quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

How does the sperm fertilize the egg?

Similar to the way a tiny, tiny wasp stings a human ... isn't it?

You are avoiding the question.

I was trying to give you an answer that felt relevant to the debate at hand. It seemed to me that you were trying to offer a case in which the dominant act was clearly male. But I cannot see why a sperm fertilizing an egg is clearly a dominant act by the sperm *at all*. Even leaving aside the obvious point that a sperm is only a part of a man and an egg is only a part of a woman - how does that make any sense beyond picking whatever metaphors you want to pick?

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

We are talking about submitting. A woman submits her body every step of the way to fufilll her biological function. A man does not 'submit' ... he ejaculates which is a forceful act, not a submissive act. It is forceful because biologically he wants to force his seed as deep into the receiver as he can. From there on his sperm continue his forceful act ... a male 'Survival of the fittest' to penetrate the egg.

quote:

ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar

You know, the thing that bothers me about the biologic deterministic view about Dominance and submission is that, with the way biology works, there's necessarily going to be exceptions. That's the way evolution works, after all... if every specimen was a perfect clone of every specimen before, we wouldn't have the biodiversity we have today.

As such, even when you look at other mammals who have clear male-dominance/female-submission, there's always the exceptional individuals who break the mold and act contrary to the 'typical' behaviors for their species. There's the male who isn't dominant in the slightest, and acts like a submissive female, and there's the female who attempts to fight for dominance with the other males, no matter how many times she gets her ass kicked because she's smaller and slighter than them.

When we look at animal populations, we're talking about studying a couple hundred individuals tops. There's 7.5 BILLION people in the world... if we account for the fact that biology is going to have 'exceptions to the rule' it becomes rather likely that we're all going to run into several of them in our lifetimes.

From the biological deterministic view, those exceptions are going to be as much driven to be exceptions as the general population will be driven to be 'general'. As such making any claim along the lines of "a f/m-sexed person doing x is bad, because people of that sex are y instead" is nonsense, considering that you might very well be talking to somebody who's been biologically programmed to be y as a result of a random genetic fluke.

Throw free agency in the mix, and the fact that human beings as a species have the higher order thinking that other animals lack which influences their behavior to the point that they can refuse to give into their biological imperatives (birth control anybody?), and you're going to end up with all kinds of norm-deviating behavior, which is as normal and comes as natural to that specific person as your own specific 'biological programming' comes to you.

So maybe tamaka is right, and she is biologically programmed to be submissive to males. Making the leap from there that the same must thus apply to all other females is a bit of a stretch in my book.

Personally I believe that I'm biologically programmed to be inherently submissive towards those individuals I meet who are naturally more dominant than myself, and inherently dominant towards those who are naturally more submissive than myself. I've tried to fight this urge and allow myself to be lead by a person who wasn't naturally more dominant, and it didn't work. I've tried to lead those who weren't naturally inclined to follow me, and it didn't work. So I very much believe in the fact that my submissive and dominant tendencies are a result of a biological predisposition that gets triggered when I interact with other individuals based on their own biological predispositions... but the key word in that phrase is individuals. I respond that way based on specific interactions with specific people, not with groups as a whole.

If tamaka was actually biologically programmed to submit to men -any man- she wouldn't have an issue with male submissives, because her biological programming would take over, and she automatically would feel submissive to them... regardless of their displayed dominance towards her.
The fact that she doesn't respond that way shows that her natural submissiveness isn't triggered by men, it's triggered by certain men, displaying certain types of behaviors towards her. Towards men who don't display these behaviors, she's not in the slightest bit submissive. Instead she's contemptuous, hostile, and aggressive -which are all dominant display behaviors.
If she's not naturally submissive towards all men, and displays dominance towards some, then why would she expect any random man to be dominant towards all women?

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

How does the sperm fertilize the egg?

Similar to the way a tiny, tiny wasp stings a human ... isn't it?

You are avoiding the question.

I was trying to give you an answer that felt relevant to the debate at hand. It seemed to me that you were trying to offer a case in which the dominant act was clearly male. But I cannot see why a sperm fertilizing an egg is clearly a dominant act by the sperm *at all*. Even leaving aside the obvious point that a sperm is only a part of a man and an egg is only a part of a woman - how does that make any sense beyond picking whatever metaphors you want to pick?

How is the sperm fertilizing an egg a submissive process?

quote:


How is the sperm fertilizing an egg a submissive process?

quote:

Yes i believe that is a 'Survival of the species' programmed into women. We don't submit to men that are weak because humanity would not survive.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

Yes i believe that is a 'Survival of the species' programmed into women. We don't submit to men that are weak because humanity would not survive.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

Excellent post with some very good points, especially the last bit.

quote:

ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

How does the sperm fertilize the egg?

Similar to the way a tiny, tiny wasp stings a human ... isn't it?

You are avoiding the question.

I was trying to give you an answer that felt relevant to the debate at hand. It seemed to me that you were trying to offer a case in which the dominant act was clearly male. But I cannot see why a sperm fertilizing an egg is clearly a dominant act by the sperm *at all*. Even leaving aside the obvious point that a sperm is only a part of a man and an egg is only a part of a woman - how does that make any sense beyond picking whatever metaphors you want to pick?

How is the sperm fertilizing an egg a submissive process?

How is it a dominant process?

That's like asking whether cell division is a dominant or submissive process. Or whether pooping is a dominant or submissive process.

Dominance and submission are behavioral patterns that dictate interactions between different individuals.

Biological functions aren't behavioral patterns, they're not interactions, and they don't take place place between individuals.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Danemora

Throwing a hissy fit over making an error doesnt make what you said right either, homie. Keep trying though

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

If I don't possess the ability to conceive, I'm not submissive.

That is not what she said. What you are apparently missing here is the fact that your ability to conceive has no bearing on your basic biological function as a female human being. The basic biological function of a male is to impregnate a female and so produce offspring and the basic biological function of a female is to be impregnated and thus produce offspring. The biological function of any animal (or plant for that matter) is to produce offspring. This basic design/function is in no way altered by any particular person/animal/plant's fertility or lack thereof.

Her argument really had very little to do with conception, but was rather based on the manner of conception. See, her argument was that since a human female has to "receive" sperm from a male, that somehow makes her inherently submissive. A similarly inane argument could be made that since it is the female that receives the sperm, the male is inherently submissive as he must give/surrender his sperm to her.

It is quite clear that you, and others, have totally misunderstood her asinine argument.

After she opens and receives his seed, she surrenders her body for the next 9 months to support the growth of the human being inside of her and then she surrenders again to the process of birthing the baby where she has to open up completely to allow the baby's passage out.
Those are the most obvious biological functions of surrender which a woman experiences in which females (not males) were uniquely designed for.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

If I don't possess the ability to conceive, I'm not submissive.

That is not what she said. What you are apparently missing here is the fact that your ability to conceive has no bearing on your basic biological function as a female human being. The basic biological function of a male is to impregnate a female and so produce offspring and the basic biological function of a female is to be impregnated and thus produce offspring. The biological function of any animal (or plant for that matter) is to produce offspring. This basic design/function is in no way altered by any particular person/animal/plant's fertility or lack thereof.

Her argument really had very little to do with conception, but was rather based on the manner of conception. See, her argument was that since a human female has to "receive" sperm from a male, that somehow makes her inherently submissive. A similarly inane argument could be made that since it is the female that receives the sperm, the male is inherently submissive as he must give/surrender his sperm to her.

It is quite clear that you, and others, have totally misunderstood her asinine argument.

After she opens and receives his seed, she surrenders her body for the next 9 months to support the growth of the human being inside of her and then she surrenders again to the process of birthing the baby where she has to open up completely to allow the baby's passage out.
Those are the most obvious biological functions of surrender which a woman experiences in which females (not males) were uniquely designed for.

quote:

ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

Yes i believe that is a 'Survival of the species' programmed into women. We don't submit to men that are weak because humanity would not survive.

So your position is that submissive men are a biological mistake?

The problem with that view is that everything you are.... everything any living being on this planet is, is the result of such 'mistakes'.

You cannot predict whether inherent male dominance is the trait that will make the human race successful in the further. Maybe male dominance is going to destroy the planet and make it uninhabitable for all living things on it.
Maybe evolution is desperately trying to produce more submissive males, and create a world in which manhood is viewed the way Peon views it, so that our species -and our planet- has a chance at survival, and it's you that's the biological mistake -a throwback to a no longer desired genome pattern- which is going to cause humanity to become extinct.

Being born as a white moth is awesome when your habitat exists primarily of white trees... any moth born too dark will then perish because it has no camouflage from predators. But as soon as that habitat changes to existing of primarily dark trees (in the case I'm referencing specifically due to human created pollution) the white moths will perish, while the dark ones survive. Giving birth to a new normal, where most moths in that area are now born dark.

How are you so sure you're not a white moth, being born in a world which now primarily exists of dark trees?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greatlilbabygirl

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

If I don't possess the ability to conceive, I'm not submissive.

That is not what she said. What you are apparently missing here is the fact that your ability to conceive has no bearing on your basic biological function as a female human being. The basic biological function of a male is to impregnate a female and so produce offspring and the basic biological function of a female is to be impregnated and thus produce offspring. The biological function of any animal (or plant for that matter) is to produce offspring. This basic design/function is in no way altered by any particular person/animal/plant's fertility or lack thereof.

Her argument really had very little to do with conception, but was rather based on the manner of conception. See, her argument was that since a human female has to "receive" sperm from a male, that somehow makes her inherently submissive. A similarly inane argument could be made that since it is the female that receives the sperm, the male is inherently submissive as he must give/surrender his sperm to her.

It is quite clear that you, and others, have totally misunderstood her asinine argument.

After she opens and receives his seed, she surrenders her body for the next 9 months to support the growth of the human being inside of her and then she surrenders again to the process of birthing the baby where she has to open up completely to allow the baby's passage out.
Those are the most obvious biological functions of surrender which a woman experiences in which females (not males) were uniquely designed for.

I take it from all the bullshit you're spewing that you do not have any kids.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greatlilbabygirl

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

If I don't possess the ability to conceive, I'm not submissive.

That is not what she said. What you are apparently missing here is the fact that your ability to conceive has no bearing on your basic biological function as a female human being. The basic biological function of a male is to impregnate a female and so produce offspring and the basic biological function of a female is to be impregnated and thus produce offspring. The biological function of any animal (or plant for that matter) is to produce offspring. This basic design/function is in no way altered by any particular person/animal/plant's fertility or lack thereof.

Her argument really had very little to do with conception, but was rather based on the manner of conception. See, her argument was that since a human female has to "receive" sperm from a male, that somehow makes her inherently submissive. A similarly inane argument could be made that since it is the female that receives the sperm, the male is inherently submissive as he must give/surrender his sperm to her.

It is quite clear that you, and others, have totally misunderstood her asinine argument.

After she opens and receives his seed, she surrenders her body for the next 9 months to support the growth of the human being inside of her and then she surrenders again to the process of birthing the baby where she has to open up completely to allow the baby's passage out.
Those are the most obvious biological functions of surrender which a woman experiences in which females (not males) were uniquely designed for.

I take it from all the bullshit you're spewing that you do not have any kids.

Where is my flyswatter?