Are women biologically programmed to reward cruelty, evil and domination?

See the thing is, the dominant ideology or whatever you call it, it's a perception, as is everything.

You are far from the master of truth you believe yourself, the only truth there is is that all is perception.

You're a prisoner in your own mind. You have perceptions you don't like, which fuel even more perceptions you don't like, and so fourth and so on.

 

Society only plays one game at a time. You can make any set of rules you want for yourself. You can say the more goals the other team scores, the more points you get. But your not playing and winning your own game, your just losing theirs. So thats what it means to go against the dominant ideology.

More concretely in a deeply hierarchical society, such as our own there is no way to live and survive outside the chain of command. If you think life is worth working for, you need to find a boss who is willing to pay you, and accept his authority and whims.

 

No, you still don't understand, you're thinking several levels above where you need to be.

You don't know that there is a game, or ANY other individuals... it's all in your head.

You make me feel lucky to generally have my shit in order, while at the same time feeling quite unfettered by society, pretty mentally free, and somehow simultaniously pretty close to sane.

 

Ok fine maybe it is all in my head. Maybe some all-powerful evil genie has stuck my brain in a vat, and all the sensations I feel are artificial. Nothing of the outside world exists.

Maybe that is what is true "out there". I'm the only conscious being in existence and everything out there is just sensation. You know what sometimes I do feel that way. I feel like I'm the only one alive not blindly following the biological imperative to survive and reproduce without asking whats the point?

But you know what, so what if solipsism is true? My reality is still the reality shaped by Them the others. The argument for solipsism is the same as that for any religion, there is no proof that it is not true. But as long as there is not evidence that it IS true, I still live as though it were not true.

For a time I did embrace stoicism, the notion that the mind is free, though the body is in chains. I guess I'm just too weak or too restless for that peace. I can't just detach myself from the sufferings of the world.

Isn't it strange that all this had to be explained to me? I lived my life as a young boy, as a teen, as a student. Almost entirely among males. Yet I needed to have it explained to me that male social structures are naturally combative, competitive, and hierarchical, while females are more flat-based and cooperative. And yet I guess the sorts of organizations I participated in were the most strictly hierarchical of all. It is striking how different the personalities of the me in and out of the world are. And yet I think in a certain sense we basically believe in the same truths.

 

I'm not going to deny that the ideology, the social structure, and the game you speak of is one of the more powerful competing sets. Yes, we live in a fairly patriarchal system. Yes, it's competitive, favors men, especially strong, competitive, aggressive ones.

But it's by no means the only game in town. Sure, if you play a different game, you are 'losing theirs'. So what? What is there to win? What is the point of winning? If you win, you get nice toys. You get social standing. You get to boss others around. Neat. You also have to stay in competitive mode all the time. You also have high stress levels and likely die younger. You also have no real friends, likely have a wife that doesn't love you and kids who hate you. You are likely alone, and quite miserable, despite having 'won'. Plus you get the joy of knowing you've helped to support that paradigm.

One of the things you are missing is that the entire urge to even -play- that game is actually part of the game. The entire feeling that you have to play the game to win, or are a -loser- is part of the game. The entire idea that the game is hopeless to fight against and the only options are winning or losing is all part of the game. And the fact that you believe that means that -you- are one of those who are making that ideology the dominant paradigm in the world today. Congratz.

So, what other games are there to play? Well, lot's actually. There are tons of other games that people play. Cooperative ones. Ones where being a beta-male nice guy to some girl means you won. Ones where helping others earns you points. Ones where making friends, and really connecting with them is of value. Other games involve artistic expression. Activism. One major game, that a lot of folks are playing involves surrendering your will to the infinite, the game where the goal is to stop playing games and just start living.

More than one ideology holds sway at -all- times. The notion that it is otherwise is ridiculous. There are powerful conflicting ideologies within each individual human, you think an entire society is going to be any less divided? There are hundreds of different measurements of 'success'. Sure, the 'making money' goal is a popular one. It's sold as popular by the people who have money. Because they are the ones who can supply money. Of course they want people to work hard and sweat and slave to get money from them. And they own the media, so that's what the media talks about.

But if you get out of your basement and out into the world, you'll discover it isn't all actual adult human beings care about.

And yeah, the male-female dynamics are kinda fucked. They're built on several thousand years of women basically not having any say in the structure of society. But we've had a say for a bit, and the system is -changing-. And it's changing very fast. It won't be perfect in your lifetime, but within your lifetime it will have gotten better. Within your lifetime it already has.

When I was born, not so long ago, there were no laws against spousal rape in most states. Wasn't even considered a crime. If a woman was assaulted often times she'd have more to fear then the assailant. If he was wealthier, of a higher station, she certainly would. Because accusations were rarely taken seriously unless the evidence was overwhelming, and having been assaulted would tarnish a woman.

Now rape is considered nearly the most terrible thing a man can do. It is still done, but more and more women come forward every year and are willing to accuse. Abused women come forward more and more and denounce men. Violent crime in general has been on steady decline since we started keeping detailed statistics. To say that the ideologies that hold power aren't in flux is to have an extremely short-sighted view. Of course it's not going to happen over night. This shift has been going on for hundreds of years. And the struggle for ideas since the dawn of man.

You still state the repression of your sexuality as some noble thing. Sure, it makes you more noble then the small fraction of men who are rapists and abusers of women. And maybe better then the ones who lie and manipulate for sex. But the rest? No. You're worse, if your goal actually has anything to do with the desires of actual women, or the betterment of the gender system.

Because repressing your sexuality, aside from having some possibly horrible side-effects, also supports some pretty messed up and out of date ideas about sexuality. That the male sex drive is inherently incredibly strong, therefor 'overcoming' it is something impressive. That male sexuality is inherently rapacious and defiling to women, and hence it is something it is noble to suppress. And of course the twisted lie that the female sex drive is just a myth, something women lie about to make men feel better about being such monsters. That women are inherently free of such disgusting passions.

Well, there is nothing so overwhelming about the male sex drive. From everything I can tell it's not inherently much stronger then women's, if at all, at least until after the woman's had a child or 3. It varies from person to person, and men are culturally encouraged to make a bigger deal about it, women encouraged to suppress. Working as a teen counselor I noted that it seemed to me that the only thing more sex obsessed then the average teen boy was the average teen girl.

And sex isn't disgusting, vulgar, defiling or anything like that. So long as it's mutual. And perpetuating the myths you have in your head makes it that much harder for it to be openly mutual. Just because -you- see sexuality as a competition that pits men against women, does not mean all people do.

 

Autumn, haven't read nearly your whole post yet, but the last paragraph jumped out at me(being by the rep button and all )..... Do you think it's possible that the OP is A-sexual or something similar? Not by repression like he says, but just lack of need? Some are, and especially if he's not aware of it, it could make the world look like a MUCH darker place, to be sure.....

Or perhaps some sort of situational a-sexuality, like any other situational sexual preference change, but just an adaptation to a complete lack of it?

Also, precedents of society are powerful, and in a competitive individual, could "simulate"(if you will) SOME sex drive, even to the individual, and even if not for the normal reasons.

If you touched on this, sorry.... Still have to commit myself to this read from the top.


OP, if you don't mind my asking.... do you masturbate, or become particularly sexually excited by anything? (Awkward question... but yeahhh)

 

This sticks out at me. You participated in strictly hierarchical systems. You didn't notice that the competitive aspect wasn't the only way. Now that you are 'wiser' you see yourself as above that, better than that. You notice that hierarchical and hyper-competitive systems have inherent flaws. And yet... you still think like they do. And cannot even fathom anyone else thinking different, despite the fact that you have evidence that some people actually do. Or cannot imagine them as anything other than 'losers'.

But... if you're not playing competitive games, winning and losing becomes meaningless. It simply doesn't matter. Sure, if I don't play the game I can't win. Same of every game anyone plays. Does this mean I should feel bad that I'm not winning poker every night? Does the fact that I don't play make me a loser in this case?

So a boss gets to order me around. Ok, so what? How does this hurt me? How does this help him. Many bosses I've seen are actually quite nice about it, not dominating at all, but really into inspiring good work, and perfectly willing to work hard themselves. But I've seen the other sort of boss too. Guess what that kind tend to have in common? They are all -miserable-. Deeply unhappy, hating life.

And sure, maybe further up the chain there are actually some people who do scummy things and yet still enjoy life some, due to their position. And there are some so buffered from the effects of their actions that they just don't feel bad. Like one might not feel bad when one eats a burger, even though one might get distressed to see the cow die in terror.

So, sometimes good things happen to 'bad' people. And vice versa. Fairness isn't built into the world. So what? If happiness is your criteria for success, it would seem there are winners all over the spectrum of the hierarchical structure, and losers too. So there's obvious another game going on, with different rules. At least one.

Plus, there are places outside the chain of command that people can dwell. You don't have to have a boss, that's just the path of least resistance.

 

I certainly am not free of the same sexual drive to dominate, hurt, and humiliate that drives all males. It may in fact be true that by natural sex drive is *slightly* less strong than average, but I don't even know for certain if even that is true. My sexual impulse has been under an intense campaign of repression by the superego. I've also launched intense campaigns against food. Those have been less successful. But obviously it is far easier to convince food to be eaten than girls. Well most of the "Girls" I "liked" from elementary school to high school have come externally. Others told me I liked her, and I simply accepted that I did.

Ok I guess I always held a Puritanical belief that male sexuality was demonic. But I also viewed women as potential seductresses and temptresses. The whore of babylon. I didn't see Paris Hilton as a victim. But that was somewhat in the background till college. Honestly the biggest propaganda against male sexuality, is the supposedly pro-male machismo of PUA and evopsych and the whole men's rights movements.
They provide a far more frightful caricature of masculinity than any radical feminist propaganda ever could.

In my youth I certainly lived by my own set of masculine martial virtues. The White Knight over the James Bond. The hero who is not superhuman and asexual, who has the same desires of any man, but suppresses them for a higher cause.

 

From your reply, I think that you may be indeed A-sexual, you appear to be confusing sex drive with sadism or domination. They are simply not the same thing. They are linked for some, I suppose, but they are NOT the same. And for some of the people they are linked for, they are normal people, capable of a normal life and relationship... just with exotic tastes in bed.

Oh, and paris hilton was never a victim, just a wealthy, spoiled child. And an attention whore.

*edit* I don't get how you keep talking about "all" people, or "all" people belonging to a certain sex or other group. Every aspect of human psychology differs, it's just chemicals.... You are what you eat, maybe if you ate better instead of starving yourself, it would help too.... Emotions are highly linked to your diet and it's balance.

I'm not diagnosing this, by any means, but there's also things like over or under active thyroid glands that can cause emotional or outlook issues similar to yours.

 

Actually, I think it more likely the sadism and urge to dominate come at least in part out of the repression of the sex drive. It's actually a common theme in sexually dysfunctional ideologies.

 

Now IDK if its "eternal human nature" like Original Sin or Evopsych says. Or if its just the ideology of USA today but sex is not only linked with but identical with cruelty, domination, humiliation, brutality, and degradation. Both for males and females. Thats what started this whole thread. Me asking why females would reward such behavior.

It is true in my younger years a largely non-sexual idea of romantic love coexisted with natural lustful drives. But they were completely separate for me. Which makes sense since the whole idea of romantic "love" seems quite dated and quaint to our modern age. And I have shed any such illusions. To the extent that there is anything noble about love any association with eros only taints it. But that notion of love is so far from male-female antics, that why bother to save the word? And save it for whom? Me personally? No one else in this generation cares.

I don't want to make a big deal of defending the fact that I have the same drives of male sexuality to dominate and hurt just like everyone else. I'm not proud of such machismo. But its true. And it did take effort to suppress my natural desires. I was attracted to nearly everyone of the girls who pretended to like me back in JRHS and HS. Ok maybe it wasn't purely virtue. I mean I also thought they may just be pretending to like me and entrap me if I took the bait. But I could have taken a few jabs into the trap, if that had been my desire.

My version of masculinity was not entirely at odds with the dominant one. The traditional notions of strength and emotional detachment were championed. And we both accepted the notion of beautiful girls as prizes for the victor. The only difference is my man of virtue would graciously turn down his rightful earned prize as a demonstration of his high nobility.

 

So, Enamdar, in tour worldview, men naturally all have this demonic sexuality. And yet can rise above it and be good. And women are, in many cases, seductresses and temptresses that urge men to give in to the sin of being sexual because... why? Because we're just evil? More recently, you think it's because we're biologically hard-wired to want to be hurt, to be abused by this evil male sexuality...?

But if women desire male sexuality, what is it that makes it inherently evil, demonic, sinful? Because some god said so? How is it so noble to deny giving to others what they want? I'm -not- saying here that women want male sexuality that is sadistic and domineering. Most women simply don't. If they did, we wouldn't have the problem to begin with. If women really desired being hurt, there wouldn't be rape laws, and women wouldn't be struggling so hard to gain a degree of independence from men.

So what makes male sexuality evil? I will tell you I've personally slept with a lot of men. And very, very few of them were at all sadistic. And those that were, I've had the fortune of finding the ones who could temper it with love, and not do me harm. Many were not all that dominant. Certainly few were domineering. The ones who were, I only slept with once. Usually if I got that vibe, it didn't happen even once. Most men I've known averaged a little on the dominant side of egalitarian, when it came to sex.

One of the problems we have in the world today is the myth that there is something -wrong- with desire. That male desire is inherently corrupt, and that women are foul temptresses or innocent babes. And it doesn't make any sense. If I desire you, and you desire me, and our desires are for pleasure, mutual pleasure, how can this be anything but wonderful? Where is the sin?

In fact, this bizarre arrangement is much of what gives rise to stuff like the PUA culture. If you tell boys their sexuality is violating, some boys will repress their sexuality and others will embrace their role as violator. If you tell girls that their sexuality is a greatly valued thing, their most treasured possession, that must be defended and never given away cheaply, many girls will think of sex in terms of defending themselves from men's advances, and of using their sexuality as a coin, or a weapon.

But there is nothing inherent about sexuality that makes it so. There cannot be, there's a glaring logical inconsistency in the entire affair. Not to mention that it is glaringly obvious that women do desire sex, and do enjoy it. And that not all men's sexuality is so tightly entwined with that other, separate urge. The urge to fight, and hurt, to dominate and humiliate. An urge, by the way, that women feel too.

 

Why do you say this? How can their be sadism without sexuality? The very origin of the word is traced to Marquis de Sade. Even when not directly sexual, it is usually tied to male competition for sexual selection.

I suppose I was blind to just how vulnerable and weak females were and this may have led me to be ham-handed at time.

Lets look at some interesting aspects of my history with females.

I know I had a little cousin who I used to call a toy-doll because she looked like one. The on my first day of Kindergarten my mom pointed out a girl and called her my cousin. In class I asked her her name. She didn't answer. I pulled at her hair to see it. A year before I moved a kid told me that she liked me. It was just a joke. But I started thinking about her and she became my first crush. There was a girl I hated in 5th grade because she was annoying. And a girl told me that she liked me too. Then there was this time we had to say something nice about the kid next to use. I hated that girl because she had been mean to me. She asked me to say she had a nice smile. But I pretended I couldn't think of anything.

But I was a miserable little shy kid before my big move to a new town in JRHS. That changed everything. I was wildly psychotic. But it worked. And I had crowd of guys listening to my stories. I had this idea that we would harass this popular girl. And a group of guys followed me to the basketball court. I was surprised that she was just a sport girl playing basketball.She called me anti-girl. There was this time when I had a list of guys to volunteer for a mission to dress as strippers and show boobs. A guy wrote her name on the list. I got sent to the dean, and he asked m if there was an girl I wanted to see do this. And then later she asked me to marry her, and I embarrassed her by shouting out no in front of everyone. Those were sweeter, gentler times. And then later on the basketball court this other popular girl started chasing me and calling me cute. Thats what started it all. Thats when everyone was chasing me. Even girls who used to find me annoying, were all of a sudden pretending to like me. I found her too boney at first, but she grew on me because everyone said I liked her. Then later on there was the first girl I actually enjoyed being with. Earlier I had spread rumors about her and a boy. And even referred to her by the name I had made up for them to her face. But she was very fun, and I liked talking with her. And she would ask around about me trying to get my AOL. Of all the girls who pretended to like me, I guess she was the least fake. Then there was the freshman cheerleader who baked cookies for me and decorated my locker. I met her at the dance where I was nominated for homecoming king. I was friendly yet brusque to her.

IDK all stupid meaningless stories. I guess I realize now that in light of what I know now perhaps I shouldn't have been so rude, and been more aware of power imbalances when seeking my virtue and honor. But I'm still not exactly sure what the "right" move would have been. All in all, I think my JRHS and HS behavior was far more decent than any other male could be.

Sure all the fake female attention in JRHS and HS was ego boosting. But since nothing real came out of it and I always had the suspicion it was all an act, I never could know how much was objective and how much was delusional illusions. So with all the girls who I've been told liked me from elementary school on, there isn't a single on where I confidently know for sure they did. Its possible all of them did, possibly none. Although if you went by what they said, you'd think I were the Beatles. Well if that many lovely ladies did indeed like me, and yet I never ended up with an actual girlfriend, then I must be either incredibly inept or incredibly virtuous. I suppose a cynic might say my goal was not to sleep with them but to humiliate them in public by turning down their offer.

IDK, I assume that girls don't just pretend to like any guy. And when you list it all, it seems like a lot of girls did pretend to like me. SO even if it was all fake, it must say something about my created persona. But all that was gone in college, and I never was able to find the right new mask.

 

Enamdar, why do you have this fascination with saving the world?

In the end, it's just yourself that you're facing.

Do right, don't go fix every problem since the dawn of man.

How could it possibly be more right to do nothing, than the right thing? If everyone says "well not EVERYONE is nice, so I won't be either" the world sucks dick... and that's what you're saying.

What you claim as your view would make me think you'd be the sort to devote yourself to a statement larger than yourself, understanding that no one can be more than a part, but all must do their part. It sort of looks like you have a bit of a martyr complex, as though doing NOTHING because you give up on the world makes a statement... but it doesn't.

 

But as I've said, and shown, over and over, this simply Is Not True. Period. It may be true in HS and some colleges, when women are still naive about their sexuality, but it does not remain true for long, for the vast majority of women. I don't think it even is true for -most- young women. It only -seems- true, because those women who do buy into that are also often the most visible. Especially to some hormone laden jock boy.

Of course the girls you are going to know the most about are going to be the ones most attracted to the toughness and dominance, most willing to ignore or misinterpret or rewrite their sex impulses in the name of social standing. Those were the ones hitting on you and your jock friends. They were the ones attracted to the culturally iconography of the violent dominant male. You have selection bias.

And what is it that makes eros taint love? What is inherent in the desire to give and receive pleasure that so spoils love? Sexuality is no holy, perfect thing, but it isn't inherently corrupt either. What it is is complicated. But one thing it does have going for it is that, in the right circumstance, it can be an amazing assist in the deepening of the feelings of love. Plus, it's a beautiful manner of sharing your pleasure with the one you love. Of opening yourself, being vulnerable, giving of yourself. It can be holy.

Entrap you?!? To what end? For what purpose would a woman possibly do that? I mean, what is the reasoning that you have in your head for women to try to trap men into being sadistic to them? Unless you think women actually like that(some very few do a little, most do not), in which case there still would be no trap. Sure, some girls use their sexuality as something of a weapon, or a bargaining chip. But most? At least in part are flirting because they are experiencing lust.

The fact that you seem to confuse the desire to orgasm, the desire to touch and caress, to pleasure and be pleasured, the arousal from the sight of the opposite sex, all with the desire to hurt, dominate and humiliate is disturbing. No matter what you think, this is really not normal for men. I mean, yes, culturally there is a link. I think most men feel it to some small degree, and most women fear sex a little, at the same time as desiring it. But most folks haven't got the 2 urges so completely warped together.

At least not recently. It was a pretty normal aspect of victorian society, when women actually were considered effectively property.

Actually, your idea of masculinity fits in rather squarely with the ideas about masculinity that are, thankfully, slowly dying. What you see arising now are a number of new, altered versions of that patriarchy arising to try to drag it into the 21st century. But they are scattered and weakening, as equality gains force in our culture. But yeah, your ideas about masculinity actually arise from those that gave rise to this problem in the first place.

Whether you take your prize or no, you are still thinking of women as property. As -things- that can be won, can be nobly turned down.

Thing is, it doesn't seem like you've changed these ideals much. You've discovered that your antiquated and misogynistic ideas don't work anymore. Instead of looking to equality though, you've looked into the updated versions of patriarchy. And found them less pretty, less noble. They have been exposed as the self-centered repulsive things they are. Good. Yet you still cling to the problem that got you looking in the first place. You still think of sex as sinful, male sexuality as being interlinked with dominance, women as obstacles and prizes. You still see social standing as the only thing worth winning.

Look past all that, find the people who are talking about ideologies that don't make any sense to you, because they aren't coming from a hyper-competitive, misogynistic, violent and aggressive base. Listen to some hippy music. Go to a rainbow gathering. Read the writings of the man who may be the most influential man in america over the past 30 years, the Dalai Lama. Do nice things for people. Flirt with a girl for F's sake.

 

Well in my last post I went into more details about why girls might pretend to like me as a joke, in order to make fun of and humiliate me. But I guess that kind of created a vicious cycle. Since I treated any affection or attraction from girls as a joke, I guess from their POV it would make them less likely to open up if they really did like me, since I would just laugh at it.

Well actually the first girl to actually ask me out on a date was in college long after my collapse and renewal. Again I think she was kinda joking. But I'm sure we could have went out if I had seriously named a time and a place. And she would always ask about the time and place. But unlike the girls from JRHS and HS I wasn't the least bit attracted to her at all, and treated it entirely as a joke. Although ironically I was probably more friendly to her than the girls I had actually liked back then.

Well I wasn't really aware of the power imbalance back in JRHS and HS. My idea of gender equality was women should run the factories while the men fight in wars. I considered it a very socially advanced view. But come to see it, even now when I think of women as victims, its white beautiful damstrels in distress. Its them who have all my sympathy. I never really bothered to think of that unattractive girl as sexually exploited by men, since why would any man want to?

I guess in some ways that JRHS chasing was a curse. Since I've never really bothered with relations since then, since I figure I had the most beautiful, popular girls chasing me back when I was a boy, why should I settle for anything lower? Or even bother to try, when I once had it all?

 

you joking?

I don't know how you found such a shitty college experiance, but....

This shit ain't junior high school, if you say you're interested in someone, you're interested. Just because someone is trying to be upbeat or friendly doesn't mean they're joking, that's a perversion you're projecting onto people.... You don't have to invite someone to dine at a 20 foot table at your manor to have a date... who the fuck would WANT to do that, anyway? It just means you go do something fun together, that you can both enjoy. If you're both domination fiends like yourself, break out the whips and chains, if you're normal, go smoke a joint in a beautiful setting, if neither of those apply, use your damn head.

 

About the girl in college that asked me out. I jokingly agreed. Sure it could have been a real date if I desired that. But as I said earlier, I found her very unattractive unlike the ones from HS and JR.

 

I simply do not possess the drive to dominate, hurt, and humiliate. My drive is to share intimacy on an equal basis. Your statement of truth is simply not supported by the evidence.