RE: The Shape of Things to Come: Part II

RE: The Shape of Things to Come: Part II (Full Version)

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

Message

caitlyn -> RE: The Shape of Things to Come: Part II (4/6/2006 5:04:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pollux Of course it's your call to make. Just don't post up that "men are players!" after he ends up disappointing you, and then get your panties in a twist when someone points out your own hypocrisy. Purely theoretically, of course. We now return you to today's CollarMe sociology thread, entitled, "Men Are Lying Pigs, Therefore Young Women Are Increasingly Choosing to Enter Lifestyle D/s Relationships", by caitlyn. [;)] You are taking what I said, completely out of the context of it's original meaning. What I said was: "But you know … I really don’t care if it’s just a meat market … as long as you know what it is, you can probably deal with it. It’s the subtle slime that some men (not cracking on men, that’s just who I’m dating), think they have to use to get into your pants … you know, it’s bad enough getting slimed, it’s bad enough having someone do it to get into you pants, but the worst thing of all is how it spoils future relationships. I’m getting to the point where I just assume up front that all men are lying, conniving, pig, lowlife, slime of the fucking gutter … because at least it saves me the time of getting to that inevitable conclusion. I don’t want those feelings. I like men, and like to be the kind of person that treats each person as an individual, and gives everyone a level chance. So … how does one fight these feelings? I can’t tell a player from a good guy … and to be quite honest, for whatever reason, I don’t even know if good guys exist anymore." Now, it should be clear (and seems to be, to everyone but you) that what I'm discussing here are feelings that are unwanted. You can tell that from the statement, "I don't want those feeling." It should also be clear that the discussion point was how to fight against those feelings. You can tell that from the statement, "So ... how does one fight these feelings?" By the way ... you are doing a wonderful job of making the fight, that much harder.[;)]

FirmhandKY -> RE: The Shape of Things to Come: Part II (4/6/2006 5:26:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thetammyjo quote: ORIGINAL: Chaingang quote: ORIGINAL: thetammyjo The basic one is ME. Yeah, that's you. But it is also widely understood via the workings of natural selection that nature is using a shotgun approach - which accounts both for the "norm" and for the likes of you as well. Didn't anyone take Biology 101? Of course. I've also studied sociology, psychology, history and other fields of study. Human beings aren't as simple as biology. Why the need to invoke biology? Whenever I see "biology" as a reason for anything in human society its sounds/reads a lot like those arguments that break down into "God told me so" or "my way is the only way". There is no reason to make this biological that I can see unless someone feels they must back up their own way of doing things via some "great claim". You don't need these "great claims" to be who and what you are, folks. Making such "great claims" only serves to isolate others or yourself and to create an "us" vs. "them" mentality. Why say biology when you could easily say "for me, this feels more natural"? Just because you are different from the "majority", doesn't mean you aren't part of the Bell curve. You are what's called an "outlier". FHky

thetammyjo -> RE: The Shape of Things to Come: Part II (4/6/2006 5:48:45 PM)
I notice that no one will answer my question as to why they feel the need to invoke some biological reason when they talk about their own preferences. I did not disagree with caitlyn's observations of the women she knows and meets; in fact, I suggested it's a human characteristic. She was not making biological claims, in fact, nothing she said had anything to do with biology until someone else felt the need to support their own personal preference in the scene with some "big claim". Why do you need biology to back you up? Why can't you just be who you are without attempting to make others believe you by relying on some of these "big claims" be they religion, biology, pseudo-history, or the alien who visited you last night? This is the same question I'd ask female, white, or insert-ethnic-group supremacists.

Chaingang -> RE: The Shape of Things to Come: Part II (4/6/2006 5:53:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thetammyjo Whenever I see "biology" as a reason for anything in human society its sounds/reads a lot like those arguments that break down into "God told me so" or "my way is the only way". I don't have strong beliefs about a possible god either way. Biology accounts for a shotgun approach - multiple methods of trying the same thing. So, no "only way" for me either. It seems to me you missed my point entirely. Woosh! quote: ORIGINAL: thetammyjo Why say biology when you could easily say "for me, this feels more natural"? Because when you feel that way it's your nervous system talking about the wonders of genetics.

NeedToUseYou -> RE: The Shape of Things to Come: Part II (4/6/2006 5:59:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thetammyjo I notice that no one will answer my question as to why they feel the need to invoke some biological reason when they talk about their own preferences. I did not disagree with caitlyn's observations of the women she knows and meets; in fact, I suggested it's a human characteristic. She was not making biological claims, in fact, nothing she said had anything to do with biology until someone else felt the need to support their own personal preference in the scene with some "big claim". Why do you need biology to back you up? Why can't you just be who you are without attempting to make others believe you by relying on some of these "big claims" be they religion, biology, pseudo-history, or the alien who visited you last night? This is the same question I'd ask female, white, or insert-ethnic-group supremacists. I think the reason they brought it up, is because the whole point of the thread was to talk about the general leaning of women and relationships, and not on the groups that compose a much smaller percentage.. Nothing against anyone or you, but the thread wasn't about how each woman as a person is, but rather about how the general group of women is changing in regards to relationships. And since that was the general idea of the thread, I think it rubbed him wrong when you started mentioning individual qualities, in what appeared to be a attempt to break apart a stereotype, but in fact the discussion is about stereotypical 18-20ish year old women and their changing views on relationships. hmmmm, does that make sense...[8\|], sometimes I even confuse myself, LOL.

thetammyjo -> RE: The Shape of Things to Come: Part II (4/6/2006 6:00:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: thetammyjo However I strongly disagree that there is some genetic or natural role between the sexes for a variety of reasons. The competition to get the best partner for procreation means that both sexes pursue varying strategies. The woman needs security through gestation, this might come in the form of group security (which is what modern western societies provide) or through the protection of a strong male. The male can never be certain that the woman is carrying his child so he needs to impregnate as many females as possible. This is a very crude picture I admit and in reality there are a host of variables in the equation but it does give a crude illustration that the sexes have very different natural roles. Modern society is only a few hundred years old, not enough time for evolution to get rid of those inherent strategies because they are no longer required because of the way modern society is constructed. Not all females have babies all the time; in fact, some can't. Nor do or can all males contribute to reproduction. Nor do these two ideas actually support male domination let alone pair bonding. If the female needed support during a pregnancy and the male was impregnating so many females how could he support them all? Why wouldn't these same "facts" be an example of what we see in other animals where females form groups and the males just wander in and out as they are needed? Again it's this "big claim" theory being tossed about to support one way of doing BDSM. Why the need for these "big claims"?

thetammyjo -> RE: The Shape of Things to Come: Part II (4/6/2006 6:06:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou quote: ORIGINAL: thetammyjo I notice that no one will answer my question as to why they feel the need to invoke some biological reason when they talk about their own preferences. I did not disagree with caitlyn's observations of the women she knows and meets; in fact, I suggested it's a human characteristic. She was not making biological claims, in fact, nothing she said had anything to do with biology until someone else felt the need to support their own personal preference in the scene with some "big claim". Why do you need biology to back you up? Why can't you just be who you are without attempting to make others believe you by relying on some of these "big claims" be they religion, biology, pseudo-history, or the alien who visited you last night? This is the same question I'd ask female, white, or insert-ethnic-group supremacists. I think the reason they brought it up, is because the whole point of the thread was to talk about the general leaning of women and relationships, and not on the groups that compose a much smaller percentage.. Nothing against anyone or you, but the thread wasn't about how each woman as a person is, but rather about how the general group of women is changing in regards to relationships. And since that was the general idea of the thread, I think it rubbed him wrong when you started mentioning individual qualities, in what appeared to be a attempt to break apart a stereotype, but in fact the discussion is about stereotypical 18-20ish year old women and their changing views on relationships. hmmmm, does that make sense...[8\|], sometimes I even confuse myself, LOL. I wish it did. But I teach many 18-20 year old women and I'd say there are fairly equal numbers between what caitlyn observes, those who say they want equality and those who want more power in a relationship. They seem to change their minds and attitudes alot too over the college years -- might be a side effect of having expanding experiences. I see and hear the same thing from my male students too though. But those are women whom she, caitlyn, hangs with and talks to so they might also tend to be a bit more like her. I think many of us feel most comfortably hanging out with people of similar belifs and ideas.

NeedToUseYou -> RE: The Shape of Things to Come: Part II (4/6/2006 6:21:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thetammyjo quote: NeedtouseYou I think the reason they brought it up, is because the whole point of the thread was to talk about the general leaning of women and relationships, and not on the groups that compose a much smaller percentage.. Nothing against anyone or you, but the thread wasn't about how each woman as a person is, but rather about how the general group of women is changing in regards to relationships. And since that was the general idea of the thread, I think it rubbed him wrong when you started mentioning individual qualities, in what appeared to be a attempt to break apart a stereotype, but in fact the discussion is about stereotypical 18-20ish year old women and their changing views on relationships. hmmmm, does that make sense...[8\|], sometimes I even confuse myself, LOL. I wish it did. But I teach many 18-20 year old women and I'd say there are fairly equal numbers between what caitlyn observes, those who say they want equality and those who want more power in a relationship. They seem to change their minds and attitudes alot too over the college years -- might be a side effect of having expanding experiences. I see and hear the same thing from my male students too though. Probably [:(], but it's much hotter for me to think, a new generation of sultry sub women is on the way up, than domme types(no offense) . [:D]

thetammyjo -> RE: The Shape of Things to Come: Part II (4/6/2006 8:11:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou Probably [:(], but it's much hotter for me to think, a new generation of sultry sub women is on the way up, than domme types(no offense) . [:D] No, no, I'm not offended by anything you've said in this thread cause you aren't, as far as I can see, saying all women are choose-your-term because of biology. I don't think that caitlyn was saying such a thing either. Of course it's hot for your as a toppish or dominant het man to think that. More power to you! Maybe some of caitlyn's friends or women like her will find their way to you. Could be a win-win situation.

pollux -> RE: The Shape of Things to Come: Part II (4/6/2006 9:03:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn You are taking what I said, completely out of the context of it's original meaning. What I said was: "But you know … I really don’t care if it’s just a meat market … as long as you know what it is, you can probably deal with it. It’s the subtle slime that some men (not cracking on men, that’s just who I’m dating), think they have to use to get into your pants … you know, it’s bad enough getting slimed, it’s bad enough having someone do it to get into you pants, but the worst thing of all is how it spoils future relationships. I’m getting to the point where I just assume up front that all men are lying, conniving, pig, lowlife, slime of the fucking gutter … because at least it saves me the time of getting to that inevitable conclusion. I don’t want those feelings. I like men, and like to be the kind of person that treats each person as an individual, and gives everyone a level chance. So … how does one fight these feelings? I can’t tell a player from a good guy … and to be quite honest, for whatever reason, I don’t even know if good guys exist anymore." Now, it should be clear (and seems to be, to everyone but you) that what I'm discussing here are feelings that are unwanted. You can tell that from the statement, "I don't want those feeling." It should also be clear that the discussion point was how to fight against those feelings. You can tell that from the statement, "So ... how does one fight these feelings?" No, it's perfectly clear and I think I grasped the context quite well. You just don't seem to like what it implies about taking responsibility for creating your own happiness or your own misery, rather than laying the whole issue at the feet of slimy men. I'm not sure you can say I missed the point when, if you'll recall, I was the only person in the entire thread who actually gave you a direct answer to your question -- "So ... how does one fight against these feelings?" (which you then dismissed as unsolicited psychoanalysis, btw) The way you fight those feelings is you ask yourself, "Gee, I have unwanted feelings arising from the fact that I ended up with a guy who slimed me (again). Why do I keep choosing these guys, and what can I do differently next time?" Answer that, and then actually follow-thru and do something differently next time, and you will have solved your problem. [;)]

caitlyn -> RE: The Shape of Things to Come: Part II (4/6/2006 9:07:08 PM)
I definately wasn't trying to classify all women, or anything like that Tammy Jo ... as a matter of fact I was really only using young women as a focus group, because my friends and I are young women. This could just as easily apply to older women, or young men, or the man on the moon, provinding he is a submissive. It's just harder for me to discuss groups I'm not part of (not to mention sort of stupid), and I've never been to the moon. [;)]

Chaingang -> RE: The Shape of Things to Come: Part II (4/6/2006 9:53:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thetammyjo No, no, I'm not offended by anything you've said in this thread cause you aren't, as far as I can see, saying all women are choose-your-term because of biology. So genetics and the drive to procreate is meaningful to every other species on earth, but human beings are a special case? Thanks, got it.... [:D]

caitlyn -> RE: The Shape of Things to Come: Part II (4/6/2006 10:12:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chaingang So genetics and the drive to procreate is meaningful to every other species on earth, but human beings are a special case? Thanks, got it.... [:D] Give me a break ... when was the last time you saw a human female swimming up a stream to spawn. [;)] What other species (far less advanced species) do and feel, is in no way relevant to what a human will do or how they feel. It's simply not an apples to apples situation.

Chaingang -> RE: The Shape of Things to Come: Part II (4/6/2006 10:44:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn What other species (far less advanced species) do and feel, is in no way relevant to what a human will do or how they feel. It's simply not an apples to apples situation. We'll have to disagree on this point then. To my mind there is no significant evidence that human beings are much more than just another primate species - albeit a highly successful species at that. So to me it is apples to apples in this very general area about genetics contributing enormously to an individual animal's behavior.

meatcleaver -> RE: The Shape of Things to Come: Part II (4/7/2006 12:29:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thetammyjo quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: thetammyjo However I strongly disagree that there is some genetic or natural role between the sexes for a variety of reasons. The competition to get the best partner for procreation means that both sexes pursue varying strategies. The woman needs security through gestation, this might come in the form of group security (which is what modern western societies provide) or through the protection of a strong male. The male can never be certain that the woman is carrying his child so he needs to impregnate as many females as possible. This is a very crude picture I admit and in reality there are a host of variables in the equation but it does give a crude illustration that the sexes have very different natural roles. Modern society is only a few hundred years old, not enough time for evolution to get rid of those inherent strategies because they are no longer required because of the way modern society is constructed. Not all females have babies all the time; in fact, some can't. Nor do or can all males contribute to reproduction. Nor do these two ideas actually support male domination let alone pair bonding. If the female needed support during a pregnancy and the male was impregnating so many females how could he support them all? Why wouldn't these same "facts" be an example of what we see in other animals where females form groups and the males just wander in and out as they are needed? Again it's this "big claim" theory being tossed about to support one way of doing BDSM. Why the need for these "big claims"? The very fact that females get pregnant and males don't, is enough proof for me that nature has given them different roles. The fact that some people are infertile is irrelevent because they only know this because of modern medicine and as for not wanting offspring, current economics, modern contraception and society enables someone to make this decision.

Jasmyn -> RE: The Shape of Things to Come: Part II (4/7/2006 12:46:13 AM)
Roles or functions?

meatcleaver -> RE: The Shape of Things to Come: Part II (4/7/2006 12:52:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jasmyn Roles or functions? Good point. A mixture of both. Function decides roles up to a point, economics and medical science allows a society to modify and define roles. Function is the only constant because the methods to change that are still very much science fiction.

Chaingang -> RE: The Shape of Things to Come: Part II (4/7/2006 1:02:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jasmyn Roles or functions? I think bubbling underneath the resistance we see to the "biology" argument is the usual metaphysical issue of free will versus determinism. I weigh in heavily on the determinism side. I think what we normally conceive of as our personal "identity" is just a conceit and that what we really are is our individual nervous systems. The primary mission is reproduction - but seeing as there are 6 billion of us already I think nature has plenty of room for experimentation within our species. If we make exceptions to nature because of nurture (itself a planned and adaptive behavior that increases the chances of a species' survival) then we can allow for even greater variations in behavior - which easily accounts for the many variations in behavior we see in others. None of this changes the fact that nature decrees a very large portion of the human population will behave in an established "normative" manner to assure reproduction within our species.

Jasmyn -> RE: The Shape of Things to Come: Part II (4/7/2006 1:16:49 AM)
quote: Good point. A mixture of both. Function decides roles up to a point, economics and medical science allows a society to *modify and* define roles. Function is the only constant because the methods to change that are still very much science fiction. Don't think function decides roles even up to a point but rather function/s have had roles attributed to them. Also I see medical science as modifying functions only. It doesn't change the role attributed to that function. Can see where you are coming from and thanks for recognising my point...or I could just be talking in circles ;)

ExistentialSteel -> RE: The Shape of Things to Come: Part II (4/7/2006 2:25:42 AM)
A few unrelated points. The funniest line said was Caitlyn’s asking when was the last time you had seen women swimming upstream to spawn. Ha. Next, Caitlyn, when you use yourself as a metaphor for a dilemma expect people to answer back in the same context. They are only replying in the manner you started. Lastly, sex for procreation sounds like something from Hawthorne’s The Scarlet Letter. There is so much more involved with sex on emotional and artistic levels.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

6.152344E-02