Religion, politics, sex .. and other taboo subjects

[vinsanity0]

But see? It is complicated for us all. On one hand you want to be persued, on the other hand pursuit can be viewed as assault.

In Seattle your comments on Ansari would get your feminist card taken away and burned. Those things you and Pixie were laughing about? Some people actually take that seriously. I suspect this has something to do with age. Neo-feminists aren't in my age range. I am more of a classic feminist. I've always felt women should have equal opportunities and not be treated second class. As the philosophies diverge it gets very confusing to us guys. The new breed seems to want to cling to the past. I fear they are not seeing the forest for the trees.

You are right. In the past it was safer for a woman to be quiet. This is now. But no matter what, there will always be asshole men and women who are abusive. I think that is a separate issue.

As to the non-verbal cues thing, I can't really answer that. Unless I'm in a bdsm scene, the slightest indication that I'm doing something she doesn't like will cause me to shut it down. Maybe that is because I fear going over a line due to my dominant nature. And to address Spork's reply...the sub is the one with the power to give to the Dom at the beginning. We don't just walk up and start flogging someone because we know they like to be flogged. The rest is just proper negotiation. I am surprised someone would say different.

 

[Spork]

But see? It is complicated for us all. On one hand you want to be persued, on the other hand pursuit can be viewed as assault.

In Seattle your comments on Ansari would get your feminist card taken away and burned. Those things you and Pixie were laughing about? Some people actually take that seriously. I suspect this has something to do with age. Neo-feminists aren't in my age range. I am more of a classic feminist. I've always felt women should have equal opportunities and not be treated second class. As the philosophies diverge it gets very confusing to us guys. The new breed seems to want to cling to the past. I fear they are not seeing the forest for the trees.

You are right. In the past it was safer for a woman to be quiet. This is now. But no matter what, there will always be asshole men and women who are abusive. I think that is a separate issue.

As to the non-verbal cues thing, I can't really answer that. Unless I'm in a bdsm scene, the slightest indication that I'm doing something she doesn't like will cause me to shut it down. Maybe that is because I fear going over a line due to my dominant nature. And to address Spork's reply...the sub is the one with the power to give to the Dom at the beginning. We don't just walk up and start flogging someone because we know they like to be flogged. The rest is just proper negotiation. I am surprised someone would say different.

The reason that several people, including Master Thorns, the owner of the club, disagreed with the "sub has all the power" statement, is that it's important to make people understand a need for caution. In fact the ultimate conclusion that the room could agree on, was "TRUST has all the power." I am on board with that.

I mean, think about the thousands on fetlife who don't ever go to events or clubs or community things, but just hook up with people and go to their houses. The Top or Dom(me) COULD be an abuser or a predator. Or not. Once you put the power in their hands, you have put the power in their hands. They have the ball. I know a woman who has been involved in Leather and kink for over a decade, and she just realized that her D/s relationship is abusive and is getting out of it...with great pain and difficulty...she was really into this man, but he was controlling her, trying to keep her from talking to other people in the community and even her family, isolating her. Doing other things that are part of an emotionally abusive relationship, kink or no kink. And she took his word for it, that this was within his rights to control her, because he's the Dom and he makes the rules. That shit happens to people who SHOULD know better.

We are trying to be careful in making sure that subs know that yeah, you do give over your power to the Dom and you have to be careful about that.

As for trust...I'm known as being kind of "brave" for a willingness to bottom for people I don't even necessarily know, if I see them demonstrate interesting technique. Other bottoms have told me "Oh, I have to really trust someone to play with them." Well, I can do this...at parties, at the club, not because I don't need to have any trust established, but because it's fine that I don't have that bond with the Top, I have trust in the club itself, in the DMs and staff, that if I "red" then the scene WILL stop.

And we are coming in this conversation to a conclusion I believe, which is that everyone needs to be part of the solution to this issue between men and women. Women need to find the courage to defend our boundaries, even though it's uncomfortable. Men need to pay attention and respect them. We all need to support, and when necessary, correct one another when we're seeing shit that is out of line, whenever we can.

As for men being able or not able to read nonverbal stuff. While I can accept that certain conditions like those of the Autism Spectrum can cause individuals difficulty in reading nonverbal cues, I do believe that most men are capable of it. Whether they WILL or not, depends on a lot of what has gone into their makeup, their character development in their lifetime.

It was a conversation I had with Zen the other day, that I asked him to consider in his mind, a friend we have who is frankly a great big ugly dude. And next to him, Jersey guy (the puppy I've been fussing about.) Hold a mental image of those two. Which one would seem more obviously threatening to women, or to anyone? Ugly guy. He's huge. He's scary looking. Jersey guy is like this: http://cdn3-www.dogtime.com/assets/...est-highland-white-terrier-dogs-puppies-2.jpg

About that threatening. He's small, short, older, with a sweet soft buzzy Jewish Jersey accented voice. Everything about his outward appearance says, "pet me, I'm cute!"

Which of these two men, though, is more likely to push boundaries? Ah ha. The big ugly bear of a man has gone through life responding to how others perceive and react to him. He's probably been hurt by social rejection more times than anyone can count, because of how he comes off. And how he's shaped his inner self to respond to that, is to be a human who lives to serve. He's got a female friend whose kids' father is a deadbeat jerk, and he's the one over there fixing their bikes and giving them Dad-time. No obligation, just who he is. There for everyone. Great big marshmallow teddy bear on the inside. And he's let it be known he finds me attractive, without me feeling like he's pursuing me in the slightest. He's got, in interactions with others and especially women, a gentle touch and damn good respectful behavior.

Jersey guy on the other hand? Used to not being seen as threatening, so he never had to develop any of that. His life's circumstances have shaped him. I find this totally fascinating, and this is why I don't see him as a manipulative jerk. He didn't learn to look for people stiffening up and trying to deflect him, because he is accustomed to being who he is, and living in his skin. And pushing boundaries for him, has probably been met with success and in instances of failure, with forgiveness and friendship. Not defensiveness or anger. He's probably gotten laid a LOT by just being persistently affectionate in his lifetime. So...he does what works.

Does it mean it's ok? Well, no, and as much as I need to grow by managing my boundaries, he needs to grow by understanding that especially in our community, he needs to get clearer consent, not just push things just a little further and a little further. In a community that readily recognizes even when women are being predatory or abusive, being a cute guy won't get you off the hook past a certain point. I forgive him somewhat only because he is new. And because I do try to see what background people come from in life, why they do what they do, and be compassionate to that.

Even if I'm personally annoyed, I am not without compassion or understanding. If that makes any sense?

I've been saying all along that in these situations of the "metoo" movement and all this, someone who has trespassed due to ignorance should not be demonized and destroyed, because ignorance is a curable condition. Very few people are in fact really BAD people...generally those so dug into their bad behaviors that they defend them and refuse to acknowledge any need to change anything they're doing.

 

[vinsanity0]

Of course trust is a thing, but that line of reasoning is too abstract for me. My first thought was how stoned would he have to be to come up with that. But that is why I dont join communities. Too much weirdness and politics. Plus I would have a hard time taking someone who calls themself Master Thorn seriously. I'll happily use their play space like I did with Sprite once, or agree to a first scene at a club. You are way more outgoing than I am. Also, we've talked about this before, but I am uncomfortable showing up as a single guy. So many single guys are somewhat predatory that we are all initially viewed that way. I prefer more one on one. I'll happily wait to get to know someone. The need for protection goes both ways. As a Dom I need to trust a sub as much as they need to trust me. I think your friend missed that point.

 

[Spork]

Of course trust is a thing, but that line of reasoning is too abstract for me. My first thought was how stoned would he have to be to come up with that. But that is why I dont join communities. Too much weirdness and politics. Plus I would have a hard time taking someone who calls themself Master Thorn seriously. I'll happily use their play space like I did with Sprite once, or agree to a first scene at a club. You are way more outgoing than I am. Also, we've talked about this before, but I am uncomfortable showing up as a single guy. So many single guys are somewhat predatory that we are all initially viewed that way. I prefer more one on one. I'll happily wait to get to know someone. The need for protection goes both ways. As a Dom I need to trust a sub as much as they need to trust me. I think your friend missed that point.

I don't think he missed that point, he has been doing this for most of his adult life, and he's no spring chicken. He's trying to maintain a message that advises new submissive types to be cautious. You can't just go home with some dude and let him tie you up and do stuff to you, assuming you have all the power, and you're in control. Not when you give up your power to another person. The sub is only in control insofar as the Dom respects their rights and boundaries, and vice versa.

He was making what I believe is an accurate point, that neither is 100% in control. Certainly not the sub. And as adults, we have to look out for ourselves to some degree, all of us, period.

I don't care how many dates we've gone on. There are actual predatory men in this world who will abuse the power of their position over a submissive and be party to a relationship that is ABUSIVE plain and simple. And a woman cannot know for sure that a man she's involved with isn't one of those, any more than a man can know for sure that a woman in a relationship with him won't take advantage.

I mean, jeez, all along, my ex would have me believe he's my sworn protector, and he constantly said "even if you cheated on me, that wouldn't be the end of my love for you, because there is more between us than sex" and he said all SORTS of things to me, but the minute I told him I couldn't handle how things were going and couldn't continue in our marriage, love turned on a dime into hate. The man who swore himself to me, only loved me so long as I was HIS, Mr. Loyalty and Honor and Integrity, sure changes his position right quick when things aren't going his way, and he did that after 18 years. I always saw that in him, but he would not see it in himself and he would have argued with me that he'd never threaten my life, never do me harm, etc. He deluded himself more than he deluded me.

What is the point of me saying that? After a long period of time with someone, if some stuff changes, you can see a whole different side of them. This notion of "build the trust and then you know, as a sub, that he won't do things you're not ok with when he's got you bound and helpless in his basement" is a crock. What if he's upset that day, what if something has happened to trigger a darker side of him? There are no guarantees. No, the submissive does NOT have all the power. And should never take for granted that they do. Risk is always there. And even setting aside human variables, accidents happen, too.

And frankly, there have been situations where those who supposedly don't have the power (Doms) have violated people, and nothing happens but a ding to their reputation. Meanwhile you have those supposedly all powerful subs who are physically scarred or emotionally or psychologically damaged for life, or who wind up in the hospital. But OH OH, don't make the guy out to be the jerk. The sub had all the power! Psh. Nuh uh. Hell we have a known violator here who still runs a House, and gets tons of hot young noobs bouncing in to play.

Now if you are a conscientious player and pride yourself on being everything a Dom ought to be, then maybe in YOUR dynamics, the sub has all the power. But making a blanket statement out of that, is not just wrong, it's dangerous.

I'm not seeing the weirdness and politics of it, at all.

As to his name, titles are bestowed because others respect a person. This guy has done a lot for the community. What respect he has, he's earned. He doesn't insist on anyone using his title, and many of us just call him by his first name. The ones who use his title, do it voluntarily because they want to honor him with that.

 

[vinsanity0]

Sheesh...do I really have to qualify my statement with "as long as they aren't psychotic"? I thought that was a given.

BTW, I have been doing bdsm since I was a teenager. I'm 55. Does that make me an expert on bdsm for everybody? No.

I've probably been turned down because I'm not a member of The Community, whatever that might be. That's alright. A woman I used to play with, a switch, was fond of saying, "When a sub agrees to being tied up they are agreeing to ritual human sacrifice and hope for the best." LOL Everyone who has played with me has survived to see another day. And I've managed to not get arrested so it's all been good.

You are not seeing the weirdness and the politics because you are in it. Does anyone ever challenge what the guy says?

 

[Spork]

Sheesh...do I really have to qualify my statement with "as long as they aren't psychotic"? I thought that was a given.

BTW, I have been doing bdsm since I was a teenager. I'm 55. Does that make me an expert on bdsm for everybody? No.

I've probably been turned down because I'm not a member of The Community, whatever that might be. That's alright. A woman I used to play with, a switch, was fond of saying, "When a sub agrees to being tied up they are agreeing to ritual human sacrifice and hope for the best." LOL Everyone who has played with me has survived to see another day. And I've managed to not get arrested so it's all been good.

You are not seeing the weirdness and the politics because you are in it. Does anyone ever challenge what the guy says?

Of course, people challenge what he says. And we have conversations until we reach something that feels sensible to all or most of us.

We're all shaping this thing of community, through our ideas and experiences. I am fond of saying that if anyone tells you there is a right way to do all of this, they are being silly, or lying. We're all making this shit up as we go.

My point about the benefit of a community, or rather a club with DMs who are trained not only in recognizing and halting play gone wrong, but also in CPR and first aid, is that it allows me to circumvent the need to form some sort of a relationship where I assume or hope I can have trust, with a stranger (and for crying out loud, not all strangers are you, or like you) and allows me to just have a good time. I do casual play sometimes with people I have no intention of forming a relationship with. Do you figure it's just as safe for me to roll the dice and go home with stranger after stranger, rather than playing in a monitored environment?

Just because you yourself haven't needed to go to jail, nor sent anyone, presumably, to a hospital, that means oh, OK I can trust Doms because I, as a sub, have allll the power. I'll just start going home with randos today, shall I? No. Of course not.

I am challenging the idea that the sub has all the power, as that is a silly thing for one to assume. You're talking about your way of Domming as though it's the only way anyone does anything, so it is, in all cases, just fine.

I am in a Community because there are many benefits to it, though. Beyond a sense of security in my play environment, I enjoy a lot of basic social benefits, like free massage, free professional photography, invites to go with friends and do fun things, at no cost, that normally I could not afford, a sharing of ideas and a help in processing my thoughts, and a fun, low cost way to spend many a Friday or a Saturday night.

The reason I would not try to form a relationship with a man not in the community and not willing to join, really hasn't anything to do with all of this business of trust and all, though. It's because I am an extrovert who loves social activity, and I won't be compatible and happy with someone who shuns it and wishes I'd just be happy to shun it alongside him. Ain't nothin' to do with any sense of this or that being a better way.

But for a sub who is new to BDSM, the RIGHT community (because some of them are plenty sleazy, toxic, and problematic) can help keep them safe. Going home with strangers is a roll of the dice, and they can as easily be like you or NOT like you. One need not "consent to human sacrifice and hope for the best." I spent the first 2 months playing publicly with Zen before I invited myself to his home. Then consulted my gut, assessed the risk, arranged a safe call, and went for it.

Do you think he arranged a safe call?

EDIT: "do I really have to qualify my statement with "as long as they aren't psychotic"? I thought that was a given."

How exactly would I know, if a man is, or he is not? That's what I'm trying to say.

 

[vinsanity0]

Of course, people challenge what he says. And we have conversations until we reach something that feels sensible to all or most of us.

We're all shaping this thing of community, through our ideas and experiences. I am fond of saying that if anyone tells you there is a right way to do all of this, they are being silly, or lying. We're all making this shit up as we go.

My point about the benefit of a community, or rather a club with DMs who are trained not only in recognizing and halting play gone wrong, but also in CPR and first aid, is that it allows me to circumvent the need to form some sort of a relationship where I assume or hope I can have trust, with a stranger (and for crying out loud, not all strangers are you, or like you) and allows me to just have a good time. I do casual play sometimes with people I have no intention of forming a relationship with. Do you figure it's just as safe for me to roll the dice and go home with stranger after stranger, rather than playing in a monitored environment?

Just because you yourself haven't needed to go to jail, nor sent anyone, presumably, to a hospital, that means oh, OK I can trust Doms because I, as a sub, have allll the power. I'll just start going home with randos today, shall I? No. Of course not.

I am challenging the idea that the sub has all the power, as that is a silly thing for one to assume. You're talking about your way of Domming as though it's the only way anyone does anything, so it is, in all cases, just fine.

I am in a Community because there are many benefits to it, though. Beyond a sense of security in my play environment, I enjoy a lot of basic social benefits, like free massage, free professional photography, invites to go with friends and do fun things, at no cost, that normally I could not afford, a sharing of ideas and a help in processing my thoughts, and a fun, low cost way to spend many a Friday or a Saturday night.

The reason I would not try to form a relationship with a man not in the community and not willing to join, really hasn't anything to do with all of this business of trust and all, though. It's because I am an extrovert who loves social activity, and I won't be compatible and happy with someone who shuns it and wishes I'd just be happy to shun it alongside him. Ain't nothin' to do with any sense of this or that being a better way.

But for a sub who is new to BDSM, the RIGHT community (because some of them are plenty sleazy, toxic, and problematic) can help keep them safe. Going home with strangers is a roll of the dice, and they can as easily be like you or NOT like you. One need not "consent to human sacrifice and hope for the best." I spent the first 2 months playing publicly with Zen before I invited myself to his home. Then consulted my gut, assessed the risk, arranged a safe call, and went for it.

Do you think he arranged a safe call?

EDIT: "do I really have to qualify my statement with "as long as they aren't psychotic"? I thought that was a given."

How exactly would I know, if a man is, or he is not? That's what I'm trying to say.

Well I think most people trust their instincts. I've switched on occaaion. I've tuened pwople down because something didn't seem right. One person wrote something about hanging me from the ceiling like a piece of meat waiting to be carved. Oh hell no lol. I didn't even bother to ask if that was meant figuratively.

You had me worried there, but I see we are on the same page. It IS silly. You defended the guy so vigorously I had to ask. Anyways, my thoughts are more about the communities I've come across in South Florida.

I guess it's weird that I have no problem finding subs. I don't really do casual play. My provlems stem mire from the fact I'm out of town a lot. I was actually surprised when I met Sprite. We met and she invited me over to play for the next day. One of her partners was supposed to be home but something came up. I offered to postpone but she said to come on over. We ended up playing for about 4 hours. I guess I give off a good vibe or something?

I do arrange a safe call when I have a stranger over. You never know. The last woman I had over to my home was a vanilla hook up. She claimed she was underage and tried to extort money from me. I called her bluff and called the cops. She left in a hurry lol. But I see that as the exception, not the rule. I'm not going to assume all women will do that now.

No, I'm not going to urge anyone to just jump from one stranger's house to another. Use common sense. If your common sense says don't do it then don't. Personally, I think some subs might get off on the danger aspect.

 

[Magdlyn]

I have subbed with various lovers for about 12 years. First with my ex husband, as a last ditch effort to feed his ego and save our marriage. Then in many more upfront, actual BDSM scenarios.

I have never felt like I held all the power, as a sub. Nor do I think my Sir/Daddy whatever held all the power. I feel that it's like any romantic or sexual relationship, a give and take, a yin yang, for mutual pleasure and discovery and self growth. (and in my case, spiritual enlightenment as well)

Also, when I've Topped, I don't feel anyone who has subbed/bottomed for me holds ALL the power. That's ridiculous. Why would that even be?

To say a sub holds all the power smacks too much of men saying women really have all the power in the world, because we own the pussies men are dying and fighting to get into.

But almost every position of political and spiritual/religious and corporate power is held by men. So that is also a ridiculous statement. The kind of thing men say that makes me angry.

 

[Spork]

I have subbed with various lovers for about 12 years. First with my ex husband, as a last ditch effort to feed his ego and save our marriage. Then in many more upfront, actual BDSM scenarios.

I have never felt like I held all the power, as a sub. Nor do I think my Sir/Daddy whatever held all the power. I feel that it's like any romantic or sexual relationship, a give and take, a yin yang, for mutual pleasure and discovery and self growth. (and in my case, spiritual enlightenment as well)

Also, when I've Topped, I don't feel anyone who has subbed/bottomed for me holds ALL the power. That's ridiculous. Why would that even be?

To say a sub holds all the power smacks too much of men saying women really have all the power in the world, because we own the pussies men are dying and fighting to get into.

But almost every position of political and spiritual/religious and corporate power is held by men. So that is also a ridiculous statement. The kind of thing men say that makes me angry.

I just think that it's a mistake to think of things in terms of absolutes, and to make sweeping generalizations in general. Human beings at an individual level are messy and complicated.

The conversation here is still SO much more reasonable than some of the others I have on this Relationships board I post on elsewhere, that place will make you wanna beat your head against a wall. There are men over there saying that average women only go for "top tier" men making it unfair and impossible for "average" men to date, like they say that 80% of women chase 10% of men, and those "Chads" as they call them (I wish I were kidding) bang all the women leaving none for the "Timothys" of the world. This of course is because they're miserable, bitter, angry little bastards and women smell their toxic shit a mile off and they can't get a relationship going, so they are miserable and involuntarily celibate, for which they also have a term, "incel." It's all this red pill MRA anti-feminism crap. There aren't that many of those guys there, but there are enough and they just never shut up.

It is this whole "nothing is ever my fault" garbage that makes me so thankful for many of the Buddhist sourced philosophies I'm getting into these days. I'm finding that I always pretty much leaned this direction ideologically, I've always found meaning and truth in certain concepts and I'm just now (thanks to my guy, whose nickname of "Zen" isn't coincidental) finding that there's a whole huge body of ideas and writings that already existed, and in "discovering" these notions I've just sorta been reinventing the wheel my whole life. Not that I'm becoming religious. Or even necessarily spiritual. Just continuing to be philosophical.

But as a woman, I've always felt a deep rebellion against the idea that the only meaningful thing for a woman to do with her life is to make and raise children. THEY (if they're male) get to go be people, innovators and thinkers, with meaningful contributions to the culture and the world...a woman should be happy and satisfied with her lot, that she's created more humans, and devoted to that. Wife to a man, mother to (hopefully) boys, what more could you want? It makes me growly. I didn't want it when I was young, I chafed at it when I was married, and now I get frustrated looking at ancestry information where I'm more likely to find out a male relative's vocation, and nothing but vital statistics on the women beyond a few generations back. I'm like, "really? They left nothing behind, but their kids? Surely there was more to them as people, than that?" If any of my ancestors had left behind their stories, I would want to read them! But then I talk to old people, very old people, men and women, and too many just seem to think that the young don't care about them or the lives they lived. I CARE, DAMMIT. I always cared.

I was reading a thing, this author was referencing another author who, facing some terminal diagnosis and a limited lifespan, wrote that all that humanity has ever accomplished, has been "immortality projects"...our ability to contemplate a world without ourselves in it, and our own mortality, makes people want to leave something behind. This has driven every step of human evolution, every invention, every advance, every piece of art, music, writing, every child raised and just...everything. All of it. My issue is that in being child raisers and not being allowed the "selfishness" of other immortality projects, women are relegated to historical invisibility too often. I've got a problem with that. So, I'm doing stuff. Writing, making art. Talking to people and touching lives as I may. If I wish my ancestors, especially the women, had left more behind, then I have some obligation to leave what I can, in the time that I've got.

Nobody's stopping me.

Now when I look at it like that, sometimes it lets me feel that the struggles between the genders that I see with my eyes, all of the daily events and struggles playing out are at the same time tiny in the grand scheme of things, and almost...petty. But at the same time part of the greater whole, and the stories we tell and leave behind. Insignificant and important all at once.

 

[Nox]

I want to thank everyone in the last few pages for a very thoughtful, interesting conversation!

 

[vinsanity0]

Spork, you gotta tell me where that place is. I'd love to mess with those guys...lol (only half kidding)

I see guys like that and it makes me just shake my head. The worst part is they obviously aren't learning from their mistakes.

Mags, the Cubans have a saying: The man is the head of the house, but the woman is the neck

 

[Hannahfluke]

The reason that several people, including Master Thorns, the owner of the club, disagreed with the "sub has all the power" statement, is that it's important to make people understand a need for caution. In fact the ultimate conclusion that the room could agree on, was "TRUST has all the power." I am on board with that.

I mean, think about the thousands on fetlife who don't ever go to events or clubs or community things, but just hook up with people and go to their houses. The Top or Dom(me) COULD be an abuser or a predator. Or not. Once you put the power in their hands, you have put the power in their hands. They have the ball. I know a woman who has been involved in Leather and kink for over a decade, and she just realized that her D/s relationship is abusive and is getting out of it...with great pain and difficulty...she was really into this man, but he was controlling her, trying to keep her from talking to other people in the community and even her family, isolating her. Doing other things that are part of an emotionally abusive relationship, kink or no kink. And she took his word for it, that this was within his rights to control her, because he's the Dom and he makes the rules. That shit happens to people who SHOULD know better.

We are trying to be careful in making sure that subs know that yeah, you do give over your power to the Dom and you have to be careful about that.

As for trust...I'm known as being kind of "brave" for a willingness to bottom for people I don't even necessarily know, if I see them demonstrate interesting technique. Other bottoms have told me "Oh, I have to really trust someone to play with them." Well, I can do this...at parties, at the club, not because I don't need to have any trust established, but because it's fine that I don't have that bond with the Top, I have trust in the club itself, in the DMs and staff, that if I "red" then the scene WILL stop.

And we are coming in this conversation to a conclusion I believe, which is that everyone needs to be part of the solution to this issue between men and women. Women need to find the courage to defend our boundaries, even though it's uncomfortable. Men need to pay attention and respect them. We all need to support, and when necessary, correct one another when we're seeing shit that is out of line, whenever we can.

As for men being able or not able to read nonverbal stuff. While I can accept that certain conditions like those of the Autism Spectrum can cause individuals difficulty in reading nonverbal cues, I do believe that most men are capable of it. Whether they WILL or not, depends on a lot of what has gone into their makeup, their character development in their lifetime.

It was a conversation I had with Zen the other day, that I asked him to consider in his mind, a friend we have who is frankly a great big ugly dude. And next to him, Jersey guy (the puppy I've been fussing about.) Hold a mental image of those two. Which one would seem more obviously threatening to women, or to anyone? Ugly guy. He's huge. He's scary looking. Jersey guy is like this: http://cdn3-www.dogtime.com/assets/...est-highland-white-terrier-dogs-puppies-2.jpg

About that threatening. He's small, short, older, with a sweet soft buzzy Jewish Jersey accented voice. Everything about his outward appearance says, "pet me, I'm cute!"

Which of these two men, though, is more likely to push boundaries? Ah ha. The big ugly bear of a man has gone through life responding to how others perceive and react to him. He's probably been hurt by social rejection more times than anyone can count, because of how he comes off. And how he's shaped his inner self to respond to that, is to be a human who lives to serve. He's got a female friend whose kids' father is a deadbeat jerk, and he's the one over there fixing their bikes and giving them Dad-time. No obligation, just who he is. There for everyone. Great big marshmallow teddy bear on the inside. And he's let it be known he finds me attractive, without me feeling like he's pursuing me in the slightest. He's got, in interactions with others and especially women, a gentle touch and damn good respectful behavior.

Jersey guy on the other hand? Used to not being seen as threatening, so he never had to develop any of that. His life's circumstances have shaped him. I find this totally fascinating, and this is why I don't see him as a manipulative jerk. He didn't learn to look for people stiffening up and trying to deflect him, because he is accustomed to being who he is, and living in his skin. And pushing boundaries for him, has probably been met with success and in instances of failure, with forgiveness and friendship. Not defensiveness or anger. He's probably gotten laid a LOT by just being persistently affectionate in his lifetime. So...he does what works.

Does it mean it's ok? Well, no, and as much as I need to grow by managing my boundaries, he needs to grow by understanding that especially in our community, he needs to get clearer consent, not just push things just a little further and a little further. In a community that readily recognizes even when women are being predatory or abusive, being a cute guy won't get you off the hook past a certain point. I forgive him somewhat only because he is new. And because I do try to see what background people come from in life, why they do what they do, and be compassionate to that.

Even if I'm personally annoyed, I am not without compassion or understanding. If that makes any sense?

I've been saying all along that in these situations of the "metoo" movement and all this, someone who has trespassed due to ignorance should not be demonized and destroyed, because ignorance is a curable condition. Very few people are in fact really BAD people...generally those so dug into their bad behaviors that they defend them and refuse to acknowledge any need to change anything they're doing.

I've been trying to place my finger on what exactly about your descriptions of Jersey Guy really bother me, Spork. I totally understand that you want to think the best about people and that you can understand how his background has formed who he is, but we're not just talking about him violating your personal space by standing closer to you than you'd like him to or hugging you for longer than you'd like him to, which are actions that are still violations of your consent of what you'd like to allow him to do with your own body. You're describing overt sexual actions, breathing into your neck and moaning being the one that sticks out the most to me, but trying to kiss you on the lips is pretty sexual also.

My husband and I aren't sexual with each other and haven't been for a few years and I can tell you that if he leaned into my neck and moaned, there'd be a discussion about sexual boundaries and if we were looking to restart our sexual relationship. If it happened with someone I didn't know well, I'd probably avoid them the rest of the night and then have a conversation in chat or messenger or something about it, because I don't want to depend on body language to get my point across (I've had to do this once after a party, it's not fun but I felt I needed to do it).

I get that you're coming out of a really bad marriage, but it's really hard for me to see you make excuses for this guy like it's somehow either a product of his upbringing or your fault he's doing these things. I hope you are able to address it with him and that the outcome is better than you fear.

I've grown to like and care about you from reading your messages since you've been here and this particular thread about Jersey Guy has been hard to read for me because I worry about how you dismiss your uncomfortable feelings and try to explain away his inappropriate actions.

 

[Spork]

Spork, you gotta tell me where that place is. I'd love to mess with those guys...lol (only half kidding)

I see guys like that and it makes me just shake my head. The worst part is they obviously aren't learning from their mistakes.

Mags, the Cubans have a saying: The man is the head of the house, but the woman is the neck

city-data.com, forum link at the top, Relationships subforum. I posted there from...let's see...2011 to about 2015, and then made the mistake of sharing my own stuff when I was feeling raw and vulnerable and in a bad place. That is NOT the space to do that in. There are enough trolls there who totally get away with it, not to mention people of all kinds including some really narrow minded traditionalists and muggles, that talking about my marriage issues and venture into poly and all, it was a mistake. I left, and then found this site. I actually looked into the source code of this site carefully, because they look identical (same forum template, same colors, etc) and I wanted to be VERY SURE this site had no connection to city data.

Later when I wasn't struggling with difficult emotional stuff, I eventually went back there, because the Relationship subforum in particular is very, very active. I post in some of the others, too, like Psychology, Pets, Philosophy, etc. I've made a few friends, one delightful woman I even went on a gelato date with a while back, so there are some good people there, too.

I've been trying to place my finger on what exactly about your descriptions of Jersey Guy really bother me, Spork. I totally understand that you want to think the best about people and that you can understand how his background has formed who he is, but we're not just talking about him violating your personal space by standing closer to you than you'd like him to or hugging you for longer than you'd like him to, which are actions that are still violations of your consent of what you'd like to allow him to do with your own body. You're describing overt sexual actions, breathing into your neck and moaning being the one that sticks out the most to me, but trying to kiss you on the lips is pretty sexual also.

My husband and I aren't sexual with each other and haven't been for a few years and I can tell you that if he leaned into my neck and moaned, there'd be a discussion about sexual boundaries and if we were looking to restart our sexual relationship. If it happened with someone I didn't know well, I'd probably avoid them the rest of the night and then have a conversation in chat or messenger or something about it, because I don't want to depend on body language to get my point across (I've had to do this once after a party, it's not fun but I felt I needed to do it).

I get that you're coming out of a really bad marriage, but it's really hard for me to see you make excuses for this guy like it's somehow either a product of his upbringing or your fault he's doing these things. I hope you are able to address it with him and that the outcome is better than you fear.

I've grown to like and care about you from reading your messages since you've been here and this particular thread about Jersey Guy has been hard to read for me because I worry about how you dismiss your uncomfortable feelings and try to explain away his inappropriate actions.

I appreciate your take on this. I just see everything I experience as being an opportunity to think and learn, and also I take a share of responsibility (not blame, not fault, just responsibility) for everything that happens in my life experience. It's a philosophical thing. I enjoy picking everything apart.

So in recognizing my own feelings, even if I'm feeling stressed and overthinking, I'm analyzing my thoughts and emotions and the why of it all, trying to get better understanding of him, of human nature in its near infinite variety, psychology, myself, and so on. I actually want to be some sort of a counselor at some point, so the "understanding humans" exercise is valuable as such.

He expressed, after going through orientation the first time for the club, that he was worried about breaking the rules. He didn't want to be "that guy" and was really concerned about it.

Why would this be?

Well, I can view it through a "he's a manipulative villain" lens, and say he's laying a defensive groundwork so that if he errs, and is called out, he can play the innocent and dodge consequences.

I could say he is acting on his programming, which tells me he's probably hit some women's walls in the past, where he acted too familiar and intimate with women who were not into him like that, and eventually got called out in uncomfortable ways. So he feels unsure of himself, he wants to pursue, probably thinks that he has to or is supposed to, as a man...yet he's afraid.

Well it's interesting anyhow. I'm not afraid of this man. So if I am not afraid of him, then why am I going nuts over dealing with him? I seriously have not a sliver of concern that he's going to do me harm. Where is MY discomfort coming from? It has been something to think about. And it's highlighted some programming of my own, and a poor propensity for boundary setting and a number of other interesting things. I'm wanting to more closely align my behaviors and feelings, with my intellect and more significantly my VALUES...so I have an obligation and responsibility to myself, to do that work.

This is not about Jersey guy, so much as it's about me, for me, because I cannot control other people. Only my own self. I also have to pull myself in, to my value set, with regard to letting his feelings be his problem...something I've spent my life NOT doing, which has resulted in a lot of hardship for me.

Little problem, big personal growth. I can dig it.

EDIT: Upon re-reading your quoted response, I want to add- I'm analyzing in great detail more than I am dismissing or excusing. Every point, every factor, every piece of the puzzle interests me. I'm not dismissing my discomfort, but I want to understand it. I'm not excusing his behavior, but I want to understand it. Does that make sense? These kinds of situations play out among humans ALL THE TIME...if we're going to get to better places in how we interact, sooner or later, the work must be done to grasp the factors that go into the making of the "perfect storms" of people violating the boundaries of other people. It is almost never so simple as, "she was asking for it" or "he's a horrible monster with no decency"...there's a bigger picture here. One I want to see from every possible angle. My situation is nothing compared to so many, but I have to take every chance to learn where I can find them.

I really hope I can have a good conversation with him, because I want to ask, I want to try to get genuine information, did he truly not notice my body language, or if he did, how was he interpreting it? What exactly has been going on in his mind? I really want to grok how these interactions look from his side of it. And I do believe that after I clear the air and make it known to him that I need him to back off, he will. If nothing else, I've got a lot of social clout in a group he doesn't want to be expelled from. He does need to stay in my good graces.

 

[Hannahfluke]

I appreciate your take on this. I just see everything I experience as being an opportunity to think and learn, and also I take a share of responsibility (not blame, not fault, just responsibility) for everything that happens in my life experience. It's a philosophical thing. I enjoy picking everything apart.

So in recognizing my own feelings, even if I'm feeling stressed and overthinking, I'm analyzing my thoughts and emotions and the why of it all, trying to get better understanding of him, of human nature in its near infinite variety, psychology, myself, and so on. I actually want to be some sort of a counselor at some point, so the "understanding humans" exercise is valuable as such.

He expressed, after going through orientation the first time for the club, that he was worried about breaking the rules. He didn't want to be "that guy" and was really concerned about it.

Why would this be?

Well, I can view it through a "he's a manipulative villain" lens, and say he's laying a defensive groundwork so that if he errs, and is called out, he can play the innocent and dodge consequences.

I could say he is acting on his programming, which tells me he's probably hit some women's walls in the past, where he acted too familiar and intimate with women who were not into him like that, and eventually got called out in uncomfortable ways. So he feels unsure of himself, he wants to pursue, probably thinks that he has to or is supposed to, as a man...yet he's afraid.

Well it's interesting anyhow. I'm not afraid of this man. So if I am not afraid of him, then why am I going nuts over dealing with him? I seriously have not a sliver of concern that he's going to do me harm. Where is MY discomfort coming from? It has been something to think about. And it's highlighted some programming of my own, and a poor propensity for boundary setting and a number of other interesting things. I'm wanting to more closely align my behaviors and feelings, with my intellect and more significantly my VALUES...so I have an obligation and responsibility to myself, to do that work.

This is not about Jersey guy, so much as it's about me, for me, because I cannot control other people. Only my own self. I also have to pull myself in, to my value set, with regard to letting his feelings be his problem...something I've spent my life NOT doing, which has resulted in a lot of hardship for me.

Little problem, big personal growth. I can dig it.

EDIT: Upon re-reading your quoted response, I want to add- I'm analyzing in great detail more than I am dismissing or excusing. Every point, every factor, every piece of the puzzle interests me. I'm not dismissing my discomfort, but I want to understand it. I'm not excusing his behavior, but I want to understand it. Does that make sense? These kinds of situations play out among humans ALL THE TIME...if we're going to get to better places in how we interact, sooner or later, the work must be done to grasp the factors that go into the making of the "perfect storms" of people violating the boundaries of other people. It is almost never so simple as, "she was asking for it" or "he's a horrible monster with no decency"...there's a bigger picture here. One I want to see from every possible angle. My situation is nothing compared to so many, but I have to take every chance to learn where I can find them.

I really hope I can have a good conversation with him, because I want to ask, I want to try to get genuine information, did he truly not notice my body language, or if he did, how was he interpreting it? What exactly has been going on in his mind? I really want to grok how these interactions look from his side of it. And I do believe that after I clear the air and make it known to him that I need him to back off, he will. If nothing else, I've got a lot of social clout in a group he doesn't want to be expelled from. He does need to stay in my good graces.

All of that makes a lot of sense. I really just found the latest one that you talked in depth about thinking about him and interacting with him, because I wanted to have context but didn't necessarily have the energy to find the perfect quote. I'm glad that you're using the experience to work on your boundaries and making sure that your values and actions align.

 

[vinsanity0]

Switching gears, though this related to the sexism tone this thread has currently drifted to.

Women in the corporate world. I recently witnessed a facebook discussion in which it was claimed that women in executive positions are outliers. I wonder why this is.

I'll use Mary as an example. She started out working a minimum wage job in high achool. She moved up. The company provided assistance for college. She got a degree and moved further up. She is now a bigwig in the regional corporate office. She will never move up from her position there. Some people woild have you believe that's because she is a women. Not true. This company has many woman in positions higher than hers. They have even had a female CEO.

The reason Mary will not progress? Because she is too nice. She doesn't have that killer instinct. She worries about what people think of her. She doesn't have the ambition to move up anymore. She is comfortable where she is at.

Quite often I see the complaint from women that they are viewed as a bitch if they get in a power position. So what? Do you think guys in those positions are thought of as nice guys? They are total pricks. They don't care. They are in charge. Does anyone here think anyone in the business world thinks Donald Trump is a nice guy? No, he's viewed as a guy who would slit his own mother's throat for a profit. Yet people still do business with him. Granted, he is a narcissist and does have issues with how people view him, but he doesn't change for that.

Related to this thread, Spork, on some level, is uncomfortable being viewed as a bad person if she confronts the Jersey Guy. This is causing her to put up with his behavior.

Back to corporate world. I can hear qit now. "But Vince, it's easy for you to say we should not care because you are a man and men have all the power." Bullshit. Sure, there are more men in CEO positions, but if you compare the amount to the total population of men, the CEOs are the outliers. The rest of us are just working stiffs trying to make a living.

(Disclaimer: this is not to say there aren't any industries where women aren't looked over for certain jobs. For instance, there is a lot of sexism in my industry, but not at the corporate level.)

 

[Spork]

No, men do not have ALL the power (lol any more than submissives do) but men and women have different kinds of power, different areas in which they wield power differently.

I have heard a lot of guys really complaining about how, now, a woman can destroy a man's career and reputation just by accusing him of sexual misconduct. Well it wasn't many decades ago that men could engage in sexual misconduct with relative impunity. Not to get too intersectional here, but if you look at the anti-suffrage posters, women have had to fight to even be seen as human beings, much as minorities have, and minority women? Even more so. I see plenty of men on the internet twisting themselves into pretzels to justify, excuse, deny, the really horrible behavior of men who violate women, and they seem very angry that women aren't rolling over and taking it (while also giving them whatever it is they want.)

There was a thread on yonder other forum previously mentioned that asked why misogyny was so villainized but misandry is "perfectly fine." I said the easy answer is, neither is fine ever. The "OK I thought about this a minute" answer is that an angry, hateful man tends to be dangerous, and an angry, hateful woman tends to be mostly kind of annoying to be around. It's that old thing of, "Men are afraid we'll reject them and women are afraid men will kill us." Well, I don't tend to go around in abject fear of men, but my cousin was killed in a domestic violence incident where her boyfriend got blackout drunk and stabbed her to death, just what...a week ago? I've heard plenty of stories of women being harmed severely or killed by angry men, not nearly so many of men being harmed or killed by angry women. So why is one kind of hate "less ok"...maybe because it feels more frightening? Where is the female Elliot Rodger? Where? A woman who is miserable because men don't like her is more likely to harm herself.

I'm rambling, so sorry, coffee time, brain firing up again... Back to the workplace and how people perceive us and such. One thing I have been wrestling with a bit is an argument I've heard recently from one particular man and often from others. "You cannot really blame me for this line of thinking, you see, men evolved these lizard brains, and evolution, and aggression is natural, and this is why it all works and..." Thing is, women are natural creatures with brains and urges, too. But from childhood, I at least, was taught to make way for everyone else. To always be nice, to share, not to hurt other people's feelings, to be quiet and not interrupt. I was not seen as worth investing in the way my brothers were, by either of my parents, and I wasn't allowed to get away with a goddamn thing in the name of "hurr hurr boys will be boys." Self control was taught early. And I also learned early that if a boy did something cruel to me, no one would lift a finger to help. I'd be told to ignore him, to stay away from him, to take responsibility for whatever it was that happened and do something myself, to prevent it.

Now I don't mind being accountable when I've been an asshole, but I'm pretty tired of the same expectation never falling upon other people. And people howling and trolling and carrying on, when finally it does, at least SOME of the time.

There IS a socialization factor that people struggle to break free of. Men are socialized to accomplish things, to build monuments to their own greatness. Women are socialized from childhood to be accommodating and pleasing to others, to marry a man, please him, and make more men. I don't give a rat's backside how this "evolved" we aren't cave-people any more and we have thinking minds and we CAN be more than that.

Also, a factor you're not putting into perspective here? The USA is not the whole entire world. My company is a global one, it's headquartered in India and has branches in a number of countries. We have visits and conference calls and emails keeping us all connected all the time. And I needed software developed at one point to do my job properly, and getting it was...well, impossible...because the developers refused to give serious attention to the ideas of a woman. They took what I said, transformed it into a different thing of their own devising, and developed useless code that didn't do what I needed, and in fact did not even work. I told them it wouldn't, and why, but they didn't listen to me. The guy I had to deal with was EXTREMELY condescending about it. But ya know, even setting aside any sexism in the US, there are cultures in other countries where women are still fighting to even be regarded as PEOPLE.

Have you ever felt like a significant number of humans around you, and in particular those who were supposed to care about you, regarded you as less than fully a human being? More like some kind of cute, ornamental, stupid, irrational TOY that either belongs to another person (man) or that they would like to play with? Pretty much every woman has.

I'm not saying women cannot achieve the highest positions of power, but it IS an uphill climb in ways that it isn't for (white) men in the US, and in other countries, it's even worse if not impossible sometimes. Nor am I saying that men get things handed to them, but there are fewer obstacles for those who are automatically empowered from the start.

 

[vinsanity0]

Sorry about your cousin. I had an old friend who was killed by an ex. He shot both her and her daughter. Don't you think a person who kills like that is mentally unstable? How do you determine that has anything to do with patriarchy or sexism?

Likewise with the IT guy. Most IT people I know are egotistical asshats. They aren't about to take instructions from a non-tech person. So how do you determine if he is being sexist or just thinks he knows better than everyone?

As I'm driving along I often try to find an NPR station. The other day they were talking to a Nigerian woman. She said if you want power you have to go out there and get it. People who have power aren't going to give it away. It's not instinctual to give away power.

I don't really see most feminists as misandrists. Though I have met a few, I don't think it's the norm. Those guys must get called out on a lot of bad behavior. They sound like those MRA idiots.

I thought being taught to be nice and to share was just what kids are taught. Apparently not? It should be.

 

[Spork]

Sorry about your cousin. I had an old friend who was killed by an ex. He shot both her and her daughter. Don't you think a person who kills like that is mentally unstable? How do you determine that has anything to do with patriarchy or sexism?

Likewise with the IT guy. Most IT people I know are egotistical asshats. They aren't about to take instructions from a non-tech person. So how do you determine if he is being sexist or just thinks he knows better than everyone?

As I'm driving along I often try to find an NPR station. The other day they were talking to a Nigerian woman. She said if you want power you have to go out there and get it. People who have power aren't going to give it away. It's not instinctual to give away power.

I don't really see most feminists as misandrists. Though I have met a few, I don't think it's the norm. Those guys must get called out on a lot of bad behavior. They sound like those MRA idiots.

I thought being taught to be nice and to share was just what kids are taught. Apparently not? It should be.

I think that in the case of my cousin's boyfriend, they were all kind of trashy people who probably drank a lot and did drugs (meth, likely) and rather than it being just a matter of "mental instability" it was...he got blackout drunk and lost control of his behavior. No excuse. Because frankly...I'd be SHOCKED if he's never gotten that drunk or did bad things of lesser degrees in the past, and at his age, well into adulthood, he ought to know better than to even get into that state, if he can't control himself when he's there. But some people don't really think like that.

I don't know, man, I'd say in the more realistic world of more normal people I've known, I've seen too many women take the socialization to put up with things, and too many men (with those women) take advantage of it. Some of those guys, when they encounter women who DON'T put up with things, get mad that they can't roll right over them like they're used to doing. There are a hundred examples from the very minor to the very extreme.

Women are doing what we can to work on this, and a lot of it is in fixing OURSELVES and how we interact day to day with others.

As for the IT guy, no, he does not treat men the same way he treats women dude. Not at all. I've been involved with him on lots of projects involving others where I'm just one of the team and not driving the initiatives, and he respects men a lot more. So do a number of our people, especially from a few of the other countries we deal with. But even here in this office, during the last presidential election, a man was heard saying to another man, "The women are all voting for Hillary just because she's also got a vagina, this is why women should never have been given the vote, they're too stupid for it." This was an older, and very conservative guy who said this.

I've had tons, TONS, of social situations with mixed genders in a group, where a guy has said something that made me and every woman there cringe, and we exchanged glances like, "Wow, seriously? Fuck you, dude." and no one said a thing. In fact I'd say most of my male acquaintances and friends prior to getting into kink circles where we act a bit different and are working to change the culture, have made sexist comments and acted like hey...no big thing just bros bein' bros. Gotta love looking at the guy's wife when that happens and seeing her die a little inside.

The women might kvetch about their men, but it's usually not when they're standing right there, as though they don't even exist or have feelings.

But yeah, the guys in that yonder forum space, a lot of them are MRA types, MGTOW and "red pill" guys, etc. They yell about how it's so unfair that women want equality but expect guys to hold doors open for them. I hold doors for literally anyone, any time. I find it insane that they want to throw fits over something that, to me, is basic manners.

 

[Ravenscroft]

Power differential is power differential. As someone recently said on NPR, "it seems like the only people who get upset at the concept that 'privilege is bad' are those who have privilege." Like, poor whites are often incapable of seeing where their social position is superior to middle-class blacks. Males often are blind to the very notion that they have ANY advantage over women.

And people who have power consider themselves immune from the idea that power can be misused.

As for trying to get a tech's proper attention. I work building transit buses. (International company, etc.) It's an old joke at the plant that Engineering will make really strange spec changes (often useless) without consulting those of us who actually make the install. Yet if a line worker comes up with a GREAT change that'll benefit everyone (like be cheaper to build AND give the customer better value), it WILL be rejected out of hand... until THEY think that THEY have come up with it then suddenly it's A Genius Idea.

I mean, . I'm male & 59, & have watched my well-reasoned suggestions appear in this manner. We laugh disgustedly, sigh, & get back to work -- heck, at least we get a hassle reduction, right?

Is the "cuteness" problem a factor in the way the world works? Certainly, & it does explain a lot. However, I can't see where it's the ONLY factor or even the MAJOR factor. Power makes people blind, if not outright stupid.

(Again, my bias is being raised amidst many petite smart women skilled at getting shit done. I'll take good advice from anyone, & even if it's delivered in a less-than-ideal manner, because I learned to focus on content, & I relearn that all the time.)

 

[Spork]

Power differential is power differential. As someone recently said on NPR, "it seems like the only people who get upset at the concept that 'privilege is bad' are those who have privilege." Like, poor whites are often incapable of seeing where their social position is superior to middle-class blacks. Males often are blind to the very notion that they have ANY advantage over women.

And people who have power consider themselves immune from the idea that power can be misused.

As for trying to get a tech's proper attention. I work building transit buses. (International company, etc.) It's an old joke at the plant that Engineering will make really strange spec changes (often useless) without consulting those of us who actually make the install. Yet if a line worker comes up with a GREAT change that'll benefit everyone (like be cheaper to build AND give the customer better value), it WILL be rejected out of hand... until THEY think that THEY have come up with it then suddenly it's A Genius Idea.

I mean, . I'm male & 59, & have watched my well-reasoned suggestions appear in this manner. We laugh disgustedly, sigh, & get back to work -- heck, at least we get a hassle reduction, right?

Is the "cuteness" problem a factor in the way the world works? Certainly, & it does explain a lot. However, I can't see where it's the ONLY factor or even the MAJOR factor. Power makes people blind, if not outright stupid.

(Again, my bias is being raised amidst many petite smart women skilled at getting shit done. I'll take good advice from anyone, & even if it's delivered in a less-than-ideal manner, because I learned to focus on content, & I relearn that all the time.)

As someone who has had enough contact with conservative white guys (the sort who get real blustery over words like, "privilege") I can tell you that they way they perceive the entire concept is OFF.

No one is saying that literally everything is easy for them, or handed to them, or that they didn't work for something they got. No one is saying that what they have should be taken and given to someone, unearned.

They don't get that the concept is more about barriers to get there, that some people have to fight past, and that do not exist for others. Some of those barriers are internal, and some are external. Like if one kid is raised with constant encouragement that they can be great, and given attention and care when it's needed, and another is told constantly to be quiet, go away, or that they aren't as good as others, no one wants to hear their contributions, etc. Those two kids may well grow up to have seriously different internal landscapes...and the one who was given encouragement probably has some privilege in that. The other had to first overcome all of the mental baggage of failure and giving way to others, stepping down and stepping back.

Of course these are not absolutes, because kids can sometimes be even MORE determined to succeed under scenarios like the second, just to prove something, but the point is the illustration. We get the concept around here, I think, but I know people who do not. All they see is that they believe they deserve what they have, and others deserve what THEY have. That whole just world fallacy thing.