SmokeAndMirrors
DP Veteran
- Joined
- May 20, 2011
- Messages
- 18,282
- Reaction score
- 16,154
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Other
Hell! Even S&M, for all of her extremist ranting, has complained about such "weak" men in other threads. In a thread we had not too long ago, as a matter of fact, she made a point of expressing nothing but distain for passive "nice guys," and stating how she basically needed her men to be a bit more forceful and "rough around the edges" in order for a relationship to in any sense work.
No offense or anything, but methinks a lot of you ladies "doth protest too much." :lol:
It seems to be a knee-jerk reaction to the words "dominant" and "submissive" more than anything else. As I've been trying to explain for the last several pages, however; most relationships are more nuanced than those two adjectives alone.
The genders simply happen to exert influence over their parrtners in different ways.
Damn right I do. Know why? Because if he can't speak up, I will STREAMROLL him. Opendebate is correct. I am a very dominating personality in some capacities. It's not that I try to tell people what to do, because I generally don't, and don't want to. It's just that it's busy in here, and when I'm on a mission, I am way too focused, and my engine is way too loud, to hear you if you don't SPEAK UP.
Yeah, I need a guy who can go toe-to-toe with me, because when I'm wrong, you can't mutter. I won't hear you.
The fact that I need someone who can speak loud enough for me to hear them from inside my very loud personality does not mean I am looking for a patriarch to "exert influence" over me.
And just because I no longer have the patience for men who are too immature -- not "unmanly," immature, in a way that both sexes can be -- does not mean I'm looking for a patriarch either.
And as to your later comment about dominant men not preferring someone who can speak at their volume if need be, they are not "dominant." They are controlling, and just as immature as the wimp. Real dominant people care about what others think, as I will explain in a moment.
And finally, I have no problem with being dominant or submissive... in the way I like, when I choose, and when works for us. But I can be submissive when it suits me. I like it. It's a nice break. Because here's the thing, Thomas -- and this is why I laugh whenever guys tout this crap, because they clearly have no clue what it's really like -- being dominant is a tough gig. If you have a shred of decency, your mind can never stop going. Not only are many people very quiet and it takes effort to hear them, but in many cases they just don't even know where their limits are. You have to impose their limits, or they will simply go past them.
I accept such a position and my use dominance only in situations where I know I am uniquely and especially competent, for that reason. I take leading quite seriously. It represents the greatest ethical burden of all possible positions. I enjoy it, and I'm good at it, but I don't take it lightly. I can be submissive in certain capacities where it suits me, or sometimes when it gives me a nice, meditative break.
Like I told you, I am not an egalitarian personally. And in the context of relationships, no, that doesn't necessarily mean I must have the control, although in some aspects I usually do (and no, not in the kitchen). Honestly, I think my relationship style would make your jaw hit the floor. :lol:
Because here's the thing. Reality, and people, are not as simple as you're trying to force them to be. And thank god for that, because from this side of the line, where my worldview is not threatened by having my concept of human potential continually altered and expanded, it's damn beautiful.
Last edited: