On Submission, Strong Women & The High Alpha Male

Black and white of a woman wearing black boots and ball and chain by Ellen von Unswerth for On Submission, Strong Women and The High Alpha by Malin James

Ellen von Unwerth, from Revenge

I had a brief conversation the other day that got me thinking. I’m going to paraphrase chunks of the exchange rather than quote directly (because consent), but I’ll stick as close to the original as I ethically can.

So, here’s the opener:

Hi Malin. As a high-alpha male, I appreciate strong women. Dominant women are a rare challenge. I love your work – it gives me a lot of insight into how strong women tick. 

Given my initial response, the smart thing to do would’ve been to ignore it and move on. Unfortunately, those three sentences annoyed the fuck out of me so I responded with this:

A rare challenge…interesting. Care to unpack that?

Here’s his response:

Sure! For alpha males there’s nothing as exciting as an alpha female. Alpha females handle themselves, which is great (and rare with women in my experience, IMHO), but even more exciting is the challenge I mentioned. When a strong woman breaks and submits to you, that’s the biggest high you can get as a Dom. All women, alpha or not, want to submit to a strong man and being the only man that an alpha female submits to is a fucking high.

So…setting my visceral response aside, what he’s essentially talking about is a fetish for strong women. That, in and of itself, isn’t a bad thing. Strong women rock in all kinds of ways because there are all kinds of ways in which women are strong. Where it goes wrong for me is in why he appears to fetishize a particular kind of female strength.

He doesn’t love strong women because he thinks strong women are interesting. He doesn’t love strong women because he wants to submit to a worthy Domme. He doesn’t even love strong women because he thinks an alpha female is the only kind of woman who can match his “high alpha” self. He loves strong women because they’re a challenge.

Let me rephrase that. He loves strong women because making a strong woman “break and submit” to him is a challenge.

The attraction isn’t in the woman. It’s in a narcissistic fetish for a certain kind of power. He wants to be the very special, uber-alpha male who breaks an unbreakable woman and makes her submit. He’s not fetishizing her strength, he’s fetishizing the idea of being the only one who can strip her of it.

Needless to say, I’ve got a few issues with this. The first is that it devalues the actual submission of actual female subs (many of whom are fucking bad-asses). The second is that it makes the “strong woman” in question a challenge (ie: a thing to surmount) rather than a person, and any view that reflexively turns a person into something other than a person is pretty much a no-go for me. The third is that this appreciation for strong women is entirely ego driven. Here’s what I mean….

If you work from the stated assumption that “all women, alpha or not, want to submit to a strong man” (*eye roll*), you get the implication underlying the attraction –  that any guy can make a submissive woman submit because women are, by nature, submissive. It takes a “high alpha male” to break the “rare” dominant woman.

That particular appreciation for female strength has nothing to do with respect or actual, you know, appreciation. It’s a purely reflective thing – the value of her strength is in how brightly it highlights his.

Full disclosure: I have a button here. Though I’m not a Domme, I am naturally dominant with a wide streak of  don’t-tell-me-what-to-fucking-do. I’ve written about how my natural dominance attracted an ex who was, to put it bluntly, a diagnosed sociopath who loved me best when I was needy (“but only for him”) and who wanted to “crush me and break me and make me his”. (Direct quote. Fuck it).

That’s not to say that this gentleman is a sociopath. To be honest, I don’t think he really understood what he was saying. It just rubbed my fur backwards and, once I got over my initial annoyance, I didn’t like how it unpacked.

Essentially, this kind of attraction turns a very specific form of female strength into fetishized commodity while dismissing all the other ways in which women are strong. In other words, it turns female dominance into a kind of drug that makes a certain kind of man feel special. It has nothing to do with the woman or her dynamic with that man. It has to do with the ego boost that comes from fucking her in a particular way.

It also turns the “rare” alpha-female one of two things:

  1. a disposable experience, or
  2. a possession to groom and keep.

Either way, it’s no good. Every woman does not crave submission, and those that do should have autonomy within their submission. Anything else falls back on a cultural mode that normalized a husband’s right to spank his wife for failing to make the perfect pot roast.

In the end, there’s a fundamental difference between spanking Lara Croft and spanking Lara Croft’s alpha female glory to the breaking point. The spanking isn’t the issue – it’s the motives behind it that makes the difference between awesome and toxic. If a dominant woman (or man) trusts you enough to submit to you, even if only for a night, that should speak to the connection and trust between you, not to your prowess as an alpha.

Fetishize power in a partner. Revel in it. Love strong women. Love strong men. Just don’t turn whatever happens into proof of your Domminess. Don’t fetishize the ego boost that comes with “breaking” someone you perceive to be strong. Sex and submission aren’t about how alpha you are. They’re about feeding off each other’s strengths – that’s the real fucking high.

NB: I realized after I posted this that I should clarify some terminology as usage in that conversation got fairly muddy.

“Alpha male” and “alpha female” don’t equate to Dom and Domme (or sadist or top). All alpha means it that someone has what might be called a dominant personality. Some alphas have personalities that are more dominant than others, as do some betas, etc. All dominant people are not alpha, nor are all alphas dominant.

Alpha, dominant and Dom are often equated in casual conversation, which is fine insofar as it goes. It’s just important to acknowledge that a person’s alignment in social hierarchies may differ than their (natural or chosen) position in sexual power dynamics.

As for the term “strong women”, it most definitely does not apply exclusively to dominant women or alpha females. Some of the strongest women I know are subs. Sexual wiring has little, if any, bearing on a woman’s integrity, resilience or strength.

32 comments

        1. I agree. I tried not to get ad hominem about it, but it honestly baffles me. And pisses me off. It’s so shot through with misogyny it’s hard to process.

  1. This is a fascinating post; and I get your objection to his comment.

    Interestingly, though, I also get where his comment is coming from (maybe because I’m a guy) and can easily imagine “being in that place” (although I never have been). The eroticism of dominating a woman is a recurring theme in my own writing, though not necessarily an alpha-female.

    The thing I ask myself is this: Could I imagine making a comment like his without the narcissism or sociopathy? I guess it would all hinge on what I meant by challenge. I could imagine writing almost the same thing, but in using the word challenge it would be more in reference to me than to the woman.

    Challenge:

    1.) Could I break her and dominate her — and gratify her.
    2.) Could I carry my confidence as an alpha male in a way that allowed collaboration?
    3.) Could I make an alpha female feel safe enough to submit?
    4.) Could I make my dominance and her submission the collaboration of equals?
    5.) What would it mean for her to be comfortable — to be herself — and also submit? And what’s my part in that?
    6.) I can’t imagine the scenario unless she was, in some sense, willing and open to the experience.

    I’m more troubled by his comment that “all women, alpha or not, want to submit to a strong man.”

    I don’t believe that. There’s a whole context, a kind of roleplay, associated with the D/s fetish, and it does sound like a fetish (as described by your correspondent). There are going to be women, just like men, utterly disinterested (if not repelled) by the whole D/s dynamic.

    The comment: “being the only man that an alpha female submits to”, if I were to make it, would be an expression of the erotic fantasist — that is, an expression of the archetypal and desired fantasy rather than the reality. (If that makes sense…)

    But anyway, just some thoughts.

    1. It’s interesting…I’ve been circling around how to approach this because, on the one hand, I can very much see what you’re saying. If you remove the issue of gender from the equation and look at it as simply two dominants in a situation where one submits to the other (even if only temporarily), I can absolutely see the appeal of being the dominant who creates the circumstances wherein another dominant feels willing to take that leap of faith. The problem is that it’s impossible to remove the issue of gender from the issue as he’s stated it.

      If the roles were reversed, if the alpha male was in the position of being coaxed, comforted or coerced into submission by an alpha female, would that read as being as inevitable and natural as an alpha female’s submission to an alpha male? Whether the challenge is regarded as lying with the woman or with the man, it still hinges on the gratification of the dominant male making a dominant female do what he wants her to do.

      Were there parity in the equation, say, for example, if the two alphas were switching for each other, it would change the tenor of his assertion. But that wasn’t what he was saying. The implication in what he was saying is that if a male alpha and a female alpha were put in a room together, it would be the female’s natural place to break and submit to the male because, in the end, women are the submissive sex. However that happens, whether she is gratified by being made to break or whether she is made to feel “safe” enough to submit, it doesn’t affect his baseline assumption – that she will submit because it’s the natural order of things. Speaking only for myself, and setting aside very specific lovers and circumstances, I would rather lose a limb than submit to that assumption.

      It’s a complicated issue, one that’s informed as much by history and gender politics as it is by rules of sexual engagement. What you describe as a potentially healthy approach to such a situation is, at the individual level, brilliant if the female dominant were inclined. Negotiation and a considered approach could definitely make it work. My objection isn’t to the possibility of a dominant woman submitting to a dominant man, it’s to the assumption that, eventually, she will…

      As always, thanks for sharing your thoughts. This sort of issue wants discussion and it’s hard to discuss anything without someone bringing up a different angle.

      1. The implication in what he was saying is that if a male alpha and a female alpha were put in a room together, it would be the female’s natural place to break and submit to the male because, in the end, women are the submissive sex.

        I had a problem with that too.

        But to be completely candid, I get where he’s coming from. The male desire (that objectifies women) starts young, in boys, is powerful and, I think, evolutionary rather than cultural. It’s a powerful instinct that makes men feel their dominance because, biologically, they’re the one who will penetrate. Women can thrust like men. Women can be on top like men. Women can pursue men just as men pursue women. Women can be the aggressor, like men.

        But…

        Women can’t fuck a man like a man fucks a woman from behind unless she puts on that magical talisman, that arrogant agressor, that blunt adjudicator, that prick, dick, cock. There’s just that one biological fact: the cock penetrates and the pussy is penetrated — and all the symbolism that goes along with it. That one little difference is evolutionarily programmed into our bodies and informs the symbol-making genius of our erotic imaginations.

        So my thought—

        I don’t excuse your correspondent, but I share his attitude. I think most men do and it was ground into them, awakenend in them, in their boyhood. They’re generally stronger, faster, and they have a cock that is hard, not giving, and muscular in its pleasure. There’s the boyhood part of my male erotic imagination that sees everyone woman as my due — as submissive to me.

        The wisdom, I think, is in recognizing that we transform our bodies into symbols and talismans (the cock as the dominant and the pussy as the submissive) but that the reality of our equality is not in the shapes of our bodies but in the mutability of our minds—in which we’re absolute equals.

        What a loss to treat any woman as anything less than an erotic equal even as her head is down, her pussy lifted and she’s firmly fucked from behind. The loss is in failing to be envious of and wonder-struck by the deep, receptive pleasure she takes (and that sometimes brings her to orgasm). What I would give to experience a woman’s experience, as a woman, just once in my life.

        1. You bring up an interesting point – that the male sense of sexual entitlement over women is rooted in biology and evolution. I wouldn’t argue that. I would, however, say that the unexamined acceptance of this entitlement is what has led violence against women throughout history, as well as to the prevailing existence of rape culture throughout India to the Middle East.

          When you take that fundamental, reflexive, “ground-in” notion that because a man has a cock, it’s natural for him to view women as objects he is entitled to, you inadvertently excuse social conditioning (evolutionarily based or not) that has, quite frankly, the potential to be incredibly dangerous and toxic, especially when it’s taken out of the theoretical worlds of fantasy and cultural criticism, and put it into real world situations.

          The view that penetration equals dominance is rooted in a traditionally binary view of gender, one that is gradually giving way to an understanding of gender as being far more fluid than biological sex. Yes, men are born with cocks and physical strength. Women are born with cunts to penetrate. But, if we drop the somewhat archaic / academic notion of “cock as magical talisman” the implied power it has to dominate disappears.

          What I mean is this. If I fuck a man with a strap-on, I am penetrating him – it doesn’t matter if the thing I’m penetrating him with is biologically attached to me. I am breaching his body in the same way that mine is breached when a man fucks me. The notion that penetration equals gendered domination is not longer the only way to read sexual dynamics. If I tie a man up and ride his cock until *I’m* satisfied, if I use his body for *my* pleasure, his penetration is not a form of dominance. It’s something else – something determined by my individual dynamic with the man in question.

          As you said, the wisdom is in viewing our equality through our minds rather than our bodies. But it must be stated that my mental equality to a man does not come hand in hand with a biological imperative towards submission, even if that submission is not viewed as an inequality. My natural place is not determined by my cunt. My natural place is not with my head down and my pussy lifted because I have the luxury of enjoying my own highly fluid sexuality differently from lover to lover. Biology does not make that choice for me. Yes, my pleasure is often receptive. But it is also often assertive. If I choose to receive rather than take from a lover, that is my conscious choice. Biological conditioning and evolution do not make me a vessel. I choose or reject that role for myself depending on context and mood.

          1. “I would, however, say that the unexamined acceptance of this entitlement is what has led violence against women throughout history,”

            Yes, and yes again: in art, literature, politics and esp. religion.

            And it’s not just men who encourage this role, it’s built into women too. What Isis offers women is clearcut: submission to the male in every possible role. And the stunning thing is what degree this appeals to young women (who willingly endorse this role (initially at least) by joining ISIS).

            You can see the same thing in the US with the Southern Baptists and “Biblical Womanhood”. I wrote an erotic story called ‘Xtians Do it Better’ playing with some of the these assumptions. Interestingly, along with the negative, I got positive comments from both men and women.

            “But it must be stated that my mental equality to a man does not come hand in hand with a biological imperative towards submission…

            Not the same for me. The pleasure taken in penetrating goes hand in hand with a feeling (imperative) of dominance or dominating—and I enjoy that dynamic. Obviously, I’m going to want to be with a woman who enjoys the reciprocal of that. All that said, there’s no reason why you shouldn’t feel the way you do.

            Human sexuality is fraught; and women (as well as men) have suffered for it. It brings me back to that post I wrote about “The Erotic Dilemma” wherein I know that I, at least, inevitably write/describe sexual dynamics that, in another context, could be construed as violence, dehumanizing objectification, or (at worst) sociopathy. Likewise, I don’t know whether to take your correspondent’s statement literally or figuratively. He is, after all, in the act of writing, writing erotica (wittingly or not). But I don’t know and I don’t mean to dispute your interpretation of his comments.

            Another observation: A few months ago, at Slate Magazine, a woman wrote to Prudence complaining that her husband was a milquetoast in bed. She was, she wrote, a highly successful and powerful alpha female in every respect except in bed. She wanted her husband to absolutely dominate her bed. She also revealed that she married her husband because she knew he would, in essence, submit to her (in day to day matters). Prudence wrote that she had, in a certain sense, feathered her own bed by choosing a submissive husband. That said, I’m sure there’s a perfect match for her somewhere out there — submissive in the household but dominant in bed.

            I’m not sure your correspondent would be willing to be submissive in the household, but I thought of her when he described his own erotic predilections. All else being equal, she’s the alpha female who wants to be “broken” by the man.

            And as for the word “broken”. I love its connotations. I think its possible to take some of these “memes”, for lack of a better word, too literally — both by those who employ the meme and by those who are offended by it.

            And I thank you, Malin, for bringing this subject up and giving us a place to openly discuss it. 🙂

          2. And, just as there is no reason I shouldn’t feel the way I do, there is no reason why you shouldn’t feel the way you do.

            It’s an issue of generalization. You like a certain dynamic with women who enjoy that same dynamic. I have no doubt that plenty of women do. My point is that assuming all women are submissive because we’re born with cunts instead of cocks is an outmoded and, quite frankly, ridiculous assumption, as ridiculous as claiming that, because some women don’t want to submit, no woman does. Speaking to your Dear Prudence alpha female, of course there are women who want to be dominated. And of course there are women who want nothing of the sort. The existence of those who do does not negate or disprove the existence of women who don’t.

            In the end, it comes down to individuality and taste. Some women enjoy domination. Some don’t. Some enjoy submission. Some don’t. It’s up to the individual woman to decide what she wants, not a biological imperative that outmoded conditioning attempts to impose on 50% of the population.

            And, as always, I’m glad to provide a place for discussion. Discussion, especially on topics along these lines, is an important thing.

        2. Really?!, Oh wow, I need to run tell my boss she should be submitting to me because I have a trouser snake!

          Your misogyny is so all over the map it’s hard to rebut; it’s so incoherent it’s not even wrong. It’s disgustingly self-aggrandizing, all the while it denigrates women with faint praise.

          In fact, the only positive thing to be said about your verbal diarrhea is that you’ve completely conflated an active/passive dichotomy with a dominant/submissive one, all the while being so enshackled to your perspective that you don’t even consider the possibility that it’s the man who submits because it is he who offers part of his body to be surrounded, to be enveloped and contained, to be squeezed with her “muscular” pleasure as she orgasms around the orgasm that he, if he isn’t contemptible, provides for her.

          Dude, when all you have to offer in defense of your misogyny is obvious myopia, just quit while you’re behind.

          1. …you’ve completely conflated an active/passive dichotomy with a dominant/submissive one

            Don’t know where you got all that. Non of what you accuse me of is reflected in what I wrote. But yes, it’s easy conflate the active/passive dichotomy with a D/s one. To some extent, that’s what makes sex fun and is at the heart of much erotic writing, but it can also be (and has been) fraught with negative, consequences.

            …you don’t even consider the possibility that it’s the man who submits because it is he who offers part of his body to be surrounded…

            Sure I do. I’ve written stories about it. 🙂

  2. Jillian Keenan (Sex with Shakespeare) makes Katherine’s submission to Petruchio complex by defining her father’s relationship with her as abusive. IMHO the Taming of the Shrew fantasy is as pervasive as the rescuing the sex worker fantasy. These fantasies have in common the object of desire manipulated by the activity of the male. Like Keenan’s Kate, real life is complex, not subject to the binary of fantasy.

    Thank you for your post eloquently stated, when you could have just bern angry.

    Peace,
    Pat

    1. Thank you for your comment. I greatly appreciate it.

      I read Keenan’s book and it’s fantastic, and I do agree with her point about the Taming of the Shrew fantasy. In fact, you drilled right down to the real issue – that this fantasy is, at it’s most foundational, binaried along gender lines. Remove the issue of gender and the question changes dramatically. With that issue intact however, it strips the female in question of her fundamental autonomy and forces her into her *rightful* place as submissive to a man. The fact that this forms the foundation for a pervasive sexual fantasy deserves examination at the very least.

  3. “there’s a fundamental difference between spanking Lara Croft and spanking Lara Croft’s alpha female glory to the breaking point”

    This is genius, and so well put.

    Can we talk more about this word “break,” though? It comes up a lot in BDSM fiction and it bothers me every time. In BDSM that respects everyone as people, no one is “breaking” anyone. Submission is a choice the submissive makes for themselves every time. This idea that a dom “breaks” a sub like a horse is incredibly disturbing to me, and shouldn’t be part of any real life BDSM experience (outside of it being used as a fantasy if that’s hot to both people).

    There’s some “no true Scotsman” arguing that can go on around kink, and I can’t in good conscience say I never encountered this sort of attitude in real life kinky spaces. Part of why I stopped subbing in kinky spaces is that the sort of sexism on display in this person’s comments, and in words like “break” often isn’t, in my opinion, far enough away for the fantasy to feel like “just a fantasy” to me. To riff on one of your comments above, societal attitudes around gender can’t really be removed from any context within our society. I personally don’t have the patience I would need to figure out how to make fantasy submission feel not-disturbing to me in context, so that led to me deciding to forgo it.

    1. Thank you for bringing up the “break” issue, Annabeth. Honestly, I had about three paragraphs dedicated to it but ended up cutting them for concision. In the end, I might write an auxiliary post because you’re right – the notion of breaking someone like a horse is disturbing. The fact that “breaking” a strong woman was so casually equated with submission in the high alpha’s comment, (and that it is so often bandied about in that same way), means that, at the very least, it warrants examination.

      It’s frustrating that the fantasy is so often about a dominant male “breaking” a woman. That assumption is so deeply ingrained in our societal expectations of gender and gender performance. That a term that is inherently violent (because “breaking” someone is a form of violence) should be associated with what should be a power exchange between equals is disturbing. The reflexive sexism you spoke of makes approaching dominance and submission (between cis males and females, at least) from a place of equality difficult. We’ve made a lot of progress, but we’ve a long way to go in acknowledging the fact that gender and power are fluid and subject to performance, context and circumstance.

  4. I’m going to pick up a few threads here, starting with something from the original post:

    “Sex and submission aren’t about how alpha you are.”
    While I agree with that, I think your “High Alpha’s” belief is exactly the opposite. His self description means it’s important – essential – for him to be the biggest gorilla in the room, and no small part of his sexual need is to assert that. Note that nowhere does he even entertain the possibility that any other alpha – female or male – might even possibly be able to out-alpha or break _him_.

    I personally wonder if that might be what he unconsciously seeks.

    From your exchange with Will, you mention how removing the issue of gender might make it “simply two dominants together”. In the context of that conversation, that power negotiation makes for great erotic fiction, and potentially great, firey relationhip, but the high-alpha dude isn’t looking for that.

    I agree with you, Malin, and many others that the whole “all women, alpha or not, want to submit to a strong man,” while a classic fantasy, is a pretty delusional belief to actually subscribe to. It’s also quite risky for relationships. Given the number of women who *don’t* feel that way, treating them that way as default in any/every nascent relationship makes one look like a dick.

    And at its most fundamental, this is the high alpha dude’s real problem. If he really believes in that, not as a fantasy element, but as the way of the world, then his internal logic is as easily understandable as it is wrong. And, I’m not sure how you or anyone can change that kind of core belief.

    As Will says, it’s not hard to see *where* the delusion comes from, and how strong an element of male dominant fantasy -including my own – it is. But of course the flip side of the symbolism is also unmissable, and if one is willing to shift perspective, the enveloping, swallowing, *consuming* of the penis by the vagina, the *summoning* of the former by the latter, the *draining* of the former by the latter is only some of the converse language of female dominance, and no less powerful. Male dominant culture ignores and marginalizes this side of things, and enables the lack of perspective that limits Mr. high-alpha’s world.

    Mr. high-alpha’s inability to see any of this is a blindness, and again makes me wonder if it is in any way willful blindness, – if is merely deeply afraid of it. As an aside, I find the whole need to assert “alpha’ and now ‘high-alpha’ to be the lady protesting too much.

    1. Thank you for this. It is admittedly difficult to wrestle logically with a point of view that is diametrically opposed to one’s own, particularly when the logic of that viewpoint appears to be absent. Entrenched in High Alphas original comments (and the reams of follow on he’s emailed privately) is a worldview that divides people into two camps – Males and Females. And withing those camps are the Alphas and Everyone Else. It’s unsettling that such a radical division between the sexes (as well as between personality types) could exist masked in a relatively erudite and civilized form, but that’s my own expectations / biases getting in my way.

      You’re dead right in pointing out that High-Alpha’s core belief cannot be touched. He’s based it on a set of assumptions that are deeply ingrained and built an identity out of those assumptions. That’s a difficult thing to see past under any circumstances, no less so than when one’s self-image is at play. Setting aside his perspective – that sex and submission *are* about how alpha you are – makes for a great intellectual debate but, unfortunately, does nothing to effectively challenge his core belief, which in the end, is very likely supported by willful blindness. As for High Alpha’s apparently insistent need to assert his dominance in that exchange, it definitely smacks of the lady protesting too much.

      Thanks again for the perspective. It was massively valuable.

      1. hey there 🙂 love this post and I agree with you. As a Domme myself I never understand why some men who identify as maledoms believe that they have a right to try to force a woman to be a sub if thats not what shes into (I’ve even seen some been brazenly admit they don’t care if shes turned off by it, she should suck it up because its the supposed “natural order”-never mind the fact that many women have enjoyed being sexually dominant/play a “dominatrix”-esque role in bed for hundreds of years, if not longer..and theres art and poetry dedicated to it.) And these men like to claim that “90% of women are subs and those who aren’t need to be broken or don’t -REALLY- enjoy it” yet there are thousands of pages dedicated to femdoms and malesubs and various erotica where those parties are clearly enjoying the dynamic..yet these men claim they don’t exist. What I don’t understand is if these so-called maledoms really believe femdoms are such a rarity (which I personally don’t believe but nevermind) then why do they feel the need to try to “convert” and “break” women who are Dommes instead of just seeking out female subs and enjoying a relationship with someone they’re already compatible with? It makes so much more sense logically instead of trying to force a Domme to have a BDSM dynamic shes not turned on by. I understand its some kind of “Power Quest” for these maledoms but do they really believe that every woman (billions, in this case) on the face of the earth should have the EXACT SAME TYPE OF SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP DYNAMIC? Do they not see how ridiculous and boring that would be? As a Domme I can say that I never try to force my sexual lifestyle preferences on those who life it differently-as long as its consensual people should just enjoy what they enjoy-regardless of gender. For these men to have such a narrow view of the world and to believe they have the right to dictate what Dommes enjoy in their personal life is childish and ignorant, at best..and narcissitic and quite psychopathic at worst. I agree with what you implied that its possible someone with that line of thinking is possibly a sociopath-it would explain the lack of empathy and lack of respect of the other persons freewill and boundaries. I know plenty of men who don’t force their way of life sexually on women who aren’t into it so for these particular guys who identify as maledoms to do that is disturbing and creepy. The world is a big place with lots of different kinds of unique people in it- sexually and in many other ways. They honestly need to wake up and see that.

        sorry for the rant, lol. I just dont understand guys like this
        🙂

    1. Thank you. I’m especially happy so many people commented. Like most things, D/s dynamics are experienced so individually that it’s difficult to write about them in a way that doesn’t exclude a point of view…

  5. This post, and the discussion following, are fascinating. Thanks so much for it. It gives me, as a dominant man, a lot to think about. For which I’m always grateful.

    N.

Leave a Reply