Feminism and BDSM
- Thread starter MissTaken
- Start date
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Hi Desert Rose,
you said,
But as I have posted many, many times... my submissiveness relates only to the bedroom and the Dom I am involved with. It does not interfer with my career or with the raising of my children. In those areas, I am and had to be assertive.
Unlike others, I just do not see a conflict.
Well how about this. (I'm imagining). in the bedroom, the Dom, says 'Youre my slut, aren't you? You love my cock. On your knees to worship it."
....At work, your immediate supervisor, who's not bad looking, somewhat attractive; maybe something would happen if you weren't married. He sends an interoffice email, 'I can see you are a slut. I'm bet you'd like to see my cock and worship it, on your knees." Reading it you feel yourself becoming aroused, though you wish you were with husband.
Do you A) go to his superior and say 'I was the target of remarks i found very offensive. The bastard actually asked me to worship his cock, which I find revolting."
B)Do you indignantly say
'The jerk even thought that sort of talk would arouse me, but [you lie] it made me sick.' OR,
C) Do you be direct and say "I got all hot and bothered, reading that email, but still he violated company policies and should be desciplined."
D) When the next email arrives, it says "i bet that talk of mine turned you on." Do you answer "Yes, but it's rude and improper."
he says, "Your pussy didn't think so.' you reply, "That's irrelevant, you have no right to do that kind of thing to me.
iow, if your erotic mind is activated by domination, do you just 'turn it off' outside the bedroom? Suppose you have an argument with a work person, and he trounces you, despite your assertiveness. You realize he's a powerful figure. Do you feel something sexual in being 'dominated' in this case.?
I don't deny that a person can be 'different people' in different situations. Nazi prison officials were often family men, loving husbands. Still, psychologically speaking, one expects 'unity' in some way. We might say his 'sadism' is normally channeled in the job only. Yet when his wife drags him into court for divorce, Would it surprise you the he hires a lawyer who gets really nasty with her, tries to demean and discredit her.
you said,
But as I have posted many, many times... my submissiveness relates only to the bedroom and the Dom I am involved with. It does not interfer with my career or with the raising of my children. In those areas, I am and had to be assertive.
Unlike others, I just do not see a conflict.
Well how about this. (I'm imagining). in the bedroom, the Dom, says 'Youre my slut, aren't you? You love my cock. On your knees to worship it."
....At work, your immediate supervisor, who's not bad looking, somewhat attractive; maybe something would happen if you weren't married. He sends an interoffice email, 'I can see you are a slut. I'm bet you'd like to see my cock and worship it, on your knees." Reading it you feel yourself becoming aroused, though you wish you were with husband.
Do you A) go to his superior and say 'I was the target of remarks i found very offensive. The bastard actually asked me to worship his cock, which I find revolting."
B)Do you indignantly say
'The jerk even thought that sort of talk would arouse me, but [you lie] it made me sick.' OR,
C) Do you be direct and say "I got all hot and bothered, reading that email, but still he violated company policies and should be desciplined."
D) When the next email arrives, it says "i bet that talk of mine turned you on." Do you answer "Yes, but it's rude and improper."
he says, "Your pussy didn't think so.' you reply, "That's irrelevant, you have no right to do that kind of thing to me.
iow, if your erotic mind is activated by domination, do you just 'turn it off' outside the bedroom? Suppose you have an argument with a work person, and he trounces you, despite your assertiveness. You realize he's a powerful figure. Do you feel something sexual in being 'dominated' in this case.?
I don't deny that a person can be 'different people' in different situations. Nazi prison officials were often family men, loving husbands. Still, psychologically speaking, one expects 'unity' in some way. We might say his 'sadism' is normally channeled in the job only. Yet when his wife drags him into court for divorce, Would it surprise you the he hires a lawyer who gets really nasty with her, tries to demean and discredit her.
Last edited:
Johnny Mayberry
Golden Boy
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2002
- Posts
- 6,460
Feminism to me means that a woman has the right to decide how to live her life...and that right must include fulfilling a 'traditional' role, or a 'slave' role, or whatever else she chooses of her own free will.
In the end, all we have is our life, and who am I to tell someone that they can't use that life as they see fit?
In the end, all we have is our life, and who am I to tell someone that they can't use that life as they see fit?
exiledmaster
Experienced
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2003
- Posts
- 55
pure said
Can I ask why you aren't framing this in the converse pure?
I am aroused by being a dominant male, and I love that part of my character.
Is it acceptable for me to use that side of my character in work situations towards those whom I have responsibility? Absolutely not. It's not about my sexuality, or theirs, (and yes, I have worked with a submissive lover of mine, and had to watch my every move to make sure I didn't abuse my position as her boss, or as her lover), it's about a breach of trust. Inappropriate behaviour remains inapropriate behaviour, no matter what the reaction of the object of that behaviour.
We've come a long way since 1789, and truths that seemed self evident in the eighteenth century now seem just as limited as earth centred models of the universe. that doesn't mean they weren't valid, or self evident then, just that the knowledge base from which we're working has changed and developed.
A political truism that I've learned as I've travelled along is that it it easier to identify a symptom of unegalitarian behaviour, and campaign against it, than it is to campaignn in a broad brush way for a truly egalitarian world. The problem then, and this goes to the heart of the Jesse Jackson / Augusta National questions raised earlier, is what do you do when you win, and the symptom that you had identified is addressed by legislation? Do you continue to sing the same song, tramping in ever decreasing circles in your search to identify evidence of wrongdoing, that the problem has gone away. or do you find a newer, more broadly egalitarian songshet to sing from? It seems to me that Jesse Jackson has tried to do both things at once and failed at both.
As for feminism and BDSM, I think that there's a deeper argument about theories of patriarchy that hasn't really been addressed here. If you accept patriarchy in its more vivid formulations, then it seems to me that you're accepting a fundamental difference between men and women at a biological level that expresses itself in an ideological construct. Personally, I think that probably does result in a clash between that model of feminism and heterosexual BDSM, and perhaps even with lesbian BSM if it involves elements of behaviour that ape male behaviour. But, and it's a big but, if you construe patriarchy as a manifestation of economic relationships, then it seems to me you can say that sexual behaviour does not relate to the origins of the inequalities that still exist between men and women.
With that, I'll go away and send a loving message to my slave, who's miles away and busy setting up her own business....
Can I ask why you aren't framing this in the converse pure?
I am aroused by being a dominant male, and I love that part of my character.
Is it acceptable for me to use that side of my character in work situations towards those whom I have responsibility? Absolutely not. It's not about my sexuality, or theirs, (and yes, I have worked with a submissive lover of mine, and had to watch my every move to make sure I didn't abuse my position as her boss, or as her lover), it's about a breach of trust. Inappropriate behaviour remains inapropriate behaviour, no matter what the reaction of the object of that behaviour.
We've come a long way since 1789, and truths that seemed self evident in the eighteenth century now seem just as limited as earth centred models of the universe. that doesn't mean they weren't valid, or self evident then, just that the knowledge base from which we're working has changed and developed.
A political truism that I've learned as I've travelled along is that it it easier to identify a symptom of unegalitarian behaviour, and campaign against it, than it is to campaignn in a broad brush way for a truly egalitarian world. The problem then, and this goes to the heart of the Jesse Jackson / Augusta National questions raised earlier, is what do you do when you win, and the symptom that you had identified is addressed by legislation? Do you continue to sing the same song, tramping in ever decreasing circles in your search to identify evidence of wrongdoing, that the problem has gone away. or do you find a newer, more broadly egalitarian songshet to sing from? It seems to me that Jesse Jackson has tried to do both things at once and failed at both.
As for feminism and BDSM, I think that there's a deeper argument about theories of patriarchy that hasn't really been addressed here. If you accept patriarchy in its more vivid formulations, then it seems to me that you're accepting a fundamental difference between men and women at a biological level that expresses itself in an ideological construct. Personally, I think that probably does result in a clash between that model of feminism and heterosexual BDSM, and perhaps even with lesbian BSM if it involves elements of behaviour that ape male behaviour. But, and it's a big but, if you construe patriarchy as a manifestation of economic relationships, then it seems to me you can say that sexual behaviour does not relate to the origins of the inequalities that still exist between men and women.
With that, I'll go away and send a loving message to my slave, who's miles away and busy setting up her own business....
MissTaken
Biker Chick
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2001
- Posts
- 20,570
I think that any conflict between the two has to do with misunderstanding on both sides.
A feminist who believes that a submissive is non assertive and always defers to men, in general, may believe that submission is a threat to equal rights. Also, until a feminist understands the idea of "consent" in Dominance and submission, they may believe we are a threat.
On the other hand, as many of our ladies have so aptly pointed out, a feminist is not a "man hater." Not all feminists take their cause to the extreme and like someone has posted, those who are working the woman's movement in a verbose manner in an effort to get accepted for membership at an all male golf club, well, is that the biggest issue that needs to be advocated for today? I think not.
For me, I am not sure if I am a feminist or not. I do believe in equality when and where possible. I also believe there are fundamental biological differences between the genders although, there are men and women who prove to be the exception.
A feminist who believes that a submissive is non assertive and always defers to men, in general, may believe that submission is a threat to equal rights. Also, until a feminist understands the idea of "consent" in Dominance and submission, they may believe we are a threat.
On the other hand, as many of our ladies have so aptly pointed out, a feminist is not a "man hater." Not all feminists take their cause to the extreme and like someone has posted, those who are working the woman's movement in a verbose manner in an effort to get accepted for membership at an all male golf club, well, is that the biggest issue that needs to be advocated for today? I think not.
For me, I am not sure if I am a feminist or not. I do believe in equality when and where possible. I also believe there are fundamental biological differences between the genders although, there are men and women who prove to be the exception.
welshman
moisturising wordsmith;¬)
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2001
- Posts
- 1,772
I am neither woman nor a true BDSM'er but some thoughts occur to me. Do not the feminists trust their fellow women to know what they like/want? We should all be equal, none of us are equal, what a boring world if we were! Other than there should be no undue compulsion (there is always some) whatever makes the two (or three, whatever) happy should be between them.
Feminists (or any other similar group) should be concerned about a level playing field, not what goes on on that field, that's none of their business.
Feminists (or any other similar group) should be concerned about a level playing field, not what goes on on that field, that's none of their business.
A Desert Rose
Simply Charming Elsewhere
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2002
- Posts
- 13,997
Hi Pure,
Well...
I do not turn off my sexuality when I am outside of the bedroom. Like everyone else, sexuality is part of my personality.
iow, if your erotic mind is activated by domination, do you just 'turn it off' outside the bedroom? Suppose you have an argument with a work person, and he trounces you, despite your assertiveness. You realize he's a powerful figure. Do you feel something sexual in being 'dominated' in this case.?
Being "trounced" by a co-worker does not turn me on... not in any case. I will not hesitate to "trounce" back.
Sexual overtures are another manner, entirely. In the mulitple choice scenario you gave me, I admit that I would be flattered and, yes aroused by said supervisor's email. But that supervisor has stepped out of the realm of "work" and into an entirely different realm when he sent that email.
You didn't give me the option but I would pick E and ignore the initial email and hope to not get another from him.
I am not married, by the way.
Pure said:
Well...
I do not turn off my sexuality when I am outside of the bedroom. Like everyone else, sexuality is part of my personality.
iow, if your erotic mind is activated by domination, do you just 'turn it off' outside the bedroom? Suppose you have an argument with a work person, and he trounces you, despite your assertiveness. You realize he's a powerful figure. Do you feel something sexual in being 'dominated' in this case.?
Being "trounced" by a co-worker does not turn me on... not in any case. I will not hesitate to "trounce" back.
Sexual overtures are another manner, entirely. In the mulitple choice scenario you gave me, I admit that I would be flattered and, yes aroused by said supervisor's email. But that supervisor has stepped out of the realm of "work" and into an entirely different realm when he sent that email.
You didn't give me the option but I would pick E and ignore the initial email and hope to not get another from him.
I am not married, by the way.
fleur d'amour
Experienced
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2003
- Posts
- 65
Too Strong
This is an interesting topic, simply because it took me many years before I would even admit that I'm sexually submissive. I use to tell myself that I'm too "strong" to be submissive, though now I'm realizing that I was too "stubborn" or "had too much pride". And now I've learned to redefine what strength is. As a young person, I prided myself with the strength I had. I would never anyone see my tears for they hinted vulnerability, I was strong willed, and dig in my heels...even when I knew I was wrong. All my focus was on this external measures of strength...and the idea of surrender seemed weak, and not strong. But I grew to understand that external strength should not play a large part in being submissive. And I learned strength can be in forms of so many ways. If I was weak, I would have denied myself a life that is brings me comfort, and joy. I would not find my internal strength to bare myself, vulnerable and exposed to others. I would always hide behind an external shield of false bravado; and I would always be ashamed of my tears. Discovering who I am truly gave me strength. Truth gives those who recognize and embrace it an inner strength, enabling them to go places where fears normally inhibits them. The man I am drawn to serving does not push me down or weaken me to make himself feel powerful. They are strong because that is the kind of man he was even before I came into the picture. And even as a strong woman, he's able to inspire me to kneel before him.
I know I wrote a lot, but does anyone understand what I'm saying, or am I just blabbling away....
This is an interesting topic, simply because it took me many years before I would even admit that I'm sexually submissive. I use to tell myself that I'm too "strong" to be submissive, though now I'm realizing that I was too "stubborn" or "had too much pride". And now I've learned to redefine what strength is. As a young person, I prided myself with the strength I had. I would never anyone see my tears for they hinted vulnerability, I was strong willed, and dig in my heels...even when I knew I was wrong. All my focus was on this external measures of strength...and the idea of surrender seemed weak, and not strong. But I grew to understand that external strength should not play a large part in being submissive. And I learned strength can be in forms of so many ways. If I was weak, I would have denied myself a life that is brings me comfort, and joy. I would not find my internal strength to bare myself, vulnerable and exposed to others. I would always hide behind an external shield of false bravado; and I would always be ashamed of my tears. Discovering who I am truly gave me strength. Truth gives those who recognize and embrace it an inner strength, enabling them to go places where fears normally inhibits them. The man I am drawn to serving does not push me down or weaken me to make himself feel powerful. They are strong because that is the kind of man he was even before I came into the picture. And even as a strong woman, he's able to inspire me to kneel before him.
I know I wrote a lot, but does anyone understand what I'm saying, or am I just blabbling away....
lark sparrow
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2002
- Posts
- 1,715
Re: Too Strong
I understand and can relate to these feelings at a point in my life, but I don't think I ever equated them directly to being a feminist at the time. I can understand how they could be seen as related though. In growing up with the option (or self-expectation) to deny the more seemingly traditional roles of women/"weakness" it can become similar to the more traditional male expectation of "boys don't cry and men don't bend". Does being a feminist mean being equal to a male with men being the measuring stick? I don't think so, but for some people I think it is a theme, whether they love or hate feminism.
Which is why I am interested in people's definitions of feminism, as there are all sorts of underlying themes that go with it.
Edited to add: When I was introduced to feminism through women's studies it was not simply about radical feminist politics - it also gave me a deeper understanding and appreciation of more traditional feminine roles. There was even a section on quilting, which I had previously outright dismissed with no personal interest whatsoever, but it was rich with preserving history and community. There is room for so much within the term of "feminism".
fleur d'amour said:
I understand and can relate to these feelings at a point in my life, but I don't think I ever equated them directly to being a feminist at the time. I can understand how they could be seen as related though. In growing up with the option (or self-expectation) to deny the more seemingly traditional roles of women/"weakness" it can become similar to the more traditional male expectation of "boys don't cry and men don't bend". Does being a feminist mean being equal to a male with men being the measuring stick? I don't think so, but for some people I think it is a theme, whether they love or hate feminism.
Which is why I am interested in people's definitions of feminism, as there are all sorts of underlying themes that go with it.
Edited to add: When I was introduced to feminism through women's studies it was not simply about radical feminist politics - it also gave me a deeper understanding and appreciation of more traditional feminine roles. There was even a section on quilting, which I had previously outright dismissed with no personal interest whatsoever, but it was rich with preserving history and community. There is room for so much within the term of "feminism".
Last edited:
sweetnpetite
Intellectual snob
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2003
- Posts
- 9,135
MissTaken said:Are the two compatible or does the belief in political, economical and social equality between the sexes conflict with Dominance and submission to the degree to which there can be no feminism in a BDSM relationship.
I have posted with, talked with and otherwise discussed the issue with feminists. There seems to be some feeling that submissive women are a threat to feminist ideology.
Is this true?
Or, is a misunderstanding between the two sides of the issue as is suggested by this article:
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/sister/BDSM.html
(FYI: this article is for discussion purposes. There are points made that I personally find very good and others, well, this gall and I should have a chat!)
However, the author refers to there being "two communities." Is it possible, likely or impossible for there ever to be a community of feminist BDSMers?
Finally! Something the Feminists and the Christian Right have in commen!!!!!!! (Just don't say they're 'in bed together on it')
Maybe if you pointed that out to them, they would change there tune! After all, the enimy of my enimy is sometimes my friend
It seems that the majority of the posts here do not see a conflict with feminist values and submissive females, and neither do I. I think the reason for this is that the feminists who see the conflict do not understand the relationship between Dom/ sub. This is never a form of abuse. This is the use of power as a tool in sexual excitement. There is as much power in being submissive as there is in being dominant. The type of power is just different. My role in the bedroom does not change the equality I demand in life. perhaps people need to be better informed on the true nature of an issue before they make a possition.
exiledmaster
Experienced
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2003
- Posts
- 55
I don't disagree with you Sylph, but I think that we have to understand a key concept that feminists borrowed from Stalinist and old school Trotskyist thinking.
The old red star brigade used to shelter behind the concept of false consciousness when they couldn't explain why industrial workers in the west didn't want to live in somewhere a bit more like the workers paradises of east germany and all points east.
The idea was that the workers somehow didn't understand the true nature of their relationship to capitalism, and, if only they shared the superior understanding of the communist party, or the appropriate Trotskyist sect, then their eyes would open and they'd gladly exchange their suburban homes andlifestyles for the joys of Dresden or stalingrad.
Complete codswallop of course, but some feminists share the same belief that women who are engaged in BDSM don't understand the reality of what they're doing.
Crazy, I know, but it explains all those conversations that start with 'But you don't understand...'
The old red star brigade used to shelter behind the concept of false consciousness when they couldn't explain why industrial workers in the west didn't want to live in somewhere a bit more like the workers paradises of east germany and all points east.
The idea was that the workers somehow didn't understand the true nature of their relationship to capitalism, and, if only they shared the superior understanding of the communist party, or the appropriate Trotskyist sect, then their eyes would open and they'd gladly exchange their suburban homes andlifestyles for the joys of Dresden or stalingrad.
Complete codswallop of course, but some feminists share the same belief that women who are engaged in BDSM don't understand the reality of what they're doing.
Crazy, I know, but it explains all those conversations that start with 'But you don't understand...'
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Hi Exiled Master,
I've enjoyed your thoughtful posts, and insights. You've raised many interesting points. I'll pick one.
I don't disagree with you Sylph, but I think that we have to understand a key concept that feminists borrowed from Stalinist and old school Trotskyist thinking.
The old red star brigade used to shelter behind the concept of false consciousness when they couldn't explain why industrial workers in the west didn't want to live in somewhere a bit more like the workers paradises of east germany and all points east.
[...]
Complete codswallop of course, but some feminists share the same belief that women who are engaged in BDSM don't understand the reality of what they're doing. (fuller quote at the end)
There more than a grain of truth here, esp. applied against Dworkin and some othe radicals. And, yes, the attack on bdsm is often of that nature "You don't know your own interests."
I think the concept 'false consciousness' has value. It's got marxist origins, as you're aware. Since you seem otherwise influenced by Marx, it should not necessarily be objectionable.
Problem 1: A girl is told from birth "You're to become a nun, a bride of Christ. At puberty, "Earthly sex and lusts of the flesh are evil. You want to become a nun, and rise above that."
At 16 she "chooses" the nunnery.
Is it an real choice, or a sham, one based on 'false consciousness', wrong ideas about herself and her interests?
Problem 2: The girl is prepared from birth for circumcision, her mom says "It's always done, and it makes you attractive and fit to be a man's bride."
At 13 she agrees to clitoridectomy, or at least acquiences.
I'm quite willing, here, too, to say, sham choice, based in 'false consciousness.' She does not really know her own genuine interests.
Now in either case if it were a 30 yr old college grad with 'wordly' experience, I'd say, like some other posters "It's her choice."
The problem with submission, as a sexual lifestylye, is this: Many have acknowledged it's uncomfortably close to traditional 'wife' role. Girls are prepared(conditioned trained) for subordinate 'wife' roles. Hence they may have been prepared to become 'subs' with 'masters'-- essentially, just traditional wives of authoritarian husbands, with new labels. This is not unknown among the denizens of this forum. (But I'm not saying it's always the case.)
There's reason to say such choices are 'false', based on ignorance of true interests, misunderstandings of the world, etc.
Now if a woman, well educated, not abused in childhood, brought up in an egalitarian household--mom 'equal' to 'pop'--experienced in life, decides to become a 'sub', that's again her choice. Fine. It's a true, informed choice, based on an accurate view of men and women.
We may think it's not a choice for us, but it's hers. Ms. L Sparrow may be such an example.
As I posted earlier, it's my opinion that "Let women choose;" is not in itself a feminist slogan. It's an abstract "feminism"; it's an empty feminism, like it's an empty definition of democracy to say "each adults gets a vote." This empty 'feminism' iscompatible with oppressed life under Khomeini, or in a nunnery, or with the practice of clitoridectomy at puberty. It's entirely compatible with the Christian right's views, and the lives of its women. All these things are supposedly "chosen" by women.
But they aren't real choices unless some basics have been taught in upbringing, such as being an autonomous person,
unless she's been free of abuse and intimidation while a child,
unless the girl and woman has been informed and had certain direct life experiences, including meeting the opposite sex, learning of her sexual tastes, whether straight or gay or polymorphous, etc.
In short, imo, a true feminism upholds womens rights to genuine, informed choice, arising from an upbringing that's not oppressive, abusive, or intimidating, that includes full education; and arising from genuine life experience.
Other supposed 'choices' are --to a degree--sham choices, if you like, based in 'false consciousness.'
Best.
J.
[/B]
I don't disagree with you Sylph, but I think that we have to understand a key concept that feminists borrowed from Stalinist and old school Trotskyist thinking.
The old red star brigade used to shelter behind the concept of false consciousness when they couldn't explain why industrial workers in the west didn't want to live in somewhere a bit more like the workers paradises of east germany and all points east.
The idea was that the workers somehow didn't understand the true nature of their relationship to capitalism, and, if only they shared the superior understanding of the communist party, or the appropriate Trotskyist sect, then their eyes would open and they'd gladly exchange their suburban homes andlifestyles for the joys of Dresden or stalingrad.
Complete codswallop of course, but some feminists share the same belief that women who are engaged in BDSM don't understand the reality of what they're doing. [/B]
I've enjoyed your thoughtful posts, and insights. You've raised many interesting points. I'll pick one.
I don't disagree with you Sylph, but I think that we have to understand a key concept that feminists borrowed from Stalinist and old school Trotskyist thinking.
The old red star brigade used to shelter behind the concept of false consciousness when they couldn't explain why industrial workers in the west didn't want to live in somewhere a bit more like the workers paradises of east germany and all points east.
[...]
Complete codswallop of course, but some feminists share the same belief that women who are engaged in BDSM don't understand the reality of what they're doing. (fuller quote at the end)
There more than a grain of truth here, esp. applied against Dworkin and some othe radicals. And, yes, the attack on bdsm is often of that nature "You don't know your own interests."
I think the concept 'false consciousness' has value. It's got marxist origins, as you're aware. Since you seem otherwise influenced by Marx, it should not necessarily be objectionable.
Problem 1: A girl is told from birth "You're to become a nun, a bride of Christ. At puberty, "Earthly sex and lusts of the flesh are evil. You want to become a nun, and rise above that."
At 16 she "chooses" the nunnery.
Is it an real choice, or a sham, one based on 'false consciousness', wrong ideas about herself and her interests?
Problem 2: The girl is prepared from birth for circumcision, her mom says "It's always done, and it makes you attractive and fit to be a man's bride."
At 13 she agrees to clitoridectomy, or at least acquiences.
I'm quite willing, here, too, to say, sham choice, based in 'false consciousness.' She does not really know her own genuine interests.
Now in either case if it were a 30 yr old college grad with 'wordly' experience, I'd say, like some other posters "It's her choice."
The problem with submission, as a sexual lifestylye, is this: Many have acknowledged it's uncomfortably close to traditional 'wife' role. Girls are prepared(conditioned trained) for subordinate 'wife' roles. Hence they may have been prepared to become 'subs' with 'masters'-- essentially, just traditional wives of authoritarian husbands, with new labels. This is not unknown among the denizens of this forum. (But I'm not saying it's always the case.)
There's reason to say such choices are 'false', based on ignorance of true interests, misunderstandings of the world, etc.
Now if a woman, well educated, not abused in childhood, brought up in an egalitarian household--mom 'equal' to 'pop'--experienced in life, decides to become a 'sub', that's again her choice. Fine. It's a true, informed choice, based on an accurate view of men and women.
We may think it's not a choice for us, but it's hers. Ms. L Sparrow may be such an example.
As I posted earlier, it's my opinion that "Let women choose;" is not in itself a feminist slogan. It's an abstract "feminism"; it's an empty feminism, like it's an empty definition of democracy to say "each adults gets a vote." This empty 'feminism' iscompatible with oppressed life under Khomeini, or in a nunnery, or with the practice of clitoridectomy at puberty. It's entirely compatible with the Christian right's views, and the lives of its women. All these things are supposedly "chosen" by women.
But they aren't real choices unless some basics have been taught in upbringing, such as being an autonomous person,
unless she's been free of abuse and intimidation while a child,
unless the girl and woman has been informed and had certain direct life experiences, including meeting the opposite sex, learning of her sexual tastes, whether straight or gay or polymorphous, etc.
In short, imo, a true feminism upholds womens rights to genuine, informed choice, arising from an upbringing that's not oppressive, abusive, or intimidating, that includes full education; and arising from genuine life experience.
Other supposed 'choices' are --to a degree--sham choices, if you like, based in 'false consciousness.'
Best.
J.
[/B]
I don't disagree with you Sylph, but I think that we have to understand a key concept that feminists borrowed from Stalinist and old school Trotskyist thinking.
The old red star brigade used to shelter behind the concept of false consciousness when they couldn't explain why industrial workers in the west didn't want to live in somewhere a bit more like the workers paradises of east germany and all points east.
The idea was that the workers somehow didn't understand the true nature of their relationship to capitalism, and, if only they shared the superior understanding of the communist party, or the appropriate Trotskyist sect, then their eyes would open and they'd gladly exchange their suburban homes andlifestyles for the joys of Dresden or stalingrad.
Complete codswallop of course, but some feminists share the same belief that women who are engaged in BDSM don't understand the reality of what they're doing. [/B]
Last edited:
catalina_francisco
Happily insatiable always
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2002
- Posts
- 18,730
Feminism is about choice...a woman's choice to live her life in a way that is right for her without oppressing, or pushing her choices onto others. It is a philosophy that empowers and guides those who are committed to it's principles, and as such gives strength to any woman who chooses to be a submissive or slave. As such there should never be any conflict with BDSM, but many feminists have forgotten two of the most important standpoints of feminism to be non-judgemental, and to support all women in whatever choice they make for themselves.
As a strong feminist who in the past decade has become notorius in some circles for her strong feminist views, and the ability to not just preach them but also live them, it is refreshing to read so many posts supporting these original concepts of the feminist movement. It is also a bit therapeutic for one who recently became so burnt out from dealing daily with so-called feminists who spent their every moment condemning and attacking other women in all forms for their choices, that I have taken a temporary, self imposed stepback from publicly esposing the feminist ideal, believing for a moment that perhaps like many idealogies, it had lost it's intended focus and been swallowed up by the very people it was meant to protect women from.
Feminism is about freeing women from uninvited oppression, and in many ways, the lifestyle of BDSM also frees women to experience life on their own terms, from their own informed choices. It advocates for the rights of the submissive to choose that for herself and not be forced into a stereotyped role chosen for her by society and the moral police. Feminism and BDSM both empower her to make those choices which reflect her needs, and enable her to step outside the box she has been told she belongs in since the beginning of western society. It is sad not all 'feminists' can enjoy the freedom to make their choices whether it be BDSM or vanilla, instead remaining suppressed by their own insecurities and fears.
As a strong feminist who in the past decade has become notorius in some circles for her strong feminist views, and the ability to not just preach them but also live them, it is refreshing to read so many posts supporting these original concepts of the feminist movement. It is also a bit therapeutic for one who recently became so burnt out from dealing daily with so-called feminists who spent their every moment condemning and attacking other women in all forms for their choices, that I have taken a temporary, self imposed stepback from publicly esposing the feminist ideal, believing for a moment that perhaps like many idealogies, it had lost it's intended focus and been swallowed up by the very people it was meant to protect women from.
Feminism is about freeing women from uninvited oppression, and in many ways, the lifestyle of BDSM also frees women to experience life on their own terms, from their own informed choices. It advocates for the rights of the submissive to choose that for herself and not be forced into a stereotyped role chosen for her by society and the moral police. Feminism and BDSM both empower her to make those choices which reflect her needs, and enable her to step outside the box she has been told she belongs in since the beginning of western society. It is sad not all 'feminists' can enjoy the freedom to make their choices whether it be BDSM or vanilla, instead remaining suppressed by their own insecurities and fears.
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Hi ADr
pure said,
iow, if your erotic mind is activated by domination, do you just 'turn it off' outside the bedroom? Suppose you have an argument with a work person, and he trounces you, despite your assertiveness. You realize he's a powerful figure. Do you feel something sexual in being 'dominated' in this case.?
A desert rose replied,
Being "trounced" by a co-worker does not turn me on... not in any case. I will not hesitate to "trounce" back.
Sexual overtures are another manner, entirely. In the mulitple choice scenario you gave me, I admit that I would be flattered and, yes aroused by said supervisor's email. But that supervisor has stepped out of the realm of "work" and into an entirely different realm when he sent that email.
You didn't give me the option but I would pick E and ignore the initial email and hope to not get another from him.
I am not married, by the way.
Hey that's good new you're single, or 'not married' at least; there's hope for some here! (I'm partnered).
By 'trounced', I simply meant completely defeated in some contest of ideas and wills. As in, he presents a proposal, and so do you; in discussion, he's able, politely to show why yours wont work, and all your criticisms of his are answered. Hence the VP chooses his. That's 'trounced'.
But you didn't entirely answer my question of how your bedroom sexuality might influence things. You do agree it's operative outside, but mightn't it lead to submission outside? Doesn't that turn on you admitted to, influence anything? (in my example, the making of a complaint).
My suspicion, and it's just an opinion, is that there may be no such thing as 'I'm a submissive, but only in the bedroom.' It sort of like saying, "I'm an honest person, but only where there is videosurveillance." (Of course there are fun 'role plays': I can pretend, for an evening to be king of France, while my wife plays the role of a serving maid.) What do you think?
Best,
J.
pure said,
iow, if your erotic mind is activated by domination, do you just 'turn it off' outside the bedroom? Suppose you have an argument with a work person, and he trounces you, despite your assertiveness. You realize he's a powerful figure. Do you feel something sexual in being 'dominated' in this case.?
A desert rose replied,
Being "trounced" by a co-worker does not turn me on... not in any case. I will not hesitate to "trounce" back.
Sexual overtures are another manner, entirely. In the mulitple choice scenario you gave me, I admit that I would be flattered and, yes aroused by said supervisor's email. But that supervisor has stepped out of the realm of "work" and into an entirely different realm when he sent that email.
You didn't give me the option but I would pick E and ignore the initial email and hope to not get another from him.
I am not married, by the way.
Hey that's good new you're single, or 'not married' at least; there's hope for some here! (I'm partnered).
By 'trounced', I simply meant completely defeated in some contest of ideas and wills. As in, he presents a proposal, and so do you; in discussion, he's able, politely to show why yours wont work, and all your criticisms of his are answered. Hence the VP chooses his. That's 'trounced'.
But you didn't entirely answer my question of how your bedroom sexuality might influence things. You do agree it's operative outside, but mightn't it lead to submission outside? Doesn't that turn on you admitted to, influence anything? (in my example, the making of a complaint).
My suspicion, and it's just an opinion, is that there may be no such thing as 'I'm a submissive, but only in the bedroom.' It sort of like saying, "I'm an honest person, but only where there is videosurveillance." (Of course there are fun 'role plays': I can pretend, for an evening to be king of France, while my wife plays the role of a serving maid.) What do you think?
Best,
J.
G
Guest
Guest
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Hi Lime,
I appreciate your comments; the set up you describe is not unusual. I guess it 'works' and suits both. So fine:
you said,
I would have to agree with the majority here. There's no reason why a woman can't choose to be submissive in the bedroom (or whatever room it may be), but remain an equal partner in a relationship. At least this works for my wife and I. Outside of our sex lives, she has probably more control than I do.
The last sentence is not surprising. My guess, and my purely personal, idiosyncratic and aberrant opinion, is that the person who we see tending to more control things overall, e.g., key decisions, is overall, doing the dominating, as far as it occurs. Including the bedroom.
What then is her bedroom subbing??--kinky play, imo, which occurs when she wishes it and stops when she doesn't. ** Sort of like the millionaire who wants to experience 'penniless hitchhiking' and leaves money behind--except a few credit cards for real emergency, and takes to the road.
**My point has nothing to do with sex of the alleged sub. The 'bedroom only' male sub, is equally, in my purely personal opinion, a kinky player, and that's great if it 'works' for all concerned.
I appreciate your comments; the set up you describe is not unusual. I guess it 'works' and suits both. So fine:
you said,
I would have to agree with the majority here. There's no reason why a woman can't choose to be submissive in the bedroom (or whatever room it may be), but remain an equal partner in a relationship. At least this works for my wife and I. Outside of our sex lives, she has probably more control than I do.
The last sentence is not surprising. My guess, and my purely personal, idiosyncratic and aberrant opinion, is that the person who we see tending to more control things overall, e.g., key decisions, is overall, doing the dominating, as far as it occurs. Including the bedroom.
What then is her bedroom subbing??--kinky play, imo, which occurs when she wishes it and stops when she doesn't. ** Sort of like the millionaire who wants to experience 'penniless hitchhiking' and leaves money behind--except a few credit cards for real emergency, and takes to the road.
**My point has nothing to do with sex of the alleged sub. The 'bedroom only' male sub, is equally, in my purely personal opinion, a kinky player, and that's great if it 'works' for all concerned.
Last edited:
G
Guest
Guest
A Desert Rose
Simply Charming Elsewhere
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2002
- Posts
- 13,997
Pure said:
What do I think? I think if you want to play act that you are the king of France, be my guest but I would never fuck you. Now, if you wanted to pretend to be anything else but French... things could happen between us. LMAO
lektra
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2003
- Posts
- 552
As a card carrying self professed feminist, I see no problem/conflict between being submisive and feminist, however, having said that I know some feminists who would have a big (no- HUGE) problem with me for being sexually submissive and identifying as a feminist. Frankly, I consider that their problem and not mine (on my good days at least). I know there are so many stereotypes about feminism and there are also a lot of stereotypes within the feminist movement. This debate harkens back to the can you be a feminist and wear makeup kind of debates. I can and i do . In my opinion, feminism was about getting out of those boxes of societally expected behaviours and boxes, not putting women into more boxes.
Tiss T talked about consent, which I think is also at the crux of this debate. I have been challenged by women who ask if women can truly choose not to be submissive given the history of gender roles. Whatever. I can't answer that, but certain things are not knowable, and in the end I know who I am now, and I could deconstruct it till the cows come home, but why? For me sex is just plain good, as long as its what I want to be doing.
A good friend of mine pointed out that the porn industry, for example, is one of the feew industries where women get paid better than men for the work that they do, but it is widely acknowledged as an exploitative industry, and it is in contexts, but things aren't nearly as clear cut as we would like to believe.
I'm a feminist interested in anti oppression work, and I am a sexual submissive, lots of feminists may not understand that, but there are lots who do. Okay, I'll take my little soapbox and go home now.
. In my opinion, feminism was about getting out of those boxes of societally expected behaviours and boxes, not putting women into more boxes. Tiss T talked about consent, which I think is also at the crux of this debate. I have been challenged by women who ask if women can truly choose not to be submissive given the history of gender roles. Whatever. I can't answer that, but certain things are not knowable, and in the end I know who I am now, and I could deconstruct it till the cows come home, but why? For me sex is just plain good, as long as its what I want to be doing.
A good friend of mine pointed out that the porn industry, for example, is one of the feew industries where women get paid better than men for the work that they do, but it is widely acknowledged as an exploitative industry, and it is in contexts, but things aren't nearly as clear cut as we would like to believe
. I'm a feminist interested in anti oppression work, and I am a sexual submissive, lots of feminists may not understand that, but there are lots who do. Okay,
I'll take my little soapbox and go home now.Lots of thoughts on this . . .
Regarding this entire thread, I've read all the posts and replies to posts, and after awhile I got the distinct impression that everyone here is/was "preaching to the choir", as it were. I'm not knocking MissT's thread, it's just that for those of us here this is mostly, I would feel confident to say, a non-issue - because to *us*, these "truths are self-evident".
I don't imagine most women who have chosen to be submissive would consider themselves to be downtrodden or persecuted - because they made that choice in the first place. Now, a radical feminist perspective might just posit that the "choice" was not really a choice at all, based upon the Western cultural/social patriarchal environment & upbringing; so at that point, what can a person say? In that situation, a person is being asked to prove a negative, which (aside from very complicated and annoyingly verbose mathematics) cannot be done.
I've got a whole passel of posts on this, and I don't want anyone to get the wrong impression about me - I fully support feminism; actually, I support egalitarianism, which is far more appropriate and sensible I think. I've been enmeshed in a lot of this type of talk and debate over the last 4 or 5 years, being in the university academic environment; trust me, I've gotten a lot of this sort of thing. Some of it has sunk in, some of it has been valuable to have been exposed to, some of it has been utter claptrap. It's not a surprise to anyone here that there are people out there - including feminists - who misunderstand the decision/choice/desire of a person (in many cases a woman) to be submissive (sexually, 24/7, or other) to another. What needs to happen is for everyone to understand and accept everyone else - and this is a hell of a lot tougher to do than most people, even enlightened people, realize. Talking about this amongst ourselves is good for us, of course, as it reinforces our identity in the community we belong to, and is educational for many of the/our members (of this community). I think this conversation would be so much *more* valuable though, were we able to bring to the vanilla's; neh?
Regarding this entire thread, I've read all the posts and replies to posts, and after awhile I got the distinct impression that everyone here is/was "preaching to the choir", as it were. I'm not knocking MissT's thread, it's just that for those of us here this is mostly, I would feel confident to say, a non-issue - because to *us*, these "truths are self-evident".
I don't imagine most women who have chosen to be submissive would consider themselves to be downtrodden or persecuted - because they made that choice in the first place. Now, a radical feminist perspective might just posit that the "choice" was not really a choice at all, based upon the Western cultural/social patriarchal environment & upbringing; so at that point, what can a person say? In that situation, a person is being asked to prove a negative, which (aside from very complicated and annoyingly verbose mathematics) cannot be done.
I've got a whole passel of posts on this, and I don't want anyone to get the wrong impression about me - I fully support feminism; actually, I support egalitarianism, which is far more appropriate and sensible I think. I've been enmeshed in a lot of this type of talk and debate over the last 4 or 5 years, being in the university academic environment; trust me, I've gotten a lot of this sort of thing. Some of it has sunk in, some of it has been valuable to have been exposed to, some of it has been utter claptrap. It's not a surprise to anyone here that there are people out there - including feminists - who misunderstand the decision/choice/desire of a person (in many cases a woman) to be submissive (sexually, 24/7, or other) to another. What needs to happen is for everyone to understand and accept everyone else - and this is a hell of a lot tougher to do than most people, even enlightened people, realize. Talking about this amongst ourselves is good for us, of course, as it reinforces our identity in the community we belong to, and is educational for many of the/our members (of this community). I think this conversation would be so much *more* valuable though, were we able to bring to the vanilla's; neh?
A second comment of mine
Someone asked or commented about males and females being fundamentally different. There are the obvious reproductive differences of course, but many times I've heard people state that other than that there are basically no differences between men and women.
My opinion on that is "hogwash". Just that single factor *alone* is huge; I mean, think about it - merely the fact that one gender has the capability to reproduce, and the other does not is going to result in completely different mindsets regarding a whole host of issues (procreation, STD prevention, health, parenting, economics - the list goes on).
And aside from that single factor, there are many others. For example, some studies have results that indicate that the brain chemistry of males and females are or could be different. How different is the key though - significantly different, or not significantly different? In the future there will be an answer to this most likely, but I would hazard a guess that men and women are going to come out as being significantly different in how our brains *physically* work; this is already a known and accepted fact in some areas (look at all the research done on spatial orientation ability and language/communication usage ability).
To date, I have a strong belief in the idea that men and women are fundamentally different, because we are put together different. I don't think this means that one sex is better or worse than the other, except in certain circumstances. For example, generally speaking, men have greater upper body muscle mass resulting in an general ability to lift greater amounts of mass and weight. This does not mean all men are stronger, merely that because of a "design difference" most men tend to be physically stronger than most women.
A similar statement could be made about submissiveness perhaps; I'm not sure what it would be, but something about how a greater percentage of persons expressing submissive tendancies tend to be female than male, and/or a greater percentage of persons expressing dominating tendancies tend to be male rather than female.
Hmmm.........I'm starting to think I may be putting too much of this into the wrong thread; of course, I don't know if there are any threads that all this would be more appropriate in. If I am in error, please allow for my newness and inexperience here, and perhaps direct me to the better venue.
ennui01
Someone asked or commented about males and females being fundamentally different. There are the obvious reproductive differences of course, but many times I've heard people state that other than that there are basically no differences between men and women.
My opinion on that is "hogwash". Just that single factor *alone* is huge; I mean, think about it - merely the fact that one gender has the capability to reproduce, and the other does not is going to result in completely different mindsets regarding a whole host of issues (procreation, STD prevention, health, parenting, economics - the list goes on).
And aside from that single factor, there are many others. For example, some studies have results that indicate that the brain chemistry of males and females are or could be different. How different is the key though - significantly different, or not significantly different? In the future there will be an answer to this most likely, but I would hazard a guess that men and women are going to come out as being significantly different in how our brains *physically* work; this is already a known and accepted fact in some areas (look at all the research done on spatial orientation ability and language/communication usage ability).
To date, I have a strong belief in the idea that men and women are fundamentally different, because we are put together different. I don't think this means that one sex is better or worse than the other, except in certain circumstances. For example, generally speaking, men have greater upper body muscle mass resulting in an general ability to lift greater amounts of mass and weight. This does not mean all men are stronger, merely that because of a "design difference" most men tend to be physically stronger than most women.
A similar statement could be made about submissiveness perhaps; I'm not sure what it would be, but something about how a greater percentage of persons expressing submissive tendancies tend to be female than male, and/or a greater percentage of persons expressing dominating tendancies tend to be male rather than female.
Hmmm.........I'm starting to think I may be putting too much of this into the wrong thread; of course, I don't know if there are any threads that all this would be more appropriate in. If I am in error, please allow for my newness and inexperience here, and perhaps direct me to the better venue.
ennui01
My third comment
There have been several different, but somewhat similar, "definitions" of feminism posted thus far. For the most part it appears that these have been what the individual uses in their own experience. I think most of them have been good, fairly generic (meaning "usefull in lots of circumstances" not "ewww gross, it's generic") definitions. I like 'em, for the most part.
My own definition of feminism was fairly standard, and came almost verbatim from the liberal feminist manifesto (were such a document to exist). I've changed it recently, in my realization that I want egalitarian mindsets to prevail, not feminist or patriarchal. I want there to be a fundamental equality in the political, legal, economic, social, and sexual spheres for all people. This is to say that everyone should be exactly equal; not possible, ain't gonna happen, be a horrid mistake if it happened.
I've become a firm follower of this egalitarian idea for multiple reasons (which I won't go into here), but since coming to this decision, I seem to have also come to the realization that it fits into the BDSM community far better than does "simple" feminism.
I mean, does feminism support a man's choice to become a woman? Or a woman's choice to become a man? Such surgeries do exist after all. And what about the idea of feminist support for androgyny? To my knowledge, it doesn't exist; see, I think that while feminism was a very good and positive influence on our society, our culture, and to a certain extent the world at large, we as a culture/society have now gone beyond feminism. The idea that women need to be fundamentally equal to men has largely been accepted - what still needs to happen is that the realization of this goal needs to still occur. And, that is a cultural process of change - and trust me, as a cultural sociologist, I know how slow most cultural changes occur. Anyway, as feminism had it's powerful and largely positive effect on "us", now I think we need egalitarianism. And, personally, I think this would be a great boon to the BDSM community as a whole, and certain aspects of it individually even moreso.
ennui01
There have been several different, but somewhat similar, "definitions" of feminism posted thus far. For the most part it appears that these have been what the individual uses in their own experience. I think most of them have been good, fairly generic (meaning "usefull in lots of circumstances" not "ewww gross, it's generic") definitions. I like 'em, for the most part.
My own definition of feminism was fairly standard, and came almost verbatim from the liberal feminist manifesto (were such a document to exist). I've changed it recently, in my realization that I want egalitarian mindsets to prevail, not feminist or patriarchal. I want there to be a fundamental equality in the political, legal, economic, social, and sexual spheres for all people. This is to say that everyone should be exactly equal; not possible, ain't gonna happen, be a horrid mistake if it happened.
I've become a firm follower of this egalitarian idea for multiple reasons (which I won't go into here), but since coming to this decision, I seem to have also come to the realization that it fits into the BDSM community far better than does "simple" feminism.
I mean, does feminism support a man's choice to become a woman? Or a woman's choice to become a man? Such surgeries do exist after all. And what about the idea of feminist support for androgyny? To my knowledge, it doesn't exist; see, I think that while feminism was a very good and positive influence on our society, our culture, and to a certain extent the world at large, we as a culture/society have now gone beyond feminism. The idea that women need to be fundamentally equal to men has largely been accepted - what still needs to happen is that the realization of this goal needs to still occur. And, that is a cultural process of change - and trust me, as a cultural sociologist, I know how slow most cultural changes occur. Anyway, as feminism had it's powerful and largely positive effect on "us", now I think we need egalitarianism. And, personally, I think this would be a great boon to the BDSM community as a whole, and certain aspects of it individually even moreso.
ennui01
And my fourth comment (yes, another one)
Something I think most people forget, and which some of you here have commented on, is being able to "be" two apparently opposite things at the same time. The example of the feminists who cannot understand how a woman can be both a feminist and a submissive at the same time (and that's a damn shame about the article which was not published; I hate to see that sort of biased censorship occur).
I've had arguments with friends and acquaintences about my next statement, because many of them don't believe I can be what I say (or rather, admit) I am. Actually, I should say that this is a statement I used to say, it has changed now. Anyway, here's the statement I used to say: I am both a feminist and a sexist.
Now, I'm not saying that like I'm proud of it. In fact, I've spent a good deal of the last 5 years examining my mind and social self to determine why this is, and to overcome the latter part of the statement. However, I came to the realization about 2 years ago that, like an alcoholic, I would never be "cured" of my problem. Now I work on preventing such behaviors from occuring/manifesting in my interactions with others, and on preventing their existance from colouring my attitudes and perspectives.
But this is what I was referring to - two apparently contradictory statements, or in this case, mindsets. I've no idea if I'll ever be able to say to myself that I am no longer a sexist. That is the way I was raised, and the culture(s) I existed in supported, reinforced, and encouraged (to a great degree) such behaviors and attitudes. But, I've managed to change this much - and this is where I'm leading.
As much of a sexist as I was, and still may be (although I work damn hard to not be how I was raised - and I do a pretty good job of it, don't get me wrong folks, I'm not some raving Archie Bunker or extremist-rightwing fundamantalist Christian), I learned to change. Thus, it should be possible to "change" the attitudes of those who don't understand how dichotomies such as feminism/submissiveness can exist.
One thing I did *not* agree with that someone wrote, was how if a person got into their face regarding feminism and submissiveness, that they would just roll their eyes and walk away from the speaker. While that is certainly the persons right, to just ignore the other person and walk away, how much has that ever done to change anything? If we want to encourage understanding and acceptance of our community, our lifestyles, and our choices of personal expression and activity, we also need to be somewhat willing to be open to debate with and education of another person. Please don't misunderstand, I'm not belittleing the person who made that statement, or their opinion. I just see encounters/discussions like that to be opportunities to be exploited, not situations to be avoided. But then, I'm a very assertive, often willingly argumentative person with a stubborn streak a meter wide; I can accept the whole "agree to disagree" thing, but heck, why not try to get them to understand instead of misunderstand? And if they understand, why not try to get them to accept? (Far too often people think accepting without understanding is enough - it's not if you *really* think about it.)
ennui01
Something I think most people forget, and which some of you here have commented on, is being able to "be" two apparently opposite things at the same time. The example of the feminists who cannot understand how a woman can be both a feminist and a submissive at the same time (and that's a damn shame about the article which was not published; I hate to see that sort of biased censorship occur).
I've had arguments with friends and acquaintences about my next statement, because many of them don't believe I can be what I say (or rather, admit) I am. Actually, I should say that this is a statement I used to say, it has changed now. Anyway, here's the statement I used to say: I am both a feminist and a sexist.
Now, I'm not saying that like I'm proud of it. In fact, I've spent a good deal of the last 5 years examining my mind and social self to determine why this is, and to overcome the latter part of the statement. However, I came to the realization about 2 years ago that, like an alcoholic, I would never be "cured" of my problem. Now I work on preventing such behaviors from occuring/manifesting in my interactions with others, and on preventing their existance from colouring my attitudes and perspectives.
But this is what I was referring to - two apparently contradictory statements, or in this case, mindsets. I've no idea if I'll ever be able to say to myself that I am no longer a sexist. That is the way I was raised, and the culture(s) I existed in supported, reinforced, and encouraged (to a great degree) such behaviors and attitudes. But, I've managed to change this much - and this is where I'm leading.
As much of a sexist as I was, and still may be (although I work damn hard to not be how I was raised - and I do a pretty good job of it, don't get me wrong folks, I'm not some raving Archie Bunker or extremist-rightwing fundamantalist Christian), I learned to change. Thus, it should be possible to "change" the attitudes of those who don't understand how dichotomies such as feminism/submissiveness can exist.
One thing I did *not* agree with that someone wrote, was how if a person got into their face regarding feminism and submissiveness, that they would just roll their eyes and walk away from the speaker. While that is certainly the persons right, to just ignore the other person and walk away, how much has that ever done to change anything? If we want to encourage understanding and acceptance of our community, our lifestyles, and our choices of personal expression and activity, we also need to be somewhat willing to be open to debate with and education of another person. Please don't misunderstand, I'm not belittleing the person who made that statement, or their opinion. I just see encounters/discussions like that to be opportunities to be exploited, not situations to be avoided. But then, I'm a very assertive, often willingly argumentative person with a stubborn streak a meter wide; I can accept the whole "agree to disagree" thing, but heck, why not try to get them to understand instead of misunderstand? And if they understand, why not try to get them to accept? (Far too often people think accepting without understanding is enough - it's not if you *really* think about it.)
ennui01
