|
Bobkgin -> RE: Machismo and BDSM (10/9/2007 4:03:21 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: WinsomeDefiance
Bob, regarding your original post and the example you gave. You stated that you see the bellowing, chest thumping man in the arena as the one exibiting Machismo, and the man who accepts his challenge but does so with a quirk of his brow NOT exibiting Machismo.
Some (not all) might consider both men in the arena to be exibiting forms of Machismo. You do not see this as the case because you have a tendency to use an extremely vertical logic. Try looking at the scenario with a slightly more lateral logic and you might be able to see the point I'm making. Maybe this will help (If I can pull it off)
My Scenario based off the OP's scenario:
"He stands before the raging spectators, a God in their midst. Machismo and testosterone strewn about him like a train wreck.
"He roars, like a beast, a lion challenging one and all to defy his will and step into the arena.
The walls of the arena reverberate with the cheers of adoring females. Women, those who do not throw themselves literally into the arena to garner this brutish behemoth's attention, toss their panties onto the testosterone riddled sands.
"A man takes up the challenge. Smaller, lighter of frame and build. Quiet, alert ... focused.
The crowd cheers as this proverbial David,cock-sure in his mental superiority, faces Goliath and accepts his challenge. "David's" virile audacity brings the crowd of women to their feet in exhuberant applause.
Will this smaller, lighter of frame and build male have the skill and abilities to face and conquer his challenger?
"One bellows as a bull from Hell. The other cocks an eyebrow."
They face each other. Each man posturing after their own fashion.
One picks up a pair of panties and sniffs it, laughing as a female swoons with delight. The other scoffs, that elegant
expression of his derision cocked so eloquently. The crowd goes wild.
They face each other. Both men posturing, after their own fashion.
One brutish and bellowing. The other cocksure and confident.
Ok, now consider this, using a definition as an example: (An exaggerated sense of strength or toughness:)
Is the smaller, lighter of frame guy who accepted the challenge not exhibiting some rather exaggerated sense of strength by facing off against a beast of a man?
Maybe he is a fifth degree blackbelt trained to fell giants. Or maybe he's David and has the blessings of his god to fell them. Regardless. Takes some pretty big cajone's to march out on those testosterone riddled sands and scoff in the face of greatness.
Now, if I was at all able to guide you toward this new perception that eluded you, perhaps you can piece together the concept that Dominant men tend to exhibit a form of Machismo in one fashion or other. Your scenario quite clearly represented your view of yourself, and how you relate your actions to those of what you consider to be "Macho Men." If you can at all except that you might, at times, exhibit those same tendecies, then perhaps you can begin to understand.
Some women are attracted to:
Dominant Men
Alpha males
Confident men
Aggressive men
.....the list goes on
Why? Well, why do submissives desire to submit? Why do Dominants desire to possess? Why do switches have these masochistic tendencies to grab the bull by the horn and shake him? The reasons are as simple and complex as the person(s) those reasons are attributed to.
Thank you, Charlotte, for taking the time to explain this.
Given the way you've completed the opening I'd agree both are exhibiting machismo.
I can't say I'm confused about why some people (men/women) submit. What confused me was why some women choose machismo.
Thus far, from this discussion and previous studies, the reason seems to be a gut decision, rather than something intellectualized. It seems to be a 'between the legs' sort of thing rather than 'between the ears'.
I'm still not clear on whether it is instinctive or conditioning. Were it instinctive I'd wonder why all women do not prefer that type (and why all men do not strive to be that type). This leads me to believe it is conditioning (of which there seems to be ample evidence in the media).
But the matter is far from closed and I continue to examine the matter to better understand. I appreciate your contribution to that process.
As for the portion of your quote I highlighted (in green), I must admit I was pretty sure that assumption would be made.
Nonetheless, neither of the men in the arena is me. I've already proven all I need to prove to myself, and that is sufficient. I need prove nothing to either of the men in the arena, nor the raging spectators.
It is enough for me to walk through my forest, care for my dogs, my cats, the birds ... and hopefully, eventually, those whom I seek.
Thank you for all this food for thought.
|
|
|
|
