|
Post by Lou on Jan 13, 2010 10:42:46 GMT -5
Hi Lou, I must say your answers are always mind opening. Thanks Is there opposition to be found or is it a whole new setup entirely? Hi jedi, Sexual opposition is a tool...to say the least! ;D but only on these lower levels. That will have to do in 3d lingo The higher up we travel the more input we have.
|
|
|
Post by Lou on Jan 13, 2010 11:03:05 GMT -5
Hi Lou, I don't know where it was, but recently I thought I read where you said that domination was a perversion of sorts. Yet, it seems to me that this is what most women look for in a sexual partner. Does that mean that women are perverted and basically perpetuating that perversion by insisting that the men they choose for sexual partners be dominant in some way? Hi noface, Playful domination prevails in many sexual acts/relationships/activities and is harmless. Some people crave being abused and dominated due to situations in their past lives that may have been horrific. They may be attempting to undo some of that horror and turn it into something pleasurable during this life. All of us are here to undue or add something to what we are as we move through existence. Sex and other things we muddle through are simply ingredients/tools used in the kitchen where we are the only cooks creating our own recipes of what we ultimately will be. Sex gets way too much press and means little in the big picture of life. Integrity in all we do is the heavy weight, the bottom line, and our key ingredient.
|
|
|
Post by noface on Jan 13, 2010 15:01:50 GMT -5
Hi Starlight, "So far," it seems to me that men are just creating domination-based identities because women have taught them that is what women are attracted to. If women were actually attracted to kind honest souls with integrity that is exactly what men would be. I think women, in general not you, are lying to themselves. Women lack integrity as much as men and often opt for and promote the easy route - neanderthalism - over love. Men basically jump through hoops distorting who they really are in order to find sex, or love. Guys you mentioned, who are kind honest souls, tend to not get the girls, in general. So, guys develop and wear false dominating "identities" to impress females, based on what females themselves let men know they are attracted to. Guys aren't in control, it's what women desire that is runnning the show. Men desire to get women, in general. This is why men behave the way they do. Like peacocks, pun intended. Freud proved that our desire nature overpowers our ability to reason almost every time. This is why he felt neanderthal-like chaos was inevitable and that the masses have to be "ruled-civilized", even if they don't know it. I agree. For quite awhile now I see what most people consider strength to actually be motivated by fearful weakness and lack of integrity. Often there is simply no need for the displays of domination and "strength" other than the egoic need to impress others - peacocking. I get ya'. Guys are just trying to impress women, either in the real world, or in their imagination. For this reason they are practicing domination techniques to develop an identity that would impress women, even when women are nowhere around. Then, they try to convince themselves that they truly are the dominating individual they are pretending to be. As you can imagine, confusion is the result. And now women are trying to emulate how men behave. Yikes!
|
|
|
Post by noface on Jan 13, 2010 15:05:04 GMT -5
As somebody who has been with women who like it "dominant wild and rough (no hurting)" I would say its not perverted at all lol the whole point of the thread was that sex isnt sinful if 2 people who care about each other want to have some wild fun in the bedroom more power to them. Sex is for our enjoyment so there is no need to be a prude about it I believe that was the gist of the Original Post by Lou. Having lived on the road in a few rock bands when I was your age and younger, I'm hardly a prude, azrael.
|
|
|
Post by noface on Jan 13, 2010 15:08:19 GMT -5
Some people crave being abused and dominated due to situations in their past lives that may have been horrific. They may be attempting to undo some of that horror and turn it into something pleasurable during this life. All of us are here to undue or add something to what we are as we move through existence. Sex and other things we muddle through are simply ingredients/tools used in the kitchen where we are the only cooks creating our own recipes of what we ultimately will be. Sex gets way too much press and means little in the big picture of life. Integrity in all we do is the heavy weight, the bottom line, and our key ingredient. Interesting twist and helpful as always.
|
|
|
Post by Starlight on Jan 14, 2010 5:02:34 GMT -5
Yes Noface, I agree with you totally, except maybe that "women are running the show" Many women feel it's the other way around. Very well expressed all you have said though. I guess it just depends on the individual. It's very difficult for either of the sex's to understand the others psyche . That was my knee jerk reaction to reading your post (mostly cause I personally can't bare anyone trying to dominate me). My pixie land statements were a bit foolish. it'd be nice though, wouldn't it.
And of course, Lou's words make it all seem to make some sort of sense. Thanks.
Stella.
|
|
|
Post by noface on Jan 14, 2010 12:36:41 GMT -5
Hi Starlight, I know, that's the funny thing about it. They aren't conscious of the fact that guys are just doing what they think women want. Guys only are the way they are because that's what women are telling them (mostly subconsciously) they are attracted to. In my opinion, if women want good kind souls, as they say (this is where I think they are lying to themselves), women are going to have to become more conscious of why and who they are choosing for mates. Yeah, of course you are right and this is just my view of the situation. With that said, every women I talk to about this kind of stuff can't stand the idea of being dominated, yet they choose the most dominating assholes for partners. That was the very quality that they found attractive. Then they wonder why they are so miserable because the guy always treats them as a less than. In his mind (probably subconsciously) he's thinking, "If I don't keep up this domination routine she won't like me anymore." Unfortunately, he might be right. Not at all foolish and it would be nice. I can hear his annoying "It's all for a good reason" as I type this right now. ;D
|
|
|
Post by tommyknockers on Jan 14, 2010 21:08:28 GMT -5
I think we may be over thinking this topic a bit. Frankly its starting to reek of Darwinism in here. The whole dominate alpha male thing attracting women is ripped straight from the pages of "The Origin of Species".
Not verbatim but lets apply a few key Sleeper concepts here. There are no coincidences. There is no man woman child friend or foe that will cross your path that was not a part of your contract.
From my experience, to some degree, we have minor control over how we handle the people, girlfriends, boyfriend, husbands, and wives that enter our lives. But very little control over "attracting" people.
Or we can act like these guys and hit the reset button every 60 or 70 years ;D
Looks a lot like the last singles bar i was in.
|
|
|
Post by noface on Jan 15, 2010 0:34:00 GMT -5
I think we cannot point the finger at one gender or another being responsible for the way men or women seem to act or think but for the most part it’s the current world system we live in and social pressures of society at play here. Just my humble opinion but what do I know being part of that system programmed like the rest of everyone else living within this matrix of illusions. ;D Hi Jedi, Good points about the developmental influences. Yet still, are not all of those examples ultimately different forms of the same Darwinian survival of the fittest? I really hope ET have evolved beyond this stuff. I certainly don't leave men off the hook in my view of the sexual games people play and only point a finger at women. Men are so desparate to get laid, or find external love, or just fit in, that they are dumb enough to actually jump through all of the hoops and contort themselves into whatever personality that women hint they should be. Then again, I'm willing for it to all be just as it should be and I've just somehow lost the plot.
|
|
|
Post by noface on Jan 15, 2010 1:20:23 GMT -5
In my opinion, I think women choose more dominant men because they stand out more and its simply a more interesting alternative to the nicey-nice guy. Referring back to your idea of 'peacocking', any shmoe can act nice to a girl because there is no risk involved. Being yourself is actually more risky than putting on a phoney confident identity to hide behind. That way, if you lose being a phoney act, then you didn't actually lose, the phoney act did. But, if you lose being who you sincerely are, then you lose for real. It's harder to be vulnerable than dominant. People genreally use a facade of strength to cover up how vulnerable they feel. I've been both. Yeah, guys learn these manipulative techniques that girls react to for the wrong reasons. That was my point. Freud proved that few people are capable of listening to reason above their desire nature. Usually desire wins hands down. Therefore people, men and women, make a lot of really stupid decisions. ;D Bad boy dominant a-holes definitely get the chics. That's my point as well. It's far easier to be a bad boy and use personality tricks than to be good and real. Women are "valuing" and promoting the wrong qualities because they themselves don't have integrity. It's easier to be entertained and lied to by the bad boy than face the truth of themselves with the good guy who won't lie to them, or entertain them with a false identity. I know it's politically uncorrect, but that's the way I see it. I guess that's why this planet is the way it is and apparently it is the way it's supposed to be, so I've got to get over it. I think I inadvertantly steered this thread in the wrong direction. I'm all for sex and fun so I'll shut up and let's get back to sex, sex, sex and good times. ;D
|
|
|
Post by noface on Jan 15, 2010 1:35:55 GMT -5
I think we may be over thinking this topic a bit. Frankly its starting to reek of Darwinism in here. The whole dominate alpha male thing attracting women is ripped straight from the pages of "The Origin of Species". Yeah, my bad. I truly don't think we have actually evolved very much as a species, or have strayed from the survival of the fittest mentality. Maybe that's the way it should be? There seems to be an orangutan power structure everywhere. If not physically, then verbally. ;D But, isn't it women who promote this with their choice of mates based on the alpha male paradigm? Then men just try to become the alpha male in whatever form they can? Maybe this is the way it should be? I think I was born in the wrong time period. Being legal age in the 60's free love era would have been paradise for me. I have some friends who tell me what it was like with a warm glow in their eyes. I see that as a good attitude toward sex.
|
|
|
Post by tommyknockers on Jan 15, 2010 8:08:05 GMT -5
Being legal age in the 60's free love era would have been paradise for me. I seen a documentary the other day that was addressing that very subject. One of the guys said free love was great until it came time to let your best buddy take your girl friend to the bedroom and have his way with her. I would have a pretty rough time with that. It stirs up the same kind of emotion as watching my daughter head out the front door with some hormone enraged teenager. Sleeper: I wonder if this type of possessive reaction is learned or pre-programmed?
|
|
|
Post by Lou on Jan 15, 2010 10:18:15 GMT -5
Being legal age in the 60's free love era would have been paradise for me. I seen a documentary the other day that was addressing that very subject. One of the guys said free love was great until it came time to let your best buddy take your girl friend to the bedroom and have his way with her. I would have a pretty rough time with that. It stirs up the same kind of emotion as watching my daughter head out the front door with some hormone enraged teenager. Sleeper: I wonder if this type of possessive reaction is learned or pre-programmed? It is preloaded software, but we get to decided how often and how intensely we use it and or abuse it.
|
|
|
Post by noface on Jan 15, 2010 12:12:18 GMT -5
I seen a documentary the other day that was addressing that very subject. One of the guys said free love was great until it came time to let your best buddy take your girl friend to the bedroom and have his way with her. I would have a pretty rough time with that. It stirs up the same kind of emotion as watching my daughter head out the front door with some hormone enraged teenager. Sleeper: I wonder if this type of possessive reaction is learned or pre-programmed? I thought of that after I posted. I definitely wouldn't put up with it if I was in a steady relationship. I was thinking along the lines of people who weren't in serious relationships. I wouldn't screw around with that. I take that seriously. The guys in the bands I've played in used to really piss me off when they would screw other guys wives. I actually can't believe how low people can be sometimes - the guys and the wives.
|
|
|
Post by tommyknockers on Jan 15, 2010 13:27:56 GMT -5
Indecent Proposal: Woody Harrelson, Robert Redford, and Demi Moore
A perfect example of this emotion at work.
|
|