RE: To divulge (political affiliation) ... or not?

RE: To divulge (political affiliation) ... or not? (Full Version)

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

Message

NuevaVida -> RE: To divulge (political affiliation) ... or not? (6/22/2009 8:28:52 AM)
I don't understand the concept of hiding who you are, or even considering hiding who you are. For what purpose - conflict down the road? Because who you are WILL come forward, and then what? If your affiliation is a hard limit for him, then it's likely you two are not compatible, so why start something that is going to be stopped short? Tell him.

pridedenied -> RE: To divulge (political affiliation) ... or not? (6/22/2009 9:04:50 AM)
I understand your wearyness to divulge. For me, I know that when I find out that someone is of the opposite political affiliation, my view of them goes down just a bit. I wouldn't want to lose a possible relationship based on something that can easily be overpowered by other good attributes though. But if the other person has already made it clear that it's a huge thing for them, then naturally it's important to be upfront about it.

bearly2001 -> RE: To divulge (political affiliation) ... or not? (6/22/2009 10:17:12 AM)
this is an interesting subject for me. i am an ultra liberal and political activist. yet, two of my closest friends are staunch conservatives with whom i have had fascinating conversations and discussion. go figure! i must admit when i see someone espousing their conservative views on their profile, i am inclined to dismiss that person as having little in common with me. yet, that is a prejudice i need to reexamine.. because i find that an open mind is much more important than the starting position one may take on any issue. i love political discussion and honest exchange of ideas, so i suppose i need to be aware of my prejudices. i think it is important though to list your political leanings if they are central to your life and world view. i think this is similar to my views about one's religion. as a non-christian (agnostic), if i see someone whose profile indicates religion is one of their strong loves.. i will not usually be interested in that person because of the potential conflict. yet once again, i do have friends of a religious bent, but they know better than to proselytize. i wish there was a category where open-mindedness could be quantified, lol! anybody who insists they know the truth should be quarantined! anyone who has "completed" their education should be over 100 years old before bragging about it!

leadership527 -> RE: To divulge (political affiliation) ... or not? (6/22/2009 10:22:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NuevaVida I don't understand the concept of hiding who you are, or even considering hiding who you are. For what purpose - conflict down the road? Because who you are WILL come forward, and then what? QFT! Exactly!

AlexandraLynch -> RE: To divulge (political affiliation) ... or not? (6/22/2009 10:26:13 AM)
At this point in political cycling, I assume anyone using a certain title for their politics is at minimum uninformed and thoughtless. At most, they have sociopathic tendencies. Neither do I wish in my house, at my feet, or in my bed. I regard it as a sorting mechanism.

SmokingGun82 -> RE: To divulge (political affiliation) ... or not? (6/22/2009 11:43:52 AM)
My profile has my political affiliation listed. It's Libertarian. I don't particularly care who knows, and while I might be willing to date someone a little different politically... experience tells me hardliners on any other side will not work out. Same with religion. Most things I'm pretty flexible about... some things I'm not.

variation30 -> RE: To divulge (political affiliation) ... or not? (6/22/2009 11:56:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DavanKael Variation30, I am a bit confused on a couple of points based on your posts: You mention a wife, a fiancee, and a potential future slave and/or harem. Am I correctly understanding you have a wife and a fiancee? You noted that you could not be attracted to someone who did not intellectually stimulate you but then you went on to say that a slave's opinion politically would irrelevant, so are you saying that you do not intend to be attracted to your slave? Davan I use wife and fiancee and bride interchangeably. it's only one woman. I said I could not be intellectually attracted to a woman who did have similar views as myself. by that I mean that I would never consider spending time with her outside of activities based off of a simple physical lust or certain sadistic impulses (unlike women I am intellectually attracted to with whom I wish to have children). I wouldn't have the same level of adoration or respect for someone with differing political views as I would for someone who I was intellectually attracted to. given my druthers about a slave, I would prefer to have one with similar views as myself, but if the Obama Girl wanted me to collar her, her physical appearance would quickly overshadow our political differences.

SomethingCatchy -> RE: To divulge (political affiliation) ... or not? (6/22/2009 12:10:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: nevergrowdup I'm not being disagreeable by any means. Sometimes it just seems a bit odd that I can be a feminist ... and yet choose to submit to a man. (Well, it has to be the right man.) I sound pretty effed up, eh? There's nothing odd about a feminist choosing to submit to a man. Feminism is about equality of personal choice for both genders and all races. Making your own personal choice to do what you want to do with your life and allowing others that right as well is what being a good feminist is all about.

PeonForHer -> RE: To divulge (political affiliation) ... or not? (6/22/2009 12:50:45 PM)
I wouldn't state my own political beliefs. As for those of others, I'll find them out pretty swiftly anyway, whether or not they think they're telling me them. Certain clusters of beliefs annoy the hell out of me; but, fortunately, few people hold those clusters of beliefs anyway.

NorthernGent -> RE: To divulge (political affiliation) ... or not? (6/22/2009 1:07:09 PM)
Does he/you prefer to discuss ideas (regardless of difference of opinion) or are you looking for a relationship where you agree with another? I find it hard to fathom someone who dates only of his/her ilk; it sounds like a closed shop to me. I'd prefer a conservative who has no problem dating a liberal than a liberal who will only date liberals - I'm liberal by the way. For me the most interesting and intense discussions are where you disagree with one another. You have to ask him of course rather than close your eyes and hope for the best.

MmeGigs -> RE: To divulge (political affiliation) ... or not? (6/22/2009 2:49:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven it's possible that we could both get along IF we know how to discuss respectfully. That is the crux of the matter. Hubby's views on most issues were opposite mine when we got together, but it works fine because when we talk about these things (which we don't do all that often because we've got better things to talk about), we're both interested in discussing the issues and have little or no interest in arguing the politics. We actually listen to each other and try to understand where each other is coming from. As a result, we've discovered that we're really not all that far apart on most things. I could live happily with someone who disagrees with me across the board on the issues as long as they can discuss them respectfully. I'd be happier with that person than with someone who agreed with me across the board but expressed their opinions in a disrespectful, bombastic way.

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: To divulge (political affiliation) ... or not? (6/22/2009 2:52:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent Does he/you prefer to discuss ideas (regardless of difference of opinion) or are you looking for a relationship where you agree with another? I find it hard to fathom someone who dates only of his/her ilk; it sounds like a closed shop to me. I'd prefer a conservative who has no problem dating a liberal than a liberal who will only date liberals - I'm liberal by the way. For me the most interesting and intense discussions are where you disagree with one another. Sure, but don't you find that political views are often a strong indicator of personal values? I don't mind having a partner who disagrees with me, but a woman who voted for George Bush and John McCain is someone whose personal values are almost certainly so far removed from mine I'd have a hard time respecting either her principles or her intellect. I'm a barking-mad liberal with a strong libertarian core, and an authoritarian neocon would have very little in common with me in terms of personal values and philosophical outlook. How you vote says a lot about who you are, IMO.

NorthernGent -> RE: To divulge (political affiliation) ... or not? (6/22/2009 3:19:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent Does he/you prefer to discuss ideas (regardless of difference of opinion) or are you looking for a relationship where you agree with another? I find it hard to fathom someone who dates only of his/her ilk; it sounds like a closed shop to me. I'd prefer a conservative who has no problem dating a liberal than a liberal who will only date liberals - I'm liberal by the way. For me the most interesting and intense discussions are where you disagree with one another. Sure, but don't you find that political views are often a strong indicator of personal values? I don't mind having a partner who disagrees with me, but a woman who voted for George Bush and John McCain is someone whose personal values are almost certainly so far removed from mine I'd have a hard time respecting either her principles or her intellect. I'm a barking-mad liberal with a strong libertarian core, and an authoritarian neocon would have very little in common with me in terms of personal values and philosophical outlook. How you vote says a lot about who you are, IMO. I was dating a woman who is pretty far left not so long ago. Politically speaking we didn't agree on a great deal. She'd thought about it however and we had some great chats about politics and most of the time I was left thinking she has a pretty decent argument there and I found myself challenging my own views. One of the best things about dating her was that I never seemed to get the better of her in a political discussion - we both gave as good as we got. One of the worst things about dating her was that she was militant in her views - too 'one true answer' to life's ills for my liking - which was a turn off. I would say she is an idealistic liberal whereas I'm more a pragmatic liberal. I liked her idealism - it can be an attractive quality because it's such an optimistic and emotional disposition which can be a useful compliment to someone who is pragmatic and cautious in his outlook. Political affiliation is merely superficial where two people are open to reconsidering their opinions. To me an open mind is far more important than a belief at a particular point in time; after all everyone has their eyes opened somewhere along the line. I suppose the equivalent for me is dating a woman who supported Thatcher or thinks it's fine to march into places such as Iraq. However much I disagree with her however I wouldn't necessarily assume she couldn't put a decent argument together to suggest Thatcher was the better of the available options and that invading Iraq was necessary. It's perfectly reasonable to have a reasonable disagreement.

leadership527 -> RE: To divulge (political affiliation) ... or not? (6/22/2009 3:34:54 PM)
I agree with your sentiment completely NorthernGent. In a larger context, isn't this the problem of leaders everywhere? We can, if we choose, surround ourselves with toadies and sycophants and stunt our own growth. Or we can deal with alternate viewpoints which offers much hope for growth, but is likely going to involve some personal bending along the way. Like you, I'd rather have someone of different views who was open to discourse than someone who agreed with me totally and would never hear an alternative. What if I change my mind next week?

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: To divulge (political affiliation) ... or not? (6/22/2009 3:42:03 PM)
Yeah, NG, I see what you're saying. And there's a lot of merit to it. This is something I've reflected on a lot, and I still don't have a definite fix on how I really feel about it. Like you, I've had some experiences that really challenge my position. My ex was born in the Soviet Union, grew up there and in East Berlin, and did her graduate and postgrad work her in the States. Her political views were informed by a rather diverse set of influences, and I suppose I'd have to call her... hell, I don't know what you'd call her. A radical pacifist freemarket Greenpeace Stalinist, I suppose. Let's just say we had some very interesting political discussions. I suppose my current views are somewhat polarized by 8 years of "Nazi Lite" neoconism here in the States. Just as I'll never vote republican again as long as I live, it's difficult to imagine ever dating one, given what I identify as republicanism now.

RumpusParable -> RE: To divulge (political affiliation) ... or not? (6/22/2009 3:54:01 PM)
FR & general thoughts on Northern's post: I won't partner with someone who has political views against my own, so I prefer folks to be honest and upfront about theirs and do the same myself. It's about core values to me... for example, I couldn't be with someone who was racist and felt any but whites should have their rights reduced/removed and be subject to forced eugenics -that particular relationship ended the day they brought their political beliefs up. I'm sorry, but there are just some things I can't fathom having a "we can agree to disagree and have it as spice for conversation" take on.

NorthernGent -> RE: To divulge (political affiliation) ... or not? (6/22/2009 4:01:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda Just as I'll never vote republican again as long as I live, it's difficult to imagine ever dating one, given what I identify as republicanism now. Similarly I do not vote for the British Conservative Party because my political philosophy doesn't match their's - though never say never. Yet when you read say Edmund Burke and contrast him with John Locke you'd be hard pressed to argue that Burke doesn't put a good case forward for modern political Conservatism - the man actually predicted the chaos of the Jacobin terror where unfettered freedom was let loose based on enlightenment ideas of equality and liberty. His idea that you can't simply appeal to reason as a basis for radical social reform when the experience of human nature tells us we aren't entirely reasonable surely has to be taken seriously and must count for something. Assuming a political system is based on a particular view of human nature - and surely that's the case as any system has to fit what we are - then it's logical that any political viewpoint is valid because we just can't nail down exactly what we are. And that's really what it boils down to - are you optimistic pessimistic or balanced with regard to human nature - none of which are an objective truth. The problem when you start reading political philosophy is that you're left scratching your head because they all seem to put forward a decent argument. So on the OP: it seems more reasonable to me that I place store in how well thought out the argument is (as opposed to whether or not someone agrees with me). And there's always the option to inflict a degree of pain on a conservative if all else fails :-)

NuevaVida -> RE: To divulge (political affiliation) ... or not? (6/22/2009 4:02:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: leadership527 In a larger context, isn't this the problem of leaders everywhere? We can, if we choose, surround ourselves with toadies and sycophants and stunt our own growth. Or we can deal with alternate viewpoints which offers much hope for growth, but is likely going to involve some personal bending along the way. It's a common philosophy amongst successful executives to NOT surround themselves with yes-men but to surround themselves with people who disagree with them and who challenge them. As a former executive of mine would say, "How can I continue to learn new concepts and ideas if no one challenges the way I'm currently doing things?" But, as you know, there are many many "leaders" who despise being challenged and do not tolerate it. This thread, however, seems to speak more along the lines of ethical and moral compatibility. Disagreeing is one thing. Passionately abhorring a particular view point is another. I went out (very briefly) with someone who laughed about how his friends would drive to SF to gay bash. There's really no intelligent thing to discuss there, other than "bye bye". This thread has me thinking, though, of a conversation "He who is now my dominant" and I had about a month ago... We were talking about how we seem to connect on just about every level...so I suggested we discuss religion and politics [8D]

variation30 -> RE: To divulge (political affiliation) ... or not? (6/22/2009 4:05:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda 8 years of "Nazi Lite" neoconism here in the States. yes...the republican party is known for forcing shared profits with labor, abolishing income from interest, the total confiscation of war profits, nationalization of trusts, expanding old age pensions, outlawing child labor, etc.

NorthernGent -> RE: To divulge (political affiliation) ... or not? (6/22/2009 4:16:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: leadership527 is likely going to involve some personal bending along the way. It seems the sensible approach to me. There are learned scholars who devoted their entire lives to political philosophy and I find it hard to understand that someone could not take something from their works considering their intellect and devotion to the subject. Even someone like Nietzsche - who appears to be held in high esteem on these boards with signature lines etc - at no point suggested that his views were fixed; in fact he enjoined people to challenge their views and be open to change - it was at the core of his philosophy. If it's good enough for a man who played a significant role in shaping how we think in the 21st century and made Freud possible then it's good enough for people having a leisurely chat over a glass of wine.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125