quote:

ORIGINAL: Noah

quote:

ORIGINAL: crouchingtigress

This question is not to offend anyone, please, it is only that little hamster on his wheel in my brain working over time...

Which, as a rule, have you found in your experience to be more arrogant and more wind-baggy, less able to take constructive criticism, and more likely to get a puffy chest? Male Dominants or Female Dominants.

edited to add: i know there are great folks on both sides...i know there are asses on both sides....but do you have an opinion as to which if you HAD to choose?


and if you have any thoughts on why you think that is, id love to hear 'em

If broad generalizations are the soup of the day, why limit the menu to Tops?, why don't we rehash all the old conversations about blacks and whites; Jews and gentiles; gays and straights?

Isn't that what some people believe, that as soon as you name a category of millions of people you have a license to forget that they are individual people and just treat them in your thoughts and perhaps in your actions as an amorphous mass entity?

Honest, crouchingtigress, maybe you could mix some cocktails for the poor little hamster; give him a day off that way. Better, read a good book; listen to some great music; go sit and talk with an elder whose wisdom probably goes generally untapped. Stimulate that rodent (the hamster, not the elder) with ideas or feelings really worth exploring. Or, just go for a walk in the fresh air and practice gaining control over an unproductively overactive mind (which I take to be what's indicated by your choice of the hamster-on-a-wheel-going-nowhere metaphor.)

One can characterize large groups, as such, in an actuarial sort of way if one has access to large amounts of data, carefully collected, and then uses great care in the characterizing. Even the most careful usage of this sort of approach smudges and blurs what is uniquely valuable about individuals in the group. If that cost is paid to get, say, good data for a study designed to fight disease I think it is a fine price to pay and I'm all in favor of it. But if we're generalizing just for the sake of generalizing ... well I just don't get it. That isn't some sort of veiled accusation. That is me telling you something about me.

Finding out that Eddie has met six wind baggy Dommes and three wind baggy Doms whereas Susie has met twelve wind baggy Doms and four wind baggy Dommes doesn't provide the basis for any actuarial conclusion. It could be used by someone as justification for some broad prejudice in favor or organist one of the groups,I suppose. I just don't see what good can come of it.

Why even try to start a conversationcustom-made to elicit broad generalizations about two groups which each include millions of genuine, individual, unique people?

I'm wrong a lot. I learn new things every day. I'll look back in to this thread eventually to see whether my own stated prejudice about this topic is shown to have been unjustified. Along the way though, if anyone would care to explain why they think going in that a topic like this is worth going in to I'd be interested to hear.

Maybe one productive topic arising from the same inspiration could be: "If your mind sometimes feels like a hamster on a wheel, what have you learned to do in response and have you found a way for kink to play a part in it for you?"

I don't know, you know? I'm just sayin'.

Thanks