|
ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: FemDom Practicing Fem Supremacy (2/17/2009 12:00:04 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: beeble
quote:
ThatDamnedPanda wrote:
My own perspective on the subject is probably (or rather, based on the threads I've read over the years, almost certainly) atypical, but here's how it works for me - when I'm in a relationship, the woman is supreme within that relationship. I obey her; I trust her judgment and her wisdom more than I do mine, I have faith in her leadership... within the parameters of that relationship, the female is supreme. Thus, female supremacy.
No. `Female supremacy' is the belief that all women are inherently superior to all men, simply because they are women. Now, I accept that people can use phrases to mean whatever they want but this is the consensus definition of the term and, if you want to use it to mean something else, you'll have to explain your private definition every time you use the phrase or people will think you mean something else.
A couple of things. First of all, no, I don't feel I have to explain my definitions of anything every time i use a phrase. People either understand me or they don't, and if they don't they're free to ask me what I meant. If they don't care to do that, and would prefer to simply continuing to misunderstand me, they're free to do that as well. Doesn't affect me one way of the other.
Second, the consensus view of what any term in this lifestyle means is of limited importance in many discussions, but it is utterly irrelevant in this particular discussion because - as I said to Maxwell - the whole point of this thread is for people to discuss "how this practice is exhibited in the relationship or what you define as Female Supremacy". Which is the basis for my reply.
quote:
ORIGINAL: beeble
Your choice of who you submit to is based on their qualities as a person, not simply on the fact that they are a woman. That is no more `female supremacy' than disliking a person who happens to be Jewish is anti-Semitism.
It's a combination of both. On one level, you're correct that it's who they are as a person that makes me trust their leadership, but it's the fact they're a woman that gets me into the relationship in the first place and drives me to submit to them. I've met men whose leadership I trust as much as i do any woman, but being heterosexual, that sense of trust never develops into a romantic D/s relationship. It's her qualities as a human being that make me want to submit to her, but it's the fact that she's a woman that makes me attracted to her as a potential partner in the first place. I don't think the two elements can really be separated, nor do I see any reason to try.
quote:
ORIGINAL: beeble
quote:
In general, I tend to trust and respect the leadership of women more than i do men. Women generally make a lot more sense to me than men. I tend to trust their motivations more, their logic, and I feel safer following their lead than I do that of men. In general. All other things being equal.
Fair enough. But that's not a statement of their superiority; merely about your ability to relate to them.
My ability to relate to them? No, not really. It's not about an ability to relate. I'm just as able to relate to men as i am to women; I do it every day. What it's about is that the qualities I value the most highly in terms of leadership are generally qualities I find far more often in women than in men. At the end of the day, all other things being equal, I usually feel more comfortable following the lead of women than I do of men.
Now. Is that because I'm submissive to women? Or am I submissive to women because I generally trust them as leaders? Which came first, the chicken or the egg? I don't know. And it's certainly an interesting question. But for the purposes of this thread, I don't know if it's necessary to answer it; however, if someone were to start another thread on that topic, so as not to derail this one, it might make for an interesting discussion.
quote:
ORIGINAL: beeble
quote:
So that's my concept of female supremacy. I pick a woman i trust to lead me, we fall in love, and I follow her lead. Because I have that much trust in that particular woman. And only in her.
This is what everybody else calls `female domination'.
beeble.
I wouldn't quibble with that too much. At that point, we're just down to semantics. The only distinction I would make (and it's probably a slight one) is that, in my mind, the term "female domination" doesn't go far enough in explaining what it is that drives me in a relationship. Dominant women are a dime a dozen; there's one on every corner. What motivates me to submerge myself into a relationship with one of them is the deep, utter conviction that this particular dominant woman is someone whose lead I feel safe in following. A sense that whatever she does or tells me to do is probably something that makes more sense than what I'd come up with on my own, and that even if it doesn't, we'll still be OK when the dust settles because she's not the kind of person who typically makes catastrophic errors in judgment. A sense that her way of doing things is superior to my own. The term "female domination" doesn't adequately describe that, in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
