|
LadyLou -> RE: F/m Power Exchange - Is it a Given? (7/16/2008 6:22:23 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: subexploring
quote:
ORIGINAL: LadyLou
I‘ve seen quite a few women (and men) who believe in their ‘dominance/power’ because of their generic sexual/BDSM appeal over someone. It is a ‘real’ form of ‘influence’, as many people genuinely fawn over it, and many men and women use it to their advantage. But it’s a superficial form of ‘influence’ that only lasts as long as ‘influencee’ is lustful for it, which in itself is highly fickle and subjective to many forces. I believe this is the kind of ‘power’ the OP referred to. It’s a fun and playful kind of influence, very lightweight.....
Then there is another form of ‘influence’ which is much more substantial. That which develops only over time, communication, compatibility, trust, love, chemistry, a mutual understanding and volunteerism to give up/take up an exchange of energy on a more permanent basis - it transcends the lustful/sexual/kinky/ego etc....
This is the more substantial energy exchange/influence/P.E/D/s etc, that generally lasts a lot longer, is less objectifying and is less self-deluding than the alternative described above, and arguably more healthy. I believe this is the antithesis to which many have been ‘debating’ with ‘StacyTheBitch’ with here and in other threads, and what ‘StacyTheBitch’ doesn’t seem to understand with her quote the OP highlighted.
Personally, for me, I’m not interested in my ‘power’ over a man coming from purely his and my own sexuality - I have no desire to deal with just that limited aspect - I have no desire to play up to someones kink, I have no desire to be objectified....
But that doesn’t mean I don’t respect the right of people who don’t have the same ideals as myself, and wish to indulge in the opposite of my ‘truth‘. I’m certainly not going to debate the rights, wrongs and ‘trueness’ of what they believe in - it’s a pointless exercise. Live and let live I say.
Hey, great post. But you still are judging in a subtle way -- you're calling the energy that comes from youthful beauty and sexuality superficial and limited, and counterposing it to a deeper and more substantial form of attraction. That's an implicit ranking.
But I don't think the attractions of beauty and youth are superficial. They've inspired the greatest art for thousands of years -- in painting, sculpture, poetry, dance, literature. I'll always remember standing in the Uffizi with the Birth of Venus in front of me, the Primavera to my right, and another Botticelli Madonna to my left. All featuring the same model -- a hot, slim, blonde, probably in her late teens or early 20s. I'm sure you'll agree that looking at those paintings was not a superficial experience. So why is it a superficial experience to be moved by the same beauty in the living body of another human being?
Now, the attraction of beauty is not as *secure*, not as *reliable*, as other sorts of attraction based on a meeting of minds or personality. I'll definitely give you that. It's also not as fair -- beauty doesn't come only to those who deserve it, and it's often taken away through no fault of our own. But that hardly makes it superficial or shallow. Life itself is temporary, insecure, often unfair. That fleeting and arbitary quality of life is one of the deepest things about it. When we admire beauty and youth we're in many ways considering our own mortality, our own imprisonment in bodies that will decay. That's pretty profound.
Valuing physical beauty in others is dangerous. Beautiful people can be insufferable. It's easy to envy them. The world celebrates them for a random, arbitrary gift of nature, while ignoring our wisdom and thoughtfulness and wonderful opinions just because of a face that's a little wrinkled or a body that could stand to lose a few pounds. But let's face it, they *are* superior in a way. They're beautiful. [;)]
Hi Subexploring,
It’s funny you should use art as an analogy, as I am an artist, by ‘trade’, and greatly admire the style of paintings you talk about.
Yes, I was making a judgment, and gave my opinion as such, I don‘t deny that, but don’t believe I was inferring any kind of ranking. To achieve an understanding of the concept I was talking about I differentiated two distinct forms of ‘influence’ and highlighted them, they of course are not always exclusive of each other, but to differentiate in that way served a purpose. I gave my opinion and preference as to what I relate with, but did not infer any kind of ranking on some kind of ‘kudos-o-meter’ lol, I just explained them for what they are, imo. As I said, just because I’m not solely interested in one kind of attraction, doesn’t mean I don’t respect it’s validity or the poignancy it arouses in others, it just doesn’t interest me as a sole entity - no snobbery there; different strokes for different folks. Any ranking you see made in my post is to do with your own interpretation, I assume, as that wasn’t my intention.
You do make some very interesting philosophical points in your post, but it goes beyond the discussion of this thread, so shall not respond to those at the risk of making this thread even more chaotic. I should mention that I wasn’t necessarily talking about the kind of homogenised and ubiquitous kind of beauty one sees in media, and the emulated forms of that. To use a over worn cliché, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Nor was I referring to the age group of the parties being lusted after, I see physical beauty in people of all ages; the kind of ‘influence‘ I discussed is not solely exercised by the youthful either. I was referring to one party solely responding to the physicality, self imposed title, social status or other superficial attribute, in another that floats the sexuality or aspirational boat in that party, and them responding in an equally superficial manner.
I have been on the receiving end of both of the distinctions I made. It can be fun and amusing being lusted after purely because of what I look like, or someone sees me and thinks I’m pretty, or because I have a great ass, or a magnificent bosom, or because I identify with being dominant, or because I like kinky stuff they like, or because I’m a red head, or somones projection on to me lol [:D]. But you soon see it for what it is, when, for the one thousandth time the guy you are trying to communicate with on a more cerebral level can’t take his eyes off of my cleavage, lol and responds to my question in monosyllables lol. Or when he takes no interest in me as a person, my personality, and is thinking about what gets him off and how I can assist with that. Or when, trying to elicit a dialogue of, ‘tell me more about you’, I’m met with, ‘I have a high sex drive, and like strap-ons’. Lol.
Even when a superficial dalliance of this nature may of appealed and been compatible with my kink interests, I still had objections to being objectified in such a manner. I may be missing the distinction you’re making, but I believe being lusted after for such qualities *is* superficial. I acknowledge the poignancy of attraction and lust, but I don’t see how it is not superficial as a single entity. I don’t see how it’s not superficial to purely ‘like’ someone because of how they look, or how they will fulfil ones kink.
The Birth Of Venus is certainly a powerful image. It’s a beautiful, romanticised image, it’s narrative, and resonates within the viewer for whatever reason, on whatever level, just like most other greatly admired art. And like most other great artworks that elicits a response, it involves fantasy, interpretation and admiration.. or projection, not the fact that it is just a nice image, in old oil paint, on well made canvas hanging in a well made ornate frame on a wall somewhere, that many people like to stand in front of and look at.
Other than the above projection, I’m not really sure looking at great art compares to seeing some hot lady walking down the street, and wanting to get some, lol. Unless, of course, they are just lusting after the model, which, I have to say, look at the structure of the models body… the chest and sternum, the lack of feminine curves, the arms and the way the breasts are ’added on’ - I have my own theory that it is a composite of two models, male for the body, female for the face lol [;)]
Oh, and P.S, she’s a red head!! Not a blonde [;)] [:D]lol.
|
|
|
|
