Recommending Femdom Finder

[baxtus]

All right, maybe I got ahead of myself with my answer. It seems we have no ideological disagreement, as indeed any forn of feminism that does not include class warfare is not Marxist, (even Luxemburg criticized "bourgeois feminists" more than 100 years ago) but instead that you simply believe Aseratrix doesn't support class struggle, which I cannot comment on. I will say however that I see no indication they were lying about being a Marxist Feminist. Yes, they didn't talk about class struggle, about establishing workers' communes or nationalizing economies, but they also didn't at any point say that they support the "girl power" brand of neoliberal feminism and are ok with the current economic system, so I think you are jumping to conclusions there.

I'd say it's far more likely he didn't talk about the marxist aspects of Marxist feminism because we're on a porn games website, as opposed to a political debate forum, and because those aspects were irrelevant to this discussion? Sure it's his job to defend himself and I'm sure you two will settle the argument yourselves, but honestly I think you are jumping to conclusions and not giving Aseratrix the benefit of the doubt. Regardless, good evening and I hope you two don't start a massive argument over a potential misunderstanding!

EDIT: I just saw your second post - again, you seem to assume Aseratrix's statement that they are a Marxist is somehow not supported by their earlier posts, which I find strange as he's always agreed with class-based critiques of capitalism in the past and did not make any anti-communist arguments... What makes you believe that? Then again, that's between you and him to settle, so I will not comment further. Hopefully this thread does not become a political hellscape by the time I check it tomorrow! Good evening everyone!

I'm not saying I don't believe he supports it, I'm saying what he was talking about didn't appear to involve that, maybe he does, I don't know, only that what he typed, what I replied to, didn't seem to cover it

Maybe he's a dyed in the wool Marxist plotting how to bring about the triumph of the proletariat, I dunno, I was only speaking about what I saw him write in this thread, nothing more

 

[Aseratrix]

Except that's not what I said, nice try though

I said:

"there is no such thing as Marxist Feminism unless the feminism is about overthrowing capitalism and establishing a communist or socialist system"

Note the difference?

My point was that you saying you're a supporter of Marxist Feminism doesn't fly with your earlier argument, since nothing you referred to was in regards to class struggle or the overthrow of capitalism

Was the previous subject about capitalism and what's my take on it? Nope.

Why should have any prior statements of mine contain references to Marxist feminism when there was nothing that needed it to be mentioned? Should every statement I make contain every school of thought I adhere to? You make no sense whatsoever! What's next? If I say that I also support green politics I can't, because my talk about female beauty contained nothing about greenhouse gas emissions?

Furthermore, your wording is still mistaken. You reconstrued the meaning of your sentence after been faced with the fact that Marxist feminism does in fact exist, with a version where the emphasis is on "unless", but even if I'd accept your new wiggle-room attempt, Marxist feminism is not directly about overthrowing capitalism, that would be reducing M feminism back to the primary issue of pure Marxism. M. Feminism focuses on specific issues affecting women in society and uses some Marxist social and economic analyses to help make their case. Even the most benevolent reading of your proposition, is not actually revealing a true statement.

And again, why should I reflect all the positions I support in every proposition I make? I don't think any of the issues touched upon before necessitated any specifically Marxist feminist arguments.

 

[Aseratrix]

and because those aspects were irrelevant to this discussion?

Bingo! Its so simple, that I am shocked as to what the hell is going on here...Plus, supporting a school of feminism does not mean that I will reference it in regards to everything, nor that I uncritically have to accept every position they held, and every position Marx held. Adults who think for themselves can freely navigate complex issues and select ideas which agree with their thinking, I am not about to regurgitate simple talking points of any political or philosophical school of thought if its not necessary, nor does my support for lets say philosophical existentialism commit me to every single position Jean Paul Sartre held.

 

[baxtus]

Was the previous subject about capitalism and what's my take on it? Nope.

Why should have any prior statements of mine contain references to Marxist feminism when there was nothing that needed it to be mentioned? Should every statement I make contain every school of thought I adhere to? You make no sense whatsoever! What's next? If I say that I also support green politics I can't, because my talk about female beauty contained nothing about green house emissions?

Furthermore, your wording is still mistaken. You reconstrued the meaning of your sentence after been faced with the fact that Marxist feminism does in fact exist, with a version where the emphasis is on "unless", but even if I'd accept your new wiggle-room attempt, Marxist feminism is not directly about overthrowing capitalism, that would be reducing M feminism back to the primary issue of pure Marxism. M. Feminism is focuses on specific issues affecting women in society and uses some Marxist social and economic analyses to help make their case. Even the most benevolent reading of your proposition, is not actually revealing a true statement.

And again, why should I reflect all the positions I support in every proposition I make? I don't think any of the issues touched upon before necessitated any specifically Marxist feminist arguments.

Except I didn't reconstrue my sentence, I said from the beginning "there is no such thing as Marxist Feminism unless the feminism is about overthrowing capitalism and establishing a communist or socialist system" (Notice how I explicitly stated that a feminism that is about overthrowing capitalism and establishing a communist or socialist system would be a Marxist Feminism, but also indicated that a feminism that is not about that, cannot be Marxist)

Even your original definition you provided supported my comment, as it pointed out it focused

I highlighted the unless not to add any new emphasis, since none was needed, but rather to point out what you missed when you misconstrued my point, and assumed something I did not say, to illustrate where you made your mistake in your rebuttal.

My point was also not to say that you must "reflect all the positions I support in every proposition", but rather that nothing in your prior comments seemed to support such a viewpoint, and therefore that I sensed a misuse of the term. Nothing in your prior posts indicated any inclination towards a support of class struggle or opposition to capitalism, hence my point.

You say, "M. Feminism is focuses on specific issues affecting women in society", which is fine, but as your own definition pointed out, it's through the lens of class struggle, and to goal of the overthrow of capitalism, and while your earlier posts covered the first part, issues affecting women, it did not make them through the lens of Marxism

 

[baxtus]

Bingo! Its so simple, that I am shocked as to what the hell is going on here...Plus, supporting a school of feminism does not mean that I will reference it in regards to everything, nor that I uncritically have to accept every position they held, and every position Marx held.

Never said you had to, but you echoed really nothing of that school, hence why I made my initial comment, as I said, the definition, that you provided yourself, agreed with what I laid out in my comment, and my point was that your comments did not reflect any of that definition

Adults who think for themselves can freely navigate complex issues and select ideas which agree with their thinking, I am not about to regurgitate simple talking points of any political or philosophical school of thought if its not necessary, nor does my support for lets say philosophical existentialism commit me to every single position Jean Paul Sartre held.

Sure, but if you don't agree with most of it, then there is a misapplication of a term

(Which comes back to my pet peeve as I originally pointed out)

 

[Aseratrix]

Never said you had to, but you echoed really nothing of that school, hence why I made my initial comment, as I said, the definition, that you provided yourself, agreed with what I laid out in my comment, and my point was that your comments did not reflect any of that definition

Sure, but if you don't agree with most of it, then there is a misapplication of a term

Ok, I really don't know if I am the cause of it - I'm inclined to think so - that I always seem to end up in some kind of controversy, but I swear its not because I want to. I would rather write pages exalting the beauty of females or the intricacy of femdom, etc. But somehow, I just attract controversy, no matter what I really want. The main component in this is that I do hold some views or say some things [or apparently don't say] which may irk some people and hence the seed of discord is sewn, another component is that I usually state my opinions quite bluntly, and last but not least, people also love to play the contrarian.

Who could have predicted tho, that if I say some vaguely sentimental and "poetic" lines in a moment of perhaps childish exuberance about the beauty of females, I may end up having to fend off accusations of bigotry and not being ideologically enough committed to the Marxist component of Marxist feminism, because I was not echoing it enough?

But now, that the cat is out of the bag, I would classify myself politically as vaguely left-libertarian, combining elements from both anarchist and Marxist schools of thoughts without agreeing with either fully. I even have some views which are not found in either tradition, such as those formulated by radical feminists and even some liberal thinkers such as Rawls and Mill. I also unabashedly love Heidegger the "nazi", I hate Freud and Nietzsche, love Schopenhauer's philosophy minus his misogyny, really like Kant and I believe that truth is possible to discern with reason and diligent empirical support....yet none of these were echoed in any of my previous posts, does this mean I don't actually have these influences? Nope, it just means that I didn't notice that any of the subjects discussed so far warranted referencing them.

Its also important to note that in regards to feminism, I overwhelmingly support the radical feminist school, while I also appreciate many of the insights Marxist feminists provided. Do I actually think that we need a violent revolution to overthrow capitalism? Not really, because the pessimist in me counter-balances the optimism required to believe in the proper outcome of such a revolution, not to mention I hate being violent. I do however wish that one day society will more or less peacefully transition from capitalism to a post-capitalist economy, whether that will happen or whether we will live in a capitalist dystopia forever, I can't predict. I mostly agree with the insights of Mark Fisher's Capitalist Realism: Is There No Alternative? and Peter Joseph's The New Human Rights Movement: Reinventing the Economy to End Oppression.

 

[baxtus]

Ok, I really don't know if I am the cause of it - I'm inclined to think so - that I always seem to end up in some kind of controversy, but I swear its not because I want to. I would rather write pages exalting the beauty of females or the intricacy of femdom, etc. But somehow, I just attract controversy, no matter what I really want. The main component in this is that I do hold some views or say some things which may irk some people and hence the seed of discord is sewn, another component is that I usually state my opinions quite bluntly, and last but not least, people also love to play the contrarian. Who could predict tho, that if I say some vaguely sentimental and "poetic" lines in a moment of perhaps childish exuberance about the beauty of females, I may end up having to fend off accusations of bigotry and not being ideologically enough committed to the Marxist component of Marxist feminism, because I was not echoing it enough. But now, that the cat is out of the bag, I would classify myself politically as vaguely left-libertarian, combining elements from both anarchist and Marxist schools of thoughts without agreeing with either fully. I even have some views which are not found in either tradition, such as those formulated by radical feminists and even some liberal thinkers such as Rawls and Mill. I also unabashedly love Heidegger the "nazi", I hate Freud and Nietzsche, love Schopenhauer's philosophy minus his misogyny, really like Kant and I believe that truth is possible to discern with reason and diligent empirical support....yet none of these were echoed in any of my previous posts, does this mean I don't actually have these influences? Nope, it just means that I didn't notice that any of the subjects discussed so far warranted referencing them.

Its also important to note that in regards to feminism, I overwhelmingly support the radical feminist school, while I also appreciate many of the insights Marxist feminists provided. Do I actually think that we need a violent revolution to overthrow capitalism? Not really, because the pessimist in me counter-balances the optimism required to believe in the proper outcome of such a revolution, not to mention I hate being violent. I do however wish that one day society will more or less peacefully transition from capitalism to a post-capitalist economy, whether that will happen or whether we will live in a capitalist dystopia forever, I can't predict. I mostly agree with the insights of Mark Fisher's Capitalist Realism: Is There No Alternative? and Peter Joseph's The New Human Rights Movement: Reinventing the Economy to End Oppression.

Let me start by saying, I did not want to stir up controversy or come across as attacking or to help derail this thread, so my apology there. I also don't think you're bigoted or anything, fringey in some regards, but not a bigot or anything.

I was merely stating where I thought you were misapplying the term when you described yourself as one. I did not expect I would unleash the hellmouth of political discussion on this thread, and therefore, I am going to try and cut it off here, and at least for my part end the political side of the discussion.

We may not all agree on what political definitions apply to each of us, and we may disagree on some of our political views, but I think we can all agree we enjoy dominant females, and we can all agree that politics is best left for a different thread than this.

 

[Aseratrix]

Let me start by saying, I did not want to stir up controversy or come across as attacking or to help derail this thread, so my apology there. I also don't think you're bigoted or anything, fringey in some regards, but not a bigot or anything.

I was merely stating where I thought you were misapplying the term when you described yourself as one. I did not expect I would unleash the hellmouth of political discussion on this thread, and therefore, I am going to try and cut it off here, and at least for my part end the political side of the discussion.

We may not all agree on what political definitions apply to each of us, and we may disagree on some of our political views, but I think we can all agree we enjoy dominant females, and we can all agree that politics is best left for a different thread than this.

Its okay, thanks. I can't promise anything tho, controversy follows me like a shadow, and I can not hold my mouth.

 

[baxtus]

Its okay, thanks. I can't promise anything tho, controversy follows me like a shadow, and I can not hold my mouth.

I can relate

 

[Aseratrix]

Its Saturday, I promised to update the list. I did. 1 game has been added.

 

[Mister_M]

Its Saturday, I promised to update the list. I did. 1 game has been added.

You could add Give or Take too.

Name: Give or Take / https://f95zone.to/threads/give-or-take-v0-1-illadvised.98895/
NARRATIVE: FUNCTIONAL
OTHER PATHS: yes / maledom (soft afaik)
DOMINATION LEVEL: Soft
FEMDOM FOCUS: DEDICATED
FETISH VARIETY: narrow (for now)
FETISH EXAMPLES: hypnosis (con), slave training, orgasm denial, edging
ORIENTATION: HETERO
PROTAGONIST: MALE
GENRE: visual novel with (very) limited amount of choices (basically you only choose what route you want to take with each girl)
ART STYLE: 2D
GAME ENGINE: Ren'Py
STATUS: IN DEV
DEV: IllAdvised
OBSERVATIONS: early dev, soft dom

 

[Aseratrix]

You could add Give or Take too.

I will, thanks.

Until then:

Anno domini 2020:

You must be registered to see the links

Modern life:

You must be registered to see the links

 

[Aseratrix]

Nobody cares, but here is another one:

The Turning Point:

You must be registered to see the links

 

[Aseratrix]

You could add Give or Take too.

Done.

 

[Mister_M]

Modern life:

You must be registered to see the links

At least this one has a happy ending.

 

[Aseratrix]

At least this one has a happy ending.

Definitely

 

[Mister_M]

some of the content is behind a paywall

Regarding FemDoSLand: I think writing "some content" suggests that some scenes, routes, etc. are inaccessible, while in reality every part of the game is accessible but if you're not paying some (newer) scenes just have low quality graphics/pics.

 

[Innocience]

I was wondering what you guys think about adding a game like Free Cities to the list?
I'm not exclusively into femdom and was wondering if the more fetish focused of you would find it a worthy addition.
Obviously the player has to setup their gameplay to focus on a dominant female PC on top and for slaves to be generated as exclusively male, female or mixed gender.

My perceived problem is: FC is so sandbox-y in its management style gameplay that most of the random D/S events between Master/Mistress and Slave end up very non-commital to a certain gender based fetish to make it easy to set appropriate gender specific organs and terminology in these one-size fits all scenes. I think they might be too generic, but I can't really say since I've been playing the game since eons and suspect I've lost perspective.

In the list there is a precedent with Degrees Of Lewdity in that the game has to be manually set to cater (nigh) exclusively to femdom. But in contrast to FC, DoF has dedicated scenes and gameplay of domination (e.g. Whitney the bully or the Hunter holding you captive).

There's also the issue that FC was clearly intended as a maledom game during its creation which is reflected by FC's lore that calls any slave a she independent of gender and FC has multiple future societies (basically cultural focuses) that either take this idea of feminity to the extreme and redefine femininity as the goal of a perfect submissive or redefines gender to directly correlate with male as master and female as slave. Just to be clear - these future societies are optional, but are inevitably a part of its world and can be chosen by competing free cities (if enabled).

Converting and or conquering these competing free cities to follow your ideal cultural society is possible, but the issue remains.
There's been an effort by the foremost modding team of FC to mitigate this (at least the gender pronouns and such), but the vanilla experience does not offer this option.


Maybe I worry to much and I should just create a list entry; what are your thoughts?

 

[Mister_M]

I was wondering what you guys think about adding a game like Free Cities to the list?
I'm not exclusively into femdom and was wondering if the more fetish focused of you would find it a worthy addition.
Obviously the player has to setup their gameplay to focus on a dominant female PC on top and for slaves to be generated as exclusively male, female or mixed gender.

My perceived problem is: FC is so sandbox-y in its management style gameplay that most of the random D/S events between Master/Mistress and Slave end up very non-commital to a certain gender based fetish to make it easy to set appropriate gender specific organs and terminology in these one-size fits all scenes. I think they might be too generic, but I can't really say since I've been playing the game since eons and suspect I've lost perspective.

In the list there is a precedent with Degrees Of Lewdity in that the game has to be manually set to cater (nigh) exclusively to femdom. But in contrast to FC, DoF has dedicated scenes and gameplay of domination (e.g. Whitney the bully or the Hunter holding you captive).

There's also the issue that FC was clearly intended as a maledom game during its creation which is reflected by FC's lore that calls any slave a she independent of gender and FC has multiple future societies (basically cultural focuses) that either take this idea of feminity to the extreme and redefine femininity as the goal of a perfect submissive or redefines gender to directly correlate with male as master and female as slave. Just to be clear - these future societies are optional, but are inevitably a part of its world and can be chosen by competing free cities (if enabled).

Converting and or conquering these competing free cities to follow your ideal cultural society is possible, but the issue remains.
There's been an effort by the foremost modding team of FC to mitigate this (at least the gender pronouns and such), but the vanilla experience does not offer this option.


Maybe I worry to much and I should just create a list entry; what are your thoughts?

I never heard about the game and I see it's abandoned since 2017? I'll try to play it today/tomorrow, can you point me to some mods?

 

[Innocience]

I never heard about the game and I see it's abandoned since 2017? I'll try to play it today/tomorrow, can you point me to some mods?

You'll find the mod on

You must be registered to see the links

, it should be the most popular repository.