Even though the feminists will deny this, I believe that every woman craves to be dominated, and they crave men to dominate them.

My main proof is in Asians. No seriously, let me explain.

In high school, we all see how Asian males get little to no pussy. This is not because of biological factors, but social factors.

If Asian culture had to be summarized in one word, it would be respect. Respect for elders, respect for friends, siblings, and women.

So naturally, Asian men aren't going to get much action as long as they are subscribing to the whole respect notion. Women of the same race and other races are going to see the Asian male as weak, and not dominating.


So, totse, what do you have to say about the role of domination in the subject of attracting women?

Whatever works for you.

Whatever works for you.

I'm with this guy.

No, they crave to dominate your wallet.

Among asian american girls, your point abosolutely rings true.

You can't steryotype korea, japan or china too successfully. But a good deal of the population has a lower androgenous testosterone count. You can see that specifically in the size difference of an average American guy verus an average East Asian Guy. Now, most definitely there are execeptions like the Hunan province where the average male dwarf's most of America's but as a rule of thumb asian men are smaller, scientists think it had a lot to do with pre-WWII diets of higher ratios of vegetables to meat, specifically in Japan.

But the way a girl determines genetic quality of a guy is somewhat complicated but outside of symmetry comes down to testosterone levels. The theory is that during your teen years when you were developing if your body had enough resources to up testosterone production then it obviously wasn't fighting viruses and parasites...or it if it was it was doing so with ease. Therefore the signs of high testosterone levels (Muscles, Big Jaw, Pronounced brow, Cheekbones, Height etc...) indicate the indivdual has healthy genes. Agressiveness and dominance are also side effects of high testosterone levels and are also found to be attractive.

Now, asian girls that arent white washed(1st generation) for the most part are going to stick to guys that come from their country. But once they get assimilated there is a huge tendancy to go white. As a result you have a lot of Asian men complaining that white guys are taking their girls.

As it stands right now, black and white men have the highest counts of free-testosterone as a result by the numbers have proven more successful at inter-racial relationships than the other races. However, this is very general and is still a theory.

If youre reading this and thinking...wait what about the whiney emo kid with the long hair? I can also explain why girls find him attractive, but this post is long enough as it is.

I think MOST girls crave to be dominated, but not all.

Namely the feminist.

Fucking awesome thread man, this sort of puts into words what ive been trying to theorize haha.

A lot of your normal guys these days, can be geeks, jocks, skaters, emos, whatever type, they dont know how to act towards females....therefore alot of times letting the girl run the show. Typical act nervous talk some lame bulshit to the girl and the girl is amused knowing the guy likes her therefore stuff progresses on from there accordingly to whatever actions. The female seems to be amused by this but they DO NOT LIKE/PREFER it. So if some other chap comes along and shows some control or dominance,or not even either, just acts different then the usual "hey how u doing im a nice guy" shes going to cling onto that guy and have a bit of interest of why hes not acting a fool in her presence.

Thats why i keep telling people those guys who know what they are doing have the shit in the bag with any girl because what I call the "mainstream" guys are keeping up a "nice guy" status stocks up in the market(listen to my comparisons) therefore allowing the know hows to come in and rack up some points. All this pick up artist and seduction bulshit you read, what does it teach or what really do they base their methods off of, domination, having control of the situation, knowing the how and the whys of things.

If you ever watched any footage of the above said in action what are the guys doing in the situations, they are running the show, like they are keeping their hands on the joystick the whole time playing the game, controlling every move by doing their custom techniques/questions/manuevers etc....

In all honesty it is domination, how were women treated back in past history? they didnt have even half the rights and associations in society as they have now. Its a underlying factor that I believe still is programmed into females today. Know how to access it and your got yourself a choice woman, whether it be through purchased methods people proposed or your own way of figuring out how to "dominate"

"Take those positions" - COD4

Whatever works for you.

This. As usual, it depends on the chick.

Lol. Chicks crave a superhero knight in shining armor type she can look up to, but they still want to be equal.

Maybe some women want to be equal in certain fields, but romance is certainly not one of them. It is really obvious by looking at relationships in western countries. While our society artificially gives women equal rights to men through law, etc and tries to influence a woman's sexual attraction through TV/music/entertainment, our genes and instincts say otherwise. That is why the divorce rate is so high, we live in a society of pussies who were never raised or taght...how to be a man! All women love MASCULINITY just like men like FEMININITY, that's nature, the sad thing is we live in a faggy feminine society where masculinity is looked down upon and sometimes even a punishable offense (by making fighting, weapons, etc illegal) that is probably why so many women in our society just do not find men attractive or settle.

I'm not saying women want to be beaten, but they sure don't like to have power, regardless of what they say. They know they are not logical, responsible, as wise, etc as men, so they expect to be put in their place for their own benefit.

i personally crave to be dominated

its hot

That is why the divorce rate is so high, we live in a society of pussies who were never raised or taght...how to be a man! All women love MASCULINITY just like men like FEMININITY, that's nature, the sad thing is we live in a faggy feminine society where masculinity is looked down upon and sometimes even a punishable offense (by making fighting, weapons, etc illegal) that is probably why so many women in our society just do not find men attractive or settle.

I'm not saying women want to be beaten, but they sure don't like to have power, regardless of what they say. They know they are not logical, responsible, as wise, etc as men, so they expect to be put in their place for their own benefit.

This! Sign em up!

OP delves into so many different topics with that one...You can't really explain evolutionary psychology and the suchlike with one specific though not very well thought out idea.

Asian men don't get as much pussy because:

They don't conform to society as much so that rules out chances of getting with white chicks, who are the majority

They dress differently

They aren't raised to be horny. Seriously, I've met quite a few who are sexually oppressed subliminally. The turn around they can make with some counselling and guidance by me is amazing!:)

Asian men aren't usually attractive. They have feminine features, similar features, are short, have smaller penises than average (only marginally, but it will put girls off when they see an asian in a club)

This is all IMO of course. Also, I know lots of asians that root pretty rabidly in their group. It's just that a lot are more interested in other things, but a lot still have sex often.

All women want to be dominated. There is no exception. The more bitchy she is, the more she wants to be manhandled. Being subservient is in their genes.


- Todd

It is evolutionary. Back in the days of hunter-gatherer societies it would increase a womans chance of survival and replication by bonding to a strong, dominating man. Thus, those who were attracted to dominating men passed their genetics on. A few more thousand years of living in a society like ours and our genetics will be fucked up.

I don't think any of this about Asians is true. I've known a lot of Asians and out of all the non-whites the ones who conform to society the most are Asians. Asians tend to have a lot of white friends and are the stereotypical "nice guy".

i think out of all the reasons it's the last one which dooms them. The fact that women just don't find them attractive has more to do with it, their lack of testosterone is why they can't compete with the others, generally.

I don't think any of this about Asians is true. I've known a lot of Asians and out of all the non-whites the ones who conform to society the most are Asians. Asians tend to have a lot of white friends and are the stereotypical "nice guy".

i think out of all the reasons it's the last one which dooms them. The fact that women just don't find them attractive has more to do with it, their lack of testosterone is why they can't compete with the others, generally.

Their lack of testosterone can be attributed to being civilized further back then we have. In a civilization, lack of testosterone doesn't limit your chances of replication all that much. <---just a theory.

I like nothing better than being dominated in the bedroom. But I want to play an equal part in making big relationship decisions. I wouldn't want a man to control me in every aspect of my life.... for example I would never let a man control my finances.

This thread inspired me to start a new topic about dominating in the bedroom as opposed to day to day living. Help me out and see if my strategy is smart or just stupid.

http://www.totse.com/community/showthread.php?t=2094522

Their lack of testosterone can be attributed to being civilized further back then we have. In a civilization, lack of testosterone doesn't limit your chances of replication all that much. <---just a theory.

So does it mean that our society nowadays is less civilised than what their society used to be? Because, from what you guys are saying, it's all about testosterone in our society, and so asians can't fit in.

Sexually, yes. In a non-sexual manner, no.

Most of the people in this thread agreeing with OP are just patriarchal teenagers.

People aren't "naturally" shoved into gender roles, the patriarchy tries to enforce those through aggressive conditioning and rape culture. "Boys" aren't inherently masculine, "girls" aren't inherently feminine, and neither inherently crave their respective assigned traits.

The need for a dominating brute mate went out a few millennia ago, but the people that used to be those brutes were able to figure out a way to extend their reign. Its the same concept as racism and nationalism. Gender doesn't equate to anything besides a social construct.

Ok my thread isn't getting any attention so I will ask it here.

If I am not dominating in a day to day basis, for example in the way I talk or handle situations, but am extreamly dominant in the bedroom, will that subliminally or psychologically make the girl think that I am dominant?"

Poster above is stupid, men and women arn't equal. Are you Al Gore?

The need for a dominating brute mate went out a few millennia ago, but female biology is still programmed to be attracted to them. They haven't "extended their reign". Biology controls emotion, not social constructs.

Prometheum, you aren't getting the natural conclusions of what you said. The actual biological need may have left for women to crave domineering men, but this doesn't change the fact that they are still biologically programmed to want those men. Just as one of the most common phobias is a fear of spiders, as many are predisposed to fear spiders out of the extreme danger spiders posed in cavemen days when we lacked even the most rudimentary health care. Or, as we are programmed to like extremely sweet things, as these provide high energy, which is needed in a caveman society, but in a postindustrial society simply causes obesity.

i wont lie, being dominated turns me on more

I'd like some scientific proof that women actually crave domination. That claim keeps being asserted, but as yet is still baseless.

Poster above is stupid, men and women arn't equal. Are you Al Gore?

Again, proof. Women are capable of accomplishing just as much as men.the concept of gender is a social construct. Even with thousands of years of oppression by the patriarchy, the society that we know today could not have existed without the contributions of women.

Also, I'm pretty sure that my genes don't control my emotions or associations. Those are SOCIAL things that are provided socially. I'd also like to note that in the what, six thousand years between now and primal humanity, we haven't been selecting for "dominating" men (even though we never were).

I feel appalled that this discussion is even taking place, but I shouldn't be surprised given that this is totse.

I get the impression that somehow you miss the effect of various hormones and their effect on the human mind, and the differences in hormones and effects on men or women.

I'd like some scientific proof that women actually crave domination. That claim keeps being asserted, but as yet is still baseless.



Again, proof. Women are capable of accomplishing just as much as men.the concept of gender is a social construct. Even with thousands of years of oppression by the patriarchy, the society that we know today could not have existed without the contributions of women.

Also, I'm pretty sure that my genes don't control my emotions or associations. Those are SOCIAL things that are provided socially. I'd also like to note that in the what, six thousand years between now and primal humanity, we haven't been selecting for "dominating" men (even though we never were).

I feel appalled that this discussion is even taking place, but I shouldn't be surprised given that this is totse.

Because men have dominated women historically and women have NEVER dominated men, doesn't this give you a clear indication?

Only until recently, and in Western times, did anyform of equality happen.

Because men have dominated women historically and women have NEVER dominated men, doesn't this give you a clear indication?

Only until recently, and in Western times, did anyform of equality happen.

In the ancient Mediterranean, women ruled, and men were regarded as useful only for sex and carrying large objects.

Of course, this was at a time when no one understood how babies were made, and it was believed that women became pregnant through the use of magic and the wind.

In the ancient Mediterranean, women ruled, and men were regarded as useful only for sex and carrying large objects.

Of course, this was at a time when no one understood how babies were made, and it was believed that women became pregnant through the use of magic and the wind.

This isn't true untill you link it. Blatant lie.

The only thing close you'll come to equality before western times was Sparta, and even Sparta wasn't equal.

Most of the people in this thread agreeing with OP are just patriarchal teenagers.


This.

But not this:

"Boys" aren't inherently masculine, "girls" aren't inherently feminine,

In almost every culture ever recorded, even with societies that differ widely in every other respect, men take on roles that women don't, and women take on roles that men don't. Often the masculine roles are similar across cultures, as are the female roles.

Yes, gender roles ARE developed, directed, and influenced by society, but there is no evidence and no reason to suppose that society is the ONLY thing that gives people their gender roles, or even that this is the major factor.

Also, don't get snotty and say "PROOF???" if you happen to disagree with me. Nobody in this thread has been linking to learned sociological articles and statistic - not even you.

Edit: Not agreeing with the OP's hypothesis about girls wanting to be dominated, by the way. This is just about Promy's Conditioned Gender Roles bit.

I'd like some scientific proof that women actually crave domination. That claim keeps being asserted, but as yet is still baseless.



Again, proof. Women are capable of accomplishing just as much as men.the concept of gender is a social construct. Even with thousands of years of oppression by the patriarchy, the society that we know today could not have existed without the contributions of women.

Also, I'm pretty sure that my genes don't control my emotions or associations. Those are SOCIAL things that are provided socially. I'd also like to note that in the what, six thousand years between now and primal humanity, we haven't been selecting for "dominating" men (even though we never were).

I feel appalled that this discussion is even taking place, but I shouldn't be surprised given that this is totse.



http://tinyurl.com/3xwl9a

http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/002877.html

http://www.natur.cuni.cz/~flegr/pdf/domsubm.pdf

http://www.reuniting.info/science/dominant_males_stimulate_female_brains



Go read a book you fucking cunt.

Your common sense does not overcome biology. You should also read about testosterone and estrogen and their effects on bodies, emotions, behaviors and personalities.

At least have the fucking humility to admit you're talking out of your ass just as much or more than anyone you've insulted.

Even with thousands of years of oppression by the patriarchy, the society that we know today could not have existed without the contributions of women.

No one is saying women are not extremely valuable contributors to society, both historically and in the present, what we are saying is that men and women have inherent differences that predispose them towards gender roles.

Also, I'm pretty sure that my genes don't control my emotions or associations.

Although I really don't want to get to this level, there are studies that confirm genetics affects emotions. For example, note the differences in response based on genetics here (http://sci-con.org/2006/03/how-genes-make-up-your-mind/).

I'd also like to note that in the what, six thousand years between now and primal humanity, we haven't been selecting for "dominating" men (even though we never were).

Whoa whoa whoa, hold up now. Are you seriously proposing that dominating men were not more genetically viable and desired than weak and subservient men in prehistoric times? If so, just wow.

I feel appalled that this discussion is even taking place, but I shouldn't be surprised given that this is totse.

I know what you mean. Here on Totse we still have free thinkers that haven't been brainwashed by the current public educational establishment.

Proof? If anyone needs proof or some type of cue to the idea, go sit out in a heavily populated area and just spectate. Guys that are with some highly attractive girls are going to be either A. Being led, "Mr. Nice Guy", being used....OR B. Leading her, having a type of "authority" over them, not on a heavy level, but not being whipped by her.. It may or may not be in a legitimate way but.....itll be there.

Now dont get me wrong im not saying, hey lets all go out and dominate females, because i think females are weak and want to be owned by the male population..NO... but theres something to it that just lays latent in society. Its not exactly the crave of domination.Not the right term to be used here, obviously cause if it was females would be rallying up against us men for unfair treatment, and plus that could never happen now, domination over women at this current timeline

You'll see it, just watch, a guy that is assertive with a female. He'll have a special bond with them on some level. Like he will be past the friend mark, but before the couple status....in between if you will. And the shit is just ridiculous I've seen this type of status from both ends, witnessed and verified living it out myself. Then when that happens you got yourself thinking(probably like the OP) what in the hell, whats the deal/catch here?

A lot of times what people witness are guys that act like assholes/half dominant get descent women then think OMFG that guy has the technique down, or you have to be a asshole to get a girl. Not the case....

And to those who said, the majority of us agreeing are teenagers....just no. Its pretty much balanced across the board when it comes to age.

Just talking from experience, and attesting to what I have seen over my time being on this earth, in this current time and society.

A lot of times what people witness are guys that act like assholes/half dominant get descent women then think OMFG that guy has the technique down, or you have to be a asshole to get a girl. Not the case....

Then what do you think is the case?

Then what do you think is the case?

Don't suck at life.

Anyone can be confident, asshole or not. Anyone can have self-esteem, asshole or not. I fail to see the problem?

Then what do you think is the case?

=False Positive

Some "asshole" can display the qualities a girl wants in a guy but its not necessary the real mccoy.

Well most girls want the guy to take the lead, that's for sure. You don't need to be an asshole to do that, just don't be a wimp.

Because men have dominated women historically and women have NEVER dominated men, doesn't this give you a clear indication?

Except for the Hawaiian and similar matriarchies and all of the queens that have ruled over men? Those are common knowledge enough not to link.


http://tinyurl.com/3xwl9a

http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/002877.html

http://www.natur.cuni.cz/~flegr/pdf/domsubm.pdf (http://www.natur.cuni.cz/%7Eflegr/pdf/domsubm.pdf)

http://www.reuniting.info/science/do..._female_brains (http://www.reuniting.info/science/dominant_males_stimulate_female_brains)


The last one indicates a study conducted on mice (very briefly I might add). I hope we can agree that the human and mouse brain are quite different things. Another of those links is to a community site, where someone posted links to various news articles. Ignoring the inevitable media bias towards sensationalism, that's hardly the best of sources. Of all of the links, only the PDF deals with gender roles in terms of dominance, and all the rest are variations of sexual preference. That comes down to the age-old S&A bitch of "nurr girls only fuck assholes", not that they "crave to be dominated".


Whoa whoa whoa, hold up now. Are you seriously proposing that dominating men were not more genetically viable and desired than weak and subservient men in prehistoric times? If so, just wow.

Patriarchial and possessive men wouldn't have spread their genetic material like they were intended to. Its interesting to see your binary thoughts here; do you think there's no middle ground between dominating and "weak and subservient"?


In almost every culture ever recorded, even with societies that differ widely in every other respect, men take on roles that women don't, and women take on roles that men don't. Often the masculine roles are similar across cultures, as are the female roles.

Yes, gender roles ARE developed, directed, and influenced by society, but there is no evidence and no reason to suppose that society is the ONLY thing that gives people their gender roles, or even that this is the major factor.

Not only is it easy to condition gender roles, but its commonly done. If you had a son, would you want him playing with a barbie? If you took that away from him, that would condition him towards traditionally male gender roles, and even if you didn't, all the other kids his age would mock the SHIT out of him. Is that a genetic trigger, or conditioning? Then take that and repeat it over someone's ENTIRE LIFE. We're even conditioned as infants as to which colors are "male" and "female".

Also, there have been very notable and famous exceptions to gender roles throughout history. There are the societies that have already been referred to, and then there's also the Amazons, Joan of Arc, and countless other examples.

Right. Vs. the other 99% of history and society to the contrary.

Sorry, but I'm not willing to throw hundreds of years of history, established science (hormones, genetics) just because your opinion says otherwise. *shrug*

Nothing about men usually being the providers/defenders/etc. while the women's role (speaking in basic, archaic terms) was to bear and raise the young?

With my first girlfriend I liked to say we were equal, I never told her what to do. I wanted it to be like that. But she really wanted me to be the dominant one. Eventually we split up. With my last girlfriend I played the dominant role, and she loved it even though she was clever and interesting and a feminist. Not all women are like this, but from my experience the majority are.

Sex in itself requires an active male. The woman can be active, but reproduction is just as successful when she is passive. Thus biology requires successful men (in the evolutionary sense) to take the lead - thus dominance.

So social gender roles? Yup, those are DEFINITELY genetic. I guess those mud races weren't alright after all.

There have been numerous studies about reconditioning gender roles. I have one in mind in particular, if I can find it online, I'll be sure to link it.

Instances of the reversal of those gender roles are very common in history, not a minority. I'm sure in the absence of social conditioning they'd be even more common, as they are getting to be now.

So social gender roles? Yup, those are DEFINITELY genetic. I guess those mud races weren't alright after all.

There have been numerous studies about reconditioning gender roles. I have one in mind in particular, if I can find it online, I'll be sure to link it.

Instances of the reversal of those gender roles are very common in history, not a minority. I'm sure in the absence of social conditioning they'd be even more common, as they are getting to be now.

Well they sure as hell aren't the prevailing majority, so I don't see them NOT being a minority..?

Like it or not, our roles/basic instinct/etc. are a product of our genes and history as a species, it takes much much more than a few hundred years to change that entirely.

Men are largely stronger, more aggressive, less emotion-focused than women, and going by our (comparably) much longer history, made to be the chest-thumping, dominant gender. <200 years of social change doesn't change genetics as far as muscle, testosterone, and the 'roles' nature laid out for us.

Women, on the other hand, genetically have less focus on muscle/physical development, and more so on raising children. More focus on emotion and emotional development, and what it takes to care for young/others. I don't see men growing tits and functional nipples, nor having the capacity to carry children. How's that for gender roles?

Sure, gender roles CAN be changed, to an extent, but by NATURE, it's pretty damn defined, which is the entire point I'm trying to make. Nature vs. nurture, but you're fighting a helluva a force there.

Though careful how/what you change it, or you end up with something like this:
http://www.bryanboy.com/bryanboy_le_superstar_fab/2006/05/stop_faggotry_i.html

Except for the Hawaiian and similar matriarchies and all of the queens that have ruled over men? Those are common knowledge enough not to link.



The last one indicates a study conducted on mice (very briefly I might add). I hope we can agree that the human and mouse brain are quite different things. Another of those links is to a community site, where someone posted links to various news articles. Ignoring the inevitable media bias towards sensationalism, that's hardly the best of sources. Of all of the links, only the PDF deals with gender roles in terms of dominance, and all the rest are variations of sexual preference. That comes down to the age-old S&A bitch of "nurr girls only fuck assholes", not that they "crave to be dominated".

To begin, lets recognize you've brought no research to the table to susbstaniate ANY of your claims. This is your opinion, and thats it.


Yes, you list a "matriarchal" society, but you did a half-ass job at doing so because, they dont represent matriachal systems. Sure, there have been queens but was the entire society turned on its head as far as women becoming the bread winners?? In almost every case the answer is no. Yes the queen made intellectual decisions, but the males were the backbone of the society, in almost every other decision making capacity.

There are only a FEW societies that support your claims and theyre represented in Papua New Guinnea and Korea, when they we're a pearl harvesting society. Thats it.


So, since you're still flying high on that poorly supported ego of yours. Heres some more reading.

First: A Pennstate Peer-Reviewed journal documenting the specfic way testosterone affects male behavior.

http://cogprints.org/663/0/bbs_mazur.html

Second: Journal summary documenting the relationship between male dominance and body odor.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1438928/posts

Third: Heres another link to an acredited journal from the University of Missouri on specifically how mate choice occurs in Humans.

http://web.missouri.edu/~gearyd/MatechoicePDF.pdf

Fourth: Another article on human mate choice:

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Evolution+of+human+mate+choice-a0114593247

Fifth: Finally, Robin Baker's sperm wars. Within this, you'll find most of the work is describing female preferences for the dominant male, and even suggests that rough and tumble play at the beginning of a relationship is how the female determines mate value for her partner.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/101012/Sperm-Wars-





If you've a problem with those links, I can pull another 10 out. You fail to substianiate anything you're saying with legitmate sources, any research, and as result look like a dumbfuck for flying in the face of decades of established work on human biology and mate choice, and even more so for riding in on your gravely misinformed high.

Testosterone and it's alternate forms DHT, AT etc... Play vital roles in both determining aggression, masculinity, and finally musculature.

Men have far more potential to grow muscle than women specifically due to larger amounts of the hormone, testosterone in the blood stream. Simply put, no matter how much sally works at the gym if a male has more testosterone in his blood and follows the same plan he has more potential to grow than she ever will. Thats genetics, and really if you're planning on debating things like size, strength and masculinity which are so firmly entrenched in basic biological knowledge. Then, I don't think youve much ground to prove anything you assert.

And while we're on that subject, what have you even fucking proven? What model are you arguing your social condition theory? Are you championing Allport? Because your arguments closely resemble the now mostly defunct theories of social psychology.

Lastly, how have you not seen this in anecdote? Where the fuck do you live/how old are you? You seem sheltered as fuck... While I've pulled out however many journal entries to validate what I'm saying, this stuff is pretty common knowledge if you've gained experience in the real world.

liar.

Check ^^^^^

Domination just runs things, if someone knows what they are doing and it is harnessed correctly I think it will have a aftermath effect.

Not a direct similarity, but look on caesar milans dog whisperer, domination is what trains dogs, and what the dogs behavior is shaped around. Please keep an open mind, and im not downing women comparing them to a dog, but some of the stuff I have ran out on a female has a parallel comparison to Mr Milans ways, that being showing a dominant type of attitude to change a way someone acts, in my case a female.

Not only is it easy to condition gender roles, but its commonly done. If you had a son, would you want him playing with a barbie? If you took that away from him, that would condition him towards traditionally male gender roles, and even if you didn't, all the other kids his age would mock the SHIT out of him. Is that a genetic trigger, or conditioning? Then take that and repeat it over someone's ENTIRE LIFE. We're even conditioned as infants as to which colors are "male" and "female".

I didn't say that social conditioning didn't happen.

What I said was that biological sex is the main influence of gender roles - You said that it wasn't a factor.

The fact that social conditioning exists does not prove that biology is irrelevant.

I didn't say that social conditioning didn't happen.

What I said was that biological sex is the main influence of gender roles - You said that it wasn't a factor.

The fact that social conditioning exists does not prove that biology is irrelevant.

Do you think an infant male has a natural revulsion to traditionally female dress? If raised as the opposite gender, eventually physical differences will manifest themselves, but there still isn't any change in the mental perception of gender.


Lastly, how have you not seen this in anecdote? Where the fuck do you live/how old are you? You seem sheltered as fuck... While I've pulled out however many journal entries to validate what I'm saying, this stuff is pretty common knowledge if you've gained experience in the real world.

Although I've made a point of not responding to personal attacks, I'll respond to this. I am an anarchist, and I've worked for years with people of all sorts of gender (not just the binary constructs that most are familiar with) and I've never seen it prove anything about a person. Even when confronted with the purest examples of classic gender roles, I've been completely surprised by what those individuals are eventually capable of. Because of this, I have no anecdote to support what you're telling me, and can only ask you the same questions you've asked me.

Men are largely stronger, more aggressive, less emotion-focused than women, and going by our (comparably) much longer history, made to be the chest-thumping, dominant gender. <200 years of social change doesn't change genetics as far as muscle, testosterone, and the 'roles' nature laid out for us.

Women, on the other hand, genetically have less focus on muscle/physical development, and more so on raising children. More focus on emotion and emotional development, and what it takes to care for young/others. I don't see men growing tits and functional nipples, nor having the capacity to carry children. How's that for gender roles?

This thread was never about physical differences (at least on that large of a scale). Body types have nothing to do with the mental attitudes that people have, and I see no connection with child-bearing (something that occurs usually without much male influence besides the initial act...) and craving dominance in everyday life.

Ironically, a common stereotypic testosterone-pumped body-builder is also gay. Hows that for gender roles?

Ironically, a common stereotypic testosterone-pumped body-builder is also gay. Hows that for gender roles?


Well, it shows you follow stereotypes just as much as anyone you've criticized. There are huge amount of domineering gay guys. They arent all wrist flipping, happy go lucky, pretty boys.

Now as far as what youve said in response to me.

You are correct, I didn't mention in my posts that as humans we all have the capacity to surpass our genetic programming as humans. When I get angry with someone I don't kill them no matter how tempting it may be, we can stop ourselves from breathing, eating, sleeping, breeding anything that we as humans are "programmed" to do. And yes, we start out as a blank tempelate before hormones are injected at a noticable amount(puberty). But, the degree we come out feminized/masculinzed in large part shows how successful we were during development; as our bodies view this as surplus development. If your body had time to develop the side effects of either hormone(hips, small jaw, big eyes for girls; Square jaw, broad sholders, pronounced brow) the natural assumption is that your immune system was so effective that you body could donate resources to other places in development. Just like symmetry, having a lot of testosterone indicates to others that you have strong genes. As my previous articles talked about, behavior is another "Secondary sex-characteristic). Testosterone, makes you agressive as hell. Call it masculine, call it short tempered, call it competitive...youre still fucking agressive. If you've ever heard of "roid-rage" or any of the effects of steroids which boost the hormone siginficantly then this example is clearer. Google search Chris Benoit if you missed the story.

Anyway, so while that dominating guy, does not please girls mentally. They sure as hell keep her attracted to him. Because that agressive, dominating, dynamic personality is a genetic indicator of sorts.

That guy of course will have moments where he's not agressive as hell etc. But those are few and far in between, as we as humans follow our genetic programming. If we didn't. fuck, highschool, college and the later years would be completly reshaped, as almost all of the male population would need to find a new hobby that didnt include getting pussy.


now if your talking about general life. You're right, gender roles dont matter, the guy could be a good looking pussy and still get a girl, infact that type of "understanding" male is easily more successful at relationships.

But the hyper masculinzed, "dominating" male is easily the reigning champ for girls sexual attraction.

lmao

true.

Well, it shows you follow stereotypes just as much as anyone you've criticized. There are huge amount of domineering gay guys. They arent all wrist flipping, happy go lucky, pretty boys.


Right, showing the ability of people to not be affected by gender roles. Remember, if they were "hyper-masculine" in the traditional sense, they wouldn't be boning other guys.


You are correct, I didn't mention in my posts that as humans we all have the capacity to surpass our genetic programming as humans. When I get angry with someone I don't kill them no matter how tempting it may be, we can stop ourselves from breathing, eating, sleeping, breeding anything that we as humans are "programmed" to do. And yes, we start out as a blank tempelate before hormones are injected at a noticable amount(puberty). But, the degree we come out feminized/masculinzed in large part shows how successful we were during development; as our bodies view this as surplus development. If your body had time to develop the side effects of either hormone(hips, small jaw, big eyes for girls; Square jaw, broad sholders, pronounced brow) the natural assumption is that your immune system was so effective that you body could donate resources to other places in development. Just like symmetry, having a lot of testosterone indicates to others that you have strong genes. As my previous articles talked about, behavior is another "Secondary sex-characteristic). Testosterone, makes you agressive as hell. Call it masculine, call it short tempered, call it competitive...youre still fucking agressive. If you've ever heard of "roid-rage" or any of the effects of steroids which boost the hormone siginficantly then this example is clearer. Google search Chris Benoit if you missed the story.


Again, being overly aggressive isn't a good genetic trait. I don't see why someone would want their kids to be hotheaded and eager to get themselves killed. Also, having more testosterone doesn't indicate strong genes; it could indicate a hormone imbalance just as much as anything else. And those hormone imbalances could lead to overly aggressive behaviour, which today will land you in prison. A few million years ago, it would land you dead. You don't need me to tell you that isn't a good trait.


Anyway, so while that dominating guy, does not please girls mentally. They sure as hell keep her attracted to him. Because that agressive, dominating, dynamic personality is a genetic indicator of sorts.

That guy of course will have moments where he's not agressive as hell etc. But those are few and far in between, as we as humans follow our genetic programming. If we didn't. fuck, highschool, college and the later years would be completly reshaped, as almost all of the male population would need to find a new hobby that didnt include getting pussy.


now if your talking about general life. You're right, gender roles dont matter, the guy could be a good looking pussy and still get a girl, infact that type of "understanding" male is easily more successful at relationships.

But the hyper masculinzed, "dominating" male is easily the reigning champ for girls sexual attraction.


Again, sexual attraction isn't the point of this thread. The OP hypothesized that "the reason asian dudes don't get laid enough is that they respect women too much" (which is a really bad summerization of asian culture, by the way), not that "women like being dominated in bed" or "women like having sex with dominating guys". Aside from that, what you're saying effectively agrees with me, and debunks the OP. "Attracted to dominating men" doesn't at all equate to "wants to be dominated", especially when the "dominating" men aren't necessarily dominating as a matter of personality, just a matter of pheromones.

I think that most women like to be "dominated" because they like to please their man. Not because they want to be controlled. Most girls want to be wanted more than anything. They're afraid that if they don't please their man(in reasonable ways), then they won't be wanted as much anymore and the guy will lose interest.

As for the asian thing, for the most part it's very true within america. It is programmed within the minds of today's society, especially america, that asians have small penises, which is only statistic. That is why most girls don't find them attractive to begin with.

Prometheum

Not only is it easy to condition gender roles, but its commonly done. If you had a son, would you want him playing with a barbie? If you took that away from him, that would condition him towards traditionally male gender roles, and even if you didn't, all the other kids his age would mock the SHIT out of him. Is that a genetic trigger, or conditioning? Then take that and repeat it over someone's ENTIRE LIFE. We're even conditioned as infants as to which colors are "male" and "female".


In my view, you're underestimating the role of gender differences and placing too much emphasis on social conditioning.

I saw a documentary once. It talked about how in the '70s feminism kicked off, and all the big toy companies wanted to seem politically correct. So they stopped having seperate shelves for "boys" toys (stuff like tonka trucks) and "girls" toys. (stuff like dolls).

Anyway due to the feminism kicking off at the time and people were trying to raise their kids the same with no regard to gender, so there wouldve been much less social conditioning of gender roles onto the kids. the boys were oftentimes bought barbie dolls, and the girls tonka trucks.

Scientists noted that the boys played with their barbie dolls roughly, and differently to how the girls did. Also, the girls had tea parties with their tonka trucks and played with them differently than a boy would.

You could argue that early life social conditioning caused them to take on gender roles from a young age, despite the strong feminist influence and desire to raise the children without socially conditioned gender roles in these households. But I believe it points to something.

Gender roles are not necessarily a bad thing.

I like dominating guys.

No one wants a pussy.
<3

Wait, what?

Wait, what?


<3

<3

<3

<3

I don't understand why you asked 'what' and you further confuse me with these yellow forms of expression
<3

As for the asian thing, for the most part it's very true within america. It is programmed within the minds of today's society, especially america, that asians have small penises, which is only statistic. That is why most girls don't find them attractive to begin with.

uhhhhh they dont like asian guys cause alot of them are quiet, not foward/assertive, they just sit back and do schoolwork and shit....so the stereotype fits the actions. They arent aggressive so why would the females go for them? If they notice that the guy has some lacking features or is weak(as a majority of asian guys appear) they'd steer clear from them to begin with, that being the factor before bringing penis size into the picture.

Cause lets say i appear weak, acting without any confidence, walk with my head down, in a non-erect form, making appear like im a overall wimp...what does that tell you? Have troubles fending for myself so why would any female want that? They wouldn't.....

I don't understand why you asked 'what' and you further confuse me with these yellow forms of expression
<3

<3

<3

^ You guys seriously are losers. Kill yourselves.

for a woman money is everything.

white people happen to be richer on avrage.

Ok. What I found strange about your post is that you say that the guys you dominate don't want a pussy. That part does not compute.

That is all.

I meant the girls.

Girls want sensitive guys and all but they want a guy who'll act like a guy and not a pussy in front of their friends.
<3