RE: True False or relative?

RE: True False or relative? (Full Version)

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

Message

domiguy -> RE: True False or relative? (5/24/2011 4:19:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MarcEsadrian quote: ORIGINAL: Idealynnbliss I am very new to this "scene" And I am curious about a statement made to me in response to my request to learn how to Dom a man. "You cant Dom a man if You cant Dom a female!" This statement, I'm assuming, implies that female is less than male, and therefore the ability to dominate a female serves as a preliminary litmus test in one's ability to dominate a male. In my experience, comparing the tractability of the sexes in a simple hierarchic scale like that is too one-dimensional. Male and female, each respective to their aggregate archetypes, are two different "systems" biologically and socially, presenting thus two different castles to storm. Each sex (generally) has their own gimmicks, strengths and weaknesses. Then there is individual intellect and persona to account for beyond this, which complicates matters further. I have no doubt the one you are quoting has "dommed" a female. Whether he has actually dominated a female is something I question. Women can be very complex, manipulative and subversive, once you buff away the veneer of their supposed docility—a veneer more than one woman has used as a mask in beguiling a man with an easily fluffed ego. Be warned, all ye who are so assuming; therein surely lies your Achilles heel. "If you go to women, don't forget the whip." —Nietzsche blah blah blah achilles heel...blah blah blah Nietzsche.

Arpig -> RE: True False or relative? (5/24/2011 4:34:27 PM)
quote: A lot of men want to dominate women in the bedroom because they are unable to dominate other men in vanilla life. Oh bullshit!! I just like it when they cry and beg.

MarcEsadrian -> RE: True False or relative? (5/24/2011 5:18:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RedMagic1 A lot of men want to dominate women in the bedroom because they are unable to dominate other men in vanilla life. And "dominate" is a fairly loose term if it's bedroom only.

CarpeComa -> RE: True False or relative? (5/24/2011 6:53:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Idealynnbliss "You cant Dom a man if You cant Dom a female!" Notice the statement is 'can't' and not 'won't' or 'don't'. There is a big difference between "can not do", "will not do", and "do not want to do". A lot of people seem to be conflating those three. Let's look at the implied question: Is there any reasonable case where a person could be able to dominate one gender and not the other? I don't think this statement is as ludicrous as everyone else is interpreting it. If I rewrote that statement as "The process of domination is not significantly affected by the gender of the person being dominated", would that seem like "pure bull crappy"? I'm saying the same thing, just phrased in a more neutral way. quote: ORIGINAL: sunshinemiss quote: ORIGINAL: NuevaVida You can't have any pudding if you don't eat your meat. Pink Floyd. Excellent. I always heard as "if you don't eat your beets" which seemed reasonable to me. Beets suck [8D]

PdxJ -> RE: True False or relative? (5/24/2011 9:38:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig quote: A lot of men want to dominate women in the bedroom because they are unable to dominate other men in vanilla life. Oh bullshit!! I just like it when they cry and beg. LOL! Ditto to both the 'Bullshit' comment AND the liking it when they beg and cry comment.

theRose4U -> RE: True False or relative? (5/24/2011 9:40:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven Let me guess. Was this from a les sub trying to get you to Top her? My vote is bossy male bottom trying to get poly without the effort.

MarcEsadrian -> RE: True False or relative? (5/24/2011 9:54:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CarpeComa Notice the statement is 'can't' and not 'won't' or 'don't'. There is a big difference between "can not do", "will not do", and "do not want to do". A lot of people seem to be conflating those three. I see the quote as an if (predicate: you can't "dom" a female) then (consequent: you can't "dom" a male) condition; it seems to imply a propositional denial of the ability to handle a male if you can't handle a female, or at least that's the way I read it. Also note how the author refers to males as men and females as females. Subtle, but worth considering in terms of the sexist intent and/or interpretation. quote: ORIGINAL: CarpeComa Let's look at the implied question: Is there any reasonable case where a person could be able to dominate one gender and not the other? I don't think this statement is as ludicrous as everyone else is interpreting it. To me, the implied questions are as follows: a. If I can dominate a male, does that mean dominating a female is going to be easy? b. Are all females more docile than all males? c. Is the reverse of the original statement actually true? Of course the entire exercise is flawed, because it's predicated on a bad premise to begin with, which I suppose is obvious. quote: ORIGINAL: CarpeComa If I rewrote that statement as "The process of domination is not significantly affected by the gender of the person being dominated", would that seem like "pure bull crappy"? I'm saying the same thing, just phrased in a more neutral way. And by observing that neutrality, you are making a far more defendable and far less likely to be misinterpreted statement.

NuevaVida -> RE: True False or relative? (5/24/2011 10:50:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CarpeComa I always heard as "if you don't eat your beets" which seemed reasonable to me. Beets suck [8D] Nope, it's meat. Meat is good. Beets is not. [;)] And a special [;)] to sunshine miss, because yes, Pink Floyd is excellent. As for the actual OP, it's a bullshit statement, particularly if said without any sort of explanation of where it was coming from.

RedMagic1 -> RE: True False or relative? (5/25/2011 12:08:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PdxJ quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig quote: A lot of men want to dominate women in the bedroom because they are unable to dominate other men in vanilla life. Oh bullshit!! I just like it when they cry and beg. LOL! Ditto to both the 'Bullshit' comment AND the liking it when they beg and cry comment. Heh. If you guys think my comment is bullshit, you haven't been to many scene events. The bigger issue, though, is why men think women are easier to control than men. Objectively, statistically, women are more often in inferior positions and less often in positions of authority, in this society. I have no idea what motivated the original commenter, but I believe the thought is held by people in vanilla, not just D/s. (and yes, Marc, I should have said "at home" not "in the bedroom")

Awareness -> RE: True False or relative? (5/25/2011 12:24:19 AM)
The two are not remotely comparable. Dominating a woman requires will, intent, self-confidence. Dominating a man apparently just requires you to show up.

PdxJ -> RE: True False or relative? (5/25/2011 12:31:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RedMagic1 quote: ORIGINAL: PdxJ quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig quote: A lot of men want to dominate women in the bedroom because they are unable to dominate other men in vanilla life. Oh bullshit!! I just like it when they cry and beg. LOL! Ditto to both the 'Bullshit' comment AND the liking it when they beg and cry comment. Heh. If you guys think my comment is bullshit, you haven't been to many scene events. The bigger issue, though, is why men think women are easier to control than men. Objectively, statistically, women are more often in inferior positions and less often in positions of authority, in this society. I have no idea what motivated the original commenter, but I believe the thought is held by people in vanilla, not just D/s. (and yes, Marc, I should have said "at home" not "in the bedroom") I still think it was a bullshit comment. And what does a scene event have to do with how a man is in dealing with other men in vanilla life? Granted, I'm sure some men are like that but saying 'a lot' of men are that way is a little far fetched. That's like saying most subs are subs because they are in positions of authority in vanilla life. That is crap even though it is true for some. quote: ORIGINAL: Awareness The two are not remotely comparable. Dominating a woman requires will, intent, self-confidence. Dominating a man apparently just requires you to show up. LOL!

RedMagic1 -> RE: True False or relative? (5/25/2011 1:46:58 AM)
"____% of men who identify as Masters, and ____% of men who identify as Gorean are compensating for something." How high do the numbers in the blanks have to be before there are "a lot?" How high do you think the numbers actually are?

PdxJ -> RE: True False or relative? (5/25/2011 2:18:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RedMagic1 "____% of men who identify as Masters, and ____% of men who identify as Gorean are compensating for something." How high do the numbers in the blanks have to be before there are "a lot?" How high do you think the numbers actually are? A lot would be: 75% or more that identify as being dominate - not just as Masters. There are a lot of Doms that refuse to use the 'Master' title. How high do I think the numbers actually are? lol - maybe 25% Goreans, I know very little about and I'll refrain from posting my opinion on.

Idealynnbliss -> RE: True False or relative? (5/29/2011 11:33:15 PM)
No it was not a Female -Male "Dom" he had his own interests and motives. Did not mesh with my ethical sluttiness...

crazyml -> RE: True False or relative? (5/30/2011 4:55:18 AM)
Chokes on coffee Fucking excellent. I salute you.

masterlink65 -> RE: True False or relative? (5/30/2011 5:37:25 PM)
nonsense

masterlink65 -> RE: True False or relative? (5/30/2011 5:39:10 PM)
good one.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875