|
cloudboy -> RE: forced masculinity (3/8/2006 12:55:20 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: thetammyjo
I never should have responded to the part of about Achilles cause it has so side tracked this thread.
I'm glad you did. In a non university setting, out here in the backwash of America, its quite a pearl to find a discussion about Achilles, greek literature, and character and heroes.
Threads can and should take on a life of their own. They should be human and like the branches of a tree, sprout out in all directions. They should be revealing about the posters themselves, and they should provide a reasonable and exciting collision course for opposing views and personalities.
Anyway, the subject of Achilles IS directly tied into this thread, BTW, because the "masculinist" females here seemed mostly focused on outward male appearances (Johw Wayne v. Alan Alda) and also the derision of sissies (outwardly female) as imasculated. There was the rush of female power, discussed about dominating a Manly Man (tall, strong, rugged, etc.) as opposed to the low class endeavor of connecting to more "effeminate" men. Next, the whole idea of "forced masculinity" implies changing Alan Alda into John Wayne or Hamlet into Achilles or a man that likes to cook into a man that likes to fix cars.......(kind of funny isn't it???)
You have said that your tastes gravitate towards androgeny and character, and others have said they want more prototypical "masculine" types.
For some of the FEMDOMs here, a sub such as Achilles would be the ultimate prize --- a slayer of men and armies --- but submissive to them. A man who spits in a King's eye but who kisses her foot. He's basically the FEMDOM equivalent of a male trophy wife.
Both you and John Warren threw up a red flag here. I digressed to discuss Achilles strictly in terms of the Illiad.
Anyway, why is it good to limit our imagination and thoughts to the OP, the thread topic, and current threads in all instances? I say, THAT'S LUNACY. Human thought needs to lead a life of its own and be strongly encouraged where no harm is done. Often the greater harm is the actual censoring or self censoring of human thought itself. (Which in this case would mean, no discussion of Achilles and no awakening of my soul that that discussion fired.)
|
|
|
|
