Jump to content

Sexual Attraction vs Social Dominance


Recommended Posts

I've had a fascination with social dynamics for a while and am interested in hearing what people may think about this. For arguments sake, I'm going to assume a few premises (which could be argued).

1. Males tend to feel most sexual attraction based on perceived reproductive potential in a female (breast size, hip-waist ratio, facial symmetry etc.)

2. Females tend to feel most sexual attraction based on perceived social dominance/survival potential (in most extreme cases, celebrities/popularity)

3. Although women may fantasies about sex with an attractive male, it is a major investment to actually follow through. Most women must secure an emotional connection prior to engaging in sex in order to make sure their partner will stay around to fend for their emotional offspring (of course, only emotionally though, as birth control can control logistics)

4. Women try to maintain plausible deniability. A women will try to make intercourse "not her fault". Simply put, most women do not experience courtship while thinking (I can't wait to have sex with him!), while a man may very well be consciously thinking of fantasies even before approaching the women.

These assumptions are likely to rouse controversy but I'm only using them to help illustrate my actual question. When I perceive a women who is widely considered sexually attractive, she captivates the room and her behavior solicits more reactive responses in her associates (more over-thinking, more nervousness, making everything into a big deal). However, this is essentially the same with men who are considered socially dominate (more awareness of their presence, more attentive listening etc.) I can feel this from a man, but have no homosexual/romantic feelings. Do aces feel the gender they're attracted to, how I feel about a socially dominant man?

The million dollar question: Does an asexual experience this sense of nearby dominance, and simply have no desire to engage in sex? Or do they simply not feel this atmospheric dominance on any level? Keep in mind, this also happens when anyone interacts; (who is talking more, nervous, fidgeting while the other remains calm.) Are asexuals simply processing this on a logical level, and they feel nothing? Aces must logically try to process who is lower in popularity (more reactive) but cannot distinguish it emotionally?


To put really bluntly (assume no personal connection in these examples i.e: unsolicited behavior)

Girls: If some stereotypical "nerd" in highschool, came up to you and called you a loser, would you react the same/think about it as much, compared to lets say the head of the football team (attends parties/all the girls want him) did the same thing?

Guys: If an "ugly" (general consensus) girl came up to you and called you a loser, would you care/feel the same if the head cheerleader (large breasts, in the popular "click", excellent hip-waist ratio and facial symmetry) did the same?

Imagine days later still thinking about it, while forgetting about the other one within minutes (emotionally/logically).

tl;dr: Are asexuals unable to feel emotional social dominance? Do they just process it on a logical level? (I guess most guys would consider her "hot"/I can understand why most girls would want him as a partner) Do you feel the dominance but have no desire to engage in sex acts with them, or do you have no desire to engage in sex acts because you do not feel the emotional social dominance? This basically just goes back to the cool kids in high school. Use that as mental reference.

Edited by Esgaria
Link to post
Share on other sites

Heh. I won't pretend I speak for everyone, but I do consider myself pretty out of touch/logically isolated from what you call "social dominance" here. No matter if the one who calls me a loser is pretty or ugly, I'd think "yeah, by nearly all standard societal criteria, I am a loser. Way to point out the obvious!?" ^_^

I notice it a lot more within all-male groups, when no women are present at all, which is why they've always annoyed me. There's a constant struggle there to become the Alpha and establish status in the hierarchy, and I don't have time for that shit (being the loser I am... ;)).

I'll only fight for logical consistency (and I know I annoy the heck out of people with it sometimes, but that's their problem, not mine :p), not for nonsense like hierachical ranks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Tarfeather

1) There is probably some statistical truth to what you say. Humans do act that way often.

2) You're not going to have much luck with that on this forum. Most of us are here because we're past that kind of primitive thinking.

So yeah, to get some data, you'd probably have to go to some high school, identify the closet asexuals and then get them to answer truthfully. Good luck. :P

Link to post
Share on other sites
Tarfeather

I notice it a lot more within all-male groups, when no women are present at all, which is why they've always annoyed me. There's a constant struggle there to become the Alpha and establish status in the hierarchy, and I don't have time for that shit (being the loser I am... ;)).

I don't notice it at all anymore in my academia related all-male groups. We do have "alphas" and "dominant people", but in the groups I interact with it's based on merit, not on some silly power struggle between primates.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is extremely fascinating. Semantically, it should be very well possible for an asexual to feel social dominance while still maintaining a state of asexuality. However, I'd like to ask you on a interpersonal scale (less monkey primitive hierarchy). Do you feel this with friends? If someone is crying and you are comforting them, there is some (although very small) level of you being more dominant.

If a famous celebrity came to your house would you feel the urge to rave about it to peers? Or would it genuinely not really effect you?

I feel I must assert social dominance because in my experience it has a strong correlation to sexuality.

Link to post
Share on other sites
WünderBâhr

I think the way this is presented is a bit flawed in that it seems to put each option out there as all or nothing. Also, it sounds like confusing "social dominance" to... idk... general attentiveness/awareness, seeing someone you like, or something about someone you like.

Multiple factors go into why an individual is attracted, romantically or otherwise, to another individual. It is just as varied for sexuals as it is for asexuals, really. This line of questioning, while i do get that you're only trying to figure things out reads like a promotion of age-old stereotypes/misconceptions about attractions.

If the question is whether or not being aware of someone, or how the strength of that awareness changes with someone you like vs someone you don't like, romantically/sexually/etc. ... well, isn't it that way with most social interaction? I daresay most of the general human population probably feels more comfortable emotionally with someone they take notice of (for various reasons) than someone they don't. How much of that correlates to personality, charisma and/or presence will depend on all individuals involved. Too many variables for it to be one or the opposite other, imo.

Social dynamics are interesting, though, so I appreciate the questions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you feel this with friends? If someone is crying and you are comforting them, there is some (although very small) level of you being more dominant.

That's actually a situation where I concentrate on seeing myself as "service provider", and try m best to remain detached - actively avoiding to impact their freedom of choice in any way. Maybe I'm "dominance-avoidant"?

If a famous celebrity came to your house would you feel the urge to rave about it to peers? Or would it genuinely not really effect you?

I'd probably tell them more with a tone of bafflement at this highly unlikely occurrence than with raving. I'd feel that it increases their status (à la "XYZ is still so down to earth that they talk to losers like me on an eye-to-eye level"), not mine.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ricecream-man
tl;dr: Are asexuals unable to feel emotional social dominance? Do they just process it on a logical level? (I guess most guys would consider her "hot"/I can understand why most girls would want him as a partner) Do you feel the dominance but have no desire to pseudo-breed with them, or do you have no desire to pseudo-breed because you do not feel the emotional social dominance? This basically just goes back to the cool kids in high school. Use that as mental reference.

I'm just going to go with this section here because your initial premises are quite flawed in current society (at least here in the U.S.) and that would entail too long of a reply.

1. It would depend on the root source of your asexuality and any other issues you may have that can be linked to your asexuality. If you take those who have Asperger Syndrome or another neuro-atypical cause of their asexuality then yes, I'm sure that for many the social back and forth of dominance can be hard to deal with. You also have to account for the fact that a good portion asexual individuals (as well as most people who are active online) tend to be less social in general due to a desire to remove themselves from said social interactions, and as a result will have a harder time picking up on such social cues.

2. By "it" do you mean sexual attraction or social dominance? While the two can be connected, the are by no means thing that must always go hand in hand.

3. Again question. What do you mean by "pseudo-breed"?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I should clarify, I'm using extreme generalization (almost primal) to try to make things easier. I acknowledge there are many deviations from the principles I stated, but getting into those would entail too much side discussion. I essential worded the situation as to mimic ancestral environments (where our emotions originally derived from.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
tl;dr: Are asexuals unable to feel emotional social dominance? Do they just process it on a logical level? (I guess most guys would consider her "hot"/I can understand why most girls would want him as a partner) Do you feel the dominance but have no desire to pseudo-breed with them, or do you have no desire to pseudo-breed because you do not feel the emotional social dominance? This basically just goes back to the cool kids in high school. Use that as mental reference.

I'm just going to go with this section here because your initial premises are quite flawed in current society (at least here in the U.S.) and that would entail too long of a reply.

1. It would depend on the root source of your asexuality and any other issues you may have that can be linked to your asexuality. If you take those who have Asperger Syndrome or another neuro-atypical cause of their asexuality then yes, I'm sure that for many the social back and forth of dominance can be hard to deal with. You also have to account for the fact that a good portion asexual individuals (as well as most people who are active online) tend to be less social in general due to a desire to remove themselves from said social interactions, and as a result will have a harder time picking up on such social cues.

2. By "it" do you mean sexual attraction or social dominance? While the two can be connected, the are by no means thing that must always go hand in hand.

3. Again question. What do you mean by "pseudo-breed"?

1. I was just wondering to myself the connection Asperger Syndrom would have with asexuality.

2. The "it" is referring to emotional social dominance from the previous sentence.

3. I was being unnecessarily wordy there. Just having sex with birth control... well, now that I think about it, any sex act (lets just say oral/manual/penetrative to stay on topic)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ricecream-man
tl;dr: Are asexuals unable to feel emotional social dominance? Do they just process it on a logical level? (I guess most guys would consider her "hot"/I can understand why most girls would want him as a partner) Do you feel the dominance but have no desire to pseudo-breed with them, or do you have no desire to pseudo-breed because you do not feel the emotional social dominance? This basically just goes back to the cool kids in high school. Use that as mental reference.

I'm just going to go with this section here because your initial premises are quite flawed in current society (at least here in the U.S.) and that would entail too long of a reply.

1. It would depend on the root source of your asexuality and any other issues you may have that can be linked to your asexuality. If you take those who have Asperger Syndrome or another neuro-atypical cause of their asexuality then yes, I'm sure that for many the social back and forth of dominance can be hard to deal with. You also have to account for the fact that a good portion asexual individuals (as well as most people who are active online) tend to be less social in general due to a desire to remove themselves from said social interactions, and as a result will have a harder time picking up on such social cues.

2. By "it" do you mean sexual attraction or social dominance? While the two can be connected, the are by no means thing that must always go hand in hand.

3. Again question. What do you mean by "pseudo-breed"?

1. I was just wondering to myself the connection Asperger Syndrom would have with asexuality.

2. The "it" is referring to emotional social dominance from the previous sentence.

3. I was being unnecessarily wordy there. Just having sex with birth control... well, now that I think about it, any sex act (lets just say oral/manual/penetrative to stay on topic)

1. That's only within case of asexuals who happen to be asexual and also have Asperger. They are not necessarily linked so just be careful with that connection.

2. You mentioned someone being "hot" so I wanted clarification as to which one you were actually referring to. In and of itself being asexual does not hamper your ability to acknowledge and understand social interactions and the power struggles that happen between them. You might not understand why they feel that way but you can still understand the emotional energy that is exchanged between people. When somebody walks into a room and takes control of it by controlling the atmosphere, they can do so regardless of their physical appearance. Any good motivational speaker, company boss, or military officer can show you how that works, and to be honest some of those individuals are quite unattractive. Harnessing emotional social dominance has more to do with confidence and capability than it does with any kind of sexual or aesthetic attraction.

3. Mhm, and borderline dehumanizing. Sexual attraction has absolutely nothing to do with dominance. If you want a good (if unexpected) example, go make your way into the kink and BDSM forum and ask around for how many asexual (in particular females) are actually taking dominant roles within their own relationships and interactions within that community.

Link to post
Share on other sites
WreckerChick

Wait... wasn't that supposed to mean the dominant male in the group of males? The Alpha male?

Link to post
Share on other sites
pitchblackonyx

Esgaria. where fo you think that asexuals fit into the cosial pecking order?

what factors do you think go towards socal dominance and establishing the social pecking ordeR?


as to yuor question, if i was the head of hte football team, what them? or if I was the highly atracticve girl, what then?

personnaly, i'm a highly accopmlished athlete who has been told i should have been a model

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think several of the other posters are addressing any concerns with the wording/scenario so I'll try to answer what I'm understanding the questions to mean. But it is a bit difficult since I imagine that a lot of aces simply didn't follow/understand/feel the kind of social situation or were one of the many that agreed with the social consensus for this... but I suppose that is also what you're trying to look at a bit and I see why you're using society's generalized "ideals" of attractive people.

Hm, I keep trying to remember that you're equating dominance with attraction and social dominance at the same time but it makes answer these a bit hard but I'll try to answer in the same terms...

I've had a fascination with social dynamics for a while and am interested in hearing what people may think about this. For arguments sake, I'm going to assume a few premises (which could be argued).

These assumptions are likely to rouse controversy but I'm only using them to help illustrate my actual question. When I perceive a women who is widely considered sexually attractive, she captivates the room and her behavior solicits more reactive responses in her associates (more over-thinking, more nervousness, making everything into a big deal). However, this is essentially the same with men who are considered socially dominate (more awareness of their presence, more attentive listening etc.) I can feel this from a man, but have no homosexual/romantic feelings. Do aces feel the gender they're attracted to, how I feel about a socially dominant man?

So socially dominant to you is someone you find yourself paying more attention to, naturally?

If I'm around someone that I personally consider significantly attractive/dominant, for whatever reason, then yes I am going to be more aware of their presence, more attentive to them etc.

But, if someone is "socially dominant" or considered attractive but the rest of the room it's not guaranteed to have me react the same way, in which case I have no reason to pay more attention to them and don't unless I'm doing a general "people watching" scenario.


The million dollar question: Does an asexual experience this sense of nearby dominance, and simply have no desire to engage in sex? Or do they simply not feel this atmospheric dominance on any level? Keep in mind, this also happens when anyone interacts; (who is talking more, nervous, fidgeting while the other remains calm.) Are asexuals simply processing this on a logical level, and they feel nothing? Aces must logically try to process who is lower in popularity (more reactive) but cannot distinguish it emotionally?

I don't think there is any direct, simple, answer for this one, and it's going to vary widely by individuals on here.

I can most definitely feel atmospheric dominance in relation to how it is affecting others, but I rarely feel it affecting me unless the person I see as socially dominant is noticed by the crowd. I suppose it's kind of like if everyone around me was getting high on a scent, I can observe they same thing they do (i.e. the scent) but it's like I have a drug resistance and don't react to it or understand why they are beyond guessing/ logical conclusions about it. For instance, I can tell who feels they are the dominant one in the room, and I'm aware of others reacting to who they perceive as an attractive socially dominant person, but I'm not naturally drawn to someone who is acting in that position or is viewed that way from others but I instinctively and logically and pick up on the "ranking" of sorts among people.

A lot of this is recognized more logically for me, but there is an emotional level there but it's more like I have a "higher threshold" that has to be met for an emotional reaction (i.e. interest, although no it's never sexual and does not have to be romantic at all) than a lot of the people I'm around. For me it's not about someone's actual status, that others are viewing someone as dominant, or even that they view themselves as dominant; so I'm not reacting on the same level or plane that the majority around me are. I only "feel" as if someone is atmospherically dominant when they are charismatic, genuine, and it's a subtle "power" of sorts that isn't being thrown around-- it's probably more likened to a quiet self-confidence and certainty. It's more like I have a different scale to rank the "attractiveness" of the genders I'm interested in.

To put really bluntly (assume no personal connection in these examples i.e: unsolicited behavior)

Girls: If some stereotypical "nerd" in highschool, came up to you and called you a loser, would you react the same/think about it as much, compared to lets say the head of the football team (attends parties/all the girls want him) did the same thing?

Guys: If an "ugly" (general consensus) girl came up to you and called you a loser, would you care/feel the same if the head cheerleader (large breasts, in the popular "click", excellent hip-waist ratio and facial symmetry) did the same?

Imagine days later still thinking about it, while forgetting about the other one within minutes (emotionally/logically).

tl;dr: Are asexuals unable to feel emotional social dominance? Do they just process it on a logical level? (I guess most guys would consider her "hot"/I can understand why most girls would want him as a partner) Do you feel the dominance but have no desire to engage in sex acts with them, or do you have no desire to engage in sex acts because you do not feel the emotional social dominance? This basically just goes back to the cool kids in high school. Use that as mental reference.

Well, I never much cared for status, especially in high school so I can't say I'd react differently to either one. Their designated social ranking never has, and still does not, mean anything to me and so it does not emotionally affect me. Simply put, others "ranking" of someone means nothing if they don't hold that position to me personally.

Hm, okay this sounds a bit different from the first part of answering... I've really always seen this "social dominance" as a game that people played just to try to fit in or gain some shallow version of “status”, so I suppose based on your explanation here I don't feel emotional social dominance. I process that kind of situation on a completely logical level and can see (sometimes) why the majority of a group is into a specific person, but I personally don't feel they are someone to "go after", or pay attention to, even unconsciously, if that is what you mean by emotionally.

Tl;dr: I think I notice social dominance on the "average" scale only logically or by feeling other peoples' behavior change but don't experience it as "dominance" or "attractiveness" myself. I can emotionally react to someone who is socially dominant (i.e. “attractive) but only if it's on my scale for it, and that is often different from the common or general idea of “desirability” or “attractiveness” that I see others react to.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the theory is flawed and based on outdated hypotheses.

my school fucked over its popularity dynamics by having a shit athletic department and good academics and arts.

But I am a loser so... yeah no one telling me that could possibly bother me. Since Im part of the nerd demographic I'd probably be slightly more hurt since they probably share some of my friends.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Autumn Season

Females tend to feel most sexual attraction based on perceived social dominance/survival potential (in most extreme cases, celebrities/popularity)

Personally I feel a natural dislike towards dominant men. If I had the choice and didn't look like a jerk, I wouldn't even talk to them.

(Hm, makes me realize why I liked my last boss so much.)

Although women may fantasies about sex with an attractive male, it is a major investment to actually follow through. Most women must secure an emotional connection prior to engaging in sex in order to make sure their partner will stay around to fend for their emotional offspring (of course, only emotionally though, as birth control can control logistics)

I'm not taking risks with dating partners, so your theory might be true at least for me. Then again I don't trust people completely even when they're family or friends. (Even so I love them and enjoy spending time with them.)

Women try to maintain plausible deniability. A women will try to make intercourse "not her fault". Simply put, most women do not experience courtship while thinking (I can't wait to have sex with him!), while a man may very well be consciously thinking of fantasies even before approaching the women.

I don't decide to do things and then say "this is not my fault". I am taking responsibility for my own actions, as long as the effect is limited to me. It even makes me feel better.

When I perceive a women who is widely considered sexually attractive, she captivates the room and her behavior solicits more reactive responses in her associates (more over-thinking, more nervousness, making everything into a big deal). However, this is essentially the same with men who are considered socially dominate (more awareness of their presence, more attentive listening etc.) I can feel this from a man, but have no homosexual/romantic feelings. Do aces feel the gender they're attracted to, how I feel about a socially dominant man?

You are asking whether aces feel more aware of and listen more attentively to people we are attracted to romantically or on the level of a squish? I would say so. This has got nothing to do with men being socially dominant or women being sexually attractive though.

BTW I don't understand why you don't call men sexually attractive. Just in case you don't know: Being sexually attractive and being aesthetically attractive isn't the same thing and isn't always connected. Also, men can be aesthetically attractive (and not only women).

The million dollar question: Does an asexual experience this sense of nearby dominance, and simply have no desire to engage in sex? Or do they simply not feel this atmospheric dominance on any level? Keep in mind, this also happens when anyone interacts; (who is talking more, nervous, fidgeting while the other remains calm.) Are asexuals simply processing this on a logical level, and they feel nothing? Aces must logically try to process who is lower in popularity (more reactive) but cannot distinguish it emotionally?

I can feel dominance and I don't like it. This is true both for dominance coming from women and men. It kind of makes me want to pick a fight with them and ask them why they are so full of themselves. ;)

If some stereotypical "nerd" in highschool, came up to you and called you a loser, would you react the same/think about it as much, compared to lets say the head of the football team (attends parties/all the girls want him) did the same thing?

This sounds so random, I probably wouldn't care. It would be worse if a woman said that, even worse if a friend said it and the worst if a family member said it. I suppose I would feel worse if a popular woman called me a loser, than if an unpopular one said the same. I would be afraid that her followers would pick up on her words and treat me badly as a consequence.

"I can understand why most girls would want him as a partner"

I can only process this logically.

Do you feel this with friends? If someone is crying and you are comforting them, there is some (although very small) level of you being more dominant.

Huh... what? Are you asking whether aces feel dominant in such a situation? I much rather feel helpless. Or are you asking whether we dislike the friend crying, because they are not dominant anymore? Nope and nope.

If a famous celebrity came to your house would you feel the urge to rave about it to peers? Or would it genuinely not really effect you?

I would tell my friends about it, because it's an interesting story. No, I wouldn't rave. Yes, it would affect me. The happening would confuse me. Depends on the celebrity though. If I liked them, I would be very happy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can sense social dominance. And I can sense the energy shift when there's a physically attractive woman is getting attention. Coming at this from an outside perspective (not being sexually attracted to either), they are different kinds of energy shifts.

A socially dominant man is getting attention because in some way, he's demanding it. A woman can be socially dominate and demand the same "awareness of their presence" and "more attentive listening." just like a socially dominate man can. And while I don't think a socially dominate female is necessarily being received as more sexually attractive (at least to the average straight male).... I'm saying the shift in the room is the same. It's a SOCIAL shift, not a sexual one.

Does an asexual experience this sense of nearby dominance, and simply have no desire to engage in sex?

No desire for sex. No desire for any interaction whatsoever.

For me, while I can sense social dominance, it acts sort of as a repellant on a personal level. Those people don't make me want to romantically or socially get to know them. I never feel equal to them. Not that I feel inferior - if anything, I feel superior (until I feel it's wrong to feel superior). But if a guy is trying to be socially dominate, including excepting attention from me on some level, he is NOT my equal. Anyway, I don't play social games. I hate the feel when a boss is over me (I have authority issues), but I likewise, I don't deal with being over other people. I don't like giving or receiving attention. I'm fiercely independent, so really the only people I get along with is people who are similar in that way: the outcasts, nerds, artists, deep-thinkers, etc.

Do they just process it on a logical level? (I guess most guys would consider her "hot"/I can understand why most girls would want him as a partner)

I'm very logical, but I don't know if asexuals tend to be more logical or not.

I can't logically understand why men consider certain women "hot." (For example, I cannot fathom why large breasts are considered attractive when they have no function outside of breastfeeding -- and if that's supposed to have some breeding advantage, that's biologically incorrect. Large breasts have NO advantages whatsoever, perhaps even they are a disadvantage.)

I also can't logically understand why women would crush on socially dominate men, especially if he was unavailable (for example being fangirls of famous people). But aside from that, if his attention is divided to society as a whole, it would seem to be a disadvantage to be with a person like that.

​In my logic, I find this stereotypical
hierarchy to be illogical.

Girls: If some stereotypical "nerd" in highschool, came up to you and called you a loser, would you react the same/think about it as much, compared to lets say the head of the football team (attends parties/all the girls want him) did the same thing?

I'd be more offended if a "nerd' called me a loser, actually (depends on the "nerd" but if I thought they were insulting my intelligence that would hurt.)

If a football player called me a loser, I'd probably cheer (maybe not actually cheer, but I'd be thrilled to not be considered part of that clique). I've always desired to be an outcast of what is "normal"/popular/typical. If "loser" means I'm unique, then that's a compliment.

I feel I must assert social dominance because in my experience it has a strong correlation to sexuality.

Very interesting. While I disagree that social dominance connected to sexual attraction (or at least that it has to be), I also recognize that you aren't the first to say this. I've had more than one male acquaintance talk about how important status is to them - sometimes in relation to women but also in how they feel about themselves. Intellectually, I hear them, but I've never quite been able to empathize or understand on an emotional level. So I find it interesting.

Link to post
Share on other sites
WreckerChick

I can feel dominance and I don't like it. This is true both for dominance coming from women and men. It kind of makes me want to pick a fight with them and ask them why they are so full of themselves. ;)

Lol
Link to post
Share on other sites

After reading through all these posts I sense 2 main things:

1. For whatever reason, many asexual people don't seem to rank themselves highly in the social "hierarchy". Which is strange to me. Think about all those guys that mock up the courage to talk to a beautiful girl, and are so obviously nervous externally and turn her off. It's as if asexual people (unlike aspergers) can very well be socially astute, and maintain this zen mind frame from not being nervous/reactive to sexuality. The irony to me is it's apparent on some level that asexuals would have an advantage socially (from not being phased by dominance), yet here you guys sound like you don't think highly of/enjoy social hierarchy/games. Which is alien to me, as I view it as a beautiful thing. It's evolution but instead of being the strongest monkey, it's whoever has the strongest mind frame. Which brings me to #2...

2. I think my writing has given this misunderstood image of social dominance as some jock/neanderthal-esque character, which is simply not the case. Jesus was very socially dominant, so was Ghandi, and many other kind hearted celebrities. In fact, being a jerk is reactive, as it is the desire to inflict negativity on someone else. It makes someone less socially dominant. Think of gay men, who woman deeply wish were straight, and enjoy their energy because they can be the life of the party! They aren't jerks, but they are very confident, and aren't constantly worried about what others think - akin to a jerk.

Here's something that would help to think about. Do you enjoy going to parties/bars//public gatherings? Sure, intellectual depth isn't a pre-requisite for social dominance, but do you enjoy the energy socially dominant people give off? I feel like the most common human brain is designed to have a neurological reward system when interest/attention is garnered from these high ranked individuals. Think of Mean Girls with Regina (head-honcho) complimenting others, how much they cared. How do aces relate to this?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think my writing has given this misunderstood image of social dominance as some jock/neanderthal-esque character, which is simply not the case.

Well, you did give examples like the football player who calls someone a loser and Regina from the Mean Girls who cut people down more than she gave compliments. But get away from high school (because kids are immature and less likely to recognize what true leaders should look like).

Socially dominate people can absolutely be kind and good people, and often they are. I can't help that my perception is to think they are full of themselves. Because they are constantly receiving all this attention, and it does often go to their head. I mean, it depends on the person and their position. For those who are popular, they often just expect attention and I interpret that expectation as negative.

I've had popular guys, certainly guys with a dominate type personality, hit on me. They usually give up almost instantly, and I'm 99% this is because don't react - and they have plenty of friends who will react. I find the exchanges shallow and certainly not something I will chase after. I'm not going to fight over someone when I can't even see the appeal. (Also, I would never date someone who was very sexual, so if I sense that men are wanting attention from women in particular, it's an instant repellant).

It's not just socially dominate guys that I don't get along with but socially dominate girls as well. When I was in college, I was roommates with a very popular girl (leader of clubs, had 500 friends, etc) . We were on friendly terms, but we almost never spoke. I saw what other girls went through to get her attention... it felt like there was a constant line outside our dorm. And there were a few times where my roommate would give me a compliment, but it didn't mean anything extra special because I didn't view the girl as extra special. She was just a person like anyone else. I never used her popularity to my advantage either, when looking back I realize I could have. She would throw parties and tell me I could invite my friends. So sure, I could have used this but I didn't care about my popularity (or boosting my social dominate, if you will).

I was the straight-A student who spent almost all of my time in the library. My own goals are really what I care about in life, and other people have nothing to do with the equation.

Do you enjoy going to parties/bars//public gatherings? Sure, intellectual depth isn't a pre-requisite for social dominance, but do you enjoy the energy socially dominant people give off?

One thing I'm not sure you are accounting for is the difference between extraverts and introverts. Most introverts won't like parities or large social gatherings. So likewise, the life-of-the-party person also won't have the appeal. I personally HATE parties, bars, public gatherings where social interaction is expected. And the people who are the most dominate at the parties are downright scary and overwhelming. All that energy is so chaotic, I'm overwhelmed and smothered and I do not want it directed at me. I can cope by doing into the corner and talking to the least dominate people possible.... people who are also overwhelmed and lurking in corners.

But like I said, I'm fairly certain that is typical for an introvert. Moreso about being introverted than asexual.

Perhaps broaden your types of socially dominate people. It's not just party-guys. Take the work place. There's the leaders - the boss - who is put in a socially dominate position. I'd say the best leaders don't try to be socially dominate, and IMO those people make the best leaders. They are in the position because of the job they worked hard for, not because they feel the need to be high on social hierarchy. I can respect them, but I'm still not in awe of them. That's possibly why I inivitably butt heads with most of by bosses because I can't think of them as special, so I'll ask too many questions or go off and do my own thing without telling them. There's also people in the workplace who aren't actually in a position of authority but still except people to follow them because of their own charisma. They just piss me off. Sometimes there's a certain level of envy, because I work twice as hard and it seems they can just flash a smile and it somehow helps them achieve their goal.

Basically. I can't think of anyone who is socially dominate where I LIKE the energy they give off. Unless you are referring to the mildest form of social dominance. For example, a conversation. I'm pretty shy, so if someone take the lead and starts the conversation, that will put me at ease. But even there, it's a delicate balance. If someone over-controls the conversation and does all the talking, the admiration for them turns sour.

With leaders like Jesus or Ghandi.. well, I'd want to meet Jesus because healing powers (I'd want to ask him about that too and see if I he could teach me because there's too many hurting people... so regarding Jesus, it's more about what he could teach). With Jesus or Ghandi, if they were giving a seminar, I'd be just as good with sitting in the audience and taking notes. Meeting them for the sake of meeting (meaning you can say "hi" but nothing else) doesn't have much point. In todays world, meet and greets of famous people make no sense to me, because you know the famous people don't remember everyone they meet and nothing important can be said anyway. So the whole exchange is pointless.

It's as if asexual people (unlike aspergers) can very well be socially astute, and maintain this zen mind frame from not being nervous/reactive to sexuality.

But see, I don't think of it as not being reactive to sexuality because social dominance has no association with sexuality - at least from my POV.

Now someone who was actually sexually dominate would make me nervous but in an extremely negative way (as in they are about to assault me). Anyway, a socially dominate person feels like it's for social reasons - an ego boost... it's about their emotions and what they can achieve. For some, maybe it also helps them boost their sexual appeal, but I do think it's separate. An ambitious asexual person might absolutely want to boost their social dominance, and they would have to play the system same as anyone. Personally, I usually won't get more nervous in the presence of someone who is socially dominate because I don't care about making a good impression. Social attention just isn't part of my life-goals.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Tarfeather

1. That's only within case of asexuals who happen to be asexual and also have Asperger. They are not necessarily linked so just be careful with that connection.

Apply Occam's razor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

What is more likely?

- That the person is unusual in such a way that they react to social contact of any kind (interpersonal, sexual, etc.) differently from others.

- Or that the person coincidentally is unusual in two ways, one that makes them oblivious to regular interpersonal contact, the other making them oblivious to sexual interpersonal contact, and in both cases that obliviousness expresses itself in the same ways?

By simple reasoning, it is very likely that the dynamics in our brain that deal with sexual sociality and non-sexual sociality are linked. If a person lacks the social needs a "normal" person experiences, it will result both in asexuality and something along the lines of aspergers. Both are results of the same cause, thus linked.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Rockblossom

I can feel dominance and I don't like it. This is true both for dominance coming from women and men. It kind of makes me want to pick a fight with them and ask them why they are so full of themselves. ;)

Exactly!

This is especially true for men, who seem to think their sexual attractiveness entitles them to violate the "personal space" of females. Since I only perceive the sexual attractiveness/dominance indirectly (from the ooohy-gooey reactions of females and the beta-male reaction to a more powerful male) and do not feel any of the attraction, this behavior is both alarming/threatening and very irritating.

As for females - I can understand aesthetic attractiveness, but the ones that many men go all goofy over are usually ones I find not especially aesthetic. I find them mostly irritating when I'm trying to get work done and male colleagues can't keep their minds on work. Otherwise, I mostly don't care. Not interested and not intimidated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1. For whatever reason, many asexual people don't seem to rank themselves highly in the social "hierarchy"...The irony to me is it's apparent on some level that asexuals would have an advantage socially (from not being phased by dominance), yet here you guys sound like you don't think highly of/enjoy social hierarchy/games.

That's because social "hierarchy" is based on the bullshit hypersexualised view that your position in said "hierarchy" is determined by how successful you are with the opposite (or same) sex, rather than actual, tangible achievements. I've personally experienced this a lot first hand. Someone's reaction to me for example, graduating was a meagre "congratulations" and that was the end of it. But they find out I'm in a relationship (regardless of what they know about my sexuality) and suddenly they're impressed, as if I've suddenly become acceptable.

2. I think my writing has given this misunderstood image of social dominance as some jock/neanderthal-esque character, which is simply not the case....They aren't jerks, but they are very confident, and aren't constantly worried about what others think - akin to a jerk.

There's a big difference between confidence and dominance. I'm perfectly aware of what I'm capable of, I know how to use it and I don't take shit from people - that's confidence, but that doesn't make me a jerk. Monopolising the attention of everyone around me and making sure they all know how confident I am by shoving it in their faces, that's dominance and also one way of being a jerk.

...Do you enjoy going to parties/bars//public gatherings? Sure, intellectual depth isn't a pre-requisite for social dominance, but do you enjoy the energy socially dominant people give off? I feel like the most common human brain is designed to have a neurological reward system when interest/attention is garnered from these high ranked individuals. Think of Mean Girls with Regina (head-honcho) complimenting others, how much they cared. How do aces relate to this?

I'm fairly introverted (although this can and does vary depending on my level of intoxication :D ) and I also don't enjoy being in the company of socially dominant people. However, because I don't particularly seek attention in any aspect of my life, the only way I would tolerate being around socially dominant folks is when their presence would mean they would actively draw any possible attention away from me. In my opinion, that's the only positive aspect of being around them that I can fathom right now.

Re: the "reward system". Well again this is flawed because I don't really have much resembling an ego to speak of, but it's also based on how much respect I personally have for someone. There's absolutely no way I would put any kind of value someone's opinion of me simply because they're deemed "popular", especially in the bullshit high school definition of the word.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Rockblossom

Here's something that would help to think about. Do you enjoy going to parties/bars//public gatherings? Sure, intellectual depth isn't a pre-requisite for social dominance, but do you enjoy the energy socially dominant people give off? I feel like the most common human brain is designed to have a neurological reward system when interest/attention is garnered from these high ranked individuals. Think of Mean Girls with Regina (head-honcho) complimenting others, how much they cared. How do aces relate to this?

I can only speak for myself, but in my life (I'm 64) I learned to hate parties/bars, since the main purpose seems to be:

(1) playing the social dominance game (e.g.- I can hold my liquor better than you, get more dance partners, leave with the hot guy/girl), and

(2) playing the sex game (finding someone to hook up with)

Since neither is of interest to me, I find the whole ritual pointless and time-wasting.

As for the "energy given off" by dominant people: Again, I can only perceive the attraction indirectly from the reactions of people around me. To me, the "energy" is like a picture of a fire on a TV screen with no perception of heat. I don't feel the energy, and most of the dominant people just look silly to me. I usually come away thinking less of them and with less respect for them as people.

I suppose I have spent my life looking at people for what they actually do/accomplish in the world, not for what they look like or what pheromones they give off.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Tarfeather

This is especially true for men, who seem to think their sexual attractiveness entitles them to violate the "personal space" of females. Since I only perceive the sexual attractiveness/dominance indirectly (from the ooohy-gooey reactions of females and the beta-male reaction to a more powerful male) and do not feel any of the attraction, this behavior is both alarming/threatening and very irritating.

You must live in a pretty terrible area.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My sexuality has nothing to do with my understanding of social dominance, if anything actually I think there was a time when I used see the main appeal of dating as a way of raising ones social status, which a guess could be seen as the opposite as how your portraying it. I don't know if that thought makes sense.

Anyway my answer to the actual question would be neither person calling me a loser would bother me, I'd give the the same look where I do that thing with my eyebrows either way, which is a kinda judgy bitchy look, then i would turn to my friend and talk about something else in a way that makes them feel hurt and excluded and awkward.

why I would react this way? Because the social hierarchy is important to me, I don't like people dominating over me, so I always establish myself as someone high up or on top of the hierarchy. I know that being attractive does give me a natural advantage in this, then its just being very confident while seeming like your really laid back and not allowing anyone to threaten your position with their insults. Comments like loser will not be tolerated. And there you have it one alpha bitch recipe.

Anyone else see the irony in my attractiveness being a thing I use to gain social power, when I'm not gonna sleep with anyone here at all? just a thought

Link to post
Share on other sites

To me, the "energy" is like a picture of a fire on a TV screen with no perception of heat.

This is one of the most eloquent analogies I've ever read.

Ziggy_G: If you've identified social hierarchy is important to you, you most likely must feel it emotionally. That or you're using it for some logical gain. But the way you described your reaction would also imply a high degree of social awareness of what makes one reactive/submissive and less reactive/dominant.

So it would appear you have both traits that I initially thought all or most asexuals would have. But judging by this thread, you seem to be a rare exception, walking between both worlds compared to most of the other replies.

Do you consider yourself a social person?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ricecream-man

1. That's only within case of asexuals who happen to be asexual and also have Asperger. They are not necessarily linked so just be careful with that connection.

Apply Occam's razor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

What is more likely?

- That the person is unusual in such a way that they react to social contact of any kind (interpersonal, sexual, etc.) differently from others.

- Or that the person coincidentally is unusual in two ways, one that makes them oblivious to regular interpersonal contact, the other making them oblivious to sexual interpersonal contact, and in both cases that obliviousness expresses itself in the same ways?

By simple reasoning, it is very likely that the dynamics in our brain that deal with sexual sociality and non-sexual sociality are linked. If a person lacks the social needs a "normal" person experiences, it will result both in asexuality and something along the lines of aspergers. Both are results of the same cause, thus linked.

Mmm, but that's not how things actually work. Occam's razor can only apply correctly when you factor in all of the relevant information. Correlation does not equal causation. And it's a weak correlation at that. I view it as similar to the squares and rectangles situation. While Aspberger Syndrome and certain type of autism often come with asexuality, asexuality in and of itself isn't indicative of autism.

EDIT: That and Occam's razor is considered flawed as a theory by many debaters and intellectuals.

After reading through all these posts I sense 2 main things:

1. For whatever reason, many asexual people don't seem to rank themselves highly in the social "hierarchy". Which is strange to me. Think about all those guys that mock up the courage to talk to a beautiful girl, and are so obviously nervous externally and turn her off. It's as if asexual people (unlike aspergers) can very well be socially astute, and maintain this zen mind frame from not being nervous/reactive to sexuality. The irony to me is it's apparent on some level that asexuals would have an advantage socially (from not being phased by dominance), yet here you guys sound like you don't think highly of/enjoy social hierarchy/games. Which is alien to me, as I view it as a beautiful thing. It's evolution but instead of being the strongest monkey, it's whoever has the strongest mind frame. Which brings me to #2...

2. I think my writing has given this misunderstood image of social dominance as some jock/neanderthal-esque character, which is simply not the case. Jesus was very socially dominant, so was Ghandi, and many other kind hearted celebrities. In fact, being a jerk is reactive, as it is the desire to inflict negativity on someone else. It makes someone less socially dominant. Think of gay men, who woman deeply wish were straight, and enjoy their energy because they can be the life of the party! They aren't jerks, but they are very confident, and aren't constantly worried about what others think - akin to a jerk.

Here's something that would help to think about. Do you enjoy going to parties/bars//public gatherings? Sure, intellectual depth isn't a pre-requisite for social dominance, but do you enjoy the energy socially dominant people give off? I feel like the most common human brain is designed to have a neurological reward system when interest/attention is garnered from these high ranked individuals. Think of Mean Girls with Regina (head-honcho) complimenting others, how much they cared. How do aces relate to this?

1. You phrased the initial question as one involving sexuality. So yes, aces aren't going to rank themselves highly in a hierarchy based on sexuality. You've framed the question in a manner that results in certain types of answers and now you're claiming to be surprised by the reaction? And you talk about aces not being phased by social dominance. Why do you believe that asexuality would lead to an advantage socially? Once again, you framed it in a way regarding sexuality. Also you have to account for the fact that conversations of a sexual nature (not just ones that lead to sex) such as jokes or reactions are one of the common subjects that are used to bond with people. A sense of familiarity if you will. Anyone who doesn't enjoy or doesn't understand those types of conversations and interactions won't be able to relate and therefore bond with others on that specific level. Also, if you don't participate in said hierarchy, you're considered outside of it which is usually akin to being towards the lower end. It doesn't mean those aces are necessarily upset by it but not playing doesn't make you first place.

2. Jesus was not socially dominant. Historically speaking he had a surge of temporary dominance (akin to an attractive asexual walking in perhaps) just to be followed by negative energy and made into an outcast.

If you research him, Ghandi as well may not have been the kindest individual out there. Pacifism and kindness don't have to go together. I've met quite a few rude pacifists in my time. You can even look at the protests of Vietnam or some of those who hate on U.S. soldiers even now. Those people hate the idea of war and violence yet they slur and insult people regularly.

But again, your title and original post was talking about sexual attraction and dominance. While popularity and acceptance in and of itself isn't tied to sexuality, dominance of a sexual nature by default requires you to establish and assert yourself, putting down competitors if need be.

And the gay thing has more to do with the lack of inhibitions stemming from the lack of fear. The girls don't have to worry about the gay guy hitting on them so they can fully relax and have fun.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ricecream-man: I believe social dominance in and of itself is not directly linked (for a man), the amount of women he has slept with. That is merely an indicator. I believe it is (as it is for women), the number of potential partners they could have. In other words, how many people would be willing to sleep with them.

As for the examples, those merely pertained to the contemporary view of them, rather than the person themselves. It would be impossible for me to give an example that isn't a celebrity because they'd have to be in your social circle. Most people in the popular social-click don't really converse with outsiders. But in my experience, there's always one person in a social circle that everyone likes because he talks to everyone, is kind, but also because he has a high perception of his own social value. Although he is liked around the popular group, he does not give them special attention. Someone that walks among both worlds.

***

I think everything would be a lot easier if people thought about value like that. Of course it wouldn't make sense if they did because it is actually less common for a dominant person to behave like this. But as I've said before, these negative traits people are identifying in dominant people are actually reactive/submissive. In other words, the traits you don't like are actually the submissive traits (reacting/getting mad/too much self-worth). Which leaves me to wonder if you dislike that, do you like the dominant traits (kindness/altruism, not phased by popularity nor actively seeking it/treats everyone equally)? But again, I must emphasize that they are also well liked by the popular group, but they don't care for that. They value every equally regardless of status. Would this be a sexual thing for you?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ricecream-man

Ricecream-man: I believe social dominance in and of itself is not directly linked (for a man), the amount of women he has slept with. That is merely an indicator. I believe it is (as it is for women), the number of potential partners they could have. In other words, how many people would be willing to sleep with them.

As for the examples, those merely pertained to the contemporary view of them, rather than the person themselves. It would be impossible for me to give an example that isn't a celebrity because they'd have to be in your social circle. Most people in the popular social-click don't really converse with outsiders. But in my experience, there's always one person in a social circle that everyone likes because he talks to everyone, is kind, but also because he has a high perception of his own social value. Although he is liked around the popular group, he does not give them special attention. Someone that walks among both worlds.

***

I think everything would be a lot easier if people thought about value like that. Of course it wouldn't make sense if they did because it is actually less common for a dominant person to behave like this. But as I've said before, these negative traits people are identifying in dominant people are actually reactive/submissive. In other words, the traits you don't like are actually the submissive traits (reacting/getting mad/too much self-worth). Which leaves me to wonder if you dislike that, do you like the dominant traits?

I think your definitions of dominance and submission have a few issues. May I ask if there's a source that you're getting it from? (so maybe I could read more of where you're coming from?). So far it seems like you're making everything good = dominance and everything bad = submissiveness. If you could give more explanation about your definitions of the two that would be much appreciated.

Mhm, I was just referring to the difference between how they were perceived in person vs. how they are perceived in theory.

For instance as a personal example, in high school I was one of those drifter type individuals. I wasn't the center any particular click but I was part of the secondary circles of all of them. Imagine a venn diagram with a primary and secondary circle for each group. I was a member of the secondary circle for just about all of them. I was fairly well liked and appreciated, but I was nowhere near anything close to dominant in those groups (academic conversations excepted). If one of the dominant members in a particular clique or group decided to tease me or exclude me then I likely would have been excluded by most of the members of that group. However, there was an incident in which an individual verbally assaulted me during a time in which I was dealing with some negative issues of my own. I broke down in tears before walking off. At that point, the entire school (minus the individual's closest friends) turned on the person. This didn't make me dominant. I was in no way guiding such actions or leading said individuals.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...