Tag Archives: BDSM

They Do it for You 

I’ve had a lot of thoughts lately. A lot of these thoughts were prompted partially by a couple of male commenters on my articles Rough & Soft and my latest post You Give Yourself Away Too Easily. The focus of the comments and thoughts are about issues such as emotional abuse and assholish behavior from men. I think something that is often overlooked is that most men are acting this way because they don’t believe that women will like them otherwise. Even among the manosphere and MRA types (you know those hotshots, the ones who don’t “worship p****” and are just men doing their own thing and going their own way and being “real men” who don’t need the approval of women) the teachings of “game” are still primarily centered on altering their behavior to do whatever they think will win over the woman and allow them to have sex with her. In the end, they’re still doing it all for women. So, if this is true, then it must also be correspondingly true that modern women are basically saying to men “hey, if you just become a narcissistic, abusive, selfish, manipulative bastard who treats me like complete shit- I’ll reward you with sex!” Couple this with a “hook-up culture” and numerous problems ensue as a result. As I said a long time ago: “But by the circumstances under which we give sex to our men, we teach them how they are to treat us.”

If we look at the popularity of BDSM and the like in our society there must be a great deal of truth to this. I’ve noticed something a lot when I watch older movies. The men act differently than they do today in our culture of extended adolescence. They naturally have more of an aura of confidence and masculinity about them. There is something more naturally attractive to them. While they might still display some cocky or asshole behavior at times to an extent, they don’t actually have to be assholes to attract women. Fast forward to the modern age and everything is completely backwards. Women are displacing men in traditional male fields, out-earning men, competing with men, graduating in greater numbers from college than men and displacing men also in positions of authority both inside and outside of the home. A lot of men even answer to women and have female bosses in authority over them. Modern-day “gender equality” has completely turned male-female relationships upside down (even to the extent that many are confused about which gender they even belong to these days.) Therefore perhaps the only route available for men is to become sadistic and act like jerks. Then women respond by being, supposedly, attracted to it.

The reality of life is that women don’t really take an interest in men who they perceive to be of lesser status than them and in modern-day society it is probably a lot easier for the man to just degrade the woman’s status than it would be to upgrade his own. This is probably the most true among younger men in their teenage years and early twenties, but isn’t limited to that age group by any means. On my last post The Sinner Saint Diary commented:

“A lot of behaviors like this can be seen in young men – things that are hurtful – probably way more so than the young man realizes. Most of the same behaviors can be seen in grown men who are narcissists or who posses some kind of “emotionally abusive” personality.

Young men who want much physical interaction with girls – like I did and many do – must learn methods of persuasion – most of which are psychological. Most of the factors that endure an adult woman to adult man, aren’t in play yet – boys don’t posses them and girls aren’t compelled by them.

Learning how to score affection from girls, good or bad, is so embedded into the cultural and natural conditions of adolescence, that boys acquire a lot of manipulative behavior without realizing it – or, without recognizing it as abuse. There are probably numerous behaviors that are essentially involuntary, that young men have adopted in order to increase his chances of physical engagement. And, to be fair, there are a lot of tactics young men will use to score girls that are very deliberate, but their sex drive far outweighs the empathy they feel – which is probably little to none.

Whatever hurtful, insensitive and callous behaviors a young man engages in before the maturity of his emotions catches up to his hormones, hopefully he will grow out of them. I know I am ashamed of some of the ways I behaved when I was young, and would have behaved much differently had I possessed even a fraction of the emotional awareness and empathy that I eventually learned as I matured.”

I’ve also seen a lot of men talking about how women supposedly “punish” them for being their true selves. In other words, they would like to be good to women, but supposedly women don’t like them when they are (or, women don’t want to have casual sex with them when they are anyways). This makes a lot of sense when you consider that the majority of modern day women are independent. Women naturally want dominant men but since they do everything for themselves these days they instead turn to unhealthy habits such as Sadomasochism and go chasing after assholes, supposedly because they’re the only ones superior to them that might actually “put them in their place.” Of course, none of these relationships last and it leaves both sexes broken down internally and dissatisfied and distrustful of each other. Even still, among those attempting to be “players” and adopting whatever behavior they think might actually get them laid, you can still hear the men complaining that they can’t find “quality women” who would love them for who they are, much the same as you see how women complain about men who are jerks and won’t commit and how there aren’t any “good men” out there.

Are we not our own worst enemies? Do we not bring these problems onto ourselves by rejecting the natural order of life? We fail to cultivate healthy masculinity and healthy femininity and have any sexual regulation in our society so instead we engage in unhealthy behaviors and have constant failed relationships. In this Women’s Health article, A Former A**hole Answers for His Bad Behavior, a man talks about how he learned at a young age that just ceasing to give a damn and play “hard to get” led to his “success” with women (“success” being defined as short-term flings basically). He learned it when he realized that not caring anymore landed him his crush (she finally noticed he existed when he stopped caring). Yet he goes on to say it didn’t last and also that being a complete apathetic a**hole only led him to have success in the short-term with women who soon lost interest when he started being himself and, while he did sleep with a lot of women without commitment, he never formed any kind of lasting relationship and learned in the end that “anybody that doesn’t want you when you’re acting like your true self is not somebody you need to waste your time or affection on.” He now laments that Karma isn’t quite done with him yet and that maybe if he wasn’t such an asshole he might have been married or had kids by now.

Of course, aloofness is best in the beginning for men to attract women (while women “playing nice” is generally fine) but it won’t last long-term. In keeping with my last post, it takes time for true love to develop and rushing into things does lead to these failed relationships and leads to women getting hurt and used by men and men never getting to be their “true selves” and probably ending up alone in the end as well. Infatuation and burning desire are things that come and go, and are sometimes short-lived, you cannot base a real relationship off of such fleeting things and not only is it psychologically devastating for women for men to keep playing games but also it must be exhausting for a man if he must play games and hide his true self just to keep her interested. As I stated in my last post, when you truly love someone, you love them for themselves and that’s the only thing that “works” in the long run.

CDD, You’ve Got it Wrong

Well, I’ve been involved in some interesting stuff here lately. I have been researching some social movements such as the christian patriarchy movement, stay at home daughters movement and the ever popular domestic discipline movement (sometimes part of the christian patriarchy movement). It’s good to at least see the culture moving towards patriarchy but i’m still seeing a lot of problems. First, some of these groups tend to be tinged with sexually explicit BDSM aspects. On some of my research adventures I’ve quite frankly felt a sudden urge to tighten up my anti-virus protection and have been really disturbed by a lot of things.

There does seem to be a lot of women out there really truly wanting to submit to their husbands and have happy homes. But the one thing I’ve seen that they are missing is that they still seem to be feminist in many aspects. For instance, I’ve gotten myself involved in a couple of conversations and following quite a few others. I’ve also been searching through blogs and websites and the one thing that I’ve noticed is that they are still feminist in the aspect of women working and nobody seems to want to talk about a husband’s responsibilities except for where keeping his wife “in line” is concerned. They promise to obey their husbands and then they march right off to work.

I responded to a posting in a group (a Christian domestic discipline group) I joined up with a week ago where a woman was talking about how her husband was disciplining her and how she can submit to him better and she was asking advice at what the other ladies and their husbands do. Then she went on to say about how she just lost her job and she was really stressed. I’ve seen this kind of conversation before and these ladies then go on to talk about how their husbands command them to do this or that before they head off to work and their husband’s discipline helps them relieve the stress they deal with at work and they will talk about having Bible studies and everything as well. I mean, something is seriously wrong here. I mean, you want your husband to spank the stress out of you that you acquired through sharing in his responsibilities? I’d rather be a feminist than deal with that! At least I could “go my own way.” I pointed out that it wasn’t her responsibility to go to work but her husband’s and his role as head of household is so that he can provide for her and their children better. So what did they say? Nothing. In fact, the group is acting like I don’t exist at all. The conversation kept on going and is still going and nobody has made mention or even cared about anything at all that I said. Some of them even wished her luck in finding a new job. But doesn’t their own Bible say it is for the man to work “by the sweat of his brow” to provide for his family and that the woman’s husband is to rule over her even though she will try to rule over him? They acknowledge the husband ruling over her part but make no mention about the man’s work to provide. Some also seem to think it’s perfectly acceptable for a boss or boyfriend to discipline a woman when only a husband (or father when she’s young) should have such a right.

Unfortunately I see these movements as some kind of game. They set out the “rules” of the game, they have names and abbreviations such as “HoH” (head of household) and things like that. They are still, however, part of the modern mainstream culture and what ultimately separates them from their BDSM loving secular egalitarian counterparts? The Bible studies where they ignore scripture and redefine it to what modern society says is right and wrong? These movements might tie in well with movements such as the men’s rights movement that wants men put in charge but still keeping the feminist ideals of women going out and holding employment regardless of their marital status.

Now I’m not going to argue about the whole men disciplining their wives thing. In truth, when it comes down to it, no authority is a real authority unless 1) it can enforce its rule with the approval of society and the law or 2) it has the power to discipline those under its rule. Everyone is disciplined by someone whether physical or not when they break a rule or law. I don’t believe that a man has any rightful authority unless he has unquestionable responsibility. I’ve seen some complain about women pressing charges for things like “marital rape” on their husbands. My thoughts? I don’t think it’s right but if men want to “go their own way” and leave women to fend for themselves then what do they expect? You can’t force yourself upon a woman and force her to bear your children when she can be forced to carry half the burden of the economic costs and you can abandon her any time you want to. You can’t put a woman “in her place” then tell her to go to work so you can sit back and and not have to worry so much. I’ve seen some women say they work full-time and then come home and cook dinner and get a beer for their husband so he can relax and watch TV! That’s insanity. That’s called exploitation. That’s called taking advantage of someone for your own benefit and to their detriment.

I think allowing men to use a little force to restrain their wives or even discipline when necessary might be appropriate and would give men both the power to protect themselves and as well protect their wives from her own foolishness and keep peace in the home. But it’s not a carte blanche to abuse a woman nor for him to push his burdens on her back so he doesn’t have as much to worry about.

Keep Your Feminism out of My Romance

Disclaimer: This posting contains some sexual elements not intended for a young audience or those easily offended. If that is you, please leave.

“You know, you can learn a lot about women just by looking at what they read. If for women to be into sex with their husbands they need lots of housework-help, deep communication, crock-pot simmering, and tender, gentle butterfly kisses, then why are the covers of romance novels colloquially known as “bodice rippers”? Don’t women hate the idea of being submissive and under a man’s power and control?” (1)

Ok. I admit it. Sometimes modern life is just too much for me. Sometimes, in between dishes, sweeping, mopping, school runs, cooking and studying various languages, dancing and playing various musical instruments, a girl just needs a break. The time honored escape is, of course, a good old-fashioned romance novel (my secret shame). I look to the historical section. Oh, to escape into a world where men were men and women were women! To escape into a world where men where chivalrous, women stayed home and did housework and things were simple. A time when men where actually in charge of things and protected and supported women! But, as the months have gone by since my first venture into the historical section, something has become painfully obvious. Romance has gone PC.

A girl will be hard pressed to find anything these days written after about 1990 that has anything truly historical in it. As with every other area of life, feminists insist that they speak for “all women” and women’s fantasies of submissive heroines and manly he-men have to be censored. Instead of anything truly old-fashioned we instead get this:

“Bodice-rippers and their contemporary counterparts were popular during the 1970s, occupying the same cultural space as the feminist movement but seeming to represent its polar opposite. As feminists were fighting patriarchy, romance novels were propping it up. Despite a major shift in the genre in the late 1980s and early 1990s that saw the near-disappearance of rape and the emergence of much stronger, more modern heroines, the idea remains that feminists and romance readers exist on opposite ends of the spectrum. This is not the case.

Dr. Jackie C. Horne, a writer, independent scholar, and author of the site Romance Novels for Feminists, says that the women who now write romance novels grew up enjoying the benefits of the feminist movement. These authors, Horne says, “take feminist ideas that were once novel, provocative, on the very edge of inconceivable for granted, as givens.” In Alice Clayton’s Wallbanger and Lauren Dane’s Lush, both heroines are adamant that their careers not suffer in order to make a relationship work. They negotiate long-term committed relationships with men who treat them as equals. And, as is par for the course in most romance novels, these women seek out sexual pleasure and they enjoy sex. These are not the romances of the 1970s.” (2)

How romantic! A lot of the old novels from the un-PC days of romance are still around. However, a girl would be hard pressed in these times to find that they have not been edited to be PC. Almost every single one of them that you will find for, say, your Kindle device has been edited. If you want old-fashioned don’t buy the new versions whatever you do. Maybe this is why women are so unhappy these days. Not only has feminism caused masculine men to go extinct, feminism has also come along and censored fictional novels. They want to make sure that our very thoughts are changed in accordance to their movement.

“‘No, don’t deny it. You enjoyed it tremendously. And I think we can assume that besides riding and apologies, you also enjoyed using the crop. Correct?’

How could she answer these questions? Whitney thought frantically. She flicked a glance at Khan, longing to flee.

In a silky, dangerous voice, he warned, ‘Don’t try it.’

‘Now we are both going to share your favorite amusements: Riding, using the crop, and apologizing…'” (McNaught, “Whitney, My Love,” 1985)

So, old-fashioned romance with an over domineering hero who demands to rule the roost is not allowed. Authors have been forced to edit the un-PC scenes out. Prime example is Judith McNaught’s “Whitney, My Love” originally published in 1985. In a later version of the book she was forced to edit out the “riding crop” scene even though it took up a whole two paragraphs of the book. I also think of the classic Gone With the Wind where Rhett forcibly carries Scarlet up the stairs straight to the bedroom and rapes her one night in a drunken stupor after she’s disgraced herself (she is curiously quite happy the next morning). These elements were quite common in older romance novels. These elements of romance are extinct today, yet, somehow books like 50 Shades of Grey and thousands of other wannabes are completely acceptable. If you wish to read a book with an alpha male or dominant male hero this is about all you will find. Do an internet search for romances with “alpha” or “dominant” males and you are guaranteed to find nothing but “kink.” If if suits you you could also find spanking erotica these days as well. As far as I am to understand it it’s a genre growing quite popular. I guess the take home message is that it’s OK for a man to whip or beat a woman for the fun of it or in erotic play, but anything that actually promotes patriarchy or traditional gender roles is not allowed.

“However, since the early eighties, things have changed. From my own experiences with two separate publishers, I can summarize it like this: romance has gone politically correct, and spanking, unhappily, is romance at its most un-PC. S & M is chic; witness the success of Anne Rice’s “Beauty” series. Her spankings, however, are never far from the erotic realm; while given as “punishment” on occasion, the overtones are completely sexual. It’s always a turn-on. But a realistic disciplinary spanking given by a dominant hero to a misbehaving heroine is verboten.” (3)

Another pattern I have seen is that most historical romances written in the modern era are very sexually explicit. Most of the old-fashioned romances leave something to the imagination. I guess when you censor female fantasies of a romance with a true dominant man you have to replace it with a lot of fillers. I personally do not like sexually explicit things. I feel it is a major turn-off. It’s much better and even sexier to leave something to the imagination. I don’t like “kink.” I don’t like games. I do certainly have fantasies of male dominance, and I am most certainly not alone. Of course, feminists know this and it presents a real and true problem for them.

“This is complicated by the fact that a fair amount of women find sexually dominant men to be titillating. And almost any romance author you speak to about the genre will quickly tell you that what they write is not true life but a fantasy. The critical space between what one reads and likes and what one actually does is something that critics of the genre must remember, especially because their own policing of women’s desires is the product of the patriarchal system they are trying to criticize.”(2)

Yeah, and if it wasn’t bad enough to kill out old-fashioned masculine men, in most romance novels today the men have turned into somewhat of, well, wimps (to put it nicely).

“In Grant’s first novel, A Lady Awakened, the heroine uses the hero in order to get pregnant. She is not initially interested in emotional intimacy or love. The heroine is the one taking charge of her sexuality and her future while it is the rake who we find crying about how he feels used and eventually begging his love for a long-term commitment.”(2)

Oooh! Where can I find a mangina of a man like that? Somebody please sign me up. The other day I even read a historical romance novel set in early 1800s London where the ladies were pleased as punch to to be proposed to with the hero asking them to be equal business partners. I mean, really!? Also in most historical romance novels today you will find that both the hero and heroine are “enlightened.” They all believe in women’s rights and and illegitimacy is always acceptable, not to society of course, but to the hero and heroine who are “enlightened” and believe in the modern way.

“Obviously, there needs to be a balance: romance, as an escapist genre, does not need to (and should not) portray every brutal and disgusting historical fact. But more and more, every romance is becoming a “time-travel.” Readers are not getting personages that have even a grounding in their time periods; they’re getting twentieth-century people, dealing with twentieth century problems. In order to give it an “historical” aura, we put funny clothes on them and we don’t let them drive.”(3)

Why can’t the “women’s” movement stay out of romance? Feminism is not sexy by any means. It doesn’t fill a woman’s heart with love and joy. Women today are more unhappy than ever before and study after study shows it. At least in fiction, if not in reality, women should have a good romance to escape into that will truly take them to another time and place. A romance that spans the course of many years and much drama, not just a few short weeks and a few graphic sex scenes.

Bottom line, if you want to truly escape into an old-fashioned world with traditional gender roles, don’t read a historical romance written after about 1990.

“With respect to sex, no further argument is required to establish that at all stages of the sexual revolution feminism’s vision for heterosexual women was corrupt: first, when feminists encouraged women to engage in promiscuous sexual intercourse; and second, when some of them rejected traditional heterosexual intercourse, advocating withdrawal to the barren wasteland of masturbation, lesbianism and such so-called diversifications as sado-machosim.

That its sexual prescription could bring women to rest on the bed of de Sade and in Sir Stephen’s mansion is feminism’s recognition of the female desire for some dependence upon a powerful and dominant male. The male’s status as breadwinner within the traditional family creates an archetype of male dominance and female dependence. But feminism has rejected the benign dominance and dependence institutionalized in traditional marriage. Taking their cue from the homosexual men they so much admire, some feminists choose to retreat instead to the malign dominance of rough sex with leather and chains.” (Graglia, “Domestic Tranquility,” 261)