Real dominance

[Archangel]

Because we were discussing over in The Deli about looking for dominance and simply getting poor customer service, I went into my pea brain and considered it a bit…

There’s a fine but crucial difference between assertive dominance and outright detached rudeness. Assertive dominance, when rightly expressed, is a form of strength that commands respect, earns trust, and—when paired with genuine care—can be deeply attractive, especially in romantic relationships. It’s the kind of presence that stands firm, makes decisions with confidence, and provides stability, all while being attuned to the needs and emotions of others. Many people, I believe, find themselves drawn to a partner who exudes this kind of quiet, self-assured power—someone who leads not through force or detachment, but through a combination of strength and attentiveness.

But where assertive dominance can be a beautiful, magnetic trait, it is often warped into something far less admirable. Too often, what masquerades as confidence is really just laziness, a shield for detached rudeness, or worse, a form of unchecked ego. The difference is simple: true dominance is engaged, while false dominance is distant. True dominance leads, false dominance dismisses. A guy who is genuinely strong doesn’t need to belittle, stonewall, or act indifferent to maintain his authority—he already has it through his presence, through his ability to act decisively while still listening, through the way he makes others feel both safe and challenged.

Especially in spaces where power dynamics are misunderstood or idealized, this distinction gets lost. A guy might act emotionally unavailable and call it “strength.” He might refuse to compromise and call it “confidence.” He might sneer instead of engage, bark orders instead of communicate, and convince themselves that his coldness is a virtue rather than a failure of emotional generosity. Detached rudeness, refusal to engage, and outright disregard for another person’s needs or emotions can be wrongly interpreted as signs of an alluringly unshakable figure. But in reality, these are not marks of strength; they’re signs of an unwillingness—or inability—to do the work that real connection requires.

The difference is this: the truly strong do not need to be cruel. The truly dominant do not need to be distant. A guy who possesses real authority—whether in romance, in leadership, or in life—doesn’t rely on apathy or harshness to prove it. He simply is, and in that being, he creates space for others to exist fully as well.

[Archangel]

[Rudynate]

Agreed - for a man who is actually dominant and not playing a part, it isn't an issue.  It's just the way he is.

[Archangel]

18 hours ago, Rudynate said:

Agreed - for a man who is actually dominant and not playing a part, it isn't an issue.  It's just the way he is.

It’s probably this reason why guys who advertise they can either be your dom or sub don’t do one or the other as well as the other. In a broader sense, it’s always easier to just be who you are instead of putting on an act. Just be who you are. The act might not be malicious; can be well intended. But for most people, acting has an edge to it that can come over as ingenuine.