quote:

ORIGINAL: HannahLynHeather

i don't hate them or have contempt for them. in fact i sort of admire them, it takes guts to go against the grain. that being said, i just don't like them. they give me the creeps.

hannah lynn

eta: jesus peon, with that bod, if they don't invite you i sure as fuck will!

quote:

ORIGINAL: leadership527
You apparently. That is, in fact, my big mystery in all the "natural order" thing. If I want to know about ants and their habits, then I look at what ants actually do. If I want to look at wolves and their habits, then I look at what wolves actually do. If I want to look at humans and their habits, then I look at what humans actually do. And in our case, what we naturally do is build great big complex and incredibly intricate societies. I don't think society is against the natural order. I think it IS the natural order. How can one think anything else without going to made up theoretical humans?

Third, who does not believe nature has an uncompromising order?
Well now that's a pretty damned vague statement. Do you mean an order of dominance? Well sort of yeah... But the idea that it is strongly gender linked and/or it's static doesn't conform with my observations of actual behavior, either human or otherwise. And, again, I try to make sure my theoretical hypothesis actually line up with the real world experimental data.

Finally, it is clear the the natural order is not just "a gorean thing" but is a "everybody thing".
I disagree. As I noted above, I have no such concept that might be profitably applied to men and women. In fact, I find all such statements to fly in the face of all observational data. Even more interestingly, they typically rely on that time-honored tradition of ignoring any data which doesn't support the preconceived conclusion -- in this case tossing out the entirety of humanity and all of our works as "not-natural" for no particular reason. Tossing out the entire sample set seems... well... a bit risky when forming conclusions.

quote:


Will he suddenly reveal that my maleness correctly expressed in it's proper and natural dominate form is somehow unnatural
I fear not.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

quote:

I admire and respect male submissives very much, because they have the "balls" to go against the grain of what society "teaches" us.

This is not true. Society teaches tolerance for that which is not natural. Males who fight what is natural do not do so because they have "balls", in fact, they capitulate and surrender their genetic and natural heritage because they find it easier to do so than face the responsibilities and the risks and the successes and failures faced by a natural man who does not run from his gender. They run from their maleness because it is easier for the moment rather than stand and be counted on as one. They are men as women who then force women to be men. Did I mention this is unnatural? No, don't blame Society, that is simply running from responsibility and that is not manly either.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NiceGuyNihilist
I find myself wondering how often other Doms harbor feelings that are similar to his, if possibly less intense and uncompromising. Obviously, I wouldn't expect them to be forthcoming about such feelings at a party or a munch. So: do you have contempt for submissive males, and if so, why? I won't argue with you, however much I may disagree; for the purposes of this thread, I only want to see your point of view.

quote:

Specifically Chinese history because it's the record of a singularly ruthless civilisation over a long period of time. Chinese history contains millenia of highly strategic maneuverings with the kind of ruthlessness which sees enemies execute the entire dynasty - women and children included - of their conquered foes. Mercy was rare. I am hard pressed to think of a similar example.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

quote:

ORIGINAL: leadership527

quote:

ORIGINAL: Selectivelight
This is not true. Society teaches tolerance for that which is not natural. 

It's a gorean thing relying on notions of "natural order". I'd recommend ignoring it unless you're either gorean or believe in some other "natural order". Basically, either it's self-supporting in your own mind or it'll give you a headache thinking about it. Faith is like that.

I don't think I agree with much of what you said although I respect your right to be wrong. First, who does not believe in nature? Second, who does not think they are part of nature? Third, who does not believe nature has an uncompromising order? Therefore most everyone believes in the order of nature and those that don't should. A+B+C=D.

Finally, it is clear the the natural order is not just "a gorean thing" but is a "everybody thing".

quote:

ORIGINAL: NiceGuyNihilist
What about a guy whose strength will let him take 50 bloody singletail lashes without making a sound except for his breathing? If that strength is to some degree born of a yearning--I'll even call it a feminine yearning, for argument's sake--to please a woman at all costs, is it less real?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness

quote:

ORIGINAL: diablarosa
How do you have contempt for people you don't know personally just based on what gives them peace or turns them on sexually or psychosexually? Maybe we hate what we fear or dont understand? I think it's odd to make generalizations without knowing the individuals personally. I know some pretty submissive doms out there... consider daddy doms. I also know some pretty domineering submissive men, too.

  Those people are merely confused and not grounded in reality.

Fact is, when people aren't waving the political correctness flag around, the reality is that life is hard.  Categorisation is a skill we all employ which gives us shortcuts to dealing with people and one simple categorisation is whether those people are potentially useful allies.  A guy whose weakness will let him submit to a woman is not a useful ally.  I find amusing the way in which Dommes and others attempt to reframe this as strength.

Unpalatable as it may seem, men - and indeed women - are always going to be judging their fellow human beings by criteria.  To pretend otherwise is a despicable lie.  Some men live and behave in ways they will consider aspirational.  Some men, they'll feel contempt for.  This is an inevitable consequence of actually having aspirations, beliefs and motivations.  There's an aspirational scale for manhood, on what men will consider fine and worthy of emulation.  While it's an individual thing, acting like a submissive male is not going to be near the top of that scale for a lot of men.

The rest of your post is largely irrelevant as you're simply arguing semantics.  Given the context of the discussion, that's somewhat asinine.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness

The fact that I have contempt for such men doesn't imply intolerance or that I'm on a righteous crusade.  I simply note their antics - sometimes with distaste - raise an eyebrow and move on.  The various interested parties who've jumped into this thread are - of course - defending their self-interest.  The degree to which they've done so by resorting to lame amateur attempts at pop psychology has generally confirmed my notions about them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChatteParfaitt
How about those Romans? They crushed the Celts and rewrote their history, obliterated the Germanic peoples, then moved south to wipe out the Dacians. They did such a thorough job on the Dacians, anthropologists are just now figuring out who they were, 2000 years later.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness

The fact that I have contempt for such men doesn't imply intolerance or that I'm on a righteous crusade.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ranja

contempt:
a powerful feeling of dislike toward somebody or something considered to be worthless, inferior, or undeserving of respect

according to my understanding and my dictionairy