I think most women are basically sluts.

ownedsubgal said:

i do not feel intimidated, nor do i feel that promiscuous feminists are going after promiscuous doormats with knives and torches. but when a society/culture presents certain, very narrow and limited (of course), acceptable or at least tolerable forms of sexuality, it invalidates those which are in direct opposition to those standards. this is not an individual thing, it is a cultural thing.

you find the same thing with the current "strong independent woman" image constantly boasted of and blasted at us throughout every sphere of one's life...academically, socially, and even the entertainment media, most especially so in the black community. for nearly the last decade at all times at least a dozen songs praising the virtues of the "independent woman" have remained in heavy rotation on the radio...and you have had female pop stars stand up as idols representing this lone image of woman...this one archetype is the best type of woman, the most successful, the most valuable, the most desirable, is the message that is loudly broadcast. that pop image makes me feel just as invalidated, or likely even more so, as the promiscuous feminist model.

Click to expand...

I was not born in western society.
I was born in small relatively secluded society in East Europe. They valued and respected doormats. Promiscuous women were not very respected but they were tolerated if they were doormats. Feminists? No fcking way, they are the devil, go to church and confess and prostrate and turn into proper little doormat asap or get the hell out of this community.
Most of those good little wives were manipulators of worst kind inside their home but outside they were all good, obeying little creatures without mind or any sexual thought just as God meant them to be.

I was permanently angry and ashamed as a child because I had hard time understanding why am I supposed to obey any man just because he is male.
I was sick and tired of stories about glorified wives who would clean the house, tend the children, work on the field all day under the sun, and then "let him have his way" in the night. If he hit her it was because "she probably deserved it". If he cheat on her it was because "he is a man he has needs".

Took me years to grow out of that, to accept myself as a person with sexual desires and to be able to express them. I was married almost 18 years and it broke because he could never stop wanting me to be like his doormat mother.

I am far from being "strong independent woman" yet but I am sure as hell trying. And honestly, I dont give a damn what my society thinks I should be anymore. I am ruined in my struggles to the point of being sort of man-hater sometimes, I get pleasure from hurting, humiliating, breaking them. It is not even normal sexual pleasure but something deeper and darker in me. I am trying to suppress such needs because they damage my present marriage.

If what I am offends you, I am truly sorry.

StrayKat,

that post just makes me wonder how each of us would have turned out had i grown up there and had you grown up here.

ownedsubgal said:

StrayKat,

that post just makes me wonder how each of us would have turned out had i grown up there and had you grown up here.

Click to expand...

I know. I do believe in genetics, or whatever it is that made me always fight my community. I was never happy there, even as a very small child I was just different.

But you know what offends me personally? People that take it all superficially, just another kink in bed, fun for a while. People who always lived in society that catered them, protected them, respected them but want to pop out and try something different for a change, without actually understanding or having any deeper feelings about what they do.
I dont know if I was very clear now but I hope you understand what I meant.

I think women are only "supposed" to be strong and independent to a point. Many men say they want a woman who doesn't "need" them. They want her to be able to take care of things they don't want to do, so they can sit on their lazy asses and watch football or go out with their buddies and play golf or whatever. But if she's so independent that she makes more money than them, let's see how long it takes them to revise that statement.

Basically, "I want an independent woman" means "I don't want a gold-digger," or "I don't want someone who's really clingy because that gets in the way of me enjoying the things I like," not "I really want someone who can function 100% without me."

Thus, people on both ends of the independence spectrum are screwed.

00Syd said:

Man, I don't think anybody (men and women) sees positive images of their sexuality portrayed anywhere, even the most vanilla.

Click to expand...

This is because, culturally speaking, we're all twisted up about sex.

--

BiBunny said:

I think women are only "supposed" to be strong and independent to a point. Many men say they want a woman who doesn't "need" them. They want her to be able to take care of things they don't want to do, so they can sit on their lazy asses and watch football or go out with their buddies and play golf or whatever. But if she's so independent that she makes more money than them, let's see how long it takes them to revise that statement.

Basically, "I want an independent woman" means "I don't want a gold-digger," or "I don't want someone who's really clingy because that gets in the way of me enjoying the things I like," not "I really want someone who can function 100% without me."

Thus, people on both ends of the independence spectrum are screwed.

Click to expand...

This. The guys I know that want an "independent woman" say that but mean "I don't want to have to take care of her needs." They simply don't want to be bothered. A woman should be there to handle the shit they don't want to do, and then still be able to clean up her own mess too.

Some of my friends are boggled at my relationships because they know how much effort I put into mine. They talk about how they don't want a "high maintenance" doormat, or a needy woman. They want someone independent. On the rare occasions when they find it, said independent woman leaves their butts because, surprise, she doesn't need a man. She has her own shit going on, and doesn't need an overgrown man-boy to take care of.

Homburg said:

This is because, culturally speaking, we're all twisted up about sex.

Click to expand...

Haha, well, duh. Everyone thinks they're doing it wrong, or are weirder than everyone else, or not weird enough, or any number of other anxieties. We have so many hang-ups about our sexuality.

BiBunny said:

I think women are only "supposed" to be strong and independent to a point. Many men say they want a woman who doesn't "need" them. They want her to be able to take care of things they don't want to do, so they can sit on their lazy asses and watch football or go out with their buddies and play golf or whatever. But if she's so independent that she makes more money than them, let's see how long it takes them to revise that statement.

Basically, "I want an independent woman" means "I don't want a gold-digger," or "I don't want someone who's really clingy because that gets in the way of me enjoying the things I like," not "I really want someone who can function 100% without me."

Click to expand...

yeah, i totally see that. for many the desire for an "independent" woman really translates to a desire not to have any responsibility for their partner. popular songs preach about a woman "who can do for herself," and who's "got her own," and "who wants me but don't need me." so a woman had better have her own money, take care of all her own problems, and ask nothing whatsoever of a man. but when this plays out in reality, for most it leads to a lot of resentment and discontent on both sides. the man begins to feel emasculated, and the woman starts to view the man as redundant and weak.

so you are right, in reality it works for only a very few (say Dominant females and submissive males especially). still it is lauded as the western ideal woman image we are supposed to all aspire to be, or want.

Most of those good little wives were manipulators of worst kind inside their home but outside they were all good, obeying little creatures without mind or any sexual thought just as God meant them to be.

Click to expand...

In my experience, this is fairly common in the D/s community as well. Go to a munch...Behave and be "subbier than thou." Be at home...Do what you want, and live a farce of a relationship. How do you live two lives and be, in effect, two different people?!?!

ownedsubgal said:

i do not feel intimidated, nor do i feel that promiscuous feminists are going after promiscuous doormats with knives and torches. but when a society/culture presents certain, very narrow and limited (of course), acceptable or at least tolerable forms of sexuality, it invalidates those which are in direct opposition to those standards. this is not an individual thing, it is a cultural thing.

you find the same thing with the current "strong independent woman" image constantly boasted of and blasted at us throughout every sphere of one's life...academically, socially, and even the entertainment media, most especially so in the black community. for nearly the last decade at all times at least a dozen songs praising the virtues of the "independent woman" have remained in heavy rotation on the radio...and you have had female pop stars stand up as idols representing this lone image of woman...this one archetype is the best type of woman, the most successful, the most valuable, the most desirable, is the message that is loudly broadcast. that pop image makes me feel just as invalidated, or likely even more so, as the promiscuous feminist model.

Click to expand...

G's sexuality was not, and has never been, celebrated by mainstream culture. And as far as feminists go, in college they were her most vociferous critics.

They would say: "You're caving in to the patriarchical idea that all women should be available for sexual use by all men." G would respond: "Your criticism is rooted in the patriarchical inability to acknowledge a woman's sexual curiosity, energy, and free will as valid or even existing." And round and round they went.

As for Samantha, I haven't watched enough Sex and the City to comment on her personality. But from the visuals, I find the notion of Samantha as feminist role model really funny. She may be free from societal expectations of monogamy, but she's also clearly a slave to the fashion and cosmetics industries. Barbie with a high sex drive and multiple dates.

With regard to the push for strong and independent women, I agree that some of the messaging is dismissive of alternate preferences and abilities and is therefore off-putting. However, to the extent that academic and social forces are striving to empower women to achieve the capacity for economic independence, and to develop personal fortitude, I consider those forces to be not just valid, but very positive.

Weak and dependent = vulnerable, and as you know, that's a dangerous place for any person to be. Not everyone is as fortunate as you are, with a Master who meets your needs.

A Rihanna needs the personal strength to kick Chris Brown's ass to the curb. A single mother needs the mental and emotional capacity to care for her children, and herself. And so on. No woman lives with a guarantee of a benevolent provider or protector for the entirety of her life.

Homburg said:

This is because, culturally speaking, we're all twisted up about sex.

Click to expand...

So very true. On one end, you got the uber-prudes, where the husband and wife sleep in different beds, and on the other end, the "buy-sexuals and try-sexuals" (as my cousin so eloquently puts it) whose own sexuality isn't defined by who they are, but what sounds nice at that very moment... and what with both extremes fighting one another, it's leaving the rest of us "somewhat normal people" in their wake. I think that we, as a society, are so prone to picking extreme sides (are you Democrat or Rebuplican, treehugger or gas-guzzler, Raiders fan or Red Wings fan, PC vs console, and so on), that we lose sight that there is such a thing as "the middle".

... On the rare occasions when they find it, said independent woman leaves their butts because, surprise, she doesn't need a man...

Click to expand...

Rofl, so very true. On the flipside, I personally can't stand "the independent woman" mindset. They can't figure out why men (on their level) act like such jerks... They don't get that men leave them because sometimes guys need to care for them, and when they're *that* independent, their men aren't able to fulfill that primal "provider" need for them... so they go and look for someone they *can* care for, because "she doesn't need me".

TBH, I find any extreme deplorable... if you can't both give and take, care and be cared for, love and be loved, you'll find yourself being denied one, the other, or both, as that's what you're denying your SO.

OSG said:

the man begins to feel emasculated, and the woman starts to view the man as redundant and weak.

Click to expand...

QFT.

Ravenwind said:

On the flipside, I personally can't stand "the independent woman" mindset.

Click to expand...

Hm, I am interested in what you consider as "the independent woman mindset".

I find myself pretty independent in way that I can and do decide for myself, I generally have my way and I am not financially dependent on my husband.
That doesnt mean I never need his care in any way.

ownedsubgal said:

yeah, i totally see that. for many the desire for an "independent" woman really translates to a desire not to have any responsibility for their partner. popular songs preach about a woman "who can do for herself," and who's "got her own," and "who wants me but don't need me." so a woman had better have her own money, take care of all her own problems, and ask nothing whatsoever of a man. but when this plays out in reality, for most it leads to a lot of resentment and discontent on both sides. the man begins to feel emasculated, and the woman starts to view the man as redundant and weak.

so you are right, in reality it works for only a very few (say Dominant females and submissive males especially). still it is lauded as the western ideal woman image we are supposed to all aspire to be, or want.

Click to expand...

This image of the independent woman never bothered me, partly because I liked the idea of having my own money and doing my own thing, and partly because I knew that it was a reaction and response to the 50's housewife model and similar archetypes. I don't have a preference for either type of woman, as both are extremes and neither really takes into account the complexities and nuances of being a woman.

In my case, I've had to become an "independent woman." Family circumstances, none of which I am responsible for, have forced me to become the woman who takes care of herself and her own. I'm far from perfect in this role and struggle daily trying to maintain the life that was forced on me. I truly don't identify with a lot of pop culture references to an independent woman because I definitely cannot do whatever I want or make decisions based on my own needs and no one else's. What's fundamentally wrong with the pop culture independent woman is not that it might make men feel emasculated or weak, but that it's yet another impossible ideal that women have felt compelled to live up to.

JMohegan said:

A Rihanna needs the personal strength to kick Chris Brown's ass to the curb. A single mother needs the mental and emotional capacity to care for her children, and herself. And so on. No woman lives with a guarantee of a benevolent provider or protector for the entirety of her life.

Click to expand...

I agree wholeheartedly with this. Sometimes a woman cannot depend on anyone but herself, even if she would like it otherwise.

jenniferbaby said:

This image of the independent woman never bothered me, partly because I liked the idea of having my own money and doing my own thing, and partly because I knew that it was a reaction and response to the 50's housewife model and similar archetypes. I don't have a preference for either type of woman, as both are extremes and neither really takes into account the complexities and nuances of being a woman.

In my case, I've had to become an "independent woman." Family circumstances, none of which I am responsible for, have forced me to become the woman who takes care of herself and her own. I'm far from perfect in this role and struggle daily trying to maintain the life that was forced on me. I truly don't identify with a lot of pop culture references to an independent woman because I definitely cannot do whatever I want or make decisions based on my own needs and no one else's. What's fundamentally wrong with the pop culture independent woman is not that it might make men feel emasculated or weak, but that it's yet another impossible ideal that women have felt compelled to live up to.



I agree wholeheartedly with this. Sometimes a woman cannot depend on anyone but herself, even if she would like it otherwise.

Click to expand...

And I agree with a lot of what you've said, but especially wholeheartedly with the bolded part above. I think you've nailed it there. Astute insight.

I agree that the picture of the independent woman that the media has presented is unattainable, for the most part. I do also think that our definition of "independent" is skewed. Just because someone is independent doesn't mean that she (or he) doesn't have needs.

I may come at this from a slightly different way, however, in that I'm a lesbian and have never needed, wanted, or even felt like behaving in a certain way to please a man was required of me. The hetero component of "independent" is fairly vital in how we define that word in our culture in this context.

What WAS required was my ability to take care of myself. This doesn't mean, though, that what my partner provides me with (love, understanding, sex, companionship, friendship) isn't something I don't need; I do.

Actually the goal should be interdependence. There's a line graph, sorta, and codependents is on one side, and independence is on the other, and what's supposedly 'healthy' is somewhere in between.

I'm, out of curiosity sake, quoting one of my many shrinks. Normally they're idiots, but that part made sense to me.

StrayKat said:

Hm, I am interested in what you consider as "the independent woman mindset".

I find myself pretty independent in way that I can and do decide for myself, I generally have my way and I am not financially dependent on my husband.
That doesnt mean I never need his care in any way.

Click to expand...

Yes, I agree. To me there's world of difference between independence and self-sufficiency. I happily consider myself to be an independent woman. I am quite capable of managing my business, home, finances, and personal life in way that suits me. That's the essence of being independent - to me.

I do not, however, choose to meet my sexual, emotional, social, spiritual/nurturing needs alone.
That's something completely different altogether. I need that intimacy and collaboration, to be able to be cared for, and to care; to nurture and be nurtured. It challenges me and ensures I keep developing as a whole person. Independence grows from seeds of this - being free to be empowered, strong, capable, resilient, compassionate, decisive, brave, honest. All of those represent independence to me - and I think they're all positives

graceanne said:

Actually the goal should be interdependence. There's a line graph, sorta, and codependents is on one side, and independence is on the other, and what's supposedly 'healthy' is somewhere in between.

I'm, out of curiosity sake, quoting one of my many shrinks. Normally they're idiots, but that part made sense to me.

Click to expand...

I like this idea.

subish2009 said:

And I agree with a lot of what you've said, but especially wholeheartedly with the bolded part above. I think you've nailed it there. Astute insight.

Click to expand...

Thanks. I'm known to make an astute insight once every 2-3 years.

graceanne said:

Actually the goal should be interdependence. There's a line graph, sorta, and codependents is on one side, and independence is on the other, and what's supposedly 'healthy' is somewhere in between.

I'm, out of curiosity sake, quoting one of my many shrinks. Normally they're idiots, but that part made sense to me.

Click to expand...

I definitely agree with this. Even though I make my own money and no one takes care of me, I'm far from being completely independent.

StrayKat said:

Hm, I am interested in what you consider as "the independent woman mindset".

I find myself pretty independent in way that I can and do decide for myself, I generally have my way and I am not financially dependent on my husband.
That doesnt mean I never need his care in any way.

Click to expand...

Not quite what you are... something more like this: "I find myself pretty independent in way that I can and do decide for myself (and nothing my husband says or does will change my mind), I generally have my way (whether he likes it or not, or feels it's a good decision or not) and I am not financially dependent on my husband (and don't really care about whether he's $10 shy of getting that new power tool he's been wanting, he can work some overtime, as far as I care). I only need him for a snuggle pillow, but only because I don't know how to go about importing one from Japan... I can manage everything else on my own."

...essentially, most of the women in my family (blood and in-laws).

I think that it boils down to wants and needs.

I don't NEED my bf in my life, I am quite capable of doing most mundane things on my own. But I do WANT him in my life. And that makes all the difference for me.

ownedsubgal said:

yeah, i totally see that. for many the desire for an "independent" woman really translates to a desire not to have any responsibility for their partner. popular songs preach about a woman "who can do for herself," and who's "got her own," and "who wants me but don't need me." so a woman had better have her own money, take care of all her own problems, and ask nothing whatsoever of a man. but when this plays out in reality, for most it leads to a lot of resentment and discontent on both sides. the man begins to feel emasculated, and the woman starts to view the man as redundant and weak.

so you are right, in reality it works for only a very few (say Dominant females and submissive males especially). still it is lauded as the western ideal woman image we are supposed to all aspire to be, or want.

Click to expand...

I ask more of H than I do of M or T. The entire relationship is predicated on what he's going to do for me, can do for me and has to do for me.

To the point where I can rely on him to a certain amount. Independence to me is a mindset, it's not a social orientation. I may be an introvert, but if I were scared to need people I'd be a very dead duck at this point in my life.

My Dominant orientation isn't really a manifestation of independence at all - in fact it's a very vulnerable and dependent part of my personality, because with no submissive, it's kind of a burden not a fun thing.

This may cut to the heart of why my marriage to M has the most commonalities with the one really intense and serious relationship I had with another woman. Once the expectation are based on who's the receptive person and not who's got the salami, it kind of muddies things.

Ravenwind said:

... and what with both extremes fighting one another, it's leaving the rest of us "somewhat normal people" in their wake.

Click to expand...

I'm just sitting here enjoying the idea of a bunch of sadists, masochists, slaves, slave-owners, dominants and submissives describing themselves as 'somewhat normal people'.

graceanne said:

Actually the goal should be interdependence.

Click to expand...

Yay! Let's hear it for interdependence. A man with a belt is no use without a woman who wants to be belted. And vice versa, with special emphasis on the vice.

Aquila1 said:

I do not, however, choose to meet my sexual, emotional, social, spiritual/nurturing needs alone.
That's something completely different altogether. I need that intimacy and collaboration, to be able to be cared for, and to care; to nurture and be nurtured. It challenges me and ensures I keep developing as a whole person. Independence grows from seeds of this - being free to be empowered, strong, capable, resilient, compassionate, decisive, brave, honest. All of those represent independence to me - and I think they're all positives

Click to expand...

Quoted for truth.

BiBunny said:

I think women are only "supposed" to be strong and independent to a point. Many men say they want a woman who doesn't "need" them. They want her to be able to take care of things they don't want to do, so they can sit on their lazy asses and watch football or go out with their buddies and play golf or whatever. But if she's so independent that she makes more money than them, let's see how long it takes them to revise that statement.

Basically, "I want an independent woman" means "I don't want a gold-digger," or "I don't want someone who's really clingy because that gets in the way of me enjoying the things I like," not "I really want someone who can function 100% without me."

Thus, people on both ends of the independence spectrum are screwed.

Click to expand...

My Sir has said that in the bedroom, he wants me as I am: Submissive. In the real world, especially right now, when I live alone, He wants me to be strong and independent. He likes a woman with independence, fire, and intelligence.

When I have to be those things, I can; but I like, love knowing that when I come home, I can call Him and be not so strong, not so independent, but still maintain who I am. His submissive. His woman. His angel.

sadangel said:

My Sir has said that in the bedroom, he wants me as I am: Submissive. In the real world, especially right now, when I live alone, He wants me to be strong and independent. He likes a woman with independence, fire, and intelligence.

When I have to be those things, I can; but I like, love knowing that when I come home, I can call Him and be not so strong, not so independent, but still maintain who I am. His submissive. His woman. His angel.

Click to expand...

I have to say, that works for me too. Submissive when in a sexual context (I'm personally not very keen on sex in bedrooms), friend and companion when permitted, independent and competent when away from me.

SimonBrooke said:

I have to say, that works for me too. Submissive when in a sexual context (I'm personally not very keen on sex in bedrooms), friend and companion when permitted, independent and competent when away from me.

Click to expand...

But not independent and competent when with you? I struggle with that statement - I don't think those are characteristics that can be (or should need to be) switched on or off at will or masked. I just do not see independence as a negative thing. Eh, semantics - where would we be without 'em?