Gorean Philosophies

[littlepet]

Hey Seri,

Point of clarification, I said it was "difficult" sometimes to separate the lifestyle from the books, i didn't say I couldn't do it.

I pulled out "two pieces out of context" because my post would have been too long with more. I also don't feel that this is the place for me to pontificate on my views on a work of fiction in the completely unedited sense that I feel I must express those views.

I have more here...and even THIS is just the tip of the iceburg.

http://gor-issues.wetpaint.com/page/...the+Gor+novels.

There is a disclaimer at the top of the page, because the comments do get quite snarky with regards to Norman and his um...novels.

As for "context" this is a point that has often been leveled at me by christians who say I just don't understand the context under which biblegod ordered rape of foreign women in the old testament. My reply is that there is NO context in which that is okay to me.

I also realize you are not saying the Gorean way is the only way. Nor am I in any way trying to say you shouldn't follow it. If it speaks to you, more power to you, that's what freedom of choice MEANS. It means I don't have the right to come dictate to you what you must find misogynistic.

By the same token though, I have my own feelings over what I believe to be misogynistic.

What I think may be hard for me to express well here is that I don't care about the "overall work" I think there are plenty of examples throughout the entire work that pretty much holds up my view, but even if there were only the things on the page I linked above, it would be too much.

As it is, those things are not particularly graphic or explicit for the most part. It gets much worse in later novels, where it seems Norman forsook all attempts at plot altogether in favor of the "Don't you stupid women know you're meant to submit to the penis!?!" line of thought.

I have no problem with submission, or my own submission toward my own master. What I have a problem with is the view that it's a woman's "Nature."

I can assure you, that while many women may have varying drives of submissive tendencies, they do not ALL or even the bulk majority have the depth of need that you or I possess.

While many women have sexual fantasies of submission, the key point is that they direct their own fantasies, they have not truly given up all power and cotnrol to another human being, and most women, do not WANT to.

Sure, it's in MY nature, it's in YOUR nature, but it's not in EVERY woman's nature. And to insist that it is, in my opinion is misogyny.

Also, your and my natures of submission vary on another level just between us. You (if I understand what I've seen of you on the boards) are a submissive in general. You seem to tend to defer and make peace and especially toward anyone else who is a dominant.

I, however, am not that way. While I'm deeply submissive toward my own master, I have absolutely no need or drive to submit to any other human being, no matter whether they are "dominant" or not. Male, or not.

This is because, I am somewhat of an alpha female. I kneel before only ONE human being. Period. Now sure, he could "make me" show this deference to other people, but it would be outside my nature and it would show a fundamental incompatibility and lack of understanding of who I am as a human being. It would cause me to resent him, or it would ultimately crush my spirit, but no true and noble good would come of it.

The second text, what we're talking about is a FREE COMPANION. A woman who has not said she wishes to be a slave, a woman who has been trying desperately to maintain her freedom. Trying to just "assume" that deep down "because she's a woman" she must secretly crave to submit to any and all random men, or even just one man, is an act of violence against her.

One person's fun forceful sexual encounter is another person's rape. Would you ever say that a woman WANTED to be genuinely raped? Probably not. And yet, to me, this little segment of the text suggests something just as bad. For a woman to be demeaned and left stripped naked on a cold floor, chained up, and "put in her place" arguably because she is "a woman" and "all chick's really dig that."

The fact that YOU would crave something like that, does not mean all or even most women would. And even those who would, the circumstances under which it would be beneficial rather than harmful, would likely be quite narrow.

I can promise you, if anyone but my master ever attempted such a thing, their head would end up on a pike, and likely by my own hand. Not that my master wouldn't go after said person, but I'm fairly certain my ass would get there quicker.

The kind of things espoused by this text are abusive. Having lived through an abusive relationship, in which a man fucked me and then threw me coldly on the floor afterward on more than one occasion, as only one small portion of his cruelty to me, I can tell you that this is NOT what women want. And John Norman's insistence that it is, even through fiction is a product of his own fevered daydreams and not reality.

Saying it is "just a story" would be fair IF there was not a LIFESTYLE based around it. And the apparent "deeper philosophical views" underlying the text. So it's unfair to say in one breath, that these books espouse a certain type of philosophy, and in the next say: "oh but it's just a story." That's shifting the goal posts of the argument.

I have not spoken once against your personal feelings toward your master or your slavery, I speak ONLY against the Gorean assumption that "women" have a "place."

And you forget also, that I am also in fact, owned. My lack of deference to all males, or all dominants, and my personal distaste of a certain set of novels does not diminish this fact.

You not having witnessed my submission is not a proof text that it doesn't exist. It just doesn't exist for anyone but my master.