Midlife Crises

[Luc]

I'm sure in all those books you read there was a bit about social conditioning, repression etc. Sometimes when you allow a person who is taught to act and think a certain way that it's OK if they don't, then they allow themselves not to have to be like that. And sometimes when you stop expecting people to act a certain way, then they actually stop. What Cynical, silvermoon etc are trying to tell you, but you're too stubborn to stop and think for a moment, is that just because there is a pattern of people acting a certain way, it doesn't mean it's male nature or female nature. Sometimes it isn't even that particular person's true nature, but a reaction to pressures and expectations. And it doesn't mean it's acceptable either.

I did not once deny this fact. While I might sometimes be too eager to attribute certain behavioral patterns to nature/instinct, I also think you're a bit too eager to attribute them to societal oppression. After all, some behavioral patterns can be found all across the world in all different societies and some behavioral patterns are clearly linked to our instinct and properly explained by looking at the first human beings and how they lived.

I won't even comment on your suggestion that you, who's never met my boyfriend, understands him better than I do. Lets just agree to disagree on that one because it's so ridiculous I can't get into that.

I never said such a thing. Though I am quite sure that in some situations I'll be able to better relate to your boyfriend than you can, for the fact that he and I are both men who both grew up in west-Europe and you are a woman who grew up somewhere else.

I bet you were also taught that men are natural providers. Man the hunter because muscles etc, woman the gatherer because focus on details etc. One of many studies that countered this idea studied a primitive society who is still hunting and gathering. On average, men managed to secure a carcass every 30 days. Women found food every day. In reality, women were providing for men. (These people don't have fridges.) Science! Yet man the provider for his family is one of the most often repeated stereotypes from which so many other stereotypes and social constructs were derived. And that's just an example.

Who brings home more food in such a hunter-gatherer situation entirely depends on the environment. Obviously in a jungle rich with fruits you're gonna find more fruit than meat. In such a situation the women would indeed bring more food to the table than men.

I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here though. That women can also be providers? Sure, I know that, I never said they can't be.

In the end, I can only wish for you (and Hollandia etc) to be as happy and harmonious in your relationships with your kind of attitude, as my boyfriend and I are with our approach to understanding each other.

I'm not quite sure what you mean with "my kind of attitude", but thanks I guess. Obviously I hope you and your SO are doing well also.

[Luc]

I find it interesting that it is Luc who here use use words like "every single" and "always ", as those are emotional exerderations and not very founded. Such words also invites the kind of responses that Malaga gave.

You're absolutely right. I should have said "most" and "most of the time", but whatever, what said is said.

I will chime in with my own thing, and that is the gay issue is much overlooked here. In my relationship with my female ex, I was "the guy " so to speak. I would protect her and hear her out and calm her down and be more practical. The two other long term relationships I had, and still have, the relationship with my husband is quite traditionally male -female while with my boyfriend is more androgyn. Three relationships, three different dynamics.

That is an interesting point and something I thought about earlier as well. While there are some very clear and distinct patterns in male and female behavior in heterosexual relationships, we can see the same patterns in homosexual relationships as well, except in homosexual relationships we're obviously dealing with either two men or two women. I find it interesting to see that in homosexual relationships, one partner often shows behavior that is normally attributed to men, while the other partner shows behavior normally attributed to women. Even in homosexual relationships we often see a feminine person partnered up with a masculine person and I find that really curious and interesting.

I made up a theory to explain this, though it's not exactly a scientific theory, just something that I thought of when I tried to explain these patterns. I think aside from "masculine" and "feminine", we also have "dominant" and "submissive". If we would partner up a masculine dominant man with a feminine submissive woman, we would see a very traditional old-fashioned relationship. But the roles can be quite different in a relationship between a submissive man and his dominant wife. In homosexual men I often see that some are more masculine and some are more feminine, some are more dominant and some are more submissive. How they behave in their relationship will depend on how dominant/submissive they are and how masculine/feminine they are.

Judged by your story, I think you were more dominant than your ex-girlfriend, with perhaps a few more masculine traits than her, making you "the guy" in that relationship. It sounds that you and your LD boyfriend are equally dominant, maybe you slightly more dominant than him, with him having a bit more feminine traits that the average man, while your husband is probably more traditionally masculine and more dominant than you are. Is that right? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[differentcountries]

I made up a theory to explain this, though it's not exactly a scientific theory, just something that I thought of when I tried to explain these patterns. I think aside from "masculine" and "feminine", we also have "dominant" and "submissive". If we would partner up a masculine dominant man with a feminine submissive woman, we would see a very traditional old-fashioned relationship. But the roles can be quite different in a relationship between a submissive man and his dominant wife. In homosexual men I often see that some are more masculine and some are more feminine, some are more dominant and some are more submissive. How they behave in their relationship will depend on how dominant/submissive they are and how masculine/feminine they are.

Judged by your story, I think you were more dominant than your ex-girlfriend, with perhaps a few more masculine traits than her, making you "the guy" in that relationship. It sounds that you and your LD boyfriend are equally dominant, maybe you slightly more dominant than him, with him having a bit more feminine traits that the average man, while your husband is probably more traditionally masculine and more dominant than you are. Is that right? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Yes, I definetely was way more dominant than her (Norwegian lesbians don't like to talk about power dynamics, but I am very much "raised" by Leslea Newman and other US lesbians who like to talk about differences in female-female relationships... I still love her book "The Femme Mystique"). My husband is more dominant than me and me and my boyfriend have the sort of versatile relationship that my husband just think is very cute. My boyfriend is definetly a man, but he also has feminine traits and a sort of androgyn charm that is rare in a man. I like to think of relationships in terms of power and that makes a lot of sense to me.

[melarie]

How they behave in their relationship will depend on how dominant/submissive they are and how masculine/feminine they are.

Judged by your story, I think you were more dominant than your ex-girlfriend, with perhaps a few more masculine traits than her, making you "the guy" in that relationship. It sounds that you and your LD boyfriend are equally dominant, maybe you slightly more dominant than him, with him having a bit more feminine traits that the average man, while your husband is probably more traditionally masculine and more dominant than you are. Is that right? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I feel like this is a good time to jump into this thread, god help me, so I just have a quick question. Why does dominance have to be associated with masculinity and submissiveness with femininity? Forgive me if that's not really what you were getting at, but it's what I got out of it. I think they're completely separate. My boyfriend is a very masculine guy and I'm a very feminine girl. I'm the more dominant one in the relationship, though I wouldn't consider him submissive at all.

I've been in one homosexual relationship in my life, with another very feminine girl. She did have more masculine qualities than me I guess, because she was athletic and in ROTC and what not. Still a very girly girl though. And again, I was the more dominant one.

I'm attracted primarily to masculinity in men and femininity in girls. However, I'm attracted to dominance full stop - to an extent because obviously by my history, I like to be the dominant one. I would say that perhaps I'm an exception or something, except that most of my friends I've noticed over the years have had similar relationships. Very feminine girl with very masculine men, and yet the men are more submissive. I'm not saying that masculinity and dominance can't go together and femininity and submission can't, but I'm saying they seem much, much less related than you're making them out to be.

[Luc]

Why does dominance have to be associated with masculinity and submissiveness with femininity?

It's not. I never said it was.

Well, maybe it is, a little bit. Dominance is linked to the testosterone hormone. The more testosterone you have, the more masculine you usually are. Generally speaking of course.

Of course there are different ways to be dominant, and I'm sure it depends on more things than just your level of testosterone.

I'm attracted primarily to masculinity in men and femininity in girls. However, I'm attracted to dominance full stop - to an extent because obviously by my history, I like to be the dominant one.

This doesn't make much sense though. You're contradicting yourself here. If you like to be the dominant one in a relationship, doesn't that mean you're attracted to submissive people? How can you be attracted to dominant people yet wanting to be the dominant person in the relationship at the same time? That sounds like a very difficult and awkward situation to me.

[snow]

It's not. I never said it was.
This doesn't make much sense though. You're contradicting yourself here. If you like to be the dominant one in a relationship, doesn't that mean you're attracted to submissive people? How can you be attracted to dominant people yet wanting to be the dominant person in the relationship at the same time? That sounds like a very difficult and awkward situation to me.

Because she is a human being. She can be dominant and be attracted to dominant people. There is nothing weird about this. You're assuming that there is only one way we can act, but that is far from true.

[Luc]

Because she is a human being. She can be dominant and be attracted to dominant people. There is nothing weird about this. You're assuming that there is only one way we can act, but that is far from true.

Perhaps, but it doesn't make much sense to me. If you like to be the dominant person in a relationship, doesn't that mean that a submissive person is better suited for you?

I'm not saying that a person can only be one thing. One person might be dominant in his first relationship, and then be submissive in the next one. It's not binary, it's more like a scale, where everyone has a certain amount of dominance/submissiveness in them, and depending on who they are paired up with, they'll either take on the dominant role or the submissive one, or maybe flip-flop between them (that's kinda what happens between me and my SO, sometimes she's clearly the dominant one, sometimes it's me).

I'm not gonna lie, I like feisty girls with a bit of spirit. Girls who are mostly submissive don't interest me. But I would never be able to stay with a woman who is way more dominant than me. She should either be on my level or at least close to it. So if someone would ask me if I like dominant girls I guess I'd answer; "maybe, depends". If someone would ask me if I want to be the dominant person in the relationship, I'd have to answer with a "no". I don't mind being dominant from time to time, but I want my SO to take the imitative and take the lead from time to time as well.

[melarie]

It's not. I never said it was.

Well, maybe it is, a little bit. Dominance is linked to the testosterone hormone. The more testosterone you have, the more masculine you usually are. Generally speaking of course.

Of course there are different ways to be dominant, and I'm sure it depends on more things than just your level of testosterone.

Well you never came out and said it was, but that was how you seemed to present it.
That's kind of faulty logic there. Testosterone makes you more masculine and more dominant so therefore dominance and masculinity are linked? No, there's just a common cause of the two. It would be like me saying that I got a new lotion and it makes my skin softer, and also makes me smell like vanilla - the smell and the softness aren't related.
I have a hormone imbalance where I have too much testosterone and I don't see myself as any more masculine or dominant than I am when I'm on hormonal BC and my hormone are balanced. They're pretty steady, regardless of my hormone levels. Of course, that's just my experience with it and if you gave me something more concrete, I'd of course take it into consideration more. (As long as the obvious societal factors were constant)

This doesn't make much sense though. You're contradicting yourself here. If you like to be the dominant one in a relationship, doesn't that mean you're attracted to submissive people? How can you be attracted to dominant people yet wanting to be the dominant person in the relationship at the same time? That sounds like a very difficult and awkward situation to me.

I'm not contradicting myself. Wanting to be dominant doesn't mean you need a submissive person, just a less dominant person.. My boyfriend and I are both dominant people, I'm just a little more dominant. Like on a scale of 1-10 (1=sub, 10 = dom) He's like a 6, and I'm a 7 or 8. It would be boring to me if he always just went along with me and didn't want say in things. We share control most of the time, but when one of us does have more control, it's typically me. Which is why I consider myself the dominant one even though we're both dominant. Hopefully that makes more sense, sorry if it doesn't.

[Luc]

Fair enough, that makes sense.