RE: Dominance, Submission, and Gender

RE: Dominance, Submission, and Gender (Full Version)

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

[Poll]

Dominance, Submission, and Gender

Men are the natural dominants

7% (12)

Women are the natural dominants

1% (2)

Dominance has nothing to do with gender

38% (58)

Men are more dominant, but there are exceptions

19% (29)

Women are more dominant, but there are exceptions

1% (2)

You're doing this poll to start a big argument

19% (30)

I'm glad these things are anonymous

11% (18)

Total Votes : 151

(last vote on : 11/8/2013 11:41:51 AM)
(Poll will run till: -- )

Message

Level -> RE: Dominance, Submission, and Gender (4/15/2013 4:39:11 PM)
Jeff, what are his thoughts on D/s?

littlewonder -> RE: Dominance, Submission, and Gender (4/15/2013 5:09:55 PM)
huh I must really be out of touch with the whole celebrity thing. This is the first time I've heard of this so called backlash. Anyway, I have no idea if it's a gender thing or not. I'd say it's probably not just because imo, society today teaches us that no matter who you are, you are not supposed to defer to anyone at all. You're supposed to be able to do it all by yourself and make up your own mind and be self sustainable, etc.... Personally though, I have never been bothered by all this since for me, growing up deferring to men was the norm where I'm from. The worst I've ever had is people rolling their eyes at me.

littlewonder -> RE: Dominance, Submission, and Gender (4/15/2013 5:14:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ResidentSadist I guess I had a leg up on it then because my anthropology classes exposed me to that stuff. It can be very interesting to look back and learn how our society and its customs evolved. I loved my anthropology classes and almost wanted to make it my major but there was no money in it. You too huh? I love anthropology. When I started going back to college, the only reason I didn't go that route is because I'm in my 40's now, too old and like you said, no money in it. I still however, still like to read all about it and every time I hear about a dig someplace I'm near, I wanna go see it. I find it fascinating and one of my favorite subjects.

kallisto -> RE: Dominance, Submission, and Gender (4/15/2013 5:46:47 PM)
I was brought up to defer to men. Men were bigger, stronger, masculine, head of the house, etc. I grew up thinking that's just the way it was. However, as I've gotten older, matured, grown up, whatever you want to call it, of course, I've come to know and understand that is not the way world turns. Gender, birth order, society ... I have no idea what "makes us the way we are". I just know how I am. Neither gender should get back lash because of what works for them in their relationship. Hell, in today's crazy world, to have a healthy, happy, relationship is something to shout about from the mountaintop ... whether man, woman, dominant or sub or any and all of the above. [:)]

ResidentSadist -> RE: Dominance, Submission, and Gender (4/15/2013 5:58:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TieMeInKnottss I actually believe it has more to do with birth order...Oldest children are groomed to be dominants and those who are also born with certain personality traits are even more likely to fall into that role... Youngest children have often been taught to obey a large number of people & to follow... I believe that a male born as the baby of a family is more likely to be a sub then a first born female would be...granted other things go into this now especially with the prevalence of blended families but sometime...take a poll and you will see a trend...you will have more firstborns who identify as "dominant" "alpha" "born leader"... Ah yes, birth order is also important . . . and that brings me to something I learned in the medical field as an adult. Under natural conditions, without birth control and abortion, first born is usually male. And throughout our human history, if first born wasn't male, many cultures euthanized the child until a male was born. Again I stress that gender, not birth order, plays a large role in the predisposition for one gender over another to be dominant... at least for humans that is. Sharks however may be a perfect example of your line of thought. Have you seen that very interesting study about prenatal dominance/aggression in live birth sharks? They put cameras in the womb and saw that a dominant would emerge and it would even cannibalize the weaker or slower developing sharks before birth. Talk about being born dominant . . . LOL.

SomethingCatchy -> RE: Dominance, Submission, and Gender (4/15/2013 6:39:32 PM)
quote: social order and psychology in a wolf pack, there are personality traits that define who the alpha male and alpha female will be. There is no such thing as an alpha wolf within a pack. There is a mother wolf, a father wolf, and their offspring that form a family unit we have termed 'pack'. There is no dominance struggle between the mother/father and their offspring. It's simply understood that mom and dad have the last say and everyone is happy. The study done on wolves that studied their behavior was flawed and the man who wrote the book came back years later to say 'I was wrong. I'm sorry.' When you take non-related wolves and stick them into captivity they will fight among themselves and establish a pecking order. They will constantly fight because there is no natural attachment for each other and they, understandably, are stressed and distrusting of each other. The idea of men and women calling themselves 'alpha' makes me angry. It's a flawed term and there's absolutely no scientific basis behind it that's reputable and reliable. It's a term used by people who don't comprehend the idea of real hierarchy and social roles. The idea that gender dictates if someone's going to be dominant or not is false. Gender is not black and white. This question is offensive because it's the same as asking if black men are rapist and white men are Christians. Nothing about skin color (or gender) dictate what they will turn out to be.

TieMeInKnottss -> RE: Dominance, Submission, and Gender (4/15/2013 7:01:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC quote: ORIGINAL: TieMeInKnottss I actually believe it has more to do with birth order... This is old wisdom and, I suspect, also accurate. I've downloaded the reference Resident Sadist suggested (thank you library of congress). So it'll be an interesting read. In the mean time, I'm the middle child. My brother is older. My sister is the baby. ALL of us are pretty damned dominant in the social sense. I was actually just having this discussion with my brother who doesn't believe he is dominant. Carol and I were rolling our eyes expressively. In his own words, "My wife damned well better obey in my family." Or... "The husky kept jumping up on me so I finally grabbed it's muzzle, pulled it down to the ground. Laid on it to hold it down then nipped it's flank with my teeth." But mind you. He's not dominant. I'm trying to convince him now that he's starting to be "on the market" that perhaps he should know about submissive women and maybe shop BDSM along with vanilla. It's slow going LOL. You have a brother on the market?.

MissToYouRedux -> RE: Dominance, Submission, and Gender (4/15/2013 9:02:26 PM)
There was no choice for "I really don't care, I just live my life the way I want to." [sm=mistress.gif]

MalcolmNathaniel -> RE: Dominance, Submission, and Gender (4/15/2013 9:28:39 PM)
Take a look at my name. Malcolm Nathaniel. The Malcolm comes from clan MacGregor. My mother was a MacGregor. What I am about to say is anecdotal evidence and only applies to the women of Clan MacGregor. They are mostly subservient to their men. The men are tough, ready to fight at the drop of a hat. The men will protect their women against anything and everything that they can. Going back in history the men are also mostly good-natured and fun guys to be with, albeit heavily armed. But mess with family and you are dogmeat. The women in my family, on the other hand, are subservient right up until you mess with family. Then they are scary. Really, really scary. Read about Mary MacGregor: not the singer but the one married to Rob Roy. Her husband was captured by the English. She captured 3 English soldiers. She made the entire British empire back down. Rob Roy couldn't do that with half of Scotland behind him. Mary did it without blinking. So who is more dominant? I don't know. I will tell you this: I carry a pistol and know how to make my shotgun sing. I'd rather tangle with a Force One Marine, SAS or Gurkha who is armed than with my sister while she is unarmed. I have a better chance against the trained killer.

Zonie63 -> RE: Dominance, Submission, and Gender (4/16/2013 10:09:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TieMeInKnottss I actually believe it has more to do with birth order...Oldest children are groomed to be dominants and those who are also born with certain personality traits are even more likely to fall into that role... Youngest children have often been taught to obey a large number of people & to follow... I believe that a male born as the baby of a family is more likely to be a sub then a first born female would be...granted other things go into this now especially with the prevalence of blended families but sometime...take a poll and you will see a trend...you will have more firstborns who identify as "dominant" "alpha" "born leader"... This is an interesting point. I never really thought of it that way before, but it may have something to do with it. I was the youngest in my family, with one older brother. I think parental upbringing might also have something to do with it. My mother was rather loud, domineering, and bossy, while my father was more passive and quiet (although my parents got divorced when I was six, and I was mostly raised by my father). As far as D/s and its relationship to gender, I can't say for certain, although speaking personally, I do know that I'm more inclined to buck up against male authority, whereas I'm probably more deferent towards females. I would never submit to a man. So, at least in my case, my submission is very much gender-specific.

BlkTallFullfig -> RE: Dominance, Submission, and Gender (4/16/2013 4:03:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ResidentSadist Ah yes, birth order is also important . . . and that brings me to something I learned in the medical field as an adult. Under natural conditions, without birth control and abortion, first born is usually male. And throughout our human history, if first born wasn't male, many cultures euthanized the child until a male was born. Again I stress that gender, not birth order, plays a large role in the predisposition for one gender over another to be dominant... at least for humans that is. Now this is surprising, and I will have to research it, because it is naturally/usually much easier to get pregnant with a girl than a boy, under norma circumstances, without birth control, or killing the fem until a male comes. As to the question, I was born this way, and actually most of my sisters would qualify as more dominant than submissive, than my brothers. I agree with (learned), and understand your anthropological background/evidence. In general, male dominance is what the world, IMO, teaches/imposes on girls, in addition to your nature statement. M

littlewonder -> RE: Dominance, Submission, and Gender (4/16/2013 6:42:52 PM)
quote: Under natural conditions, without birth control and abortion, first born is usually male. I find this really interesting since in my family, almost all first borns have been males including me and my siblings. I never really thought about that until now.

BlkTallFullfig -> RE: Dominance, Submission, and Gender (4/16/2013 8:13:46 PM)
I'm looking for online research to explain exactly, but I remember somewhat of the opposite occuring, except in societies with gender preference/control mechanisms. My recollection of science, is that the X(female) chromosome lives longer in the fallopian tubes than Y(male) chromosomes. That being the case, one would think that if someone is having frequent sex, and not specifically on ovulation day, one would surmise that there are more opportunities for the egg to be fertilized with an X chromosome, and therefore make it less than a 50/50 chance that the child (firstborn, or otherwise) would be a male. While it's always kool to compare stats or statements to one's own family, I can practically bet I'm from among the largest families on here, with firstborns being mostly girls, and subsequent children being majority girls. I come from a strong Catholic background, and birth control being viewed as something to be ashamed of, since sex "should only be practiced among married couples, thereby making them unnecessary/sinful."

SeverinVim -> RE: Dominance, Submission, and Gender (4/16/2013 8:23:45 PM)
I think the answer to the question depends on how you define "dominance." Is dominance getting someone to do what YOU want them to do or is it about something else, such as protecting a person, watching over a person?

littlewonder -> RE: Dominance, Submission, and Gender (4/16/2013 8:24:49 PM)
While it's a short article, I found it interesting on the theory on why first borns may more often be male. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3590144 This is also another interesting read about how first born male births were more populous but are now on the decline. http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/150/9/957.full.pdf

SeverinVim -> RE: Dominance, Submission, and Gender (4/16/2013 8:26:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: littlewonder While it's a short article, I found it interesting on the theory on why first borns may more often be male. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3590144 I find that being a first-born male myself, it certainly has its advantages: mainly being able to touch my pene (like crazy).

Level -> RE: Dominance, Submission, and Gender (4/16/2013 8:32:15 PM)
[8\|]

BlkTallFullfig -> RE: Dominance, Submission, and Gender (4/16/2013 8:50:40 PM)
I apreciate the research help littlewonder , because I was having a heck of a time finding specifics. The first websitehttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3590144, said this study was of 111 couples, and as I recall (sidenote), biology/genes prefer differences in combinations for improved survivability, than similarities. This research doesn't quite negate that. quote: Antigenic differences between mother and fetus (i.e., blood group incompatibilities) were traditionally considered deleterious for viviparous reproduction. Recently, evidence has accumulated suggesting that maternal response to paternally derived fetal antigens, paradoxically, may facilitate maintenance of pregnancy. Thus, fetuses whose paternally derived antigens do not differ from maternal antigens (i.e., histocompatible pregnancies) may be at a selective disadvantage during pregnancy. Parents sharing histocompatibility antigens (i.e., HLA) may produce compatible fetuses and show overall reduced fertility. Indeed, increased HLA sharing has been reported in some couples experiencing repetitive spontaneous abortion. The second link does seem to support this, but I'll have to keep looking, because like I said, I recall something different from school. [:D] M

BlkTallFullfig -> RE: Dominance, Submission, and Gender (4/16/2013 9:20:11 PM)
Level, you should go do the predominance of female versus male as first born since you started this trouble. [;)] M

Level -> RE: Dominance, Submission, and Gender (4/17/2013 3:40:51 AM)
<<< troublemaker [>:]

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Spam Policy

9.472656E-02