RE: Style differences between male/female dominants

RE: Style differences between male/female dominants (Full Version)

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

Message

Morrigel -> RE: Style differences between male/female dominants (11/25/2006 10:37:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kalira Anyway, he said to me that a man will first use the physical side to lead to the mental side. And that a woman will start with the mental and lead to the physical. Lotus said that women use the intellectual and men use the physical. It actually makes alot of sense to me in that respect. I disagree. All domination begins with a mental side, unless it is just brutality. You cannot just bash a woman (or a man) over the head and drag that person back to your cave by the hair; even if the person is submissive by nature, she/he won't want to be submissive to you. Dominance is all about achieving the mental state that makes the physical game pleasurable. Yes, you use your body--but you also use your voice, your tone, your manner, and the force of your will. A man in a wheelchair can be just as dominant or more so than a body-building goon--if anything, he has an advantage, in that he isn't fool enough to think that dominance has something to do with physically overpowering people or bullying them. He knows it's about stirring the submission in the soul--making people want to submit, and specifically to submit to you. I have run into more than my share of male submissives who were smaller than I am, and whom I could physically overpower if I chose. We might play even play a game of taking down or holding down, if it was arousing for both of us, but it wasn't because I was "using the physical to get to the mental". I'd already signalled my dominance in a thousand ways long before I laid a finger on him--as do dominant men. --M

CreativeDominant -> RE: Style differences between male/female dominants (11/25/2006 12:24:56 PM)
Personally, I disagree with the statement that male domination starts with the physical and goes to the mental. It doesn't work that way for me. The submissives I've been with...either in a long-term serious relationship or long-term casual relationships would tell you the same. Could I have? Sure. Would they've accepted it? Depends on the circumstances but I can tell you that if I had attempted to make it the "usual" thing rather than something that happened on a rare occasion, in a specific instance, they'd have been gone. For them...and for me...part of the appeal was knowing that I could have been brutish and chose not to.

Lordandmaster -> RE: Style differences between male/female dominants (11/25/2006 12:34:06 PM)
Not exactly. There are many documented examples of what's called "capture-bonding": http://human-nature.com/nibbs/02/cults.html quote: ORIGINAL: Morrigel All domination begins with a mental side, unless it is just brutality. You cannot just bash a woman (or a man) over the head and drag that person back to your cave by the hair; even if the person is submissive by nature, she/he won't want to be submissive to you.

LotusSong -> RE: Style differences between male/female dominants (11/25/2006 2:20:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant For them...and for me...part of the appeal was knowing that I could have been brutish and chose not to. Most females (notice I didn't say ALL- so don't get your knickers in a bunch) don't have that option. We have to think things out.. we have to be able to read the male and we will use the "buttons" we think will trigger the desired response. Then we have to estimate how much time we have to run for cover once we untie them... it's all in the math. It's like a chiropractic adjustment. :)

Morrigel -> RE: Style differences between male/female dominants (11/25/2006 3:01:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster Not exactly. There are many documented examples of what's called "capture-bonding": http://human-nature.com/nibbs/02/cults.html I suppose you could choose to view it that way. "Capture bonding" and brain-washing or torture/interrogation are not really "dominance", in my opinion. They are just brutality. If you have to threaten a person with real death or injury in order to get them to bend to your will, you're not a dominant. You're just a criminal. Ditto if you have to drug or torture them with sleep deprivation, starvation, cold, turning dogs on them, etc.. The fact that some people have fantasies about these things that they want to explore doesn't mean that there's any real link between those fantasies and the reality of brutal abuse in the real world. --M

Lordandmaster -> RE: Style differences between male/female dominants (11/25/2006 3:59:34 PM)
Well, but that article is talking about more than just bending people to one's will by intimidating them. I'd agree that that's not dominance. But in capture-bonding--if it's a real phenomenon, and some people doubt it--the captive eventually becomes submissive to the point that he or she chooses not to escape when it's feasible and sometimes even risks life and limb to aid the captor.

Lady Alaria -> RE: Style differences between male/female dominants (11/25/2006 4:05:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant For them...and for me...part of the appeal was knowing that I could have been brutish and chose not to. You have, exactly, stated the point. This statement shows that it indeed is the way it works with you. Whether it starts with physical intimidation/domination first or not, if there is a power imbalance that is obvious and favoring the Dom/me(as there usually is in maledom situations) it does have a strong affect on the dynamic. Whether you notice it or not. And it does it right from the get go. Women often respond to effective physical intimidation with either panic or submission. Whether or not they have consented and generally trust the intimidator. Men often respond very differently. Either panic(again) or blind rage are more common. There are any number of individual exceptions to this rule. It's just the general tendency.

CreativeDominant -> RE: Style differences between male/female dominants (11/27/2006 12:32:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LotusSong quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant For them...and for me...part of the appeal was knowing that I could have been brutish and chose not to. Most females (notice I didn't say ALL- so don't get your knickers in a bunch) don't have that option. We have to think things out.. we have to be able to read the male and we will use the "buttons" we think will trigger the desired response. Then we have to estimate how much time we have to run for cover once we untie them... it's all in the math. It's like a chiropractic adjustment. :) ~grins~...except that, the last time I checked, most chiropractic doctors don't tie their patients up. And by the way, to twist things a bit further...if you've tied them up, haven't you now put yourself in a position of being able to physically dominate them? You've made them helpless...

TemptingNviceSub -> RE: Style differences between male/female dominants (11/28/2006 7:32:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster Well, but that article is talking about more than just bending people to one's will by intimidating them. I'd agree that that's not dominance. But in capture-bonding--if it's a real phenomenon, and some people doubt it--the captive eventually becomes submissive to the point that he or she chooses not to escape when it's feasible and sometimes even risks life and limb to aid the captor. Are you referring to what is commonly known as the Stockholm Syndrome?..or the extreme case of Patty Hearst?..I have not read the whole thread but this struck a cord of memory ......Tempting

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125