RE: Something I'm wondering about regarding the male-to-female ratio here (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Ask a Mistress



Message


submaleinzona -> RE: Something I'm wondering about regarding the male-to-female ratio here (2/28/2009 6:43:20 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CatdeMedici

quote:

Could it mean that there are a multitude of men out there who are looking for something that the vast majority of women are either unwilling or unable to give?  And if so, why? 


Yep, they think if they plead, OH MY GODDESS, I AM YOUR ETERNAL SLAVE,  We will acquiesce---problem is that many of them forget to put their winkie back in their pants and wash the cum off before they shake hands.


Yes, that does seem rather cheesy.  I mean, I know what I am, but at least I'd like to maintain a few shreds of dignity.  I don't know how these other guys can do it.  I'm a guy myself, so I know perfectly how certain urges can overtake and cloud one's sanity and ability to reason, oftentimes more than one would want.  But I still try to maintain self-control.  (Here in this forum, I'm making sort of an exception to that.  I don't generally ask others for advice.  Usually, for me, it's the other way around.  But I appreciate everyone's indulgence.) 

I've done this before, around 9 years ago, but I think that I may have acted too precipitously, throwing caution to the four winds.  I think I will be more circumspect and deliberate this time. 




littlesarbonn -> RE: Something I'm wondering about regarding the male-to-female ratio here (2/28/2009 6:43:39 AM)

I try not to let the numbers thing get me down. Honestly, I don't care how many men there are to how many women there are. The good separates from the bad. If it doesn't then that woman wasn't someone I wanted to belong to in the first place.




submaleinzona -> RE: Something I'm wondering about regarding the male-to-female ratio here (2/28/2009 7:21:29 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andalusite

I think part of it is simply that the Internet in general, and kinky/sex-oriented sites in particular, tend to be slightly slanted more toward men than women. Back when dinosaurs roamed the Internet, when the only pictures were ASCII graphics instead of photos, it was more like 98% men and 2% women. It's a lot more balanced now, but not completely. Also, men tend to initiate contact much more often than women do, regardless of D/s or BDSM orientation. Dominant and switch men here might not quite have the same numerical imbalance, but it's fairly close, and can still be quite difficult for them to make contact, from what I understand by talking with some of them.

It's actually rather odd - the vast majority of Dom and switch guys who have contacted me have intelligent, well-thought-out, interesting profiles and initial e-mails, and pay attention to what I have in my profile. The majority of submissive men who have contacted me well, don't. I'm open to either, and I have run across some really interesting submissive guys, too, but I'm a bit confused why the discrepency. Are submissive men in general so much worse than other guys at knowing what women are likely to enjoy/respond to? You'd think logically that it would be the other way around, if anything.


I recall when I was younger, before the Internet really got huge, I knew a lot of guys who would be accurately described as "pick-up artists."  They were very masterful and had it down to an art form.  They knew body language.  They had a very smooth and confident manner.  A lot of times, they didn't really even have to say very much to get a woman to be putty in his hands.  But some of them were not very good at writing notes or letters. 

I'm not really sure how other submissive men think, but I would suggest that the ones that send those goofy, one-line e-mails are not entirely in their right mind at the moment they send it.  Instead of taking a deep breath and contemplating what they're going to say, they can't wait to unzip themselves and throw out a bunch of hooey.  It's sort of like Internet trolling, in a way. 

Back in the olden days, we used to have to write on typewriters and actually put letters into an envelope and mail them.  That gave some time to pause and think, "Oh crap, I'd better not send this."  But nowadays, things are much more immediate than that. 








OneMoreWaste -> RE: Something I'm wondering about regarding the male-to-female ratio here (2/28/2009 7:39:17 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: submaleinzona

quote:

ORIGINAL: OneMoreWaste
If you're the more scientific sort, you might prefer the explanation that the female seeks the strongest, most aggressive male for protection and providance, and that submission *is typically seen* as being antithetical to those traits (you'll note that the majority of hetero Dommes make a point of mentioning how they want a sub who is strong, confident, blah blah, as they understand that sexual submission does not *necessarily* exclude being King of the Jungle).


Yes, I also understand the basic idea behind natural selection.  But sometimes, I wonder if a thousand (or more) years of serfdom has bred some of those aggressive traits out of us.  Anyone who might have been aggressive or non-compliant towards his Monarch or Bishop would have been killed.  Penalties for disobedience were pretty severe, and it seems that the more submissive one was, the more likely they would have survived. 


But that aggression would have been bred into the nobles, even if it were bred out of the peasants. And nobody wants a serf when she have a King (well, at least a Jack). I think the argument just gives more weight to my hypothesis.




Venatrix -> RE: Something I'm wondering about regarding the male-to-female ratio here (2/28/2009 8:30:50 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: submaleinzona

But sometimes, I wonder if a thousand (or more) years of serfdom has bred some of those aggressive traits out of us.  Anyone who might have been aggressive or non-compliant towards his Monarch or Bishop would have been killed.  Penalties for disobedience were pretty severe, and it seems that the more submissive one was, the more likely they would have survived.  Individual strength and character were frowned upon. 



Unfortunately, your hypothesis doesn't hold water.  There was very little submissive about the peasants of the Middle Ages and Early Modern period.  Just a quick look at peasant revolts or revolts that included a large number of peasants will unearth:

The peasant revolt in Flanders that lasted five years and started in 1323
The Jacquerie - 1358 (France)
The Peasant's Revolt of 1381 (England)
Jack Cade's Rebellion - 1450 (England)
The Peasant's War - 1524 (Holy Roman Empire)
The French Revolution - 1789

There are other examples too numerous to list.  The revolts may have been crushed brutally, but that didn't stop the peasants from rising up when they felt it was necessary, and many of the revolts did bring some improvements, even if only small ones.  For some reason, all of this turmoil doesn't sound very submissive to me.






YoursMistress -> RE: Something I'm wondering about regarding the male-to-female ratio here (2/28/2009 8:46:28 AM)

If it will help, I am willing to create a series of female profiles in order to help balance things out and call upon my brethren to follow suit. 

yours




submaleinzona -> RE: Something I'm wondering about regarding the male-to-female ratio here (2/28/2009 9:40:04 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Venatrix

quote:

ORIGINAL: submaleinzona

But sometimes, I wonder if a thousand (or more) years of serfdom has bred some of those aggressive traits out of us.  Anyone who might have been aggressive or non-compliant towards his Monarch or Bishop would have been killed.  Penalties for disobedience were pretty severe, and it seems that the more submissive one was, the more likely they would have survived.  Individual strength and character were frowned upon. 



Unfortunately, your hypothesis doesn't hold water.  There was very little submissive about the peasants of the Middle Ages and Early Modern period.  Just a quick look at peasant revolts or revolts that included a large number of peasants will unearth:

The peasant revolt in Flanders that lasted five years and started in 1323
The Jacquerie - 1358 (France)
The Peasant's Revolt of 1381 (England)
Jack Cade's Rebellion - 1450 (England)
The Peasant's War - 1524 (Holy Roman Empire)
The French Revolution - 1789

There are other examples too numerous to list.  The revolts may have been crushed brutally, but that didn't stop the peasants from rising up when they felt it was necessary, and many of the revolts did bring some improvements, even if only small ones.  For some reason, all of this turmoil doesn't sound very submissive to me.


True, you make a good point.  There were plenty more such revolts all through history, yes.  But they were more the exceptions than the rule of daily life.  Even cattle have been known to stampede from time to time. 

There's also another exception to this, is when thousands of submissive peasants form armies and their monarch tells them to go and kill people in another land.  Then they would get pretty wild and savage, especially if they're convinced that they're carrying out God's will. 




RedMagic1 -> RE: Something I'm wondering about regarding the male-to-female ratio here (2/28/2009 11:40:23 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: YoursMistress
I am, however, truly grateful to many of the gentlemen here for their thoughtful posts and responses. 

And I for a long time have been truly grateful to the men who send trollmail and form letters, because every time they send one, it increases the responses that a woman will respond to something I write.




hardbodysub -> RE: Something I'm wondering about regarding the male-to-female ratio here (2/28/2009 11:43:19 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: YoursMistress

If it will help, I am willing to create a series of female profiles in order to help balance things out and call upon my brethren to follow suit. 

yours



If you take a look at a lot of the female profiles, I think you'll find someone beat you to it.




AAkasha -> RE: Something I'm wondering about regarding the male-to-female ratio here (2/28/2009 4:54:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: hardbodysub


quote:

ORIGINAL: BoiJen

Read...

http://www.lulu.com/content/5043162

The courage to submit: the guide for the submissive male seeking a Dominant Woman

Seriously...download and read it. SlaveKal goes into why numbers don't matter because as an s-type male you can make yourself stick out in a good way.

boiJen



You can do lots of thing to make yourself stick out, whether you're talking about finding a dominant woman, or finding a job. The numbers, however, matter.


I think the numbers matter more if you are lazy, not clear about what you want and are not clear about who you are.  If a man has done some work on himself, is willing to invest the time, and truly works toward understanding dominant women as he approaches them, the numbers begin to mean very, very little.   

Akasha




LookieNoNookie -> RE: Something I'm wondering about regarding the male-to-female ratio here (2/28/2009 5:00:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: submaleinzona

I'm new to this site, but in my observations of this and many other sites catering to BDSM is that there is an incredibly lopsided male-to-female ratio.  Sometimes, looking at this situation from a male POV can be rather intimidating and daunting. 

I'm not crying about it.  I can tell the score, and it is what it is.  But I'm just wondering about what it all means.

Could it mean that there are a multitude of men out there who are looking for something that the vast majority of women are either unwilling or unable to give?  And if so, why? 

What is it that makes a dominant woman so unique and special? 


It's the leather corset, as best as I can tell.

Bud...science shows that there are slightly more males born for every female.

Arguments have been made that this is natural selection due to wars (men going to battle, getting killed, maimed, etc.) so that in the end, there's a natural balance.

It's also argued that there are a certain number of men that opt for men....some women that opt for women....

In the final analysis, there's only one argument to your malaise....

They got all the pussy.

End of discussion.

(Feel free to email me if you've gotten lost in any of my prose).




hardbodysub -> RE: Something I'm wondering about regarding the male-to-female ratio here (2/28/2009 7:30:59 PM)

quote:

I think the numbers matter more if you are lazy, not clear about what you want and are not clear about who you are. If a man has done some work on himself, is willing to invest the time, and truly works toward understanding dominant women as he approaches them, the numbers begin to mean very, very little.   


It's obvious that the numbers matter less to one who's done his homework than to one who hasn't. But if the numbers are highly skewed, "very, very little" is a an exaggeration.

As I said before, it's no different from a job search. When the economy sucks, and there are tons more people seeking jobs than there are jobs available, you have to work harder to find a job you want. Whether the numbers matter a little or a lot depends on just how bad things have gotten. When the numbers are so bad that there are 1,000 very qualified applicants who have done everything they are supposed to, everything they can, to make themselves stand out in the crowd, the numbers matter.

The quote above does raise a couple unintended issues. My initial thought was about how obvious it is that a sub has a better chance of attracting a domina if he does his homework, and to wonder why people feel they need to constantly harp on it. It seems to me that only a complete moron wouldn't understand that without having it repeated time after time. If dominant women get a lot of messages from guys who haven't got a clue, do you think those guys spend any time reading and learning on these forums?

But pondering the phrases about a man doing "some work on himself", and working toward "understanding dominant women" got me thinking a bit, wondering if there might be a misconception on the part of the women. I don't think "understanding dominant women" is precisely what a man should be trying to do, because dominant women aren't a homogeneous group. They are different individuals with highly contrasting preferences. Understanding the dominant woman HE is interested in is a much better use of a man's time and effort. This relates directly to doing "some work on himself". Clearly, a man needs to offer what a dominant woman is looking for, and if he doesn't, he should work on that. But if he's focusing on what dominant women supposedly want generally, rather than on specific dominant women, it's not clear that he's doing himself any favor at all. He may be giving himself an excellent chance to attain a relationship that isn't what he really wants.

Again, I'll use the job search analogy. You can take a shotgun approach, and spread your efforts over a large number of job opportunities, or you can focus on one, or a few, that you'd like the most, and put all your effort there. You can try to make yourself look generally attractive to a broad range of potential employers, or you can decide what you want, learn as much as you can about that specific company and/or job, the people doing the hiring, and tailor your approach and your qualifications to fit what they want. If your focus is just on landing "a" job, rather than "the" job you really want, you might not be happy with what you get.




TallDevoted1 -> RE: Something I'm wondering about regarding the male-to-female ratio here (3/4/2009 12:33:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: AAkasha

I think the numbers matter more if you are lazy, not clear about what you want and are not clear about who you are.  If a man has done some work on himself, is willing to invest the time, and truly works toward understanding dominant women as he approaches them, the numbers begin to mean very, very little.   

Akasha


I have a sneaking suspicion that if the ratio of partners available to you changed by a factor of 100, you would have a slightly less glib attitude about how meaningless the numbers are. (ie. 100 = 10 times fewer submales combined with 10 times more femdoms).






Lockit -> RE: Something I'm wondering about regarding the male-to-female ratio here (3/4/2009 12:40:30 PM)

There may be a lot of men claiming to be submissive... but the numbers I see seem to be 100 to 1, good men who are submissive.  Or is it that all the wanker's, troll's and sex addict's email me and the good one's stay away for whatever reason?




AlexandraLynch -> RE: Something I'm wondering about regarding the male-to-female ratio here (3/4/2009 4:40:00 PM)

In my case, it really feels more like being the person in charge of hiring for a position. I get lots of applications.

Some get discarded because they can't write a complete sentence in English, and some because they didn't apply for the job that was on offer.
Some get to a first interview, and then the resume gets a circular filing because the person clearly won't do.
Some wind up having problems at the second interview.

And some do make it through. But I don't have much compassion, I'm afraid, for an adult who would tailor his resume to the job he was applying for but can't do the same when attempting to get a position as a sub.




submaleinzona -> RE: Something I'm wondering about regarding the male-to-female ratio here (3/4/2009 4:52:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TallDevoted1

quote:

ORIGINAL: AAkasha

I think the numbers matter more if you are lazy, not clear about what you want and are not clear about who you are.  If a man has done some work on himself, is willing to invest the time, and truly works toward understanding dominant women as he approaches them, the numbers begin to mean very, very little.   

Akasha


I have a sneaking suspicion that if the ratio of partners available to you changed by a factor of 100, you would have a slightly less glib attitude about how meaningless the numbers are. (ie. 100 = 10 times fewer submales combined with 10 times more femdoms).


Well, actually, I think the ratio does shift as men get into their 70s and 80s (if they live that long).  My grandfather was widowed when he was 81, and even into his 90s, he had younger women in their 60s and 70s pursuing him.  He looked pretty young for his age, actually.  He had a chess partner who was about 20 years younger than he was, and he told my grandfather, "Wait 'til you get to my age."  I have a widowed uncle who is 83 now, and he just got married last year. 

Other times when the ratio has shifted is after a major war.  After World War II, it was found that 90% of all males born in Russia in 1923 were killed in the war.  This led to a shortage of men at that time.  Married men were officially encouraged by the Soviet government to help impregnate women without husbands to help restore the population.  It's probably why men like war so much; it kills off the competition. 




thezigg -> RE: Something I'm wondering about regarding the male-to-female ratio here (3/4/2009 11:42:48 PM)

The ratio is bad and now consider that probably about 80% of the women are really men posing as a domme. Narrow that down farther for all the "pro" women here. To make it a bit more equal though is that not many of the men are really looking for a serious relationship with a domme. They are here to jack off and go. Ill bet that the number of serious dommes is not that much greater than the number of serious men.




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625