meerkat stew Posted February 12, 2010 Posted February 12, 2010 People who want to turn things around and create an artificial power structure where authority is shared equally between the man and the woman (or where the woman is charge) are trying to accomplish something that goes against basic human nature. It's no wonder most of these relationships fail. So basic human nature was set in stone when we were barely on two legs? Don't think so. Human nature is a fluid, changing quality that depends on culture, social mores, politics, etc., not just how we started out.
Author Calendula Posted February 12, 2010 Author Posted February 12, 2010 So basic human nature was set in stone when we were barely on two legs? Don't think so. Human nature is a fluid, changing quality that depends on culture, social mores, politics, etc., not just how we started out. He also seems to be assuming that the majority such 'non-traditional' relationships fail simply because he seems to have had little success with them. An understanding of the dynamic nature of such a relationship is necessary to make it successful, and this understanding seems to be lacking in Johnny's case.
Author Calendula Posted February 12, 2010 Author Posted February 12, 2010 At the end of the day when all is said and done no matter how you slice it, a lot of men like to be the hunters not the hunted. When a man becomes the hunted he will stay in that role pretty much throughout the relationship. Because in a relationship we set the precedence for what we will get and how much we will have to give by the dynamic we determine from day one. If the woman is being the pursuer, she will have to stay for the most part in that active role. Sure there is a shift in roles in most relationships but the underlying roles will always be defined as decided upon from day one. I agree that initial perceptions of another individual count for a lot, and I strongly believe in starting a relationship in the way you wish for it to continue. By starting, I don't mean just the first date, but also the initial building stages when you're still getting to know someone. So I suppose one way to get around such initial perceptions is to be conscious and permissive of the fact that people can change during any and all stages of a relationship, both in who they are and in how you see them? _______ Also, my scenario and question isn't necessarily limited to cases where the woman is the pursuer. I can easily picture a scenario where the man approaches the woman, expects her to be all submissive and deferrential to his judgement, and then when it turns out that she has an opinion and isn't afraid to voice it (in a polite and respectful way, of course), he looses interest because he feels that she is 'challenging his authority as a man'. What would your take be on such a case?
Johnny M Posted February 12, 2010 Posted February 12, 2010 So basic human nature was set in stone when we were barely on two legs? Don't think so. Human nature is a fluid, changing quality that depends on culture, social mores, politics, etc., not just how we started out. Not in stone but in your DNA and not when you were barely on two legs but before you were even born.
meerkat stew Posted February 12, 2010 Posted February 12, 2010 Not in stone but in your DNA and not when you were barely on two legs but before you were even born. We could have a nature/nurture debate I guess. Can we not and say we did? Will gladly agree that certain religious traditions assign dominion over woman to man, but not that such a dominion scheme is inherent in our essence as human beings. I could probably beat up all of the women I've dated, maybe even take on several at once in a cage match, but they could wait for an opportune moment to conk me over the head with something or out and out Bobbitt me in my sleep. Personally, my dominion over women ends at the exact point in space and time where her hand wraps completely around my testicles.
Recommended Posts