kenway

Precisely. Sports, music, movies, architecture etc. Recreational sexuality is just another art form. Always has been.

That'd be like saying golf or tennis is a mental illness. Gender really only has meaning to the lower archetypes. The higher archetypes have no gender at all. So playing around with such things has no significant meaning whatsoever. It's just the universe's way of shedding it's skin, and transcending the animal instinct - in this instance via creativity and triviality.

I wouldn't recommend that. If they don't know what they're doing then all kinds of things can go wrong. Visiting a good quality experienced pro-domme means that you have the opportunity to have a high-tier one-on-one discourse, as well as the practical consultation. Discussion of kink can occur within an intelligent, experienced and non-judgemental environment, which you're likely not going to get with a prostitute. How the hell is a silicone doll supposed to kick you in the balls?

@Emotionalmosquito It sounds like you could benefit from visiting a professional dominatrix. If you live near any major Western city you will have plenty of options.

So the bar scene is mostly just a piece of fictional comedy to illustrate some key points. Someone in the thread used the term "beta male" as a way of potentially describing men into femdom. This is not quite accurate, as really the terms "alpha or beta" typically have more to do with success or failure within the context of dominance, rather than they do dominance or submission itself. If your intent is to be submissive, and succeed in that fact, then you're clearly competent in your mission. Alpha submissive, even! Like you said though, that doesn't necessarily imply that the submissive will be successful either. But in the bar scenario as described, as its mostly fictional comedy there's no point going through all the permutations of outcome. Scenes like this very rarely ever play out in reality, and would be violating all kinds of ethical boundaries - not just in regards to the obvious bitch going round kicking guys in the balls, but also the second guy exploiting the situation for his own gratification. So for example, considering the video you referenced. I'm not actually familiar with this Tik-Tok trend, but if it played out in the way you described it's clearly not consensual or ethical at all, and so cannot really be condoned or included within any discussion of proper recreational femdom. That being said, paradox tends to have the upper hand when it comes to this sort of thing. Fantasy is often rooted from experiences that happened in reality, and all good theater is trying to create a scenario that seems as real as possible.

A beta male walks into a nightclub, goes up to a hot girl standing at the bar and tries his luck with his best pick up line. She flips him the middle finger, slaps him round the face, knees him in the balls and says "Get the fuck out of my face, beta!" to which her hot girl friends start laughing. The beta male is horrified. He runs out of the club crying, jumps into a taxi and never leaves the house ever again. Meanwhile, on the other end of the bar nearby, a man into femdom has been watching this whole episode unfold. He says to himself: "Wow. That was cool as fuck. She's AMAAAZING." So he too goes up to the hot girl, and repeats the SAME line that the first guy said. And so to does she flip him the bird, slaps him round the face, knees him in the balls and says: ""Get the fuck out of my face, beta!" to which her hot girl friends start laughing. But does the femdom guy run off crying into the night with his ego all bruised? Of course not. He has a smile from ear to ear and duly runs off to the club toilets to quickly crack one out. The point is that in order for the femdom guy to get his fix of female power, rejection and humiliation, he has to effectively emulate the failed beta. This is why when you see all those humiliation POV clips online, a lot of those girls use terms like beta, and loser, and cuck, and so on so forth. So if you took that stuff literally and even allowed your sex education to be informed by such videos, you wouldn't recognise the truth that lies underneath: that it is all just emulative theater. No true suffering takes place.

It's nearly the opposite of that. A "beta male" is someone who wants to adopt the dominant position, but typically fails. A male submissive is someone who wants to adopt the submissive (not dominant) position, and to be frank, typically succeeds. So in other words a beta is a failed dominant, as opposed to men into femdom who are often successful in their aim to be submissive.

From "Distinction and Loss of Civilian Protection in International Armed Conflicts" - Yoram Dinstein https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1148&context=ils "It is almost axiomatic that, as a rule, all enemy combatants can be lawfully attacked directly-at all times--during an international armed conflict. This can be done whether they are advancing, retreating or remaining stationary, and, whether they are targeted in groups or individually. There are, however, a number of caveats: (i) the attack must be carried out outside neutral territory, (ii) it is not allowed when a ceasefire is in effect, (iii) no prohibited weapons may be used, (iv) no perfidious methods of warfare may be resorted to, (v) combatants are not to be attacked once they become hors de combat (by choice (surrendered personnel) or because they are wounded, sick or shipwrecked), and (vi) the attack must not be expected to cause excessive injury to civilians. The hallmark of civilian status in wartime is that, in contrast to combatants, civilians-as well as civilian objects--enjoy protection from attack by the enemy. Intentionally directing attacks against civilians (not taking direct part in hostilities) or civilian objects is a war crime under Article 8(2)(b)(i)-(ii) of the 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The term "attack" in this context means any act of violence, understood in the widest possible sense (including a non -kinetic attack), as long as it entails loss of life, physical or psychological injury, or damage to property. Attacks do not include non-forcible acts, such as non-injurious psychological warfare. The line of division between what is permissible and what is not is accentuated by computer network attacks (CNA). These would qualify as attacks within the accepted definition only if they engender-through reverberating effects--human casualties or damage to property (it being understood that a completely disabled computer is also damaged property). It is illegal to launch an attack the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population. The prohibition is applicable even if the attacker has every reason to believe that such a terror campaign will shatter the morale of the civilian population-so that the enemy's determination to pursue the armed conflict will be eroded-and the war will be brought to a rapid conclusion (saving, as a result, countless lives on both sides). Yet, an important rider is in order. What counts here is not the actual effect of the attack but its purpose or intent: an attack is not forbidden unless terrorizing civilians is its primary aim. Nothing precludes mounting an otherwise lawful attack against combatants and military objectives, even if the net outcome (due to resonating "shock. and awe") is the collapse of civilian morale and the laying down of arms by the enemy. The principle of distinction excludes not only deliberate attacks against civilians, but also indiscriminate attacks, i.e., instances in which the attacker does not target any specific military objective (due either to indifference as to whether the ensuing casualties will be civilians or combatants or, alternatively, to inability to control the effects of the attack). A leading example is the launching by Iraq of Scud missiles against military objectives located in or near residential areas in Israel in 1991, notwithstanding the built-in imprecision of the Scuds which made accuracy in acquiring military objectives virtually impossible (and, in the event, no military objective was struck)."

@Lila9 I apologise. I didn't mean to come off as being disrespectful. I have concerns with the validity of your information and bias, but I'm sorry for my choice of language.

Oh please. Just stop already. You're embarrassing yourself. 90% of what you have just written is objective dogshit.

Daniel Levy - former Israeli Advisor on Netanyahu

I don't understand what you mean sorry. Why is the dominant actually submissive on the inside? What do you mean by that?

It's just theater. Purely recreational like movies or videogames. Take horror movies for example. Some people can handle horror movies, other people can't. But it's still just basically entertainment.

How is the femdom the submissive?

It's just role reversal. In the gay space, there are male bottoms and female tops, so why not in the hetero space?

What are you even talking about?

Femdom has been very popular in the Western World for ages. It's basically 1960s level sexual freedom. At least in the West. Why on earth do you find it silly?

Ok. Ok. Ok. Genius.

https://nationalpost.com/news/world/steven-spielberg-to-document-hamas-massacre-survivors-stories I'm glad Steven Spielberg has decided to help out on this. Up until Spielberg existed, I thought that the whole Holocaust narrative was mostly a heap of illogical dogshit. Spielberg helped me to see the light, and I'm sure that he will on this issue too.

Ride into Jerusalem on a donkey and see what happens. If there's a giant earthquake and the Dome of the Rock collapses then maybe it's you. Then again, you might have to watch out for this:- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem_syndrome

@Nivsch To be clear: I genuinely would like to know what this guy is saying. Please don't take my tone too salty. You and I disagree, but you are still my brother.

I agree with this. There is clearly a mass delusion going on right now where many political zionists simply cannot accept the notion that they are now "the bad guys". But what Israel is doing right now is truly one of the most evil things that we, as human beings, have ever done. And because of that, Israel will ultimately collapse. Not because of any rockets, or missiles, or guns or tanks...but for the weight of it's own heartbreak when it realises what it has done to its own brothers and sisters. You will drown by the tears of your own remorse.