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

Awareness -> RE: Male vs. Female Dominance (My 1st thread) (6/2/2011 3:29:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HeatherMcLeather 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. Dworkin hasn't said anything of the sort. She's dead and the quote I gave was one I specifically chose, not one she may have been referring to. You didn't read the quote, you haven't read the passage itself from "Intercourse". You are wrong. quote: 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? I call it like I see it. You want to play childish games, expect to get called on it. There's no connection, you're simply behaving in an immature fashion to smear your opponent. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: Awareness 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. No. I'm afraid not. The entire context of our discussion was about penetrative sex being dominant, something you dismissed on the basis that you've experienced it from a man and that there was no difference to that and being dominated by a woman. On the contrary, you haven't experienced it, so your claim of experience was nonsensical. QED. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: Awareness 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. No. Once again, Dworkin is dead, I didn't pick any famous quote out of the ether, I specifically chose a portion of "Intercourse" which is clearly hers and anyone who has actually read it would know this. You're wrong and intellectually dishonest, you're simply choosing to believe your own lie. There's a very simple way to rectify your mistake - look it up. quote: 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. No, they make perfect sense, you just don't like them. To accept them would shift your world-view in a way you're simply not comfortable with. quote: quote: a debate involving logic and reason That simply isn't possible with you, I'm sorry. Ah, c'est la vie. Parting is such sweet sorrow. quote: 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. If I talk about it, it's because you insisted on asking about it. This was your obsession, not mine. In addition, I recall advising you to listen to some heterosexual female subs on this point. So why don't you try that. 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. The ability to see clearly is not a skill everyone possesses. That thread was interesting more for the intolerance it revealed for a dissenting view, rather than anyone else. There was a phenomenally amusing irony in the way in which people piled onto someone who didn't conform to the standard orthodoxy while simultaneously shouting loud and proud about how brave male subs were for not conforming to the standard orthodoxy. The critical point in all that was the inability of most participants to handle someone who was honest, tolerant, articulate and unapologetic. Consequently, the demonisation which occurred revealed far more about the participants than it did about me. What did NOT occur was an in-depth query into why I hold the opinions I do. The presumption about character upon the basis of my opinions represented a hysterical reaction to an honest response. Put simply, very few people have the strength to tolerate a dissenting view and the ones who do were notable in that they did not participate in the thread. If all you got out of that thread was a bunch of reactionary hysterical opinions about my character then you missed an awful lot. quote: 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. laugh Oh Bella. Self-testimony is rarely accurate and I'm afraid your arrogance is showing again. I'm aware that some people put me on ignore. I find myself phenomenally amused when they do. It is, after all, best we avoid ideas and people which distress us. The world looks so much better through rose-coloured glasses, doesn't it? grin In any case, despite our disagreements, I still congratulate you on the insight you displayed. I'm guessing this means we won't be french-kissing any time soon. Personally, I blame porn. It totally misled me about the intentions of hot lesbians (who are all really bi under the skin). Oh well.

Awareness -> RE: Male vs. Female Dominance (My 1st thread) (6/2/2011 3:33:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CreepyStalker Have you seen the fim 'Teeth'? :-P I should've known YOU would bring that up. Haven't seen it but read about it. Fortunately, I'm not suspicious of most vaginas I come across, although if I'd just watched that film, I'd probably insist on going down on her first just as a precautionary measure.

Awareness -> RE: Male vs. Female Dominance (My 1st thread) (6/2/2011 3:56:05 AM)
Part of the general gender intolerance from women is about imposing their own judgment calls on male behaviour. This isn't a problem as long as men don't start to believe them. Women are experts at controlling the frame of a discussion and it's a fool's errand if you get caught up in it without addressing the fundamental dishonesty which is usually their first cause. Male behaviour is driven by a completely different set of imperatives. Women build alliances through engagement and cooperation. Men build alliances through displays of strength and worth. Men do not follow other unworthy men and the definition of 'worthy' is a very masculine one. It has to be this way, simply because the male world is such an intensely competitive one. Women may compete with each other for men. Men compete with each other for women, resources, territory and survival. Failing to be an effective competitor can see you dead and your family either dead or taken as a resource. The construction of complex societies which allow the arbitration of resources through non-violent competition would - you might think - reduce the need for this. However the same fundamentals still dominate. The most successful men are the most competitive. They build alliances through displays of power and worth. Failure to compete can see you destitute, your wife leaving you and your children taken from you. The stakes have not changed one iota. In essence, there remain attributes which men require in order to advance. There are occasional exceptions - nothing is universal - but betting on being an exception is not a likely strategy for success. I agree that penetration has inherent symbolism. However I doubt it applies simply to men. I think, for reasons I've outlined earlier, it has real significance to most people.

Focus50 -> RE: Male vs. Female Dominance (My 1st thread) (6/2/2011 4:00:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig 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. That'd be a reflection on the source - I'm just peachy with me...! Focus.

Arpig -> RE: Male vs. Female Dominance (My 1st thread) (6/2/2011 4:13:20 AM)
quote: I didn't pick any famous quote out of the ether, Actually you did. if you Google the following line of the quote you so carefully chose (Intercourse remains a means or the means of physiologically making a woman inferior) you get 3 full pages of hits on that exact phrase. including her obituary in Time, book reviews of Intercourse, various right wing blogs, a few feminist blogs and a whole lot more. 30 hits on a phrase that long...that's pretty much what I'd call a famous quote, especially since its in her obits. They generally don't pick obscure or unknown quotes for obits, now do they? Did you think you were the only one who could Google things? Do you really expect us to believe that you have a copy of her book handy and have read it so often that you can select a quote to prove your point so easily? If so, then why not quote the section where she refers to Victoria Woodhull. Or did you decide to use that little snippet from the website I'm looking at right now to make it seem like you read the book?

Arpig -> RE: Male vs. Female Dominance (My 1st thread) (6/2/2011 4:23:16 AM)
quote: Men build alliances through displays of strength and worth. Men do not follow other unworthy men and the definition of 'worthy' is a very masculine one. It has to be this way, simply because the male world is such an intensely competitive one. [sm=rofl.gif][sm=rofl.gif][sm=rofl.gif][sm=rofl.gif] Jesus Christ dude, how do you type this stuff with a straight face? quote: I think, for reasons I've outlined earlier, it has real significance to most people. And yet more of Awareness's comedic stylings. The "reasons you've outlined earlier" are pure unadulterated BS. And so is your conclusion.

PeonForHer -> RE: Male vs. Female Dominance (My 1st thread) (6/2/2011 5:26:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Awareness 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. It's quite the opposite, actually. Those who've avoided - and derided - that vast study of of the influences of social conditioning (socialisation is the more usual term) have generally done so because they haven't liked its findings. They've commonly wanted to assert that (an aspect of) society as it is now is the right, natural and only-possible way that it can be. quote: 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 . That needs a lot of unravelling. Those who've written on the effects of socialisation say a thousand different things - as indeed they would, given that it's a whole subject that takes up vast areas in college libraries. Evidence, of course is involved in it, including what you call 'social proof'. Another part of it deals with social psychology - a subject that bloomed after WW2 partly because it was realised that studies that focused on individuals (like biology and psychology) weren't adequate to the task of explaining, for instance, the phenomenon of Nazism. 'Psychobiology' . . . just doesn't give you the necessary tools. It's like trying to demolish a house with tweezers and a scalpel. It certainly can't give anyone more than a pitifully feeble grasp of an understanding of gender relations today. It's clear that you don't want to engage with a whole branch of study. However, as I've said, you can't take a position that's respectable otherwise, I'm afraid. You have to demonstrate that you're at least open, and willing to try to understand. quote: 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. Psychology focuses on one area that defines us, social studies focus on others. Both can be 'startling' at time. There's a huge literature on that subject of free will versus determinism within social studies as well. Game theory comes up, of course, but it's somewhat dated now. quote: 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. 'Duty of care'? Blimey, that sounds patronising! Dworkin was never popular except amongst some theorists, but mostly amongst the right wing press. The line 'much modern feminism seems to have morphed into a vehicle for promoting female supremacy' is senseless. Again, the common, and widely accepted definition of 'feminism' is the belief that 'advocates social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men." Female supremacy, obviously, asserts that an inequality does/should exist. A person who is a female supremacist therefore cannot at the same time be a feminist. It's ironic, really. Anti-feminists have always called feminists 'female supremacists', right back to the days of the suffragettes. No surprise there. But on the other hand, self-proclaimed female supremacists commonly want to distance themselves from feminism. quote: 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. To wrench all this back to the subject of the OP: physical strength, the fact that a man's penis enters a female's body, and the possible result of pregnancy, no doubt do add up to women being more cautious than men about 'penetrative sex'. But that, I think, is all we can say without going off into the realms of rationalisations of what we'd like to believe about the world. My overarching view on the subject of this thread, and my last word on it, is that human nature is simply defined as 'what humans do'. Anything else collapses just too easily. Thus, I'm a human, when I have sex with a woman, she dominates me, therefore it's natural and right. Likewise, you're a human, when you have sex with a woman, you dominate her, therefore that's natural and right, too. I shouldn't think either one of us is going to give the slightest thought to any 'comparison of dominance levels' when we're engaging our respective, preferred bedtime activity. God knows it'd be a sorry state of affairs if either of us did.

xssve -> RE: Male vs. Female Dominance (My 1st thread) (6/2/2011 5:32:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aderious quote: ORIGINAL: PhilSlave Excellent post. Thanks. Men may all want to fuck models but they can make do with jerking off to photos of those models in magazines. And plenty of guys with low sexual market value do just that...for decades, even. Just goes to show that men are the ones who are highly self-sufficient. Wimmin, on the other hand, want and need attention from ALL men, and god help them if they don't get it even for one hour... Men's sexual advances are turned down regularly. If a womyn were to be turned down on the few occasions she actually made a sexual advance of her own, she would completely lose it. Most likely a screaming tantrum and crying fest would ensue. Hell hath no fury... Still, historically, this is nothing new, women, as I keep pointing out, bear the bulk of the costs of reproduction - they have to carry the child for Nine months, nurse it, raise it, teach it to survive - this makes them pickier when it comes to having sex, all the man contributes is sperm, at negligible cost. "yeah, but we have birth control", etc. - true - but we're talking a couple million years of evolution here against maybe a half a century with reliable birth control, and the AIDS epidemic in the midst of that - there are risks, fairly large risks involved here, women have evolved to calculate the resources a male is willing and able to contribute, and in absence of that, they tend to pick males with the highest testosterone levels, in hopes that their children will inherit that trait, enhancing their breeding potential. If it seems mindless, it's because it is, basically the same reasons men tend to go for nubile women with an 0.6 hip to waist ratio. Cultural influence has a lot to do with it too, breast size, etc., I see it all the time, women are too fat, too flat, etc., etc., somewhere there are a lot of people of both sexes who can't get laid without humiliating themselves in some fashion - for nature, its a simple statistical algorithm, and what works, works, traits are inherited that reinforce it. You can't fool mother nature, she's got a big head start - female mammals in general, other than human, typically engage in sex only during estrus, and at no other time - and the males duke it out for a shot - male dogs are always humping each other, but they try to mount a female who isn't in estrus and the fur flies. But if you know the rules, you can bend them - there are generous women, but men usually abuse them because their afraid being seen with them will degrade their status, etc., etc., it goes round and round, and there's plenty of mindless behavior for both sexes. Anyway, not to defend awareness, he needs to learn to articulate a bit better, but I've seen the same thing, and I know I'm not all that - women with normal sex drives deprived of affection for an extended period can be induced into an erotoleptic state fairly easily, I call it he Loudan effect. (see Ken Russell's "The Devils", or the account in Michalet's, Satanism and Witchcraft), fascinating stuff. Women crave sex even when not in estrus, a uniquely human adaptation, but there are some fairly autocratic social structures that regulate sexual behavior for them: daddy, religion, competing alpha's and alpha hierarchies, etc. Women for the most part are not free to engage in sexual intercourse with the man of their inclination, there is often and entire social structure pulling the strings behind them, with some social/economic stake in the results, and they defy it at the risk of social exclusion - isn't that where the word "slut" comes from to begin with? In any case, I don't see much utility in trying to browbeat each other into some sort of compromise, I prefer to employ charm, it works for me usually, but then what is "natural", is basically, what happens - the rest is called... history.

xssve -> RE: Male vs. Female Dominance (My 1st thread) (6/2/2011 6:11:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ChatteParfaitt quote: ORIGINAL: PhilSlave Interesting and what is the whip for in taming or any other taming techniques that use 'patience, kindness and firmness' in circus horses from Spain etc? You have clearly never ridden. Horse are not just large and massively muscled, you'd have a hell of a time hurting one while you were riding it unless you got lucky. Horses have a very limited attention span and get easily distracted. A whip is just to get the horse's attention. I'm sure there are some people who attempt to beat their horses (or their dogs, or their subs) into submission, but that doesn't really work. Even if you think you succeeded, you just created a broken down thing that is subject to attack you the first chance it gets. To be fair, it's a bit of a combination: force can be employed to get their attention and respect, but the law of diminishing returns rapidly sets in when it comes to maintaining it - and there is a big difference between something (or someone) with whom you have formed a symbiotic bond, and one that's just waiting till you're not looking, to fuck you up.

tj444 -> RE: Male vs. Female Dominance (My 1st thread) (6/2/2011 7:29:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HeatherMcLeather Thank you tj. You're disproving my theory that this is a predominantly male way of thinking. [:)] Well, I am very visual and that stimulates me mentally. Being visual is not typical of women at all. I like very hard core porn, no lovey dovey made for women love story porn (boring). I love close ups especially! It will be different things at different times depending on what is going on in the porn clip. The most stimulating parts may last only a few seconds, many times i replay those parts over and over. In one clip it might be the way his cock fucks her tight hole, in another it could be the deep haunting way that he moans as he cums, or the way he thrusts into her, I love creampies and to see him cum while inside her and it dribbles out is dominating, to me he is leaving his brand by doing that. I dont like it when a guy pulls out and cums on her butt or face, that is such a waste imo. 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? No, I very much enjoy anal and that enjoyment does not lose the dominance of the act at all to me. I am giving my submission when I have anal, it may be just as much about me submitting as him dominating and doing what he wants. He has control whether I enjoy anal or not. The last Dom I had enjoyed anal but his fav was oral on him, so the fact that anal is the most dominant sex act in my mind doesnt make it the most dominant in a Dom's mind. But I can only speak for what I feel. 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? I think its because the Dom is above me, and tends to control how fast, deep, hard he does me. Him having his strong hands on my hips and pulling me into him, he dominates because he is the one controlling the act. He is able to look down and watch as his cock pumps in and out of me and enjoy the visual, something that I can not see and watch (and I would love to be able to see that too), so the fact that I can not see that is dominating. I can only imagine how it looks, only imagine how it feels to him, that makes me feel submissive as well. 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? I dont know. I have never had a Dom want to do that, only had vanilla guys do that to me. I cant say how I would feel about it. Yes, that might be what some Doms enjoy but that still does not change my feeling that its not a dominant act. Oddly enough, when i was younger I was very much anti-porn. It was only when my ex and I started to break up and were sleeping in seperate rooms that I started going online and watching porn, out of curiousity first, then getting very into it as an outlet. Anal and gang bang was what I watched the most. That is when i started getting into D/s as well.

xssve -> RE: Male vs. Female Dominance (My 1st thread) (6/2/2011 7:36:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PhilSlave quote: ORIGINAL: CreepyStalker quote: ORIGINAL: PhilSlave quote: ORIGINAL: CreepyStalker I've never actually found a use for any men. Why do they still exist? The Y chromosone wakka wakka wakkka. So they're a genetic disorder? That makes sense, I suppose. I'm sorry to hear you suffer from male. Mutation is better really; although, simplistic. Sex itself is purely to create variation and diversity in biological terms. To cause enough diversity in larger organisms more than things like frameshifts, deletions etc. is required; hence, sex.. As I say this is very simplistic. Technically, a man is a modified woman.

tj444 -> RE: Male vs. Female Dominance (My 1st thread) (6/2/2011 7:48:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aderious Men's sexual advances are turned down regularly. If a womyn were to be turned down on the few occasions she actually made a sexual advance of her own, she would completely lose it. Most likely a screaming tantrum and crying fest would ensue. lol Well not with me. If I was interested in a guy but the feeling wasnt mutual then I just consider it his loss, no big deal, other fish in the sea. The major reason I left my ex was cuz he stopped wanting sex. I was turned down thousands of times but never lost it or cried or screamed. I loved him, I wanted to be with him and tried to fix things but he didnt want to find a solution. I eventually came to the conclusion that we never were all that sexually compatible and had very different levels of sexual desire and that was never going to change, so I left. Lesson learned. I seek someone that has the same level as I do, the same sexual interests, that is very, very, very important to me.

xssve -> RE: Male vs. Female Dominance (My 1st thread) (6/2/2011 9:24:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ChatteParfaitt 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. I don't think anybody younger than 45 or so can quite appreciate the radical changes that occurred between the 50's and 70's, it was a whooooooole different world.

xssve -> RE: Male vs. Female Dominance (My 1st thread) (6/2/2011 10:41:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Awareness Funnily enough, when presented with the option, their responses range from extreme interest to extreme disgust. Generally speaking a lot of them seem to have a fondness for the pork sword and find plastic a poor substitute. You could conduct a poll or ask around, but I suspect the numbers aren't going to fall your way. Oh, and the blowjob thing works a lot better for them when they're not trying to stick tupperware down their throat. The cock wins out again on that score. "We spent six years of research on why women have sex,” Meston says. They compiled 237 reasons. Duty sex. Revenge sex. Pity sex. Bored sex, engaged in because women simply had nothing better to do. “Of the 237 reasons why women have sex,” Meston says, “not one was looking at a man’s genitals.” Washington Post: Listen up, fella's: Naked man-parts? Not so sexy

tj444 -> RE: Male vs. Female Dominance (My 1st thread) (6/2/2011 10:52:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: xssve I don't think anybody younger than 45 or so can quite appreciate the radical changes that occurred between the 50's and 70's, it was a whooooooole different world. Well, i wonder how it was before women were given the vote, talk about a different world, huh? [8\|] It took a long time to crack that barrier. I think that change has paved the way for all changes since.

xssve -> RE: Male vs. Female Dominance (My 1st thread) (6/2/2011 11:48:19 AM)
The Nineteenth amendment was passed in 1920, but California still had to enact FEHA in 1959, expressly prohibiting housing and employment discrimination against women who were wearing pants.

Awareness -> RE: Male vs. Female Dominance (My 1st thread) (6/2/2011 1:06:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig quote: I didn't pick any famous quote out of the ether, Actually you did. if you Google the following line of the quote you so carefully chose (Intercourse remains a means or the means of physiologically making a woman inferior) you get 3 full pages of hits on that exact phrase. including her obituary in Time, book reviews of Intercourse, various right wing blogs, a few feminist blogs and a whole lot more. 30 hits on a phrase that long...that's pretty much what I'd call a famous quote, especially since its in her obits. They generally don't pick obscure or unknown quotes for obits, now do they? Did you think you were the only one who could Google things? Oh Christ. I referenced a 15 page extract from "Intercourse" and quoted that section myself because it specifically demonstrated Dworkin's thoughts on the power dynamics during intercourse. Dworkin didn't really like the idea of a man thrusting himself into a woman. I did not pick it at the behest of any web site or obituary. I chose it because it illustrated my point. The point of the original reference was to demonstrate that feminists had considered and written about penetrative sex as part of a power dynamic. A point which has long been lost in a sea of nitpicking idiocy. Dworkin wrote about it, it's something to consider, if nobody wants to consider it, then I really don't give a fuck. It just demonstrates the degree to which people are unable to focus on the topic.

Arpig -> RE: Male vs. Female Dominance (My 1st thread) (6/2/2011 1:31:03 PM)
So you haven't read the book after all, isn't that interesting, seeing as you claimed that to understand the context you had to have read the book. So I guess its no surprise to anybody that you didn't understand the context. Or the whole point of the book either, but then again, you not understanding something is really not a surprise. quote: because it specifically demonstrated Dworkin's thoughts on the power dynamics during intercourse. Actually it doesn't. And as Heather pointed out, Dworkin herself has said as much. What that section is describing is the way that sexual intercourse is presented and interpreted in and by a patriarchal society. She actually specifically states that this view is in fact a reaction to a man's feeling of powerlessness when faced with his overwhelming desire to penetrate a woman, To do so despite the fact that he is afraid of vaginas, that penetration conjures fear of castration. That he needs to get inside a vagina despite the psychological implications of putting one's penis into a muscle-lined hole that one has no control over, despite the fact that the man is rendered essentially powerless and vulnerable by the act. So you see, the Penetration-as-Violation quote you chose is in fact, in Dworkin's view, a false depiction of intercourse invented by men in order for them to deny their own feelings of inferiority and lack of control (read dominance) associated with the act of intercourse. As you can see, you couldn't be further from the truth if you tried. You obviously chose that quote because you've seen it in male-supremacist diatribes and there it was interpreted the way you interpret it. And you, in your blissful ignorance, thought the rest of us would be as ignorant of the facts as you. Face it, your pretensions to knowledge and understanding are bit by bit being exposed as the mendacious concoctions they are. This is often what happens when you build a persona based on lies and fabrication. You're entitled to hold whatever misguided beliefs you want, dude, but for the love of God, stop pretending its anything but a view based on porn and your own fantasy world. It only makes you look ridiculous. You really are a joke. You do realize that don't you?

crazyml -> RE: Male vs. Female Dominance (My 1st thread) (6/2/2011 1:38:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Awareness Male behaviour is driven by a completely different set of imperatives. Women build alliances through engagement and cooperation. Men build alliances through displays of strength and worth. Men do not follow other unworthy men and the definition of 'worthy' is a very masculine one. It has to be this way, simply because the male world is such an intensely competitive one. Women may compete with each other for men. Men compete with each other for women, resources, territory and survival. Failing to be an effective competitor can see you dead and your family either dead or taken as a resource. The construction of complex societies which allow the arbitration of resources through non-violent competition would - you might think - reduce the need for this. However the same fundamentals still dominate. The most successful men are the most competitive. They build alliances through displays of power and worth. Failure to compete can see you destitute, your wife leaving you and your children taken from you. The stakes have not changed one iota. I think this is the heart of my disagreement with you on this thread. I think there's some really good evidence to suggest that traits like physical strength and aggression are more likely to be found in men. And I think that in evolutionary terms that kind of makes sense - 50,000 years ago males were selected on the basis of their ability to hunt and kill game (and fight other tribes) and women were selected for their ability to bear and nurture offspring. The environment dictated that those selection criteria made sense. We've moved on though - firstly "competitiveness" doesn't necessarily correlate with "aggressive". Second, the ability (which you ascribe to women) to build alliances through engagement and cooperation is increasingly important given our current environment. This is why you cannot dismiss "society" or "social norms" - they represent the context within which we're evolving. I worry, Awareness, that you're a bit of a dinosaur... clinging onto qualities and traits that while powerfully relevant 50,000 years ago, are so much less relevant today?

xssve -> RE: Male vs. Female Dominance (My 1st thread) (6/4/2011 8:57:15 PM)
Interesting article contrasting porn and romance novels, commonly known as "Bodice Rippers", that to some extent reinforces the differences between predictable male and female sexual strategies and motivations. To what extent do you think this is more representative of stereotypical patterns? Culture or biology? Things aren't what they used to be, technology has freed us to some extent from things that used to be more biologically axiomatic. quote: In the real world, high-sensation-seeking males do not magically turn monogamous; obsessive lovers are usually emotionally unstable; and overly protective dudes are controlling and abusive. Similarly, most women require a little attention to a particular bundle of nerves in order to reach such operatic levels of ecstasy. "In the same way that women often find the breathless gasping and moaning of female porn stars to be absurdly inauthentic," write Ogas and Gaddam, "male readers of romances might find the emotional confessions of romance heroes to be strangely unfamiliar." Lol.

Page: << < prev 24 25 [26] 27 28 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875