quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

But, I do find it irritating when people try to invalidate my relationship with M simply because they view conception as validity point.

But nobody has tried to do so.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

surely each fulfils something in the other. A slave fulfils herself by keeping her Master happy but surely by the same token, what is a Master without a slave to guide and fulfil and at the same time, fulfil himself ?

Well one would have thought that was obvious, but apparently "true" slaves do it purely to fulfill their Masters and get nothing out of it themselves. Well, at least according to some on here.

They get something out of it but it doesn't come from themselves... it comes from their Master.

I disagree

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greatlilbabygirl

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

But, I do find it irritating when people try to invalidate my relationship with M simply because they view conception as validity point.

But nobody has tried to do so.

Tamaka did in a round about way. Saying conception was the reason women are "naturally" submissive and implying a dominant woman was unnatural

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

But, I do find it irritating when people try to invalidate my relationship with M simply because they view conception as validity point.

But nobody has tried to do so.

quote:

They were called enablers up thread

quote:

ORIGINAL: Danemora

Tamaka did actually. Being naturally submissive was linked to conception by her. And since Oside cant, what does that make her according to tamaka? Not submissive. And since Oside isnt conceiving, she isnt submissive, and therefore her D/s relationship with her M really isnt valid. Since...you know...she isnt submissivr.

At least according to tamaka anyway

quote:

ORIGINAL: Danemora

Thats just a kind way of saying we're all waiting for another forthcoming shovelful of manure out of the cow's ass to drop

quote:

ORIGINAL: Danemora
In the case of DES daughters, that change took place in the womb before the child was even born though. It wasnt a later in life change.

quote:

So while the 'design criteria' is that females are designed to host babies, the criteria can be altered in a number of ways. An oddly shaped uterus, reproductive organs tilted off the appropriate axis by even fractions of millimeters, some hormone that should have been turned on in the mother during a certain period of fetal growth that wasnt, etc

quote:


So there are more reasons than just the crack you made about someone being trans

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick
LOL
Irony, thy name is Awareness.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

They were called enablers up thread

Yep, I recall that. Ironically, it prompted a diametrically opposed sort of thought for me. Something that sometimes gives me pause is the question of just how much certain femsubs might 'enable' the most harmful traits in dominant men. I think of the aggression, the competitiveness ... this whole cold world of 'winners' and 'losers' that seems to put so many men in early graves. How many of them must live in a world of battles that they *absolutely must* win, lest their femsub ditch them in favour of someone 'more Alpha'?

I shudder at the thought of all that, but thank my stars that I don't have to be imprisoned in the stereotypically dominant masculine role any more. It doesn't help that I see so many physically unhealthy dominant males around, either. Still, that last is purely anecdotal: dominant males are on the periphery of my life. It's not my world and I have very little interest in it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greatlilbabygirl

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

FR
Another open question.
For those who find submissive men "weak and pathetic" or a danger to society, well how do you view dominant women?

They were called enablers up thread

quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness

quote:

ORIGINAL: Danemora
In the case of DES daughters, that change took place in the womb before the child was even born though. It wasnt a later in life change.

Now you're quibbling over semantics. Chemical exposure which results in DNA damage doesn't impact the 'designed' criteria.

quote:

So while the 'design criteria' is that females are designed to host babies, the criteria can be altered in a number of ways. An oddly shaped uterus, reproductive organs tilted off the appropriate axis by even fractions of millimeters, some hormone that should have been turned on in the mother during a certain period of fetal growth that wasnt, etc

Individual variations which are the results of gene expression and other exogenous factors. That doesn't impact the concept of design.

quote:


So there are more reasons than just the crack you made about someone being trans

Meh. There's a fair amount of cis-male hatred around the place. Just take a look at Stef. OSideGirl's shitty attitude towards masculine men could come from anywhere, but she's the one who made the statement in the first place and decided not to clarify it with any further information.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

surely each fulfils something in the other. A slave fulfils herself by keeping her Master happy but surely by the same token, what is a Master without a slave to guide and fulfil and at the same time, fulfil himself ?

Well one would have thought that was obvious, but apparently "true" slaves do it purely to fulfill their Masters and get nothing out of it themselves. Well, at least according to some on here.

They get something out of it but it doesn't come from themselves... it comes from their Master.

I disagree

You wouldn't know.

quote:

She used conception as the validity point, so therefore the inability to conceive means that there shouldn't be a relationship.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Danemora
You call it quibbling over semantics.

quote:

Its not my fault you made an erroneous statement.

quote:

And no amount of cis man shaming you read somewhere else negates the error

quote:

Being naturally submissive was linked to conception by her.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

She used conception as the validity point, so therefore the inability to conceive means that there shouldn't be a relationship.

No she did not. She said that the basic biological function of a female (to conceive and bear offspring) is what makes them naturally submissive. No while this is rather obviously bullshit, she did not make any mention of this basic fact or the actual ability to conceive as having any bearing on the validity of any relationship.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka



We have to open to receive to fulfill our biological function of conceiving a child. I don't think guys do that.