I really liked this one. I think the "it's JUST that" juxtaposed with "it IS that" makes a lot of sense, especially assuming your intended audience is young malesubs looking for long term traditional (not in gender roles, but in family structure: hetero, likely mono, likely producing offspring, thus likely aiming longer term - let's say 20+ years).
I do think that kinks (specific kinkosexual needs/fetishes) loom large in how people behave while questing for partners -- they are very important and perhaps more important than you give them credit for.
I do think they do loom large, but I don't think they are sufficient in of themselves, though they can be indicative of other compatibilities. I mean, you could say the same about vanillas and vanilla sexual chemistry.
I don't mean as in being sufficient. I mean as in people obsessively almost looking for someone who will provide the specific kink instead of zooming out to see a bigger emotional picture. I think that gets in the way, especially for men.
Just after I hit Publish, I realised that I'd missed an important benefit of treating malesub as an orientation: it gives us a language for dealing with unreasonable demands along the lines of "If you were truly submissive you would..."
These can be boundary violations, "... be fine with being cuckolded."
They can also be violations of scope, i.e. going meta "...do as I ask and dominate me."
IF you define "sub" as "submissive bottom/service-oriented person". Which is fair, but not the current standard understanding eg in US dominated Fetlife femdom spaces.
I really liked this one. I think the "it's JUST that" juxtaposed with "it IS that" makes a lot of sense, especially assuming your intended audience is young malesubs looking for long term traditional (not in gender roles, but in family structure: hetero, likely mono, likely producing offspring, thus likely aiming longer term - let's say 20+ years).
I do think that kinks (specific kinkosexual needs/fetishes) loom large in how people behave while questing for partners -- they are very important and perhaps more important than you give them credit for.
I do think they do loom large, but I don't think they are sufficient in of themselves, though they can be indicative of other compatibilities. I mean, you could say the same about vanillas and vanilla sexual chemistry.
I don't mean as in being sufficient. I mean as in people obsessively almost looking for someone who will provide the specific kink instead of zooming out to see a bigger emotional picture. I think that gets in the way, especially for men.
Right. I've tried to address that, I think. But I might give it more emphasis in the final version.
Just after I hit Publish, I realised that I'd missed an important benefit of treating malesub as an orientation: it gives us a language for dealing with unreasonable demands along the lines of "If you were truly submissive you would..."
These can be boundary violations, "... be fine with being cuckolded."
They can also be violations of scope, i.e. going meta "...do as I ask and dominate me."
IF you define "sub" as "submissive bottom/service-oriented person". Which is fair, but not the current standard understanding eg in US dominated Fetlife femdom spaces.
Is why I have an introductory section explaining what *I* mean by malesub...