|
Awareness -> RE: Male vs. Female Dominance (My 1st thread) (5/30/2011 11:08:35 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: HeatherMcLeather
quote:
No, penile penetration is an implicitly dominant sexual act Yes, you and some others have said that, yet nobody has really explained why they feel this is. The closest anybody has come is your idea about the biological trigger of the potential for impregnation. Unfortunately, none of the women have decided to chime in on if there is a psychological difference related to impregnation, so we can't really go there until they do. As it stands, I think the best we can say about penile penetration being inherently or implicitly dominant, is that it can be, depending on the views and headspace of those involved. If you were to remove social conditioning from the participants, would penile penetration of a woman by a man be felt by her as dominant? I contend that it would and as reference, I point you to the various feminist dogma which varies in its hysteria from "penile penetration is masculine oppression" to "all penile penetration is rape". The feminists have been harping on this particular point for decades so you have plenty of material to draw from. You're free to disagree, but once again you were asking about my perspective.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: Awareness
but sexual dominance is the capacity to enforce your will. Which essentially means physical power. But that has been shown not to be the case repeatedly in this thread alone. Raw physical power is indeed one way to exert sexual dominance, but not the only way. No, what's happened in this thread is that people have confused sexual dominance with dominance in a wider context. Put two people into an erotic situation and see what evolves. A man can dominate sexually in an instant, a woman requires a framework which operates outside of the bedroom to enforce her will inside it. Dominance is expressed in ways beyond the physical and beyond the sexual but there's a sexual dominance which a man can express which is simply unavailable to a woman. I can walk into a room, grab a woman by the hair and watch her neck arch as she slips into subspace. And I can do this with only the barest framework of consent existing between us. She could've met me 5 minutes ago and she will still respond physiologically without thought.
In contrast, when male subs talk about their response to dominance, it's always as simple as getting turned on. Watch their conversation, read the way they express things. Their Domme screams at them, they get turned on and that's dominance to them. To me, it just looks like a fetish.
quote:
There are men on here who do not use physical power to dominate, so its not a male/female thing. To deny that some people dominate through strength of will alone rather than body is to bury one's head in the sand. To be sure, physical power is the ability to express your will, but the will itself is vital.
quote:
You know, something just occurred to me. Maybe we can put it this way...Dominance comes from the ability to enforce one's will, which requires the strength, either physical or mental, to bend another to one's will. Is that an acceptable general definition for all? I think a general definition which satisfies everyone is impossible. For me, dominance is expressed in the mental strength necessary to believe in your ability to triumph over all obstacles and to exert your will toward that goal. It is not having a ready stable of bitch boys who'll line up to kneel at your feet because they lack options.
__________________________________________________
quote:
I have just noticed something about your posts, and I think it is the source of the rancour you seem to attract. bear with me a moment.. *chuckle* Clever girl. And I say this without one iota of condescension. I genuinely mean it.
quote:
Only in the last sentence do you qualify your views as your views or drawn from your experience. In the rest of this section you use wording that implies that you believe what you are saying is an inarguable universal. Its' not "some female hetero subs" or "most female hetero subs I've dealt with", but female hetero subs are this way... granted you do not actually come out and say "all", but it certainly is implied in the wording you choose. Yes. Exactly right.
quote:
I think if you reworded the way you make your points it would make your ideas more palatable. When I take the time to mentally do that, your posts are far less "out there" and the points become more easily examined. I still disagree with most of it, but it's easier to see the point being made for what it is, rather than a statement of a patently inaccurate absolute. Just an observation. :) You're to be congratulated upon noticing and articulating a critical point. I am aware of exactly what I'm doing and what my linguistic patterns are. In short, I refuse to qualify my statements for the most part because I expect adults to be able to work out that all opinions are inherently subjective. It's also a reflection of my belief structures. Since this is my world, this is the way I believe things work, why would I hedge my bets with endless references to "In my humble opinion"? It's my viewpoint - something which should be obvious - and if adults don't understand that, it's entirely their problem.
This is also useful for determining much about other people by the way in which they respond to it. Building an understanding of other people doesn't occur by communication, by simply talking to them, it occurs by observing how they react. Self-testimony is rarely accurate except in the case of very open, honest and self-aware individuals. Needless to say, such people are in the minority. Consequently, I have pretty interesting ideas about the people who've responded to my posts, particularly the more vociferous ones. And I have crystal clear ideas about who actually walks the dominance walk as opposed to simply talking the dominance talk.
Let me explain that I take the view that nothing is universally true. What we all do is inherently build models of the world which explain it to the best of our abilities. Based upon knowledge and experiences, we examine our world to determine what has happened and build analytical models in our head of why it happened. We then - and again, this is critical - use such models to predict the future in a process of synthesis.
This last aspect is absolutely critical. The value of any model of the world is its ability to predict the future. So, if my understanding of men and women is accurate, my synthesis of how they'll react will be reasonably correct. Now, I'm not claiming to be an oracle of human behaviour - far from it - but my understanding of people is sufficiently correct to enable me to navigate the social world reasonably well.
As a byproduct, I recognise social patterns as well. The same patterns occur constantly in groups, and online communities are no exception to this rule. The same various groups exist. Men who think they get pussy by pleasing women and so they behave in a pleasing fashion. Men who take women at face value and wonder why they end up as "friends". Women who try and set the frame for male behaviour and react shrilly when thwarted.
Then there's the various hierarchies which establish themselves. The lack of intellectual honesty when dealing with friends. And so on. It's interesting just how often the same personalities and social constructs seem to repeat themselves.
In any case, the practical upshot of all this Heather, is that you're to be congratulated for your realisation of my linguistic patterns and why they produce the responses they do. A point which has simply flown over the heads of many of the adults in this forum. The fact that someone of your tender years has spotted this bodes well for your future. Either you have an analytical eye for detail or a somewhat well-developed empathy. Both are useful attributes to possess.
|
|
|
|
