|
xssve -> RE: Do vanillas accept more abuse? (1/17/2010 7:31:07 AM)
|
Although crudely and fatalistically put, I'm afraid there is a grain of truth in what Bella says - she isn't going far enough however, in that women, were they in charge, would most likely be no better, possibly worse - are there no ambitious, power hungry women? Historically, they have simply manipulated the men in their lives to attain it: see Olympias, Eva Perón, etc. And I hate to be the one to tell you, but there were damn near as many women dominating men in those days, the rolling pin wielding battleaxe was also a cultural cliche of that age, see James Thurber.
It's true that everyone has a side like this, we just don't all act out on it, and in some respects, BDSM is as much about thumbing your nose at it as indulging it.
The Bush administration condoned torture, an extension of their urge to control, justified by political doublespeak and sneakery - what they did compulsively is a form of mental illness: nobody with any experience in interrogation thought it would be remotely effective - what we do consensually, is a mockery of that: we seek pleasure through pain, and it's through pleasure we gain some measure of control and safety - consensual co-operation and that is not only healthy, but far more stable, there is distinction between "control" and "discipline".
Control and safety issues are related, it's often safer to be in control than not to be, self control, at bare minimum: discipline - and it's justifiable if that control extends that safety to others, while on the other hand, freedom is in essence, the freedom to take risks, to get off the porch and develop your own strengths.
If you can only gain co-operation through the fear, those in whom you have instilled that fear will, more often than not, turn upon you at the first opportunity; violent regimes seldom last more than a generation, often not that long, we have a very rational, social side as well that tends to dominate under ordinary circumstances.
Will it ever go away, the the competitive urge? Probably not, it's a basic trait of organic life - at best we can continually attempt to harness it our common benefit, rather than allow ourselves to become it's victims - see Adam Smith, the Framers of the Constitution, etc., who wrestled with the same question and came up with effective frameworks for doing that - but it never works on autopilot, rust never sleeps.
In Iran, women are risking their lives to attain what you're taking for granted; there were female Iranian protesters parading with bullseyes painted on their bare chests before Neda's execution was videotaped.
Is it perfect? Of course not, but the fact is, nobody is ever going just hand it to you, and you can't always just take it - sometimes you have to negotiate.
|
|
|
|
