Toxic Treat: Abuse by Proxy volunteers

[SophiaStafford]

Wow-- this took a wild direction after I last peeked.

I certainly don't mean to suggest that ALL motorcycle riding guys are out to impress women (I know several who are out to impress men, and at least one guy who isn't trying to impress anybody).

And I certainly wouldn't suggest wars are directly caused by male desires-- there are always larger political and religious causes. Since unmarried males are the conscripts of choice, I suppose I can see how an excess might make it easier to go to war, but I can't really buy that it's a direct cause. What I was looking at was not so much the "Big Picture" of war, but rather, a single an individual's decision to join a war or sit it out.

There are a lot of loftier reasons to join (or sit it out), but "I wanna impress a gal" is definitely a reason for some-- both joiners and sitter-outers. Guys who found the courage to sign up because their gal might sleep with them before shipping out. Guys who found the courage to burn their card because the hot hippie chick egged them on. And, of course, lots and lots more who made their decisions for actual political reasons.

Football (American) is a surprisingly dangerous sport, but there's no shortage of volunteers-- for some it's a love of the game perhaps, but it's no secret that a driving force in sports participation is, sometimes, an elaborate scheme to impress girls.

..

If you reduce the male gender as a whole to some motley collection of knuckle-dragging, hairy-chested he-men with the intellectual capacity of a stunted duck...

So, as discussed above, a statement about some men somehow got garbled into a statement about ALL men, which it clearly isn't. Not only is this not true of ALL men, but in fact, there are whole swaths of men who it's completely false of. Indeed, I'll go further, for the sake of bruised male egos, and point out that there are two types of men who are, in fact, COMPLETELY immune to me. I cannot hurt them, I cannot control them. And they are 1) men who are purely homosexuals and 2) men who are truly in love.

Love is usually fleeting, but love IS real, and when people are under the influence of it, the universe shrinks to a population of two, and the volume on everyone else in the world is turned way down.

There are other reasons as well, those are the only two groups-- I just rattle them off to reassure you that no, I _am_ aware that some men are not going to obey me... But-- they are in the minority.

If you reduce the male gender as a whole to some motley collection of knuckle-dragging, hairy-chested he-men with the intellectual capacity of a stunted duck, you also imply that the whole impressing-females-with-dangerous-idiotic-stunts technique actually works.

Okay, perfect segue. Yes, it absolutely is true that a lot of women are very easily impressed by stupid antics. This is a thousand times true. The guys on the football field in order to impress women succeed! Riding a motorcycle to impress Michelle Pfeiffer does, in fact, work. Not on everyone, but certainly on enough to make the effort worth it to the guys.

Which in turn means you have to reduce the female gender to a stereotypical ditzy blonde bimbo with an IQ lower than her bra-size, who is actually impressed with moronic stunts.

Certainly not all women-- but there is no shortage of people impressed by idiocy.

I've noticed Sophia posting various challenges for subs. Some are simple challenges, like why are you alone on Valentine's Day, others require photographs. The challenges seem to exist to push the sub, to see what he'd be willing to do, just for her attention, however brief. I wonder, about this challenge,
whether she actually expects someone to go through with it or just wants to see if someone will.

If you have to wonder whether or not a guy would do this, you haven't been paying attention. I've been flooded with guys who want to do this. The real question is--- do any of them have the skills to attract a semi-normal mate into participation. My actual vision of this has the woman consider this a very alienating interaction, whereas with a professional, there just isn't going to be that same sense of judgment, stifled revulsion, and awkward humor.

S

[Human]

I didnt say wars exist to kill off excess males; I said when there are excess males, wars happen. A logic/law major could give a fancy name to this logic error.
I know you said this in jest, but yes, if a man "has" a woman, he is unlikely to go to war for some religious ideology. Unfortunately, the miinds of men are twisted when they are young, before they are married.

For the first objection:
The stunts need not necessarily be idiotic. In fact, too dangerous stunts might work against the stuntee, in that he is percieved to be unnecessarily reckless. One of the functions of dancing is to show off physical prowess.

Slight problem with this whole line of reasoning.
If you reduce the male gender as a whole to some motley collection of knuckle-dragging, hairy-chested he-men with the intellectual capacity of a stunted duck, you also imply that the whole impressing-females-with-dangerous-idiotic-stunts technique actually works.
Why else would they do it?
Which in turn means you have to reduce the female gender to a stereotypical ditzy blonde bimbo with an IQ lower than her bra-size, who is actually impressed with moronic stunts.
Which is fine by me, but I suspect a few female members in here might have a handful of choice words on that subject.


Wars exist because of a biological need to kill off the excess males?!?
You are kidding, right?
Follow that reasoning to its logical conclusion, and we could rid the world of every armed power-struggle merely by institutionalizing human trafficking.
Hell, the UN could be reduced to a couple of tour-buses filled with naked women.
Might cut down on the bureacracy though.

CheerfullyInsane

[Incubo]

The fact is all guys risk their health and happiness to try to amuse women.

The fact is-- desires are so overwhelming, no one is really "sane" when it comes to love and sex. A "sane" man at the height of his success will risk _everything_ he has for the right woman. He will risk his life, his family, his career, his kids, his past, his future, his money, his reputation-- ALL that he is, he will risk for the right woman. And Clinton and John Edwards haven't been given straight-jackets because we understand that sane men are simply wired up to risk it all for a chance to be near the right woman.

So, as discussed above, a statement about some men somehow got garbled into a statement about ALL men, which it clearly isn't.

Can't imagine how that happened....

[neloangelo1227]

My girlfriend & I could potentially be up for this; I'll post again if I have a chance to bring it up to her.

Because I like to hear myself talk, though, I wanted to comment on the debate: As a guy, I can verify that we in fact are all hairy, knuckle-dragging neanderthals. Sometimes, we just manage to get over it for a while.

BTW, I think the only part of Sophia's OP that should necessarily remain fantasy is the "total stranger" part. BDSM, even BDSM by proxy, is about trust, and that is a bond you cannot create with any cute girl on the sidewalk.

[CheerfullyInsane]

*Tips my hat at Incubo*

Although I have to say I'm getting a little miffed that you keep stealing my lines

CheerfullyInsane

Life is a glorious cycle of song
A medley of extemporania,
And love is a thing that can never go wrong
and I am Marie of Roumania
- Dorothy Parker

[MaxHeadroom]

I am constantly amused, bemused, and entertained by the level of passion aroused by modest proposals of Miss Stafford. A little game, offered to those who may want to expand their erotic horizons, evolves into a debate over whether men play football and wage wars simply to enhance their prospects for reproduction. Come to think of it, our military endeavors of the last decade were instigated by a bunch of men who thought they could nail 72 virgins in paradise if they crashed a plane, so maybe it is. But I digress.

What is more interesting is that some perceive the lady to be a threat or a danger, and feel the need to warn others about her. In fact, her website seems perfectly clear about her interests and intentions. The first word of her post is "abuse." How much warning do you need?

How many times have we dreamed about being teased, tortured, controlled, or humiliated by a beautiful woman? Most of us who have wives or girlfriends know that they are usually willing to indulge our little fantasies to some point, but we know they are only doing it for love--and for the possibility that we might not forget Valentine's Day. Those of us who have jobs can go to a domme, but as much as they may enjoy their work, it is still a job. The sub is still in control, as long as the top is bound by love or money. With Sophia, she seems to be looking for volunteers, not customers. And she does not pretend to care one whit about their feelings or needs. Thus, she is both our dream and our nightmare--a woman who truly enjoys teasing, torturing, controlling, and humiliating man. As we have nothing to offer her but our humiliation, we cannot control her.

As for her little game, it is interesting but there are some practical issues. It would be a little awkward telling a wife or girlfriend "I have been fantasizing about this internet chick and would love you to do whatever she says." Talk about unsafe and insane! A domme might be possible, but that does not really push the envelope--although the video thing is intriguing--as long as Sophia sincerely promises that it is only for her personal entertainment, never to be posted or published.

And I know what you cynics are going to say, but at some point trust has to play a role. Every 5 foot 4 inch woman who goes on a date, or to bed, with a 6 foot man takes the risk that he will rape, sodomize, abuse, infect, impregnate, or otherwise hurt her. Even the simple act of fucking has violent elements. (Is that part of the thrill for women? Another topic. ) I think "safe, sane, and consensual" is hardly the norm. Sooner or later, you just have to say "what the fuck!" Without that, the species would have died out long ago.

[CheerfullyInsane]

....a woman who truly enjoys teasing, torturing, controlling, and humiliating man. As we have nothing to offer her but our humiliation, we cannot control her.

....although the video thing is intriguing--as long as Sophia sincerely promises that it is only for her personal entertainment, never to be posted or published.

I think "safe, sane, and consensual" is hardly the norm. Sooner or later, you just have to say "what the fuck!" Without that, the species would have died out long ago.

Not to burst any bubbles here, but once you say "screw it!", that's usually when reality rears up and bites you on the ass.

CheerfullyInsane

[glasgowguy]

Not to burst any bubbles here, but once you say "screw it!", that's usually when reality rears up and bites you on the ass.

CheerfullyInsane

The 'Fuck it let's see what happens' approach to life does have it's downsides, but most of the best times i've had have been from just biting the bullet and going for it