RE: More binaries

RE: More binaries (Full Version)

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

Message

MsEloquence -> RE: More binaries (9/21/2013 6:46:39 PM)
I was less than clear. I brought up bisexuality because people posting here have often said they perceive different energy in men and women. If you do perceive men and women as essentially different, what effect does that have on your ideas of who is or ought to be dominant or submissive? Of "styles" of dominance and submission?

MsEloquence -> RE: More binaries (9/21/2013 6:48:21 PM)
I hope I clarified somewhat, and agree that genitalia are as complex as all get out

brunettelace -> RE: More binaries (9/21/2013 7:06:19 PM)
I think that by and large, society in the mainstream is more comfortable with male dominance for some reason. But in my life, it's been very much about the individual, and less about their sex.

orgasmdenial12 -> RE: More binaries (9/22/2013 3:21:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AaNiMaLl the differences in narcissism, masochism and the like are so significant that there is no denying it. Lol of course you can deny it. You can deny anything for which there is little or no evidence :-)

Kana -> RE: More binaries (9/22/2013 6:25:18 AM)
quote: If you do perceive men and women as essentially different I do. We have different hormones, different ways our brains process information and react to stimuli. We have some base fundamental differences that clearly show that in some areas,men and women are wildly biologically divergent. quote: what effect does that have on your ideas of who is or ought to be dominant or submissive? I have this irrational idea that the dominant person should be dominant. Should that be broken down along sexual lines? Fuck no. A woman can be at least as in charge as a guy and frankly I find them to be a bit crueler in many ways. That said, I also think that there are lots more dominant inclined men than women (I'm talking reality here, not the ad count on CM). I'm not sure if that's hormonal or social (The old nature/nurture deal), but I suspect its a hybrid of the two. quote: Of "styles" of dominance and submission? As far as dominance, none at all. On the other side of the kneel, I have noticed over the years that male subs/slaves,often happen to be into way edgier things than most gals. some of them are into some way sick shit whereas most fem subs aren't looking for anything along those lines at all.I'm not sure if its an adrenalin thing, that men are more susceptible to endorphins, social conditioning or just some serious self hatred coming out sideways, but there are some serious sick fuck male subs out there

TigressLily -> RE: More binaries (9/22/2013 9:33:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: orgasmdenial12 physically, sexually, I just find penises very arousing and I am not capable of fancying someone who doesn't have one (a real one). quote: ORIGINAL: orgasmdenial12 {cont'd} The thought of being with a woman sexually is repugnant to me, not because I don't like their personalities, but because their bodies don't arouse me. It's an entirely physical response for me, not a mental or constructed one, and thus cannot be changed (for me, anyway). Not to switch topics, but I wanted you to know that I was agreeing with you wholeheartedly, in case that didn't come through initially. (Should have made a separate post, but then I would have been tempted to stipulate that the sight of limp ones don't do it for me, which is why I could never get into looking at PlayGirl or insipidly lame Cosmo. :s) _____________________________ * * * Not A Fetish/Kink Delivery System * * *

HarryVanWinkle -> RE: More binaries (9/22/2013 2:09:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact I have to say that I didn't understand the question, either. Particularly how the jump was made from bisexual women to whether D or s is inherent or learned. The base question, (I think) seems to be the latter. As far as nature or nurture goes, I believe it can be either one or a combination or both. I don't believe the answer is as simplistic as most people would like to believe. That includes attempting to determine it according to what kind of genitals a person has. After reading the first few responses, I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one who doesn't really get the question.

kalikshama -> RE: More binaries (9/23/2013 5:33:17 AM)
quote: I brought up bisexuality because people posting here have often said they perceive different energy in men and women. If you do perceive men and women as essentially different, what effect does that have on your ideas of who is or ought to be dominant or submissive? No effect. I am attracted to dominant women as well as dominant men.

KnightofMists -> RE: More binaries (9/23/2013 7:31:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MsEloquence So here's my question: how does your perception of difference (as essential to a group, to an individual, to outsider sexuality vs "the norm" etc) play into your sense of dominance and submission as inherent or learned? The root of ones dominance s or submission to me is irrelvant. Nature or nurture to me is not nearly as important as the results that are observable to me and this goes a lot more than just a good talk! How good is thier Walk! And secondly... I measure it to their talk! Interestly I find many don't walk their talk!

Kana -> RE: More binaries (9/23/2013 1:45:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KnightofMists quote: ORIGINAL: MsEloquence So here's my question: how does your perception of difference (as essential to a group, to an individual, to outsider sexuality vs "the norm" etc) play into your sense of dominance and submission as inherent or learned? The root of ones dominance s or submission to me is irrelevant. Nature or nurture to me is not nearly as important as the results that are observable to me and this goes a lot more than just a good talk! How good is their Walk! And secondly... I measure it to their talk! Interestingly I find many don't walk their talk! Ahhh, Confucius say, The wise man, he listens with his eyes

JeffBC -> RE: More binaries (9/23/2013 7:50:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesFIP I disagree that aggression is what drives poker playing, I think it's risk assessment. chuckles agreed. My son... an actually very successful poker player would love to play against those who think poker is about aggression. I can guarantee you that it's about coldly calculating the odds... not simply the odds of your hand working out and the odds of the opponent's hand failing, but also the odds that the opponent will make certain plays based on past experience. The kind who think it's about aggression or "bluffing" or any such thing are known as fish. To the larger thread, I have to agree with the statement, "this very much depends on what we mean by dominance."

NiceButMeanGirl -> RE: More binaries (9/23/2013 8:34:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MsEloquence I brought up bisexuality because people posting here have often said they perceive different energy in men and women. If you do perceive men and women as essentially different, what effect does that have on your ideas of who is or ought to be dominant or submissive? Of "styles" of dominance and submission? IMO men and women's energies are different...men and women are different. But that doesn't mean one is inherently more dominant or submissive than the other. I believe either gender can be either orientation. I'm a heteroflexible(about 95% het 5% les, I'd say) Domme and I'm attracted to both male and female subs. NBMG

AaNiMaLl -> RE: More binaries (9/24/2013 10:42:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC quote: ORIGINAL: DesFIP I disagree that aggression is what drives poker playing, I think it's risk assessment. chuckles agreed. My son... an actually very successful poker player would love to play against those who think poker is about aggression. I can guarantee you that it's about coldly calculating the odds... not simply the odds of your hand working out and the odds of the opponent's hand failing, but also the odds that the opponent will make certain plays based on past experience. The kind who think it's about aggression or "bluffing" or any such thing are known as fish. To the larger thread, I have to agree with the statement, "this very much depends on what we mean by dominance." Being aggressive at the right times is essential to being a good poker player. Anyone who doesn't know this concept hasn't the most basic understanding of poker. This isn't about being loose and pushing your chips in willy nilly. The beauty about poker is that I don't have to argue the point. Log onto Full Tilt Poker and have a game with me. I am sure that you can spare half and hour. We can play like 25 cents / 50 cent hands. I will crush you.

AaNiMaLl -> RE: More binaries (9/24/2013 10:59:45 AM)
http://www.cardschat.com/tight-aggressive-poker.php Aggressive refers to the way in which a player plays his hands. An aggressive poker player will rarely limp into a pot, but will instead raise or even re-raise if the situation warrants it. After the flop an aggressive poker player generally continuation bets and pursues the pot with all guns blazing. Passive players rarely raise and simply call or limp into pots. Because they are timid they can often be knocked off pots by aggressive play as they are nervous when the action gets hot and heavy. Like I said. Basic.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875