The Age Factor

[~Haze~]

I do. Particularly since B and V sit nicely together on the QWERTY board, but thanks.

Yea. I wasn't being a usage natzi. A lot of people misuse jive in that context and I just wanted to point it out to you. I never thought it was a typo. If I had, I wouldn't have bothered.

 

[Netzach]

Yea. I wasn't being a usage natzi. A lot of people misuse jive in that context and I just wanted to point it out to you. I never thought it was a typo. If I had, I wouldn't have bothered.

No sweat. I've realized a lot of my stuff is pretty typo littered little red lines or not.

 

[DVS]

In my studies of the BDSM lifestyle I have often found the more dominant persons to be older while younger ones tend to submit. I'm just curious if others find this accurate, or if they have any insight into why this is. Being eighteen years old I find myself to be a "switch" personally.

It would be nice if this were true, just for my sake, but it isn't. Except for the personal preference of some people, I don't see age as a factor in BDSM.

Sure, age can be connected to experience, but when you look at all of the other attractions that draw two people together, experience seems to be less of a deciding factor than the chemical attraction of looks, personality, mutual kinks and such.

I know that when one person has experience, it helps the relationship or the scene to run smoother and usually safer, along with the teacher/pupil thing that I personally enjoy. Someone with experience is more likely to have already made the mistakes that someone without experience has yet to. Hopefully, the experience factor will make it less likely to happen a second time. It's no guarantee, but hopefully we learn from our mistakes and don't repeat them.

I like playing with newbies, just because I like to be there for their first experiences. It's a bit of a power thing, a knowledge thing and the teacher in me, too. And, I know what works and what doesn't, so the new person benefits from that.

So, maybe this is part of the age thing. Many times the Dom is seen as the knowledgeable person in the relationship. If the submissive is the more experienced partner, it tends to lose something for them when they are constantly "taking charge", making suggestions or explaining how things are done. So, if there is one partner that's "preferred" to be older and wiser, I think it's better for all if it's the Dom. Maybe this is how it's somehow evolved into an age thing.

Hell, I don't know...just thinking out loud. But like I said, I wish it were true, because I'd be in demand of all of the young submissives. And that just ain't happenin'.

 

[Daddys_Touch]

Just from anecdotal evidence I'd say that seems about right. Looking at the make up of munches and personal ads, I see a lot of young subs and switches, but fewer young dominants.

 

[jadefirefly]

A large part of being Dominant is having both the confidence and experience to do so.

In some cases this comes along early, and sometimes it comes later. I don't know if there's really a larger population variance, though. Maybe just a variance in openness / eagerness to publicly announce it.

 

[Wyldfire]

From my own experience I have found the following (Sorry if a stereo type or personal feelings get stomped on), Young males that claim to be dominant are generally Testosterone fueled wannabes. Older male dominants can be trusted more. Younger dominant females have issues of "Cock envy". Younger subs of either gender are more believable. It's an experience thing, and a give and take thing.

To me dominance is a maturity issue. An older sub is someone that is comfortable with their own skin. Someone young and dominant to me is someone who is nothing but bravado.

 

[Netzach]

From my own experience I have found the following (Sorry if a stereo type or personal feelings get stomped on), Young males that claim to be dominant are generally Testosterone fueled wannabes. Older male dominants can be trusted more. Younger dominant females have issues of "Cock envy". Younger subs of either gender are more believable. It's an experience thing, and a give and take thing.

To me dominance is a maturity issue. An older sub is someone that is comfortable with their own skin. Someone young and dominant to me is someone who is nothing but bravado.

I don't think I was "nothing but bravado" at all, while still knowing that whatever I was doing at the moment, I had specific end goals in mind of owning, dominating, topping and enjoying others on my own terms when the skillset developed. And I wasn't going to wait forever, I was cultivating that at the same time. I've definitely seen younger D's who are "nothing but bravado" but you know what?
I've found plenty of younger *submissives* who are the same! It's a function of being 20 to have your head slightly up your own ass, no matter what your orientation might be.

 

[where]

Swallow.

you wouldn't like it. I tend to take my time.

A large part of being Dominant is having both the confidence and experience to do so.

In some cases this comes along early, and sometimes it comes later. I don't know if there's really a larger population variance, though. Maybe just a variance in openness / eagerness to publicly announce it.

I think you are right. I can't see myself being dominated by some kid in his 20s or even early 30s.

 

[MisterSir]

Would it be wise if I skipped the next ten years of abject failure and simply shot myself now? Yeesh, you're born a decade too late and you can't do anything fun! When I was a kid, I had to walk two minutes in the pouring dryness to get to school, downhill both ways, then went home and did four hours hard graft in front of the television! Four hours! By the end of that, I'd be so exhausted I could only must enough energy for another two hours playing computer games before bed and doing it all again every day (except weekends, Easter, Christmas, half-term, bank holidays and seven weeks over the summer)! Pshah. You crinklies don't know you're born!

But now, returning to a serious board on serious Earth, I say without much fear of contradiction I'm not a "testosterone fueled wannabe" and am more than just bravado. On one level I get why older men are preferred, but at the same time I don't - the perception is older = more experienced, but experience is not this magical quality that guarantees good domination and, quite aside from that, if every submissive wants an experienced dominant, where's the room for everyone else to develop experience? In the immortal words of Terry Pratchett (via They Might Be Giants) - bugrit, millennium hand and shrimp.

 

[Daddys_Touch]

I dunno, I think it's probably a fair generalization that younger men will tend not to be as 'good' dominants as older men from the sub's point of view. But generalizations are just that so, I'm not worried

It's interesting how people talk about it though. Being 'a submissive' seems to be simply a matter of saying you are such without any overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Obviously someone who says they are submissive but flatout refuses to do as they are told by any partner is probably mistaken. But submissives who are willful, bratty, difficult, incompetent at doing as they are told/expected, have a low pain threshold etc are not usually considered unsubmissive. An untrained submissive is still a submissive. It's more of an orientation, a taste.

Being dominant seems to be viewed more as a quality or a skill. As if a bad dominant isn't a dominant at all. I guess I'd split meanings and say that being 'dominant' is a taste/orientation, but possessing of 'dominance' is a quality independent of the former. I'd also separate 'dominance' from 'goodness'. Some people definitely have a lot of dominance, but are also cunts and/or make awful dominants.

I think experience can be important, but it's not everything. To some dominance just comes naturally or is even learnt, to some extent, relatively quickly i.e. the value added per measure of experience is high in some people. And of course, age isn't a reliable predictor of experience. Some in their early twenties will have had more effective life experience than some people in their fifties, and the difference in D/s experience can be even greater. After all, a 50 year old may have only been into D/s for a year, and a 20 year old might have been into it for as long as they can remember. It's also subjective. One girl may find a man totally nondominant, and another may fall straight under his spell.

As I say, I don't disagree with the generalization necessarily, but let's not get carried away.

 

[where]

Would it be wise if I skipped the next ten years of abject failure and simply shot myself now? Yeesh, you're born a decade too late and you can't do anything fun! When I was a kid, I had to walk two minutes in the pouring dryness to get to school, downhill both ways, then went home and did four hours hard graft in front of the television! Four hours! By the end of that, I'd be so exhausted I could only must enough energy for another two hours playing computer games before bed and doing it all again every day (except weekends, Easter, Christmas, half-term, bank holidays and seven weeks over the summer)! Pshah. You crinklies don't know you're born!

But now, returning to a serious board on serious Earth, I say without much fear of contradiction I'm not a "testosterone fueled wannabe" and am more than just bravado. On one level I get why older men are preferred, but at the same time I don't - the perception is older = more experienced, but experience is not this magical quality that guarantees good domination and, quite aside from that, if every submissive wants an experienced dominant, where's the room for everyone else to develop experience? In the immortal words of Terry Pratchett (via They Might Be Giants) - bugrit, millennium hand and shrimp.

I can see it being a dilemma, especially for male doms. I suppose you can just learn and grow and still be dominant until you reach an age where subs accept you as such.

I think for a lot of women who like to be dominated (and I'm using that term because whilst I like being dominated sexually, I'm not a sub) there is the issue of handing our bodies over to someone who could do serious damage. For this reason there needs to be trust which is either built up over time, or is implicit via experience. An analogy could be having neuro surgery. do you want the guy who is newly qualified poking bits of metal in your brain, or the one who has been doing it for years?

A dominant man can hone skills in the most vanilla of relationships which would then make him more desirable at a later stage.

just my 2p worth.

 

[Daddys_Touch]

Would it be wise if I skipped the next ten years of abject failure and simply shot myself now?

[...]

On one level I get why older men are preferred, but at the same time I don't - the perception is older = more experienced, but experience is not this magical quality that guarantees good domination and, quite aside from that, if every submissive wants an experienced dominant, where's the room for everyone else to develop experience?shrimp.

I don't think it's an issue. Some subs our age prefer older men, most don't or at least their preference is just that, and not a cast iron 'no young men allowed' rule. Most of the people who are overly skeptical of young dominants are older, so unless you're after a cougar it's no problem. In fact, I'd say most young female subs I know are fed up of old, wanky men who they're not attracted to bothering them, and relieved to find a dom close to their age.

 

[00Syd]

Why are young dominants looked down upon as being inexperienced and unworthy of our time, but yet young submissives are sought after and prized. Wouldn't there be the same problem of inexperience in both young dominants AND young submissives? Why are young and inexperienced submissives treated as lost baby birds just in need of direction and training, when young dominants, who may similarly need direction and training are thrown in the gutter and told to "grow up"?

This is bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit.

I can see it being a dilemma, especially for male doms. I suppose you can just learn and grow and still be dominant until you reach an age where subs accept you as such.

My boyfriend and dominant is 24 years old, and I accept him as a dominant. Just because he doesnt have as much life experience doesn't make him any less of a dominant, or any more of a "bad" dominant. The attitude that young dominants aren't dominant at all, or that they aren't worthy of calling themselves that, or that submissives won't accept a young dominant as such, is directly insulting not just to my boyfriend, but to me. This attitude is insulting to me because it basically scoffs at my relationship and my choice of lover as inadequate.

Fuck. That. Shit.

Everyone is entitled to their personal preference (be it about age, weight, or hair color), but for one person to try to justify their personal preference in lovers as being some universal truth... That's ridiculous.

 

[MisterSir]

I suppose you can just learn and grow and still be dominant until you reach an age where subs accept you as such.

That, right there, that is so very sad I'd cry if I weren't a manly man with no tear ducts.

 

[00Syd]

That, right there, that is so very sad I'd cry if I weren't a manly man with no tear ducts.

I thought it was sad, too. Also hurtful.

 

[MisterSir]

I thought it was sad, too. Also hurtful.

Less hurtful as it is frustrating, if I'm honest. Probably hurts less than actually headbutting a wall over and over and definitely has less chance of causing a self-inflicted concussion, but on the scale from zero to a thousand milliHulks, the new standardised measurement for anger, it ranks about the same as needing to catch a train but being stuck behind a big group of elderly foreign tourists until the train has left. 930 mH, if I remember right.

 

[00Syd]

Less hurtful as it is frustrating, if I'm honest. Probably hurts less than actually headbutting a wall over and over and definitely has less chance of causing a self-inflicted concussion, but on the scale from zero to a thousand milliHulks, the new standardised measurement for anger, it ranks about the same as needing to catch a train but being stuck behind a big group of elderly foreign tourists until the train has left. 930 mH, if I remember right.

Heh. You tough-as-nails domly dom, you.

 

[where]

Why are young dominants looked down upon as being inexperienced and unworthy of our time, but yet young submissives are sought after and prized. Wouldn't there be the same problem of inexperience in both young dominants AND young submissives? Why are young and inexperienced submissives treated as lost baby birds just in need of direction and training, when young dominants, who may similarly need direction and training are thrown in the gutter and told to "grow up"?

This is bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit.



My boyfriend and dominant is 24 years old, and I accept him as a dominant. Just because he doesnt have as much life experience doesn't make him any less of a dominant, or any more of a "bad" dominant. The attitude that young dominants aren't dominant at all, or that they aren't worthy of calling themselves that, or that submissives won't accept a young dominant as such, is directly insulting not just to my boyfriend, but to me. This attitude is insulting to me because it basically scoffs at my relationship and my choice of lover as inadequate.

Fuck. That. Shit.

Everyone is entitled to their personal preference (be it about age, weight, or hair color), but for one person to try to justify their personal preference in lovers as being some universal truth... That's ridiculous.

and I'm very pleased for you. well done you!

That, right there, that is so very sad I'd cry if I weren't a manly man with no tear ducts.

it wasn't meant to be hurtful, it was a personal reaction to what seems to be an issue you have with not finding subs who are willing to be with you simply based on your age.

 

[MisterSir]

Heh. You tough-as-nails domly dom, you.

'swhat it says on my business cards.

it wasn't meant to be hurtful, it was a personal reaction to what seems to be an issue you have with not finding subs who are willing to be with you simply based on your age.

No, I realise you didn't intend anything other than "chill out it's not the end of the world etc etc" by it, but the idea that I have to wait until I'm thirty (? Forty? Pick a number out of the air) to do something that I am a) ready, willing and fucking eager to do now and b) going to be as unprepared then as I am now for no reason but this laughable idea that older men, because they have lived longer, will thusly be better dominants is, as I said, just a horrible thing. Simply because I'm 21 makes me no better and no worse a dominant than a guy who's 41, but I appear to be ice-skating uphill because that doesn't appear to register.

 

[where]

'swhat it says on my business cards.



No, I realise you didn't intend anything other than "chill out it's not the end of the world etc etc" by it, but the idea that I have to wait until I'm thirty (? Forty? Pick a number out of the air) to do something that I am a) ready, willing and fucking eager to do now and b) going to be as unprepared then as I am now for no reason but this laughable idea that older men, because they have lived longer, will thusly be better dominants is, as I said, just a horrible thing. Simply because I'm 21 makes me no better and no worse a dominant than a guy who's 41, but I appear to be ice-skating uphill because that doesn't appear to register.

what I was trying to say, and probably not very well, is that if you are naturally dominant then it will be there in all your relationships and unless you find yourself hooked up with a naturally dominant woman (and actually, even if you do...) then you will have lots of opportunity to be dominant because that is what you are and you will find that women who like dominant men will be attracted to you, the only difference is you don't have some random label assigned to you.

if you come looking for 'subs' and advertising yourself as a 'dom' then you are immediately labelling yourself and opening up to comparison with all the other 'doms' out there. and trust me, a dom like mark davis (and indeed my dom) is only who and what he is because of his age and experience.

basically what i'm saying is if you want to label your sexuality that is fine, but it's like you are a brand and all the shoppers will compare you to the others and tick the mental tick boxes of what a 'dom' is supposed to be like:
big
hairy (ok, that's my tick box!)
muscled
deep voice
older
experienced

and I'm sorry, but generally speaking doms do get better as they get older. Try asking some.

all through this thread and others on here you read of how people found their identities and confidence as they got older and more experienced. you really think you are any different? you really think you have the personal confidence and authority to make a woman submit to you at what... 21?

tell me why I, as a woman who is sexually submissive, should chose you over my 49 year old dom. think about what you can offer me that he can't.

 

[JMohegan]

I can see it being a dilemma, especially for male doms. I suppose you can just learn and grow and still be dominant until you reach an age where subs accept you as such.

I think for a lot of women who like to be dominated (and I'm using that term because whilst I like being dominated sexually, I'm not a sub) there is the issue of handing our bodies over to someone who could do serious damage. For this reason there needs to be trust which is either built up over time, or is implicit via experience. An analogy could be having neuro surgery. do you want the guy who is newly qualified poking bits of metal in your brain, or the one who has been doing it for years?

A dominant man can hone skills in the most vanilla of relationships which would then make him more desirable at a later stage.

just my 2p worth.

As a 51 year old guy, whose experience with power and pain goes all the way back to college, part of me finds what you write here truly delightful. Indeed, I find the comparison to neurosurgery quite gratifying.

*puffs chest. starts to swagger.*

Just kidding.

The truth is that all that's required in order to be a responsible Top is personal character, and all that's required in order to be an effective Top is curiosity, creativity, energy, focus, and a willingness to learn.

Those things are not correlated with age. Truthfully, they're just not.

Now, if you want to talk about non-bedroom relationship issues, that's a separate subject. But if someone wants to argue that older men who chase after college females are somehow more likely to be mature and well-adjusted than younger males, I'm just gonna start laughing.

 

[CutieMouse]

I can see it being a dilemma, especially for male doms. I suppose you can just learn and grow and still be dominant until you reach an age where subs accept you as such.

Exactly how is a younger dominant supposed to "learn and grow" as a dominant, if the submissives out there judge him by his age and therefore consider him to be too inexperienced to scene with?

I think for a lot of women who like to be dominated (and I'm using that term because whilst I like being dominated sexually, I'm not a sub) there is the issue of handing our bodies over to someone who could do serious damage. For this reason there needs to be trust which is either built up over time, or is implicit via experience. An analogy could be having neuro surgery. do you want the guy who is newly qualified poking bits of metal in your brain, or the one who has been doing it for years?

And not every submissive woman on the planet submits in such a manner as to endanger her body. Not all submissives are masochists.

A dominant man can hone skills in the most vanilla of relationships which would then make him more desirable at a later stage.

just my 2p worth.

And those "vanilla relationship skills" that will make him more desirable as a dominant at a later stage - those are the same skills that will put women at ease who are -

handing our bodies over to someone who could do serious damage. For this reason there needs to be trust which is either built up over time, or is implicit via experience.

Will it? Because if the "skills" being honed are basic relationship skills, I fail to see how those skills earned though age are going to do a damn thing to make a dominant man "safer" to play with re: taking physical risks. Therefore the argument that a young dominant [without experience] can just "wait it out" and thus become more trustworthy is lame as hell. They just end up being an older dominant [without experience] who magically becomes trustworthy because of age.

 

[MisterSir]

all through this thread and others on here you read of how people found their identities and confidence as they got older and more experienced. you really think you are any different? you really think you have the personal confidence and authority to make a woman submit to you at what... 21?

Yes, yes I do. Regardless of what my whining on here might imply, I don't actually hate myself and I'm not insecure about my sexual identity at all. Other people took longer to find their identities? Sucks for them, what's that got to do with me?

tell me why I, as a woman who is sexually submissive, should chose you over my 49 year old dom. think about what you can offer me that he can't.

I'm sexy and awesome and delicious.

Alternatively, I don't know your dominant, I can't really compare myself to him and I'm not talking about stealing away women from their dominants to begin with. I don't know exactly what I've got to offer, but I'm pretty sure it's going to be better than nothing at all, which is what submissive women with no accompanying dominants have.

basically what i'm saying is if you want to label your sexuality that is fine, but it's like you are a brand and all the shoppers will compare you to the others and tick the mental tick boxes of what a 'dom' is supposed to be like:
big
hairy (ok, that's my tick box!)
muscled
deep voice
older
experienced

...you gotta be kidding. Do you seriously have a checklist full of completely superficial qualities for determining whether a man is dominant? If a dominant isn't big, he's not worthy? If he's not older, he's not worthy? If he doesn't have a deep voice? THIS is what I'm fighting against?

and I'm sorry, but generally speaking doms do get better as they get older. Try asking some.

So I'd be asking older doms whether they are better than younger doms. Have you spoken to an average old person in the last century?

 

[eastern sun]

It is quite possible for a young sub and a young dom/me to meet and enjoy each other and create a lifelong partnership. Not even knowing they belong to categories like dom and sub.

How is that less possible once the categories are out in the open?

Age preference is just that. Age preference. Preferences defined by the individual having them.

 

[00Syd]

Therefore the argument that a young dominant [without experience] can just "wait it out" and thus become more trustworthy is lame as hell. They just end up being an older dominant [without experience] who magically becomes trustworthy because of age.

Which you see a lot of. There are a whole lot of older dominants with less experience than many younger doms but who, because of their age, and because of the pervasive attitude that equates age with experience and skill, get to easily slip into the comfortable role of venerable, experienced kinkster.

These inexperienced older tops and dominants who refer to their age as a qualification to be doing whatever it is that they are doing, and who use their age to make themselves appear to be experienced and all-knowing, use their age and alleged experience to pray on younger, inexperienced submissives who don't know any better.

These older, inexperienced dominants frighten me much, much more than the younger inexperienced ones.