RE: Let's see if we can keep this one civilized...

RE: Let's see if we can keep this one civilized... (Full Version)

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

Message

AaNiMaLl -> RE: Let's see if we can keep this one civilized... (8/18/2013 3:34:29 AM)
No soldier would say that they are submissive and if anything they are too macho. Basic training is not designed to create wimps. I don't think that saying that males and females are different is misogynistic. Especially, if one isn't saying that they have to be a certain way. He has said repeatedly that he respects their entitlement to live their lives as they wish but that it isn't for him.

ChatteParfaitt -> RE: Let's see if we can keep this one civilized... (8/18/2013 3:44:24 AM)
That's not true actually, per Himself who knows this stuff, NCOs do have stripes. But I appreciate your attempts to denigrate me. Being subordinate to someone, anyone means you agreed to submit (unless they forced you). It doesn't matter if they are a superior officer, your boss, the police, the butcher, whomever. Agreeing to be subordinate to someone is submission -- it doesn't have to have an erotic component. People (yes even big bad uber doms) submit all the time. Just like subs (yes even uber slavey types) have to buck up and put on their big girl pants to deal with their day. Else they'd be taken over by everyone who wanted to steal their lunch money. (Big hint here, that was a metaphor, like the stripes comment.) BTW: I remain in ignorance about what the Jack Nicholson character said about female officers, please enlighten me.

LadyPact -> RE: Let's see if we can keep this one civilized... (8/18/2013 4:05:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AaNiMaLl Soldiers are not submissive, if anything they are too macho. Basic training is not designed to create wimps. No soldier would say that they are submissive. I don't think that saying that males and females are different is misogynistic. Especially, if one isn't saying that they have to be a certain way. He has said repeatedly that he respects their entitlement to live their lives as they wish but that it isn't for him. Baloney. How many soldiers do you know? The military tends to attract two different types. Those that like to lead and those who like to follow. For those that like to follow, the military is a great career choice. There's always a hierarchy. Always a superior. And, for what it's worth, the OP didn't say that it just "wasn't for him". If that had been what he said, I wouldn't have had anything to say about it. Just because I'm not Dominated by men doesn't mean that I deny their existence or say that it's not possible.

descrite -> RE: Let's see if we can keep this one civilized... (8/18/2013 4:06:17 AM)
Quick: ask him what "NCO" stands for. Then ask him if an officer is the same as an NCO. Better still-- ask an NCO. You will get a colorful reply. As for Jack-- I am sure you have access to Google. See? I can be a subordinate without being submissive. Neat, eh?

AaNiMaLl -> RE: Let's see if we can keep this one civilized... (8/18/2013 4:09:44 AM)
No, if I do something for someone or they have more knowledge about something or if they lead me then I do not submit to them. My core stable dominant personality is set aside from all of this. Actually, if they start using their knowledge to dominate me then I will tell them to cut it out. I think that this can be a common mistake. If I express a weakness in myself or apologise then it doesn't make me weaker or less dominant. It is actually a strength. As an example, we have rules as I am sure most do. I can never remember them all but she knows them word for word and can tell me them. It doesn't make me less dominant.

AaNiMaLl -> RE: Let's see if we can keep this one civilized... (8/18/2013 4:11:20 AM)
.

LadyPact -> RE: Let's see if we can keep this one civilized... (8/18/2013 4:21:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ChatteParfaitt That's not true actually, per Himself who knows this stuff, NCOs do have stripes. But I appreciate your attempts to denigrate me. NCOs do have "stripes". Also known as hash marks. Every three years of service, a "stripe" gets added. MP has six and just recently had his class A's altered. (Meaning his dress greens, the formal uniform.) It was to reflect eighteen years of service.

ChatteParfaitt -> RE: Let's see if we can keep this one civilized... (8/18/2013 4:24:25 AM)
An NCO is a non commissioned officer. Or am I missing something? In any case, I'll repeat the stripes comment was a metaphor. I took dramatic license, just like I did with subs losing lunch money. Please explain how your sub uses her credit card to buy lunch so you can further your attempts to denigrate me. I need a good laugh in the morning, it goes well with my tea. Sorry, I'm not going to Google the comment, since I could care less except that you are too afraid to state it in an open forum, which I find amusing as all hell.

Zonie63 -> RE: Let's see if we can keep this one civilized... (8/18/2013 4:25:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ChatteParfaitt BTW: I remain in ignorance about what the Jack Nicholson character said about female officers, please enlighten me. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wndkp11DNso

ChatteParfaitt -> RE: Let's see if we can keep this one civilized... (8/18/2013 4:29:13 AM)
Thank you zonie. OMG that was funny. Descrite thinks he can get a blow job from all dom females. Okay, I'm done now. There are no words to describe how hard I am laughing.

descrite -> RE: Let's see if we can keep this one civilized... (8/18/2013 4:42:27 AM)
Ohhh, golly. See-- this is ignorance. If you think a noncommissioned officer is the same as a "superior officer," you are not familiar with the taxonomy. Does your blue purr when you pet it? There's no shame in not knowing the language of a given guild or club. At all. But throwing around terms as if you know what you're talking about... Well, that's the topic of the OP, now isn't it?

evesgrden -> RE: Let's see if we can keep this one civilized... (8/18/2013 6:26:31 AM)
quote: No soldier would say that they are submissive and if anything they are too macho. Basic training is not designed to create wimps. You equate being submissive with being a wimp. I know a couple marines that would take issue with that.

njlauren -> RE: Let's see if we can keep this one civilized... (8/18/2013 7:43:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AAkasha quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact quote: ORIGINAL: WarMachine904 LP, I don't know how many different ways you want me to say it. But I grow tired of reiterating it. Think what you like. But thank you for particpating in the discussion. Another quote from the movie...... "Stupid. Ignorant like a child. Like a baby. Don't know what to do." Five years from today, how will you see yourself? I have heard your words before. Race, religion, gender...... Bigotry, still. I hope, for your sake, you learn. He has already stated several times he does not care what you do in your personal relationships. He just doesn't personally understand or grasp it. This is not bigotry. Don't make all femdoms look like lunatics. Save it for the male doms that come here with Gor shit and say all women are born slaves. This guy is articulate. You don't have to be an advocate for something to be tolerant of it. He has expressed patience and tolerance every step of the way, and the femdoms have come back looking unhinged and boderline loopy. Let it go. Akasha Akasha- What you are leaving out his words, and words do count. It is one thing to say "I don't personally understand or grasp something" (which is understandable), but what you left out is the words he said, that he 'objected' to femme doms and male subs. Object doesn't mean not understand, object is a word of criticism and more importantly when you tell someone you object to who they are/what they do, you are judging them. There are plenty of things in this world I don't understand or grasp, adult baby stuff totally mystifies me, as do some aspects of some types of TPE (can't fathom why a dominant would want to control when a sub/slave went to the loo), and I find consent non consent relationships troubling. If i say I don't understand them, or could never do x, that is one thing, but when he said he objected to it, that is him claiming the right to decide what is legitimate. Think about it in another context, what would you say to someone who said "I object to polyamory, because of my cultural and religious background"...would you say that is neutral? Would you say to someone who said "I believe blacks are inferior, and I object to whites and blacks getting married because it dilutes the race"...I doubt it. When someone makes statements like "males are dominant, females are submissive" it may be a belief, but saying you object means you are saying there is something wrong with it, it isn't saying "I don't understand it" , big difference. The OP has the right to his posts, he can believe what he wants and say what he wants, as far as interfering in anyone else's lifestyle, he isn't; on the other hand, there are ways to express beliefs, and saying 'I object" is claiming a right he doesn't have, to judge what someone else is doing, and he is going to get called on that, the same way he would get called if he said he objected to interracial marriage because he believed other racial groups were inferior to whites. Not understanding or grasping why someone would marry someone of a different race is different than saying "I object" to that.

njlauren -> RE: Let's see if we can keep this one civilized... (8/18/2013 7:48:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AaNiMaLl No soldier would say that they are submissive and if anything they are too macho. Basic training is not designed to create wimps. I don't think that saying that males and females are different is misogynistic. Especially, if one isn't saying that they have to be a certain way. He has said repeatedly that he respects their entitlement to live their lives as they wish but that it isn't for him. That shows profound lack of understanding of what submission is and shows what you think of submissives. Being submissive is not about being a wimp, being submissive is someone who is willing to give the power they have over to another, for them to guide them. Unless I run with a strange crowd, most dominants do not see their submissives as wimps, they see them as strong people who choose to turn their power over to their dominant, for them to wield, the dominant takes control but is not necessarily stronger than the sub. Yeah, there is the myth of the wimpy male sub, the doormat female sub, where the dominant treats them like 'lowly worms' and such, but very few play out like that. More importantly, even in the TPE's I have seen, most subs retain/are given certain power, which likewise the military gives soldiers as well.

njlauren -> RE: Let's see if we can keep this one civilized... (8/18/2013 7:54:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact quote: ORIGINAL: AaNiMaLl Soldiers are not submissive, if anything they are too macho. Basic training is not designed to create wimps. No soldier would say that they are submissive. I don't think that saying that males and females are different is misogynistic. Especially, if one isn't saying that they have to be a certain way. He has said repeatedly that he respects their entitlement to live their lives as they wish but that it isn't for him. Baloney. How many soldiers do you know? The military tends to attract two different types. Those that like to lead and those who like to follow. For those that like to follow, the military is a great career choice. There's always a hierarchy. Always a superior. And, for what it's worth, the OP didn't say that it just "wasn't for him". If that had been what he said, I wouldn't have had anything to say about it. Just because I'm not Dominated by men doesn't mean that I deny their existence or say that it's not possible. Thanks, LP, well said...I think what those defending the OP are leaving out is he didn't say he didn't understand it or it wasn't for him, he said he objected to it, and he also made some statements about it not following the natural order of things or some such, that 'domination is masculine, submission is feminine", is distasteful on many levels (it implies that a dominant woman is not feminine or a woman, it implies a submissive male is less than a man) ,it was arrogant and patronizing. Simply because he said "I don't care what your lifestyle is" or other saying "he doesn't want to interfere with anyone else's life" isn't a defense, because he still in his words was demeaning others who don't fit his ideas of things...

njlauren -> RE: Let's see if we can keep this one civilized... (8/18/2013 8:05:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AaNiMaLl No, if I do something for someone or they have more knowledge about something or if they lead me then I do not submit to them. My core stable dominant personality is set aside from all of this. Actually, if they start using their knowledge to dominate me then I will tell them to cut it out. I think that this can be a common mistake. If I express a weakness in myself or apologise then it doesn't make me weaker or less dominant. It is actually a strength. As an example, we have rules as I am sure most do. I can never remember them all but she knows them word for word and can tell me them. It doesn't make me less dominant. You are confusing things, there is a difference between being led and submission, submission is about a fundamental power dynamic. People in their their lives have places where they are leaders and where they are followers, but as you point out, that isn't submission. What is different with the military is when you go in, you turn over the right to make a lot of decisions about your life, you cede all that power to the hierarchy and the structure, it quite different. The fundamental basis of the military is a rigid chain of hierarchy, where you take orders from others, not because they have proven they can lead you, not because you have chosen them, but because you are told, and you obey, and if you don't, there are severe penalties for doing so. It is true in the military the higher you go in the ranks, the less submission that is expected of you, but it is still a major part of the military. Put it this way, when you go to work for an employer, there is orientation and you learn the lay of the land, what your boss expects. You go into the military, you go through basic training, where they strip your individuality, where you literally have no power or control, where you become basically the bitch of the drill instructors, and there is a reason for that, they break that individuality because the military is not based on the individual, it is based on being trained to carry out and follow orders unquestioningly, it is a very different mindset. In a business environment, most people are individuals and the way things work out is usually people fall into roles and such that suit them, and people tend to achieve where their abilities lie, and individualism is usually not seen as a bad thing.

njlauren -> RE: Let's see if we can keep this one civilized... (8/18/2013 8:07:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ChatteParfaitt An NCO is a non commissioned officer. Or am I missing something? In any case, I'll repeat the stripes comment was a metaphor. I took dramatic license, just like I did with subs losing lunch money. Please explain how your sub uses her credit card to buy lunch so you can further your attempts to denigrate me. I need a good laugh in the morning, it goes well with my tea. Sorry, I'm not going to Google the comment, since I could care less except that you are too afraid to state it in an open forum, which I find amusing as all hell. Typical Jack Nicholson performance, he tells the Tom Cruise character, whose lead for the case is a woman, that there is nothing more erotic than having to salute a female superior. Great movie by the way, and Jack Nicholson is a hoot.

KnightofMists -> RE: Let's see if we can keep this one civilized... (8/18/2013 8:19:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren The OP has the right to his posts, he can believe what he wants and say what he wants, as far as interfering in anyone else's lifestyle, he isn't; on the other hand, there are ways to express beliefs, and saying 'I object" is claiming a right he doesn't have, to judge what someone else is doing, and he is going to get called on that, the same way he would get called if he said he objected to interracial marriage because he believed other racial groups were inferior to whites. Not understanding or grasping why someone would marry someone of a different race is different than saying "I object" to that. Actually... I have to say that he and anyone... Has the right to object or judge to anything they choose to. Regardless if it affects them or not. What find highly amusing is the thought that one can do this without a consequence. Like some how the idea that its ones right to have an opinion shields a person from the judgement of others that one casts onto others by those beliefs. What is out right laughable is the all due respect crap and agree to disagree. Like those type of comments makes the person of higher character and thought with their trailer trash opinions. I do agree that to object to something is much different to saying I don't understand. But everyone is ok to say both of those things... And they own them... Regardless if they have the strength of character to standup to the scrutiny of others for their comments and own the consequence of them... In the end... The Tinman thinks he is above reproach to have his opinions. But, it just doesn't work that way and he will get thrown into the metalling pot like so many other cheap cans by those with alittle bit more on the ball.

MariaB -> RE: Let's see if we can keep this one civilized... (8/18/2013 8:20:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren Thanks, LP, well said...I think what those defending the OP are leaving out is he didn't say he didn't understand it or it wasn't for him, he said he objected to it, and he also made some statements about it not following the natural order of things or some such, that 'domination is masculine, submission is feminine", is distasteful on many levels (it implies that a dominant woman is not feminine or a woman, it implies a submissive male is less than a man) ,it was arrogant and patronizing. Simply because he said "I don't care what your lifestyle is" or other saying "he doesn't want to interfere with anyone else's life" isn't a defense, because he still in his words was demeaning others who don't fit his ideas of things... Oh for goodness sake, stop trying to continually dissect what he said. We all have reading comprehension, some of us just don't need to do some bloody post-mortem and turn it into something its not! I know plenty of women who think there is no such thing as a dominant male as well as men who object to dominant women. I don't get my knickers in a knot over their opinion because its just an opinion and its not worth wasting energy over it. I know I'm dominant, I don't feel insecure if someone questions that or even chooses not to believe it. If your a submissive male who feels all offended by this, then you need to have a word with yourself.

JeffBC -> RE: Let's see if we can keep this one civilized... (8/18/2013 8:22:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WarMachine904 But it goes deeper than that as well. I assert control in all aspects of my life, because that is who I am. Sometimes the control is in a physical sense, sometimes it is mental, but my natural instinct is to establish and maintain control. AHHHH, edited to reflect my understanding from reading your clarifications It's not that you don't believe women ARE dominant. It's that it offends your sensibilities that this is so because for whatever reasons you attach the trait dominant to males and submissive to females. Well, that's all on you then :) Reality pretty much doesn't care whether we agree or disagree with it. You have chosen to hang onto mental models which inaccurately map reality. Although I'd want to take all of the implied insult out of it, one way to say that is "living in a fantasy land". See my sig below. Reality does not offend my ideology. Reality IS my ideology.

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875