Devastating Yet Inconsequential

female submission

10 April 2008 · 22 Comments

“What should I blog about?” I asked Jos earlier.  “Give me a challenge.”

“Blog about your feelings about female submission,” he said.

Let me preface it this way.  In my ideal world (which may or may not be possible at all), set gender roles would not exist.  People would not view women and men differently on the basis of sex.  Things like femininity and masculinity would be for play, for hotness, and many people would have no need of them.  It would be the same way with power dynamics – nobody would be presumed to be stronger or better than anyone else, and people would only use power dynamics for play, like we do in bdsm.  In this fantasy world, I don’t think I’d feel any different about male and female submissives, unless my idiosyncratic sexuality just made one hotter than the other.

But we don’t live in that world, and I do see them differently.  And it’s a strange and complicated thing that I have a hard time fully understanding about myself.

I play at a public club, and most of the scenes and relationships I see look fine to me.  I read some blogs by submissive women and enjoy them a lot.  But pictures of women in submissive poses/equipment – the generic porn kind – can offend my feminist sensibilities even though I have no good argument against them, while pictures of men never do.  And I sometimes get worried or squicked about individual submissive women (in public play, or based on a blog post or whatever), while I have never, as far as I can remember, felt that way about a man.

(I should note that I’m basically writing as though lesbian bdsm doesn’t exist.  I am well aware that it does.  But I can’t figure out whether I do or do not have these anomalous types of responses to women submitting to other women. I don’t think I do, but I’m not sure.  So I’m really writing about women submitting to men here.)

When I see women submitting to men, I think my mind has a slight presumption of yucky patriarchy stuff going on.  If the women seem to be non-autonomous, intrinsically powerless, confused, or insecure, then that presumption is quickly reinforced. 

I once made Joscelin break down sobbing during a scene at the club.  If I’d seen that happen to another submissive man, I’d probably have found it touching, even while I watched to see how the dom handled it.  (I might have even watched to make sure the dom was safe from the man!)  But if I’d seen a man do that to a submissive woman, I’d have felt like he probably suckered her into the whole thing, that she was probably submitting or being beaten or whatever due to some kind of emotional coercion, that he was an asshole.  I would realize, of course, that the assumptions were unwarranted.  But that’s how I’d feel.  It’s how I’ve felt before when I’ve seen situations like that, at least until I learned otherwise.

This relates somehow to my own confused relationship to being submissive.  I love to feel submissive in a scene, but any presumption of submissiveness from even a scene partner turns me off.  (One guy told me I didn’t seem like a brat.  It really rankled me, given that “brat” assumes there is some kind of legitimate power structure that I shouldn’t rebel against.) 

But I don’t want to mainly talk about my own submissiveness.  Instead, here is what I’m curious about.  Did feminism imbue me with some kind of resistance to signs of patriarchy, and that’s what I’m applying (in my limited way) that makes me balk at men dominating women?  Or is my prejudice against this actually a sign of disrespect for the autonomy of women – a kind of pre-conscious belief that women can’t decide, aren’t sexual, or are intrinsically shaped and ruled by their male partners?

Under the Boot recently wrote about how his wife cut him with a kitchen knife.  I don’t really think that is a good idea.  It’s not safe enough for me.  But what I thought was something like “that kook” because, you know, they’re grown-ups, they can make their own decisions.  But if a woman wrote that her husband did that to her, I’d think he was a total asshole.  I’d think she should get away from him because he obviously doesn’t know what the fuck he’s doing and could cause her serious injury.

In my mind, it feels like Under the Boot is tough and can take care of himself, but this hypothetical female submissive is probably too submissive and trusting to question what her partner is doing.  It’s fine for me (apparently) that someone’s wife freely experiments in something she has no training in, but a male dom doing the same thing…well, that’s just not OK in my book.

What is this?  Do I think women are too delicate?  Non-sexual?  Unassertive?  It’s always the man’s job to be smart, aware, and take care of the woman?

Am I a feminist or a misogynist?

Categories: doms · ethics · feminism · other doms · submission & submissives

22 responses so far ↓

  • qwietqween // 10 April 2008 at 8:31 pm

    Neither/Both…

    So here it is:

    I am a female, I am also submissive. I find pornography that features male submissives akward, unattractive, and completely without any sexual appeal.
    On the other hand, I find pornography that features submissive women (with either a male or female dominant) very appealing. My sexual fantasies take on a prodominately heterosexual tone (but not always).

    I am an egalitarian, in every other aspect of my life.

    I do not think that these two aspects of my person need to be related to each other, or reconciled.

    Maybe, from a purely aesthetic perspective, you just don’t find submissive females attractive?

  • sinclair // 10 April 2008 at 10:31 pm

    that’s a tricky one. likewise, the lesbian d/s porn is great, totally turns me on, but if a woman is submitting to a man? no way, too much feminism and problematizing the sexualization of a power dynamic that is already entirely too prevalent in our social constructs. I don’t really find a guy submitting to a woman to be hot, either, but that’s primarily because I don’t generally find men all that hot. a trans guy & a female/lesbian domme? maybe … I could go there. but again, it’s because there’s some (implied) equality somehow.

    for me it’s also a question of agency – whether a woman really has agency in a society which coddles and subjects her to certain gender conformities, compulsory behavior which dictates what she can or can’t do.

    ultimately, though, I guess I have to just decide that agency is possible within everyone, and that everyone is an expert on their own life … and yeah, maybe it just doesn’t turn me on (like quietqween said). and though I do still have flashes of that, I try to let myself not judge it too harshly, and let it be a personal decision for my own kinks.

    thanks for writing this out though – it’s fascinating & there’s a lot of complex ideas within it, I think.

  • sallo // 11 April 2008 at 7:25 am

    OK, I’m making this up as I go along, so this may even more incoherent than usual, but…

    To me, it doesn’t seem like women are somehow inherently delicate, non-sexual (hah), or unassertive, but that some-to-many women are socialized to feel that delicacy is part of being a proper female, suppress their own sexual desires/interests/kinks, and be unassertive around men. I guess I feel (I use the term advisedly) that if women were universally able to resist being affected by society’s expectations, and were able to remain inviolate in their own minds if not in their place in the outside world, then patriarchy wouldn’t be so insidious.

    To use a non-bdsm example, when I hear women take a very conservative, traditional sex-role, one-step-removed-from-barefoot-and-pregnant position on marriage or women’s role in society in general, I do blame the patriarchy. It’s not that I doubt that the woman actually does in some sense want that life, but I assume that it is because she has absorbed these views from her (male-dominated) religion, family, or other source. It’s not impossible that this isn’t something that some women would just want for their own reasons, so I am inaccurately lumping them all into some kind of category of the (however mildly) brainwashed. This is quite unfair to those women who have thought things through at a deep level and still want that life, but the alternative is unclear. Taking it at face value that women want what they are willing to say publically that they want, or want the lives that they are living (through some kind of revealed preference thing, as though their choices have not been constrained all along) – that just seems too close to rationalizing and excusing the system.

    I don’t immediately see why moving this into the realm of sex changes the analysis significantly.

    The idea of a man as a submissive (I mean as his fundamental orientation toward love and sex, not the guy who bottoms once a month to Mistress Spike Heels) is an inversion of the typical power structure and thus doesn’t feel like an echo of something bad in the world. I also feel much more confident that he didn’t come to this place through unthinking acceptance of society’s dictates or influence. It seems like a guy who is a sub is more bucking the system rather than buckling under to it.

    How do you feel about racially charged sexual images? For example, a black man in chains cowering before a white person (male or female) – is this hot, or does it too strongly evoke the fact that black people were slaves who were literally owned by other people against their will?

  • devastatingyet // 11 April 2008 at 9:56 am

    Qwietqueen:

    Maybe, from a purely aesthetic perspective, you just don’t find submissive females attractive?

    I don’t think that’s it. I like to bottom to men myself, and I do sometimes find submissive women attractive. It’s true that the aesthetics of how that is usually commercially presented don’t appeal to me, but I don’t think this explains the whole thing at all.

    Sinclair and Sallo:

    I think you both make good points that there are more or less good reasons to feel concern about the full agency of women under patriarchy.

    After I wrote this I also thought more about the situation of a submissive man freaking out in a scene, and the fact that I’d watch partly to make sure his female top was safe. And I guess that’s just a common sense response to the fact that men are typically larger and stronger than women, so they simply do pose more of a physical threat.

    Sallo:

    The idea of a man as a submissive…is an inversion of the typical power structure and thus doesn’t feel like an echo of something bad in the world.

    I think this is definitely true for me.

    How do you feel about racially charged sexual images? For example, a black man in chains cowering before a white person (male or female) – is this hot, or does it too strongly evoke the fact that black people were slaves who were literally owned by other people against their will?

    See, this is a tricky one. Presented as a commercial image it would squick and offend me. If I saw a couple doing it at the club, though, I would be able to overcome my “omg that’s racist” feelings to recognize two people having a mutually chosen experience together.

    Denver is very white, but I have in fact encountered black submissives at our club from time to time, and it hasn’t bothered me. But I think I would have a hard time having a slave (in the Joscelin sense) who was black for exactly the reasons you mentioned. (I of course want everyone to be free to consensually pursue their sexual desires, so this is unfortuate, perhaps.)

    I’m noticing something in this giant comment I’m writing – I am much more disturbed by commercial images that seem to degrade women (or, in theory, black people) – even if they are clearly kink-related – than I am by actual acts done by actual people for fun.

  • subversive_sub // 11 April 2008 at 12:03 pm

    This is really interesting, and I’m stealing the topic for my own blog…

    For me, I think my discomfort comes not from the relative position of the woman in the porn/advertising/whatever, but how she is presented. I’m equally upset by most M/f and F/m imagery (and some F/f as well), because in either case, the woman is the focal point, and she is dolled up in makeup and hair products and fetish wear to emphasize that SHE, not the man, is the object of attention. If you see her naked, she’s always completely (or near-completely) devoid of body hair. She is always, always high femme. In real life, as well, I sometimes get uncomfortable when I see M/f OR F/m pairs that exemplify gender stereotypes when it comes to appearance. And it’s hard, because I know on the one hand that this is in many ways gender *performance*, it’s a sexualized and exaggerated form of the person’s gender identity, but it’s really hard for me to see past it.

  • Dev’s post on female submission « …sometimes almost magic… // 11 April 2008 at 6:32 pm

    [...] right now, I can’t really write a decent post, but there are some excellent things being said here about female submission and how people’s ideas of it are influenced by feminism and their [...]

  • undertheboot // 11 April 2008 at 6:34 pm

    Female submission freaks me out. I’ve got enough white male guilt that the idea that a woman is just going to be objectified, serve me, be my sextoy, all of it, is kind of freaky. Disquieting even.

    At the same time, my wife has kind of decided she wants to be the sub right now. And it’s coinciding with a nice, warm feeling in my heart screaming, “Be the dominant!”

    And it’s hard for me, because a) I’m naturally submissive, and b) I feel guilty when I give my wife a facial, or order her around, or use her selfishly, or objectify her. Because those things are /bad./ Right?

    But you know what? She’s a grown woman. She’s been working since she was 16. She oversees a dozen people in a profession most people won’t touch, working with the extremely poor, the extremely troubled. She handles our finances, keeps me healthy and organized and the baby happy. She’s also a skilled dominant, unafraid of freaky, female-empowered sex.

    So at one point does she get to decide she wants to take a facial? Or to be objectified? To be dolled up and feminized and babied and told to sit around and serve and be a slave? I don’t know. I think she’s made her bones, so to speak. If she wants to see whether she is a domme or a sub, and I want to see if I can switch, who am I to say no, when she said yes for me?

    I don’t have any answers. Or at least, any easy ones. I think on a broad-scale, female submission, given the world we live in, is troublesome. But I’m dealing with the individual, the personal, and the equation is different here.

  • Fluence // 12 April 2008 at 2:53 am

    I understand what you write about here, even though I’m submissive. I have little interest in seeing images of female subs, unless it’s part of something more interesting than you usually see. I’m not that visual, but I’d rather see images of hot dominants than glamorously tousled women. (If she’s got piercings, tattoos, dressed alternative or looks really feisty I get way more interested, but that’s whether she’s sub or dom!). Although I’m mostly M/f I like reading (and occasionally looking at) F/f erotica as it becomes more about the D/s dynamic, not the gender roles.

    I don’t go to play clubs, so no respons to that, but in terms of relationships, I know a fair amount of M/f couples and the woman is always equally or more ‘in charge’ of daily decisions (even when the guy is about 10 years older which you’d think made an obvious power hierarchy). Maybe this is because they feel a bit like they need to explicitly show that they’re not being ‘un-feminist’, but it’s more likely to just be the kind of people I’d be friends with.

    I think it’s mainly that I don’t find it sexy to see outdated power relations repeated. For me it’s all about the difference, the take down from being totally in control to wanting to submit to someone. If the woman’s presented as weak already, what’s the point? It’d probably be the same if the man was presented as intrinsically weak in some way.

  • Calico // 12 April 2008 at 11:26 am

    Followed a link here from a friend’s journal. This hits very close to home, as I too am a switch whose feminist issues give her trouble about female submission.

    A few types of submissives do worry me on sight:
    -very young women
    -women who don’t/aren’t allowed to talk
    -men who for reasons of age, physical attractiveness or social interaction, are puzzlingly or “unsuitably” partnered (with a young&hot or obviously professional female partner)

    I worry if they have agency (in the case of very young women). My socialization about sex was vastly unhealthy, and I have every reason to believe it was standard. I felt bad saying “no” and people could talk me into things, whether intentionally or not; I didn’t know what I wanted, or how to ask for it, and it was hard to tell it apart from what my partners told me I should want to do.

    Is this my baggage? Absolutely. I should assume women are empowered and autonomous unless proven otherwise, as I want people to do for me… but … Very young women who can’t speak unless spoken to just Squick. Me. Out. She could be the smartest, most independent woman on Earth — but if she looks 25 or under, he looks 40+, and the power dynamic is not visibly caring (from him) or enjoyable (for her), I can’t watch.

    And it makes me feel awful.

    I also worry if it’s informed, as in the case of so many of the submissive men I see paying or doing videos with hot young pro-dommes. Honestly, it really makes my heart hurt to see these men doing extreme or humiliating things they might not enjoy, because they think it’s the only way they can get play.

    This all seems so hypocritical and disrespectful for me to say. People have far more reasons to question or disregard MY agency than I ever do random women in clubs.

    How do we look out for these women (and men!) we’re worried about, without disregarding them as whole and capable people? Is it even possible? Is it any of our business?

    Thanks for a really thought-provoking post. Lots of things for me to wrap my head around … Hopefully I’ll write more on this later.

  • devastatingyet // 12 April 2008 at 3:05 pm

    Calico, yes – I have a lot of the exact experiences you describe here, in terms of how I respond to what I see. I especially hate it when I see female submissives who appear to be insecure and nervous. I don’t mean afraid in a scene necessarily, but just sitting at a partner’s feet looking insecure…that scares me.

  • Dw3t-Hthr // 12 April 2008 at 3:48 pm

    I have a lot of things I want to say, and I’m having a hard time with them, because this sort of thing is an intensely sensitive subject for me. I may have to pull off into my own place to write about it thoroughly, in part because I’m having a really damn touchy weekend and don’t want to get my damage all over your place.

    I do want to say one thing, which is at least enough of a separate piece that I can address it without getting into the scarred places:

    I find the concept of gendered submission problematic, for reasons not limited to my own gender dysphorias. And I resent, quite intensely, when someone characterises what I do as “female submission”. It’s not “female submission” that I do any more than it’s “pagan submission” or “white submission” or “five foot seven submission”; the concepts are not related except insofar as I am doing them.

    So when I run into “female submission is problematic in these ways”, I wind up instantly on edge, because part of what I find problematic is people gendering what I do in the first place. It’s not about being a woman, and I can’t help but feel that when people are talking about “female submission” in regards to what I do, they’re doing more than acknowledging that I am a woman and that I am a submissive. It’s invasive to me, dragging my genitalia into a conversation in a nonconsensual manner.

    And one can talk about problems in general dynamic, perhaps, at times, difficulties in free choice, in socialisation; and at the same time I can say, speaking as a submissive, that the socialisation I got was very much “You shouldn’t be kinky, but if you have to be a pervert it’s your responsibility as a liberated woman to be dominant” and I think that what one hears depends a lot on where one stands, because the real message is “You shouldn’t be kinky”, and everything else depends on what kinks one has …

    … and none of this changes the fact that every time I hear someone refer to my relationship with my liege as “M/f” I really want to punch them in the nose or something. It’s reducing fealty and service and loyalty and mutual power to something about gender roles, and that sort of objectification makes me Cranky.

  • devastatingyet // 12 April 2008 at 4:14 pm

    I see your point, and I hope you do write about this more. But it’s impossible for me to discuss my responses to different categories of people without categorising them. For instance, in a different context, if I were to admit to feeling fear when I see a black man walking down the street, I wouldn’t be trying to reduce a person’s existence to their socially-determined sex and race by having the discussion. I do have different responses to people based on, among other things, their gender, and that’s what I’m trying to work out here.

  • Richard // 13 April 2008 at 4:09 pm

    In my ideal world (which may or may not be possible at all), set gender roles would not exist. People would not view women and men differently on the basis of sex. Things like femininity and masculinity would be for play, for hotness, and many people would have no need of them.

    Bless you!

    I have problems with female masochism and submissiveness. Not because I think they are bad but because of events in my own past and a vague sense of it too often seeming sexist. But I know that the women involved really do experience fulfillment of their needs.

  • Dw3t-Hthr // 14 April 2008 at 12:45 am

    It’s a damned complicated thing, trying to figure out how to navigate the categories well, and dealing with sorting people and practices.

    Not an easy question at all.

  • Zula // 14 April 2008 at 1:17 pm

    I understand where your coming from, and I think the biggest issue is that agency is, by and large, intangible. How do you KNOW that the sub in a porn is enjoying herself and is aware that she doesn’t have to participate if she is uncomfortable doing so? How do you KNOW that, for the sub bawling hysterically during a public scene, crying is a sign that this scene is going exactly how she wanted? This kind of knowledge is in the background – “offstage,” as it were – and therefore hard to pick up. Images/situations without this kind of context are very easily misconstrued.

  • devastatingyet // 14 April 2008 at 2:24 pm

    How do you KNOW that, for the sub bawling hysterically during a public scene, crying is a sign that this scene is going exactly how she wanted?

    Right, and it might not be. It might be something she does as service in a mutually satisfying relationship. Or it might be an aberration or mistake that will require her partner take care of her.

  • Chessa // 14 April 2008 at 3:07 pm

    Hi! I’ve never commented here and am fairly new to the lifestyle.

    I’ve thought about this very topic a lot, especially since up until about 6 months ago I identified as submissive. When I thought I was submissive, I was *very* discreet about that aspect of my relationships. In the beginning I was almost ashamed of it – I was a spirited, liberal, independent woman – how could I be turned on by serving a man? I eventually reconciled it but find myself still thinking that when I see other independent women in a submissive role (but, I’m quick stop myself from thinking things like that!)

    Now that I identify mainly as dominant, I’m a lot less hesitant to talk about my lifestyle choices (not that I’m totally out about it). It’s as if I’m less “ashamed” of making this choice. I think part of it has to do with feminism going to an extreme.

  • Trin // 14 April 2008 at 3:25 pm

    I used to dislike “female submission,” but I think that’s less because I had problems with it as because I thought it was required of ME as a female. Every image I got from the culture said that men and women match like bookends (and a few weird people are gay, which is okay, but weird), and match because one is more dominant and the other more submissive.

    And I knew from go which one of those I was supposed to be and that I could not be happy submitting. So I flipped between “I’m crazy” and “They’re all crazy.”

    Now I’m not so insecure that I’ve either got to be Wrong or be Right.

  • figleaf // 20 April 2008 at 8:33 am

    “In my ideal world…” Yup, whether that’s possible or not it really is the direction to pull in. And Dw3t questioning the hyphens between female-submissive or male-dominant (as opposed to qualities like freckled dominant or O-positive-blood-type submissive) points us in that direction.

    I especially like the idea of breaking those hyphens out because as you say, DevastatingYet, it’s not *irrelevant* for instance that a sub having a breakdown is male or female, it’s just not necessarily *linked* because, for instance, you’d probably want to watch for backlash in a man in *any* kind of breakdown whether it’s sexual/sub or not. And it’s not *irrelevant* that we’re drawn to or distanced by male or female partners any more than it’s irrelevant that someone’s tattooed or not if those qualities are something that turn us on. (That’s just orientation.) But when we tie things together it gets complicated. Like… ok, like it’s fine if someone says “You’re tall, can you reach that?” But if they say “You’re a tall *man,* can reach that?” then it’s kind of creepy.

    I really like this post, and the one from Dw3t that led me here. Pretty much by coincidence I was reading Toronto-based SexGeek last night and she’s got two killer posts on gender/heterosexuality and BDSM — one about insecure dominants and another that included a big discussion of female-dominant domestic discipline. I’m not sure how wordpress deals with multiple links but Sex Geek’s blog is at sexgeek.wordpress.com, and the two posts are titled “the nature (or nurture) of domestic discipline” and “calling it: non-consent and the insecure dominant.”

    Anyway, in those posts Sex Geek makes some good points about how gender and role don’t have to go together but often wind up that way, and how even committed (heterosexual) female tops can define themselves in relationship to their male subs. Also, without dismissing it outright, she makes some killer points about “forced feminization” in the context of F/m D/s.

    Anyway, since your post, and the cool comments here, and Sex Geek and Dw3t’s posts have really kicked down a couple of walls for me (thanks!) I’m not sure I have anything coherent to close with. Except that yeah, while there’s nothing intrinsically wrong categorization, when we assume categories are too-closely related we’re probably missing a lot of insights.

    figleaf

  • figleaf // 20 April 2008 at 10:10 am

    Doh. Just to be clear, I forgot to say that while it’s not *irrelevant* that we’re drawn to or distanced by partners of a certain gender, or roles higher or lower on a power gradient, it *should* be irrelevant when they’re not our partners.

    And so one way to measure how close we are to your ideal, or to measure what needs to be moved to get there, is by how much or how often it *is* relevant.

    Cool, cool post, DY. It’s pretty cool how many other people your post has gotten thinking about it too.

    figleaf

  • Meatstick, please, with a side of masculine submission. « …sometimes almost magic… // 26 April 2008 at 12:53 am

    [...] please, with a side of masculine submission. In a somewhat recent post  that I’ve mentioned before Dev said, “In my ideal world (which may or may not be [...]

  • Leopold // 4 May 2008 at 12:29 am

    As a submissive male masochist, I have my own bias. In childhood I acquired an aversion to female suffering of any kind – my mother was severely depressed, and it deeply affected me. At present, representations of female suffering don’t appeal to me, but then most femdom porn is unappealing too, for a different reason: I usually find the men unattractive. Porn-wise, I like images of high-femme, devastatingly cool women looking directly at the camera. It feels more accessible to my imagination. Fashion models work the best.

    In real life, it’s easier to watch men and women in submissive scenes. I too have a patriarchy aversion and am pretty vigilant about it – if I smell it, I’m turned off. On the other hand, I have watched women whom I actually know bottoming in pretty intense scenes and I’m fine with it – I trust their motivation and can enjoy the aesthetics and energy of the scene. So I find a distinction between porn and real life and personal connection.

    As far as bottoming goes, I have to admit a certain maternal element is present for me in addition to the erotic element. I want to suffer but also know I am cared for by a strong female presence. Maybe it’s just under the umbrella of compassion. I need to be there. By the same token, I know there are lots of female submissives who are dealing with old childhood wounds too, and playing with daddy energy can be just as cathartic and wonderful for them as female energy is for me.

    So why is it okay for women to talk about having a top who’s a daddy, but we never talk about tops who are mommies (unless you’re into infantilism)? That’s meant as an open question. I don’t have an answer.

Leave a Comment