Noticed the quote marks?

Upon reading this quotation, I probably, like you -after all, we are sane player here, right?- did feel triggered, both as a top and as a feminist. To my amazement, this quotation did not derive from 'erotic fantasy' or 'dom-wish' literature, not even from porn, but seems to be how a popular Yale fraternity chant goes - at least, according to scientific sex research. (*)

True, the study is a decade old, but is there so much reason to expect, that the non-consensual and penetration privileged attitude has changed that much? To me, the idea of meeting, or -sigh- hooking up sluts (polyamory emphasis intended), that keep saying ‘‘no’’ but mean I have to ‘‘keep trying’’ maybe is great fuel for my novels and stories - after all they are kinky and all characters have given consent- but how is it in reality?

Patriarchy, and believe it or not, this is still alive on Fetlife ... well, patriarchy had the effect of confirming men in their masculinity, by programming society to enable privilege for the privileged few, justified or not, toxic or not. The privilege of being a man, did lead to the fact that even today men typically feel more comfortable than women in expressing their sexual preferences and pressuring reluctant partners to have sex. Nothing against seductive brats, of course.

In the Dominion of Lord Cameron (DLC) I have introduced the custom that a not outspoken "no", does not mean "yes" and that without an affirmative and consenting "yes" nothing goes. Better safe than sorry. However, play and reality are not the same. The horny and willing sub in the bedroom, may not be so forthcoming when she returns from her work, or simply is feeling tired, even when it is your evening out. In general women can be very outspoken in certain areas. Yet, when it comes to consent, they cannot be outspoken enough, and the same goes for men, of course.

In my experience, women with feminist viewpoints often feel more comfortable in rejecting unwanted male sexual advances - like dick-pics or privilege assumed male-dom behaviour without being in a relationship with that male person (or pig). It is not only any women's good right to object, decline or say 'no', but they may also be doing real doms a service, then an outspoken "yes" is a commitment to the mutually desire results. And an outspoken "no" is a free lesson to overeager persons, who seem to think, that good dominants and tops are the best in coercion, force and pushing - which they of course are not, rather the opposite.

Women’s likelihood of engaging in anal sex might depend upon their perceptions of power-exchange, control, entitlement to pleasure and their self-perception. This can surely also mean: "bend over, boyfriend!"

So, as kinksters, it is sometimes hard for us to deal with "sexual coercion" fantasy, and with the idea of someone taking charge of another person's sexual needs and desires. Yet, fantasy and ideas are in our mind. The manifestation of our 'mental-cinema' is possible, but only in a safe context, where trust, friendship, consent and respect thrive. The rest remains fantasy -and yes, I am a devout rape-play denialist, as it is a self-referentially inconsistent concept.

In any case, dealing with internalized submissive notions, like urges to ‘sexual compliance" or concealing your own sexual desires and instead prioritizing your top's needs, is tough, but can also be sexy and rewarding. Many tops simply make use of it. Not because they are all bad, or toxic, but also because they love submissives and find them a sexual turn-on. Therefor, communication is the key; communication and respect by always asking you for your consent.

If a top does not show respect, does not distinguish between fantasy and reality, and does not regularly check up on your feeling, your experience, your needs; such a top is less perfect as in their own -biased- perception. Communicating "no" may not feel cool, and labelling male tops with 'fragility" of "toxic" can be trendy, but women are good in communicating. Trust your gut feelings.

We live in a time that floods us with porn and sexual coercion. This leaves us kinksters with contradictory messages about how to feel sexually liberated. For me, as a sadist and daddy-dom, frequent anal sex is linked to my perception of dominance and power. As I am intelligent, I also understand that this is related to my fantasy, my views, my socio-cultural background, my education and definitely my personal unconsciousness, and honesty be said, this contains contents that a feminist would phrase as: "paternalistic sexism that keeps male power intact."

There is a difference though, between patriarchy as a preferred social model and kink, then sane BDSM related dominance is not about suppressing women of submissive men in general, but only in the confined context of a safe consensual play-scene. With a consenting partner, that is not just an anonymous asshole you fuck, but a person, with value and worthiness, a partner in crime to whom you relate to. And after 'destroying' that ass, a loving dominant does not think; 'good, where is the next whore?', but rather 'wow, that was amazing', I am a lucky bastard to find such a 'gem' and be happy - or have a fantasy.

A fantasy? You mean like, next weekend, that 'nun' coming over to your candle-light dungeon, to confess her sins, admit her battle with masturbation and unchaste longings? And then, will you be merciful, forgiving and kind, or punish that hole that leaves her virginity in tact?

Well think about that!

SC

* See: Jozkowski, K. N., & Peterson, Z. D. (2013). College students and sexual consent: Unique insights. Journal of Sex Research, 50, 517–523. 

Dominion court rules and centralized power

The dominion is sometimes seen as a sect, a cult-like organisation or even a harem, but Lord Cameron does not share this view. The mere fact, that we, as a community of DLC members, have our rules, is nothing special, after all, even social conventions like being polite or respect other people’s property can be seen as ‘rules’ even when they are not always written down in legislation or warranted by universal human rights. Thus, the fact, that dominion rules constitute -or underlie and ground- the Dominion space, both in virtual as in physical instances, is nothing that would make the Dominion of Lord Cameron get near a sect.

 Yet, one might object, there exists a principle of absolute rule, or at least a tendency to it. Which is of course true, after all, the Lord of the Dominion of Lord Cameron, is Lord Cameron. Nevertheless, also this centralization of power -in ruling, in court legislation, in control and in governing- is nothing that would make the DLC a sect, as centralized forms of authority are quite common. Centralized institutions that yield tremendous power over people are at the heart of our culture and its organisation, and none would call a government of a democracy, a monarch or a dictator a sect because of the centralization of power.

 But then, others might rebuke, that there are rituals, and rules, initiations, titles, a court and training for members, all combined with spirituality and ethical fucking, could render the Dominion a sect. Again, these particularities of the DLC can be seen with some religious or otherwise social groups, like clubs, orders or private educational institutes; the fact that we share certain aspects of sects, does not render us a sect.

So, what is a sect?

For the purpose of this post, it will suffice to see a sect rendered about a particular person or teaching. The former may be rather a cult, where one person or a class of persons are revered, but Lord Cameron neither requires worship -even when slaves are allowed to do so- or stands, as a person, in the middle of the contents of the teachings.

This later, could possibly contain a dogmatic component, but as the core teachings of the DLC are sex-positive feminism, ethical non-monogamy and sex-magickal rituals derived from mysticism and neo-paganism, such teachings can neither be labels dogmatic, nor are they regarded as an absolute truth. On the contrary, the whole educational part of the DLC court is directed at finding explanations and guidelines for how the dominion members can best live out their kink.

So seen, the DLC is not dogmatic, but experiential. And it is not a sect, but rather a synodal council, in the sense of a σύνοδος (sunodos), which is derived from an σύν (sun) = together and ὁδός (hodos) = the way, or path. DLC is a play group with ethics, written guidelines and several mechanisms to find the best way together, as a group of players, couples, mates, friends and lovers.

Just because we regard the DLC as a safe space playground to experiment with our bodies, urges, perversions, sexuality and do this in a safe, sane and sound way through rituals, education, workshops and multi-player roleplay according to script, does not make us a sect; it makes us a playgroup or a pack.

It sets us apart, and that is intended. It gives us a framework, and that is required. It gives us a community, and that is nice. All of this enables us to enfold, love and enjoy in a way that runs and plays according to our wishes.

And, last but not least, the mere fact, that the dominion, in principle is open for other dominions, harems, lordships, 24/7 pairs and playgroups -provided during play, their standards comply with our DLC court rules- does already show, that we are not a closed, secretive and exclusive sect at all, but simply wanted to do at tad differently as mainstream sex-dominated kink. And this is not only our good right, but also a smart praxis, as it helps us to reflect in such ways, that relational drama can be minimized, friendships maintained, and personal growth endorsed.

DLC and the foundations of the realms of fiction and praxis

In addition, it should be understood, that the DLC as documented in fiction about Sir Cameron and other tops are first and before all prose which plays in a virtual realm that does not have to, nor always does reflect empirical reality. As such, to derive Dominion praxis from text that is intended as literature, is not an idea Lord Cameron does endorse.

The literature about Sir Cameron et.all., are stories and should be treated as fantasy; it is intended to create emotions in the readers, and to communicate and explore concepts in order to enjoy it as sexually tinted amusement, but the literal should not be taken too literal. The world of thinking acts that expand and thrive in our minds, is quite another realm as that of down to earth kinky praxis of real persons playing responsibly and consensual with other real persons.

First in play-space, we enter into our roles and by voluntary exchange of power. It is there, that we limit our world to a special space, with tops and bottoms, it’s own framework of acts and actions and where we reduce and objectify the playpartner(s) according to our will.

When we are done playing, we find ourselves touched, changed and moved. Out of respect, care, fondness, love and friendship, we wish to return to come back in normal space where we are equals again, even when we sometimes struggle to see things as they are. Which is normal, as we do play kinky scenes in order to display such parts of our identity with glee. Waking up from a dream -or a nasty, but very orgasmic ‘nightmare’- is thus often connected with a notion of ‘game over’ loss. Yet, we know the pathways to bliss and we can anytime opt to play the game again. Provides we have the currency, the goods and the guts to radically go beyond frontiers and explore our hearts and that of our fellow travelers.

 

That’s all folks, play safe and enjoy

Sir Cameron, supreme Lord of the Domion (DLC)

 

Those open to learn more, can contact Sir Cameron in a personal message.

Yet again, a new phrase, this time made from two concepts that I regularly have to deal with; viz. paramours and morality. As poly you regularly are contacted by those, who are looking for a new lover, that is ethical and sane, experienced and hot, and who knows what 'discretion' does mean.

Well ... do I know that? I think I do, as the polyamory community has another ethical concept which is called metamour. This is the (consenting) partner of your lover. For me, discretion means, that I take care that my lover is not having a illicit amorous adventure, but instead loves, fucks and enjoys me for her own happiness without cheating.

Discretion furthermore is the act of respecting your partner's other partners, who are capable to share their lovers with you and show compersion - the antonym of jealousy: the joy produced by knowing of something, unrelated to oneself, that brings a loved one joy. As you share your ethical lover with your metamours, so do they with you, making them kind of cool - at least in my eyes.

For a long time, I have struggled with declining monthly dates because a paramour wants to have sex, but on the premise of cheating. Fuck, do I want to have them ... most of the times. So, why being so stubborn? After all, you are not the one cheating on their partner(s), as they are not your partners, but theirs. And normally you won't get bad karma by serving a paramour with hot sex or steamy kink.

But they do - or at least most of the time imho. Being involved in the bad karma of others is sometimes unavoidable, as someone needs to do the job. Yet, knowing that you fuck a cheater is not feeling sexy to me. I think, cheaters are not sexy, as they lie and show actual disrespect for their partners, by bypassing them as friends, lovers and intimates.

It is not the act of sex or kink that is the problem, but the mindset of the one desiring to be a paramour. I cannot avoid to wonder on what other topics the cheater might be lying about ... STD comes to mind. On the other hand, one cannot be insensitive to the fact that many people who seek a discrete relationship to cherish their love and desires, are genuine seekers, unfulfilled or unhappy in their current partnership.

One thing should be clear; everyone is entitled to happiness, good sex and genuine love. Just as we are all entitled to be respected, cared for and valued. Being aware of your metamour just does all that, as you to a certain extend find yourself in the shoes of the metamour; you love that cute partner that you share intimacy with, you respect each other for not letting cheating slip into something as beautiful as love and above all, you feel accepted and respected yourself.

And - for me - this brings us to a crucial notion; viz. that of being regarded as an equal lover, with good intentions of love, care and respect to all partners, children and other metamours involved. I simply do not want to be the facilitator of illigit opportunities. As all of us, I also am responsible for my own happiness and sexual satisfaction and I simply do not want to be involved in cheating, stealing time, devotion and energy and taking from a relationship what is not being offered freely with consent.

The wonderful Dossie Easton and Janet W. Hardy already wrote about the ethical lover - I want to be an ethical lover and I think for me, other ethical lovers are a good match and unethical lovers, cheaters and illicit paramours are not. Perhaps the arguments are not justifying my choices, but they are mine to make. So here I am ...

Sir Cameron

A part of the Dominion is the House of Cameron. At the House are only such devotees, that mentally can - and factually have – submitted to Lord Cameron and accepted and embraced His Mastery over them (yes, I know, a very wanton position).  Those who are not accepted in the House belong to the Court of the Dominion. In the House of Cameron, we find the so-called “Chiral girls”. This is not a Kajira ‘slave’ girl, a ‘harem’ member or an unpaid ‘whore’, but some of these elements can, but must not be, included. In the views of Lord Cameron, the Chiral girls are pure magic and real gems …

Perhaps the well-known phrase a Princess by Day and a Slut by Night can help us to shed some light on the matter.

Contrast between Princesses and sluts

If you have never puzzled about the contrast that is apparently seen between the (highborn) Princess and the (low and ordinary) slut, maybe it is time to have a closer look at this. This contrast is very similar to those that we do find between Master and slave, Top and bottom and all other forms where (total) power-exchange takes place in a sound and consenting way. In fact, not so much perversion, pain or dirty sex is typical for BDSM, but rather the play setting with roles that include and enable power-exchange dynamics.

The careful reader will notice, that we just did write ‘dynamics’. We added that phrase to indicate that even with a balance of power between ‘equal’ partners, there will always arise differences that are related to our personality, gender- and sexual identity and social roles. In this case, the reason for adding ‘dynamics’, is that even in an equilibrium, first power did flow freely and volatilely and eventually got balanced. Equality for the law - and a play contract is a legal concept - is an assumed equality (de jure). To keep BDSM balanced and fair, activity most likely is necessary in order to have a de facto equality, with balance and mutual acceptance and recognition. And like in most other kind of social contracts - irrespective if this is based on love, romance, tradition or kink - this equality as a legal right, remains a de jure condition and requires commitment, work and cooperation in order to get it – de facto - realized in true-life and between partners.

Does the Princess denote for primordial innocence?

Now, let us return to the contrast we noticed between the role of Princess and the role of slut. What would be the core properties of both roles? Things that are often mentioned are money, appearance and status; the Princess has it all: beauty, properties and wealth (and Knights on a White Horse). The slut is situated on the other side of the social ladder; used, abused, indecent, uncivil, dirty and poor. But there is more: the slut is also seen as morally inferior, because she trades sex and her body for other goods and services; like money, attention, love, orgasms, prestige or other forms of compensation that would one way or another do justice to her (or his) role as a slut.

When you ask teenagers, if they would rather be a Princess or a slut, very likely none of them would opt to be a slut, except some Lolita’s perhaps. And that brings us to the interesting fact, that so many kinksters on Fetlife and other platforms, love to play with the Princess/slut dynamics, but in reality, hardly anyone would openly identify with being a slut.

In the Dominion, it is Lord Cameron’s view, that in fact, being a Princess is much harder as being a slut. And the reason is that we – out of mere social solidarity - identify with being a victim. Inequality brings with it, that there are Masters and slaves and this is not a very popular social condition in today’s world, where we romantically cling to a golden age and the herewith connected belief that there was some kind of fall from primordial innocence. Further, it is seen, that this fall and inequality is a genuine problem and that this inequality – that denotes for inferiority, discrimination and weakness - should be removed, so all can again find the Holy Grail and be nourished and whole.

What does feminism have to add?

Consequently, regarding inequality, we find in D/s and other kinky relationships where (total) power exchange plays a role, this fight between the comfort of being a poor victim, and the disapproval of dominance, as this leads to the idea that not all animals are equal … Nevertheless, imagining eliminating ‘inequality’ is hard. At least, it is not obvious what this should mean, as people are not all the same and most value their own distinct individuality.

As a handy solution, feminist theory provides us with the distinction between power-over and power-with. Power over is that centralized control that we all fear to eat up our freedom and take away the cherries on the cake (or our sex-tools OMG!). Power-with is the free sharing and exchange of the power that we have, and let others take control in the belief, that the goods (body, soul and mind) entrusted to those on top, will be handled with care, dignity and respect to the one sharing their power with the top in the first place. Here we see, that not much time is wasted on what essentially would denote for equality or legitimation for power shifts, but rather we slip into the role play, because we know it is not real (but play), even when it is real (the pain, submission, the sex).

Now, what does this mean for the so-called Princess/slut mechanics? A Princess is basically rather dull (to the sadist eye), as she must be friendly, benevolent and responsible all the time. Hardly any time for fun, but a whole agenda with appointments, parties and events to attend, to speak, dance of give presence, but she can never let the beast out, let her self-control slip or simply be a slut (which obviously is why she needs the Master’s guidance). Yet, that is in real life context; in the kinky world, the Princess stands a bit for a spoiled Lady too; that gets what she wants and is treated like someone very special and important. Maybe even cold and arrogantly distanced, depending on whether the Princess is having a submissive, switching or dominant nature.

This one is on the House …

In the House of Cameron, the Chiral girl is a Princess-slut by nature. She loves to be taken, she loves to crave for cock(s), to feast on sexual energy and she dares to go all in and let herself fall as deep as she can fall, when orgasming into oblivion. The Lord, her Lord, is an awesome Master; he reigns her from above, bestows on her the heavenly goods and when he comes over her, she takes and relishes in his passion, his power, his love and his surrender to her own most delicious core and essence, knowing that the slut makes the Master in many ways by enabling him to take and enjoy what she has offered him. But we do not see the Princess in the slut in this way. If this was all, it would just be the Master turning the Princess in to the slut and be done after unloading his sticky proteins.

What, in essence, is going on in the kinky role play of the Princess/slut dynamics, is that in the context of consensual BDSM there are mostly winners. The top wins because they love topping, the bottom wins, because they love bottoming. As such, BDSM power exchange forms a nice form of structural inequality, that is not important, as it is by the very condition of inequality, that both top and bottom find their thing.

 Is there more to a Princess?

But again, we do not see the Princess in the slut this way, so how do we define the Princess - that beautiful benevolent and classy person? Well, the answer is a tad complicated, but it will show us much about what is going on in the real world. Particularly what is going wrong in the real world and what is being done well in the Dominion of Lord Cameron. This has to do with the idea, that any sane kinky Dominion, House, Pack or Group will have to embrace the properly basic human rights of all their members. This is the base of the equality that we seek for. And this has also been the base for consensual power exchange prior to play praxis, then after all, when we have no power to share, we cannot give it away or over into the hands of those we entrust with our power.

As the position or role of Princess is already part of the play context, in the Dominion of Lord Cameron this means that Princess is not merely what is stripped of, so the slut remains, but Princess is what will be added to the slut – who is already lovely to the heart of the top as such – so the Princess is not becoming the slut, but the slut is lifted up to become the Princess. Of course, the slut, in many ways was a Princess already, but it is the Master adding royalty to the slut, and not because she pays for that, or otherwise could demand this, but it is a voluntary gift of Grace.

Conclusions

The Princess/slut is the loved and valued person, that can trust to the entrusted and be rewarded first with meeting her slutty, filthy, nasty, wanton and horny desires, but also with being appreciated, loved and valued for being able to give and bottom in such a glorious way. On top of that, like any Princess, she will be held in high esteem, particularly outside the play context. Then as a Princess, she will not be the Master’s trophy, possession or trash whore, but an equal, and a person who is a able to perform bottoming in a masterful way. A skilled bottom is valuable, because of her capabilities to delight their tops; because of her knowledge, experience and wisdom that comes with walking the path, that is a mystery to tops and that they can only walk and get acquainted with by walking that path with a (noble) Princess/slut (whore).

Giving back the power, with interest payment, is also part of the power-exchange. Once we have played our games, we return to normality and we see the Princess that became the slut, transform again in the Princess that has been enriched, improved and beloved, by her Grace to let herself be a slut, in a suited, safe and worthy context. And such a virtual place, the Dominion of Lord Cameron desires to be and a magical place, where common sluts can be transformed to beautiful Princesses.

Play safe and have fun – Sir Cameron

As always, this is not absolute or ultimate truth, but an attempt to reflect and contemplate on things, mechanisms and praxis that is near to us and dear to us. For the form, we have used certain genders and pronouns for top and bottom, but this can, may and will vary. Most of the above remains equally valid, when we exchange her for him, Mistress for Master or hir for they.

Mansplaining was Christianised by the New York Times as the buzz-word of 2010. I had never heard about it, but today I encountered the word twice. For me that functioned as a clear sign that I had to put it on my agenda. As my views might interest others, I opted to post it in my blog/writings. It is addressed to a fictive and fellow feminist kinkster, so please keep that in mind while reading.

Dear sister,

As a kinky feminist, you will agree, that "mansplaining" as such is annoying in the sense that it forms an expression of the alleged paternal supremacy. And it is the sad truth, that our society - for the most of it – remains full of examples where men try to explain something to a woman in a condescending way, starting from an attitude of overconfidence and not taking that woman’s own base of knowledge, expertise and intelligence into account in a proper and adequate way.

Yet, as a word that uses a specific gender – in this case male - mansplaining runs the risk of being a double-sided sword, then:

• first, it might be regarded as sexist towards men in general - and thus be misandrous - and;
• second, it might be regarded as essentialist in the sense that men should possess - or lack - the attribute of occasional mansplaining in order to be perceived as a man, and;
• third, it may be, that men - as a victim of their own paternalist upbringing, culture or religious stance - behave in a mansplaining way, because they mistake that for actually proper behaviour in a genuine attempt to communicate something valuable out of good intention.

This latter use of mansplaining is, of course, still undesirable, but it should be regarded as a cultural default in some cases. And mansplaining as being a genuine expression of paternalistic cultural bias does not require radical scorn in such cases, but rather education and the careful raising of awareness for women rights. Especially in kinky environments, traditional roles are used instantly, instead of realizing, that we need to start as equals and intrinsically remain equals, even when in play, inequality may be intended.

On top of that – and a bit leaning on the above mentioned point three - as a feminist sadist and daddy-dom, I have to add, that mansplaining can be a constructive and enticing part of the role-play that I - together with my bottoms - wish to employ in, not dissimilar to using dirty talk, humiliation or force in an – of course – full consensual play setting. Let’s call this consensual mansplaining.

In this way, mansplaining can be taken for a form of deviant behaviour that functions in a specific context that draws its energy flow from the power-exchange that comes with given roles. Similar to the use of 'slut' 'anal-whore' or 'princess' are words that should not be carried outside the safe play environment, also the praxis of consensual mansplaining can be regarded as inherent to certain kinky roles and play-forms.

Proposals

As much as I oppose the general oppression of minorities, I have severe hesitations to apply feminist discourse to kinky settings. Shadow play, the left-hand-path, TPE; these are not the expressions where politically correct mental statements do apply to, but rather these are the free and unfiltered urges that sprout from our unreflected (animal) past or intentionally activated desires centred around primal sexual power-play.

For that reason, I plea, that: (A) philosophical, anthropological, psychological, religious and feminist reflection towards kink, is something we should endorse and promote in kink theory or reflection on kink, but like with any other world-view or scientific framework we ought to realize that such starting points often lack compelling warrant when we wish to use them for primarily non-logical praxis, like kinky sex or play.

Consequently, the human character of safe, sane, sound and consensual kink may likely not be fully grasped by mere rational reflection alone. And this, for the whole reason that our sexuality as such, is human behaviour that mirrors our pre-rational evolutionary past, our unconscious dispositions and our rational tendencies alike. Sexual behaviour is therefore not depleted from rationality, but it also contains and instrumentalizes the human dimensions of non-rational instincts and emotions.

Forcing any non-kink discourse over actual BDSM-play activity as such, runs the risk of being reductive in nature, because it could easily form an instance where rational arguments are valued above non-rational needs, like the need for humiliation, pain or pervert sex. Luckily, consensual kink is not a value-free space, as already the notion of explicit consent presupposes a rational and committed pre-play negotiating between adult equals. Yet, applying any kind of normativity to kink, should nevertheless be practiced with care and consideration, as logical argumentations are by no means the sole driving force of human behaviour - and particularly not when it is about kink or sex.

Therefore, I further plea that; (B) we specifically place experiential kinky play in a laboratory-like context; the kinky professor fucks around a little, and in doing so, finds liberty and discoveries that cannot be found outside this safe play-space. As such mansplaining a bunch of silly sissy girls in a play context, is both liberating and fun and in this context, mansplaining has nothing to do with reduction of women or exaltation of male faculties – per se -, but is simply playing with limits, roles and social conventions within the boundaries of the agreement between players.

Conclusion

One can object to this praxis or not, but the freedom of sexual expression of two consenting adults must have priority over patronizing (pun intended) feminist discourse that transfers rational arguments to explicitly not logically meant deviant activity between sane players.

This said, I again agree, that sexist male pricks that uninvited send lectures, dick-picks and other display of their allegedly dominant self-image to kinky women, displays very unwelcome behaviour and makes our communities less safe. At the same time, extreme femdom and feminist influence, or even alleged female supremacy, should be weighed on the same balance, as any form of gender related dominance and submission. As kink is not served by switching from paternalism to maternalism, we should instead creatively use and employ both of these cultural impulses in safe play and keep it there, for as far as we as imperfect humans can manage to do so.