[Harnbrand]

I've had no formal education in either psychology, biochemistry, or genetics (Well, aside from those Criminal Psychology courses), so this is really just conjecture. I'm holding my own experiences against examples I've witnessed of similar human behavior and hypothesizing. This hypothesis is based on examination of postmodern western society.

Our genes determine who we are - even getting past our physical attributes - and while they may not encompass our entire identities, they certainly determine our dispositions, including, many scientists argue - sexual preference. They probably know far more than I do about this, being experts, but I'm here to present the argument that orientation can be learned.

Chemically (Or genetically), sexual preference is straightforward and simple. You're either primarily turned on by males or you're primarily turned on by females. The estimated ratio of people who are primarily heterosexual to primarily homosexual is about 50:1. However, this doesn't mean that there's no middle ground - It's a contiuum. I'd be willing to go so far as to make the claim that, if every human being was completely in tune with his or her emotions, and honest to him or herself about their sexuality, the vast majority of the population would identify as bisexual or - more likely - bicurious at the very least. Very, very few people would either be completely straight or completely gay. People who do like the opposite sex even a little bit often identify as straight because it's still not completely socially acceptable to be bisexual or gay.

I'm certain that many of you have heard the old stereotype - that women are more likely to be bisexual than men. In truth, this is because Western society allows women to be more openly emotional - and as such, their emotional maturity develops at a quicker rate than it does for males - who are, for much of their lives, emotionally repressed. If males and females both experienced similar emotional development, as many males as females would admit they were bisexual.

One often hears of men who married and had children before they had the revelation that they preferred males - it had been something suppressed, and they had been ashamed because of old social stigmas, as well as religious and systemic discrimination and demonization.

If one strips away society's fetters, however, and in social environments that are more accepting of the LGB demographic, one finds that there seem to be more lesbians, gays, and bisexual people. This is not only because there are more who 'come out of the closet' in such an environment, but also because there are more people who examine their own sexual preferences without fear and realize that they too are not entirely heterosexual.

I myself was once what could be described as homophobic, having been raised in the Middle East as a member of a traditional Catholic family. That changed when, at the age of seventeen (after coming to Canada), the girl I'd been dating admitted to me that she was bisexual. It didn't lower my opinion of her one bit, and it got me to question what I thought I'd believed. I started speaking out against discrimination based on orientation. It was still four or five years before I turned my scrutiny on myself. At 21 now, I've come to the conclusion that I definitely prefer women - but under the right circumstances, I'd still sleep with a male.

I believe (And I've had this conviction strengthened by many supposedly straight friends I've discussed the topic with) that every male and female goes through a phase in his or her life when he or she is curious about the same sex. At the end of this phase, they either decide they're straight, gay, or somewhere in between.

But these are things that many of you already know. What I wrote this piece to talk about was the argument that 'sexual orientation' may even be a limiting term that fails to take into account all the variables involved. When one has decided, following introspection, that sexuality is not a matter of absolutes, one's eyes are opened to other possibilities. Consider this: Most monogamous sexual relationships consist of one person who is sexually dominant, and one who is sexually submissive. This, again, is on a continuum. Some will be more dominant than submissive, and some more submissive than dominant. Some can switch.

Hypothesis: Sexual attraction, while primarily a result of the 'genetic imperative' (or the drive to reproduce), gains many more important dimensions with sapient sexual species such as humans. I think that because of the way humans are 'socialized', a person's Dom/Sub disposition (or any sexual kink!) may have more to do in the long run with sexual orientation than genes.

For example, all other things being equal, males who are disposed toward being more submissive are more likely to identify themselves as 'gay' and be attracted to other males, because men are expected to be dominant by society, and there are many more dominant males than submissive ones.

On the other hand, females who are dominant may prefer submissive partners, and possibly preferring women to men, identify themselves as lesbian because there are more submissive women than dominant ones in western society.

Occasionally there are men and women closer to the center of the continuum who are equally comfortable with dominant or submissive partners, and these are more likely than most to consider themselves bisexual with no preference for either sex.

I'm only truly physically attracted to women - but since I'm sexually dominant, and submissiveness turns me on - I found that it was still possible to be sexually interested in submissive members of my own sex, even if I wasn't really physically attracted to males. Pleasure, after all, is pleasure. And one's sexual kinks can make sexual attraction as psychological as it is physical.

Quite a few members here seem to have studied behavioral psychology in greater depth, and I'm curious to know what they think of my conclusions. Do tell.

Hiya Harnbrand!

I don't have much on the intellectual level to contribute, only my experiences. I have had a lot of sexual trauma in my life and that resulted in a total aversion to sex. I told my therapist one day that I thought I was a-sexual. She laughed hysterically and responded, "You think about sex way to much to be a-sexual" This was before I became a sex addict or even took the slightest pleasure from a sexual encounter with my then husband.

So, I'll walk you through my experience. I left my husband in 2006 and moved 300 miles away. I started working graveyards in a hotel with a male security guard. It was then that I discovered my core belief that all men are rapists and if given the opportunity they will rape me! It's a projection of my past trauma and unfortunately a very stubborn core belief that hasn't shifted much since the five years I've been aware of it. Anyhow, after analyzing myself in therapy, I discovered that my subconscious reaction was to make sex with this man, which I perceived to be inevitable, my choice. So I pursued him and he reciprocated and we began a sexual relationship. This man was compassionate, kind, understanding of my past and I don't know why but that made me let go and trust him. He gave me my first orgasm and that started my sexual addiction. I've been chasing that high ever since. Plus, still when I feel threatened by a man I will sleep with a different man hoping karma will notice and keep the initial man from raping me. Tit for tat and not at all healthy but I'm a work in progress.

So, sex with women. I wrote in my journal that sex with men=sex by force and sex with women=sex by intrigue. I identify as bi-sexual though I don't openly admit this in real life to very many people. I have never had a successful relationship with a woman and currently am focused on men as I would like to re-marry and have a baby. I know two women can adopt but I want the traditional as it fits more smoothly with my spiritual convictions.

"I'm certain that many of you have heard the old stereotype - that women are more likely to be bisexual than men. "

I wanted to add my comment to yours above. Think about pornography for a moment. What does society prefer? Two men and a woman or two women and a man. My conjecture is that society, especially the man (who is sometimes pigeon-holed into this response), would prefer to see the two women. I also think it's a selfish thing. If you have two men and a woman then the two men are sharing the woman. But if you have two women and a man the man has two instead of 1/2. I'm not good at math but I know I would prefer two over 1/2.

Hope I've been able to give some insight.

Love and hugs,
Tara

[objtrbit]

hiya;

I know Freud said that we're all bisexual...somewhere in the spectrum lolz

Originally Posted by Harnbrand

If one strips away society's fetters, however, and in social environments that are more accepting of the LGB demographic, one finds that there seem to be more lesbians, gays, and bisexual people. This is not only because there are more who 'come out of the closet' in such an environment, but also because there are more people who examine their own sexual preferences without fear and realize that they too are not entirely heterosexual.

People generally flock to places where they're more socially accepted, which can also lead to an increase in minority populations in the specified area.

But these are things that many of you already know. What I wrote this piece to talk about was the argument that 'sexual orientation' may even be a limiting term that fails to take into account all the variables involved. When one has decided, following introspection, that sexuality is not a matter of absolutes, one's eyes are opened to other possibilities. Consider this: Most monogamous sexual relationships consist of one person who is sexually dominant, and one who is sexually submissive. This, again, is on a continuum. Some will be more dominant than submissive, and some more submissive than dominant. Some can switch.

Hypothesis: Sexual attraction, while primarily a result of the 'genetic imperative' (or the drive to reproduce), gains many more important dimensions with sapient sexual species such as humans. I think that because of the way humans are 'socialized', a person's Dom/Sub disposition (or any sexual kink!) may have more to do in the long run with sexual orientation than genes.

For example, all other things being equal, males who are disposed toward being more submissive are more likely to identify themselves as 'gay' and be attracted to other males, because men are expected to be dominant by society, and there are many more dominant males than submissive ones.

On the other hand, females who are dominant may prefer submissive partners, and possibly preferring women to men, identify themselves as lesbian because there are more submissive women than dominant ones in western society.

While I agree that dominate/submissive roles can play a part in sexual preferences... Genetics play the largest role in determining sexual orientation. (Genetics also has a part in a person's core personality, but that's beside the point...)

I hate to use personal experiences to debate a hypothesis of scientific nature, but I've never done research on the subject and I can't find any articles at the moment (10 cool points to someone who can [scholarly journals preferred])... Personally, I have a preference for women but I'm mostly bisexual. I'm also very dominant in both my public life and in the bed. Since I could go either way on gender, dom/sub roles do have a large effect on my choice of partner... But I know more than a few men who are submissive and open to all types of sexuality, but they still choose women. And I know women who are dominant, yet strongly prefer men. I even met a gay man once who was very submissive and feminine, yet he was the toppiest top I've ever met.

I'm only truly physically attracted to women - but since I'm sexually dominant, and submissiveness turns me on - I found that it was still possible to be sexually interested in submissive members of my own sex, even if I wasn't really physically attracted to males. Pleasure, after all, is pleasure. And one's sexual kinks can make sexual attraction as psychological as it is physical.

As someone incapable of compassion, love, or any of that other nonsense, I would agree that "sex is sex". But I don't exactly see people as "people", rather mere objects. So my point may be moot here considering my lack of understanding, but...

That sounds more like curiosity than being truly sexually attracted to males and females equally. If you've ever seen American Pie, you would know that you can get sexually aroused from sticking your d*ck in a pastry (among a number of other things). That doesn't mean you're sexually attracted desserts or have "objectophilia". It just means you're adventurous (or no one's taught you about about adult toys yet).

[Open Eyes]

Well, I would like to think that the best way is to be equally assertive towards each other. I think an agressive man would be much less satisfying as he would bonk and leave. However the whole experience is much more enjoyable if there was equal affection sexually, before, during and after MAKING LOVE.

The way you are describing sex is SELFISH PLEASURE and the DOMINANT one is less likely to be entertaining in any other aspect of the relationship as that Dominant one would be very self absorbed and EXPECT SERVICE IN EVERY DEMENSION OF THE RELATIONSHIP. Therefore there would truely be NO REAL RELATIONSHIP as a TRUE RELATIONSHIP implies the efforts to RESPECT EACH OTHER MUTUALLY.

This is why many MEN get TURNED OFF BY WOMEN in a relationship. A woman gets tired of BEING FORCED UPON and it feels LIKE A JOB OR DUTY rather than A REAL SEXUAL EXCHANGE OF MUTUAL APPRECIATION OF THE ACT ITSELF. A real quality intellectual spiritually sound woman wants A TRUE MATE, NOT A MAN THAT CONSIDERS SEX AS JUST A FORCED RELIEF FOR HIMSELF. To be honest there is NO REAL INTELLECT IN HOP, BONK, AND LEAVE. NO, the woman NEVER really feels like the MAN in this case is worth the effort at all and the majority of the women that are involved with this kind of man ARE NOT REALLY SATIFIED SEXUALLY.

Ofcourse there is always an exception to every rule, ignorance is bliss so they say.

Oh yes, you were just talking about SEX. MEN THINK SEX, WOMEN THINK MAKING LOVE. At least the majority of the women I talk to AWAY FROM THE EARS OF MEN.

Pleasure does not have to entail dominance at all it can be better attained by a mutual appreciating of SHARING the ACT and assuring that BOTH INVOLVED ARE EQUALLY EXCHANGING AN EXPERIENCE OF PLEASURE. If you want real behind the scenes statistics? MOST MEN ARE LOUSEY LOVERS OR LOUSY AT SEX. And many, many women will agree that MEN DONT REALLY KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING AND IT IS USELESS TO THINK THEY DO.

But AGAIN there is always exceptions to the rule, but from what I have heard over the years THEY ARE FEW AND FAR BETWEEN.

I am just presenting the quiet statistics that I have been pivy to. Most women don't tell this to their husbands, or boyfriends or significant others they finally realize it is a waste of time.

And another thing that women do is after they find out what is REAL, they decide the best choice is to choose a mate that has the best stability and perks. They just put up with the rest and play the game of pretend very well.

And then you have those that cheat in a longing for real love and satisfaction, does that exit they wonder? And the frequency of divorce is an indication of something gone amiss huh?
Or because that dominant one wants to dominate someone else.

What is troubling is when children are involved and they never really learn how to really love and be safe and honest with a real sense of security. Those children can either be passive or can grow angry and be agresssive.

Open Eyes

[Open Eyes]

There is a lot more depth to this than meets the eye Michael. Sexuality is not just about Agressive and Passive.

When I think about someone who wants to be the Agressor. Now what does that really say. Well, it could mean that he had an overpowering mother who was cold and over ruling and no real love and tenderness was exchanged. Therefore that male child often becomes the Agressive one as he is over ruling that domineering mother in every sexual act, his source of being in control. Ofcourse he doesn't really realize that he just goes on and TAKES, TAKES and gains satisfaction in the act of Overpowering one into submission. But to be honest that is not intellectual at all.
Honestly, what is the real gain in that? Think about it, it is more animal than intellectual. And it has nothing to do with truely experiencing the deep fabric of another person. It is the difference between a true artist of making love rather than the ravages of grabbing a can of paint and dumping it on the floor. Gee one might as well just be a gorilla.

And to be honest, that is one main reason for the high divorce rate. Because a deep SATISFIEING RELATIONSHIP requires some REAL INTELLECT AND STAYING POWER, REAL STAMINA. Not the kind of stamina that is required in an almost rape like situation. There is no real fabric to that, no satin or silk or velvet, just SANDPAPER.
That is where the saying comes from THE (ART) of MAKING LOVE. Women can only dream about A REAL MAN. And it has nothing to do with AN AGRESSIVE MATE. Very few men bother to truely educate themselves about women and many of them just take because they just don't have it in them to LEARN ANYTHING ELSE. Maybe that is why women turn to other women, and believe me I have heard those conversations too. I have talked to women who have said if only my best friend could be a man, how nice that would be. Men are fairly easy to satisfy unless they are a drunk and take forever and slobber all over the woman, Yuck, no one enjoys that except for maybe another drunk and that is called mindless sex.

A woman would rather have a man that cant get it up but has all the other qualities a woman really enjoys. Older men that are kind and gentle and loving have no idea what a comodity they can be, they often think that just because they have lost some of what they consider their manlyhood they are not desirable, that is pretty sad because they can be very desirable. Ignorance can also lead to loneliness.

And when the first steps on the moon were taken and they spoke the words about a big step for mankind, the women had a lot to talk about away from the ears of MEN. (LOL)

I think that there is a whole different demension behind sexuality. The spoken and unspoken and it is deeper than meets the eye. Are some born to have a preference, the science says yes. But there are those that are also confused about their sexuality and that also may come from the parents and what they expressed to each person as they grew and developed.

I myself do not question a persons sexual preference, I leave that up to them, it is my hope that they are happy with their choice and find a true companion to share their life with. Like you I am not a scientist so I cannot judge or state on the science of the matter.

I question the aggressive passive behaviors to sex and why that may take place. It is my opinion that it may be a lack of something that an agressor may need control or even a passive person may have a lack also.

But I have never had a desire for either aggressive or passive positioning, I would prefer an even interest and mutual partnership. More of a learning about each others desires and grow in not only a sexual nature but in all the other demensions of a relationship. I would think that would be the healthy way no matter what prefrence one has in gender. I think that there can be a confusion with the word agressive. I think the healthy approach is to be assertive in both partners.

But that is just my opinion, I suppose as always to each his/her own.

Open Eyes

Originally Posted by Open Eyes

There is a lot more depth to this than meets the eye Michael. Sexuality is not just about Agressive and Passive.

I didn't ... say it was. I actually argued the contrary. I didn't read the rest of the post, though, as my dearest wife wants a shot at the laptop. Apologies if I misunderstood.

[Open Eyes]

Originally Posted by Michael the Great

I didn't ... say it was. I actually argued the contrary. I didn't read the rest of the post, though, as my dearest wife wants a shot at the laptop. Apologies if I misunderstood.

Well you had a question and you were wondering, that is how one learns.

As we all know one is bound to get a lot of different responses to that question you proposed. And it will be interesting to see what other responses you get. I think here it could be diverse as this site runs around the world so why not ask? There is no harm in wondering about something and asking for other opinions. There is some bravery in that willingness to wonder and ask and perhaps the desire to ponder and learn, nothing wrong with that.

It is not really that you misunderstood, it was a question and you ran through some ideas.

Open Eyes

Originally Posted by Open Eyes

Well, I would like to think that the best way is to be equally assertive towards each other. I think an agressive man would be much less satisfying as he would bonk and leave. However the whole experience is much more enjoyable if there was equal affection sexually, before, during and after MAKING LOVE.

What is "bonk"?

I respectfully disagree with the notion of both partners being equally assertive. It may work in some relationships, but I definitely see a dominant/submissive dynamic (to varying degrees) in most relationships, regardless of gender. To have two submissive partners would create indecisiveness in the relationship, and two dominate partners would lead to tension and argument whenever the two disagreed on something, typically.

I don't see how being dominance or submission has any affect on affection.

The way you are describing sex is SELFISH PLEASURE and the DOMINANT one is less likely to be entertaining in any other aspect of the relationship as that Dominant one would be very self absorbed and EXPECT SERVICE IN EVERY DEMENSION OF THE RELATIONSHIP. Therefore there would truely be NO REAL RELATIONSHIP as a TRUE RELATIONSHIP implies the efforts to RESPECT EACH OTHER MUTUALLY.

I didn't see that... I think you're confusing dominance and tyranny.

This is why many MEN get TURNED OFF BY WOMEN in a relationship. A woman gets tired of BEING FORCED UPON and it feels LIKE A JOB OR DUTY rather than A REAL SEXUAL EXCHANGE OF MUTUAL APPRECIATION OF THE ACT ITSELF. A real quality intellectual spiritually sound woman wants A TRUE MATE, NOT A MAN THAT CONSIDERS SEX AS JUST A FORCED RELIEF FOR HIMSELF. To be honest there is NO REAL INTELLECT IN HOP, BONK, AND LEAVE. NO, the woman NEVER really feels like the MAN in this case is worth the effort at all and the majority of the women that are involved with this kind of man ARE NOT REALLY SATIFIED SEXUALLY.

Oh yes, you were just talking about SEX. MEN THINK SEX, WOMEN THINK MAKING LOVE. At least the majority of the women I talk to AWAY FROM THE EARS OF MEN.

I agree. I am "turned off" by a woman who thinks sex a chore and that I'm forcing myself upon her. I hope no woman I was ever with felt that way.

But one night stands? I've had many a one night stand where the woman was more than a willing participant. And the men too. Believe it or not, there are women who enjoy casual sex. It's a jolly good time, after all.

Pleasure does not have to entail dominance at all it can be better attained by a mutual appreciating of SHARING the ACT and assuring that BOTH INVOLVED ARE EQUALLY EXCHANGING AN EXPERIENCE OF PLEASURE. If you want real behind the scenes statistics? MOST MEN ARE LOUSEY LOVERS OR LOUSY AT SEX. And many, many women will agree that MEN DONT REALLY KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING AND IT IS USELESS TO THINK THEY DO.

There does exist this phenomenon where a submissive partner gains much satisfaction from being sexed by a dominant other. Many individuals even prefer sub, men and women alike. This is why BDSM is so popular.

We're lousy then? What can we do to remedy this? Enlighten me. Please.

But AGAIN there is always exceptions to the rule, but from what I have heard over the years THEY ARE FEW AND FAR BETWEEN.

Glad to know I'm so valuable.

And another thing that women do is after they find out what is REAL, they decide the best choice is to choose a mate that has the best stability and perks. They just put up with the rest and play the game of pretend very well.

Why?

And then you have those that cheat in a longing for real love and satisfaction, does that exit they wonder? And the frequency of divorce is an indication of something gone amiss huh?
Or because that dominant one wants to dominate someone else.

Are you implying that men are solely responsible for divorce?

Originally Posted by Open Eyes

When I think about someone who wants to be the Agressor. Now what does that really say. Well, it could mean that he had an overpowering mother who was cold and over ruling and no real love and tenderness was exchanged. Therefore that male child often becomes the Agressive one as he is over ruling that domineering mother in every sexual act, his source of being in control. Ofcourse he doesn't really realize that he just goes on and TAKES, TAKES and gains satisfaction in the act of Overpowering one into submission. But to be honest that is not intellectual at all.

Again, you're confusing dominance with tyranny.

My mom was, and still is, painfully submissive. She is very empathetic and loving. It's my father who's the tyrant.

Not every dominant man is an Edmund Kemper.

Honestly, what is the real gain in that? Think about it, it is more animal than intellectual.

We're all animals, dearie.

And it has nothing to do with truely experiencing the deep fabric of another person. It is the difference between a true artist of making love rather than the ravages of grabbing a can of paint and dumping it on the floor. Gee one might as well just be a gorilla.

Are you critiquing my artistic abilities?

I think that there is a whole different demension behind sexuality. The spoken and unspoken and it is deeper than meets the eye. Are some born to have a preference, the science says yes. But there are those that are also confused about their sexuality and that also may come from the parents and what they expressed to each person as they grew and developed.

I agree. There are emotional and romantic aspects to sexuality that I can't understand, considering my mentality. Mind you, that's not my mentality as a man, rather my mentality as a psychopath. Men can and do understand those aspects of love and sex. Where you're getting this notion that all or even most men are selfish, shallow pigs is beyond me.

Sexual confusion in adolescence is fairly common, regardless of how "normal" one's parental figures are.

I question the aggressive passive behaviors to sex and why that may take place. It is my opinion that it may be a lack of something that an agressor may need control or even a passive person may have a lack also.

Why are dominant and submissive traits always considered bad? Both are good in certain doses, contrary to popular belief.

But I have never had a desire for either aggressive or passive positioning, I would prefer an even interest and mutual partnership. More of a learning about each others desires and grow in not only a sexual nature but in all the other demensions of a relationship. I would think that would be the healthy way no matter what prefrence one has in gender. I think that there can be a confusion with the word agressive. I think the healthy approach is to be assertive in both partners.

But that is just my opinion, I suppose as always to each his/her own.

Open Eyes

Yes, "aggressive" implies "violent". Although, I've met more than few couples who enjoy aggressive and violent sex...

You haven't had many healthy relationships with men-folk, I'm guessing?

Originally Posted by Open Eyes

Well you had a question and you were wondering, that is how one learns.

As we all know one is bound to get a lot of different responses to that question you proposed. And it will be interesting to see what other responses you get. I think here it could be diverse as this site runs around the world so why not ask? There is no harm in wondering about something and asking for other opinions. There is some bravery in that willingness to wonder and ask and perhaps the desire to ponder and learn, nothing wrong with that.

It is not really that you misunderstood, it was a question and you ran through some ideas.

Open Eyes

I didn't ask the question.

[Open Eyes]

Originally Posted by Michael the Great

I didn't ask the question.

Your right, sorry I had thought it was you that asked the question. Well, the sun comes in the room at that time and it is hard to see the screen, my mistake.

Well I was answering the other person then.

Much of my answer is from talking to a lot of different women over the years and just listening to them and reading as well here and there.

I will try to answer to your answers, I am not sure how that will come out in type.

Open Eyes

[Open Eyes]

Originally Posted by Michael the Great

What is "bonk"?

I respectfully disagree with the notion of both partners being equally assertive. It may work in some relationships, but I definitely see a dominant/submissive dynamic (to varying degrees) in most relationships, regardless of gender. To have two submissive partners would create indecisiveness in the relationship, and two dominate partners would lead to tension and argument whenever the two disagreed on something, typically.
Well you have a right to your opinion, yes if both are submissive than perhaps no children? And yes there can be a bit of indecisiveness in the whole dynamics of the relationship and perhaps they need to learn to be more assertive to gain any ground. And the oposite would be true if both were domineering, I imagine there must be lots of arguements in that type of relationship.
I don't see how being dominance or submission has any affect on affection.
Most men don't usually see that or the woman if she is the dominant one.
Remember that is often why they like to choose a submissive partner, Control. And I have seen this where one partner is often exhausted of the other's demands.

I didn't see that... I think you're confusing dominance and tyranny.
It depends on the severity of the dominance it can be tyranical. Remember there will be one who is submissive they don't complain they just deal. And I think that goes for both sexes, I have seen that happen.

I agree. I am "turned off" by a woman who thinks sex a chore and that I'm forcing myself upon her. I hope no woman I was ever with felt that way.
Thats why I talked about what women talk about in the absense of Men's ears. Many women don't tell again they just deal, but they may often tell a close friend or group of women they can confide in. I have been listening. I learn alot from listening and I have often asked why not tell the man? And that would be a long answer here. But I cannot leave out that men complain to, the ice woman or they are so tired of being hen pecked all the time they would rather not get intimate. And then there may be the ultimate passive that just goes along with whatever.

But one night stands? I've had many a one night stand where the woman was more than a willing participant. And the men too. Believe it or not, there are women who enjoy casual sex. It's a jolly good time, after all.
Here again, wish you could be privy to what many women say. They are often disappointed and just avoid any further contact. I can remember one conversation where a woman talked about how the guy was a really good kisser, so she decided to go further, the rest was awful and she had a real problem cause the guy kept wanting another event, she didn't.
But she never told him why. Women don't really tell the men, they talk amoungst themselves.

Yes, women often are willing participants but that doesn't mean that in the end they were truely inspired. As you said, ONE NIGHT STANDS, if it was that good she would be getting your number and finding any way to meet with you again, but as you say, ONE NIGHT STAND.

Believe me I have talked to many women and sit an listened in groups of women who explored a lot more than I ever did. I was kind of hoping that they would point to the good ones. I was sadly disappointed I really never heard any rave reviews. It saved me a lot of time and unnecessary exposure. I was on the list so to speak, but remember I am a good listener. I had them chasing but I did'nt waste my time and I was even bribed by one telling me he was buying me a car, wow big deal, not thanks. I already had the reviews. I was friendly with a group of very attractive women, they pretty much had the pick of the crop so to speak.
There does exist this phenomenon where a submissive partner gains much satisfaction from being sexed by a dominant other. Many individuals even prefer sub, men and women alike. This is why BDSM is so popular. I don't know what BDSM means that whipping type sex chains and that?
Now why do you think they prefer the submission? I just think that if one really knows what they want and is an assertive person they don't usually pick a dominant person, they pick an equal. Does picking a submissive person make one feel stronger? better? more powerful? or is it because the submissive one will just give in without much of a fight? Or, oh your so big and strong and sexy (could be male or female) you just overpower me? I only felt that way one time, the chemistry of the man was very powerful, I was married so I did nothing but I knew it was the same for him and so we just avoided each other, we were both married and we did love our spouces. Then again I don't really think of it as being in a passive or submissive position the chemistry was just extremely strong. That was actually interesting never felt that before or since.
We're lousy then? What can we do to remedy this? Enlighten me. Please.
Well, most men do not realize that a woman needs more time and there is a way to approach a woman that men just don't seem to catch on to.
I actually think it is a faulty design sometimes and could be a way for natural birth control. As I listen to different women I do think about that alot. I even see it in the different relationships as they draw attention to what turns them off. I really listen and observe people and I learn alot. And I can see how is effects the realationship.

Myself, I didn't really look for a man who was rich or extravagant. I actually was turned off by some men who seemed to think that their car was a big deal and had a real meaning to his identity and sexual prowess. And the man I picked was not really the dominant but he wasn't submissive either. It worked out well in the sexual department and would have been really perfect had it not been for the alcohol issue. I grieve about that. I dont think I will ever find him again in another man just wish the alcohol didn't damage it.
Glad to know I'm so valuable.
Sorry I don't have my post to see what you are addressing here.
Why?
" "
Are you implying that men are solely responsible for divorce?
No, it is not all the mans fault, there have been really nice men that got stuck with a possible tyrant in the female form. And this is where I see the Dominance fail. I would not necessarily say the man was particularly submissive but the poor guy just picked a witch. I noticed a lot of men will stumble over a real jewel to get to the one woman that is more difficult to catch. They often mistaken it as a good hunt or chase and well they catch it alright, LOL And they pay through the nose for it too.

Again, you're confusing dominance with tyranny.
Perhaps you need to describe your idea of dominance. Because it can be tyranny for the other partner. And I have a feeling you may have already advized someone on that.
My mom was, and still is, painfully submissive. She is very empathetic and loving. It's my father who's the tyrant.
Ok, there you go, often men are very attracted to a woman that is their mother, the same goes true for a daughter picking a man like her father. They do it and just do not realize it. My daughter's boyfriend that she will probably marry is a lot like my husband right down to the issue. I didn't want that to happen and I hope she keeps him in check and not have to deal with what I dealt with.
Not every dominant man is an Edmund Kemper.
Perhaps not that violent, maybe a bit self centered. And that is not exclusive to males, women can be that way too. There is a saying if you have a giver and a taker the one that leaves first is the taker.
We're all animals, dearie.
Well, there may be some that will debate you on that, fair warning.
It depends on what one believes and that is highly debated, even here.
Instead I would like to think in degrees of intelligence.
Are you critiquing my artistic abilities?
Oh you took that personally did you? Perhaps you are not that exception I spoke of? Remember I did say there are exceptions.
I agree. There are emotional and romantic aspects to sexuality that I can't understand, considering my mentality. Mind you, that's not my mentality as a man, rather my mentality as a psychopath. Men can and do understand those aspects of love and sex. Where you're getting this notion that all or even most men are selfish, shallow pigs is beyond me.
I wasnt saying all men are shallow pigs, I enjoy the company of men, but I am expressing what women say in the absense of Men's ears. But I have also hear what men have said in the absence of womens ears. I don't know why but people like to tell me things or may it is because I just listen and dont try to tell them what to think or do. However they do ask my advice at times.
Sexual confusion in adolescence is fairly common, regardless of how "normal" one's parental figures are.
Yes your right exspecially in this day and age where there is a lot of outside pressures more than ever before, except maybe in Roman times they were all over the place. And there are more children being raised in a divorce situation and that can really make them question alot.
I personally never had any question in that department and I really didn't have any friends that had that issue either, but this generation, they do have more confusion as the gay presence is known more in schools and even flaunted. And some girls thought it was just a cool thing in my daughter's high school years. I have no idea how it is now, perhaps even more confusing. Not that I want to see someone hide in shame for their sexual identity, but yes, it can be confusing when it is out in the open for those that are just discovering who they are and experiencing the normal difficulty of understanding the opposite sex.
Why are dominant and submissive traits always considered bad? Both are good in certain doses, contrary to popular belief.
I cant think of a relationship where that really worked out can you?
Point out a prominent relationship where that really worked out, I cant really think of any. I was thinking of Regan and Nancy but they were both very agressive. Sorry can't think of one can you?
Yes, "aggressive" implies "violent". Although, I've met more than few couples who enjoy aggressive and violent sex...
Yeah? why? what is the psychology behind that? I wonder maybe that is a psycholgical preconditon? I dont know if science has studied that yet.
You haven't had many healthy relationships with men-folk, I'm guessing?

I have, I have been married for 31 years and as I say, it would have been so much nicer without the alcohol issue. My husband was never violent. He was a binge alcoholic, shame it made it hard. I stuck with him but it was hard. Other than that, he was a good mate, not a dominant we were equal. To be honest I greive over that. There was a lot of fun and interaction the way I wanted. The alcohol got in the way.
We made love when the alcohol wasnt there. And I have already descibed what it is like when it was there, not so nice, because he wasn't really there, just some slobbering drunk.

I know there are good men out there. I think they just pick the wrong one. They often end up being dominated and are very unhappy men. I have listened to them too.

I don't expect you to understand, your designed differently, we dont have the same computer programing so to speak, my keys are very deep and caring, but not submissive. And your not as deep as me, not in the same way. But it is in your wanting to understand that impresses me. Men are often more practically minded than women are to begin with perhaps that is why they often dont recognise the errors that they make. Just an offer of a bouqet of flowers and a dinner does not mean they are owed sex especially if the conversation during dinner is condesending and too domineering.

Perhaps we all have to address it as best we can given that we are all somewhat unique.

Open Eyes

Hiya both!

I just wanted to jump in again as a female who's slept with 70 men I feel I have some valid experience to share. I know some may want this to be intellectual but I find that I can't gain access to my intellectual side without going through the experiential side. So here goes...

As far as BDSM goes - I got into that about two years ago, bondage first then more of the classic BDSM stuff. It took me a lot of time analyzing what I was doing because, although I enjoy it on many levels, on many other levels it's a complete turn off and downer. Having analyzed my reasons for this I think I have come to the conclusion that it engages my desire for control. I'm the submissive so you may be thinking what control? I think the submissive has the most control because there is one word I can utter and it all stops. Also, it truly is (for me) recreating the trauma of my past but this time I have the ability to stop it. Sounds sadistic and twisted and I assure you it is. For example, I have been raped and it was a horrible experience that affects me negatively to this day, yet I did a rape role-play with a bf and it was amazingly exciting. Yes, I knew it wasn't real and that may be the difference. It was intense though.

So having slept with 70 men, which is not something I am proud of, but I can't change it so I might as well accept it and use it to help others not go down the same path. Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with sleeping with a large number of people. I can tell you that out of the 70 that I have slept with I can count six that were good enough for me to remember their names. 6/70=.08% So, I guess that's enough men to get me legally drunk! JK (sorry couldn't help the pun). Anyway, my point is yes, most of the men that I've slept with have sucked in bed and I have not wanted any more than a one off event.

The one night stand - what it means to me. The one night stand is all about my sexual desire and getting my needs met right now, not long term. I typically go online and post an ad. Within ten minutes I have a list of 20-30 men willing to sleep with me. I choose five or six and set them up to come over throughout the day, never one meeting the other. It takes that many for me to feel sexually satisfied because most men that I've slept with just can't fulfill me. That being said, it has a lot to do with medications that I'm taking and is only in some unknown percentage the fault of the men I'm choosing. Typically once I've slept with a man I don't want to know him any longer. That is, unless we connect on a more intimate emotional level. But, when you're meeting just for sex though, it's hard to even open that emotional valve. Plus, when I don't take the time to build up to sex over a couple month period then it ruins the rest of the potential for that relationship. Why is the man going buy the cow when he can get the milk for free?

Sex is not an emotional act for me, it's purely physical. Although I yearn for that emotional connection and partnership with a man, I'm just not finding it and so resorting to getting atleast my physical needs met. This became a huge problem for me about a year ago and I started to realize that I am indeed a sex addict. I started attending sex and love addicts anonymous and am still attending. I have six months two weeks and I think two or three days of maintaining my bottom lines. So, there is hope.

I wanted to caution you all too, I'm not speaking for all women, I don't think anybody can do that. I'm solely speaking based on my experiences.

Love and hugs,
Tara

[Open Eyes]

Sorry to hear about your struggles tara,

Yes there is a whole different aspect to the original question that Harnbrand presented here and it can be addressed in different opinions perhaps by various people who are in a passive postion that may not be understood. Or even an aggressive postion that has it's origins as well.

I stated my own opinion and experience and views of the question and it is nice to read other candid opinions on the subject. It may even be therapudic for some here.
Or at the very least something to ponder as in here, there is a chance to hear perhaps what are only wispers that many ears do not hear.

I am sorry to hear about your difficulty with having a sexual relationship and even a normal relationship because of an event that caused your confusion about that process. And there are many people who have true reasons for being aggressive as well as passive, things are not taken into account. And it is not unusual for a woman who had been overpowered in a unwanted sexual experience to react a different way in her or his effort to try to regain some form of "Control" over the reaction to that experience. Many women who are very actively sexual have faced some type of abuse, even from a father or other relative. It is no secret that some become prostitutes as they often view themselves unworthy of anything else or even see this activity as a distorted control method.

It is no doubt that you do crave the normal intimacy and perhaps you somehow felt that by having many different partners you would overcome that event that distorted your view on that in the first place. And it is not unusual for a victim of rape or CSA to feel that they cannot truely participate in a normal relationship and they feel they are damaged as a person and somehow unworthy. Obviously the person that commits the act has no real regard for the victim and feel empowered by the taking of another and there are various psychological reasonings behind that as well. As sometimes an abuser has a history of abuse him or herself.

So it is not just a simple answer or reasoning involved that can address this question with a black and white clear answer. There are clearly many variables involved behind agressive and passive behaviors when it comes to the act of sex itself. And therefore there is another question as I have proposed, why? would one behave in those different manners. The true meaning lies deep within the different unique individuals that present themselves one way or the other and that is in regards to the whole spectrum of the sexual interaction between different human beings.

I presented my opinion because I think that it is sad that many men do not realize they may have an inadaquacy and I don't think that they really wanted it to be that way. And I have tried to ask various women why they have not just tried to work on building a better well rounded relationship with their husbands and mates. But the list of reasons are endless and most imply that the effort would be wasted and that the partner by his or her own issues would never truely understand it. And I just read yet another post that presented that type of issue where the woman simply stated that by just not expressing her concerns the relationship could continue.
So there you go, a silence and ii that a passive response, yes it is. And should that constitute a healthy relationship, NO. To me that is laying a poor foundation for a relationship and then building that relationship only to have it crumble further down the road after investing too many years of ones life, wasteful in my opinion.

I hope others are brave enough to express their thoughts on this question as this is a good place for people to learn and ponder their own perspective on their own form of relating to others within the different kinds of relationships presented in this question.

To truely address this question one does have to consider, why one really chooses to be passive and why one really wants to be the agressor in the sexual interaction.
If anything it may explain why people are forced upon and help them understand the different dimensions of that experience.

It may even offer some direction to those that even feel inadaquate to engage in a relationship.
As many people have never learned how to be assertive towards others in a healthy way where the self esteem within that individual exists in a well rounded manner.

It brings forth some possible honest discussion on how one acts and why. And I am not just addressing male or female but the various forms of interactions within both sexes.

Open Eyes

[Open Eyes]

Well, I came home and for a brief moment I wanted to see if there were other opinions on this topic. I would hope to think that I am not to only one with an opinion on the matter.

Well Tara, I have noticed that you have put your feelings here in a couple of places and the most impressive message you send is that you have recognized that something bad did happen and you chose one way of addressing it. You have openly admitted that the method you chose turned into another perceived problem.

But the two statements you have made are 1, you recognize that the direction you took did not really help and only brought further issues and 2, you are ready to learn what method you could learn that would be a better way to get to the place where you can experience a healthy satisfying relationship. So, in effect YOU are willing to think about doing the work to put YOU on a better path to enjoying life better.
And that is OK in my book as you have made a decision to try to move forward, in spite of your past. And I think that if you put your mind to it, you can acheive that.
And it will take you time to get to that goal but if you are willing to get direction and take the time to reconcile your past, you can move forward in a better direction.

I think that is true for all individuals if they are willing to learn. I think about the different labels and what that means, including mine and I think that it is just an obstacle to overcome. One can either punish themselves for the rest of their lives or knowing their possible limitations, work around those limitations to living a better life.

I still would like to see some other opinions or even questions. This could be an informative thread as we can consider different views.

And by the way I used the word Bonk because I didnt want this thread to turn into an over descriptive discussion about the act itself. I just wanted to address the concept of Dominant, passive, agressive, assertive and what that might really mean.

Open Eyes

Open... There was too much in there for me to tackle on one coherent post, so I'm picking out the most important parts if you don't mind.

Dominance... Some people have qualities of their personality that make them naturally dominant individuals - be that future leaders of fortune 500 companies or childhood bullies. They can be more vocal, sociable, and blunt (Dr. Phil) or reserved, quiet, yet highly esteemed (Don Vito Corleone from The Godfather), among a variety of other qualities. Although, dominance alone does not a good leader make. I don't watch Dr. Phil often, but I'd bet he's good with people and considers others' opinions. When a domineering person refuses to acknowledge or tolerate anyone who disagrees with him or her... that's a tyrant.

Dominant people in relationships are generally more likely to be extroverted, confrontational about problems, make decisions, pursue their desires, voice their opinion, initiate sex, and so forth. Subs are generally more introverted, compliant, ask, avoid confrontation, provide support emotionally, et cetera. These roles, in relationships especially, are dynamic. A sub may call the shots in certain situations that he or she is more adept in handling while the dom takes a back seat. Sometimes these roles are subtle and change often, sometimes they're more prominent.

Assertiveness is not the only aspect in a relationship. Negotiating and complying are equally important, otherwise the problem would never get solved. This is an issue in many relationships. The partners are so busy fighting for control and defining their "roles" that nothing ever gets done.

Me? I'm secure enough with myself to admit when I'm wrong. And I'd much rather have a woman who is willing to confront me than one who "silently suffers" as I go about my ways thinking everything is fine.

Originally Posted by Tara

Having analyzed my reasons for this I think I have come to the conclusion that it engages my desire for control. I'm the submissive so you may be thinking what control? I think the submissive has the most control because there is one word I can utter and it all stops.

I've heard a lot of BDSMr's say the same thing. They also have more say in what position they want and so forth.

"Move a little this way... No... No... Ahh... That's it..."

Also, it truly is (for me) recreating the trauma of my past but this time I have the ability to stop it. Sounds sadistic and twisted and I assure you it is.

I don't think it's twisted (although, my sense of "twisted" may be skewed...). It's like reclaiming a sense of control. Makes sense to me.

[Open Eyes]

"Assertiveness is not the only aspect in a relationship. Negotiating and complying are equally important, otherwise the problem would never get solved. This is an issue in many relationships. The partners are so busy fighting for control and defining their "roles" that nothing ever gets done."

Yes Micheal I agree with this statement.

And by your definition of a sense of Dominance in a relationship I am still trying to think a couple I know where the passive one does not resent it in some way. I have a very good friend and she is the Dominent one and her husband is the passive. But he pouts a lot and seems unhappy, he does comply but I am not sure he is all that happy Michael. And my friend is very domineering and gets the job done so to speak but she can be very selfish too at times. I can picture her and how she is very matter of fact, go out dear and make lots of money so we can go on vacation again. And I feel that she would have preferred a man that had a much higher standard of living as she would love nothing more than to be lavished with that big house with all the trappings of monetary and social wealth. So she plays up to her sister and her sister's husband who is among the mover and shakers so to speak. And I get the feeling that her husband is just in tow.

And I really like my friend we can go along time without seeing each other and just pick up like we have never been apart. I had a lot of fun with her when we were both single she was very forward, much more than me, actually I really wasnt forward, not the way she was I had different standards. And she was very daring sexually, I didn't care for her choices and she would often say, "he was just adaquate". She paid a price for that falandering, she got cervical cancer, the kind that is brought on by being sexually transmitted. But as I said, I didn't care for her choices in men. It will be interesting to see how her son turns out, she is a very strict mother as well and it isn't easy to pull the wool over her eyes. She is definitely not a dead beat and we really had some good times and I found her to be witty and challenging and foward thinking. But the last time we spoke she didn't sound all that happy with the hubby, she is actually bored sexually.

I don't really care much for Dr. Phil he can be a know it all that doesn't quite know it all. I don't watch his show if it is even still on. Probably because the issues he addressed where in pretty low scale, not very intelligent people. I tried to watch a couple of times but the antics of the people were just of no interest to me. Some of them seemed like they could almost go on the Jerry Springer show and those people were awful.
Who even watches that stuff anyway? Not to get off topic here.

Still cant think of a man and woman combination yet that would be good example of what you are describing.

Well interesting to see your point of view.

Open Eyes

[lynn P.]

So far some interesting posts and I think Michael explained himself well in the last post about dominant and submissive personalities. I think at 1st Open Eyes was getting the wrong impressive that dominance meant tyranny or someone was getting hurt..but we're talking about consensual relationships where this exists and they balance each other out. It's also not black and white ...there can be varying degrees and the roles can shift. It works best if they compliment each other.

To get back to the original post this is a very broad subject. I tend to believe most people's sexuality is determined in the womb, as well as societal influences. There's also the opinion that sexuality is fluid for some -meaning it can change over time and depending on circumstances....although this doesn't happen for everyone. Personally I've known from a young age I'm heterosexual. I'm probably one of the rare ones who've only had 1 partner - I met husband when I was 17. I don't think this makes me a sexual dummy and just because a person's experienced doesn't make them a good lover lol. I think I started out with a submissive personality, leaning to a more confident person who could lean to more dominant with some things.

Tara - I'm happy you're getting help for your addiction. You seem to know yourself well.

Open Eyes - I found your "bonking" reference humorous since you're usually so mild mannered in your posts lol. I took it to mean its a 'wham bam thank you maam' kind of statement. I think the kind of dominance Michael is referring to, is the kind where both partners are happy in this arrangement - for example...like a charming man who sweeps a woman off her feet.

[Open Eyes]

LOL Lynn well, I really try to respect the fact that some can get triggered and I do want them to read and think about relationships as some have a lot of trouble and don't even want a relationship at all.

When I think of Domineering I think Donald Trump and he could seem like prince charming and has clearly sweep more than one woman off her feet. He didn't mind changing from one to the next. None of the women yelled abuse, only that he left them in the dirt to move to the next top model etc. And what about Tiger woods?
Was he just a Tyrant? I don't recall any of those women being anything but pleased YET, they were not so pleased when they found out they were just on a list and not the only one.

Bill Clinton and Hilary, would you say they were both Domineering? Although only one could speculate in that instance. And what about Arnold Swartzaneger? Was he domineering or just tyrannical? I didn't hear his wife complain other than the infedelity and lieing. And I have a feeling he was Domineering in that marriage.
What is longevity of it. Can there be a complimentary couple, I still ask for a successful example that we would all know.

Give me an example, of all the people in history, surely has there been that configuation that was ever lasting, not arguing for control and could exemplify a good relationship.

Lynn you touched on your own relationship. Was he domineering in the beginning and it turned to tyranical? Does it progress that way? ( I still think your smart enough to get out of that somehow, I am plugging for you)

Open Eyes

Thank you, Lynn.

Again, Open, you're pointing out people who are not only extremely dominant, but narcissistic, selfish, embarrassingly sensitive to criticism, and completely oblivious to the fact that they are, in fact, morons. We have a term for such people. They're called "douchebags".

I don't pay attention to the relationships of famous people unless they're humorously dysfunctional or the success or failure of said relationship would affect me in some way. So I'm going to have to fall back on TV shows for examples.

Burn Notice - Both Westen and Fiona are assertive, determined people. They have a rocky relationship, but it works for them, considering their volatile nature and professions. In their professional lives, Westen usually calls the shots. I don't watch the show all that much, so I haven't seen much of their sex lives. But Fiona seems to be more controlling under the sheets.

Between Westen and Sam... Again, Westen calls the shots.

Suits - I've only seen the pilot of this show. And, granted, the relationship between Harvey and Michael is a business relationship, and thus has an established hierarchy, but it's still a good example. Harvey is definitely the boss, and it shows in the way he carries himself. He holds his head high, maintains eye contact, and he speaks his mind. He has the more dominant personality. And he's a narcissistic, selfish womaniser. But he sure is likeable. Michael is confident as well, but, in his relationship with Harvey, he's more likely to listen and learn than take charge.

The Godfather - Don Vito Corleone is the epitome of great leader. He is calm and patient. He listens to the advice of his peers. He considers everyone's opinions before deciding and does his best to be fair. But his word is law. And everyone respects him (except that bastardo Sollozzo, but that's why he gets himself killed in the end). Don Corleone is the boss in his personal and professional relationships.

In healthy relationships which involve dominant and submissive dynamics (which is, arguably, nearly all relationships), the submissive is hardly lacking in control. They willingly enter into a relationship with a person who compliments their more submissive characteristics - an outgoing, perseverant, problem solver. Furthermore, the sub's opinion is heard and duly noted. But, as the more complaisant person in the relationship, they are simply less likely to be making the decision in the end ... usually because they don't like making decisions. So they hand over the responsibility to someone who wants it. The extreme form of this is a dependant slave. I'm not talking about that.

I might add more to this later, but I'm starving...

[lynn P.]

Originally Posted by Open Eyes

LOL Lynn well, I really try to respect the fact that some can get triggered and I do want them to read and think about relationships as some have a lot of trouble and don't even want a relationship at all.

When I think of Domineering I think Donald Trump and he could seem like prince charming and has clearly sweep more than one woman off her feet. He didn't mind changing from one to the next. None of the women yelled abuse, only that he left them in the dirt to move to the next top model etc. And what about Tiger woods?
Was he just a Tyrant? I don't recall any of those women being anything but pleased YET, they were not so pleased when they found out they were just on a list and not the only one.

Bill Clinton and Hilary, would you say they were both Domineering? Although only one could speculate in that instance. And what about Arnold Swartzaneger? Was he domineering or just tyrannical? I didn't hear his wife complain other than the infedelity and lieing. And I have a feeling he was Domineering in that marriage.
What is longevity of it. Can there be a complimentary couple, I still ask for a successful example that we would all know.

Give me an example, of all the people in history, surely has there been that configuation that was ever lasting, not arguing for control and could exemplify a good relationship.

Lynn you touched on your own relationship. Was he domineering in the beginning and it turned to tyranical? Does it progress that way? ( I still think your smart enough to get out of that somehow, I am plugging for you)

Open Eyes

I really wasn't planning on talking about my own marriage or husband on this thread lol. We're dealing with his brothers death ATM so I'm not feeling it's appropriate to criticize. I will briefly talk about but I think this thread is about sexuality and sort of turned into this discussion of dominance and submissiveness.

I was trying to narrow it down to how it plays into a sexual relationship. it also varies from minor to unhealthy dysfunctional dominance and where submissiveness become codependancy. Yes my husband tends to be dominant, partly because of the way he was raised and his culture. He also has his own major psychological issues that haven't really been dealt with. If dominance and submissive nature is at a healthy level, then yes it can work just fine. All the people you mentioned are unhealthy role models.

You might be surprised that I would say something to support my husband but I wanted to explain him from a human compassionate viewpoint for a minute. My husband grew up with 2 dysfunctional parents with 8 siblings and very poor. The father used to beat his wife and kids including him. He was a tyrant and probably had psychological issues too. The Muslim religon allows up to 4 wives, so for my husband...this is normal and not a slap in the face, in his mind, even thoguh it's not widely practiced

Personally I have nothing against Polygamist marriages or polyamorous relationships - 'I' just don't want to live this way. If all participants are cool with this arrangement, then that fine - there's even an advantage on this kind of cooperative arrangement. The stickler for me is, I don't agree to this for myself. There are times when my husband is very kind and he's a good father, so he's not all bad. I won't allow my own bad opinion to tarnish the purity of my own childrens relationship with their father.

I was very naive and sheltered when I was 17 and didn't know I was headed for a dysfunctional relationship. The flags were there but I didn't see them - I was literally blinded by love. If only I knew what I know now, I could have made a better decision BUT I wouldn't have my girls. SO, everything happens for a reason and he's darn lucky to have chosen (me) a woman who's not vindictive and selfish, otherwise I would have packed my kids up and went to a womens shelter. My kids would have been traumatized and I would be in a huge bitter battle with him. Yes i would be away from him but at what cost to my kids?? They truly love him and I recognize this and value it, despite the hurt he caused me. It's easy to show kindness to someone who deserves it - the challenge is to show kindness when someone doesn't deserve it. I did all of this for my girls and for myself - I won't become the hardened dysfunctional person he is sometimes. I won't allow this to make me a bitter person. One thing I'll give him credit for, is he never abandoned me financially or his children.

Everyone falls somewhere between dominance and submissiveness. I think some of us were trying to say its hard to have 2 dominant people in a relationship or 2 submissives. There's a saying "there's too many chiefs and not enough Indians" lol. Someone needs to take charge and hopefully it benefits the submissive follower too. It is possible to be a moderate dominant or submissive and have a good relationship.

[lynn P.]

LOL I'm find it strangely amusing that I seem to think similar to Michael the Great. I wrote my post before you posted yours and I amused at the similarity.

[Open Eyes]

Well Lynn I did say you are intelligent. And you have a healthy perspective inspite of your situation.

The original question in this thread did address the variations of different sexual preferences and how the roles of dominance plays in the variations of those different sexualities.

LOL Well Lynn, you and I have pretty much stated that we have both known our own sexual preference without much question. Therefore all you and I could really do is discuss (within our own preference) the factor of dominance and passive behaviors in a relationship.

As Michael has better defined his opinion of the difference of Dominance in Tyranny
I have agreed with him on his description of the kind of Dominance he was describing.
One has to realize that it can have a different meaning to others that may read into the Dominance in a way that it has not worked out for them.

As Michael has further explained the type of situation better, yes, I can see how that can work well and actually be healthy in a relationship. However I didn't want someone else to understand the Dominant behavior as being the same as Tyranical and walk away being confused. And that is what lead me to requesting an example to think about and see who, not necessarily actors but anyone that might be recognized in a public way.

It must be recognized that we do have a younger group of reader that could be easily confused by the statements that were already made.

Lynn if you think about your own statement of not seeing the red flags and possibly what that may lead to down the road, well, that scenario happens all the time. I can certainly raise my hand on that one with the kind of alcoholism I experienced and all the struggles that entailed. And yes I feel the same way you do about the fact that I have a wonderful child that would never have existed had I seen those red flags.

So far there have only been heterosexual views here. At least we have a clearer definition of what a HEALTHY Dominance and passive relationship entails.

Open Eyes

[Koko2]

Homophobia arises much from religious codes although a homophobic atheist I know probably gets the homophobia passed down from his father, who's father's father was probably a minister, and also from machismo. In porn, all of the women perform bisexual acts even if they list their orientation as straight. Sex is more of a performance for men, viagra promises an erection lasting 4 hours, and how well you perform is paramount in the macho mindset, whereas non-orgasmic women are accepted.

[Koko2]

Why? Promulgation of the species. If all men were gay, the human species would die out. If all women were gay, humans would continue as long as lesbians allowed men to have sex with them such as typified by the universal bisexual female in porn. This is on a primitive level as the species can be promulgated nowadays with artificial insemination. The religious codes are primitive directives to maintain the human population.