RE: No true dominant women? Why?

RE: No true dominant women? Why? (Full Version)

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

Message

thetammyjo -> RE: No true dominant women? Why? (1/24/2008 10:50:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Leatherist I want a fantasy d/s world based on star trek. Those green slave girls are HOT.. Did you see the episode of "Enterprise" though when they explored that further? Turns out the "slave" can basically wear the "master" out with her sexual demands. Whose enslaved in that dynamic? Whose in control there?

hands0n0knees -> RE: No true dominant women? Why? (1/24/2008 11:15:15 AM)
I am tempted to believe that there are no totally dominant women. But only because I'm tempted to believe the same about men, too. I, and I think most people, enjoy BDSM for the same reason Michel Foucault (boom: name-drop) did. It's unlikely that there are innate roles mapped by sex; notions of innate roles and structures are artificial. Neither men or women are 'supposed' to be dominant, but often we find ourselves in dominant positions -- these can be enjoyed, of course, but there is always curiosity about the other. For example, in typical sexual intercourse I am more dominant by virtue of a physique making me the penetrator, so it's exciting to play with that. The point is that anyone's curiosity can be stimulated by anything. It seems to me, though, that women are more likely to be dominant in BDSM play, because in the rest of their life they are less likely to be dominant. Those that don't consider BDSM to be 'play' can disregard the above.

Leatherist -> RE: No true dominant women? Why? (1/24/2008 11:45:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thetammyjo quote: ORIGINAL: Leatherist I want a fantasy d/s world based on star trek. Those green slave girls are HOT.. Did you see the episode of "Enterprise" though when they explored that further? Turns out the "slave" can basically wear the "master" out with her sexual demands. Whose enslaved in that dynamic? Whose in control there? Who cares? Why does everyone automatically assume kink means control?

lateralist1 -> RE: No true dominant women? Why? (1/24/2008 12:08:47 PM)
Kittty your whole post is full of generalisation and supposition. I have never heard anyone say anything like this on the message boards or in the kink community in genreral if that exists. We all have individual ideas of what dominance and submission means. If one person feels dominant or submissive to another then they are domianant or submissive to that person. That's it. That's all there is. I don't feel submissive to anyone so I'm not. If someone feels submissive to me then they are. I can try and engender that feeling in someone by my words or actions but in the end it is their choice. Unless I have been given authority over them by my job etc. Or I have taken authority by some means other than consent eg blackmail. The fact that I have held positions of authority in the past may mean that I have more skills in using my natural authority or it may not. The old debate about does experience necessarily make one more skilled. If your an authority on something may make it easier to be in authority. But may not make you a naturally authoritative person.

Jasmyn -> RE: No true dominant women? Why? (1/24/2008 12:20:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lateralist1 Kittty your whole post is full of generalisation and supposition. I have never heard anyone say anything like this on the message boards or in the kink community in genreral if that exists. There have been a number of threads and individual postings in threads not necessarily related to the specific topic of female domination where the authors have made the claims posted by Kitty. Interestingly enough, but not surprising (to me), the claim has often been made by self labelled submissive women (not always 'Gorean' either before anyone thinks that they must surely have to be to think such). I've heard it enough off line in offline kink circles too.

Justme696 -> RE: No true dominant women? Why? (1/24/2008 12:24:05 PM)
quote: (not always 'Gorean' either before anyone thinks that they must surely have to be to think such). thank you for that..lol....We always get the blames :P

thetammyjo -> RE: No true dominant women? Why? (1/24/2008 12:42:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Leatherist quote: ORIGINAL: thetammyjo quote: ORIGINAL: Leatherist I want a fantasy d/s world based on star trek. Those green slave girls are HOT.. Did you see the episode of "Enterprise" though when they explored that further? Turns out the "slave" can basically wear the "master" out with her sexual demands. Whose enslaved in that dynamic? Whose in control there? I don't personally care. It is a television show after all. But I'm wondering how it functions as a D/S world when the authority and control and power is unclear. Perhaps it's a more realistic look at slavery where the dynamic is not clear... or perhaps it is a television show. Who cares? Why does everyone automatically assume kink means control?

lateralist1 -> RE: No true dominant women? Why? (1/24/2008 12:48:26 PM)
Fair enough Jasmyn. The fact that I have not read them does not mean they do not exist. In which case the people who made the comments were wrong. End of story.

MadRabbit -> RE: No true dominant women? Why? (1/24/2008 2:27:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kitttty What is it that people sometimes say on this board? That there are no truly dominant women? No 100% Dommes or something? Is it true that this is some kind of repeated debate? Why? Why on earth would some people think that there are no truly dominant women while there are truly dominant men? Seriously, this is an opinion that is kind of commonly held in the kink community? It's because they constantly flog people while laughing and having a good time as opposed to speaking in a harsh, serious voice with degrading sentiments.

Jeffff -> RE: No true dominant women? Why? (1/24/2008 2:33:32 PM)
Because the are both physically and emotionally incapable of true dominance................................................................................. ................................................................................................... ................................................................................LMFAO Jeff

Leatherist -> RE: No true dominant women? Why? (1/24/2008 2:39:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MadRabbit quote: ORIGINAL: kitttty What is it that people sometimes say on this board? That there are no truly dominant women? No 100% Dommes or something? Is it true that this is some kind of repeated debate? Why? Why on earth would some people think that there are no truly dominant women while there are truly dominant men? Seriously, this is an opinion that is kind of commonly held in the kink community? It's because they constantly flog people while laughing and having a good time as opposed to speaking in a harsh, serious voice with degrading sentiments. I used to know a few "masters" in our local scene who were always serious and preachy. One had the nickname "rodup"...because he walked around like he had a yard long steel rod stuck up his ass. [:D]

MadRabbit -> RE: No true dominant women? Why? (1/24/2008 2:40:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jeffff Because the are both physically and emotionally incapable of true dominance................................................................................. ................................................................................................... ................................................................................LMFAO Jeff Not many people are capable of the poor vocabulary skills, horrible grammar, and years and years of experience masturbating at the computer screen while writing long blog entries about "No Limits, No Rights" slavery under the signature of Grand Poobah Daemadilukarus the Seventeenth that "true dominance" requires. At least, this is what I gather are the qualifications for being a "true dominant" after reading many profiles written by people asserting to be "true dominants".

MadRabbit -> RE: No true dominant women? Why? (1/24/2008 2:41:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Leatherist quote: ORIGINAL: MadRabbit quote: ORIGINAL: kitttty What is it that people sometimes say on this board? That there are no truly dominant women? No 100% Dommes or something? Is it true that this is some kind of repeated debate? Why? Why on earth would some people think that there are no truly dominant women while there are truly dominant men? Seriously, this is an opinion that is kind of commonly held in the kink community? It's because they constantly flog people while laughing and having a good time as opposed to speaking in a harsh, serious voice with degrading sentiments. I used to know a few "masters" in our local scene who were always serious and preachy. One had the nickname "rodup"...because he walked around like he had a yard long steel rod stuck up his ass. [:D] My post was mostly making fun of kitty's previous thread, but yeah, I have met a few that seemed about ready to have an ulcer because not everyone followed their vision of pure and true "M/S". All those silly misguided weekend warriors....

DominaJayde -> RE: No true dominant women? Why? (1/24/2008 2:43:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Gwynvyd quote: ORIGINAL: DominaJayde LOL I got one saying I couldn't possibly be a Domme because I looked like his Mother. He might have issues 8-) DJ chuckles ya think? Woah.. someone apparently wasnt hit hard enough with the belt as a kid... that woulda learned him.. shakes her head Gwyn Spare the rod and give him Domme complexes for the rest of his life 8-) Well at least he didn't say I was OLD enough to be his mother ... grin DJ

Leatherist -> RE: No true dominant women? Why? (1/24/2008 2:44:19 PM)
But it's fun to see how many statements you have to make before that vein in thier foreheads pops out and starts throbbing. No way to tell you are making an impact otherwise, I think they are afraid thier faces will crack if they show any emotion. [:D]

Jeffff -> RE: No true dominant women? Why? (1/24/2008 2:50:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MadRabbit quote: ORIGINAL: Jeffff Because the are both physically and emotionally incapable of true dominance................................................................................. ................................................................................................... ................................................................................LMFAO Jeff Not many people are capable of the poor vocabulary skills, horrible grammar, and years and years of experience masturbating at the computer screen while writing long blog entries about "No Limits, No Rights" slavery under the signature of Grand Poobah Daemadilukarus the Seventeenth that "true dominance" requires. At least, this is what I gather are the qualifications for being a "true dominant" after reading many profiles written by people asserting to be "true dominants". You forgot about the old European houses.........and of course the old guard. Somewhere in all of this is a really bad country song. Jeff

MadRabbit -> RE: No true dominant women? Why? (1/24/2008 2:58:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Leatherist But it's fun to see how many statements you have to make before that vein in thier foreheads pops out and starts throbbing. No way to tell you are making an impact otherwise, I think they are afraid thier faces will crack if they show any emotion. [:D] Lol. I went through about a two month phase where I bought into this idea that there was this super serious, uberlly self controlled, stone cold, persona of perfection that I had to adhere to at all times to be a "real dominant". Kind of like a fad you go went through in high school, but grew out of once you realized how silly you looked with parachute pants and a cabbagge patch kid. But I guess some people never had the appifiny.

Jeffff -> RE: No true dominant women? Why? (1/24/2008 3:02:47 PM)
All you have to do is see someone else acting like that. Reality check!! We all have our vanities, and we can't control everything, but it is in our power not to be self important, pompous assholes..:) Jeff

scottjk -> RE: No true dominant women? Why? (1/24/2008 4:46:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kitttty What is it that people sometimes say on this board? That there are no truly dominant women? No 100% Dommes or something? Is it true that this is some kind of repeated debate? Why? Why on earth would some people think that there are no truly dominant women while there are truly dominant men? Seriously, this is an opinion that is kind of commonly held in the kink community? You know, I'm not sure how to respond to this thread. It's not that I don't have an opinion, it's just that it would take quite a bit of explaining of my opinion, far more than I'm willing to do. Then there's the 'off-the-cuff' replies that tend to lump either genders together with a level of smugness that rankles. Makes me wonder if they only do it for the rankings. Honestly, they should get rid of the rankings. Gives some people a poor choice in a hobby. As for the cheap shots? (Shrug) At least I know who has better manners than others. There's a difference between being ignorant and being foolish. One foolish person can impart an idea or concept that is fundamentally flawed and sound like an expert, and the other fools stand around making like a parrot, repeating the flawed concept until others with even basic common sense will believe it as well, or will give it credence so that they can feel like they belong. Now, as for being an idiot? Well, an idiot is defined, in my view, as some one that changes the facts to fit their views. Now some people will call some one an idiot because, as many people are wont to do, he will not agree with them after a short declaration of, "Because I said so!" rather than explaining their opinion, and where to find the supporting evidence or information. This often looks, from my point of view, as a school-yard argument not even worthy of notice, but people notice, and the flame wars begin, going so far afield that eventually no one recalls what it was about. The cheap shots regarding the Goreans is especially annoying to me, because I've spent time in various forums, chats, web sites and read the books. There are quite a few 'Goreans' out there that are intelligent enough to sort fantasy from philosophy. The idea that a philosophy is invalid simply because it was placed within the context of a fantasy novel is really quite thoughtless. Those novels covered several cultures and philosophies ranging from Greek, American Indian, Roman, Indo-Chinese, Innuit, and so on. If those philosophies are in a fantasy book, does that mean their invalid? Of course not. The problem is the people, not the books, and perhaps in large part, education in philosophy and the practice of logic, or rather, the lack thereof. However, I'm going to attempt a condensed version of my opinion... I've read a couple of books by David Deida, and he's got a view that is founded in spiritual yoga. He teaches that every human being has within them both the masculine and feminine. Both of these characteristics has greater strengths in some areas than others, but together as a whole, has strength in life overall. The masculine tends to be dominant, on a mission, logical and getting things done. The feminine tends to be passive, taking things as they come, emotional and supportive. Translating this into our lifestyle, it's reasonable that Doms would have a more dominant masculine side than a feminine side and their subs with a more feminine side than a masculine side. (I'm leaving out gender specific honorifics deliberately, because they are utter BS as far as I'm concerned.) It doesn't matter what type of gender based relationship it is, gay or het, but the more masculine and feminine the couple are, the more passion the relationship has. Some people have an equal measure of masculine and feminine in both of the couples, and accordingly, they tend to be very quiet relationships, not a lot of passion, but they're also happy with that. Now, let me paraphrase a Gorean quote, "If you wish your partner to be more feminine, you must be more masculine. If you want your partner to be more masculine, you must be more feminine." The philosophy is sound, in my view. Okay, I'm getting off my soap box.

MagiksSlave -> RE: No true dominant women? Why? (1/24/2008 4:53:15 PM)
True Domanents male or female are about as real as faries, same thing as true sub/slaves. They just dont exisit, they dont exist because everyones view point on the matter are so drastically different.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.078125