Tell me about Dom psychology please

[sunandshadow]

Perhaps some of the members of this forum are familiar with the type of romance novel which has a really pushy alpha male - usually it's a historical romance and he forces her to marry him, or sometimes she is a slave he buys or is given as a present, she tries to run away and he hunts her down, etc. I know I've seen roleplays like this in the SRP forum here.

I need to develop a character of this type for the story I'm writing. The woman has some sort of special quality such that she is rare and valuable, probably in the sense that she could be valuable to the military or defending a clan from enemies. The Dom man I am thinking is some sort of military trainer or officer or one of the men in charge of defending a clan - seems like he would be patriotic, somewhat religious, never doubts himself, and believes that people should train so hard it half-kills them and not whine about it. Would have totally no sympathy for or understanding of the woman saying she is a pacifist, refusing combat training, refusing to take a mate or working partner selected by the clan leader, trying to run away to somewhere she can have personal freedom. He's not a sadist though, he thinks pain is something people should learn to ignore - he's all about duty and personal honor (which apparently doesn't include the idea that honor might demand giving others freedom of choice).

So my question is, what are you imagining this man to be like beyond my description? Is there something he wouldn't be satisfied until the woman says or does it? What kind of tasks or punishments would he assign her to try to make her into something satisfying? Would he be thinking in terms of 'breaking' her, or what instead?

 

[sunandshadow]

If I've made some wrong assumptions or used any wrong phrasings in my post that make you hesitate to reply, please let me know.

 

[Biffalo_Buff]

I think it's going to be difficult for others to flesh this character out for you, however much we may individually know about our own "psychology." And it sounds like you're doing alright so far building the character for yourself anyway.

Doms come in lots of different styles, but I don't suspect very many of us are like those characters in the romance novels...

At the bottom line, of course, it's all about writing what you know. So, maybe that's the way to develop: What side are you on in that dynamic? If you were feeling bossy, how would you feel? If you want to be bossed around, what sort of things would appeal to you?

Good luck.

 

[YourCaptor]

Honestly, he seems like a scared little conservative.

Why is he kissing the clans ass?

 

[sunandshadow]

Honestly, he seems like a scared little conservative.

Why is he kissing the clans ass?

Why are drill sergeants madly in love with the army/marines/whatever? It's what gives meaning to his life, and a glorious tradition to be part of. It's what built up his own strength and discipline, and those are what give him his self-respect. Also I'm tentatively thinking the clan leader is the guy he respects and loves most in the world - either a best friend who saved his ass when they were younger, or took him in and trusted him when no one else did, or maybe his older brother who was his hero when they were growing up. Yeah he's a conservative, no he doesn't like change, but if he fears anything it would be enemies killing the clan's children and elders, he doesn't really have any fear on his own behalf.

 

[sunandshadow]

I think it's going to be difficult for others to flesh this character out for you, however much we may individually know about our own "psychology." And it sounds like you're doing alright so far building the character for yourself anyway.

Doms come in lots of different styles, but I don't suspect very many of us are like those characters in the romance novels...

At the bottom line, of course, it's all about writing what you know. So, maybe that's the way to develop: What side are you on in that dynamic? If you were feeling bossy, how would you feel? If you want to be bossed around, what sort of things would appeal to you?

Good luck.

Hmm. Well, I'm neither a Dom nor a sub myself. The woman here isn't actually supposed to find this being bossed around appealing, because she's the wrong person, she's not the man's love interest or vice-versa. So far I've been imagining it from her perspective because she's the main character of the book. From her perspective he has to be totally implacable, immune to persuasion, impossible to please in any way that also pleases herself, frustrating and somewhat incomprehensible but almost likable. But yeah that's a good idea, for me to try to also imagine what I would do if I were feeling bossy, and disgusted by someone else having totally the wrong priorities and acting spoiled... I don't know though, my own instinct is to leave people to their own devices, or use trickery and manipulation to modify their behavior, not set up a stone wall for them to bonk their head against until they change the way they think.

 

[Homburg]

Sounds more like "asshole bully" than "dominant" to me.

I would avoid the idea of "breaking her". Broken people make for crap lead characters, and tend to have a tough time pushing the narrative.

 

[JMohegan]

Perhaps some of the members of this forum are familiar with the type of romance novel which has a really pushy alpha male - usually it's a historical romance and he forces her to marry him, or sometimes she is a slave he buys or is given as a present, she tries to run away and he hunts her down, etc. I know I've seen roleplays like this in the SRP forum here.

I need to develop a character of this type for the story I'm writing. The woman has some sort of special quality such that she is rare and valuable, probably in the sense that she could be valuable to the military or defending a clan from enemies. The Dom man I am thinking is some sort of military trainer or officer or one of the men in charge of defending a clan - seems like he would be patriotic, somewhat religious, never doubts himself, and believes that people should train so hard it half-kills them and not whine about it. Would have totally no sympathy for or understanding of the woman saying she is a pacifist, refusing combat training, refusing to take a mate or working partner selected by the clan leader, trying to run away to somewhere she can have personal freedom. He's not a sadist though, he thinks pain is something people should learn to ignore - he's all about duty and personal honor (which apparently doesn't include the idea that honor might demand giving others freedom of choice).

So my question is, what are you imagining this man to be like beyond my description? Is there something he wouldn't be satisfied until the woman says or does it? What kind of tasks or punishments would he assign her to try to make her into something satisfying? Would he be thinking in terms of 'breaking' her, or what instead?

Have you read The Taming of the Shrew? The military thing doesn't fit, but that's basically your plot, as far as I can tell.

I've had plenty of fantasies of the chase & take by force variety, but beyond that I'm having a hard time relating to your story. Mostly because I'm really not into breaking people, molding people, or even the behavior modification thing.

The only part of TTotS that I found hot was the contest at the end. He calls, she comes. That's what it's all about.

 

[JMohegan]

Hmm. Well, I'm neither a Dom nor a sub myself. The woman here isn't actually supposed to find this being bossed around appealing, because she's the wrong person, she's not the man's love interest or vice-versa. So far I've been imagining it from her perspective because she's the main character of the book. From her perspective he has to be totally implacable, immune to persuasion, impossible to please in any way that also pleases herself, frustrating and somewhat incomprehensible but almost likable. But yeah that's a good idea, for me to try to also imagine what I would do if I were feeling bossy, and disgusted by someone else having totally the wrong priorities and acting spoiled... I don't know though, my own instinct is to leave people to their own devices, or use trickery and manipulation to modify their behavior, not set up a stone wall for them to bonk their head against until they change the way they think.

I'm curious to know why you've chosen this particular type of tale.

The advice to write what you know sounded like good advice to me. "Know" could be fantasy, in lieu of actual experience. You're writing fiction, after all.

Does any of this turn you on?

 

[Tuomas]

Psychology of fictional characters, my favorite.

As you know, everyone's psychology is different; there is no "model" for being dominant. Every one has different motivations for their personal traits, and they tie in with their experiences and values. Dominance is also expressed in many ways; for a simple example, both Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama are very dominant people, and show great leadership abilities -but, personality-wise, they have very little in common with a drill Sargent.

One of the reasons why your character comes across as "wussy" or an "asshole" is that he appears to be dominant for dominance's sake. And, if I may speak the ultimate blasphemy, somewhat stereotypical What's his drive, his motivation? Why does he believe people should train until they are half-dead? To what point and purpose? What makes him patriotic? Why does he never doubt himself -he's human, of course he's made mistakes, and anyone who is intelligent would know that-; never doubting yourself shows poor judgment of character, a disinterest in self-improvement. People who are unable to receive criticism nicely are usually not liked or are resented, which undermines any dominant traits he might show.

A drill Sargent, for example, when training his recruits shows absolute self-confidence, because he knows his stuff. He knows that if the recruits don't learn what he's teaching, they could be killed -or worse, kill their own friends. He does not make you do twenty push-ups to strut his stuff, but so you grow strong muscles and can defend yourself in a fight. He forces you to take 20mile hikes with heavy packs so you build strength, stamina, will be able to keep up with the unit. Everything the drill Sargent does to his recruits is ultimately for their benefit as soldiers -not his.

But, what happens when the young lieutenant saunters over -the same man he might have trained just last year? He is as disciplined and "submissive" as he would expect of his recruits. While he might never doubt himself in teaching recruits, he'll certainly doubt himself in the face of orders from the Lieutenant. Why? Because the officer -versus the enlisted Sargent- knows his stuff; he knows that if the Sargent didn't do as he was told, people would be killed, etc.

Now, you might say the Sargent is more "dominant" than the Lieutenant, because he shouts, "on your face and give me twenty five!" versus the Lieutenant's "Now, guys, I know you aren't happy with this, but I'm going to have to ask you a huge favor, because it's really important that we..." Do you see what I'm getting at?

Returning to your character, I don't see why he wouldn't understand the woman's pacifism; on one likes war, especially the military. After all, they are the ones who have to go out and get killed. What he won't understand is why she's so stuck-up and selfish, that she doesn't care about her people's freedom and rights; why she would bury her head in the sand instead of facing the reality that if she doesn't fight, everything worth living for will be destroyed, and she might even be killed. He might even be curious about why that is, kind of like how you wonder why dominants are like how they are. (And, for the record, there are many dominant pacifists).

Another bit that struck me as odd is your assumption that dominants don't believe that honor extends to allowing personal choice. A good dominant makes you want to do what he want. In the example of the above drill Sargent, the recruits can quit at any time; he can't "force" them to do anything. But they want to be soldiers, they want to improve themselves, and his self-confidence and dominant air assures them that he will teach them how to be "all they can be". They aren't faceless, thoughtless robots; they choose to obey him; personal choice is an intrinsic part of dominance.

I suggest you explore his motivations for the woman. If she's so contrary to him, why would he be interested? If she is disobedient, why would he assign her tasks he knows she will not complete?

Aside from that, I still think you did a very good job in looking into the character. I'm constantly annoyed by authors who don't bother developing their characters (Dan Brown?), who do not give them any personality (Crichton?), or don't supply the proper motivations. Especially doing research like this is really good. I can see you are not in the dominant camp, but do have enough insight and empathy to understand things that are not immediately around you. Good luck with your creation.

Although, now you have made me most curious about your story

JMohegan, to do a good job writing, you have to be able to understand the different characters, especially those that you don't have anything in common with, so as to develop them fully. Otherwise, you end up writing stereotyped boilerplate.

 

[JMohegan]

JMohegan, to do a good job writing, you have to be able to understand the different characters, especially those that you don't have anything in common with, so as to develop them fully. Otherwise, you end up writing stereotyped boilerplate.

This makes sense.

Your comment begs a question, though. The OP mentioned that she's writing a "romance novel" type of story. This isn't exactly a genre with which I'm very familiar, so perhaps I'm missing something obvious, but is "good writing" really the point for this type of thing?

While waiting in line at the supermarket, I've opened up Harlequin's - from which I would conclude that "stereotyped boilerplate" is, in fact, precisely what gets you key shelf space! The goal seems to be effective porn for females, not quality literature.

 

[rosco rathbone]

I don't know how much overlap there is between military officer drill-sergeant types and psychosexual doms.

The one definitely does not entail the other.

 

[Netzach]

This makes sense.

Your comment begs a question, though. The OP mentioned that she's writing a "romance novel" type of story. This isn't exactly a genre with which I'm very familiar, so perhaps I'm missing something obvious, but is "good writing" really the point for this type of thing?

While waiting in line at the supermarket, I've opened up Harlequin's - from which I would conclude that "stereotyped boilerplate" is, in fact, precisely what gets you key shelf space! The goal seems to be effective porn for females, not quality literature.

They've come a ways since then, but I personally don't read them. Big shocker there, largely because these kinds of storylines are like valium to me, sexually.

I think BB is a kind of expert advocate for this genre though, maybe she'll pop in.

 

[BiBunny]

I, err, actually like romance novels. Decently written ones, that is. I've read tons of them because my mother is a member of one of those book clubs that sends you 6 or 8 huge novels per month, and when she finishes them, she passes them on to me. I'm also a pretty regular consumer of the BDSM romance e-books they sell over at places like Ellora's Cave or whatever. (One day, I'll write my own, dammit.)

"Decently written," in my book, means the characters should be three-dimensional and experience some sort of change. That change shouldn't be handled ham-handedly, either. I remember one kinky romance e-book I bought once. The author spent the whole time telling the readers how strong and unsubmissive the heroine was. The only time she spent any time in the hero's head was when he was thinking about how unsubmissive she was. But...she never actually did anything that seemed empowered and strong and dominant. She just rolled over and showed her tummy to the hero the first time he looked at her the right way.

Ugh. Show, don't tell. And make up your damned mind about what she's going to be. If she's going to be a doormat, make her an interesting one. If she's going to be a strong woman, don't turn her into a doormat the second the hero touches her. (Here's a hint: the "strong, independent woman" should not be calling ol' boy "Master" without a second's hesitation the first time he puts a set of cuffs on her hands, before they've ever even had sex--nay, even kissed--before.)

Um, sorry. That was kind of a rant of mine. The good news is, if crap like that can get published, so can I. Anywho, that was Bunny's Guide To What Not To Do In Writing BDSM Romance.

The dominant in the story shouldn't be dominant just because you want to write a BDSM story. That sounds stupid, but you'd be amazed at what people write sometimes. He needs a reason to be dominant. You obviously don't have to hit your readers over the head with the reasoning behind it (nothing worse than being bludgeoned over the head with some writer's idea of "motivation"), but it should be simmering quietly in the background.

For example, my own Master, to use a real-life example here, is basically dominant because he's the type of person to take responsibility for everyone around him. He enjoys being a leader in both his personal and professional life. He's good at what he does and takes pride in a job well-done. This is not true of all dominants, of course, or, at least, is not necessarily the reason for their internal drives. I'm just using him because a.) he's a real person, and b.) I know more about what drives him than what drives other dominants.

Both characters should learn something from one another along the course of the story, something that leaves them both better off. Maybe he learns that fighting isn't always the greatest option, and she learns that some things are, in fact, worth fighting for. Ok, that sounds cheesy, but y'all get the idea, right?

Yeah, that was a really long and roundabout way of saying that good romance novels require good characters. I might be a *little* passionate about the subject.

 

[Tuomas]

This makes sense.

Your comment begs a question, though. The OP mentioned that she's writing a "romance novel" type of story. This isn't exactly a genre with which I'm very familiar, so perhaps I'm missing something obvious, but is "good writing" really the point for this type of thing?

While waiting in line at the supermarket, I've opened up Harlequin's - from which I would conclude that "stereotyped boilerplate" is, in fact, precisely what gets you key shelf space! The goal seems to be effective porn for females, not quality literature.

Just because the genre is boilerplate, it doesn't mean you don't want to do a good job.

Though I should be careful talking about "boilerplate", because a lot of that has to do with taste. I could easily dismiss most Crime novels as boilerplate, because they don't interest me, and seem to follow a pattern. But, I'm sure one of their fans would be quick to dismiss such claims.

Romance novels are particularly frustrating to me in this respect, because I've come across several with very interesting concepts/plots, but which ultimately get ruined by poor execution.

 

[sunandshadow]

Sounds more like "asshole bully" than "dominant" to me.

I would avoid the idea of "breaking her". Broken people make for crap lead characters, and tend to have a tough time pushing the narrative.

Well, the point of the story is that the two, both somewhat likable people, due to terminal personality clash push each other to the point where they genuinely really want to kill each other (and she attempts to do so). But that's not her breaking, it's her getting so desperate she finally compromises on her pacifism, which is exactly what he wanted, just not aimed at him.

 

[Netzach]

I, err, actually like romance novels. Decently written ones, that is. I've read tons of them because my mother is a member of one of those book clubs that sends you 6 or 8 huge novels per month, and when she finishes them, she passes them on to me. I'm also a pretty regular consumer of the BDSM romance e-books they sell over at places like Ellora's Cave or whatever. (One day, I'll write my own, dammit.)

"Decently written," in my book, means the characters should be three-dimensional and experience some sort of change. That change shouldn't be handled ham-handedly, either. I remember one kinky romance e-book I bought once. The author spent the whole time telling the readers how strong and unsubmissive the heroine was. The only time she spent any time in the hero's head was when he was thinking about how unsubmissive she was. But...she never actually did anything that seemed empowered and strong and dominant. She just rolled over and showed her tummy to the hero the first time he looked at her the right way.

Ugh. Show, don't tell. And make up your damned mind about what she's going to be. If she's going to be a doormat, make her an interesting one. If she's going to be a strong woman, don't turn her into a doormat the second the hero touches her. (Here's a hint: the "strong, independent woman" should not be calling ol' boy "Master" without a second's hesitation the first time he puts a set of cuffs on her hands, before they've ever even had sex--nay, even kissed--before.)

Um, sorry. That was kind of a rant of mine. The good news is, if crap like that can get published, so can I. Anywho, that was Bunny's Guide To What Not To Do In Writing BDSM Romance.

The dominant in the story shouldn't be dominant just because you want to write a BDSM story. That sounds stupid, but you'd be amazed at what people write sometimes. He needs a reason to be dominant. You obviously don't have to hit your readers over the head with the reasoning behind it (nothing worse than being bludgeoned over the head with some writer's idea of "motivation"), but it should be simmering quietly in the background.

For example, my own Master, to use a real-life example here, is basically dominant because he's the type of person to take responsibility for everyone around him. He enjoys being a leader in both his personal and professional life. He's good at what he does and takes pride in a job well-done. This is not true of all dominants, of course, or, at least, is not necessarily the reason for their internal drives. I'm just using him because a.) he's a real person, and b.) I know more about what drives him than what drives other dominants.

Both characters should learn something from one another along the course of the story, something that leaves them both better off. Maybe he learns that fighting isn't always the greatest option, and she learns that some things are, in fact, worth fighting for. Ok, that sounds cheesy, but y'all get the idea, right?

Yeah, that was a really long and roundabout way of saying that good romance novels require good characters. I might be a *little* passionate about the subject.

LOL, I'm glad you chimed in! I meant bridgeburner actually in this case, funny.
She's argued in favor of some pulp with me, very effectively.

 

[sunandshadow]

Have you read The Taming of the Shrew? The military thing doesn't fit, but that's basically your plot, as far as I can tell.

I've had plenty of fantasies of the chase & take by force variety, but beyond that I'm having a hard time relating to your story. Mostly because I'm really not into breaking people, molding people, or even the behavior modification thing.

The only part of TTotS that I found hot was the contest at the end. He calls, she comes. That's what it's all about.

I did read the Taming of the Shrew, I liked it, but what I liked most was when he was pretending to be insane and she was trying first to reason with him, then to humor him. He uses a pretty simple Pavlovian method to train her - if she agrees with him she gets nice stuff, if she disagrees he has the stuff taken away or ruined, by seeming accident to deflect her anger from himself.

This character I'm trying to develop is sadly not capable of being that indirect, lol.

 

[sunandshadow]

I'm curious to know why you've chosen this particular type of tale.

The advice to write what you know sounded like good advice to me. "Know" could be fantasy, in lieu of actual experience. You're writing fiction, after all.

Does any of this turn you on?

It's not that it turns me on, it's that I have read a lot of romance novels with this kind of 'hero' and some of the time I personally was thinking "If I were the heroine, this would be my breaking point; I would judge this guy's behavior unethical and do everything I could to get away from him. If pushed farther and farther beyond that point, there might be some last straw that made me decide he needed to die, not just to free myself but to protect anyone he might treat the same way in the future. On the other hand the romance shows the guy being loved and getting a happily-ever-after. So clearly the personality difference between myself and the heroine(author) must be pretty darn important if it can result in the difference between a man's happiness and his death.

I want to study that very fine line - how far could he push a character who thinks like I do before she snapped? Would he realize he was hurting her instead of helping her? Would there be another female character who was perfect for him somewhere nearby? Also the female character, if the man had a slightly different personality she might have tolerated being held captive, been sympathetic to him instead of feeling tortured, have fallen in love with him; is there a male character somewhere nearby who would fit this role? If the female character survived this experience, would it have ruined her ability to tolerate that similar man?

That said, I write science fiction and fantasy, 'write what you know' has kind of limited application there since no one can know it.


Edit: Also in terms of me personally, I've several times had the experience of mentioning that I would like to be a pampered pet, then had someone immediately offer to train/discipline me which is not the same idea at all. So yeah basically I want to study the cognitive dissonance and wtf mild fear I feel when people desire to or assume they ought to dominate me and it would somehow be good for me.

 

[BiBunny]

LOL, I'm glad you chimed in! I meant bridgeburner actually in this case, funny.
She's argued in favor of some pulp with me, very effectively.

Heh, I actually figured that was who you meant, but I thought I'd throw my two cents in, anyway.

 

[JMohegan]

Just because the genre is boilerplate, it doesn't mean you don't want to do a good job.

Though I should be careful talking about "boilerplate", because a lot of that has to do with taste. I could easily dismiss most Crime novels as boilerplate, because they don't interest me, and seem to follow a pattern. But, I'm sure one of their fans would be quick to dismiss such claims.

Romance novels are particularly frustrating to me in this respect, because I've come across several with very interesting concepts/plots, but which ultimately get ruined by poor execution.

Ha ha - true! I take your point, and BiBunny's too.

I'll rephrase my question.

What does it mean to "do a good job" in writing a romance novel? Isn't the primary goal to arouse the reader - or make her feel swoony, or whatever?

The need for an interesting character makes sense, but in this context it seems to me that shooting for realism might mean missing the relevant mark.

 

[sunandshadow]

Tuomas and BiBunny, how lovely to hear from people who are interested in fiction and have clearly spent some time contemplating it. I personally love delving into character psychology, and I'd like to write something with literary merit; if my own stuff falls short of that I would imagine it would be because I suck at plotting, not characters. (Gah plotting, my arch nemesis... *shakes fist at it* ) But yeah I do want my characters to be logical, if not necessarily realistic because I like 'larger than life' characters like those found in anime and psychodrama. Inconsistent, illogical characters tick me off too.

I guess I came to this forum because I realize I don't know what would motivate someone to be a dominant and I wanted to learn about that. Aside from the romance novels and personal experiences mentioned above, my inspiration for this particular Dom character was sparked by a sports anime I watched recently. (Eyeshield 21) I found it unusual that I liked the show because I'm not a sports fan, but it had a really powerful psychology going on in the characters and sort of 'contagious' to the audience. One of the characters was extremely disciplined in an old-fashioned warrior way; he was several times referred to as a perfect knight. The sport is his life, you see him training everywhere he goes, feeling a strong kinship with his coach, quarterback, and rivals especially when there's a particularly fierce contest or difficult training exercise going on. At the same time it's cute that he's pretty clueless about girls and life outside of training and competition.

Also in the series there is a continuous message delivered, mostly by the protagonist team's quarterback, "You have to believe fiercely that you will win, you have to do what it takes to win even if it makes you sick or leaves you with a permanent injury, you're not doing it right if you're not constantly forcing yourself past your limits. Several characters wish for stronger opponents and are actually pleased to lose for the first time in a while because it gives them the motivation to train harder. This whole mindset is alien to me, I found myself at several points saying "No, permanent injury is not an acceptable possibility from training, it's not healthy to think in terms of 'victory or death' because everyone loses some of the time and losing a contest shouldn't result in them losing their self respect or possibly feeling suicidal." So I want to build a character around this puzzling mindset so I can play with it, road-test it.

 

[BiBunny]

Ha ha - true! I take your point, and BiBunny's too.

I'll rephrase my question.

What does it mean to "do a good job" in writing a romance novel? Isn't the primary goal to arouse the reader - or make her feel swoony, or whatever?

The need for an interesting character makes sense, but in this context it seems to me that shooting for realism might mean missing the relevant mark.

Actually, I don't really read them to get turned on or anything. I just like stories with happy endings, LOL.

I prefer the ones I read to be plausible in the context of the plot. (I tend to have a hard time with that "willing suspension of disbelief" thing.) The more interesting the characters, the more I find myself hoping they'll end up together.

When I read a romance novel, I know the two main characters will end up together. That's the basic premise of the thing, right? I want to be entertained with what happens in their lives and how they end up getting their happy ending. If it's well-executed, I'll smile and say, "That was a good book." If not, it's usually because the author failed to make me care about the characters and whether or not they end up together in the end or not.

So I think well-fleshed-out characters and believable plots are definitely a necessity.

 

[BiBunny]

Tuomas and BiBunny, how lovely to hear from people who are interested in fiction and have clearly spent some time contemplating it. I personally love delving into character psychology, and I'd like to write something with literary merit; if my own stuff falls short of that I would imagine it would be because I suck at plotting, not characters. (Gah plotting, my arch nemesis... *shakes fist at it* ) But yeah I do want my characters to be logical, if not necessarily realistic because I like 'larger than life' characters like those found in anime and psychodrama. Inconsistent, illogical characters tick me off too.

I guess I came to this forum because I realize I don't know what would motivate someone to be a dominant and I wanted to learn about that. Aside from the romance novels and personal experiences mentioned above, my inspiration for this particular Dom character was sparked by a sports anime I watched recently. (Eyeshield 21) I found it unusual that I liked the show because I'm not a sports fan, but it had a really powerful psychology going on in the characters and sort of 'contagious' to the audience. One of the characters was extremely disciplined in an old-fashioned warrior way; he was several times referred to as a perfect knight. The sport is his life, you see him training everywhere he goes, feeling a strong kinship with his coach, quarterback, and rivals especially when there's a particularly fierce contest or difficult training exercise going on. At the same time it's cute that he's pretty clueless about girls and life outside of training and competition.

Also in the series there is a continuous message delivered, mostly by the protagonist team's quarterback, "You have to believe fiercely that you will win, you have to do what it takes to win even if it makes you sick or leaves you with a permanent injury, you're not doing it right if you're not constantly forcing yourself past your limits. Several characters wish for stronger opponents and are actually pleased to lose for the first time in a while because it gives them the motivation to train harder. This whole mindset is alien to me, I found myself at several points saying "No, permanent injury is not an acceptable possibility from training, it's not healthy to think in terms of 'victory or death' because everyone loses some of the time and losing a contest shouldn't result in them losing their self respect or possibly feeling suicidal." So I want to build a character around this puzzling mindset so I can play with it, road-test it.

I don't know if this will help you or not, but the "best" dominants (and leaders), in my mind, are very charismatic people. They may not have the same effect on everyone in the world, but the people who follow them do so because that person's personality and leadership style appeal to them in such a way that they can't imagine not doing whatever he/she says.

I'm not sure if that made sense.

 

[JMohegan]

I guess I came to this forum because I realize I don't know what would motivate someone to be a dominant and I wanted to learn about that.

From my perspective....

In an historical fantasy world involving a warrior and a conquered female, the latter would do a lot of struggling and screaming as the warrior ravaged her. That part is extremely hot.

Following completion of said ravaging, if she continued to act in a bitchy, judgmental, intransigent way, she would be promptly and thoroughly ignored. Because really, on a day-to-day basis there's nothing hot, or even remotely tolerable, about the behavior of a quasi-murderous female.

Give her to the guards for their entertainment, have the cook chain her to the stove and make her slice potatoes all day, toss her in a cell, whatever.

Now, if some sort of resolution is required in the story, then maybe she could observe his fabulous deeds, robbing the rich & feeding the poor or saving small children from marauding raiders or something, and this would make her come around. Or maybe she'd just get tired of slicing potatoes all day! Who knows?

I'm not trying to be flippant here; I'm just trying to give a quick summary of the main point. That point being: until she has a radical attitude adjustment, I don't see why this great warrior would want to have anything to do with her. At all.