Dominating Men

[Gul Dukat]

I think that in public people want to project a certain image and the old-fashioned sense of 'men being in charge' just doesn't fly with the majority anymore... but if someone wants to be dominated sexually by a man in that way I always assume they're privately buying into the concepts they're afraid to support publicly, either for professional or social or psychological reasons... but I could be wrong about that.
[MENTION=4956]charlene[/MENTION]

I liked your link a lot... I think everyone should read it.

It may be that part of the reason male aggressors are perceived to be (or possibly are) the most successful with relationships/sex is because aggression is a stereotypically masculine 'warrior' trait, whereas something like caregiving, infantile or victim tend to be stereotypically feminine. But this has more to do with common perceptions as opposed to reality, which is quite different... and it's no secret that a lot of people are seriously marginalized by common perceptions.

 

[SealHammer]

Also, some men are into violence and being physically strong, or "ready to defend". I hate violence, and defending children or loved ones is one thing, but the way a lot of men get about their anticipation of it is to me disturbing and glorifying of it.

At the expense of dragging us slightly off-topic, I'd like to address this post. When you say "into" violence, do you mean men/people who have a general psychological willingness, readiness, and preparation for violence, or the minority who fetishize it and its applications?

I have pretty high testosterone too, I listen to rap and imagine I'm a badass, but I take it out in the gym or go for a run, not talk excitedly with my bros about stabbing people.

Because right here it sounds like you're talking about violence fetishists, but then you go on to say this (by the way, I find the implication that rap is a violent thing ignorant and offensive):

I blame the media for telling men they need to be violent and idiotic and better than each other in order to be sexy and cool and manly. It is just so ridiculous and overdone. Totally mindless and childish and it is SO deeply ingrained into the emotional and cultural minds of essentially all men now.

Which makes it sound like you take issue with people who, in general, have any part in proceedings which involve violence of one form or another. Also, to say that "essentially all men" are totally mindless and childish because violence exists is a bit misandric and, I think, misses the overarching societal problem altogether.

 

[Quiet]

I think that in public people want to project a certain image and the old-fashioned sense of 'men being in charge' just doesn't fly with the majority anymore... but if someone wants to be dominated sexually by a man in that way I always assume they're privately buying into the concepts they're afraid to support publicly, either for professional or social or psychological reasons... but I could be wrong about that.

I cant really speak for anyone because i havent felt this personally- i think that might be the case for some people ive met, but i think for most people its a ying/yang thing, where they enjoy the ying and yang aspects and want to embody them fully during sex.



[MENTION=4956]charlene[/MENTION]

I liked your link a lot... I think everyone should read it.

It may be that part of the reason male aggressors are perceived to be (or possibly are) the most successful with relationships/sex is because aggression is a stereotypically masculine 'warrior' trait, whereas something like caregiving, infantile or victim tend to be stereotypically feminine. But this has more to do with common perceptions as opposed to reality, which is quite different... and it's no secret that a lot of people are seriously marginalized by common perceptions.

Perhaps. I think that the 'caregiving' attitude could also be considered more masculine, while infantile and victim more feminine (from a culturally stereotypical point of view). Perhaps there are simply more aggressor and caregiving types in the population- ESTps, ESFps, ISFs and ISTJ, those with dominant sensing functions, and ISFp, ISTp, ESFj, ESTj, those with secondary sensory functions. Maybe these types are over represented in media, leading people to think that the 'mode' is the average because it occurs more frequently.

But i have no idea, im pretty uniformed regarding socionics

 

[barbad0s]

At the expense of dragging us slightly off-topic, I'd like to address this post. When you say "into" violence, do you mean men/people who have a general psychological willingness, readiness, and preparation for violence, or the minority who fetishize it and its applications?

Drag all you wanna drag.
I meant a large proportion of the guys I've encountered IRL and online throughout the years. So yes, this --> "Which makes it sound like you take issue with people who, in general, have any part in proceedings which involve violence of one form or another."

Because right here it sounds like you're talking about violence fetishists, but then you go on to say this (by the way, I find the implication that rap is a violent thing ignorant and offensive):

That was a sort of far-fetched and not well set up example I made. What I mean is that it's very accepted for guys to casually talk about violent matters such as the last fight they got into or how they would smash so and so's head in if they ever did such and such.
Rap as an art isn't necessarily all violent, but a huge proportion of rap songs consist of angry guys talking about popping caps in other people asses and killing people. This is way more violence than in any other musical genre, and it seems ignorant to be calling that ignorant. I'm not trying to suggest that listening to rap MAKES people violent, but personally when I listen to it I feel pretty energized and like a badass, which I assume many other people feel too (otherwise, gangster rap wouldn't sell). Also, why is it offensive?

Also, to say that "essentially all men" are totally mindless and childish because violence exists is a bit misandric and, I think, misses the overarching societal problem altogether.

No, I did not say that all men are totally mindless and childish. That would be splicing together words from different sentences very far apart and hopscotching over my intended meanings. Here are my original words for reference:

"I blame the media for telling men they need to be violent and idiotic and better than each other in order to be sexy and cool and manly. It is just so ridiculous and overdone. Totally mindless and childish and it is SO deeply ingrained into the emotional and cultural minds of essentially all men now."

I think that the mentality which men are made to buy into is mindless and childish, and essentially all men are subject to the culture's shit-dumping. Also I didn't say anything about any of it being as a result of violence existing. The issue of violence existing is one that is separate from what I am trying to bring up. What I am trying to shed light on is how the glorification of violence is tied into the cultural self-image and in-group image of men.

I don't know which "overarching societal problem" you are talking about but please identify this if you think it's relevant.

 

[Gul Dukat]

Perhaps. I think that the 'caregiving' attitude could also be considered more masculine, while infantile and victim more feminine (from a culturally stereotypical point of view).

I thought that as well at first, except part of the description including nurturing and a 'maternal' approach.
I think that if a guy took a maternal approach to a heterosexual relationship the girl would think he was gay.

Maybe he could get away with infantile, though.

 

[this is only temporary]

I thought that as well at first, except part of the description including nurturing and a 'maternal' approach.
I think that if a guy took a maternal approach to a heterosexual relationship the girl would think he was gay.

Maybe he could get away with infantile, though.

That's because it should say "nurturing" instead of "maternal", somebody wrote it wrong. Straight men can be very nurturing, and it can be very attractive, some of my very favorite men in the world are great nurturers. Nothing unsexy about that!

 

[bionic]

Perhaps. I think that the 'caregiving' attitude could also be considered more masculine, while infantile and victim more feminine (from a culturally stereotypical point of view). Perhaps there are simply more aggressor and caregiving types in the population- ESTps, ESFps, ISFs and ISTJ, those with dominant sensing functions, and ISFp, ISTp, ESFj, ESTj, those with secondary sensory functions. Maybe these types are over represented in media, leading people to think that the 'mode' is the average because it occurs more frequently.

But i have no idea, im pretty uniformed regarding socionics

Ehh.. but I know plenty of ENTj & INTp men who are assertive when it comes to finding a lover. They are 'victims' in Socionics. I wouldn't take the terms so concretely though. The reason why they use 'aggressor' and 'victim' is due to the quadras and their values. The Beta & Gamma quadra have the aggressors and victims due to the Se (aggressor types) and Ni (victims types). The Alpha & Deltas share Si (caregiver) and Ne (infantile). They really dropped the ball using these terms... because it doesn't necessarily have a correlation with dominance. I mean crap, I'm an ENTj female and I've gone after lovers in my past in an assertive way because I wanted the guy. In socionics, I am a "victim". I wouldn't think of the terms too extremely, it paints a very dramatic and inaccurate picture if you define it in your mind that way.

This is a pretty decent post:
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/content.php/101-Erotic-Attitudes

 

[sassafras]

Generally, I like to be the Alpha in my life and the Beta in my relationship. I will voluntarily follow a man who is benevolent to me, confident in himself and ambitious in his life. No mind games and fucked up tricks required. But the ones who are genuinely like that are hard to come by.

Man or woman, I am not interested in building any kind of relationship with someone who needs to bring me down in order to bring themselves up. Sometimes people are not what they seem and I happened to end up with a man like that once. It wasn't pleasant and I often shoved back thrice as hard and we parted ways not too long after.


I often say I am not looking for a master nor a slave, I am looking for an equal; a strong and capable partner by my side.


As to why; I am a human being and I can be vulnerable. I like to share my life with someone who is capable of shielding me (literally and figuratively) in my time of weakness, and provide that protective environment and sense of security that I need to grow out of it and find my strength again. And I expect for him to accept that I do the same and take care of things while he figures a way out of his struggles. I don't want for things to fall apart when one of us has to or needs to take a back seat for a little while.

Every word of this.

While there are certainly exceptions, I think that when a lot of women (or men!) say they want 'dominating' partner, they're really just reacting against the idea of being with someone who is weak-willed or overly insecure. I'm getting to an age where a lot of my friends and I are a few relationships wiser and the subject of what we want in a lifemate comes up frequently in conversation. Whether gay or straight or man or woman, the general consensus seems to be that people are looking for a partner who, apart from being loving and respectful in a relationship, has struck a balance of being comfortable in their own skin and not being afraid to expect a little more of themselves and others.

Dominance does not at all equate with confidence or power. I've known some very dominant, aggressive people that you could blow over like a house of cards once you realized what pushed their buttons. Besides, very few people truly respect anything that obviously comes from a place of insecurity. In fact, Indeed, I think most displays of aggression and anger really are the result of insecurity-- some personal rule has been violated (or is in danger of being violated) and most people's instinct is to try and throw people off the scent of their own vulnerability.

 

[devpeople]

when I think about a typical alpha male I fantasise about killing them. I wouldn't do this of course but its a thought that always comes into my head. I want to humiliate them and show them that they have misplaced confidence.

I think its part of me that sees alpha type males as bullies. I dislike bullies and people who think its acceptable to condescend others. I feel adrenaline and almost a sexual desire to kill them.

Sorry I am just being honest. I am not sure if this will get me banned already but emotions are complicated.

Just to reiterate I would not do this in real life and its just an emotion.

 

[barbad0s]

Generally, I like to be the Alpha in my life and the Beta in my relationship. I will voluntarily follow a man who is benevolent to me, confident in himself and ambitious in his life. No mind games and fucked up tricks required. But the ones who are genuinely like that are hard to come by.

Man or woman, I am not interested in building any kind of relationship with someone who needs to bring me down in order to bring themselves up. Sometimes people are not what they seem and I happened to end up with a man like that once. It wasn't pleasant and I often shoved back thrice as hard and we parted ways not too long after.


I often say I am not looking for a master nor a slave, I am looking for an equal; a strong and capable partner by my side.


As to why; I am a human being and I can be vulnerable. I like to share my life with someone who is capable of shielding me (literally and figuratively) in my time of weakness, and provide that protective environment and sense of security that I need to grow out of it and find my strength again. And I expect for him to accept that I do the same and take care of things while he figures a way out of his struggles. I don't want for things to fall apart when one of us has to or needs to take a back seat for a little while.

Maybe I'm taking the words a little too literally, but I have a quick question. Can you explain more of your thoughts/feelings on wanting an "equal", yet simultaneously preferring to be the Beta in your relationship? I think this implies that you want someone slightly more dominating than you, right (knowing obviously that you prefer the goodperson dominating as you've described rather than the sleazebag dominating)? If so, what do you find attractive about a man who is like that, or that dynamic?

 

[LucyJr]

[MENTION=9728]devpeople[/MENTION]
You are simply a genius.Seriously!

 

[devpeople]

[MENTION=9401]LucyJr[/MENTION] Do you have these kinds of emotions too ?

 

[LucyJr]

[MENTION=9401]LucyJr[/MENTION] Do you have these kinds of emotions too ?

I used to have them, but now I learned
to develop them...in action ) I mean, to develop them into an understanding attitude, a loving, forgiving position.But yes, the first, natural reaction, it sexactly these kind of emotion

 

[devpeople]

I used to have them, but now I learned
to develop them...in action ) I mean, to develop them into an understanding attitude, a loving, forgiving position.But yes, the first, natural reaction, it sexactly these kind of emotion

haha its always good to understand and love your enemy

 

[TinyBubbles]

When I first met my partner I thought he was soft and sweet, because he seemed so calm. Now that I know him better I realize he's got this crazy ability to stop a person dead in their tracks just by staring at them. It's probably not even conscious, he is very quiet and truly gentle, but I know in a fight he wouldn't back down. It's seductive as hell.

 

[LucyJr]

It is my understanding that those guys "break" a woman phsicologically. Like I heard someone, is like they plant "a seed" which will grow over time. The make their victim feel worthless and needy and dependent.
The antidote to this, the cure, will be another story.

 

[Nixie]

It is my understanding that those guys "break" a woman phsicologically. Like I heard someone, is like they plant "a seed" which will grow over time. The make their victim feel worthless and needy and dependent.
The antidote to this, the cure, will be another story.

Uh okay but PerC is just the dumbest place evah to get your logic from.

 

[Nixie]

When I first met my partner I thought he was soft and sweet, because he seemed so calm. Now that I know him better I realize he's got this crazy ability to stop a person dead in their tracks just by staring at them. It's probably not even conscious, he is very quiet and truly gentle, but I know in a fight he wouldn't back down. It's seductive as hell.

I find the ability for unspoken power to be seductive as well. Basically I believe, someone has to be in charge. I'm perfectly comfortable with that role but I am also looking for someone strong enough to share that burden with me. I don't want a dominant man as per the preconceived notion of authoritarian controller. I am looking for a man who knows his strengths and has the confidence and willingness to employ them when needed.

 

[bionic]

Uh okay but PerC is just the dumbest place evah to get your logic from.

Lol this truth!

 

[LucyJr]

Uh okay but PerC is just the dumbest place evah to get your logic from.

I appreciate your concern for originality, but I think you missunderstood me. The guy from the PersonalityCafe just had the word "break" for something which I could not find the exact word, namelly that some woman are "marked" in their interaction with dominant guys.
Is like you have something on your mind, an idea which you see like a unclear image, and can't find the word to that sensation. Then you live that, and after a while, you find somewhere the explanation which explained so well the idea you had, and you have an "Aha, so this is what I have thinking about" moment.
So I think I was not doing plagiarism with regard to idea itself. Perhaps I only "stolen" his exprimation. The analogy with the "seed" it's from the same guy, but I think I gave him credit to that.