Brokenwing, there is what you said about the media, my speculation is that the mainstream media would rather go on about other countries and their 'foreign ways' rather than criticise their own, good example in the UK is the big catholic priest abuse scandal, hidden for years in the media while they were always going on against Islamic marriage practices, for example.

[Algore]

In my opinion, JDWOLF is correct in saying there is a distinction between sexual and social submission.

PERHAPS, some women may be more submissive in the bedroom because of our 20K history of hunter and homemaker. There is security in being protected, feeling safe and provided for, even if a woman can provide for herself financially. I've heard guys say that even though they can cook well, there is nothing like a home cooked meal from a woman who loves them (Emeril Lagasse for example). Stereotypes rooted in some real life experiences.

I don't ever see women of western society going back to a biblical style marriage or relationships with men, which includes fathers, brothers, and uncles having the right to tell a woman what to do. But if the romance genre industry provides any indication, it seem women prefer to be dominated, even if they go down fighting! haha  BTW, romance book sales account for 50% of all genres sold. That's sayin' something!

 Great post KC. I've said basically the same thing before: we have biological urges accumulated over thousands/millions of years of evolution. Those won't be overruled by a few decades of social change. I'm not suggesting that women should have fewer rights than men or that they should be slaves to their husbands - but I believe most women like their man to be an "alpha male" who exhibits masculine behaviour - just as men are attracted to wholesome, feminine women who exhibit nurturing qualities.


Case in point:





^^^ When I look at her I want to preg her - multiple times. She is undeniably pretty - but somehow I think of "child-bearer" more than I think of "sex kitten".


 

[PenitentGirl]

I don't see a lot of difference between sexual and social submission, because I see sex as a important social activity.

Consent is in the end the difference.

Did they choose to be in control of another? Did they get to choose the scope of what aspects of themselves they were giving control to another? Can they revoke that permission later?

The sexist part is associating submissivity, sexual or social, exclusively as a feminine attribute.

I think it is a fallacy that sometimes even feminists have fallen prey to, when reacting with instinctual disgust to a submissive girl rather than with 'some day there will be more submissive boys!' It is a invalidation of choice just the same as trying to keep your daughter in a hajib, although to a much lesser degree.