Feminism and being a submissive

[Aeroil]

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!

yay

 

[sunfox]

yay

Wow, that's strangely gratifying.

Maybe Shadowsdream and the rest of our Dominant ladies are on to something there.

 

[Aeroil]

Wow, that's strangely gratifying.

Maybe Shadowsdream and the rest of our Dominant ladies are on to something there.

LOL.
if you say so ma'am .

 

[sunfox]

LOL.
if you say so ma'am .

Whee! Do that again.

 

[Aeroil]

Whee! Do that again.

LOL.
if you say so ma'am .

 

[sunfox]

LOL.
if you say so ma'am .

Oooh, that's so tingly. *grins*

I'd better quit before I start getting delusions of grandeur.

 

[catalina_francisco]

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.

LOL, having had the pleasure of spending a weekend in Eb's company the mental picture this conjured just about made me mess up the screen with Diet Cake....most definately she is not a woman you would suggest to her face she might be harbouring secret desires to be submissive if you want to live long. I am sure Shadowsdream would also not leave any doubt in one's mind.

Catalina

 

[ownedsubgal]

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 don't wish to pick a fight either...or even argue, because there's no point. my reasons for believing as i do are not based on the tangible, on anything one can see or prove w/scientific data..it goes much deeper than that. no, i don't believe fem Doms and male subs are rare simply because i have not run across any personally. aside from lack of any evidence (in my own admittedly limited experiences), imo it just does not make biological sense for female Domination or male submission to be widespread. why? i could list a million and 1 reasons as to why i believe as i do, but likely none will make you or anyone else w/a differing belief understand my belief any better. so, i won't bother listing them. but i will share that it was not my Master who brought me to such beliefs, tho obviously he feels the same way regarding the natural order. no i would never openly disagree w/my Master, but i do have my own mind, my own opinions, so if i state that something is "my" belief...it is just that.

also, my idea of "Dominant" and "submissive" likely differ from many here. i view D or s as instinctive personality traits and ways of processing the world around you...what a person wants/desires/likes has nothing to do with it. i'm not a submissive because i like to submit (i often don't)........i also don't believe all or most women are necessarily submissive...many many yrs of cultural conditioning has made this impossible. what i do believe is that there was originally an intended "path" so to speak for Male and female interaction among humankind..no, not all fit the mold...but enough did to help make our species grow and thrive. now, that "path" is dismissed as outdated, ignorant, unfair, illogical, whatever....so many are conditioned not to follow it. and maybe this is 1 reason why our society is in its current sad state??

i'm sure i sound like a quack on this, but however un-PC, it's something i believe w/my whole heart and feel is true way down in my bones. personally, i can't understand how so many can believe in a heaven, a hell, and in jesus being a son of God. but, my disagreement doesn't make their beliefs any less valid...and for all i know, they could be right. *shrug*

 

[WriterDom]

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?

QUOTE]

Unicorns? No. I think they are a minority within the minority of bdsm. It's all the same struggle. To not accept them is to reject ourselves.

 

[Aeroil]

and maybe this is 1 reason why our society is in its current sad state??

this one statement struck me, I just think the main problem with society now is a moral breakdown, but since D/s has no direct ties to morality, I don't think it's even fractionally part of the problem.
now if you want to get into what kind of moral breakdown, and what caused it, that's WAY more complex.

 

[Netzach]

I'm gonna stand up for what OSG is saying here from the opposite side.

In Netz land male authority makes no sense, never has, never will. I've never met one that could sustain my respect or interest, unless it was a man displaying what I'd characterize as a strong feminine side and intuition. All the qualities to which I might tip a hat seem to fall on the distaff side, women, though sometimes psychotic and unreliable leaders still ARE the leaders and men/butches/males are at their best at their most courtly and ready to lay it all down for their ladies.

The reason things may be so fucked up today? The men have had far too long a turn to fuck them up.

While this is my personal psychosexual bent, I certainly am not going to foist it off on anyone else, or walk through the world that way in general. This is my personal landscape though, for which I make little in the way of apology or explanation. These are the patterns I recognize, this is what seems natural and fitting. Of course, I still maintain that what's natural and fitting, who's in the majority and who's in the minority has everything but everything to do with what angle you are surveying from.

So, while my worldview could not be more opposed, I think I get what's being said and where osg's coming from here.

 

[patrick1]

I'm so middle-aged, I can remember times before feminism.

Women were less human then. Don't you think? Allowed to be less human? With less money? Less freedom? More unhappy? Involuntarily powerless? More at the mercy of brutes and fools?

Here's to Betty Friedan, Shulamith Firestone, Kate Millett and all the rest.

How wonderful it feels to have lived long enough that a woman cleverer, more talented and more beautiful than me now feels she has the freedom to come home from her high-income, well-respected job and say, 'Please whip me tonight.'

patrick

 

[Aeroil]

I'm gonna stand up for what OSG is saying here from the opposite side.

In Netz land male authority makes no sense, never has, never will. I've never met one that could sustain my respect or interest, unless it was a man displaying what I'd characterize as a strong feminine side and intuition. All the qualities to which I might tip a hat seem to fall on the distaff side, women, though sometimes psychotic and unreliable leaders still ARE the leaders and men/butches/males are at their best at their most courtly and ready to lay it all down for their ladies.

The reason things may be so fucked up today? The men have had far too long a turn to fuck them up.

While this is my personal psychosexual bent, I certainly am not going to foist it off on anyone else, or walk through the world that way in general. This is my personal landscape though, for which I make little in the way of apology or explanation. These are the patterns I recognize, this is what seems natural and fitting. Of course, I still maintain that what's natural and fitting, who's in the majority and who's in the minority has everything but everything to do with what angle you are surveying from.

So, while my worldview could not be more opposed, I think I get what's being said and where osg's coming from here.

yeah, men were brutes for the most part a long time ago and for the most part now they're brutes and serpents, which is even worse. The problem is neither gender's solely, there are female degenerates too, but the problem levitates quite a bit more towards the Y chromosome, I think..... I don't have too much in common with most guys, which I'm glad for. I can definately see what you're sayin there Netz, I also have a good deal of trouble findng a male that can sustain my respect or interest too lol, but there are a few.

 

[sunfox]

no, i don't believe fem Doms and male subs are rare simply because i have not run across any personally. aside from lack of any evidence (in my own admittedly limited experiences), imo it just does not make biological sense for female Domination or male submission to be widespread.

Alrighty.. I'm going to start here. Apologies for the belatedness, but my 'net was having a tantrum last night, and I didn't feel up to fooling with it. Okay, and I was busy out cuddling my horse.

Addressing biological sense gives me even more of a platform, ya know.. biologically, there are many species that are matriarchal, or female dominated. For example, my horse, since I mentioned her. The common belief is that the stallions dominate the herd. This is actually pretty erroneous. The stallion gives his life for the herd, and fathers the babies.. but in the actual hierarchy of the herd, the lead mare is the boss, and all the women align themselves below her. Male colts aren't paid much heed, because in the end, they will leave the herd to find their own, and fight and die with other stallions or predators after their own mares... while fillies are expected to find a space in the herd/gain their own spot in the hierarchy. Dogs, for the record, work much the same way. As do primates.. and birds... and...dolphins (an animal arguably our equal in intelligence).. and... well, I'm sure you can see that I could go on like that for a very lengthy time.

In fact, it could be viewed quite realistically that any biological dominance of males over a society as a whole is rare and entirely suspect. To overgeneralize, a bit.. but quite honestly, female dominant biology is the norm, rather than the exception, in most of the creatures we share this ball of rock with.

Like it or not.. we're animals, just like them. And the fact that we are more intelligent than most animals doesn't protect us from following the strictures of instinct. And that's why, while I agree, dominance and submission are mostly an inborn state and not something you choose any more than sexual orientation... it is not something inborn in a specific sex. Something in your wiring clicks to one or the other.. or switch, not to leave you switches out.. just as something in your wiring dictates if you are male or female.

also, my idea of "Dominant" and "submissive" likely differ from many here. i view D or s as instinctive personality traits and ways of processing the world around you...what a person wants/desires/likes has nothing to do with it. i'm not a submissive because i like to submit (i often don't)........i also don't believe all or most women are necessarily submissive...many many yrs of cultural conditioning has made this impossible. what i do believe is that there was originally an intended "path" so to speak for Male and female interaction among humankind..no, not all fit the mold...but enough did to help make our species grow and thrive. now, that "path" is dismissed as outdated, ignorant, unfair, illogical, whatever....so many are conditioned not to follow it. and maybe this is 1 reason why our society is in its current sad state??

i'm sure i sound like a quack on this, but however un-PC, it's something i believe w/my whole heart and feel is true way down in my bones. personally, i can't understand how so many can believe in a heaven, a hell, and in jesus being a son of God. but, my disagreement doesn't make their beliefs any less valid...and for all i know, they could be right. *shrug*

As I said, I agree with this, that people are what they are.. submissive, dominant, whatever. However, I don't believe cultural conditioning is the only reason that there are Dominant women and submissive males. I think there have always been both... they just weren't allowed to show what they -were- because of our culture. That's an entirely different thing than culture dictating a change in something that is inborn.. and in a lot of ways, you contradict yourself by claiming that D or s is part of a person, but that outside sources can create an opposing state in someone who should have, by your reasoning, already had the opposite thing inborn. Try saying that ten times fast, eh?

As for society's sad state, well.. life is what you make it. Moral decay affects you only as much as you let it. So I have to agree with Footstool..er, Aeroil , and say that moral/socio-economic decay has nothing to do with sexuality and personality traits that have existed since the dawn of time, and more to do with the world's declining compassion and tolerance.

 

[WriterDom]

Addressing biological sense gives me even more of a platform, ya know.. biologically, there are many species that are matriarchal, or female dominated. For example, my horse, since I mentioned her. The common belief is that the stallions dominate the herd. This is actually pretty erroneous. The stallion gives his life for the herd, and fathers the babies.. but in the actual hierarchy of the herd, the lead mare is the boss, and all the women align themselves below her. Male colts aren't paid much heed, because in the end, they will leave the herd to find their own, and fight and die with other stallions or predators after their own mares... .

So I'm the stallion with 20 mares. It only makes sense for me to put one of the bitches in charge so I don't have to micromanage the herd. I've got more important shit to worry about. Like kicking the asses of other stallions that want to take over my herd.

Because if I lose, the lead mare is going to get 24 inches of strange horse cock whether she likes it or not.

 

[sunfox]

So I'm the stallion with 20 mares. It only makes sense for me to put one of the bitches in charge so I don't have to micromanage the herd. I've got more important shit to worry about. Like kicking the asses of other stallions that want to take over my herd.

Because if I lose, the lead mare is going to get 24 inches of strange horse cock whether she likes it or not.

The bitch in charge frequently kicks the ass of the stallion. What part about the hoofprints on your butt and teethmarks on your neck and your hide turns you on?

And if you lose.. the lead mare will love the strange horse's cock.. cause it doesn't matter who it's attached to, just as long as the body attached chases away the cougars and wolves.. and it's 36"

 

[Marquis]

The bitch in charge frequently kicks the ass of the stallion. What part about the hoofprints on your butt and teethmarks on your neck and your hide turns you on?

And if you lose.. the lead mare will love the strange horse's cock.. cause it doesn't matter who it's attached to, just as long as the body attached chases away the cougars and wolves.. and it's 36"

Many dominants have maso tendencies.

 

[sunfox]

Many dominants have maso tendencies.

There's masochistic.. and then there's limping and bleeding and thick scar tissue. *snicker* Quit trying to defend your fellow male.

 

[Marquis]

There's masochistic.. and then there's limping and bleeding and thick scar tissue. *snicker* Quit trying to defend your fellow male.

She's all yours WD.

 

[sunfox]

She's all yours WD.

Don't worry.. you're still my second favorite. But WD is moving up the list.

 

[WriterDom]

The bitch in charge frequently kicks the ass of the stallion. What part about the hoofprints on your butt and teethmarks on your neck and your hide turns you on?

And if you lose.. the lead mare will love the strange horse's cock.. cause it doesn't matter who it's attached to, just as long as the body attached chases away the cougars and wolves.. and it's 36"

The second part does sound like a typical woman.

The first part I'll have to defer to my horse friend in Louisiana. And will get back to you when she replies.

 

[sunfox]

The second part does sound like a typical woman.

The first part I'll have to defer to my horse friend in Louisiana. And will get back to you when she replies.

It's a typical mare.. human women tend to be more emotionally attached, instead of opportunistically... though I'm quite a material girl at times, personally.

And works for me. I've got eleven horses, and grew up working in a breeding stable with Egyptian and Polish Arabians... also went to an equestrian college in Ohio.. just so's you know I'm not pulling it out of my ass. I've seen plenty of examples of the above, and our current lead mare is prone to harassing the stallions if they don't do what she wants. The only one largely exempt from her temper is her own foals, and her second in command mare.

 

[catalina_francisco]

So I'm the stallion with 20 mares. It only makes sense for me to put one of the bitches in charge so I don't have to micromanage the herd. I've got more important shit to worry about. Like kicking the asses of other stallions that want to take over my herd.

Because if I lose, the lead mare is going to get 24 inches of strange horse cock whether she likes it or not.

LOL, ever the gentleman?....albeit thinly disguised self interest and male pride perhaps.

Catalina

 

[sunfox]

LOL, ever the gentleman?....albeit thinly disguised self interest and male pride perhaps.

Catalina

*laughs*

It's always about the male pride, it seems.

 

[catalina_francisco]

*laughs*

It's always about the male pride, it seems.

From dedicated research of a personal nature into this phenomenon I would have to agree with you.

Catalina