But in animals, when expressing dominance and submission, isn’t exposing the belly submissive?
Does the fact that you need a willing partner in order to get blown do anything to the roles?
I’ll take your word on the one receiving being dominant (though in my experience, I usually feel blessed, not dominant,) but this would seem to indicate to me that the roles do not parallel the dom/sub games of chimps and other animals, but rather that we have evolved our own more complex ones.
Scylla, look at it this way - Bob and Joe are both straight. Bob says to Joe, “Suck my cock.” Since Joe is straight, he doesn’t want to so, if Bob were to carry through, he would have to force Joe to suck his cock (and that, obstensibly, is the only way Joe would do so). Ergo, who’s the dominant one?
Esprix
I understand. I’m not disagreeing with the assertion that you’re making, that the guy on the receiving end of a hummer is dominant.
Where I’m confused, and where I think there might be an error, is in goboy’s suggesting that calling someone a cocksucker harkens back to chimapanzee and animal dom/sub games.
In every animal that I know of exposing your belly and other …er vitals to the mouth and teeth of another is a sign of submissiveness.
So what I’m thinking is that the insult probably isn’t meant to show dominance or if it is, not in parallel to other animal’s mounting behavior.
If it were, we’d have a stronger term for the more traditional male/male mounting as a perjorative.
Do you see what I’m saying?
No, I still think my thesis is valid. Yes, other animals expose their bellies, as a sign of submission, but remember that man is the only mammal that gives hummers. (Dogs might be willing, but those teeth–OUCH).
And we do have pejoratives for the receptive partner of male-male mounting; “catamite,” “bitch,” and “pussyboy,” for example. I don’t know about your area of the country, but whre I’m from, calling a guy a bitch is far worse than calling him a cocksucker.
And to go even further, think about your adolescent roughhousing. Even when both guys are straight, aren’t there dominance/submission issues, play mounting and so forth? Don’t you force the other guy beneath you until he screams, “Uncle”? You see the exact same behavior in adolescent chimpanzees. (well, except for the saying “Uncle” bit.)
That’s My Scylla!
“Yes, but, if I macrame this simple concept into a deceptively elaborate misrepresentation of what you said, then reduce it to absurdity and draw a bizarre conclusion from that oversimplification, maybe I will succeed in confusing you enough to elicit a stunned ‘hunh?’, which I’ll claim as a victory.”
'Scylla, Queen of the Desperate, pay attention to the sodomites: the act of penetration is an act of domination. No matter what other body parts are exposed, or which orifice is penetrated.
goboy:
Again, I’d agree that man engages in behavior of the type you’ve described, i.e. mounting games and such.
Let me research something and get back to you.
I don’t know about monkey’s performing fellatio, but I do know that gorillas have been known to perform cunnilingus.
If monkey’s perform fellatio on each other as part of dom/sub behavior, that would clinch your point, wouldn’t it?
I’ll see what I can find.
Wait a minute!
To have gay sex, you have to do a semiotic analysis to determine who is the dominant partner and who the submissive?
No wonder you guys are in the minority!!
Even getting a toaster-oven can’t make up for having to do the research for a Soc. term paper every time you get horny!!
Sociology term papers make me hot!
Esprix
No, Poly; just to penetrate (you’ll excuse the pun) 'Scylla’s obfuscatory powers.
I have an mp3 of a song called “Cocksucker’s Ball.” It was recorded in the mid-fifties by an early R&B group called The Clovers. In the song, it is quite clear that “Cocksucker” means effete homosexual. So while that meaning may have become diffused do to overuse of the term, 50 years ago it was quite clear. (On a side note, although the song is terribly, terribly homophobic it is really delightful in a sort of ironic way–it has the same sort of arrangement and complex harmonies that you expect from a 50s R&B group, plus dirty words. Think X-rated version of “Blue Velvet” or “Love Potion #9”)
Actually monkeys perform fellatio as well. I found links. I don’t want to pos them, but go look for yourself.
::shudder::
As I mentioned elsewhere. Gorillas have been known to perform cunnilingus on their mates, and your basic male gorilla is very concerned about dominance.
As to penetration defining dominance. I think that’s stupid. I’ve had sex, and done the penetrating and not been dominant. That’s why the term “maneater” defines a dominant female.
Look to your own experience.
If you engage in a seduction, isn’t the seducer more likely to perform fellatio on the seducee than vice-versa? Who’s dominant then.
Is it often mutual, and do roles switch?
It seems to me that in many cases the performance of oral sex is unrelated to dominance games.
The monkey behavior seems to be unrelated to their “mounting” practices. The latter define dominance, while the oral sex seems to indicate recreation.
Clearly the compulsion to perform oral sex can be a dominance practice, that does not seem to be its normal role though in either monkeys or humans.
How this applies to calling someone a “cocksucker” as a dominance act, I’m not sure. I guess it could be, or more likely just a generic insult.
goboy:
In my experience “Cocksucker” is much worse than “bitch.” I don’t think I’ve heard “catamite” as an insult though.
You know, I knew you would do this.
In the context and chronology of this discussion, it’s very clear that no such absolute correlation has been claimed. Semiotically, symbologically,–which is, as far as I can tell, the nature of this debate–when one is attempting to draw symbolic significance from a sexual act, especially and specifically the act under discussion, the penetrator can be read as the dominator.
No one has claimed that in all real-life sexual situations, any and every act of penetration is a concrete and conscious act of domination; only that in the vocabulary of the linguistic significance of accusing someone of participating in a particular sexual act–the literal point of this discussion; the context from which you remove the point before you can engage with it, 'Scylla–the culturally perceived relation of dominator to dominated is semiotically relevant.
(Obfuscatious enough, 'Scylla?)
But then you say:
OK, now you’re just being contrary. Which is it?
OK, Scylla, next time somebody calls you a cocksucker, proudly display your dominance over him by giving him a blowjob. :rolleyes:
I’m starting to see lissener’s point.
Esprix
I think there is a difference between ‘cocksucker’ and ‘suck my cock’. ‘Cocksucker’ is a statement; “You enjoy sucking cock.” with the implicit statement that this is negative.
‘suck my cock’ is a command; It says ‘Do something that you would not like to do otherwise, because I am your superior.’ similar to ‘Bite my ass.’ ‘Suck my cock’ would not be a particularly effective slam against a homosexual, unless you were unattractive to them. (Mentally or physically or whatever.)
In my personal vocabulary, cocksucker has long been replaced by the more negative ‘cockbiter.’ (and the associated ‘cockbiting’) It maintains most of the gutteral consonants while associating the insulted with a truly reprehensible behavior.
–John
You know, I just thought goboy’s idea of calling somebody a cocksucker being related to “mounting behavior” an interesting idea. It didn’t seem quite right to me.
I was interested in discussing it, and I was doing so politely.
Lissener though has been nothing but a complete shithead in this and other recent threads. He’s completely lost whatever respect I once had for him. His unprokoked bullshit isn’t worth it. I’ve long since culled what little interesting information there is in the guy and his views. In hindsight the 3-4% genuinely meaningful and interesting stuff isn’t worth the other 95% of pure nasty asshole.
There are lots of interesting discussions out there, and I see no reason to waste my time with a hypocritical ass. Forget the whole thing.
Esprix:
What I meant was the gorilla wouldn’t engage in the activity if it meant he thought he was taking a submissive role.
See ya.
“Yes! Yes!.. Just say it! Say it!”
“Oh, baby. Let me privilege lesbian positionality by destabilizing your bodily metanarrative.”
-Sydney and Mo, in Alison Bechdel’s Dykes to Watch Out For
Matt…there’s a problem there.
The first question is, do you have reason to believe that you will turn Esprix on by presenting lesbian deconstruction of societally-ordained gender typifications?
If this is indeed the case, I have some terrible news for you. It is straight men who are turned on by hearing talk about lesbians.
In short, your unrequited love object, the official Gay Guy™ of the SDMB, is [sub](straight)[/sub].
We should have known it when he mentioned the names of actresses that he found sexy. Probably he’s only pretending to be gay in an effort to be P.C.
I’m sorry to have to be the one that breaks this sad news to you, but…
::: offers shoulder to cry on :::
Either that, or I’m actually a lesbian.
The world (or at least the SDMB) may never know for sure…
Esprix
When talking about insults, Esprix said:
"For those who might ask, my knee-jerk swear is ‘shut the fuck up,’ but the penultimate is ‘God-damned mother-fucking son-of-a-bitch bastard asshole!’ "
I just have a quick question: if “God-damned mother-fucking son-of-a-bitch bastard asshole” is the penultimate, then what’s the ultimate? Or is that too dirty for even The Pit?
Just trying to add to my vocabulary so I don’t have to use words like “cocksucker”. Personally though, I prefer geniuswipe. When used properly, it means someone who is a moron and a buttwipe. Then again, regular words are pretty vivid for describing one’s personality. Swears are kinda trite. So I either use G-rated words or make up my own swears.
Sorry if I’ve hijacked.