RE: Bit Controversial - Consensual Male Supremacy?

RE: Bit Controversial - Consensual Male Supremacy? (Full Version)

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

Message

orgasmdenial12 -> RE: Bit Controversial - Consensual Male Supremacy? (3/18/2015 12:18:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: shiftyw Although- GotSteel IS into chastity and this thread was started by someone with the screen name orgasmdenial...has this been a long con troll? o_o Lol, I don't even agree with Got Steel. I might be willing to concede some confusion if we were saying the same thing (we're not). Anyway, chastity and orgasm denial are very different kinks. Chastity is one of my hard limits. And a lot of people who do chastity, would balk at orgasm denial.

orgasmdenial12 -> RE: Bit Controversial - Consensual Male Supremacy? (3/18/2015 12:20:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: orgasmdenial12 Then why populate a thread about consensual male supremacy, with criticisms of non-consensual male supremacy? I've clearly used the word consensual over a dozen times, and in the title too. confused I can clear that up, take for example consensual slavery, the two terms can't be used together literally, they're mutually exclusive. So depending on which term is literal people and should have very different opinion of the practice. In my book: Consensual "slavery" = cool, have fun with that. "Consensual" slavery = hold on a second while I call the cops. So with that in mind if you look through the thread you'll probably find that a number of the confusing responses are related to consensual "supremacy" vs. "consensual" supremacy. But supremacy and slavery are very different things, so it's not useful to give one as an example of the other. Supremacy means being in charge or having power. Can you not see how one can consensually have power? Most Prime Ministers and CEOs seem to manage it.

orgasmdenial12 -> RE: Bit Controversial - Consensual Male Supremacy? (3/18/2015 12:24:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DerangedUnit Eeee yeah getting pregnant is terrifying to me http://blogs.plos.org/dnascience/2012/10/25/male-dna-in-female-brains-revisited/ getting pregnant the man actually highjacks your dna, you physically change to become patially them once you get preggers.... I of course have this whole horror movie scenario planned out in my head. I get pregnant and turn into a stepford wife, "welcome home hunny" as I smile and my head turns all the way around. Yeah, they can find the kid's DNA in you for life, even if you miscarried it before you knew you were pregnant. It's wonderfully freakish lol. Interestingly, they find the cells most at sites of injury in the mother and they think the cells might be trying to help heal the injured bits, as they would in a growing foetus. They think this might be one of the reasons that mothers may live longer than women who didn't have children. As regards the man hijacking my DNA causing physical changes / horror movie scenario - oh hell yes! See, it all becomes very exciting once you start eroticising that fear.

orgasmdenial12 -> RE: Bit Controversial - Consensual Male Supremacy? (3/18/2015 12:25:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant Is there something I am missing here that indicates why this belief must/should only be carried out as play? Something that says that this belief...unlike belief in D/s structural harmony...cannot be kept in check in the real world? This is exactly my point of view - everyone has beliefs they don't carry into their day to day world, CMS is no different.

orgasmdenial12 -> RE: Bit Controversial - Consensual Male Supremacy? (3/18/2015 12:36:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: shiftyw ...if OP DID believe in Male Supremacy- she would defer to ALL men. Not the ones she picks and chooses. I don't believe in Male Supremacy, I do keep saying that. I believe in Consensual Male Supremacy. Some random guy out in the world has not consented to have me defer to him. If every guy in the world said 'hey listen sweet cheeks, any time you want to believe I'm superior, you go for it' then we might be having a very different conversation, but they haven't. I suppose the consent aspect of play is more important to me than any other aspect, so I can't say how I would act without that issue. Consent is paramount. Anyway, I reiterate my point that if you are using gender as a deciding factor in who does and does not have power, with power being automatically afforded to the men who have consented, and automatically removed from the women who have consented, then that is Consensual Male Supremacy. I don't pick and choose who I defer to, I defer to the men who consent to CMS, within our social group. It's the men who self-select for this, not me who selects them. Since it involves a structural power transfer that goes beyond individual relationships and is based on gender then to me it is a supremacist belief that transcends a simple male-led relationship. It's more of a male-led community. But what's the difference between a male-led community and male supremacy?

orgasmdenial12 -> RE: Bit Controversial - Consensual Male Supremacy? (3/18/2015 12:38:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: shiftyw There's a difference between "I think men are better than women" and "I think men are better at leading my relationships" One implies a belief in supremacy, the other doesn't. The first one implies a belief in male superiority; the second one implies a belief in male supremacy.

orgasmdenial12 -> RE: Bit Controversial - Consensual Male Supremacy? (3/18/2015 12:45:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dreamlady Supreme translates to that which is superior. . . and then some -- at the top of the heap of superior. I disagree. Dictionary.com defines supremacy as: noun 1. the state of being supreme. 2. supreme authority or power. Merriam-Webster defines it as: the quality or state of having more power, authority, or status than anyone else : the state of being supreme. This supports my view that supremacy refers to the power or authority that one has, rather than referring to the value that one has.

NookieNotes -> RE: Bit Controversial - Consensual Male Supremacy? (3/18/2015 2:27:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: orgasmdenial12 quote: ORIGINAL: dreamlady Supreme translates to that which is superior. . . and then some -- at the top of the heap of superior. I disagree. Dictionary.com defines supremacy as: noun 1. the state of being supreme. 2. supreme authority or power. Merriam-Webster defines it as: the quality or state of having more power, authority, or status than anyone else : the state of being supreme. This supports my view that supremacy refers to the power or authority that one has, rather than referring to the value that one has. I was actually going to post this a few days back when I looked up the definition. I got sidetracked. This, I agree with. Words. They have meanings.

dreamlady -> RE: Bit Controversial - Consensual Male Supremacy? (3/18/2015 3:00:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: shiftyw No. Choosing a male or female led relationship is different than supremacy: Supremacy is defined as: the state or condition of being superior to all others in authority, power, or status. Your basic hierarchical model. A subordinate is inferior in rank to his or her superior. Note this has nothing to do with the actual value of the subordinate. You are your boss's subordinate. He or she is your superior in rank and grade. His or her higher salary reflects his or her greater value to the organization due to his or her higher pay grade. Going up the chain of command, then, there is a shifting back and forth between subordinate and superior. At the top of the chain, at the apex (Chairman of the Board) or triumvirate (President, CEO/COO, CFO) or however you wish to delineate the distribution of power and authority, is the Commander-in-Chief or the Supreme Leader. This Supreme personage, Supreme entity is above all the others who are superiors to their subordinates in "authority, power, or status." quote: ORIGINAL: orgasmdenial12 quote: ORIGINAL: dreamlady Supreme translates to that which is superior. . . and then some -- at the top of the heap of superior. I disagree. Dictionary.com defines supremacy as: noun 1. the state of being supreme. 2. supreme authority or power. Merriam-Webster defines it as: the quality or state of having more power, authority, or status than anyone else : the state of being supreme. This supports my view that supremacy refers to the power or authority that one has, rather than referring to the value that one has. We can go around and around in circles splitting hairs with semantics and dictionary sources on this, and end up chasing our tails. You can stand on your mountain, I can stand on mine, others on theirs. quote: ORIGINAL: orgasmdenial12 I don't believe in Male Supremacy, I do keep saying that. I believe in Consensual Male Supremacy. Some random guy out in the world has not consented to have me defer to him. If every guy in the world said 'hey listen sweet cheeks, any time you want to believe I'm superior, you go for it' then we might be having a very different conversation, but they haven't. I suppose the consent aspect of play is more important to me than any other aspect, so I can't say how I would act without that issue. Consent is paramount. Anyway, I reiterate my point that if you are using gender as a deciding factor in who does and does not have power, with power being automatically afforded to the men who have consented, and automatically removed from the women who have consented, then that is Consensual Male Supremacy. I don't pick and choose who I defer to, I defer to the men who consent to CMS, within our social group. It's the men who self-select for this, not me who selects them. Since it involves a structural power transfer that goes beyond individual relationships and is based on gender then to me it is a supremacist belief that transcends a simple male-led relationship. It's more of a male-led community. But what's the difference between a male-led community and male supremacy? Your social group of Consensual Male Supremacists is akin to (consensual) patriarchy. It is a patriarchal tribal model, and in that sense no different than patriarchal cultures which steadily overthrew matriarchal/matrilineal societies a few millennia ago. I'm sure they saw and see patriarchy as consensual among themselves. DreamLady

Kaliko -> RE: Bit Controversial - Consensual Male Supremacy? (3/18/2015 3:42:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: orgasmdenial12 quote: ORIGINAL: shiftyw ...if OP DID believe in Male Supremacy- she would defer to ALL men. Not the ones she picks and chooses. I don't believe in Male Supremacy, I do keep saying that. I believe in Consensual Male Supremacy. Some random guy out in the world has not consented to have me defer to him. If every guy in the world said 'hey listen sweet cheeks, any time you want to believe I'm superior, you go for it' then we might be having a very different conversation, but they haven't. I suppose the consent aspect of play is more important to me than any other aspect, so I can't say how I would act without that issue. Consent is paramount. But why would you need somebody's consent to defer to them?

satanscharmer -> RE: Bit Controversial - Consensual Male Supremacy? (3/18/2015 5:48:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ResidentSadist Having spent most my teens on the East Side of Detroit, I picked up some awareness habits. I am not always the biggest and strongest guy in the room, so I size up the room. So when I walk into a place, I size up who is physically superior, who the biggest threats are if a brawl broke out. It's not even on a conscious level, it's an automatic survival reflex. Do girls do that, look to see who is physically superior in a crowd? Yes, sort of. One thing I was taught, especially while in the actual city of Detroit, is to be careful with eye contact. As in, avoid it as much as possible to avoid any glances being construed as a lingering stare - an invitation for a fight. If you have great peripheral vision like I do, not much of a problem. I have gotten into the habit of scanning a room for potential threats without making it much too obvious. Eyes forward, chin up, chest out, secretly scanning and observing my surroundings. So, it may not look like I'm doing it, but I am. I'm never looking for just size (that doesn't always matter). I'm looking at the whole picture. Where I'm located now there's not much need to size a room up, but it's become habit. My eye contact restrictions are kept for times I feel like there may be a potential threat. Like you stated, it is a learned awareness.

shiftyw -> RE: Bit Controversial - Consensual Male Supremacy? (3/18/2015 5:55:14 AM)
[:D][:)][:D][:)][:)][:)][sm=alien.gif][sm=alien.gif] TEN PAGES! OP- Why are you using a different term than just a regular D/s relationship between to straight people? I mean aren't you viewing this as the same thing? Why do you view this as your "first" CMS relationship when you've had plenty of straight D/s relationships before? Is this just the first time you've thought men were biologically better? To me- yah, I can pick a dude to defer to. Do I believe in CMS? No. I certainly think a hetero normative D/s relationship with traditional roles is fine. But there are plenty of women in the world I feel I could defer to also- because I'm bi. So that eliminates from this "kink" completely? I just don't understand what the differences is- despite having asked several times- I'm still not satisfied with the answer. I feel like you're putting a pig in lipstick for no good reason. This is, in my opinion, just a normal D/s relationship. Except I guess you now believe men are biologically superior? So...then...sexism? But its ok cause you don't force it on others? So I shouldn't view it as that? Even if I do...

satanscharmer -> RE: Bit Controversial - Consensual Male Supremacy? (3/18/2015 6:44:40 AM)
FR- This is how I'm taking the differences here: D/s relationship: I'm submissive, I need a dominant to lead me. I happen to be a straight female, so the dominant will be male. Consensual Male Supremacy: To me, men should be in power. I need a man to lead me. I realize not everyone will agree with this, but it is how I view the world for my personal relationships. Male Supremacy: All power positions should be held by men, not women. It is all dependent on the thinking behind the actions. The first two sound similar, but there is a slight difference in thinking. Same with the last two. Am I close, OP?

shiftyw -> RE: Bit Controversial - Consensual Male Supremacy? (3/18/2015 7:19:47 AM)
SC- that is what I'm getting at. Thank you for laying it out like that.

CreativeDominant -> RE: Bit Controversial - Consensual Male Supremacy? (3/18/2015 7:57:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: shiftyw But Michael- Is that supremacy? Or just a personal dynamic preference? There's a difference between "I think men are better than women" and "I think men are better at leading my relationships" One implies a belief in supremacy, the other doesn't. But...why can't she hold the viewpoint that men are better at leading relationships? Not just hers...but relationships in general. And why does that belief carry any more danger to the outside world than a belief in the rightness of a D/s relationship? If a person is able to divorce themselves from the belief in D/s in order to function in the outside world...as Michael and I gave examples of above...why would they not be able to divorce themselves from this belief?

DaddySatyr -> RE: Bit Controversial - Consensual Male Supremacy? (3/18/2015 10:07:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant If a person is able to divorce themselves from the belief in D/s in order to function in the outside world...as Michael and I gave examples of above...why would they not be able to divorce themselves from this belief? I think, on some level, the one being led *has to* hold *some kind* of "supremacy" view and I'll expand on this, again: While it is a pretty individual thing (people that identify as submissive don't just give themselves to the particular gender), it's also true that if someone claims to be submissive (as opposed to a "kinkster"/BDSMer), they start off, in places like this where they'll meet like-minded individuals. In other words, a heterosexual submissive lady is LOOKING to give herself to a (the RIGHT) dominant man. If a submissive lady gives herself to a submissive (or 'nilla) man, they run the risk of that guy not viewing relationships (generally; not each specific relationship, per se) the same way that she does. If her partner won't lead, how can she submit? I would go so far as to say that a submissive *expects* leadership from a dominant. You know what they say about a person that allows themselves to be led by a fool? Again, it is a matter of some particulars; a lady isn't going to submit to me, if she thinks relationships should be strictly monogamous, but she also wouldn't be *looking* for a dominant man, if she didn't believe that a man *should* be the boss/head of household/master/whatever. As for your other question: quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant If a person is able to divorce themselves from the belief in D/s in order to function in the outside world...as Michael and I gave examples of above...why would they not be able to divorce themselves from this belief? I know the answer to this, in this particular instance, but I'll not share it publicly. Contact me, on the other side, if you like. Michael

DerangedUnit -> RE: Bit Controversial - Consensual Male Supremacy? (3/18/2015 10:24:08 AM)
People actually think that being dominant makes you a superior person?

GoddessManko -> RE: Bit Controversial - Consensual Male Supremacy? (3/18/2015 10:26:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant quote: ORIGINAL: shiftyw But Michael- Is that supremacy? Or just a personal dynamic preference? There's a difference between "I think men are better than women" and "I think men are better at leading my relationships" One implies a belief in supremacy, the other doesn't. But...why can't she hold the viewpoint that men are better at leading relationships? Not just hers...but relationships in general. And why does that belief carry any more danger to the outside world than a belief in the rightness of a D/s relationship? If a person is able to divorce themselves from the belief in D/s in order to function in the outside world...as Michael and I gave examples of above...why would they not be able to divorce themselves from this belief? Agreed.

GotSteel -> RE: Bit Controversial - Consensual Male Supremacy? (3/18/2015 10:30:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: shiftyw Although- GotSteel IS into chastity and this thread was started by someone with the screen name orgasmdenial...has this been a long con troll? o_o Certainly not on my end, if I create a sock to troll he will be named Straw Man and he will be hilarious. Incidentally orgasm denial, edging and orgasm control are all relatively popular female fetishes that are frequently practiced together. However, unlike the male side of things chastity typically does not make it into that mix. To the point that there have been women around here into orgasm denial that are offended by/highly condescending toward chastity. Female chastity hasn't been a very popular US fetish, I think largely because of hardware issues. With the recent advent of entry level chastity belts for women I've been watching the fetish gain popularity so: [sm=cute.gif]YAY![sm=cute.gif] But we have a LONG way to go to catch up to male chastity.

GotSteel -> RE: Bit Controversial - Consensual Male Supremacy? (3/18/2015 10:55:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant But...why can't she hold the viewpoint that men are better at leading relationships? Not just hers...but relationships in general. And why does that belief carry any more danger to the outside world than a belief in the rightness of a D/s relationship? It seems to me that sexism is still more acceptable than other forms of prejudice around here, to the point that a number of people don't even see it. As such I have an exercise that might make things more clear, take these pro-gender bias arguments, cross out men and women and write in....let's say white and black. Like this: [̶q̶u̶o̶t̶e̶]̶O̶R̶I̶G̶I̶N̶A̶L̶:̶ ̶ ̶C̶r̶e̶a̶t̶i̶v̶e̶D̶o̶m̶i̶n̶a̶n̶t̶ But...why can't she hold the viewpoint that m̶e̶n̶ whites are better at leading relationships? Not just hers...but relationships in general. And why does that belief carry any more danger to the outside world than a belief in the rightness of a D/s relationship? [̶/̶q̶u̶o̶t̶e̶]̶ Now are you able to immediately articulate the harm? If so just take your response, cross out black and white, write in men and women and you'll be where we are.

Page: << < prev 8 9 [10] 11 12 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875