I wonder...

[KawaiiKitty]

hmm I never really thought about it...but for me and my bf he usually spoons me although I am probably the more sensitive one in the couple. Well I guess maybe not since I just asked him. lol He said he thinks we are both sensitive but we just express it in different ways. By looking at us though I think most people would assume that Im the more dominant one since Im a rather hefty guy weight wise and Im also very tall at six feet as opposed to my bf who is average height and weight. I think I do act more effem though than him. But just by looking at us I think most people would assume Im the more mascule/top just because of my physicalness.

[Sylph]

Oh, I'm sorry Daddy, not lack of interest per se, but lack or disinterest in being interested to be "feely". And true our emotions and upbringings do contribute, more heavily so than others.

But for you to feel that need or "instinct" to protect or comfort him shows a great deal of compassion. And so does this then tie into what Beaux mentioned? Because he was vulnerable,smaller(possibly considered "soft") and more emotional, did this then lead you to biologically make the assertion that you had to protect or comfort him? In the form of you spooning him?

Seems feasable to me:/ .

@ Tinks;

Yes, as to reiterate from previous statement for Daddy, perhaps the same holds true for you as well, however, you show the same protective or "Alpha pose" as you put it, so would/could it then be said that your partner would do the same for you, or rather, would you want him to?

As I understand, a lot of men who feel the tendency or urge to protect also frequentlt do not wish to be consoled or protected in return, atleast not in the same way. For instance, someone hurts his pride or ego, so he goes to his partner, who then, instead of holding or spooning him, allows him to do it to them, as a way of coping for him.

However there are times when he'll want to be held, as Mick has so graciously attested to, in which case, the "protector" or "Alpha" even, is then held/supported.

And this has nothing to do with who is the top/bottom or "man"/"woman" is.

@Kawaii Kits

Hunni, Serve us nothing but Butch Queen Realness gurl!

This where I am interested, because as Beaux(again lol, love you Beaux) suggested, Biologically and according to Nepotism, there is an inate desire to protect the "soft" or even "prettier" and support them, however, in your case, does this not mean the Emotional side of it and less physical?

Not to say you aren't pretty, cause you know you are , but most people like you said would not think person such as you describe yourself as would need and even potentially want protection or support (in the traditional sense).

As Daddy mentioned, so many different Variables, but I am sensing a common link and can see an intricate pattern woven in the strands...

[Sylph]

No need to apologise

Definately feesable that environment has a strong influence.

Like Tinks assertion that if his partner were to come into danger, particularly physical, that he would "strike an alpha pose", thus inciting both an emotional and physical reaction from environmental stimuli...

Which then serves to prove you right, that the environment does serve a big part in this vert interesting phenomena...

And it makes me wonder as to what the "softer's" response would be, because I would personally appreciate being protected/stood up for, I can do it for myself, so would they look for protection in the instance of a dangerous environmental stimulus (harrasment)?

Very interesting indeed...

This almost seems animalistic in it's root base, as such things are inate, instinctual behaviors, however we have intelligence to either cloud or aid this instinct...

Perhaps if my partner was more of a protector/supporter, would I then instinctually suit myself to fit him? (different from changing yourself) Or am I already hardwired to be the "softer" as this is where majority of my traits fall to and that I look or attract a "harder" to compliment me?

Hmmm...

[Kiid]

I spoon men and women and wo-men and men-wo. I also enjoy being spooned.
All the spoons every spoon!
SPOON!

[Sylph]

I spoon men and women and wo-men and men-wo. I also enjoy being spooned.
All the spoons every spoon!
SPOON!

You know what... Fork you! Hard!

<3 ^o^

[Bowyn Aerrow]

Like it or not we are part of a two gender species.

Everything that species does is pretty much tied into the survival of the DNA and that is tied into the roles of either gender in the process of insuring the survival of the DNA.

Sure, we have complicated it a bit more with civilization and have a few thousand years of 'laws' being made to strengthen those roles.... but a lot of the ideas/notions of a woman's place and man's place ties back into the survival of the DNA.

Males are typically the providers/security force. Females tend to be the protected and oft times tied up with nurturing the offspring.

Since all males start of as females in the womb, and that more research ties in development of the fetus during its gender deciding period to the outcome of sexual preference (Gay/Bi/Straight/ Etc) it is easy to assume that 'bottoms' are bottoms because they are 'more female' in their hardwiring than tops.

And there is scientific evidence that gay male brains and hetero woman brains are much more similar than hetero male brains and hetero female brains: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/j...psychology

That may be due largely to whenever the development process jumps its tracks, or hiccups to lead to homosexuality. Thus a total bottom may have that hiccup earlier, thus end up with more 'female' traits in the brain wiring than the tops and versatile fall somewhere between these two points.

Of course it is not all black and white for everyone - there is a very large grey area where people fit in their own niche. Thus the 'power bottom' who is the dominate one in the relationship - while his top is more of the submissive one.

Of course social conventions which are tied to gender roles also play a role.

[Sylph]

Like it or not we are part of a two gender species.

Everything that species does is pretty much tied into the survival of the DNA and that is tied into the roles of either gender in the process of insuring the survival of the DNA.

Sure, we have complicated it a bit more with civilization and have a few thousand years of 'laws' being made to strengthen those roles.... but a lot of the ideas/notions of a woman's place and man's place ties back into the survival of the DNA.

Males are typically the providers/security force. Females tend to be the protected and oft times tied up with nurturing the offspring.

Since all males start of as females in the womb, and that more research ties in development of the fetus during its gender deciding period to the outcome of sexual preference (Gay/Bi/Straight/ Etc) it is easy to assume that 'bottoms' are bottoms because they are 'more female' in their hardwiring than tops.

And there is scientific evidence that gay male brains and hetero woman brains are much more similar than hetero male brains and hetero female brains: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/j...psychology

That may be due largely to whenever the development process jumps its tracks, or hiccups to lead to homosexuality. Thus a total bottom may have that hiccup earlier, thus end up with more 'female' traits in the brain wiring than the tops and versatile fall somewhere between these two points.

Of course it is not all black and white for everyone - there is a very large grey area where people fit in their own niche. Thus the 'power bottom' who is the dominate one in the relationship - while his top is more of the submissive one.

Of course social conventions which are tied to gender roles also play a role.

Dammit BA! I was just coming to this conclusion! V-V and you stole it as usual lol.

Why you gotta be so smawt? (To quote the Cat in the Hat)

This is probably the answer right here...alright class, dismissed, cause smarty pants BA done showed all us hoes up! .

It coincides wonderfully with Beauxs assessment of Biological manifestations, which result in the instinctual needs and/or desires, which you so eloquently stated for us.

Are you sure you aren't a Libra?

[sillyboy86]

Very interesting topic! ;-)
I agree with many of the things that were said here.

I want to protect and I want to be protected!

[Bowyn Aerrow]

I'm not a libra, but I do aspire to balance - if that counts.