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

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



Message


soshiazukai -> RE: Dominant Partners not good for LTR? (7/11/2008 11:42:19 AM)

i really think it depends on the situation and the people involved.




masterforRT -> RE: Dominant Partners not good for LTR? (7/11/2008 12:16:56 PM)

Could this be because many women are bitchers?




CallaFirestormBW -> RE: Dominant Partners not good for LTR? (7/11/2008 12:52:07 PM)

If you could give me a strong man who didn't need to constantly -prove- that he was strong, he'd fit in just fine. The only problem my companion and I have ever had with men was when the male in question was a swaggering jackass and a social boor.

Of course, many of those same men say that we're difficult to live with. *LOL*

Firestorm




ProtagonistLily -> RE: Dominant Partners not good for LTR? (7/11/2008 5:59:00 PM)

quote:

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?


What year was this text written? Was it penned in Freud's own hand?

This perspective seems rather baseless and certainly not my experience. I would love to see the data to back up these claims.

PL




variation30 -> RE: Dominant Partners not good for LTR? (7/11/2008 6:54:50 PM)

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 think you should take anything said in any psych text book (especially when it's said with such certainty) as, at its very best, something that is probably bullshit masquerading as science.




WinsomeDefiance -> RE: Dominant Partners not good for LTR? (7/11/2008 8:03:41 PM)

I would imagine that most any personality type that is heavily weighted in one extreme,  is going to be difficult to live with.  As I learned from experience; resignation isn't submission any more than domineering and controlling is Dominance.
 
 




writerly808 -> RE: Dominant Partners not good for LTR? (7/11/2008 10:01:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

It can be hard to maintain a long-term relationship with a dom because they don't tolerate any bullshit, and vanilla men do.


That's a terribly subjective statement, as it doesn't seem to take into account individuality. What one man, Dom or vanilla, calls "bullshit" isn't the same as what another man would call "bullshit", generally speaking. So this statement is saying that all men of one sort approach a certain topic in a way radically different from the way all men of a different sort would approach it.

I apologize if I'm misinterpreting.




curvyslavegirl -> RE: Dominant Partners not good for LTR? (7/11/2008 10:06:20 PM)

masculine & dominant are far from the same thing.
Most long term Dominants that I have fallen for tend to actually be quite feminist, accepting & less stereotypical.

On another note:
Just because someone writes it in a text book doesn't mean its true.
Thats why the call them theories and not facts.




BelleMorte1969 -> RE: Dominant Partners not good for LTR? (7/11/2008 10:20:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: masterforRT

Could this be because many women are bitchers?


Maybe those are just the kinds of women YOU meet. [:'(]




Leatherist -> RE: Dominant Partners not good for LTR? (7/11/2008 10:22:53 PM)

I think the proffessor is probably a "more feminine or androgynous man."




variation30 -> RE: Dominant Partners not good for LTR? (7/11/2008 10:35:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: masterforRT

Could this be because many women are bitchers?


we were all thinking it, but you actually said it.




Lordandmaster -> RE: Dominant Partners not good for LTR? (7/11/2008 10:40:53 PM)

Makes sense to ME, anyway.  I could never have a relationship with a dominant partner.




DarkSteven -> RE: Dominant Partners not good for LTR? (7/12/2008 8:35:04 AM)

I would believe the study.

If it does not sifferentiate between Dominant and domineering, then I suspect that the domineering types would outnumber the Doms and make then statistically insignificant.  The domineering types would end up with women that are abused and probably have a history of abuse. 

Any surprise that they tend to be less happy than the norm?

Not differentiating is a huge disservice to us Doms.  The good news is that some stupid invalid survey will not change the hearts of any submissive women.




BRNaughtyAngel -> RE: Dominant Partners not good for LTR? (7/12/2008 8:45:20 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

The good news is that some stupid invalid survey will not change the hearts of any submissive women.


It might! 

I just heard on the news that droves of submissive women were seen hurling collars out of their car and kitchen windows.
One even struck some poor guy who was walking his geriatric poodle for it's morning poopy.  He now has "TULS" emblazened on his forehead....... poor man. [:o]




leadership527 -> RE: Dominant Partners not good for LTR? (7/12/2008 5:34:46 PM)

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?



Conveniently, I'm ambi-gendrous.

No seriously.. The implication here is that "dominant and competitive males" have no other side to their personalities.  I perfectly agree, I would HATE living with somone who couldn't let go of that... ever.  I see myself as very dominant in a variety of social circumstances, but I'm not wedded to it.  I'm also fairly well in touch with my emotional "feminine" side.  If you want my guess, my wife bonds with my feminine side but responds as a woman to my more dominant traits.




MisterBeast -> RE: Dominant Partners not good for LTR? (7/12/2008 8:59:03 PM)

I think the key to bliss in a relationship is finding someone who's bullshit goes well with your bullshit. But hey, thats just me.




ALLorNuten -> RE: Dominant Partners not good for LTR? (7/12/2008 10:39:07 PM)

Lets hope it's not true or my relationship is doomed. I imagine the text you refer wasn't talking about the bdsm lifestyle. Most of us in this lifestyle go into these relationships with our eyes much more open than your typical non bdsm couples.




stella41b -> RE: Dominant Partners not good for LTR? (7/13/2008 2:41:23 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ALLorNuten

Most of us in this lifestyle go into these relationships with our eyes much more open than your typical non bdsm couples.


No shit, Sherlock?




StrangerThan -> RE: Dominant Partners not good for LTR? (7/13/2008 4:27:21 AM)


I'm not going to try and address a blanket statement like the one in your textbook with another that comes from my perspective because it's as much an injustice as the original statement. It's easy to corner people in corners where they don't belong just because they fit some predetermined pattern. I see it all the time in discussions on any type of relationship, regardless of whether they're BDSM related or not. But I see being hard to live with is more a function of who a person is rather than what they are. Wrapped around that entire concept wen it comes to BDSM relationships is the difference between being Dominant and being a domineering type of person. They're not one and the same. I've seen that mistake made by submissives over and over, and in the wake of it, I've seen a lot of jaded and broken people. It's one reason I often stress knowing yourself when it comes to committing to any type of relationship, vanilla or otherwise. That doesn't mean to avoid playing, avoid learning, avoid socializing as none of those terms involve committment. What it means is before you step into a collar - or a wedding ring for that matter, spend some time figuring out what it is you need rather than simply want. It's important. Just as important as anyone who would control another spending time to understand what they need from it.

Not long after I met my submissive, I gave her two tasks. One was to define her worth. Not her worth to me, but simply her worth. What she should be able to expect, what she should deserve from any relationship. Then I asked her to define her Dom. I wasn't looking for a description of me, but more so that vague and hazy concept of the person who would own her submission. Why ask her to do those things? A lot of reasons.

I've always believed that a strong submissive is the best submissive, that when a woman knows exactly what she's giving me, she'll understand better what it is I need from her, and that D/s is, or at least needs to be for me, a type of harmony between people - a place where it doesn't matter so much what is done as how it's done, because in the how of it, you are feeding off each other, feeding the need in the other as much as satisfying the need in yourself. I need her to understand that just because I use her like a slut on a given night, I don't see her as one, that just because I shackle her to the bed and spend a couple of hours letting her fly while working her body with floggers, straps, hands, quirts.. whatever, I don't see her as less because she needs a good ass whipping. Ok, so it's not just her ass, but you get the idea. I need her to understand that even though I may chain her down and make her service me for hours, it doesn't mean I see her only in those terms. So I made her tell me what she should deserve, and when I read it, I had questions about things that weren't in it because I need her to also understand by those questions what I think she should deserve - what I am going to make her understand that she will have when it comes to our relationship.

She joked with me about that time that she needed a rule book. So we started one. Rule 1, She always matters. Rule 2, because she's fucking worth it. It's like the Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics that all other things fall within those two rules, that no matter what I do to her or with her, I never want her to emerge from it without a strong sense of those two rules remaining intact. I also had her write on those two topics because while a session, a scene, a one-night stand may hold a lot of value in terms of meeting a specific need, they will never meet the long term need of the person. Any relationship that endures by default will encompass emotional, physical and mental aspects. It's a simple fact of life that the more time spent with someone, the more important all three of those things become and the more important that all three are addressed in what you do.

So how do those things relate to being hard to live with or not? Being hard to live with often comes with knowing your own need and somehow thinking your need encompasses and fulfills the needs in someone else. While that may be true in at the base of a relationship, it's not the deeper you go into it. The more you know, the more you understand, the more you can wrap those needs around your own, the more fulfilling it can become. One of the truly intense aspects of D/s is that time is spent where it should be spent in terms of a relationship. What I mean by that is that the hours spent in session, in listening and seeing maybe where a session needs to go rather than where I simply want it to go on a specific night, and the time spent leading up to it, is spent on her. The type of blanket statement made in your textbook isn't one I see as particular to whether or not one dominates another, but more so, in whether or not one takes the time to make sure those three legs of a relationship, the mental, physical and emotional are all considered.

Long winded way of saying your textbook author is full of shit, isn't it?

Grin.




MistressSybella -> RE: Dominant Partners not good for LTR? (7/13/2008 12:40:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BRNaughtyAngel

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

The good news is that some stupid invalid survey will not change the hearts of any submissive women.


It might! 

I just heard on the news that droves of submissive women were seen hurling collars out of their car and kitchen windows.
One even struck some poor guy who was walking his geriatric poodle for it's morning poopy.  He now has "TULS" emblazened on his forehead....... poor man. [:o]


Funny!!  LOL!





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

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875