Being a submissive AND a feminist?

[Chillye]

Yes, I am a feminist. I say womyn, not women. Since I was in elementary school I've been a feminist. Reading essays/books/articles on it, taking classes, and even having discussions. BDSM is also an important part of my lifestyle-- it is one of the main puzzle pieces that depicts me as a person. But my question is; is there room for feminism while being a submissive?
Just because I'm a submissive I've had numerous doms messaging me, asking for webcam, typographical sex, and sordid pictures; assuming that they control me because they carry the name 'dom' around themselves while I have 'submissive' stamped on my forehead. When I have a Master, I will respect him/her and follow his/her wishes (and enjoy it), don't get me wrong, but I just don't want to have to lower myself and go against deeply ingrained views for someone who's NOT my Master (and doesn't plan to be).
So, is there room for someone such as me in this community?

[Ozme52]

This is a much discussed topic.

Most will tell you that your feminist viewpoint actually liberates you to make the choice to submit and is empowering.

It's no different imo, than a type-A male-leader-of-industry who needs to submit in the bedroom as a balance to the stress of always having to decide, always having to excel, always having to achieve.

It's just that being a feminist AND a submissive "appears" to be a discontinuity. I say, more power to you. (Figuratively speaking of course... more power to whomever you cede it to. ;) )

[leah06]

^^ Damn right. Thank God we stand on the shoulders of those who came before us, so that we can choose to live in a '50s-style household, or give our earnings to our Master, or be beaten every night - or not. We can also work outside the home, and not defer to men just because they are men, and make important decisions about our bodies. Or anything and everything in between, because bdsm is about choices - and so is feminism.

I personally have never seen any discontinuity between feminism and bdsm, but nor have I ever momentarily considered submitting, or even offering gestures of submission, to anyone simply because he swaggers in and demands it.

[fetishdj]

No one controls you just because you identify as a submissive, not unless you want them too... there is a subtle difference between a submissive/slave in a BDSM relationship and real life slaves or the domestic slaves of the pre-feminist days and that difference is consent. As Oz says, you make the choice. You decide to submit and, at any point in the relationship, you are free to walk away and there is nothing which can be done legally to stop you.

The sort of Dom who thinks that they control ALL submissives and can ask them to send them pictures and the like is deluded and, quite often, a stalker or troll rather than a true dominant. A true dominant knows that you need to build a relationship with a submissive first, get to know them and develop a level of trust before you even consider taking the step into committing to any play.

As Oz says, the conflict between feminism and BDSM is a common one and perfectly understandable if you examine only the surface of the lifestyle as it seems as if the BDSM attitude to women is centuries out of date. However, from what I have seen of M/f relationships (mainly from the outside as I prefer F/m :) ) there is far more respect and love between partners than there often is in modern vanilla relationships.

[Ozme52]

Definitely correct, fetish, regarding the respect half of that statement. Probably on the love side of the equation too. First and second loves are rarely lasting, being more a product of hormones and lust.

And far too many married partners take their spouses for granted. Of course it's your job to clean or cook. Of course it's your job to mow the lawn or take out the garbage. And that's probably true from both sides of each of those and many other statements.

How many people actually say thank-you, and mean it every time, when their partner does some chore, cooks a meal, or even takes the time to look especially nice for you.

[denuseri]

Shrugs,, bdsm was around long before this "feminism" thing. I suspect it will be around long after it as well.

Heck the words dom and domme are old Roman terms. One of the earlists examples of bdsm we have in the written form that addressess the D/s dynamic directly (other than vague refernces in hierogliphs and legal cuniform descriptions) comes in a love poem/letter written by a roman male submissive of senetorial rank to his domina.

Personally I have no problem in refusing to conform with the curent political correct dogmas and liberal educational agendas of such as its being force-fed to society.

I dont care what "ism" you wish to use, it has little bearing on things when your on your knees holding a whip between your ass crack and desperately trying to please your dominant with oral sex or perhaps licking his or her feet or perhaps a boot; the reality of the situation then is quite simple.

If your a self professed feminist and you wish to "justify" your inner needs for submission, feel free, go right ahead, it makes no difference what kind of twist you wish to give it or what level of sophistry you wish to use. Window dress it all you want to yourself to make you feel better or not at your lieasure.

Besides all the "isms" in the world dont matter a hoot when your choking on a cock balls deep in your mouth while your tied squirming near orgasm on a sawhorse.

[wyldrose]

i've been reading a selection of Pat Califia's work in her book "Public Sex" (1994). i'm not exactly a feminist, but was given it as a task and i've learned a lot about the movement's interaction with kink.

it might be worth a look at- she was one of the most prominant feminist writers in the 70's and 80's, and is also a member of the Leather community. She wasn't shy about sharing her BDSM inclinations, but she wasn't willing to sacrifice her feminist viewpoint.

Really, her point of view was that we have a right to choose in the Lifestyle what we will accept and not accept, and we should be free to enjoy the things that get us off/make us happy. So what if, as submissives, we want somebody else to take control? Not all feminism is seperatist (i.e. against men), nor is it against the gay male scene, which is arguably where the roots of BDSM sprouted from, though some feminists are against BDSM for this reason. Furthermore, the role a submissive plays is unlike any other 'oppressed' minority that exists in life- it's not the same dynamic as between say, a 'traditional' man and woman, for example, for the simple reason that these roles are who we are, not a label that has been forced upon us. We walk this path because it makes is happy, enlightened, or turns us on.

We get a certain feeling of power, achievement and awe when we see what the human body is capable is. Surely this extends to everybody, regardless of sex, gender and role?

Some see BDSM as a product of violence and oppression. Others see it as the exchange of pleasure and mutual recognition of respect. It really depends on the individual on how easily both parts of yourself will mesh together, but there's certainly no reason why they shouldn't.

[Guest 103013]

My partner is trying to come to terms with her radical feminist political outlook and her natural submissiveness.

She wants to be dominated by one person who she can trust completely. She is not submissive at all in the work or social world.

Just to me, just the way I like it ;-)

[fetishdj]

My partner is trying to come to terms with her radical feminist political outlook and her natural submissiveness.

She wants to be dominated by one person who she can trust completely. She is not submissive at all in the work or social world.

Just to me, just the way I like it ;-)

That seems to be a common attitude - one person you trust and respect, who has earned that trust and respect. I think we do need to do something about the public image of subs as 'sluts' who will submit to anyone who gives them a command - it is not true in so many situations.

I don't think a feminist who submits is any different to a strong man who submits. If you have to put on a strong front day to day, you sometimes need to submit - if only to relax a little while someone else makes all the decisions :)

[BoundDolly]

I agree with Oz. Having the ability to be able to embrace your submissiveness is, paradoxically, liberating and empowering,

In vanilla life, I work as a lawyer which is the polar opposite to my submissive desires! Being able to embrace my true, submissive self is more empowering than anything else to me. Perhaps it is because secretly, I am getting what I want, which is to be my Dom's toy...?

Food for thought!

My advice would just be to embrace who you are- what could be more powerful than that? :-)

[leo9]

Every woman I've ever owned has been a feminist and proud of it. My late wife and I had a pair of badges we used to wear at conventions saying "I'm a feminist and so is my Master / my slavegirl". They started some interesting conversations :)

But yes, they had all from time to time had to wrestle with the question, just as I have had to work on being a feminist and Goddess worshipper who loves to abuse and dominate women.

[thir]

Yes, I am a feminist. I say womyn, not women. Since I was in elementary school I've been a feminist. Reading essays/books/articles on it, taking classes, and even having discussions. BDSM is also an important part of my lifestyle-- it is one of the main puzzle pieces that depicts me as a person. But my question is; is there room for feminism while being a submissive?


This topic comes up at regular intervals, and I am personally quite happy to see it, as to me is a sign that people feel good on this list.

Being a feminist is to me an important part of a person's view of the world and their place in it. It is also, as many others say, about owning your life, having choices, including the choice to give yourself away, should you wish.

And that is why they fit perfectly together - feminism is all about your right to do with yourself and your life as suits you.



Just because I'm a submissive I've had numerous doms messaging me, asking for webcam, typographical sex, and sordid pictures; assuming that they control me because they carry the name 'dom' around themselves while I have 'submissive' stamped on my forehead. When I have a Master, I will respect him/her and follow his/her wishes (and enjoy it), don't get me wrong, but I just don't want to have to lower myself and go against deeply ingrained views for someone who's NOT my Master (and doesn't plan to be).
So, is there room for someone such as me in this community?

Frankly if you let yourself be controlled by any idiot you'd have a bad life and be in danger as well! Ignore them.

So yes, there is plenty of room for such as you in this community, and you will find that you are not the only one with this profile.

Welcome.

[leo9]

A further thought:

It's important to be absolutely clear that the politics of equal rights (to use a safer term since some people find "feminism" provocative) should be entirely separate from the question of whether women are "naturally" submissive. ("Natural" is a weasel word in sexual politics: it's often used as an equivalent to "God's will", i.e. what ought to be, regardless of whether it actually is that way or not.)

Women's "natural" submissiveness can be argued back and forth: I don't know where sexologists stand these days, but in the last century Anthony Storr was maintaining that "A woman who behaves aggressively towards men is either frightened... or else is trying to force the man to overpower her by provoking him. ... Women who do have truly sadistic desires are are more commonly identifying themselves with men, and, if they act upon such feelings, will therefore generally experience them in terms of a Lesbian (sic) relationship." (Sexual Deviation, Panther, 1964)

But even if it were conclusively proved that the majority of women have an innate urge to sexual submission (which I don't believe, but supposing for purposes of argument), this shouldn't have any bearing on their legal and social rights. Firstly because averages are not individuals: the fire service is right to require its staff to meet standards of strength and stamina, but it wouldn't automatically exclude women because the average woman can't meet those standards. And secondly, because, as has been amply discussed above, private D/s roles are irrelevant to a person's choices or abilities in authority structures in everyday life: so excluding someone from responsible roles because of their sexual submissiveness would be as unfair as any other kind of discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation.

This may sound as if I'm flogging a dead horse, and should stick to live ponygirls. But I suspect that a lot of the tension over feminism versus M/f stems from the way women's supposed tendency to go weak at the knees before dominant men has been used to justify social oppression: so I wanted to get that well out of the way so we could go on without it.

[jeanne]

A good, clear post, Leo. Thanks so much.

And I agree - submission is a choice that I have because I have the right to choose. Just as I can choose to wear pants, work in a field that's only 10% female, stay home to raise my children (if finances allow) or do pretty much anything.

And the argument that some will make about women's "natural" submissiveness? I think that goes back to our relational outlook - we emphasis relationships and are willing and able to compromise in order to interact harmoniously with others, rather than focusing on being the "winner" in interactions. Is this a function of biology and how our brains work (differently from men) or how we are raised? I don't know the answer to that - I suspect it's a combination of the two. But in everyday life, it doesn't matter. We are all individuals, and we all have the gift of choosing how to conduct and identify ourselves. That is the greatest blessing of all, and one that I do believe came about for women as a result of the feminist movement.

[thir]

And the argument that some will make about women's "natural" submissiveness? I think that goes back to our relational outlook - we emphasis relationships and are willing and able to compromise in order to interact harmoniously with others, rather than focusing on being the "winner" in interactions.

It has been my experience that, in general, women co-operate much more with each other than men do with men. Men, in general, seem to keep competing with each other. I have noted that in groups with dominant women this pattern persists, although there can be some posturing.

I guess that in mixed groups this means that women can come across as submissive compared to the men, because they do not to the same degree focus on their own status but rather on the job to be done.




Is this a function of biology and how our brains work (differently from men) or how we are raised? I don't know the answer to that - I suspect it's a combination of the two.


I wonder about that too. I see people as people more than women and men, but this difference I have come across so often I had taken it in. However, in some - very safe - groups, it has been different. So I think maybe some biology but probably mostly the way we are raised, also because it is so very different in various cultures.



But in everyday life, it doesn't matter. We are all individuals, and we all have the gift of choosing how to conduct and identify ourselves. That is the greatest blessing of all, and one that I do believe came about for women as a result of the feminist movement.


Yes! :-))
Freedom for everyone, men and women alike, that's the ticket!
And a hard boiled egg.

(Sorry, that was for Pratchett fans.)

[leo9]

It has been my experience that, in general, women co-operate much more with each other than men do with men. Men, in general, seem to keep competing with each other. I have noted that in groups with dominant women this pattern persists, although there can be some posturing.

I guess that in mixed groups this means that women can come across as submissive compared to the men, because they do not to the same degree focus on their own status but rather on the job to be done.


I always remember a conference I attended once, which at one point divided for an hour into a men's conference and a women's. And the men 's conference immediately broke into an increasingly heated argument about what the topic should be, with a couple of wannabe leaders fighting their corners and rallying support, and people sniping from the sides, and groups shouting at each other. I happened to be sitting against the connecting door, and in the gaps of the yelling I could hear what sounded to be an interesting and constructive discussion going on in the room next door.

Unfortunately, the increased influence of women in the world today doesn't seem to have led men to learn by example. Instead, women only seem able to get on by forgetting everything they know about concensus and co-operation, and getting down in the mud with the other fighters. Obama was praised for a more "feminine" style of politics, looking for common ground and amity, and the result is that he can't get anything done in a system based on fighting everything out.

Maybe in another hundred years, if we still have a political system by then.

[leo9]

We are all individuals

<Monty python> I'm not! </Monty Python>