First post regarding attraction to dominance ( for tbp women )

polyhooly · 2014-01-23T03:20:59+00:00

If I am wrong please correct me, but it seems you are equating "dominance" with "confidence." Most people, men and women alike, are attracted to confidence. If you are not, can you please elaborate on what exactly it is that you mean when you talk about "maintaining a dominant unapologetic frame?"

I am married. I consider our marriage to be equal. There are certain things in which he brings to the table, that he is stronger with than me. I trust him to make the best decisions, submitting to his leadership on those things. There are certain things I bring to the table that he doesn't, and he trusts me to lead and make the best decision for our family. He submits to me on these things.

I could not tolerate a relationship where the man was seen as the leader of the household with the final say on everything, where I am see as the "first mate" to his overall leadership. We're a partnership.

mrsamsa · 2014-01-23T04:35:59+00:00

I have to admit I am hesitant about posting here. It seems that this is very much a non-satire version of /r/thebluepill[1] but with slightly more tolerance to red pill ideas.

You'll find many blue pillers who think that this sub is basically just a watered down TRP, so it probably is just a perspective thing and it converges on somewhere between the two.

With that said, if you're approaching from the extremer side of TRP, then this sub will look very blue to you as a lot of the red pillers who contribute here are probably more moderate than the average red piller.

Yet many red pill men and women I see down voted

You'll be fine as long as you follow the rules and show a genuine willingness to engage in debate. There will be dicks who indiscriminately downvote red pillers or blue pillers, and I'm pretty sure some SRD members browse the sub occasionally mass downvoting red pillers, but most of the respectful red pillers don't have any issues here - like LifterofThings who is often highly upvoted.

On to your actual topic!:

I'm not a blue pill woman so I can't answer, but I'm interested in this bit:

Much of trp is about maintaining a dominant unapologetic frame because women are attracted to it. I have had great personal success with this. I have zero tolerance for bs and will "next" a woman and be happier for it if necessary.

You say that you've had great success with applying dominance and link that to the red pill idea that it works because women are attracted to it, but in the second half of your paragraph you explain that you "next" women who give you bullshit.

Do you think that this approach could lead to a skewed view of women and how attracted they are to dominance? That is, if you next all the women who aren't impressed or attracted to your dominance (i.e. the ones who will happily give you shit) then aren't you really just saying: "The women who are attracted to dominance are attracted to dominance".

It's like saying all men are interested in NASCAR and then saying that you have no patience for talking to men who talk shit about NASCAR. When you frame it like that then of course you're going to conclude that all men like NASCAR because you're specifically excluding every single person that contradicts that claim.

Anyway, welcome!

Abracadanielle · 2014-01-23T03:31:57+00:00

I've been attracted to dominant men, sure. I've also been attracted to submissive men and men who are a mix of the two. Mostly it's been a mix. Dominance can mean different things, and while I might be attracted to a man who is confident in some ways, I've never been attracted to pushyness or men who feel entitled to disregard my personal boundaries.

PixDelirious · 2014-01-23T04:09:28+00:00

I would argue that many women, from what I have both experienced personally and read about, like confidence not dominance. If you're too concerned with maintaining a "dominant frame" and trying to be alpha rather than just chilling the heck out and being confident in yourself, I would wager that you're not all that confident at all. That's just conjecture, though.

My boyfriend and I are neither dominant nor submissive -- we compliment each other. He's a little more sociable and bookish, while I'm more introverted and artsy. We both cook and share chores, etc. In the bedroom it can go either way. We experiment with light bondage (no punishment/pain, just restraints) and we're both switches. We actually alternate nights where one of us will be the Dom and the other the sub.

When I met him he wasn't,and still isn't, dominant at all, but he's completely comfortable in his skin. Physically he's around my height, ottermode build, and dresses anywhere from Cali skater kid to very nicely and almost metrosexual.

I've never gone for dominant, king of the castle men, nor am I attracted to typically submissive women. They're usually quiet, geeky, but spirited types like me. Mixes, I guess. Physically I tend to prefer average/skinny dudes. Women I'm attracted to run the gamut from androgynous to trendy, feminine girly girls. I HATE people who describe themselves as unapologetic because usually it is used as a disguise to be rude and mean at will. It comes off as very self-centered in the sense of lacking empathy for how their actions can affect other people. Which, unless you live on a deserted island, will always happen and can end very badly.

Do I believe that there are women who enjoy being the first mate and enjoy dominant men? Sure. And if that works more power to ya. But I absolutely do not believe that it's a "biotruth" that all/most women are this way and happier this way. And I do not endorse mind games like dread game or forcing yourself into a woman's physical space as a show of dominance or being alpha.

[deleted] · 2014-01-23T04:21:49+00:00

Confidence is sexy. Dominance is sexy only as part of a mutually consensual power exchange in which both people start as equals and then negotiate based on personal preferences independent of gender. So I like partners (male and otherwise) who are confident but who can also be vulnerable, trusting and emotionally expressive as a baseline. If they're also kinky we can sort out how we fit together there as we go along.

This means flexibility and compromise is crucial on both sides. I refuse to be with someone who either defers to me every time or who refuses to defer to me ever. I also hate gender essentialism; we are influenced by a lot more than our sex.

deepthrill · 2014-01-23T03:36:48+00:00

I can't imagine being attracted to someone who is intentionally unapologetic, or who thinks ending a relationship is preferable to compromising. My boyfriend is confident, but he can also admit his flaws and is willing to compromise and work with me because we have a partnership. Part of why I love him so much is because we have great conversations and are able to work as a team.

And as far as the dominant/nice dichotomy goes, can I not have wild, hot sex with my boyfriend while still being able to compromise on other decisions? I don't see why my attraction to him should be linked to our willingness to be respectful of each others' wishes.

Edit: Why it should be inversely linked.* There is definitely a correlation between my attraction to him and our capacity for mutual respect, just not the one implied in the OP.

slothsie · 2014-01-23T06:47:18+00:00

I like confidence. I also like it when they can admit they're wrong.

[deleted] · 2014-01-23T13:24:04+00:00

A man trying to be "dominant" will turn me off. Attractive qualities to me include flexibility, compromise, open-mindedness, and an ability to listen and take a back seat if needed. (Being hot helps too.) You can have these qualities while remaining confident and self-assured, but someone who has to be in control or the leader all the time will just annoy me. I wouldn't describe myself as dominant either, so it's not like a vying for control thing. I just find it deeply unattractive.

Archipelagi · 2014-01-23T13:52:30+00:00

Personally, I'm not attracted to dominance as a character trait. I am sure I have been attracted to men who could be described as dominant, but that definitely isn't what attracted me to them. The guy I married has never cared a day in his life about "being dominant," and is the kindest and most intently considerate person I've ever met -- I am very much attracted to that sort of confidence.

Most of my friends are also either neutral to, or slightly averse to, "dominant" men. But I do have some female friends who either have told me that they prefer guys with a dominance streak, or who, based on what I've seen of them, I would guess to have a preference for guys with a dominant streak. Some of those are more socially conservative than I, and they are looking for that kind of life, but I know at least a couple of them would consider themselves anti-TRP and strongly feminist, they're just into that kind of guy sexually. I don't think it's a contradiction at all; just because they like a dominant guy in the sack doesn't imply in the slightest that they believe their gender makes them inherently anything, let alone irrational or incapable of love.

Edit: After re-reading your post, one line stood out to me. "[D]o you think you see past dominance... and forget about any animalistic attraction?" Whoa, you've got it all wrong. There is no 'forgetting' of any animalistic attraction, that's an absurd idea -- that shit is important, no matter what kind of guy you're into. Do you believe "animalistic attraction" necessarily correlates with "male dominance"? If so, that's where you've gone wrong, and need to reconsider. Because those things are not the same at all.

yellow9999 · 2014-01-23T09:12:13+00:00

Sure, BDSM can be fun and I love subbing in a sexual context.

Occasionally, I like switching it up and being the dominant partner and pegging my partner.

But, outside of the bedroom? No. I don't want a dominant partner. I want an equal relationship in which everyone's feelings are considered and respected, and everyone has a chance to voice their opinions and come to a mutual conclusion, which may involve the occasional compromise.

I could not be happy in a relationship in which one partner controlled the other or was the primary decision maker, and I have no desire to be in that situation. I won't date someone who doesn't seem to respect boundaries and I will drop contact with anyone who disregards them.

The men I'm attracted to are confident, respectful, and willing to engage in conversation and exchange ideas with me. Not "dominant" men trying to prove they are more powerful than each other - they just come across as jerks and I won't put up with that bs.

GuildedCasket · 2014-01-23T03:17:31+00:00

First of all, I don't think most women actually look for a "nice" guy. Go into the dreaded AskWomen sub, and when asked what they find attractive, they say that he must be clean/well kept, interesting, intellectually stimulating, confident. No one ever says anything about him being a "nice" guy. So I don't think anyone tries to see "deeper" past his dominance to get to the "nice guy" thing.

For me personally, I am in a BDSM relationship and my partner is my dom in the bedroom. But outside it, he is neither dominant nor submissive, and neither am I - there is no need for either of us to assume one of those roles. I enjoy being dominated in the bedroom, but outside of it it does nothing for me. I like confident men, yes, but not really "alpha". My SO is confident and sexy, but he is also decently effeminate at times and often has me make decisions, or my decisions override his when he happens to care less about his decision than I care about mine (I really, really want Olive Garden and he only slightly wants Chili's, we'll go to Olive Garden, and vice versa).

Other males I'm attracted to at the moment are somewhat effeminate or androgynous, quiet, humble, but they do still have a confidence about them and won't be walked all over. They are confident in the fact they are in touch with their femininity, that is very hot to me.

One thing I cannot stand though, is the unapologetic thing. If a male stubbornly refuses to acknowledge when he is wrong, or even being outdone except in the most obvious circumstances, I find myself being almost instantly turned off by them. The need to be dominant and apologetic and masculine all the time just makes me uncomfortable and they are immediately "friend zoned", even if they don't seem to be doing it consciously or with effort.

So I suppose I am somewhat attracted to dominant men, but not traditionally dominant men. What is most important to me is that they show a comfort with themselves, and often that means they aren't afraid of their femininity, as all people have aspects of both spectrums in their personalities.

glasswings · 2014-01-23T05:51:40+00:00

(ambigender/sub-switch)

I do like intellectual debates as long as no emotions are involved.

So do I, in a debate.

But I wouldn't stay in a relationship where emotional issues are settled with debate, and I would encourage anyone, any gender, who's emotionally sensitive to do the same. I'm not saying you do that yourself, just that it wouldn't work unless your lady has the same perspective on her feelings as you do.

Not to debate, just to share my perspective. I'm sub-switch and like dominance, yes, but with a gender perspective that doesn't, as I understand it, fit into red-pill. Take it as you will.

a dominant unapologetic frame

Dominant is hot. Unapologetic? Depends on what you mean by it. I don't want m'lady to apologize for using me to get what she wants sexually and romantically. I want to be the right tool for the job, her most prized possession, the best pet ever. Often nice things require upkeep - gardens need to be tended and mansions maintained - I want my own upkeep to be an embarrassingly good deal for her and for that m'lady must not apologize.

At the same time, I am a person with needs and expectations that can't always be anticipated; I can be as fickle as an exotic cat. I can't be ashamed of those feelings or ignore them for to long because I will grow miserable and resentful and that will keep me from serving m'lady as I desire and she deserves. I want her to trust me to make my desires known (either on my initiative or hers), I need to feel safe enough to do so, she mustn't apologize for not anticipating what I want. That's my place and responsibility.

Because of the nature of human beings we are guaranteed from time to hurt each other. Here being unapologetic is not okay for either of us. My-way-or-high-way would send me packing, and I'll not apologize for that.

tl;dr - I dunno if there are women subs who feel like I do, but if there are... Don't apologize for who you are or even assume you have to thank us. (It's awkward.) Don't assume you understand how we're feeling, don't assume we understand you. (We try but people are complicated.) Do pay attention to what we need and do ask when unsure. Do express your desires. Do apologize when you screw up.

PurpleHyacinth · 2014-01-23T16:49:00+00:00

Like many other commenters, I think that confidence is sexy. Men who are secure are easy to be around. Men who project a "dominant unapologetic frame" seem stubborn, insecure, and possibly abusive. I wonder what they are trying to hide with their posturing.

deepthrill · 2014-01-23T17:48:17+00:00

I do like intellectual debates as long as no emotions are involved.

In that case, I would like to suggest you have debates with androids, because you won't find a human capable of detaching from their emotions 100%. Or even 70%, imo. That's not how people work.

If you women reject trp ideals, do you admit you are attracted to dominant men?

This is complicated for me to answer. I have a mental health issue(or maybe it's my relationship with my mother? idk) that causes me to seek out people who will give me a sense of direction and tell me what to do. My best friend is a bossy badass bitch from hell, my ex was demanding and dominant, my mother is a control freak. It gives/gave me a sense of comfort to be around them because it meant that I didn't have to be me, I could just be the person they wanted me to be.

However, my current boyfriend, who is probably my favorite person in the universe with the exception of my baby brother(also not dominant, if that matters, he suffers from severe anxiety), is far from dominant. He is awkward and shy and tends to let people walk all over him. I made the first move when we were getting together. For the first half of our relationship I was incredibly dominant and demanding and he allowed it. I think I enjoyed taking power back after years of never having it, because while I enjoyed being a follower, it was thrilling to lead for once. Currently I have returned to being meek and trying to mold myself around what he wants, but he doesn't demand that I do, he doesn't even ask. Actually, probably the single worst problem in our relationship is the fact that he feels bad ever asking me to stop doing or start doing most things. So he just lets problems fester and never tells me what I'm doing wrong.

So...yes and no? I have been attracted to dominant men in the past but currently I only want my sweet, caring boyfriend and that's what I'm attracted to. That's what I'm happiest with.

forget about any animalistic attraction?

There's animalistic attraction to a guy who can change a diaper or hold me when I'm crying.

deepthrill · 2014-01-23T17:49:49+00:00

I like submissive men. It bears mentioning that I like interesting, physically beautiful, intellectual submissive men. I also like egalitarian men who are very considerate of my feelings, and the same standards apply. I am completely unattracted in every kind of way, animalistic or otherwise, to dominant men, unless they make a point (as some skilled players have) of not being dominant with me.

The tl'dr is that I'm a living refutation (or exception, as you prefer) to everything TRP says is gospel, but I guess I'd like to say that the major point I want to make is that of course I'm not interested in submissive men who aren't fully developed personalities. If you don't know what you'd like to do over the weekend and can't express that preference to me, you are probably not a developed personality. You know all the rhetoric men who like submissive women use when they defend themselves? I want someone who nonetheless has a sense of independence, a cultivated personality, a will of their own? That applies. A lot of time being submissive is an excuse to be dull.

Also, plenty of men, in general, just don't know how to be physically attractive. This isn't necessarily their fault; society doesn't give them guides the way it does to women; but nonetheless, very few of them know how to dress themselves or present themselves in an aesthetically pleasing fashion. Submissive men are no exception-- and that's often paired with a masculine sense of "nice guy" entitlement and a lack of understanding of how their projections are burdensome to you.

I'm not attracted to dull people, or people who are, well, physically unattractive to me, or to people who treat me in any kind of entitled way. Sorry if this is obvious, but I get a lot of incredulity from people who don't understand those basic concepts.

Not trying to present a false dichotomy here so feel free to present other ideas.

What do you think of "prettyboy theory"? Why do you think so many girls are into Bill Kaulitz? Some androgynous dudes seem to have dominant sides (Bowie, for instance), but I don't think anyone could get that vibe from Kaulitz.

[deleted] · 2014-01-23T18:42:48+00:00

I like confidence but not dominance. After 18-years of being bent under a domineering parent relationship, I will nope it outta there if I see a man try to take too much charge. I have and will continue to end relationships over this. I value my freedom and my ability to make my own decisions and I will not ever give it up.

I admire confidence. I admire an ability to take charge sometimes especially over things I don't care about. But more than anything I want someone who will listen and compromise. Who is willing to meet me halfway. Dominant and unapologetic? Fuck that no. There is nothing more likely to turn me off completely.

Maybe it's an overreaction to a shitty childhood but really I can't go back to that.

deepthrill · 2014-01-23T18:59:02+00:00

As others have said, there's a big difference between confidence and dominance. Confidence is attractive, dominance sets off alarm bells and I run for the hills. (Have done so in the past)

Not attractive at all, not for me. I'm pretty repulsed by it, TBH.

Dominance is only ok in bed, and only some of the time. For me it would be boring to be sexually submissive/dominant with no change.

You're mixing up dominance in a relationship and dominance in bed. They're completely different.

Shady_Intent · 2014-01-23T05:08:44+00:00

I find sexual dominance thrilling and highly attractive. In sexual situations I'm often more submissive and I enjoy it. That's not to say that I don't also like being the aggressive, assertive partner sexually; just that most often, and most appealing to me is the submissive act.

However, I find dominance outside of sex to be overbearing and domineering. An example I see from time to time is the "going out to eat" one. Rather than asking where your date wants to go you just take her to wherever you want to go. Now, the first few times probably wouldn't bother me, but eventually I'd start to get irritated and annoyed that my date didn't really consider what I wanted and just happily assumed I'd be for whatever he wanted.

Personally, this kind of approach to dating and relationships would turn me off of that person. But others may enjoy it, and all the power to them, I say.

And hey, welcome to the sub!

missmediajunkie · 2014-01-23T07:19:09+00:00

I'm attracted to very forward, aggressive men in some situations. However, if they act that way in all situations, they tend to come off as pushy, disrespectful, and patronizing. And frankly, not worth the hassle.

[deleted] · 2014-01-23T18:30:01+00:00

[permanently deleted]

KittyHamilton · 2014-01-23T21:16:32+00:00

It depends on what you mean by dominance.

To me, there is a difference between dominance and confidence. Dominance, unlike confidence, implies subordinating others.

It really depends on what the dominance is combined with. Does he just naturally end up as the dominant figure in situations because he's the type who gravitates to leadership roles? Or is he obnoxious and childish, determined to get his way no matter what?

Does he try to dominate me? No tolerance for that. (Unless we're doing something kinky.)

Dominance can be an expression of insecurity, and that is certainly not attractive. A naturally submissive but confident man would be far preferable.

The sole exception might be when it comes to certain skills. Dominating others in some kind of competition is totally hot.

However, again, dominance is just one factor, and not really an important one. Confidence is what matters.

ElderSign · 2014-01-23T08:01:11+00:00

I am absolutely attracted to confidence, and men that aren't afraid to express (and discuss!) their opinions and passions. Doormats and "grey people" are boring and unattractive. But dominance IMHO means something else entirely, and is fun in the bedroom but horrible outside of it.

Using the relatively common "where to have dinner" example [1]:

Insecure: "Would you like to eat out tonight? Yes? Where would you like to go?"
Reaction: You want to eat out, you suggest something. Can't you have an opinion of your own for a change, why do I need to decide everything?

Dominant: "Meet me at restaurant X in 30 minutes." Bonus for added "Wear something sexy."
Reaction: Eww, no. Creep.

Confident: "I feel like eating out today, how about restaurant X in 30 minutes?"
Reaction: Knows what he wants, listens to me too. Restaurant X is good but I need to finish something first, an hour ok?

myfriendscantknow · 2014-01-23T09:36:05+00:00

The sad thing is that even though in this thread and others women state a diverse selection of partner preferences, it's going to be dismissed out of hand by TRP because of their convenient "don't listen to what they say, watch what they do" rule. Well TRP, as a male switch with a feminine and laid back personality, there are plenty of women who find me attractive. It's all about confidence, you don't have to be this hyper masculine, unapologetically dominant dude to be successful with women.

Whisper · 2014-01-24T00:34:12+00:00

It seems that this is very much a non-satire version of /r/thebluepill[1] but with slightly more tolerance to red pill ideas.

Not really tolerance, but enforced politeness. Basically, the TBP types here can't be too insulting, or they get banned. (Except /u/soulcakeduck, who seems to have carte blanche to say whatever.)

Yet many red pill men and women I see down voted and many simple "they are misogynist" comments up voted.

You have to understand that the major difference between the red and blue pills comes from the difference between modern and postmodern discourse.

Modern discourse is about a cooperative effort to get at the truth. Debaters are seen as detached from their positions, advocating this or that viewpoint not out of allegiance, but as part of the process of testing ideas by subjecting them to criticism.

Postmodern discourse is about getting what you want. Debaters are passionately attached to their positions, and their goal in arguing is not to inspire learning or discover facts, but to get their way.

Thus, chanting "misogynist misogynist misogynist misogynist misogynist misogynist misogynist misogynist misogynist" seems like a perfectly valid tactic to postmodern disputants. Because it shuts people up, tarnishes their reputations, and generally makes them less likely to be heard. It doesn't matter to them that "misogynist" is a thought-terminating cliche. Because thought isn't the point.

To modern disputants, calling someone a misogynist makes no sense in a debate. It's totally irrelevant, because it has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of what he said. It's a complete non sequitur.

So don't come here hoping to convince anyone. In postmodern discourse, no one convinces anyone of anything. No one ever changes their mind, because it's basically a shouting contest. It is about force of personality, level of interest, and amount of free time, not about soundness of ideas. It's a contest. One person wins, the other person loses, and the loser doesn't change their mind, they just slink off in a huff. Nor should they change their mind, because their ideas have not been defeated. They have.

What you should come here for is to test the strength of your ideas against those few nuggets of accidental modernism in the torrent of postmodern, feelings-oriented, subjective-truthiness tantrums. Remember that the red pill isn't about being right, it's about being aware of what is, and that means that any allegedly red-pill idea must be exposed to vehement criticism and empirical tests to prove itself.

Nonmedicated · 2014-01-23T19:46:06+00:00

Hi, I'm not sure if I should answer this since I don't identify as blue pill. I definitely don't identify as redpill either. In fact the redpill stuff I read comes from thebluepill.

I absolutely love a confident, dominant, leader. I have been married for 10 years to an amazing man. What first attracted me to him was his magnanimous spirit, his generosity, his quick wit when dealing with someone who was being a domineering jerk in a group. He was confident in himself and his own value as a human being. He was also confident that all people deserve respect. Honestly, even now typing this up makes my desire for him grow. There are too many things I love about him to list. Here's what didn't factor until later: he is gorgeous, he has pretty much my ideal body type. (it was winter and he was bundled up and has a full beard and was wearing sunglasses.)

I am a submissive person in relationships. I think dominant/confident people are sexy as fuck. A cool leader, who can walk away from petty aggravators because they know it's not a fair fight. For example: my husband was once attacked by a group (3) of men. He tried to walk away. One guy pulled out a baseball bat. My husband disarmed him, broke the bat in half (wood) and walked away. He didn't try to get revenge, he neutralized the threat and left. So incredibly sexy.

We have a very traditional relationship in that I am home raising our children, he is off working a strenuous job. I work hard to make sure he comes back to a peaceful home. I like it when he tells me we are going away for the weekend and surprises me with the location. I like him making most of our day to day decisions.

So you might think I'd like the red pill. I don't. See my liking and choosing to participate in this relationship in this manner, doesn't say anything about anyone else.

My husband genuinely respects and appreciates me in my relationship. He wants me to go out and have friendships, he thinks it's sexy that I am more educated than he is. He loves that I am physically strong. He and I see each other as human beings. He couldn't give two shits if I cut my hair off, he's even helped me take the clippers to it.

He and I are a perfect match. I have a best friend who has also found her perfect match. She is a dominant woman who has also been married nearly a decade. Her husband is not the type of man I would be attracted to, but it doesn't matter, he's her perfect match.

People are people. Try to treat them well: don't be a dick, and don't let anyone take advantage of you. Never give away or do anything without understanding that you are owed nothing in return. Give because it brings other people joy. The strong have a moral duty to protect the weak. We all have a moral duty to try to be our best. I truly believe all of this and it's pretty much the antithesis of red pill philosophy.

edit: found an autocorrected word

Title	First post regarding attraction to dominance ( for tbp women )
Author	deepthrill
Upvotes	13
Comments	108
Date	January 23, 2014 2:35 AM UTC (10 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/1vwq0i/first_post_regarding_attraction_to_dominance_for/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/first-post-regarding-attraction-to-dominance-for.286330 https://theredarchive.com/post/286330