DOMestic Bdsm and Female Domination

Hello Ms Christine,

That was a very nice reply.

you wrote:

>having a met a potential partner who you like a lot, if you
>don't give that person a chance to know your kinky self

And that was my point - a Woman if in love will do :-) it is not
how a woman is. A man gives his woman power

Nuked potatoes

Hello Nuked,

you wrote:

>And that was my point

No. Your original point/s were not very well made at all, they
consisted of broad and sweeping generalisations that dominant
and/or kinky women don't exist. That is just plain wrong.

In order to help you differentiate between such nonsensical
generalisations and possibly valid specific points, I started a
new thread for you where I explained how it is for one specific
woman, me. I tried to help you see that there can be a
difference between dominance and kinkiness.

I explained that I'm a dominant woman who has come to enjoy kink
because my man loves it. That doesn't mean that all women are
like me.

You don't seem to get it Nuked, as you are still making sweeping
generalisations that will be generally wrong even if almost
accurate when applied to a specific woman. If you can start
expressing yourself better, and drop the tendency to
generalise, you'll find a more sympathetic audience to whatever
specific points you are trying to make.

>a Woman if in love will do :-) it is not how a woman is

Do you see what is wrong with that statement.

You say "a woman" - do you mean all women, or one specific
woman?

If you mean all women, then don't be daft, that's just
poppycock. There might be more fetishism in men, but there are
millions of kinky women, and some of them live with non kinky
and very straight men. I've met them. Women are often kinky
without being fetishistic.

It's just the way the world often works that people do not
always meet the ideal partners or counterparty to their kink.
That's why it's best to express yourself to increase your
chances of meeting and then forming a relationship with the
right one.

If you've met quite a few women then you've probably unknowingly
met many genuinely kinky women who have just not shared their
kink with you, because, like many men, they would be too
embarrassed to open up. And many of them would not have had the
kinks that precisely matched yours.

>A man gives his woman power

There you go again. Is that all men, or one specific man?

Couples exchange power in lots of different ways.

There are all sorts out there. I've met lots of men who give
their woman power. I've met women who give their man power. I've
met couples where one or both don't understand the power
exchange at all but are dominating and submitting without even
knowing that they would be thought by others to be kinky.

But don't kid yourself. Most women I know have the power, and
many of them know it. We just like to let men think they are
giving the power to us. It makes the poor boys feel better. :-)

sincerely,
Christine

The Fem Dom Training Software.
Advises on how best to train your husband/lover.
http://www.mschristine.com/program.shtml

Christine, I am following this thread with interest. I agree
with you and David that Nuked is expressing himself poorly at
times (that's not new!) and indulges in too many sweeping
generalisations.

I don't even understand what the question "Is kink really fair
for most women?" is supposed to mean. What does the concept of
"fairness" have to do with "kink"? I am confused.

Also, how do we define "kink," "kinky," "kinkiness"? I don't
think we can just say that we can tell what's kink when we see
it, so we don't have to define it. Where "normal" ends and
"kink" starts? What, for that matter, is "normal"? You wrote
that "there are millions of kinky women." Depending on the
definition of "kinky" I might say that you're probably right, or
on the contrary that you probably overstate the number.

Many women are dominant without being kinky. You say you never
had a kinky thought until you met David. And I never had a kinky
thought until I decided to make my marriage a D/s relationship
(which was not, in itself, a "kinky thought" but a means to an
end). So that's at least two of us, and there must be others!
Lots of them!

The problem with the word "dominant" is that it conjures up the
image of the leather-clad, whip-wielding Dominatrix that so many
submissive or would-be submissive men fantasize about. But many
women are dominant in various aspects of their everyday life
without being dominant in their sexual life. It is usually their
male partner - husband or boyfriend - who brings them into the
"kinky" sex life. More often than not, the woman accepts the
role of domme (when she does accept it at all, which she often
doesn't) to please her partner, not because she enjoys it. In
that sense it can be said that topping from the bottom is more
the rule than the exception.

No doubt there are women who genuinely do enjoy sexual
domination, and some of them can even be quite sadistic, but
although I have no way to prove it, I suspect that they are in a
rather small minority. Which may account for the frustration
that led Nuked to his generalisations.

By the way, didn't Nuked have a satisfactory D/s relationship
some years ago? That experience would in itself invalidate his
statements.

Michele

Hello Michele,

you wrote:

>I am following this thread with interest

I'm so glad. I thought I might be wasting my time and that of
the readership in general. It feels like talking to a brick wall
at times, especially with Nuked :-)

>I don't even understand what the question "Is kink really
>fair for most women?" is supposed to mean. What does the
>concept of "fairness" have to do with "kink"? I am confused.

I'm slightly less confused than you, because when David plucked
that question out of Nuked's ramblings, I vaguely remembered
that Nuked has raised such ideas on DOMestic before. I asked
David and we both think it was when he was in a relationship
with a young lady who was very definitely opposed to kink.

We didn't want to spend our time searching the archives. So,
instead I figured that I might draw Nuked to talk more about the
subject that was perhaps behind his recent assertions.

>Also, how do we define "kink," "kinky," "kinkiness"?

I've discussed some of the definitions here:-

http://u4ds.com/2009/02/dominant_woman_only_in_a_drunk.shtml#c006218

>I don't think we can just say that we can tell what's kink when
>we see it

I guess a fair definition is that kink is that which we believe
to be so unconventional as to be embarrassing to admit to
enjoying, even to well known acquaintances.

>so we don't have to define it

No. But to help to answer Nuked's question of "Is kink really
fair for most women?" it would be helpful if we knew what it was
we were discussing. How can we judge it to be fair, or
otherwise, if we don't have some idea of what it is?

>Where "normal" ends and "kink" starts?

It's boundaries have changed a lot in my lifetime. Some of our
mothers might have felt that even admitting to enjoying sex was
not "normal" for a woman. Oral sex would have been a very wicked
perversion for many. Whereas nowadays, I think it's fair to say,
both female enjoyment and oral sex are seen by the majority as
normal and healthy.

>What, for that matter, is "normal"?

That which is the "norm" :-) Conventional is perhaps a better
word, but it doesn't get us much further. :-)

>You wrote that "there are millions of kinky women." Depending
>on the definition of "kinky" I might say that you're probably
>right

I was using David's mathematical basis. He's has shown me
statistics over the years that suggest that at least 5% and
probably around 15% of people in western countries indulge in
sexual activities which the general populace regarded at the
time as being "kinky".

On that basis, we would be talking many millions of women. A
million or more in the USA alone.

>or on the contrary that you probably overstate the number.

You could be right. That which was once regarded as kinky is now
so totally normal, that although more people now indulge in
those activities, they are now closer to the norm, and thus no
longer kinky.

Kinky is now normal.

>Many women are dominant without being kinky.

True. After David read my reply to Nuked at:-

http://u4ds.com/2009/02/dominant_woman_only_in_a_drunk.shtml#c006218

he pointed out that in the first paragraph I was replying to
Nuked about conventional dominance, and Nuked was probably
talking about his definition of a "Dominant Woman" whatever that
means to him.

So I "invited" David to post a "Dominant Woman definition" in
the hope that Nuked would either...

a.) accept that dominant women do exist

or better still...

b.) define what kind of woman it is that he thinks doesn't
exist.

>You say you never had a kinky thought until you met David

That's true, I think. It is thirty years ago now. A different
world. Kink was underground, and the first issue of Skin Two had
not hit the streets, at least not in my neighbourhood.

Although it has to be said that it was as though David had lit a
fuse. Once he introduced me to the concepts I found them to be
both terrifying in their strangeness to me, yet at the same time
intriguing, fascinating, and quite a lot of fun.

David encouraged me to read the very mildly kinky Forum
magazine, and pointed out the fantasies and so called reader's
letters that they published that he enjoyed. I was soon inspired
to write my first rather naive story "The Lorelei" with just the
mildest hint of dom sub and kinky fetish. I sent it in to Forum
in the UK and got a rejection slip of course.

Undeterred, and encouraged by David's enjoyment of my fictional
works, and our bedroom games as they were then, I continued to
write stories that got much more kinky. I had David as my avid
fan and only reader eagerly devouring my work for some years
before we both started publishing ourselves.

We fed off each other, enthusiasm being contagious, and my
writing inspired David to express himself through fiction as
well.

>And I never had a kinky thought until I decided to make my
>marriage a D/s relationship (which was not, in itself, a
>"kinky thought" but a means to an end). So that's at least two
>of us, and there must be others!

Yes indeed. That might give some hope to the many men searching
for their dominant woman. She is out there, and not necessarily
where you expect to find her. She might be at the very next desk
in the office just waiting to be discovered or introduced.

>The problem with the word "dominant" is that it conjures up the
>image of the leather-clad, whip-wielding Dominatrix that so
>many submissive or would-be submissive men fantasize about.

Indeed. But most men do realise, I hope, that real life is not
going to be quite like that. Certainly the fantasies that David
enjoyed and showed me in Forum were folk with very "normal"
lives, but just more than a bit kinky in private. So I could
easily see myself in the roles he clearly enjoyed thinking about
me indulging him with.

Although I have to admit that I like clothes, and I bought a lot
of leather and shiny outfits as soon as David suggested he liked
them. The enthusiasm of a submissive man was all the
encouragement a twenty five year old woman needed to indulge in
some serious clothes buying. :-)

After wearing my new outfits and fetish wardrobe at home I was
also quite eager (and at the same time terrified) for him to
find somewhere he could take me to so that I could wear them out
in public and swish about in.

When I did so, having men literally falling at my feet to
worship me was, to say the least, flattering and quite likely to
turn a naive young woman's head. (OK I'll admit to exaggerating
my innocence a bit for dramatic effect!)

My terror might be more understandable when you realise that I
am talking here of a trip to London in the early 80's and the
Maitresse club was at that time a once a week event which took
over a rather seedy establishment which was a gay bar six days a
week. Fetish was not at all mainstream and certainly not yet as
fashionable as it was to become in the nineties.

>But many women are dominant in various aspects of their
>everyday life without being dominant in their sexual life.

That was me. David told me quite frankly that he had always
thought me a dominant and demanding woman, and obviously that
was part of what attracted him. I was actually quite hurt that
perhaps he didn't think me a "nice girl". The diplomat in David
had to be quite careful to encourage without offending.

>It is usually their male partner - husband or boyfriend - who
>brings them into the "kinky" sex life. More often than not,
>the woman accepts the role of domme (when she does accept it at
>all, which she often doesn't) to please her partner, not
>because she enjoys it. In that sense it can be said that
>topping from the bottom is more the rule than the exception.

Now I think you might be straying into the kind of
generalisation that will only encourage Nuked in his own
prejudices. I'm not at all sure that we have enough data to use
phrases like "more often than not" and "usually". I'll accept
"many" and "often" as being proven by my own experiences of
meeting others online and in person.

>No doubt there are women who genuinely do enjoy sexual
>domination, and some of them can even be quite sadistic

Of that there is no doubt. We've met many here on DOMestic, and
I've met quite a few sadistic women in person. Sadism in women
is not as rare as you might think.

>but although I have no way to prove it, I suspect that they are
>in a rather small minority.

Yes, well that's more or less where we came in. Kinkiness is
kinky because it is (or was) in the minority. But a small
minority is not the "none" that Nuked asserted.

Although I'll accept that possibly Nuked lives in an area of the
frozen north that may be somewhat parochial? Maybe there really
are few chances of meeting more open minded women?

>Which may account for the frustration that led Nuked to his
>generalisations.

I'd like Nuked to explain his frustration when he can tear
himself away from drowning his sorrows.

>By the way, didn't Nuked have a satisfactory D/s relationship
>some years ago? That experience would in itself invalidate his
>statements.

My own recollection was that the relationship he shared with us
on DOMestic was with a dominant woman from Europe who was quite
strongly against kink.

Perhaps, Nuked, you will correct me if my memory is wrong on
that matter?

sincerely,
Christine at Ms-Christine.com

My FemDom manuals are at
http://u4ds.com/manuals

The illustrated version is at
http://www.mschristine.com/browser.shtml

Hello Christine!

Thanks for using my post as a springboard for additional
comments. Yours are always interesting to read.

I wonder if there is any real use or advantage in discussing
such concepts as "Kinky" and "normal" (relating to sex
activities) since, as you noted, sexual behavior and what's
considered "normal" keep changing - certainly the evolution
since the sixties (around the time we were born) has been
impressive.

When Nancy Friday published "Women on Top" in 1991 she remarked
in the preface that the young women she interviewed for the book
were profoundly different in their attitudes to sex from the
ones she interviewed in the early seventies for her first book,
"My Secret Garden." "Their voices sound like a new race of
women," she wrote. And now we are again almost twenty years
later! I'm sure today's young women are a new race too.

One major evolution during the past couple of decades is the
growing acceptance of what we call "Kink." The ads and photos in
fashion magazines are full of allusions, often blatant, to BDSM,
lesbianism etc... Many young couples now include light bondage
and other kinky practices in their lovemaking.

I was surprised to find out how widespread the use of strap-on
dildoes has become in France in the last few years - women
sodomizing their boyfriends or husbands, and the men enjoying
it. I am not claiming that the practice has become "the norm"
but the freedom with which many women discuss it on specialized
internet sites strikes me as something quite new.

Michele

Christine wrote:

>having a met a potential partner who you like a lot, if you
>don't give that person a chance to know your kinky self, you'll
>never find a partner who may love you for who you are, and who
>may also want to share your kink with you.

I agree. Don't try to guess whether or not the partner is kinky
and then hope for the best after you've sealed the deal. The
partner may feel betrayed or tricked into committing to you
without committing to the kinky side of your nature.

Madam

Ms Christine wrote:

>"I'm a dominant woman who has come to enjoy kink because my
>man loves it. That doesn't mean that all women are like me."

Conversely, I am a dominant woman whose husband came to enjoy my
kink because I love it. It doesn't mean that all women are like
me in that respect but I've known quite a few who are. The
dominant women I know ignore men who drink so as to cry in their
beer. Likewise these women couldn't be bothered with men who
believe they couldn't possibly be dominant without a male.

A man who feels this way should consider the possibility that he
has little to offer a dominant woman and that may be the reason
none are in sight.

Madam

nuked wrote:

>And that was my point - a Woman if in love will do :-) it is
>not how a woman is. A man gives his woman power

This is your problem in a nutshell. What I heard you saying
above is that you're perfectly willing to use a woman for your
purposes, even a woman who might truly care for you. The very
foundation on which you build a relationship has to do with use,
not love, nor devotion. Doesn't sound very submissive when you
isolate it down to your essential philosophy, does it.

Additionally you believe that you are the source of a woman's
power. That belief causes you to seek out powerless women onto
whom you are able to project your own interests. Conversely, you
attract women who feel they are powerless by giving them a
scenario in which you both pretend she is the source of power in
the relationship.

My guess is that you do this in order to avoid fully
relinquishing control to a truly empowered woman. It's your
safety valve. You "allow" a partner to participate in this
pretense until you are dissatisfied with her level of control,
or her attempt to control you in a way that puts you outside of
your comfort zone. At that point you simply show her the light
of day and expose the game for what it is. She may able to be
talked back into this game for awhile but most women eventually
see you in the light of day, too, which means you end up
exposing yourself as a user.

Madam

I think nuked's problem is that he fails to realize that women
(and men) are different.

But Madamplz's response possibly implies that the ideal is a
fully empowered, dominant woman.

Someone once suggested that in rough figures about one third of
people will never ever want to talk or read about kink, about
one third will (at the right time) be interested to read or talk
about it, but never do anything, and the remaining third will
(at the right time with the right person), enjoy some kinky
activities.

Of the last third about one third of those will enjoy kink
enough to want to do this kink with their next partner.

This rough guide suggests that about 1 in 9 (about 11%) of
people are the committed kinksters.

One of the problems I see with much discussion of BDSM is that
so much focus is given to this 11%.

We tend to forget about the other 22% of people who enjoy kink
with the right partner, but then are happy to become vanilla
with the next.

My current partner, Ada, is enjoying practicing Devotional Sex
with me. But I am sure that with her next partner she will
return to vanilla.

While there are of course many kinky relationships where BOTH
people really want kink as part of their relationship, I am sure
that, given the numbers, most kinky relationships have one
person who is "kink is really wanted", and the other "I would be
happy to not be kinky, but I'm enjoying practicing kink with you
now".

Most of these "mixed" couples probably enjoy a slightly milder
kink than the full-on BDSM that dominates the Internet.

Anyone reading the story of my first date with Ada:
devotionalsex.com/15real_ada_1intro.html
or the Blog of our ongoing activities:
devotionalsex.com/15blog_ada1.html
will see that Ada is NOT dominant.

On our first date I offered Ada something new and different. She
tried it, liked it (and me), and we continue to BOTH enjoy what
we are doing.

As a Mistress Ada is a failure. But, like most women, she does
not want to be a Mistress.

As a Devotional Sex Princess, with its milder version of FemDom,
Ada is fantastic.

I think the BDSM world needs to do a better job in appreciating
the success of women such as Ada.

They also need to do a better job of appreciating kinky people
such as myself who do not actually want a Mistress/slave
relationship, but very much do want the milder experience of
Devotional Sex.

As a full submissive I am a failure. But I think I make a great
Devotional Sex Knight.

Some people are fully kinky. Nuked - fully empowered dominant
women do exist.

Some people only do kink because their partner suggested or
wants it. As long as both partners enjoy what happens, then this
is a good thing.

Cheers,
MichaelK

Ms Christine wrote:

>Your original point/s were not very well made at all, they
>consisted of broad and sweeping generalisation that dominant
>and/or kinky women don't exist. That is just plain wrong.

Yes I agree i feel like I have come full circle. I do believe
there are no dominant Women. The real strength in Women is a
man, as it should be. The strength of a man is treating that
Woman and all people with

Nuked,

Your message seems incomplete, ending as it does with the word
"with". Also, your meaning is unclear. First you agree that you
are just plain wrong, then you start to make a point that you
still believe you are right. Which is it?

sincerely,
Christine at Ms-Christine.com

Get your DOMestic password at
http://u4ds.com/password

Hi Ms Christine,

I just try to stir the proverbial pot. You know that. But it is
true I do not believe Women were ever to be Dominant in a sexual
way. Women are nurturing, mothers sisters and daughters.
Dominance on a Woman's part is the respect she commands by being
her true self not some pervy idea a Man comes up with.

A Matriarchal society would be a failure as Women can't get
along with Women they are much worse then Men. A man can have
respect and loyalty to another man and keep his honour, women
can not come close to this.

There is no such thing as a dominant Woman.

warmly Yours
Darryl aka nuked potatoes

I think the next step in nuked's (very flawed) logic must be
that all men are dominant, and thus there is no such thing as a
submissive man.

With no dominant women or submissive men, DOMestic would not
exist, and thus nuked's post would not exist.

Having now eliminated nuked's post in a puff of logic, I suggest
that the rest of us who know dominant women, submissive men, and
DOMestic do exist, move on and no longer waste time with nuked's
nonsense.

Cheers,
MichaelK

Devotional Sex

Hello,

MichaelK wrote:

>I think the next step in nuked's (very flawed) logic must be

It's hard to say what it must be, since he fails to answer the
most basic of questions designed to establish what he's trying
to say.

Saber / Miss Stress just recently invited him to define what he
means by kink, and Christine and others have already asked him
similar questions. I put some effort into my Dominant Women
definition post to help him work out what it is that he thinks
doesn't exist and it was simply ignored.

But as Nuked will not define his own thoughts, I'll play Nuked's
advocate for a moment and hazard a guess at what he' trying to
say.

>that all men are dominant

He does seem to be saying that men were designed that way, and
that being otherwise is deviant and not manly.

>and thus there is no such thing as a submissive man.

I think he is saying there are submissive men, and that it is
those who have thought up the "pervy idea" that women do exist
who are what we call Dominant Women.

>With no dominant women or submissive men, DOMestic would not
>exist, and thus nuked's post would not exist.

I imagine that Nuked, when sober, could argue that DOMestic
would still exist, but might thus consist only of submissive men
pursuing their "pervy idea", and our women followers who we men
are being unfair to. Thus his question "Is kink really fair for
most Women" is the title Christine gave to this thread.

>Having now eliminated nuked's post in a puff of logic,

Logic? Hmmmm.... Eliminated with the "Consequences" technique
might be more accurate.

>I suggest that the rest of us who know dominant women,
>submissive men, and DOMestic do exist, move on and no longer
>waste time with nuked's nonsense.

I'm still prepared to waste my time on him, but if he wants to
have a discussion directly with me he'll need to start being
courteous enough to answer any questions I put to him.

Meantime, without much feedback I'm just going to conclude that
Nuked is beating himself up because he is conflicted. I'd
surmise that his possibly unconscious thought process is that he
really ought to be a "real man" and lead his woman the way men
are supposed to, and that he should stop this pervy stuff which
is so unfair on them.

If I'm right Nuked.... The cure is to first learn to love
yourself and who you are. You'll probably be a better lover of
others after you can love yourself. You'll certainly be more
attractive as who you really are, once you love who you are.

Masochism is a joyous experience if you love yourself.
If you don't, it is likely to be sad.

sincerely,
David at Ms-Christine.com

Download "Prickteasing" by David at
http://www.u4ds.com/manuals