mreid

[ace cis-females] Thoughts on "Alpha male" type guys?

Recommended Posts

FictoVore.
1 hour ago, mreid said:

Although they usually are... specially on fanfic.net where no one's being paid for writing anything, so people just write what they like.

I don't have time to respond to the rest right now as I'm in the middle of about 25 things at once, but fantasies and the things one writes about (in fanfiction and professional fiction) certainly do not always (or even often) reflect someone's desires of something that would actually happen to them. A piece I'm working on right now is about genetic sexual attraction, and while it's an incredible topic to explore (and I admit there are many erotic components because hey, it's not for publication so I can do whatever the feck I want) I have no desire in any way to engage in sex with a sibling. Another I worked on, also with erotic elements, was about a man's developing relationship with a 13 year old prostitute.. but I don't in any way desire to have sex with a 13 year old. This is extremely, extremely common for authors of fanfiction and other fiction alike. We love to push the boundaries, explore different aspects of relationships and strange fantasies etc between fictional people - but that's precisely because they're fictional. We may even actively get off on aspects of it, but it's almost always very separate from things we actually want someone to do to us/to do ourselves. I can with almost 100% conviction assure you that E.L James does not want to be treated the way Christian Grey treats Anastasia Steele, but because it's a mere fantasy it's safe to get off to - whereas in real life you'd be frustrated, angry, and feel trapped by his disgusting behavior. And that goes for most of the women who get off to those books, and writers of similar fanfic. It's a fantasy, and it can't hurt you, which makes it safe to get off to. I've read many erotic fictional accounts of torture, brutality, cruelty, rape - but that does not in any way mean the author's actually desire to engage in such activities, even if they can get off to them in written form.

 

Anyway, in summary:

 

1 hour ago, ryn2 said:

People write the stories they want to explore/their fans want to read.  Neither has anything to do with fantasies or personal experience by default.  Some (not all, or even most) write self-insert stories, but even those aren’t always about their own fantasies.

Ryn is 100% correct and said it in far fewer words than I did.

 

1 hour ago, mreid said:

Other times I just make assumptions based on many books I've read on sexuality, biology, psychology and psychoanalysis. Again, not the most scientific way to do things, but I work with what I got. Often I make an assumption about a person and as I read through their posts I often see my assumption get confirmed. I think everybody does this sort of thing to a degree, either online or in real life.

I've already seen you make an utterly incorrect assumption about a poster in this thread, whom you apparently got confused with someone else (I wonder how often that happens) and just the other day you listed quite a few completely incorrect assumptions about me, despite the fact that I am very vocal about the state of my sexuality, how much sex I am having (none), and I make many, many posts on said topics. So despite my openness you still got me completely, utterly wrong. If this happens with someone like me, what kind of assumptions are you making about people less vocal than I??

 

The lesson here is: Don't diagnose people on the internet in an attempt to slot them into a little theory that you yourself have devised with no real scientific grounding. You're only going to end up upsetting people, especially when you're claiming they're somehow defective for not slotting perfectly into your little 'alpha male/submissive female' box.

 

48 minutes ago, mreid said:

Might make one for asexuals too to compare the results.

I can tell you that most hetero asexual females will prefer someone more masculine than themselves and hetero asexual males will prefer someone more feminine. This will be the same for the sexual people. Femininity and masculinity has nothing to do with whether one wants to be a domineering alpha male or a submissive female who wants a man to look after her and control her.. it's just that being hetero almost always mean you desire traits very specific to the opposite sex (like, if I'm in love with a man, part of that is his cock, the fact that he gets stubble, the fact that his chest has a bit of hair but not soft breasts - all masculine traits. That doesn't mean I want to be dominated by some alpha male though lol).

 

...that ended up longer than intended Y_Y

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mreid

@Nowhere Girl I like gay romances too, the cutesy ones without the domination stuff like you said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FictoVore.
On 9/14/2018 at 10:55 AM, mreid said:

If I remember right, you said before that you are attracted to shy, feminine, sensitive guys. Could it be that your personality is a bit more on the masculine side? Maybe you like to be the dominant one in the relationship?

Oh also I, like everyone else here, seek balance and equality in a relationship. If I am with a man, I am most certainly drawn to aspects of his masculinity (no matter how shy and sensitive he is), but I seek balance. Even BDSM power dynamic relationships (healthy ones anyway) are about balance, underneath the dominance/submission. 

 

I hadn't realized that question was directed at me until now sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mreid
3 hours ago, FictoVore. said:

but fantasies and the things one writes about (in fanfiction and professional fiction) certainly do not always (or even often) reflect someone's desires of something that would actually happen to them.

Usually they do. Bad writers are particularly oblivious to that and to their own minds, which is why bad fiction is often an open window to their psyches. David Cage, for example, makes me wish I hadn't read so much about psychoanalysis. But moving on.

 

3 hours ago, FictoVore. said:

A piece I'm working on right now is about genetic sexual attraction, and while it's an incredible topic to explore (and I admit there are many erotic components because hey, it's not for publication so I can do whatever the feck I want) I have no desire in any way to engage in sex with a sibling. Another I worked on, also with erotic elements, was about a man's developing relationship with a 13 year old prostitute.. but I don't in any way desire to have sex with a 13 year old. This is extremely, extremely common for authors of fanfiction and other fiction alike. We love to push the boundaries, explore different aspects of relationships and strange fantasies etc between fictional people - but that's precisely because they're fictional. We may even actively get off on aspects of it, but it's almost always very separate from things we actually want someone to do to us/to do ourselves. I can with almost 100% conviction assure you that E.L James does not want to be treated the way Christian Grey treats Anastasia Steele, but because it's a mere fantasy it's safe to get off to - whereas in real life you'd be frustrated, angry, and feel trapped by his disgusting behavior. And that goes for most of the women who get off to those books, and writers of similar fanfic. It's a fantasy, and it can't hurt you, which makes it safe to get off to. I've read many erotic fictional accounts of torture, brutality, cruelty, rape - but that does not in any way mean the author's actually desire to engage in such activities, even if they can get off to them in written form.

That's called having a moral compass (or at least a fear of social consequences and law enforcement), not being sexually "pure".

 

3 hours ago, FictoVore. said:

You're only going to end up upsetting people

If I were wrong more often then people would most likely just laugh at me, not be pissed off. I suppose some do laugh at me.

 

3 hours ago, FictoVore. said:

especially when you're claiming they're somehow defective for not slotting perfectly into your little 'alpha male/submissive female' box.

I never did that... I'm just saying that people are different, not everyone is heteronormative, and that there are reasons for those differences that don't mean the person is broken or wrong in any way, just that there is a conflict between their biology and their culture. It's a known thing from psychoanalysis, not my theory.

 

3 hours ago, FictoVore. said:

I can tell you that most hetero asexual females will prefer someone more masculine than themselves and hetero asexual males will prefer someone more feminine.

You don't say.

 

3 hours ago, FictoVore. said:

Femininity and masculinity has nothing to do with whether one wants to be a domineering alpha male or a submissive female who wants a man to look after her and control her.. it's just that being hetero almost always mean you desire traits very specific to the opposite sex (like, if I'm in love with a man, part of that is his cock, the fact that he gets stubble, the fact that his chest has a bit of hair but not soft breasts - all masculine traits. That doesn't mean I want to be dominated by some alpha male though lol).

No Ficto, it doesn't, it only means exactly what I have been saying from waaay back, that feminility is attracted to masculinity and vice-versa. I gave those extreme examples here because I thought it would be less confusing if I used stereotypes, an "alpha male" doesn't have to be a jerk, he can be simply a confident guy with leadership skills, he can be nice and sensitive and still be a masculine alpha male, he can be an artsy type, he can treat women with some respect (depending on how you define respect) etc...

 

2 hours ago, FictoVore. said:

Even BDSM power dynamic relationships (healthy ones anyway) are about balance, underneath the dominance/submission. 

This "balance" is achieved in those cases because the opposites are balanced. The submissive is as submissive as the dominant is dominant. I think this is the idea behind sexual relationships.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FictoVore.
1 hour ago, mreid said:

This "balance" is achieved in those cases because the opposites are balanced. The submissive is as submissive as the dominant is dominant. I think this is the idea behind sexual relationships.

*sigh*.

 

It's because in a healthy BDSM relationship the submissive still has total control over everything that happens, that's the gift that the dom gives their sub. It's an incredibly empowering experiencing, the feeling of giving away all control while at the same time knowing you remain in total control at all times. The dom is almost the 'sub' in a way, in that nothing can actually happen that the sub doesn't truly want and doesn't truly consent to (even if not verbally). Often, the doms even end up needing to be the ones to tap out for a while when the needs of the sub stretch them too far. I was in a dom/sub-dynamic relationship with an asexual for 18 months (online, involving everything bar actual physical contact and sex), and was part of the BDSM community on FetLife for about two years. ''The submissive being as submissive as the dominant is dominant'' couldn't be further from an accurate portrayal of the dynamics in a healthy dom/sub relationship.

 

Don't have time to respond to the rest right now, working.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mreid
2 hours ago, FictoVore. said:

It's an incredibly empowering experiencing, the feeling of giving away all control while at the same time knowing you remain in total control at all times.

Yes, that's why there is a "balance". See how the feminine and masculine "energies" interact? There's an harmony.

 

2 hours ago, FictoVore. said:

''The submissive being as submissive as the dominant is dominant'' couldn't be further from an accurate portrayal of the dynamics in a healthy dom/sub relationship.

I know how dom/sub relationships work. What you said only proves my point. The submissive will only be as submissive as they will allow the dominant to be dominant, and vice versa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FictoVore.
1 hour ago, mreid said:

I know how dom/sub relationships work. What you said only proves my point. The submissive will only be as submissive as they will allow the dominant to be dominant, and vice versa.

The point being made is that in healthy relationships in this day and age, women 'in general' don't go gaga for an alpha male they can submit to, and men don't wander around trying to be alpha males so as to find women who will submit to them. People in general seek equality and balance. Gone are the days when women need to seek a man to provide for them, and men need to seek women to breed with. What you said is that anyone deviating from that specific behavior pattern  (seeking signs of fertility in women, and the ability to 'provide' in men) are 'badly imprinted', among other things.. and that you can slot those who don't adhere to this 'norm' into one of three specific categories. 

 

Also:

 

2 hours ago, mreid said:

The submissive is as submissive as the dominant is dominant.

is very different from

 

1 hour ago, mreid said:

The submissive will only be as submissive as they will allow the dominant to be dominant

A healthy dom/sub relationship is about balance and equality, is what I was getting at. Because both people have an equal say/equal consent/equal participation. All healthy relationships are about equality, not about an alpha dominating a submissive.

 

Yes, heterosexual women will desire a partner with some aspects of masculinity, and a heterosexual man will seek some aspects of femininity in a partner, but that has nothing to do with dominance and submission.

 

You yourself claim to be asexual, yet seem to believe you know everything there is to know about the motivations of sexual males and females, and refuse to accept it when sexual people here say it doesn't work that way. Yet you're posing your ideas as 'theories', even as questions in some places.. then arguing with everyone who does not agree with you. At some point, maybe you'll have to accept the fact that you need to expand your horizons a little bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mreid

 

13 hours ago, FictoVore. said:

and men don't wander around trying to be alpha males so as to find women who will submit to them.

No, but they do try to act confident, take the lead, etc... because that's what most hetero women are into. You do know that is usually the man who approaches the woman, not the other way around? It's not etiquette or anything, it's just that most women usually don't approach the men themselves and rather prefer be approached.

 

13 hours ago, FictoVore. said:

Gone are the days when women need to seek a man to provide for them, and men need to seek women to breed with.

Culture doesn't change biology...

 

13 hours ago, FictoVore. said:

What you said is that anyone deviating from that specific behavior pattern  (seeking signs of fertility in women, and the ability to 'provide' in men) are 'badly imprinted', among other things..

No, I said that they are either 1) biologically different 2) badly imprinted 3) both. For 1) you find plenty of books stating on how hormones, physical ambiguities, illnesses or simply genes (not necessarily an illness) affect sexuality. For 2) you find plenty of material on psychology and similar themes. I don't even know why I need to be stating this. These are not unknown things. It doesn't even go against LGBT rethoric and it's not any moral judgement, they are just scientific facts.

 

13 hours ago, FictoVore. said:

and that you can slot those who don't adhere to this 'norm' into one of three specific categories. 

I don't "slot" anyone anywhere. Maybe what I said before can even be aplied to all orientations, as there are plenty of people born hetero and people who "act" hetero despite not being born hetero. Same thing applies.

 

What I meant when I mentioned that was that, in a heteronormative society where heterosexuality is imposed, those who do not show that preference are either not biologically hetero, were not imprinted correctly/ in a healthy way despite being born hetero, or both. Again, nothing new here, just well-known obvious stuff.

 

When you have an imposed orientation/preferences, there's people who are not going to adapt to that. The reasons for that are the ones I gave above. When that happens, you get what are called sexual perversions. No, it doesn't have to be necessarily a bad, sick thing. It's just something that deviates from the societal norm. I make no claims as to how good the norm is, I just look at it as it is. Krishnamurti said "It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.". I don't see "perversions" as good or bad. I just see them as things. I keep being accused of being a moralist for no reason, as I am completely amoral.

 

 

13 hours ago, FictoVore. said:

A healthy dom/sub relationship is about balance and equality, is what I was getting at. Because both people have an equal say/equal consent/equal participation.

Yes Ficto, that's what I said.

 

13 hours ago, FictoVore. said:

All healthy relationships are about equality, not about an alpha dominating a submissive.

It can be "healthy" (somewhat) if the submissive in question has power in the same way as a submissive in a dom/sub relationship, like you mentioned. Usually that's what happens in those types of relationships that you keep bringing up. The women who crave that kind of relationship usually are not the poor defenceless victims everyone likes to see them as. They have their ways of having a say in the relationship, which they do much more than feminists like to admit. Again, not saying anything new, not my theory, just a well known thing. No, I don't find that kind of dynamic appealing.

 

13 hours ago, FictoVore. said:

Yes, heterosexual women will desire a partner with some aspects of masculinity, and a heterosexual man will seek some aspects of femininity in a partner, but that has nothing to do with dominance and submission.

Depends on the people involved...

 

13 hours ago, FictoVore. said:

You yourself claim to be asexual, yet seem to believe you know everything there is to know about the motivations of sexual males and females

I don't.

 

13 hours ago, FictoVore. said:

and refuse to accept it when sexual people here say it doesn't work that way.

I don't personally experience sexual attraction, so I read a lot of stuff, watch stuff, listen in and/or participate in conversations by people who do, etc...

When sexual people tell me it doesn't work that way, and I compare a lot of what I hear with basic facts of biology, psychology, confessions of honest people, etc... I see a lot of things that don't add up. So naturally I ask questions, and I get reactions that are often very telling.

 

I don't "refuse" to accept anything. I am skeptical about a lot of what I am told. Often what people say doesn't match reality, specially when the theme is sexuality.

 

Who has more credibility: someone whose knowledge comes from reading a lot on the subject of sex and whose sources can be verified, or someone whose knowledge comes from "experience" that can't be verified, and might be (and often is) contaminated with personal bias?

 

13 hours ago, FictoVore. said:

Yet you're posing your ideas as 'theories', even as questions in some places.. then arguing with everyone who does not agree with you.

It's calling debating, not arguing. Just because your arguments don't hold doesn't mean I am inflexible on my views.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ryn2
5 hours ago, mreid said:

I keep being accused of being a moralist for no reason, as I am completely amoral.

It’s at least partially the language you are using.  “Badly imprinted,” for example:  “bad” is a judgmental word.

 

Also, as ficto mentioned, telling people with actual experience that they’re less right than you (especially in arenas where there’s plenty of room for a broad range of differing experiences, and/or where your firsthand knowledge is limited to what you’ve studied) isn’t going to be well-received.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ryn2
5 hours ago, mreid said:

Who has more credibility: someone whose knowledge comes from reading a lot on the subject of sex and whose sources can be verified, or someone whose knowledge comes from "experience" that can't be verified, and might be (and often is) contaminated with personal bias?

Since sex is an emotionally-charged subject, let’s use riding a bike as an example.  Someone who has studied riding a bike extensively (but never ridden) may have a very good understanding of what doing do entails.  They know what muscles it engages, how much force must be applied to turn the pedals, how to use, clean, and replace every component properly, which style is best for what type of riding, who the sport champion is, etc.  They have read first-hand accounts of riding and can imagine/extrapolate from other activities what it’s likely to feel like.

 

They may well be general experts on the subject of bikes and biking.

 

However, the very best they can do when it comes to really knowing what riding a bike is like for any given person is make highly-educated guesses.  They can never really know with certainty what each person who rides a bike feels.  They can get close, the more people they interview especially, but they’re never quite there.

 

Meanwhile, even the rider with very minimal mechanical, biokinetic, or physiology training has vivid and instant knowledge of what riding a bike feels like for them.  They may be wrong about bikes and biking, but they’re right about how it feels to them... more right than any non-rider can be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phoenix the II

Im sorry if I'm out of place. But uhhh... Why just the thoughts of cis? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
StrangeDruid

1. They sometimes come across as overbearing or like they're trying too hard to be macho. I think that sometimes they act as if entitled to female attention, probably because of society's patriarchal values.

2. Been hit on by this sort once or twice. I don't tend to cross paths with the jock stereotype very much though. Not even back in high school.

3. Passive roles have never been endearing to me. If I were in a relationship, it'd be more like a collaboration. Not me getting "taken care of", and then giving him whatever.

4. I've been told I'm sort of masculine. But I disagree. I think being considered "masculine" ends up being the default for women who don't act stereotypically "feminine"

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mreid
5 hours ago, ryn2 said:

It’s at least partially the language you are using.  “Badly imprinted,” for example:  “bad” is a judgmental word.

Bad = incorrectly, innaproprately, unhealthily... Yes it can have negative connotations, but doesn't have to necessarily.

And even if it does, what's the shock? I am not the first person to say that bad childhood stuff might affect sexual preferences, am I?

 

5 hours ago, ryn2 said:

Also, as ficto mentioned, telling people with actual experience that they’re less right than you (especially in arenas where there’s plenty of room for a broad range of differing experiences, and/or where your firsthand knowledge is limited to what you’ve studied) isn’t going to be well-received.

The feeling I get is that my skepticism of their experiences is what isn't so well-received. Like I said before, people have a tendency to lie, delude themselves or be confused when talking about sexuality and sexual experiences. Yes, this might include me sometimes, which is why I constantly question myself and put my beliefs against everyone elses and the things I learn.

 

As for your bike analogy, it's not the physical part of sex I am interested into, it's the psychological part that I don't understand. I don't think someone needs to have sex to experience sexual attraction, or the psychological part of sexuality.

And concerning the value of your experiences, I give the same response I gave earlier to FictoVore.

 

Sure I think I could get some valuable knowledge from experience, but I don't think it compensates the risk. First I wouldn't feel any attraction or inclination to do it, secondly I'm fed up with having to deal with non-asexuals trying to either take advantage of my lack of sexual feelings for malicious reasons, or trying to drag me into their self-delusions. I think I will be much safer trying to understand these things from a distance than getting myself into a situation I am not naturally inclined to understand.

 

And besides, scientific explanations are much more trustworthy, verifiable and make more sense than the anecdotal experiences fo strangers on the internet.

 

5 hours ago, Phoenix the II said:

Im sorry if I'm out of place. But uhhh... Why just the thoughts of cis? 

I don't know much about trans people so I don't know exactly how to interpret their responses, but you can answer if you want to. I think it will be interesting to compare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ryn2
2 minutes ago, mreid said:

Bad = incorrectly, innaproprately, unhealthily... Yes it can have negative connotations, but doesn't have to necessarily.

And even if it does, what's the shock?

It implies they’re flawed in some way.  Someone could be “differently” imprinted - assuming one agrees human imprinting is a thing - and yet not be flawed or lesser.

 

4 minutes ago, mreid said:

As for your bike analogy, it's not the physical part of sex I am interested into, it's the psychological part that I don't understand.

I wasn’t referring just to the physical sensation of riding a bike.  I also meant what it feels like emotionally; what the mental impact is.

 

5 minutes ago, mreid said:

Sure I think I could get some valuable knowledge from experience, but I don't think it compensates the risk.

Which, of course, is your right to decide.  I feel the same way about skydiving.

 

That said, by not skydiving I lose my “right” to tell people who have skydived that it doesn’t actually feel like they say it does (X); it feels like Y and they’re deluding themselves by believing otherwise.

 

Even if I have gone skydiving I can’t be sure my experience was the same as theirs, but at least I have my own experience - and the credibility that comes with it - to stand on.

 

9 minutes ago, mreid said:

I think I will be much safer trying to understand these things from a distance than getting myself into a situation I am not naturally inclined to understand.

This is very fair and reasonable and not at all what’s causing the problem.

 

Any time someone proposes a hypothesis in hopes that it has validity, they need to be willing to expose it to openminded testing.  When the hypothesis deals with thoughts and emotions, you can only listen to subjects’ accounting and observe their behaviors.  The latter is much more difficult online, so you’re forced to give personal accounts more weight.

 

Telling people they don’t actually feel what they say they feel isn’t supporting a hypothesis.  It’s just (annoying them, and) choosing to ignore counter-evidence.

 

14 minutes ago, mreid said:

The feeling I get is that my skepticism of their experiences is what isn't so well-received. Like I said before, people have a tendency to lie, delude themselves or be confused when talking about sexuality and sexual experiences.

It’s fine to maintain skepticism.  It’s even fine to say “I’m not sure I believe that, based on these other things you’ve posted.”  Where it stops being fine is when someone goes beyond that and insists others are lying, deluding themselves, confused, etc.

 

It’s an online forum.  Most of is don’t know one another anywhere near well enough to draw those types of conclusions with any real certainty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mreid
2 hours ago, ryn2 said:

It implies they’re flawed in some way.

It implies they have been badly imprinted. Don't put words in my mouth.

 

2 hours ago, ryn2 said:

Someone could be “differently” imprinted - assuming one agrees human imprinting is a thing - and yet not be flawed or lesser.

Doesn't contradict what I said...

 

2 hours ago, ryn2 said:

I wasn’t referring just to the physical sensation of riding a bike.  I also meant what it feels like emotionally; what the mental impact is.

You mean the psychological part? That's what I am trying to do here too, but a lot of people seem to take issue with that.

 

2 hours ago, ryn2 said:

That said, by not skydiving I lose my “right” to tell people who have skydived that it doesn’t actually feel like they say it does (X); it feels like Y and they’re deluding themselves by believing otherwise.

 

Even if I have gone skydiving I can’t be sure my experience was the same as theirs, but at least I have my own experience - and the credibility that comes with it - to stand on.

Analogies don't answer the question.

 

Someone gave the analogy at some point that someone who hasn't orbited the earth can't know what it feels like. I think my answer to that applies to your analogy as well: just because they have never done it, doesn't mean they can't take guesses from scientific data and experimentation and get a pretty accurate view of it, accurate enough to know how to make space-suits, what problems to expect, etc... like scientists do. Do those scientists have no credibility because they have never been to space?

 

2 hours ago, ryn2 said:

Any time someone proposes a hypothesis in hopes that it has validity, they need to be willing to expose it to openminded testing.  

I don't think I am the one who lacks open-mindedness here.

 

2 hours ago, ryn2 said:

When the hypothesis deals with thoughts and emotions, you can only listen to subjects’ accounting and observe their behaviors.  

Which is exactly what I do, more than you might think.

 

2 hours ago, ryn2 said:

 The latter is much more difficult online, so you’re forced to give personal accounts more weight.

No, I am just forced to put an extra effort in seeing through bs.

 

2 hours ago, ryn2 said:

Telling people they don’t actually feel what they say they feel isn’t supporting a hypothesis.  It’s just (annoying them, and) choosing to ignore counter-evidence.

No, it's doubting their anecdotal experience because I spot incongruencies and bias. I actually take those anecdotal experiences very seriously; I have found a lot of valuable information in what is concealed behind those experiences, rather than what the people themselves say.

 

2 hours ago, ryn2 said:

Where it stops being fine is when someone goes beyond that and insists others are lying, deluding themselves, confused, etc.

Except that from a lot of what I see, that's the impression I get. And it's a very common thing that people do when talking about their sexuality. Not saying anything new here, and surely a lot of people can agree with me on this. This alone should give me at least a good reason to question the anecdotal information I get, which is exactly what I do, and what I think makes so much people uncomfortable.

 

Actually what you described is what I see a lot of non-asexuals doing to asexuals here with their usual anecdotal experiences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ryn2
4 hours ago, mreid said:

It implies they have been badly imprinted. Don't put words in my mouth.

Implication is about what others hear, not about what the speaker says... not trying to put words in your mouth, just explaining why others might be reacting as though you spoke judgmentally.

 

4 hours ago, mreid said:

[...]accurate enough to know how to make space-suits, what problems to expect, etc... like scientists do. Do those scientists have no credibility because they have never been to space?

The majority of what applies there is hard science... physics and engineering.  Those dealing with the psychological impact of time in space gain a lot of their understanding from working directly with other astronauts.  The first time up it was all conjecture but after that it’s not likely the scientists continued to stand behind theories the returning astronauts disputed.

 

4 hours ago, mreid said:

[...]surely a lot of people can agree with me on this.

You must just be unlucky that few of them have stumbled in here, then.

 

I agree that scientific study typically outweighs anecdotal reporting.  I’m just not seeing scientific study in what you are doing, or at least in what you are sharing here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mreid
2 hours ago, ryn2 said:

Implication is about what others hear, not about what the speaker says... not trying to put words in your mouth, just explaining why others might be reacting as though you spoke judgmentally.

I have already explained, time and time again, post after post, what I mean. I suspect the people who get upset about it are for the most part people who understand what I am saying, and don't like it.

 

2 hours ago, ryn2 said:

The majority of what applies there is hard science... physics and engineering.  Those dealing with the psychological impact of time in space gain a lot of their understanding from working directly with other astronauts.  The first time up it was all conjecture but after that it’s not likely the scientists continued to stand behind theories the returning astronauts disputed.

Which is why I consider the opinions of non-asexuals on sexual attraction, and always have.

 

2 hours ago, ryn2 said:

You must just be unlucky that few of them have stumbled in here, then.

Probably because certain people have been scaring them away.

 

2 hours ago, ryn2 said:

I agree that scientific study typically outweighs anecdotal reporting.  I’m just not seeing scientific study in what you are doing, or at least in what you are sharing here.

I already have, post after post, thread after thread, posted my sources, be it studies, bibliography, etc... I am not going to repeat myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ryn2
10 minutes ago, mreid said:

Which is why I consider the opinions of non-asexuals on sexual attraction, and always have.

Maybe it’s just coincidence/the threads I’ve happened into but it appears from those threads that you’re (perhaps considering them, but) discarding them quite quickly.

 

11 minutes ago, mreid said:

I am not going to repeat myself.

I was just making an observation, not asking you to re-post your sources.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MaeveTheRaven
On 9/13/2018 at 6:50 AM, mreid said:

1. How do you feel about them?

2. Experiences with them?

3. How do you feel about the idea of being "taken care of" by such types, and playing a passive, stereotypically feminine role?

4. Do you think you might be a bit masculine personality-wise? 

1. I'm kinda disgusted and averse towards them? I mean not towards the people themselves, but I don't like that kind of behaviour in a relationship.

2. Nope, fortunately I'm not their type.

3. No way. I am treated as an equal or I'm out of there. If I really have to take any role, I'd rather take the masculine. I can take care of people, but I can't really stand it the other way around.

4. Maaaybeeee... No, just kidding, I'm totally a tomboy in every sense.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eilaz

I don't believe in those stereotypes tbh. I have a few friends who look and sound very "traditionally male" types, are gym-rats, and they do prefer feminine girls that will provide them with a family to take care for. In friendship-level relationship it doesn't bother me at all. I'm used to these types of guys who'll always be like "this is too heavy for you", "here let me open this jar for you" and i just let them do w/e they wanna do to "help" (just to laugh as none of them seem to know the knife "trick" with the jar) 

 

I've never had any kind emotional control however so that's another thing. If you're talking about that them i'm 100% out and away. 

 

But yeah... "macho" types. I don' mind them. Same as i don't mind too feminine girls. I think i'm quite balanced myself in terms of "masculinity/femininity"

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alejandrogynous
On 9/13/2018 at 12:50 AM, mreid said:

When you are told "You just haven't met the right guy." usually the type of guy that's being refered to is this type.

I've never gotten the impression that this is what people mean when they say that. I have gotten the, "you haven't been with me yet," line from alpha male types, but that kind of goes with them being douchebags in the first place. When other people say, "you haven't met the right guy yet," they just mean someone you have chemistry with, whatever kind of person that might be.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phoenix the II

1. How do you feel about them?

 

I'm repulsed by extreme masculinity, this whole tough guy mentality... Ugh

 

2. Experiences with them?

 

Not in friendships/relationships, no

 

3. How do you feel about the idea of being "taken care of" by such types, and playing a passive, stereotypically feminine role?

 

I'll take care of myself mostly. But I'll let you open up that stupid jar I can't with my strength :P 

 

4. Do you think you might be a bit masculine personality-wise?

 

Yes, it's toxic imho to be all masculine and all feminine... Why can't males and females blend in to one another?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now