I would agree with your that the dominant male/submissive female model does not seem consistent. What I do see as consistent is the need for each person to find comfort and security, whatever that might be, from their spouse. At one time early in the relationship, that comfort was given. Later, either the comfort dwindled, or the need for comfort increased (because latent fears keep pushing for more and more security).
From this perspective, any deteriorating relationship makes sense, even if the dominant male/submissive female roles persist or diminish. If the changing needs for soothing and security can be identified, as well as the giving of security and soothing by the partner, then all the relationship dynamics discussed on this board make sense. Schnarch, Dieda, Schlessinger, Harley, and everyone else we’ve discussed come together to highlight and address different aspects of this overall adult attachment dynamic.
I actually have believed for some time that the opposite is true.
When I first came here I did too. Maybe Cemar posted more in the past before I started lurking here, that would paint this picture.
My observations see the stronger woman steadily losing respect (if there ever was much) for her spouse while she becomes more and more domineering and demanding and minimizing him (and even his position and functioning) in the realtionship.
There is a female equivalent to madonna/whore. Still in the beginning of the R, she had a certain perspective that prompted her to become involved with the man. When that changes over time, it is her responsibility to maintain her perspective. Of course thats a should (pointed out and stated in our M vows honor respect for her, love and cherish for him). Thats not the reality of a romantic R.
There are a couple guys here who I really do see as Mr.Sensitvie marrying Ms.Assertive. I believe Cac4? who is married to a Japanese woman is one of these.
With Cemar though, he has said that she will have sex with him anytime he wants, I see his anger, and his insistance to do things his way. Both are masculine. He has also alluded to the fact that she was sexually abused, which put together I see a woman who has given in/ gives it up to appease, but isnt involved at all. 'Heres my body, but you dont get me.'
Thats just my opinion from the limited peeks he has given. I guess will have to disagree.
I can live with that, Im sure you can too. :-)
I wonder how many of the men here were either approached by their future wife first, or their future wife pushed the relationship forward by asking/arranging the date, the engagement, the sex.
HP and I were tossing the 'who initiates first' concept a while back.
When women approach, its because the guy is displaying certain attributes. I very very rarely initiate in a way that anyone observing could say... He approached her first. If I see something that piques my interest, I just put myself in proximity and 'turn on' a set of attributes. They are compelled to approach, and in their opinion, think they initiated. Once they do, then I immediately reassert, and seize ownership. They feel desire/protected/understood, not chased. Just like HP thinks she initiated. Her H may think she did too, but that doesnt make it so.
And it's all pretty unfair - because Mr. Sensitive didn't really change.
Exactly. only her peception changed. But lifes not fair. If life were fair, King David wouldnt have taken (or even been able to take) Uriahs wife, Bathsheba,(with her complete complicity I might add) and then had him murdered, when he allready had several hundred other wives.
From what I see of Burgbuds sitch, he in his opinion probably 'changed' for 'the better' in the sense that he increased his earning capacity, and took care of her when she was sick. It was her perception that chose to see his actions as placating.
But he's going to have to, if he ever hopes to see his situation improve.
Unfortunately so many men end up thinking that being a abusive, using, jerk is what they have to change into, because of their misunderstanding and bitterness.
There are a couple guys here who I really do see as Mr.Sensitvie marrying Ms.Assertive. I believe Cac4? who is married to a Japanese woman is one of these.
you're way off, dude. My wife is most certainly not Japanese. Unless, by "Japanese", you mean "Canadian". But otherwise, I can see that dynamic. (and...pretty amazing that you would remember that about me.)
Originally Posted By: blackfoot
And it's all pretty unfair - because Mr. Sensitive didn't really change.
When women approach, its because the guy is displaying certain attributes. I very very rarely initiate in a way that anyone observing could say... He approached her first. If I see something that piques my interest, I just put myself in proximity and 'turn on' a set of attributes. They are compelled to approach, and in their opinion, think they initiated. Once they do, then I immediately reassert, and seize ownership. They feel desire/protected/understood, not chased. Just like HP thinks she initiated. Her H may think she did too, but that doesnt make it so.
But... that's exactly what women do most of the time too. They 'turn on' a set of attributes and then wait for the man to approach. Obviously, there is always a dance of initiation and sometimes it is difficult to say who is taking the "lead". The first time that I approached my H (perhaps due to sensing signals he was putting out as you indicated) he pretty much flat out rejected me but in a nice way (Much to the amazement of the friend that was with him. I was pretty hot in those days.-LOL) It was no big deal to me at the time and I became friends with him. We didn't get together sexually until a couple years later when he started hanging out at the house I was living at. I assumed that he was hanging out in pursuit of me but he has told me that he was actually interested in the piano. So is he a liar or did I get my signals wrong? If he is a liar what possible benefit does this serve him in our relationship?
"Tell me, what is it you plan to do with your one wild and precious life?" - Mary Oliver
Who "initiated" is an interesting question. I met H at a business function that he was leading. He and I engaged in a bunch of staring, spoke a bit(but not much). Later, I wrote him a "thank you" note for his leadership. Very professional, risked nothing. He responded by sending me a business book a couple of weeks later. A few months later when my company was no longer considered a "client" of his, we met about the possibility of doing a "retreat" for my company - the air was very electric with possibility. Finally, after an hour or more of discussing this he turned the convo in the direction to ask me out and said he would opt out of the retreat so as not to mix the business and personal. Now - I felt for a long time that maybe I "initiated" things because I sent the email while in the back of my mind suspecting that there was interest and I would open a door. In a subsequent therapy meeting we were asked "who picked who" and without hesitation H replied that he clearly had "picked" me even while teasing me every so often about my "prompting." So - in a sense I was "dominant" and in a sense "submissive" in the interaction. Which was it????
If he is a liar what possible benefit does this serve him in our relationship?
Duh..I can answer my own question. By denying that he had any part in initiating our relationship he can deny responsibility for the relationship. Same way he avoided taking any responsibility for caring for the house by denying that he had any interest in purchasing a house. Did I in some way malign his intelligence on my thread? How stupid can I be. He is a f*cking relationship genius.
"Tell me, what is it you plan to do with your one wild and precious life?" - Mary Oliver
Unless, by "Japanese", you mean "Canadian". 