Talk:Female dominance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Sexuality (Rated Redirect-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Redirect page Redirect  This redirect does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

links[edit]

I looked at the logs of this article. While http://www.femdomale.com/female-domination.html is an article that could be a reference for this article, http://www.regimeimperia.com/ is a commercial site. This is in conflict of the external links policy of wikipedia. Therefore, can someone help me here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Automanation (talkcontribs) 04:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Resources and Further Reading[edit]

It seems to me that there are things that this article are referenced to "Female Domination". It also came to my attention that someone always tries to remove this link.

Any explanations? Please discuss it here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Automanation (talkcontribs) 22:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC).

I keep reverting the link because it does not meet the standard for external links, see Wikipedia:External links.

Atom 22:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

If that's the case, http://www.regimeimperia.com/ should also be removed.

can you explain why?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Automanation (talkcontribs) 00:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

It stated in the Wikipedia:External links that sites should be linked when the sites are

  1. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons.
  2. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.

"Female Domination" belongs to this category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Automanation (talkcontribs) 01:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


In other words, the problem is not the link, but apparently just the fact that it's put in External links instead of in References. :) If it was used as a reference for the article, it should be cited under "References" and not "External links"; External links sections are for additional material, not source material. --4.238.17.86 (talk) 16:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

This Might Explain It[edit]

I am not the person who either puts it or removes it but I have a GREAT hypothesis and it is about commerce. According to my claim, someone is using Wikipedia to SELL a book and someone doesn't want that book to be sold either because they want to deffend the real purpose of Wikipedia (which is, obviously, non-comercial) or because they want to deffend any other interest that opposes that of the person who wants to sell the book. Like my explanation? Wouldn't be surprised if its just pure truth!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.141.211.64 (talkcontribs) 20:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Elise Sutton books[edit]

I am not sure why the Elise Sutton books seem to keep getting removed and put back in. I just put them back in because they are good books on the topic (both have 4 stars on both Amazon and Barnes & Noble). I want to note that I am not trying to sell books and I get nothing from the sales of the books (other than knowing that they might improve someones life). -- BottomOut (talk) 10:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Redirection[edit]

It bothers me that "Loving Female Authority" (and previously "Female Led Relationships", which has disappeared completely) link to this page. I perceive they can be somewhat different, for example a "Female Led Relationship" doesn't require BDSM, which seems to be the main focus of this page. One example would be http://aroundherfinger.com where they try to cater to a general audience. I would like to create a separate page for Female Led Relationships/Loving Female Authority. -- BottomOut (talk) 11:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

--> These are not in the slightest different and are synonymous and equivalent with the concepts and practice with "femdom" or "female domination". It is purely a matter of semantics, or if you will, marketing. It makes sense for the root concept and root phenomenon to be given prominence. Enice10101 (talk) 14:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

on Atomaton[edit]

the user Atomaton's behavior is absurb. See above. He places commercial spams on Wikipedia (check his contribution history) but removes qualified links (check his contribution history).

Where should I report his misbehaviors? Any helps? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Automanation (talkcontribs) 01:00 and 01:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

Have a third party to resolve this issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonlschwab (talkcontribs) 01:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, you can ask any admin for help, but they will tell you that the link is against Wikipedia Policy too. Take a look here Wikipedia:Resolving disputes Atom 02:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


I took a long look at your site to be sure that my opinion was correct. But, even though I am a strong supporter of the BDSM lifestyle, I can't overlook the Wikipedia policies. Your site is a very nice site, and has lots of interesting stories on FemDom. But, on the right you ask for advertisers, and have a Dominatrix Directory of professional Dominatrices who charge for their services. You have a "Your AD here" on the right, and a Contact Us section where it says "We can place textlinks or banners on our website. Currently, our rate is $30/month for a textlink advertisement or $60/month for a banner advertisement. Your advertisement will appear on the main portion of three non-index pages of your choice. Included in the advertisement is a review of the products or services that you offer."

Your site is a commercial site, even though well disguised.

I edit hundreds of sexology and sexuality articles and see people trying to do what you are doing all of the time.

Wp:el#Advertising_and_conflicts_of_interest Says:

  • "Use of Wikipedia to link to a website that you own, maintain or are acting as an agent for is strongly recommended against, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked to."

In this case, you keep re-adding this link to your own web site, even after it has been deleted by others.

Wp:el#Links_normally_to_be_avoided Says:

  • "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research"
  • "Links mainly intended to promote a website."

Your web site, asinteresting as it is, is primarily fiction and unverifiable research. Also, you are adding the link to promote your web site. Looking at a history of your edits, the only contributions to Wikipedia you've made since creating your account have been to add the link to your web site.

Also, external links should only rarely be used, if you have things to add the article, they should be added to the body of the article, and not in an external link. You are, in fact, using the link to try and draw people to your site. This is in effect, promoting your web site, and is not allowed by policy.

If you continue to add your web link the article, eventually you will get blocked. Thanks, and good luck with your web site.

Atom 12:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Trivia -- "Red Wings"[edit]

This phrase may derive from the practice of motorcycle gangs wearing red aviator wing patches on their colors to show they've done the same act. They have brown wings, too. Do the math.

Basesurge (talk) 00:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation needed[edit]

I think a disambiguation page is needed for "Female dominance," but I want to get some feedback before I make the changes. Female dominance not only refers to a topic under human sexuality, but also a social system in biology. According to WP:D, "if there are two topics for a term but neither is considered the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is used." Would anyone be opposed to renaming this page Female dominance (human sexuality), with a disambiguation page pointing to both it and a (new) article to be named Female dominance (biology)? –Visionholder (talk) 15:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

suggestion:first write the new article. I think there's a good possibility here. at the moment, the closest article is dominance hierarchy--there's a section there to expand. I find the Jolly's work on lemurs particularly interesting, and there's more recent work than in any of the Wikipedia articles. let me know if I can give you any help with this. DGG ( talk ) 03:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea. However, in 3 days I am leaving to do some volunteer work in Madagascar for 3 months, so it will have to wait until January. I'd also like to note, though, that female dominance is not just a lemur trait, although they are best known for it. Although I can write from the lemur perspective, it will be important that other people interested in animal behavior contribute to the article as well. –Visionholder (talk) 12:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
'Female Dominance' as a social system is called Matriarchy, and there is already an article on the topic. --Ludwigs2 08:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

POV[edit]

This article reads more like a one-sided attack on femdom. I don't know enough about the subject to change it, but it makes me very sad. Fabien (talk) 18:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


I totally agree. I'm working on getting practitioners to help fix it, and I'm collecting information directly from as many males who submit to women as I can reach. Of course the sample will be restricted to the ones with internet access but at least it will be more accurate.

MagicChelle (talk) 04:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC) MagicChelle

First, the article is about a specific BDSM "fetish", which is called femdom. The fact that male slaves can make up theories about female supremacy and others have the need to live it 24/7 as a lifestyle and others feel more emotional reactions and not only sexual reactions, does not mean that it is something more than a "fetish". Consider swinging, they may live it to spice up sexual life or they may live it 24/7, they may have a theory to support it (satisfy natural insticts, etc) and they may have emotional satisfaction from it and not only sexual satisfaction (feeling free to have affairs they are less supressed and more balanced in their lives. Second, there is no femdom without sadomasochism, either emotional or/and sexual. It requires a sadistic, arrogant, etc female and a submissive male, which is called sub or slave. Anything, it is simply not femdom. Loving your wife as a goddess, pampering her as a princess, etc is not femdom. You do not feel as a slave that does his duties or as a worshipper that worships a goddess (literally) and your wife does not look down to you as a toy, slave, humble male, etc. Femdom means that your wife is a sadist, arrogant, etc and you are bound to her, unwilling, etc. Consider forced feminization. The male is forced to do something he doesn't want in order to prove his love etc. The truth is that he wants it because of perversive fantasies. Which normal non-femdom woman would feminize her partner? for what reason? if not for his masochistic or perverted needs? Which normal non-femdom male would accept feminization to prove his love? The practises of femdom are all sadomasochistic, one by one. But they simply veil them with values, such as love, sacrifice, passion, admiration, anticipation, etc. Some women and men may see this romantically, as a queen and her prince, that he kneels before her and she is blushing from that romantic movement of his. The same scene in femdom, would be the prince to reveal his stockings under his clothes as he kneels and the queen to peg him for being a naughty boy! Femdom is not about admiring women, is not about needing to serve women, is not about needing to make women happy. Which normal woman would be happy with her man in petticoat if not a sadistic pervert woman? Which woman would humiliate her own husband if not a sicko? Well they do only because the slave wants it! Otherwise it is not their true desire to feminize their husbant. Asking perverts who practise femdom, will lead to invalid points. They will say that all they want is to express their love and care and that they do this by abnegating themselves, their control, their desires, their dignity etc. How romantic it sounds! The underlying truth is that the male just needs to satisfy his masochistic needs. That's why they pay dominatrixes as hookers. It is THEIR need, otherwise they would find a simple normal girl and worship her. But this does not satisfies his needs! The girl must be a bitch, a sadist, into femdom, etc in order to satisfy them. So, since it is a forced of conceived masochism, it must be analyzed as this: a form of masochism. Masochism normally does not do harm, and that's why it is not a disease, you won't die from masochism, you neither harm anyone too. But it does have some causes. It is a symptom of a disease. Masochism may be considered to be removed from DSM-IV, but if you research psychiatric bibliography, you will notice how many diseases have as symptom among others, the masochistic or fetishistic fantasies, desires, tendencies. The article must not look as a pervert's manifesto that praises and justifies his perversion. Deleting information that spoils your perverted fantasies or your financial gains or your inner peace that depends on the fact that there are male slaves and you can do whatever you want or if you can't feel arousal if you don't think this way, these are not reasons not to include a scientific approach: http://www.sextreatment.com/the_mystique_of_the_dominant_woman.html There are people that do this for fun or for their own reasons, but the fact that there are people that have some trauma and act this way, it is absolutely unethical to remove it.

This is such a desperate attempt to veil blatant bias with verbose methods. As a BDSM practitioner, I'm speechless at your falsity.LLLookAtYouHacker (talk) 22:39, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I suppose its out of the question that some women enjoy humiliating and being sadistic to their male partner? Also that site you list is quite sexually conservative. One of the questions for whether or not you have a mental illness or "sexual deviance" is "Have you subscribed or regularly purchased/rented sexually explicit magazines or videos?" So I guess that means that the majority of Americans are mentally diseased perverts? Well the site also charges you more than a hundred dollars for a phone or internet conversation. Sounds more like a scam to me. Map29673 (talk) 01:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure it is not out of the question. In fact, what you point out, simply confirms what I am saying: that there is no femdom without female sadism and without male masochism. Male submissives crave female sadism, not women, not passion, not romance, not anything else. It is not about either female supremacy, not about the love of women, etc. It is about receiving sadism, because they are masochists. For exaple, female domination in science or business, or female-led relationships, or scientific facts that may indicate female superiority in some sectors, are not expressions of female sadism and males who accept them are not masochists. So what is misleading is what male masochists claim, need to serve a female because of her superiority, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomorebs-ok (talkcontribs) 01:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

"That there is no femdom without female sadism and without male masochism."

Incorrect. You seem to constantly correlate biased/hateful conjectures with legitimate facts. Sadism/masochism is not a prerequisite of female domination; that's a stereotypical perception of the practice that undermines the potential variety of activities. Female domination activities has/does/can be infinitely multi-factorial regarding "context" and some of those do indeed involve activities of love and admiration.LLLookAtYouHacker (talk) 22:39, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

This article is absolutely unsatisfying for an encyclopedia![edit]

Most of the article is just a collection of arguments against the practice of female dominance.

sorry that encyclopedia is not about "satisfying" your femdom fantasies! You must look in other places for that. Sorry for spoiling your fantasies!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomorebs-ok (talkcontribs)

Nomorebs-ok, that was a deliberate conjecture on your part, based on a presumable fear of his/her concerns. However, if that was your sincere reaction, then I reproach you for such an illogical judgement.LLLookAtYouHacker (talk) 22:39, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to get into a discussion right now, because its almost 4am over here, and I am kind of tired. No matter if you agree with the article or not, I think everybody has to agree, that its rather a (one-sided)discussion about the topic. Do you really believe that everybody who enjoys female domination is the way the article describes it??? I don't think so. Many people actually are interested in those kind of sexual experiences, because it is just natural that people have fetishes. People just hesitate to say that like BDSM openly. My believe is that the person who wrote this, is interested him/herself but doesn't want to admit it. But thats his/her personal thing...

However, this article is not acceptable for an ENCYCLOPEDIA(you can post it in the cosmopolitan or whatever...), which should be neutral or at least show both sides. I read that somebody is already editing it, but while you do that please put one of those signs on the article that says "this article is very one-sided/not well written" etc. So that wikipedia doesn't contribute to ignorance than already done with this article. Anyone in disagreement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.186.48.58 (talk) 02:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, you would be interested too if you were a psychologist and people came to you about their fetishes. So many scientists are interested in this subject, it is disturbing to read about forced feminization, humiliation as a sexual practices and not be interested academically in that strange subject. Even if it is natural for you, you must open your eyes and see that there is extensive debate about the paradox of masochism.
It is a huge mistake to judge the person and not his writings. If you argue with scientific data and logical arguements in favor of femdom, then it doesn't matter if you are a masochist, a sadist, a professional femdom producer who makes money, whatever, what matters is what you say, not who you are or why you say that. The fact that someone is of the opposite belief, or whatever, does not make his arguements less valid. It is about the arguements, not the person. If you argue against him by saying 'hm he must be a prejudiced' or something, and not by arguing over his arguements, it is that you just want to keep believing your femdom fantasies that satisfy you, no matter what.
The femdom subject is a sadomasochistic subject and nothing more. Argueing that is has bases on facts, beliefs, nature, etc is one-sided opinion of a pervert who needs to justify his perversion. Your arguement "it is just natural that people have fetishes" is totally ignorant. The fact that because some people do something it does not mean that it is natural, healthy, logic, etc. For example many people pull their hair, you would say, there are many who do it, they don't harm anyone, since they do it they must like it and anyways there is no point to study it. Yeah, right, but guess what, this is symptom of disease. It is not that those who enjoy femdom are diseased (while no one cannot prove that they are not, future research may show). It is about that some people many indeed have issues and they express them this way, so that is a good reason for encyclopedia to include the opinion that a perversion is not just... natural, as you prortray it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomorebs-ok (talkcontribs) these comments were rescued from a reversion of a mis-done edit Ludwigs2 20:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Nomorebs-ok: this is an encyclopedia article, and as such it is not supposed to take a position for or against the topic. the aim is neutrality. please try to contribute with that in mind.--Ludwigs2 21:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Removed POV sections[edit]

I have removed certain POV sections that are very much against femdom. Those sections were very anti-femdom, made some rather outlandish claims, and had NO CITATIONS WHATSOEVER. I am not opposed to their reinsertion if they are rewritten with reliable sources as citations, but until then, I'm removing them. Asarelah (talk) 05:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The sections you removed were not against femdom. They were there to clarify sexual fantasies from reality. Also they tried to sum up the currect scientific opinions of male masochism. Not from psychiatric point of view, because masochist may not have limited functionality, so that he would be consider as a "patient", but from psychological view.
Ofcourse, you need to understand that claiming that this article must not contain any information that would be considered 'anti-femdom' is not a valid arguement. supposedly, his article must not aim to please femdom perversions. Neither to make femdom fans feel sick either. Same goes for homosexuality article. There *are* anti-gay opinions in there, even if they are marked as controversial or unproved.
The sections you removed just explained in a more detailed manner what was already in that article: "plays upon Freudian castration anxiety", "emasculation", "inadequacy of the submissive male partner, due either to various behavioral or physical traits", etc. So, it is strange why don't have problem with these claims, but you have with the sections you removed.
As for citations: the link http://www.sextreatment.com/the_mystique_of_the_dominant_woman.html sums up alot. Further, I would suggest the work of Dr. Roy Baumeister, who is expert in masochism. Where exactly is the dispute? the fact that "the person attributes specific characteristics to his love object (the woman), so that she must have sadistic traits, divine and irresistible beauty, she must ignore him, look down on him, demand servitude from him, etc."? this info is already in the article, the whole article is about sadistic females and masochistic males. What else? maybe the "The goal of this is to be able to alleviate his fears and anxieties that are caused by inner conflicts."? Read at a book of Dr. Baumeister: "as long as the masochist is doing what the dominant partner wants, the masochist knows that he or she is doing the right thing. No uncertainty, anxiety or guilt is possible." Also his books "Escaping the self: alcoholism, spirituality, masochism, and other flights". Another: "Enigmatic appeal of sexual masochism: Why People Desire Pain, Bondage and Humiliation in Sex". Sorry, but you cannot stop the scientific concern about masochism, it is so paradoxical that concentrates much scientific interest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomorebs-ok (talkcontribs) 09:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Ludwigs2: It is ok if the article must not contain information about the reasons, I just wanted to expand some hints of the article about how some males may crave castration, etc, which seems paradoxical and obviously not just a "fetish". Another part I wanted to contribute is the "Female dominance as belief system or lifestyle" section, where femdom was portrayed as female supremacy, female admiration, etc. But anyway, I believe it is dangerous to associate the term "female dominance" with the femdom fetish, it may be misleading and make someone think that female dominance means male submission and masochism or female admiration means male humiliation, torture etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomorebs-ok (talkcontribs) 09:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Nomorebs-ok: I've taken the liberty of indenting your text to make the discussion more readable. Please remember to do that, and to sign your posts when you're done. this is writing, not speaking, and if you don't use structure and sign what you write it becomes impossible to tell who is saying what.
I don't see a problem with you adding information of that sort, though you need to do it based on established research, using proper citations. web pages often do not qualify as valid research (though there are exceptions). problems do arise, however, when you start using words like 'perversion', and start using strong derogatory language. it is not wikipedia's purpose to evaluate or judge the behavior as right/wrong, good/bad, safe/dangerous, sane/crazy, or any other polarization. it is also not wikipedia's place to second-guess what assumptions readers are or aren't going to make. all we need to do is describe the topic as best we can, through the lens of expert sources, and leave people to do what they want with the information we provide. --Ludwigs2 09:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I encounter insults on Wikipedia all the time, yet moderators take no notice (or only take notice when the insults are in their favour.) Sorry, but this "information" site has a lot of work to do. Additionally, as a BDSM practitioner, your slashed conflicts could be attributed to a surreptitious bias towards the practice.LLLookAtYouHacker (talk) 22:39, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Ludwigs. Nomorebs, I'm perfectly fine with you putting the parts I cut back in, as long as you include proper citations from reliable sources. As you are the one making the claims, the burden is on YOU to put the citations in, not me. You also need to tone down the rather inflammatory language you used.Asarelah (talk) 16:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Odd observation[edit]

I was visiting this article to see what another user had edited and was a fair way back from my screen when reading the caption above the top right image. What I saw, I thought conflicted with the description as I thought the man in the picture was indeed a woman. I've had long hair as a man before, and I don't mean to be insensitive, but from a distance it was ambiguous at the least. When I looked at the image more closely, it was obvious and I felt a little bit of a fool, but given the subject matter and the purpose of the picture, maybe another is more appropriate?--Senor Freebie (talk) 10:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Nice observation. Indeed, I knew the then-long-haired guy by myself. When I told him that his face is featured on Wikipedia's article on FemDom, well, "surprise, surprise" ;-) --212.201.73.253 (talk) 21:25, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

something strange[edit]

This isn't the first time i read this article but i think they wa s more info on it last time like if someone deleted it was the info unneccessary or did the person not like how the article was layed out. user--86.41.159.158 (talk) 23:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Credibility Consideration[edit]

reguarding: http://femdomstudygroup.blogspot.com/ I have reviewed the methodology of Mr Starks and feel that it warrents special consideration as a valid research refrence. Mr Stark uses sound science and takes great lengths to compensate for the fundamentally difficult nature of researching stigmatized subject matter. I would hate to see his work dismissed without consideration. Wikipedia is rooted in Boldness, so altho Peer Reviewed Journal support would be preferable, i cannot in good conscience dismiss sound scientific research done on topics as relevant and elusive as human sexuality. I would love to hear from others about this "expcetion to the policy" --Arkbg (talk) 05:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone know if Starks' work is being considered for peer reviewed publication? Review by Wikipedia editors cannot substitute for this process. I doubt that this subject would be unpublishable in academic circles simply for being "stigmatized". New research from self-published sources is generally not suitable for Wikipedia. / edg 11:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Blogs are not considered reliable sources. However, I would welcome the inclusion if a reliable source published his work. Asarelah (talk) 22:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)