Emerald

It could be about invoking that more archetypal paternal masculine quality. Sex as an archetypal symbol is all about the interplay between the masculine and feminine... which can be expressed through certain God images. So, that could be part of it... wanting to tap into that archetype and the feminine counterpart to that archetype.

People with kinks are not inherently abusive. In fact, the majority of people have some kinks. And there is nothing inherently abusive or unhealthy about exploring those kinks with a partner. But a person is wise to look at the underlying reasons that the kink has resonance... which can often be about something other than what the kink itself relates to.

I definitely think the dynamic comes from stuff in the Unconscious for sure. But I see this (and most kinks) as a fairly benign symptom of deeper dynamics that would be best explored and resolved at its roots. I don’t see kinks as inherently negative to express unless it causes harm to someone. Nor do I view kinks as something that feeds themselves in intensity. Basically, the kink is a symptom of a deeper cause that doesn’t Itself impact the deeper cause or make it worse.

I don’t really think I am dancing around it. I genuinely think that’s the appeal... the combination between... - dominance/submission - the procreation drive - puritanical notions of sex as dirty and desire to sanitize parenthood and see it as separate from sex. Of course, this doesn’t preclude the possibility of there being some kind of Oedipal or Elektra dynamic. But I think, far and away, you’ll find that this fairly common sexual trope is much more about the three factors above than involving a genuine desire for incest.

It could have to do with an incestuous drive for some. Those complexes certainly exist. But my guess is that, when you talk to women who like to call their partner “daddy” in bed, most of them would probably be repulsed to imagine their actual father in a sexual way. My money would be far more on the connection between the procreation instinct and calling the man a name that suggests both dominance and parenthood.

I think the majority of people are not conscious that procreation drives are the reason why they respond so much to the term daddy. The word does have a lot of taboo to it but also a lot of libidinal charge. And I think it is because saying that word triggers some deeper procreation instinct. But most people are only partially aware of what’s happening in their body during sex. And they aren’t so much in touch with (or perhaps they are even uncomfortable with) the erotic drive to create new life. So, when a woman calls a man daddy, it’s going to trigger that deeper procreation instinct in him and her and create more sexual charge. But it’s also a taboo so it will create other more difficult emotions that bring up a resistance. And this allows an internal drama to play out externally in sexual ritual. So, saying the word ‘daddy’ triggers a mixture of the procreation instinct cresting above the surface of consciousness... followed by the shame associated with sex and the desire to sanitize parenthood. So, it pushes lots of psycho-sexual buttons for people because of the clash between the procreation instinct and the puritanical notion of sex as dirty/bad/naughty... and the resulting desire to strip the idea of motherhood and fatherhood of its sexual origin, and hence its dirtiness from the puritanical point of view. This is why it’s so common also to see a lot of “Shame on you” messages in sexual content and within many people’s kinks. It hits that button because of the inner clash between instinct and Puritanism.

I guess I just don’t see the term daddy as being about their actual dad the majority of the time. I could definitely see it be more fetish-like than the Mami or Papi association as you’d mentioned. Though I genuinely believe that parenthood/sex connection accounts for most of the urge. But I think it might be more about the social unacceptability/taboo of the word and playing up to a submissive dynamic and to make the man feel more dominant. I mean, it could be issues with the father. But I think ‘daddy’ is a pretty well-used taboo sexual term. So, I don’t necessarily think women that use that term are doing so out of some latent desire for their father’s love. It’s a common sex trope at this point.

My actual daddy hasn’t been called daddy in a very long time. His name is grandpa now. So, if I were to call my partner daddy, it’s only because of the association between sex as being the act that makes a man a father. And if you look at (for example) some people who speak Spanish might call their partner Mami or Papi as a term of endearment expressing sexual attraction. And that comes from the association between parenthood and sex. So, I don’t see calling a man daddy in a sexual way as weird because it would have nothing to do with my father. I see it more like Papi is used in Spanish. But there’s a lot of cognitive dissonance when it comes to the connection between sex, sexual attraction, and child rearing. We like to see sex as separate from the urge for procreation. This is one of the reasons why daddy sounds so weird, because we don’t like to think of the connection between sex and parenthood.

Thank you and you're welcome!

It's very specific. You pick up on this particular guy's energy and vibe and gestures and flaws. And that all adds up to more than the sum of his parts. I remember in the 7th grade, I had a huge crush on this kid Billy. And he had a really wide squarish head. Something that would definitely be regarded generally as unattractive. My friend Joe used to call him fat head. But every time I'd see him from the back, I'd notice that particularity about him and just feel all kinds of fireworks. And it was little things like that were attractive because they were part of him, but were not attractive in general. And this has always been the case for me. It's always the feelings that his unique idiosyncrasies (physical traits, gestures, patterns of speech, vocal tone, flaws) create a vibe and that vibe itself is enticing. Now, as far as polarity goes, I am a woman who is mostly feminine with some masculine... maybe a 75%/25% split. And I'm rarely attracted to hyper masculine guys beyond simply recognition that "Okay, I see this person is objectively attractive." I usually get the Cupid's Arrow for men who are mostly masculine with some feminine... again probably 75/25. And it's nearly always been that split for me. These are the men that I'm most polarized to because my feminine side is attracted to their masculine side and my masculine side is attracted to their feminine side. That's how polarity works. You attune to your own energetic signature and you find someone with the mirror opposite. But some common things with all attractions are these ecstatic feelings in the center of the chest and base of the spine... and a general warmth and relaxation upon thinking of the guy. But I've never felt the same way about someone twice. Each attraction I've had deals directly with the unique energy of the person.

No. That's not what I'm saying. Noticing a dog whistle means picking up on the underlying implication of something that's said/written, even if that which is being said/written is meant to to cloak the deeper sentiment. A dog whistle is that which is at a pitch that only dogs can hear. So, whenever someone is expressing some kind of racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise unpopular point of view, but wants to have plausible deniability, they will express things in the form of a dog whistle. That way, they can say, "What!? That's not what I meant! You're reading too much into it and straw manning!" So, the dog whistle is "Shouldn't there be regulations in the dating market if there are regulations in the financial market?" which seems (to the uninitiated) like something to simply ponder into. Just some food for thought to mull over intellectually. But those who actually hear the dog whistle (like yourself), pick up on the subtext that women are being framed as a commodity/resource. And that the OP sees women in this light and is perhaps (on some level) comfortable with women's sexual choices being controlled by something other than herself as she is object to him, not subject. Basically, it betrays that he sees female sexual sovereignty and bodily autonomy as a problem in need of solving. Now, do I think the dog whistle is conscious? Probably not. The OP probably doesn't realize that he views women as objects. He also probably thinks (as of now) that he supports women's right to sexual sovereignty. But that's only because it would be an unpopular opinion to express and doesn't want to recognize that opinion that he holds. But, if the social and political tides start to turn again toward a more patriarchal slant, those with his paradigm will be the first to pop out of the woodwork to support the reneging of those rights.

Feminine attraction has to do with feelings. Feelings compel a woman to want to pair bond with a specific guy. And any random guy simply isn’t going to push the buttons and create the feelings that compel a woman to pair bond. It’s only that one guy that can do it. And it’s not even that that guy is objectively the best in any category. He may be objectively average or below average across the board. But female attraction is non-objective and very specific. Women generally don’t have strong sexual or romantic cravings towards men in general. It’s always that one particular guy. When a woman falls for a man, it is super special to her. She craves him and his humanity in particular. So, the way you’re biased is because you’re looking at female sexuality through the lens of male sexuality. Men crave women in general. A man wants sex in general. And it is high reward and a challenge to get. Women don’t crave men in general. Women don’t crave sex in general. It’s always specific. So, women’s access to sex/men in general (which men see as enviable) is a currency that doesn’t confer value to us. It’s low reward for us. It doesn’t have any pleasure or libidinal charge to it. But the feelings about that one guy are just overwhelmingly intoxicating to the point of obsession... rending your garments level of spicy hot desire. And every other guy feels meh. Seriously, if “feminine desire” were a drug it would be everyone’s favorite. It feels so good to gush over just that one guy. And again, it isn’t because he’s got some laundry list of qualities. It’s not rational. It just hits like a Cupid’s arrow where thinking about that particular guy or being around that particular guy pushes the ecstasy button. So much dopamine, endorphins, serotonin, and oxytocin all in response only to ‘Johnny’

That’s about 30% of sexual inactivity for men within the past year, with a comparison between stats from the year 2000 and the year 2018. I chalk this up to everything being very online now. But for women the stats are 19% sexual inactivity within the past year, which is a disparity but not a super extreme one. But clearly it isn’t a “men can’t get any sex because they’re undesirable incels” problem. The majority of these sexually inactive men in the study have had sex before. Otherwise, men and women’s average virginity loss age wouldn’t be the exact same. And there would be significant disparities in numbers of male vs female virgins when there simply isn’t.

The numbers aren’t correct. Here’s what they really are according to the CDC. @Harlen Kelly

It could be but isn’t always. Sometimes you are just genuinely appalled by something without having that trait in your Shadow. Though it’s always wise to examine triggers like that. You can learn more about yourself that way. Not as to say it would necessarily turn out that he is a secret objectifier. But it can turn up many realizations.

Oh! That makes sense.

I’m not glad because it hurt him. ? I’m glad and envious that a man sees the objectification of women and is shocked and appalled. Partly, it makes me feel seen. Partly, it makes me jealous that he has not witnessed much of this type of thing.

Well, I get why Wavesintheocean reacted that way and part of me is glad for the shock reaction. And part of me is envious. Women have dealt with this objectification so much that we are able to handle it a bit better thought it’s still triggers many wounds, collective and individual. But it’s a bit like drinking vodka. If you only take one shot every once and a while it stings a lot and staggers you. But if you’re drinking vodka every day, you can look like you’re drinking water because you’ve acclimated to it. And women unfortunately learn that the only way to cope and have empowerment in the face of dehumanization is to appear as rational and cool headed as possible. Otherwise no one listens and no one will take you seriously. You have to come across as a stronger and more respectable man than the man you’re debating. So, being male, Wavesintheocean is shocked because he does experience or witness this treatment often. And he hasn’t had to learn that expressing shock and disdain will be used against him. This is how I envy him. But I’m glad for his shock.

It is a generalization as some women may genuinely skew more masculine in their attraction dynamic as a part of their personality. But this is the feminine/Yin attraction dynamic generally.

Oops! Yeah, that’s what I meant

No. I’m just picking up on the underlying implications of the post. Also, you’re not understanding how female sexuality works. It isn’t just a pickier form of male sexuality. It’s quite different. Women in their feminine intuition are drawn to men as particular human beings. And we get a Cupid’s Arrow for one of them... usually one that matches us in attractiveness. So, women generally go for their match. Tens will go for tens and feel ecstatic about it. Twos will go for twos and feel ecstatic about it. Men, on the other hand, are all attracted sexually to 10s. And without emotional development and feminine integration, he won’t see the value in a woman of equal dating marketplace value. He will always go for the ideal woman, even if she’s out of reach. So, men with a disintegrated feminine side, project their objectifying “aiming for 10s” tendency onto women when this is not how our sexuality works. And because women are more selective, they get the distorted notion that all women only really care about guys who are tens and will weed out all the 9s and below to be in the “harem” of a guy who’s a 10. And that only 10% of men get affection. And all of this distortion and anxiety because you don’t know how women work. Women like specific men... often for his flaws. We are attracted to men’s humanity. But because men without an integrated feminine side are not attracted to women’s humanity, they project the same objectifying and cold hearted tendencies onto women. And then the insecurity rules them.

Obviously not a good thing. But look around and you’ll see that this dynamic is less common. Men are mostly seen as subjects where women are often viewed as objects. Hence the underlying assumption of this post of ‘woman as resource’.

First off, I do not “reward” anyone with my love. I just do what feels good to me and follow my intuition and instincts. There is no concept of reward... just magnetism and feeling and love. That “reward” idea is a male projection onto women’s sexuality. Female sexuality has nothing to do with the reward/punishment dichotomy because female sexual attraction is non-objective. Also, I personally am not interested in men who are out of touch with their emotions. A man who is callous, who sees me as an object is simply incapable of going into the depths with me. And men who can’t dive deep and meet me in my depths are boring to me from both a sexual standpoint and relationship standpoint. Not enough juice to keep the mind stimulated and the blood flowing. But you’d also be wise to recognize that you are projecting the tendency to objectify women onto these conquesting men... which do exist. But you seem to fail to see your own objectifying tendencies. You did after all refer to women as a resource. So a man who gets laid who objectifies women and a man who does get laid who objectifies women are cut from the same cloth in my eyes. Equally lukewarm and not energetically magnetic.

Yeah, the framing of women as a ‘resource’ is certainly disturbing... but also unfortunately very common. I get the response as it’s how I (and other women) feel about these kinds of posts. But unfortunately they’re just going to turn it back on you for picking up on the ‘woman as commodity’ implication and say that you’re straw manning and misreading. But really you’re just noticing the underlying meaning of the post... and responding to the dog whistle.