RE: chastity and forced femme

RE: chastity and forced femme (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Ask a Mistress

Message

Rochsub2009 -> RE: chastity and forced femme (3/26/2010 11:27:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy The only thing I learned here was Rochsub2009's definition of "a real man." Then this whole thread has been a total waste of your time. [;)] Actually, that is just one line in a very long profile. It is not meant to reflect my formal definition of anything. You should not have interpreted it as such. But if you'd like to discuss my definition, send me a PM. i'd be happy to share my views.

SweetDommes -> RE: chastity and forced femme (3/26/2010 11:36:43 AM)
cloudboy - I pose you the same question that Kitty has ignored ... why does it make us "bigots" when we don't want to feminize males?

LadyPact -> RE: chastity and forced femme (3/26/2010 11:37:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy His position is pretty clear. His profile reads: i am not one of those wimpy subs. i am a real man. i won't beg you to feminize me or force me to wear panties. I do hope that you know this was uncalled for. Quite frankly, had you attempted to embarrass clip this way, I'd have probably given you a piece of My mind.

Madame4a -> RE: chastity and forced femme (3/26/2010 12:34:16 PM)
Now.. how helpful is that? I'm not sure why another feminization thread would be more helpful than those that already exist and there are several of them. I'm not sure how you got that people hate crossdressers here (I had one in my life that I still love and adore a great deal)... so, where did you get that? And if there are friendlier places, why not post them? quote: ORIGINAL: KITTYLECTRO Don't waste your time by allowing yourself to be corralled into "faq" or "feminization" threads created by those who very clearly hate crossdressers or people into feminization. There are much friendlier places with a lot less bigotry :)

KITTYLECTRO -> RE: chastity and forced femme (3/26/2010 1:09:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy I've noticed you are often a voice of reason and the saving grace in these threads. Thank you for 'getting it'.

LadyPact -> RE: chastity and forced femme (3/26/2010 1:55:43 PM)
In this case, Kitty, he doesn't get it and neither do you. I don't think it was appropriate to pull something out of Rochsub's profile and bring it to this thread. It was taken out of context and used in a manipulative fashion. Very much the same way that you, Kitty, like to throw around that word "bigot" quite so often. If anything, you might want to start seeing how that very word can be applied in other ways. Quite frankly, you have absolutely no tolerance for those of us who happen to be straight. I've said this before to you and I will say it again. The tossing around of the word bigot is not only ridiculous, but it's also rather offensive. I have a hard time believing that it would be used in the context of anyone else saying they are a straight male and therefor only attracted to females. Would the same term be used in regard to any lesbian who wasn't sexually attracted to males? Well, I certainly hope it wouldn't anyway. I don't for a second believe that anyone out there is sexually attracted to every other person on the face of the planet. That doesn't make it bigotry. It means that, as individuals, we respond to others according to how we're wired. Some things don't appeal to some of us, and frankly, that's good enough.

cloudboy -> RE: chastity and forced femme (3/26/2010 2:42:36 PM)
quote: In this case, Kitty, he doesn't get it and neither do you. I don't think it was appropriate to pull something out of Rochsub's profile and bring it to this thread. It was taken out of context and used in a manipulative fashion. Very much the same way that you, Kitty, like to throw around that word "bigot" quite so often. If anything, you might want to start seeing how that very word can be applied in other ways. Quite frankly, you have absolutely no tolerance for those of us who happen to be straight. Right, why would I ever look at anyone's public profile on a public forum to understand their posting motives and positions. If you didn't find what he had written "bigoted," then I'm not sure what or whom you would find bigoted. The one thing I would say about collarme bigotry is that its largely unconscious and it is not always overt. It usually masquerades as set of preferences -- but underneath of that kind-ish exterior are imbedded prejudices and revulsions. Spice into that BDSM, where Dommes get to call the shots (personal impunity) and I often see some ugly attitudes. Next, too, is the tendency to want to legitimize one's own preferences as "warranted" by means of projection. I'm not saying that's in play in this thread, but it does have a rich history here. At least a someone like Domiguy who comes ripping through the ask-a-mistress section does so with self irony, admitted prejudices, and a transparent POV. You never seem him ripping malesubs while equivocating that he respects them too. I'm sure he would agree that a guy who lets a woman spank him, tie him up, fuck him with a strap-on, control his sexuality, (not to mention doing the slavish chores around the house) et. al. is just as much of a pansy (if not a greater one) than the fetishist in female attire. What really determines masculinity -- attire or behavior -- or actual gender? To me "real women" include all women: (1) girley-girls; (2) tom boys; (3) lesbians; (4) office workers; (5) blue collar workers; (6) butch ladies, (7) femsubs; (8) femdoms; etc. With the liberation movement, women are now a lot less penalized for not fitting traditional molds. As for having constructive advice for the OP. Partners need to work with each other to discover what works - excites them -- and brings them closer together. Outside, generic prescriptions won't provide the best roadmap. Perfect kink compatibility is not a must -- b/c partners can help expand each others horizons if there is a baseline connection in place. Traditional interests in bondage, control, and discipline -- have a lot of cross over ground into feminization -- but you have to experiment to see what works. Clothing, in and of itself, is nothing -- its all in the context you give it.

cloudboy -> RE: chastity and forced femme (3/26/2010 3:01:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rochsub2009 quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy The only thing I learned here was Rochsub2009's definition of "a real man." Then this whole thread has been a total waste of your time. [;)] Actually, that is just one line in a very long profile. It is not meant to reflect my formal definition of anything. You should not have interpreted it as such. But if you'd like to discuss my definition, send me a PM. i'd be happy to share my views. No worries. The popcorn you sat down with at the top of the thread was probably to watch the fur fly --- and I kind of dragged your out of the audience to make a point. The end game is usually people butting heads and digging in. That sentence is your profile is more about you and the relationship you seek -- I get that -- but it also reflects general underlying attitudes at play on these forums. Gotta say, though, you had the bulletin board material.

LadyPact -> RE: chastity and forced femme (3/26/2010 4:30:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy Right, why would I ever look at anyone's public profile on a public forum to understand their posting motives and positions. If you didn't find what he had written "bigoted," then I'm not sure what or whom you would find bigoted. The one thing I would say about collarme bigotry is that its largely unconscious and it is not always overt. It usually masquerades as set of preferences -- but underneath of that kind-ish exterior are imbedded prejudices and revulsions. Spice into that BDSM, where Dommes get to call the shots (personal impunity) and I often see some ugly attitudes. We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. There's no need to pull what's written on a person's profile into it just because they are responding to a thread. This thread wasn't about him and it shouldn't be. quote: Next, too, is the tendency to want to legitimize one's own preferences as "warranted" by means of projection. I'm not saying that's in play in this thread, but it does have a rich history here. At least a someone like Domiguy who comes ripping through the ask-a-mistress section does so with self irony, admitted prejudices, and a transparent POV. You never seem him ripping malesubs while equivocating that he respects them too. I'm sure he would agree that a guy who lets a woman spank him, tie him up, fuck him with a strap-on, control his sexuality, (not to mention doing the slavish chores around the house) et. al. is just as much of a pansy (if not a greater one) than the fetishist in female attire. What really determines masculinity -- attire or behavior -- or actual gender? I'm the last person to figure out Domiguy's behavior. Heaven help the person who attempts it. Honestly, part of this debate is about the attire. Take away the clothing in this particular kink, and it leaves a big hole. Quite often, it is the clothing than many folks attest aides them in bringing out their feminine side. In all seriousness, there really are some of us out here who are not bi-sexual, not gender fluid, or any other pretty little PC term other than straight. A feminized male has just as much sexual attraction to Me as a female - meaning zero. The very definition of feminizattion is "to give feminine quality to." Being straight, I'm not attracted to feminine qualities. That includes biological males in female attire. quote: To me "real women" include all women: (1) girley-girls; (2) tom boys; (3) lesbians; (4) office workers; (5) blue collar workers; (6) butch ladies, (7) femsubs; (8) femdoms; etc. With the liberation movement, women are now a lot less penalized for not fitting traditional molds. Thank you for your definition. Funny, m2f trans never made it in there. Would you, perhaps, be on the XX only side of the chromosome debate in your determination of 'real' females? I'm also wondering with this list of yours, do you have a preference in any of these categories over the other? Would one have a greater attraction for you? Is it possible that some of these categories wouldn't make good relationship/dynamic material? quote: As for having constructive advice for the OP. Partners need to work with each other to discover what works - excites them -- and brings them closer together. Outside, generic prescriptions won't provide the best roadmap. Perfect kink compatibility is not a must -- b/c partners can help expand each others horizons if there is a baseline connection in place. Traditional interests in bondage, control, and discipline -- have a lot of cross over ground into feminization -- but you have to experiment to see what works. Clothing, in and of itself, is nothing -- its all in the context you give it. This isn't in reference to the OP, but unfortunately, we have again dived into whether or not any of us have rights to hard limits. If we were talking about any other activity, no one would say a word if someone popped up on a thread and said they had a hard limit in activity X. However, any time feminization comes up, hard limits or preferences no longer have a place.

Rochsub2009 -> RE: chastity and forced femme (3/26/2010 10:45:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy No worries. The popcorn you sat down with at the top of the thread was probably to watch the fur fly --- and I kind of dragged you out of the audience to make a point. It was a bit of an unnecessary sucker punch. You made this thread about me, and essentially labeled me as some type of bigot. It was neither the most ethical, nor most effective argument that You could have used to make your point. As you stated, you pulled me out of the audience, and placed me in the middle of a topic that had nothing to do with me. Not only does my profile have very little to do with the OP, but you also used it out of context. Not cool. Not cool at all. This is my first interaction with you here on the board (that i recall), and we've definitely never met in real life. Thus, you don't know enough about me to make any type of judgment about my positions on...........well, ANYTHING. Please refrain from doing so in the future. Thanks.

Rochsub2009 -> RE: chastity and forced femme (3/26/2010 11:03:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact I don't think it was appropriate to pull something out of Rochsub's profile and bring it to this thread. It was taken out of context and used in a manipulative fashion. Thanks for the support, LadyPact. i appreciate that. As i said to Cloudboy, he delivered a bit of an unnecessary sucker punch. He digressed from the OP and placed the focus on my profile, which was not the topic at hand. While i do appreciate you having my back, i tend not to let things like this bother me. i've been on the internet long enough to know that i can't control what people type. Therefore, i don't allow myself to become bothered by it. i think my contributions to the board speak for themselves, and people who have read my postings know that i can be a bit of a joker, but i am NOT a bigot. Thus, i felt no need to defend myself. There is an old saying that states, "You cannot control what people say about you. But you CAN live your life in such a way that nobody will believe them". i feel extremely confident that anyone who has ever met me will attest that i am not a bigot. So i can sleep well, while ignoring defamatory remarks against me. i think Jesus called it "turning the other cheek". [;)]

OttersSwim -> RE: chastity and forced femme (3/26/2010 11:15:08 PM)
It does seem that we have this discussion over and over and over, with the same players, the same arguments - entrenched. I am not sure why that must be. As a transgendered person (AKA, I am a raving girlie-boy) I see folks every day who will simply not accept me for who I really am. While I would love to change the world so that absolutely -everyone- just ADORES me...I know that is NEVER going to happen. So I figure, as long as they are civil, what do I care? It is the same here. There are a vocal group of the Mistresses for whom this just ain't their kink, no way, no how. And that's fine. They are civil about it and so why should we care? As Thomas Jefferson said "It neither picks my pocket, nor breaks my leg." The argument that says that if you are not for it, you should just be silent does not fly with me either - it's an open forum and people are here to type shit at each other dammit! It is an open discussion all day, every day, and to be frank, women who like femme-boys are a very small minority of the larger group and it does no one any harm to come to understand that. If they get it here, by all the "ain't for me" posts, then in my view, all the better. The civil expression of a preference in an open forum does not a bigot make. As for the OP, my original message stands - it really is that simple. However, if you are doing things online, then some other ideas would include having you shave your legs or whole body and keep yourself hairless. Painting your toes and keeping them neat and well kept - maybe a nice toe ring? Wearing panties all the time instead of male undies...getting ears pierced, buying girl stuff by yourself...the lists are endless and so obvious that it was a wonder to everyone that you were actually -not- a wanker. Just remember to have fun with it. Make it something positive and attractive in your life, and it will be more so to others too. [:)]

Rochsub2009 -> RE: chastity and forced femme (3/27/2010 12:08:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OttersSwim The civil expression of a preference in an open forum does not a bigot make. i've gotta say, OttersSwim, i absolutely love the way you make things so clear and yet so concise. That's why i mentioned your original reply multiple times within this thread. Whenever i see your avatar appear on this message board, i know that what follows is required reading.

hardbodysub -> RE: chastity and forced femme (3/27/2010 6:19:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SweetDommes The fact of the matter is that the OP did get back answers that were informative and not just ridiculing him, yet he still got defensive. I stand by my statement that if he wasn't fishing for wank material (even if he does have other reasons behind it, I believe that the wank factor is over 50% of why he asked what he did, how he did), then he would have responded like so many others with "sorry, I didn't mean to come across that way." And interestingly enough, although not surprisingly, my other points in both of my posts were completely ignored ... by you, hardbody, and by the person I posed a question to. The fact of the matter is that I don't care about your other points. They're irrelevant in regard to my comment, which was simply refuting the assertion that any defensive-looking response always implies guilt, that "innocent" people don't "get huffy". I see it here all the time. Someone responds to an OP in a way that the OP feels is insulting, or an unwarranted accusation. Then the OP's indignant response is pointed to as proof of guilt. It's a great way to win an argument, isn't it? The other person isn't allowed to respond in denial of the accusation, or else it proves they're guilty. An innocent person has no recourse at all under this twisted logic.

Venatrix -> RE: chastity and forced femme (3/27/2010 7:10:52 AM)
Otters, I have to say that I find it hard to believe that there's someone out there who doesn't adore you. You've always done yourself proud on these fora. One thing I did want to point out that I believe was touched on briefly earlier, is that it's often not the 'femme' part that gets dominas so worked up, it's the 'forced' part. I've had male friends who've really loved girly things, and we've had a great time together. I've often thought that being a man would be intolerable to me, as I'd have to give up my handbag collection, so a man who deeply identifies with those girly things is hardly an insult to women. As you've noted on earlier threads on this topic, the 'forced' part implies that there is something humiliating about being a woman, and for obvious reasons, that won't fly with most dominant women. If those out there who scream "bigotry" can't understand the difference, that's their problem. People who spew such bile say volumes more about themselves than anyone else, and are best ignored. I wish I'd done that sooner.

hardbodysub -> RE: chastity and forced femme (3/27/2010 11:33:48 AM)
quote: ... the 'forced' part implies that there is something humiliating about being a woman ... There are many common misconceptions about the lure of "forced" activities. This is one of them. For some people, the most exciting aspect of BDSM is control, and that is what makes forced activities attractive to them. It may not matter whether the activity being "forced" is something they enjoy or do not enjoy, whether it is humiliating or not, whether it is something that they would do without being forced or not. It is the force, the control implied, that is the lure. If someone views feminization as humiliating, they could view it as such without the force aspect as easily as with it. It's not the force that implies humiliation, it's how the person views feminization itself.

Domin8tingUrDrmz -> RE: chastity and forced femme (3/27/2010 11:39:03 AM)
I agree completely with this statement. I too adore Otters based on his postings here and would happily pal around with a man who enjoyed being feminine. Being friends with, and finding sexual attraction, are separate things.

Venatrix -> RE: chastity and forced femme (3/27/2010 11:59:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hardbodysub quote: ... the 'forced' part implies that there is something humiliating about being a woman ... There are many common misconceptions about the lure of "forced" activities. This is one of them. For some people, the most exciting aspect of BDSM is control, and that is what makes forced activities attractive to them. It may not matter whether the activity being "forced" is something they enjoy or do not enjoy, whether it is humiliating or not, whether it is something that they would do without being forced or not. It is the force, the control implied, that is the lure. If someone views feminization as humiliating, they could view it as such without the force aspect as easily as with it. It's not the force that implies humiliation, it's how the person views feminization itself. Thanks, HBS, for your comments. Actually, I think a lot of the dominants and submissives on these boards are well versed in the concept of control and ersatz force. Perhaps if we changed the scenario a bit, you might see why a lot of femdoms find the so-called 'forced' part of feminisation somewhat distasteful. What if we changed the kink to being 'forced black', or 'forced Asian', or 'forced Jewish'? What if your kink entailed having blackface put on you, or drawing almond-shaped eyes on you, or being 'forced' to wear a yarmulke? Then let's say that you asked a dominant of that same background to 'force' you into it? Can you see why a dominant in that position might be less than enthusiastic about pandering to the kink of someone requesting that particular activity?

Andalusite -> RE: chastity and forced femme (3/27/2010 12:14:20 PM)
I don't have a problem with the femme or the forced/directed, or humilation in some circumstances. The mindset and reasoning behind forced femme feels very sexist to me, as well as artificial and difficult to make an interesting scene from. To the OP, here's a post I wrote with a few different scenarios I've either done, or thought about doing, that your Mistress may or may not find useful: http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=2814005

hardbodysub -> RE: chastity and forced femme (3/27/2010 7:00:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Venatrix quote: ORIGINAL: hardbodysub quote: ... the 'forced' part implies that there is something humiliating about being a woman ... There are many common misconceptions about the lure of "forced" activities. This is one of them. For some people, the most exciting aspect of BDSM is control, and that is what makes forced activities attractive to them. It may not matter whether the activity being "forced" is something they enjoy or do not enjoy, whether it is humiliating or not, whether it is something that they would do without being forced or not. It is the force, the control implied, that is the lure. If someone views feminization as humiliating, they could view it as such without the force aspect as easily as with it. It's not the force that implies humiliation, it's how the person views feminization itself. Thanks, HBS, for your comments. Actually, I think a lot of the dominants and submissives on these boards are well versed in the concept of control and ersatz force. Perhaps if we changed the scenario a bit, you might see why a lot of femdoms find the so-called 'forced' part of feminisation somewhat distasteful. What if we changed the kink to being 'forced black', or 'forced Asian', or 'forced Jewish'? What if your kink entailed having blackface put on you, or drawing almond-shaped eyes on you, or being 'forced' to wear a yarmulke? Then let's say that you asked a dominant of that same background to 'force' you into it? Can you see why a dominant in that position might be less than enthusiastic about pandering to the kink of someone requesting that particular activity? In all of your examples, the issue is with the activity, not the fact that it is "forced".

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.078125