Now, I’m not talking about that.
I just wanted to make a quick comment on how frequently in artistic depictions “dominant” translates to “larger than.” This was brought to my mind today seeing this picture show up on tumblr and being quite confused as to whether the woman is supposed to be a giant or if the fellow is especially petite.
It occurs to me that I’ve read more than a few pieces of F/m erotica that make a point of highlighting size differences between the often short, slim, smooth skinned submissive men and the usually tall and most often voluptuous or muscular dominant women.
I’m sure that for the most part it’s just another symptom of the the tendency of people to insist that masculine traits be paired with dominance and vis versa. On the other hand a size discrepancy is a easier way to demonstrate a imbalance of power than trying to show that your 4’7″ domme character can judo her perfectly submissive 6’5″ man into any position she desires.
The problem being of course that the audience for this sort of thing walks away with the message that to be a dominant women you need to tower over shrimply little subs. Which is of course going to confuse the large portion of people who didn’t have the good sense to be born into bodies that would grow to reflect their sexual roles. For as much as we repeat the cliche about books and their covers we don’t ever heed the advice do we?
Besides, I may be 6’2″ standing up, but I’m only like 4′ on my knees.