quote:

ORIGINAL: lally2



they want the strength and intelligence but i dont think see the strength and intelligence once the strong intelligent woman is kneeling naked before him.

quote:

ORIGINAL: daintydimples

Great thread! This is something I have thought about a lot, since I have experienced it as well.  I am a strong, intelligent, successful female. Emotionally I would have to describe myself as "intense."

I tend to be attracted to the alpha Dom types. Some of them are very attracted to me, at first. I think they see me as a challenge. They constantly seek to explore and exploit my vulnerabilities. The goal appears to be to "bring me down."

Once I have submitted, I tend to be very submissive. And I think this duality in my nature is ...shocking? unexpected? I can't answer that since the rare times this has happened their thoughts were not something they were willing to share with me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sravaka


1.  those whose sense of power is tied to the ability to destroy things...  and who think the "bigger" the thing they can destroy the more badass they are.

2.  those who are attracted to resumes rather than substance.  As in, cool! she's a professor of wacky obscure stuff!  I want to say I bagged one of those!  Just don't ask me to put up with (or even hear about) the day to day reality of her career. That's her problem.  And if she can't manage it, it's obviously because she's a bad sub.

3.  those who genuinely want to have smart/competent people in their worlds, as partners and generally, who are not threatened, who do not see a conflict between competence and submissiveness (though they may be interested in rechanneling some of the competence for their own purposes).

Agreed

I think you might need to add some criteria to your list beyond physical attractiveness and smarts. It's not that the criteria are flawed, just that they aren't sufficient as filters.

I don't have physical attractiveness listed on my profile, so I'm not sure who this was directed at.

I am interested in know your thoughts on .what other criteria should be set a/o how to weed out the 1s and 2s.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sravaka

Very interesting thread....   I've encountered this sort of thing too, both in D/s and in vanilla relationships.

I used to divide doms who seek smart/competent chicks into three groups.

1.  those whose sense of power is tied to the ability to destroy things...  and who think the "bigger" the thing they can destroy the more badass they are.

2.  those who are attracted to resumes rather than substance.  As in, cool! she's a professor of wacky obscure stuff!  I want to say I bagged one of those!  Just don't ask me to put up with (or even hear about) the day to day reality of her career. That's her problem.  And if she can't manage it, it's obviously because she's a bad sub.

3.  those who genuinely want to have smart/competent people in their worlds, as partners and generally, who are not threatened, who do not see a conflict between competence and submissiveness (though they may be interested in rechanneling some of the competence for their own purposes).

There are probably other variations, but these 3 covered most of the population I encountered when I was still talking to random people.  Guess which groups prevailed? 

Eventually I learned to weed out the 1s and 2s more quickly, thereby cutting down on aggravation and/or distress.  I think you might need to add some criteria to your list beyond physical attractiveness and smarts. It's not that the criteria are flawed, just that they aren't sufficient as filters.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant


These are the sorts of things that repel me...not competence, not intelligence, not the ability to rule the world outside of the D/s dynamic I share with her.  What might repel me about that is the inability to set that facet of their personality aside and turn the facet of submission to me without some sort of prodding on my part.  If the submission must be constantly prodded, then there would be difficulty but not necessarily repulsion UNLESS it were to continue to be so.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

Good question with some good answers here.  I can't speak for anyone else definitively so let me speak for me, from my perspective as a dominant.

I appreciate a competent submissive woman.  My first submissive was the business manager of the dental clinic she worked at and at home, she was the dominant partner in marital matters, not her husband.  His dominance occurred outside the home.  What attracted me, besides her looks-personality-character-intelligence-emotional stability, was the contradiction of her submission to me versus her dominance over all other situations.  Tis been mentioned on here that for some dominants, that...the outer world dominance replaced by submission when within their presence... is a difficult and confusing thing to deal with and I guess that shows that there all kinds of variations on this side of the whip.  For me, it is attractive.

What repels me is something you did mention...emotional complexity of a sort wherein I never know from day to day where those emotions are going to be.  What some people see as "dull" in terms of emotional variety, I see...like Dame Calla...as healthy stability when the emotional reactions...the feelings about something, including me...are more or less predictable.  I want to know that she is going to love me today in the same way...if not more...as she did yesterday.  I want to know that it is not going to take some minor thing to set her off on an emotional soul-search.  I'd rather that soul-searching be done over something major or over something I've asked her to probe within herself.  What repels me is the submissive who can be so very competent and intelligent in the outside world and yet bring a "dumbed-down" attitude to her submission, mistakenly thinking that it is part of submission.  Again, some dominants like that...I don't.  I want the same intelligent outlook they bring to their job, their family, their friends to be brought to their submission to me.  What repels me is the submissive woman who will dress up for her friends and colleagues and family members but who thinks/assumes that when around me, her mode of dress is going to be "naked".  It isn't.  I appreciate a well-dressed woman as much as her friends and family and co-workers do.  I appreciate the submissive who understands that sometimes, it is what is hidden and yet revealed that is most sexy to me.  What repels me is the submissive who, while getting to know her and who, once she is developing a deeper interest in you, displays her sexuality and sensuality combined with her submission but who, once she is yours, begins to let all direction of sexuality be only at my command.  That is the one who didn't listen when I said that I expect a submissive who is not only open to her own sexuality but actively looks for ways to express it to be able to behave in that same manner when mine.  The cutting off of that "seduction" reminds me too much of sooooooooooooo many vanilla women who are "hot to trot" while being pursued but who, once they have been caught, become lukewarm.  I know that for many submissives, it is because they have turned over all sexuality aspects to their dominant but where does it state that yielding of control over their sexual life means that they are no longer a creature imbued with the same wants/desires and the ability to express those that they were before control? 

These are the sorts of things that repel me...not competence, not intelligence, not the ability to rule the world outside of the D/s dynamic I share with her.  What might repel me about that is the inability to set that facet of their personality aside and turn the facet of submission to me without some sort of prodding on my part.  If the submission must be constantly prodded, then there would be difficulty but not necessarily repulsion UNLESS it were to continue to be so.

quote:

ORIGINAL: daintydimples

quote:

ORIGINAL: sravaka


1.  those whose sense of power is tied to the ability to destroy things...  and who think the "bigger" the thing they can destroy the more badass they are.

2.  those who are attracted to resumes rather than substance.  As in, cool! she's a professor of wacky obscure stuff!  I want to say I bagged one of those!  Just don't ask me to put up with (or even hear about) the day to day reality of her career. That's her problem.  And if she can't manage it, it's obviously because she's a bad sub.

3.  those who genuinely want to have smart/competent people in their worlds, as partners and generally, who are not threatened, who do not see a conflict between competence and submissiveness (though they may be interested in rechanneling some of the competence for their own purposes).

Agreed

I am interested in know your thoughts on .what other criteria should be set a/o how to weed out the 1s and 2s.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sravaka


Ok.  This is sravaka's quick guide to redflagging 1s and 2s in the wild. 

1s quickly reveal themselves as overly invested in winning arguments with you (and/or, turning every discussion into an argument).  There is no such thing as a friendly, truth-seeking disagreement-- it's all about winners and losers.  They are particularly invested in winning against you on your own territory, often stooping to almost comically insulting tactics, such as countering something you know about via decades of direct experience with something they read on the internet.  If one is foolhardy enough to progress farther with one of these, he eventually seeks to undermine you in precisely those undertakings which supposedly attracted him to you at first and it can get ugly and damaging.  But for me at least, once I recognized that this was a "type," I'd get a gut feeling the first time I perceived someone turning something into a win-lose-- "ahh..  one of those.  never mind."

2s generally reveal themselves in the way they listen or don't listen.  They seek a sort of intellectual arm candy, believe their own value is somehow enhanced by association with something they think is cool.  But they are either 1) devoid of curiosity about the substance of what you do, preferring to keep it at a safe distance or 2) devoid of curiosity about how how your career etc. relates to you (how you experience it, how it affects you).  They deal with you as a cardboard cutout writer, lawyer, business owner, whatever you are, and prefer not to have their preconceptions disrupted.  The red flag pops up when, for example, you spend a lot of time listening to them talk about what they do, but they change the subject if you try to talk about what you do, or insist on telling you how you should feel about things related to your world, etc.   If you proceed farther down the path with them, they prove to have little tolerance for the inconveniences of hooking up with a smart/competent chick (such as time issues) and lay the resolution of them entirely at your feet.

3s see you as someone they can learn from as well as teach.  They don't expect you to check your brain at the door when you submit to them (though they may take special pleasure in their ability to render an otherwise capable person completely incoherent ) 

The tripartite scheme is no doubt an oversimplification...  but I think it helped to weed out the ones who were most egregiously not on the same page.

Revisions and amplifications to the model are very welcome.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sravaka

Very interesting thread....   I've encountered this sort of thing too, both in D/s and in vanilla relationships.

I used to divide doms who seek smart/competent chicks into three groups.

1.  those whose sense of power is tied to the ability to destroy things...  and who think the "bigger" the thing they can destroy the more badass they are.

2.  those who are attracted to resumes rather than substance.  As in, cool! she's a professor of wacky obscure stuff!  I want to say I bagged one of those!  Just don't ask me to put up with (or even hear about) the day to day reality of her career. That's her problem.  And if she can't manage it, it's obviously because she's a bad sub.

3.  those who genuinely want to have smart/competent people in their worlds, as partners and generally, who are not threatened, who do not see a conflict between competence and submissiveness (though they may be interested in rechanneling some of the competence for their own purposes).

There are probably other variations, but these 3 covered most of the population I encountered when I was still talking to random people.  Guess which groups prevailed? 

quote:

ORIGINAL: lally2
they want the strength and intelligence but i dont think see the strength and intelligence once the strong intelligent woman is kneeling naked before him.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sravaka
There are probably other variations, but these 3 covered most of the population I encountered when I was still talking to random people.  Guess which groups prevailed?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apocalypso

That would be me, I'm afraid.  I can not be round stupid people because they say stupid things and I wince.  That's bad enough from a friend, but there's no way I'd consider a submissive who annoyed me a significant amoutn of the time.

Even nastier, I kinda don't want to have to worry about introducing them to some of my similar friends.  Who can be very welcoming.  But only to intelligent people.  And I can't be doing with being embarassed by a submissive I'm with...

Basically....  When group 3 types go bad!  

quote:

I can think of one other group, which I've definitely seen a significant number of, although my social circle is heavily overepresentative of this.

Those who are highly intelligent and secretly or not so secretly highly judgemental about those who aren't. Who often don't even have people they consider of average or lower intelligence as friends.

That would be me, I'm afraid. I can not be round stupid people because they say stupid things and I wince. That's bad enough from a friend, but there's no way I'd consider a submissive who annoyed me a significant amoutn of the time.

Even nastier, I kinda don't want to have to worry about introducing them to some of my similar friends. Who can be very welcoming. But only to intelligent people. And I can't be doing with being embarassed by a submissive I'm with...

Basically.... When group 3 types go bad!

quote:

ORIGINAL: sravaka


But since I probably belong in one or more of those groups, I'll not dig my own grave.

quote:

So: I'm still left with the dilemma of how much to compromise of my self, my assertive intelligence, my drive and motivations.

quote:

I have always had a tendency to change myself when in relationship. For me being in intimate relationship of any sort (be it familial, colleague, M/s) requires that I adapt and compromise my own needs in order to accommodate the Other's.
If I were in a dominant position then I would imagine that this would be different.
So: I'm still left with the dilemma of how much to compromise of my self, my assertive intelligence, my drive and motivations.

quote:

I am a -super- intense person, especially when you get me on a roll -- some folks just can't deal with that... or they can for a while, and then they can't any more. You know what, that's ok. It isn't going to keep me from being intense. I may be able to modify my intensity for a little while, but after a bit, it will be like a pinchy shoe and I'll be looking to take it off as soon as I can manage it. In the same way, if someone is with me and they're not really cool with my level of intensity, but they like me in general, well, after a bit, my intensity is going to get on their nerves... and probably, at some point, it will get on their very LAST nerve, and they'll decide that a relationship with me just is way too 'vibrant' for them -- and that's OK, too, because sometimes, what was good for us today isn't going to be the same thing that is good for us tomorrow, or next week, or in 5 years or 10.

quote:

ORIGINAL: daintydimples

quote:

ORIGINAL: sravaka


Ok.  This is sravaka's quick guide to redflagging 1s and 2s in the wild. 

1s quickly reveal themselves as overly invested in winning arguments with you (and/or, turning every discussion into an argument).  There is no such thing as a friendly, truth-seeking disagreement-- it's all about winners and losers.  They are particularly invested in winning against you on your own territory, often stooping to almost comically insulting tactics, such as countering something you know about via decades of direct experience with something they read on the internet.  If one is foolhardy enough to progress farther with one of these, he eventually seeks to undermine you in precisely those undertakings which supposedly attracted him to you at first and it can get ugly and damaging.  But for me at least, once I recognized that this was a "type," I'd get a gut feeling the first time I perceived someone turning something into a win-lose-- "ahh..  one of those.  never mind."

2s generally reveal themselves in the way they listen or don't listen.  They seek a sort of intellectual arm candy, believe their own value is somehow enhanced by association with something they think is cool.  But they are either 1) devoid of curiosity about the substance of what you do, preferring to keep it at a safe distance or 2) devoid of curiosity about how how your career etc. relates to you (how you experience it, how it affects you).  They deal with you as a cardboard cutout writer, lawyer, business owner, whatever you are, and prefer not to have their preconceptions disrupted.  The red flag pops up when, for example, you spend a lot of time listening to them talk about what they do, but they change the subject if you try to talk about what you do, or insist on telling you how you should feel about things related to your world, etc.   If you proceed farther down the path with them, they prove to have little tolerance for the inconveniences of hooking up with a smart/competent chick (such as time issues) and lay the resolution of them entirely at your feet.

3s see you as someone they can learn from as well as teach.  They don't expect you to check your brain at the door when you submit to them (though they may take special pleasure in their ability to render an otherwise capable person completely incoherent ) 

The tripartite scheme is no doubt an oversimplification...  but I think it helped to weed out the ones who were most egregiously not on the same page.

Revisions and amplifications to the model are very welcome.

Thank you so much for your response!

I have seen both ones and twos, sometimes in combo.  Some of that behavior does not emerge for awhile.

Anyone else have thoughts for how to weed out 1s &  2s ?

quote:

I can think of one other group, which I've definitely seen a significant number of, although my social circle is heavily overepresentative of this.

Those who are highly intelligent and secretly or not so secretly highly judgemental about those who aren't. Who often don't even have people they consider of average or lower intelligence as friends.

That would be me, I'm afraid. I can not be round stupid people because they say stupid things and I wince. That's bad enough from a friend, but there's no way I'd consider a submissive who annoyed me a significant amoutn of the time.

Even nastier, I kinda don't want to have to worry about introducing them to some of my similar friends. Who can be very welcoming. But only to intelligent people. And I can't be doing with being embarassed by a submissive I'm with...

Basically.... When group 3 types go bad!


Sounds like a perfectly good variation on type 3 to me.     And actually related to something I considered putting in as a 4th possibility:  the so-called "85th percentile problem."  There are flavors and degrees of smart, strong, etc., after all...  and they need either to match up or to complement each other.  But I don't dare get into that in detail.  BTDT, still scarred by the flames.

In fairness...  it occurs to me that a equivalently hasty typology of submissives who identify themselves as smart, strong, et al. might end up containing numerous unattractive categories too.  CreativeDominant's very insightful and enlightening post above suggests some possibilities....

But since I probably belong in one or more of those groups, I'll not dig my own grave.