# Degrading and humiliating (sex), what is it? And why is it liked by some?



## Hokahey (Oct 8, 2010)

Everyone views sex in different light. Everyone views acts in general in a different light. What is actually "degrading" to some? 

What sexual act can be determined to be "negative" if some value the act which is actually a "positive"? 

I guess what I mean is how can you like "degrading" (Causing a loss of self-respect; humiliating.) if you actually "like"/"stimulated" by those acts which I assume would mean you actually have "self-respect". 

What promotes people to feel excitement about this subjective view of "degrading"?


Self-respect is not a standard, how can society deem "degrading" a standard?

This is not a judgement thread.


----------



## dalsgaard (Aug 14, 2010)

Hokahey said:


> Everyone views sex in different light. Everyone views acts in general in a different light. What is actually "degrading" to some?
> 
> What sexual act can be determined to be "negative" if some value the act which is actually a "positive"?
> 
> ...


I think you need examples to illustrate your point, because this is a bit abstract.

But promising.


----------



## Hokahey (Oct 8, 2010)

dalsgaard said:


> I think you need examples to illustrate your point, because this is a bit abstract.
> 
> But promising.


It's suppose to be "abstract" though since it's subjective. I'm asking what others would consider "degrading"...and why some who would label it as such would actually "enjoy" it, yet don't understand if they "enjoy" it why it could be considered "degrading" lol....


----------



## dalsgaard (Aug 14, 2010)

Hokahey said:


> It's suppose to be "abstract" though since it's subjective. I'm asking what others would consider "degrading"...and why some who would label it as such would actually "enjoy" it, yet don't understand if they "enjoy" it why it could be considered "degrading" lol....


Assuming I understand what you're trying to get at (Which I doubt):

Being submissive in a relationship as a form of fetishism can be quite contradictory. For instance: I enjoy being dominated/humiliated by women. But because this form of sexual interaction is not the norm between the male and female, such a relationship usually develops by suggestions and communication. For instance, I like being grabbed by the balls and threatened - but if I tell this to her, then it is per my suggestion, and thus the control she exerts afterward is only an illusion. Rather than have her being the dominant one in our sexual relationship, I am actually the dominant, because I established the perimeters around which our sexual relations revolve. It's a bit of a paradox, because in a way I'm exerting power in an attempt to give up my own, which is the opposite of what I want.

This points to the fact that we are conscious about the fact that it's just a fantasy. So when my girlfriend and I have fun with chastity, even though I'm not allowed to relieve myself, I'm still quite aware that I could just say 'fuck it', do it anyway, and completely ignore her attempts to overpower my decisions. Submission to humiliation voluntarily is therefore little more than a game. You're not giving up your control, but you're relieving yourself of it for a brief period of time, in order to play out that fantasy. It's no different than people who like to have sex while they are in costumes, it's all an elaborate role playing. A couple knows, of course, that they are not Maid Marian and Robin Hood - but they are living themselves into that fantasy to heighten the pleasure.


----------



## Hokahey (Oct 8, 2010)

dalsgaard said:


> It's a bit of a paradox


Exactly! You win..... 


I guess that's my point. It just seems like a "paradox" or conundrum if you will, with just a "label" that interacts with society (shudders). 

Thank you for your post. Very informative. The 2nd aim of the thread is to see what people would "deem" degrading....


----------



## Ephemerald (Aug 27, 2011)

Who ever said sex is rational?


----------



## dalsgaard (Aug 14, 2010)

Hokahey said:


> Thank you for your post. Very informative. The 2nd aim of the thread is to see what people would "deem" degrading....


If degradation is voluntary, then the person who submits still possess his/her sense of self-worth. Ie.: I don't feel like less of a man, because I like to be grabbed by the balls and dragged around the house (Though I love the fantasy). I still wake up every morning, go to school, and feel like the same person as I did before. But I definitely would feel like less of a man if such an act exceeded my boundaries, and suddenly became dangerous. The line is drawn at the individuals willingness to submit. If someone I didn't know raped me in a dark alley - then I would feel degraded and my perception of myself would be forced to change. I would feel paranoid when I walked to school, and I'd be a lot more afraid of people around me - and my confidence would drop.

So, final answer: If you feel less valuable for an extended period of time, and it is beyond your ability to control this feeling, then the acts forced upon you were truly degrading.


----------



## LotusBlossom (Apr 2, 2011)

sex, to me, is only degrading it when I do it not because I want to, but because I felt like I had to, to keep the partner happy/keep the peace/avoid conflict.

When I was younger I was in this relationship that went on for a lot longer than it should have. I was very unhappy for half of that time; he was emotionally neglectful; everything had to be on his terms; always prioritizes his friends above me; ignores me when he didn't feel like talking to me; didn't attempt to protect or stand up for me when I was harassed..._in front of him_.

Granted, I didn't assert myself, but I wasn't exactly healthy either (almost no self-esteem at that point). But yeah, i was unhappy, and whenever I'm unhappy in a relationship any sexual desire I have for my partner simply diminishes. Still, he wanted a lot of sex, and I didn't feel like I could say no. It was mechanical at best, and at the zenith of my unhappiness I remember dissociating myself during sex because I didn't want to be there. 

But yeah, I found sex with him during those times incredibly degrading to myself, because in retrospect, I was only able to do it because my self-esteem and my self-respect then was almost zero. I also felt so dirty and used afterwards.


----------



## dalsgaard (Aug 14, 2010)

Ephemerald said:


> Who ever said sex is rational?


I suppose you could calculate the optimal angle of penetration based on genitalia anatomy. Proper INTJ sexiness


----------



## Olena (Jan 2, 2011)

Degrading sex, for me, is when I'm treated like I'm worthless. This includes incredibly rough treatment, name calling, not caring about whether I cum or not, e.g being fucked in the ass because 'I'm a whore who's not worth giving pleasure to'. I love being threatened as well and being physically hurt.

Humiliating well...I'm humiliated easily hahaha, so it can be anything from having to maintain eye contact during sex/having my partner cum on my face to begging for sex when I don't want it. I love satisfying my partner before myself and being used for their enjoyment.

I'm into bdsm and I'm a switch, since this might be a good piece of info to throw in...
The submissive is the one who has all the real control, the Dom can only go as far as the sub allows and I've mostly been the sub. I was a Dom once, briefly and another time we switched roles in our relationship but he chose to switch back after understanding how to be a better Dom from me by my example.

Why I like it...it gives me a rush. I love fear, feeling powerless and being fucked around with. I love saying no and really meaning yes. Idk, I like feeling like something's being taken from me.

I've had my limits pushed and I enjoyed it even more when I'm pushed but it's not recommended. Safe words are your friend.

...my sexual interests make it difficult for me to get involved with someone. I like variety but I require this kind of sex a lot. I like being hurt and I know that tends to go against the whole 'don't hurt women' thing. =/


----------



## Hokahey (Oct 8, 2010)

Olena said:


> Degrading sex, for me, is when I'm treated like I'm worthless. This includes incredibly rough treatment, name calling, not caring about whether I cum or not, e.g being fucked in the ass because 'I'm a whore who's not worth giving pleasure to'. I love being threatened as well and being physically hurt.
> 
> Humiliating well...I'm humiliated easily hahaha, so it can be anything from having to maintain eye contact during sex/having my partner cum on my face to begging for sex when I don't want it. I love satisfying my partner before myself and being used for their enjoyment.
> 
> ...


Intriguing, so in reality the dom is actually submissive because they are simply in the "desire" of pleasing the sub. 



Thank you for your contribution to the thread btw and defining what you actually like about "acts" you find "degrading".


----------



## Sheppard (Jul 4, 2011)

In freudian terms, cause it's simplistic enough to work for this, degradation kicks the superego in the ass, and the super ego can be such a bastard sometimes. DO NOT DO THIS OR YOU ARE NOT A GOOD PERSON! SOCIETY EXPECTS BETTER OF YOU! THIS THING THAT FEELS GOOD IS WRONG! YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO ENJOY IT!

Degradation in a consensual situation, some force, perhaps some pain, the illusion that there is no choice sort of takes it out of the equation, and what you are left with is the Id being channeled into the ego. Drives, wants, hungers, passion, without inhibition. You unleash the beast, the animal within that feels no shame, and feels no guilt, and readily creams its panties as the body is set on fire with pure lust.

I don't think this is 100 percent accurate, but I do believe it approaches truth.


----------



## strawberryLola (Sep 19, 2010)

I heard it had something to do with Oedpial complex and the mother having certain qualities that makes people who like the humiliation to be stimulated by and attracted to being subjected to torment and subordination.

For women- being in the dominating position may make it more enticing for them because some women do tend to prefer submissive types. Maybe it's an Electra complex where the father is weak/subordinate too?


----------



## ancilla (Jul 8, 2011)

It's entirely subjective. Speaking from the perspective of a submissive, it's not even how i perceive the act most of the time, it’s how my Dom perceives me doing the act. If i'm crawling, being led around by a leash, spanked and he looks at me with pride, desire, happiness, or anything good, i am not degraded. But if he were to look at me with disgust or revulsion while i do the same act i would feel shame. Though, i'm sure there are some things that would cause me to feel shame regardless of his response to it. 

As for what causes me to feel "excitement" from “degrading” acts: it’s fun, it is adrenaline inducing, its freeing of inhibitions. It’s like drugs without the drugs and honestly the only way I’ve ever been high in my life. It allows me to do the things i want to do without having to make the choice to do them. If I choose to do it on my own without my Master there to support me, i’d feel acute embarrassment. When he forces me to do it, i get to do things that i want to do without having to make the decision to do them. And, honestly, making the decision to do them, would also take the fun out of it. There are "degrading" acts that i preform that i derive great pleasure from, and i've had this conversation with my Dom. He will sometimes request of me to tell him something degrading that i will do for him. And i've responded by telling him that nothing i do for him is degrading. i guess i could be compared to a stripper who honestly likes her job. People watching think she is degraded but if she doesn't _feel _degraded, she is not. A sexual act is only negative if a person participating in the act feels negative about it. 

It would seem to be a paradox to "like" being "degraded," however, it doesn't have to be. There are emotional masochists; they want to be torn up inside and made to bleed from their hearts. i don't know how much they actually like what’s happening to them until they get the release they seek but they certainly don't seem to. It's the end result that matters. And if they don't suffer, it's not good enough. They _want _to feel that shame. 

As for who is actually in charge, it truly is the Dom. Yes, subs often have safe words (they should) but it is the Dom who decides to honor them so choose wisely. i'm certainly not in charge when i'm tied up and blindfolded. Control through a safe word is only an illusion. A sub is no more in charge than anyone else who says "no". In fact, in deep play, i'd say that a sub is even less in charge then that. A sub can be so concerned with pleasing there Dom that all thoughts of self-preservation fly out the window. If this happens, there is no question; it is the Dom who is in charge. If you are looking to play as a Dom or a Top, be very aware of this. You truly cannot always rely on your sub to safe word. It takes respect, trust, and honesty to make it safe, sane, and consensual.


----------



## ficsci (May 4, 2011)

Because some people are sadists or masochists


----------



## Celtic Dreams (Sep 7, 2011)

Sheppard said:


> In freudian terms, cause it's simplistic enough to work for this, degradation kicks the superego in the ass, and the super ego can be such a bastard sometimes. DO NOT DO THIS OR YOU ARE NOT A GOOD PERSON! SOCIETY EXPECTS BETTER OF YOU! THIS THING THAT FEELS GOOD IS WRONG! YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO ENJOY IT!
> 
> Degradation in a consensual situation, some force, perhaps some pain, the illusion that there is no choice sort of takes it out of the equation, and what you are left with is the Id being channeled into the ego. Drives, wants, hungers, passion, without inhibition. You unleash the beast, the animal within that feels no shame, and feels no guilt, and readily creams its panties as the body is set on fire with pure lust.
> 
> I don't think this is 100 percent accurate, but I do believe it approaches truth.


I like this take on the whole thing.


----------



## Celtic Dreams (Sep 7, 2011)

Wow.. people are outspoken around here! UM.. I think degradation is completely related to boundaries. If you FEEL degraded, your boundaries have been crossed. A person may move those boundaries from time to time, but they ought to still be in charge of where they are set. As some have posted, boundary pushing or crossing is also a turn-on for some. 

I'm way too tired to get into shock value and how that sets up sexuality and can sometimes "pervert" it, or how for some adrenaline adds to heightened sexual pleasure. But if you want to know what kinds of activities people consider degrading. .it's going to vary a lot person by person.

For me, I only disallow name-calling, real hitting, urine, feces, and cumming in my face. I believe respect is sexy.


----------



## redmanXNTP (May 17, 2011)

This is VERY subjective, but generally I believe that people can use sex to flout social norms given the deep-seated drives people have sexually anyway, and given the privacy (usually) of sex. 

Sexual satisfaction to many, and especially women in my experience (the typical submissive due to gender traits and roles), is often heightened by a sense of "risk", be it the social risk of being found out or discovered having sex somewhere like in public, or more physical risk like choking or forms of bondage (simulating rape or torture), or simply the social risk of certain sex acts that would be considered degrading in any other context in our lives or if anyone else knew about them (simulated sexism and misogyny). 

Social norms, like all external rules, take energy from us to comply with them given that we "can't just be ourselves". It's a nice release to be able to blow off that steam by flouting those rules from time to time. I think that's the gist of the lady/whore paradigm, for example.


----------



## Olena (Jan 2, 2011)

ancilla said:


> As for who is actually in charge, it truly is the Dom. Yes, subs often have safe words (they should) but it is the Dom who decides to honor them so choose wisely. i'm certainly not in charge when i'm tied up and blindfolded. Control through a safe word is only an illusion. A sub is no more in charge than anyone else who says "no". In fact, in deep play, i'd say that a sub is even less in charge then that. A sub can be so concerned with pleasing there Dom that all thoughts of self-preservation fly out the window. If this happens, there is no question; it is the Dom who is in charge. If you are looking to play as a Dom or a Top, be very aware of this. You truly cannot always rely on your sub to safe word. It takes respect, trust, and honesty to make it safe, sane, and consensual.


I believe BDSM is subjective in many ways, but I believe it's the Sub who's in control by allowing the Dom is be in control. (although I think you choosing that mindset is just your submissive desire. It's not fun knowing you're in control when you want someone else to have the control)

In deep play, if the sub uses the safe word and the Dom does not comply, trust is broken. It's full on non-consensual then. Not 'play-noncon' REAL non-con. There is a big difference between saying 'no' and using the safe-word. Why else would you need a crazy-out-of-place word? it means things are really getting out of hand.

I think what you're referring to is when you reach the point that you trust your Master so completely that you never have the need to use the safe-word. Walls have been broken down and you trust him/her so thoroughly you can enter sessions without fearing something will go wrong.

I just had to comment because the way you made it sound, it painted BDSM as occasionally verging on possible non-consensual abuse. There is always a time you can say no but if you pick the wrong Master, then things will be bad. I've heard tons of stories where subs were raped and had trouble enjoying BDSM properly after that.

So yeah, trust and the Dom must always have respect for the Sub. 

Regardless of what BDSM looks like, it's built on trust and respect.


----------



## Eerie (Feb 9, 2011)

It's hot because it's wrong. That's basically it. It's taboo, and people love that shit. :tongue:


----------



## shadowofambivalence (May 11, 2011)

I gave a guy a spanking a few times before and it was fun and he seemed to enjoy it, so i guess as long as its consesual its not degrading


----------



## Resolution (Feb 8, 2010)

shadowofambivalence said:


> I gave a guy a spanking a few times before and it was fun and he seemed to enjoy it, so i guess as long as its consesual its not degrading


I agree. Degradation is entirely subjective.


----------



## Up and Away (Mar 5, 2011)

I like what has been said here about feeling degraded and definitely about "if a dom isnt revulsed by you, he isnt degrading you."

I think it is a sliding scale though, because someone could hate someone and have no one else so use them for sex. Yes it isnt degrading in the sense that they find the other attractive enough to do them, but it is in every other way.

Obectification--------------------Care
Revulsion------------------Interest

I think these "degraded" represents both of the two above scales, and both needed added in.

I also like what redman said about *risk*. Its like driving a car fast, between many cars. Its dangerous, but in danger our body awakens and we are in more control. Like with power lifting, the heavier the weight is, the more our psyche tells us "this is serious" and wakes our body up. We feel alive, because we have to.

Risk, in being taboo yes, I see that, but digging deeper, risk in being submissive is...

I suppose it is risking pushing boundaries, and the risk of being dom is pushing your boundaries which might include "not pushing someone elses boundaries."

In that context though, it is not a risk of being submissive or dominant as much as it is a risk of "being turned on in a situation that could lead to pushing boundaries."

1) Dopamine rush/ Dopamine Tunnel Vision, being very very sexually turned on

2) In a situation where the boundaries could actually be pushed.

Its very risky, and so the body becomes very alive, as is the case with every dangerous situation.

I find all of the above attractive.

I think it is because i myself have reflected on how to push my unhealthy limits away so much that i can keenly relate to the "struggle of limits."

As i am more and more successful with helping myself, I am more and more enjoying the, in this context, dom perspective, however i associate that with a leadership role in real life as well, as i help other people break free of their limits.

I don't respect people that think life is about freeing ALL inhibitions, at all. I'm not a relativist. Its ironic though, because those types of people usually dont give a crap who respects them anyway.

I mean if someone has you playing russian roulette, or someone forces another to play, that is just sick.


----------



## Tyche (May 12, 2011)

I've never done anything I considered humiliating or degrading. I wouldn't participate in activities that make me feel that way by choice. I consider facials to be degrading, but I think being called names and being slapped around while being fucked is not at all degrading or humiliating. I think my views are vastly different than most, though there are plenty of people who want to be truly used as a sex toy and are happy to do that. It's all different for everyone, isn't it?


----------



## twoofthree (Aug 6, 2011)

Sheppard said:


> In freudian terms, cause it's simplistic enough to work for this, degradation kicks the superego in the ass, and the super ego can be such a bastard sometimes. DO NOT DO THIS OR YOU ARE NOT A GOOD PERSON! SOCIETY EXPECTS BETTER OF YOU! THIS THING THAT FEELS GOOD IS WRONG! YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO ENJOY IT!
> 
> Degradation in a consensual situation, some force, perhaps some pain, the illusion that there is no choice sort of takes it out of the equation, and what you are left with is the Id being channeled into the ego. Drives, wants, hungers, passion, without inhibition. You unleash the beast, the animal within that feels no shame, and feels no guilt, and readily creams its panties as the body is set on fire with pure lust.
> 
> I don't think this is 100 percent accurate, but I do believe it approaches truth.


This is how I see it too. People are too inhibited to follow their dark desires. So by being forced to do it they absolve themselves of responsibility. "I'm just doing as I'm told. I'm not in control."



Rosslyn said:


> I've never done anything I considered humiliating or degrading. I wouldn't participate in activities that make me feel that way by choice. I consider facials to be degrading, but I think being called names and being slapped around while being fucked is not at all degrading or humiliating. I think my views are vastly different than most, though there are plenty of people who want to be truly used as a sex toy and are happy to do that. It's all different for everyone, isn't it?


Personally, I feel free to do whatever I want to do. I'm not very inhibited, and external factors tend to heighten, rather than lower my inhibitions (I'm more uptight when I drink than when I don't).

In addition, I don't like being told what to do. . . in any context. I'm not one for being ordered or lead. I'm also not one for giving orders or leading. Of course in life one has to do things one doesn't want to, so I will take and give instructions at work etc.

So dom/sub dynamics are not for me.

I wouldn't tolerate name-calling or being slapped either.


----------



## Up and Away (Mar 5, 2011)

There isnt as much shame when its what someone wants you to do. I think there is just as much responsibility though.


----------



## Everyday Ghoul (Aug 4, 2009)

I have a complicated, twisted, love/hate thing with degradation/humiliation in my sex. It started with my ex-fiance. During sex, I started asking her what her other lovers, that she kept on the side did to her, for her, why she liked it better, how it felt, etc. It's a very interesting thing to be simultaneously so turned on you feel you can't control yourself and so pissed off you're crying and can't see straight. Eventually, I talked her and one of them into a threesome. I was actually really, surprisingly aggressive and dominant in that situation. I told her what to do to him and told him what to do to her. The problem is always the same, though. When the encounter is over and the sexual energy dissipates, I'm left disgusted and ashamed, and filled with the very, very dark anger that drives me to violence. So, this isn't something I can engage in, ever again. If I did, the relationship would be toast. Yet, when I start getting aroused, it's the first of the fantasies to pop up in my head.


----------



## Mercer (Nov 6, 2009)

i used to tie a girl up. but after a while i realized that i had no power in the relationship. i would do whatever degrading and horible thing as long as thats what she wanted. so you see, in the end I was HER bitch.


----------



## Tobias Andre Andersen (Jun 18, 2011)

Mercer said:


> i used to tie a girl up. but after a while i realized that i had no power in the relationship. i would do whatever degrading and horible thing as long as thats what she wanted. so you see, in the end I was HER bitch.


Tie her up, then have a good long session of COD!  That's what I always do...


----------



## Mendi the ISFJ (Jul 28, 2011)

urination, deification, domination, BSDM, strangulation, video taping or making public sexual experiences on an unwilling/unsuspecting partner. Basically all of these things can be ok if both people are in agreement and are aware of the situation.


----------



## Tobias Andre Andersen (Jun 18, 2011)

As I can read from others, I agree on it being mostly about letting themselves go. Unleash the kraken, so to speak.


----------



## Shahada (Apr 26, 2010)

a big bad wolf said:


> I have a complicated, twisted, love/hate thing with degradation/humiliation in my sex. It started with my ex-fiance. During sex, I started asking her what her other lovers, that she kept on the side did to her, for her, why she liked it better, how it felt, etc. It's a very interesting thing to be simultaneously so turned on you feel you can't control yourself and so pissed off you're crying and can't see straight. Eventually, I talked her and one of them into a threesome. I was actually really, surprisingly aggressive and dominant in that situation. I told her what to do to him and told him what to do to her. The problem is always the same, though. When the encounter is over and the sexual energy dissipates, I'm left disgusted and ashamed, and filled with the very, very dark anger that drives me to violence. So, this isn't something I can engage in, ever again. If I did, the relationship would be toast. Yet, when I start getting aroused, it's the first of the fantasies to pop up in my head.


That's a pretty intense story...if you don't mind me asking though, have you ever thought maybe the problem isn't so much your desires but the way you handled them? I'm not judging you or anything, if everything you did was consensual that's cool, but it doesn't seem like it's made you happy. Have you ever thought about other, emotionally and psychologically safer ways to explore your feelings on this sort of thing? The end of your post makes it sound to me like your feelings haven't gone away, but you're suppressing them for the good of the relationship. That's a noble goal but the sort of feelings you're talking about don't go away easily, and trying to just bottle them up can often end up backfiring in the long run. Have you tried talking with your gf about your fantasies and maybe exploring other, safer ways you can provide yourself an outlet? I think that's the best bet for keeping your relationship strong. A lot of the time the best and even only way to deal with feelings like yours and be happy is to work out a healthy mode of expression for them, not bottling them up. Sorry I don't usually give sex/relationship advice, feel free to ignore if you think I'm dumb.


----------



## Chief (Apr 23, 2011)

I'm not going to go into this in depth because frankly, it would get me in too much trouble. Suffice it to say, however, men who are dominant in the bedroom (and this does not mean whips and chains, simply taking serious control and, through role-playing, "forcing" women to do things which some would consider humiliating/degrading), aka "dom"s, of which there are several types, generally have an overflow of women who want them sexually.

As I haven't done specific research on the subject, I can't speak from the women's side with any authority, but simply from what "sub"s or submissive women I've known, have told me, and that would be the following:

Women in American culture are taught sex is a dirty, horrible, nasty thing, and respectable women wouldn't or doesn't do X, Y, or Z. However, American women are still human, and a dom (the male equivalent of a dominatrix... some spell it domme), or sexually dominant male gives them, in effect, an excuse to do lots of things they, as sexual human beings, would love to do, but might lose respect for themselves, or worry others would lose respect for them if they told anyone they actually liked such things (Good ol' Judeo-Christian sexual repression--it earns behaviorists like me a fortune!). The Dom strips them of that responsibility of having to admit they WANT to do it. This, on top of the fact confidence is the ultimate aphrodisiac for a woman (and what's a bigger show of sexual confidence for a man than demanding what he wants sexually from a woman?), is what I've been told makes the sexually dominant male, or dom, so attractive. As a guy myself, I can't say I get it totally as I'll never be in a woman's body (at least in this life), but learning about this particular dynamic probably taught me more about what women want than all my years of study in human behavior (and please do not try to read anything into that).

Now, I should add, there are several different types of doms, but the main two are referred to as the "gentleman dom" and the "controlling dom." A gentleman dom is dominant when it comes to sex, and enjoys that 'fetish' if you will, but outside of the bedroom is the perfect gentleman (though I should probably say "outside of sex", since some of the male dom/female sub's most desired experiences are "forcing" a woman to do things far more publicly than her ladylike exterior would normally allow her to do "willingly," hence the need for a safe-word, something I suggest for ANYONE!!! engaging in this form of roleplay), and actually prefers a woman to be strong and successful and an equal outside of sex. If she isn't, for the gentleman dom, he hasn't accomplished anything or had to work for anything. He wouldn't want a slutty woman to do whatever he wants. That would be too easy and not at all a turn on.

The controlling dom is a whole other story. The controlling dom feels a need to control a woman in all facets of her life, telling her what to eat, drink, what clothes to wear, how much makeup to wear, and on and on and on. You can draw your own conclusions about a guy who feels the need to have this much control over a woman. One thing's for certain, this type of dom will have sex with any kind of woman. Controlling women for him isn't really a fetish so much as it is a lifestyle. IMO they tend to be misogynists.

As for the dominatrix, male sub relationship, again, haven't done my own experiments so can really only spout back what I've read and heard. From what I understand, the dominatrix is not usually in it for a sexual turn on. Instead, for her, it's a way to either make money, or find a powerful man with money who craves time when he doesn't have to be so powerful. Additionally, FWIU, actual intercourse is not that common in these relationships. As a smart woman once said "you can't respect a guy who kisses your ass" and that's precisely what the male submissive will do (both figuratively and literally).

I can tell you with absolute certainty male doms are in short supply and high demand. The controlling dom could find a different partner every night, and for all I know, often does (there was a report of a 45 y.o. dumpy, poor dressing 'controlling dom' who put up an ad on Craigslist and bedded over 200 women in a year [confirmed], eventually contracting aids, then starting to spread it to the next 100, 150 or however many. When it was proven he knew he had AIDS, he was arrested and convicted of, I believe, over 100 counts of, IIRC, assault with a deadly weapon). 

The gentleman dom, OTOH, has far higher standards. So, whereas he COULD have sex with a different partner every night, he chooses not to, preferring to find that woman who is worth dominating, then winning her over OUTSIDE of sex in order to really be able to enjoy showing off his dominant side in the bedroom.

And yes, believe it or not, this is NOT going into NEARLY as much detail/depth as I could on the topic, though I found it very interesting someone would ask this (as well as how some people are answering this)


----------



## SenhorFrio (Apr 29, 2010)

so much of society puts alot of pressure on confidence, taking control of your own life and iniative. I think sometimes people yearn to lose their control for awhile.


----------



## Chief (Apr 23, 2011)

SenhorFrio said:


> so much of society puts alot of pressure on confidence, taking control of your own life and iniative. I think sometimes people yearn to lose their control for awhile.


Yes. This is precisely what drives the behavior in male submissives. However, when you get down to the nitty gritty, what women want from a man, more than a successful man, more than a nice man, more than a funny man, more than a tall man, is a confident man. Society isn't putting pressure on men to be confident. Evolution is. Confidence is the new "big and strong." 200,000 years ago women looked for a big, strong man because he was most likely to be able to protect her and provide her with successful offspring. Today, height has little to nothing to do with success (in fact, in recent tests, "tall mans syndrome" is, effectually, being stupid. They (men >=5'10") score lower across the board on all 7 of the original Gardner "multiple intellects" scale than the average male. Short men, <=5'8" score higher across the board (and for those interested, which is no doubt VERY FEW of you :laughing:, I believe I can explain how this happened evolutionarily--not that it's all that difficult to figure out).

I think the greatest piece of evidence in the tall vs. confident argument is the average American male has shrunk by a full inch to 5'9" over the last 20 years from a high of 5'10" back in 1990. This is the best news for shorter men since the invention of lifts :wink:, as they no longer have to feel like being shorter than 5'10" is a death knell. All they have to do is be confident and they'll have a nice constant flow of prospective partners. I know this may not sound like a big deal to many of you reading this, but in world of the academics in human behavior, it's the first sign of humans evolving their tastes to fit the modern economical landscape where taller is almost necessarily worse in terms of having offspring who face a bright future! I know Patti Stanger is HATING this trend. She calls New York, and really the NorthEast in general "land of the midgets." Of course, as she lives in L.A., which she, herself, has called, effectually, "the land of the pretty morons." (Oh, and Patti? There's no such thing as "Narcissistic Perfectionist Disorder." The "P" in NPD stands for Narcissistic Personality Disorder. And for all those reading this: Yes, I fully admit I watch WAY too much television. :happy


----------



## twoofthree (Aug 6, 2011)

Chief said:


> I think the greatest piece of evidence in the tall vs. confident argument is the average American male has shrunk by a full inch to 5'9" over the last 20 years from a high of 5'10" back in 1990.


Isn't this down to poor diets?


----------



## Sheppard (Jul 4, 2011)

twoofthree said:


> Isn't this down to poor diets?


That's what my money would be on. The only other nation I know of that had a significant decrease in average size is north korea. Since the Korean war they are on average several inches smaller than their South Korean bretheren, and this is thought to be due to a very, very poor diet.

The American diet is marked with very high sugar levels, and now HFCS levels, both of which are - literally - poisons.


----------



## twoofthree (Aug 6, 2011)

Sheppard said:


> That's what my money would be on. The only other nation I know of that had a significant decrease in average size is north korea. Since the Korean war they are on average several inches smaller than their South Korean bretheren, and this is thought to be due to a very, very poor diet.
> 
> The American diet is marked with very high sugar levels, and now HFCS levels, both of which are - literally - poisons.


The increase in heights people had before, were down to better diets, not evolution. But in the last few decades our diets have become worse.
In some transitional countries (brazil for example), you can see as much as 3 inches difference in average heights between people of successive generations. . .based on diet (their diets have improved due to prosperity).


----------



## Chief (Apr 23, 2011)

Sheppard said:


> The American diet is marked with very high sugar levels, and now HFCS levels, both of which are - literally - poisons.


And has been since the study of techniques in the refinement of sugar back were sought after in the 7th century AD. There is absolutely ZERO evidence to support diets have changed sufficiently in the last 20 years to reverse an upward trend in the height of the average male over the last 1500 years. There were more poisons and chemicals on the produce in the mid 20th century than there are now, so the claim the average American male has gone from 5'10" to 5'9" in only 20 years is beyond preposterous, certainly IMO, but also in the opinion of the entire academic anthro-studies community. Ockham's Razor points directly to higher intellect, more success, and a greater chance to provide security for their children as the obvious factors in choosing a shorter male, especially when combined with lower intellects, salaries, and lower ambition levels in taller men. Are you 5'10" or over? Because if so, it would appear you suffer from tall-man's syndrome.


----------



## Sheppard (Jul 4, 2011)

Chief said:


> And has been since the study of techniques in the refinement of sugar back were sought after in the 7th century AD. There is absolutely ZERO evidence to support diets have changed sufficiently in the last 20 years to reverse an upward trend in the height of the average male over the last 1500 years. There were more poisons and chemicals on the produce in the mid 20th century than there are now, so the claim the average American male has gone from 5'10" to 5'9" in only 20 years is beyond preposterous, certainly IMO, but also in the opinion of the entire academic anthro-studies community. Ockham's Razor points directly to higher intellect, more success, and a greater chance to provide security for their children as the obvious factors in choosing a shorter male, especially when combined with lower intellects, salaries, and lower ambition levels in taller men. Are you 5'10" or over? Because if so, it would appear you suffer from tall-man's syndrome.


This is just a starting off point for you, or meant as such. To show you that there is data, and it is not quite as preposterous as you assume. 






Cliffnotes:

1973, Richard Nixon and USDA Secterary Earl Butz come to the decision that food, which highly fluctuated in price back then, should never be an issue in presidential elections. How do you do that? By making food cheap. The Secretary of Argiculture studied all ways possible to make that happen. 

In 1966 the Japanese invent HFCS, which is introduced into the American market in 1975. Unlike sugar, which was seasonal, it was stable in price, predictable, and cheap, and so every consumable that took advantage of that would itself stabilize to a degree in price and become cheaper. This is why you find it in everything. This was part of a decision making mechanism then dubbed as "War on Poverty", and is now referred to as the macro-nutrient wars. 

The USDA, AMA, and AHA call for dietary fat reduction in 1982. All of them told us, admonished the public at large, that we have to reduce the conspumption of fat in order to reduce heart desease. This was a decison based on very bad data following the discovery of LDL (a type of cholesterol). The studies they performed were not double blind, and even the premise of the studies themselves was wrong. If A leads to B and B leads to C that does not mean that A leads to C and then when you eliminate A, it doesn't mean you eliminate C. But, still, fat was reduced. The Nation managed to pull it off. We saw the introduction of "Light" products then. And the only way to make low fat food taste like anything was by adding sugar. 

As to the data to consider.
Natural consumption of sugar: 15 gm/day
Consumption prior to WW2 (estimated): 16-24 gm/day
1977-1978 (USDA Nationwide Food Consumption Survey): 37 gm/day
1994 (NHANES III): 54.7 gm/day
2008 (Medacarpe Med J? Hard to make out): 72.8 gm/day, or 12.1 percent of the total caloric intake. Of those in that study 25 percent got at least 15 percent of their daily calories from fructose alone. 

Currently the annual consumption of HFCS per person is 65 pounds.

All of this is very, very bad. A disaster, responsible for the type 2 diabetes, heart disease and obesity epidemics. This is a development that has become global in scale now, due to the cultural (through media) and actual export of the American diet, do to the economic realities of cheaper food, and falls within your terms of recent, I believe.


----------



## Chief (Apr 23, 2011)

twoofthree said:


> The increase in heights people had before, were down to better diets, not evolution. But in the last few decades our diets have become worse.
> In some transitional countries (brazil for example), you can see as much as 3 inches difference in average heights between people of successive generations. . .based on diet (their diets have improved due to prosperity).


PARTIALLY true, but certainly all but impossible to prove for the 200,000 year history of man. In fact, the average height of man has been increasing over the millenia for all time. To suggest there's been some particular change in diet, ESPECIALLY in America during the heighth of our power, which has decreased the average height of the American male in the last 20 years, without any experimentation or data to back you up, is pure hubris. Let me guess... you're a woman who likes tall men. Hey, nobody is saying you're preference is wrong or there aren't any women who agree with you. In fact, the vast majority of women will not settle for a man who is shorter than they are. What HAS changed is the importance women put on height.

Back in the early 90s, 20/20 did a study on women and their choice of men allowing them to see the men as well as know their salary, intellect, and achievements. Overwhelmingly women chose the taller men and it took things like the taller men being former rapists with no money and the shorter man being a billionaire for women to choose the shorter men. This particular study has been repeated over and over by behaviorists and, again, the percentage of women who find height to be the single most important factor in a choice of a man has declined significantly (by ~65%). Nobody's trying to argue height isn't still a factor for women. It's just a significantly reduced factor, and that reduction has allowed shorter men to breed significantly more often than before. You don't have to like it, or agree with those women, but trying to come up with an alternate opinion with no studies, no significant evidence to back you up means you're throwing up straw man after straw man.

Not to be mean (and honestly, I'm NOT saying this to be mean), but you sound like the Catholic church elders after Galileo proved the earth wasn't the center of the universe. The church made all kinds of claims they said "proved Galileo wrong!!" They eventually, of course, jailed the guy (effectually a life sentence considering he died under "house arrest") for proving something they didn't want to hear, or simply didn't like. I'm really almost stunned people feel a need to find some random guess for a reason rather than accept what students of human evolution (which includes every professor of human behavior I've ever known), and just about every scientist involved have concluded--as though the rest of us are just imbeciles and hadn't considered "diet"--rather than just read the journals and evidence for themselves before making such rash statements.


----------



## Eerie (Feb 9, 2011)

Let's go back to talking about why we enjoy kinky sex now, mkay? Height is like penis size, irrelevant.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

from wiki



> Humiliation in general stimulates the same brain regions that are associated with physical pain, the inference being that humans evolved to remember social rewards and punishments as strongly as other animals recall physical reward or pain in response to their environment. As with any form of pain experimentation in a sexual context, consent and (paradoxically) a high degree of awareness and communication is needed to ensure that the result is desirable, rather than abusive. For example, a submissive may enjoy being insulted in some ways, but be genuinely crushed and devastated if humiliated or insulted in other ways.
> Humiliation play is also connected to sexual fetishism, in that non-sexual activities may become sexualised by association with arousal, and also may be associated with exhibitionism in the sense of wanting others to witness (or being aroused by others witnessing) one's sexual degradation.
> For some people, activities such as name-calling are a way of achieving ego reduction or getting over sexual inhibitions. For example, between gay people, terms usually associated with homophobia may be used, such as "******" or "****."
> As with all sexual activities, some people have sexual fantasies about humiliation, and others actually undertake it as a lifestyle or in a scene. Sexual fantasies relating to mild humiliation are not uncommon. Some humiliation roleplay (pup-play and age play in particular) is combined with loyalty and care-giving to the extent that these fetishes can be seen as exercises in trust rather than primarily a humiliation fetish. Consider that the desire to be beneath the other partner during intercourse, the idea of "getting caught" such as with having sex in the garden or woods, or mild rape fantasies (where the person imagines themselves to be forced in a way they would like, and which must be seen as completely different to any real form of rape), are mild emotional games that emphasise status, vulnerability and control. However, for most people such ideas remain a fantasy and they would have strong reservations about it being made public, or engaged in with a partner for real, however erotic the idea may be.If a person does reveal their fetish to their partners, this usually is a result of a huge amount of trust invested in them, due to the similarly huge psychological struggle they would have had to have gone through to tell them.However, the desire to be humiliated may be a motivating cause for confession as the act of confessing would be humiliating. Many people have the worry of being ridiculed for their fetish, and such ridicule from their partners could be psychologically catastrophic. Therefore, many people use online humiliation (where the humiliator and others are involved via the internet using chat, email, websites, etc.) as a compromise between exhibitionism and reality on the one hand, and safety and anonymity on the other.



Erotic humiliation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------

