does it anger feminists? There seem to be diverse perceptions of male-dominated romantic relationships, with many feminists seeing male romantic dominance as "oppressive" or "disempowering" or even "degrading" to women, while the women who love dominant men feel that it is ecstatic and liberating to yield in erotic surrender to a strong, dominant man.
My viewpoint:
It's not about "empowerment" or "oppression" or etc. -- all that is politics, not romance.
Male romantic dominance - whether it's BDSM or DS or DD or TIH - is all about hot, erotic, sexual, ROMANTIC love.
Females tend to be sexually submissive, in our own species, and among mammals in general. That's why "bodice ripper" romance novels are so popular with women, who get turned on by ravishment scenes where the heroine is overpowered and ravished by a strong. loving man. That's why "ravishment fantasies" continue to be a huge turn-on for many women, as the long-standing #1 sexual fantasy of the female sex. Most women are attracted to strong, dominant, sexually aggressive men, and very much turned off by weak, wussy males. This is sex as Nature intended it. It has nothing to do with politics.
What happens in the home - especially the bedroom - is not politics.
It's also true that many women like their man to be the dominant partner not only in the bedroom, but in their relationship in general. That's not quite BDSM, it's more like Domestic Discipline (DD) or Taken In Hand (TIH).
The important thing is that women are free to make their own choices. Feminists engage in the ultimate hypocrisy when they insist that they want to "free" and "empower" women to make their own choices in life -- but then they yell bloody murder when women of their own free choice choose to live in loving surrender to a strong, dominant, alpha male.
Feminist objections to the choices of sexually submissive women -- often accompanied by outright hostility and contempt towards women who love dominant men -- show that they are not really about women's free choices after all; what they are really all about is a hatred of manhood and masculinity, and male dominance.
I would be interested in hearing what people think of the following:
An intro to Taken In Hand, which focuses on male-dominated romantic marriages:
http://www.takeninhand.com/taken.in.hand.in.a.nutshell
Women want men who are more dominant:
http://www.takeninhand.com/node/291
The strong, resistant woman (who wants a man to dominate her):
http://www.takeninhand.com/node/322
On the subjection of women (in marriage):
http://www.takeninhand.com/the.subjection.of.women
My viewpoint:
It's not about "empowerment" or "oppression" or etc. -- all that is politics, not romance.
Male romantic dominance - whether it's BDSM or DS or DD or TIH - is all about hot, erotic, sexual, ROMANTIC love.
Females tend to be sexually submissive, in our own species, and among mammals in general. That's why "bodice ripper" romance novels are so popular with women, who get turned on by ravishment scenes where the heroine is overpowered and ravished by a strong. loving man. That's why "ravishment fantasies" continue to be a huge turn-on for many women, as the long-standing #1 sexual fantasy of the female sex. Most women are attracted to strong, dominant, sexually aggressive men, and very much turned off by weak, wussy males. This is sex as Nature intended it. It has nothing to do with politics.
What happens in the home - especially the bedroom - is not politics.
It's also true that many women like their man to be the dominant partner not only in the bedroom, but in their relationship in general. That's not quite BDSM, it's more like Domestic Discipline (DD) or Taken In Hand (TIH).
The important thing is that women are free to make their own choices. Feminists engage in the ultimate hypocrisy when they insist that they want to "free" and "empower" women to make their own choices in life -- but then they yell bloody murder when women of their own free choice choose to live in loving surrender to a strong, dominant, alpha male.
Feminist objections to the choices of sexually submissive women -- often accompanied by outright hostility and contempt towards women who love dominant men -- show that they are not really about women's free choices after all; what they are really all about is a hatred of manhood and masculinity, and male dominance.
I would be interested in hearing what people think of the following:
An intro to Taken In Hand, which focuses on male-dominated romantic marriages:
http://www.takeninhand.com/taken.in.hand.in.a.nutshell
Women want men who are more dominant:
http://www.takeninhand.com/node/291
The strong, resistant woman (who wants a man to dominate her):
http://www.takeninhand.com/node/322
On the subjection of women (in marriage):
http://www.takeninhand.com/the.subjection.of.women