Another reason why BDSM will never gain acceptance in the US

[JMohegan]

Men appreciate the female form, and will verbalise it, at all ages.

Of course.

But the way they verbalize it varies.

 

[teknight]

3 - The ones who still love looking, no matter what the age.

4 - The ones who can't stop counting once they reach two.

Seriously though... I've heard rather old men talk like this too. Of course, I've heard a four year old talk like this too, so I take your point. Men appreciate the female form, and will verbalise it, at all ages.

You already know that I've got zero mastery of language. I believe last night's to and fro proved that.

I keep wanting to slip into an ad hominem attack on JM, but will refrain, lest my language skills not prove sufficient.

 

[FungiUg]

(that really is a funny webcomic!)

Yeah, it is... cross-thread conversation!

 

[Stella_Omega]

Nice try though. Next time throw harder.



You're putting forth 2 minor criteria as the "thing" that defines fertility.

Yes, there are cultural norms that dictate how you date, who's best looking (them there be some hot tattoos, let me tell you, would be one dumb example), there are fetishes, and there's competition, that almost always guarantees that you have to be more than a cock or a pussy ('cause the cock that's also funny will steal your pussy)...
..and yet, damn it, a good looking chick...mmm-mmmmm

There was a time when tattoos were a signal that someone might be sexually compatible with me, for instance. That would have been about a month before they broke out into discount-store territory, but trufax. using certain types of tats as a signal isn't dumb at all.

 

[JMohegan]

You already know that I've got zero mastery of language. I believe last night's to and fro proved that.

I keep wanting to slip into an ad hominem attack on JM, but will refrain, lest my language skills not prove sufficient.

Your language skills are great.

Believe it or not, JM is trying to help you.

 

[satindesire]

Your language skills are great.

Believe it or not, JM is trying to help you.

You know it's bad when they start talking about themselves in third person.

Come down off the pedestal, Mr. Dom. It's okay, the peons are here to help you.

 

[JMohegan]

You know it's bad when they start talking about themselves in third person.

Come down off the pedestal, Mr. Dom. It's okay, the peons are here to help you.

Not interested in your tit for tat games, SD. You'll have to find someone else to play with.

 

[satindesire]

Not interested in your tit for tat games, SD. You'll have to find someone else to play with.

Oh My God, lighten up, JM, I was only teasing you! Take a chill pill.

 

[teknight]

Oh My God, lighten up, JM, I was only teasing you! Take a chill pill.

Funny. That's what I said, too!
Chill pills all around!

Alright, JM, let's say I believe you in your 3rd person offer for help. Educate me: What's lacking?

 

[Netzach]

A few observations, from a biological male, on the criteria that biological males use in seeking out intimate partners.

1 - The notion that the hottest female attainable is the best choice for intimate partner is a notion that most heterosexual males discard by the time they leave adolescence. They discard it because they learn, through experience, that the hottest female in the room is not always the one who can meet the guy's need for emotional support, personal and ethical compatibility, and interesting conversation at dinner.

That doesn't mean he stops caring about physical attractiveness. What it means is that he starts to care about other attributes also. His perception of attractiveness therefore widens, and becomes more complex.

2 - The notion that there is a single standard for physical attractiveness, even among heterosexual males in the same peer group in our own society, is just laughable. Preferences differ, and guys in fact argue about this sort of thing all the time.

3 - Gay men exist. I should think this would be self-evident, but given the claims that sexual attraction in males is rooted in fertility, apparently it needs to be mentioned.

4 - The physical, mental, and emotional needs of men, as individuals, vary. The physical, mental, and emotional needs of individual males vary over time as well. Genetic wiring is part - but only part - of what's going on. I should think that this, too, would be self-evident. But apparently it's not.

I remember an older and more socially adept client on some prodomme boards weighing in on the topic of "hotness" as it raged - how young should she be, how fat can she be, etc. etc. Another nauseating reminder that it's just meat on parade for some of these guys. He said "she has to be not unattractive to me physically, and attractive to me in other ways too." This always struck me as reasonable, and actually pretty commonplace in reality.

 

[satindesire]

I remember an older and more socially adept client on some prodomme boards weighing in on the topic of "hotness" as it raged - how young should she be, how fat can she be, etc. etc. Another nauseating reminder that it's just meat on parade for some of these guys. He said "she has to be not unattractive to me physically, and attractive to me in other ways too." This always struck me as reasonable, and actually pretty commonplace in reality.

For some reason this made me lawl.

"How fat CAN she be, then?"

 

[teknight]

I remember an older and more socially adept client on some prodomme boards weighing in on the topic of "hotness" as it raged - how young should she be, how fat can she be, etc. etc. Another nauseating reminder that it's just meat on parade for some of these guys. He said "she has to be not unattractive to me physically, and attractive to me in other ways too." This always struck me as reasonable, and actually pretty commonplace in reality.

I admit complete ignorance here- is it wrong of him to want an attractive Domme? Or was he being too picky?

 

[JMohegan]

Alright, JM, let's say I believe you in your 3rd person offer for help. Educate me: What's lacking?

Not lacking, just the way you expressed it. Of course, tone on the internet is missing, so it's possible that your comment in real life wouldn't have sounded adolescent or desperate at all.

Part of it is the vocabulary. "Chick" is usually considered to be a derisive term.

 

[JMohegan]

He said "she has to be not unattractive to me physically, and attractive to me in other ways too." This always struck me as reasonable, and actually pretty commonplace in reality.

Yes, THIS. This is it, exactly.

 

[teknight]

Not lacking, just the way you expressed it. Of course, tone on the internet is missing, so it's possible that your comment in real life wouldn't have sounded adolescent or desperate at all.

Part of it is the vocabulary. "Chick" is usually considered to be a derisive term.

I use the word to refer to a girl's physical qualities only. Is it demeaning that I use such language if I'll never use in front of her? Maybe. Do I actually respect her less for it? I don't think so....

Desperate? hahaha. We're on lit.

 

[JMohegan]

I use the word to refer to a girl's physical qualities only.

Well, that's precisely the point. It's derisive because it reduces females to their physical qualities only.

So when you say something that sounds like the equivalent of: "Yeah, yeah, there are cultural norms, fetishes, and competition.... but damn, there's nothing like a good looking chick," the implication is that's the predominant characteristic you value.

 

[graceanne]

Just to throw this in there, but most women these days don't mind being called a 'chick' any more than they mind being called a girl, lady, woman, etc. Some even refer to themselves as a chick.

Some do, but most who do are older and from a time when it was rude. Now it's just slang for a girl. Like 'dude' is slang for a guy and teenybopper is slang for a teenager and dawg is slang for someone. (I think anyone, cause my brother in law and his boys have referred to me and my husband as 'dawg'. )

 

[satindesire]

Just to throw this in there, but most women these days don't mind being called a 'chick' any more than they mind being called a girl, lady, woman, etc. Some even refer to themselves as a chick.

Some do, but most who do are older and from a time when it was rude. Now it's just slang for a girl. Like 'dude' is slang for a guy and teenybopper is slang for a teenager and dawg is slang for someone. (I think anyone, cause my brother in law and his boys have referred to me and my husband as 'dawg'. )

These days, 'chick' isn't considered derogatory by the younger generations. So I totally agree with you. Younger women aren't going to mind "chick" any more than men are going to mind "dude" or "guy".

 

[Stella_Omega]

These days, 'chick' isn't considered derogatory by the younger generations. So I totally agree with you. Younger women aren't going to mind "chick" any more than men are going to mind "dude" or "guy".

When has "Dude" ever been a belittlement? or "guy?"

Those are two of the only words I can think of that are both slangy and non-judgmental, and that's why I tend to use them for women as well as men.

I'm thinking that the reason "chick" can be considered objectionable, is because it refers to women specifically. And there just aren't many slang words that refer to women in a non-belittling way. We bristle by reflex.

 

[teknight]

Well, that's precisely the point. It's derisive because it reduces females to their physical qualities only.

So when you say something that sounds like the equivalent of: "Yeah, yeah, there are cultural norms, fetishes, and competition.... but damn, there's nothing like a good looking chick," the implication is that's the predominant characteristic you value.

Thanks for assumptions and sorry for the misunderstandings:
fact is that you don't meet everyone in a realm of written words, where you can evaluate their brain before you see their boobs (or at the same time). Sometimes you see someone, they're attractive, and you try to get them to find you attractive as well. Or are you going to say that upon encountering a group of women you'll instantly go for the frumpy looking ones 'cause they're sure to have depth?

Yes, I like attractive women. What makes a woman attractive are both her mind and her body. An unattractive mind is an instant disqualifier for me, whereas there are degrees of attractiveness in a body.

Let me reiterate: sometimes you have nothing more to go on than somebody's physical features!

Just to throw this in there, but most women these days don't mind being called a 'chick' any more than they mind being called a girl, lady, woman, etc. Some even refer to themselves as a chick.

Some do, but most who do are older and from a time when it was rude. Now it's just slang for a girl. Like 'dude' is slang for a guy and teenybopper is slang for a teenager and dawg is slang for someone. (I think anyone, cause my brother in law and his boys have referred to me and my husband as 'dawg'. )

These days, 'chick' isn't considered derogatory by the younger generations. So I totally agree with you. Younger women aren't going to mind "chick" any more than men are going to mind "dude" or "guy".

Dudes, can I just point out that your two replies sort of belong on the feminism thread as well.

 

[graceanne]

When has "Dude" ever been a belittlement? or "guy?"

In Little Women Jo is told not to make a 'guy' out of herself. At one time 'guy' meant :

3. a grotesquely dressed person. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/guy)

Eventually it came to just mean '1. Informal. a man or boy; fellow:'

Dude was originally a derogatory term for 'a person reared in a large city' and 'a man excessively concerned with his clothes, grooming, and manners.' Kind of like a dandy. And, honestly, there are still people who object to being called a 'dude'. Like my father in law, my step dad . . .

My point is that a lot of slang that's considered okay and normal started out as derogatory terms.

Dudes, can I just point out that your two replies sort of belong on the feminism thread as well.

The phrase 'chick' isn't being brought up in that thread. That's why I brought it up in this thread.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Cross thread conversation!

makes me think of this song;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClQgkOoY1do

 

[JMohegan]

Thanks for assumptions and sorry for the misunderstandings:
fact is that you don't meet everyone in a realm of written words, where you can evaluate their brain before you see their boobs (or at the same time). Sometimes you see someone, they're attractive, and you try to get them to find you attractive as well. Or are you going to say that upon encountering a group of women you'll instantly go for the frumpy looking ones 'cause they're sure to have depth?

Of course not.

But you're changing the subject.

If you don't want to heed my advice on language, don't heed it. Obviously that's your right.

 

[teknight]

Of course not.

But you're changing the subject.

If you don't want to heed my advice on language, don't heed it. Obviously that's your right.

So you're saying I should call women roses? No, that'd insult them, for roses come with thorns. Goddesses? No, 'cause those bitches were crazy sluts (at least in Greek mythology). Angels? No, 'cause they could never live up to the ideal.

Be explicit, will you?

 

[JMohegan]

So you're saying I should call women roses? No, that'd insult them, for roses come with thorns. Goddesses? No, 'cause those bitches were crazy sluts (at least in Greek mythology). Angels? No, 'cause they could never live up to the ideal.

Be explicit, will you?

Avoid terms with a history of pejorative use, unless you are deliberately trying to insult.

That's my advice, take it or leave it.