UllrsIshtar
Posts: 3693
Joined: 7/28/2012 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: vincentML quote:
If paternalistic history is an impact on the perceived humiliation, then it implies that the humiliation is derived from the view of the public on the person being humiliated, I.E. society historically has seen women as inferior, therefore to cross dress in public is humiliating due to the stigma towards femininity not yet totally being erased from [some of] the public eye. However, I spy a flaw in a minor premise and another in a major premise. After reading your reasoning, I agree with one in full, and the other in part. Thank you for pointing it out to me. quote:
ORIGINAL: vincentML The minor premise: When we are alone we leave behind the moral judges that have waved social stop signs at us ever since we went to grade school. I don't think so. Most of us have absorbed the "oughts" and "ought nots" and carry them with us into our bedrooms. Like it or not, society is often an annoying spectator even in our private acts. Our private acts are often constrained by our social mores. The codes of behavior established by our social groups do not easily give way . . . although sometime debauchery does win. If social mores carry over in private, they are internalized, I.E. accepted by the individual on either a conscious or subconscious level. Only social mores that are fully rejected, either by contrary upbringing, or individual liberation from them through rebellion or reasoning, are left behind in private. Which means that, in order for a person in private to adhere to the idea that femininity equals inferiority, they must have internalized this as being true, at the very least on a subconscious level. Once a full grokking of the rejection off social values is reached, they no longer carry weight in private, even if one might choose to feign adherence to them in public in order to facilitate easier socialization. However, I do agree with your point in part, seeing that such internalization might be strictly subconscious, while the individual could conscious presumes they've rejected them, which would create a contradictory state in believe vs practice. Which leads me to your second point. quote:
ORIGINAL: vincentML The major premise upon which I perceive your argument rests is the flawed belief that the human mind behaves logically and with reason. I read this single line to my husband, and he laughed out loud and commented: "Yeah you do that all the time. You don't need to tell me anything more. Whatever the argument is about, he's right.". So point granted, and I accept your argument that it's possible for male subs to both subconsciously have internalized the social more which states that femininity is inferior, as well as believe that women are exalted. Thank you for clearing that up, it makes me feel a lot better about the whole things, and it will enable me to leave behind the annoyance I have previously felt when coming across the topic. (Though it'll be replaced with annoyance at people being illogically, but I'm much more used to that one). quote:
ORIGINAL: vincentML Well, there is plenty of observational evidence to confirm that human behavior is anything but logical. Which is intently frustrating to me because I'm told that I don't follow that same paradigm, (at least, I do so infrequently enough that my social circle notices me for 'being different', and on the rare occasions where I do adhere to more typical patterns, they're all shocked... I'm by no means claiming that I'm incapable of acting illogically). Apparently that difference causes me to make this mistake in premise quite frequently. I have the tendency to want to assume everybody will act in a logical way, just because that's what I tend to do, when -ironically- that assumption in and of itself is obviously illogical. One would think that after making that mistake a few times, I'd catch on and dismiss it as a starting premise, but seems to be so damn hard to wrap my head around it, because it's hard for me to imagine how other people's minds can function while being constantly in a state of paradox. Based on my own experience with bouts of irrationality, I want to assuming that strong emotions create blind spots, which hide the paradox from 'view', enabling it to go unresolved. But I'm not sure that's correct, because I also can't imagine how people could cope living with emotions strong often enough to create and maintain such blind spots. Yet, if I reject that theory, the only other I can come up with is that they are, on some level, aware of the paradox, yet are completely at ease and comfortable just leaving it unresolved, which is even harder to imagine. For me, experiencing such a paradox is intently uncomfortable, to the point that I have to resolve it, and can do little else until I have. Any thoughts/insights?
< Message edited by UllrsIshtar -- 4/20/2017 12:01:54 PM >
_____________________________
I can be your whore I am the dirt you created I am your sinner And your whore But let me tell you something baby You love me for everything you hate me for
|