Schizm, Your little theory is quite obviously wrong. -- Jeffro.
Even if my "little" theory were wrong, although it isn't, the world has to admit that I have a nack for causing people like you to demonstrate who they really were when claiming to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses. The fact is, Jeffro, you had an attitude such as this long before you decided to quit being a JW. Claiming to be something while hiding what you really is what is known as a "hypocrite".
It is neither expressed or implied in scripture that the woman is subject to the beast. If either were to be seen as subject to the other, the beast would be subject to the woman, as she as seen as sitting on the beast.
The harlot's servitude is in the form of rendering "worship" to the beast. She worships the beast by looking to it, rather than God, as being the supreme sovereign. And that's the reason she has the mark (the beast's name) imprinted on her forehead. Consistently, Revelation 14:9 says:
“If anyone worships the wild beast and its image, and receives a mark on his forehead or upon his hand ..... http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/105318/1833418/post.ashx#1833418
But even as with AuldSoul, I don't expect you to be impressed with anything I place before your eyes either. I do it because I like to show by example what it means to "give what is holy to dogs". (dogs = people who have no appreciation of spritual matters.)
"Babylon the great" (whether you want to capitalize it or not) is identified as the "mother of the harlots", and there is absolutely nothing to suggest that that title refers to the wild beast.
I'll deal with your objection here inside my reply to AuldSoul that I will make before the evening is out.
For reasons unclear, you are desperately trying to see a meaning which simply isn't there.
There are a LOT of things that prove to be "unclear" to you--a problem that you have nobody but yourself for which to blame.
.