Milovana.com

Incubo wrote:[There have been several matriarchal societies through history and there are still some modern ones left.

Have there been? Which ones?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matriarchy should have some info

denton wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matriarchy should have some info

Yeah, and that said there have been no matriarchial societies

Indigo™ wrote:Doesn't England still have a Queen?

Having just one woman as the head of state doesnt make a country a Matriarchy.

Human wrote:

Incubo wrote:[There have been several matriarchal societies through history and there are still some modern ones left.

Have there been? Which ones?

Yes there have been.

The Nagovisi of Bougainvillea in the South Pacific, the Khasi of Meghalaya, India, and the Machinguenga of Peru to name a few.

These societies tend to be small agrarian societies, but they do exist.

However, as Indy points out, women have risen to power even in Patriarchal societies as well. Catherine the Great and the many Queens of England for example. Further back: Cleopatra, Nefratiri, and Hatshepsut from Egypt. Livia from Rome (though admittedly she wasn't "officially" an Emperor she still held quite a bit of power during Tiberius's early reign.)

Human wrote:

Indigo™ wrote:Doesn't England still have a Queen?

Having just one woman as the head of state doesnt make a country a Matriarchy.

Maybe not, but having a Margaret Thatcher certainly does

janmb wrote:

Human wrote:

Indigo™ wrote:Doesn't England still have a Queen?

Having just one woman as the head of state doesnt make a country a Matriarchy.

Maybe not, but having a Margaret Thatcher certainly does

and the tin foil hatters still blame her for their slavery today
chuckles

dtspam wrote:Secondly, I don't think most people do not fit the norm. They all have fantasies, fears, wishes, whatever that don't agree with the norm, they just manage to hide it. That's especially true for the much more restricting social rules we've already overcome. What is normal for people today, would have been considered "wrong" and behavior of a minority only decades ago.

This brings to mind the Kinsey Reports, which, while they may or may not have been *completely* accurate, opened a floodgate into research in human sexuality. Nowadays, we have some changes in diagnoses which I think are awesome, for example:

DSM-5 wrote:Sexual Masochism Disorder

A. Over a period of at least six months, recurrent and intense sexual arousal from the act of being humiliated, beaten, bound, or otherwise made to suffer, as manifested by fantasies, urges, or behaviors.

B. The person has clinically significant distress or impairment in important areas of functioning.

As you can see here, sexual masochism is only considered a disorder in cases where it causes distress or impairment. If it does not, you are healthy, according to the DSM-5. Here's some more information on the change:

Spoiler: show

The Paraphilias Subworkgroup is proposing two broad changes that affect all or several of the paraphilia diagnoses, in addition to various amendments to specific diagnoses. The first broad change follows from our consensus that paraphilias are not ipso facto psychiatric disorders. We are proposing that the DSM-V make a distinction between paraphilias and paraphilic disorders. A paraphilia by itself would not automatically justify or require psychiatric intervention. A paraphilic disorder is a paraphilia that causes distress or impairment to the individual or harm to others. One would ascertain a paraphilia (according to the nature of the urges, fantasies, or behaviors) but diagnose a paraphilic disorder (on the basis of distress and impairment). In this conception, having a paraphilia would be a necessary but not a sufficient condition for having a paraphilic disorder.

This approach leaves intact the distinction between normative and non-normative sexual behavior, which could be important to researchers, but without automatically labeling non-normative sexual behavior as psychopathological. It also eliminates certain logical absurdities in the DSM-IV-TR. In that version, for example, a man cannot be classified as a transvestite—however much he cross-dresses and however sexually exciting that is to him—unless he is unhappy about this activity or impaired by it. This change in viewpoint would be reflected in the diagnostic criteria sets by the addition of the word “Disorder” to all the paraphilias. Thus, Sexual Sadism would become Sexual Sadism Disorder; Sexual Masochism would become Sexual Masochism Disorder, and so on.

In general, the distinction between paraphilias and paraphilic disorders is reflected in the format of the diagnostic criteria for specific paraphilias. Paraphilias are ascertained according to the “A” criteria, and paraphilic disorders are diagnosed according to the “A” and “B” criteria. The distinction between paraphilias and paraphilic disorders is discussed in the context of specific diagnoses by Blanchard (2009b, 2009c).

les wrote:

Just my tuppence

Whenever a new female enters the Chatroom, or the Forums.

The subbies swarm in and beg her leadership, tasks, and disciplines.

Shrugs but then I have never seen human in chat either.

Just watch his opinions aired in the forum.

maybe ...........

Maybe what?

And Les, have you forgotten our conversation in chat where you mentioned how your bounding up and down stairs.....

I dont get the attitude of the general men who behave as you mention. How can one submit to an unknown person, knowing NOTHING about the other person. Heck, the other person might not even be a woman. Conversely, if I dont like the (lack of) brains of the woman, all feelings of submissives vanish Having a vagina does not give women carte blanche.

Moreover seeing the inundation of requests to the women here, its pretty pointless for me to join in.

PS: I have only one person on my "foe" list here. That person is a woman

les wrote:Whenever a new female enters the Chatroom, or the Forums.

The subbies swarm in and beg her leadership, tasks, and disciplines.

Human wrote:I dont get the attitude of the general men who behave as you mention. How can one submit to an unknown person, knowing NOTHING about the other person. Heck, the other person might not even be a woman.

The guys who come into chat acting like this are probably the same guys who go into clubs and spout cheesy pickup lines at women. They're not "serious" about it, in the sense that the rest of us are; or maybe they just don't understand.

In either case, it's obvious that some of the "subs" in chat aren't really subs, they're just turned on by a fantasy in their heads, they're looking for something to stroke to. You can usually spot them when they log on for the first time ever and tell a female in chat that they'll "do anything to please you". If they're given a task, it's likely that they won't actually do it.

Yes there have been.

Well if 99% of humanity acts one way, and some small socium on the faraway island acts another way - it's just a local oddity nothing more. It doesn't take away the fact that the majority of nations (not only european - almost every damn one of them) go with dominant men. It is normal then. And some tribe strays from norma, which doesnt mean they are wrong - it's just not a normal behaviour.

The mistake YOU make is that you read the word "normal" as "the only one possible" or "the only one right". That''s not it. Normal - is what's right for the majority, with a little ammount of exceptions as always.
Mens role from the dawn of time was hunting, protection, ruling. Womens role always was taking care of children and home (cave in the earlier years). We are not equal by nature. We are born with completely different urges and goals. And so it happened that the purpose of men is being strong, being able to protect his property (incl women, girls - dont get mad on me ) and to gather as much of new property as possible. While the womens role is taking care of whatever her man brought home and making use of it. Naturally (i.e. by nature laws) man is always at the frontlines, and women is always behind him, supporting him and making him a place to return to.

In the same way it's NORMAL for men to be sexually attracted to women, not the other men, and not dogs or elephants or cockroaches. Some men do not, and they are not normal.

I don't know how you can argue with historical and anthropological fact.

Maybe you should use an other word: Hetero vanilla sex is the common/predominant behavior. That's a simple observation.
Normal implies it's the way it should or has to be for some reason. Since common behavior changes quite a bit, that theory is hard to hold up.
Defining something as Natural is even more difficult, because there has to be an biological reason. It's easy to overlook reasons for different behavior in biology. And to argue with biology is difficult for humans as they are social and intelligent beings and there behavior thus as always been far more complex.
There is some truth to your observations, but you just simplify human behavior far too much.

Nezhul, you're equating normal with what most of the people in the world do, the average. That is one definition of the word. Another is "of natural occurrence".

ALL of the users on Milovana who participate in T&D are abnormal according to your first definition. The goal of the average man since the dawn of time has been to bust his nuts inside a woman as quickly as possible.

Randomly stumbled upon this image.. though it'd fit here: