RE: Who is really dominant?

RE: Who is really dominant? (Full Version)

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

Message

MistressDREAD -> RE: Who is really dominant? (7/29/2004 9:01:10 PM)
well Sinergy that can also be a fact and they would be classified as Switches. theres more to being Dominant then simply identifiying towards sumone of a different gender as well. This was simply sum of the qualities I see in a Dominant. It does not mean that those whom are submissive cannot hold them as well or that males or females or even vanillas cannot hold the same. A question was asked and I gave My opinion of sum of it. I noticed that alltho You disagreed with My opinion even with Me being Dominant. You dident post what Your discriptions of sum of the things You concider to be such. How about sum words on that for the posing question instead of just thowing out anothers words you dont agree with? I actually felt that Forest Gump was brilliant and lucky.

Sinergy -> RE: Who is really dominant? (7/29/2004 9:45:45 PM)
quote: I always confuse them with this- I want to open the door, enter, tactical reload while scanning 360 for threats, then let her enter. And the reason you opened a door with a potential threat behind it and THEN reloaded was? Might be more useful if your gun was loaded BEFORE you opened the door. signs Lawrence up for boot camp again Sinergy

Sinergy -> RE: Who is really dominant? (7/29/2004 9:48:15 PM)
Hello Lady Beckett, I did read the Judith Butler piece you stated. I cannot remember the name of the second wave feminist who postulated that people are "polymorphously perverse" but Ms. Butler's work seems similar in that regard. My point was that men and women are anatomically different. I can think I am a woman all I want, but the presence of Mr. Tiny would tend to indicate that my anatomy has not caught up with my personal belief systems, for example. Hope springs eternal. Wait, I am perfectly happy having dangly down parts I can name Mr. Tiny. Back to the thread... Sinergy

topcat -> RE: Who is really dominant? (7/29/2004 10:21:17 PM)
quote: And the reason you opened a door with a potential threat behind it and THEN reloaded was? Might be more useful if your gun was loaded BEFORE you opened the door. signs Lawrence up for boot camp again Well of course we go into the room behind supressive fire- a 'tactical reload', is when, instead of waiting till you've emptied the magazine, you drop it and pop in a fresh one when there is a lull in the firing. Stay warm, Lawrence

Sinergy -> RE: Who is really dominant? (7/29/2004 11:00:15 PM)
quote: Well of course we go into the room behind supressive fire- a 'tactical reload', is when, instead of waiting till you've emptied the magazine, you drop it and pop in a fresh one when there is a lull in the firing. Stay warm, Lawrence Hello Lawrence, So, the door is closed, and your brother's in arms are emptying the contents of their magazines, firing napalm at, throwing grenades at a closed door, suppressing the door in case it gets "uppity." You only have 4 bullets left in your clip. You know that once the door is opened you will have to unload your magazine into whatever is behind it. Perhaps it would be a good idea while the door is being shot up to reload right away and start fresh. This is just my opinion, but I tend to follow the Boy Scout ideal of being prepared. Sinergy

TallDarkAndWitty -> RE: Who is really dominant? (7/30/2004 5:39:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy My point was that men and women are anatomically different. I think the point of that link was to express the idea that "males" and "females" are anatomically different, while "men" and "women" may not be. The significant part was that desire (homo vs hetro) was not based on gender (men vs women) which was not based on sex (male vs female). I think, Angelika's point was that men and women aren't neccessisarily different anatomically, that dangly bits don't make you a man, and the removal of them doesn't make you a woman. No one asked, but that's what I love about the 'boards... Yours, Taggard

Leonidas -> RE: Who is really dominant? (7/30/2004 6:47:53 AM)
What I think is amazing is how much of our social discourse focuses on the six sigma fringe. Just an example of how humans tend to focus on the exceptional, and ignore those things that remain more or less constant. Where I think that these things go awry is when being in an unfortunate state of gender confusion somehow takes on a cache, as if that were the architypical or even desireable state for humans. It isn't. It's out there on the fringe, and there is a lot of pain out there on the fringe. The folks out there on the fringe are often intelligent, and so can sometimes convince the unwary rube that there is some kind of chic in being like them. That's too bad. It reminds me of something that a very smart anthropologist once said: Intelligence has never been proven to be a fitness criteria for natural selection. Take care of yourself Leonidas

MistressDREAD -> RE: Who is really dominant? (7/30/2004 7:00:55 AM)
haha natural selection even a dog will hunch any thing it comes in contact with when in heat.

TallDarkAndWitty -> RE: Who is really dominant? (7/30/2004 7:02:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Leonidas The folks out there on the fringe are often intelligent, and so can sometimes convince the unwary rube that there is some kind of chic in being like them. [snip] Intelligence has never been proven to be a fitness criteria for natural selection. So it's just random chance then that the folks on the edge are smarter, and it has nothing to do with the evolution of the human? My personal theory is that those fringe element people (amongst whose ranks I would consider myslef) are smarter and often more creative for an evolutionary reason. One of the "costs" of child rearing can be looked at in terms of what was not done while the child was being cared for. Many of those fringe elementers are physically unable to produce offspring (the homosexuals, the child-free by choice, etc) so they are left less encumbered to produce some of the greatest art, science, and philosophy. The same thing can be said of those living in a relationship where one member is submissive and spends her time taking care of the other and the other's offspring. I am a firm believer in the "natural" occurance of homosexuality and the lack of a biological clock (I had my vasectomy at 28 without having any children). I think mankind has benefitted from this diversity. Yours, Taggard

Leonidas -> RE: Who is really dominant? (7/30/2004 7:12:27 AM)
OK Dread. I am going to go way out on a limb and assume that you have a point here. Human females lost estrus (they don't come into heat), so I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here. Is you point that there is no such thing as natural selection, or are you saying that the only fitness criteria that matters is how horney you are? Take care of yourself Leonidas

Leonidas -> RE: Who is really dominant? (7/30/2004 7:28:03 AM)
It probably does have something to do with them being smarter. It probably has nothing to do with evolution. To paraphrase the united negro college fund: The mind is a terrible thing. While these folks do tend to be smart, they, like you, are often choosing to exclude themselves from the gene pool. They wander around coming up with theories as to why androgeny is the desirable state of being instead. That is really the meaning of the quote from the anthropologist. Intelligent people are not more likely to reproduce themselves, infact, maybe less. Our brain pan size hasn't increased much in the last 30,000 years. There may have been a time when intelligence drove selection, but there is every indication that that trend may have "topped out". While you, the intelligent thinking man had a vascectomy at 28, the working class man with a 90 IQ is having 5 kids. Paradoxically, the general acceptance of homosexuality might, if it lasts long enough (historically it has gone in cycles) make the trait less common. In the 1950s, a lot of homosexual men and women got married, and had familes, and if they "came out" at all, it was in middle age. Not so today. You can "come out" in junior high school. Just your daily food for thought. Take care of yourself Leonidas

MrThorns -> RE: Who is really dominant? (7/30/2004 7:33:33 AM)
First chance to pop in here on this topic...and I think I'm waaaay over my head already..between the metaphysical musings of "if a dominant falls in a forrest, how many pancakes does it take to wallpaper a doghouse?", to the battle of Thermopolae, to the National Organization of Women...I'm not sure what topic to respond to. My feelings to the original question, who is really dominant? The Dom or the sub? Well...the dominant is really dominant. The submissive consents, because he/she enjoys being within the structure that the dominant provides. The dominant is dominant, wether or not there is a submissive present. The dynamic between dom and sub may no longer exist when no submissive is present, as there is no one to compliment one's dominance. No yin to the yang... no snake to the mongoose... no Siskel to the Ebert, etc. As far as the scenario of the lilliputians serving the dominant Gulliver...until he is whisked away by larger, more dominant, super intelligent, iceberg dwelling folk...(Wonderful analogy, btw).. I agree with Leonidas. I dont believe that he would learn to live with it. I think he would fight and struggle and try his damnedest to free himself from that situation. It makes me think of the savage in Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World". He was pulled out of his environment. Transplanted into another environment that was the complete opposite of his previous reality. Regardless of wether he was dominant or not, he was in no way prepared for the life he was being forced to lead. He did not learn to deal with it. He fought...then he chose to die, rather than continue living that existence. I think the outcome would be very much the same with the iceberg folk. Okay...thats all I can write. Blood /caffeine levels are dropping below acceptable levels. ~Thorns

Leonidas -> RE: Who is really dominant? (7/30/2004 7:51:17 AM)
I actually worry a little bit that this board may have taken a serious turn that may be turning some users off. Aren't we supposed to be talking about the best techniques for butt-fucking our slaves by the dreamy blue light of the alcohol gel flames that we just lit on their backs? Take care of yourself Leonidas

MrThorns -> RE: Who is really dominant? (7/30/2004 8:04:54 AM)
LOL...something like that. Although, the forum does say "General BDSM Discussion"...we do tend to keep the discussion..."general". Maybe we need a forum for technique...ranting....witty repartee...witless banter....etc. ~Thorns

TallDarkAndWitty -> RE: Who is really dominant? (7/30/2004 8:09:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Leonidas I actually worry a little bit that this board may have taken a serious turn that may be turning some users off. I, for one, find that this is one of the only boards I ever post to. The crowd here is unbelievably astute and eloquent. Not to mention funny. If people want light humor, they know where to go. If they want to read a serious, well thought out, eloquently argued debate, they know where to go. Instead of wondering who was turned off, I am always wondering who we turned on. wink Even if dominance isn't all about me, these boards damn well are! Yours, Taggard

MistressDREAD -> RE: Who is really dominant? (7/30/2004 8:14:42 AM)
My words would cover this comment but in simple terms quote: There may have been a time when intelligence drove selection, but there is every indication that that trend may have "topped out". While you, the intelligent thinking man had a vascectomy at 28, the working class man with a 90 IQ is having 5 kids. One doesent need a edumacation or fancy sentance strucure to Fuck,scene or Dominate.

LadyAngelika -> RE: Who is really dominant? (7/30/2004 8:21:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: Did you even follow the link to Butler? I have not had time to do that, but I will. Sinergy It will take you about 10 minutes... and it's someone interpretation of Butler so it doesn't hurt the brain as much ;) - LA

Leonidas -> RE: Who is really dominant? (7/30/2004 8:25:59 AM)
Aw sweet geezus. I'm agreeing with Dread? First Iwill, and now Dread? They must be ice skating in hell as we speak. Take care of yourself Leonidas

LadyAngelika -> RE: Who is really dominant? (7/30/2004 8:28:12 AM)
Ah you did read it! quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy Hello Lady Beckett, Your are getting your Ladies mixed up ;) quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy I did read the Judith Butler piece you stated. I cannot remember the name of the second wave feminist who postulated that people are "polymorphously perverse" but Ms. Butler's work seems similar in that regard. My point was that men and women are anatomically different. In my opinion, there are more similarities then there are differences. Two eyes, two ears, two arms, two hands, ten fingers, two legs, two feet, ten toes, etc. Well usually. There are exceptions to every rule. Which is actually my point. I'm not saying there is no difference between men and woman. I'm simply saying we overemphasis it in our society. quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy I can think I am a woman all I want, but the presence of Mr. Tiny would tend to indicate that my anatomy has not caught up with my personal belief systems, for example. Perhaps because I am attracted to all genders, this isn't such an issue for me. Having explored many bodies of all genders extensively, I can tell you that in my opinion, there are more similarities then differences. - LA

LadyAngelika -> RE: Who is really dominant? (7/30/2004 8:31:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TallDarkAndWitty quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy My point was that men and women are anatomically different. I think the point of that link was to express the idea that "males" and "females" are anatomically different, while "men" and "women" may not be. The significant part was that desire (homo vs hetro) was not based on gender (men vs women) which was not based on sex (male vs female). I think, Angelika's point was that men and women aren't neccessisarily different anatomically, that dangly bits don't make you a man, and the removal of them doesn't make you a woman. A+ in Butlerism for you Tag :) quote: ORIGINAL: TallDarkAndWitty No one asked, but that's what I love about the 'boards... Your opinion is always a treat! - LA

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125