Are Male Spankiees Less of a Man?

In that we agree.

"Real men" don't allow others to define manhood for them. They also don't eat quiche, but that's a whole different story.

Hey what's wrong with quiche? Lol.
The rest of your comment I totally agree with.

Quiche? Is that supposed to be pronounced "quickie"? If not I need to apologize to the waitress. RK

Apparently us submissive males are meant to eat lots of soy to keep us weak and because eating animals makes us cry. Well, we have a friend who keeps rare breed lambs and bits of unwanted tups tend to make their way into our freezer. They cost more than quiche, I'll admit.

I'm a submissive male, a bisexual, a veggie, a peace loving buddhist and I love quiche. Goodness, I feel so normal

I don't see any connection between your sexual preferences and which gender you define yourself as. You're a man no matter if you like to spank, be spanked or don't like spankings at all. Regarding the definition being more or less of a man because you're so certain of yourself that you can allow yourself to enjoy acting submissive in certain situations, I once saw an amusing thought on the theme of being a man. Why does the expression go "grow some balls"? Balls are tender, extremely sensitive and vulnerable. The expression should be "grow a pussy", because a vagina for certain can take a pounding like no balls can. It's just the current cultural-religious society view having been forced upon us that a man should act dominantly to be a "man". In other times, in other cultures, it has been different. We're fortunate to live in a reasonably free and open period in history, but there are still many traditions that prevents us from being who we are. So to say, no, they are not any less of a man. I admire men who recognize their desires and can act to fulfill them. Doing that is what makes you a real man, a strong and targeted man.

I wonder how the ancient Spartans would answer this question...

Glagla's expressive comment about "grow some balls" and about "cultural-religious society" got me thinking.
"Grow some balls" is a phrase that revolves around taking risks, and thereby being "courageous", and not about physical endurance to pain, although if you look at it sideways, it could suggest that too. Being courageous isn't about when you know you can win a fight, war, or the affection of a love interest. It's when you either think, or more importantly "know" you can't win. Who is the more practical, accommodating, stable sex? Women (you might knee jerk or say women are, historically, the more unstable sex, prone to histrionics and emotional bipolar, but who is it that cares more about the safety and security of the home (where children will abide)? The woman). Now, conversely, who is it that prompts a husband to "take a chance", or risk? The wife. There's probably something more to that, but I don't want to go down that road. The point is that men are risk takers. Having sensitive, tender, vulnerable genitalia outside the body seems to embody the idea that proves men are risk takers (otherwise they'd stay at home, forever protecting their sensitive, tender, vulnerable balls).

The next concept put forth is that "the current cultural-religious society view having been forced upon us that a man should act dominantly to be a 'man'." (might I mention I'm an atheist, and am only discussing religion from a cultural/historic point of view) This is interesting as mostly this typically revolves around judeo/christian presumptions. Presumptions because Christianity took root primarily in the Roman territories and after that took off like wildfire (it also took root in Greece (first), but that didn't spread as readily). This is important to note because the Romans were primarily a patriarchal society, whereas Judaism is actually a matriarchal society. In Hebrew, they don't consider God to be "the father" because God isn't a "he" (nor "she"), but a spirit (sort of. It's confusing and still hotly debated). This confuseled Romans who were used to Zeus being the "male god who ruled the roost of the heavens. For there to be a sexually ambiguous "god" turned early Roman Christians upside-down (humorous to me, as Ancient Rome was the primary place where sexual ambiguity was primary in culture (as well as homosexuality)). Regardless, the mother is the primary parent in Jewish culture, whereas the father and men are the primary person in Roman culture. A mental shift in religion was made to get early Romans to sign on to Judeo/christian beliefs, and thereby God became a male and all subsequent religious methodologies are male dominant.
Now, you might say Roman Mythology is still a religion, and thereby proving the concept that religious/social doctrine is what forces us to conceive males are supposed to be dominant, and therefore the constructs that society is based off of. If so, I'd let that go.

Anyways, thinking of Ancient Romans, got me thinking about Sparta. A lot of conjecture about Spartans are based on Athenian perceptions about Sparta, and Athens had a love/hate regard for Spartans. Regardless, arguably, the most "manly" culture from the ancient world would be Sparta, and Spartans were largely (the first?) equal society that gave equal if not more rights to women (women owned the house and men stayed there occasionally). So, and to weave this back to the topical discussion, given the "alpha" maleness of Spartan society, I was wondering how would they look upon of a male sexual submissive?

It's complete conjecture as Sparta (which is based on a woman's name) didn't keep documents and records of their social history.

I think they wouldn't look down on a man for being submissive to a woman in a sexual context, but they might look down on a man being submissive to another man.

For the record, I really take exception to human perception about the psychology about "alphas" as wolves are our basis about such perceptions, but the trouble is that Alpha (ironically, based on Greek letters) wolves don't go after beta wolves, but other alpha wolves. Beta wolves, go after beta wolves, and while they are secondary to the alphas, it has nothing to do with being submissive by nature, as beta wolves run the pack while the alphas are out patrolling.

So I guess the question really should be, is a male submissive, submissive by nature?

Gosh, Lonewulf, you seem to know everything.

Still, nobody has ever answered this question definitively and I dont really know why they even try.

Moot.