To see a full-size view of the images posted, just click on them.

RULES FOR POSTING COMMENTS: This blog is meant to be interactive. Please utilize the comment feature to respond to posts that prompt a reaction. You do not have to agree with me to post, but I do ask that your comment pertain to the post itself. I also ask that "anonymous" guests attach some sort of name to their comments so readers can tell everyone apart. (If you cannot follow these simple rules, your post may be DELETED or at the very least mocked for the entertainment of those who can respect my guidelines.)

Tuesday, May 28, 2019

Fan Clubs

Recently I have been getting myself aggravated …...and consequently overreacting… comments on blogs. It has happened so regularly that I was forced to examine why. What was it exactly that led me to see things in comments that weren’t specifically stated, or to assume the worst about the author of the comment? It took a bit of reflection, but then it became clear: Fan Clubs.

I hate fan clubs more than I hate the sometimes dubious object of adoration. In a DD setting you can see it often. I can point to so many instances in so many diverse places that all ended up with one common thread: each situation, no matter how different, all prompted me to go into ‘attack mode’ at the slightest provocation.

What exactly do I mean by “fan club”?  It’s a phenomenon you can see everywhere…...especially in politics right now. A person gets a following by virtue of something elusive or inconsequential, whether it is a certain perceived charisma, or a projected sense of dominance. Look at Trump. His followers will not abandon him no matter what. Substance is unimportant. Criticism is futile.  And it is not that much different in DD.

I used to be a regular on two DD forums that had a disproportionate number of M/f members. The fan club then focused on the most boisterous male Tops. No matter what they said, no matter how boorish or even incorrect, they were still the heroes. Women, or sub men, with differing opinions were routinely turned upon by the adoring fans of the Alphas. It didn’t matter how lucid their points were. It didn’t matter if the male Top behaved abominably and broke one forum rule after another. The adoring female subs just elevated them higher on their pedestals.

More recently I have seen it in F/m settings where any believable female is automatically elevated to goddess status just like the guys on the M/f sites. And the worst part is that these people didn’t ask for this honor, and maybe didn’t even expect it. Many are good people with intelligent insights to offer. But what happens it that at some point that no longer matters. I know of several women who are bemused by their ‘fans’ and don’t take them too seriously, but still enjoy the attention. Even then, I have seen women begin to make teasing comments to the male readers in a "you better behave" sort of way. If confronted, it's always passed off as just joking, but I sometimes see it more as playing the "Top card" as a way to control people who have in no way consented  or agreed to be controlled. (I often think: 'OK, you may be the Top.......but you're not my Top.') I have even seen several instances where a Top 'guest' will scold the blog or forum's submissive host or hostess, believing their role gives them that privilege.

The other thing is, no matter how wonderful some of these folks can be, it is impossible to criticize or challenge them without inviting the ire of the whole ‘club’. And to be honest, not all of them ARE wonderful. Some objects of fandom are very full of themselves. There is  a reason the term “Top’s Disease” originated in the BDSM community. You give a person power and do nothing but worship them and it is very difficult for that person to not start believing their press.

Now for me personally.....and where I have been getting into when a Top shows up, posts regularly, and a pattern emerges: the Top says something and a chorus of praise ensues from the worshiping subs. Another person says something, maybe even more clever or worthy…...crickets. Top speaks again…...more deafening praise. Over and over. As a result, the curmudgeon in me begins to resent the Top and I see fault or take issue with whatever the adored Top writes….even if it’s more of a perception rather than fact. It's like I want everyone to remember that a dominant BDSM/DD role does not automatically translate into "genius status". But it never works and I always end up looking like the jerk. And this has happened even when my issue with the Top was based on something genuine and not imagined. Validity makes no difference to the "fan club", only blind allegiance.

Having now realized that this is what has been happening, I am trying to come up with a plan to avoid getting sucked into useless arguments over both real and imagined issues. So far, just realizing the origins for this has already helped me be more objective. Hopefully I can keep this safe distance going forward.


  1. KD, Joe2 here,

    Here is a course of action: Treat it like the old Greek stoics- "No event upon itself is inherently good or bad. It is your reaction that determines that." The old Greek stoics were the original "glass half full guys." One of the reasons that stoicism caught on was that they enjoyed life and let the friction of living roll off them. So if you perceive fandom occurring, just ask probing questions politely. If they are well centered, you will get thoughtful answers. If not, well, they just showed their true colors.

    In the alternative, remember that none of us are real. All of us are just Frat boys, drinking cheap beer and writing outrageous comments to see what replies we get.

    1. Interesting reply, Joe. In fact, your last point is something that Rosa believes and says all of the time. It's one of the main reasons she herself does not engage people online. Of course my counter to her is that I myself m real, so believing that no one is real, is already incorrect. Then it just comes down to percentages. (I may do a follow-up on online authenticity.)

      As for the stoics? Nah. I could never handle that concept. But a more hedonistic approach? I can manage that I think. ;-)

      One of my pet peeves is inaccurate self-labeling. And there's never anywhere good to go on that one. (Hmmmm, I might do a post on that too?)

    2. re frat my thoughts to. i could be the old lady from scarsdale that feeds her pet parrot pickle juice. im not to be clear

      there have been some very real pictures included on this site that leave no doubt that you kd are doing what you write about

    3. Thanks, s.s. I do think that I've been pretty honest with everyone about what goes on here. I'm either real.....or a very thorough fake. ;-)

  2. Good points Red. I have seen this also and been 'sucked' in to challengjng them myself or had my comments deleted by the host.
    So now I just stay away from these forums .
    I am convinced many of the participants are not who they say they are as some of their comments are so ridiculous or absurd to be even remotely believable but the hosts and followers seem to buy into it.

    1. Thanks, Glen. (but I think you got me confused with Red from "Consensual Spanking". ;-) )

      Your comment echoes Joe's a bit. I wonder about several contributors' authenticity....but it's a tough challenge to make publicly. That's why I think hosts....even me....tread a tricky line when one guest challenges the authenticity of another. It's a tough spot to be in. You have a blog, so I'm sure you understand since some of the "questionable people" tend to pop up on a lot of our forums.

      As for deleting vs. 'buying into it'? Again....tricky. Every host sort of has their own rules or boundaries. Here, for example, I know I have had questionable commenters at times. However, I am not a big fan of censorship. I try not to delete anything unless it violates one or both of my posting caveats. Even then, I sometimes just warn the person and leave the comment intact. But leaving them up doesn't mean I buy into them. And i think that may be true for others as well.

      But as big a believer I am in not deleting stuff (Hell, you can scroll back and still find some comments that were very contrary and even mean from visitors.....and they're still visible.) I am also a big fan of sarcasm. So if I get a visitor who sets off my internal "fake-alarms", my long as they post a name and stay to make fun rather than delete. But that's because of what my goals are here and what amuses me.

      Other hosts are more concerned about maintaining a certain polite integrity and are more apt to delete controversy rather than fuel it. And I'm fine with that approach too.

      In the end, I guess our blogs are our online homes, and who we let in becomes a personal choice with no wrong answer.

      Good comment!

    2. Sorry KD (and you too Red)!
      AS far as deleting I have no qualms about it if the post is not relevant , crude or fiction of any kind.
      I deleted a lot and have thankfully scared somenof the nuisances away.
      Downside is that I might also scare away some authentic posters but I don't really care asvmy intent is to end my blog once I have exausted my backlog of posts. It seems to be taking longer than I had planned so may have to speed things up.

    3. real or not real if it titillates has it achieved my goal as a reader of sites suvh as this?

    4. S.S.: Oddly enough, titillation is not my goal with this site. true, some stuff IS titillating, but I also post a lot of stuff to get people thinking and reacting. And equally noteworthy is another thing for me.....if someone seems (or is) fake, I find I can no longer be titillated by what the write. Fiction as fiction is different, but fiction as fact? We have enough of that in Washington. ;-)

  3. Great and very self-reflective post. A few reactions to it and some of the comments:

    -- Is it really surprising that in groups that revolve around gender-based power exchanges, "Tops" end up acting like "Tops" and "bottoms" like bottoms, and that given the self-reinforcing aspects of group dynamics, both get expressed in exaggerated form? It seems pretty logical to me that such a dynamic is going to develop any time you have a group comprised of people who either by nature of their mental wiring or their conscious choices operate at the more pronounced ends of their respective places on the spectrum. And, in interacting, they feed each others exaggerated qualities. There also is the phenomenon that there always seems to be a 10:1 or larger ratio of followers to leaders . . .

    -- It's hard to blame the Tops for acting like Tops. Particularly with the the F/m dynamic, I think some of the women think they are *expected* to act bold and bossy and pushy. And, that is plainly what some of the more "submissive" men do want. Many people are going to play whatever role they think is assigned to them.

    -- I agree with Joe2's last sentence, and it is good to remind ourselves when we get worked up by some commenter or blogger that these are people that we do not know and who we likely never will know. So, why exactly DO we get so wrapped around the axle about *any* of them? A year or so ago I was reading a BDSM-oriented blog by a young female Top. A commenter said something rude, and she shut it down instantaneously with something to the effect of, "You are just some anonymous guy on the internet. What would make you think I care at all about your opinion." At least in terms of letting ourselves get worked up about something said by someone we don't even know . . . she was kind of right.

    -- I do delete comments on my blog, whether because they are off-topic or from commenters who just cut and paste the same inane crap over and over and over. But, I don't think I have ever deleted anyone for simply disagreeing with anyone else. What I have deleted are comments that seem to cross the line into a personal attack. So, when someone says that they got deleted for making a comment, I think they need to reflect honestly on (a) what was the content and, importantly, the tone of that comment; and (b) was it nastier and more aggressive than the tone of the person they were commenting to or about. I have seen multiple instances where a female "Top" would say something that was, at most, irritating or preachy, and then there would be a response that was both biting and very personal. I don't always know exactly where the line between civil debate and personal attack is, but it does exist.

    -- Like you, I am cautious about making judgments about "authenticity." First, as you know, I often really am uncertain about whether a commenter is what they say they are, and it is not always easy to tell. Second, you are one of the very few bloggers in this space with any room to talk about authenticity because you are one of the few who are more or less "out" about your real identity. Most of us who blog and comment in DD world are inauthentic to one degree for another if that is defined about being open, transparent and honest about who you really are.

    1. I would agree that the resulting behavior is definitely due in some part to expectation, but it is 'expected' only from those looking to somehow 'play' or 'flirt' online. Which is fine. I've done it many times myself. But when it colors the reactions to a topic or issue, I tend to wince. And if I end up wincing a lot, it makes me nauseous. LOL

      As for being deleted? I get where you are coming from and was thinking of your forum when I mentioned that some bloggers delete for the reasons you mentioned in order to maintain civility. Here I am inclined to leave a comment like that up and just reprimand the offender. But as you know, I love controversy. ;-)

      On your last point, I would agree there are degrees. And even I am not revealing EVERYTHING. But the point I'm making is even if I omit some details, like you might for the sake of anonymity, I don't substitute falsehoods in their place. And I don't think you and certain others do either. (For example, since everyone knows you as "Dan" from 'Disciplined Husbands', would you go to a site and post as "Francis"? Or worse yet...."Francine"? I tend to doubt it. And as you know, I have left certain forums over issues. Some may call that a 'flounce'. But when I have done that, I have never gone back. And I certainly would never flounce as "KDPierre" and then sneak back in as "B.J.Hunnicut" or "e.e.cummings". LOL ;-))

  4. re open sadly society as a whole is still not really ready for things discussed here. a patriarchy acceptance of the ladies receiving is more expected 50 shades etc. but turn that around to submissive men and its still not. look at the 1994 movie exit to eden. femdom turned into a comedy

    1. Crimson Kid (C.K.)May 29, 2019 at 8:42 PM

      Well, my main complaint with "Exit to Eden" is that the dominatrix (played by Dana Delaney) who ran the BDSM-style resort was shown as having been emotionally damaged, notably having a rather cold, dispassionate father, rather than being a healthy, otherwise normal woman who simply enjoyed mildly dominating and spanking submissive young men.

      Of course it was a comedy, however it seemed to be rather sympathetic to D/s relationships overall, especially via the fact that the submissive 'servant boy' in the undercover policewoman's quarters turned out to be a successful businessman in his outside life.

      Still, I'm not certain that a more serious film treatment of an F/M-oriented D/s or DD relationship would be widely accepted, although there are occasional passing references to such situations on television programs... --C.K.

    2. CK: To your last point.....we will never know until someone actually tries it. ;-)

  5. My cure has been living a life.

    Unless I have something worthwhile to share, I don't. SSDD has been what's going on. Welcome back!

    1. Hello, Stranger! I wasn't gone all that long, was I? ;-)

      I hope all is going well for you all.

  6. Crimson Kid (C.K.)June 23, 2019 at 8:46 PM

    Around a dozen years ago, I participated on a femdom-spanking group that was basically an e-mail list. Predictably, the membership was primarily spanko-submissive males, however there was a smattering of spanko-dominant females.

    There occasionally was some playful teasing from the female tops about spanking one or more of the male bottoms they were interacting with, but I didn't mind that as it was all in good fun.

    However, I gave an opinion on some subject (I don't recall exactly what was under discussion) which opposed that of one of the relatively few dominant women, and her response was that since she was a female top and I a male bottom, her viewpoint automatically overruled mine. She went on to to claim that on a feminine opinion should always be considered more valid that a masculine one on that list, and surprisingly (to me anyway) that idea seemed to get a lot of support, even from the males on it.

    Naturally, I stated that top/bottom spanking orientation didn't justify general gender discrimination of that type (although I agreed that I would be willing to consider a female to be "superior" in a narrow sense while she was spanking me). There wasn't much (if any) support for my perspective, and I pretty much dropped out of the group after that.

    It seems that some people attach extremely broad authority relative to an individual's spanking orientation, even in areas unrelated to corporal punishment, and/or in dealing with people whom they have no personal top/bottom relationship with... --C.K.

    1. "a dozen years ago" is proof that nothing has changed. I saw it again just recently. It's as predictable as the sunset.