entitled male subs, and domism

There’s a thing that happens where people respond to particular types of bad things being done by male subs by throwing domism at them. 

This is bad.


{reposted from my Tumblr}

(I want to talk about this better but I just read a post and am annoyed so.)

There’s a thing that happens where people respond to particular types of bad things being done by male subs by throwing domism at them.

This is bad.

If a person is doing the ‘treating a domme like a fetish delivery’ thing, sending dommes (etc) unsolicited fantasy messages or similar, etc, the thing they are doing wrong isn’t *having desires*.

Everyone gets to have their desires, and has equal rights to do so. They get to have as many desires as they do, in as much detail as they do. This is in no way something someone is doing wrong, and it in no way becomes bad or wrong if that someone is a sub.

The thing that person did wrong was *not considering the other person*. Like, that the other person also has desires (etc). (Which might mean an incompatibility, in which case that is not a person to seek that kind of connection with, or might have compatibility, in which case engaging with them is generally a part of seeking that kind of connection.) Like that the other person doesn’t want to be sent unsolicited fantasy messages. Etc.

Which is in fact just as wrong when doms do it (which also very much happens). And it’s wrong in the same way and for the same reasons. Which are consent, and boundaries, and consideration for others rather than entitlement, etc, and not some domist bs like ‘reversing d/s’ or ‘taking the power out of power exchange’*.

*[quotes slightly modified due to vagueblogging]

two paradigms, and domism

While domism comes in a lot of forms, facets, ways, places, etc, one particular thread of domism I tend to encounter a lot I see as tying back to/coming out of a particular [domist] paradigm. As such, I wanted to make a brief post about said paradigm.

The way I look at d/s and related things around it tends to go something like ‘various d-types, people who have interest in d-type things, etc, and various s-types, people who have interest in s-type things, etc, have their own various both needs and desires for themselves and things they want to and find it fulfilling to provide for a partner. Some people are compatible with each other in these ways, some people aren’t. Mutually positive relationships can be found through compatibility, care, and communication’.

Conversely, the domist paradigm that can show up goes something like ‘d-types have things they want, and s-types should give that to them’.

(Note: some people have ‘give my partner what they want’ as in fact their desire. To me that fits perfectly well into the paradigm I hold – that can be a desire people can have (which doesn’t in any way mean it needs to be their only desire, or a desire without bounds), and can be part of what they’re looking to have with a partner. My objections to the domist paradigm are in the universalizing and ‘should-ing’, not in the validity of desires that happen to fit with it).