Domination and Hypergamy

➢Someone (why not you, you handsome bastard?) asked a question the other day on a BDSM forum. It posed an interesting idea:

The first thing I think is that the female would have a very good case against any Dominant male in court should she want to cite an controlling and abusive relationship. Something like this “Your Honour, he controlled me and dominated me and told me what to do and I always had to be submissive blah blah blah”.
“Technical foul, your honour, in no Dom/s relationship does the submissive get to control the tools of pleasure”

Surprisingly, this is less of a concern for the BDSM crowd than within regular relationships. — Unless you’re already into BDSM, in which case you won’t be surprised in the least. The answer to this question is also a key element of what slowed/stopped hypergamy “in ye olden days,” back when a road trip meant two weeks in a wooden wagon half starving to death and then dying of dysentery.

It’s important to understand that one critical flaw of relationships today is a lack of interdependency within the standard relationship. Specifically, in most relationships a woman usually maintains her frame and emotional/spiritual independence from her significant other.

This allows her frame to easily be taken by another man, since she’s not properly pair-bonded with her current mate. Once that happens, the normal emotional and psychological ties that keep her loyal to her man are easily broken, and fucking him over is only a natural next step in the slow-churning horror show that is divorce.

That is to say, it’s her LACK of submission which makes her psychologically more open to cheating. And when I say submission in this sense, it need not be of the BDSM variety.

In even cruder terms: sex isn’t the only place where a woman wants to be bent over and dominated. Or put it another way: the number of women who want to be on perfectly equal grounds with their men, and who are actually happy in that state of affairs, can be counted on one hand.

A hand with no fingers, specifically.

That’s why even the most hardcore feminists will often admit (with a mote of amused shame) that they want the man to lead, and they want the man to pick the restaurant, and they want the man to pay the tab, and they want the man to give her rough sex.

Within the masculine-feminine paradigm, there is a very real sense in which the man becomes responsible for the woman’s frame of reference. He sets the emotional, psychological, physical tone by which the two of them interact. The classic feminist shtick is to call this controlling and manipulative — and perhaps, to a sort of self-entitled narcissist who’s unaware of how cruel the world really is, it might seem that way.

The truth is this: by creating this pseudo-tyrannical structure (not actual tyranny because the woman is free to leave at any time) and creating certain restrictions, the man actually frees the woman to explore and express deeper and more resonant forms of her femininity and sexuality. There’s a correlation here between children and adults: a child has infinite potential to do anything — but ONLY so long as he does nothing. Once you train yourself in a skill, you limit yourself — but that skill allows you to do far more than you could when you were just a child.

Sidestepping the childish claim that I’m comparing women to children (heh), the idea is the same: within the chaos of the world, “independent” women may have more potential than when they’re in a strongly polarized relationship, but the actually things she can accomplish in concert with men is generally limited to great volumes of meaningless sex, after which she cries on the phone to her best friend and how that fuckboi didn’t call her back.

“But men are limited to meaningless sex!” Yes, that’s right. Most men also enjoy meaningless sex far more than women do. In the same line of thought, high schoolers should never get into drinking games with college frats.

So we might view the effects of relationship polarization in two ways:

  1. In a polarized relationship with a masculine man, esp that of a Dom/s relationship, a woman feels more free to be herself than within a regular relationship, since the structure which protects her from the world and defines her own world is so much stronger. Stronger structure = more trust = more expression. Since most men aren’t even close to the level of masculinity created by the Dom/s relationship, leaving the relationship will universally present a loss of self-connection and therefore a loss of freedom for the woman.
  2. In a strictly psychological sense, the structure created by the relationship becomes her frame of reference by which she accesses the world. Her world isn’t just colored by the rules of the Dom/s relationship, her world is defined by it. The rules give her a hard access point by which she can orient her mode of being in order to be successful within the relationship and within the world.

If a submissive destroys her Dom, she destroys herself with it. That’s why most BDSM relationships that end, end on good terms — they HAVE to. You can’t cut the ties of your reality and jump into an ocean of chaos without paying a heavy toll, up to and including insanity. BDSM relationships are negotiated into, and they’re negotiated out of. And THAT’s why Doms getting fucked over is such a rarity.

Every person — kinky or vanilla — can take a lesson from this.


One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.