Long ago as he himself has admitted William Bond saw some femdom porn and it changed his life.
Through ebooks, vanity press publishing, websites, blogs usenet postings he has been an ardent propagandist for female supremacy. And been laughed away from every active publish venue he’s participated in.
Screwball history and freakish sexual psychology are neither new nor rare. But the knots this man has twisted his mind in an effort to turn his masochism into a social blueprint for a better world have all the mark of the crank.
He even founded a church. While those of us who love dominant women do indeed worship them there is a border that sanity shouldn’t cross.
Priestess Teaches Slaves How to Pray Under Difficult Circumstances
The final ritual to achieve total humiliation. After a few strokes from her whip, the priestess has the slave rolled over on his back face up and told that in order to avoid a long and painfully severe whipping he must pray to the goddess as well as beg the priestess for mercy. But, as he tries to speak, she presses her bare foot firmly over his mouth in an effort to force him to struggle in vain to continue voicing his pleas for mercy. Unfortuneatly, she wants to “feel” as well as hear the muffled prayers and pleas for mercy coming from her “footstool.” Her foot continues to follow his moving head to find his mouth. Finally he tires and gives up his struggle to avoid her foot in his mouth. Some women have said that the vibration of a helpless man’s pleading lips moving against their bare foot is so intoxicating as to cause the action to continue for hours.
EXCERPTS FROM THE ESSEMIAN MANIFESTO
His S&M manifesto reveals that really he is just another guy who wants his masochistic jollies. Pity he couldn’t get them without going off the deep end.
Originally posted 2008-05-23 23:50:13.
Related posts:
- Holy Femdom : Women as Religion Is there a femdom theology that teaches that women really...
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
Loading ...
I’ve read several posts by William Bond on the Rasa von Werder group and find them well written and argued–unlike some of the macho gruffness expressed at him and his ideas by a few posters here. Looking at the past 10,000 years of patriarchy, a female-led society can only be better. Jaguar Goddess described its advantages better than I could. Now it may take time to create, but the seeds are in the ground.
It is critical thinking, not machismo.
“Macho” is not a synecdoche for “nyah! nyah!”
Jaguar Goddess said,
Female dominance can promote social harmony, there have been many studies conducted on this.
Could you share links to some of the studies or refer to their source in some other way?
Thanks.
Margaret Thatcher.
She’s too scary for even my dark fantasies.
Society needs to work towards something otherwise it will be less efficient in its use of resources and time. Get that as vital then consider the nature of what it works towards. Dont forget to incorporate technological advancements and all other issues. One thing we can use today is the genetic, biological artistry that is the human… it is divided into two genders, each with specific attributes and capabilities. Given enough consideration on these things and you should come up with the belief that Women should be allowed to rule, and that men will likely as a result need society to enact some form of authority over them – most fantasy goes way too far for what would be practically a real model of a future world order, but they do speak towards our inner selves and perhaps show insight towards in part what the future ’should’ hold. Male dominance on the other hand is directly related to the embrace of male sexuality, wheras at least in Female dominance this is used as a tool for others… lets not embrace selfishness – true male submission does not limit the Women, it free’s her in everyway possible.
What does Mrs/Ms Tacslave think of all this?
She loves it of course. Female Supremacy isnt about having her dressed as a domme 24/7 or anything like that… its about serving and working for her 24/7 and giving her complete freedom. The male fantasy aspect is important for him but not her, so it does exist in the relationship but its nothing more demanding then the needs of normal relationships – but with added benefits (more for her of course).
Men should be kept in pens and only let out to work and serve women. Men are worthless scum that deserve no rights at all ever.
what is the value of your comment, dick? none, then I guess you better shut up and go start wanking, you little frustrated [word deleted]
Maybe the problem is “control”. Plutarco said that we can’t be as close to the gods as when we control ourselves. Women, as men, want to be in control (always taken) and be controlled (given): that being the main issue. We tend to prefer what is given to us. Beauty, for instance, is given, not taken, and that fact amounts to its human value… well, I am running from the subject, sorry!
Raffaello, no need to apologize.
Thanks for the comment.
Gender has nothing to do with political ability, fairness, ethics or humanity.
If you want to worship a woman that is fine but don’t dress it up with silliness.
Femdom males seem more concerned with their sexual fetishes than with a Matriarchy or Gynarchy in which women govern society based on feminine principles according to natural law. This doesnt mean that a Matriarchy will have a complete absence of violence either, but rather a society organized around female imperatives, which will make it much more peaceful overall.
steve, there is no such thing as equality in nature as it pertains to the sexes. The basis for female superiority begins with genetics and biology since the female is the blueprint for all of creation. This doesn’t mean that every woman you meet displays the best characteristics socially. Nevertheless in terms of transforming a society into one where the female enjoys the privileges and natural rights afforded to her by virtue of being female is something that we are entitled to regardless of what you or any other man thinks. A Matriarchy or Gynarchy is not something that needs to come about in a democratic fashion. This is because the community of women has existed since primordial ages and does not depend on state governments to be sanctioned for its existence.
Women can just create their own communities along with the customs and rules by which our families will operate and contiue to build organizationally. Males can be excluded if necessary or allowed based on the rules women devise. Women bear the children and have the primary responsibility for their socialization and overall development and so, women can shape male identities and consciousness according to Matriarchal values and customs.
I hope that women abolish femdom practices under a Matriarchy/Gynarchy by simply refusing to participate in such schemes. It seems to play right into mens fears and fantasies about female power and such men seem subversive to real female empowerment initiatives in society.
Damned waste of effort, I’m inclined to call this.
Steve.
Hi Steve
Totalitarian can only come about through force, by forcibly restricting other people’s power. In a true democratic system no matter what type of government you have, they can always be voted out if they do a bad job. So if a matriarchal political party gets into power they will be voted out of office if they do not satisfy the voters. So women can only rule through the will of the people.
It is not women’s nature to take over by force. This is even true in the Femdom scene; men serve and worship women because they want to do this. Although it seems to be all about leather and whips, in reality, if a submissive man wants to defy a dominant woman there is nothing she can do about it. Unless a woman becomes at bodybuilder or karate expert there is no-way she can force a man to do anything.
It is only men who can use force and violence to restrict other people’s power, this is why they make such a bad job in ruling our world.
William Bond
Hi Steve
Totalitarian can only come about through force, by forcibly restricting other people’s power. In a true democratic system no matter what type of government you have, they can always be voted out if they do a bad job. So if a matriarchal political party gets into power they will be voted out of office if they do not satisfy the voters. So women can only rule through the will of the people.
It is not women’s nature to take over by force. This is even true in the Femdom scene; men serve and worship women because they want to do this. Although it seems to be all about leather and whips, in reality, if a submissive man wants to defy a dominant woman there is nothing she can do about it. Unless a woman becomes at bodybuilder or karate expert there is no-way she can force a man to do anything.
It is only men who can use force and violence to restrict other people’s power, like the way they have suppressed women for thousands of years.
William Bond
I don’t know where you got an idea like that from…
Well, a lot of my post was actually not addressed to you. I’m guessing you are used to being argued with, and tend to think it’s all about you. But the quote I labelled totalitarian was not actually by you.
However, seeing as you are determined to argue, I can tell you why I think some aspects of what you are saying is totalitarian:
I see no reason why a patriarchal system, which sets men up as superior leaders and thereby fails miserably, is any justification for the creation of a matriarchal political meme, which, if ever put into practice, would fail miserably for exactly the same reasons.
Given that you are such a staunch advocate of democracy, you cannot advocate a clear path away from patriarchy by female force or domination, so instead you insist that people should naturally wish to elect women as leaders on the basis that they would be superior to men in that regard.
By doing so, you wish to create and foster the idea of matriarchy in exactly the same way that patriarchy has commonly been fostered in democracies – as an idea within society, rather than as totalitarian male-led regime using force.
Let’s distinguish between a totalitarian government and a totalitarian idea. Any notion that suggests that people of one race, class, gender or sexual orientation are better suited to rule and lead than others is heading towards being a totalitarian idea.
The link is that, as you yourself have basically pointed out, ideas support governments. So if you want a totalitarian government, a widespread totalitarian idea is a good place to start…
So, these people you are so perplexed by, who automatically equate matriarchy with totalitarianism, probably equate patriarchy with it, too. (I doubt it’s matriarchy in particular they have it in for. Far more words have been spent fighting racism than matriarchy, but the principles of the argument are similar…)
These people that argue with you, they are the people who turn up on voting day hoping for a sensible balance of male and female views, strong leadership from both sexes, and the slow demise of patriarchy and racism into political and economic equality.
All of which is not a cause that’s going to be helped by some facile attempt to replicate male patterns of social domination for women, expecting a different outcome from the same thing.
If the same type of social control norms are used to establish the idea (i.e., the positioning of one sex as ‘better’ due to their perceived inherent moral qualities, sexual objectification of one gender, perception of one sex as better suited to service, etc), then why would you expect the resulting political outcome to be any different?
Besides which, having now read a little bit of your writing, I am inclined to agree with the first post on this thread. There are essentially two William Bonds. One is the guy who has a fairly ordinary femdom / male slave fetish. The other is the guy who tries to dress it up as rational political thinking, and, I’m guessing, ends up selling short what really turns you on.
But why? Why confuse a kink with a social imperative?
I don’t go around proclaiming women as better fit to rule just because I submit to my wife. That would be like the husband of a submissive wife thinking that his domestic and sexual power over her would somehow translate well into political power. Has that sort of thinking had a good outcome?
Finally, you can ‘assume’ I have been influenced by “extreme freedom fantasies” all you like, provided you tell me what one is. In the meantime, I’ll go get my wife’s lunch ready.
S
Female dominance can promote social harmony, there have been many studies conducted on this. Matriarchal societies are grounded in female authority even if some males obtain leadership positions. Equality is a farce steve face it not even socialist countries have accomplished any kind of equality. They are still patriarchal societies!
well, lets face it, where’s the evidence that men can run the world? We’ve been trying for a hell of a long time and its not been good…
the newest studies say that women are much more agressive and prone to violence than men are. thats the fact.
Can you give a pointer to these studies?
Hi Steve
Well i did say that matriarchy can only come about through democratic means, which rules out dictatorship and totalitarianism.
If you assume that matriarchy government must be a totalitarian then i assume you must be strongly influenced by extreme freedom fantasies. Can i point out to you that ALL totalitarian governments in history were all patriarchal governments.
In a democratic system, individual people do have the freedom to have whatever private life they like. Even in our present patriarchal society it is possible for submissive men to live with dominant women. Likewise in a matriarchal democratic society it still will be possible for dominant men to live with submissive women.
In none of my writing i have never said that ALL men have to be submissive and All women have to be dominant. I don’t know where you got an idea like that from.
William Bond
Hi Steve
Well i did point out that women can only get into power through democratic means. So this rules out dictatorship and a totalitarian government.
Even in patriarchal countries it is still possible to have submissive men live with dominant women. So in a democratic matriarchal government, likewise, it will be possible for dominant men to live with submissive women.
I really don’t understand why people associate matriarchy with totalitarianism. I can only assume that people who do are influenced by extreme freedom fantasies.
William Bond
I’m not really sure why that’s been addressed to me as it doesn’t actually counter, or even cover, most of the points I made.
I didn’t say I thought matriarchy was about women in leather suits, or anything about women being violent, or a great Amazon army, or any of that. I think you are arguing with someone else, and confusing them with me.
Most of my statements were actually addressed to ‘femsup’ and doris, but you can take them on board if like, provided that you actually answer them…
Basically, I just don’t see how any blueprint regarding the behavior of all men and all women towards one another can possibly satisfy everyone, or even every woman. And that is exactly what’s being talked about in some of the posts here:
I suspect that there really are few women who truly do believe in their superiority. This is a shame because every woman could so easily control almost every man.
THAT’S TOTALITARIAN. TOTALITARIAN = BAD. READ SOME HISTORY!!!!
And, I ask again, what about women who like being submissive to men? Does your scheme serve their interests? I’ve met quite a few since I started blogging and they are genuine, intelligent, good-natured individual people.
Honestly, I’d much rather read their ideas about providing love through service to their partners, than the ideas of someone, male or female, who keeps trying to proscribe what “the woman” or worse, “the female” will do, and what women will be like generally, in some kind of facile, depersonalized system where roles are allocated solely on the basis of gender.
(Got a feeling I’m wasting my breath here. This has all been done before, right.)
Hi Steve
I think when talking about matriarchy we mustn’t get it confused with the Femdom fantasies that men have about a female dominated society.
In reality women don’t have the same interest in warfare or violence that men have. So in no way will a great Amazon army rise up and conquer the world and force men to submit to women. The only way we are going to have a Matriarchy, is through democratic means.
In other words, it either has to happen through women taking over existing political parties or the people voting into power a Matriarchal political party. And once once Women are in power the only way they can stay in power, will be to convince the voters they can rule the country better than what men can do.
Because women are not naturally violent they are not in the position to force people to do anything. They are more likely to rule through their communication and social skills. It is only men who can rule through force and violence.
So i don’t think Matriarchal women will be walking about in black leather and whipping men into submission. Women can only rule because the majority of people will want them to rule.
William Bond
The notion that the only possible replacement to patriarchy is matriarchy is very disturbing. There is another alternative to patriarchy too, called equality. That’s where everyone does what’s best for them, so long as its safe, sane and consensual, and everyone tries to keep an open mind.
Personally, I see my own journey into submissive sexuality as very emancipating, and a hallmark of my left-wing and individualist values. I believe in the dignity of self, above all other things. Therefore I have a real problem when someone’s idea of “what is best for them” changes over to “what is best for everyone.”
Ultimately, such thinking always seems to lead lead to absurdity, or worse.
Say, for example, you are arguing that all men should be dominated by women and that the world should be a matriarchy. OK, what about women who do not want to participate in a matriarchy? Are they inferior, or wrong, for not wishing to dominate men? What about submissive women? And who is to say all this, anyway? A man?
I’m ignorant as to the particulars of these books, but the general idea of a man preaching to people about how matriarchy is best for everyone sounds a lot like back-door patriarchy to me.
Hi
I’m William Bond and I am just wondering what all this hostility is about? This forum is called ‘Women Led Relationships’ so I would have imagined that people in this forum would be sympathetic to the idea of Matriarchy.
I get the impression that for many people they are only interested in Femdom sexual fantasy and don’t like anything beyond that.
William Bond
I think some of Bonds ideas more than somewhat odd such as races of mermaids and free masons beleiving in Matriarchy.He also seems to follow blindly a certain nasty individual who he must suspect in his heart of hearts is a man mascarading as the superior sex.In this he is led by his sexuality but not in a very sensible way getting his jollies from such a fraud must be fundamentally bad if he is heterosexual and bating off to a man pretendign to be a Womyn.
However having said that it is great that he champions Womyn and tries to bring Matriarchy to the full.That there were Matriarchies in the past and that there are some now and that there will be in the future is vital to let everyone know.Its good to filter out a lot of the rubbish to get to what is most important that there is an alternative to patriarchy.
It would be perfect- to have life as Anne Rice drew- where a thoroughly submissive male could do as he must each and every day. I suspect that there really are few women who truly do believe in their superiority. This is a shame because every woman could so easily control almost every man. Happily be controlled.
Well, if there really would be such a church… ah.
His precise connection? I have no idea. But his involvement is clear from traces left on the web and he wrote some of the material that they sell.
Not speaking to the essence of the prior postings (which I largely agree with), but wanting to understand:
What does William Bond have to do with the Service of Mankind Church? Several years ago, when I lived in California, I was a member of SMC for a short time, and I am not aware of any connection with Mr. Bond. Am I missing something?
Oh, how did I miss this post earlier?
Bond tends to mass posting whenever he’s got a new (self-published) book coming out. He’s one of the few guys out there that I really can’t resist taking a shot at whenever he drops into a Usenet or Yahoo group.
Here’s my Bond story:
He showed up one weekend in a now-canceled Yahoo group, and we engaged in an escalating flame war spirited discussion about the (lack of) evidence of Amazonian or Matriarchal cultures. Some of the group regulars, who only wanted to hear about the stereotypical Femdom fantasies, complained. The group owner came back on Monday, and placed my account on moderation because he thought I was rude to his new guest, who he personally had asked to join the group.
Stupidly, I tried to point out that Bond’s “opinion” had little or no basis in fact, and pointed out how wrong he was on several details. The owner then told me that group members were emailing him to say that everyone doubted my own posts about chastity and orgasm denial, and that he was now convinced that I was nothing but a well-read poser.
Not surprisingly (at least, to me), Bond spent a week or two promoting his book and his Matriarchy theories, and then stopped posting. I unsubscribed from the group and turned my attentions to more productive pursuits.
Bond has appeared in other, completely un-related groups to promote his books, and last year cross-posted to not only the usual sex groups, but also alt.satanism, alt.feminism, alt.society.anarchy, alt.witchcraft, alt.politics, and alt.freemasonry.
I really wish he would contact Elise Sutton and get it all out of his system.