A Counter argument to the idea that "forced femme" fantasies are misogynistic

Anyone familiar with my femdom erotica knows "forced femme" isn't a recurring theme. I actually worried when my publisher mentioned on the back cover of my first novel, Courting Her, a scene where Kimberly has Alex clean her apartment in a girly apron. I worried because I didn't want to mislead fans of forced femme. The apron was just one Kimberly happened to find lying around and, like a lot of aprons, it had some flowers on it. The scene didn't have much of a forced femme dynamic. I find forced femme titillating, but it's not an aspect of D/s that comes up in my stories.

It surprised me to discover some women consider forced femme offensive. Because I'm not a woman, I thought very hard on those opinions, but the logic of the argument doesn't speak to me. I don't expect to convince any of them they're wrong, because I don't think they are wrong, I consider it a matter of personal opinion. I expressed as much and was told, essentially, that it's not a matter of opinion. I was told men who enjoy forced femme are misogynists, whether they know it or not.

I have a problem with someone else claiming to know what I think better than I know what I think. But my intention in posting about this subject isn't to argue with people who think differently from me. I'm posting this as a counter point to some of the posts I've found from dominant women. I know a lot of submissive men's first interaction with a real life, openly dominant woman is through these blogs. It can be pretty close to devastating to have a dominant woman tell a man who purports to esteem women that a fantasy he's been carrying around for years is "proof" that he actually hates women and just doesn't realize it.

The logic of the argument is hard for me to follow and so will be hard for me to summarize, but I guess the argument is that because being made to wear panties is humiliating for you, as a man, it must be because you feel like there is something despicable about being like the people, women, who normally wear panties. An analogy I've heard for this side of the argument is that it's like someone wearing black face and mocking African American people.

I thought of an analogy today, that I think works better. Two friends went to rival colleges. The two schools are comparable in every way. Neither friend truly believes his or her school is superior. Yet they brag about their respective alma maters. A big game comes up, and they decide on a wager. The graduate of the losing school has to wear the winning school's sweater out to a bar, buy a round, and toast the winning school. There is some playful humiliation in the loser having to toast the team he or she wished hadn't won.

Forced femme seems like that. We're talking about men who profess to love and revere women. But they aren't women, they're men. Men and women are different. Often those differences are what draws us to each other. Submissive men genuinely love women, they love them for those differences, but that doesn't erase the social influence that they aren't expected to do things mostly only women do, like sit when they pee, or wear panties. So when they submit to a dominant woman who "forces" them to wear women's panties, they don't feel humiliated because they're dressed like lowly women. They feel humiliated because they know they aren't women and are being made to wear something men, in typical society, don't wear.

To continue my analogy, there would possibly be some adamant fan of the winning school who would want nothing to do with a rival to his school wearing the clothes of his alma mater and toasting his school. That's fine. What I think wouldn't be fine would be if he told the winner of the bet that he must hate his school to let someone toast their school in jest. If someone finds that disrespectful, they're certainly entitled to not participate, but I think they're imposing their views if they tell others they should also find it disrespectful.