If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
See this is where opinions (NB not facts, they are opinions, just like yours) come into play, because when you said earlier "it's my way or the highway", you will find that many people here would argue that means that you don't have healthy relationships.
Are you arguing that compromise is subservience? Is it "wussy"? Are you arguing that the male partner should be dominant then?
When you say "hunter gather" do you really mean that she should stay at home and raise kids whilst he works?
from you?
How long have you been in a relationship the Matt? Weeks? Months?
After 14 years of marriage (and 20 years of a relationship) I can, with experience, tell you that much of what you preach suggests that you want "control" and your latest comment about feeling insecure just fits the textbook. That isn't a criticism, just an obsevation.
lol @ TS's ignorance as to why those answers would be in a textbook in the first place...
Using the traditional view, women are not players- they find the strongest man they can, and stick with him. How they make the strongest man like them is where the games are played. The traditional view is that women have one strong partner, as a baby has such a long gestation period, but that men have as many partners as possible in order to ensure their genes go the furthest.
It is completely and totally illogical to use the traditional view to argue one point, and then in the very next sentence say that the whole traditional view is utter bollocks.
I think the fact that you consider having your partner as an equal to be "wussy" says a lot about the type of person you are.
I also find it quite sad that you think a relationship needs a "strategy", as if your partner is an opponent you need to defeat.
Oh dear.
The reason that there are lots of questions in my post is because I am trying to get a better understand. perhaps if you answered them, instead of ignoring them, I would understand the "fuller picture".
... and there it is again. What do you mean by subservient?
Is it subservient to compromise - ie.e I let her opinion take sway on one issue knowing that she will do the same for me on another? It compromise "wussy" in your opinion? Should, as I aksed before, the male partner be the dominant one?
Not in my house it isn't.
Shame really. I could at least "trade in" the old, high milage, model I'm using now for a younger one with better "bumpers"
I am simply responding to what you say.
I said I am in a strong and stable relationship with a woman who is my equal, and you start wanking on about being "wussy" and that being my "strategy". And now you start going on about "subservient men" in response to MoK saying pretty much the same thing as I. You also state that in order to "keep the spark" you need to have "more dominance".
Do you believe that for a relationship to work a man needs to be dominant? If so, why do you believe this?
Yoda says nonsensical completely that is.
I know what subservient means, but what do you mean by it? How do you define subservient behaviour? Is compromise and not always being the one who gets their only way subservient in your eyes?
It's not a criticism, I'm genuinely interested. Why do you mention words like "wussy" when I say my wife is my equal?
So my wife fancies me less because I don't tell her what to do?
So MoK's wife fancies him less because he doesn't tell her what to do?
What do you mean by dominance? What do you mean by subservience?
But since when have fairytales been real?
If I started telling my wife where she could and could not go or wear, or who she could or could not be friends with, I'd be getting a decree nisi in the post before you could say "control freak". It doesn't make me a "wussy" or a pushover, much as you seem to think the opposite, and to be quite honest I worry about relationships where one person's feelings take precedence over the other's.
A marriage is a partnership, its not about playing games and its not about being in control. Sometimes she compromises for me, sometimes I compromise for her, why do you think that's a bad thing?
No, you didn't.
You said what subservience means, which is something I already know.
What behaviour does a man show if he is subservient? What behaviour does a man show if he is dominant?
How does a man put himself in a "position of submission"? How does a man give the woman the option of "humiliating" him? How do you show that you "can't live" without someone? Do my marriage vows count, after all, I did vow to be with her till death do us part.
Examples of being subservient and, to contrast, examples of being dominant please.
"Any action, word or omission" is so glib as to be utterly meaningless.
I'm not the one claiming that compromise makes a man sexually unattractive, so obviously my idea of being a doormat is somewhat different to yours. I'd like to know what you consider being "subservient" to mean.
I'm asking a really simple question, what behaviour does a "subservient" man display? How much compromise is there before he is "subservient". Which "actions, words or omissions" mean that he's "subservient", and which ones mean he's dominant.
Are marriage vows showing subservience- you vow to be with them until death, so obviously you "can't live without them". Is compromising with her showing subservience? Is backing down and sometimes doing what she wants showing subservience? Will all that stop me getting laid?
Similarly, does being "dominant" mean that what you say goes? Does being dominant mean that you are the big boss man in the family? That dinner's on the table at six o'clock, without fail? Does that mean I'd have to beat women off with sticks?
Certainly at first, but the masculine/feminine dymanic is such that women naturally are inclined to become submissive when they find (or at least they think they find) the 'right' person. That's undeniable and that heterosexual dymanic can be easily observed being mimiced in homosexual couples as well.
I`d fancy you both MORE if you didn`t tell me what to do. :flirt: :flirt:
Do you apply that to ALL relationships ?
I disagree with you.
You say that you do not want to become a posession of "hers", but from what I'm inferring from your posts you seem to want her to be a posession of yours.
Yes/no?
So, marriage vows, which make that promise, are "wussy" then?
No, dominance is when you always take control, lead or refuse to sacrifice your views. It is abusive (IMHO) for you not to take someone else's view into consideration and it certainly doesn't lead to a happy or successful relationship - and I'm not just talking about romance here but that would apply in any walk of life.
When you talk about dominance, we talk about compromise. That is when you forsake your own opinion and let someone else's take sway. From your earlier posts you seem to argue that taking such a stance is in someway "subservient" or "wussy".
Now the other point I raised, which you avoided, was to ask if you (that is MattLiverpool) believed that it is the man's role to be dominant?
Oh I don't know, I think that the dictionary link to gave is pretty much my take on the word too.
Which pretty much supports what you said earlier about "my way or the highway" - that isn't taking views or compromise it's almost like saying fuck you I do what I want. In my expereince that does not lend itself to a happy relationship.
No it isn't. It's in your interests to make sure that you are both happy. Not that you only really suit yourself.
Why is that?
Why? What is so hard about it? Or are you suggesting that it "goes against nature" or something?
No, I made no distinction, I made no statement of which sex I believe should have a dominant role, because I don't think that it works like that.
I certainly didn't suggest that either sex should be dominant.
Why, in what way does it help the relationship?
I didn't, I asked a question.
How much of that is bollocks, how much is about first impressions and how much is about making a relationship work?
So, in some sense women may want to be dominated. how does that equate to the relationship?
I'm not getting into specifics on that last point either, I don't think you would get it.
So are you saying that it goes against nature then?
Why? I have never claimed anything like that and it's not a view that I agree with. I used the word "compromise". You seem to think that one gender should[i/] be dominant.
Exactly.