The trait that I wish to discuss today, and why I find the assumptions I am finding about it in the community counter-intuitive, is physical protectiveness. There appears to be a heavy assumption that the desire to provide physical protection is a dominant trait, and a desire to be the one protected is submissive. Now, don’t get me wrong, I am in no way saying most dominant persons are not protective of their submissives, nor am I implying that there is anything less than wonderful about a dominant feeling physically protective towards their submissive. What I am questioning is: why it is assumed to be an aspect of dominance?
I can think of no society where the guard at the gate is viewed as dominant over the royalty they protect. I can think of no time where I have heard of someone feeling that a celebrity or dignitary is submitting to their bodyguards by allowing them to protect them. To my mind, actively placing the physical safety of another above the safety of oneself is overwhelmingly an act of subservience. Yes, a king, queen, or other head of state is often viewed as the protector of those they lead, but they provide this protection by way of commanding the soldiers and others below them that the leader commands to place themselves bodily in danger to protect the whole.
As a switch, I crave both the power of dominance, and the serine clarity of submission. I do admit I feel protective of any submitting to me. However, I feel much more protective of any who I submit to. I personally feel protective of those I care about no matter what role I take on, but I perceive the drive as feeling much more purely realized within the context of protecting one to whom I have submitted myself. I do not know if this is true of others, but I know that it is true for me.
I may be wrong, but it seems to me that this is one of several examples I have observed where, because it is generally assumed that dominance is masculine and submission is feminine, that any trait that is generally assumed to be masculine must be dominant and that any trait that is assumed to be feminine must be submissive. In a homestead environment, it has generally been assumed that the male is the dominant head of household, and is also responsible for the physical protection of all within the household. With some exceptions, such as defense of children, physical protectiveness is generally viewed as very much so a masculine trait. In fact, to many people, the ability to physically protect those they care for is the primary trait by which the value of a man’s masculinity can be measured. Is this accurate? Not any more so than most other gender role generalities; many women have just as much of a drive to physically protect as any man. However, even when the drive is present in a woman, it is often viewed as masculine.
The large number of traits that are assumed to be dominant or submissive, primarily because they are assumed to be masculine or feminine traits, are problematic when the patriarchal assumption that the dominant must be masculine and the submissive must be feminine is called into question. Personally, as a male, while I feel rather masculine when in a dominant role to a feminine female partner, I feel much more at peace with my masculinity when submitting in a masculine manner to a feminine female partner. I realize that this experience is not universal, that there are men who wish to be feminized in their submission that they wish to offer to a dominant masculine female partner. I realize that there are many places in between on all axis involved with this. I just wish to question the assumption that these traits, in this essay specifically physical protectiveness, are inherent to one end or another of the dominant/submissive dichotomy.
I strongly believe in the viability of masculine male submission through protectivity towards the dominant partner. I strongly believe in the viability of a feminine female dominant accepting the protection of their submissive’s protection as an act of accepting the submissive’s submission. I do not feel that this lessens or calls the viability into question of any other dynamic. I believe that, if one accepts that female/male dominance/submission is viable as the male/female dynamic, it naturally follows that assumptions of what dominance and submission are that were formed under the assumption of masculine dominance over the feminine must also be called into question.
I feel the need to repeat, that I do not believe that there is anything problematic with a dominant of any gender feeling protective of those who submit to them. I also do not believe there is any problem with a submissive basking in the protection of their dominant. The only problem I see is the assumption that this must always be the case.
