Whatever, I’m so needy I’m desperate for any kind of attention. Especially now when I’m exhausted from working my arse off for Putin, influencing the US election.
Hidden misogyny
- Thread starter Jay Sub
- Start date
Maybe the majority of us start as film directors. I wouldn't be in chastity if I hadn't instigated it. But, my reason for trying chastity was coming from a good place. I wanted to wait for her, and not masterbate for a few days. I've directed along the way too. But only in the spirit of giving her the tools to empower her to take the reins. It took a lot of persuading before she even realised this was a good thing for us both. So, directing isn't bad persay, it just depends on your motivation and awareness of falling into a trap, where she isn't in Control.
So it's misogynistic (hidden misogynistic no less!) to ask your wife to indulge you in your sexual fantasies?
Yeah, now that you mention it, far better to go to a hooker instead. Let's encourage that instead of trying to make it work with the person you vowed to make a life with.
I agree. IMO, there's no point in pushing your kinks on anyone. It just wouldn't work. You can't dominate if it's not in your blood.
But women are sexual beings, just as men are. Isn't it natural?
I feel the same...I have so many rubles that I am thinking about buying a congressman.
Men also lead in homelessness, suicide, and death on the job.
But yes, women are oppressed in the West.
Most sane people do. Mattress Girl was found to be a hoax, for instance.
OTOH, Weinstein was KNOWN to be a pig, and Oprah (among others) was a channel for young women to connect with him and find fame.; They KNEW what was going on.
But they aged out, and didn't want someone younger and hotter to take their place...
Last edited:
I don’t follow you - what you say about Weinstein appears to validate the #metoo movement. Can you expand and clarify pls?
I'm sorry to butt in, but what's there to clarify? It' seems obvious the metoo is a political witch hunt.
In Weinstein's case, metoo "victims" were basically high-end prostitutes, except they took their payment in movie roles/executive positions instead of cash. They were mostly untalented actresses who knew very well they had little chance to succeed unless they used the only (and rather quickly depreciating asset) available to them.
It was transasctional, and therefore, by definition, consensual.
Also, nothing happened to the careers of talented actresses who refused Weinstein's offers. Lena Heady is a perfect example.
And if you buy into this whole "power dynamic" BS, then every transaction in history is in danger of being cancelled retroactively.
For example, I'm quite positive my bosses (one of them was a woman, btw) economically raped me for years when I was fresh out of college and working two jobs to get some capital and connections for my own business. Where is my big settlement and hashtags?
Ah now this is very interesting, thanks for broadening out this discussion, I find your direction of argument very helpful. But since we’re apparently coming at this from positions structured by different sets of wider assumptions, can you clarify what you mean by the whole power dynamic bullshit? Because for my part I am indeed working within a perspective in which “transactional and therefore consensual” appears to be the fulcrum of difference.
Incidentally it might be worth saying that my aim here isn’t to win an argument but to understand other people’s perspectives and quite possibly transform my own. Probably my whole interest in being part of the CM community is to reflect on and discuss the intersection of gender, sexuality, power and consent. Like everyone else I suppose I have a particular orientation towards this which has both personal and (small p) political dimensions, but I don’t dogmatically assume I’m “right” and others “wrong”.
I meant to say that it has become a standard, enforced by legal precedents no less, to assume that if one party (usually male) is wealthier, more connected and more powerful in general, that all sexual relations between him and other parties are non-consensual, because his "soft power" is assumed to force the "victims" to perform sexual favors. It's ridiculous on its face, but it is still in the court records and can be used against anyone.
The Weinstein case in LA underscores this point - both the prosecution and the defense agreed that there were multiple sexual encounters between Weinstein and one of his top executives over the course of some 20 years. However, the "victim" just happened to remember that this one time 15 years ago she didn't feel like giving her boss head, but was afraid she could get fired. The only "proof" of this was the testimony of a friend she supposedly told this 10 years ago. Any rational judge would've directed the verdict in favor of the defense.
Still, this was a liberal state and media whipped the jury into frenzy, and the rest is history.
However, there's an even better one. Back in 2020, some adult performer successfully brought human trafficking charges against the studio on the simple ground that they used "soft power" to force her into signing releases, allowing distribution of her images. The court used the same twisted logic - a damsel in distress vs. big evil studio.
If only consent had any meaning anymore in this crazy world...
Well your last sentence sums up the whole thing that interests me. I can see two “poles” of argument, each of which has coherence and weight - one is that at an existential level we are always radically free since even in the most extreme circumstances we can generally opt for the dissolution of any transactional relationship (although not without cost, which in extremis may include threat to life but generally doesn’t). The other is that differentials in power (be they soft or hard) are so ubiquitous that no transaction whatsoever is truly free. The totality of life falls within these two abstract theoretical absolutes which more or less characterise the political right and left. The issue of consent is further complicated if we grant that what defines our individual potential for self-assertion is limited not just by external constraints but by how we are perceived (and importantly, perceive ourselves) as a result of socially constructed roles and behavioral norms which are largely imposed on us long before we enter adult life and are difficult - arguably impossible - to escape from. This is the terrain of the so-called “culture wars” in which we find ourselves.
Footnote about my own orientation in debates of this sort: I do not hold a clear, coherent or dogmatic position. If I ever come across as adversarial that’s because I sometimes present a critical or provocative position in order to test a viewpoint or clarify something I’m unsure about. I myself am grateful when provoked or corrected because it creates the possibility of change and growth.
Last edited:
KyDave
Chastity is 99% mental and 1% metal.
I submit that the absolutes you present have no connection whatsoever to any political stance or persuasion.
There are women and men who are jerks in every (or nearly, if anyone tries to be pedantic) strata of society. By jerks I mean they purposely exploit whatever power their station confers. They do so, generally, to their own benefit and at the expense of others, or at a minimum, without regard as to the benefit or cost to others. That cuts across left/right or male/female just as it cuts across any other societal division.
There are also women and men who are the opposite: Who purposefully seek to benefit others often at their own expense.
Misogyny has become so overused as to almost have lost its meaning: the
dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women (OED}. Me pointing this out does not mean I don't think it exists (it does). Nor does it mean misandry isn't real (it is). I'm merely saying neither are related to politics, class/station, gender, or any myriad other divisions/groups/tribes.
Dislike, contempt, and prejudice have no boundaries. Neither do human traits. Certainly groups are formed around these concepts, but the concepts do not create the groups. They form a common interest for folks who want to overtly express their opinions.
All mankind is, in fact, created equal. However, there have always been some who think they are more equal and there have always been some who agree with them. This is not some "hidden" agenda, plot, or mystery. It is the nature of our race.
I’m not persuaded of the idea it’s to do with there being jerks and non-jerks. For example, I would definitely be seen by most people as someone who “purposefully seeks to benefit others often at their own expense” in terms of my conduct towards friends, family, strangers in need and most of all in my healthcare career. However I definitely think I have historically behaved badly towards women in ways I was largely blind to - this being to do with the way I was raised and the culture I live in. And there are quite a few women who would confirm this, it’s not just some morbid exercise in self-flagellation. Added to which I see women being treated badly by men all around me and tolerating it to an astonishing degree because they’re used to it and have internalised a sense of low self worth. Now perhaps someone might argue that this tolerance constitutes consent and therefore it’s not ill-treatment at all, but I think such an argument would be specious.
I lean towards the jerk/non-jerk paradigm. It's not cultural, nor is it endemic. My grandfathers were very respectful of women; my dad was, I am. My friends are. My faith speaks to respect for women. Sure, guys often have one thing on their mind, and I believe that's a good thing. Yes, there are power-hungry jerks who are disrespectful of women. Guess what. They are disrespectful of men, too. Are there guys in management positions that try to leverage their role, sure. I know it's too simple to say that women should just resist that. There are reasons they feel powerless. But there are other problems at play there. Our culture sucks. We make very desperate people. We don't teach people how to avoid the traps. I'd agree that more women are vulnerable than men and that men fit in better in most workplaces. I hold, though, that's not because men don't respect women. In many ways, men respect women too much. There used to be this thing called chivalry. Men would fight for women; men would dedicate their lives to women, and men would die for women. Our cultural elites didn't like that either. The fact, though, is that men are different than women. Yes, old school, but we are. In my relationship with my wife, we are very equal. But we are also very different. I have different strengths. Our strengths complement each other rather than compete. Our relationship is productive.
I think in cases like Weinstein, he was a jerk. I'm sure he was a jerk to guys as well as girls. Sure, he wanted sex with the girls and didn't want sex with the guys, but the main thing with him is he was a jerk. The women could have said fuck you. They didn't. Why? Because they were hoping for that next role. There are bosses that force their employees to lie even though the employee doesn't want to. Sure, not the same level, but still, the point is folks will compromise their values rather than say fuck you. My job told me I had to get vax'd if I was going to continue to work for them. Fuck you. And we suffered as a result. Not long term, but for six months things were difficult. But I'd rather have my dignity. I claim the issue is that we are not raising women to be confident. It's not so much that there are mysogonistic men, it's that we have vulnerable women.
Rather than focus on the jerks, we should figure out how to raise women to be self-assured in these kinds of situations. What we do instead is reinforce that they are victims. It's the wrong message.
I think in cases like Weinstein, he was a jerk. I'm sure he was a jerk to guys as well as girls. Sure, he wanted sex with the girls and didn't want sex with the guys, but the main thing with him is he was a jerk. The women could have said fuck you. They didn't. Why? Because they were hoping for that next role. There are bosses that force their employees to lie even though the employee doesn't want to. Sure, not the same level, but still, the point is folks will compromise their values rather than say fuck you. My job told me I had to get vax'd if I was going to continue to work for them. Fuck you. And we suffered as a result. Not long term, but for six months things were difficult. But I'd rather have my dignity. I claim the issue is that we are not raising women to be confident. It's not so much that there are mysogonistic men, it's that we have vulnerable women.
Rather than focus on the jerks, we should figure out how to raise women to be self-assured in these kinds of situations. What we do instead is reinforce that they are victims. It's the wrong message.
Do we reinforce that? I definitely don’t - not as a parent, not in my work, not in my friendships. Sounds as if you don’t either. So who is the “we”? Do you mean the wider culture? Because if so, isn’t that an expression of the pervasive misogyny that we’ve been discussing?
As regards Weinstein, the point is he wasn’t an exception. When I was young, the idea of the “casting couch” was ubiquitous and unchallenged. It could be joked about on chat shows without any sense of edginess. You could frequently hear the expression “she slept her way to the top” in many walks of life beyond the performing arts. Also, the very idea that women in performing arts have a shorter shelf life than men is testament to the unequal emphasis on sexuality.
But as we see with diddy, and Kevin Spacey. It's not unique to females. Generally it's desperate men or women fall victim to abusers. Yes it's usually always men perpetrating it, but it's not that men prey on women only. Men tend to be sexual predators. We need to raise our kids (boys and girls) to reject that and not grow up to be predators themselves, but I don't see this as a uniquely men on women phenomena.
Kevin Spacey was entirely vindicated.
No idea about “diddy”.
Also beware of phrases like “usually always” or you might trigger a variant of the “permanent” controversy!
I think the focus of this thread as described by the OP was about more subtle expressions of misogyny and male power than outright abuse, though. Even before I cleaned up my act I never assaulted anyone, I was (in my own mind) big on consent. But in retrospect I abused the inherent power imbalance between male and female in all sorts of ways - notably in the arena of ostensibly female dominant BDSM in which I coaxed, cajoled, manipulated and guilt-tripped women into going areas way outside their own emotional and moral safety zones.
Last edited:
I disagree. These cases are simply much more publicized.
Women in position of power abuse their authority just as often. Just google female prison guards sexually assaulting inmates.
The evidence is literally contained in my post. Not a week goes by that we don't hear about another prison guard or teacher abusing her authority.
Expressing desires to try with your wife of all people isn't misogyny, it's healthy and normal. At worst it's topping from bottom. Women are not fragile, weak creatures that always need protected. That implies we as men know what they need and that in itself is misogyny. Women are ceo's, hold positions of power in government etc. They aren't held back by some grand agenda in most countries. To treat them as such creates a victim mentality and is a disservice. They don't need some great white knight to fight their battles. You look for injustice anywhere you'll find. The hidden in title shows how far society as come. People of every gender abuse power sadly its human nature. Its not a grand agenda however.