Monday, 16 December 2013
Friday, 13 December 2013
Monday, 2 December 2013
Thursday, 12 September 2013
Reclaiming Nancy
Another ear worm caused by a TV advert.
Nancy Wilson - How Glad I Am
They really should ban adverts from using old classics. It isn't fair that people should be introduced to them via baby food and forever form that association! Here is the full song with pictures to help give you a new memory.
Nancy Wilson - How Glad I Am
They really should ban adverts from using old classics. It isn't fair that people should be introduced to them via baby food and forever form that association! Here is the full song with pictures to help give you a new memory.
Wednesday, 4 September 2013
Don't understand it?
I'm making this post for AndrewV69 who said:-
I think the case has been made that being dominant is a high risk strategy, but it can be extremely fruitful, which is why we are all related to Genghis Khan... or something like that.
It seems to be most people's instinct is to assume that if dominance gets you to the top of the pile, submission must put you on the bottom of the pile. This is absurd, as it is those that refuse to submit to authority that find themselves on the margins of society, those that submit can get into the inner circle of those with the power... assuming they aren't useless idiots.
I give you our old friend, The Justicar!
I have to state that I am not suggesting for a moment that Justicar has a submissive personality, quite the opposite, his assertiveness would force him towards being dominant. But note that I'd be willing to bet that he fully understood what was expected of him not just in terms of a 'job' but the role he played. I would bet that he was not only extremely competent in his duties, but in matters beyond his duties too. He is intelligent, diligent, and yes... he is cute enough to be able to get away with being snarky.
In this role he would have had to have been submissive. More than that he probably would have had to stay three steps ahead to keep his boss happy. So not just passive but active.
But he is clearly telling you what the payoff is. He 'belongs' to one of the most powerful men in the regiment, so it would be a case of, "Nobody fucks with MY driver". Aside from that, he is in a position where he is on first name basis with the officer's wifes... which says says everything about his access to power.
I think I have made the case that being submissive, as long as you can also make yourself useful, can be a successful evolutionary strategy. I would also suggest it is actually a better strategy than being dominant because although you could fall alongside whoever you give your allegiance to, there is also a chance that you could survive and whoever usurped them will find you useful too.
But evolution doesn't work without reproduction, and there is some evidence that people in power tend towards high sex drives, and I'd suggest that submissive people are as likely to find power and aphrodisiac just like anybody else. My experiences would certainly suggest this.
So if we assume that dominant people are producing offspring with submissive people, how are they likely to turn out? Your guess is as good as mine as to what is nature and what is nurture, but I suspect that they are born with the potential to be either dominant or submissive.
I have asked people in the scene about their family and have noticed some trends. I will use my own family as an example. I can think of nobody within my family who is not either dominant (domineering) or submissive. There is a fair scattering of homosexuals and bisexuals in my family. Neither gender or sexuality is a predictor of dominance or submission, although the women tend towards being dominant. Some of the women in my family who are submissive will assume the role of dominant (to the point of abusive and violent behavior) when not partnered with a dominant man. Submissive people are capable of being very manipulative when it suits them. Dominants will partner with others that are equally dominant.
Some of my grandparents and parents generation entered into marriages of convenience to hide their homosexuality, yet these partnerships were still one of a dominant and a submissive.
Also interesting is the career choices of my family who tend towards the military, police, fire service, nursing and education. All careers with a very structured hierarchy.
So my hypothesis, is that there really are 'born leaders', but there are also born followers and that they come from the same stock.
I won't bore you with more detail, but I am aware that much of this is learned behavior. However I do think there is a nature part to this. When it comes to BDSM, there are a lot of people who play at it, but there are those who can't really do it any other way, (just as DeepInsideYourMind says). Where it gets confusing for people on the outside is the sex part, especially kinky sex. I can't say that it isn't about sex, but it doesn't have to be about sex. But power is an aphrodisiac. And sex is very intimate, connected with trust and vulnerability. Many of the kinks and fetishes somehow involve primal instincts, some kind of pack behavior or have some relation to power and control. Somehow it all comes together.
I hope this makes the subject a little less mysterious.
Not my thing at all. I also really do not understand why some people get off on being a sub either. None of the stuff I have read makes any sense to me, especially the part about feeling safe? (6847)I don't want to give you a 'just so' story and take you back to the Savanna, but I think evolutionary-psychology could explain what is often being played out here.
I think the case has been made that being dominant is a high risk strategy, but it can be extremely fruitful, which is why we are all related to Genghis Khan... or something like that.
It seems to be most people's instinct is to assume that if dominance gets you to the top of the pile, submission must put you on the bottom of the pile. This is absurd, as it is those that refuse to submit to authority that find themselves on the margins of society, those that submit can get into the inner circle of those with the power... assuming they aren't useless idiots.
I give you our old friend, The Justicar!
I have to state that I am not suggesting for a moment that Justicar has a submissive personality, quite the opposite, his assertiveness would force him towards being dominant. But note that I'd be willing to bet that he fully understood what was expected of him not just in terms of a 'job' but the role he played. I would bet that he was not only extremely competent in his duties, but in matters beyond his duties too. He is intelligent, diligent, and yes... he is cute enough to be able to get away with being snarky.
In this role he would have had to have been submissive. More than that he probably would have had to stay three steps ahead to keep his boss happy. So not just passive but active.
But he is clearly telling you what the payoff is. He 'belongs' to one of the most powerful men in the regiment, so it would be a case of, "Nobody fucks with MY driver". Aside from that, he is in a position where he is on first name basis with the officer's wifes... which says says everything about his access to power.
I think I have made the case that being submissive, as long as you can also make yourself useful, can be a successful evolutionary strategy. I would also suggest it is actually a better strategy than being dominant because although you could fall alongside whoever you give your allegiance to, there is also a chance that you could survive and whoever usurped them will find you useful too.
But evolution doesn't work without reproduction, and there is some evidence that people in power tend towards high sex drives, and I'd suggest that submissive people are as likely to find power and aphrodisiac just like anybody else. My experiences would certainly suggest this.
So if we assume that dominant people are producing offspring with submissive people, how are they likely to turn out? Your guess is as good as mine as to what is nature and what is nurture, but I suspect that they are born with the potential to be either dominant or submissive.
I have asked people in the scene about their family and have noticed some trends. I will use my own family as an example. I can think of nobody within my family who is not either dominant (domineering) or submissive. There is a fair scattering of homosexuals and bisexuals in my family. Neither gender or sexuality is a predictor of dominance or submission, although the women tend towards being dominant. Some of the women in my family who are submissive will assume the role of dominant (to the point of abusive and violent behavior) when not partnered with a dominant man. Submissive people are capable of being very manipulative when it suits them. Dominants will partner with others that are equally dominant.
Some of my grandparents and parents generation entered into marriages of convenience to hide their homosexuality, yet these partnerships were still one of a dominant and a submissive.
Also interesting is the career choices of my family who tend towards the military, police, fire service, nursing and education. All careers with a very structured hierarchy.
So my hypothesis, is that there really are 'born leaders', but there are also born followers and that they come from the same stock.
I won't bore you with more detail, but I am aware that much of this is learned behavior. However I do think there is a nature part to this. When it comes to BDSM, there are a lot of people who play at it, but there are those who can't really do it any other way, (just as DeepInsideYourMind says). Where it gets confusing for people on the outside is the sex part, especially kinky sex. I can't say that it isn't about sex, but it doesn't have to be about sex. But power is an aphrodisiac. And sex is very intimate, connected with trust and vulnerability. Many of the kinks and fetishes somehow involve primal instincts, some kind of pack behavior or have some relation to power and control. Somehow it all comes together.
I hope this makes the subject a little less mysterious.
Monday, 19 August 2013
The Great Society
It has come to my attention that some fans of Jefferson Airplane are unaware of The Great Society. In order to remedy this tragic situation I have the pleasure of presenting this sampler.
Warning: Many of these videos contain photos of Grace Slick which may cause love, lust and obsession.
Warning: Many of these videos contain photos of Grace Slick which may cause love, lust and obsession.
- Grimly forming
- Often as I may
- You can't cry
- Didn't think so
- Darkly smiling
- White rabbit
- Born to be burned
- Everybody knows / Nature Boy
- She's got it on her mind
- Daydream, nightmare, love
- Arbitration
- Somebody to love
Tuesday, 13 August 2013
Vicky Caramel - Banned by the BBC
I made the list of worst offending trolls mentioned BBC's Newsnight, in what appears to be a truly awful piece of journalism.
Most of level one seem to be the real trolls and fake accounts, but level two is a regular who's who of Twitter's best skeptics, free thinkers, and atheists and I am honoured to be listed alongside people such as mykeru, Thunderf00t, saramayhew, ReneeHendricks, NoelPlum99 and Integralmathyt.
How did I make list? My guess is that it was when I pointed out the hypocrisy of professional feminist Ophelia Benson. To cut a long story short, having made capital out of a news story of a girl having acid thrown in her face, she let it pass without comment when one of her sycophants offered to kneecap her detractors. In a sarcastic tweet I asked if she had a preference for knee-capping over acid attacks.
Ok, so Twitter isn't the best medium for getting a point across as it is only 174 characters. But she is an experienced user and is capable of following threads. So when she represented my tweet as a threat, it was completely dishonest, especially as in the proceeding 3 hours dozens of other users jumped on the incident. Of course, there was no condemnation of knee-capping tweet (even though it was quickly deleted) and no apology to me... I was quickly blocked by her and a large number of radical feminists, manginas and intimidating Scottish Nationalist.
So there you go. For those people who have spend months criticizing Atheism+ and are now butt-hurt for not making the list -- sorry! But this isn't a list of trolls as they would have you would have you believe, it isn't even a list of satirists and piss takers. They thrive on all that and use it as evidence that they are victims. Atheism+ and Free Thought Blogs are a vanity trip, so to really irk them, you have to pounce on an embarrassing mistake which exposes these professional victims for what they really are.
Most of level one seem to be the real trolls and fake accounts, but level two is a regular who's who of Twitter's best skeptics, free thinkers, and atheists and I am honoured to be listed alongside people such as mykeru, Thunderf00t, saramayhew, ReneeHendricks, NoelPlum99 and Integralmathyt.
How did I make list? My guess is that it was when I pointed out the hypocrisy of professional feminist Ophelia Benson. To cut a long story short, having made capital out of a news story of a girl having acid thrown in her face, she let it pass without comment when one of her sycophants offered to kneecap her detractors. In a sarcastic tweet I asked if she had a preference for knee-capping over acid attacks.
Ok, so Twitter isn't the best medium for getting a point across as it is only 174 characters. But she is an experienced user and is capable of following threads. So when she represented my tweet as a threat, it was completely dishonest, especially as in the proceeding 3 hours dozens of other users jumped on the incident. Of course, there was no condemnation of knee-capping tweet (even though it was quickly deleted) and no apology to me... I was quickly blocked by her and a large number of radical feminists, manginas and intimidating Scottish Nationalist.
So there you go. For those people who have spend months criticizing Atheism+ and are now butt-hurt for not making the list -- sorry! But this isn't a list of trolls as they would have you would have you believe, it isn't even a list of satirists and piss takers. They thrive on all that and use it as evidence that they are victims. Atheism+ and Free Thought Blogs are a vanity trip, so to really irk them, you have to pounce on an embarrassing mistake which exposes these professional victims for what they really are.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)