Permission not needed

[Uncle Al]

Other than the character pictured, THIS is how we should be

I Am Who I Am 2015-05-03.jpg

A little food for thought and a smile to your face

Uncle Al

[crfriend]

The above sentiment works well with strangers, but not so well with intimates. It's worth recalling the sometimes extraordinary level of power-asymmetry when it comes to couples -- even long-haul partners can exhibit the trait powerfully. It's both a blessing and a curse in relationships -- and usually the man is not the one with the greater power. It's a blessing when it helps us to ignore the little quirks that our partners have that drive us insane and that we would not tolerate from strangers. It's a curse when any time we try to express ourselves in any way that's not "familiar" we get stepped on and the psychological warfare begins -- and it's always the woman who commands superiority in that regime.

As a thought experiment, contemplate a woman informing "her man" of the above sentiment. That's a threat, pure and simple. Now reverse the situation. It becomes laughable and the woman will brush it aside and completely ignore it -- or, worse, she'll view it as a threat and behave accordingly.

In short, we have great power over strangers because we're in control of the situation; in our relationships it's the other way 'round. How that power is treated says much about the person wielding it. I'd not challenge Sapphire so; my life would instantly become a living Hell.

[Gordon]

CRFRIEND you've hit the nail squarely on the head once again.

[Sinned]

Again Carl, your insight and perception is remarkable. But having said what you have, those of us affected now have to try and communicate this to our OH's, drive the point home, amend the balance of power in the relationship and still have a workable relationship at the end of it. As you said the chances are that they would simply brush this aside as not worthy of consideration but it does give an additional dimension in our struggle for the recognition of our needs, as unusual as they are. Thanks again.

[dillon]

Relationships without both cooperation and mutual respect are essentially doomed. For my own marriage, I certainly understand my spouse's reticence toward my attire, and do my best not to place her in an uncomfortable position and go trousered to events that are important to her. The flipside of this is that I then expect a fair amount of acceptance of my desires to wear skirts, etc. And tolerance of being in pubic with me under relatively anonymous circumstances, such as some shopping, eating in an Italian place and a four mile walk on the beach today. It's one thing to show your love by deferring to her wishes when you can sense it is important to her, but another to be a milksop who (thinks he) has to ask permission to live like a free man. Basically, I can certainly relate to compromise in marriage, but not to captivity.

[alexthebird]

The above sentiment works well with strangers, but not so well with intimates. It's worth recalling the sometimes extraordinary level of power-asymmetry when it comes to couples -- even long-haul partners can exhibit the trait powerfully. It's both a blessing and a curse in relationships -- and usually the man is not the one with the greater power. It's a blessing when it helps us to ignore the little quirks that our partners have that drive us insane and that we would not tolerate from strangers. It's a curse when any time we try to express ourselves in any way that's not "familiar" we get stepped on and the psychological warfare begins -- and it's always the woman who commands superiority in that regime.

As a thought experiment, contemplate a woman informing "her man" of the above sentiment. That's a threat, pure and simple. Now reverse the situation. It becomes laughable and the woman will brush it aside and completely ignore it -- or, worse, she'll view it as a threat and behave accordingly.

In short, we have great power over strangers because we're in control of the situation; in our relationships it's the other way 'round. How that power is treated says much about the person wielding it. I'd not challenge Sapphire so; my life would instantly become a living Hell.

That "power asymmetry" as you describe it, could be the result of the physical power asymmetry between men and women. In your thought experiment, for example, a husband who didn't care for the sentiment his wife was expressing could beat the h**l out of her. The reverse is possible, but very very unlikely. Taking control of domestic activities and the overall marital context could be a way of insuring security in the face of fundamental physical disadvantage.

[crfriend]

That "power asymmetry" as you describe it, could be the result of the physical power asymmetry between men and women. In your thought experiment, for example, a husband who didn't care for the sentiment his wife was expressing could beat the h**l out of her. The reverse is possible, but very very unlikely. Taking control of domestic activities and the overall marital context could be a way of insuring security in the face of fundamental physical disadvantage.

True enough, the man enjoys the position of sheer physical strength in the situation, but there are myriad obstacles which necessarily block his use of that advantage, mainly law. Society and Political Correctness dovetail into this equation as well, as was evidenced by one time when Sapphire had a medical episode and I had to take her to the emergency room at the local hospital. I am, by nature, a peaceable sort and would not think of raising my hand in violence against her, but she can be a bit clumsy and bruises easily. The net result from that was me getting ejected from the room and her being subjected to the 3rd degree with the hospital personnel trying to get her to put the blame on me for her bruises. Recall that in the eyes of the law "domestic abuse" is a one-way street; reality, of course, is different and just because something is legal does not make it right. Folks forget that.

There are also powerful financial deterrents to men "solving" the asymmetry problem -- think alimony and "child support" (alimony by another name). I know guys who were in such untenable circumstances that they had no choice to get out of horribly abusive relationships and had to live out of their cars for a long time because the ex-spouse took them for all they had in terms of wealth. It's not a pretty picture.

So, yes, we do have the "cave man" option, but only a fool would use it. We can't use psychological tactics, either, and sometimes "getting out" isn't an option. So we put up with the asymmetry. Note I did mention that the asymmetry is not altogether a bad thing; it has advantages. It's when it goes wrong and becomes a tool for domineering that it becomes a problem.

[STEVIE]

When all is said and done, I shouldn't really bemoan my lot in life. I get to wear what I want for a lot of the time.
It's not perfect but it is as much as I can get at this point in time. It is a fact, that, if had the resources to fulfil my obligations to my wife and daughter at a "distance", I would. I would not end up living in the car but it would not be a very comfortable existence.
The possession of material wealth may never bring you happiness but it does give a greater freedom of choice in attempting to achieve it
Steve.

[dillon]

Correct, Stevie. Wealth doesn't assure happiness but neither does poverty. I hope when all is said and done we can all attest to having few regrets.

[Caultron]

Money can't buy happiness but it does let you choose your favorite sort of misery.

[skirtyscot]

Being rich doesn't necessarily make you happy, but I'd be willing to give it a try.

[dillon]

Being rich doesnt mean you are doomed to unhappiness either, nor does being poor assure happiness. Given the choice between being rich and unhappy or poor and unhappy I guess I would prefer rich.

[Milfmog]

For my own marriage, I certainly understand my spouse's reticence toward my attire, and do my best not to place her in an uncomfortable position and go trousered to events that are important to her. The flipside of this is that I then expect a fair amount of acceptance of my desires to wear skirts, etc. And tolerance of being in pubic with me under relatively anonymous circumstances, such as some shopping, eating in an Italian place and a four mile walk on the beach today. It's one thing to show your love by deferring to her wishes when you can sense it is important to her, but another to be a milksop who (thinks he) has to ask permission to live like a free man. Basically, I can certainly relate to compromise in marriage, but not to captivity.

This is pretty much how Carole and I function as a couple.

Over time, she has become more used to my skirt wearing and happier to accompany me when skirted. There are still times when I will elect to dress more conventionally to keep her socially comfortable. However, those occasions are getting fewer.

In other things, we generally discuss issues and come to a happy compromise that we both feel good about. Our basic outlook on life is sufficiently similar that this is not usually a hardship for either of us. I certainly do not believe that there is significant asymmetry of power in our relationship, just some things are more important to Carole while others matter more to me.

Have fun,


Ian.