There are so few articles about sissies; there really should be more. But Brianna Austin gives us a little bit of a rundown:

The sissy, however, doesn’t see himself as a women; in fact he is firmly rooted in the reality that he is not a women, nor can he every truly become one, but no longer a man either. In many instances the sissy sees women as the superior species, and is happy to simply elevate themselves to their highest possible feminine representation of female.

To that end, the sissy acts and dresses as frilly and feminine as possible, but never in a mainstream way. They love ruffles, satin, and lace in yellow, white and pink, anything that accentuates femininity – usually garters & stockings, high heels, and costumes.  But it can also include baby girl and little girl attire and actions as well.

Their goal is not to assimilate; thus the frills are both an adoration of feminism, and a reminder that they’re merely emulating that which they can never actually be.

It is then no surprise that most sissies are usually submissive in nature, a soft demeanor that earns to serve.  Often when you come upon social profiles of sissies, they are seeking a “strong master or mistress” to train them. This is yet another way of saying, “bring out the girl in me and suppress the male … PLEASE!”

Is being a sissy then really about being and looking feminine, or is it really – at the root – about power, the lack of, and/or exchange of it?

I’m fond of them myself, as is Dan Savage. As I’ve often said, some of the strongest, bravest people I’ve met are sissies, and yes, this is for you PettiPie. 🙂


3 Replies to “Sissy!”

  1. Is being a sissy then really about being and looking feminine, or is it really – at the root – about power, the lack of, and/or exchange of it?

    Either and/or both. Coincidentally, I was thinking about this only yesterday (it’s relevant to a blogpost I’m working on). My thoughts as they are at the moment:

    If the “forced feminization” part of sissydom is just about emasculation then probably it’s just power exchange. If it comes from a transvestite need, then it’s probably both – in particular, if the domination aspect is used to override cultural taboos against MTF expression and allow the sissy to fulfil their need without guilt.

    Furthermore, “forced feminization” also negates the possibility of rejection; i.e. rather than the sissy showing this part of themselves to someone and having it rejected, that someone’s desire (or at least non-rejection) is made clear from the start because the sissy is being told to do it.

    Along with that, there’s the BDSM element of playing with shame, so the sissy may well be humiliated for being a sissy at the same time.

    I’m sure there are many more things here going on, too, that I haven’t yet thought of 🙂

  2. I love the number of new genders that are being created (or raised to attention). Some of which exist, some of which don’t (yet, pending stem cell organ printing getting a bit better). You’ve got the traditional binary and binary trans but also trans-nonbinary, sissies, beautiful men of the Andrej Pejic type, “traps” (cis boys who pass as girls), futanari of the dick-and-balls or dick-and-vagina types and their male-with-vagina and male-with-both equivalents, and any of the above may be femme, butch or androgynous… so much interestingness.

  3. At root? I suspect it all boils down to power. Having it, giving it up, surrendering to it, identifying with it, sucking its cock, displaying its plumage, offering it ass, . . . and probably a great deal more.

    I’d love to be poly enough to jump in and enjoy all (nonviolent) sexual presentations, but I’m not. At least, as my wife encourages me to think, not at this point. I do find that the only boys I’ve ever been attracted to were not so much gay as very sensual “sissies,” so I recognize the category.

    I’ve always disliked labels on people, though they have value as political categories, and they do make it easier to find what you want. (Imagine Craigslist without them!)

    However, PC labels and coy labels for people with handicaps are always cop-outs, attempts to avoid reality that one finds embarrassing or unpleasant, and as such they say more about the squeamishness of the speaker than whatever is being referred to. Pretty much the same with distinctions between U and non-U terms. The defense that it’s just being polite, or at least not rude, is bullshit.

Leave a Reply