RE: Machismo and BDSM (Full Version)

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



Message

Bobkgin -> RE: Machismo and BDSM (10/10/2007 6:49:33 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TNstepsout

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bobkgin

quote:

ORIGINAL: TNstepsout

Although we are at the core, animals,  we have, unlike animals, a veneer of intelligence and critical thought, that over rides instinct. In some cases women are taught within their family to admire and respect a different type of man, or in some cases it might be a result of negative experiences with "macho" men. For other women they may have had nothing but good experiences with this type of man, and therefore find it very appealing. But the gut instinct is still there. That's why a lot of women fall for the wrong type of guy. They are letting their instinct run the show.


Thank you, TN. That was very helpful.

The portion I highlighted, was that intended to be understood as a gut instinct all women have for machismo? I'm not clear on for whom "the gut instinct is still there".


I meant that the gut instinct is still there for the women.


Thank you for the clarification, TN.

Assuming you are correct (and I admit it makes a lot of sense to me, given my previous studies on this), I can see why I've never felt certainty about it.

You've essentially described an internal (instinctive) response all women have towards men exhibiting machismo. As I understand what you've said, some women govern this response with "intelligence" and "critical thought". You've also indicated that some women do not respond well to such men because they are conditioned not to (either as part of their upbringing or part of their experience).

TN, do feel free to correct me if I've mis-stated your position on this.



Mercnbeth -> RE: Machismo and BDSM (10/10/2007 7:20:56 AM)

Bob,
I don't understand why you don't just say in this case, as with most others, the definition of Machismo is everything you are not? I can appreciate that someone with experience based confidence who challenges bullshit would be a threat to pontificators.
 
Aversion and withdraw require traits in opposition with dominance, in consideration of practical action and pragmatic definition. Without a desire to address challenge and with an indicated preference of avoidance; what trait is indicated? Is that trait found in the description of any "ideal dominant" provided in any submissive profile? As a result of facing that reality the choice is change, damn near impossible for you I'd say, or the process of labeling in an attempt to distract by trying to catch the wave of political correctness. Making the poster child of your position "professional wrestling" speaks to how ridiculous and false the premise of you position.
 
Machismo is a moving target, sometimes positive and sometimes negative. The negativity comes from the those threatened by strength, especially strength combined with intelligence and confidence.   

Some men prefer to be proactive, be active, take action. They address challenges head on without consideration of "political correctness". Which is a false equality. There is only correct. Making anything PC requires a belief in the very stereotypes and prejudices that required society to change; worse - they insure long term perpetuation of those very prejudices. How does it apply in this case? Its yet another label.

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.
 
Is there a female equivalent to 'machismo'?
 
That's my point of view. And as you say: "this is not a debate. It is a discussion, an exchange, a sharing of points of view."



CreativeDominant -> RE: Machismo and BDSM (10/10/2007 7:23:10 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bobkgin

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

Interesting Bob that you pick only a select few to "debate" with, yet there are others...such as myself...who present a counter-viewpoint to yours that you don't come back and argue against.  Why is that?  Is it because you choose not to argue in these cases because you cannot dispute what I or others have said?


CD, this is not a debate. It is a discussion, an exchange, a sharing of points of view.

I've neither argued, debated, nor disputed anyone's point of view. I have listened, asked questions, and answered questions.

Thank you for your point of view.


??????????????????????????????????????????????????????  Ummmmmmmmm....anybody care to discuss the bold statement above...perhaps refute it?



Bobkgin -> RE: Machismo and BDSM (10/10/2007 7:39:52 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

A label as an attempt to further distract from the issue of running away from challenge.



As usual, Merc, you confuse indifference with cowardice.

We are all aware several individuals are spoiling for a flame-war with me.

Fortunately I was taught it takes more courage and intellect to walk away from a pointless fight than it takes to engage in one.

A man only fights when necessary, not for the fun of it.

Thank you for your point of view.



velvetears -> RE: Machismo and BDSM (10/10/2007 7:53:55 AM)

When people discuss things and they disagree it then becomes a debate.  Why is debate a bad word - people do it ALL THE TIME in the threads. When the debate turns rude and insulting is when it becomes a "bad thing", at least imo. 

i won't challenge Bob as far as saying he debated not discussed but i will point out that he seems to only recognize those contributions which come closest to supporting his opinions.



Mercnbeth -> RE: Machismo and BDSM (10/10/2007 8:00:17 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bobkgin
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
A label as an attempt to further distract from the issue of running away from challenge.

As usual, Merc, you confuse indifference with cowardice.
We are all aware several individuals are spoiling for a flame-war with me.
Fortunately I was taught it takes more courage and intellect to walk away from a pointless fight than it takes to engage in one.
A man only fights when necessary, not for the fun of it.

Bull! A man fights when they are right, believes in himself, and stands up for positions and actions. Is may not always be necessary, but when only words are spent you would think the cost isn't too high. Frauds and hypocrites may have a problem with that concept. A "fight" with words only has the potential of bruising egos. I understand if yours is so fragile.

I expected that you would walk away. That defines you doesn't it? A submissive who didn't understand all the rules during the 'interview process' and as a result fails you and disrespects the relationship earns withdraw. You, a man who can determine "love" by an interview process. Why troll here? Your process should only need to be employed once. Yet - you document all the many "slaves" and "submissives" who have crossed your path. You withdrew from all of them? They failed you in all cases? How does that speak to the validity of your interview process? Or is it the result of an evolutionary process, yet to be employed in real life?

I don't get involved with flame wars. What you call flaming is calling you on your own words. Of course you need to be "indifferent" anything else would be an admission of ignorance. "Flaming"! Bob, as I've said before; you "flame" yourself much more effectively than anyone else.

Appreciate you are running an two month ongoing profile with your pontifications. However I think you have a wrong concept of what a desirable dominant traits. Perhaps if this were the late 70's your Alan Alda image type may draw more interest. 

We had the pleasure of having dinner in Sacramento with Simply Michael. He asked who of all the people on CM we'd want to meet who we haven't as of yet. You were at the top of the list for me. It would be a hilarious evening. However it would be pointless. As you put it the discussion would be "pointless" because you'd have to agree with your self contradiction and fear of challenge. You don't "engage" you "withdraw" - Withdraw away, you've cultivated that image too long to give up on it now.



Amaros -> RE: Machismo and BDSM (10/10/2007 8:19:37 AM)

I'm afraid I generally percieve it as a weakness - it undeniable that certain wome find it attractive, it is a form of confidence, and women are selected to seek good providers, confidence is often a necessary attribute. At the same time, the actual social dynamics of Machismo are often based on bullying behaviors, and like most bullies, these guys tend to fold when they get into a situation they can't bully their way out of, or encounter a bigger bully.

This may have been less true when these traits were origianally selected for, and just making it to adulthood required a certain amount of actual skill.

I've seen enough men under stress, and seen it happen often enough, to pretty much determine that actual toughness is often in inverse proportion to the amountof machismo being displayed - it is, essentially, an act, and a pretty one dimensional one, not neccessarily an indication of character - the real danger is when theyse guys start to believe their own bullshit.

Oddly however, it might actually be this very vulnerability and dependency that may attract women with caretaking tendencies, so while it doesn't impress me a whole lot, .I don't really have any grudges against it, except that occasionally I have to pull out the man act to get one of these morons off my back.



Amaros -> RE: Machismo and BDSM (10/10/2007 8:28:14 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TNstepsout

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bobkgin

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).


Although we are at the core, animals,  we have, unlike animals, a veneer of intelligence and critical thought, that over rides instinct. In some cases women are taught within their family to admire and respect a different type of man, or in some cases it might be a result of negative experiences with "macho" men. For other women they may have had nothing but good experiences with this type of man, and therefore find it very appealing. But the gut instinct is still there. That's why a lot of women fall for the wrong type of guy. They are letting their instinct run the show.


I would disagree that it's instinct, it's an enculturated response IMO, we're creatures of habit, we tend to be attracted to the familiar, and find fault with the unfamiliar, it isn't "right".

One finds this in any culture, a religious unbringing for example, might give one a very narrow view of what is "right" or "wrong" in terms of human behavior - healthy, in some cases, tantamount to full blown neurosis in others.

The contrast to overblown Machismo might be what used to be known as a "natural man", though the phrase is out of vogue, maybe because it's hard to say just exactly what is "natural" anymore in the cyber age.

A "natural man" has overtones of machismo, very similar, there is often the same dependence and vulnerability, i.e., he needs a woman to take care of him, when but it lacks the general air of misogynic disdain, cockblocking behaviors and childish petulance that Machismo usually comes with - these guys are often sore losers. 



LATEXBABY64 -> RE: Machismo and BDSM (10/10/2007 8:41:34 AM)

so this has nothing to do with austin powers type mojo      lol 

are you ready to ruuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuummmmblllllllle



QueensWay -> RE: Machismo and BDSM (10/10/2007 8:58:44 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: velvetears

i won't challenge Bob as far as saying he debated not discussed but i will point out that he seems to only recognize those contributions which come closest to supporting his opinions.



Now, why is it when people post something for debate, they become targets for some peoples vicious personal attacks and insults? Are they not just giving their opinion? Even the ones that beat on their chest and say 'my way is the only way' isn't it just an opinion or personal outlook or belief? I can understand debating back and forth in an intellectual manner, but the name-calling and rude remarks? Why do some people automatically spring to the defensive end of the process? By the way, whoopie dooo that bob pays more attention to posts that match his own. Dont you? Big freaking deal. Get over it for crying out loud. This dude addressed posts that did not match his. So what are u even talking about?


Just like myself, some people have personal views which rightly should never be compromised for anyone. If i don't agree with something, I simply move on. Posters Camille, Aileen, Creative Dom, Heartfelt have gotten on Bobs case and resorted to personal insults etc, when he didn't turn anything personal on them. They obviously and quite clearly got personal on him becauswe they felt threatened in some way. Post 65, 69, 86 for Camille, 54, 82, 91 for Aileen, 89 for Creative Dom, 101 for heartfelt. You women are to sensitive and while you are the ones who turn it personal, you project it on Bob like hes the one. You women cant debate without getting personal or defensive. Study WD's post because she handles hereself with class and intelligence in post 66, 87, 97 ectera. Amazing. Its too easy attacking someone on the internet,would they behave the same way in a face to face real life situation?if you're sensitive then posting on a public forum really is'nt a good idea. I could'nt give a flying fuck what anyone thinks of my opinions. If you can't take criticism(constructive or not), or you can take others who don't agree and state so and then ask you to debate with them further in an NON-personal attack manner, then don't contribute.



KatyLied -> RE: Machismo and BDSM (10/10/2007 9:06:49 AM)

quote:

if you're sensitive then posting on a public forum really is'nt a good idea.


There is definitely an audience in this thread who needs to hear these words.  Amd I'm not talking about the individuals you called out.



Bobkgin -> RE: Machismo and BDSM (10/10/2007 9:07:16 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bobkgin
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
A label as an attempt to further distract from the issue of running away from challenge.

As usual, Merc, you confuse indifference with cowardice.
We are all aware several individuals are spoiling for a flame-war with me.
Fortunately I was taught it takes more courage and intellect to walk away from a pointless fight than it takes to engage in one.
A man only fights when necessary, not for the fun of it.


A man fights when they are right, believes in himself, and stands up for positions and actions.



A boy fights for those reasons, Merc.

A man can do all of those things without fighting.

A boy fights in the hopes of proving to others he's a man. A man need prove nothing to anyone but himself.

Thank you for your point of view.



WinsomeDefiance -> RE: Machismo and BDSM (10/10/2007 9:22:41 AM)

quote:

Original:  Bobkgin
Given the way you've completed the opening I'd agree both are exhibiting machismo.


What I provided in my scenario versus what you provided in yours is simply one thing:  outside perspective

People use more than words to communicate.   Ones body language, mannerisms, facial expressions, etc. convey messages to others.  Machismo can be communicated to others in this manner and how a woman responds to those signals being broadcast depends largely on how receptive she is to them.  Those receptors (women's reactions to the signal) can be both inherent/instinctual AND conditional so trying to make it an either or scenario can be construed as an attempt to skew your findings. In some cases they might be instinctual, in other situations they might be singularly inherent and in some situations they might be varying degrees of both.  Perhaps this is the case because the human response to various signals, is seldom absolute. 

It appears you are trying to find answers to validate your own opinion, but if that opinion is based off fallible logic, you will only have a satisfying answer when and if those answers satisfy your flawed expectation.  I'm not saying one way or the other whether your expectation IS flawed, but I am saying that unless you are truly OPEN to the idea that your basic premise could possibly be flawed you can't really be open minded to the counter viewpoints provided.  I'm not the first one to tell you this, but being open minded is being willing to accept differing viewpoints, even if you study them, find them unacceptable and ultimately dismiss them as not for you. 

Asking why, but clinging to your viewpoints without personally examing YOUR OWN viewpoints for clarity and validity or fallibility, does not make you open minded.  Again, I am not saying you are doing this.  I am saying that the way in which you communicate yourself on this board translates to many it is, in fact, what you are doing. 



Bobkgin -> RE: Machismo and BDSM (10/10/2007 9:32:08 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

I expected that you would walk away. That defines you doesn't it? A submissive who didn't understand all the rules during the 'interview process' and as a result fails you and disrespects the relationship earns withdraw. You, a man who can determine "love" by an interview process. Why troll here? Your process should only need to be employed once. Yet - you document all the many "slaves" and "submissives" who have crossed your path. You withdrew from all of them? They failed you in all cases? How does that speak to the validity of your interview process? Or is it the result of an evolutionary process, yet to be employed in real life?



I understand your need to provoke through misrepresentation, Merc. The attempts to provoke a flame-war are obvious to everyone.

I suppose it does not occur to you those I seek will do their own homework, and not rely upon you or your friends to tell them what to think of me.

And as I am only here to find those I seek, you are welcome to anyone who will have you as far as I am concerned.

Thank you for your contribution.



heartfeltsub -> RE: Machismo and BDSM (10/10/2007 9:36:58 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: QueensWay

Just like myself, some people have personal views which rightly should never be compromised for anyone. If i don't agree with something, I simply move on. Posters Camille, Aileen, Creative Dom, Heartfelt have gotten on Bobs case and resorted to personal insults etc, when he didn't turn anything personal on them. They obviously and quite clearly got personal on him because they felt threatened in some way. Post 65, 69, 86 for Camille, 54, 82, 91 for Aileen, 89 for Creative Dom, 101 for heartfelt. You women are to sensitive and while you are the ones who turn it personal, you project it on Bob like hes the one. You women cant debate without getting personal or defensive. Study WD's post because she handles hereself with class and intelligence in post 66, 87, 97 etc.. Amazing. Its too easy attacking someone on the internet,would they behave the same way in a face to face real life situation?if you're sensitive then posting on a public forum really is'nt a good idea. I could'nt give a flying fuck what anyone thinks of my opinions. If you can't take criticism(constructive or not), or you can take others who don't agree and state so and then ask you to debate with them further in an NON-personal attack manner, then don't contribute.


*Edited and bolded for brevity and points of discussion.

First of all, just wanted to let you know that CreativeDom is a man, not a woman.

Secondly, in my post 101, while it could be taken as a put down, it was intended as a valid question. i have watched Bob's behavior in many threads and i was sincerely wondering if he sees his behavior in a different manner than how it comes across at least to me. He comes across whether he wishes to believe or accept it or not as the quote that i lifted from velvetears post. i did not make the post because i felt in any way shape or form threatened by anything that Bob has said.

In fact, i have come to the conclusion that he is a lonely man who is still mourning the lost of his wife and son and who seems to play the role of devil's advocate with any topic just to have something to do, some kind of interaction with the outside world and also as a means to try to attract a potential s-type. The fact that he comes across as unwilling to hear the opinions of others, arguing for the sake of arguing makes me think of someone who is poisoning the very pond he is trying to fish in. Do i feel threatened by Bob and his opinions in the slightest, hardly.

heartfelt



QueensWay -> RE: Machismo and BDSM (10/10/2007 9:45:51 AM)

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.



DarkDaddyZ -> RE: Machismo and BDSM (10/10/2007 9:55:35 AM)

I like soft bottom butches that have machismo!  One of my friends and I had this convo about a Dom before:

Me: You know how us men are, we like to throw mashismo!
Her: Is that what HMDS is called now? (Het Male Dom Syndrome)

[:D]



RRafe -> RE: Machismo and BDSM (10/10/2007 10:00:41 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkDaddyZ

I like soft bottom butches that have machismo!  One of my friends and I had this convo about a Dom before:

Me: You know how us men are, we like to throw mashismo!
Her: Is that what HMDS is called now? (Het Male Dom Syndrome)

[:D]



LOL, better than CHuDWAH I guess.

clueless hetmale dom wannabes  [;)]




Bobkgin -> RE: Machismo and BDSM (10/10/2007 10:09:13 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: WinsomeDefiance

quote:

Original:  Bobkgin
Given the way you've completed the opening I'd agree both are exhibiting machismo.


What I provided in my scenario versus what you provided in yours is simply one thing:  outside perspective



I would say that what I did was introduce the cast of characters, and nothing more. I deliberately left off any resolution so as to subliminally invite the audience to complete it according to their point of view.

You've done this.

Your resolution to what I wrote is your perspective. It might be shared by others, I don't know.

All I know is it is yours.

quote:


People use more than words to communicate.   Ones body language, mannerisms, facial expressions convey messages to others.  Machismo can be communicated to others in this manner and how a woman responds to those signals being broadcast depends largely on how receptive she is to them.  Those receptors (women's reactions to the signal) can be both inherent/instinctual AND conditional so trying to make it an either or scenario can be construed as an attempt to skew your findings. In some cases they might be instinctual, in other situations they might be singularly inherent and in some situations they might be varying degrees of both.  That is because the human response to various signals are seldom absolute.


The cause is the instinct the person was born with? Conditioning would come later and reinforce the instinct the person was born with, correct? How then do you see conditioning also as a cause when instinct comes before conditioning?

On the other hand, if it is not instinctive, what other cause is left but conditioning? 

quote:


It appears you are trying to find answers to validate your own opinion, but if that opinion is based off fallible logic, you will only have a satisfying answer when and if those answers satisfy your flawed expectation. 


I'm sorry you've chosen to see it that way. I do not believe I've given cause for such a point of view.

As I said in the portion of the quote you removed:

"But the matter is far from closed and I continue to examine the matter to better understand."

In the An open mind.....  thread (pg 3, #43) I wrote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bobkgin

When I speak of a category I mean I am sorting different issues according to the certainty of the arguments supporting one position or another.

Some (gravity, speed of light, personal awareness of self, past and present) are certain.

Most are less certain, to what degree depends upon the issue and the arguments thus far presented since I first became aware of the issue (some issues date back decades, such as machismo).

All of the issues for which currently there is no satisfactory certainty are in their own processes to determine their outcome.

Some (is there a god) are unlikely to ever be resolved in my lifetime. Others (will I find love again) are more likely to be resolved.

None of those have any schedule attached to them, they resolve themselves as more information comes in (or not if no information comes in).

Most of what I know is like a still glass of water. Add a drop of water and all of the water already in the cup feels the ripple. Everything moves. Everything shifts and adjusts to accomodate the new drop.

Eventually the water returns to stillness, till the next drop.

That's how I see learning: the absorption of new information, integrating it with existing information, identify any shifts in existing patterns as well as the emergence of new patterns.

In this way concepts evolve, outdated concepts are discarded, and progress is made.


I believe this makes clear I do not use expectations or agendas when I investigate issues. I follow the information I have to see where it leads.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WinsomeDefiance (continued)
I'm not saying one way or the other whether your expectation IS flawed, but I am saying that unless you are truly OPEN to the idea that your basic premise is flawed you can't really be open minded to the counter viewpoints provided. 


My "basic premise" has been that I have not understood the appeal machismo has for some women, but not others.

The only way this can be flawed is if indeed I do understand the appeal.

Is that what you are suggesting?

quote:


I'm not the first one to tell you this, but being open minded is being willing to accept differing viewpoints, even if you study them, find them unacceptable and ultimately dismiss them as not for you. 


See my quote from the An open mind.....  thread.

quote:


Asking why, but clinging to your viewpoints without personally examing YOUR viewpoints for clarity and validity, does not make you open minded.  Again, I am not saying you are doing this.  I am saying that the way in which you communicate yourself on this board translates to many it is, in fact, what you are doing. 


::smile::

Charlotte, those words would be better directed towards those who insist on translating what I say into something I am not saying.

I am indeed responsible for the openness of my mind. I cannot and will not accept the responsibility for the closed-mindedness of others.

If they insist upon translating my words into something I'm not saying, it is their right to do so. If they repeat it and fool others, it is their right to do so and it is the right of those who are fooled to choose to be fooled, when there are alternative sources available to them (such as the archives).

I say what I say. Those whom I seek and those who are sufficiently like those whom I seek hear my words the way I mean them.

Everyone else can do what they like with my words. It is their right to do so.



velvetears -> RE: Machismo and BDSM (10/10/2007 10:23:47 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: QueensWay


Now, why is it when people post something for debate, they become targets for some peoples vicious personal attacks and insults? Are they not just giving their opinion? Even the ones that beat on their chest and say 'my way is the only way' isn't it just an opinion or personal outlook or belief? I can understand debating back and forth in an intellectual manner, but the name-calling and rude remarks? Why do some people automatically spring to the defensive end of the process? By the way, whoopie dooo that bob pays more attention to posts that match his own. Dont you? Big freaking deal. Get over it for crying out loud.



Bob himself said he did not post for debate, he said he posted for discussion - go back and read his posts.  So i am not sure what you are talking about.  An opinion is an opinion untill it crosses the line into - you don't do it my way you are wrong, sick, bad, etc...  Not implying Bob did this, he's much  more subtle, just giving you my pov on it.

At any rate when you want to discuss something you consider all the different opinions, when you want to pontificate you only consider those opinions that match your own.  

Not sure why you directed your post to me, i haven't attacked or insulted Bob in any post and i challenge you to point out where i have.  What you think one can or cannot do on a public forum is of no interest to me nor does it change how or what i would do on a forum - i did not ask for advice from you and what you have given is not welcome, save your ploys for those who will entertain them and want them. i post as i see fit and if you have a problem with that then i suggest you take your own advice or block me - have a nice day [:D]



Page: <<   < prev  7 8 [9] 10 11   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875