The following was written by Camille 11325 at Red Pill Women. It’s a new idea that explains a whole lot in women’s different reactions to certain red pill theories. For the women reading, before you get to the part in the article where it breaks down your combination, figure it out for yourself. Don’t read the combinations and apply it to yourself that way. Know what it is before hand. If you go in just reading the descriptions, it is far too easy to think one is “good” and one is “bad” and assign yourself the good one to save your ego and to be part of the good group. This is like the alpha and beta in men. One is not good and one is not bad. These things just are. If you can’t be honest with yourself about where you are beginning, you will not be able to accurately see where you need to go.
_____________________________________________________________________
There are a lot of misconceptions surrounding dominance, submission, and RPW. Many unacquainted with our subreddit assume that all RPW are 1950’s housewife wannabes, or that we are interested in the plate-spinning, alpha archetype that TRP endorses. Others write us off as a group of women in denial about our sexual kinks, and completely ignore the evidence to the contrary. Even within the sub, there is confusion when it comes to explaining the RPW relationship model, and what type of man is ideal.
After several enlightening conversations with /u/_wingnut_ I have created a system to describe various relationship models and dynamics from an RPW perspective. A streamlined set of terms to discuss this subject is a necessary step, and hopefully this post will lead to further exploration of similar topics within RPW.
A basic understanding of RP concepts and vocabulary is a prerequisite for this post, so please consult the FAQ, Wiki, and/or top posts if necessary. Please note that this entire post is limited to describing the personalities of average and attractive men (5+ on the SMV scale), and of course, these ideas are generalisations that can be applied to most people, not ironclad universal laws. There will also be a follow up post that explores these ideas more, this is merely an introduction. Please be honest when assessing yourself based on the criteria outlined below, there are many different RPW dynamics, and they all have the potential to be equally harmonious.
Our disposition, mindset, and personality, all have a profound effect on the types of relationships we thrive in. A couple doesn’t need to be identical to have a strong marriage, but they certainly must have the right balance of traits to make them compatible. There are two important characteristics that must be taken into account: the dominance level of each person, as well as the woman’s dominance threshold.
Your “Dominance Level” (DL) measures your natural tendency to assume the lead, exercise authority in interactions, and display other alpha male traits. For the purposes of this post I will use a scale of 1 – 10 to discuss DL, with 10 representing the maximum possible level of dominance one can have. A “1” on the scale represents pure beta, not omega characteristics, as we are only discussing attractive men here. The “Dominance Threshold”indicates how dominant your man has to be in order for you to feel attraction, commitment, and love. I will also be using the 1-10 dominance scale when referring to the dominance threshold. For the purposes of this discussion it is assumed that all women have a range of 0-2 points past their threshold where attraction is possible, and I think this is in line with reality. The threshold is the minimum but most women who prefer a 5.5/10 would not be comfortable with an 8 or higher.
How are dominance levels expressed in each gender?
- Men who are lower in dominance (1-5.4 on the DL scale) have a higher ratio of beta traits in comparison to alpha traits. At the lowest end of the spectrum they can be easygoing, empathetic, gentle, and considerate. They can also be sensitive, emotional, unconfident, indecisive, and soft. The 3.5s-5.4s exhibit more alpha traits but their nature is that of a “greater beta”. These men are able to provide comfort and leadership as required in a relationship.
- High dominance men (5.5-10 on the DL scale) have a higher ratio of alpha traits in comparison to beta traits. There are many types of alpha men: apex, renegade, patriarchal, criminal, corporate, political, etc. and they all have different characteristics that allow them to succeed and take charge in their respective environments. One thing they all have in common is an immense amount of masculinity, which can be both good and bad. The 5.5 – 7.9s are “lesser alphas”, similar to greater betas, only they provide less comfort and their personalities are less feminine. 8 – 10s have the highest amounts of Dark Triad traits, and are the rarest group of men.
- Women who are low dominance are non confrontational, empathetic, sensitive, and accommodating. In essence, they are feminine, not only with their men but in their everyday lives, automatically. They can be doormats, passive, weak, and insecure if they do not learn how to prioritise themselves first instead of others.
- High Dominance Women are more confident, driven, assertive, and ambitious but this is a result of being more masculinised. This also makes them more argumentative, self serving, and insubordinate. Some women like to think of themselves as “alpha women” but this is a myth, not an RP concept. Feminists have pushed the idea that male characteristics and virtues are a universal ideal that all should strive for so women are encouraged to be high dominance. Many who come to RPW find that with the right man they actually prefer not having all of the control. To be clear, a woman with a DL of “10” is not as dominant as a man who ranks at “10”. There are two separate scales.
How are dominance thresholds expressed in women?
- Women with low dominance thresholds require less alpha, more beta in their relationships. This means more affection and softness, more obvious and frequent displays of love and care. These women are repelled by or afraid of extreme displays of male aggression, anger, or arrogance. They are suited for betas and greater betas.
- Women with high dominance thresholds require more alpha, less beta. They crave arousal, displays of power, raw masculinity, etc. from their man and cannot tolerate emotional sensitivity, pedestalization, uncertainty, weakness, or other beta traits in excess. They’re perfect mates for all types of alphas.
- When a man’s DL is way too low for a woman, she reacts with disgust or infantilisation. If it is merely a point or two lower you’ll see shit tests. If it’s slightly too high, she’ll comfort test, and when it’s way too high she’ll be afraid. This applies to all women regardless of their threshold.
Taking the 4 categories into account (low/high DL, low/high threshold) there are 8 possible relationship combinations. Not all are optimal or RP but all of the dynamics exist in the real world. My hope is that we can use these labels within the subreddit in our discussions and the advice we give. In the IRC we came up with an easy way to refer to each dynamic with just 3 letters, all of which are either H or L. The first letter establishes the man’s dominance level, the second the woman’s, and then the third is for her dominance threshold. So a high dominance man with a low dominance woman, who has a high threshold, would be described as HLH. A low dominance man with a low dominance woman, who has a low dominance threshold, would be LLL.
Now onto an overview of the dynamics, which will be described from the female point of view. They are ordered from least potential to be RP to most potential to be RP, with 3 equally RP dynamics, there is not one universally ideal dynamic. Please keep in mind that these descriptions are all generalisations of what is most likely to happen, there are always exceptions.
- High dominance man, high dominance/low threshold woman (HHL) – she vies for dominance and feels little to no comfort or security. Possible violence as she is likely to stir up trouble by constantly challenging her man.
- High man, low/low woman (HLL) – she needs more beta comfort and can’t stay motivated when feeling unloved. Her man doesn’t know how to interact w/ her, and may find her useless or overly sensitive. She feels he is mean or scary. There is also a strong chance of violence in this relationship which only further discourages the LL woman from being her best and creates a cycle where the man is constantly punishing her.
- Low man, high/high woman (LHH) – she walks all over him or bosses around. This is a very common dynamic as it is what usually happens when a woman is out of the CC riding/AF phase and has settled for her beta bucks.
- Low man, low/high woman (LLH) – she is repulsed and/or can’t respect him, wishes he was more dominant. This is one of the most common dynamics when women come to rpw for advice. Whenever you see a post where the OP asks: “How can I get my main to be the captain” or says “I tried captain/first mate but he’s not taking the lead” then you know it’s an LLH situation.
- Low man, high/low woman (LHL) – a lot of feminist and “equal” relationships are like this, and they can work, and people can be happy in them. But there is a greater chance that the woman walks all over the man and disrespects him and he just puts up with it.
- High man, high/high woman (HHH) – potential to be RP if the woman respects the man. Women in these relationships may be masculinised/male brained by nature but they are able to achieve psychological femininity within their relationships and defer to their men. “Captain and First Mate” as described by RPW is not an adequate description of the dynamics in HHH relationships. /u/_wingnut_ (who is in an HHH relationship herself) prefers to think of this pairing as “Zod and Ursa”, or “Magneto and Mystique”.
- High man, low/high woman (HLH) – potential to be RPW and is a classic fantasy, but not seen as much in reality. The woman is naturally submissive and aware of it. She is drawn to a dominant man and requires power over her. There is a strong sense of ownership and there can also be a paternalistic element to the dynamic. A lot of women who would thrive in HLH relationships get mistaken for and/or wrapped up in bdsm communities. Again, “Captain and First Mate” does not fit, I personally use “supervillain/hot sidekick” to describe my HLH dynamic w/ M, but the best analogy for your relationship is dependent on the type of alpha your man is.
- Low man, low/low woman (LLL) – this is the most common both in and out of the subreddit. Contrary to what many may assume, most rpw are interested in or already with greater betas! When done right, these relationships are the epitome of the captain and first mate concept. The man leads and the woman occupies the traditional female role, but it may not feel like submission or deferment to her because of the lack of power imposed explicitly.
Can you change your dominance level?
Yes! If you are a high dominance woman, you can become less controlling, argumentative, disobedient, etc. RPW is great for that. “Cultivating a Feminine Frame of Mind” (located on the sidebar) is a good place to start and it is applicable to all as it deals with psychological femininity. The Surrendered Wife may also apply depending on the preferences of your man. If you are low dominance, you can become more assertive if that is an area of weakness. However, men who want the traditional, RP relationships are not interested in women who do not listen to or respect them, so it’s important not to go too far in the other direction.
Can you change your dominance threshold?
Attraction is non negotiable. It’s important to be aware of and honest about your preferences and select a partner wisely. If you are in a marriage, RPW can help you with your behaviour and thought processes but it’s not likely that your actual nature as a person will change. Understanding how men think can help you become more comfortable with a man that has a DL way higher than your threshold. If you are with a man who’s DL is below your threshold RPW can help you with respect, loyalty, and all of the other issues that come with those dynamics.
What can we do with this information?
Part 2 will explore these ideas more, especially the RP dynamics, and it will go into how to identify which dynamic you have if you aren’t sure. As mentioned earlier, this system will be a great way to have everyone on the same page when it comes to discussing relationships and giving advice.
We should all be aware of our biases, and our individual dominance levels and thresholds greatly affect the responses we leave about other people’s relationships. A lot of women with low dominance thresholds can’t understand masculine, dominant men, and that contributes to them advising women to leave their men in certain instances or worrying that something is abusive. The reverse also applies, women with high dominance thresholds are less able to wrap their heads around how other women can stay with and be attracted to low dominance men. It is important to be aware of our biases and work to overcome solipsism. It’s not about what we would do in their situation, but what they should do in their situation. Hopefully having the language to identify dynamics will help us all provide suggestions that work well with whatever dynamic a user is involved in.
Thank you for reading, I hope this all made sense and was helpful! Let me know what questions you have and what things you want to see in Part 2 🙂
This is a unique idea and one I really wanted to share. One note I wanted to make is I think many women’s dominance threshold’s are out of whack with what they would naturally tend towards. We have been taught (many from birth) that masculinity is dangerous and bad and some women, who would have a high threshold would find masculine men attractive and then not understand why she does. This would cause confusion, among other things, to say the least. Not to mention those who are low dominance threshold controlling so much of the narrative today. They use their position to weaken masculinity and to shame women with high thresholds .
I have a lot of thoughts on this, but really I wanted to put it out there. This wouldn’t be so much of a manosphere theory as it applies to women, but it might help men to better understand the women they are with.
For women, I think it can be invaluable. If you can accurately assess yourself here and get your natural baseline it could open up your eyes to problems within your marriage and make it far easier to find and understand solutions.
On the Rock 
…far toO easy…
Fixed. Thank you.
OK, I read through the monster thread. Seems a lot of pother for a simple idea that leaders and followers tend to pair up.
I think many women’s dominance threshold’s are out of [natural] whack.
Agree. Young women confuse their high female SMV with social dominance; big egos ruin their romantic appeal for their counterparts. At 31 yo, they then get betas.
Women should be careful. Weak/lazy men actively purse these women, who may be haunted by (or change to) a more natural role over time. Seen many a smart, high-T woman dumped by dominate men picking through the girl tree. High-T girl rarely understands what went wrong. Hot and smart, right?
Remember lots of girls “hackle up” at patriarchal behavior (w/ some vibe to it) when dating. Many such “hackle” women are now with lower betas (or divorced). No upper 1/3 man will stand them for long, too many chick options.
Btw, see the SB commercials? Seemed less male bashing, and I smelled a touch of female fear. But curious if I just imagining things.
Seems a lot of pother for a simple idea that leaders and followers tend to pair up.
Remember lots of girls “hackle up” at patriarchal behavior
You answered your own ponder here. I believe this theory came about because there are some women at RPW with high dominance thresholds. Comments were made about husbands and many women came back and (politely) said, I understand what you are saying here, but that is just not for me. It seems controlling, disrespectful, etc, etc. I believe Camille started to really think about why some women were just fine with this level of dominance and even thrive in it while others obviously were offended and or scared of it. This is a very good explanation of this dynamic. It also has huge potential to help a lot of women understand not only each other but more importantly, themselves and their husbands.
see the SB commercials? Seemed less male bashing, and I smelled a touch of female fear. But curious if I just imagining things.
No. I didn’t watch it, but I am completely unsurprised at what you think you saw. Many of those in charge now absolutely sense the change in the wind and will instinctively pull back some. Not only will it give them plausible deniability but it will serve as a way to say, “Hey, we’re listening to you! We really do like men!” While thinking, hey maybe this will keep the men placated so they won’t rise up and take over. They will only back up just enough to serve their own interests, however.
Very interesting. I will have to ponder this… can’t say right off the top of my head which. I do think what a lot of women “say” they want and what they actually “do” want can vary greatly because if what they want is a manly man who is the man, well that’s almost not ok to say anymore! 😉
Many of those in charge now absolutely sense the change in the wind and will instinctively pull back some.
I don’t watch the SB itself (no tv) but I make a point to watch the commercials later to keep in touch. Commercials are too money hungry to play politics; they are a good cultural snapshot. Money matters; they get graded. When they go PC, it’s because they sell products by it. Women are primary buyers.
Things I’ve felt more common: the “fierce father”, the “wedding hope”, the “baby around men” memes. Also, less anti-male stuff (prob triggers 1/3 of men now so that makes sense). This year, it’s was incredibly unfunny, worst yet. And 2015 was worse than 2014. I think the cultural and demographic divisions are making it not work anymore.
Red pill women have some ‘roided out hamsters, that’s for sure.
I think the cultural and demographic divisions are making it not work anymore.
This makes sense. No matter what, their bound to tick off someone and it is no longer an univocal few. I don’t know how they could possibly even do funny any more. They can’t seem to do funny without offending some victim class. There are just so many today.
bookooball, We’re women. Of course. 😉
redpillgirlnotes,
That “almost” is very nearly gone.
RPN, what they actually “do” want can vary greatly because if what they want is a manly man who is the man, well that’s almost not ok to say anymore!
SR, That almost is nearly gone
Women are torn between cooperative and competitive. When Gloria Steinem whined about young women feminists voting for Bernie Sanders because that’s where the hot guys were, that was a good example of an older feminist realizing the error of her ways. OTOH, feminists try to rally women; OTOH, they hate each other and poach hot guys when they can.
Under strong and organized male control, women are cooperative (think Muslims, Amish, or LDS). Under Matriarchy, women are competitive (men/resources are scarce; think Hispanic or Black communities). When the State is dominate (Europe/America) men are optional and drift from family so Matriarchy is dominate. This is today: the few women still able to lock in quality male support have strong families, good kids, and and lots of grandchildren. The rest implode over time (Hillary voters).
I think this would be more useful with a medium setting. Just High/Low is too muddy. Maybe a quiz, work up some sort of number for each?
I strongly prefer to have my husband make the decisions/steer the ship, which would make me “submissive” but – I’m not. I’m really not. If you can’t make the decisions, I will, and I’ll be irritated about having to do so. There’s no way I’d stay with a man who wasn’t stronger/more decisive than I am. (I dated a couple in HS, and I got bored very quickly).
I have no idea whether I’m an HHH or an HLH, because I can’t tell you whether I’m low or high. 😀
Hearth,
First, define submissive. Second, if your husband came in and was grumpy, and it had nothing to do with you, but he snapped anyway, how would you react?
There is no medium because it would have made this way too confusing. It would have added so many more sections and just mucked it up and made very nearly every woman medium for not wanting to commit to what they really are (not that you are doing this). I have a good idea of what you are but I won’t say because I want to see how you answer these questions first.
Good to see you, Hearthie. 🙂
I hate it when he’s grumpy! I withdraw – with various levels of upset, depending on the level of snap and the day and all that. Then I come back and try to ameliorate whatever it is… hot beverage anyone?
Submissive: Someone who needs or prefers to have someone else in charge.
Truly submissive people need to be taken care of and protected. I prefer to be – but I also protect those I perceive as more submissive/weaker than I am, and that’s a very strong character trait. Again, if someone stronger than I am doesn’t step up, I’ll do it. True submissives just sort of flail around or get themselves in trouble (I know a few). Either that, or they do this weird faux-aggressive thing where they act *extra* assertive in order to S-test the universe at large.
Honestly, I know DH is H, and I know I prefer H though I freak out when he’s too assertive, and if anything I comfort test. But me? L or H, I dunno. 🙂 And I can see myself in both of the HLH and HHH pairings, though I’d lean HLH.
H, Truly submissive people need to be taken care of and protected. I prefer to be – but I also protect those I perceive as more submissive/weaker than I
Good explanation. I would call this position a “normal and healthy desire for the hierarchical”. It actually takes leadership and guts to follow. Nothing “submissive” about it. You see this in men, gangs, or or the military, or the Church, all the time. People who can work with others always win. People who can’t, they are generally unhappy and splinter.
To me, loyalty and obedience are absolutely mandatory, in both men and women, families and marriage, church and family life. There is security in knowing a leader must be responsible, and that the “team” stays unified. It’s critical everyone answers to somebody else: child to mother, wife to husband, husband to Church, Church to Christ, Christ to God. Not because the “have to”. Because they want to. I love the “no look pass” in basketball. That’s leadership and trust.
I have nothing but distaste for people who cannot follow, who rebel, who hate authority by instinct. It’s no accident the Reformation started with disobedience and divorce. It’s not by accident Jesus prayed his followers would be one and gave Peter (a man who denied him three times) the keys and authority over the Church (feed my lambs) plus banned divorce (let no man tear asunder).
Okay, I went away and thought some more—- I would define myself as submissive, but I’m very picky about those to whom I will submit, and I don’t make my choice through the power-struggle that I so often see, I make it based on trust/character. Thank you! I got some good thinking and introspection through this little comment-chat. 😀
Hearth,
When you say you withdraw, I’m assuming you mean you withdraw into yourself because you hate his grumpiness. Given this and this, “I freak out when he’s too assertive” (and just these so take this for what it is worth), I would say you are H. Not high H (9-10) but low (5.5-6 maybe 7). So, I would call you HHH.
Ha! And you commented while I was writing up mine (which has taken me all morning to write that little bit 😉 )
So here’s my next question, are you naturally submissive? Because from what you’ve told me, you sound more naturally dominant while working to be more submissive. And that, I think is the whole point of this. Both submissive and dominant have strengths and weaknesses. For those naturally dominant they should work to cultivate their strengths and diminish their weaknesses. Same for the naturally submissive. These are going to be different for each, obviously. What one needs to find is that balance between the two. The sweet spot, if you will.
It is a fair draw, honestly. I don’t know, are all women at least somewhat submissive? I don’t submit to *other women* except conditionally. It did give me a good chew on. More than one person who thought they were leading me found out I was following the pack train until it got to where I was going, and that my “submission” was my understanding that a lower position on the totem pole was part of being part of that group, and that it didn’t extend further than my obligations thereunto.
It actually takes leadership and guts to follow
Herein lies the issue. Many, many people today think that submission only follows fear. The automatic assumption is that s submissive woman means an abusively dominant man. Never that she freely chooses this path. This also follows that today, she is absolutely not submitting to the feminine narrative that we are “supposed” to follow.
Hearth,
I think all women can be submissive. I think the conditions have to be correct which is where this new idea comes in. Some women, as you said, are simply submissive and go along to get along and then end up being passive aggressive in their tests. They also can’t lead because they go over the top in the opposite direction. Some women have to force themselves to submit or can only submit to that man who has will enough to coax it out of her (and for those lurkers, I am not talking abuse because to her, this would look like love). I wouldn’t call you submissive because you know your like. You know why you are in a situation and what you want to get out of it. You have the dominance to do this.
However, you CAN submit (obviously) and want to with your husband. But it sounds more like something he will coax out of you with his will. Not something you are more naturally drawn to in most or all situations.
Or as he said, when I discussed this with him last night, “and HOW many times have I told you to do something, you did something else because it was a “better idea” and then had to fix it, because I’d already considered the better idea and discarded it before I gave you instruction?”
Exactly. 😀
Well this certainly explains why my LH girlfriend is a lot more pleasant and fun to be around than my HL girlfriend….
Michael Kozaki, sorry for not responding – WP only let me know about Stingray’s responses.
Submission to proper authority is certainly all through the Bible, OT and NT. And choosing-to-submit is not the same as a naturally submissive spirit. Even the most powerful man is likely to have someone to whom he must report. We are *so* backwards in this culture that we think obedience is weakness.
SR, glad to see you posting more often again! 😀
We are *so* backwards in this culture that we think obedience is weakness.
And humility.
glad to see you posting more often again!
Well, I’m trying. I remember when my kids were little I would think how much more time I would have when they got a bit older. Alas, I am find that is absolutely not the case. We do a whole lot more together now though and we’re having fun. It’s where I’m supposed to be.
This post was a game changer for me. This explains so much! lol.
Hope section 2 is up soon.
Stingray, what would be your thoughts on this predicament a woman found herself in? Would you have anything to add for her, or think there are some cases where a woman would want to move (like if she actually WAS engaged) in order to show loyalty and submission?
http://girlwithadragonflytattoo.com/2016/03/28/boyfriend-isnt-ready-to-get-engaged/
Interesting! Based on this model, my parents’ relationship resembles the HLH dynamic… No wonder why I was open to the Red Pill with relative ease. My own parents showed me what a Red Pill relationship could be like (side note: they naturally have such a relationship, they don’t actually know about the Red Pill).
Personally, I would introduce the idea of “Medium” haha. Medium Dominance Level, Medium Dominance Threshold, etc etc. I am somewhat in-between the very feminine and more “masculinized” aspects – I am feminine, but not to the extent I let other people walk all over me; I can have stronger boundaries. Also, my Dominance Threshold is probably Medium to High (more on the Medium side generally). Men with low dominance do “disgust” me, I have to say. They turn me off A LOT. I could never be with a Low Dominance man, I’d rather be single forever, haha. On the other hand, High Dominance men can seem too controlling to me. But I would surely prefer them over the Low Dominance men.
Following that, I’d see myself being the most comfortable in an MMM relationship. :p
Other than that, I suppose I would fit into the HHH dynamic the most (with a future partner) at the moment. Again, I’d rather be single than in an LHH relationship, haha!
Besides, I run a blog on how to be an “Alpha woman” https://msmodernalpha.wordpress.com/2016/01/28/how-to-be-a-female-alpha/ ; this article says it is a myth, and I would agree in the sense that the Alpha woman in *feminist culture* is basically just a woman with (figurative) balls. However, my idea of an “Alpha woman” is being an intelligent, beautiful Red Pill woman.
P.S: Reading your post on Dominant vs Domineering was an eye opener. I might confuse high dominance with someone being very domineering. I am still figuring out how this relates to what I want in a partner, based on my “true” personality vs my social conditioning. It can be tough to constantly re-evaluate what society “teaches” you in terms of relationship dynamics. Most people tend to look down on traditional HLH relationships, as far as I know. My mother has been getting remarks over the years in terms of not letting her husband make decisions for her, that their relationship is supposedly unequal, etc etc.
High man, low/low woman is sort of our situation. This type of combination can become very problematic if the woman in the equation lacks skills to assert herself. Good assertiveness training in this case is crucial for any type of satisfying relationship for anybody. The majority of the women I have known in my circles in the past have been high man, low/low woman, so a lot of what people say on here is foreign to me.
As a woman learns how to manage the dynamic, she has to learn how to find some assertiveness to achieve balance and sanity in her life — and being LL is, unfortunately, not a good way to stay sane and balanced! 🙂 You can quickly become overwhelmed, especially if you have a large family of children in the mix.
Learning to be assertive and firm in setting boundaries is crucial, although it may not be well received. If people are used to walking all over you, they will not like it when you no longer allow it. Many men will regard your personal boundaries as unsubmissive and “bitchy” (please forgive the word as I consider it inappropriate, but that’s a word commonly used which I think will be understood), but I believe you will show more strength if you can face their vocabulary choices in regards to yourself without flinching or backing down. This is where you need support to maintain equilibrium and not allow yourself to be swayed by others’ responses.
I understand blogs such as this are not focused on women’s boundaries, but the HM, LLW dynamic does exist, and navigating that relationship is a challenge for both men and women in that marriage dynamic.
“There is also a strong chance of violence in this relationship which only further discourages the LL woman from being her best and creates a cycle where the man is constantly punishing her.”
I think this should include also the fact that this is rarely a scenario, and it is unfair to categorize this type of dynamic in this way. “Discourages the LL woman from being her best”, yes, but the rest is not true, especially when the man is a man of strong religious faith. I would regard “punishing” in the majority of this as a degeneration into contempt which gradually occurs when someone realizes that the other partner lacks the skills to stand up for herself and has become powerless to assert her rights, opinions and needs. And this is not necessarily a fault per se, but rather a trait of human nature — if we find we can walk all over someone, we unconsciously end up doing so even though we are not consciously choosing to do so.
By the same token, it is also inappropriate to categorize all more assertive women who don’t have this problem as disrespectful and unsubmissive if they tend to roll over their husbands who may be the more quiet type. A lot of this is an unconscious tendency embedded in human nature. This is rarely pointed out among manospherians as they appear to firmly entrenched in the belief that assertive women are feminists. Not always so. This should therefore be corrected.
I don’t know if you’ve ever heard Ginny Seuffert speak, a homeschooling mother of twelve children who writes many articles and books for Seton Home Study School, but she is very assertive, very up-front and a very strong woman who could be construed by some as over-the-top — yet without that character, I don’t think she would have been as successful at her vocation as she has been. I heard a gentleman criticize her recently at a homeschooling meeting, and thought it was ludicrous. She’s amazing, a strong Catholic and definitely VERY opinionated. 🙂 And she’s NO feminist. But many manospherians would probably think her to be so, and dismiss her daughters and granddaughters because she raised them or influenced their raising. It is important to not paint everyone with the same brush.
As a woman learns how to manage the dynamic, she has to learn how to find some assertiveness to achieve balance and sanity in her life
I completely agree.
But there is more that a woman can do in this situation. A woman can increaser her dominance threshold. She can take herself from being low to being able to tolerate and ever respect higher. There is a balance to be had. This is what I try to teach women to do.
I think this should include also the fact that this is rarely a scenario
Of course. The woman who wrote this said there is a strong chance, not 100% chance. She doesn’t mean that it is a given, just that it is something to watch out for. Strong religious faith these days, unfortunately, is far less than in the past. Men and women feel free to go with their nature rather than fight against it.
This is rarely pointed out among manospherians as they appear to firmly entrenched in the belief that assertive women are feminists
This is both true and false. 😉 The manosphere talks about how this is human nature constantly and they do also say that women with an assertive nature are feminists. Here’s the thing. Most women who are assertive become feminists because it is their desire to give into this part of their human nature that drives them. It is far easier to give into it rather than fight against it. You need to remember that the manosphere relies very heavily on generalities. The bloggers who have been around the longest and really understand these concepts are all very well aware that there are exceptions to all of this, but that the exceptions are outliers. I haven’t heard of Ginny Seuffert, but from what you’ve said she would be an outlier. The established bloggers would recognize that.
There is a whole lot of nuance in red pill philosophy. A lot of people just don’t pick up on it. Part of that nuance is recognizing outliers and part of it is accepting generalities.
Glad I ran across this, an interesting model. It’s worthwhile & not obvious to separate the last 2 items: a woman can be very low in dominance but need either a lot of dominance or not much dominance from her partner. Or high in dominance but also needs the same.
A question, though: it’s pretty easy for a guy to figure out how dominant or not his girlfriend is, before getting married and even before having sex—-but figuring out how much dominance she needs is less easy. Any clues how to do this?\
Thanks
Anonymous Al
Also: I think there are some women who subconsciously need/want much more dominance than they CONSCIOUSLY want. My own wife, for example–she usually likes sex ok, (sorry if this is TMI but important to clarify the point), usually has an orgasm but from foreplay rather than the intercourse, which is usually in missionary position. Very occasionally, she becomes exceptionally excited and wants a position which is obviously symbolic of female submission: on the floor, across the edge of the bed, etc. Almost always, the next day she will be very angry at me about something which is ostensibly unrelated.
I think she probably needs more dominance than I offer (I’d say I’m about midrange or a little over), but if she had gotten a man at the upper level there would have been continuous discord, even more than we have, because her own dominance level is pretty high (which she doesn’t accept, btw, thinks she has no interest in power.) So consciously, she is a LL on the model scale, while subconsciously she seems to be a HH.
Any clues how to do this?
As with anything with women, watch them. She will give you clues. How does she react to traditionally dominant/masculine men? Even in the movies? How does she react to very low dominance men? Is there disgust there? Also, I absolutely agree with you. I think a lot of women do need/want much more than they consciously want. We are taught to consciously dislike dominance. So when we see it and actually like it, we are at war with ourselves because we feel like we are betraying something.
Another thing, I would say a lot of women aren’t as clear in their own dominance for the same reason. I think a lot of women who would be naturally low dominance are ashamed of that and try very hard to be high dominance. Again, they are at war with themselves and might be difficult to suss out. You wife, judging by how she says she is angry the next day, might be like this. She might be angry at herself for enjoying that and taking it out on you. Or, she might be high dominance and want a more dominant man (and also be ashamed of this). It’s hard for me to say. Given her anger the next day, I would go with high on her end, but I could not say for sure.
A woman can absolutely modify her dominance threshold and make it higher. The more she learns about what men actually want, but that is not something all women want to learn. It might be something that you can inspire in her, but you will have to ride out the storms to do that. Teach her that what she wants from you is not a shameful thing. There are a few women at RPW that are HHH that have learned to do this and are incredibly happy women for doing it. But like us all, they have their own demons to work out to reach that place.
I somehow missed this convo earlier, but I liked what Hearth said about a “medium” level. I require a man of higher dominance, and although it was more than a decade into my own marriage before I figured out why, I was in tune with that enough that I would quickly and gently extract myself from a guy who was showing interest if I sensed a low dominance level.
I now know that my understanding of true manhood was heavily by my very dominant father even though I would never have admitted to myself that I was looking for someone like him. I found someone like him, very dominant 3/4 of the time but with the ability to take the time to offer comfort when it’s clearly needed. And I don’t really need it a lot, so it works.
But I am not particularly high dominance, and not low dominance either. I am a a mixture of the two although how the ratios fall I am not sure.But I’m also not a ball busting, frequent sh*it-tester either. I am grounded in the reality that he is man enough not to be swayed or molded by me. I tend towards obedience with a side of spunk.
I hate the idea of sounding unicorn-ish, but not sure into which *box* I would fit.
I understand why people would like a medium level. For you, hearth and myself it makes sense. However, I understand why Camille didn’t put it in there. For one thing, she would have been explaining far more combinations. But more importantly, it would have given women who don’t really know their marriage dynamic yet, a place to hide. A place to say this is the one for me without truly figuring things out and how to work on what’s what. You know your dynamic even though you might not be able to put the letters to it. The letters in your case simply don’t matter. They are a fun exercise. But for a lot of the women there, they don’t need more places to hide. We saw a lot of (and it was inevitable) women see a combination they believed to be ideal and then try to lump themselves into it. It’s a natural reaction to be sure, but we wanted to avoid that as much as possible so people couldn’t hide and effectively avoid what needed working on.
I now know that my understanding of true manhood was heavily by my very dominant father even though I would never have admitted to myself that I was looking for someone like him. I found someone like him, very dominant 3/4 of the time but with the ability to take the time to offer comfort when it’s clearly needed. And I don’t really need it a lot, so it works.
I could have written this word for word for myself.