Hey Femdoms, do you ever worry your sub will "snap" one day?

[richard_daily]

Depends on the agility and skill of the male. Swap the knife for a gun and you've got a point - though I can't really see why it's relevant.

Do you often play with armed females?

It's not particularly relevant, but then again, neither is the concept that males are more likely to "break" and become violently aggressive during a submissive session.

More than likely, if they broke, it would be into fits of sobbing.

 

[JMohegan]

Handle yes, de-activate no. I've seen some really ugly shit happen in a public "takedown" scene by accident - the struggling woman was the one who ended up with the dislocation.

In some ways, I think of takedown scenes, simulated "rape" scenes, and any other intense and fundamentally unstructured intimate physical encounters, like contact sports. Yes, there's a risk of accidentally injury. But if I'm worried about that risk, then I really shouldn't be playing.

Which isn't the same thing as saying I believe that consent gives me the right to take stupid risks. I don't. Rather, it's that I know that I'm actually less likely to make a stupid mistake if I'm not worried about making one. Worry is a distraction from focus, and therefore seriously counterproductive if you're trying to avoid someone getting hurt.

 

[JMohegan]

It's not particularly relevant, but then again, neither is the concept that males are more likely to "break" and become violently aggressive during a submissive session.

More than likely, if they broke, it would be into fits of sobbing.

Are you a submissive male, Richard?

 

[richard_daily]

Are you a submissive male, Richard?

nope.

 

[Stella_Omega]

nope.

Ever play with one?

 

[Kitty_Schrödinger]

nope.

damn.

 

[richard_daily]

Ever play with one?

I'm "unfortunately" fairly cis-gendered, but I am friends with a lot of lesbians.

 

[richard_daily]

damn.

*blushes*

 

[Homburg]

I agree that the differences are there broadly speaking--I can geek out about gender dimorphism and secondary sex characteristics as much as the next guy--but the assumption that it's a universal constant is a bit of a pet peeve of mine. This is what happens when I am also just shy of six feet and weigh 250 (though that's admittedly on the heavy end for me, but that's what happens when you're waiting on knee surgery), and have been on the end of a few too many, "here, let me handle that for you, little lady"-s.

I would think that you, frankly, are about as much of an exception to the rule as I am. I probably couldn't beat you, but I'm pretty sure I'd do just fine against most "average" guys I see in my local scene.

And all of this is still predicated on the idea that a male bottom will "snap" and go into a Hulk-like rage and be a danger to his partner (and the examply specifically used something that is a threat to the metaphorical and literal masculinity, which I found interesting in a nerdy way).

Oh, I am certainly the exception, but not as uncommon an exception as the woman that could (and did) whip my ass. Big, strong males are not uncommon at all.

Looking at my local scene, there is a pretty broad, and to-be-expected disparity in the sizes of the male bottoms. They range from fairly tiny, to average, to tall and thin, to muscular, to my size. I have no qualms about admitting that one of the male bottoms that I am friends with could kick my ass. He's just a bad-ass, plain and simple, and older than my dad. His owner is not a small woman, but she controls his as effectively as I've ever seen human control anything, man, animal, or machine. And, honestly, I think that enhances the dynamic. This guy is just dangerous as hell, and she holds his leash down to his core.

That said, I don't buy into the idea that males are somehow going to snap. I think that the OP was asking because he or she is either skeptical, or trying to figure things out internally. I just took exception to the comment made regarding physical capacity and wanted to comment on that.

--

Bullshit...

A 5'1, 100 lb woman with a knife in her hand could stop just about any man.

There's no evidence to support a domme being afraid of her subs... This is just paranoia.

Bullshit? Really? You don't believe in mass? Kinetic energy? The laws of physics don't apply in your world?

I'm not comparing a woman with a knife to an unarmed man, and neither was the post to which I was replying to. I was comparing women to men, broadly. And I was not trying to make some point about why a domme should be afraid of her sub. I was saying that a man is more physically capable of being dangerous than a woman. Yes, you can make up scenarios that show how a woman with a black belt in hapkido would be more dangerous than a man in a wheelchair all day, but that goes outside that point that I was rather specifically replying to.

More muscle mass = more capacity for physical harm.

If you would like to explain how that reply was bullshit, I would welcome it. I just ask that you understand that I was not making some point about dommes vs enraged subs. Just woman vs man.

 

[richard_daily]

Bullshit? Really? You don't believe in mass? Kinetic energy? The laws of physics don't apply in your world?

I'm not comparing a woman with a knife to an unarmed man, and neither was the post to which I was replying to. I was comparing women to men, broadly. And I was not trying to make some point about why a domme should be afraid of her sub. I was saying that a man is more physically capable of being dangerous than a woman. Yes, you can make up scenarios that show how a woman with a black belt in hapkido would be more dangerous than a man in a wheelchair all day, but that goes outside that point that I was rather specifically replying to.

More muscle mass = more capacity for physical harm.

If you would like to explain how that reply was bullshit, I would welcome it. I just ask that you understand that I was not making some point about dommes vs enraged subs. Just woman vs man.

and "enraged subs" are all stronger than dainty little dommes, right?

Bullshit.

If you need it explained to you, you just don't get it, and never will.

 

[Kitty_Schrödinger]

*blushes*

 

[Homburg]

and "enraged subs" are all stronger than dainty little dommes, right?

Bullshit.

If you need it explained to you, you just don't get it, and never will.

For a guy with "Reading is Fundamental" linked in his sig, you seem to be misreading what I posted.

I'm gonna type it slow - I'm not making a point about dommes vs subs, of any sort. Gender differences, that's it.

 

[BiBunny]

For a guy with "Reading is Fundamental" linked in his sig, you seem to be misreading what I posted.

I'm gonna type it slow - I'm not making a point about dommes vs subs, of any sort. Gender differences, that's it.

Is "the average man is stronger than the average woman" really up for argument here? *Facepalm*

 

[richard_daily]

For a guy with "Reading is Fundamental" linked in his sig, you seem to be misreading what I posted.

I'm gonna type it slow - I'm not making a point about dommes vs subs, of any sort. Gender differences, that's it.

No, I get it loud and clear. You think that men are stronger than women, and since you're stating this in a thread about subs "snapping" on their dommes, it's pretty obvious that you feel that the "dainty" dommes should watch out for the big strong men.

 

[Homburg]

Is "the average man is stronger than the average woman" really up for argument here? *Facepalm*

I guess. I was told that it was bullshit.

--

No, I get it loud and clear. You think that men are stronger than women, and since you're stating this in a thread about subs "snapping" on their dommes, it's pretty obvious that you feel that the "dainty" dommes should watch out for the big strong men.

Wow, no, you don't get it. You apparently missed the part where I said, "That said, I don't buy into the idea that males are somehow going to snap." Or the whole bit about the male bottom what could kick my big ass yet is very effectively and completely controlled by his mistress.

And I especially like how you put "dainty" in quotes, giving the impression that I used the word. Rock on with your bad self.

 

[richard_daily]

Rock on with your bad self.

I always do.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I'm "unfortunately" fairly cis-gendered, but I am friends with a lot of lesbians.

Props for the "fairly" in your assessment of yourself

Totally off topic, but what you are is fairly hetero. Cis is the opposite of trans, referring gender identification-- not sexual preference...

 

[richard_daily]

Props for the "fairly" in your assessment of yourself

Totally off topic, but what you are is fairly hetero. Cis is the opposite of trans, referring gender identification-- not sexual preference...

I don't believe that it's the opposite of trans, but rather the role "befitting" ones' sexuality. Basically; being comfortable with the gender they were born with.

That said; I do get very rarely get envious of women's bodies... and I'm occasionally baffled by how the human race propagates itself, as I don't think men are much to look at to be perfectly honest.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I don't believe that it's the opposite of trans, but rather the role "befitting" ones' sexuality. Basically; being comfortable with the gender they were born with.

Being comfortable with the sex they were born with. Being comfortable with being a man or a woman as they were at birth.

Lesbians who are happy being female are cis women-- even the ones that strap one on. Gay men who are glad to be male are cis men-- even the ones that take it up the ass by preference. Hetero women who love their pussies are cis women. Hetero men who love their dicks are cis men.

Women who are perfectly happy being very strong hammer-swinging women are cis. Quiet shy men who shrink from loud noises but are without a doubt male-- are cis (regardless of the doubts that some men may have about them)

Trans people want to change the body they were born with, if they can. Cis people do not.

(aren't you glad you asked! )

 

[ImWrite]

See you ask this question because you can't fathom actually wanting the things a submissive actually wants, or even a bottom...

Wow, you actually know me well enough to know my motivations for the questions I ask? Impressive.

So it sounds like most Dommes don't worry about that happening in their male subs. Well that's good.

I was just curious because even though I'm a dom I can see it being enjoyable to serve food and drinks to women at a tea party, mostly likely while naked, and obeying their commands. I could also see though that if they went too far I'd instantly snap out of my submissive mode, put my clothes back on and be done with it. That just got me wondering if there is a snapping point to a sub where he'd turn violent against his domme. If there is it seems no one is worried about it.

 

[Netzach]

Wow, you actually know me well enough to know my motivations for the questions I ask? Impressive.

So it sounds like most Dommes don't worry about that happening in their male subs. Well that's good.

I was just curious because even though I'm a dom I can see it being enjoyable to serve food and drinks to women at a tea party, mostly likely while naked, and obeying their commands. I could also see though that if they went too far I'd instantly snap out of my submissive mode, put my clothes back on and be done with it. That just got me wondering if there is a snapping point to a sub where he'd turn violent against his domme. If there is it seems no one is worried about it.

You are in a long line of guys who are all Dominant in orientation to ask this question. A long line. So yeah, without knowing you personally, I can pretty much guarantee that this question is asked in a spirit of disbelief that there are men who really LIKE being controlled. Like, not being able to decide what "too far" means.

Then you're pretty much still a dom, aren't you? A guy who wants to be naked and be made to carry a tray, but NO this that the other and none of that is pretty much a service scene from me to him. Not a submissive, it's a fetishistic scene and I'm not the final say in it.

You're coming at it from the angle of "I'm a Dom with a kink toward CFNM and lots of female attention on making me a sexual object."

You don't magically become another msub by wanting this scene the way you describe it, your stake in it is different. There's nothing wrong with that if I want a woman to spank me, my stake in that is different than "submission."

Your motivations are going to be different from a man who wants to be out of control in his being controlled. Like, for real. Like "I will show up, get naked, don't scar me or make me eat chocolate, I'm allergic to it, my safeword is "buttons" have fun."

I have been at this rodeo for almost thirteen years. If it was a serious problem I'd have encountered it by now.

 

[Homburg]

I was just curious because even though I'm a dom I can see it being enjoyable to serve food and drinks to women at a tea party, mostly likely while naked, and obeying their commands. I could also see though that if they went too far I'd instantly snap out of my submissive mode, put my clothes back on and be done with it. That just got me wondering if there is a snapping point to a sub where he'd turn violent against his domme. If there is it seems no one is worried about it.

Dude, some people like to get naked and serve. It doesn't matter what bits they have between their legs, it's just their thing.

While I may talk about physical differences, service-oriented mindsets are service-oriented mindsets, regardless of gender or orientation.

 

[JMohegan]

Getting hot while performing a specific type of service does not make one service-oriented.

Service-oriented means you find personal fulfillment in serving according to the needs, wants, desires, or whims of someone else.

As Netzach said, this is an 'I want' vs. 'Mistress wants' thing.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Chiming in to say-- what they said. I like to bottom, but that's because I want to. Not because someone else wants me to. It doesn't make me a sub.

 

[Homburg]

Getting hot while performing a specific type of service does not make one service-oriented.

Service-oriented means you find personal fulfillment in serving according to the needs, wants, desires, or whims of someone else.

As Netzach said, this is an 'I want' vs. 'Mistress wants' thing.

I don't make that distinction in the situation mentioned. If I am at a party, and someone is serving drinks while naked, I'm going to accept the service or not, not wonder if they're doing it because "I want" vs "Mistress wants". In a casual social situation, there is no meaningful need to differentiate. Service is service.