I made a post in TRP earlier but someone suggested I post here because I'm female. The post is here but to get to the meaty questions, they are:
-
Are power couples possible under TRP ideology?
-
Are reversed gender roles possible? i.e. a female breadwinner and stay-at-home dad
-
Are sexually dominant women supported?
-
Does TRP support women who don't want to have children (by that i mean physically only, I want to adopt/surrogate)?
-
Are women really inferior under TRP ideology? Can there be power couples with mutual value and respect, even when the traditional roles are switched or shared equally?
- What value should I look for/expect in a man besides financial or sex?
Edit to add one
Can alphas also be stay at home dads?
Big_Man_On_Campus 10y ago
I replied on that one too, but you've rephrased the questions here.
1) I believe so, but you still need at some point to have a single decision when your relationship is faced with a choice. I hate to quote the bible since I am not religious, but there's a great quote in there that two men cannot walk together unless they agree. What this means for you is, can you accept your husband's decisions? If you can't accept that only one person can "head" a household, then it's questionable.
2) Possible? Yes. Inherently stable? No.
3) Define "Supported". If you're asking if it's ok for women to initiate, I don't think you'll find many men who would tell you no RP or otherwise. If you're asking if dominance means all the time, male in relationship always submits to the female's will, I would say that's fairly contrary to RP understanding. That's not to say that you cannot find such a relationship, or that it's impossible to make such a relationship. Just that it's like finding a unicorn.
4) Procreation is a personal choice, magnified on a societal scale that impacts human survival. Red Pill makes no judgements on what choices individuals make for themselves. Red Pill makes harsh judgements on where society is going because people are not procreating. That is in no way a contradiction.
5) No, women are not inferior. Most anger at women you see in RP circles comes from men who have been legally, financially, emotionally burned/destroyed by inferior women who were given power over them by the laws of our time. They have a right to their anger.
For the most part, RP knowledge makes no judgements on who is superior/inferior. You can have mutual value and respect for each other in a relationship and wholly acknowledge the inequities you've helped each other through.
For instance early in a traditional marriage, before children, women are making a huge sacrifice by offering their youth, virginity, beauty to a man who has not performed yet. They are giving gifts to a man who has no large assets, no career, no social circles, etc... It is a sacrifice. However, later in life, when that woman has had 2-3 children, is looking significantly older, and is perhaps physically incapable of performing labor to secure a financial future for herself and her children... Her husband is now available and at the peak of his value, paying her back for her earlier gift to him. He is there to make sure she can age gracefully and enjoy the children she made.
So, you tell me who was the inferior one in that example. I can't see it.
6) I'll let a lady answer this one.
7) No. Alphas will never be stay-at-home fathers. That is about as polar-opposite the definition as you can get.
[deleted] 10y ago
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted] 10y ago
[deleted]
[deleted]
LFCaptain 10y ago
I read most of your original post too...but I'm confused why you would be drawn to the RP ideals at all...
I can't really see how you think you're going to get any kind of useful input from this world. It is like you posted just to stir up drama and justify your feelings or something.
You talk a lot about yourself but all the things you mention about men (that I noticed) are beta/submissive qualities. You even say all the alphas you have ever met were awful people, so why do you think you want one?
You're extremely focused on your own success, no matter how ambitious your beta is, he will never be alpha because you support your own goals before his. He can't lead if you won't give up control.
I think you can have a power couple under TRP ideology, but not like you're talking. I said it somewhere else...why would it bother him if you're the alpha female as long as he (the alpha male) is still above you? It doesn't sound like you could ever let a man rule over yourself.
Maybe your boyfriend left it open on your laptop so you could understand how you're crushing his masculinity and why you'll never be happy. Your whole post sounds like even what you have, which is far more than most, isn't good enough for you. You're entitled, and while you might have physical qualities that are appealing to men you don't seem to have many feminine ones or you repress them.
I don't see you finding anything of value in RP or RPW. You're welcome to live your life how you please, but you don't have a right to condemn other consenting adults from making their own choices.
The RP women I've seen on here are stronger than any feminist I've known. They know what they want, they don't deny their feelings or instincts and they all seem genuinely happy in their relationships...more than I can say for any 'power couple' or relationship with a dominant female.
margerym 10y ago
You're right about it sounding like she's just looking for trouble. But I am willing to give her the benefit of the doubt for the sake of conversation.
One of the biggest lies feminism tells is that something must be completely and literally equal in order for it not to be misogynistic and of benefit to women. And if there is anything that says men and women can play to different strengths? Shut everything down and burn it to the ground. From the post it seems, myfavoritethrowaway9, that you are really stuck in that idea. Try seeing it from a different angle. It is possible to have the utmost respect for someone, to value them, without their being identical to you. And it doesn't even take mental gymnastics to come to such a conclusion. IMO, in fact, it shows far more value and respect to accept someone as they are for their strengths without having an equality score card nearby at all times.
myfavoritethrowaway9 10y ago
I wouldn't say I'm drawn to them, more like fascinated and curious by them.
Good question. Part of me says "I just know" but the other part says that I want someone like me. I don't think I want a submissive partner, I want a partner-in-crime so to speak. I want someone on my level. A power couple.
Yeah probably not. I could be equal though.
Maybe.
Yeah I guess I don't.
Agreed. I actually sort of feel like that's what drew me here. I feel like TRP ideology claims to be the truest, most valid choice for a relationship. In fact that it's the only way. I'm glad to have come here and found that's not the case, and I appreciate that you guys understand that not every person wants the things TRP preaches.
Do you know any power couples? I'm glad someone knew what I meant by that, I was afraid the term would be lost here. Personally my experience is opposite. The power couples I know are extremely strong and happy. Why wouldn't they be when they're both rich and attractive? (I know there's more to it than that, but really, how much better can life get?)
empyblessing 10y ago
There are many men who have extremely good parenting skills and would make very good stay-at-home-dads. Ideally, they would find women who can accept them for their skills and abilities and she could focus on her career while he raises the children. I'm sure there are couples where this dynamic works but it's not going to be the majority simply because many women do not find these types of men very attractive.
Frankly, raising children is more important than any career a person has and whoever is the ideal partner for that role in a marriage should assume it. But understand that a woman's attraction to a man is only partly based on looks while his attraction to a woman is mostly based on looks.
My prediction of what would happen in the stay-at-home dad would be that the woman would put on a real good show. She'd go off to work and let him raise the kids and it would work. At first. But she'd miss out on some event with her children. "Oh, he learned to walk while I was filing a report? How great?" And that eventually she would lose both attraction to her husband but rarely tell him about it. And that she would desire to spend time with her children.
Men make great parents. Their stability and problem solving translate very well to raising children and preparing them for adulthood. But that's not the issue. The issue is whether or not the woman can be the captain of the relationship and still be attracted and respect her man and that can only be answered on an individual basis. But to generalize I would say that no, she can't. Over time she would lose respect for him and have trouble seeing him as a human.
One of the things about equality in relationships is that it leads to fighting, uncertainty, and struggle. When one partner assumes the mantle of authority they also accept a larger degree of responsibility. There should be an acknowledged head of the relationship and the majority of time that needs to be the man.
LFCaptain 10y ago
Men and women can't be equal, any more than apples and oranges can be. We are different, we have different strengths and weaknesses and I think a big part of TRP is acknowledging and accepting those differences for what they are.
From my readings, TRP ideology claims to be the most NATURAL and truthful way to have a relationship. A lot of arguments can be defended with research and looking at the world as it is today. Just look at the divorce rate, and compare it to your grandparent's generation.
I do know power couples, and the only one where I could say both people are very happy has a strong RP undertone. She is extremely successful, but her husband still leads their household. She never disagrees with him in front of the children, or in public I'm sure and she defers to his judgement. In the office, she is a shark. He works in a different environment, but also extremely successfully.
Are you thinking that a RP relationship is abusive? There is a great deal of anger within the community from what I've seen...but it is justified. If a hard core feminist was to pull her head out of her ass long enough to listen objectively, even she would agree they are ruining society.
I disagree with some things obviously, one example that comes to mind is respect. For me, there is a big difference between disrespect and no respect for someone. I have no respect for lots of people! But I don't think it is fair to instantly disrespect someone without any reason. Some people on TRP reddit are instantly disrespectful to all women because someone else did something shitty to them before, and that is really unfair but something they need to work out. We are all capable of holding on to anger, and becoming jaded and bitter with the way things are.
Maybe try comparing an RP man to a true D/M, if that helps. It is his job to protect and respect his partner, and make sure she is safe. He isn't there to hurt her...just give her what she needs, because he needs to know her better than she knows herself. Just like RP, it isn't all about submission and control but finding harmony and meeting each other's needs. The RP man focuses on their world in general, and not just the bedroom (not to say that D/M can't do that too).
I think the C/FO analogy best describes the ideal RP relationship, at least for me. It still involves giving up control though, which is not easy to do. You have to be able to let him lead, otherwise you'll just steer the ship in circles.
You seem very firmly set in your ways, which would explain why you were basically dismissed from the original sub. I've seen it several times in the last few days, where RP women are dismissed because another female doesn't agree with their opinions and thinks they are just parroting what a man said...you're as entitled to your opinions as the rest of us, but if you aren't willing or able to listen why should they take the time to try and educate you?
You shouldn't need to justify wanting an alpha male, but it doesn't sound like you do. Maybe people in your life are telling you that's what you need, but it is a decision you have to make for yourself. And there is happy, and at peace/content/happy...unless you can glimpse into their private lives, those power couples might not be as happy as they seem. He could resent her dominant behaviour, she could be cold and kicked him out of their bed, he could be abusive or she could...
But you should look at the last thing you said...being rich and attractive isn't the most important thing in the world. Money gives you freedom, which can make you very happy. But not if you only focus on accumulating it and not enjoying your life. And it should be far more important to be attractive to your significant other than to the world in general...just look at the celebrities who's lives collapse around them. They are rich and attractive...it doesn't instantly make you happy. What is on the inside counts more, doesn't matter how pretty you are or how fat your wallet is if you're ugly on the inside.
myfavoritethrowaway9 10y ago
See I think we just fundamentally disagree. But I am interested, why can men and women not be equal? Just because of biological differences?
I can understand that. I don't necessarily agree, but I understand.
Yeah my grandparents are a terrible example. They've been married almost 50 years and they've hated each other since my dad was born. But they refused to divorce because it was taboo. Everyone in the family wishes they had and saved us all and themselves the misery.
Now this, this would be completely fine with me. In fact, that's a fantastic idea. Glad to know it exists.
Not necessarily. After hearing from different people, I liken it more to a D/s relationship, which is completely consensual and can be a fantastic, strong dynamic. What I'm not so sure about is it applying to everyone. I definitely would never suggest that a D/s relationship is the best choice for everyone, quite the opposite actually. I feel the same about TRP.
Yeah I don't know if I can. I've tried D/s relationships as a submissive and I hated every single second of it. I just don't know if it's possible for me.
I don't know I feel like I am listening. I may very well be stuck in my ways, at least in certain aspects, but I came here to try to get a better understanding of all of this and I think I have. I by no means expect anyone to take time to "educate me" it's the opposite actually. I only want to hear from people who want to share their opinion. If they don't feel my questions are worth their time, that's understandable.
Well of course, anything is possible, just like those are all possibilities for TRP relationships. You can never know if other people are truly happy.
That's lovely, really. And I do really see what you mean, but I can't help but argue that money and attractiveness do make life significantly easier. I've grown up with wealth and I have yet to meet any rich person who claims "money can't buy you happiness." Money can buy you peace of mind, the ability to go or do virtually anything you want, and lots of other things. When you don't have to stress over those stupid things like paying bills, when you have the freedom to go on vacation wherever and whenever you want, when virtually everything is taken care of you at the snap of a finger, I think there's a lot more time to enjoy those things that do bring you happiness: your children, your spouse, your friends, life in general.
[deleted] 10y ago
any human pairing is possible and can be successful with the right two people--i think the red pill philosophy is more about the vast majority of males and females, not outliers like you are describing.
if you can be attracted to a man who stays home while you earn, and you can treat him the way he needs to be treated and you are compatible that way sure--but what has been found over the course of time is that women usually CANT respect a man who doesnt provide and usually DOES lose attraction for a man living in the female traditional role, unless he has an amazing ability to maintain some kind of "hand", either because he as higher sexual market value or some other factor that makes her feel like she is the partner of lesser value. women are generally programmed to seek higher value mates, thats just the way it is. much of male attractiveness comes from cues of higher value. this higher value doesnt ALWAYS have to be in being a provider though, it can be looks and attractiveness. in the traditional relationship where the women provides and the man stays home it was not him acting as the female, but usually as a "pimp"--keeping his provider woman in line with highly charged sexuality and the threat of violence. modern peopel usually see this as abusive but it is usually the only means by which a man who cant or doesnt provide can maintain some kind of higher status that keeps a provider woman from cheating or leaving. harsh reality
let me ask you this--do you want to be respected by a man for being like a man? or do you want to be loved and cherished as a woman?
red pill couples do value and respect each other, just not for the same things. i value my husbands leadership, protectiveness, sense of humor, intellect, technical skills and for the magical unicorn-like moments hes trusted me with his heart--he values and respects me for my loyalty, and how i take care of him and stood by him through travails, for the smiles and approval i give him, through the food i prepare for him lovingly and the sex i provide for him without him ever hearing "no". this is MUTUAL value and respect, but not IDENTICAL or REVERSE value and respect.
myfavoritethrowaway9 10y ago
I think, this is exactly the answer I came here for. I was under the impression that this stuff applies to everyone, so I've been searching for ways in which it's applicable to me. I've found a few places, but overall I just don't see it. I think I understand now. Thank you.
I think I can. Do you think stay at home dads can be alphas?
This brings up another question: how does TRP feel about open relationships or polyamory? Or even just an arrangement where sex is open, but there's still a marriage.
That's exactly what it is for me.
I guess I understand this, but it's definitely not what I want. Or vice versa. I'd rather have my husband go out and have sex with someone else, or leave, than feel like I had to keep him from doing do with violence.
Good question, I guess the former. I don't really understand what "cherised as a woman" means. Is it like protected?
This makes more sense to me than anything else I've read on here. In fact, I think I get it. This is just like a D/s relationship in the bdsm world. Shit that actually makes sense. Just like D/s not everyone is into bdsm, and the ones who are in those relationships choose it for themselves. The only part I guess I still don't get is why all the "strategies" then? I imagine it would be very frowned upon in the bdsm community to be attempting "strategies" to turn a person into your submissive, rather than the submissive recognizing they are submissive and embracing it.
margerym 10y ago
It is similar to D/s, yes, but not entirely. In BDSM it is mostly play or to heighten overall play. Even when you have a 24/7 dynamic the purpose of it is to, more or less, get off. TRP is more of an everyday, this is how it is thing.
[deleted] 10y ago
we basically are D/s except not in the play acting, go to clubs and dress up in outfits kind of way, but a naturally occurring dynamic. truth is, i am a high dominance female, personality-wise, i just found a man who is 1000 times more dominant than me instead of being forced to opt for a lower dominance male and be frustrated. by submitting naturally to him i have been able to feel feminine and yielding for the first time in my life and its been amazing
by "cherished as a woman", i mean cherished for female attributes as opposed to be respected for masculine ones. women evolved the attributes of sweetness, "prettiness", tolerance, calmness and retained childlike qualities (neoteny) precisely because those qualities generate love and protectiveness in men. hotness and masculine traits can generate lust, but generally don't lead to a man loyally sticking around with you as you age and decline, especially men with options. i tend to look towards a character like ellen o'hara, scarlett's mother in gone with the wind, as someone to emulate--all sweet calm lovingness and respect towards her blustery little husband, while behind the scenes capably and intelligently running a giant plantation household with skill and aplomb.
[deleted] 10y ago
also, about the polyamory thing, you are de facto saying you are not bonded and super-attracted to you husband by even considering it--you may be an outlier, but you are still a female, there is only so much you can dress your underlying dissatisfaction with a non-dominant male up as sexual fetishes before you realize (IMO) that what you are really seeking as a high dominance female is a man more dominant than you--id bet dollars to donuts when you bang other guys they are more dominant and attractive. you have created a reverse madonna-whore complex where you really like this guy you provide for and wants to stay home with your kids, but you want to bang hotter guys on the side.
margerym 10y ago
An interesting thing I have noted about RPW and submissive women in general is that outside of marriage they tend to be pretty dominant, outspoken, etc. In fact I have yet to meet a submissive woman that is what the feminists seem to think all submissive women are.
myfavoritethrowaway9 10y ago
This is fascinating to me. Very interesting, thanks for sharing.
How do you deal with being the cherished woman when you're feeling dominant, or is he just so dominant it never happens?
[deleted] 10y ago
i do not feel dominant with him, i go on the internet and argue with strangers when i want to crush peoples souls lol
[deleted] 10y ago
myfavorite--you may find this interesting:
So I have long thought that not all submissive individuals enjoy being with a dominant person, and that not all dominant individuals would be happy with a submissive person. To some dominant individuals, submissive individuals are insufficiently exciting.
Perusing the internet when I should have been doing other things, I came across an article by Professor I. E. White in which he mentions some studies on human sexuality conducted by Abraham H. Maslow in the 1930s and early ”40s. Maslow interviewed many women and concluded that they fell into three “dominance groups”—high, medium and low.
According to White, Maslow found that high dominance women are: unconventional, less religious, less tolerant of stereotypes, extroverted, sexually adventurous, less anxious, less jealous, and less neurotic. Low dominance women were found to be: conventional, religious, conforming to stereotype, introverted, sexually inhibited, and more neurotic than high dominance women. White concludes:
Findings: High dominance women were attracted to high dominance men—aggressive, self-confident, highly masculine, self-assured. Low dominance women were attracted to men who were kind, friendly, gentle, faithful and showed a love for children.
Even more interesting is another passage I have discovered about the same research, this time by Colin Wilson, who wrote the book New Pathways in Psychology. Wilson says of the three dominance groups Maslow identified:
The high dominance women were, as you might expect, precisely five per cent of the total. Sexually, they were inclined to promiscuity and experimentation—many had had lesbian experiences or tried sadomasochism. They liked males of even higher dominance, and regarded the male sexual organ as beautiful.
Medium dominance women, the largest group, were basically romantics. They liked the kind of men who would take them to restaurants with candlelight and give them flowers. They were looking for Mr Right. They were capable of a certain amount of promiscuity, but it was essentially a second best—what they really wanted was a husband who was a good father and provider. They also wanted him to be slightly more dominant than they were, but not too dominant. Very high dominance males scared them. This group didn't have any strong feelings about the male organ.
Low dominance women didn't much like sex. They liked the kind of man who would admire them from a distance for years without daring to say so. They were terrified of high dominance males, and thought the male organ downright ugly.
But all three groups needed a male who was more dominant than themselves. One very high dominance woman searched for years for such a male and when she found him she was finally happy. But he wasn't quite dominant enough, and so she used to provoke quarrels that would end with him slapping her about, hurling her on a bed, and raping her. These sexual experiences she found most satisfactory of all.
jack500 10y ago
A TRP man's opinions:
I'm certainly not interested in a "career woman" for marriage. The point of marriage, for me, is to have a mother of my children. "Power couple" simply holds no interest to me, at all. I suspect many men are similar.
I think there is a small minority of relationships that work well that way. However, it goes against female hypergamy, so generally, no.
Sexually dominant women seem to be a small minority, the outliers. I'm not interested in a sexually dominant woman, at least not for marriage. Might be fun for a fling though.
I wouldn't be interested in a woman who doesn't want children, other than maybe some sex. Certainly not for marriage or a long term relationship.
"Inferior" is a bullshit word that has basically no meaning when it comes to the relationships between men and women. Same with the word "equal" there's no such thing as an "equal" relationship.
"Expect" nothing. Look for whatever you want. We all have different values after all.
myfavoritethrowaway9 10y ago
Fair enough. There are tons of them in my city, and literally hundreds just where I live, but to each his own.
Try it, it can be lots of fun lol
So you wouldn't be interested unless she's willing to get pregnant, then? I'm fine with kids, I just don't want to actually give birth to them.
Ever? I personally have to disagree, but I'm curious why you think this.
jack500 10y ago
LOL depending on what we're talking about I might have. I think in long term relationships it's hard to really categorize the sex, it usually develops into something specific for the couple.
Not in the slightest, not a single bit. To me, that's sort of the point. No adoptions or raising other men's kids either. If you don't want to bear my children, I don't want you as a wife. That's totally, utterly non-negotiable.
I don't even understand what "equal relationship" means. Not kidding, no snark, I just don't even understand the concept. Is that like a gay marriage or something?
[deleted]
[deleted] 10y ago
Love has many forms. Parents love their kids, yet it is not equal love, but more of a dominant love. Red pill man love is a bit like parental love, dominant and authoritarian.
(I am not talking about the modern liberal parents who think their kids are their friends, of course, I am talking about sane, conservative, authoritarian parents. Like most parents in the past.)
[deleted]
[deleted]
myfavoritethrowaway9 10y ago
Agreed.
Fair enough. Adoption isn't for everyone. But what about in my case of using a surrogate? I want to freeze my eggs so that I could have a child via surrogate later on, using my husband or partner's sperm of course.
To me it's just shared responsibilities. Or mutually agreed upon responsibilities. As in, "I'm responsible for paying the bills on time and you're responsible for making sure the housekeeper comes every week." As long as it's discussed and mutually agreed on I think it's equal. Mutual responsibility. I actually don't think this is outside the realm of TRP. Lots of people have been responding to me, especially the women, that they feel they are in an equal, mutual relationship.
jack500 10y ago
Interesting. In a case like that, I would probably "freeze" the relationship until she was ready for, you know, marriage, kids. Maybe this is part of the problem with men and women talking about these things: relationships with women, companionship, even sex, I love all that stuff. I can have that whenever I want. I have also been in love and fallen out of love. So all the relationship talk is just so much talk to me. Sure, everybody wants to be loved and love.
Again it's just sort of one of those things that develop over time I guess. I get scared when women start talking about "equal relationships" because it comes across to me as if they are making all the rules up ahead of time, doesn't sound like "equality" it sounds like "do everything my way or it's not equal."
myfavoritethrowaway9 10y ago
Ain't that the truth.
Yeah that doesn't sound very equal to me either.
[deleted] 10y ago
Most of what I would say has been said... But I'll add:
There are exceptions to every rule. I believe Athol Kay has said in the past that he's worked with couples comprising a dominant female and submissive male. But I think there are statistically a lot less of those couples that end up working out. It's got to be sort of a perfect storm of couple traits.
I'm not sure what you mean specifically by "power couple"... But though I love being submissive to my guy, I'm incredibly opinionated, and have my own set of interests apart from him. I don't hang on his every move and word. I can be totally independent if i need to. He's proven himself a good captain, so I defer to him in joint decisions, but I make my own decisions as well. It's hard to explain. Does that make any sense?
We were in a constant power struggle in the first years of our marriage. I wanted to defer to him, but he forced me into an "equal marriage", thinking that's what I wanted. (Note , I didn't even know I didn't want that. So it's not like I was communicating that clearly.) It made us miserable. The relationship car runs much smoother now that there aren't two people tugging at the wheel.
And I'm so much more attracted to him now. A man that can make a solid, confident decision is sexy.
So that's why it works for us, and I didn't know it till he took the wheel from me.
Hope that all made sense.
roe_ 10y ago
As a case study:
http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/features/n_9495/
See if you can get some generalizable characteristics in attitude & power structure that make the difference between the couples making it work, and those who don't.
margerym 10y ago
I am by no means an expert. I'm answering for myself here...
I could see how this could work. I could also see where issues could come in. It all depends.
Not in my mind. It's just not a dynamic that works for me and, frankly, hasn't been something that has been shown to work out for couples. There is a reason traditions have been formed and stayed and there is a reason it's hard to check out of them. I know the trend today is to deny that and push boundaries and you will find plenty of individual cases where things work out well. But in general? Like I said there are a reason for these things. Ignoring that and forcing the issue isn't going to do us any good.
Do you mean in like a BDSM way? As in play? Or in general?
Yes. From what I have read, at least.
I don't get 'inferior' from it. I don't think mutual value and respect doesn't follow along with it as is, either. So I don't quite understand your question. I think you may be coming from a place that assumes TRP is ipso facto misogynistic.
I think that's entirely up to you. It might be a good idea to look for someone that is emotionally mature and self assured. What it really comes down to is sitting down and deciding what YOU want in life. If you want kids don't look for someone that doesn't and visa versa. Don't opt for a man with the idea that you need to or are going to change him, either.
myfavoritethrowaway9 10y ago
What would the issues be, you think? I figure dominance issues, ie who gets to make final decisions.
Fair enough, by the end of my original post I kind of figured this was the case.
Both, but bdsm mostly, yes.
Good to know.
Yeah tbh I'm having a hard time not getting a "women are inferior" vibe. If it is based on mutual respect and value, then why don't you think the roles could be reversed? Unless I'm totally missing that traditional gender roles is like a tenet of this ideology.
un-coolmom 10y ago
Traditional gender roles are a foundation of the ideology, at least in my marriage. This doesn't make women inferior, just different.
margerym 10y ago
Jockeying for power does come to mind but mainly I would worry that with both people in the couple focused on things outside of the relationship the relationship would die.
You'd have to ask on an individual level and be more specific about the Domme traits.
[deleted] 10y ago
you are getting a women are inferior vibe because you appear to only value women insomuch as they resemble men. men do not value women for resembling men, in general they loath it.
margerym 10y ago
And this .
myfavoritethrowaway9 10y ago
I see what you're saying, but I think for me I just value people in general for certain traits. Child rearing, success, wealth, and attractiveness are all things I value in anyone, regardless of gender.
FleetingWish 10y ago
Excuse me if I may, I found this in the other thread:
Wow, it must be nice to have such passion in your relationship. You talk about how dominant you are and how you like to be assertive, and career driven, but... you don't care about your boyfriend. This is the problem with your ideology at its core. You spend the entire other post talking about the type of person you want to have. (Which I think it is interesting that it doesn't describe your boyfriend.) If your boyfriend was really what you wanted to have, you would be doing everything in your power to keep him. Or at the very least devastated at the thought of losing him if there's no other choice. But this "oh well, moving on" attitude sickens me. I don't even understand how someone can be so nonchalant about someone they care about, and that's the thing, you don't care about him.
You can have it one of two ways. Either you can decide you're perfectly happy with relationships with no passion, and go find another male who will fill you up with a resounding "meh". If that's the case move on. Or you can accept that maybe your way of doing things isn't the right way, and make an attempt to learn from us. Because we here have so much passion for our men, in a way that you can't even dream of. A passion where we would be devastated in the world without them. A passion of love, of dedication, of commitment, no matter what. But if you chose that path, you have to be willing to learn. And throw away your preconceived notions of how the world works.
myfavoritethrowaway9 10y ago
You can presume to know how I feel about my boyfriend, it's your choice. The only person who truly knows is me. Our relationship is extremely complicated and not relevant at all. You have no idea how I feel about losing him. You don't know if it's really "meh" or if I've cried myself to sleep the last 8 nights in a row.
Uhh I'm pretty sure that's why I'm here.
FleetingWish 10y ago
If you truly cared about him, you wouldn't be so quick to move on. He hasn't even gone yet, and you're already looking for greener pastures, pining for what your friends have.
Ok in that case I'm going to start with number 2:
Here's the trap that a lot of females fall into. They do not understand what makes them attracted to a man. They don't understand really what "alphaness" is, and why it gives them tingles. So they fall into the common trap of trying to beta-tize their men. Which you even openly admit. You want an guy with alpha confidence, with beta willingness. The thing is if you do that, you take away the very thing that made them alpha. Think of it is as a trade, everytime you ask a guy to be little more beta, is an exchange for some of his alphaness. For example you want a guy that's driven, but you want him a little beta by having that "drive" be used towards raising the kids. One of the appealing parts of an alpha is that they are aspirers, go-getters. And you're asking him to limit his aspirations to raising the kids. You've just clipped his wings. The type of men who would be content to raising kids, is the type of man who is not willing to fly. Less alpha, less attractive. If you want what your friends have, you can't clip his wings, you can't limit his ambitions. This is just one example, but again, every time you wish for a more beta alpha, you end up with someone less alpha and less attractive. When you lose the alphaness you lose the very things that made you attracted to him in the first place.
So to finally answer your question. I'm going to surprise you. Are reversed gender roles possible? Yes. They are. But when people see this possiblility, they think that it's likely. No it's really not. It takes a very special kind of man and woman to make this relationship work. I have never seen it done in a way that it worked, but that hard isn't the equivalent to "impossible", it's only the cousin. We don't advocate that kind of relationship working because, we've never seen it to work, and statistcally it's not. What it takes to work is for the man to still be "in charge", for the man to still be the "head of the household", because in order for a relationship to work, is that you still have to be able to respect him. You have to be the type of person (who I don't know exists), who will brag to her friends about her husband being the housekeeper. But, the thing is, I don't know if you (in particular) can. Seeing as you seem to think that type of work is beneath you, and you wouldn't respect yourself in that position. (So how can you respect him?)
myfavoritethrowaway9 10y ago
Yet again, what you're saying here is "I have perceived from two sentences that you do not care about him and also that he hasn't left yet" etc etc insert more assumptions here.
It's comical how far off you are. Not that I expect you to know, but that's exactly why I brushed it off early with everyone else. He is not relevant here.
But that's exactly what I want. I don't want the pure alpha dude, I've met him before and I don't like him.
This is totally fair. I never expected it to be a norm. Some people are calling it a "unicorn" I can get on board with that.
I don't see why he can't still be the head of the household even though he's not the breadwinner.
This is my aunt. She makes tons of money, and works her ass off but brags to everyone that her husband has the hard job.
I actually never ever said that work is beneath me nor do I find it to be anything less than a completely respectable, very tough job. I only don't want to do it. Some people might be (i'm betting you'd be hard pressed) willing to give up millions of dollars and a guaranteed comfortable life to be a housewife, but not me.
FleetingWish 10y ago
I thought that you liked alpha guys because I found this in the other thread:
Like I said before, you can have an alpha guy who is the housekeeper.
That's my point, it's possible. Just not likely. It takes you and him both willing to make that work. By you respecting him for it, and by him feeling that housework is a nobel enough, high status thing for him to do.
Exactly, this is what it takes on your end. Not necessarily the bragging in itself, but taking real pride in what he does. Truly admiring him for it. If it's just fake admiration, your relationship will crumble. I don't know if you're capable of that or not, that's for you for decide.
Number 3:
Yes.
Number 4
Yes, in fact many alpha men are off the children bandwagon as well, so you'll be able to find a lot of them who share your ideals. Though... your idea seems to be to have a man who stays at home, taking care of someone who is not his (biological) kid. This to me is sounding more and more like a situation where you will be unable to respect him, and he will be unable to respect himself. Remember a man you cannot respect, is a man you cannot love. I don't know how you think you're going to pull that off.
Number 5
"Inferior" is a feminist buzzword that they use because they don't understand relationships where the duties are different. But I don't understand their "equal" relationship. If you define a relationship as "equal" how do you even make a decision? In a truly equal world making a decision (with two opposing sides) would be impossible. But that's why there always ends up being a power struggle. Whoever exerts the most will power, and the most stubbornness, and the most desire for their choice, ends up being the one who wins. Usually that's the women, because the men just let the women get what they want so they can move on with their lives. This is where "the woman is always right" comes from. But the problem is with this type of equality is it's not equal at all. The woman always gets what she wants, she doesn't respect (again; same as love) her husband, or his opinion. And neither of them are happy, or passionate for each other.
But rather than that, we have a more natural division of roles. This division satisfies the desire for a woman to be able to look up to her man and the desire for a man to want to be looked up to. The roles are different, but both equally valid. Instead of thinking it as "inferior" and "superior" think of it as like a student/professor relationship. Yes, the professor holds higher status than the student. His job is to run the classroom, to educate the students, and to inspire them to learn. But the professor is useless without his students. Without his students who would he teach? But the student's job is more important than "just showing up", the student is the professor's measuring stick. A professor who cares about the wellbeing of his students, will want to inspire them. It is only from the student that the professor can gauge his effectiveness. So he needs the student to participate, to be engaged, to ask questions.
See in the ideal feminist relationship, where the partners are utopianly equal, neither partner needs the other. They are the same going in, and the same going out. They idealize this because the thought of needing a man scares them. In fact the less they "need a man" the better women they think they are (they think they're stronger, independent, etc). But in a relationship where you do "need a man" you get something special. You get passion, you get dedication, and you get love. And then you come to find out that the man actually needs you too, he needs you to passionate for him, he needs you to be dedicated to him, and he needs you to love him. Men so desperately want to feel needed, that they "need" that. Their entire worth is wrapped up in how much they are needed.
Number 6
By asking this question, you've tipped your hand. You've never needed a man, and you can't envision a world in which you would. This includes your boyfriend, you don't need him for anything. But telling men you don't need them makes them feel worthless. Like I've explained before, their entire worth is wrapped up in how much they are needed. You don't even have to say it, they can see it in your attitude. They can see it in the fact that you're a career woman, they can see it in the fact that you don't know what they can offer you. Here's the thing, men can offer you no more than what you offer them. If you are passionate for them, they can be passionate for you. If you love them with all your heart, they will love you too. I can tell you've never had the joy of having a man you can respect, and I don't know if you ever will. In order to do that, you have to get rid of your desire to control everything.
Big_Man_On_Campus 10y ago
^ This is an argument over hypergamy. While it's true that inferring emotions is being presumptuous, it is not an uninformed presumption.
Men and women have had different strategies throughout time to maximize their procreation. These strategies were not always the same through time, but they were always different between the men and the women, and they did leave us with innate human nature that cannot be denied. Human nature isn't the final say on how you will behave, but it is the landscape in which your personality operates.
Men create millions of fertilization options every day and can dispense fertility to any woman anywhere at any time. We are the ones who are always ready to procreate and have next-to-no biological investment in the process. As such, the strategy for ensuring that at least some of our male seed makes it into a new generation of humanity is to simply spread it as far and wide as possible. It is a very basic strategy, highly obvious. There is no problem exposing this strategy with historical examples. It greatly helps that men are physically dominant and were able to enforce their own whims on women in the absence of civilization during times of chaos.
Women are quite different, but also have a strategy that if followed to its end is both self and society-destroying. That strategy is to simply abandon male providers for better ones over and over until you "max out". Women have a major biological investment in procreation, it stands to reason that the man who is better able to make her comfortable will always be preferred. This means that, when the chips are down, a mans emotions have almost nil value for women in preference to the life he may be able to provide for her. It means that men are (ultimately) only valuable to women for what they bring to the table, not what they are. It also means that women will leave any man more easily than any man will leave a woman. This is the most obvious way to demonstrate this. Find any man who is grieving over the death of a wife, and you'll see he takes years to get over it. Find any woman who has lost a husband to death, and you'll see her dating again much sooner. Men are simply more expendable to ladies, there's always another guy willing to keep her happy (especially if she's young enough to bear children).
You two are arguing about whether or not a particular women is hypergamous. The answer is yes she is. Given the right circumstances, we all follow our instincts. You cannot tell me that if given a situation with minimal risk, Ms. Throwaway would not abandon her non-providing SO for someone who improves her "power couple" image, just as I would never try to convince Ms. Throwaway that I would never pursue a situation where I had multiple wives living under my roof all servicing me and my household if I could do so with no drawbacks. Our natures are what they are, there's no sense denying them.
Now, Ms. Throwaway may indeed feel some remorse at a loss of a boyfriend, she's not wrong for saying or feeling so. However, it's disingenuous to write that you want a "power couple" and then imply that there is no hypergamy at work.