1. I disagree completely with the idea that we all "submit" to various authorities, and that "submission" is a normal element in every day life.

I don't "submit," I choose to COOPERATE or not. Very big difference.

SUBMITTING means that I give away my own right and ability to choose, and I simply don't do that.

2. As for whatever relationship arrangements anyone wants to have, I will support them with a number of important limits. I am NOT an "anything goes between consenting adults" person, despite my fierce support of individual rights, because I have witnessed too many fully grown adults who were used and abused by others, because they were UNABLE to make a reasoned choice.

3. I really dislike the whole "Shades of Grey" fad. Prejudice of a sort. I've seen a number of these sorts of things before. My annoyance with it isn't because of the S&M stuff. Anyone can do as they like, as far as that goes. What annoys me, is that it's the usual scenario that movies seem to like to set up, where someone "bravely" chooses an unusual lifestyle...but of course, it happens to be with a rich, suave, powerful, attractive person. I'm not impressed with the "bravery."

That is awesome. You don't post to impress, but I am impressed and will be looking for it.

1. I disagree completely with the idea that we all "submit" to various authorities, and that "submission" is a normal element in every day life.

I don't "submit," I choose to COOPERATE or not. Very big difference.

SUBMITTING means that I give away my own right and ability to choose, and I simply don't do that.

2. As for whatever relationship arrangements anyone wants to have, I will support them with a number of important limits. I am NOT an "anything goes between consenting adults" person, despite my fierce support of individual rights, because I have witnessed too many fully grown adults who were used and abused by others, because they were UNABLE to make a reasoned choice.

3. I really dislike the whole "Shades of Grey" fad. Prejudice of a sort. I've seen a number of these sorts of things before. My annoyance with it isn't because of the S&M stuff. Anyone can do as they like, as far as that goes. What annoys me, is that it's the usual scenario that movies seem to like to set up, where someone "bravely" chooses an unusual lifestyle...but of course, it happens to be with a rich, suave, powerful, attractive person. I'm not impressed with the "bravery."

the fantasy is that someone wealthy and powerful chose HER, someone who was not supermodel perfect or wealthy

I guess that's because that's what the audience wants to see? People want this dream, this fantasy, that there is such a thing as a Prince Charming.
Her being the simple working girl is like Cinderella. Everyone loves Cinderella.

I think it's also easier to dish up a BDSM story when the man is a suave, rich, attractive man.
Had he been an unemployed biker, selling drugs, weapons and porn, people would have linked his BDSM side directly to abuse.
People would've felt like "See, BDSM is bad, it should be forbidden! Ridiculous! Why doesn't she press charges? Poor woman!"
When the guy is suave and rich it is easier regarded as beautiful and respectful.

I like the idea of both partners submitting to each other depending on the given situation.

But I have no problem with the man assuming the leadership role in the home. If a man demonstrates ongoing love and respect to me, as well as wisdom in managing household affairs, I would be happy to submit to his leadership.

Thats why women need to choose their partner more carefully. We need to select men whom we respect and who respect us in return; a man who understands that the essence of good leadership lies in having the heart of a servant.

peggy. I'd really appreciate if you were mindful of being gender specific. In England, we acknowledge the fact that men can be victims of domestic abuse from their female partners. If you use stereotypical/prejudicial language then you're being hypocritical when offended when it's done towards you.

Yes exactly what bugs me about it. Class distinction in porn form. It's not the behavior that people approve of or disapprove of, it's how rich or good looking the people doing it happen to be. While at the same time PRETENDING that it's all about the behavior itself.

Yes, true, but I don't think Peggy meant what she said in context of abuse? I could be wrong of course, but that's not how I read it.

I doubt she meant offence too however violence on men from their female partners is a real thing and how are we to know that victims of such aren't members and possibly reading comments we make? Offence can be made even when not meant. If we acknowledge it, we can attempt not to do the same in the future.

As a mature and experienced man, my thought is this.

No matter what it is - Anything! If a man won't allow it to be done to him, he is a hypocrite.

If he wants to spank you or in fantasy use a belt or tie you up? He must allow you or someone to do the same.

If he wants to enter your rear - he must at least accept a similar size vibrator or something.

If he always wants oral, but disrespects men who do the same to each other, that is just not right.

If you choose to submit, that is your choice - but he must respect and honor you. Just because he is "the boss" and uses you mercilessly, does not mean he has all the power.

"What is good for the Goose, is good for the Gander." If he wants to give it, and you want it, OK, but will he do the same?

John, INdiana

avoiding everything that might offend would stop all conversation funky

I believe it's reasonable for people to post according to their personal life experience. For Peggy, as a woman, she has a woman's perspective to share with women.The collective of her posts and the context of her speech should make it clear to most if the intent is to offend.

Thank you, MsHarmony! Really sweet!
Oh, and thanks for your feedback on the "Beaver Cleaver"... I indeed didn't know that, hihi.

.

It doesn't take long to write "and visa versa"

As I said in England we have campaigns that recognise that men suffer too. It's the dismissiveness of the situation as it pertains to men that often stop them from getting help. Does that sound familiar?

Yes. But consider this, a person can only speak from their perspective and experiences, but rarely to everyones.

A cop can speak to the dangers a cop faces, without that meaning they are dismissing dangers of other jobs. It is just coming from a personal observation and personal experiences.

I can only speak from my experiences can acknowledge there are others. Since I've joined M2, I've never to my recollection been guilty of making comments which made generalisations of any kind. It doesn't take a great deal of effort merely thought. I could be defending this position in this topic because of my person experiences, yet even now being forced to defend something that shouldn't need defending.