I don't think a man can be truly dominant without integrity. Not that integrity is only a masculine characteristic, of course; I would say that a woman also needs integrity to be truly feminine. Integrity is an essential feature of being a whole, mature human.
There are so many men who posture at being dominant, while inside they are really quite insecure. And when a man thinks that his dominance depends on him being ‘right’ and making his woman ‘wrong’ then I'd say it's just his insecurity coming out, which manifests itself as a lack of honesty and integrity. But if a man realizes that he doesn't have to be perfect in order to take the dominant lead in a romantic relationship, that he doesn't have to be right all the time; then he can act out of the inner strength of integrity, and not try to pretend to be something that he's not, just in order to appear dominant. This is what many, many self-proclaimed ‘Doms’ just don't seem to understand: that the more they huff and puff and put on airs of being all-wise and all-important and all-powerful, the more weak and insecure and unmanly they will appear to perceptive submissive women.
Looking For Canadian Craigslist dating alternative? Try these pages:
I guess the bottom line is that a man is either dominant or he's not; and pretending just doesn't cut it. First he has to be a whole, mature, responsible, honest, human being. Then he also has to be in touch with his own masculine strength and power, and enjoy being a strong man, and be comfortable in using that power when appropriate. Then he has to have some understanding of women, both as human beings very much like him, and also as feminine beings who are profoundly unlike him. He needs to be able to respect women, including the deep feminine desire to surrender to a dominant man. Any man who thinks that a woman's submission to a man somehow makes her ‘less’ than him is utterly clueless about women, if you ask me. When he can respect her for her feminine surrender just as much as he respects himself for his masculine dominance, then the magic of romance can be kindled.
I'll also add that when a man finds his masculine dominance fulfilled within a romantic relationship, then I think he's less likely to go around trying to push his dominance in areas where it really doesn't belong. (That is, aggressively trying to be the alpha male at work, in politics, in social groups, etc.) Not that he won't still have a healthy competitive streak; but just that he won't feel his manhood is on the line every time his boss chews him out over something petty. That is, male dominance within a romantic relationship can enhance his sense of pride and comfort in his own manhood; but it cannot give that to a man who doesn't even have any in the first place.
But when a man is not truly dominant, and is insecure with himself as a man or even as a worthy human being, then the issue of his dominance will always leave a fearful nagging question in the back of his mind: “By what right do I justifiably dominate this woman?” And then he'll try to justify his dominance with irrelevant reasons. Like: he's ‘wiser’ than she is, so that makes it ok. Or, she's somehow a lesser human being whom he can dominate without feeling guilty. (“Virgin/whore” complex, much?) He tends to feel that his dominance can only be established or justified on the basis of his perceived ‘superiority’ in some particular quality. And if that ‘superiority’ does not in fact exist, well, he'll just have to pretend that it does, and hope he can fool some woman into believing him.
But a truly dominant man realizes that both he and his woman are fully adult human beings, intelligent and mature, and equally worthy of respect. Then his dominance is justified on the grounds that: (1) his sheer masculine strength gives him the power to conquer and coerce her, in a way that she would not be able to do to him; (2) both of them find that fact deeply erotic and thrilling, and it enhances their romantic love for each other. That's what I mean when I speak of the dominant alpha male.
Any man who thinks that a woman's submission to a man somehow makes her ‘less’ than him is utterly clueless about women, if you ask me.
In our relationship we have an understanding of dominant and submissive as equitable and complimentary, not superior and inferior. This is why I believe that the question of 'equaltiy' within a relationship is a red herring. We should be equal before the law and we are equal in the eyes of God, but this does not mean that we are equal within our relationship. Each of us brings talents and qualities into the relationship that make us unequal. It may be unpopular in certain groups to argue that men and women are indeed different and that gender differences beyond the obvious physical ones do matter. What matters in a relationship to this man and his woman is the interplay of my masculinity and her femininity. In our relationship my wife submits to my leadership. This fact does not make her less important. It does not make me more important. It makes us important to each other.