Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

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


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> RE: Let's see if we can keep this one civilized... Page: <<   < prev  6 7 8 [9] 10   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Let's see if we can keep this one civilized... - 8/19/2013 10:17:05 AM   
njlauren


Posts: 1577
Joined: 10/1/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MariaB


quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren

If he hadn't written that one line about female dominants and male subs you are correct, but with that one line, really one word, he was throwing a lit torch into a powder magazine, because it went from being about personal belief to being a put down. The word object doesn't mean I don't understand (though it is often driven by ignorance), it is a word that says someone has the right to judge someone else. It would be like writing on a forum "I think gays are sinners and should be put in jail" and expect people to sit their nodding and saying "I respect that belief", ain't gonna happen.


I think that was a very deliberate move by the op. This thread is called, 'Lets see if we can keep this one civilized' and it received a very lukewarm reception up until the op used the word 'objectionable' and referred it to fem Dommes and male subs. Of course his view is ignorant because it defies factual evidence, which he knows, yet continue to hold the view. Thats the very reason I believe its necessary to take it with a pinch of salt. You can't argue with ignorance. You can speak your peace, you can come back and insult his belief, you can even decide that every word he utters from here on in will be ridiculed by you but you can't change his mind. Up until a few minutes ago, nobody has asked him to start a compelling debate about why he thinks the way he does. We are 8 pages in before someone questions him. Emotion and opinions are merely emotions and opinions


I think the fundamental issue here is he asks if we can keep it civilized, yet he also doesn't realize that in a sense he violated that rule with his post that he objected to male subs and female dominants. He can believe they don't exist, he can say it isn't for him, but he used the work object deliberately, which is not civilized, it is bomb chucking pure and simple, and then he goes off on how he has the right to his beliefs or stating them, as if someone tried to stop him.

I haven't tried to change his view or make him belief female dominants and male subs don't exit, my point is that him using the word object in of itself was not civilized discussion, that by putting that word in, not in a personal context, but against the whole context, he was the one chucking a bomb, and he cannot expect to post that and expect people to nod and smile, because he made it volatile right from the get go. My point is if he expects civil discourse out of others, he has to remember that himself, and how you express beliefs are important and that is my point. He has no power over me or anyone else, I don't give a rat's ass whether he believes something exists or not, what I object to is how he expressed it. I have faced this in my own life, people may not like gays much, they usually think a lot less about trans people (which sadly includes a lot of gay people), and I don't care, as long as they can remember to treat me with at least detached courtesy or leave me alone, that is fine, I don't want them to be my friend or supporter, simply remember that whatever their beliefs, they don't have the right to use them against me, pure and simple, whether it is treating me rudely or trying to assault or kill me.

He very well could have put the word object in their to flare up emotions and see if he can goad people into personal attacks, that is possible,too, but if so, he failed, most people by forum standards have remained pretty polite to him.

(in reply to MariaB)
Profile   Post #: 161
RE: Let's see if we can keep this one civilized... - 8/19/2013 10:29:29 AM   
WarMachine904


Posts: 123
Joined: 8/2/2013
From: Jacksonville, FL area
Status: offline 		Jeff,

For me dominance is dominance. It is the physical, mental, emotional, and sexual qualities that cause one to naturally control others.

The best response that I can come up with, is that I object to it because I cannot understand it. I cannot imagine being dominated by a woman, any more than I can understand wanting to be. I think much of this stems from upbringing, religious beliefs, and my own personal experiences.

Actually the whole tangent from Post #1 was why people here expect tolerance but are so intolerant of anyone's views that are not congruent with their own. I submit this ENTIRE thread as Exhibit A.

_____________________________

WarMachine904
"I am not a Dominant by choice, I am Dominant by nature's design!"

(in reply to WarMachine904)
Profile   Post #: 162
RE: Let's see if we can keep this one civilized... - 8/19/2013 10:29:59 AM   
njlauren


Posts: 1577
Joined: 10/1/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: WarMachine904

Jeff: That reply wasn't aimed at you, it was in response to #153.

NjLauren: You are making a monumental leap in assuming that because a person objects to something that they automatically feel compelled to use violence to eradicate what they object to. I can assure you that I have never, ever, had any violent thoughts regarding anchovies!!

And although everyone is wrapped up in this word "object", here are the two paragraphs that followed the one sentence:
quote:

ORIGINAL: WarMachine904

HOWEVER, I was also raised with enough class, and have enough life experience to accept that not everyone share's my view, and I am perfectly fine with that. I will not tell a female Domme that she is not a "true" dominant, or tell a male sub that he should not allow a woman to control him. Why? Because everyone is entitled to live as they wish, call themselves whatever they choose, and exercise their right to free speech regardless of what I think. The exception being that by exercising those freedoms you infringe upon another's ability to exercise their freedoms.

If asked my opinion, I will give it. If I believe that I have a relevant thought to share in a discussion, I will share it. When you reply, and tell me that although you can appreciate my view, but that you don't agree, I will accept it. Not try to convert you to my way of thinking. It's really about respect and tolerance for others at the end of the day.


Doesn't sound like hate speech to me. Kind of sounds like a philosophy of tolerance. Hmmmmmm....


I didn't say that the word object automatically led to violence, my point is that the word object when describing others has strong meaning, a lot more than not liking anchovies on pie. The legal discrimination and hate aimed at LGBT people comes from people whose beliefs make them object to being gay or trans, and that was my point. When you say you object to anchovies on pizza, you are saying you don't like it for yourself, which is fine, and there is no real negative context there (the anchovies might thank you, though). While it would be silly, if you said you objected to anchovies on a pizza in general, if you said "I object to anchovies on pizza and anyone who likes that is an idiot" you are now saying no one should like it (and make yourself sound like Gordon Ramsay *lol*)..I realize this is a silly example, but I am trying to get across why object against a whole concept is different than the personal.

And as I put in another post, Tom Paine sort of said the same thing, when he said tolerance and intolerance to him were the same thing, that they both had as its root the idea that people had the right to judge what someone else did, and whether or not they did anything about it (intolerance) or not (tolerance),it is the judging that is wrong. Like I said, if you had said "male subs and female dominants don't make any sense to me", I think people would understand that, but when you say you object, it is no longer personal, as with objecting to fish on a pizza, it is broad based, and even if you don't do anything about that, you are telling people you are judging their lifestyle, and it would be akin to someone looking at you are a military person and saying "I object to the military, and you must be a douchebag for wanting to do it"....even if they don't do anything about it, never say it to military people, you wouldn't be upset if someone posted that?

(in reply to WarMachine904)
Profile   Post #: 163
RE: Let's see if we can keep this one civilized... - 8/19/2013 10:32:29 AM   
evesgrden


Posts: 597
Joined: 6/9/2012
Status: offline
quote:

I think the disconnect, is in the fact that YOU define the word "object" to mean an absolute judgement of right and wrong.

I object to people playing their car stereos too loud.

I object to people objecting to my objections.

I object to anchovies on my pizza.

I object to watching "chick flicks".

So if I got enough people to object to having anchovies on their pizza, then somehow that is dangerous? I really think you should re-evaluate your argument.


Here's where I think there's the disconnect:

You object to people playing their car stereos too loud:
Rightly so, it's rude/wrong of them to impose their music on you when you don't like their music.

You object to people objecting to your objections:
It's wrong of others to behave as if you don't have a right to express yourself.

You object to anchovies on your pizza.
It's wrong for someone to ruin your pizza by adding an item that you find distasteful/ repulsive or just dislike.


so.. now we come to...


You object to female dominants.
It is wrong... rude... bad..... how?

I think this is where the disconnect is. I cannot think of an example where I would object to an idea that wasn't somehow wrong in my worldview. Not unpleasant, or weird... but wrong.

I don't object to diaper play or age play as a kink. Sure isn't my thing. But I don't object to it. There are kinks I do object to, like scat, and that's because of the health issues. I don't think people should do it. That's a very judgemental statement, yes I think scat is wrong, and yes I will defend anyone's right to go there.. even though I think it's wrong 9 ways to Sunday. I object to it. It's wrong in my book.

You object to male submissives... you quoted the dictionary definiton of "object" yourself.. so .. why is it you disapprove?

What's your rationale. I gave you rationales for your above objections. what is your rationale for objecting to femdom and malesub. What is it that you find wrong---- which is implicit in disapproval.



_____________________________

What you permit, you promote.

(in reply to WarMachine904)
Profile   Post #: 164
RE: Let's see if we can keep this one civilized... - 8/19/2013 10:34:28 AM   
WarMachine904


Posts: 123
Joined: 8/2/2013
From: Jacksonville, FL area
Status: offline 		NJLauren: This was my exact statement...

quote:

ORIGINAL: WarMachine904

Personally, I object to the idea of a male sub or a female dominant. I can't understand how either can exist. To me it is like a parallel universe.


That sounds like objecting in a personal context and not a general context, to me.

_____________________________

WarMachine904
"I am not a Dominant by choice, I am Dominant by nature's design!"

(in reply to njlauren)
Profile   Post #: 165
RE: Let's see if we can keep this one civilized... - 8/19/2013 10:39:50 AM   
njlauren


Posts: 1577
Joined: 10/1/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: WarMachine904

Jeff,

For me dominance is dominance. It is the physical, mental, emotional, and sexual qualities that cause one to naturally control others.

The best response that I can come up with, is that I object to it because I cannot understand it. I cannot imagine being dominated by a woman, any more than I can understand wanting to be. I think much of this stems from upbringing, religious beliefs, and my own personal experiences.

Actually the whole tangent from Post #1 was why people here expect tolerance but are so intolerant of anyone's views that are not congruent with their own. I submit this ENTIRE thread as Exhibit A.


You are missing a fundamental point, and that is it is how you expressed your beliefs. If you had said "I personally object to the idea of male subs and female dominants because I just can't get a handle on it", I think people would not have responded the way they did, I think a lot of people were like myself, that you put out the idea that you can't understand/fathom male subs/female dominants, and therefore you object to it in general, dismiss the notion, that is the problem. It is great that you would never tell a female dominant she was wrong or a male sub (though I wonder in practice how you would treat them in real life, but that is another discussion) to their face, but the answer to your question is people are responding to the way you expressed your beliefs, not the beliefs themselves, you post came off as judgmental even if your actions are not like that in real life.

BTW, this has been a civil discussion, whether talking about female dominantion/male submissions, your beliefs underlying this, none of it was uncivilized, none of it was in personal attacks, people discussed the belief and the way you did it, no one is attacking you, calling you names. They argued about the belief themselves, but no one I have read said "if you believe that, you must be x" (put in your favorite nasty words). People challenged the belief, which is okay, they didn't castigate you for who you are. Having the right to a belief doesn't mean you won't be challenged, and while people were offended by your choice of words, people pointed that out, they pointed out what they object to and why, it was not a personal attack. You want to see the difference/ Go to the religion and politics board and see the difference. Beliefs are not sacrosanct, you have the right to your beliefs, but you also don't have the right for people to accept them and not say anything if they bother them, tolerance doesn't mean not saying anything when you object to what someone says, it is coming back with a response that challenges the belief without degrading the person. Considering the word "object" is so loaded, it is surprising the response has been so even IMO.

(in reply to WarMachine904)
Profile   Post #: 166
RE: Let's see if we can keep this one civilized... - 8/19/2013 10:41:18 AM   
AAkasha


Posts: 4429
Joined: 11/27/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: WarMachine904

NJLauren: This was my exact statement...

quote:

ORIGINAL: WarMachine904

Personally, I object to the idea of a male sub or a female dominant. I can't understand how either can exist. To me it is like a parallel universe.


That sounds like objecting in a personal context and not a general context, to me.



This is what has stood out to me from the start as well. It's like a straight woman saying, "I can't comprehend or get my head around the concept of two women being sexually attracted to each other. The fact that this can exist in nature seems sort of incomprehensible even. But I fully respect others' right to do so, I just don't comprehend it in my mind, it does not compute."

Then, it's as if lesbians descended and said, "Well. We are about to teach you a thing or two buster!" as though this straight girl has said they should be vilified or have no right to be lesbians, and while the woman was very polite and never said they should not be, just said she could not get her head around it and did not fit the natural order in HER world.

What do you expect to do, convert her? Condemn her? Never once did she say they should NOT exist, just that the logic of it doesn't work in the wiring of her brain - that in her head, women are with men, men are with women.

Akasha




_____________________________

Akasha's Web - All original Femdom content since 1995
Don't email me here, email me at [email protected]

(in reply to WarMachine904)
Profile   Post #: 167
RE: Let's see if we can keep this one civilized... - 8/19/2013 10:42:29 AM   
WarMachine904


Posts: 123
Joined: 8/2/2013
From: Jacksonville, FL area
Status: offline 		Evesgrden,

I answered this question several times also.

The idea conflicts with my own cultural and religious beliefs, and well was how I view myself, the world around me, and my interpretation of the natural order of things.

And so, because it conflicts with my reality, I PERSONALLY object to it. That is not to say that it doesn't exist. Obviously it does, or we would not have had all this colorful commentary. But I object to it, as you object to scat. I object to it, because it conflicts with my own beliefs.

And that is perfectly fine with me.

_____________________________

WarMachine904
"I am not a Dominant by choice, I am Dominant by nature's design!"

(in reply to WarMachine904)
Profile   Post #: 168
RE: Let's see if we can keep this one civilized... - 8/19/2013 10:54:13 AM   
njlauren


Posts: 1577
Joined: 10/1/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: WarMachine904

NJLauren: This was my exact statement...

quote:

ORIGINAL: WarMachine904

Personally, I object to the idea of a male sub or a female dominant. I can't understand how either can exist. To me it is like a parallel universe.


That sounds like objecting in a personal context and not a general context, to me.


You still don't get it, you said you object to the idea of a male sub or female dominant, that doesn't imply you don't understand it, it implies you don't even like the thought they exist. Object to means you have strong beliefs against it, not that you don't understand it. Among other things, a lot of people object to things in general, don't want them to exist, who don't understand it. There are a lot of gay men who object to trans people existing or claiming rights, because they think a M to F trans person is a gay guy unable to deal with being gay and worse, that make gays look bad; There are a lot of people who think trans people are just some people off on a wild fetish and so forth. They don't know, and they object to it, but it isn't personal, they are objecting to the concept because they don't understand it.

Let me give you an idea of what I mean in another context. At one point I was discussing with my spouse/dominant something we had seen on one of those "Taboo" programs, dealing with adult babies, and my spouse shuddered, saying she had to deal with diaper duty and such for more than a few years,and that was enough, and the thought of doing that with an adult made her shudder. She didn't object to the concept of it, if others want to do it that is their business, she simply made clear for her it would be ick. On the other hand, if she said something like "I object to that, I don't think anyone should be doing that because I don't like it", it would be different. Objecting to the idea of it makes it sound like you think it shouldn't exist, it is objecting to what others do, it isn't personal, what you are saying with those words is "I can't understand how a male could be sub or a female could be dominant, and because I can't grasp the concept, I object to the idea of anyone actually living like that/being that"...You could say the concept makes you feel uncomfortable, you could even say it would be difficult for you to watch a male sub/female dominant play, that is okay, it is owning up to feelings, but what you are coming off as is "I don't understand domme/male sub as concept, so I object to it existing". One is expressing personal feelings the other is saying it shouldn't exist. I don't understand a lot of things in BD/SM, I don't get the cruel humiliation or worse, the cruel humiliation form of cuckholding, and I wrestle with consensual non consent relationships, but I also would never write I object to them existing, either, even if I wrestle with them.

(in reply to WarMachine904)
Profile   Post #: 169
RE: Let's see if we can keep this one civilized... - 8/19/2013 11:03:09 AM   
JeffBC


Posts: 5799
Joined: 2/12/2012
From: Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: WarMachine904
For me dominance is dominance. It is the physical, mental, emotional, and sexual qualities that cause one to naturally control others.

*nods* So you and I are in agreement although I seldom think of the sexual part. To me, "dominance" is an expression of my relationship to all of humanity not simply Carol. When looked at it that way what I'm talking about is a highly fluid pack hierarchy spanning 7 billion individuals. Needless to say, I am not on the top of that heap. Also needless to say, I have met females who were clearly higher up that dominance scale than me. Ergo, for me, there is nothing to understand.

quote:

The best response that I can come up with, is that I object to it because I cannot understand it. I cannot imagine being dominated by a woman, any more than I can understand wanting to be. I think much of this stems from upbringing, religious beliefs, and my own personal experiences.

I'm going to ignore the "wanting to be dominated" part because, again, that's the land of assumed roles and definitions that I don't deal with. Insofar as the rest, the analogy that popped into my head is some beefy guy saying "I cannot imagine being beaten by a woman in a fight." Conveniently, when that guy meets a female who is well trained in fighting his imagination is not the limiting factor in the equation. She's still going to whoop his ass in a fight.

But yeah, I see where you are coming from now. I just seldom put layers of ideology in between myself and actual, observable reality. For me, I wouldn't care what my upbringing told me if actual reality told me it was wrong.

_____________________________

I'm a lover of "what is", not because I'm a spiritual person, but because it hurts when I argue with reality. -- Bryon Katie
"You're humbly arrogant" -- sunshinemiss
officially a member of the K Crowd

(in reply to WarMachine904)
Profile   Post #: 170
RE: Let's see if we can keep this one civilized... - 8/19/2013 11:09:13 AM   
WarMachine904


Posts: 123
Joined: 8/2/2013
From: Jacksonville, FL area
Status: offline 		Wow. Again HUGE LEAP IN ASSUMPTION!!

Let's break it down...

Personally, I object to the idea of a male sub or a female dominant. - Nowhere in this statement is there any suggestion of the eradication of people who do not share my views.

I can't understand how either can exist. - Contradictory to your last post, I would say this statement implies exactly what it says....I can't understand it.

To me it is like a parallel universe. - Just further commentary on how it does not fit into my view of things.

And I never said I objected to them existing either. You are combining two different statements, and twisting them to fit your need to express the emotional damage that you have seen and/or experienced within the LGBT community by people spouting hate speech. I really don't think that my statement qualifies as hate speech.

< Message edited by WarMachine904 -- 8/19/2013 11:11:29 AM >

_____________________________

WarMachine904
"I am not a Dominant by choice, I am Dominant by nature's design!"

(in reply to njlauren)
Profile   Post #: 171
RE: Let's see if we can keep this one civilized... - 8/19/2013 11:09:18 AM   
evesgrden


Posts: 597
Joined: 6/9/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: WarMachine904

Evesgrden,

I answered this question several times also.

The idea conflicts with my own cultural and religious beliefs, and well was how I view myself, the world around me, and my interpretation of the natural order of things.

And so, because it conflicts with my reality, I PERSONALLY object to it. That is not to say that it doesn't exist. Obviously it does, or we would not have had all this colorful commentary. But I object to it, as you object to scat. I object to it, because it conflicts with my own beliefs.

And that is perfectly fine with me.




"I disapprove of femdoms because God said no women in charge" --- is an answer, and that would have ended it.

I was just trying to get a straight answer and clearly you're not comfortable with being specific about this. Understandably though; it's a tough position to defend.

_____________________________

What you permit, you promote.

(in reply to WarMachine904)
Profile   Post #: 172
RE: Let's see if we can keep this one civilized... - 8/19/2013 11:10:31 AM   
njlauren


Posts: 1577
Joined: 10/1/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: AAkasha


quote:

ORIGINAL: WarMachine904

NJLauren: This was my exact statement...

quote:

ORIGINAL: WarMachine904

Personally, I object to the idea of a male sub or a female dominant. I can't understand how either can exist. To me it is like a parallel universe.


That sounds like objecting in a personal context and not a general context, to me.



This is what has stood out to me from the start as well. It's like a straight woman saying, "I can't comprehend or get my head around the concept of two women being sexually attracted to each other. The fact that this can exist in nature seems sort of incomprehensible even. But I fully respect others' right to do so, I just don't comprehend it in my mind, it does not compute."

Then, it's as if lesbians descended and said, "Well. We are about to teach you a thing or two buster!" as though this straight girl has said they should be vilified or have no right to be lesbians, and while the woman was very polite and never said they should not be, just said she could not get her head around it and did not fit the natural order in HER world.

What do you expect to do, convert her? Condemn her? Never once did she say they should NOT exist, just that the logic of it doesn't work in the wiring of her brain - that in her head, women are with men, men are with women.

Akasha





No, Akasha, because the OP insists on using the word "Object". Yes, he is now saying I 'personally object' , but even that can be loaded, there are tons of anti lgbt people out there who say they 'personally object' to gays and so forth, who can't conceive of it, and they mean they object to it existing. You write a lot, and words have meaning, and objecting to an idea means you are stating you don't believe it should exist. Sure, the OP said he would never interfere with others, but he insists on defending the word object, trying to claim it means just in his own world, etc, when the word itself is loaded. It still comes off like he thinks he has the right to judge others. One of the things that bothers me is he says he is tolerant, which directly moves from the personal to being a broad based objection.

As I wrote on other posts, I don't understand severe humiliation play or adult baby play, and I would object to someone using that in their play with me, quite frankly I don't understand the latter at all. If someone was to ask me how I felt about others doing these things, I would never use the world tolerance, because at the core of it, tolerance means you find something to be wrong in what other people are doing (note the other people, not myself, others) and are willing to grit your teeth and let them do it, when the fundamental core is they are judging someone else.

If the OP had written he couldn't understand femme dom/male sub relationships, that he would strenuously object to someone trying to make him submit, I could understand that. But when he said he objected to the idea, then proclaimed he was tolerant, it means the objection is to the entire concept, and that is the problem. If he finds it personally objective, there is nothing to be tolerant about, because there is nothing in the broader scope of meaning.


Now let's look at your example. The woman in question never said she objected to it, and said she fully respected the right of others to do it, just that she didn't understand it. More importantly, respecting someone's right to do as they wish isn't tolerance, tolerance by its very nature is allowing someone else to do something you find objectionable, as in saying "I don't approve of two woman having sex, but if they wish to, I am so magnanimous I will let them do it"...it isn't what the woman said in your example, that she didn't understand it but respected the right of them to do it, tolerance is saying I don't understand it, object to it, but I am such a great person I will accede to letting them do it, which implies the writer judges what they do but is so cool, let's them do it anyway.

Tom Paine wrote a brilliant essay on the subject, and he hit the nail on the head, that tolerance and intolerance have at their core judging others.

(in reply to AAkasha)
Profile   Post #: 173
RE: Let's see if we can keep this one civilized... - 8/19/2013 11:15:14 AM   
WarMachine904


Posts: 123
Joined: 8/2/2013
From: Jacksonville, FL area
Status: offline 		Ok. How's this?

I disapprove of femdoms because I say so.

Is that clear and concise enough for you?

_____________________________

WarMachine904
"I am not a Dominant by choice, I am Dominant by nature's design!"

(in reply to njlauren)
Profile   Post #: 174
RE: Let's see if we can keep this one civilized... - 8/19/2013 11:18:04 AM   
WarMachine904


Posts: 123
Joined: 8/2/2013
From: Jacksonville, FL area
Status: offline 		And njlauren, I am not NOW saying I personally object....THAT WAS THE ORIGINAL STATEMENT!! GO BACK AND READ IT!

_____________________________

WarMachine904
"I am not a Dominant by choice, I am Dominant by nature's design!"

(in reply to WarMachine904)
Profile   Post #: 175
RE: Let's see if we can keep this one civilized... - 8/19/2013 11:21:40 AM   
Lucylastic


Posts: 40310
Status: offline 		it seems the OP is not even willing to consider trying to understand it, or learn about it, or to learn about understanding anyone elses reality.
Its willful, its not worth the hassle. This is as civilised as I get on a subject that is personal.
Learning takes a lifetime



_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to njlauren)
Profile   Post #: 176
RE: Let's see if we can keep this one civilized... - 8/19/2013 11:26:50 AM   
WarMachine904


Posts: 123
Joined: 8/2/2013
From: Jacksonville, FL area
Status: offline 		Lucy,

Actually I asked LP what made her self identify as a Dominant, so that isn't entirely true.

_____________________________

WarMachine904
"I am not a Dominant by choice, I am Dominant by nature's design!"

(in reply to Lucylastic)
Profile   Post #: 177
RE: Let's see if we can keep this one civilized... - 8/19/2013 11:27:11 AM   
njlauren


Posts: 1577
Joined: 10/1/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: WarMachine904

Wow. Again HUGE LEAP IN ASSUMPTION!!

Let's break it down...

Personally, I object to the idea of a male sub or a female dominant. - Nowhere in this statement is there any suggestion of the eradication of people who do not share my views.

I can't understand how either can exist. - Contradictory to your last post, I would say this statement implies exactly what it says....I can't understand it.

To me it is like a parallel universe. - Just further commentary on who it does not fit into my view of things.

And I never said I objected to them existing either. You are combining two different statements, and twisting them to fit your need to express the emotional damage that you have seen and/or experienced within the LGBT community by people spouting hate speech. I really don't think that my statement qualifies as hate speech.


What you cannot see is that not understanding something, or objecting to it in your own life, is not the same thing as objecting to the idea. You used the term tolerance when talking about femme dommes and male subs, and tolerance means you are judging what the others do.

I didn't accuse you of hate speech, nor do I think you are a hater but what you are missing is why I have a hard time with the word object or even tolerance. The people who do hateful things against the LGBT community have deep seated beliefs or emotions (or are conflicted themselves), they object to the idea of gays and lesbians existing, and channel that into true hate (which obviously you don't do).

What I am trying to say is that not understanding something, or feeling uncomfortable with it, is fine, and even saying that someone trying to make you do something is objectionable, is fine. The problem with your words is you said you objected to the idea of male subs and female dominants, and then went on to say you were tolerant of those who were. If it was personally objectionable, you would have no reason to be tolerant, because what others do doesn't affect you; when you used the word tolerant towards others into those things and used the word objection to the idea, you are saying you object to the concept of anyone doing that, but you are such a great guy you tolerate them.........which isn't, as in Akasha's example, respecting other people's right to do something, which is without judgement, your judgement is general because you don't understand it.

Now let me get a clarification. In terms of femme dommes and male subs, when you look at them, do you think "ya know, I really find that wrong, I wish it didn't exist" but then say "but I have to be tolerant, because that is their kink", or do you look at them and say "in a million years, I don't understand how a guy can submit to a woman, and if someone tried to do that to me I would really object" and then say "but hey, if it floats their boat, I am happy for them?". There is a big difference, in the first one you are judging it in whole because you don't understand it, but 'allow' it to happen in front of you, in the second one you are saying it personally does nothing for you, can't understand it, and would cause you serious issues if someone tried it on you, but recognize others are different and say if it makes them happy, go for it"...so with you, which is it?

I guess what I am trying to say is if you don't understand or like something in your own life, it is fine, but you don't have the right to judge it in others based simply on not understanding it yourself, and toleration as a word implies you are judging. If you mean something different, than simply say I don't understand it at all, it bothers me in my world view, but I respect the right of others to be themselves, and you will have unloaded it, akasha's example of the lesbian women with the straight women is a perfect example of this.

(in reply to WarMachine904)
Profile   Post #: 178
RE: Let's see if we can keep this one civilized... - 8/19/2013 11:37:23 AM   
njlauren


Posts: 1577
Joined: 10/1/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: WarMachine904

Ok. How's this?

I disapprove of femdoms because I say so.

Is that clear and concise enough for you?

Yep, and if that is your view, then people have every right to beat you up on it, because you have no right to disapprove of what others do, that is judgement and it isn't personal, this isn't objecting to anchovies on pizza, this is objecting to anchovies on pizza and making statements to the effect that anyone who eats it is a moron or a pig.......the key point is here by what what do you have to disapprove of someone else simply because you don't understand? If I turned around and said everyone in the military is a mindless asshole, I disapprove of them because I believe that, would you be so kind, even if I said I didn't understand or comprehend what the military was?

Again, the fundamental problem here is because you don't understand something, you have the right to judge it, it is kind of like fundamentalist Christians who think the bible is literal truth and the earth is 6000 years old and created in 6 days, and saying that anyone who believes in evolution is going to hell. And to take the analogy further, even if they don't do what so many evangelicals have done and try and get science ripped out of school curricula, they are still judging others, condemning them. You might not condemn others, but you are judging them, again, grabbing a right you don't have, especially since what male subs and female dominants have zero to do with your life. It is like people who fight against same sex marriage because of their beliefs, disapprove of it, given that legalized same sex marriage has zero impact on their life, by what do they have to disapprove of it, because they don't understand it or their beliefs run contrary to it, the fundamental problem is judging something in others without any concrete reasons to do so, other than you don't understand it.

(in reply to WarMachine904)
Profile   Post #: 179
RE: Let's see if we can keep this one civilized... - 8/19/2013 11:40:30 AM   
LadyPact


Posts: 32566
Status: offline 		OP, this is a side note of curiosity. Would you be willing to go to an event like this http://beyondleather.net/bl/ to get a better understanding?


_____________________________

The crowned Diva of Destruction. ~ ExT

Beach Ball Sized Lady Nuts. ~ TWD

Happily dating a new submissive. It's official. I've named him engie.

Please do not send me email here. Unless I know you, I will delete the email unread

(in reply to njlauren)
Profile   Post #: 180
Page:   <<   < prev  6 7 8 [9] 10   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> RE: Let's see if we can keep this one civilized... Page: <<   < prev  6 7 8 [9] 10   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109