Dominating Men | Page 2 | INFJ Forum

Dominating Men

sprinkles said:
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.
Click to expand...
You are correct, to a degree. The concept of dominance asserted over purely physical strength was relevant when we human beings were at our most primitive evolutionary stages. At that time, the biggest and strongest male could prove directly and indirectly that he could provide the most for his child(ren) with resources. As we began to get smarter and learned how to communicate more complex ideas, we formed groups and communities. When we began to work with each other, we proved to be more capable. The idea of the alpha male went from pure physical domination to one who could take advantage of a group, use it to his benefit, and benefit the group through his guidance. In this regard, simple physical strength was no longer the only factor, but as was social intelligence. This is the path that society has stemmed from. The dominant man no longer has to show dominance through physical strength (although I'm not ruling out that as a factor), the definition simply has more variables.
 
[MENTION=9644]Awesome[/MENTION]

Yeah. I still don't like it because violence is what made pushiness actually work, but without it, it makes a pushy person just end up being somebody that I want to slap. It really annoys me, like this:

Pushy: you have to try this blah blah blah.
Me: No, but thanks anyway.
Pushy: Aw come on! You gotta!
Me: Actually I don't gotta.
Pushy: You're missing an opportunity!
Me: Yes, missing it is the plan.
Pushy: Come on! Get out there and be assertive!
Me: I AM BEING ASSERTIVE, YOU TWIT! GET OUT OF MY FACE BEFORE I FUCKING CUT YOU!
Puhsy: Whoaaaa! Take it easy!
Me: YOU'RE THE DBAG TELLING ME I'M NOT ALLOWED TO SAY NO! GET THE FUCK OUT!
 
Studies have shown that women prefer dominating men/alpha types when they are ovulating. Posture, behavior, appearance etc. that indicates a high level of testosterone is apperantly something we look for when we want to conceive.

The rest of the time (like 95%), we look for someone who provides safety. Men with feminine features in the face, for instance, have less testosterone, and therefore will be better fathers. This is by the way something I've learned from psychology, not a personal opinion ;)
 
Reblis said:
The rest of the time (like 95%), we look for someone who provides safety. Men with feminine features in the face, for instance, have less testosterone, and therefore will be better fathers. This is by the way something I've learned from psychology, not a personal opinion ;)
Click to expand...
I always thought that the mark of a good father depends on devotion to the family, upbringing, personal philosophies and motivations, but eh what do I know
 
Awesome said:
I always thought that the mark of a good father depends on devotion to the family, upbringing, personal philosophies and motivations, but eh what do I know
Click to expand...

Hehe of course! but this is "choosing a mate" at a biological level.. it's evolutionary psychology :) It's actually incredibly interesting! For instance; we also chose our mates based on their immune system. We want one that is different from our own, so that our offspring will have a better chance at surviving.
 
  • Like
Reactions: barbad0s
No. I don't like that dynamic and am probably naturally repelled by it. I like people that are neutral, not dominant or passive. People that don't buy into that dichotomy and are more 'outsiders' or lone wolf types but naturally friendly and autonomous. Sometimes people that come across as dominant strike me as very insecure, with how they can be so attention seeking and want to assert their will on others. They demand energy I have no wish to share and interacting with them is draining. I know my will and I dont like my sense of freedom and independance to be intruded upon.
In my opinion dominant people are not really effective leaders either. A good leader or manager is someone that helps others be independent and cooperate together, and eventually makes their own position irelevant or reduntant. But I am an anarchist at heart. Some people like or need leaders and followers, there is nothing wrong with that or right about what I prefer, but that is not my personal ideal.
 
I'm not attracted to men, but boy do I love alphas. They're the best kind of people purely because it's so easy to kick them down a notch and turn them into foaming-at-the-mouth idiots. It never ceases to be satisfying.
 
Dominating personalities are a broad range.

There's a certain level or propriety and respect that is necessary for a working relationship. A line in the concrete.
 
I'll keep it short and to the point.

Dominate me in the sack, but that's it. Dominate me in my life, and I will make you miserable.
 
To demand to be dominated.... hmmmmmmm
 
They are like pawns on a chessboard.
They push forward.
They go after what they want.
Everyone knows what they want but do nothing to stop them because...
 
Jill Hives said:
I'll keep it short and to the point.

Dominate me in the sack, but that's it. Dominate me in my life, and I will make you miserable.
Click to expand...

Amen, sista.
 
There is a yin-yang dynamic when it comes to relationships between males and females.

One sex isn't better than the other. But most women I know want a strong mate, someone more successful and established than they are. Someone who can provide a sense of stability and security. Someone who can hold his own.

Do I look up to people who fit this criteria? Yeah. I feel like if you don't have anyone to look up to or aspire to be, then something is wrong on your end. No matter how smart you are or how good you feel about yourself, there is ALWAYS someone more successful, more established, more intelligent that you can learn from.

In wanting to grow as a person, I've realized that there were certain aspects of my personality that I've had to ditch.

Women want strong mates....period.
 
Last edited:
Izan said:
Women want strong mates....period.
Click to expand...
I find it weird the way you assert this statement, as if you need to show that you're the God of Knowledge on All Women.

As for my own opinion... I'm not attracted to men with dominating personalities in the way *I* described it. I am attracted to men who are sweet and gentle and nurturing, maybe because I never got much of that in my home life. I would gladly support the right guy if he were less successful than me and have it be the other way around.

I'm trying to figure out how to explain it still.

Firstly, I don't want a man who buys into the "what women want" crap as the only way they think they'll be able to get a woman, because a) it's presumptuous and I'm not the kind of girl that fits their image anyway, and b) because that shows how limited their mind and abilities are in getting and understanding a wide variety of women.

Secondly, men who are dominating are usually on a mission in some way to woo one or more females that they like, using their presumptuous and stereotypical ideas of women--many attempt to subtly manipulate or push girls into the role they expect them to play. The fact that they expect this and continue with their regime even after encountering resistance is rather self-serving and narcissistic, like they just refuse to see outside of their tiny tunnels, ditch their confidence and archetypal mindset, and be on the same level of understanding and relatability as other people. Their confidence and expectancy in their way of doing things is disrespectful to women and disrespectful to other men as well, to be assuming that men who aren't as successful in their eyes or don't play their game as well as they do are inferior; it's disrespectful to all humans.

I love real chivalry, and honest, unaffected kindness and thoughtfulness, the kind that is not complex and suavely semi-manipulative and tries to fit into a sleazebag man-in-control archetype which I will all-too-easily be able to see through, but the kind which is more like "I'm just a boy trying my best and I care about you". Someone whose entire life quest is about playing up himself and needing to feel like a strong provider is not for me.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: endersgone
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. 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. 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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: the
niffer said:
I find it weird the way you assert this statement, as if you need to show that you're the God of Knowledge on All Women.
Click to expand...

lol, last thing I'm trying to do is portray myself as the "God of Knowledge of All Women" because A) that's nonsensical and B) I don't know how why anyone would want to be considered that who isn't some sort of nutjob.

I don't mean "more successful" as in someone who makes more money. I'm just saying that it seems to me to be pretty universal that women want someone who is grounded, can hold is own, and can provide safety and stability. This usually translates into someone who is a "strong mate." People who "feel the need to play [themself] up and act as if they are a strong provider" don't fit this criteria.

People who buy into the "sleazebag man-in-control archetype" don't recognize the yin-yang dynamic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bionic
Izan said:
lol, last thing I'm trying to do is portray myself as the "God of Knowledge of All Women" because A) that's nonsensical and B) I don't know how why anyone would want to be considered that who isn't some sort of nutjob.

I don't mean "more successful" as in someone who makes more money. I'm just saying that it seems to me to be pretty universal that women want someone who is grounded, can hold is own, and can provide safety and stability. This usually translates into someone who is a "strong mate." People who "feel the need to play [themself] up and act as if they are a strong provider" don't fit this criteria.

People who buy into the "sleazebag man-in-control archetype" don't recognize the yin-yang dynamic.
Click to expand...
I agree, but I don't think these attributes have anything to do with the trait "dominating".

As an aside, I don't think this so-called yin yang dynamic necessarily applies in all heterosexual relationships either. Maybe it does in most ways for the general population, but individual humans are incredibly variable in terms of the relationship dynamic that may work best for them.
 
Since writing my response, i realised that other people would perhaps consider my previous boyfriends dominating, especialy the father of my child who is still my best friend. He is very loud, passionate, excitable, assertive and emotional. And because he is an amazing sales person and manager, he can be/appear very manipulative in a sense. He has a strong and absolute sense of fairness and justice- this leads him to challenge people. ideas and organisations frequently. He is very persistant and this can be extremely frustrating to others. He wont take no for an answer if an issue is very important to him. He argues a lot with people, not because he wants to create a conflict, but because he is genuinely interested in learning the truth and likes to play devils advocate and has an annoying lawyer sharp logic. He doesnt care if he is right, but he gets so carried away in the enjoyment of having a debate that this can be intimindating and aggressive to some people. He is very flirty with women in general, of all ages, but also very respectful and courteous. Ive never seen him being rude, sleazy or crude, and any sexism he may have had is now long since i have been in his life. Obviously i dont see him as dominating. He absolutely loves people and cares about them deeply. He gets genuinely so excited and passionate that its almost childlike. He enjoys his emotions and although he expresses his frustration and anger readily, he also empathises with others and cries easily. He is friendly with everyone and strongly egalitarian. If he gets too loud i tell him to be quiet or i just leave the room.

But its interesting to think that this is just a matter of perception. I have met dominating people, and i have found them annoying and unattractive. It seems that they think somehow they are above others and that their will is more important. But i definately wouldnt consider brad dominating, even though a fair number of other people might. He thinks i am the bossy one, which too is just a matter of perception, but in truth i think we are both pretty neutral people.

...Also, i found this interesting- Socionic Erotic Attitudes http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/content.php/101-Erotic-Attitudes

Im not buying it, but its interesting to think about. im an INFj in socionics and i relate more to the infantile style than the others. With brad who is entp- we really were like 2 infantiles that wanted the other one to be the boring grown up and do the boring responsible things because we rather do more 'fun' and 'actually important' things. Its the same with my enfp and intj friends, we all have this childlike way, and when we are together we tend to ignore things that other types might find important and see as 'responsibilities'.

In the past i had a long relationship with an ESTp, which is an aggressor type. I found that side of things incredibly horrible and he wanted me to either be the submissive one or take the role of the aggressor. I couldnt do either, obviously, and i found the concept disturbing. he had a hard time dealing with this. He kept trying to make powerplays about things and then he thought i was trying to 'dominate' him because i found this tedious and i didnt want to engage. The rest of the relationship was not too bad, but this side was ridiculous and there was no chance that it could work.

I dont think all types will fit neatly into these 4 attitudes, and obviously people dont fit neatly into 16 catergories! I would not stereotype or pre-judge based on this. Just found it interesting
 
  • Like
Reactions: bionic and Gul Dukat
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back