factbat.com

THE NATURE OF DOMINANCE IN SOCIETY

When speaking of dominance, and its relation to the realm of living organisms, it is important to first remove the misconceptions which have propagated within the minds of human beings, concerning the true role of this elemental feature in associative environments.

The fact is that the vast majority of the people on this planet are severely misguided as to the actual meaning of dominance and its importance. This is largely due to erroneous religious interpretations which resulted in obtuse observations of relations between animals and plants. Scientists and philosophers then ignorantly used various portions of these observations to create educational tools intended to instruct people as to proper social etiquette and acceptable parameters of human engagement in everything from business engagements to sexual relations. The aberrant behaviors that then propagated throughout society were largely allowed to grow unchecked as a collusive environment of power and control became synonymous with dominance, and society further detached from actual reality amid rampant reversal of gender roles.

Therefore, it is common today for people to perceive dominance as a superiority, or elevated capability, that either exists within, or creates, an environment of controlling and/or authoritative characteristics. History is replete with examples of these behaviors by kings, queens, warriors, religious leaders, business magnates, and so on. However, as will be revealed in this article, very few of these examples were the result of dominant character traits, and on the contrary, were the result of basic insubordination.

In seeking to clarify the role of dominance in the human species, this article will first address the elemental nature of dominance as regards its role in the origins of the Universe. Second it will attempt to expose some of the many obtuse examples of dominance by addressing various disparities attributable to its behavioral misconceptions within society. And third, will analyze the true meaning of dominance according to expected results relative to the human equation.

To begin the journey to clarification one must first understand exactly what dominance is, what it isn’t, and why it is critical to the existence of all things in the Universe.

Dominance in the literal sense is, first and foremost, a required characteristic that is critical to the survival of all things, both animate and inanimate. Dominance enables the fluid cohabitation of unlike elements, and is part of the natural order that is necessary to both create and sustain those elements.

Without dominance all things would eventually cease to exist.

Without dominance, every action would result in a cascading and exponentially increasing cacophony of catastrophic events.

One area of cognizant investigation imperative to grasping the governing role of dominance is that which exudes understanding of the relevant role of the subsidiary which is governed. All things relative to any action are perpetuated by equally imperative contributions of divergent origin, and that which is granted by the subsidiary element is just as critical to the equation as that which is demanded by the primary element. Furthermore, one does not exist without the other.

This then devolves to a degree of relativity where the research proves that neither primary nor subsidiary are capable of existence without an act of co-committal engagement between the two. Thus the analysis logically begins to encroach upon the proverbial “chicken or egg” question. However, this commonly engaged question only serves to expose humanity’s ignorant propensity to expect that there must be a leader, and thus becomes relative to the overall thesis of this article.

Actually, the question of “which came first the chicken or the egg?” is not relevant to the subject because even proposing this question first assumes that one is more important than the other. Furthermore, the chicken and the egg are essentially like-elements that only exist due to a smaller precursory engagement of molecular role play.

The origins of any and all elements, including humans, are not as mysterious as most people may believe when one realizes that even the divergent roles of positive and negative are more complimentary than bread and butter. The absolute and unequivocal truth is that the dominant positive energy exists solely due to the granted compliance of the subordinate negative synergy, whereby the cooperation between the two allows a product to run the necessary course of action which is critical to the sustainability of both elements.

This then command’s one to concede that neither the primary nor the subsidiary is more important, and that it is the cooperation between the two which enables production.

At this point it should be clear that dominance is merely a contributory factor of behavior that is required as part of a structured engagement, and that compliance with this structure is neither elective nor subjective. Therefore, dominance is a role which can never be properly performed by an authority. Due in part to the fact that authority is only created by the cooperative engagement of the primary elements of both the author and the authorized, and thus is not a primary element.

This then exudes the reality that dominance is equally a subservient role in that it must comply with the parameters of common engagement with subordinate elements, and therefore, is a role which can only be performed by that which is specifically designed to assume the position.

In light of the fact that asexual cellular growth exists, and that mitosis creates two cells with identical numbers of chromosomes, the origins of the Universe can be explained in a refractive formulae concordant with a cooperation between primary and secondary elements at an atomic level.

When investigating the base elements of life, such as carbon, nitrogen, sodium, potassium, oxygen and other atomic precursors, what is important is to understand that these elements are also geologically and cosmically prevalent. Therefore, when referring back to the “chicken or egg” analogy, the elementary equation that connects the animate to the inanimate is best described as a reversal of the commonly perceived roles.

The common belief is that humans, and all other plant and animal life, exist because of the vitamin and mineral composition of the planet, concordant with these living things’ ability to access and use them. However, the fact is that the mineral elements of this planet, and the Universe, most likely began as microbiological organisms that played out their cooperative roles eons ago, and thus have evolved in an exponentially occurring mass of elemental creation that eventually grew to the immense proportions humans currently exist within.

Spoken more simply, this Universe is likely the fossilized remains of an amoebic origin.

Energy and mass have been empirically proven inseparable by relevant investigative analysis performed by Albert Einstein and many others. Therefore, in light of other currently proven parameters of quantum mechanics and physics, such as those which explain the nature of dark matter and its relevance to the tangible realms of radiated energy, one can easily explain how energy is capable of creating matter, and vice versa.

The intent of this article is only to delve into those areas which are common in lay research, and thus will not further articulate the technical analogy of this subject. But suffice it to say that the above mentioned evidence is conclusive proof that this Universe most likely began as a single animate organism, rather than -- as proposed by those who postulated the “big bang” theory -- a small exploding super-particle. Actually, the existence of “dominance” precludes Einstein’s assertion that some master particle exploded with enough force to have expanded into the many binary values now coursing through the cosmos.

In an effort to explain clearly and concisely the negative effects of the current social interpretation of dominance, it will be necessary to engage various portions of subject matter that typically presents as inflammatory to a significant portion of the population, and thus will be enunciated with as much respect for this sensitivity as scientific analogy will allow. However, given the fact that science is based on empirical evidence rather than perspective or opinion, the likelihood is that every portion of this section will offend somebody.

The most prevalent subject matter available, relevant to the analogy of social dominance, is that which addresses the physical characteristics and behaviors of the male gender of the human species. However, to a divergent degree some reference to the behaviors of males in the animal kingdom will be employed only as contrasting analogies.

The male gender of the human species, in most every way, presents as the dominant gender. The male is physically more durable than the female, inherently more objective and historically more logical. There are of course the occasional exceptions to this gender specific propensity, however, they are negligible in consideration of this analysis. This in no way insinuates that the exception is irrelevant of dismissible, just merely irrelevant to this particular area of research.

What is important as well, is the animosity many women exhibit toward any mention of men being their dominant counterpart in society.

If it were not for the many abusive behaviors that have been attributed to dominance, women would likely be more complimentary to the dominant which nature (a la Universe) inexplicably requires of men. Furthermore, women would be much more satisfied with their natural subsidiary position in the necessary order of things.

It must be understood that the dominant role required by the male of the species is not an elective, and there is no alternative to this hierarchy which is capable of sustaining the species. Furthermore, efforts to create an environment inhospitable to this natural order will only be met with perversions that eventually, given enough time, will render the species extinct.

While it is true that this extinction is essentially impossible, the aforementioned fact is merely the result of an analysis of the implications. Regardless, the longer this species continues on a course opposed to the natural order of things, the worse the consequences will be, and the magnitude of the negative consequences will depend on the actual trajectory, but the specificities will manifest across all spectrums.

For example, while a major role reversal of the genders would manifest inequities caused by erroneous indoctrination of succeeding generations. And a significant role suppression would manifest inequities caused by the lack of input from one gender. The result is the same. Regardless of the fact that they would vary in degree of severity with respect to the evolutionary cycle of each particular inequity, both would culminate in an identically unsustainable level of homosexuality.

What must be understood is that dominating and being dominated are both hospitable behaviors within the human psyche. Experiencing pleasure at being dominated is not reserved to either gender.

Both dominating and being dominated are acts of human engagement which completely engulf the entire spectrum of human sensation. They consumes the body and mind in such a way that once experienced they become intoxicating parallel energies that create synaptic responses likened to those of a narcotic. Furthermore, even unpleasant experiences of this nature can be a precursor to conditions that manifest inordinate perversions and violent sexual desires which eventually evolve into insatiable sexual addictions or compulsively salacious acts of molestation or rape.

What is remarkable is that as the parameters of dominance have been misconstrued, exploited and abused, both men and women have become increasingly perverse in society.

The problem is that the mechanisms that enabled the perversion of dominance are multifaceted and extremely complex. The short version is basically this: Humanity’s ignorance initially forced the species to unwittingly engage in logical trials and errors that progressed intermittently with both positive and negative results, as could be expected. However, as more complex disparities began to evolve, those who found it necessary to capitalize on perceived inequities of human relations for ulterior gains, began to incorporate tools of deception designed to exploit common human frailties with pious oppression under the guise of a proposed “religious dominance.”

This “religious dominance” was the precursor to beliefs and demands which eventually evolved into the social conditions which currently finds much of the developed nations literally stalking the majority of their own societies.

Sex has become less a means of procreation and more an act of pleasure for most of the world. For many women these days, their bodies are little more than a carnival ride they can use to seduce any number of tangible forms of compensation from any number of indiscriminate men.

This is an extremely disturbing reality for a great many reasons, not the least of them the fact that millions of children are suffering as a result.

Not to be outdone, the men of society have for eons been shirking their responsibilities as the dominant half of the species. So many men have egregiously abused women in a bevy of relations whether they be as boss and employee or as husband and wife.

What is truly remarkable is the fact that some societies choose to turn the tables and demand that the women assume the role of dominance in that they hold them responsible for ensuring that the men act ethically by forcing them to comply with strict dress codes and prudish behaviors. Various Muslim and Hindu religions consign to a Sharia law which even allows the men to murder women whom they allege have disgraced or embarrassed them with prohibited behavior. These are called “honor killings” and can even be imposed on daughters by fathers who are perceived them to have transgressed against this law.

In American society, women have been subjected to a more indiscriminate and indirect form of exploitation where the laws that are designed to protect all citizens’ inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness have been perverted to the point where they absolve the individual of all responsibilities to the species as a whole, and therefore enable a “survival of the fittest” or “natural selection” mentality to prevail as the deciding factor which sustains the social order and emulated atmosphere of pro creation.

The overexposure of the female anatomy that incessantly pervades almost every facet of daily life for American women is rife with exemplary indications that have absolutely nothing to do with attracting a mate.

Many women just enjoy feeling “sexy” and become almost addicted to the attention they receive as a result of their excessively salacious exploits. While it is true that media has been one of the primary contributors to this exasperating assault on the senses, the fact is that women have been cultivating this illusory image in a degenerative fashion since the advent of monotheism.

What must be understood is that human beings are born ignorant for a very specific reason, and are expected to progress as a result. Not just throughout ones life, but throughout the Universe. If it were not for this ignorance humans would simply be animals, acting on instinct.

Another factor of illusion that has contributed to the misconception of dominance in the species is the many scientific studies that relate various animal behaviors to those of humans. Scientists incessantly compare the mating practices and perceived equations of natural selection of animals to those of humans.

However, one should note that almost all females in the animal kingdom are the less visually remarkable of the species. This has very little to do with humans in the literal sense, however, it does have everything to do with the relationship between the male and female gender of all species.

First of all, the fact is that the males of all living organisms almost exclusively impregnate the females. And in mammals, the male typically inserts a phallic appendage into a vaginal opening to a womb in the female.

This clearly shows that the female cannot be the one to initiate sexual intercourse since she has no express ability to prevent it from occurring. The fact is that the male must always assume a dominant role over the female when engaging in sexual intercourse or any demonstrative precursor to this end. It is imperative the male understand the meaning of dominance in the literal sense and inherently observe his dominant role in male/female relations.

This, however, does not absolve the female of her dominant roles in other areas of human sociology. What is unfortunate is that as bad as men are at abusing their dominant role, women are just as guilty of refusing to properly engage theirs.

Dominance, for the most part, is a responsibility. It is also that which allows logic to prevail, and is the primary instigator of pragmatism.

It is typically synonymous with confidence. However, due to the fact that the meaning of confidence has also been severely perverted within the consciousness of this society, it does not currently serve the critical purpose of alerting a member of the opposite sex to those who are indelibly reliable.

Kindness, humility, patience, and other like characteristics are seldom perceived by women to be those which show dominance in men. On the contrary these behaviors are typically viewed as weak or subordinate. It is a sad fact of life in American society that women are generally abused by men simply because they refuse to make better choices, and often would not be caught dead with the intrinsically dominant male.

This is generally because a man who is truly dominant does not consider appeal to the opposite sex to be a high priority. A truly dominant man is typically concerned with more sustainable issues such as how a woman views herself or her role in society, or what a woman truly cares about. The truly dominant man will first and foremost require that a prospective mate have an opinion and essentially be “about something.”

Regardless of how many women may attempt to incessantly argue that they desire a man of this stature, the cold hard truth is that even those who truly believe this about themselves seldom have the tenacity or character to sustain a relationship of this kind.

It is not because they are not capable, but simply because most women today would rather demand that they be allowed to assume the man’s primary role in the relationship, and ignore their subsidiary one. Therefore, it becomes a one sided engagement where half of the relationship is not being supported, and thus it eventually fails due to structural inequities.

What has ensued in the perverse atmosphere that was cultivated as a result of this, is that women now demand attention at every turn.

They demand it in the way the dress, the way they walk, the way they talk, in the words they choose, even many times in the employment they select. And this attention is without exception one of a sexual nature.

Seldom does any woman ever seek attention for her intellect. It is extremely rare for a truly functional female of American society to engage the opposite sex with honor and morality.

This is not to say that there aren’t plenty of women who will seek the attention of men for something other than sexual attention. However, these women invariably fall into one of three categories: homosexuals; the mentally challenged, or Nuns.

Of course there are many variations of the women in these categories, and some will still predominantly seek the attention of men primarily through sexual attraction.

If more men were truly compliant with the species’ inherent male dominance, and were comfortable with engaging their moral role as outlined by the parameters of this dominance, women would naturally be constrained to a more pleasurable existence to be sure.

What is unfortunate is that the majority of both men and women have become obsessed with mere gratification, whether it be sexually, predatorily, financially or esoterically. Furthermore, the fact is that gratification is an extremely fickle sensation.

Gratification can manifest in innumerable of forms due to the fact that it is simply the experience of a predetermined response that is the result of learned expectations. What is unfortunate is the fact that a great many of these results are anything but pleasurable, per se. Such as the sensation one experiences when smoking a cigarette. This sensation is actually the feeling of dying, and is extremely destructive to the body. However, since the habitual smoker has long since forgotten the first experience where he or she nearly vomited or coughed up a lung due to the disgusting nature of the practice, they can only access that part of their consciousness which is controlled by the many social nuances and personal affirmations which keep them addicted to smoking.

To prevent this article from turning into another book, I will conclude with one final determination of fact.

A truly dominant person is one who is not influenced by social trends or controlled by popular perceptions. A truly dominant person is one who inherently lives by a morally courageous code that allows one to see the logic in both positive and negative, light and dark. A code that enables one the ability to make choices in an environment of compliance, to perceive a vastly more diverse and inexorably logical number of courses of action which are both concordant with human design function parameters and humanity’s divergently creative function.

Dominance is indifference to pleasure and sensitivity to pain…

Dominance is benevolence…

Dominance is love.