ursamajour
Posts: 41
Joined: 10/26/2005 Status: offline
|
My two cents (thanks to LillyBoPeep for giving this thread some meaningful purpose): In terms of dominance on a scale from 0%-100%, just as very few are 100% gay or straight, I doubt very many people are completely dominant or completely submissive. I agree with the sentiment expressed by xCallMeSirx, that 100% dominance, i.e. being someone who accepts no authority beyond one's own and respects no one's rights or feelings except one's own, will lead one into conflict with society. These are the types who spend a lot of time in trouble with the law because they seek to dominate everyone and everything around them. I also agree with Hisprettybaby that someone who is dominant to the point of being antisocial is properly called an asshole. In terms of nature/nurture, I'd say the need to dominate is natural but the expression of that need is determined by one's position in relation to others. For instance, even if your personality is a dominant one, if you are a little kid, you would have to be insane to attempt to dominate a grown man. Likewise if you are a guy in the mail room and you attempt to dominate the CEO. It represents a failure to recognize the reality of your situation and adapt. To be fair, many naturally dominant people do have some degree of difficulty with this. I, for instance, have always had problems with authority figures, not because I try to aggressively dominate them but because, unlike more submissive types, I accede to their authority in a far less obsequious manner. I speak up when others won't, ask pointed questions that managers would rather avoid. I look managers right in the eye and tell them no. I cause ripples. Dominant or submissive, most of us will refuse to be led by someone we feel is unworthy of the position. We are pack animals and feel tense and uneasy when our leaders feel incapable of providing true leadership. A dominant will act to seize control under such leadership. A submissive will tend to act out or withdraw, since it may be in their nature to resist but not usually in their nature to lead. I think part of what the OP may have been wondering in the title may go to the different styles of domination. I've never liked this way of looking at domination. It implies that being more sadistic and physically aggressive makes one more dominant and being more nurturing and more gentle makes one less dominant, which just isn't the case. Regardless of the methods used and the compassion--or lack thereof--of the dominant, style is no determinant of how dominant someone is. As for switching, this gets back to the spectrum question. Everyone is somewhere on that spectrum. I, for instance, am pretty far along the dominant side of the spectrum. I cannot switch. Note that I didn't say I do not switch but that I can not. I have tried to imagine it and everything within me recoils at the idea. I may be able to accept the leadership of someone who has demonstrated he is better able than I to lead in a given situation but I have never--and will never--give my will over to another. I will never allow another to use me as they see fit. It is fundamentally anathema to me. As for domination purely in the bedroom as opposed to domination in the rest of the world, when I am in a relationship, there is no distinction for me. Sexual domination is an extension of my natural desire to dominate my partner. I respect my partner, though, because I value what comes with having an interactive relationship with someone who stimulates me intellectually and with whom I can share various interests and pursuits beyond sex. But I still dominate them. I don't know whether people who only dominate or submit sexually are "just pervs" or if that's simply the only area in which knowing who is in charge matters for them. Anyway, that's a bit of what dominance means to me. Your mileage may vary. ;-)
< Message edited by ursamajour -- 10/17/2011 2:12:30 PM >
|