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

crazyml -> RE: Male vs. Female Dominance (My 1st thread) (6/4/2011 10:53:24 PM)
Grin! That conversation is further complicated by the the fact that the female market for hardcore lit-porn (in both d and s roles) is growing very quickly. I wonder whether the conclusion might be that women simply have a better imagination than men?

xssve -> RE: Male vs. Female Dominance (My 1st thread) (6/5/2011 5:24:37 AM)
quote: What did you find in terms of women's sexual behavior online? The dominant modes of erotica for women are character-driven stories of romance and sexuality. The most popular erotic site for women is fanfiction.net, which is a collection of amateur written stories [which are often written about male characters found in pop culture, like Edward from "Twilight"]. Women's erotica is a social enterprise; for men it's a solitary enterprise. In fan fiction, women love to discuss the erotic stories, the characters, the emotional nuances -- that's part of enjoying and participating in fan fiction. What the Internet reveals about sexual desire This is an article about a book where the data on fantasy preferences is gathered from statistical study of internet searches.

Awareness -> RE: Male vs. Female Dominance (My 1st thread) (6/6/2011 4:42:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig 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. Look, at this point, your schizophrenic little episodes are beginning to concern me. First you want to have a beer, now I'm the Antichrist. Either make up your mind or just confess you're not a Dom - you're far too easily led. Your opinion is wholly dependent upon a slip of a girl who's yet to discover the perils of ego. No, I haven't poured through the entire diatribe that is Intercourse, but I've read enough to understand that to Dworkin the whole question of male/female dynamics in sex was illustrated by what she thought of as an evil power imbalance. quote: ORIGINAL: Awareness 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. No. AGAIN you are wrong - and I tell you what - this time, you can try arguing with the dead Dworkin herself. In response to the "all heterosexual sex=rape" accusation, Dworkin herself - the woman you're saying said nothing about power dynamics during intercourse had this to say: quote: Most men and a good number of women experience sexual pleasure in inequality. Since the paradigm for sex has been one of conquest, possession, and violation, I think many men believe they need an unfair advantage, which at its extreme would be called rape. I don't think they need it. I think both intercourse and sexual pleasure can and will survive equality. Which part of inequality and power dynamics slipped past you on this? The entire point of my reference was that Dworkin - and feminists in general - see sexual interaction between men and women in terms of power dynamics. It is not possible to miss this, because it is the entire point of her book. The entire purpose behind referencing Dworkin is that she specifically thought of power dynamics as a specific attribute of intercourse. In this, I am entirely correct. And the purpose behind referencing her is to provide Heather with some reference material which suggests that even feminists recognise the power dynamics behind penetration. quote: You really are a joke. You do realize that don't you? You fool. I am stronger than you will ever be and that is the source of your angst. I fully recognise your weakness and what it implies. I evoke such a strong response from you specifically because I remind you of what you're not. I choose what I choose because I have the independent mind and strength which you so painfully lack. In your heart of hearts, you know this, which is why you react in such a childish fashion. I care nothing for your age - it is painfully apparent to me that you have much to learn.

Awareness -> RE: Male vs. Female Dominance (My 1st thread) (6/6/2011 4:49:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crazyml We've moved on though No. We haven't. The imposition of higher functions matters not one whit to our fundamental psychology, and it's a gross mistake to think otherwise. Women are still attracted to exactly the same man they were attracted to 50,000 years ago. quote: - 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. It's relevant which anyone who's read and applied Machiavelli can attest. However it has not changed the dynamics between the sexes one iota. quote: This is why you cannot dismiss "society" or "social norms" - they represent the context within which we're evolving. Yes they do. And they are utterly powerless against the psychological fundamentals of evolutionary psychology. quote: 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? That's the issue. At the heart of it, things have not changed. Social psychology is inherently a branch of individual psychology. And those fundamentals which meant so much 50,000 years ago still mean so much. The idea that complex social constructions somehow impact the fundamentals of our brain is a conceit. A lie. We are still those cavemen who lived so long ago. We just have nicer caves.

CreepyStalker -> RE: Male vs. Female Dominance (My 1st thread) (6/6/2011 5:22:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Awareness quote: This is why you cannot dismiss "society" or "social norms" - they represent the context within which we're evolving. Yes they do. And they are utterly powerless against the psychological fundamentals of evolutionary psychology. You do realise evolutionary psychology is really fucking dodgy at the best of times right? You appear to be doing it wrong as well, which really isn't helping. Evolutionary psychology establishes plausible adaptive explanations for behaviours based on which has greatest likelihood, explanatory power and consistency with other findings. It doesn't establish fundamentals, only speculation. More to the point, it does this by firstly observing behaviours then theorising around them. You on the other hand appear to be theorising around what you reckon is a plausible explanation and looking for behaviour to fit. Dodgy as fuck. As for being utterly powerless... There are a million and one examples in the literature of social/cultural context overriding evolutionarily adaptive mechanisms. Do some reading, it's interesting stuff. quote: Look, at this point, your schizophrenic little episodes are beginning to concern me. Schizophrenia is another thing you ought to do some reading on. When you've finished Dworkin of course.

xssve -> RE: Male vs. Female Dominance (My 1st thread) (6/6/2011 6:29:36 AM)
yes, I agree that's a pretty broad generalization to make against half the human race - if this were so, there would be no necessity for the myriad institutions designed to keep women in line - including rape - i.e., before feminist reforms, rape was often not prosecuted if the woman was unaccompanied ("asking for it"), it served to keep women economically enslaved in domestic roles, and faithful to their husbands and father, lest they be thrown to the wolves. Very few women ever chose that, it was more often and incidental consequence of an independent streak - that some do now as a fantasy, i.e., throw themselves to the wolves, reflect that fact that it's a choice, no longer a fate. They are powerless in much the same way, and in probably roughly the same proportions that men are "powerless" against being led around by the their dicks, and as far as I know, the data indicates that while the female sex drive is as strong, maybe stronger than the male sex drive, they also appear to have more self control about it, and are able to go without sex for longer. i.e., in both cases, it's compulsion, but not an irresistible one - where the hell did you grow up? Or, better still, how old are these girls you're talking about? It's one of biology's tricks that we mature sexually before we mature psychologically - you don't have to be that smart to get knocked up, in fact the dumber the better, but you do have to smarten up after the fact. There is in fact a whole set of biological algorithms at work there that lead to a fairly large degree of variability: females under stress tend to enter puberty earlier, since natural selection equates stress with a high infant mortality rate - even if in modern times, those stressors are as likely to be abstract social-economic stressors as environmental stressors - probably works the same for male's, maybe another reason why S. Africa's rape rate is so high. Certainly religion has made a business out of self control, although in many cases, they simply exacerbate it by first telling you you have no self control (innate depravity, etc.), then denying healthy outlets like masturbation - probably why the Protestant divorce rate is so high, they don't think things through. It's a nice fantasy, but it really doesn't reflect the more complex realities of reproductive behavior, which left to it's own devices, finds ways of sorting things out, whereas ideology tends to occupy itself with trying to figure out why people keep doing all these "unnatural" things - primarily because ideology typically confuses economic schemes with biology - although most people, women in particular, once past adolescence, tend to start taking the economics of the issue increasingly into account. You can at best say, most women, will find themselves strongly attracted to some man at some point, that's pretty average for a woman - you think you're gods gift to women? That's pretty average for a man.

xssve -> RE: Male vs. Female Dominance (My 1st thread) (6/6/2011 7:44:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer 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. I'm kinda interested in the whole penetration/engulfment dichotomy, it's something I've been pondering for a while - the phobia here is a bit unfair, it's pretty much a biological fact that in order to complete the procreative act, the male has to penetrate the female, there aren't too many other ways of doing that, i.e., the female role is passive, in order to complete the act, the male has invade her personal space in a very intimate way - there is no other social act that requires you to do that, and in some ways, it requires a certain amount of chutzpah just to ask. Anyway, I originally brought it up in a discussion of a similar subject and I thought maybe the penetration phobics would jump at the idea that the vagina has it's own sort of dominance factor, consumption, which is an act of aggression with very powerful symbolic associations - more powerful and universal than penetration, even babies giggle and try to crawl away if you threaten to eat them, and vagina dentata is a real neurosis, we speak of aggressive women as ball busters and man eaters, i.e., the male has a fear of being consumed, emasculated, and of course, a lot of femdom play revolves around these and similar themes. I was wrong however, the average women reacts with horror at this suggestion, and tend to make light of male emasculation fears, in fact I'd say the entire subject is fraught with tension - I don't know if that's cultural, or they just want to downplay it for fear guys will jell out and it will affect performance - males have some very psychological aspects to performance as well, hence roleplaying, i.e., women will often do a lot of things to get your dick hard, because there isn't a lot you can do with a limp one. Even short of explicit emasculation fears, the act of intercourse itself ends with the "death" of the penis, it crash's and burns, and you never know for sure it will get hard again until it does, and thus, there is a sort of futility inherent in dominating a woman - you can penetrate the hell out of her - destroy her, in porn lingo - if it's good, she'll hum a little, if not, she might yawn, but either way she's just fine afterwards, you gotta do it all over again the next day. "They stab it with their steely knives but they just can't kill the beast" - if penetration is the masculine symbol for dominance, women are remarkably difficult to dispatch in that manner, i.e., it fades back into a symbolic act, it becomes not a final victory, but a cycle. Anyway, it brings it back around to the whole penetration as dominance thing that started the thread out - males are aggressive and competitive by nature, women are too, of course, but not nearly in such pathological ways - male testicles literally swell up when they fight over women (and probably anything else), and gonadal (aggressive) behaviors tend to increase - and for the purposes of sexual intercourse, you could say that the utility of all this when it comes to doggie style, is quite simply, it makes his dick hard, the rest is merely a bunch of accumulated associations, cultural baggage. When it comes to the converse, there are quite a few males that are fascinated by the thought of being consumed, although here the relevant symbol is not vagina dentata, but more of something more like... swimming in the ocean, returning to the primal sea. Rebirthing is one of the practices that has emerged from that line of thought, nurturing rather than aggression, and some people seem to find it helpful. I kinda like swimming in the ocean myself.

Arpig -> RE: Male vs. Female Dominance (My 1st thread) (6/6/2011 9:00:24 AM)
quote: Look, at this point, your schizophrenic little episodes are beginning to concern me. First you want to have a beer, now I'm the Antichrist. Either make up your mind or just confess you're not a Dom - you're far too easily led. Your opinion is wholly dependent upon a slip of a girl who's yet to discover the perils of ego. As CS says, you need to do some reading up on schizophrenia, you clearly don't understand it. And don't flatter yourself, you aren't the Antichrist, you're a joke, as I very clearly stated. And I'm not easily led. You are. When you started she was young, ill informed, inexperienced and sorely in need of understanding and comprehension. Then when that slip of a girl seemed to be moving towards your position you were being reasonable, she was clever, she was insightful, she saw what the adults missed. And the moment she reached the conclusion that you were wrong, she's suddenly young and foolish again. You were played like a salmon man, she hooked you and reeled you in. She set you up and you fell for it hook line and sinker. And in your blindness you hung yourself with your own rope. She made a very astute observation about your posting style (which you yourself congratulated her on) and you made a very reasonable reply agreeing with her and explaining your reasoning for doing so. So based on her observation and your agreement with it, I reread your posts and saw a much more sensible position. And I said so. Then a short while later you completely misrepresented what Dworkin said, and when challenged on it, you admitted to not having actually read the book you were using as your proof. that's why I called you out, that's why I changed my opinion of you yet again. I still think your position is wrong, I did all along, and I still think it is not as unreasonable as it reads, but you have lied and misrepresented your knowledge of the topic. You quoted a passage of the book totally out of context because you have not read the book, and therefore don't actually know what its about. Have you noticed that the people who have actually read the book all seem to agree that you have it wrong? quote: the woman you're saying said nothing about power dynamics during intercourse had this to say: Oh don't be such an obtuse cunt. What I said is that the section you quoted does not show what you say it does. Do try to keep up. And your new quote (also readily available online btw) well, if you read it carefully, the section at the beginning that you bolded says nothing about the dominance of any gender or sex act, it simple states that many people (most men and a good number of women) find inequality pleasurable in a sexual context. You will note that she makes no mention of the nature of the inequality in question. In this inequality, female domination is included. A little later on she says "many men believe they need an unfair advantage". Again, nothing about any inherent dominance, just an observation of a belief held by many men that they cannot engage in sex with a woman as an equal, they feel they need to cheat in some way (hardly sounds like a dominant to me). Then she immediately debunks that need. So what she is actually saying is that while many people find pleasure in inequality and because sex has traditionally been thought of in violent or warlike euphemisms, many men feel they need some sort of advantage, the men who feel that way are wrong. quote: The entire point of my reference was that Dworkin - and feminists in general - see sexual interaction between men and women in terms of power dynamics. Deft backpedalling and redefining of your position, but it won't wash. What you said was... quote: If you were to remove social conditioning from the participants, would penile penetration of a woman by a man be felt by her as dominant? I contend that it would and as reference, I point you to the various feminist dogma which varies in its hysteria from "penile penetration is masculine oppression" to "all penile penetration is rape". And you were shown to be wrong, as no major feminist thinker has ever said either of those things, neither hysterically or calmly. You only decided to switch to the "see it in terms of power dynamics" when your first position that they saw penile penetration as dominant became untenable. What they did say is that sex is portrayed that way n an oppressive patriarchal system, portrayed that way by men. quote: You fool. I am stronger than you will ever be and that is the source of your angst. WTF?? I say you're a joke and your response is that you are stronger than me? Where the fuck do you think you are? This isn't the 4th grade playground, being weaker or stronger has no relevance on your status as a joke, a joke you created by exposed your own ignorance. Oh and I have no angst. quote: I fully recognise your weakness and what it implies Again with the schoolyard logic...if you recognise my weakness and its implications, why don't you enlighten us, because from my perspective you are the one in a position of weakness, loudly proclaiming your strength...boastful words are most usually empty and without basis. quote: I evoke such a strong response from you specifically because I remind you of what you're not. You finally get something right. I am intelligent, logical, reasonable, sensible, and I base my views and opinions on common sense, observable facts, and reliable testimony of qualified people; and you do remind me of everything I am not. That would make you... quote: I choose what I choose because I have the independent mind and strength which you so painfully lack. No, quite the opposite, you choose what you choose because you lack the mental agility to actually think for yourself and to analyze ideas in light of reality. quote: In your heart of hearts, you know this, which is why you react in such a childish fashion. Ah, but it is you who has been childish on this thread (and others), nobody else. As evidence i point you to your brilliant rejoinder...You're stronger than me....top drawer example of an adult discussing things that is. quote: I care nothing for your age - it is painfully apparent to me that you have much to learn. I'm not sure what my age has to do with anything, or how it relates to anything, unless you feel intimidated by it. I can't think of any other reason why you would suddenly volunteer that its not important to you, nobody said it was important to the discussion, as far as I can recall. And as to having much to learn, well of course I do, thanks for the news flash capt. obvious (or should that be oblivious). We all do. And the majority of us readily admit it. You on the other hand claim to have learned it all, you are the fount of all wisdom and the only source of the truth around here....that's a bit conceited don't you think, when the greatest mind throughout history have struggled to comprehend the interactions between men and women and have failed to formulate a theory. Thank God you've seen the truth they all missed, and that you deign to share it with us. We are blessed indeed. Well, its been amusing watching you make a complete ass of yourself yet again, I'm going to go play with the grown ups now. Till the next time you put your foot in your mouth, ta ta for now.

Arpig -> RE: Male vs. Female Dominance (My 1st thread) (6/6/2011 9:02:27 AM)
An excellent post xssve. Its a bit heavy, so I'll have to reread it a few times before I reply.

Arpig -> RE: Male vs. Female Dominance (My 1st thread) (6/6/2011 4:07:10 PM)
quote: "They stab it with their steely knives but they just can't kill the beast" That's it right there in a nutshell folks. quote: the rest is merely a bunch of accumulated associations, cultural baggage. QFT!!! Some very interesting ideas, especially the "death" of the penis

BendingGender -> RE: Male vs. Female Dominance (My 1st thread) (6/6/2011 11:04:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: xssve The real differences are profound, but often much subtler, having to do again, largely with reproductive roles, women bear the bulk of reproductive costs, etc., including physical vulnerability, as well as the simple fact that they are the ones that deliver the new life, they are responsible for the care and feeding, etc. - men don't lactate - those things are harder to get around biologically, they aren't abstractions, they're empirical realities, and they result in a certain divergence of motivations between men and women, males and females - since most of these things are common to mammals in general - but we have managed to find more ways of getting around them, and to a greater extent in our advanced technological society than at any other point in human history. Just a real quick note... Men can/do lactate. And have been known to when the survival of their own young was at stake. Other male mammals have also been witnessed lactating to feed their young. This article talks a bit more about it. And a Google search brings up many other sites and sources on the subject. quote: ORIGINAL: xssve "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.” And that is simply hilarious.

Twoshoes -> RE: Male vs. Female Dominance (My 1st thread) (6/6/2011 11:18:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: xssve I'm kinda interested in the whole penetration/engulfment dichotomy, it's something I've been pondering for a while - the phobia here is a bit unfair, it's pretty much a biological fact that in order to complete the procreative act, the male has to penetrate the female, there aren't too many other ways of doing that, i.e., the female role is passive, in order to complete the act, the male has invade her personal space in a very intimate way It's receptive, not 'passive' -- a very important distinction. The whole 'female as passive receptacle' idea came about during the Seventeeth century. Prior to that, the essential female was receptive, nurturing, sensuous, etc. Blame Descartes, Bacon, and their Enlightment breathern for transforming the symbolism of the female Earth from 'Mother Earth which gives us life' to 'Passive object which we ravage for resources'. On a side note, the key to not harassing women is to be able to tell the difference between a woman being receptive to your advances and a non-receptive woman wishing you'd go away. Presupposing women are passive things is why we have all these men who think those stuck-up bitches should be responding to aggressiveness or pushiness. (Of course, I'm talking about women, in a general sense, not someone submissive that has already agreed to sit there passively so you can do stuff to them -- the ravaging, defiling and name-calling mentioned above.) As for me, it should be of no surprise to you that my style of dominance would be more feminine and elegant. In general, I much prefer pushing gently and whispering directions after having seduced someone rather than using physical presence. Some women really like that, actually. [;)]

HeatherMcLeather -> RE: Male vs. Female Dominance (My 1st thread) (6/6/2011 11:21:48 PM)
quote: “not one was looking at a man’s genitals.” Oh spit, I've known that ever since the afternoon I discovered what my clitoris was for (well to be honest, finding Dad's stash of Playboys didn't hurt either).

HeatherMcLeather -> RE: Male vs. Female Dominance (My 1st thread) (6/6/2011 11:25:41 PM)
quote: It's receptive, not 'passive' Oh God, at last! Thank you! I knew there was a way to say what I wanted to.

xssve -> RE: Male vs. Female Dominance (My 1st thread) (6/7/2011 6:15:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Twoshoes quote: ORIGINAL: xssve I'm kinda interested in the whole penetration/engulfment dichotomy, it's something I've been pondering for a while - the phobia here is a bit unfair, it's pretty much a biological fact that in order to complete the procreative act, the male has to penetrate the female, there aren't too many other ways of doing that, i.e., the female role is passive, in order to complete the act, the male has invade her personal space in a very intimate way It's receptive, not 'passive' -- a very important distinction. The whole 'female as passive receptacle' idea came about during the Seventeeth century. Prior to that, the essential female was receptive, nurturing, sensuous, etc. Blame Descartes, Bacon, and their Enlightment breathern for transforming the symbolism of the female Earth from 'Mother Earth which gives us life' to 'Passive object which we ravage for resources'. On a side note, the key to not harassing women is to be able to tell the difference between a woman being receptive to your advances and a non-receptive woman wishing you'd go away. Presupposing women are passive things is why we have all these men who think those stuck-up bitches should be responding to aggressiveness or pushiness. (Of course, I'm talking about women, in a general sense, not someone submissive that has already agreed to sit there passively so you can do stuff to them -- the ravaging, defiling and name-calling mentioned above.) As for me, it should be of no surprise to you that my style of dominance would be more feminine and elegant. In general, I much prefer pushing gently and whispering directions after having seduced someone rather than using physical presence. Some women really like that, actually. [;)] A cogent distinction, although I was speaking in biological terms, as a strictly mechanical act, active vs. passive. I mentioned earlier about mammals who do experience estrus, that indeed, there is a huge distinction between passive and receptive, which is an active principle. In fact, passivity tends to be very confusing, men often have a difficult time reading women's signals, and passivity can be read as either encouragement or lack of interest, depending on who is reading the signs, somewhere, there is a study on this. Again, of course it's not at all unusual for women to have mixed feelings on the subject: on the one hand, who doesn't like sex, on the other, only one of the Two of you is risking pregnancy. There are some conflicting studies there, in one, women seek out more aggressive males during their fertile phase, in another their body language becomes more "closed", i.e., they are at pains not to appear receptive, which may have a lot to do with expectations of whther they want to, or will, get knocked up as a result - whether they're on Birth control, etc. W/regard to the penis, see the Fifth elegy of Maximian: equally strong and patient you amaze those you've beaten you love yet you enjoy losing lying down in defeat once more to rise loving again to lose to win [;)]

Twoshoes -> RE: Male vs. Female Dominance (My 1st thread) (6/7/2011 2:09:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: xssve A cogent distinction, although I was speaking in biological terms, as a strictly mechanical act, active vs. passive. I mentioned earlier about mammals who do experience estrus, that indeed, there is a huge distinction between passive and receptive, which is an active principle. In terms of biology, the vagina undergoes physiological changes during arousal and any subsequent penetration that can be described as receptive. Clearly, no one should ever be experiencing a non-receptive female body, in other words one that is in pain and wants to claw your eyes out. (How to know her vagina likes you: Wikipedia.) Second of all, if you're using physics to treat sex as a "strictly mechanical act", *Object A going into Object B* versus *Object B going onto Object A* is simply a matter of choosing different reference points for presentational purposes. Whether you claim your Spaceship is gravitating toward the Sun or the Sun is pulling in your Spaceship amounts to a trivial distinction in physics. Obviously, if you're male and dominant, it's much more appealing to claim that you're moving in relation to the Sun, which just sits there looking spectacularly beautiful. If you're female and dominant, you may prefer to claim you're the receptive Sun and that you lure in helpless, passive objects through your inescapable field of irresistable appeal. In terms of describing 'objective' reality, the only valuable piece of information is that there are two things that are gravitating toward eachother, i.e. both are involved in what is happening and the gap between them is closing. The issue of passivity arises during human presentation of what is actual. The aspect you choose to emphasize clearly has consequences in interpersonal relations, in so much as human communication involves making presentational statements with a Subject-Verb-Object sentence structure. In this presentational style, whomever happens to be in the Object slot of the sentence immediately seems passive to us, while whomever happens to be in the Subject slot seems active, regardless of what their gender is. More importantly, physics, biology and other sciences inherently render any thing examined into an object. And while describing our human experiences through an objective framework may be very valuable, we're still dealing with presentational models. (And as I mentioned above, this framework currently carries with it some of the implicit biases and presuppositions of Seventeeth century Enlightment philosophy, which features texts that are degrading to women in a way only a kinky person could smile about. [;)]) Moreover, we aren't cognizant or even conscious of most of what we experience and the amount we can actually coherently present to others is even more limited. As such, being-with-a-woman, or being-with-a-man is experienced as much more than something describing men or women as pieces (i.e. 'mechanically') or something I could fully describe with emotive language or even a combination of both. (So, one's penis being surrounded by her vagina might be a true statement that describes sex. I may also say a woman is tall, ravishingly beautiful with long, flowly black hair and knowing eyes that make me feel incredibly vulnerable. And that I cannot stop thinking about her. But no amount of such descriptions will cover what it is experience being-with-a-woman.) In fewer words, sex is not a "strictly mechanical act". But even while presenting it as such, the essential female is receptive.

LadyConstanze -> RE: Male vs. Female Dominance (My 1st thread) (6/7/2011 3:29:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Awareness quote: ORIGINAL: crazyml We've moved on though No. We haven't. The imposition of higher functions matters not one whit to our fundamental psychology, and it's a gross mistake to think otherwise. Women are still attracted to exactly the same man they were attracted to 50,000 years ago. Really? If they were then you might have a bit more luck and wouldn't have to spend so much time complaining about feminism and how it's the root of all evil, you couldn't announce any louder that you are just not getting laid... quote: - 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. It's relevant which anyone who's read and applied Machiavelli can attest. However it has not changed the dynamics between the sexes one iota. You might have read Machiavelli but you obviously didn't understand him, like many things, especially not the fact that he was living in another century, most of us are living in 21st century, you might consider joining us there.... quote: This is why you cannot dismiss "society" or "social norms" - they represent the context within which we're evolving. Yes they do. And they are utterly powerless against the psychological fundamentals of evolutionary psychology. Please try to evolve and get your head out of your lower regions. quote: 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? That's the issue. At the heart of it, things have not changed. Social psychology is inherently a branch of individual psychology. And those fundamentals which meant so much 50,000 years ago still mean so much. The idea that complex social constructions somehow impact the fundamentals of our brain is a conceit. A lie. We are still those cavemen who lived so long ago. We just have nicer caves. Oh no, we haven't changed at all, we all just think that women now actually have contraception... You might be stuck 50,000 years ago, we aren't - btw shouldn't you be busy using your club and staying in your cave, how come you are using a computer? Ever bothered to look around you? Your house might look like a cave, mine thankfully doesn't, and in my world women have pretty good education, try it, it won't harm you. I studied 2 years in Australia, University of Melbourne and I can tell you that the women I met were quite emancipated, they wouldn't take any shit and they knew their strength... The whole "women are the weaker sex" is just rubbish, some women enjoy submitting, just like some men do, it has nothing to do with being weak, it's a sexual preference. Sorry to have to break it to you, but get with the plan. Most of us evolved, you don't want to be left behind, do you?

Awareness -> RE: Male vs. Female Dominance (My 1st thread) (6/8/2011 5:42:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CreepyStalker You do realise evolutionary psychology is really fucking dodgy at the best of times right? You appear to be doing it wrong as well, which really isn't helping. Evolutionary psychology establishes plausible adaptive explanations for behaviours based on which has greatest likelihood, explanatory power and consistency with other findings. It doesn't establish fundamentals, only speculation. More to the point, it does this by firstly observing behaviours then theorising around them. You on the other hand appear to be theorising around what you reckon is a plausible explanation and looking for behaviour to fit. Dodgy as fuck. That strikes me as somewhat narrow thinking. Honestly, it is rarely that simple. Evolutionary psychology and sociology are pretty much at loggerheads. In many ways they can be thought of as competing memes. Many sociologists favour the idea of culture as the major determinant of psychological development. Evolutionary psychology favours theories of psychological trait adaption likely to result in a greater chance of reproductive success. Clearly I find evolutionary psychology to be a good model. You, on the other hand, don't and favour the sociological model. All this means is that we use different models. To say that evolutionary psychology involves theorising and sociology doesn't is ludicrous. Both require theorising and interpretation. And both are subject to the perils of confirmation bias. Neither of these are truly hard sciences. They're soft sciences which progress from different axioms and build independent and competing models. quote: As for being utterly powerless... There are a million and one examples in the literature of social/cultural context overriding evolutionarily adaptive mechanisms. Do some reading, it's interesting stuff. You'll have to give me a specific example. From my perspective, higher functions and cultural memes never seem to win out over the hardwired fundamentals. For example: Most people never realise their goals. The reason being that achieving goals requires consistent, slow, incremental effort and focus. This goes against the fundamental tendency toward inertia that seems to dominate most of us. Those who do achieve their goals usually have to tap into the deep psychological mechanisms built into us to make them work for us. Writing goals down, consistently reminding ourselves what they are, focusing on them every day. We cannot simply make a decision and have it be so - we have to fight against our own nature time and time again. quote: Schizophrenia is another thing you ought to do some reading on. When you've finished Dworkin of course. Given Arpig's age, I figured I'd get away with that one. I should've known better. Yes, of course I was referring to multiple-personality-disorder which decades ago was often lumped under a diagnosis of schizophrenia. Naturally a phrase that complex simply doesn't flow as well and I do enjoy a sentence that flows. Oh well. Mea culpa.

Awareness -> RE: Male vs. Female Dominance (My 1st thread) (6/8/2011 6:07:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyConstanze Really? If they were then you might have a bit more luck and wouldn't have to spend so much time complaining about feminism and how it's the root of all evil, you couldn't announce any louder that you are just not getting laid... First off, I've never complained about feminism being the root of all evil. To my recollection I've barely mentioned it except to note a couple of ideas which have arisen from it which had relevance in the discussion. Second, suggesting a man you disagree with isn't getting laid is a standard, well-worn tactic used by women who try to mock or shame their opponent instead of using reason. It's contemptible and akin to me suggesting that your real problem is that you need a good fuck. quote: You might have read Machiavelli but you obviously didn't understand him, like many things, especially not the fact that he was living in another century, most of us are living in 21st century, you might consider joining us there.... Machiavelli's wisdom was pretty timeless as those people who are utilising his insights to achieve power in this present age will attest. While ideas do progress, the mechanics of power are rarely the basis for formal study or scientific experimentation. And in many ways, the first obstacle to understanding Machiavelli is overcoming any distaste for the sheer amorality of his advice. quote: Please try to evolve and get your head out of your lower regions. You're going to have to clarify this one for me. I can't work out whether you're saying I'm led by my dick or if I've got my head up my ass. Please decide which so I can laugh uproariously at your stunning wit. quote: Oh no, we haven't changed at all, we all just think that women now actually have contraception... You might be stuck 50,000 years ago, we aren't - btw shouldn't you be busy using your club and staying in your cave, how come you are using a computer? Ever bothered to look around you? Your house might look like a cave, mine thankfully doesn't, and in my world women have pretty good education, try it, it won't harm you. I studied 2 years in Australia, University of Melbourne and I can tell you that the women I met were quite emancipated, they wouldn't take any shit and they knew their strength... The whole "women are the weaker sex" is just rubbish, some women enjoy submitting, just like some men do, it has nothing to do with being weak, it's a sexual preference. Sorry to have to break it to you, but get with the plan. Most of us evolved, you don't want to be left behind, do you? Okay, there's a few problems here. First evolution occurs at a glacially slow pace. If you're going to try and imply that evolution somehow puts you ahead of me in some vague sense, then I'm afraid you really don't understand what 'evolution' actually means. It occurs across a species over a long period of time and sees some adaptions dominate because they assist in the ability to survive and reproduce before dying. I could go on, but you really should Google it. It'd make what you're saying seem less.... uninformed. Second, a woman being emancipated doesn't really make a lot of difference in how she responds to men. It's more about how comfortable she is with herself and whether she enjoys gender difference or is determined to erase it. For those women who enjoy gender difference and are comfortable with being a woman, there's very little issue with responding to dominant men. I've personally seen the angst a woman confronts when her desire to be dominated conflicts with the feminist teachings she's been inculcated with. And I've watched those teachings seem to fall by the wayside once she's been dropped into subspace. You railing against me really doesn't affect me. You're a caricature. A type. The type of woman who seems to crop up every now and then in any community and simply hates male power with a passion. Fortunately you're relatively rare but you seem totally unaware that your ranting and raving says more about you than it does about me. For someone whose sole contribution to the debate seems to be "Boo, you suck!" you seem to say it with an unnatural amount of venom and a surprising ineloquence. I wonder why that is.

RakeAndCo -> RE: Male vs. Female Dominance (My 1st thread) (6/8/2011 6:27:25 AM)
Some people here really need to read up on evolution - a claim that something would change so dramatically in 50000 years is akin to claim of Liberty that it has dinosaurs bones that are several thousand years old. Dawkins is an easy read. Dennett is pretty accessible. Oh and don't forget the books and articles on the Red Queen.

Page: << < prev 25 26 [27] 28 29 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625