#Denial is not emasculation

[denial-permanente]

I'm a man who really enjoys your blog. You two both seem like smart, interesting people who are clearly in love and have a great, unorthodox sex life.

I am somewhat confused that you both are so insistent that there's no humiliation or domination intended. Seems to me it's inherently humiliating and emasculating for a man to have his cock locked in a metal device for years, allowed to "fuck" his wife only with a plastic strap-on dick. I understand Tom gets off on this but clearly part of the appeal for him is the denial. You have said (paraphrasing) that Tom is in this situation because he deserves it somehow and you clearly enjoy deciding when he gets to cum (very rarely).

Personally I don't want to be locked up, for me it would be too frustrating and humiliating with no upside. I guess that's why I'm asking this. Thanks again for the interesting blog.

What was the actual question? 😅

Hey, Tom here. First of all, you may be confusing the picture captions with the Ask posts where we discuss more about our actual life. The captions are little fantasies that come out of my head, often a bit embellished for the audience. Sexily attired dominant women uttering slightly humiliating or degrading phrases are popular. Our real life would probably be a bit of a snooze for most of the readers.

My wife does not identify as a domme. She does like to be in charge in the bedroom, but not in a Mistress Cruella way. And while many of the captions are inspired by things she has said, she has never insinuated that I was not capable of satisfying her in the pre-locked days. And I also think that you have misunderstood the idea that she thinks I "deserve" to be locked and denied. That's a common theme in the captions, but not in our real life.

She does, however, really enjoy the control over when / if / how I am allowed an orgasm. Make of that what you will.

Neither of us see any inherent contradiction in our relationship as it applies to my masculinity. I do not feel less manly from being locked. Instead, I regard what I do as a kind of self-sacrifice, not unlike a knight pledging fealty to his queen. Similarly, wearing the harness is *empowering* for me, because it allows me to give her the kind of pleasure she wants (or deserves), despite my being locked.

In her mind, I am still strong, capable, and always aroused for her. She regards my being locked as similar to a woman who has a wild beast on a leash. She knows that when we have sex, I am aroused and full of desire, yet she is able to control the action so that I make love to her slowly and gently, or hard and animalistic. And my wife doesn't really see the Vixskin as a replacement or substitute. Instead, she seems to view it as an enhancement to my existing package (if that makes any sense).

Part of the "appeal" of denial for me is the idea that I have ceded all control over to my wife. She made the decision, and like a loyal and obedient knight, I abide by it - as difficult as it may be at times. Yes, I occasionally play with other fantasies in my head while we do this, but it's just as a change of pace. I never have fantasies of being feminized or of her taking other lovers. To me, those are emasculating (in that I see them as being humiliating and degrading).

Finally, yes - being locked is frustrating. That's kind of the point. My wife enjoys me taking on challenges for her. Dragons being extinct in our area, she finds excitement in challenging me in other ways - one of them being locked. Another is when she can see me struggling to hold back my own orgasm so she can have all my attention. Even knowing that she is getting me all worked up is exciting to her. Again, neither of us see this as emasculating, but rather as enhancement. 🔒

[intersexcat-tboy]

Unpacking the Ethics of “Tboy Strap”: Challenging the Language of Delegitimization

[PT: Unpacking the Ethics of “Tboy Strap”: Challenging the Language of Delegitimization]

Hearing about trans men or transmascs topping and instantly thinking "strap" perpetuates transphobia and contributes to antitransmasculinity specifically.

While not an exact parallel, defaulting to the assumption that trans men topping involves a “strap” is similar to defaulting to the assumption that trans women's breasts involve breast forms. Both assumptions overlook how these can be achieved through HRT or surgical means, while also distracting from their true (desired, or) transitioned bodies, reinforcing the unnecessary, often dysphoria-inducing misconception that their gender affirming adaptations are not legitimate aspects of themselves.

Many trans people use language intentionally to reduce dysphoria, but being externally subjected to such framing can reinforce the disconnection from their bodies and identities. It's different when someone uses this language to describe themselves personally, as it reflects their individual relationship. Nevertheless, when this language is applied generally to others, we must think critically about the broader concepts it promotes.

Strap-ons are primarily marketed to those without penises and have strong historical ties to the lesbian community. They are not generally called “strap-ons” when used by cis men who don’t have or cannot use their penis for penetration. Instead, they are simply referred to as hollow dildos or recognized as prosthetics—designed to restore or improve functionality of a body part. It serves to replace a valued, personally integral aspect of their body that is necessary for their quality of life, rather than merely an optional add-on.

In some cases, when used alongside an existing penis for double penetration, it would be more aptly called a strap-on. However, this usage typically doesn’t apply to trans men, as they usually don't use their natal penis for penetration alongside; if involved, it is either stimulated, enhanced, or extended, rather than acting as a secondary penis.

Additionally, in certain dynamics (e.g. orgasm denial, men in chastity, or sissification) the term “strap” is often used to emphasize a rejection of the integration with their identity as men, meant to deny them recognition of their “true” manhood by highlighting their perceived failure to embody masculinity by not using what “truly” makes them a man.

Within chastity, sometimes referred to in kink communities as “reverse pegging,” the humiliation often stems from the implication that because the “strap” is superior to his own flesh—more effective, more satisfying, larger, and thus more aligned with what a “real” man should be able to provide—he is being denied recognition of his “true” manhood. His failure to satisfy with his own flesh renders him lesser; his use of an external object for penetration is framed as proof of his shortcomings in masculinity—a mark of failure to measure up to the patriarchal ideal.

The deliberate focus on performance, emasculation, and delegitimization seeks to humiliate and degender the cis man, framing penetration not as a natural extension of his body, but as an artificial external act performed for someone else’s pleasure.

This concept is similar to how some trans women, or others with dysphoria related to having more erectile tissue than desired, refer to theirs as a “built-in strap” to create distance from their anatomy to alleviate dysphoria. While both can be used roughly to mean “this isn't my real penis, so I'm not really a man”, trans women’s use of the term contrasts with these kink dynamics where "strap" is used to question the legitimacy of the man's manhood, disempower or humiliate him. Instead, trans women commonly use it as a coping mechanism for dysphoria management and as a term of endearment, turning it into a source of empowerment rather than an insult.

In certain contexts, the way “strap” is used in reference to transmascs risks reducing their gender expression to a fetishized, sexual, or kink-based act, framing their sexuality as a performance or role-play rather than an authentic and true expression of who they are. This positions it as something /on/ their bodies rather than /part/ of them.

When "tboy" and "strap" are used together in a mocking or belittling manner, it often carries an underlying implication of infantilization. The combination can evoke images that reduce the experience of trans men to something less serious—like that of children playing dress-up with toys.

For transmascs, these framings reduce their penises to costumes that are put on and taken off for sex, rather than as an extension of their body and identity. They either draw on historical and cultural contexts to position trans men as women, or impose kink dynamics, such as humiliation and sissification, onto trans men's bodies, regardless of whether that reflects their experiences or desires. Both are dehumanizing and deny trans men the same recognition and respect afforded to cis men in similar contexts. Either way, the issue lies in how “strap” frames it as a temporary addition for sexual purposes, suggesting that it isn’t an intrinsic part or expression of their body or identity.

When the tools that help trans people live as our true selves are treated as something “on” our bodies or worn to perform, it reinforces the harmful idea that our gender expression is temporary, artificial, or an act.

Through this objectification, it becomes a decorative, extra addition, or accessory, rather than something inherent to themselves or a necessary function for their quality of life.

If this idea persists—the framing of penetration with an extension of oneself, rather than flesh and blood, as a performative or artificial expression of body/sexuality—it suggests that their experiences are somehow invalid or less authentic. This forces them to navigate the harmful narrative that their bodies, sexuality, and experiences are only legitimate or recognized as real if they conform to external standards. From this continuous confrontation with language that invalidates their bodies or sexuality, internalized shame can cultivate and fester.

All of these ultimately diminish their ability to fully express their gender and sexuality in, and on, their own terms.

[royboyfanpage]

Snowbirds Don’t Fly- Drugs TW (Obviously)

Recently, I created this post about Snowbirds Don’t Fly being told from Roy’s perspective in the Green Arrow 80th anniversary special, and I thought I’d make a separate post with some specific panels from the original Snowbirds. I’m well aware that a lot of people haven’t read the full comic and may only know this-

-infamous slap panel, I myself only read the original 1971 comic recently. So, here’s some other panels from the comic.

For starters, when Ollie finds Roy amongst drug users, his immediate reaction is “oh, Speedy must be undercover!” This could be interpreted one of two ways- trust, or denial. Either one makes his reaction to finding out Roy’s addiction understandable*, since if it’s a reaction based on trust then Roy’s essentially betrayed that trust or, more likely, if it’s a reaction based on denial then finding Roy shooting up is an immediate shattering of the illusion. While this comic obviously focuses on drug use, it’s also common for tons of different issues, be it mental health, sexuality, whatever. Parents like to live in denial about their kids’ issues and, particularly in the 1970s when the idea of ‘gentle parenting’ was a rarity at best, when that illusion is broken it can cause parents to lash out when faced with evidence of what they’re denying. Even if you don’t personally see Ollie and Roy’s relationship as father/son, that is very clearly the dynamic portrayed in this comic.

*note the wording; understandable, not justifiable. Are Ollie’s actions justified? No. Are they understandable based on the circumstances and time period? Yes.

I’m putting these two panels together because I think they fit well. A common misinterpretation I see for the circumstances leading up to Roy’s heroin addiction is that Ollie was neglecting him. However, it’s stated in the comic that Ollie’s not seen him in one month, and while Roy’s age isn’t specifically stated, he’s an adult at this point (I don’t have any sources for it, but I believe he was living on his own at this point). A parent not seeing their adult child for one month isn’t neglect. In Ollie’s eyes, he hasn’t done anything wrong. The aspect of neglect comes from Roy. I’ve talked about Roy’s fear of abandonment in my pinned post, so check that out for more. Roy has a need to be surrounded by the people he cares about- he’s very rarely a solo hero, and is the most vocal objector whenever the Titans disband. So what Ollie would have seen as giving Roy space and letting his now-adult son have his independence, Roy saw it as a sign that he was no longer wanted. Is this either of their faults? No. And not to keep bringing up the 70s again, but it was the 70s. Would a young-adult superhero tell his father/mentor that he was scared of being alone? Absolutely not, that would have been seen as emasculating, so he bottled it up meaning Ollie had absolutely no clue as to what Roy was feeling whenever he’d leave.

And then this is the page following the slap panel, which essentially sums up my point in my last snowbirds post. Ollie’s immediate reaction after “kicking Roy out” (another thing I commonly see Ollie haters using- again, Roy lived on his own at this point) is blaming himself, the fear of having failed Roy, and then the stifling of that blame, justifying it to himself mentally. Honestly I think this panel is more significant in art than dialogue in a lot of ways- the way Ollie turns his head away when Roy’s talking to him, he knows he’s in the wrong, but admitting he’s wrong would go against the “father knows best” ideology of that time. And then in the third panel, the conflicting emotions is visible in his eyes. He doesn’t know what to think, the illusion is broken, and he can’t ignore Roy’s issues any longer.

And then there’s Hal, the narrative foil to Ollie in this comic. Unlike Ollie, Hal doesn’t have that illusion, at least not as strongly as Ollie does, since he’s always played the role of a supportive uncle figure, but never a father. He’s able to recognise that Roy was speaking from experience, or at least had a hunch, and actively sought out Roy afterwards. However, he also doesn’t have a saviour complex. He knows that he personally doesn’t have the skillset necessary to help Roy, so he brings him to someone who does, recognising that its more important that Roy gets the help he needs rather than Hal stepping in and doing it himself in typical “hero” fashion.

This panel doesn’t tie into my overarching argument, but I just wanted to take a moment to criticise Roy’s recovery story in the New 52. The idea that Roy was suicidal before Killer Croc (???) dragged him to rehab/AA, and would not have gotten better without being forced, is a major disservice to Roy’s character (then again, what in RHaTO isn’t?) Roy made the decision to get clean himself, and you can feel his resolve even despite him clearly not being in his right state of mind. Roy Harper got clean because he accepted help, and because he himself made that choice. Back to your regularly scheduled programming.

And then, of course, there’s the most significant person in Roy’s recovery; Dinah. Keep in mind Dinah and Roy barely even knew each other at this point, I’m pretty sure in Arsenal #1 it’s shown she didn’t even know his name was Roy until Snowbirds (though there may be other sources that contradict this). Dinah was 100% Roy’s biggest supporter in his recovery- she took him in when he was at his lowest, and as a result they developed such a strong bond and relationship. While I disagree with the concept of Dinah as the ‘Arrowmum’, mostly because A) she didn’t even know Roy until he was already in adulthood and B) it’s a gross oversimplification and diminishment of her character, there are undeniable aspects of their relationship which are mother/son-coded, and I believe she has referred to Roy as “my boy” in later comics, though again I don’t have sources to back this up. Either way, Dinah and Roy’s relationship started with Roy’s lowest and has continued as mutual care and respect and I love them a lot.

And finally, the ending page. Ollie *listens* to Roy at the end of Snowbirds. Now that the illusion’s already lifted, that there aren’t lies and rose tinted glasses separating them, Ollie’s able to actually listen to what Roy’s saying without immediately shrugging it off because it conflicts with his own perception. And he feels *proud* of Roy, proud of his recovery, and proud of his beliefs. If Ollie were truly the neglectful, abusive guy some fans paint him out to be, he wouldn’t be proud. Hell, he wouldn’t even be there. Keep in mind this final scene takes place at the funeral of one of Roy’s addict friends who overdosed earlier in the issue, a funeral Ollie attended.

Snowbirds Don’t Fly was written to show the audience addiction through someone they’re familiar with- Green Arrow’s sidekick, Speedy, someone we know is a hero and one of the good guys. It’s made to contradict the belief that addiction is a moral failing, that anyone could develop an addiction under certain circumstances. And what it shows the readers, it also shows Ollie. Ollie sees someone he cares about going through addiction, and it causes him to reevaluate his own biases and beliefs.

In conclusion, while the slap was definitely not justified, it was also not the part of the comic readers should focus on. The story of Snowbirds Don’t Fly, at least for Ollie, is one of a hero being forced to face one of his own beliefs, to struggle to reconcile said beliefs with new information, and eventually to change his beliefs as a result of new experiences. It’s called character growth, and that’s what Snowbird’s about. So stop calling Oliver Queen an abuser.

[anisangeldust]

Based on this request!

————————————————————————-

Pairing: Young Politician!Coriolanus x Fem!reader

Warnings: Absolute PWP, Pegging (m receiving), Femdom, mommy kink, sub!coryo, brat!coryo, use of dildo.

A/N: I changed it a littleee bit, but it’s still the same basic concept

————————————————————————-

“Fuck mommy- please!” Coriolanus was an absolute mess, whining and begging while on all fours on your guys shared bed.

Being President was so hard, which is why when Coryo made an off-hand comment about you fucking him to release stress, you immediately bought a strap for a dildo you had used before the two of you were a thing.

Coriolanus was immediately against it, saying it was ‘emasculating’ and ‘weird’ for you to fuck his ass; however, after you caught him looking at it one day after work, he agreed to try.

Which is how he needed up in this position, after a generous amount of lube and lots of denial on Coryos and, his wife was now pulling on his blonde locs and fucking him from behind.

“you like that baby? taking mommy’s cock so well, you’re such a good boy for mommy” your voice was like honey and sugar to his bitter ears, moans and whimpers left his open mouth and his tongue stuck out like a dog.

“Mommy, gonna cum— can’t.. fuck!” he whined as your hand reached down to stroke his hard, yet neglected, cock.

“oh you’re gonna cum sweet boy? go on then, cum on mommy’s dick, show all of Panem how their president is a slut for his wife’s cock” you coo and tilt his chin up to look at the window in front of your guys’ bed.

“Shit! Fuck! mommy..!” he whimpers and cums all over your hand, the slowing of the squelching sounds makes his eyes flutter open. he looks at you and a dumb grin rises to his face. “was I a good boy?”

“yes you were baby, such a good boy for mommy”

————————————————————————-

[girlfishes]

“Gender Equality” is an oxymoron.

Gender is prescriptive, not descriptive. By design, femininity and masculinity exist to create inequality between the sexes.

To be feminine is to be considerate, meek and mild. This is so the masculine can assert its will over the feminine.

To be feminine is to be beautiful. It is not an accident that the common perception of beauty is so far off how humans naturally exist. In order to be “beautiful” in the patriarchal perception one must invest money, time, and health. Again, this is by design. The class of people prescribed femininity is perpetually and systemically drained of capital through ever changing beauty standards.

To be feminine is to be young. Why do women feel the need to pitch up their voices? Why do old women get anti-wrinkle treatments? Why do women shave off the hair that grows after childhood? As women are denied physical maturity in the pursuit of femininity, this is mirrored by the denial of mental maturity. The feminine always defers to the masculine, because he is older, wiser, more mature. The feminine asks to be led like a child. Naïveté is idolized, we must never let a woman become too worldly.

And what is masculinity? Masculinity is the possession of the Feminine. Possessing the right to use the labor of the feminine, to control the capital of the feminine, to control the time of the feminine, and furthest of all to possess the body of the feminine all for one’s own gain.

Why is it emasculating for a man to be single, childless, or gay?

Gender must be abolished to gain equality between the sexes.

[earlofbats]

Okay so because this post about Harry being a bottom I'm going to give a genuine dissertation on the thematic relevance of sub Harry and maybe a little bit about dom Kim.

First I wanna establish the "Harry is definitely a subby little bottom boy" and is also definitely Bi and probably has some sorta fucking complex about it.

Evidence A. Contact Mike, Guillaume Le Million, Measurehead (when fascist).

Harry tends to idolize and gravitate towards extremely masculine figures.

This is probably due to a reflexive need to feel masculine and have masculine role models in the face of elements of identity that are seen as unmasculine by society and have become exacerbated by the breakup which had to be pretty emasculating for Harry.

Also :

Imma start a Harry's Kink counter here +1 light bondage.

+1 auto-erotic asphyxiation.

Uhm +1 uhh,Spanking? Additional +1 for being what I think is most possibly the horniest thought you have in the game also:

+1 Kim is a Dom.

I think Harry has kept his attraction to men or his desires about men fairly low key for his entire life. The way he conceptualizes Homosexuality in general as an "underground" society filled with whispering rooms and forbidden secrets is likely more of a reflection of how Harry views his own sexuality than how Queer culture is manifest in Revachol. (In reference to the way both Kim and The Smoker kinda laugh Harry about it)

The organizational element of the idea being likely reflective of the way internalization is akin to paranoia.

Harry is also extremely intimacy starved and I think part of that is due to an unmet need for affection and the desire to be taken care of. That masculinity and status as both a survivor and an oppressor was sorta thrust onto Harry, he was born the last year of the war on a hospital floor, given a name associated with war time and survival, grew up probably in a little street urchin gang, got into *Disco* (man I'm sure Harry brushed elbows with the underground then.) Was a gym teacher a good balance between masculinity and caretaker and guardian something that harry clearly excels at and enjoys. Then Dora encouraged him to be a cop for unknown reasons perhaps prestige, money, because Harry has a bleeding heart.

Engage Heterosexual Cop hell for 12 years then an additional 6 single Cop hell years.

And now you're like :

Another element is Harry's tendency to worship and diefy his partners which like man that's gotta be the subbiest fucking thing you can do. I honestly can't articulate all of the reasons why that's just extreme bottom behavior.

Harry is an empathic jelly creature who is forced to handle a job with dead people in it all day and has created this reflexive hyper masculine obsession to compensate for his perceived inadequacy in not living up to the patriarchal capitalist ideal of what's supposed to be his birthright as a well off, able bodied, 'straight', occidental, man.

Except the actual issue is that Harry is mostly perceived or perceiving himself as that, when in reality he's in clear conflict with his actual identity as a Poor, mentally Ill, bisexual, occidental, man.

And it's those last two that end up kind of making this smoke screen to Harrys deficiency in privilege. He can mask or hide behind being an Occidental Man.

Can buddy buddy with patriarchy and take up the idea of a Big Strong Manly Cop.

Something that Kim also seems to be doing by seeking out positions of authority he can compensate for the disrespect he gets as a Poor, blind, gay, seolite, man.

Last of which probably won't get him far because of how "juvenile" his body type is.

Kim can't really coast on patriarchy much the way Harry can. He has to work twice as hard cuz there's not a lot he can hide behind.

Pursuit for control in the face of denial

Vs

Shielding ones self behind control as a means of denial.

Dom/Sub dichotomy.

[shrek--cok]

Still thinking about the concept of something being "emasculating". Like transs had to create a whole extra word for them to describe how humiliating it would be to do one of the many things they foist upon womens. Reproductive violence is a widespread form of control used by mens, religious institutions, and governmensts to limit females's autonomy. Through the denial of birth control or abortion access, females are forced into unwanted pregnancies or childbirth, reinforcing male control over female bodies. Radical feminists argue that gender ideology is often used to reinforce traditional power dynamics rather than challenge them. By framing gender as a matter of identity rather than a social construct, society perpetuates systems of oppression that limit individual freedom. Feminists seek to dismantle these systems by challenging the way gender is understood and enforced. seeing womens come out as nonbinary and then start just dressing a certain way. and I just want to tell them that you can not shave and have short hair and not wear makeup and wear androgynous clothes and still be a woman. and the fact that people are trying to sell you the idea that you can't look that way and still be a woman is misogynistic Gender and capitalism doesn t care if you re born with a penis and doing these things, it profits just the same. Still thinking about the concept of something being "emasculating". Like transs had to create a whole extra word for them to describe how humiliating it would be to do one of the many things they foist upon womens. Gender and capitalism doesn t care if you re born with a penis and doing these things, it profits just the same.

[justaqueerlad]

Can't stop thinking about how Dracula was written around the same time as Oscar Wilde's trials and subsequent imprisonment. How Bram Stoker maintained a letter exchange with Walt Whitman. How Dracula was initially characterised like Dorian Gray. How the only thing to survive all of Stoker's drafts of Dracula was the Count declaring "this man is mine he belongs to me". How Stoker swooned at a monologue delivered by his employer and idol Henry Irving. How the Count then resembled Irving.

The constant allusions yet minimal direct references towards masculinity and emasculation. The brotherly camaraderie of Seward, Quincey, and Arthur. The implications of Jonathan being characterised first and foremost by his sweetness, his placidity, his passivity towards the vampire brides. The way that Jonathan was most likely modelled off Stoker himself. The subservience of Renfield to the only two people (men) in his entire world of the mental asylum. The god complex of Van Helsing. The constant attempts to stifle Mina's strong resolve and determination.

The fragile masculinity, the traces of homoeroticism, the fear of anything outside the norm that threatens what little control they have.

The narrow line between oblivion and denial that Dracula dances upon.

[chaifootsteps]

As a bisexual person, Exes and Oohs should've been my favorite episode. A dude that had a relationship with both a man and a woman?! Oh shit! An abusive father who thinks being bi is "gay"? Oh hell yeah!! Show that bi/homophobia! Then his bi son being completely serious about his sexuality and threatening his abusive piece of shit dad? Yeah!!

Then he immediately gets taken out, emasculated and his cardboard cutout wife saves him when the plot needs her to do something. Oh by the way, killing and murdering on her end makes Millie masculine in Viv's eyes because she's saving a fem male character. Masculine traits are rewarded, femininity is punished and forced on Moxxie.

We also only get to see the male side of Chaz's relationship, highlighting Viv's fetishisizing of gay relationships and pushing women to the side.

I saw an anon say Viv could be faking being bi, and I understand that sadly there are women who do claim that to be "quirky", but as a bisexual person, I've come across biphobic LGBTQ people and and regular people. It's not fun to be called a "lesbian in denial" or "You're not queer if you're in a straight relationship". I truly hope Viv isn't faking, because parts of this episode says she isn't.

I'm very worried about how Charlie will be handled as a bi character because that one piece of promo art with Angel and her... yikes.

Exes and Ohs deserves to go down as the most biphobic thing a bi person has ever made about being bi.