Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
Show ALL Forums  > Relationships  > I don't want a relationship between equals. There, I said it.      Home login  
Joined: 9/11/2009
Msg: 27
I don't want a relationship between equals. There, I said it.Page 2 of 9    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9)
There is equality and there is equitability. I don't think I need to define these since you are all English-speaking people

What would a relationship be like for you if you just threw the illusion of equality out the window and did whatever you wanted to do with/for and yes! TO the person?

How could this be good? Doing whatever you wanted for your partner? If you want to buy your partner a green shirt or dress but they don't want that color, how good is that? If you wanted to cook vegetables and they are not into it, is it any good? Wouldn't it sound selfish? Just doing whatever you wanted even if it is for them? JMO.

Joined: 10/16/2005
Msg: 28
I don't want a relationship between equals. There, I said it.
Posted: 8/18/2011 6:27:15 PM

when a man is giving you 40%.. consider that the same as giving your all.

I don't even know what to say to this.
Joined: 7/14/2009
Msg: 29
view profile
I don't want a relationship between equals. There, I said it.
Posted: 8/18/2011 6:46:35 PM
I toldja I would have adored you back in my D/s days, OP; you've cemented that opinion.

Back in those days, I firmly believed that the problem with "vanilla" relationships was what I called "the mental bankbook." It is the foundation of modern relationships, while perversely being the ticking time-bomb that ultimately sunders them. The modern relationship has a three column accounting system of his/hers/ours, and a subconscious auditing system that tells each 'partner' whether they are giving better than they get. At times, its less a love affair than a game of detente.

The idea of a 100/100 percent relationship requires a symbiosis; I don't have to worry about my happiness, because I know my partner has my back completely. It doesn't need auditing. With that kind of emotional security, the energy I would ordinarily expend protecting what is mine can shower back to my partner, not out of obligation but out of love and appreciation.

The problem with the concept is that it is a system that is Incredibly fraught with the peril of misuse; it's a Panglossian ideal. I wouldn't even fully trust myself to enter that kind of relationship, for fear of abusing that trust.

As I had said elsewhere, OP, "Forever trapped in desert lands, you have to learn to disbelieve the sea."
Joined: 2/14/2010
Msg: 30
I don't want a relationship between equals. There, I said it.
Posted: 8/18/2011 6:59:34 PM

It isn't about a 50/ 50 Both people have to give 100% each...not to be confused with a power struggle.

True. People have to give 100%. But, when they divorce, then it's about getting 50/50, and it becomes a power struggle.
Joined: 5/16/2011
Msg: 31
I don't want a relationship between equals. There, I said it.
Posted: 8/18/2011 7:27:23 PM
Perigee, you're back. And you got it!!! Nextbestfriend and IQ2 were also on it.

Except it's not an ideal, its quite possible. People would have to choose to stop using so much of their fight-or-flight mentality.

I'm not trapped in desert lands! The only desert is in the mind.

This post has been turned into a lot of things people wanted to argue about.

Few will read my further posts however, they will just keep adding on senselessly.

Every buzzword becomes abstracted out of its dictionary meaning; all the nice clean logical thinkers are upset about "equality" becoming a term to throw out. Let's clear this up. I actually served in uniform to "earn" my real, legal equality under the law, and yet I still don't have it. There is no Constitutional Amendment guaranteeing women equal rights under the law. Look THAT up.

Not to mention, I wasn't advocating throwing out our legal definitions and trying a bit of sharia! If you understand the buzzword that "equality" became, and look at it culturally, it is a different concept than being paid the same for the same job or being hired in the same numbers or having equal representation in Congress, the Senate, and the White House, or state governments, which we still don't anyway.

The buzzword concepts that are actually buzzing around this very forum, so-called "equality," and so-called "equal importance" in relationships, if you put it into practice, which has been our experiment for a few decades, results in the kind of accounting in relationships where people keep score, monitor each other for contractual compliance, penalize, penalize, penalize, and because they are so busy watching each other for a misstep they really are not focused on being, themselves, a better partner. It's an attack mindset. It's a CPA mindset. If it WORKED, would we really have the divorce rate that we have?

The other misconception about the buzzword "equality" is that it created pressure to iron out the differences, caused each gender to challenge the other to best each other's strengths and thus PROVE they were equal...blah blah blah...

This buzzword concept has nothing to do with the intrinsic value of each human being.

And still, nobody read the original post and straightforwardly answered the question within reasonable parameters. It's just a question folks.

If you gave up fear-mongering and arguing about whether you were given inferior service compared to your superior product that you are dishing out to your partner, surely, your relationship would be different and possibly more positive.

If you gave up asking your partner to act like your same-sex best buddy, surely your relationship would be on a more realistic footing.

If you gave of yourself honestly and naturally and openly whenever you had the energy and impulse to give, and like a sensible person you channelled it into something positive and individual to your partner, surely your relationship would benefit.

But let's not try to be positive and realistic on a forum thread. Hell no. Let's all whine and complain about the opposite sex and play more gender wars and keep better accounting books on the next partner to make sure we get everything we're owed, because that worked out so well for us last time.

Now, somebody go ahead and tell me I don't know what I am talking about and I'm going to wind up with enlarged clitoris as a result of having this philosophical viewpoint.
Joined: 7/14/2009
Msg: 32
view profile
I don't want a relationship between equals. There, I said it.
Posted: 8/18/2011 8:46:38 PM

Except it's not an ideal, its quite possible. People would have to choose to stop using so much of their fight-or-flight mentality.

I'm not trapped in desert lands! The only desert is in the mind.

...And in New Jersey. ~Grin~

I agree with the philosophy - heck, back in the 90's I thought I had invented it - but it doesn't change the fact that attempting to practice it is fraught with the danger of misuse. Anywhere. Someone above said that you've just broadcast a signal to every wannabe Dom in the pond, and I agree; heck, I picked up that vibe in our earlier discussion which was nowhere as blatantly power-exchange charged.

You may not live in the desert, but there are plenty of sand crabs out there interested in turning your desire to meld in a relationship into something far less romantic and far more self-serving. Although I find your mindset admirable, I fear for your emotional safety if you let the wrong man - or what might become a series of men - in. That ocean of yours is in danger of drying up through those who would exhaust your waters to slake their own thirst.

Be cautious, and be aware. I would hate to see your admirable ardor turn to disillusion.

And no - for the record and the readers, I am no way suggesting I have any interest in forwarding this conversation with you beyond this abstract thread. My interest is simply in protecting an endangered species.
Joined: 8/11/2011
Msg: 33
I don't want a relationship between equals. There, I said it.
Posted: 8/18/2011 8:53:38 PM
I think what you are saying is that you want a man to be a man and you want to feel free to be a female.

I agree with you 100%.

It's like the whole asking to kiss you thing, which is supposedly what is considered proper pc etiquette in some men's minds - but what a turn off! it really illustrates the dissonance between the PC bs and what really moves each of us as sexual beings.
Joined: 2/13/2007
Msg: 34
I don't want a relationship between equals. There, I said it.
Posted: 8/19/2011 8:08:49 AM

What would a relationship be like for you if you just threw the illusion of equality out the window and did whatever you wanted to do with/for and yes! TO the person?

What would that relationship be? Like the thousands of relationships were the woman does 90 percent of the house work, plus holds a job, plus takes care of the kids.

I do not think what we need is a 50 50 scenario but a balanced relationship where each partner not only contributes to the relationship, but also understands what is it that makes the other person feel loved. I could wash dishes until I am blue on my face, but if what my partner needs is to have quality time together talking about our day, they are going to be unhappy.

Take also into consideration how men and women are wired. Men are wired to hunt, to go get, women are wired to create a nest, nurture that nest. That is why more often than not, men approach, women respond. There are of course variations, and they are fine as well, but they are not the norm.
Joined: 6/25/2006
Msg: 35
view profile
I don't want a relationship between equals. There, I said it.
Posted: 8/19/2011 10:01:29 AM
No need to worry; the ''endangered species'' will never need protection. There will always be women who are tired of being strong and dream of a white knight riding on his horse to tie her up and take over.
And there will always be plenty of men who yearn to be worshipped.
I don't believe the OP is as artless as she hopes to appear. I think she knows exactly where this desire to surrender originates...

I have to agree with this, usually it is women who arent very emotionally strong who want to blame "equality" or feminism" and claim that women arent naturally strong or arent capable leaders and that we should go back to our "natural" selves so they can feel good about themselves and their decision to dump all the ahrd stuff on someone else. My "natural" state is right where I am, happy, productive and sucessful in a non traditional job, and I know plenty of women just like me that excel in the same environment, are they all anomolies?

Thread Roll Back - Continue form this point.

Joined: 8/18/2011
Msg: 36
I don't want a relationship between equals. There, I said it.
Posted: 10/6/2011 10:18:10 AM
OP, the way you originally posted you (and a few other people) are confusing ‘equality’ with ‘sameness’.

Give me liberty (to be myself) or give me death (almost but not quite a direct quote of Patrick Henry). You can hate feminism, call feminist 'feminazis', whatever but you cannot deny that it opened opportunities for women they did not previously have.

Men go hunt for food and protect the women, and the women tend to other things.
Not quite; men go HUNT for food, women PROVIDE it (estimates are 70% vegetable diet; varies according to climate and time of year), there is comparitively recent evidence that women/children also provided meat protein in the form of small mammels, fish.... but I digress into the Paleolithic.

... ideologies that have destroyed the essence of the nuclear family
Nuclear family – a concept less than three or four generations old.

…. If you gave up asking your partner to act like your same-sex best buddy

Eeeewww! This has nothing to do with equality or sameness/difference. You expect people to act like each other? Are you from Stepford? Do you treat all your best buddies the same? No, you treat them as individuals and friendship is an on-going recognition of and reaction to the inevitable differences in individuals. You treat the love/s of your life the same. They all start on an equal footing. You say ‘hi’ …. Growth stops when you begin to treat others (friends, loves, family) all the same or to some particular format – whether or not is is ‘PC’. Permitting growth and discovering boundaries is what allows a relationship (of any kind) to flourish into what you are looking for.

Consigliori -- - LOL Mmm, did you offer to let her do the same to you?
Joined: 6/26/2005
Msg: 37
view profile
I don't want a relationship between equals. There, I said it.
Posted: 10/6/2011 12:03:14 PM
I am a strong believer that some people are alpha people.

True alpha's mate with true alpha's, which is an equal relationship.

Anyone who understands the true definition of know understand this.
Joined: 10/16/2005
Msg: 38
I don't want a relationship between equals. There, I said it.
Posted: 10/6/2011 3:47:50 PM

"Love is letting your loved ones be whatever they choose for themselves, without any insistence that they satisfy you."

I probably quoted that wrong but to whatever degree I have succeeded in trying to live it, the unanticipated boomerang bonus result was, I freed myself at the same time.

Absolutely. I couldn't agree more with this. That pretty much sums this topic up to the point where it's not necessary to continue this thread, IMO.

In YOUR relationship, if both people do what works for yourselves and each other, what's the problem, really?
Joined: 8/5/2011
Msg: 39
I don't want a relationship between equals. There, I said it.
Posted: 10/6/2011 5:09:32 PM
I don't know what you're really talking about...but the first "wrong" thing you said was "50/50" should 100/100 each person...because we don't and can't half of ourselves which is why I think relationships partner gives 100 and the other 50 or less.
Are you "arguing" with the public when you say PC Cultural Dominance? Or you talking privately? If you're speaking about the "public" well there is nothing you can do about that..unless you go to Washington,DC and try to make changes...if private...that is between you and ur partner. (IDK)..
Joined: 3/30/2009
Msg: 40
I don't want a relationship between equals. There, I said it.
Posted: 10/6/2011 5:23:57 PM
Equality does not cancel out individuality. Equality does not need a score keeper.
Finding ones equal is not a hunt for their doppleganger(sp?).
I do want a woman who is my equal, which is to say the motivations, values, principles and such that we live our lives by should match up. That doesn't mean she has to vote as I do, or that we need to be in the same income bracket, or cheer for the same sport teams.
Joined: 6/25/2006
Msg: 41
view profile
I don't want a relationship between equals. There, I said it.
Posted: 10/7/2011 5:59:21 AM
I find myself drawn to the concept that Cesar Milan speaks of in his "dog whispering" series. "Calm, assertive energy." All these dogs in his show feeding off their owners' insecurities/neuroses, yapping and snapping and peeing and just behaving crazily until their owners learn to be "alpha." Something similar may happen in romantic relationships when a man can't simply be a man - be calmly confident, strong, decisive, a leader in some overall sense. Rather than creating some form of egalitarian paradise, the lack of typical "man-ness" (assertiveness, decisiveness, strength, confidence, leadership) may generate insecurity in his partner. This certainly seems to be my experience (it's not something I've given a lot of thought to until recently, so I have no strong opinion to offer). As I bent over backwards to be an enlightened gender-egalitarian - and I admit, this did NOT feel natural to me - I did not receive the blessings I was expecting. Quite the opposite.

The only problem with your scenario is the reality that simply being male does not mean you possess all or any of the "man-ness" qualities. IMO that is simply a stereo type that is routinely proven to not be reality. I know many men who believe they have these qualities when the reality is that they dont, they arent leaders, they arent assertive, they arent strong or confident, they are insecure people that have been brought up to believe that just becasue they have a penis they automatically possess these traits. Just another generalization about the sexes that is based on nothing more than a social construct that didnt allow anything other to develop.
Joined: 1/22/2006
Msg: 42
I don't want a relationship between equals. There, I said it.
Posted: 10/7/2011 6:19:43 AM
OP, no offense, but it appears that you want approbation for what you want in a relationship! If that is what you want, then go for it: there is no law stating that you must be "equal" in a relationship, though I think that you misunderstand the meaning of equality. Equality does not equate sameness, but in the case of a partnership, it is more about mutual respect and having a fair say in decisions that affect the partnership. If you do not want a say in what affects you, that is nobody's business but yours.

But back to equality: we are all different! Even beyond the inherent differences between the sexes, we differ in other ways. For example, there are nine different types of intelligences. At the school where I teach (and at all schools), there are English teachers, math teachers, science teachers, psychology teachers, plus many more. We have equal responsibilities as teachers, but our fields often differ vastly. Even within a department, I teach composition differently from my colleagues, but our goal is to teach students how to write coherently and competently. I think composition teachers should get paid more because we spend much more time in grading papers than do other instructors, but being an English teacher is my choice.

I don't see "equality" in a partnership as doling out chores or other aspects to make sure everything is 50/50. I do, however, remember growing up in a household where my father's word was law, even if my mother disagreed: this was the same in most families whom I knew. If a man allowed his wife to make decisions, he was labelled "henpecked." Even today, I have had dates with men or read these forums wherein they say that men should have the final say on an issue that affects the marriage or the family--the wife can be consulted, but the decision is not hers to make, nor will there be a consensus or compromise.

To me, this is unacceptable! I am a rational adult and will not be treated as a child or as if I lack decision making skills. If you want a man to make the decisions, that is your choice. This carries over into all areas of a marriage, including in the bedroom!

Life is all about choices, and the ones that you make for yourself are yours--as long as they fall within the law, of course. You, or any person, can throw equality out the window, but when you do, you might find that you negate your ability to do what you want to with the person and, yes, to the person!

(I am not sure what "doing to the person" entails.)
Joined: 12/22/2008
Msg: 43
I don't want a relationship between equals. There, I said it.
Posted: 10/7/2011 3:09:43 PM
But in the past, the leadership, masculine roles were fairly simple. They no longer are. And I think that's part of the problem with modern romantic relationships. We're really in a kind of flux, now, it seems to me; we're trying to define new roles and new kinds of relating. But however we pursue that, I see no way we can ignore what makes men "male" and women "female" and what attracts us fundamentally to each other.

So does this mean you believe that to simplify things men should once again take on a leadership role, whether or not they have the abililty to be a leader? Does it mean that an actual leader is required, with no give and take with respect to the strengths and weaknesses that each of the partners may possess?

Personally, I don't see any problem with the majority of today's modern romantic relationships, having kids of my own who are 27 and 28 - I'm talking about the ones that work and are entered into with some sense of intelligence, rather than being ruled by hormones. They (being the modern people) don't seem to have a problem not warring with each other about any kind of leadership role - it seems to be pretty equal from my vantage point. Now, if they were brought up by that generation (mine) who were and are still entrenched in the outdated and archiac way of thinking that gender alone determines a role in a relationship, that's not the problem of modern society but remnants of the past. Maybe I don't see it the same as other people because I wasn't one that emphasized gender roles as my kids were growing up.
Joined: 1/22/2006
Msg: 44
I don't want a relationship between equals. There, I said it.
Posted: 10/7/2011 3:25:34 PM

There's nothing automatic at all about being a man and having confidence and leadership skills. What I'm saying is more that these are traits that make a man attractive to many if not most women; I suspect that women are looking for "manness" (just as men look for "womanness), and those traits are constitutive for manness as far as I can see.

Au contraire! A woman who seeks a "manly" man is not at all necessarily seeking one who can "lead" her--confidence is an entirely different matter and does not equate with "leadership" in the sense of family matters. I have many aspects associated with femininity: I have long hair, and wear dresses/hose/heels much more often than I wear pants. I like to date masculine men, but "masculine" is not the same as dominant or a need for leadership. Aside from the obvious (no men in women's underwear for me), to me, masculine means confidence, but so confident that there is not the need to subjugate women or assume that women lack logic or the ability to make important decisions.

I don't see how social constructs can be based on nothing; it makes sense to me that they derive, however imperfectly, from real "evo-biological" stuff. [ . . .] I see no way we can ignore what makes men "male" and women "female" and what attracts us fundamentally to each other.

Social constructs are both based on "evo-biological stuff" and not based on them. A pregnant woman or a woman with small children needs help to survive in a hunter-gatherer society, but that doesn't need that she needs a man to make decisions for her or lead her. Maria Gimbutas believes that early societies were matriarchal; this cannot be proven, or disproven, but there is nothing to support that they were the often highly male dominated cultures as they have long been presented.

Egypt was very likely matrifocal, if not matriarchal, because the are matrilineal. In Spain, a child has the last name of his/her father, but also has the last name of his/her grandmothers (not grandfathers) for several generations. Jews are Jews if their mothers are Jews, not because their fathers are; also, shades of matriarchies are present in Jewish lore, especially in the story of Deborah. Myth shows shifts from matrifocal societies to patrifocal, but I won't go into them (except by request).

Though gender roles have been rather stagnant for over 2,000 years, they have been in flux before today. Many people can't differentiate between social constructs and biological essence.

So, back to your statement: what makes a "man" a male and what makes a "woman" a female? If those things are biological instead of cultural, they will NOT change!
Joined: 1/4/2007
Msg: 45
I don't want a relationship between equals. There, I said it.
Posted: 10/8/2011 10:25:37 PM
I think that the equality that people, both women and men have been seeking is more emtional equlity. That one person does not feel less then the other, that both people get their emotinal needs met whatever those needs may be. Think that message just got lost in translation some time ago lol.
Joined: 1/22/2006
Msg: 46
I don't want a relationship between equals. There, I said it.
Posted: 10/9/2011 6:40:43 AM

Hi, Gwen. What - no men in women's underwear?? Aren't you a Monty Python fan?

I love Monty Python, but the no underwear clause stands for me! Many years ago, I used to frequent chat rooms. A retired Marine sergeant started to converse with me one night and we continued casually chatting for several days. Finally, he confessed his biggest secret to me: he liked to wear women's underwear and negligees that were, in his words, "the sluttier the better." First, his use of the word "sluttier" put me off, but even more, I had the image of a big burly man (I had seen him on cam, dressed only in men's clothing) sitting before his computer dressed in a pink frilly nightie. It was too much for me and I stopped talking with him.

I've asked a question here and elsewhere and rarely receive any clear or even semi-definitive answer, but I'll give it a try with you: What, as exactly as you can say, is it about "manness" that draws you? Usually, I get answers like, "Oh, well, I like a man with big shoulders and a flat stomach." Not quite what I'm getting at, as I have a feeling you probably understand.

I can tell you specifics about "manliness" that attract me and I can give some undefined answers. A man's self confidence is the "manliest" thing about him, but braggadocio and bluster often masquerade as confidence. He feels no need to extol his virtues because he is comfortable with himself and what he has accomplished in life. At the same time, he feels no need to belittle others for the sake of belittling. He does not feel the need to dominate people.

When he is stymied by indecision, he does not allow it to cripple him. He seeks advice when he needs it. He does not blame the world for any problems that he might have. When he makes a mistake, he admits it.

He is kind but not a pushover; this is a trait that I admire and respect in both men and women, and it goes along with the self confidence issue.

He is not bound by the cultural norms of "strong but silent" and "men don't cry," but is not saccharine, soppy or overly sentimental. (But I am not usually a sentimental woman.) He can discuss his feelings and emotions.

He is comfortable with his sexuality and the sexuality of women. He does not view women as objects nor consider himself superior to them because he is male. He has a very raunchy side, but it does not extend to crudeness and lewdness at the expense of women--or other men.

Flat stomachs and wide shoulders have nothing to do with any of these traits, nor do they have anything to do with height.

Then, there are the esoteric properties of masculinity that I simply cannot define. It is how a man makes me feel when he looks at me, or perhaps he is close proximity and I "feel" his male energy--and no, I am not talking about sexual prowess. This energy makes me realize how much of a woman I am: it is an energy complementary to my own.

By the way, except for the energy aspect, I have met gay men who have the self-confidence and other aspects. Masculinity has nothing to so with sexual orientation! When I meet a whiny, complaining, "the world owes me a living," pushy, domineering type of male, I want to snap at him, "Grow up! Be a man!"
Joined: 5/16/2011
Msg: 47
I don't want a relationship between equals. There, I said it.
Posted: 10/9/2011 9:16:54 AM

I thought this thread was buried but seems it's chugging along!

Yes, in that instance I did not define PC Cultural Dominance at all. It covers a lot of ground and of course Political Correctness had noble purposes in the beginning, but has been applied IMO many times in a ridiculous, detail-obsessed manner. Statistics can help us and keep us honest and reveal what we don't want to see and that's great, and political correctness can help us to include everyone and behave with more respect for others who are different or differ, and that's great too.

But! The total cultural dominance that PC has now achieved, allows for some smothering of individuality and instinct and just personal private preferences. And the way it smothers me personally, is and was, the idea that by now, the NEW PC cultural norms for men and women HAVE to be enforced in relationships, and it gives people the weapon to use when they want something in the relationship because they can make that claim "It's not fair!"

Well, life is not fair. Men and women are NOT fairly divided up in specific areas of our abilities. I might be overly aware of this having been surrounded by men in the Navy. They variously responded to those differences, whether it might be coming to me for help in an area they saw as my strength, or helping me in an area where they clearly had some excess ability. We functioned as an overall team even though no one had identical abilities to offer, and shared specialized knowledge together when we had to deal with something out of our collective realm of experience.

But, you know, we did not take that PC automatic equality so far as to shower together or share locker rooms or take identical liberties with each other. They came to me for emotional rescue at times, just to talk. Sometimes, they rescued me too, in their own way (hanging a disrespectful whelp high up in the rafters in safety chains overnight, somewhat overkill, but they definitely got the point across) or just teaching me how to play in their world by their rules, interpreting for me at times.

Fast forward to some civilian men who insist that everything should REALLY be 50-50, like I should match my preferences to theirs because that would be FAIR, is the BS. It's not FAIR, but they can argue it with the PC idea that we're all equal now because women wanted it this there's a punishing aspect of withdrawing their strength and making a woman struggle with the luggage just to "teach" her....and there are so many threads with this idea of punishing women for being women who want to be all that we have rights to be.....and I slapped the PC label on that attitude.

It's a lie and just a new way to insist that a woman accommodate a man by becoming a man and adopting his preferences and calling that Equality. I never said I don't want real equality, but I 've had real equality, which doesn't keep score of what I benchpress or whether I can match a man at what he does well. It's the illusion of equality, that is used to punish women for social progress (that we were born into, by the way, nobody in this generation had to get beaten up in marches to get the vote) that is just intellectually and emotionally hostile and counterproductive.

PC Cultural Dominance, for example, would have us all doing what a girlfriend of mine told me she did. She said she made sure everything was fair in her relationship, down to making him pour a coke into clear glasses when he offered to split it with her.

That kind of thing makes me roll my eyes and wonder if a migraine could be auditorily induced.

I'm not going for identical traits.
I'm not going to count and measure how many times we go to my favorite restaurant versus his.
I don't care if a man can cook like Martha Stewart.
I don't care if he can see the difference between aubergine and maroon.

And I am not giving any kind of ground to the PC push to make us all the same.

That's a very hetero opinion and I think it might be hard for the GLB's to understand precisely because they and you play with and flex between the roles. It might actually be hard to understand that a far-spectrum hetero woman or man does not want to skip across the whole rainbow....we want to match up with the other half of the rainbow.

The rainbow is good. I just don't want the rainbow averaged out until there is no more rainbow, and all hetero men are so metrosexual that they are indistinguishable from gay or bisexual men in their behavior. Nor do I want the new whiny metrosexuals trying to convince me to be more like them and give up on expectations of men.

this may start an argument about what is a complete human....of course we are all complete humans regardless of orientation....but we differ on what completes us in a relationship.
Joined: 8/18/2010
Msg: 48
I don't want a relationship between equals. There, I said it.
Posted: 10/9/2011 10:43:59 AM
May I interrupt for a moment?

Most women I know or know of seem to prefer a guy who has some strength - who is clearly stronger than they are. Why?

Most men I know or know of seem to prefer a woman who is clearly weaker than they are. Why?

See how ridiculous that sounds?

I had to press my friend a bit, but eventually she granted that her desire for a strong man wasn't ultimately based on practical needs. "It just makes me feel good to to feel a strong man's arms around me," she said. "It makes me feel safe." But from what? The local coyotes?

What is it that you can’t accept? She feels good and safe when she’s in a man’s arms. I would suggest it’s not just any man’s arms she feels safe in. Would she feel safe in Ted Bundy’s arms?

Why do you need to dissect everything women feel? There’s probably some biological, scientific hypothesis about why women are attracted to whatever about a man. Everybody’s different. What attracts one woman, might not necessarily attract EVERY woman. I’m not impressed by flowery talk about climbing mountains and swimming oceans…some women eat that crap up. We’re all different.

When a woman tells you she feels a certain way and you want to mutilate the mood, grill her for explanations about WHY she feels that way. Chances are, she won’t feel that way for long.
Joined: 5/16/2011
Msg: 49
I don't want a relationship between equals. There, I said it.
Posted: 10/9/2011 11:34:52 AM

VirtuallyLove has a point. During the height of ovulation, women feel a heightened anxiety being around strange men and are shown to prefer the company of familiar, family or alphas.

It's a very basic and primal response. There's lots and lots of raping and pillaging in the history of humanity, and females have evolved responses to limit and reduce their vulnerability to having their DNA hijacked by someone they did not choose on merit.

That's why it's sexy when a man is strong enough to take by force, but doesn't, and shows he is willing to be put to the test and be chosen on his merits.

It's most easily displayed by confidence, generosity, patience and gentleness. Those with good DNA and good social upbringing have confidence, and they can smile and let a woman feel the want. They don't have to take.

Women are always going to choose the best DNA they can find, whether they are interested in reproducing or not, doesn't matter. It's not like they will suddenly start being attracted to weak, sick males who are no risk for forcing or controlling them.

The best DNA is strong, healthy, and bigger than us usually. So we kept choosing and choosing this way for umpty-thousands of years and voila! We have big strong men who are horrified by women and children crying and wailing. We have big strong men who refuse to rape women or young girls and don't enjoy forced sex, when the thinking circuitry works right. We have big strong men who enjoy protecting women and they had umpty-thousands of generations of daughters who like being hugged by them.

This stuff, is NEVER going away.

Unless women decide they like tiny, weak, sniveling men EN MASSE for the next hundred thousand years and make breeding decisions accordingly.

Not bloody likely.
Joined: 8/18/2010
Msg: 50
I don't want a relationship between equals. There, I said it.
Posted: 10/9/2011 12:35:39 PM
My point is that overanalyzing feelings is a huge turnoff. For me.

I don’t need to know how my cavewoman foremothers reacted to men, to know how I feel.

To each her own. (that was also one of my points.)
Joined: 1/22/2006
Msg: 51
I don't want a relationship between equals. There, I said it.
Posted: 10/9/2011 3:06:27 PM

.I don't think I'd dig a lady dressing up as a lumberjack...

I could dress up like a lumberjack and you would still find me feminine! It is the hypocrisy of our culture that allows women to dress like men but does not allow men to dress like women--and, of course, dressing like a woman or a man is entirely subjective to culture. Even though I swim out of the mainstream, I am still a product of my culture.

As is whining. Unless you're really feeling sorry for yourself, of course.

I want to verbally berate all whiners, male or female.

Well, those esoteric qualities are what I'm after,

If I could verbally explain and understand those qualities, they would no longer be esoteric! I can give examples, but they still wouldn't explain the "why." I'll have to think about it some more.

But on to the question of strength, flat stomachs, and broad shoulders. Our culture admires strength and height, especially in men. In the past, woman needed men to "protect" them physically and in other ways, including financially or to provide food. In early societies, who was going to be the best provider? Probably the strong man. The weak, puny man might have been really smart, but he might not have been seen as a good candidate for passing on healthy genes; this is the same reason why women with large breasts and hips were seen as desirable.

Regardless that women seldom need a man to physically protect her, we are still governed by centuries of culture and biology.

Women were and are taught by family and culture that they need to get married and find a man to "protect" them--this might be lessening, but in my age group, it was very much so. Men often tell me that it is their duty and how they are "built" to be protective of women. Perhaps this is biological, perhaps it is cultural, but it is less important now than it was 100, 200, 500 or 1,000 years ago.

I think that men in my age group are particularly threatened by women who do not "need" them--just peruse some of the forums. Their "proper" place has been usurped by societal advanced wherein women have learned to care for themselves, but regardless, the "need" of some women are also still extant.

Blame culture and perhaps a bit of biology!

As for stomachs and shoulders: I am prey for my society's standard of male beauty: I do not find obese men attractive. I listed confidence as a prime factor in a man's "manliness": a lot (most) obese men are not confident, but some are. I dated an obese man for three months; he was funny, kind, confident, and secure . . . but I didn't truly find him physically appealing. His weight affected and limited his sexual performance, and I was afraid that he would have a heart attack. He had the confidence, but he lacked that "esoteric" quality--and bad sex is just bad sex.

But all of this is generalization, and size has nothing to do with valor or bravery. Women can be as fierce as any man, though in hand to hand combat, a strong women would lose to most men; it is why women resorted to more subtle means of getting what they wanted.

I don't need a man to protect me or support me; I want a man because, frankly, I like men--but men who want to be more than friends need those other qualities that I mentioned, including the esoteric.

And I need only myself to make myself "safe."
Show ALL Forums  > Relationships  > I don't want a relationship between equals. There, I said it.