I can’t possibly be the only one who’s noticed that modern BDSM clearly favours the female partner — whether she be submissive or dominant. If in submission, her dominant tends to be loving, doting, and indulgent. Occasionally restrictive, if it seems to be in the submissive’s best interest. She gives over her power, just like the male submissive does, trusting and seeking to build greater intimacy with the dominant. The female submissive is rewarded for her submission, however, whereas it’s expected of the male submissive — especially if you’re dealing with a female supremacist-oriented sort of female domination dynamic. Then the male is practically treated as less than human, expected to serve without reward or gratitude, where the ultimate objective is to break down and subjugate their will. The female submissive is coddled, cherished and adored — the object of desire and affection. The male submissive is a degraded, denied, and defiled — simply regarded as an object. If anything, of contempt, or with no identity or value at all.

What kind of fuckery is this?

For one, it really does support my theory that the majority of dommes are angry feminists who have decided that men must pay — and hey, there’s a whole bunch of them out there that want this kind of abuse, so where’s the problem?

That’s the greater question. Where is the problem?

I’ll tell you one thing; when we attest that human slavery is atrocious in third world countries, but are perfectly accepting of consensual slavery without even examining its roots — Houston, we have a big problem. (more…)

As the great femdom validity experiment continues, (more like meanders underneath everything else, but hey,) more still becomes apparent; in part, a byproduct of our environment. While female-led relationships aren’t quite what one would call common, they are moreso in the kinky subculture. But even still, not 24/7. That was something I specifically wanted to explore as part of the greater experiment as a whole. While it’s ongoing, I have a few findings — which likely won’t be encouraging for some.

In short, total-power-exchange relationships don’t work.

Now anyone who grew up in a female-led household (such as myself) is going to balk at that and remain sceptical. I was, too. But remember, this isn’t just about what’s possible — it’s also about what’s healthy. Regardless of sex or gender, a total power exchange relationship quickly becomes fertile ground for abuse. That understanding lies in the very foundation of what makes one mature versus immature. Most traits and behaviours can be classified according to whether they are synonymous with adult accountability or juvenile dependency. Paradoxically, the stereotypical female dominant expresses more juvenile-dependent traits and behaviours — rivalling those of most children! Self-entitlement, required assistance, no accountability, emotional manipulation to have own way, irresponsibility, recklessness, enablement, ignoring social etiquette, self-centredness, arrogance, refusal to share or compromise, use of others’ resources, and dependent upon another for most things.

It really baffled me. Conceptually, the female dominant is in charge, which allows the male submissive to be youthful, child-like and at her mercy. But in reality, practical application seems to fly in the face of theory and the abstract representation of what femdom should be. Over time, it becomes perplexing — and misleading — as to just what real femdom is — or even should be. If the male subs are the ones doing all of the work, providing a framework in which the domme can even function, then the members of that dynamic are seriously fooling themselves as to which direction the power is flowing.

To further my point, a bit of developmental psychology. And a lot of metaphor. Of course, to avoid it being too dry, there will be pirates. (You like pirates, right? Who doesn’t like pirates?) (more…)

EXAMINING THE VALIDITY OF FEMALE-DOMINATED RELATIONAL DYNAMICS:

A Longitudinal Case Study Examining A Heterosexual Female-Dominated Monogamous Relationship for Causal Relationship Between Certain Dominant Behaviours While Monitoring for the Psychological Well-Being of Both Partners

All right, then. I never said it wouldn’t be a mouthful. It’s definitely a working title, not to mention a work in progress. But, continuing on.

OUTLINE OF EXPERIMENT: To determine whether or not a causal relationship exists between certain female-dominant behaviours in a consensual, heterosexual, monogamous relationship and the overall psychological well-being of both the dominant and submissive partners.

HYPOTHESES:

1. While certain dominant behaviours can be very satisfying to a submissive partner, removing the element of consensuality can be psychologically damaging, emotionally abusive, and unethical.
2. The dominant’s legitimate and uncontested control over the sexual relationship can be a liberating and comforting experience, and potentially healing for women who are in abuse recovery themselves, or have reluctance with being the dominant partner regardless of their enjoyment of such experience and activities.
3. Resentment can develop in an otherwise psychologically and power-balanced relationship if the submissive man is too often stripped of his masculinity and his ego intentionally compromised; likewise, if the dominant woman is unable to express and experience her own femininity with her male partner. Moderation is essential for psychological well-being.
4. Any sort of illusory non-consensual activities involving violence, abuse, and anything psychologically damaging to the submissive male partner should be heavily negotiated prior to entrance into the relationship, carefully monitored and extensively controlled by the dominant, with thorough and complete aftercare, even if the illusion is maintained throughout. (more…)

Femdom. Matriarchy. Female-Led Relationship. There are many labels for the belief system or relational dynamic in heterosexual relationships in which the woman is knowingly and fully given power over the man and thus drives the relationship. Much of it is the product of submissive male fantasy and doesn’t come close to actual reality, or take into account various aspects of actual relationships out here in the real world. In the context of fantasy, others don’t exist outside the 24/7 couple, there are no social or occupational obligations, all needs and requirements have been met or are simply not relevant to the context of the story, whatever its form — and there is no mention of past history of either of the partners: no ex-wives, children, pets, best friends, employers or employees, relatives, in-laws, health conditions, mental or emotional problems or affect disorders, and nothing invades the situation to detract from the fantasy. That’s why it’s fantasy.

Now, it appears we have something of a hyper-feminist movement finding acceptance in the femdom-oriented community. And why wouldn’t it? Like the bureaucracy’s adoption of Keynesian economic policy, given how it supported their ideals and allowed them to expand and strengthen their power, the extremist idealogy of hyper-feminism seems tailor-made for the femdom platform. But, like the US Government’s adoration of Keynes, it’s not the best fit, is largely ill-advised, and will really come to bite everyone in the ass eventually. Or has no one been paying attention to the economy since September 2007? Case in point.

It’s taken me awhile to get to this point, however. I’ve read the bulk of the research, spoken to many sources, debated the issues on various websites, and drawn my own conclusions. The research seems to be split in certain areas, though no scholarly or academic journal is quite progressive enough to conduct any sort of legitimate experiment regarding whether or not there is any sort of validity to the present research. That being said, I’ve decided to do just that. I’m beginning preparation on what will be a blind, longitudinal case study to discover whether or not there is a causal relationship between various variables tested to include: discipline and punishment, humiliation and objectification, teasing and denial, service that is rewarded versus that which is expected without praise, the inclusion versus exclusion of certain types of consensual, sanctioned and monitored abuse: verbal, psychological, emotional, and physical; behavioural modification to include: control and limitation, cognitive restructuring and repatterning, goal-oriented ‘deserved’ punishment versus cruel, sadistic and ‘undeserved’ punishment and discipline. (more…)