The psychology of convex vs. concave shapes

So, I was sitting there after lunch today, letting my mind wander through a rather curious thought: why does it always seem easier to be the one initiating action rather than the one receiving it?
It’s a phenomenon that goes far beyond physical intimacy; it’s deeply rooted in our psychological makeup. If I were to imagine myself navigating the world from a masculine perspective, honestly, taking charge and being the active force with one, two, or even ten people wouldn't feel like much of a struggle at all. However, looking at this through a feminine lens changes the equation entirely. When you are the one penetrating, you are essentially asserting your integrity; when you are the one being penetrated, that sense of self-integrity feels like it retreats. This is where those classic archetypes of male "dominance" and female "submissiveness" seemingly originate.
For instance, if someone wanders into my personal space—say, coming within half a meter of me—my instinctual reaction is often to push back with both hands. People usually look for an explanation because they can't quite wrap their heads around why I reacted that way (essentially, my "penetrating" stance). It got me reflecting on my own behavior and thinking about the times I have been the one in the active role—and just how many different ways people have tried to defend themselves against that.
Still, these convex and concave dynamics in life and behavior are inevitable; ultimately, they play a role in the very mechanics of reproduction. But as society evolves, we are seeing more fluid identities, which will likely lead to a generation of "moral relativists" regarding these convex-concave mental statuses.
To get straight to the point: could you envision yourselves as the opposite gender, and if so, how would you describe that experience?

(A quick note to the feminists and the chauvinists out there: please leave the moralizing at the door. We're keeping the ethics strictly to the philosophy section below.) 🙂

silentnomad23 said:So, I was sitting there after lunch today, letting my mind wander through a rather curious thought: why does it always seem easier to be the one initiating action rather than the one receiving it?
It’s a phenomenon that goes far beyond physical intimacy; it’s deeply rooted in our psychological makeup. If I were to imagine myself navigating the world from a masculine perspective, honestly, taking charge and being the active force with one, two, or even ten people wouldn't feel like much of a struggle at all. However, looking at this through a feminine lens changes the equation entirely. When you are the one penetrating, you are essentially asserting your integrity; when you are the one being penetrated, that sense of self-integrity feels like it retreats. This is where those classic archetypes of male "dominance" and female "submissiveness" seemingly originate.
For instance, if someone wanders into my personal space—say, coming within half a meter of me—my instinctual reaction is often to push back with both hands. People usually look for an explanation because they can't quite wrap their heads around why I reacted that way (essentially, my "penetrating" stance). It got me reflecting on my own behavior and thinking about the times I have been the one in the active role—and just how many different ways people have tried to defend themselves against that.
Still, these convex and concave dynamics in life and behavior are inevitable; ultimately, they play a role in the very mechanics of reproduction. But as society evolves, we are seeing more fluid identities, which will likely lead to a generation of "moral relativists" regarding these convex-concave mental statuses.
To get straight to the point: could you envision yourselves as the opposite gender, and if so, how would you describe that experience?

(A quick note to the feminists and the chauvinists out there: please leave the moralizing at the door. We're keeping the ethics strictly to the philosophy section below.) 🙂

Could I see myself as a man, specifically regarding his role as the penetrator? 🤣If that's the question, the answer is no. It comes down to the fact that I'm chasing this nearly impossible ideal of total equality in relationships. If I kept going with this, I'd end up drifting into LJS territory. 🙏

....that's just one way to look at things......
...you could also view it through the lens of an exchange—this idea of taking versus being consumed......
....if you look at it that way, the whole dynamic shifts completely.... because in reality, the man is the one offering himself to the woman, rather than "conquering" her....
....it’s more like she is the one receiving and holding space, while he is the one providing....
...which means there isn't really any concept of submissiveness involved....

You really enjoy being on top, don't you?😬 Rebecca Scott3, would you believe that while I was drafting my opening post yesterday, I actually wondered if anyone would pick up on this concept of "inversion"? It’s a much more sophisticated way of looking at things—instead of simply surrendering your integrity, you essentially assimilate the opposition. After all, they’re operating on your home turf, right? It’s similar to what happens in the film *Mediterraneo*, where a group of clumsy soldiers tries to conquer a Greek island. The symbolism of that island is quite frankly vaginal; the men from the island are taken away, leaving behind only women, children, and the elderly. Ultimately, that feminine population swallows the invaders whole; some of them never even bother trying to return to their homeland again.
When it comes to our forum members, if I were to place anyone into this category of "vaginal assimilation," I suppose I'd have to pick Slizim and Natch.
There is a legendary moment in *Once Upon a Time in the West* where Claudia Cardinale tells an outlaw: "You and your people can go ahead and kill each other off now; I'll just wash myself off tomorrow and won't even remember your faces." He falls for her instantly and replies, "You remind me of someone: my mother. There hasn't been a bigger whore or a greater lady in the entire Wild West." 😬

silentnomad23 said:You really enjoy being on top, don't you?😬 Rebecca Scott3, would you believe that while I was drafting my opening post yesterday, I actually wondered if anyone would pick up on this concept of "inversion"? It’s a much more sophisticated way of looking at things—instead of simply surrendering your integrity, you essentially assimilate the opposition. After all, they’re operating on your home turf, right? It’s similar to what happens in the film *Mediterraneo*, where a group of clumsy soldiers tries to conquer a Greek island. The symbolism of that island is quite frankly vaginal; the men from the island are taken away, leaving behind only women, children, and the elderly. Ultimately, that feminine population swallows the invaders whole; some of them never even bother trying to return to their homeland again.
When it comes to our forum members, if I were to place anyone into this category of "vaginal assimilation," I suppose I'd have to pick Slizim and Natch.
There is a legendary moment in *Once Upon a Time in the West* where Claudia Cardinale tells an outlaw: "You and your people can go ahead and kill each other off now; I'll just wash myself off tomorrow and won't even remember your faces." He falls for her instantly and replies, "You remind me of someone: my mother. There hasn't been a bigger whore or a greater lady in the entire Wild West." 😬

....so yeah, it's that whole "eat or be eaten" system.....
...but honestly, we really should just be collaborators.........
...though my take on men and women is a bit different from the norm.....
....it's the woman who enters the relationship to find pleasure and receive the seed that will fertilize her....she takes hold of that spark, and then she carries and gives birth to it....the child belongs to her; it's a part of her....a child is the absolute peak of everything....they are an extension, a mirror, our ultimate masterpiece....which means they represent the highest aim of any living organism (and that doesn't diminish those who don't have kids or choose not to, since they have their own vital roles in society, raising and supporting the next generation)...so, a woman having a child isn't just a vessel for new life....she is the architect of the species' continuity.....and because of that, she deserves a special kind of respect....(we could go on forever about parenting and caretaking, though)....
...in nature, a man doesn't actually know if he's the father....he can only choose to believe or doubt it.....that's why I say fatherhood is a title earned through respect.....sure, we have DNA tests today.....but.....what if the woman leaves? The man might never even realize the child carries his genes.....
....just a few ounces of muscle mass historically enslaved and crushed female power. Instead of finding balance through survival-based cooperation, women were subjugated by brute strength and religious or cultural manipulation. Women became property. Under patriarchal culture, the child becomes the father's asset in every sense: the surname, the reward/punishment systems regarding the kid, inheritance, and how sex, leisure, and education are interpreted....and so on....
....there's been a massive shift in how women, children, and even men are treated since Ancient Greece, but we are still such a long way from truly breaking free from that violent patriarchal mindset....

...

...hehe....silentnomad23.....I honestly love the ups and the downs....but my favorite part? It’s definitely the changes...🙂))

I suppose I "penetrate" quite frequently—perhaps because I tend to shy away from the idea of manipulating others by being the one who is penetrated. To penetrate feels more transparent—and I’m not necessarily trying to be moralistic here—it’s just more defined; it has a specific shape and stance. It isn't surprising that for centuries, there has been all this talk regarding female "mysticism." While I don't subscribe to the idea of some inherent mystery within women—at least not in the way it has been historically or culturally framed—following the line of thought sketched by Rebecca Scott3—which is essentially the demonization of women—I do believe that mystifying the feminine principle is quite effective. Men often lean on that very mystification when they are trying to pursue a woman they desire. Emphasizing conversation based on the premise of I am male and you are female is also just another version of this shifting game of penetrating and allowing oneself to be penetrated. It's similar to temporary submissiveness, or perhaps pulling back, just to consciously counteract the primary idea of penetration. It might be about allowing someone onto your territory just so the roles can eventually flip, allowing the guest to be penetrated instead. In reality, even though it's historically clear that phallic culture is dominant—and that it has primarily subjugated women politically—all this power play is built around a respect for strength. This starts with reproductive strength and moves into a certain psychological strength generated by a woman's specific biological makeup. That sense of integrity, which truly seems to radiate through penetration, is (perhaps) a reaction to the wholeness and purposefulness of the female biological construct. It reflects our cultural reverence for birth and motherhood, the umbilical cord of every person, and our connection to the world. Still, these are all relatively archaic and archetypal notions. Today, we probably need to deal with simpler principles of attraction and rejection based on physical and social adequacy—almost following economic criteria. Nowadays, everyone seems to be trying to penetrate, because, as some sociologists argue, the battlefield has expanded into the psychological realm (identity). Perhaps the distinction between the penetrator and the penetrated is becoming unnecessary or outdated. Maybe it’s less about penetration now and more about clicking—or mutual clicking. Or perhaps it's about an upgrade (an expansion of integrity?) for both genders, who are both operating within the same system of producing new meanings for goods—both human and other forms of capital.

Over on the LJS forums, there was a discussion started by a male user asking women about the sensation of being penetrated. On the Psychology board, the concept of transgender identity was briefly touched upon.
Transgender identity itself isn't particularly interesting to most people (though I find it fascinating in terms of social roles), which is evident from the response to the topic. However, reading what Rebecca Scott3 writes again, maybe this is the ecology of a new discipline for integrating masculine and feminine principles—in the sense of providing an "asexual" support to natural processes.

You can't truly integrate anything if there isn't any friction or opposition to work with. What exactly are you supposed to integrate if everything is just "feminine" or asexual? I actually started a separate thread once to discuss how sexuality is partially driven by physical form—it’s more than just what happens in your head. You can only engage in certain acts if the physical mechanics allow for it. If the equipment isn't there, you have to find other ways to satisfy that urge, like
self-pleasure. I am the type of person who gets bored with people and things very quickly. Some might label me as superficial, claiming I haven't "dug deep enough" into someone's personality, but honestly, I think I dig far too deep. There is only one thing I never tire of, and a very small handful of people who don't exhaust me—but for that to happen, there has to be a sense of "mastery," an infinite loop of mutual discovery, a bit of life's necessary friction, or a specific kind of "resistance." To me, asexuality—viewed as an abstract principle where nothing is ever challenged and there is no mutual resistance—is quite frankly mind-numbingly boring. I realize this is a trendy topic right now, and perhaps in many cases it is, but I suspect it's often a byproduct of how we've incorrectly approached gender equality.
Furthermore, I don't believe the "concave" or feminine principle can extend the same kind of forgiveness to men that it applies to itself. A woman is much more likely to forgive a man for an action he actually committed than for an action he failed to take. She might even find it easier to forgive a man who commits an assault than one who simply stands by and does nothing.

Like one of the folks here already pointed out: Once he steps foot inside, he’s officially on your turf.😁
And honestly, even if I were a guy, the idea of forcing myself on anyone sounds absolutely revolting.
Just think back to that movie *Misery*😁—it's all right there.

silentnomad23 said:So, I was sitting there after lunch today, letting my mind wander through a rather curious thought: why does it always seem easier to be the one initiating action rather than the one receiving it?
It’s a phenomenon that goes far beyond physical intimacy; it’s deeply rooted in our psychological makeup. If I were to imagine myself navigating the world from a masculine perspective, honestly, taking charge and being the active force with one, two, or even ten people wouldn't feel like much of a struggle at all. However, looking at this through a feminine lens changes the equation entirely. When you are the one penetrating, you are essentially asserting your integrity; when you are the one being penetrated, that sense of self-integrity feels like it retreats. This is where those classic archetypes of male "dominance" and female "submissiveness" seemingly originate.
For instance, if someone wanders into my personal space—say, coming within half a meter of me—my instinctual reaction is often to push back with both hands. People usually look for an explanation because they can't quite wrap their heads around why I reacted that way (essentially, my "penetrating" stance). It got me reflecting on my own behavior and thinking about the times I have been the one in the active role—and just how many different ways people have tried to defend themselves against that.
Still, these convex and concave dynamics in life and behavior are inevitable; ultimately, they play a role in the very mechanics of reproduction. But as society evolves, we are seeing more fluid identities, which will likely lead to a generation of "moral relativists" regarding these convex-concave mental statuses.
To get straight to the point: could you envision yourselves as the opposite gender, and if so, how would you describe that experience?

(A quick note to the feminists and the chauvinists out there: please leave the moralizing at the door. We're keeping the ethics strictly to the philosophy section below.) 🙂

You could probably write a book about it, 😁 ..

But honestly, I am not entirely sure where this discussion is headed... the whole thing strikes me as somewhat trivial.☕

Lawrence Bailey77 said:You could probably write a book about it, 😁 ..

But honestly, I am not entirely sure where this discussion is headed... the whole thing strikes me as somewhat trivial.☕

How is anyone supposed to take this seriously when the person who started the thread is just dumping their own subjective, kind of half-baked opinion out there?
I don't feel "submissive" in bed because, frankly, I know how to take control whenever I want to.
It actually irritates me when people try to frame things as if a woman is inherently "submissive" in certain roles. At the end of the day, everyone—and yes, women included—gets to decide whether they want to be dominant or submissive.

Please, try to offer an objective opinion on this topic. -.-

But what are you, really... or rather... aren't you simply the persona you believe yourself to be?

Shall we attempt to approach this with some actual seriousness?

If you believe you possess control, do you truly hold it? Or is it merely a psychological necessity to believe that you do?

It seems to me, quite often, that the people around me exert control over everyone else, yet they remain utterly incapable of controlling themselves.☕

And is sex—or perhaps lovemaking—inherently a competition? A struggle of who dominates whom? I’m trying not to be crude here... I could certainly prolong this point just to distance myself from more graphic arguments regarding physical intimacy, if you catch my drift...☕

...there is a great deal that requires definition before one can even begin to have a conversationseriously about what I believe this subject was intended to provoke. Of course, I am not claiming to be infallible... nor do I feel any compulsion to control anyone but myself. I say this not to belittle anyone, but purely so we can understand one another and so that I might be takenseriously.

Thank you for your understanding...

Lisa Hernandez3 said:I suppose I "penetrate" quite frequently—perhaps because I tend to shy away from the idea of manipulating others by being the one who is penetrated. To penetrate feels more transparent—and I’m not necessarily trying to be moralistic here—it’s just more defined; it has a specific shape and stance. It isn't surprising that for centuries, there has been all this talk regarding female "mysticism." While I don't subscribe to the idea of some inherent mystery within women—at least not in the way it has been historically or culturally framed—following the line of thought sketched by Rebecca Scott3—which is essentially the demonization of women—I do believe that mystifying the feminine principle is quite effective. Men often lean on that very mystification when they are trying to pursue a woman they desire. Emphasizing conversation based on the premise of I am male and you are female is also just another version of this shifting game of penetrating and allowing oneself to be penetrated. It's similar to temporary submissiveness, or perhaps pulling back, just to consciously counteract the primary idea of penetration. It might be about allowing someone onto your territory just so the roles can eventually flip, allowing the guest to be penetrated instead. In reality, even though it's historically clear that phallic culture is dominant—and that it has primarily subjugated women politically—all this power play is built around a respect for strength. This starts with reproductive strength and moves into a certain psychological strength generated by a woman's specific biological makeup. That sense of integrity, which truly seems to radiate through penetration, is (perhaps) a reaction to the wholeness and purposefulness of the female biological construct. It reflects our cultural reverence for birth and motherhood, the umbilical cord of every person, and our connection to the world. Still, these are all relatively archaic and archetypal notions. Today, we probably need to deal with simpler principles of attraction and rejection based on physical and social adequacy—almost following economic criteria. Nowadays, everyone seems to be trying to penetrate, because, as some sociologists argue, the battlefield has expanded into the psychological realm (identity). Perhaps the distinction between the penetrator and the penetrated is becoming unnecessary or outdated. Maybe it’s less about penetration now and more about clicking—or mutual clicking. Or perhaps it's about an upgrade (an expansion of integrity?) for both genders, who are both operating within the same system of producing new meanings for goods—both human and other forms of capital.

Over on the LJS forums, there was a discussion started by a male user asking women about the sensation of being penetrated. On the Psychology board, the concept of transgender identity was briefly touched upon.
Transgender identity itself isn't particularly interesting to most people (though I find it fascinating in terms of social roles), which is evident from the response to the topic. However, reading what Rebecca Scott3 writes again, maybe this is the ecology of a new discipline for integrating masculine and feminine principles—in the sense of providing an "asexual" support to natural processes.

So if penetration is this clearly defined process of expanding integrity, maybe it reflects male "simplicity"—on the flip side, if being penetrated is this shapeless, mystical thing, maybe that's where the female "complexity" comes from? It’s a pattern that bleeds right into how we view their sexuality.
You can explain away male directness by looking at how much their primal urges actually line up with what society expects—basically, guys get a free pass to satisfy those urges without a second thought (think master keys vs. locks). But things change when you look at women; there isn't that same "directness." Since the rules of the game are different for them, women have to build these whole elaborate systems of "illusions and detours" just to get what they want.

Lisa Hernandez3 said:I suppose I "penetrate" quite frequently—perhaps because I tend to shy away from the idea of manipulating others by being the one who is penetrated. To penetrate feels more transparent—and I’m not necessarily trying to be moralistic here—it’s just more defined; it has a specific shape and stance. It isn't surprising that for centuries, there has been all this talk regarding female "mysticism." While I don't subscribe to the idea of some inherent mystery within women—at least not in the way it has been historically or culturally framed—following the line of thought sketched by Rebecca Scott3—which is essentially the demonization of women—I do believe that mystifying the feminine principle is quite effective. Men often lean on that very mystification when they are trying to pursue a woman they desire. Emphasizing conversation based on the premise of I am male and you are female is also just another version of this shifting game of penetrating and allowing oneself to be penetrated. It's similar to temporary submissiveness, or perhaps pulling back, just to consciously counteract the primary idea of penetration. It might be about allowing someone onto your territory just so the roles can eventually flip, allowing the guest to be penetrated instead. In reality, even though it's historically clear that phallic culture is dominant—and that it has primarily subjugated women politically—all this power play is built around a respect for strength. This starts with reproductive strength and moves into a certain psychological strength generated by a woman's specific biological makeup. That sense of integrity, which truly seems to radiate through penetration, is (perhaps) a reaction to the wholeness and purposefulness of the female biological construct. It reflects our cultural reverence for birth and motherhood, the umbilical cord of every person, and our connection to the world. Still, these are all relatively archaic and archetypal notions. Today, we probably need to deal with simpler principles of attraction and rejection based on physical and social adequacy—almost following economic criteria. Nowadays, everyone seems to be trying to penetrate, because, as some sociologists argue, the battlefield has expanded into the psychological realm (identity). Perhaps the distinction between the penetrator and the penetrated is becoming unnecessary or outdated. Maybe it’s less about penetration now and more about clicking—or mutual clicking. Or perhaps it's about an upgrade (an expansion of integrity?) for both genders, who are both operating within the same system of producing new meanings for goods—both human and other forms of capital.

Over on the LJS forums, there was a discussion started by a male user asking women about the sensation of being penetrated. On the Psychology board, the concept of transgender identity was briefly touched upon.
Transgender identity itself isn't particularly interesting to most people (though I find it fascinating in terms of social roles), which is evident from the response to the topic. However, reading what Rebecca Scott3 writes again, maybe this is the ecology of a new discipline for integrating masculine and feminine principles—in the sense of providing an "asexual" support to natural processes.

It feels like this "role-swapping game" is mostly a woman's domain. When she's the one being penetrated, she’s the one conquered—but if she ends up "devouring" the partner, she takes over the lead entirely. Men, though? Society forces them into the role of the penetrator—otherwise, they're basically labeled useless—and socializes them to think that active engagement is the *only* way to conquer. It's rare to find a guy who actually knows how to play both sides like you're describing. Maybe patriarchy is just a man's "impotent" response to that female "dominance." If that's the case, it'll stick around until men are finally allowed to be that ambivalent, too.

Lawrence Bailey77 said:Please, try to offer an objective opinion on this topic. -.-

But what are you, really... or rather... aren't you simply the persona you believe yourself to be?

Shall we attempt to approach this with some actual seriousness?

If you believe you possess control, do you truly hold it? Or is it merely a psychological necessity to believe that you do?

It seems to me, quite often, that the people around me exert control over everyone else, yet they remain utterly incapable of controlling themselves.☕

And is sex—or perhaps lovemaking—inherently a competition? A struggle of who dominates whom? I’m trying not to be crude here... I could certainly prolong this point just to distance myself from more graphic arguments regarding physical intimacy, if you catch my drift...☕

...there is a great deal that requires definition before one can even begin to have a conversationseriously about what I believe this subject was intended to provoke. Of course, I am not claiming to be infallible... nor do I feel any compulsion to control anyone but myself. I say this not to belittle anyone, but purely so we can understand one another and so that I might be takenseriously.

Thank you for your understanding...

And if I may ask—what exactly did I do to get under your skin? What's got you feeling so offended all of a sudden?🙄
Look, I just wanted to point out that just because one person feels "submissive" during sex, it doesn't mean every woman feels that way—not even close.
There isn’t really any objective ground to stand on here—not if we're being honest. At the end of the day, how someone feels is entirely subjective, right?

Rachel Stewart36 said:So if penetration is this clearly defined process of expanding integrity, maybe it reflects male "simplicity"—on the flip side, if being penetrated is this shapeless, mystical thing, maybe that's where the female "complexity" comes from? It’s a pattern that bleeds right into how we view their sexuality.
You can explain away male directness by looking at how much their primal urges actually line up with what society expects—basically, guys get a free pass to satisfy those urges without a second thought (think master keys vs. locks). But things change when you look at women; there isn't that same "directness." Since the rules of the game are different for them, women have to build these whole elaborate systems of "illusions and detours" just to get what they want.

It feels like this "role-swapping game" is mostly a woman's domain. When she's the one being penetrated, she’s the one conquered—but if she ends up "devouring" the partner, she takes over the lead entirely. Men, though? Society forces them into the role of the penetrator—otherwise, they're basically labeled useless—and socializes them to think that active engagement is the *only* way to conquer. It's rare to find a guy who actually knows how to play both sides like you're describing. Maybe patriarchy is just a man's "impotent" response to that female "dominance." If that's the case, it'll stick around until men are finally allowed to be that ambivalent, too.

Look, this is just my objective take. That whole feeling of being "subservient" to men? It really just stems from those deep-seated patriarchal mindsets that have been forced upon women for generations.
If we lived in a different kind of society—one that actually functioned differently—our thoughts and feelings would be completely different too.

Donna Baker5 said:And if I may ask—what exactly did I do to get under your skin? What's got you feeling so offended all of a sudden?🙄
Look, I just wanted to point out that just because one person feels "submissive" during sex, it doesn't mean every woman feels that way—not even close.
There isn’t really any objective ground to stand on here—not if we're being honest. At the end of the day, how someone feels is entirely subjective, right?

Look, this is just my objective take. That whole feeling of being "subservient" to men? It really just stems from those deep-seated patriarchal mindsets that have been forced upon women for generations.
If we lived in a different kind of society—one that actually functioned differently—our thoughts and feelings would be completely different too.

Let's say this is an objective opinion: that sense of being subordinate stems from patriarchal conditioning imposed on women.
If we lived in a different kind of society, our thoughts and feelings would likely be quite different.

So, I suppose the question is whether it’s even possible to have an "objective" conversation about feeling subordinate—and if so, what part is actually subjective versus just a reflection of something objective? If that were the topic—which I don't really see as being the case here—it wouldn't just be one single dimension or perspective, I imagine.

Lisa Hernandez3 said:

Let's say this is an objective opinion: that sense of being subordinate stems from patriarchal conditioning imposed on women.
If we lived in a different kind of society, our thoughts and feelings would likely be quite different.

So, I suppose the question is whether it’s even possible to have an "objective" conversation about feeling subordinate—and if so, what part is actually subjective versus just a reflection of something objective? If that were the topic—which I don't really see as being the case here—it wouldn't just be one single dimension or perspective, I imagine.

Did you even bother to read what I said was objective? I’m assuming you didn't, because I laid out the objective reasoning behind why this topic even exists in the first place.
Look, obviously we weren't all raised the same way—our mindsets vary—and how someone feels is a subjective concept (I mentioned this before, but maybe they skipped the lesson on objectivity vs. subjectivity in your school?).
The generalization here is that all women should feel subordinate.

'It's certainly not just one dimension or perspective.' Well, you just proved my point.
What exactly are we even arguing about here? Or do you honestly want me to change my mind and say that every woman *needs* to feel subordinate just to stroke your tiny male ego?
Besides, what do you know about how a woman should feel?

Donna Baker5, I have to say, I think you completely missed my point. This isn't actually about a feeling of being undermined; rather, it’s about the conscious awareness of how physical form can dictate behavior. In this context, we are looking at an abstract observation regarding substance versus shape. To put it plainly—and assuming you possess standard female anatomy—is physical penetration even possible for you? Now, to be fair and inclusive, considering biological variations like enlarged clitorises or intersex conditions, there is a slim statistical chance that it could be. Otherwise, one would essentially need a prosthetic device to simulate the presence of an element capable of penetration.
As I requested when I first opened this discussion, let's keep this space free from feminist or chauvinist debates. I am not examining the relationship between men and women; I am strictly analyzing the relationship between a human being and physical form, and how those two interact to influence behavior.

Maybe I totally misread the room here—I was under the impression this thread was actually about "natural female submissiveness."
Look, I’m not a feminist, but I am getting seriously fed up with this kind of rhetoric lately. It feels like everywhere you turn, people are obsessed with talking about "great conquerors" and using derogatory terms for women.

Donna Baker5 said:Did you even bother to read what I said was objective? I’m assuming you didn't, because I laid out the objective reasoning behind why this topic even exists in the first place.
Look, obviously we weren't all raised the same way—our mindsets vary—and how someone feels is a subjective concept (I mentioned this before, but maybe they skipped the lesson on objectivity vs. subjectivity in your school?).
The generalization here is that all women should feel subordinate.

'It's certainly not just one dimension or perspective.' Well, you just proved my point.
What exactly are we even arguing about here? Or do you honestly want me to change my mind and say that every woman *needs* to feel subordinate just to stroke your tiny male ego?
Besides, what do you know about how a woman should feel?

Social structures, objectifying practices—or even just things that stem from our biological reality—all define the environment where we go about defining ourselves subjectively. Most of the time, we define ourselves in response to those visible forms or established frameworks. That feeling of not being subordinate is also a reaction to certain forms that are unavoidable within a specific cultural circle, even as biological beings. Take something like *Rosemary's Baby* or *Blue* from the *Three Colors* trilogy; they have these recognizable motifs that speak to something universal—we have symbols, contexts, paradigms. So, there isn't really a "should"—in *Blue*, a male (subjugated) ego complicates all those points to such a bizarre degree that any kind of dictate or sense of obligation becomes a completely irrelevant viewpoint. My own little female ego is also a bit of a complicating factor, I suppose, but in this context, it's irrelevant.

Lisa Hernandez3 said:Social structures, objectifying practices—or even just things that stem from our biological reality—all define the environment where we go about defining ourselves subjectively. Most of the time, we define ourselves in response to those visible forms or established frameworks. That feeling of not being subordinate is also a reaction to certain forms that are unavoidable within a specific cultural circle, even as biological beings. Take something like *Rosemary's Baby* or *Blue* from the *Three Colors* trilogy; they have these recognizable motifs that speak to something universal—we have symbols, contexts, paradigms. So, there isn't really a "should"—in *Blue*, a male (subjugated) ego complicates all those points to such a bizarre degree that any kind of dictate or sense of obligation becomes a completely irrelevant viewpoint. My own little female ego is also a bit of a complicating factor, I suppose, but in this context, it's irrelevant.

On the contrary, my own slight masculine ego—if one can even call it that, given how much smaller it actually is—insists that it is quite relevant... much like that certain stubborn streak in men that compels one to keep digging and refusing to let things end so easily, no matter how much it might hurt.😁

...and since I was banned, I've lost my rhythm entirely.👎