jacob wrote:Roles (who makes the money, who does the dishes, who cooks dinner, who fights the zombies,...) are recognized but they're not assigned to gender. Instead people do what they're good at/prefer to do/have to do relative to ditto for the other person (or persons if there are more people in the household). It is recognized that the importance of roles is independent of how much it pays, because the whole is greater than the sum of the roles insofar the roles are well combined
Yes, but the question that comes up in Sexual Dichotomy theory (which according to my quick perusal of the internet is actually a Level Turquoise concept, which also explains why I keep running into it (again) in my recent reading/viewing related to the realm of spiral dynamics), is whether this rather utilitarian, even if systems level, perspective can be entirely boundaried away from the sexual energies; feminine/masculine, Dominant/submissive or gender and/or sexual identities (@ Green rather than Turquoise) the participants in a relationship prefer to inhabit? For instance, David Deida (Turquoise thinker according to internet) would argue that the Modern corporate work world tends to de-sexualize all of us, because we have to pretend sexual neutrality all day long, and it's difficult to just shake that off when you walk in the door and resume your relationship with your sexual partner at 6 PM. Therefore, by relieving humans of the burden of Modern corporate employment, ERE should allow humans to more fully occupy their "natural" or preferred sexual energies (or at least fun naps on Tuesday afternoons), unless their acculturation is too thorough to allow for this....or something like this.
AxelHeyst wrote:If the question is actually “does it seem difficult/unnatural for cultural or innate/biological reasons”, then, I don’t know, don’t even the experts disagree on it? Why are you asking a bunch of postconsumer nerds about it? <3 though
LOL. Because this is the intellectual salon where I hang out most often currently, and out of the less than a dozen or so intellectual salons I have hung out in over the last 40 years, two were primarily/theoretically devoted to issues related to relationships or sexuality (one was pretty Vanilla, and one very much wasn't
) Also, as I noted above, I have noticed that Sexual Dichotomy theory, which I first encountered in a relationship therapy group, keeps popping up in my SD related reading. Here's why this discussion might be important from your perspective/situation. How would you explain the difference between the TradWife perspective vs. Radical Homemaker perspective to another human? One answer I might give would be that both movements are attempting to process serious problems with Modern life/Level Orange, but one is self-aware choosing to return to Level Blue/Traditional, while the other is self-aware choosing to experiment at Level Green towards Yellow. Similarly, what differentiates Sexual Dichotomy theory at Level Turquoise from anti-feminist theory is that preferred sexual energy(s) are not assigned to gender/sex/orientation. In simplest terms, I might say (as the author wrote) "The difference is that a Radical Homemaker could be any partner in a relationship or both/all of them."
From my perspective, the reason this is actually a huge issue moving forward in the meta-crisis is that social default to Level Blue and Level Red is highly likely in a crisis-laden or increasingly lower energy environment.
AxelHeyst wrote: I’m not even sure if it does matter if its cultural or biological. I have a biological fear of heights, but I deal with it and overcome it for reasons my forebrain worked up. (Forebrain? A different part? The recent, conscious bit.) My biology instructs me to attempt to seed as many babies as I possibly can out into the world but I put a kabosh on that one.
So maybe in addition to culture my biology is telling me not to accept money from females for reasons that made sense a really long time ago. Sounds like another job for my conscious brain, if the situation ever arose. Big deal.
Yes, I share your perspective. This also applies to getting over "natural" feelings of jealousy in order to inhabit the freedom offered by polyamory. I know it seems ridiculous, but on the personal (as opposed to salon level discussion
) level, what I am wondering, based on both my own personal experience and reading,is whether I might have to self-aware become more of a Domme sexually in order to have the sort of household egalitarian relationship I would prefer (self-aware, "switchy" and overt, as opposed to slump-to-the-center-of-the-sofa-compromised-neutral.) I thought I could better maintain my highly independent social (eNTP, we only lead because we don't want to follow) functioning in conjunction with my self-aware submissive sexual identity//preference by becoming polyamorous and therefore not majorly overlapping my own "turf" with any one of the dominant men with whom I partner, but it keeps defaulting to one or another arrangment which I do not prefer. Also, not unlike the BDSM scene, the polyamorous dating scene is loaded with sexually submissive men (who often may be "perversely" highly socially dominant.) Some man micro-managing me while I do the dishes, and then texting me detailed instructions of exactly how he would prefer for me to top him in bed, pretty much defines the relationship
I would have to be paid $$$ to willingly participate in. MMV extensively.
ETA: Another SD related note would be that it has been my observation that in a relationship, no matter how the power dynamic is defined, at the meta-level, the partner who declares the form of the relationship is the de facto leader/dominant. Doesn't matter whether it is a Level Blue female stating "We will have a TradWife/Husband relationship or a Level Orange/Green male stating "We will have a thoroughly egalitarian relationship." You're right back on the playground with "I'll be Barbie, and you be Ken." or vice-versa or vice-versa-vice-versa, etc.