Reconciling Conflicting Ideals

[claire]

As a feminist and a submissive I know it took me a while to reconcile these seemingly opposing desires within myself. I can't even really say they are reconciled. It is more that I have just accepted that I have certain wants and needs and certain beliefs and they don't have to be completely consistent.

It occurred to me today that someone of African-American decent, might have an additional hurdle to cross in accepting their submissiveness. After the incredible struggle to overcome slavery and ongoing oppression, it might cause even greater internal conflicts to accept ones needs for submission.

Any comments or insights?

[DowntownAmber]

Hmmm. I don't think being a strong female and a sub as well means you're inconsistent in your beliefs. I consider myself a strong person (though I might not label myself as a feminist, per se) and I sub as well. Seems to make sense to me - subbing requires a good deal of strength and control.

PM if you wanna, I can tell you a little bit more about my journey to the place I think you're trying to get.

[AdrianaAurora]

I understand what you are asking because I have had the exact same conundrum myself. A lot depends on your definition of feminism; to me it is a matter of female empowerment, not putting down men. Empowerment to have equal rights, not warmongering about female superiority.
The hardest thing about admitting you are submissive is worry that most people will equate that as buying into the crap of male superiority. Ha! Being a submissive is my right as a feminist.

[ashtonDs]

Originally posted by Claire:
I have just accepted that I have certain wants and needs and certain beliefs and they don't have to be completely consistent.

I don't think they have to be inconsistent. One thing feminism argues for is choice. If you choose submission, rather than have it forced on you who is to argue? If on the other hand you you choose to Domme, who can say anything. It is your choice.


I read an article a Dom wrote about having a black sub. He asked her if she had a problem calling him Master, and Him calling her slave. She told him no. He thought about it for a while and decided that she would just call him Sir and He would call her slut. It turned out He had a problem with it. To her slavery was something that happened long ago and had no bearing on her present relationship, which was her choice.

[alpha_Straye]

As a feminist and a submissive I know it took me a while to reconcile these seemingly opposing desires within myself. I can't even really say they are reconciled. It is more that I have just accepted that I have certain wants and needs and certain beliefs and they don't have to be completely consistent.

It occurred to me today that someone of African-American decent, might have an additional hurdle to cross in accepting their submissiveness. After the incredible struggle to overcome slavery and ongoing oppression, it might cause even greater internal conflicts to accept ones needs for submission.

Any comments or insights?

If ones personality, wishes, and talents say you're submissive then isnt getting to be one (despite the roles society might wish on a person) the ideal of feminism? To be free to be what you are...

[Virulent]

I have a similar dichotomy within me; I'm an anarchist (one who believes that systems of involuntary control are evil and should be destroyed) who gets off on domination. I'm not going around kidnapping anybody, so the control I exert on others is de facto voluntary... but its definitely unseemly, to say the least. Further, from a philosophically 2nd-wave feminist perspective, its hard to sufficiently define a case wherein a woman can consent to sexual submission and torture...

To be a prisoner means to be defined as a member of a group for whom the rules of what can be done to you, of what is seen as abuse of you, are reduced as part of the definition of your status.

I do not think it is a stretch to say that most subs are treated as if they are hierarchically less than their doms. Anyone who disagrees; please explain to me why its acceptable and even perhaps normative for a dom to flog a sub, but not the other way around. MacKinnon, of course, then mentions that obviously prisoners are incapable of meaningful consent. Let me summarize for clarity: if a sub fits MacKinnon's definition of a prisoner, then MacKinnon thinks that sub is getting raped regularly.

Most of the feminism displayed in this thread so far looks like third-wave, empowerment feminism, to me though... the sort that believes that a woman can advance feminism by any individual decision, such as becoming a stripper, a prostitute, or performing in porn... the thought being that since the woman makes a decision and follows through, it "empowers" her as an individual, and reinforces her feeling of self-directedness, of control over her own life. In the 3rd-wave model, a sub isn't being raped by her dom because he can flog her and she can't flog him, instead she is empowered by her decision to place herself in a position where her ass will get whipped red. I think Dworkin & MacKinnon might just find themselves in an apoplectic fit at such an idea, but whatever - I have no horse in this race. Introspection is great and all, but like most people, I'm more interested in my individual sexual satisfaction than the intellectual coherency of my personal morality.

On a closing note,

Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
I am large, I contain multitudes.

[Euryleia]

I am very strongly feminist and I am also a member of the BDSM community. Do I think there is a contradiction? The answer is a resounding "No!"

I base this on my belief that a woman has as much right to her own sexual identity, professional identity and spiritual identity as a man has. As an independent, strong woman, I have fought for equal rights and for freedom to make decisions about my body. I've been on the front lines of the fight to have access to birth control or to be able to abort an unwanted pregnancy, the fight to end sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination, and the fight for equal protection under the law. What I was really fighting for was the freedom to choose what I felt in my heart was right for me.

The way that I see it, as long as the activity is consensual - as long as the parties are adults and mature enough to decide for themselves what makes them orgasm and what makes them feel whole, that any choices a woman makes in pursuit of her sexual satisfaction is her right as a human. Whether a particular woman is Dominant or submissive, she is simply acting upon what makes her feel like a complete woman and is, therefore, exercising her feminism in the highest regard.

[AdrianaAurora]

I do not think it is a stretch to say that most subs are treated as if they are hierarchically less than their doms. Anyone who disagrees; please explain to me why its acceptable and even perhaps normative for a dom to flog a sub, but not the other way around. MacKinnon, of course, then mentions that obviously prisoners are incapable of meaningful consent. Let me summarize for clarity: if a sub fits MacKinnon's definition of a prisoner, then MacKinnon thinks that sub is getting raped regularly.

I have never been treated as "less" either by my Master or any other dom I have met. If anything intellectually I have been valued equally or even superiorly, and if we are talking "play" I have been treated "differently", that doesn't mean worse. I get pleasure from submitting, he gets pleasure dominating, isn't that equal exchange? I fulfill the need in him, just as he fulfills the one in me. I think its important to grasp that while we are all born with equal rights, we are not all born the same.

I asked him once why don't I get to spank him? He said, with a half-smile smirk on his face, that I am welcome to try. Lol. That was the extent of that exchange because I simply don't have that intangible quality in me to dominate others by sheer force of my personality. Or at least I have less of it than Him; we are all selectively submissive.

The whole universe, the very essence of life, is based on yin and yang. Every relationship is a power exchange. Granted not everyone is into "pain" aspect or bdsm related fetish, but every marriage or romantic coupling is D/s, its give and take, and its never that unattainable modern myth of absolute 50:50 equality all the time. I can take the spanking, but I couldn't take "the silent treatment", to me thats unbearable cruelty. And what is silent treatment if not (gutless, imo) D/s power tripin'?

And the analogy prisoner-sub just doesn't stand, prisoner is there against his will, sub choses to be there, she asks to be in that position and is free to leave at any time. For me, being forbidden to express this part of myself would equal prison.

[Virulent]

if we are talking "play" I have been treated "differently", that doesn't mean worse.

Are there any hierarchies in play? If I (consensually) spit in a sub's face, do you consider her to be an equal partner in the spitting?

I get pleasure from submitting, he gets pleasure dominating, isn't that equal exchange?

In your opinion, is there a rational limit to the equitable exchange in play, or is any consensual act between two individuals non-hierarchical? If there is a limit, where do you draw the line, and by what rationale?

[AdrianaAurora]

Are there any hierarchies in play? If I (consensually) spit in a sub's face, do you consider her to be an equal partner in the spitting?

In your opinion, is there a rational limit to the equitable exchange in play, or is any consensual act between two individuals non-hierarchical? If there is a limit, where do you draw the line, and by what rationale?

Strictly speaking in the context of a consensual BDSM and my own personal preference view of such relationship...

Are there any hierarchies in play? Its a bit of a moot point. Yes, I submit, I respond to his dominant chemistry and behavior, I obey and do things I find difficult and wouldn't do otherwise, things where he pushes me out of my comfort zone. But make no mistake if he did something to cross an absolutely untouchable limit (for myself) I would have no problem taking control and top/ over domme him. Its not that I cant dominate or take control, I can and can do it well, but I am not dominant, it does nothing for me. I get no satisfaction from it. Our dichotomy seems to be, you see it as a vertical, while to me D/s is a horizontal power exchange.

He says it better:

This is about love and partnership. Your commitment to me is based on the surrender of self. But you are to be only submissive, not subservient. I am not a god to be worshiped and you should not appear to be a lamb being led to the slaughter. Personally submissive but equal in all else. One role doesn’t over shadows the other. You are mine. Mine alone. There is no life for either without the other.

[fetishdj]

The African American thing is interesting... I do know (from talking to a few professionals) that there are quite a few white men out there who like to be dominated by a black woman because of some form of racial guilt they have.

As for a submissive woman... Yes, interesting point. In my mind I think it is worth pointing out that women who were oppressed in the past had no choice in their lifestyle whereas modern women do. If you choose to be a slave you are not being hypocritical, merely exercising the right to choose.

[darkbutterfly]

I too am a feminist, I've worked with several feminist organizations and was raised with the belief that SAHM were undermining the 'movement' and D/s relationships where the female was the sub was sick and deluded and feeding to the stereotype that women are weak and can't even make their own decisions.

As I get older I am trying to reconcile my desires to be sub with what I have raised and taught my whole life. While I am lucky to have my Owner, he is very passionate about making sure I am always satisfied in submitting, but never disrespected or degraded. He does a tremendous balancing act and does it with perfection.

I find a further problem with it in the confines of being a mother to a son. I want him to grow up learning that women are strong and powerful, but always sweet and nurturing and that women are easily his equal. But I am submissive to a man. It's quite a conondrum *sp?*. My Owner and I have discussed it at length and decided that we will keep it solely play in the bedroom and not discuss it so he can learn those ideals without confusing my desires in with my beliefs. lol I am lucky to have him!

[Arria]

To me, being a feminist means doing what I want, what makes me happy.
If that means subbing to a man - so be it.

In my eyes, feminism means being able to do what you, as a woman, want.
It does NOT stand for doing everything like a man, or better.
It does NOT mean treating men in general like shit because they are "the enemy".
What most of that fraction of manhaters don´t get is the illogic of their own argumentation: "You men treated us like slaves for xyz years, therefore you still are all assholes."
If you try to counterpoint that, as a man, with "you women accepted being treated like slaves for xyz years, therefore you still all WANT to be treated like that".
Duh. They won´t get the irony, most of the time.
Why don´t they get that persons don´t want to be judged by the action of others (who are, by the way, mostly long dead)?

Some of those so-called feminists were the only ones who gave me a REALLY hard time when I started to live my desires. They called me a traitor, and worse. Sleeping with a vanilla man would have been bad enough, but admitting to like getting whipped and used? HELL AND DAMNATION!!!

They lost all respect from my side. They simply don´t get it. I think they should start to get some happiness into their own private lives instead of sneaking into and judging the choices of others!

Ok, end of rant. *lol*

[darkbutterfly]

I quoted this part b/c let me tell you I know EXACTLY what you're talking about. A lot of the women that worked in the organizations that I was working in did the same thing...I was a traitor, I was undermining all the work women have done since the 1920's. Women like me are the reason it took so long to get an equal work-equal pay amendment, etc.

And there are definitely extremists in the feminism group, the manhaters; the over-senstives...(one woman got upset b/c my Owner called me baby, honey, and said "come here woman i want a kiss" and she FLIPPED....but she gets mad when my stepbrother calls me chick...)

I've had to withdrawal from organizations, ideals and things I enjoyed immensely b/c of some of these people b/c they found out, or ran into me outside of these things, or even went so far as to call some friends and ask very private questions b/c they were "worried" about me and wanted to find out why i was...blah blah blah...

I've lost a lot of respect for some of these people, and some of the 'movement' perpetrates.

What most of that fraction of manhaters don´t get is the illogic of their own argumentation: "You men treated us like slaves for xyz years, therefore you still are all assholes."

Some of those so-called feminists were the only ones who gave me a REALLY hard time when I started to live my desires. They called me a traitor, and worse. Sleeping with a vanilla man would have been bad enough, but admitting to like getting whipped and used? HELL AND DAMNATION!!!

Ok, end of rant. *lol*

[bip0lar]

<rant>
This internal debate, for me, started in school a couple of years ago. I was in my final year and we were working on Ibsen's "A Doll's House". Our English teacher, a downright feminist to the bone, advocated how the woman in the play was being put down by her husband, who treated her like a doll, a pet, a toy. I was the only one at the time who actually put my foot down and told her, right in the face, that I'm pretty sure his wife liked it. It was their game, they had both established the rules together and they perfectly enjoyed themselves. She never really liked the fact that my essays were bordering between BDSM and text analysis. Nonetheless I moved forward to Uni, the course I'm taking focuses on human rights, including, of course, children's rights, women's rights and minority rights.
I've had submissive urges for a very very very long time, I like submitting to men, I enjoy it, I find pleasure in it. Apart from the fact that it's private and nobody will EVER be given the right to judge me about it, feminism isn't about women vs. men, it's women for women. I was raped at Uni. There was pain and there was humiliation, it was not pleasant and I turned him over to the Uni authorities. That, and that alone, proves that being submissive IS my choice and nobody can force me to do anything I do not want to do. My tutor, at the time, had seen me around campus with a collar around my neck, she had asked me into her office to have a little chat, you can all see where that went. Nonetheless, after the incident, seeing that I went to her with it, she told me that it wasn't my fault. I replied that I knew that, that is why I told on him, so that another girl wouldn't get hurt in the same way.
I am still a submissive and I still consider myself an advocate for equal rights--especially since, in countries such as Greece, for example, where I live, there are, in my opinion, inequalities concerning both genders.

All in all, sorry for the ranting, it's a sensitive issue for me, i will agree with the previous posts that speak about feminism as the right to choose. It was only few decades ago that women were taught that their ONLY role was to get married and take care of the household and their children. I'm very very happy that i can now choose what my role is going to be.
</rant>

[denuseri]

slides into the room and tossess some flowers i picked earlier around to brighten up the place

so soft and delicate, yet butally plucked, for no better reason than it pleases the sences

why is it we are taught to equate our feminity to that of the flower? or more specifically the rose?

yielding, open , vulnerable, our petals tremble with the slightest wind
yet hidden beneath most roses do indeed lay more than one thorn

[In2kink]

Feminism is a concept that for many holds a very negative connotation. There is for example the stereotype that comes to the minds of many whenever they hear the term of angry, hairy, man-hating lesbians. The man-hating part I think is predominantly a myth constructed in order to foster a negative view of feminism and to promote the idea that feminism is actually nothing more than reverse sexism. It's also partly the fault of women who go around saying things like, "All men are bastards," which frankly is usually because they only go out with bastards. In general the myth has little if anything to do with feminism. I’m sure that there are women who hate men and probably for good reason but being a feminist does not per se imply a hatred or rejection of men.

In general feminism is both an intellectual commitment and a political movement that seeks justice for women and the end of sexism in all forms. As with any political movement, there are extremes and some women who identify with the feminist movement have some pretty radical and extremist views. Like many groups who have historically suffered discrimination, exploitation and victimization, I think it only natural that some women might feel that after thousands of years of oppression it is high time that they were on top of the food chain and held the position of supreme gender. Yet female supremacy is not really mainstream feminism which seeks not supremacy but simply equality and freedom from gender based discrimination.

In my perspective there are two basic underlying tenants of feminism; 1- men and women are entitled to equal rights and respect, and 2 - women are currently disadvantaged with respect to rights and respect, compared with men. While it is true that in recent years progress has been made and women are in a somewhat more advantageous position than in times past, to say that in all cases women are treated with equal rights and respect and enjoy all of the same advantages as men would be naïve. There are still many jobs in the workplace where women and men perform essentially the same tasks or very comparable ones and yet men receive higher salaries. There remain in certain occupations “glass ceilings” which preclude women from the same promotional opportunities enjoyed by men. While especially in the last decade, certain careers that traditionally excluded women altogether or at least severely curtailed equal opportunities have been opened to women, yet it is relatively easy to find examples within those same career fields where qualification standards still exist with the unmistakable design of discouraging or preventing women from applying for or advancing in them. Any fair minded person would not be able to deny that discrimination against a person based simply on gender is just wrong.

In addition to discrimination, women are also subjected to other forms of oppression simply because they are women. For example, Iris Young, author and former Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago, affiliated with the Center for Gender Studies describes five “faces” of oppression: exploitation, marginalization, powerlessness, cultural imperialism, and systematic violence. Oppression exists where women, and those who appear to be women, are subjected to wrongs and/or injustices at least in part because they are or appear to be women.

One of the most insidious forms of exploitation in my opinion is the sexual objectification of women. Sexual objectification occurs when a person is seen as a sexual object and their sexual attributes and physical attractiveness are separated from the rest of their personality and existence as an individual. They are reduced to instruments of pleasure for another person. The concept of female sexual objectification plays an important role in the inequality of the sexes. When a woman is subjected to sexual objectification she is often figuratively dismembered by men and instead of being viewed as a person, with feelings, needs, hopes, dreams, fears and valid opinions, she is instead viewed as a pair of shapely legs, a pair of breasts, an ass or a vagina; and all of those parts viewed solely in terms of their usefulness for the sexual gratification of men. In its most extreme form, sexual objectification results in victimization – rape and physical assault. Objectification of people makes violence against them seem acceptable and legitimate. Sexual objectification has also resulted in a myriad of debilitating issues for women. Many women suffer from extreme body image dissatisfaction because they are constantly bombarded with images of thin, busty, beautiful and flawless, air-brushed and unrealistic images of females portrayed by the media and in film. This has resulted in eating disorders on almost an epidemic scale as well as unhealthy diet regimens, unprecedented demand for cosmetic plastic surgeries and depressive disorders. Clearly, sexual objectification is one form of oppression that women are subjected to.

Since I’m not a woman, I suppose it is impossible for me to consider myself a feminist but I do support the ideals of equal rights and respect for women and the eradication of all forms of sexism. I can understand why those who identify with the feminist movement might see our lifestyle as a threat because superficially it likely does appear that women submissives are taking a step backwards. Yet I think this view results from not truly understanding what the lifestyle is all about. I readily admit before I became a part of the lifestyle I had some pretty wrong headed views of it and thought of it in a very negative way. I believe it is simply one of those things in life that you can’t view from the outside and get a clear picture of what it is really all about. True there is a distinction between the dominant and the submissive in a lifestyle relationship, but those differences have nothing to do with inequality or a difference in worth. Both the dominant and the submissive are alone only half of the equation and both are needed to form the relationship. So at least from my male point of view I don’t see a conflict between feminism and power exchange relationships. A woman can embrace the tenants of feminism and still choose to express her needs to submit because after all it is consensual. In a relationship I take nothing but accept what is freely offered and regard that as the greatest of gifts which I treat with respect and care.