“I have a fantasy about finding a shitty loser that no one likes and have him dominate me. ”
I think that’s called topping from the bottom. You want to tell someone to dominate you. The bonus over just being dominated is that you often get to specify how you want it, rather them doing it the way they want it.
In that context, I think the “loser” part makes sense too. If you pick a “winner”, you might get someone who can actually dominate you. But with a “loser”, you’re more likely to be in control across various dimensions (economically, socially, mentally). So you can still participate in the game of being dominated, while having the safety of only being dominated physically.
“I used to date an Effective Altruist who made a lot less money than I did. At the beginning of an evening, I would give him cash so that he could pay for everything through the course of the night.”
This was said by another person, but could be an example of a similar behavior. Though without more context, it’s hard to tell.
Topping from the bottom is more like backseat driving. Going in with the intention of being submissive and then micromanaging things during the scene. Knowing what you want, seeking it out, and describing it exactly before hand is just good communication.
I don’t think we need to find a way to describe why that kink would be evolutionarily advantageous or good sexual selection. People’s feelings leak from one part of who they are into every part of them so it’s completely possible for it to be a nonsexual part of them requesting to add that into their sex life. Which meshes well with how the more kinky someone is the less sex is actually included in their play.
In my experience people’s kinks are mostly related to their fears and insecurities. A chance to play them out and see that they are still loved. To see that your thoughts are real and valid and while they’re awful you’re still OK. Take the submissive high powered exec trope. Having an insecurity where you need to be strong and perfect and are awful until you’re the richest man in the world will really push you to get that CEO spot. But then in the bedroom they want to be weak and be loved for it not in spite of it. So I’d say the loser dom fetish is either “Even -he- can dom me, I’m that pathetic” or “I’ve pinned so hard for an ideal I’ll never have, here I am with someone like -him-”. Which can be really comforting when that side receives love and there’s no need to worry about being great/getting your ideal for a hour.
Note that I pull from a biased sample of the kind of people who are open about this with people like me. I also think my explanation currently is still too vague, there are too many kink/insecurity combinations that are easy to explain. I still need a way to constrain the predictions it makes a bit more.
I think that’s called topping from the bottom. You want to tell someone to dominate you. The bonus over just being dominated is that you often get to specify how you want it, rather them doing it the way they want it.
In that context, I think the “loser” part makes sense too. If you pick a “winner”, you might get someone who can actually dominate you. But with a “loser”, you’re more likely to be in control across various dimensions (economically, socially, mentally). So you can still participate in the game of being dominated, while having the safety of only being dominated physically.
This was said by another person, but could be an example of a similar behavior. Though without more context, it’s hard to tell.
Topping from the bottom is more like backseat driving. Going in with the intention of being submissive and then micromanaging things during the scene. Knowing what you want, seeking it out, and describing it exactly before hand is just good communication.
I don’t think we need to find a way to describe why that kink would be evolutionarily advantageous or good sexual selection. People’s feelings leak from one part of who they are into every part of them so it’s completely possible for it to be a nonsexual part of them requesting to add that into their sex life. Which meshes well with how the more kinky someone is the less sex is actually included in their play.
In my experience people’s kinks are mostly related to their fears and insecurities. A chance to play them out and see that they are still loved. To see that your thoughts are real and valid and while they’re awful you’re still OK. Take the submissive high powered exec trope. Having an insecurity where you need to be strong and perfect and are awful until you’re the richest man in the world will really push you to get that CEO spot. But then in the bedroom they want to be weak and be loved for it not in spite of it. So I’d say the loser dom fetish is either “Even -he- can dom me, I’m that pathetic” or “I’ve pinned so hard for an ideal I’ll never have, here I am with someone like -him-”. Which can be really comforting when that side receives love and there’s no need to worry about being great/getting your ideal for a hour.
Note that I pull from a biased sample of the kind of people who are open about this with people like me. I also think my explanation currently is still too vague, there are too many kink/insecurity combinations that are easy to explain. I still need a way to constrain the predictions it makes a bit more.