A few weeks ago I had a story cross my TUMBLR FEED. It was a submissive slut that I follow who generally posts interesting pictures and articles from her life. In this case, the story she posted was about switching; occasionally she takes a dominant role and her 'male friend' becomes a submissive.
What I found ridiculous about the entire thing is that her entire story was about how she can't actually force him to comply with anything she wants him to do. He's larger and stronger than her diminutive 104 pounds. After reading her story, and being mildly revolted that this male enjoys the practice of being 'pegged' (That is, fucked in the ass with a strapon dildo wielded by a woman.) I replied with seven simple words: "Men do not submit to women, period."
What an astounding storm of posturing bullshit I began to receive!
The first was a bravely anonymous reply that captures the gist of the remaining missives:
you're a misogynistic and homophobic piece of shit. Men can do anything a woman can and should be able to feel vulnerable. It's important for men to be able to let go, otherwise they end up like wound-up over-masturbating misogynists like yourselfIn the first place, I typically don't reply to anyone that contacts me anonymously. While I don't care if you use a real name, at least have the balls to use a user account that gives you semi-legitimacy. When I reply as "Kolbath" I am using a name I have used on the web for fourteen years. It doesn't have to be the name on my ID cards; it is still an identifier.
But let me reply to each piece, if for no other reason than because snipers should be deleted with suppressing fire.
1) you're a misogynistic and homophobic piece of shit.
I have stated in numerous writings that I am far from misogynistic. I believe it is a man's duty and responsibility to protect his woman. I also state, very clearly, that it is a woman's duty to serve her man and earn that protection with the use of her holes. Every right granted to women today has been granted to them by men. They earned nothing. In direct competition with men, women fail most of the time. This is why the entry standards for combat for women do not require them to do a single fucking pull up, and men are required to do at least three.
Many of the frictive problems between the genders we face in modern society can be directly traced to the fact that, over the last one hundred years, it somehow became the man's responsibility to care for and protect the woman, and her responsibility to do jack shit. If he is working 60 hour weeks to provide for her while she sits at home and raises kids, doesn't he have the right to her holes at some point over the remaining 108 hours in the week? Where does she get the right to say no? He didn't say no to the alarm clock that went off at 5am so he could get to work on time.
In fact, the little slut even pointed out that she feels afraid when she switches to a Dominant role, because she cannot force compliance. Part of being Dominant is being able to force your submissive to obey you-- and making her do so merely by the power of your will. She knows damn well you could beat her into submission, but your control is what she respects. Control over her, and control over yourself!
In world history, not one time has a female-centric society ever developed. The Amazonian warrior culture never existed. In societies where "enlightened" males do not protect them, women are cattle. Look no further than the way Muslims treat their women if you want to really see woman-hating.
Demanding that my woman serve me is not the same as hating her for being female, which is the definition of misogynism. I make it very, very clear that she is absolutely free to leave any time she feels she's not getting what she wants and needs from our relationship. In my twenty-plus years as a practicing Dominant, that has happened precisely once, and it was more the result of a long-distance relationship over two continents than anything cruel or mean that I was doing.
In fact, my essay entitled "The Rules" explains very clearly that dominance must be tempered with control, and that no man has the right to sponge from a woman. I stated clearly: "If you are sleeping on a woman's couch while she works to support your lazy ass, you are not a man and you are not a Dominant. The privilege of dominating and controlling a woman must be earned."
As for being a homophobe, this is also inaccurate. I have no fear of homosexuality. I simply acknowledge that it is not what a man does. The female body and psychology was constructed for the purpose of reproductive penetration. Even sliding a cock into her mouth or ass does not invalidate this. Accepting any form of penetration is a submissive action. For a male to willingly surrender his body for penetration to anyone, male or female, is not the act of manhood.
And by the way, since the original story was about a man being penetrated by a woman, how does homosexuality even enter into it? Any act of sex between a male and a female is heterosexual, dumb ass.
What you do in the bedroom is up to you. However, men do not submit to women. They especially do not submit to penetration by a woman.
2) Men can do anything a woman can and should be able to feel vulnerable.
Why? What possible purpose is served for the warrior whose duty and responsibility is to protect his family above his own life, to learn to surrender? In what way is a strong and competent man feeling "vulnerable" allowing him to better learn to keep his loved ones safe?
This is the problem with the entire premise. Part of not being a misogynist is understanding that my submissive's safety and security is my responsibility!
There is absolutely no part of me that is constructed with the idea of backing down to or 'submitting' to someone else's will. Not in the bedroom and not on the battlefield.
Furthermore, men absolutely can not do everything a woman can do. Not on a psychological level and not on a physical one. Studies have shown amply time and again that women are instinctively better nurturers of young humans. In fact, infants gravitate towards women over men more than 80% of the time.
Men were constructed as hunters and fighters. They ranged, fought, and killed to bring food to their families. Women were constructed to stay with the young. For nine months of the breeding period they are weakened, often sick, and in danger of losing the young and themselves. This is why men and women have a dual role in the family.
These are evolutionary facts. A few dozen years of screeching for political equality does not erase or alter thousands of years of primate group structure.
3) It's important for men to be able to let go, otherwise they end up like wound-up over-masturbating misogynists like yourself
Let go of what? I'm human. I've been sad and I've been happy. I have leaned on the woman I loved, as a man should because she is a part of his emotional support. This does not mean I need to bend over, grease up, and let her violate me with a goddamn plastic cock. That's absurd. It says a great deal about the deranged state of our society that this even sounds like an argument at all.
Putting this in context, I'm not even certain how a refusal to submit to women makes me a misogynist at all. I didn't say anything at all about abusing, hating, or even being cruel to women. I simply said that a man does not submit to one.
This is, of course, in part my opinion, but part of it is also evolutionary fact. Once again, it took 12,000 years of tribal society before anyone even considered rape to be a crime worthy of note. (The Code of Ur-Nammu is the first time such codification is seen in ancient history.) I think if women were in some way worthy of submission to, there would have been at least one society in the world that developed a matriarchal clan structure in which men submitted to women. The closest we have is the traditional Viking structure in which women 'owned' all the goods. A man owned his weapons and his ship. On the surface, this makes it seem like the women were in power, but the reality is that it allowed the men to raid, pillage, and plunder without leaving an unclear line of succession.
My favorite explosion of stupidity in this mess was a series of personal attacks from, of all things, a male submissive, named "Boy Princess" (No, really.) telling me I was the worst sort of Dominant (You're not likely to ever know, idiot. I don't work with males because I'm not gay.), and that he was obviously smarter than me because he has more followers in social networking than I do.
Leaving aside for a moment that his argument is nothing more than an "appeal to the masses", an intellectually dishonest arguing tactic, if a million people still believe something that is incorrect, it won't turn correct just for them. The Earth did not become the center of the universe with the sun revolving around it merely because the Church forced Galileo to recant in 1632 under threat of being burned at the stake.
And submitting to a woman and allowing her to stick a plastic cock in your ass isn't going to be a sign of manhood even if you threaten to tell your "25k followers" not to follow me. (In checking, this little nancy-ass actually had about 2200 followers. I suppose he didn't realize I could see his blog.)
Truth of the matter is, I'm pretty certain that if they are following someone who calls himself a boy princess and advocates spreading his ass cheeks for penetration, they probably aren't the sort of people to be interested in the porn I produce or disseminate, or in the articles I write. (For one thing, most of my followers can read and know where a fucking comma goes in a sentence.)
And here, sluts and gentlemen, is what women were made for:
Warmest regards!
-SirKolbath-
