|
xssve -> RE: Misogyny and BDSM (12/31/2009 9:06:37 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Aswad
quote:
ORIGINAL: xssve
I started reading a thread in the Gorean forum one time where the argument was about who should be saved from a sinking ship if there weren't enough lifeboats; and the trend was distinctly that masters come first, slaves last - there are no male slaves in Gorean, no female masters, or even switches for that matter, the best they've managed if "Freewomen" who are basically women who aren't owned yet, and I'm guessing they're not going to first in line for the lifeboats either unless they can overpower a man.
Let me guess, this was before Omega and Rapture ran away with their tails between their legs?
Women are the bottleneck of reproduction. Any culture places a high value on their survival, or goes extinct.
Yes, slaves would go last, regardless of gender. That's a function of values. Bear in mind that the reason Goreans use the term kajira/us (my best guess at etymology: qua dira), is to avoid confusion. In BDSM terminology, slave can mean anything. In Gorean terminology, the term has a distinct meaning. To avoid this potential for confusion, we use the word kajira/us. You'll pardon if I don't take a page to explain it further, I hope.
Some errors:
× There are male slaves, both in the lifestyle and in the books that inspired it.
× In a BDSM sense, a free woman in a household that has a slave is a mistress.
× Gorean free women are not unowned slaves (an oxymoron, by the way).
× Some Goreans have an interest in BDSM, and will do as they damn well please in that regard.
× An aspect of switching is considered the human default behavior in Gorean thought.
I'm not going to elaborate on all of that here. There is a FAQ thread for a reason, and this isn't the place to discuss the matter, seeing as the thread is about misogyny (Gor popped up as a subtopic because kittinSol and others forwarded the erroneous notion that the Gorean lifestyles are inherently misogynistic).
As an aside, who gets to go in a lifeboat may not be who should get to go in one. People tend to act less than rationally under such circumstances, so it depends on whether or not cooler heads prevail. There's no reason why a woman of childbearing years should be passed over for a man, for instance, and indeed it would be appropriate for him to pass up his seat for one if there were any contention, in my opinion. But this is, again, not the place to rehash a full thread.
quote:
There is a reason that the old rule is "women and children first" - men are basically expendable, from a biological point of view, we break snow, fight wild animals, take risks that are often fatal, and we do it to protect the core of the gene pool, represented by women, the means of expanding the population and replacing the losses.
Bingo. In such a scenario, one has to be cynical, and the rational choice is to minimize the losses to the population at large when losses are avoidable. That means ascribing a value to people. As a general rule, the ability to bear a child outweighs most other considerations. Allowances for differences in selection pressure have to be made, though. The loss of one Einstein or Da Vinci or Feynman is a greater setback than the loss of a ship full of John or Jane Does.
quote:
Sorry, I just call 'em like I see 'em.
That would not be a problem, given up to date prescription glasses.
Health,
al-Aswad.
If you're trying to impress me with rationalizations, ad hominem is a poor beginning.
I'm well aware that not all Goreans are created equal, I'm simply suggesting you bear in mind the difference between fact and fiction - I've heard enough Goreans espousing the Gorean equivalent of Scientology to know it exists - if it suits you and you're having fun, knock yourself out, but when it comes to proselytizing, I'm afraid you're pissing up a rope.
Just trying to save you some time, as a courtesy.
|
|
|
|
