RE: Dominating vs. Controlling AND/OR Domineering (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Ask a Master



Message

Youtalkingtome -> RE: Dominating vs. Controlling AND/OR Domineering (4/9/2005 10:12:32 PM)

Padriag and lil1v, I agree with both of you at the same time.
As I stated above about being a Dominant leader.
Being a natural Dominant leader does and can happen.
I agree with experience and education.It is called life.Learning,growing and maturing.
Our experience in life makes us what we are.
I know people that are leaders but not natural and people don't like to follow them because they make bad leaders compared to a natural leader.



Padriag -> RE: Dominating vs. Controlling AND/OR Domineering (4/10/2005 12:02:46 AM)

I suppose I should explain my remark about there being no natural leaders or dominants. It goes back to the work of Alfred Adler and my own theories about the origins of human behavior. Adler essentially states that all our various personality traits are learned behaviors. This is what he collectively calls "style of life". This would include leardership qualities, dominance or submissiveness, degree of social interest, degree of mental activity, and so on. Adler asserts however that in most cases the style of life of an individual is established by the age of five or six. Our mental, emotional and social development after that is governed by that style of life which acts as a template. Adler didn't believe the style of life could be changed in adulthood, I disagree. In either case, it indicates that whatever our inclinations toward leadership and/or dominance was set down early in life, but it was learned. Just learned at so early an age most aren't consciously aware of it an then make the assumption they must have been "born that way".

My contention is, since I disagree that the style of life cannot be changed, is that any learned behavior can be altered, unlearned or relearned. If that is true, then the traits which creates dominance or leadership can thus be learned, developed, etc. I'm not alone in this, take a look at the amount of money the US military spends on researching and developing leadership training for its officers. The catch is that those "natural leaders' are as you say still better than "trained leaders" because what really makes a good leader is still being understood. Hard to teach someone how to be something if you don't fully understand how that something works. But, the more that is learned the closer we get to it.

Part of my personal theory on the origins of dominance is based on Adler's work and observations regarding organ inferiority and the process of compensation and over-compensation. More directly, my belief is that dominance arrises in an individual due to personal inferiorities or environmental inferiorities during that formative period when the style of life is organized. After this period, dominance emerges as a compensation and sometimes over-compensation for those inferiorities. The crux of this being that we are dominant not because we are better... but in fact because we began as inferior and through our struggles to overcome that inferiority we rose from below to above... rose to a adopt a dominant position socially. If thats true, then one might conversely argue that a submissive is such because they began with a superior position, and lacking the necessity to strive created by inferiorities never developed the same drive to rise to a dominant position. I'm not conclusive about that yet and am still giving it quite a bit of thought. Keep in mind this is all theory on my part which I am still developing.

An yes, I do this stuff as a hobby... I was never a normal child [sm=lol.gif]



lil1v -> RE: Dominating vs. Controlling AND/OR Domineering (4/10/2005 2:40:52 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Padriag

Adler essentially states that all our various personality traits are learned behaviors. This is what he collectively calls "style of life".


Well.. see the problem for me is that I know of many children who were adopted at birth who later after finding their birth parents have similar personalities and desires. So while I think enviromental factors into it, there are certain genetic or biological factors.

There are several hormones that when out of wack make one lean tword aggressive or subdued. Many times these imbalances are genetic.

So while I may find Alder's theories interesting, I myself cannot rule out genetics as playing a factor in it.

I do agree with you that people can change though that usually requires a constant effort and "slipping back into old habits" often happens. I don't however believe that at age 5 self or style of life is defined.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Padriag
The crux of this being that we are dominant not because we are better... but in fact because we began as inferior and through our struggles to overcome that inferiority we rose from below to above... rose to a adopt a dominant position socially. If thats true, then one might conversely argue that a submissive is such because they began with a superior position, and lacking the necessity to strive created by inferiorities never developed the same drive to rise to a dominant position.


I'll agree with that ... submissives are superiour and Dominants are inferior [:D]

*giggles and hides* (I know thats not what He meant, but it was just too fun of a thought to pass up)



Padriag -> RE: Dominating vs. Controlling AND/OR Domineering (4/10/2005 3:50:45 AM)

:: ponders how far we're gonna derail this thread off into behavioral psychology :: [;)]

I have a larger theory that includes an explanation of the biological / genetic factors, though its a bit novel I think, but its way beyond the scope of this thread. You're right about the hormones, such as seratonin levels (specifically 5HT and 5HIAA) for example can affect levels of aggression, responses to fear, etc. I've heard of some individuals taking synthetic seratonin (5-HTP) thinking it will make them more dominant or induce "dom space" and I can only imagine the results since high levels of 5HT (which 5 HTP mimics) have been attributed to causing psychosis and schizophrenia. I can just imagine the inevitable results when some idiot gets the bright idea of taking a mass dose of such a drug in the hopes of becoming Uber Dom and instead gets a lesson in Dr Jeckyl and Mr Hyde. But overall I am wary of explanation of chemicals causing behavior. More often I look for an explanation the other way around, the chemicals present being a biological reaction to other conditions. For example, if you're afraid then you can expect to find higher levels of adrenalin and various neurotransmitters. The adrenalin and neurotransmitters didn't make you afraid, the stimulus did, they're simply the biological response. My personal belief is that too often people take it the other way around an want to blame too much behavior on hormones and chemicals and not enough on environment and personal choices.

BTW, if you want some interesting reading on the above and biochemistry in general try "Drugs and the Brain" and "Biochemistry and Behavior" both by Solomon H Snyder.

quote:

I'll agree with that ... submissives are superiour and Dominants are inferior

*giggles and hides* (I know thats not what He meant, but it was just too fun of a thought to pass up)


LOL... oh yes, they're gonna roast you for that one!



lil1v -> RE: Dominating vs. Controlling AND/OR Domineering (4/10/2005 4:27:46 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Padriag

My personal belief is that too often people take it the other way around an want to blame too much behavior on hormones and chemicals and not enough on environment and personal choices.



Well yes there is a happy medium. But you can't discount one or the other totally. Enviromental factors affect hormones as well. So does Genetics. Every action a person does has to do with the levels of their personal body chemicals, genetics, environment/stimuli... So many things play a part in it. Oh and then theres that pheromone stuff which makes certain people repel or attract to each other. It never ends. [:)]


quote:

ORIGINAL: Padriag

quote:

I'll agree with that ... submissives are superiour and Dominants are inferior

*giggles and hides* (I know thats not what He meant, but it was just too fun of a thought to pass up)


LOL... oh yes, they're gonna roast you for that one!



Hey you said it first!! *grins evilly* So i'm just going to point the roasters to you.





katyanna -> RE: Dominating vs. Controlling AND/OR Domineering (4/10/2005 12:47:46 PM)

im not quite sure how i feel about this right now, im sorry for the inconvenience



lil1v -> RE: Dominating vs. Controlling AND/OR Domineering (4/10/2005 1:20:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: katyanna

i do agree that hormone levels and different chemicals administered to the body do change the make up and levels in the brain, stimulating the areas (yep even cough syrup will make some very meek submissives feel like raging lunatics shaking in unexplained anger) that trigger anger and aggression. But i have also found that these feelings are not embraced by the submissive or Dominant, do not change who they are.. but more often cause strife and a feeling of being lost and confused. It doesn't make a Dominant a submissive or a submissive Dominant, it makes a very confused individual who will spin out of control or take control... until the levels are returned to or as close to what is "normal" for that person.


katyanna - I was more referring to those whose body chemicals were out of whack inherently. I don't know if you've ever had your hormone levels checked but there are "ranges" for each chemicals. For certain chemicals the range is so wide that abnormality is sometimes only caught in extreme circumstances. While the level of that chemical that would make you feel normal is lets say 3, for someone else it could be 5. However a Doctor wouldn't catch an abnormality unless you're level was less than 1 or over 7.

There are severals chemicals that work together to run the entire system and if one is slightly out of whack they suddenly all alter a touch. This can have a monumental affect on a persons moods, desires, approach to life even.

Oh and then there are things like allergies. We have a family friend who is allergic to wheat and corn. If he eats anything with these things in it, he loses all sense of right or wrong. He becomes "powerful" and "invincible". Yet when he doesn't eat those products, he is mild mannered, sweet, and stable.

I've recently found that I am also allergic to something in corn. Still not sure what it is. I can't eat corn syrups, or corn itself, but corn chips seems to be fine. What happens when I get enough corn syrup is that I start flying mentally. I have extreme trouble concentrating or thinking. I am in a fog. Sadly, I realized that I'd been eating some form of corn or corn syrup at every meal since I started eating solid foods. So the flying and mental fog, was just something I thought was normal and adjusted to, and never thought anything of it. Imagine my anger at age 31, discovering that that wasn't normal and imagining what I could have done all those years if I wasn't trapped in my fog.

We are adaptable beings. We become what we are because of what we're made of, lessons we've learned from past trails, environmental influences, and sometimes much much more.

but thats just my opinion




katyanna -> RE: Dominating vs. Controlling AND/OR Domineering (4/10/2005 8:02:38 PM)

perhaps i wasnt quite clear when i said "until the levels are returned to or as close to what is "normal" for that person."

We are very adaptable creatures, and i for one put no value into the "board norms" set for people as if we are all from the same pattern and material.

as we live, grow, learn, we become "normal" for ourselves, we learn to deal with how we are, who we have become, so any flux in what is "normal" for each individual affects that individual in ways that are abnormal to them.

i have ideas in my mind but transferring them to paper is different, i stumble and falter, so i apologize for any confusion.

respectfully,
katybug



Padriag -> RE: Dominating vs. Controlling AND/OR Domineering (4/10/2005 9:12:44 PM)

Comments removed



lil1v -> RE: Dominating vs. Controlling AND/OR Domineering (4/11/2005 12:45:57 AM)

ah.. ok.. katyanna [:)]

I thought you were simply talking about taking a drug for a short term "imbalance" or enhancement.

and on another note...

Congrats Padriag & katyanna ... Always nice to see people together.



sweetpettjenny -> RE: Dominating vs. Controlling AND/OR Domineering (4/11/2005 3:41:47 AM)

I agree completely with taggard...a relationship is only what the to people involved in it are looking for. simply said you are finding your match in life and for what your particular needs may be.



DesertRat -> RE: Dominating vs. Controlling AND/OR Domineering (4/16/2005 8:10:13 PM)

I agree with Gemeni's statement, and would have to say that is what works for me. But Taggard's point is well taken, too. I've seen many couples, including in the vanilla world, where the dominant member is truly domineering, yet the relationship thrives.

The test is simply what works--really works--for both parties.

Bob



ToYourKneesForMe -> RE: Dominating vs. Controlling AND/OR Domineering (4/22/2005 11:41:49 PM)

In the end, As I see it. Everything is about perception. If one percives something to be then it is true to them. The problem comes into play when two people with diffrent or very diffrent perceptions of the given curcumstances & situations come into contact. When this occurs they will each see the other in a certin way. Often times a bad way, Also when one may have had one percaption at one time of a given situation then in the future came to a much diffrent perception of the same situation they will very possibly look at it darkly. In the eye of the mind we all look at it from our point of veiw from the given time in our lives from the culmination of the experinces that have transpired before as well as those events we hope to have transpire in the future, so therefore no one given situation is expressly dominate or domineering. It is just the way it is percived at any given moment from the eyes of those who are or have been involved and how they may or may not come to or came to look at that situation.

Maverick:



deelights -> RE: Dominating vs. Controlling AND/OR Domineering (4/23/2005 9:33:48 PM)

In reading this it struck me how very few Dominant or even Domineering men I have known on a personal level, discovering the lifestyle online through reading and interaction, even online the differences show through. In the beginning I wouldn't have known the difference but as I learned more about my needs and wants I began drifting away from Domineering personalities and learned to trust my instincts



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
3.076172E-02