Jump to content

RL Male becoming SL female looking for TL female mentor


You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 2536 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts


Perrie Juran wrote:

 

I know it is obvious to say although sometimes I get the impression it is not always obvious to people that what we all (yes, I know I'm using that dirty word 'all') want is to be happy in our relationships with others.  It can be challenging at times because so many have different expectations in a relationship. 

I'm glad to be part of a time where women are not carte blanche being relegated to the role of second class citizens and that where that is being done to women that it is being challenged.

I agree we all want to be happy in our relationships but first I think we need to be happy with ourselves.  Then those in a relationship need to be able to express what they want from it and come to some kind of agreement.  It is difficult because as we grow as individuals what we want from the relationship may change and that needs to be communicated in a non-judgmental way.  Not easy, maybe a little too idealistic.

I'm also glad to be living at this time when the expression of the feminine in both men and women is more acceptable and honored.  But because it is a shift in thinking there is resistance and confusion but that is all part of the birthing/growing pains.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 100
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic


Serra Nightfire wrote:


Madelaine McMasters wrote:


Mysteriann wrote:

I received a message from her yesterday morning saying that breasts are something that are very important to a woman and that most women spend a lot of time thinking about their own breasts.  That most women she knew were not satisfied with their breasts, that the well-endowed want to be smaller, flat-chested women want to be bigger, or they don't like the shape.  She said not all women of course, but many and perhaps most, snd that girls Marisa's age were starting to think about their bodies differently, so I needed to start thinking about my breasts.

It has not been my experience that breasts are very important to women. At least no more so than Mr. Wiggly is important to fellas. I see all the magazine headlines at the market checkout and wonder who reads that crap. My 92 year old neighbor thinks I should wear my hair longer and pad my bras. I told her I was toying with the idea of growing my hair long enough to stuff in my bra and she stopped mentioning it.

I fear you are going to get so caught up in the minutae of this RP that you'll miss the big picture. I don't think you can plan a scenario that will teach you what it's like. There's that old saying that life is what happens to you while you are busy making other plans.

I don't know, I think it really depends on the woman for that one.  I know that when I'm getting ready to go to a club in real life, I'll put on shirts and think that my boobs look too small in them and then I'll change to a more flattering shirt.  While it's not something I think about constantly, it is something that I think about from time to time. (36B for anyone wondering, I'm naturally skinny though)

Though I really wouldn't want to get implants because I think that they would feel like having a fat lip, but only in your chest.  It would be like this lump of junk in your chest that would feel odd or something.  Not the mention the fact that they are at least $6k USD for both, and that's a bottom of the barrel price from what I have heard.  ><  Not only that, they need maintenance and stuff once in a while, depending on which type of implant you get.

Back on point though, I guess it really depends on the woman and the situation at the time on if it's something that we are really concerned with or not.

Yes, it certainly does depend on the person. I see people buy those checkout line magazines, and I see people who appear to care a great deal about their appearance (they are not necessarily the same people ;-). During my adolescent years, appearance was more important to me, but I don't have any women friends that talk much about their figures, other than to say they'd like to lose weight, or gravity. And when that topic comes up for discussion, it seems the men have the same concerns.

I'll primp and preen a bit before going out to dinner, but I spend more time on my face, my hair and my fingernails than I do on my breasts. My fingernails were once sooo easy, I just painted them to match my red car. My current car is grey.

 (For anyone wondering, I'm 32A+. The "+" from doing extra credit.)

I suppose the concern I have over Mysteriann's approach is that it seems too premeditated to allow the serendipity that I find so instructive.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Black_Like_Me.jpg

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Like_Me

 

I think that it is great that we can do and explore things in SL that in RL would or could be difficult for us and that we can learn and grow from these experiences.

Now I am dating myself but I remember this book which was extremely controversial at the time.  A White man trying to explore the Black man's world.

It was good because it helped to open and further discussion about things that needed to be discussed and dealt with.

I don't know how long it remained that way, but it was if my memory serves me required reading when I was in H.S.  I do know I read it  and did a report on it in my literature class.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites


Perrie Juran wrote:

Black_Like_Me.jpg

 

 

I think that it is great that we can do and explore things in SL that in RL would or could be difficult for us and that we can learn and grow from these experiences.

Now I am dating myself but I remember this book which was extremely controversial at the time.  A White man trying to explore the Black man's world.

It was good because it helped to open and further discussion about things that needed to be discussed and dealt with.

I don't know how long it remained that way, but it was if my memory serves me required reading when I was in H.S.  I do know I read it  and did a report on it in my literature class.

 

Reminded me of this tv show, and now I see why.  The tv show was based on the book, it seems.  Anyone else remember this show? (sorry to get a little off topic, but it still relates in a way)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black._White.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello, Just wanted to respond to a couple of things.  My mentor mentioned that all of the women in her family are well-endowed and that her breasts "can be a real hassle at times" and that she's often wished she were smaller.  If your breasts get in your way, I can see how you'd think about them a lot more than if they didn't.

Right now we are just starting, so we're having to kick ideas around, the topics of the RPs are pre-meditated at this point, but they won't be once we get to know one another, establish a rhythm and second lives and things will start unfolding spontaneously.  That's when serendipity happens.

I'll paste in a response I sent to my mentor today, so you can have an idea of our process at this stage.

 

Hi,

I definitely want Marisa to be a fully fleshed out 3-dimensional human being who happens to be a woman, but being a woman is an inherent part of her sense of identity but far from the only factor that goes into making her who she is. For instance, I'm a straight white male and those are all of those things are part of my identity, but they're not who I am.  They're rather superficial factors but they are factors.  I know there are people who take their primary sense of identity from their race, or their gender or sexuality, but those aren't whole people.  They're like cartoons.

As to how quickly Marisa ages I think we should play it by ear.  I'm thinking right now Marisa should stay around this age for a few more weeks, maybe more, maybe less.  I think a great deal depends on what you think.  I have no experience being a pre-teen girl, you do.  This is a really formative time in a girl's life and I think Marisa should experience all of the highs and lows and in betweens that happen in a girl's life at around that age. So please think of some of those things that are peculiar to a girl's experience.  I have no idea what those would be.  Perhaps first time allowed to wear make-up? First bra? First boy-girl dance?

Marisa is a typical girl.  She's very verbal and language oriented, loves to read and enjoys socializing and conversation. She likes writing stories and thinks she might like to be a writer when she grows up.  She hates math because it's boring and she's constantly getting caught reading library books hidden behind her math book during math class.  She loves animals and if Elise weren't firm about it, their house would be overrun with stray kittens, puppies and any other animal that Marisa thinks is lost or hungry.  Marisa found a baby bird that had fallen out of its nest, that they tried to nurse back to health.  Marisa was inconsolable when it died.  She may want to be a veterinarian, too, or a veterinarian who writes about animals. 

 

At this point we're still developing the characters.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites


Mysteriann wrote:

Hello, Just wanted to respond to a couple of things.  My mentor mentioned that all of the women in her family are well-endowed and that her breasts "can be a real hassle at times" and that she's often wished she were smaller.  If your breasts get in your way, I can see how you'd think about them a lot more than if they didn't.

Right now we are just starting, so we're having to kick ideas around, the topics of the RPs are pre-meditated at this point, but they won't be once we get to know one another, establish a rhythm and second lives and things will start unfolding spontaneously.  That's when serendipity happens.

I'll paste in a response I sent to my mentor today, so you can have an idea of our process at this stage.

 

Hi,

I definitely want Marisa to be a fully fleshed out 3-dimensional human being who happens to be a woman, but being a woman is an inherent part of her sense of identity but far from the only factor that goes into making her who she is. For instance, I'm a straight white male and those are all of those things are part of my identity, but they're not who I am.  They're rather superficial factors but they are factors.  I know there are people who take their primary sense of identity from their race, or their gender or sexuality, but those aren't whole people.  They're like cartoons.

As to how quickly Marisa ages I think we should play it by ear.  I'm thinking right now Marisa should stay around this age for a few more weeks, maybe more, maybe less.  I think a great deal depends on what you think.  I have no experience being a pre-teen girl, you do.  This is a really formative time in a girl's life and I think Marisa should experience all of the highs and lows and in betweens that happen in a girl's life at around that age. So please think of some of those things that are peculiar to a girl's experience.  I have no idea what those would be.  Perhaps first time allowed to wear make-up? First bra? First boy-girl dance?

Marisa is a typical girl.  She's very verbal and language oriented, loves to read and enjoys socializing and conversation. She likes writing stories and thinks she might like to be a writer when she grows up.  She hates math because it's boring and she's constantly getting caught reading library books hidden behind her math book during math class.  She loves animals and if Elise weren't firm about it, their house would be overrun with stray kittens, puppies and any other animal that Marisa thinks is lost or hungry.  Marisa found a baby bird that had fallen out of its nest, that they tried to nurse back to health.  Marisa was inconsolable when it died.  She may want to be a veterinarian, too, or a veterinarian who writes about animals. 

 

At this point we're still developing the characters.

 

When I RP'ed the retired brick layer years ago, the only thing in my mind while doing so was that I was 65 and a bricklayer. I've lived around engineers and tradesmen all my life, so it wasn't hard to get the "lingo". But beyond that, it was me doing the talking. Same sense of humor, same interests (astronomy, making things, etc), same outlook (optimist). I made almost no effort to disguise myself in that male persona. I let everbody else do that for me, and my goodness did they do it.

That was the most illuminating thing for me, that by simply declaring my persona to be male, I'd loaded a world of expectation into the heads of everybody else in the room. I may be fooling myself by thinking that I didn't behave any differently in those two personas. If I eventually did, it was (I think) in response to the way people responded to me. Had I constructed some elaborate alternate persona, I don't know if I'd ever have been able to tease out whether I was treated differently simply because of gender, or because of all the other variables I've introduced.

Here in SL, where all my friends know that Snugs and Maddy are creations of same imagination sitting in a chair in Wisconsin, and that I make almost no effort to differentiate them, they happily take sides in arguments between us, and tell me that they do detect a difference in their characters. I love that.

ETA: I describe Snugs as my conscience or ego, which I often display entirely within Maddy in the form of self deprecation or open reflection in conversation. In that respect, there is a difference of character, but one that's treated in an interesting fashion by my friends. I've been told that I'm sometimes too critical of myself, but I don't think Snugs has never been found too critical of me. It's as if nobody wants to hurt Snugs' feelings. People feel sorry for Snugs, but never express sympathy for my conscience when I expose it directly. This anthropomorphizing just tickles me.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Mysteriann wrote:

 

 

At this point we're still developing the characters.

 

You really need to put more of your ownself into this, not just be a fictional charachter.

What experiences from your own life can you bring into this.

Perhaps you were the Tom Boy, always climbing trees.  Maybe you were the shy girl.  Were you the exceptional student or did you struggle in math.

Otherwise what you may find is your self fumbling about as you try to relate with other peope.

A back story can help but the source really needs to be your own experiences if you really want it to live for you.

this may be just my two cents but it is what I think.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Mysteriann wrote:

I read that book when I was about ten and was mesmerized by it.  If I hadn't read it, this project probably wouldn't be happening.

I haven't read the book, but I wonder... did the author make any changes other than to the color of his skin? It seems to me that was a necessary and sufficient change. I'd have carried as little additional change into the experiment as possible. Even in my own IRC experiment, I made the potential mistake of having my alternate persona be much older than me. I did that to reduce the potential for romantic interest, but that also deprived me of the chance to see that aspect of being male. (Which might be the arena in which our differences become most apparent).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do agree with you 100%.  I'm not trying to create a completely different person, just a slightly different female version of me. I love music. She loves music. I'm a bookworm. She's a bookworm.  I love to dance.  She will love to dance.  I can't do math and don't understand much hard science so she's certainly not going to be a rocket scientist.  lol

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just curious now... is this all really just an experiment to see what it's like to be a woman or have you ever thought about becoming a woman in real life?  Not meaning to offend you with that question or anything, but you seem really into wanting to know what it's like.  And there is nothing wrong with a straight man wanting to be a woman or cross dress in real life.

But all of this has really set off my curiosity meter, so I really wanted to ask.  :)

Link to post
Share on other sites


Perrie Juran wrote:


Carole Franizzi wrote:


Perrie Juran wrote:


Carole Franizzi wrote:

 

-
just a shame everyone (usually men though) seems to want to embrace the idea that it's natural for men to dominate and use aggression on women.


I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean by the phrase I have underlined.  By "embrace," do you mean "use the idea as an excuse for their (wrong) actions?"


C: Yes, I meant exactly that.

 

 

Perrie Juran wrote:

Also, removing the idea of dominance or aggression from the equation, what about the concept that some if not many of us men were raised with, that we were responsible to take charge or lead in a monogamous relationship?  Do women naturally prefer a man who is decisive or indecisive?

 

C: What about the concept? Don't mean to sound rude, but that's their problem (and the women they lve with) if they've been brought up to think they should be in charge of another adult and their joint off-spring. It's not what I was brought up to believe in - I was taught to look after myself, and in a relationship to take half the responsibility.

 

 

Perrie Juran wrote:

I can't really speak for other times and places in history, I've not studied them in detail on this subject,  but I do know that we are living in a time where many of the traditional roles have been questioned and / or have changed.  And honestly, sometimes it can get confusing because it appears that the rules keep getting changed on us, both for men and for women.

C: I think, maybe, the transition from an old model of gender roles to a new has happened in such a short space of time (a few decades) in comparison to centuries and centuries of the 'old way', and that has left some men, brought up by old school men, very perplexed as to what's expected of them. If it's any consolation, women themselves are confused and stressed by attempting to be strong, independent, motherly, wifely, responsible, a sex goddess, etc, etc.

 

 

I was raised in an "old school" home though I would never describe my Father as being aggressive.  Posibly as dominate.  He was clearly the "head of the house" and his word was final.  On the other side of that equation, he was kind and caring and worked hard to take care of my Mother and to see that we (our family) had what we needed. 

Later on after I had moved out I did watch them change, my Mother 'taking a stand' (I don't know a better phrase) about some things that were important to her and my Father responding positively to that.  One thing that never changed was that my Mother saw her role in the relationship as my Father's support person, that her primary role was to support my Father in his endeavors.

Me, I joined the "tune in, turn on, drop out" movement.  Unfortunatly in that there was still a lot of objectifying of women going on under the guise of "free love."  We traded one set of problems for another.  But also for many of us there was a lot of learning and growing going on.

I know it is obvious to say although sometimes I get the impression it is not always obvious to people that what we all (yes, I know I'm using that dirty word 'all') want is to be happy in our relationships with others.  It can be challenging at times because so many have different expectations in a relationship. 

I'm glad to be part of a time where women are not carte blanche being relegated to the role of second class citizens and that where that is being done to women that it is being challenged.

Lovely post, Perrie.

Old school parenting and you launched smack bang into the middle of the New Man Era. You were on the cusp of massive social change. How could it not be confusing? However much we intellectually disconnect from our parents ideals, the role they have in our lives means their ideals linger on in us, even if just sub-consciously.

You were a flower child? An actual Sixties American hippy? Gosh. Honoured to meet you. Hey - turns out you're older than me! Who'd have thought it? I was born too late to see anything of that 'scene' except from my pram. Plus, wrong side of the ocean. Maybe apart from London, which was more swinging than tuned out, and the bigger cities in the UK, the whole Age of Aquarius thing was something seen more in films than on the streets. I'm trying to think if I know any RL Brit hippies....mm...yeah, but all from cities. I think the provinces might have missed out on a lot of that; plus, I suppose it wouldn't have been much fun to do a sit-in under British drizzle.

You rather burst a bubble of  mine with your post. The male peers of those pioneering feminists were sneaky male chauvinist pigs? Oh, my God. That's a shocker. I genuinely thought most were dead keen to be liberated of their own gender role constraints. Shame on me that I've never come across any literature on the topic, though I confess to have given up on reading 'pure' feminist literature years ago - not for any negative reasons, like disillusionment (there is none, as far as I'm concerned), but simply because I think at some point along the line, I must have metabolised the concepts, made them mine, felt no need to hear further reiterations about things I already knew.

However, if I'm truly sincere, there's perhaps another reason for not being a militant feminist (whatever that means), though I'm aware I probably come across as such in places like this, where others cannot see how 'girly' I actually am - you know - a softer image counter-balancing the sometimes harsh words which come out of my self-opinionated brain. And that reason brings me back to your observations - changes such as those required cannot happen in one or two generations. I think that, perhaps, I suddenly realised that I would not be around to see society when it was truly gender-equal (and racially, and ethnically, and sexual-orientationally - made that word up - and, and, and...), and I decided that life's too short to be fighting all the time. Thanks to those who went before me, I don't have to spend my middle and old age fighting the key battles. They already did that - and all hail to them - I have benefited legally, socially, psychologically. The seed is sown, now what's primarily required is time.

Problem is...us. All those generations who find themselves between a rock and a hard place, gender-wise. Men who feel they're being first asked to 'soften', then berated for being unmanly, being asked to be hands-on parents, then relegated to second class parents when there's a divorce, seeing women themselves present their bodies as sexual objects, then rapped on the knuckles for responding...as if they were objects.  Women who are running themselves ragged trying to do it all, heeding too much the constructs of the media of what they should be, sometimes out-doing men in reviving retrograde stereotypes...  Meh.

Take heart, Perrie. For our great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandchildren, it'll all be much easier.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites


Carole Franizzi wrote:


Perrie Juran wrote:


Carole Franizzi wrote:


Perrie Juran wrote:


Carole Franizzi wrote:

 

-
just a shame everyone (usually men though) seems to want to embrace the idea that it's natural for men to dominate and use aggression on women.


I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean by the phrase I have underlined.  By "embrace," do you mean "use the idea as an excuse for their (wrong) actions?"


C: Yes, I meant exactly that.

 

 

Perrie Juran wrote:

Also, removing the idea of dominance or aggression from the equation, what about the concept that some if not many of us men were raised with, that we were responsible to take charge or lead in a monogamous relationship?  Do women naturally prefer a man who is decisive or indecisive?

 

C: What about the concept? Don't mean to sound rude, but that's their problem (and the women they lve with) if they've been brought up to think they should be in charge of another adult and their joint off-spring. It's not what I was brought up to believe in - I was taught to look after myself, and in a relationship to take half the responsibility.

 

 

Perrie Juran wrote:

I can't really speak for other times and places in history, I've not studied them in detail on this subject,  but I do know that we are living in a time where many of the traditional roles have been questioned and / or have changed.  And honestly, sometimes it can get confusing because it appears that the rules keep getting changed on us, both for men and for women.

C: I think, maybe, the transition from an old model of gender roles to a new has happened in such a short space of time (a few decades) in comparison to centuries and centuries of the 'old way', and that has left some men, brought up by old school men, very perplexed as to what's expected of them. If it's any consolation, women themselves are confused and stressed by attempting to be strong, independent, motherly, wifely, responsible, a sex goddess, etc, etc.

 

 

I was raised in an "old school" home though I would never describe my Father as being aggressive.  Posibly as dominate.  He was clearly the "head of the house" and his word was final.  On the other side of that equation, he was kind and caring and worked hard to take care of my Mother and to see that we (our family) had what we needed. 

Later on after I had moved out I did watch them change, my Mother 'taking a stand' (I don't know a better phrase) about some things that were important to her and my Father responding positively to that.  One thing that never changed was that my Mother saw her role in the relationship as my Father's support person, that her primary role was to support my Father in his endeavors.

Me, I joined the "tune in, turn on, drop out" movement.  Unfortunatly in that there was still a lot of objectifying of women going on under the guise of "free love."  We traded one set of problems for another.  But also for many of us there was a lot of learning and growing going on.

I know it is obvious to say although sometimes I get the impression it is not always obvious to people that what we all (yes, I know I'm using that dirty word 'all') want is to be happy in our relationships with others.  It can be challenging at times because so many have different expectations in a relationship. 

I'm glad to be part of a time where women are not carte blanche being relegated to the role of second class citizens and that where that is being done to women that it is being challenged.

Lovely post, Perrie.

Old school parenting and you launched smack bang into the middle of the New Man Era. You were on the cusp of
massive
social change. How could it not be confusing? However much we intellectually disconnect from our parents ideals, the role they have in our lives means their ideals linger on in us, even if just sub-consciously.

You were a flower child? An actual Sixties American hippy? Gosh. Honoured to meet you. Hey - turns out you're older than me! Who'd have thought it? I was born too late to see anything of that 'scene' except from my pram. Plus, wrong side of the ocean. Maybe apart from London, which was more swinging than tuned out, and the bigger cities in the UK, the whole Age of Aquarius thing was something seen more in films than on the streets. I'm trying to think if I know any RL Brit hippies....mm...yeah, but all from cities. I think the provinces might have missed out on a lot of that; plus, I suppose it wouldn't have been much fun to do a sit-in under British drizzle.

You rather burst a bubble of  mine with your post. The male peers of those pioneering feminists were sneaky male chauvinist pigs? Oh, my God. That's a shocker. I genuinely thought most were dead keen to be liberated of their own gender role constraints. Shame on me that I've never come across any literature on the topic, though I confess to have given up on reading 'pure' feminist literature years ago - not for any negative reasons, like disillusionment (there is none, as far as I'm concerned), but simply because I think at some point along the line, I must have metabolised the concepts, made them mine, felt no need to hear further reiterations about things I already knew.

However, if I'm truly sincere, there's perhaps another reason for not being a militant feminist (whatever that means), though I'm aware I probably come across as such in places like this, where others cannot see how 'girly' I actually am - you know - a softer image counter-balancing the sometimes harsh words which come out of my self-opinionated brain. And that reason brings me back to your observations - changes such as those required cannot happen in one or two generations. I think that, perhaps, I suddenly realised that I would not be around to see society when it was truly gender-equal (and racially, and ethnically, and sexual-orientationally - made that word up - and, and, and...), and I decided that life's too short to be fighting all the time. Thanks to those who went before me, I don't have to spend my middle and old age fighting the key battles. They already did that - and all hail to them - I have benefited legally, socially, psychologically. The seed is sown, now what's primarily required is time.

Problem is...us. All those generations who find themselves between a rock and a hard place, gender-wise. Men who feel they're being first asked to 'soften', then berated for being unmanly, being asked to be hands-on parents, then relegated to second class parents when there's a divorce, seeing women themselves present their bodies as sexual objects, then rapped on the knuckles for responding...as if they were objects.  Women who are running themselves ragged trying to do it all, heeding too much the constructs of the media of what they should be, sometimes out-doing men in reviving retrograde stereotypes...  Meh.

Take heart, Perrie. For our great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandchildren, it'll all be much easier.

 

 

 

 

 

I think that you may have just won the thread.  :smileylol:

Link to post
Share on other sites


Carole Franizzi wrote:


Perrie Juran wrote:


Carole Franizzi wrote:


Perrie Juran wrote:


Carole Franizzi wrote:

 

-
just a shame everyone (usually men though) seems to want to embrace the idea that it's natural for men to dominate and use aggression on women.


I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean by the phrase I have underlined.  By "embrace," do you mean "use the idea as an excuse for their (wrong) actions?"


C: Yes, I meant exactly that.

 

 

Perrie Juran wrote:

Also, removing the idea of dominance or aggression from the equation, what about the concept that some if not many of us men were raised with, that we were responsible to take charge or lead in a monogamous relationship?  Do women naturally prefer a man who is decisive or indecisive?

 

C: What about the concept? Don't mean to sound rude, but that's their problem (and the women they lve with) if they've been brought up to think they should be in charge of another adult and their joint off-spring. It's not what I was brought up to believe in - I was taught to look after myself, and in a relationship to take half the responsibility.

 

 

Perrie Juran wrote:

I can't really speak for other times and places in history, I've not studied them in detail on this subject,  but I do know that we are living in a time where many of the traditional roles have been questioned and / or have changed.  And honestly, sometimes it can get confusing because it appears that the rules keep getting changed on us, both for men and for women.

C: I think, maybe, the transition from an old model of gender roles to a new has happened in such a short space of time (a few decades) in comparison to centuries and centuries of the 'old way', and that has left some men, brought up by old school men, very perplexed as to what's expected of them. If it's any consolation, women themselves are confused and stressed by attempting to be strong, independent, motherly, wifely, responsible, a sex goddess, etc, etc.

 

 

I was raised in an "old school" home though I would never describe my Father as being aggressive.  Posibly as dominate.  He was clearly the "head of the house" and his word was final.  On the other side of that equation, he was kind and caring and worked hard to take care of my Mother and to see that we (our family) had what we needed. 

Later on after I had moved out I did watch them change, my Mother 'taking a stand' (I don't know a better phrase) about some things that were important to her and my Father responding positively to that.  One thing that never changed was that my Mother saw her role in the relationship as my Father's support person, that her primary role was to support my Father in his endeavors.

Me, I joined the "tune in, turn on, drop out" movement.  Unfortunatly in that there was still a lot of objectifying of women going on under the guise of "free love."  We traded one set of problems for another.  But also for many of us there was a lot of learning and growing going on.

I know it is obvious to say although sometimes I get the impression it is not always obvious to people that what we all (yes, I know I'm using that dirty word 'all') want is to be happy in our relationships with others.  It can be challenging at times because so many have different expectations in a relationship. 

I'm glad to be part of a time where women are not carte blanche being relegated to the role of second class citizens and that where that is being done to women that it is being challenged.

Lovely post, Perrie.

Old school parenting and you launched smack bang into the middle of the New Man Era. You were on the cusp of
massive
social change. How could it not be confusing? However much we intellectually disconnect from our parents ideals, the role they have in our lives means their ideals linger on in us, even if just sub-consciously.

You were a flower child? An actual Sixties American hippy? Gosh. Honoured to meet you. Hey - turns out you're older than me! Who'd have thought it? I was born too late to see anything of that 'scene' except from my pram. Plus, wrong side of the ocean. Maybe apart from London, which was more swinging than tuned out, and the bigger cities in the UK, the whole Age of Aquarius thing was something seen more in films than on the streets. I'm trying to think if I know any RL Brit hippies....mm...yeah, but all from cities. I think the provinces might have missed out on a lot of that; plus, I suppose it wouldn't have been much fun to do a sit-in under British drizzle.

You rather burst a bubble of  mine with your post. The male peers of those pioneering feminists were sneaky male chauvinist pigs? Oh, my God. That's a shocker. I genuinely thought most were dead keen to be liberated of their own gender role constraints. Shame on me that I've never come across any literature on the topic, though I confess to have given up on reading 'pure' feminist literature years ago - not for any negative reasons, like disillusionment (there is none, as far as I'm concerned), but simply because I think at some point along the line, I must have metabolised the concepts, made them mine, felt no need to hear further reiterations about things I already knew.

However, if I'm truly sincere, there's perhaps another reason for not being a militant feminist (whatever that means), though I'm aware I probably come across as such in places like this, where others cannot see how 'girly' I actually am - you know - a softer image counter-balancing the sometimes harsh words which come out of my self-opinionated brain. And that reason brings me back to your observations - changes such as those required cannot happen in one or two generations. I think that, perhaps, I suddenly realised that I would not be around to see society when it was truly gender-equal (and racially, and ethnically, and sexual-orientationally - made that word up - and, and, and...), and I decided that life's too short to be fighting all the time. Thanks to those who went before me, I don't have to spend my middle and old age fighting the key battles. They already did that - and all hail to them - I have benefited legally, socially, psychologically. The seed is sown, now what's primarily required is time.

Problem is...us. All those generations who find themselves between a rock and a hard place, gender-wise. Men who feel they're being first asked to 'soften', then berated for being unmanly, being asked to be hands-on parents, then relegated to second class parents when there's a divorce, seeing women themselves present their bodies as sexual objects, then rapped on the knuckles for responding...as if they were objects.  Women who are running themselves ragged trying to do it all, heeding too much the constructs of the media of what they should be, sometimes out-doing men in reviving retrograde stereotypes...  Meh.

Take heart, Perrie. For our great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandchildren, it'll all be much easier.

 

I'm not quite that old, I caught the "tail end" of things. 

It was a veritable melting pot of ideas and experimenting.

For all the talk about "Free Love," actually most of the Hippies I knew were basically monogamous. 

I will say that most of the guys were trying to break from the old definitions and roles in marriage.  But Hippie Weddings were common.  We just refused to get licenses but many would seek out someone they perceived as "spiritual" to over see the ceremony. 

And while yes, there were still those who objectified women, I didn't mean to imply that it was rampant.  But definitely enough to taint things.

I do hope it becomes easier for future generations.

Sometimes I think my children have it harder than I did.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 


Madelaine McMasters wrote:

Here in SL, where all my friends know that Snugs and Maddy are creations of same imagination sitting in a chair in Wisconsin, and that I make almost no effort to differentiate them, they happily take sides in arguments between us, and tell me that they do detect a difference in their characters. I love that.

 


As do we ;-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is my last word on the OP's subject.  If you want to know what it feels like to be female, then I suggest you read the following excerpt from Dr. Louann Brizendine's book "The Female Brain" and learn something of the origins of female behavior. Or if you don't want to read it, I am also posting a link to a video of her speech on the subject.  If you can emulate the brain differences she points out in her excerpt, then you have a fair chance of expieriencing being female.  If you can't then I would suggest you read it anyway, as you will at least understand some basic differences between male and female brains and perhaps be able to mimic female behavior.

http://www.oprah.com/health/Excerpt-from-The-Female-Brain-by-Dr-Louann-Brizendine

http://fora.tv/2006/11/17/Female_Brain

To the others here who seem to think that pointing out how men and women differ is sexist, I recommend the above excerpt as well.  (btw, I am in no way anti feminist.  In fact, according to the men I know and some I've met in sl, I am an almost militant  feminist).

But I am vastly flattered by the poster who proclaimed that I have swept away decades of feminism with my post.  I had no idea that I possessed such influence over society. :smileyhappy:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for the recommendations.  That subject is of particular interest to me.  

Due to a medical condition I have osteopena (the precursor to osteoporosis), have breasts (small ones, but with breast tissue nonetheless.  I have to have breast exams) and a number of other physical characteristics more common among females than males.  It's due to the fact that this medical condition has caused me to have an almost zero testosterone level and higher than normal levels of estrogen.  Although my body has been out of whack for years I just recently found out about my hormonal levels.  So I started reading about the effects of female hormones on the body and what they do to the brain.  I do know that male and female brains are structurally different and I think hormones in the womb cause the structural differences.  But I know that hormones also affect the brain after birth.  I know that I haven't always had zero testosterone, because although I can't grow a beard or moustache, I do have to shave every few days and I used to have a sex drive.  I am very interested in learning more about the female brain.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Loralinda wrote:

I'm glad you found the mentor you were looking for.  And as to switching gender in sl, that's been a heated topic on the forums before.  I guess as long as you are honest from the get-go, then people you form relationships with won't feel that you deceived them once they find out what gender you are in rl.

I just have a comment on actually experiencing being female.  As a male, it can't be done.  You can
imitate
being the opposite sex, but unless you have a brain transplant from male to female, your experience will always just be experiencing from a male perspective.  Men's brains have been proven to operate differently from female brains.  The brain pathways are formed differently due to upbringing specific to your sex.  A woman's hormones effect females to such a degree that their female personalities will reflect less agression, more submissiveness, a need for emotional support from other females, a feeling of group cooperation rather than competition.  So your outside may inspire other reactions from people in sl, but your experience of it will never be the same as a female experience due to the way your brain is formed.  Women have different expectations than men, and will react accordingly as per their brain pathways formed from years of being female.

I'm sure some women will insist that they can be just as competitive as men, however, I know some women in high powered positions, and the way they go about problem solving is still inately female.  Can a woman have success in male dominated field?  Yes, of course.  And some women are more left brained than right brained.  I am one of those women in rl.  Often, even though I appear as female in sl as I am in rl, I am mistaken for male, just by my tendency to be analytical rather than emotional.  But I would never presume to think that I could experience the world as a male.  It wouldn't be possible.  I simply don't have the brain chemistry nor the right brain wiring to do so.

Excellent post Loralinda.  I agree, and if more people would study the science behind what's makes us who we are, they would understand more.  Also, along with the brain, there's an entire body physiology and it's accompanying systemic interaction that distinguishes men from women.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Syo Emerald wrote:

Please be careful with stereotypes or we end up in a really bad corner.

Especially because of things like this:
more submissiveness

Gee, I love science! 

Here's a scientific study that says that just by smiling men can make women more obedient and submissive. 

http://www.medicaldaily.com/articles/13327/20121129/mans-smile-makes-women-more-obedient-submissive.htm

*smiles* 

Opps, I'm not a man...so I guess it won't work for me!        *laughing* 

Link to post
Share on other sites


Loralinda wrote:

Syo, being submissive is not a stereo type.  It's just an anthropomological and biological fact that estrogen effects women by suppressing testosterone (the aggression hormone) thereby making them more submissive.  That's not the entire picture however.  Some anthropologists believe that since women tend to be physically less muscular (again due to lack of testosterone) they have evolved to look to males and a group community for protection.  Cave women were thought to have basically stayed with the children and gather berries, vegetables, roots etc. (something they could do accompanied by children) while the cavemen were the ones who went out to hunt wild game.  These roles simply came about by default due to physical differences. This being the way things were for thousands and thousands of years,  women have never physically evolved into more male strength and size. 

Being submissive has been the female behavior most likely to elicit male protective behavior and therefore has served women as an effective survival tool.  Despite modern day female freedom and many more female bread winners (and I certainly think women have proven themselves strong enough to achieve in career and still parent effectively, a double burden if you will) women are still physically smaller and physically less able to defend themselves against male strength and aggression.  If you doubt this, then look at domestic violence statistics.  Many many more women are the victims of domestic violence perpetrated by males in their lives.  Therefore, women often will opt to "give in" to men's demands or to "go along to get along" in order to avoid a physical confrontation.  So in this sense, I was referring to women as more submissive.  Mentally, I can challenge any man and usually win in the intellectual arena.  Physically, I could not though I am sure there are a few exceptions to the rule out there.

One more note of interest, I have myself experienced the difference in personality which occurs when estrogen drops and allows testosterone to rise in females.  I had a hysterectomy at an age when most women are able to have babies.  Before, I was a "go along to get along" type.  A constant pleaser trying to keep my romantic relationships in tact by acting in a more submissive manner.  Afterward, I opted to use herbal hormone therapy which is not nearly as strong as those prescribed by doctors.  Due to this, I had a natural drop in estrogen and a consequent rise in testosterone.  Suddenly, I was much less willing to just be dictated to by the males in my life.  I was more competitive with others and did not shrink from confrontations the way I had before.  I was a more agressive driver than I ever had been, and much more outspoken than ever before in my life.

So this is why I refer to women (those with normal estrogen levels) as exhibiting apparent submissive behavior.

Another excellent and knowledgeable post.  Thank you.  : )

Link to post
Share on other sites


Syo Emerald wrote:

Submissive IS a stereotype! Or are all Mistresses not full women? Are all women in leading positions, all women in independent positions fake women? Every woman in the military or the police?

Its sexism to say women have a natural rule as weak minded beings who have to seek men to protect (and rule) them. I'm a woman and I don't submit to anybody! I'll fight, even if its the last thing I would do on earth. (and no I'm not an old lady whos hormones dropped).

I don't say all women are that strong, but I won't let those statements go trough as truth.

Hmm, you don't seem to understand the posts made by Loralinda.  Instead you go off on some rant...which is letting me know that you either didn't understand what she wrote, or you're so caught up in your own tirades, that you can't see reality when it's presented in a thoughtful and rational manner. 

 

 

Also, a female's submissive nature in relation to males, within the human range of dynamics, isn't a stereotype, nor is it a stereotype with any of the primates.  (humans are primates)  This is an observable phenomena, and cuts cross all cultures and ethnic groups.   It has nothing to do with the fact that woman also can be police officers, military, or in positions to lead.  Some women being in positions of leadership or authority,  does not negate the reality that women as a group, are more submissive than men.  

Link to post
Share on other sites


Carole Franizzi wrote:


Loralinda wrote:

Syo, being submissive is not a stereo type.  It's just an anthropomological and biological fact that estrogen effects women by suppressing testosterone (the aggression hormone) thereby making them more submissive.  That's not the entire picture however.  Some anthropologists believe that since women tend to be physically less muscular (again due to lack of testosterone) they have evolved to look to males and a group community for protection.  Cave women were thought to have basically stayed with the children and gather berries, vegetables, roots etc. (something they could do accompanied by children) while the cavemen were the ones who went out to hunt wild game.  These roles simply came about by default due to physical differences. This being the way things were for thousands and thousands of years,  women have never physically evolved into more male strength and size. 

Being submissive has been the female behavior most likely to elicit male protective behavior and therefore has served women as an effective survival tool.  Despite modern day female freedom and many more female bread winners (and I certainly think women have proven themselves strong enough to achieve in career and still parent effectively, a double burden if you will) women are still physically smaller and physically less able to defend themselves against male strength and aggression.  If you doubt this, then look at domestic violence statistics.  Many many more women are the victims of domestic violence perpetrated by males in their lives.  Therefore, women often will opt to "give in" to men's demands or to "go along to get along" in order to avoid a physical confrontation.  So in this sense, I was referring to women as more submissive.  Mentally, I can challenge any man and usually win in the intellectual arena.  Physically, I could not though I am sure there are a few exceptions to the rule out there.

One more note of interest, I have myself experienced the difference in personality which occurs when estrogen drops and allows testosterone to rise in females.  I had a hysterectomy at an age when most women are able to have babies.  Before, I was a "go along to get along" type.  A constant pleaser trying to keep my romantic relationships in tact by acting in a more submissive manner.  Afterward, I opted to use herbal hormone therapy which is not nearly as strong as those prescribed by doctors.  Due to this, I had a natural drop in estrogen and a consequent rise in testosterone.  Suddenly, I was much less willing to just be dictated to by the males in my life.  I was more competitive with others and did not shrink from confrontations the way I had before.  I was a more agressive driver than I ever had been, and much more outspoken than ever before in my life.

So this is why I refer to women (those with normal estrogen levels) as exhibiting apparent submissive behavior.

Holy burning bras! Decades of feminism swept away with one post.


Eek gads!  Carole is wrong! 

Link to post
Share on other sites


Carole Franizzi wrote:


Syo Emerald wrote:

Submissive IS a stereotype! Or are all Mistresses not full women? Are all women in leading positions, all women in independent positions fake women? Every woman in the military or the police?

Its sexism to say women have a natural rule as weak minded beings who have to seek men to protect (and rule) them. I'm a woman and I don't submit to anybody! I'll fight, even if its the last thing I would do on earth. (and no I'm not an old lady whos hormones dropped).

I don't say all women are that strong, but I won't let those statements go trough as truth.

You go, girl! And you're dead right - it is sexism. I love how everyone assumes that back in Fred Flintstone days men were male chauvanist pigs (there's actually a lot of dead serious scientific theory which refutes this idea) bashing women over the head with clubs all day, when it's perfectly possible that society was perfectly well-balanced regarding gender roles and was more collaborative in a general sense. No way of knowing for sure - could swing either way - just a shame everyone (usually men though) seems to want to embrace the idea that it's natural for men to dominate and use aggression on women.

Good grief.  She's not right.  She's didn't even understand Loralinda's post. 

Link to post
Share on other sites


Loralinda wrote:

This is my last word on the OP's subject.  If you want to know what it feels like to be female, then I suggest you read the following excerpt from Dr. Louann Brizendine's book "The Female Brain" and learn something of the origins of female behavior. Or if you don't want to read it, I am also posting a link to a video of her speech on the subject.  If you can emulate the brain differences she points out in her excerpt, then you have a fair chance of expieriencing being female.  If you can't then I would suggest you read it anyway, as you will at least understand some basic differences between male and female brains and perhaps be able to mimic female behavior.

To the others here who seem to think that pointing out how men and women differ is sexist, I recommend the above excerpt as well.  (btw, I am in no way anti feminist.  In fact, according to the men I know and some I've met in sl, I am an almost militant  feminist).

But I am vastly flattered by the poster who proclaimed that I have swept away decades of feminism with my post.  I had no idea that I possessed such influence over society. :smileyhappy:

There's so much study on this subject, and you've given them a little glimpse into it, which is good.   I hope those who have posted here can set aside their own personal equality battles, and delve into the very real science information that shows clear differences between men and women.

Also, I don't recall seeing you post on the SL forums before, and I want to commend you for your rational on-topic posts, even in the face of the over-the-top and emotional responses from some of the other posters.  (I don't want to say that all the emotional over-the-top posters are women, as that would be perpetuating a stereotype.  ; )

 

Link to post
Share on other sites


Celestiall Nightfire wrote:


Syo Emerald wrote:

Submissive IS a stereotype! Or are all Mistresses not full women? Are all women in leading positions, all women in independent positions fake women? Every woman in the military or the police?

Its sexism to say women have a natural rule as weak minded beings who have to seek men to protect (and rule) them. I'm a woman and I don't submit to anybody! I'll fight, even if its the last thing I would do on earth. (and no I'm not an old lady whos hormones dropped).

I don't say all women are that strong, but I won't let those statements go trough as truth.

Hmm, you don't seem to understand the posts made by Loralinda.  Instead you go off on some rant...which is letting me know that you either didn't understand what she wrote, or you're so caught up in your own tirades, that you can't see reality when it's presented in a thoughtful and rational manner. 

 

 

Also, a female's submissive nature in relation to males, within the human range of dynamics, isn't a stereotype, nor is it a stereotype with any of the primates.  (humans are primates)  This is an observable phenomena, and cuts cross all cultures and ethnic groups.   It has nothing to do with the fact that woman also can be police officers, military, or in positions to lead.  Some women being in positions of leadership or authority,  does not negate the reality that
women as a group
, are more submissive than men.  

Yep, and though I may be an outlier, I have my share of "grrr" moments when I catch my prehistoric wiring doing stuff I don't like.

On a bit of a tangent, I've been toying with the idea of getting a dog and so have been doing some reading. I'd want a mellow companion, definitely not a dominant one (one stubborn jackass in the house is enough, don't ya know). It seems that, in some breeds of dog, the females are more dominant. I didn't find an explanation for that, but certainly found it interesting.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 2536 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...