Is there an inherent inferiority/superiority to PYL/pyl?

[Netzach]

Call it what you will, white hat, black hat, "twue" dom. I just don't agree. I personally think these twue sub/twue dom conversations are for the birds. And I don't mean when someone discusses dominant traits in the way that I did in this thread. I mean the way that you have chosen to discuss it.

Manipulative is certainly not a trait that I would ever relate with dominance.

Dominance comes from strength, the other from weakness.

This is all very scary will-to-power stuff that doesn't just explain the presence of charismatic nutjobs throughout history who have wielded immense power, it kind of justifies them. In conflating the strong and the good, we have a problem.

I'm saying the strong come from any and all kinds of input. You're saying if the input isn't pure, the strength isn't REALLY strength, the power isn't REALLY power.

That's a luxury I think we can't afford. As a community I've seen this kind of thinking support some downright dangerous people simply because they held sway in a confident and seductive manner.

I strongly dislike the idea of "I am submissive so I simply CANNOT turn off that lizard brain response to power!" - because that is sometimes your social responsibility as a human and not a lizard. Very Bad Things ensue from an unquestioning and unchallenging response to the allure of strength.

You want to give it up in your interpersonal relationships, rock on. If you want to roll over and shy away every time you sense a glimmer of it on your radar, you become a danger to people other than yourself.

You'll have to indulge me, I am the daughter of a hyper-submissive mother, who has never felt the need to push back hard in her life, I imagine. I don't think a lot of people see this as a form of self-indulgence when it is. (As is everything I'm into, but we tend to label sexual dominance as decadence.)

 

[IrisAlthea]

Thank you, too, Iris. Yes, I do understand. We are always adapting in relation to everyone. I don't see dominant and submissive as labels, which may be why my communication here is misunderstood (or so it seems).

I know the moving target is hard to hit. It keeps pushing us toward more understanding of who we are, being more authentic. That is the good thing, albeit very frustrating, indeed.

When I am speaking on this board, I do speak directly to one person more often than not. I do not know if that is something that I will be more conscientious of in the future. It would have to be extremely deliberate for me to do so. I am a "present moment" person much of the time, fully engaged, participating. This gives me something to think about for my future posts.

It feels like we are thanking each other a lot but i still wanted to say that I'm glad you listened and want to consider what I said.

I wish my literal brain could embrace the idea that energy is much better saved in NOT labeling and just being ok with whatever is. Those "I am" statements that so many people seem so comfortable and confident wearing sure are alluring though.

Maybe my often chameleon like response to a mate is not about indecision as much as it's a response to what we are together and being happy just feeding that under the label of "us".

God yes, I get alluring.
I usually get as far as " I'm...eh...Iris" when I try to make one of those all- encompassing "I am" statements.

 

[Netzach]

Manipulative is absolutely part and parcel of Dominance and control, it just has a very feminine gestalt about it, it's the weapon of women and queens. (And hetero dudes, but they hate to be caught trying.)

So of course the literature that starts out "of course this applies to Dommes and teh Gays too just switch your pronoun" which is written by heteros in M/f, is usually completely dismissive of manipulation as a way to interact or influence or train and completely blind to its realities. Manipulation is always weak, always false, always cheap, and never to be admitted to.

It's lovely when you come into the scene at 20 or something and every ounce of confidence you might have come in with is stripped away because what you want and how you do it is inherently weak and wrong the minute you're being taught how to be "safe and above board." If you're not a sociopath and you're not raised by wolves, you immediately start to comb through your desires and you've learned they're sicker than vanillas ever thought and everything MUST be about transparency and processing and actually there are NO FEMALE REAL DOMINANTS because funny, the paradigm of the "real Dominant" is always male like the author or like the author's Master. Isn't that a coincidence?

If you're a fairly normal flexible 20 year old you might start questioning your gender identity seriously because "safe and sane" dominance makes a joke out of the archetypes that fuel your motor. It must be your immature silliness that actually enjoys being Queen. You idiot. Now being a Daddy, that's the way it's done, so maybe that will feel right.

Never fear, the pansexual community is going on the warpath for "slut" as a term of endearment between two people, so why should you have a problem with it? THAT's just healthy. Empress is just delusional. Master is just respect.

The fact is, the happy new reality that a lot of people feel "finally at home within" is often the only option some of us were presented with the moment we left vanilla paradigms, and it can take YEARS to figure out why it doesn't work. This stuff is not pointed out over and over to harsh your mellow - it's because some of us have been soaking in it for over a decade and it ain't home to us. Neither is vanilla.

No matter how many new paradigms get introduced, this is the one that is shoved at every newcomer as "REAL M/S!"

 

[Stella_Omega]

Call it what you will, white hat, black hat, "twue" dom. I just don't agree. I personally think these twue sub/twue dom conversations are for the birds. And I don't mean when someone discusses dominant traits in the way that I did in this thread. I mean the way that you have chosen to discuss it.

Manipulative is certainly not a trait that I would ever relate with dominance.

Dominance comes from strength, the other from weakness.

What you really mean is-- Manipulative is not a trait that turns you on in a dominant. And that's just fine, it's good to know that about yourself.

But there are plenty of dominants out there who use manipulation. And when they are successful at it-- we write 20 shades of grey type novels and call them Christian.

Hell, my mother dominates the whole motherfucking household, purely by manipulation and weakness.

 

[All_4_Love]

You'll have to indulge me, I am the daughter of a hyper-submissive mother, who has never felt the need to push back hard in her life, I imagine. I don't think a lot of people see this as a form of self-indulgence when it is. (As is everything I'm into, but we tend to label sexual dominance as decadence.)

Nothing to be forgiven for, and I hope you feel the same about my response. I try to stay away from this but there are certain hot buttons, so to speak, and this is one of mine:

I strongly dislike the idea of "I am submissive so I simply CANNOT turn off that lizard brain response to power!" - because that is sometimes your social responsibility as a human and not a lizard. Very Bad Things ensue from an unquestioning and unchallenging response to the allure of strength.

You want to give it up in your interpersonal relationships, rock on. If you want to roll over and shy away every time you sense a glimmer of it on your radar, you become a danger to people other than yourself.

I am submissive. I have, and will, turn off my lizard brain response to power. It is my personal responsibility, not social responsibility. My social responsibility is to ensure that I don't ever become the type of person that treats others with, not power, but abuse of power.

 

[All_4_Love]

It feels like we are thanking each other a lot but i still wanted to say that I'm glad you listened and want to consider what I said.

I know. We should just hug each other instead.

What you really mean is-- Manipulative is not a trait that turns you on in a dominant. And that's just fine, it's good to know that about yourself.

But there are plenty of dominants out there who use manipulation. And when they are successful at it-- we write 20 shades of grey type novels and call them Christian.

Hell, my mother dominates the whole motherfucking household, purely by manipulation and weakness.

You amuse the heck out of me, Stella. Not to make light of what you just said here. It's serious stuff. I get it. I've been there.

ETA: I am backing out of this thread, not because I lack the confidence to engage, but I lack the stamina. I'm exhausted.

 

[KoPilot]

Ever since reading some of my first hard kink stories (I hesitate to even label the dynamic they contained; too out of control for M/s, too nonconsensual for D/s, too mild for S/m, so I guess O/o might be closest) I was confronted with the concept of dominance as an expression of weakness and frailty, the weird very unsexy place where that line sort of undulates.

An over he years I decided that manipulation was more than acceptable for me and the dynamic I crave. Maybe that's why all the PYLs I write that use "he" pronouns always read much more as pangender to me, along the lines of what Netz was talking about.

But yeah, manipulation, shameless and laid bare in it's complete lack of being able to provide a foundation for something "more", is one of my deep dark interests.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Ever since reading some of my first hard kink stories (I hesitate to even label the dynamic they contained; too out of control for M/s, too nonconsensual for D/s, too mild for S/m, so I guess O/o might be closest) I was confronted with the concept of dominance as an expression of weakness and frailty, the weird very unsexy place where that line sort of undulates.

An over he years I decided that manipulation was more than acceptable for me and the dynamic I crave. Maybe that's why all the PYLs I write that use "he" pronouns always read much more as pangender to me, along the lines of what Netz was talking about.

But yeah, manipulation, shameless and laid bare in it's complete lack of being able to provide a foundation for something "more", is one of my deep dark interests.

That. Same journey, in a lot of ways.

After years decrying non-con and less-than-forthrightness, I've begun writing a lot of strong aggressive manly types getting completely destroyed and owned by pouting creatures named 'Baby.'

Wish I could blame you for that

 

[StrayKat]

ETA: I am backing out of this thread, not because I lack the confidence to engage, but I lack the stamina. I'm exhausted.

I am sorry you feel so exhausted over an online discussion. I understand such subjects can be very personal and get you involved more than you would expect, but you have to find a way to distance yourself sometimes as well.
In the end, no definition or opinion has to work for you, you have your own and others you can accept and discard however you feel they suit you.

I just wanted to say I understand your need to have clear vision about what your wants and needs are, but that doesnt have to reflect how somebody else feels about that same thing. What is a turn off for you can be a turn on for other person, no matter how much you may see it as "wrong". That doesnt invalidate your own feelings, it just means they have different tastes.

I understand some others here too, being bombarded with a "twue" this and that and yet knowing its so definitely NOT "twue" for them. And I get how new and unsure people can get confused with definitions and even lose mind balance being constantly told how it "should" be.

I dont know what and who I am or what I want, yet, I am not even sure I will ever find out. I do know what I dont want though, and that is being boxed by some other people criteria in first place. I dont think you would care about that either.
So just next time you think you have to react over something, remember to include that dreaded for me, and you shouldnt get so frustrated with the answers you get.
Unless you are me and can get into argument over any damn thing nevertheless

 

[All_4_Love]

Thank you for your friendship and guidance, SK. I am going to answer your post here but I know I will sound like a “victim” and that’s the last thing I want to do, so forgive me in advance for my whining.

In the end, no definition or opinion has to work for you, you have your own and others you can accept and discard however you feel they suit you.

I just wanted to say I understand your need to have clear vision about what your wants and needs are, but that doesnt have to reflect how somebody else feels about that same thing. What is a turn off for you can be a turn on for other person, no matter how much you may see it as "wrong". That doesnt invalidate your own feelings, it just means they have different tastes.

Exactly, so why do my preferences for a “true” dom seem to offend so many here? I don’t see any dominant men speaking up on these threads correcting me (thank God!) because I’d probably die if he did! And, truthfully, there seems to be a whole lot of mis-fucking-andry going on around here. Yeah, I said it, misandry!

I understand some others here too, being bombarded with a "twue" this and that and yet knowing its so definitely NOT "twue" for them. And I get how new and unsure people can get confused with definitions and even lose mind balance being constantly told how it "should" be.

Think about this statement for just a moment. You don’t need to defend it. I understand how you feel.

Understand this: it’s a 2-way street. Every single time I speak up in the forum to relate my experience, I feel bombarbed with messages from others about how wrong MY experience is because it doesn’t match the one they have, or their idea of TWUE D/s or BDSM.

Do you know how many times I've been looked down on in my life for being subservient to a man? How may times I have been discounted and devalued by other women for being...MYSELF?

Yet, I keep getting accused of trying to discount everyone else’s experience.

I call bullshit on this one, Kat.

Here’s my victim whine, you ready?

What about me? What about the struggles that I’ve had coming to terms with my sexuality? What about the 15-year-old little school girl that watches her friends boyfriend grab her by the neck and pin her up against a locker and hold here there, and the whole time everybody is freaking out, I’m sitting there wishing I could have a boyfriend like that, and then trying to struggle with what the hell is wrong with me and why would I think such things?

How about staying with an abusive man in a relationship because deep down it’s filling some twisted fucking need but knowing that you can’t continue to let someone destroy your self worth and that the last thing you want in this world is an unhealthy relationship? Knowing the only way to heal the hurt is to leave the marriage. But yet, knowing that you’re a freak, so you’re consumed with guilt, because in my mind, if I like for a man to beat me, then I shouldn’t be walking out on my marriage just because my husband is abusive! But of course, he’s not physically abusive anymore, so why do I have a right to walk out on this man? Oh, because he is still emotionally abusive! But, damn, it feels so good. Doesn’t it? No, wait, it doesn’t feel good. Not being able to TRUST someone never feels good.

How about trying to reconcile that? How about the sexual fantasies, Kat? Or do I even need to go there?

I dont know what and who I am or what I want, yet, I am not even sure I will ever find out. I do know what I dont want though, and that is being boxed by some other people criteria in first place. I dont think you would care about that either.

I do know who and what I am, and I know what I want. I’m not boxing anyone in here, Kat. And I don’t want to be boxed in either. It seems to me that there is a whole lot of criteria going on in these forums that I’m being held to the cross about. I don’t care for it but I will deal with it, if that is what it takes, and when I get tired, I will back out.

So just next time you think you have to react over something, remember to include that dreaded for me, and you shouldnt get so frustrated with the answers you get.

Are you serious, Kat? I’m not even going to answer this. I love you, Kat. That’s my answer.

I am sorry you feel so exhausted over an online discussion. I understand such subjects can be very personal and get you involved more than you would expect, but you have to find a way to distance yourself sometimes as well.
Unless you are me and can get into argument over any damn thing nevertheless

You’re darn right I’m exhausted. I didn’t come here to fight with people and to keep trying to prove myself. I came here to be me, and I will continue to do so, and the right people will befriend me for being just that…myself. Like you, Stray.

Again, thank you for your friendship. I love you to pieces. Thank you. And please excuse me for saying fuck in this post.

 

[Stella_Omega]

What about me? What about the struggles that I’ve had coming to terms with my sexuality? What about the 15-year-old little school girl that watches her friends boyfriend grab her by the neck and pin her up against a locker and hold here there, and the whole time everybody is freaking out, I’m sitting there wishing I could have a boyfriend like that, and then trying to struggle with what the hell is wrong with me and why would I think such things?

How about staying with an abusive man in a relationship because deep down it’s filling some twisted fucking need but knowing that you can’t continue to let someone destroy your self worth and that the last thing you want in this world is an unhealthy relationship? Knowing the only way to heal the hurt is to leave the marriage. But yet, knowing that you’re a freak, so you’re consumed with guilt, because in my mind, if I like for a man to beat me, then I shouldn’t be walking out on my marriage just because my husband is abusive! But of course, he’s not physically abusive anymore, so why do I have a right to walk out on this man? Oh, because he is still emotionally abusive! But, damn, it feels so good. Doesn’t it? No, wait, it doesn’t feel good. Not being able to TRUST someone never feels good.

How about trying to reconcile that? How about the sexual fantasies, Kat? Or do I even need to go there?

yep, that's what it's like being a perv. You KNOW that you are out of step with society. And there is-- or was-- such alack of information no way to find a measure for who YOU are. Thank goodness-- and I do mean goodness-- for the Internet.



All I can say is... that one piece of advice Kat gave you that you reacted so strongly to?

So just next time you think you have to react over something, remember to include that dreaded for me, and you shouldnt get so frustrated with the answers you get.

That's pretty much it. But because people don't always read so good, especially when they have suddenly read a portion of a phrase that arouses them, it helps to reiterate it like you're talking to morons.
Sometimes I have needed to word my sentences thusly;

"Speaking only for myself, I get totally turned off by people who try to use manipulation as a means of dominance. It doesn't mesh with my idea of that thing I like to call "True Domness." I like to imagine a world of strong self-secure men who know what they want and take it, and lots of women like me who are happy to be taken from (and yeah, I understand that my yum might be your yuck, again I'm only speaking for myself)."

Edited to add in fact, the fantasy I've just described is my own personal true yuck. I personally feel a near nausea at the notion that some of us should be uplifted and others cast down because biology = destiny. Some of us are so. Fucking. Screwed. in that scenario.

But I can tolerate someone else sharing it in this form-- because they make it really extra-super-clear that they are only indulging in their own personal fantasy and don't expect anyone else to go along with it if they don't want to.

 

[KoPilot]

All I can say is... that one piece of advice Kat gave you that you reacted so strongly to?

That's pretty much it. But because people don't always read so good, especially when they have suddenly read a portion of a phrase that arouses them, it helps to reiterate it like you're talking to morons.
Sometimes I have needed to word my sentences thusly;

"Speaking only for myself, I get totally turned off by people who try to use manipulation as a means of dominance. It doesn't mesh with my idea of that thing I like to call "True Domness." I like to imagine a world of strong self-secure men who know what they want and take it, and lots of women like me who are happy to be taken from (and yeah, I understand that my yum might be your yuck, again I'm only speaking for myself)."

It's really not that difficult at all. Lots of us do it and have been doing it for a long time. It's just a good, courteous habit to get into.

 

[All_4_Love]

All I can say is... that one piece of advice Kat gave you that you reacted so strongly to?

That's pretty much it. But because people don't always read so good, especially when they have suddenly read a portion of a phrase that arouses them, it helps to reiterate it like you're talking to morons.
Sometimes I have needed to word my sentences thusly;

"Speaking only for myself, I get totally turned off by people who try to use manipulation as a means of dominance. It doesn't mesh with my idea of that thing I like to call "True Domness." I like to imagine a world of strong self-secure men who know what they want and take it, and lots of women like me who are happy to be taken from (and yeah, I understand that my yum might be your yuck, again I'm only speaking for myself)."

Thank you for the save, Stella, both times on this thread. And the advice.

I'm not sure why I feel so defensive about that, but it's something that I really need to self examine, because you're right, I had a very strong reaction to it. Wow.

 

[DVS]

Thank you for the save, Stella, both times on this thread. And the advice.

I'm not sure why I feel so defensive about that, but it's something that I really need to self examine, because you're right, I had a very strong reaction to it. Wow.

I remember years back, when people like me were called weekend warriors because I didn't indulge in D/s activity 24/7. I wasn't the real deal, and pretty much a faker in the eyes of other people, at the time.

Yes, that was on this forum, but times have changed. Sure, there are 24/7 people out there and more power to them for their choice. But, it seems like they're a new breed that knows that people who don't care to engage in D/s activity all of the time aren't faking it. They just don't have the desire to. It's as simple as that. It's their choice, just like those who participate in it 24/7.

When you talk about things like a true dom or a true submissive, and things like that, it can strike a bad nerve in people. The reason for that is there is no true anything. No true doms, no true subs, no true slaves. Sure, there is some "true" in everybody, but after that, everybody has their own way of doing things. Doms enjoy dominating and submissives enjoy submitting. But, that's just about as true as you're going to get. From then on, you'll get a vast set of opinions on just what a dom or sub is.

Nobody is right and everybody is right. Agree to disagree. Live and let live. There are several slogans that would fit here. All you can really say for sure is how it is for you. You can't judge someone else for their choice no more than they can judge you for yours. We're all true humans, but after that, the similarity ends and we each participate in life in our own way.

 

[Netzach]

Thank you for the save, Stella, both times on this thread. And the advice.

I'm not sure why I feel so defensive about that, but it's something that I really need to self examine, because you're right, I had a very strong reaction to it. Wow.

What's the save? Is this still the world cup?

Your "victim whine" was nothing of the sort, it's actually exactly the kind of thing there's never enough of - a critique of cultures, kink and otherwise, a point of location, everything everyone is entitled to.

Everyone. Meaning both of us and everyone else.

I don't feel beaten up by your story. I don't feel beaten up in the least by the idea that YOUR True Dominant has criteria. Find Him! Enjoy. Mazel Tov.

I do feel beaten up by the idea that **A** True Dominant has a script, a very specific and limiting script, that says if you are not ALPHA ALWAYS in a very narrow and masculinized idea of alpha, you are fake. You are fail. You are dangerous. Believe it or not, that's a topic raised by the thread itself, not just your wording or your post.

I am saying that for every person who finds themselves relieved of the "you are crazy and damaged" messaging when they find kink for another person it continues or worsens, because their stories are shoved to the margin of the margin.

As a female Dominant, the Script sucks. As a male Dominant the script STILL sucks for a lot of people, and I actually have had great relationships with many of them.

A lot of my objections to The Script are because of great, human, and fascinatingly flawed guys who happen to like a lot of the things I like, in sexually incompatible ways.

While I'm not going to bed with them, I like them. They're strong and weak, they're players and they're above-board, they're inconsistent, they're unreliable at times, they're immature at times, they're not True Dom. But they like being boss, and they can rise to the occasion and they're not harming anyone and it gets them off. So what?

They get hurt by these incredibly rigid expectations, expectations which so few of those insisting upon them actually live up to themselves. It blows.

 

[Primalex]

Yep.

I'd also argue that in the end, people are people are people.

People are weird. One person's John Galt is another person's Pee Wee Herman.

Of course, then we reduce personality to the point of view of the observer.


A brave person is not defined by his/her actions, but what other people say. In consequence, a brave person nobody sees is not brave.


I think you mix up personality and consequence in a wrong way. If I'm a coward, duck&cover and the bank robber trips over me and everyone else thinks I did this on purpose - then I'm still a coward, yet I'm treated like a brave person. Does this make me a brave person when everyone thinks that I am one or doesn't it merely mean that there is just no difference between the coward and the brave person from the outside perspective? The next question would be, if the difference between a coward and a brave person matters, if nobody knows it. But denying the fundamental difference is in my opinion wrong.

 

[IrisAlthea]

Of course, then we reduce personality to the point of view of the observer.


A brave person is not defined by his/her actions, but what other people say. In consequence, a brave person nobody sees is not brave.


I think you mix up personality and consequence in a wrong way. If I'm a coward, duck&cover and the bank robber trips over me and everyone else thinks I did this on purpose - then I'm still a coward, yet I'm treated like a brave person. Does this make me a brave person when everyone thinks that I am one or doesn't it merely mean that there is just no difference between the coward and the brave person from the outside perspective? The next question would be, if the difference between a coward and a brave person matters, if nobody knows it. But denying the fundamental difference is in my opinion wrong.

Perhaps we need to consider separating dominance as the personality treat, that feeling inside that things are really nice when people do what you say and on the other hand the leadership role in relation to others where people actually do what you say?

The first for me would be something you either have or you don't and you will still have it if you're alone in a dark room.
The other is a role that you can only have in relation to someone else and sometimes only in a certain situation.

 

[Netzach]

Of course, then we reduce personality to the point of view of the observer.


A brave person is not defined by his/her actions, but what other people say. In consequence, a brave person nobody sees is not brave.


I think you mix up personality and consequence in a wrong way. If I'm a coward, duck&cover and the bank robber trips over me and everyone else thinks I did this on purpose - then I'm still a coward, yet I'm treated like a brave person. Does this make me a brave person when everyone thinks that I am one or doesn't it merely mean that there is just no difference between the coward and the brave person from the outside perspective? The next question would be, if the difference between a coward and a brave person matters, if nobody knows it. But denying the fundamental difference is in my opinion wrong.

I think what I'm saying is that these things are fluid and contextual especially taking them out of public life and into private life, and also that the categorizations are generally fairly misleading.

If that person's reflex is to duck that day because they have PTSD from two tours are they still a coward?

If anything I think my point leaves more latitude for the idea that a brave (stupid brilliant elegant dominant submissive blah) person with no other people around is still that - that in terms of likes-sexual-control/likes-sexual-nocontrol - desire and personality are not dependent on one another in ways that are obvious and legible at all times to all others. Maybe your success with your desire is contingent on finding someone who can't tell that you're actually Pee Wee Herman to most of everyone else, but who knows why people want what they want?

 

[Netzach]

Perhaps we need to consider separating dominance as the personality treat, that feeling inside that things are really nice when people do what you say and on the other hand the leadership role in relation to others where people actually do what you say?

The first for me would be something you either have or you don't and you will still have it if you're alone in a dark room.
The other is a role that you can only have in relation to someone else and sometimes only in a certain situation.

Private life / Public life in a nutshell.

 

[Primalex]

Perhaps we need to consider separating dominance as the personality treat, that feeling inside that things are really nice when people do what you say and on the other hand the leadership role in relation to others where people actually do what you say?

Then we basically have three different traits.

a) The intrinsic dominant personality trait.
b) The dominant kink, where living out a) grants sexual pleasure.
c) The dominant radiation / the perception.

You can have c) alone from real or imaginary power. The president for example would be a prime example, who basically gets dominant radiation due to the power he holds, no matter what kind of personality you have in that position.

Another example for c) would be the submissive, who has to educate kids or the woman, who just needs dominant radiation to get things done in life and at work.

 

[IrisAlthea]

I think what I'm saying is that these things are fluid and contextual especially taking them out of public life and into private life, and also that the categorizations are generally fairly misleading.

Yes, it's very much a spectrum and not binary for me.

Then we basically have three different traits.

a) The intrinsic dominant personality trait.
b) The dominant kink, where living out a) grants sexual pleasure.
c) The dominant radiation / the perception.

You can have c) alone from real or imaginary power. The president for example would be a prime example, who basically gets dominant radiation due to the power he holds, no matter what kind of personality you have in that position.

Another example for c) would be the submissive, who has to educate kids or the woman, who just needs dominant radiation to get things done in life and at work.

Yes, something like that.
If Weber can have a tripart concept of authority, we can have one of dominance, right?

 

[Dyslexicea]

Of course, then we reduce personality to the point of view of the observer.

A brave person is not defined by his/her actions, but what other people say. In consequence, a brave person nobody sees is not brave.

I think you mix up personality and consequence in a wrong way. If I'm a coward, duck&cover and the bank robber trips over me and everyone else thinks I did this on purpose - then I'm still a coward, yet I'm treated like a brave person. Does this make me a brave person when everyone thinks that I am one or doesn't it merely mean that there is just no difference between the coward and the brave person from the outside perspective? The next question would be, if the difference between a coward and a brave person matters, if nobody knows it. But denying the fundamental difference is in my opinion wrong.

Personally, I'd say both CutieMouse and Netzach are correct. We humans, at least our psyches, are more complicated than one size fits all. A person could at times be cowardly while at other times brave. Even the accidental bravery per your scenario could create a change in the cowards personality which could make him no longer a coward, even the fact that the as you put it outside see him as brave could cause that change. Unless you believe all the traits which make up our psyches are inherited and inflexible, we change and grow sometimes those changes are positive, sometimes negative. How we are perceived by others(the outside) effects us and can and does change us. Even those things which are truly inherited, unlike dominance, has an effect on us by how they are perceive by others. If they perceive those traits such as looks, body shape and size, skin color just to mention a few as positive or as a negative it effects us, it effects and shapes our personalities, it effects how we perceive ourselves.

Since this discussion isn't about bravery or cowardliness but dominance and submissiveness let me set up my own scenario based on what you wrote. I'm guessing here, you think of yourself as a dominant male, if not just humor me, let us assume there are others who see you that way also but from my perspective you could never dominate me, but you try anyway and of course fail. In fact you are not at all dominant because not only did you fail to dominate me, I don't see you as dominant or a dominant, which would then also be the view of the outside observer along with being a matter of fact. Have I mixed up personality and consequence, your personality, to me, isn't dominant and your self evaluation, I'm a dominant, is meaningless because the consequence are you can't dominate me.

It really is unfair of me to be commenting on your or any other man's male dominance, if what I perceive are the traits of women who are able to have these types of relationship with men, I'm not, see as the traits which make a man dominant, those are for me many of the very same traits I respond most negatively to when I relate to men.

In my opinion, both dominance and submissiveness are in the eye of the beholder, how I perceive my submissive side, how I express it, when I want to express it and even how it makes me feel are extremely personal and applies only to me, as is my choice in someone who is able to dominate me.

Sir_Winston I know this isn't a response to your original question. I don't know that I really have one, other than to say I rarely feel inferior to anyone and I surely don't feel inferior to the love of my life, the only person I really care to be submissive to. Although I can see for some, feelings of inferior could be part of their need to express their submissiveness but of course that's more a guess than really knowing. I'm really not in the position to defend a guess.

By the way you've started a extremely interesting thread which has some wonderful posts and some intriguing debates.

 

[Primalex]

Personally, I'd say both CutieMouse and Netzach are correct. We humans, at least our psyches, are more complicated than one size fits all. A person could at times be cowardly while at other times brave.

And we call this switch then
(or vanilla or...normal...or...)

Even the accidental bravery per your scenario could create a change in the cowards personality which could make him no longer a coward [...]

This is true, but not an argument or you end up calling everyone dominant because of the off-chance that they could be in the future.

I'm guessing here, you think of yourself as a dominant male, if not just humor me, let us assume there are others who see you that way also but from my perspective you could never dominate me, but you try anyway and of course fail. In fact you are not at all dominant because not only did you fail to dominate me, I don't see you as dominant or a dominant, which would then also be the view of the outside observer along with being a matter of fact. Have I mixed up personality and consequence, your personality, to me, isn't dominant and your self evaluation, I'm a dominant, is meaningless because the consequence are you can't dominate me.

As I said, I think it's not valid to take the result and then make the backward flip to determine the personality. (If the dominance does not have a result -> the trait is meaningless -> therefore the person is not dominant.)

Otherwise you would have to say that a person in an empty room that is doing nothing and has nothing to do, has no personality.

 

[Dyslexicea]

Then we basically have three different traits.

a) The intrinsic dominant personality trait.
b) The dominant kink, where living out a) grants sexual pleasure.
c) The dominant radiation / the perception.

You can have c) alone from real or imaginary power. The president for example would be a prime example, who basically gets dominant radiation due to the power he holds, no matter what kind of personality you have in that position.

Another example for c) would be the submissive, who has to educate kids or the woman or man, who just needs dominant radiation to get things done in life and at work.

I corrected that for you Primalex.

You confuse me with "the submissive, who has to educate kids" please explain how that applies to your theory.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you but I think it's more complicated. I also don't believe there is one intrinsic dominant personality trait, it's my believe it is a combination of many personality traits. In my opinion most see dominance associated with the masculine and many women who are not at all masculine are dominant. I know butch/stud lesbians who are very masculine in nature but would be more suited to being a submissive in a D/s relationship, like wise just the opposite for many femme lesbians I know. I think Netzach tried to point that out early in the thread, being dominant isn't a dude thing and a woman doesn't have to act like a dude to be dominant.

 

[Primalex]

I corrected that for you Primalex.

You confuse me with "the submissive, who has to educate kids" please explain how that applies to your theory.

I confused you with a person able to discuss a topic without turning it into a gender debate. I was wrong. Won't happen again.