Masculinerised subs?
I know that some male subs seem to like the idea of being feminised and depending on your views, this may make them seem more submissive for the Dom/Domme.
However, is there a female equivalent? i.e. making a femal sub more masculine and would this have a similar effect or the reverse?
Rather than write my own post, I'm just going to post here what I wrote over there (with a little extra feminist analysis in the first paragraph) and ask people for their thoughts, suggestions, analysis and views to be posted in comments.
***
It's one of the things that really bothers me about the way crossdressing as a sub tends to be portrayed: it's as though people think it is inherently humiliating to be viewed as more feminine. Needless to say, that's a hugely sexist way of thinking and it disgusts me (it also keeps me from exploring me feminine-submissive interests, because I really really do not do humiliation from the bottom - it's a hard-limit). So I want there to be an inverse form. If not in actual usage, then at least in concept, so it can actually be used to unpick the knots of Patriarchy. It really is a problem that the worst insults to use to a man are to liken him to something female.
One thought is the inverse of sissification being "slobbification" - enforced dressing down completely and sitting in slouchy poses and such. Not sure what the sexual thrill would be for the top in that, but who knows - there's probably someone out there for whom it would be a turn on.
Another thought is to focus on other experiences of masculinity - having to knuckle under to an ungrateful and uncaring boss to keep a boring and laborious job you don't really want anyway but you've got to pay the bills: I can see that as a roleplay option.
Other "lifestyle" options might be recreating master/servant roles as a mirror of feminised "maids": you could have "masculinerised" farmhand/serving staff/mechanic/etc roles with the whole forelock-tugging routine and so on, with grubby overalls or butlering outfits and so on: think class as well as gender as a mimicked axis of oppression to produce the power-exchange and/or humiliation aspects.
***
It's worth noting that several commenters on that thread said they thought that masculinising someone would surely be to put them in a more Dominant, powerful role - you can see above how I thought that ties into class assumptions of male roles as well, imagining that masculinising must mean either uniformed services or wearing a smart suit symbolising a powerful social position.
One thing I forgot to mention in that first comment (I've now copy-pasted this section into a new comment over there!) is that masculinisation of the type discussed above would also involve on some level making the target of the fetish feel de-sexualised: there are plenty of porn images of women doing traditionally male working-class roles but dressed in skimpy outfits and flashing their bits at the camera. That's not a masculinising fetish. Masculinisation would involve stripping away the sexual and sexualising content (at least, for the bottom) and involve some element of sexual denial fetish as well (which is quite a common kink for both men and women as bottoms). One version might involve using some kind of slow vibrating toy to maintain a certain level of arousal in the masculinised woman throughout, but no opportunity to explore it.
Hmm. I now have a fantasy of a sex toy designed like a feeldoe but with a floppy external "penis" to mimic what a man has when he's not aroused, and the wearer has inserted a stiffer dong that shifts and rubs as the external thing wobbles and shifts in her pants through walking and working, to create a frustrating sense of arousal and awareness of her dick.
The feminization aspect has never come off to me as being about the feminine as such; more about having to adopt partial or full elements of hyperfeminine perspectives. So I don't think that this in any way rules out the similar use of masculinity.
ReplyDeleteHumiliation from the bottom is a hard limit for me, too, in practice, but for example: I could readily see "Bro" culture or Jersey Shore-style masculinity enforcement having more of a humiliation effect on me than feminization would, even though -- with the caveat that I don't entirely agree with the fem/masc dichotomy -- I tend to side with a different form of hypermasculine presentation IRL. But the top would have to be on the watch to make sure that I wasn't slipping into "ridicule through portrayal" mode; outward projection would have to be spotted and snipped.
WRT "slobbification," though... there, I think that you're talking about something where class (and, to a slightly lesser degree, ability) issues come heavily into play. Not so much a masc/fem issue, and even when those are involved, I think that they're still closely tied together, with class still being the dominant element. And that's as well as having intersections with ethnicity, and issues related to that domain. Really, I don't think that this can be too far separated from the lifestyle element that you mentioned a couple of paragraphs down (though it can be abstracted a bit).
That's an interesting point about "Bro"/"Jersey Shore" stuff. I did think about that as a possibility, but the question I couldn't address was, how would a female submissive be rendered "Bro" or "Jersey Shore" style masculine? I think there's a difference in meaning and function between the hyper-feminisation of a female sub, and of a male sub. Similarly, there would be a difference in meaning and function between doing what you describe (hyper-masculinisation) with a male sub, and with masculinisation of a female sub.
DeleteMy thinking with "slobbification" was effectively "defeminisation" - the ways of feminising someone are to dress them up, make them pretty, enforce controlled and neat posture, and so on. The exact inverse of that is to take away all those display things and display ugliness instead: the features associated with being a slob. I think you're right that there is a heavy class element built in with that in terms of expectation and signifiers. And yes, I did think of those other "lifestyle role" ideas as being related to it.
However, I still think the the underlying dimension with forced-feminisation and sissification fetish is about gender roles, and class is secondary. I suspect that with masculinisation the class dimension would be the primary factor (hence the issues raised by the people I mentioned in the OP).
Not sure, but I suspect that part of this might have to do with the class background of the sub to begin with. (Noting that class issues are primarily why I'm *not* all that involved with my local community, and often encounter a disconnect with other BDSMers, even in terms of things such as simply not being able to afford much, if any, good quality "standard" equipment.) At my class level, at least here, I think that the Bro and Jersey Shore models are pretty well understood, by all sides, as heavily polarizing signifiers; so I don't think that rendering a female submissive masculine in that sense would be all that difficult to accomplish. In a context where those things are viewed more in terms of entertainment value, fodder for criticism, or as mere social phenomena, though? Yeah, I can see why it could become more difficult. Not sure how a person would work around that.
DeleteKind of the same issue involved with the relation of "slobbification" to "defeminization," probably. The more that dressing up, making pretty, controlled behavior and neat posture are understood as social stratifiers in general experience, the less those hold as feminizers, specifically. The specifics of dress and behavior -- the models employed -- count for far more. I think that having to Snookify oneself would end up being much more feminizing for male subs of my acquaintance, whereas the more standard kind of feminization would likely have an element of elevation to it. Cross-purposes.
I think that's a very good point. "Bro" and "Jersey Shore" are kind of an alien concept to me (I wonder of "chav" comes close to being my local equivalent?) so I guess I don't get the same connotations and/or presentational aspects of what it entails.
DeleteI'm very curious about the "class" thing, because I haven't felt excluded by the fact of my own lack of funds for "standard" equipment (most of what I have, I am proud to have put together by my own hands or efforts), and I wonder if that is a difference between the US and British kink - I've felt more excluded by the fact that I don't drive and thus find it difficult to get to venues.
I see your point about social stratifiers: the typical feminisation roles seem to be service roles (maid, waitress, etc) or "slutty" wear. I think the truth is that the two dimensions of class and gender are really closely interlinked.
And, of course, with so much of the mental side of BDSM (such as humiliation play), things are very personal or based in personal experience as to what's going to have an effect and of what kind.
Well, on the class thing:
DeleteDon't know how common it is elsewhere in the States, but here it might be described as the furry-handcuff taint. I.e., newbies and dabblers get their stuff at the local "we sell porn but not really" shop, and don't know what they're buying; wannabes from the Goth community get theirs from other shops only because they wouldn't want to be caught there. But serious players know better than that, and will buy quality, from cuffs to clamps to rope to paddles to everything else. Ergo, if your equipment didn't come from Stockroom or the equivalent, or doesn't look and/or perform like it does, you're not a serious player. And if you don't look like you *could* order from Stockroom or the equivalent, and don't have someone who can or does who can vouch for you, you're not a serious player, either.
Q.E.D.
But I should probably mention -- smallish city. About in the mid five figure range.
Yeah, I don't know if something similar happens in bigger towns/cities in the UK - I get the feeling that the somewhat rural home counties scene where I'm based (home counties: those neighbouring London) is different from more urban scenes. The local scene is somewhat scattered across a broad area (hence my lack of own transport = isolation from the scene, although people are willing to give lifts if it's on their way).
DeleteI think there is a certain amount of the "fluffy handcuff effect" - but equally, I've seen a lot of discussion about how best to buy rope from a DIY store, how to make good use of household equipment, and so on, which makes budget less of an issue. People do talk about the expensive stuff, but it seems much less important here than what I see from discussions in the States. I got respect when I turned up to a public event with a carpet beater I got for £3 at a charity shop.