Here's the thing. I don't get off on gender roles. I just don't. Maybe being married to a feminist for 6 years will do that to you, but I have no desire to be the dominant -- or submissive -- one in a relationship. And there is a huge expectation that someone will, and that it will usually be the man. (There's even the expression, to be "The Man".)
During my marriage, a lot was said (usually behind my back) along the lines of "Well, I see who wears the pants in that family! ha-ha-ha!" The fact is, we both wore the pants; my ex was never one for dresses and skirts. Nether of us was dominant. Over the years, we both at various times brought in the majority of the income; we both worked, made decisions and changed diapers about equally (though she beat me out with breastfeeding). And it's not like we were being careful to be "equal partners" or something, it's just how we naturally interacted. But because I was contrasted with the presumed male role of dominance, I was taken as letting her make the rules.
Okay, so I'm not actively looking for a romantic relationship right now, but bow that I'm single again, I find I do not want an alpha/beta relationship (if I ever did, which I don't really recall, it was entirely because of playing in to that cultural expectation). And I'm not sure how this is gonna fly in reality -- specifically, not to put too fine a point on it, with straight women. The expectation runs deep.in our society -- arguably, every society.
I've ranted about the Disney Princess (tm) phenomenon here before, but that's an extreme example. Almost every straight couple I know shows some degree of this, even the very we're-ethical-vegetarians-who-only-eat-organic-fair-trade-produce ones. A lot of profiles here and elsewhere specify they want someone who can "treat a woman right", or be "a real man" (and I suspect their examples, unlike mine, would not include Atticus Finch).
The ex has suggested bi women might be more likely to work for me. Idunno. I'm willing to entertain any offers.
Whatta you all think?
[EDIT: The blog title is supposed to refer to an average of Dom and Sub, meaning canceling out, meaning neither. Not,, like, one of each, or a Switch. It's not my wittiest subject line, but hey, I needed something, and it got you to read this.]
Copy & paste to friend: (Click inside box; Ctrl + C to copy; Ctrl + V to paste)
|
|
read more blogs!
|
Myriad
|
Mar 5 @ 11:31PM
|
|
Maybe Heteroflexible women.
Or French women.
|
|
fayblack
|
Mar 5 @ 11:34PM
|
|
The best I can offer on this one is 
No, I lie, after I wrote that line this came to me, "don't try to put yourself in a box, or over analyse who you are." The one who is for you, will "get" you and there will be no need for explanations because it (meaning the relationship) will simply work.
|
|
LadyJasmine
|
Mar 5 @ 11:42PM
|
|
Do we really to label people?
Life is yin/yan, give/take, constantly shifting.
Relationships are like mercury -- constantly shifting but somehow mostly stays together and if apart can go back together.
A person can be either alpha or beta can switch from day to day.
I can't remember the show however it showed strong alpha business women who were 180 degrees different with their mate - totally beta.
Why worry, why bother analyze -- just enjoy and see how it all works out.
Live your life large, live your life fearless and most of all, live your life with no regrets.
|
|
mokeyboober
|
Mar 6 @ 12:04AM
|
|
|
weird when i was younger i always thought atticus finch was the perfect man..... over the years i ended up thinking david spade is. oh well now i am gonna have to pull out my to kill a mockingbird dvd and watch it.
|
|
HopelesslyHopeful
|
Mar 6 @ 12:23AM
|
|
*sigh* Maybe just "real women" who can be "The Woman" to "The Man"
Most of the Westernized b.s. about women is as a direct result of someone reading the Bible entirely wrong; well, several someones.
Sure there are other reasons but that's most of it.
Sorry but I do want a man who is a real man, but that sure as hell has nothing to do with being able to oppress his woman in a single bound.
A real man wouldn't need to oppress his woman or anyone else, would have a degree of self control when a super model in lingerie walked by, would understand he is not perfect and therefore forgive others their faults, and would occasionally do more than his fair share and sometimes less than his fair share because of time, circumstance, illness, and/or mood .. but mostly would at least try to hold up his end of the relationship.
Maybe you'd do well to stop and ask the various ladies what they mean by wanting a real man.. you might be surprised!
|
|
HopelesslyHopeful
|
Mar 6 @ 12:25AM
|
|
|
Oh and by the way Atticus Finch is HOT .. so is Ichibod Krane (however he is actually spelled). And remember: Cut across Shorty Shorty cut across .. that's what Ms. Lucy said .. .so there!
|
|
CanIBeYourObsession
|
Mar 6 @ 1:10AM
|
|
|
i dont think girls should wear the pants in the relationship but thats just me ;)
|
|
jentoblues101
|
Mar 6 @ 7:10AM
|
|
I'm comfortable in both a skirt and pants, as long as I'm not told which I should wear when....
Hey baby, wanna date?
|
|
edthepoet
|
Mar 6 @ 7:32AM
|
|
I don't judge people for what roles both party enter into as along as both parties love and respect each other.
Now for me personally, I would never want hold to control my lover, rather I love to see her evolve as I would want her to love to see me evolve. Controling to me is one of the most harmful thing one human can do to another. Hence the whole freewill thing.
But hell, I am maverick in most of the ways I think,lol
|
|
newlife2006
|
Mar 13 @ 1:45AM
|
|
Atticus Finch is the most masculine character ever created , Monsterboy . Combined with the brilliant casting choice of Gregory Peck this character always will be the symbol of everything a woman wants in a Man - intelligence,appearance , status, integrity, strength and kindness. He's exactly how human being is supposed to be - i.e. smart enough to be accomplished in whatever his trade is and intelligent enough not to develop vanity or arrogance around this fact of his life. Perfect in any respect , though not stuck up. Courageous without being tough. ... 
The problem with "dominant" personalities is - they know only one type of relationships : S&M , so when they meet someone independant, the one who doesn't care to be neither master nor slave , they get frustrated - since they just don't know how to interact without dominating. ( It's like someone who knows only one boardgame - chess. If he offers you to play and asks what color you prefer and if you tell him that your favorite color is green, he'll get impression that you are trying to insult him , right?...  ). Forthem anyone who doesn't dominate automatically is concidered "submissive" , they just don't know better .
For them to get the idea of "partnership" it would take lobotomy/personality change.
Unfortunately,historically we , "egalitarians" are outnumbered by "hierarchicians" , hence all those stupid "cultural roles/expectations".
I had an opportunity to face this kind of conflict recently, when young guy , good friend of mine , a tough warrior /fighter and "alpha-male" , started to critisize his
lucky competition for being "coward" and "doormat" in his opinion. I had to explain that , though being brave in fighting is surely admirable ( both guys live in the "hot spot"of the Earth , the war is a part of everyday routine there), but being courageous takes not less of a personality . After all , it takes only a moment to become a hero , but it takes the whole life for a man to be called a man of integrity. The girl they were competing for chose the courageous guy over brave one because he was there for her "in sickness and in health " no matter how tough it was. Beats any "accomplishments" of the macho -guy anytime
|
|
|