• 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
Re: Men: Would You Marry an American Woman?

Eric7216 said:
Well, everyone prioritizes things differently and can accept differences in some areas while finding other areas of similarities. I believe in the idea of Hamilton's Rule and people discriminate in their choice of mates.
Kin selection - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Over the past 60 years or so we have seen an increase in the acceptability of interracial marriages and interfaith marriages but we seem to have increasing hostility to mixing political opinions or income earning potential marriages. One study found that much of the increase in income inequality comes from the increase in people marrying others with similar income potential.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/19/m...e283&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&_r=0
Click to expand...

That stuff doesn't matter to me if I liked a person, unless he was a complete loser or something. It wouldn't bother me who made more money in the relationship. Every little bit helps! :) Of course if the SO made a ton of money, that wouldn't be a problem either though. :2razz: I could work with that.
 
Peter King said:
I would love to marry an American woman, especially my favorite lady with whom I have an excellent internet relationship with for the past 8 years or so.

Men in the US are not being disrespected by American women. American women are tired of being second to men at every turn. Family law is there for the children and not for the dads. Usually it is the mother anyway who is taking care of the children even if both work.

Men have been ruling the roost for centuries and now only women are standing up for themselves and being counted and seen as equals to men. Not by some men but in general women have finally taken their rightful place in society. And the men who are being told that they are worthless and stupid often are actually stupid and worthless. Women will no longer be reduced to being barefoot and pregnant slaves for their men. They work almost as much outside of the house and do the house work and children duties on top of their out of the house work. Disrespecting men has not become the standard practice, what has become the standard practice is that women are equal to men and no longer will allow men to boss them around while they lie on the couch and bark out orders.

Men need to wise up and realize that they age of the rule of men is over, the age of equal men and women is here and now. Men have been stuck in their attitudes, that is why the weak bossy men of the past feel disrespected, treated like children and who feel that they are being targeted by the law, attitudes of women and the reality of 2014. And they are dropping out because of arrested development, men have a childish attitude to many things and in 2014 they have to become partners in a relationship and some men are just stuck in the past.
Click to expand...

See my previous posts about wannabe alpha males who get off on pouring scorn on other men.
 
Gathomas88 said:
The link between "dominant" behaviors and personality types and testosterone is pretty well studied.

In men, it is obvious.

Testosterone, Antisocial Behavior, and Social Dominance in Boys: Pubertal Development and Biosocial Interaction

However, it can be observed in women as well.

Studies have actually shown that women with "dominant" personalities are more likely to have sons, specifically because they have so much more testosterone running through their systems than the average woman.

Sex determination and the maternal dominance hypothesis

Simply put: More testosterone = more dominant personalities.

Guess what men have more of by nature? :shrug:

As far as "providing" goes, men have served that role for the vast majority of our species' history. Even today, they are still the primary bread winners in 70% of all households where two parents are actually present.
Click to expand...

Interesting stuff, but why stop there? What about the effects of estrogen in terms of making people over emotional, irrational, and generally unfit for stressful work?

That would, of course, be "scientific" work that came out of the 1930's, quite dated and no longer considered valid, but it served to keep women down by explaining their very human nature as a kind of disease, just as you are doing with men now.

Any attempt to explain women's sometimes irrational behavior in terms of their hormones is regarded as misogyny. Why is this permissible with men?
 
ChrisL said:
Huh? No, in most relationships nowadays both the man and woman work and they split household chores. No one is "dominant." Why does someone HAVE to be dominant in the relationship? What's up with that crap?
Click to expand...

"Splitting household chores" involves doing whatever the woman wants when she wants it and how she wants it. I think this is what goes on with most such "sharing". This whole idea of splitting chores ought to be thrown out; it doesn't work, it's just causing more friction. And surveys have shown that women end up doing most of the housework and childcare in part because "they are the ones who care enough to do it 'right'." It was a dumb idea from the get go. Women were never going to give up those roles and men were never going to be adequate substitutes in women's eyes especially where young children are concerned. Always the explanation for this state of affairs is couched in terms of the men's inadequacies, never in terms of, say, lack of flexibility on the part of women or lack of respect for the men.
 
LowDown said:
"Splitting household chores" involves doing whatever the woman wants when she wants it and how she wants it. I think this is what goes on with most such "sharing". This whole idea of splitting chores ought to be thrown out; it doesn't work, it's just causing more friction. And surveys have shown that women end up doing most of the housework and childcare in part because "they are the ones who care enough to do it 'right'." It was a dumb idea from the get go. Women were never going to give up those roles and men were never going to be adequate substitutes in women's eyes especially where young children are concerned. Always the explanation for this state of affairs is couched in terms of the men's inadequacies, never in terms of, say, lack of flexibility on the part of women or lack of respect for the men.
Click to expand...

Maybe that's your personal experience, but I'm sure that it's not the case with all couples. I'm sure a lot of couples discuss and agree upon who does what chores related to the household and kids. Most people have to do this because they have full-time jobs and are busy with extracurricular activities for the children, etc. There is no TIME to worry about who is the "dominant" one in the relationship. That is stupid. Unless you feel like you are or have been abused, then if you don't like your relationship you can leave and find one better suited to you instead of trying to assert "dominance" over another human being so that they become what you want.
 
ChrisL said:
I don't see how this is even relevant. Even if it's true, that doesn't make the man dominant either, so . . . irrelevant.

Who said anything about a "dominant" provider? Why are you changing things up now? The person who earns more money is most certainly not always the dominant personality in the relationship.
Click to expand...

Ummm... I did. :lol:

As I said earlier, men and women generally tend to "dominate" different aspects of the relationship. "Providing" and protection are the roles towards which men, by any objective measure, most often gravitate.

What this means as far as the "balance of power" in a relationship is ultimately debatable.

It is still entirely possible for a "submissive" woman who defers to her partner on most practical decisions to have him completely "whipped" in other regards, after all. Lol

I don't think it's true. I think MOST relationships are a partnership.
Click to expand...

Have I ever denied that?

Just because one partner may or may not be more interpersonally assertive than the other, does not mean that the relationship is not still a partnership.

As Smoke said earlier, no one is dominant in everything they do. People have different aptitudes, and different interests.

They tend to take control over those aspects of the relationship in which they feel most comfortable.

LowDown said:
Interesting stuff, but why stop there? What about the effects of estrogen in terms of making people over emotional, irrational, and generally unfit for stressful work?

That would, of course, be "scientific" work that came out of the 1930's, quite dated and no longer considered valid, but it served to keep women down by explaining their very human nature as a kind of disease, just as you are doing with men now.

Any attempt to explain women's sometimes irrational behavior in terms of their hormones is regarded as misogyny. Why is this permissible with men?
Click to expand...

Who ever suggested that there was anything wrong with men being more aggressive or prone to "social dominance" in the first place?
 
Last edited:
Gathomas88 said:
As I said earlier, men and women generally tend to "dominate" different aspects of the relationship.
Click to expand...

Take toilet seat positioning, for instance......
 
Gathomas88 said:
Ummm... I did. :lol:

As I said earlier, men and women generally tend to "dominate" different aspects of the relationship. "Providing" and protection are the roles towards which men, by any objective measure, most often gravitate.

What this means as far as the "balance of power" in a relationship is ultimately debatable.

It is still entirely possible for a "submissive" woman who defers to her partner on most practical decisions to have him completely "whipped" in other regards, after all. Lol
Click to expand...

So basically Gathomas, you are saying that NOBODY really is the dominant entity in the relationship. :2razz: THANK YOU for finally agreeing with me! Lol!





Have I ever denied that?

Just because one partner may or may not be more interpersonally assertive than the other, does not mean that the relationship is not still a partnership.

As Smoke said earlier, no one is dominant in everything they do. People have different aptitudes, and different interests.

They tend to take control over those aspects of the relationship in which they feel most comfortable.
Click to expand...

Well then what are you still arguing with me if you agree that I am right? :mrgreen:
 
ChrisL said:
Maybe that's your personal experience, but I'm sure that it's not the case with all couples. I'm sure a lot of couples discuss and agree upon who does what chores related to the household and kids. Most people have to do this because they have full-time jobs and are busy with extracurricular activities for the children, etc. There is no TIME to worry about who is the "dominant" one in the relationship. That is stupid. Unless you feel like you are or have been abused, then if you don't like your relationship you can leave and find one better suited to you instead of trying to assert "dominance" over another human being so that they become what you want.
Click to expand...

It's the experience of a lot of couples: The Difference Between a Happy Marriage and Miserable One: Chores - Wendy Klein, Carolina Izquierdo, & Thomas N. Bradbury - The Atlantic I'd differ from the article, though, in saying that coming to a mutual understanding about this issue is for the most part a pipe dream. That would require both people to be flexible. For most couples that's a non-starter. The way it really happens is that someone asserts dominance.

In keeping with the precedence set in this thread of making unfounded assumptions concerning other people's personal lives, I'd suggest if you ever do have a long term relationship with someone you'll find it's a lot more difficult to settle these issues than you seem to think.
 
ChrisL said:
So basically Gathomas, you are saying that NOBODY really is the dominant entity in the relationship. :2razz: THANK YOU for finally agreeing with me! Lol!
Click to expand...

Yes, but it is sort of a nuanced situation.

While I still maintain that men are naturally inclined to be the more interpersonally assertive partner in a relationship, (barring abusive forms of control) no one is "dominant" in any aspect of a relationship unless the other person ALLOWS them to be.

This results in a state of affairs where, as men and women usually have different interests and aptitudes, the different genders tend to "dominate" different aspects of the relationship, simply because the one partner has a tendency to defer to the other on issues with which they do not feel terribly comfortable.

In most heterosexual relationships, this leads to men "dominating" more practical affairs, while women "dominate" domestic affairs and (arguably) the health of the relationship itself, as they are the ones who most commonly iniate break-ups and divorces.

Regardless of "dominant" or "submissive" interpersonal tendencies, things ultimately balance themselves out. :shrug:

Well then what are you still arguing with me if you agree that I am right? :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

It's hardly my fault if you keep starting crap up again after we've already come to an agreement! :lol:

I'm starting to think that you just like to fight, Chris. :2razz:
 
Last edited:
Gardener said:
Take toilet seat positioning, for instance......
Click to expand...

Yes, it's literally the law in some European countries that women are always right about that. Men are responsible for making sure that women don't do a late night butt dive. It's the man's responsibility if some woman doesn't check the toilet seat.

In some places men aren't even allowed to pee standing up.

That pretty much settles the issue of whether or not men are being disrespected in those places at any rate.
 
Gathomas88 said:
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:
Click to expand...



While discussing the intricacies and dynamics of interpersonal relationships between sexes in an academic manner, may be interesting, and men appear dominant, you could be missing one small detail?

"Happy wife, happy life." :lol:

Gathomas88 said:
Sure. I can be much the same way.

While I prefer a woman who is at least somewhat sweet and "ladylike," I really don't mind a somewhat feisty girl either.

It adds sort of an interesting dynamic to things. I actually find it to be kind of cute, to be honest. :lol:
Click to expand...


You've got it right, that men and women can play different roles in a relationship, depending on personality traits, but I wouldn't get overly caught up in analyzing sexist generalities, simply because people are too complicated. There are some common occurrences (truths) that you can talk about to other men, but I'd caution bringing them up in front of women, even in an educational form. The same way they talk to each other about the "dumb dog" traits, common in men. ;)

What really makes a couple work is a partnership, where each one supports the other. If you care enough about your significant other, you'll be amazed at what you'll do and change. When there's an unspoken loyalty and respect being exchanged, you develop a level of transparency and trust that surpasses all the little character flaws, defects and gender defined proclivities to embrace a greater union. There is no "boss", chief or primary personality and though one or the other often leads in the dance, they must always be aware that there is "no dance", without a partner.

If I ever took lead for my family, it was out of love and servitude, not for my ego.
 
LowDown said:
It's the experience of a lot of couples: The Difference Between a Happy Marriage and Miserable One: Chores - Wendy Klein, Carolina Izquierdo, & Thomas N. Bradbury - The Atlantic I'd differ from the article, though, in saying that coming to a mutual understanding about this issue is for the most part a pipe dream. That would require both people to be flexible. For most couples that's a non-starter. The way it really happens is that someone asserts dominance.

In keeping with the precedence set in this thread of making unfounded assumptions concerning other people's personal lives, I'd suggest if you ever do have a long term relationship with someone you'll find it's a lot more difficult to settle these issues than you seem to think.
Click to expand...

LOL! Funny, I have had a LTR, and we lived together too . . . in SIN!!!! :shock:
 
Gathomas88 said:
Yes, but it is sort of a nuanced situation.

While I still maintain that men are naturally inclined to be the more interpersonally assertive partner in a relationship, (barring abusive forms of control) no one is "dominant" in any aspect of a relationship unless the other person ALLOWS them to be.

This results in a state of affairs where, as men and women usually have different interests and aptitudes, the different genders tend to "dominate" different aspects of the relationship, simply because the one partner has a tendency to defer to the other on issues with which they do not feel terribly comfortable.

In most heterosexual relationships, this leads to men "dominating" more practical affairs, while women "dominate" domestic affairs and (arguably) the health of the relationship itself, as they are the ones who most commonly iniate break-ups and divorces.

Regardless of "dominant" or "submissive" interpersonal tendencies, things ultimately balance themselves out. :shrug:



It's hardly my fault if you keep starting crap up again after we've already come to an agreement! :lol:

I'm starting to think that you just like to fight, Chris. :2razz:
Click to expand...

Well I think you like to fight simply because you keep bringing the word "dominance" into the equation, when someone, for instance, letting the other partner handle the check book is NOT being submissive. :roll: BOTH partners are equal in the relationship. If one is dominating the other, then that is kind of an abusive relationship.
 
ChrisL said:
LOL! Funny, I have had a LTR, and we lived together too . . . in SIN!!!! :shock:
Click to expand...

I think things often work a lot better if you never get married, so enjoy.
 
grip said:
While discussing the intricacies and dynamics of interpersonal relationships between sexes in an academic manner, may be interesting, and men appear dominant, you could be missing one small detail?

"Happy wife, happy life." :lol:




You've got it right, that men and women can play different roles in a relationship, depending on personality traits, but I wouldn't get overly caught up in analyzing sexist generalities, simply because people are too complicated. There are some common occurrences (truths) that you can talk about to other men, but I'd caution bringing them up in front of women, even in an educational form. The same way they talk to each other about the "dumb dog" traits, common in men. ;)

What really makes a couple work is a partnership, where each one supports the other. If you care enough about your significant other, you'll be amazed at what you'll do and change. When there's an unspoken loyalty and respect being exchanged, you develop a level of transparency and trust that surpasses all the little character flaws, defects and gender defined proclivities to embrace a greater union. There is no "boss", chief or primary personality and though one or the other often leads in the dance, they must always be aware that there is "no dance", without a partner.

If I ever took lead for my family, it was out of love and servitude, not for my ego.
Click to expand...

Great post, and I especially like the bold part. :)
 
grip said:
While discussing the intricacies and dynamics of interpersonal relationships between sexes in an academic manner, may be interesting, and men appear dominant, you could be missing one small detail?

"Happy wife, happy life."
Click to expand...

Oh, I've said that dozens of times at this point. Lol

Even a woman who appears to be "submissive" can still have a guy by the balls (regardless of whether he's actively aware of it or not).

Everyone seems to just keep glossing over that nuance in my arguments though. I can't imagine why. :lol:

You've got it right, that men and women can play different roles in a relationship, depending on personality traits, but I wouldn't get overly caught up in analyzing sexist generalities, simply because people are too complicated. There are some common occurrences (truths) that you can talk about to other men, but I'd caution bringing them up in front of women, even in an educational form. The same way they talk to each other about the "dumb dog" traits, common in men.
Click to expand...

Eh. What can I say? Tact isn't my strong suit. :mrgreen:

To be fair here, I'll also freely admit that many of the "generalities" women put forward about men tend to be true as well. We're really not terribly complicated creates when you get to the bottom of things.

Feed us, love us, and make us feel needed, and we'll often be reduced to little more than putty in a woman's hands. :lol:

What really makes a couple work is a partnership, where each one supports the other. If you care enough about your significant other, you'll be amazed at what you'll do and change. When there's an unspoken loyalty and respect being exchanged, you develop a level of transparency and trust that surpasses all the little character flaws, defects and gender defined proclivities to embrace a greater union. There is no "boss", chief or primary personality and though one or the other often leads in the dance, they must always be aware that there is "no dance", without a partner.

If I ever took lead for my family, it was out of love and servitude, not for my ego.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. I agree.
 
ChrisL said:
Well I think you like to fight simply because you keep bringing the word "dominance" into the equation, when someone, for instance, letting the other partner handle the check book is NOT being submissive. :roll: BOTH partners are equal in the relationship. If one is dominating the other, then that is kind of an abusive relationship.
Click to expand...

Honestly, I think a lot of people are getting too hung up on the verbage here, and it's causing them to lose sight of the "bigger picture." :shrug:

"Dominance" doesn't necessarily have to indicate abuse or neglect of someone else's desires. It simply indicates that they are taking a more assertive role in something than someone else.

As I said already, it isn't even one sided, as men and women tend to "dominate" different (equally important) aspects of the relationship anyway. Things simply aren't going to work if one partner tries to micromanage everything, without allowing their partner any input.

That's how I look at things, anyway. :shrug:
 
Last edited:
LowDown said:
See my previous posts about wannabe alpha males who get off on pouring scorn on other men.
Click to expand...

Yeah, total nonsense, this has nothing to do with wannabe alpha males but normal men who have no desire to be alpha males (because alpha males is a totally backward view on males). The fact is IMHO, that only wanna be alpha males are the ones who are complaining about women standing up for themselves.

My points of view are not pouring scorn on other men but exposing the pathetic sob stories of the macho losers who think the world should revolve around them because they are "the man" and all women should bow down when they enter the room and should spread their legs so that they can got one over, after which the woman has to retreat back to the kitchen to make his dinner and then go and do some cleaning.
 
Gathomas88 said:
Honestly, I think a lot of people are getting too hung up on the verbage here, and it's causing them to lose sight of the "bigger picture." :shrug:

"Dominance" doesn't necessarily have to indicate abuse or neglect of someone else's desires. It simply indicates that they are taking a more assertive role in something than someone else.

As I said already, it isn't even one sided, as men and women tend to "dominate" different (equally important) aspects of the relationship anyway. Things simply aren't going to work if one partner tries to micromanage everything, without allowing their partner any input.

That's how I look at things, anyway. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Dammit Gathomas, this is what I'VE been saying all along, that a relationship is a PARTNERSHIP and that one spouse/SO is not more dominant than the other, at least in a healthy and good relationship.

You are the one who started off in this thread talking about how men are the dominant ones (or SHOULD be) in their relationships with women, and I am the one who has been saying that is just not true. Then you go and try to make it sound as if that is what YOU have been saying all along? WTH do you think all the women have been arguing with you about throughout this thread then?

God, I really like you, but you are exasperating sometimes! :mrgreen:
 
Gathomas88 said:
Oh, I've said that dozens of times at this point. Lol

Even a woman who appears to be "submissive" can still have a guy by the balls (regardless of whether he's actively aware of it or not).

Everyone seems to just keep glossing over that nuance in my arguments though. I can't imagine why. :lol:
Click to expand...

There are certain traits about sexes that are common, like men are hunters and women nest.
But submissive vs domineering is more about personality than sexuality.
For example, my father had a strong personality and may have appeared to dominate my mother but he didn't make any family decision, without consulting her opinion. He may have made announcements or initially decided punishments to us kids, but she always intervened for a lesser sentence.

People often will gloss over details because they only want to see the differences, rather than any similarities. They make assumptions, instead of paying attention to the whole statement.

Eh. What can I say? Tact isn't my strong suit. :mrgreen:

To be fair here, I'll also freely admit that many of the "generalities" women put forward about men tend to be true as well. We're really not terribly complicated creates when you get to the bottom of things.

Feed us, love us, and make us feel needed, and we'll often be reduced to little more than putty in a woman's hands. :lol:
Click to expand...

Women want an equal on the levels that are important, not a simple minded slob. Of course, men don't want an overbearing control freak that nags them all day. It's a give and take relationship that requires work, and even on the best of days it's not easy.

I have a friend who says his girl wants him to read her mind. And I said, no she wants you to pay attention and not take her for granted.
 
LowDown said:
It's the experience of a lot of couples: The Difference Between a Happy Marriage and Miserable One: Chores - Wendy Klein, Carolina Izquierdo, & Thomas N. Bradbury - The Atlantic I'd differ from the article, though, in saying that coming to a mutual understanding about this issue is for the most part a pipe dream. That would require both people to be flexible. For most couples that's a non-starter. The way it really happens is that someone asserts dominance.

In keeping with the precedence set in this thread of making unfounded assumptions concerning other people's personal lives, I'd suggest if you ever do have a long term relationship with someone you'll find it's a lot more difficult to settle these issues than you seem to think.
Click to expand...

Frankly, I think a lot people are too rigid about these things anyway. That's probably the biggest part of the problem.

My mother chose to stay home, and she also chose to homeschool. By and large, she was pretty good at it.

She was not, by any means, however; a "domestic goddess." It drove her nuts to even try.

While that would occassionally cause conflicts between her and my father, it really wasn't a big deal on the whole. It simply meant that the house felt "lived in" most of the time, and he would come home every now and then in a pissy mood and put all of us kids to work cleaning the parts of the house that were bothering him. :lol:
 
Gathomas88 said:
Frankly, I think a lot people are too rigid about these things anyway. That's probably the biggest part of the problem.
Click to expand...

Ahem . . . :2razz:
 
ChrisL said:
So basically Gathomas, you are saying that NOBODY really is the dominant entity in the relationship. :2razz: THANK YOU for finally agreeing with me! Lol!
Click to expand...

I think generally speaking... In America, women are the dominant entity in the vast majority of relationships. All one has to do is follow the money. And more than 70% of all consumer spending is controlled by women. Which means women are the ones making the majority of the decisions in relationships. Not only that, women control sex in relationships and they control when relationships will end (70% of women are the initiators of divorce).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom