Sissification and Male Chastity

by Sarah on June 15, 2010

I’ve been thinking about sissification recently.

There! That got your attention didn’t it?

Sorry to disappoint you and all, but I’ve been thinking about it more as an academic exercise rather than with any intention behind it.

You see, as I was warned all along and despite anything I say or write, a substantial number of the messages and emails I get are from submissive men who have any one of a number of daft questions for me, and from dominant women who are full of unasked-for advice about what I’m missing out on and how I’d like it if only I’d “give it a try”.

And some, at the more extreme end, seem to use the excuse of contacting me to wax lyrical about how they feminise their men and subject them to what these Superior Females believe to be the “natural” condition of the human male – sissification.

Right.

This is just about tolerable because, well, it’s actually quite amusing actually.

No, really.

I find it increasingly pathetic and sad but instead of getting pointlessly annoyed at the clear violation of my rules for contacting me, I instead choose to laugh at it.

One message which did give me pause for thought, though, and spurred me on to write this post was the woman who said I was actually being not just “narrow minded”, but that she, personally, found my attitude to be “discriminatory and prejudiced”.

I do wonder at people who feel prompted to send messages like this. I mean, if she finds my attitudes and opinions offensive, why does she read them? She’s apparently been reading my blog for some time. It really does beggar belief.

But, anyway. Let’s rip ap… I mean examine her statements with a critical eye.

First, yes, my attitude is discriminatory and prejudiced. By this I mean I discriminate in my relationships against men I don’t find attractive. That includes men who enjoy sissification.

It also includes men who have bad breath, are overweight, are incontinent or who like to get drunk slap their wives around and sexually abuse little children.

I also discriminate against men who are stupid, arrogant, unlearned and crass. What’s more I discriminate against tall men, men with too much body hair, men who can’t cook, men who don’t have sense of humour, macho-men, skinny men, spotty men and men who are really, really, really into football.

And yes, I’m prejudiced, in the sense I have a preconceived preference for men with certain attributes: I like them strong, fit, masculine and, typically, blonde. I like them shortish, hyper-intelligent, tough, and able to laugh at themselves before they laugh at anything else.

And much of this implicitly excludes men who are into submission, slavery, feminisation and of course enjoy sissification.

See we all discriminate and prejudge.

The problem is, certain busybodies have taken the terms and the concepts and turned them into one-size-fits-all pejoratives in an attempt to make everyone accept their own little peccadilloes as being an acceptable lifestyle choice for them whether they actually like it or not.

And to that idea, I say “fuck you”.

My own personal preferences are my own business. They are absolutely and utterly subjective. I claim no objective moral position allowing me to judge anyone for any consensual behaviour they engage in with another adult.

So, I am not claiming and never have claimed that, say, masculine men are objectively “better” than submissive ones or ones who like sissification.

But my personal preference is for men who are manly, not womanly.

Men who are merely submissive I find sexually neutral for the most part; sissies, maids and the like I find sexually repellent. Tough shit. Deal with it. It’s not a judgement on them relating to their intrinsic worth as a human being. That’s completely separate and I don’t have the right to judge anyone in that way.

But I am perfectly within my rights to take the measure of a man and declare whether I find him hot and horny or stomach-turning. And I do find sissification quite, quite stomach-turning if I think about having a man like that crawling all over me or wanting me to crawl all over him.

If I can’t do this and make these decisions, then it follows I, and presumably other women, don’t have the right to choose our sexual partners and must accept everyone who asks simply because not to do so is “discriminatory”.

Plain idiocy from plain idiots.

As for being “narrow minded”, well… having an “open mind” does not mean giving equal weight to every crackpot idea you come across. I’ll have more to say on this when I return to the subject of cuckolding (yes, they won’t give up on that one, either), but for now suffice it to say I know I don’t want to “try” female domination with John, because it doesn’t appeal to me; and it doesn’t appeal to him either.

As for sissification… Lordy. The mind, she doth boggle.

But”, they say, “you need to keep an open mind and just try it!”.

Nope. I don’t.

I don’t “need” to do anything just because you tell me I do.

I’ll make them a deal.

I want them to show an “open mind” about excrement sandwiches. I want them to go out onto the pavement and scoop up the biggest dog-turd they can find, slap it on some bread and munch it down (if you’re worried about disease, boil it first).

You loudmouthed, rude and ignorant “female supremacists” can tell me to keep an “open mind” about female domination, sissification and other things that really do not appeal to me only when you’ve done that.

Eat up girls. Don’t “prejudge” the taste, will you?

Previous post:

Next post: