• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Men: Would You Marry an American Woman?[W:771]

Men: Would you marry an American Woman?


  • Total voters
    83
Well, no. Not really. I commited the cardinal sin of describing things how they actually are in an overly direct manner. :lol:

Again, all politically correct assertions to the contrary aside, I have seen absolutely no evidence whatsoever to suggest that a relationship dynamic favoring a more interpersonally assertive male and a somewhat less interperssonally assertive female is not the norm under most circumstances.

As S&M's example attests, even very aggressive women tend to prefer men who are at least equal in assertiveness to themselves, and often times even more so.

The same simply cannot be said of most men.

It is what it is, and I don't see any reason to quibble around "P.C." sensibilities on the issue. :shrug:

Ahem. I'll speak for myself.

I think you're confusing submissiveness with meekness. They are not the same.

A lot of people are meek. In fact, more people are meek than are submissive. That's why a dominant person (which is different from controlling, again) has to work so hard.

Submissive people are perfectly capable of raising their voice when they need to. It's just that they usually don't want to.

Meek people are not. Their vocal chords are pretty flimsy.

Now, personally, I am a very mixed-trait person. There's really nothing about me that's middle-of-the-road. So I prefer men who are dominant where I am submissive, and submissive where I am dominant (although in reality, I think it's more complex than that -- it's more about capability than high/low).

I think this is true of nearly everyone. I have never met any dominant person -- male or female -- who is dominant in everything, and has the stamina to be dominant all the time without break. Never.

I have, however, met controlling people who want to be controlling about everything, all the time. Because being controlling is a lot easier than being dominant. If you're just controlling, you don't care about how the people under your purview feel. It's about you and your sense of control. But for people who are dominant, it's about the goal and the well-being of everyone involved.

Being controlling is easy. And there are plenty of controlling men out there, and yes, if you can't tell the difference between dominance and controllingness, it might appear to you that "dominant" men want women who are consistently more "submissive" than they are, and dominant women want equal or more dominant men, but really, that difference is created by men who are controllers who want women who are meek.

People get different things out of relationships, and there are dominant people -- male and female both -- who prefer an over-all submissive partner. They tend to be dominant types of a more extroverted bent, so they have a bigger pool of people from whom they can draw balance. But I don't notice any gender break-down in this, and as an introverted person with a strong dominant streak, I require a partner who is... shall we say, "complimentary," if not necessarily "equal," because I have a smaller pool of balancing people.
 
Last edited:
I've heard of such relationships, but I've honestly never seen one myself.

However, what you've described is kind of exactly my point here. Under most circumstances, men simply aren't cut out for that kind of relationship dynamic. We want to be "alpha males;" if not in the world in general, then at least in our own homes.

A man who allows his woman to push him around and basically take "alpha" status from him is A) going to resent it, and B) was likely rather weak willed and vulnerable to such things in the first place.

As such, the relationship is, more often than not, going to be unhealthy.

Some people might be able to make it work, but I doubt it is especially common.

Don't you ever hear men complaining about how their wives are demanding and make them do chores all the time, or she won't let him do his favorite activities, blah, blah, blah, whatever the case may be?
 
I've seen plenty of instances where the woman seems to be the more dominant one in the relationship. Haven't you? And, honestly, it really doesn't seem like it's just out in public, but the man seems to be rather on the mousy side, perhaps like a victim of an abusive spouse? I'm sure most of us have seen a relationship dynamic like that before, and I don't think they are all that uncommon if you listen to some men complain about their wives.
They are so common that we even have a special term for it. In man talk we call a guy in that kind of relationship "***** whipped".
 
Last edited:
You'd better watch out for me! I'm much tougher than I look! :mrgreen:

Bring it on, girly girl! :2razz:

Don't you ever hear men complaining about how their wives are demanding and make them do chores all the time, or she won't let him do his favorite activities, blah, blah, blah, whatever the case may be?

That honestly kinds of depends upon the degree involved though. While I probably wouldn't put up with a woman forbiding me to do something unreasonable, I would probably avoid activities that I know are likely to cause conflict simply because they aren't worth the trouble.

There was never any doubt that my father "wore the pants" while I was growing up, and even he knew well enough to do that much. :lol:
 
Bring it on, girly girl! :2razz:



That honestly kinds of depends upon the degree involved though. While I probably wouldn't put up with a woman forbiding me to do something unreasonable, I might avoid activities that I know are likely to cause conflict simply because they aren't worth the trouble.

There was never any doubt that my father "wore the pants" while I was growing up, and even he knew well enough to do that much. :lol:

So, IOW, "humoring" her, perhaps even bordering on patronizing? :) I'm kidding. I can understand that, and I think both parties in a relationship would do this, if you know your SO disapproves of something especially, out of respect for one another.
 
They are so common that we even have a special term for it. In man talk we call a guy in that kind of relationship "***** whipped".

I remember my friend's grandparents. She was a big giant woman, and he was a little skinny man, and she was SOOO mean to him. I felt really bad for that poor old man. He was pretty much like her slave because her big fat ass rarely moved off her sofa.
 
Re: Men: Would You Marry an American Woman?

They're dancing terms.

Well, yes they are, but one never knows if it's an innuendo or something, when it comes to you. :mrgreen:
 
So, IOW, "humoring" her, perhaps even bordering on patronizing? :) I'm kidding. I can understand that, and I think both parties in a relationship would do this, if you know your SO disapproves of something especially, out of respect for one another.

I cannot imagine forbidding my husband to do anything. Nor him forbidding me from doing anything. Sure we have had our spats, angered each other, been annoying and irritating to each other at times, been insensitive or thoughtless to each other at times, but trying to control each other simply is not part of that equation. In a good marriage though, I do think partners talk out problems and issues, ask each other for concessions or help or change in behavior or whatever, and work out the issues as appropriate. But controlling each other? That is never a healthy marriage.
 
So, IOW, "humoring" her, perhaps even bordering on patronizing? :) I'm kidding. I can understand that, and I think both parties in a relationship would do this, if you know your SO disapproves of something especially, out of respect for one another.

Exactly.

Like I said, even a woman who might appear to be more "submissive" on the surface can wield a great deal of power within her relationship.

If nothing else (and I think we both know that they are capable of far, far more), she can withhold sex and therefore render the relationship miserable for the man anyway. If she's truly unsatisfied, she can simply leave his sorry ass, which is an especially effective threat given the fact that women tend to find new partners much more easily than men.

As such, it's pretty much always in a man's interests to respect his partner's interests and desires. If he doesn't, he is only harming himself.
 
Last edited:
I cannot imagine forbidding my husband to do anything. Nor him forbidding me from doing anything. Sure we have had our spats, angered each other, been annoying and irritating to each other at times, been insensitive or thoughtless to each other at times, but trying to control each other simply is not part of that equation. In a good marriage though, I do think partners talk out problems and issues, ask each other for concessions or help or change in behavior or whatever, and work out the issues as appropriate. But controlling each other? That is never a healthy marriage.

I agree with that to an extent. Some people have serious problems though. What if it was something like drinking? What if he was a problem drinker? Those are the kinds of things I'm talking about.
 
Exactly.

Like I said, even a woman who might appear to be more submissive on the surface can wield a great deal of power within her relationship.

If nothing else (and I both think we know that they are capable of far, far more), she can withhold sex and therefore render the relationship miserable for the man anyway. If she's truly unsatisfied, she can simply leave his sorry ass (an especially effective threat given how much easier finding new partners tends to be for women compared to men).

As such, it's pretty much always in a man's interests to respect his partner's interests and desires. If he doesn't, he is only harming himself.

Withhold sex?!

I don't agree with making threats like that. That's pathetic.
 
Re: Men: Would You Marry an American Woman?

Well like most things, I'm sure it is more complicated than that. My first hand experience tells me that many young men who do not chose the military have are having a harder time finding a job that will provide for them.

Single men without families have pretty low costs of living. I did it working part time at a restaurant, spending my off time arguing on internet forums like this and watching the SciFi Channel.

I am certain there is the occasional mama's boy who just doesn't want to leave the cocoon, but I again limiting it as if you have is an oversimplification.

I think you are overlapping "adult boys" with "adult males who live in their mothers' basement". There is certainly heavy overlap between those two groups, but they are not conflatable.

Sorry, that's a myth.

In fact it is not - I realize that a million years of human evolution are often inconvenient for the modern feminist movement, but that does not obviate it or annul its effects.

Mating is not a sentimental or humane activity; it is, rather, as competitive, conflictual, and manipulative on the human level as it is among the insects. To provide for themselves and their offspring, women seek providers--men with money, power, maturity, ambition, stability, commitment, health, and cooperative natures. Men, for similar reasons, invest their time, resources, and sperm in young, beautiful, and fertile women who will give them heirs and status. At the same time they retain a primitive ability for casual sex as well--a sexual mechanism that is less selective and can be satisfied in more primitive ways such as fantasy, homosexuality, and incest. The capacity for multiple partners, casual sex, jealousy (a series of protective responses), and divorce are all adaptive mechanisms to help people--though mostly men--achieve their reproductive potential. Detailed analysis of various forms of mating rituals considered in large anthropological and biological contexts explain adaptive techniques for attracting and keeping mates and what happens when they get out of hand, ancestral instincts becoming destructive (abuse and rape)....

There is a reason why men who are taller are more attractive, why men who are successful in business are more attractive, why men with power are more attractive, and so on and so forth. Women value alpha status like men value sexual availability and the physical ability to bear multiple hears, and those things are cues for that. For both it is a smart evolutionary strategy to ensure that their genes have the highest probability of being passed on.
 
I agree with that to an extent. Some people have serious problems though. What if it was something like drinking? What if he was a problem drinker? Those are the kinds of things I'm talking about.

I don't think "forbidding" an addict to do something would have much impact anyway though.

You'd have to get them professional help, most likely.
 
Re: Men: Would You Marry an American Woman?

Single men without families have pretty low costs of living. I did it working part time at a restaurant, spending my off time arguing on internet forums like this and watching the SciFi Channel.



I think you are overlapping "adult boys" with "adult males who live in their mothers' basement". There is certainly heavy overlap between those two groups, but they are not conflatable.



In fact it is not - I realize that a million years of human evolution are often inconvenient for the modern feminist movement, but that does not obviate it or annul its effects.



There is a reason why men who are taller are more attractive, why men who are successful in business are more attractive, why men with power are more attractive, and so on and so forth. Women value alpha status like men value sexual availability and the physical ability to bear multiple hears, and those things are cues for that. For both it is a smart evolutionary strategy to ensure that their genes have the highest probability of being passed on.

Multiple hears? :lol:
 
I don't think "forbidding" an addict to do something would have much impact anyway though.

You'd have to get them professional help, most likely.

Well, a problem drinker might not be an alcoholic, but might be someone who is prone to drinking TOO much in certain environments, and their attitudes are REALLY bad when drunk, but when they avoid those environments they are fine. I've known several people like this. Not a person I dated, but I've had a few friends who made it a point to stay away from bars because they had those issues, but if they didn't frequent them, it wasn't an issue.
 
I agree with that to an extent. Some people have serious problems though. What if it was something like drinking? What if he was a problem drinker? Those are the kinds of things I'm talking about.

If either party of a marriage is a problem drinker, it won't be a healthy marriage because that automatically triggers controlling behavior in both. Marriages can certainly survive it whether or not the problem drinker or other addict gets at handle on that, but they won't be healthy.
 
Well, a problem drinker might not be an alcoholic, but might be someone who is prone to drinking TOO much in certain environments, and their attitudes are REALLY bad when drunk, but when they avoid those environments they are fine. I've known several people like this. Not a person I dated, but I've had a few friends who made it a point to stay away from bars because they had those issues, but if they didn't frequent them, it wasn't an issue.

That would likely warrant a more forceful response. However, even then, I think an ultimatum would probably be more effective than simply forbidding the activity outright.

i.e.

"I'm willing to help and support you every step of the way, but if this doesn't change, I walk."

Frankly, if the behavior were simply an annoyance rather than a real problem, positive reinforcement meant to encourage behavior change would probably be a more effective tool than confrontation anyway.

Provide incentives for his behavior to change.

Lord knows that women have plenty of means available to accomplish that. :lol:
 
Back
Top Bottom