# The ultimate dominant submissive thread



## bfree (Sep 30, 2012)

As carried over from another thread:

Why?

Why are women naturally submissive? Why are men naturally dominant? Why aren't they equal but different? Why is a woman that wants to take the lead half the time a domme? What is the equivalent term for a dominant male? These ideas you have are so foreign to me that they make my brain hurt.

Rather than perpetuate this threadjack I'm going to start a new thread in the general relationship section. Please contribute there so I can try to wrap my head around this concept.


----------



## ButtPunch (Sep 17, 2014)

I don't get it either. I think it may play back to caveman days. Where the man was responsible for physical protection of the female. 

However, Dominate behavior is controlling behavior. They are one and the same.

The only difference is how the woman interprets the behavior. 

If she consents to his behavior, he is dominant alpha.

If she doesn't consent, he is a controlling jerk.


----------



## phillybeffandswiss (Jan 20, 2013)

Someone is mixing BDSM sexual definitions with therapeutic uses and explanations. Yes, the definitions are the same, but the meanings are completely different in context. I saw it in a couple of posts, realized it was being used out of context and It's why I no longer engage this derail when it is pushed.


----------



## Roselyn (Sep 19, 2010)

Career woman here, 57 years old, and 35 years married (first time for both of us). My husband is 60. We work together in our investment properties. I'm in charge of management and contracts. My husband is in charge of maintenance and record keeping (including financial record keeping for our accountant).

In the realm of dominant & subordinate roles, we agree to have the individual with the knowledge and skills to lead in the decision making process. We consult each other before taking action. The one who insists on an action without taking advice from the other is responsible for the outcome of the decision. We compromise. So we both take responsibility for our failures and celebrate our successes. This has worked for us.

The dominant/subordinate roles are always changing for us. We however, respect each other's intellect and feelings. No other parties are involved in any of our activities. No affairs are tolerated. It has worked for us.


----------



## bfree (Sep 30, 2012)

My wife and I are obviously not the same. I'm male and she's female. But we are equal nonetheless. Sometimes I defer to her and sometimes she defers to me depending on the particular situation. Sometimes she is the leader and sometimes I assume that role. If I tried to act dominant she would question my sanity. She would accuse me of manipulation and controlling. If she tried to act dominant I would think she lost her mind. I would push back with gusto and tell her in no uncertain terms that I don't lay down for anyone, man or woman and that includes her. I just do not understand the concept that the man is the natural leader. I don't understand why some people see that particular gender as inherently dominant and the other as naturally submissive. To me it's no different than saying all black people like watermelon or all Irish are drunks. I just don't get it.


----------



## ButtPunch (Sep 17, 2014)

bfree said:


> My wife and I are obviously not the same. I'm male and she's female. But we are equal nonetheless. Sometimes I defer to her and sometimes she defers to me depending on the particular situation. Sometimes she is the leader and sometimes I assume that role. If I tried to act dominant she would question my sanity. She would accuse me of manipulation and controlling. If she tried to act dominant I would think she lost her mind. I would push back with gusto and tell her in no uncertain terms that I don't lay down for anyone, man or woman and that includes her. I just do not understand the concept that the man is the natural leader. I don't understand why some people see that particular gender as inherently dominant and the other as naturally submissive. To me it's no different than saying all black people like watermelon or all Irish are drunks. I just don't get it.


I agree. My wife has a doctorate in a medical field. When there are health questions, I immediately refer to her and let her take the lead. Finances and kids sports I'm in charge. We each have strengths and weaknesses.


----------



## farsidejunky (Mar 19, 2014)

I think there is a general misconception that dominant=domineering, when they are in fact nowhere near alike.


----------



## Fozzy (Jul 20, 2013)

I view it as basically Dominant = leader. A leader is only a leader if someone CHOOSES to follow them. There's no true denial of power in a healthy Dom/sub relationship. The power is given, not taken.

A relationship where power is taken from the other is simply abusive.


----------



## Anon Pink (Jan 17, 2013)

farsidejunky said:


> I think there is a general misconception that dominant=domineering, when they are in fact nowhere near alike.


And submissive does not equal doormat.





FrenchFry said:


> bfree, I honestly think it's a personality and relationship dynamic thing. Not an inherent to a gender.


Bingo!


----------



## DayOne (Sep 19, 2014)

farsidejunky said:


> I think there is a general misconception that dominant=domineering, when they are in fact nowhere near alike.


In fact D/s has been a real help to me, learning how to be dominant WITHOUT being domineering (IE: an ahole). I think, in part, bringing elements of D/s has helped to save our marriage. But also massively improved our ability to communicate, relearn trust, work out issues (and have a LOT of fun!).



Anon Pink said:


> And submissive does not equal doormat.


In fact, quite the opposite. It allows the submissive to express her (or him) self in a much more equal way. Because there is (or should be) a much clearer understanding of roles in a D/s power exchange. Both parties know their roles, have 'rules'. The sub participates as much as the Dom(me) does, and has input into how things are done.


----------



## DayOne (Sep 19, 2014)

Fozzy said:


> I view it as basically Dominant = leader. A leader is only a leader if someone CHOOSES to follow them. There's no true denial of power in a healthy Dom/sub relationship. The power is given, not taken.
> 
> A relationship where power is taken from the other is simply abusive.


Quoted for truth.


----------



## farsidejunky (Mar 19, 2014)

DayOne said:


> In fact D/s has been a real help to me, learning how to be dominant WITHOUT being domineering (IE: an ahole). I think, in part, bringing elements of D/s has helped to save our marriage. But also massively improved our ability to communicate, relearn trust, work out issues (and have a LOT of fun!).


Same here, brother.


----------



## weightlifter (Dec 14, 2012)

Too much 50 shades effect on the general population for any real understanding of it outside the view of a novel.


----------



## farsidejunky (Mar 19, 2014)

weightlifter said:


> Too much 50 shades effect on the general population for any real understanding of it outside the view of a novel.


This is true. When I first toed the waters of D/S, this was my (mis)understanding of it as well.

If you want to see examples of true dominance (as opposed to theatrics or scenes) here on TAM, I would encourage you to read most things from @MEM11363, or going back a little further, @Conrad. Both have a clear way of describing emotional dominance, which really is synonymous with leadership.

It is something I am learning, even though sometimes it comes natural while other times it feels foreign.

But as stated in quoting D1's post, simply understanding the fundamentals has dramatically improved my understanding of my relationship dynamic, and through that understanding, has tremendously improved my relationship, even if I am not a dom in the truest sense of the term.


----------



## GoodFunLife (Apr 24, 2015)

Such an interesting/provocative topic ... completely agree dominant is completely healthy and very different from domineering ... One thought to consider is that there can be a natural ebb and flow to this in and out of the bedroom - women who are strong leaders outside the bedroom and rightfully insist on being viewed as equal partners in relationships are still naturally sexually submissive at their core and want to be with strong, dominant men who are comfortable leading in the bedroom in order to realize their full sexual potential. I would be curious to hear from women who are truly happy with their sex lives, orgasm regularly with their partner etc - would they say that they are naturally sexually submissive? and that they have their most satisfying sexual experiences with dominant men who naturally take the lead in the bedroom and make them feel sexy and feminine? I am increasingly of the mind that the polarity embedded in clearly defined dominant/submissive roles is not only healthy but critical to having a strong mutually enjoyable sexual relationship.


----------



## Fozzy (Jul 20, 2013)

What we crave in the bedroom often reflects what we feel we lack outside the bedroom. That's where the stories come from of high-powered execs flocking to dominatrices to be "put in their place". 

A man might crave to be a dominant in a bedroom because he feels out of control in the rest of his life. A woman might crave the opposite for the same reason.


----------



## Heatherknows (Aug 21, 2015)

All my bedroom fantasies have soft BDSM elements, no hitting but being taken forcefully and without consent. In my heart I feel if you are a beautiful submissive female than a man will want to have his way with you no matter what. Raw passion and out of control desire to dominate and fu*k.
0


----------



## farsidejunky (Mar 19, 2014)

Heatherknows said:


> All my bedroom fantasies have soft BDSM elements, no hitting but being taken forcefully and without consent. In my heart I feel if you are a beautiful submissive female than a man will want to have his way with you no matter what. Raw passion and out of control desire to dominate and fu*k.
> 0


That is the physical and erotic side of it, or the play side.

However, what is more important is the dynamic that builds the trust to get to the point where you can have that type of relationship without hesitancy.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

@farsidejunky and @DayOne, would you say that it takes innate and complimentary personalities to make this type of relationship dynamic successful? I ask this question because not everyone is capable of adopting the behaviors needed to make this dynamic work. I mentioned this on a different thread but I could never imagine being in a dominant/sub relationship (emotional and otherwise). I'd hate having to 'carry' the relationship but I'd also hate relegating control of the relationship to my partner. I imagine there are men who feel the same way. 

I've seen couples successfully navigate the dom/sub relationship dynamic but I think it's because their innate personality is to be more dominant or more submissive. I'm not sure if this could be learned. Thoughts?


----------



## bfree (Sep 30, 2012)

Lila said:


> @farsidejunky and @DayOne, would you say that it takes innate and complimentary personalities to make this type of relationship dynamic successful? I ask this question because not everyone is capable of adopting the behaviors needed to make this dynamic work. I mentioned this on a different thread but I could never imagine being in a dominant/sub relationship (emotional and otherwise). I'd hate having to 'carry' the relationship but I'd also hate relegating control of the relationship to my partner. I imagine there are men who feel the same way.
> 
> I've seen couples successfully navigate the dom/sub relationship dynamic but I think it's because their innate personality is to be more dominant or more submissive. I'm not sure if this could be learned. Thoughts?


I'm one man that agrees. I can't even imagine carrying the relationship solely on my back nor could I just perpetually defer control to my wife. I would say that we are darned close to 50/50 as far as relationship responsibility is concerned and we each feel very comfortable with that arrangement.


----------



## Fozzy (Jul 20, 2013)

intheory said:


> Does having higher amounts of testosterone, or estrogen; make people behave differently from each other?


Absolutely. You can measure change in your own behavior correlating to your own hormone levels, so it will definitely make an impact between male and female behavior on the whole.


----------



## bfree (Sep 30, 2012)

FrenchFry said:


> I'm definitely not capable.  For multiple reasons. I do think there are personalities that respond better to it than others and I see the similarities in relationships of the posters who find that it does.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hi FF,

I guess the confusion I'm having is this. The advice being imparted to be the dominant spouse is only given to male posters. And when I brought up that many (most) marriages exist where the man is not dominant but equal at most, I was told that men tend to be the dominant gender. That idea runs incongruent to my experience and seems to indicate a gender bias that my wife and I feel tends to perpetuate the man = violent; woman = helpless prejudice that permeates our society and prevents both men and women from achieving more individually, and in concert with one another. Maybe where we live is more enlightened than other parts of the country but I really don't think so. I don't think men are or should be considered the dominant gender. Stronger - probably, faster - maybe. But more dominant? That stereotype not only keeps women from achieving all that they could/should but also keeps men from showing qualities like tenderness, nurturing, emotional awareness etc that they (we) undoubtedly posses but are rarely allowed to demonstrate. It traps both genders in stone-like cocoons and keeps society from moving forward.


----------



## farsidejunky (Mar 19, 2014)

Lila said:


> @farsidejunky and @DayOne, would you say that it takes innate and complimentary personalities to make this type of relationship dynamic successful? I ask this question because not everyone is capable of adopting the behaviors needed to make this dynamic work. I mentioned this on a different thread but I could never imagine being in a dominant/sub relationship (emotional and otherwise). I'd hate having to 'carry' the relationship but I'd also hate relegating control of the relationship to my partner. I imagine there are men who feel the same way.
> 
> I've seen couples successfully navigate the dom/sub relationship dynamic but I think it's because their innate personality is to be more dominant or more submissive. I'm not sure if this could be learned. Thoughts?


Lila:

I am not an expert. I am a fledgling. I just happened to be someone who spoke up in this thread. Our dynamic is not adopted. Our only formal, agreed upon area of D/S is in the bedroom, and that is pretty mild. It was more about me finally seeing what my wife needed and doing it. 

My wife is naturally submissive. But she also suffered CSA, largely as a result of her natural submissiveness. 

That makes for an occasional mean stew, as alluded to in the "Transparency" thread.

Overall, if I am not leading, she does not feel secure. She needs me to be her rock, even when she's behaving like a cat in a sack. Our relationship is probably closer to 60/40, or maybe slightly more towards my responsibilities like 70 / 30. But ultimately, the direction of the family is set by me. 

This is largely in a macro sense, because many of the micro decisions that are made are hers. She knows more about many things than I do, and I have to have the maturity to defer to her expertise in those situations. Most of those situations, though, are not necessities, but rather smaller things such as what food to feed the dogs, or what kind of care they may need.

What it really comes down to is that she the areas in which she struggles, I carry her, because they are necessities. At the same time, I focus on not needing her to carry me.

In fairness, it doesn't always work, because I am just not that much of a dom. I still struggle to maintain my cool in our disagreements. I struggle in balancing my needs being met versus meeting hers. But for the most part I am winning in that struggle.

And we are both happier in our relationship than we have ever been. That is all the proof I need to keep looking at it through that lens.


----------



## farsidejunky (Mar 19, 2014)

bfree said:


> I'm one man that agrees. I can't even imagine carrying the relationship solely on my back nor could I just perpetually defer control to my wife. I would say that we are darned close to 50/50 as far as relationship responsibility is concerned and we each feel very comfortable with that arrangement.


It'd not about control, Bfree. Struggles still happen, because we both struggle with pride and ego, like all people. 

It is about doing what is right, and if there is disagreement, hearing each other without pride and ego, and then moving forward. 

It is really more about emotional strength. My wife needs shelter from the world. She is so emotionally sensitive that she floods, and does not deal well with that. Often it takes the form of lashing out, or shutting down. In those instances, it is my job to protect her and make her feel safe.


----------



## farsidejunky (Mar 19, 2014)

bfree said:


> Hi FF,
> 
> I guess the confusion I'm having is this. The advice being imparted to be the dominant spouse is only given to male posters. And when I brought up that many (most) marriages exist where the man is not dominant but equal at most I was told that men tend to be the dominant gender. That idea runs incongruent to my experience and seems to indicate a gender bias that my wife and I feel tends to perpetuate the man = violent; woman = helpless prejudice that permeates our society and prevents both men and women from achieving more individually and in concert with one another. Maybe where we live is more enlightened than other parts of the country but I really don't think so. I don't think men are or should be considered the dominant gender. Stronger - probably, faster - maybe. But more dominant? That stereotype not only keeps women from achieving all that they could/should but also keeps men from showing qualities like tenderness, nurturing, emotional awareness etc that they (we) undoubtedly posses but are rarely allowed to demonstrate. It traps both genders in stone-like cocoons and keeps society from moving forward.


This is largely from @jld, and is a combination of her seeing sub traits from these women and a bit of projection on her part. Gridcom comes to mind.

At least, that is what I see.


----------



## bfree (Sep 30, 2012)

farsidejunky said:


> This is largely from @jld, and is a combination of her seeing sub traits from these women and a bit of projection on her part. Gridcom comes to mind.
> 
> At least, that is what I see.


Yes, that thread and some others jld is offering that advice. But I've seen similar advice and attitudes from others in other threads/sections. Men are being told to "man up." Problems in a marriage are often put on the man not living up to his obligations. This puts women in a lower position since they cannot obviously have the same effect on a relationship as a man can. It's horse hockey!

I made a comment on a thread asking the OP to try to not see her relationship through the emotional veil that most women tend to default to. @Rookie called me out as he should have! I realized I was thinking in the same way but in reverse. Of course women cannot think logically, of course they can only see things through emotional eyes.

I'm an idiot.

In looking at my marriage I realize that I'm the more emotional one. Why then did I fall back to the women = emotional; men = logical stereotype. Because we allow that kind of thinking to continue unchallenged.

Men are not the dominant gender any more than women are the emotional gender. It's just something we do in order to order our lives. We like to label, we like to compartmentalize, it makes us feel safe. But when boundaries become prison walls we all lose.


----------



## farsidejunky (Mar 19, 2014)

It is the classic trap of making broad generalizations. You know what works for you, brother. I know what works for me. The key is to try and communicate that without making it into a stereotype, or some sort of gender war.


----------



## Duguesclin (Jan 18, 2014)

bfree said:


> I don't think men are or should be considered the dominant gender. Stronger - probably, faster - maybe. But more dominant? That stereotype not only keeps women from achieving all that they could/should but also keeps men from showing qualities like tenderness, nurturing, emotional awareness etc that they (we) undoubtedly posses but are rarely allowed to demonstrate. It traps both genders in stone-like cocoons and keeps society from moving forward.


In the context of relationships with children, women are overwhelmingly the ones taking responsibility for them. Across cultures, when relationships are breaking down, most often, women are the last one standing for the kids.

There is a fundamental difference between men and women. Women will take responsibility if they have to. If men are not held responsible, they will find all kinds of excuses to avoid it.


----------



## Fozzy (Jul 20, 2013)

Duguesclin said:


> In the context of relationships with children, women are overwhelmingly the ones taking responsibility for them. Across cultures, when relationships are breaking down, most often, women are the last one standing for the kids.
> 
> There is a fundamental difference between men and women. Women will take responsibility if they have to. If men are not held responsible, they will find all kinds of excuses to avoid it.


Held responsible by who, Dug? Society? Their wives/gf's?

Ultimately, NOBODY can hold a man responsible unless he agrees to it. Some men will, and some men won't. Our population is rife with examples of men who refuse accountability, despite the attempts to hold them accountable by families, courts, etc.

The men who are accountable are that way because they hold themselves accountable.


----------



## Duguesclin (Jan 18, 2014)

Fozzy said:


> Held responsible by who, Dug? Society? Their wives/gf's?


By other men.

I am very concerned when the focus is on making women take responsibility rather than men. There is too much emphasis on getting men off the hook.


----------



## Fozzy (Jul 20, 2013)

Duguesclin said:


> By other men.
> 
> I am very concerned when the focus is on making women take responsibility rather than men.


A man could just as easily evade accountability by other men as he could by women. I see it all the time. 

A man who won't accept accountability is that way because of a character flaw in himself, not because there aren't enough guys around hawking him.


----------



## Duguesclin (Jan 18, 2014)

Fozzy said:


> A man could just as easily evade accountability by other men as he could by women. I see it all the time.
> 
> A man who won't accept accountability is that way because of a character flaw in himself, not because there aren't enough guys around hawking him.


Fozzy, peer pressure does wonders.


----------



## Fozzy (Jul 20, 2013)

Duguesclin said:


> Fozzy, peer pressure does wonders.


And yet a man who does the right thing only because of peer pressure is still not a good man, nor is he worthy of the people who benefit from his actions.


----------



## Duguesclin (Jan 18, 2014)

Fozzy said:


> And yet a man who does the right thing only because of peer pressure is still not a good man, nor is he worthy of the people who benefit from his actions.


It is a start. You have to walk before you can run.


----------



## Fozzy (Jul 20, 2013)

"Put the screws on me, and I'll screw right out from underneath you" --Johnny Cash


----------



## bfree (Sep 30, 2012)

Duguesclin said:


> In the context of relationships with children, women are overwhelmingly the ones taking responsibility for them. Across cultures, when relationships are breaking down, most often, women are the last one standing for the kids.
> 
> There is a fundamental difference between men and women. Women will take responsibility if they have to. If men are not held responsible, they will find all kinds of excuses to avoid it.


And yet when men try to break the bonds of where they have been traditionally pigeon holed they are mocked and held in lower standing. Men who come on TAM and say they are stay at home dads are looked down upon. They're looked down upon by women and other men. They are standing for the children yet seen as something less. Why? Men who choose to go into careers traditionally filled by women are looked at sideways. A man who chooses to become a nurse is scorned and his character questioned. I believe this all stems from gender bias and misplaced stereotypes. Maybe if men were allowed to express themselves without fearing reprisal they could learn to grow beyond the stone cold hearts they have been assigned by society. Maybe men would feel less likely to identify with the cad, the player and the absentee father. Maybe then you'd have your beneficial shaming.


----------



## bfree (Sep 30, 2012)

FrenchFry said:


> I understand and agree. My relationship dynamics are such that this is true and so I try to find solutions to problems that work within this sort of framework.
> 
> I think other posters are coming in with their own framework of maybe D/s, maybe emotional leadership and seeing if it fits as well. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't but I don't think it hurts for them to suggest it.
> 
> What is important is that you also come in with your framework, and see if what worked for you also may fit.


See that's just it. I can't envision a relationship built on a D/s model. Oh I can understand it in the bedroom but that's a small part of what a full relationship is. How would that carry out in an entire relationship? In a non sexual D/s relationship would the man make all the decisions irrespective of the woman's point of view? Would he choose what car they drove? What school their children attended. Where they live? Whether she works or not?

My wife is allergic to eggplant. Her tongue swells when she eats it. The problem is she enjoys eggplant. In a D/s relationship would I forbid her to eat eggplant because it's really not good for her?


----------



## bfree (Sep 30, 2012)

FrenchFry said:


> I wanted to clarify something too. :grin2:
> 
> A lady who takes control half the time is a *switch.* Full time is a Domme. Male version is a Dom.
> 
> Within a certain framework, of course.


Ah, thank you for the information. Then I cannot imagine my life with anyone but a woman switch.


----------



## bfree (Sep 30, 2012)

Duguesclin said:


> If men are not held responsible, they will find all kinds of excuses to avoid it.


Then you have not known many men of honor and integrity my friend. The cretins you describe are not men in my book.


----------



## bfree (Sep 30, 2012)

farsidejunky said:


> Lila:
> 
> I am not an expert. I am a fledgling. I just happened to be someone who spoke up in this thread. Our dynamic is not adopted. Our only formal, agreed upon area of D/S is in the bedroom, and that is pretty mild. It was more about me finally seeing what my wife needed and doing it.
> 
> ...


If you don't mind my asking how does that work in everyday life? Is your role more closely related to that of a parent than a spouse? I apologize if the question is indiscreet.


----------



## farsidejunky (Mar 19, 2014)

bfree said:


> If you don't mind my asking how does that work in everyday life? Is your role more closely related to that of a parent than a spouse? I apologize if the question is indiscreet.


No worries on the question, brother.

It is very much like the captain/first mate principle rather than parent/child in our relationship.

However, emotionally, there are some seeds of codependence. For example, when she calls me through the day, she always asks me first, "How are you?". This is a sh!t test of sorts, because what she is really asking me is if I am happy. 

And she needs it to be that way. It has a lot to do with being raised by an angry, alcoholic, domineering father, but if I am not happy, it upsets her world, especially if that anger is addressed towards her. By comparison, if she is not happy, I feel bad, and try to help, but it does not affect my ability to function at work.

The funny thing, and what took me so long to wrap my mind around, is covering her fear with anger. She will fight long before she withdraws. 

But there is that moment, sort of a sweet spot, where if I intervene with gentleness, she rarely escalates. Then as that happens, escalations overall decline in frequency. 

Understanding that moment, what needs to happen in that moment, and being willing to do that for her while stemming my needs, wants, and frustrations, is emotional dominance.


----------



## Duguesclin (Jan 18, 2014)

bfree said:


> And yet when men try to break the bonds of where they have been traditionally pigeon holed they are mocked and held in lower standing. Men who come on TAM and say they are stay at home dads are looked down upon. They're looked down upon by women and other men. They are standing for the children yet seen as something less. Why? Men who choose to go into careers traditionally filled by women are looked at sideways. A man who chooses to become a nurse is scorned and his character questioned. I believe this all stems from gender bias and misplaced stereotypes. Maybe if men were allowed to express themselves without fearing reprisal they could learn to grow beyond the stone cold hearts they have been assigned by society. Maybe men would feel less likely to identify with the cad, the player and the absentee father. Maybe then you'd have your beneficial shaming.


The stay at home dad might be a subject for another thread. However I do not why men in "traditional" women's job could not take responsibility for the family.

When my son was in the hospital, his favorite nurses were guys. They were fine men.

I know there are a lot of gender biases, but it does not mean we should find excuses why guys should relinquish their responsibilities in a family. We could define those responsibilities more clearly.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## bfree (Sep 30, 2012)

Duguesclin said:


> The stay at home dad might be a subject for another thread. However I do not why men in "traditional" women's job could not take responsibility for the family.
> 
> When my son was in the hospital, his favorite nurses were guys. They were fine men.
> 
> ...


I don't think "men" relinquish their responsibilities any more than women do. Example. In recent years we've seen the court system begin to tilt more toward primary custody being awarded to the father instead of the mother. And we've seen men happily, joyfully accept that responsibility. I think for many years now men have wanted to spend more time with their children but tradition dictated that they must instead leave the household and work to provide for the family. I think many men have wanted to be their children's primary caregivers but tradition dictated that this was the mother's domain. That perception is beginning to shift now and I believe the last vestige of gender bias, the male/female stereotype, should be banished. I believe that the "men are dominant women are submissive" bunk should be held in the same disregard as "all Irish are drunks" or "all blacks love watermelon."

Men and women can tend to be more dominant and/or submissive but that characteristic should not fall on gender lines. It should be based on the individual not their sex.


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

bfree said:


> I don't think "men" relinquish their responsibilities any more than women do. Example. In recent years we've seen the court system begin to tilt more toward primary custody being awarded to the father instead of the mother. And we've seen men happily, joyfully accept that responsibility. I think for many years now men have wanted to spend more time with their children but tradition dictated that they must instead leave the household and work to provide for the family.* I think many men have wanted to be their children's primary caregivers but tradition dictated that this was the mother's domain. That perception is beginning to shift now and I believe the last vestige of gender bias, the male/female stereotype, should be banished.*


We can only speak out of our own situations, experiences.. every couple has their own dynamics.. this is how I would describe ours..

We've always had more of a Traditional set up.. it's what we both wanted when we started out -if we could financially swing it... I've worked side jobs most of our marriage -we are content with this...

We live in the country.. he doesn't want me driving on icy back roads to get to work every day .. getting out of our driveway is bad enough... he worries about me. (I love that about him!)... 

I feel husband has a generous amount of family time.. we are not a stressed family even with a houseful... it's how we manage our time.. I never need his help on anything in the home, that's my domain. I don't feel belittled by this (Modern society & feminist ideals make me feel this way, but never my husband)...

We like our roles...we support each other.. he does the manly stuff I would struggle to do...working on vehicles , chainsawing, wood projects.. & I strap on the tool belt when he needs a hand. 



> I believe that the "men are dominant women are submissive" bunk should be held in the same disregard as "all Irish are drunks" or "all blacks love watermelon."
> 
> *Men and women can tend to be more dominant and/or submissive but that characteristic should not fall on gender lines. It should be based on the individual not their sex.*


Now here is the kicker...We may be archaically stereotypical in our Traditional roles ... but I have more of a "dominate personality type" over him....I'm more aggressive in the bedroom too ...which is outside the stereotypical norm...

This overflows in other areas, how can it not....I tend to take more charge, want to know what is going on, I handle the fine details...all the money...calls, research... ... if I was married to a guy who ruled with an iron fist & didn't think I needed to know what was happening... this would upset my apple cart ...we'd never work... 

He's always wanted my input....and I seek his .. in this way we're "equal" .. we go forth together. ... Often it is I who comes up with ideas for Home Projects, though I've never had to nag him to be on top of needed repairs.. 

I deeply respect him for what he brings.. his work ethic.. that a man is to "Protect & Provide"...that's a part of who he is.. I wouldn't want this ripped from him.. 

Now just imagining me being a career woman, Mrs Independent plus being more of the 'take charge spouse" while he was home changing diapers.. No...no.. No......something would be lost in our relationship I'm afraid...

I think a woman needs to "look up" to a man.. see some "AWE...that she can lean on him, feeling he brings so much to her life"... I just wouldn't find that very attractive.. Whether this is cultural or what.. I don't know..but that's how I feel.. it would most definitely screw with our dynamics !


----------



## Duguesclin (Jan 18, 2014)

bfree said:


> Men and women can tend to be more dominant and/or submissive but that characteristic should not fall on gender lines. It should be based on the individual not their sex.


I understand you believe men and women are the same. I don't.

In Tennessee, giving birth to a drug dependent baby can put the mother in jail, not the dad. While I find this law appalling, it shows who is the last one standing: the mother!



SimplyAmorous said:


> We live in the country.. he doesn't want me driving on icy back roads to get to work every day .. getting out of our driveway is bad enough... he worries about me. (I love that about him!)...
> 
> ...
> 
> Now here is the kicker...We may be archaically stereotypical in our Traditional roles ... but I have more of a "dominate personality type" over him....I'm more aggressive in the bedroom too ...which is outside the stereotypical norm...


SA, you may have a more dominant personality, but your husband not allowing you to work because he is concerned of you driving on the ice looks pretty dominant to me.

Maybe we should better define dominant. To me it is the one where the buck stops.

I am ready to bet that if your marriage would have faltered, your husband would have taken full responsibility. This is what I call dominance.


----------



## farsidejunky (Mar 19, 2014)

Duguesclin said:


> I understand you believe men and women are the same. I don't.
> 
> In Tennessee, giving birth to a drug dependent baby can put the mother in jail, not the dad. While I find this law appalling, it shows who is the last one standing: the mother!
> 
> ...


Legal precedent says: her body, her choices, her responsibility, without regard to the father.


----------



## bfree (Sep 30, 2012)

Duguesclin said:


> I understand you believe men and women are the same. I don't.
> 
> *Not the same. Different but equal. Big difference.*
> 
> ...


----------



## Duguesclin (Jan 18, 2014)

Bfree,

From conception to birth a woman takes 100% of the risks of carrying that child, the man 0%. But once the child is born he has 50% of the rights to the child. How is this equal?


----------



## farsidejunky (Mar 19, 2014)

Duguesclin said:


> Bfree,
> 
> From conception to birth a woman takes 100% of the risks of carrying that child, the man 0%. But once the child is born he has 50% of the rights to the child. How is this equal?


Even more reason to be responsible about it, no?


----------



## bfree (Sep 30, 2012)

Duguesclin said:


> Bfree,
> 
> From conception to birth a woman takes 100% of the risks of carrying that child, the man 0%. But once the child is born he has 50% of the rights to the child. How is this equal?


Are you asking why biologically a female is designed to carry the offspring? That's a little beyond the scope of my knowledge and certainly not something any of us have control of. Maybe someday when science has advanced far enough we can create an artificial womb that will remove that burden from that half of the human race.

We as humans however have the mental capacity to transcend our biological imperatives do we not? We can choose how to treat one another. We can choose a higher path and a nobler purpose. Just because a woman is biologically designed to bear children does not mean that is all she's good for. Can't a woman be an equal part of society? Can't a woman rise above the status of breeder? After all we did come up with many and varied methods of birth control that allow women to have control over those biological functions. At one time blacks were considered little more than beasts. Blacks cannot change the color of their skin but we can certainly change our attitudes toward others. Thankfully our society evolved to set aside such prejudices although we're still working on some people. In the not so distant past women were considered property. Just gaining the right to vote was a struggle, France didn't pass women's suffrage until 1944.

It is my position that men and women are indeed different but that does not mean they cannot be equal in society and in relationships. Unlike race or gender, how we treat others is within the scope of our control.


----------



## axiror (Oct 2, 2015)

Smarter one always dominate (control) the other no matter domme or sub, male or female. Power is like water and smarter one arrange flow. Sub can easily top at bottom if smarter side. Otherwise it goes to enslaving and poly. This is my summary of D/s.


----------



## Heatherknows (Aug 21, 2015)

axiror said:


> Smarter one always dominate (control) the other no matter domme or sub, male or female. Power is like water and smarter one arrange flow. Sub can easily top at bottom if smarter side. Otherwise it goes to enslaving and poly. This is my summary of D/s.


Smarter has nothing to do with it. Ultimately the one who controls the relationship is the one who loves less.


----------



## farsidejunky (Mar 19, 2014)

Heatherknows said:


> Smarter has nothing to do with it. Ultimately the one who controls the relationship is the one who loves less.


This is true in relationships with partners who seek control.

D/S is less about control, and more about the more emotionally self sufficient partner focusing on and taking care of the less emotionally self sufficient partner.


----------



## Heatherknows (Aug 21, 2015)

farsidejunky said:


> This is true in relationships with partners who seek control.
> 
> D/S is less about control, and more about the more emotionally self sufficient partner focusing on and taking care of the less emotionally self sufficient partner.


That's interesting.


----------



## MJJEAN (Jun 26, 2015)

Heatherknows said:


> Smarter has nothing to do with it. Ultimately the one who controls the relationship is the one who loves less.


If you're speaking in terms of D/s, you are sadly mistaken. The Dom/Domme in a LTR or marriage must be devoted to the total care and upkeep of their sub pretty much 24/7. This role demands an incredible amount of sacrifice in terms of time, energy, and effort.


----------



## MJJEAN (Jun 26, 2015)

farsidejunky said:


> This is true in relationships with partners who seek control.
> 
> D/S is less about control, and more about the more emotionally self sufficient partner focusing on and taking care of the less emotionally self sufficient partner.


Sort of? I guess that's as good a way to explain it to vanilla folks as any, but it is a bit more complex than that.

In a D/s relationship, there isn't a power struggle. The sub needs to have a Dom in control in order to feel safe and secure. The Dom isn't _taking_ power or control. It's being _given _to him/her.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

axiror said:


> *Smarter one always dominate (control) the other no matter domme or sub, male or female.* Power is like water and smarter one arrange flow. Sub can easily top at bottom if smarter side. Otherwise it goes to enslaving and poly. This is my summary of D/s.


I agree with the bolded. The truly more dominant person is the dominant, regardless of the title they may sport.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

MJJEAN said:


> Sort of? I guess that's as good a way to explain it to vanilla folks as any, but it is a bit more complex than that.
> 
> In a D/s relationship, there isn't a power struggle. The sub needs to have a Dom in control in order to feel safe and secure. The Dom isn't _taking_ power or control. It's being* given *to him/her.


Totally agree.

A true dominant _inspires_ trust and respect. There is no need for coercion.


----------



## Heatherknows (Aug 21, 2015)

MJJEAN said:


> If you're speaking in terms of D/s, you are sadly mistaken. The Dom/Domme in a LTR or marriage must be devoted to the total care and upkeep of their sub pretty much 24/7. This role demands an incredible amount of sacrifice in terms of time, energy, and effort.


Maybe the sub loves less.


----------



## bfree (Sep 30, 2012)

jld said:


> Totally agree.
> 
> A true dominant _inspires_ trust and respect. There is no need for coercion.


Is that what your and Dug's relationship is? A true D/s partnership? It would go a long way toward explaining your and his advice. But you should be up front about that because I dare say that a very small percentage of people could or would be happy living that way. I know in my marriage I wouldn't want the 24/7 responsibility of someone else's emotional state, safety, happiness etc. And I sure wouldn't be happy granting that to someone else no matter how much I loved them or they loved me.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

bfree said:


> Is that what your and Dug's relationship is? A true D/s partnership? It would go a long way toward explaining your and his advice. But you should be up front about that because I dare say that a very small percentage of people could or would be happy living that way. I know in my marriage I wouldn't want the 24/7 responsibility of someone else's emotional state, safety, happiness etc. And I sure wouldn't be happy granting that to someone else no matter how much I loved them or they loved me.


Yes, we do, as we define it, anyway.

But even people who do not, like far, have benefitted from the ideas. 

"Take what works for you, and leave the rest."


----------



## bfree (Sep 30, 2012)

jld said:


> Yes, we do, as we define it, anyway.
> 
> But even people who do not, like far, have benefitted from the ideas.
> 
> "Take what works for you, and leave the rest."


Yes the concept has value I'm sure but I think a little more explanation is warranted when a D/s solution to a relationship problem is suggested. This redistribution of power is so foreign to most people that I dare say if they knew the entire dynamic they would probably dismiss it outright. I'm not a Dom, would never want to be a Dom. I don't want to take complete and total responsibility for my relationship. I want a partner, not a subordinate. If my wife came to me one day and said she was handing over the reigns to our marriage to me and now I had to accept total responsibility I would divorce. Likewise if I tried to put all the responsibility on her she wouldn't accept it. Suggesting this D/s structure to a couple when you only have access to one spouse can also be extremely damaging. As I understand it the power has to be given. It cannot be taken. If say a husband tries to enforce a D/s dynamic in his marriage it wouldn't work and would be seen as controlling and/or manipulation. Am I correct? So when you were suggesting this to Grid and did not have access to his wife you in fact were pushing him to manipulate or control her. Since she was not a participant in the conversation she could not willingly give Grid that power. Heck, we don't even know if she's the type of person that could allow someone else to assume total control. Isn't it reckless to push someone to do something unless it is known that both parties are receptive?


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

bfree said:


> Yes the concept has value I'm sure but I think a little more explanation is warranted when a D/s solution to a relationship problem is suggested. This redistribution of power is so foreign to most people that I dare say if they knew the entire dynamic they would probably dismiss it outright. I'm not a Dom, would never want to be a Dom. I don't want to take complete and total responsibility for my relationship. I want a partner, not a subordinate. If my wife came to me one day and said she was handing over the reigns to our marriage to me and now I had to accept total responsibility I would divorce. Likewise if I tried to put all the responsibility on her she wouldn't accept it. Suggesting this D/s structure to a couple when you only have access to one spouse can also be extremely damaging. As I understand it the power has to be given. It cannot be taken. If say a husband tries to enforce a D/s dynamic in his marriage it wouldn't work and would be seen as controlling and/or manipulation. Am I correct? So when you were suggesting this to Grid and did not have access to his wife you in fact were pushing him to manipulate or control her. Since she was not a participant in the conversation she could not willingly give Grid that power. Heck, we don't even know if she's the type of person that could allow someone else to assume total control. Isn't it reckless to push someone to do something unless it is known that both parties are receptive?


How was I pushing him to manipulate or control her? Could you cite examples?

I was urging him to try to first understand her and meet her needs, without insisting on immediate reciprocation. I think she was hurt by him for a long time, and needed to be persuaded that she could trust him. The letter I linked to Dr. Harley's site said essentially the same thing.

No, I do not agree with "enforcing" things, unless that is agreed to by both parties. I am a big believer in _inspiring _trust through empathy, compassion, humility, and patience.


----------



## bfree (Sep 30, 2012)

jld said:


> How was I pushing him to manipulate or control her? Could you cite examples?
> 
> I was urging him to try to first understand her and meet her needs, without insisting on immediate reciprocation. I think she was hurt by him for a long time, and needed to be persuaded that she could trust him. The letter I linked to Dr. Harley's site said essentially the same thing.
> 
> No, I do not agree with "enforcing" things, unless that is agreed to by both parties. I am a big believer in _inspiring _trust through empathy, compassion, humility, and patience.


You were leading him toward a D/s style relationship without knowing if his wife would be the s to his D. She needed to willingly grant him that title and as I and most others saw it you were encouraging him to take it. Judging from what I've learned in this thread your advice was leading him down a potentially dangerous path for his marriage. Please do not try to deny that this was taking place as on many occasions in that thread you called him the dominant personality and his wife submissive. I'm a Christian. I understand the importance of leading a marriage according to biblical teachings. But there is a very large gap between leading a marriage and a D/s dynamic if I understand it correctly.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

bfree said:


> You were leading him toward a D/s style relationship without knowing if his wife would be the s to his D. She needed to willingly grant him that title and as I and most others saw it you were encouraging him to take it. Judging from what I've learned in this thread your advice was leading him down a potentially dangerous path for his marriage. Please do not try to deny that this was taking place as on many occasions in that thread you called him the dominant personality and his wife submissive. I'm a Christian. I understand the importance of leading a marriage according to biblical teachings. But there is a very large gap between leading a marriage and a D/s dynamic if I understand it correctly.


I do not think there is anything dangerous about telling a man to meet his wife's needs first and to be empathetic, patient, and kind to her. 

I think every marriage has a power dynamic going on, bfree. People may not be aware of it, but it's there.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

bfree said:


> But there is a very large gap between leading a marriage and a D/s dynamic if I understand it correctly.


All right, let's try this again. What do you see as the gap here? Because I do not see one.

D/s just means a power differential. To us, it means Dug takes responsibility for the marriage. It does not mean I am not doing anything. I contribute a lot. But he considers himself responsible for this marriage, and this family. It was his idea to marry me, and his idea to have several kids. 

While I most often ask men to take the lead, I have suggested it to women, too. Not many, but it has happened. Some women have more capacity for leadership than men, and so it makes sense that they would take responsibility for their marriages, and for their families.


----------



## bfree (Sep 30, 2012)

jld said:


> I do not think there is anything dangerous about telling a man to meet his wife's needs first and to be empathetic, patient, and kind to her.
> 
> I think every marriage has a power dynamic going on, bfree. People may not be aware of it, but it's there.


You mistakenly assumed that grid was dominant and his wife was submissive. You said as much in a response to my wife.

"A genuine dominant . . . dominates. He earns the respect and trust of others because he is genuinely strong in himself. He does not need other people to "give him a chance." They listen to him because they know what he says is true and can thus benefit them, even if it also costs them some pride and some hard work.

_"I think Mrs. Grid is a genuine submissive. I think grid is a dominant. A weak dominant relative to some others, but a dominant nonetheless."_

The problem is that you don't KNOW that. You've never spoken to Grid's wife. She was not privy to any of those exchanges. When you tell a man, especially one that has demonstrated anger recently to "take charge" of his marriage how do you expect his wife to react? On the one hand you are saying he should be patient, kind and empathetic and on the other hand you are pushing him to be dominant. You don't see the inherent flaw in this thinking? If you stopped at being open to listening to his wife and trying to understand her feelings I would be right there with you. But she told him in no uncertain terms to back off. You essentially told him to ignore that and keep pushing for her to open up to him. In a good marriage not rife with conflict that might have worked. But your advice was damaging. It caused Grid's wife to pull away even further and it subsequently caused Grid to lose hope. Don't you see that?


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

bfree said:


> You mistakenly assumed that grid was dominant and his wife was submissive. You said as much in a response to my wife.
> 
> "A genuine dominant . . . dominates. He earns the respect and trust of others because he is genuinely strong in himself. He does not need other people to "give him a chance." They listen to him because they know what he says is true and can thus benefit them, even if it also costs them some pride and some hard work.
> 
> ...


I disagree with your interpretation. She told him to be nice and give her space. She did not want him yelling at her, threatening her, making demands. That is what he had been doing.

I do not remember saying anything that would have violated her wishes. I told him repeatedly to be kind and gentle with her, to respect her and seek to understand her.

If anything, I was accused of leaning too far to her side and not supporting grid enough.


----------



## bfree (Sep 30, 2012)

jld said:


> All right, let's try this again. What do you see as the gap here? Because I do not see one.
> 
> D/s just means a power differential. To us, it means Dug takes responsibility for the marriage. It does not mean I am not doing anything. I contribute a lot. But he considers himself responsible for this marriage, and this family. It was his idea to marry me, and his idea to have several kids.
> 
> ...


Do you understand what taking the lead in a marriage is? Taking the lead means being the one that brings up issues to confront. Taking the lead means coming up with ideas and thoughts to improve the marriage. Taking the lead means to lead by example not by dictating. Taking the lead means every thought comes from love. And sometimes love means giving someone space when you'd rather smother them.

It does not mean that things are done because you've said they should. It does not mean that things run on your timetable. It does not mean that all decisions are yours to make or that your suggestions are the right ones. And just because I lead today doesn't mean I should or need to lead tomorrow. If my wife is more capable of leading then she doesn't hesitate to do so. As I mentioned before I am the more emotional one in many situations. I have a hard time with sickness and death. My wife is very strong in those areas. So when those issues come up she takes the lead. On the other hand my wife has little patience with most people. I believe you might have experienced some of that in Grid's thread. So when tact and diplomacy is called for I take the lead there.

We have no power struggles and our marriage dynamic is about as close to 50/50 as you can get. We are both fiercely independent people who have chosen to come together and live our lives as one. We are as comfortable apart as we are side by side and we constantly reinforce our communication and our understanding of the changing needs in our relationship. If you want to call what we have a power dynamic I guess you can but it's the most equally distributed power dynamic I can think of.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

bfree said:


> Do you understand what taking the lead in a marriage is? Taking the lead means being the one that brings up issues to confront. Taking the lead means coming up with ideas and thoughts to improve the marriage. Taking the lead means to lead by example not by dictating. Taking the lead means every thought comes from love. And sometimes love means giving someone space when you'd rather smother them.
> 
> It does not mean that things are done because you've said they should. It does not mean that things run on your timetable. It does not mean that all decisions are yours to make or that your suggestions are the right ones. And just because I lead today doesn't mean I should or need to lead tomorrow. If my wife is more capable of leading then she doesn't hesitate to do so. As I mentioned before I am the more emotional one in many situations. I have a hard time with sickness and death. My wife is very strong in those areas. So when those issues come up she takes the lead. On the other hand my wife has little patience with most people. I believe you might have experienced some of that in Grid's thread. So when tact and diplomacy is called for I take the lead there.
> 
> We have no power struggles and our marriage dynamic is about as close to 50/50 as you can get. We are both fiercely independent people who have chosen to come together and live our lives as one. We are as comfortable apart as we are side by side and we constantly reinforce our communication and our understanding of the changing needs in our relationship. If you want to call what we have a power dynamic I guess you can but it's the most equally distributed power dynamic I can think of.


So you might call it a dynamic of equality. I see your marriage differently than you do, but that is neither here nor there. You say you are happy with what it is, so good enough.

I would not have come up with the idea of marriage to Dug on my own, nor of having several children. I would not have thought of homeschooling them. These were all ideas presented to me at the beginning of our relationship, a few days after we started dating. If I had not felt comfortable with them, and accepted them, I doubt we would have stayed together.

This does not mean I am without power in the marriage. But I do think Dug is smarter than I am, and I find myself being convinced by his arguments. If he did not earn my trust in that way, I would not be nearly as compliant (giving him my power) as I am.

And then there is the issue of money. I do not earn money. If we were to divorce, I would surely get alimony, but I would not have the economic benefits that I have now. My lifestyle would take a hit.


----------



## bfree (Sep 30, 2012)

jld said:


> I disagree with your interpretation. She told him to be nice and give her space. She did not want him yelling at her, threatening her, making demands. That is what he had been doing.
> 
> I do not remember saying anything that would have violated her wishes. I told him repeatedly to be kind and gentle with her, to respect her and seek to understand her.
> 
> If anything, I was accused of leaning too far to her side and not supporting grid enough.


I'm not going to comb through over 200 pages in order to find the posts that I reference. I'm sure you recall where Grid's wife asked him for space. I'm sure you recall where I said he should respect her wishes. I said to be approachable but not approach. I said to wait for Retrouville. You said he needed to continue to approach her and try to get her to open up. You said he needed to keep showing her affection. You said he needed to keep taking the lead. I'm sorry jld but that's not giving her the space she asked for.


----------



## bfree (Sep 30, 2012)

jld said:


> So you might call it a dynamic of equality. I see your marriage differently than you do, but that is neither here nor there. You say you are happy with what it is, so good enough.
> 
> I would not have come up with the idea of marriage to Dug on my own, nor of having several children. I would not have thought of homeschooling them. These were all ideas presented to me at the beginning of our relationship, a few days after we started dating. If I had not felt comfortable with them, and accepted them, I doubt we would have stayed together.
> 
> ...


Parts of your post make me incredibly sad for you.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

bfree said:


> I'm not going to comb through over 200 pages in order to find the posts that I reference. I'm sure you recall where Grid's wife asked him for space. I'm sure you recall where I said he should respect her wishes. I said to be approachable but not approach. I said to wait for Retrouville. You said he needed to continue to approach her and try to get her to open up. You said he needed to keep showing her affection. You said he needed to keep taking the lead. I'm sorry jld but that's not giving her the space she asked for.


We interpret the request for space differently, I guess. 

I don't remember many of your posts, tbh. I was focused on grid's.


----------



## Blonde (Jan 7, 2013)

bfree said:


> Men who choose to go into careers traditionally filled by women are looked at sideways. A man who chooses to become a nurse is scorned and his character questioned.


Correction. Male nurses are promoted faster, make more money, and are more likely to go into high paid nursing careers such as CRNA (Nurse Anesthetist)



> The phenomenon is known as the *“glass escalator”* in which men earn higher wages and faster promotions in female-dominated professions. In nursing, men are more concentrated in the highest-earning segments of the field. They make up *41%* of nurse anesthetists, who earn nearly $148,000 on average, but only 8% of licensed practical nurses, who make just $35,000.​
> 
> Male Nurses Make More Money - Real Time Economics - WSJ


Just sayin'


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

Blonde said:


> Correction. Male nurses are promoted faster, make more money, and are more likely to go into high paid nursing careers such as CRNA (Nurse Anesthetist)
> 
> 
> 
> Just sayin'


Thanks for linking this, Blonde. Dug and I just showed it to our oldest son. Nursing is a field he has considered. He really liked the male nurses he had when he was in the hospital.

And we have a public university with a nursing program just ten minutes from our house!


----------



## Duguesclin (Jan 18, 2014)

bfree said:


> It may have been his idea but you agreed. Did you have a shotgun wedding? Did he rape you and get you pregnant? No. He may consider himself responsible for the relationship but he's not. You own your half whether either of you want to acknowledge it or not. Now, you might relegate most of the responsibilities to Dug but that is you granting him that right voluntarily. He didn't force you. If you grant someone the power you can take it back when you choose.


So if I understand you correctly Bfree, if suddenly I have a change of heart or JLD really gets on my nerves, I can call it quits and share only 50% of the responsibility. This is what not being responsible for the relationship means?

Fortunately, I do not see it that way.


----------



## bfree (Sep 30, 2012)

Duguesclin said:


> So if I understand you correctly Bfree, if suddenly I have a change of heart or JLD really gets on my nerves, I can call it quits and share only 50% of the responsibility. This is what not being responsible for the relationship means?
> 
> Fortunately, I do not see it that way.


Well yes if you're a complete jacksss. I doubt you are though. What I mean by sharing the responsibility for the relationship is that if jld decides to stop meeting all your needs then you can "call it quits." If she decides to start having sex with another man or woman you can end the marriage. If she decides to start burning your children with lit cigarettes you can divorce her. What you seem to fail to acknowledge is that we are all responsible for our own actions. So long as marriage is comprised of two individuals the responsibility is shared. You may accept total responsibility for the relationship but that doesn't mean the responsibility is totally yours.


----------



## bfree (Sep 30, 2012)

Blonde said:


> Correction. Male nurses are promoted faster, make more money, and are more likely to go into high paid nursing careers such as CRNA (Nurse Anesthetist)
> 
> 
> 
> Just sayin'


Thanks for that link. It may be that men in traditionally female jobs earn more than the women. I was speaking more of the perception society as a whole has of those men. How many times on TAM have stay at home dads been told to get a job. If you went to a salon to get your nails done or to get a bikini wax and a man was your technician would you proceed? Why are male hairdressers assumed to be gay? Some of these attitudes are changing. Some not so much.


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

Duguesclin said:


> SA, you may have a more dominant personality, but your husband not allowing you to work because he is concerned of you driving on the ice looks pretty dominant to me.
> 
> Maybe we should better define dominant. To me it is the one where the buck stops.
> 
> I am ready to bet that if your marriage would have faltered, your husband would have taken full responsibility. This is what I call dominance.


I didn't get a chance to respond last night... I must admit @bfree 's responses below were exactly on target in regards to how he reads us.. 

As it's true...my husband is not controlling like at all .... I'd have free reign to get a full time job if I wanted, oh we'd have to buy another 4x4 & always have an older kid around for the youngest if I wasn't home... but yeah...he'd support my passions / desires.. I've always felt that.. 

The only thing he was adamant I didn't do -was my thinking, looking into getting a tummy tuck (having had 6 c-sections), asking how he felt...he put his foot down, wouldn't have supported me in that...not that I fought over it.... I was happy to hear he loved my stomach, those battle scars, doesn't bother him at all.... end of subject.

For the last point.. he is a very "self aware man"...meaning if there was any fault - that caused hurt to me, pushed me away .. he'd OWN IT & then some.. he's sensitive, understanding & ethical... he'd also have strong feelings if I was the one to Fck things up.... . he'd loose respect for me ...he'd speak up... BUT he wouldn't brow beat ...

He'd let me stir in his disapproval. 



bfree said:


> *Not allowing her to work or he strongly advocates she not work for her own safety and she agrees? Again, huge difference. One is controlling, the other is demonstrating love. I only know SA from her posts here on TAM but I would think it's the latter and not the former.*
> 
> Yes.. I read your responses to Him.. he agrees..
> 
> ...





> Do you understand what taking the lead in a marriage is? Taking the lead means being the one that brings up issues to confront. Taking the lead means coming up with ideas and thoughts to improve the marriage. Taking the lead means to lead by example not by dictating. Taking the lead means every thought comes from love. And sometimes love means giving someone space when you'd rather smother them.














> It does not mean that things are done because you've said they should. It does not mean that things run on your timetable. It does not mean that all decisions are yours to make or that your suggestions are the right ones. *And just because I lead today doesn't mean I should or need to lead tomorrow. If my wife is more capable of leading then she doesn't hesitate to do so. As I mentioned before I am the more emotional one in many situations. *I have a hard time with sickness and death. My wife is very strong in those areas. So when those issues come up she takes the lead. On the other hand my wife has little patience with most people. I believe you might have experienced some of that in Grid's thread. So when tact and diplomacy is called for I take the lead there.


We could all list areas where our spouse SHINES in some areas... but not his or her thing in another area we may be more equipped to handle, take that lead... The whole sickness & death thing.. we all hate funerals.. watching a loved one die.. I dread being in that situation...I'd want to hang on the coat-tails of my husband, I think I'd need my own support - to get through it somehow. 

I am more the conversation starter....He has more patience. 



> We have no power struggles and our marriage dynamic is about as close to 50/50 as you can get. *We are both fiercely independent people who have chosen to come together and live our lives as one. *We are as comfortable apart as we are side by side and we constantly reinforce our communication and our understanding of the changing needs in our relationship. If you want to call what we have a power dynamic I guess you can but it's the most equally distributed power dynamic I can think of.


 I like what you say here.. I feel we're similar - even with his being the primary Breadwinner.. though when I hear others speak about being "fiercely independent" and "as comfortable being apart" ... it conjures up a feeling that you don't particularly care or want to spend much time together.. 

Not that this is what you are saying?.. just how I read it.. 

I prefer to use the word "Interdependent" -which is something I learned on this forum.. never heard of it before landing here... explained like this



> *Interdependence *is being mutually dependent, or simply being dependent on each other . Two people in a healthy relationship are said to be interdependent. In contrast to existing alone, it is a voluntary recognition that “no man is an island,” and that we must co-inhabit the space in which we live.
> 
> The most important point to understand is ”this debate positions both independence and interdependence as alternative endpoints of maturity… Independence and interdependence are polar opposites—either the two ends of a continuum, or else mutually exclusive categories


Sounding cheezy here... but we dearly love our time together... he purposely takes his 2 days off during the week so we have *more time* alone when the kids are in school.. we're one of those couples who do pretty much everything together, just what we enjoy.. Yrs ago now.. my husband could have taken an over the road truck driving job.. but we agreed-we'd both be MISERABLE.. being apart.. not worth the extra money he could have made.


----------



## Duguesclin (Jan 18, 2014)

bfree said:


> Well yes if you're a complete jacksss. I doubt you are though. What I mean by sharing the responsibility for the relationship is that if jld decides to stop meeting all your needs then you can "call it quits." If she decides to start having sex with another man or woman you can end the marriage. If she decides to start burning your children with lit cigarettes you can divorce her. What you seem to fail to acknowledge is that we are all responsible for our own actions. So long as marriage is comprised of two individuals the responsibility is shared. You may accept total responsibility for the relationship but that doesn't mean the responsibility is totally yours.


She can decide a lot of things, but those decisions never come out of nowhere. We are interdependent. What I do has impacts on her and vice versa.

If she decided to have an affair, it would be a reaction to what I am doing or not doing. That may not be true for other wives. But it would be true for my wife.

With 2 people in charge, it is easy to shift the blame, and at the end no one is in charge.

The fear of many men is to be taken advantage by their wives. The remedy they have found is to share responsibilities.

I never had that fear.


----------



## bfree (Sep 30, 2012)

Interdependent...I like that. SA, yes we both love spending time together and if we have a choice that's exactly what we do. I guess what I meant by comfortable being apart is that we are each complete people and there is no codependence other than what naturally occurs in marriage. I also agree that long periods apart are not conducive to a healthy marital bond although sometimes it happens. We have both made choices that benefit our marriage and family sacrificing in other areas.


----------



## bfree (Sep 30, 2012)

Duguesclin said:


> She can decide a lot of things, but those decisions never come out of nowhere. We are interdependent. What I do has impacts on her and vice versa.
> 
> If she decided to have an affair, it would be a reaction to what I am doing or not doing. That may not be true for other wives. But it would be true for my wife.
> 
> ...


Dug, we also discuss all our decisions. Sometimes my idea is implemented and sometimes my wife's idea has more merit. The fact that we each affect the other is why we have adopted strong communication and complete transparency. These are the primary reasons along with sound character that solidify my belief that in my marriage an affair would be unlikely. I don't agree with your statement that 2 people in charge mean nobody is in charge and blame shifting is easy. I would counter that a partnership mirrors what marriage should be - a union of two independent people and that choice to be together mitigates any blameshifting. I take responsibility for myself, my wife takes responsibility for herself and we both share the responsibility for the marriage equally. And I agree that by sharing the responsibilities of marriage there is no fear from either of us that an advantage would be sought.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Bfree,

Excellent thread. Quite a constructive mix of viewpoints. 

Dominance is quite simply a matter of having a disproportionate impact on the outcome. No more, and no less. It is solely a gauge of power, completely uncorrelated to whether that power is used, or misused. 

This disproportionate power dynamic is typically derived from either skill/charisma, or aggression. Having a high risk tolerance applies to both the good and the bad power types. 

Some examples of the former are: Thomas Edison, and Jack Welch (CEO of General Electric). And examples of the latter include: Hitler and Al Capone. 

There have been a lot of positive comments in this thread about - what I call: skill based dominance

M2 has an excellent sense of aesthetics. So when we do a remodeling job, she totally runs the show. In this context, my one role is to help manage any anxieties she has. 

In other areas of our marriage the roles are reversed. 

That said, this stuff works like magic when you have an abundance of one very special ingredient: admiration




Duguesclin said:


> She can decide a lot of things, but those decisions never come out of nowhere. We are interdependent. What I do has impacts on her and vice versa.
> 
> If she decided to have an affair, it would be a reaction to what I am doing or not doing. That may not be true for other wives. But it would be true for my wife.
> 
> ...


----------



## bfree (Sep 30, 2012)

Great point MEM, I do admire my wife when she can keep her composure whilst I am barely keeping it together. She is also very creative. I think I'm a bit more organized but I'm simply amazed at how she can use colors in conjunction with shapes to bring out a certain look. She looks at me with goo goo eyes wherever I have written something she enjoys or when I'm talking to someone about a particular subject. She says hearing my voice and reading my words to her is like velvet. I think you're right that admiration is the foundation quality for dominance/leadership.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Dug,
Agree with all this. 

And would like to add that 50-50 is the best theory in the world until you have a binary decision to make, the two of you disagree about. To move for a job or stay put. Fund the nth year of college for a child or choose not to. 

Sometimes you are BOTH skilled in an area. What then?

I believe that Heather has referenced a very popular concept a few times during this thread. The person who loves less, has more power. 

While oft referenced, and seemingly true, that isn't quite right. 

The person who NEEDS THEIR PARTNER MORE, is the person with less power. 

I hesitatingly and unreservedly love M2 more. Always have. Always will. And yet, M2 NEEDS me more. She's not a needy person by any stretch, I'm just good at being her partner. 

In a healthy relationship the issue of need rarely arises. What drives the day to day is respect/admiration. 


QUOTE=Duguesclin;14221521]She can decide a lot of things, but those decisions never come out of nowhere. We are interdependent. What I do has impacts on her and vice versa.

If she decided to have an affair, it would be a reaction to what I am doing or not doing. That may not be true for other wives. But it would be true for my wife.

With 2 people in charge, it is easy to shift the blame, and at the end no one is in charge.

The fear of many men is to be taken advantage by their wives. The remedy they have found is to share responsibilities.

I never had that fear.[/QUOTE]


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

MEM11363 said:


> The person who NEEDS THEIR PARTNER MORE, is the person with less power.


Truth.

Brilliant insight, MEM.


----------



## Heatherknows (Aug 21, 2015)

MEM11363 said:


> Dug,
> Agree with all this.
> 
> And would like to add that 50-50 is the best theory in the world until you have a binary decision to make, the two of you disagree about. To move for a job or stay put. Fund the nth year of college for a child or choose not to.
> ...


Need is a strange word. I'm not sure which of us needs the other more since we are pretty enmeshed at this point. I do believe my husband loves me more because he's a better person.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

Heatherknows said:


> Need is a strange word. I'm not sure which of us needs the other more since we are pretty enmeshed at this point. I do believe my husband loves me more because he's a better person.


Heather, if you did not need your husband's financial support (say you came into a big inheritance, for example), would you stay with him?


----------



## Heatherknows (Aug 21, 2015)

jld said:


> Heather, if you did not need your husband's financial support (say you came into a big inheritance, for example), would you stay with him?


Probably. I love my husband and I'd miss him if we divorced. He doesn't satisfy me sexually because he just doesn't view sex as important at this time in his life, but I'm too attached to him to leave.


----------



## bfree (Sep 30, 2012)

MEM11363 said:


> Dug,
> Agree with all this.
> 
> And would like to add that 50-50 is the best theory in the world until you have a binary decision to make, the two of you disagree about. To move for a job or stay put. Fund the nth year of college for a child or choose not to.
> ...


[/QUOTE]
It's interesting. I'm trying to recall a time when we didn't agree on a particular decision and one of us had to take a backseat to the other. The only thing I can come up with is when we decided to start a family. We both had jobs we loved but neither was ideal for family life. My wife made the first sacrifice and left her job eventually transitioning to part time work. Because it was mutually decided that I was going to be the full time breadwinner I kept my job until she had the first child and then I transitioned to something a little better suited to the family. I remember that neither of us was particularly happy about it but we did what was right for the marriage/family.

Again, I fall back to we each took the lead in different circumstances. One thing I learned early on is that my wife needs time to digest and work through major decisions. So what we usually do is bring it up, make some suggestions and then table it for a while to let each of us decide what we really think. It's worked for a long time and if it's not broke...


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

A couple of points:

1) The idea of a woman being submissive in any way is not permissible in polite society. Just look at the way any evangelical gets treated if they mention anything about a wife submitting to her husband. This leads to public discussions that often are in direct contrast with actuality.

2) If it's true, for whatever reason, that women are more submissive then men, then that's going to clash with modern life where there are few reasons to need a dominant man (physical protection, financial dependence, etc.). I'm sure this made more sense in the past than it does today. 

3) I think this issue of some women's "lizard brains" wanting a dominant man while their reasoning brain is saying "no way" is very difficult for many women to resolve. I think wives making more than their husbands is a bigger problem for the wives than the husbands. Yet it's usually seen as a problem for the man's ego.

4) I'm not at all clear how a man could be dominant in the bedroom but not outside of it. I'd think that one's either dominant or not and would have trouble "flipping a switch".

5) Growing up, I never expected a woman to want me to be dominant. In retrospect all the women I've known wanted this to some degree. I really want an equal who's not dependent on me. However, finding out how the world really works did allow me to tweak a few things without violating my true self.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

JLD,
I guess money can be a basis for power. But it is not a good one. 

A power dynamic driven by money - is rarely a happy one. 

Money, is like sex, it CAN be an amplifier. But the core has to come from elsewhere. 





jld said:


> Heather, if you did not need your husband's financial support (say you came into a big inheritance, for example), would you stay with him?


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

MEM11363 said:


> JLD,
> I guess money can be a basis for power. But it is not a good one.
> 
> A power dynamic driven by money - is rarely a happy one.
> ...


Would you like to elaborate on the bolded, MEM?


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

JLD,
It's why the love language test is so useful. 

I always cringe when I read about couples where one of them prioritized gifts, words of affirmation and acts of service as their top 3. The words that come to my mind when seeing that are: 'replaceable', 'commoditized', 'not that into you'.

I realize I'm at risk of sounding like a very judgemental, not nice person but here goes. 

Gifts: Commoditized, replaceable partner. You show me a love language test where the MAN, has this as his number one language and I'll show you a marriage where that same man is either the MUCH younger boy toy, or is the asexual lower income spouse. 

Words of affirmation (WOA): Seriously folks, this is like the 'one minute manager' came up with an efficient way to 'manage' their spouse. 

I'm not kidding about this. If you can average even one full minute of WOA per day without sounding like a total suck up, you ought to be teaching a class on how to marry someone rich. 

Acts of service - that one I get. That generally shows how INTO YOU, the other person really is. It makes sense to care about that. But to a degree - that one is also a type of commodity. 

Quality time - You can't fake that. Not really. Not with someone who's paying attention. 

Touch - Can't fake that either. Just because you can't see the dark side of the moon, doesn't mean it isn't there. Here's what I mean by that. People don't talk often about this because it is too painful. 
When the HD person snaps and files over a sexual disconnect - there's a whole lot of fascinating debate about whether they are shallow, justified, the victim the aggressor. All perfectly normal stuff. 

Here's the thing doesn't really come up. That 'LD' person knew what was going on the whole time. And that person made a conscious choice: better to be divorced than have to do THAT with their spouse. 

Most people can't fake this. Why it's such a beautiful thing when the physical part of a marriage really works. 

Sorry for the thread jacking rant. 

Real dominance in a marriage, the sustainable kind, comes from love. And real love is about craving your company and your touch. 
Everything else is a type of window dressing folks use to try feel better when those two things ain't true.



QUOTE=jld;14226937]Would you like to elaborate on the bolded, MEM?[/QUOTE]


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

I really appreciated hearing your thoughts, MEM, nice or not nice. 

I have to say that, for me, words of affirmation are important. I realize that some people are not genuine with their words. But I am. 

Words mean a lot to me, both the ones I speak and the ones I hear. If I give a compliment, I mean it. And I guess I tend to trust that, unless I have reason to doubt the character of the other person, one given to me is sincere, too.

This is really nice:

_Real dominance in a marriage, the sustainable kind, comes from love._

I agree.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

JLD,
Of course they are. And gifts are nice as well, though perhaps I see it as more a case of having a generous spirit with your partner. 





jld said:


> I really appreciated hearing your thoughts, MEM, nice or not nice.
> 
> I have to say that, for me, words of affirmation are important. I realize that some people are not genuine with their words. But I am.
> 
> ...


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

JLD,
For clarity - most days include a little routine in bed maybe 10 pm or so. There's a sort of patterned prelude to some flavor of I love you. 

All I meant to say was, this sequence would not work for me:
1 gifts
2 words of affirmation
3 acts of service
4 quality time
5 touch

EDIT: A correction to the bit above. It is NOT a routine. It is a thing I do - when I feel an intense wave of love. Which is of late - more than half the time. 







jld said:


> I really appreciated hearing your thoughts, MEM, nice or not nice.
> 
> I have to say that, for me, words of affirmation are important. I realize that some people are not genuine with their words. But I am.
> 
> ...


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

MEM11363 said:


> JLD,
> It's why the love language test is so useful.
> 
> I always cringe when I read about couples where one of them prioritized gifts, words of affirmation and acts of service as their top 3. The words that come to my mind when seeing that are: 'replaceable', 'commoditized', 'not that into you'.
> ...


 When it comes to *words of affirmation*.. I agree with @jld... they mean a lot to me too..(3rd in order out of 5)... I learned a long time ago.. the power of a timely word in a person's life.. how we can uplift another's spirit.. a random act of kindness (or words) can mean so much. 

. I am the type .... if I am out & about..seeing others on their job ... nurses, secretaries, cashiers ,anybody.. was chatting with a Home Depot rep today, he was excellent - I told him how much I appreciated his help ...

Sorry to say... many have lousy attitudes, is slow as a turtle, goofing off while a customer waits.... so when you come across those who stand out, helpful, on the ball, puts on a friendly smile...it makes the world a better place...I am compelled to tell such people what an asset they are .. when I am impressed.. I want to speak it out... it makes me feel good too. 

It's never about meeting a quota .. just showing genuine appreciation with words...speaking it freely .. hopefully we WANT TOO.. at least some of the time ... 

I've always felt @jld 's pretty wonderful here [email protected]# 



> Gifts: Commoditized, replaceable partner. You show me a love language test where the MAN, has this as his number one language and I'll show you a marriage where that same man is either the MUCH younger boy toy, or is the asexual lower income spouse.


 you might be surprised on this one.. although I am very similar to YOU.. it's all about *Time* & *Touch* .... I actually feel I couldn't be with a partner who had Gifts & Acts of service at their top. I would be very frustrated with them for NOT getting how much I love to cuddle & do things together... If they found that "pressuring".. I'd be terribly annoyed with them.... 

But I know of an older couple.. observing them.. they are both Acts of Service & gifts....at his house one day.. he proudly brought out this Card game board he made for a friend.. It was very nice!..

.He's a Manly guy.. avid hunter, fishing, impeccable work ethic... ..but he's just not the type to want to hang with the wife cuddling up to a movie for instance.. I think to myself.. "God that would be boring !"... but for them.. its not a big deal.. they enjoy doing little things for each other throughout the day.. and at least they are a good match. ... that's all that matters ... 



> Words of affirmation (WOA): Seriously folks, this is like the 'one minute manager' came up with an efficient way to 'manage' their spouse.
> 
> I'm not kidding about this. If you can average even one full minute of WOA per day without sounding like a total suck up, you ought to be teaching a class on how to marry someone rich.


 IF someone is not genuine.. it falls flat somehow.... .even flirting to me is a variation of words of affirmation.. when you are feeling it.. admiration, excitement, thankfulness...show it.. 

But yeah.... if one is trying to express this- to get some desired end.. when they are NOT feeling it.. the words ring hollow ...most of us can sense this...or at least question it - when the INTIMACY is lacking. 



> Most people can't fake this. Why it's such a beautiful thing when the physical part of a marriage really works.
> 
> Sorry for the thread jacking rant.
> 
> ...


 that's a good rant...







... for those who primarily speak these languages.. it's true.. we VERY MUCH feel this way !!


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

For me, woa, qt, and pt were all top scorers, and within a point of each other.

What is my husband's ll? Acts of service! 

Neither of us care about material gifts.

Please forgive the t/j, bfree!


----------



## Roxxolid (Jul 29, 2015)

I asked my girlfriend to do some role playing in the bedroom and dominate me. She literally froze up, couldn't deliver, she is just too submissive. 😲


Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

Roxxolid said:


> I asked my girlfriend to do some role playing in the bedroom and dominate me. She literally froze up, couldn't deliver, she is just too submissive. 😲
> 
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


Yeah, that would be a total turn off for me, too. 

Are you sure you are with the right person, Rox?


----------



## Roxxolid (Jul 29, 2015)

Yeah, I am, never been more in love in my life. She's a hottie and I really got lucky. 

I'm just going to have to keep grabbing her when she comes in the front door and dragging her to the bedroom  
👍

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

Roxxolid said:


> Yeah, I am, never been more in love in my life. She's a hottie and I really got lucky.
> 
> I'm just going to have to keep grabbing her when she comes in the front door and dragging her to the bedroom
> 👍
> ...


It sounds like you do not have a strong need to be dominated, then?


----------



## Heatherknows (Aug 21, 2015)

Roxxolid said:


> I asked my girlfriend to do some role playing in the bedroom and dominate me. She literally froze up, couldn't deliver, she is just too submissive. 😲
> 
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


Lost opportunity. She could have gotten you to clean the bathroom. >


----------



## bfree (Sep 30, 2012)

jld said:


> For me, woa, qt, and pt were all top scorers, and within a point of each other.
> 
> What is my husband's ll? Acts of service!
> 
> ...


No worries on any threadjack. I'm learning a lot through all the interaction.


----------



## bfree (Sep 30, 2012)

jld said:


> It sounds like you do not have a strong need to be dominated, then?


I often wonder where that comes from? I know that far said his wife's need to submit to a strong man comes from her CSA. But that doesn't mean that every man and woman that feels that way is in some way damaged does it? Does the need to be dominated or the need to be the one that is dominant come from childhood?


----------



## Heatherknows (Aug 21, 2015)

bfree said:


> I often wonder where that comes from? I know that far said his wife's need to submit to a strong man comes from her CSA. But that doesn't mean that every man and woman that feels that way is in some way damaged does it? Does the need to be dominated or the need to be the one that is dominant come from childhood?


(It comes from watching too much Caesar Millan 0 )


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

bfree said:


> I often wonder where that comes from? I know that far said his wife's need to submit to a strong man comes from her CSA. But that doesn't mean that every man and woman that feels that way is in some way damaged does it? Does the need to be dominated or the need to be the one that is dominant come from childhood?


I don't know, but I think it does manifest in childhood.

My husband thinks every woman will submit if she is with a strong enough man. I am sure some dommes would take issue with that, though.

My own personal opinion is that a power orientation is inborn, like sexual orientation. It might go dormant, but fundamentally it is always there, deep inside.

What can be a challenge is admitting the truth, especially if you do not like what your natural inclination is for some reason. I am particularly thinking of submissive men who feel they should be doms.


----------



## farsidejunky (Mar 19, 2014)

bfree said:


> I often wonder where that comes from? I know that far said his wife's need to submit to a strong man comes from her CSA. But that doesn't mean that every man and woman that feels that way is in some way damaged does it? Does the need to be dominated or the need to be the one that is dominant come from childhood?


No, Bfree. What I said was that she was naturally submissive, and that is what facilitated the CSA, not the other way around. 

The CSA does make her trust less fully, and leads to sh!t tests over emotional security.

This is important, because I believe dominance and submission are natural in people. It can be honed, but it has to be there to some degree in order to hone it.

Also, by submissive, I am not talking about demure. There is a difference there as well, because my wife is anything but demure except in the bedroom.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## bfree (Sep 30, 2012)

farsidejunky said:


> No, Bfree. What I said was that she was naturally submissive, and that is what facilitated the CSA, not the other way around.
> 
> The CSA does make her trust less fully, and leads to sh!t tests over emotional security.
> 
> ...


Thanks far, sorry for the misunderstanding.

I'm wondering if it's a case of nature vs. nurture. Is dominance/submissiveness a naturally occurring trait or is it something developed during childhood. Since you mentioned that you don't believe that you are naturally very dominant but have had to learn in order to make your wife feel safe that would seem to indicate that it is a learned characteristic. Or maybe dom/sub is something that should be thought of as on a sliding scale with some landing more toward the dom end and some more toward the sub end. Maybe my wife and I both tend to be more toward the middle of the scale which is why our relationship is more or less 50/50 while Dug/Jld lean more toward dom and sub respectively and why their relationship works so well the way it's structured.

This is all very interesting to me. Perhaps I was mistaken and owe Dug and Jld an apology. See even a stubborn person like me can learn.


----------



## bfree (Sep 30, 2012)

jld said:


> I don't know, but I think it does manifest in childhood.
> 
> My husband thinks every woman will submit if she is with a strong enough man. I am sure some dommes would take issue with that, though.
> 
> ...


Your last sentence makes me think of some of the books and sites that espouse Alpha theory. Although I believe the information can be valuable I do understand what you mean.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

bfree said:


> Thanks far, sorry for the misunderstanding.
> 
> I'm wondering if it's a case of nature vs. nurture. Is dominance/submissiveness a naturally occurring trait or is it something developed during childhood. Since you mentioned that you don't believe that you are naturally very dominant but have had to learn in order to make your wife feel safe that would seem to indicate that it is a learned characteristic. *Or maybe dom/sub is something that should be thought of as on a sliding scale with some landing more toward the dom end and some more toward the sub end. *Maybe my wife and I both tend to be more toward the middle of the scale which is why our relationship is more or less 50/50 while Dug/Jld lean more toward dom and sub respectively and why their relationship works so well the way it's structured.
> 
> This is all very interesting to me. Perhaps I was mistaken and owe Dug and Jld an apology. See even a stubborn person like me can learn.


The bolded reminds me of what I call a "Dom score." I think everyone has one. Basically it is just a number on a 1-100 scale indicating your natural dominance.

The key for your average male dominant/female submissive pairing is to make sure that the male has a naturally higher score than the female. If he does not, and she has a higher score, they may both be frustrated. Go for the natural fit.


----------



## Roxxolid (Jul 29, 2015)

jld said:


> It sounds like you do not have a strong need to be dominated, then?


Nope, it was all in good fun, to see if she had a hidden dom in there... Lol she's very assertive and confident in dealing with business and family members, but it just melts away in the bedroom. I will be content with that since it's what's worked for us from day one. 

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


----------



## Roxxolid (Jul 29, 2015)

Heatherknows said:


> Lost opportunity. She could have gotten you to clean the bathroom. >


Lol she's very clean, almost OCD... She'd be hell to work for as a domestic worker...  

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


----------



## bfree (Sep 30, 2012)

jld said:


> The bolded reminds me of what I call a "Dom score." I think everyone has one. Basically it is just a number on a 1-100 scale indicating your natural dominance.
> 
> The key for your average male dominant/female submissive pairing is to make sure that the male has a naturally higher score than the female. If he does not, and she has a higher score, they may both be frustrated. *Go for the natural fit*.


I wonder if people tend to gravitate toward those that compliment them on the "Dom scale?" I wonder if the better relationships are between couples that "naturally fit" together?"


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

bfree said:


> Your last sentence makes me think of some of the books and sites that espouse Alpha theory. Although I believe the information can be valuable I do understand what you mean.


This is a bit of a conflict for me. What I often do on TAM is try to encourage men to be more dominant. By dominant I mean things like getting hold of their emotions and learning to taking responsibility for their relationships by reaching out with empathy, compassion, and humility to their wives. I want them to earn their wives' trust and inspire them with their own example of integrity, rather than try to coerce them in any selfish way, which is some people's idea of dominance.

But some men are natural submissives. They want, and need, to be cared for by a female, rather than to take responsibility for caring for one. Encouraging these men to take responsibility for their relationships is upsetting their natural makeup, and that is unlikely to turn out well.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

bfree said:


> I wonder if people tend to gravitate toward those that compliment them on the "Dom scale?" I wonder if the better relationships are between couples that "naturally fit" together?"


I think so. Again, it usually goes better if the man has a naturally higher Dom score, if they are looking for a traditional relationship.

You should not try too hard to get along when you are dating. If it is not a natural, easy fit, do the right thing and part ways. A better fit is out there.

Transparency is very important. If the other person cannot handle your transparency, it is not a good sign.


----------



## bfree (Sep 30, 2012)

jld said:


> I think so. Again, it usually goes better if the man has a naturally higher Dom score, if they are looking for a traditional relationship.
> 
> You should not try too hard to get along when you are dating. If it is not a natural, easy fit, do the right thing and part ways. A better fit is out there.
> 
> Transparency is very important. If the other person cannot handle your transparency, it is not a good sign.


Transparency is one thing my wife and I agreed on even before we were married. And you're right, we didn't have to work at it much when we first started dating. It just flowed. She was the one that first asked me out. We attended the same church. I was a recovering alcoholic/substance abuser and even though I was enamored of her I didn't think I was stable enough to be good in a relationship. She broke the ice for us and it just went from there. In fact I thought it was going too well so I slowed us down a bit. I also vetted her well, well as much as I could without being creepy. She was my first real relationship after I turned my life over to Him and I didn't want to bounce from woman to woman as I'd done before. In fact, when I went into great detail about my life I fully expected her to bail. She just looked at me and said "okay." That's when I figured out that not much phases her.


----------



## Spotthedeaddog (Sep 27, 2015)

DayOne said:


> In fact, quite the opposite. It allows the submissive to express her (or him) self in a much more equal way. Because there is (or should be) a much clearer understanding of roles in a D/s power exchange. Both parties know their roles, have 'rules'. The sub participates as much as the Dom(me) does, and has input into how things are done.


Got to be careful not to "top from the bottom" (which is passive aggressiveness if done in other places)


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

bfree said:


> Transparency is one thing my wife and I agreed on even before we were married. And you're right, we didn't have to work at it much when we first started dating. It just flowed. She was the one that first asked me out. We attended the same church. I was a recovering alcoholic/substance abuser and even though I was enamored of her I didn't think I was stable enough to be good in a relationship. She broke the ice for us and it just went from there. In fact I thought it was going too well so I slowed us down a bit. I also vetted her well, well as much as I could without being creepy. She was my first real relationship after I turned my life over to Him and I didn't want to bounce from woman to woman as I'd done before. In fact, when I went into great detail about my life I fully expected her to bail. She just looked at me and said "okay." That's when I figured out that not much phases her.


That kind of sounds like us, but in reverse. I told Dug my past right away. If it were too bad for him, I wanted us to part ways right away. 

He did not hold it against me, though. He was incredibly compassionate, even. And I was, and still am, grateful.

I needed Dug's stability. I still do.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

spotthedeaddog said:


> Got to be careful not to "top from the bottom" (which is passive aggressiveness if done in other places)


I think a competent dominant can handle this.


----------



## bfree (Sep 30, 2012)

spotthedeaddog said:


> Got to be careful not to "top from the bottom" (which is passive aggressiveness if done in other places)


Isn't someone who does this called a SAM?


----------

