RE: What do it takes to become a pro domme?

RE: What do it takes to become a pro domme? (Full Version)

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

Message

LadyNTrainer -> RE: What do it takes to become a pro domme? (10/28/2010 6:17:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jaybeee I do occasionally run into women I think I may be able to extract useful information from. But very few. Useful information is that significantly gendered for you? What type of information are you seeking that in your experience men have and women lack? quote: I've presumed you're female based on your member name and avatar. Just what gender are you, in fact? Now that a cloud of doubt has been cast on my gender sufficient for you to ask this question, what gender do you think I am based on the way I communicate? I participate semi-regularly on some vanilla boards with a non-gendered nick that is descriptive of my personal interests (eg, it's on the order of "soccerplayer" or "botanist_35" or "portrait_artist"; you get the idea). Because I post almost exclusively on "male" topics such as science and skepticism, I am invariably referred to as "he" by other posters. On this board my nick and avatar is gendered, so that immediately influences how people view what I have to say. It strongly influences how people engage with me and how they view the facts and theories I am presenting, even in cases where I am making the exact same argument. There are no factual points of difference between what I am saying about human biology and evolution as LadyNTrainer and what I am saying elsewhere as "Woodcarver9", but the way in which people respond to my academic arguments varies significantly if they believe I am female. What do you believe? quote: And just what incentive is on offer for explaining my rationale to you? The same incentive as everyone has when participating on a random discussion on the Internet. As long as you find it personally entertaining or amusing, you have incentive to continue. When it stops being fun, people go home. What would you consider to be a fun consequence of your participation? quote: I would add to that my speculation that hormone fluctuations, similar to the above, are the reason that 5% of any society is homosexual, however homo-friendly or homophobic. You're not the only person who has speculated that. The jury is still at least partly out on the subject, but it certainly does look like there's significant truth there.

PeonForHer -> RE: What do it takes to become a pro domme? (10/28/2010 6:40:10 PM)
You know, that really does feel like it could be a fun game. I'm wondering how I'd be treated if I were to write in exactly the same way on these forums, but under a female nick. Could be interesting.

RedMagic1 -> RE: What do it takes to become a pro domme? (10/28/2010 6:47:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyNTrainer Now that a cloud of doubt has been cast on my gender sufficient for you to ask this question, what gender do you think I am based on the way I communicate? You're a babe. When you make a case, you have all your ducks in a row, down to the last feather. Men are more handwavy. Interestingly enough, people have made the case that this gender distinction can lead to an unconscious notion in the sciences that women are less brilliant than men. When men give scientific lectures, they often speak without notes, solve small problems on the fly, or otherwise appear "off-the-cuff." Women tend to have everything meticulously planned out. The off-the-cuff style is more consistent with the archetype of the genius who just naturally solves the hardest problems in the world. So female lecturers, measured against this, appear diligent but not amazing. It's not my theory, and I'm not sure I fully agree, but I believe there's enough to it that it's worth sharing with you.

LadyNTrainer -> RE: What do it takes to become a pro domme? (10/28/2010 7:37:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RedMagic1 You're a babe. When you make a case, you have all your ducks in a row, down to the last feather. Men are more handwavy. So we have one vote for female, for the reason that I am meticulously organized and detail oriented. I will however note that an autistic/Asperger's male will also fit this description. I should note that it is No Fair for local kinksters to vote. I don't get naked at every play party I make it to, but I do enough public play that half the pervs in my state have probably seen my junk. [:D]

naughtynick81 -> RE: What do it takes to become a pro domme? (10/28/2010 9:26:39 PM)
Well it will obviously be a woman when someone will post "I shouldn't have to pay for my damn coffee"...at least that one is a dead give away.

LadyNTrainer -> RE: What do it takes to become a pro domme? (10/28/2010 10:05:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: naughtynick81 Well it will obviously be a woman when someone will post "I shouldn't have to pay for my damn coffee"...at least that one is a dead give away. And one vote for female for factually incorrect reasons.

Twoshoes -> RE: What do it takes to become a pro domme? (10/28/2010 11:02:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer You know, that really does feel like it could be a fun game. I'm wondering how I'd be treated if I were to write in exactly the same way on these forums, but under a female nick. Could be interesting. I'm already under the impression two posters think I'm female. LOL. LNT, my wild guess is gonna be XX chromosomes.

LadyNTrainer -> RE: What do it takes to become a pro domme? (10/28/2010 11:09:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Twoshoes LNT, my wild guess is gonna be XX chromosomes. So noted. Full disclosure coming soon to a thread near you. Until then, please consider whether believing that I am a different gender, or simply not knowing for sure what my gender is, changes your perception of what I have written. Also, another question. If my nick was "GayMaleMaster" instead of "LadyNTrainer" how many people would believe I was actually female, based solely on my most frequent topics of choice and my style of communication? I direct this question in particular to the folks who are already voting "female". EDIT: Interesting, your vote was edited. I redacted it in my quote as well.

Twoshoes -> RE: What do it takes to become a pro domme? (10/28/2010 11:18:53 PM)
Well, I remembered you never stated you're either MtF or FtM. You just alluded to the possibility. What does style of communication have to do with anything. Have you seen how I write? I even COLOUR it sometimes. I've never thought of myself as anything other than male.

LadyNTrainer -> RE: What do it takes to become a pro domme? (10/29/2010 12:41:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Twoshoes What does style of communication have to do with anything. Apparently quite a bit. There is more than one issue here. One of the issues is what is provably true about the differences in communication styles and most frequent topical choices by gender; these things are fairly well statistically observable and have been the subject of a number of studies. An entirely separate issue is how differently an individual will place values on statements of fact and opinion when they perceive the speaker to be of one gender versus another, even when the statements are identical. It is the latter that I am illustrating here by casting my gender into doubt. I am asking people to question their own perception of my arguments on the economic basis of gender relations in human evolution, based on whether they are framing it in their minds as being made by a man or a woman. The science doesn't change, but your perception very likely does, based on whether you believe the presenter to be male or female.

naughtynick81 -> RE: What do it takes to become a pro domme? (10/29/2010 1:30:12 AM)
quote: There is more than one issue here. One of the issues is what is provably true about the differences in communication styles and most frequent topical choices by gender; these things are fairly well statistically observable and have been the subject of a number of studies. An entirely separate issue is how differently an individual will place values on statements of fact and opinion when they perceive the speaker to be of one gender versus another, even when the statements are identical. Then there is the political correct robots who will say whatever political correctness/feminism/gynocentrism will be apparently right Social norm = which may equal social norm. Compared to politicial incorrectness that is basically = politically correct

naughtynick81 -> RE: What do it takes to become a pro domme? (10/29/2010 1:36:54 AM)
I don't want to do the dirty and dangerous jobs, even that I am a woman and perfectly capable. = politically incorrect

VaguelyCurious -> RE: What do it takes to become a pro domme? (10/29/2010 2:17:10 AM)
LNT, I think you're female-identified, for two reasons: 1)This is your professional account, in which you label yourself as female, and I think you'd have strong opinions about 'misleading' your clients about your gender-honesty and full disclosure often come across as important issues for you. 2) I know you have two male-identified partners, and I know that they don't interact sexually with each other, because one of them isn't bisexual. Logic says that if the monosexual one interacts with you then you must be female. But on the other hand you're also very well-informed about genderqueer issues, and I've seen you talk about them in a way that makes me think you might have a personal interest(?) that goes beyond your stated interest in androgyny. So my real guess is that the joke's on us and you're asking a trick question-I'm betting the answer is more complicated than 'male' or 'female'.

PeonForHer -> RE: What do it takes to become a pro domme? (10/29/2010 4:23:13 AM)
Your point 1.) - very much so. Lady N has made very much of an issue of being straight up and honest. She's gone into quite some depth about the reasons why it's important for her.

LadyPact -> RE: What do it takes to become a pro domme? (10/29/2010 8:04:50 AM)
I have to agree with much (not all) of what VC said here on the voting. I would have to say biologically female. Given your stance on honesty, LNT, if you were trans, I think your profile would reflect that.

LadyNTrainer -> RE: What do it takes to become a pro domme? (10/29/2010 9:09:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: VaguelyCurious 1)This is your professional account, in which you label yourself as female, and I think you'd have strong opinions about 'misleading' your clients about your gender-honesty and full disclosure often come across as important issues for you. 2) I know you have two male-identified partners, and I know that they don't interact sexually with each other, because one of them isn't bisexual. Logic says that if the monosexual one interacts with you then you must be female. Tsk tsk, that's cheating. The question was "based on my communication style", not "based on stuff you actually know cause you've heard me say it. Had I labeled indeterminately/androgynously, and never disclosed any personal gender-specific information, what gender would you perceive me as based solely on how I communicate and the topics I most commonly choose to post on?

LadyPact -> RE: What do it takes to become a pro domme? (10/29/2010 9:15:44 AM)
In fairness, do you really think that's possible? Remember the style of communication without having any retention of what's actually been said?

VaguelyCurious -> RE: What do it takes to become a pro domme? (10/29/2010 9:46:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyNTrainer Tsk tsk, that's cheating. The question was "based on my communication style", not "based on stuff you actually know cause you've heard me say it. How am I supposed to separate the two? My perception of your style is based on the things I know about you. Your communication style is direct and honest, and you call yourself female-from that I deduce you're female. quote: Had I labeled indeterminately/androgynously, and never disclosed any personal gender-specific information, what gender would you perceive me as based solely on how I communicate and the topics I most commonly choose to post on? You mean other than the fact that you most commonly post in the Ask A Mistress forum? [8D] I don't know, is the honest answer. I can see what you're getting at, and I can see how you could be taken as male (although I don't know how much of that stems from the avatar you had when my image of you as a person was developing...), but I don't know if I'd take you to be male. Too counter-factual.

PeonForHer -> RE: What do it takes to become a pro domme? (10/29/2010 10:37:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyNTrainer Tsk tsk, that's cheating. The question was "based on my communication style", not "based on stuff you actually know cause you've heard me say it. Hmm. My former confidence has been shattered upon a sudden realisation: You haven't ever tried to chat me up. Are you, in fact, not actually human at all? Seriously, this subject has a profound impact on a job I'm currently going for. I'd be in a position to make changes if they're necessary. Stylistically, you're neutral, to me. Your writing doesn't smack of female or of male. You rarely do fluffy but you rarely do aggressive either. Most of all, your writing says 'scientist'.

LadyNTrainer -> RE: What do it takes to become a pro domme? (10/29/2010 11:56:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: VaguelyCurious How am I supposed to separate the two? My perception of your style is based on the things I know about you. On-point observation, as usual. I do expect some folks to believe, and perhaps even to post, "But I know you're female; I'd spot you a mile away even if you were trying to claim you were male or trans. Your communication style is totally female, anyone can tell that." But the reality is that on every board I participate on where I do not identify my gender, I am invariably assumed to be male. Consequently I would have to say that anyone who claims that they would easily be able to stereotype me as female based on the information I present is engaging in comfortable self-delusion. My arguments are non-gendered; but your perception of them is very likely to be gendered. It is very, very difficult to separate your knowledge of someone's gender from an objective analysis of the information being presented. This is why I tend to raise an eyebrow when people make statements about how men have better information than women, or women communicate better than men. There are in fact some measurable and well studied differences in how each gender tends to communicate, but there is another factor of differentiation at work also, and that is your personal filter of perception. If you believe a speaker to be either male or female, even when the content of the message does not change depending on their gender, your evaluation of the message is very likely to. How substantially influenced you are likely to be - in a sense, how irrational you are likely to be when evaluating the information presented - depends largely on your beliefs about men, women and gender.

Page: << < prev 18 19 20 [21] 22 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875