Taking a stand against unhealthy female supremacy

headslave · Apr 23, 2009

Well BDSM seems a gradual continuum from people who are lead completely "normal" lives outside of the bedroom to those who define their existence within BDSM. This makes it hard to discuss the topic because in trying to condemn abusive relationships, there are other people under the same label who may be perfectly happy. Of course, the same conundrum exists in vanilla life. Typically men and women are supposed to couple up and make each other happy, but then there are those times when they don't.

That's why I've tried to be so specific in making this post. Although I have a personal prejudice against 24/7 TPE-not because I'm closed-minded, but because it makes no sense to me and I've never seen an positive example- I did not come out against 24/7 TPE. Instead, Mistress Roulette and I are coming out against two specific women for some very specific grievances. They are promoting their form of BDSM as the only "real" form- talk about closed minded. Furthermore, they are attempting to guide the naive male submissive newcomers to their form of BDSM as making them happier in the long term. To take these women at their word, men deserve to accept that they are less than real men because... all men are that way. In penance, they need to hand over their lives, have their self-esteem crushed daily, experience their lover being with other lovers, etc. This is true submission and the path to real happiness according to them.

We are specifically coming out against these two. Elise Sutton goes so far as to suggest that her supposed education in psychology supports her views. This is preposterous, unhealthy, and is just giving BDSM a bad name.

Death · Apr 23, 2009

I see then... well, the people you are talking about must indeed be repulsive.

Flingress · Apr 23, 2009

your case seems legit to me too, headslave.
the mentioned ladies seem to be plain perverse.
bcs as far as i can see the key to real bdsm is mutual consent.
when one party gains something at the expense and in spite of the other, no good will come out of that one. that's just abuse. period.

ReallyGreen · Apr 23, 2009

headslave said:
We are specifically coming out against these two. Elise Sutton goes so far as to suggest that her supposed education in psychology supports her views. This is preposterous, unhealthy, and is just giving BDSM a bad name.

Huh, my education in psychology tells me the opposite. Oh well, too many crazy people, can't save 'em all.

Flingress · Apr 23, 2009

authors of those psychology books must be confusing all bdsm with perversion.
they just look from their vanilla worlds and wrinkle their noses.
(and i wrinkle mine back at them bcs their lives are so booooriiiinnnggg.)

Sparrow69 · Apr 23, 2009

headslave said:
...I can understand the knee jerk reaction what is perceived a message of "my kink is OK, but other's aren't." But, outside of this knee jerk reaction, I don't see much substance to the negative reactions I've seen here. Personally, I've never found a single person anywhere who can tell me with a straight face that a 24/7 TPE is a healthy way to live. Not one. And yet everyone wants to look at this through the lens of relativism and say that I can only make that distinction for me.

I'm glad that this has turned into a healthy discussion, because I'll be honest, it started out looking similar to a witch hunt. I can tell you with a straight face that a 24/7 power exchange is a very healthy way to live, and I know many people, both in this community and who lead vanilla lives who engage in one, the difference being the vanilla ones don't even realize it. He is an example.

*a couple, we'll call them tom and mary, lead a very normal blue collar married life. living in the suburbs, they have a preset routine that they attest to in their lives. Tom works at a local factory in the city, mary is a stay at home mom. tom works 50-60 hours a week, comes home to a hot meal prepared by mary just the way he likes it. after dinner he sits in his favorite chair, and mary brings him a beer, and asks him out his day. they engage in conversation, and after a few hours of television, they go to bed and have sex. On friday, tom comes home, skips the tv, and instead figures out the budget. after righting out the bills, he makes a notation of how much is left in the bank account. he wants to buy some new fishing equipment, so he takes that amount out of the ledger, and informs mary of how much is left for her to buy supplies for the family and house. this is how tom leads his day.
Mary spends most of her day doing laundry, and tending to their toddler. She cleans, makes note of what supplies are needed and writes out a shopping list. mid afternoon she puts a roast on, knowing it will be done shortly before tom gets home. as the typical "bread winner" she knows he'll appreciate it. Then she heads to the store to do some shopping, and on the way home stops to pick up their eldest child from soccer practice. she arrives home, puts the groceries away, sets the kids up with their homework, folds the laundry, and is finishing up dinner as tom pulls in the driveway. She smiles knowing he'll be happy, but then she remembers this is thurday, and they always have sex on thursday. she knows he works hard, but lately it just hasn't been as fulfilling as it used to be, but hey, hes a good man and provides for the safety and welfare of her happy family, so its the least she can do. This is how mary lives her life.

It's a very typical household, leading a very old 24/7 TPE lifestyle, only generalized and sugar coated to fit their vanilla world.

... I can say that, for me, my kink works. I can also say that I have never meet anyone for whom 24/7 TPE "worked." Furthermore, this style of BDSM incorporates a lot of elements that are widely recognized as unhealthy in vanilla life. If it doesn't work there, how is it going to work here?

as I've previously pointed out it does work both here and there. you're just not looking at it correctly. A TPE is where one person, willingly grants someone else control over several if not all aspects of their life in exchange for comfort, satisfaction, security, or some other desire of their own.

Flingress said:
your case seems legit to me too, headslave.
the mentioned ladies seem to be plain perverse.
bcs as far as i can see the key to real bdsm is mutual consent.
when one party gains something at the expense and in spite of the other, no good will come out of that one. that's just abuse. period.

is it abuse if the surrendering party willingly consents to it, as an adult making their own decisions? who are we to judge what someone else wants? Why I agree their need to be limits, I believe those limits should apply to those who CAN'T make a consenting decision, whether it be because of drugs, alcohol, mental illness, or age. Outside of that, I adhere to a "different strokes for different folks" policy. The fact that these two women, being very self confident (required of any dom), and very self aware (also a good idea), have found a way to legally capitalize on a talent they possess, in the lifestyle they choose. Not only that, they offer a service in teaching others how to do what they do.

Flingress · Apr 24, 2009

no sparrow, i dont believe theres abuse when willing consent comes into the equation.
the problem with these ladies seems to be this: apparently they promote their own version of whats appropriate more forcefully than anybody should and attempt to diminish other possible points of view.
while this may seem like just having a spine to defend your views and lifestyle, it shouldn't cross the line and turn into a kind of psychological abuse.
all human brains have a basic need for mutual approval from society.
now when you're too much of a fascist, you wield your own dominance to declare yourself to be the sole representative of that mutual approval and hush alternative voices by sheer force of character. hence the psychological abuse.
and this means there will be a lot of disappointed, disgruntled, and confused people around you.
and that their real needs will be unfairly ignored under your ruthless influence.
and the more you can camouflage this as your average femdomhood, the safer you'll be from getting criticised, which in fact you well deserve.

nix · Apr 24, 2009

I agree with the comments made about the two women in question, that promoting their view as the only "real" BDSM is awful, especially if anyone new to the scene were to read it.

But regardless, I believe that two consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want to as long as it doesn't harm others.

And one final note to Headslave - I'm sorry, but if you really have researched this in as much depth as you claim to have... well then you must be either blindly overlooking any data that you don't agree with, or you draw some very strange conclusions.

Sparrow69 · Apr 24, 2009

While i agree that they themselves are not open minded, and their claim to be the only real bdsm is deplorable, specially when this lifestyle is starting to blossom in mainstream society, it can be more damaging then helpful. However I still contest that regardless of how they put it, if we are dealing with consenting adults then their views are based on their own opinion, and they are entitled to it. They haven't shang-hi'ed anyone into bondage, they haven't forced anyone to stay in their service, and if they want to beef up their personal views and throw them around like lead-filled paperweights in an attempt to drum up more business for themselves, then that is their American Right.

Death · Apr 24, 2009

Sparrow69 said:
However I still contest that regardless of how they put it, if we are dealing with consenting adults then their views are based on their own opinion, and they are entitled to it. They haven't shang-hi'ed anyone into bondage, they haven't forced anyone to stay in their service, and if they want to beef up their personal views and throw them around like lead-filled paperweights in an attempt to drum up more business for themselves, then that is their American Right.

Preying on weak people should never be accepted. Just because a weak person "consents" to something doesn't mean the person really wants to. For instance, a child grows up with a strong love for their father. Suddenly, at an early age, the father starts to heavily abuse the child. Due to this, the person grows up thinking they're defiled, worthless and hates theirself, but always remembers the love that the father once used to show. The person hates their father but still can't stop loving him, and keeps hoping that he will love them again. The person starts getting a good life, despite all the memories, and everything seems to be about to become perfect, but one day the father wants the person to do something life-changing, that would be completely negative for the person in every way, but in accordance to the wishes of the utterly self-absorbed father. Since the person hates theirself and feels they don't deserve to be happy, the person does what the father wants, since the person sees this as an opportunity to stop their approaching happiness and ruin their life... as they kind of feel they deserve, as they are "defiled" and broken... maybe in order to finally be triggered into committing suicide and get over with their defiled existence.

Those women are a lot like the above example... since they aren't parents to the people they abuse, neither can be directly compared, but the similarities are very strong. Breaking down a person just for the hell of it, or merely in their own interest, regardless if the person truly wants to or not. The people they abuse also may be adults but by being slaves or submissives, they are in a position of particular vulnerability... much like a child or not yet legal adults.

Taking a stand against unhealthy female supremacy

headslave

New Member

Death

Member

Flingress

Member

ReallyGreen

Member

Flingress

Member

Sparrow69

Moderator

Flingress

Member

nix

Guest

Sparrow69

Moderator

Death

Member

Similar threads