July 20, 2013

The Foundation of Male Dominance

Marc Esadrian

male-dominance-foundation-masculinity

Sculpture by Arno Breker

At Humbled Females, we often speak a great deal about authentic submissiveness in women and how to best channel and hone it. As we should. Female submission is a subject of tremendous breadth and scope. Much more can and will be written of it, but in this article, I’m going to do something that deviates from the trend of our publications, thus far: I’m going to address men.

That’s right. If you’re a male and happen to think of yourself as “dominant” (or wish to be) and you’re reading this, my message in this article is directed to you. I’m even talking to males who don’t necessarily think of themselves as dominant, but find themselves reading the pages of this site, regardless. My friends, something has to change in the way many of us relate to and interact with the female sex. Many of us men seem to be found wanting where it comes to projecting the depth, power, and confidence that marks an authentically dominant male. So very many men, in fact, seem so very weak and pliable when tested. It’s possible you might not be the type of person I’m speaking of in this body of text, and if so, I suspect you’ll still have little to no difficulty recalling any number of occasions in which you’ve seen other men make fools of themselves in their bids to acquire members of the female sex or keep them under their control.

To all the male readers, seasoned or green, I simply ask this: are you in control of your desires or do your desires have a tendency to ride roughshod over you, instead? A simple question, it seems, but below the surface, it points toward something a little more complex. On the genomic level, we are never free of desire, of course, for to be free of it would mean we’d be dead. But what I’m getting at, particularly, is the ability to still your thoughts and modify your urges, to channel them and hone them as a complimentary mirror to what we desire in the female sex. Put more plainly, for a woman to surrender to a man’s dominance, there must first be an understanding of dominance in the man. There must be an understanding and successful application of control, not only of her, but of himself. I’m bringing all this up because, frankly, I see a lot of men doing some pretty silly stuff under the assumed mantle of dominance, a mantle which is often little more than a cheaply painted veneer, a prop to give the appearance of mastery, but not much more than that, once one cuts gently below the surface to reveal the tender flesh of inadequacy.

I know my words may sound a bit judgmental and event arrogant, but I don’t mean them to be. I write this because I care about how men are presenting themselves to women and carrying themselves around women, in general. I have been watching you, as a whole, for some time now, and the grade I give more than half of the assuming, self-assured “dominant” male population is a decided F. Many are failing—miserably, I might add—at projecting dominance and control, but the image problem is not where the problem for many men stops: it is the symptom of an underlying problem, and that problem, overall, is a fundamental lack of understanding about what dominance really is and how to have grace (through internal permission) in wielding it. Further still, it is a larger ignorance of the politics of desire and the power that flows from it…or does not. A blindside to the intelligence and subtlety of the female sex often tends to be present, too. If a man is to truly have power over a woman, he must route out all these failings and weaknesses. Only then can he begin to have any real power over the opposite sex.

On the nature of desire and control

In seeking authority over a female, it is imperative to have a good understanding of what dominance is…and what it is clearly not. Dominance, put succinctly, is a power or modifying influence one has over others. If one does not have influence over another, one does not have power and thus, one does not retain an authentic state of dominion over that person. Without influence, without the ability to inspire movement and devotion in another, one cannot lead. Any influence lent to another for the sake of sensual effect is just that: an effect. Your authority and your control cannot be reliably built upon the shifting sands of a sensual illusion or the delicate embroidery of common romantic mores stitched in wilder thread; it must be something of much more substance. Good leadership—good dominance—never proceeds from artifice, naivety, or dull awareness, nor does it find itself lowered to the state of appeasement to get what it wants. Dominance is never destitute, deprived, or indignant, needing to resentfully stoop to sell itself. It does not have to apologize for its presence and ask for customers, so to speak.

On that note, I’d ask you to consider, if you will, the following lines from interested male parties below. I’ve cut and pasted these words from actual emails sent to my girls by self-described “dominant men.” Can you find the flaws?

“I haven’t heard from you for a while and now I see you have changed your status to seeking a master. You will have to decide yourself if you think there is any point in speaking with me, but I am available for you.”

“I would love to own a beautiful female such as yourself. I see that you mention you want someone that has owned a slave before and I haven’t, but I think I can convince you that I am the perfect owner for you. Why don’t you respond so we can discuss this? Give me a chance, at least.”

“I hope your day is good and I certainly am willing to be a friend and possibly a teacher or mentor to you, if you’d want. I know you have posted looking for one. Are you interested in me or not?”

“Sorry to see you are no longer under consideration. I don’t think he deserved you, anyway. You deserve much better. I hope you’ll consider me as your master. I would jump at the opportunity to have you under my wing.”

Men: do you recognize yourselves anywhere in the above quotes? If you don’t, congratulations. If so, you undoubtedly have some personal work to do. That is, if your future intentions skirt anywhere toward asserting the reality of power and not a comedy sketch of Briffault’s Law.

To those who might be scratching their heads, do any of the above quotes strike you as a bit weak? Pathetic, even? It’s obvious the men above are prostrating before the object of their desires. They flatter and suck up, sometimes condescendingly so, but at the inevitable expense of their own image. The woman reading such messages or hearing such things said to her realizes that what alights before her is but a pale and desperate shade of the firedrake she truly wants. If she has a submissive nature within her, a noble nature that holds no contempt for men or smug superiority to them, she may feel a mild to strong revulsion at being approached so fawningly. She may not understand why these men, communicating the way they do to her, make her feel less than inspired, but she does, instinctively, feel a need to avoid the contradictions they seem to convey in words alone.

When he stumbles over himself for the interest of a woman, he puts himself figuratively (and sometimes literally) beneath her. Contrary, perhaps, to what surrounding culture tends to tell us, it’s not attractive to most women when they see men doing this.

Women, simply by being women, by having the fleshly allurements that come with their sex, inherit a pernicious charm that plays with the free will of men. When a man is sensually weak, he can easily be controlled. When he stumbles over himself for the interest of a woman, he puts himself beneath her. Contrary, perhaps, to what surrounding culture tends to tell us, it’s not attractive to most women when they see men doing this. Those women who do manage to find weakness in men desirable would use your desire to control you while you only assume a facade of control. Some women may find the man led around by his male-part endearing for a season, but they will tire, eventually, and the amusement will lead to inevitable contempt. For this reason, you must be vigilant and use self restraint when appraising those who you would hunt or those who find their way to you. Do not jump too quickly toward a pretty face and facade, lest you pierce a ring through your own nose.

Rein in your impulses a bit. A wise man, a man who would be master, leans easily toward comfortable politeness and graciousness in his dealings with women, but is watchful of his dignity all the same and does not lick up the pleasing lures of flesh unthinkingly or in ways that lower him. With a certain imperviousness, sharp insight, and good judgement, the master truly masters those he would have, and above all, takes care to not find himself mastered by them. Again, words make things sound so simple, but anyone with a dash of experience in bringing the female mind truly to heel will understand the gravity of the task.

Much like Diogenes with his lantern in search of an honest man, a woman wanders in her search for a man of the right quality, often a man who would be her mentor. But how much a mentor can a man be if he is like the proverbial emperor with no clothes, given to chasing his desires so much that they lower him like a simple beast? It marks a great heart and mind when one possesses patience, never spurred by foolish haste over beauty or a blinding lust for it, and thus never making an ass of himself. If you would be master of a woman, you must take care to master your own impulses, or they’ll surely be used against you in some way by her natural wiles, which, even among the best of women, wait secretly to be roused from their slumber. In the very least, you’ll be judged as unsuitable, should her heart be pure in the desire to serve and her mind clear on what marks true dominance in the male. So much for being an agreeable lapdog always seeking her approval. Challenge her mind and simultaneously comfort it with your clear sense of direction. This is not to say you must be a contrarian, a bully, a player, or a braggart, but it is to say that being comfortable in your own skin, having a well-seated confidence, and a well-balanced head is not only attractive, but pivotal in the realm of influence. Of utmost importance is the necessity that you must break the pattern of weakness and naivety seen so frequently among men in these modern times.

Curtailing antipathy and vulgarity

Negative energy is unattractive and alienating. There are men who, having wealth or good looks (or ideally, both), still fail miserably in retaining female interest for long due to an incessant ugliness within their souls. They take too much pleasure in their greeds, hatreds, and prejudices, seeing virtually everything as a crime or conspiracy to meet with strife or agitation. Those who see nothing but the bad in life and who thrill at argument and division provoke little more than aversion and are quickly marked as fools; there is nothing powerful about them. Past the stinging bite of their words, they are only remembered as pitiful, disagreeable, or deranged. We mustn’t walk constantly in darkness, lest we be branded town cynics. Just as there is a moon, so too is there a sun. Be sure to see the good in things along with the bad. Take care to compliment others of their virtues with sincerity. Be supportive of what deserves support, not silent until the time comes, again, for complaint. Be a light that attracts, but not falsely so, and certainly be more a force of harmony than chaos. Being a problem-solver, letting your resources flow, having answers with a kinder face…these things make tremendous difference in the realm of opening and lasting influence.

Take care to speak thoughtfully and well. Let there be a poetry to your words that beguile and a wisdom within them that inspires. This cannot be said enough when speaking of enticing the female mind, for the female searches not so much for wit but wisdom in a male and knows this is often marked by his words as much as his actions. Not all of us are perfect writers or speakers, but we should avoid soiling our speech with vulgarities, in the very least. Paying heed to speaking well speaks, in turn, of good breeding and refinement. Only a dullard writes off this subtle charm as inconsequential.

Don’t play the part of the constant jester. Women love to laugh, indeed, but let your humor be a pleasing discovery that finds its moment, rather than what marks your personhood in social circles, lest you be thought more an entertaining fool than wise. Keep your actions in check with mindfulness and know when a little bit of levity or foolishness is appropriate. Timing, as they say, is everything in life. We certainly mustn’t take ourselves too seriously, but it is generally good practice to be known more for wisdom than endless laughs.

Be a force of reason that is never too quick to harshly judge. This will mark you as thoughtful and gracious rather than a belligerent and cynical egotist. It is the worldly charm of the wise to be tempered in their aggressions, not gobbling up every bait they find to argue and find fault in others. In short, confident and calm dominance is attractive. Belligerent domineering by reflex is not. Making a regular show of your aggression or cynicism is always in bad taste and policy.

On finding the art in yourself

Care for your body. Women have desire for the male form in its ideal health and so it behooves you to tend to your health and appearance. Good grooming not only makes one more pleasant, but marks the man who is in control of his person. A man who is slovenly or grossly obese outwardly displays his inability to manage his own person. How can he be expected, then, to manage others? In being dominant men, the first foundations of the lives we build reside solely in ourselves. From that bedrock all else may be built upon soundly, including the servants we keep in women.

Nurture art within yourself. Neglect, disorder, disarray, and disease: these are the flies that encircle the carrion of inept men. Such men are incapable of mastering others, for they cannot master themselves. Be aware of your appearance and what it says about you. It is the first clue one can give in the day-to-day world about what resides beneath the skin. It is impossible to know the depths of a man who is a stranger, but we can easily judge him based upon his outward appearance, can’t we? Just as we may judge the discernment of a house’s owner by the its outward impression, so too may you be judged on the outside. Women are subtle observers; they are savvy about outward appearance, for they, by nature, are servants to the visual. Keep abreast of style and fashion within your culture, not to nurture vainglory or a brittle narcissism, but to be marked as one who is awake to taste and refinement and the care of these things. Ignorance is often artless; the learned are often artful. If we understand how the soul is revitalized and inspired through art, should we not, then, seek to embody art in ourselves?

On responsibility and dignity

Above all things, a man must retain a good reputation. It is half the key to being desirable in your circle. You will be loved if you nurture a repute for responsibility, taste, discernment, wisdom, and courtesy. Veer from the affectations of these things; their substances can only be procured through experience, reflection, and forethought. The female is highly social; her tentacles for rumor and gossip often run farther and deeper today than ever before, given her modern freedoms. It’s fitting, then, to guard your reputation with your life and better to be thought of as a respectable mystery than someone commonly regarded for known faults. For this reason, it is imperative you deal only with those who would guard your honor with equal interest. Watch carefully how women you would let into your circle behave with the personal secrets they have gleaned from others. Steer clear of drama queens, manipulators, and the entire lot of the mentally damaged, no matter what affectations of submission they project or beauty they possess. Sharing energy with such parasites is an endless loop of madness and insult, draining your sense of good will and smearing your image by association.

Don’t recede into self-debilitating laziness. A man who has dreams and acts to pursue them is a man in motion on some level. Waters that are not flowing soon give rise to a swamp caught up in its own dead inertia. From this swamp, a multitude of disease follows: paralyzation, doubt, apathy, ignorance, depression, and addiction.  A man who is resourceful and ambitious, a man who is inclined to action for his well-being and the well-being of those around him is a man who is attractive to a woman, for he is charged with a positive energy that her passive energy will naturally wish to mate with. A male with vision and the energy to pursue his dreams is exciting and inspiring; he is a wellspring of influence, pleasure, and hope.

Do not allow women to walk on you. No lasting happiness can come from humoring the natural tendency for females to manipulate men or cause doubt in them. Enjoy the charms and pleasures of the female sex, but do not become a slave to them; it is, surely, a path to folly. Females will naturally respect a male who is intelligent, difficult to corrupt, and carries with him the light of a noble spirit, but to those who scrape for their desires, know that they will give little respect, only intent to use. Regarding the latter, it is crucial to avoid women who take pleasure in subtly dominating and emasculating men. It’s not enough to ask such women what lies in their hearts if you are already defeated to them, for a sly opportunism often resides in their persons and it will play truth like a fiddle. It is, therefore, wise to make a sober and detached study of the female and the many ways in which she rises to the occasion of the male’s weakness and of his need, if only so she may yoke it. Do not compromise who and what you are for sexual access; it may give you short-term pleasure but will likely not give you long-term happiness. Win manipulative games of the female sex by not playing their games in the first place. Move on to nobler choices.

Avoid cowardice. Shying away from conflict or challenge, living in shadow, being passive, always manipulating to get what you want, or never showing the courage of your convictions…this is the path of the coward and it is unbecoming and unattractive in a man. Men are the warriors of the species. Females rely upon us to venture into the dark and strike at the heart of encroaching danger, to have a fierce spirit and live in some fellowship with it. This speaks to our responsibility, overall, as the stronger sex. Shirking the call to arms only marks you as shirking your masculine nature. It’s good to be calming and serene, but also fierce when need be, for the protection of what belongs to you.

Respecting masculinity

Reject the contempt of men in society, for it is contempt of you. To that end, avoid being an stooge of modern feminism and the air of sterile androgyny that often accompanies it. Don’t be convinced that male strength is a lie or that what you feel comes natural as a male is merely a social construct. There are those who would have you believe the world between men and women is only right when stood upon its head, that women should take on the roles of men and men of women, or that there is no “real” difference between male and female. Don’t be part of the appeasing, permissive silence that surrounds generally anti-male attitudes and never go along to get along with such attitudes. Men today must be vibrant, strong, and healthy, but we can’t look to gynocentricity to bring us to these things. Resist what, in your heart, feels twisted and poisoned in modern thought about the male sex. Just as your body is a temple, so much more is your mind and spirit. Guard it with dignity and honor. Don’t let it be smeared with the social diseases of the day.

Beware of custom played against you. The past and the present are not the same place, though sometimes we may wish them to be. Following the ways of men in a bygone age to procure honor may only stifle you now, given how the surrounding rules have changed so much. Relinquish nostalgic ideas and customs that blinker men into invisible servility to women and beware those women who would still insist upon such things under the false mantle of “equality.” This is not to suggest polite convention should be thrown out. By all means, open doors for women and cover the bill for a night out, should you be so inclined. Be kind to women and girls in society. Make your mate a happy housewife if you are able. Being a gentleman is never out of fashion, but being a woman’s personal ass certainly should be. It’s wise to beware of the cunning in women’s freedom today, which, on one hand, speaks the wish to be equal in all things, but on the other, takes advantage of romantic convention to invoke double-standard. Do not be the fool who is parted from your money, time, or hard work due to a woman’s blinding narcissism, gross moral relativity, or exploitative dishonesty.

Appreciate the masculine and give it honor. Not being at war with your own sex, take appreciation in maleness and of the male form, which is another way of saying take appreciation in yourself. Learn, again, to love yourself and reject the condescending attitudes about maleness that society viciously inflicts. Each man is a distant brother; treat him as such until there is no reason to afford him this kindness. Don’t step upon him to gain favor with women; doing so elevates you at the expense of your own sex. Avoiding ignorance, egomania, a bitter heart, envy, or anger in your soul: this is the path to inner peace and outward grace, the path to making peace with yourself and being a more desirable man.

On maintaining structure

The shape and design of your world must accommodate your authority well and cultivate submission in your woman. A man must have within him the ability to organize his life in a way that allows the two respective energies between male and female to flow into good confluence. Not slovenly or crude in his habits, he is healthy in mind and body and his house is in order. What he possesses has a place and a purpose and is maintained in good keeping. This will naturally extend to caring for a woman who would be his flesh property.

But flesh alone is not only what is kept. The mind itself is the greater possession, and as such, must be brought to heel within sound confines built of clear rules and expectations. This speaks to a man’s ability to clearly communicate what he wants and enforce what he desires through the discipline of structure, a foundation of rules and ideas that are clearly expressed. Under the firmament of rules and clear consequences for transgressions, a woman will all the more easily come to know her place and feel secureness in it. Without structure in place, without an overarching framework of understanding between clarity and authority, a confusing abstractness slowly pervades, giving rise to a silent chaos and discontent. If you are to be a dominant male, and even more so a master, you must have a plan, a general understanding of where you wish to take your life in this regard, and consequently, hers. Charged with the authority you know is yours to have and command, you must lead.

Ending note

The advice given here is only a rough guide. Certainly, all that could be written on the subject is beyond the scope of a single article, but I truly hope that what was provided above has served well in some capacity to men who may just be starting to come into their own with dominance, or men who may find themselves unable to “seal the deal” with those lovely women who have true blue aspirations to submit. The search, especially today, certainly isn’t easy. The modern female is bombarded constantly with messages that she is above submitting to a man—that doing so is the way of the past. A glance in the eyes of many young ladies today reveals that haughty meme of the cool diva they have learned so well. There is so much vainglory, contempt, and deception in many women, even in those with the audacity to call themselves “submissive.” After everything I’ve written above, it must be kept in mind, also, that as a man of standards and of convictions, as a man of integrity and authenticity, the search for an authentically submissive female or a female with potential to be submissive in the contemporary age will be a trial. There are no shortcuts on this path. Women with the makings of humbled females are out there, indeed, but they are somewhat rare birds. Keep this in mind. Keep in mind, also, that beyond the study of philosophy and stratagem, another important part of finding your good girl is good old fashioned patience. Your wait may very well be shortened, however, by adopting and taking to heart the things mentioned above.

  1. slave_rachel says:

    i do love this! On FL on a thread i told a true story-still unfolding about 2 brothers in law married to sisters and WHY one is a natural born Dominant and the other is not, and He is acutely aware that his BIL is getting more respect though he *thinks* he himself is “just as good.” No, he isn’t. He is also aware that his wife is VERY aware of his collapse into needy, whiny and childish under challenge, and that her sister’s husband who is MUCH more gravely ill just moves right along because he has the qualities to do so and it makes him “look bad” and the more he tries to be back in control (it was cellophane) the more foolish he looks. The other guy-no drama, effortless.
    This is exactly what the story is saying.

    i like that cellophane Dominance reference. It fits in that story.

    You asked about flaws sooo i thought i’d try:

    “I haven’t heard from you for a while and now I see you have changed your status to seeking a master. You will have to decide yourself if you think there is any point in speaking with me, but I am available for you.”

    Weak intro, lack of esteem it seems, and available *for* you. Presumes she cares about a stranger, and tried to insinuate she is obligated to a stranger. Manipulative and clumsy at it. Kind of a maid in waiting.

    “I would love to own a beautiful female such as yourself. I see that you mention you want someone that has owned a slave before and I haven’t, but I think I can convince you that I am the perfect owner for you. Why don’t you respond so we can discuss this? Give me a chance, at least.”

    Flattery is weak as an intro and so dead common, needy and begging. Badddddd.

    “I hope your day is good and I certainly am willing to be a friend and possibly a teacher or mentor to you, if you’d want. I know you have posted looking for one. Are you interested in me or not?”

    ummm…. teacher of what? Mentor for what? No info, expects an answer and how can someone be interested in someone they have no clue about? Sounds like he’s trying to be Dominant but thinks it is just about sounding bossy. i would say hasn’t a clue about M/s or O/p.

    “Sorry to see you are no longer under consideration. I don’t think he deserved you, anyway. You deserve much better. I hope you’ll consider me as your master. I would jump at the opportunity to have you under my wing.”

    trying the sympathetic approach- dissing the “ex” Does he even know him? Sounds like he’s ready to be with a Domme any day now! So i would say the loose use of dissing betrays a weak character. i don’t think HE would be in charge for long, as is the flattery guy. Too needy and weak.

    i like a compliment as much as the next person but recoil when it is used as a “come on” and can’t be real since they really don’t know me.
    It reminds me of the false fronts of the old western era designed to lure people to the “prosperous” town. Built to look impressive and big, some 2-3 stories high and yet often a shack or small building behind it all. i would be sooooo pissed off!

  2. Brutal Antipathy says:

    This is very sound advice, and much of it can be used to help identify those who are not dominants. I am not objecting to anything expressed above. They are all noble traits to aspire toward. They make you a better person, but a person can exhibit those traits and still not be a dominant.

    I think the real problem is that dominance is not really quantifiable. If you try a Google search and select the BDSM specific definitions, the few sites which agree on each point are obvious clones. Some of the definitions are painfully service top oriented, with definitions like “A dominant always places the needs of the submissive before his own”. Some of those sites will lead to contradictory definitions, with one site informing us that dominants are humble and another insisting dominants are prideful. People inject their personal or community tastes into what makes someone dominant, just as they do with the sad ‘dominant, not domineering’ arguments. Domineering, as it turns out, is whatever the person or group decides is distasteful or undesirable for them.

    Dominance, to me at least, is a trait which can only be vaguely defined. My high school shop teacher was dominant. He had character, presence, and a knowledge base which greatly surpassed the average teacher. He exuded a sense of tempered control and harnessed power, but how do you quantify any of that save knowledge? We can recognize it when we see it, but spelling it out proves to be difficult.

    What I have found interesting is that I have in my entire life never met a dominant woman. I’ve met hundreds who claim to be dominant, but have yet to meet a single one which exuded a sense of dominance. About half of them were pro-dommes; something I consider to be a submissive role, basically a specialized prostitute. The other half relied on humiliation, shaming, and emasculation to represent their crude parody of domination. Freud would no doubt have a field day with these women, and I’ve never been able to see past the obvious penis envy in their antics. Sure, humiliation and shame have their place, but can any of us honestly claim those two tools as the sole definition of dominance, especially when many of those ‘what makes a dominant’ sites specifically condemn such techniques as domineering? Does no one other than myself see the thick veneer of hypocrisy in ‘Men who use shame and humiliation are not dominant, but let’s not apply this to the females who claim to be dominant.’?

    I see I’ve deviated far from course here, so let me recap. I find everything Marc wrote to be of value in becoming a better person. I just don’t think that dominance can be distilled down into a how-to guide of clear cut definitions. Oh, and female dominants seem to be an oxymoronic epic fail, at least in my not really very humble opinion.

  3. Julia says:

    Mark, this is once again a great article. You pretty much nailed all the common points of epic fail in men who are pretending to have it when they really don’t.

    I agree with BrutalAntipathy above that following this advice isn’t the WHOLE picture, but it’s a great base set of advice, if I can say that (as a female)! My understanding of dominance is limited. I don’t understand why or how men are dominant but what you’ve written feels correct to me as the half that is observing male behavior from the other end.

  4. ushaben says:

    i think submissive women have a ‘sixth sense’ of a sort of ‘radar’, which reacts to dominance and authority in a man on an subconscious, subliminal level. His tone of voice as well as what He says; His behaviour towards, and His dealings with, those around Him; His deportment and appearance; His gentlemanly manners, which overlay great strength of resolve, i could go on an on. i am not by any means a thinker, so i have nothing to add to the argument intellectually, but reading the article engaged with my intuitive ‘radar’, as it partially describes the attributes of my Owner.

    What would definitely turn a woman away from a man, who called himself a dominant, would be even the remotest indication that he was open to manipulation. A dominant man is intuitively able to react to her ‘womanly wiles’ and use them as instruments against her, to serve His purpose of dominating her.

  5. caringandreal says:

    “In seeking authority over a female, it is imperative to have a good understanding of what dominance is and what it is clearly not. Dominance, generally, is the power or influence one has over others. If one does not have influence over another, one does not have power and thus, one does not retain an authentic state of dominion over that person.”

    Another stellar article, Marc. Your site just churns out the great reads. I, like others here, was waiting impatiently for the next one to come out. It was a long time coming, but boy, was it worth it. I was very impressed by this one, and it’s so refreshing to see something written for the men here. The men are the whole point for a humbled female, and their pleasure and advancement seems to be the point of a site like this. As for us women, the more good dominant men there are out there, the happier we will be in the long run.

    This is extremely useful advice for a certain type of man. I do wonder if such men are mature enough to hear it, however, or recognize themselves in the descriptions. These descriptions of what men who claim dominance for themselves actually do were incredibly accurate. I felt like you were reading my in-box. Over years I’ve been looking, 80-90% of my email has contained exactly the sort that you describe. Reading that sort of thing makes me shudder in repulsion. It is a total turn-off. These beggar men are the opposite of what I clearly state that I want and need. Why in the world are they writing me these beseeching begging letters? Why don’t they just go get a femdom and save us both some trouble and time?

    I quoted the passage above because so many people seem to miss the connection between dominance and influence–but it’s an absolutely essential one. Without influence or sway you cannot be dominant, even if you have an army of millions at your disposal to back up your every decision with action. With just force at your disposal, you’re not a leader or someone who inspires worship or obedience, you’re just a bigger, fatter playground bully. A leader who wins the hearts of his people doesn’t have to worry about keeping them chained and yoked 24/7: he owns their souls, which means, basically, that their bodies aren’t going anywhere. :-)

    To the men out there who want to be dominant but may be insulted by this article–please, try not to be! This is _great_ advice. My personal experience supports these descriptions entirely. I’ve seen all of these behaviors and much worse in the men who write me, I’ve seen it over and over and over again, and it’s horribly depressing because I know such men haven’t chance in the world of dominating me. Their hearts and their brains are just not into it. It’s not a passion for them, it’s just a way to get someone to spread her legs, at best. There are many deeply submissive women, like myself, who are just waiting for someone dominant and controlling enough to come along. We despair that there are few such men out there. It’d be wonderful if some of you could follow this advice. It’s such an empty wasteland out here.

    ——————–
    @BrutalAntipathy

    I enjoyed your post too. You clearly have a lot of experience and I suspect you’ve seen a lot of non-dominant behavior by men posing as “dominants.” I had a question about something you said. Why do you think it is it a problem that dominance is not quantifiable? I think that is one of its pluses, actually. Each genuinely dominant man has been very different from all others with a different and quite unique blend of qualities, intelligence, and interests or passions. It’s a mysterious personality gestalt, it’s not something you can put in a spreadsheet or write a formula around.

    To me, this article had very little to do with defining dominance. It seems rather to be defining, in great detail, what dominance is not. Obviously, defining what something is not isn’t the same as defining what something is. Or is that obvious? Hmm… OK, here’s an example of what I mean: Orange is not red. It is not yellow or green either. It’s also not a house or a car. If someone has never seen the color orange does my saying what it is not, even if I list a million things, give them the slightest inkling of what it actually is?

    To me, the value of pointing out what dominance is _not_ is that it gives someone who wants or needs to be dominant some idea of where the false paths that go nowhere lie. This stuff isn’t always obvious , even to the sincerest and most determined of men. And that’s where the genius of this article lies: it points out the common traps and pitfalls that so many aspiring dominants who are interested in and motivated to learn about these things get entangled in because they are not obvious—to them. It may not help all who tend to fall into such traps (sometimes men do because the alternative–actually being dominant–terrifies them even more) but this sort of article may very well help those who know dominance is in their blood but may be a little confused over how to express it in this insanely female-positive society.

    “Dominance, to me at least, is a trait which can only be vaguely defined.”

    I fully agree. :-) But despite my inability to nail it down with words, I always know it when I encounter it, like you recognized it in your shop teacher. It’s a feeling you pick up from the person, almost like an atmosphere they give off.

    I think that a woman’s ability to recognize genuine dominance has a great deal to do with her ability to be genuinely submissive. Those who are more capable in this area tend to find (or hold out for) strong, controlling, inspiring men. Those who are living a fantasy life, imagining themselves to be the best or most extreme slave who ever lived when they have never been tried or forced to do anything difficult or against their strong, egotistical wills, will often, because they are internally dishonest, choose one of the flattering chumps talked about in this article or some man just a teensy bit more subtle but who is quite willing to follow along with and play a bit role in the “The Greatest Slave Who Ever Lived” ego-miniseries she is writing about her life. In other words, women tend to get the masters they deserve. Those who care for their own inner gardens and work on making themselves into better slave material tend to attract a better quality of man. Or so has gone my experience and that of many other women I have observed.

    “I just don’t think that dominance can be distilled down into a how-to guide of clear cut definitions.”

    Maybe not dominance, no. But a manner of approaching dominance that might be useful can be provided, I think (although a lot depends on how mentally and emotionally prepared the reader is for this sort of information–what’s in this piece is certainly not for everyone). I believe that’s what this article was attempting. Some men, perhaps even those men who need these words the most, will get nothing out of it. They’ll gloss over it, pat themselves on the back that they are nothing like what’s being described, and then go out and do the same things described in here. We all know that type, the earth abounds with them. :-)

    For others, like you or Marc, this sort of thing is very basic and completely unnecessary. You get it and you’ve been practicing it so long that maybe you don’t remember what it was like to not get it (or maybe not–I can’t speak for you, but I have known dominants who never once questioned their natures or had to figure anything out, they just were what they were since their first conscious moments–but I think such men are the exception, not the rule).

    I can also imagine that for still others who are in just the right place in their heads when they encounter these words, reading something like this article may be the best thing that’s ever happened to them. Something in its depictions may ring true to them or connect with some highly individualistic experience they’ve had; some piece of logic may parallel or be highly similar to thought process they’ve been following. It may give them that missing piece of the puzzle or help them make sense of something that was confusing.

    It can be hard to imagine how that would work when you’re very experienced. I certainly have a hard time understanding what causes the penny to drop for newly submissive women who want to become slaves, but I can’t deny my experiences and observations. The penny does drop, for some people, sometimes. They finally grasp something that was very hard for them to grasp before. How this happens is a mystery, but I know for a fact that a piece of writing can sometimes serve as a catalyst for a mind that is ready for its message and ready to change.

  6. caringandreal says:

    @caringandreal:

    I know, it’s pretty lame to reply to myself. :-) But I wanted to clarify one point I made above that I don’t think is entirely clear. It was the point about how you can’t define what something _is_ by describing what it _is not_. I gave the example of the color orange. But dominance isn’t a color that a theoretical person has never seen before. It’s something inside you, and I fully agree with B.A.’s response that it cannot be clearly defined, particularly as a list of traits, as doing so is like trying to figure out what makes a bee fly by taking it apart. All you end up with is a pile of dead parts. (Touch the stinger and you can develop a grand but very confused theory about how all flying results from pain, lol!)

    I think that men need to find this dominance within themselves, if it is there, and each person’s method of doing this is different–there’s no one set way, no classes you can take, no matter what those other silly authoritative websites say, But you can “pick it up” from others. I can recognize it when I see it in men. I don’t know how I do so, but I do. I think also that boys may be able to “pick up up” from the adult men they associate with, their role models, if the men are also dominant. (If they aren’t the boys will, sadly, probably “pick up” other things.)

    So while each man must find something like this in himself, while it is an inner process of development that can be easy or hard, depending on his personality and prior experiences/influences, those men who are moving in this direction can be greatly helped by a piece of writing like this article, because it points out the places where so many men seeking dominance or trying to express it go wrong, where they confuse something it is not with the thing itself–or, even worse, don’t even think about the fact that what they’re doing completely contradicts their claims to dominance.

    You can, sometimes, if a piece of writing is written consciously and with great care, “pick up” things from it, as well, although mostly this process works better person-to-person. The article is an aid to self-awareness for men who are changing and open to its message. It’s also a warning, pointing out that the really obedient submissive women that are worth owning easily see though these these sorts of false appearances and sham posturing, and will not put themselves under the of a man who is not the genuine article.

    OK, I am finished. No more! I promise. ;-)

  7. MarcEsadrian says:

    [quote]This is very sound advice, and much of it can be used to help identify those who are not dominants. I am not objecting to anything expressed above. They are all noble traits to aspire toward. They make you a better person, but a person can exhibit those traits and still not be a dominant.[/quote]

    Being a better person, having nobility…I contend this is exactly what’s needed in order to ascend to dominance, or put another way, these are the qualities a dominant personality tends to have. Before one can rule another, one must be a certain caliber of person. That caliber has much to do with matters of self-sovereignty, control, and will. Beyond this, nurturing your powers of influence, your indomitability, your desires for control, and your powers of leadership certainly will encourage and enrich dominance, power, authority, sway, etc. What I can’t write about, however, is how to desire these things. That is entirely a personal, individual matter and each path therein will be different.

  8. Brutal Antipathy says:

    @caringandreal. I should have been a bit more clear when I used the word ‘problem’ it was meant to be in the contest of the ‘problem’ of describing dominance. But speaking of problems, a potential problem with using a what they are not guide is exactly what you mentioned. Dominant’s are not produced with cookie cutters. I’ll try to not be overly wordy, but let me give an example.

    Marc mentions negativity and cynicism, so I’m going to use myself here. Now keep in mind that members of groups tend to adopt the beliefs of their group. This is human nature. Also bear in mind the (admittedly cynical but nevertheless true) point that many people fail to look beneath the surface of things. So we have a self proclaimed misanthropist in our midst, myself. I quite honestly find the human race in general to be contemptible, petty, and sheepish. Does this exclude me from the exalted ranks of dominance? Furthermore, can anyone quantify that statement without being aware of all the factors which make me misanthropic? My countrymen, rather than being filled with outrage and demanding impeachment of a president who authorizes warrant less surveillance, search, seizure, and incarceration of citizens, shrug dumbly and turn a blind eye to it. Is a bit of negativity to not be expected on seeing this? As I present most often only a single side of myself, and frequently adopt a contrarian argument style when confronted with a singular and biased mindset. This too leads to the impression of negativity and cynicism when the intent is that of devil’s advocate in order to get people to think outside their narrow boxes of opinion and dogma. Those not knowing my sense of humor, those unable to see past surface impressions, those disinclined to think deeply on any subject would automatically push me into the category of ‘not a dominant’.

    Then take ‘quick to judge’. We have the same problem with this one, the same tendency of failed depth perception. I am extremely quick to ‘judge’ certain statements and ideologies. I am equally swift in offering a detailed explanation as to why I have arrived at that judgement-which incidentally was not a swift arrival, but rather one arrived at after careful study and consideration. Those who actually pay attention to detail would notice that I will swiftly attack some subjects, but will on another subject treat the responses of the person whose prior subject I viciously attacked with the same respect I give everyone else, and may even agree with them. I am not judging that person, I have previously judged their statement (these memes and ideologies tend to be mass regurgitated blindly, you know) and found it lacking. Nevertheless, those shallow searchers who consider careful analysis something to be avoided are going to jab a finger in my direction and exclaim “Aha! Not a real dominant!”.

    Now, do I care what people think about me? Not really. I care what my friends think, but I choose my friends carefully. Marc’s piece was in a way at least written to help men not make mistakes while attempting to secure a woman. I’m not on the hunt and really don’t care who I scare off. I do worry though that those surface thought surfers will do what they always do, take something as gospel, and begin afresh their pattern of dogmatic exclusion by non-virtue of shallow reading and thought. While HF possesses for the most part a higher caliber of thinkers than other sites, I’ve seen plenty of the fetish dogmatism here along with a generous helping of mob credulity, so the all too common human tendency to turn well intended suggestions into etched in stone gospel is present among us.

  9. slave_rachel says:

    “What would definitely turn a woman away from a man, who called himself a dominant, would be even the remotest indication that he was open to manipulation.”

    That is soooo true!

  10. caringandreal says:

    “@caringandreal. I should have been a bit more clear when I used the word ‘problem’ it was meant to be in the contest of the ‘problem’ of describing dominance.”

    OK, point taken, BA. I just don’t think the purpose of Marc’s article is to describe or define dominance (Marc, please correct me if I am wrong), so I see no problem here, as such a context does not exist for me.

    “But speaking of problems, a potential problem with using a what they are not guide is exactly what you mentioned. Dominant’s are not produced with cookie cutters.”

    No, they are not—and thank goodness for that (smile), but I expect that any intelligent male reader of this article is going to take from it what applies to him, and leave the rest. And, as I said earlier, who cares what the unintelligent do with the article? They’d do the same with anything written, no matter how useful. What matters to me is that the men who have real potential see it as they will understand where it can be of use to them. I could care less what the dummies of humanity do with it. I never have cared about that sort of thing as doing so can lead to bleeding ulcers. :-)

    Not all men are born with all or even most of the issues listed in this article, thank god. I’d have no hope at all if virtually every man walking around embodied all of these negative traits. I imagine that a man with potential to transform into a dominant will have issues in only a few of the areas mentioned, and he will recognize instantly what those areas are upon seeing them described and grasp how they hinder his ability to attract, lead, and control women. The article is a veritable smörgåsbord of extremely valuable information about the traits, habits, and false ideas that screw aspiring dominant men up, but like all buffets, one can’t consume it all without risking severe indigestion. It other words, it makes no sense to apply all of this to one’s self as virtually nobody is going to have all of these non-dominant traits and inclinations. Instead, one must pick and choose wisely, digest that which is deliciously nutritious and helps you; ignore that which doesn’t.

    “I’ll try to not be overly wordy, but let me give an example.”

    Please don’t worry about that, BA. I’m a reader, I don’t mind wordy in the least, and this is an important discussion, IMO, to have. It’ll give people new to the article or to this site plenty to chew on. :-)

    “Marc mentions negativity and cynicism, so I’m going to use myself here.”

    OK, I read your self-description. I don’t fully agree with it, I think it’s a little harsh, but I bow to the fact that you know yourself better than anyone else and certainly better than me.

    Yes, some of the stupid people that multiply on the earth are going to do exactly what you described: read Marc Esadrian’s points in a superficial manner with an overly simplistic interpretation, and then perhaps judge someone like you as negative. But such “minds”–if you can call them that–could also read the back of a can of pop and decide that it symbolizes that I am the evilest force to walk the earth and must be eliminated. Do you know what I mean? Unfortunately, I have directly experienced what I mean and, in a former life, have met many such pathetic minds. I learned that you can’t control stupid, and trying to do so will likely kill you. So I routinely ignore stupid. It’s the smarter folks that catch my eye. And they are the ones I think about when I think about this article. They are the one who, I hope, would read a statement like…

    “…those who see nothing but the bad in life and who thrill at argument and division provoke little more than aversion and are quickly marked as fools; there is nothing powerful about them. ”

    …and maybe blush a little at themselves for being that way during their sophomoric stage (yes someone gave this attitude a name because it is so often adopted by undergraduate college sophomores as a egoistic defense mechanism before their minds start to mature a bit more). In other words, a smart man will read through passages like this, perhaps see himself or tendencies in himself to be this way, read and evaluate what is said about the problems with this stance and it remedies and then decide on his own, if he shares these traits, what he wants to do about them. He’s not going to be thinking, “Oh that BA guy over in the forums is just like this, thank god I am not him, he’s not a dominant!” He’ll see you, if he’s got half a brain, as being a complex man with many facets, both positive and negative like every human being, and reserve judgment until he knows more about you. That’s what intelligent people do, on average.

    The brilliance of this article is that it holds up a highly polished mirror to the few men who dare to gaze into its depths. Most won’t. Most will think others have these negative traits, certainly not their wonderful selves, and go about their business unchanged and as unsuccessful at control as they ever were. But once again… WHO CARES? The stupid are always with us and will always be with us, amen. It’s the intelligent men, the men with potential, the men who have the balls to see themselves in the depictions (but only where they fit) who matter. These are the men who make a difference and they’re going to find a lot of food for thought here in this astonishing piece.

    Look at this extremely positive statement, from the heart of the “negativity” paragraph:

    “Be sure to see the good in things, as well. Take care to compliment others of their virtues with sincerity. Be supportive of what deserves support, not silent until the time comes, again, for complaint. Be a light that attracts, but not falsely so, and certainly be more a force of harmony than chaos. ”

    The above is not a pile of holy sweet platitudes or suggestions of how you to pat yourself on the back and feel better about yourself. It’s a very precise, elegant, and almost mathematical formula for consciously and deliberately obtaining and keeping influence over others. I have, on rare occasion, seen this formula applied in action by someone skilled in its use. It is an extremely powerful tool when wielded properly. Thus, for me, this statement rings with truth, truth I have personally observed up close, and truth that is almost frightening in its accuracy. Someone who recognizes the truth in these few simple statements and who practices it correctly will notice almost immediately how immensely powerful and effective it is. For this reason, I was rather shocked to read it stated on a public website so baldly and clearly. Influence is, as Marc so accurately points out, intimately connected to, tied up with, control. You need the former to fully and successfully operate the latter. And in the short statement above, he’s just given inquiring, open dominant minds the keys to the kingdom of influence.

    Now, people who know these sorts of thing about influence, the true Machiavellians of the world, do not, in general, expose such precious secrets so openly and easily. Marc has done so, and it is a brilliant stroke because it anticipates and accurately judges that those who most crave to control others but who are least worthy of doing so would either gloss by statements like this without even catching a glimmering of their true worth or fruitlessly try to apply them but not be able to really get it right due to elements in their personalities that are still too rough and unrefined to be able to successfully use a formula like this. I’ve heard it said about many streams of arcane knowledge that “the secret protects itself.” This is a beautiful example of that statement in action.

    The dominant mind that is open, ready, and motivated, the mind searching for information like this, is going to read that statement and think something like: “Wow. Yes! It’s that simple…and that precise. I can do this and I understand why it is important and why it works.” This is the sort of epiphany I would expect the immensely practical information in this article, information that is, quite clearly, based on extensive and real experience, to produce in that rare mind which is ready and desirous of absorbing its message.

  11. brotherdance says:

    Don’t take me wrong, I thought this article to be quite beautiful. I just love the even nature of Marc’s tone and deep thought about what traits he finds to be at the heart of dominance, but I think I must fundamentally disagree with the question. This is not odd to me, as I have seen this same problem occur every time I see dominance, or submission for that matter, being defined.

    Brutal Antipathy begins to touch on this problem of definition, but I think I can help to clarify his “problem”.

    The issue is really quite simple. Dominance is not a trait a man has. It is also not tied up in his character in some way. It is not a question of whether he is a good man or not. Instead, it is fundamentally relational. We can’t truly describe a dominant without describing a submissive, and having said that, we can only describe a specific dominant and a specific submissive. Let me attempt to explain.

    If I were to describe an electrical plug, I think no matter how hard I tried, all I could do is throw out broad generalizations. It has a wire, and two or three prongs on one end, right? If however, I attempt to do so without describing the plug that it is designed to fit into, then not matter how hard I try, you will never really get what it is I am describing. The plug is truly half of a whole, and while describing it is by no means a useless endeavor, it will forever be limited. This is further complicated by the fact that human persons are far more complicated than electrical wiring.

    This problem is increased by the reality that there are very few, if any, men who are honestly dominant in every aspect and relationship in their lives, and if they were, I would personally feel quite sorry for them. I for one, could never take a dominant position over my father, even though I am the stronger man morally, financially and physically. Yet by his very relationship to me, I will forever be the wingman in his presence. That of course doesn’t mean I am a child around him, but I most certainly choose to not be dominant over him out of respect and honor.

    Don’t get me wrong. I don’t think the attempt to describe dominance is without point by any means. It is a powerful tool to try and shape ourselves to be better than we are, and gives us a light to follow. (Especially when we avoid trite cliches!) I am merely saying that it can only ever be commentary.

    On a side note, another thing that really bothers me about the descriptions of dominants, is they always seem to be an effort to describe “good” men. While I would like to think of myself in this light, and deeply encourage men to become as good as they are able, I also feel that this is not a fundamental quality of dominance. Stalin was no good man, but he sure as hell was dominant. The same can be said of most dictators, drug dealers and pimps. Clearly dominant in their relationships, even if never in a character that I would advocate.

  12. MarcEsadrian says:

    [quote]Dominance is not a trait a man has.”[/quote]

    But a man often has certain traits that lead him toward dominance, traits that enable him to surpass others in influence and power within an entirely open and free circle of choice. That is what this article is about.

    [quote]It is also not tied up in his character in some way.[/quote]

    Really? That’s quite a bold assertion, and one I emphatically (though respectfully) disagree with. Dominance certainly is tied to a man’s character, his desire, his knowledge, his intelligence, and skill. Dominance isn’t something that just “happens,” unless it’s propped up synthetically, as in a corporate hierarchy, where one’s authority is not necessarily earned by trait so much as it is by status or circumstance. If we are to influence others toward being our servants by choice, we must have the foundations of that influence in place before our dominance can take a lasting root. Hence, the title of this article: The Foundation of Male Dominance.

    [quote]Stalin was no good man, but he sure as hell was dominant. The same can be said of most dictators, drug dealers and pimps. Clearly dominant in their relationships, even if never in a character that I would advocate.[/quote]

    This was an interesting comment, Dance, and certainly thought-provoking. Thank you for sharing it. My first immediate thought was that it’s somewhat problematic to compare the relationship between a politician or tyrant with his people to the personal relationship between a dominant man and a submissive woman. My second thought was that, even while suspending the point of the first, if you were to look at your example’s rise to power, you will find plenty of political savviness and charisma in the man. You’ll probably also find, in studying his history, that he appealed to much of the public’s regard in being thought of as a “good man.” He was a person of the people. He associated with the lower rungs of political office and built a gradual power base from these associations. He appealed to the people by way of aligning with the politically inherent “good” of being a Lenninst. He stood in contrast to many of the shortcomings of Leon Trotsky and was very good at selling the propaganda of his socialist ideals. In the eyes the people, Joseph Stalin appealed to many of the standards discussed in this article: he was inspiring, calculated, strong, courageous, clear, firm, and charismatic. He also was a very clever and powerful seducer of the people.

    Now, what Stalin decided to do with his powers of influence and the dominance therein is another matter, entirely. He certainly was not “good” by popular measure of our moral values today. He used his powers to invoke cruel and inhuman policies and ideas. Similarly, a dominant man may use his power for cruelty or inhumanity, once he has achieved a state of power over another. And therein lies the crux of my next point: the qualities stated in the article above say little of a dominant man’s overarching morality. Further, we must remember that a better person is not necessarily a “good” person in the eyes of passing, arbitrary morality. The cruel and sadistic can still have a good reputation or lead well. They can still have charisma, courage, and excellent leadership abilities. I say this only to clear up some confusion about the article above. If you look closely at what I’m saying, there is little in the way of moral assertion put forth in my thesis. There are, however, assertions being made about character traits that optimize success toward influence and fulfillment. Do I think that having a certain nobility is important? Yes. I describe this nobility more in terms of ideals than moral decrees, however. I think, ideally speaking, having empathy and deep consideration of things, a certain grace and rightness to your decisions, does change the outlook for your lasting dominance and the fulfillment of the servile party.

    All of that aside, I think we need to look at dominance beyond its relational vacuum to submission. As is stands now in so many discussions, we often speak of dominance and submission like two objects that have just teleported themselves into symbiotic existence, but there is so much back story to these ways of being. It’s clear that many men need to rethink their approach, beginning with inward reflection about their own strengths and weaknesses. They need to step back and not just consider the beautiful tree that is visible at the end destination, but the roots deep in the earth that support it and draw sustenance to it. Perhaps, even before considering the roots, you should consider the soil, the seed, and the path on the wind that seed took to arrive there. It’s all so very important. Those who do not pay heed to the basics of leadership, influence, and structure will suffer in one way or another within their relationships.

  13. brotherdance says:

    @Marc

    With your first point about traits that lead to dominance, I can and do agree. These traits may indeed also be “foundational”; I would have to give that quite a bit more thought.

    As to your second point, I think we are using different meanings of “character”. If you mean disposition, then I wholeheartedly agree, and I think you are. I am referring to moral strength however, or the idea of being “a good man”. Hence my definition that immediately follows, “It is not a question of whether he is a good man or not.” (That’s one of the troubles with words that have to many meanings. For example, the word “gentleman” always pisses me off. Does it mean a nice guy, a guy who has manners, or a lord who owns land?) This idea of dominant=good just doesn’t sit well with my logic, regardless of how I personally wish for such moral fortitude for both myself and those I relate to.

    This is what took the wind out of my sails:

    “we often speak of dominance and submission like two objects that have just teleported themselves into symbiotic existence, but there is so much back story to these ways of being.”

    And you are of course, absolutely right. I think I got so caught up in the comments ON your article, that I had begun to get a different idea of what it truly said by the time I commented. Reading it again with an idea of possible traits and foundations as opposed to descriptions and definitions made all the difference. I still feel there is more that is noble in your words than there actually is in dominance, but I never have an issue with siding with what is noble rather than with what is vulgar, especially when you could be addressing those who are aspiring to be more dominant in their relationships.

    Just a side note, I wish I could format my text. Italics and bold would make comments much more readable.

  14. Admin says:

    @brotherdance

    You can stylize text using BB Code.

  15. rocketgypsy says:

    Being immune to feminine wiles (aka manipulation) is the hallmark of a free man. Free men are naturally ‘dominant’. To use another term, a free man is a sovereign.

    Such immunity to manipulation is the basis of a man’s freedom. To build further, a man also becomes immune to manipulation by his own lower ego nature. To me, a naturally dominant man is a man who has freed himself from all manipulation. He knows his Soul, and his Knowledge cannot be compromised.

  16. onlyme says:

    @ushaben

    I know it’s a long while since you posted to this thread, but I very much like what you say. As odd as it might seem, in my experience it is often the men who are at pains to explain in great detail their skill and ideology as ‘caring dominants’ in conversations sometimes in conversations in which it is neither necessary nor appropriate, who usually turn out to be ‘wannabe Doms’. ‘Natural’ dominants don’t need to announce, ‘market’ or explain themselves, because their general demeanour makes it unnecessary. I don’t know if every woman would recognise and respond to this for what it is, but I know that many submissive women do.

  17. wendy1 says:

    great article :)

  18. Ivan88 says:

    Big Thanks for Marc Esadrian for the FOUNDATION OF MALE DOMINANCE.
    I am glad for the assistance & insights this article has provided me, and I am applying them in my life.

    Here are a few pertinent thoughts on this subject:
    1. As a male, I much like the idea of having a submissive female. But, if I were a female, I would not wish to submit myself to a guy who didn’t submit himself to his own father, to “nature’s God” and to the Weightier Matters of the Law, Truth, Mercy and Faith.
    If the male won’t submit to Goodness, why should a female submit to him? Should a gal submit herself to evil? No,

    It has been said, “All men are created equal.” This phrase always bothered me. One day, my best friend told me that all men are equal, but, they are not equal to murderers, liars, hoodlums, and such. And, that Men put the Law of Life, Love, Truth, Mercy and Faith first in their lives.

    Take a look at our male history over the last couple hundred years. We were impatient and used violence against our brothers in the American Revolution and in Lincoln’s un-civil war. We didn’t recognize Truth, Mercy and Faith, nor did we serve them. We got ourselves slaughtered in countless wars of aggression that only created more problems.
    We abandoned our women and children to the evils of our egos.
    We haven’t been men for a long time. And it is no wonder that the gals got fed up with us.

    No wonder females decided they can do a better job of running things than a bunch of self centered males.

    2. For much of my life I heard the phrase, “Be a Man!” For a long time I did not know what a man was. And as I slowly discovered what a man was, I found that I was not a man. As I struggled to be a man, I discovered also that society had conditioned me to be un-Man. Not being a man was built in as an automatic mechanism in mind and emotion. Even when I thought I had attained some portion of manhood, built in reactions superceeded my intention. Nonetheless, I have overcome much that hindered manhood in me, but not all, so far.

    3. More important than submission in a female, is to be pro-active in saving a male/man from himself. She can smooth over his rough spots, and help him become more of a man. She can help him to be submissive to the Bigger Picture, just as the Qodesha, Shamhat tamed & civilized the wild male, Enkidu, in the ancient Summerian story of Gilgamesh.

    4. To be a Man means willing happy submission to the God/Father/Husband that mother nature submits herself to. The word wife in both Chinese (fufu) and old English (wifman) basically means With Man. So as the wife is with the man so a Man must be With the Beauty, Love and Harmony that “nature’s God” intends for us to enjoy and become.
    To be a Man, he must be a wife of the Logic of all life & love. He should be a willing slave & student of the Perfect Man and Perfect husband of the universe. I suspect that the joy a woman feels in loving submission is not much different than what I felt in my submission to the Loving Intent of our Maker.

    Only when a male becomes a Man he can excercize correct dominion on Earth in the Here and Now.
    Isn’t this the kind of Man we desperately need in the world today?

  19. cpdom says:

    I just joined and am captivated by much of what I’m reading. I consider myself a good person and have been complimented for my wisdom, have made it into my 50’s, and here’s a question that I have:
    Don’t submissives or slaves need to be aware and ever groomed to being their own Master in case of their Masters demise?
    If and when the Master should pass away or somehow no longer be around what is being done by or for the slave during their union in case of such an event? Somehow the submissive needs to know how to carry on with the day to day struggles of living when their main guidance is no longer around — their very survival is at stake right?
    I want to be a good natural providing Master so I’d like to hear some thoughts on how slaves are given the tools to survive without their Master if they’re main ‘charge’ is to be thinking of serving their Master?
    Women usually outlive Men so what say anyone about this potential dilemma?
    An example: I once new a couple, the husband was the dominant (older really nice couple, good people), she served him their entire marriage. He did their taxes, books, made the decisions, etc., and she (Viv), only lasted 6 month’s after he passed away. Apparently it may be said that he did too much for Viv? I do think that she had some innate mental instability but the ‘ability to survive’ question I pose above still remains right? I am not clueless but am really interested in hearing how others think this potential lacking of real world training can be lessened?
    The accompanying (potentially aquired somehow all along) additional confidence that the slave may need, can be best given to a slave — as a matter of course — during the time they are together no doubt — Trust, Respect and Ultimate Survival are (in my mind) already keywords here.

  20. Sherman says:

    @slave_rachel: I’m curious to know what you would suggest in this situation.

  21. cpdom says:

    @Slave_rachel: What say you? Five days and counting for a response to this or is everyone still testing their “thinking caps”? :) At any rate I am a “Part of the solution” kind of guy to give you some insight into who I am, the guy that asked the question above. I have actually only pondered being a Dom vs a Master or, meeting the right someone, well, I’d take it from there. My point is that this persons survival is at stake and her Master evidently cares about her so what are some thoughts to make sure that his slave can carry on? Seek another Master for his dumb bitch? There, now maybe someone will respond? Or maybe “HumbledFemales” needs more pictures and graphics to get more of an audience that would then fill up these pages more? Couldn’t hurt I guess. I wrote in and suggested this also commenting that these pages are elegant as well. Has anything I’ve said elicited a response now? :)

  22. cpdom says:

    Time to close this topic I guess.

  23. Ivan88 says:

    Cpdom:
    Good question: What does a submissive do when she loses her Master?

    1. Her master wills her to another man;
    2. If she was a competent help to her Master during his life, she should be able to help herself.
    3. A wise servant getteth power over a foolish or dead Master.
    4. Dosteyevski’s female was devoted to him and she profitably promoted his books after he died for the rest of her life.
    5. In some societies they killed the widow.

    I like solution number 1 best of all.

  24. JuliusP says:

    I find it both amazing and hilarious, that almost beat for beat (with the original post), I’ve come to learn and agree wholeheartedly the topics discussed. The hilarious part is that I wish I could have read this seven or eight years ago and saved myself a lot of heartache and frustration. Of course obviously living the mistakes and learning the lesson is the preferred method (plus, me seven or eight years ago, ha!). Experience is everything.

    I also feel that this would benefit women who are or wish to be submissive, as it gives realistic insight into what their men went through to get to where he is (except of course, those men who are simply, “born with it”, so to speak).

  25. MarcEsadrian says:

    Thanks to all who have commented here.

    Just a quick comment upon revisiting: I visited the movie theater several days ago to finally see “Under the Skin,” with Scarlett Johannson. It was a brilliant film, and while it was about an alien wearing a woman’s skin to lure victims, it served, in my opinion, as quite a cautionary tale to men about following unchecked desire. I felt so strongly about that message that I felt it should be added here.

Leave a Comment