Feminism and being a submissive

[SubbieHubbie2]

<sort of off topic>
OSG: If I believe with all my heart that every car is black then likely I'll start broadening my definition of what black means in order to conform with my belief. I'm afraid your words sound a lot like interpretting the facts to suit the theory. While I do believe that in our society (MOST societies) there are more dominant men than women, this is easily explicable by social conditioning (which the opposite isn't).
</sort of off topic>


Back on topic: Femism and submissiveness

The thread owner asked for a male perspective, here's another. I am not a feminist - I am an egalitarian, which is to say I am interested in redressing inequality that is directed to BOTH genders, as well as racial, ethnic, religious, national, weight-based, sexuality-based, and other inequalities. Part of seeking the equal is understanding that there is no "one way" to be anything: be that man, woman, African American, English, gay, straight, pagan, Catholic or anything else. As soon as we start saying "you are a XXXX, therefore you must YYYY" we actually STOP seeking equality in decision making and thus turn against our own cause.

Take the feminism and submissiveness question you asked about. If you say a woman CANNOT be submissive (actually, it's more MUST NOT that is implied, which is to say that if the natural tendency of some people to be submissive is discussed it is rendered less important than the decision to act that way) as you MUST BE equal to men, but you do not demand that men MUST NOT be submissive because they MUST BE equal to women, then you have an inbuilt contradiction. That is to say, you are demanding equality but stating that you must not have equal choices. For this reason, I think it is incumbent in any equal-rights perspective to accept that its members may choose to act in a way that doesn't seek equal rights for themselves as an individual.

Now, I accept that the above is a purely logical argument. It is not held true by all members of any equal-rights-based school of thought. That said, most such arguments end up based in rhetoric and dogma. They become emotional rather than rational. I'm not going to outright say that an emotional argument is wrong, but it is not something that logic is necessarily applicable to. The argument against the emotional demand for non-submissiveness is itself emotional. That is to say: OK, for you it's emotionally wrong that as a feminist/etc I also be a submissive woman/etc, but for me it's emotionally right. The emotional and the logical argument are quite separate and largely inapplicable to one another. So depending on which you are defending your submissiveness against, the other won't work. Of course, with the emotional argument, it is doubtful that either side will truly convince the other anyhoo as emotions aren't generally open to rational debate.

Oh, one other potential failing of the argument I made is that if an egalitarian demands that NOBODY be submissive because everybody MUST BE equal, then there is no self-contradiction. Of course, at this point we're largely back to emotions rather than rationality and... oh look... there's the PC Police marching over the hillside packing uzi's. In other words, it's something I think of more as bullying than rational argument.

In conclusion (god, I've written too many term papers): the right to choose implies the right to choose not. If you are my equal and I have the right to choose something then you also have the right to choose it. And in the end, if you are, by your nature (as opposed to simply by choice) submissive (generally or in a specific area), does it make any sense to try to force yourself to live as dominant in that/those area(s)?

 

[Aeroil]

<sort of off topic>
OSG: If I believe with all my heart that every car is black then likely I'll start broadening my definition of what black means in order to conform with my belief. I'm afraid your words sound a lot like interpretting the facts to suit the theory. While I do believe that in our society (MOST societies) there are more dominant men than women, this is easily explicable by social conditioning (which the opposite isn't).
</sort of off topic>....................

hmm, that's pretty much the point I was maneuvering towards, subbiehubbie, I'm a believer of social conditioning as the major factor in human behavior as opposed to genetics. But an interesting few paragraphs lol, if a bit confusing.

 

[snowy ciara]

while Daddy and i don't attend D/s or bdsm functions w/a high number of so-called fem Dominants and male subs, there are usually quit a few around, yes. however, simply because someone says they are a Dom or sub, does not make it so. i have yet to (irl) meet a woman who i could truly say was Dominant, or a male who i could say was submissive. being a bdsm top, or a sadist, does not make one a Dominant person imo. neither does liking to be spanked and told what to do because it makes your cock hard, make you a submissive person. but, because i have never encountered a male sub or fem Dom, does not mean they don't exist. but imo they are certainly few and far btwn.

Taking this back to front, referencing where this part starts. " being a bdsm top, or a sadist, does not make one a Dominant person imo. neither does liking to be spanked and told what to do because it makes your cock hard, make you a submissive person.

OSG, I never said tops/sadists or Dominants are the same thing. I used PYL in the end of the post precisely because domination itself takes many forms. I did not want to get bogged down in semantics when I was pretty sure that the thread in question had nothing to do with sensation players. I thought it was pretty clear that we were talking Domination and submission due the subject matter of the thread. Therefore to explain that PYL referred ONLY to various forms of Domination (Master, Mistress, Lord, Lady, Mommies, Daddies, Lesbian Daddies, WhatHaveYou's, name any form of Dominant Personality that does not include ONLY sensation play with the Caveat that some Doms ARE Sensation players too.) was unnecessary. If my use of the PYL umbrella was confusing to anyone, I apologize; now it has been defined.

Now then, you seem to say at the beginning of your post that you and your Daddy do not attend a lot of pan fetish events, so I can see where exposure to female PYL's of the Dominating but not including Sensation Players only but not excluding those who do indulge in sensation play, too, types has been limited.

So I stand by my previous statement. I am limited to what I myself have experienced, but in my experience, Female Dominance is alive and well in the world of kink. In your experience, it isn't. That's cool.

 

[sunfox]

i dunno...actually being submissive or dominant? one's personality as opposed to one's fondness for kinky sex? look, all the above are simply my opinions, my beliefs, and my ways which i share w/my Master. i realize most won't agree and that's okay.

So essentially, what is being said here is that during a play party of a few hours, during which you may or may not have interacted particularly with female Dominants or male submissives, you made the inference that the female Dominant and male submissive population as a whole is essentially the equivalent of the unicorn. Often talked about, but never truly seen. Is that correct?

Because call me crazy, and that's been done before , but that seems like an awfully small cross section from which to pull an abiding view of humanity as a whole.

 

[ownedsubgal]

So essentially, what is being said here is that during a play party of a few hours, during which you may or may not have interacted particularly with female Dominants or male submissives, you made the inference that the female Dominant and male submissive population as a whole is essentially the equivalent of the unicorn. Often talked about, but never truly seen. Is that correct?

Because call me crazy, and that's been done before , but that seems like an awfully small cross section from which to pull an abiding view of humanity as a whole.

no, my view of male subs or fem Doms does not stem solely from observations of people at a few play parties. first, Daddy and i attend many lifesyle functions which do not encourage "play" or even partying....secondly, i realize most folks who go to functions which allow so-called fem Doms and male subs, are not necessarily gonna be D/s lifestylers. but combine these casual observations w/more serious, 1 on 1 encounters and discussions, and in-depth online observation and discussion, and it seems i would have run across @ least 1 Dominant woman, or 1 submissive man, if such folks were so great in number. and that's beside the fact that it's an anomaly of human nature, an old-fashioned, non-PC but set in stone belief of mine which many so-called fem Dominants especially only serve to confirm. still, my mind is open enough to accept that such folks do indeed exist. far from common, far from natural, but like conjoined twins...it happens.

 

[Marquis]

no, my view of male subs or fem Doms does not stem solely from observations of people at a few play parties. first, Daddy and i attend many lifesyle functions which do not encourage "play" or even partying....secondly, i realize most folks who go to functions which allow so-called fem Doms and male subs, are not necessarily gonna be D/s lifestylers. but combine these casual observations w/more serious, 1 on 1 encounters and discussions, and in-depth online observation and discussion, and it seems i would have run across @ least 1 Dominant woman, or 1 submissive man, if such folks were so great in number. and that's beside the fact that it's an anomaly of human nature, an old-fashioned, non-PC but set in stone belief of mine which many so-called fem Dominants especially only serve to confirm. still, my mind is open enough to accept that such folks do indeed exist. far from common, far from natural, but like conjoined twins...it happens.

I always find it shocking when articulate people hold illogical beliefs, but in an a priori sense you are rarely irrational. I can only say that our life experiences must be dramatically different.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Then I must have been lucky because despite still not having attended any parties (play or otherwise), D/s functions or events mainly because we prefer to live our life privately the way which suits us and don't feel a great need to socialise in a D/s context, I have met more than one male sub and know Master has met more than one female Dominant. It is easy to get locked into stereotypes which in the minds of individuals makes their choices and ways the 'true' and/or 'only real' way, but that does not necessarily make it so to those who live the lifestyle or practice D/s on a serious daily level which might conflict with that personal view.

Catalina

 

[Aeroil]

no, my view of male subs or fem Doms does not stem solely from observations of people at a few play parties. first, Daddy and i attend many lifesyle functions which do not encourage "play" or even partying....secondly, i realize most folks who go to functions which allow so-called fem Doms and male subs, are not necessarily gonna be D/s lifestylers. but combine these casual observations w/more serious, 1 on 1 encounters and discussions, and in-depth online observation and discussion, and it seems i would have run across @ least 1 Dominant woman, or 1 submissive man, if such folks were so great in number. and that's beside the fact that it's an anomaly of human nature, an old-fashioned, non-PC but set in stone belief of mine which many so-called fem Dominants especially only serve to confirm. still, my mind is open enough to accept that such folks do indeed exist. far from common, far from natural, but like conjoined twins...it happens.

well OSG, at the very least, I would say be careful with those theories, a lot of people would take offence to them, especially since you're not going to be going around explaining your theories to every domme and male sub you see.
heck, I'm a little bit offended and I understand perfectly.

 

[sunfox]

no, my view of male subs or fem Doms does not stem solely from observations of people at a few play parties. first, Daddy and i attend many lifesyle functions which do not encourage "play" or even partying....secondly, i realize most folks who go to functions which allow so-called fem Doms and male subs, are not necessarily gonna be D/s lifestylers. but combine these casual observations w/more serious, 1 on 1 encounters and discussions, and in-depth online observation and discussion, and it seems i would have run across @ least 1 Dominant woman, or 1 submissive man, if such folks were so great in number. and that's beside the fact that it's an anomaly of human nature, an old-fashioned, non-PC but set in stone belief of mine which many so-called fem Dominants especially only serve to confirm. still, my mind is open enough to accept that such folks do indeed exist. far from common, far from natural, but like conjoined twins...it happens.

It's an anomaly of human nature according to your opinion, which I would have to assume does not stem from any background of sociology or psychology, though feel free to correct me if you do happen to hold a PhD.

From what you've posted in the past, you seem to have a very sheltered and limited contact with the world in a larger sense, so it seems to me that your opinion on this matter is like me saying that all Gordon Setters are submissive dogs. I'm a dog trainer.. I know dogs. But I have rarely met or interacted with a Gordon Setter.. so me making that statement would be an enormous assumption upon my part, based upon the few Gordons that I've met/trained, that someone more familiar with Gordon Setters could easily disprove.

Make sense?

It's not a human anomaly for a woman to be Dominant, or for a man to be submissive. It's an anomaly in your circle of contacts.. which makes it true only for you, and not for the world as a whole.

I would have to be surprised if you said that your Daddy didn't have the same view as well, which to me, would be a case of contaminating the opinion pool.. since you don't tend to disagree with him, I'd imagine.

Not trying to pick a fight, btw, though we've had our headbutting in the past. Just making a point.

 

[Netzach]

The majority of the people I know in serious D/s relationships IRL are female Dominants and female submissives. I don't know what the implications are for the natural order of things, I only know it means I hang with a lot of lesbians and bisexuals.

 

[TaintedB]

It's an anomaly of human nature according to your opinion, which I would have to assume does not stem from any background of sociology or psychology, though feel free to correct me if you do happen to hold a PhD.

From what you've posted in the past, you seem to have a very sheltered and limited contact with the world in a larger sense, so it seems to me that your opinion on this matter is like me saying that all Gordon Setters are submissive dogs. I'm a dog trainer.. I know dogs. But I have rarely met or interacted with a Gordon Setter.. so me making that statement would be an enormous assumption upon my part, based upon the few Gordons that I've met/trained, that someone more familiar with Gordon Setters could easily disprove.

Make sense?

It's not a human anomaly for a woman to be Dominant, or for a man to be submissive. It's an anomaly in your circle of contacts.. which makes it true only for you, and not for the world as a whole.

I would have to be surprised if you said that your Daddy didn't have the same view as well, which to me, would be a case of contaminating the opinion pool.. since you don't tend to disagree with him, I'd imagine.

Not trying to pick a fight, btw, though we've had our headbutting in the past. Just making a point.

Hi Sunfox,

I like you and I hope you do not take the following the wrong way, but I've got to say this:

Whether or not I agreed with Owned, I find several lines in this argumentation unfair and indicative of a rather strong emotional view on the topic.

First of all, there is almost nobody posting here with advanced degrees in psychology or sociology (or if they are here they aren't telling), and to imply that someone's opinion, even an opinion one strongly disagrees with, is therefore faulty if not backed by such credentials is unfair fighting, IMO, since you do not require the same credentials back up any other opinions expressed in this forum (including your own), no matter how far-fetched. (There is also the secondary argument that there are some subjects that academians are far less less qualified to investigate than an ordinary person who is an actual participant in the subject area, as the former's biases and lack of involvement/immersion with the subject, prevent them from making the the assumptions needed to design a comprehensive study. Yes, removal from the subject is supposed to mean objectivity, but sometimes it results in a lack of in-depth familiarity which is fatal to the study as it introduces flaws through false lines of reasoning.)

But my most important point about this is that if you don't require scientific or academic credentials from everybody posting here, you can hardly fault a single person's argument simply because she, like the great majority of us, also lacks such credentials.

Next come a couple of disguised ad-hominum attacks. I mean, you seem to be trying to tell us that Owned's opinion is less worthy of consideration because she has allegedly (I am not calling you a liar, I simply do not know her history and I never take anything somebody says about somebody else--or even what sombody says about _themselves_ online at face value) led a very shelted life (and the assumption, therefore, is that she cannot know what she is talking about?). Her assertion that she frequently goes to non-sexual bdsm events would seem to mitigate against this idea, but the most important point is that, instead of arguing against her actual point, you are trying to discredit her as a point maker. That, in turn, makes you look defensive and your position look weak because you don't seem to have the wherewithal to deal with the actual issue, so you have to resort to the ad hominum--discrediting the person issuing the opinion rather than proving the actual opinion wrong.

The second subtle ad-hominum attack was to suggest that if owned's daddy had somehow held a different opinion, that would have made owned's idea more credible. Ignoring for a moment the illogicality of that (as a stated opinion does not somehow magically become more "right" if someone agrees or disagrees with it--it's the opinion itself that has to be examined), you once again attack the person and not the idea by implying that because owned and her master agree on this issue, owned has no mind of her "own" so to speak, and therefore the opinion has no merit.

Two huge assumptions there: first that one example of agreement (or even many such examples) means only one mind. Which is kind of ridiculous if you think about it closely--everybody except a severely--militarily, that is--brainwashed individual has their own thoughts, whether they admit to that or not.

The second assumption is that if owned agrees with her master, even the majority of the time, that her opinions are therefore incorrect because she is too mindless to come up with them on her own or some such nonsense. First of all, owned's master may very well be correct--none of us can say this for absolute certain, because, as you imply at the start of your message, there have been no scientific studies done on this matter. But what I'm saying is that the opinion, in and of itself with no consideration of who said it, is as valid as any other opinion expressed here on the subject. Secondly, while it might not be PC to acknowledge this, some of us have partners who are extremely knowlegable in certain areas or even in many areas. As an example, Catalina's master seems extremely knowledeable about internet security as that involves his daily profession and I would consider it not too intelligent of Catalina, no matter how independent a thinker she was, if she were to start disagreeing with him on issues that involved this. But because she doesn't actively disagee with him, doesn't mean she's a mindless robot whose every opinion is suspect. It indicates, to me, that she is smart enough to know her areas of knowledge and also her limitations, and that puts her in the category of people who do not pretend to be doctors and phyiscists when they are not. A very sensible category of people, if you ask me! Even a submissive with an extremely independent mind may find herself agreeing strongly with a great deal of her master says, if her own personal "scientific methodolgy" (i.e. seeing if his statments prove actually to be true the great majority of the time and taking into account his background in the subject matter, which may very well be far more extensive than anyone posting int this forum) indicates that he is, most times, right. Anyway, it seemed you were trying to use owned's agreement with her master as demonstration of some flaw in her reasoning, and, for the reasons I've just expressed, that seemed an illogical and false line of reasoning to me.

One more bone of reasoning to pick with you:

"It's not a human anomaly for a woman to be Dominant, or for a man to be submissive. It's an anomaly in your circle of contacts.. which makes it true only for you, and not for the world as a whole."

None of us contacts hundreds of submissives and hundreds of dominants on a regular basis unless we're conducting some of the scientific research that was discussed above as having never been done. In fact, you would need data on thousands of such individuals, not hundreds, to be able to generalize correctly, I would think. Therefore, your opinion--that it is not an anomaly for a woman to be a dominant or for a man to be a submissive--is also a more-or-less "sheltered" opinion, as it's limited to your own relatively tiny circle of personal contacts. Had you done any actual extensive research involving huge numbers and cited it, I'd be more likely to give you the allowance of making such a generalization, but as you have not (or are not willing to share such results), I must conclude that, whatever you think of OSG, your opinion is probably equally "sheltered" and thus equally valid...and true for only you (or for the people that agree with you, but owned sub gal's opinions are also true for the people who agree with her, who, if they are reading this, probably don't dare to speak up in this thread because of the hostile reception her ideas are getting!).

You can make the point, I guess, that a lot more posters in this thread agree with you than agree with owned sub gal, but to me that's the extremely illogical "might equals right" agreement: that ten or even 100 John Q Public opinions are more valid than one opposing John Q Public opinion. The reason I think that "the more people who agree with my idea the more correct it must be" stance is illogical is because I've read history and I watch current events. And over and over again, I see this pattern: that what the majority thinks (or thought) is not at all what is (or was) actually the truth, what actually what is going on at the time. So I tend to be of the opinion that the majority doesn't know jack shit, and that when a whole bunch of people start agreeing on something as absolutely true, I need to start digging under the surface for what is actually going on.

Ok Sunfox, I'm done deconstructing this post. I hope it wasn't too harsh. I do not know you and I mean you no ill will. I just don't like to see false argumentation or faulty reasoning used to try to discredit somebody's opinion simply because that opinion is an unpopular one.

 

[SubbieHubbie2]

still, my mind is open enough to accept that such folks do indeed exist. far from common, far from natural, but like conjoined twins...it happens.

Conjoined twins are not natural? I'm sorry, but your reasoning here eludes me. How do they occur, if not by nature? Cloning?


I'm pretty sure that by "far from natural" you mean "outside the mathematically normal range" (where normal is used simply to refer to approximately 1-2 standard deviations away from the mathematical mean). I have no statistics to back this up, and would be interested in seeing the ones you have accumulated (the ratio question of male/female sub/dom is something I find mildly intriguing, though not as much as the nature/nurture reasoning for it). On the other hand, by definition genuis (I believe the IQ standard deviation is 15, making the definition of genius anyone with an IQ over 130) is equally "far from natural" (otherwise specified as "outside the mathematically normal range"). Yet would any of us say that a genius is "far from natural"?

For many I have heard the term "far from natural" applied to extrapolate from something being "outside the mathematically normal range" to something being "morally wrong" (e.g. as a member of an interracial marriage, I know there are STILL some who describe it as "not natural"). This may not be your meaning, but even if it isn't then I would encourage you to consider the emotional impact of the phrase before using it. For those who have had it used against them, it is likely to cause an emotional outcry owing to the perception of an attack.

 

[Netzach]

Mother nature came up with AIDS, Crohn's disease, the platypus, the dodo, and made William Shatner cut a record in the 70's. I think nature is highly overrated anyway, see how far synthetic fabric has come in 20 years?

I for one don't give a rats ass about my biological destiny or whatever people want to call it and I never have. This likely makes me a highly minority kind of girl, but I've always been fine with that too. I've never been one to get weak kneed around dick, but I've never been one to eschew it over someone else's PC butt itches either. I'd say I'm definitely a product of my environment, a critical, pomo, post-gender person. As for nature and orientation and essentialism? It has a place, just not that big a deal -- Yeah, I'm not an especially good subordinate, socially OR in the bedroom, but I can SEE myself being wired as easily one way as another -- I just happen not to be.

 

[Netzach]

So I tend to be of the opinion that the majority doesn't know jack shit, and that when a whole bunch of people start agreeing on something as absolutely true, I need to start digging under the surface for what is actually going on.

Ok Sunfox, I'm done deconstructing this post. I hope it wasn't too harsh. I do not know you and I mean you no ill will. I just don't like to see false argumentation or faulty reasoning used to try to discredit somebody's opinion simply because that opinion is an unpopular one.

The remarkably unpopular-for-centuries opinion unless I have been living under a rock and believing the conspiracy of the feminazi illuminati who control everything is something along the lines of "women are autonomous, equal human beings with many of the same capabilities of men if not forced into a certain role." I'm paraphrasing. I'm also asserting that some people are ascribing way way way too much power to a process that still hasn't done some of the basic things it set out to do. (75 cents on the buck anyone?) It amazes me the divisive and panicky stance with which a lot of people regard feminism, flawed as it is, at its best a bid at simple parity in housing, jobs, opportunity and education. While anyone who wants to has a right to throw/give/barter/reject away that bid for herself, I'd like to think they can still see it might have intrinsic value to someone else.

 

[Kajira Callista]

I am just wondering how you would reconcile the two. I mean how can one be a feminism and be a submissive. I understand the freedom of choice part but I highly doubt that is the feminist movement wanted us to be submissives. (Perhaps I am not explaing myself correctly).

Oh if this has been discussed in other threads, please don't send me there, please I beg you , I may never come back alive...

my two cents are.... the feminist movement wanted us to be what or whom ever we wanted to be, even submissive. It's about you being able to make choices for yourself, and if your choice is to live your life in a D/s relationship, it was still your choice to start with.

 

[catalina_francisco]

The second subtle ad-hominum attack was to suggest that if owned's daddy had somehow held a different opinion, that would have made owned's idea more credible. Ignoring for a moment the illogicality of that (as a stated opinion does not somehow magically become more "right" if someone agrees or disagrees with it--it's the opinion itself that has to be examined), you once again attack the person and not the idea by implying that because owned and her master agree on this issue, owned has no mind of her "own" so to speak, and therefore the opinion has no merit.

In sunfox's defence, though I am sure she is able to do it herself, as you have said you do not know much about OSG and her life. This makes it understandable that your accusations sunfox is making unfounded assumptions on this (and other points) reflect this lack of knowledge. It is not meant as an attack on you, or OSG, or to create conflict, but OSG herself will tell you as part of her submission she does reflect her Daddy's views and thoughts to the letter and does not challenge him on anything he thinks, says, or orders and does not consider it her right to make any of her own decisions or have a differing opinion etc. Sunfox is just commenting on what she knows from former discussions over the last couple of years during which time you do get to know how a poster lives their life, or presents to live it, and do not rely on the absolute content of one posting to gain that knowledge. I did not see anything in sunfox's post which was an outright attack as much as a statement of a mindset we have come to know....it is not IMO a judgement as much as an acknowledgement and understanding of the terms of OSG's relationship. Most of us acknowledge OSG lives her life according to what is right for her, and much of it is similar to our own.....some feel challenged by it, some feel shocked, and some see it as her right to choose and live it.

Catalina

 

[sunfox]

In sunfox's defence, though I am sure she is able to do it herself, as you have said you do not know much about OSG and her life. This makes it understandable that your accusations sunfox is making unfounded assumptions on this (and other points) reflect this lack of knowledge. It is not meant as an attack on you, or OSG, or to create conflict, but OSG herself will tell you as part of her submission she does reflect her Daddy's views and thoughts to the letter and does not challenge him on anything he thinks, says, or orders and does not consider it her right to make any of her own decisions or have a differing opinion etc. Sunfox is just commenting on what she knows from former discussions over the last couple of years during which time you do get to know how a poster lives their life, or presents to live it, and do not rely on the absolute content of one posting to gain that knowledge. I did not see anything in sunfox's post which was an outright attack as much as a statement of a mindset we have come to know....it is not IMO a judgement as much as an acknowledgement and understanding of the terms of OSG's relationship. Most of us acknowledge OSG lives her life according to what is right for her, and much of it is similar to our own.....some feel challenged by it, some feel shocked, and some see it as her right to choose and live it.

Catalina

Yeah, what she said.

Now I could be really annoying, and make that my only answer on the subject.. and that would amuse me, but probably be considered obnoxious. So I'll be a good girl, and instead state that yes, I did read that "War and Peace" epic of a post, TaintedB.

But quite simply, as I stated in my original post, I am making a point and not an attack. You may rest certain that OSG, like a few others here, are well aware that were I deliberately attacking, there would have been absolutely no doubt about it, and no caveat about me not attemping to start a fight. I'm not ambiguous, when I'm pissed off. I say 'hey, you're full of shit, and you've pissed me off, and this is why...', because that's the kind of person that I am.

Secondly, as Catalina ably stated above, after a number of years, one learns quite a bit about other posters by following their comments and postings. Such is the case here. I don't frequent other boards, though I do read the GB for a giggle, and all of my energy/posting is largely concentrated here. The reason for reaching the conclusions that I did are as stated above, so I won't repeat them again.

I don't much care if OSG has a belief that doesn't jive with mine. What I do care about is the unveiled commentary that all female Dominants and male submissives are 'so-called', and 'outside nature'... because my experience, both on the boards and otherwise, have distinctively proven that not to be true. And as for the psychology degree.. no, I don't have one. I'm too bored with school to go for that long, but if the college had outdoor classes, that'd be the degree I'd have chosen to get.

That said.. my mother has one.. and my father minored in psychology as a minister... and this is a subject we've spoken on pretty frequently because I was curious about their opinions, being raised in a more 'traditional' time period than I was. So I'd say I have a less uninformed opinion than some, yes.. and I never once, for the record, made a blanket statement that OSG was wrong. I merely stated that perhaps her experiences in life had colored her viewpoint somewhat... which is something that anyone reading all of her posts could reasonably infer for themselves.

Though I'll say right here that I do think she's wrong. Even if I never met another Dominant woman (which would necessitate my never having met my mother.. who is unquestioningly Dominant) , the presence of Shadowsdream here, and Ebonyfire, who no longer posts here unfortunately, would be quite enough to convince me otherwise. Period. There is no way you'd ever talk me into believing that they are secretly desiring to be submissive merely because they possess two X chromosomes and a uterus. What an utterly ridiculous notion. (see, now that was a tiny bit rude, probably, but I just woke up, and I'm kinda bearish.)

And finally, for god's sake, stop the 'please don't be mad at me, I'm just taking the devil's advocate side' thing.. I'm not going to cry if you disagree with me.

 

[Marquis]

This conversation got mighty heavy for me, so I'll just say this.


I like boobies.

 

[A Desert Rose]

... the presence of Shadowsdream here, and Ebonyfire, who no longer posts here unfortunately, would be quite enough to convince me otherwise. Period. There is no way you'd ever talk me into believing that they are secretly desiring to be submissive merely because they possess two X chromosomes and a uterus. What an utterly ridiculous notion. (see, now that was a tiny bit rude, probably, but I just woke up, and I'm kinda bearish.)

I don't see this is even a tiny bit rude. I'm definately certain that SD, Eb and Netzach for that matter, would happen to agree with you.

There have been plenty of Dommes on this board... MzChrista, Hecate... my mind is going but, I know there have been and still are, plenty of them. I don't think they view themselves as anomalies of nature. I can speak from experience that SD and Eb are not. LOL

 

[sunfox]

This conversation got mighty heavy for me, so I'll just say this.


I like boobies.

*gets an image of Marquis rubbing his forehead, muttering 'brain hurt.. like boobies!'*

 

[sunfox]

I don't see this is even a tiny bit rude. I'm definately certain that SD, Eb and Netzach for that matter, would happen to agree with you.

There have been plenty of Dommes on this board... MzChrista, Hecate... my mind is going but, I know there have been and still are, plenty of them. I don't think they view themselves as anomalies of nature. I can speak from experience that SD and Eb are not. LOL

Definitely.. I forgot to mention MzChrista and Hecate.. who are also excellent examples, and Netzach, though she's mentioned that she will bottom, is infinitely not submissive. And it's far more with all of these ladies than just sexual or just 'scene' Dominance.

Thanks for reminding me of the other ladies.

 

[Aeroil]

and what about me?? and all the other male subs here?? C'mon, am I really that bad of an example to use?

 

[sunfox]

and what about me?? and all the other male subs here?? C'mon, am I really that bad of an example to use?

Sorry, I didn't see you in here... j/k. You, and Limbhugger, who doesn't post much, but does a heck of a job of it when he does, and ghosst too.. you're all good examples.

[sarcasm warning]Wait.. if all men are Dominant, then I should have noticed you and been bringing you drinks and kneeling so you could use me as a footstool... [/sarcasm]

Okay, I'm really done. I swear.

 

[Aeroil]

Sorry, I didn't see you in here... j/k. You, and Limbhugger, who doesn't post much, but does a heck of a job of it when he does, and ghosst too.. you're all good examples.

[sarcasm warning]Wait.. if all men are Dominant, then I should have noticed you and been bringing you drinks and kneeling so you could use me as a footstool... [/sarcasm]

Okay, I'm really done. I swear.

lol, to be fair, that sarcasm isn't really relevant, but at least it's funny.
and no fair! you can't take my job! *hopes sunfox doesn't wanna start a subbing competition because he'll probably lose*

 

[sunfox]

lol, to be fair, that sarcasm isn't really relevant, but at least it's funny.
and no fair! you can't take my job! *hopes sunfox doesn't wanna start a subbing competition because he'll probably lose*

I'm rarely relevant, but I always amuse myself, even if no one else.

And no worries.. I'm far too lazy to indulge in a competition..


So you can be -my- footstool!