Assumed Mysogyny and BDSM.

[La damnee elle la licorne]

 

[homewa]

WRONG.
In a combat event most officers and non-coms defer to natural leaders. These people are often non-coms but I've witnessed majors and captains defer to corporals when the mortars are thick.

And leadership is still a learned skill. They aren't deferring to the Corporal because he's a "natural leader" they are deferring to him because NCOs have experience. There are Corporals and there are Corporals, I've met some Corporals who were boots, and I've known at least one who was the most competent Marine you'd ever meet had been in for 8 years and had more experience than most SNCOs, of course, he had other issues, which is why he kept getting busted down. But I could see a Major deferring to him, it has nothing to do with him being a "natural leader" and everything to do with his level of knowledge and experience.

And as an addendum, you have Majors (not so often) and Captains (fairly often) who aren't leaders, they've never had to lead, they've worked at a desk, and got promoted for that. Depending on their MOS that's certainly possible. They'd definitely defer to somebody with combat experience in the field. But again zero to do with "natural leadership" and fucking EVERYTHING to do with fucking experience.

Would you accept there are times people are not able to give informed consent? Mental illness, perhaps?

I'm not sure I agree that consent always overrules abuse. If someone is in an abusive rather than truly consensual relationship, nominal consent can be obtained somewhat easily.....a sort of stock house syndrome thing, or just consent for easier option.


( and fwiw I don't think these situations apply only to openly bdsm situations. )

I recognise I am still finding my feet here though so apologise if my comments cause offence to some.

Such situations do occur, but it's very difficult to define where they occur. When is somebody mentally unable to consent to something, it's easy to define at the extremes, but exactly where the line happens gets really fuzzy, and is therefore complicated. There's not a real way to set down actual rules for this sort of thing, so basically I guess one would just try to play it as safely as possible.

 

[UtopiaBound]

Would you accept there are times people are not able to give informed consent? Mental illness, perhaps?

I'm not sure I agree that consent always overrules abuse. If someone is in an abusive rather than truly consensual relationship, nominal consent can be obtained somewhat easily.....a sort of stock house syndrome thing, or just consent for easier option.


( and fwiw I don't think these situations apply only to openly bdsm situations. )

I recognise I am still finding my feet here though so apologise if my comments cause offence to some.

There are absolutely time when true consent cannot be given even if someone verbally says yes. If someone is emotionally or mentally in duress. If an altering substance is administered such as alcohol or drugs. Perhaps I should have stated informed, full, noncoerced consent?

 

[LWulf]

It tickles for me to notice that feminist123 and homewa both joined at the same time and write their thoughts in a similar fashion. It also seems feminist123 (by the name itself) was created as a foil to cite a sensationalist posit to then contend with. It just strikes me as a funny coincidence, (Gibbs rule 39, lol) but on to the topic.

Misogyny is about men hating women with the woman being preyed upon regardless of her feelings. (Male) dominance in bdsm, while potentially physically abusive (not all male dominants are into impact play), is about the submissive who willingly submits to the will of her dominant. It could be contended that men could still be mentally abusive but that's a form of metaphysics that never appealed to me.

Essentially, because any submissive has the ability to use a safe word, this equalizes the power in their relationship and levels the playing field, thus disproving misogyny in bdsm.

Beyond that, could a male dominant be misogynistic? Theoretically possible, but unlikely as a misogynistic dominant by their very nature is unlikely to recognize a submissive female's prerogative to stop the proceedings. By his very ignoring of her safeword, it stops being bdsm play and becomes abuse.

 

[homewa]

It tickles for me to notice that feminist123 and homewa both joined at the same time and write their thoughts in a similar fashion. It also seems feminist123 (by the name itself) was created as a foil to cite a sensationalist posit to then contend with. It just strikes me as a funny coincidence, (Gibbs rule 39, lol) but on to the topic.

If you'd have read the whole thread and the other one, then you'd have seen that I entirely misrepresented and misinterpreted her position, which might be possible to do with a series of mirrors, but it seems like it would be a lot of effort. And I'm quite lazy. Also if you'd examined some of my other posts you would see that I'm quite different than she.

Misogyny is about men hating women with the woman being preyed upon regardless of her feelings. (Male) dominance in bdsm, while potentially physically abusive (not all male dominants are into impact play), is about the submissive who willingly submits to the will of her dominant. It could be contended that men could still be mentally abusive but that's a form of metaphysics that never appealed to me.

And you've entirely misunderstood what I asked. In fact you've misinterpreted as though you skimmed the very part where I said that I understood that misogyny and dominance were not synonymous. So for the fifth time I had reiterated this, what I am discussing is "misogyny play" where a man who is not misogynistic pretends to be because it is something that is potentially arousing to his submissive.

Which seemed to be what what's-her-name (feminist whatever) was asking about, so I was curious if that was something that actually happened.

Essentially, because any submissive has the ability to use a safe word, this equalizes the power in their relationship and levels the playing field, thus disproving misogyny in bdsm.

Beyond that, could a male dominant be misogynistic? Theoretically possible, but unlikely as a misogynistic dominant by their very nature is unlikely to recognize a submissive female's prerogative to stop the proceedings. By his very ignoring of her safeword, it stops being bdsm play and becomes abuse.

Well obviously abuse is possible in ANY relationship, from either side. This is a simulation of a sort of abuse that I am discussing, not the abuse itself, and it's not something I'm advocating. Hell in my fricking OP I mention that I have been in at least one BDSM relationship, and I sure as fuck don't think I'm misogynistic.

The thing I was curious about was if anybody simulated that if they were into degrading as a part of their submissive experience, because it seemed like that is what the lady was asking for, and it was interesting to me.

Edit: Sorry if I'm a little tetchy but starting off by accusing me of creating fake accounts, then completely misinterpreting my viewpoint without reading any of the other things I've written is the kind of thing that makes me a little bit fricking angry.

 

[Feminist123]

It tickles for me to notice that feminist123 and homewa both joined at the same time and write their thoughts in a similar fashion. It also seems feminist123 (by the name itself) was created as a foil to cite a sensationalist posit to then contend with. It just strikes me as a funny coincidence, (Gibbs rule 39, lol) but on to the topic.

Misogyny is about men hating women with the woman being preyed upon regardless of her feelings. (Male) dominance in bdsm, while potentially physically abusive (not all male dominants are into impact play), is about the submissive who willingly submits to the will of her dominant. It could be contended that men could still be mentally abusive but that's a form of metaphysics that never appealed to me.

Essentially, because any submissive has the ability to use a safe word, this equalizes the power in their relationship and levels the playing field, thus disproving misogyny in bdsm.

Beyond that, could a male dominant be misogynistic? Theoretically possible, but unlikely as a misogynistic dominant by their very nature is unlikely to recognize a submissive female's prerogative to stop the proceedings. By his very ignoring of her safeword, it stops being bdsm play and becomes abuse.

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here, but if you're suggesting that I'm playing both sides of this debate, I can assure you, you're wrong. The name it's self (feminist123) was created to cite an interest from a people with a certain mind set. I can't disprove your suggestion, but I can promise you that you're incorrect, believe me, don't believe me, 'super to you.

I tried to readdress the misogynist point in my thread update, admittedly misogynist might very well be the wrong term for me to use, but it was the best I could think of, I apologize for that, I didn't want a huge backlash nor debate in public about this, I wanted a private discussion with someone(s) about this and I was looking for someone with a clear mind set and an ability to debate and offer reasoning.

So far I've been accused of associating all dominant men with being misogynists and now impersonating someone with a contradictory stand point, for unknown reasons.

This thread and my advert have grown arms and legs, Im all for discussion, but with hindsight, I perhaps shouldn't have used such emotive terms as feminist and misogynist. That said it beats the usual flow of "kneel and suck me" arseholes who usually drop in my pm box. So perhaps all is not lost

 

[LWulf]

... I didn't want a huge backlash nor debate in public about this, I wanted a private discussion with someone(s) about this and I was looking for someone with a clear mind set and an ability to debate and offer reasoning.
...

My suggestion would be, if you didn't want public recognition, then you shouldn't have jumped in and essentially said "This was me he was talking about obliquely!"

If you'd have read the whole thread and the other one, then you'd have seen that I entirely misrepresented and misinterpreted her position, which might be possible to do with a series of mirrors, but it seems like it would be a lot of effort. And I'm quite lazy. Also if you'd examined some of my other posts you would see that I'm quite different than she.

And you've entirely misunderstood what I asked. In fact you've misinterpreted as though you skimmed the very part where I said that I understood that misogyny and dominance were not synonymous. So for the fifth time I had reiterated this, what I am discussing is "misogyny play" where a man who is not misogynistic pretends to be because it is something that is potentially arousing to his submissive.

Which seemed to be what what's-her-name (feminist whatever) was asking about, so I was curious if that was something that actually happened.

Well obviously abuse is possible in ANY relationship, from either side. This is a simulation of a sort of abuse that I am discussing, not the abuse itself, and it's not something I'm advocating. Hell in my fricking OP I mention that I have been in at least one BDSM relationship, and I sure as fuck don't think I'm misogynistic.

The thing I was curious about was if anybody simulated that if they were into degrading as a part of their submissive experience, because it seemed like that is what the lady was asking for, and it was interesting to me.

Edit: Sorry if I'm a little tetchy but starting off by accusing me of creating fake accounts, then completely misinterpreting my viewpoint without reading any of the other things I've written is the kind of thing that makes me a little bit fricking angry.

So, you are getting angry at me for supposedly misinterpreting what you misinterpreted? Throw stones from many glass houses, do you?

Here's a clue; people don't have to read every message in a thread. They can simply respond to the initial message.

Nowhere in your initial message did you write "misogynistic play." The very title "assumed misogyny and bdsm" suggests initially, you weren't approaching it as "misogyny play." So "misinterpreting" based on that is questionable and getting irritable "for the fifth time" at people who are likely doing the same thing suggests maybe you should edit your first post.

Is there even such a thing as misogyny play? Is that where the dominant pretends to ignore a safeword? It seems like gilding the lily to me, but I'm a simple man and complex people do redundant things all the time in their wacky lives.

 

[homewa]

So, you are getting angry at me for supposedly misinterpreting what you misinterpreted? Throw stones from many glass houses, do you?

First... The misrepresentation was addressed and didn't affect the validity of the point.

Here's a clue; people don't have to read every message in a thread. They can simply respond to the initial message.

Which you also only SKIMMED. And did not thoroughly read. I don't have a problem clarifying things, but I was pretty clear.

In fact:

This thread is in response to a personal ad posted that got me thinking. I'm admittedly not the most experienced person in the BDSM lifestyle (I've had one partner that was into that sort of thing, and sadly we never got to explore it in any great detail).

In any case the woman was equating dominance with misogyny, which is obviously not a correct stance. However that got me wondering, if there are any (although I realize that asking if there are any people aroused by something is probably a pointless endeavor) people who work a sort of straw misogyny into their dominance, essentially acting out misogynistic viewpoints to further degrade their partner (supposing of course that particular partner is into degradation).

And naturally the reverse could be as easily true with a woman taking on misandristic viewpoints to degrade a male submissive. I'm just curious if this is something that anybody has ever experienced, since it seems like a possibility for something interesting.

My emphasis added, that's pretty freaking clear. So you didn't even thoroughly read the first post. So I guess expecting you to read others would be too taxing.

Nowhere in your initial message did you write "misogynistic play." The very title "assumed misogyny and bdsm" suggests initially, you weren't approaching it as "misogyny play." So "misinterpreting" based on that is questionable and getting irritable "for the fifth time" at people who are likely doing the same thing suggests maybe you should edit your first post.

I would edit it, if I could think of a way to make more clear, so far I've had several people who very clearly didn't read it. That's not an issue on my part, that's yours. In fact if you'll look further up in this post and reread the bolded parts, you'll see which bits you ignored.

Is there even such a thing as misogyny play? Is that where the dominant pretends to ignore a safeword? It seems like gilding the lily to me, but I'm a simple man and complex people do redundant things all the time in their wacky lives.

No... it would involve a dominant "acting out misogynistic viewpoints" probably verbally, or by having his sub clean (that sort of thing, and I know for a fact there are subs into the whole cleaning behavior), or by relaxing and watching TV while she waits on him. (Naturally a female domme could do the reverse, although acting stereotypical misandry would be a different sort of thing altogether).

 

[DesEsseintes]

The ad seemed simple enough, surely? It is a fantasy, just as one reads of some black submissives seeking certain types of slave role play with white men. I am sure they would never want that sort of relationship in real life, and feminist123 has made it clear this is about play and fantasy.

Do we get all earnest and anxious and liberal every time a white woman talks about her desire for a stereotypical BBC? Or the vast number of incest/non consent fantasies abounding here? It strikes me that the reason people can be so defensive about the misogynist fantasy is that, on some level, there are still people who really do muddle up misogyny and BDSM. Those ignorant types, though, are hardly likely to be here, are they?

 

[La damnee elle la licorne]

 

[homewa]

The ad seemed simple enough, surely? It is a fantasy, just as one reads of some black submissives seeking certain types of slave role play with white men. I am sure they would never want that sort of relationship in real life, and feminist123 has made it clear this is about play and fantasy.

Do we get all earnest and anxious and liberal every time a white woman talks about her desire for a stereotypical BBC? Or the vast number of incest/non consent fantasies abounding here? It strikes me that the reason people can be so defensive about the misogynist fantasy is that, on some level, there are still people who really do muddle up misogyny and BDSM. Those ignorant types, though, are hardly likely to be here, are they?

Which was the initial impression I had after reading her ad. I think the idea of somebody taking a role that they would abhorrent most of the time is what piqued my curiosity. Particularly because, I imagine people who are involved in BDSM would as a general rule be unlikely to see misogyny in a positive light, since they have to combat that sort of stereotype. That was the element I found most intriguing about it, taking on a role that not only might be outside of what a person would normally like, but something that they would actively despise in any other context.

 

[Netzach]

"there are still people who really do muddle up misogyny and BDSM. Those ignorant types, though, are hardly likely to be here, are they?"

They're everywhere, don't be obtuse and pearl-clutch. Look around you more when you're at an event. Check your own behavior once in a while. It's kind of SOP for everyone, self included.

On the opposite front -

YES. I incorporate a "shut up you worthless dick" misandry into my sexytime. Because it's fucking hot. Because it's a reversal of reality as we know it, just like fucking a woman in a nun's habit or anything else exaggerating anything for transgressive effect. No I'm not going to punch anyone in the face for breathing too close to me. Sure is fun to say I will, though. That's between me and him, though. If those not involved don't like it, suck a tit.

Since overt misogyny of a certain kind is no longer actually super OK to express among toilet trained and functioning people, I'll say that in SOME cases, that same kind of misogyny is actually the same kind of transgressive thrill. It's a fine line, but you can just kind of tell where someone's coming from, whether it's an amused powerful stance of pushing buttons or a powerless loser stance of clawing for power.

 

[homewa]

"there are still people who really do muddle up misogyny and BDSM. Those ignorant types, though, are hardly likely to be here, are they?"

They're everywhere, don't be obtuse and pearl-clutch. Look around you more when you're at an event. Check your own behavior once in a while. It's kind of SOP for everyone, self included.

On the opposite front -

YES. I incorporate a "shut up you worthless dick" misandry into my sexytime. Because it's fucking hot. Because it's a reversal of reality as we know it, just like fucking a woman in a nun's habit or anything else exaggerating anything for transgressive effect.

Since overt misogyny of a certain kind is no longer actually super OK to express, I'll say that in SOME cases, that same kind of misogyny is actually the same kind of transgressive thrill. It's a fine line, but you can just kind of tell where someone's coming from, whether it's an amused powerful stance of pushing buttons or a powerless loser stance of clawing for power.

That's very interesting, I hadn't even thought about the straw misogynist being on the submissive side, probably a sign of my own personal misogyny, or at least my lack of questioning my own assumptions. Although rereading that I'm not sure that's exactly what you were going for. But that would be definitely another interesting thing.

 

[Netzach]

That's very interesting, I hadn't even thought about the straw misogynist being on the submissive side, probably a sign of my own personal misogyny, or at least my lack of questioning my own assumptions. Although rereading that I'm not sure that's exactly what you were going for. But that would be definitely another interesting thing.

Yeah, that can sometimes be hot, and you'll see some "I'm a sexist douche and you're going to beat me up" roleplay out there. I mean why not?

But I'm talking about MDoms and misogyny, somehow there's this division between owning it in a relaxed way and compartmentalizing it into "stuff I do with her" and guys who are just like that and can't control themselves at all and have to be the fart in the room.

 

[LWulf]

...
My emphasis added, that's pretty freaking clear. So you didn't even thoroughly read the first post. So I guess expecting you to read others would be too taxing.
...

I reassert, florid prose used, with five people misunderstanding suggests misinterpretation is inevitable and obviously, unclear and yet you still get angrier at my misinterpretation of your own self-proclaimed misinterpretation.

My apologies, I shouldn't be taxing you to explain yourself freaking better.

 

[homewa]

Yeah, that can sometimes be hot, and you'll see some "I'm a sexist douche and you're going to beat me up" roleplay out there. I mean why not?

But I'm talking about MDoms and misogyny, somehow there's this division between owning it in a relaxed way and compartmentalizing it into "stuff I do with her" and guys who are just like that and can't control themselves at all and have to be the fart in the room.

I imagine that separating that out would be absolutely critical, and for some the most difficult part. Especially since a lot of people would find that difficult.

I reassert, florid prose used, with five people misunderstanding suggests misinterpretation is inevitable and obviously, unclear and yet you still get angrier at my misinterpretation of your own self-proclaimed misinterpretation.

My apologies, I shouldn't be taxing you to explain yourself freaking better.

Well after recent posts I think that it's possible that the misinterpretation is not necessarily because of the way it's written but because of the very real concern that dominance would be equated with misogyny. And since for many, that's a pressing concern, I can see how that would be. I would agree with you, but rereading I didn't see a way to make it more clear. I mean I stated that was "straw misogyny" which is about as explicit as you can get. It's possible that I should have led into differently, such as with the taking of a role one would normally be in opposition too, but that didn't occur to me till later on (after our discussion in fact)

Edit: And also to be fair I was fairly frustrated by the time you'd posted, and when you started by accusing me of not being what I claimed to be, that set my teeth on edge. But I wasn't really bothered so much by having to explain things as I was by that. I mean it's not often I can get called a half-wit (by somebody deliberately derailing the thing, no less), and accused of being a fraud in the same day.

 

[Netzach]

That's very interesting, I hadn't even thought about the straw misogynist being on the submissive side, probably a sign of my own personal misogyny, or at least my lack of questioning my own assumptions. Although rereading that I'm not sure that's exactly what you were going for. But that would be definitely another interesting thing.

Oh, also, the way I see this is a lot of "imaginary toads, real gardens" kind of stuff, where it provides a kind of levelling catharsis for both of us in relationship to the real-world nature of our power dynamic. Step outside the space of sexual interaction, and it's very clear who's got the one-down position due to gender. Let's say I'm a guy of the litter box trained variety - that's shit I am secretly encouraged to think by society, and NEVER ALLOWED TO SAY by the same society, so sexually a release valve might be to find a chick who loves to hear it for the same reasons.

For me, this is a brief vacation into a vision of gender superiority. Half the people who go on and on about how REAL their BDSM is and how FAKE roleplay is are SCA re-enactors and cosplayers. Fuck.

 

[Netzach]

I imagine that separating that out would be absolutely critical, and for some the most difficult part. Especially since a lot of people would find that difficult.

Not really. Well adjusted dudes are good at compartmentalization, usually. Talk to her like a person and believe what she tells you about her fantasies, you're often getting a "green green FUCKING GREEN!" in the old school safeword parlance. It's real world misogyny to think she can't handle her own fantasies and is made of glass, too.

If it seems rare, it's because BDSM like many subbacultchas of geek draws non-adjusted guys out like flies on a poo.

 

[homewa]

Oh, also, the way I see this is a lot of "imaginary toads, real gardens" kind of stuff, where it provides a kind of levelling catharsis for both of us in relationship to the real-world nature of our power dynamic. Step outside the space of sexual interaction, and it's very clear who's got the one-down position due to gender.

For me, this is a brief vacation into a vision of gender superiority. Half the people who go on and on about how REAL their BDSM is and how FAKE roleplay is are SCA re-enactors and cosplayers. Fuck.

Well snobbery is natural in any culture I imagine. And I imagine that SCA re-enactors and cosplayers are most certainly not immune to that particular affliction.

Not really. Well adjusted dudes are good at compartmentalization, usually. Talk to her like a person and believe what she tells you about her fantasies, you're often getting a "green green FUCKING GREEN!" in the old school safeword parlance. It's real world misogyny to think she can't handle her own fantasies and is made of glass, too.

If it seems rare, it's because BDSM like many subbacultchas of geek draws non-adjusted guys out like flies on a poo.

True, although I'm guilty of occasional sexist thoughts, like most men and women are I imagine. This would be well outside the topic of this thread, but we're biologically programmed to break things down into categories which makes all humans horrible stereotypers, I think the best thing, at least for me, to do in this case is be aware that I have those kind of preconceptions and not act like a twat when somebody calls me on them.

Also for me, I'm coming at this from a relatively inexperienced position, the few times I've gotten into that sort of thing (not the whole misogyny thing but just regular dominance stuff) it was very difficult for me not to look at in terms of lenses that I'd worn during my regular life. Which even colored strongly the kinds of things I fantasized about. So it's possible that I may over-exaggerate the importance of compartmentalization, because in my real life experiences with authority that was absolutely critical. Homewa, the Corporal of Marines, had to make sure that hat came off when he came to his S/O.

 

[Feminist123]

My suggestion would be, if you didn't want public recognition, then you shouldn't have jumped in and essentially said "This was me he was talking about obliquely!"
.

I didn't ask for this thread to be created, but as it was created and accused me of associating all dominant men with misogyny, I felt compelled to have my repost.

As this has now lead to a wider debate I was trying to point out that was never my initial intention, however, your suggestion has bw noted, thank you for taking the time to lay that out for me

 

[Netzach]

Well snobbery is natural in any culture I imagine. And I imagine that SCA re-enactors and cosplayers are most certainly not immune to that particular affliction.



True, although I'm guilty of occasional sexist thoughts, like most men and women are I imagine. This would be well outside the topic of this thread, but we're biologically programmed to break things down into categories which makes all humans horrible stereotypers, I think the best thing, at least for me, to do in this case is be aware that I have those kind of preconceptions and not act like a twat when somebody calls me on them.

Also for me, I'm coming at this from a relatively inexperienced position, the few times I've gotten into that sort of thing (not the whole misogyny thing but just regular dominance stuff) it was very difficult for me not to look at in terms of lenses that I'd worn during my regular life. Which even colored strongly the kinds of things I fantasized about. So it's possible that I may over-exaggerate the importance of compartmentalization, because in my real life experiences with authority that was absolutely critical. Homewa, the Corporal of Marines, had to make sure that hat came off when he came to his S/O.

Ooooh, yeah. That is another layer of complication. I've played with MD's where the same kind of work/life stuff can be a bit tricky. I dunno, the more complex moving parts it has the more it's worth it, in my experience. You're liable to learn about her and yourself a lot navigating these things.

 

[LWulf]

...Well after recent posts I think that it's possible that the misinterpretation is not necessarily because of the way it's written but because of the very real concern that dominance would be equated with misogyny. And since for many, that's a pressing concern, I can see how that would be. I would agree with you, but rereading I didn't see a way to make it more clear. I mean I stated that was "straw misogyny" which is about as explicit as you can get. It's possible that I should have led into differently, such as with the taking of a role one would normally be in opposition too, but that didn't occur to me till later on (after our discussion in fact)

Edit: And also to be fair I was fairly frustrated by the time you'd posted, and when you started by accusing me of not being what I claimed to be, that set my teeth on edge. But I wasn't really bothered so much by having to explain things as I was by that. I mean it's not often I can get called a half-wit (by somebody deliberately derailing the thing, no less), and accused of being a fraud in the same day.

Perhaps it isn't that the misinterpreted subject is such a pressing concern so much as it's a more interesting topic than suggesting that there is a misogynistic qualifier of dominance over the more simpler milquetoast version of dominance.
Seriously? Life isn't complicated enough as it is?

Also, I have looked up in several dictionaries and have yet to find, even in archaic English, where "straw" is defined as something akin to ad-hoc which I take it how you meant it after this discussion.
Throwing oblique terms around and not speaking simply tends to get anything one says as misunderstood.

 

[Netzach]

Perhaps it isn't that the misinterpreted subject is such a pressing concern so much as it's a more interesting topic than suggesting that there is a misogynistic qualifier of dominance over the more simpler milquetoast version of dominance.
Seriously? Life isn't complicated enough as it is?

Also, I have looked up in several dictionaries and have yet to find, even in archaic English, where "straw" is defined as something akin to ad-hoc which I take it how you meant it after this discussion.
Throwing oblique terms around and not speaking simply tends to get anything one says as misunderstood.

I got "straw man" "straw misogyny" right off the bat. Just because you missed something doesn't mean the speaker is being obtuse.

 

[homewa]

Ooooh, yeah. That is another layer of complication. I've played with MD's where the same kind of work/life stuff can be a bit tricky. I dunno, the more complex moving parts it has the more it's worth it, in my experience. You're liable to learn about her and yourself a lot navigating these things.

Well to be fair, I'm not in that relationship nor am I yelling at people at work anymore. My experiences were after that, and I still wound up thinking about stuff in that context, it is possible (maybe even probable) that with more experience that might have sorted itself.

Perhaps it isn't that the misinterpreted subject is such a pressing concern so much as it's a more interesting topic than suggesting that there is a misogynistic qualifier of dominance over the more simpler milquetoast version of dominance.
Seriously? Life isn't complicated enough as it is?

Not really, most people got it, and those that needed it explained.

Also, I have looked up in several dictionaries and have yet to find, even in archaic English, where "straw" is defined as something akin to ad-hoc which I take it how you meant it after this discussion.
Throwing oblique terms around and not speaking simply tends to get anything one says as misunderstood.

It's a reference to the term "straw man" and adding straw to things to reference that is not likely to be in many dictionaries, not because the usage is archaic but because the usage is more modern than most dictionaries, it takes them about 20 years to adjust to common usage.

Again, I wasn't bothered by having to explain it to you, I don't mind clarifying myself. The thing that bothered me was the accusation of fraud, without having examined me, all of what I was saying, or my person. Fraud is a serious accusation especially for me, so that is why I reacted angrily, not that I had to clarify an issue again, but because your accusation of fraud was compounded by the fact that you hadn't even bothered to read all of what I had said.

 

[LWulf]

I didn't ask for this thread to be created, but as it was created and accused me of associating all dominant men with misogyny, I felt compelled to have my repost.
...

Yeah, well... this is Lit. Inanity occurs.