The Ownership Flag and Icons    [other banners]

	TSR : Web boards : Internal Enslavement : "Men and women" 1 2 3 4 Men and women (39) This post is on the Internal Enslavement web board. Mon 3 Nov 08, 9:05 PM Remoses US(PA), 6 yrs For the sake of this question,let us assume that by "Men" I mean Dominant personalities and Owners, and let us also assume that by "women" I mean submissive personalities and slaves. I know this will find disagreement with some of you, but if you do see things differently, please address My question before you inform Me that I've got this all wrong. Ha! So... What is the fundamental relationship between Men and women? I wonder if over the last few decades we have redefined that relationship and may have confused ourselves as we did so. Does the quest for equality among genders, races and sexual orientations make us all a sort of amorphous blob without distinctions? Or do the fundamental differences still hold, even as we redefine ourselves? Can we hold that equality of opportunity is, on its face, a good thing while we also ask that we realize that the power differences that we seek between us may beg for a different definition, altogether? As I consider the many aspects of Power Exchange or whatever else you may want to call it, I am left wondering about whether or not any of this actually squares with all the social changes that have come about in the last, oh, four or five decades? What are your thoughts on this? I am Remoses. Just because it's inconvenient, doesn't mean it's not required. Quod principi placet legis habet vigorem (The pleasure of the prince has the force of law.) **Pronounce it: Ray-mosay.** 3 Nov 08, 9:44 PM Andrin DE, 3 yrs Remoses wrote: .... What is the fundamental relationship between Men and women? .... I am left wondering about whether or not any of this actually squares with all the social changes that have come about in the last, oh, four or five decades? ... The fundamental relationship between Men and woman (and all others , as I am stuck in this group) is that that they want it to be. Isn't this the best achievement of “all the social changes that have come about in the last, oh, four or five decades” that (still within limits, but hopefully these get expanded continuously) that we don't have to stand on the place despots, dictators, society and religion orders us to take, but that we can search for the one that pleases us (or as Fire would put it: where our inner voice tells us to take position). And the position taken postulates the fundamental relationship with the Men and women (and all others) of your social group. But the fundamental, universally valid answer to your question must be void (in my humble opinion). Regards Andrin edited for typo Edited 3 Nov 08, 11:21 PM by Andrin 4 Nov 08, 1:50 AM Just_Angel US(CO), 5 yrs £ Y! I think what we do squares very well with social changes made these past decades. Women who choose to have traditional gender roles still have that avenue, as do men who still prefer to be head of household. The difference now is that tradition and kink do not clash so violently. On the other hand, with these changes, women that chose the nontraditional role of dominance have that avenue... mostly without stigma. Its normal for a woman to wear the pants these days. This provides men that feel the need to submit to a woman the option to do so. I feel that we as a community have evolved with society. Sexual, social, and relationship choices are no longer restricted to a certain gender, class, sexual orientation, color, or creed. I kinda like it. "Skin against skin blood and bone You're all by yourself but you're not alone You wanted in now you're here Driven by hate consumed by fear Let the bodies hit the floor" ~Drowning Pool 4 Nov 08, 4:49 AM shedragon US(VA), 4 yrs Y! Remoses wrote: Men and women What is the fundamental relationship between Men and women? The relationship is whatever the people involved in it make it. I wonder if over the last few decades we have redefined that relationship and may have confused ourselves as we did so. In ancient times it made sense for men to be the dominant ones in the relationship, simply because they were bigger and stronger, and more suited to protect the family. As time went on and humans no longer had to defend against animal predators, brains became more important to survival than brawn. It took centuries, but society finally realized that women are equal to men in the brains category, and are capable of being an equal partner in a relationship. Don't get me wrong, I think this is a good thing. However, it did cause quite a bit of confusion for women who have no desire to have careers, who prefer to stay home and raise a family, and/or prefer to *gasp* submit to a man! The era of women's lib did a great disservice to these women, trying to convince them that they SHOULD have a career in order to be "fulfilled," that being a full-time wife and mother was not enough. For a while, women were looked down upon if they did NOT insist on being equal partners with their husbands. Can we hold that equality of opportunity is, on its face, a good thing while we also ask that we realize that the power differences that we seek between us may beg for a different definition, altogether? "Equality" seems to be the ultimate goal these days, and yes that is a good thing in general. Especially as you termed it: equality of opportunity. I look forward to the day when society as a whole will embrace, or at least accept, that the balance of power in a relationship can be heavily tilted one way or another and still be a valid relationship, and that voluntary inequality will be respected as much as equality. It is better to remain uncollared than to be led by the wrong leash. 4 Nov 08, 1:22 PM property_of_MacCain 4 yrs Remoses wrote: I wonder if over the last few decades we have redefined that relationship and may have confused ourselves as we did so. Does the quest for equality among genders, races and sexual orientations make us all a sort of amorphous blob without distinctions? Or do the fundamental differences still hold, even as we redefine ourselves? The political climate during the last century, especially during wartime, when women were suddenly forced out of thier homes into the workforce, in addition to the economic state of the world forcing the majority of households to be dual income households, and let us not forget the industrial age forcing families out of rural areas into cities... so that women can not produce food for thier families without grocery stores and the like... All of these things (plus i'm sure several others i'm sure i'm leaving out), did create a social climate that makes anyone wanting a tradition role feel less than socially acceptable. Gender lines have been blurred... making it somewhat easier for people who do not prescribe to the male dominant, women submissive roles. Those who do feel a natural tendencies toward the more traditional scenario are left wanting. Remoses wrote: Can we hold that equality of opportunity is, on its face, a good thing while we also ask that we realize that the power differences that we seek between us may beg for a different definition, altogether? Unfortunately, since we as a human culture can not decide universally on a set path for everyone, someone will allways feel they get the sort end of the stick. It would be impossible for everyone one (and should be) to be treated equally and fair. Before i get slammed for being anti-feminist, let me explain. If i'm in a burning building and two firefighters come to my aid... lets say one is a woman standing 5'4 and weighs 150lbs, the other is a big burly lumberjack build man...can you guess which one i want pulling me out of a burning building? W/we are simply not created equal. Some people are just better than others at some tasks. To treat all people the same wouldn't be fair. To treat all people the same based on ability would... but who would be qualified to make that distinction? Remoses wrote: As I consider the many aspects of Power Exchange or whatever else you may want to call it, I am left wondering about whether or not any of this actually squares with all the social changes that have come about in the last, oh, four or five decades? Choosing to live an alternative lifestyle, which ever you choose will always be controversial. These social changes have helped in some areas but continue to be detrimental in others. Yes, Dommes and Mistresses may have an easier time than they would have socially just a few decades ago... but for someone like myself, i get grief (not in this atmosphere but others) for not being a strong woman because i submit to a Master. Granted this board has a clear understanding about O/our norm, but the rest of the world still doesn't get it. shedragon wrote: It took centuries, but society finally realized that women are equal to men in the brains category, and are capable of being an equal partner in a relationship. Don't get me wrong, I think this is a good thing. However, it did cause quite a bit of confusion for women who have no desire to have careers, who prefer to stay home and raise a family, and/or prefer to *gasp* submit to a man! The era of women's lib did a great disservice to these women, trying to convince them that they SHOULD have a career in order to be "fulfilled," that being a full-time wife and mother was not enough. For a while, women were looked down upon if they did NOT insist on being equal partners with their husbands. This is the crux of my dissatisfaction with the state of the societal changes... There are still those of use who feel a natural tendency to submit to men. Those of us who do, are left severely wanting so that others can appreciate the sacrifices our "fore mothers" made. That said, i would never deny my daughters ANY opportunity they choose to explore. ~~~~~~DISCLAIMER~~~~~~~~ Though MacCain is a man and a Dominant, He does not buy into the natural order of things. O/our relationship works because i do... and He is Dominant regardless of His brand of feminist views. Please do not read my opinions as a shared view point... that would do Him a great dis-service. p I breathe because He allows me to, indulging Him indulges me. 4 Nov 08, 3:55 PM Sir4Ryco 6 yrs Hi All, Blake wrote: One Law for the Lion & Ox is Oppression. Sir4Ryco 4 Nov 08, 10:31 PM Remoses US(PA), 6 yrs I was struck by a comment made with regard to women being forced into the workplace by war or other events. This makes Me wonder...regarding women in the workplace and in jobs traditionally thought of as a "Mans's job", is there a distinction between "can do" and "should do"? I will not even broach the topic of "womans's work"! I am Remoses. Just because it's inconvenient, doesn't mean it's not required. Quod principi placet legis habet vigorem (The pleasure of the prince has the force of law.) **Pronounce it: Ray-mosay.** 4 Nov 08, 10:41 PM sassybutt UK, 4 yrs Remoses wrote: I was struck by a comment made with regard to women being forced into the workplace by war or other events. This makes Me wonder...regarding women in the workplace and in jobs traditionally thought of as a "Mans's job", is there a distinction between "can do" and "should do"? I will not even broach the topic of "womans's work"! I am Remoses. Hello Sir, No, I personally don't think so, as you know, I was in the Army. (before I was knew I was a slave) In the job I have now, I am an over the road truck driver. Sometimes in life I have found, "it is what it is, and you gotta do whatcha gotta do." My job allows me to "get" to my Master, as well as it is to "service" people in general related which I really like anyway. I find that alot of the men in my job, no matter what trucking company they work for as we are all co-workers on the road each day, do get their loads refused because of attitude, my boss (dispatcher) will have them swap loads with me and hate to say it, a smile goes a long way and I get docked and unloaded or loaded. (my trailer that is, hehe) ~edited to add~ To quote my Master, "This is not midieval times." sassybutt~Property of Master J Edited 13 Nov 08, 2:46 AM by sassybutt 9 Nov 08, 2:14 PM Mistress_Tiara 5 yrs Remoses wrote: Men and women For the sake of this question,let us assume that by "Men" I mean Dominant personalities and Owners, and let us also assume that by "women" I mean submissive personalities and slaves. I know this will find disagreement with some of you, but if you do see things differently, please address My question before you inform Me that I've got this all wrong. Ha! The problem with this assumption is that it is a very big and sweeping assumption to base the rest of your argument on. But for the sake of your question I shall ignore this and plough onward. Remoses wrote: What is the fundamental relationship between Men and women? I wonder if over the last few decades we have redefined that relationship and may have confused ourselves as we did so. Does the quest for equality among genders, races and sexual orientations make us all a sort of amorphous blob without distinctions? Distinctions such as physicality will always exist. Beyond that any distinctions are cultural, spiritual, individual etc. Allowing people of either gender to have the option of living in concert with whatever these leanings and preferences are can surely only be a good thing. Rather than making us an 'amorphous blob without distinctions' I would say that what moves toward gender equality etc have done are allow us to be less of an 'amorphous blob', by being more free to be individuals rather than defined simply by gender, race, religion or whatever. The old differentiating distinctions I think you are missing are just cultural constructs, fashion, repressive devices, dogma etc and as such really just merging us all (of both genders) into one 'blob' of socially acceptable units following the paths allowed to them. By allowing more freedom it stops us being such an 'amorphous blob'. Remoses wrote: Or do the fundamental differences still hold, even as we redefine ourselves? The fundamental differences - ie physicality - will always hold as they are not for us to choose. Away from kink, M/s etc, many many men are not naturally dominant, and many many women are not naturally submissive. This is uncomfortable for people with rigid views of gender and as such often manifests in the world at large in ways that are stigmatized by people with rigid views of gender roles, as being negative things. I simply do not see it that way however. To choose a basic example, where would society be without strong capable independent women raising their kids on their own? If all women who found themselves single with kids swooned and waited to be saved by some big strong man, society as a whole would be royally screwed and implode pretty damn quickly. Some people may look at this example and say, 'Dreadful! Single Mother's - they're the dregs of society! Blah blah' etc and wonder how I can choose this as an example for my point, but as my point is that society is full of and in actuality benefits from women who are not passive/ submissive, or men who are not dominant, I think it's a valid example of how we all benefit from diversity. Remoses wrote: Can we hold that equality of opportunity is, on its face, a good thing while we also ask that we realize that the power differences that we seek between us may beg for a different definition, altogether? As I consider the many aspects of Power Exchange or whatever else you may want to call it, I am left wondering about whether or not any of this actually squares with all the social changes that have come about in the last, oh, four or five decades? The essence of equality is equality of choice. I can therefore see no reason why Power Exchange, whichever gender direction it works for those involved, is at odds with societal moves toward equality. If a woman chooses to be submissive that is in no way antithetical to feminism as long as it is based on an informed choice and option. This same principle holds for submissive men, dominant women or dominant men. If you are not harming anyone and everyone is informed and happy in their decision and choice, it seems to me that any form of Power Exchange is valid. It's all about choice. [/quote] *~*Mistress Tiara*~* 9 Nov 08, 3:27 PM MacCain 4 yrs Just my opinion on this topic, To my mind dominance and submission, are natural drives, which are either developed or rejected through time and personal development. Race and gender, don't play a significant factor in that nature in my opinion, they do however play a factor via mammalian politics. It is unfortunate that dominant people through out history have used societal and cultural tendencies to maintain their power, rather than standing on their abilities. Dominants tend to seek power and control, and submissives tend to seek to serve. To take these positions because it's what you've been forced into by cultural constraints, may work for those who happen to be predisposed that way, but would be horribly unsatisfying for those not wired for it. Equality of opportunity allows people to attain the positions they desire, through their own merits. Society as a whole is still not there, economic and cultural constraints still inhibit actualisation for many. When we allow ourselves to look at dominance and submission by their own nature, we free ourselves from sophist notions, which seem to be truth. We allow ourselves to see those involved in these dynamics as people with complimentary tendencies. Cheers, MacCain Here's to the man, and only he, can work his horse by the rule of three; by the crack of his whip or the wave of his hand he can make them go or make them stand. 9 Jan 09, 5:55 PM NekoRyoBlen US, 3 yrs Y! I'm kind of glad that there is a topic on this because all of my life I have been a staunch feminist, and also all of my life I have been a closet submissive. If I ramble off topic I apologize feircely, I've never been able to address this issue properly or effectively. My Dom is a natural dominant, but he also is a firm believer in feminist ideals, which lately has been a big issue in our relationship, since he wants to dominate, but is reluctant to do so to a female, and I want to submit, but am reluctant to do so to a male. I believe that it is wonderful that we are becoming "amorphus blobs." Nobody is obligated to be forced into any mold that is unnatural to them. I've been such an outspoken feminist my entire concious life (it started when I was toddler aged) that giving in to my submissive side almost feels like treason and something I should be ashamed of at times. There is no part of me that believe that woman's place is below men's. This is not the dark ages, I believe that we are moving past that as a society. But aside from that, I know that I love to serve and to please, and my lover happens to be a man, a man that sees all people as equals and has problems seeing me as his sub for that reason. In recent discussions with Him it has been very hard for him to legitimize this kind of relationship and I'm pretty sure he wants to just have a vanilla style one. I don't know whether I should rejoice as a feminist, or mourn as a submissive. It is a choice that we can follow or reject social norms, I find it hard to believe that feminists are the exception in this case and I don't see myself as less than men for serving my Dom, I'm still above them in my workplace, and I don't plan on giving any of that up. Just my controll where it comes to Him. I hope that remotely fits the topic... if not, a thousand apologies. Next page