Milovana.com

SophiaStafford wrote:1. Main point: Are women inherently superior, usually superior, or generally equal to males?
Why or why not?

I'm Machiavellian (Mach-iv 82). So I believe that there is a group of people generally superior to the rest. But I don't think that gender has anything to do with it. So my answer would be that we are generally equal.

Now to the "why" part. I think that superior human is one socially dominant, highly intelligent, aware of his/hers own flaws, constantly working on improving himself/herself and with an idea of humanity's future (the way we should go). I don't think that human male or female are born with predisposition to such a behavior. From my experience I know more males than females that fit into this category (but if we consider global state then it can be very well statistical deviation). In addition I think they would be high Machs as I am (but probably less arrogant than average).

MistressD wrote:You know, I think the answer is that women are inherently superior to men but in general do not behave as if they are superior. If a woman chooses to, she can fairly easily control relationships, influence a man's behavior, etc. From my experience that is an ability that's far less common in men (although not unheard of).

Do you really think that ability to control relationship makes someone superior? Haven't you accidentally reversed implication? Latest studies suggest that in a social context around 25% of males are dominant and only 3% of females are dominant.

Why? (very simplistic answer) From evolutionary point of view female prefers strong and successful male. Male's primary goal is to procreate. He needs a mate to do so hence he must became strong and successful to get attractive (healthy) female. There are many strategies to get there. Someone is dominant and chooses to punch his way to the top. Other chooses to be submissive and "ass kiss" his way to the top.

Even if this number is not precise it expresses the balance in male's social group that keeps us from killing each other - ability to adopt submissive posture enables males to create group that increases their chance of reaching the goal. The 3% of dominant females can be simply deviation because there is no need for dominant females from this point of view. As I mentioned before I think that dominant nature is one of the traits of superior humans hence females can't be inherently superior.

Even though sexual dominance and submission can be explained through different evolutionary theories it's too complex for a forum post. The important thing is that sexual dominance is quite independent on social one. Goal of males is to be successful to get a female and procreate. But this says nothing about who should lead the relationship. Male's primary goal was achieved and he should be looking for another female to extend his genome further. And your ability to control relationship comes directly from this. If you are a reasonably attractive female then you have something he wants hence you can control him if you want (but having control doesn't implicate that you are dominant).

I think that it's quite clear that sexuality of a male is more open and direct and sexuality of a female is more deep. It's because a male is the initiator and a female is the regulator in sexual contact. This leaves males more susceptible to sexual manipulation.

It's very primal point of view but it always comes down to this. As I stated above this is very simplistic because you could write a book about this topic.

MistressD wrote:But I have little question that if I spent an hour or two in an honest conversation with any man, I could find any number of ways to get him to do my bidding. And yes, that goes for all of you tough Dom males out there too! (Well, maybe not as easily with the gay guys - that takes away sexuality as a tool).

Challenge :) I think it depends on the means you want to employ. I really enjoy challenges such as this. Once I did a reasoning test while two girls did their best on my cock just to prove that I have enough blood for both of my heads :) I still managed to score within my average. I have never lost a single bet (of this kind). But everything is once for a first time.

I believe everything is possible. Human is just biological machine with rather complex operating center. Given right means you can control or break anyone you wish. There is no way to prevent that. If you would use only those socially "correct" means (lets say anything you can do at dinner table) I think you would have very hard time. Probably because it wouldn't be "honest conversation". I never let people too close. I often deceive girl into thinking that she has an edge just to turn that against her eventually. It's a power-play and in sex there are no rules.

Evals wrote:For the last two posts, here's something interesting my friend posted a few days ago.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8380429.stm

Well it's quite well established that males in general can decide quicker than females (because we don't employ emotions that much). The problem is that females express emotions more and when they hit it doesn't do that much damage. Males on the other hand usually don't express emotions so when they hit it can do some real damage. It all depends what kind of coping mechanism individual male has. As far as adrenaline goes it's a life saver. You are stronger, faster, your senses are sharper and you decide quicker.

How are you defining the genders? (Gender does not equate sex so those of you using male/female terms are off topic.)

Is night superior? Just because I am superior to MsD (hides), doesn't mean I am superior to all women.

Indigo wrote: Unfortunately, as far as I know, they still do not actively allow women to become snipers. It's been several years since that little stunt, and it hasn't seemed to have changed many minds.

Funny...I was just thinking that. If a woman can handle all the other stresses that a sniper has to endure, they'd probably make very good ones. It's certainly not an easy job. The physical stresses would probably weed out a lot (it does for men too) but I'm sure there are some who could handle it.

johnwhite wrote:Men have always been superior to women. In the life of this planet, it has been just recently that society has given women the 'ability' to be equal. The 'majority' of women have the ability to be equal but human nature gears them towards being submissive.

Wow.

-L

While I think Indigo was spot on... superiority really cannot be said in a factual, blanket statement.

I believe men are superior to women in certain situations, while inferior in others; such as child birth!

I think Robert Frost said it best, "A mother takes twenty years to make a man of her boy, and another woman makes a fool of him in twenty minutes."

Though outdated, this reminds me of an old song from James Brown:

This is a man's world, this is a man's world
But it wouldn't be nothing, nothing without a woman or a girl

I go a long way with nwo69.
In general, men and women are different and it all depends on what you measure and what you value more that determines if it are men or if it are women who are physical stronger. Just as the interpetation of the numbers determines if men or women are emotically stronger.
(yes, there are those who claim that men are emotically stronger, by just taking different numbers into account as well)

One note, there are examples of societies in the past where women and men are equal, with equal rights to divorce and stuff. If not mistaken, that was the case in Ireland a few centuries ago.

One thing is for certain,... The men whos path crosses with Sophia and are able to pick up the pieces afterwards, they might not be superiour, but certianly are emotically strong :)
(been reading some interviews on Toxic Treat)

Well, I suppose I should put forward my opinions here. First of all, neither is inherently superior. Using any category you'd like, if either sex was inherently superior then they would be that way from the moment they were born. The example(s) Mistress D uses is an acquired skill, not inherent. The argument that men are physically stronger falls apart as soon as the IT guy who plays Warcraft all day runs into a female gymnast.

Mistress D's other point has some very interesting connotations. First of all, you say you can use your sexuality to manipulate a man. I would take that to mean that you are attractive and/or playful enough that men would want to sleep with you. There are women everywhere who do things that they normally wouldn't do just because there is a man who is attractive and/or playful enough that they want to sleep with him.

The same holds true for physical manipulation. Even if we aren't using the IT vs gymnast argument from above, a swift kick to balls will give a woman an advantage in a fight. Assuming a stronger man can avoid the kick, he could then overpower her.

But I'm ranting here, Mistress D's comment about gay men helps prove how moot this argument is. You say that you can get straight men to do what you want. You say that makes you superior to them. Your tricks don't work on gay men, so does that mean they are superior to you? If so then you have just admitted that there are some men who are superior to you and some that are inferior. Next it would be a simple train of logic to determine that even if only gay men are superior to women, they are still men and therefore the gender is split with some superior and some inferior. That would then preclude either gender from being superior to the other because one gender is both superior and inferior.

Sorry to use MistressD's points to make mine, but she did kind of throw down the guantlet here.

Umm,

You guys know that I was half joking don't you? Given time I could make some pretty strong arguments for women, but at the end of the day they would still just be my opinions, however well thought out they may be...

Personally I try to judge everyone as individuals, without regard to gender, race, ethnicity, orientation, or any of the other terms used to group people. And I will say that any submissive person (of any gender) that I play with would quickly learn that I maintain a very high level of respect for my playmates - and I certainly don't act as if I am superior to them, simply more dominant.

I view this as something of a philosophical question anyway - no right or wrong answer but an opportunity for people to share viewpoints. And if my comments led to some well thought out rebuttals, all the better!

Miss D

To me comparing the genders is just too broad. There is such variation within each sex, that all we really see is that the sexes are in equilibrium.

Equilibrium being different than equal. Meaning you have a mid-line and overall the amount of men above and below it would be the same as the amount of women... In essense the groups are equal but the individuals are not.

Of course this debate could go on quite forever....part of what makes it fun.

Indigo wrote: And in high-stress situations, women tend to be a better shot with a firearm.

This is total nonsense..

I do not want to discuss the "inherent superiority" of women, Whites, Blacks, Aryans and so on.
But what I know for sure is that women are definitely not superior to males in anything concerning firearms. Believe me, I know what I'm talking about..

I had wanted to be more active in the discussion, but holidays did get a little out of hand. But mostly, of course, I did it to see what you would say and how the debate would happen.

The correct answer, for those of you waiting for the buzzer, is that, in general, women are superior.

As for proof, I couldn't ask for better proof than was presented here. Rather than being a discussion of "What is superiority" and "What is excellence" and such, it somehow degraded into a discussion of gender and firearm proficiency?!?!?

Which proves my point exactly. Males are, in generally, more physically violent beings living in societies in which bodily, physical violence is absolutely forbidden. No serious societal dispute has been decided by individual physical violence in centuries. Physical violence is great fun and all, but it's just for games. Go try to assault the owner of a local store and you will very quickly find yourself dead or incarcerated.

Women are, in general, more mentally and emotionally powerful beings. Our forms of violence are 100% legit and we use them with impunity. I can twist hearts and turn strangers into marionettes, and our society is fine with that.

In fact, sometimes our society goes too far even for me in the permission of the power of women. How many times have we heard some male loudmouth imply that women who are teachers should be allowed to molest all the students they want, provided the teacher is really hot. I have seriously heard this advanced. If a woman is sufficiently hot, the young victim is actually envied by other males.

The fact is, a supremely-attractive intelligent women is _the_ most powerful status in our society.

S

SophiaStafford wrote:
The correct answer, for those of you waiting for the buzzer, is that, in general, women are superior.

S

Actually, the correct answer was submitted multiple times in this thread.....and that wasn't it.
Just because you apparently haven't run into a male you can't control, doesn't mean they don't exist.
Ever consider that maybe you're just surrounding yourself with males who already fit your preconceived notion in the first place? That because of your personality, weak minded submissive men are the only types that want anything to do with you?

Just a thought.

I must disagree with Sophia's answer. As I think her post suggests at one point, 'superiority' is basically either a matter of opinion, or a thousand different traits brought into a two-bar chart.

But no - I say neither gender is 'better' than the other, even if you do have a way to accurately compare them. Amd also, I abhor sexism, so I am idealogically against the idea of one or the other being 'superior'.

Also I think you were half-kidding here Sophia (I cannot tell how serious you are with the superiority thing), but nonetheless...

SophiaStafford wrote: As for proof, I couldn't ask for better proof than was presented here. Rather than being a discussion of "What is superiority" and "What is excellence" and such, it somehow degraded into a discussion of gender and firearm proficiency?!?!?

Which proves my point exactly.

This proves that women are far more likely to generalise anecdotal evidence.
Chalk up another point for the guys there.

I think the answer was presented several times, and that Sophia's own human nature allowed her to be blind to the answer.

Depending on the aspect of life we discuss, both women and men appear superior. Human beings, be them male or female or both, are too complex to be broken down as simply superior or inferior. We all have our strengths and weakness and if enough pressure is applied to each we will all, eventually find ourselves in the place of inferiority.

Superiority is subjective, and given the right circumstances rolls can be reversed.

Sophia - The one thing you correctly point out, is that it comes more naturally to women to use sex as a controlling mechanism. In this sense women can more easily gain control over men. For men to gain control over women there tends to be the need for a more nuanced approach. All women have something that many guys desire, a vagina. We can often be easily controlled by our desire of this, and we make it well known. Women, rarely make their weakness so well known... or so blunt. It being a "man's world" sex is everywhere and is portrayed as our one big desire, it is no secret. Men know other men's weaknesses... it is not so easy to know the opposite sexes weakness.

Which is superior, or more powerful? The apple, or the orange?

But... I enjoy arguing and attention too!

And for the record Sophia S did make some interesting points about society (although I don't see any connection to 'superiority') - so there was some genuine healthy debate in here.