion of...feeling more like a man...or feeling more like a woman is cliche'. Not that Ihave a problem with people identifying with, taking enjoyment out of feeling in said manner.

The question that arises for me is what exactly is a man supose to feel like, so that he may feel more like that? When you stop to think about the question being asked, you can see that it is loaded with assumptions that supports typical and sterotype ideaologies.

My answer though to your question is, I do not think submissive men nor Dominant men in BDSM want to feel "more" like the typical manly sterotype. In fact much of what both do, is telling society what they can do with thier narrow views.

I think a more refreshing perspective of such a writing endeavor would perhaps be about a character who starts out trying to feel more "sterotypical manly" through submission, only to fail. Then from that failure learn or discover that being a man is not about being this or that as defined by others, but being the man he is, even if that means he is wearing panties and a dress.

In this way you challenge people's sterotypical views and show them that individual confidence and personal satisfaction is not about measuring up to a standard others set for us, but it is an inward pursuit of who we are, and the choices that make us who we are, and ultimately us having to look at our selves in the mirror because of it.

 

[JamieB]

Well said

In this way you challenge people's sterotypical views and show them that individual confidence and personal satisfaction is not about measuring up to a standard others set for us, but it is an inward pursuit of who we are, and the choices that make us who we are, and ultimately us having to look at our selves in the mirror because of it.

I agree with RJ's post.

I imagine most people feel pressure of some kind or another to live up to some gender sterotype or other. Growing up in my father's house, I certainly did develop an awareness of when I'm behaving like a "man" and when I'm not.

But that is sort of beside the point. The bottom line is, the only opinions about me that matter are the ones I let matter.

J

 

[Netzach]

I'm glad you brought this up as it did occur to me. And in the situation of the Leather community (as I understand it and I'm certainly no expert), there is a desire for just this sort of relationship. For the slave to be more like a military or fraternity underling enduring hazings, orders, bootcamp humiliations and grueling tasks, etc., and so prove himself the more manly for enduring all that. Most Masters in the Leather community (again, as I understand it), see their position as teaching their boys how to be men (sic). In that most old fashioned sense: "Endure this, it'll make a man out of you." And when the boys do succeed, they not only please the Master, but feel the more manly for doing it. And more a part of that elite, macho club.

But I'm not altogether sure that this goes for a heterosexual slave with a Mistress. We'll grant that it's certainly possible, but--and yes, we're going to generalize again--it's a rare Mistress, I think, who takes on a sub with the intent of "making a man" out of him.


Well, but there we've got that Leatherman vs. Dominatrix distinction again. There is a pecking order quality and male marking of territory when it comes to one guy pissing on another. It's very primal, isn't is, for one man to let himself be pissed on to show his subservience to the alpha male, and be marked as part of the pack. But if the Mistress uses her slave as a toilet, she isn't playing alpha male; she's telling the slave that he's an object, her toilet. And, I'm guessing here, that if the slave relishes this it's because he is released and completely free of any obligation to be a human being.

Just to clarify, by the way, I'm playing devil's advocate here. My hope is that if we plug the holes we'll bring into focus what kind of sub this would be who gains masculinity from serving a Mistress. Men usually look to other men to confer masculinity on them. A woman, traditionally, doesn't confer masculinity on a man so much as allow him to prove it to the both of them. If that makes sense. So we need to examine the relationship a little closer to make it holds water...or piss if you prefer

Hm...maybe I'm going at this backwards. Maybe we need to consider the Mistress before the man?

What if she's not so overwhelmingly feminine herself?

Not every female Dominant is a paragon of ladyhood.

 

[Pure]

note to 3113

But I'm not altogether sure that this goes for a heterosexual slave with a Mistress. We'll grant that it's certainly possible, but--and yes, we're going to generalize again--it's a rare Mistress, I think, who takes on a sub with the intent of "making a man" out of him.

P: if you mean, the aggressive stereotype, clearly not, (IOW, i agree). but your ignore what i said a couple times, the mistress can make her own definition. and mold accordingly.

 

[malinborn]

my Short answer is, yes, it is possible

when i served, even in a way that was not what some might think of as a manly fashion, i was more aware of my masculinity. If she wants to torture my cock it is because i "have" a cock... a "manly" tool that she wants to abuse, play with, tease, deny... whatever.

Obviously this varies person to person, sub to sub, domme to domme, but that was my take on it. I may not have felt like a very good person... but i definitely felt like more of a man

 

[Netzach]

For the record I only pee on people to feel like I'm peeing on a tree.

But inside this squishy female 5'4'' exterior there lives Eric Fleming as imagined by Tom of Finland.

 

[3113]

my Short answer is, yes, it is possible

when i served, even in a way that was not what some might think of as a manly fashion, i was more aware of my masculinity. If she wants to torture my cock it is because i "have" a cock... a "manly" tool that she wants to abuse, play with, tease, deny... whatever.

That's a very helpful insight. Yes, you're quite right that there is a "manly" feeling in simply being able to please a woman as a man can (so to speak), even if that's a submissive man.

inside this squishy female 5'4'' exterior there lives Eric Fleming as imagined by Tom of Finland.

No wonder men fall at your feet and shiver in excited terror

 

[FurryFury]

my Short answer is, yes, it is possible

when i served, even in a way that was not what some might think of as a manly fashion, i was more aware of my masculinity. If she wants to torture my cock it is because i "have" a cock... a "manly" tool that she wants to abuse, play with, tease, deny... whatever.

Obviously this varies person to person, sub to sub, domme to domme, but that was my take on it. I may not have felt like a very good person... but i definitely felt like more of a man

I was glad to see your post. Thanks for adding to this thread!

 

[Pure]

note to 3113

3113Well, but there we've got that Leatherman vs. Dominatrix distinction again. There is a pecking order quality and male marking of territory when it comes to one guy pissing on another. It's very primal, isn't is, for one man to let himself be pissed on to show his subservience to the alpha male, and be marked as part of the pack. But if the Mistress uses her slave as a toilet, she isn't playing alpha male; she's telling the slave that he's an object, her toilet. And, I'm guessing here, that if the slave relishes this it's because he is released and completely free of any obligation to be a human being.

P: sometimes i've bottomed and this is definitely not the case. you're speculating. the mistress creates or directs a man-turned-object. as for seeking to be free of obligations to be human, i don't see that, although i'm unclear what it means. the bottom, after all, has to clean himself up, after. and follow orders before.


Just to clarify, by the way, I'm playing devil's advocate here. My hope is that if we plug the holes we'll bring into focus what kind of sub this would be who gains masculinity from serving a Mistress. Men usually look to other men to confer masculinity on them. A woman, traditionally, doesn't confer masculinity on a man so much as allow him to prove it to the both of them. If that makes sense. So we need to examine the relationship a little closer to make it holds water...or piss if you prefer

P: i don't think the bolded sentence is true. it does not fit some of the great lovers of history, from casanova, to your ordinary "ladies man," who quite often does NOT have much to do with males.

allowing him to prove is ratifying. there is no reason, necessarily, a mistress would not want a male bottom to be man.