GENIUS FORUMS

Men and women possess considerable desire for sex and relationships. With males being habituated to the active principle, and women to the passive principle, and for other reasons as well, it is almost invariably the case that men are the most active agent in sex and relationship facilitation. However, using various techniques a male can trip a female into taking the active role, reducing his workload and placing him in a position of power, or greater power.

Techniques? Front and center, Skipair. Give us the rap.

Sarg. Carl, sorry I'm late.

At this point I can't advocate using techniques to lay women, although, yes, there are many that can have the man win the power game. The biggest benefit I see in learning those techniques is they can help remove the "holy glow" most men see with women. They are really just social robots, and once you learn how the gears work and play around with them, you might be better equiped to make decisions your head (mind) and not your head (dick).

It can feel empowering to dominate a woman, but when you trick a woman into thinking that she is dominating you, you have a puppet on a string. The passive role is where it's at, no wonder women don't want to give it up.

Still, no matter who plays the active or passive role up until sex, it is during sex in which the male will always assume the active role.

Nick Treklis wrote:Still, no matter who plays the active or passive role up until sex, it is during sex in which the male will always assume the active role.

Sounds like you have only known some boring and passive women. It doesn't have to be that way.

Maybe, I have only had sexual relations with young women without much "know-how". Still, it seems like when a man is about to reach orgasm he is over come with the intense urge to start violently fucking (dominate) the woman like there's no tommorow.

100% agree with Nick on all points.

ps - passive in bed does not equal boring. I don't know about anyone else but I do NOT get turned on unless she's passionately passive.

Many western women are now adopting a more masculine edge with men. I know many women who want their men to dominate them, but they can suddenly go from passive to active, and the role reversals quickly switch. Once women get a taste of the power of domination, then they don’t mind switching back and forth between the masculine and feminine roles.

One major chore for men is the fact that women need constant verbal/emotional stimulation in order to stay interested in sex, whereas a man’s sexual triggers are almost entirely visual. That is why women never seem to get tired of their man spitting out the same robotic ‘dirty’ lines, or ‘flirty’ banter leading up to sex, she needs it, but the more intelligent a guy is, the more bored he gets with the whole pattern.

They need the ‘I love yous’ and the “sweeties’, but also the more vulgar, violent attitudes as well… The need the full scale of positive and negative emotions to stay interested. Moreover, many Women derive excitement from the idea that they are being used thoroughly, usually in a forbidden dirty sort of way, whereas men derive excitement from being the one doing it to them. Dirty language in sex plays off this dynamic…

I think women who are addicted to sex aggression are addicted to emotions such as anger, excitment of being controlled, and brute physical force being directed at them, they basically become sexually aroused by the danger of brute animal force, they get addicted to the powerlessness of it, the total surrender of themselves to an overpowering masculine force. In essence, it is a very powerful drug.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:I think women who are addicted to sex aggression are addicted to emotions such as anger, excitment of being controlled, and brute physical force being directed at them, they basically become sexually aroused by the danger of brute animal force, they get addicted to the powerlessness of it, the total surrender of themselves to an overpowering masculine force. In essence, it is a very powerful drug.

except when you look at this more closely, it seems that women are in the position of power, and man is hungrily and childishly seeking to return to the blissful womb. In these cases, many times the male is surrendering to the overwhelming fertility and passive-aggressive sexual power of the female. Power is definitely exchanged between the two.

Faust wrote:

except when you look at this more closely, it seems that women are in the position of power, and man is hungrily and childishly seeking to return to the blissful womb. In these cases, many times the male is surrendering to the overwhelming fertility and passive-aggressive sexual power of the female. Power is definitely exchanged between the two.

The desire for comfort/nurturing can be one motivation for men’s pursuit for women, so your metaphor works. However, his motivation could also be caused by overly high levels of testosterone that controls his cognitive activity.

People use the same metaphor for why men and women want to cuddle with each other in the evenings, but a biological explanation seems to be more insightful than a psychoanalytic metaphor. It seems to me that the ‘cuddling’ phenomenon became a hardwired form of conditioning in the human psyche because it made perfect sense from an evolutionary standpoint.

First of all, two humans cuddling hold more body heat in bad weather. Secondly, they are better protected as a unit in the event that they are attacked. Thirdly, the men can prevent the women from having intercourse with another men, thus decreasing the chance of him leaving due to jealousy, so the offspring has a higher chance of surviving because daddy is still around.

So biological explanations seem to have more merit than using a psychoanalytic metaphor, as such a metaphor seems to leave out the subtlety of causes that lead to the conditioned response.

The only way to conquer a woman, the only way to not get a bad deal, is to not be involved with her. To involve yourself with her in any way gives her the better deal.

To get involved in her, as opposed to merely with her, is to give everyone a bad deal.

Nick Treklis wrote:Still, no matter who plays the active or passive role up until sex, it is during sex in which the male will always assume the active role.

Strictly speaking i don't agree, but for sure the man has to play some degree of role, and typically plays the major role. It would be rather embarassing for a woman if she tried to have sex with a guy without making sure he will be hard at the right time!


Also, the male may be physically passive but mentally active, while the female is physically active but mentally inactive. In my experience while the physical side of things may flip, the mental side of things stays the same (male active, female inactive), unless the male is sleepy.

This topic has no room for discussion.

Dan Rowden wrote:To get involved in her, as opposed to merely with her, is to give everyone a bad deal.

What do you think about rushing in to save a woman?

ChaoticMelody wrote:This topic has no room for discussion.

Don't you have any ideas? I'm sure you do.

The primary motivation for sex for the male is to blow-off consciousness. There is a desire to blow-off consciousness because deluded consciousness is painful.

The problem with blowing-off consciousness is that there is less consciousness, there is still pain, and the consciousness and pain will rebuild again.

When a male uses passivity/desirelessness as a technique, the female intuits that she has to get him in bed to try to get him to bond to her, and then provide for her.

All it would take is for all the men in a given area to stop chasing women for the current dynamic to be totally reinvented. Since men are blessed by nature, and women are incomplete, the women would start to chase the men. But the smart men would rebuff them, telling them to become a proper person.

Dan,

To get involved in her, as opposed to merely with her, is to give everyone a bad deal.

"Hey I'm not with you! I'm in you!"

Rhett wrote:When a male uses passivity/desirelessness as a technique, the female intuits that she has to get him in bed to try to get him to bond to her, and then provide for her.

All it would take is for all the men in a given area to stop chasing women for the current dynamic to be totally reinvented. Since men are blessed by nature, and women are incomplete, the women would start to chase the men. But the smart men would rebuff them, telling them to become a proper person.

Passivity plays a part, but what a woman responds to is a Yin/Yang mixture. You're right that the Yin sets the stage for the chase to be reversed, but she will not want to take responsibility for her actions, and so needs/wants to be actively led by the Yang, via her emotional state. If all it took was Yin, then every passive, shy, nerdy guy would be very busy. The Yang is also needed for full sexual/emotional escalation. Either principle standing alone is eventual boredom for her. Properly "dosing" the principles back and forth hits the sweet spot.

But the smart men would rebuff them, telling them to become a proper person.

And she would laugh at your face and go find someone who she could have fun with.

Rhett wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote:To get involved in her, as opposed to merely with her, is to give everyone a bad deal.

What do you think about rushing in to save a woman?

Depends what you're attempting to save her from. If it's drowning, well, that seems ok, if it's from herself and her unconsciousness, you'd better have a good understanding and a good reason.

The Dude wrote:Dan,

To get involved in her, as opposed to merely with her, is to give everyone a bad deal.

"Hey I'm not with you! I'm in you!"

Like I said to Laird, sock-puppets are tedious; maybe not all the time, but certainly most of the time. This one is lacking in anything discernibly valuable.

Dan: To get involved in her, as opposed to merely with her, is to give everyone a bad deal.

Rhett: What do you think about rushing in to save a woman?

Dan: Depends what you're attempting to save her from. If it's drowning, well, that seems ok, if it's from herself and her unconsciousness, you'd better have a good understanding and a good reason.

Dan, your spiritual progress towards the goal of Abiding Undeluded Enlightenment depends upon your identification of the subtler delusions that flit in and out of your otherwise Perfectly Rational Mind. Being free of delusions myself - and note that I say this to you but once: in future I will simply point out to you your failings - it is logically necessary that I assist you in such identification. Here you have indulged in an egotistical non-sequiter: what "seems ok" is actually far from the case. It is in fact an absolute truth that the drowning of the unconscious represents a significant advance of the Cause of Wisdom. This, indeed, is what is holding you back from the Ultimate: a delusional sense of moral values that brainwash you into the fantastical belief that femininity in the form of a woman is any more valuable than the ideality of the Feminine: it is not. Please, for the sake of Enlightenment, recognise that you are trying to advocate a perverse course of action.

If you're going to bring this persona into every post in every thread in which you participate, don't bother addressing me because I won't be reading it. Just letting you know so you don't waste your efforts.