Ideal Male Dominant / female submissive relationship
Mas...@mindspring.com
vision of a Male Dom, female sub relationship. It is written
partially in the form of a letter to a female submissive giving her an
idea of what to expect if she were to become mine. To give a clearer
image of myself, I am a single white male and work with computers
professionally. I live in New Jersey only a few miles from Manhattan,
and actively participate in local BDSM groups and activities, but the
opinions expressed are mine alone. I can be reached at
Mas...@mindspring.com, and comments are welcome.
For me, there is an intrinsic mapping of male and female qualities
onto the Dominant vs. submissive axis. Even so, I fully support the
right of everyone to seek their own heart's desire, for what seems
true to me, and maybe even be true for humanity in general, may not be
true of the individual.
On the other hand, I do slightly enjoy watching women dominate
other women, or even male submissives, especially if the dominant
female herself has a submissive streak I can relate to, so I endeavor
to keep an open mind. Such attitudes do not preclude judgements and
beliefs, they only insure that the later are not set in stone. But
since I've participated in an ever broader range of experiences, I'm
much more ready to consider the possibility that there may exist
"hierarchies" or some sort of "daisy-chain structures" of who submits
to whom, with those who are totally dominant or totally submissive
anchoring the line at both ends.
I once subscribed to a purely male Dominant view of humanity. But
over the years I have widened my horizons to encompass a greater range
of the marvelous complexities that arise from this dualism of human
sexuality. Consider that electricity has just two inherent qualities,
positive/negative, and is capable of just two actions, push/pull. Yet
this is enough for the existence of the molecules that make up
everything you see before you, from the medium you're reading this on,
to the food you've eaten, even the thoughts you are thinking, all are
part of the intricate tapestry of natural phenomena woven almost
entirely from these two threads alone.
Dominance is the male principle, submission is the female
principle, yet none of us is exclusively one or the other in all ways
at all times. Morphologically, we all start out female in the womb,
and though the genetic switch is thrown at conception, it takes a
complex series of chemical events to bring us online as male or
female. But both sexes always carry the internal blueprint of each
other. The difference between my early beliefs and the ones I now
hold is that I've come to more fully accept and appreciate the rich
diversity that results when human beings are free to seek their own
favorite blend of these twin ingredients without fear or pressure to
conform to societal norms.
Basically, I think D/s is about the special, incredibly joyful
pairing of two people with complimentary natures. The Dominance of
one and the submissiveness of the other mesh as perfectly as do the
bodies of men and women. Submissives often reach adulthood with a
burden of guilt attached to their desires, if male they have been
forced to disguise themselves to fit in with a still very much
male-dominated culture with its Macho rites of passage, if female they
were either taught to repress sexuality in general, or for the younger
ones, there has been a lifetime of propaganda to tell them that their
submissive natures betray the "sisterhood" of modern liberated women.
For me, the desire to have a Dominant relationship with a woman IS
my way of being romantically attracted to her. I want her and I mean
to own her, yet I will always remember that she is a human being
first, to forget would be to diminish in my own mind my good fortune
in having acquired her. To paraphrase an old song, "people who own
people are the luckiest people in the world". <grin>.
I think the surest hallmark of romance is the intensity with which
true lovers want what they have with each other, that nothing is as
important to their happiness as the other person, that each identifies
more with the "us" than with themselves. It is not altruistic, which
is a negation of the self, but rather selfishness reborn on a
profoundly higher plane.
One of the two must be dominant for this to work, for ultimately
decisions have to be made, not endlessly discussed. The thoughts and
knowledge of the submissive are of enormous, crucial value to the
Dominant's decisions, but as in any situation in which more than one
person seeks to form a functional "unit", a line of command must be in
force. There is far too much emphasis in our modern society of
replaceable people on keeping lover's identities distinct from each
other by hedging the commitment to the union between them. Instead of
holding back, I think that balance is the key, reaffirming the "us"
and developing as individuals simultaneously. It becomes synergistic,
the expanding capabilities of the lovers allowing them to develop an
ever more potent bond, and the life-fulfilling power of that bond
generating yet more energy to invest in further personal growth.
All explorations are best done in stages, with careful study of
the results of each step, and great amounts of planning and
forethought given to the next. The Master should handle a new
submissive as cautiously as a test pilot approaches his aircraft,
never allowing
excitement over the possibilities to overshadow his knowledge of how
easy it is to "stretch the envelope" just a little too far.
I have come to believe that the basic dichotomy of human
existence, the pleasure/pain continuum of experience, is designed with
pleasure as its normal state and that submissives thrive in an
atmosphere of love and security. The two extremes are like sets of
control reigns, but they are not paired, one to the right, the other
on the left. Rather, the pleasure range of sensation lies within the
other, like the fine tuning knob within the outer, courser wheel.
Discipline puts the slave firmly in the Master's realm, and returns
her there when she strays, but within that realm itself pleasure
rules.
I am exclusively Dominant, and would never "switch roles", because
to me this is not a role at all, but rather an important aspect of my
nature. The image of a benevolent monarchy, with myself lovingly
presiding as absolute ruler over my slave as devoted subject is one of
my favorite metaphors to use in conveying the sense of my vision of
how things ought to be. How much of our history and literature shows
the longing of most people for a "good King"? How much rebellion is
not against the principle of authority but rather to cancel the power
of one who does not handle it well?
The love of a Dominant and a submissive sets the exchange of power
on a human scale and keeps it there, for it is only by forgetting the
humanity of those subject to one's will that power can be truly
abused. D/s is more like feudalism than chattel slavery, the
submission of the slave is a personal oath to be the vassal of a
specific individual, who in turn commits himself to providing his
loyal servant with a secure place within his realm.
The essence of what we seek is psychological in nature, a
condition born of feelings and attitudes, of imagination and private
relevance. The slave must think of herself as "his", to feel this
reality to the utmost depths of her soul, to accept totally and
joyfully the rightfulness of it. Her body, with its marvels of
sensation and response, her emotions, in all the richness of their
range, even a woman's mind, both intellect and imagination, are the
Master's instruments of pleasure.
Were you mine, I would train you on all three levels
simultaneously. Each is an integral part of the true slave girl, and
balance is crucial in the growth of your bondage. I would be both
stern and loving, but while I can be quite affectionate when fully
pleased, you would strive hard for such attentions. I would keep you
eager, nay desperate, to please, not only to earn the occasional
reward, but also to avoid the harsher measures you would know me
capable of. Above all, a slave girl must know in her heart that the
Master will be ruthlessly strong with her.
At times I might take you without warning, putting you to my
service at my slightest whim, as would be my right. But more often, I
would amuse myself by teasing you for prolonged periods, sometimes in
full bondage, sometimes bound only by my spoken command. I would take
you to very brink, and hold you there, enjoying the piteous writhing
of your enflamed body, denying you release until it pleases me to
grant it. When at last you are given permission to speak, you would
beg with heartfelt desperation to be put to use. As my slave, you
have learned well that your orgasms are ultimately mine, to bestow
upon you or deny
as I choose.
Like the receding line of the horizon, you would always be
approaching some new vista of sensual experience, yet never reaching
an ultimate plateau. Under repeated sessions, you body would grow
ever more sensitized to my slightest touch. I would deliberately
build in you whole systems of conditioned responses, until you are
helplessly aroused at even a certain glance or tone of voice.
There would be many new things for you to learn, as I train your
mind to serve me. I would teach you first to lose all inhibitions, to
strip yourself of modernisms and respond as naturally as a nubile
peasant girl of ages past. Then, when you have unlearned the damaging
influence of current times, and become what a woman was meant to be, I
would guide us both in endlessly joyful experimentation with the
infinite variety of techniques. This I cannot see in advance, for
that which works between a Master and a specific slave may not do so
with another wench.
There would be formal skills such as belly dancing and massage,
that I would have you learn. You would also perfect the more
traditional chores of cooking and cleaning, though unlike the
unfortunate free women about us, you would be taught to do such things
in a warm sexual glow that would pervade your every waking moment as
you labor in my service.
I would encourage your imagination and train your creativity. If
you can sing, you will perform for me, if you can draw, you will make
pictures for me, if you can write, you will use your talents for me.
I enjoy love ballads, erotic drawings, and written fantasies. You
would be welcome to suggest new experiences, to offer whatever untried
delights you can think of. Always the choice would be mine.
You would continue to wear normal street clothing as you went
about your daily affairs, but be naked in our quarters as much as
possible so as to acclimate yourself to this aspect of your status. I
prefer dresses to slacks, and detest the pseudo-masculine caricatures
of male business suits worn by female yuppies in sterile servitude to
the corporate culture. When permitted clothing at home, you would
dress in beautiful, feminine attire whose purpose is not to conceal
your body, but adorn it, the better that I may admire your beauty
before "unwrapping" it for my amusement. And what better way to
remind you now and then that you are slave and I am Master than to
simply utter the word "Strip" to command your instant obedience.
Imagine someday that you return from work, where you competently
plan and manage the expenditure of vast sums, and direct efforts of
dozens of subordinates, only to find me waiting for you with that
special "look" in my eyes. One might tell a lover to "disrobe", or
"get naked", but only a slave is given the command "Strip", only a
slave obeys it without question, for I shall have trained you well.
Or is it your innermost desire to be the full-time live-in slave of
the right Master, to forsake such trivial concerns as worldly status
and success in favor of total commitment to your life as a loveslave?
I would accept and support either scenario as was most appropriate for
the two of us.
I would teach you to place the values of experience and emotion
far above those of the merely material. A slave does not "share" her
Master's wealth, rather is she a part of it, herself the most prized
of his possessions. The physical conditions of her life are subject
to his whim. The Master sleeps amidst silk and furs on his large and
comfortable bed, while the slave huddles naked on the floor, chained
by the neck to the foot of his resting place, unless he, being VERY
pleased with her, allows her to spend the night in his arms. In
deciding whether to so indulge my wench, I am really more than a
little biased in her favor, for I am quite fond of the warm and loving
intimacy of a contented slave snuggling happily at my side. The one
offence certain to gain her a night of exile on the floor is the
presumptiveness of forgetting that the bed is a privilege, not a
right, that indeed she has no "rights" before my will.
A slave with the wit to understand such matters IS made privy to
the Master's financial affairs so that her knowledge and insight may
widen the scope of his worldly deliberations, but such "executive"
duties are an earned trust for the fully trained wench to aspire to,
they are not lightly assigned to novices. Where a girl has talent and
ability in these areas, they are encouraged as yet one more means by
which she may serve her Lord and Master. It is necessary to make some
effective arrangements with the conventional society around us,
primarily to insure enough financial resources for the maintenance of
privacy. This I take as the primary responsibility of the Master. It
is healthy for the pleasing slave to enjoy the sensuous luxury of
creature comforts, and just as important that if they are ever denied,
it be by the Master's will alone, not through any lack of
affordability.
The true Master concentrates his complete and undivided will upon
the maintenance of his domination, making the fullest possible use of
all his senses to catch every nuance of her response. I think that
this is one of the aspects of male over female Dominance that female
slaves love most, knowing that they are at times the absolute focus of
the Master's consciousness, that in lovemaking they are of primal
significance to him in ways no "free" female could ever be to her
lover in a "vanilla" relationship. If I did not truly care for the
woman herself, this level of involvement would become hard, boring
work, and I'd soon want to end it.
Always you would speak of your feelings, give voice to your every
desire, for a slave girl may conceal nothing from her Master, and I
would command this of you often. Mere physical nakedness, though
prominent in a slave's existence, is nothing compared to the emotional
vulnerability, the openness, that I would enforce upon you. I would
learn to read you as surely as a navigator of old could scan the night
sky. Nor would you ever be in doubt as to my wishes, rather you would
learn to be constantly attentive so that you may respond instantly to
my commands. Master and slave do not stop at communication, they
achieve communion, and it is this totality with which such lovers each
attain psychological visibility in the other's sight which so sets
them apart from the everyday world.
Being able to shape my woman's sexual experiences, to tease her
into unbearable passion, then choose the moment to fulfill the needs I
have ignited in her, is for me the most natural expression of my
feelings. She's not ready until she begs for it, until everything
else is blotted out by her sense of being a bitch in heat. Of course,
giving pleasure isn't the only type of domination, authority needs its
sanctions too, and if I really care for a woman, it will be my love
for her, my regard for the value of our relationship, that will
provide me with the strength of will to discipline her as needed.
I find that most women will sooner or later test the men in their
lives to see what they can get away with. Nine times out of ten, they
hope to be firmly handled, and will respond with love and joy to the
man who understands their true needs. Just as often, they will make
their men miserable if they are disappointed. Female submissives tend
to be very in touch with their sexuality, so much so that they can't
mistake their own desires no matter what society tells them. Most
women have the submissive streak in their hearts, but why go looking
for it when others are so sexually charged that they have it ready to
give, like picking a ripe cherry?
Yet it is the sense of power that turns me on, not pain. Pain is
just a counter-point to pleasure, the real basis for the legitimacy of
the power. Not power for its own sake either, which always ends up
twisted, but power in the natural sense of freedom of action and
unlimited capability, the power of a lion surveying the jungle secure
in the rightfulness of his dominion over it.
I like to allow my wenches the pretense of freedom much of the
time, it eases their dealings with the world at large, but ultimately
I do this not for their benefit but rather for my own pleasure in
setting aside that facade at will. You would never know when I might
choose to snap my fingers into a gesture clearly pointing to the floor
at my feet, sending you immediately into the submissive kneeling
posture of the pleasure slave. This leaves you sitting on your heels,
knees widely spaced apart, hands palms up on your thighs, back
straight, head down, after completing a full bow that touched your
forehead to the floor, the word, "Master", having passed through your
lips.
Imagine yourself lying slave-naked on the bed, hands clasped
behind your head, legs spread wide, bound solely by my expressed will
that you are not to move or make a sound. There follows many long
minutes of gentle stroking and touching, deep sensuous kisses as my
hands caress your most intimate areas. I wonder aloud what might be
on television, and smile with quiet satisfaction at the desperate
pleading in your eyes that I not leave. With a small contemptuous
laugh I'm gone, leaving you to writhe in helpless agony, still under
orders not to speak or break position. When I come back, the teasing
starts again.
Perhaps this time I allow you to speak, though only in a whisper,
and let you entertain me with your most creative efforts at begging
for mercy. There is a chance I just might take you this time, there
is always that chance, fifty per cent, I either will or I won't, as I
alone decide. It is so difficult to hold still now, your body burns
with need, pulsates with passion, I did this to you, I must relieve
you, you must entice me somehow, anything but let the teasing go on.
I've learned to read your body so well, I know so exactly when to
stroke you and when to withhold my touch. I can be a devil sometimes,
you don't always know if you love me or hate me. What more could I do
to you?
Are you ticklish perhaps, let's find out. You squirm and plead
that you can't stand it, so of course I offer to leave. NO!, you cry,
not that! Do anything, but stay with you. I allow you to repeat your
vows of absolute servitude, to renew your promises of pleasures
provided. I may at this time point out recent shortcomings in your
slave-services, and consider once more your tearful commitments to do
better. I think you sound sincere, you seem worthy of yet another
chance. I kiss you and take you, entering you in both ends at once.
Your first orgasm is almost immediate, awaiting little more than my
spoken permission. Those that follow blot it from your memory.
When the raging storm of our unleashed desires has at last
subsided, I hold you in my arms for the longest time, gently stroking
you down from the heights as you cuddle lovingly against me. We gaze
into each other's eyes and voice intimate thoughts, but only a few,
not many words are needed. I am pleased with you, and your heart
fills with joy to hear me say it. I allow you to spend the night
sleeping in the circle of my arms.
Of course, there can be a very blurry line between playful
punishments carried out to tease and arouse, which I dearly love to
impose, and real discipline to correct and train my slave girl's
behavior. The difference is whether she loves it while its happening,
or mostly hates that part but loves knowing that it did happen and
will happen again when needed. Few submissives are really masochistic
to the point of actually enjoying pain itself, its the whole context
of knowing that they are under discipline, that someone they love and
trust can and will keep them firmly where they most want to be kept,
"kneeling before the master" in total submission. The submissive's
"self-respect" requires that she save her ultimate surrender for the
man of strong enough will to take it from her.
When I decide that a wench has displeased me in some way, I may
tell her to "fetch the strap", or whatever implement I care to
specify, which she must then lay at my feet by crawling to me on her
hands and knees, the strap clenched between her teeth. If she dares
to drop it prematurely, she will suffer extra punishment for being
clumsy.
At this point I will often allow her to beg for the chance to
"placate the Master" with her most potent sexual wiles. This is risky
for her, even should I grant the opportunity to try, she must perform
superbly or risk increasing my wrath. But if I am well and truly
pleased, I may be lenient to the extent of reducing, but never
completely canceling, the corrective measures I will subject her to.
Once sent for, I would not substitute an ordinary spanking for the
much greater intensity of a session with the strap, yet the number of
strokes given would be fewer than otherwise, much to her heartfelt
relieve and gratitude. But of course, having just orgasmed, the
lighter penalty will still be almost as hard to bear in its total
effect and significance as the full punishment she would have suffered
earlier.
I thus get the best of her either way, but then that's part of her
ongoing training, that the Master ALWAYS wins. When she has paid the
price of displeasing me to my total satisfaction, I like to take her
again, the contrast of pleasure after the pain she has borne sends her
to dizzying heights of passion. It also serves to let the slave know
that all is forgiven now, that she is once more in her Master's favor.
However, I think it best that a recently acquired slave be first
given a through introduction to the pleasures of her new life as the
Master's sexual servant and plaything. I prefer to save the first
actual taste of discipline for the first real instance of misbehavior.
Pleasure is the normal status of the relationship, pain is used to
guard the boundaries of my slave girl's actions, to immediately
dissuade her from anything that might contradict the joy of our
relationship. Pain apart from this context is just simple anguish, as
it would be anyone else.
I am very protective of women, though I will ruthlessly use my
every resource of personal strength and will to remain firmly in
control of a relationship I want to keep. I have not and will not use
such methods where it would cause unhappiness, nor have I or would I
ever "use" a woman I did not care for, though the opportunity for
exploitation is certainly present. I firmly believe that power and
responsibility go together. I have absolutely no patience with clowns
who abuse "easy" targets, i.e. bullies.
I have a strong family orientation, and there have been times when
I have played the part of "older brother" to young women I felt had
gotten trapped in abusive (mental as well as physical) relationships.
A bit of discipline when appropriate for a submissive female who needs
and freely accepts such factors in her lifestyle is quite another
matter. The mantle of authority worn by the Master demands that he
remain in full control at all times, especially of himself. The
submissive is NEVER to be struck or otherwise disciplined in anger.
Dominants can be extremely tender, affectionate, and nurturing. I
know that I am, and I am secure enough in my self-image to believe
that what is true for me is true enough to live by, whether others
agree or not. I am a very fun-loving character, with a
well-developed, decidedly screwball sense of humor. I revel in the
sense of closeness, of intimate knowledge and especially meaningful
communication that occurs between lovers in a healthy relationship. I
am very fond of just holding a slavegirl in my arms and talking with
her at length, about everything under the sun, about her, about us.
Sexual coupling itself is really such a small, though vital, part of
the whole that I rarely spend much time discussing the specifics of it
in my writings. Here I am a man of action, not thoughts or words, and
would prefer to do it rather than write about it. <grin>.
Terminology does fail me in describing the kind of relationship I
want though. "Slavegirl" is imperfect; it does carry the negative
connotations of dehumanizing exploitation that is obviously to be
feared. I am really thinking in terms of mating as humans have
practiced it throughout most of history, of having a wife (possibly
wives) in the ancient sense of being Lord of my own castle. But the
emasculated terms of contemporary society denote such sanitized,
vanilla-flavored "states of equal being" that using them would
completely mislead any woman I tried to win. This seems to me yet
another unfortunate case of a vital whole having been sundered in
half, with love on one side and dominance on the other, as if the two
were somehow at odds. Both are essential parts of true manhood, to
let them conflict is to be at war with one's self. I mean to own
every part of a woman involved with me, and thus I value her
knowledge, skills, and talents. I would welcome and encourage her
personal growth in any area of endeavor, for her progress enriches me.
_
pijay
news:3908c938...@news.mindspring.com...
>
> For me, there is an intrinsic mapping of male and female qualities
> onto the Dominant vs. submissive axis. Even so, I fully support the
> right of everyone to seek their own heart's desire, for what seems
> true to me, and maybe even be true for humanity in general, may not be
> true of the individual.
It's interesting to see how people view D/s in terms of gender. Taking
into account your disclaimer, I can quite understand why you can see
that intrinsic mapping between D/s and gender. From my point of view
as a male submissive, it works equally well the other way around. The
male (submissive) 'champion' being put through ordeals and tests of
suffering to win the heart of a (dominant) lady.
I guess it's not really about the 'action', but how you see it inside
your mind. That never ceases to amaze me.
~ ~ pijay{LK}
PlumLuvly
>Date: Thu, Apr 27, 2000 1:00 AM
>Message-id: <3908c938...@news.mindspring.com
>snip<
posts a very long essay which though well written seems like a thinly disguised
personal ad to me. Am I being cynical?
Plum
rat in a cage
your long post:
I absolutely disagree with you that it's normal (I'm
paraphrasing) for men to be dominant and women to be submissive.
That sounds like old-fashioned sexism to me. I'm not saying
you're a sexist, but you might want to look at your assumptions.
I like what pijay (sp?) said.
--rat
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
cmb adams
I couldn't tell if it was an incredibly long-winded
personal ad or a somewhat personal dissertation. my
general feeling though is that if it has some substance
to it and is on-topic and doesn't explicitly say "hey,
come and get it like a big funky sex machine", it's
pretty much ok.
herr masterl obviously put a lot of work into his
posting, at any rate.
dev
news:20000427130127...@ng-cg1.aol.com...
> >Mas...@mindspring.com (Mas...@mindspring.com)
> >Date: Thu, Apr 27, 2000 1:00 AM
> >Message-id: <3908c938...@news.mindspring.com
>
> >snip<
>
> posts a very long essay which though well written seems like a
thinly disguised
> personal ad to me. Am I being cynical?
For 26Kbytes, it's an interesting use of the word 'thin'!
Dev
Brevity is the best form of brevity!
--
remove the 00 to reply
Kristal
<ratinacag...@my-deja.com.invalid> wrote:
> While I realize that this is perhaps an inadequate response to
> your long post:
>
> I absolutely disagree with you that it's normal (I'm
> paraphrasing) for men to be dominant and women to be submissive.
> That sounds like old-fashioned sexism to me. I'm not saying
> you're a sexist, but you might want to look at your assumptions.
>
I agree with you, rat in a cage. I don't think BDSM is normal even
if the male is dominant. I don't want BDSM to be normal either.
Kristal
Spyral Fox
plum...@aol.comnospam (PlumLuvly) writes:
>posts a very long essay which though well written seems like a thinly
>disguised
>personal ad to me. Am I being cynical?
Given the introductory paragraph, which clearly stated:
"It is written partially in the form of a letter to a female
submissive giving her an idea of what to expect if she
were to become mine" I don't think so. I sent my usual
anti-personal form letter, with a slight addition saying that
without the first paragraph if would look more like a
philosophical post to me.
- - Spyral Fox
--
... a fox to recognize traps, and a lion to frighten wolves
San Diego Resources: http://members.aol.com/spyralfox/
SSBB Cookbook: http://members.aol.com/ssbbcooks/
SSBB Diplomatic Corps member & Depooty Charter Enforcer (CLG)
SilverOz
Kristal <Kris...@Nightmail.com> wrote:
>>
> I agree with you, rat in a cage. I don't think BDSM is normal even
>if the male is dominant. I don't want BDSM to be normal either.
>
>Kristal
Hrm... I saw him saying the female that is in all of us is submissive, the
male in all of us is dominant, not that women or men were those things.
Not sure I agree, but ain't no way to find out.
As to normal... I'm normal. To me, BSDM *is* normal.
SilverOz
--
========================================================================
Australian BDSM Information Site
http://www.master.webcentral.com.au/abis/
========================================================================
rat in a cage
ze...@zip.com.au (SilverOz) wrote:
>
>Hrm... I saw him saying the female that is in all of us is
submissive, the
>male in all of us is dominant, not that women or men were those
things.
>
>Not sure I agree, but ain't no way to find out.
>
not too big a step from there to saying that women "should" be
submissive, it's their true nature, and so on... In fact, later
on he makes a comment about not liking the "mannish" business
suits that some professional women wear... Of course, they should
wear frilly lace and skirts like "real" women! :P
But, of course, the issue is a gigantic can of worms which I
should really know better than to rock. (metaphoric
miscegenation... I love it)
>As to normal... I'm normal. To me, BSDM *is* normal.
>
I find "normal" to be a boring and largely irrelevant concept.
Which pretty much means I agree with you.
Binder
[snip]
> Your comment invokes the image of courtly knights vying for their
> ladies' favors. Interesting mix of elements, in that such things
> occurred in what was nonetheless a very male dominated society. Even
> so, it is true that the onus of courtship is usually on the male
> throughout the animal kingdom.
One might like to read the stories about Cuchulain for some prespective
about "courtly behaviors" and the common image of the male dominant.
Many, many women of the era held considerable power, with complete
dominance and competence.
Universal law number 1: there ain't no universal law.
Binder
Binder
> But if you doubt the accuracy of the premise, please explain why some
> form of feminization is so common a practice in the FemDom/malesub
> scene, or the fairly frequent use of such toys as strap-on dildoes to
> assert the female's ascendancy. One hardly ever hears of female subs
> being forced to don male attire.
Ok.. here's a way OT question.. is this a good example of a "straw man"
argument?
Binder, in search of clue.
Mas...@mindspring.com
>It's interesting to see how people view D/s in terms of gender. Taking
>into account your disclaimer, I can quite understand why you can see
>that intrinsic mapping between D/s and gender. From my point of view
>as a male submissive, it works equally well the other way around. The
>male (submissive) 'champion' being put through ordeals and tests of
>suffering to win the heart of a (dominant) lady.
>
>I guess it's not really about the 'action', but how you see it inside
>your mind. That never ceases to amaze me.
Your comment invokes the image of courtly knights vying for their
Mas...@mindspring.com
>In article <20000427130127...@ng-cg1.aol.com>,
>plum...@aol.comnospam (PlumLuvly) writes:
>
>>posts a very long essay which though well written seems like a thinly
>>disguised
>>personal ad to me. Am I being cynical?
>
>Given the introductory paragraph, which clearly stated:
>"It is written partially in the form of a letter to a female
>submissive giving her an idea of what to expect if she
>were to become mine" I don't think so. I sent my usual
>anti-personal form letter, with a slight addition saying that
>without the first paragraph if would look more like a
>philosophical post to me.
>
>- - Spyral Fox
You're both right. In other contexts, this piece does serve as a very
elaborate personal ad. But I felt there was enough discussion
provoking content to warrant placing it in this group as well.
Especially given the response its received elsewhere. Should I ever
repost it, I'll redo that first paragraph so as not to step on any
toes.
Mas...@mindspring.com
>While I realize that this is perhaps an inadequate response to
>your long post:
>
>I absolutely disagree with you that it's normal (I'm
>paraphrasing) for men to be dominant and women to be submissive.
>That sounds like old-fashioned sexism to me. I'm not saying
>you're a sexist, but you might want to look at your assumptions.
Perhaps "baseline" is a better term than normal. Just as statistical
baselines indicate that men are in general taller than women, without
determining the relative height of any specific man and woman. I
imply no moral judgement behind the word normal. Nor will you find me
proclaiming individual's choices to be "unnatural", not when I regard
civilization itself as a glorious revolt against the constraints of
nature, in which life is nasty, brutish, and short.
Mas...@mindspring.com
>Thus spake rat in a cage:
>
>>While I realize that this is perhaps an inadequate response to
>>your long post:
>>
>>I absolutely disagree with you that it's normal (I'm
>>paraphrasing) for men to be dominant and women to be submissive.
>>That sounds like old-fashioned sexism to me. I'm not saying
>>you're a sexist, but you might want to look at your assumptions.
>
>True, but OTOH he was a lot more open-minded than usual in being wrong. :)
>And I tend to take "normal" on a case-by-case basis. It's just as normal for
>him to be dominant as it is for pijay to be submissive, I reckon..
Just to clarify, I do not think that male submissives need to attend
an "Iron John" seminar, I think that they need to find firm and loving
Mistresses.
Psyfuru
>One hardly ever hears of female subs
>being forced to don male attire.
>
Do you refer to a bio fem being used by another bio fem, or to to a bio male
being used by another bio male, or to a gender fem being used by a bio fem, or
to a bio fem being used by a bio male, or...?
Don't bracket yourself too quickly; less fun, less enlightenment that way.
f
(And, if you didn't crosspost, it would seem less like mostly an ad.)
SilverOz
Binder <bin...@idjit.jps.net> wrote:
>"Mas...@mindspring.com" wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>> Your comment invokes the image of courtly knights vying for their
>> ladies' favors. Interesting mix of elements, in that such things
>> occurred in what was nonetheless a very male dominated society. Even
>> so, it is true that the onus of courtship is usually on the male
>> throughout the animal kingdom.
>
>about "courtly behaviors" and the common image of the male dominant.
>
>Many, many women of the era held considerable power, with complete
>dominance and competence.
Ahem... The courtly love ara was high middle ages in France - NOrman
and Angevin. 1200-1400 or so. Christian, feudal.
The Chuchlain myth cycle was pre-Christian Ireland, so pre 600 or
so. We know bugger all about the culture beyond bits of Tacitus and
myth cycles that were written down much later than the culture they
allege ot portray.
Nothing about those cultures was the same as far as we know.
Can;t equate proper behaviour in one to behaviour in the other any
more than you can equate ettiquette at a posh dinner party in the USA
to how people behaved in Dahomey in the 1700s.
Philip the Foole
revolt against the constraints of nature, in which life is nasty,
brutish, and short.
Foole: That sounds like my six-year old and his first-grade
classmates. "Nasty, brutish and short."
Your Humble Jester,
Philip the Foole
Mastery is demonstrated, not proclaimed.
- Ancient Kung Foole Proverb by Binder
NrrdGrrl
Philip the Foole <p...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:390AEBC8...@ix.netcom.com...
> "Mas...@mindspring.com": ...I regard civilization itself as a glorious
> revolt against the constraints of nature, in which life is nasty,
> brutish, and short.
>
> Foole: That sounds like my six-year old and his first-grade
> classmates. "Nasty, brutish and short."
Sounds like my three nephews.
NG
NBarnes
> "Mas...@mindspring.com": ...I regard civilization itself as a glorious
> revolt against the constraints of nature, in which life is nasty,
> brutish, and short.
> Foole: That sounds like my six-year old and his first-grade
> classmates. "Nasty, brutish and short."
The quote I prefer is, 'Children are our future; nasty, brutish,
and short'.
NBarnes
Binder
>
> Binder <bin...@idjit.jps.net> wrote:
> >One might like to read the stories about Cuchulain for some prespective
> >about "courtly behaviors" and the common image of the male dominant.
> >
> >Many, many women of the era held considerable power, with complete
> >dominance and competence.
>
> Ahem... The courtly love ara was high middle ages in France - NOrman
> and Angevin. 1200-1400 or so. Christian, feudal.
Oh. :-/
> The Chuchlain myth cycle was pre-Christian Ireland, so pre 600 or
> so. We know bugger all about the culture beyond bits of Tacitus and
> myth cycles that were written down much later than the culture they
> allege ot portray.
IIRC, having read the Lady Gregory retelling a mere three months ago.... I
ought to have had that clearer in the half cc brain space dedicated to
recall.
> Nothing about those cultures was the same as far as we know.
Well... I might beg to differ if I had time to go quote collecting. Best I
can do right now (after I admit to leaving the idjit in before I posted) is
to offer my observation that at least bits of the social gestalt that
prevailed during Cuchlain's (largely mythical) life appear to have survived
into the Age of Chivalry.
Unhappily for me, although I'm not so sure about you, is that I have far
too little in the way of time to back my previous statement up with, if not
actual facts, at least enough details to sound like I might know something.
> Can;t equate proper behaviour in one to behaviour in the other any
> more than you can equate ettiquette at a posh dinner party in the USA
> to how people behaved in Dahomey in the 1700s.
No? I wouldn't (I don't think I did...) *equate* Medieval Society with High
Court society... except by misattribution, that is. However, given enough
time, I'm sure I could locate enough era appropriate examples for the point
to be valid. No?
While I may lose dates (often) or misquote, misattribute, or otherwise
mangle some of my concepts.... here's one that I will stand by:
<opinion>
While women have not often had equivalent or superior power, dominance,
authority or wealth to men, some women possessing those attributes existed
in any era.
By claiming that women are less powerful because of the historical record,
comparisons to other species, or because men were able to manipulate
society to attain social ascendancy is, IMO, a specious conclusion.
Especially when viewed through the filters of society in the previous
century, it might appear that women, in general, are ill-suited to wear the
Mantle of Dominance. Why? Perhaps as a result of what men had told them,
and us? Can we think of any other reasons why someone might want to be able
to rationally demonstrate why women *must* be subservient to any male?
<Monty Python>
"Please observe the mating habits of the Upsandownlingan Titmouse. You will
notice that the male, when in rut, is capable of downing a full grown
elephant."
</Monty Python>
It's pretty easy, IMO, to create a very convincing argument for any
position... and where there exits a mass of verbiage for the sake of
stating a position, the greater the likelihood that much of the verbiage
exists for the sole purpose of obfuscation. Down to a point, that is.
Myself excluded, of course.
</opinion>
IIRC, women of the Courtly Era were often the receptacles of power, in that
they were at least an agent for the distribution of wealth, land and
authority, through marriage. They might (or might not) have been able to
exert influence in how those were distributed, and to whom. No?
Oh, and by the way.... Thanks, SilverOz, for pointing out that my foot was
planted firmly in my esophagus... I knew *something* tasted strange. :)
Binder
--
***to reply, remove the idjit***
ISO affordable Work/Live space near San Francisco!
SSBB Charter is at: http://www.mindspring.com/~frites/charter.htm
inn...@spamoffprometheus.frii.com
wrote:
> But if you doubt the accuracy of the premise, please explain why some
> form of feminization is so common a practice in the FemDom/malesub
> scene,
Socialisation. In a society where men pick up the impression that to show
'feminine' traits is to be 'womanly' the only way for them to express
those traits is to discard maleness altogether and become a 'woman'.
There are also the deeper issues of beocming what you want to possess or
admire. But I'm not qualified to go into that.
> or the fairly frequent use of such toys as strap-on dildoes to
> assert the female's ascendancy.
This is putting the cart before the horse. Gay men like to penerate each
other. Being fucked in the arse is an enjoyable activity, if you aren't
wired to enjoy being fucked the in arse bu a live cock, then a subsitute
is required and if you are wired to repsond to women, then to be fucked in
the arse by one, requires that she have a cock. Female dominants do not
need cocks, I assure you, to assert their ascendancy any more than they
need floggers. Actually taking this arguement to the logical conclusion,
you are saying that if you were to lose your cock (industrial accident)
then you wouldn't be able to assert your dominance.
> One hardly ever hears of female subs
> being forced to don male attire.
The one needs to expand one's horizon's as in the Lesbian community there
are people who do this, quite frequently to the point of there being a
term or terms for it.
--
Anson
Want to get in touch with the New Zealand BDSM community?
New Zealand BDSM Resource site: http://www.whisper.co.nz
New Zealand BDSM Newsletter available: bd...@thenet.co.nz
Volcano
>
> One hardly ever hears of female subs
> being forced to don male attire.
>
Women wear "male attire" on a regular basis these days without
comment. That is not the case with men who wear female attire.
However, I am keeping my old Boy Scout uniform handy, for one
of subs to wear the next time a local group sponsors a uniform
party. Naturally, I will have to assemble a Scout Master
uniform for me to wear. <G>
--
,~~~~
/ \
/ \ Volcano - Corps Diplomatique SSB; San Antonio, TX
Board Member; Darkest Desires Central Texas
SarOfTreve
>Date: 04/29/2000 9:43 PM Pacific Daylight Time
><opinion>
>
>While women have not often had equivalent or superior power, dominance,
>authority or wealth to men, some women possessing those attributes existed
>in any era.
>
>By claiming that women are less powerful because of the historical record,
>comparisons to other species, or because men were able to manipulate
>society to attain social ascendancy is, IMO, a specious conclusion.
>
>Especially when viewed through the filters of society in the previous
>century, it might appear that women, in general, are ill-suited to wear the
>Mantle of Dominance. Why? Perhaps as a result of what men had told them,
>and us? Can we think of any other reasons why someone might want to be able
>to rationally demonstrate why women *must* be subservient to any male?
Just for the sake of argument... it depends entirely on how you define power.
Throughout recorded history, women have had more power than men if you define
power as the ability to shape the next generation. OTOH and on average, men
have been physically more powerful than women.
Whether by nature or nurture, it is my perception that men are more likely to
tend towards dominance as a model of interaction, and are more likely to behave
in a dominant/domineering manner. As you observe above, however, that doesn't
dictate behavior on an individual basis.
Regards,
Sartan
http://www.sartan.saga-hosting.net/index.html
Links to homepage, Working with Leather (DIY leather), BDSM Workshop (DIY
furniture)
SilverOz
Binder <Bin...@idjit.jps.net> wrote:
>
>While women have not often had equivalent or superior power, dominance,
>authority or wealth to men, some women possessing those attributes existed
>in any era.
Yes. And although they may not have had the *same* power or
dominance, women did have power or dominance in many cultures, and I
venture to say, in all.
I'm currently reading "The Classic Slum" by Robert Roberts who lived in
an Edwardian slum. He notes that within the kinship and social webs,
women of certain age and relationships with others had a very real
social power. They controlled social standing. As they got older and
various statuses changed, they could lose it. But they certainly had it.
And that although most people outwardly accepted the strict
male/female roles including work division and who was dom over whom,
the reality of the relationships often differed.
Yes - women of the very poor had a life of drudgery and childbearing
and poverty. But they still had a suprising amount of power, just not
the "power" we are used to seeing. So easy to miss.
>
>By claiming that women are less powerful because of the historical record,
>comparisons to other species, or because men were able to manipulate
>society to attain social ascendancy is, IMO, a specious conclusion.
Yes. especially the other species bit. Modern research has turned up
some interesting things....
For example.. birds. A species of bird (which exact one I forget) was
supposed by those viewers-with-socially-tinted-glasses the Victorians
as monogamous and mated for life.
Electronic tagging shows they are adulterous tarts the lot of 'em!
As soon as one or the other left the nest, the stay-at-home (of
either sex) was off hunting tail. discreetly, mind you. They weren't
just playing, they were definitely playing behind the partner's back.
They'd wait till the partner wasn't there, and rush home if they had to.
Meanwhile, the partner was either hunting food or hunting a bit of
extra-marital sex....
Chicks might be yours, might be someone else's. No way to tell.
The partners did stay together, yes. But they mated with anyone they
could. The "marriage" appeared to be for the sake of the children but
still had pretensions. that was the thing that boggled the researchers,
the birds were discreet! Presumably so that the uncertainty of whose
chick it was remained so parents had an incentive to feed and raise.
Horses are my favourite example of a myth too. The stallion doesn't
own or run the herd. He just runs with it, fighting other males for
the right. The decisions are made by the old mares who may even stop
the stallion from mating. They decide to move it on, they decide when
to water.
>Especially when viewed through the filters of society in the previous
>century, it might appear that women, in general, are ill-suited to wear the
>Mantle of Dominance. Why? Perhaps as a result of what men had told them,
>and us? Can we think of any other reasons why someone might want to be able
>to rationally demonstrate why women *must* be subservient to any male?
It's a solid tenet of the Goreans, they call it "the natural order".
But even then, when examined you find that there are a lot of hedges on
it when it comes to real life and real people. It becomes any "proper
male" meaning someone who fills the requirements of being Gorean, who
fills the stereotype the woman is looking for. And even then, there
seems to be caveats and behaviour differences that imply they are not
submitting except when they want to, for whatever reason.
The ones I've talked to say "well that's here on Earth" but it still
seems to be a way of taking a desire and making it work. They know it
doesn't really, but the idea is hot, so do what works, just pretend it's
something else.
Any farmer will tell you.... not every female animal will submit to
any male that wants to try it on. THey have to be in season of course,
and even then exactly so. Not all males will sucessfully mate either,
even if the female is on heat.
My old stockhorse mare nearly ruined a young and bad mannered stallion.
He collected a couple of horseshoes right where it hurt cos he was
too eager. It took an experienced old gentleman to persuade her to do
the deed, was fascinating to watch him :) I didn't realise horses
practiced seduction, but he certainly did!
>It's pretty easy, IMO, to create a very convincing argument for any
>position... and where there exits a mass of verbiage for the sake of
>stating a position, the greater the likelihood that much of the verbiage
>exists for the sole purpose of obfuscation. Down to a point, that is.
>Myself excluded, of course.
never!
>IIRC, women of the Courtly Era were often the receptacles of power, in that
>they were at least an agent for the distribution of wealth, land and
>authority, through marriage. They might (or might not) have been able to
>exert influence in how those were distributed, and to whom. No?
yes. One of the main things about Courtly Love was that you didn't
make your wife the object. YOu made someone *else's* wife the object,
or a single woman. You were not supposed to expect to obtain it, the
fun was the inappeasable longing and the attempting to win a glance by
extravagant deeds.
Which were usually useless I point out, they didn't do worthwhile
things. That wasn't the game.
The married woman probably did influence her husband. And her son, in
a hereditary system never underestimate the mother.
The power that women have is usually different to the power that men
have in "sexist" societies. When a woman comes along, say like
Eleanour of Aquitaine, who has male power too, everyone notices and
writes about it.
That's why the Taliban have to make laws about women, because if they
didn't artificially stomp on 'em, then they'd set up their own power
networks. Mahommed knew about powerful women, his inner circle
included them. Same as Jesus's did. Fundamentalists of both
religions conveniently ignore all that...
>
>Oh, and by the way.... Thanks, SilverOz, for pointing out that my foot was
>planted firmly in my esophagus... I knew *something* tasted strange. :)
Polish 'em with vegemite, then you'll be *sure* !
SilverOz
Kylara
Dominant / female submissive relationship":
>It's a solid tenet of the Goreans, they call it "the natural order".
Please excuse a newbie question.
I've read nearly all the messages in here from March 20 onward [if my
server had longer retention, I'd have read more], and have learned a
good deal. I'm still baffled by mention of "Goreans" though. Would
some kindly soul do the new face in the group [and to wiitwd] the
favor of an explanation?
JOHN WARREN
news:vp4ogsgignf3reic3...@4ax.com...
> SilverOz had some very interesting things to say about "Re: Ideal Male
> Dominant / female submissive relationship":
>
>
>
> I've read nearly all the messages in here from March 20 onward [if my
> server had longer retention, I'd have read more], and have learned a
> good deal. I'm still baffled by mention of "Goreans" though. Would
> some kindly soul do the new face in the group [and to wiitwd] the
> favor of an explanation?
They are people who shape their scene life around the Gor novels by John
Norman. However, they are even more selective than Born Again Christians at
picking and chosing the parts they want to incorporate.
In my opinion, the Gor novels bear the same resemblance to Meatlife (TM
STella) BDSM as the Sergent Rock comics bear to combat.
posted and emailed
--
--
Diversified Services (Toys Books & Video for the Scene)
Boston, MA
www.diversified--services.com
apex...@my-deja.com
http://www.whc2.com/apex/
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
SilverOz
Kylara <kylar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>SilverOz had some very interesting things to say about "Re: Ideal Male
>Dominant / female submissive relationship":
>
>
>
>I've read nearly all the messages in here from March 20 onward [if my
>server had longer retention, I'd have read more], and have learned a
>good deal. I'm still baffled by mention of "Goreans" though. Would
>some kindly soul do the new face in the group [and to wiitwd] the
>favor of an explanation?
It's a big topic and a highly controversial one.
A man named John Norman wrote a bunch of books about life on a planet
that orbits the sub exactly opposite Earth.
This is a low tech land with female slavery as an institution.
It appeals to some people so much that they have modeled their BDSM
lives around it - some just online, some face to face.
There are many ways in which they do this. Some spend their time
roleplaying the trappings - names, words, like any fantasy roleplay -
some try for the concepts behind it - women subservient to all men,
men having to fight for their honour, a host of fundamental ideas about
relating to other people. Many GOreans don't consider what they are
doing to be BDSM, they look down on BDSMers.
Many people consider Goreans to be posers and wannabes, to be fools,
to be sexist, to be all sorts of things. And many of them are fools
and sexist ain't no doubt :) But it's a big scene, there's a lot of
variation.
There's a lot of info on the net about it, plug Gor into any search
engine and be prepared to be overwhelmed.
http://www.dungeonnet.com/weblinks/Gor/ has a fair few links.
It's most certainly not everyone's cup of tea. Plus, if you do get
attracted to it, it is very easy to be taken in by plausible rogues
and get badly hurt. See the Gorean Whisper web site (on the link
above) for some nasty stories.
Biggest hassle with Gor to my mind is that it aims to shortcut the
self preservation instincts of the slaves. And it tends to magnify
the self importance of the masters. Bad combination.
Gabriel
Gorean are complete idiots.>
There are a lot of people whose only exposure to ideas of dominance and
submission comes from online. Of those people, the vast majority are
decidedly unclueful about how if at all those ideas might be applied to
"real life", as if what one does in front of a computer is not part of one's
life. This phenomenon is common to both the "mainstream" BDSM community, and
to the Goreans. However, unlike BDSM, the idea of Gor as a community BEGAN
online, which means that the number of people with actual offline experience
of Master/slave relationships in the online Gorean community is far less
than it is in the older TPE or other intense D/s communities which began
offline and then added the online component to their interactions... by far
the majority of self-styled Goreans have never met another one in the flesh.
I can say that while the culture of Gor obviously neither exists nor can be
created on Earth, it is most certainly possible to live by the principles
Norman described in those novels: the celebration of the exceptional at the
expense of the mediocre, the embracing of one's strengths instead of their
denial, the idea that different people are by heredity and gender
predisposed towards different attitudes, behaviors, and preferences, and
that to deny our biological natures is to both make ourselves miserable and
to weaken our culture.
Many Goreans find "kinks" of the physical sort puzzling and uninteresting,
or even revolting. There are those in the D/s community who could say the
same, I'm sure. (Many Goreans, on the other hand, engage in such play with
great enjoyment.) But to say that Gor is not part of the BDSM superset is
ridiculous on the face of it, given that the D and the S can stand for
dominance and submission, which is a central aspect of any Gorean
relationship. In fact, a Gorean master/slave relationship is generally
indistinguishable from any other TPE relationship, with the exception of a
few funny words from the books like "nadu", and the use of "natural order"
as justification instead of simple personal preference.
Probably the best resource on the web for anyone seeking more information
about Gor as a culture or a philosophy is the site at
http://www.silkandsteel.com ; the essay at
http://www.silkandsteel.com/3k/marcphil.htm is an excellent summary of the
Gorean philosophy. I have a few essays of my own at http://gor-on-earth.com
, and I welcome further questions via email (unmunge the address) if anyone
is so minded.
-Gabriel
ElfLord
G'day,
>> Nothing about those cultures was the same as far as we know.
>Well... I might beg to differ if I had time to go quote collecting. Best I
>can do right now (after I admit to leaving the idjit in before I posted) is
>to offer my observation that at least bits of the social gestalt that
>prevailed during Cuchlain's (largely mythical) life appear to have survived
>into the Age of Chivalry.
Sorry to say that basically nothing at all did survive the
christianisation of Ireland. Most of the stories that you read now
have been written or re-written from acient tales (with
appropriate moral insertions no doubt) by post St Patrick monks.
The monks made it one of their goals to do just that and the
English invaders later basically had it as their first goal.
ElfLord
"It's as much point as teaching a pig to sing, it wastes your time and annoys the pig"
Spyral Fox
(SilverOz) writes:
>A man named John Norman wrote a bunch of books about life on a planet
>that orbits the sub exactly opposite Earth.
Are you sure? I thought it orbited the dom exactly
opposite earth.
[:::grin::::]
SilverOz
Spyral Fox <spyr...@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <slrn8gp6kg...@zipperii.zip.com.au>, ze...@zip.com.au
>(SilverOz) writes:
>
>>A man named John Norman wrote a bunch of books about life on a planet
>>that orbits the sub exactly opposite Earth.
>
>Are you sure? I thought it orbited the dom exactly
>opposite earth.
>
Ah but you see that's what people don't realise... Gor is all about
the subs!
See how much verbiage is used about them rather than the doms!
Them and tarns....
SilverOz
- who thinks that Norman just has this thing abuot birds.
rat in a cage
<bin...@idjit.jps.net> wrote:
>One might like to read the stories about Cuchulain for some
prespective
>about "courtly behaviors" and the common image of the male
dominant.
>
Cycle and "courtly love" stem from different cultures and
different periods of history. Anything you see in the stories
about Cuchulain will tell you more or less nothing about courtly
love or chivalry.
--rat, being nitpicky
BLDRNRpdx
>classmates. "Nasty, brutish and short."
Is he six already?
I've always wondered what a MiniFruitBat looked like.
Bladerunner
inn...@spamoffprometheus.frii.com
>
> Biggest hassle with Gor to my mind is that it aims to shortcut the
> self preservation instincts of the slaves. And it tends to magnify
> the self importance of the masters. Bad combination.
My big problem is that the Gorean society is *not* feasible in this world.
Thus Goreans have to modify the customs and ideas in the book to fit the
society they find themselves in.
And once they start modifying it, they are no longer roleplaying a
culture, they are simply talking whatever they think might work and
applying it. Which is what everyone else into BDSM does for the most part.
I have found it is very hard to get across to people that societies and
cultures are holistic entities. You cannot make them up out of patchwork.
The Gorean culture and society is just such a patchwork invention, and
when you make patchwork out of patchwork it isn't going to work.
Some of the ideas that Goreans subscribe to, would work if they *were* in
a culture where if someone offended you, you could whip out a sword and
deal to them, but that's not the case here, and therefore some of the
checks and balances that Norman patched into his fantasy world are
missing, if they are missing things get out of kilter.
(I could digress into the problems that dueling societies faced
historically, but that would be getting me dangerously close to another
scared cow, namely Heinlein's contention that an armed society is a polite
society).
The Gorean mythos provides a fairly thin (IMHO) framework for roleplay
(what about roleplaying a grecian (sp?) slave, that might be more
interesting) and that's about all.
SilverOz
inn...@spamoffprometheus.frii.com <inn...@spamoffprometheus.frii.com> wrote:
>
>Some of the ideas that Goreans subscribe to, would work if they *were* in
>a culture where if someone offended you, you could whip out a sword and
>deal to them, but that's not the case here, and therefore some of the
>checks and balances that Norman patched into his fantasy world are
>missing, if they are missing things get out of kilter.
And I dunno that such societies work, I don't know of any....
Viking society wasn't like that. They had an elaborate system of
weregild whereby you had to pay if you injured someone. Cattle,
slaves, women, warriors, all had a price.
The owner or relatives would hale you up before the thing and people
in the community would decide if the damage was justified or not, and
if not what weregild applies.
Australian Aboriginal society wasn't like that. There were elaborate
penalties for injuries.
Societies like that don't *work*. If every damnfool can kill or maim
without penalty, the place collapses.
I think even the Gor books had some such law in place, but the couple
I have read I read many years ago.... most he-man-macho-bullshit
fantay books don't have such checks and balances though :)
>(I could digress into the problems that dueling societies faced
>historically, but that would be getting me dangerously close to another
>scared cow, namely Heinlein's contention that an armed society is a polite
>society).
*laugh* Well, governments passed laws about duelling for a reason.
If young idiots were going to get killed, then they should be killed
in a way that would be useful, namely the battlefield. Most armies
were very annoyed about losing officers to stupid duels, especially
once pistols came in to play.
I dunno if Heinlein ever studied late 19thC German duelling, but if he
had he's have thought twice about that saying.... German duelling,
from the very strictly armoured and regulated student Mensur (where
those facial scars came from) to the bogglingly lethal "duel of
honour" was about priving you could stand and face death. Nothing
about honour, nothing about being polite. Towards the end of the
period the duels were almost all pistol duels with rules designed to
ensure at least one, preferably two deaths, and the social rules
leading to duels were very little about "polite".
Whereas as the same time, the French were doing mostly sword duels, to
first blood, and applauded a duel between 2 fencing masters where no
touch was made for over 20 minutes. In France, it was a bit more
about "politeness" but again not in heinlien's definitions....
Italy was different again! I know less about the Italian duel, but it
seems to be closer to Heinlein's ideas.
>
>The Gorean mythos provides a fairly thin (IMHO) framework for roleplay
>(what about roleplaying a grecian (sp?) slave, that might be more
>interesting) and that's about all.
>
THe big thing about the Gorean roleplay as far as I can see is that it's
tailormade for common het maledom/femsub fantasies, especially for those
whose wives don't understand them :) A theme running through the books
for example is how free women are all frigid and strident and no good, and
slaves are all wonderful and sexy (and between the ages of 19 and 25...).
Grecian slavery.... as in Hetarae? I dunno the Hetarae were slaves,
but even so it lacks the chains :)
SilverOz
So...@nightmail.com
culture created online:
>
> the idea that different people are by heredity and gender predisposed
> towards different attitudes, behaviors, and preferences, and that to
> deny our biological natures is to both make ourselves miserable and
> to weaken our culture.
And it this belief in genetic supremacy that gives rise to the Neo-Nazi
aspect of the online "Gorean Philosophy."
> the essay at http://www.silkandsteel.com/3k/marcphil.htm is an
> excellent summary of the Gorean philosophy.
Yes, and it includes this disgusting doctrine:
"Subjugation of the Weak: In order that the race may grow stronger, it
is necessary that the weaker and lesser adaptive elements of Gorean
society be diminished and controlled. Warfare and slavery are two
methods by which this end is accomplished."
But we will fight tooth and nail to stop you Nazis from forcibly
"diminishing and controlling" people on a genetic basis ever again.
Soron
(See http://www.freespeech.org/Soron/ for info on Gorean Nazism)
Philip the Foole
classmates. "Nasty, brutish and short."
> I've always wondered what a MiniFruitBat looked like.
Foole: We attended a local Pagan/Wiccan Maypole dance Saturday. My
goal is to innoculate him against all manner of superstition. Shorty
wore a black T-shirt and black sunglasses and played my drum while the
younger folks displayed their bravery by doing a running broadjump over
the bonfire. He looked like a cross between a midget French gangster
and a short member of the Blues Brothers. A very cool little dude.
I thought that if he had a Thai dominatrix by his side, sipping espresso
in an outdoor cafe, he would be perfectly at home.
Your Humble Jester,
Philip the Foole
Take the best parts from each religion. The Christians have some
absolutely first-rate Christmas carols.
Binder
[muchsnip]
> I dunno if Heinlein ever studied late 19thC German duelling, but if he
> had he's have thought twice about that saying.... German duelling,
> from the very strictly armoured and regulated student Mensur (where
> those facial scars came from) to the bogglingly lethal "duel of
> honour" was about priving you could stand and face death.
According to a tv program (suspect already) that style of dueling still
exists in at least one school in Germany. It was fascinating to watch, in
part the object being to be able to stand in the midst of the whirling
blades without moving muscles that aren't in use to wield the blade. No
flinching.
IIRC, they do wear some armor (skull cap, arm and neck guards) so that the
duels are rarely fatal, but apparently, facial scars are expected and worn
with honor.
Binder
> >
> While I essentially agree with what you are saying... The Ulster
> Cycle and "courtly love" stem from different cultures and
> different periods of history. Anything you see in the stories
> about Cuchulain will tell you more or less nothing about courtly
> love or chivalry.
Except where the cultures were similar, I agree.
SilverOz
Binder <Bin...@idjit.jps.net> wrote:
>SilverOz wrote:
>
>[muchsnip]
>
>> I dunno if Heinlein ever studied late 19thC German duelling, but if he
>> had he's have thought twice about that saying.... German duelling,
>> from the very strictly armoured and regulated student Mensur (where
>> those facial scars came from) to the bogglingly lethal "duel of
>> honour" was about priving you could stand and face death.
>
>According to a tv program (suspect already) that style of dueling still
>exists in at least one school in Germany. It was fascinating to watch, in
>part the object being to be able to stand in the midst of the whirling
>blades without moving muscles that aren't in use to wield the blade. No
>flinching.
Pretty much. Chris Amberger in his History of the Sword tells what
it's like to fight one.
>
>IIRC, they do wear some armor (skull cap, arm and neck guards) so that the
>duels are rarely fatal, but apparently, facial scars are expected and worn
>with honor.
That's what I said - strictly armoured and regulated. And I don't
think they'd had a fatality for a very long time.
THe facial scars are the *point*. THe point is to prove you can stand
there and take it. It's a mentality thing.
The mentality was to prove you'd stand and face death. Not for any
reason, just animal courage. The mensur was a start. But the pinnacle
was basically to get killed to prove yourself....
Ever wondered why when the Germans went "over the top" in WW1 they did
it in dressed rows?
The 1880/1900s German officer class was very rigid in thought and belief,
and one of the big things was this duelling idea. It wasn't about
"defending honour" or being polite, although some of those were used
as excuses. It was all about dying in your tracks and not flinching.
The favoured duel method was the pistol, with various really weird rules.
For example.. 3 or 4 bullets per gun, if no one is hit at 20 yards,
each walks forward 5 yards. Or various random ways of deciding who
fires first.
They had pretty weird ideas of relating to other human beings too.
Those thud and blunder romances of 1900s England had cariactures of
Germans sure. But the stereotypes seem to have had some truth in them.
It's easier to understand what happened in the 20thC knowing what late
19th Germany was like. And it makes current Germany more impressive
too.
SilverOz
rat in a cage
<Bin...@idjit.jps.net> wrote:
>rat in a cage wrote:
>> >
>> While I essentially agree with what you are saying... The
Ulster
>> Cycle and "courtly love" stem from different cultures and
>> different periods of history. Anything you see in the stories
>> about Cuchulain will tell you more or less nothing about
courtly
>> love or chivalry.
>
>Except where the cultures were similar, I agree.
>
They had almost no similarities. Bronze Age, tribal/clan-based,
polytheistic, wealth based on herds of cattle [I know the Ulster
Cycle was actually recorded by monks but this is what it seems to
heark back to] vs. smack in the middle of the medieval period,
feudal/warband-based political system, intensely christian,
wealth based primarily on land tenure.
Don't mean to be getting on your case... I was in grad school for
several years too long and my psyche has never recovered.
--rat
blyslv
<Kristalca-310...@sfr-tgn-sfg-vty35.as.wcom.net>,
Kris...@Nightmail.com (Kristal) wrote:
>
> I agree with you, rat in a cage. I don't think BDSM is normal
even
>if the male is dominant. I don't want BDSM to be normal either.
>
>Kristal
>
Hear Hear! bormal is norming.
But "old fashinoned sexism" could just be an implicit recognition
that power politics pervade human relationships.
blyslv
blyslv
Mas...@mindspring.com (Mas...@mindspring.com) wrote:
SNIP
>Just to clarify, I do not think that male submissives need to
attend
>an "Iron John" seminar, I think that they need to find firm and
loving
>Mistresses.
So what's your perscription for switchs?
JOHN WARREN
news:11a7bbdf...@usw-ex0106-045.remarq.com...
> In article <390e4267...@news.mindspring.com>,
> Mas...@mindspring.com (Mas...@mindspring.com) wrote:
> SNIP
> >Just to clarify, I do not think that male submissives need to
> attend
> >an "Iron John" seminar, I think that they need to find firm and
> loving
> >Mistresses.
>
> So what's your perscription for switchs?
>
> blyslv
An "Iron John" seminar run by Opra Winfree
Daniel B. Holzman
>
>But we will fight tooth and nail to stop you Nazis from forcibly
>"diminishing and controlling" people on a genetic basis ever again.
The flaw in your "Goreans are Nazis" argument is that the Nazis, original
and Neo-, are a specific set of movements, and the Goreans aren't a part
of either.
If you want to argue "Goreans are fascists," we can evaluate your
arguemnt. "Goreans are Nazis" is simply a lie, and a rather odious one
at that.
Furthermore, unless you can point to some Goreans who are in fact
forcibly "diminishing and controlling" people (i.e. "diminishing and
controlling" people who do not consent to be "diminished and controlled"),
all your talk about fighting them is just so much dick-thumping.
--
Joe Zeff
>Pretty much. Chris Amberger in his History of the Sword tells what
>it's like to fight one.
Jerry Pournelle has a deuling scar. He made the mistake of telling
some students in Germany that he fenced, and was invited to uphold the
honor of the fraternity that evening.
--
Joe Zeff
The Guy With the Sideburns
If life is a journey, are we there yet?
http://www.lasfs.org http://home.earthlink.net/~sidebrnz
inn...@spamoffprometheus.frii.com
[Warrior cultures]
> And I dunno that such societies work, I don't know of any....
I think Norman drew much of his inspiration from Japan and other Asian
societies. But the warrior caste in Japan was always a small fraction of
the total males in the society.
> Societies like that don't *work*. If every damnfool can kill or maim
> without penalty, the place collapses.
One might raise the spectre of the Wild West, and then note that it didn't
last very long at all before the rule of law came into play. Are there
societies that did work this way and collapsed can we point to any?
> >(I could digress into the problems that dueling societies faced
> >historically, but that would be getting me dangerously close to another
> >scared cow, namely Heinlein's contention that an armed society is a polite
> >society).
>
> I dunno if Heinlein ever studied late 19thC German duelling, but if he
> had he's have thought twice about that saying....
In "Glory Road" he talks specifically about Mensur (sp?) Dueling, and he
was alledgedly a good swordsman himself. He doesn't describe in the terms
that you do ... odd that.
> >The Gorean mythos provides a fairly thin (IMHO) framework for roleplay
> >(what about roleplaying a grecian (sp?) slave, that might be more
> >interesting) and that's about all.
> >
> THe big thing about the Gorean roleplay as far as I can see is that it's
> tailormade for common het maledom/femsub fantasies, especially for those
> whose wives don't understand them :) A theme running through the books
> for example is how free women are all frigid and strident and no good, and
> slaves are all wonderful and sexy (and between the ages of 19 and 25...).
Actually they are given a drug that means they don't get sick and they
don't get old. Which is fair enough, given the high death rate of slaves,
you need to perserve the ones you have as long as possible.
> Grecian slavery.... as in Hetarae? I dunno the Hetarae were slaves,
> but even so it lacks the chains :)
The Greeks kept slaves of both sexes, Athens the cradle of democracy, had
many more slaves than citizens. I'm not sufficently knowledgable about
that period except that I recall that Greek slaves did eventually get
their freedom, and where, for the most part, pretty well treated. I'm sure
that a student of the Grecian period is lurking on this group and might be
able to shed some more light.
SilverOz
inn...@spamoffprometheus.frii.com <inn...@spamoffprometheus.frii.com> wrote:
>In article <slrn8gtb69...@zipperii.zip.com.au>, ze...@zip.com.au wrote:
>
>[Warrior cultures]
>> And I dunno that such societies work, I don't know of any....
>
>I think Norman drew much of his inspiration from Japan and other Asian
>societies. But the warrior caste in Japan was always a small fraction of
>the total males in the society.
and they were not killing without penalty. They could kill peasants
to a certain extent, as could knights in feudal Europe. But it was
liable to ge the guy who owned them annoyed at you.
>> Societies like that don't *work*. If every damnfool can kill or maim
>> without penalty, the place collapses.
>
>One might raise the spectre of the Wild West, and then note that it didn't
>last very long at all before the rule of law came into play. Are there
>societies that did work this way and collapsed can we point to any?
The Wild West of gunslingers and lotsa killings is a bit of a myth too
I believe.... Plus yes, they got law soon enough!
>> I dunno if Heinlein ever studied late 19thC German duelling, but if he
>> had he's have thought twice about that saying....
>
>In "Glory Road" he talks specifically about Mensur (sp?) Dueling, and he
>was alledgedly a good swordsman himself. He doesn't describe in the terms
>that you do ... odd that.
Yeah. His view of the mensur is a bit umm.. unlike the descriptions
I've seen :)
>
>> Grecian slavery.... as in Hetarae? I dunno the Hetarae were slaves,
>> but even so it lacks the chains :)
>
>The Greeks kept slaves of both sexes, Athens the cradle of democracy, had
>many more slaves than citizens. I'm not sufficently knowledgable about
>that period except that I recall that Greek slaves did eventually get
>their freedom, and where, for the most part, pretty well treated. I'm sure
>that a student of the Grecian period is lurking on this group and might be
>able to shed some more light.
I think it depends.
There were several grades of person in Greece.
There were slaves who were either born that way or made that way -
through debt or war. They could buy their freedom if the master
agreed, or be freed. They did most of the heavy labour in house and
industry. Miners were pretty well all slaves for example and had a
very low life expectancy. Brothels were pretty much all slaves too,
male and female. Household slaves were treated as servants - that is
reasonably well - but institutional slaves like miners were not. (In
Rome, slaves were *required* to be tortured if they were to give
evidence in a law court. There were few if any laws about treatment
of slaves.)
There were "metics" who were foreigners. They were most of the small
tradesmen. They had more rights than slaves but fewer than citizens
Male citizens. Right to speak in the assemblies, required to protect
the city in time of war and so on. Farmers or merchants mostly.
Women were not citizens. Wives I think were mostly baby factories
who didn't mix socially with men, athough they might with women, Greek
history tells us very little about women.
There were women who did mix socially with men, the hetairae, who
were courtesans. Similar in concept to Japanese geisha, they were
women who were taught skills in music and conversation, their job was
to entertain men. Unlike geisha I think sex was part of the package.
The Romans had a very similar system although they didn't seem to have
hetarae and the wives mixed socially with men.
Biggest thing about classical slavery and european slavery in general
is that it was a social status not a race thing, even though the word
"slavic" seems to have come from the fact that the inhabitants of that
part of the world mostly encountered the romans when they were slaves.
You could be born a slave, but a huge number were slaves by being taken
in war, or being sold for debt. you could buy freedom or be freed,
and then you were a normal human being again.
But that doesn't make for such a cool fantasy :)
SilverOz
SilverOz
inn...@spamoffprometheus.frii.com <inn...@spamoffprometheus.frii.com> wrote:
>
>The Gorean mythos can provide a good framework for a fantasy roleplay,
>just as playing 'priates' can, it's the people who try to work it into a
>lifestyle that I find worrying from time to time, because it doesn't seem
>possible...
The ones I know personally who do it as a "lifestyle" have made pretty
significant changes, and leave out a lot of stuff altogether. THey use
it as a template rather than a blueprint. OThers met via lists seem to
be the same.
Yet others on mailing lists have said that they are far closer to the
books, but pretty well all of those have come across as "clueless insecure
twerps trying to look macho" in various ways, so I dunno how real it is.
Biggest problem I've had with the more umm.. "true to the book" types
is that they fail to be imposing :) They are normal people trying to
be abnormal people, it's hard to convince people you are a muscle
bound steppe nomad when you are a somewhat flabby office worker. IT
can be done by an internal feel, but few seem to be able to pull it
off. I've met fewer women than men into being GOrean, but the women
seem to ahve an easier time of it, I suppose because it relies less on
externals?
SilverOz
inn...@spamoffprometheus.frii.com
> You could be born a slave, but a huge number were slaves by being taken
> in war, or being sold for debt. you could buy freedom or be freed,
> and then you were a normal human being again.
>
> But that doesn't make for such a cool fantasy :)
I don't know ... I could work up a good story about being sold at the
block and taken into a household, and having to work my way free by being
the very best slave/sevant there is, and then refusing my freedom when it
was offered.
The Gorean mythos can provide a good framework for a fantasy roleplay,
just as playing 'priates' can, it's the people who try to work it into a
lifestyle that I find worrying from time to time, because it doesn't seem
possible...
--
inn...@spamoffprometheus.frii.com
> Biggest problem I've had with the more umm.. "true to the book" types
> is that they fail to be imposing :) They are normal people trying to
> be abnormal people, it's hard to convince people you are a muscle
> bound steppe nomad when you are a somewhat flabby office worker.
I hesitated to point this out, but yes, many of the Goreans I've
encountered aren't exactly the physical specimens they would need to be.
Such things require lots of hard work at the gym.
> can be done by an internal feel, but few seem to be able to pull it
> off. I've met fewer women than men into being GOrean, but the women
> seem to ahve an easier time of it, I suppose because it relies less on
> externals?
The books do require that slaves be able to hold positions for long
periods of time that would require a fair amount of suppleness, and the
long term waering of Gorean manacles would result in sores and a fair
amount of pain. But in the books, all a slave has to be, is pleasing to
their owner. This generally requires that they be wanton, and ready for
sex at any time. That attitude might be easier to pull off than what males
are supposed to project.
Joe Zeff
>(In
>Rome, slaves were *required* to be tortured if they were to give
>evidence in a law court. There were few if any laws about treatment
>of slaves.)
I'm not sure, but I seem to remember that at one point in Rome (the
Pricipiate period) if a slave could save up enough to buy their
freedom, the owner was required to accept it.
--
Joe Zeff
The Guy With the Sideburns
It was long ago, and far away; and besides, the wench is Fred.
http://www.lasfs.org http://home.earthlink.net/~sidebrnz
PlumLuvly
>spyr...@aol.com (Spyral Fox) writes:
>
>> In article <20000427130127...@ng-cg1.aol.com>,
>> plum...@aol.comnospam (PlumLuvly) writes:
>>
>> >posts a very long essay which though well written seems like a thinly
>> >disguised
>> >personal ad to me. Am I being cynical?
>>
>> Given the introductory paragraph, which clearly stated:
>> "It is written partially in the form of a letter to a female
>> submissive giving her an idea of what to expect if she
>> were to become mine" I don't think so. I sent my usual
>> anti-personal form letter, with a slight addition saying that
>> without the first paragraph if would look more like a
>> philosophical post to me.
>
>Um...I read that to mean that part of the essay came from a letter he had
>written to a *particular* submissive female at some point. Granted, I
>didn't
>read much beyond the first couple of pages, not being particularly interested
>in that viewpoint of wiitwd, but I didn't really think it was a personal.
I asked again about this post this morning in light of the brouhaha about JRJ's
posts. MasterL said it wasn't a personal. He also posted the very same "not a
personal" in another newsgroup.
So as it stands now,JRJ's posts, because they say the are a personal ad, are an
offense even though without that notice, no one here would take them for a
personal. Yet MasterL 's post which looks and smells and walks like a personal
ad isn't one because he says it isn't.
Veddy interesting.
Plum
JOHN WARREN
news:20000504131227...@ng-ch1.aol.com...
> offense even though without that notice, no one here would take them for a
> personal. Yet MasterL 's post which looks and smells and walks like a
personal
> ad isn't one because he says it isn't.
>
> Veddy interesting.
>
> Plum
What am I? I complained almost immediately about MasterL's post yet you
seem to disregard my analysis completely.
I might add that a number of people have agreed with me.
PlumLuvly
>PlumLuvly <plum...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
>news:20000504131227...@ng-ch1.aol.com...
>> offense even though without that notice, no one here would take them for
>a
>> personal. Yet MasterL 's post which looks and smells and walks like a
>personal
>> ad isn't one because he says it isn't.
>>
>> Veddy interesting.
>>
>> Plum
>
>What am I? I complained almost immediately about MasterL's post yet you
>seem to disregard my analysis completely.
>
>I might add that a number of people have agreed with me.
I am aware of your complaint. I am also aware that to the best of my knowledge
there was posting or email to MasterL admonishing him about posting personals.
Now I could have missed that, I'll grant you. But I do remember a number of
people posting that they thought it was merely a thoughtful essay. Was there
any netcopping on his post?
Plum
cmb adams
<<excellent and comprehensive answer elided>>
...
>Women were not citizens. Wives I think were mostly baby factories
>who didn't mix socially with men, athough they might with women, Greek
>history tells us very little about women.
There's been more work done in this area than you
might think. After centuries of being ignored by
the "old boy" type classicists and historians,
ancient women's history really came into a bit of
a renaissance over the last 20-30 years.
If anyone is interested, I'd be glad to post a good
(partial) bibliography of interesting scholarship
in that area (or on homosexuality in ancient athens,
which is my other big research area in classical
studies).
cmb adams
cmb adams <ad...@vader.boutell.com> wrote:
>In article <slrn8gvn8a...@zipperii.zip.com.au>,
>SilverOz <ze...@zip.com.au> wrote:
>>There were several grades of person in Greece.
>...
><<excellent and comprehensive answer elided>>
>...
>>Women were not citizens. Wives I think were mostly baby factories
>>who didn't mix socially with men, athough they might with women, Greek
>>history tells us very little about women.
>
>There's been more work done in this area than you
>might think. After centuries of being ignored by
>the "old boy" type classicists and historians,
>ancient women's history really came into a bit of
>a renaissance over the last 20-30 years.
pardon me.
make that a "nascence" instead of a "renaissance".
Spyral Fox
writes:
>>Women were not citizens. Wives I think were mostly baby factories
>>who didn't mix socially with men, athough they might with women, Greek
>>history tells us very little about women.
>
>There's been more work done in this area than you
>might think. After centuries of being ignored by
>the "old boy" type classicists and historians,
>ancient women's history really came into a bit of
>a renaissance over the last 20-30 years.
My own favorite story was about Pythagorea's (I hope
I've got the right Greek -- iirc, it was the pythagorean theorum
guy) wife. IIRC, she had to wear male drag and sneak in
to the lectures, because back then women were just NOT
allowed.
So, like, is this really true?
- - Spyral Fox
--
... a fox to recognize traps, and a lion to frighten wolves
San Diego Resources: http://members.aol.com/spyralfox/
SSBB Cookbook: http://members.aol.com/ssbbcooks/
SSBB Diplomatic Corps member & Depooty Charter Enforcer (CLG)
SilverOz
Velvet <vel...@lox.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca> wrote:
>
>The phenotype [that would be, you, me, the guy down the hall,
>the dandelion in your front yard, yadda yadda yadda] - doesn't occur
>in a vacuum. Creatures [including we humans] are the result of environment
>acting in concert with genotype.
>
Ain't nature or nurture, it's both :)
My sister has done the husband and house and 2 kids thing. It was a
running joke in our house that you couldn't get her into trousers and
you couldn't get me into a skirt.
We are both bright. We are both strong willied. We have a number of
things in common and a number of things that we differ on amazingly.
We look enough alike that you can tell we are sisters. We don't think
alike much at all :) We were brought up by the same parents. They
didn't "make" us this way or that, we just were different in the ways
we are different. If you bought me dolls I wouldn't play with them
till someone tried "Action Man" :) But she had Barbie dolls and a
play house and kitchen and such. I had a cardboard castle my mother
made for me and a bunch of toy knights and archers. That's what we
wanted. My parents didn't try and give her soldiers and me a Barbie,
they had more sense!
If you can have two women so alike in genetic material and so alike
in early environment turn out so different, then the idea of "genetic
predestination" seems silly. There are things where I am more like an
unrelated male than I am like this closely related female. More variance
within the population than there is a difference between a member of
that population and an outsider.
I suppose someone might leap up and say "Well, you must have got too
much testosterone when in the womb, you should have been a boy!". I
dunno it works like that :). Oh, and we did have the same parents.
IN case anyone has uncharitable thoughts!
If someone transported a Real Live Gorean Man from Gor to Earth, he'd
not survive. His reflexes and his understanding of how things work would
destroy him. He might survive if placed somewhere like the Albanian
mountains or the jungles of Burma where civilisation as we in the West
know it doesn't occur, but they'd probably kill him too.
Wello adapted for Gor, not well adapted here. WHich is why people
have to make these massive modifications to the philosophy.
Some things they can leave alone more or less. Was it Gabriel who
seemed to liken women to dogs, subhuman but cute? That can work, most
women will just raise an eyebrow and cross such a believer off their
list, and of those who don't just ignore him more will cope than will
shoot.
This being a weak civilised society and all :)
SilverOz
SilverOz
inn...@spamoffprometheus.frii.com <inn...@spamoffprometheus.frii.com> wrote:
>
>In "Glory Road" he talks specifically about Mensur (sp?) Dueling, and he
>was alledgedly a good swordsman himself. He doesn't describe in the terms
>that you do ... odd that.
The Mensur isn't about swordsmanship :)
My understanding from the descriptions I've seen is:
It's an incredibly artificial thing. No footwork. No attacks below
the shoulders I think, although it may be none below the waist and the
usual tactics are none below the shoulders.. You swaddle up so that
about the only non-protected bit is the cheek. I think even ears are
protected.
Then you both stand at a set distance. You hold the sword out at about
head height and swing it with the wrist and arm. You aim to cut at the
head, there's no pointwork. IT isn't easy, by any means, it's fast
and dangerous.
The point of it is to prove you are willing to face what can be a
quite nasty wound, to have say a sword catch in your mouth and rip your
cheek apart. To stand there and not move back or flinch.
I think Amberger says that the members of a franternity are expected to
fight two duels and after that have proved themselves. It takes some
months of practice before you are considered ready to fight, then a
fight is arranged.
Someone who has studied pretty well any other form of swordfighting
would find it difficult to fight the mensur as it is not only incredibly
restricted - no footwork is a real biggie - but the high hand position
is very difficult to do without a lot of practice to build the muscles,
especially with the relatively heavy shlager, twice the weight of modern
sport fencing weapons, and the techniques are very different to other
styles of fighting.
(see http://www.swordhistory.com for his story, it's in the reviews
section.)
When people think of duels and swordfighting, they think of 3 musketeers
movies. The mensur is nothing like that, and is not about swordsmanship
or skill, although it does take skill, that's not the *point*. It's
about having the courage to stand your ground and take a cut without
flinching. That's why the scars were so valued in Imperial Germany,
they showed you had The Right Stuff for that society.
I'm learning under someone who trained in Italy. There is no one
monolithic "Italian School" although many writers like to refer to one.
My master likes distance and footwork, we spend a hell of a lot of time
and effort learning to judge the exact distance from the opponent and to
control it. We learn to come in quickly and accurately, decieve the sword
and strike. If it doesn't work, we get out again before we can be hit.
THe mantra is "Hit without being hit", as Nadi said "Young man you must
never be touched. Because that blood that is now spurting from your
arm may be spurting from your chest".
It's a very different philosophy, it's about survival whereas the
Imperial German duel was about facing death without flinching rather
than fighting for your life.
(And it's a very different philosophy from sport fencing, which is fought
for many touches and so it's quite acceptable to take a "fatal" hit as
long as it is a few millseconds after you have touched your adversary
even if that was on a "nonfatal" spot.)
The reason the Mensur is still being fought is because it isn't fatal.
They take a lot of precautions to be sure it isn't. IT is, according
to Amberger who fought at least one, a hell of an adrenaline rush and
it does cause you to question many things about yourself. But me, I
can't call it swordsmanship.
SilverOz
Philip the Foole
> SilverOz: [Mensur dueling] is a very different philosophy from sport fencing, which is fought for many touches and so it's quite acceptable to take a "fatal" hit as
long as it is a few millseconds after you have touched your adversary
even if that was on a "nonfatal" spot.)
Foole: Lady Foole and I have studied several systems of fencing. She
was *very* annoyed when she sliced off both of her opponent's wrists
with her katana and he continued his downstroke to bonk her on the
helmet with the argument "I was wearing gauntlets." It's important to
make sure everyone is playing by the same rules.
My Tai Chi sword teacher used to be fond of using groin kicks, foot
stomps, head butts and eye pokes any time there was a clinch.
Definitely taught me to stay out of his range and aim for the thumb of
his sword hand.
Obligatory BDSM: A curved wooden kung fu practice saber makes an
*excellent* spanking paddle. The slight bulge in the belly of the blade
is perfect for smacking the "sweet spot" on the lower inner quadrants of
the butt.
Your Humble Jester,
Philip the Foole
A belt for every occasion, a weapon for every range, and a kata for
every arrangement of the furniture.