Tag Archives: male dominance

What Kind of Game are You Playing?

It could be said that all human communication is, in fact, a form of manipulation. We always try to present ourselves in a certain light to make another person believe about us (and about themselves, especially in regards to their relationships with us) what we want them to, even if it is all just an illusion. We try to make appearances and we try to sway another person’s viewpoints towards our own way of thinking. Depending on the intentions of the individual, manipulation can either be a bad thing or a good thing.

The same could be said of “game.” The “game” in this instance that I am referring to is manipulation tactics used by men (although women have their own tactics as well to manipulate and appeal to men) to make themselves more appealing to women to either seduce them/have relationships with them. There are entire groups of men and countless articles/websites/books out there written on the subject of “game.” Men will literally say or do almost anything it seems for sex and they all line up hoping to learn what the big secret is to getting it. It seems the entire male species has always been obsessed with learning new ways to appeal to and manipulate women in order to obtain a “yes.”

Some men have learned that, at least with certain women, gentle flattery and praise/compliments are the best forms of seduction. Still in many cases men have learned that letting their inner asshole come out is the best way to keep a woman’s interest and succeed in winning her over. After all, no woman wants to be stuck with some loser beta male who she feels is inferior to her. He has nothing to offer her. Inside most women don’t desire a “nice guy.” 

Strong, dominant men who have a bit of an asshole personality are attractive to women and this is not a bad thing. Women are made to be attracted to these types of men. A woman generally won’t even respect a man unless she feels he is superior to her at least in some way. Ideally we want our men to be dominant and most feminine women actually do like to be manipulated and controlled by a man she perceives to be superior to her. 

But the fact remains that nobody likes being played. Game is good if the intention is to achieve and maintain healthy relationships but when it is used for the purpose of deceiving women and exploiting them for one’s own selfish purposes (especially when the woman desires a real relationship and hopes it might be forthcoming) then it is neither good or right- it is abusive. Especially considering that women are the ones who get pregnant it just kind of makes men who go around gaming women for the sole purpose of satisfying their c*cks pretty worthless, pathetic and desperate excuses for human beings, doesn’t it? This not to mention the way that the male pursuit of sex without responsibility actually disrupts society. 

There’s nothing wrong with a man striving for dominance and control in relationships that he has with other women (but of course there should always be limits on how much control he should have depending on the type of relationship he has with the woman). If a man is manipulating a woman just to string her along for his own amusement or personal gratifications and is causing the woman severe emotional distress that disrupts her life then he is emotionally abusing her- plain and simple. It’s kind of like a man’s superior physically strength: It can be exciting to a woman and even protect her if the man uses it in an appropriate way but if he uses it in a way to overpower her for the purpose of hurting and abusing her it can be devastating and severely damage the woman. When used wrongly it is an abuse of power.

Strong and dominant men are good for their families and good for society and there is a reason why women are attracted to and desire men like this. There is always a desire inside of a woman to rely on a powerful man. Women don’t want men that they can easily push around and although women may test their men from time to time most don’t really want to “win.” In fact it is pretty devastating to a woman if her man does let her win. 

Male dominance is a good thing, but only when it is directed in appropriate and non-abusive ways. There are some women who are truly only looking for a “bad boy” to rock their world for a night or two and are completely fine with then going their separate ways afterwards. In these cases “game” isn’t bad because there’s no deception involved. But that is not the way with every woman. Most women would rather have true relationships.

 If a man is manipulating a woman and stringing her along with no intentions of being real with her and actually having a relationship with her then he’s emotionally abusing her. Without a real and true relationship being established a man’s quest for dominance and control is nothing more than game playing, deception and, again, abuse. He is doing nothing more than taking and stealing from the woman.

Of course men don’t always manipulate for sex but sometimes for other reasons in their relationships with women. Whether it is abusive or not just depends on the man’s intentions and his motivations for manipulating in the first place. 

Advertisements

Male Dominance Should Protect Women

Warning: some sexual/feminine content

What a sickening world it is that we live in today. Men are supposed to be the ones protecting and supporting women, not the other way around. It is not a woman’s job to support a man or protect him.

I think about the way I’m made and I always think that’s it’s wonderful, but when I look at the world around me I begin to think differently. It makes me want to think the functions of my body are sick and disgusting and degrading, instead of wonderful and precious the way they were meant to be.

One of the biggest facts of life is the differences between men and women. It is a fundamental difference defining the relationship between a man and a woman. I love the way my body is made and I love who and what I am as a woman but it is so degraded by the laws and the culture around us.

Men are more powerful than women. Women are weaker, both physically and emotionally, than what men are. Women are the ones who carry the burdens of bearing the children. It is the woman who receives the man into her body during sex. Women do not penetrate nor impregnate men and it takes quite a woman indeed who can overpower a man (without help anyways).

I find this all very beautiful and wonderful, the idea that I take the man I love inside of me and receive his seed within me. It is the feeling of his body covering mine and weighing me down and the feeling of him filling me physically within that gives such pleasure and wonder. I could never find any pleasure from lesbianism nor masturbation nor any other deviation from the natural order of life. It is only in the acknowledgment of the way my body is made as a female that peace or pleasure can be found.

Every month when my cycle comes around I find it precious and wonderful. I’m not really one to reach for the bottle of Midol. I would feel somehow that I’m being robbed. I’m not trying to be like a man nor compete out in the world and I recognize that I need to rest a bit more and simply can’t handle as much stress due to being female. I don’t view my female bodily functions as holding me back or keeping me from achieving. My body does go through phases that would make it very hard to keep on going like a man would. Oftentimes I just can’t see how I could do it. I always have one day every month where I am faint and can’t hardly stand up without falling over. The sleep deprivation comes on schedule every month. Usually when the day arrives I do have some pains but I’m not generally eager to get rid of them. Any other pains in life I would want to rid myself of but there is something special about the pains and discomforts that are distinctly feminine. I know it makes me a little weaker but it makes me feel special and wonderful. I want to delight in what makes me different from a man.

He knows the cycles that my body goes through. I know he views me as weaker and more emotional than him. I love that he sees me differently and doesn’t just see me as another man. He would never treat me as a man. He doesn’t see me as “equal” nor does he see me as some kind of business partner. He sees me as his wife. He sees me as a precious gem to be guarded and cared for and sheltered. He would never let me support him or go out and work. He would never allow me to be the one to protect him. How could that ever be right?

How could I be with a man who didn’t see my weaknesses and peculiarities as a woman as special? Why on earth should it ever be thought that he would need my protection or support? A real man is one who sees it as his duty to support and protect women. But look at the decaying society all around us. Men live off of the support of women. Nearly half of all families have wives and mothers as the main breadwinner and in nearly every other case she is at least a co-provider. The genderless institution of marriage says I could very well be equally responsible to support him, a man. Should I also go off to war to die as if I were a man? What are the men in this society even doing?

I feel a protection and peace in submitting to his dominance. I feel safe when he’s inside me. Is that not how it’s supposed to be? Shouldn’t a woman feel safe under a man’s dominance, which should read as protection? But what happens when men use that dominance for the exploitation of a woman? His dominance should protect me. It is not for men to overpower women to hurt them.

Sex for a woman should be precious. It is a bigger event for a woman. He might hurt her. He might impregnate her. He’s stronger than her. She’s letting him inside of her in a most intimate way. Her body is messy and sometimes bloody. It should be special. It should all be for her husband. He should be responsible for her, to fully protect her and provide for her. It is the woman that brings this uniqueness to the relationship and marriage. She should be able to trust him and depend upon him. Emphasis should be put on her body and her sexuality. It should be a serious matter of great importance.

Why would anyone with half a brain cell think a woman should be responsible for a man? Even if she does become the breadwinner the laws of nature, of God, still apply. Short of using science to manipulate nature (which would still put more stress and pain on a woman and put her health in jeopardy) there is no changing that.

The Return of Patriarchy in Mainstream Culture?

Generally I don’t get involved in Hollywood much. I can think of a million things better to do than listen to the latest noise put out by the mainstream or watch the latest TV shows. It’s all so contrary to what I believe in and most of it is extremely offensive. However, I don’t live under a rock. I see what songs top the charts and what movies are released. I just don’t pay much attention to watch them or listen to them. But this morning a song was brought to my attention that I actually did want to listen to. I’d never really thought about it at all much until Jesse Powell pointed it out. When he pointed it out I dug into the song and actually listened to it closely and watched the videos closely. The song is called “The Man” by Aloe Blacc. Now this is just my opinion but I really do think this song is promoting patriarchy, and in a big way. Of course, it’s subtle. If you weren’t really looking for it you might just dismiss it as another catchy tune but looking deeper I think there’s more to it than that. And, hey, if I’m wrong I guess you can send me a nasty e-mail telling me how it is.

At the beginning of the official video we see a woman on a cell phone. She types in

“I’m “in the streets & feel like ‘startin’ a revolution’ with ‘my fam’ to ‘brand new old school’.”

Hmm. Ok, revolution. What kind of revolution? Again you’d have to pay close attention to get that. I think it becomes more obvious to those that are paying attention what kind of revolution here. This is obviously a song about men being men and being proud of being men. Although Aloe is a black man and the men he links arms with in the end of his official video are black, this is obviously not a song about racial pride. He is clearly speaking as a man and what he must do and who he is as a man. A black man wouldn’t tell a white man that he’ll be “the quick relief to all your stressin’.” Nor is this the kind of thing that a man would generally say to his mother or sister or male friend. No, he is obviously talking as a man to a woman. But this is obviously not just a love song between a man and a woman . This song is about standing up and being a man. It is obviously very anti-feminist and very anti-MRA. He’s not advocating for “pumping and dumping” women nor objectifying women. In the official video and official lyric video he is very well dressed in a suit and very presentable. He’s not in baggy pants sagging to his knees while he smokes dope with his homeboys while a bunch of women in short shorts jiggle their butts in your face while he’s rapping about how much p**** he’s getting. He’s respectful, a gentleman even. He never apologizes for being a man and having manly urges or needs yet he does state he takes responsibility. He states:

“I believe every lie that I ever told
paid for every heart that I ever stole
I played my cards and I didn’t fold.”

This is obviously signifying his pride as a man, that he’s not backing down from what he’s done as a man. He takes responsibility for what he has done as a man. He doesn’t just give up and fold. He doesn’t throw in the towel when the going gets tough because he’s a man, a member of the male sex in a different hierarchy than a woman and he is prideful of that and accepts the responsibilities that come along with that.

I think this is just amazing. I can’t really see any other way that this song can be interpreted. It’s clear he’s talking about being a man and taking charge as a man and as well taking responsibility as a man. In his video there are riots going on and it is clear that the rule of law and social order has collapsed. He states:

“Stand up now and face the sun
Won’t hide my tail or turn and run
It’s time to do what must be done
Be a king when kingdom comes”

In other words, once everything’s collapsed it’s time to be a man and put things back in order.

As well in the song he also states over and over “this is my world.” He also states “I’m a soldier standing on my feet. No surrender and I won’t retreat” and follows it up by stating again “this is my world.” This can obviously mean nothing other than it’s a man’s world meant for men to rule and lead and he is not going to back down from his duties and responsibilities nor his pride in being a man. He is obviously also singing about leading and caring for women (and possibly others who are under his care and protection and whom it is his duty to lead and guide) when he states:

“I got all the answers to your questions
I’ll be the teacher you could be the lesson
I’ll be the preacher you be the confession
I’ll be the quick relief to all your stressin'”

This is followed again by him stating that “this is my world.” He’s obviously speaking as a man to a woman, putting himself in the dominant position by telling her he has what she needs and he’s in charge because “this is my world”. What I get out of this is that he’s telling her not to worry about anything, that’s he’s going to lead her, guide her and protect her. She doesn’t have anything to worry about because he’s in charge and giving her what she needs. In the background we see men toasting to what he is saying. Again, I can’t see how this could this could mean anything else.

Also another thing to notice, although it is subtle, is that when he is walking into what appears to be an official government building there is not a woman to be seen. Men are standing in order when he walks by and there is men (not women) in the background in suits with briefcases going about their business. Women are obviously an important part of this but they are not at the forefront of what’s going on like the men. He is walking past men in uniform, he links arms with men (not men and women) at the end and even all the photographers and reporters around him are men as well. We even see men getting ready for a fight (boxing match obviously) walk by him as he’s walking and singing down a hallway. I hardly think this to be a coincidence. This is obviously a subtle message promoting patriarchy. He stands tall and proud throughout the whole thing. He doesn’t appear to ever lose his composure or be unsure of his place in life in the song or video nor does he appear the child-man that is so common in the mainstream today.

I think this song is a subtle beginning to much larger cultural change going on, a way of brining patriarchy into the mainstream. He states over and over that he’s “the man” and not only does he know it but he wants everyone else to know it as well. He shouts it out that he is “the man” over and over and makes no apologies for it. He wants to be recognized as a man who takes responsibility, who is in charge and who does what needs to be done, to “be a king when kingdom comes.” It’s not easy but he “won’t hide my tail or turn and run” because “It’s time to do what must be done.” More than likely this is a subtle message for men to take charge and put things back in order and be responsible because everything is falling apart and it’s time for the disorder to come to an end.

Again this is my take on this but I don’t know how else this song and the messages from the official videos can be interpreted. Hopefully it is a sign, the beginning of what is to come.

More sources for traditional gender roles in mainstream culture:

The Long Way Home

Keep Your Feminism out of My Romance

Disclaimer: This posting contains some sexual elements not intended for a young audience or those easily offended. If that is you, please leave.

“You know, you can learn a lot about women just by looking at what they read. If for women to be into sex with their husbands they need lots of housework-help, deep communication, crock-pot simmering, and tender, gentle butterfly kisses, then why are the covers of romance novels colloquially known as “bodice rippers”? Don’t women hate the idea of being submissive and under a man’s power and control?” (1)

Ok. I admit it. Sometimes modern life is just too much for me. Sometimes, in between dishes, sweeping, mopping, school runs, cooking and studying various languages, dancing and playing various musical instruments, a girl just needs a break. The time honored escape is, of course, a good old-fashioned romance novel (my secret shame). I look to the historical section. Oh, to escape into a world where men were men and women were women! To escape into a world where men where chivalrous, women stayed home and did housework and things were simple. A time when men where actually in charge of things and protected and supported women! But, as the months have gone by since my first venture into the historical section, something has become painfully obvious. Romance has gone PC.

A girl will be hard pressed to find anything these days written after about 1990 that has anything truly historical in it. As with every other area of life, feminists insist that they speak for “all women” and women’s fantasies of submissive heroines and manly he-men have to be censored. Instead of anything truly old-fashioned we instead get this:

“Bodice-rippers and their contemporary counterparts were popular during the 1970s, occupying the same cultural space as the feminist movement but seeming to represent its polar opposite. As feminists were fighting patriarchy, romance novels were propping it up. Despite a major shift in the genre in the late 1980s and early 1990s that saw the near-disappearance of rape and the emergence of much stronger, more modern heroines, the idea remains that feminists and romance readers exist on opposite ends of the spectrum. This is not the case.

Dr. Jackie C. Horne, a writer, independent scholar, and author of the site Romance Novels for Feminists, says that the women who now write romance novels grew up enjoying the benefits of the feminist movement. These authors, Horne says, “take feminist ideas that were once novel, provocative, on the very edge of inconceivable for granted, as givens.” In Alice Clayton’s Wallbanger and Lauren Dane’s Lush, both heroines are adamant that their careers not suffer in order to make a relationship work. They negotiate long-term committed relationships with men who treat them as equals. And, as is par for the course in most romance novels, these women seek out sexual pleasure and they enjoy sex. These are not the romances of the 1970s.” (2)

How romantic! A lot of the old novels from the un-PC days of romance are still around. However, a girl would be hard pressed in these times to find that they have not been edited to be PC. Almost every single one of them that you will find for, say, your Kindle device has been edited. If you want old-fashioned don’t buy the new versions whatever you do. Maybe this is why women are so unhappy these days. Not only has feminism caused masculine men to go extinct, feminism has also come along and censored fictional novels. They want to make sure that our very thoughts are changed in accordance to their movement.

“‘No, don’t deny it. You enjoyed it tremendously. And I think we can assume that besides riding and apologies, you also enjoyed using the crop. Correct?’

How could she answer these questions? Whitney thought frantically. She flicked a glance at Khan, longing to flee.

In a silky, dangerous voice, he warned, ‘Don’t try it.’

‘Now we are both going to share your favorite amusements: Riding, using the crop, and apologizing…'” (McNaught, “Whitney, My Love,” 1985)

So, old-fashioned romance with an over domineering hero who demands to rule the roost is not allowed. Authors have been forced to edit the un-PC scenes out. Prime example is Judith McNaught’s “Whitney, My Love” originally published in 1985. In a later version of the book she was forced to edit out the “riding crop” scene even though it took up a whole two paragraphs of the book. I also think of the classic Gone With the Wind where Rhett forcibly carries Scarlet up the stairs straight to the bedroom and rapes her one night in a drunken stupor after she’s disgraced herself (she is curiously quite happy the next morning). These elements were quite common in older romance novels. These elements of romance are extinct today, yet, somehow books like 50 Shades of Grey and thousands of other wannabes are completely acceptable. If you wish to read a book with an alpha male or dominant male hero this is about all you will find. Do an internet search for romances with “alpha” or “dominant” males and you are guaranteed to find nothing but “kink.” If if suits you you could also find spanking erotica these days as well. As far as I am to understand it it’s a genre growing quite popular. I guess the take home message is that it’s OK for a man to whip or beat a woman for the fun of it or in erotic play, but anything that actually promotes patriarchy or traditional gender roles is not allowed.

“However, since the early eighties, things have changed. From my own experiences with two separate publishers, I can summarize it like this: romance has gone politically correct, and spanking, unhappily, is romance at its most un-PC. S & M is chic; witness the success of Anne Rice’s “Beauty” series. Her spankings, however, are never far from the erotic realm; while given as “punishment” on occasion, the overtones are completely sexual. It’s always a turn-on. But a realistic disciplinary spanking given by a dominant hero to a misbehaving heroine is verboten.” (3)

Another pattern I have seen is that most historical romances written in the modern era are very sexually explicit. Most of the old-fashioned romances leave something to the imagination. I guess when you censor female fantasies of a romance with a true dominant man you have to replace it with a lot of fillers. I personally do not like sexually explicit things. I feel it is a major turn-off. It’s much better and even sexier to leave something to the imagination. I don’t like “kink.” I don’t like games. I do certainly have fantasies of male dominance, and I am most certainly not alone. Of course, feminists know this and it presents a real and true problem for them.

“This is complicated by the fact that a fair amount of women find sexually dominant men to be titillating. And almost any romance author you speak to about the genre will quickly tell you that what they write is not true life but a fantasy. The critical space between what one reads and likes and what one actually does is something that critics of the genre must remember, especially because their own policing of women’s desires is the product of the patriarchal system they are trying to criticize.”(2)

Yeah, and if it wasn’t bad enough to kill out old-fashioned masculine men, in most romance novels today the men have turned into somewhat of, well, wimps (to put it nicely).

“In Grant’s first novel, A Lady Awakened, the heroine uses the hero in order to get pregnant. She is not initially interested in emotional intimacy or love. The heroine is the one taking charge of her sexuality and her future while it is the rake who we find crying about how he feels used and eventually begging his love for a long-term commitment.”(2)

Oooh! Where can I find a mangina of a man like that? Somebody please sign me up. The other day I even read a historical romance novel set in early 1800s London where the ladies were pleased as punch to to be proposed to with the hero asking them to be equal business partners. I mean, really!? Also in most historical romance novels today you will find that both the hero and heroine are “enlightened.” They all believe in women’s rights and and illegitimacy is always acceptable, not to society of course, but to the hero and heroine who are “enlightened” and believe in the modern way.

“Obviously, there needs to be a balance: romance, as an escapist genre, does not need to (and should not) portray every brutal and disgusting historical fact. But more and more, every romance is becoming a “time-travel.” Readers are not getting personages that have even a grounding in their time periods; they’re getting twentieth-century people, dealing with twentieth century problems. In order to give it an “historical” aura, we put funny clothes on them and we don’t let them drive.”(3)

Why can’t the “women’s” movement stay out of romance? Feminism is not sexy by any means. It doesn’t fill a woman’s heart with love and joy. Women today are more unhappy than ever before and study after study shows it. At least in fiction, if not in reality, women should have a good romance to escape into that will truly take them to another time and place. A romance that spans the course of many years and much drama, not just a few short weeks and a few graphic sex scenes.

Bottom line, if you want to truly escape into an old-fashioned world with traditional gender roles, don’t read a historical romance written after about 1990.

“With respect to sex, no further argument is required to establish that at all stages of the sexual revolution feminism’s vision for heterosexual women was corrupt: first, when feminists encouraged women to engage in promiscuous sexual intercourse; and second, when some of them rejected traditional heterosexual intercourse, advocating withdrawal to the barren wasteland of masturbation, lesbianism and such so-called diversifications as sado-machosim.

That its sexual prescription could bring women to rest on the bed of de Sade and in Sir Stephen’s mansion is feminism’s recognition of the female desire for some dependence upon a powerful and dominant male. The male’s status as breadwinner within the traditional family creates an archetype of male dominance and female dependence. But feminism has rejected the benign dominance and dependence institutionalized in traditional marriage. Taking their cue from the homosexual men they so much admire, some feminists choose to retreat instead to the malign dominance of rough sex with leather and chains.” (Graglia, “Domestic Tranquility,” 261)