Jump to content

Carole Franizzi

Resident
  • Content Count

    2,462
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

72 Excellent

About Carole Franizzi

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Carole wrong? Nevah! First off - hadn't we established that aggressiveness is not the opposite of dominance? The male-cocktail of hormones undoubtedly makes the menfolk more ready for a punch-up than us gals, useful for 'dominating' the enemy (though 'defeating' is probably the better term), but why should that automatically translate into using aggression to dominate your womenfolk? They're the other half of your community, after all - surely cooperation is more the more obvious, more effective (why waste precious aggressiveness-energy on members of your own community?) modus vivendi? And in fact, though anthropologists have been painting a picture of club-wielding cavemen for some time, others are now saying that maybe task-sharing, much, much more egalitarian societies were the norm, with even the odd foray into maternity/femininity worship. I read a whole load of papers about this some years ago - if I can track them down, I'll give a link to them. I've had the opportunity to experience first-hand a couple of highly patriarchal cultures, and if I had to give an ultra simplistic summing up of what's going on it's this - the men use the reason/excuse of protecting women to limit female mobility and choice in the outside world (to guarantee the paternity of the off-spring), however, within the relationship and the family, the women usually hold the reins and have the final say in almost all matters. I've witnessed with my own eyes family dynamics in cultures which are held up as an example of male dominated societies where everything actually revolves around the women, in particular the mother and/or grandmother, and the father has a peripheral 'guard-dog' role. I think the bdsm gang could actually explain much better than me that physical superiority is not a key factor in assuming the dominant role, and that it's possible to control without raising one's voice or using the fist. And in fact, I remain convinced that we are mislabeling that quieter, non-aggressive, more manipulative form of control that women excel in, by calling it passivity.
  2. 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.
  3. Well, I'm not submissive, nor dominant, nor aggressive, nor a push-over. And I would never share my life with anyone who was submissive, dominant, aggressive or a push-over.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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. The opposite of submissive is dominant. Aggressivity is not the same thing, as any SL Dom will be glad to explain to you. Being more biologically adapt for protecting and fighting does not necessarily mean that the male dominated the female. It means he tried to dominate his enemies. Bit of a difference. "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." Wut? Having to give in to one's partners demands for fear of being physically assaulted is what occurs in abusive relationships. Abusive relationships are not the norm. Thank God. Lastly; your own very personal case of a personality change due to hormonal changes is just that - a very personal case. It proves nothing. My own very personal case is of being an irremovable, stubborn, bad-tempered beyatch all my life, and if anything, I'm waaaaaay calmer now that I'm in my middle-age than when I was a teen or early twenties. What does that prove? That in my case, the years of the hyper-dose of female hormones saw me, ironically, at my ballsiest. Now, of course, I'm just a **bleep** cat. So, in conclusion, I beg to differ - equating submissiveness and women is indeed a stereotype. ETA - a bleep cat???? Oh, lordly.... Puss*cat is what kids call felines where I come from.
  7. Studio09 wrote: Carole Franizzi wrote: Ahhhhhhhhhh! Studio! From Spence's thread! How are you? How's your SL going? Poor lamb - I was all miffy with you because in these forums (and in-world) there's a bit of a tradition for some BDSMers to - how to put it? - look down on boring old 'vanillas'. Take no notice of me. I can be a grumpy old b**** at times. No problem. SL has been rather interesting this morning. While I was typing my response to you earlier I was in world in my SL viewer in the background when I noticed the arm of another person beside me in my house. I stopped typing to investigate and met a very friendly, very helpful, and very good looking male. Not sure how he got in, he said a glitch. I can see now I need to spend less time on the forums and playing GW2 and more time in world. The OP didn't seem condescending to me. I think you and Syo are being defensive. No need to justify to anyone for what you prefer, being vanilla or being more "flavorful". I can see being referred to as vanilla would be derogatory. I'd rather be thought of as strawberry or peach or mint chocolate chip. I'm sure you would, however, if you're not into Bdsm, you're vanilla apparently. Like it or lump it. I was like you - it wasn't till I came into SL that I discovered the existence of a whole load of things, including the fact that I'm ... vanilla... Oh, lordy, you can complete your education in SL! A glitch in SL is the RL equivalent of 'sorry my car broke down outside your house and I need to use a phone' in RL. Such opportunities should not be wasted. Have fun.
  8. Syo Emerald wrote:I agree with Carol, because it IS my opinion that there are strong traits of arrogance in the BDSM community towards everyone else, who is not deep within their "world". Thats it, nothing else. Only in SL though. That's what I don't get. I only know a couple of people in RL who've 'fessed up to me about being into it, so I don't want to over-generalise, but there was no hint of this strange SL attitude which I came across all the time when I was a proper SLer. There was more blushing and giggling going on than 'Oh, you poor vanillas'. Part of the enigma (for me) is the willingness to post about something private (have you any idea what I'm really into? you can't have - I've never said) then the fury if anyone comments in any way aside from 'Well done you'. If I posted about my forced eyebrow plucking fetish, I'd kinda expect to be commented on. Oops.
  9. Sorry. Excuse me. I have a question. You see, I'm a bit of a newbie to this trolling malarky. Only just qualified, you see. I get the impression you might be a bit of an expert, and I thought you'd be able to help me out over definitions. Troll - someone who makes a comment or asks questions you don't like - right? Griefer - someone who...makes a comment or asks questions you don't like? - same thing? Flamer - someone who...??? - can't be the same yet again, surely? You see my confusion? Plus, I'm not clear about the correct label for a person who posts insults.
  10. jwenting wrote: Syo Emerald wrote: Finally someone understands me! yes, trolls and other griefers tend to have an understanding. It's the only people they tend to relate to at whatever level their braincell can manage. I'm a troll AND a griefer???? Really??? YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY!!!!!! And they said that I didn't have it in me! They said I was too old, spelled too well, wrote too many walls of text. Hope you're watching me now, you doubters - I MADE IT!
  11. Leia36 wrote: Well in this day and age, communications being what they are, I consider what we have now to be as near as damit to RL interaction, I am not going into detail here but the closer we get to touching the broader and fuller what we have becomes, if this isn't love then I'm a monkey's uncle. I still don't see how I held us up as some kind of example to the world, what I wrote was a simple background piece to my comment, which was a valid one. I certainly don't think my comment warrants the attention you are lavishing it with, in fact I am starting to think the forums are nothing but a platform for flaming people. I would delete my comment if you had not quoted it, and I think this will be the last thread I will comment on for some time. I know what we have and I don't need people questioning the veracity of my private life by reading into a single sentence. I know I put it out there but the thrust of my original comment was not myself but the scope of relationships in SL where there is no RL interaction whatsoever. Flame away, I am not motivated to comment any further Nobody's flaming. You made a post, I made an observation about that post (that perhaps your thing isn't quite real-lifey enough yet for it to be useful to draw any conclusions). Simply because my post wasnt what you expected/wanted to read, does not make it flaming. This is a discussion board. If you don't wish to discuss, you can choose not to use it. If you don't wish your private life to be object of discussion, then don't post about it. Dead simple. Feel free to post or not post. It's totally your choice. But don't blame your self-imposed exile from the forums on another poster for not realising that, although you voluntarily included details of your private life, these details were to be considered untouchable. I'll delete my previous comment, so you can erase or keep whatever you like.
  12. Studio09 wrote: Carole Franizzi wrote: ... If you have a need to feel you're involved in something 'special', that's great - apparently, the secret for all long-lasting relationships is the shared belief they have something magical and unique - however, I think you'll find that people who don't do bdsm feel just as strongly about their relationships as you do about yours. ... I see you are reading much more into what I have written than what I intented. Sorry if I have mislead you. I am not involved in BDSM in RL or in SL. My first time encountering anything about it was my very first day on the forums here when I responded to Specer's post looking for a submissive (you know the thread you were quite active in it). I did't even know that submissive refered to BDSM or any of the other key words he used in his post such as aftercare. My initial reaction was to run the other way. But instead I researched as much as I could using the internet. I now know that I will probably never adopt a BDSM lifestyle in RL but I am interested in exploring the polarizing effects D/s can have on a play session or a short term RP situation. My theory is that the more polorized the energies the more explosive the fusion of those energies will be. :matte-motes-bashful-cute: Anyway to clear things up I am not involved in anything and not feeling any more special than normal. Ahhhhhhhhhh! Studio! From Spence's thread! How are you? How's your SL going? Poor lamb - I was all miffy with you because in these forums (and in-world) there's a bit of a tradition for some BDSMers to - how to put it? - look down on boring old 'vanillas'. Take no notice of me. I can be a grumpy old b**** at times.
  13. I am in a M/s relationship that has lasted for more than a year now. We are migrating it to RL and he is coming here RL soon. 6 months ago I would have vehemently disagreed with those in this thread who say SL is not the same as RL but now I know different. RL IS different, its all to easy to fake love and emotion behind a keyboard. . All of the above, really. I've re-read it several times and I continue to understand that your SL relationship has developed into what you consider real love in the outside world - but that you haven't actually met him yet (you don't say you have migrated it to RL - that's why I understood that you've not actually gone RL yet, but are organising it for 'soon').
  14. MikeDesoto99 wrote: Thank you to those willing in this thread willing to speak up and face whatever menace might fall upon you for having your own views and feeling about here that support secondlife regardless what these the outside agents press on everyone Wut? Gawd, you make mucking about on an on-line virtual world sound dangerous. I'm well aware that a few people make a living and that some people make some extra cash here in SL. It is, after all, a money making machine, like a squillion other companies on the planet, but for lots of people it's just a spot of relaxing fun. If I've understood correctly, you're getting all hyperbolic over some people liking another VR. That's in the nature of the beast, Mike. You make a product, but you can't stop other rival companies existing, nor can you stop people from being interested in the rival product, or even preferring it. If you're an SL creator, I can understand that you've a vested interest in keeping SL as populated as possible, but realistically, SL is horribly expensive. I'd love to have a sim to build on, but, although I work and earn decently in RL, I just can't quite get my head round spending that sum of money on...nothing. Seems to me, SL gets intense if you invest large sums of RL money in it, and boring if you spend none. For those somewhere in-between - people like me who don't want to have to live in here in order to run the business which pays for the land, but who want to do more than shop and dance and have a little house, it ends up getting frustrating and slightly pointless and eventually boring. Just another couple of points - monopolies rarely give more than they have to, and the destiny of SL is not guaranteed by the RL world economy getting sorted out - businesses can fail even in the sunniest of economic climates.
  15. Studio09 wrote: Carole Franizzi wrote: Studio09 wrote: "Some of the practices in BDSM require an extreme amount of trust." ... In a relationship context, even the most vanilla of sexual relations requires that a (usually) smaller, weaker women trust the man (sometimes unknown, or hardly known) will not hurt her - after all, a man hardly needs to use gadgets to inflict pain on a woman if that turns out to be his intention.... But it would require more trust to say allow yourself to be handcuffed to a bed. Your responses to physical danger are removed or limited - can't flee and fighting is restricted. So after having established this deeper level of trust, betrayal would hurt more. A simple example: If a stranger made an unkind remark, sure it might hurt for a moment, but if a friend made the same unkind remark it would hurt more. No, I'm sorry, I still dsagree. A big strong man - most men actually - if determined to hurt a woman, could easily. Your physically average man doesn't need handcuffs to injure or kill a woman - he can simply sit on her, for example. Happily, most of them don't. Really, what you describe as a deeper layer of trust - using handcuffs - just doesn't make sense. If I go out tonight and pick up a stranger and bring him home, how am I less trusting than my married friend who, together with her husband of 20 years, use cuffs at fun-time? The degree of pain over betrayal depends on how emotionally developed, how well-established the relationship is - with or without handcuffs. Vanilla people's husbands and boyfriends are not strangers to them, so your example doesn't work. If you have a need to feel you're involved in something 'special', that's great - apparently, the secret for all long-lasting relationships is the shared belief they have something magical and unique - however, I think you'll find that people who don't do bdsm feel just as strongly about their relationships as you do about yours. ETA Sorry, but I went off to make a cuppa and kept thinking about this topic. The fact is that if either you or I pick up a total stranger at a bar, you doing your bdsm thing, me doing my non-bdsm thing, both of us run the exact same risks - worst case scenario - death. If you and I are both in long-term relationships, doing our thing within them - say married, with kids, and both our men walk out on us because they've got someone new, you really think your pain would be greater than mine? Seriously? In all honesty, I think it's this 'chosen people' attitude which here in SL is very, very common (lost count of the times I've heard similar claims to yours both in-world and in the forums) which, not surprisingly, aggravates people - after all, you're basically telling them that you're better than them. However, in RL, I've never once heard one single person make such a statement - not a one - and that includes a couple of friends who are into the same stuff as you.
×
×
  • Create New...