Natural Law of Dominance

Natural Law of Dominance (Full Version)

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

Message

cloudboy -> Natural Law of Dominance (4/11/2014 8:49:48 AM)
In the society of our fathers and in the civilized world today, women feel it is their obligation to be ever yielding and obedient to their men. Life is purposely made simple for them because of their nature, and they are happy. When the women outnumber the men in the black societies, the men take as many wives they can afford, and care for them all equally. In the the white for some nebulous reason the men can only take one. The rest are left to become prostitutes, nuns, or lesbians. In the civilized societies, women do light work, bear children, and lend purpose to the man's existence. Women like to be dominated, love being strong-armed, need an overseer to supplement their weakness. It is for them to obey and aid us, not to attempt to think. The black woman naturally serves the black man by consoling him, cooking for him, and rearing his children. The new man uses these three steps to discipline his wife: he verbally reprimands her. He refuses to sleep with her. He beats her lightly. ----- A New Yorker article recently profiled a gang's operations in a Baltimore city jail. The gang is known as the The Black Guerilla Family. Many of its imprisoned members had a method to seduce the female guards of the prison and to recruit them to work for the gang running drugs and contraband in the jail. The above was their ideological view of women, and this view led to great success for them in seducing female guards, having sex with them, and even fathering children. The gang leader fathered five children though different guards. (While in jail.) The creed of dominance can take many forms. I suppose you have seen good and ugly examples of this in your own life. We usually think men will do anything for sex, but the example here is that woman also show bad, short sighted judgment as well. Arguably this is not so much male dominant behavior as it is gang behavior. It is hard to see the good in either the dominants or submissives - but the inclination for power exchange is undeniable.

ChatteParfaitt -> RE: Natural Law of Dominance (4/11/2014 9:02:13 AM)
quote: In the civilized societies, women do light work, bear children . . Anyone who thinks bearing children is akin to 'light work' is male or has never borne a child. I am of the opinion that if males had to do the birthing, we would have died out as a species. But I digress. Males can be as easily seduced as females. Seduction has at it's very heart manipulation. Males don't have a monopoly on that any more than females do. I'm confused as to what any of this has to do with 'natural dominance' beyond a crucial point of understanding, which is that power abhors a vacuum, and that most people, male and female, prefer to be led. No matter what they say or do, most people will be easily led by someone who knows how to mix seduction, manipulation, and the ability to wield power into an intoxicating cocktail. It should surprise no one that the leader of a large successful gang is a good dominant, he or she would have to be to perform that role.

DesFIP -> RE: Natural Law of Dominance (4/11/2014 9:10:01 AM)
Actually poly civilizations tended to mean that the wealthy men had all the women and the poor ones did not marry. It's been correlated with suicide bombings. Since it's never the wealthy ones who volunteer to kill themselves, always the poor ones who are promised women in the afterlife. But those civilizations tended to sell women off at very young ages. Women were not seduced into it. Their consent was immaterial. They were traded like commodities.

cloudboy -> RE: Natural Law of Dominance (4/11/2014 9:14:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesFIP Actually poly civilizations tended to mean that the wealthy men had all the women and the poor ones did not marry. It's been correlated with suicide bombings. Since it's never the wealthy ones who volunteer to kill themselves, always the poor ones who are promised women in the afterlife. But those civilizations tended to sell women off at very young ages. Women were not seduced into it. Their consent was immaterial. They were traded like commodities. Crazy ass shit backed by religion. Bin Laden lauded the martyr's death but wanted to live as long as possible. He also had many wives.

ChatteParfaitt -> RE: Natural Law of Dominance (4/11/2014 9:17:29 AM)
The op is referring to the present. Since in today's world a person isn't allowed to sell someone off, ownership needs to be at least somewhat reciprocal. In order for a prisoner to really accomplish 'owning' a guard, there would have to be some internal enslavement involved. And yeah, that starts with seduction. I don't see what past slavery has to do with it.

DesFIP -> RE: Natural Law of Dominance (4/11/2014 9:20:46 AM)
In America this isn't true. Think it doesn't happen in Iran? Or Syria, that women (girls actually) are not beaten into doing what their fathers decide? And gang societies promote the belief of martyrism, that going down in a blazing battle taking down a couple of police officers with you is a glorious death.

ChatteParfaitt -> RE: Natural Law of Dominance (4/11/2014 9:34:30 AM)
It's my understanding that human trafficking for the purposes of turning the women (and maybe even some of the men) into prostitutes is a thriving business in this country. That is certainly a form of slavery. But the OP was not talking about slavery, but about a way of seeing the world based on the premise that women are happier when they are led by men. (It sounds Gorean to me.) Evidently we're supposed to be impressed with a gang leaders ability to have so much control over a guard that she brought drugs in and had sex with him. That has nothing to do with non-consensual slavery, and everything to do with a dom's ability to seduce a sub. But that's just my opinion.

ClassAct2006 -> RE: Natural Law of Dominance (4/11/2014 11:28:32 AM)
In sexist societies you tend to find men out number women, not vice versa. In China and India so m any baby girls are aborted as boys are preferred that there are areas where there is a shortage of women. Ultimately it can lead to disorder. In groups like FLDS (USA) where you need 3 wives to get to heaven that leaves the problem of loads of teenage boys who somehow have to be ousted from the group. So where men are rich or powerful enough to have several women it makes it even harder for men at the bottom to find women. Also Islam and some Christian groups who let men have several wives set that up to protect women - so they are cared for for life even if the husband moves on to young blood rather than cast aside - it tends ultimately to be to their detriment. I have yet to find a group or cult which would entitle to me to 3 husbands whilst the men only get one woman........ As for the quote - well some people are good at dominating others. Gang structure is all about that. However outside of that what earns money these days is often skills women have more than men which is why in the UK 60% of graduates are female and women under 30 earn more than men on average. So the idea that women need to keep men happy to get fed and kept does not arise (although most humans whether male female dom or sub who are worth having as a partner do want to keep their partner happy of course)...

RemoteUser -> RE: Natural Law of Dominance (4/11/2014 3:06:28 PM)
We know totally different women.

FieryOpal -> RE: Natural Law of Dominance (4/11/2014 6:48:12 PM)
A natural Dominant does not need to resort to manipulation.

ChatteParfaitt -> RE: Natural Law of Dominance (4/12/2014 4:28:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FieryOpal A natural Dominant does not need to resort to manipulation. You use manipulation like it's a bad word. It's not. Any good dominant uses manipulation all the time, the difference being with good intentions. There is no such thing as a 'natural' dominant. That's as bad as 'real' dominant. Are there people with more dominant personalities? Sure. Often they are domineering control freaks. They don't make good dominants b/c they're far too self absorbed to know how to engender submission in another. Since everyone is a combination of submissive and dominant personality traits, most people can be taught (or can teach themselves) how to dominate another. Many don't like it or want to do it for long. Those that do, I suppose you could call them natural dominants, but they still have much to learn about manipulation, seduction, internal enslavement, all those things dominants use to control others. It's easy to top for a few hours, quite another thing to control a relationship.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Natural Law of Dominance (4/12/2014 4:53:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ChatteParfaitt Since everyone is a combination of submissive and dominant personality traits, most people can be taught (or can teach themselves) how to dominate another. Sorry CP, I don't agree with that. I don't have one ounce of submission in me whatsoever and I daresay there are many other dominants that feel the same way. Can you imagine the likes of Kana having some submissive in him?? I doubt it. Back to topic... I don't agree with anything of the opening italicized paragraph at all. The whole premise is very wrong to me. The opening sentence just screams gender imbalance and many females have fought for decades to address that very problem. I don't think it's 'natural' law at all... it is men forcing themselves upon the women to subjucate them.

ChatteParfaitt -> RE: Natural Law of Dominance (4/12/2014 5:18:02 AM)
Yes, actually I can imagine the likes of Kana having sub personality traits, since everyone has both. You don't have to agree with me, it's a psychological basic for assessing people. Are there people who go out of their way to enhance their dominant traits and to neutralize their sub traits? Oh sure. But they tend to be not terribly well rounded individuals. Kana has his soft side. That he doesn't show that to the world at large doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Many of us have a softer side we shield unless we're with those we trust.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Natural Law of Dominance (4/12/2014 5:23:19 AM)
I guess it depends who's yardstick you use to measure with. lol. I would say kana has a softer side compared to his 'normal' demeanour, but when measured against mouse, I wouldn't say it was soft [:D]

ChatteParfaitt -> RE: Natural Law of Dominance (4/12/2014 5:32:42 AM)
I wouldn't either. But then she's consistently said she is a submissive personality. I take that to mean, she doesn't merely have sub personality traits, but that most of her traits are sub. Are there people who have more dominant traits than submissive? Of course. From a psychological POV, personality traits are viewed on a continuum, with everyone having certain basic traits to a more or less degree. In the gang situation as stated, the leader is someone who is very good at observing people and tapping into their submissive traits. He would have to be, since I would say as a general rule, women who become prison guards self report and are likely viewed as having more dominant personality traits. That ability to tap into a person's personality and find things they may be trying to hide, is a hallmark of a successful (I'm not saying good in terms of having the sub's best interests at heart) dominant.

FieryOpal -> RE: Natural Law of Dominance (4/12/2014 6:04:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ChatteParfaitt You use manipulation like it's a bad word. It's not. Any good dominant uses manipulation all the time, the difference being with good intentions. There is no such thing as a 'natural' dominant. That's as bad as 'real' dominant. Are there people with more dominant personalities? Sure. Often they are domineering control freaks. They don't make good dominants b/c they're far too self absorbed to know how to engender submission in another. Since everyone is a combination of submissive and dominant personality traits, most people can be taught (or can teach themselves) how to dominate another. Many don't like it or want to do it for long. Those that do, I suppose you could call them natural dominants, but they still have much to learn about manipulation, seduction, internal enslavement, all those things dominants use to control others. It's easy to top for a few hours, quite another thing to control a relationship. Okay, so you're going to make me use my less-than-full capacity brain cells this morn (I need more than one cup of coffee to get my day started) to attempt to tackle these complex issues. [:-] Yes, I do view manipulation as not-a-good-thing, not that we don't all do it to one extent or another. One can hardly parent without resorting to it or succeed at one's job, but it is not a requirement for dominance. It's a friction-reducing stratagem to impose one's will on another and to transition from one state to another seamlessly. My point, since this topic is about Natural Dominance - not my choice of title or of terminology, by the way - was that the natural expression of dominant characteristics is overt, not covert. My mother was a master manipulator. She could make just about anyone do her bidding and convince them that it was their idea. Is this a desirable skill for leadership? Yes, if the end result is what matters the most. Not if it causes you to lose respect in the eyes of others, like it did for me. Why, you might ask? Because it becomes an issue of integrity in my mind. There is no integrity in "tricking" someone to do one's bidding. This is not true dominance in my book. Was I the object of such manipulation while I was growing up? Damn straight, I was, and my mother enlisted my brother on occasion. However, I am thankful that I learned early in life how to see through the machinations of others and NOT let myself get manipulated. Therefore, my mother taught me a valuable lesson in invoking my own will to circumvent the will of those whose agenda is not aligned with my own. Onto the next subject. I completely agree that everyone walking the face of the earth is a combination of both traits and has the capacity to shift modalities in order to adapt to our environment. He who cannot adapt will perish like the dinosaur, in the form that we know of their existence.

ChatteParfaitt -> RE: Natural Law of Dominance (4/12/2014 6:17:46 AM)
Here are two basic definitions of manipulation: a : to manage or utilize skillfully b : to control or play upon by artful, unfair, or insidious means especially to one's own advantage I am using a, while you are using b. Every successful dominant manages or utilizes skillfully. I agree that manipulation should not be unfair or insidious, though in many d/s relationships, it's often used to the dom's advantage. Since that's what the sub agreed to, I don't see it as being unfair.

FieryOpal -> RE: Natural Law of Dominance (4/12/2014 6:24:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ChatteParfaitt Here are two basic definitions of manipulation: a : to manage or utilize skillfully b : to control or play upon by artful, unfair, or insidious means especially to one's own advantage I am using a, while you are using b. Every successful dominant manages or utilizes skillfully. I agree that manipulation should not be unfair or insidious, though in many d/s relationships, it's often used to the dom's advantage. Since that's what the sub agreed to, I don't see it as being unfair. Absolutely there are multi-layered levels of manipulation. I am using "a" as a parent, although I would prefer to inspire with full-consciousness and awareness. Not always possible with kids. [8D] In business, both "a" & "b" modes come into play, not only with one's superiors but with customers-clients, consultants, vendors, you name it. I don't know that the sub always has fully informed consent to agree to manipulation, so there we shall differ. ETA: My experience has shown me that the use of manipulation is primarily for gaining leverage, which is what the lesser in a power dynamic feels compelled to do, therefore the use of manipulation is more of a naturally submissive trait. As parents, don't many of us feel it is our kids who try to call the shots? If they can get away with it, that is.

ARIES83 -> RE: Natural Law of Dominance (4/13/2014 9:37:26 PM)
Interesting topic cloudboy

orgasmdenial12 -> RE: Natural Law of Dominance (4/14/2014 3:18:53 PM)
quote: When the women outnumber the men in the black societies, the men take as many wives they can afford, and care for them all equally. In the the white for some nebulous reason the men can only take one. The rest are left to become prostitutes, nuns, or lesbians. Yes, except that there are approximately equal numbers of men and women in human societies. In Africa, the sex ratio between men and women is 99.9%, so there aren't any women left over, there are just women who choose not to marry the men who are available. In fact, it is more likely that a woman choosing to be a prostitute is serving the men who can't find a female willing to marry them, thus proving that there is not a glut of women or large numbers of men who are being satisfied by multiple women.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875