Tuesday, May 11, 2010

Conflicting Goals

The Greatness of Some Women

I am sure that all of us who love, respect, and admire women could name some who are or were clearly superior to most of us: Eleanor Roosevelt, Margaret Thatcher, Mother Teresa, Indira Gandhi, Golda Meir, the list is long. Even within our acquaintances we could name many. In my work I greatly admired some women who were superior to me.

I know I have been trying to debunk the Female Supremacy Religion by citing examples where it is clearly not valid. I don’t want you to get the wrong idea and hear something I did not say. It is time I did at least lip service to show that some women are superior. I will say that emphatically here and now: “Some women are clearly superior to other women, and to some men.” I am not equivocating, neither am I trying to be vague or facetious. Of course, this does not dispute my previous analyses and anecdotal examples. I also want to be sure that we have our terms right.

First, define supremacy, which is based on supreme: Greatest or maximal in degree. To demonstrate how not to use the term we could get silly and say, “Mankind is supreme.” Uncle Joe while rocking on the porch would spit out the wheat stalk that he had been chewing, and note, “Bubba at the bait shop ain’t supreme. He dum as a brick.”

Next, define superior: Of higher rank, quality, or importance. This is the meaning that I like to assign to persons, as opposed to subgroups such as gender, race, etc.

Is She Fake or Stupid?

I have comments that I withheld lately when I read the blog at Yes, I'm a submissive man. I used to comment, but with the advent of some insane readers’ tirades I felt like I was wandering in the dark of a small yard where several large dogs have done food processing: from time to time I stepped in it. For this reason I don’t comment on that blog any more. However, I can write about it here. The blogger on his May 8, 2010 posting dredged the unsavory depths of Internet to come up with an advertisement on Craigslist by a supposed female. I will not quote the entire advertisement, except the parts that grabbed my attention for its conflicting statement of purpose:

“… Attractive, slender, naturally dominant 44 y.o. woman seeks genuine slave. I'm a vivacious, fun person to be with -- well educated, cultured, elegant [but she is not humble]. Love arts, theater, dance, trying new things, travel, enjoying life. I am looking for a true, naturally submissive gentleman who has a powerful craving to serve a powerfully dominant woman 24/7. I am a female supremacist. You should know what that entails. I enjoy feminization, spanking, paddling, chastity, and humiliation. I will rule you…”
There is a lot more. The item that drew my attention is that she emphasizes being a female supremacist and that she enjoys feminization. Ok so far. However, she wants an inferior male for her slave whom she would try to turn into a pseudo female. Would not it be more simple to get a female slave, and skip the ill-fated attemp? At least she would be starting with another supreme being in this transformation. Now, if she is really supreme on account of having a vagina, then some other person without that crucial organ is inferior. Indeed, she wants a slave, and by definition a slave is inferior to the owner. Alas, a male slave, no matter how feminized, will never become as superior as she is on account of having the wrong organ down there.

Maybe, if she goes far enough with the feminization, he will become a she, and therefore superior. But, according to her advertisement, she did not want a suprerior female for a slave. She wanted a male whom she can turn into a female who is naturally superior, but still her slave. She then goes on to say,

“…You will be my obedient wife, completely monogamous and devoted….

“…You should have financial security and freedom to fulfill the role I require. Physically Fit. Energetic. Smart. Witty. Amusing.”

Does anyone see where this is going? Sounds to me as if she is trying to find something good, and then destroy it.

I have some ideas of what this is about. My first guess is that this is, a man’s fantasy. He is masquerading as a dominant female and tries to have fun at the expense of some schmucks who will believe him.

The next possibility is that she is indeed a female who is trying to cash in on the gullible male whom she will ensnare with the grandiose presentation of her self-bestowed supremeness. If the man is less intelligent than she is, he will go with it, and pay dearly. Based on her mentioning “financial security” twice, this is likely.

A third possibility is that she is as stupid as any man who would take her up on her offer, and they will do each other harm, but there will be no intelligent life lost.

I am not excluding the possibility that she is intelligent, even superior to many, and that she really wants a male slave. I also grant the possibility that a male would or could be happy serving her until his money runs out. Alas, I think that is a very small chance. Her requirements and goals are contradictory, therefore, she is either fake or stupid.

You vulnerable men out there, you don’t want to serve a fake or a stupid person. At best it would be a waste of your time. But it would likely be worse.

6 comments:

LoveWife said...

I only wish to serve my wife, my life long love, and with any luck, she will adopt a FLR/WLM and I will be able to do just that while gaining fulfillment as a true submissive.

You do bring up some good points on the ad, the desire of a submissive man some time is greater than his common sense and he will jump at the first chance he gets to serve a dominate women, regardless if she is a fake or stupid.

Susan's Pet said...

LoveWife,

It does not sound like you would accept this woman's offer. You appear to be committed to the love of your life. Maybe she will keep you from following the scent of the fake or the stupid. Work on serving your wife, and she will reward you. That is the best way to go on the long run. Good luck to you both.

BOB said...

That blog was actually the first "Female Supremacy" blog that i discovered. I even commented a few times . But i soon lost interest.The author["John"] seemed to be in a search for a proffessional domintatrix to be his life long companion. But seemed angry that most women werent "dominant" enough for him.

I have met very few women that did not want to be in charge in some sort of way. So his atitude confused me.

He didnt seem to want a confident and intelligent woman as much as one who would dress up in leather for him and fullfill his fantasies.

You may have noticed in his comments section that he only responds to the proffessional dominatrixes who comment.

I have nothing against dominatrixes. They fulfill some men's fantasies. Thats great!But there is a reason that they charge money for it.If they really enjoyed it and it was THEIR[the women's] fantasy ,then i would imagine that these women would pay the men for the privilige of whipping the men.

I really felt sorry for "John". Because i dont see how he will ever be able to meet the woman of his dreams. Because very few women like that exist.

There are plenty of real women out there that dont mind being "in charge". And very few would complain if "john" did all of the housework. I know of more than a few where the husband does almost all of the housework and the wife is pretty much in charge. But i doubt whether the wife dresses up as a dominatrix or whips the husband to inflict pain.They might. But i doubt it.

"john" seems to spend too much time reading femdom personals instead of trying to meet a strong and confident woman who could challenge him intellectually.And had the emotions and needs of a real person. Its really a shame. I do wish the best for him.

BOB said...

Susan's Pet
One of my favorite ads was the "Cleaning Hunk" ad[thats still on Youtube]. It featured a muscular man that cleaned a woman's house for her while slowly taking off his clothes to use as cleaning rags ,as she oggled his body .

I certainly dont claim to be an expert on women. But i think that many women wouldnt mind being waited on hand and foot by an athletic man.

But i think that many women are turned off by the phrases "female Supremacy" or "femdom" because they picture having to dress up in an uncomfortable outfit to satisfy some guys fantasy. Or they picture a wimpy man.

The whole submissive husband = wimp thing turns me off and i wouldnt be surprised if it turned off many women.

And i have nothing against crossdressing . I honstly don t! To each their own. Whatever turns someone on.

But its use do find it strange in the "Female Supremacy " context. As if women's clothes are demeaning. Or being more female like is somehow demeaning. It does strike me as rather anti-female. You would think that a woman in a Wife-Led Marriage would be the one to take pride in being the " One who wears the skirt in this house!" .
Once again, im not putting crossdressing down. Its just it confuses me when its in the context of a FLR or a WLM .

i think that if there were less photos on the internet showing women dressed in leather, and more showing women dressed casually in tank tops,skirts and sandals , relaxing while athletic scantily dressed men waited on them hand and foot, then more women might embrace the Wife-Led Marriage lifestyle.

Maybe its me. But a woman relaxing in her favorite pair of old jeans while her husband does the dishes is a better image of a WLM than a woman having to squeeze into an uncomfortable leathe routfit and uncomfrtable 6 inch heels.

I like your blog. as well as some of the other FLR blogs[Her Majesty's Plaything and Subservient husband to a loving wife ,to name two]. But many "female Supremacy " and "femdom" sites seem ironically anti-female

doll said...

I have a lot of fun reading the ads on craigslist when I have a few spare moments. Often they are simply an avenue for expressing ones fantasies with no real hope that they will draw replies.

I did see that post and read it. I lost belief in it as the demands grew more ridiculous. What man of worth would reduce themselves to such an extent even if they were submissive?

Susan's Pet said...

Bob,

I agree with you. I have a hard time seeing one second of the idiotic portrayal of these so-called professional dominatresses. They are just prostitutes under another name. A truly dominant female need not dress or behave in any particular way, yet she will get her way because of her charm and intelligece.

The ididots who produce these videos assume that the viewers are more stupid than they are. I guess that some viewers are that stupid, otherwise these pieces of crap would not exist.