MiddleClassCentrist Posted October 1, 2012 Report Posted October 1, 2012 (edited) The entire argument of this thread is that men can't control their urges and here we have the prescription: women need to respect themselves more. How about men have a little self-respect and respect for others by not succumbing to their base instincts? "Sorry, officer. I just couldn't resist clubbing her over the head and dragging her by her hair to my cave. It's only natural." The only reason to show them off is to get them looked at. If a fit man with a huge dong walks in the room buck naked, what do you theorize the women of the room would be talking privately to their friends about later? If a fit man with a huge dong walks in wearing bulging briefs or tight thin fabric shorts to accommodate said "huge dong", what do you theorize that the women of the room would be talking privately to their friends about later? I think this thread is funny. It's almost as if everyone trying to make this debate really serious has never had close women friends (just friends) to discuss these things in detail with. I've caught enough women looking at my crotch, and I'm only an average dong guy. I've had my dong grabbed in clubs by random women as they passed by. This whole vilifying men thing is retarded. Edited October 1, 2012 by MiddleClassCentrist Quote Ideology does not make good policy. Good policy comes from an analysis of options, comparison of options and selection of one option that works best in the current situation. This option is often a compromise between ideologies.
Guest Manny Posted October 1, 2012 Report Posted October 1, 2012 (edited) Men can control their urges. Most men can. But even so, subliminally it's still there. The urge is there, it can't be made to go away. Only the control of it. And in that, there's always that tiny moment, when ones eyes are surveying the area, that they might fall on her chest. It might not be consciously done at all, and not intended to be suggestive. Not intended to be noticed, or made significance of. But it's there. This is part of the problem I alluded to in my post earlier. When a woman is dressed in a certain way in a certain situation, public or on the job or what have you, these rules come into effect. There is a place in the room we are not ALLOWED to look. So I ask what conclusions you draw from that... Is it not in some way similar to the prohibitive effect of covering. Not similar, I mean, the problem exists, either way in either culture, and each has set up their rules to follow. On the one hand we have the women not allowed to show, on the other, the men not allowed to notice. To my pragmatic mind, the solution is speaking out... don't show it in public if you don't want it to be noticed. Edited October 1, 2012 by Manny Quote
Argus Posted October 1, 2012 Author Report Posted October 1, 2012 "Fifty Shades" is about mutual respect and esteem - and it's about a man loving and getting turned on by only one woman. He doesn't stare at, ogle, or even glance at another woman's breasts. So yeah, according to the responses in this thread, it is based on what women can't, or seldom can, have. So long as you leave out the spanking, bondage, whipping, strapping, etc.... Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted October 1, 2012 Author Report Posted October 1, 2012 Nobody wants to be thought of in terms of their physical bits... but that's actually less threatening than the idea that you enjoy someone's company so much that you want to spend time with them. Uh... what?! Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Michael Hardner Posted October 1, 2012 Report Posted October 1, 2012 Uh... what?! Have you ever heard of the concept of 'work wife' ? I'll guarantee you that a real wife would be more intimidated by the idea that you are emotionally close to somebody than the idea that you glance at her parts from time to time. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Guest American Woman Posted October 1, 2012 Report Posted October 1, 2012 So long as you leave out the spanking, bondage, whipping, strapping, etc.... It's completely consensual, with "safe words" to stop whatever is happening at any given time. It's stressed, time and time again. How is that not "mutual respect" if it's something both enjoy - and both partners have total control over what's happening? When both, at times, request it? People can, and do, enjoy different 'sex games,' and as long as it's what both want and enjoy, as long as it's been totally discussed and agreed upon beforehand, and as long as it stops as soon as one partner wants it to, how is that lack of respect? It might not be everyone's cup of tea, but that in itself doesn't make it disrespectful. Quote
Guest Peeves Posted October 1, 2012 Report Posted October 1, 2012 Uh... what?! Uh? How do gays respond react, view, relate to. (.) (.) Ta tas? Don't much care, but the thought came up. Quote
Argus Posted October 1, 2012 Author Report Posted October 1, 2012 Have you ever heard of the concept of 'work wife' ? I'll guarantee you that a real wife would be more intimidated by the idea that you are emotionally close to somebody than the idea that you glance at her parts from time to time. Okay, that wasn't how you phrased it, though. Yes, I've had a couple of work wives. The first, her husband was a jealous idiot who called to check up on her ten times a day. I doubt he'd have approved. The second is fine with it. We wound up becoming good friends. I had a third, but she's more of a work sister because of her age. Her husband doesn't mind. We don't work together any more but we do go out to movie and a play now and then. Really depends on whether you're mature enough to have trust in your relationship. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Guest Manny Posted October 2, 2012 Report Posted October 2, 2012 Uh? How do gays respond react, view, relate to. (.) (.) Ta tas? Don't much care, but the thought came up. Why did the thought come up? Quote
Guest Posted October 2, 2012 Report Posted October 2, 2012 Uh? How do gays respond react, view, relate to. (.) (.) Ta tas? Don't much care, but the thought came up. Interesting thought. How would a gay person respond to being checked in the manner described in this thread? Would a gay person have a right to be more upset at a person of the opposite sex checking her/him out than one of the same sex, or would that be discrimination? Quote
Bonam Posted October 2, 2012 Report Posted October 2, 2012 (edited) "Fifty Shades" is about mutual respect and esteem - and it's about a man loving and getting turned on by only one woman. Loving only one woman, sure. Mutual respect and esteem... would be a stretch, especially near the beginning. Have you read it? So yeah, according to the responses in this thread, it is based on what women can't, or seldom can, have. Plenty of women have faithful boyfriends/husbands who love no one but their one girl. Few women have domineering billionaires who spank them and coerce them to go commando to important social gatherings. It's completely consensual, with "safe words" to stop whatever is happening at any given time. It's stressed, time and time again. How is that not "mutual respect" if it's something both enjoy - and both partners have total control over what's happening? When both, at times, request it? People can, and do, enjoy different 'sex games,' and as long as it's what both want and enjoy, as long as it's been totally discussed and agreed upon beforehand, and as long as it stops as soon as one partner wants it to, how is that lack of respect? It might not be everyone's cup of tea, but that in itself doesn't make it disrespectful. Safe words are a safety precaution, and consent is required by law and is part of any legitimate relationship. But the playing out of BDSM scenarios is all about the transfer of power, and often includes verbal and physical humiliation, the feeling of powerlessness and helplessness, etc. Of course, it is just a fantasy, because underneath it all you have a way out, your safe word. But why do people fantasize about these things? It's not because they're looking to be respected and mutually esteemed, but because they want to be controlled and overpowered. Getting called the s, w, and c words, getting slapped in the face, getting spanked/whipped, choked, spat on, etc, are not expressions of respect but of the opposite, and that is the whole point. Now, it's all good fun for those who enjoy it, and I'm all for people doing what they want in the privacy of the bedroom dungeon, and I've partaken in some of the less extreme of these activities myself, but don't pretend that what people are looking for when they fantasize about BDSM, whether as the dom or the sub, is "mutual esteem". Edited October 2, 2012 by Bonam Quote
Guest Peeves Posted October 2, 2012 Report Posted October 2, 2012 Why did the thought come up? Well... should it rather have come down? Quote
BC_chick Posted October 2, 2012 Report Posted October 2, 2012 (edited) Loving only one woman, sure. Mutual respect and esteem... would be a stretch, especially near the beginning. Have you read it? Plenty of women have faithful boyfriends/husbands who love no one but their one girl. Few women have domineering billionaires who spank them and coerce them to go commando to important social gatherings. Safe words are a safety precaution, and consent is required by law and is part of any legitimate relationship. But the playing out of BDSM scenarios is all about the transfer of power, and often includes verbal and physical humiliation, the feeling of powerlessness and helplessness, etc. Of course, it is just a fantasy, because underneath it all you have a way out, your safe word. But why do people fantasize about these things? It's not because they're looking to be respected and mutually esteemed, but because they want to be controlled and overpowered. Getting called the s, w, and c words, getting slapped in the face, getting spanked/whipped, choked, spat on, etc, are not expressions of respect but of the opposite, and that is the whole point. Now, it's all good fun for those who enjoy it, and I'm all for people doing what they want in the privacy of the bedroom dungeon, and I've partaken in some of the less extreme of these activities myself, but don't pretend that what people are looking for when they fantasize about BDSM, whether as the dom or the sub, is "mutual esteem". Consensual BDSM is not the kind of disprespect I was talking about. In fact, it's not disrespectful at all since both parties are willing participants. Edited October 2, 2012 by BC_chick Quote It's kind of the worst thing that any humans could be doing at this time in human history. Other than that, it's fine." Bill Nye on Alberta Oil Sands
Guest American Woman Posted October 2, 2012 Report Posted October 2, 2012 Loving only one woman, sure. Mutual respect and esteem... would be a stretch, especially near the beginning. Have you read it? I'm about half way through the third book, so I'm aware that near the beginning, there was no relationship - they were both looking for different things. He wasn't looking for a "romantic relationship," he was looking for someone to fulfill a dom-sub contract. That's it. Plenty of women have faithful boyfriends/husbands who love no one but their one girl. Few women have domineering billionaires who spank them and coerce them to go commando to important social gatherings. Is he domineering? She is the one who really calls all the shots. She gets what she wants. She changed him. Furthermore, she was very vocal about anything he initially "coerced" her to do that she didn't end up liking and wanted no part of, and he always made sure she knew that she didn't have to do anything she didn't want to do. Some things she was willing to try and some she liked and some she did not like and that was the end of whatever she didn't like. That's not being dominated. But I think the real fantasy of the series, the real appeal, is that he loved her so much that he changed for her. He never loved anyone before her, but he would do anything for her; her happiness became his life's most important mission and he couldn't live without her. And of course his bajillions of dollars, his good looks, his power, and the fact that he apparently hardly ever had to actually work - leaving almost all of his time for her - is also a nice fantasy. But he was not a perfect man by any means. He needed her. I'm sure that's a strong part of the appeal of the fantasy, too. And, as I said previously, no one is as beautiful or wonderful or smart or worthy of his love - no other woman's breasts get so much as a glance. I think wanting to be the sole center of a mans' universe in that way is a fantasy. Safe words are a safety precaution, and consent is required by law and is part of any legitimate relationship. But the playing out of BDSM scenarios is all about the transfer of power, and often includes verbal and physical humiliation, the feeling of powerlessness and helplessness, etc. Of course, it is just a fantasy, because underneath it all you have a way out, your safe word. But why do people fantasize about these things? It's not because they're looking to be respected and mutually esteemed, but because they want to be controlled and overpowered. Getting called the s, w, and c words, getting slapped in the face, getting spanked/whipped, choked, spat on, etc, are not expressions of respect but of the opposite, and that is the whole point. Most of those things didn't happen in the book, though, and I have to wonder how many women (and men, too; it's not just women who fantasize about being dominated, and some women fantasize about dominating - but that's a different topic) actually fantasize about verbal and physical humiliation. But again, fantasies and what one actually wants in reality are most often two very different things. One is an escape, and I think the idea of an escape is to be free of all responsibility, which one is when one is dominated. Now, it's all good fun for those who enjoy it, and I'm all for people doing what they want in the privacy of the bedroom dungeon, and I've partaken in some of the less extreme of these activities myself, but don't pretend that what people are looking for when they fantasize about BDSM, whether as the dom or the sub, is "mutual esteem". That's not what the series is about, though - even as it starts out that way. Clearly she is looking for love and respect, accepting nothing less, and gets it. It is all about mutual respect and esteem and what they both enjoy. Quote
Guest Manny Posted October 2, 2012 Report Posted October 2, 2012 Well... should it rather have come down? Just wonderin if there was somethin specific made you think about it, is all. Quote
cybercoma Posted October 2, 2012 Report Posted October 2, 2012 Jesus. We're basing arguments off poorly-written romance novels now? Quote
Mr.Canada Posted October 2, 2012 Report Posted October 2, 2012 Jesus. We're basing arguments off poorly-written romance novels now? Don't take the Lords name in vain, thank you. Quote "You are scum for insinuating that isn't the case you snake." -William Ashley Canadian Immigration Reform Blog
g_bambino Posted October 5, 2012 Report Posted October 5, 2012 The other day, I had a conversation with a colleague on the subject of the ethics and morality of eying/staring at/ogling/getting glimpses of the female breast. That's quite a range of behaviour; eyeing is not the same as staring, which is not the same as ogling. Eyeing can be a sideways glimpse, done unobserved. Ogling is obvious and exaggerated visual focus. If men are coming to an area just to see an appealing looking woman or women, but they keep their looks discreet, the middle aged morality police-marms you speak about could only have suspicions about the men's intents for steering through that area. If they make it obvious, they've only got themselves to blame, since staring and ogling is pretty rude, no matter who does it. Quote
Argus Posted October 6, 2012 Author Report Posted October 6, 2012 Don't take the Lords name in vain, thank you. I think he was talking to me. A lot of people venerate me, you know. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
MiddleClassCentrist Posted October 7, 2012 Report Posted October 7, 2012 (edited) pot roast. Edited October 7, 2012 by MiddleClassCentrist Quote Ideology does not make good policy. Good policy comes from an analysis of options, comparison of options and selection of one option that works best in the current situation. This option is often a compromise between ideologies.
MiddleClassCentrist Posted October 7, 2012 Report Posted October 7, 2012 Don't take the Lords name in vain, thank you. I'm baptized as a Christian so I can do whatever they hell I want. JESUS CHRIST! This thread is drifting. Quote Ideology does not make good policy. Good policy comes from an analysis of options, comparison of options and selection of one option that works best in the current situation. This option is often a compromise between ideologies.
Melanie_ Posted October 7, 2012 Report Posted October 7, 2012 I'm baptized as a Christian so I can do whatever they hell I want. JESUS CHRIST! This thread is drifting. Thread drift is probably a good thing in this case. Quote For to be free is not merely to cast off one's chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others. Nelson Mandela
cybercoma Posted October 7, 2012 Report Posted October 7, 2012 (edited) I think he was talking to me. A lot of people venerate me, you know. Coarse language ahead... Edited October 7, 2012 by cybercoma Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.