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.
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
The Subservient and Masochistic Gay Beta Male (SMGB) is a male with homosexual interest whose purpose and peace are found in serving, glorifying, and being degraded by men who are dominant over them. The SMGB’s submission is not a performance—it is an orientation. He desires hierarchy, ritual, humiliation, and loss of control—not as kinks, but as spiritual and emotional alignment. He finds euphoria in obeying masculine authority, in being financially or physically used, and in either worshiping or being degraded by masculine traits, manifested physically as sweat, armpits, feet, socks, or shoes. His fulfillment lies not in equality, but in utility and in getting to be beneath. He himself exists to be placed beneath, to be used, to be kept. And when he is not serving, he is not at peace.
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.
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.”
