Mommy Mastery
I’ve been reading about “loving female domination”. Overall, I don’t know if it’s for me – some of it yes, and some of it no.
To be fair, fetish groupings within BDSM are always broad in range, and since this is a very general expression I have to first try to describe what particular styles I am referring to, or there will be nothing but confusion.
I don’t mean the type that’s really just sexual domination or a kind of sexy role-playing limited in scope – like a mommy fetish. Or for that matter, those women who want to be “dominant and supportive” – “loving female domination” in the sense of a woman understanding the responsibilities men face in the workplace. These desire to give comfort to their men by allowing them to give up the control and responsibility of the workplace, to dominant women who will lead and guide them in the private setting of the household (though this group is in danger of falling into what I do mean very easily).
And I also don’t mean the expression in it’s broadest literal definition – that of simply female domination in a loving form. As broad as this expression is when taken literally, it’s being used now to title a more specific type.
I’m talking about a particular group that sounds more like women who don’t know how to be dominant excepting in a mommy-esque setting, cheered on by “men” with “mommy issues”. Women who seem to not fully understand men and masculinity. They think they do, but that’s because they are reverting to the “mommy mindset” they are comfortable in.
These women aren’t really responding to what it is to be male. They instead mix the feelings of control motherhood gave them, with their understanding of the submissive side of being female. The form of their domination is “mommy-ish” and their approach is that of projecting of the submissive side of femininity onto men, treating guys more like a mix of boy and girl. (And I’m not talking about male sissy baby training and crossdressing, that’s a totally different fetish.)
Since these women don’t really understand men, they try to approach them from “what women are like.” They understand why a woman would submit, what she would submit to, what her needs are, and how she would react to things. So they try to project those things onto men, because that makes sense to them. Instead of learning what men are, they just do what they would want done to them if in that position.
So firstly, it’s women who take being a mommy in real life and start treating everyone almost like the are children, because when they are in “mommy mode” they feel in control (again, I don’t mean baby fetish, I mean general attitude). This usually clashes very badly with the real world because when you deal with children you are dominant by default. When you deal with adults you are not. But it sounds great to them and others like them when they write about it (and these ones often have difficulty in the real world if they let this nonsense go to their heads).
And secondly, it’s women who don’t understand men, and can’t really dominate them, and so they try to analyze men from an angle they feel more comfortable with – how would you dominate a woman? Since they are women themselves they understand what women want, and so they approach men from that angle, writing about female domination as if it were women being dominated, not men.
Both of these styles can work, but only for limited groupings, and they are not applicable to males in general.
Both of these cases are most effective with a portion of the male sex that isn’t very masculine to begin with, one that is often riddled with “issues” and “needs“. That portion of the male submission crowd in need of a “dominatrix mommy” to coddle and further raise them.
But that doesn’t address true masculinity. It’s a form of female domination that convinces itself of its own superiority through domination of the weakest portion of the male sex. There’s no challenge there, and most men not only are not like that, but don’t want that style of control. It’s a very flawed basis for an argument supporting female superiority, because it has a fundamentally flawed view on what men truly are and want. That and it’s very easy to claim superiority over something that was already crawling around begging for someone to coddle and control it.
Strong men don’t want “mommies”, weak men do. If what you’re dominating is someone who’s already that weak and distant from masculinity, then you’re not really proving the idea of female superiority. It’s not dominating, the subject was already weak and waiting. It’s more like Default Dominance. Male submission not earned or proven but found and picked up as it already was.
Strong men are willing to submit to others. You see it all the time in the workplace and life in general, where men defer to other men who have earned their respect or command it through position.
Women are quite capable of assuming such roles too. And a truly dominant woman will challenge the best of the opposite sex and impose her will upon them. Superiority isn’t proven through facing the already inferior. It’s proven through conquering those who claim superiority themselves. And also, greater strength is developed through overcoming greater challenges.
There are plenty of weak men out there who want to be coddled and nurtured and “mommied”. But while that falls into female domination, it’s not really superiority over the opposite sex, because it’s dominance over the weakest aspect of the male sex.
It also doesn’t represent the majority of men and how they want to be treated, no matter how much these “sexy dominatrix mommies” want to apply the household rulership they are comfortable with to a far greater setting than is realistic.
True female domination and superiority, to me, is demonstrated through dominant women taking control of men who represent the expectations of masculinity. The challenge of facing the true examples of the opposite sex to impose the feminine will on them. Truly dominant personalities would even seek the strongest examples amongst the male population – these seek to overcome strong challenges not just to prove themselves, but it is through these “battles” that they themselves become stronger (one might say a true dominant personality “has nothing to prove” – and they don’t in the way you mean it. But in the way I mean it, they want to. They want the challenge and the thrill of triumph over it. It is part of being dominant for it feeds the dominant personalities’ “will to power“, much like sadism feeds a sadist).
The types of men that would submit in these cases, don’t want to be “mommied”. They wouldn’t respect that. In fact, female domination of this mommy sort would soon lead to the men seeking to turn the tables on these women, for they would see this form as being riddled with weakness. Men are like that, it’s part of masculinity. Men look for opportunities to prove themselves but also the chance to usurp the power of these above them who they feel no longer deserve their position. It’s part of the male pack mentality and is instinctual to us, or should I say, to all of us except the weakest.
I’m not saying that female domination cannot have a “loving” aspect to it.
Or that there is only one kind of truly dominant woman.
Styles of female domination range from the beautifully cruel femdom who rules with a leather gloved fist – the strong, self confident woman who blends her feminine beauty and power with pure sexual confidence and an uncompromising attitude to overwhelm men. To the sexy young tease who wraps men around her delicate fingers – the girl who knows the sexual power of a beautiful woman and how to use it to control men through firing their desires. (Both are reflections of my personal bias, and they are only two styles amongst many more approaches to female domination).
I believe that the very nature of femininity makes a loving element natural to dominant women in some way. And I think this is a critical component of what it is to be a beautiful and sexy female, and it is something of strength.
My issue is with this “mommy mastery” (my term) stuff that I see being written about. The writers and supporters often being stay at home moms and housewives who are projecting the control they have in their limited world onto far greater conditions than are fitting. Then convincing themselves of female superiority, when what they are talking about sells that possibility far short of its true potential. The want to have an “identity of worth” results in claims of “dominatrix.”
Their understanding and contact is very limited, and I don’t mean just of femdom BDSM but of people and the greater world in general. But since it’s all they know, and it works in their little worlds, they write from the only stance they understand, but seek to apply it far beyond its proper confines.
- Tomas, a sometimes male slave
Leave a Reply