This page sponsored by Mr. S Leather, San Francisco    [other banners]

	TSR : Web boards : M/s D/s O&P : "Legal Slavery (II) - Feminism" Legal Slavery (II) - Feminism (8) This post is on the M/s D/s O&P web board (moved from Other Topics). Sat 28 Aug 10, 6:24 PM EvaMaria US(CA), 3 yrs Note: This is an offshoot of the Legal Slavery (II) Lord_Uther wrote: Eva, nowhere did I say that women shouldn't have equal rights, nor did I say that a victim of rape should have to prove they didn't want to be raped (& as a victim of rape I never would!). Nor did I recommend a turn back of the clock to take back those rights that were hard won. And I don't appreciate the insinuation in your reply that I did. I wouldn't appreciate it either. But the inference wasn't my intention and I'm sorry that you made it. If in future you feel I've made *any* subtle accusation, please ask me to clarify. I prefer to tell my meaning outright - particularly on something that serious in nature. What I did say was: EvaMaria wrote: And personally speaking, while I'm owned by/married to a confirmed sexual sadist, I would have to think long and hard before I supported any laws that might serve to regress us back to a time where it fell to the victim to *prove* they didn't want to be raped, kidnapped, assaulted, etc. ...I shudder to think where a less than perfectly considered law could leave lower-income women, or those dependent on family or other immediate social structures - I'm very wary of anything that would leave these women vulnerable. My point here was to support my objection to your characterization of feminist thinking - our ideas (as well as conflicts) on this subject are varied. I offered my personal opinion to show that it's possible to understand/support consensual slavery while still having doubts re: legislative tolerance. Lord_Uther wrote: In your reply you say that feminism gave women a reasonable choice, if you go to the opening line of your quotation of what I said, my argument was that feminism failed to give women an option; and I stand by this. To clarify: EvaMaria wrote: Consider voting rights/education, scholastic changes, rape laws, gender discrimination laws, daycare, reproductive rights, etc, etc - all things that have helped transform marriage/housewife from a sole option to a reasonable choice. (Emphasis added) This was in rebuttal to your statement that feminism failed to create options - these things not only increased women's access to financial independence but along with other benefits, made financial dependence (as in marriage/housewife) less risky. Should she divorce or should her partner die, all these changes help a woman to rebuild her life without dependence on family, in-laws or similar. Before these changes, a divorced/widowed woman could often find herself looking at a future of charity and unwilling dependence - or destitution. Lord_Uther wrote: I have seen women 'attacked' by the feminist movement for wanting to stay at home and be homemakers, that they were traitors to the cause and 'stamping on the efforts' of those women who went before. Girls are now taught they must go out get a career and succeed in the world of employment and that anything less is their failure in the fight of women's rights. I've heard as many persons offer this opinion as I have those who feel a woman's only natural place is in the home raising children. I've been told that men are totally responsible for the oppression of women and that they subconsciously fear us, as well as that the feminist movement's real mission is to make every woman as angry and miserable as they are. I don't think any of these ideas are sensible, nor do I think those who take such black/white views of the situation are in the majority. Or particularly influential. Lord_Uther wrote: My whole response was in regards of what would stand in the way of our lifestyle being accepted by mainstream society, the 'abuses' I mentioned were in relation to consensual BDSM/Ms relationships not wifebeaters etc. Please go back and (re)read the opening half of my post to gauge how I feel about anyone who would use our lifestyle as an excuse to exert their non-consensual aggressive/abusive behaviour. (See my first reply) Lord_Uther wrote: Neither does saying that someone would over react to a situation through misunderstanding or lack of knowledge imply that they are 'hysterical or clone-like'. I agree. But my response was not to this statement, but to the one I quoted. Lord_Uther wrote: Also just because a lot feminists enjoy kinky sex doesn't mean that they would accept consensual slavery. It does not. But it does serve to show that the "thought that any woman would take a caning, or want to be slapped OR, sin of sins, like being chained to the kitchen sink..." would not necessarily be unacceptable to feminists in general and that's the reason I offered it. And again, my response was to the text quoted, specifically to the characterization of feminists as persons who abhor ("sin of sins") kinky sex. Lord_Uther wrote: Tho I do feel your reactionary response does support my argument of how the feminist movement would fail to understand how a women would want to freely enter into a legal slave system. (Emphasis mine) I'd prefer that you rebut my ideas with logic rather than a wholesale invalidation of my post, and particularly one of emotionalism. Still, I did say my hesitation toward laws tolerating consensual slavery is based in a lack of confidence in the wisdom and foresight of the legislature rather than a lack of understanding re: the appeal of consensual slavery. (It *is* the life I've chosen.) Will you clarify your comment then, please? Eva (The property formerly known as Camille ) 28 Aug 10, 7:09 PM Lord_Uther UK, 6 yrs I thank you for your response, and I also thank you for creating a new thread so as not to derail the other thread. Unfortunately I am just walking out the door for my night shift, so I'll respond to this when I get up tomorrow. Have a good Saturday night. x My name is Lord Uther, king of kings: Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair! 28 Aug 10, 7:26 PM EvaMaria US(CA), 3 yrs Fair enough. (And you're welcome) Eva (The property formerly known as Camille ) 29 Aug 10, 4:19 PM Lord_Uther UK, 6 yrs Using bold in my responses purely for easy reading purposes. EvaMaria wrote: Legal Slavery (II) - Feminism Note: This is an offshoot of the Legal Slavery (II) Lord_Uther wrote: Eva, nowhere did I say that women shouldn't have equal rights, nor did I say that a victim of rape should have to prove they didn't want to be raped (& as a victim of rape I never would!). Nor did I recommend a turn back of the clock to take back those rights that were hard won. And I don't appreciate the insinuation in your reply that I did. I wouldn't appreciate it either. But the inference wasn't my intention and I'm sorry that you made it. If in future you feel I've made *any* subtle accusation, please ask me to clarify. I prefer to tell my meaning outright - particularly on something that serious in nature. What I did say was: EvaMaria wrote: And personally speaking, while I'm owned by/married to a confirmed sexual sadist, I would have to think long and hard before I supported any laws that might serve to regress us back to a time where it fell to the victim to *prove* they didn't want to be raped, kidnapped, assaulted, etc. ...I shudder to think where a less than perfectly considered law could leave lower-income women, or those dependent on family or other immediate social structures - I'm very wary of anything that would leave these women vulnerable. My point here was to support my objection to your characterization of feminist thinking - our ideas (as well as conflicts) on this subject are varied. I offered my personal opinion to show that it's possible to understand/support consensual slavery while still having doubts re: legislative tolerance. For your first point I hold my hands up and admit that I completely misunderstood what you were saying. I see now you were just offering examples of what the feminist movement has achieved. For this I apologise. My only excuse was that I'd just got in from a stressful first night back to work, and had been up some 20 odd hours and just completely misread what you said. My apologies. Lord_Uther wrote: In your reply you say that feminism gave women a reasonable choice, if you go to the opening line of your quotation of what I said, my argument was that feminism failed to give women an option; and I stand by this.ç To clarify: EvaMaria wrote: Consider voting rights/education, scholastic changes, rape laws, gender discrimination laws, daycare, reproductive rights, etc, etc - all things that have helped transform marriage/housewife from a sole option to a reasonable choice. (Emphasis added) This was in rebuttal to your statement that feminism failed to create options - these things not only increased women's access to financial independence but along with other benefits, made financial dependence (as in marriage/housewife) less risky. Should she divorce or should her partner die, all these changes help a woman to rebuild her life without dependence on family, in-laws or similar. Before these changes, a divorced/widowed woman could often find herself looking at a future of charity and unwilling dependence - or destitution. Lord_Uther wrote: I have seen women 'attacked' by the feminist movement for wanting to stay at home and be homemakers, that they were traitors to the cause and 'stamping on the efforts' of those women who went before. Girls are now taught they must go out get a career and succeed in the world of employment and that anything less is their failure in the fight of women's rights. I've heard as many persons offer this opinion as I have those who feel a woman's only natural place is in the home raising children. I've been told that men are totally responsible for the oppression of women and that they subconsciously fear us, as well as that the feminist movement's real mission is to make every woman as angry and miserable as they are. I don't think any of these ideas are sensible, nor do I think those who take such black/white views of the situation are in the majority. Or particularly influential. This may be how you feel, and I have no doubt that choice was/is the feminists aim (in fact I have said so, how can you fail to achieve something if you weren't aiming for it?), but that hasn't been the end result. As an example, in my day girls at school who took Home Economics as part of their exams options were labelled by their peers as being to thick to do a 'proper' course. How is this giving someone a choice? I don't know maybe things are different in the U.S. but here in the UK the way I have explained things isn't the minority, but very much the majority. An interesting aside last month on Channel 4 there was a mini-series following 5 Amish Teenagers who were brought to the UK for their Rumspringer (when their allowed to leave the Amish community, break all the rules they want and experience the outside world before committing themselves to the Amish way of life) They were exposed to various forms of social life in the UK from a south east London council estate, middle class family life and a Scottish Lairds Manor. What was interesting was as the Amish girls were showing the families what it was to be an Amish women, sewing, cooking etc all the UK girls ended up expressing how envious they were of the Amish girls. How staying at home and making a home seemed much more satisfying. And that secretly they thought that it was right that the man should 'take the lead' (sorry can't think of a better term), go out to work etc, and they hadn't even realised this was an option for them. What is also interesting that after being shown some of the options available to them away from the Amish community all of the Amish preferred the Amish way. EvaMaria wrote: Lord_Uther wrote: Neither does saying that someone would over react to a situation through misunderstanding or lack of knowledge imply that they are 'hysterical or clone-like'. I agree. But my response was not to this statement, but to the one I quoted. Sorry you've confused me here. Yes I know that it was and this was my response to your response about 'reactor meltdown'. Just because someone goes apoplectic doesn't mean they are being irrational or clone like. I was trying to clarify my point by saying that I felt that they would react like this through lack of understanding or knowledge not because they were being 'hysterical girlies'. In fact I can think of several non related examples of when someone going into 'reactor meltdown' is justifiable EvaMaria wrote: Lord_Uther wrote: Also just because a lot feminists enjoy kinky sex doesn't mean that they would accept consensual slavery. It does not. But it does serve to show that the "thought that any woman would take a caning, or want to be slapped OR, sin of sins, like being chained to the kitchen sink..." would not necessarily be unacceptable to feminists in general and that's the reason I offered it. And again, my response was to the text quoted, specifically to the characterization of feminists as persons who abhor ("sin of sins") kinky sex. But we're not talking about kinky sex tho are we? We're talking about consensual slavery as a lifestyle, not those who enjoy a bit of slap and tickle in the bedroom. Bringing up this as evidence does not support the idea that they would support (or understand) our lifestyle. EvaMaria wrote: Lord_Uther wrote: Tho I do feel your reactionary response does support my argument of how the feminist movement would fail to understand how a women would want to freely enter into a legal slave system. (Emphasis mine) I'd prefer that you rebut my ideas with logic rather than a wholesale invalidation of my post, and particularly one of emotionalism. Still, I did say my hesitation toward laws tolerating consensual slavery is based in a lack of confidence in the wisdom and foresight of the legislature rather than a lack of understanding re: the appeal of consensual slavery. (It *is* the life I've chosen.) Will you clarify your comment then, please? Eva This ties in to my initial misunderstanding, once again I apologise. My name is Lord Uther, king of kings: Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair! Edited 29 Aug 10, 5:57 PM by Lord_Uther 30 Aug 10, 11:07 AM EvaMaria US(CA), 3 yrs Lord Uther - Thanks very much for this. I do accept and appreciate it. And it's true enough that intentional, subtle accusations are a common thing even here on TSR - so it wasn't such an unnatural mistake to make. Lord Uther wrote: Sorry you've confused me here. Yes I know that it was and this was my response to your response about 'reactor meltdown'. Just because someone goes apoplectic doesn't mean they are being irrational or clone like. I was trying to clarify my point by saying that I felt that they would react like this through lack of understanding or knowledge not because they were being 'hysterical girlies'. In fact I can think of several non related examples of when someone going into 'reactor meltdown' is justifiable This is where we'll have to agree to disagree. While I do think there are times when an uncontrolled emotional response is understandable, for it to be justifiable would mean the good of it is enough to make the bad negligible. I don't think that happens. BUT I do accept that your meaning wasn't of "hysterical girlies". And I appreciate it from a personal standpoint as well. Lord Uther wrote: But we're not talking about kinky sex tho are we? We're talking about consensual slavery as a lifestyle, not those who enjoy a bit of slap and tickle in the bedroom. Bringing up this as evidence does not support the idea that they would support (or understand) our lifestyle. Based on the text I quoted I did understand you to be speaking of kinky sex, and that was a misunderstanding. Thanks for the clarification. To your examples of teenage behaviour: Not having any first-hand knowledge of either one, I can't offer too much comment. I can say that my own experience in high school was similar but to be fair, while home economics did teach some useful domestic skills the curriculum overall required less than average intelligence - and even less effort. And while I don't condone making fun in either case, there was a similar perception re: wood/auto shop. As far as I know, in my area these classes have both been discontinued for other subjects more useful to college entrance and the job market, a change I strongly agree with. Whether a woman desires a life of financial dependence or not, she will still benefit from the ability to take care of herself until it becomes a reality. I did think the comparative actions of the 3 groups was interesting. One group on being told to go wild proceeds to do what would normally win them the most approval in their own culture, a thing which would then make their assertion that they would prefer their own ways over any others reasonably predictable. The second uniformly expresses a yearning for a lifestyle that, by comparison, a moderate viewpoint would seem liberal - as well as denying any idea that being a full-time housewife was even a possibility. (I do have doubts whether this group was randomly chosen. Even supposing the experience to have been their first exposure to Amish culture, surely there must be a housewife or two among their collective family, friends or neighbors. Or at least a television/movie theatre.) And the third group, while denigrating home ec students for their interest in a domestic career, probably (still ) spend a disproportionate amount of their income on clothes, makeup, etc - all intended to increase their chances of attracting a boyfriend/possible husband. So, what this all can be taken to mean re: their actual beliefs/future paths vs the naturally strong influence of peer pressure and general lack of experience, I don't know. But I would like to have seen the documentary. AnonMoos wrote: Don't know that it's historically true that "Men have always been given more latitude re: physical exposure than women" -- during the 19th century, women in western cultures were free to display their upper forearms and elbows (always in evening wear, sometimes in day wear) while men weren't. It was similar with shoulders and low necklines, while in swimwear, men were usually required to cover their chests in mixed-sex sea-bathing. This is true. But this bit of "license" becomes negligible considering the corsets, stays, stockings, gloves and multiple layering of slips, skirts and petticoats worn for the sake of modesty. And 19th century swimwear for women also involved mid to full-length stockings, skirts/shorts/petticoats and a short to 3/4 length-sleeved blouse - compared to the form-fitting and more comfortable style acceptable for a man. 898-443-818 wrote: "you could actively look to increasing your understanding of the matter" is a viable answer to anyone who posts anything without 100 links to surveys and studies and has an opinion which you don't agree with, so, it's a cop out. i prefaced my post by saying it was my feelings. I'm unclear re: your complaint. You said that if your response to the program you saw was inaccurate as regards the feminist movement, you were sorry but you felt the responsibility for this lay with the movement itself (i apologize for that, but would say they need to improve their marketing ;"), as opposed to more specific information that can be found in data, studies, articles, etc. My response was that in addition to passively accepting what appears to be an illogical motivation ("one of them said boobs shouldn't be sexuality. WTF? i don't want to be a man."), you also have the option of asking questions, doing research and just generally learning more about it. My own experience has been that nearly every powerful social/political movement has been based in some sort of logic. That's not to say I think you'll agree with their reasoning - just that you do have the option of finding out what it is. And, to be fair - a "viable" answer is one that's useful and/or appropriate. 898-443-818 wrote: If you have an issue with my understanding of any topic, you can take it up with my Master, otherwise, i will continue to post my thoughts & feelings on topics as i see fit. I don't know whether this is a genuine offer or a rhetorical remark, although I am leaning toward the latter. Either way, I decline. Whatever personal issue I may or may not have with your comprehension, thoughts, feelings, or your relationship with your master, it's neither here nor there re: my use of these boards. If you've interpreted anything I've written to say that it is, you've misunderstood me. I think every member here is entitled to post or comment on anything posted to these boards - both of us included. But as we've already had similar discussions on 2 other threads, (Here and here.) I'd prefer any further comments/discussion re: our respective posting "rights" be via private memo, please. Eva (The property formerly known as Camille ) 30 Aug 10, 11:29 AM Lord_Uther UK, 6 yrs Just going round a mates to try and get some sleep (see my posting on the other boards as to why lol) so will respond better when I get some rest lol But in the meantime if you want to watch that documentary you can here: http://www.channel4.com/programmes/amish-worlds-... My name is Lord Uther, king of kings: Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair! 31 Aug 10, 1:43 AM 898-443-818 US, 5 yrs <I'd prefer any further comments/discussion re: our respective posting "rights" be via private memo, please.> Why? i really have no desire (no offense) as i am simply contributing to a forum. i was just sharing my thoughts and feelings, which i will continue to do. i am fine with agreeing to disagree. i do it all the time, i have done it with you, thegildedlili, and many others i am sure, although i don't have the time to sort through old threads to find them. i am just participating in a conversation. <I don't know whether this is a genuine offer or a rhetorical remark, although I am leaning toward the latter.> Um, no, it was quite genuine. Apologies if it sounded "rhetorical", sarcastic, or otherwise 898-443-818 i am a slave-i have no rights, no safewords, i do not say "no" to my Master. i do not have "limits". i have entered into consensual slavery, so that may help explain the views in my post. Edited 31 Aug 10, 1:47 AM by 898-443-818 31 Aug 10, 9:50 AM Lord_Uther UK, 6 yrs EvaMaria wrote: This is where we'll have to agree to disagree. While I do think there are times when an uncontrolled emotional response is understandable, for it to be justifiable would mean the good of it is enough to make the bad negligible. As extreme (and possibly bad) examples if someone walked into my Mum's house and give her a slap and you'd see me go into what I would consider a justifiable reactor meltdown...as my aunt discovered (tho her assault was verbal not physical). Another example was when years ago a friend of mine got home to discover his best friend raping his girlfriend, he broke the guys neck, killing him. IMO a justifiable and understandable reaction. EvaMaria wrote: To your examples of teenage behaviour: Not having any first-hand knowledge of either one, I can't offer too much comment. I'm sure you was teenager once Eva (Sorry just being facetious) EvaMaria wrote: I can say that my own experience in high school was similar but to be fair, while home economics did teach some useful domestic skills the curriculum overall required less than average intelligence - and even less effort. And while I don't condone making fun in either case, there was a similar perception re: wood/auto shop. As far as I know, in my area these classes have both been discontinued for other subjects more useful to college entrance and the job market, a change I strongly agree with. Whether a woman desires a life of financial dependence or not, she will still benefit from the ability to take care of herself until it becomes a reality. Once again a different experience here in the UK. Those guys that took the CDT (craft, design & technology) courses were never caste in a derogatory light. They were manly courses done by manly men. And the girls that took those courses were considered liberated, whereas the boys that took Home Ec' were 'queer'. Kind of ironic when stereotypically the best (read most famous) chefs are usually male, not my definition of equality. EvaMaria wrote: Even supposing the experience to have been their first exposure to Amish culture, surely there must be a housewife or two among their collective family, friends or neighbors. Or at least a television/movie theatre.) Altho this wasn't covered in the series I'm going to have to draw upon my experience of UK culture here to answer this. Yes of course there are but those Mother's that are housewives bring up their daughters to 'want so much more'. That to be a home maker is a life of drudgery. Here in the UK so many skills are being lost. Hand knitting, sewing, clothes making cooking etc. Many British home made dishes are also being lost. I'm one of the few people I know who knows how to make Spotted Dick (stop giggling please), or a decent home made stew. I love stuffed hearts. Why go to the effort to make these dishes when you can go to Asda/Tesco's and by Turkey Twizzlers or go to McD's and save yourself the effort of putting a box in the microwave. My Mum works as a Teachers Assistant and there all these kids with this syndrome or that syndrome. None of this existed when I was at school and I am convinced it because of all the shit parents are feeding their kids. Parents in the UK are slowly poisoning the next generation. & I feel that part of this has to be because it's more important for Mothers to go out to work now than raise their kids properly. One of our famous chef's actually said he would go into any home or school who wanted it and show them how to make proper home cooked food, cheaper than the prepackaged crap, and you know what? Pretty much instantly all the behaviour problems stopped, they studied harder & grades increased. In my mind the feminist movement, at least in the UK, lost sight of one factor. Traditionally women had the greatest, and most important job of all. That of creating, and rearing, the next generation, they were responsible for the future. They held it in their hands and discarded it to sit behind a desk and shuffle paperwork. My name is Lord Uther, king of kings: Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair! 1 Sep 10, 1:58 AM EvaMaria US(CA), 3 yrs Lord Uther - Haha! In fact, I was one of those spending 90 cents of every dollar on makeup, clothes and the latest issue of Cosmopolitan. :p (But what I meant was that I hadn't seen the documentary or have much knowledge re: the current crop of high school students in the UK.) We did have a couple of girls in auto/wood shop and while we all agreed that this was very liberated, my friends and I did spend more time wondering why they had boyfriends who were so dominating and self-centered. We never did have (at least that I can remember) any boys in home ec - a thing that puzzled me at the time and I now think of as both a shame and just as well. While teenagers can be very open-minded they're also very given to establishing self-identity through the exclusion (and torment) of those that differ from them. Well, it's a confusing time. I agree that the message of drudgery would primarily come from housewives - but they do know the way of that life better than anyone else. And I do agree with you re: the loss of handcrafted arts. But I look at the domestic variety in the way I do things such as penmanship, jewelsmithing and bookbinding - they were wonders, but they're no longer socially or economically viable. And particularly in the case of the domestics, the longevity of which can be primarily credited to the restricted options of an entire gender. I very much agree re: nutrition and health. But I think we need a new approach of awareness and availability rather than going back to a society that sees it as the given responsibility of women. And I do agree that the responsibility for the care of those in power socially and financially (husbands, fathers, etc.) and the upcoming generation - not to mention the elderly - is a very important one. And it does have rewards for the person who accepts it as a career. But I think it's clear that the inverse relationship between the increased options for other types of careers and the amount of women who choose homemaking does show that other rewards (social/economic independence and recognition, self-direction, etc) are as important to women as they are to men. Care and nurture will always be a necessary part of any healthy society, but better to share the responsibility between both genders. Thanks for the link. I'm going to watch it now. 898-443-818 wrote: <I'd prefer any further comments/discussion re: our respective posting "rights" be via private memo, please.> Why? i really have no desire (no offense) as i am simply contributing to a forum. i was just sharing my thoughts and feelings, which i will continue to do. i am fine with agreeing to disagree. i do it all the time, i have done it with you, thegildedlili, and many others i am sure, although i don't have the time to sort through old threads to find them. i am just participating in a conversation. I've gone as far as I'm willing re: your interpretations of my personal motivations (or yours) via these boards. I've already offered my reasons and my terms. Take or leave them, but please respect them. Eva (The property formerly known as Camille )