ANSWERS: 3
  • I don't feel that in giving myself I am "subordinating" myself at all. Takes two to tango and they can't do it by themselves without us!
    • dorat
      Yeah, I know my choice of words is not the best, and I am not sure if I am saying it right. Like I mentioned before, my gf like the sense that I am a dominant male - her words. She said it makes her feel protected and that she is, in a sense free and uninhibited because I am "taking the initiative." Sorry, I know that is all very vague. You say it takes two to tango, which is true, but when you give yourself to a man - and I know you have said you want him to be interested in you - aren't you subordinating yourself to him in the sense that you are leaving it to him to make it more than about his pleasure? Just curious. I am not totally sure I understand your meaning.
    • officegirl
      If you need to think of it in terms of we are subordinate and you are dominant to stay interested then that is OK. But as I have tried to explain any number of time in my comments to you it is different qualities. We are receptive and responsive, you are more active and aggressive and have to be more in control. Physically, psychologically , emotionally .That is in the natural order of things and together it makes it good for both of us. We don't get in bed and say OK now I am going to be stop being dominant and be subordinate Instead! That is just the way we are .and it comes naturally. Is that so hard to understand?
    • dorat
      Why are you being so hostile? Forget I asked if it offends. I am trying to understand motives as they relate to evolution. Sex is complex. Please, if it bothers you, don't feel obliged to respond.
    • officegirl
      But why do you insist that somehow we are "subordinate" if we are just being ourselves?
    • dorat
      First, because as you can see below, and from my own gf, some women like the idea. However, I speak from an evolutionary standpoint: From another comment I made to you: "Men are driven by the need to spread their sperm to as many women as possible to produce as many offspring as possible. Women, on the other hand, can normally only carry - and then nurse - one baby at a time. (That is true in nature, where if twins are born, one is usually left to die.) So women tend to look for one mate - it is why, for example, women tend to be more verbal, men more visual, when it comes to sex. The woman is looking for comfort - for a male that will produce healthy offspring and protect mother and child from rival males and predators. (Before you flip out, I speak here of man as animal in nature. Obviously human beings transcend nature and evolution. We start with instinct but move beyond it if we are properly raised and socialized. So I speak here of tendencies in human behavior, not absolutes.) Anyhow, there are biological "leftovers" from our evolutionary past. The reason why men tend to get sleepy after sex - and why they MUST orgasm to ejaculate sperm - is that it keeps the male closer to the female to facilitate bonding. A man's testosterone level will tend to rise in response to his mate's pregnancy. (She secretes pheromones that change over the course of pregnancy and after birth. Males react to her body changes and their physiology and psychology involuntarily respond to these changes.) This is a leftover - our prehistoric ancestors had to be prepared to ward off rival males so as to protect his unborn offspring, Yet after the woman gives birth, her pheromones subtly alter again and the man's testosterone levels will tend to drop for a time. This is because an aggressive male would A) have a tendency to be a threat to his own offspring - in nature, some primate females tend to drive the male away after birth - and B) not stick around after birth but begin to seek out new females to impregnate. (In nature, the more babies a male makes, the more that are apt to survive and perpetuate his DNA and the species.) Of course, after a while, the male's testosterone begins to rise again, but by that point, if all goes well, other emotional bonds develop - plus the assurance of regular sex - to keep him around. As a sidenote, one of the reasons you tend to see higher rates of child abuse by stepfathers is because, as the male was not around during the pregnancy and birth, his testosterone does not go down. In evolutionary terms, those babies are rivals for resources to his own (potential) offspring. So the male will be more aggressive and less nurturing to his stepchildren. So, yup, women are programmed by evolution, too - but in VERY different ways." Bottom line, in evolutionary terms, the male tend to be dominant. That is NOT all there is to it, but it is, so to speak, from where we all start. It is how the species got here.
    • officegirl
      Some of that I agree with, a lot is BS. And you still do not understand me. You are too hung up on the whole "dominant-submissive" thing to realize that those are only judgmental labels invented to promulgate a certain frame of mind that devalues us and excuses a lot of boorish and selfish behavior. Why are we not allowed to be ourselves and just enjoy you the way we were created to do - without your needing to order and judge and classify our natural ( which is also evolutionary) behavior in demeaning terms? You give yourself leave to "seek out new females to impregnate" while confining us because we can carry and nurse "only one baby at a time". So therefore we are somehow inferior? How many babies can you carry and nurse at a time honey? Haven't you ever heard of wet nurses? Does it make no sense to you that evolution or God or whatever has designed for conception and that we seek it as actively or more so than you do? Goodness why do you think we were designed for multiple orgasms? So that we will desire sex for hours on end with as many "mates" as we can handle! I think you have noticed just with your girlfriend how our desire for sex increases with pregnancy if we are in good health - even though we can only have "one baby at a time" we still want it. And ditto years after menopause when we are unable to carry ANY "babies at a time". Now please read this. The fact that we want to feel protected and taken care of does not IN ANY WAY demonstrate that we are somehow "inferior" or "subordinate". We are perfectly capable of taking care of ourselves if we have to - and many of us do. For God's sake we have to if you are not going to stick around after we give birth! But the way we are - and this is evolutionary too - we seek networks of friends and acquaintances or whatever you want to call them for our support - just as a spider weaves a web - we cannot support ourselves without such networks and in good health we naturally seek them and wallow and thrive in them. Everything from husband to family, relatives, friends, community etc. we naturally cultivate for our support. Where do you think the term "networking" came from? Oh I can take care of myself quite well thank you and I also have a very good job as well an inheritance as well as a husband who does well. Many women are not as fortunate as I have been. Or as well-equipped as I learned to be. Now less fortunate women or less able will more need the support of a man and will more depend on that - for their existence as well as their well-being. Not just writing about emotional support which we all need but physical support. So invested are we in that support - you can call it protection or even survival - that it becomes #1 priority and we will do what we have to for it. Including going along with anything our supporting man imposes upon us. Please understand our survival and that of our children is often at stake. I have learned to do very w ell for myself and I can pretty well protect myself. But doesn't mean I don't like having a husband that will go downstairs and check out a noise we might hear in the middle of the night. And I can fuck men from one end of the night to the other and take their money but I STILL want someone at home - a husband at home - to come home to . Because that is how I was created. Now you can take that and assign relative values to how I was created and how you were created but please understand that you are devising a system of your own, or taking someone else's system, to assign those values. Other systems than yours or the ones you use would assign them much differently. And as far as your "prehistoric ancestors"- and oh I think they were actually just as historic as you and I will be - are concerned, The "Goddess" came from our actual ability to engage in repeated sex and conceive and bear children so we were worshipped. Eventually someone figured out that you had something to do with it too and
    • officegirl
      Sorry I must have exceeded my limit. But my conclusion was this : in a relationship of mutual caring (love) there is no "sub" or "dom" but just love. All else or how we choose to think about it or hold it is only in our heads..
    • dorat
      Check out my other reply. Please note, you keep missing here that I am talking evolutionary psychology in human sexuality. It IS more nuanced, but we start from where we evolved. (Oh, and as to wet nurses, until about 150,000 years ago, they were thin on the ground, In nature, a female human primate could only carry one baby at a time and wet nurses did not exist. You are confusing evolution with social custom. Prehistoric man, by definition, did NOT have social customs. Man came to dominate nature, but at the outset, we were as apt to be eaten by a sabre tooth tiger as to kill one. We started out as prey and only later in prehistory became predators. While we were prey, the rule of the jungle thrived and "love" did not exist. (In fact, the very idea of the kind of romantic love you are thinking of did not begin until about 15th century Europe. Why do you think arranged marriages were the norm in history? Your notion that women were worshiped is an invention much later in history - and certainly if you are right, then the feminists have nothing to complain about. Male dominated societies did not just pop out of thin air. As to "networking," that simply did not exist for primitive females. Again, you are conflating things. Anyhow, yes, there IS "sub" and "dom." In evolutionary terms it is how we got here and those instincts never completely go away. You ARE right that there is more to it than that, but oddly you seem not to appreciate that it is more complicated than you seem to grasp. You are such the romantic, though, Officegirl. That is so sweet. Cheers!
    • officegirl
      I was not referring to romantic love but to mutual caring. And I am not at all a romantic.
    • dorat
      You are confusing my use of the term romantic -in its literary usage - with the popular definition. In fact, for all your affectations, you are more of a romantic than just about anyone else I have dealt with on this site. As to mutual caring - again, not the norm until about 150,000 years ago. We didn't start there. It was an evolutionary development. When we talk about human sexuality, much of our sense of mutual affection and love becomes conflated with our evolutionary development. I love my gf with all my heart, but I also have a biological instinct for sex. Love does NOT necessarily equal sex. If it did, couples who could not have sex - for example, wounded veterans who are paralyzed - would not last. You enjoy sex with your husband because you love him. You enjoy sex with other men because you have certain instincts that are biological imperatives. We have evolved to like sex because if we hadn't, there would be no human beings. (Indeed, an evolutionary carryover from this is the data that show that men who do not get sex tend to become depressed, sicken more easily and die, on average, earlier than men who get sex more regularly. That's natural selection at work in the here and now.) Love came after that and as man became civilized and society developed, love became, in effect, the way humanity, in so many words, regulated sex. Think of this, as late as the 19th century in the Ottoman Empire, harems were the norm, and of course, polygamy was not unheard of. No love there. That was sex, pure and simple.
  • Yes, I do enjoy it. I think I may share similar feelings to your girlfriend on this. I suppose I'm a little old-fashioned about relationships. Obviously, we both take great care in satisfying each other's needs. But I think one reason for me that I enjoy being sexually subordinate is that I'm a very petite lady and I feel that I need to have a strong man to take care of me and to take charge in the bedroom.
    • dorat
      Yeah - you really do seem to share my gfd's feelings. In fact, this is getting spooky. Are you sure you and my gf have not been talking? Seriously, though, I have to say that while I really do try to satisfy my gfd's needs, I like that she is willing to subordinate herself to me. I need that sense of being a man and - weird as it sounds - when I am sexually aggressive, there is a sense that I am protecting her. It is all kind of weird and very primal. It is both me as a breeding animal and me as dominant and protective male - and my gf is like you, a little old fashioned and she loves it. Just out of curiosity, if you have ever discussed this with your husband - and I assume you have - does he feel the same way that I mentioned? If you've been mind melding with my gf - and I mind melding with him? Again, I wonder, is this an instinctive thing for both guys and girls? (Grant that Officegirl seems to feel differently, but instinct does NOT determine how we feel, it only sets the stage, so to speak.) What do you - and your husband - think?
    • ladyEmma
      I can say that my husband's thoughts are much like yours. He has said very similar things as to how in a way, he actually feels like he needs to be dominant at times to give him a sense of being a man. And from a woman's perspective, even when he is giving it to me rough, I feel like he's actually showing that he can protect me and be the strong man that I need him to be. He told me he wasn't able to really express this fully with past partners, and I am so glad that he can share it with me. And for me as a married woman, I feel that I actually need him to be this way sometimes. I've been with a lot of men, and in my marriage, I have a primal need to feel that I am a commodity to him and that I'm worth fighting for. I wonder how my thoughts compare to your girlfriend. And I wonder how much my tiny body has to do with how I feel. I was a pretty independent girl when I was single, but as a married lady, I need to feel like I'm protected. I would say you and my hubby are definitely very similar.
    • dorat
      Sorry to be so slow in replying. We had an early dinner and then we spent some time with the munchkins. My gf has a little work to do so I have a chance to reply before we start the bath and bedtime routine. So to go from the domestic to the erotic, I have to agree. Your husband and I are very much on the same page and I think to some degree it is, as you said, our natural instincts at work. You can civilize the boy, as it were, but at a very deep level we are still territorial animals who need sex and that sense of dominance and of "owning" - though I hate to use the word - our mates and to protect them, It is basic evolutionary psychology. As to my gf, she has not used the same words as you, but she has said similar things. You have said that you need to feel that you are commodity to your husband and worth fighting for. My gf has said that she needs to feel sexually subservient to me. That her body is there for my use and that I would protect her. It is similar - there is an idea, in speaking of protecting her, that I would fight for her - and I would. Funny thing, I think that is why, like you mentioned, my gf and I both like it when I cum on her and why I am grateful in a way when she swallows my cum. She one time said to me in so many words, "It is like you are asserting your territory and when I swallow I am being obedient to you and at the same time accepting you." It does not get much more animalistic and primal than that. Grant that those feelings are not always in the forefront of her mind, but I can't lie and say that they are not, even when we are at our most romantic, a little bit in my mind. Like you, out of the bedroom, my gf is a very successful and independent woman. However, sex is a whole different ballgame. Funny thought - I do think we all mind melded. Serious thought - I think we have hit on some very basic sexual instincts here - and that is reassuring and interesting. Thanks for sharing this.
  • Sometimes.

Copyright 2018, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy