Now it's time for something different, I'm looking

Tryhard edoms are just as bad dude

Your entire post was cringy as heck

How old are you though, and what do you look like?

topkek

Yeah, you sound like a dom that a sub would trust enough to hand over her emotional and physical wellbeing.

>>24986431
*tips fedora* "Why don't girls like nice guys, cringe"

>>24986436
Fit/average, small layer of body fat, not ripped and not skinny. White, clear skin, dark hair, light eyes, usually a bit of stubble.

>>24986442
Not everybody likes the "ask 6 times before doing anything" fetlife dom. Some people are comfortable setting ground rules once, before hand. 50 shades of grey and fetlife have really fucked up the BDSM scene.

>>24986443
No age? What sort of girl are you looking for?

>>24986443
Definitely, but things can still go wrong during a scene. It's important to be able to trust your dom enough and respect yourself enough to call out when you're in trouble. First post just sounds like tryhard bullshit.

>>24986449
Ah, 26. Forgot the age.

I don't have a huge list of preferences as long as they're not somebody with just a passing interest, it gets really frustrating, especially since the new 50 Shades movie, how many women just have a curiosity about it but no interest to actually life the lifestyle even for a night, unless you count fuzzy handcuffs and lovetaps to be BDSM.

For looks, I prefer long hair, light skin, thin to chubby. But those aren't really that important, since it's mostly about the mental aspect.

I suppose I do really enjoy the dynamic of either bratty petite girls, or very submissive athletic girls because of the sharp contrasts.

>>24986467
AHAHAHAHA
50 Shades was published in 2011. At best you would have been 21. Barely old enough to buy a beer. Fetlife launched in 2008, when you would have been 17 at best. And somehow you were so involved in the scene to know what it was like before these?

Go fuck yourself, kiddo. No one else will.

>>24986545
>Published
>Movie
The first movie came out in 2015 and the latest one JUST came out. Both of them brought a huge influx of awful. The books also brought in a lot of older women who liked the idea of a rich guy tying them up in his skyscraper mansion.

I never claimed I'd been on fetlife since it launched, but I have been in various BDSM communities since before it launched, because of a swedish dominatrix friend. "Kid". On the other hand, fetlife has been on a very steady decline for years. Have you looked at "kinky and popular" lately? A lot of them are blog posts about how having preferences for body shop, age or race makes you a sexist, unless you're a woman then it's okay. There are plenty about how "The submissive actually owns the dominant, the dom's just there to be a tool".

Regardless, I've had a few replies and only one was dick pic spam, don't see a reason to continue the argument.

>>24986443
Anon was right. Your entire post was cringe and fedora as fuck.

>>24986416
>Yeah, TELL ME I'M A BIG, STRONG MAN...COWER BEFORE ME, SLUT

Do you really need to treat a girl like shit to feel powerful? V pathetic, daddio.

File: Supreme gentleman.jpg (345KB, 720x540px) Image search: [Google]

345KB, 720x540px

>>24986638
I'm sorry to have offended such a supreme gentleman. Maybe we could head over to the male anus rate threads and discuss this on your home territory.

>>24986649
>h-he DARES to think my kink is overcompensation?? He must be "nice guy", sissy boi, pegging loving, fedora tipping, nu male KEK!

Grow up, "daddy dom".

>>24986657
You put a lot of words in my mouth there. I only accused you of one of those things. The rest of those may be some issues you need to work out on your own.

>>24986662
yeah, you were hinting at it. your OP was indicative enough. Have fun on your search for girls who wanna lick your ASSERTIVE, MASCULINE BOOTS, SIR.

>>24986671
There are a couple contenders but we don't have a whole lot in common outside of BDSM kink. Thanks for wishing me fun though, pal.

>>24986673
Dude, I have no problem with you enjoying being sexually dominant, my issue was with you downing sexually submissive men in your search for submissive women, and being so immediately in "dom" mode in your post.

>>24986416
Cringey as FUCK.
Like dude, if you need to judge other people for what they like to try to seem "manly", then you're pathetic. Seriously. You can't even look half decent on your own. Also that "actual sub" bullshit. You realize a sub is a submissive, right? To submit is up to interpretation. But oh, let me guess, your definition is the only one that counts? I'm not even a fan of betas but I'd rather a beta faggot who is honest to themselves about how pathetic they are than a cringey try hard who thinks they have value because of their own stupidity. I bet you wouldn't even do half this shit in real life either.

>>24986416
I'm just gonna point out that one of the most important qualities a Dom needs is confidence. Your first post doesn't show much confidence, it seems more try hard than anything else.

Another important quality is being able to inspire confidence in your Sub. They need to be confident in you and your abilities. Your subsequent posts in this thread do nothing to inspire, they only imply insecurity.

Perhaps some day you'll get over yourself and become a good Dom. Maybe you'll find that the idea was never really your thing. Or maybe you'll never grow out of your teenage "I've gotta prove myself" mindset.

Just my two cents.

>>24986771
>>24986781
Kind of remind me of those guys that think going to the gym is a waste of time and over compensating and that life is fine just sitting in a basement eating dorito and mountain dew smoothies, and that people should accept their lack of effort as desirable.

Please learn that not everybody wants somebody that is fine with putting in zero effort.

>>24986789
because going to the gym is the same as trying to prove your manliness and domliness on 4chan. Okay bud, have fun thinking that proving yourself is "putting in effort".

>>24986789
What? How are these people implying they put little effort into what they enjoy? You should really just delete this post man, with the qualities you've shown there is no way you'd ever attract a quality sub, esp with this thread.

>>24986789
You have zero reading comprehension lmao

Anyway, agreeing with the rest of the crew here that your first post was super embarrassing.

>>24986789
Kind of remind me of those guys that think going to the gym and just working out is a waste of time and beta and that life is fine being super aggressive with random people in public, and that people should accept their lack of redeeming features as desirable.

Please learn that not everybody wants somebody that is fine with being an asshole.

>>24987147
He actually does. I pointed out that he was like, a teenager when Fetlife came out, and thus didn't experience the scene before Fetlife. And he responded "I didn't say I was on fetlife when it launched."

The original post was fine with a few exceptions. Ultimately, OP failed when he decided to engage in discussion about his experience, credentials, personality and approach with a bunch of crying betas (blah blah ad hominem).

While some of you raise some irrelivant but accurate points, in no way does the first post read as not dominant.

Few relevent points: Wanting your 'boy pussy' fucked doesn't make you a cuck. But you're using it colloquially so I'll let it slide. Being a bottom doesn't make you submissive, which you imply. Ever heard of power bottoms? Are traps submissive? Implicitly, I guess. So fair point. Stalking a girl, asking for validation from others, getting off on it; little bit beta - yeah you have a point.

Anything wrong with these people you describe and use as examples of submissive? Not really. Not sure why you'd use them in examples at all. /soc/ Never claimed to be a BDSM community, nor did it claim to be the paragon of dominance. Regardless, these people aren't claiming to be dominant, so it's super irrelivent.

So yeah, I'm engaging in the irrelivent discussion. While OP imagines and sees himself as a dominant and no doubt 'tries' to act dominant; that's fine. But being intelligent and holding the capability to use relevent evidence to make your point (something OP does not do well at all), are not mutually exclusive characteristics of being a dominant. It makes you a better one, but it doesn't stop you being one.

>>24987301
>in no way does the first post read as not dominant

Except it literally doesn't read as dominant. It reads as some dude who pretends to boss around girls over a keyboard and gives them nothing in return. It's immature, selfish, and embarrassing. Lines like "the piece of meat you really are" are just eye-rollingly cliché and don't actually carry and weight to them at all. If this dude had any real charisma or dominating personality traits at all, he wouldn't be scraping the bottom of a Taiwanese cartoon website with the hopes that some girl will respond.

>>24987301
I have to agree, it doesn't read as Dominant at all. Scene play and sex are not synonymous, and he can't talk about anything else except sex. It just reads as a horny guy who wants porn style sex.

This thread is laughable

>>24987314
But he is scraping the bottom. For whatever reason that may be. Many of which don't indicate he's not dominant. E.g being ugly doens't mean you're not dominant.

Subjective opinion. "It doesn't read as dominant". It doesn't read as dominant because what? It's cliche? That's not a reason why it's not dominant. Give a objective and verifyable reason why it's not dominant and I'll entertain everything else you have to say.

>>24987327
I said it does read as dominant. I didn't say it was a good quality of dominant, but it was definitely dominant. Cliche. Poorly reasoned. Aimed at the wrong target. But not NOT dominant.

>>24987327
Overcompensation (putting down other guys on here who aren't doms) and having to be extremely cliché and graphic just indicate insecurity, not dominance. If I go "man, I'm gonna punch you so hard. Show you what it's really like to be hit. Not like those beta cucks who don't know how to throw a real punch! I'll show you how a real man destroys a person," it isn't dominating just because it's describing a severe act. It's about language and tone, and how he's written his OP is just embarrassing.

>>24987335
I guess it depends on your definition of Dominant?

>>24987347
>>24987347
Which is exactly what everyone is trifling over. Dominant is a relative term, relative to a submissive person or a submissive act. Is OP being submissive by asserting an advertisement? Is OP being submissive in stating how he wants to exercise control (regardless of how lacking in finesse, technique, experience or know-how it may appear to some of you?)

No. On the scale of submissive to dominant, it falls on the dominant side.

>>24987346
Putting others down and physical forms of aggression ARE dominant characteristics. They are socially percieved as such and have been for a long time, both in human interaction and the animal kingdom. The influence aspect is important. He's riled all you up just by these statements. Seems pretty indicative of someone dominant; had he not continued onward in a discussion with you guys and felt the need to justify himself, but I addressed that in my first post.

>>24987335
the reason why I don't consider it dominant is because it screams he's putting on a show, an act. If you have to over compensate and try this hard, usually being dominant isn't actually a part of you or your personality, it's just pretending to be something you're not. All it came off as was super try hard to PROVE he's somehow dominant, which to me isn't dominant at all because usually dominants have a form of confidence, at the very least in the fact of who they are. For me when it comes to dominants it's a part of who they are, whether learned or always there, and if you have to basically roleplay because you think it's what people want to hear, then again: it doesn't count. Plus dominant means a form of power, this just comes across as PLZ LOOK AT ME AND TAKE ME SERIOUSLY, which isn't from a place of power at all.

>>24987361
Also just because something isn't submissive, doesn't make it inherently dominant. Just sayin'. so the is op being submissive part really is a moot point.

>>24987375
This. It's not a binary world.

And more to the point, small d dominant and big D Dominant are two different things: the first is an adjective, the second is a noun. He is acting dominant, but he absolutely does not sound like a Dominant. I can't imagine any kink community that would let someone in who thinks consent is "set ground rules once." At least, not in the D/s scene. M/s, sure, but then his confusion of the two just further shows his ignorance, someone role-playing something.

>>24987371
You have absolutely no evidence for any of that. That's all opinion. Over-compensating? He's literally described how he's been involved in the BDSM community. You've been presented with many reasons to believe (on the internet, risky business) that he's not just an amateur stumbling in to this and yet you're choosing to ignore those markers in place of your own poorly reasoned, subjective opinion.

There is a heavy distinction to be drawn between being a professional, live-in dominant person, and being lower on the scale of an overall dominant character.

Further, being a dominant in the BDSM scene absolutely can, and is often putting on a show. That's the whole point. It's called submission. For submission, the sub must submit. If there wasn't an accepted level of control handed over from a submissive then you're heading into felony/serious crime territory. Torture comes to mind. Rape. How exactly are you okay with basing your opinion on the erronous idea that BDSM isn't a show?

You keep using the word 'try-hard.' Be specific. Are you referring to this:

"So if you're female and know that you deserve to be put on your knees, spit on, humiliated, spanked and fucked until you're too sore to move like the piece of meat you really are, email me with a timestamp and a better way to contact you?"

This:

"Somebody that wants to be owned, used, abused, made to be the filthy little slut you know you are"?

Or are you referring to him putting others down? Already addressed why putting down others is a dominant characteristic.

>>24986638
Some girls like being treated that way :)

Subspace and aftercare are both powerful things

>>24987388
So to be a Dominant requires x number of years in the BDSM community, including experience in a professional BDSM setting, whether at clubs, meets or conventions. Further qualifications require strict adherance to what the Worldwide BDSM Confederation (circ 1920) lay out in their most recently updated rules and regulations, especially schedule 4?

No. You don't get to usurp what is defined as a dominant just because you -think- that -no- kink community would accept his approach.

Scanned his post. He didn't once mention only discussing boundaries once. Supposition.

>>24987399
Describing how he's been involved in the bdsm community isn't evidence nor proof, because he could just be pulling shit out of his ass. That's not a valid point at all.
I mean I'll admit sure, it comes down to opinion, but let's be real here: unless there is solid evidence, ALL of this is opinion. Being dominant is an opinion. So is submissive, kinky, etc. so to say "that's all opinion" would only be valid if this entire discussion was based on more than opinion, which it's not.
For a lot of people in kink yes, it's part a show, but for many of them it's also just a part of who they are and interact with others. That's not the whole point. The whole point is the power structure and the exchange of power. That's the point. It doesn't matter how you do it, that's literally what it is.
As for try-hard I mean he's trying hard to prove himself to an anonymous community. He doesn't look it, but he's TRYING to be/look it. And failing. So I point that out. He doesn't air confidence or power, therefore I don't consider him dominant. He feels like a child who thinks "look at me, I'm so dominant" somehow makes him dominant. It doesn't.

>>24987408
You haven't explained your try-hard statements well enough for it to have a grounds desu. I'm not seeing the try-hard in his post. I'm seeing a lot of cliche. Cliche that I could literally point out to you by linking 1000s of BDSM porn videos. If you find it corny, nobody cares. That doesn't make it not-dominant. Also, exerting effort isn't 'not-dominant.' That's nonsense.

Tell me why, if you are unable to believe the claims of people online (not saying that's a bad thing) you would actively choose to put your own time and effort into pressing the keys on your keyboard to voice an opinion. Sounds to me like an exercise in futility and pointlessness. This is a self-defeating argument from you.

The power structure and exchange of power is a show. You're commenting on his ability to do this based on nothing - which you've admitted. His words aren't not dominant. His advertisement is not not dominant. His choice to put down others as examples of submissiveness is not not dominant. It is assholish, but yeah; not not dominant.

We've exhausted the discussion.

>>24987420
Not really, you're just missing the points and trying to exert points that are just as pointles. Also you commenting on actively choosing to put my time and effort to voice an opinion when you're actively arguing. Irony. Anyways, I'm done here. The only valid point you've made is he can be considered dominant, which is fine, but the point is that's an opinion and just as valid as he can be considered dominant, he can also not be considered dominant. Again, it's literally an opinion. Just because he can be considered dominant doesn't mean I can't have reasons for not considering him dominant and you can't be like YOU'RE WRONG when it's LITERALLY AN OPINION. You're making an entire point based upon this not realizing the stupidity of it, basically trying to be like MY OPINION IS THE RIGHT OPINION. Pro-tip: it's not. No opinion is. Argument done.

>>24987361
I'm not riled up. I'm literally laughing at him.

A physical form of aggression CAN be seen as dominant. It is not always so. And making keyboard threats about how you're going to treat someone isn't anywhere near close to actually domming another human being.

You keep saying that what he's doing is dominant, yet almost everyone in this thread perceived him as not so. How is that the case then, if he's checking off all of the right boxes?

>>24987431
Not irony. I am able to accept what others say online as truth. I don't always, but I am able. I am discussing, because I am also able to accept other points of view. You haven't presented any worth accepting. Not insulting, just being honest.

dominance
ˈdɒmJnəns/
noun
noun: dominance

power and influence over others.

In BDSM the show, yes the show - accept it, of a submissive submitting to a dominant is what creates this dominance. This is unclear from our perspective and we only have OP's statement that he has been involved in the BDSM community. We can look to the way OP uses words and phrases like: -

"and know that you deserve"
"spit on, humiliated, spanked and fucked"
"like the piece of meat you really are"
"you promise to be good and do as you're told"
"you might be lucky enough to become"

THESE ARE ALL DOMINANT CLAUSES OR ACTIONS. I'm not being subjective. I'm being fucking cold, hard and calculative to the fucking TEE in considering what English grammar considers a dominant clause.

This isn't a case of HUR DUR my opinion is right. This is FACT. You feel it's cheesy. That's your opinion. Repeat: OPINION. AKA NOT GROUNDED IN OBJECTIVE VERIFIABLE EXAMPLE as I have given above. (Caps are for emphasis, not tone)

This is a moot you really shouldn't be taking part in brother. No offence.

>>24987450
See below your post. A collective aren't necessarily right just because they're a collective.

>>24987467
But dominance is a perceived trait. Someone can only be dominant to you if you feel they are. If you see someone as being on the same level or below you, then they aren't dominant. It's as simple as that.

No one else in this thread read his statements in a dominant tone. We all saw insecurity and overcompensation.

>every thread turns into faggots debating
>shut the fuck up

hey if you guys want to shit this place up more than it is be my guest. i got what i wanted from here.

met my dom gf from here. we still play and love each other and have been together for about a year and a half.

>>24987473
The post wasn't aimed at you. That would probably be why. See the problem?

Try and sell a man tampons. You're going to look ridiculous.

>>24987479
I'm a female switch who leans sub. Your point is moot.

>>24987486
Don't be obtuse.

>>24987458
You really are failing to see the point. What is considered dominant is an opinion. Power and influence over others? Those examples some people don't consider dominant at all, plain and simple. The fact you're trying to act like it's anything but is silly.
It literally is an example of HURR DURR MY OPINION IS FACT. Opinions aren't facts sweetie, did anyone teach you that?
Regardless, again, I'll point it out: what is dominant to one person is submissive to another. You are saying they are dominant clauses or actions. That's an opinion. Not to mention, you can say dominant things without having a dominant personality. I figured this was about personality, not OH HE SAID DOMINANT THINGS, THAT MAKES HIM DOMINANT. I guess if that's your opinion, that's cool. It's not everyone else's though.

>>24987491
I'm literally not. I am the target audience of his OP. I (along with everyone else in this thread, target audience or not) thought his post was pathetic and laughable. How is that being obtuse?

>>24987504
You know the rules. Timestamped tits or gtfo. If you're legit female then you're raising a solid point; but until then this is one time I choose to not believe, since it would be far too convenient for your point.

>>24987494
Unbelievable. You're actually trying to argue with a definition.

"Those examples some people don't consider dominant at all"

Then this post WASN'T aimed at those people. Perhaps, just maybe his style of domming was aimed at the people who are receptive to, uhum, I don't know... his style of domming. Zzzzzz.

Facts are facts. The facts I stated aren't opinions. Non-sequitor point. Stay on topic.

They are dominant clauses. Period. Within the grounds of the English language you're more than welcome to point out how those statements are not dominant clauses. Until you do, you're spinning your own wheels fruitlessly.

>>24987491
>>24987494
>>24987504
>>24987507
so much cringe

>>24987494
Oh and before you repeat the same bullshit again: "To some he is dom, to others he is not"

1. Why are you shooting down his attempt to reach out to those who DO consider him to be dominant?

2. Why in your mind isn't partial acceptable that he can be percieved as dominant, grounds for saying that he is not dominant? Contradictory.

>>24987516
is partial acceptance*

>>24987507
>but until then this is one time I choose to not believe, since it would be far too convenient for your point.

Yeah, I'm the obtuse one.

>>24987534
It doesn't mean what you think it means. Asking for proof is dilligence. People can't just make baseless claims and expect it to stand, especially when it conveniently backs the point they're trying to make. No chix on the internet bro.

muh'lady

This dude for real sounds like OP went to work and decided to check on his thread and got hella butthurt lmao

>>24987404
You're either facetious, OP, or just eager to argue.

"Not everybody likes the "ask 6 times before doing anything" fetlife dom. Some people are comfortable setting ground rules once, before hand. 50 shades of grey and fetlife have really fucked up the BDSM scene."

And yes, you need experience before you call yourself a Dom. A lot of experience, else you're ridiculed, exactly as OP has been.

This thread is a mess.
DELET

>>24987534
You sound interesting. But, yea... this thread is a trainwreck. Hopefully you'll post in another more sane and nicer thread.

>>24987702
How does one get much experience before being able to be called a dom when no one wants to waste their time with inexperienced ones?

>>24988028
You explore. You learn. Go to lectures and demos, go to clubs and play with subs in public (non sexual) settings. You build a reputation, knowledge base, skill set, and social circle.

It takes a long time. It takes determination and effort. That's the whole point, and why people who don't actually do it gone off GIANT warning signs.

>>24986416
funny how you make fun of the cucks, traps, and perverts
when you're all
> Please let me spit on you
> please let me humiliate you
> please let me hurt you

you are clearly the master of cringe and perverts

>>24988143
Okay, just one question. What the heck do you mean by non-sexual "play"? Joking about or humoring it? Getting to know someone? Talking about it without getting a boner? Roleplaying?

>>24988216
Whipping, flogging, spanking, all of those. They just don't involve the Dom getting his dick wet and having an orgasm. It's kink play, without sex. A Dom isn't just someone who likes rough sex. That's the vast majority of men, and saying you sit comfortably in the majority doesn't exactly inspire a submissive to kneel to you.

>>24988249
Okay, thanks.

>>24988271
Np man.

This thread is a shit show.

Submissive female here (in b4 tits or gtfo).

To any other ladies that might be considering one of these posters as a 'dom'- please don't.

It's easy to sound like you know what you're doing. It's even easier to do it over the internet. It's easy to fake experience, and it's easy to have experience and accidentally come off as a try-hard.

I don't give a fuck about any of that.

The only requirement for a healthy relationship is mutual respect. For a healthy D/s relationship, the importance of that respect cannot be overstated.

It's fun to be humiliated. Name-calling can be sexy. Mind-fucks are one of my favorite things- but none of this is healthy without a baseline of consent.

To paraphrase someone else, "It's not a kinky mindfuck when you start calling her curse words right away. That's just you insulting a stranger."

>>24988456
No need to lump everyone together, anon.

>>24986416
i would email you 100% but i assume you're not looking for anything monogamous but rather a harem of subgirls, so no thanks

>>24986588
>>Published
>>Movie
You do know it was a book first right?

I guess you wouldn't since you probably couldn't drive when it was PUBLISHED.

>>24988500
It's impossible not to know. The point is that 50 Shades is everywhere (again)
Have you noticed ANY of the advertising? Like, noticed an ad banner, looked at a television, checked the news online or off, HEARD ANOTHER HUMAN BEING SPEAK?
Can you understand how a sudden rush of dipshits could fuck up a community? Ever been on any half-decent board when /b/ crashes?

Look, the guy's an utter asshole but he's right: any time something big is popular, there's always gonna be derps who try it out. That's just common fuckin' sense.

There's a slew of shitty doms from it too, y'know. It's just a one sided affair.

This thread didn't go the way you envisioned it, eh chief?

You stood a chance until ostensible females called you on your try hard post,that was pretty much it.

>>24986416
>I've never seen such a cesspool of literal cucks in my life, I'm sick of it. "Would you fuck my boy pussy", "trap thread", "how would you fuck this girl I'm stalking?" god damn it what is wrong with you?

To be this cuck.

and this is the bdsm "lifestyle" in action, kids. both the op and the whole droning thread. don't you want to be a tryhard kinkster like all of these cool kids too?

honestly, vertebrae yourselves

I'm a sub who has worked with many different doms in the past, and your post is every single red flag people are taught to avoid.

You've clearly never played properly. You're just another fake.