The Fine Line

[AngelicAssassin]

i've read a few threads lately discussing asshats versus dominants. For grins and giggles, i looked up the difference between domineer and dominate. The two seem rather close in meaning. So, for those that wish to, what's the difference between the two for you?

And no kittycat, i didn't realize the word origin for domineer before coming across the link.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Shame on you for not knowing that!! LOL, for me it is pretty much what you posted in the links..the big difference being the input of arrogance and tyranny....guess I am just not subbie enough to overlook arrogance (as in a regular state of mood as opposed to short moments of acknowledged greatness which can still irk me at times) as a less than charming quality.

Catalina

 

[AngelicAssassin]

Shame on you for not knowing that!! LOL, for me it is pretty much what you posted in the links..the big difference being the input of arrogance and tyranny....guess I am just not subbie enough to overlook arrogance (as in a regular state of mood as opposed to short moments of acknowledged greatness which can still irk me at times) as a less than charming quality.

Catalina

Short moments?

Is that like the short bus/fuck nugget comments from Replicant in your Branding, cutting....marks of possession thread, or would he be the obvious example of domineering?

 

[catalina_francisco]

Short moments?

Is that like the short bus/fuck nugget comments from Replicant in your Branding, cutting....marks of possession thread, or would he be the obvious example of domineering?

LOL, I can think of other ways to explain him.

Catalina

 

[AngelicAssassin]

Ok, then do we have a fine line between arrogance and unshakeable self-confidence?

 

[catalina_francisco]

Ok, then do we have a fine line between arrogance and unshakeable self-confidence?

Only if the self confidence is justified.

Catalina

 

[AngelicAssassin]

Only if the self confidence is justified.

And if it is spoken versus unspoken?

 

[CutieMouse]

The fine line between arrogance and unshakeable self confidence (IMO) is one's ability to apologize.

I have rarely met (as in never) an arrogant man who is willing to even hint at an apology, when they do screw up... whereas those with a grounded aura of unmoveable self confidence, recognize that admitting an error, or apologizing for a wrong doing (even if it is minor), in no way weakens them.

(Although I must say there are certain members of certain Ivy League schools, who avoid the status of arrogant, by the skin of their teeth. LOL)

 

[Betticus]

To dominate hints at controlling your environment while domineering hints at forcing your vision of reality upon your environment.

The difference being attitude.

 

[SweetErika]

"Domineer" has a negative connotation for me; it's the spouse who's extremely controlling because they're really weak, manipulative, and isn't so concerned about their partner. It's about someone taking the power (or trying to), not a consensual power exchange.

"Dominate," OTOH, is where power is weilded from a place of strength. It's more like leadership, and great care and consideration is given for the follower(s). It's the spouse who makes the decisions and takes/is given control because that's what's been agreed upon and brings fulfillment to both.

At times I've been domineering - it's a trait I learned from my dad and have worked very hard to get rid of. I've never liked myself that way, and I can see it usually came out of not liking myself very much.

Now, I may make the same decisions and actions, but that's because I've been given the authority to do so by my partner. It's not about struggling for, or taking, power so I get my way, but rather using what I'm being given to make us both happy. It feels good and comes from a place of liking myself now, too.

There's a very big difference between the words to me, but of course these are just my views and experiences. YMMV.

 

[LordHawk]

I think there is the regular use of the word arrogance, someone who thinks their shit doesn't stink. And then there is the kind of arrogance that is more of a quiet, self assuredness. It is a man or woman who is confident enough that they can handle whatever comes their way or can seek help if they cannot.

 

[shyybabe]

Funny enough I asked myself this a few years ago. Why do I seem to attract domineering assholes instead of dominant men.

For me dominant people show others that they're right while domineering people bully those around them to get their way. My ex-husband a textbook example.

Dominant people are not afraid to admit that they are wrong but domineering people feel that admitting that they are wrong means that they are weak.

Dominant partners encourage their followers to try harder, and teach them how to achieve more while domineering partners scream at their followers to get them to work faster and/or harder and/or longer.

Dominant people surround themselves with strong people, who can push them to achieve more. Domineering people surround themselves with weaker people, who they can push around.

I'm wondering if there is such a thing as a dominant sub. That fits me more than either of the titles dominant or sub separately. But then that could be a whole other thread, I better shut up now.

 

[Ebonyfire]

I believe it all comes down to the consentual nature of domination. The submissive agrees to be dominated rather than have someone arbitrarily control them without regard to their consent and/or knowledge.

Eb

 

[MasterPhoenix]

IMO Domineering is the method of the schoolyard bully. He don't give a shit about respect or anything, he is bigger so he is going to do what he wants. He wants you to fear him, so you give him your lunch money.

Dominant, on the other hand, is one who is first in control of himself so he doesn't rely on fear, but upon respect.

 

[Perpetual_Edge]

Since I am relatively new here, I am going to possibly dominate this topic for a few seconds. Wait, that would make me domineering! Hmmm, am I exercising arbitrary control? My brain is going to explode.

 

[Perpetual_Edge]

Did I say something wrong? I was just acting out an example of me being domineering verses dominating. As so many of you reiterated, one is control of oneself with respect and the other is just the forced taking of it. (I'll just go and hide now.)

 

[SweetErika]

Did I say something wrong? I was just acting out an example of me being domineering verses dominating. As so many of you reiterated, one is control of oneself with respect and the other is just the forced taking of it. (I'll just go and hide now.)

Is this another example, or do you really think you said something wrong? I'm not getting it because no one replied to your post, so I've no idea how you could get the impression you offended anyone.

As someone said (today, I think), forums aren't chat rooms, and it can take awhile to get responses. Threads just die a natural death, too; I think we've all wondered if we're "thread killers" at some point after we've posted to a couple of threads and they've died. A lack of response doesn't mean anything at all, and sometimes new people get fewer responses than veteran members because they're not known yet and lots of people make a couple of posts and never return. It's just the way it seems to work, and the best solution is to keep posting and getting to know the members.

 

[graceanne]

domineer: To rule over or control arbitrarily

arbitrary: Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle

dominate: To control, govern, or rule by superior authority or power

It seems to me that domineer is when you try to control without the natural ability, and to dominate is when you have supieror authority or power naturally.

 

[MasterPhoenix]

Did I say something wrong? I was just acting out an example of me being domineering verses dominating. As so many of you reiterated, one is control of oneself with respect and the other is just the forced taking of it. (I'll just go and hide now.)

Its all good bro, you asked a question we answered.

 

[BeachGurl2]

Funny enough I asked myself this a few years ago. Why do I seem to attract domineering assholes instead of dominant men.

For me dominant people show others that they're right while domineering people bully those around them to get their way. My ex-husband a textbook example.

Dominant people are not afraid to admit that they are wrong but domineering people feel that admitting that they are wrong means that they are weak.

Dominant partners encourage their followers to try harder, and teach them how to achieve more while domineering partners scream at their followers to get them to work faster and/or harder and/or longer.

Dominant people surround themselves with strong people, who can push them to achieve more. Domineering people surround themselves with weaker people, who they can push around.

I'm wondering if there is such a thing as a dominant sub. That fits me more than either of the titles dominant or sub separately. But then that could be a whole other thread, I better shut up now.

I have to admit that this outlines my view of the terms pretty well. My ex-husband is domineering - a small minded man who has to bully others.

The fine line between arrogance and unshakeable self confidence (IMO) is one's ability to apologize.

I have rarely met (as in never) an arrogant man who is willing to even hint at an apology, when they do screw up... whereas those with a grounded aura of unmoveable self confidence, recognize that admitting an error, or apologizing for a wrong doing (even if it is minor), in no way weakens them.

And I completely agree with this statement. I was just thinking about this very thing today while contemplating just what my definition of a dominant man was and comparing it to the men I've met online recently - all of whom, so far, fall short of my definition. Well said, Cutie.

 

[AngelicAssassin]

... is one's ability to apologize.

... whereas those with a grounded aura of unmoveable self confidence, recognize that admitting an error, or apologizing for a wrong doing (even if it is minor), in no way weakens them.

Interesting you should say that.

To lay the foundation for a future offence.

"apologize." Devil's Dictionary. Ambrose Bierce, 1911. Answers.com 19 Jan. 2007.

Am i too cynical perhaps?

 

[BiBunny]

Interesting you should say that.Am i too cynical perhaps?

No, I was kinda thinking along the same lines. Or maybe we're both cynical as hell.

 

[AngelicAssassin]

Or maybe we're both cynical as hell.

Great.

CYNIC, n.: A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be. Hence the custom among the Scythians of plucking out a cynic's eyes to improve his vision.

• One more body,
• three pair of Ray Charles' shades
• plus canes

and we can do a rousing rendition of the nursury rhyme mice. http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-8/363868/2cool2.gif

 

[Blushing Bottom]

A game of semantics can result in some interesting commentary on the part of the masses. As for me the only difference between the two is which particle of speech either is used as.

d

 

[RJMasters]

Using an analogy....

A good basketball player can dominate the hell out of another with skill.

And then there is that guy who thinks he is dominating, but he is really domineering as he fouls constantly in order to make up for lack of true skills.