Good Manners

[Netzach]

Yes, you do go on, and on, and on, and on. To make what point, exactly? That any man who does not treat his partner like an 18th century china doll would necessarily do so only because he is on a leash and wearing panties? What planet do you live on, exactly? Because it sure as hell isn't this one. Here, mature men behave toward women in a civil way that involves them and respects their strength. We're flexible and attend to how our partners prefer to be treated. And, like our cap guns and cowboy hats, we've put aside the notion that we are inherently their superiors and that, due to their inherent weakness, we have to look after them like children.

Christ, hand this man a pair of panties and a cigar.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Christ, hand this man a pair of panties and a cigar.

We do have a handful of winners hanging out here.

 

[teknight]

We do have a handful of winners hanging out here.

Given Stella's earlier endorsement, I'm gonna be presumptuous and place myself in the winners' circle. But it's not about winners nor losers. It's about respect. I mean, we all lose as long as we are being thoughtless, and, surely, everyone's thoughtless at least once in awhile.

It's not a competition, it's seeking dignity.

 

[Netzach]

At the risk of prompting a burst of sarcastic boo-hooing from Netzach, I'm gonna agree with you that American society in general, over the course of my lifetime, has become far less accepting of women who defer to their mates, and men who take charge in the context of a personal relationship.

Now I don't usually mind being called a controlling prick or male chauvinist pig. I'm a big boy, with a thick skin, and I can handle it. More importantly, I've never had trouble finding a partner who was comfortable with, and aroused by, me, as I am.

But I do mind the shit my partners have taken, from family & friends. Of course, they've been big girls themselves. But somehow it's different when the shit is directed at a person you care about, and I'm protective like that.

So part of me understands what you're saying.

In the scheme of things, though, when compared to the shit taken by a woman who wants to marry her female lover, or a person born with a cunt who feels to her core that she's really a man, or a woman with control issues comparable to mine, the shit taken by my partners starts to seem relatively minor.

And here's what I don't understand about your personal perspective, RJ. Why don't you feel comfortable among conservative Christians?

When USA Today runs ads from the SBC declaring, "You are right because you called wives to graciously submit to their husband's sacrificial leadership," and that ad is signed by a 2008 presidential candidate, and that candidate goes on to win 8 states in the Republican primary, does it really seem accurate for you to declare that "the traditional male role and any expression there of, is no longer accepted or even tolerated in today's society"? Really? Huckabee even got 12% of the Republican primary vote in California! So how could we possibly infer a complete lack of tolerance for traditional males?

I'm not criticizing; I'm genuinely asking.

Huckabee's world seems alien to me for a bunch of reasons, including the fact that I'm not down with the Jesus thing. But RJ, I've seen you quote the Bible, favorably, on wives submitting, Abraham doing the Master thing with Sarah, and so on. So why isn't conservative Christianity a perfect fit for you? Why do you feel so attacked, when that niche not only exists, but thrives, in a sizable chunk of this country?

You're not gonna get any from me. Sarcasm. You raise valid points, but they're not reactionary ones, they're good questions.

You want to raise the issue of the fact that it's a fucking burden in this culture to be submissive in the osg's fixed temprement sense - fine. You want to talk about people getting barbs and arrows for having a stance other than complete and total independence as an island - fine. You want to talk about how when asked on a job application "I've shown extreme acumen as a follower" will NEVER be valued as a statement, let's.

But let's keep it in perspective. And you have the decency to do so.

As unpopular a feeling as that may be if you're born female in certain circles, it's even more of a burden if you are not. As this thread itself evidences. What kind of loathing do people have for a guy who doesn't long for the old world order? None spared.

I know I've been working hard, but I don't think I missed a memo as big as "society is now feminized."

 

[Stella_Omega]

You want to talk about how when asked on a job application "I've shown extreme acumen as a follower" will NEVER be valued as a statement, let's.

The proper term is "Team Player."

But of course they ask if you're also a "Self Starter." and some of us are sunk right there.

What kind of loathing do people have for a guy who doesn't long for the old world order? None spared.

Vis some guy's reply in Bette Coquette's thread, which made it clear that he assumes any male is feminised and cross-dressed by default. Because a Manly Male would never be submissive!

 

[sb2009]

I make little to no sense tonight - nyquil and a sinus infection. blech..

 

[midwestyankee]

Christ, hand this man a pair of panties and a cigar.

Thank you, my friend.

Now how's about a fair trade of a pair of panties for a glass of the Macallan?

 

[bhndblueyes88]

But of course they ask if you're also a "Self Starter." and some of us are sunk right there.

This could be a fun question if you chose to take it out of context, though

 

[teknight]

This could be a fun question if you chose to take it out of context, though

Even more fun if you choose to prove you're a Self Starter at the actual job interview. ...I mean, barring all that time you might spend in jail. Eek!

 

[RJMasters]

BDSM or Leather as I think of it, is a refuge from the idea that my power IS my genitalia and not me. Whether I'm me or susie subslut do-me it doesn't matter. Having my sexuality hijacked in front of my face by mainstream sexism that isn't so new fresh or exciting isn't my idea of a safe time anymore.

Coexisting is one thing, having to listen to "gee I wish the world were even more hostile to you when only a tiny portion of it has ever been hostile to me" is another.

You people have fucking everything but it's not good enough, you want the Dungeon AND the government that wants to shut it down. You won. Feminism is a dirty word. Who are you fighting?

"How would it feel if told you it was all in your head?" Oh please. That's never happened to GLBT people or women or non-normative men. You got there late is what I would feel.

It's not "in our heads" because of ongoing demonstrable centuries of data. I'm sorry the last 30 years have been confusing, how sorry do I have to get in the context of forced institutionalization for people like me for the last 100? It's not good enough to have to find consenting women to boss around, you need to feel like everyone is lining the streets to clap for you?

Get over it. No one is lining the streets to clap for anyone else.

Hmmm ok.

I think you are either misreading me or just don't understand where I am coming from. So here is my position and perspective.

Feminism is not a dirty word to me. If it has somehow got a tarnished reputation in society at large, I summized it is from those who didn't take good enough notes about for the last 1000 bazillion years or so and how the male entitlement mentality was wrong. Those who sought to co-op feminism into some form of female entitlement mentality are the ones I blame.

Equality isn't about tit for tat. Entitlement is.

It was the male entitlement mentality that for the last 1000 bazillion years told women what they couldn't do.

So if that was wrong...and let me be real clear, I agree that it was wrong, then doesn't that set the standard then? Wrong is wrong.

I don't care if you are:

a man
a woman
conservative
liberal
white
black
gay
straight
a man trapped in a woman's body
a woman trapped in a male's body

If we agree that the male entitlement mentality was wrong, then its wrong.

The feminism that I support ferociously is the one that helps level the playing field so that women have the same opportunity in life to choose to be whom ever they want to be, and then do it. That is something I can get behind, fight for and support.

The kind of feminism that has been co-oped and seeks to empower a female entitlement mentality is something I stand against. The hypocrsy in this co-oped feminism is everywhere and I make this statement based on the evidence I see, not from my imagination.

As an example, if feminism is really about equality and empowering women, wouldn't that mean that women who choose to be submissive be supported and empowered too? The two types of women demographics that make the choice to be submissive are usually made up of those women in conservative circles and those women in the BDSM community. Neither of which are accepted by the main stream movement of feminism or given a voice. In fact many in those two groups are afraid to speak up beacuse they are afraid of being attacked. The good news though in my opinion is that those women who belong to those groups are not only tired of men defining them, they are also sick and tired of other women defining them.

Lastly, I have no idea what you meant by saying:

"You won. Feminism is a dirty word. Who are you fighting?"

I didn't win anything and to me feminism isn't a dirty word unless by what you mean by feminism is the advancement of replacing a male entitlement mentality with a female entitlement mentality. And as to who I am fighting.... I am fighting against anyone mentioned on the list above who seeks to intimadate, bully or marginlize others by forcing them into a role that fits their view. Its not ok for men to do it to women, its not ok for women to do it to men, its not ok for men to do it to other men because of their choice of lifestyle, its not ok for women to do it to other women because of their choice of lifestyle.

 

[RJMasters]

At the risk of prompting a burst of sarcastic boo-hooing from Netzach, I'm gonna agree with you that American society in general, over the course of my lifetime, has become far less accepting of women who defer to their mates, and men who take charge in the context of a personal relationship.

Now I don't usually mind being called a controlling prick or male chauvinist pig. I'm a big boy, with a thick skin, and I can handle it. More importantly, I've never had trouble finding a partner who was comfortable with, and aroused by, me, as I am.

But I do mind the shit my partners have taken, from family & friends. Of course, they've been big girls themselves. But somehow it's different when the shit is directed at a person you care about, and I'm protective like that.

So part of me understands what you're saying.

In the scheme of things, though, when compared to the shit taken by a woman who wants to marry her female lover, or a person born with a cunt who feels to her core that she's really a man, or a woman with control issues comparable to mine, the shit taken by my partners starts to seem relatively minor.

And here's what I don't understand about your personal perspective, RJ. Why don't you feel comfortable among conservative Christians?

When USA Today runs ads from the SBC declaring, "You are right because you called wives to graciously submit to their husband's sacrificial leadership," and that ad is signed by a 2008 presidential candidate, and that candidate goes on to win 8 states in the Republican primary, does it really seem accurate for you to declare that "the traditional male role and any expression there of, is no longer accepted or even tolerated in today's society"? Really? Huckabee even got 12% of the Republican primary vote in California! So how could we possibly infer a complete lack of tolerance for traditional males?

I'm not criticizing; I'm genuinely asking.

Huckabee's world seems alien to me for a bunch of reasons, including the fact that I'm not down with the Jesus thing. But RJ, I've seen you quote the Bible, favorably, on wives submitting, Abraham doing the Master thing with Sarah, and so on. So why isn't conservative Christianity a perfect fit for you? Why do you feel so attacked, when that niche not only exists, but thrives, in a sizable chunk of this country?

As a partial answewr I think you can read my response to Netz, however I would have to ask you to clarify...what exactly are you genuinely asking?

I don't feel attacked. If I was being attacked, someone please let me know that you attacked me.

Let me be clear, I do not pine for the olden ways, or to be very specific, I don't pine for those traits of the traditional male role that oppressed women and out of ignorance or selfishness. That is not to say that all traits of the traditional male role did that, nor does it mean that all women felt oppressed either.

I would be glad to answer any of your questions as I have time to do so, but I would be interested in which post(s) I made on this thread where you read it as me being defensive.

I can show you in my posts where I was pointing out how others were being attacked, and that the attacks used seemed to me to be a bit unfair, or over the top and that some of the statements or assertions used as a basis for those attacks were just simply not true.

Again I did not see anyone attacking me and the point of my posts or at least the intent of my posts I made were not defensive in nature as it was to sarcastically pointing out that this thread was about good manners, yet the ones who seem to think they should say what is, and what is not good manners, were also the ones attacking others. I found this to be a bit bizzar to coin a phase.

Where the topic feminism came into the picture was me using it as an example to debunk a technique used in debate that intends to marginalize other people's positions and avoids ever addressing the issues to see if there is any validity to them or not. For example, say anything bad about a gay person and typically your are automatically dubbed homophobic. Say anything bad about feminism, and somehow your a man with a vivid imagination with anger issues towards women who wants things to go back to the olden days where men were men and women knew their place. Yet no one ever stops to asks the question, maybe the gay person was an asshole and deserved it, or maybe some people were being a bit hypocritical.

As to the "possibly infer a complete lack of tolerance for traditional males" statement, perhaps it would have been better worded that traditional males are accepted in certain circles of our society, but typically in media and academa which shapes public opinion, the traditional male role is usually cast as an oppressor and negatively almost all the time.

As to why Netz responded to me as she did, I honestly don't know. I was as confused by it as I was for you writing this post. I hope this and the other post brings some kind of clarity.

 

[teknight]

Netz responded the way she did, in part, 'cause you wrote some very unclear posts, RJM.

 

[sb2009]

I think too, we could probably be a bit clear on what we see as "attack" and what is just people saying shit.

Am I attacking Michelle Duggar (is that her first name?) when I, in my livingroom, mock her and her quiverfull life? Or am I just making some commentary, to the amusement of my spouse and friends, about how I think she's kinda fruity.

People think I'm fruity. People raise their eyebrows at me when they find out my (drop dead gorgeous pretty fully developed 13 year old) is on a wrestling team. I don't consider that an attack - it's them encountering something that is a bit unknown or alien to them.

Now, If I started a campaign to have the Duggars sterilized, that would be an attack. If someone told me I was a rotten mother to let my kid to that sport, that would be an attack.

Same thing here - if OSG thinks I'm silly to call myself a sub (she never ever has said that, i'm jst using her as an example because she lives a far different life than i do) that's not an attack. If she started to call me "wanna be" and mocked me on every post, that would be an attack.

Being free to follow our choices doesn't mean everyone will be in love with those choices or even validate them. But for most, we will have *some* people in our lives who do that; and we won't be facing jail time; we won't have to go through picket lines to go to a sex toy store or to a BDSM club; we won't lose our kids if our parent's find out i have a strap on and use it on my husband...

or am I rambling and not making sense again? It happens.

 

[IrisAlthea]

I think too, we could probably be a bit clear on what we see as "attack" and what is just people saying shit.

Am I attacking Michelle Duggar (is that her first name?) when I, in my livingroom, mock her and her quiverfull life? Or am I just making some commentary, to the amusement of my spouse and friends, about how I think she's kinda fruity.

People think I'm fruity. People raise their eyebrows at me when they find out my (drop dead gorgeous pretty fully developed 13 year old) is on a wrestling team. I don't consider that an attack - it's them encountering something that is a bit unknown or alien to them.

Now, If I started a campaign to have the Duggars sterilized, that would be an attack. If someone told me I was a rotten mother to let my kid to that sport, that would be an attack.


Same thing here - if OSG thinks I'm silly to call myself a sub (she never ever has said that, i'm jst using her as an example because she lives a far different life than i do) that's not an attack. If she started to call me "wanna be" and mocked me on every post, that would be an attack.

Being free to follow our choices doesn't mean everyone will be in love with those choices or even validate them. But for most, we will have *some* people in our lives who do that; and we won't be facing jail time; we won't have to go through picket lines to go to a sex toy store or to a BDSM club; we won't lose our kids if our parent's find out i have a strap on and use it on my husband...

or am I rambling and not making sense again? It happens.

No, I don´t think you are rambling at all.
The bolded part of the quote is the reason I have a hard time understanding why some of those who choose to live with traditional gender roles, feel the they have a hard time.
Sure you might have people ask you why you as a woman choose to stay at home with the kids, but thats just a natural effect when it´s not the default choice anymore.

ETA: Not that I really think that you get questioned as much for making more traditional choices. Not once have I heard a man getting the question if it is wise to accept a demanding position with small children at home.

 

[bhndblueyes88]

The two types of women demographics that make the choice to be submissive are usually made up of those women in conservative circles and those women in the BDSM community.

But where do those of us who are neither conservative nor really part of the BDSM community fit in? I HAVE NO PLACE!!!! MAAAAAAAAHHHHH (This is tongue in cheek and me being light-hearted )

I agree with your appraisal of feminism. I fully support anyone who believes that women and men should be on equal footing. I fully disagree with anyone who truly believes that women should be considered superior to men. I say "truly" believes, because I do like to joke about how we're so much better

 

[Netzach]

As an example, if feminism is really about equality and empowering women, wouldn't that mean that women who choose to be submissive be supported and empowered too?

To the extent that women submissive to men are able to marry them, walk around in public touching them, be on the same insurance plan, and do all this without particular fear of being literally attacked in the street, and are as liable to be embarrassed and shot down if the details of their sex life become pubic as the next heterosexual - exactly what level of support and empowerment are you worrying about?

The main issue that lifestyle female submissives face is twofold: it is the problem faced by every woman whose sexuality is nonstandard in the extreme, anyone who falls off the bell curve: are they going to deem me "crazy" and are they going to take my kids if they find out? Neither of which is unique to submissive women. Talk to a sex worker or a single woman, or a woman in a poly arrangement.

Some people failed to validate? Some people are uncomfortable with D/s expression? Sexual repression sucks but it's how we are culturally, so if you want to let it all hang out you are always going to be responded to.

I'd like to be able to see a freaking movie in peace with my spouse and without thinking about who's there and what might happen. I have no need to rub any "that's my genderqueer she-bitch" shit in anyone's face.

I don't expect to be validated by the kind of feminists you seem to be fixated with as ruining the movement, but seeing as I've never really met any outside of hardcore academia, I don't have to listen to how I've internalized sexism very often or defend my ideology to them. They're very easy to avoid.

The two types of women demographics that make the choice to be submissive are usually made up of those women in conservative circles and those women in the BDSM community. Neither of which are accepted by the main stream movement of feminism or given a voice. In fact many in those two groups are afraid to speak up beacuse they are afraid of being attacked. The good news though in my opinion is that those women who belong to those groups are not only tired of men defining them, they are also sick and tired of other women defining them.

When you espouse a notion like "all women are inherently subservient to men and should be" or "my husband's role is to be my spiritual superior by dint of his having a dick" this leaves the bus of feminist agenda. I'm not sure when "everything any woman does or says is feminist" took hold - I like the idea of option and women being experts on their lives - I do - but it doesn't encompass everything done by a person with a pussy.

I've always had a problem with "BDSM sexuality IS feminism" because I don't think it is. I don't think sexuality has a very good political track record, and I think the idea that lesbianism is the true feminist sexuality was advanced by guilty heterosexual "political lesbians" not actual lesbians who mostly just want to have some freaking sex like everyone else. Sex is shaped by ideology but sex is shitty ideology. Contents may not be as advertised, just ask Larry Craig.

I do think that my kinks are what I can puzzle together in a world so tainted and marked by sexism that no sexuality is "pure" or contains no "exploitation" - the hydra monster that radical feminist sexuality battles - I think the pursuit of sexuality without exploitation is pointless, the only question is to what extent you know you're exploiting and exploited.

But seriously - I've met a handful of people in my life who even care about these minutiae - more women I know are freaking out about raising their children than how anyone is fucking.

 

[teknight]

And why exactly shouldn't women overreach? What's so wrong with that, really?
I mean, don't copy the male model, but...honestly, what other models are there?

 

[bhndblueyes88]

I don't see what's wrong with over reaching. What's wrong is reaching by using another person as a footstool, so to speak. If you're just trying to achieve greater things, there's nothing wrong with that. What's wrong is trying to "stick it to those stupid males" and "make sure those males know their place...scraped off the bottom of my shoe!!".

 

[Stella_Omega]

As an example, if feminism is really about equality and empowering women, wouldn't that mean that women who choose to be submissive be supported and empowered too?

Sure-- they can be supported and empowered by their dominant. And their sisters in submission.

It seems to me that women who do submissiveness to that degree have gone and placed all their power and expectation of support in the hands of whoever it is they submit to, right? What do they need from me? I have my own battles to fight.

 

[Netzach]

I don't see what's wrong with over reaching. What's wrong is reaching by using another person as a footstool, so to speak. If you're just trying to achieve greater things, there's nothing wrong with that. What's wrong is trying to "stick it to those stupid males" and "make sure those males know their place...scraped off the bottom of my shoe!!".

Honestly the conditions that cause anyone to reach these conclusions disturb me a lot more than anyone reaching these conclusions. *shrug* I prioritize my "wrong" quite a bit.

If you're raising your son to feel inferior you're an ass. If you just like winning the competitions at work and proving your worth, fuck the idea that that's wrong one bit.

 

[intothewoods]

It's not like no one's using the expression pussy whipped anymore. I think the default is actually equal partnership, and any imbalance in that is likely to get you some questions from friends and family.

 

[JMohegan]

It would be insulting for me to sit here and tell you that all the oppression, fear and violence of the past exists only in the minds of women or gays of a certain age who feel threatened. And it would be dishonest.

Equally dishonest is to try to say that the attack of the traditional role of the male is something that only exists in the minds of men of a certain age who feel threatened. Because the traditional male role and any expression there of, is no longer accepted or even tolerated in today's society.

Huckabee's world seems alien to me for a bunch of reasons, including the fact that I'm not down with the Jesus thing. But RJ, I've seen you quote the Bible, favorably, on wives submitting, Abraham doing the Master thing with Sarah, and so on. So why isn't conservative Christianity a perfect fit for you? Why do you feel so attacked, when that niche not only exists, but thrives, in a sizable chunk of this country?

As a partial answewr I think you can read my response to Netz, however I would have to ask you to clarify...what exactly are you genuinely asking?

I don't feel attacked. If I was being attacked, someone please let me know that you attacked me.

I used the word attack because you used it. See the bolded bit above. I assumed that you consider yourself a traditional male, and that you would therefore include yourself among those whose roles and expressions are being "attacked," as you see it.

I was asking why you, personally, feel so attacked by society at large. Why you, RJ, don't feel right at home among conservative Christians. That's hardly a fringe group.

As to the "possibly infer a complete lack of tolerance for traditional males" statement, perhaps it would have been better worded that traditional males are accepted in certain circles of our society, but typically in media and academa which shapes public opinion, the traditional male role is usually cast as an oppressor and negatively almost all the time.

Rightwingers dominate talk radio, and Fox dominates cable "news." Evangelical Christianity dominates the public face of American religion, and has a stranglehold on the Republican Party - not to mention those who fill Evangelical pews.

I really tire of the ease with which people dismiss those voices are irrelevant, or lacking in influence on the opinions of the populace of this country.

Surely you don't mean to suggest that the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, James Dobson, the average preacher, or even the average elected official from a conservative district, have been casting aspersions on the traditional male role.

 

[Netzach]

It's not like no one's using the expression pussy whipped anymore. I think the default is actually equal partnership, and any imbalance in that is likely to get you some questions from friends and family.

Hm.

They've done so many studies on shared housework and peripheral stuff when both work similar hours - how BOTH he and she think he's doing half and they time them both and he's doing maybe 20 percent.

I think that's the default. Insistence on 50/50 belied by a pretty traditional reality.

I know that a man who displays disinterest in domesticity is seen as normal, and a woman who displays disinterest in it is lazy and contemptible.

 

[bhndblueyes88]

Honestly the conditions that cause anyone to reach these conclusions disturb me a lot more than anyone reaching these conclusions.

Fair enough and you're certainly right about that!

 

[teknight]

They've done so many studies on shared housework and peripheral stuff when both work similar hours - how BOTH he and she think he's doing half and they time them both and he's doing maybe 20 percent.

I knew of these studies, but I didn't know both thought they were contributing equally.
It's actually been brought up before in this thread (when I was arguing about how anyone can do housework) that men aren't even expected to contribute (I'm generalizing). That is truly messed up...it speaks to me of...a very unequal upbringing...

I think that's the default. Insistence on 50/50 belied by a pretty traditional reality.

I know that a man who displays disinterest in domesticity is seen as normal, and a woman who displays disinterest in it is lazy and contemptible.

I hate using the verb "should", 'cause it carries 0 power in my vocabulary, but, things shouldn't be that way. Men should be expected to do any of the tasks around the house, for themselves. Damn it, why are we perpetuating this notion of woman as domestic servant?