Panties: Do They Define the Power or the Lack of Power in a Relationship?

Written by “The Great Dis-Illusonist”, AKA "Susans’s Pet".


I get confused while reading some of this material. For example, from a fine blog with well-written posts, skipping any reference to identification on purpose, I quote this:

“After really thinking about it, I decided that I would just reinforce our relationship and tell her what our plans were, and what I expected from her. I did that this morning as I was getting ready to head to the office. To set the tone, I laid out the bra and panty set I wanted her to wear today. When I do that, she gets the idea that I am in one of my more controlling and dominating moods.”

One would expect that this was written by a man who dominated his female subject to the point of dictating what underwear to sport. Nay, the words are written by a woman. When she says “her” she means her male sissy person. She says, “To set the tone, I laid out the bra and panty set I wanted her to wear today.”

Here is another excerpt from a comment to a blog, I will skip the identity to protect the confused:

“There is nothing like watching your smooth sissy in her first bra and pantie[sic] set. I loved watching my cock enter sissies[sic] pussy. I swear if I kept fucking her she was going to cum too.”

If you have not guessed it, this too, was written by a woman. She “loved watching her cock enter sissies pussy”. Just who has what kind of anatomy here?

OK, let’s back off and try to understand the terms. Apparently being “her” is demeaningly feminine, a role assigned to a male who is not worthy of being “him” or masculine, or to have any thoughts of being in charge of himself. He is a mere pseudo-female who is waiting to be told what underwear to put on. Keeping in mind that this is being said by a woman, one wonders what that woman is or wants to be. If her lesser male person is in a demeaning female role, then what is she? Is she a “male” because she is stronger and more dominant? But no, she is physiologically in possession of genuine female parts, so she can’t be male. Nevertheless, male traits are strength and dominance which she is trying to assume or demonstrate. So is she a strong male, or a weak female? Or is she a weak male or strong female?

Are we assuming here that being strong and in charge implies being a male? But that can’t be! She is female and strong and in charge already. And her submissive male, strong by reference to gender, is wearing panties and bras, therefore weak.

Can you see why I am confused by the conflicting descriptions of who is what and what roles or underwear they are expected to fill? I don’t have a problem with this particular blog or what is written therein. It is typical of much out there. People playing games lose track of logic and reason, and rely on flowery rhetoric to present their case whether real or imaginary. However, I have some questions.

Does wearing panties and bras make a person a “sissy”, or is it a coveted position by mere males trying to become powerful females or weak females?

Does a woman in charge not wear panties and bras, but wears jock straps and cheesy Jockey shorts just to be considered in charge?

Does being a “just a housewife” while also being male and doing housework make this person “just a weak female”? Should he wear panties and bras to fit the role else he is not being really submissive?

Does being a strong woman and dominant in a relationship make her masculine?

Does being a female dominant make her so man-like that her submissive male “house-husband” should dress like the traditional weak female and she stomp around in boots and leather?

None of these questions are expected to get logical answers. Even though they are based on what I have read in some of Female Led Relationships, there is no logic to support any of the underlying scenarios. Actually, I don't think that any of this stuff has to do with FLR, rather, it is just ordinary kink like you and I play from time to time.

I think what is going on is a lot of great role playing that ranges from occasional bedroom scenarios to full time dominance and submission. The rules are defined by the participants, change with the season and change with the shedding and acquisition of partners. They seldom apply to you and me, at least not on the long term. It is kind of like watching an erotic D/S video where the participants are only somewhat believable. One might say, “Yeah, I could do that for a week-end!” Regardless of the impracticality of the props, the setup, the costumes, the skill of the people involved, as long as we get a thrill out of some aspect of the situation, we can say that. We also admit that there is no way we would enter a long-term relationship under those conditions.

Since panties define the roles, we have no idea who really should wear panties and for what reason. "Being in the script" is not really authoritative, since any of us could be writing it just for fun, or to dupe the gullible connoisseur.
I am still waiting for a rational logical treatise on this. Fantasy: there is neither reason nor limit.