Chuck Palahunik and submissiveness (caution: words) (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion



Message

Sigur -> Chuck Palahunik and submissiveness (caution: words) (1/24/2007 11:07:46 PM)

Alright, so, in "Fight Club", Chuck asserts that one of the reason men in this generation have so vastly changed from their forefathers, in terms of being indicisive, soft and cowardly, is because they've been raised by women. Those of you that only saw the movie, this is the bathroom scene. Those of you that were distracted by a naked and soapy Brad Pitt, they were talking about how the main character's father created a "progeny" by moving around the country and fathering children. It's implied that the Fight Club was created to help men regain contact with the primal competitive fury that drove our ancestors to create civilizations, and that a combination of consumer culture, office labor, and feminism domesticated this. "We are the first generation of men totally raised by women" would be one of the pivotal lines.

Now, I don't mean to offend male subs in asking this, merely, a curiosity. There, that's my disclaimer.

What're your feelings on what the BDSM scene would be like if the Women's power movement never took root? Do you think that it's had any major effects, positive or negative, on how male Doms approach potential female subs? Do you think there would be as many male subs if the gender roles were still as prominent as they were in, say, McCarthy's America?

Would you do Brad Pitt? I totally would.



MistressYlwa -> RE: Chuck Palahunik and submissiveness (caution: words) (1/24/2007 11:53:37 PM)

A study in history. Though there is not enough time nor space for it. Female domination has been around since before recorded history. Read Timothy Taylor's book "Prehistory of Sex". He talks of the Romans accepting scourging freely, that they learned of through religions imported from the East. This is only one example of female domination in early history. He writes of a number of them.
 
Kinsey found about 20% of college students were attracted to BDSM. Masters and Johnson - 10% of all Americans regularly engaged in BDSM. Both studies contain women in the dominant role.
 
Positive effects for dommes? Of course. Women can be more open about their desires for male submissives. While not widely accepted by the general public, it is still a public that is aware that it exists. If gender roles were still perceive, as in the McCarthy era, it would still exist. Just hidden, as it was then. There would be internet access and our own little code developed to find each other and protect us from the sex police. Things are different from the 50's, no doubt. Though with the laws of the land being what they are, it may not be long before we will all be hiding again.
 
A dom would be better to answer as far as the treatment of female submissives.



eyesopened -> RE: Chuck Palahunik and submissiveness (caution: words) (1/25/2007 2:06:03 AM)

i really don't think it has anything to do with being raised by women because females have been the primary care-givers for thousands of years.  Now it is true that centuries ago a boy would enter an apprentice with a father figure, a Master at a trade or profession and at that time be "raised" by one or more males. 

One thing that comes to mind is organized sports v "pick up games".  i remember my brothers and their friends getting together to play baseball in a empty field.  Today kids have to play on organized teams complete with uniforms and coaches and aren't allowed to just be kids in impromptu fields of friendly competition.  Boys aren't allowed to "scuffle" anywhere at any time.  It's nearly against the law to say "A Man's job" or "woman's work".  Male/female roles are blurred and confused.  Even here i've heard a great many submissive females declare that unless a man is her Dom/Master that he (a man) can get his own cup of coffee and pick up his own socks dammit. 

Couple all this with epidemic divorce rates where children are constantly faced with the insecurity of the real possibility that their fathers or mothers will leave.  There are just so many factors involved that i see the line "We are the first generation of men totally raised by women" to be just a line in a movie.



ExSteelAgain -> RE: Chuck Palahunik and submissiveness (caution: words) (1/25/2007 2:31:38 AM)

Fight Club is complex. The author of the book, Chuch Palahniuk, is gay, for what it's worth. Many see it as simply a call for chaos without any sexual theme.



sleazy -> RE: Chuck Palahunik and submissiveness (caution: words) (1/25/2007 3:19:48 AM)

I think I have to agree with Eyesopened on this topic.

There does seem to be something in modern western cultures that prevents men being men and women being women. I appreciate it is supposed to be making people into people regardless of gender,  but it does seem to me as male to give preference to women. I know if two people, one male, one female, apply for a job here and both have exactly the same qualifications and experience if I do not hire the woman I run the risk of being dragged into court, despite the fact my line of work is generally accepted as "mans work". Although depsite the traditional male prevelance in my trade there are actually times when a woman is better for the job.



julietsierra -> RE: Chuck Palahunik and submissiveness (caution: words) (1/25/2007 3:22:19 AM)

lol... and I'm recalling a conversation with my son during football season, and a similar one during wrestling season. He was so was so young when we left his father that he doesn't remember a time when we were all living together as a family.

Mom: "Honey, You know I love you and that you're not allowed to beat up your sister and all that... but if you don't get out there and rip that guy's head off, he's going to do it to you. Which do you want it to be? Him or you?"

Four sacks and a fumble recovery in one game after our little conversation (Score 39-14 - our team won)... and later, a medal in a tournament - first place in his weight class...I think his competitive spirit is doing just fine. 

Naaa... I don't think being raised  by women is all that detrimental. I think being raised by dysfunctional women is detrimental. I also happen to think that being raised by dysfunctional men is detrimental as well.

juliet



Lashra -> RE: Chuck Palahunik and submissiveness (caution: words) (1/25/2007 4:52:17 AM)

I think once you get thru all the theories and supposed "historical facts" people have of why do men act this way? Why do women act this way? It all comes down to this, we each have our own unique personality that coupled with the conditioning that society throws at us makes us who we are. I never have bought into the theory that all women are naturally submissive to men. Why? Because I am naturally dominant and I know several naturally dominant women. Most dominant women do not feel the need to let a man lead us. I know I am perfectly capable of leading myself and making my own decisions.

I also know some naturally submissive men and women. Most of submissives feel more comfortable with someone else calling the shots, as long as its someone they trust. They are happy with their unique personality just as we dominant folk are happy with ours.

When I hear the phrase "Men should be men and women should be women." I find that confusing, what exactly is meant by that phrase? Because I am a woman and naturally so. I have the correct anatomy to prove it. I feel like a woman everyday even though I work in a "male oriented" field. I own a company that employs alot of men and I see them being men everyday. Not a single one of them has showed up for work with a set of DD tits, a smaller waist and bigger hips.

So I think what it all boils down to is this. People need to stop seeing things in black and white. Realize that not everyone fits into the cute little cookie cutter molds that society screams we should fit into. Humans need to change and evolve and part of that process is working together for the common good. What do I consider that common good? Acceptance of those that are different from ourselves. To work together to move forward for a better, secure society where a person does not have to fear being themselves. A society where no matter who you are in life, you would know you have equal rights under the law.

Men and women are different in several ways but our basic needs are all the same. One of those needs is to be accepted for who we are and not forced to be something that we are not. I for one will never be June Cleaver. I do not have the want, need or desire too. I am perfectly happy being who I am.

~Lashra



sleazy -> RE: Chuck Palahunik and submissiveness (caution: words) (1/25/2007 5:05:16 AM)

Re, men being men etc......

At the risk of flames, I personally think that there are somethings that men are better suited for, and somethings women are better suited to doing. It has nothing at all to do with being dominant or submissive, but is based purely around other traits, such as physical strength, spatial awareness, the preconceptions of others. On a professional front I have to consider the way the genders appear to other people whether those views agree with mine or not. Many times I have spent days trying to persuade a client that regardless of their preference the other gender is actually better suited to the role.



MizSuz -> RE: Chuck Palahunik and submissiveness (caution: words) (1/25/2007 5:39:11 AM)

Although I'm not trying to be nit-picky, I wonder if you realized that in fight club Chuck turns out to be insane?



LuckyAlbatross -> RE: Chuck Palahunik and submissiveness (caution: words) (1/25/2007 7:21:26 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sigur
What're your feelings on what the BDSM scene would be like if the Women's power movement never took root?

I think it would be sadly lacking (and probably more homosexually predominant).

After all, it is in giving women the freedom of choice, the freedom from cultural expectations, the responsibility to make their own choices that makes the value of consent and choosing to be a slave so vital.
quote:

Do you think that it's had any major effects, positive or negative, on how male Doms approach potential female subs?

Oh yes, feminist overkill and backlash certainly is valid and has its problems.

But not enough to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
quote:

Do you think there would be as many male subs if the gender roles were still as prominent as they were in, say, McCarthy's America?

Yes- just look at all the porn and books that were around LONG before that time, specially in the homosexual community.
quote:


Would you do Brad Pitt? I totally would.

Nope.



SimplyMichael -> RE: Chuck Palahunik and submissiveness (caution: words) (1/25/2007 7:25:33 AM)

Women have ALWAYS done the raising of children, I would say men have MORE input now than they ever did.

That said, try educating yourself with something deeper than movies.  Most heterosexual S&M erotica in the 50 was centered around dominant women, not submissive ones, betty page was one of the rare exceptions, not the other way around.



SmokingGun82 -> RE: Chuck Palahunik and submissiveness (caution: words) (1/25/2007 7:51:01 AM)

It's a good movie, and a good book, by an interesting author.

That said, I think that the move towards equality is a good idea... if it ever starts, I'll support it. The problem is, most feminists I've encountered have wanted a female superior society. That's not equality, it's just a flip-flop of the current system. The thing I see hurting the equality movement the most is, as one poster mentioned, the reliance on quotas/etcetera- hiring a female over a male when they're equally competent because of the fear of a lawsuit. Title IX is possibly my least favorite act of legislation. It's easily up there with the ADA. It's like smoking bans or anything else- the governments right to tell you what to do should not extend to a privately owned business. If someone opened a bar where no women were allowed, no wheelchairs, no crutches, and you had to have a cigarette in your mouth... I wouldn't go there, but I don't see why the government needs to say it's wrong. People can, and should, vote with their wallets. If a company wants to pay women substantially less, let people boycott that company.

But that's the opinion of a Libertarian nut, so take it as you will.



CreativeDominant -> RE: Chuck Palahunik and submissiveness (caution: words) (1/25/2007 8:01:46 AM)

I agree that men and women are different.  I agree that men are better suited to some tasks and women are better sutied to others.  I also recognize that in all things, there are exceptions.

There are femdominants I will never get along with.  Female supremacists that try to ram it down my throat or those that use male submissives/slaves for everything from cleaning their nails to building them a house and still find them to be worthless, etc.  There are other femdominants that are my friends or whose point of view I admire.  And even with their dominant nature, there are some things they cannot do that a man could.  That doesn't make the dominant female any less dominant.  There are male submissives I can't stand...wimpy, overly sensitive types or narcissists, etc.  There are male submissives I know that I like being around...strong and sure in what they are and who they are.  And even with their submissive nature, there are things that women are better suited to do than the submissive male is.  That does not make the submissive male any less submissive.  It just points up the truth that what is...with exceptions...is.

I too dislike the feminist overkill that LA spoke of and the backlash that has resulted from it.  I admit to feeling a mixture of embarassment and resentment and anger when I hold a door open for a woman and she comes out with the phrase "I can open my own doors, go on through first and I'll show you" as I was not trying to be "CAVEMAN", I was trying to be the gentleman my folks taught me to be.  But the few times it has happened has not turned me into a man who thinks all women are 'cunts' or to think that the world would be better off if women would 'just shut up and spread'.




MasterFireMaam -> RE: Chuck Palahunik and submissiveness (caution: words) (1/25/2007 8:09:21 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sigur
What're your feelings on what the BDSM scene would be like if the Women's power movement never took root? Do you think that it's had any major effects, positive or negative, on how male Doms approach potential female subs? Do you think there would be as many male subs if the gender roles were still as prominent as they were in, say, McCarthy's America?

We'd ALL be Gor.

quote:

Would you do Brad Pitt? I totally would.

Depends on how he'd treat me. Hot does not mean doable, necessarily.

Master Fire



SmokingGun82 -> RE: Chuck Palahunik and submissiveness (caution: words) (1/25/2007 8:10:38 AM)

Well said, CD.

I think the maddest I've ever seen a "female supremacist," to borrow your term, was when a friend of a friend made the statement "All men are pricks." It wasn't the first thing she'd said bad about men, as a gender, and as the only representative, I'd done my best to be polite. However, when she turned to me and said "What do you think about that?" I couldn't hold back...

"It's funny... to me, that sounded exactly like 'All women are cunts.'"

I was unaware that skin could get to that level of red before bursting.



LuckyAlbatross -> RE: Chuck Palahunik and submissiveness (caution: words) (1/25/2007 8:11:03 AM)

As always, a good Alanis moment can be illuminating:

I am man who has grown from a son
Been crucified by enraged women
I am son who was raised by such men
I'm often reminded of the fools I'm among

And I have been shamed
And I have relented
I'm working my way toward our union mended
And I have been shamed
And I have repented
I'm working my way toward our union mended

-A Man, Alanis Morissette



juliaoceania -> RE: Chuck Palahunik and submissiveness (caution: words) (1/25/2007 8:37:52 AM)

I feel that Fight Club was partially a critique of how we in Gen X were raised. I think you got the gist of the heart of the movie with that one line. My Daddy and I have talked about Fight Club often, that line is one we talk about because there is a lot of truth in it when looking at the generation that I grew up in. Men of my generation were often raised by women, and this has impacted the kind of relationships they tend to form.

I am about to be flamed most likely (puts on flame retardant suit). I find men of my generation to often be spoiled, self indulgent, selfish, they often lack a work ethic and expect that the woman in their life pick up after them and take care of them econonically. Of course there are exceptions to this, a lot of them, but this is the type a man I have seen over and over again in the 30 to 40 age group. It is a large part of the reason I chose to remain single, I did not feel like taking care of a man, which seemed to be what many men my age wanted. And I do think that feminism, rising divorce rate, lack of strong male role models had its impact on men my age. This is why I have tended to date men older than myself, and even my Daddy is a couple of years older. Now I know it sounds as though I am stereotyping, but this is just my experience, and I know a lot of men do not fit this mold.

I do not think this has anything to do with dominance or submission. I think that is like saying that men turn gay because they were raised by women,... which is utter nonsense. I feel people have a propensity toward one aspect or the other, with some people being naturally switch. It is not something in my mind that is formed exclusively from your home life, although I am sure it would impact you to some degree.... they find out more and more how strongly nature impacts us, much more than anyone used to believe.



Chiron -> RE: Chuck Palahunik and submissiveness (caution: words) (1/25/2007 8:41:25 AM)

I would like to ask the OP why he feels the need to make a "disclaimer" or pre-emptive apology to male subs?

Is it his premise that male submissiveness is somehow an emulation of femininity?

If so, I would echo the poster who suggested you educate yourself with more than just films because you have missed out on a great deal. Perhaps you could start with Venus in Furs, by Sacher- Masoch. You'll find that it pre-dates the "women's power movement" -- otherwise known as the women's movement lol -- by quite a bit.

It's also quite significant that you talk of "McCarthy's America", that man is possibly the world's best exemplar of insecurity and it's companion, abuse of authority, that one could find. (Although, since many of the artist's and film-makers who were blacklisted as a result of his paranoia came to the UK to work, there was a small plus-side.) However, even a cursory reading of films of that period will throw up figures like the Western heroine portayed by Barbara Stanwyck in Rancho Notorious, ruling over a gang of desperadoes with nothing but a whip and her iron will. Ring any bells?

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? 

In short, you've argued from the specific to the general and come up with an idea that simply doesn't work.




liljoy -> RE: Chuck Palahunik and submissiveness (caution: words) (1/25/2007 8:51:13 AM)

wow i just can't nderstand any reaction besides thank you to someone for opening a door for me. i always say thank you when a door is opened for me. i do know how to open my own door and usually will do so if i reach the door first.


quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

I too dislike the feminist overkill that LA spoke of and the backlash that has resulted from it.  I admit to feeling a mixture of embarassment and resentment and anger when I hold a door open for a woman and she comes out with the phrase "I can open my own doors, go on through first and I'll show you" as I was not trying to be "CAVEMAN", I was trying to be the gentleman my folks taught me to be.  But the few times it has happened has not turned me into a man who thinks all women are 'cunts' or to think that the world would be better off if women would 'just shut up and spread'.





Nosathro -> RE: Chuck Palahunik and submissiveness (caution: words) (1/25/2007 9:23:07 AM)

Tal and greetings
 
I have not seen the movie nor read the book.  I admit I am not a fan of Brad Pitt.  However, in reading these threads the concept of the "The Fight Club" makes sense.  After all, it would explain why I and many like me put on heavy leather and metal armor to go out and knock each other to the gound in over 100 degree heat and love it.
 
I wish you well
 
Nosathro



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




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