Thread: Dominant Women

Ariamella said I love you too, Quix! Click to expand... Well, didn't that just make my night! Ariamella said The point I was trying to make was that my character shouldn't have to be a Domme or Mistress in order to possess those qualities. They don't even need to be labeled as a Domme or Mistress even if they do like being the dominant entity in the relationship. If you think about my statement like this, it'll sound more accurate to what I was trying to say A woman doesn't have to be this mean, torturous, older, Amazonian type woman to be considered strong or independent or intelligent or authoritative or seductive or dominant. I was trying to say that women can be all those things even without being a Domme. And conversely, actual Domme characters shouldn't have to follow a physical or mental stereotype in order to be considered as a Domme. Hopefully I'm making sense. xD Click to expand... And you quoted me, forgetting my penchant for going back and re-editing my original wording for about an about after my initial post, xD No, no, you make perfect sense. My reply mostly comes from the personal experience of having others misconstrue what I'm asking for, when I know already that you're one of the rare ones, because of our similar points of view and ways of thinking, who completely understand the distinctions I makesee! Because what I refer to is an aside to the fact that I believe males, in general, are naturally biologically wired to be 'more' dominant or aggressive, - applicable to memy characters as well, and I wouldn't have it any other way -. which is often lost in translation! Ariamella said I think it's really hard to break free from such socialization, especially because these gender stereotypes have been ingrained in our society for so, so, so long. I'm not even sure many women even realize how strong that societal expectation is, and one of the prime examples was brought up by Fruit earlier in this thread Click to expand... That's true, but then I was socialised, correctly and thankfully, to despise rape, and respect human life, but, for the sake of fiction, and to fuel creativity, can write brutal rapists and remorseless serial killers. Expecting a male to commit heinous, inhuman acts that hopefully he and all others abhor in real-life, and have been socialised against, doesn't seem to be an issue for those portraying female characters who request us to play them. Not that I particularly mind, because being able to break societal rules is a large part of what makes writing those types of characters enjoyable, although when it comes to reciprocity, as the saying goes, You can't judge another until you've walked a mile in their shoes, and the shoes you refer to, I've never walked in. However, there does seem to be a misconception that males don't appreciate, or deserve, to be desired or sought after, but much of that relates to your comments on agencyobject. Ariamella said If you ask some women, Are you a sexual agent or a sexual object? Most of them would choose the first option over the second, because no one wants to be an object . But if you ask them, Would you pursue a man you thought was attractive?, I'm willing to bet a lot of them would say no. And when you ask them why, the simple answer you'll probably hear is, Well they're the man, and I'm the woman, and I don't chase after men. There, they are choosing to be the sexual object without even realizing that it makes them an object to be won over. This is the mentality bleeds over into RP, and I ask myself quite often why it still exists. I still haven't found an answer. s Click to expand... Your honesty is refreshing, and I haven't found a valid answer, either. You know me well enough to be aware that I'll go out of my way not to do something if it's simply 'expected' of me for no other reason than 'because', especially when both parties are equally intellectually capable. It's not that I won't, can't, don't want to, or actually want the other to. What it boils down to is, if they would . If the answer to that is no, then I refuse to, out of pure principle. What's good for the goose, is good for the gander