Dear Maximillion and Yabby,

I'm beginning to sound a bit like a broken record.
Why do we have to keep promoting the idea that
men and women can be defined? As I've stated on
mrs pierno's thread - generalisations don't
account for individual experience.

Speaking as a young, happily married woman in a
very satisfying relationship - I don't find that
my husband's (and mine) sexual, personal and
emotional needs, need be opposed. We both have
hearts, souls, and bodies that crave satisfaction.
However there's more to our relationship then just
his erections and penetration. Our intimacy also
involves - good communication, awareness of our mutual
vulnerability, love and respect. We don't feel obligated
to be bound by our "gender roles." We're flexible.

We've come a long way from the constrictions of the past.
I often ask myself -' Did our society really think like
that?' and 'Why did we put up with it?' As we progressed
in our society, things began to change,
we discovered that women do have brains, and that men do
have feelings. We've come a long way - since the times of
the past when we had constrictions.

However, I can see that although we have come a long way,
we've still got far to go.

Foxy, I congratulate you on your successful relationship, long may it last. I agree about moving on from the past, though we should avoid the mistake of defining the beliefs and attitudes of the past in terms of your Ideology today, you can't, it was a totally different world.
Just because we've changed socially, does NOT mean we've got it right YET, the pendulum has swung too far, and is still swinging, as they do.
Life is growth, and we do have a lot of growing to do yet, all of us, but it must be ALL of us, together, and while the discussion is exclusively focused on the failings of men, and is defined in female terms and Ideology, there can be no real success, it is only a delusion. For 50 years men have been forced to confront what it means to be a man, and to change, hugely, to adjust to the new world we have all built, but I feel it is time for women to go through the same process, to "get over it", and accept that men, by and large, have changed, and TOGETHER build a new relationship model, one that allows men to be men, and women to be women, without losing anything of themselves. There cannot be any hope if we don't start that search on an equal footing, one that really accepts that there IS a difference between the genders. I rather like the old Socialist maxim for this,..
"FROM each according to his abilities, TO each according to his needs"
That would seem to be a good start for a relationship, as it recognises differences, and works WITH them, rather than trying to fit all into a single mould. Men are NOT women, and to expect us to think, relate, and communicate LIKE a woman, well, it's just never going to make anyone happy, is it, it is doomed to failure.

Maximillion makes extremely valid points there, Foxy.

Your relationship sounds wonderful, but just remember
that many women out there don't have your intellect
and don't think like you. So you speak for yourself,
not for all women.

For every nasty bloke, there is also a nasty female
out there.

Dear Maximillion and Yabby,

Thank You both for your inputs into
this discussion. I deeply appreciate them.

I agree with the points that you've raised.
And, indeed, men and women would
achieve much more if they admitted that they both
have hearts, souls, and bodies that crave
satisfaction. If they realised that their
sexual, personal and emotional needs, need
not be opposed.

Here's to a better understanding between the
sexes in the future.

Now if I may, I'd just like to add - that you
both sound like very caring, compassionate
men - that any female would be lucky to call
her own.

All The Best.

This discussion strikes a chord with me. When at high school, I remember a (male) friend saying that despite teenage girls stating that they don't go for image in a guy, that's the very first thing they go for. Some instantly being interested by a guy having a cigarette is a common one.

Another thing I observed from my school days, is that the most full-on kids at school (whether they be promiscuous, rebellious etc) generally turn out to be the ones with the biggest problems later on in life.

I reckon it's the balanced, quiet, clean-living ones that generally do the best for themselves in the longer run.

At my HSC class's 20-year reunion, a (nice) girl who was always ditzy and in a girly tizz when at school turned out to be surprisingly down-to-earth once she married and settled down. In comparison, one guy, a very quietly self-confident bronzed and muscled adonis lifesaver and good sprinter who always pulled the girls at school, ended up having serious problems and was only a shadow of his former self 20 years on.

So, for good or ill, one can count on the passage of time to even up old imbalances.

Foxy and all,
Interesting topic. And I too congratulate you on a successful marriage in the absence of crystal ball that works I would add thus far. Not in any malevolent sense but simply reinforce the concept that a marriage isn’t a guarantee of forever happiness, rather an intention and continuing effort by both parties.
My point is that marriage biologically speaking unnecessary for the urge to reproduce the species. Anthropologically speaking permanent bonding has many seconded usages yet that hasn’t always been so.

e.g. the ancient Spartan Culture dictated that a male didn’t marry until he was in his early thirties he was busy being a soldier etc. The mother raised her children until about 7 they were communally raised by a sort of den mother. The boys at 12ish went into the army. After 20 yrs retired and the process began again.

This indicates that the concept that “marriage” being an extension of providing protection for the family as a unit as being some what culturally inclined.

To better understand the cultural nature of male dominated society one needs only look at our nearest cousin the Bonobo in their community both Females and sex as a means of bonding predominate.

Then we need look at some of our earliest cultures specifically those from Asia Minor. In those women were dominant and in an attempt to understand the process of life they deified women as a symbol of fertility and life. In many ways this continued in many cultures until society became expansionist at which case men the protector took prominence and the key was to have a continuous line of accession.
These concepts of women= fertility, men= protection/power were taken up by most religions and “ultimately” Christianity. The power having been established then came the artificial concept sexual shame outside of marriage along with this came the double standards.
As for sex see my post on Mrs P.
I rather support the emotional needs of relationships and reject the irrational emphasis on purity and sex as irrational cultural primitivism.
Tragically the laws are based on this ICP.