Can dominant men be into powerful women ?

I don't agree with the stereotype that whatever men who are into dominatrix or powerful women are submissive.

Put it this way, men who smoke may be into women who smoke or men into cars are sexually attracted to women who are as well into cars. It can simply be liking the person for his/her trait / personality. Guys with a wild nature can be into rough/wild stuff like dominatrix etc. These wild guys may be dominant personality in everyday life.

The guy can be a business executive / manager / boss or any typical man with a dominant personality type and may still certainly find dominant women sexually attractive for their powerful seductive image. (not talking about those who temporarily find outlet to release high stress for a short period of time, I mean generally)

So if a guy feels bad about himself for liking dominant women sexually because he thinks that would mean he's submissive (non-alpha / beta male), he can assure himself that's not true at all ?

I can like dominant and powerful women for their attitude and seductively powerful image, this shouldn't mean that I'm a submissive personality guy, I might still be a dominant alpha male in life i.e in social interaction/behavior, career workplace etc etc.

Bottom line question : Does an individual's sexual tastes/kinks/fantasy necessarily represent his day-to-day personality ? Is there a correlation ?

Hello desktopx, I think you raise a commonly misunderstood point with this post and I hope to be able to answer your questions as well as to address this common misconception.

To begin with, I will attempt to answer your bottom line questions. No, an individual's sexual tastes, kinks, fantasies, etc. do not necessarily represent his or her's day to day personality. It is possible, and dare I say even somewhat common in the BDSM realm, for a socially dominant individual who does well in his or her career (and thus has a dominant personality in everyday life) to desire to submit to another individual sexually. There are plenty of CEOs, CIOs, doctors, lawyers, business executives, etc. that are also submissive. A sexually submissive individual does not necessarily need to be submissive in everyday life, but merely must desire to be dominated sexually. In my view, an individual's sexuality and his or her behavior in everyday life occupy completely separate spheres, and thus it is difficult if not impossible to draw connections between an individual's social behavior and said individual's sexual preferences without knowing said individual in question. I do not believe that you can generalize all submissives as submissive in their careers, social lives etc. nor do I believe that you can generalize all Dominants as dominant in their careers or social lives.

However, I am less sure on the meaning of the rest of your post. You state that you can still be a "dominant alpha male in life" and yet still be attracted to dominant women or dominatrix type women. This is of course true- no one can control who he or she is attracted to and it is of course possible to find dominant women attractive (after all, confidence tends to be regarded as attractive regardless of gender). However, I do not believe it is possible to describe oneself as a dominant alpha male in general if one wishes to submit to a dominant female. I think a more proper specification would be socially dominant, and sexually submissive. If this is what you are stating, then I apologize for misunderstanding you, but in order to be a stereotypical alpha male (in general and not just socially) a certain degree of sexual dominance or at least the lack of sexual submission is required. However, just because an individual is submissive in one context does not make them any more submissive in any other context. Just because a man might be submissive (and thus "beta" sexually does not make him any less dominant (and thus "alpha") socially, economically, etc. There are multiple different dynamics at play here, and I do not believe it prudent to generalize. However, I do not think that an individual that wishes to submit to another individual sexually can feasibly be described as a dominant individual sexually. So, while a socially dominant man attracted to Dominatixes can still be described as socially dominant (and thus discount that this attraction makes him a non-alpha/beta in this context) he is in fact submissive in a sexual context and thus cannot state that he is dominant in general.

If however, you mean that a socially dominant individual is attracted to dominant women in a non-submissive (or vanilla) context because of the confidence such women portray and does not desire to submit to such women then my answer changes. In order to be submissive in any context, an individual must desire to submit. If there is no such desire, then an individual cannot be accurately described as a submissive. So, if a socially dominant man is attracted to dominant women due to their "mystique" or any other factor and does not desire to submit to these women, then he is still just as dominant as before socially and sexually neutral. Again, I'm not sure if the hypothetical man in your original post desires to submit to the hypothetical dominant woman or not, so I apologize if this situation was not what you had in mind.

Best of luck and best wishes,

-MJH

Thanks MJH for your reply,

I pretty much agree to what everything you have said. People might have conflicting views on this topic, but me and you share mutual ideas on this, It is surely an interesting topic which needs more insight and discussion...

If however, you mean that a socially dominant individual is attracted to dominant women in a non-submissive (or vanilla) context because of the confidence such women portray and does not desire to submit to such women.So, if a socially dominant man is attracted to dominant women due to their "mystique" or any other factor and does not desire to submit to these women, then he is still just as dominant as before socially and sexually neutral.

Pretty much this. I had thought to mention this, but thought it would complicate things so I decided not to. It is certainly the mystique which gets me and many other guys, but that doesn't mean we want to get ourselves "humiliated". We just "desire" them in a vanilla context.

And furthermore even if the guy wants to submit to such women sexually, it should only make him sexually submissive and not submissive in general because he can still be dominant in other aspects of life i,e career / social life. The problem is people classify sexually submissive men as WHOLLY submissive in life in general. You made this point very clear ...

I'm a male masochist. In my vanilla life I'm generally in charge of things. However, sexually, while I am a masochist and seek pain & humiliation, I do not identify even 1% with being "submissive".

I actually identify as a dominant masochist, and my wife is a submissive sadist. A lot of people, because of media portrayals, have trouble understanding that someone who wants to be hurt and humiliated isn't also submissive, but it's a lot more common than you'd think.

Yes, I like to be beat, but the girl beating on me is doing what I want, she is catering to my desires, within my limits. I'm actually in control, even though I may roleplay in a submissive fashion.

What many paple think of as alpha is not alpha. It is driven by a need to constantly prove oneself regardless of the circumstances, which is insecurity. I have dealt with guys who thought they were going to overwhelm me with their domineering self-assertion, but not often because I am that thing and people know better. I'm also a psychopath. I don't play fair and violence comes easy to me. Let's say the last person who acted like he'd back me down by getting into me just because I was having fun and not paying attention to his efforts to get attention by being obnoxious and challenging got left unconscious in a pool of blood. I thought he might be dead so I slipped away calm and quiet. I wasn't angry as much as I was bored and impatient.

I took a common test used by psychologists and I was more dominant than 98% of people. It measured how willing you are to stand up for yourself in social situations, how willing you are to speak your mind, how you respond to others trying to get you to go with their choice when you want something different and you're not wrong, if you're willing to take charge and lead when appropriate or you just let someone else take over, your amount of competitiveness, and things like that. I was very high on all and that is how I see myself and how others see me. If anything, it's all a little much I hear. There's my way and the wrong way, I don't fail, I have momentary setbacks caused by sheer chance. I am so competitive, my sheer strength of will gets me positive outcomes. I am not intimidated by anyone and nobody can control me. At the same time, I don't need to show others I'm unfazed by them. There's no need. That is beta masquerading as alpha and I don't even have to suppress it. Interestingly I intimidate other men with my confidence and dominant social behavior with 0 effort. I don't notice it's happening because it is just how I am but women notice, comment, and approve.

Sex is beside the point. I could have sex with car mufflers and still I'd be just as dominant.

Sexually, I am 80% dominant/sadistic, 17% submissive, 3% vanilla. My primary sexuality is about control, psychological torture, strangulation, and pain. My secondary sexuality includes no interest in pain, I am very difficult to bother psychologically and it's not a turn on, strangulation is a turn off except during climax but I don't associate it with being submissive. It won't get me stressed either. I'll just stare until I pass out or it stops with no emotional response that can be seen or I can feel. Bondage is pointless. If I'm playing that role, I will not resist anything. I have limits and won't cross them but as far as humiliation goes, I have no shame. The girl acting dominant needs to realize that or I will grow bored. The more degrading and arrogant she is, the more fun it will be.

In reality, I am the same person when I am acting sub. It's all just for fun even if a session goes on for hours. Whatever the case may be, it won't change how I interact with her. I haven't found any chicks who were good at dominating in a long time. Sexual dominance is what I fantasize about the most and I have more stuff I like, but with the right girl the other is almost as fun. It's been years but the last switch who was good enough I let her do it 30-35% of our sex lives would do what I said outside of that situation even if I just spent 90 minutes being a total sub.

Another sense I'm more sexually dominant is I can do total power exchange and love it. I could never do that as a sub. I am the farthest thing from a slave. I don't top from the bottom and will eagerly humiliate myself on command, but its for my enjoyment. If I'm not enjoying it, it's no good. Doing something that is outside my tastes like hurting me For real is a bad idea. Thinking I am a paper tiger who can be dominated throughout life is a terrible idea. To me, being dominant sexually is easy whenever I am horny and social dominance is so natural it's like breathing. Being submissive is more dependent upon fleeting urges and I must have a perfect partner.

Few girls can be dominant with me. It's a common enough fantasy but first they're afraid they'll irritate me with minor stuff that is nowhere near mean enough to guarantee I stay awake. They seem unsure if themselves which I never do and it ruins the fantasy. When I tell them what to do, I don't wonder if they will. I know and that is in my voice. With most girls, it's like they're asking and hoping I'll comply. If I do, I will be going through the motions. Doing this forces me to do a radical switch mid session and dominate.

This is a loooooooong message but I'm coming to my main point. I think social dominance is needed to an extent to be effectively sexually dominant. Like I said I am a diagnosed psychopath with high self esteem, no negative thoughts about myself, don't care if others judge unless I want something because they're lower lifeforms, things that are shameful or debasing make me laugh. A girl doesn't need to be that. Girls like me aren't like me. They're the lite version. I get along great with women and this isn't meant to start a gender war, but not one woman I ever met can stand up to me when I assert supremacy. I am not speaking of violence but the domineering, unyielding form of dominance tho violence is only partially relevant since I know I could use it effectively against anyone no matter their size. But she needs to have some confidence in her sexuality and understand what's going on. She also needs to have fun. It's their chance to do something completely different so how can it not be fun?

I am a "player" and always cycling through women. That's not a complaint. I have enjoyed my sex life immensely but it would be nice to meet a hot girl who likes to switch and knows how. It is a little funny to me that girls who switch often have a sub/slave and act out their other side with someone else. I think it's because men are less into switching than women but I am a definite exception.

By the way I am attracted to socially dominant women independent of sex. Confidence, happiness, not being shy are all good. I have heard it said that some guys feel intimidated somehow but that's not me. I can hold my own. Sad, shy, friendless, down on herself = prey. I realize someone may take offense to that but that's how it is to me.