Natural Dominant; Natural Submissive; do they exist? are they exemplars?

[Mystress.S]

Thank you for your comments:

To clarify: The bone theory is not my own, it is part of the work of a remarkable woman, Gail McCool; a behavioral scientist. She interviewed me as part of the research for her book in 1994, but since then I have lost touch with her and not been able to locate the publication, so I do not provide a reference. She discovered that there are two exactly, completely different kinds of humans. She calls them magnetizers and conductors, because of the way they use energy.

They correspond roughly to dom/sub. Magnetizers feel best when they are attracting energy to themselves, to do some purpose. (leadership: teamwork is many organized to one goal, and teamwork almost unilaterally involves some sort of hierarchal structure, even if that structure is not fixed or static. Example: geese in flight. )

Conductors glow when they are channelling energy to the needs and purposes of another.

Together the energies are much more than the sum of thier parts. One ox can pull 1000#, but two oxen pulling together can pull 5000#. One ox must lead, for them to pull in the same direction.

Bone structure was one indication as to whether someone was a magnetizer or conductor, but there were many others. For example, when listening to music, magnetizers (doms) teld to focus on lyrics and conductors (subs) tend to listen to melody. Melody is pure emotion, and conductors tend to have a wider emotional range, they feel more deeply. Magnetizers, have a smaller emotional range, but also that detachment effect someone else mentioned, of being calm and organized in emergency situations.

There were differences like, how they interpret the meaning of different words. A word like "Challenge" ... does it invoke excitement or fatigue?

She came to these conclusions after many years of extensive research. She also noted, as I did, that one does not necessarily identify with one's "born" type.

As for your comments on racial purity, I did not say anything about that... I spoke about breeding for leadership, and how dominance is in DNA. I'm a Euromutt myself, a mix of English, Welsh, German, French. The english side was lesser royalty, and the german side were peasants.

Being a Brit I will lob my 0.02p worth re: Mistress Angelique's Royalty theory.<snip>
Brits are not racially pure, since our island was conquered by Vikings, Saxons, Romans and Normans. Therefore there is a wide variety of phyiscal bone structures. <snip>
I discount Mistress Angelique's bone and aristocrat theories altogether therefore as being irrelevant and unfounded.

 

[Mystress.S]

Hello, Pure:

Glad you found my essay to be of interest, and fun! Fun is goodness...

Saturn, yes. Saggitarius with 4 houses in fire signs.
Narcissistic.. if you mean, self loving, then I agree, but the characterization of narcissism as pathological, does not fit. ADD resitance reflex fits better... but that aspect is mostly cleared.

Extrovert, gregarious, yes and no. I'm actually something of a net geek hermit, extreme empathic sensitivity makes it hard to spend a lot of time in a crowd.

Re: Dianna. Bone structure has nothing to do with fat levels! There can be fine boned big people and big boned skinny people. I chose Dianna simply because she is recognisable to most people. Her grace in leadership is evident in her charitable actions and work as a diplomat... and how uncomfortable she was being controlled by the Palace political structure. Her personal hell.

Anorexia and bulimia are illnesses of control. Someone who feels helpless elsewhere in life may fixate on their diet as one place where they can exercise absolute control. The need for control is an aspect of the natural dom.

With regards to Sartre: I find that much discord and miscommunication comes of people speaking from/of different chakra levels-dimensions-universes. At the level of the crown, indeed the true self is infinite nothingness, the Void. Nonduality.

However, D/s and power games are related to the power chakra, which is also the mental level, and the chakra of personal power and boundaries, individuality. On the level of the body, the individuality of DNA rules. DNA is part of behavior and personality, as demonstrated by studies of twins separated at birth, who still have similar interests, habits, preferred foods, etc.

To take the example of Enlightened Masters: all have attained self as nothingness, yet all are unique individuals. The core personality defined by the DNA of the body remains after enlightenment. Indeed, even after death, on a spiritual level they remain quite unique... as a Shaman and Yogi, I have met quite a few discarnate Masters, and each retains their unique flavour.

My website is divided into several sections, mind-body-spirit. To find the essays on self as nothingness, you have to go to the spirit section.

Re: humility and self doubt... is there any human being who has not experienced self doubt? My humility is directed towards the Divine, I am a slave of Goddess within myself, and have none before. Spiritual humility is required for attaining Grace... but I see no purpose in "hiding my light under a bucket."

In fact, for me a pose of humility is a massively successful manipulation strategy, it charms irrevocably! When I was an improv comedienne, "Happy low status" characters were my specialty, I could make the audience laugh or cry, wrap them around my little finger. People do not think to defend against a humble person. I generally consider that tactic to be beneath me.

The Celestine Prophecies had a wonderfully simple and clear analysis of control strategies, and "poor me" is a nasty one. Vampiric, manipulative, passive-aggressive.

I enjoyed reading your comments, thank you.

Hi All,

A couple comments on Mystress Angelique's essay: It's well written and fun.
<snip>
She goes on to discuss the 'fine bones' of those of the royal line, including Diana---who was a kindergarten teacher--whose 'fine bones' emerged in midlife through anorexia/bulimia.

Notice how the 'natural domme' is drawn into the 'blue blood' approach: Some (natural) aristocrats 'just have it', through and through. Several posters have indicated the affinities of 'blue blood' theory and fascist theory.

This domme is clearly kind of an extrovert, a bit exhibitionist, probably gregarious. (Astrologically, a Jupiter type.) Question: Is this 'the' natural domme? or one flavor thereof? Can there be an introverted, socially withdrawn 'natural domme.' ??(Astrologically, a Saturn type)?

She seems a bit narcissistic: is that part of the 'natural domme' or merely one flavor: Are there humble, self-deprecating, even self doubting dommes?
<snip>

Any Sartre fans out there? He said there aint no core (of specific characteristics). At the center, is nothingness. You 'are' what you make yourself in your chosen pattern of actions.

J.

 

[Pure]

Thank you for joining this thread, Mystress S. I appreciate your clarifications. While we don't all agree, we've tried to canvass and sample the websites of the more articulate and less generic bdsm thinkers and practicers.

 

[Mystress.S]

I think your head is perfect right where it is, Francisco.

There are a few other doms I do not get along with, simply because they try to control me and I wil not submit to that, so there is conflict. I do have friends who are more considerate Doms.

To take an example of politics, or wolves... kings of many kingdoms can get along fine, so long as they are not trying to invade each other. Each pack has one alpha wolf, and it does not attempt to exert control over other packs unless there is a territorial dispute.

Even to use your "Highlander" example... the battle for supremacy is species specific, most of the immortals are not trying to dominate the world of mortals.

I would say the persona of one who wants to rule the world, like Hitler or Bush, is aberrant, pathological. "Pinky and the Brain" cartoon comedy, if their results were not so devastating.

Generally speaking, I find a whole lot more non consensual power games occurring in the larger world. People in the fetish scene get a heightened awareness of power games and consensuality that tends to make them gentler and more considerate.

For example: I am the only one in my family who consciously identifies dom-sadist. The other members have it in their DNA, but vehemently deny any similarity to my orientation. A worse pack of physically, emotionally, verbally abusive manipulative people you are not likely to meet!

What is repressed, comes up ugly.

The idea that a submissive is a losing Dominant is interesting and a nice way of deluding yourself. Under that idea there would have to be one all overpowering Dominant. One super being that eventually will dominate all, one dominant that is the ruler of all.

“There can be only one”, to quote a famous movie.

Would that mean that Ms Angelique and I have never encountered a stronger Dominant? I wonder when I will meet Angelique. We will have to see if she can take my head or I hers.
This is a very typical thought pattern of dominants in favour of hierarchical models. <snipped>Francisco.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Hello Angelique,

I would like to thank you for taking the time out of your busy schedule to answer our comments on your essay and to clarify your view points.

I think your head is perfect right where it is, Francisco.

Thank you, I felt it was better suited on top of my neck then in your trophy cabinet,

There are a few other doms I do not get along with, simply because they try to control me and I will not submit to that, so there is conflict. I do have friends who are more considerate Doms.

Exactly my sentiment, as long as a Dominant does not try to control me or exert power over me there is no conflict and there can be friendship.

To take an example of politics, or wolves... kings of many kingdoms can get along fine, so long as they are not trying to invade each other. Each pack has one alpha wolf, and it does not attempt to exert control over other packs unless there is a territorial dispute.

This is of course correct as long as there is no reason for the wolf pack to extend their territory, for example a sudden shortage of food could lead to a territorial dispute. So yes I agree here with you, and it comes down again to mutual respect.

Basically said, as long as you treat me with the same respect as I treat you we do not have to dominate each other.

And there is another truth in there; I would not set out on a path to dominate another Dominant. However would there be a 'territorial dispute'(for example trying to steal my slave), I would become very nasty very soon.

What is repressed, comes up ugly.
I could not have said it better.

I agree with a lot of your view points and find that your articles are very well written and very literate. There is one question which I would like to ask you out of your new essay.
Hierarchies are a part of our nature.

What do you exactly mean with this? Are we talking here about hierarchies inside our own reality, for example in my case between catalina and myself, or are we talking here about hierarchies between dominants itself or the world in general.

Francisco.

 

[Mystress.S]

Hello Angelique,
I would like to thank you for taking the time out of your busy schedule to answer our comments on your essay and to clarify your view points.

Thanks for letting me know about it!

Hierarchies are part of nature, part of the behavior of all herd animals, including humans. Even in some non-herd animals like cats. Anyone with more than one cat in a household knows that they are even more hierarchical than dogs.

Hierarchies are how nature organizes groups into teams, so they can accomplish more than one could do alone. Like that silly song about ants and rubber tree plants.

This is a wonderful thing, and truly miraculous. The things humans have accomplished through hierarchies! Put people on the moon! From a spiritual viewpoint, Priest or High Priestess channels the energy of the group toward a single goal or ritual.

Discord comes when the hierarchies are not consensual... everything from family arguments to the French Revolution.

People are hierarchical. Every attempt to create a truly egalitarian society has resulted in more, elaborately structured hierarchies. This is true across ideologies. The US and the USSR both had an ideal of a classless, eglaitarian society and both completely failed in that regard.

There are a few communes that have done a little better, but mostly through consensus democracy: there is still a requirement for management... and consensus democracy is dinosaur slow in terms of getting anything done.

It is said, that whenever two men meet, there is a part of them that sizes each other up and decides which of them would win in a fair fight! Women do a similar thing, but the competition is about beauty, social status and social skills.

It is instinctive, a part of us. Someone who claims not to do so, is probably in denial!

Oddly... some plants are hierarchical also. In neo-druidism one finds the "King" and "Queen" trees of the forest, which are usually the tallest and most perfectly formed, and one can observe other trees sending them energy! Plants are territorial and compete for resources, as anyone who has weeded a garden can attest. They compete for water, sunlight and room to grow. There is co-dependence and interdependence too.

 

[incubus_dark]

There are a few other doms I do not get along with, simply because they try to control me and I wil not submit to that, so there is conflict. I do have friends who are more considerate Doms.

To take an example of politics, or wolves... kings of many kingdoms can get along fine, so long as they are not trying to invade each other. Each pack has one alpha wolf, and it does not attempt to exert control over other packs unless there is a territorial dispute.

Pretty much addresses my point, re:

rather than assuming doms that when triggered by a better positioned dom, become sub, suppose a similar small coterie of doms who are predisposed to avoidance if confrontation appears to have a low chance of success. This then would closely conform to an ESS (Evolutionary Stable Strategy) that is widespread in the animal kingdom. Note that with all such hawk ESSs, it can only exist with functional stability when in the minority of the population. Similarly,

etc.

Oh, and Netzach:

It's not that complicated or foreign a notion to me. My ideal submissive is something of a middle manager actually.

There are a lot of things *I* don't want to think about, be bothered with, have to decide, actually. Rather than finding someone to control these aspects of my life for me, I look for someone to *manage* them for me. I don't think this disproves Dominance at all. I don't think Dominance is defined by running every detail, in fact, that's the essence of administrative servitude and I get enough of a dose at work, thank you.

Excellent point and yes, me too.

 

[Pure]

Hi Francisco,

If I was mistaken about Ms. Mallory as holding that there is, within a person, an inner combining of two "opposite" intstincts or urges, this view seems apparent in Mystress S, as excerpted below. (Hello, Mystress S!)

You can see she has a Jungian/"Kundalini" based approach, with each outer type or personality having an inner "opposite" (=complementary) counterpart. The proposed ideal is of a 'balanced individual', or one with the 'opposite side' in balance.

Further, in line with these Jungian and Eastern roots is a certain degree of gender stereotyping.

Now I don't disagree, *to a point* with this 'women are by nature more social' thing, but I'm not sure the men, as she says, have this gene (if there is such**) switched off (unless awakened***). Most forms of 'social' and 'socio-spiritual' thought'esp those mentioned by Mystress A, are male originated and elaborated, whether it be Aristotelianism or Christianity. "Lord of the Flies" is fantasy, the Jesuit run colony in Paraguay (?) was a reality, to cite a case of combining the 'spiritua' and the 'social'. It's pretty well conceded, too, by most biologist that the 'state of nature' of Hobbes, the 'war of all against all' or 'law of the jungle' so called, is myth.

Which brings us to a real problem not emphasized so far in this thread. Given all this 'natural approach', --encoded in the DNA-- found in the wolf pack, etc. what the f*** does one make of the female dominant, if indeed that is possible.??

Her own example of Mother Teresa seems particularly ill chosen, though I'm not deeply informed about her. She submitted totally to a male hierarchy, including on all matters women might want to take a stand on, like birth control, abortion, male priesthood, etc. A bitch? I think not, but show me the evidence.

It's hard to be concise, here, but classical Jungian thought seems ill equipped in the area we talk of. It's just too fucking stereotyped, as many women (and some men, like Hillman) readers have found. (We have several local Jungian thinkers, e.g., Marion Woodman; as well as guests like Whitman, who are extremely conservative gender-wise.) So, in a word, while there are 'opposite' polarities, I think, in humans it's a mistake to (more or less) lay or superimpose them on the sexes/genders.

I can't pull all these thoughts together, now, but let's say I'm uneasy about the proposed overview of things. IIRC, as I sign off, this is reminiscent of your problem with the IE folks: Classical spirituality and classical Jungianism are pretty fucking stereotyped, as the absence of female buddhist, zen buddhist, yogic and vedantic gurus/leaders attests. In a word, as is true throughout this debate, everyone talks 'nature' or 'natural' or 'by nature' but reads nature in accord with an agenda, here a rather conservative one.

Best,
J.

[Added (11:28 am edt, 6-07):

**Mystress S has referred to an article in a Vancouver newspaper, which quotes a scientist David Skuse, who says that there is such a gene. Check this url, she supplied:

http://www.domin8rex.com/serpent/body/gene.htm


***She believes genes can be awakened by kundalini. As she states, there is no scientific evidence for this. Further it seems her examples of socially conscious males Jesus and Gandhi --was Jesus socially conscious?-- would seem to count against her and Skuse's position about men lacking a social gene. ]


========

Mystress Angelique Serpent

http://www.domin8rex.com/serpent/body/tantra.htm



I do not disagree with the classic fem-receptive, male-agressive paradigms. As I mentioned before, the root of that behavior has been found in DNA. Women have a gene that lets them pick up manners and social conscience as automatically as they pick up language. This gene is switched off in the male fetus, which is why boys must be trained to be polite and not behave like something out of "Lord of the Flies". Why it is easier to train men to kill, as in the Military. Why men can become very abusive towards those they have power over, as in the current statistics of male violence against women and children shows.

Women are naturally more concerned for the common good of the community, and have the brain structure to be able to do several things at once.. they make better leaders... but the will to power comes from the male aggression.

My Fem Dom teachings have their real flowering, when you consider the Jungian concept that the unconscious mind manifests as the opposite gender of the body, the "Divine Beloved". The opposite gender side of the individual identity. Kundalini has a androgynising effect, as the karma is released, the ego-identity merges into the unconscious. At it's deepest level, the unconscious is the Collective.. All that Is. All intuitive and spiritual experiences come into perception thru the unconscious, it is the window to Spirit.

Female Dominance, the way I practice it, works as a kind of Yoga.. The ego surrenders to being a slave/vessel of the unconscious gender, and gives up conscious free will, in favor of letting the smarter part of their mind, make the decisions and control the body. The deeper the surrender of the ego polarity to the unconscious self, the more the individual becomes a vessel of Spirit.

A basic Zen concept.. moving into the polarity to find the middle path.. the place of balance. Deliberately reversing the genders.. teaching women to be aggresive and dominant, and teaching men to be submissive and self-sacrificing, brings the unconscious gender attributes forth to devour the ego...

The gender polarities collapse and disappear, as a rigid structure, leaving the body to be a vessel of genderless spirit having a human experience. Flexible, able to radiate the essence of either gender, or both, or none at all, depending on the needs of service to other, in the moment.

The mental gender collision/merger brings up the culturalization Karma of gender roles, to be released. Both genders end up wrestling with cultural labels that are threatening to the ego.... a Dom woman is a Bitch, a sub male is a wimp.. la la.. and surrendering them.

A balanced individual easily exhibits both gender qualities. Christ and Ghandi exhibit feminine qualities of receptivity, self sacrifice and surrender. Mother Theresa was willing to tell heads of state, exactly what she thought of them. Wimps and bitches Rule!! LOL!! Male aggression and female receptivity merged, form a true leader, who acts in service to the greater needs of those they lead.

Teaching people to act from the will of their unconscious gender, and be a vessel for it, his has an incredible balancing and empowering effect on both genders. It also leads them into discovering the greatest love affair there is, their personal relationship with their own Divinity.

Women becoming Dominant learn to accept their power, and become aware of how the threat of being labeled "unladylike" has been used to repress their natural inner warrior, their intuition and their defenses against being victimized. I have found that learning Dominance, as I teach it, is incredibly empowering for those abused women you speak of, as it helps them to get beyond their present victim state. They learn to speak their truth and to behave aggressively in service to their own well being, and to the greater good of the community. The male drive to power is filtered thru the feminine form/vessel which seeks the community well being and harmony.

Men who have always been expected to take charge, find a freedom in surrender that is unparalleled. Men tend to use one side of the brain at a time, and thus they can be very single minded on achieving their goals, to the detriment of their emotional well being, and their community. Thru their fem side, they learn to weep, and to love, and to find fulfillment in acts of in service to other. Heroes put women and children first, like on the Titanic... they don't abuse them.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Hi Francisco,

absence of female buddhist, zen buddhist, yogic and vedantic gurus/leaders attests. In a word, as is true throughout this debate, everyone talks 'nature' or 'natural' or 'by nature' but reads nature in accord with an agenda, here a rather conservative one.

Best,
J.
========

[/SIZE]

Will need to read this later when I have more time and energy but needed to comment as a Buddhist that you need to realise there are some very significant female leaders and practitioners who are highly respected and listened to by their male counterparts. There are several books written by some of these women documenting their journeys.

Catalina

 

[catalina_francisco]

Discord comes when the hierarchies are not consensual... everything from family arguments to the French Revolution.

This is in essence where it all comes down to, BDSM in modern days is consensual; hierarchies inside each of our own realities are consensual. Any structure or reality that is not based upon consensus of all parties directly involved makes it abuse and something we humans cannot easily accept and normally rebel against.

However having said that, there is still a part in me that would not accept to be ‘ruled’ by others, like there is in many people, as our history has proven. We only have to look at the US and the thrive and patriotism that created the country. Other similar examples are easily found. So yes there is a need in our society for hierarchies, just look at your own workplace, there are hierarchies all around us, but similarly there is a need for freedom, a need to be able to control you own lives or have the illusion at least you can (as with a democracy).

This is also my reluctance against the theory of a submissive being a dominant that has lost the battle for dominance. Dominance is the need to rule, submission is the need to submit. There are many that can travel between these extremes or balance somewhere in the middle between them, but there are also one’s who are stuck in one of the extremes. Again it comes down to consensual hierarchical models. If there is no consensus, there is no BDSM, only abuse. To claim that someone who has been ‘broken’ from dominance into submission is a natural state goes against anything I believe.

I do not believe however that dominance is a gender specific state, there are differences between men and women which shall come to surface like there are differences between any human being and it shall come to surface in their reality of BDSM. IMO there are no real differences between both genders which cannot be explained by three major factors;
1. in general a man is physically stronger than a woman
2. social and cultural influences
3. physical and biological differences

Coming out of a household which existed out of 4 sisters and my mother I can tell you that women are as mentally strong as men, as vicious as any men I have encountered, and also as dominant. Taking those factors into account, there should be no more need to explain female dominance then there is to explain male dominance. Both are different and equal in their own right as is dominance in general between any two people.

Francisco.

 

[Pure]

Hi Catalina,
/Will need to read this later when I have more time and energy but needed to comment as a Buddhist that you need to realise there are some very significant female leaders and practitioners who are highly respected and listened to by their male counterparts. There are several books written by some of these women documenting their journeys. /

I don't doubt there a several, mostly American women who are "significant" as present day Buddhist writers, I recall one, Charlotte something [Charlotte Joko Beck], whose book I bought. At the same time, if you were to list, most important buddhist books, say 100, of the last 50 years, how many are by women? Or, if you were to name 100 prominent buddists, any sect, last 100 years, how many would be women. There are, in fact, books by women on the 'woman problem' in Buddhism. (Can't give a cite, right now.) This is not women's fault, they are excluded.

In the Vedanta group I was associated with, about 20 years ago, only one of four leaders would allow women as *students* in the intensive study program. (So the problem infects Hinduism.)

In any case, Buddhism, not unlike Catholicism (or the philosophy of Aquinas, for instance), would seem particularly unsuited as a basis for the "fem dom", her rationale, basis, and justification-- in my opinion.

(I'm an admirer of buddhism. None of these problems are special to it. Most religions [Added: or established spiritual paths, or systems of practice leading to 'enlightenment'] except a few 'nature' worshipping ones, are, imo, highly patriarchal.)

 

[Pure]

Hi Francisco,

you said

//I do not believe however that dominance is a gender specific state,//

I don't either. My point, including in my last posting, is that some of the 'philosophies' of these doms or dommes have a real problem with this point. IE was an example. As I argued, Mystress Serpent seems, in her current system of thought**, also to have a problem (not personally, but in her conceptual framework), as evidenced in the excerpts--e.g, Mother Teresa as an example of domme.

Ms Mallory, I'm still thinking about, but her 'dominant' examples are all men, are they not?

It's a real challenge to come up with a conceptual basis for NON gender-specific domination, and I believe that you'd have to look at folks like Dona Haraway and P Butler. Netzach could give some others.

**Which, iirc ,comes to the fore in the mid 90s. This system is based on Jungian and Kundalini (Yoga) concepts. Relevant to the point (that the philosophy is unsuited to the 'fem dom') is the Mystress S ceased being a pro domme a little before really fully coming into this viewpoint.

 

[Mystress.S]

Now I don't disagree, *to a point* with this 'women are by nature more social' thing, but I'm not sure the men, as she says, have this gene (if there is such) switched off (unless awakened).

Ah, you see, this is why, <b>as I mentioned to you in private mail</b>, that I prefer for people to link to my pages rather than copy and paste them. Given the copyright disclaimers on this board, I'm a little surprised that you would not respect that.

When comments are taken out of context of the site as a whole, they get distorted. Elsewhere, is the information on the study of this gene.

http://www.domin8rex.com/serpent/body/gene.htm

It's pretty well conceded, too, by most biologist that the 'state of nature' of Hobbes, the 'war of all against all' or 'law of the jungle' so called, is myth.

I have stated elsewhere, that there is interdependence in nature as well as competition, but saying that there is no competition makes no sense at all. Of course there is. Even plants compete for territory and resources.

Which brings us to a real problem not emphasized so far in this thread. Given all this 'natural approach', --encoded in the DNA-- found in the wolf pack, etc. what the f*** does one make of the female dominant, if indeed that is possible.??.

This comment makes me wonder if you actually read the article you quoted. Clearly, you did not understand it.

Her own example of Mother Teresa seems particularly ill chosen, though I'm not deeply informed about her. She submitted totally to a male hierarchy, including on all matters women might want to take a stand on, like birth control, abortion, male priesthood, etc. A bitch? I think not, but show me the evidence.

It is a huge generalization to suggest that women are uniformly in agreement about birth control. Plenty of pro-lifers are women, and to suggest that they are all male dominated is to suggest that no woman has a mind of her own. From a purely spiritual viewpoint, I can understand that abortion could be considered a lack of faith, but from a practical standpoint I am pro-choice.

Mother Theresa may have belonged to a male dominated organization, but so do a lot of women. I'm a fan of Gandhi and the Buddha, does that automatically mean I am patriarchal? Is every woman who has a male boss at work automatically become patriarchal and brainwashed? Hardly. Mother Thresa followed her spiritual leader, the Pope in most things, but she was pretty harsh in her criticism of many male world leaders, had them quaking in their booties!

As my essay mentions, Gandhi and Buddha... and Christ, had strong feminine qualities. Gnostic Christianity recognises the Holy Spirit as "God the Mother." It did not recieve the massive edit of the council of constantinople that Roman Catholicism was subjected to.

Your challenge for me to show you evidence is very manipulative, given that you have offered no evidence to back up your statements. I'm enjoying the thread, but I'm not up for an interrogation scene.

You have a brain, do your own research... if you are willing to open your mind to the possibility that I may be right. Of course, to do that you would have to understand what I have written, and it is obvious you do not. If there is a way I can be clearer, let me know... but I'm not going to waste time trying to persuade a closed mind.

It's hard to be concise, here,

Why is it hard to be concise? It is easier to simply throw out statements without bothering to back them up? I would not ask you to, but you are asking me to... and I am already very generous in expressing my views, >120 pages of domin8rex.com. plus 25,000 pages spread over several other domains.

but classical Jungian thought seems ill equipped in the area we talk of.

Obviously, my ideas are not classic Jungian thought, although they do draw on some Jungian ideas and elements. The idea that the Jungian anima/animus is the same as the Eastern concept of the Divine Beloved, originates with me... although the idea is now starting to appear elsewhere, since I have been teaching it for so long. In the course of my work, it has been validated over and over... with astonishing, miraculous results!

The leap of assumptions you make, shows that you do not have a clear understanding of my work, or of Jung's. In the interests of improving the clarity of my writing, I am interested to know what caused your confusion. There are many of my Fire Serpent Tantra students who have firsthand experience of the power and truth of my ideas, and would likely be interested in joining this debate, but I would not want to be seen as trying to take over the board... ;P

I can't pull all these thoughts together, now, but let's say I'm uneasy about the proposed overview of things.

Whenever new ideas collide with old, outdated or deeply held beliefs, there is a feeling of unease. If you seek to be nothing, surrender them and make way for new insights.

IIRC, as I sign off, this is reminiscent of your problem with the IE folks: Classical spirituality and classical Jungianism are pretty fucking stereotyped, as the absence of female buddhist, zen buddhist, yogic and vedantic gurus/leaders attests.

This is the most puzzling statment of any you have written. There is no absence. Where you got the idea of an absence, I do not know, and can only guess that it is a prejuduce, not experiential.

There are plenty of female Buddhas, and many female spiritual leaders. There are a few notable female Christian saints as well... and in many places, Mary is worshipped above Christ.

There is the concept of the divine Principles, male=active, female=receptive, and some interpret this as female=passive... but receptivity is the power to devour. Kali dancing on Shiva/Buddha and eating his guts.

My own personal experience of this feminine receptive/devouring power is that it is ultimate, there is no defense against it. On the two occasions I experiemented with switching with a trusted slave, (sex only, no SM/BD) I turned into an insanely beautiful Goddess, glowed blue and devoured all their male agression so completely that afterwards they were more deeply enslaved than ever. Knocked them into samadhi, blank stare, nobody home... TILT! like a cheap pinball machine. I do not expect you to believe me, I know the power of female receptivity for myself, and it scares me more than any other power I possess. It is certainly not passive! Well, maybe passive like the Labrea tarpit.

In a word, as is true throughout this debate, everyone talks 'nature' or 'natural' or 'by nature' but reads nature in accord with an agenda, here a rather conservative one.

LOL!! "The devil can quote scripture to serve his own ends."?

Yes, we all do, it is human nature. You are doing it too. We take what we like and leave the rest, interpret it to siut ourselves.

All perception is filtered through pre exiting beliefs, experiences, attitudes... Human communication is like that "Far Side" cartoon, "what we say to dogs... and what they hear."

What I write, and what you hear... not the same thing. Despite my cynicism about human communication, it is enjoyable to try anyhow. For the sake of love.

When one ascends, to become nothing, one also realizes that Cosmic unity is also ultimate loneliness. One is the loneliest number... There are no others, only myself reflected in an endless house of mirrors... this realization is the essence of the "dark night of the soul." Eventually, there is resolution. Goddess is lonely, so She made us, the illusion of many so we can hug each other.

Blessings!

 

[catalina_francisco]

Hi Catalina,
/Will need to read this later when I have more time and energy but needed to comment as a Buddhist that you need to realise there are some very significant female leaders and practitioners who are highly respected and listened to by their male counterparts. There are several books written by some of these women documenting their journeys. /

I don't doubt there a several, mostly America women who are "significant" as present day Buddhist writers, I recall one, Charlotte something, whose book I bought. At the same time, if you were to list, most important buddhist books, say 100, of the last 50 years, how many are by women? Or, if you were to name 100 prominent buddists, any sect, last 100 years, how many would be women. There are, in fact, books by women on the 'woman problem' in Buddhism. (Can't give a cite, right now.) This is not women's fault, they are excluded.

In the Vedanta group I was associated with, about 20 years ago, only one of four leaders would allow women as *students* in the intensive study program. (So the problem infects Hinduism.)

In any case, Buddhism, not unlike Catholicism (or the philosophy of Aquinas, for instance), would seem particularly unsuited as a basis for the "fem dom", her rationale, basis, and justification-- in my opinion.

(I'm an admirer of buddhism. None of these problems are special to it. Most religions, except a few 'nature' worshipping ones, are, imo, highly patriarchal.)

Mmmmm...well I haven't read any by American women, British and Eastern though. As a feminist I find it particularly respectful of women and there are several texts specifically promotong and addressing women and Buddhism from a feminist perspective. Unfortunately as all my life is still in transit I am unable to quote authors and titles at this point in time.

Another thing to mention though is from the first moment I had contact with Buddhism at the temple, I was told by the monks it was not a religion and that this was a common misconception of westerners who did not grasp the concept it was a path of learning guided by the journey of enlightenment Buddha underwent. My most treasured Buddhist reading which goes everywhere with me is 'Ancient Wisdom, Modern World' by the Dalai Lama. Is surprisingly honest even down to his ideas on smart bullets, and admissions of materialistic possessions he is fond of. I find his concepts on violence and compassion also worth meditating upon form time to time.

Catalina

 

[Pure]

Hi Catalina,

Here is the ref.,

www.prairiezen.org/Beck.html

It sounds like she would be a leading american Buddhist woman.


Charlotte Joko Beck


Charlotte Joko Beck, Zen teacher, head of the San Diego Zen Center. In the 1960s she trained under Hakuun Yasutani Roshi and Soen Nakagawa Roshi. In 1983 she became the 3rd Dharma heir of Hakuyu Maezumi Roshi of the Zen Center of Los Angeles. Currently she teaches in San Diego, USA. She is an author of two books:

Everyday Zen: Love and Work. 1989. Harper Row. ISBN 0-06-060734-3.

Nothing Special: Living Zen. 1994. Harper Row. ISBN 0-06-251117-3.

A chapter discussing her work can be found in the L. Friedman's book, Meetings with Remarkable Women: Buddhist Teachers in America. 1987. Boston & London: Shambhala.


PS. As to the Dalai, and other lamas-- some of whom have visited our city. Many are deeply insightful. I'm sure you noticed all lamas are male, and the lamas ruled the Buddhist orders and, formerly, Tibet (notable, in those times, for its absence of females in school).

 

[catalina_francisco]

Hi Catalina,

Here is the ref.,

www.prairiezen.org/Beck.html

It sounds like she would be a leading american Buddhist woman.


Charlotte Joko Beck


Charlotte Joko Beck, Zen teacher, head of the San Diego Zen Center. In the 1960s she trained under Hakuun Yasutani Roshi and Soen Nakagawa Roshi. In 1983 she became the 3rd Dharma heir of Hakuyu Maezumi Roshi of the Zen Center of Los Angeles. Currently she teaches in San Diego, USA. She is an author of two books:

Everyday Zen: Love and Work. 1989. Harper Row. ISBN 0-06-060734-3.

Nothing Special: Living Zen. 1994. Harper Row. ISBN 0-06-251117-3.

A chapter discussing her work can be found in the L. Friedman's book, Meetings with Remarkable Women: Buddhist Teachers in America. 1987. Boston & London: Shambhala.


PS. As to the Dalai, and other lamas-- some of whom have visited our city. Many are deeply insightful. I'm sure you noticed all lamas are male, and the lamas ruled the Buddhist orders and, formerly, Tibet (notable, in those times, for its absence of females in school).

Please don't allow the fact I call myself a Feminist, and have a hard earned reputation for taking no prisoners when advocating the rights of oppressed women, and women centred issues, lead you to the common misconception that to be Feminist means you must only listen to wisdom espoused by women, and if necessary bend the facts to support my arguments.

That may be how some 'feminists' operate, but I have been able to always hold my ground based on truth and fact, be it discovered by man or woman, or from a male dominated paradigm. My values and ethics have to be grounded in honesty and hopefully unbiased rhetoric, and if it comes from a male based source, so be it, as long as it works and is open. To be otherwise is closing one's mind to a huge volume of knowledge which can be tapped and built on to support the position of women....bit like reinventing the wheel which to me is a huge waste of time. that being said though, I like to keep an open mind on most things and accept nothing is set in stone.

The Dalai Lama may be a male, but in my experience from reading his writings, amongst others, he seems to be very supportive of women and does not treat them as second class citizens, so I respect his thoughts and honesty. He did not invent Buddhism so can not be held responsible for his gender. Thank you for the references though and I am sure they will give me even more wonderful insight into a philosophy I find worth contemplating.

Catalina

 

[catalina_francisco]

Hello Angelique,

I am trying to read as much as I can from your site, though it is very large, and indeed your thoughts and opinions are very well documented and clearly stated. It is going to take me some time to fully understand, if that is possible to fully understand the thoughts and opinions of others.

I would like to come back to something that is difficult for me to comprehend since I have been brought up all my life to believe females are equal to men, and it has remained my belief. The difference you are expressing between females and males, the male being active and the female being receptive.

What I have understood, the female dominant uses her divine godly power to dominate, coming in touch with her ‘receptiveness’ and giving herself over to her ‘Kundalini” . A question that seems to pop into my mind is how you see the roles of man? Can they be dominant or not? Would it be possible for a man to achieve you own elevated state or is it another road you see for the male dominant.

Also I understood the Kundalini Tantra to be a way to attainment, a road to becoming what you want to be, and the person who determines the goal is the one that sets his own two feet on that road.

A short note for the one’s who do not know Kali, http://www.exoticindiaart.com/kali.htm

Francisco.

 

[Pure]

Hello Angelique,

I want to keep focus, so I just have a few points.

1) The posting of excerpts was intended to fall under 'fair use' and 'use for scholarly discussion.' Url's were given, and people encouraged to use them, visit you. I believe all this was proper, but excerpts can't capture the whole of a system.

2) As to genetics and a 'gene for sociality', I added a note on the scientist you refer to. I don't see genetics being usefully debated here by non-geneticists.

3) The examples you cite, of social consciousness, are, of course, male. I wonder why that doesn't suggest some male capacity 'by nature.' Whether Gandhi or Jesus was so because of kundalini, seems neither here nor there.

3a) I don't see any case for "Mother Theresa" as dominant. But there are some female figures in RC history, who may fit, e.g., Teresa of Avila, who founded an order.

4) Kali, I agree is very relevant, and maybe the Hindu religion is a fertile ground for understanding primal forces.

5) Like you, I'm tempted to some form of the 'two opposite principles' doctrine, in my case, as in Taoism (yang and yin). But I don't think they can be fit onto the two sexes very neatly, as conservatives such as Jung do. (and maybe you don't).

Lastly you say,

There is the concept of the divine Principles, male=active, female=receptive, and some interpret this as female=passive... but receptivity is the power to devour. Kali dancing on Shiva/Buddha and eating his guts.

My own personal experience of this feminine receptive/devouring power is that it is ultimate, there is no defense against it. On the two occasions I experiemented with switching with a trusted slave, (sex only, no SM/BD) I turned into an insanely beautiful Goddess, glowed blue and devoured all their male agression so completely that afterwards they were more deeply enslaved than ever.

It's unclear if youre claiming that the female principle is superior, as some fem doms do: "no defense against it" "ultimate".

As to whether you have embodied or been seized by Kali or some form of this principle, I have no idea. No, it would not advance your case to present followers' testimony, here.

In all, none of us here has studied your hundreds of pages, but we're exploring some of your ideas, and maybe you'll give us a chance before devouring us.

J.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Hello Angelique,



3a) I don't see any case for "Mother Theresa" as dominant. But there are some female figures in RC history, who may fit, e.g., Teresa of Avila, who founded an order.

.

Mmmm...well Mother Theresa also had her own order the Missionaries of Charity, which has grown from 12 sisters in India to over 3,000 in 517 missions throughout 100 countries worldwide.

http://www.catholic.net/RCC/People/MotherTeresa/mother.html

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/2960/mothert.htm

http://www.tisv.be

and she was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize

Catalina

 

[lark sparrow]

I do not believe however that dominance is a gender specific state, there are differences between men and women which shall come to surface like there are differences between any human being and it shall come to surface in their reality of BDSM. IMO there are no real differences between both genders which cannot be explained by three major factors;
1. in general a man is physically stronger than a woman
2. social and cultural influences
3. physical and biological differences

For anyone interested, there is always an exception to the rule:

Hyenas are a very good example of a true matriarch rule-fem dom society. Within a hyena clan, there is a dominance hierarchy. On top there is the Matriarch, the female leader. There are other lower-ranking females, who often take command positions in packs. Male hyenas are generally smaller in size and mass. In packs, they do not make command decisions or lead patrols. Research has revealed that female hyenas are dominant over males and are responsible for defending group territories. Male dominance is almost universal among mammals, but hyena society is dominated by females, with the most senior male subordinate to the most junior female.

Lemur and bonobo society are also matriarch rule. Check it out.

 

[catalina_francisco]

For anyone interested, there is always an exception to the rule:

Hyenas are a very good example of a true matriarch rule-fem dom society. Within a hyena clan, there is a dominance hierarchy. On top there is the Matriarch, the female leader. There are other lower-ranking females, who often take command positions in packs. Male hyenas are generally smaller in size and mass. In packs, they do not make command decisions or lead patrols. Research has revealed that female hyenas are dominant over males and are responsible for defending group territories. Male dominance is almost universal among mammals, but hyena society is dominated by females, with the most senior male subordinate to the most junior female.

Lemur and bonobo society are also matriarch rule. Check it out.

There are always exceptions to the rule as we have stated in posts before, but last time I checked, hyenas had not been added to the human family and the quote referred to and used was referring to gender specifics in men and women.

Catalina

 

[lark sparrow]

There are always exceptions to the rule as we have stated in posts before, but last time I checked, hyenas had not been added to the human family and the quote referred to and used was referring to gender specifics in men and women.

Catalina

Well, fine then! *huff*

It was a continuance of thought... you know, how sometimes one thing leads to another. No need to defend as it wasn't an attack, dear lady.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Well, fine then! *huff*

It was a continuance of thought... you know, how sometimes one thing leads to another. No need to defend as it wasn't an attack, dear lady.

sorry u missed the humour...is an Aussie thing most miss I guess.

Catalina

 

[lark sparrow]

Hi LS,

While Mallory seems to modify her stance in the later part of her essay, her earlier statements, on 'purity' are naturally of interest to me. As copied below, they seem to amount to (if I read her correctly):
1) 'pure' submission is in theory only, and
2) the concept tends to be used to grade subs.
3) Other qualities are necessary in the 'mix' for a human to succeed.

<snipped>
I think I was trying to make the same point about the prototypical dom/me as a complex person, far from the 'natural' expression of a single drive; similarly, a concert pianist.

I agree, and added it with the thought that it also applies to dominance.

 

[lark sparrow]

sorry u missed the humour...is an Aussie thing most miss I guess.

Catalina

Oh, I found humor in it alright. Glad to know you weren't offended.