RE: Machismo and BDSM (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion



Message


WinsomeDefiance -> RE: Machismo and BDSM (10/10/2007 10:30:31 AM)

Responding to Bob,
Well, I can say this.  One of us does not understand the concept of conditioning, good luck in your search.




came4U -> RE: Machismo and BDSM (10/10/2007 10:40:21 AM)

quote:

Notice that once again debating the label is only acceptable when in compliance with the initial assumption. Previous and contradicting positions are not to be brought up. The lack of knowledge or intelligence is the cause of not agreeing and understanding; always coming from the other side. Consistency though is in evidence. So lacking confidence that they consider any challenge an attack and of course the challengers are Macho Neanderthals. A label as an attempt to further distract from the issue of running away from challenge.


if that means how I am interpreting it..

it reflects the same philosophy I had on another thread ...

He tends to not ask questions but make a subtle comment within that question with a general idea what general points in favor or disapproval of certain comments.  sigh, it doesn't take someone very clever to do that, to lead into making someone 'seem' to know what they are talking about making general points and applying them to 'themselves' by err accident.

I don't call that kind of person a leader of any sorts, just a mere manipulator of captive audience into confusion and mayhem by causing a branching-off of different points of view only to attempt to grasp some sort of supposed control.

that would be the definition of machismo.

my deninition? a goof that wouldn't stand to be around for more than 4 minutes.

Why would a man, (in assuming he is having an upperhand over such nonsense of self bias drawn and conclusive to his and only his selective answering process of what is his own agenda within prophecy-fitting)think that any submissive would find this attractive?  If so? are they submissive or just too lazy or even dumb to notice they he would argue the sky is neon green and reality doesn't matter?  

It has grown tiresome.  The circular crap that leads to nowhere except his head.

The worst thing about machismo personality/stance? They actually believe they are sane in their behaviour. Pathetic.




QueensWay -> RE: Machismo and BDSM (10/10/2007 10:42:17 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: velvetears

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bobkgin

To the audience at large:

Finally, caught up.

I see once again a thread has become about me and my imagined foibles and beliefs, and not so much the topic.

A pity, it was going so well, too.

Nonetheless, thanks to those of you who contributed on-topic material. I will continue to check in and hope for more.



To disregard peoples contributions, whether or not you agree with them, is insulting.  i have personally found the discussion interesting and thought provoking. 



Whoopie Dooo and so what!!!!! whats the big deal with disregarding peoples contributions? Do YOU always regard EVERYONE's contributions? This here man doesnt have to respond to anyone if he doesnt want to. This there man, like you, doesnt need obid by any rules but the moderators if he dont want to. Sheeesh almighty. You oversensitivity and sense of entitlement makes you get to personal.




Amaros -> RE: Machismo and BDSM (10/10/2007 10:42:37 AM)

A recent scientific study found that women find different male faces attractive depending on where they are in their menstrual cycle.
For example, when a woman is ovulating she will prefer a man with rugged, masculine features.
However when she is menstruating, she prefers a man doused in gasoline and set on fire, with scissors stuck in his eye and a baseball bat shoved up his ass.




came4U -> RE: Machismo and BDSM (10/10/2007 10:45:46 AM)

In that case, I'm want to mensturate right NOW!





QueensWay -> RE: Machismo and BDSM (10/10/2007 10:46:02 AM)

I dont give a hoot whats of interest to you or not and nor do I care that you change or dont change. You just need to realize you aint so innocent of forum etiquette yourself and your to judgmental and defensive and you yourself turn things personal on posters all the time. Have a nice day [:D]




velvetears -> RE: Machismo and BDSM (10/10/2007 10:52:31 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: QueensWay


quote:

ORIGINAL: velvetears

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bobkgin

To the audience at large:

Finally, caught up.

I see once again a thread has become about me and my imagined foibles and beliefs, and not so much the topic.

A pity, it was going so well, too.

Nonetheless, thanks to those of you who contributed on-topic material. I will continue to check in and hope for more.



To disregard peoples contributions, whether or not you agree with them, is insulting.  i have personally found the discussion interesting and thought provoking. 



Whoopie Dooo and so what!!!!! whats the big deal with disregarding peoples contributions? Do YOU always regard EVERYONE's contributions? This here man doesnt have to respond to anyone if he doesnt want to. This there man, like you, doesnt need obid by any rules but the moderators if he dont want to. Sheeesh almighty. You oversensitivity and sense of entitlement makes you get to personal.


You have no concept of what i was referring to. Bob said in his post above: thanks to those of you who contributed on-topic material. I will continue to check in and hope for more.

In his singling out on topic from non on topic posts he is disregarding the efforts people have made to post in his thread, i find that dismissive and rude.  He could have very well said: thanks to those of you who contributed.   I will continue to check in and hope for more.

Whether he recognizes posts or not, responds to them or not i could care less. But when he specifically and directly dismisses those he thinks are not on topic, in a specific post meant to insult others in a subtle way,  he is being judgemental and rude. 

He should have said hope to hear more from those who support my view.








velvetears -> RE: Machismo and BDSM (10/10/2007 10:57:54 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: QueensWay

I dont give a hoot whats of interest to you or not and nor do I care that you change or dont change. You just need to realize you aint so innocent of forum etiquette yourself and your to judgmental and defensive and you yourself turn things personal on posters all the time. Have a nice day [:D]


Thanks for telling me what i need to realize.  Personally i think you are wearing your crown a bit too tight - loosen it a bit and see if it helps [;)]






came4U -> RE: Machismo and BDSM (10/10/2007 11:04:17 AM)

ORIGINAL: came4U
quote:



I know manly-men who don't behave this way, is it because they don't have to?? They must see a weakness in another as a reason to avoid confrontation?  They don't see the need to convey a macho-strength? 




BOB:
quote:

This sounds like Mohandas Gandhi whose philosophy of non-violence liberated India/Pakistan.

Throughout history there have been two models for men: Protector (warrior-caste, machismo, violent) and Nurturer (priest-caste, egalitarian, non-violent).

The ideal, for me, is a balance between the two.

Though I was raised a Nurturer, and it still dominates who I am, I've also deliberately studied the Protector model. I believe my father was seeking to create this balance in the things he taught me while he lived. That was something my mother either couldn't or didn't continue teaching after he died.


Raised to be a Nurturer?
Then studying to ba a Protector model: warrior-caste, machismo, violent (as you call it.)??
Looks like you are doing homework here, because you are acting all warrior, machismo and subtly verbally violent.

Yeah, everyone needs goals. [sm=rolleyes.gif]




Bobkgin -> RE: Machismo and BDSM (10/10/2007 11:18:19 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: velvetears

Bob said in his post above: thanks to those of you who contributed on-topic material. I will continue to check in and hope for more.


For those striving to catch up, she is referring to page 6, #113:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bobkgin

To the audience at large:

Finally, caught up.

I see once again a thread has become about me and my imagined foibles and beliefs, and not so much the topic.

A pity, it was going so well, too.

Nonetheless, thanks to those of you who contributed on-topic material. I will continue to check in and hope for more.



If you examine page five you'll see what I meant.

quote:


In his singling out on topic from non on topic posts


I said "material", not "post".

And most people refer to "non on topic" as "off topic", Velvet.

Am I to understand you are upset because I did not thank people for the off-topic material they included in their posts?

quote:


he is disregarding the efforts people have made to post in his thread, i find that dismissive and rude.  He could have very well said: thanks to those of you who contributed.   I will continue to check in and hope for more.

Whether he recognizes posts or not, responds to them or not i could care less. But when he specifically and directly dismisses those he thinks are not on topic, in a specific post meant to insult others in a subtle way,  he is being judgemental and rude. 

He should have said hope to hear more from those who support my view.



"My view" is that I do not understand the appeal machismo has for some women, but not others.

How does one go about getting "support" for that "view", Velvet?




susie -> RE: Machismo and BDSM (10/10/2007 11:24:46 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: QueensWay

I dont give a hoot whats of interest to you or not and nor do I care that you change or dont change. You just need to realize you aint so innocent of forum etiquette yourself and your to judgmental and defensive and you yourself turn things personal on posters all the time. Have a nice day [:D]


So let me get this straight. You came to complain about people making personal attacks on threads like this. And you do that by?   Oh yes, making a personal attack on someone. [sm=ugh.gif]




KatyLied -> RE: Machismo and BDSM (10/10/2007 11:31:49 AM)

My favorite part is the passive-agressive closings that some people use in their posts.




velvetears -> RE: Machismo and BDSM (10/10/2007 11:35:11 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bobkgin

I said "material", not "post".

And most people refer to "non on topic" as "off topic", Velvet.

Am I to understand you are upset because I did not thank people for the off-topic material they included in their posts?



Just pointing out my understanding of your discussion techniques.  i wouldn't tell anyone they had to do anything but i will comment on what it is they actually say in their posts - and your deciding what was on or off topic in the thread to me says you are being judgemental - my idea is quite simple.  When people only recognize those who mirror themselves they aren't interested in discussion or learning - they have a different agenda. 

You differentiated material vs post - explain to me what you see as the difference - to me they are the same. 

You assume a lot about me in this post - that i don't know correct usage of words and i am upset etc.... the subtlety of your intention is not lost  on me [;)]




quote:

bobgkin
"My view" is that I do not understand the appeal machismo has for some women, but not others.

How does one go about getting "support" for that "view", Velvet?


If you really want the answer to that question go back and carefully read your own posts.   i have no inclination to point anything more out to you.... my efforts would be futile.




mistoferin -> RE: Machismo and BDSM (10/10/2007 11:39:08 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Amaros

A recent scientific study found that women find different male faces attractive depending on where they are in their menstrual cycle.
For example, when a woman is ovulating she will prefer a man with rugged, masculine features.
However when she is menstruating, she prefers a man doused in gasoline and set on fire, with scissors stuck in his eye and a baseball bat shoved up his ass.


Works for me....




Bobkgin -> RE: Machismo and BDSM (10/10/2007 12:03:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: came4U

ORIGINAL: came4U
quote:



I know manly-men who don't behave this way, is it because they don't have to?? They must see a weakness in another as a reason to avoid confrontation?  They don't see the need to convey a macho-strength? 




BOB:
quote:

This sounds like Mohandas Gandhi whose philosophy of non-violence liberated India/Pakistan.

Throughout history there have been two models for men: Protector (warrior-caste, machismo, violent) and Nurturer (priest-caste, egalitarian, non-violent).

The ideal, for me, is a balance between the two.

Though I was raised a Nurturer, and it still dominates who I am, I've also deliberately studied the Protector model. I believe my father was seeking to create this balance in the things he taught me while he lived. That was something my mother either couldn't or didn't continue teaching after he died.


Raised to be a Nurturer?
Then studying to ba a Protector model: warrior-caste, machismo, violent (as you call it.)??
Looks like you are doing homework here, because you are acting all warrior, machismo and subtly verbally violent.

Yeah, everyone needs goals. [sm=rolleyes.gif]


From my profile:
 
quote:


When I was ten, I lost the men in my life, my father and grandfather. That placed me in the position where if I was to learn what it was to be a man, I'd have to learn it for myself.
 
Ironically, it was my mother who taught me so much of what it is to be a man. She did not want my father's idealism to be lost with him, an idealism she shared.
 
And so I was taught about the equality of people, of the rights of women and men.
 
I was taught to help those in need, and to stand up to those who harm others. I was taught to love, to trust, to be forthright and honest, to be honourable and fair.
 
And I embraced those lessons.
 
But what my mother could not teach, and no one else took an interest, is how stereotyped men are in our society. She wanted to fashion a man without the sexist bigotry. And she succeeded.
 
But the thought that a male could believe what I'd been taught to believe, to care for others and be compassionate was alien to most people.
 
Thus I graduated my mother's kitchen table and moved on to the School of Hard Knocks. And there were many of those, for strangely enough, my mother's idealism in the heart of a man fell into the category of "too good to be true" for most people.
 
So I've seen a -lot- of cynicism along the way.

Nonetheless, these were the principles I was taught, handed to me by my mother, bequeathed to me by my father. It was and is a sacred trust I bear proudly.

 
I realize today a lot of these things might be taken for granted.
 
They weren't being taken for granted in '70-'74 where I lived.

Machismo had its day in the '50s.

The '60s was indeed a revolution in thinking about gender.

I grew up in an age when Women's Rights was about Human Rights.

From ten on I had no male role models, other than those I found in books written by Heinlein, Herbert, Zelazny, Moorcock, Hesse and Norman; those I found in the histories such as Socrates, Gandhi, Churchill, Hitler; those I found in religion such as Jesus, Buddha, Lao Tzu, Baba Ram Dass.

I am, in almost every sense, a self-made man. 

I took what my mother gave me and what my studies on being born male had meant for others and like Siddhartha carved my own path through the wilderness of life.

I did not ask to be dealt the cards I've received, but they are mine and have directed me to be who I am.

And as I am always learning, I am not today who I will be tomorrow.




WinsomeDefiance -> RE: Machismo and BDSM (10/10/2007 1:33:41 PM)

Sorry Bob, but I don't think you have achieved what Siddhartha did.  No Buddha for you.  (said in her best Soup Nazi voice)




LaTigresse -> RE: Machismo and BDSM (10/10/2007 2:21:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: QueensWay

well, you get personal on people all the time and never stay on topic. do you not know how to disagree without writing "you" blah blah blah? Cant keep out the personal attacks makes you seem too sensitive and closed minded.


Interesting observations from someone with only 11 posts. It appears we have an imposter. One with a good grasp of the queen's english at that.......




heartfeltsub -> RE: Machismo and BDSM (10/10/2007 2:52:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LaTigresse

quote:

ORIGINAL: QueensWay

well, you get personal on people all the time and never stay on topic. do you not know how to disagree without writing "you" blah blah blah? Cant keep out the personal attacks makes you seem too sensitive and closed minded.


Interesting observations from someone with only 11 posts. It appears we have an imposter. One with a good grasp of the queen's english at that.......



i had a similar thought LaTigresse, so i went to go check out Queensway's posts. Of the 11 about half are about defending Bob, which i found interesting.

And Queensway in response to your post that Tigresse quoted concerning myself, please show me ONE post of mine where i did as you accused me of doing, where i have made a personal attack on someone, disagreeing by talking about them and not addressing the issue that they might have raised. i do not recall ever having done so in my approximately 900 posts. That is not a claim that you can make with only 11 posts under your belt as shown by the quote Tigresse noted. And just for the record, that is not a personal attack, that is an observation of the facts in evidence.

So how is this post for disagreeing with a person without attacking the person by calling them names or making disparaging comments about them??

heartfelt




WinsomeDefiance -> RE: Machismo and BDSM (10/10/2007 3:13:12 PM)

The thought had occured to me too, at first, that it was odd someone who has 11 posts and only a month on me in the forum would have such a strong opinion about a few people and reference past behaviors with an air of knowledge about them. 

Queensway seems to have joined a week before Bob.  Maybe she feels something of a kinship with him because they joined about the same time. If she began reading the boards about the time he began posting, it could explain why her posts have been in his defense, and lend some counter-balance to the idea of her not being an imposter.  Perhaps it also gives weight to Bob's belief that those he is looking for, will hear him and agree with him.  I'm sure Bob has his own following and on occaision those who believe he is being harangued will come to his defense.  I'm not playing Bob's advocate, nor Queensway's, as I don't feel compelled to come to their defense.  Just sharing thoughts on the matter.




heartfeltsub -> RE: Machismo and BDSM (10/10/2007 3:28:02 PM)

You could be right Winsome and frankly i hope you are, because even though i may not agree with most of what Bob posts, i would like to think that he wouldn't feel the need to have someone else "argue" on his behalf.

heartfelt




Page: <<   < prev  8 9 [10] 11 12   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125