Would You Go on a Date Set Up By Your Parents?
Your Girlfriend’s Male Best Friend Is Not a Threat
Bros and Hos: Relationship Foes?
10 Bad Dating Habits to Lose
Dating fast/dating binge?
How to Make a Happy Marriage
Is “Just Friends” Ever Worth It?
The Importance of Dating
"There are men who identify as dominant and are dominant but they also have an occasional urge to switch. I don't think this makes them less dominant."
And I do think it makes them less dominant. In fact, I think it makes them not dominant at all. And the bottom line for me is not what you think, but what I think. Nor do your years of 'experience' matter at all, as regards the question of what I find appealing. What matters there is my many years of experience being intensely attracted to big, strong, powerful men who dominate women; and my many years of experience being repulsed by weak, submissive, wimpy men who are 'dominated' by women. That is an innate sexual inclination, one that I could not change even if I wanted to. But I don't want to. Because it's an essential part of who I am - a feminine woman who worships powerful, dominant, masculine manhood - and I'm quite proud of it.
"I'm saying that it's too bad you don't realize that there is no bleed-through. You get into a situation with a switch male, and if he is the dominant, you won't be able to tell at all that he switches."
Well, I'm pretty sure that I could tell the difference. I'm also sure that any man who has the depth of integrity that I require in a mate will be honest about his dominance. But "bleedthrough" as you describe it is not what matters to me. At the risk of being redundant, let me try and clarify it once again. It is not just a question of him being only dominant with me, and me not wanting to switch. What is very important - of essential importance to me - is that the man I love would never, ever, under any circumstances, have any inclination to "submit" to a woman. Any man that I could love would find that horribly repulsive. Any man that I could love would always be in an overpowering, sexually dominant role with women. Because I just adore powerful, sexually dominant men; and I enjoy seeing men being sexually dominant and overpowering women; but I am thoroughly repulsed when I see a man "submitting" to a woman.
And from my own idea of what makes a real man, it would not actually happen that a real man could "submit" to a woman. From my own personal philosophy, any man who would "submit" to a woman is not what I would regard as a "real man," but rather a wuss or a wimp. (And yes, I do know such men, and even have them as friends.) I realize that he might not like that label, or you might not like that label; but from my own philsophy about masculinity and dominance, that is how it stands. I would not ordinarily go out of my way to announce that; but given that I don't seem to have made it sufficiently clear so far, consider this my attempt to make it crystal clear.
Your Girlfriend’s Male Best Friend Is Not a Threat
Bros and Hos: Relationship Foes?
10 Bad Dating Habits to Lose
Dating fast/dating binge?
How to Make a Happy Marriage
Is “Just Friends” Ever Worth It?
The Importance of Dating
"There are men who identify as dominant and are dominant but they also have an occasional urge to switch. I don't think this makes them less dominant."
And I do think it makes them less dominant. In fact, I think it makes them not dominant at all. And the bottom line for me is not what you think, but what I think. Nor do your years of 'experience' matter at all, as regards the question of what I find appealing. What matters there is my many years of experience being intensely attracted to big, strong, powerful men who dominate women; and my many years of experience being repulsed by weak, submissive, wimpy men who are 'dominated' by women. That is an innate sexual inclination, one that I could not change even if I wanted to. But I don't want to. Because it's an essential part of who I am - a feminine woman who worships powerful, dominant, masculine manhood - and I'm quite proud of it.
"I'm saying that it's too bad you don't realize that there is no bleed-through. You get into a situation with a switch male, and if he is the dominant, you won't be able to tell at all that he switches."
Well, I'm pretty sure that I could tell the difference. I'm also sure that any man who has the depth of integrity that I require in a mate will be honest about his dominance. But "bleedthrough" as you describe it is not what matters to me. At the risk of being redundant, let me try and clarify it once again. It is not just a question of him being only dominant with me, and me not wanting to switch. What is very important - of essential importance to me - is that the man I love would never, ever, under any circumstances, have any inclination to "submit" to a woman. Any man that I could love would find that horribly repulsive. Any man that I could love would always be in an overpowering, sexually dominant role with women. Because I just adore powerful, sexually dominant men; and I enjoy seeing men being sexually dominant and overpowering women; but I am thoroughly repulsed when I see a man "submitting" to a woman.
And from my own idea of what makes a real man, it would not actually happen that a real man could "submit" to a woman. From my own personal philosophy, any man who would "submit" to a woman is not what I would regard as a "real man," but rather a wuss or a wimp. (And yes, I do know such men, and even have them as friends.) I realize that he might not like that label, or you might not like that label; but from my own philsophy about masculinity and dominance, that is how it stands. I would not ordinarily go out of my way to announce that; but given that I don't seem to have made it sufficiently clear so far, consider this my attempt to make it crystal clear.