Why Do Men Lie?

A question by Alex Bragi about some doms wanting their subs to have sex with another dom and asked whether these subs are coerced in some way, set off an unrelated but parallel chain of thoughts in me. Recently I read an extract of a psychology research paper in a psychology magazine. It asked the question ‘Why do men lie to women?’ The paper was erudite and rather convoluted but the conclusion was that basically women never believe men when they are telling the truth. Further into the paper it asked the alternative question ‘Why do women lie to men?’ The conclusion this time was that women lie to men so men don’t know the truth. This is not impugning every individual woman’s integrity, the paper does speculate on the biological imperatives for this behaviour. The paper goes on to infer that this behaviour shows men are submissive to females even when he believes he is dominant. The male will do anything to please his queen so to speak, while she, keeping her male compliant is happily living a completely different existence to the one the male thinks he knows about.

Pondering about this I asked myself the question, how dominant are male doms and how submissive are female submissives? Many women appear to say that they can only be submissive when they are adored by their respective male doms. This suggests to me the sub is not being submissive at all but will only rewards her dom when his behaviour is complying to her expectations. Let’s be honest fellas, when we men are confronted by a woman who is offering everything one desires, the male brain does have a tendency to become one tracked and one becomes blind to the world about us. I have never actually called myself a dom because while I have the urge to be dominant and find it a very satisfying experience, I have often been unable to put the question out of my head, why is this woman being so submissive to me? I have often felt I am the one being manipulated. I forgot to ask myself this question once and went into the pattern of lying to my partner in order to agree with anything she said as long as I was getting rewarded. I apologized for things I felt I wasn’t guilty of and felt were more to do with her hang-ups. Of course such behaviour is self-defeating.

In a BDSM situation of consensual sex, how dominant is a male dom and how submissive is a female submissive and is this an extreme reflection of the wider relationship between men and women? I.e. Male dominant thinks he is dominant while the female sub really knows she is?

The only statment that I can make is that, I know that I do not have the power in any relationship that I enter. This is mostly because it is the sub's choice to submit, and without that I am just a guy who has a few intresting kinks.

I would view such an article with skepticism. I'm sorry but the more I hear sexual generalisations, the bigger the pinch of salt I add to them gets. Men aren't all the same. Neither are women. Saying things like 'men do....' but 'women think....' just seems daft as human behavioural variation is so wide and has so much overlap between the sexes, it's a massive and, to my mind, unsound assumption to lump all the members of one sex into one behavioural category. Learned behavioural patterns and human experience are probably ( and I'm speculating here but what the hell, I'm sure whoever writes this kind of gender theory dosen't have any more robust measures to base theory on ) much more important in determining if and how an individual will lie to their partner, if they do at all. I would venture that the best relationships have an equal share of the true power. Submissives wouldn't be submissives if they weren't getting something they wanted out of the equation ( I don't include people who pose as submissives but have a different agenda under the label 'submissive' ) and if one party is dissatisfied with a relationship, then it is unlikely to last.

The counter question that I would ask is, do you, or anyone else, think that reading gender specific magazines or 'scientific' papers that pupport gender differences actually modifies peoples behaviour? For example women may read something from an 'expert' in a column giving advice along the lines of ' well women usually react to this situation by....'? Or maybe reading that paper you thought 'actually, yes I do that sometimes' and by becoming more conscious of a behaviour you are more likely to enact it? Now I'm just rambling on I know but, what the fuck, I wonder how much of this stuff is just made up and we latch onto it.

If you are being really manipulated in a relationship, that to me is a sign of dishonesty and a lack of real trust and respect.

I'm right with Nightstriker on this one, even as a dominant you are staying within accepted boundaries set by the submissive and when she says 'no' you stop, so she has the ultimate power of veto. I'm just playing at having the power for our mutual pleasure, and what a fantastic game it is:)

[QUOTE=AndrewBlack]The counter question that I would ask is, do you, or anyone else, think that reading gender specific magazines or 'scientific' papers that pupport gender differences actually modifies peoples behaviour?QUOTE]

Of course the paper is a generalisation. It doesn't purport to be anything else. It is theorising on biological imperatives. Its rather like saying men are taller than women. We all know not all men are taller than all women but we know what is meant by it. However to say there is no biological imperative behind human behaviour is a nonsense. We are all biological creatures. It's a talking point, thats all. But yes, experience and socialisation are a very important part of the equation.

What I want to know is the author's gender. There was an article in GQ not too long ago but not too recent either on the exact topic. It was written by a man. Besides the sprinkles of humor, his theory suggest that men lie because men can and it makes them in control (or at least the feel of it). I think that is true to a certain point.

I don't know how or if biology has anything to do with this. It is beyond my knowledge. But I do believe gender specific media does influence behavior. I still chuckle when I remember the article in Cosmopolitan about donkey punch? I forget exactly but it's funny what they tell women sometimes.

In the end, this reminds me of Chaucer? who wrote all women want is power over men. An argument can be made that the man is "submissive" because the power is given by the submissive in the first place. Nevertheless, I am sure it is still a fun game as Andrew points out. I wonder if it would be more fun with a slave instead of a submissive...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gallardo

What I want to know is the author's gender. There was an article in GQ not too long ago but not too recent either on the exact topic. It was written by a man. Besides the sprinkles of humor, his theory suggest that men lie because men can and it makes them in control (or at least the feel of it). I think that is true to a certain point.

---

The original article was in Psychology Magazine I believe but a lot of tabloids and periodicals took the issue up because of the obvious way they could simplify and be provocative with it.

If I remember it right, the paper was from a respected university. It was written by a man but there was a list of research assistants, many who were women.

I've been trying to find the original article but I have just moved studios and I'm struggling to find anything at the moment. If I come across it I will post it.

To me, any attempts to explain what gender is and how/why 'we" act the way we do seems rather shallow.

Gender is what YOU think you are, not what someone else tells you (which of course means there are more then 2 genders...). Or, to put it another way, gender is just an illusion (Butler is a good author if you are interested in the concept of gender).

Humyns (and yes that is how i spell it) act the way they do because their reality (as an individual) has been coerced and shaped by society- especially through language- to beleive certain concepts. M. Foucault blames knoweldge (the attempt to understand which leads to stereotypes) for our need to assocaite ourselves within a specific group, and to otherize what we dont understand.

I dont really tend to think of the submissive as being completely submissive- (in this case, she) it requires an overt act or decision to engage in a submissive activity, jsut as submitting to someone is to a degree a control over the dom(me)...Sure, the dom(me) may be controlling what/how a scene progresses, but ultimetly the sub is the one that agrees to the scene, feels the pain/pleasure (not counting what they do to or for the dom(me)), and can stop the scene with a word. They have more power then they think!

Why do men lie?

Easy.

They lie for the same reasons women lie, or for the same reasons children lie.

People lie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDSM_Tourguide

Why do men lie?

Easy.

They lie for the same reasons women lie, or for the same reasons children lie.

People lie.

---

I suppose I have started a self made problem here by my gross over simplification of the article. The article was not discussing social lying. Of course we all do that and have our own specific motives and that is regardless of gender. What the article was discussing was biological gender imperatives to lie. It was not saying men lie because their partner won't believe them if they tell the truth or women lie simply because they are inherent liars and are hiding the fact they are screwing the neighbour. The point was that each gender has a biological predisposition to respond in certain ways for the biological strategy of procreation. It was trying to analyse the underlying motives as to why men and women behave in certain ways. It is logical that male and female behaviour is both different and at times in opposition and in conflict and that is because each sex has developed a strategy to get the best partner so their offspring has a better chance to flourish.

I expected some opposition to this view because of the conflict between sociological theorists whose theories are prejudiced towards moral based "reasonableness' dressed up as 'reason' and psychological based theorists whose sympathies lay towards what something appears to be regardless of any moral stance. This article being a psychology paper I expected soem opposition from those who post in this forum that are employed in the sociological based caring professions.

Having worked in areas governed by such sociological based theories, ie probation work and teaching, for fourteen years or more and seen theory after theory enacted only to fail miserably. My sympathies have grown towards psychological based theory. Hence my interest in this article and what it might say about BDSM. I suppose my original post has taught me not to over simplify but I doubt many people read this forum for dry treatise and so I tried to simplfy and beat up the rhythm so to speak. I guess its a lesson learnt.

I understand what you are saying but still think non-gender varables are probably dominant in the process. Don't get me wrong here I actually do subscribe to the idea that personality is a LOT more genetically determined than we assume. Unfortunately as I said before, there are no real ways of measuring this at the moment so the whole field remains an area of speculation.

Also, as with any population study, it's almost impossible to apply it to an individual so the usual caveats apply when interpretting the research.

As you very astutely point out, I suspect the main strength of the article is in it's ease of misrepresentation so people can have sensational copy for their crappy magazines. The issue of irreponsible journalism is a seperate one ( don't get me started! ).

I agree with midnight even though she didn't really touch on why men lie. Which leads me to Project's comments.

"What the article was discussing was biological gender imperatives to lie."

Like midnight pointed out, gender is a creation by society, not biology. And the language we created and speak do reflect our gender biases. Then again would one change the word manhole to personhole?

Going back, to say "biological gender" is at least a little bizzarre. I assume the article explores the motives of lying based on sex but clearly one cannot escape the conventions of society in creating biases.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ProjectEuropa

I suppose I have started a self made problem here by my gross over simplification of the article.

I suppose my original post has taught me not to over simplify but I doubt many people read this forum for dry treatise and so I tried to simplfy and beat up the rhythm so to speak.

---

Actually, if you had started this thread in the Knowledge Base section, no one would've complained about reading a 'dry treatise' because they rather expect such there. For that matter, we received remarkably few complaints about our long drawn-out discussion of the origins of the universe in General Talk early last year. Some people may be turned off by science, but they're polite enough not to say so.

And, since Tourguide's response nearly echos my own from the "Why are BDSM girls fat and ugly?" thread, I'll side with him here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gallardo

I assume the article explores the motives of lying based on sex but clearly one cannot escape the conventions of society in creating biases.

---

Maybe I'm going to stir up a hornets nest here but it's not my intention.

If socialisation is so strong why are there so many gays?

I was brought up in a small mining community. There were eight males of my precise age brought up in a similar environment on the same street. Looking back it was a tolerant community accepting a wide range of diviancy, both social and sexual. However it was a traditional heavy industrial community and outwardly very male dominant but domestically female dominant. Two of those eight males are gay. If socialisation was so powerful those two gay males, one who is still a very good friend of mine, should have been beer drinking, soccer loving and horny for any female who breathes.

Now I can't explain a biological imperative for their sexuality but it does lead me to question the strength of socialisation. One can learn to be a social chameleon but those two gay males must have had powerful feelings within them to be openly gay and resist the socialisation process of the environment they were raised in.

And studies done raising infants with the 'opposite' gender cues (exposing girls to more blue and tractors, and boys to more pink and dolls) discovered that AS A GROUP these imposed gender cues were totally rejected. There's certainly some hard-wiring going on as far as gender is concerned.

No doubt, but to define something as cognitive and circumstantial as motivations for lying? I mean these are the highest order cerebral processes not what urges you have. I think the higher the cerebral functions involved the more cognitive you get, the less innate you get. The more you flesh out your desires and urges with specifics, the more learned it is. There's stuff I've read in this library that turns me on a lot that I'd never thought of before; equally the specifics of my desires have changed the more I've known. As for coping with social relationships you only have a repertoire of learned responses, you may fancy someone innately but you use learned behaviours to actually approach them and tell them so. Equally you manage that relationship in the same way. My opinion.

I think that your town does not constitute an equal social playing field. Just because 8 people are in geographical proximity does not make their experiences the same by a long way. That's not to say that there are not genetic componenets which I'm sure there are, just that it's not possible to control for environmental factors even with non-identical twins.

all the psyco babble aside........
we lie because it's eazier then telling the truth.......
end of story........



Michael

Why is lying easier than telling the truth?
If you choose to lie, you have to think, and come up with a plausible story. You have to make something up.
If you tell the truth, you already know it, all you have to do is talk, instead of having to invent a story.

Lying may often be more convenient than telling the truth, but it's not easier.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Michael

all the psyco babble aside........
we lie because it's eazier then telling the truth.......
end of story........



Michael

---

No. We lie because we are afraid.

Well, I haven’t read the article ProjectEuropa is referring to, but it sounds a little tongue in cheek to me, too. That’s not say it isn’t an interesting topic for discussion. Perhaps, just not one to be taken too seriously, I think.

So, why do men lie to men?

I believe, the most common, and frequently told, lie by men to other men is about how much sex their getting and, or, how good it is. Interestingly enough, it’s thought to be one of the primary causes of physiological impotence. It’s to do with their fragile egos – “I have great sex at least ten times a week.” Comments like this are bound to make some poor bugger feel inadequate with his performance, and that can cause a man to literally drop. But I guess that’s a whole new topic.

Now, why do men lie to women?

Men lie to women, mostly, to get sex. ‘”I swear you’re the most beautiful woman I’ve ever met.” The average red-blooded male, who has reached puberty, will usually do, or say, just about anything to get laid. When a man says sex with his ex-girlfriend was lousy, he is lying to make you feel good. When he tells you sex with his ex was fantastic, he is lying again to get more you to try something new. It’s important to remember sex for men is one of life's constants -- it's always pretty good.


Of course not all men’s little lies are so desperate. Men will lie to make life easier -- “No, of course I wasn’t looking at the woman’s gorgeous big breasts.” Then, they lie to shift the blame-- “It wasn’t my fault she flashed them in my face” They lie to make themselves feel bigger, better, and more important-- “I used to date woman with breasts bigger than hers!” And they lie just to keep the peace -- “No, darling, your breasts are much nicer than hers.”

Basically, I think how much a man will exaggerate and overestimate himself depends very much on how much he wants impress, or pacify, the woman he’s lying to. So, in a twisted kind of way, having a man like to you, really isn’t really such a bad thing is it?

:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ProjectEuropa

In a BDSM situation of consensual sex, how dominant is a male dom and how submissive is a female submissive and is this an extreme reflection of the wider relationship between men and women?

---

And on a more serious note, yes, I would agree with that statement. I think perhaps for primitive women (and perhaps many species of mammals) a female's ‘submissiveness’ is often her ‘protection’.

Studies done, with our closest relatives, show that female apes and monkeys frequently ‘offered’ themselves to dominant males in their troop in order to pacify them. An aggressive, but physically smaller and weaker female, soon finds herself in trouble if she confronts a bigger and stronger male.

Of course, we have evolved. We are civilized. But our insticts and primary emotions remain unchanged.