Missing lifestyle interest?

Missing lifestyle interest? (Full Version)

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

Message

amayos -> Missing lifestyle interest? (3/26/2006 2:01:50 PM)
On the date of this post, I could not help but notice how collarme makes literally available "female supremacy" as a selectable lifestyle in the member interests list, yet its direct mirror opposite seems among the missing. I wonder if this omission was purposeful or simply an oversight? Or does this little detail, in fact, touch upon a subtle double-standard in collective attitude? Do we allow women to openly make such raw claims of doctrine in BDSM practice, yet frown upon men when they express the opposite, naked and unapologetic equivalent? I would likewise enjoy knowing how many males in the BDSM community would be willing to go on record to identify themselves as having an interest in male supremacy, but do not feel "Gorean lifestyle" (which is in fact an available interest on collarme) is a label that applies to them. As a dominant male, do you feel hesitant to speak of male supremacy outside of the trappings of Gor? If so, do you find this hesitation born of rational consideration, or a need to be politically correct—even here?

cloudboy -> RE: Missing lifestyle interest? (3/26/2006 2:06:59 PM)
First, I feel compelled to post here that I might beat LA into the second spot of a new thread. I know this might throw the vast majority off seeing someone else's name here. Next, I am ready to pronounce MALE SUPERIORITY in the field of WEIGHTLIFTING. Lastly, I wan't aware that CM had standards, much less double standards. And very lastly, in Maryland we say fear the turtle. On CM some say, fear the TOS (or the interpretation thereof.)

littlesarbonn -> RE: Missing lifestyle interest? (3/26/2006 2:08:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: amayos On the date of this post, I could not help but notice how collarme makes literally available "female supremacy" as a selectable lifestyle in the member interests list, yet its direct mirror opposite seems among the missing. I wonder if this omission was purposeful or simply an oversight? Or does this little detail, in fact, touch upon a subtle double-standard in collective attitude? Do we allow women to openly make such raw claims of doctrine in BDSM practice, yet frown upon men when they express the opposite, naked and unapologetic equivalent? I would likewise enjoy knowing how many males in the BDSM community would be willing to go on record to identify themselves as having an interest in male supremacy, but do not feel "Gorean lifestyle" (which is in fact an available interest on collarme) is a label that applies to them. As a dominant male, do you feel hesitant to speak of male supremacy outside of the trappings of Gor? If so, do you find this hesitation born of rational consideration, or a need to be politically correct—even here? You may have been too selective in your readings here because female supremacy isn't all that popular here either. There are some female supremacists here, but for the most part, they do get shouted down by those who are not. If you follow those specific threads, you would see that. That is probably why male supremacy, outside of Gorean relationships, has as much of a problem here AS female supremacy. And I'm a female supremacist, have been one most of my life, but I keep that as something that's right for me, not for everyone else; I rarely even talk about it because I am so sick and tired of people trying to dissect it like an atheist being locked in a closet with the pope for an hour. I would not be surprised if there are those who are advocates of male supremacy that maintain those thoughts as more personal than universal as well.

amayos -> RE: Missing lifestyle interest? (3/26/2006 2:21:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: littlesarbonn And I'm a female supremacist, have been one most of my life, but I keep that as something that's right for me, not for everyone else; I rarely even talk about it because I am so sick and tired of people trying to dissect it like an atheist being locked in a closet with the pope for an hour. I would not be surprised if there are those who are advocates of male supremacy that maintain those thoughts as more personal than universal as well. Hahaha! Well said. But to adress your other points: I feel the Elise Sutton thread was an excellent example (for the most part) of two points of view having rational discussion without dissolving into shouting matches.

littlesarbonn -> RE: Missing lifestyle interest? (3/26/2006 2:26:27 PM)
I'll have to check out those threads. For some reason, my spidey sense kept going off, so I never opened up any of those threads. At least I don't think I did.

stef -> RE: Missing lifestyle interest? (3/26/2006 2:45:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: amayos On the date of this post, I could not help but notice how collarme makes literally available "female supremacy" as a selectable lifestyle in the member interests list, yet its direct mirror opposite seems among the missing. I wonder if this omission was purposeful or simply an oversight? Cloudboy's repetitve whining aside, TPTB took requests for interests before they made that feature available to us. Perhaps no one requested the one you feel is missing? Have you tried suggesting it's addition to the list? ~stef

Level -> RE: Missing lifestyle interest? (3/26/2006 2:57:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: amayos But to adress your other points: I feel the Elise Sutton thread was an excellent example (for the most part) of two points of view having rational discussion without dissolving into shouting matches. *No shouting matches but there was some loud talking laughs. As I've said, the only thing supreme I see is an individual's behavior.* Level

cloudboy -> RE: Missing lifestyle interest? (3/26/2006 3:19:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: stef On the date of this post, I could not help but notice how collarme makes literally available "female supremacy" as a selectable lifestyle in the member interests list, yet its direct mirror opposite seems among the missing. I wonder if this omission was purposeful or simply an oversight? Cloudboy's repetitve whining aside, TPTB took requests for interests before they made that feature available to us. Perhaps no one requested the one you feel is missing? Have you tried suggesting it's addition to the list? ~stef I think he's more interested in how he fits into the world in general, and the thread question is just a sideline to that greater quest. To Borrow from Tolstoy, Amayos must figure out where he fits on the Prince Pierre -- Prince Andrew continuum --- and while he juggles those balls in the air, he spies out of the corner of his eye for that female life-force, otherwise known as the "Natasha-figure." Of course there's always the pitfal of Anatolie Kuraginism, wherein one might lose his leg if he's too slimey and manipulative, and then there are the cursed forces of fate --- like the fog enveloping the Russian army during its major defeat at Austerlitz. Next, there's that over arching theme of control --- how Napolean, the controlling one failed --- and how Kutuzov, the "insignificant one" defeated France. Its not for me to say where Amayos stands in relation to history. I cannot be sure if Caitlyn is his Natasha figure. But I am quite convinced, beyond a shadow of doubt that collarme profile descriptors are quite besides the point. As Platon Karataev said, "Fate looks for a head. But we are always judging, 'that's not well -- that's not right!' Our luck is like water in a dragnet: you pull at it and it bulges, but when you've drawn it out it's empty! That's how it is." (War and Peace, Book 12)

ownedgirlie -> RE: Missing lifestyle interest? (3/26/2006 3:34:54 PM)
Is this a reflection of what is now known as "reverse discrimination?" Female Supremacy good, Male Supremacy bad Women's only groups good, Men's only groups frowned upon. Take the opposite of any "accepted" group, and....is it accepted? (i won't list specific groups here so as not to start an off topic debate). Interesting to think on...

truesub4u -> RE: Missing lifestyle interest? (3/26/2006 3:36:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ownedgirlie Is this a reflection of what is now known as "reverse discrimination?" Female Supremacy good, Male Supremacy bad Women's only groups good, Men's only groups frowned upon. Take the opposite of any "accepted" group, and....is it accepted? (i won't list specific groups here so as not to start an off topic debate). Interesting to think on... God you are going to make me actually think tonight?.... I better go get me caffine... lol.. brb

Vancouver_cinful -> RE: Missing lifestyle interest? (3/26/2006 3:38:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: littlesarbonn I would not be surprised if there are those who are advocates of male supremacy that maintain those thoughts as more personal than universal as well. Okay, I'll speak up...I am of the personal, inner feeling that dominant male/submissive female is the natural order. Now, before anyone jumps on me about this, NO, I don't believe all women should be subordinate to all men. I just mean that male-dominance feels right to me. Even in my friendships I feel more comfortable with males who have dominant qualities. (One of my best friends is a female dominant and I admire her, love her to death, and even help her come up with interesting mind-phucks for her male-subs, so no need for people to feel I have any issues with females dominanting males. It just doesn't resonate with my inner being the same way.) Am I a Male Supremist? Yes, in a way. Would I mark it as a lifestyle interest? Nope, I'm pretty sure it would just lead to misunderstandings. But heck, sure, it should be an option. Why not? Cin

MySweetSubmssive -> RE: Missing lifestyle interest? (3/26/2006 3:49:41 PM)
Talking about male supremacy seems somewhat gratuitous given the last 5,000+ years of human history. With a very, very few exceptions, all cultures have been, in terms of material and political power, male supremacy cultures. While I don't buy the arguments for female superiority, it has a cache that male superiority doesn't. If I wanted to enjoy male superiority, I could convert to a conservative religion and marry. Ick!

krikket -> RE: Missing lifestyle interest? (3/26/2006 3:55:43 PM)
my thought on the subject is that just using the word "supremist" can be pretty inflamatory, and has lead to a "few" wars i can think of. i've never seen Dominance (by either gender) as supremist or even superior one to the other, but something far different. regards and hugs jimini edited cuz i can't always spell <g>

littlesarbonn -> RE: Missing lifestyle interest? (3/26/2006 3:56:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MySweetSubmssive Talking about male supremacy seems somewhat gratuitous given the last 5,000+ years of human history. With a very, very few exceptions, all cultures have been, in terms of material and political power, male supremacy cultures. While I don't buy the arguments for female superiority, it has a cache that male superiority doesn't. If I wanted to enjoy male superiority, I could convert to a conservative religion and marry. Ick! No offense intended, but that's somewhat of a misunderstanding of a gender superiority fantasy or lifestyle. What you are describing is patriarchy, not male supremacy. Yes, you can have male supremacy in a patriarchy, but a patriarchy does not necessarily (and most often not) end up meaning male supremacy. It's the same thing with matriarchy. A matriarchy does not have to mean female supremacy. It means an acceptance of female rule, which doesn't always have to have supremacy tied into the definition. Actually, it rarely does. I guess this is one of those things that has bugged me about the intent of tying male supremacy with patriarchy in feminism. Most current theoretical work on feminism has distanced itself from some of the reactive work in this direction, becoming proactive without the need to deconstruct patriarchy in order to achieve equality, utilizing the concepts of an opposite paradigm to achieve such a doctrine. If patriarchy was male surpremacy, women would never have achieved sentience in political dialogue. Nor would they have achieved any rights because in a patriarchy=male supremacy, EVEN the women grow up and continue growing believing they are inferior. That attitude hasn't existed in a very, very long time. Sure, some Neanderthals are still walking around, but aside from religious dogma (in some circles) and just people who haven't figured out the 15th century is over, the two do not meet. And no, I'm not a male supremacist, so I have nothing to gain by stating such information.

LadyMorgynn -> RE: Missing lifestyle interest? (3/26/2006 3:57:26 PM)
I thought the "1950's Household" was its mirror image! quote: ORIGINAL: amayos On the date of this post, I could not help but notice how collarme makes literally available "female supremacy" as a selectable lifestyle in the member interests list, yet its direct mirror opposite seems among the missing. I wonder if this omission was purposeful or simply an oversight?

amayos -> RE: Missing lifestyle interest? (3/26/2006 4:10:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyMorgynn I thought the "1950's Household" was its mirror image! The problem with that is it's vague. Is it, "honey, I'm home!" or rather a tall dark domina in a fifties-style petticoat patting her good naked boy on the head for scrubbing the floor so well? In this day and age of fetish retro, it's hard to say...

ownedgirlie -> RE: Missing lifestyle interest? (3/26/2006 4:14:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyMorgynn I thought the "1950's Household" was its mirror image! Believe it or not, this is the household i wanted to have in my own marriage.

amayos -> RE: Missing lifestyle interest? (3/26/2006 4:27:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ownedgirlie Is this a reflection of what is now known as "reverse discrimination?" Female Supremacy good, Male Supremacy bad Women's only groups good, Men's only groups frowned upon. Take the opposite of any "accepted" group, and....is it accepted? (i won't list specific groups here so as not to start an off topic debate). Interesting to think on... girlie, Yeah, that's a portion of my post's supposition, I guess. I think when you look at the overall tone of more than a few dominant ladies, you will run across many instances where something they casually express or identify with would seem obscene and gravely misogynist if reflected by a male. A double standard? Perhaps. Or maybe it's just something that naturally happens and people really don't care one way or the other. Nonetheless, I notice! [:D]

ownedgirlie -> RE: Missing lifestyle interest? (3/26/2006 4:33:44 PM)
i think the pendulum swings far in each direction. Women weren't given a fair shake so long ago...and faught against it...to the point where an attempt to suppress men comes into play. At some point it all balances out. Women felt stifled at home, and went to work. Now look at how many stay at home moms there are again, because so many want to raise their own children as opposed to handing them off elsewhere. Realizing some have no choice, i am speaking of those who do. Regardless, it is that pendulum swinging which continues to give hope for balance, in all things. i must admit, however, a dislike for the term "supreme" in any regard, other than when i refer to my Supreme Being. But that's a different topic. [;)]

amayos -> RE: Missing lifestyle interest? (3/26/2006 4:35:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: littlesarbonn Sure, some Neanderthals are still walking around... * Screeching Break Sound * Wait. So in being a female supremacist, does this likewise make you neanderthal in thought, or are you somehow more enlightened because of it? Please assure me I'm taking something out of context!

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875