Elise Sutton: ‘Freudian’ Femdom Fraud
Jesus. This bitch can’t tell her id from her death instinct, and her website clearly needs to be put out of its misery. But let’s begin at the beginning, shall we?
So, here I am, wandering the web minding my own beeswax, when — lo and behold — I find yet another site on Female Supremacy. (Always in caps, mind. Forget proper sentence construction or grammatical correctness.) Fantastic. As if Mystressworld.com wasn’t enough of a blight on the whole of femdom, (plenty more on the madness of Mystress to come), now I’ve discovered Elise Sutton — who, evidently, has been around for a hell of a lot longer than a quack like her ever needed to be. Not to mention her ‘Psychoanalysis of the Submissive Male’ is inherently flawed on the basis alone of containing absolutely no psychoanalysis whatsoever. Can you do that? Write a piece about violins and title it: ‘A Theory of Baseball’? I was under the impression that it was faulty — not to mention just flat dumb. Of course, anyone with an actual degree in Psychology, (yours truly) can tell after 5 agonising seconds on this wacko’s website that this woman wouldn’t know an unconditioned stimulus if it bit her in her female supremacist ass.
For those of you who have not studied in the field of Psychology, psychoanalysis is very specific to the theories and practises first introduced by Freud — who very heavily believed in male supremacy based off of biology alone. Oh, I’m all for turning a field on its head and flipping it about. But you first have to have some idea of what you’re seeking to challenge. You want to break psychodynamic theory? Okay, then first, you need to learn it. Which, clearly, this cuckoo hasn’t.
This is not a difficult concept to grasp.
Maybe I get angry. I go back through all of the hours logged listening to professors I either wanted to model myself after, or with whom I vehemently disagreed — but listened anyway, weighing each against what I was continuing to learn, and forming my own paradigm eventually leading me to prefer the techniques of cognitive behavioural therapy, humanistic psychology, a little bit of psychoanalytic theory (since Freud started out on the right foot, just ended up falling on his ass later down the line when he let his own personal bullshit get in the way; it happens) and becoming largely Gestalt in the way I approach things. I’ve found it to be a combination which works for me as well as those I counsel. Then I see these obviously unsound individuals seeking to convert the masses over to some delusional idea which has no connection at all with reality, and they all have one thing they lack.
Credentials.
Oh, I searched. I Googled, I forum-crawled, I skimmed the reviews of her self-published books, (nothing against self-publishing, by the way, but sometimes there’s a reason it’s your only option) I scoured everything I could to find anything outside of secondhand statements declaring Sutton to be a practising psychologist. I admit, that I could locate nothing on her personal website which indicated as such, seeming to debunk the circulating misinformation that she actually is, was very relieving to me. First off, you really can’t get fully licensed and do what she (or I) claim to do. Not in this day and age; not yet. People are coming to accept alternative subcultures more readily, (yeah, I know about that, too, considering I have a background in studying Sociology with a concentration on social deviation — since ‘deviance’ is no longer PC, of course) but they’re not ready to hand over professional licensing to a self-proclaimed dominatrix who’s willing to delve very deeply into the submissive psyches of her male clientele. They’re just not. Fortunately, they would be most prudent to never license a self-acknowledged ‘Female Supremacist’ who will go forth and use the idea, prominence and, yes, power, of femdom to poison, misuse, and warp the minds of those submissive men. Real-or-Imagined-Diety, help them.
But first, a word on Femdom.
Femdom, in itself, is an idea. It’s a practise, and it’s also a paradigm. Religion, at its most basic and devoid of all ritualistic or spiritual trappings, is an idea. Ideas have power. It’s not difficult then to conceive why femdom has developed a power all its own, and those who can tap into that power, and use it for their own gain, should do so wisely; or they’re no better than hedge fund operators whose only real objective is to advise you to make risky investments, so before you know it, they will have Madoff with your money — or, my personal favourite, televangelists and Scientologists, perpetuating their own my-way-or-the-highway perspective, offering you solace and kinship should you embrace it, and hell on earth and social ostracisation should you defy them. They have a mob mentality in and of themselves. While his way of going about certain things was ill-conceived, Marx did have the right idea when he proclaimed ‘religion was the opiate of the masses’. For many, hundreds if not millions — as those statistics are always a bit funky given the variability of the samples taken — feel very similarly about female domination.
This gives actual female dominants tremendous power. And, in anything, I really, really, really, cannot stand the abuses of power — be it in government, or ideology. By definition, certain groups are leveraged above other ones. That they continually use this capacity for dominance to manipulate, control, and — yes, even brainwash — unwitting, or less informed and overly willing individuals time and time again brings out the socio-political activist in me like nothing else.
People who deeply need the acceptance of their ideas will go to almost ridiculous lengths bordering on sanity and feasibility to instill them in the minds and hearts of others. People are more willing to do something against their nature and good sense if you tug on their heartstrings hard enough. The frauds of femdom have discovered that the way to total control is by grabbing men by the balls. Literally. And female supremacists (fuck it; I’m not capitalising it as a direct boycott to their shell-game) love that shit. They latched onto it and refuse to let go. It’s also a deep affront to those of us genuine dominants who aren’t female supremacists, and know when we’re playing a role and what constitutes safety, sanity, and consensuality. Female supremacy operates, and gains more of its power, through blurring those lines and misdirecting the impressionable submissive male by convincing him he has no power due to biology alone, and taunting him with the carrot of submitting to sexual bliss with a loving, dominant woman.
Loving?
‘Hey, sweetheart. You’re a piece of shit, a worthless waste of space, and it’s all because you have a cock. There’s nothing you can do to correct this, so you might as well just accept the fact that my having a pussy means I’m superior to you and your natural place is with your face in my ass. Did I mention I love you?’
To quote the talented Miss Winehouse: what kind of fuckery is this?
Did these women miss part of their journey when we all learned what the difference was between role-playing and reality? How about practising safe, sane, consensual BDSM? How about the element of play? Role? Play? Get it? See, you play a role. It isn’t you. You don’t really believe all that stuff about cock-sporting members of society being in existence solely to please us. Remember that part? Oh, and I know you’ll recall where I said a few paragraphs ago that people will go to just about any length to see that their number grows. I’ve seen men so brainwashed (or so horny — probably both) into believing in female supremacy as to quote from nature in various ways: ‘See, bees are the perfect example of why men are inferior to women. And ants, too. See, they have a Queen, and, well, everyone else can just go fuck themselves. The male insects are only there for the pleasure of the female. That’s their whole purpose in life. Oh, and black widows? They practise sexual cannibalism. It’s totally hot. The female spider fucks the male spider, and then bites his head off and eats him. Yummy, yum, yum. Oh, after she’s satisfied, of course. And then, uh, well, she goes out and gets another one. That’s why she’s a black widow, you see … ‘
Oh, dear.
As if reminding these misguided, likely well-meaning fools (despite the rational thinking of which they may have once been capable) that bees, ants, and spiders are all insects — regardless of being cross-special — it hardly matters. They’re so engrossed with this being the answer they’ve sought for so long to convince them of what they know in their minds and hearts to be true — it doesn’t even matter. When I respond with: ‘That’s because you’re a submissive man, honey,’ they counter me with how worthless they are, and inferior to women. Because why? Because they can’t have babies.
Huh.
Y’know what else you’re gonna need to make a baby? How about some baby batter? That sounds like it’s rather important in the equation, doesn’t it? Otherwise an egg is very conveniently removed from the body during the completion of a woman’s cycle. And, in modern society, nobody thinks much of it. What’s missing? What causes that egg to become a zygote and eventually a fetus? A man blowing his load in just the right way so that those strong little swimmers can make their way up the canal and forever change the lives of both involved. That ‘load’ which was so worthless, so insignificant, that it was the one thing that changed an egg to eventually becoming one of us.
Give me a fucking break.
If you’re going to throw ‘nature’ at me as proof-positive that female supremacy is the natural order of things, at least use your own species. That’s a good place to start.
This is evidently in the beginning of a larger, multi-part examination — and especially critique — of female supremacists and their bullshit. Except more streamlined, centred analyses in the future, as these are strictly broad introductory strokes.
Hope you’ve enjoyed it. I’m sure they haven’t. And if I become later accused of firing the first shot, I say:
Bring it, bitch.
I’m ready for you. And whatever I have to do as a legitimately educated professional counselor to keep darling — though, not helpless and hardly worthless, thankyouverymuch — submissive men like my clients from falling prey to their propoganda, I’ve got my gloves on.
Game on, broheme. Game fuckin’ on.
Tags: Elise Sutton, Female Supremacy, Healthy v. Unhealthy Kink, Kinky Quacks, Mystressworld.com, Sexual Psychology
April 30th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
Thank you!
May 5th, 2009 at 9:41 pm
I guess I am an idiot, because you crashed everything that I believed. I believe every word you said.
Yeah, I know I shouldn’t do that either, but… I will worship at your house, and I agree it is a lot more fun!!! Life is too short. Social deviant, I guess I am, and from what I have seen of society, I say that is a wonderful thing. I am submissive and proud to be, and I don’t really care what anyone thinks. I hope my grammar is okay this evening.
Thank You, Mistress Roulette.
May 12th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
I’ll throw something out there, please examine or ignore at will. Supremacy, is an essentially male term: Men measure things, women understand things. To talk about female supremacy is to look at the world through a male mindset. Supremacy is a mathematical construct where you assign values to the differences between men and women, then tally the score and pronounce a winner. Women got sucked into the mathematical discussion by the clever use of the word equality.
Equality is both quantitative and qualitative. For example, which is better an apple or an orange? Well it depends upon which you fancy at that moment. Therefore they are equal on a qualitative basis. Once you start tallying the virtues of either fruit with the goal of declaring either superior, the pursuit becomes male and mostly pointless?
Ms Sutton is a product of her generation, her major flaw is that she failed to grow out of the habit of defining her own femininity in male terms. Does that make sense at all?
May 16th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
Very intriguing analysis and theory, Rex. It does make sense, when viewed through such a lens, which I hadn’t seen prior used. Interesting. I appreciate the intricacy and depth in which you’ve explored this; am also curious as to the basis of your investigation? Clearly, you come at this from the standpoint of mathematical models? Which, in and of itself, is an unusual platform from which to launch concerning sociological topics.
May 18th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
Ms Roulette, thank you for taking the time to consider my comment. I recently ran across an essay on the blog Blanche Black. She outlines how a matriarchy would differ from our current society based on the differences in how men and women think. She makes a convincing case in a well researched paper without resorting to the BS of female supremacy.
If you really want to get into how the words we use define the range of our thoughts, then I would recommend Ivan Illich’s “Tools for Conviviality” or “A Hierarchy of Needs”. It is a shame that “anarchy” became synonymous with bad haircuts and poor manners. He has a lot to say about how aggression and acquisition leadership supplanted concepts of group awareness of others welfare, and ignored real problem solving
All of this getting pretty far anything Sutton has to say. The entire concept of supremacy is ca-ca.
May 18th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
The post to which you are referring, which can be found here, is indeed a scholarly post. As such, it engages in classic scholarly doublespeak. The post says, in essence, that, “When women lead, societies prosper. When men lead, societies fail.” That’s a provocative point, but one that is not supported by the research she cites.
If I were to throw out the term Matriarchy, as she does in her title, then you would think I was saying “A society lead by women.” However, that’s not how it’s defined. Instead she defines the term Matriarchy as, “Matriarchies provide great examples of female-style thinking in operation. Such societies feature women collectively exercising political and economic authority or power…” Thus any society in which women exercise any role in the decision making is, by her definition, a Matriarchy. Under this definition, the United States is currently a Matriarchy, as it has not only a feminist movement, but also the “National Organization of Women” as well as the “League of Women Voters.” These groups seek to help women transform their numbers into political power, and thus exercise “collective” power. That we have such legislation as Affirmative Action, explicitly shows that women have a “collective” role to play in decision making and the labor force. Therefore, by the definition she uses, the United States is a Matriarchy. Except, it obviously isn’t.
The rest of her post is merely an outgrowth of playing with this definition. Societies defined as Matriarchies seem to do better than societies that are not defined as Matriarchies. Taking this shift definition out of play, we get that societies that value the contributions of women and include a female voice in their governing, seem to fare better than those that treat women as second-class citizens. This statement is inherently obvious. It is only when we insert the twisted definition of Matriarchy that we get a thesis that is the least bit provocative. We can now see this post for exactly what it is: merely a word game designed to take an obvious conclusion and make it provocative in order to draw attention to the author.
I do take special exception to a particular crime that I find feminists engage in rather often and that’s an attack on the market system. The free market system has been shown to be the most efficient means of organizing the distribution of goods and labor in society. It has been shown to decrease the disparity between the rich and the poor, and make for a more egalitarian distribution of power to all citizens, including women. Yet, for some reason, feminists have it in for the free market system. The attack is based in the market being a center of male-lead exclusionary and wasteful hoarding. This is patently absurd and I lose respect for any author who engages in this kind of cowardly attack against the free market system – particularly by way of playing with definitions as this author has.
She ends her post by calling for, in effect, a totalitarian regime. She assures us that, if women held the power, that it would be used for the good of all. Power held centrally has always been a recipe for abuse and the collapse of society, and having a woman as the head of government has not been shown to make the society any less warlike as demonstrated by such figures as: Catherine the Great, Elizabeth I, and Margaret Thatcher.
May 21st, 2009 at 3:56 am
Mistress Roulette,
Thank you!
I found your point of view to be a refreshing clarity on overbearing fraudulent misappropriations of countless directions.
Best Regards
May 30th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
Headslave, your argument is such an obvious straw-man I hesitate to set it a light. You seem to be willfully missing her point.
Your comments regarding free markets are silly. The idea that a free market tends to minimize the the opportunities between rich and poor is beyond sublime. Go to India, ask a little beggar child why his father cut his hand off, then sit down and think really fucking think about the free market, then we can talk. BTW, been there, done that.
May 31st, 2009 at 4:24 pm
Simmer down, Rex. I’m going to argue that headslave probably knows more regarding the concept and practise of free markets than you do. Perhaps not, but I’m going to suspect he does.
Regarding Black, it’s hardly a straw-man argument. He’s quite simply pointed out an obvious fallacy in her logic. (And he hasn’t been the only one). By the definition she has presented, we are currently living in a Matriarchy here in the U.S. Since we realise this is both neither factual, nor less than absurd, it can be stated there was an error in her conclusion. Nothing more than that.
Now, regarding your statement of an experience in India, I hardly see that as a representation of a free market. More so, it seems a sad fact of their socioeconomic and cultural background from long before they ever thought to explore the benefits of being a ‘free market’. (Note the quotes.)
Care to back up your own rebuttal with something more than statement of opinion?
June 2nd, 2009 at 11:38 pm
Rex,
I use logic. You should look into it.
June 18th, 2009 at 5:42 pm
Nah, I have fenced with free market wingnuts long enough to know that their fundamental definitions are flawed in such a profound way it may take a lifetime to resolve. It is simply impossible to have the discussion before you define terms. Have HeadSlave read the Tao Te Ching, and sit under a tree for eight years, then perhaps we can talk. If that is too onerous, perhaps E. F. Schumacher or Leopold Kohr will get him thinking in the right direction.
As for yourself, you seem too focused on winning to really have a discussion. Roulette, I wish you the best.
Ciao
June 19th, 2009 at 4:53 am
Rex,
It is impossible, as well as imprudent, to have a discussion prior to proper definition of its terms; however, Headslave’s prowess and expertise in this area has proven itself to me time and again — and not easily, either. I’m a very sceptical person. To me, this isn’t about ‘winning’ an argument. It’s simply about introducing information, disseminating it correctly, and having intelligent debate. His argument was hardly a straw-man. Blanche simply made an error in her logical analysis, therefore presenting an obvious fallacy that even an undergrad university student could pick apart with ease.
This is not to become ad hominem, either. If it continues in this direction, I will cut it off at its quick; especially, as it has not been taken here by Headslave, nor does it continue to be. Surely, you understand where I’m coming from. If not, then you yourself have more to explain than originally thought.
As for now, I’m going to conclude it here.
Or not: I’ll just leave you with something that cannot be resolved; period: Keynesian economics and the practise of mathematics.
Perhaps, there’s something we can all agree on.
June 19th, 2009 at 4:57 am
Rex-
You haven’t the faintest idea what you’re talking about. Instead of elaborating your position to try to explain how the free market deprives Indian children of their hands, you are instead saying that you are so far above this discussion that we can not hope to comprehend you until we “read the Tao Te Ching, and sit under a tree for eight years.”
I have a feeling that even if I were to do that (which is impossible BTW) that I still would never cite Blanche Black’s grammatically incorrect, incomprehensible, and unsupported supposition as a model of well thought out female supremacist literature. I mean, really think about the absurdity of your position for a moment, Rex. You claim that you are so far above discussing this, such as the pros and cons of the free market, because you somehow have a deeper understanding that the free market is the culprit that cuts off Indian boys hands (???) but then turn around and cite Blanch Black who understands neither the free market nor the difference between a sentence and a paragraph.
Your ad hominem attacks leave my argument standing just as it always has: the free market has proven the best and most efficient system for the distribution of goods and services in a society. Societies that have embraced it have prospered. Those that thought they had a better system, learned the hard way that they did not. The free market allows for those who contribute more to receive more and is beautiful in its lack of coercion. The price a good trades for reflects the cost of making it as well as the desirability of the good in the market at large. Socialist and Communist societies that abandoned the free market began to try to use statistics to emulate a virtual marketplace in order to understand how to better price things. Feminism, nor Chinese philosophy, nor sitting under a tree for eight years will change that.
I’m sorry you have decided to adopt a losing position, but acting morally or intellectually superior to me will not change the fact that it’s still a losing position. If you wish to live in a world where women are inherently better than men and Socialism is inherently better than Capitalism, that’s fine. You’re free to live there. But these ideas have little basis in fact and you might do well to adopt your position a bit more humbly given that.
October 14th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
Well, I’m sure glad I didn’t join MystressWorlds phony website.
April 29th, 2010 at 10:47 am
Jesus, i love nothing more than to bash a mindless mistress to shreds
Never found anything they do a turnon only pathetic retardness. However to argue and fight with so called “mistresses” is a GREAT turnon.
I thought everyone out there laughed at Sutton and took her for the major of all pathetic humans and visited her site just for a laugh like youtube?
Here is a thought, if i were to rape Sutton what would happen?
1, she kicks and screams like a normal person(yea right)
2, she likes it and yells that she is a slut
3, she smiles and act like a retarded mistress
4, she take this opportunity to do psychoanalysis on my ass
5, she thinks she is in control and tries to deny my orgasm
6, She orders her supreme female herpesviruses to attack me so i instantly die
7, She screams she will have me arrested for zoophilia since she is the beequeen
8, She thinks this is a new and interesting way to dominate her subjects
Hmm i got so horny making this shit up im gonna go take care of that, thinking of Sutton on her knees doing a psychoanalysis to my toilet.
May 1st, 2010 at 2:05 pm
“I’ll throw something out there, please examine or ignore at will. Supremacy, is an essentially male term: Men measure things, women understand things.”
The feminists would (or at least, used to) say that’s essentialism and restricted nonsense. Which it is. Sounds more like a cop-out to me more than anything else.
Maybe power is a “male” term also? Nonsense.
May 1st, 2010 at 2:18 pm
“Equality is both quantitative and qualitative. For example, which is better an apple or an orange? Well it depends upon which you fancy at that moment. Therefore they are equal on a qualitative basis. Once you start tallying the virtues of either fruit with the goal of declaring either superior, the pursuit becomes male and mostly pointless?”
Because feminists are never interested in getting rid of statistical “male” gender gaps?
May 1st, 2010 at 2:40 pm
“Did these women miss part of their journey when we all learned what the difference was between role-playing and reality? How about practising safe, sane, consensual BDSM? How about the element of play? Role? Play? Get it? See, you play a role. It isn’t you.”
I think that’s the whole point. Femdom as an idea is evolving beyond what previously constricted it; it’s more than just a role. (See: lifestyle femdom, etc.)
Both the practice of femdom and the ideas surround it are changing and evolving.
“Femdom, in itself, is an idea. It’s a practise, and it’s also a paradigm. Religion, at its most basic and devoid of all ritualistic or spiritual trappings, is an idea. Ideas have power. It’s not difficult then to conceive why femdom has developed a power all its own, and those who can tap into that power, and use it for their own gain”
Yes, but some ideas seem to lend themselves necessarily to being abused and ending in totalitarianism. It’s not so much that they are “abused”; it’s that the nucleus of the ideology, its basic ideas, predisposes it to totalitarianism. It predictably and consistently results in totalitarian mindsets and actions. Like, for example, Communism. I think femdom is quite similar. Why female supremacism has not entered femdom up until recently is probably due to the fact that it wasn’t regarded as an ideology up until recently, rather simply a compartmentalized “service” or “role”.
May 6th, 2010 at 10:38 am
You were so busy railing viscerally at Elise Sutton that you forgot to check your most basic premise — the use of the word “she”.
What do your “credentials” say about your own reaction (assuming you read it back to yourself) whose stridency contradicts any legitimate claim to any “authority” while putting you in the same boat as him?
“Bring it bitch”, “give me a fucking break.” So … your office is in the ghetto, in a run-down store-front facility? (Or soon will be, once your bosses catch sight of this site?) Or is that “counseling” like: debt collecting out of a scam-front house in Medina, Ohio?
A good counselor wouldn’t have made either mistake: (1) wrong identification (never mind, doing psychoanalysis over the net, sight unseen) and (2) an “analysis” that looks like a borderline manic rant indistinguishable from any of the others like it that one regularly sees on the USENET, the National Enquirer, the Jerry Spring Show, Cable TV or any of the other low-brow scam venues.
But then, this is only a blog (which gets to: (3) nor would they use a blog, much less one (4) whose appearance, in comparison to Elise’s blog, make them virtually indistinguishable from him).
Can you say: Fraudian slip-up?
May 6th, 2010 at 11:58 am
Mark,
You’re talking in circles. Should you have any evidence that Elise Sutton is not who she says she is, then I’d love to see it. As it stands, she is simply a literary figure who could easily be a man or a woman- no one knows.
Your second premise is that anyone who reacts strongly must not be legitimate or able to provide actual counseling or therapy is absurd. People get upset all the time. Her use of Ghetto slang comes from hanging out with me.
Mister P
May 6th, 2010 at 12:00 pm
I do like what Ink has to say for the most part. It’s well said. I’m not sure about the part where he says that femdom has become a totalitarian ideology akin to Communism because it’s really supposed to be about individual relationships as opposed to how to operate whole countries.
Take Care,
Mister P
June 1st, 2010 at 7:00 pm
“I do like what Ink has to say for the most part. It’s well said. I’m not sure about the part where he says that femdom has become a totalitarian ideology akin to Communism because it’s really supposed to be about individual relationships as opposed to how to operate whole countries.”
Totalitarian ideology can operate on micro as well as macro levels.
June 1st, 2010 at 7:03 pm
Also, numerous people have developed femdom into an all-encompassing macro/societal totalitarian ideology.
June 3rd, 2010 at 8:17 pm
Wow. Mark’s really a dick, isn’t he? A well-spoken, somewhat eloquent dick — but a dick all the same. Besides. ‘Ghettospeak’ is fun. S’become a part of our culture, and the sprinkling of it spices up any otherwise droll piece. Were I to do any sort of serious analysis, outside of a whimsical editorial, I’d save it for Psych Today, thanks.
Man. The nerve of some people. (It’s cute that Mr P thinks it’s because of him. Awwww.) For the record, bosses? First off, plural? Secondly, erm … no? I’m self-employed. And, yes, a therapist. So, heavens — should my boss find my website, we’ve got much more to worry about than folks such as yourself. Like time doing very bizarre things it’s not supposed to, and hyper-dimensional constructs ripping apart at the seams. ( … Oh, dear. Where’s Doc Emmett when you need him?)
Anyway, yeah. Mark, you’re sayin’ a whole lotta nothin’. Good luck with that. (I really should keep up with my blog more consistently.)
October 26th, 2010 at 2:04 pm
So.. Mystress World is for those who believe that being $&%@£ in the ass is great, but having your money stolen and your mind washed is much much better ? Nice to find out that, even without some proof i can see, i just took the conclusion that i will not apply to its program as i was thinking to do earlier today. Nice website you have here Miss Roulette, thank you for having it online and sharing such nice things =) hugs for all. Oh..if there is someone who can speak to me more deeply about this matter please tell me something to parreira_1@hotmail.com
thank you
January 20th, 2012 at 9:42 pm
Articulate, well argued Ms Roulette. Impossible to abolish power relationships, so those who propose countervailing power will always have a valid point of view.