Milovana.com

On 3/29/2015, I posted a Forum thread ["types of humiliation"]. This is the second in a series of posts about humiliation.

**********

I have always been fairly progressive (aka “liberal”), and also politically correct. Growing up, I was aware of two primary ways of viewing women (conservative male supremacy and feminist equality), and I always preferred the feminist view. But in my late 20’s, when I discovered BDSM, I became less of a feminist, and also came to have a better understanding of women.

Before I go further, I will describe two types of people:

Type I – This person is confident and brave, is comfortable arguing, and may be pushy, selfish and overly aggressive.

Type II – This person is kind and nurturing, avoids conflict, and may be insecure and clingy.

When I was younger, I would have said that the above categories described men and women, with men being Type I, and women being Type II.

Later, when I learned about BDSM, I would say that the categories described dom/mes and subs, with dom/mes being Type I, and subs being Type II. I liked the fact that, within the D/s framework, each person could be whatever he or she wanted to be. It may be that most men are Type I, and most women are Type II. But no one should be forced to be either type. Male dom, male sub, female domme and female sub are all valid roles.

Along with the roles of dom/me and sub, there can be other titles and roles (slave and master/mistress, boy/girl and daddy/mommy, pet and owner). Each of the submissive roles is a bit different, but what they have in common is that they are each subordinate to the position of the dom/me. Pets are subordinate to owners, children are subordinate to parents, etc. But there is another type of roleplay that may or may not fit this pattern: feminization.

Consider this captioned pic, from the tumblr account of Miss Lizzi:

http://misslizzi22.tumblr.com/post/107368525214

In various types of BDSM fiction (webteases, captioned pictures, etc.), I have seen feminization portrayed as something that a male sub is forced into by a domme, along with comments that the submissive is not a real man, or has a tiny penis. And I have several questions about this:

1) Is “woman” a subordinate role, in the same way that “child” and “pet” are subordinate roles?

I do not think so. If a domme had me play the role of child or pet during a scene, I would feel less powerful in that role. But if a domme wanted to feminize me and ordered me to put on a dress, I would not feel less powerful. I would think “Ok, so now I am Joan of Arc or Captain Janeway”. I would feel awkward and unnatural, though.

2) Is using feminization as a form of humiliation less politically correct than other forms of D/s?

I would say that it is politically incorrect. Since I support people being able to choose their own roles and relationships, I see many forms of BDSM as empowering examples of personal choice. But implying that the role of “woman” is subordinate to the role of “man” is, in my opinion, an insult to women.

3) If anyone would argue that “feminization humiliation” is ok, and is not politically incorrect, then… what about race play? What if some white domme wanted to tell her white male sub “Today, we are doing race play. First, put on blackface, then I am going to send you out into the field to pick some cotton.”

I, personally, would be unwilling to do this sort of racist play as either dom or sub. In fact, when I am a dom I prefer to use master/slave terminology. But I remember playing online around the year 2000, and one girl that I met in a D/s chatroom was African American. She and I started to do the same sorts of master/slave roleplay that I had done with various other girls… but I kept thinking of the actual slavery in America just before the Civil War. That ruined it for me, and I had to end the scene early.

4) How often is feminization linked to humiliation?

I think that Bruce Jenner and many other trans people do not feel humiliated as females. However, there are types of play that include both feminization and humiliation, which might be described as “self-hating sissy” play, and may be examples of emotional masochism. In this case, the implied message from the humiliatrix is not "you are now weaker because you are now female”, it is “OMG, you are a male who likes to dress up as a female - Ha ha you look pathetic.” On the flip side, there can also be sissy encouragement play.

5) Returning to the first question (about whether or not “woman” is considered subordinate to “man”), is there such a thing as “masculinization play”, and if so, is it considered a form of humiliation?

I know of some dommes who are female supremacists. For example, there is this post from the tumblr of Queen Lucia:

http://queen-lucia.tumblr.com/post/1163 ... e-a-better

I have never heard of a female supremacist domme humiliating a female sub, by ordering that female sub to assume the role of a man. But then again, over 90% of the material on Milovana seems to have been created for a male audience. If anyone is familiar with female supremacists doing any sort of “masculinization” play, I would be curious to learn about it.

I enjoy feminization in my d/s play , however i don't like humiliation, most teases for feminization seem to be humiliation orientated mostly suggesting you are gay or small penis humiliation, which is pointless for me.

For me the dressing up as a woman isn't degrading, i would prefer to be dressed up when told to do various acts by my domme, its kind of like putting on a character costume and persona, i would feel more humiliated just being naked whilst sucking or riding a dildo for example, than being dressed. I don't want to become a girl or dress all the time, just in d/s play, for me its a lot about submitting deeply to my mistress, however i don't know how much i would enjoy it all in real life, rather than privately on my own.

The whole, your a faggot , homo etc humiliation is off putting for me, some may enjoy it but personally its very off putting, but i don't like degradation.

"Type I – This person is confident and brave, is comfortable arguing, and may be pushy, selfish and overly aggressive.
Type II – This person is kind and nurturing, avoids conflict, and may be insecure and clingy."

I would say i can be confident and brave and comfortable arguing (about random topics of conversation) but not so confident arguing with someone if they have done something wrong to me for example, but not pushy selfish or aggressive, and i am nurturing and avoid conflict.

Anyways that is my opinion :).

andy wood wrote: Before I go further, I will describe two types of people:

Type I – This person is confident and brave, is comfortable arguing, and may be pushy, selfish and overly aggressive.

Type II – This person is kind and nurturing, avoids conflict, and may be insecure and clingy.

When I was younger, I would have said that the above categories described men and women, with men being Type I, and women being Type II.

Later, when I learned about BDSM, I would say that the categories described dom/mes and subs, with dom/mes being Type I, and subs being Type II.

First to that. I disagree on just those 2 types. The human mind is way to complexe to sum it all up so simple like that. The world is not just black and white and there are so many things which play a role in this. So no, i dont believe in those simple types.

I also have to disagree on you saying that dom/mes are type 1 and subs type 2. That makes no sense. As if no sub wouldnt avoid conflicts. Like a domme couldnt be nice and carring or insecure. Like a sub could not be full of confidence and pushy. Those classifications makes no sense at all.

To your questions:

1) Is “woman” a subordinate role, in the same way that “child” and “pet” are subordinate roles?

Not sure why you even ask this You gave yourself the answer and also the proof that this isnt the case. There are dommes, so a woman couldnt be in any way just submissive. You even state that you, dressed as a woman, wouldnt feel less powerful. So that point is proven.

2) Is using feminization as a form of humiliation less politically correct than other forms of D/s?

No, it is NOT political incorrect. Its NOT an insult of women and also what are you even saying? You say you believe that everyone should be able to choose what role they play. What do you think femanization is? Its not like all men are forced into it. They like it! They enjoy it! They crave it! (Just to clarify... i am speaking of guys who are into the fetish, not about eevry guy on the planet.)

Of course there might be examples in which this isnt the case, but honestly... abusive behaviour isnt exclusive to this fetish or bdsm at all, so i wont count that.

3) If anyone would argue that “feminization humiliation” is ok, and is not politically incorrect, then… what about race play? What if some white domme wanted to tell her white male sub “Today, we are doing race play. First, put on blackface, then I am going to send you out into the field to pick some cotton.”

I like your wording here. You basically imply nobody who thinks normal could disagree on it. Well, here i am and disagreeing!

First of all, race play exists. I am not into that really, but if 2 people found each other and enjoy it, who are we to stop that. You could argue that those people are probably racist. Maybe they are, maybe they just enjoy this fantasy and this background story. Either way. There are racist people on this planet and some are probably into bdsm aswell... we cant change that.

But back to the topic in itself. I find this comparison not really fitting. The real problem in here is that you simply dont get the fetish. If you would understand it, this comparison would have never come to your mind.

Like your example. I mean wtf? You played with her like with every other girl and just because of her skin color you dropped her. That sounds a bit... racist to me. Like this post sounds homophobic to me.

The problem was not her skin color and the problem is not that femanization is political incorrect. The problem is your mind. You create an problem on your own. There is nothing wrong with a black girl who domes or subs and there is nothing wrong with a guy dressing as a woman.

4) How often is feminization linked to humiliation?

I would say femanization is mostly connected with humiliation, as it implys that this is a bdsm thing. the examples of yours arent femanization examples as far as i can tell as i dont know those people. I assume those people are crossdresser and transvestites, which goes in my view a bit further than a simple fetish.

We get a bit closer to the core here with your explanation. Those people actually want to be dressed as women and sub in that form to their dom/me. Its not self hating, its simple the losing of their manly side, which creates an humiliating effect. Of course there a sissys who arent into the humiliating part and simply enjoy the feeling, but thats not what we are talking about right now, so i wont go much into it here.

Its a game! A game between the dom/me and the sub. Both enjoy it, both want it. Go away from the image that the domme forces the guy to it.

5) Returning to the first question (about whether or not “woman” is considered subordinate to “man”), is there such a thing as “masculinization play”, and if so, is it considered a form of humiliation?

Of course there is! I am honest that i never heard about women being humiliated as they dress like a man, but i dont count it out. What i do know about is about stuff like this.

I heard about stories in which women were part of the femanization thing. Women who dresses normaly a bit different. Never skirts or dresses. More boyish clothes like pants and shirts. It works like that too as it is not about the women being weaker but for the change.

Also there are other examples in which women have to dress different. Less women like and more gender neutral. Cutting their hair short or even completly off. Not allowed to weak make up. Not allowed to wear heels. That all can be a ting and that all can be humiliating and eevrything is fine.

But then again i dont really get why you always said a female supremecist has to do this stuff. Dont get it. Works in my eyes with every kind of dom/me.



So what is left to say? I think the real problem here is that you are indeed a bit homophobic, Its no secret how you think about feminization, fays, etc.

You make it clear that you arent into it and even dislike it and dont want to see it. So i think you simply try to make this harmless fetish look bad so others might change their mind and you dont have to see it so much.

Unique,

Thank you for commenting. I welcome everyone's feedback here.

I do disagree with your conclusion, though:

Unique wrote: You make it clear that you arent into it and even dislike it and dont want to see it. So i think you simply try to make this harmless fetish look bad so others might change their mind and you dont have to see it so much.

I am not trying to talk anyone out of doing feminization. And if you think that is the goal of this Forums thread, then... let me explain something. One of the tabs at the top of the Milovana website is called "Urge". It was originally designed to be an online dictionary or encyclopedia of BDSM information. As far as I can tell, it has not been updated in over 4 years.

Some of my recent posts have been attempts to pick up where Urge left off. Examples include ["What do you find arousing about chastity?"] and ["types of humiliation"]. What I am trying to do is take a BDSM topic which I find complicated, create a summary of it which seems clear and accurate to me, and then see if others here agree or not. And in a way, each time I do this, I hope that I find I have been mistaken... because if someone finds and corrects an error on my part, I will learn from the experience.

As for how I feel about feminization, I used to feel somewhat like this:

Tsme wrote:its kind of like putting on a character costume and persona

Years ago, a domme that I played with in real life feminized me. She was harsh, and many of the things she had me do were more unpleasant than feminization. Before I joined Milovana, I would probably have listed feminization as something that I am indifferent to, but recent experiences here have caused me to move feminization into the "dislike" category.

Since 1/23/2015, I have been submitting to Quiet Linda. One of the things that I do for her is orgasm control, tease and denial, with frequent edging and few orgasms. I like that part of serving Miss Linda. But Miss Linda also likes feminization, and I am not into that. If Quiet Linda had a sister named Quiet Lana, and I had met them both at the same time, and Quiet Lana was just like Quiet Linda but without the feminization, I would have chosen to follow Quiet Lana instead. But all that being said... if a domme only has me do things that are fun and easy, then... am I really submitting? If some domme ordered me to just eat a bowl of ice cream and take a nap, then that might be fun but it would not feel at all like submission to me. (I may soon do a post on "submission vs. masochism vs. vanilla". It sometimes seems that for many of the people in chat rooms on Milovana, "submission" never means anything more than the sub agreeing to touch his or her genitals while viewing images provided by the dom/me. To me, that sort of play seems more like "vanilla cybersex" than like any sort of D/s. When I submit, I expect it to be challenging, and sometimes uncomfortable.)

I would now like to address your comments on race play:

Unique wrote:First of all, race play exists. I am not into that really, but if 2 people found each other and enjoy it, who are we to stop that. You could argue that those people are probably racist. Maybe they are, maybe they just enjoy this fantasy and this background story. Either way. There are racist people on this planet and some are probably into bdsm aswell... we cant change that.But back to the topic in itself. I find this comparison not really fitting. The real problem in here is that you simply dont get the fetish. If you would understand it, this comparison would have never come to your mind.Like your example. I mean wtf? You played with her like with every other girl and just because of her skin color you dropped her. That sounds a bit... racist to me. Like this post sounds homophobic to me.The problem was not her skin color and the problem is not that femanization is political incorrect. The problem is your mind. You create an problem on your own. There is nothing wrong with a black girl who domes or subs and there is nothing wrong with a guy dressing as a woman.

Just to be clear... the African American woman that I felt uncomfortable scening with, was not a partner that I broke up with. I met her online, we flirted a bit, we tried doing one online scene, and I felt uncomfortable and had to end the scene a bit early. And I think my discomfort came from the use of master/slave terminology. If I had been doing age play or petplay with her, I do not think there would have been any problem. I never said that there is any problem with a person of any race being a dom/me or a sub.

If I had to do it all over again, I would have organized this discussion differently. Maybe I should just treat "humiliation" as one topic, and "feminization" as a totally separate topic. As for racism and sexism and how they affect D/s roleplaying, I am comfortable with the idea of some individuals being superior to other individuals, but I am not comfortable with claims that one sex or one race is superior to another. Maybe I should be more accepting of race play as something that others can choose to do, but it is certainly not something that I would want to be involved with myself. And by having that attitude, am I being tolerant, or intolerant?

andy wood wrote:
Years ago, a domme that I played with in real life feminized me. She was harsh, and many of the things she had me do were more unpleasant than feminization. Before I joined Milovana, I would probably have listed feminization as something that I am indifferent to, but recent experiences here have caused me to move feminization into the "dislike" category.

Since 1/23/2015, I have been submitting to Quiet Linda. One of the things that I do for her is orgasm control, tease and denial, with frequent edging and few orgasms. I like that part of serving Miss Linda. But Miss Linda also likes feminization, and I am not into that. If Quiet Linda had a sister named Quiet Lana, and I had met them both at the same time, and Quiet Lana was just like Quiet Linda but without the feminization, I would have chosen to follow Quiet Lana instead. But all that being said... if a domme only has me do things that are fun and easy, then... am I really submitting? If some domme ordered me to just eat a bowl of ice cream and take a nap, then that might be fun but it would not feel at all like submission to me. (I may soon do a post on "submission vs. masochism vs. vanilla". It sometimes seems that for many of the people in chat rooms on Milovana, "submission" never means anything more than the sub agreeing to touch his or her genitals while viewing images provided by the dom/me. To me, that sort of play seems more like "vanilla cybersex" than like any sort of D/s. When I submit, I expect it to be challenging, and sometimes uncomfortable.)

There is nothing wrong with liking it and there is also nothing wrong with not liking it.

BDSM is an amazing thing and comes in so many different forms. You ask if it is really submission if the tasks are easy. Well, short answer

Yes, it is.

Maybe it is not fullfilling for you. Maybe you wouldnt enjoy it and that is fine! Nothing wrong with wanting to be challenged and to please your dom/me, BUT its not the only way BDSM can be. It can be easy and soft and just lovely. If both desire that it is totally fine and also enough.

There is a concept to it called SSC and maybe you should look that up. It stands for safe, sane, consensual. everything what foes into that is absolutly fine, even if some other people dont get or like it.

So even if that chatroom stuff is not your picture of D/s it doesnt mean it isnt a part of it. If that is all those people want to do and feel comfortable with, then it is fine.

Also i think that Quiet Lana would have been more fitting to you. Its important that you have a similiar fetish set as your dom/me or it could be problematic. There is also a concept you should check out. Hard and soft limits.

Hard limits are stuff you dont want to do at all. So if your dom/me demands that you wont work together well. Soft limits on the other hand are things you dont like and enjoy, but are willing to do for your dom/me. Usualy those things are good for punishment or earning things. Maybe to entertain the dom/me, but for that you would need trust and even if you dont have soft limits, that is also fine. BDSM is about communication and finding a common ground you both can work with and that has not always to be like you imagine it. If others have different views you shouldnt question those so hard.

andy wood wrote: Just to be clear... the African American woman that I felt uncomfortable scening with, was not a partner that I broke up with. I met her online, we flirted a bit, we tried doing one online scene, and I felt uncomfortable and had to end the scene a bit early. And I think my discomfort came from the use of master/slave terminology. If I had been doing age play or petplay with her, I do not think there would have been any problem. I never said that there is any problem with a person of any race being a dom/me or a sub.

If I had to do it all over again, I would have organized this discussion differently. Maybe I should just treat "humiliation" as one topic, and "feminization" as a totally separate topic. As for racism and sexism and how they affect D/s roleplaying, I am comfortable with the idea of some individuals being superior to other individuals, but I am not comfortable with claims that one sex or one race is superior to another. Maybe I should be more accepting of race play as something that others can choose to do, but it is certainly not something that I would want to be involved with myself. And by having that attitude, am I being tolerant, or intolerant?

Your explanation didnt really change anything. You werent comfortable with the terms and why? Because of the color. Thats a problem that wasnt there... just in your imagination. When it was not a problem for her, why for you?

Also its fine that you arent thinking one race/gender is always above the other (which confuses me a bit as you are a big fan of Queen Lucias blog), but i dont see the point. Femanization isnt promoting anything in that direction. Nobody claimed that women are inferior. Or that men are inferior. Again the problem isnt really there, just in your head. You imagine that there is a problem and make a big topic about it.

To your last question. No it doesnt make you intolerant to not wanting to do this. Thats again an hard limit and so not a part of SSC, so nobody should demand of you to do it.

just dont question so much a fetish you dont understand and even say that it is political incorrect (which race play in some forms is, but even then nothing you can do about it).

The number of wrong assumptions and conclusions made in this post are quite frankly, staggering and even offensive. More than I care to address right away but here are the highlights.

3) If anyone would argue that “feminization humiliation” is ok, and is not politically incorrect, then… what about race play? What if some white domme wanted to tell her white male sub “Today, we are doing race play. First, put on blackface, then I am going to send you out into the field to pick some cotton.”

To conclude that feminization methods, that is, assigning or encouraging feminine qualities in a male is somehow on par with a truly outdated, horrible, and rascist example of racial differences is by referring to a far distant past slave chore indicates just how poorly you understand this concept.

Beyond that, the general limited viewpoints involving two types is also revealing. It indicates that you may possibly have the unfortunately too common view that different means unequal. The fact is that in our society there are commonly defined feminine and masculine behaviours. The idea that a male embracing the feminine qualities somehow indicates they are being made less than what they are is, I believe, offensive to both genders. In the case of Queen Lucia, although she herself is not a huge advocate of feminization play, after discussing this with her I believe she would tell you that any feminine traits a male could adopt would simply be a step up.

Adding to this your own common protest and often displayed squeamishness at this particular fetish, whether or not it is true, this post presents to me as a step to offer some thinly veiled justificatin for a prejudice instead of an earnest attempt to understand it. The examples and misconceptions only seem to make it worse.

Beyond this, for the many milovians who have enjoyed or embraced this particular kink or lifestyle, did it ever occur to you how disturbing and insulting your comparisons actually are?

Just... Wow.

Andy, buddy, for the love of god, if you don't get a fetish, pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease don't try to rationalize why it's "wrong". It's a fetish; if you don't care for it, just don't do it.

This just... hurts. I need Tylenol.