RE: Male vs. Female Dominance (My 1st thread)

RE: Male vs. Female Dominance (My 1st thread) (Full Version)

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

Message

WyldHrt -> RE: Male vs. Female Dominance (My 1st thread) (5/31/2011 11:37:50 PM)
quote: 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. quote: Female subs don't just get turned on, they often transition into subspace. There's an almost physiological response to dominance from a male. In other words an expression of dominance still evokes a submissive response despite being entirely devoid of content. And that submission and sexual response are usually linked. If you tried that with me or pretty much any female sub I know 5 minutes after meeting, the result certainly wouldn't be positive... let alone anything remotely approaching subspace. If it happened in a club (at least the ones I've been to), you would likely be out on your ass before you could say 'Dominant'. For myself, I'm quite into hair pulling with a partner, but that doesn't mean that I like being touched or grabbed by anyone that I don't know well. I have to call bullshit on the idea that some dude pulling a strange female sub's hair causes her brain to turn off, no matter how Domly he supposedly is.

WyldHrt -> RE: Male vs. Female Dominance (My 1st thread) (5/31/2011 11:40:22 PM)
quote: Yeah, it's a little weird - but next time you watch football, notice how exited the announcer gets when one team "penetrates the others backfield", lol. Then watch as the players pat each other on the ass. [:D][:D][:D]

tazzygirl -> RE: Male vs. Female Dominance (My 1st thread) (6/1/2011 12:05:16 AM)
All those adorable tight ends!

DeviantlyD -> RE: Male vs. Female Dominance (My 1st thread) (6/1/2011 12:09:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl All those adorable tight ends! What? Where!?

Awareness -> RE: Male vs. Female Dominance (My 1st thread) (6/1/2011 12:46:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WyldHrt If you tried that with me or pretty much any female sub I know 5 minutes after meeting, the result certainly wouldn't be positive... let alone anything remotely approaching subspace. If it happened in a club (at least the ones I've been to), you would likely be out on your ass before you could say 'Dominant'. It's a possibility, not a recommendation. This tendency for women to attempt to assert their reality as the only reality is rapidly becoming monotonous. If you can't understand the difference between a discussion and a recommendation then simply don't read my shit. You're not going to progress to stage 2 with this nonsensical reactionary stance. quote: For myself, I'm quite into hair pulling with a partner, but that doesn't mean that I like being touched or grabbed by anyone that I don't know well. I have to call bullshit on the idea that some dude pulling a strange female sub's hair causes her brain to turn off, no matter how Domly he supposedly is. I've known subs to say the exact opposite. That what disturbs them is their sub-space triggers are so available and they know they'll respond to any dominant man who flips those switches. Suffice it to say that some women do respond in such a way. In the same way that some women will see a guy across a room in a club, take him home and enjoy being fucked without a word ever being spoken between them. Just because you know what you and your friends will do, doesn't mean you understand what other women will do. I'm not proposing sexual assault, so get off your self-righteous high horse and try listening for a change.

WyldHrt -> RE: Male vs. Female Dominance (My 1st thread) (6/1/2011 1:27:08 AM)
quote: It's a possibility, not a recommendation. Funny, as per usual, you stated it as if it was a fact. Saying 'I can walk into a room, grab a woman by the hair and watch her neck arch as she slips into subspace' doesn't really sound like a possibility so much as a certainty. quote: This tendency for women to attempt to assert their reality as the only reality is rapidly becoming monotonous. Where did I do that? I responded from my perspective and experience, which is all any of us can do. quote: If you can't understand the difference between a discussion and a recommendation then simply don't read my shit. Where did I say that you were recommending anything? As for discussion, you made a first person statement, and I disagreed in the first person. My mistake for thinking that posting a differing opinion was part of having a discussion. quote: You're not going to progress to stage 2 with this nonsensical reactionary stance. Good thing I don't at all yearn to progress to your personal stage 2, then. quote: I've known subs to say the exact opposite. That what disturbs them is their sub-space triggers are so available and they know they'll respond to any dominant man who flips those switches. Suffice it to say that some women do respond in such a way. Whatever floats their boat. I know a couple of female subs like that, and they tend to stop going to clubs or events alone after a few bad experiences, unless they are just looking to get laid; nothing wrong with that. quote: In the same way that some women will see a guy across a room in a club, take him home and enjoy being fucked without a word ever being spoken between them. If she wants to, but it is her choice. quote: Just because you know what you and your friends will do, doesn't mean you understand what other women will do. I'm not proposing sexual assault, so get off your self-righteous high horse and try listening for a change. Back at ya. Nowhere did I say what 'other' women will do, nor did I say that you were proposing anything. I simply said that if you did 'A', my response (and that of many friends) would be 'B'. That's it.

PdxJ -> RE: Male vs. Female Dominance (My 1st thread) (6/1/2011 2:48:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Awareness 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. LMFAO - Ok. . . . . . . at some point you have to realize you woke up from that dream to the sad reality you have no clue what you're talking about. It doesn't matter that you want to continue that happy little dream but that nonsense will never happen in real life. I know an American woman wouldn't tolerate that crap and I've met numerous kiwi women so I know it's not a cultural or societal difference because they wouldn't tolerate it either. It becomes clearer and clearer that the most you have dominated might be a puppy because your wet dream theories on dominating a woman are just that - wet dream theories. Go back to bed and stop posting your delusional nonsense.

xssve -> RE: Male vs. Female Dominance (My 1st thread) (6/1/2011 3:25:46 AM)
True, women may be transparent to the alpha hierarchy, doesn't mean they are without influence or power, one of which is the ability to appeal to the alpha hierarchy for protection. The alpha hierarchy itself is largely transparent under normal conditions, it manifests under external threat as a centripetal group defense response, thus it's association with physical prowess and bravery - alphas are the front defensive line against external physical threats. Probably more than you wanted to know, but it's actually fairly Byzantine in application. Women have quite a bit more freedom to maneuver socially for instance, between social strata - woman spends her life helping the less fortunate, she's a saint - guy does it, there's something wrong with him; he's a bleeding heart liberal - a woman, for short. [8\|] Jane Fonda is a good example of this, she was able to pretty much walk right into and out of, Cambodia, guy couldn't have done that. But it was still a pretty risky move, and it gave her nominal alpha status, but she appeared to play fast and loose with the Alpha code (humanizing the enemy), and was ranked out for it in circles where they take that sort of thing seriously. What was the question again?

PeonForHer -> RE: Male vs. Female Dominance (My 1st thread) (6/1/2011 4:08:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Awareness That's a fairly bold assertion you may find difficult to back up. The original feminists were fairly intense and had a real understanding and appreciation of power dynamics between the sexes. And I'm not for one moment allowing your use of 'social conditioning' as an all-encompassing force which moulds minds. I think that's utter nonsense and shows a misunderstanding of exactly how human beings operate. Awareness, if you think that social construction is to be dumped entirely, then you're not only rubbishing scientific findings, but the whole study and discipline of sociology and social thinking in general. Within that study, there's a massive literature on the sociology of knowledge itself. It's beyond senseless to take that view. At the very least, it's disingenuous to take a bit of it and one bit alone - that provided by the comments of a marginal group of radical feminists - purely for the purposes of lambasting them. quote: First off, the feminist dogma is a reference point simply because it explores gender-based power dynamics, in particular the role of penetrative sex. Secondly, I think you'll find it was probably quite a popular set of notions in second-wave feminism - hardly the marginal sect you're claiming. Thirdly, your brand of feminism is considerably watered down because a lot of the rights feminists were originally campaigning for have been accepted in many modern societies as inalienable rights available to all citizens regardless of gender. So your brand of feminism isn't heavily based in political and gender theory and at your age you really haven't had much of a chance to explore it. Your personal experience doesn't provide you with much evidence to counter the notion. The argument against penetrative sex was indeed marginal and was never popular beyond a particular kind of feminist theorist, rather than amongst feminists themselves, just as Heather says. Anti-feminists have frequently taken some quotes from some of these - Andrea Dworkin is a particular favourite (and, many say, was misquoted and taken out of context) - and tarred all feminists with the same brush. This would be as asinine as saying that all socialists buy into the entire thrust of Marx's Kapital. In fact, it wouldn't be far off claiming that Americans are to be adequately characterised by the views of a small group of them such as the leaders of the Ku Klax Klan. Feminism is a generic term for a very, very broad collection of ideas, beliefs and strategies. It's a serious misrepresentation to say otherwise.

PeonForHer -> RE: Male vs. Female Dominance (My 1st thread) (6/1/2011 4:24:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: xssve Penetration is a big hang up for some people, men penetrate, women are penetrated, that's just the biological arrangement. No, when people have sex, the biological arrangement is that women engulf cocks with their vaginas. Or, at least, they do when they have sex with me. And their vaginas suck semen out of me. Yep, that's how I see it, that's how I feel it; ergo, that is what's 'natural', 'normal' and 'right'. This is because what humans do is by definition natural for humans to do, and I am a human. It may not be natural for gorillas or chimps but, then, I'm not a gorilla or a chimp. What will it take to move this sort of discussion beyond the view that biology is a science that has ever been somehow 'outside' the social construction of knowledge? Bloody hell, do we need to chuck grenades at it?

crazyml -> RE: Male vs. Female Dominance (My 1st thread) (6/1/2011 4:28:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Awareness quote: ORIGINAL: HeatherMcLeather Your reference isn't valid because that "feminist dogma" as you call it is a result of the reaction of a few radical man-haters to their social conditioning.[/color] That's a fairly bold assertion you may find difficult to back up. The original feminists were fairly intense and had a real understanding and appreciation of power dynamics between the sexes. By "original" do you mean the first wave feminists of the late 1800's early 1900's, or do you mean the original second-wave feminists of the late 1900's? In either case, it's neither a bold assertion, nor difficult to back up. It's a matter of historical fact. The counter feminist movement has done a wonderful job of characterising second-wave feminism as a bunch of cock-hating, hairy lesbos, but it simply isn't the case. The great majority of people in the feminist movement of the 60's and 70's were fighting for gender equality - Pesky little things like equal pay for the same work. They were fighting for a woman's right to say no to sex with her husband ("marital rape" is still regarded as "not quite rape" in some western jurisdictions). They were trying to raise awareness in young girls that they don't have to say "yes" to sex when bullied or pressurised. Sure, there were a few gender madwags, but fuck me - look at the counter-feminist movement if you want to find the really messed up logic. PS. If anyone reading this happens to be a cock-hating, hairy lesbo, then can I stress that no insult is intended.

ChatteParfaitt -> RE: Male vs. Female Dominance (My 1st thread) (6/1/2011 4:53:24 AM)
quote: The great majority of people in the feminist movement of the 60's and 70's were fighting for gender equality - Pesky little things like equal pay for the same work. They were fighting for a woman's right to say no to sex with her husband ("marital rape" is still regarded as "not quite rape" in some western jurisdictions). They were trying to raise awareness in young girls that they don't have to say "yes" to sex when bullied or pressurised. I agree -- I lived through the 60s and 70s. Most of us who aligned with the feminists were not cock hating lesbians, we just wanted some equality. Here's some examples: I grew up in a time when females could not wear pants to school, they had to wear dresses. The idea of allowing girls on a sports team was inconceivable. In school, girls went to home economics, boys took shop. I wanted to take drafting and had to get special permission from my parents. I got permission from my mother, the school said they wanted permission from my father. Women were routinely called girls, they were secretaries, school teachers and nurses. A female boss was not just extremely rare, she was automatically considered a dyke. Sexual harassment in the workplace was an everyday occurrence, if you complained you were fired. "Boys will be boys" was the rule of the day. Husbands were allowed to rape their wives, and if you were date raped you "asked for it." There were no females drafted into the military (we had the draft back then, for males only) and very few in government positions of any authority. Females voted as their husband, b/f or father instructed, we were not to "worry our pretty little head" about politics. This wasn't that long ago folks. Numerous small but significant changes have been made over the past four decades. This was accomplished not by nutjob extremists but by thinking people of both sexes. Feel free to argue this issue as much as you want, but I lived through those decades.

crazyml -> RE: Male vs. Female Dominance (My 1st thread) (6/1/2011 4:57:53 AM)
Alright poppet, you've made your point! <sheesh!> <chicks!> [Ed for typo]

ChatteParfaitt -> RE: Male vs. Female Dominance (My 1st thread) (6/1/2011 5:04:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crazyml Alright poppet, you've made your point! <sheesh!> <chicks!> [Ed for typo] That's Mz. Poppet to you !! Geeze, what kind of cock hating lesbian do you think I am?

crazyml -> RE: Male vs. Female Dominance (My 1st thread) (6/1/2011 5:06:13 AM)
my kinda cock hating lesbian, is whut I think you are CP

PdxJ -> RE: Male vs. Female Dominance (My 1st thread) (6/1/2011 5:51:40 AM)
Something to add to your list of indignation and points: 1) Women gained the right to vote after the black man. 2) Early in this last century, it was legal to force a woman to be sterilized if she was a 3rd generation of women that were considered difficult or labeled insane. . . . . . . . . and it didn't take much to get a woman labeled as insane.

ChatteParfaitt -> RE: Male vs. Female Dominance (My 1st thread) (6/1/2011 6:09:08 AM)
There are people on this forum young enough to not have full appreciation for what the second wave feminists (of both sexes) accomplished. To have this group characterized as extremist nutjobs is not merely false, it belittles the positive changes that have occurred in the last few decades.

xssve -> RE: Male vs. Female Dominance (My 1st thread) (6/1/2011 6:18:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: xssve Penetration is a big hang up for some people, men penetrate, women are penetrated, that's just the biological arrangement. No, when people have sex, the biological arrangement is that women engulf cocks with their vaginas. Or, at least, they do when they have sex with me. And their vaginas suck semen out of me. Yep, that's how I see it, that's how I feel it; ergo, that is what's 'natural', 'normal' and 'right'. This is because what humans do is by definition natural for humans to do, and I am a human. It may not be natural for gorillas or chimps but, then, I'm not a gorilla or a chimp. What will it take to move this sort of discussion beyond the view that biology is a science that has ever been somehow 'outside' the social construction of knowledge? Bloody hell, do we need to chuck grenades at it? The point being, the penis penetrates the vagina, or the vagina (or orifice of your choice) engulfs the penis, I really don't care how you characterize it, that what it takes to reproduce, however you describe it - i.e., from a biological perspective, all gender constructs are strictly speaking, irrelevant, most of them, like the centripetal defensive response, are r strategy adaptations, i.e., they have very little to do with the act of impregnation, they have much more to do with what happens afterwards. Biology still applies, but symbolism of penetration/consumption takes off to places well beyond biology - biologically speaking, it's just a convenient way to deliver semen in proximity to the cervix. You are still talking about doing the penetration, or being engulfed, however you want to look at it, for instance, but it's still the male role, symbolically speaking. I've run into a lot of guys who enjoy the hell out of being penetrated, doesn't seem to affect their ability to do manly stuff in the least, including fathering and helping raise children, but symbolically, it isn't something most men advertise. There's even a bugaboo when it comes to women, i.e., virginity, being "ruined", etc. a particularly Christian neurosis - Jeanne d'Arc for example, was in pristine, unpenetrated condition, and that's pretty central to her whole mythology, but for the most part, a woman says: "I like it when a guys sticks his cock in me, it feels good", we say, "damn skippy"! Guy says it, and everybody is like, "eewww"! Why you ask? Because we have the outer layer of cerebral cortex that does nothing but make symbolic associations, and the symbolism, while to some extent, shared, has a distinctly different set of associations for men than it does for women, getting back around to the OP.

PdxJ -> RE: Male vs. Female Dominance (My 1st thread) (6/1/2011 6:25:50 AM)
The world is a much different place than it was 25 - 35 years ago and that's just the extent I remember. I know how much change went on the 15 - 20 years prior to that. I remember listening to my grandmother when I was younger and I wish now that I could remember her stories better. She told us all about the women's movements and how times had changed bit by bit from when she was a kid until how it was her last few years. And further back, she related stories that her own grandmother had told her - coming across the prairie in a covered wagon as a child and watching her father talk to Indians and on through those years. Women had virtually no rights - they couldn't even own property. I understand and sympathize with minorities in this country but females of any race has had it just as bad, if not worse, and gained full rights under our rightful laws and Constitution after everyone else. And, still to this day, many are still treated as lesser class citizens and don't get paid equal wages.

sexyred1 -> RE: Male vs. Female Dominance (My 1st thread) (6/1/2011 6:48:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Awareness quote: ORIGINAL: 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. .....and then he woke up from his fevered dream, drenched in sweat, ready to face the day ahead.

Page: << < prev 21 22 [23] 24 25 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625