May 222012
 

A Twitter friend pointed us to HuffPo’s article on this past weekend’s BDSM-angled con, DomConLA. She was specifically pointing out that RedemptionsGirl is in a few of the photos, but what I took notice of was actually some curious wording.

“…..who is a willing submissive at a dungeon party during the DomConLA convention”

I cocked my head and thought it a bit strange. And then when I flipped through the slideshow more, I saw that that “disclaimer” was on every. single. photo.

Except for three. The three that featured a submissive male being whipped.

” Domina beats a submissive man at a dungeon party during the DomConLA convention”

There is no distinctive wording here to emphasize that he is a willing submissive. Why? Why is there a need to state the obvious for the female subs but not the male? Why state the obvious at all? The article is about DomConLA – a highly respected kinky conference that has visitors from all levels of kink & fetish.Taking bets on how many times Consent was reference, inferred or discussed at length would be like guessing how many M&Ms are in that 5 gallon jug at the bridal shower.

Then again….the comments on the article are filled with ignorant trolls. It’s fairly clear to me that the aspect of ‘Fifty Shades of Gray’ that is “sweeping the nation” isn’t the BDSM aspect at all. It’s the “saving the man” aspect; it’s the Cinderella-twist aspect; it’s the “she orgasms on command over and over and over and over” aspect. The majority of the general American public is just way too judgmental to even tolerate a mere article on DomConLA.

“People often abuse their bodies because they feel ugly inside.”

“these people didnt get enough hugs growing up…”

“or they got way too many!”

“Maybe that’s the only way ugly people can get attention…?”

Not all comments are negative like this. But enough are to make me never go back and read anything else “sexually progressive” at HuffPo. Anyways these jerks aren’t my point. My point is that I fail to understand on any level why apologies, excuses and special words are needed to make sure the intolerant jerks don’t flip out even more about these “willing submissive women”.

Please weigh in with your opinion. Enlighten me. Because I’m not going to understand this all on my own.

  • http://solitudinarian.kinky-blogging.com solitudinarian

    Sigh, stuff like this annoys me to no end. It reminds me of the guys who want pain inflicted on them but won’t give it in return because it’s “wrong” to do that to women, even if they enjoy it.

    Don’t get me started about the comments…

  • http://www.omniwhore.com omniwhore

    I also find the two pictures of the couple with the fire cups interesting. In the first, they are referred to as a couple and there is no mention of the woman’s willingness to participate… I guess since they’re a couple there’s no need to state the obvious because, duh, wives are supposed to submit willingly. But in the second there is no reference to their relationship, and the willingness clause is added again, just in case you don’t understand that two people can simply enjoy what they’re doing at a place intended for specifically that purpose.

    It would be nice if society simply realise that men and women can equally enjoy their sexual proclivities. Then again, I can’t say I’m surprised at the warning appearing in almost every caption. It’s like needing a warning on a cup of coffee that “coffee may be hot”…