RE: forced masculinity (Full Version)

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



Message

SimplyV -> RE: forced masculinity (3/8/2006 11:38:15 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thetammyjo

quote:

ORIGINAL: incognitoinmass

John Wayne or Alan Alda?

\

Personally, no contest, based on the characters they've played not on the men themselves.

Alan Alda all the way.



Somewhere along this long thread I lost what this debate is about? Who is more manly? Who'd make a better sub? ??

While I'm at it.. let me throw out some names.. How about Dean Cain? Or John Travolta? Ooo or the "plumber" on Desperate Housewives?

Sorry. where were we again?

V



incognitoinmass -> RE: forced masculinity (3/8/2006 11:48:14 AM)

I think we should not allow ourselves to be sidetracked into a discussion of ancient greek mythology but refocus on the subject at hand: forced masculinity. My thought had been that we should adjust our thinking from masculinity to manliness.

I disagree with TammyJo. Alan Alda = sensitive new age male. John Wayne = Manly man. Leonardo = metrosexual. Crowe = manly man. [speaking of the type of roles they typically play NOT the men themselves].

Think of the traits identified in the book being discussed. Confidence in the face of risk and easy assumption of authority. Not mentioned are 'horndog with good networking skills."

I think of a phrase that you used to here more often than you do nowadays: He's a man's man.



thetammyjo -> RE: forced masculinity (3/8/2006 12:52:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: incognitoinmass

I think we should not allow ourselves to be sidetracked into a discussion of ancient greek mythology but refocus on the subject at hand: forced masculinity. My thought had been that we should adjust our thinking from masculinity to manliness.

I disagree with TammyJo. Alan Alda = sensitive new age male. John Wayne = Manly man. Leonardo = metrosexual. Crowe = manly man. [speaking of the type of roles they typically play NOT the men themselves].

Think of the traits identified in the book being discussed. Confidence in the face of risk and easy assumption of authority. Not mentioned are 'horndog with good networking skills."

I think of a phrase that you used to here more often than you do nowadays: He's a man's man.


If he's a man's man, shouldn't he be with a man then? I mean, gay leathermen came about partly from a desire of men to find other man's man -- while I have wonderful friends who are gay leathermen I'm not attracted to them.

I mean, I thought the question was about what female dominants found attractive, if they found masculinity attractive, not what other men found attractive.

And I don't let a book decide what is masculine or manliness for me...

I don't see what there is to disagree with directly because Alan Alda was my preference, not a general defiition for everyone. I doubt that anyone other than me can see inside my head, heart or groin especially over the computer.

And I still do not see most of these so-called masculine traits as more than personality traits that can be applied to anyone but get gender-typed regardless of the evidence.



cloudboy -> RE: forced masculinity (3/8/2006 12:55:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thetammyjo

I never should have responded to the part of about Achilles cause it has so side tracked this thread.


I'm glad you did. In a non university setting, out here in the backwash of America, its quite a pearl to find a discussion about Achilles, greek literature, and character and heroes.

Threads can and should take on a life of their own. They should be human and like the branches of a tree, sprout out in all directions. They should be revealing about the posters themselves, and they should provide a reasonable and exciting collision course for opposing views and personalities.

Anyway, the subject of Achilles IS directly tied into this thread, BTW, because the "masculinist" females here seemed mostly focused on outward male appearances (Johw Wayne v. Alan Alda) and also the derision of sissies (outwardly female) as imasculated. There was the rush of female power, discussed about dominating a Manly Man (tall, strong, rugged, etc.) as opposed to the low class endeavor of connecting to more "effeminate" men. Next, the whole idea of "forced masculinity" implies changing Alan Alda into John Wayne or Hamlet into Achilles or a man that likes to cook into a man that likes to fix cars.......(kind of funny isn't it???)

You have said that your tastes gravitate towards androgeny and character, and others have said they want more prototypical "masculine" types.

For some of the FEMDOMs here, a sub such as Achilles would be the ultimate prize --- a slayer of men and armies --- but submissive to them. A man who spits in a King's eye but who kisses her foot. He's basically the FEMDOM equivalent of a male trophy wife.

Both you and John Warren threw up a red flag here. I digressed to discuss Achilles strictly in terms of the Illiad.

Anyway, why is it good to limit our imagination and thoughts to the OP, the thread topic, and current threads in all instances? I say, THAT'S LUNACY. Human thought needs to lead a life of its own and be strongly encouraged where no harm is done. Often the greater harm is the actual censoring or self censoring of human thought itself. (Which in this case would mean, no discussion of Achilles and no awakening of my soul that that discussion fired.)



SweetDommes -> RE: forced masculinity (3/8/2006 1:07:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

Anyway, the subject of Achilles IS directly tied into this thread, BTW, because the "masculinist" females here seemed mostly focused on outward male appearances (Johw Wayne v. Alan Alda) and also the derision of sissies (outwardly female) as imasculated. There was the rush of female power, discussed about dominating a Manly Man (tall, strong, rugged, etc.) as opposed to the low class endeavor of connecting to more "effeminate" men. Next, the whole idea of "forced masculinity" implies changing Alan Alda into John Wayne or Hamlet into Achilles or a man that likes to cook into a man that likes to fix cars.......(kind of funny isn't it???)


Simply focusing on this paragraph here ...

I don't recall a focus on the outward male appearance - I recall discussions of men who are manly enough to do things like cook (stereotypically feminine) and still remain manly. Yes, appearance is a part of that, but it's more about attitude, which is what I remember most of the discussion on here being about. If you didn't get that, perhaps you are looking at this thread from the wrong perspective.

I believe you will also find that the "derision of sissies" happened after a couple of sissy-type submissives decided to come in here and be rude to us because we prefer non-sissies. Not a good excuse, of course, but I do have to point out that it was started by their antagonism, and multiple attempts were made to get them to understand that we DON'T have a problem with them as people, it's just that we don't want them to serve us.

quote:

Threads can and should take on a life of their own. They should be human and like the branches of a tree, sprout out in all directions. They should be revealing about the posters themselves, and they should provide a reasonable and exciting collision course for opposing views and personalities.


I have no problems with threads taking on a life of their own, but when someone who apparently has issues with the topic decides to side track it for his own purposes (which, honestly, is how I see your additions to this thread) - that I have a problem with.



incognitoinmass -> RE: forced masculinity (3/8/2006 1:19:45 PM)

quote:

And I still do not see most of these so-called masculine traits as more than personality traits that can be applied to anyone but get gender-typed regardless of the evidence.


In specific cases, sure. But as a general rule, no. Male power or manliness is a reflection of nature, of our biological reality as much as testoterone is. Despite 30 years of trying to re-educate the young re sexual stereotypes they still pretty much hold true. Men still drive trucks, fly planes, fix cars, and mow lawns. Women still teach kindergarten, empty hospital bedpans, and clean the kitchen, etc. Manliness has a moral element too, it's not just about assertiveness and aggression.



incognitoinmass -> RE: forced masculinity (3/8/2006 1:22:08 PM)

quote:

For some of the FEMDOMs here, a sub such as Achilles would be the ultimate prize --- a slayer of men and armies --- but submissive to them. A man who spits in a King's eye but who kisses her foot. He's basically the FEMDOM equivalent of a male trophy wife.


Wonderful. Well said.



thetammyjo -> RE: forced masculinity (3/8/2006 2:32:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: incognitoinmass

quote:

And I still do not see most of these so-called masculine traits as more than personality traits that can be applied to anyone but get gender-typed regardless of the evidence.


In specific cases, sure. But as a general rule, no. Male power or manliness is a reflection of nature, of our biological reality as much as testoterone is. Despite 30 years of trying to re-educate the young re sexual stereotypes they still pretty much hold true. Men still drive trucks, fly planes, fix cars, and mow lawns. Women still teach kindergarten, empty hospital bedpans, and clean the kitchen, etc. Manliness has a moral element too, it's not just about assertiveness and aggression.



I'm sorry but as a historian I just can't buy this naturalness of personality traits.

And 30 years is nothing compared to centuries of patriarchy even just in the United States.

It also ignores the simple fact that not everyone is attempting to re-educate as you say -- many people promote gender roles and gender stereotypes as though they are their very being and without them they'd disappear or worse yet change sex or gender or god's know what. Your comments above are part of this promotion in fact because you are trying to show something is natural when you admit there are specific cases where these stereotypes and traits do not hold true.

If it were really natural, if it were really biology, could there be specific cases that didn't fit the mold?

Give me a few centuries of everyone trying to do this re-education and everyone getting with the program and then we can see if its natural or not.

Good luck getting such universal cooperation though -- there are several religious and political groups who would rather kill everyone or kill themselves than give up their rigid gender stereotypes and roles.



incognitoinmass -> RE: forced masculinity (3/9/2006 9:30:20 AM)

quote:

If it were really natural, if it were really biology, could there be specific cases that didn't fit the mold?


Of course, with a current population of over 6 billion there are certainly going to be deviations from the norm.



thetammyjo -> RE: forced masculinity (3/9/2006 9:35:51 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: incognitoinmass

quote:

If it were really natural, if it were really biology, could there be specific cases that didn't fit the mold?


Of course, with a current population of over 6 billion there are certainly going to be deviations from the norm.


Norms are not the same as biology or naturalness.


Let me give you some examples of what it means for something to be biology or natural in origin.

Healthy females have menstrual cycles for a certain part of their lives -- healthy males cannot have menstrual cycles and unhealthy females or people not neatly in the male or female may have variations.

Healthy males produce semen while healthy females produce ova.

Healthy females have the potential to get pregnant, healthy males do not.

So if anyone wishes to claim that some personality trait is biology or natural then that means a couple of things for it to be logical and proveable.

1) there cannot exceptions

2) any exceptions must represent unhealthy variations and this then suggests that the variation does not fall into the neat category assumed prior to discovery of this exception

3) or human beings are not so neatly divided and things which are personality traits are social or trained conditions as well as influenced by biological factors.

So if someone says being a risk taker or being loyal or being brave is a male trait then they must, by logic, being saying that females cannot have these traits or said individual is really not female. I find this offensive on all levels.

I find it just as offensive as if someone said that males can not have empathy or feel a need for security or safety.

There have been no studies that prove such biological traits because to prove such a thing would require complete removal of the human beings studied from human society and simply watching how they develop over generations and generations.

If you want to call something masculine, that's a gender trait and gender is a social construct that is viewed as connected to one's sex identity,then I thoroughly agree with that. Gender traits changes over time and across cultures. But gender is no the same as sex and is not the same as biology.



incognitoinmass -> RE: forced masculinity (3/9/2006 10:38:44 AM)

Nonsense. There have many studies that indicate that many of the differences in the sexes are biological in origin. Whether you are talking about left brain right brain activities or the effects of testorone on aggression etc.

quote:

So if anyone wishes to claim that some personality trait is biology or natural then that means a couple of things for it to be logical and proveable.

1) there cannot exceptions


This simply does not make sense. Nature recognizes a wide spectrum of variations. Some folks are blond and some are not. Some are tall and some are short. Some are genius' and some are dumb as a stump. Some men are less aggressive. Some women are more aggressive than others.

Men on average are taller. But not every man. Women on average are shorter, but not every woman.

And so it goes.

I think Larry Summers was correct. You apparently do not.



thetammyjo -> RE: forced masculinity (3/9/2006 10:50:48 AM)

I'm not going to argue this biology stuff anymore.

You don't have facts to back up your claims.

It just isn't worth my trying to be logical about anymore because you pick and chose what you respond to and ignore all historical and social factors as well as the "specific cases" you yourself mentioned. Would discussing the historical or social factors be admitting that biology isn't the answer?

No one needed to bring biology into the discussion about personal traits but you did through frankly I can't imagine why unless it has to do with needing to put people into neat little boxes instead of dealing with the reality of human complexity and experience.



incognitoinmass -> RE: forced masculinity (3/9/2006 11:35:20 AM)

Well, throwing up your hands and stomping your feet is certainly one way to go.

quote:

So if someone says being a risk taker or being loyal or being brave is a male trait then they must, by logic, being saying that females cannot have these traits or said individual is really not female. I find this offensive on all levels.


This, again, does not stand up to reasoned examination. Logically, this statement makes no sense. The existence of a trait or set of traits in males does not preclude their existence in females. The argument is that they are more prevalent, not that they are exclusive. Testosterone is found in both sexes, for example, just in different amounts. The relative presence of the various male and female hormones can effect behavior. More or less aggressive, etc.

Men and women are wired differently. And the differences are more than just who has a penis and who does not.






incognitoinmass -> RE: forced masculinity (3/9/2006 11:41:54 AM)

And to try and steer this back to the topic at hand, it would seem to me that a domme would want a sub that was more traditionally a 'manly man.' Where's the satisfaction in having a wuss at your feet?

As cloudboy said:

quote:

For some of the FEMDOMs here, a sub such as Achilles would be the ultimate prize --- a slayer of men and armies --- but submissive to them. A man who spits in a King's eye but who kisses her foot. He's basically the FEMDOM equivalent of a male trophy wife.


Of course, some may appreciate a man who is more squishy, indecisive, fearful, and subservient. Whatever floats your boat.



thetammyjo -> RE: forced masculinity (3/9/2006 4:01:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: incognitoinmass

Well, throwing up your hands and stomping your feet is certainly one way to go.


And ignoring all social influences and historical trends is the way that you go.

Still no hard facts to prove any biological traits of being risk takers or loyal or brave or anything else from you.

quote:

So if someone says being a risk taker or being loyal or being brave is a male trait then they must, by logic, being saying that females cannot have these traits or said individual is really not female. I find this offensive on all levels.


This, again, does not stand up to reasoned examination. Logically, this statement makes no sense. The existence of a trait or set of traits in males does not preclude their existence in females. The argument is that they are more prevalent, not that they are exclusive. Testosterone is found in both sexes, for example, just in different amounts. The relative presence of the various male and female hormones can effect behavior. More or less aggressive, etc.

Men and women are wired differently. And the differences are more than just who has a penis and who does not.



Whoa, now you've backed up here.

You didn't say that the trait is more prevelant but that it was a male trait -- being connected to maleness, manliness -- and by your own words a function of biology.

Now you backpedaling (again) and admiting these personality traits are not based on being males but on a variety of factors only one of which may (though there is not factual evidence) include some biology or hormones that males and females share?

So which is it?

Are these traits tied to biology and manliness or maleness or not?

You keep admiting there are exceptions, specific cases, and varying degrees of all these traits in people regardless of the biological sex.

You see it around you, you say it, you admit there are these variations yet you don't get how this demonostrates that it cannot be simply tied to nature or biology?

You clearly have a preference for "manly men" and think that dommes should as well (as you said in response to Cloudboy).

Why do you feel the need to try and back up your personal preference with biology and theories about biology and hormones and such?

I have a preference for androgynous men and women but I don't feel the need to claim they are biological better or biological wired that way. It is my preference. Who cares if anyone else shares it or even why folks may be the way I like. As long as everyone is happy, consenting and benefiting, whose business is it?

Now it could very reasonably be asked why I'm so annoyed by this biological personality trait thing. Here's my reason: It is unproved theory, it ignores the role of socialization and the uniqueness of the individual.

As an educator and an activist it offends me because it is another attempt to limit people and put them into easily classified boxes. While our brains may enjoy the simplistic paradigms they are not reality and they do not prepare us for the real world where real individuals exist and live their lives.

Anyone who is a "manly man" or who prefers them, GREAT! Good for you! Be happy with your preferences and who your are! You don't need biology or nature, just be yourself.



TexasMaam -> RE: forced masculinity (3/11/2006 10:07:04 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika

Ok. So I have a fetish. It's masculinity. It isn't my only fetish, but it one of them and one that I rarely see discussed.

Yes I'm bi. Yes I love feminity as well. But it seems that most sub boys that I cross are searching to be feminized and there is nothing wrong with that, we all have our kinks.

My kink is masculanization. I feel a lot of men have lost touch of their masculinity. They have been "dénaturé" as we say in French, which is to take out of it's native environment, to deprive of its natural character, properties, etc,

I like to bring a man in touch with his true masculinity. Not some macho overcompensation but what it is to be a true gentleman, to take pride in manhood, in strength, etc.

Any other Domme share my fetish?

- LA



Allelujah!

You betcha.

I want a Man's Man. A SuperMan. A Man who is Man enough to be submissive, yet completely masculine.

I get so tired of the rants about sissy subs, the effeminated or emasculated men that so many assume is what constitutes a male submissive.

I constantly remind bobbi of his masculinity, his male prowess in all it's ramifications. I revel in his manhood and celebrate it at every opportunity. If I choose to use him because he's so testosterone poisoned, it still comes across as a backhanded compliment to his manhood.

I can scarcely list the ways in which I reaffirm his masculinity in every form of play. If I humiliate him it still has a twisted way in which to praise him for the man that he is.

Whether he's in an examination position for Me to praise his male form, or to humiliate him for being so very 'male' (backhanded compliment), or whether it is in forcing him to take it - a session or some form of corporal punishment - 'like a man', whatever the scenario, it reinforces his masculinity.

"you have thighs like a 'man'", I'll spit out with disgust. "look at that ass, it's as round as an onion, like a man's butt, it's disgusting" I'll say, while caressing it or kissing it tenderly or passionately. "it's so 'masculine' it needs a good swat!"

If I dress him in fem underthings it's because I'm making fun of him being too masculine to ever be 'pretty'. Another backhanded compliment.

I praise his work ethics, his ability to provide for the family and his children's educations and future. I encourage him to discover talents within himself: teaching, helping others, sharing his knowledge and professional expertise.

You said it best, it's about harnessing his masculinity in a myriad of ways.

Funny. bobbi keeps reiterating that he never thought of himself as particularly masculine or handsome until I got My hands on him.

As it should be!

Perhaps I've created a monster? lolol

Texas Maam






SweetDommes -> RE: forced masculinity (3/11/2006 3:31:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: incognitoinmass
This, again, does not stand up to reasoned examination. Logically, this statement makes no sense. The existence of a trait or set of traits in males does not preclude their existence in females. The argument is that they are more prevalent, not that they are exclusive. Testosterone is found in both sexes, for example, just in different amounts. The relative presence of the various male and female hormones can effect behavior. More or less aggressive, etc.

Men and women are wired differently. And the differences are more than just who has a penis and who does not.



I believe her point was that the meanings of "that trait/set of traits exists in males" and "that/those are male traits" are vastly different.

If you say that something is a "male trait" it implies that, by and large, only males have that trait. Stating that same trait exists in many males doesn't lead to the same implication.

In my opinion, a "male trait" is having a penis ... most males have them and mose females do not (obvious exceptions being those who are transgendered) - very clear. Personality traits such as loyalty, a need to provide security, etc. that both males and females have in about equal proportions are not "male traits" ... they are personality traits that males have. See how the difference in wording leads to different meanings?



Katmistress -> RE: forced masculinity (3/11/2006 5:18:12 PM)

A man that knows he is a man who submits only to me. One who will always open the door for me and help me with my jacket. A man that holds my chair. One that escorts me places not just goes with me. A man that will slay the dragon to bow at my feet. Tall with broad shoulders and narrow at the hip with full lips and kind eyes. - if that isn't the closest thing to heaven I don't know what is.
I like to play rough sometimes and at others I like to play gentle so he better be ready for whatever I decide to do.
I don't want or need a boi who defies me at every chance. I don't want any back talk or smart mouth either. I don't need anyone who thinks it's fun to push my buttons.
I agree with an earlier statement about a pair of jeans - 5 o'clock shadow - ruffled up hair standing at the sink doing dishes or folding the laundry or whatever.
I wonder if such a man really does exist?



TexasMaam -> RE: forced masculinity (3/11/2006 6:14:16 PM)

I've been pondering LA's original question for quite some time today.

It begs the question: How to force masculinize a fem sub.

Une Femme Bleu, alors?

More than merely butch, a truly masculinized female.

Perhaps she shaves in the morning, dresses in DKNY duds and heads for the office after a smoke and a cup of take along java, comes home, takes out the trash, mows the lawn, whips up a meal while she throws some laundry in the machine, then commands her partner to strip tantalizingly before her in candlelight....

No, wait, that's Me........

lololol

Texas Maam




cloudboy -> RE: forced masculinity (3/11/2006 9:05:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SweetDommes

In my opinion, a "male trait" is having a penis ... most males have them and mose females do not (obvious exceptions being those who are transgendered) - very clear.


Boy, you've really been researching things. Anything else to add? This is the kind of X-Ray insight that's been sorely missing from the CMMB.



Page: <<   < prev  12 13 [14] 15 16   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875