The psychology of convex vs. concave shapes

🙄

So, what exactly am I trying to tell you all here:

konkavno:

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.

It appears you've only provided a single word, "konveksno," which translates to "convex." Since there is no context or full message attached to this term, I don't have any specific thoughts or details to expand upon just yet. If you were looking for a discussion on geometry, optics, or perhaps a specific mathematical concept, please feel free to provide the full context! I am more than happy to dive into a detailed and structured breakdown once I know exactly what topic we are exploring.

Lawrence Bailey77 said: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.👎

Honestly, there are moments when I feel completely caught between two worlds, almost like I’m navigating life with a dual identity that doesn't quite fit one mold or the other.😳

It isn't quite like that, I suppose. I was actually just letting one of the ladies on the forum know that I'm female—mostly because she had formed an opinion on what I wrote based on the assumption that I was a man. Those kinds of reactions and interpretations really just go to show how much drama seekers love a good polarity. For instance, you see that sort of concave integrity from Dudekov over in Smalltown, USA.

Lisa Hernandez3 said:It isn't quite like that, I suppose. I was actually just letting one of the ladies on the forum know that I'm female—mostly because she had formed an opinion on what I wrote based on the assumption that I was a man. Those kinds of reactions and interpretations really just go to show how much drama seekers love a good polarity. For instance, you see that sort of concave integrity from Dudekov over in Smalltown, USA.

I'm with you. That NBA dynamic shows up in MM, FF strict dynamics, and even mixed ones. Without at least one convex person—a leader—the whole community just falls apart.

The convex partner provides the confidence the concave one needs. If you have two concave people—both being submissive, for example—it just doesn't work. It's impossible.

That’s why a woman (who claims to be "oppressed" by this) who relies entirely on someone else's dominance... I don't know how she expects to handle a convex submissive. Heh.😁

Lawrence Allen49 said:I'm with you. That NBA dynamic shows up in MM, FF strict dynamics, and even mixed ones. Without at least one convex person—a leader—the whole community just falls apart.

The convex partner provides the confidence the concave one needs. If you have two concave people—both being submissive, for example—it just doesn't work. It's impossible.

That’s why a woman (who claims to be "oppressed" by this) who relies entirely on someone else's dominance... I don't know how she expects to handle a convex submissive. Heh.😁

But does a community collapse if there isn't a single concave person present?
What kind of relationship? Sexual?

Lisa Hernandez3 said:It isn't quite like that, I suppose. I was actually just letting one of the ladies on the forum know that I'm female—mostly because she had formed an opinion on what I wrote based on the assumption that I was a man. Those kinds of reactions and interpretations really just go to show how much drama seekers love a good polarity. For instance, you see that sort of concave integrity from Dudekov over in Smalltown, USA.

Hehe🙂...offering an apology is just as concave.🙄

Lawrence Allen49 said:I'm with you. That NBA dynamic shows up in MM, FF strict dynamics, and even mixed ones. Without at least one convex person—a leader—the whole community just falls apart.

The convex partner provides the confidence the concave one needs. If you have two concave people—both being submissive, for example—it just doesn't work. It's impossible.

That’s why a woman (who claims to be "oppressed" by this) who relies entirely on someone else's dominance... I don't know how she expects to handle a convex submissive. Heh.😁

reaching into a concave test tube.😁

Rebecca Chase5 said:But does a community collapse if there isn't a single concave person present?
What kind of relationship? Sexual?

Look, if you want someone to be submissive, you need dominance.
How can dominance even happen if both sides are submissive?

Submissiveness is impossible without dominance, and vice versa.

When a woman runs into a submissive guy, she just calls him "boring." Usually, there’s nothing to talk about, no drive, zero sexual attraction—the relationship just dies before it even starts. It’s impossible. Even when it comes to sex, everyone agrees they prefer people they can actually clash with, and for that friction to exist, someone has to be dominant.

As for a community made up entirely of concave personalities? Yeah, it’ll collapse. People will eventually drift toward whoever shows a bit of convexity.

It applies to everything. Sexual, friendship, politics, even... eroticism. 🙂 Everyone wants a captain on their ship, right? 🙂

I’m not saying women are exclusively concave and submissive, even if nature suggests otherwise. But if a woman is somewhat convex (meaning, let's say, more assertive 😁), she's naturally going to look for someone more convex than herself.

Because the concave is destined to love the convex.

PS: If a man acts as the convex force for a concave woman and lets her take control, he’ll end up alone. That’s the theory, and it’s the reality too. That’s why whenever a woman faces a big decision, she says, "Hold on, I have to ask my husband." 🙂 Or, if you're an investor, "Let me check with the CEO."

Lawrence Allen49 said:Look, if you want someone to be submissive, you need dominance.
How can dominance even happen if both sides are submissive?

Submissiveness is impossible without dominance, and vice versa.

When a woman runs into a submissive guy, she just calls him "boring." Usually, there’s nothing to talk about, no drive, zero sexual attraction—the relationship just dies before it even starts. It’s impossible. Even when it comes to sex, everyone agrees they prefer people they can actually clash with, and for that friction to exist, someone has to be dominant.

As for a community made up entirely of concave personalities? Yeah, it’ll collapse. People will eventually drift toward whoever shows a bit of convexity.

It applies to everything. Sexual, friendship, politics, even... eroticism. 🙂 Everyone wants a captain on their ship, right? 🙂

I’m not saying women are exclusively concave and submissive, even if nature suggests otherwise. But if a woman is somewhat convex (meaning, let's say, more assertive 😁), she's naturally going to look for someone more convex than herself.

Because the concave is destined to love the convex.

PS: If a man acts as the convex force for a concave woman and lets her take control, he’ll end up alone. That’s the theory, and it’s the reality too. That’s why whenever a woman faces a big decision, she says, "Hold on, I have to ask my husband." 🙂 Or, if you're an investor, "Let me check with the CEO."

I asked about a community of convex types—whether the most convex would simply rise to the top or if the whole thing would fall apart.
The convex are always more persuasive; it stands to reason.
A captain on a ship... heh. I work in a similar field, and it seems to me that everyone occasionally desires to lead.
Natural laws govern our impulses.
And seeking counsel is perfectly fine; even the convex do it.

Rebecca Chase5 said:I asked about a community of convex types—whether the most convex would simply rise to the top or if the whole thing would fall apart.
The convex are always more persuasive; it stands to reason.
A captain on a ship... heh. I work in a similar field, and it seems to me that everyone occasionally desires to lead.
Natural laws govern our impulses.
And seeking counsel is perfectly fine; even the convex do it.

My bad. Spent too much time staring at my monitor today, clearly I can't "read" properly when I'm this zoned out..

A group of ten "alphas," just a pile of managers? Who knows. But I’ve seen this play out at a major firm back in the day. Everyone was supposedly "top tier talent"—just a massive ego cluster. They were constantly jumping ship, even the team leads. Most couldn't last more than two years in that kind of rat race.

So... looks like that circle is crumbling too.
The only ones left standing were the bottom feeders.

Two years... basically the lifespan of a modern American marriage, if you think about it. 🙂

Rebecca Chase5 said:I asked about a community of convex types—whether the most convex would simply rise to the top or if the whole thing would fall apart.
The convex are always more persuasive; it stands to reason.
A captain on a ship... heh. I work in a similar field, and it seems to me that everyone occasionally desires to lead.
Natural laws govern our impulses.
And seeking counsel is perfectly fine; even the convex do it.

Heh, I get it. Just offer them the position. They'll tell you real quick that they were just being "passionate" when they said it. 🙂

I remember another job where the entire production line lost its manager for a single day. We ended up missing 40% of our daily quota, even with two hours of overtime.

It wasn't because people stopped working—it was because nobody knew what to do, how to do it, or when to do it. I bet if you put a low-performer in charge on a ship, you'd see the exact same disaster. 🙂

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.) 🙂

Ah, so you’re one of those caught in the grip of that lingering Freudian stage—penis envy. You're sweet, really, and occasionally quite brilliant, but I just can't wrap my head around why women carry such intense anxiety about their own skin that they have to constantly badger us men over the biological reality of being "penetrated." 🤷 People talk about female empowerment, say women are totally independent—yet there's this incredible undercurrent of jealousy toward the male anatomy. Personally, I don't mind. I simply appreciate you all for who you are; it never once crossed my mind to be envious of you or wish I had a vagina between my legs. 🤷 Listen, freckles, you're charming, and I've told you that before, but I didn't realize you were struggling with this masculine envy complex too 😉 Where does it all come from? 🤔

So, here’s my take: women harbor this deep-seated jealousy toward men. It stems from their envy of male potency. They see it as the ultimate tool for climbing to the top of any social hierarchy. Now, look, nature didn't exactly design women to be inherently aggressive or assertive in that specific way—though, let’s be clear, that has zero bearing on actual success. A woman can reach the summit through pure intellect and sheer capability; she just needs the space and the permission to actually exert herself. So, embrace it. Just accept what being a woman means. It’s a beautiful thing, really. The real issue lies with those chauvinists who try to belittle you. You have to learn to distinguish a true gentleman from a common chauvinist. 😉 A gentleman will celebrate a woman and her femininity, whereas a chauvinist will spend every waking moment trying to tear her down. He views her as a threat to his own fragile masculinity, obstructing her path to success simply because he feels small and threatened by her presence. Ladies, please, learn to tell the difference between a chauvinist and a gentleman, and hold your femininity high.

Yours, restlessviper5! 😉

postercicu, I think you might have missed my point regarding vaginal assimilation. In this dynamic, the vagina ultimately holds the upper hand because it possesses the capacity to swallow, process, and then release, whereas the penis can only reach out toward it.
Even if we imagine a scenario where both anatomy types had teeth, the vagina would still prevail simply because its "mouth" is larger.
That old Freudian theory about the female castration complex was clearly penned by someone lacking the capacity for hyperperception—someone unable to truly imagine themselves inhabiting a body other than their own, or even stepping outside the constraints of body and time altogether.
If energy is fluid and constantly shifting, then it stands to reason that I am intimately familiar with what it feels like to "be" masculine. This explains why some women experience the sensation of a penis, just as some men possess the essence of a vagina. Personally, I find people with a blend of concave and convex traits far more compelling—those who aren't strictly confined to "typical" male or female archetypes and instead embrace a balance of both sides. On the other hand, I find those who cling to the extremes quite unappealing. For instance, looking at a user like yivanmukta, who presents himself as purely "convex," I find that approach somewhat off-putting, if not entirely repulsive from a sexual standpoint.

silentnomad23 said:postercicu, I think you might have missed my point regarding vaginal assimilation. In this dynamic, the vagina ultimately holds the upper hand because it possesses the capacity to swallow, process, and then release, whereas the penis can only reach out toward it.
Even if we imagine a scenario where both anatomy types had teeth, the vagina would still prevail simply because its "mouth" is larger.
That old Freudian theory about the female castration complex was clearly penned by someone lacking the capacity for hyperperception—someone unable to truly imagine themselves inhabiting a body other than their own, or even stepping outside the constraints of body and time altogether.
If energy is fluid and constantly shifting, then it stands to reason that I am intimately familiar with what it feels like to "be" masculine. This explains why some women experience the sensation of a penis, just as some men possess the essence of a vagina. Personally, I find people with a blend of concave and convex traits far more compelling—those who aren't strictly confined to "typical" male or female archetypes and instead embrace a balance of both sides. On the other hand, I find those who cling to the extremes quite unappealing. For instance, looking at a user like yivanmukta, who presents himself as purely "convex," I find that approach somewhat off-putting, if not entirely repulsive from a sexual standpoint.

It is much easier to be passive and gluttonous than to be active and generous. Generosity drains a person because it is a form of self-sacrifice for the sake of the whole, whereas gluttony—much like peristalsis cleaning a vagina—serves only itself. It’s pure selfishness.
Freud is, summa summarum, the repository of all the deepest secrets of human psychology. To disparage him is essentially to disagree with one's own self. A person can simultaneously be "hyperperceptive," androgynous, feeling the essence of a vagina while remaining male, and vice versa. Therefore, the ideal state is whatever extracts the maximum from your being. There is no need to force oneself into rigid patterns just to satisfy some imagined notion of "universal sexuality."

The experience of certain women feeling as though they have a penis, or men feeling they have a vagina, is linked to brain androgyny and the harmony of energies—the anima and the animus. Perhaps that represents the most balanced personality in the realm of sexuality. However, I personally prefer a grain of true masculinity within my own world of hormonal cocktails, where I exist on the threshold of various sexualities. Physically, I am entirely male, yet my brain is somewhat androgynous, allowing me to fully identify with the act of having, of assimilating a vagina, without ever ceasing to be purely male for even a single moment. 😉

Rebecca Scott3 said:....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....

...

So, Maria Callas just pulled off a total Robin Hood move—hitting that bullseye right above the head without ever trying to forcefully assimilate anyone or play some power game of conquest. Honestly, we could all stand to take a page out of her book. There’s a certain rhythm to it, isn't there? A man leads, a woman receives. When things flow like that, the whole system just works. It’s seamless. It makes me wonder why we even bother with all this heavy terminology—words like 'devouring,' 'subjugation,' 'submission,' 'dominance,' or 'sexual antagonism.' It feels forced. To me, it seems like this entire obsession was shoved down our throats by the damn capitalist West and its relentless philosophy of ownership. We’ve been conditioned to view our partners like territories in the Far East that need to be conquered—or perhaps assimilated, just so capital can burst under its own tension and expand the Empire through self-multiplying wealth. It’s exhausting. "To have or to be," as Fromm put it. I think about that often when things get chaotic. Personally, I’ll choose Fromm’s "Being" every single time. By leaning into this little thought experiment, I find I can sidestep the whole messy cycle of dominance and submission entirely.

Look, why don't you give me the version of things that ought to be true, while I tell you how things actually are? And the reality is, everything is in a constant state of flux—driven by cycles of conquest, dominance, and eventual resignation. My subconscious is my ultimate authority.
Perhaps you’re trying to offer me something that I have no interest in receiving, yet I might find myself taking something else entirely—something you didn't even realize you were offering. Or perhaps you want me to give you something that I simply won't (since I'm apparently being "selfish"), though it's clear you're gaining something from the exchange anyway (only you know exactly what that is).
As for that thing someone supposedly "imposed" on you, you chose to take it yourself. Why do you assume "Western capitalism" is the primary culprit here? Besides, what does Western capitalism even mean to a being like you? There has always been a West and an East.

Think of it this way: convexity defines any given goal; without that drive, you wouldn't even be moving forward. Concavity, however, is what allows for interaction. It acts as the immune system, the shock absorber, and the stabilizer.
In this entire equation, your consciousness is just as vital as a third leg.

silentnomad23 said:Look, why don't you give me the version of things that ought to be true, while I tell you how things actually are? And the reality is, everything is in a constant state of flux—driven by cycles of conquest, dominance, and eventual resignation. My subconscious is my ultimate authority.
Perhaps you’re trying to offer me something that I have no interest in receiving, yet I might find myself taking something else entirely—something you didn't even realize you were offering. Or perhaps you want me to give you something that I simply won't (since I'm apparently being "selfish"), though it's clear you're gaining something from the exchange anyway (only you know exactly what that is).
As for that thing someone supposedly "imposed" on you, you chose to take it yourself. Why do you assume "Western capitalism" is the primary culprit here? Besides, what does Western capitalism even mean to a being like you? There has always been a West and an East.

Think of it this way: convexity defines any given goal; without that drive, you wouldn't even be moving forward. Concavity, however, is what allows for interaction. It acts as the immune system, the shock absorber, and the stabilizer.
In this entire equation, your consciousness is just as vital as a third leg.

Naturally, when you talk about "how things are," it sounds to me like nothing more than a glorified zoo. If your subconscious is perfectly content living in such a cage, fine—good for you and your subconscious. For me, mine speaks of transcendence. And if you haven't noticed, the world is already pivoting toward transhumanism and post-humanity. The shifts will be massive, and we really ought to adapt to these new conditions. Modification is inevitable if we intend to survive; struggling against it within our little zoo will only lead us straight to the gates of the apocalypse. And frankly, apocalypse is certain if we fail to transcend ourselves. Though, considering the current meager potential of human nature, the most likely sequence is apocalypse followed by transcendence, simply because we are absolute idiots. Something similar was noted by Stephen Hawking: "Humanity will experience a great technological transformation and progress, provided we do not destroy ourselves." Personally, though, I see it differently—apocalypse first, then perhaps a New Beginning, if even a single living creature remains on Earth. I have little faith in human idiocy and fanaticism. Sometimes a fool needs a slap to sober up. God, let us simply move past our differences and focus on our own progress. If we can't manage that, we probably don't deserve to, given how disappointingly we've failed as a species. 🤷

restlessviper5 said:Naturally, when you talk about "how things are," it sounds to me like nothing more than a glorified zoo. If your subconscious is perfectly content living in such a cage, fine—good for you and your subconscious. For me, mine speaks of transcendence. And if you haven't noticed, the world is already pivoting toward transhumanism and post-humanity. The shifts will be massive, and we really ought to adapt to these new conditions. Modification is inevitable if we intend to survive; struggling against it within our little zoo will only lead us straight to the gates of the apocalypse. And frankly, apocalypse is certain if we fail to transcend ourselves. Though, considering the current meager potential of human nature, the most likely sequence is apocalypse followed by transcendence, simply because we are absolute idiots. Something similar was noted by Stephen Hawking: "Humanity will experience a great technological transformation and progress, provided we do not destroy ourselves." Personally, though, I see it differently—apocalypse first, then perhaps a New Beginning, if even a single living creature remains on Earth. I have little faith in human idiocy and fanaticism. Sometimes a fool needs a slap to sober up. God, let us simply move past our differences and focus on our own progress. If we can't manage that, we probably don't deserve to, given how disappointingly we've failed as a species. 🤷

The thing is, you can't actually claim to know what your subconscious is telling you; that’s precisely why it’s called the subconscious. If you were in control of it, you wouldn't be in the position you find yourself in today.
Furthermore, because of its nature, there is no way to predict where you will end up—you simply aren't larger than the forces driving you.

All these apocalyptic sermons and moralizing lectures tend to ripple outward; people observe one another's behavior and then amplify those views within their own circles.

Ultimately, what does it truly matter to you whether we face an apocalypse or if social norms shift entirely in the next few centuries?

1. You won't be around to see it.
2. There is absolutely no way to know how human relationships will evolve or how society will function in the long run.

silentnomad23 said:The thing is, you can't actually claim to know what your subconscious is telling you; that’s precisely why it’s called the subconscious. If you were in control of it, you wouldn't be in the position you find yourself in today.
Furthermore, because of its nature, there is no way to predict where you will end up—you simply aren't larger than the forces driving you.

All these apocalyptic sermons and moralizing lectures tend to ripple outward; people observe one another's behavior and then amplify those views within their own circles.

Ultimately, what does it truly matter to you whether we face an apocalypse or if social norms shift entirely in the next few centuries?

1. You won't be around to see it.
2. There is absolutely no way to know how human relationships will evolve or how society will function in the long run.

Look, I'll admit it. I'm fixated on this stuff. It's exhausting. I'm frustrated with the state of the world, and frankly, I'm frustrated with myself. I feel like a total wreck. Maybe I really do need to go talk to a professional. Happy now?!

restlessviper5 said:Look, I'll admit it. I'm fixated on this stuff. It's exhausting. I'm frustrated with the state of the world, and frankly, I'm frustrated with myself. I feel like a total wreck. Maybe I really do need to go talk to a professional. Happy now?!

And why on earth would that satisfy me? It's not like I'm Miranda Bailey.

silentnomad23 said:And why on earth would that satisfy me? It's not like I'm Miranda Bailey.

Look, I’m not exactly expecting you to be a second Miranda Bailey, either. I was just venting about what's been weighing on me. Honestly, you can barely even voice a grievance without someone immediately trying to pin it on you. 🤷

Good grief, you can't even enjoy a little bit of fun without someone accusing you of stepping on their toes.

Honestly, there are so many people out there walking around with that kind of attitude. I lost my patience with that mindset a long time ago, and frankly, I don't regret it one bit. It’s not something I feel bad about, nor am I celebrating it—I've just moved past it.