Sometimes it feels like its in my nature. When I kneel before a man, undress before him, lie back and spread my legs to ease his access to me, when I take his cock into my mouth, when He penetrates Me, it all feels like it is a given, natural interplay between the sexes that we act out again and again. I constantly perform these acts which as natural symbols all say the same thing: I am the passive recipient, I am the penetratetee so to say, I am the submissive.
And mind you, this is just in regular vanilla sexplay. Variations of the kind that is played out by the great majority of men and women everywhere in the world.
When the physical construction of men and womens bodies means that sexual acts are performed in a way so loaded with symbolism, it seems reasonable to ask the question: Are women by nature submissive to men?
Has this eternal division of the sexes between the taker and the taken, had the consequence that women are at least more predisposed towards submissive feelings?
Everywhere else in nature males fight each other over the right to mate with the female who submits to the winner. Is the human being the only animal that is different?
I do absolutely agree with those who say that you can find individual women (and men) who seem to disprove the assertion that women are submissive, but does individual cases tell you anything other than the obvious: there are always variations in behaviour! In all animals!
The perhaps proper way to put it is: Is there a greater disposition for submission in females than in males?
My answer is yes. And i am perfectly happy with that.
What's your answer?
Abonner på:
Legg inn kommentarer (Atom)
I think dominance/submission is a natural spectrum that comes from us being primates with social hierarchies… and has to exist in some measure, or at least potentially exist, in every human… the alpha male this week might be overthrown and need to submit to the new king the next week. So, dominance/submission is something that, strictly speaking, isn’t always about sex… yes, the alpha male got more mating opportunities, but most often it was about male-to-male competition and social climbing, and yes, the top dog is almost always a male because of physical strength, it’s not the case that the lowliest Omega Male outranks the Alpha Female, so when we do D/s we’re just mixing in a separate facet of humanity with our sex drives.
SvarSlettThere’s a strong correlation between sexual dimorphism and non-monogamy in the great apes, male gorillas are much bigger than females, and keep harems. The more equal-sized, the more perfectly monogamous the ape is… humans exist in this awkward point where we’re slightly sexually dimorphic and slightly non-monogamous… that doesn’t stop men from trying to indulge their inner gorilla whenever they can get away with it (e.g. the most prolific father in our recorded history is Sultan Ishmail the Bloodythirsty of Morocco), but in general, over the long run, that’s not stable for a society (e.g. the only way polygamous Mormon compounds survive is the older men in charge expel most of the boys who are hitting puberty and becoming competition), so in the mean, humans are monogamous, or at least nominally monogamous… and that has a lot to do with our increasing intelligence --- as human brains grew, childbirth got more risky, human births are by far the most dangerous of any mammals… and we basically maxed out in brain size to where it’s physically possible for the child to pass through the pelvis during birth… and part of this brain growth is ‘neuroplasticity’, e.g. we have to be taught and trained to do stuff much more than relying on inborn instincts, end result - children grew more helpless and in need of more parenting, contrary to the Homer Simpson stereotype of modern fatherhood, human males became more involved in parenting… they had to… “wham, bam, thank you ma’am” no longer worked if you wanted to be sure your genes propagated in surviving offspring… males were lured into being providers, but in the process became even more territorial about their mates (so they wouldn’t be cockholded and tricked into providing for a child that wasn’t really theirs)…
The psychological wiring is still in us today, guys get much more jealous, murderously so, over the physical act of cheating (e.g. potential that the next baby isn’t going to be theirs) while women get more jealous about the emotional aspect of cheating (e.g. potential withdrawal of parenting support from the male), even if there is no longer a rational basis for it (birth control, child support laws, etc.), I admire the people who try to make polyamory work, I don’t think any rational analysis can say these jealousies aren’t counter-productive, but it’s also true that we do have a pair-bonding instinct that’s parallel to our sex drives, that the nuclear family is in some sense ‘natural’ (just not ordained by a God like social conservatives would have it).
SvarSlettBecause of that neuroplasticity thing, it’s always tricky to tease out what is ‘natural’/eternal and what’s just social convention and training that can change over time… I do think the mating game was never always about the strongest, most dominant man getting all the girls, other factors like intelligence were always in play, and especially since the industrial revolution, raw strength and size has mattered less and less, and not coincidentally, women have gained more power in society, including, nominally, equal rights (in some parts of the world)… and I fully agree with that, I’m never going to be one of those Gorean types who thinks that just because he’s a maledom and likes the idea of femsubs, and there’s a lot of history weighing in on the side of male’s owning females, etc, that that is the natural and proper order of things… I just try to reconcile being both a feminist and a maledom as best as I can and thank my lucky stars that there are femsubs in the world for me to play with.
I do agree with your point that, anatomically, maledom/femsub seems to work a lot better than femdom/malesub, although admittedly that is an ill-informed and inexperienced view.