The Cultural Castration of Dominance

[wo****]

1 hour ago, kriptonyte said:

Interesting thoughts. My best friend is my sub and I've never thought of the link between domination and aggression. I don't think I've ever felt aggressive like that. I think dominance is a slow build up where aggression is just "in your face" and unattractive.

Aggression in the bedroom, overkill. Dangerous, counterproductive.
Aggression on the football field, necessary to dominate. Aggression alone won’t do it, but passivity is a negative there.
When I tie aggression into dominance it’s in relation to masculinity, not BDSM.
The ability to display and be aggressive is an asset. It’s a masculine trait, an adaptive survival trait. Passive cave people didn’t fare well when under attack. Aggression isn’t bad or immoral. It’s talked about in society as if it is though. Toxic. Masculine aggression used to protect others, to save lives? No societal messaging to look up to it. No credit given to masculinity. There it’s individual when credit is given, not men and masculinity. That is toxic, not masculinity.

[Ky****]

25 minutes ago, woburn169344 said:

Aggression in the bedroom, overkill. Dangerous, counterproductive.
Aggression on the football field, necessary to dominate. Aggression alone won’t do it, but passivity is a negative there.
When I tie aggression into dominance it’s in relation to masculinity, not BDSM.
The ability to display and be aggressive is an asset. It’s a masculine trait, an adaptive survival trait. Passive cave people didn’t fare well when under attack. Aggression isn’t bad or immoral. It’s talked about in society as if it is though. Toxic. Masculine aggression used to protect others, to save lives? No societal messaging to look up to it. No credit given to masculinity. There it’s individual when credit is given, not men and masculinity. That is toxic, not masculinity.

I think this is where the conversation benefits from separating aggression as capacity from aggression as default expression.
You’re right: aggression itself isn’t immoral. It’s an adaptive survival trait. The capacity for aggression—physical, psychological, or protective—is essential. A man who cannot access aggression at all isn’t peaceful; he’s constrained. Passivity in contexts that require ***, defense, or competition is a liability, not a virtue.
Where society tends to go wrong is treating aggression as something to be eliminated rather than trained, contextualized, and restrained. Historically, masculinity wasn’t about constant aggression; it was about controlled aggression. The ability to switch it on when necessary and keep it contained when it wasn’t. Protection, defense, and sacrifice all require that capacity.
I agree with you that modern cultural messaging often fails to honor that. When masculine aggression is used responsibly—protecting others, taking decisive action, absorbing risk—it’s rarely framed as a masculine virtue. Credit is individualized or abstracted away from masculinity itself, which leaves younger men without a healthy model for what integrated strength looks like.
Where this ties back into BDSM is interesting: dominance actually requires the presence of aggression without its leakage. A Dominant who cannot access aggression at all often lacks gravitas or edge. A Dominant who cannot contain it becomes unsafe. The attraction is in knowing the *** exists—but is governed.
So I don’t think we’re in disagreement so much as looking at different layers. Aggression is necessary in certain domains—sports, defense, protection, survival. Dominance, especially ethical dominance, is about having that *** under command rather than letting it drive.
The cultural failure isn’t masculinity. It’s the lack of teaching around integration: how to be strong and regulated, capable of *** and restraint, assertive and accountable. When that integration is missing, people either *** aggression entirely or express it clumsily.
And both outcomes serve no one well.

[pu****]

32 minutes ago, woburn169344 said:

Aggression in the bedroom, overkill. Dangerous, counterproductive.
Aggression on the football field, necessary to dominate. Aggression alone won’t do it, but passivity is a negative there.
When I tie aggression into dominance it’s in relation to masculinity, not BDSM.
The ability to display and be aggressive is an asset. It’s a masculine trait, an adaptive survival trait. Passive cave people didn’t fare well when under attack. Aggression isn’t bad or immoral. It’s talked about in society as if it is though. Toxic. Masculine aggression used to protect others, to save lives? No societal messaging to look up to it. No credit given to masculinity. There it’s individual when credit is given, not men and masculinity. That is toxic, not masculinity.

I think you’re conflating the societal conversation about “toxic masculinity” with any talk of masculinity as a whole. This is oftentimes a defense of one’s own masculinity as the popular “not all men” argument when someone (especially a woman) refers to toxic behavior. But the very fact that the word toxic is placed before the word masculinity means it’s describing a TYPE of masculinity; not all of it, otherwise people would say “masculinity is toxic,” and that’s a different claim entirely that I personally haven’t heard before.
•
What @kyriarcho said in response to your comment is exactly right: that the inherent problem isn’t masculinity itself, but rather when it’s devoid of the complementary traits—like accountability, discipline, and empathy—to make it a healthy representation of masculinity.
•
If it helps to use an analogy, think of masculinity as a whipping kink. A bullwhip on its own isn’t dangerous, it matters who is wielding it. Toxic masculinity is like a man who has no control of the whip, no sense of his experience or lack thereof, and wields it anyway, regardless of how he’s potentially harming the person on the other end. But that’s only a subset of the whole. Men who have the ability to self-reflect, grow, empathize, and value self-control and -discipline are the ones who exude a HEALTHY form of masculinity. It has nothing to do with feminine traits or manners replacing their manliness.
•
The prevalent conversations about toxic masculinity are because it’s women’s lived experience, and it feels like the bar for relationship standards is in hell. By making it a popular topic, we’re simply asking for men to self-reflect and do better. We’d at least like the bar to be at ground level. ;)

[Ky****]

10 minutes ago, purplegemini said:

I think you’re conflating the societal conversation about “toxic masculinity” with any talk of masculinity as a whole. This is oftentimes a defense of one’s own masculinity as the popular “not all men” argument when someone (especially a woman) refers to toxic behavior. But the very fact that the word toxic is placed before the word masculinity means it’s describing a TYPE of masculinity; not all of it, otherwise people would say “masculinity is toxic,” and that’s a different claim entirely that I personally haven’t heard before.
•
What @kyriarcho said in response to your comment is exactly right: that the inherent problem isn’t masculinity itself, but rather when it’s devoid of the complementary traits—like accountability, discipline, and empathy—to make it a healthy representation of masculinity.
•
If it helps to use an analogy, think of masculinity as a whipping kink. A bullwhip on its own isn’t dangerous, it matters who is wielding it. Toxic masculinity is like a man who has no control of the whip, no sense of his experience or lack thereof, and wields it anyway, regardless of how he’s potentially harming the person on the other end. But that’s only a subset of the whole. Men who have the ability to self-reflect, grow, empathize, and value self-control and -discipline are the ones who exude a HEALTHY form of masculinity. It has nothing to do with feminine traits or manners replacing their manliness.
•
The prevalent conversations about toxic masculinity are because it’s women’s lived experience, and it feels like the bar for relationship standards is in hell. By making it a popular topic, we’re simply asking for men to self-reflect and do better. We’d at least like the bar to be at ground level. ;)

I appreciate how clearly you articulated this, and I agree with you. The distinction you’re making is exactly the one that often gets lost when these conversations heat up.
“Toxic masculinity” has always been meant to describe a maladaptive expression of masculinity, not masculinity as a whole. When accountability, self-regulation, empathy, and discipline are absent, the traits themselves don’t disappear—they become distorted. That’s where harm comes from. Not from strength, confidence, or aggression as capacities, but from those capacities being uncontained.
Your analogy works well, especially in a kink-aware space. Power—whether physical, psychological, or social—is neutral. What matters is the skill, restraint, and self-awareness of the person holding it. Untrained power is dangerous regardless of gender or context. Integrated power is what creates safety and trust.
And I think your last point is particularly important. These conversations didn’t emerge in a vacuum. They’re rooted in lived experience and pattern recognition. When women talk about toxic masculinity, it’s rarely an abstract critique—it’s a response to repeated encounters with unexamined behavior and poorly integrated authority. Wanting the bar at ground level isn’t an attack; it’s a request for basic responsibility.
Where this ties back into the larger discussion is that healthy dominance and healthy masculinity require the same things: self-reflection, discipline, emotional regulation, and accountability. Without those, what’s left isn’t leadership or protection—it’s performance or entitlement.
So yes, masculinity isn’t the problem. Lack of integration is. And naming toxic expressions isn’t about erasing men—it’s about making room for better ones to actually be seen.
Well said.

[wo****]

1 hour ago, purplegemini said:

I think you’re conflating the societal conversation about “toxic masculinity” with any talk of masculinity as a whole. This is oftentimes a defense of one’s own masculinity as the popular “not all men” argument when someone (especially a woman) refers to toxic behavior. But the very fact that the word toxic is placed before the word masculinity means it’s describing a TYPE of masculinity; not all of it, otherwise people would say “masculinity is toxic,” and that’s a different claim entirely that I personally haven’t heard before.
•
What @kyriarcho said in response to your comment is exactly right: that the inherent problem isn’t masculinity itself, but rather when it’s devoid of the complementary traits—like accountability, discipline, and empathy—to make it a healthy representation of masculinity.
•
If it helps to use an analogy, think of masculinity as a whipping kink. A bullwhip on its own isn’t dangerous, it matters who is wielding it. Toxic masculinity is like a man who has no control of the whip, no sense of his experience or lack thereof, and wields it anyway, regardless of how he’s potentially harming the person on the other end. But that’s only a subset of the whole. Men who have the ability to self-reflect, grow, empathize, and value self-control and -discipline are the ones who exude a HEALTHY form of masculinity. It has nothing to do with feminine traits or manners replacing their manliness.
•
The prevalent conversations about toxic masculinity are because it’s women’s lived experience, and it feels like the bar for relationship standards is in hell. By making it a popular topic, we’re simply asking for men to self-reflect and do better. We’d at least like the bar to be at ground level. ;)

I think I understand. If I were to talk about “histrionic femininity” or “bitchy femininity” and a woman objects she is missing the understanding that it refers to a particular type of femininity.
I will leave all the various types of responses that may come from a woman who doesn’t understand the distinction and focus on the narrow, mild “not all women” possible one. There’s a good chance it could be a defense and she misunderstands because it’s not referring to femininity as a whole.
I want to make sure I have the general argument correct. If not how about we make a new post & start a separate thread?

[pu****]

1 hour ago, woburn169344 said:

I think I understand. If I were to talk about “histrionic femininity” or “bitchy femininity” and a woman objects she is missing the understanding that it refers to a particular type of femininity.
I will leave all the various types of responses that may come from a woman who doesn’t understand the distinction and focus on the narrow, mild “not all women” possible one. There’s a good chance it could be a defense and she misunderstands because it’s not referring to femininity as a whole.
I want to make sure I have the general argument correct. If not how about we make a new post & start a separate thread?

Being deliberately obtuse…what a predictable reaction. The irony here is that it’s your thought processes and inability to pause and self-reflect that makes you the very thing you’re arguing against. You’re illustrating my points for me and reenf0rcing the case for why women will always “choose the bear.” 🐻 Thanks, and I hope you have the day you deserve. 😇😘

[wo****]

3 hours ago, purplegemini said:

Being deliberately obtuse…what a predictable reaction. The irony here is that it’s your thought processes and inability to pause and self-reflect that makes you the very thing you’re arguing against. You’re illustrating my points for me and reenf0rcing the case for why women will always “choose the bear.” 🐻 Thanks, and I hope you have the day you deserve. 😇😘

I simply swapped genders in a parallel argument to illustrate the prejudice. It is a perfectly logical argument to make my point. The thought processes came from you, I just copy pasted and swapped genders. Now all of a sudden YOUR position is a problem. And you throw in personal insults to what, attack someone for holding up a mirror?

[wa****]

I agree a hundred percent with you on this

[Mr****]

Couldn’t agree more. It affects all relationships, not just romantic ones!

[A1****]

Kudos could not have given a more thorough and succinct point.

[A1****]

Kudos could not have given a more thorough and succinct point.