Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
I think it's an error to attempt to formalize it from the very tenuous elements of research and personal experience that you have outlined in this thread.

You appear to be asserting -- sorry to box you in -- that men and women will be happier if they embrace their respective dominant and submissive roles. You seem to be claiming that this is what "nature" or evolution fitted us for; that we should struggle to embrace the idealized archetypes.

This is flatly contradicted by my own experience, but that's merely anecdotal. More importantly, my bullshit detectors are set off by the fact that your conclusions match those of the theorists of just about every oppressive political or religious power structure since the dawn of humanity. Doesn't it trouble you that all those who would maximise their own power and wealth at the expense of those they dominate, and who invent elaborate doctrines to justify their dominance, start out from a position, and a doctrine, of unquestioned male dominance over women?

Dominance and submission are a bad paradigm to build society on, and they are a bad paradigm for relationships too.  

This is not to ignore the fact that many people feel the need to be dominant or submissive in a relationship. My suggestion is that the best way to deal with this may be as a formalised, consenting S&M game, rather than in real life applications.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II

by eurogreen on Mon Jun 16th, 2014 at 10:51:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Others have rated this comment as follows:

Display: