Gen-Gen Bender Question

[ffj]

I haven't seen the movie so I don't understand the reference but "angry mom" sounds like a terrible time to me. There isn't enough money in the world to make it worth while to endure caustic people all of the time, especially marriage.

I'm not a Christian or even religious but one of the things they get right is the concept of a giving marriage, meaning both people seek ways to make their partners life better. Now they also teach that women should be submissive to their husbands which I think derails the concept for a lot of women but ideally both people in that relationship should be supporting the other on a continual basis which makes the whole power dynamic moot. If BOTH people are giving towards the other. We all know how this can go sideways.

So if the relationship is at a high functioning level, then no man should feel threatened by taking his wife up on her offer of taking a couple of years off to pursue other interests.

[daylen]

Reframing for asexuality and gender neutrality. Suppose agent A is more financially secure than agent B, and agent B is more spiritually secure than agent A. Agent A is willing to trade some living space and income for some therapy. Agent B agrees. Five years later, agent A becomes more spiritually secure and agent B becomes more financially secure. They jointly decide to re-separate living spaces. No hard feelings cause no sex or expectation of commitment. Future arrangements between A and B remain on the table.

[jacob]

"No responsibility without authority"?

[7Wannabe5]

I'd only do it with the full awareness that it's very likely to explode the relationship. People enter into arrangements like that with all sorts of implicit contracts ("if I parent and I do the housework without complaining, she will finally fuck me as much as i want") and then get resentful when, surprise, the other partner wasn't aware they've been signed up for this contract at all. All parties entering an arrangement like this should be able to introspect like whoa, be brutally honest with themselves, and be brutally honest with each other, or the relationship will implode.

Absolutely true. Covert contracts are super dysfunctional. I know this because in my first marriage I was the higher-sex drive female "nice guy" who went to WAAAAAY too much trouble to get sex from my husband. For instance, I literally framed and built a wall and installed a door and lock to create a better privacy barrier between our bedroom area and the kid's area on the theory that might be the problem This is why I hold a good deal of empathy for male "nice guys" who are stuck in similar situations/dysfunctional behavior. Recovery from being a female "nice guy" is simultaneously easier and more difficult than recovery from being a male "nice guy", because market reality is on your side, but social stereotypes are not. So, for instance, it was very helpful for me to join a therapy group that included other women with the same problem (Note: much higher proportion British or husband dropped out of Catholic seminary than general population.) Also, if you throw some kids into the mix, it becomes much more complex 3 or 4 body problem. There are a lot of unhappily married people who are not fully conscious of the fact that they are 99% likely to ask for a divorce the day after their youngest child graduates from high school.

With postconsumer praxis, this is just a semiERE style.

I dug out my copy of "Radical Homemakers" last night. I now recall that the reason I tossed it aside was there is a juncture where the author is promoting feminist "romantic naturalist" research that suggests that there was some ideal pastoral past prior to industrialized capitalism where men and women had egalitarian relationships, because they both performed simple productive domestic work together at home. I do not like this line of argument, because my take is that it is not necessary to prove gender equality in the past in order to promote it for the future, and proceeding from a likely false premise is counter-productive. One of the reasons the hippie communes of the 60s/70s failed is that a low energy, pre-industrialized environment favors humans with more upper body strength. Break-even only happens when 12 year old Annie Oakley has access to a gun and a chainsaw. I currently live in a post-economic-collapse hard boundary between urban blight/rural decay environment, and the reason why I theoretically would send my thoroughly-imaginary-compliant-male-partner out to scavenge scrap metal rather than doing it myself is that I am afraid of the other scrappers. Totally different reality than dumpster diving for fun and profit in the affluent suburbs.

OTOH, I think Shannon Hayes makes some great points about how corporatism and consumerism are two sides of the same coin. Also, her commentary about how anything a modern human might fear regarding becoming financially dependent on a significant other is also what they should fear about becoming financially dependent on a corporate employer. For instance, it's absolutely as common to have an abusive, controlling employer as it is to have an abusive, controlling significant other. For mainly geographic reasons, I have been in signficant relationships with three different men who worked for the same mega-corporation at one juncture in their career, and they all absolutely came to loath this employer, so I now refer to it as The Gom. Although I was to some extent financially dependent (mooching house-space) on one of these men while he was unhappily indentured to The Gom, what I kept telling him over and over again, in Cool Feminine Energy Mixing a Martini mode was "You have enough money to retire. You should quit." and eventually he did, but he got another job and didn't retire, for reasons entirely incidental to whether or not he would appreciate token gesture of me throwing $300/month at him for "rent" , and much more in alignment with the fact that he is somebody who believes that something akin to two million invested and $40,000 pension is necessary prior to retirement.

I am fortunate to come from a long line of strong women.

Me too. It is rumored that my beautiful Rosie-the Riveter maternal grandmother divorced her second husband because he wouldn't let her bet on the ponies with her own money. She could also hold her own in very loud arguments while drinking beer with her brother who was a crew-cutted 1950s Detroit Cop who thought his baby sister shouldn't be living on her own at age 50.

Even as women are more likely to be financially independent, they have also internalized needing partners to be okay. That is codependence.

Gotcha. The term is so overused, I felt compelled to look up the definition before continuing this discussion. Clearly, it has to do with emotional or psychological dependence, as opposed to financial dependence. Although, of course, there could be some overlap.

For some reason, this made me think of the rational romantic novels of INTJ Jane Austen, and the character of Charlotte in "Pride and Prejudice." Charlotte who is not very physically attractive is pretty much a spinster at 27, so she plots to gain the attention of Mr. Collins, who is pretty much a complete buffoon, but quite affluent. Within the social context given, Charlotte is, in my opinion (correct me if I am wrong), exhibiting almost the opposite of co-dependent behavior by sensibly deciding to secure a marriage of convenience, and then structuring the household in a manner that best allows her to avoid the company of her husband.

Co-dependence also is usually associated with one partner to the relationship being supported in an addiction. So, I guess if I was in a co-dependent relationship, I would either find myself being supported in cookie eating and/or recreational reading. I have found very little support for my cookie eating habits, in fact quite the opposite to the point of verbal abuse, even from my partners who claim to prefer the more voluptuous end of my weight cycle, and they seem to be too confused by my "addiction" to recreational reading to either offer support or censure. For instance, during the Covid lock-down, "Alec Baldwin" would sometimes emerge from the room where he was theoretically working from home, but actually playing some shooter video game, walk into the room where I was quietly reading, and turn on the television set to "find a show for me." So, it would have to be the case that I am in the enabler role, even if I am the partner who is financially dependent, OR co-dependence is not the proper term to describe the sort of dysfunction I most frequently experience in relationship. And, if I have been the enabler, it's pretty clear that what I have usually been enabling would best be described as "disagreeable behavior" with the occasional dollop of "idiotic shit-head behavior." But, it might just be the case that this is due to my eNTP (actually I've been testing more iNTP lately, likely due to seclusion and doing math related activities more than 25 hours/week) personality type generally rendering my Ti judgment function secondary, calm, and silent until/unless I can actually prove that SO is an idiot incapable of cognitive growth in adulthood and/or a complete azzhole lacking limbic integration beyond the crocodilian level, inclusive of diagrams, citations, and attachments for recommended therapy. In my defense, I would note that I straight-forwardly warn all comers that I have a VERY long fuse, but once it's blown you are pretty much toast in my rear-view mirror already.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugekx4o6oSg

I might be concerned that it could lead to resentment in the couple in the form of: ‘I’m working my ass off at the brokerage firm, and you’re a lazy idealist. Please put your feet firmly on the ground and do something useful for society.’

Yeah, this has happened to me on a few occasions, but only in the sort of arguments where you're bringing up stuff that isn't even true, but could be justified. Definitely could be generational, but I've much more frequently experienced my male partners getting pissy about the fact that my work interferes with my availability or hot dinner, etc. Years after it occurred, I learned that during a brief period when I was working some evenings, my ex made my daughter serve the dinner I made in the morning to him and her brother On the rarer occasions when they've made extreme tactical error of saying something like "Yeah, but who pays the bills around here, baby.", it's been like 3 micro-seconds before they retract.

I might be simplifying, but I think having 2-5 years of income saved up (I understand: enough resources to cover 2-5 years of life) is a sufficient condition to pursue freedom-to regardless of what partner does or says. More broadly, take freedom-to as a starting point of any pursuit at all.

Very good point. Will ponder.

I might have misunderstood the situation but @7 if you are going to rely on a SO to provide for you as FI I think you will need to take out some financial guarantees like having him put money in a trust fund for you every month so if relationship fails you won't be cast into destitution. Kind of like Indecent Proposal but more of a long term arrangement.

I did have an extremely detailed contract along these lines with my second "husband." What I learned is that even though covert or blind-default contracts are inherently dysfunctional, super-detailed overt contracts are also unlikely to work, because people and situations change. However, I would note that he is less angry with me than any of his other ex-wives, because I didn't try to take him to the cleaners financially when I dumped him, although he is still kind of angry about my inability to stick to "love him forever."

I haven't seen the movie so I don't understand the reference but "angry mom" sounds like a terrible time to me. There isn't enough money in the world to make it worth while to endure caustic people all of the time, especially marriage.

Good point. However, one of my many problems is that I find caustic people kind of amusing and attractive or stimulating in the short run.

No hard feelings cause no sex or expectation of commitment.

I agree that concept could be extended with reframing as you suggested. However, I don't think that sex is inherently problematic except to the extent that it is likely to lead to romantic attachment and desire/expectation of commitment. For instance, it's definitely usually less of a big deal for somebody who is past child-bearing, family-formation age, although you wouldn't be able to grok this by observing the behavior of those participating in "The Golden Bachelor." That show makes me feel so happy to be me.

"No responsibility without authority"?

AKA "You pay, you say." Yup, can be problematic. The conventional (or really conventional/modern) dating protocal reinforces this. Unfortunately, oftentimes when 3rd wave feminists, roughly RiotGrrl/Sex-in-City, attempt to deconstruct the dating paradigm, they just end up getting ripped off, like somebody putting a Free Tomatoes stand out by the highway. For instance, just hanging out as friends before becoming sexual can be more egalitatian, but it can also be that the male is simply making less effort. because he really isn't that interested, and many a hopeful female has been rendered delusional trying to decipher the difference. For better or worse, when I first started dating again after my divorce, an older INFP female friend and a younger male friend who was a player himself, both gave me strict advice about following the Rules of Dating to the letter, and I do believe that this has contributed to the frequency with which I have ended up dating men who are much more affluent and assertive than me. It's definitely not the case that I attract men who are much more affluent than me, because I am super hawt (see note above concerning how I experience the opposite of warm support for my cookie eating habit) as would be suggested by simple model.

[Frita]

@7W5
Yes, the term codependence initially came from 12 step, specifically Alanon created for spouses/wives of alcoholics in 1951. It refers to the specific interaction between the couple. The classic example would be the wife trying to control the husband’s drinking while needing him to continue the dysfunctional behavior to justify her role. Being financially dependent as a SAH person and the shame of not fitting into the norm probably exaggerated the need for control. The control becomes addictive where she needs her spouse to continue drinking. Classic codependency.

Anyhow, I prefer a contemporary and broader definition of needing something outside of oneself to be okay. This is founded on wanting to avoid reality by whatever (booze, drugs, relationships,shopping, work, Doritos, etc.). It is about not accepting life as it is and acting accordingly. So a person may just be codependent without a relationship with an addict.

Agreed, Charlotte was not codependent. She gamed the system rather than accept the fate of a spinster.

[7Wannabe5]

@Frita:

So, co-dependent would kind of be on the other side of the Need slider with Stoic? I would expand this to a 2D diagram with Want on the other slider. In "Passionate Marriage", Schnarch writes about the dysfunction of "not wanting to want." Like the character in Franzen's "The Corrections" who tells her sex-starved husband, "Every urge passes if you give it 20 minutes." You can't have the pleasure of "want" if you "need", but you can't have the pleasure of "want" if you "don't want to want" either. Although, Security and Power could also be seen as two sides of the same coin that inhibits intimacy and vulnerability.

[7Wannabe5]

Anyways, one way in which it is much better to be financially dependent on a spouse or SO than a corporate employer is that a spouse or SO will take probably take care of you if you are sick and a corporate employer definitely will not.

Still, it’s unlikely that I will do a semi-Charlotte at this juncture.MMV.

[Frita]

@7W5
Interesting points! Both can certainly lack balance. Codependents chase after things/people they don’t need (a type of addiction). Stoics can choose not to require what for many is necessary, but also may give up too much. The codependent is more of a magical thinker, yet the stoic is a realist.

One thing codependents and stoics have in common is a binary view of control. The former tries to control things outside of themselves, while the latter fails to see some action-oriented choices that they can control. Another similarity seems to be fear of emotion, especially the “negative” ones (sadness, fear, anxiety, disgust).

To me, having needs and wants is okay. Needs seem more survival-based. Wants are most preference-based. I have not read “Passionate Marriage” but see dysfunction in “not wanting to want.” Apathy?

Perhaps our definitions are different. Insecurity and need for power seem paired, while security and ability to share power are more correlated. Intimacy and vulnerability can be reinforcing and both are necessary for a healthy relationship.

[7Wannabe5]

@Frita:

We’re on the same page. I meant that the need for security (insecurity) is on same coin as need for control or power. Apathy or depression is “not wanting”, whereas “not wanting to want” is a control mechanism to protect against vulnerability. Expressing “wants” or preferences in sexual context puts you at risk, sometimes more so within the context of a long-term committed relationship, because of level of investment. However, as with many things, the freedom of expression coupled with a degree of acceptance is sometimes as satisfying as the fulfillment of the desire. You have to fully admit to yourself that cookies are soooooooo delicious and you’d really love to fuck that waitress if you weren’t in committed relationship, before you can fully value your choice not to eat the cookie or fuck the waitress. Otherwise, to borrow a phrase from Axel, you kill your own stoke.

[Toska2]

Absolutely not. Then again, I am opposed to dating/situationships.

One of the things I learned is that women like a "competent confidant man". One surefire way to get my partner to hate me is give me enough money time and energy to pursue my projects. I will struggle, run into dead ends, and even fail. I will do so at a much greater rate than any job. Mgtow describes this a primal and visceral feeling, no amount of talking or understanding will change it. "Back in caveman/cavewoman days, if a caveman had problems, it was a real threat to him, her and the potential offspring."

[IlliniDave]

I'm the wrong age demographic but only by 6-7 months. Off the top of my head it would be a no-go for me. Maybe it's because I already know a version of FI on my own terms, and can't really unremember it well enough to fairly imagine if there would be enough desperation to settle for independence through explicit dependence on someone else. That's not to say I would have an issue getting involved with a woman significantly wealthier than I, and/or who wanted to continue pursuing a career she enjoyed. The latter would likely be an asset due to my somewhat introverted nature and addiction to periodic solitude. But once that proposal was said out loud I would likely see it as the wrong kind of power exchange for me. Even though the example appears to be an offer free of reciprocal obligations/expectations, I would be highly skeptical of how much freedom-to there would actually be.

Okay, heading back to my curmudgeon cave.

[7Wannabe5]

One of the things I learned is that women like a "competent confidant man". One surefire way to get my partner to hate me is give me enough money time and energy to pursue my projects. I will struggle, run into dead ends, and even fail. I will do so at a much greater rate than any job. Mgtow describes this a primal and visceral feeling, no amount of talking or understanding will change it. "Back in caveman/cavewoman days, if a caveman had problems, it was a real threat to him, her and the potential offspring."

Yes, I was recently sharing some similar thoughts at my OWGTOW (old women going their own way) meeting.

One surefire way to get my partner to hate me is give me enough time and energy to pursue my projects. I will struggle, run into dead ends, and even fail, but eventually I may find great success on my own terms. The territory in which I find success on my own terms is much less likely to be well-charted, and therefore much more difficult for my man to piss a circle around. Back in caveman/cavewoman days, an independent minded female, likely to roam away from the central hearth would be much harder to protect. The more energy my man needs to expend in his attempt to piss a circle of protection around such an independent-minded, not entirely risk-averse female such as myself, the less energy he will have to expend on his core biological drive towards expanding his freedom secured by dominance. I will be like a tool that constantly frustrates him with my non-compliant behavior. He will not understand my reluctance when he says something like "You spend all your time and energy grubbing around on that vacant lot in dangerous neighborhood, teaching those ungrateful snot-nosed kids, and driving your piece of shit car to those archaic book sales. You should take a job as an administrative assistant at the corporation where I work instead."

OTOH, if I were to collapse/relax all functioning of my primary Ne (the explorer) and my secondary Ti (the thinker) and in classic feminine sacrificial submissive yet infinitely caring manner present only as the Fe (social harmony)Si(memory) warmly sentimental woman behind the open door to the lighted kitchen, always available and ready to provide a bowl of homemade soup and emotional support to the disappointed man returned from the failed hunt on a cold, dreary day, THEN when,eventually, all my supportive effort has bolstered him to the extent that he is able to achieve great success on his own terms, obviously what will happen next is that his biological imperative to share his now much greater resource base and his large load of little swimmers with another female (or two)will kick in

So, now that we have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that self-actualization of both individuals in long-term committed relationship is impossible, what next?

Even though the example appears to be an offer free of reciprocal obligations/expectations, I would be highly skeptical of how much freedom-to there would actually be.

Me too.

[Riggerjack]

I have similar issues as Ego, AH, and Jacob raise.

Why, when you envision an idealized relationship, (one good enough to tempt you to $work$, to support it), you would have a honey-do list?

Why doesn't he like to fish/hunt/forage? Why doesn't he know you need sheet metal to support one of your 10 projects in action? Why to you fantasize about a man taking orders, in ways that you would object to?

Elsewhere on the forum I have suggested that if she wouldn't live in a dumpster with you, move on.

Let me say that again. If you wouldn't live in a dumpster with him, why would you live anywhere else with him?

Stonemasons have a saying "search more, or shape more." Meaning search the pile of stones for the stone of the right shape/size, or shape a stone to fit your need.

The more unique one's tastes, the more one should focus more on the "search more" side of the equation.

If the relationship is right, $$ is just one of many things you would talk about to make sure you were on the same page. If it isn't, why are you wasting your time and his?

You have FU money today. So long as that doesn't change, who cares about who works?

[OutOfTheBlue]

So, now that we have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that self-actualization of both individuals in long-term committed relationship is impossible, what next?

Have we now?

Let's be generous and look beyond (and through) human stuckness.

Here's a list of six core co-commitments for transforming codependent relatonships, by Gay and Kathlyn Hendricks (Conscious Loving).

The Commitments

Co-Commitment 1: “I commit myself to being close, and I commit myself to clearing up anything in the way of my ability to do so.”

Co-Commitment 2: “I commit myself to my own development as an individual”.

Co-Commitment 3: “I commit to revealing myself fully in my relationships, not in concealing myself”.

Co-Commitment 4: “I commit myself to the full empowerment of people around me”.

Co-Commitment 5: “I commit to acting from the awareness that I am 100 percent the source of my reality”.

Co-Commitment 6: “I commit myself to having a good time in my close relationships”.

[ertyu]

7w5, if you're asking for yourself, the answer is no. if it wasn't no, you wouldn't be asking.

[7Wannabe5]

Why, when you envision an idealized relationship, (one good enough to tempt you to $work$, to support it), you would have a honey-do list?

Why doesn't he like to fish/hunt/forage? Why doesn't he know you need sheet metal to support one of your 10 projects in action? Why to you fantasize about a man taking orders, in ways that you would object to?

Okay, first note, I clearly need to do a better job of communicating when I am suggesting something is my "fantasy" vs. when I am attempting a mental experiment that results in the hilariously ludicrous from my perspective. So, let me be crystal clear. I am a self-aware sexual submissive. I can't imagine having a sexual relationship with a man who would subserviently fulfill a Honey-Do list for me like an eager puppy dog. I also can't imagine a 6'2" broad-shouldered Dominant 60 year old man who is strong enough to easily lift a 5'9" 169 lb voluptuous female up on to a counter-top moving into my tiny garret apartment with me and depending on me for financial support. Under what circumstances could that possibly happen? The best I could come up with is that maybe he is an eco-terrorist (the kind who is very careful to only blow up infrastructure and not humans) on the run or a destitute climate change refugee who also happens to be a critically acclaimed, yet not well-known, novelist I admire.

OTOH, I do sometimes have a fantasy that I have a vigorous personal assistant and/or garden robot who is available to help me with my projects and give me some social motivation to get my task lists better organized, like when I had employees for my business, but that is NOT a sexual relationship fantasy.

Elsewhere on the forum I have suggested that if she wouldn't live in a dumpster with you, move on.

Let me say that again. If you wouldn't live in a dumpster with him, why would you live anywhere else with him?

That's a decent rule of thumb. A similar one I try to apply is "Who would I like to be stuck in an airport overnight with?" If I attempt to apply this rule of thumb to "Alec Baldwin", the answer is "I would never be stuck in airport overnight with Alec Baldwin, because Alec Baldwin is not the sort of human who tolerates being stuck in an airport. Alec Baldwin is the sort of human who gets on the phone and starts yelling at people until such a situation is resolved." Do I like being in a relationship with such a person? No, that's why I broke up with him and told him he needs to enroll in anger management therapy, etc. So,why am I even considering reconciliation? Because he recently told me "I started watching an episode of "All in the Family" and I had to turn it off, because I couldn't bear considering how I might be like that; somebody who just yells and never really communicates. I'm really sorry I was such a terrible boyfriend for you. You are a good person and you were a great girlfriend." And, I am the sort of person who likes to believe that humans can grow and change. But, I know that might just be my stupid soft-touch tertiary Fe informing me that there are no bad dogs.

7w5, if you're asking for yourself, the answer is no. if it wasn't no, you wouldn't be asking.

Roger that.

Have we now?

I was actually being somewhat facetious with my OldWomenGoingTheirOwnWay biological imperative argument. I do believe that it is possible to self-actualize within long-term committed relationship. The Commitments list you offered is quite interesting. I think I agree with all of them, especially 6 and 2, but some of them, such as 1 and 4, I'm not sure I fully understand in practice across the spectrum. For instance, "being close" to me, as a person with a tertiary Fe is interpreted very simplyand literally along the lines of "Do I have a problem with hugging on people and saying "I love you?" , rub-rub the yummy oxytocin, but I know it would be interpreted differently by different folk.

[Toska2]

YMMV?

My realistically-ideal mate won't have much self-actualization. That's not realistic enough for this thought experiment.

[7Wannabe5]

@Toska2:

Well, it is the case that according to Malow/The Internet, only about 1% of human adults even briefly achieve self-actualization, so the likelihood that both human beings within a committed long-term relationship would self-actualize would be less. For instance, Mrs. Albert Einstein, who the f8ck knows?

Also, some other human (or AI)on the internet wrote that "self-actualization can generally be thought of as the full realization of one's creative, intellectual and social potential through internal drive (versus for external rewards like money, status, or power.)" So, whether or not any given unique human being would manifest as socially or sexually self-actualized in a conventional committed long-term relationship would surely vary. For instance, I am currently about 60/40 in favor of polyamory being closer to the way in which I was meant to manifest. IMO, a further problem with self-actualizing witin ideal sexual relationship would be that it would not be very easy to simultaneously come up with the General Theory of Relativity and achieve what Deida refers to as Transcendent Sexual Union as the participant who has chosen to inhabit the feminine energy, because if you attempt to solve math puzzles while floating about in an erotic haze, you might end up walking into traffic.

OTOH, my gut feeling is that you are being far too pessimistic about your prospects.

[Salathor]

When I FIREd, my wife still kept her job as a self-employed author. She worked about an hour a night, five nights a week, and earned about 10k a year. It wasn't money we needed, and it was a small (but helpful) portion of our total income (the rest was dividends from our investments).

It would have been harder to retire without that 10k of extra investments, but not impossible.

I would say that next time I will not be retiring unless we're at a point where she is also comfortable stopping writing (this isn't fun fiction writing that she loves, it's a real job). I don't think it's a good idea for the man to not work if the woman has to. I understand there are some high-earning women and stay at home dads out there, and that's great for them, but I honestly do not intuitively feel how that could work.

[7Wannabe5]

but I honestly do not intuitively feel how that could work.

I agree that it can be tricky, but how much of this is cultural rather than primal? One guy I dated who was a stay-at-home-Dad for a while, told me that the trick was just that he "did it like a man." I kind of grok this because due to my mother being out-to-lunch with mental illness, my father who grew up in affluent 1940s household with mother, maid, and older sister (zero household skill training), was my primary parent. He would wake us up at dawn on Saturday morning and make us do the housework like we were in a military unit. Then after our burnt pancake and bacon breakfast, he would organize us to do go out and do something like build a fort and have a snowball fight or learn math by playing poker. This was very similar to how the 52 year old guy I dated interacted with the 12 year old son he was raising solo post his early retirement, except he was a much better cook.

Another example would be that in my first marriage I did most of the traditionally male household work; I mowed the lawn, fixed broken sinks, handled all the finances, made most of the plans; but this never caused me to lose my sexual attraction to my ex, because on some level in his mind, he was delegating all of that to me, so he retained his dominant edge. OTOH, whether me schlupping around the house in dirty overalls contributed to him losing his sexual attraction to me remains an open question With my second "husband", I frequently used to ride shotgun with him doing repairs on his rental properties, wearing a giant old pair of his overalls, and that definitely never interfered with his sex drive (However, note the fact that I was definitely riding shotgun, as the one handing him the wrench vs. asking for the wrench, etc.) His very aesthetically-conscious INFP teenage daughter, would tell me "Don't let him do that to you!", when she would see me dressed in his old overalls, but I thought it was kind of fun. However, our relationship eventually became "economically" unbalanced in a manner that made me feel trapped, because he couldn't similarly help me with my small business; he could only try to take charge of it for me.

Another example would be that my married polyamorous partner does have a wife who is a tough-edged-type mortgage broker, and she does seem to boss him around, and that totally turns me off. As in, "You can't linger here in bed with me, because you have to go run that errand to pick up the new custom-kilned surround tiles for the fireplace that she assigned you? Goddess knows you're a sweetheart and I love you, but grow a pair already." One time he accompanied me to a very fast moving community garden event, where I was grabbing free seedlings and putting them into boxes. So, without thinking about it, I just made use of him as my "hauling boy" and shoved a box into his arms, so I could keep going, but then I saw the look on his face, and I knew this was too much like the problem in his marriage to the mortgage broker.

Anyways, I was kind of hoping the younger generation might have some further insight. One thing I have noted is that gender roles are one of the items up for renegotiation or integration at Level Yellow after being thoroughly obliterated at Level Green. I held a very naive Level Green assumption in my first marriage that our relationship would be very egalitarian; in fact that was included in our vows, but it didn't exactly work out that way.