Is Elise Sutton right?

Is Elise Sutton right? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

Aimtoplease101 -> Is Elise Sutton right? (2/23/2006 10:22:34 PM)
I've been reading Elise Sutton's articles concerning her theories on female supremacy, and why she believes it represents the natural order. From what I can determine from communities such as collarme.com, however, there appear to be as many, if not more, submissive females as dominant ones out there. I don't find Ms. Sutton's explanation of submissive females as anomalies/ anachronisms particularly persuasive. What's your take on this topic? ATP

perverseangelic -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (2/23/2006 10:24:05 PM)
Well, I've seen the exact same argument (anomalies etc) made about dominant women and submissive men. I think they're all silly.

ShadeDiva -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (2/23/2006 10:26:13 PM)
Nope. I don't think EITHER gender is by efault, automatically superior over the other. I think some individuals are superior due to their ethics, honor, integrity, and being genuine or because they have a talent or knack or higher intelligence, etc that places them in into a position of being better at that than others. About it for me.

slavejali -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (2/23/2006 10:26:36 PM)
"Gentlemen, Every woman has a Dominatrix on the inside of her that wants to come forth. " uh, i dont think so.... so no I dont think she is right grin Well actually come to think about it, when a submissive male shows affection towards me, i do get this compulsive urge to beat the crap out of him... p.s. just so everyone doesnt think im horrible or that i hate submissive males, i actually get on really well with them as friends.

ownedgirlie -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (2/23/2006 10:27:19 PM)
Sorry but in this day and age, to think that any sex, breed, race, religeon, color, animal, etc. is supreme over another is beyond silly. And that's being kind.

ShadeDiva -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (2/23/2006 10:27:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ShadeDiva I don't think EITHER gender is by efault, automatically superior over the other. er efault=default grin

ownedgirlie -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (2/23/2006 10:29:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ShadeDiva quote: ORIGINAL: ShadeDiva I don't think EITHER gender is by efault, automatically superior over the other. er efault=default grin ~ grin ~ You've been on here all day. Fingers getting tired. [;)]

Aimtoplease101 -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (2/23/2006 10:29:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ShadeDiva Nope. I don't think EITHER gender is by efault, automatically superior over the other. I think some individuals are superior due to their ethics, honor, integrity, and being genuine or because they have a talent or knack or higher intelligence, etc that places them in into a position of being better at that than others. About it for me. I assume that's not to say that submissive are necessarily unethical, dishonorable, disingenous, etc?

ShadeDiva -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (2/23/2006 10:40:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ownedgirlie ~ grin ~ You've been on here all day. Fingers getting tired. [;)] Naw. I wish I could use that excuse. My excuse is that I'm a hunt and peck typist, as a result I look at the keyboard, not the screen and sometimes slap that enter key before I proofread. LOL. Hm. On second thought that isn't an excuse, it's the reason. hehe!

ShadeDiva -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (2/23/2006 10:43:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aimtoplease101 I assume that's not to say that submissive are necessarily unethical, dishonorable, disingenous, etc? Ummmmmm ... actually, I didn't specify any power identification at all. I was speaking only of genders - not BDSM at all. Note that I said "individuals" ... as in people. I made no distinction if they identified themselves as dominant, submissive, or both. Methinks you are projecting something into my words that I did not actually write there. wink

ownedgirlie -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (2/23/2006 10:44:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aimtoplease101 I assume that's not to say that submissive are necessarily unethical, dishonorable, disingenous, etc? i have to ask....huh? And ShadeDiva...lol yes it is a reason, and a good one at that! [;)]

Petruchio -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (2/23/2006 11:00:51 PM)
quote: "Gentlemen, Every woman has a Dominatrix on the inside of her that wants to come forth. " This reminds me of the premise that 'All men are gay… they just don't know it.' (This was discussed, I think, several months ago.) I remember reading one feminist who advocated that men should be castrated (except for a few for breeding) to bring a halt to their dominace (among other issues). She was later outed at a NYC sex club as being an extreme masochist with a male dom. (I'm struggling to thnk of her name, and can't quite do it. Starts with a D perhaps? Maybe a Dutch name? Can't remember.) Beyond thinking women have softer, more rounded edges (which I love), it seems up to the individual. I have noted the occasional domme that like to be topped herself, but don't know who common that is. I've never seen a true male dom who liked being topped. Mostly, it's a matter of individual opinion, and we all know the saying about opinions.

Slipstreme -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (2/23/2006 11:57:24 PM)
I dont believe in male supremacy or female supremacy. Honestly, I think one gender being superior is stupid. Everyone is an individual and can't be painted with one broad brush, no matter how someone tries to make them be. The world is not black and white, but all different shades of gray. There are many exceptions to every rule, to every stereotype. I can't accept Norman's view of natural order. I can accept Sutton's either. Too restrictive. Far too much about who a person is, and how dominant they are is based on who they are, not what they are. It runs deeper than biology folks. It all does, even the concept of gender itself. BTW Petruchio, I don't consider bottoming and being a submissive the same thing. Im a Sadomasochist, but as far as D/s is concerned, I'm still rather Dominant.

JohnWarren -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (2/24/2006 12:42:22 AM)
It's a safe bet that any statement that includes "every" or "all" is going to run into problems.. and a few laughs

Lordandmaster -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (2/24/2006 1:01:49 AM)
Uh oh...there's an infinite regress in there.

phoenix1 -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (2/24/2006 2:00:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aimtoplease101 From what I can determine from communities such as collarme.com, however, there appear to be as many, if not more, submissive females as dominant ones out there. ATP It's Superman's fault... from the mass mind control/conditioning harem thing he had going on here awhile back, in these message boards... we're now seeing it's effects.... 'communities'? you say? my, he's sure been busy!

SimplyV -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (2/24/2006 2:41:44 AM)
I don't buy the whole women are superior theories any more than I buy the women are submissive theories. I swear people get too bored, too high, and just start pontificating stupid stuff. Someone overhears it (who is equally as bored and high) and says "Hey that'd make a great book" quote: ORIGINAL: Slipstreme BTW Petruchio, I don't consider bottoming and being a submissive the same thing. Im a Sadomasochist, but as far as D/s is concerned, I'm still rather Dominant. I agree with ya Slipstreme.. I don't get how top and dominant are interchangable or bottom and sub. Top and bottom to me have to do with who wields the whip and who gets the whipping. Dominant and submissive has to do with who has the power (or makes the decisions) and who doesn't. A Dominant can be a bottom just as well as a sub can be a top. But this is another debate probably for another thread.

Lashra -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (2/24/2006 4:19:05 AM)
Neither gender is superior to the other and anyone who makes the claim that they are is only deluding themselves. We are all equal when everything is balanced out. I reject all theories of one sex being superior over the other. Now if we'd all just learn to get along... Lashra

thetammyjo -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (2/24/2006 4:57:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aimtoplease101 I've been reading Elise Sutton's articles concerning her theories on female supremacy, and why she believes it represents the natural order. From what I can determine from communities such as collarme.com, however, there appear to be as many, if not more, submissive females as dominant ones out there. I don't find Ms. Sutton's explanation of submissive females as anomalies/ anachronisms particularly persuasive. What's your take on this topic? ATP Perhaps her making claims of "naturalness" or "superiority" or "inferiority" or any "all" and "everyone", is her playing into her audience for the sake of making money or for the sake of creating a following. Perhaps its her attempt to find like minded individuals so she can feel less alone. Perhaps its her attempt to bolster her opinions by getting others to believe as she dones. Of course, you could apply my above reasoning to almost any beliefs system, right?

Wildfleurs -> RE: Is Elise Sutton right? (2/24/2006 6:41:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aimtoplease101 I've been reading Elise Sutton's articles concerning her theories on female supremacy, and why she believes it represents the natural order. From what I can determine from communities such as collarme.com, however, there appear to be as many, if not more, submissive females as dominant ones out there. I don't find Ms. Sutton's explanation of submissive females as anomalies/ anachronisms particularly persuasive. What's your take on this topic? ATP I'm not familiar with Elise Sutton, but I will never ever understand why people need to claim the mantle of "natural order" to feel like its okay to be dominant. C~ P.S. - I also wonder why it never strikes anyone except me as being similar to race superiority arguements made in the past around natural order.

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2024

Terms of Service

0.078125