|
LadyPact -> RE: Don't Women Want The Same Things As Men? (11/7/2016 1:17:09 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Awareness
"Let them be?" - expressing your philosophical position on a message-board is not engaging in whole-sale persecution of a group. As this thread has ably demonstrated, the people you're talking about get all the support in the world. It's the contradictory opinion which is subject to intolerance. Don't you think your plea for tolerance is just a little ironic?
About the only other "group" that it's ever seemed to go over even sort of ok with people being called "weak and pathetic," oddly enough, happens to be down in P&R when it comes to religion. This hasn't been recently, though there for a while, we did have a couple of posters who happened to be atheists who happened to love telling people how little they thought of them based on faith. Something else that you'd think would be in the 'obvious support' group, but isn't always. Give it a month or so and see if we get the predictable "War on Christmas" threads.
quote:
I've made this point before though - where's the line between kink and dysfunction? Being able to find a ready suite of enablers does not mean - for example - that Dolcett is not incredibly fucked up. Because it is. And anyone who's into it is mentally fucking ill.
You do realize that, again, you went for one of the most extreme things you could come up with? It's also weird that submission should be grouped in the same category as dysfunction.
Though I don't think you're entirely incorrect in where you're trying to go with this. It's a question that most people in kink or interested in researching kink in some way end up asking themselves, because a lot of TTTWD can have blurry lines. There are a lot of kinks out there where it isn't possible to know if they are doing it as an expression of sexuality or there is something that is actually wrong. I'll even give you an easy pass here because I brought up fin kink before. If you, Kana, or RS control your s-types money in your relationship, that's not going to be considered odd by a lot of kinky people. Take the relationship out and people do it just from the fetish angle, a lot of people get their nose out of joint. Either because people think ALL of it is a scam, they claim they've ever *actually* met somebody from the bottom side (the giver of money) that is into it, (I have) or whatever problem they have with it.
At the same time, we also know there are some people who are truly so messed up in the way that they don't have the ability to form normal relationships, so they more or less bribe people into liking them (or thinking that material things) to get the other party to be beholden to them in some way. They literally don't know how to form healthy relationships of any kind (intimate, friendship, or even business associates) without doing it.
So, with all of these various things to consider, people are going to form opinions on what they *think* is healthy and what is not. Even if the just do it in their own head.
Were you around years ago when that one thread about "pro ana/pro mia as kinks" thread happened? If you weren't, look that thing up sometime. Basic idea, male Dominant was instilling anorexia in his female s-types. Again, very extreme type of thing, though many Dominants take control or have restrictions on what their s-type eats or the amount of food they eat. (Add exercise into this, because I find that to be common as well.)
This kind of list could go on and on. I do happen to think my bar on this is different than yours because I put it more in the 'need to get help' (horrible way of phrasing it, but it's the best I've got at the moment) rather than something like 'the other person just prefers me to be in charge of the relationship' area. Even my quip about, 'hey, if your kink is putting you in the hospital' isn't always perfect because if the parties are engaging in take downs/rough sex and that one time somebody lands wrong and sprains their wrist or smacks their head into the night table... Well, kind of blows that theory.
quote:
If they're 50+, then no. But at a party frequented by Peon's people, the level of intolerance will be high, simply because it's an inherently political crowd whose self-righteous outrage means they believe they're entitled to described traditional women as suffering from "internalised misogyny".
This one, I'm going to kind of blow at, because I do happen to be closer to 50 than 40, but I don't think it's just that. As you know, I did happen to grown up in small town America, so I do consider that an influence as well. I wouldn't consider myself an authority of 'is small town America still doing this twenty years later'. Most of my social encounters to be able to observe such a thing are kink related, military related, or the very small category (socially) of job related. Those things make my opinion skewed on the subject, making me unqualified to say how the Jones' family sees it.
quote:
Christ, you'll even see that here. And nobody blinks an eye at that attitude - yet an unflattering viewpoint of male subs is anathema? At the very least, that's intellectual dishonesty.
I'm not really sure that it is. Do you see the same regular attacks about female subs as you do male ones? Be intellectually honest. There would be a sh^tstorm if female subs were called weak and pathetic by female Dominants. When was the last time you saw a female Dominant getting a free pass on that?
quote:
I don't think anybody has the expectation they have a right to be a dick at a support group, but Universities are not fucking support groups and neither is the real world. Censoring discussions and littering them with trigger warnings because someone might feel bad is Orwellian thought control which leaves fragile flowers completely unprepared for the rigors of that real world.
Again, we're probably looking at this from two different views. I really don't have an issue with certain things having a trigger warning to them. It's not always as trivial as you are trying to make it sound. I don't recall ever hearing one word when "Saving Private Ryan" came out and they put a trigger warning at the beginning of the film. There are a number of threads down there in P&R about DV/IPV, which I happen to think is a good thing. At the same time, it might not be a great thing to have someone who is escaping that kind of situation to sit down and watch something like "The Tracy Thurmon Story". People heal at different rates. If people want to preach "personal responsibility" about everything, especially when it comes to something like making their own choice to avoid things that will trigger them, are those few key strokes to give them advance notice really that big of a deal?
quote:
Exactly. But let's be clear - that social standard is created and enforced by women. Even - irony of ironies - bisexual women. Yes, even bisexual women will express their distaste at the thought of bisexual men.
Irony is the perfect word, in a sense, isn't it? I'm the last person to tell anyone they have to act like the EEO when it comes to their dating life. I honestly don't give a sh^t what any person bases "not compatible with me" on.
It's times like this I *really* wish I had bookmarked that breakdown that was done in 2014 about active users on Fet. The difference in users between male and female people with accounts where bisexual or even hetero-flexible is rather significant. If I happen to find it again, I'll share. Some of it was rather interesting.
quote:
Do people actually use sexual orientation slurs here? I mean, I've made reference to Milo Yiannopolous' "Dangerous Faggot" tour, but that's an expression of Milo's politics around the evils of censorship. I know we fight here, but do people really use those kinds of slurs in relation to gay or bisexual people? I'm trying to remember someone doing it and I'm drawing a blank.
Yes, they do. Because I wanted to be precise here, I went to my own ticket list for things I have reported. On the first page alone, (because this system won't let you see past that) I reported five sexual orientation slurs out of whatever the number on the page is. Dear, ol' "Spice girl," aka "Steak and Blow Job Day" chick, did that crap regularly. The gal would get piss drunk and say some really screwed up stuff, specifically about people's sexual orientation. (Any of this ringing a bell yet?) If I recall correctly, even you had a post regarding one of her comments about a trans* person (even with your views) because she immediately went on the attack in the General section.
It is very much my opinion that the Admin here had some of that going in their brain when you posted the "Dangerous Faggot" tour thread and probably though it was going to be more of the same sh^t. I know I did. They had just dealt with someone telling one of our gay posters a couple of things that were so vile that I won't even repeat.
quote:
Fortunately, because America is a Republic, the protection of minorities is written into the Constitution (well... apparently except for the Native Americans but that's for another time). Nevertheless, I'm not one of those "all things are permitted" types. I think there's a line between accepting difference and accepting illness or dysfunction. Societies have to draw a line in the sand and the existence of that line doesn't mean there's something wrong with that society.
Damn. You really don't have a clue on some of this, do you?
The last "minority" we have bothered to protect, have been folks in the LGBT community. The SCOTUS decision regarding equal rights in marriage is pretty darn recent. Don't suppose you happened to check out just how many supporters Kim Davis had when she was refusing to hand out marriage licenses?
I'm not exactly an "all things are permitted" type, either. A society has to decide how the rules of said society will form. (Not a perfect science, either, but cut me a little slack here.) Let's say, we decide that killing people who aren't trying to kill you, in most instances, is a bad idea. I consider that a pretty reasonable thing. Yep. People who go about doing that, we should probably remove them from society, so more people don't end up dead. The wiping off of another person's existence from the planet? Most of us can figure out that's a bad thing.
We don't say something like spitting on the sidewalk harms people in the same way, so we don't treat it with the same severity. It would take a severe leap of logic for you to come up with any reason that it actually harms you. All kinds of behaviors are in-between.
This business of caring about how other people live their lives, that has nothing else to do with you (general you) literally doesn't make sense to me. It's not the downfall of society because I make the decisions in my dynamic, just like you do. If you go tell your s-type to go do the dishes the way you want them done, nobody is ever going to tell you, or her, that's she's less of a woman for doing it.
quote:
You might not want to go back, but how far forward do you want to go. How far does your sense of permissiveness extend, because if you're not willing to draw a line, then the society will descend into Bacchanalian anarchy.
It's a good question. I'd like to see people no longer ending up dead. (You do understand that used to be an actual problem, right?) I'd like to see people not face so much adversity from people who want to have different relationships than other people do that they have to struggle to such degrees that they hit paths of self destruction. I don't want to see the same number of people who turned to things like drugs or alcohol trying to cope because, if people knew their "secrets," they'd be treated differently at their jobs, or whether their lease would be renewed, or feel that you've got a higher chance of getting the sh^t kicked out of you because of who you are. Pretty basic human stuff.
quote:
People have all sorts of reasons for seeing other people as inferior. Social class, economic class, intellect, appearance, education, opinions - and yes - gender and sexual orientation. However this is not the context of the discussion. This is about behaviour and beliefs and while you seem content to let people judge tamaka and I for our behaviour and beliefs, you seem to think we shouldn't have the same privilege.
Do you think that such judgements harm other people? You've got a crap load of posts down in P&R recently about why men are treated differently than women about some pretty harsh subjects. You don't suppose it's because this whole thing about being seen as "less than a real man" has anything to do with it, do you?
|
|
|
|
