CMV: There is no 'equal' relationship dynamic

[deleted] · 2015-06-22T15:52:39+00:00

What BP folks miss is that 'equal relationships' are a fantasy construct, like the state of nature or a pure free market. One party will always be more powerful in relationship to the other.

This is really a terminology fail. When RP's talk about equal relationships, they think in terms of power dynamics.

When BP's use the term equal, what they mean is mutual respect, regardless of power dynamics.

The difference is 'who makes most out the decisions,' (RP, power) vs ' who is getting most of their needs meet,' (BP, respect).

It's totally possible to have a relationship where the man plays a dominant, leading role, but still be equal by BP's definition as long as both parties have mutual respect for the other and the contributions they make to the relationship dynamic.

animalmind · 2015-06-22T15:18:36+00:00

I believe any relationship configuration is healthy and stable if there is one quality that remains equal: respect.

Male "dominated", female "dominated", or egalitarian, none are inherently wrong as long as both parties are fully committed to their structure.

If one person has a career, while the other stays home and takes care of their children, is this considered an unequal relationship? Is the career oriented person dominating the take care of the home person? It would only be so if one is not content with their role, or one doesn't respect the other's role.

You have to respect your partner. Traditionally considered "submissive" roles deserve equal respect to roles considered "dominating".

If one is trying to have power over the other by withholding sex, being controlling, making threats, or what have you, this is disrespect and poor relationship skills, not a condition of the relationship structure. This is just a bad relationship with people bad at relationships. First care about the person, respect the person, understand and control your emotions, and openly communicate. Compromise, not dominate.

That's a healthy equal relationship to me.

alreadyredschool · 2015-06-22T14:01:59+00:00

It is possible to have a relationship where both members can communicate and make decisions together. Sure, usually one partner is more dominant than the other but it doesn't matter . When people talk about equal relationships , they don't mean 100% equal but rather "as equal as possible" so that the opinion and contribution of both partners will be valued . Now , if some couples are happy being unequal , good for them , it's none of our business .

mr_one_liner · 2015-06-22T16:31:51+00:00

I disagree with some parts of this. What masculine neo-reaction rails against is the current unequalness of relationships, with a perceived unfair advantage given to women. This has resulted in MGTOW, Peter Pans, PUA culture, what have you. Men are getting a raw deal and opting out.

This is all predicated on a sense of fairness. Where there is fairness, there is something that is satisfactory to both parties. So really, the "battle of the sexes" cannot happen without some sense of fairness, compromise, and equivalency inherent on both sides.

So, is OP trying to say that men and women aren't equivalent? I'd say that they are indeed equivalent in a relationship, of equal value, given that both parties are equally satisfied with the results. That a man has more say over the money (for example) may demonstrate inequality in certain parts of the relationship, but in the end, is the woman and the man giving equal amounts overall? That is the definition of equivalency.

Traditionally, the woman is revered for giving birth and beauty, and the man is given credit for being strong and protecting. The parts that men are good at involves being the head of the household, giving orders, and making decisions. This is the "power" that OP is talking about. In modern times, women want more of that "power", and as a result, men get less and less out of relationships. But OP (and bluepillers) need to see that the equivalency was already there in the old days, and it got taken away.

So the question is, where do men fit in relationships if women do not need them? That is the problem men of today must deal with. That is why every bit of this exists.

mike918 · 2015-06-22T16:13:03+00:00

One party will always be more powerful in relationship to the other.

What? Why is this true? How do you even say this without the ferry to Exception Island blaring its foghorn in your head?

First of all, how do you define power in a relationship? Because if it's in terms of strength, yeah, the man is probably stronger. But what if it's in terms of money? Or the quality of parenting?

Second of all, WHY DO YOU FEEL THE NEED TO CONCEIVE OF RELATIONSHIPS IN TERMS OF POWER IN THE FIRST PLACE?! Have you ever considered the possibility that you might look at a relationship in terms of excitement, or humor, or, shit, what's that word, four letters long and starts with an L?

Here comes anecdotal evidence storytime: In my relationship, we aren't trying to one-up each other all the time. In fact, we are a team, and we understand that by working together and supporting each other we can succeed in life. It's like the realization of everything Mr. Rogers ever taught us. (And didja notice how none of my language pitted my needs against hers or hers against mine? Holy shit, how did I do that?)

So, maybe, just maybe, the problem is that you are imposing a fantasy construct on the world in which it has to be understood in terms of power dynamics when really all you need is...

TheGreasyPole · 2015-06-22T15:26:36+00:00

My two closest friends are in a pure egalitarian relationship, and people often ask them to speak to how to make a marriage work as a result. They have the strongest relationship I've ever seen; so it's not just a construct, it's a possibility for real.

If I'm reading your post right, you simply won't allow for equal relationships to be a possibility, and redefine the terms when offered examples. That's not rational.

VermiciousKnidzz · 2015-06-22T15:58:28+00:00

power dynamics arent always there. i feel like they're becoming more and more absent in liberal areas (not surprisingly)

even then, in the case of one person being more dominant over the other, its often fluid. when one person is going through an especially stressful period, for example, the other person naturally takes the lead for that period. when both people are equal, i feel like that is a sign that the relationship is healthy.

you claim that real equality is impossible. do you think this is true for relationships that arent heteronormative?

strongalfalfa · 2015-06-22T16:34:34+00:00

I think that TRP believes that there is such a thing as equality, but doesn't want it. I think a lot of RP males genuinely believing that a dominant male and a submissive woman is the only way for their to be a healthy relationship, and that is where I think the problem arises.

Here's the thing. You said that "there is no 'equal' relationship dynamic." Is this what RPers want? Yes. No one's arguing that. Even if this is true (which it isn't), it doesn't mean you can't strive to achieve equality.

You say that what BP calls equal relationships are those in which women hold massive power advantages. I disagree. In an equal relationship, men and women both work. What inherent advantage does a woman have if she and her spouse work? How about when it comes to chores? The man and the woman both have to take care of the domestic duties. What about that makes the woman have more power?

Treating each other equally doesn't give the woman or the man massively increased power, and it shouldn't. Treating each other equally means that you respect the other individual and don't see them as subhuman.

You said a relationship in which a woman holds a massive advantage is an equal relationship, which is not true unless you're okay with calling all unequal relationships equal, which means you'd call male dominated relationships equal too. Which you said you don't because TRP wants male domination instead of equality.

It's ok to just admit you're wrong.

TheGreasyPole · 2015-06-22T14:28:38+00:00

I'll CYV.

Equal relationship dynamics are possible, but they are an unstable equilibrium.

Unequal relationship dynamics are possible, and they are a stable equilibrium.

An unstable equilibrium is like a pea balanced on an upturned bowl. A little nudge one way, or a little nudge the other, any little nudge AT ALL and the pea rolls away down the edge of the bowl and into a new state.

A stable equilibrium is like a pea balanced in a normal orientated bowl. A little nudge one way and the pea hits the side and rolls back, or a little nudge the other and it hits the side and rolls back, any little nudge AT ALL and the pea just gets pushed back to it's starting position.

So relationships are like a big sea of bowls. Bowls are far as the eye can see. All turned up the right way.

On top of those bowls some people try to place their "equal relationship". They pop their bowl on top, the wrong way up, and they place their pea on this bowl.

And they have an equal relationship (in contrast to your OP, these are possible).

And life just keeps nudging their pea. Every single day. Nudge, nudge, nudge and (very soon) the pea runs off the upturned bowl, and runs into one of the right side up bowls underneath.

Another equal relationship becomes an "unequal" one where one partner has the dominant role.

But life keeps on nudging. Nudge, nudge, nudge. But because the pea is now in a stable equilibrium (in a right way up bowl) it is never enough to nudge the pea back out. The pea stays where it has rolled (either into a female dominant, or male dominant bowl).

Sometimes something else happens. Along wanders RP. It finds a "female dominant bowl" and that bowl has a relationship pea in it.

The man in that relationship is usually very fucking unhappy indeed. He wants out of this bowl and into a "male dominant" one but life just can't nudge him out. It pushes the pea too softly.

So we train him how to slam a pea. Really whack that fucker as hard as he can. Give that pea the nudge of it's life, really smack it up the side of the bowl. What RP teaches is enough to move the pea even if it is in a stable equilibirum.

Ta Da !, using our system he gets it out of the bowl and into a new "male dominates" bowl where he is once again safe from lifes nudges, in a configuration that he is much happier with.

So. I would argue your view is wrong. Egalitarian relationships do exist but they are just highly unstable, and even with a great deal of luck and "pea tending" they always devolve into one of the stable states (M Dom or F Dom) in the end.

I've also described it as "balancing on the knife edge". Everyone wants to start there, it's just really difficult to not fall down one side of the knife or the other over 30 years.

So, I'd change your view from "They do not exist" to "They do exist but are short-lived. Varying from a natural change rate of approx. 3 months with no work (lifes nudges, no tending), to a change rate of 1-3 years if the couple keep trying to keep the pea on the upturned bowl (life nudges, trying to tend)".

They exist but are not stable.

Going to concede the view change ?

asdf_clash · 2015-06-22T19:45:38+00:00

the woman holds a massive power advantage, as any man ever on the receiving end of "No sex until..." must attest.

That's only a "massive power advantage" if you think the value a woman's vagina has exceeds everything a man brings to a relationship.

She can say "no more sex" and you can say "no more (sex, money, companionship, emotional support, whatever)." The fact that you assume you have nothing to offer a woman that is equal to the sex she offers you is quite telling.

obstinatebeagle · 2015-06-22T21:28:08+00:00

What BP folks miss is that 'equal relationships' are a fantasy construct,

What RP misses is that the kind of relationship you advocate is just a flimsy construct and game of pretense.

Women pretends man's solution to problems is always the right one.

Man pretends that his wife honestly believes his decisions are always right.

If she can see a better way, yet defers to his decision because she's playing the submissive woman role, then she's going to lose all respect for him, right then and there. She's constantly humoring and babying him. She's actually in control and has the power because he is the baby who can't bear to be wrong.

A mature relationship involves two people who make decisions together. They're both willing to listen and change their minds if a better point is put forward. Neither desires power over the other. No one says "No sex until..." because in an equal relationship, this wouldn't happen. That only happens in unequal relationships where the woman has no other power.

CursedLemon · 2015-06-22T13:43:24+00:00

What BPers currently call 'equal' relationships are those in which the woman holds a massive power advantage

Oh, is that what they mean?

What a fool I've been.

gregariousnefarious · 2015-06-22T23:55:48+00:00

Sure there are, all the truly happy married people I know are equals insofar as each one's wishes and self regard is vitally important. The ones who are miserable? Yeah that would be the imbalanced relationships with either a hen pecked husband or a cowed, fearful wife. Now truly equal relationships may not be terribly common, but they exist and ime these spouses are infinitely happier than those who play power games. But yeah trp will never acknowledge this, perhaps because they've never seen the real mccoy. It's out there, and it's worth striving for. It's built on a foundation of mutual love and support that allows each spouse to sacrifice their own happiness sometimes in order to keep the relationship good. I think Americans are not very good at letting go of the me first model of living, but those who transcend that have the world as their oyster. My framily lived this way, the husband and wife truly submitted to one another and lived with WE being the watchword. It was a passionate romance and a stable partnership at the same time, stayed that way for decades until the husband passed away.

tomatostew · 2015-06-23T02:06:13+00:00

I'm not sure what kind of relationships you have seen, but I think I've come across many examples of equality in relationships (including my own LTR). An equal dynamic doesn't have to mean exactly equal money, time, work, etc. It can mean that both people are providing value that they each recognize as an equal input.

Wanderlustian · 2015-06-22T19:43:19+00:00

You know, sometimes I try to argue with reason and logic. Sometimes that's not the right approach.

You acting like you know our personal lives is laughable, and you're projecting pretty hard when you claim that equal means female dominant. Sounds like you just can't keep up in a real partnership, so you intentionally date down in order to assure your "power". That's not alpha, that's pathetic.

I've never heard "no sex until" in my life, not sure what that has to do with blue pill. I get sex whenever I want it. My gf gets sex whenever she wants it. We like having sex together. We like spending time together. Your poor relationship history isn't an argument against mutual respect for the people you love.

wazzup987 · 2015-06-22T18:48:31+00:00

Dynamic work provide the people involved know about the dynamics involved and are ok with or want the dynamics involved.

the problem with most relationships is people scarily take the time to figure out what those dynamics are.

Title	CMV: There is no 'equal' relationship dynamic
Author	GaiusScaevolus
Upvotes	16
Comments	169
Date	June 22, 2015 1:39 PM UTC (11 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/3apk7l/cmv_there_is_no_equal_relationship_dynamic/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/cmv-there-is-no-equal-relationship-dynamic.281496 https://theredarchive.com/post/281496

Comments