ok you male subs

[Netzach]

I've been thinking about that.

My confusion is actually more about me than them. It's because I'm so darn attracted to some of them, and it confuses and makes me sort of nervous. Because I'm not a switch, and I don't feel like I want to Top or Dominate them. I don't feel like I could do that even if I wanted to. Neither do I necessarily want to be under them, in the BDSM sort of way. But the attraction is there, and it's very strong. I get just at turned on watching someone abuse a male sub as going under the flogger myself, and sometimes I don't want to help with that part but I want to be involved. My Person's solution has been for me to help her, which kinda works, but not really.

I just woke up, so I'll come back when I'm a little more awake.

Oh, so you have kind of an egalitarian "wow that's hot" response to a guy who's submissive, and love to watch men under duress, wriggling and sweating and little wiry butts clenching and hearing those muffled little grunts that escape....


how *bizarre*



I hope you get tied together with someone appropriate. Close together.

 

[snowy ciara]

But I don't want to tie them up or hurt them or anything. Not because I think it's wrong, but because it makes my stomach hurt. The other day, T was slapping a poor guy's cock around and firing rubber bands at his sac, and making him recite the NHL commissioners from the first to the last and he kept getting confused, and stopping and starting over. His reward if he made it to the end was to let him boff his boyfriend, since he's pretty much gay. It devolved into a good cop/bad cop scene, where I was playing with his boyfriend's part in a much nicer way, and when he managed to get 5 in a row right, he got some nicer play for a bit because I'd come over and play with his bits for a few minutes. Which felt great of course, but then short circuited his brain too.

So anyway, I like male subs a lot, and have asked them out occasionally on plain vanilla dates, even though I know it's sort of a futile endeavor D/s wise. Aside from helping to torment them a bit, I've found myself hanging out with them. When I was a kid, my closest buds was Kat, but we hung around with a bunch of boys from the jr hockey team. It's like, if some of my female sub friends said "lets go hang out at the mall and hit the fetish shop." and one of my male sub friends said "lets go play Guitar Hero and hang out at my house." I tend to go hang out with the boys.

See why I'm confused? I feel like I'm not making sense at all.

 

[Netzach]

But I don't want to tie them up or hurt them or anything. Not because I think it's wrong, but because it makes my stomach hurt. The other day, T was slapping a poor guys cock around and firing rubber bands at his sac, and making him recite the NHL commissioners from the first to the last and he kept getting confused, and stopping and starting over. His reward if he made it to the end was to let him boff his boyfriend, since he's pretty much gay. It devolved into a good cop/bad cop scene, where I was playing with his boyfriend's part it a much nicer way, and when he managed to get 5 in a row right, he got some nicer play for a bit because I'd come over and play with his bits for a few minutes. Which felt great of course, but then short circuited his brain too.

So anyway, I like male subs a lot, and have asked them out occasionally on plain vanilla dates, even though I know it's sort of a futile endeavor D/s wise. Aside from helping to torment them a bit, I've found myself hanging out with them. When I was a kid, my closest buds was Kat, but we hung around with a bunch of boys from the jr hockey team. It's like, if some of my female sub friends said "lets go hang out at the mall and hit the fetish shop." and one of my male sub friends said "lets go play Guitar Hero and hang out at my house." I tend to go hang out with the boys.

See why I'm confused? I feel like I'm not making sense at all.

I didn't mean you tie him up. I meant my impulse would be to tie you to the boy I was being mean to and you could whisper little endearments and cheer him on.

Egalitarian dynamics are so underrated.

 

[snowy ciara]

I would SO be into that... I wanna come play at your house some day.

 

[Homburg]

LOL, now maybe you just need to find the one with the right touch and approach to make you wanna go there.

Ahem, I'd have a tough time imagining someone like that. A real tough time. I would have flashbacks to the vasectomy, and the lack of functional anaesthesia.

Do not want.

--

Big weird secret:

not every Domme is lit on fire by CBT.

I like it for the reactions it produces, in all honesty. Reactions like YOURS. Hee hee.

But I can think of other things I'd rather do with a nice dick.
A nice one anyway.

And some of us would rather do horrid things to pussy, even.
I just happen to like the visceral reactions I get there. But I can get them out of doing really nasty stuff to the underside of the upper arm, too, and do.

I mentioned it largely in response to you comment on balls being trod on.

(And I am aware of, and fine with, the idea that I might just be providing some enjoyment at my *ahem* nervousness over the topic, and I don't particularly need to explain why, eh?)

 

[unfoundiamond]

wow...

I actually admitted I didn't understand male submissives, both from never having expirienced a male submissive and from things I had seen (life,media)...

One thing your post made me realize is I my opinions had come from men who where lazy, they wanted me to do all the work... I didn't understand that the men I have come in contact with wherent submissive, they where "takers" the kind of people that suck the life out of you, take you for all you are worth, which is diffrent than submissive, but since these guys wanted me to do everything and sit back and enjoy it...

I have taken what you wrote and have revised my outlook on this subject...

From what you wrote I got, true submissive man is will go to any length to please, which I can understand and identify with myself... making the submissive man less of a mystery...

Also, the idea of having a sexy submissive man is much diffrent than the mental picture I had of a less than desirable doormat type that I had probably from media influence (movies)

I just want to thank you for teaching me something, people don't learn from getting put down for their opinions, people learn from people like you who are willing to educate people, even though its not your job, teaching people changes opinions, which can change society...

Thanks

 

[SweetDommes]

Yeah, I pop up every once in awhile like a bad penny Mostly I lurk these days.

To the person who is against CBT because they don't want their tackle mangled ... there are PLENTY of ways to do CBT with absolutely no mangling what-so-ever. We do CBT on ghosst sometimes, and he's quite un-mangled (which is good, because if he were mangled, I'd be very, very sad - I like his tackle functioning properly).

 

[Homburg]

Yeah, I pop up every once in awhile like a bad penny Mostly I lurk these days.

To the person who is against CBT because they don't want their tackle mangled ... there are PLENTY of ways to do CBT with absolutely no mangling what-so-ever. We do CBT on ghosst sometimes, and he's quite un-mangled (which is good, because if he were mangled, I'd be very, very sad - I like his tackle functioning properly).

I understand that logically. I completely understand that it is done sans harm. I'm fine with that.

The disconnect between my logical, rational understanding that no harm is involved, and the stark, intense core self-preservation drive that is wrapped up in avoiding harm to the Boys is a bit on the large side

The core issue, aside from the fact that I'm not a submissive, is my own past. Vasectomy, no anaesthesia, felt everything including the cauterisation, whee. Note, no 'harm' done per se, doesn't mean I want to go through it again. Do. Not. Want.

And this post is not intended to argue against CBT or even to express my displeasure at the thought of it. My initial comments were in response to comeone asking abotu confusion, and talking about balls getting stepped on. I was attempting to explain my prior confusion. You'll note, hopefully, that I said that I understand male submissives FAR better having gotten to know a couple.

One in particular was just so damned much fun, so competent, so talented, and so impressive in general that he blew me away. This guy was so freakin great that I wouldn't mind having him in my service. Sexual orientation aside, he was just that cool a person. By his lonesome, he personalised male submission, and dispelled whatever confusion I might have had about the sort of guy that is submissive to that extent.

 

[Netzach]

I understand and empathize. My Bull who has more history on the bottom with me and will again, I'm sure, is very CBT averse - he's a jock and for him, there's no way to do trauma of any kind to the equipment without the profoundly UN erotic association with being hit there in that other context. I respect that.

My dear husband, the reticent control freak submissive kitty, can't get enough though. I have stood on 'em barefoot and frankly, while concerned, he walked me through it in a totally non-injurious way (I wasn't throwing my full weight on 'em, mind you) and I discovered that while scared stupid I was gonna mangle something, I was hugely hugely turned on.

As for H, he can't take more than a few clothespins and he's a pussy about dick. So I use a lot of clothespins and make him cry, I'm so glad something does, because caning sure doesn't.

 

[Homburg]

I understand and empathize. My Bull who has more history on the bottom with me and will again, I'm sure, is very CBT averse - he's a jock and for him, there's no way to do trauma of any kind to the equipment without the profoundly UN erotic association with being hit there in that other context. I respect that.

*nod* In my case, the incident in question produced fierce boiling rage held in check by my logical mind positively screaming internally "HE HAS A KNIFE ON THE BALLS. DO NOT FUCK WITH HIM." Yeah, it would not have erotic connotations for me.

 

[Netzach]

*nod* In my case, the incident in question produced fierce boiling rage held in check by my logical mind positively screaming internally "HE HAS A KNIFE ON THE BALLS. DO NOT FUCK WITH HIM." Yeah, it would not have erotic connotations for me.

M had a rather miserable vasectomy and still loves it. So yeah, he's fucking weird and I don't entirely get that. I revise my remarks from above - I get male submissives I just don't entirely understand mine at all!

 

[snowy ciara]

And this post is not intended to argue against CBT or even to express my displeasure at the thought of it. My initial comments were in response to comeone asking abotu confusion, and talking about balls getting stepped on. I was attempting to explain my prior confusion. You'll note, hopefully, that I said that I understand male submissives FAR better having gotten to know a couple.

One in particular was just so damned much fun, so competent, so talented, and so impressive in general that he blew me away. This guy was so freakin great that I wouldn't mind having him in my service. Sexual orientation aside, he was just that cool a person. By his lonesome, he personalised male submission, and dispelled whatever confusion I might have had about the sort of guy that is submissive to that extent.

Yup!

They still baffle me in some ways, but I've gotten to know a very sweet and awesome male sub very well. So while I don't understand what makes them tick, I'm a lot more comfortable around male subs in general. A year or so ago, I wouldn't have been hanging out with them as much as I am now. If I was a Domme, I'd want one like him.

 

[Homburg]

M had a rather miserable vasectomy and still loves it. So yeah, he's fucking weird and I don't entirely get that. I revise my remarks from above - I get male submissives I just don't entirely understand mine at all!

I would assume that he was used to CBT before the Big Snip, right? Not that I fantasised about the topic prior, but there's just no way I would try it now.

And, frankly, the submissives I know have that whole acceptance thing down a whole lot better than I do.

 

[Netzach]

I would assume that he was used to CBT before the Big Snip, right? Not that I fantasised about the topic prior, but there's just no way I would try it now.

And, frankly, the submissives I know have that whole acceptance thing down a whole lot better than I do.

It was part of his regular uh...self stim program from a very young age. "Let's see what I can hang off my nuts and shove up my ass" seems to be coded into the wiring.

Not I said the fox, but it's really interesting to be with someone like this.

 

[DeservingBitch]

I've always been somewhat surprised to hear that some people are 'confused' by male submission/masochism. Mostly I think because what I have a harder time understanding -- from my own perspective obviously -- is M/f. As in, to me, as a woman, the idea of submitting to a man is way too close to reality for my brain to be able to eroticize it. I can bottom for a woman/butch/boi, maybe even submit to one. I can top both gender. But for the life of me, I can't make bottoming/submitting to a man a fun thing. And I guess that to me, BDSM has always been about transgression, subversion, disturbance of socially accepted norms and ideas of sexuality/gender. But I don't know how to fit M/f in that framework -- other than by making the argument that this whole consent thing fucks with the system. Thoughts?

But I digress from the point I wanted to make. Which is that according to this guy that I just started reading, "masochism was invented as male masochism" (John K. Noyes, "The Mastery of Submission: Inventions of Masochism", Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1997).

I just started reading the intro to the book, so really, I can't say much about it (nor can I tell yet if I think his argument makes sense or if he's full of shit). But I just thought I would throw it out there for discussion purpose.

 

[Netzach]

I've always been somewhat surprised to hear that some people are 'confused' by male submission/masochism. Mostly I think because what I have a harder time understanding -- from my own perspective obviously -- is M/f. As in, to me, as a woman, the idea of submitting to a man is way too close to reality for my brain to be able to eroticize it. I can bottom for a woman/butch/boi, maybe even submit to one. I can top both gender. But for the life of me, I can't make bottoming/submitting to a man a fun thing. And I guess that to me, BDSM has always been about transgression, subversion, disturbance of socially accepted norms and ideas of sexuality/gender. But I don't know how to fit M/f in that framework -- other than by making the argument that this whole consent thing fucks with the system. Thoughts?

But I digress from the point I wanted to make. Which is that according to this guy that I just started reading, "masochism was invented as male masochism" (John K. Noyes, "The Mastery of Submission: Inventions of Masochism", Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1997).

I just started reading the intro to the book, so really, I can't say much about it (nor can I tell yet if I think his argument makes sense or if he's full of shit). But I just thought I would throw it out there for discussion purpose.

That sounds like something I'd love to read. I'm assuming it's going to hone in on Sacher Masoch. I do think that the *inversion* of sex roles going on at that time and place HAD to be 9/10ths of the whole point, I know that's still very clear reading his work.

I don't "not get" M/f - I can see that yes, women can be submissive to men and actually eroticize what to me just looks kind of like the way of the world I try to avoid and am weary of...I get that it makes them madly turned on, in the way that I understand there are people who love pimento - and I am not one. Get out the green olives so stuffed and I'm cranky that I *don't* like it at times.

M/f along regular lines as an abstraction doesn't do a lot for me. In relation to one particular person it does, but he's kind of a Jean Genet megabutch bi fag, so I can't say I've gone completely mainstream with that.

 

[DeservingBitch]

I don't "not get" M/f - I can see that yes, women can be submissive to men and actually eroticize what to me just looks kind of like the way of the world I try to avoid and am weary of...I get that it makes them madly turned on, in the way that I understand there are people who love pimento - and I am not one. Get out the green olives so stuffed and I'm cranky that I *don't* like it at times.

Yes, that's what I was trying to express. I do 'get' that women can be submissive to men and get really wet by it (to put it in a very simplistist way). But when I try to 'theorize' it like I would other forms or dynamics of BDSM, i start going in crazy circles in my head. Maybe I should be reading some theory on female submission rather than reading this dude I'm reading right now.

Oh and yes, he is starting from Sacher Masoch.

M/f along regular lines as an abstraction doesn't do a lot for me. In relation to one particular person it does, but he's kind of a Jean Genet megabutch bi fag, so I can't say I've gone completely mainstream with that.

Haha. Indeed, I can't say it sounds mainstream.

 

[Homburg]

I've always been somewhat surprised to hear that some people are 'confused' by male submission/masochism. Mostly I think because what I have a harder time understanding -- from my own perspective obviously -- is M/f. As in, to me, as a woman, the idea of submitting to a man is way too close to reality for my brain to be able to eroticize it. I can bottom for a woman/butch/boi, maybe even submit to one. I can top both gender. But for the life of me, I can't make bottoming/submitting to a man a fun thing.

*shrug* I don't have a problem eroticising any aspect of it. I can see the hotness in M/f, F/m, M/m, and F/f (and pretty much any other flavour you want to come up with). The dynamic is what it hot, not the pink bits. I wasn't having trouble understanding why someone would find a dominant woman sexy. I was having trouble putting reality to the idea of a submissive male. The portrayals so often are bloody cartoonish. The living, breathing male submissves that I've dealt with have been normal guys that just like thier kink a given way. Probably not sexy to portray in fantasy, but a whole helluva a lot more understandable to me.

The fellow that I mentioned earlier greeted us at the door to his Mistress' home, invited us in, and I was just terribly happy with him instantly. He was perfectly masculine, yet wearing lovely patent leather pumps and black thigh highs under his slacks. The whole thing set the tone, and it was like the concept clicked for me. It was just another meaningful contradiction, and I can grok it.

And I guess that to me, BDSM has always been about transgression, subversion, disturbance of socially accepted norms and ideas of sexuality/gender. But I don't know how to fit M/f in that framework -- other than by making the argument that this whole consent thing fucks with the system. Thoughts?

But I digress from the point I wanted to make. Which is that according to this guy that I just started reading, "masochism was invented as male masochism" (John K. Noyes, "The Mastery of Submission: Inventions of Masochism", Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1997).

I just started reading the intro to the book, so really, I can't say much about it (nor can I tell yet if I think his argument makes sense or if he's full of shit). But I just thought I would throw it out there for discussion purpose.

I'm kind of meh on this. This is talking about 'modern' BDSM. The D/s dynamic has been around as long as humanity has been humanity. Yes, 'modern' BDSM owes its' roots to gender role reversal and Leather Culture, etc, but it's a core sexual drive for people regardless of orientation, role, etc. I can agree that the lifestyle has an ingrained misanthropic culture insofar as these roles are concerned, but that smacks of trying to hard IMO. It seems to me that it's at least partially symptomatic of the urge to hop up and down and scream "I'm not like you!"

I dislike with the assertion that BDSM is about sexual contrarianism. For me, it is simpler than that. Some people get a sexual thrill out of giving orders, some get a thrill out of taking them; some people like to hit, and other people like to get hit. Two great tastes that taste great together. My personal take is that the contrarianism is more to do with the culture that rose up around the practice thasn some inherent need to fuck with roles.

I say this based on my own motivations largely, though I've discussed this in a roundabout way with others. The core for me is "I like the noises she makes when I spank her," not "Wow, I'm SUCH a freak for spanking her. Wouldn't the neighbours be surprised!" Yes, I'm probably oversimplifying, but I am trying to make a point without going my usual obtuse, rambly route.

(Note: I do enjoy the whole "I am not like you!" side as well. Don't get me wrong. I had a ludicrously enjoyable conversion at the club last night with someone wearing a collar solely for fashion purposes. "Nice collar. Is it for towing, or just showing?" I let my freak out just a little bit, and enjoyed her afraid/interested reaction in a very misanthropic way.)

That said, I am mentioning my viewpoint solely because you said that you are basing your comments off of your viewpoint. I have no problems with your take on this, and am simply offering mine.

 

[Netzach]

I think M/f is oppositional in that women aren't supposed to have pleasure, real, honest, personal satisfaction in their own subjugation if you just look at garden variety sexist dynamics. I mean maybe some dull happy housewife shit, but certainly not the I wanna touch myself kind of pleasure or the I want to take on the world and be better because he inspires me to be kind.

No matter how maso or how sub a woman who considers herself part of this picture may be, there's a drive toward her OWN fulfillment which is absent from old fashioned "Yellow Wallpaper" era man Dominant world.

I also think that D/s which one can label D/s in a contemporary way, hinges on consent, even BLANKET consent - and therefore it's not really comparable to the general fact that human beings form hierarchies and have statuses. In that world out there, I don't get the status I want purely because this is my personal image of myself and my desire.

 

[Netzach]

*shrug* I don't have a problem eroticising any aspect of it. I can see the hotness in M/f, F/m, M/m, and F/f (and pretty much any other flavour you want to come up with). The dynamic is what it hot, not the pink bits. I wasn't having trouble understanding why someone would find a dominant woman sexy. I was having trouble putting reality to the idea of a submissive male. The portrayals so often are bloody cartoonish. The living, breathing male submissves that I've dealt with have been normal guys that just like thier kink a given way. Probably not sexy to portray in fantasy, but a whole helluva a lot more understandable to me.

The fellow that I mentioned earlier greeted us at the door to his Mistress' home, invited us in, and I was just terribly happy with him instantly. He was perfectly masculine, yet wearing lovely patent leather pumps and black thigh highs under his slacks. The whole thing set the tone, and it was like the concept clicked for me. It was just another meaningful contradiction, and I can grok it.



I'm kind of meh on this. This is talking about 'modern' BDSM. The D/s dynamic has been around as long as humanity has been humanity. Yes, 'modern' BDSM owes its' roots to gender role reversal and Leather Culture, etc, but it's a core sexual drive for people regardless of orientation, role, etc. I can agree that the lifestyle has an ingrained misanthropic culture insofar as these roles are concerned, but that smacks of trying to hard IMO. It seems to me that it's at least partially symptomatic of the urge to hop up and down and scream "I'm not like you!"

I dislike with the assertion that BDSM is about sexual contrarianism. For me, it is simpler than that. Some people get a sexual thrill out of giving orders, some get a thrill out of taking them; some people like to hit, and other people like to get hit. Two great tastes that taste great together. My personal take is that the contrarianism is more to do with the culture that rose up around the practice thasn some inherent need to fuck with roles.

I say this based on my own motivations largely, though I've discussed this in a roundabout way with others. The core for me is "I like the noises she makes when I spank her," not "Wow, I'm SUCH a freak for spanking her. Wouldn't the neighbours be surprised!" Yes, I'm probably oversimplifying, but I am trying to make a point without going my usual obtuse, rambly route.

(Note: I do enjoy the whole "I am not like you!" side as well. Don't get me wrong. I had a ludicrously enjoyable conversion at the club last night with someone wearing a collar solely for fashion purposes. "Nice collar. Is it for towing, or just showing?" I let my freak out just a little bit, and enjoyed her afraid/interested reaction in a very misanthropic way.)

That said, I am mentioning my viewpoint solely because you said that you are basing your comments off of your viewpoint. I have no problems with your take on this, and am simply offering mine.

There's very little media that has any hotness to the submale in hetero erotica. The meninpain folks and their offshoot sites seem to get it sort of...

Switch to gay porn and all of a sudden - submission and hotness are not exclusive. I wonder why this is - maybe there's such a gap of objectifying men in hetero porn that no one knows how to do it in a sexy way?

"Masochism was invented as male masochism" I didn't mean to deflect from that...it's an interesting concept. I do think that if you are looking at this in an historical concept you can take it to the Bible, to Campbell's hero journey, to the Saints, to all those delicious spots where suffering, power, renewal, and transformation hit, with sex never far from the margin. I mean if you go that far out of your way to decry sex, as with saints, you are going to trigger sexual imagination in some sinners sitting there looking at a statue with arrows sticking out of it, those images are going to get more and more youthful and rosy cheeked till you have a gay sexual icon.

 

[DeservingBitch]

*shrug* I don't have a problem eroticising any aspect of it. I can see the hotness in M/f, F/m, M/m, and F/f (and pretty much any other flavour you want to come up with). The dynamic is what it hot, not the pink bits.

Yes, exactly. Which is why while I have close to zero interest in fucking men, and haven't in quite a long time, i can however totally get on board with toping men. But that was also my point. While I 'get' M/f, as in, I can see that other women get totally turn on by it, and understand that it's not much different than how i get turn on, *I* cannot for the life of me eroticize this particular dynamic. And the only way that I can make sense of my inability to eroticize it is that for me, it gets too close to reality to be able to eroticize it. (Which in a way sucks, because hey, if i could eroticize it, i would have no gender/dynamic restrictions left regarding who i play with.)

It seems to me that it's at least partially symptomatic of the urge to hop up and down and scream "I'm not like you!"
...
I dislike with the assertion that BDSM is about sexual contrarianism.

This is not really what i was trying to say with my comment on BDSM as subversive, transgressive, or whatnot. To me 'contrarianism' is basically reproducing the same dynamic/logic/system, only by reversing it. Whereas 'subverting' it is more about fucking up with that dynamic/logic/system. Like, using something 'bad', and making it something 'good' (it's more complicated than that yes, but you get the point).
Which is why i made that comment about consent when talking about M/f. Sure, dominant male and submissive female kinda sounds like how the larger society is organized generally speaking -- HOWEVER, in M/f, there's consent to it (which is absent from sexism for instance), AND people engaging in it get wet/hard from it (also generally absent from gender exploitation/oppression, at least for the exploited/oppressed). So... while sexism (or more broadly gender oppression) is a socio-political form of control and exploitation, M/f kinda fuck with it by using a similar 'script' if you will, but for the purpose of happiness, pleasure, erotica, or more directly speaking, hot, wet, and messy sex.

 

[DeservingBitch]

I think M/f is oppositional in that women aren't supposed to have pleasure, real, honest, personal satisfaction in their own subjugation if you just look at garden variety sexist dynamics. I mean maybe some dull happy housewife shit, but certainly not the I wanna touch myself kind of pleasure or the I want to take on the world and be better because he inspires me to be kind.

No matter how maso or how sub a woman who considers herself part of this picture may be, there's a drive toward her OWN fulfillment which is absent from old fashioned "Yellow Wallpaper" era man Dominant world.

I also think that D/s which one can label D/s in a contemporary way, hinges on consent, even BLANKET consent - and therefore it's not really comparable to the general fact that human beings form hierarchies and have statuses. In that world out there, I don't get the status I want purely because this is my personal image of myself and my desire.

Haha! simul-post again.

 

[DeservingBitch]

"Masochism was invented as male masochism" I didn't mean to deflect from that...it's an interesting concept. I do think that if you are looking at this in an historical concept you can take it to the Bible, to Campbell's hero journey, to the Saints, to all those delicious spots where suffering, power, renewal, and transformation hit, with sex never far from the margin. I mean if you go that far out of your way to decry sex, as with saints, you are going to trigger sexual imagination in some sinners sitting there looking at a statue with arrows sticking out of it, those images are going to get more and more youthful and rosy cheeked till you have a gay sexual icon.

Well, here is the core of his argument, as he puts it himself (he's drawing heavily on Foucault's "History of Sexuality" i believe):

"I argue that masochhism was invented and that its invention was a response to a specific technical problem. The problem concerned how to deal with individuals in whom the economy of reward and punishment, upon which society was thought to be based, broke down and failed. This was coupled to a theoretical problem -- the conceptualization of intersubjective and gender relations in a world that was increasingly obsessed with the correct and incorrect uses of agression. The solution was a mode of conceptualization and a technology that allowed incorrect aggressivity to be identified and circumscribed within the body and dealt with according to a definite set of rules.

The masochist's body was invented in the late nineteenth century as a machine that could do one of two things, depending upon how it was regarded, how it was used, or where it was positioned. It could reduce socially nonproductive aggressivity to an individual pathology, or it could transform social control into sexual pleasure. The one use of the masochist's body support the project of socially sanctioned aggression and the various stereotypes society has developed in order to invest cultural identity with aggressivity. The other use of the masochist's body subverts this project, initiating an unsettling process whereby cultural identity is parodied, masqueraded, and appropriated in the name of pleasure. These two initiate all conflicts surrounding masochism as we understand it today (John K. Noyes, 1997: 9-10)".

Sorry for typos, I'm transcribing from the book.

 

[DeservingBitch]

Following from there:

"... Within this network of bodily spaces and mediating machines, masochism is not the love of submissiveness. It is not the pursuit of unpleasure or humiliation. It is a complex set of strategies for transforming submissiveness, pain, and unpleasure into sexual pleasure. But over and above this, it is the appropriation of the technologies that our culture uses in order to perpetuate submissiveness, an appropriation that plays a subtle game with the machinery of domination. As such, masochism is the eroticism of the machine, or in Seltzer's words, 'an erotics of discipline'. By raising this eroticism to an aesthetic principle, the subject has found a way to contemplate its eccentric position within the regime of machines. Masochism functions as the eroticism of human disappearance within a technology of bodily control (Noyes, 1997: 11-12)

Still not clear on why he argues that masochism was invented as male masochism though...

 

[Homburg]

There's very little media that has any hotness to the submale in hetero erotica. The meninpain folks and their offshoot sites seem to get it sort of...

Switch to gay porn and all of a sudden - submission and hotness are not exclusive. I wonder why this is - maybe there's such a gap of objectifying men in hetero porn that no one knows how to do it in a sexy way?

Makes sense. You'd think there would be more though. You do see a tolerable number of strong female portrayals. Not everywhere, but they're there (even if the model in question is rarely Dominant). Rarely have I seen F/m portrayed.

I would probably think that it is a demographics thing. The vast majority of porn consumers are men in theory, and while the old BDSM saw says that only 1 in 10 is Dominant, those non-Dom males have had the ur-Male ideal beaten into them, and thus would not likely be capable of getting into submale porn even if it might suit them.

--

Yes, exactly. Which is why while I have close to zero interest in fucking men, and haven't in quite a long time, i can however totally get on board with toping men. But that was also my point. While I 'get' M/f, as in, I can see that other women get totally turn on by it, and understand that it's not much different than how i get turn on, *I* cannot for the life of me eroticize this particular dynamic. And the only way that I can make sense of my inability to eroticize it is that for me, it gets too close to reality to be able to eroticize it. (Which in a way sucks, because hey, if i could eroticize it, i would have no gender/dynamic restrictions left regarding who i play with.)

I can dig it. I'm probably weird in that I can eroticise M/m, or weird in being willing to admit to it. I'm even talking to one of the submales I know about doing some ropework on him. Meat is meat, and I want different body shapes to work my kinbaku on. A guy is as different as I can get, so why not?

Is there going to be sexual contact or activity? Nope, not at all. The overall act is inescapably erotic though. *shrug* I don't care. Hell, if he's comfortable enough, I'll take pics and post them in my thread. Like I said, meat is meat.

This is not really what i was trying to say with my comment on BDSM as subversive, transgressive, or whatnot. To me 'contrarianism' is basically reproducing the same dynamic/logic/system, only by reversing it. Whereas 'subverting' it is more about fucking up with that dynamic/logic/system. Like, using something 'bad', and making it something 'good' (it's more complicated than that yes, but you get the point).
Which is why i made that comment about consent when talking about M/f. Sure, dominant male and submissive female kinda sounds like how the larger society is organized generally speaking -- HOWEVER, in M/f, there's consent to it (which is absent from sexism for instance), AND people engaging in it get wet/hard from it (also generally absent from gender exploitation/oppression, at least for the exploited/oppressed). So... while sexism (or more broadly gender oppression) is a socio-political form of control and exploitation, M/f kinda fuck with it by using a similar 'script' if you will, but for the purpose of happiness, pleasure, erotica, or more directly speaking, hot, wet, and messy sex.

I get what you are saying now. When I used the word "contrarianism" I was kicking myself because it didn't quite fit. I couldn't quite land on the term I wanted for what I was trying to express.