RE: Gender/Power Dynamics.

RE: Gender/Power Dynamics. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

jbcurious -> RE: Gender/Power Dynamics. (4/5/2010 3:42:01 PM)
There are many different views regarding the Mayan calender, but I believe the general consenses is that it means a change or event, even possibly the alignment you referred to. This does not mean the end of the world or even something negative... and Nostradamus, as you say, is open to interpretation. I would hold off on the car if I were you...[;)] I believe this is hijacking... sorry

Focus50 -> RE: Gender/Power Dynamics. (4/5/2010 4:27:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Wheldrake quote: ORIGINAL: Focus50 Overall, what I find fascinating is that, speaking generally, it's really burning the women's toast in this thread to concede the average male is much bigger, faster and stronger than the average female - ie a physical superiority. They can't do it...! The contemporary sisterhood has really done a number on society. ....(2) that qualities like size and strength become less important as technology advances, and (3) that simply putting the biggest and strongest people in charge was never a sensible way to run a society anyway. In other words, meaningful superiority - in the sense of fitness to wield power over others - doesn't flow from physical strength. Even the ability to wield power flows from physical strength only in very limited ways. (2) That's right - as long as technology continues to advance. (3) Lmao, you think the "biggest and strongest people" were PUT in charge??? If you really think there's no "meaningful superiority" in physical strength, you'll do yourself an ENORMOUS favour in staying out of prison. On the other hand, you might get a valuable education in there as to why the male has been the dominant gender in every civilisation ever. "Might is right" is as primal as it gets.... quote: quote: ORIGINAL: Focus50 What's winding me up a bit is that it's NOT ok to be a man anymore. As catize ably demonstrated for me, 'testosterone' isn't a male hormone anymore, it's the popular contemporary zinger for putting males down and, when used on tv, the sheepish male is instantly reduced to the head-bowed silence of his masculine shame....! I guess this depends on what you think being a man entails. If you think it entails marching through life with a permanently aggressive demeanour and a sense of automatic entitlement then no, it's not ok. There are times (like now) where I think I must be the only one who lives in the "grey shades" of life. I make some point, and someone immediately interprets an extreme (black or white) conclusion. quote: With that said, testosterone is a fundamental part of human (not just masculine) biology and it definitely has its uses. I agree with you that sheepishness is not called for. Crikey, now I've got you (a male) diminishing and diluting the male gender every bit as readily as contemporary woman. Testosterone is the preferred fundamentally MALE hormone of female athletic drug cheats. Yeah, you'll argue different levels per gender blah blah but if it isn't fundamentally male, how come it's the preferred neutering zinger for women to put men down? quote: quote: ORIGINAL: Focus50 Still, I picked up on a simple generalised point that "no gender is superior" and look what happens - it's unpalatable to be proudly male. Not sure what you mean by "proudly male". Why not just take pride in your qualities and accomplishments as an individual? An round n round it goes.... Again, it's not ok to celebrate being male? Back to those hushed tones lest a woman be offended? But Helen Reddy's woman is still acceptable - "I am woman (hear me roar)"? Why should I just walk but not chew gum, for eg? Why is it so shameful to distinguish male? quote: quote: ORIGINAL: Focus50 The very thing I like most about women is that they ARE DIFFERENT to men (a few too many of the feral young ones excluded). What, that's only ok if we never get into specifics - at least, not publically? Or that's not even ok? I think it should be perfectly ok to talk about gender differences - but my own view is that, once you strip away the effects of cultural training, men and women are much more similar than dissimilar to each other except in a few very specific ways. I alluded to the "feral young ones" (women) in a previous post. I see them covered in tatts; talking/acting like wharfies; getting about barefoot in shopping malls etc. That's "cultural training" at it's very worst. Friends and rellies, excepted, I like and appreciate women for their feminine qualities above all else. Too bad it's shameful to publically reciprocate, I spose.... Focus.

Focus50 -> RE: Gender/Power Dynamics. (4/5/2010 4:39:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jbcurious I believe this is hijacking... sorry Lol, that's ok.... [:)] For the actual topic, pretty well all of my 10 or so posts have technically been a hijack. As I said, I focused on a specific point of LA's post rather than the OP. But it seems to me we're still having a civil discussion, unlike a hijack that ends in mud slinging and the dreaded Mod intervention.... Focus.

Wheldrake -> RE: Gender/Power Dynamics. (4/6/2010 1:58:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Focus50 (3) Lmao, you think the "biggest and strongest people" were PUT in charge??? If you really think there's no "meaningful superiority" in physical strength, you'll do yourself an ENORMOUS favour in staying out of prison. On the other hand, you might get a valuable education in there as to why the male has been the dominant gender in every civilisation ever. "Might is right" is as primal as it gets.... Maybe I should have said "allowing the biggest and strongest people to remain in charge". Because that really is what it boils down to. Even the strongest Cro-Magnon in the tribe has to sleep sometime, and that's when the flint axes will come out if he's been using his strength in ways that cause too many problems for others. In the long term, the only way to hold onto power is to use it in ways that don't work out too badly for one's followers. quote: Crikey, now I've got you (a male) diminishing and diluting the male gender every bit as readily as contemporary woman. Testosterone is the preferred fundamentally MALE hormone of female athletic drug cheats. Yeah, you'll argue different levels per gender blah blah but if it isn't fundamentally male, how come it's the preferred neutering zinger for women to put men down? Probably because men do have higher levels. But people who use testosterone as a "preferred neutering zinger" are oversimplifying at the very least. It's the kind of cheap gibe that should be easily brushed off. People who want to explain every observed difference between men and women as a function of testosterone levels, rather than a complicated mix of biological and social factors of which testosterone is only one, are oversimplifying just as badly. quote: Again, it's not ok to celebrate being male? Back to those hushed tones lest a woman be offended? But Helen Reddy's woman is still acceptable - "I am woman (hear me roar)"? Why should I just walk but not chew gum, for eg? Why is it so shameful to distinguish male? I don't know what this Helen Reddy was roaring about. If she was simply roaring about the Awesomeness of Woman then yes, I'd find that a bit over the top. If she was roaring to celebrate the fact that opportunities for women (including the opportunity to roar and be heard) have expanded dramatically over the past several decades, well, I'd find it hard to blame her. quote: I alluded to the "feral young ones" (women) in a previous post. I see them covered in tatts; talking/acting like wharfies; getting about barefoot in shopping malls etc. That's "cultural training" at it's very worst. Friends and rellies, excepted, I like and appreciate women for their feminine qualities above all else. Too bad it's shameful to publically reciprocate, I spose.... I have to plead limited vocabulary here: I don't know what wharfies are. I've got nothing against tattoos or going barefoot, though. It seems to me that when you talk about "feminine qualities" you're trying to push women into a fairly narrow range of behaviours, while promising in return to stick to "masculine" behaviours yourself. To me that doesn't seem like a particularly good deal for either sex. Why should any of us wear those straitjackets? (Not that I mind straitjackets in general - I'm only objecting to those particular ones.) After all, you can still appreciate feminine qualities in women that display them, and even (as a dominant) basically impose them on your women, but why should it bother you if not all women and men want to adopt traditional roles, dress and mannerisms? That's not a rhetorical question, by the way - I'm genuinely curious, since my attitude has always been that variety is the spice of life.

Focus50 -> RE: Gender/Power Dynamics. (4/7/2010 5:00:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Wheldrake quote: ORIGINAL: Focus50 (3) Lmao, you think the "biggest and strongest people" were PUT in charge??? If you really think there's no "meaningful superiority" in physical strength, you'll do yourself an ENORMOUS favour in staying out of prison. On the other hand, you might get a valuable education in there as to why the male has been the dominant gender in every civilisation ever. "Might is right" is as primal as it gets.... Maybe In the long term, the only way to hold onto power is to use it in ways that don't work out too badly for one's followers. Define "long term" - thugs like Idi Amin and Saddam Hussein were running roughshod for years; decades even. Stalin's another that comes to mind.... quote: quote: Again, it's not ok to celebrate being male? Back to those hushed tones lest a woman be offended? But Helen Reddy's woman is still acceptable - "I am woman (hear me roar)"? Why should I just walk but not chew gum, for eg? Why is it so shameful to distinguish male? I don't know what this Helen Reddy was roaring about. If she was simply roaring about the Awesomeness of Woman then yes, I'd find that a bit over the top. If she was roaring to celebrate the fact that opportunities for women (including the opportunity to roar and be heard) have expanded dramatically over the past several decades, well, I'd find it hard to blame her. The latter - the song's from circa 1970's but many still reference it in advancing the cause of women.... Which is fine, I'm not debating that - point being women can celebrate their gender but we males should keep to the shadows and hushed tones lest some female publically rebukes us with our own testosterone shame. Presto - the machinations of contemporary sexual equality that excludes men. quote: quote: I alluded to the "feral young ones" (women) in a previous post. I see them covered in tatts; talking/acting like wharfies; getting about barefoot in shopping malls etc. That's "cultural training" at it's very worst. Friends and rellies, excepted, I like and appreciate women for their feminine qualities above all else. Too bad it's shameful to publically reciprocate, I spose.... I have to plead limited vocabulary here: I don't know what wharfies are. I've got nothing against tattoos or going barefoot, though. It seems to me that when you talk about "feminine qualities" you're trying to push women into a fairly narrow range of behaviours, while promising in return to stick to "masculine" behaviours yourself. To me that doesn't seem like a particularly good deal for either sex. Why should any of us wear those straitjackets? (Not that I mind straitjackets in general - I'm only objecting to those particular ones.) After all, you can still appreciate feminine qualities in women that display them, and even (as a dominant) basically impose them on your women, but why should it bother you if not all women and men want to adopt traditional roles, dress and mannerisms? That's not a rhetorical question, by the way - I'm genuinely curious, since my attitude has always been that variety is the spice of life. Wharfies - wharf workers who loaded/unloaded ships in the pre-mechanised era not so long past. Tended to be a rough-house lot with plenty of criminals in their ranks. I think they're called "longshoremen" in the US - whatever tha hell that's sposta mean.... We've also got "truckies" here - you wanna take a stab at it...? lol When I say 'feminine', I do get to "push women into a fairly narrow range of behaviours". It's like beauty or attractiveness - it's entirely in the eye of the beholder. Feminine qualities (to me) are mostly those that distinguish female from male. What I call "feral" are those qualities (for lack of a better word) where women seem to be imitating men's worst habits.... And it doesn't bother me btw, I just happen to be the opinionated type willing to share. Focus.

Wheldrake -> RE: Gender/Power Dynamics. (4/7/2010 2:25:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Focus50 Define "long term" - thugs like Idi Amin and Saddam Hussein were running roughshod for years; decades even. Stalin's another that comes to mind.... And of those three, one was executed, one (probably) assassinated, and one forced into exile. Not exactly models of successful governance - but to the extent that they did manage to hold on to power, it was with the help of loyal subordinates. I'm not saying that a ruler has to treat all the people with benevolence in order to maintain control, but there does need to be a power structure including a core of followers who are well-rewarded in some fashion. And yes, some of those followers will need to be big, strong and/or well-armed. But that isn't necessarily true of the people at the very top (Napoleon was hardly the biggest guy in, well, Napoleonic France), and - to get back on topic just a little - I imagine most dominants in BDSM relationships identify more easily with the masterminds issuing the instructions than with the hulking enforcers. quote: Wharfies - wharf workers who loaded/unloaded ships in the pre-mechanised era not so long past. Tended to be a rough-house lot with plenty of criminals in their ranks. I think they're called "longshoremen" in the US - whatever tha hell that's sposta mean.... We've also got "truckies" here - you wanna take a stab at it...? lol When I say 'feminine', I do get to "push women into a fairly narrow range of behaviours". It's like beauty or attractiveness - it's entirely in the eye of the beholder. Feminine qualities (to me) are mostly those that distinguish female from male. What I call "feral" are those qualities (for lack of a better word) where women seem to be imitating men's worst habits.... And it doesn't bother me btw, I just happen to be the opinionated type willing to share. Ah. Thanks for the clarifications. Have to say that I actually appreciate women who have just a touch of "wharfie" in them. But yes, these aesthetic judgements are always subjective. May your path be strewn with women who fit your ideal of femininity... just try not to be too hard on the ones that don't, eh? Anyway, I think we've wandered far from the original point of the thread, so this will be the last from me. I've enjoyed this discussion.

Focus50 -> RE: Gender/Power Dynamics. (4/8/2010 4:03:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Wheldrake quote: ORIGINAL: Focus50 Define "long term" - thugs like Idi Amin and Saddam Hussein were running roughshod for years; decades even. Stalin's another that comes to mind.... And of those three, one was executed, one (probably) assassinated, and one forced into exile. Not exactly models of successful governance - but to the extent that they did manage to hold on to power, it was with the help of loyal subordinates. I'm not saying that a ruler has to treat all the people with benevolence in order to maintain control, but there does need to be a power structure including a core of followers who are well-rewarded in some fashion. And yes, some of those followers will need to be big, strong and/or well-armed. But that isn't necessarily true of the people at the very top (Napoleon was hardly the biggest guy in, well, Napoleonic France), and - to get back on topic just a little - I imagine most dominants in BDSM relationships identify more easily with the masterminds issuing the instructions than with the hulking enforcers. Well everyone dies eventually but the world has always had ruthless dictators and still does, esp in Africa at present. And yes, of course they need their followers to hold power and run the day to day.... But that's the point of primal, fear based dominance - the strong control the weak. Napoleon came to power in a country and age of relative civilisation - where brute force and physical presence were not defining factors; where reason overshadows primal instinct. Ya know what I'd find compelling viewing...? You know those idiotic "reality" shows where they lock a bunch of cretinous brats in a house to do whatever? I'd like to see, saaaay, half a dozen average size males (similar physical qualities) locked in with enough rations (food, water etc) for four. How long do you think they'd all be content surviving like civilised musketeers (all for one; one for all) on 2/3's rations each? And since they're all cretins, they're never getting out - so it's to the end and they know it.... Then, just to stir it up, add six average size females while maintaining the same rations ratio.... How do you think the women would go? This is a mini apocalypse and I think it'd go like this.... So called "civilisation" gets replaced by primal survival instincts. One of the males would make a pact with one or more of the others to take over control of the rations. The strong will dominate the weak - survival of the fittest etc. But all is not lost for the females by a long shot. The women don't have the physical attributes to dominate, not even the 6 combined. But women have other strengths - that life, even at its most primal, isn't all about eating and drinking. So the women wouldn't combine; those with the strongest survival instincts will quickly evaluate that the best way for them to survive is to align with whoever they consider the strongest male - natural selection and, again, survival of the fittest. Inevitably, the weak eventually perish and the world has fewer spoilt cretins but, real bummer, the ration ratio doesn't improve, not until there's saaaay, two left. As to how it'd all end, I think one female would make it to the last three, courtesy of attracting the strongest male. The real danger to her is now the other male; that in the most desperate final stages of survival, food and water outweigh the need for company. Conversely, she'll be pushing her partner to eliminate the last male - so it's just a matter of who strikes first and successfully.... The male does have physical superiority over the female gender. But the female has other ways of achieving the same ends. And I find it insulting to my intelligence when people would rather dilute and diminish male strengths (political correctness and niceties) rather than accept each gender has unique strengths and qualities to them. As for my "reality" show - well that's the dark side of the human beast that we all have within us but we don't like to acknowledge it. So it'll never happen.... We like to delude ourselves that we've evolved beyond the primal cave man. And we have - only until survival becomes an issue. If it does, you'll immediately default to the four primal basics - food, water, shelter and the will and means (weapons, allies etc) to defend any of the first three you possess. I'm done.... (phew) Focus.

belladevine -> RE: Gender/Power Dynamics. (4/8/2010 5:52:21 PM)
I would like to submit this fun video for everyones entertainment. I think it shows an excellent examble of a power exchange, in a dynamic way and entertaining way. Enjoy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBM82Ju2kJU&feature=related

Michael3001 -> RE: Gender/Power Dynamics. (4/9/2010 12:11:26 PM)
Hey now fortunately most of us today have been civilized out of anicent and insane patriarchal institutional way of thinking and wouldn't resort of taking something which doesn't belong to us or without first being given permission. To say that all of us would is insane. I mean would you rape a woman if you could? Just ask yourself: Do you feel so powerless that you have you have to assault something physically weaker than you? Assaulting a helpless woman is to say the least, an act of abject cowardice. Do you feel the organ between your legs which is used to excrete urine and semen should be used to deploy dominance? Do you take sexual rejection from women personally which results in severe frustration which makes you want to rape her? Do you feel so powerless that you have to force your dominance on something weaker? Or do you have psychological problems: emotional disturbances or personality disorders? Fortunately today males aren't bound by the roles of male dominance as much anymore and more more as different number of social gender templates are emerging. The set roles that are given to men and women are being defined in a looser fashion with each new year. As American society grows more equal, and the roles of male dominance that society created become less prevalent. Adding to this is the fact that pussy isn't all that powerful. More men today turn to each other's man holes so there's less feelings of sexual rejection.

Focus50 -> RE: Gender/Power Dynamics. (4/9/2010 1:57:49 PM)
Michael3001, have you accidently posted this rant in the wrong thread? Conversely, if it is aimed at myself, have you read all my posts on this topic? Are you so naive as to believe the human animal has ascended to such a higher plane of existence that we don't still have primal instincts within? Instincts that we ALL defer to when survival is an issue!?! Or better still, do you think we're now so evolved and civilised that there's no such thing as a survival issue? Are you aware that BDSM itself is an evolved (ie, mutual consent) means of exploring needs that are primal based, rather than born of logical reasoning? And out of curiosity, do you think rape is a primal instinct in men? Finally, are you implying that our species' natural destiny is that we're all gonna be gay? At least, all the males (which I s'pose means the females won't have any choice, anyway)? Unsurprisingly, I'm not offended that it's you asking me if I "have psychological problems"...! lol Focus.

Michael3001 -> RE: Gender/Power Dynamics. (4/11/2010 12:30:53 PM)
The " nature made me do it" excuse to commit a crime. Sure thing.

Wheldrake -> RE: Gender/Power Dynamics. (4/11/2010 1:26:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Focus50 Ya know what I'd find compelling viewing...? You know those idiotic "reality" shows where they lock a bunch of cretinous brats in a house to do whatever? I'd like to see, saaaay, half a dozen average size males (similar physical qualities) locked in with enough rations (food, water etc) for four. How long do you think they'd all be content surviving like civilised musketeers (all for one; one for all) on 2/3's rations each? And since they're all cretins, they're never getting out - so it's to the end and they know it.... Then, just to stir it up, add six average size females while maintaining the same rations ratio.... How do you think the women would go? This is a mini apocalypse and I think it'd go like this.... So called "civilisation" gets replaced by primal survival instincts. One of the males would make a pact with one or more of the others to take over control of the rations. The strong will dominate the weak - survival of the fittest etc. But all is not lost for the females by a long shot. The women don't have the physical attributes to dominate, not even the 6 combined. But women have other strengths - that life, even at its most primal, isn't all about eating and drinking. So the women wouldn't combine; those with the strongest survival instincts will quickly evaluate that the best way for them to survive is to align with whoever they consider the strongest male - natural selection and, again, survival of the fittest. Inevitably, the weak eventually perish and the world has fewer spoilt cretins but, real bummer, the ration ratio doesn't improve, not until there's saaaay, two left. As to how it'd all end, I think one female would make it to the last three, courtesy of attracting the strongest male. The real danger to her is now the other male; that in the most desperate final stages of survival, food and water outweigh the need for company. Conversely, she'll be pushing her partner to eliminate the last male - so it's just a matter of who strikes first and successfully.... All right, just one more brief comment from me - I hope I never find myself locked in a house with you, your ten best friends, and a limited supply of food!

Focus50 -> RE: Gender/Power Dynamics. (4/11/2010 3:05:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Wheldrake All right, just one more brief comment from me - I hope I never find myself locked in a house with you, your ten best friends, and a limited supply of food! Which pretty much confirms my earlier comment that no-one likes to talk about the dark side of human nature that we all know is there. That we're apparently all too evolved and civilised to have primal instincts - riiiiiight....! Btw, in such circumstances, you actually think you'll do a whole lot better locked in with your 10 best friends? Focus.

Focus50 -> RE: Gender/Power Dynamics. (4/11/2010 3:16:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Michael3001 The " nature made me do it" excuse to commit a crime. Sure thing. The "crime" of doing what it takes to survive? Look, if you've actually got something meaningful to contribute (including dumping on me), then man-up and put your brand on it. This is the last time I reply to your cryptic petulence fired from afar as the sniper does.... Focus.

Andalusite -> RE: Gender/Power Dynamics. (4/11/2010 3:17:26 PM)
Focus, there have been a lot of real-world examples of that kind of thing, and quite often, the solution has been to divvy it up so that everyone is hungry, rather than one person hoarding all of it and trying to starve the rest. Sometimes, the food does run out, and people do starve one by one, or simply get too sick or exhausted to go on. In a few very rare cases, they've even resorted to cannibalism, without murder, just trying to have all of the remaining people in the group survive (ie. the Donner party). In any case, I don't see how your example has anything to do with consensual, willing D/s relationships.

Focus50 -> RE: Gender/Power Dynamics. (4/11/2010 7:21:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Andalusite In any case, I don't see how your example has anything to do with consensual, willing D/s relationships. It doesn't but surely you have noticed that the last full page or so of this thread has digressed, as topics often do before finally fading away.... I can pick a hundred holes in your example but I'll just say that I don't believe one (or more) persons is overtly "trying to starve the rest" - that that's merely an inevitable consequence of the strong taking what they need for themselves to survive. And a single person couldn't do it to a group anyway (no-one is THAT strong - we all have to sleep eventually etc). No, it will start with someone forming a dominant group. Focus.

Acer49 -> RE: Gender/Power Dynamics. (4/11/2010 8:30:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MadeiraDarling Well, one thing I've noticed is that a lot of D/s people like to play with the idea of one gender being meant to submit and the other dominate and it puzzles me in all variations. I find the idea "Females are superior and males meant to submit" as odd as "Males are superior and females are meant to submit" to me my sex has little to do with my dominance or submission, I think that dominants are meant to be dominant, and submissives are meant to submit. In fact I find the entire idea a little bit... diminishing of my power or lack there of, as it kinda turns down the dial on ones uniqueness, sort of a "Oh, well my entire sex is superior, guess I'm not unusual" thing. How does everyone else feel about this paradigm? Gender has nothing to do with dominance or submission. There are males was well as females on either side of the kneel

WyldHrt -> RE: Gender/Power Dynamics. (4/11/2010 8:45:41 PM)
quote: Then, just to stir it up, add six average size females while maintaining the same rations ratio.... How do you think the women would go? This is a mini apocalypse and I think it'd go like this.... So called "civilisation" gets replaced by primal survival instincts. One of the males would make a pact with one or more of the others to take over control of the rations. The strong will dominate the weak - survival of the fittest etc. But all is not lost for the females by a long shot. The women don't have the physical attributes to dominate, not even the 6 combined. Don't count on it, Focus. Seems to me that the food/ water provided would be enough for all 6 females and maybe one or even two of the males (they could keep the males for "entertainment" and jar opening duties). Since all females are inherently bisexual (joking!), the other 4 males might just be in trouble, particularly since women in close proximity begin to cycle together. [:D]

DesFIP -> RE: Gender/Power Dynamics. (4/11/2010 8:47:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Focus50 quote: ORIGINAL: DesFIP Returning to the op, I find those who claim one gender is meant to be superior to be a distinct minority. Unfortunately they are disproportionately loud in comparison to their numbers. But I don't like bigots. Saying one gender is superior is no difference then saying one race or religion is superior or inferior. Bigotry, plain and simple. So just to clarify; it's not that I'm stating facts or telling the truth etc, it's that I'm a bigot? Again Celeste, I think adopting such a judgementally sugary position sure is easy from the comfort of your own home in the midst of a modern, western civilisation where help is just a phone call away.... Focus. Settle down big guy, we're talking from different viewpoints. Superior means better, not stronger or more powerful. Prior to birth control being widely available, women were powerless simply because they spent most of their time pregnant and doing childcare. That's a fact. But it doesn't mean the man who got her pregnant was a better human being - smarter, better educated, less likely to be addicted to liquor etc. It just means he was physically stronger than her and able to do things she couldn't because she was pregnant, nursing, weakened from repeated childbearing etc. And come the apocolypse, I alas, will not be claimed. I'm over the hill despite the fact that unlike the crones of old, I still have all my teeth!

Focus50 -> RE: Gender/Power Dynamics. (4/12/2010 3:36:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WyldHrt quote: Then, just to stir it up, add six average size females while maintaining the same rations ratio.... How do you think the women would go? This is a mini apocalypse and I think it'd go like this.... So called "civilisation" gets replaced by primal survival instincts. One of the males would make a pact with one or more of the others to take over control of the rations. The strong will dominate the weak - survival of the fittest etc. But all is not lost for the females by a long shot. The women don't have the physical attributes to dominate, not even the 6 combined. Don't count on it, Focus. Seems to me that the food/ water provided would be enough for all 6 females and maybe one or even two of the males (they could keep the males for "entertainment" and jar opening duties). Since all females are inherently bisexual (joking!), the other 4 males might just be in trouble, particularly since women in close proximity begin to cycle together. [:D] It's always hard to know for sure with hypotheticals, but I imagine I'd make one very DOMINANT jar opener. The mighty "stare" is especially useful for this most confounding of chores that the technological revolution never mastered for us. Alas, I'm certain I'd suck (in all the wrong ways) as the "entertainment".... Lol, my observations of the female animal cycling together aren't so glossy. When us jar openers are about, it seems to me all this female "close proximity" has more to do with venomous tongues wagging and daggers in hand for any of your own gender showing a little too much skin or (worst of all) having an intolerably trim body and firm spankable butt etc. Focus.

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4] 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875