# You ever met a female "dom" who isn't a spiteful little shit?



## TheUnnecessaryEvil (Mar 28, 2021)

I am convinced that women simply cannot be Doms.

I'm not saying this to be a chauvinistic wannabe-tit-fucker low-key closeted cuck.

But I find it telling how every. single. example of a female who calls herself a dom that I've ever seen only brought out that non-existent side of her when she's feeling spiteful of either males in general or one specific male.

_Example. I was in an online rp group, where I proceeded to get kicked because an xxFJ was friends with the dude in charge and I guess I offended her or someshit.

When I asked the admin if I can come back, I was told to go to her dms to ask her because the admin is a little bitch I guess.

I tried to rebuild the bridge.. and she said that I couldn't because she "expects (her) littles to talk with respect."

She thought I was her little.. because she was butthurt at me._

This is only one example btw. I may get into the next major one later if I have the time.

Only being "dominant" out of some misplaced need for revenge isn't real dominance.. coming from someone who actually Doms. It needs to come from a genuine desire to care for and control.. not to keep people whom you have pent up aggression towards in line because you think you're entitled to some kind of justice.


----------



## tarmonk (Nov 21, 2017)

TheUnnecessaryEvil said:


> Only being "dominant" out of some misplaced need for revenge isn't real dominance.. coming from someone who actually Doms. It needs to come from a genuine desire to care for and control.. not to keep people whom you have pent up aggression towards in line because you think you're entitled to some kind of justice.


Agreed, what you explained in those examples, isn't any kind of dominance, it's more like being passive-aggressive or manipulative in my opinion or just some selfish need for attention. Could you please specify what's the context you mean by being dominant so I could explain it better - more like a personality or some sex related stuff?

In my opinion, persons in the examples you brought, prob have just bad personalities and those characteristics would be there even without any dominance involved, thus it won't work anyway. If I was into anything like these topics (I am and I'm in LTR with a girl who's interested in stuff like this), I'd try to meet a girl who's suitable personality-wise (whom you could get along and be in relationship in long turn, it doesn't require any specific personality traits although men tend to often think it does) and then see what else could be done to extend it in context of sexual play.


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

I think there is/was one on this forum


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

I've never been around bdsm communities and haven't met any doms--male or female.

I also want to say that some men seem to like when dominant women are degrading--one time I watched a "jerk off instruction" porn thing, and the woman was just being kind of mean and I did not understand why anyone would want to watch that, but apparently it is sexually satisfying to many men to have a woman try to make them hurt their balls and stuff.

So some men like that feeling of being degraded or not cared about? It is sexually satisfying? I find it very foreign to want to hurt a partner's balls though I would of course hurt some enemy's if I had to, in self-defense. So that is kind of weird to me that some men would be so into that as a sexual thing, but it's not my problem.

I'm not going to fault her for fulfilling a niche--if that is what some men get turned on by and they are willing to pay for it. To have a woman tell them to hurt their balls.

But admins usually don't admin because they want to sexually dominate the members of the forums (at least from my experience) but rather to keep forum rules on behalf of the community. It does make people upset but you can't please everyone and many admins are just volunteering and may have other jobs as well.

Penalizing forum members isn't supposed to be sexually gratifying to them and most admin aren't intending that when they ban people. Perhaps the admin was just making a bad joke.

I think sometimes some people want to think women in positions of dominance (like admin) are there because it is sexually or even personally satisfying, whereas that isn't true--in online forums, many times people just are trying to help out a community because _someone_ needs to do the modding, and modding sucks ass.

I had people sometimes acting like I must be sexually dominant to be modding, and it was uncomfortable because that was their projection based on what I felt I was doing to try to help the forum community--as just another volunteer job like walking homeless animals or washing feeding tubes for wild birds etc.

However, modding requires a different skill set--one of the selfish reasons I decided to be a mod was because I hoped it would help me to integrate into being more 8 like, which is supposed to be growth for Enneagram 5.

So anyway--just speaking from the perspective of an admin--I don't know what roleplaying community you were in though, but being an admin doesn't make someone sexually dominant.

I am sure some of the men who like to have women tell them to hurt their own balls are in dominant positions within society--but it isn't reflected in their sexual behavior.


----------



## TheUnnecessaryEvil (Mar 28, 2021)

WickerDeer said:


> I've never been around bdsm communities and haven't met any doms--male or female.
> 
> I also want to say that some men seem to like when dominant women are degrading--one time I watched a "jerk off instruction" porn thing, and the woman was just being kind of mean and I did not understand why anyone would want to watch that, but apparently it is sexually satisfying to many men to have a woman try to make them hurt their balls and stuff.
> 
> ...


Are you playing moron's advocate rn? Really? Get a grip.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

TheUnnecessaryEvil said:


> Are you playing moron's advocate rn? Really? Get a grip.


? I mean...do u need me to advocate for u?


----------



## TheUnnecessaryEvil (Mar 28, 2021)

WickerDeer said:


> ? I mean...do u need me to advocate for u?


No. I'm saying don't excuse idiocy.. lest you yourself look like an idiot.


----------



## Electra (Oct 24, 2014)

TheUnnecessaryEvil said:


> No. I'm saying don't excuse idiocy.. lest you yourself look like an idiot.


Why are you being so rude to her? Pull your self together and show some respect...


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

TheUnnecessaryEvil said:


> No. I'm saying don't excuse idiocy.. lest you yourself look like an idiot.


I'm not the one who made a post about how an admin called me a "little," and used that as the example for "every sexual dom" who is female being "a little shit."

So maybe you should work on making a more coherent argument if you want people to respond in a less moronic way.

I can't even tell if you're trolling, which is the only aspect of your post or my response that I feel unsure about or think warrants any criticism.

Are you telling me I shouldn't excuse your behavior because it makes me look like an idiot?


----------



## secondpassing (Jan 13, 2018)

WEEEEEEEEEEEe


----------



## Queen of Cups (Feb 26, 2010)

Yep


----------



## TheUnnecessaryEvil (Mar 28, 2021)

Electra said:


> Why are you being so rude to her? Pull your self together and show some respect...


Boom.. INFJ. You're welcome.



WickerDeer said:


> I'm not the one who made a post about how an admin called me a "little," and used that as the example for "every sexual dom" who is female being "a little shit."
> 
> So maybe you should work on making a more coherent argument if you want people to respond in a less moronic way.
> 
> ...


I was perfectly coherent and I refuse to listen to any complaints about my behavior in a society that flips out when a zoo saves a child from some stupid ape.


----------



## Purrfessor (Jul 30, 2013)

Rip


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

TheUnnecessaryEvil said:


> Boom.. INFJ. You're welcome.
> 
> 
> 
> I was perfectly coherent and I refuse to listen to any complaints about my behavior in a society that flips out when a zoo saves a child from some stupid ape.


I'm not complaining--just trying to understand your behavior. I don't understand submissive/dominant relationships.

Here's a question--say a female partner doesn't want to do butt things to a male partner. 

Aside from being a selfish prude, does that mean she must not be submissive, because a truly submissive partner would agree to do what the other partner wanted, including acts that didn't feel submissive--such as doing butt things to a partner upon their request?


----------



## Meliodas (Nov 16, 2016)

Power = Reward - Effort. (The Law of Least Effort)

The concepts of sexual dominance and submission seem to refer only to the physical orientation of the parties (i.e. who penetrates and is penetrated). This ignores the reality that whomever exerts the most work to achieve satisfaction is inherently in a subordinate position.

P.S. If you have any sense, stay well away from BDSM communities. The majority of people involved in them are psychologically damaged.


----------



## TheUnnecessaryEvil (Mar 28, 2021)

Meliodas said:


> Power = Reward - Effort. (The Law of Least Effort)
> 
> The concepts of sexual dominance and submission seem to refer only to the physical orientation of the parties (i.e. who penetrates and is penetrated). This ignores the reality that whomever exerts the most work to achieve satisfaction is inherently in a subordinate position.
> 
> P.S. If you have any sense, stay well away from BDSM communities. The majority of people involved in them are psychologically damaged.


Keep that mentality up and live your relationship life unhappy af.



WickerDeer said:


> I'm not complaining--just trying to understand your behavior. I don't understand submissive/dominant relationships.
> 
> Here's a question--say a female partner doesn't want to do butt things to a male partner.
> 
> Aside from being a selfish prude, does that mean she must not be submissive, because a truly submissive partner would agree to do what the other partner wanted, including acts that didn't feel submissive--such as doing butt things to a partner upon their request?


The best way to think of it is as a dance. Both parties are gonna put in the energy but one leads and the other enjoys the ride.

Both people should get what they want and need. This idea that the sub sacrifices what they want and the dom is the one who always gets what they want is like nails on a chalkboard in my head. It's about who the rock is.. who the inspiration is.

Generally what you see is that the sub's wants and needs will be assimilated by the dom's. No sacrifice.

So for your example. What you may well find is the sub not wanting to do butt stuff at first.. but then seeing how much the dom wants it then makes the sub genuinely want to do it. That shit doesn't happen overnight. It comes through a combination of trust from the sub's end and a delicate balance of patience/persistence from the dom's end.

Now say the sub still doesn't want to do butt stuff even after seeing how much the dom wants it. Still doesn't mean jack. One rejection doesn't mean the entire dynamic of the relationship gets flipped on it's rear. All it means is that it's then the dom's responsibility to handle the situation in a way that doesn't "break the toy," as you will. Oftentimes that means knowing to shut your mouth and listening to what the sub has to say.


----------



## Meliodas (Nov 16, 2016)

TheUnnecessaryEvil said:


> Keep that mentality up and live your relationship life unhappy af.


You just complained about spitefulness and passive-aggressive behaviour. Clearly you don't practice what you preach.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

Meliodas said:


> Power = Reward - Effort. (The Law of Least Effort)
> 
> The concepts of sexual dominance and submission seem to refer only to the physical orientation of the parties (i.e. who penetrates and is penetrated). This ignores the reality that whomever exerts the most work to achieve satisfaction is inherently in a subordinate position.
> 
> P.S. If you have any sense, stay well away from BDSM communities. The majority of people involved in them are psychologically damaged.


So basically, the laziest person is the dominant one.





TheUnnecessaryEvil said:


> Keep that mentality up and live your relationship life unhappy af.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well then can a dominant one get the submissive one to be in the dominant role? You said women can't be dominant in the OP but women can peg the dominant partner in the butt if he wants it, and she's submissive.

So then what about if the dominant one wants her to degrade him--like making him sit on his balls in a weird way like in the video I watched (there wasn't a guy in it--just a woman telling men to sit on their balls in a painful way).

So a submissive could also do that, but so long as the dominant wants her to tell him that.

So women can only be dominant, in your opinion, if they are doing it for the man as a type of submission. But that also sounds similar to how you say that men have to do it out of care as well.

Of course--people can have limits and not want to do any of that.

Edit: Also--thank you for the thorough answer. I feel like you went into more explanation than the question really deserved--and I appreciate it, but I figured I would just follow it up and clarify with another question that's probably pretty ignorant, since I really do not know anything about the bdsm community.


----------



## TheUnnecessaryEvil (Mar 28, 2021)

WickerDeer said:


> So basically, the laziest person is the dominant one.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


First.. don't listen to him. It's harder being the dom than it is to be the sub.

Well, for example, you can make your sub ride on top of you but still be the dom since you're leading the interaction. What I said was theoretical. I'm all for equal opportunity but the reality unfortunately never seems to match up.

That sounds more like a sub trying to top from the bottom to me with the degradation. No genuine dom is going to want that. There are lines to this crap lol.

Dominance and submission are mindsets. Those mindsets often do lead to general rules (as mentioned before), but talking about dominance and submission in terms of pure actions would be a rookie mistake. This is why a lot of YA romance novels are really stupid. Like people are only allowed to call themselves "dominant" if they own literally everybody they come across and everyone wants them.

I'm quite reserved face-to-face and most women hate my guts. Does that mean I'm not really a dom? Nope. Slight tangent ik but I think it still fits.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

TheUnnecessaryEvil said:


> There are lines to this crap lol.


That's kind of what I was wondering--where the lines are drawn. Though it sounds like they are less clear in theory.

How did you know that you prefer the dominant role, and does that mean that you never change roles?

Do you tend to view people in specific categories regarding submission/domination--like submissive/dominant/switch or do you think of people in a broader spectrum? (Do you tend to think everyone falls into a category regarding submission/domination? Or there are people who just don't fit into that at all (I mean, I'm not talking about asexual people--they are exempt from the question)...like people who are not into BDSM) I'm just curious how it colors your perception of people.

I've seen the quiz where they ask questions and categorize people into different categories like people who prefer to be degraded or people who prefer to be vanilla, dominant or submissive etc. So I am wondering if these are considered part of the same spectrum or like subcategories--since you said that a dominant probably wouldn't want to be degraded in practice, even if it could be possible in theory. 

But then, what do you think about the women who do tell men to sit on their balls in painful ways--you don't believe they are dominant? I have seen others of that type who seem concerned about the men who consume their pornography--so perhaps that is more similar to how you feel a dominant person should act? Perhaps you just don't engage with a lot of dominant women because it is more common for submissive people to engage with them, and so that is why you haven't met any that you feel are good dominants.


----------



## Electra (Oct 24, 2014)

TheUnnecessaryEvil said:


> Boom.. INFJ. You're welcome.
> 
> 
> 
> I was perfectly coherent and I refuse to listen to any complaints about my behavior in a society that flips out when a zoo saves a child from some stupid ape.


You better start showing it!


----------



## daleks_exterminate (Jul 22, 2013)

Everyone has good and bad experiences. We all have things we're into because of mass amounts of various reasons. Maybe it's not your thing, and that's fine?

anecdotally, I do enjoy "domming" sexually. Not all the time. That just seems boring. It can be really hot to take control and I guess mind games are really fun (consentually and in this specific context). I don't think I'm a spiteful little shit haha.

that's anecdotal, ofc, and it may be worth noting that I haven't had a lot of partners, and have really just had sex in monogamous relationships, and just kind of stumbled upon really enjoying being in control and playing with ropes and wax and such. I've never joined or been interested in a bdsm club, group, environment etc. I'm not judging it. I don't care what consenting adults do in their free time. I just don't have an interest. I also wouldn't be into a 24/7 relationship like that, it seems boring.

So I enjoy domming during sex, but only in a context of a already healthy relationship outside of that.


----------



## TheUnnecessaryEvil (Mar 28, 2021)

Electra said:


> You better start showing it!


I did.

Your current extroverted people-cucking tantrum just isn't letting you see it.

Now reply with a paragraph and take your social justice out on your drywall.


----------



## TheUnnecessaryEvil (Mar 28, 2021)

WickerDeer said:


> That's kind of what I was wondering--where the lines are drawn. Though it sounds like they are less clear in theory.
> 
> How did you know that you prefer the dominant role, and does that mean that you never change roles?
> 
> ...


After reading these questions do I have enough lifespan to answer? I have no fucking clue.

They are less clear in theory. I can use as many "for examples" as I can think of, but at the end of the day, if you're not involved in some way, you just won't know.

I'm a literal narcissist with anger issues and a self-aware borderline god-complex.. is how I know. I simply cannot see myself getting gooey like that because the idea is so foreign to me. 

Bedroom and outside are different. In the bedroom I believe you're either one or the other.. because I believe sex is supposed to bring out the extremes of your personality (if it doesn't do that, your chemistry is shit. Fight me). In everyday situations, it's never that simple. You gotta wear social masks. Subs can't be subby all the time because then society will eat them alive. Doms can't be dominant all the time either because that'll just mean trouble. 

Best you don't take those tests seriously. A person's kinks and preferences are oftentimes like soup. It goes a long way to look at all a person's, quote, "individual" desires and work to figure out what they all have in common..
.. and then milk it for all it's worth.

No I don't believe they are dominant. I believe they hate men and are disguising it. By concerned, I'm pretty sure you actually mean pissed off that they aren't getting paid as much as they think they should be.

How can I interact with what isn't there? Loud dominants (which female "doms" always are) aren't really dominant.. they're showy and flaunty. I don't flaunt. I know what I want.. I know what the sub wants.. and that's all that matters. Not so with these fakers.


----------



## Electra (Oct 24, 2014)

TheUnnecessaryEvil said:


> I did.
> 
> Your current extroverted people-cucking tantrum just isn't letting you see it.
> 
> Now reply with a paragraph and take your social justice out on your drywall.


This is the perfect opportunety for me to block you! Au revoir!🖐


----------



## X10E8 (Apr 28, 2021)

tarmonk said:


> Agreed, what you explained in those examples, isn't any kind of dominance, it's more like being passive-aggressive or manipulative in my opinion or just some selfish need for attention. Could you please specify what's the context you mean by being dominant so I could explain it better - more like a personality or some sex related stuff?
> 
> In my opinion, persons in the examples you brought, prob have just bad personalities and those characteristics would be there even without any dominance involved, thus it won't work anyway. If I was into anything like these topics (I am and I'm in LTR with a girl who's interested in stuff like this), I'd try to meet a girl who's suitable personality-wise (whom you could get along and be in relationship in long turn, it doesn't require any specific personality traits although men tend to often think it does) and then see what else could be done to extend it in context of sexual play.


🙂Heyy dude, It depends on the type of women and her MM functions. A female with masculine extroverted Sensing Se will lead sex and switch back to submission. BDSM gets boring fast.

Regards,


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

TheUnnecessaryEvil said:


> After reading these questions do I have enough lifespan to answer? I have no fucking clue.
> 
> They are less clear in theory. I can use as many "for examples" as I can think of, but at the end of the day, if you're not involved in some way, you just won't know.
> 
> ...


Ok ok (and thanks for answering honestly)

But, to get back to topic, I'm going to suggest:

Maybe it seems like they "flaunt" because they are trying to attract submissive men, and perhaps men tend to be more attracted to that type of thing...the superficial, initially. Or perhaps some men are attracted to showy cruel behavior. Maybe it's a way to show that it's sexual role-playing.

Whereas female submissives tend not to need someone to be as showy--because they don't tend to look for the same type of experience or they just tend to read people better than the typical male submissive reads women? I'm not sure whether some types of men tend to want to be submissive more often--but I have heard from a friend who went to law school that it is common among male lawyers.

I just feel like there are a lot of men who have submissive fantasies. Maybe it is about the type of fantasies men tend to have--that female dominants would appear that way.






I didn't watch when the lady called up or past that, but I didn't realize that acting like a caregiver is considered to be dominating for a female dominatrix. Like I have never thought of babysitting as any kind of dominant role (or sexual in any way)--perhaps some men prefer the domination of a cruel, angry female dominant whereas other men fantasize about some kind of nurturing domination.

And maybe some men don't fantasize about being dominated at all--I assume. Though I wouldn't know--I feel like it's more common to see men who do have fantasies about being dominated by women.

I assume it's all more common with people in more high-status positions in society and more wealth.


----------



## Squirt (Jun 2, 2017)

TheUnnecessaryEvil said:


> I am convinced that women simply cannot be Doms.
> 
> I'm not saying this to be a chauvinistic wannabe-tit-fucker low-key closeted cuck.
> 
> ...


Is that really what was happening in that situation? It sounds a bit like it was a game rather than being honestly spiteful. (Might be wrong, but calling you "little" seems like she was indicating it was a game.... however, it sounds like you didn't indicate to her that you were into that, so annoying either way.) But like you said that was just one example, too.

I'm also curious, from what you say, if a female dom and a male dom would be equivalent in expression, even ideally. How much variation is there in how a person sees the role, in general, and what influences that? What does "cannot" mean if women are indeed "doms" of some kind, and satisfy their partners? Need a wider sample before I could be convinced.

I'm neither, btw. This is another outsider query.


----------



## Meliodas (Nov 16, 2016)

WickerDeer said:


> So basically, the laziest person is the dominant one.


Bingo, sister.

If a man can improvise variations on a jazz standard for an hour without any obvious effort, we would consider him to be highly competent in that domain, and therefore powerful relative to others. Sexuality is no different. Men who have to flatter, entice and pursue a woman to receive satisfaction are not dominant.

To behave in such a desperate manner would be beneath my dignity - true power is the ability to get laid while you sit on your arse burping, farting and watching TV 😎. For example:

"Master, can I suck your cock?"
"..._burps_...maybe after you get me another beer, you hideous, shameful slut-whore."
"Oooh Master scolded me! The pleasure of your cruel words is indescribable, I'm so hot down there...aa-aa-ahh! Moo-oo! Moo-oo!"
"That's it, you horny bitch! Give me more of those disconsolate, agonized _moos_!! MWUHAHAHA!!!"


----------



## tarmonk (Nov 21, 2017)

WickerDeer said:


> I'm not sure whether some types of men tend to want to be submissive more often--but I have heard from a friend who went to law school that it is common among male lawyers.
> 
> I just feel like there are a lot of men who have submissive fantasies. Maybe it is about the type of fantasies men tend to have--that female dominants would appear that way.


As much as I've studied this from various sources and also from my own experiences, there are 2 categories of men: some men have those fantasies naturally from early ages and some have developed them in adulthood. It's obvious that the first category's interest doesn't come from their position at work, right  Second category has various men from various job areas and some of those interests might be related to searching for temporary relax from responsibility because of their responsible position but it's necessarily not the case.

But it definitely isn't so that there's a particular way a woman should look or act to fullfill these fantasies - I'll tell a bit more about that in next section of answer.

Also men with such interests fall into a few categories: naturally dominant in everyday life or naturally submissive in everyday life. I dare to say, for lifestyle relationships women often prefer men from first category as this kind of play is only one small aspect of life - also it's more interesting to tame a tiger than a puppy.



> I didn't watch when the lady called up or past that, but I didn't realize that acting like a caregiver is considered to be dominating for a female dominatrix. Like I have never thought of babysitting as any kind of dominant role (or sexual in any way)--perhaps some men prefer the domination of a cruel, angry female dominant whereas other men fantasize about some kind of nurturing domination.


As I've read there are at least 5 more common archetypes of such fantasies for men and they're pretty different although basic pattern of implementation is somewhat similar. And yes, kind of babysitting is one of those categories (i'm personally not into it but i don't mind that many are)  Most widespread female archetypes related to these fantasies are Nursemaid-caregiver (smth about babysitting), Goddess, Queen, Amazon and Governess. They're pretty different both by implementation and attitude required from woman - there are books online where you could read about them in more details - in case a man is interested but doesn't know yet which kind of them suits best, it's a good way to find out as for many men not all of them would be equally interesting - same applies for women as well.



> And maybe some men don't fantasize about being dominated at all--I assume. Though I wouldn't know--I feel like it's more common to see men who do have fantasies about being dominated by women.
> 
> I assume it's all more common with people in more high-status positions in society and more wealth.


Definitely not all men fantasize about such things but many do  I guess using proffessional services is often common in men on higher positions and more wealth but this stereotype is prob because they just have more resources to afford to pay for that. But you can live this kind of lifestyle with your partner being at any position - it's normal relationship requiring resources and stuff like every other but just has some extensions to it (I personally prefer this kind of approach) 

If it was all about the positions and money, it'd be so that economy boom some 15 years ago would have been created a lot of bedroom submissives and economy crash following it would have been created a lot of bedroom doms - but it just doesn't sound logical


----------



## Dezir (Nov 25, 2013)

TheUnnecessaryEvil said:


> I am convinced that women simply cannot be Doms.
> 
> I'm not saying this to be a chauvinistic wannabe-tit-fucker low-key closeted cuck.
> 
> ...


What is real dominance according to you?

As far as I can tell, dominance is the quality of taking control of other people or animals in a forceful way. If you don't like dominant women, that's because you're not supposed to.

Maybe you have something specific in mind when you say_ "dominant"_, but I don't think you are supposed to like a dominant person, they force things upon you.

And it's also the fact that they are females. Somehow, being a dominant male is more natural, because _"men are supposed to be dominant"_, we don't like dominant men but we accept it because it happens. But a dominant woman? hey, that's going too far.


----------



## Meliodas (Nov 16, 2016)

Dezir said:


> What is real dominance according to you?
> 
> As far as I can tell, dominance is the quality of taking control of other people or animals in a forceful way. If you don't like dominant women, that's because you're not supposed to.


That is incorrect. A dominant man is simply one who exercises authority over others in a particular situation or domain of life. Men vary in their talents, therefore, it is common to lead in one domain and follow the lead of others in another. Also, effective leaders know, as Sun Tzu said (_Art of War_ Cp. 3, iii) that "to win a hundred victories through toil is not the acme of skill, rather, it is to subdue the enemy without any loss on your part". Who is more dominant - the man who wrestles in the mud with a boar or the one who can slay the beast instantly with a weapon? Again, power is result minus effort.

The most effective seducers of women are those men (e.g. celebrities, politicians, and CEOs of major companies) whose authority draws women towards them.



Dezir said:


> Maybe you have something specific in mind when you say_ "dominant"_, but I don't think you are supposed to like a dominant person, they force things upon you.


What you describe here is a tyranny. A man who exercises authority in this way will not stay in power for long, as his despotism invariably turns others against him.


----------



## Handsome Dyke (Oct 4, 2012)

Everybody who claims to be a Dom is an asshole. They're a bunch of people who either participate or want to participate in acting out various kinds of sexualized abuse. It's not compatible with being a decent person.


----------



## Meliodas (Nov 16, 2016)

Saiyed Handsome **** said:


> Everybody who claims to be a Dom is an asshole. They're a bunch of people who either participate or want to participate in acting out various kinds of sexualized abuse. It's not compatible with being a decent person.


The BDSM community mistakes a forceful sexual appetite for dominance, when in fact the opposite is true, as a man ruled by that instinct can be easily manipulated by women.


----------



## shameless (Apr 21, 2014)

I think alotta women are doms because it’s profitable 

I’m not even into any of that shit. But hey if ya want me to degrade ya for some money well I guess I’d consider it 🤣.


----------



## Dezir (Nov 25, 2013)

Meliodas said:


> That is incorrect. A dominant man is simply one who exercises authority over others in a particular situation or domain of life. Men vary in their talents, therefore, it is common to lead in one domain and follow the lead of others in another. Also, effective leaders know, as Sun Tzu said (_Art of War_ Cp. 3, iii) that "to win a hundred victories through toil is not the acme of skill, rather, it is to subdue the enemy without any loss on your part". Who is more dominant - the man who wrestles in the mud with a boar or the one who can slay the beast instantly with a weapon? Again, power is result minus effort.
> 
> The most effective seducers of women are those men (e.g. celebrities, politicians, and CEOs of major companies) whose authority draws women towards them.
> 
> What you describe here is a tyranny. A man who exercises authority in this way will not stay in power for long, as his despotism invariably turns others against him.


_"When you vote, you are exercising political authority, you’re using force. And force, my friends, is violence. The supreme authority from which all other authorities are derived."_ - Starship Troopers

The supreme force of authority is force. Someone has authority over you because he can make bad things happen to you if you don't listen to him, such as losing your job or whatever.

If you take your statement to it's logical conclusion you essentially agree with me, except with extra steps.

Celebrities, politicians and CEOs of major companies seduce through status. Much like a rich man with a million dollars car does. It's not himself that seduces, it's his belongings and status. And he has authority over others because of his job, his top position, therefore, again, his status.

If you mean physical dominance, as in physical presence, this is already the case 90% of the times. The average man is taller, and weights more and has a greater percentage of muscle mass on their bodies than a woman. There are obvious physical differences between men and women. Anyway, this is a touchy topic, some people are going to get offended no matter how scientifically and factually accurate it is.

As a man, if you take some crazy risks to up your social status or some crazy risks to try and like be more attractive to women or try to achieve something in life and be ambitious, if you succeed, your upside in how many women are going to be interested in you is tremendeous. If you fail, your downside might actually be none. Had you not taken that risk you might have already end up in the position you already are anyway. So once you take that risk, even if it fails, maybe you didn't even lose anything. This creates a very big difference in male and female psychology, and this relates to dating in a lot of ways.

A lot of guys see a girl with kind of like an average boyfriend and get offended _"why is she with him? I'm better than him"_. Here is why: the guy is low risk, the guy is safe, and women value safety. Not just intellectually but genetically because they should, it's smart for them to play it safer than men. If you take a risk as a woman and you fail, there might be downsides, risks are very much punished in terms of women, where as they are very much rewarded in terms of men.

Similarly, you're at a bar talking to a girl, you try to get her to a party or get her to come home with you, that sort of stuff. Men make the mistake of trying to sell how amazing it's going to be, and that's how you should communicate with someone who is looking at expected value looking upside, looking at taking risks as good things, looking at _"if this goes well, it's a huge bonus in my life"_. And that's how what it is for men. For a guy, getting with a girl vs. getting with no girl, lifechanging. For a girl, getting with a guy of this caliber vs. getting with a guy of a slightly different caliber, not that big of a difference. So when you're talking to a girl, when you're trying to take a girl home or trying to persuade a girl of something, instead of trying to sell _"oh, it's so amazing"_ what you really should sell is _"it's not a big risk"_.

So you have a better chance with taking a girl home by saying _"you know what, it's just 5 minutes away, if you don't like it you can leave, no big deal, no risk"_ that kind of thing, as opposed to saying _"oh yeah, it's amazing, and there's gonna be a DJ there, and it will be incredible"_. If you do that, from a social point of view, you look like you're trying very hard and you might even look like you're lying, which also being with a guy who is lying is a big risk for her. But the upside doesn't really sell so much as the risk of downside unsells.

This is why a lot of guys when they're talking to a girl, they're evaluating how a girl would react and they're evaluating through this lens of male behavior. This lens of what they would do in her shoes and fundamentally there is that difference, she is less likely to take a risk than you.

Another example, we look at a girl as guys and typically, we know right away we're attracted to her, we'd know right away, we'd like to go somewhere and willing to take the risk to take a girl home in 5 minutes or 10 minutes if we're attracted, very regularly. Most of the time, women need more time than that. Why? because, yes they're attracted to you, but again, they care less about the upside, they care a lot more about the downside risk, so they want to take some time, they want to be cautious, they want to weight their options and make sure they don't make a bad decision.

So again, what is the takeaway? Men, incentivise to take risks much more than women on a lot of different levels, and so, for men, a lot of times maybe you're in sales you're in business, selling the upside, selling ambition, probably a good idea. For women, whether in dating or even potentially in other areas, like in business that kind of stuff, selling the lack of risk, selling the stability, selling the predictability, those kind of things, is generally going to be much more what's gonna get you a result.

So stop looking at women through this male lens, stop assuming they're you. Understand that they are different from you, not better, not worse, I'm not saying women suck and men are great, I'm not saying the opposite, I'm not saying anything like that, but what I'm saying is there are fundamental differences between men and women, and the more you understand those differences and the more you acknowledge them. Acknowledge the way life is instead of the way you'd like life to be. If you acknowledge life as it is and take that as your basis, you're gonna make much more intelligent decisions throughout.


----------



## Eren Jaegerbomb (Nov 13, 2015)

I don't know about other women, but for myself personally, no, I'm definitely not 'dommy' to be spiteful.

Then again I'm more of a switch.

I just like reactions of people.

So yeah, no idea about others. I don't know if dominatrixes actually believe whatever humiliating words they're saying to men, or if they're only saying it because the maso wants to hear it.


----------



## Charus (May 31, 2017)

I really dont know why people are into BDSM, I find this kind of sexual roleplay as degenerative. People who likes being hurt physicaly or being degraded seriously just need some help, same with doms tbh.


----------



## Whippit (Jun 15, 2012)

Yeah, actually. I knew a woman who did actual Dominatrix work, prolly an ENxP. She was lovely, outspoken, very chill yet assertive simultaneously, strangely enough. Never used her services, power play isn't my thing.


----------



## mia-me (Feb 5, 2021)

Not into powerplay either but I really enjoyed the interplay between Sherlock and The Woman. Even though Sherlock believes himself to be asexual and aromantic, this episode proved him wrong. He's a sapiosexual, needing his mind to be intellectually challenged first before he becomes intrigued enough to allow his emotions to get involved.


----------



## arcticfox (Aug 27, 2019)

Yes, I have.


----------

