|
sissymaidlola -> RE: bad sissy (1/25/2006 10:56:43 PM)
|
quote:
lol bad sissy ;) but alas no, veronica's comprehension was spot on, hence the kudos bestowed :)
It pays to keep in mind that that particular post was in direct response to Petruchio discussing a well known domme, local to him, in which he states,
"[and] we concluded that she at least [does not] view male subs as being fully male, or, alternatively, males as being fully submissive."
However if we all look back to submission is not a weakness class 101 ... submission in the manner of d/s is not a weakness...yet many people do hold the belief submission in males is a state of being a lessor male; including a great deal of fem dom women.
quote:
The view submissive men are somehow less male is often used to justify the existence of male submission when faced with the reality male submissives do exist. But only by being something deviating from the male norm, thereby not undermining the masculine alpha male status quo of dominance. Unfortunately however completely ignoring the reality many men are submissive and in every respect 'male'.
Ha ha, Mistress Jasmyn, You've been "pinked" by sissy, Ma'am! <curtsey> What kind of Dominatrix are You anyway that allows a little wussy sissy maid to control the color of Your font from halfways around the world ??? Oh, da powa, da powa ... [:D] However, please note, Ma'am, that sissy has "unpinked" You and restored Your dignity for this post. But if it happens again, Ma'am, then next time You're on Your own ... [sm=lol.gif]
So to get down to brass tacks (sissy always likes to have some of those in his toy bag, Ma'am, one never knows when they will come in handy in a session! [;)]) sissy understood the paragraph that You just quoted perfectly well, Ma'am ... it was all the other text that You put around it that made the whole thing a little turgid and somewhat hard to follow. <giggles> Where You lost sissy was in talking about the "sissification of women"! WTF is that all about? As sissy tried to point out in his initial post, the concept of "sissy" is a deep subconscious fear related to emasculation that almost ALL males possess. Particularly "macho males" ... that's why they put so much effort into posturing and being macho! They hope to deflect any suspicions of their insecurities elsewhere.
For sissy, Ernest Hemingway was an archetypal "macho" male - one could claim that he almost invented the term if the rest of history prior to him wasn't so littered with the deeds of other "macho men" driven to disguise their own insecurities as well. "Look at me, I'm shooting elephants and tigers, aren't I brave?" NOOO, not unless the elephants and tigers are allowed to shoot back at you, you're not. [:(] "Look at me, I'm fishing for marlin ... what cojhones I must have?" NOOO, not unless you get off the boat and into the water and tackle the fish on their own terms! [;)] Well, you get the idea, Ma'am ...
For some men, such as Hemingway, "sissydom" is a driving force to their lives, for others it's a dormant fear that they've moved beyond in their lives (but the old fear still lurks buried in the depths of their subconscious), and for yet others it's a daily living nightmare. The latter would include genuinely effeminate males that come within close enough range of matching the "sissy" ideal. But the term "sissy" almost universally connotes the concept "weak or inadequate male" ... of which "man in a dress" is just one extreme interpretation, but a very common one, nevertheless. So when sissy hears the expression "sissification of women" it conjures up images of You masculating (oh Geez, sissy never knew that "masculate" was even a word until he started reading this damn thread, and even now he suspects that someone else posting here went and modified the Dictionary.com web pages just before sissy got there ... the word is "masculinize" NOT "masculate" for chrissakes! ... sissy could not find "masculate" in either his OED or Websters ... as far as sissy can tell, "masculate" means to chew your food in a macho manner! ... now where was lola? ... oh yes) it conjures up images of You masculinizing the bodies of females, putting them in frou-frou frocks, giving them a bad makeup job, and then telling them to act like guys trying to act like girls .... [sm=lol.gif] ROTFLsAO
sissy Is guessing that what You actually meant by that term is what LA had posted about in the post that sissy's OP was a response to ... viz. the over exaggeration of their femininity by females. But "sissification" is not a good term for that, IsHO. It's "failed or inadequate male" ramifications are too well entrenched. Just as not being male is NOT the same as being female, being a failed or feminized male is NOT the same as being overly feminine. So that term, plus some lack of punctuation [:)], is what caused sissy to have to reread Your post a number of times, Ma'am, not the bit You just quoted - and to be fair to veronica (why not, sissy is feeling in a generous mood here!) what she also singled out before appending the kudos to it. Hmm, "appending kudos" might possibly be a new kink! <giggles>
quote:
Is it making some sense now? Or am I going to have to get out a chalkboard and ruler and hold you both back after school? ;)
Actually, Ma'am, sissy thinks it is tasha_tart that You need to keep behind after school. Her English comprehension needs a little work, don't You think, Ma'am? All three points that she made were completely wrong ... sissy never said any of those things. [:(] Plus she even got sissy's gender wrong. Zero for four! BONG! Thank you for playing, tasha. <giggles>
But if sissy does have to stay late after school with the others, can he please, please be Your chalk monitor, Ma'am? That would make the whole experience sooo special for him, Ma'am. <curtsey>
Respectfrilly Yours,
sissy maid lola
[image]local://upfiles/21203/7550AAD373274EA8911F0BC3852D002C.jpg[/image]
|
|
|
|
