Rapture
Posts: 808
Joined: 12/27/2004
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: caitlyn
If you mean post 265, I certainly didn't ignore it ... I read it. It's pretty obvious that you don't agree with me, and I don't agree with you. What agenda would be served by my responding? I think we both get the point that we don't agree.
I would however, differ with the notion that I have a bias not in your favor. If that were true, I would simply ignore you, like I do many others in various CollarMe boards. That I choose to challenge your statements, should be an indication that I think they have a possibility of having truth behind them.
My interrest about your New Orleans comment, stems from living in Houston, and knowing a ton of refugees from that area. My apologies for missing your expansion of the topic.
caitlyn,
The references that I made to New Orleans are when hurricane Katrina hit, and more importantly the four so days of aftermath. This aftermath consisted of people, those civilized people, reverting back to their base or basic survival instincts to survive. You did not have the females or femdom’s leading the way. As a matter of fact if you note even from the various news footage that is available people were in groups whenever possible. People were literally foraging for food and water. This foraging was inclusive of people taking, raping, and pillaging. Those who were doing these things were not the females, but the males. The females were in the background. There was no law enforcement or government to provide the female her “equality” or a “level playing field”. As goes, my spew that a female to be such things as others have purported they must have some third party or entity that they, the female, must rely, to be “dominate”. Why? When things go south, or bad, then the female can then call the police, a friend, or some other third party or third party governmental entity for backup, to “enforce” her “dominance”.
Many on this forum say that I am incorrect but each time if you will note they really do not provide any actual evidence that would otherwise support their respective contentions. Further, you have some females, and even some males on these forums here, and other places that will spout and beat their chest. However, in these instances, and from time to time I have provided to these people the opportunity to do so in person, face to face, and they have either reneged, back down, or just kept on spew only here online. This supports the aforementioned contentions of mine that given a particular medium, e.g. Internet here and the safety “ “ of being behind the monitor and keyboard these people, and especially, the “femdoms” will beat their respective chests but will never put their entire body where their mouths are. Then you must ask yourself why…. If the femdom’s and their respective theories are correct, then they have nothing to fear in actually meeting someone and spewing as they do but ONLY online.
Yet, caitlyn, they know they risk the vary things that I have been saying, thus they will only speak or be “dominate” with those people who will only consent to it-they cannot nor will ever take it. However, giving consent really is not dominating anyone, it is “hey come beat me”, “Ok”. … Thus, their so called dominance is a misnomer because the femdom, the female, will not actually dominate but will only look for that ‘consent’ which is not actual dominance at all.
Also in N.O. you had the nice people doing the raping and pillaging in the Super Dome. Surely, had many women complaining, yet where was their respective action? Where were the femdoms, the feminists, and in the like kind? I am not sanctioning the conduct but I am merely making the point that the female will not oppose as they do here or in similar venues, without those third parties.
Some will further say well we have laws and such and therefore things must be consensual. If they think that dominance requires consent in the manner in which it is referred to then of these people really have never dominated anything.
Interesting enough, in the books, many people were transplanted so you would have a augmented and unnatural population base (males vs. females). Further, a female may or may not want to be ‘dominated’, ‘enslaved’, or “subservient” but when they have no choice the New Orleans example comes into play. These people revert to their natural state of being subservient because they no longer have the fiction of government to provide them with “equality”.
This fiction of equality has been demonstrated in the books as well, when Men decided that they just had enough of a particular female’s mouth or in the like kind then put her in a collar (being subservient if she likes it or not) and there you go…
As I said, let all the nice people who spew here do it in person, and you will see that 99.9% of them _will not_ .
Rapture
“The man who truly understands us, she laughed, is the first to put us on our knees and make us kiss the whip...”
Explorers of Gor pg 188
“Perhaps you are a free woman, he said. It is hard to imagine a slave being so stupid.”
Kajira of Gor Book 19 Page 224
"Make my maidens slaves," she said, "they are good for little else. But I am a free woman!" "Do you think you are better than they?" asked Samos. "Yes," she said. "You are no different from them," he said. "You, too are only a female."
Players of Gor pg. 13
“Perhaps free women are incomprehensible. A Gorean saying came to mind, that the free woman is a riddle, the answer to which is the collar.”
Magicians of Gor - Page 50
|
RE: Do all women want to be slaves as the Gor says? - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread