More responses to art
» My Inner Life
For a long time the only image I saw by this artist was of a guy in a stock. It held his head just a few inches above floor level. He was licking a woman’s shoes. The combination of shoe worship and a hard bondage hit my desires smack on. The work had, for F/m artwork, a singularly stylish quality.
I saw the artist’s name once but don’t remember it: he, she, alive, dead?
When I saw more of his paintings my feelings changed. Suddenly a detail registered. The slave had a girl’s haircut and wore earrings. Seeing more of his work I realized that his specialty was transvestite humiliation.
For complex reasons I don’t like transvestite humiliation. (Though long ago I wrote a story about humiliating one: I was exploring the idea because the transvestites I chatted with online seemed almost uniformly to want to be humiliated.) Neither Alexandra and I like male humiliation by feminization.
There is a painting of a man being led by a cock leash that I enjoyed looking at. When Alexandra saw it she caught what I hadn’t: the guy was wearing women’s ballet shoes. My pleasure evaporated. (Afterwards I noticed that often ballet slippers are the only feminizing detail in many drawings.)
Captivating as the circumstances shown are, I can’t enjoy this painting as I would if it weren’t for the ribbon in his hair. (Don’t like the woman’s face either. It strikes me as an unkind way to depict a woman.)
This isn’t an attack on feminization. Just noting how we each respond to different details: our fetishes and our anti-fetishes. I saw a man those testicles had been leashed; Alexandra caught the shoes (she would :-) ). Just as she saw the blood when my attention was focused on the man’s response to a whipping.
And there are a couple of drawings where she enjoys the depth of men’s submission. That the artist can’t draw chin leaves me less able to respond to his gift for capturing humbled men.
All of us respond to BDSM art and stories in our individual ways. How often is it that a particular detail possibly minor to the artist is the source of our pleasure or prevents pleasure?
No denying I’m a fetishist. Some minor thing: a particular bondage device or style of whipping may win me over even when the drawing itself isn’t very good. Or something antithetical to my sexuality may push me away even when the work is of high caliber.
My greatest complaint against much fetish art would probably be the faces. I’m biased in favor of happy Dominas. Even the most exciting situation can be killed if the woman looks as if she’s merely a model from a lad’s mag. One of the reasons I can take such pleasure in Sardax’s work and none at all in Alazar’s. No way for me to know but the latter’s looks as if is done solely for a fee.
I like a fierce twinkle in her eye. But too often artists leave the woman looking like a harridan. The artist I’ve used as an example today has a knack for drawing women with a distinctly European glamour.
Maybe you’d like to share with me what captures your eye or turns it away. And while I’ve spoken about feminization I hope you won’t feel a need to defend it. I’m not foolish enough to attack another’s fetish. I’m just not able to equate femininity - even in a guy - with weakness or inferiority.
Earlier: Responses to art.
Comments
I looked at this painting several times, and I still see a F/f scene. Perhaps when it’s larger there is some detail I’m missing…but genitalia and chest are both obscured.
I don’t happen to like it anyway (the F’s features are indeed crudely drawn).
I sympathize; found a photo I really liked of a woman holding a straight razor to a man’s throat, then realized he was wearing some lurex-shot-through outfit over a black singlet. On examining the photo in context, it was part of a step by step feminization scene. (I kept that photo and another of him on a leash anyway. I just try to ignore the context.)
I don’t get feminization as humiliation either and am still struggling with the political implications of drag queens. (I understand that it’s fun to play in the clothes, but am unsure how I feel about being caricatured)
I believe it was Claudia Varrin who tried to explain feminization as men having their lowliness brought home to them by temporarily being forced to masquerade as the “superior sex”…but who are we kidding here?
I think part of the desire for feminization is the men in question wanting a chance at the nice underwear and the sexy clothes but not having to admit it, just like some people do with bondage.
I also think part of it is misogyny, which I’m uncomfortable playing with. I’m a woman. Being a woman is a good thing.
All this said, I’d consider doing feminization play if it was a man I liked who wanted it badly enough and on whom I thought it would be effective. Reducing a man to a little puddle is a fairly strong incentive, even if the route to getting him there can be a little odd.
Still thinking too much, R
Posted by: R | May 26, 2005 7:58 PM
His buttocks are very womanly, which doesn’t bother me. The only reason I know is that I saw a large enough selection of the artist’s work to know his specialty.
I still have a few illustrations that I know Alexandra doesn’t like because I can see them ‘my’ way.
I really like feminine guys, boys who wear dresses. But I like the ones who are proud of it. Not trying to be a cartoon of womanhood or who thinks it makes them lowly in some odd way. They are a rare breed.
Misogyny: I fear you are dead right. And weirdly contradictory. If being feminine is humiliating why would you worship someone feminine? Terribly sexist.
I’d consider doing feminization play if it was a man I liked
Sure. You are a good woman. While I’m unable to empathize at all with feminization I don’t want to seem like I’m condemning other folks needs.
Still thinking too much
Don’t’ think anybody really ever does too much of that. But I know what you mean. Nice to have a quiet mind. One of the things I do get from surrender.
Posted by: Richard | May 26, 2005 8:13 PM
I see two sides to the feminization thing: 1. There are indeed those who feel that being put in a woman’s clothing is symbolic to being put in a woman’s station, which is lower than a man’s. I find this to be very offensive, and would never participate. I am not a fem supremicist, but yes, that is a misogynistic view. 2. There are those who simply get turned on by wearing women’s clothing, and are embarrased by it, because they are socialized to believe that femme clothing on a man makes him a sissy, and therefore, weak. This is something I’d be more apt to participate in, because I do enjoy humiliation, verbal and otherwise.
However, I’ve found that MANY who are into this are fetishists to the point that they find it hard to focus on anything else. I can’t handle that. I like men who can enjoy service of all sorts, and who can communicate outside their fetishes. So, I have rarely participated in the fetish at all. The boy I’m with now does get kind of freaked out/turned on by wearing panties, and I enjoy that, but I could never really see him in a woman’s dress or shoes. I like him masculine. Like me. (: Thanks, C
Posted by: TrainerC | May 28, 2005 1:30 AM
Many of the guys begging for sissyfication online often seem to be almost choked by their sense of need. And locked into the most specific fantasies: detail of dress, shoes, exactly what they will be ‘made’ to do.
Masculine? Aspirant calls the woman he lives Master. And I remember reading the weblog of a woman who called herself a Master. I often wondered if they chose what would normally be thought of as a male noun to evade Femdom stereotypes or because they found terms like “Mistress” too corny.
Posted by: Richard | May 28, 2005 6:44 AM