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? (3/19/2015 10:30:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: shiftyw Is this just the first time you've thought men were biologically better? I have never said that men were better, biologically or otherwise, than women. I have said: quote: ORIGINAL: orgasmdenial12 I was asking more about male supremacy (i.e. power and control) rather superiority, which is a whole other kettle of fish. I don't think I would be comfortable arguing that men are superior to women, since its too generalised and too open to debate. It's certainly not something I personally believe, although I can see that there'd be a lot of cross over between the two viewpoints. quote: ORIGINAL: orgasmdenial12 I never stated that I saw men as better than women (male superiority) or that their roles were more important. In fact, I never made any comment on the relative importance of traditional male or female roles quote: ORIGINAL: orgasmdenial12 I think that there are several levels of confusion here; one is the difference between superiority and supremacy. Superiority talks about something being better or worth more than another thing. Supremacy talks about who has power in a situation i.e. 'supreme leader'. quote: ORIGINAL: orgasmdenial12 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. And then you reply: quote: ORIGINAL: shiftyw I guess you now believe men are biologically superior? face - palm

shiftyw -> RE: Bit Controversial - Consensual Male Supremacy? (3/19/2015 10:33:35 AM)
Clearly I don't understand why you consider a male as a leader for you personally a belief in male supremacy.

GoddessManko -> RE: Bit Controversial - Consensual Male Supremacy? (3/19/2015 10:48:05 AM)
It makes sense for some women to believe men are naturally born leaders. Every president we have had has been male, most CEOS of Fortune 500 companies are male, most science and engineering majors are male. There is logic behind individual viewpoints. Historically men have always led well. Cleopatra brought an end to the Ptolemy Dynasty however I can also point to Elizabeth the I, Joan of Arc and even modern day women, many of them as reasons I believe in female supremacy. There is logic behind each viewpoint, it just depends on how open minded you are. I think it's awesome to pursue a male led relationship with the premise that men are better leaders, you can confidently embrace your role and that's a really great mental space to have. As you can see, neither viewpoint comes from the negative place you believe it derives.

shiftyw -> RE: Bit Controversial - Consensual Male Supremacy? (3/19/2015 11:00:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: orgasmdenial12 quote: ORIGINAL: shiftyw We aren't concerned about what one person thinks is right for their relationship. We are concerned about what one person thinks is right for all relationships. Please show me where I have said that CMS is right for all relationships. You didn't. I was using that to try to clear up the confusion of what GotSteel and I were saying wasn't ok. Because several posters are still acting like we are trying to tell people what is ok for their personal relationships, neither of us are- we are trying to figure out when this "belief system" ends.

shiftyw -> RE: Bit Controversial - Consensual Male Supremacy? (3/19/2015 11:03:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: orgasmdenial12 quote: ORIGINAL: shiftyw If I came in here and said "I believe male rape should be legal. But I swear up and down its never effected my day to day life and I've never been involved with actual male rape- so who cares cause I just think it! Its an extension of my sexuality and its a kink! and its not role play!" I'm pretty damn sure I'd hear about all the reasons that opinion/belief was totally fucked. If any person came on here and attempted to discuss fantasies of outright non-consent (as opposed to consensual non-consent, obviously) then I would expect them to be challenged. Since my post clearly stated that both my beliefs and fantasies were entirely consensual then it is completely different to rape and I really think you are muddying the waters by comparing it to that. It's like me saying 'It's my belief that consensual sex consensually started by consensual partners, consensually, is consensually okay' and you crying 'down with rape!' It's like - what's rape got to do with it? This was also not directed at you.

orgasmdenial12 -> RE: Bit Controversial - Consensual Male Supremacy? (3/19/2015 11:04:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dreamlady In your tight circle of Male Supremacists, where does does middle gender fall? Transgenders? Hermaphrodites? [...] Does a cis female who internally identifies as a male get to join the Male Supremacist club? I have a lot of friends and a lot of different groups of friends. I have friends from where I used to live and friends from where I live now, I have one circle of friends that goes to one munch and one circle of friends that goes to another play party. I have a vanilla circle of friends. The point is, I don't have just one 'tight knit circle of Male Supremacists' - I don't have only one way of being. Nobody does, we all have different roles with different people. None of my transgender friends have expressed any interest in male supremacy (there may be good reasons for that, given their particular perspective) but if they did, I would have no problem with them wanting to join in based on whichever gender they identified with, and I can't see that anyone else would have any problem with it either. The more the merrier. quote: ORIGINAL: dreamlady What about male crossdressers who don't identify as females, but who emulate their attire if not mannerisms? And vice versa. I can't speak for all male cross dressers but the ones I know identify strongly as male and wouldn't want to be treated as a woman. If they wanted to do the CMS thing but dressed as a woman, I'd have no problem with that. My beardy friend looks hot in his Star Trek dress and knee boots ;-) quote: ORIGINAL: dreamlady Do Male Supremacists believe that a gay couple is more entitled than a lesbian couple is? I can't speak for 'Male Supremacists' in general, I can only speak for myself. I don't believe that men are better than women, so why would I think a male couple is more 'entitled' than a female couple? quote: ORIGINAL: dreamlady How do you/they view homosexuality and bisexuality? Is it seen as an affront to the "natural order" of gender sexuality expression? Erm, no? I have already posted about this. quote: ORIGINAL: orgasmdenial12 Am I comfortable with lecturing men or women on what their gender personalities or roles should be? No, because variety is the spice of life and everyone should get the chance to explore their own version of the ideal relationship. I feel like you're trying to paint me as a biological essentialist (or reductionist), which is not something I believe in. I believe in everyone freely, happily, consensually exploring their sexuality and preferred relationship structure. I do not believe that personality is bound or fixed by gender (or nature, for that matter - I'm more 'nurture' inclined). Once again: quote: ORIGINAL: orgasmdenial12 I suppose to summarise, for me, CMS is not about what people should do, it is more about what people probably will do

GoddessManko -> RE: Bit Controversial - Consensual Male Supremacy? (3/19/2015 11:18:01 AM)
I agree with what tiggerspoohbear and others have said, live and let live and all that. It scares me to have this level of judgement towards kinks/beliefs. We can't go around telling littles wearing a diaper is wrong if it makes them happy. If they want to be an adult baby so be it, there's no reason to tie it into societal status quo.

GotSteel -> RE: Bit Controversial - Consensual Male Supremacy? (3/19/2015 11:32:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: orgasmdenial12 CMS is not sexism, any more than s&m is abuse. The difference is consent. Comparing a consensual power exchange to a system of non-consensual structural oppression is both misleading and disingenuous. We're in agreement on that. From my very first post in the thread: quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel Considering the way we abuse words in other forms of roleplay around here: "slave", "forced", "pet", "puppy", "daddy", "schoolgirl", etc. I'm not inclined to be a strict dictionary lawyer when it comes to peoples fetish roleplays. The only word I'll be a stickler on is consent. As long as it's consensual, as in the people exposed to the sentiments of supremacy/inferiority have all specifically agreed to be involved shrug then it's none of my business.

GotSteel -> RE: Bit Controversial - Consensual Male Supremacy? (3/19/2015 12:56:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel Prejudice reliably results in discrimination, the harm caused by this predictable result is why prejudice has such a stigma. quote: ORIGINAL: Kaliko Everybody has thoughts about other people based on various bits of information, though. My mother thinks anyone west of the east coast is a hick. My brother thinks that democrats are idiots. My brother-in-law thinks gay men are ridiculous. Everybody puts others into some kind of category, even if that category is "Yeah, she's okay." What makes this designation in my head any better or worse than any other? The harm. quote: ORIGINAL: Kaliko Because it has the potential to be oppressive? Yes, the near certain potential since being stranded on a deserted island is actually quite rare. quote: ORIGINAL: Kaliko That could be said of anything... No it can't, ideas have to be fairly malignant to reliably cause harm. Which is why sexism bares a stigma which ideas in general do not. quote: ORIGINAL: Kaliko ....if I choose to act with hate about it. Sexism does not require hate to cause harm.

CreativeDominant -> RE: Bit Controversial - Consensual Male Supremacy? (3/19/2015 3:28:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel Prejudice reliably results in discrimination, the harm caused by this predictable result is why prejudice has such a stigma. quote: ORIGINAL: Kaliko Everybody has thoughts about other people based on various bits of information, though. My mother thinks anyone west of the east coast is a hick. My brother thinks that democrats are idiots. My brother-in-law thinks gay men are ridiculous. Everybody puts others into some kind of category, even if that category is "Yeah, she's okay." What makes this designation in my head any better or worse than any other? The harm. quote: ORIGINAL: Kaliko Because it has the potential to be oppressive? Yes, the near certain potential since being stranded on a deserted island is actually quite rare. quote: ORIGINAL: Kaliko That could be said of anything... No it can't, ideas have to be fairly malignant to reliably cause harm. Which is why sexism bares a stigma which ideas in general do not. quote: ORIGINAL: Kaliko ....if I choose to act with hate about it. Sexism does not require hate to cause harm. But can we agree that it does require definative action for sexIST beliefs to become sexISM?

dreamlady -> RE: Bit Controversial - Consensual Male Supremacy? (3/19/2015 4:13:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: orgasmdenial12 quote: ORIGINAL: dreamlady In your tight circle of Male Supremacists, where does does middle gender fall? Transgenders? Hermaphrodites? [...] Does a cis female who internally identifies as a male get to join the Male Supremacist club? I have a lot of friends and a lot of different groups of friends. I have friends from where I used to live and friends from where I live now, I have one circle of friends that goes to one munch and one circle of friends that goes to another play party. I have a vanilla circle of friends. The point is, I don't have just one 'tight knit circle of Male Supremacists' - I don't have only one way of being. Nobody does, we all have different roles with different people. None of my transgender friends have expressed any interest in male supremacy (there may be good reasons for that, given their particular perspective) but if they did, I would have no problem with them wanting to join in based on whichever gender they identified with, and I can't see that anyone else would have any problem with it either. The more the merrier. Of course, the "group" of couples to which you had referred before isn't the only circles you travel in. My questions pertained to those of your friends who are also Consensual Male Supremacists like yourself and your husband. After all, you wouldn't be the one making these decisions, would you, considering that you aren't in a decision-making position among your peers in that group. Or among your superiors, rather. quote: ORIGINAL: orgasmdenial12 quote: ORIGINAL: dreamlady Do Male Supremacists believe that a gay couple is more entitled than a lesbian couple is? I can't speak for 'Male Supremacists' in general, I can only speak for myself. I don't believe that men are better than women, so why would I think a male couple is more 'entitled' than a female couple? Because you keep insisting that superiority (better than, outranking) has nothing to do with supremacy, but I don't buy the argument that this is the position that other CMSers take, unlike yourself. I believe you have yourself convinced that one has nothing to do with the other terminology. Not to make comparisons, but it's partly unavoidable, at least GM is not attempting to pussyfoot (no pun intended) around those words when it comes to CFS: quote: ORIGINAL: GoddessManko I understand Supremacy, to quote the definition exactly.su·prem·a·cy so͞oˈpreməsē/ noun noun: supremacy the state or condition of being superior to all others in authority, power, or status. To my sub, I am, if all women were, that also would be entirely fine. quote: ORIGINAL: orgasmdenial12 quote: ORIGINAL: dreamlady How do you/they view homosexuality and bisexuality? Is it seen as an affront to the "natural order" of gender sexuality expression? Erm, no? I have already posted about this. quote: ORIGINAL: orgasmdenial12 Am I comfortable with lecturing men or women on what their gender personalities or roles should be? No, because variety is the spice of life and everyone should get the chance to explore their own version of the ideal relationship. I feel like you're trying to paint me as a biological essentialist (or reductionist), which is not something I believe in. I believe in everyone freely, happily, consensually exploring their sexuality and preferred relationship structure. I do not believe that personality is bound or fixed by gender (or nature, for that matter - I'm more 'nurture' inclined). That isn't how I meant it and wasn't trying to paint you as having anything against non-heterosexual orientations or relations, and was aware that you had stated you saw gay marriage as being "cool" that it's legal in your country, the UK (Ref your post no.148). Including "you" in "you/they" was to not exclude your personal pov, knowing full well that you can't speak for everyone else who practices CMS. [:)] DreamLady

GotSteel -> RE: Bit Controversial - Consensual Male Supremacy? (3/19/2015 5:01:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant But can we agree that it does require definative action for sexIST beliefs to become sexISM? I think the word sexism could get defined either way but I do agree that to generate harm those thoughts must be translated into actions.

CreativeDominant -> RE: Bit Controversial - Consensual Male Supremacy? (3/19/2015 6:45:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant But can we agree that it does require definative action for sexIST beliefs to become sexISM? I think the word sexism could get defined either way but I do agree that to generate harm those thoughts must be translated into actions. And if those thoughts are shared and translated into consensual actions between partners, whether TWO OR MORE, but not visited upon others outside of these consensual actions...is there still harm being generated?

GotSteel -> RE: Bit Controversial - Consensual Male Supremacy? (3/19/2015 7:41:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant And if those thoughts are shared and translated into consensual actions between partners, whether TWO OR MORE, but not visited upon others outside of these consensual actions...is there still harm being generated? If one's thoughts of inferiority are limited to one's consenting partners there may still be harm generated (not all relationships are healthy) but there is consent which is the litmus test we typically use and it usually works pretty well as an indicator. However if one's thoughts of inferiority extend beyond one's consenting partners they will reliably translate into acts that extend beyond one's consenting partners as well because we act in accordance with not in opposition to what we believe to be true.

dreamlady -> RE: Bit Controversial - Consensual Male Supremacy? (3/19/2015 8:48:38 PM)
Ahem, lightning must have struck me twice. [:D] quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant And if those thoughts are shared and translated into consensual actions between partners, whether TWO OR MORE, but not visited upon others outside of these consensual actions...is there still harm being generated? If one's thoughts of inferiority are limited to one's consenting partners there may still be harm generated (not all relationships are healthy) but there is consent which is the litmus test we typically use and it usually works pretty well as an indicator. However if one's thoughts of inferiority extend beyond one's consenting partners they will reliably translate into acts that extend beyond one's consenting partners as well because we act in accordance with not in opposition to what we believe to be true. There are ABDL Supremacists? . . . Who would have thought. [:o] quote: ORIGINAL: GoddessManko It scares me to have this level of judgement towards kinks/beliefs. We can't go around telling littles wearing a diaper is wrong if it makes them happy. If they want to be an adult baby so be it, there's no reason to tie it into societal status quo. (You'll have to excuse my momentarily lapse into silliness, s'il vous plaît.) DreamLady

CreativeDominant -> RE: Bit Controversial - Consensual Male Supremacy? (3/20/2015 3:57:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant And if those thoughts are shared and translated into consensual actions between partners, whether TWO OR MORE, but not visited upon others outside of these consensual actions...is there still harm being generated? If one's thoughts of inferiority are limited to one's consenting partners there may still be harm generated (not all relationships are healthy) but there is consent which is the litmus test we typically use and it usually works pretty well as an indicator. However if one's thoughts of inferiority extend beyond one's consenting partners they will reliably translate into acts that extend beyond one's consenting partners as well because we act in accordance with not in opposition to what we believe to be true. But, haven't many of the arguments made against the original poster and others expressing support for her consensual actions been that these beliefs...unlike D/s or "littles"...can't be contained within a consensual pairing or group? And yet...no one has offerred up any proof that these beliefs cannot be contained. No newspaper reports or sensationalistic television coverage of these consensual actions within a D/s dynamic bleeding over into harmful actions against the outside public.

shiftyw -> RE: Bit Controversial - Consensual Male Supremacy? (3/20/2015 5:55:18 AM)
She presented it as a belief system. That's the trouble I'm having. Plus hardly anyone is disagreeing with OP anymore. I think OP means roleplay- as I think littles are roleplaying also. I don't mean that as disrespectful- to me if it goes beyond role play- it becomes harmful.

GotSteel -> RE: Bit Controversial - Consensual Male Supremacy? (3/20/2015 6:41:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant But, haven't many of the arguments made against the original poster and others expressing support for her consensual actions been that these beliefs...unlike D/s or "littles"...can't be contained within a consensual pairing or group? No ones argued against consensual "supremacy" it's "consensual" supremacy that we consider harmful. The beginning of the thread was about wondering which one we were talking about and then the OP came back and sent mixed messages with a phrasing dispute. Then while that was being resolved non-consensual supremacy also was advocated for so a chunk of the thread is about condemning that as well. quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant And yet...no one has offerred up any proof that these beliefs cannot be contained. No newspaper reports or sensationalistic television coverage of these consensual actions within a D/s dynamic bleeding over into harmful actions against the outside public. I offered a logical argument which is the closest thing to proof that's achievable. However if what you're actually mean is evidence not proof than here's some evidence (and there's plenty more): quote: ORIGINAL: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/between-the-lines/201204/studies-unconscious-bias-racism-not-always-racists According to Williams, the research shows that when people hold a negative stereotype about a group and meet someone from that group, they often treat that person differently and honestly don't even realize it. Williams noted that most Americans would object to being labeled as “racist” or even as “discriminating”, but he added, “Welcome to the human race. It is a normal process about how all of us process information. The problem for our society is that the level of negative stereotypes is very high.”

CreativeDominant -> RE: Bit Controversial - Consensual Male Supremacy? (3/20/2015 9:32:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant But, haven't many of the arguments made against the original poster and others expressing support for her consensual actions been that these beliefs...unlike D/s or "littles"...can't be contained within a consensual pairing or group? No ones argued against consensual "supremacy" it's "consensual" supremacy that we consider harmful. The beginning of the thread was about wondering which one we were talking about and then the OP came back and sent mixed messages with a phrasing dispute. Then while that was being resolved non-consensual supremacy also was advocated for so a chunk of the thread is about condemning that as well. quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant And yet...no one has offerred up any proof that these beliefs cannot be contained. No newspaper reports or sensationalistic television coverage of these consensual actions within a D/s dynamic bleeding over into harmful actions against the outside public. I offered a logical argument which is the closest thing to proof that's achievable. However if what you're actually mean is evidence not proof than here's some evidence (and there's plenty more): quote: ORIGINAL: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/between-the-lines/201204/studies-unconscious-bias-racism-not-always-racists According to Williams, the research shows that when people hold a negative stereotype about a group and meet someone from that group, they often treat that person differently and honestly don't even realize it. Williams noted that most Americans would object to being labeled as “racist” or even as “discriminating”, but he added, “Welcome to the human race. It is a normal process about how all of us process information. The problem for our society is that the level of negative stereotypes is very high.” Interesting article. One thing I noted about what Williams said was this: "We just have to learn to become aware and be willing to acknowledge our own biases and then consciously override them. Denial and professed racial color-blindness only makes things worse.". Seems as if Williams is aware that we all carry biases whether we profess them or not. Based on that, then isn't it at least possible that orgasmdenial, Manko and others of this thread...aware of their beliefs and biases...can and do consciously override these beliefs when they're out in public?

shiftyw -> RE: Bit Controversial - Consensual Male Supremacy? (3/20/2015 9:44:03 AM)
I think in order to do that- you have to accept that your bias can cause harm, even just thinking it. ETA...sorta like the use of the word "retard" earlier in this thread. but I'm the PC police so who cares.

Page: << < prev 11 12 [13] 14 15 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625