I I do not think there's really a "dominant gender".Maybe the point about superior genes is moot to begin with. This earlier post by Dimitri is more directly related to the topic of the thread and he seems to have gotten off topic a bit after the above.
Only, there's one gender who for some (primal?) reason is a bit over-protective when it concerns the (significant?) other to the point it seems to be in a knee-bending position.
There are always differences between the two due to biological reasons. But one more dominant than the other? Not really.
Sign In
Woman the dominate sex | Forum
Shawn
Sep 26 '15
The Forum post is edited by Shawn Sep 26 '15
Member sonofject
Sep 26 '15
@Shawn Thanks for the clarification. It's not hard to participate in a forum discussion and not forgo the social quandary. Keep it legit, I say.
Padowan
Sep 26 '15
The moderators seem to share the same affinity of video links for added humorous effect. :)
Maybe we need a Devil's Advocate for Mr. Dimitri.
Maybe we need a Devil's Advocate for Mr. Dimitri.
Padowan
Sep 26 '15
"Has anyone ms de any distinction between the 'dominate sex' and the other sex, whatever words may be used to describe it as the 'un-dominate' or 'non-dominate' sex?"
@Shawn
Typical response would be 'submissive' but that's too loaded with other connotations.
Let's think warfare, because I do feel establishing dominance can be construed as a battle of minds.
If one party holds the power they would have the advantage of a stronghold, as opposed to the weaker party open to attack labeling them as 'vulnerable.'
So my offered distinction would be Dominant over Vulnerable.
@Shawn
Typical response would be 'submissive' but that's too loaded with other connotations.
Let's think warfare, because I do feel establishing dominance can be construed as a battle of minds.
If one party holds the power they would have the advantage of a stronghold, as opposed to the weaker party open to attack labeling them as 'vulnerable.'
So my offered distinction would be Dominant over Vulnerable.
Daimonicme
Sep 27 '15
Procreation is a biological drive and imperative, sure, but the whole 'men fight the wars in service of the womenfolk' thing is in my opinion the dusty-throated cry of an outmoded form of masculinity that needs a serious overhaul. I've noticed quite a few intelligent people choose not to crank out crotch droppings like they're staking a claim on the future by propagating their DNA.
Gender has two components - one biological and one subjective. Leaning on gender binaries is outdated, anachronistic, and largely a waste of time when discussing stratification.
Men fight wars in service of their corporate masters, via governments. To claim that military service is some personal or biological calling is to ignore the puppetstrings attached to the uniform.
Padowan
Sep 27 '15
@Daimonicme
What if the puppet master is a queen? Wars have been fought before this century.
Fighting for a queen using your argument would substantiate the claim of the OP even more. You've just given her strings with which to pull in Dominance.
What if the puppet master is a queen? Wars have been fought before this century.
Fighting for a queen using your argument would substantiate the claim of the OP even more. You've just given her strings with which to pull in Dominance.
The Forum post is edited by Padowan Sep 27 '15
Member sonofject
Sep 27 '15
@Daimonicme
"...the whole 'men fight the wars in service of the womenfolk' thing is in my opinion the dusty-throated cry of an outmoded form of masculinity that needs a serious overhaul."
--Are you saying that the mechanisms of gender roles need to be fixed? Men have traditionally fought for the service of womenfolk via government. Many countries have sanctioned war under Parliamentary systems that have women in power.
I don't think it's an outmoded system, it's just that some countries/societies haven't been privy to a woman in the position of political power (like a president).
"...the whole 'men fight the wars in service of the womenfolk' thing is in my opinion the dusty-throated cry of an outmoded form of masculinity that needs a serious overhaul."
--Are you saying that the mechanisms of gender roles need to be fixed? Men have traditionally fought for the service of womenfolk via government. Many countries have sanctioned war under Parliamentary systems that have women in power.
I don't think it's an outmoded system, it's just that some countries/societies haven't been privy to a woman in the position of political power (like a president).
Shawn
Sep 28 '15
"Capacity for reproduction"... I'm not going to shag a hambeast. Nor am I planning to crawl up on some social low-life or a woman who can't treat her body properly. I'm expecting many women think about men the same way. "
So fat people are low-lifes? Did you realize I'm a bit chunky at the moment? Lol
"There's a thing called genetic superiority which makes certain (wo)men more worthwhile (alpha) and others as plain trash (beta). It undermines this whole "beta-idea" where women should be considered more valuable due to "limited reproduction cycles".
I dig the selection of worthwhile people while rejecting people I'd rather not spend time with. However, that's about as far as it goes for me. I've already dealt with the the pointlessness of the claim of 'superior genetics.' It's even more pointless to say that alpha-beta pack concept results from superior genetics -- in humans. That is to say a sketchy claim is responsible for something nonexistent. You might want to read the PUA 'evolutionary paychology ' with a grain of salt and brush up on the real shit.
It's not lost on me that by claiming that the 'beta-idea' is wrong that you are heavily implying you are 'alpha'. Heh ;)
Look, I get choosing worthwhile people -- whether that's in friends or potential mates -- in fact, everyone does. Really, it's a 'no shit, sherlock' kind of thing. Except for narcissists, people with low self-worth, and people who for some reason don't believe they have any better options.
"Nope. Like I said: "decent". Which might be a bit on the subjective side..."
I agree. BTW, the last time I heard a person use the word "decent" to describe someone it was my grandmother. She was a hysteric who was a gung-ho ideological moralist who had a habit of judging "decency" by a person's last name. So, yeah, definitely subjective.
Unless people stop believing in things as genetic illnesses
Hmm. As someone who doesn't have down syndrome, my genes are inferior to an actor who does, if the part we're competing for is for a character who has down syndrome.
The Forum post is edited by Shawn Sep 28 '15
Padowan
Sep 28 '15
@ Dimitri
When you say 'genetic illness' I assume you are referring to genetic disorders which are essentially genetic mutations.
Not every mutation is disadvantageous. Sickle cell hemoglobin provides certain protections against Malaria, which is helpful to African residents. The disadvantage arises when Malaria is no longer a threat.
So essentially, you would be inferior when placed among Malaria riddled locales.
When you say 'genetic illness' I assume you are referring to genetic disorders which are essentially genetic mutations.
Not every mutation is disadvantageous. Sickle cell hemoglobin provides certain protections against Malaria, which is helpful to African residents. The disadvantage arises when Malaria is no longer a threat.
So essentially, you would be inferior when placed among Malaria riddled locales.
The Forum post is edited by Padowan Sep 28 '15
Shawn
Sep 28 '15
@Dimitri: I forgot the obvious questions. I must be slacking. ;)
"It undermines this whole "beta-idea" where women should be considered more valuable due to "limited reproduction cycles"."
More valuable than what, in what way?
Shawn
Sep 28 '15
@Dimitri: "It has been 2-3 pages I've seen people like you knee-jerking without reading context. Shut-up or read-up. "
Do you mean 'people like me' should shut-up or read-up? People like me. Really? That's the first time I've heard that particular BS. Good job, you flinch really well. Next time, address me.
"The answer lies hidden in plain sight. If you fail to recognize your own arguments it is of no further use to discuss with you. "
You haven't recognized my arguments. So, projection + pretentious dismissal + the previous new BS, wow -- you now hold the record for making no valid statement whatsoever.
Except to say "it's subjective." K. That's obvious.
Shawn
Sep 28 '15
@Padowan: Before you jump me. Yes, I realized that particular BS isn't entirely new. He called me 'one of those people'. Lol
Padowan
Sep 28 '15
@Dimitri
Try 'reading up' on my response again.
I used your criteria 'genetic illness' not the broad category of all mutations.
Unibrows do not apply here, unless yours is unruly.
Are you trying to taunt me by continuing to use the term 'genetic superiority' without, yet still, defining it?
I cannot argue with an imaginary idea.
Try 'reading up' on my response again.
I used your criteria 'genetic illness' not the broad category of all mutations.
Unibrows do not apply here, unless yours is unruly.
Are you trying to taunt me by continuing to use the term 'genetic superiority' without, yet still, defining it?
I cannot argue with an imaginary idea.
Owner/Admin
Sep 29 '15
Sitting back with some popcorn and a umm.. Pepsi. I would toss in my two cents, but I have not been following this thread recently and can not be assed into reading pages of this thread. Even my curiosity must wait on this one. 
The Forum post is edited by Owner/Admin Sep 29 '15
Shawn
Sep 30 '15
@Dimitri: Now this is some BS. I am in awe of your talent...
"Genetic superiority can be subjective but does hold its ground in terms of certain people being just better (genetically) disposed. "
Better disposed to what? Swallowing bullshit?
The issue is that 'genetic superiority' doesn't hold it's ground as a valid concept in the way you are using it.
Like I said, wow, I'm in awe...
The Forum post is edited by Shawn Sep 30 '15
Shawn
Sep 30 '15
^ Check it out guys, I'm smoking crack here. ;) I'm rusty. I admit it. I'll have to correct this later. :)
EDiT: It is now later. (When I wrote this.)
"It might range from the grave disorders (which I used to illustrate a pretty clear point) towards the small details like having a unibrow or being very hairy to the point it becomes unattractive.
It might even be the form of the face which is different yet considered "normal". Acné etc.. do belong on the list.
All fall under "genetic superiority". "
Why should they all fall under 'genetic superiority'? You can categorize it any way you want in your own head but that in no way makes your argument valid.
"It might even be the form of the face which is different yet considered "normal"."
This is bizarre. You've just described the near total majority of human faces in existence. Both of our faces are different but considered normal, yes? How can such an absolutely average quality be 'superior'? You do realize that in order for this to be valid (as I've said a few times now) you have to give objective reasons this is 'superior' to something else, as well as clearly define what the something else is? Otherwise, you're simply expecting people to swallow whatever you say without reason.
Yes, I know you think everyone's blind. It couldn't be that you can't see yourself, could it? Naaahhh.
The Forum post is edited by Shawn Sep 30 '15
