RE: Wankers at Home, or Naturally Dominant?

RE: Wankers at Home, or Naturally Dominant? (Full Version)

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

Message

WhiplashSmile -> RE: Wankers at Home, or Naturally Dominant? (4/23/2007 9:17:25 AM)
I read the page http://www.mybdsm.com/pages/kalanasc/bdsm/acidtest.html While I don't know where they got the numbers from for the Math, I can comment on the Acid tests. I have to say I agree with most of the Tests though, at least this is my opinion. The only one of the tests I would have a problem with is #11 in terms of references. Because I've been in Monogamous relationships, and not had additional play partners. Nor am I active in BDSM community groups. However, I could provide references for doing a general check on me. Much like a job application reference or otherwise. I think all the other Acid Tests are Great though.

happypervert -> RE: Wankers at Home, or Naturally Dominant? (4/23/2007 9:23:18 AM)
quote: I read this and to be honest, I wondered how they came up with such numbers, how their methodology worked. I wondered if it was in fact incorrect to discount all those horny men because they shun a "scene". It looks like you are jumping to the conclusion that the estimates of naturally dominant males are taken from kinky groups or other "scene" oriented events, yet there is nothing in the language describing those estimates to support that assumption. I can easily imagine someone devising a survey to identify "naturally dominant" males by leader or follower tendencies and I wouldn't be surprised if the numbers came from a grad student somewhere; of course, it isn't clear that is the case either. Still, I bet the estimates of on-line wankers would be supported by a survey of the mail received by the women around here, and false positives (looks like a wanker but isn't) would probably be balanced out by false negatives (looks real but is a wanker).

WhiplashSmile -> RE: Wankers at Home, or Naturally Dominant? (4/23/2007 9:30:23 AM)
I don't think it's fair to just pick on the fake DOM wankers at home. Because there are even female submissives that are fake wankers as well. I'm talking about the ones that insist upon wanting to CyberSex right off the bat, who don't want to talk much about themselves and insist upon calling a Dom Sir. Yes, there are so called female subs that do some of the same things. Think everybody should read this link that the OP tossed out at us.. http://www.mybdsm.com/pages/kalanasc/bdsm/acidtest.html Think in terms of a general tests for subs, Dom/mes and Switchs even.

juliaoceania -> RE: Wankers at Home, or Naturally Dominant? (4/23/2007 9:33:17 AM)
Perhaps you are right, although I assumed the writer did mean real life scene, they never put up what statistical information they were relying upon to make these judgments. I assumed this because in my mind I was thinking of where people would go to find an abundance of individuals to count the heads so to speak. I have heard of a survey or two of lifestylers that had this ratio, so I assumed that it was based upon that.... Good point. Although that begs the question, if we are only talking about how people relate in general, meaning how many natural submissive women to natural dominant men, that still would not account for the ratio the author penned. These are people specifically looking for a D/s relationships. Like Mistress Melissa pointed out, this is far more acceptable for men as opposed to women, so this view that we femsubs so outnumber maledoms seems a stretch to me.

juliaoceania -> RE: Wankers at Home, or Naturally Dominant? (4/23/2007 9:40:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhiplashSmile I don't think it's fair to just pick on the fake DOM wankers at home. Because there are even female submissives that are fake wankers as well. I'm talking about the ones that insist upon wanting to CyberSex right off the bat, who don't want to talk much about themselves and insist upon calling a Dom Sir. Yes, there are so called female subs that do some of the same things. Think everybody should read this link that the OP tossed out at us.. http://www.mybdsm.com/pages/kalanasc/bdsm/acidtest.html Think in terms of a general tests for subs, Dom/mes and Switchs even. I think acid tests are fine for people who desire basic guidelines to avoid pitfalls. Not everyone has a lot of common sense, and acid tests help people that do not separate the wheat from the chaff. It is not about the acid test, it is about coming up with numbers of who is and who is not a wanker that troubles me. I think that if I were a sub looking and I read this page I would hang it up and forget finding someone. 10 to 1 odds against me? Wow, forget it and move on and satisfy myself as a lonely cat lady or go back to vanilla. To me it is not very helpful to paint such a dire picture for a new sub. We all need to be aware, have common sense, and be careful... but quoting unsubstantiated numbers that could so discourage people is not helpful either.

WhiplashSmile -> RE: Wankers at Home, or Naturally Dominant? (4/23/2007 10:12:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania I think acid tests are fine for people who desire basic guidelines to avoid pitfalls. Not everyone has a lot of common sense, and acid tests help people that do not separate the wheat from the chaff. It is not about the acid test, it is about coming up with numbers of who is and who is not a wanker that troubles me. I think that if I were a sub looking and I read this page I would hang it up and forget finding someone. 10 to 1 odds against me? Wow, forget it and move on and satisfy myself as a lonely cat lady or go back to vanilla. To me it is not very helpful to paint such a dire picture for a new sub. We all need to be aware, have common sense, and be careful... but quoting unsubstantiated numbers that could so discourage people is not helpful either. At best raw numbers can be used. This site for examaple.. Number of Male Dom registered vs. Number of Female Subs registered And come up with a general ratio. Now there are a number of fake Doms and Fake Subs, but how does one determine this number properly? What tools were used and applied and to what extent. When it comes down to Stats, these can be skewed or certain numbers used and applied for somebodys agenda. People will keep some numbers and toss out or not speak of other numbers. Also, always important to study how the test itself was conducted. Yes, a Study about how a study was done. LOL.. I agree these numbers are discouraging for many female submissives. I do know from talking with a number of submissive women on this site. There are a lot of Fake Doms or Doms that simply fall into many of the Acid tests I just read. 10-1.. Hell this might be a conservate number or not. I don't know.. The true odds may be 5-1 or even 20-1.. I think the author of the article was trying to express for a Female sub not to get her hopes up about finding a Good Male Dom right away, that it will be a challenge online. I believe this is true. Based on my conversations with female subs.

juliaoceania -> RE: Wankers at Home, or Naturally Dominant? (4/23/2007 10:18:24 AM)
quote: There are a lot of Fake Doms or Doms that simply fall into many of the Acid tests I just read. 10-1.. Hell this might be a conservate number or not. I don't know.. The true odds may be 5-1 or even 20-1.. I think the author of the article was trying to express for a Female sub not to get her hopes up about finding a Good Male Dom right away, that it will be a challenge online. I believe this is true. Based on my conversations with female subs. I think this is true of any singles site. I had a lot better luck looking for a dom than I did on the various vanilla type sites. Vanilla men are just as fake as doms are....lmao. Some are married or have girlfriends, some poof, they lie about what they look like, and they can be extremely weird... perhaps this is a human nature thing? I also believe that the fakes and wankers and others can be someone else's hero, so it is hard to state whether your female friends are "right".

ExSteelAgain -> RE: Wankers at Home, or Naturally Dominant? (4/23/2007 10:49:20 AM)
I damn near discount anyone of any persuasion who doesn't post on the boards.

Celeste43 -> RE: Wankers at Home, or Naturally Dominant? (4/23/2007 11:05:20 AM)
We don't belong to any groups. He is a very private person. We are monogamous and do not play with others. So what should we join a group for? He joined a kink site to find a partner, he only goes there occasionally to see what I've been discussing and that's maybe once a month. So when it comes to statistics he would be overlooked. He doesn't refer to himself as a Dominant, he envisions such people as wearing leather and carrying a flogger everywhere. He has no time or patience for such nonsense. He just is one naturally who wants a woman who is compatible with him in both vanilla and kink ways who prefers to have him take the lead. The statistics seem to assume that dominant means sadist with experience. That's a wrong definition I see a lot. Admittedly most doms do some s & m and most subs either like that or will do it for their tops, but that doesn't mean all are. Now to be a competent sadist some practice is required and workshops are recommended for learning more difficult techniques. But I've seen shibari workshops offered and fireplay ones, and suspension, but I've never seen a workshop offered in how to control dominance during a disagreement in order to allow the sub the ability to speak freely. I've never seen a workshop offered on how fast you should push a sub to try things that are difficult and how you decide what speed is good for which subs. Those would be worthwhile things for dominants to know, but not sadists.

imthatacheyouhav -> RE: Wankers at Home, or Naturally Dominant? (4/23/2007 11:10:26 AM)
i am my Masters 1st local relationship. He has had others here and there but nothing long lasting or very serious i get the impression. i feel like He is very natrually Dominant. So should i worry?....no i dont think so. He is more then willing to learn and practise on me....why worry?....LOL

xonemasterx -> RE: Wankers at Home, or Naturally Dominant? (4/23/2007 12:55:37 PM)
I believe the numbers come from the same government agency that measures time lost at work due to various sports and news events and Congressional budgetary numbers.

WhiplashSmile -> RE: Wankers at Home, or Naturally Dominant? (4/23/2007 2:37:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ExSteelAgain I damn near discount anyone of any persuasion who doesn't post on the boards. While I will not discount anybody for not doing so. I have met a few that simply read the Message boards without posting. There are those that simply do not want to post too much about themselves in public. One of the down sides for us people posting, is that somebody can us this information to their own advantage if they are a serious game player. Where they are holding an uppper hand while we know little next to nothing about them. They simply know all the right things to lie about and make themselves look better. Hope this post does not scare anybody, but it's something to be concious about.

ArtificerOfKink -> RE: Wankers at Home, or Naturally Dominant? (4/23/2007 3:03:05 PM)
When I read that part I pretty much threw that statistic in the garbage. I think it's based more on a feeling based on experience rather than any hard data. To find a "true dominant" one has to spend time getting to know them or con them into owning up to being a fake. Something requires a little too much effort to do any kind of statistical analysis on.

Mercnbeth -> RE: Wankers at Home, or Naturally Dominant? (4/23/2007 3:11:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania I have read a post recently about the "acid test" for finding a dominant. I am not attacking the acid test or anything, but I wanted to challenge something I read on one page that talked about it quote: Various estimates and surveys have placed the ratio of true (i.e., natural) male sexual Dominants to female sexual submissives at about one to ten. However, a quick count in any given D/s oriented chat room would lead you to believe that male Doms outnumber the subs at about two to one. Now if there is actually only one male Dom for every ten female subs, that means that 19 out of the 20 "Doms" you see online HAVE TO BE FAKES. Keep this in mind. There is a 95% chance that any man you talk to online claiming to be a Dom is no such thing. This leads us to our first rule, a rule that all statisticians and scientists already know by heart: "When in doubt, throw it out!" Your search for a suitable Dominant partner (especially if you are seeking a serious long term relationship as well) could easily take years. http://www.mybdsm.com/pages/kalanasc/bdsm/acidtest.html I read this and to be honest, I wondered how they came up with such numbers, how their methodology worked. I wondered if it was in fact incorrect to discount all those horny men because they shun a "scene". I also thought perhaps dominant men might be more likely to stay at home rather than go out and play in public or join a group. Perhaps men and women approach the social aspects of the lifestyle differently. My main objection was that I wondered how anyone can quantify those who seek and are practicing WIITWD in the privacy of their own home as being all wankers... Is one only a true and natural dominant if they join a group? Should doms that stay at home be dismissed? What are your thoughts? with regards to the article: this slave's thoughts are that the article reduces "real" D/s to sexual encounters only, which is hardly a measure of "true" or "natural" anything, especially when men are involved. a lot of folk are simply not interested in taking their sex life, vanilla or not, out to a restaurant or "public" dungeon---it doesn't mean they aren't really sexual. this slave has met many fun, kind and interesting people at munches, dungeons and events. folks who are genuinely friendly and helpful. there have also been rude assholes, men & women lying to their spouses or others about their whereabouts, and folks just there to get laid, drum up business or pose in a fabulous outfit, just like any vanilla social or club function.

MyMasterStephen -> RE: Wankers at Home, or Naturally Dominant? (4/23/2007 3:43:18 PM)
quote: Various estimates and surveys have placed the ratio of true (i.e., natural) male sexual Dominants to female sexual submissives at about one to ten. I have no idea where this person gets their figures, but I reckon they're way off-base. If you go to ALT, their IM system gives the numbers of males and females who are logged-on to the chat syatem at any one time. Albeit Doms and subs are not differentiated between, there are usually 6 or 7 men logged-on for every woman. My experience is that male Dominants are in by far the majority when compared to female submissives.

KnightofMists -> RE: Wankers at Home, or Naturally Dominant? (4/23/2007 3:49:32 PM)
Attending public events.. only defines one thing.. they made a choice to be out in public. Not Attending public events...only defines one thing... they made a choic to not be out in public. Anything beyond that requires more information to make any sort of judgement of any sort.

Archer -> RE: Wankers at Home, or Naturally Dominant? (4/23/2007 9:16:19 PM)
Again I think this comes from Gloria Brames work being mis cited Gloria's research came up with an estimated 20% of total population being "Kinky" to some level or another. Then someone took those numbers and started to make assumptions not based on good research The figure for Female Dominants to male submissives Gloria came up with was in the 20 to 1 realm if I recall correctly. It's been too long since I read Different Loving to cite a male dominant to femal submissive ratio if she gave one. If she gave a ratio then I would tend to trust it. Now the rest of the "advice" I would look at another way. Assuming normal distribution if the number of wankers in onlne chatrooms is 10 to 1 then I would assume that the number of wankers at a RT function would be only slightly lower, based on the fear/motivation factor. People have to want something more than they fear the costs to attend a group so it would tend to weed out a larger number of wankers (who have less motivation one would assume) than it would people with a real drive for what we do (who have a higher motivation). That is not to say it doesn't also weed out some folks who are "real" as well, certainly it does.

crouchingtigress -> RE: Wankers at Home, or Naturally Dominant? (4/23/2007 9:30:16 PM)
Julia, when i read this many years ago i thought it was crap...and now years later it has become aged and seasoned Deu deu. i hear folks repeat this drivel, and i dont even jump in with my pov any more because a. to quote the big lebowski "it like your opinion man"...and b. the words chatroom and statistics should never share the same sentence. and i do like the acid test, i like the premise, i like the characterizations and i like the motivation....all sound educational reading, just not that part.

juliaoceania -> RE: Wankers at Home, or Naturally Dominant? (4/23/2007 10:00:43 PM)
quote: a. to quote the big lebowski "it like your opinion man"... OMG, I love that movie....smiles. quote: and b. the words chatroom and statistics should never share the same sentence. I totally agree with this[:D]

Guilty1974 -> RE: Wankers at Home, or Naturally Dominant? (4/23/2007 11:12:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord The article appears to be for those who are looking for scene play. For them, this is what they want. This sort of "test" works for them. It's also a highly prejudiced article where it writes about young people. If anything should be avoided, imho, it is the acid test.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875