Wimps?

How many of your men out there crave to submit, sexually, to a strong woman? And, how many others have this ridiculous notion that these men are some kind of breed of gamma males – wimps?

A man has to be very self-assured and confident of his own masculinity to submit to a physically weaker woman. Whether you're a male, or female, submissive it takes a hell of a load of strength to surrender, and a lot of courage to trust your fate to someone else.

I’d particularly like to see some of those macho males, who mock submissive men, allow a woman to take control, tie them down and whip them. Hey, all you himbos, how about it? No? No, takers? Do I hear hairy knees a knocking already? What’s the matter? Don’t you have the intestinal fortitude for it? Does the idea of it make you feel threatened? Let’s face it, maybe you just don’t have the balls for it?

But, seriously, why do these submissive men do it? Why do they crave this feminine domination. What’s in it for them? I mean, we are talking about the male species here, aren’t we?

Men who are sexually submissive, and I must emphasise that – sexually submissive, generally tend to have a lot of power and responsibility in their lives. They’re usually above average in education, intelligence, and income, holding high powered positions requiring them to make a lot of decisions, about a lot of things, a lot of the time.

Psychologists theorise that individuals who reject their own sexual needs, because of feeling of guilt that they’re out of the ‘norm’, often suffer greatly reduced self esteem, resulting in repression, depression, and oppression -- not so for the sexually submissive male.

It would seem that many of them find a certain freedom in allowing themselves to be enslaved to woman. Sure, it sounds like a complete and utter contradiction, doesn’t it? How can it be that they can find liberation in this kind of commitment? Well they do. During their time of submission they are free of decision making and responsibilities and in giving over control they are better able to serve the needs of the woman.

But, still, why do they do it? What enjoyment do they derive from this feeling of helplessness, and often humiliation?

Is it because of some an early childhood experience? E.g. All those times when his little penis rubbed on mummy’s stocking tops as she put him over her lap and spanked him? Perhaps it takes him back to when life was his life was uncomplicated and his pleasures simple. I imagine many men would like to return to that time in their lives, if only occasionally.

According to Freud women are naturally more masochistic than men. He argued that because of the risk of pregnancy, sex is more dangerous and guilt-ridden for women, and therefore women seek sexual punishment in order to alleviate their guilt over having sex. (Yes, an odd theory, particualrly by today's liberated ways and changing roles, I know.) So, do some men perhaps crave not so much domination, but the 'traditional' female role of being cared for by their spouse/partner, rather than the responsibility of carer? And, is it really an indication of being weaker to want to be cared for occasionally?

But it’s the pain that I find most intriguing, and I don’t really think there’s an answer to what make that, oh, so fine line between pleasure and pain so damned exciting! Pain, just plain pain is not. Pain suffered for someone else’s pleasure is. It’s an incredibly curious thing, isn’t it? It’s almost like in showing a willingness to serve and suffer it’s proof of desire and love, and therefore it's satisfying.

I think no matter which way you look at it sexual submission isn’t for weak hearted wimps.

Sexual submission is for those liberated of guilt and suppression pursuing their passion and needs.

The same could be said for women as well. Women have to be strong to submit, especially in today's "female empowered" society.

In fact, I'd say there's probably less stigma these days for men to submit then for women. Men don't have "masculinists" preaching to them about how they have to be strong and take their place as the "empowered" sex.

I reckon you are right but I also think that the cultural/political-correctness climate is actually swinging back ( from in your face female 'empowerment' ) towards a genuine egalitarianism (Hoo-fucking-rah). Maybe I'm just geting older but everyone seems to be a lot more reasonable and less polarized about 'gender issues', is it my imagination or does anyonw agree with this?

This is great not only cos it's right but as there's nothing more tedious than people spouting 20 year old feminist theory.

Quote:

---

The same could be said for women as well. Women have to be strong to submit, especially in today's "female empowered" society.

---

Yes, I agree, but surely there’s a world of difference between sexual submission and sexual suppression, and femdom and feminism? I feel female empowerment is more about liberating women from the restraints of centuries (millenniums?) of male dominance socially, more so than sexually. I think losing the old “close your eyes and think of your country’ attitude was just a nice bonus.

But it’s not just woman who have changed. Men are not longer shackled by their traditional and ego-driven gender/sexual identification -- and surely that’s a good thing. Maybe there’s been a concurrent undercurrent of men’s liberation going on all this time while women have been busily burning their bras?

Quote:

---

In fact, I'd say there's probably less stigma these days for men to submit then for women. Men don't have "masculinists" preaching to them about how they have to be strong and take their place as the "empowered" sex.

---

I would have to agree male submission does have less of a stigma these days, as do gays and lesbians, and many other minority groups as we evolve and become a more open-minded lot.

As for men not having “masculinists (Ha! Good word – mind if I use it too?) preaching to them”: When major changes take place there will always be, and possibly needs to be, radicals to push the changes. I saw an interview with Germaine Greer, author of the ‘The Female Eunuch’ a while back. When she wrote that book, which was a landmark in the history of the women’s movement, she realised she needed to be ‘extremely hard hitting’ to get her point across – and she surely did!

Quote:

---

reckon you are right but I also think that the cultural/political-correctness climate is actually swinging back ( from in your face female 'empowerment' ) towards a genuine egalitarianism (Hoo-fucking-rah). Maybe I'm just geting older but everyone seems to be a lot more reasonable and less polarized about 'gender issues', is it my imagination or does anyonw agree with this?

This is great not only cos it's right but as there's nothing more tedious than people spouting 20 year old feminist theory.

---

I agree with you, Andrew. Society is a very cyclical thing.

Whether, or not men and women will ever be completely ‘equal’? I don’t think so. Personally, I think we are much too different psychologically. Obviously, very physically different too, and – Vi va la différence!

Yes when I was younger and playing around a lot. I did not hide the gamez I was up to. Thus some of my male friends had a few insulting comments at times.

I just laughed at them, "Yes sure, I'm playing around with 10 women a month, getting wild & kinky. And yer what ?... reading Penthouse and making friends with "Rosie" (U got to know the Jackson Brown song for that one ). Fine, I'm a wuz, and you're a stud.. enjoy Rosie"

Quote:

---

How many of your men out there crave to submit, sexually, to a strong woman? And, how many others have this ridiculous notion that these men are some kind of breed of gamma males – wimps?

A man has to be very self-assured and confident of his own masculinity to submit to a physically weaker woman. Whether you're a male, or female, submissive it takes a hell of a load of strength to surrender, and a lot of courage to trust your fate to someone else.

I’d particularly like to see some of those macho males, who mock submissive men, allow a woman to take control, tie them down and whip them. Hey, all you himbos, how about it? No? No, takers? Do I hear hairy knees a knocking already? What’s the matter? Don’t you have the intestinal fortitude for it? Does the idea of it make you feel threatened? Let’s face it, maybe you just don’t have the balls for it?

But, seriously, why do these submissive men do it? Why do they crave this feminine domination. What’s in it for them? I mean, we are talking about the male species here, aren’t we?

---

Why? Same reason a submissive female does it. If you're a sub, it feels good. That is why your invitation to dominant males to "allow a woman to take control, tie them down and whip them. " just wouldn't work. Might as well ask a gay man to screw a woman.

Submission is an erotic preference IMHO, and is not really related to gender. You wouldn't say that a submissive female is submissive because it has something to do with her being a female would you? I know lots of well-adjusted, effeminate women who would never dream of kneeling at a man's feet, ever. Is this a problem with them? No.. It's just a preference. It doesn't turn them on.

In vanilla sex, I have no problem being aggressive, dominant even, typically male, if you will. But when playtime rolls around, put a whip in my hand and I would get an immediate soft-on. I love BDSM, and I love to see a woman tied and punished, but I derive absolutely no pleasure from doing it myself.

Quote:

---

Men who are sexually submissive, and I must emphasise that – sexually submissive, generally tend to have a lot of power and responsibility in their lives....

---

I don't doubt that you got this information from a credible source. However, psychologists have been theorizing causes for sexual preference for years... and every few years the old theories get changed.

Remember when we all thought homosexuality was caused by bad parenting? How about the one that submissive females are like that only because they had been abused? Bull right? Well the same goes when people try to find environmental "reasons" for what turns me on.

Does that mean that if I change careers to ditch digger I will stop wanting my nipples tortured? Lol.. Right.

As far as "macho" men looking down on sub males... in the real world this is really just vanilla males. Same ones who have weird ideas about BDSM in any form. As far as I've seen in the R/L BDSM community YKINMK means acceptance of everyone. All kinksters are on the "outside" so we don't judge each other.

Quote:

---

Psychologists theorize that individuals who reject their own sexual needs, because of feeling of guilt that they’re out of the ‘norm’, often suffer greatly reduced self esteem, resulting in repression, depression, and oppression -- not so for the sexually submissive male.

It would seem that many of them find a certain freedom in allowing themselves to be enslaved to woman. Sure, it sounds like a complete and utter contradiction, doesn’t it? How can it be that they can find liberation in this kind of commitment? Well they do. During their time of submission they
are free of decision making and responsibilities and in giving over control they are better able to serve the needs of the woman.

---

Once again, this applies to anyone. Change the pronouns and you could be talking about a submissive female. What about a submissive lesbian or gay man... the theory still works?

Quote:

---

But, still, why do they do it? What enjoyment do they derive from this feeling of helplessness, and often humiliation?

---

There is nothing humiliating about submission in a BDSM context. If a stranger walked up to me on the street and slapped me and told me to kneel I'd flip him/her the bird and walk away. Submission in my world is only by choice to the person I choose. Humiliation as a style of play, well that's another story, but not the same thing really IMO.

Quote:

---

Is it because of some an early childhood experience? E.g. All those times when his little penis rubbed on mummy’s stocking tops as she put him over her lap and spanked him? Perhaps it takes him back to when life was his life was uncomplicated and his pleasures simple. I imagine many men would like to return to that time in their lives, if only occasionally.

---

So would many women... in fact I've seen a few around here ;)

Quote:

---

According to Freud women are naturally more masochistic than men. He argued that because of the risk of pregnancy, sex is more dangerous and guilt-ridden for women, and therefore women seek sexual punishment in order to alleviate their guilt over having sex. (Yes, an odd theory...

---

Most of Freud's theories were... ground-breaking and forward-thinking back then, but certainly not the answers to the questions in psychology.

Quote:

---

But it’s the pain that I find most intriguing, and I don’t really think there’s an answer to what make that, oh, so fine line between pleasure and pain so damned exciting! Pain, just plain pain is not. Pain suffered for someone else’s pleasure is. It’s an incredibly curious thing, isn’t it? It’s almost like in showing a willingness to serve and suffer it’s proof of desire and love, and therefore it's satisfying.

---

Yes, yes, yes! I could not agree more.

Quote:

---

I think no matter which way you look at it sexual submission isn’t for weak hearted wimps.

Sexual submission is for those liberated of guilt and suppression pursuing their passion and needs.

---

ditto!

Something you tuched on in your disertation but did go into becouse of it. YOu said that one of the theries that weman how were aboude became subisof or something like that. and you discounted it. Your right that isn't out come, it is the why. But the reason why is the worsed. It is becouse the Man is also sub as is the woman but has been toled all of his life that men are strom and have to be incharge. thay are taught to a top, when thay are realy a bottom.

You’ve raised some interesting points, and I like to be challenged to think outside my little square.

Quote:

---

In vanilla sex, I have no problem being aggressive, dominant even, typically male, if you will. But when playtime rolls around, put a whip in my hand and I would get an immediate soft-on. I love BDSM, and I love to see a woman tied and punished, but I derive absolutely no pleasure from doing it myself.

---

I thought this was curious. I understand what you mean, I’m excited by seeing or reading about certain things that would never feel comfortable acting out. I guess it’s just good old-fashioned voyeurism.

Quote:

---

I don't doubt that you got this information from a credible source. However, psychologists have been theorizing causes for sexual preference for years... and every few years the old theories get changed.

---

No, I didn’t get this from a ‘credible source’. This is pure conjecture, as is much of what I post in here, unless otherwise stated.

Quote:

---

Remember when we all thought homosexuality was caused by bad parenting? How about the one that submissive females are like that only because they had been abused? Bull right? Well the same goes when people try to find environmental "reasons" for what turns me on.

---

Yes, I’m aware of those therories, and as far as I’m aware none has been proved or disproved, so with all due respect, I won’t go as far as saying they’re all ‘bull’, just yet.

Quote:

---

Does that mean that if I change careers to ditch digger I will stop wanting my nipples tortured? Lol.. Right.

---

You're probably quite right, but I don’t really know. I feel that as much as anything ‘power’ is often a matter of perception. Maybe some ditch diggers feel they hold responsible positions? And maybe they do -- at work, home, socially or where ever?

You’ve got me thinking it was rather narrow-minded of me to spruik on about men in high powered and highly paid positions. Many people are in position of responsibility, but not all necessarily highly paid or overly educated. I have a friend who has cared for his sickly mother for years, it’s a huge commitment, and I’m sure he often feels weighted down by the responsibility.

Quote:

---

As far as "macho" men looking down on sub males... in the real world this is really just vanilla males. Same ones who have weird ideas about BDSM in any form. As far as I've seen in the R/L BDSM community YKINMK means acceptance of everyone. All kinksters are on the "outside" so we don't judge each other.

---

I’m sure you’re right. My other half thinks I’m weird (but hopefully also wonderful) because I enjoy tying him down and giving it to him rough occasionally. I don’t go to munches or bdsm clubs, so obviously I’m not a part of any ‘community’. Amongst my (vanilla) peers, the mention of sexually submissive men/dominant women always draws sniggers and giggles, so that’s what I based my assumption on.

Quote:

---

Once again, this applies to anyone. Change the pronouns and you could be talking about a submissive female. What about a submissive lesbian or gay man... the theory still works?

---

I can’t argue with that. Submissive males just happened to be the topic of this particular thread.

Quote:

---

There is nothing humiliating about submission in a BDSM context. If a stranger walked up to me on the street and slapped me and told me to kneel I'd flip him/her the bird and walk away. Submission in my world is only by choice to the person I choose. Humiliation as a style of play, well that's another story, but not the same thing really IMO.

---

I think if a stranger walked up to you in the street and did anything of sexual nature, or anything that was not ‘socially acceptable’, you might react in much the same way. Don’t you think so?

You know ‘humiliation play’ is something I’m probably even more curious about than pain. I mean what is it about that kind of play that is so exciting? It’s like a very fine line between something totally degrading and yet so titillating – but why? What makes it so damned thrilling?

Quote:

---

Most of Freud's theories were... ground-breaking and forward-thinking back then, but certainly not the answers to the questions in psychology.

---

To me the human psyche is eternally intriguing. If some genius ever does discover all the answers I’m sure life will become very dull.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alex Bragi

You’ve raised some interesting points, and I like to be challenged to think outside my little square...

---

I think what made your post so good, actually is that it made me start spewing out my views. Mine are subjective in a different way, since I am a male sub. Subjective, lol... didn't intend any pun, but I just read the sentence and it made me chuckle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alex Bragi

You’ve got me thinking it was rather narrow-minded of me to spruik on about men in high powered and highly paid positions. Many people are in position of responsibility, but not all necessarily highly paid or overly educated. .

---

Probably not that narrow-minded. It's a theory I've heard before. In fact I thought about it for a long time. I spent the last 11 years as a college teacher, and I wondered about myself: if the theory was correct and that my out-going, dominant type of job made me want to submit in private.

After a lot of careful intropection I realized that I had had these feelings long before I was in that "position of power" so, based on my own experience, I tend to discount it.

Quote:

---

Yes, I’m aware of those therories, and as far as I’m aware none has been proved or disproved, so with all due respect, I won’t go as far as saying they’re all ‘bull’, just yet.

---

While hard to prove or disprove by any other means, I believe that both these two theories, similar in that they attribute a sexual preference to environmental causes, can be discounted due to straight up statistics. I can't find a reference right now, but I'm sure I've seen study results that say that the incidence of homosexuality doesn't correlate with abuse at home and something similar with SM leanings. Of course if I can't give you references I shouldn't really rely on my memory, but if I can find them I will add to this thread. Personally, I have always doubted the environmental theory as do most of the gays I've asked.

Quote:

---

To me the human psyche is eternally intriguing. If some genius ever does discover all the answers I’m sure life will become very dull.

---

Here here!

Thank you for a stimulating discourse! :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by csr

While hard to prove or disprove by any other means, I believe that both these two theories, similar in that they attribute a sexual preference to environmental causes, can be discounted due to straight up statistics. I can't find a reference right now, but I'm sure I've seen study results that say that the incidence of homosexuality doesn't correlate with abuse at home and something similar with SM leanings.

---

Sorry if I'm pontificating, but I'd like to chirp in on that. In 90% of cases where identical twins were separated at birth and one was homosexual, the other was homosexual, also. The remaining 10% is probably even smaller than shown as any that had surpressed their sexuality would fall into that group. If homosexuality is caused by bad parenting, it's only the case a small fraction of the time.

As for the theory that abuse leads to bdsm, yes, it sadly has yet to be researched. It's very sad, in fact, because it would be a terribly easy topic of research. It does appear quite likely to me that abuse leads to bdsm in at least some cases. It makes perfect sense from a psychological point of view, as children's brains are designed to mold themselves into what would best please their parents - a necessary survival instinct before laws forced parents to take care of their offspring. A form of Stockholm Syndrome could also occur in adulthood, even with no previous abuse. Of course, I may just be biased since I resemble that theory.


As for the main topic, I think it's a fading issue. The stastitical differences between men and women's brains have reduced enormously in the past 50 years, to completely nil in some effects, as men and women have more and more similar experiences in life. People are getting closer to being allowed to be individuals, to be different from one another, rather than slotted into two types that society pressures them to conform to. I don't think your male grandchildren will be forced to conform to an inflexible stereotype as males are today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duktig flicka

Sorry if I'm pontificating, but I'd like to chirp in on that. In 90% of cases where identical twins were separated at birth and one was homosexual, the other was homosexual, also.

---

Is this a common occurence? These researchers must have spent quite a while finding their study group...I don't know numbers, but identical twins are relatively rare, i'd imagine that identical twins separated at birth would be much more rare(I just keep thinking of the movie Parent Trap), and homosexuality is also far from being the majority, i just can't imagine that there are a lot of homosexual identical twins separated at birth out there.

That study either took a very long time or had a very small focus group. How on earth did they find these people? :confused:

Sorry for being terribly off topic, that just caught my eye as a rather difficult study to carry out. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duktig flicka

Sorry if I'm pontificating, but I'd like to chirp in on that. In 90% of cases where identical twins were separated at birth and one was homosexual, the other was homosexual, also. The remaining 10% is probably even smaller than shown as any that had surpressed their sexuality would fall into that group. If homosexuality is caused by bad parenting, it's only the case a small fraction of the time.

---

Firstly, you’re not ‘pontificating’; you’re sharing your thoughts,views and ideas, and from my point of view that’s very welcome.

Of the few studies I have read about identical twin, it’s been suggests that where one twin is homosexual between 52% and 55% of the others twins will be gay also. That’s interesting to me, because it’s still a much higher ratio than the general population. It would be interesting to see a study done with submissives (and dominants).

If the root cause of a sexual orientation is genetic, there’s almost no chance of changing a person’s orientation. If, however, the root cause is environmental, then you would have to say there’s a significant chance that the individual could change their orientation through therapy.

Many gays and lesbians believe that their genes cause their orientation; it's normal, natural, unchosen and unchangeable. Can we assume the same of bdsmers?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duktig flicka

As for the theory that abuse leads to bdsm, yes, it sadly has yet to be researched. It's very sad, in fact, because it would be a terribly easy topic of research. It does appear quite likely to me that abuse leads to bdsm in at least some cases. It makes perfect sense from a psychological point of view, as children's brains are designed to mold themselves into what would best please their parents - a necessary survival instinct before laws forced parents to take care of their offspring. A form of Stockholm Syndrome could also occur in adulthood, even with no previous abuse. Of course, I may just be biased since I resemble that theory.

---

Yes, I agree it does seem to make sense and that’s certainly something interesting to ponder, however, is bdsm truly abusive?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duktig flicka

As for the main topic, I think it's a fading issue. The stastitical differences between men and women's brains have reduced enormously in the past 50 years, to completely nil in some effects, as men and women have more and more similar experiences in life. People are getting closer to being allowed to be individuals, to be different from one another, rather than slotted into two types that society pressures them to conform to. I don't think your male grandchildren will be forced to conform to an inflexible stereotype as males are today.

---

Well, women’s brains are, in comparatively bigger than men’s, on a weight for weight ratio. I do, however, agree that the misconception that men are mentally superior or more capable has certainly faded.

As for the 'two different types' - men and women being 'equal' – we just aren't are we? Never have been. Never will be. And personally, I like it that way.

Take this recent case in Germany where police had to rescue a swimming pool attendant at a hen party after the bride-to-be tried to bully him into having sex. The woman, in her mid-twenties, trapped the man in a lost property office and then tried to undress him. The bride, who was perfectly sober at the time, told police: " I just wanted to fool around one last time before the wedding". A colleague outside heard the attendant’s shouts for help and called the police. She was later released after police told her: "Promise us you’ll be a good girl and drive straight home."
(Source: Bild newspaper)

Now, just think for a moment if she had been a he. If he had been the bridegroom trying to have a little hanky-panky with the female pool attendant, would he have gotten off with a slap on the bottom and told “… be a good boy and drive straight home”? I don’t think so.

No, men and women will never be equal… Viva la différence!

And, vistana, some of the most interesting posts I've read on this forum have been 'off topic'. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vistana

That study either took a very long time or had a very small focus group. How on earth did they find these people? :confused:

---

The study I'm referring to, which I believe is the most well-known, is A genetical study of male sexual orientation by Bailey & Pillard, 1991, which you can find in The Archives of General Psychiatry, 48, 1089-1096.

Homosexuals and identical twins are indeed rare, but the US has a big population. Most studies which serve to determine if something is genetic or not use this method. This particularly study included 794 pairs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alex Bragi

Of the few studies I have read about identical twin, it’s been suggests that where one twin is homosexual between 52% and 55% of the others twins will be gay also.

---

Bailey & Pillard found the 52% to be the number for non-identical twins. Maybe that's what you're thinking of, or maybe it's just a different study that came out differently, especially if it was conducted in a different country. Happens all the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alex Bragi

Many gays and lesbians believe that their genes cause their orientation; it's normal, natural, unchosen and unchangeable. Can we assume the same of bdsmers?

---

We can't assume anything in science! ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alex Bragi

Yes, I agree it does seem to make sense and that’s certainly something interesting to ponder, however, is bdsm truly abusive?

---

Apologies, I didn't mean to say that bdsm was abusive. Merely that abuse can lead towards a submissive or dominant nature. Whether or not bdsm is abusive was irrelevant to what I meant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alex Bragi

Well, women’s brains are, in comparatively bigger than men’s, on a weight for weight ratio. I do, however, agree that the misconception that men are mentally superior or more capable has certainly faded.

---

I think that was a typo. Men's brains are definitely bigger than women's in general. However, as far as we can see, this makes no difference to ability or personality. We've recently uncovered the bones of some three foot high people in Indonesia and they appear to have had nearly the same intelligence as the homosapiens of the day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alex Bragi

As for the 'two different types' - men and women being 'equal' – we just aren't are we? Never have been. Never will be. And personally, I like it that way.

---

Of course we aren't at the moment, as we still live in a society that treats men and women differently. However, we've made huge leaps in that direction in the past few decades, and unless something huge happens to turn us around, statistical differences between sexes should disappear soon. In the 50's, studies showed that women statistically far exceeded men in verbal and analytical abilities while men statistically exceeded in mathematical and mechanical abilities. The current studies show that those gaps have become very narrow over the years, and the math gap is completely gone until adulthood. Little girls nowadays are shown to play equally with trucks and dolls as long as an adult isn't interfering with the play. I could go on and on about the things that have changed, but I think I've made my point.

I personally don't like it that way at all anymore. I don't like conformity, and among the wide spectrum of personalities that could make up the human race, forcing them into just two inflexible types assigned to them by the shape of their crotch seems horribly oppressive to me. Such a waste of talent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alex Bragi

She was later released after police told her: "Promise us you’ll be a good girl and drive straight home."

---

I'm not sure what you're saying by posting this. Are you saying this is a good thing? Personally, I think that's horribly wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alex Bragi

No, men and women will never be equal… Viva la différence!

---

Now this I don't understand. It appears to me that you've been supporting pressuring men and women to suppress their individuality for the sake of conforming to a stereotype, then you turn around and say "Vive la difference." That appears very contradictory to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alex Bragi

Well, women’s brains are, in comparatively bigger than men’s, on a weight for weight ratio. I do, however, agree that the misconception that men are mentally superior or more capable has certainly faded.

---

Actually I believe that it is number of convolutions (folds in the grey matter) that determines intelligence. Unfortunately, the cranium would have to be opened and brain lifted out to count them, so no adding this to any pre-nups ;) .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ducktig

As for the theory that abuse leads to bdsm, ... It does appear quite likely to me that abuse leads to bdsm in at least some cases. It makes perfect sense from a psychological point of view, as children's brains are designed to mold themselves into what would best please their parents - a necessary survival instinct before laws forced parents to take care of their offspring. A form of Stockholm Syndrome could also occur in adulthood, even with no previous abuse. Of course, I may just be biased since I resemble that theory.

---

Interesting, but it makes sense that when there are two theories and neither proven, each of us will think the one that makes the most sense is the one that we could apply to ourself most easily. I have no history of abuse, physical or otherwise in my childhood... so for me I can't possibly imagine this to be an environment issue. For you it is the other way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alex Bragi

If the root cause of a sexual orientation is genetic, there’s almost no chance of changing a person’s orientation. If, however, the root cause is environmental, then you would have to say there’s a significant chance that the individual could change their orientation through therapy.

Many gays and lesbians believe that their genes cause their orientation; it's normal, natural, unchosen and unchangeable. Can we assume the same of bdsmers?

---

This is definitely the way I see it. You could force me to stop, but it wouldn't change the way I feel inside.

Now just like most of the gays I know, I celebrate my difference and enjoy the company of others who are like me. But... if I take a long step back, life really would be more convenient if I were "normal." Having a dirty little secret can often be a hassle for any of us. Hell, if I had to still be a BDSMer, it would be more convenient around here if I were dom rather than sub, to not feel like an outsider amonst the outsiders. But again like homosexuals, I really feel that I can't help being built the way I am.

In the biology vs. environment debate, here is an interesting article, including references:
http://www.geocities.com/southbeach/.../biobasis.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by csr

[COLOR=Indigo]
Interesting, but it makes sense that when there are two theories and neither proven, each of us will think the one that makes the most sense is the one that we could apply to ourself most easily. I have no history of abuse, physical or otherwise in my childhood... so for me I can't possibly imagine this to be an environment issue. For you it is the other way.

---

Oh, absolutely! Sorry, if I was unclear. I only meant to say that it made sense, in reply to the assertion that it was bull. I didn't intend to go so far as to say "It makes sense, so it must be true." That's a logical fallacy that I'm well aware of and try my damn hardest to avoid. We're all guilty of it, so thanks for calling me on it when it does happen!

I really think it's a crime against science that this hasn't been studied yet. I will rectify that once I reach grad school.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duktig flicka

I really think it's a crime against science that this hasn't been studied yet. I will rectify that once I reach grad school.

---

Good to hear! Things like this need to be studied properly, scientifically.

One point that was made in an article I was reading somewhere was that most of the theories about "abnormal" sexual practices were researched/developed by practicing psychologists. The subjects of study of course were their patients. If a person is seeking professional help, then it is because their BDSM tendencies, or whatever, are a problem to them. That means that the majority of BDSM practitioners who are quite happy with their lives come under the radar...leading to theories based on an unscientific sample.

I know this is kind of a sweeping claim, but I believe it may have some truth in it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alex Bragi

Well, women’s brains are, in comparatively bigger than men’s, on a weight for weight ratio.

---

What she's saying here is that women weigh about 75-80% of what men do, but their brains are more than 75-80% the size of a man's brain, so the brain weight:body weight ratio is bigger for women.

It has been proven that there's a brain structural difference between the brains of male homosexuals and male heterosexuals. Since recent research on other topics has shown that structural differences in the brain can be caused by environmental effects, this means that the nature vs. nurture agruement, which many had hoped was laid to rest a decade ago, is still undecided.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duktig flicka

I think that was a typo. Men's brains are definitely bigger than women's in general. However, as far as we can see, this makes no difference to ability or personality. We've recently uncovered the bones of some three foot high people in Indonesia and they appear to have had nearly the same intelligence as the homosapiens of the day.

---

It’s true you will often find typos in my posts, but no, that’s not one of them.

And, thanks, Curtis, that’s exactly what I mean. I can’t be sure but I think I read that in Germaine Greer’s book, The Female Eunich – so it must be true! ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duktig flicka

I'm not sure what you're saying by posting this. Are you saying this is a good thing? Personally, I think that's horribly wrong.

---

I’m an open-minded lady who can’t help but see the lighter side of most situations. I didn’t think it was a good or bad thing, just rather amusing, really. Didn’t little story at least make you smile just a little? Ok, so maybe I just have really warped sense of humour?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duktig flicka

Now this I don't understand. It appears to me that you've been supporting pressuring men and women to suppress their individuality for the sake of conforming to a stereotype, then you turn around and say "Vive la difference." That appears very contradictory to me.

---

I don’t understand what you don’t understand, or why or what, would cause you to think that? As a woman, I represent half of the human race. My body and mind function differently from men. And damn it, there’s just no question about it, I just love being a woman!

I embrace the differences between the sexes, but that doesn’t mean I’m ever likely to feel intellectually inferior or superior to men -- no way. And that doesn’t mean I’m can’t be, or that I’m not, very individual.

As for bdsmers and other harmless minority groups -- live and let live, is my motto.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by csr

Now just like most of the gays I know, I celebrate my difference and enjoy the company of others who are like me. But... if I take a long step back, life really would be more convenient if I were "normal." Having a dirty little secret can often be a hassle for any of us. Hell, if I had to still be a BDSMer, it would be more convenient around here if I were dom rather than sub, to not feel like an outsider amonst the outsiders. But again like homosexuals, I really feel that I can't help being built the way I am.

---

I feel that perhaps in many ways gays and lesbians have paved the way of other sexual minority groups. ‘Normal’, what does that really mean? It means simply that you happen to belong to the largest, and therefore most dominate, group.

It’s interesting that you say it would be easier if you were a Dom rather than a sub because I think that perhaps the exact opposite can be said of women. I suppose it’s because traditionally the man is seen as the aggressor, the physically stronger one who is the protector and provider to the physically weaker child bearing/rearing woman.

Whether I’m a result of my genes or my environment, I can’t help the way I am either. If I were a paedophile or necrophilia, I would suppress my needs and feelings. An individual’s sexually, providing it doesn’t involve engaging an innocent, or harming another, should be no one else business.

Oh, and by the way, just for the record, I’ve never been sexually, mentally or physically abused by anyone, and yet I can’t ever remember not being intrigued by sadomasochism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alex Bragi

And, thanks, Curtis, that’s exactly what I mean. I can’t be sure but I think I read that in Germaine Greer’s book, The Female Eunich – so it must be true!

---

Ah, I understand now! I took the word "comparatively" to mean simply "compared to men." Silly flicka. Thanks, Curtis!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alex Bragi

I’m an open-minded lady who can’t help but see the lighter side of most situations. I didn’t think it was a good or bad thing, just rather amusing, really. Didn’t little story at least make you smile just a little? Ok, so maybe I just have really warped sense of humour?

---

Well, what you described I could only define as rape, which I certainly don't find funny. Maybe I missed something huge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alex Bragi

I don’t understand what you don’t understand, or why or what, would cause you to think that? As a woman, I represent half of the human race. My body and mind function differently from men. And damn it, there’s just no question about it, I just love being a woman!

---

Sorry, I'm not sure what was wrong with what I said that it didn't make it clear what I meant. I'll try again.

"Vive la difference!" sounds to me like an expression in support of individuality and diversity. It appears to me that you support men and women having to supress their individuality to conform to stereotypes that are wholly unnatural, so I don't understand why you'd say such a phrase. I would have used that phrase to express support for individuality, not conformity.

In olden days, when women were pregnant for their whole lives, sure those stereotypes had a necessary function. But modern civilization and technology means we can be ourselves! We don't have to conform anymore! Isn't that a beautiful thing? Such a shame to waste it, I think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duktig flicka

"Vive la difference!" sounds to me like an expression in support of individuality and diversity. It appears to me that you support men and women having to supress their individuality to conform to stereotypes that are wholly unnatural, so I don't understand why you'd say such a phrase. I would have used that phrase to express support for individuality, not conformity.

In olden days, when women were pregnant for their whole lives, sure those stereotypes had a necessary function. But modern civilization and technology means we can be ourselves! We don't have to conform anymore! Isn't that a beautiful thing? Such a shame to waste it, I think.

---

According to what was written in the "Why the 24 Hour BDSM?" thread, it seems that you, too, believe that people, or women at least, should also conform to stereotypes. I believe it was you who wrote:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duktig flicka

EDIT: Just to add, another reason this is putting a strain on me is that many people have put forth that bdsm is anti-feminist. I usually argue with them that bdsm is simply a sexual fetish that has no reason to negatively affect an otherwise egalitarian relationship. My argument seems to fall flat on its face now and my level of comfort with bdsm is flitting away as I start to get nervous that I'm part of something oppressive.

---

It seems by that statement alone, that you believe woman should fit into a naturally assumed "role" established by feminists, and suppress their natural tendencies to submit or dominate, depending on the situation and how you choose to view feminism.

Modern civilization and technology mean we can be ourselves, and that we don't have to conform??? You don't really believe that, do you? If anything, we are under more pressure now than ever to act like and look like everyone else thinks we should. Just using your feminism example once again should prove that, at least.

As I have mentioned in my "Attack of the Clones" thread and in my "The Absurdity of Things" thread, people are expected to conform these days. Men are expected to be subservient to women now. Women are expected to be "empowered." Everyone is expected to maintain someone else's idea of beauty. Even on a smaller scale, we're expected to wear the "right" clothes, have the "right" job, engage in "normal" sex, and use the "right hygeine products.

If being even remotely involved in the BDSM/kink lifestyle should have taught you one thing the very first time you ever had a spanking, or you were tied down to have sex, it's that WE are the non-conformists. Not the feminists, not the religious right, not the politicians.

We stand in rebellion with other groups like leather fetishists, crossdressers, gays, trans-sexuals, and other "abnormal" minorities. We are the ones that are rebelling against the societal norms now.

Feminists may preach that a woman is an idiot to "give up her power and submit," but that just shows the ignorance of the feminist way of thinking. The submissive is, and always has been, the one with the real power in a BDSM relationship. It is on HER (gender specification used to prove this point) word that any scene stops immediately. It is on HER word that a contract is agreed. It is on HER word that her limits are set. The submissives have the power, regardless of sex. The "giving up of power and control" is only assumed by the nature of the relationship. The actuality of the situation is much, much different.

So, I do not agree that we are expected to be individuals in this day and age. We are supposed to be replicas of one another in body, thought, and deed, and the people that are shaping us are the "normal" groups. If we were supposed to be individuals, we'd actually think for ourselves, wouldn't we?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duktig flicka

Well, what you described I could only define as rape, which I certainly don't find funny. Maybe I missed something huge.

---

Yes, I think you may have missed something. “ .. she tried to bully him into having sex”… and ‘..she tried to undress him..” Re-read the post -- there was definitely no rape invovled or mentioned.

I guess when I read about that case, it conjured up an image of this big burly man (I mean he’s a pool attendant and they’re always big hunky spunks of men aren’t they?) and this little sex starved bride (I mean she was determined) trying to seduce him. Now, let’s not beat about the bush here, if a man doesn’t want to have sex (Oh, geez doesn’t that sound like an oxymoron?) he’s not going to, is he? 99% of the time he’s going to be physically stronger, especially in this case, and to be blunt, if his cock isn’t ready – neither is he.

So, that’s what made it amusing for me. Ok? You didn't find it amusing? Well, that's ok too. We are, after all, all individuals.

I did heard of case many years ago, also in Germany, where a devote Christian teenage boy was seduced, and possibly ‘raped’ by a much older woman, but that was a completely different set of circumstances. It was of course very sad that someone's believes could be disrespected and voilated like that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duktig flicka

"Vive la difference!" sounds to me like an expression in support of individuality and diversity. It appears to me that you, so I don't understand why you'd say such a phrase. I would have used that phrase to express support for individuality, not conformity.

---

Yes, you have read that correctly, it is an expression in support of individuality and diversity, and particularly, I often like to use it in reference to the delightful differences between men and women.

But where, oh where, exactly, did you read or get the idea that I ‘ … support men and women having to suppress their individuality to conform to stereotypes that are wholly unnatural’? That’s just plain nuts! I support no such thing. Unless I’ve made a complete and utter stuff up of part of one of my postings, I think you may have misread or misunderstood something here.

I do often use a juxapostions of ideas to invoke discussion, however, I would have thought my opinions were always quite clear.

Tourguide,

Isn't it an individual's right to conform and be the same as everyone else? ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alex Bragi

Tourguide,

Isn't it an individual's right to conform and be the same as everyone else? ;)

---

It depends on whose posts you're reading. :)

At the request of someone who shall remain nameless, I've looked back through this thread and picked out every allusion of Alex's that seems to pertain to conforming, norms or individuality.

"I mean, we are talking about the male species here, aren’t we?"

"Psychologists theorise that individuals who reject their own sexual needs, because of feeling of guilt that they’re out of the ‘norm’, often suffer greatly reduced self esteem, resulting in repression, depression, and oppression -- not so for the sexually submissive male." (you missed 'suppression')

"But it’s not just woman who have changed. Men are not longer shackled by their traditional and ego-driven gender/sexual identification -- and surely that’s a good thing."

"I would have to agree male submission does have less of a stigma these days, as do gays and lesbians, and many other minority groups as we evolve and become a more open-minded lot."

"Whether, or not men and women will ever be completely ‘equal’? I don’t think so. Personally, I think we are much too different psychologically. Obviously, very physically different too, and – Vi va la différence!"

"As for the 'two different types' - men and women being 'equal' – we just aren't are we? Never have been. Never will be. And personally, I like it that way."

"As a woman, I represent half of the human race. My body and mind function differently from men. And damn it, there’s just no question about it, I just love being a woman!"

"I embrace the differences between the sexes, but that doesn’t mean I’m ever likely to feel intellectually inferior or superior to men -- no way. And that doesn’t mean I’m can’t be, or that I’m not, very individual."

(by CSR) "But... if I take a long step back, life really would be more convenient if I were 'normal.'"

(response by Alex) "‘Normal’, what does that really mean? It means simply that you happen to belong to the largest, and therefore most dominate, group."

"It’s interesting that you say it would be easier if you were a Dom rather than a sub because I think that perhaps the exact opposite can be said of women. I suppose it’s because traditionally the man is seen as the aggressor, the physically stronger one...."

So, what does our aggrieved and put-upon reader draw from this exercise in cut-and-paste? My conclusion is that Alex does believe in 'norms' -- to be specific, two of them. In these examples she clearly demonstrates a belief in a normal man and a normal woman, but she also says that men (at least) who unnaturally conform to their norm suffer from a whole string of '-pression's, which seems to argue that, while she believes in the existence of these norms, she doesn't necessarily believe that they're good things.

Now, if that's settled, may we please return to debating Alex's questionable original premise that men who wish to be taken care of are sexually submissive? That seems to me to be more of a passive/aggressive trait, and I wouldn't think of a p/a person as being submissive, sexually or otherwise. And what does it have to do with sex at all? If it's any form of submission wouldn't it be psychological, rather than sexual? Honestly, you people, I can't believe you let THAT slide by!

Out of respect to Alex I have not said anything on this topic. When I was much younger 13 and so horny I would hump a doorknob. I often had fantasies of being tied up at the power of a stronger woman, I got better.

Now I have fantasies of tying up the stronger woman. Do I think male submissive are wimps, Well I don't know. I wouldn't say wimp is the right word. However macho man is not it either.

There is a difference when it comes to male and female subversives. Most Females could be easily subdued and conquered. A Male if push came to shove could grab the whip out of a Mistress hand and beat her bloody with it. The point is he submits out of choice.

If he chooses to submit then that would take an inner strength. That I do not poses. If a little 90 pound pixy with a whip tried to beat me with it and make me crawl on the ground like a dog. I dont think she would have a very good day. She would definitely end up in mobys dungeon.

If it turns there crank then so be it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Curtis

So, what does our aggrieved and put-upon reader draw from this exercise in cut-and-paste? My conclusion is that Alex does believe in 'norms' -- to be specific, two of them. In these examples she clearly demonstrates a belief in a normal man and a normal woman, but she also says that men (at least) who unnaturally conform to their norm suffer from a whole string of '-pression's, which seems to argue that, while she believes in the existence of these norms, she doesn't necessarily believe that they're good things.

---

Interesting conclusion. It's amazing what a person says when half their speech is removed. I'll bet I could cut and paste and allow the gentle reader to reach somewhat different conclusions...

What Alex really means is:

"How many of your men out there crave to"

"rescue a swimming pool attendant" ?



"Yes, you have read that correctly, "

"I’m excited by seeing or reading about"

"necrophilia" !



"Oh, and by the way, just for the record, I’ve never been "

"raped’ by a much older woman"



"Isn't it an individual's right "

"to belong to "

"a devote Christian teenage boy "?



"My other half thinks "

"I’m not, very individual. "



"But where, oh where, exactly, did you read or get the idea that I "

"seek sexual punishment in order to "

"be the same as everyone else? "



"Many gays and lesbians believe that "

"Curtis,"

"The Female Eunich"

"can’t help but see the lighter side of most situations."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Curtis

Now, if that's settled, may we please return to debating Alex's questionable original premise that men who wish to be taken care of are sexually submissive? That seems to me to be more of a passive/aggressive trait, and I wouldn't think of a p/a person as being submissive, sexually or otherwise. And what does it have to do with sex at all? If it's any form of submission wouldn't it be psychological, rather than sexual? Honestly, you people, I can't believe you let THAT slide by!

---

In all seriousness, I don't believe that was the premise at all. In the original post, I took it that she was questioning the motivation for men who ARE sexually submissive--those who derive erotic pleasure from submitting. She in fact postulated that this was a release for men who are dominant and/or powerful in other areas.

Thank you for your overview, Curtis. Yes, little Alex does believe in ‘norms’. Normal, and norms, by their very definition exist. If I didn’t acknowledge ‘norms’ I wouldn’t be normal, would I? :D

Quote:

---

Out of respect to Alex I have not said anything on this topic. When I was much younger 13 and so horny I would hump a doorknob. I often had fantasies of being tied up at the power of a stronger woman, I got better.

---

You know I found this post of yours extremely interesting on a number of levels.

I, too, had submissive fantasies when I was younger. Now, in my late twenties, I’m finding I fantasise more and more about being dominant. I had rather assumed that I was just discovering my latent switch side.

What do you feel caused these changes? Was it a gradual process, maybe during puberty? Or, was it a particular incident that jolted you into dominance?

And what do you mean ‘…I got better’? Surely you meant to type ‘it’ got better? :p

Quote:

---

Now I have fantasies of tying up the stronger woman. Do I think male submissive are wimps, Well I don't know. I wouldn't say wimp is the right word. However macho man is not it either.

---

Not wimps or macho men? I agree. They’re just individuals who are free of social pressures to act out a ‘normal’ and typical male role, who are happily pursuing their own sexual fantasies and needs. :)

Quote:

---

There is a difference when it comes to male and female subversives.

---

Absolutely, yes! But that’s a whole new topic.

Quote:

---

Most Females could be easily subdued and conquered. A Male if push came to shove could grab the whip out of a Mistress hand and beat her bloody with it. The point is he submits out of choice.

---

That’s why it’s call ‘power exchange’, and that, I’m sure, is what makes it so damned exciting for male and female submissives alike. It would be plain rape, slavery, and debauchery otherwise, wouldn’t it? I’ve often heard the expression ‘gift of submission’ in reference to bdsm. That’s exactly what submission is – a gift.

Quote:

---

If he chooses to submit then that would take an inner strength. That I do not poses. If a little 90 pound pixy with a whip tried to beat me with it and make me crawl on the ground like a dog. I dont think she would have a very good day. She would definitely end up in mobys dungeon.

---

And that’s exactly why ‘she’ wouldn’t do it – because you wouldn’t ‘enjoy’ it. There’s got to be something in it for both parties or it’s just simply not bdsm in my view. Of course, 'she' might enjoy a little time in Moby's dungeon. ;)


And, csr, thanks for making me smile. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mobius

I often had fantasies of being tied up at the power of a stronger woman, I got better.

---

Ah... so you were sick at the time... or mentally ill, probably deranged?

Keep in mind that there are many out there who would say:

"I used to have fantasies of punishing submissive women, just like that Mobius guy, but then I got better."

Your kink is okay, but I am sick? Correct me if I'm mis-reading your post. :straight: