--- In sonsofkong@yahoogroups.com, "agentkjj005" <agentkjj005@...>
wrote:
>
> Wow, I guess I'd never seen Kong as such an extention of a male's
> desire to "control" a female, but now that you mention it, I can
see
> a new aspect to the story. But who is truly "in control" -- the
one
> who appears to be phyiscally dominant (within reason) or
the "prized
> one" "in the palm of the hand"?
>
> Agent 005
>
>
>
>
> --- In sonsofkong@yahoogroups.com, "Sally" <risk_girl75@> wrote:
> >
> > I think (ok I'm guessing) what Sue meant in her question was that
> do
> > some men think it is cool to be really in physical control of a
> woman
> > the way that King obviously was in the film, ie, to literally
have
> a
> > woman in the palm of their hand (in the non sexual sense of
> course).
> > It's a bit of a no no for the modern male to admit that these
days
> I
> > suppose but there are those who might think it without
> > saying I'll bet.
> >
> > We all have fantasies and one like that is perfectly
> understandable
> > and harmless to me.



A very good point Agent!

I was trying to be a little mischievious in what I said to open up
the debate a little, but it was worth it I hope.
Personally I think it is still a male trait to be the dominant sex,
and the
need to take a mate and protect, provide, and defend her from other
rivals plays a large part in the concept of the Kong scenario.
I'm not suggesting all men want to be a domineering bully in their
relationships with women (as a worst case thing), but I think it is
in the male gene to want to be in charge of proceedings.
Maybe King Kong would eventually have done alright with Ann whilst in
his own environment, but when he was 'Kongnapped' ..well we know what
happened then!

Just out of interest, how does the reverse concept work for men.
I suppose the nearest comparison in cinema is that old movie 'The
Attack Of The 50 Foot Woman'.
I know it's different storyline but it's big gall/little guy as
opposed to the Kong idea.