Why being DOMINANT, makes you more appealing to a woman?

[A2K89]

What about if a guy has plenty of confidence for apparently no reason? Not in an arrogant way, I just mean if he hasn't been very successful school and career wise so far.. I have confidence, but looking at our societys standards my confidence is completely unwaranted. Wondering if the average gal would understand this..

[Fullcrum]

To hell with society's standards.

Confidence is a default state of being.

[Groovebox]

Egg Zachary

[Jamie]

Originally Posted by Angela

Exactly. We've been choosing our environments more carefully, especially since we stopped drinking.

You don't drink, at all?

Maybe the answer to the question I was begging, about why I go to the places I do (not that they're such bad dives or anything), has something to do with how I feel about myself, my self-esteem, and the kind of woman I feel worthy of. I think it's always these kinds of issue, that have perhaps the most impact on our success (or lack-of) in relationships.

[teatree]

Originally Posted by Erki

Are women seen as someone weak or something, who need constant protecting?

No! Most of the time we can manage things ourselves - but there are always situations where you feel overwhelmed, and in that circumstance you want to know that there is "someone on your side". And actually men feel sort of the same thing - they too want someone who will love and support them when things arn't going that well for them.

For those who say - I don't need someone to protect me - yeah right! The mythical superwomen. The nature of the human condition - for men and women - is that life can be tough and there are always circumstances where you want some help. It's what being a couple is about - someone on your team to bat for you, no matter what. And the reason women look for men who have protective urges is that they don't want to end up with someone who dumps them when things are going wrong (eg when pregnant). The reason men look for someone loving and supportive is actually the exact same - they don't want someone to dump them when something goes wrong eg when they lose their job through no fault of their own.

I shouldn't have used the phrase "to protect from other men who are jerks" - it sounded like a bar room brawl where people are competing for women. What I meant instead was help with the jerks of ordinary life - the garage mechanic who is trying to rip you off because he's intuited that you are a woman who doesn't know much about cars. Or a sympathetic ear when you tell him all about the jerks at work playing office politics. That sort of thing.

I'm probably not getting my point across properly. All I know is that when I was single and things went wrong (anything from having my car broken into, to having a bad day at work), I used to get very depressed and low. Now I don't simply because I have someone to cheer me up, take my side, cuddle me and make supportive noises. I feel better within half an hour of coming home. I feel sort of "protected". My husband feels the same way - things that used to get him down don't because he too now has someone to take his side and some of the load.

Coupledom isn't really about looks or money or possessions or any that rubbish that they write about in magasines. It's about finding someone you click with on many levels, who will always look out for you and take your side no matter what.

When people are looking for someone, what they should ask themselves is a) do I get on with them, do I enjoy being with them b) do I feel better when I'm in their presence and worse when I'm away from them and c) do I feel they'll always be on my side no matter what. That's it. All the rest is irrelevant. After seven years of marriage my husband has developed a beer belly and spends loads of time online playing Star Wars fantasy games, but I don't care because a), b) and c) are still working for me.

[teatree]

Originally Posted by Jamie

Maybe the answer to the question I was begging, about why I go to the places I do (not that they're such bad dives or anything), has something to do with how I feel about myself, my self-esteem, and the kind of woman I feel worthy of. I think it's always these kinds of issue, that have perhaps the most impact on our success (or lack-of) in relationships.

Maybe you should start a thread on where to meet people. I met my other half at a writers group. I don't actually know many people with successful relationships who met in a bar. (Bars seem to be for picking up short-term sex rather than finding your long-term mate).

[Jamie]

Originally Posted by teatree

Maybe you should start a thread on where to meet people. I met my other half at a writers group. I don't actually know many people with successful relationships who met in a bar. (Bars seem to be for picking up short-term sex rather than finding your long-term mate).

Maybe, but then, it's not so much where a person goes, as how he (or she) feels about themselves. That make sense?

Jamie.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Jamie

Maybe, but then, it's not so much where a person goes, as how he (or she) feels about themselves. That make sense?

Jamie.

Yup. Are they committed to living a life they're in love with, or are they not? Most single people who are committed to being in love with their lives eventually figure out that habitually hanging out in bars -- especially to meet the opposite sex -- is not an effective expression of LALYL.

[Fullcrum]

Bars have the most volume of women. I think that's why they're so popular. And they can be fun.

[Angela]

Yup, that's so. And -- I think when you're committed to living a life you love and/or building a loving, long term mutually beneficial relationship, habitually going to bars can really get in your way. I'm not saying it's 'wrong' or that you *shouldn't* do it. I'm saying that when you're feeling good on purpose, focusing on a LYL and/or a LLTMBR (ssfata*), you start to see other environments to put yourself in that work better.

*so sorry for all the acronyms

[Brutha]

I think that you mean isn't so much dominance but leadership.

Angela wrote in the past that she prefers the man to iniciate a relationship.

Leadership isn't so much about controling others to do something but about inspiring others to do something.

In addition I think that everybody whether male or female is drawn to people who project leadership around them.
I always think about a Jay Abraham quote when I read threads like this:
"People are silently begging to be lead."

*so sorry for all the acronyms

The problem is that you use acronymn that aren't even defined in the Urban dictionary. You should at least write them out, to give us a chance to understand them.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Brutha

Leadership isn't so much about controling others to do something but about inspiring others to do something.

Well said, Brutha.

The problem is that you use acronymn that aren't even defined in the Urban dictionary. You should at least write them out, to give us a chance to understand them.

I try not to use an acronym if I haven't already spelled out the full phrase in the same post, but you might have to read the whole post to get it. Anyway, I love figuring out other people's acronyms -- and their vanity license plates!

Eye heart ewe, Brutha!

[Jamie]

I'm trying to get in my mind; positive qualities assosiated or closely related to, DOMINANCE, and also negative ones.

I'll mull this over and post back (just off out for a run now). PFFTLSOYO.

(sorry, that's please feel free to list some of your own).

Jamie.

[Brutha]

I try not to use an acronym if I haven't already spelled out the full phrase in the same post, but you might have to read the whole post to get it. Anyway, I love figuring out other people's acronyms -- and their vanity license plates!

Copy/Paste works sometimes wonders.
When you use acronyms in that way it might be good to write the acronym in brackets after you use it the first time.

Eye heart ewe, Brutha!

That's understandable through urban dictionary.

[Jamie]

In the other forum I frequent, it's usually the mods who keep telling the users to keep on topic! ... are you guys using some kind of reverse psychology on me?



Jamie.

[Angela]

What, are you trying to dominate us?

sorry, back to domination and it's appeal.

[Brutha]

In the other forum I frequent, it's usually the mods who keep telling the users to keep on topic! ... are you guys using some kind of reverse psychology on me?

You could say that using acronymn to make it harder for the other person to understand you and forcing him to put more effort into your message is also a form of domination (showing your own expertise [and expertise is power] in the topic because you understand all the acronyms).

You can also see the negative appeal of such a approach on someone who doesn't understand your acronyms.
In contrast the leadership approach might be to get as clear as possible in your communication so that the other person can easier absorb your ideas. That mean new neuron connections get formed in that persons head when you talk to him/her.
When those connections get formed that releases endorphins in the brain.
That hormon release gets associated with you because you are in that persons presence -> You attract the person (but you still have to direct that attraction on the sexual level, through the context of your communication).

Then that might sound farfetched, because it is

At the moment it's difficult to cut out the part of the conversation about acronyms, so back to the topic.

[Jamie]

God no, I'm not dominant, maybe that explains why such a handsome, fine specimen of a man, like myself, is single? Or, maybe I have negative assosiations with the word DOMINATE. I'm sure there's good and bad things in it (as with anything else), so for me, it helps to pick it apart a little, give it the 'under the microscope' treatment.

Okay, and feel free to add to this (plus, this is very much as I see things):

Positive aspects of dominate:
No fear.
Leadership.
Bravery.

Negative aspects of dominate:
It's forced.
It's unnatural.
It implies aggression.
Your focus is on other men (i.e. object of the domination) and not the ladies.

---

In fact, I'm struggling here. In all honesty, I have a lot of problems with the word (i.e. behaviours I assosiate with it). As if it calls for a course of action, that is not aligned with my heart. So if I'm being genuine and true to myself, I think I'm going to struggle with (what I consider to be) being dominant.

I can see a good case (i.e. in the animal kingdom) where females are way more attracted to the more aggressive and dominant males. Like with rutting stags, fighting over who gets the female stags. I wonder how much correlation there is between animals and humans (of course, we are all animals at the end of the day) in this regard.

I'm just gonna sign up for monk school or something.

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

How about focusing on CONFIDENCE and SELF-ASSUREDNESS rather than DOMINANCE? I think they give you the same result without the negative connotations that come along with the thought of dominating.

[Jamie]

Maybe you have something there aspiring. It's funny how different words conjour up different images for different people.

I like the notion of uncontrived naturalness. In some ways, modification to your behaviour, specifically to attract a member of the opposite sex, can perhaps lead to a less genuine (and more fearful) you, and it's just not worth the loss of integrity.

I also like the notion of clarity, knowing yourself.

Jamie.

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

Originally Posted by Jamie

I like the notion of uncontrived naturalness. In some ways, modification to your behaviour, specifically to attract a member of the opposite sex, can perhaps lead to a less genuine (and more fearful) you, and it's just not worth the loss of integrity.

Being genuine and having integrity would be two of the very most important traits I would look for in a partner. I don't want a faker. A facade is difficult to maintain and only breeds resentment -- not to mention fear that you are never loved for who you really are. Does that make sense?

[JimOfferman]

Originally Posted by Jamie

God no, I'm not dominant, maybe that explains why such a handsome, fine specimen of a man, like myself, is single?

Dude, speaking from one fine specimen of a man to another, the traits you do or do not possess have absolutely zilch to do with your being single. How many times a week you go out to meet people maybe has something to do with it, but even that is questionable.

All you need to worry about is being convinced beyond the doubt that you are, in fact, very lovable and then it is simply a matter of waiting for the inevitable meetup with someone who completely agrees with you on that (note that going out more plays into increasing the chances of this meetup occuring sooner rather than later).

[Lola]

I've avoided this thread like the plague cuz I really didn't want to go all bad-@ss Lola on anyone (the title alone kind of ruffled my female feathers). But now it looks like we're reaching a reasonable consensus.

Dominant, dominate, dominating, domineering - yaddayaddayadda - all of those words invoke (in me) a picture of Big Man keeping Little Woman firmly under his boot where she bygod belongs.

Much more to my liking when describing men who are appealing to women, are words like - Confident, Self Aware, Self Assured, Respectful, Considerate, Kind...

[Jamie]

Funny how we (people) see the same words, and read different things.

I considered the dominate thing to be more to do with how we are in groups of people in general. Perhaps more specifically, to do with power games vs other males (seeing off the competition etc), rather than how we (men) treat women.

Good the thrash things out though!

Jamie.

[Rose of Cairo]

Jamie, I'm going to tell you why I don't like guys who play power games vs. other guys: because I always have a feeling that while doing this, they don't let people just be who they are.

I want a loving guy who lets all others, including other guys, express themselves freely and interact with each other freely. Someone who's busy with dominating, cutting other males out off the action, or showing who the greatest alpha stud is, is not creating a space of genuine self-expression for anybody. Thus I won't feel good when I'm around him.

Plus, they focus on the form (how they're perceived) more than on the content (real interests), which makes them boring.

IMO it's perfectly ok if you're not dominant and for sure not the reason why you're single.

If you're totally confident, then you know you are great and lovable. Then you don't have anything to prove to other males and you don't need to impress the females either.

Just my opinion.

[sonicpunk32]

i'm defintely not dominant, i'm more nurturing in that i'd like to take care and love my girl.

[mrobto6]

truly all start with you and all end with you... you are the alpha and the omega,dominate yourself and you dominate your enviroment,but remember
as you treat yourself so your enviroment would replicate
mrobto6

[Elrond]

Although it hasn't been brought forth in this thread, there are men who genuinly want to "dominate" their female partners, and women who want their men to dominate them. (This could also be reverse, but let's keep it simple...)

And this isn't just about the man being confident (though it's important), but about him deciding for/over her. And if she fails to do so, there might be consequences (and those consequences she might enjoy on some level). Of course there are infinitely varying degrees of this so I won't get into too much details.

I know I know, you're probably going to say how obscene this is and that no sane couple would have such a relationship, and how it wouldn't be somethng you would choose to be part of. But consider that such couples most often report that they're very happy (yes, both parties), much more so than they have been in a more "equal" relationship. Not saying that you would be happy in such a relationship, but it works for them.

And if you would argue that it isn't equal, then yeah, it isn't on the superficial level. But it seems that it is pretty equal on the emotional level; both parties enjoy the symbiosis.

And if you think that both the parties must have some kind of deficiet because they are happier in such a relationship, then you must know that for example the women might play a more dominant role in another part of her life, for example her job. Both people might be able to be a very balanced person and masculine or feminine as need be, it's just that in the relationship, it's this that creates the more spark for them. So it usually isn't about the woman or man needing to be dominant or be dominated, but that it's fun. Yeah, not everything needs to be initiated by the primary motivator of it being practical. Lighten up! (am i talking to myself at this point..?)

[cheech]

In my (admittedly limited) observation and experience, it seems as if most women do want to be led, at least in the initiating/early stages of a relationship. The guy is generally expected to ask the girl out, initiate the first kiss, and generally take on the "seducer" role. This word might have negative connotations for some, which I do not intend. I just mean that the guy is typically expected to pursue the girl, and the girl kind of lets herself be pursued. Now the girl might take a very active role in this pursuit, but this typically takes the form of sending out signals to let the guy know that his advances would be looked on favourably. An obvious example would be telling a mutual friend that she is interested in the guy, so the guy will find out about it, and can ask her out confident that he won't be rejected. There are many subtler examples, some involving things like body language. I've seen some women put a lot of work into being pursued, and really make it as easy for the guy as possible, but very few girls are prepared to do any pursuing of their own

NB this is based on my own experiences and observations, which are centered around women in their teens and twenties in the UK. It's entirely possibly that this is a cultural thing, or that as women get older they become more sure of themselves and have a clearer idea of what they want, and are therefore more willing to go out and get it, so I can't really say whether this pattern holds more widely

[lasti]

I don't want a man who is dominant which would mean that he kind of rules the relationship. Don't you ever try to lead me! I want a man who is confident. This also implies that he's not dependent on something or somebody (especially not on me ).