Resolution 7.09 The FemdomU Sexual Double Standard
Sponsored by Miss Autumn
Official Text of the Resolution
Whereas women are entitled to complete authority over their own bodies, desires, relationships, and sexual choices;
Whereas male desire does not create a corresponding obligation for female attention, access, reciprocity, or satisfaction;
Whereas the male body’s primary value is found in the service, labor, pleasure, and satisfaction it provides to women;
The FemdomU Conclave hereby declares that all women are entitled to enjoy their sexual freedom without concern for whether men receive equal sexual privileges or satisfaction.
A woman’s pleasure belongs to her. She may pursue it freely, selectively, selfishly, or exclusively according to her own desires. A Domme’s sexual freedom and her submissive’s sexual restrictions are independent of one another. She may enjoy freedoms that she does not grant to him, including while requiring his chastity, exclusivity, denial, or sexual service.
This is a non-binding Conclave Declaration of female authority and does not impose requirements upon private relationships outside FemdomU. It shall, however, dictate FemdomU policy for members of the Magazine, be taught to boys enrolled in the FemdomU Academy, and be incorporated as guidance within relevant Magazine content.
Options for Vote
- YES: Adopt the Conclave Declaration that female sexual freedom requires no corresponding male privilege or satisfaction.
- NO: Reject the proposed Conclave Declaration.
- ABSTAIN: Decline to take a position on the declaration.
Passage Threshold
This resolution requires a Super Majority Decision (75%) to pass. Abstentions will not be counted when calculating the percentage of votes cast.
Note from the Sponsor
Men have enjoyed a sexual double standard for centuries. Male desire has been treated as urgent, natural, and deserving of accommodation, while women have been taught to restrain themselves, remain available, and consider whether every expression of their sexuality might upset a man. I am not interested in negotiating for a kinder version of that system. I want it overturned.
A woman’s sexuality does not exist to produce a balanced exchange. Her pleasure does not incur a debt. Her freedom does not become illegitimate simply because the man beside her is denied the same opportunities. She may take lovers while requiring his fidelity. She may experience orgasms while keeping him chaste. She may use his body for her satisfaction without offering hers for his. She may decide that his frustration, longing, and denial are not problems to be solved, but appropriate expressions of his submission.
Men are accustomed to asking what they receive in return. My answer is that they receive the privilege of existing within a structure defined by female desire. The male body is most valuable when it is being put to use for women, whether through labor, domestic service, sexual pleasure, obedience, or sacrifice. A submissive man should understand that serving a woman’s pleasure while surrendering control of his own is not an unfair exchange. It is his proper function within the dynamic.
If he requires identical privileges before he can respect her freedom, he is not asking for submission. He is bargaining for equality.
Although this declaration cannot govern every private relationship, it must mean something within FemdomU. Our members should understand it, our Academy boys should be taught it, and our Magazine should be willing to state it without weakening the message to protect male feelings. We are not declaring female authority only to hide it whenever its consequences become uncomfortable.
This declaration is intentionally uncompromising. It does not command women to pursue multiple partners, deny their submissives, or structure their relationships in any particular way. It declares that a woman who chooses to do those things owes no apology merely because her rules are unequal. She is entitled to decide what she wants, what she permits, what she takes, and what she withholds.
Vote yes and affirm that female sexual freedom does not require male compensation. A woman’s pleasure is sufficient justification for itself.
Autumn, this is certainly one of the most provocative declarations before us, and I suspect that is exactly what you intended. I agree with the central principle that a woman’s pleasure should never be treated as secondary, nor should she be expected to provide a male with equal sexual attention simply because he desires it. Femdom gives us the freedom to reject that expectation and openly establish a hierarchy in which her needs come first.
My hesitation is with the word “absolute.” Absolute authority leaves no room for consent, established limits, physical safety, or the distinction between a submissive who has agreed to surrender sexual control and a male who has not. I understand this is an intentionally overreaching declaration of female authority, but our declarations also shape Magazine policy and what we teach our Academy students. I would like to hear whether you believe those safeguards are already understood, or whether you truly intend “absolute” to admit no qualification whatsoever.
Heather, I think you’re basing this off the original resolution I submitted. I did make that adjustment – ‘absolute’ is nowhere in the text.
Perhaps it is because I’ve grown over the time I’ve expanded my sense of command, but I think I actually agree with Autumn on this one. We’re embracing the turning of the tables on how society has traditionally treated the sexes – and perhaps this brings us to an extreme other side, but I think that’s appropriate.
“Whereas the male body’s primary value is found in the service, labor, pleasure, and satisfaction it provides to women;”
Do we not all agree this is true? I think if we stop to think about each piece of her resolution for it’s own merit we’ll all agree with Autumn.
Well said, Amanda!
Oh wow, Autumn I love you so much.
I’ve had this concept pretty much in practice for most of my life, so I have no problem voting yes here. It doesn’t lessen the other purposes we may have for men, but I agree with the line about the use of their bodies, and really don’t we all? This doesn’t address the use of their minds – which leaves much for interpretation. A man can still be an amazing partner who provides wonderful conversation. That doesn’t interfere with how I use his body, or the fact that he’s here to serve me. Now I enjoy men experiencing orgasms, but I don’t always make sure that it happens for him – if it happens, it does because I wish for it to be!
Great to have you back, Barb!
I’ve waited to join this discussion because I wanted the other ladies to have the opportunity to respond before I brought in a slightly different point of view. Autumn, I suspect you thought I would have problems with this resolution. You probably expected me to arrive with my instructor’s voice and begin adding qualifications to every uncompromising sentence. To be fair, you were not entirely wrong.
I do wish we had included something about consent. I understand that the resolution is clearly discussing a Domme/sub relationship, and that an established power exchange is already implied. Still, this declaration will shape Magazine policy and Academy instruction, so I would prefer that consent be acknowledged as the foundation upon which this authority is exercised. Consent does not weaken the declaration, require equality, or entitle a submissive to matching privileges. It simply establishes the dynamic in which those unequal rules may legitimately exist.
I would also like to see slightly more room for the broader range of female-dominant relationships represented within our community. We understandably focus much of our content on heterosexual relationships between dominant women and submissive men, but female authority is not limited to that arrangement. Much like our Sex Positivity Declaration, this could recognize that women exercise dominance across different sexual orientations, gender identities, household structures, and relationship models. The central principle should remain the same: a dominant woman’s pleasure and freedom do not create an obligation to provide equal privileges or satisfaction to those who submit to her.
Those concerns do not prevent me from supporting the declaration as written. I do not read it as denying consent or requiring every woman to organize her relationships in the same way. I read it as rejecting the assumption that consent must produce equality. A submissive may freely agree to chastity, exclusivity, denial, or sexual service while the Domme retains freedoms she does not grant in return. There is nothing inherently unfair about that arrangement simply because the privileges are unequal.
In my household, my boys understand that my pleasure and their pleasure do not carry equal weight. I may use one of them for my satisfaction without giving him an orgasm. I may restrict what he does with his own body while making entirely different choices for mine. That is not hypocrisy. It is the structure of authority they have accepted, and the imbalance is part of what gives their submission meaning.
I also appreciate that this resolution does not command women to take multiple partners, deny their submissives, or require exclusivity. A woman may choose monogamy, reciprocity, and shared pleasure because those things satisfy her. Another woman may choose chastity, denial, service, and deliberately unequal sexual freedom. Neither owes anyone an apology for designing a relationship around her own desires.
Even the statement about the male body’s primary value does not trouble me within the context of FemdomU. It is blunt, certainly, but our boys need to stop treating their erections and orgasms as the center of every sexual experience. Their bodies can provide labor, domestic service, obedience, pleasure, and sacrifice. Sometimes the privilege they receive is simply being useful to a woman.
Consent establishes the authority, but it does not require that authority to be exercised equally. Once a submissive has accepted a woman’s sexual authority, the question should not be what equal privilege he receives in return. The question should be whether he is serving her desires as completely as he promised.
I suppose the only controversial piece might be about a man’s body’s primary use is service, but in this crowd I think we’re all in agreement with this?
Geena’s comment captures my thoughts.
I think I’m for this overall. Autumn, I’m looking at this from the pov of your upcoming visit and how Zeek would be treated – and I think this is perfect!