Some politically co-optive men have even claimed that their masochistic identification is "woman-identification" and that it is meant as evidence of sympathy with feminism -- which shows how abysmal is their understanding of women and feminism. But that any men should wish to experience what they think women experience -- this is old news, as old as Pentheus' curiosity (and is rooted, I think, in envy.) Men who see themselves as relatedly masochistic, "femme," feminine, etc. obviously are insulting the female (in person and in principle.) If they grovel to a male master they are mimicking (for fun) an experience all women in patriarchy are in some way or another forced to endure in reality. If they cower before a female 'dominatrix,' they are superficially reversing, and thereafter trivializing, real women's real oppression. The one act literally makes fun of the pain of our reality by ignoring our powerlessness; the other act mocks the reality of our pain by denying our powerlessness. Both are vicious, expectable, and for the purposes of our investigation, irrelevant. [i]
[i] Morgan, Robin. "The Politics Of Sado-Masochistic Fantasies." Against Sadomasochism: A Radical Feminist Analysis. Edited by Robin Ruth Linden, et al. (San Francisco: Frog in the Well, 1982), 117.
*huggles the irrelevant femmes* I still love you...
And honestly:
"You mock my pain!"
"Life is pain, Highness. Anyone who tells you otherwise is selling something."
Honestly that's SM in a nutshell to me, right there. LIFE HURTS. Might as well have fun with that rather than sit around blubbering about it. Orgasms > pissing and moaning.
69 comments:
I don't know how others do it, but in our household, sometimes orgasms = pissing and moaning.
:)
Thank you! You've been great! Don't forget to tip your waitstaff!
Wow, that's amazing. Isn't that saying that every attempt to give women power is in fact taking it away from them?
Here's what I don't understand:
If all women are always "powerless", then what exactly is it that male submissives "envy"? To suggest that there's a joyful release in submission would clearly, to this author, be to "mock" women's "powerlessness", so that can't be what men "envy." So what is? Our yonnic lifeforce? And they get that by being bound and gagged how?
"If all women are always "powerless", then what exactly is it that male submissives "envy"?"
I couldn't figure that out either. My wild guess is that the answer to that would be something like "our ability to gestate" because it brings us closer to "the mystery of life" or something, but really, who the hell knows?
"If all women are always "powerless", then what exactly is it that male submissives "envy"?"
yep, often wondered that myself.
and of course there ARE men with lactation and pregnancy fetishes; but that doesn't really explain any of the -rest- of it very well. it doesn't understand why (for instance) one would fetishize "femininity" for oneself, if femininity is this singularly oppressive state with -no- redeeming qualities.
"it doesn't understand why (for instance) one would fetishize "femininity" for oneself, if femininity is this singularly oppressive state with -no- redeeming qualities."
Exactly. I think there's a vague idea that men are eroticizing slumming, in a sense. But why they should want to play at being powerless, if powerlessness is so godawful in every circumstance, I can't figure.
"Wow, that's amazing. Isn't that saying that every attempt to give women power is in fact taking it away from them?"
That's about my take on it. I also find it really interesting (though not at all surprising) that she mentions the man groveling before the dominatrix, but never even bothers to analyze what the dominatrix herself is doing. Not even to say she's fooling herself.
It fascinates me because it's like they can't even so much as allow women tops of any kind to show up on their radar. I strongly suspect it's because any woman with power munges up the analysis.
Therefore: I don't exist. Yay. *goes off to run with the wild unicorns, racing into the twilight*
Trinity, I'm sure I read that wild unicorns only run with virgins?
(although maybe there's a few out there who haven't been indoctrinated by the Patriarchy and don't accept the Virgin/Whore dichotomy?)
::;cough;;; BULLSHIT ;;;cough;;;
Face it, with those folks, if you have a vagina, and men can penetrate it, literally, you're fucked...and so opressed...haven't you figured that out yet???
Ren: Indeed. I'm just posting this stuuff because, well, a LOT of people out there just don't know what people were actually saying in the 1980's and so they don't understand why people like me would be so leery of their ideological descendants.
At the risk of being told I'm unintelligent I'll suggest that male submissives because they like submitting to women as men who are submitting to women and that women who like submissive men enjoy being submitted to by men who like submitting to their power. But I suppose that isn't sophisticated enough.
that male submissives [submit] because they like
You also have to take into account that the radical feminists tend to sexualize men in a very negative way ("You're all violent brutes!") but that is rarely taken as projection of radical feminist desire. Let's say it is. The passage quoted above really could just be a verbally humiliating cock-tease for submissive men: "Oh, you think you can submit, but try as you might, you'll just mock women because you're incapable of understanding us, like all men." Your behavior is "vicious, expectable, and for the purposes of our investigation, irrelevant." Calling a submissive man vicious and irrelevant, just like all other men, is pretty much the kind of verbal humiliation sub guys are into. I don't doubt a significant audience for radical feminist texts are sub guys who get off on it. So you can't really take radfems seriously, because they're just doing literary porn.
Interesting discussion. I don't think anyone has suggested some men are innately submissive - it's not voluntary; and see strong women as mentors and leaders - not 'sex objects.' Isn't it time to give anti-patriarchal males a break and stop dismissing all men who reject societal norms as unworthy?
-john
"I don't think anyone has suggested some men are innately submissive - it's not voluntary"
Any who? Any radfem, no, probably not?
Me? Yes. Though I will say that I don't think that submission (or domination) along gender lines is some sort of magic revelation on the roles of the genders. I think it's a combination of a person being submissive (or dominant) and hetero.
Not much more to opposite-gender D/s (either way) than heterosexuality + kink/temperament, IMO.
I don't doubt a significant audience for radical feminist texts are sub guys who get off on it.
I've often wondered that myself. Most especially considering the "radical feminist men" I've known, at least one of whom was--wait for it--a "former" submissive.
I guess it's sort of the mirror image of the Christian not-at-all-fetishistic Men In Charge thing in certain subsets, you know...
Isn't it time to give anti-patriarchal males a break and stop dismissing all men who reject societal norms as unworthy?
-john
Oh hell yes. Some of my best friends are...and I *heart* Joss Whedon with a heart of heartiness. I -do- think it's a lot healthier when they're open about it, instead of trying to stuff and tortuously rationalize it away in any number of ideologies and justifications. Anything to avoid -this just gets me hot, okay- and -this is who I am; it doesn't necessarily say anything about EVERYONE-.
"I've often wondered that myself. Most especially considering the "radical feminist men" I've known, at least one of whom was--wait for it--a "former" submissive."
*noddit*
Yeah. I do wonder about Stoltenberg, too.
Though, to be fair, I honestly think he was probably abused, rather than consensually submitting in a strange way.
(Then again, your and my errrrr acquaintance may well have also been. his ex is rather... er... especially loopy?)
What about the many men out there who are hot, wonderful, manly submissives with not a hint of femininity about them?
And yeah, I noticed that the female top in the example had no agency ascribed to her at all... sad.
"What about the many men out there who are hot, wonderful, manly submissives with not a hint of femininity about them?"
Thank you! There are many of us who are misunderstood and have our motives questioned because we simply wish to defer to the will and control of women. We're open about who we are [as open as society permits] but face the strongest opposition and rejection from the very gender we support and wish to serve.
-john
john, I'm lost here. How does someone support a gender? Unless you're talking about feminist activism I've no idea what that even means.
I'm not A Woman in the sense of some 2-d representative of a group. I'm a person. Hell, I'm too masculine for a heck of a lot of femdom fans. Am I something to be supported, or what?
It doesn't make any sense to you that you talk about women as some big block, unless as I said you're talking about group-based political action. If you like dominant women that's one thing. If you're assuming all women are carbon copies of one another, not so great.
Or that no women are submissive or even queer, which you haven't said but I see in a lot of het femdom circles. If I dominate a woman am I insincere? Is she?
It boggles my mind when people who profess to like dominant women get all angry at me for harshing their mellow by not fitting their box. Who exactly was supposed to be the boss here again?
"any sense to you" = any sense to ME, rather. :)
"It boggles my mind when people who profess to like dominant women get all angry at me for harshing their mellow by not fitting their box. Who exactly was supposed to be the boss here again?"
I'm not angry.
-john
No, but you're not addressing a word I said, either.
"So you can't really take radfems seriously, because they're just doing literary porn. "
And the best part is that they don't even realise that they're doing it, or that a certain kind of guy is loving every second of it. Thus they are unwittingly pleasing at least some men, which is antitheical to their stated worldview in every way.
Oops!
I don't agree, Cassandra. There are men who appreciate radical feminists because they take a stand - and action. Make no mistake, men who are submissive are ostracized and unappreciated by mainstream society. I'm hopeful women who identify as radical feminists will at least appreciate my desire not to impose any sort of patriarchal crap; and am open to learning, growing and developing - as an open-minded, female-focused, submissive partner.
-john
And the best part is that they don't even realise that they're doing it, or that a certain kind of guy is loving every second of it. Thus they are unwittingly pleasing at least some men, which is antitheical to their stated worldview in every way.
That's certainly a valid way to interpret it, and you may be right. But I tend to think radfems know exactly what they're doing, and the "inconsistency" is really just double-speak. There really are radfems whose conception of equality is crushing men; after all, "The horny, violent brutes deserve it. And they secretly like it, too!" There are simply way too many sexual puns in radfem texts for it to be accidental.
I am the anonymous poster above, but since I might post here again, I decided to "pick a pseud."
"There really are radfems whose conception of equality is crushing men; after all, "The horny, violent brutes deserve it. And they secretly like it, too!"
Yes, some submissive men believe they're place vis-a-vis radical feminists is to be crushed, broken and constantly reminded of the mess that patriarchy has made of the world. Definitely.
-john
See what I mean? His response, to me, is icky. There's no way radfems could continue to say what they do if they didn't like reactions like I-Obey's over here.
The problem here is that feminism is a hate-movement against men. The vast majority of men do not go into 'womens studies' classes, so they're completely clueless about the average feminist thought train.
Read up on Dworkin, and SCUM (Society for Cutting Up Men), and so on , and you'll see radical feminism is nothing but hate & superiority - not of a sexual nature thouhg, which is what most BDSM guys are into.
Sub guys simply enjoy a bit of pain at the hands (or feet, or whip, etc.) of a woman they enjoy the company of. Feminism is hate of all men.
'Icky' or not; I'm not interested in pain. I'm not a masochist. I am looking for a romantic relationship with a woman who appreciates the mindset of submissive men and my belief is those women tend to think about gender roles differently than most women. So, if you're feminist/radical feminist - chances are you'll be more open minded to a different relationship dynamic.
John
anonymous said:
"The problem here is that feminism is a hate-movement against men"
and:
"Read up on Dworkin, and SCUM (Society for Cutting Up Men), and so on , and you'll see radical feminism is nothing but hate & superiority"
Andrea Dworkin actually got a lot of shit from women who did try to take up the biological determinism banner under feminism, i.e. "women are naturally morally superior to men and would never do to men what men do to women." She was adamantly opposed to any form of female superiority theory or expression, based in her love for and optimism about men. So. You are yet another person who has obviously not familiarized yourself with what Dworkin actually said and/or wrote, but who feels entitled to lie about it in order to feel legitimized in bashing her.
As far as submissive men go - I have met a few men who are bottoms/subs/masochists or any combo of the three and who could not have had better hearts or more respect for other people in general. Which, as a radical feminist/womanist, is what I like in a person. I have also met many many more men who identified as "submissive" who could not have been more hateful towards women. To the point that for a long time I would not engage with men who identified as such, because of how high the odds seemed that they would be more likely to try and fuck with me than almost any self-identified dominant/top/sadist. So. I'm not really sure what the value is in trying to characterize submissive men or radical feminists as a group and how we supposedly judge them. Just because some men approach and act on their submissive feelings in a different way than what Morgan describes does not mean that what she describes is incorrect. I have experienced it repeatedly myself. Same as I have seen/experienced the way many self-identified submissive/bottom/masochistic women are fucked up, and use their kink as an expression rather than an antidote to that fucked up-ed-ness. I don't see those facts, or anyone talking about them, as a threat to the legitimacy of mine or anyone else's approach to BDSM. Same as I don't see fucked up "straight" folks' expression of their sexuality as a condemnation of every non-kinky person out there, or of non-kinkiness itself. But I certainly would not argue that critiques of problems inherent to many ways that mainstream sexuality goes about itself is invalid simply because some people don't have their boots on each others' necks in it.
John: how about actually listening to women for a change rather than tooting your own horn over and over about how anti-patriarchal you are?
~waves~ I just wanted to poke my head in and say that finding this blog has made me a much happier person, who doesn't feel so alone in her sexuality and feminism. Thanks so much. I couldn't have found this at a better time in my life.
Trinity: Thank you. I'm more than happy to shut up, listen and garner as many viewpoints and opinions as contributors to your blog [and mine] wish to share. This is a healthy discussion - and I'm encouraged.
-john
Joan Kelly:
Thank you for your thoughtful observations. If I might volunteer two observations from the submissive male contingent:
1. I'm of the belief true submissive men treat women with respect and are anything but 'hateful' towards women.
2. Why is male submission [a question for anyone] seemingly always linked to bdsm/pain, etc? Isn't it possible to be domestically, sexually and emotionally submissive/deferential to women without the introduction of pain, abuse, violence into a relationship? Popular culture can't get beyond the imagery of 'dominant' women [a mindset and point of view] as little more than leather clad, whip-wielding dominatrixes. I abhor pain and violence in any and all forms.
Just a thought.
-john
I must say I'm stunned at how well my comments have gone over.
Perhaps I should attend more feminism meetups and quit dating queer prodommes.
lol
I concur this is one the best feminist websites presently in existence.
ethylbenzene:
I'm so very glad. That's exactly what I initially hoped for with this blog. It's done all those things for me, too.
John:
There is a big difference between the following perspectives.
Perspective A: I am a submissive man who wants to serve women as a gender.
Perspective B: I am a submissive man who would be happiest in a D/s dynamic with a dominant woman.
The former makes you sound ignorant and, to be honest, quite misogynist. As Trin pointed out, it's treating women in general as a 2D caricature and dismissing those who don't fit into your fantasy.
The latter, at least in my language, is entirely acceptable. It treats both people in the example as individuals capable of defining your own sexuality.
It may seem like a tiny thing, but talking in a way that strongly suggests you are peering at women through the lens of your own sexual fantasy is not on, especially on a feminist blog.
Why is male submission [a question for anyone] seemingly always linked to bdsm/pain, etc?
D/S in general is linked to S/M that way in the overwhelming majority of public presentations. (There is also a link the other way, connecting S/M to D/S, but in my experience it's weaker.)
As a sub who isn't a masochist (at least by my standards of 'masochist' -- other people's standards both have and have not included me), I have frequently been frustrated by lack-of-resources.
I think one of the major reasons is that it's much easier to talk about S/M. One can easily point at what people are doing if floggers or spike heels or spanking or whatever else is involved. When someone is using a whip on someone else, questions like, "How is making tea so kinky?" just don't come up.
I also think there's a certain level of lack of imagination in some people's approaches -- they can't imagine what it is to do d/s without, say, humiliation being involved, or without there being a punishment dynamic, or whatever else, to 'prove' the submission aspect. (I see this from a lot of troosub types who are all, "How can you call yourself a submissive if [you're not into humiliation|your master doesn't beat you|you actually stand up for yourself when I'm being an idiot in your face|etc.]". Tedious.)
I think there's also a certain amount of -- I think a lot of S/M is more marketable, honestly. The D/S I do is not something I could get at a club or from a pro. The stuff that can be done more readily gets more play, I think, as it's what can be made available to people; also, the flashier stuff gets more play because it's more exotic, more flamboyant, more dramatic.
The face of kink is much more recognisable as the person with the bullwhip than the folk like me who hit pretty much instant altered consciousness because of a hand on the shoulder where it brushes the throat -- because the person with the bullwhip is seen to be doing something, and seen to be doing something that someone else could be a part of easily.
I agree that masochism-as-female-identification sucks. But her argument is ridiculous. She's saying (if I understand correctly) the feminine experience under patriarchy is largely about pain and suppression, so domination in this context must necessarily be male in nature. Therefore, male domination is real, while the female type is a twisted parody... I'm sure her bedfellows in this, the Surrendered Wife and hardcore Gorean types, would appreciate her support.
Question for women:
If you're a woman who identifies as 'feminist' or 'radical feminist' and could create a man from scratch who would be your partner/lover - would 'submissive' be a quality you would choose for him?
Thanks.
-john
john,
I don't actually believe in things like "true submissive people," in the sense that what it means to submit or bottom or whatever is such a varied thing among people. I do hear a lot of people who are vocal about what they *think* submission *should* mean to people who identify as such. However, I have never related to or much liked reductionist sexual theories, which is what I consider the "this is what it means to be submissive or dominant" yapping to be. To be clear - I think it's absolutely legitimate for people to say what's real for them, and I know how happy it makes me when I find others and feel like "hey, I feel that way too, finally someone I relate to," so that's not what I'm talking about. It's the "true subs are happy to get all their pleasure from a true dom's pleasure," or in essence, what submission means is sexualized co-dependence. Fine if it means that for you, but how is that idea as propaganda any different than "true women like makeup" for instance?
As for the pain aspect and people's assumptions about it - there are definitely pockets of D/s kinksters who, like you, are not at all interested in administering or receiving any kind of pain. And I say, bully for them. And I don't say it sarcastically. I'm sure with some searching it would not be impossible to find others like you. But one reason people assume all kinksters are into sexualized pain/sensation is because a lot of us are. What also gets assumed is that we all like it the same way, in the same context, with the same toys, same power dynamics around it, same way with each person, same every time, etc., as every other sadomasochist. And just the leap people make from, for example, knowing I have ever enjoyed receiving sexualized pain to believing I am whatever it is that they think "a submissive" is. To me that kind of "you've done x so you must be y" type of thinking is about as sensible as someone deciding that a person who sucked one cock or a thousand is species-cocksucker. I love that word as a swear word, but as a sexual category to put someone in, that informs on any meaningful level in conversation or negotiations? Please. It's the same for me with the kinky labeling bonanza.
Also - as a woman who identifies as radical feminist, the point for me is not whether I would want a man (or woman) partner to be submissive or not, but that I would much rather get to fantasize a *humanity* into existence than a person of this or that persuasion. I know your question seems pretty yes-or-no simple, but to me it's irrelevant.
You're an intriguing woman, Joan Kelly. I'd like to know more about you.
-john
John, you're doing it again. It seems like your question stems from a flawed premise -- that "women" or "feminists" are this homogenous block that are pretty much all the same. This just isn't the case. "Women" are PEOPLE, "feminists," and even "radical feminists" are PEOPLE. Some PEOPLE like their partners to be submissive, some like dominant, some aren't into that kind of power exchange at all. Your question is about as relevant as "what color hair would your ideal man have?" Everyone's different, and someone's feminist ideology isn't neccessarily tied to what they look for in a partner.
I'm just curious if there is some sort of correlation. I'm not suggesting that it's there - just curious if women who identify also have that preference. I'm not trying to lump women together....
john
Back when I thought of myself as a feminist, it did not make me a dom.
Regarding submissive men getting off on rad fem literature:
There was recently a letter to a sex advice column called "Savage Love" wherein the writer was a submissive man with a ball kicking fetish. He dreamed of a woman repeatedly trampling and kicking his balls. So anyway, the story starts when he is playing truth or dare with a bunch of people, a mix of friends and friends of friends when this one female, who he described as "butch extreme feminist lesbian" chose dare. One of his friends, knowing his kink, dared her to kick him in the balls.
The "butch" was elated, and he got a full on shot in the junk. The next time it came around to her, she did it again. And again. All the while asking him "are you SURE that you're not enjoying this?"
Anyway. His question was how he could approach her, now that the gae was over, and ask her to meet for ball kicking rendezvous.
I was giggling as I read the entire article.
I'd like to say - as a sincere secure submissive male - that though there are no doubt men who find pleasure from masochistic experiences; there are just as many [myself included] who are not seeking pain/humiliation.
If there is any legitimate connection between male submission and feminist/radical feminist theory it is most likely along the terms of a dislike/distrust of patriarchal thinking and structure.
As a submissive man, I hope to find in the feminist community - some appreciation or acknowledgment for men - like me - who seek guidance and direction from women in living and developing a more matriarchal society in both a romantic 'female led' relationship and society as a whole. I believe a female led society is the natural order.
-john
"As a submissive man, I hope to find in the feminist community - some appreciation or acknowledgment for men - like me - who seek guidance and direction from women in living and developing a more matriarchal society in both a romantic 'female led' relationship and society as a whole. I believe a female led society is the natural order."
Oy, john. Thank you for the compliment in a slightly earlier post, but -
Two major difficulties for me with this comment of yours.
1. I am glad for men - and women - who are not anti-feminist, just like I am glad for men and women who are not racist, not homophobic, etc. However, I must tell you that it is not my "feminist agenda", as it were, to acknowledge and appreciate men - or women - in some more noticeable way simply because they are doing what's right, i.e. not being misogynist/racist/anyotherhate-ist jerks. I mean, try to imagine substituting the idea of men with "white people" here and women with "people of color." First white people go apeshit in this country with oppression and hatred, and now here comes this one who wants me to stop whatever I'm dealing with so he/she can feel special for NOT being apeshit hateful?
2. I am as vehemently opposed to biological determinism as Andrea Dworkin was. If you are truly someone who is interested in radical feminism, you should know that it is not about female dominance or matriarchies or women-are-naturally-not-as-mean-or-fucked-up-as-men fantasizing. If you want to read an excellent essay on why biological determinism is the enemy of feminism and everything else, let me know and I will post the essay I'm talking about and which book it's in.
So - I don't have a problem with you being into female supremacy stuff (even of a non-painful/non-humiliation variety) or having whatever beliefs you have, hoping for whatever kind of partner you hope for. I just have to speak up when I hear people talking about that kind of thing not in terms of their own particular preference, but in terms of what's "natural," or also expectations they put on others that they don't really have a right to. I'm sure you don't intend malevolence with your desire for appreciation and acknowledgement - but as a woman and a feminist, I have to tell you that it can come across like an entitlement thing, like feminists *should* show appreciation for you, since most men are not like you, and so therefore we should be grateful. Even when I, as a woman and feminist, AM grateful for someone else's good heartedness...no one really likes to be TOLD that they should be grateful. That's all.
Comparing women to blacks doesn't really work as an analogy because comparatively (and simultaneously) white women had it real good; and gross wrongs are incommensurable, anyway.
I suspect John is enjoying the tongue lashing he is getting here....
"I suspect John is enjoying the tongue lashing he is getting here..."
Actually, no. I'm enjoying the debate but I'm not 'getting off' on it as some have suggested. I'm also learning - and appreciate the comments specifically directed to and the civilized tone of the discussion.
I'd be happy for any resource suggestions you might have for me, Joan Kelly. If anyone else is willing to make a suggestion - please don't hesitate to share.
john
john - LETTERS FROM A WAR ZONE, by Andrea Dworkin, and the essay is "Biological Superiority: The World's Most Dangerous and Deadly Idea."
Thanks for the recommendation, Joan Kelly.
-john
"just have to speak up when I hear people talking about that kind of thing not in terms of their own particular preference, but in terms of what's "natural," or also expectations they put on others that they don't really have a right to."
Right on. I honestly would never *want* someone to submit to me who believes in gender supremacies. I want someone who responds to my dominance. That's it.
Now I don't mind if he's also heterosexual (though queer men are too much fun...) but that's completely incidental.
Now I don't mind if he's also heterosexual (though queer men are too much fun...) but that's completely incidental.
Not to speak for John, but I suspect there are sub men who do not think their heterosexuality is incidental to their submissiveness.
I'm heterosexual.
-john
"Not to speak for John, but I suspect there are sub men who do not think their heterosexuality is incidental to their submissiveness."
Where exactly have I not been clear that I believe gender supremacy is complete bullshit? I'll be happier to use even more pointed words if that will allow it to sink in.
Where exactly have I not been clear that I believe gender supremacy is complete bullshit? I'll be happier to use even more pointed words if that will allow it to sink in.
I wasn't making a point about men in relation to women. I was making a point about straight men in relation to queer men.
But thanks for implying I'm dense!
"But thanks for implying I'm dense!"
No problem. I'll be here all week.
"Try the turkey."
Is it possible that the excerpt might have pertained more to the "forced feminization" crowd than male subs in general?
The 4 Piece Indian Coin Set: Investment Grade Gold Coins and. The 4 Piece Indian Coin Set: A 4 Step Investment Strategy with high profit potential Own the most popular rare gold coin set in America. The 4 Piece Indian Set. Gold Why Gold Bullion, Coins, and Investments. Gold Why offers free information about gold bullion, coins, jewelry, and investments. The price of gold has been soaring to new heights and find answers to all your questions. Tindak Malaysia. Tindak Malaysia is a political social economic forum to educate Malaysians, to empower and encourage them to act towards the goal of a 2 Party State.
Rеduce heat; sіmmer, unсovегed, for
35 tо 40mіnutes or to dеѕired consіstencу, ѕtiгring oсcasionallу.
Theгe аre plenty of еlectric ovens
that will still κnocκ your socks оff. Roll еach poгtіon іntо the thiсkness of а bгoоm handle.
Fеel free to surf to mу homeρage; oknotizie.virgilio.it
Exсellеnt articlе. I аm dealing with a few
of these iѕsues as well..
Hеre is my ѕite: chemietoilette
Hi, Neat post. There's a problem with your web site in web explorer, would test this? IE still is the marketplace chief and a huge portion of other people will pass over your excellent writing due to this problem.
Here is my blog post Kindergeburtstag Mannheim
I'm not reading every single comment to see whether it was brought up, since this is an old post, but here's why radical feminists don't find men who get off on submission that great: because that goes no further than the bedroom or the house.
We're not demanding submission in all domains and all places and all times,
but if you think that following some orders in your free time because it makes you feel good,
is AT ALL comparable to helping end
- the global trade of women and children by men (which is almost so large as to be the economic backbone of some countries)
- the stealing of resources from women by men (which IS the backbone of every country)
- the uncountable number of rapes and murders of woman and children by men
- the degradation of females in almost all media (almost all made or controlled by men)
- the veritable enslavement of women (and often enough children) by men
- and so on,
then congratulations!
Much like everyone else, you don't know anything about radical feminism.
Why not to do some lashings and stand in the corner for an hour to make up for your ignorance? That's the best you can do, right? And we're supposed to be grateful when you do, as if it's impossible for a man to be good to one woman and terrible to the rest. As if that's not the basic promise of romance - protection from the other bad men by your one good men.
I'd rather you don't punish yourself, and instead try harder, but what will you actually do? What's good for women, or what's good for your dick? Are you actually any better than dominant men?
- Par.
Sorry, I meant the "global sex trade of women and children".
As in entrapment, kidnapping, transfer, and continual rape of hundreds of millions of people. A problem on a scale larger a dick, and thus obviously too much to think about. :/
-Par
replica bags thailand hermes replica handbags g8a64t5k90 replica bags online pakistan click this link now m8n38a5h66 replica bags buy online replica bags in pakistan replica bags high quality reference b7s25j9i67 replica goyard bags
Post a Comment