# Are men possessive of women?



## Kathykook (Aug 16, 2011)

I probably sound dumb for asking this....but I honestly never really thought about it deeply until recently. I noticed that porn tries very hard to make each girl seem perfect and """""HIS""""".
As a girl watching porn, Ive always found it quite hilarious, and never took it seriously.....but now I'm starting to realize that that possessive, doll like qualities turn a man on because he wants to feel like he "owns" the woman.


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

I think men and women can both feel jealousy or possessiveness. I don't think ownership is a word to be described the feelings men have because the feelings are relative to women as well. I don't want to "own" anyone. Aesthetics can make women appear more attractive depending on the person, like how they do men for women. Men are very visual though, which is probably why porn is big business to men. At the same time, however, I also think women aren't given enough credit for being as visual as they are as well, but it's hard to say.

Describe "own". I'm a little confused on that terminology. Give me an example.


----------



## VaeVictis (Jan 18, 2012)

I find nothing wrong with wanting to belong to someone myselft, even if they get a little jealous or possessive. It's when your with someone and they become intentionally abusive because of it is when it causes problems.


----------



## 345 (Apr 6, 2012)

The word own sounds a little distubing.


----------



## gomenne (Oct 3, 2009)

It is not true, men are not possessive by nature. They dont feel attached to anything/anyone to feel that they cant let go of it. At least in real life they dont. I hope I made sense.


----------



## jsgt (Jun 26, 2011)

Yes, we are. There's nothing wrong with wanting someone to be yours and only yours. In this still primitive age, we have to defend whats ours against threats(other people)...whether it be our house or our woman...so being posessive is just an act of protecting your belongings. 

I know my explaination sounds bad, but I don't in any way mean to imply that women are objects.


----------



## rymo (Sep 6, 2009)

Some men are, especially old-fashioned or insecure ones.


----------



## Daft (Jan 5, 2012)

I think most men are _protective_, but only select guys are possessive.

I think I scare the possessive ones off, thankfully... I had one guy lose it when he found out most of my friends are guys or gay women. My current boy, however, is why I have half a dozen new friends from his stream (much better!). "What's mine is yours," not "You're all mine."


----------



## AllToAll (Jul 6, 2011)

Some porn brings out internalized sexism/racism for both men and women. I've always found it to be a complex and touchy subject because, no, you can't change what you're sexually attracted to, but on the other hand, whatever you're into has been influenced by society, so it's tricky to find a position to debate.

I do think the type of porn that features a controlling man and a submissive woman speak volumes about the patriarchal society we live in and, furthermore, the gender roles of both men and women. To an extent, I find it unhealthy. When the "porn world" makes its way into "the real world" that can become problematic.



bwidger85 said:


> Describe "own". I'm a little confused on that terminology. Give me an example.


I own you. You're mine. You're my property.



rymo said:


> Some men are, especially old-fashioned or insecure ones.


Well, hello, I can't believe I agree with you on something.



jsgt said:


> Yes, we are. *There's nothing wrong with wanting someone to be yours and only yours.* In this still primitive age, we have to defend whats ours against threats(other people)...whether it be our house or our woman...so being posessive is just an act of protecting your belongings.
> 
> I know my explaination sounds bad, but I don't in any way mean to imply that women are objects.


Actually, there is. Particularly when humans are naturally polygamous (and no, I don't think monogamy is impossible). When a person is possessive over another, that person becomes property. You become a subordinate, which can ultimately result in domestic violence. The power differential can result in a very unhealthy relationship.

Of course I'm not saying there's anything odd about wanting/expecting someone to be faithful in a monogamous relationship, but being possessive over someone is in fact unhealthy.


----------



## squidd (Feb 10, 2012)

Some are some aren't, same goes for women too. I think it all comes down to emotional maturity, trust and security. I've seen grown-arse adults (of both sexes) lose their **** as soon as their partner was out of their sight and they couldn't control them.
That being said I don't think most porn is an acurate portrayal of sexuality, more an exagerated and abstracted representation of sexuality, though I doubt most people see it as that.
There I made it through that without the term "patriarchical hegemony"



jsgt said:


> Yes, we are. There's nothing wrong with wanting someone to be yours and only yours. In this still primitive age, we have to defend whats ours against threats(other people)...whether it be our house or our woman...so being posessive is just an act of protecting your belongings.
> 
> I know my explaination sounds bad, but I don't in any way mean to imply that women are objects.


Yes there is something wrong you refered to women as belongings, that's some pretty heavy handed objectification right there


----------



## rymo (Sep 6, 2009)

AllToAll said:


> Well, hello, I can't believe I agree with you on something.


No idea what we disagreed on, but glad to hear it.


----------



## AllToAll (Jul 6, 2011)

rymo said:


> No idea what we disagreed on, but glad to hear it.


We is a lot of people. We've never had a "direct disagreement." I never address it because I predict it'd be a circular argument.


----------



## rymo (Sep 6, 2009)

AllToAll:1059821525 said:


> rymo said:
> 
> 
> > No idea what we disagreed on, but glad to hear it.
> ...


Mmkay then ..thanks for letting me know you disagree with me on some undisclosed subject.


----------



## mzmz (Feb 26, 2012)

*this thread is a bit hot*

Is it warm in here?

http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzPFMfPPzs0&list=PL5859D2EFFED3E18F&index=5&feature=plpp_video


----------



## AllToAll (Jul 6, 2011)

rymo said:


> Mmkay then ..thanks for letting me know you disagree with me on some undisclosed subject.


Oh no, it's not some undisclosed subject. It's pretty much everything except what I quoted. And you're welcome.


----------



## rymo (Sep 6, 2009)

AllToAll said:


> Oh no, it's not some undisclosed subject. It's pretty much everything except what I quoted. And you're welcome.


Mmm..feisty. I like that.


----------



## DrMarianus (Dec 21, 2011)

No man should treat his woman like an object. But I vehemently oppose "alternative" or "open" relationships in which partners are "shared" with others. They're not relationships at all. That's simply sick and disgusting. There is nothing more glorious than a relationship in which a man and woman are exclusively reserved for each other. And quite frankly, any man who attempts to steal my love away from me, deserves to be castrated and impaled.


----------



## babylemonade (Nov 24, 2011)

Yes, I'd say in general men are 110% possessive of their women. I've seen it with my friends and their gfs. I've even had friends accuse me of flirting with their girl when I've been doing nothing of the sort. It can get a little out of hand if you ask me.


----------



## Kathykook (Aug 16, 2011)

DrMarianus said:


> No man should treat his woman like an object. But I vehemently oppose "alternative" or "open" relationships in which partners are "shared" with others. They're not relationships at all. That's simply sick and disgusting. There is nothing more glorious than a relationship in which a man and woman are exclusively reserved for each other. And quite frankly, any man who attempts to steal my love away from me, deserves to be castrated and impaled.


DAMN

....I know two people in an "open relationship." .....they got issues. Like, SERIOUS ****ing issues.
I don't understand why people try to have these types of relationships...
So I guess some level of possession is healthy


----------



## DrMarianus (Dec 21, 2011)

Kathykook said:


> DAMN
> 
> ....I know two people in an "open relationship." let's just say.....they got issues.


I can't believe it has actually become distasteful to believe in monogamy, loyalty, modesty and values. Sorry, but that's just how I "roll". When I have children, I don't want to tell them: "Well, that's just too bad, son. I can't tell you who your father is since your mother and I found it much more important to 'explore all our fantasies and preferences' and share them with as much people as possible."

What a lot.


----------



## rymo (Sep 6, 2009)

Kathykook said:


> DAMN
> 
> ....I know two people in an "open relationship." .....they got issues. Like, SERIOUS ****ing issues.
> I don't understand why people try to have these types of relationships...
> So I guess some level of possession is healthy


I know a couple in an open relationship who are solid as a rock. They have been together for 8+ years and have an insanely strong bond and foundation. I'm not into the open relationship thing, but I'm not going to judge. It works for them.


----------



## jsgt (Jun 26, 2011)

AllToAll said:


> Actually, there is. Particularly when humans are naturally polygamous (and no, I don't think monogamy is impossible). When a person is possessive over another, that person becomes property. You become a subordinate, which can ultimately result in domestic violence. The power differential can result in a very unhealthy relationship.
> 
> Of course I'm not saying there's anything odd about wanting/expecting someone to be faithful in a monogamous relationship, but being possessive over someone is in fact unhealthy.


I was guessing that Kathy meant are men possessive while in a relationship, but now I guess everyone has viewed it differently than I have. In a relationship, being possessive shows that you care, IMO. I think there are different degrees to possessiveness, but it's a slippery slope. Going too far can lead to an unhealthy and controlling relationship of course, but a little concern is good because it shows your partner that you care.

Also, you all are funny because I've read on here and elsewhere, time and time again that women like to feel this kind of safety and security from a man..."that I'm his and he is mine". Refute that!



squidd said:


> Yes there is something wrong you refered to women as belongings, that's some pretty heavy handed objectification right there


Psst! Did you read the last part of my post? I said that I wasnt implying that women were objects. It was simpily the best way I could figure to word it to get my point across. Looks like most here missed it :lol but that's ok.


----------



## kiwikiwi (Jul 27, 2009)

A complicated question, not in my city tough, it's actually the other way around they don't want to get too attached or just plain ignore everyone until a girl comes to them and if you leave them, they don't come running after you, it's like they discarded an old object, they do not value what they got. These are college guys in Miami anyways, I can't speak for the rest of the world but in here it is like a hybrid social experiment where the men don't look like men and the girls do all the job...


----------



## NatureFellow (Jun 14, 2011)

Yep I feel like that sometimes. I wouldn't call it possesive but it's a defensive feeling like you want to protect the girl and look after her needs sort of thing. I wouldn't really relate those feelings to p0rn though.


----------



## AllToAll (Jul 6, 2011)

rymo said:


> Mmm..feisty. I like that.


Well lucky you there's more where that came from.



jsgt said:


> I was guessing that Kathy meant are men possessive while in a relationship, but now I guess everyone has viewed it differently than I have. In a relationship, being possessive shows that you care, IMO. I think there are different degrees to possessiveness, but it's a slippery slope. Going too far can lead to an unhealthy and controlling relationship of course, but a little concern is good because it shows your partner that you care.
> 
> Also, you all are funny because I've read on here and elsewhere, time and time again that women like to feel this kind of safety and security from a man..."that I'm his and he is mine". Refute that!
> 
> Psst! Did you read the last part of my post? I said that I wasnt implying that women were objects. It was simpily the best way I could figure to word it to get my point across. Looks like most here missed it :lol but that's ok.


There are different degrees to being possessive, but they're all ultimately sexist. Some "degrees" are just less harmful than others. If you feel possessive over someone it's because you feel a sense of ownership over them.

I've never said that, and I believe any woman who says it must be extremely insecure, so I don't have to refute that.

Psst, you might not have implied it, but that's what you said.



jsgt said:


> Yes, we are. There's nothing wrong with wanting someone to be yours and only yours. In this still primitive age, *we have to defend whats ours against threats(other people)...whether it be our house or our woman...so being posessive is just an act of protecting your belongings. *
> 
> I know my explaination sounds bad, but I don't in any way mean to imply that women are objects.


You even realize you're objectifying your partner, otherwise why would you feel the need to excuse yourself at the end?


----------



## Ashley1990 (Aug 27, 2011)

can we have a poll for this..i am curios to know..what percentage agrees with u..

from me u can say ita a big 
*Yes...........*


----------



## squidd (Feb 10, 2012)

jsgt said:


> Psst! Did you read the last part of my post? I said that I wasnt implying that women were objects. It was simpily the best way I could figure to word it to get my point across. Looks like most here missed it :lol but that's ok.


Yeah that's kind of like saying "I'm not racist but..."
It was in the language you used. Maybe I read things wrong but lets take a trip through my thought processes.
"we have to defend whats ours against threats(other people)..." Here you refer to objects you own, things which have no will of their own incapable of making a choice.
"whether it be our house or our woman...so being posessive is just an act of protecting your belongings" Here you clarify your statement by lumping this hypothetical woman in with a house, clearly stating object hood and ownership.
"I know my explaination sounds bad, but I don't in any way mean to imply that women are objects" Here you contradict what you previously said by saying that you didn't mean it as you said it without any actual explanation of what you actually ment. Maybe there was a point I missed there, but that's ok


----------



## John316C (May 1, 2011)

sure they r, the minority of men i the world possess the mjority of wemon


----------



## komorikun (Jan 11, 2009)

On the other hand, I think a lot of men get turned on in a weird way by the possibility that you are cheating on him or that other men are after you. They did a study and found that there are more pornos with one woman-multiple men than one man-multiple women. Other studies have shown that men have a higher sperm count/produce more semen after a long trip away from their wife, presumably because she might have been with another man and his sperm may have to compete with the other man's sperm.


----------



## Stilla (May 13, 2009)

Meh I don't think possessiveness is something that's imprinted into us by gender but more has to do with gender roles made up by society and insecurity issues. I think women can be just as possessive as men are but it's just not deemed as "bad" by society when a woman do it than it is when a man does it, but instead is seen as more innocent. I mean I often hear about girls telling their boyfriends not to talk/be friends with other girls out of insecurity and jealousy issues. I think if the roles would be reversed the guy would be called controlling and possibly dangerous. But I guess then again it might be because men are usually seen as more stronger and women weaker so they're seen as more of a threat.

* Oh ok I just read the OP's post now :lol
I guess because porn is usually made for the male perspective and their fantasy's it has some unrealistic themes going on. But just because the male is more dominant in it and that the woman is doll-like as in that the people who make it has no interest in making her seem like a real person with feelings it doesn't mean that men really want to have a woman who is like that right... I think... I don't know. Meh don't even know were I'm going with this :b:tiptoe


----------



## Stilla (May 13, 2009)

komorikun said:


> On the other hand, I think a lot of men get turned on in a weird way by the possibility that you are cheating on him or that other men are after you. They did a study and found that there are more pornos with one woman-multiple men than one man-multiple women. Other studies have shown that men have a higher sperm count/produce more semen after a long trip away from their wife, presumably because she might have been with another man and his sperm may have to compete with the other man's sperm.


That's interesting and probably true but I also think the same thing could go for women. I read about this one girl who was extremely jealous and she couldn't stand the thought of her boyfriend cheating on her but still that was the number one fantasy she liked (him cheating and her finding out). I guess it just proves that the most forbidden will be the thing people will want the most. I also think that when girls find out a guy is taken a lot of them become more interested in him because they think "oh if someone's together with him he has to be good." But speaking in generalizations of course. I just mean that I don't think these kinds of traits as possessiveness are restricted to one gender.


----------



## DrMarianus (Dec 21, 2011)

rymo said:


> I know a couple in an open relationship who are solid as a rock. They have been together for 8+ years and have an insanely strong bond and foundation. I'm not into the open relationship thing, but I'm not going to judge. It works for them.


 They aren't solid. They're nothing because their allegiances lie elsewhere. If they need other people to "complete" their lives, they don't have a relationship at all but just a contractual agreement. Both man and woman in this relationship are ordinary prostitutes.

But, heck, "live and let live" still applies as a value I guess. But why does society insist on promoting these "open relationships" as being more fashionable and "natural" than "ol' monogamy"? I wouldn't be so defensive/aggressive about this if other people weren't constantly insulting me and saying that I'm a "bigot" simply because I will only devote myself to one woman. It's not like I'm against pre-marriage sex or anticonceptives. Sexual deviancy may be all the rage, but that doesn't justify it. Flatulence may be all the rage, but it would still be disgusting.

I realise some people claim that "poly-amour" and polygamy are "more natural and true to our instincts", but I feel that giving in to such devious lures is the fasted way for a society to revert to barbarism. It will eventually lead to ever more children who have no parents to identify with, no clear gender identification (effeminate men don't help either) and millions of abandoned mothers. It would be an almost animalistic world in which men would mate with women and then leave them behind to fend for themselves. And -it is true- most female animals raise their offspring by themselves, but those creatures have no civilisation to achieve: they just eat, drink, expel urine and excrement and mate and then they die. Some beasts do, however, stay together for a lifetime and isn't it this companionship and loyalty that is always considered to be more beautiful than a horny dog humping a different dog every day?

Feminists will claim that it is a woman's right to enjoy sexual promiscuity, but that's not really a feminist claim. It is nothing more than a depraved wish to emulate the male morons who cheat on their wives and cast an evil shadow over loyal, TRUE men. These feminists aren't feminists at all, they just want to become adulterous men. No one has a right to betray another person: nor men, nor women.


----------



## BKrakow (Jul 8, 2010)

I think both men and women can be very possessive. and it's definitely not a healthy quality at all. obviously some possessiveness is inherent in almost all relationships (i.e., expecting your partner to be monogamous if you're in a monogamous relationship is perfectly reasonable), but I think most possessive types tend to turn emotionally abusive after a while. they may not mean it maliciously, it might be just from a place of insecurity or something, but that doesn't really make it okay when it comes to things like controlling who your partner sees, checking their e-mail without permission, etc.



DrMarianus said:


> I can't believe it has actually become distasteful to believe in monogamy, loyalty, modesty and values. Sorry, but that's just how I "roll". When I have children, I don't want to tell them: "Well, that's just too bad, son. I can't tell you who your father is since your mother and I found it much more important to 'explore all our fantasies and preferences' and share them with as much people as possible."


meh, children thrive in happy environments where both parents are happy. and if that means both parents are off banging other people while still doing their part as responsible, loving parents, I don't see what the big deal is. I guarantee that child will turn out better than the child of two people who can't stand each other and are totally miserable in their relationship but stay together anyway because of the "sanctity of marriage" or some other tired reason.


----------



## rymo (Sep 6, 2009)

DrMarianus:1059823410 said:


> rymo said:
> 
> 
> > I know a couple in an open relationship who are solid as a rock. They have been together for 8+ years and have an insanely strong bond and foundation. I'm not into the open relationship thing, but I'm not going to judge. It works for them.
> ...


They are solid, and I never said they NEEDED others to complete their relationship. It's just the lifestyle they choose to live. And I don't understand your reasons for being aggressive about this topic, because I don't know who these societal demons are that are pressuring you into an open relationship. I am completely for closed relationships, and not once in my life have I been criticized for that choice, even by people i know who are total players. Maybe I'm just not hanging around douche bags, but I have yet to meet a person who actually preaches that open relationships are better than closed. Even the couple I know, sure, they may prefer open, but they have never criticized anyone for their choices. So please tell me who is calling you a bigot in a serious, malicious way for your ideals, I am very curious.


----------



## komorikun (Jan 11, 2009)

Ansgar said:


> You read that in... Cosmo? :teeth


No, I'll have to look for the links.


----------



## squidd (Feb 10, 2012)

DrMarianus said:


> They aren't solid. They're nothing because their allegiances lie elsewhere. If they need other people to "complete" their lives, they don't have a relationship at all but just a contractual agreement. Both man and woman in this relationship are ordinary prostitutes.
> 
> But, heck, "live and let live" still applies as a value I guess. But why does society insist on promoting these "open relationships" as being more fashionable and "natural" than "ol' monogamy"? I wouldn't be so defensive/aggressive about this if other people weren't constantly insulting me and saying that I'm a "bigot" simply because I will only devote myself to one woman. It's not like I'm against pre-marriage sex or anticonceptives. Sexual deviancy may be all the rage, but that doesn't justify it. Flatulence may be all the rage, but it would still be disgusting.
> 
> ...


 wow, just wow. so much hate. Is the reason for these people critisising your view because you call them prostitutes?If something works for two different people without harming anyone else, that's there buisness


----------



## Droidsteel (Mar 22, 2012)

I dunno if possessive is quite the word, but somethimg similar maybe. I remember back in school I had a massive crush on this girl and when any of my friends talked to her I would feel incredably jelous.


----------



## jsgt (Jun 26, 2011)

*AlltoAll* and *squidd*...there is obviously a communication barrier here, and it frequently happens with other people too. My thoughts and ideas mean well, but I must have trouble putting them on paper because I am misunderstood quite often. I love women and think they are so beautiful...and would never do anything to make them feel like an "object".


----------



## The Silent 1 (Aug 21, 2011)

AllToAll said:


> I do think the type of porn that features a controlling man and a submissive woman speak volumes about the patriarchal society we live in and, furthermore, the gender roles of both men and women. To an extent, I find it unhealthy. When the "porn world" makes its way into "the real world" that can become problematic.


And what does porn that features a submissive man and dominate woman teach us? I think these types of "power play" sex acts are apart of sexuality for many people and don't necessarily think it indicates any sort of problem. When we watch porn we are watching someones sexual fantasy, and it isn't always pretty, but it doesn't always mean thats what we actually desire. Its fantasy, and in some cases people may want to act out those fantasies with a willing partner, but it doesn't have to move beyond that. I think people would have these fantasies regardless of what kind of society we live in. Some like to be dominating/controlling during sex while others like to be submissive and its on both sides.


----------



## AllToAll (Jul 6, 2011)

The Silent 1 said:


> *And what does porn that features a submissive man and dominate woman teach us?* I think these types of "power play" sex acts are apart of sexuality for many people and don't necessarily think it indicates any sort of problem. When we watch porn we are watching someones sexual fantasy, and it isn't always pretty, but it doesn't always mean thats what we actually desire. Its fantasy, and in some cases people may want to act out those fantasies with a willing partner, but it doesn't have to move beyond that. I think people would have these fantasies regardless of what kind of society we live in. Some like to be dominating/controlling during sex while others like to be submissive and its on both sides.


Those are usually considered part of a niche, so it's not comparable. They are basically othered and not what the average porn viewer goes for. The type of porn the OP described tends to be more common. I'd like to further describe which type I'm referring to, but my post would most likely get deleted...

It may not be what we actually desire (i.e. rape fantasies), but you can't deny that it does bring some internalized issues that have been influenced by society. Yes, humans would have sexual fantasies regardless of the society we live in, but the type of fantasies would be different. Humans lack agency; we're too influenced by our surroundings and that will inevitably show in our sexual desires.


----------



## The Silent 1 (Aug 21, 2011)

AllToAll said:


> Those are usually considered part of a niche, so it's not comparable. They are basically othered and not what the average porn viewer goes for. The type of porn the OP described tends to be the most common. I'd like to further describe which type I'm referring to, but my post would most likely get deleted...
> 
> It may not be what we actually desire (i.e. rape fantasies), but you can't deny that it does bring some internalized issues that have been influenced by society. Yes, humans would have sexual fantasies regardless of the society we live in, but the type of fantasies would be different. Humans lack agency; we're too influenced by our surroundings and that will inevitably show in our sexual desires.


I guess what I'm saying is that I feel power dynamics and such are apart of sexuality. Perhaps the society you live in does affect how that manifests itself, but it will still happen in any society. The things that decide whether you want to be submissive or dominate in sex often happen when your young and often have nothing to do with gender. Other times, it may just be a result of what your going through. I once watched a documentary on prostitutes. One of them was a dominatrix who explained most of her clients were successful men who wanted to not be in control for once during sex.

I don't think the men I mentioned should be dissmissed so quickly either and their existence shows us thats its not an issue of some patriarchy. That niche is much bigger than you imply I think. It should also be noted that gay men and lesbians also engage in this type of sex, which further shows us that its not an issue of society.

If a study somehow determined that generally speaking, men naturally want to be more dominant during sex would that be such a bad thing? Personally, I think thats the case, though I couldn't make such a statement because it would be impossible to discount social conditioning. I think certain porn just takes the most extreme versions of our desires, and so as long as these desires exist, so will the porn that reflects it. Some people seem to be calling for all porn to be more as they would like it, but that missess the point. These extreme porn scenarios should not be thrown out any more than the outrageous romantic scenarios of certain novels aimed towards women.


----------



## komorikun (Jan 11, 2009)

Wasn't there a porn series where they would pick women up off the street offer her a few hundred dollars to have sex in a van. Then at the end they would kick her out and not give her any money. I think it turned out to be fake but who the hell gets off on that sort of thing?


----------



## AllToAll (Jul 6, 2011)

The Silent 1 said:


> I guess what I'm saying is that I feel power dynamics and such are apart of sexuality. Perhaps the society you live in does affect how that manifests itself, but it will still happen in any society. *The things that decide whether you want to be submissive or dominate in sex often happen when your young and often have nothing to do with gender.* Other times, it may just be a result of what your going through. I once watched a documentary on prostitutes. One of them was a dominatrix who explained most of her clients were successful men who wanted to not be in control for once during sex.
> 
> I don't think the men I mentioned should be dissmissed so quickly either and their existence shows us thats its not an issue of some patriarchy. That niche is much bigger than you imply I think. It should also be noted that gay men and lesbians also engage in this type of sex, which further shows us that its not an issue of society.
> 
> If a study somehow determined that generally speaking, men naturally want to be more dominant during sex would that be such a bad thing? Personally, I think thats the case, though I couldn't make such a statement because it would be impossible to discount social conditioning. I think certain porn just takes the most extreme versions of our desires, and so as long as these desires exist, so will the porn that reflects it. Some people seem to be calling for all porn to be more as they would like it, but that missess the point. These extreme porn scenarios should not be thrown out any more than the outrageous romantic scenarios of certain novels aimed towards women.


I understand your stance, and I agree that sexual fantasies will manifest themselves regardless of the society you live in, but the sexual fantasies wouldn't be the same.

From the moment we are born we are given a gender. If you're a female, you'll be given a pink room, Barbies, and you'll be raised differently than if you were a boy. It's impossible to disregard gender when talking about sexuality. This _is_ what we're going through, so it will manifest itself in our lives; sex included.

It's still a niche if men aren't open about it/"openly" seeking it. That's still, ultimately, an effect of patriarchy because these men feel a lack of control that they want to restore/reestablish in their sexual life.
When I mention patriarchy, it's safe to say that heteronormativity goes hand in hand, so gay porn in and of itself is a niche because it caters to a marginalized population. So I don't see it as being comparable since it's not relevant to my "average men and woman" argument.

Porn, for some, does exaggerate our desires, but where do those desires come from? Out of the blue? We are born as blank slates and through socialization we develop our tastes, ideologies, and desires, so we are influenced by gender roles and the social position of men and women.


----------



## The Silent 1 (Aug 21, 2011)

AllToAll said:


> I understand your stance, and *I agree that sexual fantasies will manifest themselves regardless of the society you live in, but the sexual fantasies wouldn't be the same. *
> 
> From the moment we are born we are given a gender. If you're a female, you'll be given a pink room, Barbies, and you'll be raised differently than if you were a boy. It's impossible to disregard gender when talking about sexuality. This _is_ what we're going through, so it will manifest itself in our lives; sex included.
> 
> ...


The fantasies themselves may be different, but I believe the same dynamics of people wanting to be dominate or submissive would still be there. I brought up gay men and women to show that gender doesn't have to play into why someone would like being sub or dom. Gay men may still want to dominate or be dominate and I don't think you can always pin that on a patriarchy. Same with lesbians. The fact that some men who grow up in this society still desire to be submissive also shows this. I also personally believe that males may be slightly more prone to wanting to be dominate in sex biologically, but I don't see that as a bad thing, nor does it have to say anything about men and women outside of that. People who have these desires often don't want to admit to them openly, but that is the same for most of our sexual desires, I don't know what that has to do with patriarchy. Those men I spoke of wanted to lose control in sex just because they were always dominate in their personal and professional lives. That has nothing to do with gender at all, its just about control or wanting to give up control.

Your right that we are influenced by our environment from the time we are born and I think power dynamics are a natural part of human behavior and that will always carry into our sexual behavior as well. Are you implying that in a more equal society that no one would have these type of fantasies?


----------



## calichick (Jul 30, 2010)

I don't really care about the porn aspect of this thread, because porn is all done for a certain audience,

But I myself love possessive men. I love a guy to get jealous, I love a guy to feel like he owns me, I think that it really shows true love and emotion and passion. With a past guy(s) I was dating, sometimes I would intentionally try to make them get this way. I think men are naturally bound to treat women as if they are claiming their territory. If a guy doesn't give a sh*t about where you are, what you're doing, who you're with, it shows he's just not that interested in you..


----------



## elvin jones (Dec 12, 2011)

calichick said:


> With a past guy(s) I was dating, sometimes I would intentionally try to make them get this way. I think men are naturally bound to treat women as if they are claiming their territory. If a guy doesn't give a sh*t about where you are, what you're doing, who you're with, it shows he's just not that interested in you..


I always thought women hated jealous bfs. I know that I hate it when girls intentionally try to make me jealous. It is so transparent and insecure. Why all the games?


----------



## Stilla (May 13, 2009)

^ Well because of the same reason you stated; out of insecurity.


----------



## AllToAll (Jul 6, 2011)

The Silent 1 said:


> The fantasies themselves may be different, but I believe the same dynamics of people wanting to be dominate or submissive would still be there. I brought up gay men and women to show that gender doesn't have to play into why someone would like being sub or dom. Gay men may still want to dominate or be dominate and I don't think you can always pin that on a patriarchy. Same with lesbians. The fact that some men who grow up in this society still desire to be submissive also shows this. I also personally believe that males may be slightly more prone to wanting to be dominate in sex biologically, but I don't see that as a bad thing, nor does it have to say anything about men and women outside of that. People who have these desires often don't want to admit to them openly, but that is the same for most of our sexual desires, I don't know what that has to do with patriarchy. *Those men I spoke of wanted to lose control in sex just because they were always dominate in their personal and professional lives.* That has nothing to do with gender at all, its just about control or wanting to give up control.
> 
> Your right that we are influenced by our environment from the time we are born and I think power dynamics are a natural part of human behavior and that will always carry into our sexual behavior as well. Are you implying that in a more equal society that no one would have these type of fantasies?


I think I want to take part of my comment back. The more I thought about it, the more I now believe that, in this Utopian world, I don't think humans would have sexual fantasies. There would be no need for fantasies because we would feel free to act upon our desires. And yes, I do believe that if men and women were equal there wouldn't be this type of porn.

Again, it would be easier if I could describe the type of porn I'm talking about (i.e. language and treatment of the woman), but generally speaking, when it's man-on-man or woman-on-woman, there isn't the same use of gender-based language. You're putting someone down as an individual and not as a man or woman. 

As for the bolded part in your comment, it does have to do with gender. Men are generally expected to be dominating, controlling, and the stronger/braver ones in society, which is obviously not the way every single man is. So when he doesn't feel like he can live up to these expectations, that stress can be sexually released.

When I posted my original comment I didn't mean every single porno ever made where there is a submissive/possessive person is in relation to sexism. Of course it varies, but pornography sold to men/women that uses gender-based insults in the activity, is rooted from the patriarchal society we live in.


----------



## AllToAll (Jul 6, 2011)

calichick said:


> I think that it really shows true love and emotion and passion. With a past guy(s) I was dating, sometimes I would intentionally try to make them get this way. I think men are naturally bound to treat women as if they are claiming their territory. If a guy doesn't give a sh*t about where you are, what you're doing, who you're with, it shows he's just not that interested in you..


No, that just shows he's possessive and jealous, and you're romanticizng it. You see it that way because, alas, you're a product of your culture.



elvin jones said:


> I always thought women hated jealous bfs. *I know that I hate it when girls intentionally try to make me jealous. It is so transparent and insecure.* Why all the games?


I'd hate it, too. And it _does_ show insecurity on her part.


----------



## Milco (Dec 12, 2009)

No, men generally aren't possessive of women.
Some get jealous and uncomfortable if their partner directs too much attention towards others, but "possession" and "ownership" aren't the correct words to use about that.


----------



## The Silent 1 (Aug 21, 2011)

AllToAll said:


> I think I want to take part of my comment back. The more I thought about it, the more I now believe that, in this Utopian world, I don't think humans would have sexual fantasies. There would be no need for fantasies because we would feel free to act upon our desires. And yes, I do believe that if men and women were equal there wouldn't be this type of porn.


Not everyone can get laid whenever they want or their partner may have different desires from them. So even in an utopian world people would still fantasize. And I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the "equalness" of porn. I think in an equal society, being dominate or submissive would probably be even more risque or forbidden. That would make it more sexually appealing for someone. And I do believe that some people simply naturally like to be in one of those roles. I think a society in which this kind of sex is looked down upon is dangerous to a degree.


AllToAll said:


> You're putting someone down as an individual and not as a man or woman.


Thats part of my point though. Take away the gender aspect and people still want to be in those roles. So while society may help shape those fantasies the basic desires behind them are still there. I also think that biologically men may simply on average be more prone to wanting to be more sexually dominant and I don't see that as a bad thing.



AllToAll said:


> As for the bolded part in your comment, it does have to do with gender. Men are generally expected to be dominating, controlling, and the stronger/braver ones in society, which is obviously not the way every single man is. So when he doesn't feel like he can live up to these expectations, that stress can be sexually released.


But that is not an issue of gender. Those men weren't expected to be strong because of their gender, but because of the demanding jobs they had. They lived in fast paced demanding jobs and wanted a break from it. A woman in that position may have similar desires. Wanting to give up control is apart of sex for some.



AllToAll said:


> When I posted my original comment I didn't mean every single porno ever made where there is a submissive/possessive person is in relation to sexism. Of course it varies, but pornography sold to men/women that uses gender-based insults in the activity, is rooted from the patriarchal society we live in.


Perhaps some of the insults would be different, but I'm not so sure about that either.


----------



## DeeperUnderstanding (May 19, 2007)

I don't think men are possessive, as much as men are constantly competing with other men in the bedroom. You know how girls/women are always competing with other girls/women on who is prettier? Men are always competing on who is more manly...who has the bigger car, the most cash, the better job, and the best girl.

It's basically socially conditioned into us.



komorikun said:


> Wasn't there a porn series where they would pick women up off the street offer her a few hundred dollars to have sex in a van. Then at the end they would kick her out and not give her any money. I think it turned out to be fake but who the hell gets off on that sort of thing?


There was also a porn series of a psychologist who would hypnotize girls for eating disorders and drug disorders, and then make them have sex with him.

I doubt like hell any of that was real, but there is some sick stuff out there.


----------



## PickleNose (Jul 11, 2009)

Kathykook said:


> I probably sound dumb for asking this....but I honestly never really thought about it deeply until recently. I noticed that porn tries very hard to make each girl seem perfect and """""HIS""""".
> As a girl watching porn, Ive always found it quite hilarious, and never took it seriously.....but now I'm starting to realize that that possessive, doll like qualities turn a man on because he wants to feel like he "owns" the woman.


 No. My theory is that men have fantasies in which they are in complete control because they have so little of it IRL (In a sexual context). The theory goes that the thing you want the most is usually what you can't have. And the reason you want it so badly is simply because you can't stand the fact that you can't have it. Many men simply don't have a satisfying sex life despite enormous effort. The best they can do is pay a fee and buy their fantasy in the form of porn. Of course they want everything to be just so when they're paying for it and it's the only outlet they have for all of their sexual desires.

Porn is not a reflection of reality. It's a fantasy where the normal rules don't apply.


----------



## PickleNose (Jul 11, 2009)

komorikun said:


> Wasn't there a porn series where they would pick women up off the street offer her a few hundred dollars to have sex in a van. Then at the end they would kick her out and not give her any money. I think it turned out to be fake *but who the hell gets off on that sort of thing?*


 I don't know that people get off on the aspect of the money being offered and then not given. I've noticed most porn tends to have a theme just for the sake of having one. I've been watching porn for a long time and I've seen a lot of stupid "plots" that might make you wonder who gets off on such a plot. The easiest answer is that it's just a bunch of cheap amateurs with a camcorder trying to make something that resembles a movie. If they put it up on the internet and it sells, they probably figure somebody likes what they're doing but the truth is that sex just sells. It doesn't matter what the plot is. Very few people are watching to see the fake plot.


----------



## brothersport (Dec 3, 2011)

I think it depends on the guy. Its hard to make generalizations.


----------



## AllToAll (Jul 6, 2011)

The Silent 1 said:


> Not everyone can get laid whenever they want or their partner may have different desires from them. So even in an utopian world people would still fantasize. And I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the "equalness" of porn. I think in an equal society, being dominate or submissive would probably be even more risque or forbidden. That would make it more sexually appealing for someone. And I do believe that some people simply naturally like to be in one of those roles. I think a society in which this kind of sex is looked down upon is dangerous to a degree.
> 
> Thats part of my point though. Take away the gender aspect and people still want to be in those roles. So while society may help shape those fantasies the basic desires behind them are still there. I also think that biologically men may simply on average be more prone to wanting to be more sexually dominant and I don't see that as a bad thing.
> 
> ...


I think you either didn't understand my previous post, or simply didn't want to, because I could rewrite the same thing to express myself. It is a gender issue because it's in relation to the social expectations for men and women in society, which are men=strong/possessive and women=weak/submissive. When you have porn films that feature men and women playing these roles (when specific language and sexual actions/position are used) then it is saying a lot about the patriarchal society we live in.

I'm not saying this is the case for everyone. Some people (i.e. gay, lesbians) simply like playing the submissive role (which are still influenced by society some way or another, just maybe not due to sexism). You're basically saying that sexism in society doesn't affect men/women. It does, whether you want to admit it or not. To some more than others. Not every man/woman is going to like porn where the women is insulted/hair pulled/gender-insulted, but some will. What kind of human being, free from social influence, would be into insulting a woman during sex? There is some internalized anger there. Your theory about men being "naturally" more possessive during sex is simply untrue. When I think of the Utopian society and sexual freedom I think of Bonobos (one of the closest species to humans), which basically spend their time having sex male-on-male, female-on-female, male-on-female, and maybe every three at a time... males aren't dominating and neither are females. There's equality and freedom.

And if you don't understand why the gender-based issues aren't relevant, I won't bother following this argument because I'll only repeat myself over and over. You'd need to take a gender 101 class for that.


----------



## The Silent 1 (Aug 21, 2011)

AllToAll said:


> I think you either didn't understand my previous post, or simply didn't want to, because I could rewrite the same thing to express myself. It is a gender issue because it's in relation to the social expectations for men and women in society, which are men=strong/possessive and women=weak/submissive. When you have porn films that feature men and women playing these roles (when specific language and sexual actions/position are used) then it is saying a lot about the patriarchal society we live in.
> 
> I'm not saying this is the case for everyone. Some people (i.e. gay, lesbians) simply like playing the submissive role (which are still influenced by society some way or another, just maybe not due to sexism). You're basically saying that sexism in society doesn't affect men/women. It does, whether you want to admit it or not. To some more than others. Not every man/woman is going to like porn where the women is insulted/hair pulled/gender-insulted, but some will. What kind of human being, free from social influence, would be into insulting a woman during sex? There is some internalized anger there. Your theory about men being "naturally" more possessive during sex is simply untrue. When I think of the Utopian society and sexual freedom I think of Bonobos (one of the closest species to humans), which basically spend their time having sex male-on-male, female-on-female, male-on-female, and maybe every three at a time... males aren't dominating and neither are females. There's equality and freedom.
> 
> And if you don't understand why the gender-based issues aren't relevant, I won't bother following this argument because I'll only repeat myself over and over. You'd need to take a gender 101 class for that.


I don't think you quite understand me either. I did actually say that current gender roles help shape our current fantasies, but also that people would want to be dominate or submissive without that. I never said gender issues weren't important and most of this post doesn't even address what I'm saying. Your attacking points that I'm not making. I'm saying thats its not purely a matter of gender. I said that men may naturally want to more dominate and aggressive during sex, not that the specific way they demean people was natural. I also pointed out how men in stressful jobs may desire to give up control in sex. That in itself has nothing to do with gender and you said nothing about this. I've heard doctors say that people who have rape fantasies are really just interested in giving up control as well most of the time. Again gender plays no role here.

You made other claims about people not having fantasies in a utopian world and you didn't respond to my rebuttal at all. You've also not said anything about why you feel this kind of sex wouldn't exist in an utopian world. I'm saying that if you got rid of the gender problems that the way the fantasies play out might be different and not so verbally crude towards women, but the concepts behind them would not change. Also if a person desires to be demeaned they may want their partner to attack anything about them including their gender. Likewise the person demeaning them may want to use anything about them. I don't see any argument from you to refute any of this, just that you disagree. Which is why I said we should just agree to disagree here.


----------



## VivaLaVida101 (Apr 18, 2012)

Lol idk if my boyfriend is possessive or not... Like he doesnt want me to hang out or talk with mh old guy friends... Well (it sort of those sound possessive already.. ) .. like he simply geta bothered about it e.o

If only he knew how annoyed i get... Like he even gets cucu if im txting a girl friend xD... Idk [email protected]@ - goes crazy -


----------



## BKrakow (Jul 8, 2010)

VivaLaVida101 said:


> Lol idk if my boyfriend is possessive or not... Like he doesnt want me to hang out or talk with mh old guy friends... Well (it sort of those sound possessive already.. ) .. like he simply geta bothered about it e.o
> 
> If only he knew how annoyed i get... Like he even gets cucu if im txting a girl friend xD... Idk [email protected]@ - goes crazy -


I'm sorry but...you should dump this guy ASAP.


----------



## srschirm (Jun 25, 2006)

In general, I think men are protective or "possessive." It's the natural way of things, in my opinion. That doesn't mean the woman doesn't have her own life.


----------



## srschirm (Jun 25, 2006)

AllToAll said:


> We are born as blank slates


I have to disagree with this, genes play a huge role in our lives.


----------



## Milco (Dec 12, 2009)

srschirm said:


> I have to disagree with this, genes play a huge role in our lives.


I didn't see that at all, but yes, we definitely aren't born tabula rasa.
I do think that within the spectrum of 'normalcy', social conditioning plays the larger role, but we do have differences and predispositions that make us react to things differently and those small initial differences build to become big differences with time.
And of course, our societal ideas throughout time are not contrary to nature or to our genes, but arise exactly because of them.

Regarding the arguments about pornography..
There's no scientific evidence to support that pornography creates more extreme views on sexuality or gender roles in men and women. The research done on the area actually found that most people weren't affected at all and only very few (about 1%) might get their already extreme views reinforced.


----------



## Insanityonthego (Jul 5, 2010)

Nothing worse than a possessive man. I know I'm not, there's no point in being if there's trust.


----------



## percyblueraincoat (Jun 2, 2009)

Deleted


----------



## Milco (Dec 12, 2009)

joinmartin said:


> SNIP


I didn't mean to say that there's a direct connection/mirroring between all societal tendencies and our biological traits.
But people sometimes say things like that science is in direct opposition to nature, or that our cultures are contrary to nature, and my point is simply that it is immensely intricate interplays between the nature we are surrounded by and our internal nature that have created the society, culture and science we have today; everything is a result of nature.

What the exact mechanisms that have been invoked to result in our present day society is, I naturally cannot say. The history is far too long and the interactions are far too complicated for that.
And it's obvious that something like suppressing female sexuality and desire as you mention, doesn't have to be a result of female nature, but can be forced on them by surroundings.. but then what forces that on them would seem to be something in men, would it not? Maybe something caused men to react in that way, but then that again had some cause.
Even if we did conclude that human males are naturally dominant, it wouldn't mean we had to just accept that and design society around that - of course not!
Our desire to move away from a patriarchal society is also part of our nature now.
I just think it's rather silly to suggest that we have no inherent nature at all and that society has self-assembled out of nothingness.


----------



## percyblueraincoat (Jun 2, 2009)

Deleted


----------



## CourtneyB (Jul 31, 2010)

Yes. It's instinctual in a way. As is protecting the female. At their root, males are the alpha (dominant) of the two genders. He may not express either trait as bluntly and outright as others for a variety of reasons, but more or less they're still there and inbred in him.


----------



## percyblueraincoat (Jun 2, 2009)

Deleted


----------



## BobtheBest (Aug 27, 2011)

I like your posts, joinmartin.


----------



## AllToAll (Jul 6, 2011)

srschirm said:


> I have to disagree with this, genes play a huge role in our lives.





Milco said:


> I didn't see that at all, but yes, we definitely aren't born tabula rasa.
> I do think that within the spectrum of 'normalcy', social conditioning plays the larger role, but we do have differences and predispositions that make us react to things differently and those small initial differences build to become big differences with time.
> And of course, our societal ideas throughout time are not contrary to nature or to our genes, but arise exactly because of them.


If human beings lived in isolation, we'd all be the same. There wouldn't be anything for us to react to/shape our personalities. Society plays a much bigger role in who we are than genes. Our biology is simply a response to the environment and _that's_ what shapes our personalities.


----------



## Milco (Dec 12, 2009)

joinmartin said:


> In terms of our societal ideas and understandings I'd say we've certainly forged some of our societal ideas and understandings based on selective views and interpretations of other parts of nature.


Absolutely.
But it is still our nature that has caused us to make that selective viewing and interpretation.
In a sense it becomes meaningless to talk about if everything is called nature - just as knowing life is just atoms behaving in strange ways doesn't help explain the patterns we see. Or at least, it doesn't help us due to the connotations these terms have and due to the level of knowledge we currently have about things at a more basic level. But it's still important to maintain that that is actually what is going on at the very root when people claim the exact polar opposite.



joinmartin said:


> There's a lot of danger in not noticing mankind's role in creating certain ideas about society based on restrictive viewings and interpretations of nature and the natural way of things. There's also danger in not noticing mankind's ability to interpret things in false ways and place meanings onto things that are unhelpful.


I am by no means a "manly" man, so I have felt that conflict between societal ideas and my own preferences myself.
But just as better understanding enables us to create life without having to rely on 'natural' to provide us with it (forgetting for a moment that us creating life is nature doing it 'by proxy'), so we can use better understanding to create societies that shape ourselves the way we want to be.
Things don't have to be any way other than how we want them, and our wants are the accurate reflection of our nature given our society.

Things get very complex and very interesting when we deliberately merge our wants with our knowledge to change the systems to reshape our own wants.
Social constructivism is fun like that :b



AllToAll said:


> If human beings lived in isolation, we'd all be the same. There wouldn't be anything for us to react to/shape our personalities. Society plays a much bigger role in who we are than genes. Our biology is simply a response to the environment and _that's_ what shapes our personalities.


No, we would not.
Living in complete isolation is of course something that influences and affects us as well, but even if we were all affected with the exact same external stimuli, our internal world would result in different personalities based on that same stimuli.
If you take away the small changes in culture that have happened over thousands of years, you would in some senses "reset" some of the differences, but that only means they are less obvious in scope, not that they're gone.

I find it hard to argue that society plays the larger role in shaping who we are on the whole, when we share 99% of our genes with chimps - that 1% seems to make a huge difference - but I do believe that within our spectrum of "normal human behaviour" we can more or less make up for any biological differences with deliberate nurture.
But two people will not respond the same to the same external stimuli, and that will cause the them to make different selections, seek out different new stimuli and ultimately develop two different personalities.


----------



## BarryLyndon (Jun 29, 2010)

Maybe it's instincts carried over from the cave man days; when they would boink the women in the head and drag'em off.


----------



## MaskOfSanity (Feb 16, 2012)

I don't really have a new argument for this thread, but I will say this...

Society does play a role, and it sucks. I think hormones play a part, but a lot of it is ingrained belief and conditioning. As a guy, it's painful for me on a personal level. It's more broad than just sexual roles or fantasies. I can literally go on date after date and see the same pattern every single time. I treat her with respect = she gets bored. At this point, I know all the words. 

I've even tested it, but was never able to bring myself to take it all the way home. I hate it. How can I respect someone who wants (or thinks it's the proper way) to be objectified? I want to admire a girl's beauty? Her character? I'm a wimp. I make her feel lucky to have my interest? I'm golden. And that banned 3 letter word? Go forth and conquer! Submissive? Respectful? Passive? Humble? That's not manly! That's not normal! Fight over her like dogs over steak, and win. :clap


----------



## Rachmaninoff (Apr 21, 2012)

I don't think porn is the best place to gather info on men, I certainly wouldn't be attracted to someone that acted like they were in a porno.


----------

