Inevitably, I was drawn into another debate on IC. I couldn’t resist it. The Submissive Alpha Female is an archetype that has often been the subject of heated arguments, moments of prolonged, guilty Feminist introspection, or powerful wank fantasies – all three in my case. On IC, the thread began with someone’s definition of the SAF, found elsewhere on the net:
“The submissive alpha female is a woman who is strong, confident, bold, and assertive in her life and her dealings with people in general – but who wants a dominant man in her life because she finds it sexually exciting to be dominated by a strong, powerful man. She might or might not be in a position of authority at work; but she has a personality and a level of competence such that she could be in such a position and command respect.”
It seems odd to me that so many of the assumptions in BDSM are heterocentric. Nearly all the women I know are at least bisexual, so I’ve no idea why the consensus seems to be that a femsub will require a big, hairy chap to put her in her place. A person, possibly. But not necessarily a man. It’s ridiculous, especially in a BDSM context, to think of heterosexuality as the default setting for a sub.
Anyway, gender of potential partner aside, the females I’ve encountered (socially and intimately) who enjoy submitting in the sack have been – almost exclusively – strong, intellectual Feminists who express their opinions assertively and would normally be considered the epitome of the “Alpha” personality. The presumption in society is that any socially dominant woman must also be sexually dominant. Back at the IC thread, a chap said just that:
“No doubt I will be jumped upon for over simplification and spoiling the magic, but this sounds to me like a Domme who switches and then Tops from the bottom. I can think of several women fitting the OP’s description who do this. Some swear blind that they are not Domme’s at all – yeah right!”
Unable to resist, I instantly jumped on him for over simplification and the spoiling of magic. Why try to classify a person as one thing or another, and judge every gobby femsub as a Dominatrix in denial? Some women may be entirely dominant in certain aspects of their lives, but are sexually excited by their own submission to a dominant partner. It doesn’t make them closet Dommes. It just makes them three-dimensional, sexually complex human beings who don’t particularly fit into a stereotype. As the rhyme goes, it is entirely possible to be Domme in the streets but sub between the sheets.
As someone who is (predominantly) a stubborn, swaggering, loud-mouthed Dominatrix myself – socially, sexually and professionally – I find that dominating another strong woman is one of the most exciting experiences it’s possible to have. After all, is there such a thing as a woman who isn’t strong, much less a weak woman, and would she really require the firm hand of another? I’m not sure if that meek, doe-eyed, insipid femsub of sexual mythology exists, but if she does, I certainly haven’t met her and I’m not sure I’d have any interest in doing so.
Female submission is so often stigmatised. Since the dawn of humanity, we ladies have been exploited and abused, so when a woman actively seeks and consents to her own subjugation, then it is often assumed – especially by those outside the BDSM community – that she is just another victim of the patriarchy. The SAFs disprove this. We should be celebrating them, and we certainly shouldn’t be berating them for their kink – well, unless they drop to their knees and ask us to, that is…