Just a brief thought. Submission seems to be the urge to absolutely lose oneself, to bury the ego, have it totally eclipsed by another.
Dominance appears to be the need to absolutely possess another, to make them elevate the Dominant the centre of the Universe with the ego all powerful, untouched and uncompromised.
That I am an alpha personality is in no doubt. Even as a child, other kids would often look to me to take control during games and I understand this not as some insecurity that drives me to boss others about, merely a natural personality trait and it sits easily with me. Does this make me Dominant?
I am puzzled by any "'ism" and it's continuing presence in the range of human behaviours. Whilst I can absolutely get why it's a selected for behaviour when we stood nervously at the mouth of our cave suspiciously watching the strange people who didn't look like a member of our clan in case they wanted to slaughter us and steal our children for slaves, it doesn't really have any relevance in our globally connected modern world. And yet it persists.
"Are you happy babe?"
"I'm happy when you are happy"
"but are you happy, you know, in your own right?"
"Ofcourse I am, because I'm making you happy"
"But are YOU happy? "
"Yes, if you are happy"
As I have said in earlier blogs, men and women are designed to trick each other. The female of the species - unlike the vast majority of all other mammals - does not have a "season" as such where both genders know exactly what to do and it's a fuck fest of fertility. Our complex social behaviours mean that we operate a number of conflicting models of behaviour -male resources support offspring flourishing but rapacious male sex drives do create problems in settled communities. Female competition for these resources also makes for community tensions and unlike species that are happily monogamous and such behaviour is sexually selected for in the successful continuation of the species, human reproductive success is complicated, often counter intuitive and seems destined to make us rather unhappy. In the old fashioned world of competition for male resources, women operated the only currency available to them - sexual access In cultures where women have no control over that currency, they fare very, very badly indeed. Take the horrific, brutal lives of women in Afghanistan where they are not educated, cannot drive or indeed travel without a male companion. Married off to much older men. Whole religions are designed around the need to control access to sex because men fear the loss of that access.
Turning the coin over, look at sexual promiscuity in the West where the contraceptive pill lifts the burden of biology so that women can freely fuck with impunity. Does that make women any better off.? Well, manifestly it does because it gives women choice over their body and lives but still, the currency is devalued when so freely spent. Men given something for nothing seem not to value it and women are not designed to ignore the biological imperative. Nature makes women naturally assess potential lovers for security, reliability and kindness. Being fucked and forgotten hurts women deeply, lack of respect for the gift of sexual access cuts us to the quick.
When men learn that sexual access and home stability are the reward for supportive, chivalrous behaviour, the world benefits. When women guard and manage their currency wisely, home is a calm place to be.