more on female superiority / supremacy

Thanks to all of you for taking the time to comment on my remarks regarding female superiority / supremacy. Thanks to ajr, Brett, George, Carl, hot_bottom, subguyinAtl, Recidavist and Bob for their general support of my positions. Thanks to ajr for the links to the blog 'femdom 101, mommydom 201 or a kool aid drinker', which includes some facetious Elise Sutton sightings, such as http://femdomnonsense.blogspot.com/2010/02/elise-sutton-saturdays.html .
Although I understand the humor underlying the femdom-101 posts, such posts are likely to be reflecting the truth, which is a bit depressing.

One comment, by an anonymous commenter, seemed to disagree substantially with my equality hypothesis. This commenter argues that women are superior to men because "women need more from their men sexually". In particular, it is claimed that women are superior to men (a) because women's orgasms are not necessarily linked with procreation; (b) because women's orgasms can be experienced from a greater variety of sources (clitoral, vaginal, g-spot, in the mind); and (c) because women's orgasms can be multiple.

The link between women's orgasms and superiority baffles me, however. I like my orgasms a lot, and perhaps they are better than a typical man's (or maybe not). But I don't see how such a possibility would make women superior to men, except that perhaps women have better and more diverse orgasms than men. The typical discussion of female vs. male superiority centers around strengths in leadership and intelligence, which were the dimensions of comparison that I was discussing. It's unclear how sexual interests or needs relate to such strengths, if at all. The typical argument for female superiority is that women are better group leaders, they are calmer, etc. Enjoying sex more seems orthogonal to being smarter and/or a better leader, unless a causal relationship can be established.

Another commenter, mysster, defines supremacy / superiority in a different way than I do: "as tags in the awakening in males of their desire to submit, to feel submissive, to let a Female take the lead"

mysster goes on as follows: "if 'supremacy' serves as an aphrodisiac phrase to lead us where we want to be in a relationship with a Woman who wishes to dominate, why not?"

These are not the typical definitions of the words "supremacy" and "superiority". Re-defining these words to mean something else makes communication about these notions difficult. To take an extreme example, if I start using the word "not" to mean "likely", it will be confusing for people that I am trying to communicate with. (Compare "I will not / likely do what you are asking".) A less extreme example of communication failure will occur when you utter the phrase "female supremacy" to mean your desire to submit to some woman or women. You will confuse people like me, who understand the meaning of the word "supremacy" very differently than you do, and in some circumstances, if you get involved with women who are true female supremacists (if such women actually exist), then it could have unwanted consequences.

Finally, jm makes some interesting hypotheses about F/M relationships, including the following conclusion "it is equality of need and mutual respect that lie at the heart of an F/M relationship." I think a more general statement can be made "it is equality of need and mutual respect that lie at the heart of any good relationship." That is, all good relationships - F/M, M/F, M/M and F/F - need equality and mutual respect for happy, healthy people. (Recidavist makes some related remarks in his comment.) I just happen to like to spank my Evan in our relationship, and he likes this too.

To conclude, here are some photos for you all. These pictures are from a recent otk for Evan. As you can see, he starts squirming when I spank. He managed to stay over my lap for 3 one-minute sets of spanks, using my paddle. The first minute appears to have been the worst. He managed to calm down for the latter two one-minute sets.

Keep the comments coming!