Yesterday I coincidentally found this on the Internet, which I think perhaps will be of interest for some of you: (QUOTE) "Why do some women prefer submissive men? Hierarchically disparate couples reach higher reproductive success in European urban humans Eva Jozifkova 1, Martin Konvicka 2, Jaroslav Flegr 3 Abstract Objectives: Equality between partners is considering a feature of the functional partnerships in westernized societies. However, the evolutionary consequences of how in-pair hierarchy influences reproduction are less known. Attraction of some high-ranking women towards low-ranking men represents a puzzle. Methods: Young urban adults (120 men, 171 women) filled out a questionnaire focused on their sexual preference for higher or lower ranking partners, their future in-pair hierarchy, and hierarchy between their parents. Results: Human pairs with a hierarchic disparity between partners conceive more offspring than pairs of equally-ranking individuals, who, in turn, conceive more offspring than pairs of two dominating partners. Importantly, the higher reproductive success of hierarchically disparate pairs holds, regardless of which sex, male or female, is the dominant one. In addition, the subjects preferring hierarchy disparity in partnerships were with greater probability sexually aroused by such disparity, suggesting that both the partnership preference and the triggers of sexual arousal may reflect a mating strategy. Conclusion: These results challenge the frequently held belief in within-pair equality as a trademark of functional partnerships. It rather appears that existence of some disparity improves within-pair cohesion, facilitating both cooperation between partners and improving the pairs' ability to face societal challenges. The parallel existence of submissivity-dominance hierarchies within human sexes allows for the parallel existence of alternative reproductive strategies, and may form a background for the diversity of mating systems observed in human societies. Arousal of overemphasized dominance/submissiveness may explain sadomasochistic sex, still little understood from the evolutionary psychology point of view." (END OF QUOTE) (Link: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25617882/). I cannot read the article, but the conclusions in the abstract seem interesting enough, even if you don't have access to the article. I especially noticed this statement: "These results challenge the frequently held belief in within-pair equality as a trademark of functional partnerships. It rather appears that existence of some disparity improves within-pair cohesion, facilitating both cooperation between partners and improving the pairs' ability to face societal challenges." This is exactly what I have experienced in my marriage with my dear wife Larissa during the years since we were married in 1982: Mostly we agree on almost everything, but if we don't agree, we discuss it. Very seldom we quarrel, but if we do - and it very seldom happens - it never gets out of hand, because we both know, that if we can't reach an agreement, Larissa will make the decision. It is her right, because she has the female authority. And that is then the end of the discussion. And I accept it, and always have, because first and foremost Larissa always makes good decisions, and I know that the alternative would be endless discussions or even worse quarrels, which would led to nothing, or even lead to divorce, which happens all to often for married couples nowadays. When Larissa chose me to be her male partner back in 1982, when we both were very young, we were married according to a home made Matriarchal inspired wedding ritual, where Larissa was asked, if she would "elske Tjeik og modtage ham i dit hus og under dit tag" (love Tjeik and receive him in your house and under your roof), and I was asked if I would "elske, tjene og adlyde Larissa" (love, serve and obey Larissa) to which we both of course answered yes. This dispararity between partners in a marriage is, according to the article, more often than not a stabilizing factor, which even results in a better sexual life resulting in a higher birth rate. Interesting, I would say. (By the way, Larissa and I have four children, although our daughters are twins).
Human social arrangements work much better when someone is in charge. It is just a natural outcome of how humans interact. Without an ultimate decision maker, the inevitable result is conflict and discord.
Times have changed. The era of hunter-gatherer where the ‘stronger’ gender were to chase after wild animals for source of protein and the ‘weaker’ gender staying domesticated looking after low hanging fruits (literally) and poultry/cattle evolved into men ploughing their enery during industrial boom and women taking care of the household. After the devastated wars, reduced number of men in the labour force had opened oppurtunities to women seeking greater employment. Along with it had given birth to women emancipation, education, social equality and voting rights. Boys have been exposed to women empowerment and witnessing how mothers can take charge of the family and livelihood in event where the fathers have been sacrificed during wars or fathers leaving the nest for some one else. For the first time ever.. boys find that it is ok for them to cry.. girls realise that they dont have to be some damsels to be rescued.. Men can be submissive and still deserve the respect of women or even men alike. Women at the top of their game wont mind having submissive men as partners.
I wonder how this research draws the line between pairs with "equally-ranking" and "two dominating" partners respectively, and wether it defines rank and dominance according to each other or as separate categories
My Wife and I were very close, and we never argued, but there was always a 'tension' in the marriage. I started ceding to her and eventually we formalized our relationship. We get along much better after 6 years in a strict FLR. We have 5 kids-
There can never be two dominant personalities in a union. Logic and truth can be subjective in reasoning out any disagreement, but ego, arm twisting and high handedness stand in the way of resolving conflict. Either party may just have to give in. It is good enough for both parties being willing to look into options on the table with either one relenting and agreeing with the other. Once both parties confront each other across the table, the table usually get flung along. My wife usually makes good decision, i toe the line and take up her option.