Femdom & the Male Ego
» BDSM, D/s, S&M: Speculations
When Alexandra had to leave the country for a time I joined or visited a number of F/m websites, communities and groups. I joined many but cancelled most of them.
My goal was to learn something, to share discoveries and insights with her. Not much has emerged from this.
I think I’ll have a few stories to share from my voyaging around the web.
Right now I want to talk about the male ego.
Probably by any psychological definition I have an ego. I’m male too.
OK, I’m a guy. To be honest I like being tall even though most steps are designed for the rest of you. I’m happy with my hairy chest. Those attributes have brought me sexual partners. If were a little hairless twink and it had the same effect I’m sure that’d be fine with me (though it probably doesn’t work as well as you get older).
My primary sexual characteristic is more than sufficient. That sounds vain. But if it were less than adequate I’ll have to admit it might have crippled me.
Back to the male ego. Er, what about it ?
This gets back to why I don’t like Femdom as a term. It is very sexist. Too much of the rhetoric is that a man is just an out of control penis.
So Dommes are from Venus and submissive men are from ? Damn, all the planets are named after gods. Even most of the moons are.
I guess to me ‘Femdom’ seems to recapitulate the silliest parts of heterosexual relationships with the woman fulfilling the role of victimizer.
I don’t blame the Dommes. One of the most annoying truths about BDSM is most people who do it are just as normal as George Bush. Boring, unimaginative.
Not that I don’t want to be the victim, or worship her. But I’m happiest with someone not bound by the box of normality. Who can push me, punish me but see me as more than just another male ego out of control.
Comments
maybe judith butler can help—she is a postmodern feminist/queer theorist who posits that gender is performed, rather than a natural state of mind. she explains (as well as beauvior and foucault) that what we assign as feminine and masculine behavior is nothing more than cultural whimsy—we all carry within us a collection of human traits that are exagerrated or downplayed depending on the gender society assigns to us via various biological markers, such as a 5 o’clock shadow or a pair of 36c boobs.
as for bdsm—it could be said that this kink manifests itself as a type of hyperconformity to an outmoded and bygone ideal. after all, slavery is (or should) be a thing of the past. master/chattel relationships should have gone by way of the dodo. but as they say, extinct and dying traditions become romantized and reborn through nostalgia—how many people are willing to pay through the nose for antiques whose main value comes from how outmoded it is? why does an antique ford t-bird cost more than a modern t-bird? it’s certainly not because the original t-bird is a better car—the romance and its rarity is what fuels its demand. in that sense, bdsm is like that antiquated practice that has become kitchsy and eccentric and exotic once it has been abandoned by the mainstream social paradigm. hence, its practitioners are able to come off as edgy, funky trendsetters in this modern era despite being mind-numbingly conformist and conventional in most, if not many, areas of their life.
of coures, this is not to tar and feather all practitioners of bdsm. i think that in general, people tend to be conventional in their areas of passion and expertise—it is very rare for any person in their field to be the trailblazer or the revultionary.
a good example of this is the world of fine cooking. most chefs tend to be deep traditionalists in their field, with many ties to the establishment restaurants and critics. very few top chefs defy the orthodxy and invent their own cooking paradigm. i feel this pattern is repeated throughout all human endeavors, whether it be the pop art world, professional sports, and of course—even the fetish community. as you already know, the fetish community tends to have a set vocab and established uniform and social markers to signify one of its own.
just my long 2 cents.
Posted by: laura | April 19, 2005 8:32 PM
I’m going to have to make this a very narrow and focused reply.
As a young man I thought sexism would be dead by now. Of course I thought smoking marijuana would be legal. Clearly no talent for prediction.
My entry wasn’t much more than an annoyed visceral response to seeing female dominance, male submission reinforcing heterosexist clichιs. Partly because I wish there were more lively discourse about F/m relationships. If only the lightest of weblog entries.
I find most people conforming, unimaginative. Funny how many think of themselves as distinctive because a single atypical behavior or pursuit..
Can’t see my own D/s inclinations (anyone’s really) in terms of nostalgia. If only because the basic desires appeared when I was very young.
Posted by: Richard | April 20, 2005 10:22 AM