|
FirmhandKY -> RE: Counter-point: Beautiful, well adjusted subs (11/24/2006 4:21:19 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: LordODiscipline
I disagree -
We build this idealization of "who we are" in leather as though we were some perfection of the average human being.
I know as many people who are screwed up in leather/BDSM/MOUSE as I know in real life.
If you do not believe it, please do review the forums again and read the postings ;)
Either way - it is all opinion without basis except the subjective (and, that is definitively always faulted)
~J
J (and others),
I don't disagree with you, or any of the other posters really. It is a subjective thing, because there is no real research on any of the items I mentioned.
What I wanted to attempt is to turn the "ugly, mal-adjusted femsub" argument on it's head.
Neither I nor any one else can do anything other than express an opinion on the subject. So ... my question is ... why do the doms who make those type of negative comments believe that their point of view is any more accurate than the one I am expressing here?
Some arguments that I'd make in support of this threads declaration (and this isn't addressed simply to LoD, but many other posters as well):
1. Mental Health: Some say that femsubs seem to have more "issues". More issues than vanilla women? Really? I met and known plenty of vanilla women that have "issues". Often times they hide them until you get to know them better. Perhaps ... a femsub with "issues" is just being more honest and open about them?
Which means that perhaps she is more likely to be further along the road to self-realization and actualization ... therefore ... mentally more healthy?
I think trying to quote threads and individual posts about femsubs on CM that seem to have "issues" is a good example of confirmation bias. It's what you think you know ... what you see ... and so confirms your belief that "most" subs have "issues".
As for believing that the comments in the "Before Master" thread is somehow wrong, or an indication of those subs being less mentally healthy and adjusted ... what the heck is wrong with feeling completed and comfortable in a relationship, on either side? Never heard, or had a vanilla woman say the same thing? Isn't that the definition of a healthy relationship?
And, even if you did accept that many subs have "issues" of mental health ... what makes anyone think that the population at large is any better well adjusted? What's the percentage of sub women who post about "problems" versus the number of subs who have profiles on CM? I'd bet it's pretty small. Then, compare this ratio to the overall vanilla population of defined mental health issues in women.
I don't know, but I'd bet it no greater, and likely much less for sub women than the general population of women.
Anyone know of any research along these lines? I suspect something has been done, since bdsm has been seen as a "mental" issue all by itself in the past.
2. Natural Assets: This is the argument that treasure makes, I don't think any one has really thought about.
Basically, what she is saying that many women who use the vanilla dating sites (and the 'net in general) to search for a man do so because of their own inability to find a "regular" vanilla man through "normal channels". She may not have the "natural assets" required to get a "regular man".
"Natural assets" of a woman (in this particular case) are those things that are attractive to men in general: looks and physical appearance.
Could be because she is a professional, with a busy life, and has little or no opportunity ... or it could be that she's just not very good at interpersonal interactions. Could be that she doesn't present herself well in person, or has "issues" that are pretty noticeable in person. Could be that she's simply not all that attractive to begin with.
Now, what is the reasoning for a woman to come to a site like CM to find a man? I don't think it's necessarily because she lacks appeal or looks for the vanilla world. It's just that the pool of the type of man she is seeking is much smaller, and more difficult it identify in the wider world.
It likely has little to do with her physical appearance.
So ...
... if sub women are a cross section of all women, with the same percentage of "lookers" as "non-lookers", and their primary reason for coming to a site such as CM is not related to difficulty in finding "any man" but a special type of man (a structural issue, rather than personal issue),
and
.... if a certain percentage of women on vanilla dating sites are there due to "attractiveness" issues, compared to the general population,
then,
The average sub woman on CM is more attractive than the average woman on vanilla sites.
3. Intelligence: This is an area where there doesn't seem to be a lot of disagreement. Or am I wrong on this one as well? [:D]
FirmKY.
|
|
|
|
