Do some women like submissive men?

Post Reply New Topic

Being a big tough guy and being a hardass in a relationship doesn't always have to be the same thing. Myself, along with some of the biggest and toughest guys I know, still rely on our girlfriends for support. Even if a guy bench presses 400 pounds and can knock another guy out cold in a boxing ring, he can still very much rely on his girlfriend to understand and take his side when nobody else will (like you mentioned). In that way, a female is still going to "look after" a male in an extremely protective type of way regardless of how dominant the guy is with other males.

For example, let's say a guy has had a hard day, is feeling pretty down, and needs someone to talk to. Who'se voice is he going to want to hear, and who's he going to pick up the phone and call? Probably not the same guys he plays football with on weekends or works out at the gym with. He's going to call his girlfriend. By the same token, he's probably going to give her advice much more weight and consideration than some guy he pumps iron with.

Simply by the nature of the way gender interaction works, a woman is probably going to be able to have a deeper understanding about certain things than another male can. Which is why a guy will naturally discuss things with his girlfriend that he is unlikely to willingly discuss with another man.

I've seen many guys that are tough as nails with other men, but still are still very gentle and non-domineering with their girlfriends or wives. So, I think a girl can still very much look after and protect a guy, without him having to be the shy, retiring type. I don't mean physically protecting him from a bodily attack or anything like that, but the natural type of protection that is inherent to male-female interaction in a healthy relationship.

having had personal relationships with a few dominatrixs this is something i have some understanding of. i was not nor have i ever been submissive though, not a single time in my life. that means i had equal or dominant relationships with dominatrixs on a personal level, yet they are usually attracted to submissive people, it pervades every aspect of their personalities for the most part. the fact is its a sign of insecurity on the womans end. she is afraid, and attempting to convince herself she is in control and wont ever be in danger of being hurt. many women in america seek meek men for just this reason.

huh?? wtf?

your sexual orientation is determined by how much you are attracted to particular gender.

You have a point there that I probably overlooked. However, I wasn't talking about physical types so much, which I don't know if that came through - I'm convinced that really physically strong and muscular guys can be as cuddly as non-athlete types, and I've met the reverse case too, guys that would never be described as physically strong but nonetheless have to be in control in situations, including relationships. That kind of thing, especially in excess and no matter what build someone has, is what I'm not enthused by. (I probably could phrase this a lot better - I have to rush off soon so this isn't as much as I'd like to say. I really do get what you're saying though!)

And re: LPP's comment - I actually do know a person of the exact personality type I described in my post but who happens to be female, and believe me - if I felt like I wouldn't lose the person I most cared about in the world by saying how much I value and perhaps even love her (a word I'm hesitant to use, because of the usual implications), I'd gladly give up any further searching for someone else and be with her instead. Unfortunately, as she is straight, I don't think that I would stand a chance, and I will probably eventually have to come to terms with the fact that a boyfriend will at some point take my place. If I do find someone with a personality I get along with well, it probably won't matter if they're male or female, so long as they accept me and I'm not going to be replaced at some point. My original response was just purely working with the OP, without taking any other factors into account.

Last edited by BokeKaeru on 02 Oct 2008, 7:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

yes there are like 3 billion on thos planet, im sure you can find a few that find whatever attributer you cank of as attractive.

No worries. From your response, I see that you understand exactly what I was trying to say.

I'm with you, if you have no sexual desire, how can you be said to have a sexual orientation, which implies sexual attraction to a gender?

Technically....technically...orientation requires action. Attraction is attraction, not orientation.

For example, I could potentially imagine a female more attracted to females or males more attracted to males...but they might be entirely uncomfortable with the notion of doing sexual things with the same sex, but completely comfortable doing things with the opposite sex.

under that context, and assuming they engage and do things with the opposite sex...in my opinion they would be straight.

Likewise, if one does something with both, they are bisexual.

And if one does something with same sex they are homosexual.

---

A person who claims to be asexual but engages in sexual relations...is not really asexual. They merely might have a subset definition you could label asexual-based feeling/asexual-based attraction.

Epistemology. Inference. We study what we can observe. We can observe action, therefore we define by it.

That too depends on context I think. Lets assume we have sexual orientation/preference (straight/bi/gay), sexual behavior(homo/bi/hetero-sexual), and attraction wrt appearance (someone just likes how someone else looks) as descriptive categories. For instance a male prostitute could prefer to have sex exclusively with women, and as part of his job has sex with men, so he would be a straight male who is bisexual. In other words, sexual behavior does not always dictate sexual orientation. I suppose a similar example would be a straight person who experiments with bisexuality. And as usual, anyone can find either males or females more attractive as an independent descriptive category. That being said, most people seem to lump everything into one category, so depending on the individuals in the conversation different rules apply to this metacategory, which even spill over into the realm of the (IMO) utterly ret*d. For example a male who drives what's considered to be a female's car can be labeled as gay, although even then it doesn't have the same meaning strictly speaking, but it's a good example of how categorization and meaning in language depends on context.

So you are a true asexual but in your previous post you didn't sound that because you only mentioned"guy" and not person or guy/girl.

well thats why I said we should argue on the context of the epistemological example that involved how one person did the action and was defined by action.

While that leaves some sense of awkwardness to situations, and perhaps things people don't want to associate with in heart, it at least prevents all the confusion that comes with perspective meaning and language barriers.

Under that example.

A prostitute who only Wants to have sex exclusively with women...but also has sex with homosexual men...would be labeled as bisexual...or at least so long as he continued prostituting himself to other men.

This is because we have observed(so to speak) that he engages in homoerotic acts with other men. Therefore he committed the act of intercourse with both men and women and therefore bisexual.

Now...while he truly might not be attracted to men as he is with women...he is engaging in the act, and therefore is defined by it. Bisexuality.(or at least so long as he continues).

Even if he doesn't like the title. Which would not be hard to fix for him...he could just stop having sex with men if he absolutely could not stand being assosciated with the title

It keeps things cleanest this way, and at least allows everyone to understand it. Even those who had difficulty understanding most things could understand this method of definition. It would also help focus the rest of society into strictly targeting the bigger problems revolving around the conflicts of various issues. And it is for the most part fair.

As I said, I was specifically referring to the OP in my first post.

That being said, for many asexuals, "true" asexuals for that matter, social conditioning, aesthetic preference of a non-sexual nature, how well one's personality works with people or the same or opposite gender and a number of other factors cause them to like one gender better than the other, or like one exclusively.

Asexual means you lack a sexual attraction to anything. Cause: brain chemical irregularity.

Society can't condition a person to be genuinely sexually attracted to any gender or thing.

End of story.

Most you guys always try to over-complicate things with convoluted rant paragraphs that struggle to make any sense.

|-o-| V4der |-o-|

How do you know it's brain chemical irregularity? Has this been tested and confirmed? Somehow, I haven't seen the research that conclusively shows this. A lot of asexual people DO go in for medical examinations, and find that their hormone and other chemical levels are completely normal. As far as can be told as so far, asexuality is an orientation just like being gay or bi.

And if someone is asexual, of course they can't be influenced by society to be genuinely sexually attracted to anyone or anything - that would sort of defeat the point of being "A"-sexual. But that doesn't mean you can't have preferences, or that your preferences haven't been determined by outside forces. I mean, some people are known to be more comfortable with one gender for friendship than another. How is a platonic partnership any different in this respect?

In terms of social conditioning - Yeah, an asexual is not going to go to the movies or hang out with friends and be "converted" into liking one thing or another in a sexual way (as much as some would like to believe otherwise). However, a lot of "romantic" asexuals, who want a relationship without sex, do like one gender more than another without it being about sex. Why would this be? Perhaps because of the deluge of images, media and talk about finding true, usually heterosexual love, the emphasis put on this in order to be happy.

Or, in the reverse case, for one reason or another, young asexuals, before learning that it's possible to be ase, will often go through a period of thinking that they're gay. Either through being involved with the gay community, or convincing themselves that they liked members of the same sex, even after they realize they're ase, they might still want to be with a same-sex partner more than an opposite-sex one.

Wowww. I've successfully derailed the thread for about a page now.

By the way, you have your structure of writing, other people have theirs. *shrug* You find people's posts to be lacking in coherency, I find the above quoted post to be dismissive and lacking in facts.

Nice response, BokeKaeru... while the concept of being asexual is hard to conceptualize for myself, you do an excellent job explaining how you perceive your own experience.


M.

Common sense. Determining a person's sexuality is a stage that happens in the womb, for men at least, and chemicals are obviously a key role. The brain regulates sexual reactions, after all.

http://www.altpenis.com/penis_news/2000 ... _sys.shtml




What people go into medical examinations and find that their hormone and other chemical levels are completely normal?

Phantom people that you made up? Friends?

I'm not going to read the anesthetic that is the rest of your post, but thought I'd address the initial points.

|-o-| V4der |-o-|