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

LadyPact -> RE: Dominance, Submission, and Gender (4/20/2013 11:23:45 PM)
Level can correct Me if I'm wrong, but here's what I'm thinking. Depending on how the vote was sitting when he posted, there are only two categories combined that total to three. That being the "Women are the natural Dominants" and the "Women are more Dominant, but there are exceptions" categories added together. The opposite of which would be the "Men are the natural Dominants" and the "Men are more Dominant, but there are exceptions" which combined currently total 29. I'm thinking that when Level posted his 28/3 observation, he was looking at the numbers where folks had specifically voted in the affirmative that it was one gender or the other. Since Level's post, one additional person had voted. Hope that helps.

Level -> RE: Dominance, Submission, and Gender (4/21/2013 4:33:05 AM)
LP, exactly [:D] and the "it must be true" is a laugh at the scientificness of polling data.

egern -> RE: Dominance, Submission, and Gender (4/21/2013 5:31:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Level Agreed. There's precious little that's black and white, but if you look at the curve, it favors men. When raw, physical strength ruled, dominance probably very much was male; with the reduced reliance on physicality, I think that's allowed women, and a more feminine style of dominance to appear. To what extent that will advance.... Advance what? Not clear.

egern -> RE: Dominance, Submission, and Gender (4/21/2013 5:45:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC quote: ORIGINAL: ResidentSadist Am I the only one that took anthropology in college? Pic an anthropology text book, any of them. It is all spelled out pretty clearly. LOL... I can't remember what I took in college but seriously thank you for the lead on "social dominance theory". I'll be doing some digging on that. I have, in the past, tried to find actual scientific papers on humans and D/s and failed miserably so this looks like a hot lead. How you tried Charles Moser?

egern -> RE: Dominance, Submission, and Gender (4/21/2013 5:49:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NuevaVida LOL Jeff that describes me at work. Now I'm on a new team, which is ridiculously cool with the brilliance of its members (as in I'm practically giddy all day from the conversations we engage in), yet we've joked about how most of us are natural leaders in the work place, and what's going to happen when we ALL step up to be in charge. [:D] My main coworker and I have already acknowledged that we're going to clash sometimes and this is why, so when we do, let's pull our egos out of it, work through it, and do what's best overall. Which, as far as anyone knows, is what we have always done.

Level -> RE: Dominance, Submission, and Gender (4/21/2013 6:07:01 AM)
We're using generalizations here, but will women continue to become a larger percentage of the dominant demographic, especially in a world where overt masculinity is of less value. ETA: I'm talking about society as a whole, not just our kinky corner.

TieMeInKnottss -> RE: Dominance, Submission, and Gender (4/21/2013 10:06:25 AM)
[/quote] There are also seems to be a difference between societal dominance - the people who are at the top in society and have houses in the Hamptons - versus nature dominance - people who would be more dominant in the wilderness but would be totally lost in the city. I'm not sure who would be more dominant, the high-powered Wall Street guy or the mountain man who can fight a bear. On the other hand, the mountain man would be lost on Wall Street, so if he's with a woman from the city, then she would probably be more dominant when it comes to dealing with society, only because he wouldn't know what to do. [/quote] This is where I veer off in my belief of dominant and submissive personalities. There is a way we all react to crisis situations...or times when our basic "coping skills" come into it. Even in small children (read about the Lost Boys of the Sudan. Some as small as 7 led and cared for older kids in that march) a natural propensity for being a leader or a follower will come out. Some people just seem to "know" or "believe" what is the right thing to do, what the solution to the problem is. They jump in...they organize, delegate, they have the vision of what is to be accomplished & they believe they know how to do it. That is not to say that they believe their way is "best" or "the only way" but they are able to formulate an acceptable plan & goal. They are the ones who will not go along with the "group consensus" if they think it is wrong...but nor do they force their will onto others...they just refuse to participate and go their own way. I think their are "degrees" of dominance. A true dominant recognizes when someone else may be a better leader or planner & will follow but their way of following is NOT the same as a subs way. They step aside, work towards the common goal that they believe in, set a good example by doing their share of the work, but they still watch over those below them & have no problem "breaking" away from the person in charge if he gets off track. In the response about the Wall St guy and the outdoorsman...that is positional dominance. People who have mastered an area, become expert in something & are confident in their skill in this field. You have to delve into the willingness and ability to change their thoughts or direction. A Dom will follow another if HE or SHE thinks it is the right thing to do but, once that belief is gone..they have no problem walking away. A sub needs the direction or help in seeing the destination. They may be great "worker bees" but have a harder time figuring out where to go, how to get there and making & implementing the unpleasant decisions that go along with true dominance. Subs are needed for a Dom to really realize his/her vision but the Dom is needed by subs in order to conceptualize the vision.

Level -> RE: Dominance, Submission, and Gender (4/21/2013 10:26:44 AM)
Purty good post, TieMe. I especially agree that there are "degrees of dominants".

BlkTallFullfig -> RE: Dominance, Submission, and Gender (4/21/2013 1:37:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact Level can correct Me if I'm wrong, but here's what I'm thinking. Hope that helps. Yes, very helpful LadyPact. Thank you, M

ClassAct2006 -> RE: Dominance, Submission, and Gender (4/21/2013 1:51:11 PM)
I am very alpha, terribly competitive, very successful and men who really don't understand BDSM or dominance and submission, on vanilla sites cannot imagine because I am coherent competent and do not have life problems and can cope with life that somehow I cannot be submissive. I am also the oldest child. I have always been very submissive (but also a feminist). I am sure there are more dominant men than dominant women and plenty of cultures encourage that. However there are a good few men who are submissive so I don't think it does much good to generalise too much about it. Perhaps we all just differ as individuals. I would be the dom in Tieme's post. If there's crisis people come to me. If neighbours need something fixing I do it. If there's a business issue I can usually solve it. I am probably also now the senior family member too. I think it would be really sad if that somehow made me a dom. I have always felt submissive and been so in all relationships with a boyfriend. The fact I have life competence and earn a lot does not mean I am not submissive. If I have to fail to be attractive... that would be such a shame.

Level -> RE: Dominance, Submission, and Gender (4/21/2013 2:04:56 PM)
True, but I don't see many people that do equate failing, or incompetence, with being submissive.

BlkTallFullfig -> RE: Dominance, Submission, and Gender (4/21/2013 2:45:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ClassAct2006 I am very alpha, terribly competitive, very successful and men who really don't understand BDSM or dominance and submission, on vanilla sites cannot imagine because I am coherent competent and do not have life problems and can cope with life that somehow I cannot be submissive. I am also the oldest child. That's kind of an unkind, and unfair generalization about submissives. Maybe it just came out wrong, and that would know all too well? quote: Perhaps we all just differ as individuals. I agree. quote: I would be the dom in Tieme's post. If there's crisis people come to me. If neighbours need something fixing I do it. If there's a business issue I can usually solve it. I am probably also now the senior family member too. I think it would be really sad if that somehow made me a dom. I have always felt submissive and been so in all relationships with a boyfriend. The fact I have life competence and earn a lot does not mean I am not submissive. If I have to fail to be attractive... that would be such a shame. Fortunately no one has to be a failure to use any label he/she chooses. Being submissive has never meant being dumb, or incompetent to me. Being dominant has never meant that I cannot learn from my submissive man. M

egern -> RE: Dominance, Submission, and Gender (4/22/2013 3:42:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Level We're using generalizations here, but will women continue to become a larger percentage of the dominant demographic, especially in a world where overt masculinity is of less value. ETA: I'm talking about society as a whole, not just our kinky corner. Thanks, but I am still not with you - maybe because I am not from around here?? When you say the dominant demographic, do you mean personality, or perhaps more like jobs, leaders etc? The last I read about the latter was a tendency for women to occupy a whole range of jobs but missing the top, and the bottom, while men were on top, and on the bottom, and a lot falling out of the educational system. A tendency no one can explain. But maybe this is getting too far away form the original topic?

egern -> RE: Dominance, Submission, and Gender (4/22/2013 3:59:04 PM)
Interesting post. quote: ORIGINAL: Dreamless Let me stress and underline that. By personality, I am indeed a caretaker! I like people happy, well fed, and I enjoy keeping them that way. ...And, you know, like beating people up a little, tying them up, doing terrible things and they can damn well listen to what I told'm to do. Somehow I came out a top when nothing about my upbringing ever told me I could dare be a leader. For all I was percolated to be a heterosexual female sub, I am not. I don't have a highly dominant personality and command the world about me, granted, no. I take things as they come, easy come, easy go, and I'm of the impression that many people switch; the powerful business leader submits, the humble cleaner dominates. But when it comes to this kink thing, I know what I want and it's the whip and reins. Supports my feeling that all of this is much more nuanced than seen at first sight. quote: From a historical standpoint, based on survival, yes, it makes sense for men to be dominant. We are no longer at odds with survival, where women as the only childbearers, who can feed children far more effectively than a man, have to stay home to have their children and raise those children, and men by default must be the hunter, to keep their family alive. Half of our children will not die, and there's no fight for mere survival. There's been a paradigm shift, one that mandates submission and domination are not required to simply survive. What confuses me here is why a society in which men are hunters should make a domination-submitting hierarchy necessary?? quote: There are a great many people in this world and if I do not have children, it hurts no one, because twenty other women will have children instead of me and the world will keep on turning, and people will keep on living. You have done the world a favor, because we are far too many people as it is! quote: Today, we live in a world where power is earned and submission is given. Where you are powerful because you do x, not because you are x. BDSM wise I think you are right, for the rest - would be good but not so sure.. quote: I would also argue that men being completely naturally dominant over women creates an imbalance of codependency that I've personally seen be very harmful to women after their husband dies or they're otherwise left alone. Which is why I think the natural balance should be precisely that: a balance, weight to weight, and shifted only with careful consideration to the consequences. I have not experienced it myself, but read quite a few posts to that effect: my Master is gone/left me/dead and I do not know what to do with my life - as in more than would happen to everyone after loosing a loved one. I do not know how that can be avoided in a D's relationship with a high degree of power transfer, only that apparently a great many manage it. quote: Respect is a thing to be earned. It's nothing to do with gender. If it was, anyway, why would there be so danged many male subs? They're a thing, guys! A thing. Easy. Haven't you heard? Fem doms and male subs are freaks of nature..(No, really, that was what I was told on several lists..)

egern -> RE: Dominance, Submission, and Gender (4/22/2013 4:06:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC quote: ORIGINAL: Dreamless I would also argue that men being completely naturally dominant over women creates an imbalance of codependency that I've personally seen be very harmful to women after their husband dies or they're otherwise left alone. Which is why I think the natural balance should be precisely that: a balance, weight to weight, and shifted only with careful consideration to the consequences. Heh... sadly, there is a big difference between someone who is "dominant" or "claims to be dominant" or "wants to be dominant" and someone who is a credible leader. But is dominance really the same as being a great leader? I am thinking that for example what would make people follow you as a leader would not necessarily be the same as for example dominating what is being said at a meeting, or being a good dominant for a sub. To me 'dominance' contains an element of force or strong influence, while 'leadership' would be a talent to inspire other people or give them courage or hope. Granted they could overlap, but do not have to. What do others think?

egern -> RE: Dominance, Submission, and Gender (4/22/2013 4:17:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TieMeInKnotts This is where I veer off in my belief of dominant and submissive personalities. There is a way we all react to crisis situations...or times when our basic "coping skills" come into it. Even in small children (read about the Lost Boys of the Sudan. Some as small as 7 led and cared for older kids in that march) a natural propensity for being a leader or a follower will come out. Some people just seem to "know" or "believe" what is the right thing to do, what the solution to the problem is. They jump in...they organize, delegate, they have the vision of what is to be accomplished & they believe they know how to do it. That is not to say that they believe their way is "best" or "the only way" but they are able to formulate an acceptable plan & goal. They are the ones who will not go along with the "group consensus" if they think it is wrong...but nor do they force their will onto others...they just refuse to participate and go their own way. I think their are "degrees" of dominance. A true dominant recognizes when someone else may be a better leader or planner & will follow but their way of following is NOT the same as a subs way. They step aside, work towards the common goal that they believe in, set a good example by doing their share of the work, but they still watch over those below them & have no problem "breaking" away from the person in charge if he gets off track. In the response about the Wall St guy and the outdoorsman...that is positional dominance. People who have mastered an area, become expert in something & are confident in their skill in this field. You have to delve into the willingness and ability to change their thoughts or direction. A Dom will follow another if HE or SHE thinks it is the right thing to do but, once that belief is gone..they have no problem walking away. A sub needs the direction or help in seeing the destination. They may be great "worker bees" but have a harder time figuring out where to go, how to get there and making & implementing the unpleasant decisions that go along with true dominance. Subs are needed for a Dom to really realize his/her vision but the Dom is needed by subs in order to conceptualize the vision. I think that what you are describing here might be more in the nature of leaders and followers, than dominants and subs. And the loners, who do what they want in any given situation, and people who have a little bit of this and an little bit of that, depending on the situation.

Level -> RE: Dominance, Submission, and Gender (4/22/2013 4:45:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: egern quote: ORIGINAL: Level We're using generalizations here, but will women continue to become a larger percentage of the dominant demographic, especially in a world where overt masculinity is of less value. ETA: I'm talking about society as a whole, not just our kinky corner. When you say the dominant demographic, do you mean personality, or perhaps more like jobs, leaders etc? I meant all of those, the society as a whole.

egern -> RE: Dominance, Submission, and Gender (4/23/2013 5:32:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Level quote: ORIGINAL: egern quote: ORIGINAL: Level We're using generalizations here, but will women continue to become a larger percentage of the dominant demographic, especially in a world where overt masculinity is of less value. ETA: I'm talking about society as a whole, not just our kinky corner. When you say the dominant demographic, do you mean personality, or perhaps more like jobs, leaders etc? I meant all of those, the society as a whole. Ok...Is that a good thing then, or bad?? Or just a general comment on developments?? Personally I do not see women behaving like men as any better, in the sense of aping bad attitudes to get ahead. I see it as good with more women in posts that matter, I think the world needs both sexes, but not repeating the mistakes of others. But mostly I believe we should be evaluated on the background of our personality as a person, rather than gender-expectations. On doing a good job, or not doing a good job. That is what really counts.

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

Spam Policy

4.785156E-02