Wednesday, February 2, 2011

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.


rené said...

Haha. This post was really funny to read. And I am as much confused as you about the connections people draw between clothing (like panties) and dominance or submission.

Being a submissive man myself, I also often wonder, why on earth wearing panties should be appropriate to indicate the inferior position of the male sub. Because, if he really considers women (or at list his woman) as superior, why could it feel degrading then to put on the clothing of women? If women are considered adorable beings, shouldn't wearing their clothes rather be a privilege than a humiliation? This really confuses me. I also wrote about this confusion on our blog:

I too wear panties often - but not for D/s reasons, but just because I very like the feeling of smooth fabric ... if there was underwear made for men that also would feel so soft, I would wear them, but unfortunately there isn't such clothing. So, to me wearing such things has absolutely nothing to do with submission or dominance. And I'm very happy that my lady has got not the slightest problem with it.


Her Majesty's Plaything said...

Hi SP:

Not sure what to say about the pantie thing. I don't wear Her Majesty's panties and she doesn't get off on seeing me dressed in women's garb. I think I may I have slipped on a pair once when all of my laundry was dirty but it wasn't very comfortable.... *Shrug!*

Nice to see you come roaring back! ;-)

Susan's Pet said...


When you say, “…I also often wonder, why on earth wearing panties should be appropriate to indicate the inferior position of the male sub …” it is obvious that you have it figured out.

I agree with the wearing of female underwear for the pleasure of it as you said. I don’t wear it myself, for my hairy ass would look ridiculous, and I would rather be seen naked. As for wearing brasseries, well, I am not fat enough to even give a hint of female breasts. My pectorals are prominent, but more flattish than rounded, so there again, bras would not do much for my appearance. Still, if some man wants to wear it to look or feel feminine, fine. Just try not to confuse the reasons and claim an inferior position by doing so. I wonder though, if a man is in a male homosexual situation, maybe that would be appropriate although not necessarily inferior. Who knows?


Your comment reminds me of an episode just after MW and I were married. I was doing our laundry (this was prior to our Female Led Relationship). I found one of her beautiful set of underwear, and decided to put them on my rather masculine body. Subsequently I paraded out of the laundry room to show her. We both laughed to tears. That was my last time. Since I don’t look as good as I did then, I would rather not try that again unless she were to insist to give me a hard time. Luckily, she is not bent that way. Some of us just don’t have the physique to get away with that.

Anonymous said...

I can explain this discrepancy for you if you are interested.

You see, it is not so much the masculine gender which is perceived as strong, but rather masculinity itself - and this is personified in the cock.

In the same way, it is not the feminine gender which is perceived as weak, but rather the self-aware male being forced into a feminine role and thereby *losing* his masculinity. It is *his* perceptions of being feminine which rob him of his power, not a general statement on females.

It is in this sense that a cock can become a tool of domination for the strong female, as either a toy to be used on her sissy or on occasion, as an actual male, affirmed in a strong, masculine role, which is then used to further oppress and subvert the sissy's own masculinity.

There are social templates for the female which are weak and delicate - i.e. princesses, damsels in distress, sweet little girls, etc, just as there are strong templates for females - the femme fatale, the amazon, the domme. So too are there a plethora of grey areas between "sub" and "bull" in the male spectrum.

This gender role reversal is specifically about putting the male into the shoes(sometimes literally) of the weak model of female, without limiting the female gender specifically to that criteria. It is not about the affirmation of females being weak, it is about males being strong, and having that power taken away in the most emasculating way possible - to BE a female.

Then, having their masculinity sometimes turned back against them in the form of a cock for total humiliation.

Hope this helps. :)


Susan's Pet said...

Ah … hmm. This certainly clears the mist surrounding the subject.

I wonder, though, what proportion of those playing this game really thought about it to this extent? I doubt that many go further in plans or reasoning than calling the poor guy a sissy and forcing him to wear panties regardless of the “real” implications.

To perversely paraphrase the anecdotal quote, “You may call me a son of a bitch as long as you smile and slap me on my back at the same time,” “You may call me a sissy as long as you force me to wear your panties,” all in the name of the game.