I’m The Only Omega/Beta-Lover In The Village :C

 

Do ALL women need to be dominated in bed before they can say they had good sex? Who made that rule? I know there are tons of women who like it, but just like with every other sexual preference, this is not a universal rule. I found this article (on Taken In Hand, a site for women who love male dominance):
Here is a quote from there:
“Having written about the attraction of the alpha male and masculine power, myself, I can’t help thinking that there is some truth in this – for me. But I know women for whom a dominant man would feel like a bully. These women seek men who are almost as soft as they are. (I also know women who avoid dominant men for political reasons in spite of themselves, but that’s another story.) One friend of mine and her man have told me that they love each other because they are both “soft and giving”.
So I have long thought that not all submissive individuals enjoy being with a dominant person, and that not all dominant individuals would be happy with a submissive person. To some dominant individuals, submissive individuals are insufficiently exciting.”
I can see what she is talking about, it is true in my case. I’m not particularly dominant, and I like men who are, like myself, not particularly dominant. Not “soft” perhaps, but warm, affectionate and loving. But trying to explain that to people who believe in game and that most if not all women are turned on by dominance, seems to be futile. If you are attracted to men who don’t dominate you, you just haven’t been dominantly fucked well enough. This is why I ask men who believe this if they have been dominantly fucked by a dominant girlfriend with a strap-on. And if not, how do they know they won’t like it?
Might as well tell a gay man it’s just a phase and he haven’t met the right girl and haven’t given sex with women a try. Do you really need to give something a try if you think it’s kinda gross and goes against your nature?
Not to mention you don’t really need to try a sex act before you decide it turns you on. There are romance novels, movies and even your own dreams that can help you decide whether you want dominance or not. If it’s not there, it might just not be your thing. It might change later in your life, but as long as you don’t have a pressing need for it, you won’t miss it.
“Why not try it anyway, just to see if you will like it?”
Because it’s gross, but that’s just me. I look at it like a gay man looks at heterosexuality. “You guys can have as much heterosexual sex as you like, I respect you, do whatever you want in your own house, but leave me out of it”.
 
Advertisements
This entry was posted in Personal emo stuff and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

39 Responses to I’m The Only Omega/Beta-Lover In The Village :C

  1. Anonymous says:

    There's only two types of men today

    1) a beta puppy…yes dear, whatever dear….

    or

    2) get the pussy and run alphas

    Until there is a natural NEED for a man, he will forever be stuck in these two roles.

    Women no longer *NEED* a man – the police state has ensured their physical safety, and the welfare state has ensured their financial well being – with that said, today all a man is good for is a large two legged hairless puppy-dog, or a disposable penis.

    • Evil Alpha says:

      Women no longer *NEED* a man

      But there biology thinks they do so it’s all good for the time being. Evolution has a giant head start.

  2. Emma says:

    Why would men be stuck in these two roles? I have an idea, but I want to hear your reasons first.

    • Gilgamesh says:

      because it’s a competition with winners and losers. A beta male from the 40s would be an alpha male today

      • Gilgamesh says:

        but the line’s probably a lot blurrier than most people say it is.

      • Antonymous says:

        Ehm, no, it’s just a social construction depending on the social context and always assume non cooperative relationships or situation. Relationships and sex can (not always) easily fall in the cooperative spectrum.

  3. Firepower says:

    ema, why are you so scared of alpha?

  4. Me says:

    I don’t even believe in the alpha/beta/omega divides. I think they’re essensialist constructs. They may be useful to describe the structure of a wolf pack, but the categories don’t have enough nuance to describe relationships between human beings. I am aware that humans are animals, but we are not solely governed by our instincts or our hormones.

    Seeing men simply as puppy dogs or as disposable pensises is insulting both to women and men — it’s a very misanthropic view of the world and i just don’t subscribe to it. I know far too many intelligent and capable people. The fact that women in Western society are now more financially independent means that they are able to choose partners (or whatever gender) they connect with intellectually, emotionally and sexually, not just a man with a well-fed wallet.

    What you say makes sense, Emma. Of course not “all” women are sexually submissive — though if you spend too much time reading “Game” sites you might easily be led to think so, because female submissiveness is a common fantasy on those sites. The writers on these sites frequently conflate sexual submissiveness and social or political submissiveness, but this is a fallacy. The fact that a person wants to be dominated in the bedroom does not men they want to be submissive outside of the bedroom, and vice versa .

    Sexuality is a lot more complicated than that. There is a huge difference between being socially submissive and being sexually submissive, and between being soft-natured and socially oppressed. These are not the same, and there is nothing wrong with being a kind, giving, caring person, no matter what your gender is! Problems arise when these characeristics are assigned exclusively to a gender or to a sub-category, e.g. “women are more caring than men” (which really means that women SHOULD be more caring than men”), “only Beta men are sweet and caring” (which really means “Beta men are “losers””), “Women love Alpha men who treat them like shit”, and other such generalisations.

    Incidentally, to be a good “dom” in a sexual setting, you have to be extremely caring and responsible, and you have to completely respect your partner’s boundaries. In a sense, being sexually submissive can be very liberating, because it allows you to surrender to a kind and loving partner that you trust.

    All of this is just to say that your sexual preferences are your sexual preferences, and they are nothing to be ashamed of or puzzled by. More women than you think prefer soft, loving, “vanilla” sex with men who want the same.

    • Emma the Emo says:

      I don’t think men can be divided into rigid groups of alpha/beta/omega, but it’s fun to categorize and stereotype. Plus when I say I have an omega fetish, I just have no better word for it. Used to call it a basement dweller fetish, but it’s so long and doesn’t cover everything. I don’t think dividing men into those categories is bad, it doesn’t make me respect them less and I’d keep my categories to myself if guys didn’t like them. It’s just a system of viewing who can get laid and how much.

      I agree that sexuality is more than what you’re born with. At least for many people it seems so. Other people’s sexuality is more natural and unaffected by outer influences.

      As for submissive women, I honestly don’t know what fraction of all women they are. Maybe they are the majority, maybe not. People who are into game sometimes say it’s an evolutionary development in all women, but I’m not convinced. Not disagreeing exactly, just not agreeing either. However, they don’t usually deny that a woman can be dominant in general, but submissive in bed. I think they show a preference for submissive women because the only other alternative is a bitchy “lawyercunt”.

      Not all beta males are sweet. It’s funny, but my mom’s first husband was a kind alpha, and her second a jerk beta.

      • Me says:

        It’s not only “fun” to categorize and stereotype, it’s a natural human impulse to do so. Human beings have to impose structure and categorization on the world around them in order to make sense of reality.

        However, there is a huge difference between categorizing and stereotyping, and between identifying prototypical members of a category, and creating social stereotypes.

        Stereotypes present a simplified image of all the members of a particular group (whether based on race, religion, gender, age). In this way, stereotypes are often misleading and can be harmful, as they do not recognize the complex, multidimensional nature of human beings. Some stereotypes are ostensibly “positive”, e.g. “black people are better dancers”, “women are better communicators”. In reality, such stereotypical statements mask racist/sexist ideologies that portray an inflexible and misleading view of the group in question.

        Consider the flip-side. E.g. the generalisation “women are better communicators than men”. Arguably, this stereotype is also negative for men, who are often unflatteringly and unfairly portrayed as uncommunicative oafs in popular media. However, it also “lets men off the hook” by constructing women as the ones having to do all the communicative work in hetereosexual relationships.

        One also often sees statements such as “women are better communicators and are more caring, and therefore make better call-centre workers and nurses, but men are more rational and ambitious and therefore make better doctors and lawyers”. The logical flaw here is that in order to be a good lawyer you have to have excellent communication skills, and in order to be a doctor you have to be caring. It’s just that doctor and lawyer are high-status jobs, whereas care-worker and call-centre operator are not.

        “I think they show a preference for submissive women because the only other alternative is a bitchy “lawyercunt”.”

        Is “bitchy lawyercunt” a “fun” stereotype too? This is a classical example of “my-virtue-is-your-vice”, i.e. assertiveness and ambition becomes bitchiness and coldness in a woman, and caring and gentleness makes a man an effeminate “sissy”. What exactly do people gain from reducing people to such negative stereotypes, in your opinion? Is it just “fun” or altogether more political?

      • Emma the Emo says:

        Me,
        Maybe I should have made myself more clear. I find stereotypes funny. Like this:


        I don’t judge people according to stereotypes, I judge them individually.

      • Emma the Emo says:

        Also, I didn’t come up with the bitchy lawyercunt thing, it was the Roissy gang. I had no experience with female lawyers myself. I guess a woman would have to use different personalities, if she is both in a job that demands a level of aggressiveness and in a relationship. Use the “masculine” personality at work and be caring and gentle in a relationship. Men can do it too. This is how I imagine a good relationship. You might be out all day fighting bears, but when you come back home, don’t forget to turn that fighting mode off 🙂

    • Evil Alpha says:

      “I am aware that humans are animals, but we are not solely governed by our instincts or our hormones”

      And wolves are? We aren’t as far from animals as you want to believe.

      “The fact that women in Western society are now more financially independent means that they are able to choose partners (or whatever gender) they connect with intellectually, emotionally and sexually, not just a man with a well-fed wallet.”

      Ever heard the phrase absolute power corrupts absolutely? Technology, feminism, and currency all “empower” women, but the end result is not as “romantic” as your political indoctrination would have us believe. Freud acknowledges the Id. Game acknowledges hypergamy. You acknowledge that you believe in the silly myth of innate female goodness.

      “because female submissiveness is a common fantasy on those (Game) sites. “

      Actually female submissiveness is a game realization, not a game fantasy. Game fantasy is a strange woman tapping you on the should and saying let’s fuck.

      “The writers on these sites frequently conflate sexual submissiveness and social or political submissiveness”

      No they don’t. It’s feminist writers who are guilty of that conflation. And game sites make fun of them for it.

      “More women than you think prefer soft, loving, “vanilla” sex with men who want the same”

      And they are the same women that harbor rape fantasies.

      • Emma the Emo says:

        Well, it’s true we’re governed by hormones, but we have brains to think with and that’s why we even hold people accountable for their actions, because we don’t want people to always act like dumb animals. It’s just that many people don’t rise above this.

  5. Firepower says:

    this blog is dying
    MOUT

  6. Caveat emptor says:

    “What exactly do people gain from reducing people to such negative stereotypes, in your opinion? Is it just “fun” or altogether more political?”

    It’s about understanding how the world works. Finding the truth no matter how uncomfortable. Something a lot of female academics don’t seem to be very into.

    As for not all women preferring alphas – well spotted and argued Emma! Women over 30 or women who know alphas wouldn’t commit to them show a distinct preference for beta males. Nothing wrong with that and I make no judgement. There’s a lot to be said for betas and the intense disdain you see for them is ridiculous. But that’s how it is.

    • Gilgamesh says:

      But who wants to wait 10 years for a woman to give you a chance? The women I do want probably prefer alphas and I get the impression alphas in general would be happier than betas even without women. win/win if I can build the foundation I need.

    • Antonymous says:

      Nah, that’s too schematic. When you see exceptions to your reasoning, you have to insert a malicious reason for it, like woman alleged declining attractiveness (which must be only physical, it seems) after 30.

  7. Evil Alpha says:

    You say you don’t like dominance, yet you are the one being penetrated, and the one on her back!

    From your writings it’s obvious that you have negative associations around dominance and therefore repress obvious indications of it’s presence… in your own sex life.

    Simply put. The majority of times, a woman who professes she’s not into dominance, actually likes to be dominated, but to a different degree than she realizes.

    Gamers are fully aware of this type of denial and thus their suggestion to “try it” is reference to that understanding. Such a suggestion lobbed at diametric sexualities like gay men and straights or straight men and strap-on buttboys is absurd.

    In my experience women like you are best fitted for a sexual relationship with a gentle top.

    • Emma the Emo says:

      “From your writings it’s obvious that you have negative associations around dominance and therefore repress obvious indications of it’s presence… in your own sex life.”

      I should probably explain why I wrote such a negative post about it. It was a reaction to something a guy said at Chateau Heartiste, which was pretty much as what you’re saying now. I don’t really go around thinking how gross dominance is, I just leave it to other girls to enjoy. But when people attempt to make me do something I find gross very persistently (like make me have babies, or play with other people’s babies, or shame me into vegetarianism or condomless sex without being tested first), I can react negatively and vehemently.
      But what would those obvious signs of domination be? They are not obvious to me, but you can direct me to them, I hope? Plus you might want to read my submissiveness post, and see that I don’t deny parts of myself that do exist.

      “You say you don’t like dominance, yet you are the one being penetrated, and the one on her back!”
      You obviously don’t know how I feel while doing that, but you imagine you’d feel dominated, so I must be too. I think of sex in cute cuddly terms. Vagina gives penis a hug. Penis gives vagina a massage ❤ Get it? A vagina is just a tool to please the man, and I'm a giver. I don't associate penetration with dominance.

      • Evil Alpha says:

        “You obviously don’t know how I feel while doing that, but you imagine you’d feel dominated, so I must be too.”

        I’m not imagining anything other than your hamster wheel spinning furiously. Just like a feminist who rationalizes away being penetrated as “empowerment”, you rationalize penetration away with warm and fuzzy association. But being mounted is being mounting and that physical act indicates submission… be it in chimps, lions, dogs or humans.

      • Emma the Emo says:

        It’s ok if you don’t want to understand my point of view, you can imagine whatever you want, everyone has their own reality. Penetration as dominance is an association that only exists in most people’s heads, but these things are subjective just like beauty. You cannot understand anything you haven’t heard of before, it’s quite typical. Look, an ugly undesirable woman can force herself on you and penetrate herself with your dick, but she is the one dominating. You might even try to get away and not feel very dominant. You aren’t dominating anyone unless you are actually in the position of more power/control/influence. How hard is that to see?
        Stop perpetuating myths. Many women I know are already scared of penetration because of how it’s gonna dominate or weaken them or whatever, but it’s nothing to be scared of. It’s an act of intimacy. Now, I don’t deny that many women have rape fantasies and like dominance and would be better off if they accepted it, but that just means that penetration=dominance in their HEADS naturally. In my head, penetration happens to be equated with intimacy. Even in the case of men being fucked by women with strapons.

      • Evil Alpha says:

        “Look, an ugly undesirable woman can force herself on you and penetrate herself with your dick, but she is the one dominating.”

        But suppose I envisioned this ugly, undesirable woman was giving my penis a hug?According to what you said previously, it would no longer count as dominance would it? Well Of course it would. Why because of all the collective dominance clues.

        She initiated. She is on top. I would probably have to be on my back and tied up. She is the active partner. All those attributes outweight the penetration. In other words. It’s not subjective.

        You think I don’t understand your point of view, but I do. Self declared bottoms are prone to play the same mind games as you do. Haven’t you heard the cliche “subs are the ones really in control”? Well they’re not. The control they have is veto. The top is in control. Intimacy and dominance aren’t mutually exclusive, ya know.

        You have an awesome hamster wheel!

      • Emma the Emo says:

        Btw, what’s with that “subs are in control” cliche? I read A.B. Dada say it once, but what exactly leads to that conclusion?

    • Emma the Emo says:

      “But suppose I envisioned this ugly, undesirable woman was giving my penis a hug?According to what you said previously, it would no longer count as dominance would it? Well Of course it would. Why because of all the collective dominance clues.”

      If she is merely giving your penis a hug, it’s not dominance. If she is forcing herself on you against your will, it’s dominance. That was the whole point I was trying to make. Maybe I should have said that my intimacy-definition of sex applies to normal sex, but I thought it was obvious enough not to mention. If a woman is being raped, she can’t just go “yay, he’s giving me a nice massage for free!”, and the same applies to an unwilling man. And same for those who are clear subs (although I have no idea how they think). In normal sex though, there isn’t any clear rule that says “penetration=dominance”. It is “dominance=dominance”. The only people who believe in “penetration=dominance” are certain men, and female virgins who still fear the penis.

      “Intimacy and dominance aren’t mutually exclusive, ya know.”
      That is true and I’m aware of that, since I have female friends who are into being dominated in bed (actual dominance, not just vanilla heterosexual sex). Intimacy and dominance aren’t inseparable either.

      And no, it looks like you didn’t get my point of view the first time, which is why I had to write all this.

      • Evil Alpha says:

        “If she is merely giving your penis a hug, it’s not dominance. If she is forcing herself on you against your will, it’s dominance”

        “You missed the point… again. You have such a blind spot/ mental block about dominance. Penetration = Dominance is not the same as Dominance = Penetration.

        Dominance doesn’t require force. As a matter of fact most dominance is consensual. BDSM in a nutshell is consenting to being severely dominated. Vanilla sex is simply sex with light to medium male domination… though you obviously disagree. Nevertheless, what determines dominance is the presences of certain markers and penetration falls into this marker category. Through the display of such markers it is not difficult to determine who is the top in any sexual situation.

        Is it possible to be dominated without being penetrated? Yes. Is it possible to dominate while being penetrated? Yes. But penetration is an objective form of dominance that is not the whole picture, but big part of it.

        As for the sub in control cliche… A woman who has feminist leanings will often have internal conflict over submissive desires since they go against their ideology about equality. To assuage herself that she is not a “bad” feminist she will conclude that she is in control during these sub activities as it makes her feel less guilty. She then rationalizes that her fantasy is being performed for her by the other person. Thus she is in control. But that really is that, unless she is paying a Dom, the other person is not performing.

        Lots of women for political or emotional reasons deny outright that they like any form of domination, but when you shine a light on their habits they are surprised by the outcome. When truthfully answered, such questions as which partner is older, taller, heavier? Or which partner is more likely to initiate, be on top, do the moving reveals that most women prefer light domination, while others prefer medium or extreme domination, but almost none prefer no domination.

      • Emma the Emo says:

        “You have such a blind spot/ mental block about dominance”
        Maybe I don’t see it because there is nothing to see?.. But if you think there is, explain, I will not ignore facts and logic.

        “Penetration = Dominance is not the same as Dominance = Penetration.”
        Actually, it’s exactly, the same, like 2=3 and 3=2. Use an arrow ( => ) to express implication.

        “Dominance doesn’t require force.”
        Exactly. The rape examples were just examples. But since you say I’m missing the point, and I see you miss the point, maybe we are arguing about different things? I see dominance as having more power and influence over the other person. This is what I mean by dominant sex – the girl is getting off on the guy’s power over her. She believes he has more power than her (can a normal woman get off on dominance if her bf is not more powerful than her?.. This is still unclear to me). That is the type of desire that was always alien to me and grossed me out the first time I heard about it (which was one of my female friends telling me how she liked her bf to ravish her and call her a a little whore or something in that sense)

        “But penetration is an objective form of dominance that is not the whole picture, but big part of it.”
        I’ll agree it’s an objective form of dominance if you give me some objective evidence for it. Right now I see no logical reason for it being objectively dominant. All I see now is that it is subjectively a form of dominance for many people (“It feels obviously like dominance”). I might even say that in today’s climate, penetration is (in general, but not for everyone) an objective form of dominance for woman over the man, because it can sometimes lead to unwanted (for the man) pregnancy and child support. If thost laws were abolished, then it would no longer be a form of dominance anymore. If the pill is banned, then it will become (in general) a form of dominance for men over women (but even then, you can’t ignore pussy power and how women effectively use it).

      • Evil Alpha says:

        “Actually, it’s exactly, the same, like 2=3 and 3=2. Use an arrow ( => ) to express implication.”

        You’re quibbling. I can do it as well. 2 is not equal to 3. 2 < 3.
        Again. Penetration = Dominance is not the same as Dominance = Penetration.

        “I’ll agree it’s an objective form of dominance if you give me some objective evidence for it”
        Take a biology class OR watch animal planet.

        ”I might even say that in today’s climate, penetration is (in general, but not for everyone) an objective form of dominance for woman over the man.”

        Nope. The act of penetration is separate from the legal constructs surrounding it.

        ”you can’t ignore pussy power”
        Influence is not the same as domination.

      • Emma the Emo says:

        “Again. Penetration = Dominance is not the same as Dominance = Penetration. ”
        You continue to brutally abuse the math symbols, it looks very stupid and eye-searing. I’m trying to understand what you mean by it, but unless you use the proper meaning of symbols, I never will.
        “Take a biology class OR watch animal planet.”
        I have. And there is such a thing as sexual selection. Females choose. Males who get to fuck are the most dominant ones, so I guess in many animals, penetration is almost always accompanied by dominance of the female. Penetration is dominance statistically, but there is nothing objectively dominant about it. Especially to smart animals who realize it and really think about it carefully.
        “Nope. The act of penetration is separate from the legal constructs surrounding it.”
        The act of penetration is objectively nothing without the circumstances like laws, pills, physical vulnerability of the two partners during sex and most importantly, their mindsets. Penetration is just penis in vagina.
        “Influence is not the same as domination”
        I did want to know what your definition of dominance is, but you didn’t say.

  8. MeMe says:

    Take this Alpha/Beta shit with a grain of salt, it isn’t actually science.

  9. It does not surprise me in the slightest that you might not prefer a dominant man. What I find strange is why anyone ever thinks that a dear little mouse would fantasise about sex with a great big elephant, or vice versa. That would be unbalanced and difficult. The cute little mouse would be scared that the great big elephant would step on her, and the great big elephant would be having to be so careful not to crush his beloved little mouse that it would be stressful. I know several women who truly do not want a dominant man, and several woman with very dominant personalities who definitely do prefer to be with a dominant man. It’s all about balance. Relationships that are very unbalanced tend to be stressful and unstable. This applies sexually, too. Very soft women need a much more delicate approach than women who are less soft. Tough take-charge woman need a super-dominant approach.

    • Emma the Emo says:

      Makes sense. I neither wish to dominate, nor to be dominated. I like those warm loving guys who can be soft. I can’t be very close to a guy who is more dominant, and has a rougher sense of humor. They can be decent friends, but I’d rather they continued treating me as one of the guys, and didn’t make a half-assed transition to treating me like a girl, lol.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s