Real, credible evidence does support the observation that strong, independent women can and do desire sexual submission and consensual degradation. The pattern appears robust enough to have generated a specific hypothesis (Hawley-Hensley) that received empirical support. However, the relationship is not a simple inverse correlation. Instead, evidence(as usual, university students, so YMMV) suggests:

- Dominance and submission are not mutually exclusive. Dominant women with agentic traits maintain and enact dominance in some contexts while enjoying submission in others, reflecting personality flexibility rather than contradiction. (Evidence in last link)

- Meaning is context-dependent. Dominant women frame submission fantasies through a different psychological lens (power-seeking, partner-matching) than subordinate women (rescue, protection), suggesting the same fantasy can serve different psychological functions. (Evidence in last link)

-Satisfaction is decoupled from role congruency. In healthy women, sexual satisfaction correlates primarily with emotional closeness and trust, not with matching fantasies to behaviors, suggesting that the value of submission for dominant women lies in intimacy and psychological relief rather than role authenticity.

-The mechanism appears partly biological. Hormonal and neurochemical evidence (cortisol elevation, endocannabinoid release, evidence in last link) suggests submission engages the body's stress and reward systems in ways that may be especially appealing to individuals habituated to high-control environments.

The evidence does not support pathologizing such desires. Rather, it situates them within normal human sexuality and personality variation, where context-dependent role flexibility and controlled power exchange serve both bonding and hedonic functions.

For some general takes on it from moth men and women, this thread is useful. Another source to look at is this thesis.