RE: Dominant Partners not good for LTR?

RE: Dominant Partners not good for LTR? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

kittyinpink -> RE: Dominant Partners not good for LTR? (12/12/2007 10:39:52 PM)
For those of you interested in the paticulars, this was as study done by William Ickes (1983). It doesn't bother to mention exactly how the experiment was done, just that Ickes observed "ongoing social interations between traditional and nontradtional men and women. If I look at the argument at face value, I completely disagree. My relationships with androgynous/feminine males have always been unsuccessful because I don't respect them as much as I do more "macho" men. But after giving it a closer looksie, I agree with juliaoceania that the textbook is defining "Dominance" as domineering. It never gives a clear definition, besides "dominance" it uses adjectives like "competitive, macho, masculine, assertive, bold".... Wait, aren't all those GOOD things?

Dari -> RE: Dominant Partners not good for LTR? (12/13/2007 5:21:46 AM)
Heh. If we define "dominance" as "domineering," then sure. But I see a lot more women these days who go into a relationship with a vanilla, non-dominant (non-submissive) male who is in touch with their feelings, blah blah blah - and they're miserable. The trick, if you're into this sort of thing, is to find a guy who is macho, male, and alpha - without being an insensitive, selfish prick.

Jeffff -> RE: Dominant Partners not good for LTR? (12/13/2007 5:54:42 AM)
This thread makes me want to cry..sniff...sniff Jeff

Padriag -> RE: Dominant Partners not good for LTR? (12/13/2007 6:58:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittyinpink For those of you interested in the paticulars, this was as study done by William Ickes (1983). It doesn't bother to mention exactly how the experiment was done, just that Ickes observed "ongoing social interations between traditional and nontradtional men and women. Probably taken from his book "Compatible and incompatible relationships" in which he pontificates about what around here would get quicly labeled "one twue wayism" regarding relationships. Ickes is a bit obsessed with "empathic" approaches to relationships, he largely discounts the value of leadership, competitive ability, etc. Ickes believes in "every day mindreading" which isn't what it sounds like, so much as it is how people react to body language, voice inflections, etc. He's spent a lot of time researching how accurately people can pick up on the moods, etc. of strangers. That's fine, but did we really need a scientific study to tell us that people who know each other well are more "empathically accurate" than total strangers??? [8\|] Ickes is one of a number of psychologist (and unfortuately a college professor) pushing an agenda, they want to eliminate human social competitiveness and firmly believe all human ills can be solved if we all just learn to sing along together... therefore "dominance" (along with several thousand years of naturally evolved human social heirarchy and behavior) must be eliminated and in their view men are the worst offenders in this regard. IMNSHO its psycho-social engineering rubbish at its worst. As for his research method mentioned above. He used the unstructured dyadic interactive paradigm method. That's a very fancy way of saying you observe the interactions of two or more people in an uncontrolled environment. In other words, you could sit on a park bench and watch two people talking and how they interact and you're using the "unstructured dyadic interactive paradigm". Personally, I'm skeptical of any results based solely on that method. In my opinion its fine for forming a hypothesis, but not for formulating a coherent theory. My reason for that opinion is specifically the uncontrolled conditions, there are simply too many variables to make conclusive statements. You don't know what other factors, unobserved by the observer, might be affecting the interaction. But then that's part of my problem with Ickes... he see's precisely what he wants to see.

LaTigresse -> RE: Dominant Partners not good for LTR? (12/13/2007 7:06:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: angelique510 I would have to say that the study was compleatly PC BS. My previous relationships were pretty much egalitarian. They did not last long, because if he wouldn't be the man of the house, I had to be. Somebody has to fill that role. I cannot have repect for a man who lets me wear the pants on the house. I want a man who is 100% man. Only then can I be 100% female. The dancing analogy had often been made. One partner has to lead, the other has to follow. If they are both trying to lead, they'll just end up tripping over each other. If they both try to follow, they'll just stand there and not get anywhere. But that is my opinon. Maybe society has degenerated to the point that women today want pussy whipped men. It is very sad that men have allowed this to occur. ~A I would have to stay that this bit of writing is, in the big picture of life, total BS. I know many happily married/partnered couples that have no strongly defined leader or follower. They work together as a team. Making decisions as a team, taking care of daily business as a team. As in all relationships it takes communication and fitting weaknesses with complimentary strengths. You can say that SOME relationships, or people that wish a relationship desire a more defined power structure. That would be a correct statement. But to say that ALL relationships MUST have it is incorrect.

MisterP61 -> RE: Dominant Partners not good for LTR? (12/13/2007 8:19:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RumpusParable If memory serves correctly, that conclusion was based on a study of the scale from hypermasculinity to hyperfemininity and it's effects on relationships. The meaning of "dominant" as used there is not the same as how it is used in BDSM and PE situations, but rather as we tend to refer to as "domineering". The men being referred to were those that take it to the point of negatively controlling, distrusting and somewhat degrading females in non-PE relationships. In the study, females were found to be happiest long-term with those more moderate (or "androgyonous") or more considerate ("feminine") than these types of males. The use of "masculine", "androgynous", and "feminine" was using highly stereotyped and extreme traits, not actually referring to average gender expectations or behaviors. It can be misleading to someone just reading the summary (or this post). For example, many of the very dominant and traditional-householded males on these boards (or who I personally know in meatlife) would fall into the androgynous or feminine reaches of the scale used. Perhaps it's not based on the same study as I'm familiar with, if not then disregard. But that's the case with the one I've seen tied to that conclusion. I knew there was a reason I liked You Rumpus :-). It is very true. You Know My Wife and I are both D and I can be "Dominant" without being "Domineering", though to be honest I have been, but the converse is also true. We find the middle ground and it works well. Can't wait to see You on Sat.

DesFIP -> RE: Dominant Partners not good for LTR? (12/13/2007 9:17:54 AM)
I agree. Most women wired toward an equal power relationship would be very unhappy after constantly arguing with a partner who insisted on holding the lion's share of the power. And since the survey that gave them this info was most probably not specifically focused on what submissive women find attractive in long term relationships, this info does not tell us anything about submissive women with dominant men.

thetammyjo -> RE: Dominant Partners not good for LTR? (12/13/2007 10:02:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittyinpink I came across a section in my Social Psychology text on Dominance that i thought was ummm... interesting. "Although women are initially atrracted to dominant and competitive males, such men are not particularly pleasant to live with. Women in long-term relationships with traditionally masculine men are less satisfied than women in relationships with more feminine or androgynous men." My professor decided to skip this section, so what do you think? I don't think that "traditionally masculine" is the same as being dominant in the BDSM DS sense at all. I think a good and successful dominant of either sex must do several things that might not be considered "traditionally masculine" such as listen, talk about feelings, be able and willing to think big picture and about someone beyond self, have the communication skills necessary to explain what they require and take the time to instruct.

trueshadow -> RE: Dominant Partners not good for LTR? (12/24/2007 7:31:29 PM)
Nah, I don't believe this. Although this is becoming a female-dominated society, so maybe we're on our way.

Sirsinini -> RE: Dominant Partners not good for LTR? (12/24/2007 8:12:56 PM)
Tis interesting that they are finally calling it Social Psychology. But then I have been out of main stream university life a long time. It’s a big generalization and your professor overlooked it for good reason. Actually, I think the whole sentence, in quotes, in BS. Many dominant men are men who want things their way, have divorced and find living with women difficult. They tend to be loners and self sufficient. I have spent over 5 yrs on the net looking for a dominant man who was willing to commit more quickly than I have found them to be. Those with children (living with them) seem to find that elusive submissive faster than the women who want that committed relationship find them. Possibly it has to do with age. Those in my generation, both female and male advance slower to a committed LTR TOGETHER than those younger than my generation. To base LTR on that one quote alone is false. There are too many factors in each person socially and psychologically to make a sweeping broad inane remark. The author was on crack when he wrote it and the professor based it by as college kids haven’t the foggiest notion of what our generation is live…that is 40 – 50’s. Sir and I are both loners, have grown into our own set patterns, activities and find another person occupying our sacred space just a bit confusing and the slower we go about growing together the more secure and committed the relationship is. He controls his space with tight boundaries and to have let me in is a privilege. Sir's devoted property

InkedMaster -> RE: Dominant Partners not good for LTR? (12/24/2007 8:26:44 PM)
Kinda like saying women want a "bad boy" but usually wind up marrying the "good guy"...stereotypical bullshit, it's like saying Bikers experiment with drugs, drink excessively, beat thier ol ladies and treat them as property...okay that was a bad example

PanthersMom -> RE: Dominant Partners not good for LTR? (12/24/2007 10:08:30 PM)
just goes to show you any idiot can get a book published to state their point of view. i'd ignore that section too. PM

CuriousLord -> RE: Dominant Partners not good for LTR? (12/25/2007 12:54:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittyinpink I came across a section in my Social Psychology text on Dominance that i thought was ummm... interesting. "Although women are initially atrracted to dominant and competitive males, such men are not particularly pleasant to live with. Women in long-term relationships with traditionally masculine men are less satisfied than women in relationships with more feminine or androgynous men." My professor decided to skip this section, so what do you think? In both conventional wisdom and statistics I've seen, yes, this seems to be agreed upon by many. It's that idea that the sweet dork will take care of you in the long run while that muscular jock will just go out and get drunk and cheat, potentially beatting his wife, where the dork would remember aniverseries and be a considerate husband. The idea, though, doesn't seem to consider dominant men who are also sweet and considerate. It also doesn't consider non-dominant men who are not sweet or so. This is, likely, because the idea was trying to consider "par" counterparts.. there seems to be no comparison between the sweet, loving, muscular guy and the disgusting, unbathed, fat guy.. so it's just not considered. So, point being? It's more of a sentiment about dominant and self-centered versus meeker but considerate, not about dominant versus non-dominant.

Rushemery -> RE: Dominant Partners not good for LTR? (12/25/2007 5:27:04 AM)
I have read something simular as the op, it said somthing like women (this may not sound nice) on a very basic level look for the strongest man to breed with but when they want a relationship they look for a softer guy, it was comparing human (animal) nature but with a twist. I actually think I seen something simular as well on one of those dating sites with DR Phil. People on this site are looking for different things than nilla people and then you also have to take programing into it as well. I also have been subjected to women who what a relationship but then try and cut my hair off and change the way I dress and read something about women gauging men as fixer uppers lol

eyesopened -> RE: Dominant Partners not good for LTR? (12/25/2007 5:54:20 AM)
i am a strong woman, i have had to pretty much take care of myself since i was quite young. For me it's really important to be with a man who is as opposite of female as he can be. i am attracted to hairy, muscular, deep-voiced, Harley-riding, leather-wearing, men who know how to swing a hammer or turn a wrench. These men are not necessarily "bad boys" but since even before i knew about D/s and bdsm i have always found a man i could control to be extremely unattractive. Just me. YMMV

sharainks -> RE: Dominant Partners not good for LTR? (12/25/2007 6:09:16 AM)
I couldn't agree more with what you have said. After 10 years in this I have found that probably 80% of those claiming to be dominant are very insecure people. The only way they can feel good about themselves or secure in their masculinity is by attempting to control everything in their world. The brighter of this bunch realizes that and will say so. The other 20% are secure in themselves, self confident, understand other human beings and are able to dominate with compassion and regard for others. Its kind of the old school component of not being able to control someone else until you can control yourself. To control yourself you have to come to grips with who you are in and out of the lifestyle. In doing so you learn to understand and appreciate others. quote: ORIGINAL: Owner4SexSlave Are we talking traditionally masculine men of Western Culture or what here. I'm going to express something now on this thread, and I know I may take heat from it. The Majority of so called Dom personalities suffer from a lack of self awareness or awareness of others. Basically, a lot of insecure narcissistic bully types that are classified as being dominant. Simply because dominant is the best label to fit them under. I believe in all fairness, this topic is a bit like a can of worms. Once it's opened up, there is much to talk about not only in terms of relationship dynamics, and personalities but also from cultural mindsets. There are simply put, Dominant assholes and Dominants that are not assholes. Many times weakness is mistaken for strength. Personality typing by no means is an indication of concepts such as knowledge, experience, wisdom nor intelligence.

LAMaster1964 -> RE: Dominant Partners not good for LTR? (12/25/2007 7:01:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: InkedMaster Kinda like saying women want a "bad boy" but usually wind up marrying the "good guy"...stereotypical bullshit, it's like saying Bikers experiment with drugs, drink excessively, beat thier ol ladies and treat them as property...okay that was a bad example I read somewhere that women want the bad boy sperm to get the bad boy genes, but marries the good guy for the stability and money. Sounds about right.

sambamanslilgirl -> RE: Dominant Partners not good for LTR? (12/25/2007 7:05:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittyinpink I came across a section in my Social Psychology text on Dominance that i thought was ummm... interesting. "Although women are initially atrracted to dominant and competitive males, such men are not particularly pleasant to live with. Women in long-term relationships with traditionally masculine men are less satisfied than women in relationships with more feminine or androgynous men." My professor decided to skip this section, so what do you think? the opposite happened with me while married to my ex - i was less satisfied in my relationship with an androgynous male ...it totally sucked! my SO and i are both Taurus with a very strong dominant side to us however i'm submissive. so it should be a very interesting to see how our married life plays out less than 7months away.

SirJohnMandevill -> RE: Dominant Partners not good for LTR? (12/25/2007 7:23:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittyinpink I came across a section in my Social Psychology text on Dominance that i thought was ummm... interesting. "Although women are initially atrracted to dominant and competitive males, such men are not particularly pleasant to live with. Women in long-term relationships with traditionally masculine men are less satisfied than women in relationships with more feminine or androgynous men." My professor decided to skip this section, so what do you think? Can you say "hasty generalization," boys and girls? I knew you could. I'll bet dollars (or Euros) to Dunkin/Tim Horton's donuts that the study didn't include the lifestyle community. I believe I can have a quite successful LTR when I find the right submissive woman. My .02 zlotys. Your milage may vary. Les (Purveyor of Fine, Handcrafted Kink)

Sirsinini -> RE: Dominant Partners not good for LTR? (12/25/2007 1:11:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sambamanslilgirl quote: ORIGINAL: kittyinpink I came across a section in my Social Psychology text on Dominance that i thought was ummm... interesting. "Although women are initially atrracted to dominant and competitive males, such men are not particularly pleasant to live with. Women in long-term relationships with traditionally masculine men are less satisfied than women in relationships with more feminine or androgynous men." My professor decided to skip this section, so what do you think? the opposite happened with me while married to my ex - i was less satisfied in my relationship with an androgynous male ...it totally sucked! my SO and i are both Taurus with a very strong dominant side to us however i'm submissive. so it should be a very interesting to see how our married life plays out less than 7months away. So a piece of paper has that much power!! I think you are living in fantasy. Personally, I think you'll know how its gonna work before the paperwork is signed. Sir's devoted property

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875