Every definition of dominance I’ve seen is dependent on violent masculinity, implicitly or explicitly. How can someone call themself a submissive if they aren’t at least a little attracted to violence (and by extension masculinity, since masculine virtues all involve capacity for violence cross-culturally)? Authority based on charm or persuasion is only sustainable until someone says “or else what?” Or else what? Or else it won’t be nice and the disobedient one should feel bad? “Well I don’t feel bad and I’ll do what I want because you can’t stop me.” Eventually, all authority requires violence, or someone else willing to do violence on the authority’s behalf. And then, whoever does violence on another’s behalf will always hold the reins. All they have to do is decide they don’t work for you anymore, turn their force against you and take your stuff.
First: Sir, this is a Non Sequitur’s Mexican Cantina, would you like to order the chaos of the universe under your iron-fisted rule?
Second: Out of curiosity, are you familiar with a crazy little thing called love? It will lift cars off babies, endure armageddon in a foxhole, and change every last thing about the right kind of girl. Momentum and gravity and tidal forces in the core may actually make the world go ‘round, but that little “L” word in all its permutations is why we ride the ride.
There is no threat more powerful than “I love you.”