I have so many weird, messed up fetishes... but the internet is a good place for that

[B_Hung Jon]

I've actually had some fantasies about dominating girls I know. I realize it's about power and how many guys get horny around power issues. In a few instances I was able to play out the fantasies with a g/f or two and the reality was quite different. Even though my fantasies were quite explicit, getting together and sort of "play acting" with another person doesn't exactly satisfy the desire. In fact, neither of us could actually go through with the little scenario we had planned; the whole thing became too silly and we just laughed about it all. So I'm thinking that if these fantasies or fetishes are to actually work, they need to happen in a more natural and spontaneous way. Planning sexual games isn't my forte. It wasn't erotic or even interesting. Oh well!!

 

[MrStarr]

You just have to find the right partner who completes your desires. - Then you forget the scenario, and just enjoy.

Post your post in the BDSM group, maybe with a "what to do" in the end and see what happens. I bet you will get a lot of inspiration and sound advice.

I myself have played with BDSM for over 25 yrs and have had my share of embarresment.

And by the way, iIf a BDSM-Sex session cant dissolve in a healthy laughter - something is wrong in my opinion.

 

[TheRob]

Both me and TheBoyfriend consider ourselves feminists. I read a lot of pro-porn feminist websites and talk about sexual politics. Maybe you have a stereotyped idea about feminists being ugly man-haters who are anti-sex that needs to be revisited?

It's hard to stereotype feminists because there are so many different "schools of thought" many of them at complete odds with one another. It's not a cohesive group. It's why I said "the feminists who insist" because there are probably other feminists who disagree! There are feminists who are anti-porn, there are feminists who are pro-sexual-empowerment who aren't anti-porn (although no one is for all porn, don't you agree? Some of it crosses everyone's line of acceptability because there is some truly sick stuff out there.)

I don't have stereotypes really it's just that the feminists I know are indeed a certain way, and when I see them marching against womens SUFFERAGE I can't help but lower my opinion of thier intelligence....

 

[TheRob]

I know. So weird, right?

No clue why, but it gets me hard as a motherfucker.

Maybe it's the idea of having larger-than-life cocks.

I play'd D&D for years and I love the idea of an Ogre forcing himself on an Elf chick....
maybe that's similar

 

[petite]

I don't have stereotypes really it's just that the feminists I know are indeed a certain way, and when I see them marching against womens SUFFERAGE I can't help but lower my opinion of thier intelligence....

Okay, there are lots of different kinds of feminists, but I've never heard of feminists who march for having the right to vote taken away from women. Mighty strange feminists you know. I don't believe those are called feminists at all.

 

[L_egit]

Okay, there are lots of different kinds of feminists, but I've never heard of feminists who march for having the right to vote taken away from women. Mighty strange feminists you know. I don't believe those are called feminists at all.

Once you get past the notion that a vote is real power its fairly easy to see how removing what amounts to an opiate might be a catalyst for something akin to real change.

This type of "hoping for evil" occurs quite often; military acts are often staged as justification for wars, crises are often used as pretexts to implement otherwise unpopular policies and so on.

 

[noface60]

I play'd D&D for years and I love the idea of an Ogre forcing himself on an Elf chick....
maybe that's similar

maybe... but if it's not human, it doesn't turn me on.

 

[petite]

Once you get past the notion that a vote is real power its fairly easy to see how removing what amounts to an opiate might be a catalyst for something akin to real change.

This type of "hoping for evil" occurs quite often; military acts are often staged as justification for wars, crises are often used as pretexts to implement otherwise unpopular policies and so on.

You've lost me. What does this have to do with the feminists that TheRob says are against women's suffrage? Do you know something about this that I don't?

 

[L_egit]

You've lost me. What does this have to do with the feminists that TheRob says are against women's suffrage? Do you know something about this that I don't?

If you think that voting doesn't empower women, but rather lulls them into a sense of undeserved security, you would view suffrage as a detriment to the feminist cause.

Hence why you can be a feminist and be against a woman's right to vote, despite the fact that the two positions appear contradictory within the context of a modern state.

 

[petite]

If you think that voting doesn't empower women, but rather lulls them into a sense of undeserved security, you would view suffrage as a detriment to the feminist cause.

Hence why you can be a feminist and be against a woman's right to vote, despite the fact that the two positions appear contradictory within the context of a modern state.

So you know of these feminists that TheRob is talking about?

 

[L_egit]

So you know of these feminists that TheRob is talking about?

Uh yeah. They're second wave radical feminists. They used to have lots of demonstrations at my university until a woman became the head of the institution, then they kinda disappeared.

 

[petite]

Uh yeah. They're second wave radical feminists. They used to have lots of demonstrations at my university until a woman became the head of the institution, then they kinda disappeared.

You must be a lot older than me. That was in the 60s and 70s. I've looked up the history and I can find nothing about them being anti-suffrage. The ERA amendment, Title IX, abortion rights, NOW, no fault divorce in California, the ordaining of female priests in the Lutheran Church, the right to use contraceptives by single women, the first opening of a battered women's shelter, the first female pilots in the US Air Force, the creation of The National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, The Pregnancy Discrimination Act, and the first woman nominated to The Supreme Court all occurred under second-wave feminism, but I can find nothing about any protests against suffrage. From my perspective, second-wave feminists rock.

I think this is a myth. Do you have any links?

 

[petite]

I've found more interesting stuff about second wave feminism. Under second-wave feminism it also became illegal to exclude women from juries and they protested against the Vietnam War.

Eleanor Roosevelt was a part of the very beginning of the movement, as head of Kennedy's Presidential Commission on the Status of Women. They recommended the creation of paid maternity leave and affordable child care, which made it possible for mothers to have careers.

My entire life would have been different if it weren't for the second wave feminists.

 

[TheRob]

Okay, there are lots of different kinds of feminists, but I've never heard of feminists who march for having the right to vote taken away from women. Mighty strange feminists you know. I don't believe those are called feminists at all.

that's the point my dear, they were a feminist group, they simply were not bright enough to understand the definition of the word they were marching against....
hence my lowering my opinion of them

 

[petite]

that's the point my dear, they were a feminist group, they simply were not bright enough to understand the definition of the word they were marching against....
hence my lowering my opinion of them

I'm sorry, but unless you provide me with a link or something to a news story or a feminist website espousing this idea, I'm don't believe it. This sounds like an urban legend to me. Or you're pulling my leg.

 

[L_egit]

I'm sorry, but unless you provide me with a link or something to a news story or a feminist website espousing this idea, I'm don't believe it. This sounds like an urban legend to me. Or you're pulling my leg.

Emma Goldman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and her creation:

Anarcha-feminism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For starters. There should be plenty to link to from there. The coining of the term "Manarchist" for instance, is a recent invention and shows that the movement is still simmering.

The Anti-suffrage movement was big during the 1900-1920. Some extreme second wave feminists returned to it during the 60s when anti-establishment counterculture developed extensively. Its an incredibly rare form of thought at this point, but every now and then you'll see it as a sidenote in a group manifesto here and there, or the tertiary recommendation in a lit crit report on works of that period.

I wouldn't argue that feminists are stupid because they hold these views either, or that they deserve less respect because of it. These people probably have fleshed out far more of their thoughts on the matter than most of us. I'd prefer a simple respectful disagreement followed by incarceration if they tried to bomb something.

 

[petite]

Gosh, TheRob is really really old! He's got to be at least 120 in order to have talked to these women!

Neither of those references prove that sometime in TheRob's lifetime, feminists as a group have marched against suffrage, assuming he isn't actually about a century old. I know little about anarchists, though. I consider them to be extremists. I just want some evidence in the form of a news article about such a protest.

Neither of those Wikipedia articles have anything to do with second wave feminism. That article on anarcha-feminists doesn't mention anything past 1920. There's no mention of any revival of those ideas in the 1960s in that Wikipedia article, although as I said before, I wouldn't doubt that an extremist took to Emma Goldman.

Emma Goldman was opposed to the first wave feminists. I'm not sure that a woman who opposed the efforts of the large feminist groups should be used as evidence that feminists were anti-suffrage. It does illustrate my earlier point that feminism has never had a single manifesto. There have always been a wide range of ideas and opposing sides.

"Manarchist" is a very recently coined term for an anti-feminist. I couldn't figure out why manarchists were even mentioned in that Wikipedia article on anarcha-feminism. It doesn't belong! I followed the citation and it is linked to a modern anarchist website, which makes it both feminist and anarchist, but unrelated to a 1900s movement begun by Emma Goldman that apposed women's suffrage. It's like saying that a Harlequin romance novel is a good example of Romanticism, or that a good scientist needs to have the quality of Objectivism. That Wikipedia article needs cleaning up.

All political groups attract unhinged extremists who do not represent the vast majority. I don't doubt that there was someone with a nutty idea who claimed ties with feminism. That doesn't mean that other feminists followed those ideals.

 

[L_egit]

I'm not entirely certain why you're being aggressive towards someone who's fulfilling your requests. Its rather rude.

The page on anarcha-feminism contains a section on contemporary anarcha-feminists, the majority of whom were second wave feminists. I already described the theoretical link between their position and the position of the anti-suffragists; Governments are manifestations of male power and suffrage simply places women within the already male dominated legal order. L Susan Brown makes that argument in a roundabout way in The Politics of Individualism.

You can disagree with their opinion (as do I), but making the argument that the opinion isn't held at all is false in the face of documented proof of the opposite.

That said, I wouldn't take their existence as proof that feminism is not worthy of respect; I'd take it as proof that feminism is relatively large umbrella term that encompasses many schools of thought which have between themselves conflicting views at times.

 

[petite]

We're discussing this post, aren't we?

I don't have stereotypes really it's just that the feminists I know are indeed a certain way, and when I see them marching against womens SUFFERAGE I can't help but lower my opinion of thier intelligence....

And this one:

that's the point my dear, they were a feminist group, they simply were not bright enough to understand the definition of the word they were marching against....
hence my lowering my opinion of them

So I asked, okay, show me the newspaper article that shows when you've seen them marching against women's suffrage, and you start talking about a feminist movement that began in 1860 and ended in 1920 and you bring up a few women who are for anarcha-feminism, whose accepted founder was against suffrage in the early 1900s, but since it's not a part of the ideology, that does not mean that other anarcha-feminists are also against women's suffrage. For example, from your Wikipedia article, Germain Greer, a modern anarcha-feminist. Anti-suffrage? No.

I didn't mean to be rude, it's just that I don't understand why you've decided to argue TheRob's point for him, when he's the one I've asked to show proof that the feminists of which he speaks were actually marching against women's suffrage. No matter how many Wikipedia articles you show me, unless they specifically discuss marches against women's suffrage, they won't prove the point. But since you have decided that you want to fight for TheRob's opinion that he disrespects feminists because he's seen them march against women's suffrage and it's a point that you wish to debate with me, I am debating it with you. However, you still have not provided proof that TheRob has seen feminists march against women's suffrage, feminists who were obviously not anarcha-feminists because he claims there were too stupid to understand the meaning of the word "suffrage." However, you seem to think I should not be skeptical.

 

[L_egit]

We're discussing this post, aren't we?



And this one:



So I asked, okay, show me the newspaper article that shows when you've seen them marching against women's suffrage, and you start talking about a feminist movement that began in 1860 and ended in 1920 and you bring up a few women who are for anarcha-feminism, whose accepted founder was against suffrage in the early 1900s, but since it's not a part of the ideology, does not mean that other anarcha-feminists are also against women's suffrage. For example, from your Wikipedia article, Germain Greer. Anti-suffrage? No.

I didn't mean to be rude, it's just that I don't understand why you've decided to argue TheRob's point for him, when he's the one I've asked to show proof that the feminists of which he speaks were actually marching against women's suffrage. But since you have decided that you want to prove that TheRob's opinion that he disrespects feminists because he's seen them march against women's suffrage is a point that you wish to debate with me, I am debating it with you. However, you still have not provided proof that TheRob has seen feminists march against women's suffrage, feminists who were obviously not anarcha-feminists because he claims there were too stupid to understand the meaning of the word "suffrage."

I've shown that there are anarcha feminists who believe exactly what TheRob says. I've traced the history back a century for you because you were interested. I told you that such protesters had indeed visited my university and that they are relatively rare.

At no time did I attempt to "prove that TheRob's opinion that he disrespects feminists because he's seen them march against women's suffrage is a point that you wish to debate with me". I know I didn't attempt to prove that because the phrase doesn't make sense, but I'm going to assume that you think I'm supporting TheRob's lack of respect. I have on two separate occasions stated that I disagree with TheRob's lack of respect, so I fail to see how you think I'm supporting his position in that manner.

What I have proven with multiple citations and references is that there are feminists who are anti-suffrage and that they exist in contemporary times. Why did I prove this? Because you stated you didn't believe such people existed and asked for proof. I gave it to you. Beyond that I haven't made a single claim.

So again, why are you going off on me when I'm providing you with information that you asked for? It is incredibly rude to attack someone providing neutral information, especially when they're agreeing with you.