ToPaolo,
Right you are. Heteros think marriage belongs to themselves, but half of their first ones end in divorce (usually becasue of sexual wandering and new kids before the old marriage is over) and the second ones have a 65 percent chance of failure. But don't let anyone else in on it.
I was not surprsied that you read Orson Scott Card. He wrote some great stuff when he started out, like Songbird and Songmaster, and all his books have lots of veiled male eroticism. Stephen King is great but his novels are hard to take for me, due to the genre, but he knows. Any real writer knows. Even Louis L'Amour has plenty of the sexual stuff that Waddie refers to. Thaks for the litereary reminders.
YM
Master/slave Area
-
yankee masha (imported)
- Articles: 0
- Posts: 211
- Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2003 5:08 pm
-
Posting Rank
-
yankee masha (imported)
- Articles: 0
- Posts: 211
- Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2003 5:08 pm
-
Posting Rank
Re: Master/slave Area
Mac, I think you are misinformed. What you said sounds morfe like today's young people. In teh sixties passions and commitment to ideals ran very high. Instant gratification? Isn't that today's yuppie? GOtta have a brand new $20,000 car at 16? And parents who agree and buyh it for them?
In the Sixties you could buy a great house for $20,000. But you had to get a loan.
I think you might refer to the Hippie movement, but they were not like that. They wanted to live free, have sex, and not possess each other, but only would make marital commitments based on genuine desire to do so. Today's kids get married and married and married and have kids like gum ball machines with whoever wants to screw them. While talking on their cell phones and running up htousands of dollars a month on them. And not caring about anything but their immediate gratification.
I thought most of the flower children were a pain in the ass, and needed delousing badly, but they were committed to their choices and were not obsessed with materialism and money to the point of being crippled without cars and phones.
In the Sixties you could buy a great house for $20,000. But you had to get a loan.
I think you might refer to the Hippie movement, but they were not like that. They wanted to live free, have sex, and not possess each other, but only would make marital commitments based on genuine desire to do so. Today's kids get married and married and married and have kids like gum ball machines with whoever wants to screw them. While talking on their cell phones and running up htousands of dollars a month on them. And not caring about anything but their immediate gratification.
I thought most of the flower children were a pain in the ass, and needed delousing badly, but they were committed to their choices and were not obsessed with materialism and money to the point of being crippled without cars and phones.
-
Mac (imported)
- Articles: 0
- Posts: 1492
- Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 10:53 am
-
Posting Rank
Re: Master/slave Area
We are both right. That attitude began in the late sixties and grew into what you described as today.yankee masha (imported) wrote: Sat Jul 12, 2003 8:34 am Mac, I think you are misinformed. What you said sounds morfe like today's young people. In teh sixties passions and commitment to ideals ran very high. Instant gratification? Isn't that today's yuppie? GOtta have a brand new $20,000 car at 16? And parents who agree and buyh it for them?
In the Sixties you could buy a great house for $20,000. But you had to get a loan.
My children were born in the late sixties and the older one has that instant gratification attitude. However, she developed it after graduating from high school and leaving home.
-
yankee masha (imported)
- Articles: 0
- Posts: 211
- Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2003 5:08 pm
-
Posting Rank
Re: Master/slave Area
No argument there (dammit). I don't have any kids who were born then and have had only minimal interaction with people of that age group. But from what I've seen you are right.
But none of that applies to what the original discussion was about. We were talking about people who already were adults then, in the prime years, expressing themselves in an S/M situation and the actual subculture that existed at that time. It did not involve infants. I think you took us into a totally different area of discussion, even though it is one that is extremely vital and important to what is going on in general.
If you want to make a new thread on this topic it sounds like a lot of rocking good discussion will ensue. Hope you know I am not faulting you for bringing it up, just that it is a new topic.
YM
But none of that applies to what the original discussion was about. We were talking about people who already were adults then, in the prime years, expressing themselves in an S/M situation and the actual subculture that existed at that time. It did not involve infants. I think you took us into a totally different area of discussion, even though it is one that is extremely vital and important to what is going on in general.
If you want to make a new thread on this topic it sounds like a lot of rocking good discussion will ensue. Hope you know I am not faulting you for bringing it up, just that it is a new topic.
YM