My late partner was like your guy - a gentle alpha man. An alpha man can definitely be a gentle one as well.

Sharon (sarahdinah)

DeeMarie wrote:
"It seems like a grossly unfair generalization to suggest that all men who are physically powerful must be emotionally weak. If we both have had a hard time finding men who are strong both physically and emotionally, that probably has a simpler explanation: statistics. Very few men are really strong physically, and very few men are really strong emotionally; so the combination of both of those is really quite rare, unfortunately. But it's not because big muscles make a man emotionally weak, nor because emotional strength turns him into a physical wimp."

I wasn't suggesting that all big strong men are emotionally weak....I was commenting that those I had ended up with were.

I wonder DeeMarie whether in fact you have really fallen in to exactly the same trap as I did for many years. If you had asked me two years ago whether I could fall for a guy who wasn't 6'6, didn't sport a six pack, the type of guy I have seen described elsewhere as a "trophy" man....I'd have laughed in your face. Like you, since puberty, perhaps even earlier, I have wanted a guy who could dominate me, both physically and mentally. I now have that man, it just turned out that I'd been loooking in all the wrong places for him. My guy isn't a wimp, but he is completely non-aggressive, he isn't a weakling but I doubt he has ever spent more than a couple of hours in a gym in his entire life, he isn't an adonis either and yet he is the most exciting lover I have ever known with an inner personal strength I find it hard to define.

And he overpowers me daily.....he just looks at me and I turn to jelly. After he has made love to me, I find myself in a state of excitement (and I don't mean of the usual sexual kind) to the extent I want to run to the window and sing out to the world how fabulous he makes me feel and at the same time I can't bare to let go of him. There is something in the way he even looks at me that makes me want to spend the rest of my life doing all that I can to please him.

I, like you, was always very clear on what I thought I wanted....I was so wrong though and I am eternally grateful to Lewis for showing me the error of my ways!

I'm not sure why I decided to jump into the ring, but for some reason I felt inclined to come to Melonsmarie's defense. When I read her response to DeeMarie, I thought she was trying to be helpful, not condescending or challenging her. She obviously related a lot to DeeMarie's first post and then erroneously projected her own newly discovered feelings onto DeeMarie, as has so clearly been shown. Call me naive, but I think everyone does that sometimes, often with the best of intentions, and that's exactly how I read it. Maybe if it was directed to me, I'd be more defensive, but as an outsider looking in, it seemed like a logical comment to make.

Lucy

Marie, I think it's obvious that you have found a person who is just right for you and that you have learned to stop barking up the wrong tree.

That is a valuable lesson and leads us all to find the right kind of partner whether Taken In Hand or not. I would refer people to the movie, "Crossing Delancey" which shows a young woman who is caught up in her attraction to a man who is glamorous and a big cheese in her professional life, but has no emotional depth to give her, finally realizing that a much more traditional man who has a business selling pickles (nonprestigious in her world) could actually be the right man for her emotionally.

We really don't grow up until we give up some of the adolescent dreams for reality, and sometimes that reality is actually better than what we thought we wanted all along.

"Pat"

While it may seem like a logical assumption that the 6'6" man with giant biceps is physically stronger than "Mr. Milquetoast," don't underestimate smaller men.

My husband is 5'9" and 140 lbs. He doesn't need muscles to overpower someone. Years of hand-to-hand combat and close quarters battle training have given him the ability to overpower most men, including a 6'6" bodybuilder (which he has done.) Is my husband Mr. Milquetoast just because he is shorter and thinner? Hardly.

You have your preferences for bigger men, DeeMarie, but don't disparage those of us who look beneath the surface to see the tiger underneath.

I apologize to the boss if this post is off topic or offensive. However, I was offended by the assumption that thin men are automatically weaker than their larger counterparts. My husband is quite capable of overpowering people - including me - if he ever felt that it was necessary. Luckily, he possesses wisdom and discretion.

You need someone you're physically attracted to plus sexually and otherwise compatible with. Some strong fit men are dominant and others aren't. I do find quiet reserved men in fairly subservient positions at work and in life not attractive to me and I'm sure a lot of them are perfectly nice and very dominant men with their women but it doesn't quite work for me simply because I need someone to fit into my rather alpha type life and I'm quite fit etc too so just like to match that up. But I'm not hung up on height, size and slim is much better than unhealthily obese ... yuck..

For me Taken In Hand/D/S is in the mind and that is by far the most important thing I seek.

ATIHR (Anonymous Taken In Hand Reader) wrote:

While it may seem like a logical assumption that the 6'6" man with giant biceps is physically stronger than "Mr. Milquetoast," don't underestimate smaller men.

There is indeed a strong correlation between muscle mass and physical strength. It's not always a one-to-one correspondence, obviously; but it's difficult if not impossible for someone to build great physical strength without building large muscles. So, yes, it is a logical assumption that a man with bigger biceps is physically stronger than a smaller and skinnier man. The reverse case would be a true biological oddity. (Barring, of course, some recent debilitating condition that happened to strike the more muscular man.)

My husband is 5'9" and 140 lbs. He doesn't need muscles to overpower someone. Years of hand-to-hand combat and close quarters battle training have given him the ability to overpower most men, including a 6'6" bodybuilder (which he has done.) Is my husband Mr. Milquetoast just because he is shorter and thinner? Hardly.

In talking about hand-to-hand combat, physical strength is not the only thing that counts, obviously. It's still a huge factor in fighting, which is why boxers and wrestlers and even freestyle fighters are divided into classes according to weight. But if a smaller man who is very skilled fights against a bigger man who is totally unskilled, then he may win. But the fact that a smaller man can win a fight does not indicate that he's physically stronger. (I recall reading a karate book years ago that talked about the five "S" factors that figured into fighting and who would win: Size, Strength, Speed, Skill, and Stamina. Size was not the only factor, but it was definitely a major one; as was strength.)

A smaller and weaker man may well win a fight, if he's fast and if he's skilled in fighting. But if they're equally skilled, or even if his edge in skill is not overwhelming, then the bigger and stronger man will most likely win. One of my boyfriends had a black belt in karate, but he was not very big; about 5'7" and 160 pounds; he did work out, so he was strong for his size. Another boyfriend was a football player, 6'2" and 230 pounds, and extremely strong. If I had to lay odds on who would win that fight, it would be the black belt; because he was very skilled, and he also had an aggressive edge and a ferocious tenacity that my bigger boyfriend did not have (except maybe when playing football). But if we saw the two of them, and knew nothing about their personalities or fighting background, then it would be reasonable to assume the bigger man would win. But even if the smaller man wins the fight, it doesn't mean that he's stronger.

As for whether your 140-pound husband is Mr. Milquetoast, that's obviously a subjective opinion. In your eyes he's clearly not, but in my eyes he might well be. Fortunately, I doubt that my opinion would much matter to either of you; nor should it matter much.

You have your preferences for bigger men, DeeMarie, but don't disparage those of us who look beneath the surface to see the tiger underneath.

I don't recall disparaging anyone or their personal preferences; certainly not in this thread. (I can be disparaging of femdom inclinations, because that seems to me repulsive and unnatural; that aversion on my part is a reflection of my own personal preferences.) So please rest assured that I realize that your desires and preferences are different from my own, and that I believe that you have every right to seek to fulfill your own desires for a dominant man, whatever they may be.

Another thing to add with regard to this question of size and strength and fighting skill is this: the question of what it takes to win a fight is not necessarily the same as the question of what it takes to physically gain the upper hand on a woman, in a loving relationship. Like I said, my black belt boyfriend could no doubt take a bigger, stronger, unskilled opponent in a fight; that's because he could swiftly inflict some serious and debilitating injuries. But inflicting serious injury is something that should be *avoided* at all costs in a marriage or romantic relationship, obviously.

Even where forceful physical coercion comes into play, it should be of a sort that does not even risk serious physical injury at all; in that way, it would be more like wrestling than like karate or boxing. And if we asked who would win a wrestling match, between a small and skinny (but skilled) fighter versus a bigger, stronger (unskilled) fighter, then that outcome might be very different. If I had to place odds on a wrestling match between my small black belt boyfriend and my big football player boyfriend, then in that case I'd be betting on the bigger man. The usual advice for a smaller man fighting a bigger one is to move in quickly, strike hard and fast, and then get out of range of the bigger man's reach, as quickly as possible. Even if the smaller man is more skilled, if the two of them get into a clinch, then the bigger and stronger man can do more damage and quite probably control the fight.

So: a small man may well be able to win a fight by injuring a bigger opponent; but if the objective is to maintain close bodily contact and merely *control* the other person without injuring them, then that is a lot harder for a smaller man to accomplish. In that case, size and strength are an even bigger advantage.

(And I'm speaking here from a karate background; someone whose background is in aikido, judo, or jiu-jitsu might have a different opinion. Still, if you look at the results of Mixed Martial Arts combat (also called "freestyle fighting") then you'll find that size matters there, too. Before they divided opponents into various weight classes, the bigger guys were winning almost all the fights, and sometimes inflicting dreadful injuries on the smaller guys.)

I was offended by the assumption that thin men are automatically weaker than their larger counterparts.

But that is generally true, from a purely physiological standpoint; muscle mass is closely correlated with physical strength. What is not true is that greater physical strength will enable a man to prevail against a smaller opponent who is very skilled in the martial arts. But I don't mean to be confusing the issues here, by saying "small" sometimes and "skinny" other times. I should clarify by saying that a man of small stature (that is, a short man) may very well build up immense physical strength; but that will also involve building large muscles. So a short man can be very strong, if he has built up his muscles; but a skinny man being very strong? I don't think so. The idea that someone could build great physical strength yet still remain skinny is somewhat unrealistic, as far as the biology and physics of how muscles work. It may work in the movies, but it's mostly just a fantasy. And that is why women who enjoy being physically dominated by a man will often be attracted mainly or only to men who are big and muscley.

This comment from Louise touched on an interesting question, with relation to why women who enjoy being physically dominated by a man would have a preference for physically stronger men. Louise wrote:

I personally don't find physical dominance particularly important, because I'm not Superwoman and most men could physically dominate me, I don't think I've ever been out with a man who wasn't much stronger than I am, I would have to look quite hard to find one who wasn't. I don't think I'd actually like to be with a man who was physically less strong than I am, because that would mean he was very weak indeed. ... I suppose if you are a person who can't be physically overpowered very easily then physical force takes on more significance, but if you are, like me, a woman who could be physically overcome by just about any man, then it has less importance.

So, does a woman's desire to be physically dominated by a big, strong, muscular man come out of her feeling like she's "Superwoman" and that most men would not be strong enough to overpower her? I would not say that's the case for me, exactly; but it is an interesting and relevant question.

I'm of average size and strength for a woman, certainly not any kind of amazon. I would really hate being physically big and strong, myself; the women I always envied were the tiny, petite ones -- like 4'10" and 90 pounds. (I envy them even more now that I've gotten older and gained some weight; but at least the weight I've gained is not muscle.) But I did pursue karate, because it was a lot of fun, and because I do have a little aggressive or combative streak. At the time I worried that it might undermine the ability of future boyfriends to overpower me. But then, I reasoned, karate was not magic. It might give me a fighting chance against a stranger's assault, a chance to run away and save my life. But given the kind of men I had always been attracted to -- the big, husky, well-muscled hunks -- it seemed unlikely that some karate skills would allow me to overpower such a man. Then I got involved with my black belt boyfriend, and all my concerns about becoming some sort of fighting amazon warrior flew out the window, because I was sure that I couldn't take him, anyway.

But while I loved him a lot, I never felt really satisfied being with a man who was that small. I still longed for a big, muscley, physically powerful hunk to adore; even despite knowing that my smaller boyfried could probably beat the dickens out of most of them. So my attraction to a man's physical strength and musculature was not only about needing someone strong enough to overpower me. It was a multidimensional desire: partly I just adore the look and feel of big hard muscles on a man; partly I love the feeling of a big man towering over me; I love the weight of his strong heavy body on top of me, pinning me down; I love the fact that he can lift me up and toss me around; I love watching him move a heavy piece of furniture as if it were a feather; I love to watch his muscles rippling as he works out with weights, or digs in the garden. Ever since puberty hit, I had this intense adoration for male muscles; and it wasn't going away just because I had a black belt boyfriend who was a small but ferocious fighting tiger.

But when I later got involved with my bigger boyfriend, I did often have a nagging doubt about his ability to physically dominate me, if we ever got into an actual fight. He was twice my size and probably six or eight times as strong as me, so maybe that was an unreasonable doubt. But one time he did make me mad enough that I punched him in the gut, and the next thing I knew he was sprawled on the floor, groaning and holding his stomach with both hands. I was astonished, and also quite disturbed that I could hurt him that easily. So I ultimately felt that he was not really strong and dominant enough for me, despite his physical strength. (But I was still sufficiently afraid of him, physically, that the first time it looked like he might get truly abusive with me, I insisted that he had to move out.) What I really dreamed of was a man who was that big and strong, who also had some martial arts skills, and who had a more aggressive and dominating personality.

So I would say that I can relate to Louise's comment, to the extent that if I was not sure of a man's ability to physically overpower me, then that would put a big dent in the romance. But Louise seemed to be suggesting that the desire to be physically dominated by a man would be proportional to that doubt, and inversely proportional to the man's physical strength. And that is precisely backwards, in my experience.

If I doubt a man's ability to physically dominate me, then most likely what I will want is to find another man, one whom I am quite certain can overpower me without any problem at all. The sort of man that I most want to be physically dominated by is not one who is close to me in size and strength and fighting skill, but an extremely large, muscular, physically powerful man with fearsome fighting skills -- the sort of man who could crush me in instant if he chose to. I don't want him to actually injure me, of course; and my ability to trust that he won't is an overriding factor in any romantic relationship. But I do want him to have such an overwhelming edge of physical force that my trying to fight against him would be like a mouse fighting a tiger. That sense of his overwhelming physical strength, and his willingness to use it to coerce me erotically, is what most excites me sexually. That's also why erotic combat appeals to me. I would not be at all interested in a contest between near-equals; I am only interested in a contest between a tiger and a mouse. (Or maybe a contest between, say, King Kong and Fay Wray. She looked so cute and helpless in his giant fist, didn't she?) That is to say, what most appeals to me sexually is a contest that is no contest at all, but rather a playful and erotic demonstration of a huge powerful man's ability to totally overwhelm his woman physically, to toy with her like a tiger toying with a mouse.

Why I have an intense desire of this nature is not exactly clear; although it's clear that it's deeply connected with my submissive sexuality. But ever since I can recall, my desires for a powerful dominant male tended to run to extremes. When puberty first hit I was enthralled by immense, powerful warriors like Conan and Hercules. But soon I was having fantasies of a man who was built like Hercules, but maybe eight or ten feet tall, and imagining him with a tiny petite woman who was maybe half his height, and how powerfully he could physically dominate her. There are people (called "macrophiliacs") who have erotic fantasies about giants. Macrophilia usually has some connection to submissive sexual fantasies, and usually starts very early. (Wikipedia says, in childhood.) I guess my desires bordered on that, in some sense, although I was never interested in extreme gigantism; and my interest did not show up at all until I hit puberty, which corresponded to my first inklings of sexual desire and excitement. But I left puberty behind, and over the decades my desires became somewhat more realistic: I would now be happy with a man who's 6'2' instead of eight feet tall; and I now prefer a football player physique to the "totally-ripped" look of pro bodybuilders. But I still really want a man who's a lot bigger and stronger than average; and I'd like him to have some serious fighting skills, too.

Anyway, I don't know if that helps to clarify it at all. And, of course, I'm only talking about the nature of my own desires for a physically powerful and dominant man; I can't speak for every woman who has that desire. In my case a man's ability to physically overpower me is absolutely essential to his dominance, and to any erotic desire on my part. But while his ability to physically overpower me is necessary it is not sufficient. He really needs to be able to be able to conquer and dominate me with such overwhelming physical strength and force that I feel like a helpless little mouse caught in a tiger's paw, or Fay Wray trapped by King Kong. That's what really kicks in my erotic surrender, and fills me with submissive bliss and awe of his masculinity. Being overpowered by a man who is only slightly stronger than me (or even, say, twice as strong) does not make me feel submissive at all; rather, it tends to merely annoy and disgust me. I need a big, strong, warrior man in order for me to feel truly conquered and dominated.

Hera wrote:

I just need to feel they're intellectually superior; c'est tout.

Apparently this is a common feeling (but probably not a majority one) among women seeking a dominant man. I'll confess that I don't understand it in the least. I don't see that the intellect has anything to do with domination at all. I've been smarter than all my boyfriends, and I have never "dominated" any of them. (Sorry if my repeating this sounds like ego; what motivates it is that I get really truly and viscerally ANNOYED when I encounter this idea that the dominant man must be smarter than the woman. If that's someone's personal preference, fine. But as an ideal for all of us, or even most of us??? No.)

I would acknowledge that a certain minimum level of intelligence is necessary for the man to have a good grasp of the relationship dynamics and how to make the marriage work. And I might even say that minimum level is higher than average; but there's no reason why he has to be smarter than his woman. Also, the kind of intelligence needed there is an *emotional* or intuitive smarts, of a sort that really has nothing to do with his comprehension of vector calculus or phenomenology, or most other intellectual pursuits.

But I do need some feeling they're "better" (stronger isn't the right word) and I think this comes back to control.

But one person cannot "control" another merely by exercizing their IQ. Previously when you were talking about "mind control" I figured you must be talking about psychic powers or something. That would be odd enough, but the idea that one person can control another merely by being smarter is an even stranger idea. Physical control is REAL control. If a man is twice your size and has six times your strength, then he has a very real ability to put you forcefully under his control. But if his only source of "control" is being smarter, then I don't see how that would work at all. Maybe what happens is that some people are inclined to feel submissive in the presence of someone who's smarter than they are? (This would explain a lot of my unfortunate encounters with submissive men, actually.) But even if it makes them feel submissive, the other person's brains hold absolutely no coercive power at all. Well, maybe if they get into a real debate, the smarter person can beat them at that. But how can they actually *force* them to do anything? They can't.

If you want to cede control and have decisions at least in some areas if not all taken for you then you have to know that person can take those decisions and be better at them than you would be

No, I don't agree. The man gets to make the decisions NOT because he's smarter and wiser, but because he's the one with the POWER to enforce them. When it comes to the *thinking* part -- the actual problem solving, which is where intelligence counts -- then both partners should be involved in that. So the man makes the decision, but he makes it taking into full account the woman's thoughts and opinions and advice. And if she's smarter than he is, he should be honest enough to acknowledge that, and factor that into his decisions accordingly. But his is the *executive* power of making and enforcing decisions; not the *judicial* power of thinking about what's the right thing to do. My impression is that most women are a bit smarter than most men, especially when it comes to relationships.

So maybe this is a crude analogy, but if I compare the relationship to the three bodies of the American governement -- legislative, executive, and judicial -- then in my view what would work best might be something like this: The man is the executive branch, so he makes the executive decisions, and holds veto power; he also holds a monopoly on the use of force, much like the president is commander of the armed forces. The woman is the judicial branch, whose job is to think deeply, interpret and advise. Both partners together participate in the legislative process, which here means agreeing to the rules (if any) and boundaries of their relationship. (Again, the man holds veto power.) That way, they are both fully participating in the relationship, but they do not have equal executive authority. (And this is a very crude simplification of the three branches of government, obviously; let's not nitpick those details.)

Anyway, the point of this analogy is: a president does not really need to be terribly smart; what's more important is that he be a bold and decisive leader, and that he be willing to pay attention to his advisors, who are smarter than he is. (George Washington, for example, was considered a great leader. But that's partly because he honestly acknowledged that he was not all that brilliant, and he surrounded himself with advisors who were brilliant, and he paid attention to them.) But a president does need to hold the executive power -- a monopoly on actual physical force -- and be willing to use that wisely. But when it comes to the judicial role of interpreting and advising, then the capacity for deep thinking is really essential.

So I don't really think the man has to be brilliant in order to fill his executive role in the marriage; he just has to be wise enough to really listen to his wife and respect her input. Another analogy along similar lines would be the relationship between King Arthur and the wizard Merlin. Nobody would argue that Arthur was wiser or smarter than Merlin; but nevertheless it was the King who held the ultimate authority and power over all his subjects, including Merlin; and all that Merlin could really do was advise him and hope the king heeded his advice.

so I need that feeling that here is someone who knows more than I do about life, things in general and even human relationships. When I've felt like that it's worked.

I guess that might be appealing for some women. It's not something that I would find appealing at all, personally. I'm really quite comfortable being the older (often) and wiser (usually) partner in the relationship -- provided that the man is also comfortable with that. If he somehow imagines that his manhood or masculine authority requires him to be smarter and wiser, then we're likely to get into some real nasty head-butting about that. But if he understands that his power and authority over me derive from his muscles his virility, and not from his brains, then that can work out perfectly. What I worship in a man is his masculine strength and beauty, his idealism, his emotional intensity, his integrity, and his heroism. I don't worship brains at all, and I'm perplexed by those who do.

Well, I do worship my husband's brains in a sense, his ability to deal with any technical crisis that should arise in our household does leave me breathless with admiration. Watching him deftly fix any household appliance that is giving trouble is an immense turn-on for me. I find his technical experties extremelys sexy. A couple of months ago the lock on our front door broke, and he made a new lock for the door out in his workshop. I've never known another man who could do that. And he actually UNDERSTANDS how things like TVs and computers work! To me, it's just witchcraft pure and simple. I am dazzled by his knowledge of these things. And the wonderful dexterity with which he handles the boat when we are out sailing, and the way he can tell which way the wind is coming from by the colour of the sea, that's magical. Mere physical strength is not enough to move me, most men are stronger than me, so what's the big deal about that? Skill rather than strength is what I admire.

I do consider him to be my intellectual superior when it comes to knowing about anything of a useful nature. He's also my intellectual superior when it comes to mind-reading. He always knows what I'm thinking. For instance, yesterday we went out shopping in the nearest town to here that has any decent shops. On the way back, we got stuck behind a bus, one of many things guaranteed to infuriate him when we're out driving. having passed the bus, with much honking and many abusive comments, he reached over and slapped me hard on the upper thigh. "That was for what you were thinking" he said. "I wasn't thinking anything" I protested. "Yes you were,you were thinking 'oh no, here he goes again!'" he retorted. And of course he was perfectly correct. Uncanny.

The most important way in which he takes control of me is by being able to overrride any feelings of sullenness, bad temper or resentment, and produce in me a submissive response, even when it's against my will. He can do it with just a few words, and have an instant calming effect on me. If he says "come here" in that certain tone of foice, I respond instantly, no matter what kind of mood I may be in, and any negative feelings ebb away. I find this very soothing. It's not manipulation or hypnosis or anything like that, it is simply that he is able to keep control of his emotions, and of mine too. I admire his ability to do this tremendously. It's part of his remarkable ability to fix things, his ability to fix me as well. His mental skills are superior to mine, and I find that very fascinating. It's not manipulation, it's simply that he is able to make me feel respect and compliance towards him by demonstrating a superior ability to stay in control of the situation.

Louise

Louise wrote:

Well, I do worship my husband's brains in a sense, his ability to deal with any technical crisis that
should arise in our household does leave me breathless with admiration. Watching him deftly fix any household appliance that is giving trouble is an immense turn-on for me. I find his technical experties extremelys sexy.

Would you find it sexy if I were the one impressing you with my technical expertise? See, what I just don't get is how something can be "sexy" if it has little or nothing to do with masculine or feminine qualities.

Maybe that's a bit of an overstatement, because someone can give a sexy look or wink or smile, and I could imagine that same gesture coming from either a man or a woman, but it's not going to seem sexy to me unless it's coming from a man whom I'm already attracted to. But most things that have nothing to do with gender don't seem sexy to me. What arouses me most are the differences between men and women. That's why I can get turned on by a man's deep voice, his size, his muscles, his chest hair, his sexual dominance.

And he actually UNDERSTANDS how things like TVs and computers work! To me, it's just witchcraft pure and simple. I am dazzled by his knowledge of these things.

Having done my time both as an engineer and as a Wiccan priestess, I can assure you that there is no similarity at all between technology and witchcraft. Nor is there anything even remotely mysterious about how mechanical or technological gizmos work; it's a straightforward application of the laws of physics. There is unfathomable depth and mystery in physics, of course -- it's the nature of Nature to be ultimately mysterious, and to elude full human comprehension at its deepest core. But technology?? No. That's something people already figured out before.

The only reason you're "dazzled" is that you never took time to learn about it. Sadly, that is the case with all too many women, who then imagine that that there's something "mysterious" about the ability to fix things and figure them out. Nope. It's a "mystery" due only to many women's selective ignorance, and it's easily fixed with a little effort. Here's one place to start, maybe not the best: http://howstuffworks.com You could also check out some popular science or "everyday physics" websites, they do a lot of explaining how things work.

Mere physical strength is not enough to move me, most men are stronger than me, so what's the big deal about that?

The "big deal" about it is that it's a MASCULINE quality, whereas a knack for fixing things is not. Yes, most men are stronger than most women; that's precisely WHY physical strength is a masculine quality -- and why I find it so immensely sexy when that masculine quality is even greater or more exaggerated than usual. But I just can't see how why some genderless and totally neuter quality -- like technological smarts -- can be sexy. If it's sexy when a man does it, then it must also be sexy when a woman does it. So if a man and a woman are fixing a car together, are they both getting turned on by each other's mechanical prowess as they get covered with grease? I don't think so. There's nothing sexy about fixing cars at all. I just don't get how gender neutral qualities can be sexy.

I do consider him to be my intellectual superior when it comes to knowing about anything of a useful nature.

Maybe so; but how does that make it sexy?? Would you find the same qualities sexy in a woman? Probably not. So, what is it that makes it sexy? What if you were ignorant of other things? Let's say that you had never learned to cook. Then would it be sexy if your husband were skillful in the kitchen?

Hmm, but actually that gets me thinking. Because I do find it kind of sexy when a man is a good cook. I can cook, but only at a very basic level; so there are lots of men who are better at that than I am. But I think maybe the reason I find it sexy has more to do with the sensuous enjoyment of food. Because some of my boyfriends were also better housekeepers than I am, and that was never particularly sexy to me.

And I can find it very sexy when a man is working in the garden, even though I'm a gardener myself. Partly it's because a man is so much stronger than I am, and it's a thrill to watch him easily doing things that I would find very difficult or impossible to do. For me there is no mystery or dazzle in technology at all; but if I watch a guy pick up a 50-pound bag of compost and carry it off like it's nothing -- that's what amazes and dazzles me, and wins my admiration. Men who are even stronger can toss around 100 or 200 pounds with ease. To me that's a miracle, a seemingly impossible feat that makes him seem nearly godlike in his physical prowess -- almost as impressive as if he could call down lightning from the sky. The manly quality of immense physical strength is always what fascinates me the most. But I think I also find gardening sexy just because it's sensuous and organic and natural and biological. None of which applies to fixing engines.

Thinking some more on this (risky thing to do) I realize that I can find it sexy when a man does other things that are not particularly masculine -- like playing drums or guitar. It's true that I don't play either of those instruments; but I don't think that's why I find it sexy. Again, I think it comes back to the fact that music is sensuous by nature, and it's something that evokes and expresses emotion directly; and that can be quite sexy. (Also, a man can get quite forceful on drums or a guitar, in a way that you just cannot get on an organ or violin.) But in that case I don't find it sexy when just anybody plays the drums, just like I don't find it sexy when just anybody is gardening. It has to be a man that I already am attracted to, for other reasons.

So maybe what I'm coming around to here is this: the masculine sexy qualities (physical strength, dominance, etc.) are very attractive to me, and provide reasons why I would find a man desirable in the first place. The sensuous qualities or skills (cooking, gardening, music) are things that I find attractive only if I'm already attracted to the man because of his masculine qualities.

It's part of his remarkable ability to fix things, his ability to fix me as well. His mental skills are superior to mine, and I find that very fascinating. It's not manipulation, it's simply that he is able to make me feel respect and compliance towards him by demonstrating a superior ability to stay in control of the situation.

Maybe this is a common feeling among sexually submissive women who lack confidence in their ability to deal with various situations. But it's not something that I find sexy in general. I would prefer to have confidence in my ability to deal with most situations myself. While I would like the man to be competent and confident in dealing with unexpected circumstances, I would prefer that both of us share that quality. (Two heads are better than one.) I don't see it as a masculine or sexy quality at all. What's masculine and sexy is when the man is competent and confident in getting *me* under control. That impresses me much more than his ability to get a rusty garage door under control.

Precious Baby wrote:

I agree with Hera about the stimulation of a man's intelligence being a turn on, especially for intellectually gifted women. It can be quiet lonely when you carry the weight in this aspect.

Yes, that's true. I don't mean to give the impression that I don't prefer intelligent men, or that I don't find the company of a smart man more stimulating than a dull one. I love intelligence in a man. The point is only that intelligence has nothing to do with masculinity or dominance. So there's no reason why the man has to be smarter than the woman, or even nearly as smart.

There is a certain type and degree of intelligence that I find absolutely essential in both friends and lovers; that would be intelligence of a more verbal, emotional, intuitive and even spiritual nature. That's what matters most in maintaining a relationship. I can admire other kinds of intelligence, whether it's mathematical or musical or artistic or spatial or whatnot; but being smart in those other ways is not essential to a relationship. Even with verbal and intuitive intelligence, there is a level that's good enough for cultivating a wonderful romance; and anything beyond that is nice, but not really essential.

I also, like Dee Marie, adore a man's physical strength and drown in the masculinity of muscles and powerful bruteness but I agree with Louise that most men can overpower most women especially in a situation when push comes to shove.

And the fact that men are stronger than women is what makes physical strength a specifically masculine quality, and therefore sexy in a man. Whereas intelligence is something that can be sexy in both men and women. (Or maybe neither, if it's a geeky type of intelligence.)

I find these discussions very interesting, especially when it helps me discover or figure out things about myself that I never paid attention to before. And even when it does occasionally wander away from the endlessly fascinating topic of muscles and manliness...

Well, I do admire my husband's technical abilities, and I do find them a turn-on, they may not be specifically masculine, but what of it? Physical strength is something a woman can have as well, I suppose, if she spends a lot of time doing workouts at the gym and building up her muscles, she could make herself stronger than me without much effort. It's precisely because my husband has skills that are better than any other man's I know that I find this sexy. If all men could do the same things he does then I suppose I would find it less of a turn-on, because it would be more commonplace. The impression I have, though, is that men in general are better at fixing things than women. I also tend to think that its one of the things that men are FOR.

In 'Stet, Damnit!' Florence King's collection of articles she wrote for the National Review, she had this to say about the effect the draft had on her generation of American men.:

My beaux were part of the palely loitering bohemian crowd, all arty intensity and nascent alienation, the kind of boys drill sergeants love to get hold of, the kind of whom father say, "It'll do him good". When I saw them again a few years later it was obvious that they had been gotten hold of and that it had done them good. Not that they had learned to love the Army; on the contrary, they hated it. But they had lost the palely loitering look and their bohemian petulance had been replaced by jaunty cynicism.
The draft produced the kind of men that today's girls have never known, and relations between the sexes were better for it. What sticks in my mind about them is their self-sufficiency and competence in fixing things that broke and figuring out solutions to emergencies. Thanks to the draft I belong to the last generation of American women who could scream "Do something!" and get results. Most of my men were intellectuals but they had been taught in basic training to change a tire in 90 seconds, rig up electrical wiring, tie knots that stayed tied, and take a rifle apart and reassemble it while blindfolded. This last was never necessary in civilian life but it made for a self-assured deftness that was awesome.

I find my husband's self-assured deftness awesome, and I do not believe it is something I could ever acquire myself, no matter how much time I spent studying physics or anything else. These qualities would not on their own attract me to him, I found him physically attractive to begin with as well, but over the years they have become more of an object of admiration to me. And he's a better cook than me as well, though I don't find that particularly a turn-on, since cooking is something I can do for myself, even if not as well as him. I couldn't mend the washing-machine or make a new lock for the front door though. Or handle our boat on my own. I'd much rather he spent his time doing things like that than working out at the gym, which I would regard as a complete waste of time. Bulging muscles just don't do anything for me. Carrying stuff that is too heavy for me is something I find useful, but not especially a turn-on. It's just being a beast of burden, after all.

I do find it very sexy when my husband gets me under control, but he can do this without the use of brute force, he can make me compliant just by speaking to me in a certain way, or even just looking at me, and I find that much more exciting than physical force, which he has used in the past, and which never did anything for me. I do find the fact that he can keep me under control simply by a word or a look much more stimulating. That he is able to produce in me a submissive response without any physical contact between us at all is something I find quite fascinating. Muscles are useful, but they don't fascinate me in the same way.

Louise

I have to say I've had some experience when it came to men. I was unhappily married to Mr. Muscle. He used his strength for horrible purposes, and I left to save my life. Could he overpower me? Oh yes! Was it worth it? I have scars to show it was not. Then I dated them all. Body builders, intellects, businessmen, doctors...you name it. Each came with their unique set of qualities. Some were taller, some almost as smart. :-) All of them wanting to please me in some way. I searched within those qualities, knowing what I wanted most was to lose. I wanted an equal match in minds (at least), unequal match in bodies, and some form of understanding me.

When I met the man who is now my husband, he took my breath away. For a number of reasons. One, I got to know him before I met him. It was a meeting of minds first. We talked, talked, shared, discovered and pondered. He discovered my desire to submit, although I did not call it that at the time! Imagine my surprise when the door opened to this man, at 6'3" filled out his suit and I could have melted. My fist words to him, "I can get around you", which we laugh about to this very day.

What lured me from the very beginning was his quiet dominance. His control at all times of conversations. His ability to understand how I came to any conclusion. He stopped my quiet manipulation and ranting with only understanding me and validating feelings. How did this man get to this point? Oddly enough growing up he was a highly sensitive boy. He was mortified if anyone spoke to him. His father 'fixed' his ADD way back when. It went like this "Are you paying attention to me boy" and Smack...a good one across the head. Fixed the attention deficit permanently. He turned bright red when a woman or teacher singled him out. He lived in his own world and had very limited social skills. As he grew, he found sports and excelled. It was during this period he grew into himself. But it was his highly sensitive self that allowed him to understand others. From that, he bundled his own desires and sexual titillations and find his dominance within. He knew easily that his size and strength could dominate, but recognized that would be taking the easy way out. He fine-tuned his mind to do the communicating.

Conversations later, he found I was someone who could match his mind. It took him some time to dig, resource and apply to get my complete attention. If he had used his muscle, I'd have been long gone. Been through that already, preferred to be alone forever than to go through that again. So he wooed me. With words, looks, ideas and surprises. In turn, I responded, questioned, provided insights with ruthless truth and acceptance. He was smitten, I was hooked and we fell in love.

To know him growing up, he'd be the least likely dominant man you'd meet. As a young man, he had size, but not confidence. Today, most defer to him simply by looking at his eyes. Well, maybe not the teenagers, but it's inbred to buck authority, even his...lol...

I think that each man finds his own dominance in his own way. It's my opinion it has less to do with size or intelligence than it has to do with confidence and desire. Any man who is comfortable in his own skin can pierce his meaning with a 'look'. A less secure man can glare, scowl, stare or pout and shoot daggers. Those are looks I've never seen on my husband. It's not about size or body type or looks. It's about intent and quality.

-Blush