I was catching up on reading blogs, when I saw this one: “Are You Dominant or Subordinate in Your Romantic Relationship? Clear-cut dominance in couples increases stability.” Posted on May 13, 2012 by Dario Maestripieri, Ph.D., at Psychology Today’s blog “Games Primates Play” also the name of his book.
He asserts that 95 percent of relationships and all stable relationships involve one clearly dominant partner and one submissive partner. While I agree that most people need to have a pack leader somewhere in their life to help guide and protect them, what Maestripieri is describing is an unhealthy, unbalanced relationship that uses power to manipulate and control.
While most modern relationships are overtly dominant and submissive as this post notes, it does not have to be that way. Emotionally balanced relationships are possible, as I discuss in “Pack Leader Psychology.” I draw parallels between animal and human social systems to help people understand their relationships — specifically that UNHEALTHY relationships are usually between a Dominator and a Submissive. I explain how people with low self-worth are fearful of social rejection and criticism, so they partner up with someone that can be manipulated into not criticizing. A Dominator intimidates physically or emotionally so that the Submissive learns to back down. The Submissive manipulates through “pleasing” and accommodating, so that the Dominator does not criticize. They both feel safe, but the relationship is inherently unhealthy.
What do you think? Do all relationships HAVE to be between a Dominator and a Submissive? Or are these unhealthy behavior patterns?
All successful governments and organizations have a single leader. A CEO, a President, a Prime Minister, etc. Having multiple leaders has been tried: Ancient Rome had at times a Triumvirate and two Co-Emperors. But they quickly went back to a single leader. The British Cabinet was originally intended to be a cabinet of equals, and for a while it was denied that there was such an office as “Prime Minister”. But soon enough there needed to be an individual that the buck stopped with so they created an official Prime Minister. Same story with the Soviet Union, and the USA where the Presidency has increased in power.
I’ve reached the conclusion that relationships need someone willing to be the leader and the other the follower. It doesn’t always have to involve BDSM, but it needs someone in charge and the other willing to serve. In my previous marriage, my wife and I were both dominant. So we argued and fought, noone willing to give ground. It was stressful.
She has found a submissive man now and I’ve found a submissive woman. We’re both happier now in new relationships because we don’t fight with our new partners. My submissive girlfriend can give her opinion but I have the final say, so there isn’t conflict and endless negotiating. Always compromising isn’t fun as noone is ever really happy. Someone eventually has to give in. It’s better to either take charge or be led.
There is some truth in your ideas — humans when we gather in social groups need a leader. Anyone who has sat on a committee with no leader or weak leadership knows this bogs progress and conversations down into chaos. However, compromise need not be seen as making every one “unhappy.” I believe we need to recognize compromise as healthy and natural part of social interactions. If we expect to have to compromise, we might even see it as a gift we give to the other person in the interest of maintaining a healthy relationship. We value them and the relationship more than being right or getting our way.