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

aromanholiday -> RE: Male vs. Female Dominance (My 1st thread) (6/8/2011 6:31:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Awareness 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. Agree. I'm reading M. for the first time. I wish I had read him years ago. The advice is timeless and what some people think of as his "amorality" strikes me as simple practicality, almost scientific in its exactness and depth of accurate observation. He is straightforwardly and honestly explaining "how things actually work among humans and large groups of humans." Nothing in my modern experience and extensive dealings with people contradicts anything that writer has said. My experience only reinforces it.

sexyred1 -> RE: Male vs. Female Dominance (My 1st thread) (6/8/2011 9:20:43 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. [;)] Smart, as usual. Good to see you posting again. And yes, some women like men who use their brains and who understand the difference between passive and receptive. Some men here who are arguing for the sake of arguing could learn from you, grasshopper. :)

Arpig -> RE: Male vs. Female Dominance (My 1st thread) (6/8/2011 10:11:14 AM)
quote: 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. [sm=rofl.gif][sm=rofl.gif][sm=rofl.gif][sm=rofl.gif][sm=rofl.gif][sm=bowdown.gif][sm=bowdown.gif][sm=rofl.gif][sm=rofl.gif][sm=rofl.gif]OMFG Dude, you really should take this act on the road, or at least submit it to Comedy Central!!

xssve -> RE: Male vs. Female Dominance (My 1st thread) (6/8/2011 3:53:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Twoshoes 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. Maybe, an eloquent speech, but beside the point, technically, the woman doesn't have to do anything bu lie there, i.e., passive - ideally of course one prefers receptivity, but really, it makes no difference when it comes to penetration as a mechanical act - what if she's tied up? Asleep or unconscious? And again, I really don't care how you characterize it, what sort of emotional attachments or associations you have, we all have them, if it was strictly a mechanical act, it would probably get old pretty quick, and what it is beyond the act of penetration is whole 'nother subject, about which we could write volumes - volumes have been written on the subject and no doubt there will be more to come. Nor is was it meant to be any commentary on my personal preferences - in fact I'll have to go back to my original post just to see what the hell I was talking about, since apparently I've stirred a few editorial instincts. But whatever it was, it wasn't about whatever the hell you're going on about, spaceships crashing into the sun or whatever it is, I think you're reading a little too much into it there, I think the wording was adequate for what I was trying to describe, you can describe anything you want, anyway you want. The point was, for the male to fulfill his role, he has to invade her personal space - she doesn't have to stick any part of her body into his. You want to discuss seduction whatever, fine, but it's not the point I was making. I'm stating the obvious perhaps, but the headspaces here between male and female w/respect to what is required are radically different - and that is all I wanted to point out. It's not my fault that language is often a crude instrument, but I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't try to attribute things to me that I didn't say.

Awareness -> RE: Male vs. Female Dominance (My 1st thread) (6/9/2011 4:00:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig 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. Oh good grief. More of your dishonesty and desperation. Anyone can read the thread and clearly determine otherwise. I encourage them to do exactly that. After her original insight, Heather lost her cool and became insulting. I called her out on her bullshit when she engaged in it. Unlike you, I simply didn't choose an alliance, I reacted to individual pieces of demonstrated behaviour. When she was insightful I complimented her on it. When she was childish, I admonished her. This, lad, is called intellectual honesty. And despite her jibes, I retained a sense of courtesy and humour. Your mischaracterisation is the desperate act of a man who knows he's losing the argument. quote: 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. Anyone can quote something provided they can do so in a fashion which doesn't mislead. I did exactly that. I hate to break this to you but people do this all the time and rarely does anyone require a dissertation on an entire body of work in order to be able to quote a piece of it. I quoted correctly and you and Heather both made the same mistake multiple times. Attempting to cover this by continuing to imply it's my mistake - when it is crystal clear you're in the wrong - is simple dishonesty on your part. At no stage did I assert a comprehensive knowledge of feminist doctrine but I have encountered a variety of feminist dogma - as have many of us, I dare say. That you have apparently latched onto this as somehow a failing on my part is pathetic. quote: 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? You mean you and Heather? I don't recall either one of you claiming to have read the book and Heather is clearly reading somebody elses lines. She hasn't read it - heck she hadn't even read the section I quoted, because if she did, she wouldn't have trotted out Dworkin's rebuttal to the wrong quote. And I know full well YOU haven't read it because you have no idea what on earth it's about. Heather got it wrong, you got it wrong and you simply lack the honesty to admit it. quote: 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. No. You said quote: ORIGINAL: ArPig Actually it doesn't. And as Heather pointed out, Dworkin herself has said as much. You spoke about what Dworkin said. In this, you were wrong. Again. You attempt to make an argument by insisting that black is white, then ramble insanely when your nonsense is taken apart. I've lost count of the number of times you've simply lost track of the thread of the conversation and set up straw men to support your argument. Once again, dishonesty is a trait you consistently demonstrate. quote: 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. Given that Dworkin would contend that inequality was sine qua non for the oppression of women by men, it seems unlikely she's suddenly going to step out of context and make all-encompassing statements which encompass a view and concern which is 180 degrees out of step with her own personal obsession. quote: In this inequality, female domination is included. You have absolutely no basis for making such an assertion. You're reaching. Badly. quote: ORIGINAL: Awareness 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: ORIGINAL: Awareness 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. Oh for fuck's sake. Yes they have. Look, let's take apart this nonsense right now. I really couldn't be bothered because this is tangential to the actual discussion. But since you and Heather assert that no prominent feminist said anything about sex and rape, allow me to burst your mutual bubble. Catherine MacKinnon - yes, that one - says on Page 125 of her book "Toward a Feminist Theory of the State" that - and I quote - "Because male power creates the reality of the world to which feminist insights, when accurate, refer, feminist theory will simply capture that reality but expose it as specifically male for the first time. For example, men say all women are whores; feminism observes that men have the power to make prostitution women's definitive condition. Men define women as sexual beings; feminism comprehends that femininity is sexual. Men see rape as intercourse; feminism observes that men make much intercourse rape." So. MacKinnon asserted that men - not some men, but all men - see rape as intercourse. In other words, she accused an entire gender of believing that rape is intercourse. She then goes on to say that men turn much of that intercourse into rape. This seems pretty clear to me. You have a prominent feminist advocating that men believe that rape is sex and that we men turn much of the sex going on into rape. In other words, most men are rapists and thus most sex is rape. Given that she doesn't address women as rapists, that pretty much comes out as "most penile penetration is rape", perilously close to "all penile penetration is rape". I'd say listing this in the entire spectrum of feminist dogma I referred to is within reason. Apparently Heather couldn't find this after 12 hours of research - I found it in five minutes. Either way, you're both wrong. quote: 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. No, your weakness explains your behaviour. Or do you really think that someone so reactionary is somehow opaque? Your reaction to someone is based purely upon your outrage at the opinions of an individual and you're easily led by the opinions of others. You would not, in your wildest dreams, stand up against a group. On the contrary, you hide yourself amongst them. You defend loudly the right of some people to have opinions because they align with the status quo, but when someone with an opinion contrary to the group shows up, you join the chorus of disapproval attempting to censor an opinion you lack the strength to tolerate. I'll say it again quite clearly because clearly there's a lack of understanding on this point. Every single person in the thread on submissive males who took a cheap shot at my opinion in that thread did so because they are fundamentally unable to tolerate the very existence of such opinions and in doing so, demonstrated their weakness. The strongest and most dominant members on this forum who might have had some reason to find my opinions outrageous or offensive did not participate or did so in a rational inquisitive fashion. The reason for this is simple - my opinions do not threaten their reality. quote: 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. Being stronger than you is no boast, it's not exactly an achievement of any note. While you're busy playing popularity games, some of us are more concerned with debate, intellectual honesty and thinking for ourselves. Some of us also see the debates on these boards - in a much larger context. Women are generally excellent at setting the frame for a debate and you play right into that strength. It defeats you before you even begin. In fact you're so captured, you've become a sycophant who's essentially an apologist for feminism and ashamed of your own gender. What was that you said in a thread the other week? 90% of heterosexual men are dickheads? Dude, individuals who run around being ashamed of their gender have serious fucking issues. You're weak, emasculated, do not understand women in the slightest and make claims of dominance which are, frankly, ridiculous. If you seriously think you're in a position to lecture anyone, let alone me, we can add self-delusion to the list. And frankly, watching you bemoan your lack of employment as a rationale for not being attractive to women is getting REALLY fucking old. quote: 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... Common sense? You mean you believe what you're told. What everybody else believes. You follow the herd. How quaint. Utter nonsense. You're simply a male who thinks he can deal with women by trying to placate them. Pathetic. quote: 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. Oh dear. Take apart that statement and think about what you just said. It doesn't work in any context. Next time, construct a sentence which does more than simply flow - try one that has meaning. quote: 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. No, that's incorrect. I can name yourself and Heather both as offenders in this category. What irritates is how you seem to have no inkling of just how much you betray yourself. I really haven't the time or inclination to take apart every piece of idiocy you've tossed into this thread to demonstrate your personal flaws. Frankly, they are your problem. But here's a piece of advice. Take a good fucking look in the mirror. Hard. If you're honest, you won't like what you see. quote: I'm not sure what my age has to do with anything, or how it relates to anything, unless you feel intimidated by it. No, I truly feel embarrassed for you. That a man of your advanced years should be so easily led, so manifestly unable to think and reason for himself is pathetic. Age generally confers upon us the benefit of experience. That you should be advanced in years while displaying a lack of restraint, discipline and wisdom; that you should claim to be a Dom while demonstrating the most submissive traits - well... I pity you.

LaTigresse -> RE: Male vs. Female Dominance (My 1st thread) (6/9/2011 4:09:26 AM)
I am quite certain that you are the ONLY person reading this thread that pities Arpig or feels any embarassment on his behalf. I am also quite certain that neither Heather nor Arpig has any reason to be bothered by the delightful person they find in the mirror.

Awareness -> RE: Male vs. Female Dominance (My 1st thread) (6/9/2011 4:10:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LaTigresse I am quite certain that you are the ONLY person reading this thread that pities Arpig or feels any embarassment on his behalf. Yes, I'm sure you regard him as a useful pet.

LaTigresse -> RE: Male vs. Female Dominance (My 1st thread) (6/9/2011 4:12:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Awareness quote: ORIGINAL: LaTigresse I am quite certain that you are the ONLY person reading this thread that pities Arpig or feels any embarassment on his behalf. Yes, I'm sure you regard him as a useful pet. I cannot claim him as mine. I do not even know him, aside from occasionally reading his posts.

xssve -> RE: Male vs. Female Dominance (My 1st thread) (6/10/2011 5:14:52 AM)
Well Awareness, you sound exactly like every other Randist/Gorean who's drank the Kool-Aid - it ain't a plot, it's life- if grabbing a chick by the hair, yanking her head back an planting one on her sends every chick (who doesn't rack you balls and call 911) into subspace, most women don't even have to expend that much energy - they stick their tits in your face, purr and bat their eyelashes and most men turn into, drooling idiots, incapable of coherent speech. You can rail all you want to about how "weak" they are, whatever: it's life, it happens, it part of reality - physical power is only one aspect of dominance, whether it suits you philosophically/ideologically or not - a 12 year old girl can wrap most around her little finger.

Arpig -> RE: Male vs. Female Dominance (My 1st thread) (6/10/2011 6:14:24 AM)
You know, I just realized something about you dude, something that explains your entire outlook. You're just confused about just what is and what isn't a woman. Apparently this is not an uncommon problem where you're from. But not to worry, I did some Googling and found this handy graphic from your own Ministry of Education to help you sort it out... [image]local://upfiles/218457/B5759420D47148FB8E6D76A9B2BA7CFF.jpg[/image]

xssve -> RE: Male vs. Female Dominance (My 1st thread) (6/10/2011 6:35:31 AM)
I hope you're talking to awareness. As we get older, the physical thing doesn't always work as well, you've gotta fall back on cunning...

Awareness -> RE: Male vs. Female Dominance (My 1st thread) (6/10/2011 7:22:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: xssve Well Awareness, you sound exactly like every other Randist/Gorean who's drank the Kool-Aid - it ain't a plot, it's life- if grabbing a chick by the hair, yanking her head back an planting one on her sends every chick (who doesn't rack you balls and call 911) into subspace, most women don't even have to expend that much energy - they stick their tits in your face, purr and bat their eyelashes and most men turn into, drooling idiots, incapable of coherent speech. Most men are not Doms. And women who try that on tend to be unprepared for a man who raises an eyebrow at that kind of performance, looks them square in the eyes and comments "So what else you got?" When women are used to getting their way by using their sexuality, they tend to come up really short when they run into a man who's not amenable to that kind of naive attempt at manipulation. And as they grow older, if that's ALL they've got, they're going to run into real trouble when they hit their 30's and 40's - because those tits start to sag and the beauty fades. Of course, it's possible for a woman to develop her character and defy aging by remaining elegant as she grows older. And by elegance I mean that attribute which flows from within. A sense of who she is, the way in which she regards people and the standards she sets for her own behaviour. Sensuality is not the exclusive province of the young. A woman of experience, elegance and wit can be a phenomenal bed-partner.

xssve -> RE: Male vs. Female Dominance (My 1st thread) (6/10/2011 7:36:54 AM)
But, but, but... You can argue the exceptions all you want, it doesn't change the rules.

crazyml -> RE: Male vs. Female Dominance (My 1st thread) (6/10/2011 8:40:37 AM)
Meh..- I'm not sure how the debate is going to advance all that much from here. In replying to my last post, you appear not to buy my argument that environment (ecology, society) has an impact on selection, and I doubt I'll be able to persuade you otherwise. I strongly disagree that women are still attracted to exactly the same men they were, 50,000 years ago. I'm not saying that the selection criteria have changed dramatically - fuck, 50,000 years is a blink of an eye, but they really have changed. I'd say that if you've read Machiavelli properly, you'd see that the classical male traits of aggression and risk-taking are by no means useful in all cases. It is simply nonsense to say that "society" or "social norms" are powerless against the psychological fundamentals of evolutionary psychology, that is like saying that human evolution simply stopped 50,000 years ago - which is just absurd. Even over a tiny period (in evolutionary terms) like 50,000 years humans have changed - by getting taller for example. When you say quote: 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. I have to tip my hat at the last sentence - it's wonderful. It's a shame it's preceded by such a false remark. If social constructions impact selection then of course there will be an impact on the human genome. But I guess you don't believe that they do - and I think you're plain wrong on that. I'll concede that it's a tiny impact and one that has to push back against the weight of millions of years of prior selection, but the human genome is absolutely affected by changes to our environment - that's how evolution functions. quote: ORIGINAL: Awareness Oh for fuck's sake. Yes they have. Look, let's take apart this nonsense right now. I really couldn't be bothered because this is tangential to the actual discussion. But since you and Heather assert that no prominent feminist said anything about sex and rape, allow me to burst your mutual bubble. Catherine MacKinnon - yes, that one - says on Page 125 of her book "Toward a Feminist Theory of the State" that - and I quote - "Because male power creates the reality of the world to which feminist insights, when accurate, refer, feminist theory will simply capture that reality but expose it as specifically male for the first time. For example, men say all women are whores; feminism observes that men have the power to make prostitution women's definitive condition. Men define women as sexual beings; feminism comprehends that femininity is sexual. Men see rape as intercourse; feminism observes that men make much intercourse rape." So. MacKinnon asserted that men - not some men, but all men - see rape as intercourse. In other words, she accused an entire gender of believing that rape is intercourse. She then goes on to say that men turn much of that intercourse into rape. This seems pretty clear to me. You have a prominent feminist advocating that men believe that rape is sex and that we men turn much of the sex going on into rape. In other words, most men are rapists and thus most sex is rape. Given that she doesn't address women as rapists, that pretty much comes out as "most penile penetration is rape", perilously close to "all penile penetration is rape". I'd say listing this in the entire spectrum of feminist dogma I referred to is within reason. Apparently Heather couldn't find this after 12 hours of research - I found it in five minutes. Either way, you're both wrong. Yup, it is silly to say that no prominent feminist ever expressed hard-core or hokey views. But it is just as wrong to take the selected views of a relatively small number of prominent feminists and to argue that those selected views in some way define second-wave feminism. Sure, I have despaired in the past of female friends who've gone off to a "feminist retreat" only to come back all fired up and astonished at "how they'd no idea how oppressed they were..." But you know, these edgy viewpoints deserve more than simple dismissal - You have to place them within their context, and look carefully at how those views were moderated and modulated as they were absorbed into the feminist canon. I'm glad the movement had Dworkin and MacKinnon, and Greer and Cade. They made a huge contribution to raising consciousness and awareness and without them those pesky things like gender equality, equal pay, the recognition of marital rape would have made less progress.

Awareness -> RE: Male vs. Female Dominance (My 1st thread) (6/10/2011 7:35:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crazyml In replying to my last post, you appear not to buy my argument that environment (ecology, society) has an impact on selection, and I doubt I'll be able to persuade you otherwise. I strongly disagree that women are still attracted to exactly the same men they were, 50,000 years ago. I'm not saying that the selection criteria have changed dramatically - fuck, 50,000 years is a blink of an eye, but they really have changed. I think the fundamental disagreement here probably hinges on the fact that you believe that when women select a man to sleep with, the decision is a conscious one. I don't. I think that men and women respond to certain fundamentals wired into the species which make humanity such a phenomenally successful primate. There's a lot more ego than reality in most women's assessment of their selection criteria. quote: I'd say that if you've read Machiavelli properly, you'd see that the classical male traits of aggression and risk-taking are by no means useful in all cases. It's the desire to take risks and deal with the outcome either way which influences success. Examine the history of multiple successful individuals and you'll find a repeated pattern of risk-taking and failure which precedes their success. quote: It is simply nonsense to say that "society" or "social norms" are powerless against the psychological fundamentals of evolutionary psychology, that is like saying that human evolution simply stopped 50,000 years ago - which is just absurd. Even over a tiny period (in evolutionary terms) like 50,000 years humans have changed - by getting taller for example. Taller human beings is more likely an artefact of better nutrition. Height and weight have increased relative to 100 years ago, but this is nowhere near sufficient time to attribute it to evolutionary factors. quote: I have to tip my hat at the last sentence - it's wonderful. It's a shame it's preceded by such a false remark. If social constructions impact selection then of course there will be an impact on the human genome. But I guess you don't believe that they do - and I think you're plain wrong on that. I'll concede that it's a tiny impact and one that has to push back against the weight of millions of years of prior selection, but the human genome is absolutely affected by changes to our environment - that's how evolution functions. You're referring to adaption. And adaption occurs only inasmuch as random mutation or behavioural modification conveys an advantage which provides you with a better chance of surviving and replicating versus your competitors. Environment can enforce adaptability in individuals, and even cultural and social adaption but DNA does not modify itself in response to environment. Evolution only operates on inherited traits including psychological traits. Consequently, our current population derives from a history of successful individuals whose physical and psychological traits conveyed advantage. quote: Yup, it is silly to say that no prominent feminist ever expressed hard-core or hokey views. But it is just as wrong to take the selected views of a relatively small number of prominent feminists and to argue that those selected views in some way define second-wave feminism. I'm not arguing anything of the sort. I referenced some feminist dogma as source material which demonstrated that feminists had thought of intercourse and penetration as implicit acts which subjugated a woman. It was a throwaway reference which anyone with half a brain could have verified. Instead a couple of people decided to have a whine about it. I really couldn't give a toss about feminist dogma, but some people are just too monumentally slow to even understand the nature of the discussion, let alone continue it. quote: But you know, these edgy viewpoints deserve more than simple dismissal - You have to place them within their context, and look carefully at how those views were moderated and modulated as they were absorbed into the feminist canon. From what I can gather Dworkin and MacKinnon were quite influential and I sometimes wonder if Dworkin's theatrics and extremism were predicated on the idea that only by being extreme could she influence society toward a middle ground. quote: I'm glad the movement had Dworkin and MacKinnon, and Greer and Cade. They made a huge contribution to raising consciousness and awareness and without them those pesky things like gender equality, equal pay, the recognition of marital rape would have made less progress. Interestingly enough, I saw a TV programme in which Greer mentioned her feelings since undergoing HRT. She appeared to have lost some of her contempt for the male gender. She describes feeling inexplicably horny for absolutely no reason and pondered what it would be like to feel this way all the time. Having said that, Greer is something of a hypocrite, decrying the sexual revolution which she championed back in the early 70's. I find it impossible to take her seriously as her polemic seems more about whatever thought comes to mind than an attempt at a seriously considered argument.

Twoshoes -> RE: Male vs. Female Dominance (My 1st thread) (6/12/2011 3:54:35 PM)
Well, I'm sorry you didn't understand what I was trying to explain. I've learned a lot about various attitudes toward feminity throughout history recently, so I figured that might be helpful. However, if you noticed women agreed with my claim that the essential female role is "receptive". Which is all that really matters. Because women (or even men who often wind up in the receptive role, such as myself) have a more salient perspective on the question of receptivity/passivity. quote: ORIGINAL: xssve technically, the woman doesn't have to do anything bu lie there, i.e., passive - ideally of course one prefers receptivity, but really, it makes no difference when it comes to penetration as a mechanical act.- what if she's tied up? Asleep or unconscious? Women can just lie there. Men can just lie there. You can also clearly have sex with someone who isn't doing anything and isn't even aroused -- regardless of their sex. (A guy can get an erection without wanting to through mechanical stimulation. Especially with pharmaceuticals. You can even milk a comma patient's prostrate and impregnate yourself if you're fucked up enough.) All your argument really proves is that incapacitated people are passive. And that asleep people are passive. Your argument, however you reword it, reveals nothing about women in general. Your conclusion is always the exact same as your initial premise of passivity. quote: he has to invade her personal space - she doesn't have to stick any part of her body into his. Technically, the woman's body undergoes complicated changes to allow for your dick. Receptive changes. (Please look at the link in my last post.)

HannahLynHeather -> RE: Male vs. Female Dominance (My 1st thread) (6/12/2011 7:12:37 PM)
quote: I think the fundamental disagreement here probably hinges on the fact that you believe that when women select a man to sleep with, the decision is a conscious one. I don't. I think that men and women respond to certain fundamentals wired into the species which make humanity such a phenomenally successful primate. There's a lot more ego than reality in most women's assessment of their selection criteria. if the selection criteria are so wired in biologically, then why the fuck do we women prefer such different types of men? huh? huh? tell me that brainbox. for that matter why do men prefer such fucking different types of women? why do some cultures value different standards of beauty than others? you see your ideas are fucking brilliant and make such a compelling argument right up until they bump into reality. smell the fucking coffee, your theory is flawed buckwheat, majorly fucking flawed.

LillyBoPeep -> RE: Male vs. Female Dominance (My 1st thread) (6/12/2011 7:18:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Twoshoes 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.) what a brilliant post i dont really know what else to say about it. =p

xssve -> RE: Male vs. Female Dominance (My 1st thread) (6/12/2011 9:40:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: aromanholiday quote: ORIGINAL: Awareness 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. Agree. I'm reading M. for the first time. I wish I had read him years ago. The advice is timeless and what some people think of as his "amorality" strikes me as simple practicality, almost scientific in its exactness and depth of accurate observation. He is straightforwardly and honestly explaining "how things actually work among humans and large groups of humans." Nothing in my modern experience and extensive dealings with people contradicts anything that writer has said. My experience only reinforces it. Uh, you know that The Prince is a satire?

Awareness -> RE: Male vs. Female Dominance (My 1st thread) (6/12/2011 10:06:15 PM)
Ye quote: ORIGINAL: HannahLynHeather ]if the selection criteria are so wired in biologically, then why the fuck do we women prefer such different types of men? huh? huh? tell me that brainbox. You don't. Given the choice, you'll all pretty much swoon for the same types of men. Spine? Check. Something of an asshole? Check. Not hideously deformed? Check. Calls you on your bullshit? Check. Cue swoonage. Of course women manufacture all kinds of rationales and have all kinds of qualities they ostensibly seek, yadda, yadda, yadda, but most of it is a nonsensical sop to their ego. Stick 'em in a room with an actual man and the mating instinct kicks in. There's a small percentage of women for whom money, looks or power is an essential and overriding factor, but there's no point in worrying about them. Of course, given an absence of such men, they do what men always do - they make do with what's around. And when a woman is looking for a provider, they'll take an easily-controlled beta because he's good for her offspring's survival - but her optimal strategy is still to fuck any alphas she runs into, and women tend to do that. Ask any house-husband if his wife has fucked other men and watch what happens. Interestingly enough, I read an article recently in which house-husbands found out that after a few years, their wives dumped them because - and are you ready for this - the guy just wasn't fucking masculine enough and because she'd turned into the breadwinner, she wasn't feeling particularly feminine. Cue shitty sex and relationship breakdown. Sexual polarity, people - it's about the sexual polarity! Sheesh! quote: for that matter why do men prefer such fucking different types of women? We're horny and you're around. Yes, a man who is fucking you but doesn't want a relationship with you is simply making do. When men tells a woman that he prefers her because of some essential quality she has, he's usually engaging in what social scholars refer to as "lying his fucking ass off." quote: why do some cultures value different standards of beauty than others? It's not standards of beauty, it's specific variation in what constitutes eroticism. And it's usually what constitutes beauty in women, not men - primarily because men are the visual fuckers in this scenario. I doubt women vary all that much between cultures in terms of what they respond to, although the power imbalance obviously varies from culture to culture.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625