Understanding Masculine Hierarchy in BDSM Language and Practice – boy ben hartman
Every boy experiences his truth differently. Every boy comes to understand himself in submission in the context of his earliest experiences. For some, it’s an easy acceptance, for others it is a journey towards acceptance. In this article, Boy Ben explores what it means to be a Fag. He explores his experience and provides a context and theory for the experience of being a Fag. This article is written with a deep understanding and acceptance that to be a fag, is to be exactly who you were born to be.
The article is to be published over several weeks and I commend it to you. I also encourage you to join the group chat and share your views and experiences on this excellent insight into the Hierarchy.
CHAPTER ONE
This book is positioned outside the realm of most people’s consciousness, even the deep thinkers. This book is for those involved in the world of BDSM who wish that they could actually understand what faggots are at our most fundamental level. Many have tried to formulate their understandings in some capacity or other, but only a full-length book can truly accomplish this feat. But I am getting ahead of myself. I haven’t even superficially detailed what a faggot, or “SMGB”, is.
What this book explores is not easily contained within clinical studies or academic research. The breadth of what is being described—the psychological structure, the neurological placement, the emotional and erotic architecture of submission—is too deep, almost “too lived” to be easily captured by conventional methodology. And so, instead of citations, this book offers something else—the ring of recognised truth. It is written in the first person not to centre the self, but to carve a path from within—because this theory could only be laid out by those who live it. Though the tone may feel like a manifesto, it is not rallying toward ideology—it is simply speaking out what has gone unspoken.
We are going to start where all structure begins: with hierarchy—why it calls to us, how it shapes us, and what it reveals about who we are. From there, we’ll name the two roles this book focuses on—DSAM (Alpha) and SMGB (faggot)—and follow their dynamic with investigations and honest conclusions. We’ll walk through the stages of becoming: how these roles form in adolescence, how they deepen, and how they clarify. We’ll explore the rituals, the subtypes, real stories, and the language and symbols that give this structure its voice. We’ll pull from biology, evolution, psychology, and the lived experience of those individuals in question. And so, let us begin.
Across time and culture, humans have consistently organised ourselves into hierarchies. Within hierarchies, most seek to lead, others are fated to follow. And some—perhaps the most overlooked—actively seek not simply to follow, but to actively serve in their following. This desire to serve is not born of weakness, nor is a desire for leadership born of cruelty. Reality does not work in extremes like that. The impulse towards either domination or submission is neither illness nor indulgence—it is simply natural structure. But before we narrow our lens, we must begin where all natural power imbalances begin: in the longing to be found through proper placement.
Domination, as it is going to be used here, is not expressed cruelty, but unapologetic presence. Domination is the ability to take up space, to command, to direct—always—with the assumption of compliance. Domination is not always proactive. Sometimes, it simply is. And in that simply being, those who are themselves wired for submission will feel a profound inner pull: “I want to be beneath him.” Not to be hurt—but to be held down, to have a place in the safety of another’s authority. Submission, similarly, is misunderstood. It is not in its essence desperation, although desperation can be its partner. It is not an expression of shame, although, in the wrong contexts, shame is its twin. To those who are wired to submit, what submission does is it brings order to the chaos of identity.
To serve is to align. And once aligned in the right placement, to be told what to do is to be free from the burden of self-direction. It is not all on you. Someone else can bear it for you, take the blame, take the responsibility. Your mistakes are theirs. Your misery is their forsakenness, their neglectfulness. You are free.
In the right dynamic between two fully consenting people, submission is not merely a sexual act—it is spiritual in its game of back and forth. People choose to submit because they can feel even more themselves when beneath—because they genuinely want to give their best to someone greater. Because they feel safe, known, and fully authentic when they are told what to do and listen. For some, domination and submission are play. But for others, it is how we love and know ourselves in the deepest ways.
There is a hunger not just for freedom, but for a structured world in which every gesture has meaning, every command is clear, and every wholehearted act of devotion is received with grace. The religious comparisons do not cease. For this book may indeed just as easily be used to understand those people who come on their own to religion as adults. This book and what it will entail is not about or even concerned with fantasy. It is about the very architecture of desire for a certain group, and about the people who come alive when placed within a structure they were born for and gain language for it. Of course, human beings are varied enough that each person’s life experiences are unique, and natural tendency does not equate to a sort of robotic inevitability.
This book is positioned outside the realm of most people’s consciousness, even the deep thinkers. This book is for those involved in the world of BDSM who wish that they could actually understand what faggots are at our most fundamental level. Many have tried to formulate their understandings in some capacity or other, but only a full-length book can truly accomplish this feat. But I am getting ahead of myself. I haven’t even superficially detailed what a faggot, or “SMGB”, is.
What this book explores is not easily contained within clinical studies or academic research. The breadth of what is being described—the psychological structure, the neurological placement, the emotional and erotic architecture of submission—is too deep, almost “too lived” to be easily captured by conventional methodology. And so, instead of citations, this book offers something else—the ring of recognised truth. It is written in the first person not to centre the self, but to carve a path from within—because this theory could only be laid out by those who live it. Though the tone may feel like a manifesto, it is not rallying toward ideology—it is simply speaking out what has gone unspoken.
We are going to start where all structure begins: with hierarchy—why it calls to us, how it shapes us, and what it reveals about who we are. From there, we’ll name the two roles this book focuses on—DSAM (Alpha) and SMGB (faggot)—and follow their dynamic with investigations and honest conclusions. We’ll walk through the stages of becoming: how these roles form in adolescence, how they deepen, and how they clarify. We’ll explore the rituals, the subtypes, real stories, and the language and symbols that give this structure its voice. We’ll pull from biology, evolution, psychology, and the lived experience of those individuals in question. And so, let us begin.
Across time and culture, humans have consistently organised ourselves into hierarchies. Within hierarchies, most seek to lead, others are fated to follow. And some—perhaps the most overlooked—actively seek not simply to follow, but to actively serve in their following. This desire to serve is not born of weakness, nor is a desire for leadership born of cruelty. Reality does not work in extremes like that. The impulse towards either domination or submission is neither illness nor indulgence—it is simply natural structure. But before we narrow our lens, we must begin where all natural power imbalances begin: in the longing to be found through proper placement.
Domination, as it is going to be used here, is not expressed cruelty, but unapologetic presence. Domination is the ability to take up space, to command, to direct—always—with the assumption of compliance. Domination is not always proactive. Sometimes, it simply is. And in that simply being, those who are themselves wired for submission will feel a profound inner pull: “I want to be beneath him.” Not to be hurt—but to be held down, to have a place in the safety of another’s authority. Submission, similarly, is misunderstood. It is not in its essence desperation, although desperation can be its partner. It is not an expression of shame, although, in the wrong contexts, shame is its twin. To those who are wired to submit, what submission does is it brings order to the chaos of identity.
To serve is to align. And once aligned in the right placement, to be told what to do is to be free from the burden of self-direction. It is not all on you. Someone else can bear it for you, take the blame, take the responsibility. Your mistakes are theirs. Your misery is their forsakenness, their neglectfulness. You are free.
In the right dynamic between two fully consenting people, submission is not merely a sexual act—it is spiritual in its game of back and forth. People choose to submit because they can feel even more themselves when beneath—because they genuinely want to give their best to someone greater. Because they feel safe, known, and fully authentic when they are told what to do and listen. For some, domination and submission are play. But for others, it is how we love and know ourselves in the deepest ways.
There is a hunger not just for freedom, but for a structured world in which every gesture has meaning, every command is clear, and every wholehearted act of devotion is received with grace. The religious comparisons do not cease. For this book may indeed just as easily be used to understand those people who come on their own to religion as adults. This book and what it will entail is not about or even concerned with fantasy. It is about the very architecture of desire for a certain group, and about the people who come alive when placed within a structure they were born for and gain language for it. Of course, human beings are varied enough that each person’s life experiences are unique, and natural tendency does not equate to a sort of robotic inevitability.
CHAPTER TWO
From the earliest human communities, hierarchy was not a coincidental social invention, but a survival necessity. Every tribe had leaders. Every clan had hunters, warriors, and elders who showed the way. There were those who gave orders and those who followed them. This structure was not imposed because someone declared it to be fair, but because it was simply how life worked. A toddler learns who is in charge before even having a sense of self.
The strongest organised tools and food and offered protection. The weakest were themselves protected—or discarded. This was not cruelty, but essential order. The alternative was death for all. This is hierarchy: a structure of acknowledged placement within a system that differentiates how much authority one individual has over another.
But humanity urbanised and modernised. The evolution of agriculture, writing, cities, and distributable resources of value eventually required a sense of equality. This would not be true equality, for there still is the government versus the people, and the parent versus the child, but the illusion of equality would eventually prove to be a very helpful tool. In modern democracies, all people are to be seen as equal. This illusion of equality was not unnatural—it was brilliant. Equality is civilisation’s clever invention for the purpose of managing human complexity on unimaginable scales. Fighting through the natural inclination for chaos, social peace could be managed across the globe through the lie of equality. In the legal, economic, and civic world, this absolutely works. Equality is such a very noble lie we all agree to believe because it is more functional than risking chaos. But our internal biological wiring has not forgotten what always was, is, and will be.
Humankind still defers to beauty, wealth, physical impressiveness, and invasive ideologies seen as more ideal. One can preach about body positivity all day and night—and body positivity is a great thing—but in the end when they see someone more physically fit than them, their desire to be like them is biological and therefore unavoidable, no matter what they choose to verbally proclaim. Crowds herd after those who radiate leadership or influence. The instinct for hierarchy is not erased, but simply reframed. And man stands apart from woman in that his very sense of self is hierarchically focused, whereas women can find themselves placed within a hierarchical structure that is outside of themselves. A woman does not need to be a better woman than her peers. She just is a woman. A man needs to be a better man than his peers.
So who, therefore, were the rulers of the old world? They were men of presence. Men who commanded others without needing to raise their voice. They assumed loyalty as their right. They expected tribute—gold, land, women, service. They made others feel small in their shadow and safe under their rule. These were the conqueror kings. The warlords. Though they wore crowns or wielded swords, their essence was not costume—it was character.
That very same character exists in some men today. Our society may not call them conqueror kings anymore. But if you are someone prone to serve, you know them when you see them. There is an unmistakable aura. When you are not prone to serve, you still know them but what is felt is, more often than not, jealousy.
CHAPTER THREE
Before we can explore how the DSAM–SMGB dynamic functions, being the dynamic of focus in this book, we must first name everything clearly. What is SMGB? What is DSAM? The logic within this structure is going to be presented in full, yet it is for the discerning reader to trace its application into lived scenarios.
Language gives shape to instinct. It can allow those who have lived in confusion to finally say, “Yes. That is me.” The purpose of including these terminologies is so that they can be discussed intellectually—philosophically, ethically—and broken down and understood for all of their psychological dimensions. In BDSM circles, SMGBs are called “faggots” and DSAMs “Alphas”.
The most important aspect to this more technical terminology is that there can be such useful language for intellectual settings other than offensive language. “SMGB” as an acronym does what “faggot” cannot do, and at the same time describes so much more. So here are the definitions that will be relevant for the remainder of this book, clearly laid out.
I. THE SMGB
His identity is rooted in both deep subservience and a masochistic enjoyment of emotional, psychological, or physical humiliation. This is why the S in their acronym is not just submissive, but subservient. They are always masochistic, even if they do not realise it. Within BDSM culture, SMGBs are often referred to terminology including faggots/fags, sissies, boys, fagboys, slaves, objects, wallets, gooners, pigs, cashpigs, gimps, pups, or losers, all depending on the dynamic/s of their submission and the style of service that is expected.
Oftentimes SMGBs find themselves wishing to cut off their relationships with Dominant and Sadistic Alpha Males (DSAMs), their hierarchical counterparts, but the need to serve this role of SMGB typically pulls them either in the direction of return to the DSAMs they already have relationships with or else seeking new/deeper relationships with other DSAMs who appear to be more conducive to greater happiness in their lives. But relapses are very common. DSAMs often utilise SMGBs’ constant relapses as a trigger via temptation (you will do it again) to submit to them personally.
To be absolutely clear, terminology like “footfag,” “cashfag,” and “faggot” are used throughout this book not as insults, but as functional language within a conscious and subconscious masochistic identity. These terms, when used consensually, are instruments of structure. Outside of consent, they are harmful. But within the SMGB framework, they reflect a sacred degradation that is conducive to the inner peace of the SMGB.
II. THE DSAM
On the other side of this alignment stands the Dominant and Sadistic Alpha Male (DSAM). The DSAM is a biologically or energetically dominant male who expects obedience without apology. He is often heterosexual, but not always. He takes pleasure in taking ownership of, degrading, and using those beneath him—not as acts of cruelty, but as assertion of the male hierarchy. He desires tributes—money, sex, devotion—and in return, he provides belonging and inner peace for his SMGBs. He may not even be fully aware of his influence or power. For the DSAM does not ask to be served. He assumes it. He does not question his right to be honoured. He simply expects it.
The DSAM’s role centres on ownership and the exertion of power. This can be through physical domination (through sexual and/or violent means), financial domination, consistent psychological degradation, emotional control, or all of the above. Their sadism varies greatly from individual to individual, and may be expressed in any manner—from enjoying the process of making their subservient financially suffer to enjoying seeing their subservient struggle to perform sexual acts. The subservient males they dominate are always willing participants. Always. In BDSM culture, DSAMs are commonly referred to as Alphas, Sirs, Masters, Owners, or Cashmasters, reflecting the style or intensity of dominance they embody.
In addition to initiating one-way sexual engagement, DSAMs often employ sensory triggers to attract willing Subservient and Masochistic Gay Beta Males, sensory triggers which may include pictures of their feet (socked or unsocked), armpits, athletic muscular builds, spit, middle fingers, and scenes of luxury. Many DSAMs intentionally cultivate their relationships with SMGBs as a means of income, with the specific goal of making them stable and willing sources of income for the long-term. It is not difficult for them to do this. There is a documentary from The New Yorker called “Gen Z and the World of Financial Domination” which perfectly depicts online spaces where DSAMs utilise SMGBs as sources of income, often not needing any other job. The documentary focuses on the Gen Z “findom” scene, but financial domination is far from a new phenomenon. The dynamic between DSAM and SMGB works not because one side pretends while the other is truthful, but because both sides are aligned with what they are to each other, and are honest with each other.
Terminology within these definitions such as “gay” in SMGB, and the seeming absence of “switches” altogether, is important. With respect to the terminology “gay”, its usage is for the very purpose of showing the nature of the energy within these specific dynamics—meaning that, by definition, those who are SMGBs have same-sex attraction, always, and that their same-sex attraction is an aspect inherent to their being an SMGB, whether one is bi or gay—regardless, their same-sex attraction is what is relevant for the role as an SMGB, even if they also have attraction towards women and would even marry a woman one day. And with respect to the language of the DSAM, there simply is no sexual orientation mentioned—not gay, bi, or straight—because he could be any of them and still just as well be a DSAM, as he does not necessarily have to have same-sex attraction—he very well could—but he doesn’t need to in order to be a DSAM, and, in fact, most DSAMs are heterosexual.
Secondly, with respect to the apparent exclusion of “switches” in this terminology, here is how he is still acknowledged. These definitions show one’s positioning within a dynamic—they show the inner mechanics and the language that could be used to describe the role within the dynamic. If one switches back-and-forth between one to the other, that is all fine and well, it is just that at one point in time they are a DSAM and at another they are an SMGB, but they do not get an entirely new definition just because they switch between these two roles.
III. NOT NEW BEHAVIOUR
Many SMGBs report early childhood behaviours and longings that predate any understanding of sexuality or kink. They typically sniffed their friends’ used boxers at sleepovers while their friend was in another room. For many young boys getting kicked in the balls is a staple part of the gig of youth, and SMGBs might have found themselves wanting to be kicked again by their bully even one more time. They will find themselves constantly wanting to follow boys who exuded casual dominance, not to be dominant themselves but just to be with the dominance. They were more likely than not too young to know anything of BDSM, gender roles, or sexuality. But the instincts of an SMGB was already there: the instincts to absolutely worship masculinity.
Likewise, many DSAMs in youth may have exuded authority in their social spaces. They felt no guilt in commanding, humiliating, or owning. These behaviours are not taught. They are embodied. They are born as leaders who know what is theirs.
The SMGB identity is truly rare. After all, most people are heterosexual, most homosexual men are not submissive, and then among those who are submissive, so very few are wired with the specific, deep, devotional psychosexual blueprint of the SMGB.
SMGBs are not just “bottoms” or just “subs”. They are examples of an evolutionary design. While few openly practice BDSM, many heterosexual men with healthy masculinity are naturally dominant, assertive, and commanding. They carry a primal instinct to lead, to be served, to be obeyed—but modern society often suppresses those instincts through fear of being seen as cruel or abusive. If these men were guaranteed consent, safety, and reverence from a willing SMGB, many would step into role of dominator with ease.
Modern queer theory often centres equality, fluidity, and self-definition. But this model offers something radically different. It says that some men are born to serve and that some men are born to be served.
Freedom is often misunderstood as the absence of rules. But for the SMGB, true freedom lies in finally being allowed to live according to his instincts. An SMGB might describe a sacred liberation in being able to act out fantasies he had held since adolescence—such as being slapped during oral sex.
The very act of fulfilling a DSAM’s needs feel like a moment of honour. It is an experience comparable to standing at a podium and receiving an award. Imagine: A DSAM might text the SMGB asking for oral service, he would then arrive immediately to serve, the delivers and brings the man to orgasm, and at that moment of climax, feels nothing but triumphant—successful—uplifted by his usefulness. Dignity is also present in the small courtesies the DSAM extends: letting him clean up if he throws up, offering a glass of water, and speaking with him for a few minutes as equals before parting ways or at the start of a session. These gestures maintain the natural hierarchy while still affirming essential respect.
As the SMGB becomes more experienced, he recognises a certain moral obligation to be visible—to be accessible. However, this is not a simplistic call to exposure. It is a call to careful, ethical navigation. SMGBs must be cautious in how they present themselves, avoiding exploitation while remaining open to the calling that defines them. Even as experience provides clarity, practical life—work, family, rest—demands balance.
Devotion is not a dismissal of personhood. It is its rightful expression. And this careful visibility does not disappear in public. Even in casual spaces, an SMGB can recognise his place and act accordingly. If a DSAM, after being served by an SMGB, later sees his sub in a café and casually commands, “You’ll pay for me and I’ll be outside whenever it’s ready”—such a sacred moment would not be humiliating—it would be a joyous opportunity. The spontaneity of public service, when consensual and discreet, is not chaotic. But both parties must be careful for the sake of social order and mental health.
I myself am an SMGB, so throughout this text I will relate examples from my own life and the lives of other SMGBs that I know for the purposes of showing the dynamic at hand, actually at play.
Earlier, in Chapter One, I said “To serve is to align. And once aligned in the right placement, to be told what to do is to be free from the burden of self-direction. It is not all on you. Someone else can bear it for you, take the blame, take the responsibility. Your mistakes are theirs. Your misery is their forsakenness, their neglectfulness. You are free.”
Here is exactly what I meant by saying this: When both parties know who they are to each other and the structure is alive and functional between them—the burden of failure no longer belongs to the one beneath. It belongs entirely to the one above! If the SMGB cannot perform something, or becomes miserable within a scene beyond his limits and is not allowed a way out, then that is not his mistake—it is the DSAM’s. It was he who directed the structure, he who crafted the moment, and he who failed to recognise what the SMGB needed in order to succeed, or to even see if it was possible. The SMGB is not a self-directing actor in the dynamic. He is purely a vessel responding to the DSAM’s lead. And so, if something fails and is not fixed, the failure is not insubordination—it is misalignment, a sign that the DSAM did not read the situation with the clarity his role demands—or, for that matter, even properly understand what it really means to have the responsibility of control over an entire other human being. In toxic versions of this dynamic, the DSAM punishes the SMGB for such failures—say, an action being too intense for the SMGB to handle. But why would that ever be the case? Only because the DSAM misunderstands what it actually means to be in control. He wrongly believes that control just means demanding and reacting, rather than guiding and adapting with the entire human being in front of him. He punishes the SMGB who failed when the failure was never theirs to own—it was his own responsibility to have known better or to quickly learn and adapt. In a perfectly healthy dynamic, the DSAM does not blame. He adjusts. He learns. If something can’t be done, then it can’t be done. Either something similar will be tried, or something else entirely. It is a quick change. But the structure remains intact, because it is held by someone who understands that control does not mean their own freedom from consequence—but indeed taking on the full weight of what unfolds. Only then is his SMGB truly free. Because his failures are not his burden. His misery in being placed beyond his limits, when such misery arises, is not his flaw—it is the DSAM’s neglectfulness. And when the DSAM understands that, and responds not with anger but with fast re-alignment, he becomes not only dominant—but worthy. That is what makes the SMGB’s freedom in servitude real for everyone. One of the most important things that DSAMs have to keep in mind regarding consent is that if an SMGB uses his safeword, is not listened to, and does not step away—that is not continued consent. Once again, it is up to the DSAM to know how essential the use of safewords/signals are. Once again, the SMGB is not a self-directing actor in the dynamic. He will stay and endure because that is what he does. The DSAM must act with the weight of the responsibility that he possesses. This applies notably with respect to the relationship between “cashfag” and “cashmaster”, an important specific relationship that will be explored in greater depth.
This must be said plainly. Failure and discomfort is necessary, because they are how the DSAM and the SMGB become more intimate with each other. It is like using a butter knife you made that is too sharp on a piece of bread, so that you can see exactly how much more you need to dull it, and continue to test it until it is a perfect butter knife. One cut, or a few, too deep does not mean the knife is wrong if the intention is controlled testing—it means the process of shaping the knife to perfection is still underway. That is how refinement happens. But if the man holding the knife begins to enjoy the brutality of slicing the loaves aggressively—ignoring the point of the test entirely, wasting entire loaves of bread not to observe, but to indulge in aggression only for the sake of indulging—then this is no longer the ethical DSAM, but an abuser. He is not shaping anything perfect. He is just cutting for the pleasure of destruction. What he feels may look like power to him, but it is not power. It is detachment from purpose—it is the intoxication of control without conscience. When that happens, the dynamic does not deepen. It fractures. One distinctly purposeful distortion of domination, of deepening intensity without the goal of testing, might be enough for collapse of the relationship—but more than one surely is, and the SMGB should accordingly pursue better DSAMs.
CHAPTER FOUR
The Subservient and Masochistic Gay Beta Male (SMGB) does not become what he is because of an event. He does not wake up one day and decide to serve. His life is not a rebellion against masculinity—it is a seeking of it. This chapter outlines a “Domino Theory”—a developmental arc that reveals how SMGB identity forms epigenetically. It is not disorder and it is not damage.
It often begins with the absence of a strong, present father. Whether through abandonment, emotional coldness, or weakness, the boy does not receive masculine structure. He has no one to model himself after. No image of what it means to be a man who commands. The boy does not envision himself in traditional reproductive roles. He does not dream of being a husband, a father, or a protector. The image of leading a household, impregnating a wife, or defending his tribe does not resonate. He realises that he is not a reproducer. And so, he orbits instead around those who are.
Outside the reproductive hierarchy, the boy searches for a new place. He realises that if he cannot lead or procreate, then he must serve in order to survive. This is the first dimension of clarity in the SMGB blueprint: the knowledge that his purpose lies in usefulness. He does not demand inclusion. He earns it through offering. He begins to understand that he will be kept, if he is useful.
The boy’s body begins to imprint. Masculine presence becomes neurochemically charged. The scent of armpits in life will trigger calm. Feet, the lowest part of the body, will invoke trance. Even his own sweaty armpit stink is intoxicating to him, as it is, itself, still masculinity. This is not narcissism. It is neurological programming. The SMGB does not respond to the self. He responds to the signal. Masculinity is not a person. It is a force. And it feels like home.
So here is what happens at a purely pre-conscious, epigenetic level, in simple terms:
No father present → Masculine structure is missing.
No model of manhood → I don’t know how to be a husband, father, or even leader.
Don’t see myself at the centre of a family → That role belongs to other men.
Don’t imagine reproducing myself → Sex holds no future legacy for me.
Exist outside the reproductive order → I am not building a tent of my own (the use of the word “tent” will be relevant in the next chapter).
Need purpose to belong and survive → My instincts search for safety and value.
Become useful to masculine leaders → I obey, support, and serve them.
Masculinity becomes sacred → Its scent, power, and presence are holy to me because they keep me safe.
I become an SMGB → Not meant to lead—but to find purpose through submission.
Now, I have the masculine structure I was missing → Not by becoming it, but by belonging under it.
The SMGB is made. As with all epigenetic developments, absolutely none of it is conscious. It is worth mentioning that, for some, an inherent sense of disconnect with strong masculinity as something Other than them can replace the initial element of a weak or absent father figure.
YOUTH
The desire to worship masculinity often reveals itself early, in moments that might seem meaningless to others, but are conversely profound for the SMGB.
Personally, I can recount being given the middle finger by a straight boy in middle school as a joke—a meaningless gesture in context, but one that triggered a sexual awakening so intense I orgasmed that night thinking about it. These aren’t kinks formed in adulthood; they are patterns buried in the earliest bodily instincts, waiting for recognition. To be insulted, owned, humiliated, to hear the words “fuck off” by a masculine figure in a movie is euphoric.
And yet, the SMGB longs for structured degradation—ritual, expectation, consistent use. Eventually, he finds helpful language. He may not yet know the full vocabulary—SMGB, sub, footfag, wallet—but he knows what he is. And when the word “faggot” is thrown at him, something stirs. Not shame. Recognition. Not because he is gay. But because he is gay and beneath the masculine. And he knows that it is exactly where he was always meant to be.
CHAPTER FIVE
What exactly drives the Subservient and Masochistic Gay Beta Male (SMGB) to kneel before masculine power? What if it is simply erotic kink or a psychological wound?
This chapter explores two theories that seek to answer that question. These two models are the DSAM-as-Heterosexual Model and the Masculinity-as-Shelter Model, as follows.
The DSAM-as-Heterosexual Model
At its core, this model proposes that SMGBs are evolutionarily wired to serve dominant, heterosexual men. These men symbolise reproductive continuity, masculine authority, and the forward motion of the tribe. Because the SMGB himself does not reproduce, his evolutionary survival must be justified in another way. This model claims that the answer is adjacency to progress and success. By serving and obeying those who do reproduce—by kneeling to the breeders and protectors—the SMGB finds his role.
Even when the DSAM is not heterosexual, the SMGB’s instinct still often interprets his masculinity as a stand-in for heterosexual dominance. The orientation of the DSAM’s desires may be irrelevant; what matters is his placement above. Submission happens as though the SMGB believes he is serving the one who carries the future. This is why it is called the DSAM-as-Heterosexual Model, because, whether or not the DSAM actually is heterosexual, he is perceived psychologically by the SMGB as though he is.
This model has several strengths. It provides an evolutionary rationale. It grounds service in the tribal logic of survival. And it explains the deep, almost religious reverence SMGBs often express toward heterosexual men—particularly those who embody effortless, unapologetic dominance.
But it also has limitations. It fails to fully account for the attraction SMGBs feel toward openly gay DSAMs. It cannot explain certain experiences, such as being aroused by one’s own masculine scent. And it risks framing submission as a kind of delusion—an evolutionary misfire—rather than as a coherent identity.
The Masculinity-as-Shelter Model
The second theory offers a broader and more integrative lens. It proposes that the SMGB is not drawn to heterosexuality itself, but to masculinity as a sheltering force. In this model, what matters is not reproduction, but presence. It is not about the man’s sexual orientation—it is about his unapologetic dominance, his structure, his stability, his certainty.
The SMGB kneels not because the man is a breeder, but because the man stands firm when others collapse.
At the centre of this theory lies a powerful image: the tribal teepee, burning with fire in the middle of a cold wilderness. Inside the tent are the protectors, the mothers, the children. Outside, in the darkness, howl wolves. The SMGB returns to the tent—not to ask for warmth, but to offer his purpose. He says, “I bring firewood. I bring food. I bring worship. Let me kneel at the edge of your protection.” He does not ask for equality. He does not demand attention. He offers himself as tribute. He seeks to gather the wood for the man that keeps that fire burning. His fulfilment is not in the warmth of his own heat, but in the ritual of tending to someone else’s flame. And there is no shame in this. Only deep, embodied peace.
In other words, the SMGB looks to the tent and asks, “Why should I be allowed inside?” He is not a warrior. He does not carry children. He has no automatic claim to warmth. From a purely biological standpoint, he is expendable.
Would it not make more sense to leave him outside?
The answer is found in the oldest survival logic: he brings value. Not through force, nor through fertility, but through service. He is permitted into the tent not because of what he is, but because of what he offers. His sexual obedience, his financial tribute, his worshipful loyalty—these are his firewood. And when he brings it, he is not merely tolerated. He is kept safely and securely.
This model highlights a critical evolutionary divide. Women—the idea of women—by nature of their wombs, must be protected. They carry the next generation. Their presence in the tent is non-negotiable. The SMGB, by contrast, has no such guarantee. His inclusion is conditional. He must earn his place by being useful to leadership.
This dynamic is not a metaphor. It is how tribes survived. He simply is not of the purpose of woman in terms of the continuation of the species. Therefore, it’s not guaranteed that I will be cared for. That longing—to matter enough to be kept alive—is the deepest layer of the SMGB instinct. Not just to serve, but to be worth sheltering.
In this model, masculinity becomes more than an identity. It becomes a neurochemical beacon. The SMGB body is wired to detect and respond to masculine presence—visually, behaviourally, chemically, atmospherically. The smell of armpit musk, the sound of a bootstep, the glance of unearned authority—these signals trigger peace.
Take the cashfag, SMGB who tributes money to a DSAM. In modern terms, this might be framed as a fetish. But in evolutionary logic, it is a transaction of survival.
“I have something. You don’t need it. But I offer it, so that I may stay.”
In ancient times, the SMGB might have brought animal skins, firewood, or food. Today, he brings cash, rent, gifts, services. The logic is unchanged. “You don’t lift the spear,” the tribe says. “You don’t carry the child. But you can bring the gold. And give it freely. And ask for nothing but to kneel at the edge of his warmth.”
This is not humiliation. It is dignified self-placement.
“I cannot earn protection by force or fertility,” the SMGB says. “But I can earn it through usefulness. Please keep me.”
And when the DSAM accepts, he is not brought into the centre of the fire’s warmth. He is placed at the edge—and that is enough. He is not equal, but he is kept.
This theory of Masculinity-as-Shelter sees the SMGB being offered not just relief, but purpose. It explains his longing, his wiring, and his service not as delusion or dysfunction, but as truth. He is the one who keeps the fire fed, kneeling beside the entrance, waiting to be let in. The SMGB does not submit to be degraded. He submits to align with what he must be in order to have a place within the human story. To kneel is not weakness. It is a declaration of truth. This is not about inferiority. It is about integration. And it is not about fantasy. It is about survival. The SMGB exists because he knelt—and was not cast out.
This is truly best exemplified by the cashfag. “I have money. I have resources that are needed for survival by anyone. I could keep that to myself and be led out of the tent where there are wolves. Or, as a means of being useful, I can bring my resources and have them become your resources, therefore having a place in the safety of the teepee.”
CHAPTER SIX
For many, the instinct to kneel, to serve, to be humiliated and owned, evokes discomfort—and suspicion. Is this a trauma response? Is it a kink gone too far? A sign of mental illness or even gender confusion?
For the Subservient and Masochistic Gay Beta Male (SMGB), these questions are not theoretical—they are existential. If this identity is a delusion, what does that make his peace? If this wiring is a pathology, what does that make the deep spiritual clarity he feels when used? This chapter will be devoted to testing the SMGB framework—not in opposition to psychology, but through its lens. We can examine six hypothetical theories that attempt to explain SMGB behaviour. Then, we build the positive case for the SMGB identity as a biologically coherent, evolutionarily plausible, and spiritually grounded truth.
I. Six Theories
1. Childhood Trauma Theory
This theory claims that SMGB behaviour is a response to early psychological wounding or abuse.
The earliest behaviours—like sniffing used boxers, craving to be near sources of domination, or feeling euphoria from submission—often occur before puberty and before any real sexual context whatsoever. The only relevant trauma would be the absence of fatherhood, and the ways in which that informs the making of SMGBs has already been explored. Trauma typically produces fragmentation, fear, and dissociation. An SMGB’s experiences with DSAMs are, however, marked by cohesion, peace, focus, and clarity, even if discomfort is present at the same time.
2. Paraphilic Disorder Theory
This view holds that SMGB behaviour is a form of paraphiliac disorder—an abnormal sexual fixation that is both narrow in nature and disruptive to a person’s happiness. SMGB identity, by contrast, is wide-ranging, structured, and conducive to inner happiness.
I will pause here to admit that these two first theories do have a place within the context of understanding the Masculinity-as-Shelter Theory.
3. External Kink/Fetish Conditioning Theory
Some might claim SMGBs are conditioned by pornography or niche subcultures to develop submissive desires. But this theory fails on several levels. Firstly, SMGB patterns often emerge before exposure to any sexual media. Secondly, the identity persists even when pornography is removed. Thirdly, conditioning may explain how behaviour is shaped—but not why it feels so good or so complete.
4. Gender Dysphoria Theory
This theory posits that SMGBs are actually experiencing a form of gender confusion or dysphoria. But most SMGBs identify firmly as male. They do not want to be women. Feminisation, when present (especially with sissies), is not actually about gender identity—it is about maximising the treatment of being the opposite of dominant. The SMGB does not want to actually become someone else, but to give something else. He wants to be used by his DSAM in terms that they are familiar with—feminine language. There is a reason why sissies always, 100% of the time, act dainty. Not all women are dainty. They specifically want to be a dainty woman for the sake of their DSAM’s enjoyment.
5. Identity Compensation Theory
This view holds that SMGB behaviour is an escape from self—rooted in shame, self-hatred, or fear of being seen. But SMGBs consistently report more self-awareness and psychological peace than they had before embracing their identity and role. They do not want to disappear, but to be used. Their surrender is not about hatred. It is about alignment with self. The case of the gimp in this context is especially fascinating and he will be discussed in the next chapter.
6. Obsessive or Masochistic Personality Traits
Lastly, some may try to frame the SMGB as mentally unwell—compulsive, self-harming, or personality-disordered. But this does not hold. The identity is not driven by intrusive thoughts or punishing compulsions. It is ritualised, joyful, and proactively chosen and followed.
II. The Case for the SMGB Model
Once these misconceptions are cleared away, we can see the real framework: not a list of what the SMGB is not, but a full picture of what he is.
1. Pre-Sexual, Pre-Cultural Onset
Many SMGBs report early memories of, once again, sniffing dirty socks and boxers, perhaps wanting to be hurt in the balls by other boys or held down, and a strong longing to be beneath a strong male figure—long before they understood sexuality, kink, or identity. This once again predates exposure (or at the very least, long-term exposure) to porn, BDSM culture via porn, or discourse in queer theory. It is not reactive. It is inherent.
2. Consistency Across Lifespan
Where most fetishes fade or evolve, SMGB behaviour only deepens with age. It matures, expands, and becomes more coherent and systematised. Rather than fading away, it integrates. It is stabilised by repetition.
3. Structure, Not Fragmentation
Trauma typically creates confusion, emotional chaos, and protective disassociation. SMGB wiring does the opposite. It creates ritual, hierarchy, predictability, and peace. What outsiders mistake for bullying is often, in fact, grounding.
4. Domino Theory (Epigenetic Formation)
As explored in Chapter Four, this framework proposes a chain-reaction model of how SMGB identity forms naturally over time:
– Absence of a strong, affirming father or masculine model. (Alternatively, a disconnect with strong masculinity as something Other.)
– Collapse of reproductive identification—the boy does not see himself as a future breeder, protector, or leader.
– Realisation that value must be earned through service.
– The first offering—he gives obedience or support to a dominant peer and feels peace.
– Neurochemical imprinting—masculine presence becomes emotionally regulating and spiritually euphoric.
– Full-circle return—he embraces his purpose and establishes himself as a bringer of offering to the dominant, asking, “Let me be kept.”
This sequence is not pathological. It follows the path of countless men in history who were systemically degraded but not discarded. He loves it.
III. Masculinity as Shelter, Not Fantasy
This framework aligns seamlessly with the Masculinity-as-Shelter model explored previously. The SMGB is not protected by birthright. He is not essential to survival. He does not command respect by default. And yet, he is kept—because he offers.
Conclusion: The SMGB’s Purpose-Oriented Design
When all evidence is examined, only one framework explains it all.
– The early onset of behaviours
– Their persistence across time
– Their neurological stability
– Their ritual nature
– Their emotional clarity
– Their survival logic
– Their spiritual depth
This is not fetish we are looking at, but psychosexual blueprint.
This sequence is not pathological. It follows the path of countless men in history who were systemically degraded but not discarded. He loves it.
III. Masculinity as Shelter, Not Fantasy
This framework aligns seamlessly with the Masculinity-as-Shelter model explored previously. The SMGB is not protected by birthright. He is not essential to survival. He does not command respect by default. And yet, he is kept—because he offers.
Conclusion: The SMGB’s Purpose-Oriented Design
When all evidence is examined, only one framework explains it all.
– The early onset of behaviours
– Their persistence across time
– Their neurological stability
– Their ritual nature
– Their emotional clarity
– Their survival logic
– Their spiritual depth
This is not fetish we are looking at, but psychosexual blueprint.
CHAPTER SEVEN
Having now established both the neurological and evolutionary foundations of the Subservient and Masochistic Gay Beta Male, we may now turn to the lived reality of the SMGB.
Who are SMGBs expressively? Not in theory, but in practice. Well, there are multiple subcategories of SMGBs, and a particular individual may find themselves belonging to one of more of these subcategories.
This chapter explores the internal typology of the SMGB identity and introduces a structured vocabulary for understanding how different SMGBs offer themselves to their Dominant and Sadistic Alpha Males. The precision of this language allows for clarity, consent, and deeper fulfilment within the DSAM–SMGB dynamic. It’s absolutely vital for the dynamic to be able to be navigated.
Not all submission is the same. SMGBs are not simply “subs” in a broad, generic sense. They each carry distinct psychosexual profiles—core blueprints that drive how they submit, what they respond to, and where their fulfillment lies. Those who are similar enough in key components form groupings together. These enduring orientations can be called subcategories or identity clusters. Each reflects a stable configuration of:
• Sensory triggers
• Core desires
• Forms of offering
• Emotional response
• Relational structure
By contrast, states—terminology like slave, loser, wallet, or hole—are temporary roles or degrading labels that express a moment of submission. They are not identities. They are conditions that amplify or deepen the dynamic, but they do not define the SMGB’s type. What is a “loser” other than someone who is momentarily labelled as such within a unique set of circumstances? A cashfag is a cashfag no matter what amount of money he tributes and no matter who the money is going to. A footfag may be called a “slave” during a session—but isn’t one when he is at work the next time. Yet he is still a footfag, because a coworker taking off his shoes would be guaranteed to affect him internally. A cashfag may be called a “loser” when sending money, because his proactive depletion of resources can allow him to be described as a loser, but if he helps an old lady cross the street the next day? That’s no loser—yet still a cashfag. And a gimp may be used as a “hole” for sexual purposes, but that might be a one-time event and the remainder of his time with his DSAM just sees him on display as a decoration in the room throughout the years—always a gimp but only momentarily a hole.
So, “slave,” “loser,” or “hole” are not fixed blueprints. They are states of being beneath—language of momentary placement rather than essence. Truly understanding this distinction allows for precision. And in a hierarchical relationship, precision is very important.
Each subcategory within the SMGB framework that will now be discussed represents a distinct design of service. They are not costumes or kinks. They are identities. They define how the SMGB submits, what he craves, and how he finds peace.
1. The Footfag
The footfag worships the feet of dominant men as sacred sites of masculine grounding and filth. The smell of socks, the texture of soles, the warmth of used sneakers—these are not just fetishes. They are sacraments. The footfag’s early memories often involve smelling the insides of shoes, wanting to be beneath a boy’s step, or wanting to be kicked by him.
A footfag might be found secretly sucking on his friends’ used socks, or secretly kissing his friends’ shoes. He sees men in sandals or flip flops and wants nothing more than to get down to the floor and kiss their feet, but he continues walking, trying to act normal. If his friend told him that he could kiss and suck on his toes, he would be elated. He would pay good money to kiss feet, and he probably has. The idea of being stepped on or to have feet rested on his face is an idea of total inner peace and belonging. And whereas the idea of sexual service can be met with varying degrees of excitement from heterosexual DSAMs, many of them can still rest their bare feet on the face of an SMGB and happily take $50 for it from just that—doing almost nothing. They could charge more for the privilege to kiss the feet as opposed to just having them rested on the SMGB like a footstool. The ball is in their court because they have the feet that footfags are after. “Foot stuff”, as non-participants mockingly call it, is all about power. The DSAM’s lowest part is the SMGB’s highest altar. “Back in the day”, he might have been a king’s happy footwasher or foot masseuse, in addition to perhaps holding the king’s wine glass for him next to the throne.
2. The Cashfag
A cashfag offers money as his central act of devotion. For him, financial domination is not a kink—it is a form of spiritual tithe. Giving is everything. To have his money taken is to feel inner peace.
He is not paying for attention. He will, more likely than not, never get to see his cashmaster in custom videos or pictures. All he sees is public posts and private text messages and that distant engagement is enough for him to enjoy giving up money to the cashmaster. Any personal attention that he gets is met with indescribable joy, because it’s rare. He wants the feeling of getting to be “just a wallet”. He needs it, and so he sends tributes. His tributes affirm the hierarchy that he knows he is positioned in. A cashmaster will say that he deserves every last cent of the paypig’s bank account balance, and the cashfag will say “Yes, Sir”, “That’s right, Sir”, or “I know, Sir”. There is a game that the cashfag must play whereby he sends to cashmasters but keeps enough to live on. It is a dance.
Now is a great time to explore how the subcategories of SMGBs can very often overlap, even if their individual natures—feet versus money— are distinct in flavour. A cashfag might be enticed to send to his cashmaster because he is also a footfag and the cashmaster takes nice photos of his soles. This is an individual who is both a cashfag and footfag, equally. And yet another cashfag might just want to see strong muscles and be totally uninterested in feet—being just a cashpig, but not a footfag. The purpose of this chapter in breaking apart such subcategories and describing their natures is not to exclude any individual from being more than one. It’s just to describe the natures of each subcategory as can be importantly attributable to SMGBs.
Here is an example of a typical evening of a cashfag when engaging with a DSAM who is a “cashmaster”. The cashfag was myself.
TESTIMONIAL 1
A DSAM on Twitter/X told me to send $50 to him, and thank him, and I did wholeheartedly. Then he told me to send $20 more, and I told him that I couldn’t afford to, and had tributed everything I could afford to tribute to him for the night. He demanded further, simply, “You’ll send me $20 more right now and thank me.” I immediately got hard from it, and even though I didn’t want to send it to him, I did, and he called me a “Good fag.” Then I went on his main Twitter/X page and he posted saying how he takes our hard-earned cash that we need, and he doesn’t, and that he just spends it on endless stupid things he doesn’t need. I immediately asked a DSAM of mine for permission to jerk off and, with permission, I immediately orgasmed to the vivid thought of what happened that evening with the cashmaster.
3. The Gimp
The gimp seeks total and complete objectification through physical restriction and depersonalisation. He wants to be bound, hooded, silenced, immobilised. His deepest submission comes through disappearance. He wants to be not a man, but a thing. An immobile body to be positioned, used, and even forgotten.
An example of a gimp’s ideal session with a DSAM might be that the DSAM restraints him tightly with handcuffs, chains, leather or rubber (hence the term “rubber gimp”) outfits that make him totally immobile, and then places a bunch of very dirty underwear by his nose, places headphones on him that force him to listen to hypnosis audio files, and walk out of the room to leave him there for hours. The gimp could not be happier.
4. The Sissy
The sissy adopts feminised presentation—makeup, lingerie, heels—not from gender dysphoria, but to amplify his submission. He becomes the opposite of the DSAM: soft, vulnerable, ridiculous. He says: “I am truly not a woman—but I will become a silhouette of one for you.” He hopes to be even more pleasing to his perhaps heterosexual DSAM by taking on a form that would be sexually familiar to him.
5. The Pup
The pup is joyful and eager to obey. In his internal world, he craves praise, structure, and rules. He wags, barks, and begs. His goal is to be a “good boy”. The language of “good boy” is not used exclusively for pups, but for all SMGBs. The pup serves with joy, loyalty, and tail-wagging enthusiasm. He wants to be pet, commanded what to do, scratched and praised, and make his DSAM proud and satisfied. Pup play is a modern invention, but what it intends to express is ancient. This particular sort of SMGB has always been here, but its modern iteration of iconography like that of dogs, wolves, cats, and foxes, and other similar pet-like creatures (not that foxes are pet-like, but they are compared to rhinos) gives meaningful expression for the pup. Not all furries are pups. This book is only describing the pup as he appears within the SMGB landscape, not in a mascot-like costume, but with his gear–leather pup mask, tail butt plug, floor crawling, and all.
6. The Sex Toy
The sex toy wants to be used as holes without the significance of his individual identity. He is “just a hole.” The previously described pup needs to be seen for his identity as a pup. The sex toy wants to be like a literal toy one could buy in a sex shop— a self-sucking fleshlight that cleans up and has more than one hole available for pleasure. He exists to be entered by his DSAM. He wants nothing more than to be aggressively manhandled and throatfucked and called a “Good bitch” at the same time. He wants to be flipped around and for his butt to be conquered. His pleasure is in total objectification as a sex object—a free whore. In being reduced to nothing but holes, he gets everything he wants.
7. The Gooner
A gooner is an SMGB consistently entranced by edging his penis, repetition, and coinciding prolonged exposure to masculine imagery. He melts. He falls away. He becomes just a penis, pumping up and down, his hand never stopping. Porn is everything to him, and he wants to stick his tongue out, slobber, roll his eyes back, make funny faces, and completely lose himself in the goon. To say that he is prime for use by DSAM is an understatement—he is mindless and “stoopid”—a DSAM can walk up to him and take what he wants.
8. The Task Fag
A task fag is an SMGB who finds honour in doing complex tasks for his DSAM, which can include helping him with schoolwork, writing emails for him, going out and buying groceries for him, grooming his nails, doing his laundry or his dishes, cleaning all of his shoes, and similar tasks that the DSAM does not want to do himself.
____
Although perhaps irrelevant for the context of this book, I myself am a sex toy, footfag, cashfag, gooner, and a gimp, but not a sissy or a pup. So DSAMs can feel free to use me in so many ways in my capacity as a sex toy, footfag, cashfag, gooner, and gimp. But if they want me to put on a pup mask, they will have to look elsewhere. I offer my own description as an example.
____
Each of these subcategories is not a style. It is a design. It shows DSAMs what is on the table and what is not. But knowing an SMGB’s type is not about limiting possibility—it is about clarifying purpose.
An SMGB who is both a gooner and a gimp is neurologically designed for scenes like being bound with porn playing in front of for him for hours. It is not just about what makes him happy. It’s about what he was neurologically wired for. Unlike me, he looks at men in flip flops and doesn’t think anything of it. But bind him up, play endless porn, and put a device on his penis that forces consecutive masturbation over and over, and he is properly at home. I could be made to do that, but that inner sense of home would not be accessible unlike if a man rested his feet on my face—that, to me, would be home.
The above categories are, above all else, practical categories.
For the DSAM, understanding an SMGB’s type allows him to command with precision:
• He avoids misfires.
• He deepens the hierarchy correctly.
• He knows when to take money, when to ignore, when to praise, when to degrade and how to.
And for the SMGB, naming his type gives him clarity:
• He knows what fulfills him.
• He can communicate without disrupting hierarchy.
• He avoids being harmed by misaligned orders.
This language creates the space for consent within domination—and structure within submission.
The SMGB feels a moral responsibility to offer his submission. This is especially true when paired with a suitable DSAM. It is about honouring the rarity of such a bond.
For when two people are made to complement one another—one to serve, the other to be served—failing to act on that symbiotic union feels wrong. The cashfag wants to give his money to DSAMs and to encounter a DSAM and to not give his money produces an empty feeling.
This weight of responsibility is further inforced by the way the DSAM treats the SMGB: asserting dominance, yes, but doing so with structure, attention, and a consistent recognition of the SMGB’s subcategories and humanity. The DSAM carries a responsibility of his own—to use well, to honour structure, and to preserve the balance of dominating without the cruel betrayal of boundaries. This is conducive to a relationship whereby the DSAM can take control over so much of his SMGB’s inner world, even if they do not live together. In this light, even masturbation for the SMGB is not supposed to be a private act.
Orgasming, when uncommanded, implies self-ownership. But for an SMGB, his sexuality does not belong to him—it belongs to the DSAM. Even if the fantasy imagined and indulged during the masturbation is of serving or being dominated, the very act of releasing seed without permission from a DSAM is, in itself, a violation of his internal structure. The only honourable masturbation is that which is explicitly commanded by a DSAM. Otherwise, the SMGB’s proper place is denial and surrender. Anything else is nothing short of embarrassing, as the SMGB, who has no reason to orgasm at all, is through the act pretending to be a non-SMGB and doing something intimate whereby he is lying to himself.
To be sure, any SMGB reading this right now might wonder what to do about their next orgasm. The answer is very simple. In whatever way you can, seek out DSAMs, even online, and ask them to please be in charge of all your future orgasms. Some might come with styles of domination that you cannot receive such as setting conditions around your orgasms that make you feel pressured or that seem unattainable. In that event, simply keep seeking out the exact right DSAM who is willing to be in charge of all of your future orgasms in a matter that makes sense for you in where you are in your life. Many DSAMs would be happy to take control of this and, in this very simple way, you will get to be in alignment with your nature. Very simple and so deeply rewarding. Then, when you do have permission from him to orgasm, it is always better than any orgasm you could possibly imagine. In adolescence, nearly every single session of masturbation was likely to the vivid fantasy of being aggressively used or to the vivid memory of having been used in the past. That tendency can be (and should be) honoured.
____
Each of these subcategories is not a style. It is a design. It shows DSAMs what is on the table and what is not. But knowing an SMGB’s type is not about limiting possibility—it is about clarifying purpose.
An SMGB who is both a gooner and a gimp is neurologically designed for scenes like being bound with porn playing in front of for him for hours. It is not just about what makes him happy. It’s about what he was neurologically wired for. Unlike me, he looks at men in flip flops and doesn’t think anything of it. But bind him up, play endless porn, and put a device on his penis that forces consecutive masturbation over and over, and he is properly at home. I could be made to do that, but that inner sense of home would not be accessible unlike if a man rested his feet on my face—that, to me, would be home.
The above categories are, above all else, practical categories.
For the DSAM, understanding an SMGB’s type allows him to command with precision:
• He avoids misfires.
• He deepens the hierarchy correctly.
• He knows when to take money, when to ignore, when to praise, when to degrade and how to.
And for the SMGB, naming his type gives him clarity:
• He knows what fulfills him.
• He can communicate without disrupting hierarchy.
• He avoids being harmed by misaligned orders.
This language creates the space for consent within domination—and structure within submission.
The SMGB feels a moral responsibility to offer his submission. This is especially true when paired with a suitable DSAM. It is about honouring the rarity of such a bond.
For when two people are made to complement one another—one to serve, the other to be served—failing to act on that symbiotic union feels wrong. The cashfag wants to give his money to DSAMs and to encounter a DSAM and to not give his money produces an empty feeling.
This weight of responsibility is further inforced by the way the DSAM treats the SMGB: asserting dominance, yes, but doing so with structure, attention, and a consistent recognition of the SMGB’s subcategories and humanity. The DSAM carries a responsibility of his own—to use well, to honour structure, and to preserve the balance of dominating without the cruel betrayal of boundaries. This is conducive to a relationship whereby the DSAM can take control over so much of his SMGB’s inner world, even if they do not live together. In this light, even masturbation for the SMGB is not supposed to be a private act.
Orgasming, when uncommanded, implies self-ownership. But for an SMGB, his sexuality does not belong to him—it belongs to the DSAM. Even if the fantasy imagined and indulged during the masturbation is of serving or being dominated, the very act of releasing seed without permission from a DSAM is, in itself, a violation of his internal structure. The only honourable masturbation is that which is explicitly commanded by a DSAM. Otherwise, the SMGB’s proper place is denial and surrender. Anything else is nothing short of embarrassing, as the SMGB, who has no reason to orgasm at all, is through the act pretending to be a non-SMGB and doing something intimate whereby he is lying to himself.
To be sure, any SMGB reading this right now might wonder what to do about their next orgasm. The answer is very simple. In whatever way you can, seek out DSAMs, even online, and ask them to please be in charge of all your future orgasms. Some might come with styles of domination that you cannot receive such as setting conditions around your orgasms that make you feel pressured or that seem unattainable. In that event, simply keep seeking out the exact right DSAM who is willing to be in charge of all of your future orgasms in a matter that makes sense for you in where you are in your life. Many DSAMs would be happy to take control of this and, in this very simple way, you will get to be in alignment with your nature. Very simple and so deeply rewarding. Then, when you do have permission from him to orgasm, it is always better than any orgasm you could possibly imagine. In adolescence, nearly every single session of masturbation was likely to the vivid fantasy of being aggressively used or to the vivid memory of having been used in the past. That tendency can be (and should be) honoured.
CHAPTER EIGHT
Just as an SMGB is formed through a longing for recognition and consequential utility, the DSAM is formed through affirmation. I will admit that this chapter is purely my speculation, until the two detailed testimonials, since I am not a DSAM and therefore don’t have that lived experience. But this is what seems to me to be most likely the case.
The DSAM would likely have been raised by a strong father who modeled command, not anxiety. A mother who nurtured and praised him. He learned from both parents that his existence was valuable—not for submission, but for leadership. From his father, he threw around the football—giving the permission to be exact and aggressive and powerful. From his mother, he received freshly baked cookies brought out to their football-tossing—the recognition that his presence is loved and nurtured.
Now these cliché scenes of a football and freshly baked cookies are just the imaginative tool used, they are not the point.
The point is the clarity that the DSAM always got in his upbringing from both parents that his masculinity is valued and deeply important. He is brought up to not analyse his dominance, but simply live it. He is not told to shrink. He is not asked to explain. He is not made to feel dangerous for wanting space, obedience, or to simply command attention.
He learns:
• That his voice should be heard.
• That his needs should be met.
• That his presence should be respected.
He becomes a man who expects the world to orbit around him because he was never taught to doubt that it should. This forms a strong leader primed for social governance, even on the smallest scale like a friend group.
Today, Western society tries to soften dominance. It reframes strength as threat. It warns men not to assume too much space. But the DSAM does not absorb this message. He walks into a room and instinctively finds the seat with the best view. He spreads his legs, leans back, lets others adjust around him. He exists without apology. He is strong in himself. If he is worshipped, he does not flinch. He is a quiet king. When someone kneels before him, he does not wonder why. He comes to expect it. He learns that it is a given that he will be worshipped, both by women and by SMGBs, both in very different ways. When the DSAM encounters a new SMGB, something powerful and ancient stirs. The dynamic is not planned. It is revealed. He does not need a submissive—but when one appears, he knows exactly what to do. He sees that he can take without apology. He allows worship to take place—not just passively, but with explicit permission.
I will now explain, in this light, the first time that a DSAM used me. The main focus, I suppose, should be his confident assumption of being serviced. It opened up so much within me.
TESTIMONIAL 2
It was when I was in high school. I was fortunate enough to be shown by a straight classmate that I am an SMGB. I was the new kid at school since I transferred there. My DSAM approached me and we quickly connected as friends. In our first one-on-one conversation just chilling outside, he told me out of nowhere that he could tell that I’m gay, which I confirmed for him. “Yeah, I could tell. You’re so gay, bro.”
At the end of that very same week, Friday, he invited me over to his house. He took me up to the top of his building’s stairwell where there are no cameras. He told me “I know you wanna suck it. It’s alright, I’ll let you suck it.” He was completely and totally right. And he said it with such confidence and authority, simply stating a fact that he knew, and letting me know that he is willing to give me the space to worship him and please him. So I immediately blew him for the first time.
He told me after that he has another gay guy in the building and he texts him to come to the top of the stairwell every time he wants his mouth. He is totally 100% heterosexual and his heterosexuality always shined brightly even while his cock was getting worshipped by me.
What I mean is that he would always ignore me and that other gay guy while we blew him and he’d just watch straight porn on his phone until he came. If he ever saw our faces, he’d get turned off and need a break. He just wanted to get sucked well by his faggots while watching tits and blowjob vids with women. He just wanted the sensation of a hole on his body and his imagination would allow it to happen for his pleasure. And we continued being friends with my serving him becoming a large part of the very foundation to our friendship. For since that first day of me blowing him, for the next six entire years I was his on-call fleshlight whenever a hookup with a girl cancelled and he still wanted to get off. One time, he had just fucked a vagina a few hours before but was still horny (and hadn’t showered in between). I was just happy to be with him and worship his body.
I was also his constant cashfag for all those years and he would just walk up to me and say how much he needed. We were very close friends and would hang out all the time together and laugh together and everyone saw how close we were, but no one knew that I was his SMGB in addition to his best friend.
This DSAM did not need to be trained in dominance. He embodied it. He knew as he led me up to the top of his stairwell that he would be getting a blowjob. And he knew it for a fact without needing to force anything—just simply creating the space for it and giving permission for it.
And here is again another example, from years later. I was living in a dormitory and an acknowledgement of Hierarchy presented itself between my roommate and I. It showcases how Hierarchy can be known for the sake of it being known, even without being acted upon.
TESTIMONIAL 3
At first we were just roommates in a dormitory, and it was just typical guys living together in dorm life. All perfectly typical. Then, as a joke, my straight roommate mooned our third roommate, who is one of his best friends, but it happened directly in front of me so that I saw everything. It was just straight guys playing around. He mooned his also straight friend, and his friend went and slapped his bare butt in retaliation. It was just a bit of fun.
But afterwards I told him that it would be best for us as roommates if he didn’t do things like that in the future, because I am gay– he did that to his friend thinking that everyone in the room was straight. I wanted him to be in the know, so that he doesn’t increasingly do things of that sort and then later find out that I was gay the whole time. He told me that he understood.
But something changed that very night. He immediately started to sleep much further down on his mattress, and given the layout of our room, he moved down on his mattress to sleep such that it would be that his feet would be just a few inches away from my face. This had never happened before.
But now, suddenly, after I came out to him, he, that very night, started sleeping this way with his feet unnaturally directly in my face, and he never stopped. Truly every single night from then on, he would sleep unnaturally far down on his mattress with his feet right in my face–always bare, always beautiful.
And during the day, while chilling on his bed and me on mine, he would constantly wiggle his toes around—so much that it was obvious what he was doing. He would never wiggle his toes, even once any other time, but specifically when they were kept a few inches away from my face, he would always endlessly wiggle his toes while he read a book or scrolled on his phone. It was him teasing.
The dynamic changed where he became even just a little bit more assertive about things that he wanted done in the room, knowing that I would comply.
Significantly, one time he wanted to know what brand of shorts I was wearing. Instead of asking me, he simply grabbed onto my hips tightly, maneuvered me around with his hands gripped on me, checked my shorts tag, and then let go of me and moved on without apologising or anything, as if he had a right to my body. Because he did and he knew it. The act of wanting to know what brand of shorts someone is wearing and grabbing onto them and manoeuvring them to see for yourself and then walking away without saying anything is not something typically done he had tested a theory that first night when he slept with his feet in my face—he was checking to see if I would say anything, or flip my pillow to the other side of the bed, or take some sort of action at all, but as he intentionally put them right in my face and kept doing that every night, and as I never fought back…. and how he could probably tell that I enjoyed his teasing while he wiggled his toes in my face, nothing else needed to be said at all. We never had to have an explicit conversation about our dynamic within the Hierarchy as DSAMs and SMGBs. He knew who he was to me and I knew what I was to him. So when he wanted to check what shorts I was wearing, he knew that he could just simply grab me and check and then move on like nothing.
But he never once used me. He never once had me give him a blowjob, he never once had me take off his shoes for him, he never once ordered me to get snacks to bring to him. None of it. It was a case of us simply knowing our place with respect to one another in the Hierarchy, and that being enough. When he left the dormitory for good, I asked him why he had gone, and he told me that “There were things that were…. distracting…” He intentionally paused and then slowly said that word distracting, making it very clear that I was meant to understand what he meant by it.
How could he call anything distracting when he had spent endless hours wiggling his toes in front of my face? He saw himself doing it, with his feet and my face together in his full view. Even just to your average person, that would be very… distracting…
Knowing him as a friend and roommate, it was indeed completely clear what he meant. I knew that he was in the mindset of dating for the purpose of marriage, and was looking ahead towards a religious life with a wife and kids. I believe wholeheartedly that he was expressing that I was an easy outlet for quick pleasure, but that he had to remove himself so as to stay focused on his goals and becoming the sort of man that he wanted to become. I am not saying that I was the entire reason why he left the dormitory. He also left the program we were on for other reasons. But the fact that he explained it to me this way tells me that he wanted to focus on his future as a father and not take advantage of the opportunities I presented. To just order blowjobs out of me. Knowing him as a friend and as a roommate, and the way that he said it, I really believe that this is what he was expressing. And I greatly respect him for that strength. It deserves great applause.
Across both of these men, one who explicitly used me and one who simply flirted with the acknowledgement of Hierarchy, both of these men clearly understood their roles and what I could be for them. There are so many other DSAMs in my history that I would love to get into, but these two, for the purposes of exploration, will do. When an SMGB offers himself—his mouth, his money, his time—the DSAM feels no guilt. Usually not even hesitation. He receives happily and easily because the world to him just makes more sense that way. There is no formal contract between DSAM and SMGB. There is no instruction manual. It is purely sacred magnetism.
Just as an SMGB is formed through a longing for recognition and consequential utility, the DSAM is formed through affirmation. I will admit that this chapter is purely my speculation, until the two detailed testimonials, since I am not a DSAM and therefore don’t have that lived experience. But this is what seems to me to be most likely the case.
The DSAM would likely have been raised by a strong father who modeled command, not anxiety. A mother who nurtured and praised him. He learned from both parents that his existence was valuable—not for submission, but for leadership. From his father, he threw around the football—giving the permission to be exact and aggressive and powerful. From his mother, he received freshly baked cookies brought out to their football-tossing—the recognition that his presence is loved and nurtured.
Now these cliché scenes of a football and freshly baked cookies are just the imaginative tool used, they are not the point.
The point is the clarity that the DSAM always got in his upbringing from both parents that his masculinity is valued and deeply important. He is brought up to not analyse his dominance, but simply live it. He is not told to shrink. He is not asked to explain. He is not made to feel dangerous for wanting space, obedience, or to simply command attention.
He learns:
• That his voice should be heard.
• That his needs should be met.
• That his presence should be respected.
He becomes a man who expects the world to orbit around him because he was never taught to doubt that it should. This forms a strong leader primed for social governance, even on the smallest scale like a friend group.
Today, Western society tries to soften dominance. It reframes strength as threat. It warns men not to assume too much space. But the DSAM does not absorb this message. He walks into a room and instinctively finds the seat with the best view. He spreads his legs, leans back, lets others adjust around him. He exists without apology. He is strong in himself. If he is worshipped, he does not flinch. He is a quiet king. When someone kneels before him, he does not wonder why. He comes to expect it. He learns that it is a given that he will be worshipped, both by women and by SMGBs, both in very different ways. When the DSAM encounters a new SMGB, something powerful and ancient stirs. The dynamic is not planned. It is revealed. He does not need a submissive—but when one appears, he knows exactly what to do. He sees that he can take without apology. He allows worship to take place—not just passively, but with explicit permission.
I will now explain, in this light, the first time that a DSAM used me. The main focus, I suppose, should be his confident assumption of being serviced. It opened up so much within me.
TESTIMONIAL 2
It was when I was in high school. I was fortunate enough to be shown by a straight classmate that I am an SMGB. I was the new kid at school since I transferred there. My DSAM approached me and we quickly connected as friends. In our first one-on-one conversation just chilling outside, he told me out of nowhere that he could tell that I’m gay, which I confirmed for him. “Yeah, I could tell. You’re so gay, bro.”
At the end of that very same week, Friday, he invited me over to his house. He took me up to the top of his building’s stairwell where there are no cameras. He told me “I know you wanna suck it. It’s alright, I’ll let you suck it.” He was completely and totally right. And he said it with such confidence and authority, simply stating a fact that he knew, and letting me know that he is willing to give me the space to worship him and please him. So I immediately blew him for the first time.
He told me after that he has another gay guy in the building and he texts him to come to the top of the stairwell every time he wants his mouth. He is totally 100% heterosexual and his heterosexuality always shined brightly even while his cock was getting worshipped by me.
What I mean is that he would always ignore me and that other gay guy while we blew him and he’d just watch straight porn on his phone until he came. If he ever saw our faces, he’d get turned off and need a break. He just wanted to get sucked well by his faggots while watching tits and blowjob vids with women. He just wanted the sensation of a hole on his body and his imagination would allow it to happen for his pleasure. And we continued being friends with my serving him becoming a large part of the very foundation to our friendship. For since that first day of me blowing him, for the next six entire years I was his on-call fleshlight whenever a hookup with a girl cancelled and he still wanted to get off. One time, he had just fucked a vagina a few hours before but was still horny (and hadn’t showered in between). I was just happy to be with him and worship his body.
I was also his constant cashfag for all those years and he would just walk up to me and say how much he needed. We were very close friends and would hang out all the time together and laugh together and everyone saw how close we were, but no one knew that I was his SMGB in addition to his best friend.
This DSAM did not need to be trained in dominance. He embodied it. He knew as he led me up to the top of his stairwell that he would be getting a blowjob. And he knew it for a fact without needing to force anything—just simply creating the space for it and giving permission for it.
And here is again another example, from years later. I was living in a dormitory and an acknowledgement of Hierarchy presented itself between my roommate and I. It showcases how Hierarchy can be known for the sake of it being known, even without being acted upon.
TESTIMONIAL 3
At first we were just roommates in a dormitory, and it was just typical guys living together in dorm life. All perfectly typical. Then, as a joke, my straight roommate mooned our third roommate, who is one of his best friends, but it happened directly in front of me so that I saw everything. It was just straight guys playing around. He mooned his also straight friend, and his friend went and slapped his bare butt in retaliation. It was just a bit of fun.
But afterwards I told him that it would be best for us as roommates if he didn’t do things like that in the future, because I am gay– he did that to his friend thinking that everyone in the room was straight. I wanted him to be in the know, so that he doesn’t increasingly do things of that sort and then later find out that I was gay the whole time. He told me that he understood.
But something changed that very night. He immediately started to sleep much further down on his mattress, and given the layout of our room, he moved down on his mattress to sleep such that it would be that his feet would be just a few inches away from my face. This had never happened before.
But now, suddenly, after I came out to him, he, that very night, started sleeping this way with his feet unnaturally directly in my face, and he never stopped. Truly every single night from then on, he would sleep unnaturally far down on his mattress with his feet right in my face–always bare, always beautiful.
And during the day, while chilling on his bed and me on mine, he would constantly wiggle his toes around—so much that it was obvious what he was doing. He would never wiggle his toes, even once any other time, but specifically when they were kept a few inches away from my face, he would always endlessly wiggle his toes while he read a book or scrolled on his phone. It was him teasing.
The dynamic changed where he became even just a little bit more assertive about things that he wanted done in the room, knowing that I would comply.
Significantly, one time he wanted to know what brand of shorts I was wearing. Instead of asking me, he simply grabbed onto my hips tightly, maneuvered me around with his hands gripped on me, checked my shorts tag, and then let go of me and moved on without apologising or anything, as if he had a right to my body. Because he did and he knew it. The act of wanting to know what brand of shorts someone is wearing and grabbing onto them and manoeuvring them to see for yourself and then walking away without saying anything is not something typically done he had tested a theory that first night when he slept with his feet in my face—he was checking to see if I would say anything, or flip my pillow to the other side of the bed, or take some sort of action at all, but as he intentionally put them right in my face and kept doing that every night, and as I never fought back…. and how he could probably tell that I enjoyed his teasing while he wiggled his toes in my face, nothing else needed to be said at all. We never had to have an explicit conversation about our dynamic within the Hierarchy as DSAMs and SMGBs. He knew who he was to me and I knew what I was to him. So when he wanted to check what shorts I was wearing, he knew that he could just simply grab me and check and then move on like nothing.
But he never once used me. He never once had me give him a blowjob, he never once had me take off his shoes for him, he never once ordered me to get snacks to bring to him. None of it. It was a case of us simply knowing our place with respect to one another in the Hierarchy, and that being enough. When he left the dormitory for good, I asked him why he had gone, and he told me that “There were things that were…. distracting…” He intentionally paused and then slowly said that word distracting, making it very clear that I was meant to understand what he meant by it.
How could he call anything distracting when he had spent endless hours wiggling his toes in front of my face? He saw himself doing it, with his feet and my face together in his full view. Even just to your average person, that would be very… distracting…
Knowing him as a friend and roommate, it was indeed completely clear what he meant. I knew that he was in the mindset of dating for the purpose of marriage, and was looking ahead towards a religious life with a wife and kids. I believe wholeheartedly that he was expressing that I was an easy outlet for quick pleasure, but that he had to remove himself so as to stay focused on his goals and becoming the sort of man that he wanted to become. I am not saying that I was the entire reason why he left the dormitory. He also left the program we were on for other reasons. But the fact that he explained it to me this way tells me that he wanted to focus on his future as a father and not take advantage of the opportunities I presented. To just order blowjobs out of me. Knowing him as a friend and as a roommate, and the way that he said it, I really believe that this is what he was expressing. And I greatly respect him for that strength. It deserves great applause.
Across both of these men, one who explicitly used me and one who simply flirted with the acknowledgement of Hierarchy, both of these men clearly understood their roles and what I could be for them. There are so many other DSAMs in my history that I would love to get into, but these two, for the purposes of exploration, will do. When an SMGB offers himself—his mouth, his money, his time—the DSAM feels no guilt. Usually not even hesitation. He receives happily and easily because the world to him just makes more sense that way. There is no formal contract between DSAM and SMGB. There is no instruction manual. It is purely sacred magnetism.
CHAPTER NINE
This entire chapter is going to be devoted to a phenomenon that I call “gooner brain-melt”, or just “GBM”.
There comes a point in every SMGB’s life when he begins melting into submission in a new and profound way, through a psychological mechanism wired into his mind as a toolset for success as an SMGB. Our brains don’t just tell us that we are SMGBs, but also provide things—gifts—that are conducive to a successful life in such a role. This is comparable to how humans as builders were given the opposable thumbs of primates, a gift for our creative and inventive natures as builders and organisers.
The gift that SMGBs brains are given in this capacity is “gooner brain-melt”. It’s meant to purposefully sound silly and unintelligent. The identity evaporates. The name disappears. The edges dissolve. And what remains is only need for use and nothing else. Gooner brain-melt is a state of trance, erasure, and pure worship triggered by prolonged or intense exposure to masculine stimuli. Though it may seem like fantasy to the outsider, to the SMGB it is something else entirely: the moment when his mind and body finally catch up to the truth of what he is inside. It is a very real psychological phenomenon. It has been nicknamed by some “fag fog” after the terminology “brain fog”. I appreciate this nickname but myself prefer terminology which speaks directly to the act of melting. Here is how I journalled my invention of the terminology:
“The term I came up with for it is gooner brain-melt. When I’m scrolling through my Twitter/X feed and scrolling through picture after picture of the bare soles of DSAMs—which is the majority of my feed at this point as Twitter has come to know me better—at a certain point, or even almost immediately, my submissive pull to worship the feet gets my mind into a headspace where it feels like my brain melts and I lose all aspects of my own identity apart from toe-sucker and sole-licker. It feels like I’m drugged up, and it is just from seeing their feet.”
This is is a neurochemical trance. I enter a headspace that feels more real than reality.
In that space, an SMGB:
Is no longer a man.
Is no longer a name.
Is only wanting and waiting to be used.
Further on in my journalling,
“I get stuck there and can’t get out until I stop looking at the pictures and intentionally take deep breaths and think about other things and then I get myself back again. Even though it is a natural phenomenon as an SMGB, I do need to find ways to control it or get out of it for the sake of standard function in society. It is only when I am alone with a DSAM and I’m serving him that I can fully let this take over.”
The trance of gooner brain-melt, or “fag fog”, is not dangerous. It is devotional. It is powerful. It is home for an SMGB.
Why DSAMs Want Us There
To a DSAM, gooner brain-melt can be something sacred—and very useful. It is responsible for so much of the wealth that DSAMs as cashmasters have accumulated over many years. It is what they attempt to ignite when they tell us to “sink deeper and give in to who we really are”. Being told this by a DSAM triggers a somewhat light version of gooner brain-melt.
The DSAM is not interested in process. He is interested in function. And when the SMGB is in gooner brain-melt, he is at his most obedient, his most devotional—his most useful. DSAMs intentionally want their SMGBs to become fuzzy, melted, compliant wallets that send tributes on command that second, not able to think clearly.
It is a clever strategy, because in such a state an SMGB no longer resists, his thoughts slow, and his desire to serve becomes his only thought. A trance of total service and usefulness. And a DSAM can trigger it effortlessly—with a lifted foot. It is relief. And they are not wrong to utilise it, for it is the very reason why our brains as SMGBs have it in our psychological arsenal. When the DSAM tells us with confidence, “You were made to send me cash”, he’s not entirely off the mark. Sometimes entering gooner brain-melt is simply nicknamed “fagging out”.
Here is a testimonial detailing the first time that gooner brain-melt took over me so intensely in a public setting.
TESTIMONIAL 4
There was only ever one time when gooner brain-melt took over me (was ignited like an internal flame) while I was in public. I was living at a dormitory and I was in the hallway outside of my dorm room on my way there. In front of the room next to mine was a fellow student whose room it was. He was (strangely, if you ask me) sitting on the floor outside his room with his shoes and socks off on the floor. He was lightly massaging his feet but mostly letting them breathe. He told me that he had a really long day and needed to stretch out and let them get air. When I tell you that his feet were literally like size 14 and the most beautiful shape like they could easily be in modelling, or in findom spaces for that matter. Absolutely objectively gorgeous that even people not into feet would still admit that they are aesthetically gorgeous for feet. And he is a quiet guy and you never would expect that those are the feet he has. It doesn’t seem like it would be the case, but gosh are they huge and stunning.
So, once again, he told me that he had had a long day, and I couldn’t properly respond—I was just like “Bl-r-g-yeah.” and smiled at him in a friendly manner and went into my room, and once I was inside, I gave out a huge sigh and felt a bit faint.
If he had told me to worship his feet in any way that moment, I would be so caught between answering my true calling, and not wanting to do anything in public—it would have broken my mind and I would have just stood there stunned unable to think. But that didn’t happen.
So that was the only time gooner brain-melt took over me intensely in public.
The sight of the man’s bare feet—large, beautiful, unexpectedly stunning—ignited an uncontrollable trance. I could barely speak. Once inside my room, I felt faint. If that man had commanded me at that moment, I would have obeyed, overwhelmed by instinct and unable to properly process my own thoughts. For a lot of SMGBs, the masculine scent of musky pits is enough to send them right into GBM, which is why DSAMs mockingly sometimes call armpit stink “nature’s poppers”.
CHAPTER TEN
I know how all of this might sound to the average reader. I know what some might be tempted to believe about people like us, or about those who live this way. Yet this work details why those judgemental beliefs, though understandable, miss the point.
The title of this book is significant. “A Theory of Faggotry” is not a provocation or a joke. It is a reclaimation. It is the reclaiming of a word that was once hurled at many SMGBs before they had the language to describe who they were. For many, “faggot” was the first label ever attached to their submission—not in love or self-understanding, but in cruelty and mockery. Yet despite the pain, it struck an emotional chord. Truth. What was meant to humiliate became a mirror. What was meant to scar became structure. And so the word “faggot” can be worn with pride.
Not all men are SMGBs. And not all men are DSAMs. But for those who are, this book does not offer fantasy or fetish. It offers recognition. I say to the reader: if you have lived this way, if you have longed for this order, if you have knelt not out of play but out of peace, or if you naturally find yourself attracting others who are explicitly submissive to you with little effort—then this is your language.
In this recognition, something settles. The SMGB brings his offering. The DSAM accepts it. The structure takes form. And the world, at least for them, begins to organise itself again—not chaotically, not through equality, but through ritual. Through command. Through worship. And now those who are (or who are worshipped by) SMGBs, and have wondered why the obsession with giving money away, with feet, with pup masks, or rubber suits? Why the desire to be kicked in the balls and express gratitude? Why does he keep giving me money when it financially hurts him? Now, as this book is processed and meditated on, all of the answers become clear and transparent.
When a friend walks in on their married friend having sex, the shame they feel isn’t because anything wrong was happening in that room before they walked in, but only because they were forced to witness something that was meant to concealed from the public eye. This couple might have several kids, so it’s not as though people do not know that they have sex, but their public persona is that of a couple that does not have sex, because their sexuality together is meant to be hidden. Likewise, if someone were to learn that a person close to them is an SMGB, their shame would not come from the truth of who he is—it would come from being confronted with it. That shame is real, but it lives in the one who discovers, not in the one who is discovered. He should not feel shame.
Finally, and most importantly, it must be said: none of what is described in this book holds any meaning without consent. The SMGB–DSAM dynamic, no matter how intense its language or how asymmetrical its structure, is only real—only sacred—when entered freely. Without consent, there is no ritual. Without willingness, there is no alignment. And without mutual recognition of role and purpose, there is no system—only abuse. The beauty of degradation in this framework lies not in its cruelty, but in its offering. It is the SMGB who brings himself forward, who kneels with intention, who says, “Use me,” and the DSAM who accepts that offering within the boundaries of mutual clarity. If either party oversteps that line—if service becomes coercion, or command becomes pure exploitation—the structure collapses. What survives in its place is not power, but violence. And that is not what this book describes. The most healing thing for a Subservient and Masochistic Gay Beta Male is to be in the arms of his Dominant and Sadistic Alpha Male and for the DSAM to affirm him explicitly that his place is under him—that he does not even need to practice his sadism, but that the acknowledgement of Hierarchy between them is enough. This sort of emotional care can bring SMGBs up to unimaginable heights. It is important.
I am not writing this for those who will never understand. I am writing this for the one who can read this book and finally exhale—for the first time. I am writing this for the boy who kneels in gratitude. I am writing this for the boy who admits that his place is rightfully beneath. I am writing this for myself and for you.
Now go.
