Sexism and BDSM

Sexism and BDSM

Mistress Gatta • 6 ביולי 2006

Why is that when W/we talk about Male Dominant or Master
W/we dont mention the word "superiority" -
the quality of being superior , but when it comes to Female
Dominant or Mistress "superiority" is mentioned
too many times?
Is that because no matter how Dominant or Superior Male
is in realm of BDSM, he is still inferior to his female counterpart?
Does every male want to be dominated by female?
Then where does the submissive female come from? And what
about gays?
With all that being asked, the main question is: is there
a place for SEXISM in BDSM?

Re: Sexism and BDSM

shuki boy​(נשלט) • 7 ביולי 2006

i cant comment on what you wrote (since i never noticed this mentioning of "superiority" or the lack of it). but it seems to me your underlying exiom is that the top is superior to thier bottom due to thier gender, and not simply because they are top, and thier counterpart is bottom. i dont think this is the case - even though it can be used in the role play itself.


if every man wants to be dominated by women we wouldnt have very much of a maledom
scene, would we?

and, to prove this is not the case, we have do have gays in BDSM, and transgenders.

i think there is a place for sexism in BDSM, but only as part of role play, just like age play, and various people who enjoy including aspects of race or nationality as part of the play. in reality, obviously no gender, age, or race is actually superior over the other.

AGREED!

Mistress Gatta • 7 ביולי 2006

TOOL, THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENT, AND AS IN OTHER LIFESTYLES, BUT ESPECIALLY IN BDSM THERE SHOULD BE NO PLACE FOR SEXISM( YE, YE, I KNOW, WHEN WE PLAY- ITS JUST A PLAY, GAME, SESSION!!) WE ARE ALL EQUALS....

by William A. Henkin, Ph.D.

Mistress Gatta • 7 ביולי 2006

by William A. Henkin, Ph.D.



. The Femina Society seems to assert that any woman is superior to any man simply by virtue of her sex ,while Lady Green of the Society of Janus Lady Green seems to say that all people, whether female or male, top or bottom – or, I presume, transgendered and switch – are fundamentally equal.

what is equality? what does equality really mean?
As a noun, "peer" is often used as a synonym for "equal"; the first definition of "peer" in The American Heritage Dictionary is "a person who has equal standing with another, as in rank, class, or age." But if someone has equal standing with me, does that make the person my equal? Would the Femina Society say I was any woman's equal? Would I? Do you? What exactly does it mean to be someone's equal?
I have no argument with the notion that women and men are not equal: we are not the same, after all, if only on the basis of anatomy. In addition, recent research suggests that the structures of male and female brains are different in ways that imply that males and females perceive and process information differently, and that we perceive and understand human interactions differently as well.


We say, for instance, that if I give you a dollar and you give me a dollar we have had an equal exchange; but if I give you a dollar and you give me a candy bar we both agree is worth a dollar, we've had an exchange of equal value. The first definition of "parity" in The American Heritage Dictionary is "Equality, as in amount, status, or value." The second, "Functional equivalence...," makes clearer what we're talking about. If you want to translate into SM terms, imagine a negotiation based on my pleasure in whipping and yours in service: we can agree to an exchange of equal value – for example, you bring me my coffee and I'll whip you – even though our exchange is not, strictly speaking, equal: whipping is not the same as service

""""""IN MY CASE I WILL SLAP YOUR FACE 20 TIMES AND YOU WILL LICK MY BOOTS 20 TIMES.... LOL ( by LG)



macho feminists," is that not only do its proponents not see men and women as equal, they do not value men and women equally: they do not see us on a par

We also think no two people are the same, and so none of us is really equal to any other.

I can appreciate the sweet taste of revenge some women – and some men – might hope for from such a categorical role-reversal, it looks like a short-sighted hope to me, and one that is, in the long run, more likely to reinforce the worst of the existing social order, rather than produce the kind of conscious (r)evolution I would like to think human beings are capable of.

. One of the reasons some female supremacy absolutists take the positions they do, I think, is that women have been badly oppressed, repressed, suppressed, and, finally, depressed in most western and eastern societies for at least the past several thousand years. I think this is and has been bad policy, stupid policy, ignorant policy, and frightened policy on the part of the males who have nominally run the societies in question, and all told I don't think it's been particularly good for them either – or for the rest of us.
the oppressed become the oppressor.

FROM MY RABBI

Mistress Gatta • 7 ביולי 2006

FROM MY RABBI
Women and men are very different beings. Not only do we have different anatomies; our thought processes, emotional states and psychology are all different. This is because our souls are different - they come from complimentary but opposite sources
How do we know how to pray? Most of the guidelines for prayer, we learned from a lady named Chana who lived about three thousand years ago, before the First Temple was built. That's right, Chana was a woman


In fact, the sages were so enamored with Chana's prayer, they composed the Amidah (also called Shmoneh Esreh -- the mainstay Jewish prayer) using 113 words for all the blessings, just because there were 113 words in Chana's prayer. Now if that isn't gilding it in gold, what is?Do you get it? All those guidelines of prayer are to teach men how to pray like a woman!

The whole modality of prayer is a female thing: Men don't like to cry, to admit helplessness, to express their inner selves and discuss their true needs. These are things we generally associate with women. And, by the way, men especially don't do these things when there are women around. So the guidelines of prayer have to create a framework in which men can do all this.

In terms of multiple intelligence theory, prayer is a semantic thing. And the semantic mind -- communicating, connecting, emoting -- is where women rule. (Men, on the other hand, excel in symbolic intelligence -- mastering abstractions through well-defined symbols

I'm sorry

shuki boy​(נשלט) • 7 ביולי 2006

I have no idea what you, backed by your doctors and rabbies (all male i assume), are trying to say.

FOR EVERY GIRL WHO IS TIRED
OF ACTING WEAK WHEN SHE IS
STRONG, THERE IS A BOY TIRED OF
APPEARING STRONG WHEN HE
FEELS VULNERABLE. FOR EVERY
BOY WHO IS BURDENED WITH
THE CONSTANT EXPECTATION OF
KNOWING EVERYTHING, THERE
IS A GIRL TIRED OF PEOPLE NOT TRUSTING HER
INTELLIGENCE. FOR EVERY GIRL WHO IS TIRED
OF BEING CALLED OVER-SENSITIVE, THERE IS
A BOY WHO FEARS TO BE GENTLE, TO WEEP.
FOR EVERY BOY FOR WHOM COMPETITION IS
THE ONLY WAY TO PROVE HIS MASCULINITY,
THERE IS A GIRL WHO IS CALLED UNFEMININE
WHEN SHE COMPETES. FOR EVERY GIRL WHO
THROWS OUT HER E-Z-BAKE OVEN, THERE IS
A BOY WHO WISHES TO FIND ONE. FOR EVERY
BOY STRUGGLING NOT TO LET ADVERTISING
DICTATE HIS DESIRES, THERE IS A GIRL FACING
THE AD INDUSTRY’S ATTACKS ON HER SELF-
ESTEEM. FOR EVERY GIRL WHO TAKES A STEP
TOWARD HER LIBERATION, THERE IS A BOY WHO
FINDS THE WAY TO FREEDOM A LITTLE EASIER.

outsider1 • 21 בנוב׳ 2006

I do not believe that we are inferior to our respected counterparts. From where i stand, after tals with friends: other then masters like Yakir and a bunch of others, Israel have not produced what Europians and Americans would recognize as masters.

However, we do go on the right track because i found that there are many people who now begin to be just that. True, there are more mistresses and queens then masters. But, soon there would be changes.

True Mastery

ראובן • 27 בנוב׳ 2006

The concept of superiority is in itself phallic, as being erected, pardon the pun, on the basis of vertical hierarchy. Therefore, when trying to evaluate mastery on the basis of superiority, eventually the male species will manifest itself as superior. The proofs for this abound - let's take for example a trait which is common to both female Tops and Bottoms - wearing high heeled shoes. These shoes are again phallic themselves, and serve to arouse male Tops and Bottoms alike, while causing utter discomfort to their wearers of both roles. A recent theory states that fetishes became manifold in our times because of the dwindling of male sexual energy, from which arose the dire need of supplementing it with external stimuli such as fetish-wear, role playing etc. So, in that sense, all females serve males, irrespective of their fetishistic roles

When a woman claims superiority on the sole basis of herself being a woman, she is no less stupid than her male chauvinistic counterparts

Now, regarding true mastery - it has nothing to do with gender, and is based on an individual's prowess, inspiration and charisma. Not every cunt or dick who claim to be Master/Mistress are indeed so. True mastery, regardless of gender, requires many things, rare things.

The two genders are synergetic. The two roles are synergetic. Show me a Master or a Mistress without minion/s and I'll tell you that all I see is a bum. Better try and strive for True Mastery, regardless of gender, through knowledge, personal agenda and a body of followers

Ruben

פרדוקס ניצחי

teacher​(שולט) • 27 בנוב׳ 2006

אני אכתוב בעברית, כי אני כבר עייף...

יש פרדוקסים בכל מיני רמות במה שקשור לשליטה. והבסיסי ביותר הוא זה שאומר שהשולט מוגדר על ידי הנישלט (ראה דוגמת ה-bum...) ובכך יוצר תבנית ביצה ותרנגולת של תלות, אשר בתורה מראה שהשולט נשלט על ידי נוכחות הנשלט.

החיבור בין ג'נדר לשולט או נשלט גם הוא על כרעי תרנגולת. למעשה, כל הסטטיסטיקות הנחשבות באמת, מדברות על חלוקה כמעט סימטרית של שולטים ונשלטים בין שני המינים, אני לא אכנס לסיבות למה זה לא נראה כך במבט ראשון כי זה יכול להיות די ארוך, אולי נושא לאשכול אחר..

אחת מהסיבות בגללן יש שוני בהגדרות הפופולריות (האמת שהן בעיקר באנגלית, כי בעברית זה לא כל כך בא לידי ביטוי) היא כנראה תמונת המצב החברתית, בהיבט של פמיניזם, פוסט-פמיניזם, ופוליטיקלי-קורקט. בדיוק מהסיבה שלכושי מותר לומר על עצמו ''ניגר'' וזה בסדר גמור, אך לעומת זאת שלבן יגיד את זה... נו נו נו... אני מניח שבמציאות החברתית היום, אין בעיה לנשים לומר שהן עליונות על גברים בצורה של אמירה בוטה / חד-משמעית (ראה פרסומות של חברות הביטוח על ביטוח נהיגה זול יותר לנשים...). אם מישהו היה טוען את ההיפך, בכל תחום כל שהוא, אני מניח שהיו סוקלים אותו בכל מיני צורות (לאו דווקא התנ''כית).

הניסיון לחבר את יחסי השליטה למאבק השיוויון ההיסטורי בין המינים גם הוא עקר בעיני, בהסיבה שפירטתי בפיסקה השניה. Jenus הוא אירגון פאן-סקסואלי, וגם הוא, בהגדרתו מפריד בצורה מוחלטת את שני הנושאים הללו.

ולגבי הדת *המאורגנת...
טוב, אותם הייתי מוצא בכלל מהדיון הזה, בדיוק כמו שלא הכנסתי את גישת השלטון.
המטרה של כל בעלי העניין המרכזיים היא לגרום לנו לדבר על מה שמפריד ביננו.
על ההבדלים, על הפערים, על שוני.. כל דבר שיגרום לנו להילחם ביננו לבין עצמנו, ולאבד פוקוס
מהדברים הרלוונטים להם (בעיקר כסף, בסופו של דבר). אני בעד שכל אחד יפעיל את הדבר הזה,
שיש לנו על הכתפיים, זה שקוראים לו ''שכל'', או ''השכל הישר'', ויחליט על דעתו בעצמו, זה לא כל כך מסובך.


מישהו שאני מכיר אומר: ''השולט שלי הוא עצמי''.
בעיני זו מהות השליטה, בליבה, ביסודה. כל מה שבא אחר כך הן תוספות.

teacher

*הדת המאורגנת = כל הסחבקיה החברתית שמלווה את הדת.