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

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



Message

Awareness -> RE: Male vs. Female Dominance (My 1st thread) (6/1/2011 12:01:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
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.
  I didn't say that.  I said that 'social conditioning' as an all encompassing force which moulds minds is nonsense.  People frequently cite 'social conditioning' as though it's an entity with agency.  That's ludicrous and ignores the aspects of our shared psychology which drive an astonishing amount of our behaviour.

Many apparently social influences - for example social proof - are not so much sociological constructions as a consequence of the psychological short-cut mechanisms our brains use.  Cialdini's seminal "Influence" is an interesting tome which explores some of these.

quote:

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.
  I think it's more likely that Dworkin has fallen out of fashion since the advent of sex-positive feminism.   She seemed to be everywhere at some point.  However this is largely irrelevant, because it's the exploration of penetrative sex  and the power dynamics it implies which is the reference point.  People are getting off track.



Awareness -> RE: Male vs. Female Dominance (My 1st thread) (6/1/2011 12:18:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: HeatherMcLeather

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.
My real point is that it is not feminist dogma at all. Dogma is the prescribed belief of a group, the ideas held in common as laid down by the authoritative body or bodies. There is a feminist dogma, but it has nothing to do with penetrative sex. In fact, very, very little feminist thought has been put into the role of penetrative sex. A lot of anti-feminist thought has gone into it however.
  I see it differently, but it's irrelevant.  Point is, Dworkin wrote about the role of penetrative sex in power dynamics between the sexes.  If you can seriously tell me you've read "Intercourse" and can't see that, then we have no basis for any further discussion.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness
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. 
OK. rather than taking your word on this, I did some research. I have been reading and looking stuff up for about 12 hours straight now. And guess what. I have been unable to find a single verifiable instance where a feminist of any standing whatsoever said anything of the sort. please point me to any such utterance. Just give me the name of the feminist who said those things, or the book in which it was said.
  That's a trap.  If I pull out a quote, you can simply say the feminist has no standing.  Dworkin herself specifically wrote:

"... intercourse itself is immune to reform. In it, female is bottom, stigmatized. Intercourse remains a means or the means of physiologically making a woman inferior: communicating to her cell by cell her own inferior status, impressing it on her, burning it into her by shoving it into her, over and over, pushing and thrusting until she gives up and gives in—which is called surrender in the male lexicon. In the experience of intercourse, she loses the Capacity for integrity because her body—the basis of privacy and freedom in the material world for all human beings—is entered and occupied; the boundaries of her physical body are—neutrally speaking—violated."

... but of course you're going to contend she was a member of the lunatic fringe.  Now, I'm not remotely interested in arguing over the timelines and popularity of feminist thought.  I gave you a simple example as a reference point because feminists have spent time thinking and arguing over these things and I thought testimony from a woman might seem more relevant or believable to you.  If you're going to ignore them, then feel free.  We have nothing more to discuss.  You asked my opinion, I told you.  If you're not buying it, then whoopee.  I really don't care.

quote:

If you mean Dworkin, then her famous line about sex equaling violation, well if you actually read the book, you'd understand that the quote is pulled from a passage in which she is explaining the male supremacist view of sex. That's right folks, the sex=rape concept (which isn't even how she said it) is a MALE view, not a feminist one. One that Awareness clearly shares at least to a degree.
  Now that, was childish.

quote:

Its getting tiresome having you dismiss 90% of my objections with the "you're young, you'll see it my way when you grow up" argument. You said I'm clever and more perceptive than most of the adults (I am one of the adults on the boards by the way!) on here, so start treating me as if you really thought that.
  Your feminism is watered down simply because it doesn't require the venom of the old.  Ask any woman today and she'll tell you she's a feminist but she shares almost nothing with the firebrands of the 60's and 70's.  Age is relevant.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL:  Awareness
You've been sexually dominated by a man?
Yes, I have.
  You claimed never to have been penetrated by a man.  Which is it?  Yes, or no?



ranja -> RE: Male vs. Female Dominance (My 1st thread) (6/1/2011 12:33:11 PM)


quote:

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL:  Awareness
You've been sexually dominated by a man?
Yes, I have.
  You claimed never to have been penetrated by a man.  Which is it?  Yes, or no?




ooof man.... a bit of hot conversation there....
heather you know you do not have to answer eh?



PeonForHer -> RE: Male vs. Female Dominance (My 1st thread) (6/1/2011 12:47:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness
People frequently cite 'social conditioning' as though it's an entity with agency.  That's ludicrous and ignores the aspects of our shared psychology which drive an astonishing amount of our behaviour. Cialdini's seminal "Influence" is an interesting tome which explores some of these.


Of course there are psychological forces at work that are pretty common to all people. That was known well before Cialdini's time. Cialdini is one psychologist (of the 'business guru' variety) in a long stream of them. Again, if your argument is that social construction doesn't play a huge role in shaping how we think and act, you'd be flying in the face of an entire body of study. It's just not a respectable position to take, in my view.

quote:


ORIGINAL: Awareness
I think it's more likely that Dworkin has fallen out of fashion since the advent of sex-positive feminism.   She seemed to be everywhere at some point.  However this is largely irrelevant, because it's the exploration of penetrative sex  and the power dynamics it implies which is the reference point.  People are getting off track.


Dworkin, as I've said, was never in fashion, except as a bête noire of the right in general and anti-feminists in particular. Certainly, though, her name was everywhere: mostly in the right wing tabloid newspapers, as I recall.

Yep, let's get back on track, though. Or both tracks: engulfing sex for me, penetrative sex for you.



HeatherMcLeather -> RE: Male vs. Female Dominance (My 1st thread) (6/1/2011 1:13:09 PM)

As I pointed out in my previous post (the part you dismiss as childish), that quote from Intercourse is defining the male supremacist view of penetrative sex, NOT the feminist view, and NOT Dworkin's view. The quote you have used has been taken completely out of context.

And I equated the view it expressed to your views for two reasons. First because it is very similar to your views as stated in this thread, and in others. and second, because you have referred to it as supporting your view.  Now I don't really care deep down what your views are, but please don't ascribe them to others, particularly others who were in fact dismissing those views. It just makes you look incompetent.

quote:

You claimed never to have been penetrated by a man.  Which is it?  Yes, or no?
Not all sexual domination involves vaginal or anal penetration with a penis.
________________________________________
When you first posted, I resolved to give you a fair hearing. To take your views at face value and to examine them without preconception. I've tried very hard to do just that, and I think i have managed reasonably well. I've asked others not to tear into you the way they have on other threads. I've overlooked the condescending tone of your replies and done my best to answer you in an even and reasonable manner. But I'm sorry, I've had all I can take...

You say we build world models based on our experiences, yet you dismiss all other such models out of hand. Only your model has any validity. You claim to have much psychological, physiological, biological, and sociological science to back up your views, but you cannot provide any such evidence. The only bit of such evidence you have presented, in fact says the exact opposite of what you claim it does.

It is now clear to me, and I suspect to pretty much anybody else who has been reading along, that you really don't know nearly as much about things as you like to pretend you do. I admit I have very little experience either real world or theoretical, but I honestly believe I understand the dynamics of dominance and submission be it man/man, man/woman, and certainly woman/woman than you do. The reason for this is simple. I am willing to listen and learn. I start with an idea or position and I ask questions. the evidence presented then causes me to modify my position. This is a common sense approach. You on the other hand have started with an idea and position, and rather than ask questions to solicit opinions and evidence, you ignore all such, you dismiss anything that does not fit your model. I suspect if we ran a scientific poll of all the female subs/slaves on CM , the results would show you to be incorrect in your assumptions of how they interpret and process male dominance and penetration. And I'm equally sure that you would dismiss those results, claiming the CM membership isn't truly representative of "real" female subs.

Anyway Awareness, again I thank you for your participation in my thread, your contribution has been very useful and has helped me to clarify a lot of things in my head, and it did lead me on a marathon crash course of feminist thought, for which I thank you. I learned some things I didn't know before.

You are, of course, more than welcome to continue to contribute, but I do ask that if you do, you be prepared to back up your position with something of a factual nature, rather than just more of your unsubstantiated opinions dressed up as pseudo-science.



PeonForHer -> RE: Male vs. Female Dominance (My 1st thread) (6/1/2011 1:27:18 PM)

quote:

Your feminism is watered down simply because it doesn't require the venom of the old.  Ask any woman today and she'll tell you she's a feminist but she shares almost nothing with the firebrands of the 60's and 70's.  Age is relevant. [etc.]


Actually, most feminists now do share a great deal with the feminists of the sixties and seventies, and very few were as venomous as you say. But that's not the point I want to make here.

It does seem that you want to insist on the importance of Andrea Dworkin, despite the fact that she never gained a wide impact on the feminist movement. Anyone who cites her in support of any argument against feminism isn't going to be respected by people who consider themselves feminists. The same would be said of her views on engulfing sex. (Or penetrative sex, as you want to call it.)

Unfortunately, as I and others have pointed out, feminism has become such a hated term, courtesy of right wing bashing ever since the Suffragettes, that even a lot of women now wince at applying the term to themselves. So I suggest the following method, instead.

This is that we simply ask for the views on engulfing/penetrative sex of those who support the following, standard and widely-accepted definition of feminism, which is the belief that 'advocates social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men."

How about that?





Focus50 -> RE: Male vs. Female Dominance (My 1st thread) (6/1/2011 2:11:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: HeatherMcLeather

<Slips into her Jr. philosopher’s robes>
These thoughts came to me while I was responding to Focus50’s doggie style thread.


I've noticed reading on here that a lot of men seem to focus on individual sex acts or positions as being dominant or submissive in and of themselves, while I find the women do not. I find women are more focused on the motivation behind the act, rather than the act itself.  What I’m thinking is that this difference is a very fundamental one: male dominance is physically based and female dominance is mentally based. Now I’m sure this isn’t the case always or for all people, but there is enough evidence on these boards to make this a valid starting point for a discussion.


I think this may be because as a rule, men are larger and stronger than women, and more physically able to dominate their partner, while Dommes are often the smaller and physically weaker of the pair, so their dominance has to be rooted in the mind of the submissive to a much bigger degree. Now I’m not saying that there is no mental part to male dominance, just that it is focused on the physical aspect to a much greater degree.


Take for example rimjobs. I'm pretty sure most would consider this a very submissive act, and few would consider it dominant in any way (if they'd even consider doing it), and I agree, when I do it, I am put into a very submissive headspace. To her it is a very dominant thing to do, to have me do it to her. But it works the other way around too, when I am flipped over and tongued just because she wants to, well I feel very submissive, and quite dirty for "allowing" it. So, from this, its clear that the same act can be both dominant and submissive, it depends on the reason for the act and how it is done.


What do the rest of you think?


Whoa; your first thread is a few days old and already a whopping 25 pages! Impressive....

I don't normally bother with topics that are more than 3 pages deep as they're usually wandering off topic by then but since I'm only finding this one now and I'm mentioned in the OP, I have something I'd like to contribute. And without having read beyond page 1....

Relative to some of my comments in the doggie-style thread, I disagree that male dominance is "physically based". It may seem that way when compared to a Domme who's likely not as big or strong as her male submissive but the fact is simple gender dynamics means a male Dominant is physically more able to manhandle a fem/sub than a Domme is with her male sub.

In a lifestyle based on dominance and submission, being physically more powerful than your submissive is a natural advantage male Doms have over their female (Domme) counterparts. And if you've got it, you tend to use it to your own advantage; that even many vanilla women like being handled roughly by their male partners, BECAUSE a man can! It's also primal and animal (2 very hot elements of sexual dynamics) - a "natural order" kind of thing.

Hmmmm, "natural order" - just something else I must remember never to say in 'Ask a Mistress'...! lol

Focus.



Arpig -> RE: Male vs. Female Dominance (My 1st thread) (6/1/2011 4:05:09 PM)

quote:

Hmmmm, "natural order" - just something else I must remember never to say in 'Ask a Mistress'...! lol
Or anywhere else if you want to be considered anything other than a fool.



aromanholiday -> RE: Male vs. Female Dominance (My 1st thread) (6/1/2011 5:03:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness
Many apparently social influences - for example social proof - are not so much sociological constructions as a consequence of the psychological short-cut mechanisms our brains use.  Cialdini's seminal "Influence" is an interesting tome which explores some of these.


That was a very good book. I am suprised to see a reference to it turn up in a Collarme thread.



Arpig -> RE: Male vs. Female Dominance (My 1st thread) (6/1/2011 5:18:08 PM)

quote:

That was a very good book. I am suprised to see a reference to it turn up in a Collarme thread.
It was, for a book on marketing. It has very little to do with the topic though...well fuck all actually, but I'm feeling generous.



aromanholiday -> RE: Male vs. Female Dominance (My 1st thread) (6/1/2011 6:11:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: xssve

Part of it, and you probably won't like it, is that we're primates, and female primates aren't really part of the whole alpha hierarchy - it does happen, there are female alphas, and of course it's not as uncommon in humans as it is in other primate species, but on average, females are simply outside the hierarchy - i.e., it really doesn't matter what women do, lesbians very seldom get attacked for being homosexual (although they do get attacked for being women), but men do, all the time - guys tend to take all that status stuff very seriously, it's like life or death, so they tend to be a bit more reptilian about it, i.e., displays, body language, etc.

Women are actually lucky that way, they can wear culottes, they can cry for no reason, act dizzy, nobody gives a shit, you can do anything you want, a guy can't get caught dead doing any of that shit.



Interesting ideas, especially the one about women being out of the hierarchy. I think you're on to something there. It sounds like it is very tough being a man at times. You are right that it is a lot more relaxing for women: we generally do not lose status for doing (or wearing) silly or ditsy stuff. I was in a new city recently, trying to find the taxis outside the airport. I didn't feel any urgent need find them on my own, nothing rode on it, nothing needed to be proven by it. I knew I could smile and ask someone and they would show me where to go and we'd have a pleasant social exchange. It turned out the taxis were just a few dozen feet away from the driver of the bus I asked, and if I had just turned my head in that direction instead of walking off in the other direction I would have seen them, lol, but he was quite happy to show the silly woman where they parked. I smiled and thanked him sincerely. I was just happy to know where to find them, and he seemed quite pleased that he could help me. I wonder if it is reaffirming to men when women are dizzy, as long as it's not negative-dizzy? I do love the fact that I can be silly that way in many areas of my life, and most people don't care or see it as negative.



HeatherMcLeather -> RE: Male vs. Female Dominance (My 1st thread) (6/1/2011 7:07:38 PM)

quote:

Interesting ideas, especially the one about women being out of the hierarchy.
I agree, to a degree. But what he's overlooking is that there is a hierarchy among women as well.

I need to think about it some more to elaborate, but women are very competitive creatures. In brief, based on high school, because that's what I know, it all revolves on how many girls want the guy you have. The more popular your guy is in your circle, the higher your status. I have the idea that among older women it isn't really all that different, but it's your man's income that is the basis rather than his fuckability.



Awareness -> RE: Male vs. Female Dominance (My 1st thread) (6/1/2011 11:41:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: HeatherMcLeather

As I pointed out in my previous post (the part you dismiss as childish), that quote from Intercourse is defining the male supremacist view of penetrative sex, NOT the feminist view, and NOT Dworkin's view. The quote you have used has been taken completely out of context.
  No.  You are wrong.  It is very clearly Dworkin's view.  I know because *I* quoted it and I did not take it "out of context".

quote:

And I equated the view it expressed to your views for two reasons. First because it is very similar to your views as stated in this thread, and in others. and second, because you have referred to it as supporting your view.  Now I don't really care deep down what your views are, but please don't ascribe them to others, particularly others who were in fact dismissing those views. It just makes you look incompetent.
  As I've said, you are incorrect.  And I have never stated that sex=rape.  Your equating that statement to my view, was a childish attempt at oneupmanship.  And since you've not bothered to look the reference up yourself, I'm afraid you're looking incompetent at this juncture.

quote:


quote:

ORIGINAL:  Awareness
You claimed never to have been penetrated by a man.  Which is it?  Yes, or no?
Not all sexual domination involves vaginal or anal penetration with a penis.
  For the love of Christ, the entire focus of the discussion is about penetrative sex as a dominant act.  In other words, you haven't been penetrated by a man and so your claim of "experience" is simply a lie.  Good lord, after demonstrating intelligence, now you demonstrate intellectual dishonesty.  Pathetic.

quote:


________________________________________
When you first posted, I resolved to give you a fair hearing. To take your views at face value and to examine them without preconception. I've tried very hard to do just that, and I think i have managed reasonably well. I've asked others not to tear into you the way they have on other threads. I've overlooked the condescending tone of your replies and done my best to answer you in an even and reasonable manner. But I'm sorry, I've had all I can take...
  Even the best of us occasionally let our ego take control.  At specific points you've done that.  You have insight, yes, but you're woefully determined to push a point of view and you're not remotely impartial.  Nice try, but that's simply not true.

quote:

You say we build world models based on our experiences, yet you dismiss all other such models out of hand. Only your model has any validity. You claim to have much psychological, physiological, biological, and sociological science to back up your views, but you cannot provide any such evidence. The only bit of such evidence you have presented, in fact says the exact opposite of what you claim it does.
  Actually no.  I provided a reference point which is factually correct and you are simply wrong.  Go read instead of taking the word of someone else.  You clearly have not read the passage I refer to and it is NOT the all-encompassing claim that sex is rape which I quoted.  You've made the mistake of relying upon someone else instead of doing your own research.  I can tell because I HAVE read the passage in question and I fully understand the context in which the quotation arises.  Immediately prior to this quote, Dworkin made reference to the view of Victoria Woodhull who expressed a female-supremacist view of intercourse.  However, from the context of the quote it was clear that Dworkin was articulating her own view as fact.  It had nothing whatsoever to do with any male-supremacist view.

quote:

It is now clear to me, and I suspect to pretty much anybody else who has been reading along, that you really don't know nearly as much about things as you like to pretend you do. I admit I have very little experience either real world or theoretical, but I honestly believe I understand the dynamics of dominance and submission be it man/man, man/woman, and certainly woman/woman than you do.
  I'm sure you do, but arrogance is pretty much always an artefact of youth.  We usually get over it when the world proves to be far bigger, more complex and wilder than we ever imagined.  Believe me, at your age, I wasn't exactly a model of insight and tolerance.  Mind you, the male experience of growing up is so different to the female experience, we may as well originate from different planets.

quote:

The reason for this is simple. I am willing to listen and learn. I start with an idea or position and I ask questions. the evidence presented then causes me to modify my position. This is a common sense approach. You on the other hand have started with an idea and position, and rather than ask questions to solicit opinions and evidence, you ignore all such, you dismiss anything that does not fit your model.
  Actually I doubt that very much.  You pretty much demonstrate an unwillingness to consider ideas which threaten your model of the world.  Asking questions is not the measure of an open mind Heather.  It's being willing to modify your position by the accepting of those ideas, based upon the logic and reason with which they're presented.  It is with no trace of irony that I say that in my experience, women are less accepting of logic and reasoning than men.

quote:

I suspect if we ran a scientific poll of all the female subs/slaves on CM , the results would show you to be incorrect in your assumptions of how they interpret and process male dominance and penetration. And I'm equally sure that you would dismiss those results, claiming the CM membership isn't truly representative of "real" female subs.
  To be honest, I simply wouldn't care.  As long as my understanding produces the desired results, any polls are rather irrelevant to me.  To contest that my view was superior would simply be an artefact of ego.  You may require such reassurance.  I do not.

quote:

You are, of course, more than welcome to continue to contribute, but I do ask that if you do, you be prepared to back up your position with something of a factual nature, rather than just more of your unsubstantiated opinions dressed up as pseudo-science.
  I did, and you simply pick and choose what you decide to believe.  Unfortunately, a debate involving logic and reason requires agreement upon axioms before inferences can be used to build a chain of reason.  Given that you're unable to agree on axioms, the idea that we'll have a debate is unrealistic.  Also given that you simply feigned an interest in my views, rather than specifically requesting a chain of reasoning, the idea that you're prepared to engage with intellectual honesty seems remote.

There is one other aspect of penetrative sex which I haven't mentioned and which, to my mind, contributes very much toward the idea of penetration as inherently dominant.  That is, the psychological response to violation of bodily integrity.

There's a fundamentally violent revulsion in humanity to the imposition of an external agency into the body.  People swallow their own saliva all day, but hand them a cup of their own spit and they recoil.  An entire sub-genre of horror is devoted to body horror.  Penetrative sex fundamentally introduces the violation of bodily integrity - a point Dworkin specifically mentions.

Being penetrated by a cock is an experience which a woman cannot supply.  An impartial piece of plastic doesn't match it in terms of the intense psychological impact.   Sure, you can go with fingers, but ask a hetero female sub if there's a difference between fingers and a cock and see what answer you get.

Attempting to assert that a cock is irrelevant to sex is exactly what I would expect from a lesbian.  There's too much self-interest at stake to believe otherwise.  To pretend that you're attempting to engage in impartial debate instead of one with an undercurrent of heterophobia is sheer nonsense.  I considered it unlikely and your response pretty much demonstrated I was correct.

Yes, you're young.  And when I was young, I absolutely loathed it when my elders mentioned it.  As though my views were lesser because of it.  Trouble was, in some ways they were right.  Experience gives you perspective and at least the potential for a more tolerant view of humanity.

You're quite happy to rub your youth in the faces of us ancient types, so you're going to have to cop it sweet if we give you shit about your youth.  Turnabout is fair play.  You can't have it both ways.

By the way - I'll post what I damn like.  Feel free to argue with me - if you can keep up.

*grin*  Ciao Bella.



tj444 -> RE: Male vs. Female Dominance (My 1st thread) (6/2/2011 12:11:44 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: HeatherMcLeather
What do the rest of you think?



Well, I only have my own opinion from my viewpoint.
On rimming, its something I dont do, its a limit for me. But if someone wants to do that to me then i am ok with it. It doesnt make me feel submissive tho, it is not something I enjoy so i dont feel anything or have an opinion really. I dont feel its something a dominant would do tho as i dont consider it a dominant act. But thats just me.

I am single right now and i dont play with anyone, i just play with myself and 99% of the time i watch porn when i do that. I love watching anal sex most of the time, doggie position. To me, anal is the most D/s act. Most women dont let their guys get anywhere near their butt so to me its still a fairly rare act. To give that to my guy makes me feel submissive, especially doggie. So i love watching anal porn, when i watch i imagine how the girl feels giving herself to him, giving him that ultimate pleasure, how submissive it is for her. Then I switch to how the guy feels, how it feels physically, that pleasure and also how he emotionally feels dominating her that way, taking his pleasure whether she enjoys anal or not, doing it to her how he likes to.

I alternate between those two and i do the same thing when i have had anal sex, thinking about how it makes me feel then thinking about how he feels doing that to me.

I also sometimes watch guy on guy anal sex and its different to me, its more animalistic for some reason, maybe cuz the guy is dominating another guy, perhaps in my mind it heightens the domination or something.




WyldHrt -> RE: Male vs. Female Dominance (My 1st thread) (6/2/2011 12:38:41 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness
quote:

ORIGINAL: WyldHrt
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.
  Usually the word 'can' denotes possibility or capability.  And yes, it is possible.
quote:

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.
  No.  You did specify what other women will do.  Specifically:
quote:

ORIGINAL: WyldHrt
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.
  Christ woman, it was only your previous post.  Pay attention.

This latest was pretty funny, but I'm just not in the mood to continue playing semantic Jenga by parsing it out and replying. I'll leave it, as others will draw their own conclusions from what you have written.
Have a wondrous night.




HeatherMcLeather -> RE: Male vs. Female Dominance (My 1st thread) (6/2/2011 1:18:48 AM)

quote:

No. You are wrong. It is very clearly Dworkin's view. I know because *I* quoted it and I did not take it "out of context".
She has said that the quote you gave has been taken out of context when used to show that she believes sex is equal to rape. I believe her, not you.

quote:

Your equating that statement to my view, was a childish attempt at oneupmanship.
Wrong, I told you why I equated your view with the sex=rape view. You do not like this connection, but you really are in no place to tell me why I made the connection, now are you?

quote:

For the love of Christ, the entire focus of the discussion is about penetrative sex as a dominant act.  In other words, you haven't been penetrated by a man and so your claim of "experience" is simply a lie.
Wrong and wrong yet again. the focus of this thread is in fact "Why do more men than women think particular sexual acts and positions are inherently dominant or submissive? You have focused solely on the idea that this means penis-in-vagina sex. Nobody else. The rest of us have discussed different forms of sex, And as to my lying, well guess what. You are wrong yet again. You asked me:
quote:

You've been sexually dominated by a man?
There is nothing in there regarding penetration, so there is no lie in my response. You are the one who automatically assumes that sexual dominance by a man requires vaginal penetration by a penis, as usual you are wrong. It may be required for you to sexually dominate a woman, but it is not required by a woman for her to be sexually dominated by a man.

quote:

However, from the context of the quote it was clear that Dworkin was articulating her own view as fact.  It had nothing whatsoever to do with any male-supremacist view.
You were wrong when I dealt with this at the beginning of my post, and you are still wrong. As I stated earlier, she has said that the interpretation you hold is incorrect. I still chose to believe her over you.

quote:

It's being willing to modify your position by the accepting of those ideas, based upon the logic and reason with which they're presented.
Why thank you for proving what I said. I have modified my position because I did accept various ideas based upon the logic and reason with which they were presented. I have NOT accepted your ideas, also based on the logic and reason with which they were presented. Your ideas are illogical and unreasonable and you present them that way, therefore, I have not accepted them.

quote:

a debate involving logic and reason
That simply isn't possible with you, I'm sorry.

quote:

An impartial piece of plastic doesn't match it in terms of the intense psychological impact. 

You talk a lot about the psychological effects of penetration by a penis as opposed to a dildo. Have you ever been penetrated by a penis or a dildo? If not then you are in no position to say anything about it. I'll take the word of people who have been penetrated over a theoretician with an agenda thank you.

quote:

Experience gives you perspective and at least the potential for a more tolerant view of humanity.
It has given you a very warped perspective, and clearly you didn't do anything with that potential for tolerance. I read the sub male thread, you really are quite funny, claiming logic, reason and tolerance when you filled pages on that thread with illogical, unreasonable intolerance. Nice try, but I'm not buying it.

quote:

I'll post what I damn like.  Feel free to argue with me - if you can keep up.
I'm afraid I've passed you a while ago. If you ever catch up, I might pay attention to you, but until that day in the far distant future when you manage to get your thinking out of the neolithic era, I'm just going to do what many people recommended I do a long time ago. I'm going to ignore you and your insane rantings.

My granddad used to say: "A diseased mind thinks diseased thoughts". I will keep this bon mot of his in mind when I come across your posts in the future.



HeatherMcLeather -> RE: Male vs. Female Dominance (My 1st thread) (6/2/2011 1:30:13 AM)

Thank you tj. You're disproving my theory that this is a predominantly male way of thinking. [:)]

quote:

dominating her that way, taking his pleasure whether she enjoys anal or not, doing it to her how he likes to.
I've bolded the part of what you said that I would equate to dominance, but what if she does enjoy anal sex, does the act lose its dominance then?

quote:

To give that to my guy makes me feel submissive, especially doggie.
I know its often difficult to express, but could you try. Why does doggie make you feel especially submissive?

quote:

I dont feel its something a dominant would do tho as i dont consider it a dominant act.
What if the dominant enjoyed rimming?





Awareness -> RE: Male vs. Female Dominance (My 1st thread) (6/2/2011 2:52:15 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer
Of course there are psychological forces at work that are pretty common to all people. That was known well before Cialdini's time. Cialdini is one psychologist (of the 'business guru' variety) in a long stream of them. Again, if your argument is that social construction doesn't play a huge role in shaping how we think and act, you'd be flying in the face of an entire body of study. It's just not a respectable position to take, in my view.
  Actually I find that social conditioning is a position taken by those who essentially wish to argue - for reasons of their own - that gender is a social construction.

The most powerful forces at work in every human being are the implicit psychological mechanisms which dominate us.  Social conditioning says you help your neighbours, but the psychological mechanism of social proof means we ignore someone who is bleeding to death after a car accident, is being raped, attacked or is suffering a medical emergency.   Social proof means we fucking kill ourselves when someone like us does otherwise and I'm supposed to believe that social conditioning is so powerful?  Not likely.  I think it's a convenient rationalisation for psychobiological imperatives which shape our decisions.

Click, whirr dominates.  It defines our responses to a startling degree.  You think social conditioning defines us?  I am - and have been - pondering whether we have any free will at all since the deck seems to be stacked so thoroughly against us.  Do we possess free will or are we automatically following the dictates of game theory and simply seeking advantage wherever we can find it?   To my mind, the jury is still very much out.

quote:


Dworkin, as I've said, was never in fashion, except as a bête noire of the right in general and anti-feminists in particular. Certainly, though, her name was everywhere: mostly in the right wing tabloid newspapers, as I recall.
  Possibly.  I view feminism as a necessary agent for change due to the failure of men to fulfill their duty of care.  Having said that, much modern feminism seems to have morphed into a vehicle for promoting female supremacy rather than addressing gender inequity.  Dworkin seems far less popular post millennium than she once was, although measuring such things is more of a subjective exercise than anything else.

quote:

Yep, let's get back on track, though. Or both tracks: engulfing sex for me, penetrative sex for you.
  As I mentioned earlier, I suspect the psychological imperative to preserve body integrity plays a part in the effect of penetrative sex.   I can't see anyone associating fear with 'engulfment', whereas fear of penetration is something which many women can empathise with.



tazzygirl -> RE: Male vs. Female Dominance (My 1st thread) (6/2/2011 2:58:38 AM)

Heather, at this point, all I can say is you have massive brownie points for your level of patience.



CreepyStalker -> RE: Male vs. Female Dominance (My 1st thread) (6/2/2011 3:17:59 AM)

quote:

quote:

Yep, let's get back on track, though. Or both tracks: engulfing sex for me, penetrative sex for you.
  As I mentioned earlier, I suspect the psychological imperative to preserve body integrity plays a part in the effect of penetrative sex.   I can't see anyone associating fear with 'engulfment', whereas fear of penetration is something which many women can empathise with.


Have you seen the fim 'Teeth'? :-P



Page: <<   < prev  23 24 [25] 26 27   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625