Oh no, it's the feminazi Gestapo again
thinking they got something to prove.
I'm a white Anglo-Saxon male
and they've got their tongues raised like clubs
ready to beat me like Rodney King.

I'm married, so I'm a breeder
never mind we're both queer
cause I could also be a liar and a cheater
Those that know derail our 'privilege' anyway.
I get slammed if I swing,
and slammed if I don't,
because I struggle for true faith
and peace of mind.
Yeah, I've made mistakes,
but their hypocrisy is worse.

They go on stage and bash all men for laughs
And nobody raises a fuss.
They'd be booed out of a job
If they pointed out they were black,
But they would never do that.
They cry about their relationships,
and how men are such jerks,
but I was always the one that got dumped.
You don't see me swaggering like some pimp.

Yeah, but they think
they might have a rap sheet on me,
so they profile me like some common nigger.
And just like a brother,
It's perilous if I try to object.
I know they would feel so vindicated
if they found something.

But alas, it's bitterly ironic
that I dream sexual dreams about them
and wish I had a Domme in my life.
Hot wax, handcuffs, and a little whip-teasing.

My wife just shakes her head
and wonders why.
She thinks they're full of shit.

16 responses total.

        The difference between a radical feminist (here I agree with Paglia)
and a professional domme is that the professional domme knows there's nothing
wrong or exploitative about sex.

A professional Domme is a prostitute with a whip.

who said I was speaking about serious Dommes?  It's just a juxtaposed 
image..


I don't think I'm being understood by anyone here..

John and I are just interjecting randomly. Pay no mind. 

        Da.

Re #3:  Well, I think I understand you, at least partway.  Up through
the first four stanzas, until the point where you bring in the domme
image.  Then you lose me a bit; it's kind of hard to follow, because
I don't have anything like those fantasies.  Then again, I'm straight
and my fantasies are anything but exotic.
 
I have an SF anthology (editted by Orson Scott Card) which contains a
story about a co-ed boarding school where the boys lost interest in
their relationships because they found new toys.  Genetically engineered
sex toys.  Maybe weasel size, toothless and clawless.  Utterly defenseless,
these creatures screamed (in pain, implied the context) when penetrated.
The author implied that this was the standard male fantasy, the desire
to rape and hurt (and hear the results of the pain).
 
I showed this to my girlfriend.  She found it as ridiculous as I did.
Not only wouldn't I ever want such a thing, I wouldn't want to know
anyone who would; I want such people as far from my life as I can get
them.  But there it is, the feminazi model of masculinity.  Sexual
profiling.  You can't get away from it.
 
So yeah, I know only too well what you're talking about.  Maybe we can
get it banned from campus under hate speech codes, though...  }:-)>

        What's odd about that is that authors as well-read and widely-published
as Margaret Atwood have espoused versions of the "feminazi model" you're
describing.  It emerged in both of the Atwood books I've read, and left me
a bit conflused ... men are supposed to need to rape, and are afraid of some
magical power of estrus or childbirth?

hm... the entire feminazi model was created by confusion, so I don';t find
it surprising that its concepts cause confusion.  (whoa, alliteration.<hee>)

didn't we just have the discussion that this would be the precursor to in
sexuality?
  
rather than reiterate it here, I direct interested parties to the opinion I
laid out there.

an addendum, though: What's wrong with a rape *fantasy*, so long as it's a
*fantasy*, not an *action*?

And I should hope the comment about banning such things, or using hate speech
crime laws on campus at *all* was a joke. I continue to fail to see how an
intelligent individual can condone or even tolerate laws and codes against
hate speech in this country.

my fw sense kicks in as a precursor to this response to tell me that it's only
half on the topic, but hey, I'll venture boldly forward anyway... (;

        I don't see anything wrong in fantasizing as long as a line can be
drawn and everything; I think that healthy acts of dominance in the
bedroom are NOT enactments of rape fantasy.  Two consenting adults that
chose to play the strong/weak roles for mutual pleasure is very different
than someone chosing to be violently dominant over someone who is not
technically a *partner*.  Okay, so maybe being a "partner" is an oxymoron
when both ends of the strong/weak gamut are being played out, but when I
say partner, I mean someone who CONSENTED to be tied down by someone who
is ALLOWED to be the one doing the tying. 

 <steps off the soap box and returns to being a bacground observer>

        I don't think that anyone would argue with you there, or that either
party would run into legal difficulty unless they ran up against an unrepealed
technicality or their rape-fantasy scene was mistaken for the real thing by
police. 

Rape fantasy role-playing and Dom/sub role-playing are two different things.

In both cases, though, the participants are "partners" since participation
is consensual.

(what he said. (; )

resp:9 the problem with the fantasy 
(IMHO) is that some people (I mean 
both men and women) have a tendency 
to need to carry things beyond the level 
of just pure fantasy.  Acting out one's 
fantasies is not new material.  Sad isn't 
it.

That's not a problem with fantasy. That's a problem of will-power and ethical
decay. 
,

true, I guess.

Response not possible - You must register and login before posting.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss