xssve
Posts: 3589
Joined: 10/10/2009
Status: offline
|
I call it "click fever", it's a phenomena that's behind the success of online porn: "you like that, wait till you see the next one"!
Takes time and effort to get to know someone, and the human race has a long history of constructing boxes, roles, etc., to save themselves the bother - "role models", etc., in evolutionary terms, humans, like nay other animal, adapt to their environment; humans are a social species, and we construct elaborate abstract models of optimal social behavior, which we expect others to recognize and represent - the Judeo-Christian model, for example, which has no room for female sexuality except in a very narrow and carefully monitored range - if you're lucky enough to find room for it at all.
It certainly has no place for us, in any traditional sense, our role is strictly adversarial, we represent the devil, everything they ostensibly seek to eradicate - motherhood and female sexuality are seen as particularly inimical, despite the obvious irony.
Anyway, just an example, it's human nature to institutionalize anything, to construct abstract categories and religion and politics are obvious examples, but it operates in any grouping of people with mutual interests: do we not get regular thread in here asking with bewilderment why submissives act like human beings and not domesticated animals?
Because there is no such thing as an "average submissive", there are just people who exhibit varying degrees and nuances of particular personality traits, some of which may be categorized as submissive: it's behavior, not a thing, and varied as any other human behavior including dominance - another regular thread is things like, is liking anal (receiving) or giving oral domly?, etc.
These are acts which are commonly accepted to symbolize submissiveness, and its just as meaningless a ritual as avoiding meat on Friday, or not eating pork if the symbolism of that act has no personal meaning for you, it's just a habit, the symbolism has long lost any practical meaning - but again, in order for other adherents of that model to comprehend that would require assessment on the interpersonal level, to relate on a level other than symbolic, when it's much easier and more common to just have a knee jerk reaction to a perceived transgression of the model, the iconoclasm - Catholics and Protestants are ostensibly the same religion, worship the same god, etc., but murdered each other en masse for centuries over minor doctrinal disputes like the barre in front of the alter, or images of saints on the wall.
Most of these models are based on illusion, some abstact ideal imagined by long dead people, small surprise most people diverge from a given model in myriad ways without even thinking about it - there is very little disparagement of sex actually in the Bible, while in the New Testament at least, Jesus is constantly railing against greed - every time he goes postal it's about greed, or inflexibility - see the woes of the Pharisees - but damned if the bulk of Christians will rail incessantly against sex and rationalize greed till they're out of breath.
Human nature is not necessarily innately self centered, but self centered people tend to be more relentless in their pursuit of self gratification, which tends to require others to adopt roles convenient to that "vision" - not uncommonly, force is employed to that end - while the idea of employing force by contrast is inimical to promoting selflessness (be nice or I'll kill you), which gives the selfish a certain edge in the short term, though over the long term, they tend to isolate and weed themselves out to the point of irrelevance and oblivion - the have-not's are always going to outnumber the haves in such a system, and eventually, the have-not's will find the situation no longer tolerable.
Meanwhile, nearly everyone maintains the illusion that there is some legitimate, standardized model, without ever thinking about what it might actually represent, it's reasonable parameters, etc., i.e., the Roman civis, for example, civilized man, part of which requires tolerating differences in personality and ritual in a culturally diverse urban environment - with globalization no longer a theory, some thought should really be given to this.
Instead, by default, the human tendency is to tribalize, gangs for example, and the distinction between the Crips and the republicans, or Christians, is not as large as it may appear: organizationally, they're practically identical and organized for much the same reasons: to control a particular territory for their own benefit, whether it's a street corner or a congressional committee - they tend to have very narrow definitions of what is and is not acceptable behavior, down to the level of personal opinion, and verbal patterns of behavior tend to be strictly enforced, in spite of all the lip music about free will.
Take that to it's logical conclusion and you have Feudal India and a rigid caste system - the Western branch of the Ino-European family has done quite a bit better by actively fighting off the tendency to form into castes.
Anyway, a long way of explaining that humans have developed a tendency to idealize, and to see deviations from that ideal as a thing to oppose, however irrational the ideal may be, and however rational the divergence, whether it arises from simple cognitive dissonance, or political fear of undermining a particularly convenient role, such as that of the domestic housewife.
I'm sure you understand all this, and yeah, there isn't much to do about it, but hand them their asses when we get a chance and keep on keepin' on.
|
Darwin and D/s - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread