October 3, 2007...11:39 am

Menswear

Jump to Comments

Jack had to take his suit to the cleaners to see if they could get duct tape gum off it. Sometimes I am so proud of myself.

I love men in suits.

Sometimes I think I am not so much a heterosexual as a woman with a masculinity fetish. I am greedy-desperate-wanton for shaved heads and muscles and prison tattoos and sideburns and deep voices and scars and old weathered beaten up see it all, done it all, drunk-all-the-piss-and-wearing-the-T-shirt men.

Firefighters and coal miners and soldiers and police officers and dock workers and fisherman and bad, bad daddies. (Yes, I know women can be all these things to – tell the fetish)

I really like male bodies. Suits emphasise the shape of male bodies.

When I first met Pan he was obsessed with the film reservoir dogs and wore a black suit, white shirt, black tie everyday. I pissed on him wearing that suit once.

Fucking up suits. Suits come apart in layers upon layers. Dishabille men. Tie coming loose, buttons undone, jacket left somewhere. The sleeves pushed up over dream-shaped hairy forearms. Now the battle’s over - half his armour’s lost.

Male beauty. See how easy. How everywhere.And dismantling masculine totems doesn’t get much more literal-sartorial than this.

When I first met Jack he wore his suit. He wore it at work. But not the tie. He put the tie on to meet me. His belt is perfect.

Ties. Belts.

I like to tie up men and hurt them. How happy am I that they turn up wearing everything I need.

Once, talking to Elizabeth Spankington about the rules of her imagined and much-missed Hot Female Dominant Utopia, I suggested that all the hot male slaves should carry around their own punishment kits, with handcuffs and canes. You know, to be helpful. And once I read something in some dumb gay hazing porn where guys had the sticks they were beaten with hanging ready around their necks. I read some mandom porn where the woman went out into the garden to cut her own switch. I read – also in porn (I only read porn, well sometimes) – that in Nelson’s navy men awaiting punishment had to weave their own floggers.

Men wearing their belts and ties – men meeting up with me, knowing what I am and what I like to do for fun – connect here.

Jack met me for the first time wearing a suit, a belt, a tie. Nothing happened like that. But it still meant something.

Men are pretty. You only think you aren’t pretty because you built this culture to be all about feminine prettiness. Ask me, I can list you a hundred reasons why men are the pretty ones. Some men love to say, Oh women get to dress up. Women get to wear the pretty things. Women get to dance and sparkle and shine. And actually, while we’re on the subject, you know it isn’t such a great deal to be the defining axis of pretty when you think that’s *all* we get to be.

Or what happens to those of us who aren’t pretty.

When we only get to be looked at and never get to look. Do you really want me to spell out how angry I get when a man laments he doesn’t get to wear pink flowers or gold lace, in the casual meaning-free way that women do. When you’re locked up inside the gilded fucking cage it’s really not heartening to hear the people who put you there whining about how come they don’t get to look cute in the purty prison.

There’s an Eddie Izzard bit about women having total clothing rights, that always used to really annoy me, because really, being able to wear a ra-ra skirt without comment isn’t that much of a ‘right’ compared with, say, the right of male privilege. (Even though I do love Eddie Izzard.)

It’s just another part of the lie that femininity is a wondrous state of specialness. And oh us guys should be so lucky!

So don’t fucking complain that getting to wear lipstick without raising eyebrows is a lucky break.

I mean, you know, wear lipstick if you want, have operations if you want, just shut up about how women are so lucky as if having more wardrobe options in some way makes up for, you know, all the other oppression. ‘Cause having to fight for the right to, you know, like sex without being evil is such a full time job I don’t really spend a lot of time marveling that I can wear trousers *or* a skirt to do it in.

And meanwhile, if you want to sparkle and shine, you don’t need to become a woman to do it, any more than a woman needs to protrude at the crotch to be strong. If you want to look pretty for me, then you know that’s all about heavy chains and muscles to match. Dirt and diesel. And cock.

And pain. Suffering.

I have now reached the point that if I see mandom porn and I see the woman getting – say – caned, my eyes go poppy. Like, WTF, why is they caning her like she is a guy? Not so much in an OMG he’s hitting her! Kind of way. (Like in Angel where Angel hits Buffy and even though you know Buffy is stronger than Angel it’s still a bit weird to watch. Well, maybe a bit like that actually. )

Whats to tell you? I have started to believe my own blurb. Pain and suffering is so damn masculine. When I see a woman getting hurt and complaining all squeaky-voiced it is just weird to me. Penis-in-panties weird. Seeing as those girls are always super-femmy and about 19. Why are they butchifying them?

I mean no one says, Oh Jesus motherfucker that fucking hurts. Fuck. God. Please! Like a big butch guy. And maybe if he’s still got some of his suit on, or it’s balled up on the floor – I’m just happier.

And, hey, you know I’m not just totally down on feminine and androgynous guys. One of the reasons I hate *forced* fem, feminisation for humiliation is that it says that men playing with gender is awful and shameful. There’s a big different between that exotic *creature* that makes people question gender identity and a man swathing himself in the trappings of femininity because he equates that with downgrading himself from male to either female or to stupid-looking-sissy. Some of the strongest men in the world are effeminate men - don’t think I don’t know that.

Here’s a post that says this stuff a lot better.

However, still not my kink. You know me. I want every man to be a Tom of Finland cartoon. I’m not saying that if that were the case the world would be a better place. Or maybe I am. Fuck it. I’ll say what I want. I’m queen of the dominoes.

Genderfuck is all very well, but when I set up my kingdom of manpain on the moon the only guys who are getting in are the ones who shave with blow torches and have muscles like a relief map of the Pennines.

And if you’re a man who’s primary goal in life is to make women squeal with delight, before you start offering to stick your tongue *anywhere* take some time to look at what women (broadly) like men to look like. This is a much better place to start than any kind of frillies. I have seen male submissives who were muscular and shaved headed and slightly-butchy-dangerous-looking get more attention from dominant women than they could ever want in real life rooms and cyberry spaces.

Before you next complain that getting the attention of a dominant woman is impossible because of all the competition – take a closer look at some of that competition.

hiya Mistress, i so need a Mistress to help me explore my fetishs i hav, i came across for profile and would lov the chance to obey and serve u , im such a anal slut i so wanna be pimped out, anything really u can do for me? im also on msn and can almost fist myself can u help me go that little bit more on my webcam live now?

Dominant women are desperate baying wrecks for submissive guys who get the fucking basics.

You know what women get told? Get drummed into us by fashion-fascism. Play to your pretty. Emphasise the positive.

Hey, boyfriend, take a tip here.

Different stuff looks good on you because you are physically different. Androgynous wonderboy takes work and genetics and, really, *youth* to pull off. But every guy can be glorious if they keep it simple. You’re shaped differently, *beautifully*. And don’t say you don’t have strong points, because, even I’m not allowed to say I don’t have *any* strong points.

Jeans are good. White vests are good. White underwear. Uniforms and V-necks and spectacles and height and bigness and hardness and baldness and deep voices and oh, everything, you have a lot of it already. You have a cock and bristles on your face. How can you say you don’t get to be the pretty?

But suits, yes – suits above all - are perfect attire for men because (a) they are mostly about shoulders and (b) they are a little about waists and (c) you can flip open the buttons and hurt him while you kiss without anyone seeing.

74 Comments

  • uh, I got lost over there on Tom’s site…so what were you saying?

  • Uh, I don’t know… Something about cocks…

  • I’m with you on the suit thing. That’s up there real high on my list of man-clothes which get me going. I think it’s something to do with the pride they bestow on men, it changes their demeanour somehow. They *know* they look good in them.

    I tend to lean more towards butch men too. I hate that modern society has somehow made prettiness and masculinity incompatible. It’s obviously crap - just look at 2000 years of art history to see otherwise.

  • I love the way suits are so respectable, but also so dirty if he’s wearing it just because it turns me on. And they take a little effort. A little effort is nice.

    And ties. The fact ties exist makes me so happy.

  • I think I would take issue if someone pissed on me if I was wearing a suit or not. Personally I mostly wear suits, even though I no longer work. I regard the introduction of casual clothing days in the city as the onset of the decline of civilization.
    I dont really see the attraction of dressing as a woman, even though I was in a new romantic band in my schooldays. As a rule I have not time for sparkly things although I did wear a gold lame suit and white make-up when I attended a fancy dress party as the ghost of Elvis!
    Do men really offer to fist themselves on camera for you Jones? Maybe its just my vanilla sensibilities, but I wonder how bored you would have to be to think, “hmm I wonder if I can fit my fist up my arse”.

  • I have to say, Toni, I was hoping for more detailed descriptions of your many, many bespoke suits.

  • So… you’re saying that I did all this hellish exercise over the last three months for nothing? That I could have just bought a suit with big shoulders, instead?

    Dang, Beej. I could have had pics of me in a suit months ago had I known.

  • That would be lovely.

    *waits by inbox*

  • Actually Jones, I had a tailor in Hong Kong who used to make all my suits and shirts, I just ordered them by the dozen all identical, cahmere and linen in black or gray, but before I had my suits made I did have a Boss suit that you would have appreciated, it was some special kind of material that allowed it to be balled up and return to shape wrinkle free, I never tried it out but I suspect it was piss resistant also.

  • Shaved heads *and* sideburns? Really?

    Hehe.

    May’s tap to androgyny is partly his youth, partly his mannerisms, partly his body and partly his long curly hair of awesome. And I actually love how he looks in a suit - he has this three button black jacket that I die a little over every time. It is all about the shoulders. But even in suits, he still manages androgyny. I think it’s in his nature.

    Sometimes when a friend of mine throws play parties, instead of playing I end up on his bed looking at his Tom of Finland collection. Yum.

    Also, I like that you phrased what you like as a masculinity fetish, because that makes a lot of what you like more logical for me. More so than simply saying, “That Bitchy Jones lady sure is straight.” The way you’re straight seems so much more specific than just the word “straight.”

    Hmm. Yes.

  • One day, this happened

    BJ: Where are you going
    Pan: I’m going to wet shave my head
    BJ: Oh. Nice. Can we have sex later, then?
    Pan: Sure
    BJ: Er, though, oh, are you going to shave your sideburns off too?
    Pan: Yes. Look. I am not going through this with you again. I cannot shave my head and leave my sideburns on. It would look stupid
    BJ: It might not
    Pan: Okay. Wait.

    20 minutes later

    BJ: Yeah. Okay. It looks stupid.

  • Hilarious. I heart Pan.

  • So do I

  • Great minds think alike. Men in Suits are my *thing* too…

  • Oh my god! I had never read that post before.

    We are like sex blog genius twins.

  • Suits. I live in a summer resort. No one wears suits, except lawyers, and they’re usually odd jackets and the kind of trousers they might wear sailing a boat. One morning recently I had a business breakfast with a guy wearing [a] a baseball cap, [b] a tee- shirt, [c] shorts, [d] sandals and [e] a look of utter out-doneness because I was wearing a suit and tie, plus cuff-links and the kind of shoes you could see nose or other protrusion in. When I was a foreign correspondent in sweaty climes I made it a point to over-dress. There is nothing like being publicly committed to a standard of dress [and behavior] that becomes, in fact, a uniform. Suits are the uniform of civilian males who respect themselves, which is why there is nothing like climbing out of a bright white shirt and silk tie and stepping away from your suit to engage in uh less suitable behavior. Men are known by their uniforms, and appreciated when they’re out of them. It used to be thus with women, who dressed in a specifically “lady” uniform, including uniform underwear, sheer stockings and high-heeled shoes. That’s pretty much gone as well. The uniforms of both sexes for decades defined their respective sexes. What people wear today defines their lack of gender definition, and their lack of commitment to the role. Mad example: when I worked at home –never seeing another person all day– sometimes I dressed in suit and tie, and thus was able to take the work more seriously. Being taken seriously –by ourselves and others– is what dressing is all about. And it gives you a marvelous thrill to undress, and be undressed, when the time comes.

  • Just like to say sorry for the gilded cage, can hardly type the words without being haunted by a kind of warm, throbbing masculine shame. Deep down, when any man puts on a suit he is doing it because he knows he is a dirty boy who deserves to be pissed on. I’m constantly surprised by the number of women who fail to read this signal. Perhaps we are not ready for a world of random and spontaneous urination in the office, although speaking for my workplace it is long overdue…

  • You know what I love, Bitchy? That you put such dedication and specificity into “how” and “where” and “what” men wear and what they look like, with absolutely no concern at all for what YOU might (or might not) be wearing.
    This is exactly what has been done to women for, I don’t know, ever.
    I love that, for you, men are the pretty and that there is such a wide margin for what fits into that.
    It’s so lovely.
    You and SleepTalker have cheered me considerably….

  • I like the idea of it being a masculinity fetish. I like that a lot. You can sign me up for that terminology. You are brilliant. : )

    Suits? We’ve had that conversation. On a scale of 1 to 10, for me, they hit about a 1.5 for sexy. So not my thing.

    Meloni wore suits for the first umpteen seasons of SVU. Drove me *nuts*. That gorgeous, gorgeous body all hidden up in suit jackets? Gah! I’m sure I would have wanted to rip his clothes off anyway, but those suits in the way? I wanted to burn them.

    I can see men in suits all day if I want. They come in suits to show me powerpoint presentations to sell me things. *yawn*

    You wanna sell me something, mister? Show up in a nice black turtleneck or black t-shirt, with a great pair of blue jeans, and you’ve got my corporate credit card.

    Khakis are also acceptable, but I loves me some blue jeans.

    (The body that goes with all of that doesn’t have to be movie star great for me to still want to see the wares. Chunky is just fine. Just don’t hide it under no suit jackets, please. )

    It should be confessed that I’m legend for hanging out in the warehouse, talking to the truckers and parcel delivery guys. Warehouse is the no suit zone. I likes it.

    YMMV - in fact it does. Still your soul sister in the masculinity fetish club.

    hugs, E

  • Gosh, Elizabeth, no wonder you like Steve Jobs so much.

    Suit jackets can enhance the body rather than hid ing it, but it’s hard to pull off. Also, kind of off-topic, I wish for the entire concept of business casual to die. Either tell me to wear a suit or let me wear my freakin’ jeans.

    Suits ping mid-meter on my kink likeability. Men who look good and natural wearing suits ping much higher.

    Good tight blue jeans and white linen buttondowns. God, line them up at my door. I will melt all over.

  • Yes. And my point, the whole point of everything BJ, is that the clothes submssive men should be most associated with wearing are the types of clothes that turn women the fuck on.

    Otherwise we have this situation: Hello, dominant feeling woman, perhaps you would like to join the femdom club. All the men dress to make themselves look as ugly as possible and meanwhile you are expected to be the most beautiful and uncomfortable woman on earth…

    Hey! Wait! come back!

    Why are there so few women in femdom? Why the why?

    Power has been equated to sexual attractiveness and then disparity of power has become disparity of sexual attractiveness.

  • I haven’t seen many men in a suit that get me going, unless he has the ability to wear it like Cary Grant did, then I’m damn well drooling.
    Now if the man is part way out of his suit… the jacket and vest off, the tie hanging loose around his neck, the shirt un-tucked and unbuttoned… that makes my heart skip a beat or three. Throw in a five o’clock shadow and I’m a very, very happy woman.

    Blue jeans are a different story. I love a man in tight jeans. The way they cup and mold and hold makes my hands itch to touch. But men should not show up at my door wearing those baggy ass, load a hangin’ loose, blue jeans. Whoever the person was that came up with the idea of putting men in saggy jeans is a total idiot. Most women are just like men, we like to see a sexy ass just as much as they do.
    And please, no butt crack views, least for me. Seeing that only makes me want to tie them up and turn them into a game to see how many coins I can make slide down the crack.

  • “I want every man to be a Tom of Finland cartoon.”

    I’ve found this to be a bit of commonality amongst most women-who-admit-to-watching-porn that I’ve talked to: we all like gay porn. Even women who have zero gay-man-fetishy interests. (note: Not Dommes … just women, women of any orientation)

    Why?

    Oh, isn’t that self-explanatory? Only in gay porn is the male form appreciated as something to look at. Straight porn is directed at the male audience, so it’s focus on the woman being the thing to look at. The men aren’t worth looking at.

    AHHH but gay erotica, porn, sexy cartoons, and other goodliness focuses on the pretty male form. Not femme pretty (although if you’re looking for that there is also plenty of that) but masc pretty.

  • Suits really aren’t my thing…unless, of course it is Black Tie and Tails….then, I am basically squishy.

    Jeans can set off a man’s posterior quite nicely, but I really get off on men in kilts…I think I might of mentioned that one already though…

  • the clothes submssive men should be most associated with wearing are the types of clothes that turn women the fuck on.

    That’s why I have a closet full of slightly faded jeans, a bunch of linen shirts, some nice fitted suits, and a leather tuxedo.

    Okay, that last one doesn’t get much use, but it was a good deal when I bought it.

  • Tom, I have the makings of a three-piece suit in leather, with blazer, vest and pants.. That also doesn’t get much use, mostly because it’s too freakin’ hot to wear.

    Bring on the linen shirts. I like clothes that feel nice under my fingers, which might be a bit reason I prefer more casual clothing on others. The textures of casual wear are very inviting.

  • Leather clothes are for stopping your skin being scraped off if you fall off your motorbike.

    Also, I like cows.

  • Jones, if you had a theme tune, what song would it be?

  • I like cows, too.

    They’re delicious.

    Back in my mid to late 20s I wore a lot of leather - I had some nicely tailored leather pants that were very nice, and I actually did find a nearly-matching jacket. I went to several quasi-formal events wearing them with bow tie and cummerbund (red, of course), attracting no end of comments and compliments. Yes, it was warm, but sometimes you’ve got to suffer for your art.

    I, uh, have this attention whore that lives deep inside me that has to come out once in a while.

    But I really do have a lot of cotton button-downs in my closet - not for Eileen, really, but because I prefer them over t-shirts. And they do look good with jeans, even when my weight crept up. As it happens, I like that look on women - I think that it’s the contrast between the casual and the more dressy.

  • I am definitely with you on enjoying certain clothing on men. Wearing nothing but jeans does it for me. Something about the skin over the hips showing and the cuffs just brushing the tops of the feet….purrr…..

    But I love taking off my husband’s suit. It is so contradictory; he had just been entirely professional, serious, and strong, but when he gets home he is completely weak and all mine!

  • Suits… they have to look like they belong in a suit, not that they’re playing dress-up.

    One fantastically attractive gentleman I know affects a sort of steampunk look, with dressy trousers and Victorian waistcoats and evil, evil boots. It’s masculine AND dandified and he carries it off beautifully, but it’s not for everyone.

    Now, a pretty, baby-faced boy in cargo pants and Doc Martens and a T-shirt and a motorcycle jacket? THERE’s a feast for the eyes.

    Then again, I’m drawn to the eyelinered androgynous wonderboys, especially in tight vinyl trousers.

    But yes. ANY of those is preferable to the dull, dull wasteland of business casual with the serviceable khakis and the polo shirts and no. style. at. all.

    Be worth looking at!

  • But yes. ANY of those is preferable to the dull, dull wasteland of business casual with the serviceable khakis and the polo shirts and no. style. at. all.

    Yes. Yes. Yes.

    Business casual sucks for any kind of sexual hotness. I despise polo shirts.

    I’ve been thinking about this (as if I had nothing more important to think about), and I want to take back my suit hotness rating.

    The Cary Grant way of embodying a suit, mentioned further up, is way hot. There just aren’t that many men who can do that, but when they can, very hot.

    I was thinking about embroidered monogram cuffs. I don’t remember who or when, but I remember getting positively weak over some man I was meeting with one time, wearing a beautiful suit, with a shirt that cost I couldn’t say how much…watching his hands (who me? watch hands?) and as he reached for something in front of me, seeing his suit jacket arms pull up and his embroidered monogrammed white cuffs peek out.

    That’s a still shot for a pr0n movie for me for sure. Hand + monogram pr0n! I wanted to bite the embroidery threads right out, and I’m not much of a biter.

    Also, I *love* leather. I am forever buying the husband leather jackets until he says, honey, I really don’t need any more leather jackets.

    If I get my mojo back (soon!), I’m going to need to post about leather jackets. Leather jacket pr0n!

    Speaking of posts, thanks for this one. I’ve been feeling a bit asexual with the stresses of life abounding and you’re getting my mind back in the proper place. Manly Man Pr0n!

    hugs, E

  • Jones, if you had a theme tune, what song would it be?

    This.

  • Jones! I had never heard that song before, but yes it absolutely does fit the image I have of you.
    I have little time for Morrisy in general, because I despise his brand of intellectual snobbery - but you have to admit the boy has talent. I am not sure what response I expected from you, my question arose from a drunken on-line conversation I was having with my younger brother, ( I am in the middle of a 48-72 hour vodka frenzy), I like the line about I am in your mind like a bad debt you cannot forget - you are very cool, Jones.

  • Ha. Thank you, Toni. Hope you enjoy your vodka frenzy.

    (Is that a Filthy, Rich and Catflap reference? That is Pan’s favourite sitcom of all time.)

  • Filthy, Ritch and Catflap - great sitcom, in fact I loved the original comic strip presents. Just watch “Eddie Monsoon, a life” on you tube. Fantastic stuff!

    My Vodka frenzy is inspired by some of my ex-girlfriends, (3 of them) trying to get back in touch with me and telling me tales of woe. Even the Thai Princess, who I never thought I would hear from again. I wonder if these girls can sense my situation because I owe all of them money, if so they can get in line with all my other creditors.

  • “Why are there so few women in femdom?”

    BJ: No buy it. Most vanilla couples I know are at best vanilla-fudge, or butter pecan or coffee-toffee-crunch swirl. So why is there is a cultural predilection for pretense in the arena of dominance? Am I alone in noting that in the majority of long-term relationships, especially marriages, the leader is the female? It’s one of the great secrets, and probably even more true in the bedroom. So it’s really: Why are there so few women who are aware they are femdom and/or admit to it? It’s even more odd when you consider that most men proudly admit to other men that they’re pussy-whipped –but are unlikely to do so in mixed company. Will someone explain?

  • Well that’s the point of the blog. There are as many dominant women as there are submissive men. This is obvious to me. Why would this not be the case?

    There are so few dominant women active within kink because the prevailing idiologies within this culture repels them. For more in this… well, everything I’ve ever written is about this.

  • In fact I said this way back when in the dark days before ‘Fuck Me’ made me notorious for my unpopular femdom opinions

    http://bitchyjones.wordpress.com/2007/03/21/the-trivial-minutiae-of-pervery/

  • In fact, I should do a post laying out all my unpopular femdom opinions.

    1. There are as many dominant women as submissive men
    2. Strap on sex is no fun for the strapper on
    3. Catsuits and thigh boots are stupid and look stupid
    4. Professional dominatrixes can all fucking fuck off and stop defining my sexuality
    5. Forced feminisation is insulting and degrading to women

    I’m sure there are more.

  • 5. Forced feminisation is insulting and degrading to women

    It ain’t so hot for some of the men, either.

  • Les S. More is correct as far as I can see. Most vanilla relationships allow the woman to dominate the man. You only have to go to a suburban boozer in the UK on a sunday to see a man escaping “grief from the missus”. There are however a few of us that retain our dignity and do not allow the desperate need for female company that all men feel to reduce us to being pussy whipped.

  • Les, I’m not convinced that a female-led relationship is the same as a female-dominated relationship. For example, all the surveys tell us that in most married households women are more likely to be handling household management, and staying home with the babies if there are any; this tradition of women having domestic control, and being perceived as the guardian of the relationship/family, is far closer to submission than dominance. Shopping lists are one of my hard limits, no joke. If I had a submissive husband I’d have him make all the decisions, do all the budgeting, be the family rock, answer the phone when my father calls, and decide where we’re going for the anniversary dinner.

    Bitchy, your mouseover text makes me blush.

    This thread is really interesting to read, because everyone has such developed ideas about what men should wear, and I don’t, except ‘as little as possible if you’re at all hot pls.’ (Did you see the entire Everton football team filing, one by one, topless into their dressing room on TV on Tuesday night? I kept going ‘quick, camera, follow that one, no, not him, he should put his shirt back on, but oh, that one’s pretty, mmm cornrows, hey come back..!’ ;) Actual clothes you can get away with wearing in public is where I go hazy. I’m not fond of suits and uniforms - I’ve a bit of anxiety wrt male authority figures, so maybe that puts me off those sorts of clothes. I’ll stick with tight jeans, trenchcoats, leather gloves (weak at the knees there), sleeveless tops if he’s built for it. (!!!)

    One weird thing about dabbling in sports slash is the way previously neutral equipment or outfits become fetishised within the community. Often it just makes me giggle incessantly, especially when it involves cricket.

  • Brad Pitt just keeps coming up over and over…

    (No complaints)

    I’m not fond of suits and uniforms - I’ve a bit of anxiety wrt male authority figures, so maybe that puts me off those sorts of clothes.

    See, male authority figures is where I *live*. But, you know, I may have those same anxieties, I just deal with them in a different way. More of a killcrushdestroy way. Not that I really kill men.

    Crush them maybe…

  • So why are women-as-dominants such an iceberg? Or, to mix metaphors really badly, why are dominant women [forget pro-dommes, who are --no value judgement implied-- whores] so closeted? And we’re not talking about managing the household expenses: we’re talking about who’s the boss? Are we about to learn for the first time, as Kinsey announced about gays, that one out of six women are dominant? I’d say five out of six. But who’s counting? Uh, apparently no one.

  • I answered your question earlier

    There are so few dominant women active within kink because the prevailing idiologies within this culture repels them. For more in this… well, everything I’ve ever written is about this.

    The idea - within kinky culture - that dominant women are rare is often held up as if THAT IS JUST HOW IT IS NO REASON, NOT OUR FAULT, NOTHING WE CAN DO, PURE BIOLOGY.

    And yet no one one asks why the fuck there would *be* so damn few dominant women. The numbers thrown around of 10:1, 20:1 make so sense. (But make money for pros)

    There is very little science research and information gathering about this sort of thing. (Which isn’t surprising.) You can look at big websites and compare numbers for searches on submissive men seeking dominant women, compared with vice versa. But that’s the point. Women who get turned on by being sexually dominant are not here.

    No woman with any self respect would hang around in femdom. It is a jungle of misogyny.

    THERE ARE AS MANY DOMINANT WOMEN AS THERE ARE SUBMISSIVE MEN. Fix this and you fix *everything*

  • one out of six women are dominant? I’d say five out of six.

    That’s no less misogynist than it would be to say ‘five out of six women are submissive’.

  • Kink - or, I suppose, heterosexual kink - is so full of (mostly) men telling women what their sexualities really are. From the Elise Sutton types who keep on saying that every woman has a dominant goddess inside that a poor submissive guy can then spend his life trying to ‘unleash’, to the Goreans and thier ‘philosophy’, to the guys who like to email me *determined* that I will really get a lot out of them eating my shit. (I really wouldn’t.)

    Women are perfectly capable of figuring out what they want sexually all by themselves. Thing is, we can’t be left alone to do in case what we figure out isn’t what men want it to be.

    Oh, this doesn’t just happen in kink, does it?

  • “There are so few dominant women active within kink because the prevailing idiologies within this culture repels them. For more in this… well, everything I’ve ever written is about this.”

    I understand your “culture” to mean kink culture, but that’s exactly my pernt. I’d look instead at culture in general, in which women pose as either equal partners with men or, more commonly, the sweetly submissive wifey. What happens behind closed doors isn’t that, of course. Not talking about kink here, but about power. BJ: Your assumption that dominant females exist only in Internet and public forums skews the little info we do have. Yes, women are turned off by femdumb as portrayed by pros and mindless poseure “goddesses” but it’s just as likely they don’t even know about all these leather and heels pro-dom scenarios. [Many French-speakers don't check with the Academie to learn how to speak French: they just do.] And many people involved –I’m guessing most– involved in intimate power relationships don’t go running off to their computer to find out if they are doing it right. So to sharpen the question: Why are women [including those who neither own a computer or who have never seen starndard-issue femdom porn] so careful about revealing they are the power partner in the bedroom and in their relationships as a whole?

    Thene, please explain:

    one out of six women are dominant? I’d say five out of six. “That’s no less misogynist than it would be to say ‘five out of six women are submissive’” How can a statistic, even an estimate, be misogyist? Try this one: 3 out of 5 American black males under 25 have either been in jail or charged with a crime. Racist? More Jews than Christians are university graduates. Anti-semitic?
    An estimated 75% of Catholics in the Europe practise some form of birth control not condoned by the Church. Anti-papist? Most women I know and have known eventually become the dominant partner in their relationships with men. Why is this statement misogynist?

  • What are you talking about? Are you saying most women are sexually dominant ‘in the bedroom’? Like, they tie their guy up and hit him with stuff? How do you know this? Are you ceiling cat?

    Or are you talking about some kind of tiresome stereotype of ‘hen pecked husbands’ and ’she wears the trousers’ and other such observations of faux-power. Like Thene said earlier: For example, all the surveys tell us that in most married households women are more likely to be handling household management, and staying home with the babies if there are any; this tradition of women having domestic control, and being perceived as the guardian of the relationship/family, is far closer to submission than dominance.

    And I really hope you’re not coasting along the lines of I have teh pussy and so I make teh rules

    Fuck that shit. That’s assumes men are enslaved by their desires and that women use their sexuality to gain control over men.

    Sexual power is not the same as actual power.

    And if you don’t know why there is a difference between making vast generalisations (85% of women are sexually X) and quoting stats about minorities and demographics, I just don’t know what to say to you. (Although, I suppose some of those stats could be ones that have been generated for nefarious purposes - out of context I just don’t know.)

  • You absolutely, positively, without doubt, must own a copy of this book.

  • Wowee

    This was top of my birthday list - but my god.

  • BJ: It looks like you don’t like being crossed, which fits. You like being the boss, but in intellectual discourse you don’t get to be right by fiat. You have to earn it. And not by virtue of approval from groupies. Of course sexual power isn’t actual [entire] power, but is often a significant precursor. Here it is again in other terms: When one partner decides how the two fuck, where and what and when they will eat, where they reside, how they spend their money, that person has actual power. Dominance is not restricted to hitting someone with stuff [which at the most only happens during a relatively small period of time]. You’ve so fetishized this small part of the whole you are unable to see dominance and submission is not just about licking piss off the floor. In fact, the licker may actually be the dominant partner in the whole relationship even as he/she is committed to being the beaten sub in the erotic part of it. So direct question: Do you suspect males or females are normally or usually more dominant in long-term relationships, including in the bedroom –or don’t you have an opinion? All I know is what I’ve seen, which is that over time power devolves to the woman, and this despite a conspiratorial public display of male power: Both men and women pretend it’s true. If that’s misogynist, I’m Winston Churchill.

  • Winston, I have no idea whether more men or more women are sexually dominant. I have not done a survey.

    (Is that your question - it gets hard to tell sometimes?)

    Also, please stop insulting me. Thx.

  • I reckon I’m every bit as into people not insulting people as the next person. As hard as I tried, and I did read Les’s post many times, I couldn’t find any insult in there, Beej. Was there an insult sent privately?

    I found statements disputing your premise that women have less power than men, and giving reasons for disputing it. I read Les’s post as a presentation of why Les doesn’t agree that women don’t have real power. I thought Les stated fairly clearly that Les’sexperience has shown that women have lots of real power over men.

    I’ll give you that a few more “in my opinion”s would have presented Les’s statements more clearly as opinion than fact, but sure, I’ve seen you do that too, all the time. I think your assumption that Les was insulting you is a good example of that (unless there was an insult sent privately that wasn’t visible here?).

    I did see a few rather personal observations, which may or may not have been relevant, but I read those as presented as opinion (although I do agree that the opinion part could have been clearer).

    But I saw no insult there.

    Personally, I agree with you that in the general scheme of things, women have generally less power in life than men have, and I disagree with the validity of Les’s given reasons for women having more power.

    Best regards,

    Lubyanka.

  • LL: As hard as I tried, and I did read Les’s post many times, I couldn’t find any insult in there, Beej.

    LSM: You like being the boss, but in intellectual discourse you don’t get to be right by fiat. You have to earn it. And not by virtue of approval from groupies.

  • Les S. More
    October 7th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
    BJ: It looks like you don’t like being crossed, which fits. You like being the boss, but in intellectual discourse you don’t get to be right by fiat. You have to earn it. And not by virtue of approval from groupies.

    Indeed, but the whole thing began “It looks like”, which I read as, it looks like to Les, or Les thinks it looks like.

    That was one example which I was referring to before where I felt the “in my opinion” parts could have been clearer.

    I think it’s true that in the more usual forms of verbal discourse, people don’t get to be right by fiat, unless that fiat was negotiated beforehand. I think it is normally true that being right has to be earnt (by actually being right), and that being right isn’t normally decided by the approval of “groupies”. I do think that’s a fairly accurate statement, even though it was phrased a bit personally and without as many “in my opinion”s as I’d prefer.

    Les observed, as I read it, that apparently you don’t seem to like being crossed, and apparently you do seem to like being the boss.

    Beej, do you disagree that you don’t like being crossed? Do you in fact like being the boss?

    If those questions are truly answered in the negative, then Les’s observations were simply mistaken, and the rest of the personal observations about you make no sense.

    But I don’t feel that the statements themselves were inherently insulting.

    Were they personal? Possibly.

    Were they insulting? I don’t think so.

    I’d agree that you’d be legitimately and objectively entitled to object to personal remarks being made about you as support for a position in the debate which conflicts with your own position. I don’t think the bulk of what Les was saying was personal about you, however.

    Having said that, you do often espouse a lot of personal opinions in your blog which you don’t always present as your opinion, but as unequivocal fact. A lot of your opinions are quite personal about individuals whom you don’t know, and groups of people whom you’d not met.

    I don’t always agree with all your opinions, nor all your perceptions of the facts. But I do enjoy reading your blog, and I feel there’s usually something in your posts which can sometimes be true for a lot of people. But I don’t feel that’s always the case.

    But it doesn’t matter to me whether I always agree with you or not. I enjoy reading your blog, and that’s why I read it. I think you are entitled to think what you like, as am I, as is Les.

    But I don’t think every personal observation made about you based on how you present yourself in your blog is necessarily an insult. And I disagree that in this instance, Les was actually insulting to you.

    And I hope that my take on this doesn’t feel insulting to you either. I certainly didn’t intend it to be.

    Best regards,

    Lubyanka.

  • Beej, do you disagree that you don’t like being crossed? Do you in fact like being the boss?

    Well, I write this ‘come cross me’ blog with thousands of readers - a lot of whom are smarter than me - and no comment moderation.

    As for being the boss. Ha! I couldn’t boss my way out of a paper bag on fire. Although I suppose I *do* like it. But only in a sex way. It’s too much like hard work if I’m not having an orgasm because of it.

    And - if you really want to get semantic - the ‘It looks like’ qualifier is in the previous sentence. It doesn’t qualify the later sentences.

  • And - if you really want to get semantic - the ‘It looks like’ qualifier is in the previous sentence. It doesn’t qualify the later sentences.

    As far as I was concerned, the “It looks like” had to qualify the later sentences, because nobody can legitimately inform you of what you like or dislike, except you. Without the “It looks like”, it just made no sense at all.

    If you felt bound and determined to take this personally, and really wanted to disregard the “It looks like” qualifier for the later sentences in the pargraph, you could legitimately say that Les was being disrespectful by informing you what you like, instead of offering an opinion on what you are thought to like, or posing a hypothesis on what you might like, or by simply asking you what you like.

    But being disrespectful is not the same as being insulting, in my opinion. I mean, I think there is a difference between being carelessly disrespectful, and aiming disrespect towards a person deliberately. I think the bulk of disrespect around the place is done thoughtlessly, and without intent, simply being careless of one’s own behaviour and careless of other people’s feelings.

    I did look up “insult” in the dictionary, and it says to speak to or treat with disrespect, so I suppose you could technically be right. I feel that the term “insult” has more of a “disrespect and abuse” nuance to it than a “disrespect” by itself nuance.

    I fully support the total unacceptablility of disrespect in any shape or form whatsoever, however trivial it may seem. I agree that Les was being careless and disrespectful in the way the ideas were phrased. And I support your entitlement to object and feel upset by that.

    However, if I got upset every time that happened in my life, I’d spend all my time being upset and have no time to read your blog, and that just wouldn’t do at all. :) So I’m wondering why this particular disrespect bothered you so much on this occasion?

    I’ve read what I thought was much worse aimed at you in the comments here, and you don’t always respond as you have in this case, so I’m wondering what’s different about this one?

    I am also feeling that it’s really difficult for me to be truly empathetic with you here, because I think that you yourself seem to have done the exact same thing many times in your posts. I felt the only difference was, it was never to anybody who was actually present here, commenting. Your targets are always way more remote, it seems to me.

    So, ok, I will agree that what Les said might legitimately be regarded as insulting to you. I will also stand by my position that I think it’s difficult for a person to credibly object to behaviour which they are also demonstrating.

    I feel that it doesn’t really matter to you what I think and whether I agree or not (not that this is an issue for me). So I’m wondering why it would bother you so much when somebody else is careless with their use of language and disrespects you (possibly by accident) in a way which I think you’ve done many times yourself?

    I do appreciate that my views were considered on this occasion, no matter whether you give my views any credence or not.

    I’m thinking it would be so fabulous if this exchange made you feel better. :) I sincerely hope it did? I regret if my contribution led to you feeling worse in any way.

    Best regards,

    Lubyanka.

  • Lubyanka: Are you an attorney? If so, or if not, I want to hire you. BJ: This is a wonderful blog, powered as it is by your authenticity, your passion and your attitude. With that comes a strong dose of ego. No dispute. It’s why you have fans. So can we virtual kiss and make-up [the virtual modifies only kiss]? For my part I promise to try to demonstrate the respect I feel for you, and I’ll take my cues from Lubyanka, who manages to get her point across without creating hurt. Friends?

  • Just keep calling my blog wonderful and I’m happy

  • Wow. I can see why you are so dominant one-on-one. You give me only enough to keep me wishing to please you. I ask for friendship; you offer only the advice that I keep kissing whatever body part otherwise you will not be happy. I’m beginning to understand. [Perhaps you'll write on this dynamic some time.] Meanwhile, I kiss up. Awe.

  • But you only have to kiss up if you want me to be happy. No obligation.

    Do you want me to be happy?

  • Yes…I…desperately…want…you…to…be…happy. [Amazing how easily you turned me --do you have some kind of muliebricious spray that seeps out of my computer screen?] Okay, I am so game: Just tell me what I must do for you to be happy. [What glorious shame I feel, plus liberation, euphoria, sense of peace.] I’m getting it.

  • I’d quite like a cup of tea

  • You are delightful, but so nasty. Lubyanka, help!

  • Oh wow, look what happens when I look away for a few hours!

    Les: I’m not an attorney, nowhere near it, but I am available for weddings and bar mitzvahs. :)

    *bows: “Thankyou, thankyou, I’ll be here all week”*

    Did I just fix something here? Cos if I did, I swear, it’s never done that before when I stuck my schnozz in, and I didn’t mean it, it was an accident, and I wasn’t even there, you can prove nothing, there were no witnesses.

    Les: I respectfully suggest that you make Beej a really spectacularly good cup of tea, serve it to her straight away without taking too long over the presentation, and then go away out of her sight and sound and leave her to enjoy the orgasmic bliss that is a really fine cup of tea.

    If you do it right, I suspect Beej will call you. :)

    Smiles, from

    Lubyanka.

    ps: I think it may generally be considered safe practice that, when a dominant whom one is trying to attract asks for something, that they probably mean it and it’s a good idea to oblige as well as you can, even if you think it’s silly.

    So, go do the tea. :)

    pps: How annoying that I missed all the fun, darn.

    *posts and runs*

  • One steaming oolong and oosothick coming right up. With –no jokes, please– cream. [Thank you, Lubyanka: you give the KGB a good name. But I am not trying to attract Beej. I is already spoken for. Which is good, because her royal lowness scares the piss out of me.] And to all a good night.

  • I apologise for neglecting my groupieing duties this weekend; I was busy baking, perving, perving, and perving. I do not wish to open newly-healed wounds *sob*, but I just found this wonderful post about feminine responsibility in relationships (it’s written about queers, but goes just as well for man/woman as it does for butch/femme). I’m still seeing that dynamic as more about female submission than female dominance.

    When one partner decides how the two fuck, where and what and when they will eat, where they reside, how they spend their money, that person has actual power.

    I think that depends on why they’re deciding. Wrt to both sex and income, for instance; it’s a statistical truth that the average (YMMV, especially among sex bloggers, plus we’re assuming for a moment that statistics are real and that everyone is hetero) man has both more income than, and a higher sex drive than, his female partner. In other words, the woman is a limiting factor on both spending and sexuality - she has to make the decisions because she’s the one who has less real power. Sex can’t (legally, any more, not now raping your spouse is verboten) occur unless both partners want it, so if the [average] man wants more of it, the amount and form in which he gets it is decided by the [average] woman. And deciding where and what and when they will eat? That’s just Wendying - just bullying someone into being your mother. In the situations in which I’ve experienced it (and I’d hazard, the situations in which it has most commonly existed in, hm, the last few thousand years of human history) the one who does the cooking has been disempowered, and thus could be described as submissive.

  • WOW. I am off to say Wendying right now. It’s amazing when coining the word for something makes you properly see the thing that has always been there.

    Is that a Foucault thing?

  • The OP said hir friend made the word up. I’ve never read Foucalt so I haven’t a clue about how it my connect. Sorry my pervy links broke; I fail.

  • All I can remember is something about there being no concept of homosexuality before there was a word for it. It’s not my *ahem* field, though. I could ask Pan, who’s more of a knowall, but there’s this thing where he’s in another room and stuff.

    Your perving links worked for me. I’ll check the html though - I wouldn’t want anyone to miss out.

  • Wearing a tie with a suit is something I do often and it makes such a good leash.Why don’t you buy a suit from a charity shop for you paramours and rip them of button by button or cut them of with a pair of scisors.
    Do you think a man wearing a wet suit sexy.No not the scuba diving type but perhaps a beau under a shower golden or otherwise so that it sticks to them before you make him stand in his own puddle.Speaking of own puddles why not make him wet himself in his best suit.

  • This is the first time I’ve commented on your blog but I’ve read every page of it. Just thought you should know that after reading this I bought a nice new white shirt for my man specifically so I could do what I like to him in it. Made him wear it, black trousers and my black tie. Handcuffed him to my chair, blindfolded him, tore his shirt off hin, twisted his nipples hard and scratched him, tormented him then rode him while he was chained to the chair.

    Then for good measure I let him off that and used the riding crop on him and finished all off with good old-fashioned sex.

    One of the best sexies ever, so thanks for inspiring it!

    P.S. There’s the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis which says that language determines thought. Like in 1984, if there are no words for a concept you cannot think about the concept.

Leave a Reply