VT,
OK - I am beginning to understand. I only pair the words "male" and "dominance" in a sexual context and even then I am very clear about what I mean. FWIW I would never force myself on any woman - most especially on the person I love most. Dominance <> forced sex/rape. More on that below. OTHER than in a narrow sexual context I don't say "male dominance". My use of the word is gender neutral.
Once I listed all the stuff my W controls "has the final say on", the things I control and the 50-50 stuff. Outside the bedroom she controls way more than I do. Inside the bedroom I control way more or at least she has created that illusion:
- I have a large degree of control over frequency. This is the ONLY place in our marriage where she generally accepts me as the prime purely based on my being male. Just talking about frequency here.
- She wants/needs me to have an aggressive, dominant sexual style. When the female demands male alpha behavior it becomes utterly impossible to say who is really driving the ship.
As for your in-laws. Yuck. I actually think those type marriages are rapidly being replaced by the opposite situation. More on that in another thread.
As for confidence - it means nothing to me in isolation. I have seen WAY too much false confidence in people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vthomeschoolmom
That someone somewhere sometimes exerts control and/or influence is no mystery to me. I agree that what you say is appropriate and necessary.
I do not share whatever tendency there has been on these threads to equate dominance with aggression or overbearing-ness. (I love making up words!)
Well if that is dominance then I have no objection to it. That is a mild use of the word control I have substituted in for the sake of attempting to increase understanding. Get 'er done works too!
The thing about the dominance conversations that go on here is that I don't think even people who think that they are agreeing are together on what they think that they agree on. What you describe does not sound like MALE dominance to me at all.
When I think of male dominance I think of my in-laws relationship. It would be best described as a benevolent dictatorship. HE decides what is to be and what isn't. She speaks and opines. But she has no actual will in the relationship. She has some sneaky backhanded tools to use when she really wants something. But he half times just ignores and does whatever HE thinks is right. It does seem to work for them since she does not expect any different.. But even though he is TRYING to be benevolent, he is no god. He misses the boat. I don't think that kind of relationship is a model that everyone or even most would be happy with.
Nolongersad,
"Technically speaking" you did a fairly good job critiquing my earlier post. I will respond shortly. In the meantime I will just observe that you have a constant refrain in your posts:
- If I am not very careful to avoid upsetting my W she will cut off sex. So I need to be VERY careful not to upset her.
Statistically you will find that approach almost guarantees the eventual creation of a sexless marriage.
- Even if she is overspending I need to persuade her to be more responsible if I can. Because it is better to live beyond our means then it is to make her question whether I am validating her feelings.
- Peace at any price is better than risking the relationship for whatever reason.
- And best of all you said that - ALL decisions in marriage are 50-50. Hmm clearly you have had some/many situations where you have been TOTALLY shut down in bed. So was your YES vote to have sex all those nights equal to her NO vote not to? Being that you like precision I will tell you what a true 50-50 really means sexually. It means that if you want to every day - at most she gets to say no half the time. That is the 50-50 compromise. Thing is you come across as the guy who was getting ZERO, perhaps still is getting very little and are terrified that an argument might give her an excuse to take you right back to the land of masturbation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoLongerSad
I can think of very few issues which could come up in my relationship, which are more important to me than the preservation of the relationship itself.
We all get caught up in the day to day stuff but I feel that the best way of dealing with this interpersonal stuff is to always be mindful of the "relationship management" aspects of whatever the issue is.
Example: If we are having a dispute over the family budget, I don't want to be in a position of imposing my will on my spouse just because I might happen to have more literal control over the money (if I am the primary wage earner for example). Yes I could always IMPOSE a spending restriction on my spouse if I have the literal power to do so (the "total financial dominance"). However--I would greatly prefer it if I am able to persuade my spouse of the importance of not spending so much money to the point where she buys into that notion and then it is not necessary for me to impose anything, make ultimatums, restrictions...
Or else she might end up "complying" because she has to comply, but inside she's thinking "That cheap so-and-so...."
T,
I am genuinely curious as to why that is. Is it the:
- "disease" factor,
- the speed with which I reacted or
- some question of my commitment level
I didn't even think of disease. It's the hurt level it must have caused. I can accept you were being honest but it would absolutely crush me if my husband said that to me at any point in our lives. I did talk to him about it. Drilled him with 20 questions and different scenarios. Of course, he had the right answers as he's not facing it right now and had to know that the wrong answer would lead to me being upset so it was really stupid of me.
I think what bothers me is the truth in it all. I want to hope that it's just you and make you the bad guy but I worry that it's not just you but that you're just honest. I'm realizing that sex, for men, is so tied to their happiness in a relationship and it scares me. Honestly, it makes me want to go it alone and this bothers me too.
NLS,
skill based dominance does not equal technical competence. Technical competence = skill. No more, no less.
Skill based dominance is the alignment of your skill level and your emotional intensity. That intensity should first and foremost manifest itself as confidence. True confidence is not defensive or thin skinned. When challenged your skill/knowledge combined with confidence/assertiveness and when needed aggressiveness should persuade your partner/partners. When it doesn't sometimes you need to break some emotional glass to get to a good outcome. This is way more than "technical competence".
As for "total dominance" and the lack of it due to the divorce option - I agree with you. Statement retracted.
You mention leveraging skill in a particular area to dominate the whole relationship. You seemed to have missed the bit - maybe it was a subsequent post - where I specifically stated that my W and I each dominate in our respective areas of competence/excellence.
I was amused by your depiction of: "I will wash my hands of this and you can take over" being a "small nuke". More so with the possible consequence that will have my mating rights revoked. When I have a good/great track record in an area and my W aggressively interjects herself into the situation and suggests a path I am confident is wrong - I do offer to wash my hands.
I don't yell or scream. I simply refuse to participate in a bad approach. I don't do it often but it has worked well for me in the past. Funny thing is - I have also had it done to me. It certainly didn't change my sexual desire for the person doing it. I took it as their sincere belief they knew what they were doing. And that combined with their obvious skill level caused me to ease up. And they proceeded to produce a good outcome.
I hope for your sake you are with a woman who likes sex, and also likes a conflict avoidant male.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoLongerSad
I consider it to be a contextual, relative and subjective word. Something is "dominant" only in relation to something else, which is "subordinate" to the "dominant" object. I can be "dominant" in one context or with certain people and "subordinate" in other contexts or with other people, or both. I can be both "dominant" and "subordinate" at the same time, with the same person.
In most day to day situations I am uncomfortable with vague, highly subjective terminology like "dominant" and "subordinate" because it's so easy for each person to define what these kinds of terms means so differently. You end up talking about completely different things and not communicating very well.
You needn't write a learned treatise but you are obligated to actually at least define what you mean by the term "dominant" and when you believe it is appropriately used. You skipped over the essential part--defining your terms.
"Skill based dominance" strikes me as another way of saying "technically competent." The problem with "technical competence" is that it may simply equate to being "a nerd" in whatever the area of competence might be. "Nerds" are not generally considered to be "generally" or "sexually" dominant, although if their nerdiness is sufficient that they can acquire significant financial assets, it can make up for a lot of deficiencies in other areas.
That's not an adequate definition. Yes I think we all understand that it can be beneficial to be good at a particular task or skill, such as computer programming, or carpentry, or baking cupcakes. So what? How does that "translate" into "sexual" or "emotional" or "intrapersonal" dominance?
If the particular task at which you are dominant is not inherently "sexy," who really cares that a person has a particular skill? Most of us have things we are good at, but that doesn't mean anyone else has to care more about us as a person, just because we are good at performance of a particular type of task.
"Brute force" dominance must be your way of saying "physical/emotional strength"?
Most likely it would be more correct to say that there are instances where you believe you are totally dominant in your marriage; or where you are mostly dominant in your marriage. However in any marriage the dominance of one person cannot truly be "total" because the other person always has the nuclear option of just leaving or divorcing as a response to a potentially deal-breaking exercise of supposedly "total" dominance in one area or another. Or alternatively the other person can always "let you win the argument" and then take it out of your hide in some way further down the road. Realistically that's what happens in most relationships. If one or the other person "wins" in one context, but overplays their leverage, they are going to pay for it in some way down the road. Not necessarily by divorce or anything that drastic. However if I presumptuously impose a decision on my partner because I think I'm "dominant" and he or she resents that, then that will build a certain lingering level of resentment or unhappiness that is going to result in blowback to me over time.
That's fine but in any two person scenario even if you are totally taking the lead on an issue, you still have to at least get consent/acquiesence/buy-in by the other person. I assume you are not talking about totally trivial stuff such as what color should the air freshener in the family car should be, but rather, important marital stuff. The objective should always be to get buy-in/consensus/mutuality. I think you are just kidding yourself if you try to leverage your dominance in a particular skill set over the entire relationship, the payback on the back end is a real "rhymes with witch."
Yes but you still have to get buy-in/consensus from the other person/spouse. Just because you are good at something let's say deciding which family car to buy, doesn't mean your spouse doesn't have what amounts to a "veto" power over your decision making. No the "veto" might not manifest itself in that particular area of choice, simply because (stop and think about this for a second) why would your spouse choose to exercise her veto power in an area of the relationship in which you have the maximum technical skill? She won't do that. She will let you exercise your leverage in the area where you have strength, and then she will try to find an area to "get you back" by exercising her leverage in an area in which she has relative dominance. (For a lot of men this generally means that no matter what the actual issue is it will end up causing problems in the bedroom or the emotional environment of the marriage because that's where for most couples the woman has more leverage than the man. So let's say you pick out a Prius but your wife really wanted a Lexus but since you know more about cars you exercise total dominance. Sure she might "agree" to your choice of automobile, pretend she's happy with it, and then two weeks later she is denying you sex because "You don't love me anymore!" or something like that...)
But you can't just explain or lecture in these situations (although most men probably have a similar tendency). You have to discuss the process sufficiently to where you get actual buy-in/consensus. Or else what you're doing is "winning" that particular issue, but you're going to end up damaging the overall emotional context of your relationship.
Let me rephrase, you need to have the power of persuasion. It doesn't matter how smart you are or how skillful you are or how dominant you are. A modern marriage consists of a relationship in which each person has an equal vote on EVERYTHING that occurs in the marriage. Regardless of your level of confidence your spouse still needs to agree with you. If not, why even bother talking to her about this stuff at all?
IMO this phrase is a bad way of handling most marital disagreements. It's not quite a nuke but it's akin to a small tactical nuke. Enough small tactical nukes and your wife might decide to pull out the big guns and nuke you back (divorce or an affair or cutting off sex or something similarly bad).
We should develop enough confidence in ourselves and in our dominance and competence not only to merely SAY we are dominant, but to BE so dominant that we NEVER HAVE TO give our spouse such an "ultimatum" (do it my way OR ELSE....)
TRUE dominance is inherently persuasive. I actually think you're talking about something completely different--it actually sounds like you're talking about an inadequate/incomplete form of "dominance". Dominance isn't merely declaring yourself to be dominant, and then telling your spouse "if you don't agree, too bad." True dominance is displaying your true dominance and your spouse nodding her head in agreement. It is the ability to get the necessary buy-in/consensus for you to act without fights or ultimatums even being necessary. If your wife consistently engages you in disputes on a particular issue, then you need to consider whether you are really all that "dominant" in that area, at all.
You didn't say what any of them were actually. I doubt there is a single important area in a marriage where one spouse has "total dominance" in a typical marriage. You at least have to get the acquiesence of your spouse, and it's entirely up to her or not to choose whether to agree with you--even if her disagreement might be completely unfounded based on a logical analysis of the situation.
This is my point. Neither spouse has total dominance in any important area of the marriage, because if you don't support each other, you will just end up getting divorced. You are actually both "in control" because if you didn't support her plan, even if you let her do what she wanted in that particular area, your resentment would come out in some other area of the marriage. Just like hers would. It's basic human nature.
All you need to do is give her your support. There is no need for spouses to have equivalent technical competence, it's often better if they have complementary skills.
It depends upon the skill you're talking about and the person who is exercising it.
Maybe if you're a stripper this might be true.
You haven't said what skills you're talking about. I have been assuming you're not just talking about sexual stuff since you didn't mention that at all in your post.
Well you certainly talk a good game. But talk is cheap.
NoLongerSad, I really like you but wonder if you are marco by proxy? Everything you say is what I'm thinking but unable to write. It's all a big smokescreen. A concocted game to give the illusion of confidence and dominance and the relationship suffers.
I hope against hope that you're actually a man. That what's here isn't all there is. I really do.
MEM,
For me, it is using a woman who is already broken for your own selfish needs. You already mentioned going to Asia for back massages and fully anticipate getting happy endings, as you posed it to your wife. You see nothing wrong in using either trafficked women or using women here who's back are against the wall. Either through former sexual abuse, drug abuse or alcohol abuse. Just go to a "hooker". These are real people. But hey, pay them $50. They mean very little to you. I find it repugnant.
21 years of a happy marriage and you threaten your wife with that. You know what. I'll take my 17 years of ups and downs and a husband who would never, ever put me in that situation in a trillion lifetimes. Nor would he ever abuse a woman for his own needs. Call me crazy but there are some men out there who actually respect women. They are called MEN. And the more I read I here I realize how much of a damn gem I have! Holy hell, he is amazing!!
NLS,
Your constant refrains about avoiding conflict/avoiding upsetting your partner to avoid getting shut down sexually speak for themselves.
As for putting words in others mouths. I never suggested I was overall dominant in my marriage. I'm not. If you read my past posts you will see that theme is fairly consistent. My W takes the things I prioritize seriously.
As for me - I feel very lucky in my marriage. I have about 10 days a year that are fraught and the rest are delightful. I would not trade that for a low conflict not so happy marriage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoLongerSad
Wow you're really scared and desperate aren't you? Do you realize that most of what you attribute to me, not only didn't I say it, I didn't even come close to justify your "paraphrasing"?
Also the whole thing about zero sex is laughably just you projecting your marital issues. Remember mem that's your issue? Not mine.
Also you obviously don't understand what a 50-50 relationship means or what a consensus is even though I tried to explain it. Being in an even handed partnership doesn't mean you are constant splitting the difference and playing a tit for tat zero sum game in which if one person "wins" the other "loses." Clearly you lack even the most rudimentary understanding of a healthy relationship.
Like I said, the more I read here, the more I love my husband. He is truly a King among Men. Dear God, he would never threaten me with hookers or anything else. He is a man with a brain and can articulate in a clear and concise way. He doesn't bull**** and play games. He says what he means and we agree on so many levels. He is had often read on this website and laughs at the crap. Like I said, I'll take my 17 years with a husband who has a brain and doesn't try to mind control me and he will take his wife who speaks her mind and we will eventually ride off in to the sunset. This *****y, "controlling" wife went in to hyper load today and sent out his resume today to all our contacts. He came home today after getting phone call after phone call from prospects and said "Thank you!". I got a GIANT hug and it is because I have always been my husbands partner...never wavered. I am his greatest champion. Funny, hookers never entered into the equation.
T,
The difficult with having a limited view into someones life is that it becomes impossible to place extreme conflict into context. The only other direct participant in our little "precipice dance" was my W. And she was extraordinarily upset for a couple hours and has been happy, energetic and super loving since then. Of course I have reciprocated.
I will say that I struggle with the fact that you seem to primarily/only feel her pain. It strikes me as very one sided.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trenton
I didn't even think of disease. It's the hurt level it must have caused. I can accept you were being honest but it would absolutely crush me if my husband said that to me at any point in our lives. I did talk to him about it. Drilled him with 20 questions and different scenarios. Of course, he had the right answers as he's not facing it right now and had to know that the wrong answer would lead to me being upset so it was really stupid of me.
I think what bothers me is the truth in it all. I want to hope that it's just you and make you the bad guy but I worry that it's not just you but that you're just honest. I'm realizing that sex, for men, is so tied to their happiness in a relationship and it scares me. Honestly, it makes me want to go it alone and this bothers me too.
Brennan,
I never mentioned going back to Asia for happy endings. Where did you come up with that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brennan
MEM,
For me, it is using a woman who is already broken for your own selfish needs. You already mentioned going to Asia for back massages and fully anticipate getting happy endings, as you posed it to your wife. You see nothing wrong in using either trafficked women or using women here who's back are against the wall. Either through former sexual abuse, drug abuse or alcohol abuse. Just go to a "hooker". These are real people. But hey, pay them $50. They mean very little to you. I find it repugnant.
21 years of a happy marriage and you threaten your wife with that. You know what. I'll take my 17 years of ups and downs and a husband who would never, ever put me in that situation in a trillion lifetimes. Nor would he ever abuse a woman for his own needs. Call me crazy but there are some men out there who actually respect women. They are called MEN. And the more I read I here I realize how much of a damn gem I have! Holy hell, he is amazing!!
MEM,
You said that you are often in Asia and get massages. You clearly stated at that time that nobody was allowed to touch your junk. Now? You sing a different tune. You are open to it and you told your sick wife that you would have no issue with finding a hooker. STD's be damned. Sorry, doesn't sit well with me at all. Like I said, I have problems in my marriage but I'll take my 17 years, 19 years dating and 30 years knowing him over hookers and disease any day. And he would damn well say the same thing. We are a team and a great one at that. Maybe we should start our own website?!
"I don't think so, but I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. Explain please?"
It's the internet, I thought you might be another poster. I'm paranoid
"Life is too short to be in a constant battle for dominance with your spouse. Even if you "win" it's a pretty hollow victory. I don't really want to dominate my spouse anyway, a lot of times I want her to bring the strength to the relationship, and fortunately, most of the time she's available to do just that. If I am always the "strong man" in my relationship that means I can't ever let my guard down and I can't ever really lean on my wife for emotional support.
To me it would really be a horrible life if I didn't think I could express my real emotions to my wife when I need to. I am or try to be pretty much of an open book to my wife so she gets it all. I don't know about you but I have quite a bit of "crap" buried down inside me and I think my wife has to be a pretty tough cookie to be able to deal with some of my "emotional garbage."
So I really don't even understand the whole notion that a relationship should be like what some are advocating anyway. I want to be able to be weak and let my wife be the strong one, not always, but sometimes anyway."
Why though? I mean why did you come to these conclusions? After what struggle or experiences?
"So do I. Just kidding, yes of course I am, does it seem otherwise? Actually I'll take that as a compliment really that you can't tell just by the way I write."
Depends on who you're writing for I suppose. It's hard in this sea of one up men to think that a man could actually strongly disagree with them.
"It's definitely not "all there is." Most of the men posting here, at least about this kind of stuff, seem to be involved in, or coming out of, some VERY high-conflict-level relationships. Conflicts in relationships are bad enough as it is, without developing a relationship philosophy which deliberately encourages or exacerbates high conflict. I just don't get that part of it at all. I always thought that REDUCING the conflict level in one's relationships was the objective I should be seeking."
I've known quite a few men and most think they're pretty nifty but those that have to proclaim their niftiness the loudest tend to be the most insecure from my experience. It's nice to have a truly confident male on the boards. I just hope that you're ready to be shut out because other men won't like you. Not men who will see you as a threat to their "philosophies" anyway.
Mem attributes statements to others that they never made, at least he's done that to me in this thread. He's made other statements about other stuff, like you've just pointed out, but then contradicted himself.
I pointed out that he is very inconsistent, but he's very persistent and very adept at glossing over his inconsistencies.
Now he's claiming what a happy happy marriage he's in, what a lucky guy he considers himself, when that completely contradicts pretty much his entire raison d'etre for being here--a guy who is NOT happy in his marriage because his wife at least periodically withholds sex from him.
None of it is consistent.
I don't think it's real.
Even if Mem weren't real and I will assume he is till proven otherwise (I'm an American after all so I will give you this same benefit of the doubt), he's speaking from somewhere and he has a large audience. That's what should be the most scary.
Re: Skill based dominance 
