MistressYlwa
Posts: 263
Joined: 8/25/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
Chiron:
In real life, you'll find that many male submissives are very much men of action, far tougher than the character in Palahniuk's novel. Try your Marine Corps or Navy Seals, you'll find a few there. In what way has the women's movement brought that about? Is it possible that male submissiveness is a naturally occurring facet of human sexuality, rather than the result of social conditioning by feminists? Is it not the case that rather than issue mealy-mouthed disclaimers in a cowardly attempt to escape defending one's ideas, it is preferable to espouse the idea that all people have a right to express themselves as long as they harm no-one?
Over the years I have had the opportunity to meet a number of male submissives, among others of the community. They have been police officers, CEO's, lawyers, entrepreneurs, etc. The majority were men in some position of authority, who wished to give up that responsibility. This is not unusual or different from men in the past and I see no chance of that changing in the future.
Women's liberation did not create nor enhance male submission. What it did do, among other things, is give women the ability to be more open about their desires, including domination and submission. A possible by product of this has been the ability of men to be more open about their lifestyle desires, as well. Though the gay community has been in the forefront of male lifestyle issues and I feel they should receive the credit for the "openness" of men.
As to why someone finds them self dominant or submissive?
quote:
DR. ROY F. BAUMEISTER, psychologist from Case Western Reserve University, his article "Masochism: An Alternative Intimacy" The Spectator (Vol. 22, No. 14 June 30-July 6, 1989).
Is masochism a form of love or of hate? There has been a lot of debate on this, but both sides are wrong. Masochism has nothing to do with hate. And it is not quite a form of love, although it offers an alternative form of intimacy.
Masochism doesn't necessarily involve love. It is possible to engage in S&M with someone you're not in love with. Nor does masochism make love redundant: People seem to prefer to do it with people they love.
What's clear, though, is that masochism produces an intense bond of intimacy between two people, even if it's only temporary. The masochist submerges his or her will, personality, even identity, in the dominant partner. The importance of intimacy can be seen in sexual fantasies to involve long-term relationships, stable partners and intimates or lovers. (This conclusion is based on statistical comparison of masochistic versus other sexual fantasies.) Masochists are heavily relationship-oriented.
Masochism is thus not the same as love, but it offers an emotional and passionate feeling of closeness that is similar. I think the best way to view masochism is as an alternative intimacy. Masochism can be enjoyed without love, because intimacy is usually rewarding. Or it can be employed within a love relationship, to add a new dimension of relating to your loved one.
Although the experts are just beginning to form this new way of understanding masochism, don't expect society to change quickly.
If you are a masochist, or if someone close to you is, the main thing is not to worry that there's something wrong with you. There are probably a couple million other Americans with the same desires, and the vast majority of them are healthy and well adjusted. But don't expect society at large to make it easy for you. It will take a small miracle for society to revise its prejudices, and miracles take time.
This is the best definition I have read and it can be applied to BDSM, as a whole.
_____________________________
Mistress Ylwa
You see what power is - holding someone elses fear in your hand and showing it to them! - Amy Tan
|
RE: Chuck Palahunik and submissiveness (caution: words) - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread