Nice one, Carl. Sums it up nicely.

Great article, Carl. I think that we're all born with certain personality traits, and develop others we glean from our environment. Some good, some not so good. Hopefully, as we mature, we identify those traits which will propell us forward towards our goals and those which will hinder us. Then we can work at accentuating the positive and eliminating the negative.

I think my spouse was probably born with leadership qualities and some dominant traits as well. His environment helped him to develop a very strong work ethic, out of necessity. What his environment didn't help him to develop was an understanding of and ability to create and sustain intimacy within a male/female relationship.

On my part, I think I was born with some submissive traits, but my environment didn't nurture or encourage those parts of my natural disposition. I spent most of my life working against that part of myself.

Fortunately for us, we found each other and after a rocky start, we've managed to worked hard to develop and sustain intimacy and also to identify and encourage each other's strengths and those traits which bring us both joy in our relationship. It is work. We've been married twenty years and we're still working on it.

Some things that popped into my head while reading:

I write poetry. It comes very easy to me. I've never practiced or worked at it. When I feel the words inside of me, I pick up a pencil and I write. It is rather effortless.

I think I have a natural ability with words. I think I was born with it, or it was developed in me at a very early age, well before I knew it was being developed. I think a tremendous amount of it can be attributed to the fact that I like words, I like the language, the way words can be strung together to express what I feel, how they sound when spoken, when heard. Writing comes naturally to me.

I think dominance is born. I think dominance can be learned, but only if the individual wants to learn. If they get something out of it, find it fulfilling or rewarding, then yes, I think it can be learned. If they do it for someone else, if they do it because it's the manly thing, then I think there will always be friction. I would also think, and this is just my two cents worth, straight opinion here, that if a man showed no signs of dominance, and was approached by his woman about it, and he found he liked the idea and liked how the relationship went, then he would learn to be dominant because her interest sparked something inside him. Likewise, if she mentioned it and it wasn't a turn on, or it did not stir him in some way, then no, he'll never be dominant because he doesn't want it. And that really is the key I think...they have to want it.

There are men who are dominant in a relationship because they cannot be in a relationship and not be dominant. There are those who have shown little to no signs of dominance that are learning because it brings them pleasure (not that they are pleased their woman likes it, but it brings *them* pleasure), and those that will never be dominant for whatever reasons, but certainly one of them being they don't want it.

J's Girl

This reminds me of a piece of graffiti that someone allegedly saw on a toilet wall. someone had written "My mum made me a homosexual" and underneath someone else had written "If I sent her the wool, would she make me one too?"

Can you knit a dominant man?

Lauren,

Would you agree that dylexia is a 'chacteristic' or a 'trait' and that people are either 'wired' that way or not?

Would you further agree that reading and writing are 'activities' or 'behaviors'?

Can an individual who has the characteristic of dyslexia change his or her reading behavior?

I believe the answer is yes to all the above. So I think it makes better sense to talk about dominance and submission as behaviors instead of characteristics or traits. When I see some statement like "I am strongly dominant/submissive" it just makes more sense to me to restate is as "I usually behave dominantly/submissively".
(Many women have written that they somehow just 'know' that a man is an alpha. Unless these ladies are mind readers, I would think they form this opinion by observing a man's behaviour.)

Meanwhile
We (in the sense of modern science) currently believe that many behaviors are caused, partly or largely, by innate physical or mental characteristics and that a person has some control over their behavior even though they can't change their underlying characteristics. We also believe that people tend to repeat behaviors that give them pleasure and avoid behaviors that do not.

This fits with your statement

I would imagine that their degree of dominance can be increased either because they expressly want to increase it, by making the effort, or if society's norms change towards the trait of dominance becoming more valued and accepted in men as opposed to women.

if you view "dominance can be increased" as a change in behavior. The "change in social norms" you mention would probably increase pleasure from dominant behavior.

RichM

Lauren,

From www.dyslexia.com

Dyslexic people are visual, multi-dimensional thinkers. We are intuitive and highly creative, and excel at hands-on learning. Because we think in pictures, it is sometimes hard for us to understand letters, numbers, symbols, and written words. We can learn to read, write and study efficiently when we use methods geared to our unique learning style.

This seems to be incongruent with your statement

In similar circumstances where a severely dyslexic child was required to learn reading and writing skills appropriate to their age, I believe they might find themselves unable.

As the characteristic of dyslexia does not prevent reading, writing , and studying effciently neither does your concept of high or low "innate" dominance prevent dominant behaviour.

QED

RichM

cj,

Love and marriage, love and marriage,
go together like a horse and carriage.

Is love the horse or the carriage ? :)

I am saying that it makes sense to see a similarity between 2 behaviors; reading and dominance. Both behaviors can be learned even when a person may have some natural condition that makes standard learning methods ineffective.

That sounds about the same as what you wrote.

RichM

cj wrote,

I just believe that when we compare dominance to disability we are over-simplifying the issue and trivializing the trials of individuals with disabilities.

The why do you keep doing it ?

I thought about asking you to reread the subject line - 'not a comparison' - but that sounds a little insulting. It would be best, I think, if you just stopped reading and replying to my posts.

thanks,
RichM

Forgive me for stepping in here, but I believe that what RichM is saying and has been saying all along is that dominance is something that can be learned like reading and writing can be learned regardless of any predisposition. I believe that he was only making an analogy as he was clearly not saying that dyslexia and lack of dominance are the same, and I also do not believe he was being insulting at all and was just tiring of having to explain himself over and over and still being misunderstood. Let me quote: "An analogy is a comparison between two 'unlike' things (a subject and an analog) that nevertheless yeilds insight into the nature of the subject. For instance, he stopped as if he was a clock unwound. Here the subject is 'he', and the analog is 'clock'" - sundesign.com/poetry.

So, for example, no one is saying that the 'he' in the above sentence is exactly like a 'clock', so therefore, RichM is not saying that dyslexia is exactly like dominance or the lack of dominance. He is only asking you to focus on the similarities and not the dissimilarities as it can be a learned behavior regardless of predisposition to the contrary.

I got into a similar predicament when I made the analogy of religion being like alcoholism on another website. Sure, there are differences, but I was only citing the similarities. Of course, that is an entirely different topic altogether.

Peach

If you're single and meeting a woman for the first time how would she know you have never been alpha?

If somehow you have found a way to let your dominant, alpha side out then who cares if you haven't been an alpha from the craddle or not? Just go for it. No one will know the difference.

Most of the women who write about how dominant and masculine their man is, tend to inflate things a bit because they love their man. They make their guys out to be Conan the Barbarian when in reality they're just normal guys that don't flounder at the first sign of a challenge.

From what I've read here most women equate alpha with military guys and cops etc. etc. A lot of these guys were probably run of the mill guys who have a position of authority and great respect in our communities. Some of them grew into the role and blossomed into it. If you were to place a guy like that in the middle of a bunch of boring Bob's he'd certainly be the alpha of the group. It's not that hard. Yeah they're dominant and what not but you'd be surprised how many of their wives have affairs. Not that I know anything like that first hand or anything ; ) So these guys have the outward appearance of everything a woman wants, but when push comes to shove these guys are just normal guys.

In the seduction arena you can differentiate yourself as well by actually talking to women without being drunk. Apart from the hangers on and the drunk guys, that beautiful woman you're eyeing hasn't been approached properly all night. You'd be surprised by how many girls go home alone every single night because that alpha they were eyeing didn't have the minerals to approach her. They get tired of walking slowly past them and rubbing themselves on them 'accidentally' and give up because he just doesn't get it. Appearances are deceiving. Besides that, most of these dudes are putting on their best face when meeting a woman for the first time.

So be your own man and don't back down to anything and you too can be the dominant man these women crave. Don't be that guy who lets a woman walk all over you. Be firm and let her know what she can and cannot do.

Great article, Carl. I have often voiced the opinion that a woman cannot lead a man to dominance. But I also believe strongly in the disciplined cultivation of the virtues of manhood, so it was some good food for thought.

"Alpha males may be born, but they also make themselves."

Yes, that's a great way to put it. In fact, I'd say that an alpha male in some sense *has* to make himself -- to shape himself into the kind of man who is worthy and capable of assuming command -- or else he does not have the strength and willpower to assume the mantle of a dominant male. However, his willpower alone cannot create within him any real tendencies and desires towards domination that are not already present naturally. When I talk about someone having dominant or submissive tendencies, I'm talking about a sexual orientation and not a general personality trait. And as a type of sexual orientation, I do think that such a tendency is inborn and cannot really be cultivated. But the virtues of manhood can and should be cultivated.

So I share your viewpoint that male dominance involves both an innate disposition towards domination as well as the deliberation cultivation of those qualities needed to make a man truly up to the task of dominating his woman. Such qualities would include wisdom, intuition, strength of character, integrity, willpower, a sense of humor, a healthy perspective, and many other things as well. Some of those qualities are necessary for being an emotionally healthy and well-balanced person in any case, irrespective of dominant tendencies. But for a man who is interested in being the dominant leader of his marriage, then other qualities may be required as well.

However, I don't believe that one can cultivate the *desire* to dominate a woman in the first place. I believe that is something that men are either born with or they're not. It may well be the case that many or even most men do have that as an innate tendency, but their natural inclinations have been thwarted or repressed by living in a culture that is so disapproving of that. In that case it may take some deep emotional work to uncover that primal core of male dominance. But then we would be getting into a third order desire: the desire to have a desire to be more dominant. And at that point it's hard to see the motivation for why a man would try to recover his "lost" dominant tendencies, unless it's his wife who is prodding him. And if his innate dominant desires are that deeply buried, it may end up being just too much work for both parties to make a project of uncovering his long-buried Alpha Male.

So, in general I would say that if a man has a real desire to dominate his woman, then there is real hope there, and it's worth doing whatever it takes to get to that point, including the disciplined cultivation of his strength and manhood. But if he does not already have some strong dominant desires that he is aware of -- if all he has is the desire to become the kind of man who *would* like to dominate a woman -- then I would be inclined to say that it's just not enough. In that case he's probably doing it for somebody other than himself - most likely his wife - and no matter how hard he tries to awaken the sleeping beast it's probably going to keep on snoozing.

It's very much like the women who say they want to "become truly submissive" -- as if it's some sort of obligation that they "should" fill, but don't really feel. If a woman has strong, innate submissive tendencies then she will know it. It will be almost impossible to deny it or ignore in that case, because a strong inclination towards sexual submission will continue to assert itself no matter how many non-dominant men she has the unfortunate habit of getting involved with. But if a woman does not feel an innate pull towards sexual submission - an natural attraction for a strong and dominant man - then why should she feel obliged to try and feel it?

Like the man who has innate dominant desires, there is much that a woman with innate submissive desires can do to cultivate the qualities that will suit her well in a relationship with a dominant man. But those are mostly just the qualities of an emotionally healthy person of integrity and maturity, and not some special set of "submissive" personality traits that needs to be encouraged so that she can become a "true submissive."

The idea that sexually submissive women need to be "trained into submission" has always seemed to me to be perhaps the single most ludicrous notion floating about in the bdsm community. I have long suspected that the typical male "dom" likes to focus on "training his submissives" precisely because he is sorely lacking the courage or integrity or perceptiveness to focus on training the one person he really *should* be attempting to mold and shape: namely, himself.