Post-feminism and BDSM

[ownedsubgal]

So, in your opinion, Netzach should have fewer rights than 00Syd? Which rights, specifically, should she have given up when she married M?

haha, you won't trip me on that one.

besides, i honestly view Netz as much more a smooth Husband than wife, and i hope she knows i state that with the utmost respect and admiration. in a case like hers, i am all for fooling the gov't a bit.

but to answer your question in a general sense, what rights do i feel a fem should give up upon marriage or other legally binding contract? well for starters, the right to an abortion without the male partner's consent, the right to open a personal bank account without the male partner's consent, the right to cry rape when sex takes place without mutual consent, and many, many other things running the gamut from financial contracts to domestic interaction.

 

[MisterSir]

however i simply do not believe females should ever be included in a draft, period.

i believe strongly in equal rights/equal pay among genders in the workplace

I do so love a good gender-based double standard, you know, with equal rights except when it comes to the bad shit like fighting and dying for one's country.

 

[ownedsubgal]

Fiscal factors are the main driving force, there's something deliciously alpha-crowning about money if you want to let it be.

so true. but don't worry about out-earning, you can always just claim his.

 

[where]

haha, you won't trip me on that one.

besides, i honestly view Netz as much more a smooth Husband than wife, and i hope she knows i state that with the utmost respect and admiration. in a case like hers, i am all for fooling the gov't a bit.

but to answer your question in a general sense, what rights do i feel a fem should give up upon marriage or other legally binding contract? well for starters, the right to an abortion without the male partner's consent, the right to open a personal bank account without the male partner's consent, the right to cry rape when sex takes place without mutual consent, and many, many other things running the gamut from financial contracts to domestic interaction.

you think it is alright for women to be raped by their husbands? really?

 

[where]

I do so love a good gender-based double standard, you know, with equal rights except when it comes to the bad shit like fighting and dying for one's country.

she isn't actually supportive of equal rights, so no double standard.

 

[kaycee217]

haha, you won't trip me on that one.

besides, i honestly view Netz as much more a smooth Husband than wife, and i hope she knows i state that with the utmost respect and admiration. in a case like hers, i am all for fooling the gov't a bit.

but to answer your question in a general sense, what rights do i feel a fem should give up upon marriage or other legally binding contract? well for starters, the right to an abortion without the male partner's consent, the right to open a personal bank account without the male partner's consent, the right to cry rape when sex takes place without mutual consent, and many, many other things running the gamut from financial contracts to domestic interaction.

I'm with Kybele. I can see the argument about how someone who is married can lose some rights or freedoms, but allowing marital rape? I don't understand that one.

 

[JMohegan]

haha, you won't trip me on that one.

besides, i honestly view Netz as much more a smooth Husband than wife, and i hope she knows i state that with the utmost respect and admiration. in a case like hers, i am all for fooling the gov't a bit.

but to answer your question in a general sense, what rights do i feel a fem should give up upon marriage or other legally binding contract? well for starters, the right to an abortion without the male partner's consent, the right to open a personal bank account without the male partner's consent, the right to cry rape when sex takes place without mutual consent, and many, many other things running the gamut from financial contracts to domestic interaction.

I'm not trying to trip you up; I'm trying to understand what you believe.

I appreciate your attempt to clarify, but I'm still confused. Netzach gets a pass from you on this? A "choice" to retain these rights, if you will?

How does that fit with your earlier assertion, that you "disagree passionately with the feminist ideal of choice?" Why just Netzach, and not other women? Is what you're really saying that you believe all marriages should be some form of hardcore D/s?

 

[JMohegan]

I'm with Kybele. I can see the argument about how someone who is married can lose some rights or freedoms, but allowing marital rape? I don't understand that one.

In my view, it is totally unacceptable for any mentally competent adult, in a free society, to be precluded from opening a bank account in his or her sole name.

Financial dependence is a choice some individuals make. That is their risk to take. But it is NOT okay to legislate financial dependence for every married human with a vagina.

 

[kaycee217]

In my view, it is totally unacceptable for any mentally competent adult, in a free society, to be precluded from opening a bank account in his or her sole name.

Financial dependence is a choice some individuals make. That is their risk to take. But it is NOT okay to legislate financial dependence for every married human with a vagina.

I didn't say I agreed with ownedsubgal, but that I saw where she was coming from and I understood her side...except the point about marital rape.

 

[ownedsubgal]

I'm with Kybele. I can see the argument about how someone who is married can lose some rights or freedoms, but allowing marital rape? I don't understand that one.

it is not that i condone marital rape, it is more that i do not recognize the concept of marital rape.

 

[where]

I'm with Kybele. I can see the argument about how someone who is married can lose some rights or freedoms, but allowing marital rape? I don't understand that one.

I'd like to clarify and say a woman doesn't lose ANY rights or freedoms upon marriage. It's one thing as ownedsubgal has done to choose to subjugate all rights, including the right to withhold consent to sex and fiscal responsibility, it is quite another to say that others should also have that right taken away.

 

[where]

it is not that i condone marital rape, it is more that i do not recognize the concept of marital rape.

not recognising its existance is the same as condoning it.

 

[kaycee217]

it is not that i condone marital rape, it is more that i do not recognize the concept of marital rape.

Tres bien

 

[MisterSir]

you think it is alright for women to be raped by their husbands? really?

OSG has some very unusual views on relationships. You'd be better off taking a look through her post history sometime for a fuller story, but the gist is that in her world, the concept of "consent" doesn't exist because she no longer has a choice about what her Daddy does to her. This is not just...like, during a scene, this is permanently, this is 24/7 taken to it's most extreme level.

 

[kaycee217]

I'd like to clarify and say a woman doesn't lose ANY rights or freedoms upon marriage. It's one thing as ownedsubgal has done to choose to subjugate all rights, including the right to withhold consent to sex and fiscal responsibility, it is quite another to say that others should also have that right taken away.

I was using the terms "rights and freedoms" very loosely and in the context of this thread. I do not support any loss of rights or freedoms upon marriage, even if I come across that way to help continue the discussion.

 

[where]

OSG has some very unusual views on relationships. You'd be better off taking a look through her post history sometime for a fuller story, but the gist is that in her world, the concept of "consent" doesn't exist because she no longer has a choice about what her Daddy does to her. This is not just...like, during a scene, this is permanently, this is 24/7 taken to it's most extreme level.

yeah, i was aware of that as I mostly lurk rather than post, but I hadn't thought that she extended those concepts to outside her own relationship.

I was using the terms "rights and freedoms" very loosely and in the context of this thread. I do not support any loss of rights or freedoms upon marriage, even if I come across that way to help continue the discussion.

cool, i just wanted to clarify my stance as I'm not really well known here

 

[kaycee217]

cool, i just wanted to clarify my stance as I'm not really well known here

You and me both.

 

[ownedsubgal]

I'm not trying to trip you up; I'm trying to understand what you believe.

I appreciate your attempt to clarify, but I'm still confused. Netzach gets a pass from you on this? A "choice" to retain these rights, if you will?

How does that fit with your earlier assertion, that you "disagree passionately with the feminist ideal of choice?" Why just Netzach, and not other women? Is what you're really saying that you believe all marriages should be some form of hardcore D/s?

no, i would not say that Netz would get a "choice" to retain those rights. this is more about core identity, and i don't believe Netz chooses her identity any more than i choose mine. all the standard gender rules simply do not apply to her, and she personally is greatly responsible for my ability today to truly understand and respect that there can still be a cohesive and sensible "Way" for our society without everyone having to color within the same lines. it is not about choice or freedom to choose, it is about who you are.

as for your "hardcore D/s" comment, no, that is not what i believe. i am failing to understand how anything i have described is "hardcore." now as for simply D/s, i believe that exists anyway to some degree in every human/animal relationship. however that's a different topic.

what i'm saying is that 1. i recognize and greatly appreciate the differences between genders, and 2. marriage, civil unions, and other legally binding contracts between adults is in a very real sense belonging to someone. now, depending on one's personal beliefs or ways, that "ownership" can go both ways, however this is where point 1 comes into play. because there are certain differences between men and women (vaginas, birthin' babies, etc.), the same rules cannot be blindly applied across the board. as a single and free woman, what goes in or out of your uterus is your business. but as part of a greater whole, the person without the uterus is effected as well.

 

[ownedsubgal]

i wonder, do feminists agree with american child support laws? laws which mandate a man pay child support to a woman with whom he had no committed relationship, for a child he did not want or "choose" if you will?

 

[Netzach]

For some reason a husband being entitled to sex on demand troubles me FAR less than whoever has the penis decides what happens to the money. We've already seen how well that works for humanity at large.

 

[Netzach]

i wonder, do feminists agree with american child support laws? laws which mandate a man pay child support to a woman with whom he had no committed relationship, for a child he did not want or "choose" if you will?

Me personally? Bogus. Don't fuck around casually and then decide you're not ready to deal with the fallout, and yes, it's YOUR fallout if you have the uterus. It's another thing if you're in some kind of established relationship, maybe, but "oops" ing simply isn't enforceable anyway and reluctant fathers make shitty ones.

But I was raised without benefit of a single dime or interaction from said man. I don't feel owed, frankly.

 

[kaycee217]

i wonder, do feminists agree with american child support laws? laws which mandate a man pay child support to a woman with whom he had no committed relationship, for a child he did not want or "choose" if you will?

I'm no feminist, but I agree with child support laws, even if the child is a result of bad faith by the mother.

It's not about making "the man" support the child. It's about providing for the child, whether the man or woman has to pay the child support or either party acting in bad faith.

 

[ownedsubgal]

For some reason a husband being entitled to sex on demand troubles me FAR less than whoever has the penis decides what happens to the money. We've already seen how well that works for humanity at large.

there's having a total dictatorship on finances, and then there's having the peace of mind knowing your wife can't secretly squirrel away 50K "for a rainy day" or purchase that beach house down in the keys under pretense of senile old mom's retirement home expenses. total dictatorship is what suits me and my relationship, general awareness and peace of mind is what i wish for relationships at large.

 

[intothewoods]

<snip>

what i'm saying is that 1. i recognize and greatly appreciate the differences between genders, and 2. marriage, civil unions, and other legally binding contracts between adults is in a very real sense belonging to someone. now, depending on one's personal beliefs or ways, that "ownership" can go both ways, however this is where point 1 comes into play. because there are certain differences between men and women (vaginas, birthin' babies, etc.), the same rules cannot be blindly applied across the board. as a single and free woman, what goes in or out of your uterus is your business. but as part of a greater whole, the person without the uterus is effected as well.

In what real sense? Legally, marriage and civil unions are simply partnerships with certain legal benefits.

i wonder, do feminists agree with american child support laws? laws which mandate a man pay child support to a woman with whom he had no committed relationship, for a child he did not want or "choose" if you will?

There are some odd technicalities to child support laws, like the presumption that the husband is the father and required to pay child support, regardless of DNA test results. Laws regarding child support are not always fair to the father, but the reasoning behind them is not a feminist position. The best interest of the child is the legal standard, and courts award child support so that the child is cared for to the fullest extent possible, not in such a way that is necessarily fair to either parent.

 

[ownedsubgal]

Me personally? Bogus. Don't fuck around casually and then decide you're not ready to deal with the fallout, and yes, it's YOUR fallout if you have the uterus. It's another thing if you're in some kind of established relationship, maybe, but "oops" ing simply isn't enforceable anyway and reluctant fathers make shitty ones.

But I was raised without benefit of a single dime or interaction from said man. I don't feel owed, frankly.

exactly. as a kid what would you prefer...a reluctant monthly check from a sperm donor, or someone to teach you to ride a bike and go to your piano recitals?

i do not agree with the concept of child support outside of a committed/established relationship gone sour. it is of no emotional/psychological benefit to the child (and can even be damaging, reminding them of being unwanted, etc.), and completely denies a man's rights. and while yes i'm aware women are mandated to pay child support also, the situations are so extreme and so rare as to be in a completely different category.