undergroundsea
Posts: 2400
Joined: 6/27/2004
From: Austin, TX
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ShaktiSama
What you call a "demographic profile" strikes me much more as a "scientifically unverifiable stereotype",
I agree that the demographic profile is not something for which I have drawn upon science. I am not clear on what you mean. Are you saying I should not make such references? What makes the profile I describe different in spirit than profiles you invoke to describe guys you describe as out to sexually use, or Goreans, or any other profiles you use for men, or for women?
quote:
you object to my stating a common social stereotype of women and their sexual power by saying, repeatedly, that you have constructed your own stereotype of women which is the basis for your moral judgments and emotional reactions to tribute.
I am not clear on what you mean here. Would you please elaborate on which common social stereotype of women (single mothers?)
quote:
quote:
What percentage of tribute dommes falls in the 18-24 age bracket? What percentage of women in this age bracket are single mothers?
I have no idea what the answers to any of these questions would be. I just find them interesting questions.
I am referring to demographic trends across population between age and being a single mother. I expect the percentage in the age range I describe is smaller than what it might be on average. I expect this smaller percentage from the general population would translate to the BDSM population. I am curious to know what you find interesting about these questions. It is not clear to me whether you find them academically interesting, or whether your use of the word interesting is meant to cast some other light.
quote:
a man or a woman has the right to ask for anything they want and need in a relationship, so long as it is mutually consenting and harms no one.
I agree. If you think tribute happens only under these circumstances, it is not so. Also, even if it is under consent, there are scenarios where I find issue. I do not object to that the scenario is occurring but I see issue with from where the motivation comes when it is a character issue. I used the White supermacist analogy in earlier posts to convey this point. If you missed the analogy, I will happily reiterate it. If you did read it and find issue with my reasoning, please let me know how you feel.
quote:
Several women have stated a number of motivations for financial domination in the course of this thread, including the sheer emotional-physical reaction that one might get from other D/S activities--receiving this sort of surrender arouses them, gives them a rush. The fact that you insist on ignoring the testimony of real people about their own feelings and motivations, in order to continually hammer what you BELIEVE they feel, is a problem in my opinion.
And that's my point. What percentage of women who engage in tribute do you think are single mothers? I doubt that is a significant contributor. That you point to other motivations aligns with this notion that women don't seek tribute because they are single mothers.
quote:
It was never an "argument". It was a question and a line of idle speculation.
Fair enough. I am content to say you pondered a question and I responded with what I thought to be the answer to that question during the course of intellectual discourse about the matter.
quote:
I am not pulling the idea from thin air, I was simply pursuing the notion that tribute dommes might be similar to prostitutes, strippers and other sex workers in terms of their demographic profile.
I did ponder this point but did not find the notion to resonate with me. I think the commitment and barrier of entry is greater for the sexually oriented businesses, which might in turn require more pressing circumstances. I do not think the statistics you quoted--that 50% to 70% are single mothers--apply to those who seek tribute.
I do ponder what people say and apply critical thinking to it. I also ponder what I say and apply critical thinking to it. For instance, I said that the nature of tribute is likely to attract those who seek to exploit. I questioned this statement and considered what if one said that SM is more likely to attract those who seek to abuse. I considered the costs, benefits, and threshhold of entry for each scenario and concluded that I did not see the two statements to be equivalent.
quote:
From my point of view, there is an agenda that you and many other men pursue in threads like this one which is fairly transparent. The reasons for "disputing" questions and alternative ideas seems equally transparent.
To check for understanding, what is the transparent agenda you see? The word agenda can carry different meanings and I am not sure what you mean, which is why I am asking you to clarify.
quote:
You are married to the notion that a woman asking for material resources = disrespect and greed. Your belief in this model of male-female financial interaction is absolute and unwavering.
Greed is a common human trait. I expect when an opportunity for greed is there, it will affect behavior. Do you believe that greed is entirely irrelevant to this discussion?
The model I describe is for human interactions in general, and it is a model I see to apply for most social relationships I see in the world. My model is not without basis and I am very comfortable following this model.
quote:
In your world it can be nothing else--there is never, under any circumstances, a possibility that this could be legitimately pleasurable or loving or useful for anyone.
You willfully blind yourself to any other possibility, and even allowing others to consider other possibilities seems to be very threatening to you. I think you have decided long ago What Tribute Is About and you are very determined not to allow any other viewpoint exist.
This statement is incorrect. I have said otherwise multiple times in this thread and other threads. When you make these absolute assertions that are incorrect and contradict what I have said, and you use the words you use, I am not sure what to think.
quote:
Social sciences do not require that 100% of all women and 100% of all men conform to a certain pattern, in order for that pattern to be relevant.
Fair enough. An absolute requires 100% and I interpreted your statement to mean an absolute. If instead of saying that sexual power is the only power society allows to women, we say sexual power is the power most easily accessible to women, I can agree to that. If what I say does not capture what you wish to say, you are welcome to clarify.
Over the last couple of days, in order to further round out my perspective, I have spoken with three women about their difficulty achieving whatever power they have achieved via professional success and so far the data is more along the lines of what I believe: other forms of power and opportunity are available to women. I will gladly share more details of these conversations if it interests you. I allow that in general my sampling is mostly women who have achieved success. This sampling carries merit but is not comprehensive.
I went to college. I worked hard. I majored in a field that has good employment prospects. My field, engineering, had much fewer women than men in my class. Women who graduated with me, or who worked with me earned well. Several are the primary wage earners in their household. I am trying to imagine what would keep more women from entering this field that can be described as a barrier created by society. Possible explanations are that they did not get the encouragement to enter the field from teachers, counselors, or parents. Would you help me round out my perspective? What barriers do you see to exist?
quote:
I have brought up many statistical realities in the course of this thread. You use the word "counter-example" as if a statistical rarity or an exception to a rule is somehow a trump or a counter to the facts in the majority of cases. It isn't. I do not have to "expain" the existence or the personal choices of your sister.
Would you help me understand how these statistical realities tie back to the discussion? I understood you to say that men in this thread are opposing the idea of tribute because society allows only sexual power to women, which is the point I disputed with my counterexamples. Would you please recap the statistical realities and explain how you see them to explain the behavior of men that you see in this thread? Or do you mean to say you see them to explain the behavior of women?
quote:
I do not consider it an "attack" to suggest an alternative view of the world or of relations between men and women. The fact that you seem to view my posts as attacks on you personally or on all malekind is rather disturbing, but not atypical. I am sorry that the only use that you see in feminism is to legitimate your prejudices against certain women, so that you feel comfortable condemning them, but I take a broader view, and I do not support your agenda to condemn or to define other people's desires and needs as "disrespectful" because they do not conform to your own.
I don't consider it an attack to suggest an alternative view of the world. What you say feels like an attack when you say my stripes are showing, they are not pretty, and make whatever insinuations you do. If you feel you have not made attacks and think it is simply a matter of communication, I will gladly compile a list of quotes that felt like attacks to me to close that communication loop.
If you wish to take this conversation and matter about attacks further, I think it would help to seek understanding about what I am perceiving as an attack. When instead you describe my behavior as disturbing but not atypical, I am not sure what to think. What do you mean when you say disturbing behavior is not atypical? It means you find disturbing behavior in me to be the norm. For perspective, this statement--that you find disturbing behavior in me to be the norm--immediately follows a statement that says you do not consider your words an attack. Please help me reconcile the two seemingly incongruent statements. If the statement that disturbing behavior in me is the norm is simply factual, please provide the factual basis.
When you say that the only use I see in feminism is to legitimize my prejudices against certain women, it feels like you are trying to make an offensive statement, especially given the statements that preceded it. I would get more out of your statement if you would explain how you think I am using feminism to do so. I imagine you are saying that when I speak in favor of choices that women I know have made that have brought them success, you see that as a statement in favor of feminism. If so, to say I am using feminism only to legitimize prejudices against certain women, it is an inaccurate statement and feels like it comes from an unfriendly place.
Against which women do you see me to hold a prejudice which you instead support?
Cheers,
Sea
|
RE: BOIZ, LEMME TELL YOU HOW IT'S DONE....THAT TIRED OL... - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread