|
FieryOpal -> RE: Dominance and submissiveness in evolutionary biology - what are people's thoughts on this ? (6/21/2016 9:07:58 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GBaxter
I was reading the extract below from an interesting book talking about evolutionary biology.... Obviously, it's not going to apply to women who are gay.
I believe this is what Awareness refers to as "evolutionary psychology" in his post.
OP, what explanation is there for why females who are not straight wouldn't instinctively seek out a more Dominant female sexual partner, or is this the unique domain of heterosexuality according to the precepts outlined in your little essay?
Further, how does homosexuality in either gender fit into this *evolutionary* breeding pattern? If not for the purpose of propagation of the species, then in terms of making advantageous sexual alliances relative to the most basic instinct for self-preservation. If this is the only type of exception you recognize, then how can you categorically deny any others, according to your train wreck of a book's idiotic logic, that is.
quote:
Dominance is an extremely important sexual characteristic for a man, because millions of years of evolution have programmed women to respond instinctually to dominant men.
Are you saying that evolutionary programming is some type of softwiring which overrides hardwired instincts?
Creatures learn to adapt to their surroundings, environmental change factors. Those species which don't or can't naturally adapt, improvise and overcome, become extinct.
You and your book are confusing Dominance with those Dominant characteristics which uniquely benefit each and every species.
Dominant genetic markers and Dominant traits get passed down over Recessive ones.
Nature, however, is imminently resourceful in allowing paired Recessive genes to manifest and continue to proliferate.
As for the instinctive female response to be attracted to males with Dominant dispositions, I will say this. It's a helluva lot more fun and a helluva bigger rush for me to dominate a powerful man with a strong personality, than for me to trifle with a weak-willed and/or underachieving sort of man. [;)]
quote:
There were two types of males in this society: alpha and beta males. Alpha males were the dominant, aggressive males, who were at the top of the tribal society and made the rules, while beta males were the smaller, weaker males. They were submissive to the alphas.
Wrong. There are many, many gradations in rank & file. Beta is the wingman to Alpha, the understudy, the one who can step up to the plate as clan chieftain when need be. In a confederation of clans, the Alpha chiefs were known to elect one Alpha chieftain on a temporary, short-term basis to lead the tribal nation for an express purpose, objectives or goal. This oligarchic role later "evolved" into swearing fealty to one monarch or regent, who could be either a king and/or queen.
Alphas are submissive to other Alphas in one form or another by deferring to the authority of The Powers That Be. Nobody is Master of the Universe. Princes bow to kings, kings pay tribute to emperors & empresses. Heads of state are accountable for their actions, the President or Prime Minister is theoretically a public servant, CEOs report to their Boards of Directors or Trustees, and so on.
There is another class of individual who values freedom and independence, who may strike out on his/her own as an adventurer, explorer or nomad, forming his/her own clan and who does not quite fit the overly simplistic Alpha/Beta model. There are females who are attracted to this kind of individualist, ones who are not afraid of taking risks by venturing into the unknown and into uncharted territories.
quote:
There were 2 types of females in this primitive society: those who liked alpha males and those who liked beta males. Some liked how the betas were gentle, nurturing and always provided for them. Others were turned on by the Dominance and aggression of the alphas.
Wrong again. For the sake of argument, though, what makes you think that being an Alpha male and a good, reliable provider is mutually exclusive? It isn't. Neither is being a gentle lover, or a nurturing husband-mate and father. IME, the Alpha men I have known take great pride in being a stable partner, exemplary providers, fairly exciting lovers, and devoted family men. They are also not insecure about sharing Head of Household standing with an equally powerful, capable and nurturing wife, because they attach a high value to successful teamwork in the synergistic partnerships they form. In fact, this has proven true more often than not as a litmus test of whether a man is *really* Dominant or just goes around calling himself an Alpha male/Type A Dominant personality.
quote:
When these females reproduced, they each had children with the genetic tendencies of their parents. The children of beta males turned out to be beta. The children of alpha males turned out to be alpha males themselves. What happened though, is alpha males eventually beat the shit out of beta males and raped all their women. The children of beta males didn't survive. Evolution slowly weeded out all those women who were attracted to anything, but the most dominant of men.
ROFLMAO
Stupid is, as stupid makes shit up to see what sticks to the wall.
(ReMakeYou and DesFIP, you have more patience than I do.)
quote:
Today, there's only one type of female: those who like alpha males.
LOLOLOL
quote:
The desire to be submissive to a dominant alpha male is one of the deepest and most important instincts of females of any species, but it's not mentioned in any mainstream sex literature, because society has made the female desire to be submissive, to a dominant male to be taboo.
Because, of course, 'society' is an artificial construct with no basis in reality, and gave birth to its own phantasmagoric self like battle-armored Athena bursting forth triumphantly out of Zeus's head, given that "Evolution slowly weeded out all those women who were attracted to anything, but the most dominant of men." [8|]
quote:
We all get deluged with social programming like 'men want to have sex, women want to make love'...
Let me get this straight. As in 'social programming' apart from the "evolutionary programming" being thrust forward? You know, that supposedly softwired stuff that automatically rules over hardwired natural instinct?
Earth to OP, there are plenty of men who want to make love, to form meaningful emotional attachments, to pairbond with their mate as life partner, and who find (casual) sex as unfulfilling as empty caloric intake.
quote:
women are socially conditioned to repress their desire to be dominated and men are conditioned to repress their desire to dominate.
Bullshit. Let us hearken back to the inexplicable black hole of a vacuum from whence social conditioning arose, shall we....
quote:
However, in the absence of Dominance there's no sexual satisfaction.
Speak for yourself. Oh, that's right, this is all you have been doing while busily engrossed in talking out of your arse. [8D]
quote:
While most women will never speak about it and may not even be conscious of it themselves, they all deeply desire to be submissive to a powerful man.
You are only partly correct, and your half-baked generalizations do not come close to 'most' women and 'all' women, nor to your many gender-biased misassumptions about submission.
This bears repeating: It's a helluva lot more fun and a helluva bigger rush for me to dominate a powerful man with a strong personality, than for me to trifle with a weak-willed and/or underachieving sort of man. [;)] Here, I must make a very clear distinction. A man who is submissive to me or who follows my lead, does not mean he is privately submissive to others or by anybody else's standards, or that he chooses to be less than independent in other areas of his life.
|
|
|
|
