Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Really?


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> RE: Really? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Really? - 11/26/2012 9:27:46 PM   
BambiBoi


Posts: 461
Joined: 8/10/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: fetisheden

easy answer: because dominant women are not "normal". in nature, woman are supposed to be submissive, so an aggressive, ambitious woman is like having a deformity


Do you believe this?

_____________________________

<3

(in reply to fetisheden)
Profile   Post #: 21
RE: Really? - 11/26/2012 9:37:08 PM   
RemoteUser


Posts: 2854
Joined: 5/10/2011
Status: offline 		If you want to construct a mathematical hypothesis to explain who likes what, shouldn't you make aggregate studies on endorphins, opiate receptors, dopamine, social constructs facilitating aggression, and fight/flight responses first? Hmm, maybe by gender, if you want to get that detailed.

There's also the consideration of the impact of contraceptives on the number of people performing sexual acts for stimulus that doesn't lead to conception. (That looks like a bigger mouthful than it is.)

_____________________________

There is nothing worse than being right. Instead of being right, then, try to be open. It is more difficult, and more rewarding.


(in reply to fetisheden)
Profile   Post #: 22
RE: Really? - 11/26/2012 9:43:51 PM   
DarkSteven


Posts: 28072
Joined: 5/2/2008
Status: offline 		OP, your basic contention is flawed. I begin by assuming that men and women are not genetically predisposed to be Dom/me or sub, but are molded by our society. The same society that slaughters roosters and bulls preferentially when they're young because the females have economic value. The same society that spays and neuters pets. We create a different balance altogether.

Also, even if you do make the argument that each of us should have a match, I submit that porn is a better match than real women for most sub men.

_____________________________

"You women....

The small-breasted ones want larger breasts. The large-breasted ones want smaller ones. The straight-haired ones curl their hair, and the curly-haired ones straighten theirs...

Quit fretting. We men love you."

(in reply to BambiBoi)
Profile   Post #: 23
RE: Really? - 11/26/2012 10:32:18 PM   
GothDaddyDom


Posts: 8
Joined: 9/30/2008
Status: offline 		I think Missokyst has the right idea here. If you look at it from the angle of social animals there is always a huge imbalance between leaders and followers. And at it's base that is what we are talking about. Dominants are leaders, submissives are followers. Add in the "asshat factor" of men that are just looking to get off/laid and you have a huge dicrepency. This numbers game also applies to Dominant men to submissive women.

Of course you could tie all this into why poly relationships are more natural for D/s people.....

(in reply to Missokyst)
Profile   Post #: 24
RE: Really? - 11/26/2012 10:41:14 PM   
theRose4U


Posts: 3403
Joined: 8/22/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: fetisheden

easy answer: because dominant women are not "normal". in nature, woman are supposed to be submissive, so an aggressive, ambitious woman is like having a deformity

I AM NOT deformed!! Bossy absolutely, bitchy maybe but not deformed

_____________________________

Finding a good sub is like sifting through trail mix. You find a few fruits, a lotta nuts and have to sift to get to the sweet and special ones
drama llama

(in reply to fetisheden)
Profile   Post #: 25
RE: Really? - 11/26/2012 10:57:39 PM   
JeffBC


Posts: 5799
Joined: 2/12/2012
From: Canada
Status: offline 		How is it possible that there are so many submissive men and yet there are so few "dominate" women considering the above theory?

My own totally unscientific opinion? Your theory presumes that nature wants to fulfill your kinks and it doesn't. The "alpha" status (call it what you will) is not a pro-survival trait. It's a pro-breeding trait. Accordingly most members of a social unit don't want to do it. We are balanced to provide enough "alphas" to serve the need and no more. It's intriguing to consider the 1:10 numbers I always hear for this ratio and compare it to the "span of control" numbers which I heard in management classes. That same ratio roughly matches my experience in terms of folks who'd "be good to get on the management track". I kind of suspect it DOES all line up and it does all balance... just not to your satisfaction.

_____________________________

I'm a lover of "what is", not because I'm a spiritual person, but because it hurts when I argue with reality. -- Bryon Katie
"You're humbly arrogant" -- sunshinemiss
officially a member of the K Crowd

(in reply to AlittleCrazy098)
Profile   Post #: 26
RE: Really? - 11/27/2012 1:23:42 AM   
LadyPact


Posts: 32566
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BambiBoi

Dear Little,

You've taken the liberty of an assumption in your argument: That nature prefers equilibrium.

While chemistry (inorganic) and physics adore a balancing of forces, nature (biology) is not so hung up on the idea. In fact, all evolutionary arguments stem from the basic belief that organisms are unequal and are in unequal circumstances. And the best suited survive. There's no reason why there should be a dominant woman for every submissive man. In my experience subs outnumber dominants. On the social side of CollarMe, it seems to be 2-3 bottoms for every top. On the forums, 1.75 bottoms:1top. In more active websites (Alt, FL, SecondLife, AFF, etc) I'd wager 5 bottoms:1 top.

A quick question for you. How are you determining your numbers?

The reason that I ask is because the way I researched the ratio was to take random samples of new members (USA only) for various 24 hour periods. From that, I found that roughly 100 males in that time frame would join the site and check the submissive box. In the same time frame, I'd get maybe 10 females that check the Dominant box. I have always kept that number at ten when discussing the results, even though a percentage of the ten were either pro or what some would call scam profiles.

My research could also be outdated. I did these random samples during the summer of 2011. Also, it's My understanding that Resident Sadist has a much better method than My own, but his numbers are relatively close to Mine. In addition, I didn't separate gay from straight and there was no quick and easy way to add switches into the results.


quote:

These numbers feel conservative when discussing femme-tops and male-bottoms. Maybe its our culture that still suggests women are damsels in distress. Maybe its an engrained biological submission (not persuaded by this argument). Maybe its that dominant women don't feel any need to go online because they have options out the wazoo (industry term) in their offline life.

I prefer female dominants being vastly outnumbered by submissive men. It feels right that submissive men should have to do their best to leave a good impression, and the dominant woman simply chooses who she wants. To set the numbers evenly would require a lot of dominant women to settle with whoever because "well, I need someone and the good ones are taken."

For the record, my numbers are completely anecdotal, but how many times do you have to drop a hammer on your foot before you trust gravity will be there the next time?
I really liked the highlighted very much. It's not the attitude that you hear every day. Kudos!



_____________________________

The crowned Diva of Destruction. ~ ExT

Beach Ball Sized Lady Nuts. ~ TWD

Happily dating a new submissive. It's official. I've named him engie.

Please do not send me email here. Unless I know you, I will delete the email unread

(in reply to BambiBoi)
Profile   Post #: 27
RE: Really? - 11/27/2012 1:36:36 AM   
chatterbox24


Posts: 2182
Joined: 1/22/2012
Status: offline 		WEll not to worry. If it gets to unbalanced nature has a way of taking care of that.


......dinosaurs are extinct, societies disappear, etc.

What about that global warming?

_____________________________

I am like a box of chocolates, you never know what variety you are going to get on any given day.

My crazy smells like jasmine, cloves and cat nip.

(in reply to LadyPact)
Profile   Post #: 28
RE: Really? - 11/27/2012 2:38:44 AM   
metamorfosis


Posts: 1132
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: AlittleCrazy098
...mother nature tends to be some what "balanced" even amongst all the chaos that can occur. From what I understand about this concept; is that most things can be explained mathematically, can be explained by a process to how something is created, works, and even why said thing exist; and that there is a sort of balance of Xs and Os that exists in many systems like the ecosystem making it, well balanced.


Can you give an example, because I can think of things in nature that aren't balanced. For example: in a given year, maybe not many salmon will make it upstream, which will cause the bears to go hungry and die. So, the fact that there are bears doesn't mean that there will necessarily be enough salmon to feed them.

Also, how is the idea of balance and equilibrium related to how something is created, works, and why it exists? I don't see any connection between those two ideas at all.

quote:


How is it possible that there are so many submissive men and yet there are so few "dominate" women considering the above theory?


See the bear example above.

Pam

< Message edited by metamorfosis -- 11/27/2012 3:04:06 AM >

_____________________________

Pam (aka gungadin09)

Forum Freak

(in reply to AlittleCrazy098)
Profile   Post #: 29
RE: Really? - 11/27/2012 3:21:05 AM   
metamorfosis


Posts: 1132
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: AlittleCrazy098
For me, the way the community is laid out is some what puzzling. For instance, there must be a reason as to why there are so many submissive men vs. dominant women. And by the reasoning in the first paragraph, there shouldn't be a presence of so many sub men and so few dom women because that goes against the theory of mother nature having some kind of existing equilibrium.


Was there anything in this class that said that the equilibrium that nature sets has to be 50/50? Because that's not my understanding of the term "equilibrium". "Equilibrium" doesn't mean "equal", it means "stable, as in, not changing". For example, the population of redheads would be in equilibrium if the proportion of redheads in each generation stays relatively constant. That does NOT mean that there must be an equal number of redheads as any other hair color, nor that there must be an equal number of redheads as people who like redheads.

The ratio of male subs and female dominants may already be in equilibrium, although that ratio is not 50:50. In this case "balanced" means "stable over time".

Pam




< Message edited by metamorfosis -- 11/27/2012 3:41:24 AM >

_____________________________

Pam (aka gungadin09)

Forum Freak

(in reply to AlittleCrazy098)
Profile   Post #: 30
RE: Really? - 11/27/2012 12:29:49 PM   
BambiBoi


Posts: 461
Joined: 8/10/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

quote:

ORIGINAL: BambiBoi
... On the social side of CollarMe, it seems to be 2-3 bottoms for every top. On the forums, 1.75 bottoms:1top. In more active websites (Alt, FL, SecondLife, AFF, etc) I'd wager 5 bottoms:1 top.

A quick question for you. How are you determining your numbers? ...




Thank you for the kind words, Lady Pact--Compliments always mean more from those you respect.

I'm giddy to answer your methodology question. I doctored them until they matched my perception because my logical research was scarily off base. Are you familiar with the work of Enrico Fermi? He is famous for his quick estimation of how many piano tuners there are in Chicago, based on a handful of reasonable assumptions. The theory works because the odds are you will overestimate 1/2 the time, and underestimate 1/2 the time. Apparently if you keep tempering your number with reasonable thoughts, never letting go of your number, it comes out fairly accurately. I started way off base, and figured odds into it until I got a number that made some sense. In short: I guessed.

My numbers could only come from active users. That is to say, 1,000 submissive male profiles mean nothing if they were created and quickly abandoned. This means I needed a low-maintenance system to track how active a user is. The forums do an amazing job. Anyone over 100 posts is an active participant on the forum. I also cut out switches, and ignored orientation which has interesting double-counting properties. Even those with 23,000 posts simply counted for one person. There was surprising unanimity between the forums. Each subforum was expectedly over-represented by the same.

This number changes radically from thread to thread, so I took shorter threads. Long 5+ page threads have a lot of back-and-forth between the same people. This is partially why I tend to comment on shorter threads (because I'm counting). On the flip side, I checked dom vs. sub, male vs. female for how many people were on until the "last on" time went from hours to the previous day's date. Each page is 25 responses on my browser, which made counting easy. But these are often new profiles. So I'd check 25 and make the rude assumption that 1/2 won't be back in a month.

I also messaged a few, and got responses. Interestingly, its very common for people to use the social side with 0 posts on the forum side. So I magnified my assumptions. A quick and dirty look indicated that 20 users for every forum user was overly generous to the forum.

My original Fermi-esque number indicated that subs outnumber tops ~17:1, but hugely more if you allow "abandoned" profiles. I felt very uncomfortable reporting that, as even 3:1 is a wobbly and one sided. It didn't feel like 17:1 in my time here, or on SecondLife, or anywhere. In this thread there are 8 Dom-Males, 2 Sub-Males, 2 Dom-Females, 7 Sub-Females. Switches and couples aren't real people, anyway.

What am I to make of this? The instant research suggests the OP is right, and nature has balanced 8 dominant men to 7 submissive women, and paired off the 2 dominant women and submissive men perfectly. So.... I tempered my results.

My results indicated 17:1. Today's count (which is not irregular) indicated (basically) 1:1. I made the assumption that the forum is a terrible method of indication because of innate biases. So I took my results and weighed them. Peer reviewed research always indicates bottoms outnumber tops by a 5-35% margin, but that most of the bottoms, 60-75% of all bottoms, are women. (Admittedly these surveys have huge bias and fallacy problems, but "meh.")

So... Bambi-Math says 17:1. Today's results say 1:1. Fermi average: 8.5:1. Peer review suggests 75% of bottoms are women. 25% of 8.5 = 2.125.

So, for boys trying to get facefucked into vomitus, expect no better than 1 dominant for 2-3 male subs. With a little luck, she'll be poly.

Inspired by XKCD's WhatIf.

Edit: More carefully chosen words.

< Message edited by BambiBoi -- 11/27/2012 12:38:59 PM >

_____________________________

<3

(in reply to LadyPact)
Profile   Post #: 31
RE: Really? - 11/27/2012 1:20:34 PM   
kalikshama


Posts: 14805
Joined: 8/8/2010
Status: offline 		That was fun, thanks :)

_____________________________

Curious about the "Sluts Vote" avatars? See http://www.collarchat.com/m_4133036/mpage_1/key_/tm.htm#4133036

(in reply to BambiBoi)
Profile   Post #: 32
RE: Really? - 11/27/2012 2:01:22 PM   
DesFIP


Posts: 25191
Joined: 11/25/2007
From: Apple County NY
Status: offline 		Actually your assumption is incorrect. There are probably more dominant women then there are submissive males. What there are a lot of are guys who want women to do them sexually in the manner they want while giving nothing in return. And the balance for these guys are pro dommes.

_____________________________

Slave to laundry

Cynical and proud of it!


(in reply to kalikshama)
Profile   Post #: 33
RE: Really? - 11/27/2012 7:20:20 PM   
thishereboi


Posts: 14463
Joined: 6/19/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: fetisheden

easy answer: because dominant women are not "normal". in nature, woman are supposed to be submissive, so an aggressive, ambitious woman is like having a deformity


women are supposed to be submissive? Is this a rule in a book some where that I missed or do I have to beg a hit off your pipe to see it?

_____________________________

"Sweetie, you're wasting your gum" .. Albert


This here is the boi formerly known as orfunboi


(in reply to fetisheden)
Profile   Post #: 34
RE: Really? - 11/27/2012 7:22:27 PM   
thishereboi


Posts: 14463
Joined: 6/19/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BambiBoi


quote:

ORIGINAL: fetisheden

easy answer: because dominant women are not "normal". in nature, woman are supposed to be submissive, so an aggressive, ambitious woman is like having a deformity


Do you believe this?


Well according to her profile she is a pro domme so if she does believe it, she must see herself as deformed. Kinda sad when you think about it.

_____________________________

"Sweetie, you're wasting your gum" .. Albert


This here is the boi formerly known as orfunboi


(in reply to BambiBoi)
Profile   Post #: 35
RE: Really? - 11/28/2012 4:00:58 PM   
LookieNoNookie


Posts: 12216
Joined: 8/9/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: AlittleCrazy098

(Hope I'm posting this topic in the right section as I debated with myself as to whether to place it in the science thread or not.)

One day, I was sitting in a science class and was learning about mother nature and how, to a certain degree, mother nature tends to be some what "balanced" even amongst all the chaos that can occur. From what I understand about this concept; is that most things can be explained mathematically, can be explained by a process to how something is created, works, and even why said thing exist; and that there is a sort of balance of Xs and Os that exists in many systems like the ecosystem making it, well balanced. Which brings me to my main point!

For me, the way the community is laid out is some what puzzling. For instance, there must be a reason as to why there are so many submissive men vs. dominant women. And by the reasoning in the first paragraph, there shouldn't be a presence of so many sub men and so few dom women because that goes against the theory of mother nature having some kind of existing equilibrium. Thus, one should conclude that there should be somewhat of a proportional number of dominate women to men; at least in my mind, if the universe was as balanced as we claim it to be. Yet, the theory seems to not apply to this situation.

So here goes the question:

How is it possible that there are so many submissive men and yet there are so few "dominate" ("dominant") women considering the above theory?


They got tits and a pussy....you don't.

Any questions?

(in reply to AlittleCrazy098)
Profile   Post #: 36
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> RE: Really? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




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

0.094