[quote]Ct. Rockula wrote:
Also, Black Vampires.[/quote]
[quote]imhungry wrote:
[quote]debraD wrote:
[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
[quote]Oleena wrote:
I think girls nowdays associate the princess as a character who exerts control over men. So, if you enjoy knowing you have men bowing at your feet and obtaining power that way, you’ll invest in that fantasy. If you feel sympathy towards the men, and think “that’s not fair” when imagining using a guy, you’ll probably turn out more like Wonder Woman.[/quote]
Interesting. Where does the power (over men) come from? Are men now a lower status?[/quote]
I don’t agree. I think that’s a delusion. Sexual ‘power’ is not real power. Otherwise prostitutes would rule the world.[/quote]
Helen of Troy? Anne Boleyn?
If sex wasn’t a “power”, then would these events have taken place?
I believe sex is more used as a tool or weapon, as opposed to a genuine “power”, but I think it’s still a power, nonetheless.[/quote]
If you looked at sex as a way to subjugate men, then sex would be a man’s weakness right? But what’s so powerful, in a positive way, about exploiting the weakness of someone? In other words, is the ability of a woman to use sex to exert control over men a virtue? I think not, because it necessarily implies that the greatest strength of a woman lies in her ability to manipulate. It also implies that the woman’s greatest strength lies in her ability to exploit.
What I’m getting at is that it sells women short to think that their strengths arise from something that is less than virtuous. I don’t consider manipulation and exploitation a virtue. The female human being is the most complex, mysterious animal on the planet, in my opinion, and to say that her powers are intrinsically tied to the weaknesses of men does them a disservice. It essentially still leaves women in a position of subordination to men. If sex is the great power that many women treat it as, then where does that power go in the absence of men? It’s gone.
The image of the Princess does no more to advance any positive powers of women than the overtly sexual nature of women who use sex as a tool or as a power. Essentially, the use of sex as a power is only re-affirming what many men ignorantly think of women; that they are dependent upon men, because their “sexual power” is still entirely dependent upon men and our weaknesses. I think women have the same “powers”, for lack of a better term, as men.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]imhungry wrote:
[quote]debraD wrote:
[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
[quote]Oleena wrote:
I think girls nowdays associate the princess as a character who exerts control over men. So, if you enjoy knowing you have men bowing at your feet and obtaining power that way, you’ll invest in that fantasy. If you feel sympathy towards the men, and think “that’s not fair” when imagining using a guy, you’ll probably turn out more like Wonder Woman.[/quote]
Interesting. Where does the power (over men) come from? Are men now a lower status?[/quote]
I don’t agree. I think that’s a delusion. Sexual ‘power’ is not real power. Otherwise prostitutes would rule the world.[/quote]
Helen of Troy? Anne Boleyn?
If sex wasn’t a “power”, then would these events have taken place?
I believe sex is more used as a tool or weapon, as opposed to a genuine “power”, but I think it’s still a power, nonetheless.[/quote]
If you looked at sex as a way to subjugate men, then sex would be a man’s weakness right? But what’s so powerful, in a positive way, about exploiting the weakness of someone? In other words, is the ability of a woman to use sex to exert control over men a virtue? I think not, because it necessarily implies that the greatest strength of a woman lies in her ability to manipulate. It also implies that the woman’s greatest strength lies in her ability to exploit.
What I’m getting at is that it sells women short to think that their strengths arise from something that is less than virtuous. I don’t consider manipulation and exploitation a virtue. The female human being is the most complex, mysterious animal on the planet, in my opinion, and to say that her powers are intrinsically tied to the weaknesses of men does them a disservice. It essentially still leaves women in a position of subordination to men. If sex is the great power that many women treat it as, then where does that power go in the absence of men? It’s gone.
The image of the Princess does no more to advance any positive powers of women than the overtly sexual nature of women who use sex as a tool or as a power. Essentially, the use of sex as a power is only re-affirming what many men ignorantly think of women; that they are dependent upon men, because their “sexual power” is still entirely dependent upon men and our weaknesses. I think women have the same “powers”, for lack of a better term, as men.[/quote]
Can you say the same thing about the White Knight, that he is reliant on a helpless princess in order to have power? It would not be surprised since each rely on the other for meaning. If so then the archetype of male dominant- female submissive is in full play here, modeling gender role behavior for kids and adults alike.
That leaves me wondering what do superheroes teach/model?
[quote]Ct. Rockula wrote:
Also, Black Vampires.[/quote]
like the new avi
[quote]BradTGIF wrote:
[quote]duffyj2 wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
well, how do you explain the increase in popularity of women like Lara Croft, or Xena or Electra or the new superhero movie coming out based on Wonder Woman?[/quote]
Boobs.[/quote]
I’ve never understood the female superhero thing. Those types of characters don’t even make it wiggle.
[/quote]
Not me, man. I’ve always bought into the superhero ideal, including the heroines. That’s one thing the comics did right from early on - they got away from the helpless damsel-in-distress cliche and came up with sexy female characters who could hold their own and kick criminal ass. Thankfully, Hollywood, which is pretty hide-bound otherwise, doesn’t mind playing with this concept.
Take Spartacus Blood & Sand, for example. In the first episode, Spartacus arrives just in the nick of time to save his wife from a group of barbarians who intend to rape and enslave her. Instead of him doing all the work while she just trembles in fear, they each kill half of the attacking barbarians, and she even saves his ass at one point.
[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]imhungry wrote:
[quote]debraD wrote:
[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
[quote]Oleena wrote:
I think girls nowdays associate the princess as a character who exerts control over men. So, if you enjoy knowing you have men bowing at your feet and obtaining power that way, you’ll invest in that fantasy. If you feel sympathy towards the men, and think “that’s not fair” when imagining using a guy, you’ll probably turn out more like Wonder Woman.[/quote]
Interesting. Where does the power (over men) come from? Are men now a lower status?[/quote]
I don’t agree. I think that’s a delusion. Sexual ‘power’ is not real power. Otherwise prostitutes would rule the world.[/quote]
Helen of Troy? Anne Boleyn?
If sex wasn’t a “power”, then would these events have taken place?
I believe sex is more used as a tool or weapon, as opposed to a genuine “power”, but I think it’s still a power, nonetheless.[/quote]
If you looked at sex as a way to subjugate men, then sex would be a man’s weakness right? But what’s so powerful, in a positive way, about exploiting the weakness of someone? In other words, is the ability of a woman to use sex to exert control over men a virtue? I think not, because it necessarily implies that the greatest strength of a woman lies in her ability to manipulate. It also implies that the woman’s greatest strength lies in her ability to exploit.
What I’m getting at is that it sells women short to think that their strengths arise from something that is less than virtuous. I don’t consider manipulation and exploitation a virtue. The female human being is the most complex, mysterious animal on the planet, in my opinion, and to say that her powers are intrinsically tied to the weaknesses of men does them a disservice. It essentially still leaves women in a position of subordination to men. If sex is the great power that many women treat it as, then where does that power go in the absence of men? It’s gone.
The image of the Princess does no more to advance any positive powers of women than the overtly sexual nature of women who use sex as a tool or as a power. Essentially, the use of sex as a power is only re-affirming what many men ignorantly think of women; that they are dependent upon men, because their “sexual power” is still entirely dependent upon men and our weaknesses. I think women have the same “powers”, for lack of a better term, as men.[/quote]
Can you say the same thing about the White Knight, that he is reliant on a helpless princess in order to have power? It would not be surprised since each rely on the other for meaning. If so then the archetype of male dominant- female submissive is in full play here, modeling gender role behavior for kids and adults alike.
That leaves me wondering what do superheroes teach/model?[/quote]
I would disagree with the White Knight comparison. The WK may exist to save the Princess, but the implication is also that he is rescuing her from something, some danger or villain or beast or whatever. If the WK has the power to do so, he has the power to defeat villainy as well as save the Princess. Which means that he has some inherent power independent of the Princess.
But the female whose largest power resides in her use of sexuality MUST have a man to use that power against, because it is the man’s weakness that makes her sexuality a power. Men have sexuality in the same sense that women do, but for whatever reason we don’t typically think of the male sexual power as being a power at all, and certainly not one that holds the same sway over women that a woman’s can hold over a man.
[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]imhungry wrote:
[quote]debraD wrote:
[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
[quote]Oleena wrote:
I think girls nowdays associate the princess as a character who exerts control over men. So, if you enjoy knowing you have men bowing at your feet and obtaining power that way, you’ll invest in that fantasy. If you feel sympathy towards the men, and think “that’s not fair” when imagining using a guy, you’ll probably turn out more like Wonder Woman.[/quote]
Interesting. Where does the power (over men) come from? Are men now a lower status?[/quote]
I don’t agree. I think that’s a delusion. Sexual ‘power’ is not real power. Otherwise prostitutes would rule the world.[/quote]
Helen of Troy? Anne Boleyn?
If sex wasn’t a “power”, then would these events have taken place?
I believe sex is more used as a tool or weapon, as opposed to a genuine “power”, but I think it’s still a power, nonetheless.[/quote]
If you looked at sex as a way to subjugate men, then sex would be a man’s weakness right? But what’s so powerful, in a positive way, about exploiting the weakness of someone? In other words, is the ability of a woman to use sex to exert control over men a virtue? I think not, because it necessarily implies that the greatest strength of a woman lies in her ability to manipulate. It also implies that the woman’s greatest strength lies in her ability to exploit.
What I’m getting at is that it sells women short to think that their strengths arise from something that is less than virtuous. I don’t consider manipulation and exploitation a virtue. The female human being is the most complex, mysterious animal on the planet, in my opinion, and to say that her powers are intrinsically tied to the weaknesses of men does them a disservice. It essentially still leaves women in a position of subordination to men. If sex is the great power that many women treat it as, then where does that power go in the absence of men? It’s gone.
The image of the Princess does no more to advance any positive powers of women than the overtly sexual nature of women who use sex as a tool or as a power. Essentially, the use of sex as a power is only re-affirming what many men ignorantly think of women; that they are dependent upon men, because their “sexual power” is still entirely dependent upon men and our weaknesses. I think women have the same “powers”, for lack of a better term, as men.[/quote]
Can you say the same thing about the White Knight, that he is reliant on a helpless princess in order to have power? It would not be surprised since each rely on the other for meaning. If so then the archetype of male dominant- female submissive is in full play here, modeling gender role behavior for kids and adults alike.
That leaves me wondering what do superheroes teach/model?[/quote]
In college I studied medieval literature - Arthurian legends and all that. The thinking is that the white knight concept was introduced by the Church to keep real life knights on the side of law and order. Basically, these guys were highly-trained killing machines, bigger and stronger than most of their peers, not to mention armed and armored. Well, power corrupts and all that, so it’s not a stretch to imagine that some would routinely grab whatever they wanted, whether that was grabbing a random girl or hunting someone else’s animals, and no one would have the strength to stand up to them. But by teaching them the importance of living by virtuous code of conduct that included duty, honor, and a sense of rushing to aid those who needed help (even people below their social station) and making it an integral part of their early training, the Church could make sure to keep these people from becoming loose cannons.
In some sense, superheroes are just an update of the old white knight ideal. Of course, modern literary sensibilities have played with the squeaky clean White Knight/Superman concept, so we get neurotic, self-doubting heroes like Spider-Man and troubled, serial killer heroes like Dexter.
[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
Can you say the same thing about the White Knight, that he is reliant on a helpless princess in order to have power? It would not be surprised since each rely on the other for meaning. If so then the archetype of male dominant- female submissive is in full play here, modeling gender role behavior for kids and adults alike.
?[/quote]
That’s a great point. I LOVED fairy tales and read as many as I could get my hands on as a kid, especially the old faded volumes of them, so I’m pretty familiar with this idea.
Many no-named knights obtained power and a name for themselves by saving a beautiful, wealthy woman. Most of the time these women were in some way related to nobility. So I’d say you’re spot on. In fact, most quests started with some beautiful, noble woman in peril.
To answer Debra’s issue- only beautiful women of status and virtue are worth saving, according to these stories. An actual whore can die. Also, when I say sexual power, that doesn’t mean the knight actually gets to sleep with the lady. Saving a beautiful lady is all he needs for the status bump. Most of the time he didn’t even get a hug 
It’s kind of like guys going to car shows and getting their picture taken with the lasy in the bikini. Being in her presence is all that’s required.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
But the female whose largest power resides in her use of sexuality MUST have a man to use that power against, because it is the man’s weakness that makes her sexuality a power. Men have sexuality in the same sense that women do, but for whatever reason we don’t typically think of the male sexual power as being a power at all, and certainly not one that holds the same sway over women that a woman’s can hold over a man.[/quote]
Of course, which is why women have for milleniums resorted to sexual power. Being a male to a female is like being a white to a black. People give you the benefit of the doubt on many issues that the woman has to fight for and eventually accept she probably isn’t going to be seen entirely by the other due to their biases. Also, the guy has ownership rights, and she’s basically bought and sold by her father and husband. What else is she left with?
Of course, which is why women have for milleniums resorted to sexual power. Being a male to a female is like being a white to a black. People give you the benefit of the doubt on many issues that the woman has to fight for and eventually accept she probably isn’t going to be seen entirely by the other due to their biases. Also, the guy has ownership rights, and she’s basically bought and sold by her father and husband. What else is she left with?[/quote]
Alimony and child support and half of his shit.
[quote]Oleena wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
But the female whose largest power resides in her use of sexuality MUST have a man to use that power against, because it is the man’s weakness that makes her sexuality a power. Men have sexuality in the same sense that women do, but for whatever reason we don’t typically think of the male sexual power as being a power at all, and certainly not one that holds the same sway over women that a woman’s can hold over a man.[/quote]
Of course, which is why women have for milleniums resorted to sexual power. Being a male to a female is like being a white to a black. People give you the benefit of the doubt on many issues that the woman has to fight for and eventually accept she probably isn’t going to be seen entirely by the other due to their biases. Also, the guy has ownership rights, and she’s basically bought and sold by her father and husband. What else is she left with?[/quote]
But I think it does a disservice to women to resort to the use of such “power” in order to get what they want. I mean in today’s society, not going back to Arthurian times. We see women use their sexuality as a tool to subjugate men perhaps more now than ever before. I don’t think there is anything about men that women don’t also have/share when it comes to intellect and that sort of thing.
So for women to resort to their sexuality as a weapon or a tool to achieve equality in society seems to do two things: it perpetuates the myth that women cannot get what they want with good old-fashioned brainpower that doesn’t rely on the “weakness” of men, and it also advances a negative stereotype about men: namely that men can be controlled simply through sex. We see this second factor at play in beer commercials and sitcoms every day.
In a way, this creates the impression that women want to get even rather than be equal. Sex is a great tool to get what a woman wants if what she wants is power over men, but is that Equality? Is that really what women want? To have some highly-advanced weapon in the Fight Against Men, or do they simply want the fight to end?
I think there’s much more to be said about a woman who is fully aware that she can get what she wants from men through her sexuality, but is even more fully aware that she is indeed smart enough to advance in work, life, society etc without resorting to that. A truly strong woman, in my eyes, doesn’t use the weakness of men against them to advance; she uses her own mind and intelligence to do so. Otherwise, it just creates the impression that without her sexuality, a woman does not have the same to offer that a man does, and I think that is entirely false. Women DO have the same to offer as men do, but they don’t show that when they turn to sexuality as some sort of warped bargaining chip. After all, if they do use sex as a tool to climb over men, aren’t they guilty of the same tactics that men have used to subjugate women for centuries?
DB-That’s what I was getting as in my first response to this thread. Women who feel bad and unfair about exerting their sexual power take the Wonder Woman route.
But also, there’s this phenomenon to being a woman which I’m sure everyone is aware of: your “womanhood” is gauged by how much sexual power you can exert. If you’re ugly or a stone with no sexual appeal, you’re considered “worthless” by both men and women. Everyone on here has contributed to this. Everyone.
I remember the first time I walked into an atmostphere where the ugliest woman in the room had the most power. I was at a “how to start a nonprofit” seminar and an older woman in terrible clothes with her hair going a million directions entered the room. Upon this occurence, everyone quieted and deferred to her. After she finished speaking, they all gathered around her and sought her approval. Who was this woman? A PhD.
In the academic atmostphere, you’re taken less seriously if you spend a ton of time on hair and makeup and god forbid you get a tan. But everywhere else, you’re considered “unfortunate” if you forego the trappings of the accepted image of female beauty.
Actually, the two lesbians I used to train told me they like men, but also like women, and eventually tired of the power dynamic. They felt that their worth with a man was gauged too much by their appearance, how much they turned him on, and also they had to do and say things to make him feel like a man. For instance, if they were always beating him at arguments, making more money than him, whatever, he was seen as less manly. I have to say, even the men who think they don’t care about these things have all had massive other ways that their expectations of womanhood and manhood surface.
[quote]Oleena wrote:
DB-That’s what I was getting as in my first response to this thread. Women who feel bad and unfair about exerting their sexual power take the Wonder Woman route.
But also, there’s this phenomenon to being a woman which I’m sure everyone is aware of: your “womanhood” is gauged by how much sexual power you can exert. If you’re ugly or a stone with no sexual appeal, you’re considered “worthless” by both men and women. Everyone on here has contributed to this. Everyone.
I remember the first time I walked into an atmostphere where the ugliest woman in the room had the most power. I was at a “how to start a nonprofit” seminar and an older woman in terrible clothes with her hair going a million directions entered the room. Upon this occurence, everyone quieted and deferred to her. After she finished speaking, they all gathered around her and sought her approval. Who was this woman? A PhD.
In the academic atmostphere, you’re taken less seriously if you spend a ton of time on hair and makeup and god forbid you get a tan. But everywhere else, you’re considered “unfortunate” if you forego the trappings of the accepted image of female beauty.
Actually, the two lesbians I used to train told me they like men, but also like women, and eventually tired of the power dynamic. They felt that their worth with a man was gauged too much by their appearance, how much they turned him on, and also they had to do and say things to make him feel like a man. For instance, if they were always beating him at arguments, making more money than him, whatever, he was seen as less manly. I have to say, even the men who think they don’t care about these things have all had massive other ways that their expectations of womanhood and manhood surface.[/quote]
Sorry, I didn’t read your first post. I get what you’re saying about “womanhood”, but doesn’t that also apply to “manhood”? I mean, men are sexual creatures too. I certainly am. I think men find it much harder to express this sexuality than women do because so much of overt sexuality is tied into a woman’s sexuality rather than a man’s.
And I’m not so sure how much a woman’s womanhood is tied into her sexuality. I understand your point, and it’s a valid one, but I think that tying womanhood to outward sexual appearances or sexuality is exactly the pitfall I was talking about. It’s a shame that women feel that their sexuality is tied so closely to their womanhood because it automatically conveys the message that a woman who does not display or use her sexuality is somehow less “womanly”. We all are responsible for this. I find women to be amazing creatures; they fascinate me. But part of that fascination is tied directly to sex even when I know that a woman’s sexuality is really only a very small part of her “womanhood”.
But when women use their sexuality as some sort of tool, I think this perpetuates the myth that sexuality and womanhood are tied together so closely more than anything else. If I act like an asshole, this is going to carry more weight with someone than if someone else were to say that I am an asshole. So in a way, I think that women who view their sexuality as something to be used in a feminist-type of manner, who use it as a way to elevate themselves above men, are the ones who are perhaps doing the most damage to the ideal that they themselves are trying to destroy: the weak woman who is subordinate to man.
I’m beginning to wonder what “a woman using her sexuality over men” consists of.
For instance, I was offered a job at a mortgage firm once based soley on my “assets” (the manager’s words) and decided to accept it (he literally walked out of his office as I was walking by dressed in a business suit in a way to my job at a department store and asked if I wanted a job). In that field, it’s all about looks and charisma, even though the job description is exclusively number crunching and networking. Is that using my sexual assets over men?
[quote]Oleena wrote:
I’m beginning to wonder what “a woman using her sexuality over men” consists of.
For instance, I was offered a job at a mortgage firm once based soley on my “assets” (the manager’s words) and decided to accept it (he literally walked out of his office as I was walking by dressed in a business suit in a way to my job at a department store and asked if I wanted a job). In that field, it’s all about looks and charisma, even though the job description is exclusively number crunching and networking. Is that using my sexual assets over men? [/quote]
Oh man, I’m not sure I want to tackle that one, at least not at the risk of coming across as a sexist. Fuck it, here goes.
I think when women threaten to withhold sex, that’s an example. In the workplace, flirting with men, especially men who are above you rank-wise could be another example, provided there is some sort of ulterior motive. There are situations where I have been “sexually harassed” by women. I wouldn’t call it that because I liked the attention, but if the shoe were on the other foot, I would have been accused of sexual harassment. Women know this about men: we won’t ever claim sexual harassment unless it is blatantly overboard, but that street doesn’t go both ways.
Another example is this: in my experience anyways, it seems to be much more acceptable for women to convey the impression of attraction toward men for personal gain, even if there is no attraction at all, then it is for men to do the same to women. This is especially applicable to the workplace. In fact, I think a lot of this happens in the workplace.
Sarah Palin is another example. There are some people who like Palin as a politician simply because she is an attractive woman. This goes for men too, of course, JFK being a perfect example. But the fact that that particular street DOES go both ways doesn’t make it any more magnanimous. It’s just an example of women stooping to men’s levels or vice versa, rather than rising above it. I know some people who didn’t vote for Meg Whitman for Governor because she looks like a militant dyke. If she had played up her “sexuality” a little more, maybe she would have received more votes.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]imhungry wrote:
[quote]debraD wrote:
[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
[quote]Oleena wrote:
I think girls nowdays associate the princess as a character who exerts control over men. So, if you enjoy knowing you have men bowing at your feet and obtaining power that way, you’ll invest in that fantasy. If you feel sympathy towards the men, and think “that’s not fair” when imagining using a guy, you’ll probably turn out more like Wonder Woman.[/quote]
Interesting. Where does the power (over men) come from? Are men now a lower status?[/quote]
I don’t agree. I think that’s a delusion. Sexual ‘power’ is not real power. Otherwise prostitutes would rule the world.[/quote]
Helen of Troy? Anne Boleyn?
If sex wasn’t a “power”, then would these events have taken place?
I believe sex is more used as a tool or weapon, as opposed to a genuine “power”, but I think it’s still a power, nonetheless.[/quote]
If you looked at sex as a way to subjugate men, then sex would be a man’s weakness right? But what’s so powerful, in a positive way, about exploiting the weakness of someone? In other words, is the ability of a woman to use sex to exert control over men a virtue? I think not, because it necessarily implies that the greatest strength of a woman lies in her ability to manipulate. It also implies that the woman’s greatest strength lies in her ability to exploit.
What I’m getting at is that it sells women short to think that their strengths arise from something that is less than virtuous. I don’t consider manipulation and exploitation a virtue. The female human being is the most complex, mysterious animal on the planet, in my opinion, and to say that her powers are intrinsically tied to the weaknesses of men does them a disservice. It essentially still leaves women in a position of subordination to men. If sex is the great power that many women treat it as, then where does that power go in the absence of men? It’s gone.
The image of the Princess does no more to advance any positive powers of women than the overtly sexual nature of women who use sex as a tool or as a power. Essentially, the use of sex as a power is only re-affirming what many men ignorantly think of women; that they are dependent upon men, because their “sexual power” is still entirely dependent upon men and our weaknesses. I think women have the same “powers”, for lack of a better term, as men.[/quote]
Diamond in the rough.
[quote]debraD wrote:
Sometimes I wonder if it’s fair to be hard on princesses …
[/quote]
Ba HA!!
DB - So if women using their sexuality (i.e. body) as power is wrong, is guys using greater strength (i.e. body) as power equally wrong?
Although the goal is equality there has historically been a power difference in western culture. And while some institutions have gone to great effort to maintain it that does not explain how it originated. All power is relational. Which gender has more power over the other in whatever situation is culturally defined and negotiated. So to ask my question from above in a different way, why have guys gotten and maintained the dominant role? Perhaps too big of a question, but I would think it has to do with force.
[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
DB - So if women using their sexuality (i.e. body) as power is wrong, is guys using greater strength (i.e. body) as power equally wrong?
Although the goal is equality there has historically been a power difference in western culture. And while some institutions have gone to great effort to maintain it that does not explain how it originated. All power is relational. Which gender has more power over the other in whatever situation is culturally defined and negotiated. So to ask my question from above in a different way, why have guys gotten and maintained the dominant role? Perhaps too big of a question, but I would think it has to do with force.[/quote]
If men use their power to elevate themselves above women, then yes, it is wrong. It is wrong to use any power for ill will. The problem I have with women using their sexuality for gains is that isn’t necessarily wrong (it can be, but not all the time), but that it sells women short. Women don’t have to resort to manipulation to succeed in life. Virtues like honesty and intellect can work just as well in certain situations.
Men occupy the proverbial higher position because we have used our powers to keep women down, which is wrong. It promotes a culture of inequality. Women aren’t inferior to men as a whole. But if women use their “powers” to get even or whatever through manipulative means, that just sinks them down to the level of the men who would use their own powers for less-than good means.
Think about it: if women use sex as a tool to get even, they use it against the weaknesses of men. But men and women are created equally in general, so to use sex as a tool against men only prolongs a fight against two equally-matched foes. Is that what women want? Is that what they use their sexuality for? To use it against someone instead for themselves? If there is to be a winner and a loser in this proverbial battle of the sexes, then that must assume then that one side is not equal to the other.
I don’t get it. Are you guys saying that women who hold out on the sex are exerting power over a man? Isn’t that just an excuse for being a frigid cow? And what guy worth banging is going to hold out for some bitch who doesn’t even want to have sex with him? I mean, that would be one unsatisfactory relationship for all involved.