Which would you rather be, and which role do you feel more comfortable in, and why?
In life, and in my personal relationships, I resist both.
I have often taken supervisory and trainer positions by necessity and experience, yet I much prefer to have workmates that are all in sync to the same goal...
In my personal relationship, I desire to be neither 'Master' nor 'Sub' with my heart, but may incorporate temporary role playing within a relationship for sexual or emotional stimulus. I just much prefer my love to be beside me, close to me.
Underdog - no responsability to achieve.
Top dog, I like to be the one who takes control in my life and relationships and almost everything else.... but most of the time I suck at being a top dog i'm way to much of a push over to be one lol.
This is kinda tricky to answer.. Maybe I'm just putting too much thought into it but...
I feel that every single top dog was an underdog first. No person that becomes a top dog in their industry or whatever is seldom there because it was given to them and even if it was given to them they are still not a top dog. You can't be handed respect. Someone that did not work or fight to be where they are at will most likely not have the personality, will, or smarts to maintain it anyway.
I am a top dog in my work life. More like the fucking pack leader n shit. Other aspects of my life not so much. I feel more comfortable being a top dog because when I do something it's usually for a reason... If not it feels like I am jerking off without the intention of cumming.
I would rather have something to lose that I worked for than to want to remain an underdog that will never have shit. I think that all underdogs want to be a top dog or else they wouldn't even be underdogs.. You gotta want something to be considered an underdog. Kinda like a champ and a contender. If you don't want or feel like you can be the champ then you aren't even a contender (underdog) ...you are more like a chump or just a plain old dog looking for a scrap.
I will say Top Dog because I am natural born leader. I feel comfortable in that boss/leader role because I possess the power to influence the lives of those around me for the better.
In most aspects of my life, it feels much more natural to be "top dog". I always find myself ending up in positions of leadership and responsibility and people see me as someone who rarely, if ever, fails at anything I attempt. I've tried to run from it but I guess it's just who I am.
In relationships, it's a different story; that confidence just doesn't seem to translate. That's just the way it goes, I suppose. (Hey, I'm a poet and I... Oh, wait...)
For me it depends in wich situation are we talking about, i dont think you have to be a top dog in every aspect of your life.
I would classify me as a top dog when it comes to work, im defenitly not a follower when it comes to my career, i push myself hard and try to improve every day and a lot of people admire what i have acomplish so far.
But in other aspects of my life im neither, i guess when it comes to friends and relationships im happy sometimes giving and sometimes taking and sometimes just going with the flow, if that makes any sense.
I agree with Latinfoxy here,
I think it's very difficult to be the "top dog" all the time. In every relationship - work included you do have to work your way up the "totem pole". As MF said at one point you have to be the underdog to eventually become top dog.
For me, I have always been driven in my work and been recognised for it. I have been very fortunate to have rather high level positions of late, but it's my drive and desire to make that extra sale that has led me to my success. I do not demand respect with my team and customers, it is earned. So at one point I was the underdog early in my position, showing that I had the skill set to earn their trust and respect.
For my relationship, I don't think you can be the top dog or underdog. Relationships are very dynamic and weild a sharing of power, especially when it involves kids. At one point you can be both given the circumstance.
If we analize the this duality in the business world, the top dog is usually the company that has already made it and is working to keep themselves at the top. With the exception of a few "special" cases like apple, innovation is very limited is this scenario. Take Microsoft for example, boring "square" company that has been the top dog for a long ass time.
New ideas, and interesting new perspectives usually are achieved through what I consider the greastest asset of the the underdog - the fact that they have nothing to prove = no responsability to achieve. Apple was a major underdog before lauching the "i" movement. Pixar as well... hell, Steve Jobs could just be the greatest underdog in history.
When you don´t have to carry the extra weight of the "top dog" title, you are more free to explore, to take risks. Take musicians for example - rare are the cases when the top dog of the moment is able to continuously put out albums that are better then the previous. While first abulms of underdogs are usually their best.
I don´t feel that being a top dog is equivalent to being a leader. Leadership is a personal quality, being a top dog is an attribute that depends on the scenario you are in.
Sarcastic Coffee Aficionado
I have been a fan of the Philadelphia Eagles for YEARS ..... yeah, I tend to cheer for the Underdog