|
xssve -> RE: Bdsm is wrong (12/11/2010 6:57:57 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tiggerspoohbear
Steve, the title of your OP says "BDSM is wrong" and you quote some vague article with no actual reference. May I ask what you're doing here? Everyone can agree to disagree but you can't argue with a troll. It's been proven time and time again within the annals of the forums. So please take a long walk off a short pier and disappear into the realm from which you came. Or your mother's basement, whichever came first. [&:]
****THIS HAS BEEN A PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT****we now return you to our regularly scheduled program.
To be fair, the author of the article didn't say BDSM is wrong, or even imply it, that title was clearly a troll to get people to look, and the thread an excuse to lobby for male supremacy. The author comments on self control issues that might make for a bad dominant, in terms of relationship dynamics, which anybody doing this for very long becomes aware of fairly quickly - in fact, it describes my ex perfectly, she wasn't into BDSM but she doesn't let anybody in, or allow anybody to tell her a damn thing - but while these are valid issues, they hardly apply exclusively to women - it may be there are more women running around that have abuse issues than men, but that would be statistical fallout from popular notions of... male supremacy.
In fact, there are a number of syndromes that might make submissiveness attractive to both sexes, without necessarily being the mythical "submissive personality type" - ranging from genetic shyness to ADHD, people who feel they just aren't in control of themselves, and benefit from a firm hand to help them maintain some stability, or buffer them from unpleasant social interactions, etc. - one of the benefits of being in a dyad is that the respective partners can compensate for each others weaknesses - again, this applies to both sexes, and assuming male or female supremacy can only result in unstable individuals being arbitrarily handed the reins in a relationship, leading to potential abuses, and the accompanying reaction formations the author is warning against etc., etc., i.e., a vicious cycle.
Even a strictly biological based gender construct is still a Bell Curve, and there are individuals who fall outside the average range - where in this construct of yours do intersexed individuals belong, for example?
Social constructs are inherently abstract and even less rational, even if you assume there is some basis for biologically based gender constructs, i.e., male=testosterone and upper body strength=dominance, there is still no room for mosaicism, the results of which may not always be visible to the naked eye, and it also assumes that dominance is always tied to physical aggression - the problem with these types of monolithic constructs is that they have to either ignore or persecute the exceptions, for violating some abstract "rule", which even if it's based on some biological argument, is based on bad biology.
The first rule of the scientific method is observation: to study that which is there - not to wish away what you think ought not to exist.
|
|
|
|
