Taking a stand against unhealthy female supremacy

[headslave]

As a submissive man, I've found the fantasy of female supremacy to make for some hot spank material. Just so I'm being clear in terms, I am defining female supremacy as the notion that men are inherently inferior to women and that women need to take a 24/7 total power exchange role in the relationship. Furthermore, the practice of female supremacy as suggested on sites such as www.mystressworld.com include the practice of having the man live in the basement, sign over every paycheck, participate in regular cuckoldry, etc.

I never viewed it as anything more than spank material but apparently there are some women out there who really claim to practice it. My Mistress was told that "scholarships were available" to join Mystressworld's "Domme Corp" of women who, once they completed their education with Mystressworld, would be ready to take on male slaves. Presumably, the instruction offered would be centered around the version of female supremacy described above. It's not hard to see if we follow the money that these women are financially preying on men who have little self-esteem and are very naive in their perception of what S&M is. The take them, convince them that a 24/7 TPE is the only "real" form of BDSM and that anyone who just wants to explore submissive fantasies are "pigmen" who are not engaging in "real" S&M.

Both my Mistress and I find this very objectionable and unhealthy. More to the point, she has begun receiving male clients who have been subjected to this form of unhealthy kink, and is having to teach them a more health way to explore their submissive fantasies. Towards that end, Mistress Roulette is calling out these so called female supremacists for the frauds that they really are. You can read the blog where she does on her website.

 

[Netzach]

As a submissive man, I've found the fantasy of female supremacy to make for some hot spank material. Just so I'm being clear in terms, I am defining female supremacy as the notion that men are inherently inferior to women and that women need to take a 24/7 total power exchange role in the relationship. Furthermore, the practice of female supremacy as suggested on sites such as www.mystressworld.com include the practice of having the man live in the basement, sign over every paycheck, participate in regular cuckoldry, etc.

I never viewed it as anything more than spank material but apparently there are some women out there who really claim to practice it. My Mistress was told that "scholarships were available" to join Mystressworld's "Domme Corp" of women who, once they completed their education with Mystressworld, would be ready to take on male slaves. Presumably, the instruction offered would be centered around the version of female supremacy described above. It's not hard to see if we follow the money that these women are financially preying on men who have little self-esteem and are very naive in their perception of what S&M is. The take them, convince them that a 24/7 TPE is the only "real" form of BDSM and that anyone who just wants to explore submissive fantasies are "pigmen" who are not engaging in "real" S&M.

Both my Mistress and I find this very objectionable and unhealthy. More to the point, she has begun receiving male clients who have been subjected to this form of unhealthy kink, and is having to teach them a more health way to explore their submissive fantasies. Towards that end, Mistress Roulette is calling out these so called female supremacists for the frauds that they really are. You can read the blog where she does on her website.

There are a lot of people who view SM as "spank material" and are incredulous that anyone out there actually does it.

Live and let live. They're grown men. If they don't really want that kind of interaction, do you think they'll stay with it?

How is it less insulting to imply that only people with self-esteem YOU consider sufficient have the right to pay for their jollies?

I was a prodomme who wanted to help the world too - news flash, you can't. If anything your job is to get comfortable with "this is really fucked up but I need it to be happy." I found that an endlessly fascinating stance, personally. I'm interested in the itch that 9000 hours on the couch is never going to scratch. I have my own versions of "this is fucked up, but it makes me happy and I need it to be happy." The more I related to my clients the more outlandishness seemed normal.

In no way am I defending Elise Sutton, whoever that may be. Other than to say she has a right to attract whomever she does and they have a right to get off on whatever they want. Yes, it's tiresome and dumb and politically most incorrect. So's 99 percent of what passes for fun in SM.

Also it's never a particularly good business practice to run around in horrified trashing of the competition. I bothered to read the blog, and I'm glad I did because it doesn't come off as that, just very unjaded and well meaning. Whereas your mission seems to be to "save men" into more business for your Mistress.

 

[rosco rathbone]

Where do I sign on!

 

[FurryFury]

". . . women need to take a 24/7 total power exchange role in the relationship."

Gawd, that sounds like so much work!

 

[ChainedEros]

Agreed.

There are a lot of people who view SM as "spank material" and are incredulous that anyone out there actually does it.

Live and let live. They're grown men. If they don't really want that kind of interaction, do you think they'll stay with it?

How is it less insulting to imply that only people with self-esteem YOU consider sufficient have the right to pay for their jollies?

I was a prodomme who wanted to help the world too - news flash, you can't. If anything your job is to get comfortable with "this is really fucked up but I need it to be happy." I found that an endlessly fascinating stance, personally. I'm interested in the itch that 9000 hours on the couch is never going to scratch. I have my own versions of "this is fucked up, but it makes me happy and I need it to be happy." The more I related to my clients the more outlandishness seemed normal.

In no way am I defending Elise Sutton, whoever that may be. Other than to say she has a right to attract whomever she does and they have a right to get off on whatever they want. Yes, it's tiresome and dumb and politically most incorrect. So's 99 percent of what passes for fun in SM.

Also it's never a particularly good business practice to run around in horrified trashing of the competition. I bothered to read the blog, and I'm glad I did because it doesn't come off as that, just very unjaded and well meaning. Whereas your mission seems to be to "save men" into more business for your Mistress.

It's interesting that he and his Mistress are the only definitive sources on "healthy" and "real" S & M.

They need to get over themselves. Like you said, live and let live.

 

[SlaveNano]

It's interesting that he and his Mistress are the only definitive sources on "healthy" and "real" S & M.

They need to get over themselves. Like you said, live and let live.

Agree totally.

Who really has the right to set themselves up as the arbiter of 'healthy' and 'unhealthy' female supremacy. And what is meant by that anyway.

It is arrogance to assume that men who enter into this kind arrangement are naive or have no self esteem. If it meets an emotional need for them then that's their choice. Is this a general attack on pro-dommes or just against this one site?

There are lots of ways to enact a femdom relationship, different things meet the needs of different people. I am speaking here as a male sub/slave but I wouldn't dare assume that the way I do it was the 'only' or 'real' way.

 

[headslave]

The idea that my Mistress and I are engaging in arbitrarily defining our kink as OK, while others are "not OK" is just not valid. We care about people and are going with the definition's that psychology gives for unhealthy behavior, does it make the person unhappy for engaging in it. In this regard, yes we don't see how engaging in a 24/7 TPE is going to make the person happy. Given that she now has a client who is the worse for his involvement with it, it pretty clearly seems to fall within the category of unhealthy behavior.

Furthermore, what are condemning very specific notions:
1. That men who are not prepared to engage in 24/7 TPE are not truly submissive.
2. That men are simply inferior and always less than women.
3. That such attitudes and behaviors are within the realm of healthy behavior as defined by psychology (which is what Elise Sutton suggests).

Obviously we are all for fantasy. I love engaging in fantasy and role play. But, in our opinions, this is simply too far. We are not rule makers, so it's not like our opinions are causing anyone else to lose out on anything. We are simply here to express our opinion on the matter and, ideally, cause the scene to reflect a bit as to whether such relationships and forms of play really fall under the auspices of safe, sane and consensual.

 

[Netzach]

The idea that my Mistress and I are engaging in arbitrarily defining our kink as OK, while others are "not OK" is just not valid. We care about people and are going with the definition's that psychology gives for unhealthy behavior, does it make the person unhappy for engaging in it. In this regard, yes we don't see how engaging in a 24/7 TPE is going to make the person happy. Given that she now has a client who is the worse for his involvement with it, it pretty clearly seems to fall within the category of unhealthy behavior.

There are people that get involved in vanilla romantic entanglements every single day who are the worse for wear, and we don't say fucking is unhealthy or come around warning everyone about the dangers of human interaction. You know someone who's unhappy and got out of it. Hurrah. There are other people perfectly happy with it and YOUR problem is just that. Yours.

Furthermore, what are condemning very specific notions:
1. That men who are not prepared to engage in 24/7 TPE are not truly submissive.
2. That men are simply inferior and always less than women.
3. That such attitudes and behaviors are within the realm of healthy behavior as defined by psychology (which is what Elise Sutton suggests).

It's not healthy for you.

safe, sane and consensual.

The last isn't subjective. The first are.

 

[headslave]

There are people that get involved in vanilla romantic entanglements every single day who are the worse for wear, and we don't say fucking is unhealthy or come around warning everyone about the dangers of human interaction. You know someone who's unhappy and got out of it. Hurrah. There are other people perfectly happy with it and YOUR problem is just that. Yours.

There are many, many individuals, media outlets, and groups who speak out about unhealthy vanilla relationships. We are merely taking up the torch for unhealthy BDSM relationships because we feel that a lot has been allowed to go on under the banner of BDSM that is not healthy.

It's not healthy for you.

No, it's not healthy for me. Nor is it healthy for the client that my Mistress is now having to council who is worse for the wear. This begs the question of exactly who it is healthy for. When you take it out of the BDSM sphere and just look at it for what it is, female supremacy is merely the classic controlling type of relationship that is widely recognized as unhealthy that has been put in a BDSM context. I don't see how doing this has made it any more healthy or better for anyone involved.

 

[Netzach]

There are many, many individuals, media outlets, and groups who speak out about unhealthy vanilla relationships. We are merely taking up the torch for unhealthy BDSM relationships because we feel that a lot has been allowed to go on under the banner of BDSM that is not healthy.

How noble of you.

No, it's not healthy for me. Nor is it healthy for the client that my Mistress is now having to council who is worse for the wear. This begs the question of exactly who it is healthy for.

Whoever the heck deems it healthy for them. A lot of people would consider you and your Mistress inherently sick puppies. I'm talking about passing along the courtesy of letting people make up their own minds without running interference.

 

[BiBunny]

I'm going to point out the terribly unpopular and vaguely Darwinistic idea that if people are dumb enough to leap without looking, then they deserve whatever they get. But that's just me.

 

[headslave]

Whoever the heck deems it healthy for them.

Not to broaden the argument too much, but I disagree here. I believe that people should have the right to engage in unhealthy behavior, but I don't believe that we should believe, as you suggest, that a behavior is good for me if I deem it to be.

People smoke cigarettes, and that behavior is, medically speaking, unhealthy. I believe they should have the write to do so. However, that does not mean that we should label smoking as healthy just because smokers say it is, nor does it mean that we should not label the practice of smoking as unhealthy or reprimand the tobacco industry itself.

I see the same logic at work here.

 

[Netzach]

Not to broaden the argument too much, but I disagree here. I believe that people should have the right to engage in unhealthy behavior, but I don't believe that we should believe, as you suggest, that a behavior is good for me if I deem it to be.

People smoke cigarettes, and that behavior is, medically speaking, unhealthy. I believe they should have the write to do so. However, that does not mean that we should label smoking as healthy just because smokers say it is, nor does it mean that we should not label the practice of smoking as unhealthy or reprimand the tobacco industry itself.

I see the same logic at work here.

No smoker exposed to modern western information is going to draw the conclusion that it's healthy behavior.

People have the right to be as unsanitized, messed up, and content to be so as they choose. This is SM, not a freaking EST conference. Guess what, you touch the hot stove there's RISK.

If you don't want that aspect at all, play tiddly winks at home.

 

[Netzach]

I'm going to point out the terribly unpopular and vaguely Darwinistic idea that if people are dumb enough to leap without looking, then they deserve whatever they get. But that's just me.

But then I can't save them to the tune of 200 bucks an hour from the big meanies.

 

[BiBunny]

But then I can't save them to the tune of 200 bucks an hour from the big meanies.

Duh. I wasn't thinking, obviously. I'm revising my opinion now.

 

[Etoile]

s www.mystressworld.com

I had to read this, like, FIVE TIMES before I figured out what "My Stress World" was supposed to be.

 

[Homburg]

I had to read this, like, FIVE TIMES before I figured out what "My Stress World" was supposed to be.

I read it once, and figured that it was just spam dressed in a bit of self-help sophistication.

 

[Etoile]

I read it once, and figured that it was just spam dressed in a bit of self-help sophistication.

Nah, the OP came back and replied, it might be real.

 

[headslave]

If only this were true.

So many smokers I've met dismiss it as a conspiracy of one form or another.

A what!?

oh yes, a conspiracy...

blah blah blah *insert lamest explanations you've ever heard here*



ok, what the fuck ever. Go get cancer and die already.


sorry for the side rant... however it does relate somewhat, in that I see the same phenomenon repeat itself in varying degrees with most activities "condemned as unhealthy," including BDSM.

It's like people hear "hey; you're vice is unhealthy," as a personal attack on them, and their clarity of vision just hazes over with resentment and denial.

no really, I agree people have the right to choose to be unhealthy; but own your fucking choice. The insurance companies that penalize you for smoking could care less about your delusions of government conspiracy, and similarly, a jury of your so called peers could care less that you think beating your partner is a healthy activity, "consensual" or not.

make your own peace with that; because denial just makes you look dumb.

just because your vices make sense to you does not make you any healthier than the 'perverts' you look down on.

ok ok... rant over now.

When i saw the first post of this thread all i could think was "now there's a can or worms."

It's a can of worms, but these things makes for lively discussion. I have to confess I'm a bit surprised by the negative reaction I've gotten in this forum. To me, those close to me, and the friends I make in the BDSM community, it's just common sense. Unhealthy behavior is unhealthy behavior, even in the realm of BDSM. I'm not seeking to deny others the right to engage in whatever behaviors they like, but I don't see why the act of condemning such behavior is so controversial.

I can understand the knee jerk reaction what is perceived a message of "my kink is OK, but other's aren't." But, outside of this knee jerk reaction, I don't see much substance to the negative reactions I've seen here. Personally, I've never found a single person anywhere who can tell me with a straight face that a 24/7 TPE is a healthy way to live. Not one. And yet everyone wants to look at this through the lens of relativism and say that I can only make that distinction for me.

I've never been a fan of absolute relativism, so I really don't find that line of logic compelling. Furthermore, like it or not, our society has taken notice of BDSM. It used to regard it entirely as being the domain of perverts. Then feminism declared war against it. But lately it's becoming increasingly accepted. In fact, NBC recently ran a story that kinky couples had more intimacy. I consider this a positive development. If we as a community capitalized on this by really distancing ourselves from some of the more unhealthy behavior, it might further lead to mainstream acceptance.

But even outside of mainstream acceptance, would we not be better of as a community if we abandoned our relativism and really came together and exchanged notes on what seems to work and what doesn't. I can say that, for me, my kink works. I can also say that I have never meet anyone for whom 24/7 TPE "worked." Furthermore, this style of BDSM incorporates a lot of elements that are widely recognized as unhealthy in vanilla life. If it doesn't work there, how is it going to work here?

Sure, it's a can of worms, but I don't see that we gain anything by avoiding the discussion by either ignoring it or burying our head in the sands of absolute relativism.

 

[LifelongCyn]

I can also say that I have never meet anyone for whom 24/7 TPE "worked."

I can say that I've never personally met anyone who lives on the African continent, but that doesn't lead me to the conclusion that no one possibly could.

Furthermore, this style of BDSM incorporates a lot of elements that are widely recognized as unhealthy in vanilla life. If it doesn't work there, how is it going to work here?

What elements would that be? And which vanilla life? Some people find opening doors for anyone utterly subversive. What's considered normal power distribution in a fundamentalist Christian marriage would qualify as TPE in mainstream American culture. Does that make them kinky? Unhealthy? Doomed to failure?

 

[Etoile]

I can say that I've never personally met anyone who lives on the African continent, but that doesn't lead me to the conclusion that no one possibly could.



What elements would that be? And which vanilla life? Some people find opening doors for anyone utterly subversive. What's considered normal power distribution in a Latin American marriage would qualify as TPE in mainstream American culture. Apples and oranges.

Great post.

 

[oldsub]

Wow where do i begin... Lets start with TPE, no.. lets start with the fact that i am in a 24/7 female controlled relationship. Then lets ask what "total" means. Does it mean that i have no opinion, no rights, no sense of self? NO! Does it mean that in all cases, Mistress has the final say or i pay the consequences if She is displeased ? Yes. Are those consequences unhealthy? Not in my case. Can they be in others? i'm sure they can, but as in any relationship, vanilla, D/s, or BDSM it is all relavent ot love, trust, and respect between partners.

The unhealthy relationships you describe are found in all lifestyles where ever the strong play on the weak's fears or weakness. As for Elise Sutton's books. i can tell You those books, and then others, were a way of introducing my Wife, now my Mistress, to the lifestyle when i couldn't get her past the sterotypes using my own words to try and explain myself. We did not use them as a how to guide, or a recipe, we used them as an idea to start a discussion and then an exploration.

Then again, i smoke... so what do i know?

 

[Netzach]

I've never been a fan of absolute relativism, so I really don't find that line of logic compelling. Furthermore, like it or not, our society has taken notice of BDSM. It used to regard it entirely as being the domain of perverts. Then feminism declared war against it. But lately it's becoming increasingly accepted. In fact, NBC recently ran a story that kinky couples had more intimacy. I consider this a positive development. If we as a community capitalized on this by really distancing ourselves from some of the more unhealthy behavior, it might further lead to mainstream acceptance.

It's easy to dismiss any argument as knee jerk and relativistic. Here's my moral absolute - people have a right to their decisions. Even the ones I don't like. Unless your decision is to kill everyone of a certain ethnicity, if the only person being elbowed in the face is YOU, and you went in being told exactly what would happen, that's not my business or my right to even tell you different. I don't even know what motivates you.

This moral truth is the one you seem to completely be missing - and again, the fact that your OWN decisions fail someone else's smell test.

This works really well for people who would plausibly deny their way out of the community if the shit hit the fan. I've never been a fan of bending over backwards to satisfy the lowest common denominator in order to have the right to be left the fuck alone to do as I choose.

For those of us who'd take our sexualities to the grave and really don't give a rat's ass if you've won mainstream sanction, this is the worst possible thing that's happened to SM in 30 years. It's not the "dangerous top" that cheapens SM it's the caped crusaders who are going to turn everything they encounter into health food.

If I want therapy I'm going to a therapist and one who doesn't mix SM and therapy or put a therapeutic label on their sex work so that scared little men feel less guilty about it. THAT seems remarkably ethically shady to me. I never said "my shit will heal you" and while it MIGHT it's not psychic snake oil I'm willing to market.

I got OUT of my relationship that wasn't satisfying me. I paid my dues. I don't throw stones at people who deny that 24/7 can work because THEY have to compartmentalize their lives, but I don't let them dictate mine or tell me cynically that only the little world they're paying to even be part of is healthy enough and I must match their level of cynical part-time.

 

[JMohegan]

Unhealthy behavior is unhealthy behavior, even in the realm of BDSM. I'm not seeking to deny others the right to engage in whatever behaviors they like, but I don't see why the act of condemning such behavior is so controversial.

I object to your condemnation because you are condemning the behavior itself, rather than the results of individual encounters. Implicitly, you are endorsing the notion that those outside particular relationships may better judge the appropriateness of the behavior of the participants therein.

Having had this very same notion applied to me, many times, by people who had not the slightest understanding of what went on between myself and my partners, I reject it outright.

"Only someone with little self-esteem would engage in that behavior" is a very old claim, used to condemn kinksters for a multitude of behaviors. My response to you is the same as my response would be to the most prudish or ill-informed non-kinkster.

And that response is: if you can demonstrate the absence of informed consent, and/or if you can point to a material and sustained decline in the health or well-being of an individual, then we can start talking about what can or should be done. (With the caveat that, regrettably, options are often limited.)

 

[Etoile]

If a serial killer says "I'm a sick fucker, I like to kill people, and I probably deserve to die," i say that's a noble individual; light him up.

What really bothers me then is when people think they have the right to "put a stop to something," that in no way affects them, to an extent they really have no understanding of it.

I disagree with you about serial killers. People have the right to do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't impinge on someone else's rights. Very often it does, but we don't do anything about it. In the case of serial killers, though, they are impinging on someone's most basic, fundamental right: the right to choose whether they live or die. (Yes, I am in favor of assisted suicide.)

I think it's appropriate to put a stop to serial killers, because they have crossed the NIMBY line. It's not that I don't understand it, on the contrary I do understand it, and I have decided I find it wrong. Wasn't it Thomas Jefferson or Voltaire or somebody who said "your right to strike me ends at my nose" or something along those lines? Yeah, that's what I'm trying to say.

People can do whatever they want, provided it doesn't take away someone else's right to do whatever THEY want.