Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2016 22:03:28 GMT -5
Why does the kid have no opinion? That seems the most important factor here. It's the kid's life, in this case all decision making should rest with the kid after guidance from her parents. I don't think inflexible roles are needed, just critical thinking and communication skills. This is just a hypothetical - modeled after my own 12 year old who "shrugs" her way through decisions (frustrating). My point is - it's not "inflexible". It's pre-decided. Everyone on this thread is jumping to a conclusion that the woman has no agency. I whole-heatedly disagree! There are things that I handle and things that a hypothetical "he" would handle. We each know more about those areas than the other because we live them and deal with them every day - we're more "studied" in those areas because they are our respective realms. I am not saying I have more right to pick out dishes if "he" happens to be "the one who picks out the furnishings". It would be pre-communicated that he picks the furniture and dishes and handles it. I would give my opinion and he would take it into account and pick the damn dishes and not bother me with the FUCKING dishes. **I know this is minutia. I am trying to demonstrate that the traditional gender roles need not apply. It is about communication - most importantly, BEFORE and then, on-going. You know I adore you and I see what you're saying and I can see the sense in it, I get acknowledging people's strengths and interests and deferring to them by choice in those areas. I just think that, back to your example, if he wants to load her with math and science for the future but you see she is miserable in the present and the stress may keep her from reaching that bright future, pre-set roles should not keep you from strongly advocating your idea that having balance in her life today will allow her to reach her still promising future but with better health from fewer years of chronic stress. But I may be quibbling at this point just for the sake of it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2016 22:08:10 GMT -5
This isn't about D/s or who takes the lead in bed. This is about women are supposed to defer to their husband in all things. This woman demeans women more than Larry Flynt. Hustler objectifies women but it doesn't tell them to obey. Obey. But hey a godly man won't withhold sex, so they must be doing something right. Dismantle patriarchy. Also, marry me? |
|
|
|
Post by JMX on Apr 16, 2016 22:12:15 GMT -5
This is just a hypothetical - modeled after my own 12 year old who "shrugs" her way through decisions (frustrating). My point is - it's not "inflexible". It's pre-decided. Everyone on this thread is jumping to a conclusion that the woman has no agency. I whole-heatedly disagree! There are things that I handle and things that a hypothetical "he" would handle. We each know more about those areas than the other because we live them and deal with them every day - we're more "studied" in those areas because they are our respective realms. I am not saying I have more right to pick out dishes if "he" happens to be "the one who picks out the furnishings". It would be pre-communicated that he picks the furniture and dishes and handles it. I would give my opinion and he would take it into account and pick the damn dishes and not bother me with the FUCKING dishes. **I know this is minutia. I am trying to demonstrate that the traditional gender roles need not apply. It is about communication - most importantly, BEFORE and then, on-going. You know I adore you and I see what you're saying and I can see the sense in it, I get acknowledging people's strengths and interests and deferring to them by choice in those areas. I just think that, back to your example, if he wants to load her with math and science for the future but you see she is miserable in the present and the stress may keep her from reaching that bright future, pre-set roles should not keep you from strongly advocating your idea that having balance in her life today will allow her to reach her still promising future but with better health from fewer years of chronic stress. But I may be quibbling at this point just for the sake of it. Shoot Helen - I love you to pieces. I also love debate  my STBX does not - guess where that got me? Sexless on the road to nowhereville. I don't want you to think in any way that I am demeaning your stance. I feel alive debating! It's fun and, if we were face to face, you would know that my intentions are friendly and not adversarial. Plus, you would be sharing my delicious vodka, soda and lime (drink for those who would like to be skinnier). I almost commented on what you asked TMD and refrained because I didn't want it to come off as harsh. It's not my intention to be harsh. It is my intention to be funny. However, in my example - neither of us are wrong. We would never know until it played out. And, ideally, each of us would be graceful in defeat of position as well as defeat when it didn't work out. I don't have that relationship. I wish I did. Shrug. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2016 22:20:54 GMT -5
You know I adore you and I see what you're saying and I can see the sense in it, I get acknowledging people's strengths and interests and deferring to them by choice in those areas. I just think that, back to your example, if he wants to load her with math and science for the future but you see she is miserable in the present and the stress may keep her from reaching that bright future, pre-set roles should not keep you from strongly advocating your idea that having balance in her life today will allow her to reach her still promising future but with better health from fewer years of chronic stress. But I may be quibbling at this point just for the sake of it. Shoot Helen - I love you to pieces. I also love debate my STBX does not - guess where that got me? Sexless on the road to nowhereville. I don't want you to think in any way that I am demeaning your stance. I feel alive debating! It's fun and, if we were face to face, you would know that my intentions are friendly and not adversarial. Plus, you would be sharing my delicious vodka, soda and lime (drink for those who would like to be skinnier). I almost commented on what you asked TMD and refrained because I didn't want it to come off as harsh. It's not my intention to be harsh. It is my intention to be funny. However, in my example - neither of us are wrong. We would never know until it played out. And, ideally, each of us would be graceful in defeat of position as well as defeat when it didn't work out. I don't have that relationship. I wish I did. Shrug. It's all in good humor :-) Mmm, vodka, my vice of choice, with citrus, my co-vise, and adding soda sounds delish!! I find it interesting, different people's opinions and if I post it's truly to understand. I just don't engage if it's too off the wall for me. I'm genuinely curious what you would reply to the TMD post. I'm here to seek deeper understanding. |
|
|
|
Post by JMX on Apr 16, 2016 22:36:25 GMT -5
Shoot Helen - I love you to pieces. I also love debate my STBX does not - guess where that got me? Sexless on the road to nowhereville. I don't want you to think in any way that I am demeaning your stance. I feel alive debating! It's fun and, if we were face to face, you would know that my intentions are friendly and not adversarial. Plus, you would be sharing my delicious vodka, soda and lime (drink for those who would like to be skinnier). I almost commented on what you asked TMD and refrained because I didn't want it to come off as harsh. It's not my intention to be harsh. It is my intention to be funny. However, in my example - neither of us are wrong. We would never know until it played out. And, ideally, each of us would be graceful in defeat of position as well as defeat when it didn't work out. I don't have that relationship. I wish I did. Shrug. It's all in good humor :-) Mmm, vodka, my vice of choice, with citrus, my co-vise, and adding soda sounds delish!! I find it interesting, different people's opinions and if I post it's truly to understand. I just don't engage if it's too off the wall for me. I'm genuinely curious what you would reply to the TMD post. I'm here to seek deeper understanding. Okay - I am totes going to get flamed for this one- maybe not by you because I think you understand where I am coming from even if you do not share my sentiment. Being a young feminist means you haven't really thought a lot about what that really means. It means (to me) that you are (not you, "you" in general) a whiny CUNT. Women fought battles for us to be where we are today. Real battles. We can vote now. We have jobs. We can (with the right partner) choose how we wish to live and raise the next generation - or not! And not! With pride! Thank you suffragettes! What has gotten lost is - we are equal but different. Stop telling me I can do fucking EVERYTHING! I am exhausted. I do not want to do everything. I want a partner. I choose that my partner be a compliment to me - he does some shit, I do some shit. We both exceed at doing our different shit. Those that want to do everything? Have at it - we can compare wrinkles in our 60s. Being a "softer" sex is not a hindrance. It is power in it's own right. Please stop fighting for my rights. I am not particularly stoked about my daughters being eligible for a future draft - if they get my boobs, well, let's just say it's hard running from an exploding building when your tits are in the way. We all have our own strengths. Can't we celebrate those? Young feminists don't understand the nuances of gender roles like some of us more seasoned ladies do. Please do not get me wrong. I rode a wave of fame for being the first female to do "such and such". I had a picture next to Oprah in a national magazine. I am proud of myself! I accomplished something - but only because I was a female and it had not been thought of before. Whiny cunts get me every time. |
|
|
|
Post by DryCreek on Apr 17, 2016 0:03:44 GMT -5
What has gotten lost is - we are equal but different. Stop telling me I can do fucking EVERYTHING! I am exhausted. I do not want to do everything. I want a partner. I choose that my partner be a compliment to me - he does some shit, I do some shit. We both exceed at doing our different shit. Those that want to do everything? Have at it - we can compare wrinkles in our 60s. This. No matter my skills, there is not enough "me" to excel at everything needed in life. It makes a world more sense to leverage each other's strengths. What people confuse is that "equal" as in social rights does not change the reality of "equal" as in capability, natural skill, interest, etc. I'm all for encouraging interests outside the stereotype, but let's stop making the stereotypes evil! Stereotypes don't always exist because people are forced into them, but also because they naturally gravitate there. (E.g., I'm happy to see STEM programs focused on girls because it creates an introduction that they might have otherwise avoided.) Agreed. Soft is nice. Vive la différence! And LOL at the boob bomb squad.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2016 4:29:31 GMT -5
This isn't about D/s or who takes the lead in bed. This is about women are supposed to defer to their husband in all things. This woman demeans women more than Larry Flynt. Hustler objectifies women but it doesn't tell them to obey. Obey. But hey a godly man won't withhold sex, so they must be doing something right. Dismantle patriarchy. Hey whatever floats your boat! For me this was about people, ( men included) that have a strong desire to control. And are against submission of any kind. Don't know why that is so hard to grasp. Maybe Larry Flint is easier to understand. I'll take your more than helpful, very considerate advice, for someone who is struggling with a manipulative controller in a SM. "Picture this. You’re at the mall, and you see a husband and wife who are obviously having an argument. Their body language is terse and their tone is sharp. The wife looks frustrated and angry, as she folds her arms across her chest and turns her back toward her husband. Should you, at that moment, approach this wife and suggest she submit to her husband? I know I wouldn’t. But this is exactly what God does in his Word. When I am the angry, terse wife, crossing my arms—convinced that my husband just doesn’t understand, God whispers softly, “submit.” But often, as that word clanks against my iron will, I bristle. It feels degrading and insulting. I’m to submit, simply because I’m a woman? How can that be right?" This article is not about people in general. It is advice to married Christian women on their Biblical duty to defer to their husband. The "control" here is nothing more than having your own mind and will. That's a bad thing. If that somehow benefits you, very well, but this is the last thing a person of either gender in a SM needs to hear. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2016 4:41:20 GMT -5
Or... you talk it out and come to an agreement which fits both parties' needs. This idea that someone has to lose really bothers me. There is such a thing as making sure everyone has their own interests taken into account and a mutually acceptable agreement reached. We've moved on from absolute monarchy in politics, isn't it a gpod idea not to allow absolute monarchy in our homes. Sure. Compromise is preferred. But can't you see at least a couple of instances where you just will not come to an agreement or a compromise? I guess I need to think of an example. If so (and I will think of a decent conundrum) who yields? I would think it would depend on the strengths of that person. That's not what the article, or Saul of Tarsus for that matter implies. The implication is that it should always be the man who leads and the woman who submits. Why? |
|
|
|
Post by JMX on Apr 17, 2016 6:55:08 GMT -5
Sure. Compromise is preferred. But can't you see at least a couple of instances where you just will not come to an agreement or a compromise? I guess I need to think of an example. If so (and I will think of a decent conundrum) who yields? I would think it would depend on the strengths of that person. That's not what the article, or Saul of Tarsus for that matter implies. The implication is that it should always be the man who leads and the woman who submits. Why? I understand your problems with the article. I have not said it is w wonderful article. I like the topic and think it is important. However, I think communication is important - especially up front! I think for sure - none of us in an SM ever had that level of communication early on. |
|
mathdoll
Junior Member
The light is getting brighter........
Posts: 88 
|
Post by mathdoll on Apr 17, 2016 7:46:52 GMT -5
That's not what the article, or Saul of Tarsus for that matter implies. The implication is that it should always be the man who leads and the woman who submits. Why? It could be regarded as a rule of thumb. Kinda like the rule that the Umpire is always right in a tennis match. It saves time and energy!  |
|
|
|
Post by unmatched on Apr 17, 2016 7:54:06 GMT -5
Here we go: Totally a hypothetical: We have a disagreement about what classes our daughter will take in high school. She has a propensity for math and science. Husband is a math/science guy, working in those fields. I am in History/English field. We disagree on which classes she should take as electives. He wants to load her up with more math and science to further her future or career and I want her to take an arts class to lighten her load (focusing her time and attention to her already heavy load) and let her enjoy her time in high school and be creative. She has no opinion in this example. Both husband and wife are equal in their feelings that they are doing best for the child and not budging. Who wins? I would say it would depend on the pre-communicated roles. Which one has the ultimate end-all say in that area? Argument over. Do you think that really works in practice though? To set up a relationship and say this person has ultimate say over the house, and this person has say over how we discipline the kids, and this person has say over what cars we drive, and this person has say over anything educational. I guess I have always felt that if you talk over something long enough and dig deep enough into why each person feels the way they do, you might not come to full agreement but you should always be able to find a decision that you can both be happy with, without any submission being required on either part. One of the things that frustrates me about my marriage is we can't debate anything. I get 'I have told you what I think - you are either going to listen to it or not'. For me, discussion is what helps you understand each other more deeply and learn more about life as you go along. |
|
|
|
Post by wewbwb on Apr 17, 2016 7:57:37 GMT -5
I think i'd grow bored with a woman who always submitted. In ALL things. However, if she "gave" herself to me at times, she would know that by doing that, she "took" me. I know its a bit off topic as the article implies submission in all of life, but sorry, who wants a partner who doesn't challenge? Insecure weak people.
|
|
|
|
Post by JMX on Apr 17, 2016 8:03:30 GMT -5
Here we go: Totally a hypothetical: We have a disagreement about what classes our daughter will take in high school. She has a propensity for math and science. Husband is a math/science guy, working in those fields. I am in History/English field. We disagree on which classes she should take as electives. He wants to load her up with more math and science to further her future or career and I want her to take an arts class to lighten her load (focusing her time and attention to her already heavy load) and let her enjoy her time in high school and be creative. She has no opinion in this example. Both husband and wife are equal in their feelings that they are doing best for the child and not budging. Who wins? I would say it would depend on the pre-communicated roles. Which one has the ultimate end-all say in that area? Argument over. Do you think that really works in practice though? To set up a relationship and say this person has ultimate say over the house, and this person has say over how we discipline the kids, and this person has say over what cars we drive, and this person has say over anything educational. I guess I have always felt that if you talk over something long enough and dig deep enough into why each person feels the way they do, you might not come to full agreement but you should always be able to find a decision that you can both be happy with, without any submission being required on either part. One of the things that frustrates me about my marriage is we can't debate anything. I get 'I have told you what I think - you are either going to listen to it or not'. For me, discussion is what helps you understand each other more deeply and learn more about life as you go along. See I think discussion actually happens in this scenario. More than I get at home, at least. In my mind, the discussion happens because both parties are pleading their case even though one of those has a final decision. Ultimately, the subject gets to be dropped and you don't have to rehash everything over and over again. I would find find that freeing after such a debate. I could be alone in this but I think it actually creates more communication. |
|
|
|
Post by JMX on Apr 17, 2016 8:04:51 GMT -5
That's not what the article, or Saul of Tarsus for that matter implies. The implication is that it should always be the man who leads and the woman who submits. Why? It could be regarded as a rule of thumb. Kinda like the rule that the Umpire is always right in a tennis match. It saves time and energy! Well, Mathdoll - what a wonderful way to wrap it all up! Yes, ma'am! |
|
|
|
Post by wewbwb on Apr 17, 2016 8:07:30 GMT -5
A debate should increase communication. And both parties should have an open mind at least enough to see the others pov. And yes, that in turn should lead to a healthy compromise.
|
|
my STBX does not - guess where that got me? Sexless on the road to nowhereville. 
