Men may wage the wars and conquer nations. But, woman are the dominate sex. Men fight for territory. The most precious resource is woman. So, make no mistake, us men struggle and slaughter each other for our woman, mothers and daughters.
And when the day comes if I am still living, know that I will be in the trenches with my brothers. Knee deep in the blood, guts, puke and piss. We shall go down as one. Surrender is not an option.
Just as this video shows... men fight the wars. But it is the queen we answer to. Any chess player knows this.
Sign In
Woman the dominate sex | Forum
Member RevMel
Jul 21 '15
Women are better negotiators. They've no macho images, or superstitions to prove to each other. men see conquest. Women see global opportunities for sharing peace. Men see territories. Women see open borders.
nith
Jul 22 '15
I think you should get out more and meet people.
Women are better negotiators. They've no macho images, or superstitions to prove to each other. men see conquest. Women see global opportunities for sharing peace. Men see territories. Women see open borders.
I have found there are ass wipes and ok people on both sides of the sex thing so it would be interesting to find how you got your findings.
Shawn
Jul 23 '15
@SIN: I get what you're saying -- that you value the women in your life. But, that doesn't automatically make women as a whole 'the dominate sex'. Who says there has to be one? (I ask the wherefore and whathows!)
Padowan
Jul 28 '15
Dominate over what?
The male mind?
Fighting and sacrificing for someone does not equate with dominance. Fighting for the safety of a child could not provide that child with power over you; you have chosen to protect them based on your greater strength, experience and knowledge to do so.
Yes, a woman has the added power of sex to encourage protection but a man's sexuality inspires a woman's instinctual desire to nurture and care. It is a mutual exchange not a power struggle.
If there is a power struggle it is found in the weakness of the mind, in either the male or the female.
Owner/Admin
Jul 28 '15
Well said. Point taken.
Dominate over what?
The male mind?
Fighting and sacrificing for someone does not equate with dominance. Fighting for the safety of a child could not provide that child with power over you; you have chosen to protect them based on your greater strength, experience and knowledge to do so.
Yes, a woman has the added power of sex to encourage protection but a man's sexuality inspires a woman's instinctual desire to nurture and care. It is a mutual exchange not a power struggle.
If there is a power struggle it is found in the weakness of the mind, in either the male or the female.
Member sonofject
Sep 19 '15
The OP makes some solid points about women's power over men. Within the philosophy of satanism, those tenets apply to the embracement of carnal human nature and gender roles within the philosophy. Example: men and women alike worship and place themselves secondary to the carnality of 'living altars' (LaVey being most pimpish in codifying this through ritual). To me it's rooted in real experience and carnal knowledge rather than fantasy (lack of experience).
"Dominance" within a gender role dynamic infers an imbalance, yet some see being dominated as a form of empowerment. Still others may desire a harmonious or balanced paradigm, so many will seek the opposite as a complement to their own carnal natures i.e. 'the one that completes you'.
It's all about gender roles. Whether or not one fits the stereotypical role type.
"Dominance" within a gender role dynamic infers an imbalance, yet some see being dominated as a form of empowerment. Still others may desire a harmonious or balanced paradigm, so many will seek the opposite as a complement to their own carnal natures i.e. 'the one that completes you'.
It's all about gender roles. Whether or not one fits the stereotypical role type.
Padowan
Sep 20 '15
@sonofject
What solid points did the OP provide that supports if women hold power and dominance over men?
What solid points did the OP provide that supports if women hold power and dominance over men?
Member sonofject
Sep 20 '15
@Padowan
I believe the OP was talking about women in the role of a matriarchal figure for men. He used the analogy of soldiers fighting over territory (motherland, if you will). The chess analogy of the Queen piece having more square moves than the King piece. The power of a woman to be able to create and nurture another life form (and the ability to manipulate men with them). We as men place ourselves secondary for these reasons, historically and traditionally.
Those are all powers that us men just do not have in our role as a patriarchal figure for women.
I believe the OP was talking about women in the role of a matriarchal figure for men. He used the analogy of soldiers fighting over territory (motherland, if you will). The chess analogy of the Queen piece having more square moves than the King piece. The power of a woman to be able to create and nurture another life form (and the ability to manipulate men with them). We as men place ourselves secondary for these reasons, historically and traditionally.
Those are all powers that us men just do not have in our role as a patriarchal figure for women.
Shawn
Sep 20 '15
@Padowan
Read my first post in this thread, then consider why sleeping on any specific side of the bed is significant. Then extrapolate that to epic proportions.
Just my opinion.
Padowan
Sep 20 '15
@Sonofject
Somehow I didn't extrapolate those points at all from the OP. Your explanation of power is interesting and slightly convincing. You were able to get me to apply the brakes and reconsider the turn I was taking.
One point I can't help but disagree is your view of manipulation as power. Manipulation is deception. Only the weak use that to suck power from others.
Maybe a sound definition of Dominance in this context may help.
I still contend that Dominance is a battle of minds; sex is irrelevant.
Somehow I didn't extrapolate those points at all from the OP. Your explanation of power is interesting and slightly convincing. You were able to get me to apply the brakes and reconsider the turn I was taking.
One point I can't help but disagree is your view of manipulation as power. Manipulation is deception. Only the weak use that to suck power from others.
Maybe a sound definition of Dominance in this context may help.
I still contend that Dominance is a battle of minds; sex is irrelevant.
Padowan
Sep 20 '15
@ToddManning
Why does there need to be a Dominant sex? There is no need. In fact, once a power struggle ensues, or one side bows down, the relationship loses all possibility for intimacy. I'm speaking in terms of connections forged in a meeting of the minds; emotion and intellect (not the battle in the bedroom.)
Power struggles kill. In war lives are lost.
In relationships; love is lost.
But balance of power, balance of strengths and weaknesses, generate something greater; an alliance.
Why does there need to be a Dominant sex? There is no need. In fact, once a power struggle ensues, or one side bows down, the relationship loses all possibility for intimacy. I'm speaking in terms of connections forged in a meeting of the minds; emotion and intellect (not the battle in the bedroom.)
Power struggles kill. In war lives are lost.
In relationships; love is lost.
But balance of power, balance of strengths and weaknesses, generate something greater; an alliance.
The Forum post is edited by Padowan Sep 20 '15
Member sonofject
Sep 20 '15
Well, Padowan, I'm not disagreeing with your contention, but do you mean that sex (gender) is irrelevant, or theact of sex in the context of manipulating someone emotionally is irrelevant? Like I stated a few posts ago, some people perceive the notion of being sexually dominated to be a form of empowerment.
Example: in certain subcultures, like male street gangs, the role of a female as objectified property empowers a 'sacredness' among the gang members if the female is shared sexually. There is no dynamic of jealousy among the males, the female represents something the whole gang partakes in. She is a dominant force that keeps the gang unified and tight-knit. There's no deception there although it can be construed as manipulative. If I was one of the gang members, I wouldn't perceive the female as weak willed in that example.
How would you perceive the female in that role?
Example: in certain subcultures, like male street gangs, the role of a female as objectified property empowers a 'sacredness' among the gang members if the female is shared sexually. There is no dynamic of jealousy among the males, the female represents something the whole gang partakes in. She is a dominant force that keeps the gang unified and tight-knit. There's no deception there although it can be construed as manipulative. If I was one of the gang members, I wouldn't perceive the female as weak willed in that example.
How would you perceive the female in that role?
Padowan
Sep 20 '15
@ Sonofject
I meant gender is irrelevant to Dominance.
What experience do you have with gangs personally?
How do I perceive the female's role in the context of your description? The same as I see anyone that is assimilated into a culture and never having the privilege of an expanded awareness. Asleep. Unconscious. Unaware of her greater potential. Disinformed.
Your description sounds cult-like to me. She is possibly being fed the illusion that she 'unifies' the group as a 'sacred' embodiment.
Deception exists in many forms. The worst kind is cloaked in social acceptance.
I meant gender is irrelevant to Dominance.
What experience do you have with gangs personally?
How do I perceive the female's role in the context of your description? The same as I see anyone that is assimilated into a culture and never having the privilege of an expanded awareness. Asleep. Unconscious. Unaware of her greater potential. Disinformed.
Your description sounds cult-like to me. She is possibly being fed the illusion that she 'unifies' the group as a 'sacred' embodiment.
Deception exists in many forms. The worst kind is cloaked in social acceptance.
Shawn
Sep 20 '15
@Padowan: "Why does there need to be a Dominant sex? There is no need. In fact, once a power struggle ensues, or one side bows down, the relationship loses all possibility for intimacy. I'm speaking in terms of connections forged in a meeting of the minds; emotion and intellect (not the battle in the bedroom.)"
There doesn't need to be one, but that there is one is the difference between a ballroom dance floor and a mosh pit.
The Forum post is edited by Shawn Sep 20 '15
Member sonofject
Sep 20 '15
@Padowan
Thanks for the clarification.
To appease your inquisitive and highly intuitive nature, I've turned the page on that chapter in my life (scout's honor, lol). My experience is typical, grew up as a metalhead and renegade youth, surrounded by fraternal organizations and was enchanted by the frat subculture. Eventually my affiliations veered into the more hardcore groups, Asian gangs (filipino persuasion), separated by neighborhood and business hierarchy. I never banged for the block (represented) but I was privy to banding together with others to fight a common enemy, and I was adept at moving between the legit world and the subculture, which was by and large cyclical. My word is my bond. Long story short, I grew out of it and was never compelled to immerse myself in the lifestyle. I instead found a love of live music that I pursue to the present day. I don't know your experiences with this subculture but that is how it went down back in my day.
In many ways, my description was cult-like, but I wasn't referring to a bunch of gangbangers running a train on some doped up hoodrat seeking social acceptance. The ones I knew that hung around the gangs eventually bore some members' children and mentored/educated the youth in their time, recognizing their 'greater potential', in a way. They were the matriarchs of the cliques, that was the kind of empowerment that I was alluding to.
"Deception exists in many forms. The worst kind is cloaked in social acceptance."
Wise words, young Padowan.
Thanks for the clarification.
To appease your inquisitive and highly intuitive nature, I've turned the page on that chapter in my life (scout's honor, lol). My experience is typical, grew up as a metalhead and renegade youth, surrounded by fraternal organizations and was enchanted by the frat subculture. Eventually my affiliations veered into the more hardcore groups, Asian gangs (filipino persuasion), separated by neighborhood and business hierarchy. I never banged for the block (represented) but I was privy to banding together with others to fight a common enemy, and I was adept at moving between the legit world and the subculture, which was by and large cyclical. My word is my bond. Long story short, I grew out of it and was never compelled to immerse myself in the lifestyle. I instead found a love of live music that I pursue to the present day. I don't know your experiences with this subculture but that is how it went down back in my day.
In many ways, my description was cult-like, but I wasn't referring to a bunch of gangbangers running a train on some doped up hoodrat seeking social acceptance. The ones I knew that hung around the gangs eventually bore some members' children and mentored/educated the youth in their time, recognizing their 'greater potential', in a way. They were the matriarchs of the cliques, that was the kind of empowerment that I was alluding to.
"Deception exists in many forms. The worst kind is cloaked in social acceptance."
Wise words, young Padowan.
Padowan
Sep 20 '15
@Sonofject
My experiences have been mild association. A platonic dating/friendship with a Mexican gang member in highschool (Southern California.) Another distant contact with, interestingly, Filipino gangs in Hawaii (also highschool.) my perspective was outside looking in, and from a highly innocent and naive perception. All I have gathered is that gang subculture is united in fear-based connection. Correct me if I'm wrong.
I came back online to make a point. With your background feel free to point out my misperceptions. My concern for a single woman as center in unifying a gang shifted after some thought on the matter.
Considering the disconnect these men face with outside gangs and social acceptance (possibly) could this 'sacred' female represent, subconsciously, a surrogate maternal influence in a psychologically sexual pacifying form? I'm not debasing a matriarchal system, but past experiences with some men have shown a need to be mothered, possibly for a lack in childhood. I would imagine a great many gang members have had less than ideal childhoods. As I said, I am viewing this from the outside looking in. And an objective view I hold.
We've lost Dominance somewhere...
(Young Padowan?)
:)
My experiences have been mild association. A platonic dating/friendship with a Mexican gang member in highschool (Southern California.) Another distant contact with, interestingly, Filipino gangs in Hawaii (also highschool.) my perspective was outside looking in, and from a highly innocent and naive perception. All I have gathered is that gang subculture is united in fear-based connection. Correct me if I'm wrong.
I came back online to make a point. With your background feel free to point out my misperceptions. My concern for a single woman as center in unifying a gang shifted after some thought on the matter.
Considering the disconnect these men face with outside gangs and social acceptance (possibly) could this 'sacred' female represent, subconsciously, a surrogate maternal influence in a psychologically sexual pacifying form? I'm not debasing a matriarchal system, but past experiences with some men have shown a need to be mothered, possibly for a lack in childhood. I would imagine a great many gang members have had less than ideal childhoods. As I said, I am viewing this from the outside looking in. And an objective view I hold.
We've lost Dominance somewhere...
(Young Padowan?)
:)
Padowan
Sep 20 '15
@Shawn
Okay.
The OP's point was the female is the Dominate sex.
You just gave me two examples of male dominance. One by leading and one by brute force.
I'm not sure where you're leading me. ;)
Okay.
The OP's point was the female is the Dominate sex.
You just gave me two examples of male dominance. One by leading and one by brute force.
I'm not sure where you're leading me. ;)
Member sonofject
Sep 20 '15
@Padowan
Yeah, Dominance was lost in extrapolation. Got a bit off track but not fully derailed at least. I'd like to tackle your question though, just the same:
Considering the disconnect these men face with outside gangs and social acceptance (possibly) could this 'sacred' female represent, subconsciously, a surrogate maternal influence in a psychologically sexual pacifying form? I'm not debasing a matriarchal system, but past experiences with some men have shown a need to be mothered, possibly for a lack in childhood. I would imagine a great many gang members have had less than ideal childhoods.
--This may very well be the case, but this subconscious surrogate maternal influence, at least in my experience, was not a factor in my affiliating with gangs. I didn't need to fill a void or disconnect from a less than ideal childhood. It was just something I observed that was pervasive in the subculture. I imagine certain types of gangs were formed out of a necessity for self-preservation in a less than ideal environment--surely--some are mentored by surrogate mother types that teach them to put maternal influence on a pedestal or hold it sacred. Later in life this can have a bearing on sexual relationships, I think subconsciously some of these gang members want to 'marry their mothers' as it were.
Anyway, very insightful discourse, I give you mad props for engaging and offering a unique female perspective on the discussion at hand. That's definitely rare around here.
Yeah, Dominance was lost in extrapolation. Got a bit off track but not fully derailed at least. I'd like to tackle your question though, just the same:
Considering the disconnect these men face with outside gangs and social acceptance (possibly) could this 'sacred' female represent, subconsciously, a surrogate maternal influence in a psychologically sexual pacifying form? I'm not debasing a matriarchal system, but past experiences with some men have shown a need to be mothered, possibly for a lack in childhood. I would imagine a great many gang members have had less than ideal childhoods.
--This may very well be the case, but this subconscious surrogate maternal influence, at least in my experience, was not a factor in my affiliating with gangs. I didn't need to fill a void or disconnect from a less than ideal childhood. It was just something I observed that was pervasive in the subculture. I imagine certain types of gangs were formed out of a necessity for self-preservation in a less than ideal environment--surely--some are mentored by surrogate mother types that teach them to put maternal influence on a pedestal or hold it sacred. Later in life this can have a bearing on sexual relationships, I think subconsciously some of these gang members want to 'marry their mothers' as it were.
Anyway, very insightful discourse, I give you mad props for engaging and offering a unique female perspective on the discussion at hand. That's definitely rare around here.
