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 i
  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 we
  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
  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 y
  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
  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 typ
  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
  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
  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 v
  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 t
  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.
  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
×
×
  • Create New...