|
Aswad -> RE: free woman????????????? (3/26/2008 10:37:36 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: kittinSol
I thought "Histoire d'O" was dreadful, but there you have it... there's no arguing over literary taste [8|] (I read the French version first, being a frog, but thought the English translation fared better). It's just a wankbook crankfile for bored bourgeois bitches.
Perhaps Genji would be more to your liking? [:D]
quote:
That women are "naturally submissive" because they carry children and nurture them is presposterous
A lot of people make arguments from lots of speculation, or generalize their experiences too far.
quote:
One gender isn't more "biologically enclined to submission" than the other simply because of their biological function: men may have more muscular strength; but women are more resistant and live longer. *Shrug*.
One gender is more biologically inclined to conquest and dominance, due to sexual dimorphisms of the brain that have been verified with functional magnetic resonance imaging. The limbic system of the male triggers more intensely during conquest and acquisition than that of the female. Testosterone also makes a difference in this regard, although that is a more tenuous connection.
Nobody sensible is saying all men are dominant, just that most men are more dominant than most women.
Both genders are inclined to submission under duress, but the female gender is more likely to adapt, due to similar differences. The likelyhood of continued defiance, or choosing death over surrender, is lower than that of a male (again, on average). This has been an evolutionary advantage for millenia, and is presumably part of the basis for things like capture bonding. It happens to men too, mind you, but there's usually less resistance to overcome in a female.
Again, nobody sensible is saying that all women are submissive, or "born slaves", just that the average woman is more likely to accept slavery than the average man. Which is relevant in a jungle law context, slave trade, or institutionalized slavery, but not so much otherwise, unless one has chosen a lifestyle that rejects the idea that freedom can be given, rather than being seized by and for oneself. In the Gorean view, being given "freedom" is just less intrusive slavery.
quote:
To believe that physical power implies domination or vice versa stems from a narrow view of humanity and of the world in general, but it's a convenient explanation for those that have a sexual hunger for domination.
It doesn't imply domination, but it can be a factor. People instinctively size up a person they are interacting with, although men and women are probably looking at different things. Height and physical strengths are factors in that, as lots of submissive women on these boards have admitted. There was even a thread called "you have to be this tall to ride" or somesuch.
But in the context of submission or slavery, another factor is more important: will. It is of little consequence whether the other party has the muscle to back up what they say, if they lack the commitment to it. And various people obviously respond differently to physicality, or the possibility of it, but in my experience, most women respond better when they know that the power dynamic is not merely a suspense of disbelief.
quote:
Me, I respect a dominant who embraces his or her quirk without feeling the need to explain it via dodgy and antiquated anthropoligical reasons :-)
On that point, I agree. It should come naturally.
Which doesn't prevent me from occasionally digging into the research for some pearls to dump in front of male supremacist swine (I'm an intellectual masochist, I think), and finding some interesting facts along the way. But generalities are an inferior source of information, when compared to the reference: the individual in front of you, whether kneeling or upright.
That's where I prefer to go to find out how someone ticks. [:D]
Health,
al-Aswad.
|
|
|
|
