Women behind the men ( Archived) (81)

The word dominance (domination) is not the most appropriate word to use, not for a healthy relationship.
A better word would be “leading” a relationship but that leadership can be shared.





ANY man???

Then...can you take ANY woman?

If I know what I am doing? Would he know what he is doing?







Would you be behind a good woman?

THAT I totally agree with.

I don't like very much the expression "sacrifice" because if someone makes the decision to let let go of an idea, project or whatever in order to facilitate something for someone else 9or for the couple) and they make that decision without coercion, surely it's a decision made from the heart.

"Sacrifice" for my has a tinge of what you describe as strategic greed.

Only when I am kicking him in the butt.

I may be wrong about domination, I have never exercised it - there are two reasons, I think, why people look at it; first; its ugly, secondly; absolute power corrupts absolute - my personal reason is the second, feels like free fall into a abyss.

It is different from suppression, and oppression (again, what I believe), is that these are based on a one-way need, and enforced through manipulation, coercion.

In domination, both are perhaps well aware of what is going on, there are benefits for both (again, since I haven't engaged, I only know what other people says, but we should then be aware of what kind of people says it) it is like a agreed powerplay.

For me to engage in that sort of domination is very unlikely, but it is possible to look at it, to see the nature of it, the underlying principles, the triggers, the stimulations, and what it does. But there is a long road to domination, and and most likely unnecessary, since the principles can be found in other more innocent and peaceful concepts

Yeah, I believe any man. And yeah, it means any woman. And yeah, both must be knowing what they are doing. And yeah, having a woman behind in one area, means having the man behind in another - which area, of course, is determined by the couple (applying equality, justice, mutual sacrifice and generosity etc etc in their best places), keyword balance, mutual benefit, aiming the "concentrated power" towards a means of agreed perception of value, virtue, etc etc

I am just speculating of course.

Typo

Why people DON'T or REFUSE to look at it

Well, WHAT is to be sacrificed, is still in the dark - I don't believe that one gives away the life and lives in the kitchen for the other, it would be defeating the purpose, not helping it, don't you think?

The intention should be clean, no? intention to me seems to be of a extreme importance, not only for the spouse, but for oneself. Total honesty, and the flexibility to move away from, or adjust, if it is flawed.

Well, then it isn't sacrifice any longer, it is strategic greed, and it is important to recognize the difference.

And if you have been exposed to strategic greed, under the name of sacrifice, and you did not put it in the open, did you know what you were doing? and if you did, or could not because of your counterpart, did he know what he was doing?

To some people, some things may be more natural than to others, and in our inevitable isolation of being a individual, layers of perception are created more often than not, some positive, some negative, some important, some perceived important - personally it seems like a confusion which is making relationships difficult.

But given that in life, probably what will give you/ us most value, is a healthy relationship, it is well worth (in my opinion) to get to the bottom of what makes it and what breaks it - how what works, how what does not work. But then again, it is not suitable for people who see relationships as a "quick fix", that last as long as the mirror images, or has given up because of the overload of problems.

On the isolation - isolation inevitably leads to resistance, perhaps one of the most important things to realize