Skip to content

Submissive Women are the Rule NOT the Exception – they just don’t know it.

October 17, 2009

Those of you who’ve read the The Girls section of this blog will see that I’ve identified myself as a submissive woman, in fact, I say I’m not ashamed to say it. The reason I say I’m not ashamed is primarily because there is shame attached to the idea of being submissive to anyone in our present age.   I also mention I’m girly – to me the two go hand in hand.  Let me explain.

submissionSubmission is a loaded word for a woman to use. It has different meanings depending on the listener. Some view it as an entirely sexual term and connect it to BDSM.   BDSM standing for Bondage/Discipline/Sadism/Masochism in the kink community.  So, for some, to admit they’re submissive can connect the listener immediately to sexual persuasion/preference.  For others the idea of being submissive means being a “doormat”.  It implies a woman without a backbone, perhaps even a less-than-intelligent woman.   Some link it to religious beliefs and recall this passage, “Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord” Ephesians 5:22.

I believe the desire for a woman to be submissive to her man is innate, plus I believe women are wired to be submissive to proper authority in general.    Submissive, as I see it, is described as agreement, respect, duty, or deference.  I don’t personally view it as meek, passive or tameness.   I believe submissiveness is a feminine trait and I believe women have lost touch with this inborn need.

Society today encourages Grrrl Power which manifests in women by encouraging ambition, assertiveness, and individualism.  Not necessarily bad traits on their own, but when used to beat down a woman who wants to serve others or her man, they are very detrimental.   Feminism has hurt women by declaring we’re equal to men and can have everything they have, in fact, they claim we can have everything without men, children included.  I’m not saying we’re not equal in some respects because after all we’re human beings and deserve fair and equitable treatment.  Whether one believes by Higher Power or or by evolutionary design we don’t seem to accept the fact that men and women are inherently different?  Why fight to be seen the same?

In my opinion women have lost the art of loveliness, class and girly-girl femininity.  We’ve lost sight of our need to submit to our men and we’reGirly girl losing out.  (This needs to be said : I don’t believe a  women should submit to simply anyone- a woman submits to someone who has earned her trust – period.  There are some pretty stupid women calling themselves submissives these days for purely sexual reasons and men are convincing them to do anything for them by using their submissiveness claims.  Both sides of that coin are incredibly dumb.  Just sayin…)

I need to add that I’ve been challenged about my own submissiveness based on the fact I run a company.  I have no difficulty reconciling the two.  I have a need to serve.  Whether it’s the company or my man I will ensure the best outcome for both – by serving.  I am The Boss but I accomplish while retaining my inherent feminine qualities because I believe I am a woman first.  I’m not trying to be a man.

I expect I’ll make more women angry with this post than men.  I simply challenge those of you who feel an emotional rise to ask yourself if your defensiveness is because I might be speaking uncomfortable truth.  I also understand there are some outliers who are legitimately dominant just like there are submissive men in our mix.  This post wasn’t to condemn you,  rather it was to encourage those of us with  submissive, feminine natures to accept ourselves.

I like to leave my men happy, so here’s a little vid for ya.

175 Comments leave one →
  1. October 17, 2009 12:58 pm

    I need you to elaborate on what you mean by submissive. I wouldn’t have a problem with the idea of a submissive women if it didn’t go hand in hand with a woman too weak and helpless to do anything for herself. (not saying that about you, but about the stereotype of submissive women in general.)

  2. aoefe permalink
    October 17, 2009 1:29 pm

    wouldn’t have a problem with the idea of a submissive women if it didn’t go hand in hand with a woman too weak and helpless to do anything for herself

    JD I guess what I’m trying to say is all women except with a few outlier exceptions are submissive in nature. I’m trying to contradict the terrible stereotype which says women are weak, indecisive, foolish, stupid if they’re submissive. I believe biologically women are wired to respond to authority as a survival mechanism. Can anyone name a truly matriarchal society? Amazons don’t count (are they real?). We respond well to good direction and I challenge women to ensure they’re choosing wisely who’ll they’ll defer to in jobs, friends and mates.

    I agree the stereotypes are terrible, just doing my part towards expanding the view of what it really means.

    I think it’s interesting there is little dialogue on this subject – makes people uncomfortable? Or of little interest. Not sure.

  3. October 17, 2009 2:32 pm

    Warren Ferrel is an MRA and has a degree in sociology and says that there are matriarchal societies but the reason they are that way is because they don’t need dominant aggressive men.

    If a societies has needs that aren’t being met (food, water) the men are dominant and the women are submissive. When all those physical needs are being met, the women stop rewarding men for their aggressive behavior and decide they want to run things.

  4. The Iconoclast permalink
    October 17, 2009 3:24 pm

    Most women seem to enjoy being “submissive” as far as sex and dating go//in sex, they usually prefer to be the one acted upon rather than the one doing the acting, and in dating they prefer to be the one pursued rather than the one doing the pursuing. These have obvious mechanical and evolutionary reasons. Beyond this level I’m not so sure.

    Certainly a LOT of married women seem to put a lot of energy into trying to dominate and control their husbands. It almost seems as if when a woman gets married, the husband-getting program winds down and the husband-control program kicks in.

    I think it may be that women who have serious careers//especially those that are in competitive fields and manage other people//have sufficient outlet for their dominance instincts at work and are less likely to try to over-control their husbands at home. Just a theory

  5. October 17, 2009 3:26 pm

    Aoife: “Can anyone name a truly matriarchal society? Amazons don’t count (are they real?). ”

    Mosuos in China. Their society is really matriarchal. But, you actually have had something even closer to you (if I remember correctly that you’re American – if I’m mistaking, sorry): iroquois. Their system wasn’t actually a matriarchate, I’ll grand that, but women were practically equal to men.

    I’ve also understood that Scythian women were quite equal to their men too and some claim that this is the case also with Celtic tribes. Scythians are said to have played as a model to Amazons because their women fought too.

  6. novaseeker permalink
    October 17, 2009 4:24 pm

    Do we mean matriarchal (as in women-run polity) or matrilocal (as in women-centered family life)? My understanding is that there have been a handful of the latter, but none of the former. I remember reading a book by a feminist a while ago called “The Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory”, debunking the idea that many primitive societies were matriarchal in that they were led by women politically.

    Certainly a LOT of married women seem to put a lot of energy into trying to dominate and control their husbands. It almost seems as if when a woman gets married, the husband-getting program winds down and the husband-control program kicks in.

    I think it may be that women who have serious careers//especially those that are in competitive fields and manage other people//have sufficient outlet for their dominance instincts at work and are less likely to try to over-control their husbands at home. Just a theory

    I’m not so sure that the serious careerists are easy-going on their husbands. I’ve seen quite a few contra examples of women who are simply control freaks in every aspect of their lives. One pertinent recent website: http://www.thesuperiorwifesyndrome.com/

    I think women *always* exercised soft power over their husbands in home and family life — this was the domain of women, whereas public life was the domain of men. What has happened today is that this exercise of soft power has, for some women, become more politicized than pragmatic. In other words, it can be about pragmatic concerns in the home sphere, but it can also be about what she perceives as a “socially just arrangement” with her husband and so on, so that the marital balance of power becomes politicized. Of course with many women that is not the case, but with educated more feminist leaning ones it can be.

    I think it’s interesting there is little dialogue on this subject – makes people uncomfortable? Or of little interest. Not sure.

    I suspect it’s due to a couple of reasons. The word has two common meanings. Both are taboo, for different reasons. The first one is based on St. Paul (“women should be submissive to their husbands”), which many women take as meaning that they get to be walked over by their husbands and utterly dominated by them. That wasn’t what was intended by that, and it was never how most marriages worked, but Betty Friedan and others, in characterizing marriage as a “comfortable concentration camp”, among other things, helped to make the idea of women being “submissive” in marriage a bit of a social taboo. Women are supposed to be “strong, independent”, and so on, *not* “submissive”. Some women, even if they would like to be submissive in this sense, are reluctant to admit it due to the fear of criticism from peers, I would guess. I know my ex was openly critical to me of other women she thought were too deferential to their husbands. This kind of pressure *does* exist among a certain segment of the female population (again, probably the most educated, ambitious segment).

    The second meaning, the sexual one, probably makes some people uncomfortable. It’s a taboo of its own, although I think because this is more private, it is less discussed and less stigmatized (simply because it is less known).

  7. lisa permalink
    October 17, 2009 5:20 pm

    The way you define submissiveness: cooperating, negotiating, going out of your way to make others happy, having a strong work ethic.

    I thought this was called being a nice person, and I never associated it with being a woman.

  8. aoefe permalink
    October 17, 2009 5:22 pm

    I think you could add deference to the list Lisa and you’ve got more of the submissive tone to it.

  9. October 17, 2009 5:29 pm

    Excellent post!

    Your observations concur with my own. Women of all types are drawn to a strong man. I have been involved with various women, from the highly driven and achieving to less ambitious and passive ones, and all of them, without exception, enjoyed and were drawn to a strong man. And I am that type of man. What I have found is that no matter how high in society a woman has reached, she still loves the feeling of being protected and cared for by a strong man. It is amazing how quickly even the most socially accomplished, ball busting female can turn into soft, submissive creature under the right circumstances. The problem that most of them had is that there are few truly strong men in today’s world and too many men have been whipped into fearing women by false egalitarian notions. Too many men walk around on eggshells fearing that they might offend some of the more absurd notions of gender equality and thereby incur a woman’s disfavor. Such an attitude only earns such men the contempt of most women.

    It is very basic: women are attracted to viral, masculine, powerful men. And those type of men will naturally desire to be the dominant one in a relationship.

    I for one find submissive women highly attractive. I especially enjoy a submissive woman in bed. And women love that too. Knowing how to treat and satisfy woman sexually is part of the key to tapping into a woman’s natural submissiveness.

  10. Doug1 permalink
    October 17, 2009 5:34 pm

    Nova

    but Betty Friedan and others, in characterizing marriage as a “comfortable concentration camp”, among other things, helped to make the idea of women being “submissive” in marriage a bit of a social taboo.

    I don’t think that can be described as a “bit” of a taboo.

    Rather it’s a huge taboo of feminism and has passed firmly into the “post feminist” mainstream PC firmament. I think any college educated North American woman these days feels she must immediately defend any public admission of submissiveness to her husband. Phrases like “but only in the bedroom, and not always there” spring to her lips. At the very least she’ll feel she’ll have to add “but hot in a doormat way”. A man must do so in polite mixed company maybe even more so. Even I feel the need to say things like “but in an active, fighting back, non doormat sort of way” — when really that shouldn’t need to be said. (Not many men do like total doormats. It’s the work of feminist propaganda widely bought into that that is where any degree of female submissiveness or deference leads to.)

    We’ve maybe gotten back in the oughts with the upswing in more sex positive feminism or post feminism in at least some quarters, that female submissiveness in the bedroom, but ONLY THERE is ok. The idea of an ultimately male lead relationship, where it’s expected that the man will ultimately make the really big decisions, but also that he’ll do it after a lot of consulting and considering the whole family’s best interests rather than only his own, remains utterly verboten for not only most feminists but I think most American women. Feminists will say equal but what they really mean is that the man will agree with her final decision on everything big and small that she cares to decide, if he knows whats good for him, wants any sex anytime at all soon, or for that matter stay married. Yep. That’s become the American feminist created norm.

    E.g. guy gets a job offer that involves a 40% raise and a better upward career path but also moving to a new city. The wife can get a similar job to what she has now there and brings in much less anyway. Of course this decision would involve a lot of discussion and consensus seeking in any decent not to mention healthy modern Western marriage. I maintain however in the LARGE majority of American marriages today, especially with kids but even without them, the wife will actually be the final decision maker on this, if the two can’t agree.

    I’m certain that our media have just about NO messages anymore that the husband should ultimately decide after a lot of talking if he can’t convince her. Further unlike before (see movies or tv reruns before the 80s) there are no longer really any messages that a good wife SHOULD let her husband convince her for family harmony, and that supporting him advancing in his career is also the duty of any good wife. No, all the American messages to women now are that really it’s totally up to her whether his extra earnings are worth it to her, or should be if she has a decent and caring husband who actually loves her instead of a selfish jerk, and don’t forget your own best career interests as equally important as well sister.

    The cover story is that it’s equally up to both, but look under the hood. All the subtle messages are that he has to convince her. If he can’t, he loses. She ultimately decides, in other words.

    Ultimately then American culture is telling America women and men, that the big decisions about his career are really up to his wife. That’s how far “the home” and the doctrine of proper female primacy rather than supposed equality has extended.

  11. aoefe permalink
    October 17, 2009 7:16 pm

    Clio has written an excellent post regarding her thoughts on submission. I think a must read. I gotta admit I have a crush on her – in the benign/non-sexual way of course. She’s not entirely in favour of my position but I think we’re closer in thought than she realizes.

    Doug and Nova, I appreciate your ability to speak more succinctly to the idea of submission as a whole. I think you both make excellent points. Please read Tupac’s comments on Clio’s post for continued illumination. I’m not wanting to sound gushy (fail) but I think you men are fantastic and have taught me a great deal – if only to see my thoughts written down better than I can. Thanks.

  12. aoefe permalink
    October 17, 2009 7:19 pm

    Racer I think women are attracted to leaders – leaders don’t always look strong and virile. :) I believe women should look for men of character when they are looking for leaders and I think this is too often overlooked.

  13. Doug1 permalink
    October 17, 2009 7:32 pm

    aoefe–

    btw, I’ve used that exact same pic (without the text which I can’t make out) as an icon on certain sexually oriented (but not really mostly D/s) blogs and forums in the past.

  14. aoefe permalink
    October 17, 2009 7:45 pm

    Doug that’s because you have very good taste.

  15. aoefe permalink
    October 17, 2009 7:50 pm

    The words to the poem (I blew up the pic) are pasted below. These words are written from a sexual submissives point of view. Again I think submission is a loaded term and creates different images depending on the consumer (and the retailer).

    The Submissive

    If it pleases Him to have me kneel before Him
    I will kneel reverently
    If it please Him to bind me
    I will gladly offer my arms to Him
    If it pleases Him to touch me
    I will allow myself to be touched
    If it pleases Him to teach me
    I will learn all I can
    If it pleases Him to discipline me
    I will accept it without a sound
    If it pleases Him to allow me to serve Him
    I will serve Him with loyalty and devotion

  16. October 17, 2009 7:57 pm

    aoefe –

    this has little to do with your post, but –

    i don’t think the lack of matriarchal societies has so much to do with female submissiveness/deferment to authority, as it has to do with the simple fact that a female-dominated society, which would value the female version of “power” (“soft power”), would inevitably be PWN’D by a male-dominated society.

    note that i’m not refuting your argument that women are submissive in nature, merely mentioning that i don’t think this has anything to do with the lack of matriarchal societies. as societies invariably rise and fall, obviously those lacking male aggression and strength would not last long.

  17. October 17, 2009 8:13 pm

    Clio has written an excellent post regarding her thoughts on submission. I think a must read. I gotta admit I have a crush on her

    *tupac buts camara on tripod*

    Ah aoefe don’t get tupac started again.

  18. Doug1 permalink
    October 17, 2009 8:16 pm

    LIL–

    I almost wrote out something similar.

    Those considerations wouldn’t keep the US, or a number of other countries under the US military protection umbrella (where we’d actually honor it) from going matriarch today, under deeply entrenched values of democracy, female voting majorities and wide coalitions on the left, and the tremendous momentum for now of male created military technical and to some extent training and know how supremacy.

    How far would the US have to go towards matriarchy and laws strongly favoring women over men for men to rebel, through a military coup or a rebellion the military and enough of the police stood down from suppressing?

    Or is aoefe right in that women really won’t vote and form coalitions on the left to go further than they have towards ever greater female power and discrimination in their favor?

    I doubt that. I think it will go further and further.

  19. October 17, 2009 8:34 pm

    LILGRL ……would inevitably get P’WNED by a male dominated society.

    The feminist icon bonobos evolved deeper in the forest away from the big cat predators and early hominids.

    Chimps on the other hand are bad ass savages because they evolved having to compete more in the woodlands and ecological border areas filled with big cat predators, hyena, wild dogs and early hominids and other chimps.

    Only the badasses survived and reproduced.

    Human societies evolved in social and ecological contexts that simply selected out those groups that couldn’t effectively put up a serious fight on occasion.

    Low T submissive women’s attraction to brutes makes sense in a way. They are subconsciously trying to acquire the genetics for greater dominance and thereby increase the survival and fitness value of their sons.

    But why the female attraction to wimps and hipsters and faggy male feminists?

    I think these are a subset of women who live within the protective bubble of male dominance. Other men are providing them cover.

    That’s what being a SWPL liberal is all about. They have plenty of White people they hate generously guarding them.

  20. October 17, 2009 8:35 pm

    doug –

    I doubt that. I think it will go further and further.

    exactly. if “women being naturally submissive” was the reason that matriarchal societies didn’t exist, then we’d obviously not be where we are today. the simple fact is that matriarchal societies can only exist in a world where men are literally lying down and letting the women step all over them (see “America in 2009″). this has nothing to do with submission and dominance, and everything to do with the fact that female “power” is different from male “power”. obviously, both have their place — the world would be a dark place with only males, and a dark place with only females. and saying one is “better” than the other is like saying we can make men and women “equal”. ultimately, however, to explain it in simple terms:

    if you have a male-dominated society, you will have more aggressive power (war).

    if you have a female-dominated society, you will have more negotiative (yeah, i just made up that word) power (peace).

    if the two fight, dude, the boys with guns are gonna win.

  21. Dreamer permalink
    October 17, 2009 8:47 pm

    Lilgirl, interesting comment-
    “in a world where men are literally lying down and letting the women step all over them (see “America in 2009″)”

    What do you mean by that? I’m interested in knowing your take on the modern American man… is he too weak?

  22. October 17, 2009 8:59 pm

    Yes.

  23. October 17, 2009 9:04 pm

    This song is a celebration of an American man who is not weak. (h/t Gunslingergregi’s blog)

    Nice alpha male faces in the video, some impressive gals too.

  24. aoefe permalink
    October 17, 2009 9:32 pm

    I have to disagree with the notion that women will EVER become THE political strength in North America. Please read Tupac’s comment on Clio’s blog – link above. He sited a source that suggested that women needed feminism as it’s been revealed in order for women to ‘grow’ past submitting for the sake of societies expectations but instead have grown enough to pick the ‘right guy’. Right guy meaning character in addition to dominance. I liked the theory – it made sense to me. It’s an educated submission which prior to this point in our history may not have an option.

  25. Mr. N permalink
    October 17, 2009 11:10 pm

    There are men’s decisions and there are women’s decisions.

    Men’s decisions include how to earn the money, where to live, what cars to drive, what type of whiskey to drink and what kind of cigars to smoke.

    Women’s decisions include how to spend her allowance, which brand of clorox to purchase, what to cook for dinner and which negligee she’ll wear when he arrives home to see her cooking dinner for him.

    Everybody’s happy.

  26. aoefe permalink
    October 18, 2009 1:17 am

    I’m not sure I’m explaining myself well in regards to submission – it has too many connotations attached for it to be regarded as positive under current social conditions perhaps? I think my version and the definitions that float around may be in conflict with each other. I hold on to the belief that submission is inherent, I’m just not sure how to describe it as well as I’d like.

    I did have another thought from the comments however. If women are holding more and more power politically wouldn’t it make sense for men to get women on their side? I know Bhetti addressed this at Roissy’s and she was on to something I thought. Women have an easier time affecting women in large numbers – i.e liberation movement. What I see happening is a shift in young women away from the indoctrination of feminism. Men have an opportunity here to lead rather than shun women who are disenfranchised with what’s been happening. I don’t mean lead or rule with an iron fist, but with a loving hand. I’m not seeing this as much as I’m seeing bitter men who’ve been hurt (legitimately) by the current system sharing their hurts with men who haven’t been yet and turning them off women in general. Where will this get us?

    I like Nova’s post above which talks about soft power. Yes it’s shifted from pragmatic to politicized but how can we redirect the shift? It’s no good to complain without solution. Small steps make large progress over time. I think for now capitalizing on women like myself who are seeking other answers, who are honestly looking at what men are experiencing today, who want to make a difference to other women and guiding/leading us towards change may be the way to go.

  27. slumlord permalink
    October 18, 2009 7:59 am

    I think you’re explaining yourself pretty well aoefe, it’s just that you’re going to cop a lot of heat for your opinion. A lot of people immediately assume that if someone is submissive to someone else, the relationship is going to be exploitative.

    The fact is that we submit to lots of things all the time. Men and women submit to the law even though they may not like it, legal authority is thought to be legitimate. We submit to professional opinion and children should submit to the authority of parents. No one has a problem with these form of submission.

    I agree with you that female submission is not the exception but the norm and in my experience many women are comforted by the fact that there is someone there who can make decisions for them when required. It appears that most women want a man who has the capacity to make decision without necessarily having to make them all the time. No woman I have ever met wanted to be treated like a doormat, but there have been plenty who are quite happy for others to make the big decisions for them. Often when I delegate work it’s because I don’t want to make all the minute decisions that come with the job. I’m quite happy for those appropriate to make the decisions to get the job done. My subordination to their judgment has never been an issue.

    On the other hand, lets reverse the relationship. How many women are happy wearing the pants in the relationship? I mean a woman who leads can never get exploited, yet no woman is happy in this type of relationship. If the female sex was so keen on avoiding exploitative dominance why the hell doesn’t it argue for the right of leadership. You’ll never hear a normal woman argue the case for a state of affairs where she gets to boss her husband around–because she is not happy with that state of affairs–she wants equality not dominance, which is another way of admitting that she doesn’t want to lead.

    In the real world consensus decisions are not always made; someone has to break the impasse. If women don’t want leadership then I guess it is left up to the man.

  28. aoefe permalink
    October 18, 2009 9:21 am

    Often when I delegate work it’s because I don’t want to make all the minute decisions that come with the job. I’m quite happy for those appropriate to make the decisions to get the job done. My subordination to their judgment has never been an issue.

    Slumlord you’ve made my points very well thanks. I like how you apply it to business, I did this on Clio’s site too. Here’s how I explained it.

    As The Leader I prefer a collaborative approach to decision making, however I don’t have the luxury of allowing consensus nor do I run things like a democracy and takes votes on major decisions. I have assembled a fantastic team with skills and strengths that can accomplish projects and/or who can create new projects with a high standard of excellence. In my workplace we don’t have time nor would I allow time for power struggle – it’s an energy suck. My team has a high level of trust for each other and for me, when a difficult, unpopular decision gets made it’s because I’ve analysed current conditions and applied my experience to the problem. They have all chosen (in the worlds of Jim Collins) to ride the bus with me, even if they think the journey may be easier, even better by taking another route they understand I’m the driver. The driver needs to prove over time he’s a good driver, but if he’s taken an incorrect off-ramp he admits it without shame, consults the GPS/team again and off they go again.

    This analogy is one I’d apply to my desire in relationship. Do I want to follow blind the journey my driver/mate takes me on? Do I close my eyes and hope for the best, losing sight of all the wonders and even boring stuff we pass? Do I wait hoping he’ll fail so I can say I told you I knew a better way? If any one of those things apply I’ve either hooked myself to the wrong driver or I’m the one with the issues (toxic attitude).

    My driver will understand its his role to drive because we’ve established it in advance. He will know how to delegate, as a good leader does not micromanage, not only is it time consuming its stifling. My driver will think highly of the team/me he’s assembled, proud for recognizing the skills/contributions I bring to the table.

    I will have chosen my driver carefully – looking at his past for track record and his present for details of the journey he’s on and how he wants to accomplish it. It’s much more complicated than a job interview because you are not only working together you are planning ways to be in each others lives 24/7. Both parties will need to know there are roadblocks ahead and commit to finding ways to go around, sometimes through them but always committed to moving forward. We both need to be open to the idea that the destination may change, the fun of a journey is discovery. The only sure plan is arriving at it together.

    For the above to happen you have to be closely aligned in purpose, philosophy and mission – this is the challenge. I guess my point is I don’t feel what I want is vastly different than what most women want. Women however are either chosing bad drivers, have decided they want to drive or have bought into the current message that says you don’t need a driver in the first place. I believe men are as responsible for this situation as women. Men have lost site of their role as men – leaders, leaders of the fairer sex (debatable but don’t go there).
    My point is women are built to need not want a good driver (not a sexual reference jeesh). Men are built to lead but current conditions make this point not only un-pc but anti-woman.

    If this can inspire one woman and one man to begin to think beyond the surface of the subject I’ll have done my job.

  29. aliasclio permalink
    October 18, 2009 10:28 am

    Oh dear. I fear, contra Slumlord, that *I’m* the one who is going to catch heat for this, not from Aoefe perhaps but from others on this thread. But I must speak.

    A marriage is not really like a boss-employee relationship, and indeed I think this is an unfortunate analogy. No matter how much the boss consults with or delegates decisions to his employees (I use the male pronoun here to observe grammatical convention), he is able to, and at times he must, make decisions for the good of the business, or organization, in which the employees can have no part because they are not fully informed of the circumstances of the decision, or what makes it necessary. However much the employees may resent the decision to relocate, or close one branch of the business, or re-assign work, they cannot ultimately refuse to accept it. On the other hand, they can leave their jobs, which is a perfectly legitimate response though it may be a Hobson’s choice in some situations. Further, in the boss-employee relationship, an employee may lose his job if the business fails, but will not lose his investment or assets, or suffer public blame for the failure. He does not have the same level of investment in the business as his employers.

    This is not true of marriage, nor should it be. In a marriage, both parties are more like partners with equal investment in a business. They may have their different areas of expertise, but neither one is boss, and both are equally liable for the failure of the business, should it fail. Thus, in a marriage, both parties should be equally informed about the major conditions affecting the “corporation”, if you like. They may delegate work based on their different areas of expertise, but neither has the right to make unilateral major decisions affecting the partnership. They MUST consult the other. Although both parties have veto power over major decisions in such an arrangement, they do not use it without great care, recognising that this too is a decision that will affect both parties and that exercising their right to veto indiscriminately will lead to a poisonous partnership. If the relationship breaks down when they reach an impasse, as it sometimes will, both suffer equally in terms of lost prestige and financial investment.

    There are those who would argue (I’m lookin’ at you, Doug!) that in marriage today both parties do NOT suffer an equal financial burden. Very well. That’s certainly true in some cases, and more often than it should be. But don’t you see that this boss-employee relationship Aoefe describes would actually be a very good argument for things like alimony disguised as child-support, and so forth, that you so dislike? It assumes that one party is dependent on the other. When a business partnership fails or is dissolved, it is the employees and creditors who receive first consideration, not the business owners. If a wife is like an employee rather than an owner, her interests ought to be similarly protected…if you insist on taking that view of marriage.

    Clio

    p.s. I know that a consensus model of decision-making would be no use for a large business because it would not be practical. However, I don’t see that it would be impractical in a two-partner business (to extend my analogy). And if one partner in the business insists on exericising her veto power with no regard to the partnership, as some of you complain, she is certainly in the wrong.

  30. aoefe permalink
    October 18, 2009 11:01 am

    Clio speaks:

    Oh dear. I fear, contra Slumlord, that *I’m* the one who is going to catch heat for this, not from Aoefe perhaps but from others on this thread. But I must speak

    Clio seriously (srsly) I don’t think you’ll take heat. You have weight that I don’t have in regards to argument – you’re the heavyweight champion I’m the lightweight newbie.

    Every analogy breaks down at some point – business was the best I had because I’m familiar with it. I still remain convinced that there needs to someone within the relationship who makes the final decision. I agree with many of your points – we’re not far off – our only difference is at times of impasse there is a decision to be made and I’m saying I don’t (nor do most) women really desire to make it.

    I think the word submission is getting lost in translation. I am one of the strongest women I know – in regards to emotional strength and decisiveness – but choosing to be submissive in relationship doesn’t mean I become weak or dependant. I’m making an informed choice based on what I believe is in the best interest of our future too. It’s not a passive action.

    Legally there are ways to protect the man and the woman. I’m all for prenuptial agreements and I believe laws need to be strengthened so that women can’t leave without just cause. It can’t be because they need a gina tingle somewhere else. Women from what I understand leave marriages more than men do. If it’s not for the three A’s (Adultery, Addiction or Abuse) then I say you’re screwed in regards to financial compensation – child support or otherwise.

    I recognize there are women out there looking for a free ride and who will be nasty in divorce – I don’t have my head up my ass. The onus is on both men AND women to do a much better job of picking a partner. I’m single not because I’m un-lovable, but because I’m not going to sacrifice my current contentment for strife – finding the ‘right guy’ is tough. Clio you’ve found yours and I’m thrilled for you, but from everything I understand this was a lengthy journey, it sounds like you’ve worked things out well – you’ve done your part and will continue to. Like I said we’re not as far off as you may believe.

  31. October 18, 2009 11:54 am

    The kind of “partnership” marriage Clio describes is more suitable for a purely companionate ccouplse, ie., no children.

    Once children come into the picture, there has to be a head of the family, aka a Captain. This is why I liken the husband-wife relationship in terms of captain-NCO (sergeant) relationship.

    The husband, like a captain, is responsible for the pig picture stuff. Overall financial strategy, and setting the moral/religious course for the family. The wife is like a competent NCO, running the day-to-day things.

    And I wouldn’t exactly call this a boss-employee sort of thing either, as Aoefe and Clio had touched on. Because when the man and woman who pair up share certain basic cultural and moral values, while complementing each other in terms of temperament and talents, then it is a more complementary than a hierarchical relationship. But there can only be one head of the family.

  32. October 18, 2009 11:56 am

    Pardon my typos above. I must hire a proofreader.

    I was happy to fix the couple I found PA. aoefe

  33. Il Capo permalink
    October 18, 2009 2:50 pm

    clio writes: “…and both are equally liable for the failure of the business…”. I disagree with that. If a marriage fails, it’s usually the husband’s fault.

    Crude example 1: woman gets fat, husband is no longer interested. It’s the husband job to keep her interested in him so she’ll do a better job of keeping her looks.
    Crude example 2: husband becomes a doormat, woman falls out of love. There’s nothing the woman can do to change the guy. On the contrary, once they hit this slippery slope, most of what she does will reinforce negative behavior. It’s up to the husband to correct this situation.
    Crude example 3: she’s a gold digger. She likes being pampered for a while, but then she gets tired and cashes in on her divorce option. It’s his fault, for proposing to the wrong woman.

    I can’t think of an example in which the woman can fix the marriage without his active help or even leadership.

  34. aliasclio permalink
    October 18, 2009 4:20 pm

    There are so many issues I’d like to comment and points I’d like to take up that I can’t manage them all. But here’s a few.

    The first is that I think that you, Aoefe, may be expecting too much of men. Asking for the kind of executive and moral leadership you want, so that you can turn major decisions over to a man with the reasonable certainty that he will make the right decision, is probably more than even the best man can deliver. Nor is it likely to bring out the best in a man if you do so: too much responsibility can turn people into tyrants. And it can make a man’s wife irresponsible.

    I think I said somewhere, either here or on my own blog, that this kind of arrangement might suit you better than me; what I meant was not that I thought you were submissive (which you seem to assume) but that you were such a take-charge kind of person, as you clearly are, that you need an especially strong man in order to ensure that you don’t get a man whom you simply dominate. I think, on the other hand, that I need a strong but perhaps more mild man, one who is careful to consult me precisely because I tend to let other people take control of practical arrangements while I live happily inside my head. It isn’t good for me and I have to guard against that tendency.

    I believe I understand what you and PA are both getting at, but I wonder how often it is that really big decisions in which both parties are implacably opposed and need a tie-breaker, are likely to come up, even in marriage. If they do come up often, then it’s possible that the two parties need to reconsider their priorities and what it is that they value in life, to try to bring them more in life with each other’s needs.

    I think I could only give a man “headship” over big decisions if I knew that I had veto power – a power to be exercised with extreme caution, but one that I could use if I thought it necessary for the good of the marriage, or, in rarer cases, for my own good. PA speaks of men’s headship being necessary when there is a family rather than only a husband and wife. I don’t know. I can imagine a situation in which a man wanted to move for the sake of his career, while his wife was opposed because, knowing that their child had finally found a school in which he was happy, she did not want to move for his sake. In a case like that, he ought to give in. But if he does give in over such matters, is he the “head” of the house? Or a partner negotiating for the best deal given his circumstances? What does headship really mean in practical terms?

    I would also argue that a woman in the same situation, but without a child, ought to move for her husband’s sake even if she didn’t really want to because she liked her present situation. After all, you can make new friends, and write to the old ones, while good exciting jobs are hard to find. The giving-in should not be unilateral. Even if she has special reasons to stay – her parents are ill – she ought in such cases to go with her husband because her first loyalty should be to him and their marriage. But is that a case of a husband exercising “headship”, I ask again? Or a wife making a difficult decision out of lovingkindness?

    Most of the problems that occur in marriage are more likely to arise not because of stark choices like the ones I outline above, but because one party or the other, or both, have abdicated their responsibilities in some sense. Fathers who won’t spend time with their kids even when they have spare time, and excuse themselves on the grounds that “I bring home the bacon, I deserve some time to myself!” Wives who spend money recklessly (whether they earned it themselves or their husbands did) without attending to the fact that the family finances are in trouble. Husbands who buy gadgets when the house needs a new dishwasher. Etc. Given that these are the typical faults of modern spouses, I think that the concept of husbandly headship could exacerbate an already bad situation, encouraging women to lapse into passivity and men to use it to justify doing whatever they want without regard for their families.

  35. Dreamer permalink
    October 18, 2009 4:37 pm

    Hopefully, this is a joke.

    “Men’s decisions include how to earn the money, where to live, what cars to drive, what type of whiskey to drink and what kind of cigars to smoke.

    Women’s decisions include how to spend her allowance, which brand of clorox to purchase, what to cook for dinner and which negligee she’ll wear when he arrives home to see her cooking dinner for him.”

  36. aoefe permalink
    October 18, 2009 4:42 pm

    Clio I’m not expecting any more from what I believe a man is wont to do or wired to do. I’m not frustrated more confused as to why my points aren’t getting made. I’m not advocating for female abdication of responsibility or an over burdening of a man – it’s a partnership, we agree there. I’m simply saying we need to let nature lead us not think too much about it. If you follow my post regarding female submissive desire being more the rule then the exception it naturally follows I’d believe men are more likely to be wired to be dominant. What has happened is we’ve distorted our natures.

    I’m no expert in these matters I’m simply going off thousand of hours of reading what men want (at Roissy) and thousands of hours of being with women. It hits me as truth. If it’s not – then I’m misleading myself, however no argument I’ve seen so far leads me away from it.

  37. Tupac Chopra permalink
    October 18, 2009 4:55 pm

    Clio:

    In a marriage, both parties are more like partners with equal investment in a business. They may have their different areas of expertise, but neither one is boss, and both are equally liable for the failure of the business, should it fail.

    That’s silly. Or a bit of an overstatement at least.

    I can imagine a situation in which a man wanted to move for the sake of his career, while his wife was opposed because, knowing that their child had finally found a school in which he was happy, she did not want to move for his sake. In a case like that, he ought to give in.

    Disagree. Once her relationship with the child becomes MORE important than the relationship with the husband, things start to go south for the husband. No alpha would tolerate that. And as you say, just as it is possible for the childless woman to relocate while finding new friends, the wife-mother could relocate while finding a new school for the child.

    Now, all this is irrelevant if you are speaking of couples who marry for more practical reasons, meaning they understand on some level or another that this is all about reproduction and children after all. Sure, there are men who have no problem sacrificing their ambition for the sake of the children. But I thought we were talking about alphas not betas.

  38. aoefe permalink
    October 18, 2009 5:03 pm

    As a child I lived all over Canada to follow my Dad’s career and I can tell you it would have been a sorry state of affairs if my mom had ever said she wasn’t going to move again. Children should never be placed first, marriages that do this die early, kids would do far better down the road if they could witness parents putting each other first. We all know THOSE couples, kids leave the nest they look at one another and say “who the hell are you?”. But heck that’s an entirely different subject.

  39. October 18, 2009 6:14 pm

    I think I could only give a man “headship” over big decisions if I knew that I had veto power

    It all seems really stark, or maybe like you would be putting yourself in a vulnerable position as a wife, when it’s posted here “on paper.” In reality, things are more organic, if you will. Ideally, the couple will be on the same sheet of music to begin with, on many if not most things. There is also a matter of compromise where necessary.

    Also, a successful couple will marry when they feel like they click together in an important way. For example, I’ve dated a number of women when I was single, but it was when I first met my wife that I felt like that “we’re in it together” feeling, like we’re on the same team. (Maybe she ran excelent GirGame on me, who knows?)

    But with my prior girlfriends, to a lesser of a greater extent, even when we got along great, that feeling was missing. It was more like Bob Seger once sang “I used her, she used me, neither one cared.”

  40. October 18, 2009 6:16 pm

    So the male leadership will make much more sense when the couple sees eye to eye on important things, than when they diverge in values.

  41. October 18, 2009 6:55 pm

    Another question. When you talk about submission is it “a la carte” when you let a man wear the pants when you feel like it, or will you submit, even if he decides on something you don’t agree with?

  42. aoefe permalink
    October 18, 2009 7:11 pm

    Another question. When you talk about submission is it “a la carte” when you let a man wear the pants when you feel like it, or will you submit, even if he decides on something you don’t agree with?

    No JD it is not when you feel like it. I can be a feisty woman with an opinion, and I won’t pick someone who won’t let me offer an opinion, however when push comes to shove (not abuse) I will defer. Plain and simple. There has to be one person who makes the final decision. I also realize there will be times when my partner could say, “you know what? I don’t know what decision to make, you make it”, and I’d be comfortable doing that. It’s not cookie cutter designed, it’s unique to every situation. I acknowledge there will be tough discussions, perhaps even reminders made to me about my decision to grant him leadership. I think this sort of stuff is discussed clearly between the two so there are established guidelines, understanding that not everything in life is scripted.

  43. October 18, 2009 7:22 pm

    i guess i’ll actually weigh in on this topic.

    i checked aliasclio’s blog, and i have to agree with this:

    She suspects that Aoefe has either a) over-generalized from her own particular nature, or b) been misled by the language of the sexual subculture of “dom/sub” relationships, though she explicitly denies this.

    while i am very much like aoefe in that i enjoy serious dominance/leadership from my guy, i also absolutely do NOT think that i and/or my relationship with my guy is the norm. i don’t think it’s right to say that women are naturally “submissive”, though i do believe that women and men have different kinds of “power” and thus “dominate” and “submit” in different spheres of life.

    however, i agree with clio in that i would take advice from someone like myself, who obviously enjoys a non-normal relationship, with a grain of salt. i know that what works for me would not work at all for most of my female friends or relatives. that’s not to say they don’t enjoy great relationships — because they do. but we’re different — i’m definitely an extreme, and i know it.

    for example, in a marriage/relationship with traditional gender roles, the man will usually have the “final say” in decisions on things like involving out-of-home life, and the woman will usually have the final say on decisions involving in-the-home life. really, the woman is the one making more (little) decisions that affect the couple/family, at the end of the day — she effectively decides the diet/nutrition, education of the children, home decor, etc. obviously, her husband has significant influence over these decisions — just like she has significant influence over “major” decisions — most men would not pay much attention to having a good house in a good neighborhood, were it not for their family/wife.

    my boyfriend would most certainly be living in his car, were i not in the picture.

    i believe that most decisions, especially in good marriages, rarely come down to a “tie-breaker” moment where someone needs to step in — we are all adults here, and we can discuss things reasonably. and even if it comes down to a “final say” moment, it’s not like one person, just because they end up making the “final decision” has suddenly made some completely uninformed tyrannical decision. in my relationship, even if it comes down to a “final say” and my boyfriend has it, i don’t feel as though i haven’t had pretty much exactly the same amount of say in the decision as he has. it’s absurd to think that just because there’s a “final say” one person is being walked all over.

    but really, if we’re going to talk about “submission” as “deferring” to someone else, both the man and the woman in a relationship are submitting to that relationship.

    realistically speaking, though, men and women do exercise different types of power — and while the men’s power is more pronounced (and more suited to the public sphere), that doesn’t mean that women’s power isn’t just as (if not more) influential. i think we are valuing too much (both sexes are) the appearance of power rather than actual power. men do things for women (sorry guys, but this is true) — men seek power, wealth, status, etc. for women. men buy things to appeal to women. a hot girl has just as much power over men as a man who rules the world has over the world. (so sayeth satoshi kanazawa.)

    unfortunately, we live in a world where men’s power is the only type of “important” power — both feminists and MRA’s alike have fallen into this trap. feminists, as we know, seek “male power” in order to “gain equality”. many MRA’s, though they advocate against feminism and the masculinization of females, fall into the same trap by claiming that men are “superior” to women because they have accomplished x, y, and z in the public sphere, or because “male power” is more suited to leading society. and it is — the logical/rational mind of man is more suited to making decisions that are “for the good” of society, despite perhaps unsavory consequences. however, to assume that this makes men “superior” to women is simply laughable — without the influence of the female power (emotion, rather than logic), civilization would most certainly be a dismal place. so yeah, different spheres. neither is better, and neither should try to be the other. the problem with feminists is that they are weakening women by dogmatically stressing that male power is the only kind of power, and that male-type accomplishments are the only accomplishments that matter. MRA’s, sadly, seem to be buying into this trope (it’s easy to buy into, especially if you are a man — as a man, it’s pretty clear that feminists are just women who want to be men, so why wouldn’t you be so flattered?)

    anyway…this is long. very stream-y, sorry guys. my point was, it’s wrong to attribute morality and/or negative-/positive-ness to things that don’t deserve them. to say that to be submissive is good/bad, when in reality it’s necessary from both parties to make a relationship work. to say that male power/female power is good/bad when in reality they’re necessary to make the world work. to assume that the job of mother/father is not as important — more important — than the job of CEO.

  44. October 18, 2009 7:31 pm

    before anyone says it –

    yeah, a super-alpha won’t ever submit to his woman!

    and super-alphas aren’t know for their stellar track-records of stable relationships, are they.

    whether you like it or not, being in a relationship with another person means you are, in some way, “submitting” to them. if you’re not cheating on them, why not? is it because you just aren’t tempted? or is it because you’ll sacrifice something to keep your relationship going? is it because you “respect” them, you feel it is your “duty” to them, you two have an “agreement”, and you are “deferring” to their wishes that you not cheat? er, yeah.

    like it or not, it’s impossible to live life without submitting. it’s hard, simply because in our go-get-em society, everyone is taught to have a knee-jerk reaction to the idea of giving up anything for anything. why shouldn’t people be able to attain super-ultimate-happiness and be true only to themselves? because society doesn’t work that way, and you can’t be in relationships (any kind of relationships) with that attitude.

  45. aoefe permalink
    October 18, 2009 7:45 pm

    my point was, it’s wrong to attribute morality and/or negative-/positive-ness to things that don’t deserve them. to say that to be submissive is good/bad, when in reality it’s necessary from both parties to make a relationship work.

    For the record I didn’t say it was good/bad or otherwise – I said it was natural. I’m glad I brought the topic up if only to see how loaded the word is.

  46. aoefe permalink
    October 18, 2009 7:50 pm

    yeah, a super-alpha won’t ever submit to his woman

    Is super-alpha another name for asshole-alpha? I’m getting all these alpha references and tiers confused. Oh and while we’re at it, is there such thing as asshole-beta’s or is that super-beta’s? Will he submit? Curious minds want to know. Just sayin…

  47. aliasclio permalink
    October 18, 2009 8:34 pm

    Disagree. Once her relationship with the child becomes MORE important than the relationship with the husband, things start to go south for the husband. No alpha would tolerate that.

    It’s not the woman’s relationship with the child that I was trying to say the woman should emphasize here, it’s the child’s well-being. If the child, for some reason, has special needs or is fragile, it might be wise to allow him to continue at a school at which he feels comfortable. I was not suggesting, as both you and Aoefe seem to think, that a woman should always place her children’s needs above those of her husband, nor that the husband should always place the needs of his family over his own, just that there are situations in which he would be smart for him to do the latter. Marriage is not a relationship in which everyone can do whatever is best for his/her own needs or interests whenever he/she feels like it. Everyone has to make sacrifices sometimes. Even a husband who is the main breadwinner ought not to allow himself to make career decisions based only or mainly on the good of his career.

    I know that in some respects my views are not that far removed from those of others here on this thread. I suppose the reason I’m continuing to question your conception of “submission” as such is that I can’t see why or when it would be required (or referred to as “submission”) if both partners are truly considering each other’s needs and their children’s needs within their marriage.

    To perceive the mutual give and take required in marriage as submission is a little perverse to me. The kind of dominant man who would think he was being “submissive” if he conceded to his wife’s persuasion on any issue, large or small, is a man too inflexible for a happy marriage, I believe. But would all dominant men see such concessions as a form of submission, as Tupac suggests? I hope not.

    Let me make this clear: I do not want a man who “submits” to me. I don’t want a man who begs, who fears me or my temper or moods, who gives in without a fight on matters of importance to him. I also don’t want one who expects to be boss in the house or treats me in any sense as his employee to whom he can, if necessary, issue orders. I would be prepared to work to please my man, and to consult him regarding any major decisions, and to give in to him if he objects, as long as he allowed me the same right. “Any suggestion from a superior is an order,” one of my more disagreeable bosses once told me, and I would not want a marriage in which a husband made the same sort of assumption about his role. Indeed it may be because much of my work experience has been bad that I find this analogy so unpleasant.

  48. October 18, 2009 9:05 pm

    yeah, a super-alpha won’t ever submit to his woman!

    Maybe not in public, but a surprising number of powerful, high-ranking male executives and politicians visit Dominatrixes in private!

  49. October 18, 2009 9:24 pm

    Aoefe–

    I’m saying it’s not natural for anyone to universally “submit”. Yes, it’s natural that women allow men to take over, and dominate, certain areas of life…just like it’s natural for men to let women do the same in other areas of life. We’re biologically programmed to do just this: dominate different areas, and submit in different areas. Women are more compassionate, which is why they are more suited to raising children. Men are more aggressive, which is why they are more suited to providing for, and protecting, the mother and children. You aren’t saying “submission” is wrong, but you are implying that it is an inherently female trait to submit and not dominate, when clearly it is not. Men submit, though perhaps not so explicitly, to their wives and families all the time. They have a sense of responsibility and duty, and they defer to decisions that are for the good of their family, in lieu of decisions that are for the good of only themselves. Women do the same. It’s kind of like how sexual ownership also goes two ways, if you want to get into BDSM talk. Or how, if you’re stage-fighting, the “victim” has just as much — if not more — “power” than the “attacker”.

  50. October 18, 2009 10:07 pm

    Perhaps the word needs to be exchanged with deference? I agree the word has different meaning for me then what the general population views of it. I hold on to my beliefs just wonder if the word itself is too confusing.

  51. October 18, 2009 10:17 pm

    Aoefe –

    If we exchange “submit” with “defer”, my argument still stands.

    Just as a note — I am absolutely submissive. Not just in the innate way that I just argued that both men and women submit to each other in different spheres of life. But I know that I am not the norm. Most women are not at all like me, and most men are not at all like Epoxy. Most couples do not have a relationship even sort of like ours, and most couples, honestly, probably wouldn’t want a relationship exactly like ours. We’re both very in touch with our respective sexualities, and that’s what allows us to have the relationship/sex that we have. But most people are not like this, and even if they were (as in touch with their sexualities), I doubt that they’d find that their sexualities are as much on the extremes as are ours. I suppose my point here is that, while my boyfriend and I enjoy our relationship, I don’t think most people’d be able to cut it. Most people are not as inherently anything as we are.

  52. October 18, 2009 10:18 pm

    Although, yes, obviously the word is a bit confusing because it means many different things to people. But, taking your definition as you explained it in your post.

  53. aoefe permalink
    October 18, 2009 11:06 pm

    We have ourselves a troll! We have arrived. :)

  54. October 18, 2009 11:21 pm

    We have ourselves a troll! We have arrived. :)

    To think, barely a day in my own sandbox, and some other troll takes my spot.

  55. aoefe permalink
    October 18, 2009 11:31 pm

    You will never be a troll to me DA. :)

  56. October 18, 2009 11:48 pm

    You will never be a troll to me DA.

    And that’s why hugs from a pretty girl are better than sex. :-)

    Hehe, my aoefe. :-P

  57. aliasclio permalink
    October 19, 2009 12:10 am

    Aoefe, I’m sorry if I appear not to have grasped your point. I don’t know whether I’v really not grasped it, or whether I’ve failed to make my understanding of it clear! When this kind of confusion happens, it may be best to abandon the discussion, at least temporarily, and come back to it in a few weeks or months to see if anything new strikes us that we failed to observe the first time around.

    One more point, though, if you’ll forgive me: I suspect from what you’ve said that you find the idea of Submission erotically pleasing, even in non-sexual situations. This isn’t an uncommon trait, especially among very strong women, though you’ll sometimes see it in weak ones as well. But judging by most of what you say regarding the realities of submission in an intimate relationship – which I can indeed see is not very different from what I would say on the subject – it seems to me that submission for you is more notional than real, a kind of game not a genuine principle.

    On the other hand, when JD asked you if your submission would be a la carte, you responded that you would “go along” even if your man decided to do something you disagreed with, which appears to contradict your other views. For myself, I could be persuaded by reason to accept a decision I did not find entirely sympathetic, but I don’t think I could accept a direct “We’re doing X, and that’s my last word on the subject” from a man, without explanation or discussion. Are you certain you could, if it were something you thought was critically important?

  58. aoefe permalink
    October 19, 2009 12:35 am

    Clio,

    A couple points before I retire this subject, I’m in agreement that time might do it some good.

    For myself, I could be persuaded by reason to accept a decision I did not find entirely sympathetic, but I don’t think I could accept a direct “We’re doing X, and that’s my last word on the subject” from a man, without explanation or discussion.

    First I’ve never said I’d just accept a decision without discussion or explanation, I mentioned I wouldn’t chose a partner unless he valued my opinion. I DID say I’d acquiesce or defer to his decision if it differed from mine because only one person in a relationship should have that power. I agree consensus and collaboration are great models for relationship, but there are times when a decision is required. ie I want to go to Florida for vacay and he says we can’t afford it. Do I book the trip? Do I sulk? No to both. Do I ask if I can contribute in some way? Do I ask when we might be able to go? Yes to both. If we have the type of relationship where he says on a consistent basis “that’s my last word on the subject” then maybe I made an error in man judgement (Or I’m insufferable).

    I suspect from what you’ve said that you find the idea of Submission erotically pleasing, even in non-sexual situations.

    One last thing – I did not reference sexual preference in this post. I referred to the term being commonly used in BDSM vernacular that was all. Even so I find it neither here nor there.

    I’ve appreciated the time you’ve taken to dialogue on this subject Clio. Maybe we’ll tackle it at a later date. :)

  59. October 19, 2009 12:42 am

    I don’t have too much to add to the discussion, except to corroborate Clio’s idea that strong women appreciate the idea of submission more. I can be opinionated, difficult to deal with, and emasculating to the sort of oblivious lower-IQ fellow who’s had the misfortune of attempting to verbally joust with me. I will win, but that’s not to say I don’t want to lose to someone who proves himself worthy. In such a case, he has won my affection.

    I like the idea of submission, I’m just too combative to ever submit to somebody who wasn’t vastly and justifiably superior.

  60. aliasclio permalink
    October 19, 2009 12:45 am

    All right. Sorry about the misinterpretation. I made that guess because of a previous post of yours. It might have been relevant if it were accurate, though, in that some people find something “sexy” as a kind of fantasy but are not drawn to it in reality. That’s all. Time to sleep…

  61. October 19, 2009 1:19 am

    I like the idea of submission, I’m just too combative to ever submit to somebody who wasn’t vastly and justifiably superior.

    4Rlz.

  62. October 19, 2009 1:59 am

    We have ourselves a troll! We have arrived. :)

    I won’t be impressed until one of you writes a post that gets hundreds of hyperemotional responses, most of which are claiming you to be the female equivalent of being morbidly obese and having a small dick or no dick with denunciations by a hollywood actor and an author who refuses cowardly to link to your post but still wants to talk about it to whip up a frenzy. Also, you need to have someone write in their blog about how your post is giving them rage blackouts.

    Until this happens, you really haven’t arrived. LOL

  63. Epoxytocin No. 87 permalink
    October 19, 2009 6:30 am

    @ aliasclio

    If the child, for some reason, has special needs or is fragile, it might be wise to allow him to continue at a school at which he feels comfortable.

    Just make sure that “some reason” is a good reason.

    (rant)

    In recent years, the concept of “special needs” has spiraled out of control. Obviously, we should place children with severe disabilities in special learning environments, but now there are “special” schools for just about everything under the sun. Just a bit on the autistic spectrum? We’ve got a special school for that! Don’t want to do homework? Never learned basic executive functioning skills? For only $25,000 a year, you can go to a school that doesn’t believe in homework!

    Etc.

    Yes, socialization can be traumatic for these kids. But people have forgotten the commonsense notion that, the longer you shelter them, the more traumatic it’s going to be.

    Ironically, the one true disability for which there should be an alternative, or at least a slightly alternative schedule, is delayed phase sleep syndrome. With all the other options that have popped up, I’m absolutely incredulous that just about all schools still start before 9am (way too early for children to learn effectively).

    (/rant)

  64. Epoxytocin No. 87 permalink
    October 19, 2009 6:44 am

    @ aliasclio

    I think I could only give a man “headship” over big decisions if I knew that I had veto power – a power to be exercised with extreme caution, but one that I could use if I thought it necessary for the good of the marriage, or, in rarer cases, for my own good.

    That’s an interesting headship indeed. A headship in which someone other than the head still signs off, as it were, on the bottom line.

    No thanks. Absolutely not.

    Although I do have to give credit where it is due, for this certainly clever and original portrayal of the modern, Western wife-led household.

    I wonder what the next reframe will be? Wait, I know: Wifey gives hubby anywhere from one to three multiple-choice options, and he has absolute power to select from them.

    This is where we mention that you should choose your husband carefully. If you choose wisely, he will have his, your, and the family’s interests at heart, will hear you out, will be influenced by you, and will make the best decision.

    “Veto power”, though? Piffle (as, I seem to remember, you’re fond of saying). That can only mean one of two things: you ultimately want to lead the household, or, on a baser level, you simply don’t trust your husband’s decisions. Either way, that doesn’t seem like a marriage that’s built to last.

  65. Mr. N permalink
    October 19, 2009 8:03 am

    Women will be submissive with dominant men. It feels natural to them.

    @Sofia
    “I can be… emasculating to the sort of oblivious lower-IQ fellow who’s had the misfortune of attempting to verbally joust with me. I will win, but that’s not to say I don’t want to lose to someone who proves himself worthy.”

    I predict the type of man you’ll be attracted to is a man who will be able to side-step your lunges. He won’t even try to parry your attacks. He can easily riposte with a septime because you’ll be completely unprotected. (He’ll change the subject, dismissing you whenever you’re about to rant.)

  66. aoefe permalink
    October 19, 2009 8:53 am

    I like the idea of submission, I’m just too combative to ever submit to somebody who wasn’t vastly and justifiably superior.

    Oh wow really? My only criteria is he must have an IQ over 65.

    Srsly. (sarcasm with a teensy beet of humour thrown in for good measure)

    Got a question for you, what is justifiably superior? Is this as in IQ, appearance, job, age… Are you speaking of all thing hypergamous?

  67. aliasclio permalink
    October 19, 2009 9:52 am

    “Veto power”, though? Piffle (as, I seem to remember, you’re fond of saying). That can only mean one of two things: you ultimately want to lead the household, or, on a baser level, you simply don’t trust your husband’s decisions. Either way, that doesn’t seem like a marriage that’s built to last.

    It doesn’t mean that I want to lead the household. It means that I want to share leadership. In fact, though, I wasn’t writing merely about myself. My whole point in this thread was to try to determine a general principle that I think might work better than simple, straight-out “male leadership”. Work better, that is, because no human being should ever place absolute power over his or her life in the hands of another, not because I, Clio, am suspicious of my man and his intentions. One of the things I was trying to point out to Aoefe was that in practise, her notion of “male leadership” involved so much consultation and negotiation that it closely resembled shared leadership.

    As for “veto power”, I did say that both parties in a marriage ought to have it, used very sparingly and with great discretion. Would I accept such a veto exercised over a decision of mine? Yes, I would. Certainly in small matters I could accept it: “I like you to wear your hair long” would be one example. In large matters too: if, for example, a husband and wife had planned for her to go back to work when their youngest child was 4 years old, but a husband were to say, “Now that I see how tired you are all the time, I don’t think it would be good for you to go back to work yet”, I would think that was a reasonable exercise of his veto power.

    But I don’t think that these larger issues come up that often in marriage, although they are more likely to do so if the relationship is one of those “LRTs” into which both parties drift, having begun with a strong sexual attraction but without any coherent or articulated plans for the future. As I said above, it’s far more common in modern marriages for neither party to have much sense of what sacrifices of personal pleasure or need that are necessary to make a marriage work. A quasi-biological, Nietzschean ethos of male leadership not backed by any concept of self-sacrifice for the good of the marriage is not likely, I suspect, to be a good place for a woman.

    I don’t think that any of this necessarily has much to do with the alpha or beta nature of the man in the relationship. Many an alpha, who is an alpha in the purely Roissy-ite sense of being able to “pull” pretty girls for sex, has little interest in exercising leadership in his household, beyond the demand that his needs are catered to first. “Don’t bother me with that stuff” may be his tacit response if his wife comes to him saying, for example, that their son needs more adult male attention. (I bring this up because I saw it once on an episode of Dr Phil, but I suspect it’s rather common.) And yes, of course, women are likely to be equally self-centred.

    In summary, because we’ve all been brought up to be spoiled brats (and the younger we are the more likely this is to be true), I don’t think that a wife’s wholehearted, unconditional surrender to a husband is likely to be a good idea. If a woman has found an exceptionally good (as well as alpha) male, it might work very well.

  68. October 19, 2009 12:52 pm

    LILGRL said:

    Sofia: I like the idea of submission, I’m just too combative to ever submit to somebody who wasn’t vastly and justifiably superior.

    4Rlz.

    realizing
    the both of you
    as pincushions
    has totally ruined
    my day

  69. Jane Doe permalink
    October 19, 2009 12:58 pm

    I know you’ll get a lot of irate comments from women for this, so I just wanted to make a supportive comment. I think you’re completely right and I see the same thing in myself and most other women. Thank you for coming out and saying it.

  70. October 19, 2009 1:18 pm

    I agree with Clio’s view. A good lifelong mate is a lover, a partner, a friend, a confidant, and a person able to be both a leader and a follower.

    I also agree with Aoefe’s view. The man should have great “dominance” and masculinity, while the woman should have great “submissiveness” and femininity.

  71. October 19, 2009 1:28 pm

    Ironically, the one true disability for which there should be an alternative, or at least a slightly alternative schedule, is delayed phase sleep syndrome.

    You’re so cute. Are my children going to have this?

  72. October 19, 2009 1:44 pm

    you’re in luck.
    prolly only your first husband’s

  73. October 19, 2009 1:47 pm

    Hope

    I agree with Clio’s view. A good lifelong mate is a lover, a partner, a friend, a confidant, and a person able to be both a leader and a follower.

    women are indeed the fortunate sex bc they get to have several of these in a lifetime

  74. October 19, 2009 3:13 pm

    Want to share the perspective of something I’ve been reading. Fascinating Womanhood , a Girl Game guide heavily influenced by the Bible, recommends complete submission to men. If he delegates something to her she should treat it as a boss-employee thing (and get his regular sign off), and she can otherwise focus the traditionally female areas of family and household life. It even recommends that women *let men make mistakes* so as to not disturb his leadership role. It infers that women usually overreact to what are fairly minor things. Not deferring is considered more harmful in the long run (eg, money can be earned back easily, but his love and cherishing feelings cannot be). The only exception made for when a woman should speak up is when a woman is like 110% sure that he is about to do something catastrophic (like death or dismemberment bad). That book advocates a woman instead try to encourage a man to realize his potential greatness by praising him continually for his manly qualities. Being a spiritual book, it believes that through God’s grace most men have an innate sense of responsibility within and that the Lord will lead everyone down the right path. A man with a loving woman behind him will be inspired from a sense of responsibility; the book even says most husbands will start to earn more money once a wife starts acting in a more feminine way! I find these ideas highly appealing but as others have mentioned, the man has to be the sort of person who has that sense of responsibility and ownership even to do so. Sadly most PUAs would call such noble pursuits Beta.

  75. October 19, 2009 3:40 pm

    It’s a wise man who, as boss, diligently practices being a virtuous one.

    I find that nobody likes a boss – in private or at work – who constantly reminds everyone of his title.

    what a shame for you your dad whould chase me from the taj with a kukri dagger

  76. Doug1 permalink
    October 19, 2009 5:56 pm

    Clio

    There are those who would argue (I’m lookin’ at you, Doug!) that in marriage today both parties do NOT suffer an equal financial burden. Very well. That’s certainly true in some cases, and more often than it should be. But don’t you see that this boss-employee relationship Aoefe describes would actually be a very good argument for things like alimony disguised as child-support, and so forth, that you so dislike? It assumes that one party is dependent on the other.

    No I don’t see that AT ALL.

    This is way off topic but I didn’t take us there and I can’t let that stand.

    Women are “dependent” on men to earn more than them only because they chose to be and can manage to be. No woman needs to financially depend upon a man today and a great many don’t. That’s not genuine dependence but rather enjoying the economic fruits of their choice and their ability to attract men who are willing to bear more of the earnings burden. In most cases it IS a burden too. It’s a married man’s choosing more money over a more fun job to buy the bigger house in the better neighborhood that mostly the wife wants, and so on. Women can earn just as much as men today, and many do. Never married US women in fact earn more today than never married men on average.

    However women still hypergamously chose to marry up financially in the great majority of cases. Further married men tend to maximize their earnings whereas married women (and to a lesser extent women who are sure they want to get married) when they can due to their husband’s earnings, emphasize job satisfaction, status and less stress over highest earnings, so the disparity usually increases over time. They’re making those choices because i) they can when their husband earns enough much more than the reverse for cultural and probably in born reasons, and ii) they derive greater satisfaction from a more balanced life that way. Female lawyers leave BigLaw firms for foundations and NGOs; men work very long hours to make partner with the earnings that brings, and so on. Women as well choose the satisfactions of raising a family over full time or any work for long stretches vastly more than men do – though some determined career women figure ways of having children without doing that. They aren’t forced into those choices by husbands; its what women want. That’s fine during marriage. They’re both getting things out of the exchange. It’s voluntary.

    When women divorce their husbands or force their husband’s hand by cheating and refusing to stop or by stopping all or nearly all sex (probably because they haven’t gotten caught cheating), then divorce extractions aren’t voluntary for the husband. Those extractions aren’t voluntary at all.

    State mandated alimony in a time of equal female earning opportunities amounts to indentured servitude. She’s not offering anything in return any longer, and can support herself. Her obligations don’t extend past marriage no matter how it ended and we know it’s usually women who end it to go find another man. His shouldn’t either.

    It’s indentured servitude whether that alimony is per se alimony, as has come back in California, New Jersey and an increasing number of other states under feminist lobbying, or hidden, as is the case now in all US child support=alimony. Those child support levels amount to 33-40% and more of after tax income for professional and similar men for two kids, and are 50% higher than recently increased levels in the UK. The US clearly now has a stealth alimony component.

    Why should the husband’s marriage obligations go on for life, or for a very very long time, but the wife’s end as soon during the marriage, or certainly upon divorce, as she wishes? American marriage has become greater male obligations than ever, but strictly female options. (There’s no longer even the moral obligation (much less legal one going to fault) on the part of wives to provide reasonable amounts of regular sex to decent husbands and fathers, much less any obligation to do any percentage of the housework or cooking, no matter how much she’s supported by him. Nothing but options for her; tons of obligations for life for him.)

    When you also realize that half of all marriages end in divorce, 70% initiated by women, with their leading reason given being “drifted apart” and similar, and that men file for divorce today at about the same rate they did in 1950, whereas women file 6 times more often than they did then, something terribly tilted against men has obviously occurred.

    Choices have consequences. Including the choice to end the marriage with is almost always the women’s choice these days. When minor children are involved women initiate even more than 70% of divorces; they initiate overwhelming majority of them in fact.

    When a woman decides to leave a man who earns a lot more money than she does, no she doesn’t deserve to keep living as well on his unwilling back as she did when she was married to him and still presumably offering him something of value in return, such that he voluntarily wished to remain in the marriage.

    Alimony (called that as well as the stealth alimony component of today’s levels of child support=alimony) in a time of comparable female earning ability is indentured servitude, pure and simple. When added to splitting wealth earned during the marriage no matter how great, no matter how little the wife contributed to it, and regardless of fault, American divorce law has become obscene.

    That law also tips or certainly easily can tip the balance of power utterly unfairly during a marriage as well. Women have far less financial disincentive to commit adultery than they did a few decades before; whereas men have never had more. Over that same period female reported levels of adultery have soared. If he commits adultery she can take him to the cleaners. If she commits adultery today she can also take him to the cleaners. One sided cudgel much?

  77. aliasclio permalink
    October 19, 2009 7:24 pm

    Doug, I don’t disagree with anything you say here, above. I was commenting on the link between the notion that “a wife ought to be submissive to her husband’s authority” and the idea of paying her alimony, saying that they are, if you like, philosophically connected, not that they are necessarily connected in practise, nor that alimony in today’s society is just.

    Although I have read that alimony as such is rare today. I suppose when you use the term you’re referring to alimony that masquerades as child support? Or do you believe that all child support is “disguised” alimony?

    I’ve know a good many people enraged with men in general because their own fathers never paid child support at all: I once got into an argument with a very angry (young, male) colleague on that very subject. I suspect it’s men with similar experiences who have worked to change divorce laws to favour women so heavily, so that some men today are paying for the sins of their fathers.

  78. October 19, 2009 8:13 pm

    Is this as in IQ, appearance, job, age… Are you speaking of all thing hypergamous?

    He has to be reasonably attractive. If he’s ostensibly ugly, and trying to act like he’s the best thing since sliced bread, I might be downright mean. IQ is the most important thing, but so is social comfort. An occupation doesn’t mean much to me at this point, considering my age, but I am wary that when I date older it doesn’t mean that he’s inherently better, smarter, or more successful for the very virtue of his birth year. If he’s a grad student, and 35, we’re getting into iffy territory…

  79. aoefe permalink
    October 20, 2009 12:33 am

    Jane Doe said:

    I know you’ll get a lot of irate comments from women for this, so I just wanted to make a supportive comment. I think you’re completely right and I see the same thing in myself and most other women. Thank you for coming out and saying it.

    Thank you, appreciated.

  80. slumlord permalink
    October 20, 2009 7:59 pm

    Aoefe, I hope this helps in trying to understand submissivity. It’s been occupying my mind for a few days.

  81. aoefe permalink
    October 21, 2009 12:02 am

    Slumlord thank you for taking the time to write in greater detail and in a more consise way what I was trying to say. I think some are clouding my words with their own meaning which I find rather interesting, I almost feel like my view is threatening (to some)in a way I can’t quite put my finger on. You said it very well. Thank you.

  82. October 21, 2009 6:16 pm

    Who cares? We should keep letting American women and the Blacks and the Jews try to run everything so that they will keep messing it all up so that eventually the whole rotten system will collapse and something better will then rise from the ashes.

  83. Doug1 permalink
    October 21, 2009 7:00 pm

    alias clio

    Although I have read that alimony as such is rare today.

    Alimony labeled as such or “spousal support” is very common in the US today, and is being expanded in a current big feminist soto voce lobbying push.

    In most states when the wife isn’t working at the time of divorce she will get alimony for a limited number of years, usually at least three, regardless of why she wasn’t working. I.e. even if she readily could have been but just chose not to and even if her husband had a history of urging her to but she didn’t. In many she’ll get it even if she is working but is earning a lot less. In quite a number of states the alimony period is considerably longer and might include all the time it will take to get a degree or advanced degree, considering going to school part time and working part time to supplement the alimony.

    In quite a few states such as California a wife will get alimony if she’s earning any “substantial” amount less which really means any noticeable amount that it’s worth the court’s time to address. That’s a relatively new development. So too is lifetime alimony if the marriage lasted 10 years or more and alimony for half the life of the marrige for lesser periods. A New Jersey court recently ruled that 7 years consititued a long marriage these days, and merrited the wife getting lifetime alimony on the back of her husband.

    Not that alimony in California and other places is often VERY substantial. 40% of the husband’s after tax in Cali. In Cali they in fact calculate it that way.

    As for child support=alimony, yes I’d like to strip out the alimony component of that. Reducing the amounts by 1/3 would go in that direction, as would capping the amounts. I don’t think a woman who has a child out of wedlock with a man that wanted her to either abort it or give it for adoption should be able to claim child support of any kind from him. She had post coital choices that he wasn’t given but should have been, in the form of the right to choose to abort his parental rights AND responsibilies. They both could kept their pants zipped/legs closed. Further lots of female pregnancies including the unmarried and even short fling or one night stand kind are accidentally on purpose. All but one method of birth control is within the woman’s sole knowledge and control, and the other one, condoms, is equally within both’s. Lots of women want to have children alone these days. Tricking some high or highish earning guy but telling him you’re on the pill preserves a girl’s options if nothing else you know. She get’s an earner’s sperm plus she can get his bucks if after the fact she decides her baby really deserves it. Hey, he should have kept it zipped if he didn’t want to be a father, or not believe her – the idiot. At most men should have to pay child support to unmed mothers whose pregnancy they didn’t want, if and only if she’s otherwise qualify for welfare, and then only at welfare levels and only for so long as she continues to qualify.

    As well divorced man child support, after having the alimony component stripped out and being capped, should also be something the man can withhold if the woman violates the visitation agreement, pending resolution as to whether that’s in fact the case, if she challenges his withholding, or he challengs her continued violation. The resolution if she did violate should yes result in loss of child support from him during that period of violation. She’ll have to make do on her own resources and increased work – or else do what she promised to do re visitation. The current system gives men who aren’t wealthy enough to endlessly litigate her non compliance almost no enforced visitation rights. She’s given all the power.

  84. Don't Ask, Don't Tell permalink
    October 29, 2009 2:35 pm

    I don’t agree that submissiveness is a natural inborn trait in all women. I believe that it might be a natural inborn trait in all people, regardless of gender, who happen to have submissive tendencies though.

  85. October 29, 2009 4:29 pm

    Don’t ask Don’t Tell, I agree, however I believe the tendency is more (much) women than men are submissive by nature.

    Thanks for taking such a thorough look around the site.

  86. Don't Ask, Don't Tell permalink
    October 29, 2009 4:44 pm

    It seems more men than women though want to be submissive in the bedroom. I mean like tied up and put on leashes and stuff. They say it relieves their stress.

  87. October 29, 2009 4:52 pm

    I’m not sure of how many men that is Don’t Ask – I know there are some – but I still believe it’s a minority. I don’t believe it’s because they are powerful in their real lives and need the release I believe it’s because of how they are wired.

  88. Doug1 permalink
    October 29, 2009 5:11 pm

    Don’t Ask Don’t Tell–

    #
    Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell permalink

    It seems more men than women though want to be submissive in the bedroom. I mean like tied up and put on leashes and stuff. They say it relieves their stress.

    One can get that impression from the internet, but I don’t at all get it in real life.

    First of all there’s a real tendency for submissives to be more interested in sharing their experiences and imagination on the net than dominants. Further far more men that women like to write on explicit, kinky sex topics on the net, originally historically in newsgroups, which stuff is still around mega, collected here and there. Which means of course that male submissives are gonna write a lot more than female submissives are. Femmes do though, especially extreme “slave” ones do; but they tend to do so in their own blogs. e.g on livejournal but elsewhere as well, rather than write D/s porn for newsgroups that gets collected, though some do.

    What there aren’t that many of are real female dominants. Or certainly ones that only want to play that role. Sexual dominants that is. Certainly there are quite a few but I think there are less than half as many, or maybe it’s a quarter as many, as there are male submissives. As well, there tend to be more male submissives as they get older it seems. Perhaps this is testosterone receding; perhaps it’s success frustrations in their own eyes even if they can sometimes/often at least front being pretty successful; whatever it seems to occur. The less successful older male submissive does not tend to be a highly attractive category to any kind of woman. So many of these seem to net fantasize and write a lot.

    The female sexual dominants that do exist, and bear in mind this is an exceptionally favorable time for that, given the overwrought media feminist ideology of our time and place, tend to be switches. That is they enjoy dominating, particularly a man in some ways worth dominating (classically money, but could also be status without edgie dominant game) but they also enjoy submitting to a sexually dominant male. Who they may not want to live with. What I’m saying is that faithful long time female dominant wives to submissive husbands are probably rare as hens teeth, especially these days, with among other things divorce theft totally enabled for women.

  89. Don't Ask, Don't Tell permalink
    October 29, 2009 5:16 pm

    “One can get that impression from the internet, but I don’t at all get it in real life.”………

    I was speaking from real life. Haven’t done much net research regarding this topic.

  90. Doug1 permalink
    October 29, 2009 5:26 pm

    aoefe–

    Is how you’re feeling getting worse still turtledove, plateauing, or getting a bit better? You swine felled you…

    Bear in mind that it’s your DUTY to watch a LOT of movies during this period. Mind veg, kinda. You know about torrents right? And Hulu. As well if you aren’t subscribed to Netflix, this might be a time to at least temporarily do that. Yeah you’ll get however many discs you sign up for one or two days later (e.g. three or four) but the big thing is you’ll be immediately able to watch a whole lot of stuff, vast amounts really, online via their “watch instantly” thing. I.e. net delivery of movies. It’s probably only 1/5 or maybe 1/10 of their catalog, but their catalog is virtually every movie DVD ever released, as well as virtually all TV series episodes ever released on DVD.

  91. October 29, 2009 5:41 pm

    Isn’t Doug a lovely, caring man? A man like him is… wonderful.

  92. Doug1 permalink
    October 29, 2009 5:53 pm

    Bhetti

    *kiss*

  93. Christy permalink
    January 28, 2010 2:13 pm

    You go Girly Girl. I am so right there with you and think and believe the same. You put it into words in a way I have not been able to. Go Girly Girl. I get teased for admitting I’m a girly girl but I don’t care because I know who I am. :)

  94. January 28, 2010 4:20 pm

    Christy thanks! Glad it resonated.

  95. master mark permalink
    February 2, 2010 1:53 am

    are u subbmissive? fun,open and more? well heres my yahoo messnger name add me, wil go from there, im rocketman3641 add me will chat, see how subbmissive u are?

  96. February 2, 2010 3:17 am

    master mark – I’m sorry I’m not into pain and your spelling just caused some. ;)

  97. big t permalink
    March 13, 2010 2:31 pm

    I am a man. I love submissive and feminine women. It does not mean a weak woman. To me its a woman that knows how to use her feminine qualities to the fullest advantage. To me the submissive-feminine woman has the most power. Us men naturally want to protect these type of woman and care for her. Its very beautiful to still have women like you.

  98. Potnoir permalink
    April 14, 2010 3:50 pm

    Dear Aoefe,
    After 15 years of separation, I am again connected with the love of my life. We are both married, and she has children. Circumstances led to our missing each other years ago, though we had fleeting encounters before our separation into disparate lives. She is a fairly powerful woman in the default world, but she wants me to dominate her, tell her what to wear, send her instructions during her day, and when we are together, she wants to submit to me. We are truly in love, and are built for each other in ways I think few people ever (unfortunately) get to experience.

    It is new to me to be the dominant to this degree, and ours is a special type, because I let her have her turn at subjugating me from time to time, but only as a reward for her submissive and accurate duties and tasks. She often fails, which results in a thorough spanking over my knee, which she enjoys, provided I am a gentleman (which I am always, part of her attraction to me I think), and that I spell out for her why she has to get the spanking, and that I spike it with some dirty talk, and further instructions, tasks and duties.

    But I am very new to this. Any suggestions? I know you are not running an advice column, but any observation or pitfall to stay clear of would be appreciated.
    Sincerely Yours,
    Potnoir

  99. Lethe permalink
    April 16, 2010 8:24 am

    I think many (not most, just many) women have a need to be submissive, but that this need can manifest itself in different ways. Personally, I am only ever submissive either to a boss I really respect and admire, or in the bedroom. Most of my submissiveness is linked to sex, and in everyday life I prefer to be in charge and in control. I’m not ashamed of that.

    What I dislike in your post is that you assume because it’s like this for you, that it is an unwritten law among women, or a natural urge. I’d be careful about that. Many women are dominant in all spheres of their lives, and happy to be so. It doesn’t clash with girliness either – a lot of the most dominant women I know are pretty girly too. Think alpha female. And a hardcore dominatrix, even, is most times wearing a bodice/corset and high heels – feminine, but dominant.

    Dominance and masculinity are not the same thing, and a woman can be dominant and feminine at the same time. To say that being boss without ‘serving’ the company is masculine is not correct, and to turn this the other way around – a man who rules a company by serving it wouldnt be less manly, either, in fact he’d probably be a better boss as he would be doing what was in the company’s best interests, instead of getting on a power trip.

  100. Sammy Smith permalink
    June 6, 2010 4:46 am

    I think you are an inspiration, I have been in the acting field for many years and the film company I work for has always treasured respecting women as women not as men.

    Men and women are different, I don’t see what is wrong with that, women are meant to be submissive that doesn’t mean weak.

    I am sick of the brain washing and manipulation that society enforces on women today.

    Thank you for being a proud girl girl

    :)
    With lov
    Sammy Smith

  101. Sammy Smith permalink
    June 6, 2010 4:47 am

    I meant Girly Girl
    lol
    xx

  102. kevin permalink
    November 5, 2010 12:44 am

    Your classification of Feminism is pretty simplistic. Feminism is not a monolithic ideology. I am a man, and a took a “women in politics” class that really opened my eyes to reality. simply believing that women deserve equal rights is a type of feminism.
    Also, the assumption that women are ‘wired’ to be submissive is based on a lot of assumptions. One of humankind’s closest living relatives is the bonobo, a Matriarchal society in which the women dominate the men through the use of sex.

    Furthermore, you say that women, out of respect, submit to men who deserve their submission. Why do you intrinsically assume it has to be a one way street? Can not a man submit to a women equally if she so desires? A 50/50 relationship? For example, in a relationship where the man knows he’s an impulsive spender, he could put important savings accounts into his wife’s more disciplined hands, submitting to her authority, where appropriate. To assume that one sex or the other automatically assumes authority arbitrarily ignores one element of humankind that is also “natural”; intelligence.

    The “appeal to nature”, or the idea that humans should act in ‘natural’ ways assumes that the natural state of being is ideal. Obviously, the creation of such things as jet airplanes wildly disproves the notion that the natural is ideal. And because our intelligence and free will so wildly separate us from the beasts of the Earth, it is nearly impossible to tell what parts of human relations are the result of natural urges or societal constructs. While some of those constructs may very well be the result of our natural tendencies, depending on what stage of human development we are in, they may no longer prove useful.

  103. November 20, 2010 4:13 pm

    One wat to look at it is to say that women smooth over conflict in society (and thus ensure the survival of their children) while men strive for alpha status . This makes dominant and submissive behaviour entirely rational and to be expected. The real quation is ‘how do I choosr the right Alpha?’. Many women choose selfish or thuggish men because they mistake this for Alpha- in fact Alpha is often selfless and quietly spoken.

  104. Turts permalink
    December 16, 2010 3:51 pm

    I am a naturally submissive woman. I am certainly not weak or stupid, but I have no need to dominate people, argue with them, or force them to do things. I am submissive in the way you describe.

    Ever since I got married 20 years ago (to a very dominant man), I have had many, many female friends and acquaintances take me aside and tell me that I must grow a pair and stand up to my husband. They did not like the way he dominated me.

    I happen to love the way he is dominant. My previous boyfriend was a beta-type artsy fartsy guy who wouldn’t say shit if he had a mouthful of it. He was passive aggressive in that he would never tell me when I did something to make him angry. Instead, he would go home and cut himself with a razor blade. Then, when I discoverd the scars, he would admit that he was angry at me. Of course, all of these same friends and acquaintances loved him and thought we were perfect together. I was miserable with him. I wanted someone who was not afraid to express himself or give me shit when I deserved it.

    Let’s just say when I met my husband, I fell head over heels in love with him and am still in love 20 years later. His dominance and my submissiveness is what keeps the attraction alive.

    That is what these feminist harpies don’t understand. Women are naturally submissive and men are naturally dominant. That is the way nature made it and that is what keeps the spark alive.

  105. lilu0401 permalink
    December 27, 2010 3:29 pm

    Aoefe,
    I found your post thoughtful and refreshing. In addition to submissiveness being a personality trait, it can also be a willful act, perputrated by submissive personalities or more dominant types. It is important to realize that relationships do not fare well when each party insists on a separate ideal or agenda. It is often a relief to submit; a relief from disagreement, arguing, frustration, and resentment. I am glad that you are sharing your insights on the subject.

  106. January 6, 2011 6:35 am

    PW,

    The biggest danger to you is Jewish Black Women. Keep your eyes peeled. And guard your orgones.

    They will screw you into the ground, take all your money, and get you to beg for more.

    Me? I married a Jewish white woman. Sometimes you can’t have it all. And sometimes that is enough.

  107. Boombox permalink
    February 27, 2011 12:20 am

    Already seeing you ladies fight each other over the internet, the “women are submissive” notion is bullshit.

    We all want the best in our partners. The real question is, why don’t men love strong and intelligent women? Half of his offspring’s traits will be hers, after all.

  108. genalex permalink
    March 9, 2011 9:59 pm

    Aoefe, I fully agree with your views. I think, however, that the over-riding issue is one of respect for individuality. Any woman (or man, for that matter) who feels an attachment to another that is based on some degree of subservience is entitled to be respected for their feelings. No-one should fall victim to herd-mentality that demands conformance to a proclaimed norm. Baby, if it feels good, do it. Your relationship will be more rewarding to you and your partner if you both are open and proud of your feelings for each other.

  109. PEACE permalink
    March 10, 2011 3:52 pm

    Submissive women are the rule? I don’t see it. Anywhere.

    I’ve lived in several different countries and amongst a wide variety of cultures and sub-cultures and have noted that the cultures cultivating the most submissive women reputation are those that go out of their way in terms of laws, rules, and brainwashing to mold their women that way.

    Its not something women naturally aspire for.

    And once those women immigrate and get a taste of freedom?

    Well, you know the rest.

  110. Nick permalink
    March 24, 2011 10:44 am

    I totally agree with you on that women and men aren’t equal. They both have their strengths and weaknesses, the way men’s bodies are built they are able to have more strength, but men will never be as tempting or eye-stopping as a women.

    I myself actually am a submissive guy (19 in a month), and I have been working on being assertive with my girlfriend, because she is submissive as well. To be honest, being assertive is one of the hardest things to do.

  111. Mu'min permalink
    March 29, 2011 1:34 pm

    “but men will never be as tempting or eye-stopping as a women.”

    To hetero men, no. But to hetero women, who else would stop our eyes?

  112. Matt permalink
    May 17, 2011 9:08 pm

    Submission, in a woman, is a sign of reverence and love. A woman may submit to a child she loves, an elderly person out of respect, or a man who has through his great care and protection earned this act of kindness. Inherently, women submit to men as a sign of affection, an admiration for their manliness, in exchange for happiness and security. The woman knows that her submission brings joy to the man and endows upon him worthiness. It is a gift to him. This does not mean, and has never meant, that a woman will not exercise her opinion or let a man make big decisions on his own. It means only that for a price a man can earn a certain degree of cooperation.

    Most men are incapable of earning a woman’s submission. They are irresponsible, lazy, and emotionally weak. Only a top level predator, a true gentlemen and hard-worker, ever earns a woman’s ful respect and willingness to submit.

  113. gerald permalink
    May 24, 2011 5:08 pm

    What a wonderful nice post! Thank you this made my afternoon! I am a man and I always like hearing such words. They have a sanity making or negative crazy making effect on me, a calming balming effect, I get weak in the knees. I could really respect and love a woman with an attitude like you. In fact I did love a woman and that’s sad story because she is near and dear to me and far across the ocean.

    It’s a tragedy about the shame that’s floating about, being propogated and promoted, and like everything it hits both genders. It shames women who want to be “submissive”, and shames men who want a woman to be that, and both are unfulfilled, whereas they could both be very happy otherwise, to satisfy the demands of some outliers or some culture. The ravages of culture, which has violated it’s covenant to educate and enlighten and inform and protect us, has it not?

    Anyway yeah it’s kind of a double bind- if women have this natural submit to authority trait, and the authority tells them not to submit to anyone.. that’s a double bind. But like you said, the trust factor comes in to play. They only need and should submit to who they can trust. Because I don’t like women who’ll just surrender to the most powerful or rich or so called ‘alpha’. I don’t think anyone does. I like one with character, and when that person demands trustworthiness from a partner, but then, upon getting that, can submit- that makes me melt, really melt from the very inside. Ought I be ashamed? Ought I be ashamed of this very nature of mine? Ought I shame myself? Ought I hang myself? I would only be ashamed from fear, and fear is not evidence of truth, and truth and light are bright and in the end they will come for the loyal. But how can I be ashamed what is my nature?

    Thank you for this very very nice article and I admire yes admire your honesty and courage. you are an above average woman and very intelligent too I can see! much respect

  114. June 15, 2011 3:22 am

    How can you be so sure that women are, by nature, submissive? Is there scientific proof or just your observations? Because if it’s the latter, then I can tell you I’ve never seen a submissive woman before, ever. And if a woman is putting up a “front” by not being submissive ‘the way she should be’. Then what if the man is putting up a “front” that he’s dominant even though he doesn’t want to be. I honestly don’t think submissive women are the rule, but to each their own.

  115. June 15, 2011 3:32 am

    Plus (sorry for the inconveniance btw), if a woman’s submissiveness was by choice, then how could you possibly correlate it with nature? If something is by nature, how do you choose to do it, since nature has already chosen it for you? You can’t choose what is chosen, therefore you are not to be commmended for your submissiveness.

  116. June 16, 2011 12:43 pm

    Well I just want to add my voice in agreement to your basic premise that we are pretty much hard-wired to be submissive to our men, all things being equal. This nature naturally compliments everything else about being a woman that is good; our soft, nurturing, femininely attractive, loyal and loving ways. I find it totally fullfilling and natural. I’m in my fourties, divorced, kids grown and on their own, and I’ve been with a wonderful man steady for over 3 years now. We’re in love. He’s probably the most manly man I’ve ever been with and because of that I found myself admitting to him that I’VE ALWAYS WANTED THE MAN I’M IN LOVE WITH TO TAKE CHARGE (OF WHATEVER SITUATION AND OF ME; ESP WHEN I’M MAD, SAD, HURT OR STRUGGLING IN SOME WAY). Since I first began to admit that basic feminine need, we’ve found he can help me through rough spots in my moods or sad thoughts by doing just that, TAKING CHARGE AND YES, GIVING ME INSTRUCTIONS OR REINFORCEMENT OF WHATEVER I NEED TO HEAR. It works like I always imagined it Would!!! Viva la difference! Marla

  117. June 16, 2011 1:47 pm

    But couldn’t that mean that maybe it’s YOUR nature that makes you submissive? Not the female nature. I mean just because you’re a female that feels submissive, doesn’t mean all females are hard-wired to be the way you are. This could all very well be an individual nature in and of it’s own liberty with no regards to gender.

  118. June 16, 2011 6:48 pm

    All-right, I got a little carried away with celebrating being “a born girly girl”. You make a good point. It’s not pure nature and we’re not all like me. Not every woman relishes having a man take charge. There’s the nurture (environmental) factor too. And further, the nature factor is not all one way or the other based on gender. It’s probably a sliding scale and we’re all on there somewhere. I’ll also make the correction that the phrase “hard-wired” is really an over-used phrase that sounds cool but it way over generalized in every case no doubt. But, I don’t think I agree with your last statement; there seems to be a big regard to gender as a factor that pre-disposes females to be more “yielding” and males more “demanding”. So think of that sliding scale or spectrum and now imagine, while there’s some overlap between the male and female genders in the middle, more female are on one end, and more males are on the other. It took me some time and difficult relationships to come to accept such things as being both true and okay, even quite understandable.

  119. June 16, 2011 9:08 pm

    I somewhat agree with your disagreement, because in all technicality that IS true, but there is one forgotten piece that tends to that supposed bell curve. From a very young age, boys are taught the ways of masculinity very much severely. Moreso than the severity of a girl’s femininity. A man (and boy) is ridiculed and called a “sissy” (and other words I can’t mention here) if following the “ways” of a woman. A woman can act like a man and the consequences won’t be as bad. There is a VERY strong nurture thing going on here, many men repress their submissiveness because of the idea of the perfect man being dominant. Men in the eyes of society are “feminine” if they submit, and are treated and judged harshly by their peers. Ask yourself why so many more men than ever before have found themselves becoming submissive? Maybe women are just becoming dominant… Or maybe… Society is boiling down to making a person be what they truly are regardless of their gender. Meaning, they don’t need a man to be what the traditional roles of a man would yield to. So men are just being themselves now. I think the more “woman being submissive” has to do with society allowing it, whereas if men were to be like that, you can be sure they’d have a very high possibility of being ridiculed… That’s why most of them stick to “macho man” cover.

  120. Zorro permalink
    July 19, 2011 12:01 am

    “In my opinion women have lost the art of loveliness, class and girly-girl femininity.”

    Yup. They sure have. What passes for women today is closer to a post-op transexual.

  121. Callum permalink
    August 2, 2011 8:28 pm

    I find this very upsetting as I’m not a particularly dominant male and have failed to attract women all my life. This is not fair, being submissive is easy, but it’s alot harder to be a dominant male.

  122. August 10, 2011 6:49 am

    Having just read JR’s last entry I must say I’ve seldom come across such silliness about the nature of men and women. Pleeease, girls all over the world and down thru the ages are as we are not because society allows our feminine nature but because it’s our nature. Nurture and environment reflect that more than determine it. Likewise, you have an odd and unique view of the male pysche verses all the boys and men I’ve ever known; that is, that they are somehow forced into acting like… well, men. Most males seem quite happy as they are! And from what I’ve experienced, normally adjusted boys/men find outlets to express whatever soft-side they have, all the time, without being made fun of. The comments of “zorro” and callum are not so much silly as they are just sad. Good luck to all of you, and no disrespect intended.

  123. August 10, 2011 7:10 pm

    The nature of men and women marla, is actually more complicated than you make it out to be. You don’t seem to look at things from all angles, yes society allows feminine nature, but it also discourages dominance. Women who are dominant aren’t even seen as women. And vice versa for men. Nurture and environment also does more than “reflect”, it enforces and fills in the gaps from little girls minds regarding parts that they apparantly misunderstand, don’t understand, or partially understand. I also didn’t say anything about men being forced into acting like men (please don’t put words in my mouth), they’re not. I said they’re discouraged from submissiveness (just like women are from dominance). Another thing, “most males seem happy as they are”. Just because something seems doesn’t mean it is so. Boys hold in urges because it is not expected of them, even if they are small urges, and simply adapt to what society generally wants and learn to live with it. One last thing, you say “girls all over the world and down thru the ages are as we are not because society allows our feminine nature but because it’s our nature”. You think it possible to separate nature from nurture? Scientists have attempted, I’ve come across studies plenty of times to know it close to impossible. Society doesn’t simply “allow” feminity, it encourages it. Males are vice versa. You my friend are truly underestimating the power of the environment a child is raised in.

  124. August 10, 2011 7:17 pm

    don’t get me wrong though, i agree MANY women are submissive (as are some men) by nature, but NOT all and not even most, just some.

  125. rgoldman@billcunninghamshow.com permalink
    August 22, 2011 2:59 pm

    Rich Goldman
    Sr. Producer
    Office: 212-419-7485
    Cell: 646-701-3860
    Cell: 855-833-7770, ext. 2
    Fax: 212-419-7406
    Email: Rgoldman@BillCunninghamShow.com
    Address:
    NEP Studios
    401 7th avenue
    2nd floor
    New York, New York 10001

  126. November 6, 2011 7:42 pm

    I have to disagree (personally) with most of the stuff I’ve read here. I’m a girl, & what I look for in a guy is someone who I’m not just attracted to, but who I also consider to be one of my best-friends (I suspect relationships would grow stale pretty quick or just fall apart if they were based on attraction alone). I don’t think this because of feminism’s effects on me socially, but because being independent makes me feel good about myself & makes me feel happy, confident & in control of my life.

    I want the guy I’m with to see me as an equal, & I think that in order to that I need to act as an equal & not rely on him or anyone else to control or steer my life by making decisions for me. I also think that neither of us should NEED each other, as being in a relationship because you need someone just seems really unhealthy. I also think that in order for a relationship to work, 2 people have to be independent & complete on their own. sure, in a relationship from time to time when 1 of you needs help (or even when you don’t) the other should always be there willing & wanting to offer it & help & support you along the way.

    I know a guy (one of my close mates) who was with a girl who was dependant on him for all the important things in her life – she didn’t feel that as a girl she wasn’t qualified to deal with “important stuff”. he ended up dumping her for a girl who can do all this stuff for herself & who has goals & aspects in her life that don’t revolve around him.

    I don’t think submissiveness is bred into women. If it was, the feminist movement would never have gained momentum, because then the majority of women (in addition to most men) would have been against it. Many women WEREN’T happy with being submissive & being treated as submissive & wanted more. Some women (& maybe even men) however are submissive because it’s a part of their personalities, & how they are. Nothing wrong with that!

  127. Peter permalink
    November 30, 2011 12:15 am

    As a caring dominant man I totally agree. Society has led women to beleive that their innate need for security lies in material things and/or a stand alone lifestyle. Witness the huge increase in single mom households and the rise of “cougars”. A strong protective male who knows his role is to protect his woman and allow her to be submissive and grow is a natural way to be for millions of people and has been thrown under the bus for years. Funny that now it’s considered an “alternative” lifestyle when througout history it has been the naural way. Technology and greed have mislead many souls, both male and female. Thanks for your refreshing post. namaste

  128. Anonymous permalink
    January 8, 2012 1:57 pm

    I totaly agree with you. I feel the same

  129. andywattbulb permalink
    January 8, 2012 8:28 pm

    Jup, and all black people have the instinctive need to eat watermelon and fried chicken.

    Reading this article makes me sad that people still think this way about women in general.
    Submissivenss, dominace, femininity, masculinity are ideas that evolve over time and it is not nature, like some of us like to believe. In nature, submissiveness and dominace is linked to society, not nature. Our closest relatives the bonobo’s are matriarchical, females dominating. Yet chimpanzees are patriarchical. There are very little animal species were the male dominates the female that being because the females are or bigger, have an army of relatives to back them up or because they live solitary lives secluded from males (do it youself moms).

    Just because some women feel the need to serve in order to feel better about themselves doesn’t mean all women feel this so called “inborn need” or what you call it. People need to learn that people are not black or white, but that they are individuals with a lot of grey areas.

    As for feminism….the greatest thing that has ever happend to the female gender. Without it I would have been brainwashed into believing I was just another unpaid domestic servant baby machine submissive to the man I love.

  130. January 8, 2012 8:36 pm

    I completely and totally agree. It’s almost like they’re trying to force the idea of submisseness upon women in an indirect manner.

  131. January 8, 2012 8:37 pm

    submissiveness*

  132. February 5, 2012 8:15 am

    I think this is one of the such a lot vital information for me. And i’m satisfied studying your article. But should statement on few normal issues, The web site style is wonderful, the articles is really excellent : D. Good activity, cheers

  133. Alice permalink
    March 5, 2012 4:02 pm

    In my experience most men are submissive as well. Our society encourages women to be submissive and for men to be dominant, but deep down I think both are the same. If you look online to see who is into BDSM you will actually find that most of them are submissive men. Although if you actually go out into the BDSM community you will find that submissive men are almost non existent. The reason they stay in hiding is the society, and even the BDSM community in general don’t accept them.

  134. ranchan permalink
    March 23, 2012 6:34 am

    My main reason for ‘defensiveness’ as you put it is because like it or not empirical evidence does not support your claim. Women are empathetic, not submissive. It’s easy to confuse the two, But in their purest forms, Empathy is a mother raising a child openheartedly, and submission is an ant following orders of her queen.

    Don’t get me wrong. Submission is powerful stuff, and it would be pretty erotic if behind every feminist, moderate, bad girl, and lesbian, there was a girl who’s basest desires where to be dominated by men. But most people, perhaps yourself included when you’re feeling less needy or high from the happiness you get from servitude, Understand how short sighted and biggotted it is to impose this kind of trait on women whole sale, and a fair number of men would equally scratch their heads in wonder why someone who claims to be submissive to men would deign to deny them the opportunity to be submissive themselves.

    Remember always that for there to be submission there must be choice, or else every chain a girl bears, and equal and opposite one is rested in his shoulder as well.

  135. Ranzo permalink
    April 11, 2012 11:36 pm

    Sweet, glad you quoted the bible, as evolutionary psychology/genetic determinism shares somewhat of a conclusive link to the bible and the divinely ordained races and genders through some form of predestination(although I think it is argued that it is not mutually exclusive to free will as well). But here’s my problem with this, you see, some N tative American tribes, as well as some African American tribes(we could possibly include SEA) were egalitarian or matriarchal, respectively. We can see evidence of this behavior today, whether genetically or culturally transmitted from one generation to the next. However, today, they are seen as the most masculine and desirable as opposed to say the other “extreme” Asian men, who are seen as more patriarchal in a relative sense. But then, how do we explain the reality that Chinese women in particular have more economic/academic freedom than white women, who more often than not choose to be stay at home moms.

    But I don’t mean to digress. The real question I want to get to is, why because of Asian’s more misogynistic behavior supposedly in countries like Japan, that white women have tried to decree to other ladies(in their deterministic ways in the mainstream) that Asian men are less desirable. Surely, the traits of Asians being a provider is inscribed in females right, if evolutionary psychology says human nature is universal(which some schools of thought argue that it was prior to 6000 years ago). Now relating this to the bible. I don’t think many people know this, especially black and white people in the mainstream, but back then it was believed that black people were fitted to slaves as much as women were to men. It was because it has been taught that Ham’s descendents were innately cursed. Now, you see Africa today and its developments and you can use either the genetic determinist’s or the bible’s theories to explain their situation, however, both seem to be opposed when it only comes to racial relationships. Confused yet? I know I am, in trying to brainstorm these ideas. Whenever I see a woman try to model behavior comparing today’s group and the past I think of these problems, and wonder why most of the time these men and women contradict themselves so often, especially when it comes to biblical dogma as though they are setting up a scapegoat, when in actuality there are some elements of each in regards to human nature that seem so similar especially in their treatment of others(seeing how the bible also has god commanding the separation of races, competition, and so on; don’t doubt for a minute that the protestant work ethic is not in favor of capitalism, cause that would just be stupid for god to encourage lazy work. He didn’t bring up the recurring analogy of fruits of your labor for nothing).

  136. June 7, 2012 12:12 am

    Whoa, way to project your personal sexuality onto all women. That is a stunning feat of arrogance.

  137. Anonymous permalink
    June 8, 2012 2:11 pm

    Im male and I find submissive women disguisting

  138. Orion7 permalink
    June 8, 2012 9:38 pm

    I would like an equal partner, which is neither a submissive slave or a dominant mistress.

    Mature and responsible woman. Do you oppose women going to school and getting an education?

  139. June 20, 2012 3:11 pm

    “I’m trying to contradict the terrible stereotype which says women are weak, indecisive, foolish, stupid if they’re submissive. I believe biologically women are wired to respond to authority as a survival mechanism.”

    Well said, and I support the need to contradict the rather loud voices in society that assert otherwise. As has also been said before, contemporary culture today has a problem with the word “submissive” in general.

  140. June 20, 2012 3:16 pm

    “Im male and I find submissive women disgusting.”

    No surprise that such a comment is delivered anonymously. Disgusting is a pretty harsh word, I think. It’s sad people have such vitriolic reactions to female submission.

    I’ve been trying to curtail this by creating Humbled Females ( http://www.humbledfemales.net )—a website that doesn’t need to pander to silly t-shirts and stereotypes in order to demonstrate the good inherent in female submission and capable male dominance.

  141. Mo321 permalink
    June 23, 2012 10:26 pm

    Inner city ghettoes are modern matriachal societies – upwards of 90% of the homes headed by a single female – the woman dependant on handouts from the government rather than looking to a man to be her provider – look at the total mess of these modern day matriachies – who in their right mind could want more of this. If anyone is familiar with the Willie Lynch slave system Lynch (who gave his name to lynching (nice man)) also removed males from the slave family leaving the female in charge because he said it made the slave family easier to control. The female (being more naturally submissive) would look to her slave owner for protection. The system was so effective that they are now “Willie Lynching” the entire planet in preparation for the New World Order slave system. The woman looks to the state for her protection, whilst the man works as a slave day and night in the hope of obtaining a little sexual favour from his overseer boss the female – Just like in the days of the slavery the NWO over lord will mate with whichever female he chooses to at anytime – that is the system that is being put in place – WAKE UP

  142. chubby permalink
    June 25, 2012 10:18 pm

    This post was informative and had many good points,I also think people get way to into arguing the subject, when its ultimately a natural way of being, almost like being gay.our body and minds work differently sexual or not . It can make a women happy to please and take care of her husband in or out of bed. It can also make them happy to be controlling, its all a matter of what makes you and your mate happy and learning how to separate bed time from everyday life.It might not come natural to one person but for the next it could be the most natural amazing euphoria they have ever found.

  143. Michael Godynick permalink
    June 27, 2012 1:08 am

    I have been seeing a woman for two months and I can tell you that being submissive has nothing to do with weakness or stupidity…..she was an honor student and has a successful career, is very determined, organized and opinionated……In the bedroom,,,,she wants to feel helpless…..not into pain…..but enjoys being tied up and helpless and wants me to use her in whatever way I feel will bring me pleasure…..this in turn,,,brings her pleasure to a degree I have never experienced in my life………..A word of warning,,,,this type of woman comes with unconditional love…..you must earn your way into her mind and her heart before she will let you into her bed……If you are looking for a quick lay….do not look in this direction as she requires total commitment, respect and trust before she will allow you into her world and open up to you……..If you treat her properly,,,,she is yours….and she appreciates all the effort you put into her….in and out of the bedroom….and she will only give it to YOU…….she is not a player and she has no desire to stray if you treat her properly 24/7……Dont get me wrong,,,,she is not high maintenance by any means,,,but if you give her unconditional love,,,she will give you her heart and soul……and I can tell you ……It is sooooooo worth the effort……she is the first submissive I have ever been with…..and I do not envision having another woman for the rest of my life!!! …

  144. July 13, 2012 12:36 am

    Seems like the author did a good job of separating submissive from subserviant. As with all adult decisions, there is CHOICE involved. And yes, women, however the combination of nurture and nature is involved, tend to want to please and serve more so than men. That can’t all be a societal thing. That said, I am inclined to agree. Even the ‘strongest’ women want someone even MORE strong to make them…feel like a woman. Misogynists didn’t create that…comes straight out of the mouth of women themselves.

  145. erinH permalink
    July 16, 2012 3:41 pm

    i completly agree that women are hardwired for submission. to me following the man you have chosen is the most natural thing. i think culture has confused people on their roles.

  146. Anonymous permalink
    July 30, 2012 5:27 pm

    The only person a woman needs to be ‘serving’ is herself.

  147. Jasmine permalink
    August 12, 2012 4:42 pm

    Aoefe, you are a dumb bitch. Step into the new millenium.

  148. August 20, 2012 2:45 pm

    Women are born submissive and would have to be brought up to be anything to the contrary. Built by design to be submissive. That being said it takes a strong woman not a weak one to be a quality submissive/ helper to the man. A weak submissive woman becomes more baggage/responsibility for the man to carry. Rather than helping relieve the load he is carrying. Some of the most submissive women I have known have been my number one cheerleader and not labeled submissive nor would their peers ever guess them as submissive. However when a woman values you she will walk straight through fire for you. If she does not value/respect you this will surely not be the case.

  149. Jayne permalink
    August 31, 2012 8:59 pm

    I was seriously wondering if women were naturally meant to submit to men after I watched “Fencer of Minerva” (this movie is Verrrry nice ;)). It is about a world of woman slaves and most happily oblige as being a faithful servant. If women were more submissive to their husbands, then I think that there would be less divorce, less fights, and a more orderly lifestyle, in addition to the sexual kick of being dominated in bed. But if women were to not get married, then there’s no problem with acting like men, but the human population would dwindle… As for me, I choose not to marry (and saying bye bye to my fantasies) and instead to become a doctor and to spend my money how I want to spend it with no man telling me how to.

  150. TrueDom permalink
    September 23, 2012 8:31 pm

    Submission is an oxymoron. The submissive holds the power, as she makes the choice. The Dominant, if he is actually dominant, learns to wield the power given him in a manner that heightens the excitement and passion for both partners, never forgetting there is nothing in him that warrants or is worthy of the gift. Find yourself a dominant with this insight, try submission, and see. As some women here have been bold enough to say, it is the most natural response, and therefore the most rewarding.

    Happy play to all…

  151. September 27, 2012 6:43 pm

    Bad ass women, they deserve mistreatment.

  152. Sarah Marie Shelley permalink
    October 30, 2012 12:21 am

    I think reciprocity is a better word than submission. In the end, can you respect someone who gives you something that you know is undeserved?… that person becomes just a cipher; an object to use and throw away.

  153. Dr. Peterson permalink
    December 1, 2012 6:56 pm

    Maybe you’re really dominant, and just don’t know it.

  154. Anonymous permalink
    December 23, 2012 4:52 pm

    You can’t just say that its innate for women to want please men and be submissive. Thats the biggest load of bs iv’e ever heard. Be what you want to be, that’s your choice, but don’t assume every over woman is like you.

  155. Anonymous permalink
    December 23, 2012 4:53 pm

    You can’t just say that its innate for women to want please men and be submissive. Thats the biggest load of bs iv’e ever heard. Be what you want to be, that’s your choice, but don’t assume every over woman is like you.
    And i think i would know it if i was submissive. Thank you very much.

  156. Anonymous permalink
    December 23, 2012 9:07 pm

    ”inborn need” Bitch please

  157. RMS permalink
    December 25, 2012 7:22 pm

    The innate need to be submissive is such a huge load of rubbish!

    In a relationship, the submissive has the power. If this hasn’t dawned upon you, you are in deep slumber or probably don’t have the lights on inside your head.

    The submissive gets difficult work done by the dominant and essentially enjoys the fruits of the dominant’s labor. In return, the submissive merely needs to obey the dominant. If those needs of the dominant get too out of hand, society deals with the situation to make obedience more tolerable. Those societies in which society does not step in turns into Afghanistan, while the ones in which society does step in becomes Western Europe.

    Most decisions humans make have a probability of success. A study of decisions made by big corporations reveals a low probability of success. Most decisions in most corporations fail to achieve 100% success as defined at the outset. Likewise, most decisions we make as individuals also do not have a 100% success rate. As such, a submissive’s decisions have no more greater guarantee of success as the dominant’s decisions on the submissive’s behalf. As a result, the submissive is not losing much by letting the dominant make most decisions, as long as the dominant is not a delusional or mentally ill individual.

    Many women are submissive because women discover at an early age that being pretty and cute gets them everything. People will do anything and everything for you if you look good. At the same time, you also learn that if you demand anything, people begin to not attend to you. By age 4 or 5, your brain has learned these social dynamics. Your fathers and mothers are kinder to you when you are submissive. You begin to associate submissiveness with love and affection. Dominant figures bring love and affection to you, while if you become dominant, people stay aloof from you.

    In short, women’s submissiveness as a general social pattern is a learned behavior which is a direct consequence of nurture, not nature. If all resources were available in plenty right from your early days on the earth, you would not be as submissive. Being submissive would not arouse you as much as it does now.

    So get over yourself and stop projecting your own inner perverted needs on the female entire half of the human species. There are submissive men too. You just don’t see them around because they pretend to be dominant or get rejected by everyone. It’s a social problem, not a biological given.

  158. Kent permalink
    January 2, 2013 8:53 am

    I am a 48 year old married man. I recently retired from the USMC after 30 years of service. I have been married for 29 years to the same wonderful woman. During my time in the marines I have been deployed numerous times accounting for apprx 10 years of separation from my wife and family. Our children are grown and have families of their own. My need for advice is because my wife and I getting to know one another again, she has a huge desire to be very submissive, and for me to be dominate. I have read extensively and watched numerous videos etc…I have always been exceptionally respectful to my wife and I am having a hard time fulfilling her desires without feeling bad about our domination play She explains to me that it is her desire to be submissive and derives great satisfaction out of me being very dominate, she’s looking for me to be totally dominate on a full time basis instead of just occasionally. Is there any good literature helping the man become more dominate and coping with or understanding the guilt involved in giving my wife what she wants? If this matters she is 5’2 just about 100 lbs, and I am 6’4 230 I love my wife and want to get past the feeling that I am or could really hurt her, and understand that dominating her is what she wants from me more than anything, just now she wants it on a full time basis.
    Anyway, I have scoured the internet for the subject and always end up at porn sites/date sites or fantasy sites. Just looking for real subject matter from real professionals or life experienced people.

    Thanks,
    K

  159. Alexandra permalink
    January 9, 2013 8:57 pm

    I’m a dominant woman, but I don’t have a problem with this post. First of all, because it is not saying that every woman is submissive or that it’s bad not to be, but just that the majority of women are submissive. Second, in my experience, that’s true. Women are more likely to be submissive than not. And there’s nothing wrong with that; hell, as a bisexual woman, I love submissive women (and men)!

  160. Steve permalink
    February 15, 2013 12:16 am

    My wife (of 10 years) is submissive and I have only been attracted to submissive women throughout my life. I work in a high stress corporate world where I am constantly competing with other men for control of various things. It’s nice to come home to someone who I am not competing with but who can make me feel successful even when I am failing at work, and someone who will respect my judgement and decisions. I am her King and she is my Queen. I would NEVER want it any other way.

  161. April 9, 2013 11:51 pm

    qarophjsmhbnf, How to trade exotic binary options, LhglReF, [url=http://highlandhotelblog.com/]Binary Options Review[/url], NEAowYe, http://highlandhotelblog.com/ Trade Binary Options, kpfZgyj.

  162. April 22, 2013 2:01 pm

    “I’ve been trying to curtail this by creating Humbled Females ( http://www.humbledfemales.net )—a website that doesn’t need to pander to silly t-shirts and stereotypes in order to demonstrate the good inherent in female submission and capable male dominance.”

    LOL. How about… no.

    With a domain name like that, I somehow doubt that your “ethos” extends very far beyond the same old man good, woman bad paradigm.

  163. April 22, 2013 2:08 pm

    Oh and er, you don’t think submissiveness is about being meek or passive?

    https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=define+submissive&aq=f&oq=define+submissive&aqs=chrome.0.57j60j62l2j60.2208j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

    Submission is not strength. It is, as you have already sort of hinted at, a long gone survival mechanism, used by men as WELL as women,

  164. May 24, 2013 6:44 am

    Excellent way of telling, and good paragraph to take information about my presentation topic, which
    i am going to deliver in academy.

  165. June 16, 2013 7:21 am

    This program is intended to recover lost passwords for RAR/WinRAR archives of
    versions 2.xx and 3.xx. http://www.passwordtowinrar.tk The free
    professional solution for recovering lost passwords to RAR and WinRAR archives.

    I am curious to find out what blog platform you are
    using? I’m having some small security issues with my latest website and I would like to find something more safeguarded. Do you have any suggestions?

  166. July 30, 2013 12:55 pm

    Well, the way you describe “submissive” doesn’t seem so bad. After all, there is nothing wrong about a person (male or female) to please the partner or the spouse and keep them happy, and ofcourse that takes sacrifices! However, in the modern context, the word submissive is associated to, as you mentioned, BDSM relationships or doormats.. it has sort of come to bear a stigma! We need to go back to respecting and appreciating women for what they always have done, like loving and caring for everyone and shepherding her family. These days, we only appreciate a woman if she is accomplished in the economic world… Whatever happened to being mothers and daughters and wives? Patriarchy led to the stopping of appreciation of women in traditional roles and taking them for granted. Feminism came along and instead to undoing the damage, it furthered it! Now women are under double pressure of balancing family and worklife.. it’s sad.

  167. Someone permalink
    August 18, 2013 11:04 pm

    Agreed. Infact i would even go as far as to say that it takes strength to be submissive. Also there is nothing wrong with serving the one you love. It doesn’t mean being a doormat or being abused, it means being there for him, in sickness and health, for better or worse and till death. It means pleasing your love, provide help and support when in need and be the person he can always count on.

    It is truly sad that some see a woman’s worth in how much she can compete with a man. Same for how feminism implies that women should try to be like or better than men. It is like saying being women is something degrading or humiliating in and of itself.

    Again, wonderful post and a good read

Trackbacks

  1. The Other World
  2. Les Soumises - Beta Railfan
  3. Linkage is Good for You: Really Freaking Long Edition « In Mala Fide
  4. Open thread: dominance and women « In Mala Fide
  5. Is there an obsession over dominance and submission in heterosexual relationships?
  6. People Like Us | Hipster Racist

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 80 other followers

%d bloggers like this: