The beauty of dominant women
Continuing the pole dancing theme from the previous post – here’s the kind of crowd that could make a performer a little nervous before a routine. Although, as this later image from the sequence shows, the slave they’ve dragged out to entertain them does have some moves.
This is from the English Mansion site.
Vice has an interesting article posted entitled ‘I Cross-Dress. Do You Still Love Me?’: The Secret Lives of Sissies. It’s a pretty sympathetic piece, featuring interviews and photographs of men at a San Francisco play party arranged by Mistress Alice.
The kink itself is a complicated one. Although it’s not a kink I indulge in, I can understand both the appeal of it and also why it annoys some people. What comes through from the article is the complexity and variety of the reasons behind it. Some people get off on a forced humiliation aspect. Some want to be as passable and attractive as possible. Others just like women’s clothing and the chance to wear it. Of course the same could be said for other kinks. People enjoy things like bondage or impact play for lots of different reasons. The difference is that the nobody gets annoyed about people getting tied up, where the sexual and gender politics of cross dressing does tend to raise hackles, which in turn makes it more interesting to look at the underlying motivations.
I’m afraid I don’t know the artist of this particular piece.
Forced feminization is always a fairly controversial topic. Some people find the idea insulting to women and refuse to do scenes involving it. Sue Stenhouse, an ex-city official from Rhode Island, is clearly not one of these people. She thought it’d be a great idea to make a male bus driver dress up as an elderly lady and sit behind her at a press conference.
As stories go, it’s a pretty spectacular one. I particularly like the part where the bus driver had to drop by the local beauty salon in order to borrow a wig. If Sue had asked around, I’m sure she could have found plenty of guys willing to give it a shot and with a full collection of outfits already. After all, it does combine the two hot button topics of forced feminization and public humiliation. Alternatively, and this is just a crazy thought, maybe she could have got a genuine elderly lady to sit behind her for the press conference?
The above image is the kind of sleazy porn art from the 60’s and 70’s that I love. I found this on the Femdomology Site.
Here’s another common femdom theme that I don’t cover too often – ‘forced’ feminization. I personally like the idea of transformation and playing with gender roles, but I’m less keen on frills, prancing and humiliation. However, this guy is rocking that French maid outfit. It actually looks really good on him. It’s helped by the appropriate old school mansion setting and the haughty and elegant lady of the house. She doesn’t look like she’d stand for any prancing or simpering.
This is originally from the Subby Hubby site. I found it on the Alternative Femdom tumblr.
I thought this was an interesting article on the history of the word pervert. Apparently it started off as a word to describe an atheist. It wasn’t till the end of the 19th Century that it became associated with sexual depravity. Prior to that unconventional sexual acts were simply seen as a sign of moral degeneracy and decadence. It was the early sexologists who created the idea of sexual desire being an orientation and re-purposed perversion (‘turning away from the right course’) to describe people who fitted into that group.
The really shocking thing about this is that it means the highly historically accurate Blackadder II, set in 16th Century Elizabethan England, used the word incorrectly for the character of the baby eating bishop of Bath and Wells.
Bishop: Yes. You see, I am a colossal pervert. No form of sexual depravity is too low for me. Animal, vegetable or mineral — I’ll do anything to anything.
Edmund: Fine words for a Bishop. It’s nice to hear the Church speaking out for a change on social issues.
The clip itself can be seen here. And for any of my US readers who have absolutely no idea what I’m talking about, I suggest checking out one of the most brilliant comedy series ever recorded. It’s currently on NetFlix streaming, although I’d recommend skipping the first season and sticking to seasons 2, 3 and 4.
As for an image I wanted something featuring a whole heap of perversity, and the one below seemed to fit the bill. There’s bondage, cross-dressing, cuckolding, homosexuality and butt plugs. All sorts of good stuff.
I found the image via the sissiebondage tumblr and once again I’ve failed to track down an original source for it. Either Google reverse image search is really sucking these days or I’m picking particularly obscure images. If anyone knows the artist then feel free to leave a comment.
My previous post on male lingerie got me thinking about the topic of forced feminization. Specifically the always controversial variant that targets humiliation and embarrassment. It’s not my kink. I actually like the idea of transformation, but humiliation is never an interest of mine in any kind of play. However, I am confused by some of the opinions I see on it. As often happens, I find myself approaching it from a slightly different perspective.
A widely held view is that it’s misogynist. Why should someone be humiliated by wearing clothes than women commonly wear? If the clothes demean the wearer in the submissives eyes, and he expects women to wear them as a matter of course, therefore women must be always be demeaned in his eyes. There are lots of blog posts along these lines floating around. For example, two minutes archive hunting took me to this one by Stabbity and this one by Peroxide.
I think it’s certainly true that this type of play can be misogynistic, but is it always? That seems to make a very crude assumption about the transitive properties of clothing and context. Circumstances and social norms would seem to matter. For example, make me do a presentation at work tomorrow in Lederhosen and I’m going to be pretty embarrassed. Not so much if I was at Oktoberfest. Or stick me in a sparkly skintight leotard in the middle of some ice, and I will undoubtedly be humiliated. That doesn’t mean I look down on female figure skaters. Their abilities amaze me.
Being ashamed of very conventional everyday clothing would be a red flag. But typically it seems the people adopting that look are not into the humiliation kink at all. They’re trying to be as convincing and as feminine as possible (for example). The typical forced feminization outfit is the kind of over the top provocative clothing that’s hard for anyone to pull off with flair, let alone a hairy, overweight middle aged guy. Are they getting off on the humiliation of women’s clothes? Or are they getting off on wearing a highly sexualized outfit that makes them look silly (and happens to be women’s clothes)? If I think a french maid outfit on some guys looks ridiculous, does that make me a misandrist?
I’m not trying to argue this kind of play is always non-problematic. It definitely raises some complex questions. But I do think the logic of the view that ‘positive crossdressing=good’ and ‘forced feminization=bad’ is a bit simplistic.
The original source for this image appears to have vanished. I’m assuming it’s an Fm shot, but thanks to the hood it’s actually hard to tell. I think the anonymity of it makes it kind of hot. Is this the good or the bad sort of forced feminization?
This article’s title – Lingerie firm launches women’s underwear for men – has me slightly confused. If you’re launching an underwear line for men, doesn’t that by definition mean it can’t be women’s underwear? It’s like saying you’re selling a bright red ball that happens to be blue.
The logic fail continues into the article itself with the line that “the company are keen to stress the garments are not just for gay men.” I suspect that this thoughtless association between women’s lingerie, crossdressing and gay men can be blamed on the article’s author rather than the company itself.
It’s an interesting concept, but I’m be curious to know exactly who they think their target demographic is. The company site seems to avoid the crossdressing angle and focuses on it being fun, lacy underwear for guys. The photographs don’t try and depict the male models as women or hide their masculinity. But at the same time they also sell bra’s, an item which has a very specific function that doesn’t map to the male physique. I’m not sure why you’d create a bra if the goal was to create underwear that took style cues from women’s lingerie but was functionally designed for men.
Image is from the Homme Mystere site that offers lingerie tailored for men.
This is another post that isn’t particularly femdom themed. It also features the third kinky priest I’ve blogged about in the last week or so. But when I saw the title of the article, as replicated above, I couldn’t resist posting it. The San Francisco Chronicle carried the story in question, and pretty much nailed it in the heading.
The chronology of events isn’t exactly clear from the write-up. Becoming a Catholic priest was obviously step one. Not a great career choice in my view, but fair enough. From that I think he moved onto the cross dressing and having sex with men in the rectory (make your own pun up there). Good for him on that progression. Then he opened an adult video store, possibly the one fact they didn’t manage to cram into the title. Again, I think that’s a perfectly fine and respectable thing to do. Finally, he concluded his richly decorated resume by manufacturing and dealing meth. That’s the point I have to part company with him. It’s a disappointing move for a man of God.
My favorite line in the whole crazy article is…
rectory personnel became concerned and notified diocese officials when Wallin, sometimes dressed as a woman, would entertain odd-looking men, some who were also dressed in women’s clothing and engaging in sex acts.
It makes me wonder – did they need all those things in place before they became concerned? Would the cross-dressing have been OK, but the sex acts really put it over the edge?
I’ll leave you with a cross-dressing image, courtesy of Kimberly Wilder, that’s at little more aligned with a femdom theme. I think she’s being teased with the key to her chastity belt.
Miss Margo added a comment on yesterday’s post that mentioned a Sissy Maid High Tea that she attended at a BDSM festival. Much to her surprise, she had a blast.
They were so attentive, and trying so hard to impress, and they had put so much effort into their grooming and roles…it was really very touching.
That comment made me think of the image below, which I stumbled across on tumblr a few days ago. I thought it was very sweet, which isn’t an adjective I typically find myself using about cross-dressing D/s shots.
I also got to thinking a little more about the idea of male submissives playing with gender roles. In yesterday’s post I suggested it was a popular theme in femdom, which I still think is true. But that that doesn’t necessarily mean the two things are causally connected. It could just be that men who are open to exploring emotionally and culturally fraught areas like male submission are also more open to exploring other sexually complex areas. After all, if you’ve just spent the weekend role-playing ‘Sir Reginald Thistleswaite meets the Amazonian Queen and is tortured by much Snu Snu’, then raiding your wife’s lingerie draw probably seems like a pretty minor deviation. A guy who spent the same weekend drinking beer and watching football with his buddies might not feel quite as open to it, no matter how secretly curious he might be.
I really hate Valentines Day. This is not because I’m a miserable curmudgeon (that’s just a coincidence), and I certainly don’t dislike a romantic gesture at the right time. But Valentines Day is amateur hour. If you need a special day as a reminder to buy some flowers, or champagne or whatever tickles the fancy of your romantic significant other, then you probably have other issues to address. What’s particularly annoying from my personal perspective is the restaurant situation. They cram in extra tables, only offer a fixed menu and charge extra. Add in harried waitstaff and a lot of new customers who expect special treatment on their rare night out, and you’ve got a real zoo. I never go out on Valentines Day if I can avoid it, whatever my relationship status.
Unfortunately this week I’m traveling and solo. I’m therefore going to be forced into my starring role of bitter grumpy man in restaurant. This will be swiftly followed by my encore presentation of drunk grumpy man in restaurant. In the meantime I’ll leave you with the least romantic image I could find on my computer. This is from the always extreme EmmaS.
