The Free Talk Live BBS
Free Talk Live => The Rubber Room - Not Safe for Work => Topic started by: alaric89 on January 30, 2013, 05:05:42 PM
-
I think I got this thing figured out.
Instead of hating on people who want to dominate maybe I should ask "Can't someone who wants to submit to their lover be allowed to be free?"
The truth is about half the population wants to be subordinate and there is nothing wrong with that.
Instead of expecting Dale or MWD to hold themselves to some sort of ideal (that I can't even achieve) maybe I should look up to them for admitting the world is how it is.
We have liberty guys all over the place complaining about there not being enough ladies in the movement, but maybe libertarian men need to man up. Most women want a strong guy to rescue them, fix problems etc.
I'll bet a feminine gay man is like that as well.
We should sell subordinate people what they want instead of busting on them for being weak.
I submit that maybe offering the bottoms what they are after, a supportive giving partner, would be a good sell.
Time will tell if humanity can have a population raised with the NAP in mind and end up in equal partnerships having successful families, but that isn't the world we live in right now.
-
I think I got this thing figured out.
Instead of hating on people who want to dominate maybe I should ask "Can't someone who wants to submit to their lover be allowed to be free?"
The truth is about half the population wants to be subordinate and there is nothing wrong with that.
Instead of expecting Dale or MWD to hold themselves to some sort of ideal (that I can't even achieve) maybe I should look up to them for admitting the world is how it is.
We have liberty guys all over the place complaining about there not being enough ladies in the movement, but maybe libertarian men need to man up. Most women want a strong guy to rescue them, fix problems etc.
I'll bet a feminine gay man is like that as well.
We should sell subordinate people what they want instead of busting on them for being weak.
I submit that maybe offering the bottoms what they are after, a supportive giving partner, would be a good sell.
Time will tell if humanity can have a population raised with the NAP in mind and end up in equal partnerships having successful families, but that isn't the world we live in right now.
Like slaves?
That just might work.
-
I am saying a person who wants to concentually submit to another person should be welcome into liberty. Any coercion used is unacceptable of course.
-
I'd given up trying to discuss this with you, honestly, because it seemed like you were being willfully ignorant of my responses. Maybe there's hope after all.
Some people are attracted to strength. A sexually dominant partner makes many people feel sexy and desirable, etc. It's not a shortcoming to be that way. After all, others are turned on by being dominant so they're filling a market need. It's actually extremely common to have being-raped fantasies but it seems (this is not scientific, but it seems) like few people actually have fantasies about raping people. I would theorize that actual rapists are actually acting out in frustration or anger, maybe even hate, rather than playing out a fantasy. Regardless, it's obviously deplorable behavior and a flagrant violation of libertarian morality and therefore completely unacceptable. Of course it's important to note that in a being-raped fantasy, the fantasizing person is actually in complete control of everything that's playing out in their heads. They don't really want to be raped. What some might want is a sort of play-rape in which they've actually consented ahead of time and can stop it if they ever feel unsafe.
Some folks like myself do have fantasies about being sexually aggressive with a partner who's consenting to and enjoying said dominant behavior. That's the turn-on. Dominating someone who is not enjoying it is a major turn-off. For the sub, I think it comes down to feeling sexy and desirable, so much so that someone pursues you actively. I say that from personal experience. In my younger days, I was in that head space. I think a lot of what makes me enjoy the idea of being dominant now is that I've learned from that and I feel like I know how to push the right buttons with someone who now feels as I once felt. That's true for a lot of doms. It's often said that the best doms are the ones who have been subs for a while. I feel like, once I have earned their trust, I can make them experience some really intense pleasure and that's a huge turn-on for me.
BDSM is about creating that really safe environment between two people who have established an exceptional degree of trust between them. We have animal natures that are often in conflict with what we think of as civilized behavior (like the NAP). The evolution of our humanity is going to require that we find that healthy balance of our natures. BDSM acknowledges our animal natures that's at the root of our sexual drives and tries to find that balance of chaos that is the sexual turn-on but allows us to feel safe (and of course actually BE safe) while we explore it. A GOOD dom moves very slowly and carefully so as to discover what is permitted and what is not and to NEVER EVER violate that trust. It only takes a minor mis-step to destroy trust and exponentially more work to regain it.
But once again, I feel the need to distinguish between the meaning of "bottom" in the straight terminology and the gay terminology. It doesn't mean submissive in the gay world. It specifically refers to a sexual position. A bottom in the gay world just means someone who enjoys getting fucked. What a lot of str8 guys will never learn is that the male anatomy is receptive to a lot of sexual pleasure from that act that has nothing to do with domination and submission. Bottoms can actually be dominant. We even have a term for them: "power bottoms". Believe me. I've dated some. I've had guys strip me down and climb on top of me and sit on it when I felt like we hadn't sufficiently completed the foreplay portion of the sex. I won't call it rape. I didn't exactly shove them off of me or anything. It was definitely rape-ish dominant behavior on their parts, but they were most definitely bottoms in the gay definition of the word. A lot of those guys would be hard-pressed to even "get it up" to be a top. That's why you'll more often hear "dom" and "sub" used in order to be perfectly clear.
Also, acting out rape-like sexual acts is only a tiny portion of what BDSM encompasses. A lot of BDSM isn't rapey at all. Often it includes a submissive person who's really turned on by eagerly working to sexually pleasure a dom in a manner that is very obviously consensual, emphasis on the word "eagerly". Again, I think it's about feeling sexy because you're pleasing someone so much and that's what pushes their buttons. I don't think it should be hard to understand how that can be pleasurable for the sub and how it's not selfish for the dom to allow himself to enjoy such an eagerness to please, especially not when he's been there himself and he knows the other person is really enjoying it.
-
I never understood why Tops, either Kink or gay, seem to get all defensive when questioned. What a couple physically does is easy to defend, as long as everything is consensual its none of anybody's business. A person who wants to dominate in a relationship is another question entirely. What I never got was a answer I could easily give to a square or a feminist or just a person who wants a business like relationship with their sex partner.
I never wanted to put anyone down. I was always just trying to come up with a reasonable answer to a question I knew would come up. "How can a libertarian be dominant?" When I heard the reaction to the Typical Libertarian Chick (or whatever)'s take on women, and your complaint on Facebook that compliant boys were non too common, I started to think "Maybe libertarians are offering nothing to these people, so that is why there are so few of them."
I haven't quite got the easily excepted answer down to a bumper sticker yet, but I am getting there. I don't find generalised details of who sticks what in who all that helpful to the question to be honest.
-
I never understood why Tops, either Kink or gay, seem to get all defensive when questioned.
They don't, usually. Look at what you ask and how you ask it. Go back and look at your history of this topic.
-
Even with me admitting tops have their place in the liberty movement, I still don't think it is a good idea to claim to be one in liberty minded company. If you are a alpha sort of person people just know.
Zoochosis: "Case 2: Love" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jEX20kMZLQ#ws)
I don't really regret deleting that pointless book of threats, accusations, and insults that Dale and MWD turned my thread (where I really was trying to just figure it out) into, but I do feel bad about getting pissed off and deleting my brilliant Santorum thread.
-
If you are a alpha sort of person people just know.
Not the same thing. I don't consider myself an alpha sort of person, particularly. It's hard to connect with the kind of people you want to connect with, whether romantically or in other types of relationships, if you don't portray yourself honestly all the time.
-
Good point.
No one is the alpha all the time. We are humans, the same person could be the leader in one place and a subordanant in another. Someone shouting from the rooftops in a kindergarden that they are the dominant one is just a dumbass.
As far as sex parteners go, I think it would be a little wacky to discuss a complete blocking of the sex before I did it with a new person, but if you have pigonholed yourself into only certain acts I guess I can see the practical reasons for having a honest approach.
Remember though that I don't claim to understand women at all, maybe they would like a complete run through. Maybe it would be a good rule of thumb for any top.
-
As far as sex parteners go, I think it would be a little wacky to discuss a complete blocking of the sex before I did it with a new person, but if you have pigonholed yourself into only certain acts I guess I can see the practical reasons for having a honest approach.
I think someone is a little nuts to act out a complicated fantasy scene with a new person, particularly if it was extra edgy. I personally wouldn't be comfortable with that. Remember how I said a good dom (IMHO, of course) goes slowly and a couple creates a safe space and establishes trust? I also haven't pigeonholed myself. Like everyone, I just have my preferences, like everyone does. I probably talk about them more openly than most because it fits my show and because I encourage people not to be ashamed of their sexual desires.
-
Boy Is A Bottom (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0kqobQRcUo#ws)
-
'Obedient Wives Club' Says, Good Sex Is A Wife's Duty (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_G_NNP4et7A#ws)
Discuss. Why is Dale's video funny, and mine slightly disgusting? Or do they make the same point?
-
Discuss. Why is Dale's video funny, and mine slightly disgusting? Or do they make the same point?
Whaaaaa? They don't have anything to do with one another. Why would you even compare them?
-
Both videos are about happy submissive people.
-
Both videos are about happy submissive people.
Ugh. This is why I eventually give up talking to you. It gets exhausting repeating myself.
But once again, I feel the need to distinguish between the meaning of "bottom" in the straight terminology and the gay terminology. It doesn't mean submissive in the gay world. It specifically refers to a sexual position. A bottom in the gay world just means someone who enjoys getting fucked. What a lot of str8 guys will never learn is that the male anatomy is receptive to a lot of sexual pleasure from that act that has nothing to do with domination and submission. Bottoms can actually be dominant. We even have a term for them: "power bottoms".
-
Also, that video is sickening--it's sexist and oppressive. Huge difference between two people of whatever gender, color, etc. expressing preferences and taking on the roles they prefer (usually just in the bedroom) and saying "this is THE role for WOMEN".
-
It was a voluntary womens group run by women. What the hell are you talking about? If you got your pool boy, you don't think others from outside the lifestyle would look down at him? Wouldn't a freestater hetero couple with a obviously dominating partner be judged unkindly by other freestaters? Both videos were sickening. They looked down on passive people, one just used comedy to do so. Again who sticks what in who isn't the issue. I don't know what Muslims couples do in the bedroom. I am just saying this is the world we live in and we should except that some people want to be taken care of by and be beholdant too another person.
-
The Plight of the Alpha Female: Kay Hymowitz (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srikpTc1v6Y#ws)
-
(http://i.imgur.com/DFMi1pf.jpg)
-
Why do you think I am trolling you? I am not even disagreeing with you. You tried to gay up the thread and instead of deleting your annoying shenanigans I respectively used YOUR video to help make the point from the OP. The answering video was actually pretty hard to find. Not a lot of videos mentioning happy compliant women on Youtube oddly enough. Lots of videos about men being submissive though, both gay and straight. But simply put how can you say I am trolling you on my thread responding to your post?
-
Dude, (Alaric)
I think you're way off man.
There's a huge difference in me being submissive because it's sexy and a turn on for me.
And me being submissive because I need to keep my husband happy (presumably so I don't get beat, he doesn't go out and cheat or leave me).
I'm doing the first because it's self-gratifying.
I'm doing the second as a defense against any of a variety of horrible outcomes.
My wife and I play the straight dom / sub thing regularly. She even loves things like nipple torture and spankings. But, she really enjoys it. She loves to be a dirty slut. I tell her how to dress, where to flash, how to fuck... even who to fuck. But it's only because she wants that kind of gratification. It only turns me on when I see how insanely horny the experience makes her. We're co-equal partners in our sexual adventures.
Never, NEVER does she race over to me as I collapse on the couch exhausted, to give me a blow job just because she thinks that's what she MUST do as a dutiful wife. And NEVER would I expect it. I want her to want that and to only race over to me because it turns her on. (Although, if I'm exhausted, fuck off and let me unwind with a little HALO 4).
The husbands in your video are probably misogynistic males that expect to be served, and where the mere allowance to serve them should be reward enough.
Therein lies the difference.
As to the rest of your argument (as I understand it), why would a Libertarian care if I have a sub / dom relationship? It has nothing to do with the philosophy of liberty directly. I think most mature adults will understand that, this is merely a sexual lifestyle and not an actual abusive relationship. Don't forget, oft times when men and women can't find someone in their life willing to fill this need, they'll pay a fortune for a professional to to dominate and / or humiliate them.
If someone is freaked out by this, it's because of their own personal tastes and hang-ups. Not anything to do with Liberty. Unless their too immature to recognize the difference.
-
I appreciate the modest way you described your lifestyle. Generally doms tend to sound like braggarts.
One person being subordinate to another is acceptable or it isn't. Whether a person wants to voluntarily submit towards their partner because it gets them off or because their invisible sky daddy said to do so can't be a factor, sorry. (Assault or kidnapping is never exceptable)
I find it repugnant either way, but it is none of my business. A person taking the dominant role to make the one they love happy is no less a liberty lover then someone who wants every body equal. I don't even know if relationships where everybody is equal last very long. I would love to hear from a totally even and happy couple who were married for 20 years and has 3 independent grown children. I bet it doesn't exist. My argument is that many women want to be taken care of and generally libertarian men are not offering these females the security and confidence of an alpha and maybe they should.
-
I think you're over analyzing.
Sub / dom relationships are a total fantasy, no matter how they are carried out. The dom is only a dom at the submissive's consent. At any moment the sub can rescind their consent and that relationship is no longer.
It's no different than in any more "typical" vanilla relationship when a woman ties up a man during sex, or a man blind-folds a woman, out of a sense of adventure. Or if a woman screams, "FUCK ME HARDER NOW MOTHERFUCKER!" The principle is the same as sub / dom relationship, only more intense in a sub / dom relationship.
The bottom isn't totally submitting. That's not possible with free will. In that respect, it's just a very intense game of role playing, where the sub is free of all care and responsibility by throwing away their need for self-control. They are titillated by the unknown more so than the idea of being controlled. They want to be pushed to their limit.
A dom has to work to keep his sub happy just as much as the sub has to work to keep the dom happy. If the the dom doesn't do a good job in their role, they are kicked to the curb.
My wife once dated a timid girl. One that told her she'd push her to her extremes in an endless chain of emails. But, in reality, she wasn't up to the task. My wife was polite about it, but she ended the relationship because she wasn't getting what she wanted.
There is no "absolute" submission. It's certainly not submission in the way that women had to in the 1920's to their husbands. Knowing your sexuality and picking the right person to push your buttons, is a very empowering act. The sub is choosing to be led around. The sub is choosing to be exposed. The sub is choosing to be pushed to their extreme. There's no timidity in that act. It's bold and very liberating.
The irony is I, as the dom, serve at the pleasure of the sub.
Now about your comments about an alpha male.
What in the great googly heck says that alpha personalities and liberty loving are mutually exclusive? Or am I interpreting what you're saying incorrectly?
Alpha =/= control freak.
There are plenty of people of each and every personality type who are liberty lovers. My personality type is determined by me genetic make-up, my environment and my nurturing. This does not prevent someone from discovering the ideas of liberty and embracing them. This also does not mean that if you're an alpha, you must try to change who you are to "fit in" to the liberty lifestyle / movement. That would be decidedly opposed to the philosophy.
Embrace who you are. That includes both your positive attributes and your flaws. Use both. What determines whether or not you're a true liberty lover is how you treat others.
Methinks you're trying to, too neatly box up and package what liberty loving means, in ways that are ill-fitting and unnatural.
-
If your going to describe your sex life can you be a bit more graphic and silly like a bad Penthouse letter? "My submissive wife's pussy was wet in anticipation as she began to suck my everready 7 inches of glory. I was playing tetris so I said 'Bitch please, let me finish the leval.'" or something to that effect. More amusing that way.
So what are we arguing here? Plenty of happy couples lived in the old days when one person was clearly the head of the household. The head wasn't nessessarily violent. Maybe this dynamic is generally how humans are. I am not going to buy into some BS that says only gays should get to have a sub dom dynamic because they are both the same sex. Or that kinks should get a pass because the dom has a screw loose and can only get it up for submissive people. Everybody gets a voluntary relationship or nobody does.
-
Why does anyone need a pass from you or anyone?
That's what I am not understanding. If people are happily consensual, why do they need to justify themselves to you?
I was trying to have an open and frank conversation with you, so, no I am not going to be graphic for graphic's sake.
-
I am not judging you, dude. Did I misunderstand you? I thought you didn't like old style head of the household relationships. I also thought you were criticising people who live in religiously motivated top bottom deals. That is what I mean, I can't figure out what we are discussing.
-
Or that kinks should get a pass because the dom has a screw loose and can only get it up for submissive people. Everybody gets a voluntary relationship or nobody does.
This, I'm not understanding.
I think there is a stark difference between "Hey, you need to be a whore for your husband because if you're not, then you deserve what you get" and "I am the head of the household, but I lean on my wife for her strength and support and wisdom to help me do my job as a loving father, dad and leader. She may defer to me, but she is my foundation and without her support, I crumble." The latter sounds more like a consensual institution, the former more like coercion. That former is what I object to.
There's also a stark difference between head of household, and who's in charge in the bedroom. One is the way I run my life, the other is the way I like to fuck. Apples and oranges.
-
Whether a person wants to voluntarily submit towards their partner because it gets them off or because their invisible sky daddy said to do so can't be a factor, sorry.
I think I am starting to get... maybe, where you're coming from.
The question you should ask is, is it coercion. If' I am only doing something because I was told to or because I'm afraid to suffer in hell, that's not voluntary... I was coerced into that.
If I submit because it gets me off or because I enjoy my life wherein my husband / wife takes the leadership role, then no one should have an issue with it and I don't know why you'd find it repugnant. Again, it's not total submission. You're only submitting because you will it. As long as you can pull the plug on that dynamic anytime you want (w/o fear of going to hell or getting beaten, ostracized or honor killed) you're still free. You just found something that works for you.
-
You make a good argument the the threats of everlasting hell could be percieved as coursion. Unfortunately many would say people who are compelled to want to dominate or be submissive are also that way because of some experience from childhood. Notice, at least on this thread, I have not judged any lifestyle. Maybe kink would still exist and maybe some people would find religian with more compliant status on the one sex if kids had never seen a bully or adult who demanded blind authority. I doubt it though.
I am saying for whatever reason you are in a happy relationship because you are not looking for some libertarian ideal relationship. Domination is a factor and you embraced it. Religian is sometimes a factor they embraced it. Some gay men prefere to be the "girl", a smart gay man embraces that. I assume a women who wants to sleep with another woman who wants to be the "girl" should try and be a bull dyke.
As the world is, libertarian men should adjust to what real women want, a strong man who will lead them. I think many libertarian men make the mistake of hoping for some sort of libertarian woman who will live in a equal partenership where she earns and pays as much as he does, and the woman doesn't expect free gifts on mothers day etc. THESE WOMEN ARE FEW AND FAR BETWEEN. Generally women want a strong man they can depend on. I am not judging anyone except libertarian boys bitching about a lack of women who want to live in a roomate with benifites relationship and libertarian girls bitching about women acting like women.
All the comments on lifestyle are sort of a combination of my mea culpa and examples of people living in the real world. I find it a bit odd how people who live in compliant relationships are very willing to judge each other though.
-
http://acculturated.com/2013/02/14/modern-manliness-and-the-perpetual-state-of-low-expectations/ (http://acculturated.com/2013/02/14/modern-manliness-and-the-perpetual-state-of-low-expectations/) A artical about the pussies us men are becoming.
-
I agree with much of the article. I was out of my house at 17, spent seven years in the Marine Corps and had kids and home by 23. Yet, I don't see it's relevance to the conversation.... really.
What I don't understand is this concept of a "libertarian relationship". In order to be a good libertarian does one have to fit into the confines of this so-called "libertarian relationship".
I think were skirting the realms of a cult or religion when we try to use this thing called "libertarianism" to shape each and every factor of our lives.
-
Hey thank you for your service. You are awesome. I don't think a libertarian relationship as I described earlier is even possible at the moment. That is kind of my point.
-
It's Hard to Gross Out a Libertarian: Jonathan Haidt on Sex, Politics, and Disgust (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pmz10uQsTYE#ws)
-
Look out! It's a Nice Guy! DESTROY HIM!!11! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9XDb0nxSO4#ws)
-
Gay Pimp Jonny McGovern "BOSSY BOTTOM" featuring Team Pimp (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ey-IGVz4_Xg#ws)
LESBIAN REAL WORLD 2011- "DRUNK BITCHES" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMJiRmXtLwY#ws)
Romanian Cop Slaps A Complaining Woman (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FX4xrGAL9oM#)
Do Women Like Assholes or Nice guys? - The Truth (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMU9O5HnhAo#ws)
BDSM : Fifty Shades of Grey Meet Miss Submissive of tie-me-up-tie-me-down! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-C0jKgluow#ws)
BDSM HD 280 FULL HD photos. Music - Enigma (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bunhqYgjASg#ws)
I think I covered everybody.
-
Why you should be a MGTOW (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiBMzdU9i2I#ws) Scarey.