RE: Bit Controversial - Consensual Male Supremacy?

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

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

Message

DominantWoman65 -> RE: Bit Controversial - Consensual Male Supremacy? (3/26/2015 7:59:24 PM)
In my eyes the foundation of my relationship is just like any other dynamic, because I enjoy pain and blowing my mate doesn't change my leadership abilities or character.

JVoV -> RE: Bit Controversial - Consensual Male Supremacy? (3/26/2015 8:05:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GoddessManko To be honest I'm more fascinated with why or how a Dominant would choose to be topped/allow themselves to be topped and how to regain the Dominant headspace towards the same individual. My lack of understanding there is equivalent to your own towards Dominance/Superiority/Supremacy of either gender. I think you can enjoy what others perceive as acts of submission and still remain completely Dominant, and fully in control of the dynamic.

DominantWoman65 -> RE: Bit Controversial - Consensual Male Supremacy? (3/26/2015 8:12:41 PM)
Shifty, thank you for trying to understand my dynamic. I happen to be in a d/d relationship and both of us happen to be sadists... You know, it works for the both of us. As I stated before, our relationship began and is prioritized by that of a man and woman first, our kinks come secondary. If I enjoy bottoming for my mate, it's because I want to and it empowers me. because someone can't grasp that concept because it differs from their ideas of dominance, that's not my issue.

shiftyw -> RE: Bit Controversial - Consensual Male Supremacy? (3/26/2015 8:15:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DominantWoman65 Shifty, thank you for trying to understand my dynamic. I happen to be in a d/d relationship and both of us happen to be sadists... You know, it works for the both of us. As I stated before, our relationship began and is prioritized by that of a man and woman first, our kinks come secondary. If I enjoy bottoming for my mate, it's because I want to and it empowers me. because someone can't grasp that concept because it differs from their ideas of dominance, that's not my issue. Thanks for explaining that further.

GoddessManko -> RE: Bit Controversial - Consensual Male Supremacy? (3/26/2015 8:16:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DominantWoman65 In my eyes the foundation of my relationship is just like any other dynamic, because I enjoy pain and blowing my mate doesn't change my leadership abilities or character. I feel the same way, or in my case "my sexual choices". This is just the norm for me. Same as for my collared. Being owned, being in service, keeping me happy/being my "slave". There's a lot about me I haven't revealed on this thread but it all keeps things in perspective for me. I am on the forums to learn because I thought for a long time many others did things the same as me because it was natural for me and initially was dismissive/confused by what many had to say. I took no classes, I read no books, I just learned about as many kinks as I could and wanted simply to explore all of those on my list and did. It comes from sheer enjoyment and naught more and I do make my subs' lives better. Many men say they thrive under female leadership, it is what they NEED. They know they need leadership because they feel incomplete without it. It scares and excites them. They know this desire is taboo so often they run from it, so I embrace it and let them know it's OK to feel that way and that they need to stop making their excuses and seize happiness. They NEED female directives in order to do that. Just how it is. I find the differences in the kinkosphere fascinating rather than abhorrent. Something that would lead to an emergency room visit/death is a whole other ball of wax and I haven't come remotely close to either of those so I don't see the harm in the way I play/live. I like taking risks, life is about having memorable moments. ETA; In a nutshell, when a sub male says "I can't" it's really a cry for help. Especially when voicing these concerns to a female Dominant. They are seeking reassurance that their desires are OK.

Kaliko -> RE: Bit Controversial - Consensual Male Supremacy? (3/26/2015 8:43:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dreamlady Who have you been arguing with? Because nobody has once disrespected anything you've stated, or attacked you or your posts. No one has demeaned you or your position, or insinuated that you need anybody else's permission in terms of your right to hold Male Supremacist views, nor that of your Dom, or come out and said to you personally that your way of thinking is an "error on your part." So I have to wonder why you feel as though your character is being attacked? I don't agree with the statement, "A belief in supremacy is unrelated to an individual's ethical beliefs." You don't agree with what some other posters, including myself, have been emphasizing in terms of the cornerstone of mutual consent and how harboring a Supremacist ideology precludes or negates the concept of ubiquitous consent. Argue as in make a case for. And I wrote that post because you specifically asked me if I was referring to consensual supremacy. So I tried to explain in a different way why I was not, since I must not have been clear if you're asking the question. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: Kaliko This thread is evidence of how people can think so differently about what being open-minded means. How open-minded are you about Female Supremacy then? Is not a Supremacist belief system a paradox in itself, to be tolerant of those who hold an opposing belief than your own, when Superiority/inferiority axes get reversed and you and yours find yourselves on the flipside. DreamLady I have no opinion when it comes to female supremacy. It doesn't enter my radar. Which is probably fine, since female supremacists probably aren't seeking out my approval. And yet, we manage to coexist. :)

shiftyw -> RE: Bit Controversial - Consensual Male Supremacy? (3/26/2015 9:03:17 PM)
Do you vote? Do you make employment decisions? Would you impart this belief on a child if you have one?

GoddessManko -> RE: Bit Controversial - Consensual Male Supremacy? (3/26/2015 9:05:44 PM)
Here is the thing shifty. My silence up until now was for a reason. It was to learn and understand all of you as well. My reason for embracing Female Supremacy is to let male submission as well be glorified as something to embrace. We all have our reasons you see.

sexyred1 -> RE: Bit Controversial - Consensual Male Supremacy? (3/26/2015 9:55:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dreamlady quote: ORIGINAL: Kaliko . . . but I believe from the beginning I've been arguing that I shouldn't need anyone's consent to believe in male superiority. (Superiority/Supremacy - I have my reasons for using them interchangeably.) So no, I'm not speaking of a closed-loop dynamic. In fact, I'm not speaking of a dynamic, at all. I'm just talking about what goes on in my head. Who have you been arguing with? Because nobody has once disrespected anything you've stated, or attacked you or your posts. No one has demeaned you or your position, or insinuated that you need anybody else's permission in terms of your right to hold Male Supremacist views, nor that of your Dom, or come out and said to you personally that your way of thinking is an "error on your part." So I have to wonder why you feel as though your character is being attacked? I don't agree with the statement, "A belief in supremacy is unrelated to an individual's ethical beliefs." You don't agree with what some other posters, including myself, have been emphasizing in terms of the cornerstone of mutual consent and how harboring a Supremacist ideology precludes or negates the concept of ubiquitous consent. quote: ORIGINAL: Kaliko This thread is evidence of how people can think so differently about what being open-minded means. How open-minded are you about Female Supremacy then? Is not a Supremacist belief system a paradox in itself, to be tolerant of those who hold an opposing belief than your own, when Superiority/inferiority axes get reversed and you and yours find yourselves on the flipside. DreamLady Don't bother trying to get an explanation. This thread is filled with people who cannot concisely get an opinion across without it devolving into a novel. Look, it's obvious that this topic of male supremacy really pushes some individual's buttons, and that makes someone defensive. You can tell who is getting offended and who isn't. I don't care if someone thinks men are superior, blue or green. You just have to own it. This thread died a long time ago and I am curious to see just how much more a dead horse can be beaten.

sexyred1 -> RE: Bit Controversial - Consensual Male Supremacy? (3/26/2015 9:59:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GoddessManko quote: ORIGINAL: dreamlady How open-minded are you about Female Supremacy then? Is not a Supremacist belief system a paradox in itself, to be tolerant of those who hold an opposing belief than your own, when Superiority/inferiority axes get reversed and you and yours find yourselves on the flipside. DreamLady To be honest I'm more fascinated with why or how a Dominant would choose to be topped/allow themselves to be topped and how to regain the Dominant headspace towards the same individual. My lack of understanding there is equivalent to your own towards Dominance/Superiority/Supremacy of either gender. Not really. Being topped is an action. Gender supremacy is a belief.

Lucylastic -> RE: Bit Controversial - Consensual Male Supremacy? (3/26/2015 10:03:18 PM)
quote: Not really. Being topped is an action. Gender supremacy is a belief. Perfect n succinct!

sexyred1 -> RE: Bit Controversial - Consensual Male Supremacy? (3/26/2015 10:05:14 PM)
Yes, I could write a huge amount, but prefer to cut to the chase. [:)]

shiftyw -> RE: Bit Controversial - Consensual Male Supremacy? (3/26/2015 10:07:46 PM)
Do it some more- it's hot. [;)]

sexyred1 -> RE: Bit Controversial - Consensual Male Supremacy? (3/26/2015 10:12:09 PM)
Oh, I will! [:D]

Awareness -> RE: Bit Controversial - Consensual Male Supremacy? (3/26/2015 10:40:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dreamlady I have to ask you (and Kaliko) this, though, are you speaking about Male Supremacy en toto or about orgasmdenial12's emphasis on Consensual Male Supremacy? Because what she had taken great pains to describe and to clarify, to her credit, is an insular or closed-loop relationship dynamic as she perceives it. I don't think there is a single poster who has come forth to say that they have an issue with what a couple mutually consents to do or how they choose to practice their M/f or F/m relationship dynamic. What issues have been raised by others, including myself, are real-world factual, non-fantasy BDSM roleplay scening manifestations of Supremacist-driven beliefs which by the peculiar nature of this belief system does not stay self-contained in an insular bubble in many instances. You may ascribe this to hyperbole, which is your right to your opinion, NookieNotes can see any dissenting opinions as butthurt all she likes also. I must come from an older generation where the WWII Holocaust was not such a dim memory in the annals of history, who came in contact with actual Holocaust survivors who were regarded as subhuman species by Supremacist ideologies and thereupon set aside for mass extermination. In more modern times, there have been genocidal atrocities committed in Bosnia, in Rwanda, and in the Sudan to this day. Even Apartheid was a "milder" form of oppressive Supremacist thinking, duly implemented. At this point you're straying perilously close to Godwin's law. You're also guilty of oversimplifying complex historical events by attempting to boil them down to "supremacist thinking" when in reality, the events to which you refer are anything but simple. quote: I'll stop there, lest I be accused of "hyperbole" and "butthurt" for reporting verifiable worldwide events stemming from the Superior/inferior Supremacist mindset, either permitted by those who passively look the other way - detachedly, or don't want to get themselves involved - or else once mobilized into a popularly organized movement where mutual consent is not applicable. That's pretty much the problem. Geopolitics is more about the competition between nations for resources. The Nazis were motivated by both political and philosophical ideology, yet their use of the Jews as a scapegoat was founded in pure political expediency. Focusing the populace on "the enemy within" is a time-honoured technique which has nothing to do with supremacy and everything to do with manipulation of the masses. And the Nazis taught the Americans everything they know about PR. It is absolutely no coincidence that the Nuremberg rallies and the Democratic and Republican conventions look eerily similar. quote: I am curious to know, if you don't mind my asking, about the history of your own country New Zealand, and how aboriginal peoples are treated or whether they are seen as inferiors there, as has been reported for centuries in your neighboring country of Australia. Well I'm Australian, but the Maori peoples of New Zealand are an interesting case because the British saw them as "the noble savage". Noble savages were considered our non-Christian brothers that might be brought to salvation. (From memory, the sole defining characteristic for this categorisation was the fact that the Maori engaged in trade.) The Australian aborigines are a vastly different case. For one, the number of Aboriginal languages originally numbered in the hundreds, although less than 150 are left today. So there was no actual nation with which to negotiate. Indeed, how CAN you negotiate when every aboriginal social group you encounter uses a different language? The history of indigenous Australia is pretty much the history of any indigenous culture when confronted with a vastly technologically superior and socially complex society. They were alternately killed, assimilated and patronised. Having said that, some of the activity was related to what people saw as their Christian obligation. (The Stolen Generation issue is complex and not as - pardon the pun - black and white as people think). quote: Quite often historically, the women are exploited sexually and stripped of basic human rights, both for being viewed as an inferior race and for their femaleness. No, that's pretty much the fate of any conquered people. The Vikings were rather fond of rape, pillage and plunder and many cultures have carried women off as chattels. That purely comes down to people enforcing their will upon those who are weaker. To the victor go the spoils. Attempting to dress it up as anything more complex than that is really over-thinking it.

GoddessManko -> RE: Bit Controversial - Consensual Male Supremacy? (3/26/2015 11:29:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic quote: Not really. Being topped is an action. Gender supremacy is a belief. Perfect n succinct! I know that. It is very strange you think this is some sort of revelation. You're not even getting why this entire thread falls flat. My silence up until now was for a reason. It was to learn and understand all of you as well. My reason for embracing Female Supremacy is to let male submission as well be glorified as something to embrace. We all have our reasons you see. LOL! Why are you not getting such a simple point and well, moving on? Also say what you will, but we have labels and definitions for a reason, Sadists enjoy giving pain, masochists enjoy receiving. Bottoms are topped. Tops are bottomed. Ds dominate, subs submit. In my mind there is a natural order of things but I guess for others there's a lot of grey area.

dreamlady -> RE: Bit Controversial - Consensual Male Supremacy? (3/27/2015 12:52:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Awareness quote: ORIGINAL: dreamlady I am curious to know, if you don't mind my asking, about the history of your own country New Zealand, and how aboriginal peoples are treated or whether they are seen as inferiors there, as has been reported for centuries in your neighboring country of Australia. Well I'm Australian, but the Maori peoples of New Zealand are an interesting case because the British saw them as "the noble savage". Noble savages were considered our non-Christian brothers that might be brought to salvation. (From memory, the sole defining characteristic for this categorisation was the fact that the Maori engaged in trade.) The Australian aborigines are a vastly different case. For one, the number of Aboriginal languages originally numbered in the hundreds, although less than 150 are left today. So there was no actual nation with which to negotiate. Indeed, how CAN you negotiate when every aboriginal social group you encounter uses a different language? The history of indigenous Australia is pretty much the history of any indigenous culture when confronted with a vastly technologically superior and socially complex society. They were alternately killed, assimilated and patronised. Having said that, some of the activity was related to what people saw as their Christian obligation. (The Stolen Generation issue is complex and not as - pardon the pun - black and white as people think). Impo, this is the most interesting subject of this thread, having to do with history and anthropology. As for the earlier portion of your post, without over-simplification, we couldn't even begin to broach many complexities without going wildly (further) off topic. quote: ORIGINAL: Awareness quote: ORIGINAL: dreamlady Quite often historically, the women are exploited sexually and stripped of basic human rights, both for being viewed as an inferior race and for their femaleness. No, that's pretty much the fate of any conquered people. The Vikings were rather fond of rape, pillage and plunder and many cultures have carried women off as chattels. That purely comes down to people enforcing their will upon those who are weaker. To the victor go the spoils. Attempting to dress it up as anything more complex than that is really over-thinking it. Well, I was specifically referring to indigenous/aboriginal peoples, because they are more likely to be considered of an "inferior" race, not just any conquered nation or confederation of tribes. Further, the difference between looking down on "heathens" and holding Supremacist beliefs is that heathens can be converted, welcomed into the fold and assimilated, in theory ideally if not in practice. There are no opportunities for peerage or gaining citizenship with Supremacists. Among gender Supremacists, one cannot seamlessly metamorphosize into the "Superior" gender. Among racial Supremacists, one cannot change one's ethnic origin, in the same manner that one could become a citizen of the Roman Empire. DreamLady

NookieNotes -> RE: Bit Controversial - Consensual Male Supremacy? (3/27/2015 2:56:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GoddessManko To be honest I'm more fascinated with why or how a Dominant would choose to be topped/allow themselves to be topped and how to regain the Dominant headspace towards the same individual. My lack of understanding there is equivalent to your own towards Dominance/Superiority/Supremacy of either gender. In my world, there is no regain, because there is no loss. Topping/bottoming are actions. Not thought. Perhaps look at it this way: Hypothetically for you, a blow job is not something your would do. You see it as bottoming. Therefore, if you gave a blow job, it would be coercive. For me, a blow job is something I love. I love the power it gives me over my lovers. The ability to make them react to me, to hold their most important sexual bits inside of me, and do what I chose with it. I can tease it and deny it, or take it all the way, giving them a release that I CHOOSE to grant. Therefore, when I give a blow job, it's because I want to. Even when he has released and is sensitive, I may continue, just to torture him further. It is my cock, my body, I can do as I want with them. It's no different than my Hitachi. I may use it to give me pleasure in any way I see fit, because I own it. It's mine. If I don't like how it is giving me pleasure, I redirect it, or put it away. I never lose my dominance bottoming to my Hitachi. In the hypothetical world I created for you, there, because of coercion, you would have a loss of dominance. In my world, I do what I want, so I never lose dominance. Because I am leading. I do not lose that lead, because if it ever goes in a direction I am not happy with, I stop the scene/activity/whatever, or lead it in another direction. quote: ORIGINAL: shiftyw Correct me if I'm wrong DominantWoman but I think DominantWoman means- if she wants to blow her sub thats HER decision- and the sub is going to get blown. If she tells the sub to hit her with the flogger cause maybe she has a maso streak but prefers being dominant- why can't her sub service top her? Is he not just doing as she asks still? When is she relinquishing power? This is also a viable version of a dynamic. quote: ORIGINAL: Awareness quote: ORIGINAL: dreamlady Quite often historically, the women are exploited sexually and stripped of basic human rights, both for being viewed as an inferior race and for their femaleness. No, that's pretty much the fate of any conquered people. The Vikings were rather fond of rape, pillage and plunder and many cultures have carried women off as chattels. That purely comes down to people enforcing their will upon those who are weaker. To the victor go the spoils. Attempting to dress it up as anything more complex than that is really over-thinking it. Actually, there is something to be said about this that just came to mind... Women ARE exploited sexually and stripped of basic human rights for their femaleness. NOT because they are viewed as inferior, but because if you want to conquer a people, conquer their heart and soul - the women who give birth and raise the next generation. Also, there is something to be said for physically abusing the core of a woman's sexuality that can strip the life, fight and joy out of her. Again, that helps make the whole conquering business that much easier, when you've just cowed 50% (or more) of the adult population of the conquered peoples, oh, and again, passing that on to the next generation, many of whom are now conqueror's bastards. So, in that light, it makes sense to exploit women sexually and damage their core, not because they are inferior, but because they are a threat, otherwise, and reason to fear.

NookieNotes -> RE: Bit Controversial - Consensual Male Supremacy? (3/27/2015 2:58:17 AM)
Edited for inadvertent self-quote. [:)]

Awareness -> RE: Bit Controversial - Consensual Male Supremacy? (3/27/2015 3:12:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NookieNotes Actually, there is something to be said about this that just came to mind... Women ARE exploited sexually and stripped of basic human rights for their femaleness. NOT because they are viewed as inferior, but because if you want to conquer a people, conquer their heart and soul - the women who give birth and raise the next generation. Also, there is something to be said for physically abusing the core of a woman's sexuality that can strip the life, fight and joy out of her. Again, that helps make the whole conquering business that much easier, when you've just cowed 50% (or more) of the adult population of the conquered peoples, oh, and again, passing that on to the next generation, many of whom are now conqueror's bastards. So, in that light, it makes sense to exploit women sexually and damage their core, not because they are inferior, but because they are a threat, otherwise, and reason to fear. Oh no. There's no need for that. You just rape the men. This is what's happening in the Congo. An astonishingly high percentage of the men are being raped. Guess what happens then? The guy's shell-shocked and then his woman dumps him because she decides that if he can't protect himself, he can't protect her, so he's useless. Ironically, Western aid agencies have a presence there to help women who're victims of conflict rape. Nobody has a presence there to help the men. They just get turned away.

Page: << < prev 17 18 [19] 20 21 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625