Greznog Posted August 30, 2012 Posted August 30, 2012 I don't know about most but I can certainly understand why some men claim to be happier when they let their wives/girlfriends have her way. It's similar to wanting to give in when little children keep whining and screeching to get their way, sometimes it's just easier to let them have their way so they'll shut up and eat their vegetables tonight.
Badsingularity Posted August 30, 2012 Posted August 30, 2012 (edited) LTR's I'd have to say it's different. Funny because that's where I see it the most. I know so many couples where the woman "wears the pants" and nearly all of them lack intimacy in their relationship and are not realy happy, though they all try to convince everyone that they are. My wife and I are very happy. Five years in and we are still very affectionate and are like rabbits in the bedroom. I lead in most situations in our relationship yet I respect, listen to, and love my wife. It seems like every couple who thinks like us is also genuinely happy, still very affectionate and intimate in the their marriages and LTR's. I do believe though that it can work the other way around for some people, but I think they are a small minority. Edited August 30, 2012 by Badsingularity
todreaminblue Posted August 30, 2012 Posted August 30, 2012 So I came across a website about FLR (female led relationships). I did some research and it seems like it's some new craze, apparently brought about by 1- the feminist movement and 2- some kinky bondage fetishes that men have. All else set aside. There are a lot of men who claim they are so much happier when they just let their wife or g/f lead. I'm pretty old fashioned and have been taught the man is supposed to wear the pants in the house. BUT, in all the marriages I know, the woman has a lot more clout than the man will ever admit to. I would say most of the relationships in the U.S. the woman has 'most' of the say. What I'm trying to say is this. When I give into my g/f's requests instead of arguing with her I'm usually happier in the end. It's better than fighting and sleeping on the couch. Plus, the arguments I do win are few and far between. So it's not always worth the effort. I guess I'd be called pussy whipped here on L.S. I'm not. I'd say I'm average. I just wanted to write this post and see if anyone is openly in a female led relationship and if they like it or not. Both men and women. Society is doing damage to convention...if things aint broke dont attempt to fix them is a motto there is also this push that women should lower their expectations again society driven......not right.......definitely wrong you telel your daughter to lower her expectations.....because society tells you too no...so all you have said above is a society illness.....women are nurtureers protectors all of that......single mums stand up.....what do you want......you have goen it alone what it is in yoru heart what do you yearn for.....protection...understanding.....love and not having to have th elead....we live th elead....its hard yards.....and we come up against men who wan tto dat eour daughters...brign back th emen....who are men....behave like men....and let us do our job protected........let us say what we feel without repirsal from society sayign we should be strong....we are strong....bu teverybody needs soemthing women need to fee portected.....it is not equality to go up against men...it is equality to stand behind and be united...... this for the MEN who answer this post.....WILL YOU STAND UP.... restore my faith you want to date women not men...th eonly men i hav emet go to church is there any out there in society not afraid to stand up and say hell yes I want a woman who lets me lead..and that doesnt mean weakness...that means sexy as hell.....deb
SteveC80 Posted August 30, 2012 Posted August 30, 2012 Women yearn to be led and taken care of,the minute you deelgate power to her and she thinks shes running things shell lose attraction Women are attracted dominance and power in men not sweetness and passivity She cant picture a sweet passive timid guy banging the ***** out od her i nthe bedroom and pounding her into submssion
todreaminblue Posted August 30, 2012 Posted August 30, 2012 sorry about the spelling mistakes in my post above tried to correct them too late.....deb
SteveC80 Posted August 31, 2012 Posted August 31, 2012 Society is doing damage to convention...if things aint broke dont attempt to fix them is a motto there is also this push that women should lower their expectations again society driven......not right.......definitely wrong you telel your daughter to lower her expectations.....because society tells you too no...so all you have said above is a society illness.....women are nurtureers protectors all of that......single mums stand up.....what do you want......you have goen it alone what it is in yoru heart what do you yearn for.....protection...understanding.....love and not having to have th elead....we live th elead....its hard yards.....and we come up against men who wan tto dat eour daughters...brign back th emen....who are men....behave like men....and let us do our job protected........let us say what we feel without repirsal from society sayign we should be strong....we are strong....bu teverybody needs soemthing women need to fee portected.....it is not equality to go up against men...it is equality to stand behind and be united...... this for the MEN who answer this post.....WILL YOU STAND UP.... restore my faith you want to date women not men...th eonly men i hav emet go to church is there any out there in society not afraid to stand up and say hell yes I want a woman who lets me lead..and that doesnt mean weakness...that means sexy as hell.....deb So lets say the women is the better leader or decision maker in a lot of areas should the man lead anyway just because hes a man and has a penis? Shouldnt logic tell you that people change leadership roles to who has more expertise in a certain area or subject rather then the man make every decision just because hes a man?
Greznog Posted August 31, 2012 Posted August 31, 2012 So lets say the women is the better leader or decision maker in a lot of areas should the man lead anyway just because hes a man and has a penis? Shouldnt logic tell you that people change leadership roles to who has more expertise in a certain area or subject rather then the man make every decision just because hes a man? It should, but female attraction doesn't work on logic.
KungFuJoe Posted August 31, 2012 Posted August 31, 2012 It should, but female attraction doesn't work on logic. Nice defeatist attitude you got there. /thumbsup 1
Author zig Posted August 31, 2012 Author Posted August 31, 2012 So lets say the women is the better leader or decision maker in a lot of areas should the man lead anyway just because hes a man and has a penis? That's what it boils down to. If women are equal then let people lead on the basis of their ability rather than gender. Or unless some people just want to say "cause my religious book tells me it should be so". I think we all know how valid that would be.
KungFuJoe Posted August 31, 2012 Posted August 31, 2012 So lets say the women is the better leader or decision maker in a lot of areas should the man lead anyway just because hes a man and has a penis? Shouldnt logic tell you that people change leadership roles to who has more expertise in a certain area or subject rather then the man make every decision just because hes a man? Are you schizo or something? You just did a compete 180 from your last post.
StrangeBehaviors Posted August 31, 2012 Posted August 31, 2012 Today? Sure they do! They've got half the money and all the puzzy!
grkBoy Posted August 31, 2012 Posted August 31, 2012 So I came across a website about FLR (female led relationships). I did some research and it seems like it's some new craze, apparently brought about by 1- the feminist movement and 2- some kinky bondage fetishes that men have. Nothing wrong with that in my book. I honestly think at times the career-driven woman who wants to marry, have a family, and work hard to climb the ladder should seek out such a RL. Find a guy who is loyal, responsible, but willing to be Mr Mom in the end. It does mean though he won't make as much money as her, and she'll have to not fall into the "he's not a real man" trap. She has to be willing to fully let go of tradition as much as he is. All else set aside. There are a lot of men who claim they are so much happier when they just let their wife or g/f lead. I'm pretty old fashioned and have been taught the man is supposed to wear the pants in the house. Nothing wrong with that either. Many women will feel the same way. BUT, in all the marriages I know, the woman has a lot more clout than the man will ever admit to. I would say most of the relationships in the U.S. the woman has 'most' of the say. I dunno about that. Most of the problem is too many guys simply hand over this power...willingly or unwillingly. We can't judge because we're not in those situations. What I'm trying to say is this. When I give into my g/f's requests instead of arguing with her I'm usually happier in the end. It's better than fighting and sleeping on the couch. Plus, the arguments I do win are few and far between. So it's not always worth the effort. First off, I am a firm believer in PICK YOUR BATTLES. When my fiancee and I moved in together, she's a cleanliness nut. I'm not a slob, but she came from Europe and practices taking your shoes off and wearing slippers indoors. I usually wore my shoes. When she wanted me to take them off and wear slippers, I went with it. WHY? Because it's not a battle worth wasting energy on. NOW...if she told me I could not talk to someone or do some hobby of mine, or she tries to manipulate or push me into a life I don't want, I'll fight and even end it. On top of that, I'll never "sleep on the couch". If we ever actually had a fight, I would not let her tell me to sleep on the couch. Let her go if she doesn't want to be in the room with me. Thankfully we never had that issue...but I would not be scared of my fiancee. If she wants to sleep on the couch or even end it because of a dispute, then I'm better off alone. I guess I'd be called pussy whipped here on L.S. I'm not. I'd say I'm average. I just wanted to write this post and see if anyone is openly in a female led relationship and if they like it or not. Both men and women. I only call a man a "pussy" if he allows himself to be abused for the sake of having a GF. 1
monkey00 Posted August 31, 2012 Posted August 31, 2012 I think it's just within women's psych to manipulate men. They do it all the time when they have sex with a guy, it's women's ultimate weapon. Anyway as a guy, I tend to lean on the side of fairness. Usually I'm pretty hard-working, responsible, mature, knowledgable, financially responsible, and like taking the lead. If a woman knows you are a guy of integrity and responsibility, she normally will not try to play power games with you or try to dethrone you and put on your pants. Personally though I hate it when a woman clashes with me. I value people's opinion and am considerate. But if a woman doesn't let me be a man and makes high/unrealistic demands, usually I'll boot her out the door..I don't need someone that emasculates me so she can get her way. The problem I notice these days is that a lot of guys have gone soft and aren't assertive enough. And at the same time many women have become more assertive and prefer taking the lead. Like others mentioned, I know of guys who are in whipped relationships because they are afraid of losing the girl...all too common these days. What's also common are way too much man-childs these days roaming the world. 1
Badsingularity Posted August 31, 2012 Posted August 31, 2012 try to dethrone you and put on your pants. lol 1
RickyLovesLucy Posted August 31, 2012 Posted August 31, 2012 That's what it boils down to. If women are equal then let people lead on the basis of their ability rather than gender. Definitely. If a woman is better at leading in some areas, lead away. If the man is better at others, then do it.
todreaminblue Posted August 31, 2012 Posted August 31, 2012 (edited) So lets say the women is the better leader or decision maker in a lot of areas should the man lead anyway just because hes a man and has a penis? Shouldnt logic tell you that people change leadership roles to who has more expertise in a certain area or subject rather then the man make every decision just because hes a man? before I answer this i have a question what does united mean? Its a rhetorical question so I will answer it with questions just to annoy you...i am kidding about the annoy part here are my answers in rhetorical questions..... Does it mean that decisions are united are agreed with by both parties regardless of expertise and talked about or does it mean the penis makes the decision..... does united mean the woman stands back and doesnt say anything or does united and equality mean the decision is agreed on regardless of who opened the discussion the man or the woman..... communication is key understanding is key understanding what united means....is key all that provided above is a strong and productive..... EQUAL UNION..pretty damn impossible to mess with.......i apologise that i didnt make it clear enough in my above post..this is my correction...deb Edited August 31, 2012 by todreaminblue
Emilia Posted August 31, 2012 Posted August 31, 2012 I think it's unhelpful generalising 'women do this', 'men do this' rather than understand that we are individuals and there are many variations of LTRs or marriages exist. It's hilarious to read the simplistic posts but such narrow views of the world ultimately lead to unhappiness 1
sally4sara Posted August 31, 2012 Posted August 31, 2012 I think the vast majority of the who's in control crap, is really only important to insecure people. All the happy relationships I know, don't care who is in control as long as they are both happy. Absolutely. When I read threads like this with such a weird concern about who is in charge of what should be a collaboration, all I can think is Really? There are people who think about this? If you're so fearful about this then maybe a relationship isn't for you? Its also pretty telling that someone would believe that their partner won't be attracted to them if they treat them like a person and not their child. Odd (and creepy!) that they'd justify and want to use a child/parent dynamic in the hopes of increasing sexual attraction. Seriously.
Radu Posted August 31, 2012 Posted August 31, 2012 (edited) FLR has been a constant throughout human history tbh. Some men are weak, like to be dominated and some women are very very strong willed, and liked to dominate in all aspects. Recently with the dissolution of arranged marriages, those ppl managed to pair themselves up. Take my cousin for a instance, got his job through his gf, went with all of his decisions [the guy is a passive-agressive whimp and jerk], but his gf likes to lead the relationship. Engaged, but not at the time living with his fiance, he sprained his wrist. His mom [sAHM] came from the other side of the country, 7hs on the train, to take care of her 28yr old darling boy ... i kid you not. Yet they are happy, because that's what they want in the relationship. Most of the relationships i know off are a mix of patriarchy/matriarchy segregation or 50:50 division of leading. This FLR as a new trend though, is not something that i agree with, and it is brought on by feminism. Quite frankly, from talking to many western [pls read UK/Canada/US] men over the internet, from having relatives in the US and Canada ... it was born as a reaction to the power of feminism. But women do not accept feminism completely, they cherry pick the parts that they want. They want equality, but how many of them want to work as garbage men, in the fields, doing heavy labour on oil rigs ? I have friends in Ivy League schools on scholarships doing their Ph.D's, and guess what ... physics, math, computer science are still male dominated industries, despite Affirmative Action. Nowhere is that more clear than in the selection of students that graduate from Math 55. A while back there was a thread about women approaching men. Women who strongly believed in equality found every reason possible not do so, why ? Why would most women prefer a guy a bit taller than they are ? Why is the rugged look great for men ? Could it be that our species has evolved in such a way both men and women need each other in order to survive ? Could it be that we are the 2 parts of the puzzle ? But these 2 parts are not equal, they are not identical ... We are better at something, they are better at something, it's a give and take. Most couples that i see today in my life are those that have understood this, and are working together, each one with their own strength. I don't like this FLR because it comes from the wrong direction. Our societies, cultures, everything that humanity has built time and time again has come from the most basic building block ... instinct. FLR as it is in the West does not come from basic human instinct, it comes from the complete other spectrum, it is a way to force a new state of affairs from counciousness, and for this to happen, ppl have to forego their instinctual desires. Which results in a lot of unhappy children, further perpetuation the cycle and being unable to point at the nasty elephant in the room. Work together, mesh together for the common goal ... yes. Impose one state of affairs on the male gender ... no. In the past it worked to impose a state of affairs on the female gender because of 3 reasons ... males are stronger, when society crumbles [and it has quite often throughout history] laws become obsolete and male strength is more important than female sensitivity and finally because a strong man turns women on. We live in the modern world and the old state of affairs of women controlled will not happen. The world is going for the neutral position, but going in the other direction of men being controlled by women [which some of this FLR is all about], is a nasty proposition. PS: I read recently a good article from a Father who raised his daughter alone. He tried to imbue self-esteem in his daughter at every point. She now is a 25yr old 'take no prisoners' in all aspects of her life, married. He was shocked that she was unable to compromise. She has no empathy for anything that she deems weak. I think this is what happened with some western women, they were raised with the fear of being weak in mind to the point where they are afraid of letting go. Edited August 31, 2012 by Radu
Untouchable_Fire Posted August 31, 2012 Posted August 31, 2012 BUT, in all the marriages I know, the woman has a lot more clout than the man will ever admit to. I would say most of the relationships in the U.S. the woman has 'most' of the say. What I'm trying to say is this. When I give into my g/f's requests instead of arguing with her I'm usually happier in the end. It's better than fighting and sleeping on the couch. Plus, the arguments I do win are few and far between. So it's not always worth the effort. You clearly have a problem in your relationship. For things to really work well there has to be mutual respect. There has to be some give and take on both sides. I have found that because it has become so popular to date within your age bracket, young women who mentally mature faster get used to dating immature acting guys. That kind of forces them to take the lead on things in many situations. They get used to it and stick with that pattern of behavior despite the fact that most men become more mature in their late 20's. In several relationships I have had to engage in just knock down drag out fights because the woman was simply not willing to trust my judgement. So... Here is my answer to you. If you don't trust your GF's decision making ability... she isn't for you. If SHE does'nt trust YOUR judgment... which sounds as if it is the case here... she isn't the one for you. 1
Quiet Storm Posted August 31, 2012 Posted August 31, 2012 I think you can submissive to your g/f and still be strong and masculine? I don't think this is possible, especially over a long term relationship. You can be fair and willing to compromise and still be strong and masculine, but I think being submissive in the name of avoiding conflict will eventually backfire, big time. In every relationship I know of where the man defers to the woman it ends up that she doesn't respect him, which results in a loss of sexual attraction. It may take 10-20 years to get to that point, but it usually happens that way. I prefer that my husband is dominant, but willing to listen, compromise and admit when he's wrong. I'm glad I have an assertive man that speaks up, as I could not respect a man that plays nice in order to avoid conflict. I think some women do like this type of man early in the relationship because it makes them feel powerful and in control, but that eventually it turns into a situation where the man ends up disrespected. Some immature women test their man by being demanding to see how much they can get away with. The man will think he's being nice and accomodating, and she'll be talking about him behind his back with her friends and become attracted to men that are the total opposite. If you read the infidelity or marriage boards, you will see stories about married "nice guys" who provided, supported and cared for their wives, only to be rewarded with sparse sex and a wife that cheats with some lowlife bad boy that doesn't put up with her BS. JMO. 3
sally4sara Posted August 31, 2012 Posted August 31, 2012 But women do not accept feminism completely, they cherry pick the parts that they want. Then you do not get what feminism was going for. Prior there was little choice afforded women and much pressure to be a small variety of accepted roles as dictated by a male driven society. The aim was to open the door to CHOICE. To cherry pick from a full lot of options rather than only what was offered (unwanted leftovers). What it affords YOU is to be able to do the same. If you don't like X, Y, or Z life options or personality qualities in a partner you do not have to accept X, Y, and or Z because you super gotta have someone to support you and meet your basic needs. If YOU accept X, Y, and or Z anyway - it was YOUR CHOICE because there are as many options out there to choose from for you as there are for anyone else, not just women. When I hear this complaint about THIS is what feminism is and anyone who doesn't want this one rigid set of options is not living up to true feminism I see only that they still want life as it was prior to the feminist movement. To say "here is what you can have and be because you're a woman" (or man or whatever in between you identify as). You're totally missing the point.
Untouchable_Fire Posted August 31, 2012 Posted August 31, 2012 What it affords YOU is to be able to do the same. If you don't like X, Y, or Z life options or personality qualities in a partner you do not have to accept X, Y, and or Z because you super gotta have someone to support you and meet your basic needs. If YOU accept X, Y, and or Z anyway - it was YOUR CHOICE because there are as many options out there to choose from for you as there are for anyone else, not just women. That has not happened for men. In fact our options have significantly narrowed. I had to compete with tons of women to get into a good college. Most boys are losing that battle in a big way. Then I have to compete with women to get a good job... and they are always willing to work for less. If you get through that... then you have to compete with your GF or wife to make more money. If she starts making more... poof there goes your damn family. A good number of feminist gains have unfortunately come at the expense of men and children. That has to change.
sally4sara Posted August 31, 2012 Posted August 31, 2012 That has not happened for men. In fact our options have significantly narrowed. I had to compete with tons of women to get into a good college. Most boys are losing that battle in a big way. Then I have to compete with women to get a good job... and they are always willing to work for less. If you get through that... then you have to compete with your GF or wife to make more money. If she starts making more... poof there goes your damn family. A good number of feminist gains have unfortunately come at the expense of men and children. That has to change. Your options have not been narrowed. GTFout you're whining about personal fears and situations you'd face if we had a population boom or if you lived in a collapsing small town economy due to a factory closing even without women in the work force. Your options have INCREASED. You'd no longer face the same social reaction as you would have in the past if you went for roles or positions previously accepted for only women. It has increased the amount of open minded consideration for choices of all, not just women. And the more diversity in choice for women brings social adjustment to change over time. All I hear is waaaahhh waahhhh, the game isn't rigged in my favor anymore just because I dangle in my undies! As I've asked before, was it a huge injustice when college attendance was 45% women and 55% men? All I saw was how much we'd advanced from the past and how great it was. Now you're saying if its 45% men and 55% women in college its WRONG. Bitch please. More money in the home via education of women benefits children just as much as it did when it was dad bringing in the money with his degree. You're only concerned with the sex parts of the people, not that the same things are happening as before. PEOPLE are still getting education and PEOPLE are up against PEOPLE in the work force just like always. What does it matter who is getting what when we never had a world where EVERYONE got what they wanted so why is it a big deal if your boy's club isn't top dog over all?
Radu Posted August 31, 2012 Posted August 31, 2012 Then you do not get what feminism was going for. Prior there was little choice afforded women and much pressure to be a small variety of accepted roles as dictated by a male driven society. The aim was to open the door to CHOICE. To cherry pick from a full lot of options rather than only what was offered (unwanted leftovers). What it affords YOU is to be able to do the same. If you don't like X, Y, or Z life options or personality qualities in a partner you do not have to accept X, Y, and or Z because you super gotta have someone to support you and meet your basic needs. If YOU accept X, Y, and or Z anyway - it was YOUR CHOICE because there are as many options out there to choose from for you as there are for anyone else, not just women. When I hear this complaint about THIS is what feminism is and anyone who doesn't want this one rigid set of options is not living up to true feminism I see only that they still want life as it was prior to the feminist movement. To say "here is what you can have and be because you're a woman" (or man or whatever in between you identify as). You're totally missing the point. You did not understand my post. I wrote a freaking novel there and that was the only thing you picked on. You did not address the cherry picking i gave as examples, and you went on your own ideeas. I would love to know the ages and marital status of the ppl who posted here. I think it would shed some interesting light.
Recommended Posts