More binaries

More binaries (Full Version)

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

Message

MsEloquence -> More binaries (9/20/2013 1:51:02 PM)
DarkSteven's post http://www.collarchat.com/m_4548696/tm.htm reminded me of a thought that puzzles and interests me. Most of the bisexual women I have known in real life say that they fall for people as people, that they don't perceive men and women as differing. Many of the bisexual women who post on these boards write about how they desire men and women because they differ so much. I've noticed a similar theme of essential difference in posts querying whether one sex can "really" be dominant. 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?

LeatherBentOne51 -> RE: More binaries (9/20/2013 5:56:42 PM)
It doesn't. I think dominance is a state of being.

OsideGirl -> RE: More binaries (9/20/2013 5:58:10 PM)
I don't find either sex to be a characteristic of dominance. I think it's determined by the indivicual.

littlewonder -> RE: More binaries (9/20/2013 8:04:59 PM)
It doesn't. He is just who he is. His dominance is his personality. I personally don't enjoy being with someone because they are "different". That would just exhaust me. It reminds me of being young and wanting to be with someone "different" so you could shock your family or neighborhood. Yeah, I'm too old for that.

DesFIP -> RE: More binaries (9/20/2013 8:56:15 PM)
I see no relationship between gender and orientation.

NuevaVida -> RE: More binaries (9/20/2013 9:01:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MsEloquence I've noticed a similar theme of essential difference in posts querying whether one sex can "really" be dominant. 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? I'm afraid I've read this several times and still don't really understand the question. Some think men or women are inherently dominant by nature. I think a person's orientation and experiences determine that, regardless of sex. So regarding to my perception of difference...well I'm not really sure what that is. Difference in what? People's opinions? Difference in sexes? My submission is both inherent and learned, over time. It's that nature or nurture thing. But in my mind, replace "or" with "and" and that's what makes up who I am. Same with him. There are all sorts of facets of who I am that are comprised of how I was born AND my life experiences, combined. I may have been born with a certain personality, but it's life that shapes what it continues to evolve into.

LadyPact -> RE: More binaries (9/20/2013 11:31:18 PM)
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.

orgasmdenial12 -> RE: More binaries (9/21/2013 3:27:14 AM)
I don't think that men and women are naturally different in personality, and I know I'm capable of having feelings for women because of their funny or dominant personalities, but physically, sexually, I just find penises very arousing and I am not capable of fancying someone who doesn't have one (a real one).

NiceAnimal -> RE: More binaries (9/21/2013 3:41:52 AM)
I think gender has an impact on the person. But the practical impact of gender can vary. Guys tend to be stronger, they have outward facing genitals, then tend to be visual, logical. Women tend to be contextual sexually, perhaps even sensual. No rules, anyone can be anything for sure, guys can be soft, girls can be tough, whatever, but there's a certain trend, could be related to sex hormones, upbringing, god knows (he may even care). Dominance and submission are interesting things though. People may wish to be dominant, or to submit, to let the leash off their other half of their character. Tough CEO types, might want to get down and get crushed. Kind and accomodating types, might want to do some serious power tripping and fucking up. Or it can be the other way around. Everyone is sort of multiple personality anyway. Not to say they are all switches, but they all have different sides. In this way, there isn't really a dominant or submissive personality type, much less a gender. These same qualities thusly lead to both dominant and submissive men, and dominant and submissive women. Also in this way d or s, isn't just about one's nature, its also about the willful selection of that self nature. For some gender based examples, men have been pulling hair since ancient egypt, its in the stories and the murals. But some of the earliest forms of popular practised modern day kink involved female dommes (and the earlier modern writings were somewhat mixed I believe). Babylon was ruled by women. And then the golden age came, and men were in charge. It's all pretty darn gender mixed, right back into history. Ultimately its about the sexuality, the feeling the person needs to express, not about gender, or even personality type. But at the same time there is no doubt gender connects to kink. Just look at all the clothing, the roles. There is serious gender role infusion, even if both genders swing both ways. Ultimately human sexuality is a very cerebral and socialised affair. There's no animals I know of that use different sexual positions, or have sex in a delayed or pleasure focused way. Once you add in sexuality, kink, youve got a seriously socialised and cerebral thing. There is bound always to be a load of social mores and gender roles in there.

TigressLily -> RE: More binaries (9/21/2013 4:37:36 AM)
The consensus among astrologers is that it is impossible to ascertain gender from reading an individual's natal chart, and this has been tested in clinically controlled environments by objective third parties. Traits for dominance & submission, or any other personality traits are not gender-identifiable in terms of "inherent" disposition. One's belief in astrology is irrelevant to one's ability to appreciate this peculiar factoid on how such craft is practiced concomitant with the art of interpretation. quote: ORIGINAL: MsEloquence Many of the bisexual women who post on these boards write about how they desire men and women because they differ so much. how does your perception of difference . . . play into your sense of dominance and submission as inherent or learned? Any personal characteristic can be developed, enhanced, refined, mastered to a certain extent; or remain undeveloped, underdeveloped, suppressed, repressed. This hinges in great part on the outside influences of one's upbringing, but won't negate one's innate propensity for being more dominant or more submissive, much of which is contingent upon interpersonal relationships. You might be more dominant with one person, but more submissive with another, depending on where you fall within any given D/s spectrum (e.g., among your friends and family members, in your marriage or with a lover, at work, with your colleagues or co-workers, whether you're dealing with your boss, client or company vendor, etc.). Btw, personal power is not a reflection of how dominant or submissive you are intrinsically, although people tend to confuse the two. (Just ask my spoiled rotten kitties, if you could.) Re orgasmdenial12: THIS >> "I just find penises very arousing and I am not capable of fancying someone who doesn't have one (a real one)." _____________________________ * * * Not A Fetish/Kink Delivery System * * *

AaNiMaLl -> RE: More binaries (9/21/2013 6:04:44 AM)
I haven't been around the forum for long so I don't know about the wider opinion. A big part of this is going to depend on what you view as dominant. For me, a big part of dominance is tied with aggressiveness. And although I agree that we all fit onto a continuum of this regardless of gender, I still think that there is a marked difference between men and women in terms of dominance. One of my reasons for this is that I play a lot of poker. 95% of the time, a woman sits down at the table and her style is going to be tight passive which is submissive. Poker by its nature is a risky business and you don't see any women playing. Maybe like 10%. This again doesn't point to a dominant personality. On top of that, only 2 women in the entire history of poker have ever made the final table at the World Series of Poker (Jennifer Harman and Annie Duke). This is not to say that they are not intelligent, however, to me they lack the aggressiveness associated with dominance. What I find interesting is when you see a woman who appears to be playing aggressive at the table. Most of the time, it appears aggressive but it is actually tightness in disguise. It is hard to explain but the aggressiveness is often driven by fear. As an example. They get dealt a good hand like Ace King but it is vulnerable. Rather than trying to play it for maximum value but at the risk of losing, they will just aggressively push all their chips in which seems on the surface to be aggressive but is actually a guard. But poker is only one example where it appears that women are markedly more submissive. I know that this isn't going to fly with most people on here but I don't care :). I would also like to note. That the world is full of risky, assertive, dominant, arrogant people. I think that the type of social intelligence associated with women is what the world is lacking. I don't know, but maybe women feel the need to be assertive because the world creates this ideal. But empathy, compassion, integrity, patience, peace, love. To me this is what is needed in the world. Not dominance. When I see these qualities in women then I want to surround them with a big protective shield. Vulnerable weakness is so strong. So rich in humanity. Emotion. I might change my mind if some woman grabbed me, pushed me against the wall, grabbed my arse and kissed me. But I have never had this happen to me.

Kana -> RE: More binaries (9/21/2013 6:09:19 AM)
Hehehe-sex is the effect, domination is the causation

AaNiMaLl -> RE: More binaries (9/21/2013 6:16:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TigressLily T and this has been tested in clinically controlled environments by objective third parties. . This is not true. Psychology has shown significant difference by gender in things associated with bdsm. Things like sadism and masochism are significantly different.

orgasmdenial12 -> RE: More binaries (9/21/2013 6:37:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TigressLily Any personal characteristic can be developed, enhanced, refined, mastered to a certain extent; or remain undeveloped, underdeveloped, suppressed, repressed. This hinges in great part on the outside influences of one's upbringing, but won't negate one's innate propensity for being more dominant or more submissive, much of which is contingent upon interpersonal relationships. You might be more dominant with one person, but more submissive with another, depending on where you fall within any given D/s spectrum (e.g., among your friends and family members, in your marriage or with a lover, at work, with your colleagues or co-workers, whether you're dealing with your boss, client or company vendor, etc.). Btw, personal power is not a reflection of how dominant or submissive you are intrinsically, although people tend to confuse the two. (Just ask my spoiled rotten kitties, if you could.) Re orgasmdenial12: THIS >> "I just find penises very arousing and I am not capable of fancying someone who doesn't have one (a real one)." I don't disagree that one can change one's level of Dominance or submission with friends. I have friends with whom I am the loud bossy one, and I have friends where they are the loud bossy one. We all adapt, socially, to some extent or another. However, with my sexuality, I disagree that physical attraction to men can be changed, I would go as far as to say it is hard wired into me. 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).

orgasmdenial12 -> RE: More binaries (9/21/2013 6:51:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AaNiMaLl I haven't been around the forum for long so I don't know about the wider opinion. A big part of this is going to depend on what you view as dominant. For me, a big part of dominance is tied with aggressiveness. And although I agree that we all fit onto a continuum of this regardless of gender, I still think that there is a marked difference between men and women in terms of dominance. One of my reasons for this is that I play a lot of poker. 95% of the time, a woman sits down at the table and her style is going to be tight passive which is submissive. Poker by its nature is a risky business and you don't see any women playing. Maybe like 10%. This again doesn't point to a dominant personality. On top of that, only 2 women in the entire history of poker have ever made the final table at the World Series of Poker (Jennifer Harman and Annie Duke). This is not to say that they are not intelligent, however, to me they lack the aggressiveness associated with dominance. What I find interesting is when you see a woman who appears to be playing aggressive at the table. Most of the time, it appears aggressive but it is actually tightness in disguise. It is hard to explain but the aggressiveness is often driven by fear. As an example. They get dealt a good hand like Ace King but it is vulnerable. Rather than trying to play it for maximum value but at the risk of losing, they will just aggressively push all their chips in which seems on the surface to be aggressive but is actually a guard. But poker is only one example where it appears that women are markedly more submissive. I know that this isn't going to fly with most people on here but I don't care :). I would also like to note. That the world is full of risky, assertive, dominant, arrogant people. I think that the type of social intelligence associated with women is what the world is lacking. I don't know, but maybe women feel the need to be assertive because the world creates this ideal. But empathy, compassion, integrity, patience, peace, love. To me this is what is needed in the world. Not dominance. When I see these qualities in women then I want to surround them with a big protective shield. Vulnerable weakness is so strong. So rich in humanity. Emotion. I might change my mind if some woman grabbed me, pushed me against the wall, grabbed my arse and kissed me. But I have never had this happen to me. Yes, in fact, male aggression in poker is so well documented that packs of male monkeys in the wild have been observed fashioning primative poker chips out of seeds and nuts and playing well into the night until one monkey wins all the 'chips' and goes off to enjoy his mating rights with the female harem... Oh no wait, actually, they didn't. Poker is an entirely human game, constructed socially and culurally. Whatever the habits and traits of its players, they can bear no possible relation to natural traits such as 'aggression' or 'submission' which can be observed to share characteristics across many species. This is one of the problems of discussing 'natural' behaviour. There is almost nothing that humans do which is entirely natural and unshaped by social and cultural forces. And there is almost nothing that wild animals do that is relatable to trained human behaviour. Comparing the two is like comparing apples and oranges. It would be better for us to come up with other words to describe male and female poker behaviour (perhaps 'relaxed' and 'nervous' or 'confident' and 'experimental') than to attempt to use words which will mean very different things in terms of animal behaviour, yet colour the statements with age-old sexist connotations which are useful only in reinforcing socially constructed gender role expectations. Unless, of course, that is exactly what you were trying to do...

orgasmdenial12 -> RE: More binaries (9/21/2013 6:59:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AaNiMaLl Psychology has shown significant difference by gender in things associated with bdsm. Things like sadism and masochism are significantly different. Psychology is a type of therapy based on theories about the workings of the human brain, it is not capable, in and of itself, of testing or proving any differences in gender. For an excellent discussion of the available scientific literature on 'natural' differences between the sexes, see Delusions of Gender by Cordelia Fine (Neuroscientist, Research Associate at Macquarie University and Honourary Research Fellow at the Department of Psychological Sciences at the University of Melbourne).

AaNiMaLl -> RE: More binaries (9/21/2013 7:03:54 AM)
That is an interesting point about poker being social / cultural / environmental. I don't like comparing people to animals. Even though I love animals. I suppose you could observe animals playing forms of poker though for arguments sake. Anything, that involves decisions based on imperfect information and risk analysis. Game Theory is a good example of this. A lot of the "games" are actually based on animals. Like Hawk Dove. But please don't drag me into this discussion :).

AaNiMaLl -> RE: More binaries (9/21/2013 7:17:44 AM)
Yes, psychology loves to make the genders the same. But the differences in narcissism, masochism and the like are so significant that there is no denying it. I have chosen not to believe that it is social. However, social or biological, it doesn't matter. However they got that way. I still see qualities that make women submissive. However, it depends on how you view submissive. Go to a party and all the men are quiet. Does that make them submissive? I don't even know if submissive and dominant are good terms. Maybe aggressive and passive are better terms. Is rigid and pliable good? Or even simply male and female. Testosterone (fight) and estrogen (flight).

TigressLily -> RE: More binaries (9/21/2013 7:31:39 AM)
I was referring specifically to testing an astrologer's ability to determine genders of anonymous individuals, both living & historical personages, by viewing natal charts alone. It can't be done, despite having a 50/50 chance of success at guessing it correctly. Behavioral Psychology trials which focus on studying gender differences is another matter. For the most part, females tend to be more verbal and social, but not always, lose much of their mathematical lead or neck-in-neck ability by the time they reach adolescence, ad infinitum. For anyone to say that males & females are totally alike or that we're wired identically would be absurd. It is our very maleness & femaleness - as well as the Inner Masculine and Inner Feminine energies, along with the Inner within the Inner Anima/Animus - then how we choose to filter and blend those qualities, which makes us each uniquely special. quote: ORIGINAL: AaNiMaLl This is not true. Psychology has shown significant difference by gender in things associated with bdsm. Things like sadism and masochism are significantly different. Meaning no disrespect, I have to comment upon Dominance=Aggressiveness. They can be inclusive, but are not synonymous, just as Aggressiveness is not identical to Assertiveness, nor is Submissiveness synonymous with Passivity. Perhaps it has more to do with personal style. Animals recognize true dominance, and respond effectively to Calm Assertiveness, a la "The Horse Whisperer" starring Robert Redford & "Dog Whisperer" cable series with Cesar Millan. False Dominance in the form of overt aggression will cause an animal to repeatedly challenge its owner or in extreme circumstances, turn on its trainer. _____________________________ * * * Not A Fetish/Kink Delivery System * * *

DesFIP -> RE: More binaries (9/21/2013 9:51:26 AM)
I disagree that aggression is what drives poker playing, I think it's risk assessment. And there are differences in what risks more men take vs those more women take. Men are more likely to take short term risks like skydiving. Women are more likely to go for a long term risk. Like the next 20 years raising a child alone.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875