Here is a question that feminists would hate

[Guest]

Long live Lilith.

However... I do feel that when push comes to shove women will submit or lower themselves slightly before men.

Granted, I am head strong, stubborn, and in all areas of my life dominant. I am a leader and I am expected to lead or get the hell out of the way....

However...
give me that one Master... that one that simply looks at me and I know that the best place for me to be would be on me knees before him... and look out

Always,
Elizabetht

 

[Netzach]

Anchee Min, auth.

"Becoming Madame Mao"

"Empress Orchid"

'nuff said. Nobody spoke to my Butlerian notion that "the female" may not have much to do with biology at all. Like "nature" it's pretty much a construct.

rosco, your martial art friend may not be totally off base. I personally know that no matriarchal society has ever existed, all claims to the contrary are pretty much pseudo anthropology. But the first gladiator tomb ever excavated held a surprise. She was a gladiatrix.

Ancient Rome may be more fun to point my time machine at than I thought.

Lastly, submitting when faced with someone who can and will kick your ass isn't really the same as submitting pointedly. Most women push comes to shove will submit to a man, I guess that's a true statement, because most men still hold more power in the workplace (female HR execs never really seem to axe the peter principle boys, believe me) and still are more liable to employ brutality. That's not submission in any SM relevant manner as far as I'm concerned, it's just self preservation, and kind of "duh."

There are also a significant percentage of women in the world for whom men are a sexual irrelevance. Always were, always will be. I don't think they are going to find that master, unless she's a she.

 

[rosco rathbone]

boys are the new girls

the days of dark mastery are drawing to a close

twilight of the gods, sexual gotterdammerung

only a few of us old masters left to turn out the lights and bar the door......

 

[yaspis]

If being a Top/bottom is decided by the gender, how do we explain Switches? Are they, in truth, transsexuals?

I do think that being submissive or dominant is entirely invidual. True, some strong, highly dominant characters might enjoy a more submissive sexual role, and vice versa, but there are also people who are dominant or submissive in all areas of life regardless of their gender. I believe than surroundings, childhood, relationships and the invidual's own core personality leads to whatever sexuality and sexual role they may end up with.

If the environment where the child grows offers the role of "weak, submissive nurser" to a female child, she will very likely embrace it. True, women have a maternal instinct, but I do not consider it a sign of weakness. Quite the contrary. I'd like to point out that men, too, have nursing instincts.

Where I come from women are strong. Just like them I was brought up to know my own mind, to have my own opinions and not to take crap from nobody. I was taught I was just as good as anyone, regardless of my grandmother always crying about the waste of me being a girl. I was taught to lead my own life, and for that I'm grateful. I'm very Dominant at all areas of my life, and I have no need to act "bitchy" other than for fun.

 

[rosco rathbone]

If being a Top/bottom is decided by the gender, how do we explain Switches? Are they, in truth, transsexuals?

[kramer]you just *blew*my mind[/kramer]

 

[Netzach]

boys are the new girls

the days of dark mastery are drawing to a close

twilight of the gods, sexual gotterdammerung

only a few of us old masters left to turn out the lights and bar the door......

Now you are just trying to turn me on, shameless.

 

[rosco rathbone]

Now you are just trying to turn me on, shameless.

may i please have a job in the new world order?

 

[CharleyH]

Anchee Min, auth.

"Becoming Madame Mao"

"Empress Orchid"

'nuff said. Nobody spoke to my Butlerian notion that "the female" may not have much to do with biology at all. Like "nature" it's pretty much a construct.

rosco, your martial art friend may not be totally off base. I personally know that no matriarchal society has ever existed, all claims to the contrary are pretty much pseudo anthropology. But the first gladiator tomb ever excavated held a surprise. She was a gladiatrix.

Ancient Rome may be more fun to point my time machine at than I thought.

Lastly, submitting when faced with someone who can and will kick your ass isn't really the same as submitting pointedly. Most women push comes to shove will submit to a man, I guess that's a true statement, because most men still hold more power in the workplace (female HR execs never really seem to axe the peter principle boys, believe me) and still are more liable to employ brutality. That's not submission in any SM relevant manner as far as I'm concerned, it's just self preservation, and kind of "duh."

There are also a significant percentage of women in the world for whom men are a sexual irrelevance. Always were, always will be. I don't think they are going to find that master, unless she's a she.

How I just love your posts. However there have been matriarchal cultures . . . let's see if I can remember grade 10 sociology here . . . hopi? Mmm, not sure. Still, women don't need to 'submit' even in a corporate world. It is choice and construct - yes.

 

[AngelicAssassin]

Considering some HR execs couldn't find their own ass with both hands and a flashlight, perhaps Peter might prevail ... possibly.

i gave this topic some thought overnight while waiting to see the wrong side of dawn as usual. Between the word "dentate" and the concept of "jam frenzy" tickling the funny bone, i got occasional flashes of coherence. Right before the dawn, when you can almost see your hand in the darkness, i got this.

For me, it's not about fucking, making love, rutting, nor any other description of copulation you care to describe. Gentalia, anus, breasts, mouth, hands ... all are simply tools to the treasure chest. What makes me happy is the "click."

 

[Netzach]

How I just love your posts. However there have been matriarchal cultures . . . let's see if I can remember grade 10 sociology here . . . hopi? Mmm, not sure. Still, women don't need to 'submit' even in a corporate world. It is choice and construct - yes.

Matrilineal, sure. Egalitarian, sure. Even some where women made the decision on who the next boss was going to be (Iroquois nation)

But Matriarchal, like, in charge of it all...no.

 

[Netzach]

Rosco, I should think your continuance in the field of erection would be intergral in some way.

Perhaps you could head up the museum of the old ways.

 

[rosco rathbone]

Rosco, I should think your continuance in the field of erection would be intergral in some way.

Perhaps you could head up the museum of the old ways.

oh great stuck in a masoleum full of old boners covered with cobwebs giving tours to busloads of lesbos from Ohio

 

[DiannaVesta]

Re: Re: Here is a question that feminists would hate

Woman are 'taught' to be submissive, an effect of nurture. By nature the feminine is feminine. Can man, in his attempt, really ever 'tame' nature? He efforts and slaves to do so via constructs of history, science, art . . . but nature, my friend, exemplified, simplisitcally here, by the very nature of her cyclical nature . . . While Masoch worshiped the feminine, even de Sade respected the feminine force . . . an intellectual discussion too long for a post.

Alernately, men are 'taught' to be the law . . . There is no natural instinct in women to be a caregiver. It is learned. Just as I have never met a man who would not lay down his life for his children.

Anhow, enough for now.

CH

Wonderfully put. Thank you. A very interesting topic I'll need to fully read and make comment on. I'll be back.

Dianna

 

[DiannaVesta]

I don’t believe women are naturally submissive. Nurturing perhaps. This is a feminine aspect that can be infused in any gender. Dominance and submission are social manifestations. Depending on what you believe spiritually you are born with the seed and it’s your surroundings that determine to what extreme it will cultivate. I absolutely know that I have this seed; however it’s simply the base of my nature, not my entire existence.

Throughout the years I’ve grown very tired of what dominance and submission is supposed to be. Perhaps this is why so many people shy away from labels and such rigid definition. I too have moved through these spaces and walked this path. I am as guilty.

Now at 45 and having been in the scene over 15 years, dove into all extremes, explored all possibilities I can say this quite confidently…

Does it really matter? In a single week I can shift my energy in any direction I want/need. The days when I limited myself because I feared what people thought I only trapped myself. Once I stepped outside of that I was truly free. Even on my knees I am in control. A well trained sub can pull my deepest strings and drive my spirit crazy. No amount of mastery can control my hunger. There’s a saying, “One pussy hair can pull battleship across the desert.” There will always be the divine mystery of the feminine we all crave to be near. At least in my world this is a fact. <laughing>

Bottom line… it’s really all about choice if you choose to liberate yourself and free your spirit.

Dianna Vesta

 

[Netzach]

neat post, timely for me.

 

[Ms_Kat]

Dominant by nature?

I think that gender has little to do with a person's level of comfort or desire to be dominant or submissive. It is too much of a simplification to say that women are naturally submissive and men are naturally dominant.

The first problem to that arises when one considers same-sex couples, and especially those who practice BDSM. There is just no way to frame a "natural" proclivity for one role or the other in such a relationship. The only way to do it is to step outside the framework and claim that homosexuality isn't natural anyway, so they don't count. Since I do believe it is natural, and I do believe they count, then the "Natural" hypothesis would have to be rejected.

My second problem is that I am female and dominant, and have been so for all of my life except the first three years of my marriage when I tried to be a "good wife". I discovered that a good wife is one who knows herself and is comfortable with it. For me, that means being dominant in our marriage.

My third problem with it is that there are many roles in which even a submissive female will become dominant. Any mother who is submissive to her children is begging for problems. The same thing goes in working relationships - you just can't be a good boss and be submissive to whoever walks in.

The main problem that I would like to bring up is that, in the original post, it was stated that a woman wanted to tie a man (make him helpless) then do things that were not quite considered dominant. This puts a standard of judgement on what is and is not dominant behavior that is determined by someone not in the relationship at all. It also tries to force a woman to behave as a man would in a similar situation.

For the standard of domination, who is to say where the thin gray line of control starts? If a person asks for something in such a way that it is taken as a command, is it that much different than a command? If I give you a choice in such a manner that the outcome is pre-determined, have I really given you a choice?

I have heard various people question whether or not a woman can rape a man. One of the more heard statements is "You can't rape the willing." However, a man who is tied down can be brought to physical arousal whether or not he actually desires it or not. He can even be brought to orgasm without wanting it. I have worked with adult men who were sexually abused as children by women who got them hard, got them in, and got them off. There was no consent, though. Ergo, rape.

The final part is that of equating feminine behavior and masculine behavior and defining one as being more dominant. Women have controlled men throughout history. If you like, you can read the Bible for story after story of this happening (I'm sure other historical documents will prove this true as well). Women are, in general, physically smaller and not as strong as men. It is ludicrous to portray them any other way. Because of this, we have learned to shape our behavior in ways different than that of men. It is no less controlling, but it is different.

The whole point of being a feminist, at least when the movement started, was that women should have equal responsibility and opportunity as men. It was not that women should be the same as men. To take that stance is also ludicrous and demeaning to both men and women.

Hugs,

Kat

 

[Altensing]

weee, down with the femanists... okies, sry bout that, just tryin ta get more posts, baibai