Dominant Sex

 

I was chatting about relationships when someone asked me what I find attractive. I couldn’t think of a specific thing, but a number of things to avoid, one of which is more an approach to relationships than a physical trait.

              Some people enjoy getting or giving control: spanking, bondage, handcuffs, or maybe some role-play. Partly, no doubt, this is about the fantasy of having to do nothing while pleasure just comes your way and someone else does the work. But there’s a still a weird link between sex and dominance that can’t be ignored.

              It’s there in pornography, as we read about in the news or see directly for ourselves. Men degrading women, commanding them or using them, tainting the way people interact in real-life relationships. Pornography might normalise such behaviour, but I don’t think it creates the desire.

              Many people feel a need to link sex to dominance in some way: to establish and enjoy influence over someone else. Some people think that flirting is challenging the other person; that insults and mockery build relationships. I think I understand why; it’s about excitement, dominance and rising to a challenge. If someone else behaves like a doormat, accepting or agreeing with everything, there isn’t much character there and it’s hard to be interested. You hear nothing new from your echo. Insults are a way to demonstrate independence and, through wit, intelligence.

              Sadly, however, not enough intelligence for me. I remember a young lady I met as a postgraduate who expressed an interest in polyamory, an interest I was happy to talk about, as I do not regard sex as a holy occasion of immense import for any relationship. This led her to start the insult challenge; I don’t remember what she said, but I can make up an equivalent:

‘is that because you’re so unlovable you’ve got too much spare?’

              I was younger and less wise, but already I recognised the challenge. I still wasn’t interested in accepting, so I didn’t rise to the challenge. One could reply ‘Maybe you think I’m unlovable because your heart is so withered it has none to give’, and that would have risen to the challenge. One could reply ‘Weren’t we talking about sex, not love?’, trying to keep the conversation alive without responding to the insult at all. Or one could reply ‘It’s not lovable to insult someone in the middle of a friendly conversation’, responding to the rudeness directly.

              Whatever I said, it wasn’t that first option, and she was unimpressed. Maybe we went through this cycle a couple of times, but very quickly she said ‘you just mouthing off. You don’t understand at all’. This was possibly a last attempt to challenge me, but I was disgusted with the whole conversation, so I just raised my eyebrows and walked off with a sigh.

             

              For many people, this is how relationships work: it’s a game of establishing dominance. People will keep sex or love from their partners, withholding them until they get what they want, be it housework, agreement or some other favour. It reminds me of the bullying I grew up with: if you display any desire, it’s a weakness to be exploited.

              Coming back to the chat I started with, my friend told me about a group of women who share tips about how to manipulate their partners, and how she finds it shocking. I don’t: I’ve seen enough of such behaviour to know how it’s more common than not in relationships. Many people know no other way of interacting; it’s what they grew up with, saw at school and experience from potential partners themselves. It’s a subculture that you can observe in many ‘reality’ television shows that involve dating and relationships.

             

              I understand how such a relationship dynamic can emerge. Let’s say that the man is feeling horny and starts groping his wife. She’s really not interested right now and rejects his advances; there are other things on her mind that she thinks are important. Maybe some housework is weighing her down, so she has two things to communicate: she doesn’t want sex, but she does think some chores should be done. It’s not hard for those two things to intertwine; do what I want and I’ll do what you want.

              And, phrased the right way, with thought and consent from both sides, it might be reasonable. Both of them, hopefully, have a similar enough desire to keep the home in order, and both of them, hopefully, do find the other attractive, so agreeing which thing to act on right now doesn’t have to be manipulation. It becomes a dynamic of dominance when it’s an ultimatum or a lottery said with distaste or derision: do things for me and I might be good enough to tolerate doing this one thing for you.

             

That’s not attractive to me. I’m not so stupid I can’t spot such obvious manipulation, nor so meek that I’ll put up with it. And it would be deeply unarousing to know that any eventual sexual activity is mere payment for other services rendered, rather than something my partner is enjoying.

What’s most attractive is not big breasts, muscular legs, a slim belly or even a pretty face. It’s a woman having genuine desire for me.

 

There are women who think that women should manipulate others like this. There is a book, called Honey Money, by Catherine Hakim, that says precisely this to all its readers. Men and women experience sexual desire differently, and Ms Hakim, an ardent feminist, builds her thesis from this.

For men, as I can well attest, desire is like a hunger. If I have not been sated recently, it will start to distract me from my life; I will spontaneously desire sexual satisfaction. But if I see an attractive woman, that desire is multiplied massively, just like seeing or smelling good food will make a starving person’s stomach rumble.

That’s how the husband was feeling in the earlier example. He was feeling horny anyway, and saw his wife, and because he is attracted to her, she made him even more lustful. And because they are in a relationship he felt able to show his desire and appreciation of her.

Women, on the other hand, rarely feel so spontaneously horny. Their arousal comes not entirely from within, but much more from the environment. It’s something that builds gradually; hence the whole concept of foreplay, which for many men is entirely unnecessary. Part of a woman’s environment is the amount of stress she’s under: having a litany of chores hanging over her will dampen her mood, whereas for a man his lust, like the need for food and water, comes first, and will help reduce his stress.

Some women recognise this, and will endure the beginning of sexual activity, knowing that with a little bit of time they will begin to enjoy it. This probably depends heavily on the woman, the partner and the trust in the relationship.

 

Mostly, however, men have a greater need for sex than women do, and the economic laws of supply and demand say that scarcity adds value. Ms Hakim proudly advocates what other women do either quietly or subconsciously: selling sex for favours. Prostitution, but preferably only within a relationship. My friend’s group of female friends, and my postgraduate acquaintance, all agree: the point of sex is to extract something else in exchange, and to be the one who dictates the terms of the exchange.

For vast numbers of people, dominance is a major factor in sex. It’s pleasurable to have dominated someone. For men, this can be either physically or economically, and occasionally emotionally. For women, it’s much more that last one, unless you regard ‘sex-for-favours’ as economic, rather than emotional, dominance.

             

              For millenia, men have been the dominant sex because of their physical strength. Ms Hakim thinks that now strength is irrelevant in modern society, it should be women because they are the guardians of scarce supply. This is one reason why many women are especially outraged at other women’s promiscuity: slut-shaming by women is a way of preserving their own ability to manipulate men. Not the only reason, though, as large numbers of people link notions of purity to morality, with religious men and women alike regarding women who have had sex as ‘fallen’ and impure, and therefore less morally valuable.

              However, whether it is strength or scarcity, we should ask not only whether one sex can dominate the other, but whether this is right. Sexual interactions cannot escape moral judgements; some moral judgements, such as calling a woman who enjoys sex immoral, are unjustifiable relics of a bygone bigoted era. But we can still look at sexual interactions through a moral lens.

              Is it right for someone to use strength to take what they want? Not any more. But what about Ms Hakim’s thesis? We have people talk about wage-slavery: the way that the poor are tied into tiring, unrewarding work through the need to afford basic necessities. We talk about worker exploitation and price gouging and we are currently seeing endless news stories worrying about the cost of living, alongside protests demanding government action about the price of energy and fuel.

              Clearly the economics of supply and demand have their limits for most people: it’s not always right to take as much as you can from a captive market. Some behaviours are exploitative and immoral, even if they are legal for now. I think that establishing dominance in sex is exactly the same. It might be legal. It might even, sometimes, be truly consensual and good. But overwhelmingly it’s an ugly demonstration of a twisted soul inside.

              And black, twisted souls are not attractive.

Relationships must be mature to age well

 

What I learned in my first relationship

              It was a very long time ago now, but her crimes remain unforgivable. I’m not someone who needs to forgive to move on: I’ve carried on living my life as happily as I can, but I still loathe the twisted being that was the first I ever slept with.

              I wish I had been more experienced and more mature before I met someone like that. Many people spend their whole lives in relationships a bit like my first, and so, for the sake of them, and for youngsters who haven’t had the chance to learn, here’s my wisdom, and in exchange, you’ll have to endure some of my personal stories, a sort of therapy for me.

              I was an awkward young man. I’d been consistently mocked and rejected by people at school; I knew I was unattractive and unlikeable, and although I could dream of being rich enough for plastic surgery, I had no idea why I was unlikeable: I was polite, thoughtful and perfectly able to converse about a wide range of subjects. Anyway, the point is that I was stunned when a pretty young woman started spending time with me. At first it was obvious; she stopped by to spend some time with me until the party across the hall began. That young gentleman very nicely invited me to those parties, just like Kristine, but I knew no-one really wanted to spend time with me, so if I went it'd be for one drink before leaving to let them have fun without me in the way.

              Soon afterwards, though, she suggested we date, and I was thrilled. It’s important to be clear that I was as desperate as a man could be; I know many men think that they’re awful prospects and women don’t like them, and I know your pain. I was there.

              Kristine confessed later that she had chosen me deliberately because of that trait. She had read a stupid article in the student paper suggesting that women give ‘nerds’ a bit more consideration rather than always chasing the cool boys. I never saw the full article, but she quoted a bit that said that they’d be so grateful that a woman could expect to be showered with gifts and attention.

              This was what she really wanted. All humans, I think, understand the appeal of adulation. There’s something inherently pleasing about the idea of other people adoring us, and making them happy without even having to do anything. This is one aspect of love; that our existence and presence make someone else happy. But some of us are content with that intrinsically rewarding state, and others see it as a route to power.

              Kristine wanted to be pampered. She told me the story of a naïve boy at school who had accompanied her on a 2-hr train ride many nights of the week to see her home after school, even though he lived near the school and had a 2-hr ride back again that evening. She thought that tiny benefits to her, such as having company that she didn’t even care for that much, were worth more than large problems for other people, such as late-night lonely train rides.

              The most charitable way I can phrase it is that she regarded relationships as transactional, with her presence in the relationship worth more than just about anything someone else could ever do.

              This is not a good basis for relationships.

              Anyone who expects you to abase yourself does not deserve it (outside of particularly kinky sexual interactions). This includes deities. You are a sentient being with rights, duties and the need for your own life and happiness. You are not a slave to be bought; nor are you morally inferior. Human dignity isn’t ‘some humans’ dignity’; it’s universal. Relationships will not be equal in the sense that people will be of precisely the same intelligence or ability in everything. But morally, relationships are of two equals.

               Kristine made many demands. One of the tamer ones was to collect her from her room for dinner. I lived in college, almost opposite the dining hall. Her room was in college accommodation 5-10 minutes’ walk from college. It made no sense for me to go to her; I was flabbergasted at the idea. As I’ve grown older, I’ve seen that such behaviour exists, and even seen it depicted in film and television. I flat-out refused, leading to many weepy fits as she struggled to coerce me to go past my limits.

              Some people do not see the abuse yet; they wonder if I was being harsh or too unyielding. After all, all interactions with other people involve compromise. I think that the key thing to bear in mind is that compromise must go all ways, as must ‘you’d do this for me if you loved me’. If there is disagreement, in a loving relationship one person’s love for the other shouldn’t count in favour of one option. Because that other’s love for the first person must necessarily count in favour of the other option.

              The line ‘you’d do it if you loved me’ is therefore implicitly suggesting that the speaker does not love the other person as much. If you’re in a relationship with someone who doesn’t love you and is manipulative enough to try to take advantage of your feelings for them, you need to leave that toxic mess behind.

              Compromise in the face of unreasonable demands is not a good thing, nor a sign of a healthy approach to disagreement. Kristine loved to make outrageous demands in the expectation of compromising on a solution that she had wanted all along. The very presence of an outrageous demand is a sign of a bad relationship. A mature and loving partner is open and honest with you, and you should be in return. You can only compromise from positions of honesty. Any deceit is trying to take advantage of the other: it is selfish and manipulative, and not something you should accept in your life.

              If there is no deceit, then an outrageous demand shows that the person has no concept of reasonableness, or has expectations so different from yours that the relationship probably isn’t worth it.

              And that takes us full circle back to desperation. Many people regard a relationship, and even marriage, as a major life goal, but are also well aware of their own shortcomings and therefore feel tempted to hang on to partners out of fear that this is their best option.

              Toxic relationships do not make you happy, no matter how much you want a relationship. Your human dignity is more important than any marriage. On top of this, having some principles and knowing your worth as a human being is an attractive trait. It shows a level of maturity and independence that marks you out as a fully-developed adult.

              The next lesson is weepy fits: long, arduous crying sessions lasting for many hours. One of Kristine’s longer ones was a solid 8 hours from 10pm to 6am on the night before my university final exam. If you have to weep in front of the person you are trying to persuade to love you, it shows this is never going to be a loving relationship. Love means trying to protect your partner from unpleasantness, and as you share and trust each other more, sharing your troubles in a spirit of co-operation. A weepy fit is all selfishness: it demands attention whilst showing no concern for the other person. In some circumstances, such as the death of a parent, this is entirely understandable and appropriate. Where you can support each other in dealing with external factors, and one person is more affected than any other, you would expect one-way support.

              But where the problem is the relationship, or the other person, demanding that person’s attention and support is crazy. Weepy fits for such a purpose are emotional blackmail, pitting a person’s desire to help the suffering against their dignity and independence. I can support my friends and partners in dealing with whatever life throws at them, but there’s a distinct weirdness in expecting me to support them when they’re upset with me. That’s what other friends are for.

              If relationship issues with you makes someone get upset or angry directly at a partner, the relationship is in trouble. Conflict should be resolved between loving people gently, warmly and through reasonable compromise. Sadness and anger are not productive and people using them against those whom they blame are already behaving in a toxic way, whether justified by other toxic behaviour or not. Shouting or crying at someone is selfish self-expression, not love. Shouting or crying about someone… this might be necessary therapy, supported by others. I can guarantee that I have had numerous rants about our incompetent government that has stolen millions, wasted billions and killed tens of thousands, and knowing that someone shares my unbridled hatred is comforting.

              Directing emotions at someone is a way to browbeat them; directing considered thoughts and rational reasoning recognises their freedom and independence, and shows respect. Emotional displays show a childish or even animalistic lack of self control that needs to be fixed before a person dares to be a worthwhile partner for another human. Mature conflict resolution shows that a person has thought about it, and cares enough to put the time in to come up with clear ideas and descriptions of any problems.

              Our third lesson is in breaking compromises. This is just like breaking any agreement. Someone who drags you over to a compromise position, carefully balanced with all your other concerns and history, and then re-opens that compromise treating it as your starting point and returning to their original starting point, they are trying to manipulate you. Re-opening old arguments does two things: it hopes that you, like them, were previously only arguing for the fun of it, and therefore do not really care or remember what you originally said; or it hopes that you are too stupid or exhausted to remember, and that you will have become accustomed to the compromise and can be coerced further.

              Many people do forget their reasons and all the concerns that come up in a discussion. They remember conclusions because when something is settled it seems like a pointless waste of brainspace to remember all the things that got you there. Re-opening settled issues tries to abuse others’ humanity. It forces you to memories endless arguments in case they come back again. If you love someone, you will be pleased that you have become accustomed to the compromise and offer more: demanding more from them is not love; it is greed. This is the behaviour of a vampire sucking the life from prey, not a partner hoping to build you up to greater heights.

              There are many ways to compromise without promising it will be eternal: you might say “let’s try it a few times”, or “This once, sure”, or “let’s see how it goes”, or “I don’t think I’ll ever be comfortable doing that”. If you agree to something with a person you claim to cherish above all others and you resent the burden, or you can’t be bothered to keep your word, you do not cherish them that much. Occasional failures is human: everyone forgets or fails. Deliberately renegotiating the onerous parts of carefully-chosen compromises? This is not acceptable.

              If I agree to watch a ‘romantic comedy’ (in truth most such films are neither) and have you watch an action film, but you demand we watch the action film second so that you can refuse to watch and start a new agreement to watch one each, you are a liar: untrustworthy, dishonest and unlovable. It doesn’t matter if your genuine intention was to watch but after the comedy you didn’t feel like it. If you don’t have enough self-control or dedication to your partner or your own word to consistently do what you have agreed, you are not worth another human being’s time.

              In this example, Kristine attempted to steal 2 hours of my life; offering me an exchange which she never intended to fulfil. I was to watch her film out of love for her, and she would not watch mine… showing how much, despite her endless protestations, she really loved me.

              Subsequent partners have had varying approaches to action films. Some have agreed and simply reported how bored they were. Some have agreed to watch, tried and fallen asleep (!). Others have mostly refused, knowing that the compromise is not worth it. These are all honest and reasonable ways of interacting with a partner. Deceit is not.

              We just discussed breaking agreements, which leads us nicely onto the fourth lesson, which is lying. Lying is a difficult issue, because honesty depends on trust. I have to trust that someone will be reasonable when they hear the truth. In the most famous example, if a girlfriend asks whether she looks big in a dress, the reason a partner might lie is because of the pain and anger the truth will trigger.

              A mature person values the truth in all circumstances, whether political, philosophical or in relationships, but this is extremely rare. Ideally you would only ask if you looked big if you could deal with the answer, perhaps through sadly but reluctantly choosing a different outfit, even if it is otherwise not as nice.

              But some deceit in general tears relationships apart. Healthy relationships are about sharing, support and honesty. You have to know each other properly. At first you might not want to confess that you hate your chest, or that you support an incompetent government, or that you deliberately engineered your ‘chance’ first meeting. Eventually, though, two people will need to know each other properly.

              Lies about where you went, what you like, what you want and how you feel all build up. If you do win someone’s heart by being someone else, what good is that love? You will need to pretend forever, keeping track of an ever-growing web of lies. And if someone is lying to you, you probably didn’t love the real them. What else have they lied about?

              Kristine was surprisingly jealous, given that she thought I was a loser who would be immensely grateful for her presence. Her endless insults meant nothing to me; I knew that socially I was a loser, but that didn’t mean I had no standards.

              Apparently she had consulted a far better friend of mine for help in seducing me. I can’t remember how I was told she had broached the subject, but my friend had told her she was planning on asking me out, so Kristine had sneakily got herself a deadline to beat. So when this friend invited me to a performance of hers, Kristine insisted on coming too. She hated me talking to other women, and on those rare occasions I was she would bustle over to interfere.

              I don’t understand jealousy. It’s not a good thing to cut short potential new friendships or even pleasant conversations. If you trust someone’s love, you know they’ll come back to you anyway, having merely confirmed that they prefer you. Smothering someone, isolating them and controlling their social life is not a demonstration of love, despite millions of abusers claiming it is. Helping someone to flourish: sending them out into the world to grow, thrive and enjoy themselves is love. Abusers will roll out the line that it shows they care; their fear and need is a demonstration of love.

              This takes us back to emotional displays: negative emotions show a lack of maturity and a lack of care. They are ways to browbeat good-hearted people into sacrificing themselves for you. This is why abuse happens most to good people: they are the ones with sensitive hearts most susceptible to abusive pressures.

              The more good your loved-one, the more susceptible they will be to emotional displays, and the more care you should take to avoid coercing or manipulating them, even by accident. Preying on a partner’s weakness is not love, however harmless it might feel, or how gratifying the results might be.

              Good people must therefore steel themselves to beware of crying, fearfulness, neediness, anger, sadness, dismay etc. It will feel wrong to distance oneself from a person who seems to be suffering, but that suffering will not end if you subject yourself to it too. It will be multiplied.

              Kristine wanted me to be jealous in return. She talked about how attractive other men were, flirted with them and then told me about it. I wished she’d get on with it and pick on one of them instead. She wanted to have that power over me: to force my behaviour, to make me fight. It wasn’t about her love or building mine to match it. It was about control. Deep inside she knew she was despicable, and so she needed to control me to keep me hers. Jealousy is about personal insecurity, not human flourishing. If you love someone, you will grow them just so that they can be better.

              The fifth lesson is insults. Kristine made it her life’s mission to ridicule me; to pour scorn on my hopes of doing well academically, laugh at my dreams of doing something great in life (which is fair enough, but not for her reasons), to emphasise how ugly and unattractive I was. My friends were losers, other men were superior rivals.

              On most of these counts she had no persuasive power. I knew I was an unattractive loser who, on the back of no educational support from the university was unlikely to do superbly. I knew perfectly well what I thought the truth was, and that her insults were stupid, clumsy attempts to manipulate me. Many people do not, but it made even me feel bad.

              If your partner makes you feel bad, they are not a partner. They are an enemy. Insults to remove everything in your life except them do not make them the support you need. It doesn’t matter how true you think all their insults are. If someone is shooting at you while you swim in the ocean, do not get onto their boat. You might feel as though you are close to drowning, but it might be that they lied. The sand closer than you think and you can stand on your own two feet.

              Even if you are the worst person in the world, a partner should be thinking up ways to make you better, proposing training, activities and help. Insults serve only to keep you in your place, below them.

              Whether it’s mocking your grey hair, prodding your flab, imitating your voice or carping about your clothes, a little ‘playful teasing’ goes a very long way. If you do this, you do not love someone: you love the idea of having someone and you are trying to make them sad enough to cling to you. If you experience this, and a couple of honest conversations doesn’t end it, your partner does not properly love you and you will never fully love your partner.

 

              There are a lot of relationships out there built on neediness and the love of having a relationship. Two people who want another half, but are less anxious about exactly who it is or what happens to them. This is not love.

              Americans seem to be regularly taught about different types of love, which I find hilarious, as the Greek word ‘agape’, for true love, is also an English word with a rather different meaning. Although I will always love a woman who feels truly agape for me.

              The love you should look for is one that seeks to build you up, grow you and support you. Lies, deceit, jealousy, mockery, displays of negative emotion, emotional blackmail and broken promises do not do this. People who offer these things, no matter how much you love them, or how much you care about helping people, will only ruin your life. They will learn best without you as a crutch supporting and reinforcing their behaviour. You can recover from loving the wrong person. You can’t yet recover a lost 20 years of a doomed relationship.