Recommending Femdom Finder 2.0

[Evizzy89]

I played the game "The Passage" awhile ago, and Therese has one watersport, and one pegging scene, is there anymore of either in the game?

 

[saddlface]

Even though politically, I side with patriarchal fascism, I will chime in nonetheless.

Why would anyone GAF what you have to say when you lead with this?

 

[Ianuda]

Why would anyone GAF what you have to say when you lead with this?

Merely weeding out the unworthy. Akin to using a Communist profile picture on a nazi forum - if one cannot focus on the argument and doesn't engage, it saves time for everyone involved.

 

[LAKueiJin]

Even though politically, I side with patriarchal fascism, I will chime in nonetheless. What I'd like to bring in is the phenomenon of compartmentalisation - it is best seen among those [otherwise admirable] scientists who believe in the god - or, conversely, among those geneticists who reject the concept of race.

What I mean to say is that cuckoldry in one sphere does not necessarily presuppose cuckoldry in another. And groups of people can certainly combine queer individuals based on tolerance and mutual understanding - just how Hitler himself might have mocked Himmler's fascination with the occult without overlooking his great personal qualities.

In short, humans are diverse and multi-faceted creatures (unless they're normies lol).

P.S. The entire argument comes from the cultural background which allows divorce. A perk of a patriarchal culture is that you can be a subby, and your wife will have to deal with it (although realistically, you'd get fucked by her uncle or something, life's complex).

You've got a knack for derailing the Femdomn finder into philosophical discussions ever since the last version of it was around, you know? But fine, I'll bite!

I don't think the point I was making has anything to do with compartmentalisation, because it is not contradictory or in any way requiring of you to have to have 2 value or logic sytems in order to be a sexual submissive and also be good at handling difficult situations, or even at taking charge in non-sexual matters or at being a good leader! (in politics, corporate environments, team sports or whatever else)

Do you know that even Bakunin, 'father' of anarcho-communism and one of the most anti-hierarchical ideologues of modern history, had the position that he "defers to the authority of the bootmaker on boots, to the one of the architect or engineer for houses, railroads or canals, but he allows neither of them to impose their authority over him"? (I don't remeber the exact quote, so I'm paraphrasing, but that was his position) In the same vein, a dominant woman can and, if she is smart, will defer to the authority of her sub in some situations. Say, if her sub is a qualified airplane pilot and is flying her private jet, (yeah, I know, over the top example but entertain the hypothetical for a moment) she will defer to his authority in matters of flying the plane and not killing them both - that will have no bearing on their overall relationship, and it will still be only the sub that willingly allows her to impose her will over him, both in the bedroom and in casual interactions if she is a strict mistress and likes to be in control in every non-sexual aspect of the relationship too.

I think I meandered a bit, but my main point is:

1. Having sexually submissive kinks has no impact on how smart or capable of a person you can be in anything, or even in how great of a leader you can be - there is just no link whatsoever and

2. Dominant people in general, regardless of sex, will obviously any time defer to the authority of someone they know to be a submissive, even someone who's 'their' sub, in matters where said submissive has greater expertise or talent than them, and that doesn't make them less dominant. (hell, a domme ordering a sub to perform, usually menial but sometimes just difficult, tasks for her is one of the most common femdom tropes out there...)

Ok, now that I'm done with the serious/relevant stuff...

Spoiler: Political stuff you can't fap to - read at your own peril!

You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.

 

[Deleted member 4231346]

Anyway, feeling much better now that I fulfilled my daily feminist rant quota! This is not intended as a personal attack against you or even to say you were intuitively wrong (as I can believe that, especially if one lives in more socially-conservative environments, it can very much feel to them like "all women lose respect for submissive men"), but that those claims are materially wrong and misportray women... (in a pretty demeaning way mind you)

I would like to add a supporting bit of "evidence" that I think any submissive man will understand.
How come in these people's mind men can be truly submissive but somehow women cannot be truly dominant? For that matter no one in society question the existence of submissive guys. It boggles my mind in all honesty.
No one even questions the fact that submissive men (Who would never lose respect for a woman because she is dominant) exist, even though the standard is that men are dominant. A dominant woman would just be the other side of that coin would they not?
I'd love to hear any arguments from those who disagree.

 

[J1215]

New game (tagged Femdom): "Sister's ATM"

https://f95zone.to/threads/sisters-atm-v1-1-bo-wei.143876/

 

[LAKueiJin]

New game (tagged Femdom): "Sister's ATM"

https://f95zone.to/threads/sisters-atm-v1-1-bo-wei.143876/

Oh no! Bo wei is gonna take another 10 years to the next update of ToT now... Well, hopefully some of these side projects will at least be good faps for the long haul!

 

[Evizzy89]

I would like to add a supporting bit of "evidence" that I think any submissive man will understand.
How come in these people's mind men can be truly submissive but somehow women cannot be truly dominant? For that matter no one in society question the existence of submissive guys. It boggles my mind in all honesty.
No one even questions the fact that submissive men (Who would never lose respect for a woman because she is dominant) exist, even though the standard is that men are dominant. A dominant woman would just be the other side of that coin would they not?
I'd love to hear any arguments from those who disagree.

men generally do the penetrating, men are generally physically stronger, even pound for pound a submissive male can overpower a dominant women
of course that doesn't mean there isn't dominant women out there

although now a days it isn't uncommon for women to have dicks, heck look at sports! women with dicks are winning and breaking records against women who don't have dicks!

maybe a chick with a dick is the truly dominant form of women, jus sayin D=

 

[Deleted member 4231346]

men generally do the penetrating, men are generally physically stronger, even pound for pound a submissive male can overpower a dominant women
of course that doesn't mean there isn't dominant women out there

although now a days it isn't uncommon for women to have dicks, heck look at sports! women with dicks are winning and breaking records against women who don't have dicks!

maybe a chick with a dick is the truly dominant form of women, jus sayin D=

Yes I quite agree that men are physically stronger in every way, but I do not see how that is relevant as to why women cannot be dominant. I think it even adds to my argument, in that men can be truly submissive (Mentally), despite the fact that they have superior strength and size.

As for your other point; I personally do not think that transwomen should compete in women's sports because their bodies are in fact drastically different from that of a woman's.
But people being dominated by chicks with dicks? Whatever floats one's boat is no concern of mine.

 

[LAKueiJin]

although now a days it isn't uncommon for women to have dicks, heck look at sports! women with dicks are winning and breaking records against women who don't have dicks!

maybe a chick with a dick is the truly dominant form of women, jus sayin D=

There were some ancient times when the precursor to this thread had massive debates about what femdom is and how it should be defined, as well as women. In fact I think that those definitions of the original author of the finder were still included by Mister_M in the OP, and an important thing to remember is that "femdom" stands for "female domination".

Transwomen are biological males who identify as women, but not even they identify as "female", as, at least the more rational ones, recognize that even post-op they do not become biological females (they may no longer have a dick, but they certainly do not have a vulva, vagina, uterus and so on). Obviously it's perfectly fine to like to be dominated by transwomen, and they are obviously deserving of the exact same rights as everyone else, but transwomen, even by their own admission and by the logic most TRAs employ, are not "females", so therefore being dominated by them is not femdom...

Finally, who says that being sexually or socially dominant has to have anything to do with muscle mass, size, strength etc? Humans are a sapient species that escaped most of the trappings of evolution, so we can both relinquish control willingly in any situation we see fit, and there are many other things far more important than physical strength for a human to be in a position of power in society. (or to survive) Intelligence, priviledge, class, connections and plenty of social constructs like race or culture, as well as upbringing, each play a role, but how many billionaires, queens/kings or presidents do you know of that were/are strong buff men? Yeah, not that many, so a small woman can just as well as any man be in a social position of power, and obviously can act dominant in a relationship or sexually. This whole equating dominance with physical strength argument is bs, and while that can be true in many sports because of their physical nature, it certainly isn't in relationships or society as a whole...

 

[Evizzy89]

snip

I know my post was sarcastic to dig on on sports that allow men to compete against women
I was just in a mood to do so after I read a news article that irritated me

 

[baxtus]

I would like to add a supporting bit of "evidence" that I think any submissive man will understand.
How come in these people's mind men can be truly submissive but somehow women cannot be truly dominant? For that matter no one in society question the existence of submissive guys. It boggles my mind in all honesty.
No one even questions the fact that submissive men (Who would never lose respect for a woman because she is dominant) exist, even though the standard is that men are dominant. A dominant woman would just be the other side of that coin would they not?
I'd love to hear any arguments from those who disagree.

I think people confuse being submissive and laziness.

A lot of women are just lazy, and prefer to have the guy do all the work, they just want to enjoy the orgasm, but do as little as possible to get there.

Has nothing to do with whether they are dominant or submissive, just that they want to coast.

 

[Holefiller]

I would like to add a supporting bit of "evidence" that I think any submissive man will understand.
How come in these people's mind men can be truly submissive but somehow women cannot be truly dominant? For that matter no one in society question the existence of submissive guys. It boggles my mind in all honesty.
No one even questions the fact that submissive men (Who would never lose respect for a woman because she is dominant) exist, even though the standard is that men are dominant. A dominant woman would just be the other side of that coin would they not?
I'd love to hear any arguments from those who disagree.

It's not that women can't be truly dominant- it's moreso that submissive men define dominance and submission in ways that are male oriented. I imagine the reverse is true for women.

Pegging, footjobs, even whipping- all of these fetishes are designed with the man's pleasure in mind. BDSM is paradoxical in that way- the sub is really the dom and the dom is really the sub. The dom spends all of their time and energy figuring out what the sub wants, while the sub gets to chill and do relatively little work.

A truly dominant woman would be unlikely to cater to the desires of a submissive man, as her desires would likely revolve around what brings her the most pleasure in the manner least stressful to her. It's possible that her desires might intersect with his, but not necessarily likely. Dominant women are genuinely fucked if they want meaningful relationships- as sad as that sounds.

Combine this with the fact that men are- on average- more dominant than women, and the likelihood of ever finding a dominant woman who fits the mold of what a submissive man would classify as "femdom" becomes extremely unlikely. Similarly, any "submissive" man that a dominant woman would encounter would likely be a fetishist who wants her to cater to his perverted desires. It's a lose-lose scenario.

 

[Ianuda]

she will defer to his authority in matters of flying the plane and not killing them both - that will have no bearing on their overall relationship

Is "deferring to sb's authority" related to domination? Do you mean that a human relationship consists of smaller, lower-tier "relationships"? Because then ultimately the all-encompassing relationship of all citizens is submission to their common President or King. (I'm probably confusing the terms "deferring" and "imposing" - but if you defer the authority, does that situation's reason not impose its diktat?)

it is not contradictory or in any way requiring of you to have to have 2 value or logic sytems in order to be a sexual submissive and also be good at handling difficult situations

That is the question of to what extent the sexual intersects with the other spheres. In one interpretation, they may be separate, in another, there may be some intuitive connection (see faith vs science from my deleted argument. Again, I'm not sure whether I can proceed because any development will probably trigger people, and I have no idea which one.) There might be said something about the morality of submission in a culture that views such submission as on average harmful - if indeed most women are not into femdom, then bringing it up would be justifiably frowned upon, for example.

1. Having sexually submissive kinks has no impact on how smart or capable of a person you can be in anything, or even in how great of a leader you can be - there is just no link whatsoever

A slightly tangential point might be that the sexually submissive character of a person might find its effect not in the "dumb, incompetent loser" trope, but in some subtler manifestations - such as a devotion to a fascistic leader, or a penchant for a defensive strategy. Much vaguer and murkier, but the connection might still persist.

2. Dominant people in general, regardless of sex, will obviously any time defer to the authority of someone they know to be a submissive, even someone who's 'their' sub, in matters where said submissive has greater expertise or talent than them

Then it turns to the question as to where femdom may be appropriate, where its boundaries lie or should lie (in a given moral system), and what kind of domination is sex-dependent and gender-derived. In a world of matriarchal amazons, the love-making process would surely be accepted as femdom-esque normally, but it would not necessarily translate similarly to all spheres of life - depending on such factors as the average intelligence of a given gender, child-bearing biology, child-rearing customs, etc. Thus, expanding the domination aspect to other fields might or might not be problematic or common.

Ultimately, I have to remind myself that femdom is a niche fetish, and that societies usually form and stick to an accepted behavioural pattern. This is why even those who conflate feminism with femdom have a distant point - changing a single aspect, the entire structure is affected.

Humans are a sapient species that escaped most of the trappings of evolution

And this might be a relevant venue to respond to your political point - in short, the unit of evolution is population, not an individual. So while it might be rather disagreeable on a personal basis, societies generally function the best when they're collectivist and united. Again, we wouldn't have this discussion were it not a fringe fetish. That said, of course, I don't consider it harmful to partake in it - it's just I don't see any reason to change societal expectations for selfish ends.

How come in these people's mind men can be truly submissive but somehow women cannot be truly dominant?

Because men can be outliers, while women cannot? You don't really see female mass shooters.

 

[richarddlopatin]

Spoiler

You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.

I've been roaming around this forum for a few years and it's so refreshing to see at least one actual good take.

And about all the other stuff, gender and dominance related, a lot of "subs" here are just low-key misogynists, really. And I'm not coming from an angle of just throwing insults. It's to be expected from a forum like this and I'm certainly at least a little bit guilty of it myself. I know we all want to be good and fair but sometimes our prejudices can show up in our words even when we think we're doing better.

 

[Ianuda]

And about all the other stuff, gender and dominance related, a lot of "subs" here are just low-key misogynists, really.

I get off to literal magic and 2D purple eyes (even though neither really exists). There could be said something about distinguishing between bubbly fantasy and rational reality (no matter how much the former might help cope with the latter).

 

[Deleted member 4231346]

It's not that women can't be truly dominant- it's moreso that submissive men define dominance and submission in ways that are male oriented. I imagine the reverse is true for women.

Pegging, footjobs, even whipping- all of these fetishes are designed with the man's pleasure in mind. BDSM is paradoxical in that way- the sub is really the dom and the dom is really the sub. The dom spends all of their time and energy figuring out what the sub wants, while the sub gets to chill and do relatively little work.

Those are some fair points and I agree that a lot of these actions are male oriented. Subs being dommes and dommes being subs really strays away from the definitions of those words to the point of being meaningless. The definition of submissive itself would indicate that one would want to give in to the authority of whomever they see fit as their dominant in order to pleasure them, even if this means they end up doing some stuff they do not prefer to. A relationship between a sub and a domme would be (Like any relationship) one of compromises and faults, as finding a soulmate would for anyone be highly unlikely.

A truly dominant woman would be unlikely to cater to the desires of a submissive man, as her desires would likely revolve around what brings her the most pleasure in the manner least stressful to her. It's possible that her desires might intersect with his, but not necessarily likely. Dominant women are genuinely fucked if they want meaningful relationships- as sad as that sounds.

I mean you could say why would anyone cater to anyone? Because people can and do care for one another. A relationship only based around one's fetishes is a recipe for failure, but one can incorporate them into it. Obviously at a ground level they would have to be a domme, sub or switch. I also imagine a lot of submissive guys could cater to the potential domme's needs and would in fact want to. And it doesn't just have to be sexual.
Cunnilingus, foot rubs or massages in general, complimenting, doing favours, female oriented toys, whatever she personally likes. In a relationship you obviously cannot just think of yourself and it takes two to tango. But maybe all of that is just me speaking personally, I really hope not.

Combine this with the fact that men are- on average- more dominant than women, and the likelihood of ever finding a dominant woman who fits the mold of what a submissive man would classify as "femdom" becomes extremely unlikely. Similarly, any "submissive" man that a dominant woman would encounter would likely be a fetishist who wants her to cater to his perverted desires. It's a lose-lose scenario.

Yes, men are on average more dominant, but you do not need to find a woman who fits your mould perfectly (Again just like all relationships), only one you can work around and come to understand and enjoy (That goes both ways.)
Do you really think most guys who identify as "submissive" are selfish fetishists? I genuinely do not know, but I certainly hope not. Alas, if a person truly is only a perverted fetishist there's going to be problems, and really they ought to work on themselves. I personally know how difficult that is, but not all hope is lost for those who seek to better themselves.

 

[J1215]

New game (tagged Femdom): "The Arc"

https://f95zone.to/threads/the-arc-chp-1-vrseverson-and-thaw87.144060/

 

[Holefiller]

The definition of submissive itself would indicate that one would want to give in to the authority of whomever they see fit as their dominant in order to pleasure them, even if this means they end up doing some stuff they do not prefer to.

If a dominatrix is giving you a footjob in order to pleasure you even though she doesn't really get anything out of it, would she not be giving in to your authority?

I mean you could say why would anyone cater to anyone? Because people can and do care for one another. A relationship only based around one's fetishes is a recipe for failure, but one can incorporate them into it. Obviously at a ground level they would have to be a domme, sub or switch.

I agree.

I also imagine a lot of submissive guys could cater to the potential domme's needs and would in fact want to.

While this might be true, a there's no reason to believe a dominant woman would need a submissive man to cater to her needs. She might prefer a vanilla man, or even a dominant man. As we've already established, the fetishes that a submissive man would be interested in likely wouldn't align with hers.

Cunnilingus, foot rubs or massages in general, complimenting, doing favours, female oriented toys, whatever she personally likes. In a relationship you obviously cannot just think of yourself and it takes two to tango. But maybe all of that is just me speaking personally, I really hope not.

What you're describing sounds extremely transactional to me. You give your "dominant" gf favors, massages, cunnilingus, whatever and do whatever she wants, and eventually she might step on you even though she gets nothing out of it. In real life, I feel like the "dominant woman" in this relationship would eventually just leave you for a vanilla man.

 

[Deleted member 4231346]

If a dominatrix is giving you a footjob in order to pleasure you even though she doesn't really get anything out of it, would she not be giving in to your authority?

I agree.

While this might be true, a there's no reason to believe a dominant woman would need a submissive man to cater to her needs. She might prefer a vanilla man, or even a dominant man. As we've already established, the fetishes that a submissive man would be interested in likely wouldn't align with hers.

What you're describing sounds extremely transactional to me. You give your "dominant" gf favors, massages, cunnilingus, whatever and do whatever she wants, and eventually she might step on you even though she gets nothing out of it. In real life, I feel like the "dominant woman" in this relationship would eventually just leave you for a vanilla man.

Indeed in the "arms" of a dominatrix the sub has all the control so to speak, for they are just paying for a service. But I do not think it fair to compare such an ordeal to an actual relationship between two people.

And yes, a dominant woman may not even want a submissive guy to begin with and that is a preference we just have to accept. I do not however think most women to be so shallow and superficial as to leave you for such a thing. Especially if you two have already established a relationship with a solid foundation. If she truly cares for you the way you care for her- then her "rewarding" you or giving you what you desire is just a part of being in a relationship.
Also there is nothing stopping a submissive man from having many of the traits of a vanilla- or even dominant man (Whatever that might be.) Being submissive does not entail being weak or lacking of any will or effort. In my opinion, it simply means to be subservient, and in our case that subservience is towards women.

Maybe I am just being too naive, but I honestly believe there is a chance for us all. And that goes for "normal" men as well.