|
xssve -> RE: Male vs. Female Dominance (My 1st thread) (6/12/2011 10:59:38 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Twoshoes
Well, I'm sorry you didn't understand what I was trying to explain. I've learned a lot about various attitudes toward feminity throughout history recently, so I figured that might be helpful.
Sure, if I was talking about femininity.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Twoshoes
However, if you noticed women agreed with my claim that the essential female role is "receptive". Which is all that really matters. Because women (or even men who often wind up in the receptive role, such as myself) have a more salient perspective on the question of receptivity/passivity.
I think Arpig said it first, and I agreed with him then, but again, I'm not talking about femininity, I'm talking about biologically male, you know, the people who have penis's, and biologically female, the people with vagina's - it's baseline stuff, you gotta start with the basics, don't you think? Or don't you think there are any consequences extending from those basic biological facts?
You can't start in the middle and expect to make much progress.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Twoshoes
quote:
ORIGINAL: xssve
technically, the woman doesn't have to do anything but lie there, i.e., passive - ideally of course one prefers receptivity, but really, it makes no difference when it comes to penetration as a mechanical act.- what if she's tied up? Asleep or unconscious?
Women can just lie there. Men can just lie there.
You can also clearly have sex with someone who isn't doing anything and isn't even aroused -- regardless of their sex. (A guy can get an erection without wanting to through mechanical stimulation. Especially with pharmaceuticals. You can even milk a comma patient's prostrate and impregnate yourself if you're fucked up enough.)
Ok, you're not getting it at all here, baseline behavior, a woman just has to lie there, she doesn't have to be "receptive", or even like it - as a fact of biology, she just has to not actively prevent penetration, this is a baseline, I'm not even getting into any more complex behavior here than the act of penetration itself, that, because that's the question the OP asked, and it seems complicated enough with just that, re: the Dworkin side debate.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Twoshoes
All your argument really proves is that incapacitated people are passive. And that asleep people are passive. Your argument, however you reword it, reveals nothing about women in general. Your conclusion is always the exact same as your initial premise of passivity.
I don't have to prove anything, that's the baseline, there's no other option, that's how it works - I'm not trying to "reveal anything about women", other than the vagina is not a penetrative organ, a penis is.
You're making way more out of this than is necessary, "passivity" is not the same as "receptivity", the point was moot before you made it, go back and look.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Twoshoes
quote:
he has to invade her personal space - she doesn't have to stick any part of her body into his.
Technically, the woman's body undergoes complicated changes to allow for your dick. Receptive changes. (Please look at the link in my last post.)
Bullshit - ideally, yes, technically, no, non-receptive women are penetrated all the time, see one of the rape threads going on elsewhere.
You getting it yet? Biologically, the male penetrates (active), the female is penetrated (passive) - that's it - I am saying nothing about men or women beyond that basic point, even if our brains were identical, that would still be that.
Beyond that, there is a whole world of complexity, women have strategies from here to doomsday to get men to penetrate them, not penetrate them, where, when, why and how, how often, etc., etc., etc., you want to get into femininity, fine, just acknowledge the point and we can move on.
So yes receptive and passive do not mean the same thing, I have not disagreed with anything you've said, I doubt I will, but it has nothing to do with anything I said; what I said was this:
Men have a penis, women have a vagina - in order to facilitate reproduction, spermatozoa must be introduced to the cervix at the same time a viable egg is present - the cervix is located within the the vagina, ergo, some act of penetration is required to accomplish the task, the usual method is to use the penis - no?
Read it again, slowly.
From there, we can move on to sex, which is a much more complicated subject, but 90% of the political externalities stem from the simple biological act of penetration, including the distinctions between violent rape, passive rape (with an unconscious woman for example), and consensual sex with a receptive woman - they are all acts of penetration and are all reproductive activity - I'm not talking about right and wrong, I'm talking about biology.
When to comes to dominance, it probably means more to men than to women, which is what most of my previous posts were about - but the equestrian analogy is an excellent example, either sex can dominate a Horse with equal facility, without having to fuck it - penetrate it, seduce it, whatever - no? So no, penetration has nothing to do with dominance, per se, but it does figure highly in the male imagination - because that is what we evolved to do.
So again, the OP is asking why certain positions during penetration, seem to matter so much to men - Lilith was rejected for wanting to be on top for example, while Eve was content to lie passively on the bottom - which seems kind of silly to me, I like to get a bitch up there and make her work it, yeah baby!
Please tell me you got it that time.
|
|
|
|
