male led relationships

[SlaveAtHeart]

Definitely an interesting thread.

I'm am all for a led relationship. Gender I do not think matters, it is the preference of those involved.

I am a submissive, subservient slave who has more than a smidge of brat thrown in for fun. After being on both sides of the whip with both sexes, I have a headspace in which I am most comfortable regardless of the sex of the person I'm with.

The taken in hand site. I've been there in the past and I was just reading it again. I, personally, do not have a problem with the things that are said on the site. The one thing I do have an issue with is that it is defining roles based simply on the reproductive organs you were born with. It the site was more generalized about who plays which role, I would be on that site all the time.

 

[Stella_Omega]

When someone says "male led relationship," I assume that the male-ness of the leader is pretty important to the concept, the sex of the led far less so.

You all know what I think about it-- but then I don't see this isue as anything different from so many other hetero assumptions that I also mis trust.

 

[Patchouli]

When someone says "male led relationship," I assume that the male-ness of the leader is pretty important to the concept, the sex of the led far less so.

in asking this question, i was actually referring to "male led relationships" as defined by taken in hand and similar sites. the gender of both parties is very important to the concept as i understand it. physical sexual characteristics are much less important than sexual identity in this, i believe, but the idea is still based around the yin/yangness of male/female relationships.

i'd like to state at this point, that i'm not advocating heterosexuality, or implying anything about the rightness or wrongness of any orientation. i'm sorry if this topic seems like it's exclusive. i guess it is, by it's very nature. but, to some degree, that's why i posted it in the first place. i was interested to hear what others had to say about something that seemed pretty controversial.

i, in no way though, meant to make anyone feel bad, or excluded, or put down. i hope it didn't come across that way. it's funny how much gets lost when you post in a forum, especially when you have a relatively new/infrequent presence, like me. i would never intentionally make someone feel bad. i speak my mind but i try to be careful and understanding. but, of course, you don't know that about me.

i'm stating this because i'm picking up a fair amount of confusion or annoyance surrounding the topic because it excludes people of orientations other than straight. unfortunately that is the nature of the topic as i've learned about it, and not something intentional on my part. like i said before, if you had a thread about female-female D/s relationships it would sort of naturally exclude heterosexuals. this is like that.

that doesn't mean that i don't want to hear what people think regardless of their orientation. i very much look forward to hearing all people's thoughts about it. if anyone has anything more to share, of course...

and lastly, for the record, i don't always understand the queer/gay/lesbian/transgendered/etc... world. because i generally identify as straight, i've remained pretty ignorant about that culture. but, i have no issue, problem, or anything. if i say something stupid, it's never because i mean to be hurtful, rarely because of prejudice (i know i have them, i'm human), and usually because of ignorance. sometimes, i'm just dumb.

 

[Stella_Omega]

You have NOT made me (for example) feel excluded or slighted in the least. My comment was more inthe nature of a "duh" because of course it's a hetero issue, for the reasons I said

No worries, and I apologise if I've led (see what I did there? ) you to think so.

 

[Patchouli]

You have NOT made me (for example) feel excluded or slighted in the least. My comment was more inthe nature of a "duh" because of course it's a hetero issue, for the reasons I said

No worries, and I apologise if I've led (see what I did there? ) you to think so.

i'm glad to hear that, i was getting a little worried

 

[dicky911]

I only have the schema for hetero here, but I've learned a lot recently due to a failing marriage and a thriving newer relationship. I've never been in a D/s relationship, but I've just come to realize that I'm a "healthy submissive." I don't want to hold the reigns in a partnership. I want to give my sweet submission with pleasure, and I want him to take it as the beautiful gift that it is and cherish it and adore me for it. That's just who I am. Don't yell at me here, please, I'm getting to a point . . . in general, I think women are more inclined to be submissive - we are called the softer sex. Biolocially we are designed to nurture, while men are designed to protect. Now, I am all for feminism as much as the next girl, but I think perhaps there's been too big a push to squash the soft, nurturing side of women in favor of something - fishing for the right word here - hard? more male? It's as if somewhere along the feminist path, it became NOT okay to be a gentle, nurturing woman. To me, that is decidedly anti-feminist. Women ARE feminine, and what's wrong with our strengths being gentle? That said, I don't ever think a non-submissive woman should be asked to be submissive. If it's not in her, it's not in her, and shouldn't be forced. I AM naturally submissive, and I LIKE who I am. But women like me MUST find the right partner, and I only recently did. I'm trying to escape my marriage to a controlling, abusive narcissist. No, that is NOT the right partner for a submissive. The right partner is one who is enough control of himself that he can easily lead the partnership. He is strong and confident and pushes his partner's boundaries in a positive way because he knows what she wants and cares deeply for her. And he would never take advantage of her submissive nature and abuse her because of it.
That's my 2 cents. Hope you followed it!

There's another point - men are designed to penetrate and want to give it - and women are designed to take it and want to take it

 

[Stella_Omega]

There's another point - men are designed to penetrate and want to give it - and women are designed to take it and want to take it

We are also designed to transcend our physical limitations-- we are designed to walk from place to place, but we are also designed to design airplanes.

And strapons.

 

[glamorous]

Now, I am all for feminism as much as the next girl, but I think perhaps there's been too big a push to squash the soft, nurturing side of women in favor of something - fishing for the right word here - hard? more male? It's as if somewhere along the feminist path, it became NOT okay to be a gentle, nurturing woman. To me, that is decidedly anti-feminist. Women ARE feminine, and what's wrong with our strengths being gentle? That said, I don't ever think a non-submissive woman should be asked to be submissive. If it's not in her, it's not in her, and shouldn't be forced. I AM naturally submissive, and I LIKE who I am.

All true except I don't think it's feminism that prompts manliness, but women who have miscomprehend it or change its ideals and goals due to their personal reasons, reasoning, etc.
For me, feminism (IMO) is about women having equal rights as men, not them being manly or, even worse, putting down men. It doesn't prohibit a woman from being feminine, quite the opposite. It's supposed to help her hold onto that feminine side by giving her equal opportunities and awareness of herself.
I don't see how feminism itself would surpress the nurturing woman. A woman who got married at 19, never went to college and is raising four kids can be a feminist as well as a woman whose first priority is her carreer rather than relationships and/or children. It's other women who will shame the woman from the first example and there's nothing "feminist" about that.

I like the idea of a male led relationship. However, I've no experience with it so I don't know if it would work for me. But I don't think being submissive means you can't be feminist, or that you're anti-feminist.

 

[HottieMama]

Feminism is about CHOICE. In other words, I do not live my life based on some preconceived notions about what a woman is "supposed" to do. If I choose to be in a "led relationship," that is my choice. I may, in fact, choose to be the leader in my relationship and that choice is valid as well. If I blindly accept someone else telling me what my choice should be that is anti-feminist in my mind.

Also, I actually know quite a few women who are not only anti-feminist but border on misogynist. I suppose that's a whole 'nother topic though...

 

[jdsgirl]

All true except I don't think it's feminism that prompts manliness, but women who have miscomprehend it or change its ideals and goals due to their personal reasons, reasoning, etc.
For me, feminism (IMO) is about women having equal rights as men, not them being manly or, even worse, putting down men. It doesn't prohibit a woman from being feminine, quite the opposite. It's supposed to help her hold onto that feminine side by giving her equal opportunities and awareness of herself.
I don't see how feminism itself would surpress the nurturing woman. A woman who got married at 19, never went to college and is raising four kids can be a feminist as well as a woman whose first priority is her carreer rather than relationships and/or children. It's other women who will shame the woman from the first example and there's nothing "feminist" about that.

I like the idea of a male led relationship. However, I've no experience with it so I don't know if it would work for me. But I don't think being submissive means you can't be feminist, or that you're anti-feminist.

Good point. I suppose I should have specified "media-driven feminism." After all, feminism is what we make it. I am a submissive feminist - I just think a majority of women who consider themselves feminists would think I am a conflist of interests - that I can't possibly be both. I say too bad! I am woman! Hear me submit!