Cuckolding is something that has never really interested me except from an intellectual standpoint. There are situations of knowing unfaithfulness that do "do it for me" but these generally aren't considered cuckolding and that strikes me a bit as odd.
Cuckolding rarely starts out at the forefront of a D/s relationship (unless it's already a well-developed fantasy of a submissive male). The premise is that a woman (often married to her sub) demotes her sub from the role of a sexual partner and takes on another sexual partner in his place. The sub is often kept in chastity and is sometimes forced to watch or take part in various aspects of the woman's intercourse with her new sexual partner. This new role degrades and humiliates the sub and allows the woman to experience a "superior" lover in bed. I'm not sure exactly why many men fantasize about this but that's a topic for another day.
The first thing that strikes me as odd about this scenario is that cuckolding really seems to be limited to a woman having sexual interactions with another man. What about sexual interactions with another woman? Is this no longer cuckolding? It is technically equally unfaithful but it usually is kinder to the sub's male ego and often plays into a greater fantasy of his without threatening his role as her primary man. In cases where this was instigated by the woman, cuckolding with another man can be devastating to the sub's psyche but cheating on him with another woman probably wouldn't bother him nearly as much.
The second thing that I find odd is that cuckolding seems to only be classified as such when it's done with a man who is of equal or neutral standing to the woman. Cuckolding with another submissive is usually just seen as "play," and in many BDSM circles this is fairly common without the emotional repercussions of it being with another dominant man or a standard vanilla man (often referred to as a bull).
This leads to the idea that Female Supremacist Dommes really can't cuckold a male sub. If she replaces him with a submissive or Dominant woman, it's no longer cuckolding. If she replaces him with a male sub, it's just play and no longer cuckolding. She can't replace him with a male of equal standing since she is a Female Supremacist and there are no males of equal or neutral standing.
This implies that there are a few criteria that must be met for a cuckolding relationship to happen:
-She must be able to consider men as equals (or something similar).
-She should be at least primarily heterosexual.
-She should be okay with shattering her sub's male ego.
It's a fairly simple list but at the same time if an unclaimed sub is seeking a cuckolding Mistress this reduces the target demographic.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
"Cutesy" things - Why and who said so?
Sometimes I don't understand why it is that certain items that women are drawn to tend to be sought because they are "cute." The things I'm referring to are things like fringe, pom poms, tassels, and the like. Just who chose these things as cute and why are many women drawn to them? I can understand jewelry but I'll never understand the $2 charm bracelet full of bouncy trinkets of varying shapes, sizes, and colors.
When you picture a powerful woman in business you get some idea of a pantsuit or a skirt and suit top and the like. When you picture formal or semi-formal evening wear you get some idea of a sleek dress, some form of exposed bust, heels, and such. Basically, when you think of what types of clothing get classified as "sexy," "sleek," "professional," "glamorous," and "beautiful," you find "cute" items noticeably absent from the mix.
If your female boss enters the room wearing a pinstripe black pencil skirt, a white blouse, silk scarf, and a black suit top you think nothing of it. That is her look. If she walked in wearing a top with fringe/tassels dangling from the sleeves and pumps with pom poms on the toes you'd probably do a triple take and have a puzzled look on your face. It just doesn't seem right. It's harder to take her seriously that way (I suppose why we have this change in reaction could also serve as a valid question).
I think that is where the problem lies. Cute is just rarely consistent with the stronger and more sexual feminine qualities and at times just seems a bit immature. If that is the case, just who chose what is cute and why are women drawn to it? Taking it as a given that it is considered cute why exactly do they fail to fit in with more aspects of life? Why are they considered feminine? Is it because they serve no functional purpose? Items like purses and bras are very functional but are also very feminine.
A pair of fluffy earmuffs are also functional but they also fall into the "cute" category. Take away the fluffy and the cuteness dissipates.
It just doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me that items that are "cute" on a 4-year old continue to be "cute" well into adulthood. One thing that does make sense to me is that "cute" generally makes up some of the more humiliating items of forced feminization. An item that is in nearly all ways masculine or unisex in style and color can be made wholly feminine with the simple addition of some cuteness. A simple black-knit beanie becomes girl's/woman's hat with the simple addition of a large fur pom pom on top. A black leather jacket becomes a girl's/woman's jacket with the addition of some fringe dangling from the sleeves or front.
I guess I'm just curious since the most humiliating times I've been dressed have usually been full of things that would have been cute on a girly girl but are flat out goofy on a man.
When you picture a powerful woman in business you get some idea of a pantsuit or a skirt and suit top and the like. When you picture formal or semi-formal evening wear you get some idea of a sleek dress, some form of exposed bust, heels, and such. Basically, when you think of what types of clothing get classified as "sexy," "sleek," "professional," "glamorous," and "beautiful," you find "cute" items noticeably absent from the mix.
If your female boss enters the room wearing a pinstripe black pencil skirt, a white blouse, silk scarf, and a black suit top you think nothing of it. That is her look. If she walked in wearing a top with fringe/tassels dangling from the sleeves and pumps with pom poms on the toes you'd probably do a triple take and have a puzzled look on your face. It just doesn't seem right. It's harder to take her seriously that way (I suppose why we have this change in reaction could also serve as a valid question).
I think that is where the problem lies. Cute is just rarely consistent with the stronger and more sexual feminine qualities and at times just seems a bit immature. If that is the case, just who chose what is cute and why are women drawn to it? Taking it as a given that it is considered cute why exactly do they fail to fit in with more aspects of life? Why are they considered feminine? Is it because they serve no functional purpose? Items like purses and bras are very functional but are also very feminine.
A pair of fluffy earmuffs are also functional but they also fall into the "cute" category. Take away the fluffy and the cuteness dissipates.
It just doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me that items that are "cute" on a 4-year old continue to be "cute" well into adulthood. One thing that does make sense to me is that "cute" generally makes up some of the more humiliating items of forced feminization. An item that is in nearly all ways masculine or unisex in style and color can be made wholly feminine with the simple addition of some cuteness. A simple black-knit beanie becomes girl's/woman's hat with the simple addition of a large fur pom pom on top. A black leather jacket becomes a girl's/woman's jacket with the addition of some fringe dangling from the sleeves or front.
I guess I'm just curious since the most humiliating times I've been dressed have usually been full of things that would have been cute on a girly girl but are flat out goofy on a man.
Forced Feminization - Flat Chest vs. False Breasts
Following the theme of my previous post I will continue on a related topic.
I've noticed that fictional fantasies pertaining to forced feminization usually has a fairly drastic split when it comes to having a sissy with a flat chest or a sissy with huge breasts. There's rarely a time when a scenario "splits the difference" and portrays a sissy with smaller breasts or loosely fit clothing that hides the chest region. They're usually either flat as a board or DD-cup.
While people probably have some fantasy they prefer it's probably linked to their deeper fantasies about sissification. Those who wish to be women probably gravitate towards artificial breasts or implants. Those who thrive more on humiliation are likely split between the particular scenario and situation involved.
Since I tend to thrive more under the humiliation aspect than others, I will break it down from that aspect.
False breasts via breast forms, stuffed bras, and the like (or even more permanent methods such as implants or hormone therapy) tend to yield great internal humiliation but the external humiliation is a bit situational. The inner humiliation stems from them being there at all, since they wouldn't be otherwise. The added girth up top gives a sissy a great deal of self-consciousness and if performed via implant or hormones, I expect they would surrender quite deeply and feel defeated. As for external humiliation, I believe this would vary depending upon how realistically passable they are. If fully dressed, breasts would likely decrease the level of external humiliation since it makes them more passable as a woman. If partially dressed in an unconvincing manner, breasts would likely increase the amount of external humiliation as it makes their appearance more flagrant. Picturing a sissy in a very tight-fitting pink t-shirt with huge breasts but with facial stubble and male pants and shoes would stand out something harsh.
On the other side of things is the flat chest. If a sissy is almost fully passable as a woman, a flat chest will likely increase external humiliation. While the internal humiliation might lessen a bit, there would likely be some added self-consciousness if he was hoping to pass as a woman and now would worry about people noticing his lack of breasts. In regards to partial dressing (or non-convincing outfits) the flat chest would again probably have slightly less internal humiliation but also increase external humiliation. Certain artists have taken this to an extreme by portraying sissies with exposed nipples nearly all the time in order to accentuate their flat chests and male stature.
Personally, I've found a bra with no breasts to increase the level of internal humiliation and self-consciousness since at that point the bra is rather pointless and used only as a means of increasing self-consciousness.
I've noticed that fictional fantasies pertaining to forced feminization usually has a fairly drastic split when it comes to having a sissy with a flat chest or a sissy with huge breasts. There's rarely a time when a scenario "splits the difference" and portrays a sissy with smaller breasts or loosely fit clothing that hides the chest region. They're usually either flat as a board or DD-cup.
While people probably have some fantasy they prefer it's probably linked to their deeper fantasies about sissification. Those who wish to be women probably gravitate towards artificial breasts or implants. Those who thrive more on humiliation are likely split between the particular scenario and situation involved.
Since I tend to thrive more under the humiliation aspect than others, I will break it down from that aspect.
False breasts via breast forms, stuffed bras, and the like (or even more permanent methods such as implants or hormone therapy) tend to yield great internal humiliation but the external humiliation is a bit situational. The inner humiliation stems from them being there at all, since they wouldn't be otherwise. The added girth up top gives a sissy a great deal of self-consciousness and if performed via implant or hormones, I expect they would surrender quite deeply and feel defeated. As for external humiliation, I believe this would vary depending upon how realistically passable they are. If fully dressed, breasts would likely decrease the level of external humiliation since it makes them more passable as a woman. If partially dressed in an unconvincing manner, breasts would likely increase the amount of external humiliation as it makes their appearance more flagrant. Picturing a sissy in a very tight-fitting pink t-shirt with huge breasts but with facial stubble and male pants and shoes would stand out something harsh.
On the other side of things is the flat chest. If a sissy is almost fully passable as a woman, a flat chest will likely increase external humiliation. While the internal humiliation might lessen a bit, there would likely be some added self-consciousness if he was hoping to pass as a woman and now would worry about people noticing his lack of breasts. In regards to partial dressing (or non-convincing outfits) the flat chest would again probably have slightly less internal humiliation but also increase external humiliation. Certain artists have taken this to an extreme by portraying sissies with exposed nipples nearly all the time in order to accentuate their flat chests and male stature.
Personally, I've found a bra with no breasts to increase the level of internal humiliation and self-consciousness since at that point the bra is rather pointless and used only as a means of increasing self-consciousness.
Sunday, August 1, 2010
Forced Feminization - Complete vs. Partial Transformations
This is a topic I have seen varying views from Dommes that implement forced feminization as a regular part of their lifestyle. Should a sissy be fully transformed and borderline passable as a woman or are they better off being kept "obviously a man" in their appearance. I know the views vary heavily on a case by case basis both by what Dommes wish to accomplish by feminizing their sub and by what subs truly desire. I'm pretty much ignoring the sub desires side of this since if they really want to be feminized it really takes away the forced nature of the fetish and it gets into scenarios where there are subs who wish to be women, wish to be gay, etc. and those can mask the reasons they state on the outset. So my topic of interest really is a Domme's view on complete vs. partial transformations.
Reasons a Domme would want their sub to be completely feminized:
-It gives a "there's no going back now" feel to the situation. Once it starts, things tend to keep moving forward. Panties can be hidden, full-on dressing is pretty blatant. When the transformation happens, he knows she's absolutely serious about it.
-Primping. He must now experience much of what women have gone through for years. Keeping their bodies shaved/waxed, putting on makeup, uncomfortable lingerie, nail care, eyebrows sculpting, and so on.
-Complete removal of masculinity. His male ego is no more.
-Improved aesthetic pleasure. The male figure lacks the grace and elegance of the feminine form. Increasing femininity makes him more pleasing to the eye.
Reasons a Domme would want their sub to be partially feminized but still obviously a male:
-If she is a Female Supremacist, a complete transformation is a bit of an insult for a man to be able to pass as a woman. If the transformation is only partial it can be used to parody years of restrictive feminine ideals towards women and turning him into a caricature of stereotypical femininity.
-A well-done complete transformation might allow him to actually pass as a female. If she wants him to be humiliated she is better off keeping him in the obviously a male stage as this will draw more attention and ridicule, especially if used in public.
-Increased emotional agitation. It's easier to try to be a man or a woman than it is to be somewhere in between. "Unisex" clothing has told us that it's okay for women to wear masculine clothing but that's a one-way street.
-He's not supposed to be pretty, so stop him short of being able to achieve that.
I'm sure if I could keep digging I could rattle off at least half a dozen more reasons but I'm not sure if that would lead to anything. Dommes vary a lot in their feelings on this subject (with many not wanting any feminization at all) and there's no chance of nailing down a consensus.
From my own personal standpoint it trickles back to that cycle I go through of humiliation, deeper subspace, increased arousal, peace in my soul, strong association, humiliation, deeper subspace, etc. that spirals me into a love/hate relationship with forced dressing. I can say that this cycle happens most strongly with the a partial transformation. The more realistically feminine it gets, the more ordinary it tends to feel and that leads to less humiliation to fuel the cycle.
Any thoughts?
Reasons a Domme would want their sub to be completely feminized:
-It gives a "there's no going back now" feel to the situation. Once it starts, things tend to keep moving forward. Panties can be hidden, full-on dressing is pretty blatant. When the transformation happens, he knows she's absolutely serious about it.
-Primping. He must now experience much of what women have gone through for years. Keeping their bodies shaved/waxed, putting on makeup, uncomfortable lingerie, nail care, eyebrows sculpting, and so on.
-Complete removal of masculinity. His male ego is no more.
-Improved aesthetic pleasure. The male figure lacks the grace and elegance of the feminine form. Increasing femininity makes him more pleasing to the eye.
Reasons a Domme would want their sub to be partially feminized but still obviously a male:
-If she is a Female Supremacist, a complete transformation is a bit of an insult for a man to be able to pass as a woman. If the transformation is only partial it can be used to parody years of restrictive feminine ideals towards women and turning him into a caricature of stereotypical femininity.
-A well-done complete transformation might allow him to actually pass as a female. If she wants him to be humiliated she is better off keeping him in the obviously a male stage as this will draw more attention and ridicule, especially if used in public.
-Increased emotional agitation. It's easier to try to be a man or a woman than it is to be somewhere in between. "Unisex" clothing has told us that it's okay for women to wear masculine clothing but that's a one-way street.
-He's not supposed to be pretty, so stop him short of being able to achieve that.
I'm sure if I could keep digging I could rattle off at least half a dozen more reasons but I'm not sure if that would lead to anything. Dommes vary a lot in their feelings on this subject (with many not wanting any feminization at all) and there's no chance of nailing down a consensus.
From my own personal standpoint it trickles back to that cycle I go through of humiliation, deeper subspace, increased arousal, peace in my soul, strong association, humiliation, deeper subspace, etc. that spirals me into a love/hate relationship with forced dressing. I can say that this cycle happens most strongly with the a partial transformation. The more realistically feminine it gets, the more ordinary it tends to feel and that leads to less humiliation to fuel the cycle.
Any thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)