Dominating Men

[barbad0s]

For those who are attracted to men, do you like dominating ones? Why, or why not?

For men, do you admire other men who are dominating? Why, or why not? How do you feel about them?


*Edit: Sorry, should've defined this earlier--

By a dominating man I mean someone who is "not necessarily very aggressive, but not necessarily those who have status associated with them either. I guess I meant someone who vaguely seems "alpha"-ish due to their personality. Someone who is outgoing, forward, maybe a little pushy, the guy at the bar the media tells us every man wants to be."

 

[sprinkles]

No, because it exploits my passive nature and causes me to be assertive, which is highly stressful for me.

Dominating me would be like dominating a kitten. It's for bullies. Except this kitten has a nuke button... if they make me use it then they done fucked up everything.

Edit:
Or put another way, dominance isn't necessary with me as I willingly let people have their way with a lot of things. I often prefer somebody else to be the leader, but there's just a few things which are off limits and I don't consider that too much to ask for.

For a lot of things one must only ask, if I haven't asked what they want already. I like to please.

 

[this is only temporary]

I do like confident and smart men, and have sometimes found myself inexplicably drawn to ones who err on the side of being a little domineering, but the attraction never lasts very long before I get irritated, and lose all respect and attraction and liking. I think it may be hormonal (?) It is very annoying, though.

But I am going to quote Technics here, because I think he (she? whatever) put it very well:

Usually it's the other way round: people who have achieved a lot are really very humble.

Like recently, I was at a party and there was one person there who I knew graduated at Oxford and MIT. And then there were these noisy bastards around him who constantly put in their two cents. Now that guy hardly said a thing and it became particularly odd when the group started talking about University of Oxford. And the guy still didn't say a thing. That was such a wonderful scene.

This has been very true in my experience in life; the truly strong don't have to be domineering, and they're usually quieter. I like and respect those kinds of men, and women too, and those are the people I tend to be drawn to and have real, continuing relationships or friendships with. The noisy bastards grate on my nerves after a short while.

 

[LucyJr]

Now I'm not attracted to men in a sexual way...I'm straight... but, to consider the question, wich I think is a very good one, my answer would be NO, at all. In fact, I consider it a weekness, and sometimes I even despise it.

Growing up, at school, and in college, I came across all kinds of dominating men, wich were very proud of their manipulation, domination. Being an INFJ, it's impossible to manipulate me or to dominate me in any sort of way, so naturally, the relation with these guys was very turbulent, at least in the beginning. Some of them hated me all the time, while with some of them I eventually became good friends. I had even a best friend as the "bad guy" of the class, but that was just for a while...hehe.

So, I think I admire leaders, but I despise dominators. Th first it's a honorable, noble way to influence people, the second one it's a dirty one, full of egoism, and... believe it or not... full of FEAR, and therefore, pathetic !

 

[oddgirlout]

In typical INFJ fashion, I am going to go with it depends. I need someone who can flip flop based on my needs, cause it is all about me...heehee. At work I make all the decisions and am always in control. It is nice to have a man in my life that recognizes that and can step in, picking up on my cues and taking control. I really like it when a man orders for me at a restaurant, I don't see it as dominating. I see it as thoughtful.

On the other hand, I am not very submissive related to certain situations and that can make things challenging. A man or woman for that matter that comes of completely domineering is suspect. I usually go with confidence issues, however a general amount of dominating personality is nice.

 

[isabellajay]

I don't like dominating men at all. Weak example (little boy experience here) my first homecoming in high school was with a boy I'd been friends with for 5 years, and I thought I knew him. The second we were on a "date", he kept forcing me to a. stay in the car while he got my door or wait outside while he opened the door, b. hold his arm while we walked, and c. never leave his side the whole dang day. He was trying to be a gentleman but instead just ended up bossing me around and it was so awkward. I am already awkward, make it a date and I'm going to be 23948024579348 times worse. I like feeling respected enough to do things how I want when I want. The occasional act of chivalry is super hot, but it has to seem natural and not like he NEEDS to open the door lest you break your nail or strain your wrist. I like things to be balanced.

 

[Mary Shelley]

Dominant or domineering?

dominant [ˈdɒmɪnənt] adj
1. having primary control, authority, or influence; governing; ruling
2. predominant or primary the dominant topic of the day
3. occupying a commanding position

domineering [ˌdɒmɪˈnɪərɪŋ] adj
acting with or showing arrogance or tyranny; imperious
inclined to exert arbitrary or tyrannical authority; dictatorial.

I'm drawn to the former but repelled by the latter. There is a balance to be struck. I like for someone to know what he wants. Directness can be a good thing. I can appreciate the directing communicating style (but I use it, too). Someone with a strong presence can make me feel protected. Sexual dominance is also something I find attractive. Rude, mean, demanding, and abusive are not attractive.

 

[Odyne]

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.

 

[Gaze]

Dominating me would be like dominating a kitten. It's for bullies. Except this kitten has a nuke button... if they make me use it then they done fucked up everything.

Edit:
Or put another way, dominance isn't necessary with me as I willingly let people have their way with a lot of things. I often prefer somebody else to be the leader, but there's just a few things which are off limits and I don't consider that too much to ask for.

For a lot of things one must only ask, if I haven't asked what they want already. I like to please.

Yeah, i'm pretty much the same. But if someone is too domineering, I withdraw especially if they are using their dominance as a means to be controlling or as an ego trip. When someone is too arrogant and needs to assert themselves as more important than the person they're dating or trying to impress, I think it's ridiculous. The sense that you make someone feel less in order to make yourself feel better is problematic in any relationship.

 

[Awesome]

I think most men always confuse the idea of being dominant with being too controlling or aggressive. It probably stems from the idea that women want a confident man. And while I think women do want a confident man (no one wants to date a door mat), the idea of confidence has been so warped and manipulated we are now left with Pick Up Artists and men complaining about the friendzone.

In a relationship dynamic, dominance should not be telling her what to do, but rather be her team mate working towards a mutual goal. It is important to have a vision that both partners can contribute to and support each other, as opposed to one or both partners not having any direction. Essentially, I want to help her be the woman she wants to be, and her to help me be the man I want to be.

 

[JGirl]

i like dominant men, but i don't like them to be dominating
the way i see it:
dominant = take charge, assertive, strong, and even sometimes aggressive where necessary
dominating = boorish, controlling, rigid, uncompromising

 

[Flavus Aquila]

Whether I admire another man is not dependent on their leadership abilities/style alone.

However, if a dominating type has a sense of humour about their leadership style, it can certainly add to my liking them. People who take themselves too seriously are at most tolerable.

 

[bagelriffic]

I typically make friends with more assertive men easier than quiet ones and often find myself in a more passive role within that friendship. As most here have mentioned there can be (and often is in my experience) negative or unideal qualities that seem to go along with these types such as issues of control or boundary violations.

Most of the time I see these as minor offenses and don't make a big deal out of them. I try to remember that they, like me, have their own issues and are ultimately fulfilling a role in my life that I don't currently want to. That like it or not I too use them and am doing my best to deal with my own issues of control and manipulation, albeit often on a subtler level. So I guess I give these types more elbow room than I used by defending the boundaries I need to, and letting the stuff go that I don't.

 

[Faye]

How would you define dominating [MENTION=3998]niffer[/MENTION]?

Are we talking about the men who are assertive, aggressive or even hostile toward others, or are we talking about the men who are actually at the top? Men who dominate certain arenas tend not to necessarily have dominating personalities and vice versa.

Testosterone does not necessarily make men aggressive and violent as some people believe. It makes them sensitive to their status, so some might become hostile and aggressive if they think it will increase their status, but for the most part, that is not the case. I think that the men who have the highest levels of testosterone tend to not act in what we would perceive to be dominating (read aggressive, assertive, hostile) because they know it wont advance their status in the vast majority of cases. They know that to achieve dominance, real dominance, they have to achieve great things that others will recognize and take on important positions in society.

Anyone can be hostile, aggressive, assertive, or even mean, and many of those that do are in actuality losers (despite what they may think of themselves). So I think there is a difference between the actual struggle for dominance and the perceived struggle for dominance, and the actual struggle for dominance is more about protecting your reputation and genuinely getting people to like and support you than acting what people typically think of to be dominating.

That being said, I'm indifferent to those who work hard to attain high status, and I generally dislike those who are unnecessarily aggressive.

 

[barbad0s]

How would you define dominating @niffer?

Are we talking about the men who are assertive, aggressive or even hostile toward others, or are we talking about the men who are actually at the top? Men who dominate certain arenas tend not to necessarily have dominating personalities and vice versa.

Testosterone does not necessarily make men aggressive and violent as some people believe. It makes them sensitive to their status, so some might become hostile and aggressive if they think it will increase their status, but for the most part, that is not the case. I think that the men who have the highest levels of testosterone tend to not act in what we would perceive to be dominating (read aggressive, assertive, hostile) because they know it wont advance their status in the vast majority of cases. They know that to achieve dominance, real dominance, they have to achieve great things that others will recognize and take on important positions in society.

Anyone can be hostile, aggressive, assertive, or even mean, and many of those that do are in actuality losers (despite what they may think of themselves). So I think there is a difference between the actual struggle for dominance and the perceived struggle for dominance, and the actual struggle for dominance is more about protecting your reputation and genuinely getting people to like and support you than acting what people typically think of to be dominating.

That being said, I'm indifferent to those who work hard to attain high status, and I generally dislike those who are unnecessarily aggressive.

Good question. I meant dominating personalities.. not necessarily very aggressive, but not necessarily those who have status associated with them either. I guess I meant someone who vaguely seems "alpha"-ish due to their personality. Someone who is outgoing, forward, maybe a little pushy, the guy at the bar the media tells us every man wants to be.

 

[sprinkles]

Good question. I meant dominating personalities.. not necessarily very aggressive, but not necessarily those who have status associated with them either. I guess I meant someone who vaguely seems "alpha"-ish due to their personality. Someone who is outgoing, forward, maybe a little pushy, the guy at the bar the media tells us every man wants to be.

That seems fine in a vacuum but what happens when parties intermingle? Dominance, assertiveness, anything like that is always relative to other parties.

Alphas don't get to be alphas by themselves, they get there by claiming it from others. Conflict resolution has a lot to do with this. When somebody is assertive, what are they asserting, against whom, and by what method? These are kind of hidden implications that must necessarily follow.

 

[barbad0s]

That seems fine in a vacuum but what happens when parties intermingle? Dominance, assertiveness, anything like that is always relative to other parties.

Alphas don't get to be alphas by themselves, they get there by claiming it from others. Conflict resolution has a lot to do with this. When somebody is assertive, what are they asserting, against whom, and by what method? These are kind of hidden implications that must necessarily follow.

Stick to my description; I think it's good enough. People can fill in the blanks however they wish. Describing what they freely associate using that as a starting point is part of the exercise.

 

[sprinkles]

Stick to my description; I think it's good enough. People can fill in the blanks however they wish. Describing what they freely associate using that as a starting point is part of the exercise.

Ok. Well, by your description I've known people like that, and they aren't bad. The pushy factor is something I don't care for, but will tolerate to an extent.

I dislike being pushed with nothing to back it up because it wastes my time and theirs, and irritates me over something that is ultimately inconsequential in the end. I'll forgive it if it doesn't happen constantly. If they do try to back it up with something then that is just being manipulative or controlling, which I won't tolerate in the slightest.

 

[Awesome]

That seems fine in a vacuum but what happens when parties intermingle? Dominance, assertiveness, anything like that is always relative to other parties.

Alphas don't get to be alphas by themselves, they get there by claiming it from others. Conflict resolution has a lot to do with this. When somebody is assertive, what are they asserting, against whom, and by what method? These are kind of hidden implications that must necessarily follow.

While it's true that a dominant man can receive dominance through taking it, a good dominant man is the natural leader by nature. He does not take the position, it is given to him. His nature is that to benefit the group, and the group to benefit him. You assuming a passive role is giving up your position as the leader so you can take on the role of the follower, it was not taken from you.

 

[sprinkles]

While it's true that a dominant man can receive dominance through taking it, a good dominant man is the natural leader by nature. He does not take the position, it is given to him. His nature is that to benefit the group, and the group to benefit him. You assuming a passive role is giving up your position as the leader so you can take on the role of the follower, it was not taken from you.

Yes but I don't call that dominance.

In the erroneous assumption of wolf packs for example, dominance may be conceded without a fight, but it's the risk of combat that drives this concession. In the alpha wolf theory, the alpha is an alpha because it will kick your ass if you try to say otherwise. This is a false assumption about wolf packs and isn't entirely how they work, but the principle is the same.

So in essence a dominant position is given when the ultimatum is combat or something else that you don't want.