|
Amaros -> RE: submissive etiquette (4/1/2007 3:28:19 AM)
|
As I mentioned in another thread, women typically seek security, and trained as we are to a stictly monogomous paradigm, this tends to take on an exclusionary aspect for females. A different issue for males, woho are seeking to diversify their genetic contribusion, not typically being held primarily responsible for the results of thse genetic contributiions - it apprears to make little differeence whether this is purely symbolic or no.
So, if you feel secure, and it seems like you do, the ball, to some extent lands in yuor court, as the established doiminant female - knowing what she wants gives you some traction in how the arrangement falls out.
As for the initial question of etiequitte, see the above: it's a hardwired survivial game: women want to know that their offspring - real or imaginary - will not be marginalized. It's a pre-emptive impulse, and to this end, etequette is always going to drag up the rear. Only fairly enlightened persons understand how and what is pulling the strings, and fewer still able to guide the outcome to rational ends.
I'll not go too into male female ratios, but if the ratio of breeding age males to females is particularly low in your locale - as it seems to be if competition is this fierce - then some sort of polygyny is a classical and relatively ethical solution (as is polyandry in the opposite situation), the ultimate shape over which you may be able to exert some degree of control, so think about it.
Kids are passionate but inexperienced: the whole concept of female alpha hierarchies is a fascinating one, as they tend to work in ways much different than male hierarchies.
|
|
|
|
