RE: Why is that? (Full Version)

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



Message

juliaoceania -> RE: Why is that? (1/30/2008 10:19:07 AM)

quote:

ell I don't know if you are aware of this but women are very capable of hunting ourselves. It was just easier to have the women stay home and take care of the kids since we were producing the milk.


In the !kung tribe women were recorded snare small prey daily as they went about their gatherering activities.... but they did not call it "hunting". In other groups women were a part of the hunt period. And you are right, it is because it is easier to have women stay behind that most groups have "man" as hunter... though in some sedentary fishing groups, this is not so either



ExSteelAgain -> RE: Why is that? (1/30/2008 10:48:17 AM)

Anybody read Cold Mountain or see the movie?



ownedgirlie -> RE: Why is that? (1/30/2008 11:06:32 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ExSteelAgain

Anybody read Cold Mountain or see the movie?


Yes.  It was a great example of the strength of both sexes.  I don't think anyone here is advocating that women are weak.  I just think the idea is no one is "better" as a whole.  Individually, perhaps yes.  But across the board?



Gwynvyd -> RE: Why is that? (1/30/2008 11:23:59 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

Then there are cultures that had menstrual taboos... so they would stick women at home or in a little shed designed for them because they were seen as "unclean" when on the rag... well I certainly would love approximately 5 days a month off to gossip with other women that were on the rag too. No wee ones to care for, no dinner to cook, no veggies to pick. Oh yeah, sign me up for that!

But those taboos were supposed to show how "inferior" women were in those cultures... hardly!

I made one of my professors laugh with that observation



Do me a favor and slap your professor up side the head... most of the "tribal" societies did it not because the women were unclean but because thier moon times held too much power.. and threw off the mens magic... or ability to speak with thier spirits. So off to a special lodge or teepee ( called Moon Lodges in most Native American tribes ) so that the women could rest, do crafts, and not over power all of the men. *smiles* There the kids were absent.. and taken care of by the men.. and food drink, and small tokens were brought to the women.

The women could not smoke a vision pipe at this time because her power would have done too much to it, and because of her rampped up energy she didnt need help with visioning.

Many outside observers saw the segregation and put thier own spin on it. Much like the lovley Victorians trying to clothe and tame the "savages" in Africa, and being squeamish about anything having to do with sexual studies.

I still laugh when people thing the female term for Indian is Squaw... the settlers pointed to thier crotches trying to represent screwing a female and the natives gave them the name of the body part they were pointing at.

Gwyn,
who would gladly have a Moon Lodge to share with other women those few *lovely* days a month if only the bosses of the world would let us.



LadyHibiscus -> RE: Why is that? (1/30/2008 6:28:12 PM)

Since women who live in really close proximity tend to get synchronized cycles, can you imagine what it must have been like for a week a month in those villages and settlements?

A former companion who spent a lot of time on nuclear subs got me thinking about the awesome notion of a sub crewed entirely by women.......but then figured the Pentagon knows already that they would be taking over whatever looked good to them.



Gwynvyd -> RE: Why is that? (1/30/2008 6:39:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyHibiscus

Since women who live in really close proximity tend to get synchronized cycles, can you imagine what it must have been like for a week a month in those villages and settlements?

A former companion who spent a lot of time on nuclear subs got me thinking about the awesome notion of a sub crewed entirely by women.......but then figured the Pentagon knows already that they would be taking over whatever looked good to them.


*chuckles* Being that I shamefuly watch Johnny Bravo and there was one where he landed on the Isle of Beautiful Women. The crew of PMSing bitches would take over Bermuda quick as a New York min.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TI4K117TKsI

"I bet your name is Mickey.. cuz youre so fine"

yup.. that is my fave episode.. reminds me of some of the doinks running about here. LOL

Gwyn



juliaoceania -> RE: Why is that? (1/30/2008 8:02:44 PM)

quote:

Do me a favor and slap your professor up side the head... most of the "tribal" societies did it not because the women were unclean but because thier moon times held too much power.. and threw off the mens magic... or ability to speak with thier spirits. So off to a special lodge or teepee ( called Moon Lodges in most Native American tribes ) so that the women could rest, do crafts, and not over power all of the men. *smiles* There the kids were absent.. and taken care of by the men.. and food drink, and small tokens were brought to the women.


First, please cite where I said that I was speaking of only Native American tribal societies. Secondly, please source your material.

Sherry Ortner is the source for me



CuriousLord -> RE: Why is that? (1/30/2008 10:04:00 PM)

I'm sure it varied across cultures..

That sort of study really is very open to speculation, intepretation, historical "touching up", and over generalization.

It's your arguement that there's reason to believe that women had superior intelligence based on their being-left-at-home condition which strikes me as pretty silly.  *Shrugs.*  I just hope women in 2300 don't think that women before the civil right's movements stayed away from school by choice.  :P


Alchemist, by the way?  Hah, so's my pet!  She likes fishing, most, though.  :D  She's almost 375 in both!  (Okay, she's already 375 in one.)  We're on a PvP server, so she's gotten pretty proficient at solo'ing the Alliance when I send her to go collect alone.  I have her under orders to camp Gnomes.. freaking evil Gnomes...



CuriousLord -> RE: Why is that? (1/30/2008 10:14:41 PM)

I think you overlooked my point about why the males-playing-females irked me.. it's not just that, it's when they also pretend to be females and offered the sexual favors to other people as money pretending to be the opposite gender..

..but I could cry when I see "Goldeneye 007".  I loved that game so!  It came out right before I went to college, so it was the last time I really got to have any fun in life (over dramatic, but you know).  I used to play it constantly in the PvP mode (missions never really did very much for me.. just felt too scripted).

Oh!  The mines!  I loved the added dynamic with them in the game.  They made the game different from a straight shooter and the maps were geometric enough that there could be some serious geometry-based strats going on.


There are some things in this life I think I'll never recover.  But it's the memories, right?  ..wow, it's flooding back.. the PP7, then with the silencer that made it a bit weaker but more stealthy.. the one-rocket rocket launchers, the flame throwers, the sub machine guns, the sniper, the sticky's, the proximity's, the timed's, the.. what was that one gun on the solitary ledge in The Complex being overlooked by the other on Extended Guns (was this it?) mode?  I want to think it was something special, but hard to recall..  oh, it may've been body armor, I think that was it!



ExSteelAgain -> RE: Why is that? (1/31/2008 4:42:02 AM)

The gender superiority belief is obviously around or we wouldn’t be talking about it. While most of us may not agree with it, many do have such a kink/fetish/belief. It may take on a slightly different twist with wiiwd with the added D/s bent, but I plainly see it from posters on these boards. Of course homesexuals put an even greater twist on it.

Some of our most intelligent posters are submissives who have written about Dom/Domme worship. I’ve seen it with female submissives personally and I bet Lady Hathor has seen it from male subs. These folks view the other gender Dominants in a superior light even if they do thinly veil the gender obsession saying it is worshipping a particular Dom/Domme.

I have to believe if another Dom came along and they were alone, it would be the same type of compulsive relationship. Now, I’m not saying every submissive who loves her Dom is that way, but only pointing out that there are some who fit the bill right on these boards.

So if it is that common of a kink, I’m not going to criticize them any more than those who do other things that make me have a private “ewwwwww” moment now and then. There is a fine line between discussing a subject philosophically and mocking those who feel that way.



ownedgirlie -> RE: Why is that? (1/31/2008 7:28:31 AM)

ExSteel, I get your point but I think there is a difference between worshipping one's owner and worshipping an entire populace of people to the detriment of others who don't fit the bill.  I worship my owner, but he has earned such worship from me, and whether he was male or female, he would receive such worship as a result of what he, individually, has created between us.

Not just because of anatomy and history of ancestors.  Change the factors around a bit and it's called racism/bigotry.

I think the difference between "ewwing" the actions between two or more people in a relationship and "ewwing" a Supremist philosophy (and I'm typically a huge condemer of ewwing), is that typically what goes on in a particular relationship doesn't affect those around them.  When you've become personally and negatively affected by such a philosophy, that's a different story.  Personally, I lost a very close male friend simply because his female owner thinks this way (such is my understanding of it anyway).  Female supremists don't like female slaves who submit to men, after all, and all contact with me was abruptly cut off.  Hence my repulsion with such a view.



ExSteelAgain -> RE: Why is that? (1/31/2008 8:15:59 AM)

Ownedgirlie, yep, I get your point, too. There is a line somewhere in it all, I suppose. I don't personally agree with the gender superiorty/worship thing either, but I see enough around who do that I'm not going to knock them by way of slamming their bent. But there are lots of things that I have to bite my tongue about.



ownedgirlie -> RE: Why is that? (1/31/2008 8:25:34 AM)

Do you find this particular bent is more acceptable than a racist bent? 



ExSteelAgain -> RE: Why is that? (1/31/2008 8:28:51 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ownedgirlie

Do you find this particular bent is more acceptable than a racist bent? 


Well, I would avoid commenting on either one, to be honest. Say if a profile states a racial bent in the name. Black girl for White Dom...or White girl for Black Dom..or....I would stay awary from the subject. That's just their "thing" as is the gender worship "thing."



ownedgirlie -> RE: Why is that? (1/31/2008 8:40:08 AM)

I think we're viewing this differently.  You see it (as I understand it) as someone's bent.  I'd rather have a blonde haired, blue eyed, Catholic male, for example.  I get that.  I'm seeing it as a dismissal of an entire segment of people.  This "bent" is a preference as to what pleases a person. This is different than saying "All (insert your race or religion here) are lower species and do not deserve basic human dignity."  You know, like the KKK professes.  That's a lot different than simply saying "I prefer an Asian Dominant", ya know?



ExSteelAgain -> RE: Why is that? (1/31/2008 8:49:33 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ownedgirlie

I think we're viewing this differently.  You see it (as I understand it) as someone's bent.  I'd rather have a blonde haired, blue eyed, Catholic male, for example.  I get that.  I'm seeing it as a dismissal of an entire segment of people.  This "bent" is a preference as to what pleases a person. This is different than saying "All (insert your race or religion here) are lower species and do not deserve basic human dignity."  You know, like the KKK professes.  That's a lot different than simply saying "I prefer an Asian Dominant", ya know?


We can drop the word "bent" if you like. Preference or whatever. If someone worships/prefers (and all areas in between) males, females or any race, that is not something for me to comment on. It's their business. I may not agree with it, but I am not going to slam them publicly. I am far removed from any KKK analogy with my view.

I suppose my point is if a male sub proflile says men are worthless and he worships females, there is no need for me to criticise him. That's just his thing. Now there are all variations of what I just said, but you get the point.



ownedgirlie -> RE: Why is that? (1/31/2008 9:16:11 AM)

I get your point.  I think everyone has tolerance levels.  It's one thing for someone to say they have a fetish or bent for a certain sex, race or creed.   When they begin making decisions that move their fetish into real discrimination, I have a problem with that.  Not everyone shares my view, although I confess I prefer keep those who promote discrimination outside of my circle.  To each their own, but this is a case where I have boundaries as to where I place my respect.




ExSteelAgain -> RE: Why is that? (1/31/2008 9:28:22 AM)

No, I didn't mean to avoid your question. I thought I had pretty much given a good example above though. Really, you and I are on the same page, except we differ in whether we would comment on someone showing a gender bias. Hey, you're not alone apparently. Looking at the thread, most felt your way and I understand the view.

Now to your question. If someone specifically said in a profile and felt that he/she thought one sex or race was weaker and only wanted to be with women, men, blacks, whites, asians, homosexuals, bisexuals or whatever because he/she felt they were superior, I would leave it alone as far as publicly commenting. I would think that is just their kink or whatever. I mean, realistically, we see these profiles all the time and I don't want to get on the slippery slope of slamming other's bdsm kinks.

Ah, I see you editted out your last line. I didn't take offense. I knew what you meant. 



ownedgirlie -> RE: Why is that? (1/31/2008 10:19:32 AM)

Hi ExSteel,

Yes, I did edit out my last line, because it came across as stronger than I had intended and I did not want to offend.  I am glad none was taken.  And I do understand, and agree with, not wanting to slam others' kinks.  Goodness knows, I receive enough of that myself!  :)   There are some areas I see as outside the world of "kink", and that's the part I've been speaking to.

Thanks for the exchange! 



AquaticSub -> RE: Why is that? (1/31/2008 10:22:54 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

I think you overlooked my point about why the males-playing-females irked me.. it's not just that, it's when they also pretend to be females and offered the sexual favors to other people as money pretending to be the opposite gender..


I get it, but it still doesn't bug me. It's a MMORPG, so if they want to role play a hooker go for it. I liked my friend's father's response to the female characters who run around half-naked and dance for money. He gave them shirts. [;)]



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625