74:
53:
84:
217:." 1.i thought links to blogs were not ok? How is a link to "Pervocracy" more credible than a link to radical feminists' actual beliefs? 2.it implies that radfems hold different beliefs regarding sex roles i.e. that radfems like sex roles. Seeing as a group of sex roles=gender and how radfems want to abolish gender... im going to have to ask for an explanation on how that isnt slander. "it has been argued by
295:"it has been argued by anti-pornography feminists that male submission may be even more evidence of men's patriarchal oppression over women" "the buying of a fantasy from a professional dominatrix... inherently degrading to women" untrue. Actually that entire paragraph lacks any proof whatsoever. Being anti-porn i am sure we never make such claims, which perfectly explains the lack of a citation.
22:
335:, used in this article: there is currently an issue regarding cached thumbnails of this image being in the wrong orientation. This seems to be erratic, and might be a case of the thumbnail cache being out of sync with the image. Just twiddling the thumbnail syntax on this page won't solve the underlying issue, even if it seems to do so by luck. --
222:
to degrade submissive men and women, and some of them seem really enthusiastic about it, especially when compared to minimum wage jobs in the service industry... does she need protection from that experience?" ok so this is what a non-biased POV looks like? Gotcha. "It's telling that many of those who claim male submissives don't exist, such as
226:" who never stated such. "thus alluding to the hypocritical, phallocentric sexism that radical feminism is often accused of" accusations and bias. "Although, to be fair, the kind of radical feminism Robin Morgan represents, really sets the bar low for what defines male oppression of women" that is a personal opinion.
276:
and therefore, I've removed the
Pervocracy and that was one of the main contentions of me reverting your other edit, because it included a blog. Blogs by experts may be considered, but I don't believe the one that you mentioned was one. Even expert blogs are just that; blogs, not subject to editorial
221:
that male submission may be even more evidence of men's patriarchal oppression over women" complete and purposeful misunderstanding not only of radfem critiques, but what it is that radfems critique about femdom porn in general. "Even if it's mostly women earning up to triple dollar amounts per hour
254:
I've removed the blog and some obviously non-POV language that you saw fit. I've removed the 'dominated men' remark as well as the link to
Pervocracy. I do think the article has other problems, but since the format of your reply is off, could we address them one by one? I'm open to it, as I said
207:
I'll go point by point: The existence of male subs is not a matter of debate, they exist in real life. The debate is about male subs in porn, not real ones. This was not made clear. "personally submit themselves to the authority of a woman" it says "personally", we do not critique what these men
182:
Maybe the problem is that the article in its current state seems to discuss its subject mostly from a feminist perspective, rather than that there is any specific problem with the inclusion of the section about a feminist perspective on it? In other words, maybe you need to focus on finding, and
157:
We need more on this to explore the phenomenon of male submission itself, as opposed to the traditional
Western social role of male dominance, or the phenomenon of female dominance. Also, compare "lifestyle" male subs to those who simply enjoy temporary sexual roleplaying. --
277:
control. I also looked over most of your requests as they seem to be formatted right on the editing page and implemented most of them. Any others? I also contest your changing of the definition, as I believe that the definition stated in the
370:
I removed all unsourced / poorly sourced / pov content. Whoever originally wrote a lot of the content didn't have sources and had an agenda, what they did is they used vague sources, and often times no sources to justify their statements.
212:
world view" WOW. radical feminists now love patriarchy... seems totally legit. "Sex positive feminism, meanwhile, has actually dominated a few submissive men" WUT? "and may have different opinions regarding binary
140:
404:
435:
130:
440:
106:
430:
97:
58:
269:
Clearly, most of it is problematic. It would be easier for you to explain why mine is. I recommend reading my previous message first if you haven't done so.
208:"personally" do, we critique femdom porn - which is public. "radical feminists, and hyper-masculine frat culture, as they both subscribe to the exact same
350:
Update: I've now regenerated a couple of different sizes of thumbnail which seemed to be generating problems: I hope this should fix things. --
168:
397:
374:
There is now no sociological component to this page. I added a list of confirm-able activities that fall under male submission.
33:
242:
412:
332:
218:
39:
393:
The following
Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
408:
230:
21:
192:
172:
89:
317:
105:
on
Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
379:
83:
73:
52:
355:
340:
286:
260:
238:
188:
278:
272:
First, let me address what I was going to address before. Blogs. Blogs are not reliable per
273:
375:
102:
351:
336:
167:
Can't anyone have any sort of sexual orientation without some twat getting offended? --
159:
424:
389:
A Commons file used on this page or its
Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
282:
256:
234:
223:
209:
79:
214:
416:
383:
359:
344:
290:
264:
246:
196:
176:
162:
15:
101:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
115:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Sexology and sexuality
436:Low-importance Sexology and sexuality articles
403:Participate in the deletion discussion at the
8:
441:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality articles
118:Template:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality
431:Stub-Class Sexology and sexuality articles
47:
19:
310:
49:
183:adding, reliable sources for aspects
7:
95:This article is within the scope of
38:It is of interest to the following
98:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality
14:
187:than the feminist perspective. --
82:
72:
51:
20:
135:This article has been rated as
121:Sexology and sexuality articles
1:
360:13:58, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
345:13:48, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
197:21:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
177:20:46, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
109:and see a list of open tasks.
398:ErosPyramide20091024 352.jpg
457:
384:03:24, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
219:anti-pornography feminists
141:project's importance scale
417:18:22, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
333:File:Slave_in_Carrara.jpg
291:02:41, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
265:02:15, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
247:02:06, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
134:
67:
46:
281:is encompassing enough.
163:12:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
112:Sexology and sexuality
90:Human sexuality portal
59:Sexology and sexuality
28:This article is rated
366:I cleaned up the page
32:on Knowledge (XXG)'s
331:Regarding the image
409:Community Tech bot
34:content assessment
250:
233:comment added by
155:
154:
151:
150:
147:
146:
448:
319:
315:
249:
227:
123:
122:
119:
116:
113:
92:
87:
86:
76:
69:
68:
63:
55:
48:
31:
25:
24:
16:
456:
455:
451:
450:
449:
447:
446:
445:
421:
420:
405:nomination page
391:
368:
329:
324:
323:
322:
316:
312:
228:
205:
120:
117:
114:
111:
110:
103:human sexuality
88:
81:
61:
29:
12:
11:
5:
454:
452:
444:
443:
438:
433:
423:
422:
401:
400:
390:
387:
367:
364:
363:
362:
328:
325:
321:
320:
309:
308:
304:
303:
302:
301:
300:
299:
298:
297:
296:
204:
201:
200:
199:
153:
152:
149:
148:
145:
144:
137:Low-importance
133:
127:
126:
124:
107:the discussion
94:
93:
77:
65:
64:
62:Low‑importance
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
453:
442:
439:
437:
434:
432:
429:
428:
426:
419:
418:
414:
410:
406:
399:
396:
395:
394:
388:
386:
385:
381:
377:
372:
365:
361:
357:
353:
349:
348:
347:
346:
342:
338:
334:
326:
318:
314:
311:
307:
294:
293:
292:
288:
284:
280:
275:
271:
270:
268:
267:
266:
262:
258:
253:
252:
251:
248:
244:
240:
236:
232:
225:
220:
216:
211:
202:
198:
194:
190:
186:
181:
180:
179:
178:
174:
170:
165:
164:
161:
142:
138:
132:
129:
128:
125:
108:
104:
100:
99:
91:
85:
80:
78:
75:
71:
70:
66:
60:
57:
54:
50:
45:
41:
35:
27:
23:
18:
17:
402:
392:
373:
369:
330:
313:
305:
229:— Preceding
224:Robin Morgan
206:
189:Demiurge1000
184:
169:96.251.1.126
166:
156:
136:
96:
40:WikiProjects
210:patriarchal
425:Categories
376:ShimonChai
306:References
30:Stub-class
352:The Anome
337:The Anome
215:sex roles
160:The Anome
283:Tutelary
257:Tutelary
255:before.
243:contribs
231:unsigned
279:WP:LEAD
235:Bridenh
139:on the
274:WP:SPS
203:Revert
36:scale.
327:Image
185:other
413:talk
380:talk
356:talk
341:talk
287:talk
261:talk
239:talk
193:talk
173:talk
407:. —
131:Low
427::
415:)
382:)
358:)
343:)
289:)
263:)
245:)
241:•
195:)
175:)
411:(
378:(
354:(
339:(
285:(
259:(
237:(
191:(
171:(
143:.
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
