Naturally A Fem Domme (Full Version)

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



Message

Esinn -> Naturally A Fem Domme (8/20/2009 10:41:29 PM)

I was asked my thoughts on male 'supremacy'. She had said she felt it was the males role to lead, command and take the reigns(so to speak).  Then she brought up, "love honor and obey".

My premise was, "Men are naturally dominant, this is how we evolved - "it is hard wired".  I went on a brief rant in agreement about biology, patriarchal societies and nature.

I am a Dom male and I agreed; evolution: males led tribes, we are hard wired.   It has been echoed throughout history.

Then I thought about it, talked to a few others(thanks).  I know I could top someone with another female and view her as my equal.  I am rethinking this, I could view a woman top as an equal(or more) during scene and respect the their role every time...  The point there is I am not sexist.

Anyone?  What is the question, right?  Although there is variation I think we are hardwired for a M/f roles.  In homosexual relationships there is still a partner who evolves into a dominant role, one which could traditionally described as male. 

I am typing out loud - sorry.



lilboycaught -> RE: Naturally A Fem Domme (8/21/2009 12:16:58 AM)

You're 100  percent right in your observations.  Men are freakin' inbred to lead; to make decisions and go with them.  And not only is there nothing wrong with that, I think that's just the way god meant it to be.  That having been said, some of us were born to function our best in a female-led relationship.  I know it sounds wimpy but guys who live this lifestyle are usually pretty happy and don't question their masculinity. 



traceoflace -> RE: Naturally A Fem Domme (8/21/2009 1:03:56 AM)

This is not actually true.  There have been many historical women who have been leaders going back to egyptian times.  one of the first gods people actually worshiped was a female goddess named Inyana.  It really wasn't until christianity kicked in that you see a huge jump in male tribal control.



LadyPact -> RE: Naturally A Fem Domme (8/21/2009 2:18:05 AM)

So, basically, your theory is that you are a dominant because you have a dick.

Thanks for sharing.



LillyoftheVally -> RE: Naturally A Fem Domme (8/21/2009 2:22:59 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Esinn
The point there is I am not sexist.


I love lines like this, a bit like im not racist but... not offense but ...

Anywho Esinn, the only thing I agree with in your post is that there is always some form of power dynamic in relationships. Other than that its all rubbish. Firstly the whole biological argument is very questionable, socialisation happens post birth. I think what you actually need to do is look up anthropology, look at some eastern cultures, then come back to me and tell me men are naturally leaders. Patriarchy is a system in the west, but it isnt the only system in the world, and indeed you hold a rather blinkered view.

Therefore I am going to agree, you aren't sexist just ignorant.



MsFlutter -> RE: Naturally A Fem Domme (8/21/2009 3:11:50 AM)

Lashra already said it best --> "A penis is not criteria for dominance"



Cloudz -> RE: Naturally A Fem Domme (8/21/2009 3:36:27 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

So, basically, your theory is that you are a dominant because you have a dick.

Thanks for sharing.



Nicely done LadyPact.



stella41b -> RE: Naturally A Fem Domme (8/21/2009 3:44:08 AM)

Personally I'm more inclined to believe that a person is dominant or not based on their inner nature and the choices they make regarding their own behaviour and way of interacting with others rather than what gender they are. I'd even suggest that childhood experiences would be a much greater influence than gender.



DarkSteven -> RE: Naturally A Fem Domme (8/21/2009 3:56:58 AM)

Y'know, Esinn, I wish you hadn't used the term "equal" to describe another whom you neither Dom not sub to.  But AFAIK, there is no work in kinkdom to express that.

I get two main ideas from your post:

1. You have a hard time accepting a woman in an equal or "superior" role (again with the language) but are working on it.
2. Men have been in charge for the most part since primitive civilizations (no argument there) and therefore there must be some inherent biological reason men are designed to be in control (which I disagree with).

I'm going to punt on your second point and focus on the first from my perspective.

I find it natural to take charge with people that I know.  To give an example, I am on good terms with an ex sub who is now submitting to someone else, and find that I still suggest things (of course, I now phrase it as "You may want to check with your Master and see if he'd want you to do XXX.")

I don't try to lead people that I don't know. 



subtlebutterfly -> RE: Naturally A Fem Domme (8/21/2009 4:23:17 AM)

*finds Dark Steven oh so sesssay when he begins analyzing and correcting ppl*


...gonna call ya Mr. Bulb Bright from now on[:D]



CypherEnigma -> RE: Naturally A Fem Domme (8/21/2009 4:31:48 AM)

What say you ( orinial poster) to the situation of the thousands of single moms who run families and survive just fine without men? Why dont you consider personality as the main factor? It would be intersting to know if you have a female boss at work and how you relate to her. A dick is not required to have a dominant personality. Yes the american culture traditionally places the man at the head of the table.. but it is not the 50s anymore and women can do the exact same things as men can do. When you think of it.. you would not be here but for a woman.



OrionTheWolf -> RE: Naturally A Fem Domme (8/21/2009 4:40:58 AM)

Actually LadyPact this theory is correct. Many males are aggressive and have a conquering nature when presented with things they want. Now no one said they were good leaders, dominants or anything else, but biologically and sociologically males are wired to conquer and defend. This does not mean all, and it does not exclude women from being in a leadership role.

Now much of this biological wiring is getting males into trouble, as we move forward and the hunter/gatherer/protector is no longer needed as much. Many do not know how to channel these energies. There is also the biological imperative in males to spread their seed (think with their dick) so dominant sex role strategies may change to a different procreation strategy.

Where some get confused is the differences in male supremacy and patriarchy, and there are definite differences. The former states males are superior in most if not all ways, and the second is gender based leadership but also includes a Duty of Care (it is this last part that many males have skipped out on).

Now as technology makes larger muscle mass, aggressive actions, and killer instincts less needed and desirable, women are making a leap forward to make our society more egalitarian. The reason for this is that females are wired to handle the social arena better than most males. This is a key to many things in society today.

Personally I believe there is a need for both, and it is the unity of the two that not only keeps the species going biologically (procreation) but makes for a good and sound relationship. One of the studies I read on Human Behavioral Evolution used the terms masculine personality and feminine personality, which those terms would be more accurate when not applied along gender lines.

In conclusion, my points are that being male makes it more likely you have a more dominant personality, but that is not guarantee that a male is a good leader.


quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

So, basically, your theory is that you are a dominant because you have a dick.

Thanks for sharing.




SomethingCatchy -> RE: Naturally A Fem Domme (8/21/2009 7:15:32 AM)

I refuse to except that men are 'naturally prone' to leadership when throughout history they've had to use brute force and violence to become 'leaders'. Murdering others so that he's in the lead? No, that doesn't sound like leadership, it sounds like blood thirsty jealousy and the desire to be the best at all costs.

And lets not forget the sense of entitlement that a lot of male 'leaders' had. Being born into a leadership position (chief or kings song) is nothing special, and being a wife who couldn't produce a male offspring was seen as degrading to his name. A female child was overlooked because ... GASP she didn't have a penis!

Men have been crude and violent throughout humanities existence. Please don't mistake the way men acted before with their natural ability to destroy things as being dominance or leadership.

EDITED for typos



LaTigresse -> RE: Naturally A Fem Domme (8/21/2009 7:26:55 AM)

Another thing to consider, sort of in keeping with what Orion already pointed out, being dominant in personality is sometimes, a detriment to being a good leader. Especially if you have an insecure dominant person.

When a person, male or female, has a dominant personality but huge insecurities, it creates major problems. She or he, may be unable to cope with criticism, regardless of how well intended or worded. They may be unable to ask advice, or for help. They may think that by their very nature, they should be followed, even when they are a completely incompetent, ass. I hazard a guess that the prison system is full of dominant personalities but very few, if any, are worthy of being a leader.

I've seen hundreds of examples of the above. It makes the great leaders, that are dominant, shine by comparison.

Dominant is only a personality trait. No more, no less.



Lashra -> RE: Naturally A Fem Domme (8/21/2009 7:37:09 AM)

I do not believe in male supremacy, I do not believe either gender is supreme. Most males have become leaders not through dominance but through violence. Whereas many a woman who is dominant would rather lead through inspiration, many male leaders have led through fear, using violence, rape and treachery to attain their top dog status. This is not to say that women are not capable of violence, we surely are, but males are more prone to use it.

Frankly bigger and stronger does not make a better leader. If a big strong guy has rocks for brains he isn't much use as a leader, unless of course all you seek to do is to scare people. Eventually a David will come to this Goliath and we all know what happened there. Yes women maybe smaller (in some cases) but that does not make us second place to the males. I know some very aggressive females who would not hesitate to take a guy on in a fight. But most women would rather not fight, its more logical not to get phyiscal. It is better to work out the problems verbally, that is a big difference between women and most men.

If you really exam history you will find it is full of falsehoods and most of those were done because men wrote the history books. If you also exam history with an open mind you will see that men have constantly struggled to keep women uneducated and under boot. Why is this? If men are superior to us then why try to keep us down? FEAR. Fear of the female because she is the giver of life spmething a male can never do, fear of the female because she has the most profound effect upon her children and their views, fear that women have a great deal of control over the world.

Yes there have been some very powerful women in leadership roles, most of these women you do not read about in books or if you do it is a short blurb. Women were hunters, women were warriors, women are builders in society. Leadership comes naturally to a woman as most of us lead our families, even though society would rather it be said that the male "wears the pants". In most cases that is not true if you really exam things.

Just my two cents, your mileage may vary.

~Lashra



DesFIP -> RE: Naturally A Fem Domme (8/21/2009 7:57:13 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

So, basically, your theory is that you are a dominant because you have a dick.

Thanks for sharing.



Has or is?

Not to mention that the theory that males are always meant to lead would actually work out that no society containing more than one male could exist. Since men are capable of working in groups, the theory holds no water.

Of course it would if you were a lion or a bear. But it doesn't hold for people. And yes, you are sexist.



Tantriqu -> RE: Naturally A Fem Domme (8/21/2009 8:19:52 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

So, basically, your theory is that you are a dominant because you have a dick.

Thanks for sharing.



[sm=rofl.gif]
[sm=cheering.gif][sm=highfive.gif]



DiurnalVampire -> RE: Naturally A Fem Domme (8/21/2009 8:24:51 AM)

Anyone?  What is the question, right?  Although there is variation I think we are hardwired for a M/f roles.  In homosexual relationships there is still a partner who evolves into a dominant role, one which could traditionally described as male. 

And in nontraditional relationships, there are Females who take that traditional male role, and males that take the traditional female one. People forget about Matriarchial Communities. There were women as leaders, there are women that are stronger. Funny how history tends to lean to the male side in its recording.



Andalusite -> RE: Naturally A Fem Domme (8/21/2009 8:37:38 AM)

I think it's a load of hooey. I'm currently a slave, was a submissive in my last relationship, and was previously a Domme and in various egalitarian kinky relationships. It has nothing to do with gender, just how I react to the individual person. Orion, I think there may very well be a higher percentage of Dominant men than women, or of men with dominant personality but no interest in D/s, but that doesn't have anything to do with an individual's D/s inclinations or personality. Far more men than women are interested in football (much stronger correlation to gender than dominance in either sense), but some women do like it, and plenty of men don't.



DemonKia -> RE: Naturally A Fem Domme (8/21/2009 8:58:43 AM)

FR, after read thru

Um, actually, our pre-historic hunter-gatherer ancestors probably lived in much more egalitarian power structures than is suggested by the kinda he-man knuckle-dragger scenario sketched out in the OP . . . . . Agrarian cultures tend to have both more strongly polarized gender-role expectations & power disparities than do hunter-gatherer cultures, & since history is mostly composed of the stories of agrarian peoples, this can unduly influence the viewer's perspective . . . . .

Uh, also, much of what we're discussing when we say 'male versus female' is really about 'masculinized brains' as opposed to 'feminized brains', which can be in bodies of the 'wrong' type . . . . . For instance, I have a relatively 'masculinized' brain, for a woman -- many of the typically masculine cognitive / personality traits are very strong in me & many of the typically feminine are remarkably absent . . . . . A significant portion of the population contains a blend of 'masculine' & 'feminine' & the more extreme characteristic holders (on either end of the fem / masc distribution) are probably in the minority . . ..

There's also something tickling my mind about how the social space we inhabit is very proscriptive about gender roles & displays (not as much as in our cultural past, but still), especially with regards to men & masculinity, which, in my eyes, strongly colors these discussions. Essentially, it's preferentially 'socially safe' to be a strongly masculinized man & veering out of that space is dangerous, emotionally, socially, physically . . .. This can be particularly seen around the issue of homosexuality, but it's true for hetero guys, too . . . . . .

& thus discussions of gender role expectations are colored by the centrifugal forcings of 'mandatory hyper-genderification' (to coin a messy term) . . . . .



Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875