100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Submissive | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
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, 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. 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. 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. no defending, just different perspectives I hope people understand when I post, I am speaking from my own experiences and not ignorant that others exist.
Just because I've made these comments on this topic I hope you don't think this to be a personal attack. I make these comments in the hope that all might think. I'm not trying to shame anyone, even non-chauvinist can make the odd chauvinistic statement and I'm by no means perfect myself. However, we live in a world that often has little regard for the plights of men in situations where if the roles were reversed there'd be outrage. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I rarely take issue with you, but this:
It is harder to make the leap that a man with a 'boss' at work is IN CHARGE of his own life or can take dominance over hers. His status, financially, made sense to surpass hers.
appears to me to be simple and obvious prejudice. Either that, or you personally really believe that only very rich people are in charge of their own lives, or can behave in a dominant fashion over someone else. I'll leave it to you, if that's your view, since I can find no support for that in the real world I am aware of. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is my experience that he who pays the bills has the power, I see it all throughout our culture.
It would make sense to me, that whomever is in the greater position to pay the bills is in the greater position of 'authority'. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
SparklingCrystal 💖💎
on
Fri 04/07/17 12:52 PM
|
|
I rarely take issue with you, but this: It is harder to make the leap that a man with a 'boss' at work is IN CHARGE of his own life or can take dominance over hers. His status, financially, made sense to surpass hers.
appears to me to be simple and obvious prejudice. Either that, or you personally really believe that only very rich people are in charge of their own lives, or can behave in a dominant fashion over someone else. I'll leave it to you, if that's your view, since I can find no support for that in the real world I am aware of. I don't think the part you quoted was meant per say as a personal view. It was about a movie and how to make a movie more acceptable to most. People tend to think in clichés. Much of the movie didn't make a lot of sense, the BDSM community wasn't particularly happy with it because of the image it painted. But.. again, if they had made it more realistic, it would not have been so easily accepted by a large audience. Had they dished up more realistic BDSM -and people-, the masses would have protested against it. It's like what Tommy lee Jones said in Man in Black: the individual can handle it, the masses can't. You'd have had anti-abuse groups and all kinds of chit protesting the movie, theaters wouldn't have gotten it in and so on and so forth. By making him rich, suave, and handsome (which is up to the individual btw, I think he looks like a faggot, lol) you sooner make the connection of it being respectful and classy as opposed to abuse. Sheer psychology... and smart marketing as well of course, cos they know that too. . . . |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I rarely take issue with you, but this: It is harder to make the leap that a man with a 'boss' at work is IN CHARGE of his own life or can take dominance over hers. His status, financially, made sense to surpass hers.
appears to me to be simple and obvious prejudice. Either that, or you personally really believe that only very rich people are in charge of their own lives, or can behave in a dominant fashion over someone else. I'll leave it to you, if that's your view, since I can find no support for that in the real world I am aware of. I don't think the part you quoted was meant per say as a personal view. It was about a movie and how to make a movie more acceptable to most. People tend to think in clichés. Much of the movie didn't make a lot of sense, the BDSM community wasn't particularly happy with it because of the image it painted. But.. again, if they had made it more realistic, it would not have been so easily accepted by a large audience. Had they dished up more realistic BDSM -and people-, the masses would have protested against it. It's like what Tommy lee Jones said in Man in Black: the individual can handle it, the masses can't. You'd have had anti-abuse groups and all kinds of chit protesting the movie, theaters wouldn't have gotten it in and so on and so forth. By making him rich, suave, and handsome (which is up to the individual btw, I think he looks like a faggot, lol) you sooner make the connection of it being respectful and classy as opposed to abuse. Sheer psychology... and smart marketing as well of course, cos they know that too. . . . In days gone by it was knights in shining armour. Now it's CEO of multi-national companies. Updated but still a cliche |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hell I will always cater to my gal. Just not during football season.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I rarely take issue with you, but this: It is harder to make the leap that a man with a 'boss' at work is IN CHARGE of his own life or can take dominance over hers. His status, financially, made sense to surpass hers.
appears to me to be simple and obvious prejudice. Either that, or you personally really believe that only very rich people are in charge of their own lives, or can behave in a dominant fashion over someone else. I'll leave it to you, if that's your view, since I can find no support for that in the real world I am aware of. I don't think the part you quoted was meant per say as a personal view. It was about a movie and how to make a movie more acceptable to most. People tend to think in clichés. Much of the movie didn't make a lot of sense, the BDSM community wasn't particularly happy with it because of the image it painted. But.. again, if they had made it more realistic, it would not have been so easily accepted by a large audience. Had they dished up more realistic BDSM -and people-, the masses would have protested against it. It's like what Tommy lee Jones said in Man in Black: the individual can handle it, the masses can't. You'd have had anti-abuse groups and all kinds of chit protesting the movie, theaters wouldn't have gotten it in and so on and so forth. By making him rich, suave, and handsome (which is up to the individual btw, I think he looks like a faggot, lol) you sooner make the connection of it being respectful and classy as opposed to abuse. Sheer psychology... and smart marketing as well of course, cos they know that too. . . . In days gone by it was knights in shining armour. Now it's CEO of multi-national companies. Updated but still a cliche Well, ya know... just compare it to porn stars... basically the most popular have long blonde hair, huge boobs, pretty, full lips. Whether these boobs, lips and looks are created by a plastic surgeon doesn't matter. Men still don't want some scrawny, ugly, boobless chick when they watch porn. Yet in real life few have a woman that looks like said porn star... It's not different with the love and romance stories and movies that cater for women. We too have an ideal image in our heads that we find attractive and melts our hearts when we think about it... Muscular man, wide shoulders, has his chit together, chiseled looks, formidable knob (LOL) etc etc. Yet, we make the same distinction in real life that you men do when it comes to women. Maybe seeing it that way makes it easier to devour for you. And believe me when I say many women feel exactly like you do about said porn stars. "How can I compete with that?" and "Why can't it be more realistic?" Many women feel insecure because they don't look the same way the porn star does, and never will. Feel they aren't good enough for a man because they don't have those looks, yet her man is pleasuring himself while watching such women.... Does that make porn industry change actresses? Nope. The answer to "why not?" is the same as with the rich guy in 50 Shades: Reality doesn't sell. Reality doesn't fulfill people's fantasies... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Unknow
on
Sat 04/08/17 04:39 AM
|
|
I rarely take issue with you, but this: It is harder to make the leap that a man with a 'boss' at work is IN CHARGE of his own life or can take dominance over hers. His status, financially, made sense to surpass hers.
appears to me to be simple and obvious prejudice. Either that, or you personally really believe that only very rich people are in charge of their own lives, or can behave in a dominant fashion over someone else. I'll leave it to you, if that's your view, since I can find no support for that in the real world I am aware of. I don't think the part you quoted was meant per say as a personal view. It was about a movie and how to make a movie more acceptable to most. People tend to think in clichés. Much of the movie didn't make a lot of sense, the BDSM community wasn't particularly happy with it because of the image it painted. But.. again, if they had made it more realistic, it would not have been so easily accepted by a large audience. Had they dished up more realistic BDSM -and people-, the masses would have protested against it. It's like what Tommy lee Jones said in Man in Black: the individual can handle it, the masses can't. You'd have had anti-abuse groups and all kinds of chit protesting the movie, theaters wouldn't have gotten it in and so on and so forth. By making him rich, suave, and handsome (which is up to the individual btw, I think he looks like a faggot, lol) you sooner make the connection of it being respectful and classy as opposed to abuse. Sheer psychology... and smart marketing as well of course, cos they know that too. . . . In days gone by it was knights in shining armour. Now it's CEO of multi-national companies. Updated but still a cliche Well, ya know... just compare it to porn stars... basically the most popular have long blonde hair, huge boobs, pretty, full lips. Whether these boobs, lips and looks are created by a plastic surgeon doesn't matter. Men still don't want some scrawny, ugly, boobless chick when they watch porn. Yet in real life few have a woman that looks like said porn star... It's not different with the love and romance stories and movies that cater for women. We too have an ideal image in our heads that we find attractive and melts our hearts when we think about it... Muscular man, wide shoulders, has his chit together, chiseled looks, formidable knob (LOL) etc etc. Yet, we make the same distinction in real life that you men do when it comes to women. Maybe seeing it that way makes it easier to devour for you. And believe me when I say many women feel exactly like you do about said porn stars. "How can I compete with that?" and "Why can't it be more realistic?" Many women feel insecure because they don't look the same way the porn star does, and never will. Feel they aren't good enough for a man because they don't have those looks, yet her man is pleasuring himself while watching such women.... Does that make porn industry change actresses? Nope. The answer to "why not?" is the same as with the rich guy in 50 Shades: Reality doesn't sell. Reality doesn't fulfill people's fantasies...  If I ain't getting it, watching it isn't going to make me feel better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I rarely take issue with you, but this: It is harder to make the leap that a man with a 'boss' at work is IN CHARGE of his own life or can take dominance over hers. His status, financially, made sense to surpass hers.
appears to me to be simple and obvious prejudice. Either that, or you personally really believe that only very rich people are in charge of their own lives, or can behave in a dominant fashion over someone else. I'll leave it to you, if that's your view, since I can find no support for that in the real world I am aware of. I don't think the part you quoted was meant per say as a personal view. It was about a movie and how to make a movie more acceptable to most. People tend to think in clichés. Much of the movie didn't make a lot of sense, the BDSM community wasn't particularly happy with it because of the image it painted. But.. again, if they had made it more realistic, it would not have been so easily accepted by a large audience. Had they dished up more realistic BDSM -and people-, the masses would have protested against it. It's like what Tommy lee Jones said in Man in Black: the individual can handle it, the masses can't. You'd have had anti-abuse groups and all kinds of chit protesting the movie, theaters wouldn't have gotten it in and so on and so forth. By making him rich, suave, and handsome (which is up to the individual btw, I think he looks like a faggot, lol) you sooner make the connection of it being respectful and classy as opposed to abuse. Sheer psychology... and smart marketing as well of course, cos they know that too. . . . In days gone by it was knights in shining armour. Now it's CEO of multi-national companies. Updated but still a cliche Well, ya know... just compare it to porn stars... basically the most popular have long blonde hair, huge boobs, pretty, full lips. Whether these boobs, lips and looks are created by a plastic surgeon doesn't matter. Men still don't want some scrawny, ugly, boobless chick when they watch porn. Yet in real life few have a woman that looks like said porn star... It's not different with the love and romance stories and movies that cater for women. We too have an ideal image in our heads that we find attractive and melts our hearts when we think about it... Muscular man, wide shoulders, has his chit together, chiseled looks, formidable knob (LOL) etc etc. Yet, we make the same distinction in real life that you men do when it comes to women. Maybe seeing it that way makes it easier to devour for you. And believe me when I say many women feel exactly like you do about said porn stars. "How can I compete with that?" and "Why can't it be more realistic?" Many women feel insecure because they don't look the same way the porn star does, and never will. Feel they aren't good enough for a man because they don't have those looks, yet her man is pleasuring himself while watching such women.... Does that make porn industry change actresses? Nope. The answer to "why not?" is the same as with the rich guy in 50 Shades: Reality doesn't sell. Reality doesn't fulfill people's fantasies... Reality doesn't fulfill fantasy,,,,well done.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now listen you lot, just do as you are told
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. I understand where you are coming from funky . And I agree that we should avoid generalising. I re read what I wrote,.and it still appears to me that I depicted a scenario of mutual respect. I hope no gender will be offended by that |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 C'MERE YA LIL TROLLOP!
 hehe, just kidding dear. whatever you say.
|
|
|
|
|
