Why do men tend to be submissive in relationships?

OnTheCouch

The Corinthian wrote: »

Might not come down to passivity or sloth on the part of your partner though, there's actually a far more common, I suspect, reason why this happens and why such behaviour may make some feel insecure about their relationship:

You have little or nothing in common.

It's actually amazing how many people are together like this. Maybe they get together because of superficial, sexual attraction. Maybe because they want to do the family thing. But beneath that there's nothing - take away those few commonalities and there's nothing they could even talk about.

Most curious example of this was with a business associate I knew in the nineties. Both he and his wife had alcohol problems and eventually they decided to tackle this and quit drinking.

While they were successful in dealing with the mutual alcoholism, they also discovered before long that going out and getting plastered together was the only thing they had in common.

So they split.

Very much so. Actually, you could apply this to male friends as well, many of my good friends on the face of it I would have nothing in common with at all, other than enjoying sharing a few beers from time to time. It is kind of amusing how alcohol breaks down your differences in a way, helping the bonding process.

But friends are one thing, relationships quite another. I have had to turn down relationship offers from three girls, simply because other than the initial spark or sexual attraction you mention, I know deep down we just would not be able to last the distance because of our essential differences. (There's also the problem of being too similar but that's another story:D). And I wouldn't consider myself a catch by any stretch of the imagination, so I'd imagine this figure to be a lot higher for other men.

By definition, relationships require a lot of time alone together. And whereas watching TV as a pair or going down the pub in order to kill time may certainly be enjoyable activities, I would not count these as things in common. Which I would define more as similar hobbies, political views, stance on important issues in life, level of education and socio-economic background. The latter two it may be argued are slightly snobbish ways of deciding your partner, but in my experience it is far easier for a graduate to go out with another graduate, or someone middle-class with a similar family background etc.

Note that I did not include age here. For many couples, it seems their age is the thing they have in common, which connects them to a certain extent, in reminiscing about the past for instance. I would nevertheless argue that couples with an age gap but with common interests are far more likely to work out than a similarly-aged couple with nothing connecting them other than being born around the same time.

Reverting back to the main point of the thread, it could well be that lack of things in common ends up resulting in the woman (usually anyway) bossing the man about. I'll have to look out for it in future.

The Corinthian

OnTheCouch wrote: »

Reverting back to the main point of the thread, it could well be that lack of things in common ends up resulting in the woman (usually anyway) bossing the man about. I'll have to look out for it in future.

I doubt it, and by that I mean that there's probably lots of different reasons why the 'nag' syndrome occurs. This discussion's been interesting as it's touched on a few:

Different gender-based priorities. If the man defers to the woman on issues that one would stereotypically to be female interests, because he doesn't care about them, then that's simply because men and women - for whatever reason, be it genetic or cultural - have different priorities.

Nothing in common. If beyond even such gender-based priorities, there's little or no interest, then it's probably mutual and they've got little or nothing in common.

She's a battleaxe, he's a wimp. Sometimes one partner is dominant over the other and basically bullies them. It happens.

There's probably other broad reasons, but if nothing else this discussion has shown it's not black and white.

clairefontaine

One small consideration. Some people like being bossed around. No responsibility, or so they think.

wandatowell

Those men should not have left their mothers side. Relationships are about love and mutual respect (among other things).

I feel sorry for those "men"

iptba

clairefontaine wrote: »

One small consideration. Some people like being bossed around. No responsibility, or so they think.

I'm not sure if this explains it.

In the workforce, some people may prefer to not have a responsible job so that they can generally leave work on time, and perhaps they may be free enough to miss the odd bit of time here and there without everything falling apart. Not sure if it's really the same situation in couples, but could be wrong.

clairefontaine

iptba wrote: »

I'm not sure if this explains it.

In the workforce, some people may prefer to not have a responsible job so that they can generally leave work on time, and perhaps they may be free enough to miss the odd bit of time here and there without everything falling apart. Not sure if it's really the same situation in couples, but could be wrong.

Im not explaining IT, just adding to the list of possibilities.

Some believe if they take a passive role then they are exempt from responsibility from those decisions, minor or major.

The Corinthian

clairefontaine wrote: »

One small consideration. Some people like being bossed around. No responsibility, or so they think.

If chronically so, then they probably fall into the third category I listed.

Otherwise, I suspect everyone wants to be 'told' what to do every now and then; being in charge or having to debate and/or make decisions all of the time, even on things that you're not bothered about, is extremely exhausting.

But even if a man does want to be 'bossed' around and abdicate power on certain topics, that does not imply he wants to be 'bossed' around in general. I take to people laying down the law with me very, very badly.

wandatowell wrote: »

Relationships are about love and mutual respect (among other things).

Perhaps the women they're with should not be in relationships either, given they do not treat relationships with mutual respect?

iptba

clairefontaine wrote: »

Im not explaining IT, just adding to the list of possibilities.

Some believe if they take a passive role then they are exempt from responsibility from those decisions, minor or major.

Ok, but my guess is if a couple own a house, say, both will feel some responsibility that it doesn't get damaged e.g. because they don't fix a hole in the roof or whatever. A man (say) might not care so much about giving input on the colour of paint (say), not so much because they don't want to feel responsible for the look of whatever is being painted, because they don't see it as particularly important: they won't see it as broken if it has a different colour paint. (Just thinking aloud on this)

clairefontaine

iptba wrote: »

Ok, but my guess is if a couple own a house, say, both will feel some responsibility that it doesn't get damaged e.g. because they don't fix a hole in the roof or whatever. A man (say) might not care so much about giving input on the colour of paint (say), not so much because they don't want to feel responsible for the look of whatever is being painted, because they don't see it as particularly important: they won't see it as broken if it has a different colour paint. (Just thinking aloud on this)

Personally I get annoyed if im expected to have female priorities like cleaning and picking out colors. I think id just end up flipping a coin. Or if someone leaves all the decisions to you and then complains about them.

The Corinthian

clairefontaine wrote: »

Personally I get annoyed if im expected to have female priorities like cleaning and picking out colors.

If neither you or your partner care about picking out colours, how does the question ever arise? :cool:

clairefontaine

This discussion reminds me of that scene in Lost on Translation when Bill Murray receives a fed ex parcel of carpet swatches from his wife. I felt this big thud go through me.

The Corinthian

You just need to get out more

pwurple

The Corinthian wrote: »

If neither you or your partner care about picking out colours, how does the question ever arise? :cool:

Yup, for the stuff neither of us are bothered about, we decided long ago to stop nagging eachother and just pay someone to bother for us. Decorator picks paint colour, ironing person irons, car guy changes oil etc. It's a luxury no doubt, but I prefer less money in pocket if it means not having to trawl over stupid paint colours. Call me when it's over. I'll be digging in the mud, which i love doing!

clairefontaine

pwurple wrote: »

Yup, for the stuff neither of us are bothered about, we decided long ago to stop nagging eachother and just pay someone to bother for us. Decorator picks paint colour, ironing person irons, car guy changes oil etc. It's a luxury no doubt, but I prefer less money in pocket if it means not having to trawl over stupid paint colours. Call me when it's over. I'll be digging in the mud, which i love doing!

Ah yes staff!

Who is going to pick the decorator?

The Corinthian

clairefontaine wrote: »

Who is going to pick the decorator?

Google.

maguic24

Xenophile wrote: »

As the book says "Men are from Mars, women are from Venus". Mars of course is the warrior planet, Martian fiery forces and all that. On the other hand Venus the planet of love, beauty and harmony.

So as many songs go "All you need is Love", "Love changes everthing" etc.

Maybe women are just better at loving and men at fighting.

To quote Virgil.

Love conquers all things — let us yield to Love.
Love conquers all; let us, too, yield to love.
Love conquers all things: let us too give in to Love.
Love conquers all things; let us too surrender to love.

Let me say very well done to the OP on such an interesting opening post.

Women are pretty good at fighting too! I myself am a woman! I am moody and irritable when I'm tired and when I'm hungry. I would actually say men are more loving then women and women are the complainers who start most of the squabbles. In my relationship, I put my hands up and confess to this.

In relation to the OP's comment on women being more dominant, I don't think that's necessarily the case but some really good points made! I can't cook, so my partner does the cooking. I'm quite untidy but will clean up the place if it gets out of hand and he will do the same. However, if it's holidays or going out at the weekend or anything like that I usually book the restaurant, flights etc...

I will say one thing though, no relationship can last without compromise.

OnTheCouch

maguic24 wrote: »

Women are pretty good at fighting too! I myself am a woman! I am moody and irritable when I'm tired and when I'm hungry. I would actually say men are more loving then women and women are the complainers who start most of the squabbles. In my relationship, I put my hands up and confess to this.

In relation to the OP's comment on women being more dominant, I don't think that's necessarily the case but some really good points made! I can't cook, so my partner does the cooking. I'm quite untidy but will clean up the place if it gets out of hand and he will do the same. However, if it's holidays or going out at the weekend or anything like that I usually book the restaurant, flights etc...

I will say one thing though, no relationship can last without compromise.

I think it's very useful that you came forward and admitted this. I believe many people of both sexes think that the topic is too politically incorrect to say directly. It may be an interesting topic to explore in another thread, although it possibly might be more relevant in the Ladies' Lounge than here.

The Corinthian

OnTheCouch wrote: »

I think it's very useful that you came forward and admitted this.

In fairness many women openly admit this. As do men. While I earlier suggested a number of typical scenarios in such relationships, I wouldn't presume that things are always so easy to categorize. You get all sorts.

wolfpawnat

I could imagine the day my OH was "submissive"..............actually no I can't, there is more chance of him becoming the next Paul McCartney than that happening. I think many don't want to be dealing with arguments. There are a lot of men and women that are nigh on impossible, how anyone puts up with them I cannot understand.

MaxWig

I think you'd need to be clear on what submissive means.

I think a relationship where one partner is clearly submissive/dominant is likely to be dysfunctional.

To borrow BDSM terminology, both partners should ideally be switches.

Ideally there should be areas of the relationship where each submit, and each dominates.

professore

Personally I find that as a man you have to put your foot down once in a while or you will get trampled all over, and you actually get more respect if you stand up for yourself over stuff that matters.

I couldn't do it all the time though, it would wear me out, so often let things slide.

Call Me Jimmy

The Corinthian wrote: »

You have little or nothing in common.

Great point. It is so often overlooked and yet so obvious. Maybe people are in denial about quite how different they and their partner are?

OnTheCouch

The Corinthian wrote: »

In fairness many women openly admit this. As do men. While I earlier suggested a number of typical scenarios in such relationships, I wouldn't presume that things are always so easy to categorize. You get all sorts.

Hah fair enough. I certainly wouldn't say it's the case in my circles, but we all know how potentially dangerous it is to apply personal experience to form generalisations, so I'll take your word for it.

iptba

From the Women's section of the Irish Independent, for what it's worth:

10 things your husband really hates about marriage

ANDREW G MARSHALL – 27 JUNE 2013

Andrew G Marshall has worked as a marital therapist for almost thirty years. He’s heard it all – and here he lists men’s most common relationship problems.

1 Saying "No"

Most men want a quiet life. So they often agree to do things even if they don't want to. Although in the short term the man feels he's made his partner happy, in the medium term things will only get worse because he will be nagged and then there will be a row.

The man needs to be honest, explain his feelings and then he can negotiate. His partner needs to be wary of his agreeing too readily to things and to give permission for the man to say no.

article continues at: http://www.independent.ie/woman/love-sex/10-things-your-husband-really-hates-about-marriage-29376192.html

Speisekarte

I think men tend to be more submissive than women in relationships because women tend to have a greater ability to go without sex for longer periods of time. So the men tend to acquiesce more often for fear of putting her in a bad mood and therefor less chance of sex.

It would be interesting to examine whether men with lower sex drives than their wives are less likely to be submissive.

pwurple

Speisekarte wrote: »

I think men tend to be more submissive than women in relationships because women tend to have a greater ability to go without sex for longer periods of time. So the men tend to acquiesce more often for fear of putting her in a bad mood and therefor less chance of sex.

It would be interesting to examine whether men with lower sex drives than their wives are less likely to be submissive.

So, if I buy her a car, or agree to the latest whim, maybe I'll get laid? But in a marriage? Hmmm. Doesn't sound like the healthiest of relationships to be honest. That kind of thing is surely enabling pure hen-pecking.

What makes more sense to me, is people capitulating some of the time when they honestly don't give a ****. Letting someone who does care make the choice. In a balanced relationship it should work both ways.

Which curtains shall we Hang? Don't mind, you choose.
Where shall we eat? How about my favourite place.
Which car should we replace this dead banger with? Well, i watched jeremy clarkson opinionate for 27 hours over the last 6 months, so I have an opinion here.
What film will we see? Etc.

clairefontaine

I think this can happen to either men or women, we just notice it more in men because we expect them to be dominant.

If you are in a nagging or belligerent environment, it just becomes easier to capitulate to keep the peace especially with kids,because conflict is really bad for kids.

Speisekarte

pwurple wrote: »

So, if I buy her a car, or agree to the latest whim, maybe I'll get laid? But in a marriage? Hmmm. Doesn't sound like the healthiest of relationships to be honest. That kind of thing is surely enabling pure hen-pecking.

What makes more sense to me, is people capitulating some of the time when they honestly don't give a ****. Letting someone who does care make the choice. In a balanced relationship it should work both ways.

Which curtains shall we Hang? Don't mind, you choose.
Where shall we eat? How about my favourite place.
Which car should we replace this dead banger with? Well, i watched jeremy clarkson opinionate for 27 hours over the last 6 months, so I have an opinion here.
What film will we see? Etc.

All I'm saying is when the general theme of a relationship is the man jumping through hoops for the woman then I think there is a good chance sex shapes that dynamic.

pwurple

Speisekarte wrote: »

All I'm saying is when the general theme of a relationship is the man jumping through hoops for the woman then I think there is a good chance sex shapes that dynamic.

And I am saying, if someone is witholding sex as some sort of princess bargaining chip to get a man to do things he doesn't want to.... Then it's an unpleasant relationship. Not one I would want to be in anyway.

jaja321

Speisekarte wrote: »

I think men tend to be more submissive than women in relationships because women tend to have a greater ability to go without sex for longer periods of time. So the men tend to acquiesce more often for fear of putting her in a bad mood and therefor less chance of sex.

It would be interesting to examine whether men with lower sex drives than their wives are less likely to be submissive.

To be honest I think this is largely overstated.