Saturday, December 31, 2011

Submissive YET Masculine

My apologies for forgetting to add a three letter word to my last post: the word ‘NOT’ in the last sentence. Thank you Tamara for pointing this out. In the comments that followed both  Ric C and Tamara brought up some good points that I want to elaborate on further in regard to the definition of masculine as well as a comment on Tamara's comment about man-appeal.
The list of masculine qualities that I presented in my previous post was not ‘my’ list, but rather a list of qualities from various surveys and research done by others.  It is a compilation of ‘male’ qualities as described by others.  When I wrote such qualities as: men initiate war, are emotionless, thrive on ‘getting’ rather than ‘giving', worries less about others, is manipulative, and a host of other traits, were not traits that I feel are complimentary ones. Rather I see them as selfish, stupid and demeaning qualities that some men exhibit at times - and do so to their detriment.  To me, being a man means embodying  the positive qualities found in so many men and doing so without embracing those that are self-seeking and destructive.  As Kathy pointed on in her December 26 Femdom 101 post I do believe she is correct with her implication that too many men have been reigned in as boys in recent years by their more passive parents and now have lost some of those wonderful qualities that make them male.  There is something to be said when author's now write books advocating these vanishing qualities in books such as Born to be Wild and others discussing this very fact.
The mother of my children often told our boys to be careful, to not climb too high, to not go too far from home, yet those tendencies were instinctive in them. Those qualities were part of who they were and they loved being that way.  They turned sticks into guns, loved to wrestle with dad, loved digging in dirt, loved being physical, active and energetic.  When I took them on our annual multi-day backpacking trips as young teens, with each one longer and harder than the previous year’s trip she wanted me to call home to let her know if they were safe.  That didn’t happen. I wanted to be away with them alone. I wanted them to experience solitude, sweat, hard work, beautiful views, the smell of a campfire, and all that there is to experiencing the great outdoors in the wild. The cell was off the entire time and saved only for emergencies. We walked on cliff edges (because that's where the trails were). We slept in bear country. We pushed ourselves physically; we farted and were proud of it! Lol.  We were just three guys enjoying God’s beauty in the middle of nowhere and we loved it – they loved it.  My boys thrived in that environment, even though it was hard work. They handled the stresses of a long day’s trek well; they learned how to stay warm when a cold rain pelted them all day long. They learned how to orient and start a fire when everything was wet. They knew what to do and how to take care of themselves should any of us become separated from the others.They experienced beauty that few see when above tree-line in an untouched wilderness and they were so proud of themselves as a result. You could see it in their eyes when they returned home and talked about summiting this peak, or scaling this wall, or walking to this cliff edge.  While away they were free to express their maleness. By that I mean they could explore, be adventurous, be active, creative, curious, competitive, conquering, think, problem-solve, deal with the elements, etc. Now I am not saying that the desire on the part of their mother to want them to be safe was wrong but I am saying that there are times when a boy needs to stretch himself and conquer things he never thought possible.  When my son was serving in Iraq some years later, he told me more than once that he often thought back on how thankful he was that I pushed him to not give up when it came to making him do certain physical chores as a boy. As a Marine he was stretched to his limits. While in Iraq he dealt with all kinds of stresses. What he was saying, in so many words, was thanks for being stressed as a boy because it helped prepare him for those stressors he encountered in the military.Those are the kinds of qualities that I hope all men hold dear as it makes them a better spouse, whether in a vanilla or D/s relationship.
Second, Tamara expressed how attractive it was to think of a man in the traditional sense as being attractive, meaning a man who is physically strong, muscular, handsome and possessing greater stature than his female counterpart. I find that appealing myself. I also believe that vision is attractive to women in general. I can think of several male bloggers who publicly state that their dominant partner has put them on diets, made them exercise, or force them to take better care of their body. One blogger put a picture of her husband on the web for other women to critique and comment as to whether they felt his physique was appealing or if she needed to have him lose a few more pounds.  Women enjoy seeing a man in good shape.
I have never been one to have weight issues but I do know that Katie loves to watch me towel dry after a shower so that she can see me flex as I dry my body. In fact she now requires me to dry off behind her so she can watch me in the mirror behind her while she puts on her make-up. And as an aside, it makes me feel good that she views my body as one that is appealing to her eye.  I also know she loves cuddling tight against me and running her hand over me as she snuggles in tight. I know she loves the ‘feel’ of my physique by the way she caresses me. I know that she loves touching my shoulder and chest. If there is one place on my body where she loves to feel the contours of my body is it where my shoulder and chest meet. For you anatomist, it’s where the anterior deltoid and pectoralis major muscles intersect. 
Tamara’s point of that vision of a strong, handsome and submissive male in the control of a petite woman is one Katie relishes as well and I couldn’t agree more.  I find the irony of Katie, a petite woman herself; a woman that feels so small and tender in my arms when we cuddle; yet one that knows without a doubt in her mind that the larger stronger man that is holding her tight is completely under her control and direction. Now that is a hot picture and one that turns me on. She doesn’t rule me because of her outward strength but because of her inner strength.  She loves my male-ness, my masculinity, and loves having it completely at her disposal.
So in conclusion, being submissive and being masculine can coexist.  The fact that I can submit to Katie even though I could physically overpower her is wonderful. She is the ruler of the roost, the head of our home, the woman that tells me how to best please her and I could not be more happy that she does.  The fact that she wields this power, does not make me less of a man. It just means that I have made the choice to submit just as she has made the choice to govern.  I hope you can see the beauty in this way of relating, especially given the fact that males (left to their own devices) can be selfish, emotionless, crude and not relationally oriented. But in the hands of a woman, those unattractive traits can be eliminated while the desireble ones can be cultivated to make a man even more masculine and more loving to the woman he serves.  And there lies a topic for a future post.  Enjoy your weekend.


  1. Well said. Thanks for the clarifications and it may only be a question of semantics, but, perhaps rather than submissive, maybe it is just power under control?

    Thanks for your thoughtful postings and the best to you in this new year.

  2. Thanks anonymous for the post. I don't know if I'd say it is power under control since that implies that I indeed have power to decide and 'do' with respect to my relationship. I don't think I do. Most all decisions go through her. For example the other day I was working on a gas fireplace that wasn't working. I thought I could fix it but she told me I was not to try. Period. She called the gas company instead. I thought I could save her some $ but I had no power to do so in that situation. Turned out there was a gas leak so calling was the right thing to do. Hope you stop by often and Happy New Year!

  3. You wrote: The fact that she wields this power, does not make me less of a man. It just means that I have made the choice to submit just as she has made the choice to govern. I hope you can see the beauty in this way of relating, especially given the fact that males (left to their own devices) can be selfish, emotionless, crude and not relationally oriented. But in the hands of a woman, those unattractive traits can be eliminated while the desireble ones can be cultivated to make a man even more masculine and more loving to the woman he serves.

    I share your view of seing that beautiful. It is breathtaking. For me to submit is an act of strong will and I find that full fo maleness when done on this ideal. It has nothing to do with a man looking to act as a female... I wouldn't say that male traits are bad per se but when channeled by their loving wife (or a female relative) it is somewhat sanctified from her input/presence.

  4. I've commented on this subject in the past on Mark Remond's blog (Worshipping Your Wife), but it bears repeating since I agree with what you've written, and this comes from a woman's point of view. As far as I'm concerned, there's no point, no satisfaction, no challenge and no turn-on in dominating an unmanly man. It's his very "man-ness" that makes controlling him a joy. Yes, he could easily overpower me physically; yes, he could easily refuse to follow my orders; yes, he's much more of an athlete than I am, etc. etc. Yet when I snap my fingers, raise an eyebrow, point my finger or give him a soft command, he obeys, and he does so happily.

    Mentally, I want him to be at least my equal. Stupidity is not attractive. I want his male brain to be fully functioning. I want to be able to converse with him. I want his male point of view. And then I want to dominate him mentally as well, as he becomes aware that my thoughts and desires will always trump his (go back to your gas fireplace example to see what I mean).

    Yes, he's been trained, but only after he willingly gave up all of his physical superiority and any mental male authority he may have thought he had, and pledged his submission to my will. Now that's sexy, that's exciting, that's a turn on for a dominant woman. What joy would there be if an unmanly, wimpish, weak willed man were at my command?

    Let me repeat: Mentally, I want him to be at least my equal; physically, I want him to be my superior. Then I can take pride in dominating him. It has worked very well for my husband and me, and I see no end in sight. I wish you the same.

  5. Ric C and Lady Grey both point to the power of choice, a willful setting aside of one's own for another.

  6. Mr. IH,

    me and my chain saw are best of friends.


    IMHO, I believe there is male bio-chemistry that causes those traits to be helpful. For instance, after a man has sex with a women, becoming emotionally detached is helpful in defending her against outside threats. This is just speculation, but I believe this is by design of nature.

    The emotional Novocain male orgasm causes I feel is okay in the process of impregnating a women while in a hunter gather society. I do not feel frequent orgasms of men conducive to the lifestyle modern women enjoy. It is my experience that women enjoying the benefits of a male partner who is eternally courting them to be far better for both. The man gets to enjoy the bio-chemistry caused from his courtship mechanisms (often seen in other species courtship behaviors). Women get to enjoy a docile partner to their leadership. The emotional Novocain caused from frequent male orgasm concessions are counter productive, IMHO.

    While I do not believe the withholding of orgasm from men to make them less of a man, I do think it removes many of the negative qualities commonly associated with them. Instead of a lazy sloth who eats chips all weekend watching sports is a docile partner who responds with sensitivity to his women’s requests. I have found in very long chastity to become aware of feminine traits. This may be the undesired x-over Mistress Lady Grey refers to. I do not really have the answer here, but appreciate the post so it can be discussed from many views.


    P.S. Happy New Year

  7. SH,
    Thanks for posting. You took the conversation down a path I didn't anticipate. I didn't refer to orgasm denial/not denial as the reason that a man submits to a woman. Yes, I agree that denial promotes 'courting' behaviors but I think that some Dommes would just comment that 'my man obeys me regardless of how much I allow him to orgasm. He obeys because that is what I expect.' I am not disagreeing with prolonged orgasms effects on male hormones and infact would suggest that being teased (stimulated) without being permitted to orgasm as promoting bonding behaviors that lead a man to want to please and pamper his spouse. If you feel that 'excessively' long (I use that term arbitrarily) to cause you to exhibit more feminine traits, well, that is for your wife to deal with but I personally don't see the biology of causing such as you are still producing testosterone and still a man. I would think this is more of an emotional/psychological change than physiological one. Enjoy your week.

  8. Mr. IH,

    the feminine tilt I can not really explain. The effect seems to be reproducible though. This weekend my wife and I shared a room with a little girl who is spoiled with every princess, barbie, and pony toy ever created by the hand of man. I had just orgasmed and it struck me how prior those items would of called to me and I would of felt being treated unfair with not being able to enjoy their presence. This time there was no such effect. It is a bit of an ignima to me. Excuse my rabbit trail.

    again, thx for the post.