UpAndComing
Veteran
I mentioned both girls just to explain the types of girls I'm interested in, and the type I only date. And I mentioned my ex cause I felt like mentioning her. Not rocket science breh
If she's not submissive, don't date her. Simple
- Thread starter UpAndComing
- Start date
I mentioned both girls just to explain the types of girls I'm interested in, and the type I only date. And I mentioned my ex cause I felt like mentioning her. Not rocket science breh
That's a synonym.
↓R↑LYB
I trained Sheng Long and Shonuff
My wifey far from submissive but naturally fell back when she knew I could lead her.
She told me that she challenged every nikka she dated because she could not trust them to lead.
My nikka @bdizzle gotta point brehs
Breh, I'm just gonna let these nikkas hold their L's cause they don't wanna listen. Be a man with a plan and even the staunchest feminist will fall in line
The dumbest shyt i ever heard. Female dependence on men in the past came about cause of the necessity to preserve the carrier of children from the elements, hunger & wilderness. plus men were physically stronger there for more fit to endure manual labor. But now in the current information age such a thing isn't needed.
Women make just as much as men, are more educated than their male counterparts at the current time and are allowed more social leeway than the male gender. So to force a woman to be my subservient is to hinder her forward progression as a human. Plus in doing so i as a man would have to take on responsibility for both of our actions which is only going to wear me down and hinder me in the long run; So this whole thing is stupid
Explain
Drip Bayless
Superstar
My mom wasn't submissive to me, how did you get that from what I wrote?What kind of upbringing did you have that your mom was submissive to you?
Exactly. So why the comparison of your submissive girl/wife to your mother doing laundry for you as a college student?
Wow... some of the comments in this thread are truly inspired by ignorance and nothing else.
First, submission is NOT a temperament, but an active decision made by someone. All of this not arguing and cooking and cleaning and stuff has nothing to do with submission. They may be byproducts of being or not being submissive, but they are not determinants of submission themselves.
Secondly, submission is about trust and respect. It's about trusting and respecting the decisions to be made by one in the best interest of the both of you; and not decisions like where are we going to eat tonight. We're talking about relationship and life decisions. Arguing about what to eat for dinner is not an indicator of my being submissive. It's an indicator of not agreeing on what you want to eat. Not being submissive is more like the husband thinking the family should save money by cooking more and the wife going out for fast food everyday.
Thirdly, a response to submission should be an equal amount of love and respect. Enough to be open to feedback and disagreements without taking offense... and a willingness to communicate.
Finally, you should only be submissive to your husband or wife. Why submit to someone whom you have no commitment to and whom can leave at the drop of a hat with no questions asked? That's too much control for some random boyfriend or girlfriend.
Just a sidenote. If you don't feel comfortable submitting to someone, you probably shouldn't be with them. That tells you how you truly feel about them.
First, submission is NOT a temperament, but an active decision made by someone. All of this not arguing and cooking and cleaning and stuff has nothing to do with submission. They may be byproducts of being or not being submissive, but they are not determinants of submission themselves.
Secondly, submission is about trust and respect. It's about trusting and respecting the decisions to be made by one in the best interest of the both of you; and not decisions like where are we going to eat tonight. We're talking about relationship and life decisions. Arguing about what to eat for dinner is not an indicator of my being submissive. It's an indicator of not agreeing on what you want to eat. Not being submissive is more like the husband thinking the family should save money by cooking more and the wife going out for fast food everyday.
Thirdly, a response to submission should be an equal amount of love and respect. Enough to be open to feedback and disagreements without taking offense... and a willingness to communicate.
Finally, you should only be submissive to your husband or wife. Why submit to someone whom you have no commitment to and whom can leave at the drop of a hat with no questions asked? That's too much control for some random boyfriend or girlfriend.
Just a sidenote. If you don't feel comfortable submitting to someone, you probably shouldn't be with them. That tells you how you truly feel about them.
This. /end thread
Don't really feel like it but
You basically make it sound like actually being a man in a relationship is some sort of crime.I don't see how being the leader in the a relationship would in any way shape or form hinder her progress as an human being and honestly I'm still trying to figure out how you even came to such a conclusion.
This also sounds like taking on the role or responsibility of being a man is too much for you which made you sound weak.
Everything else is pretty much white knight/ feminist fluff.
First off i'm extremely anti-feminist but i'm also anti traditionalism. And i'm a card carrying Hard On Hoes member.
Enduring a 70 hour work week for the sole purpose of providing for another able bodied human being and the child/children you two may have is not being a man it's being a fool. And i personally don't feel the need to bribe women into a relationship with utility and provision and then spend the entire tenure of the relationship trying to live up to the image of a "Real Man" when no such thing exists.
Plus, at least in my case hard dyck, bubble gum & freedom will suffice. Leading only works when you know where you're going and most people male & female haven't the slightest clue where their next step should be. So to advocate men leading women by default is essentially saying the blind should lead the blind.
Y'all lame Negros all trying to force a chick into subservience and then you wonder why you can't get a woman or get played like a fiddle by any woman you do manage to obtain. Not to mention most of you are blue collar workers who can barely "Provide" for yourselves. Heck the woman is more likely to have a job via Affirmative Action; so why would a woman who could lock down a 50-100k a year job submit to a lame who more times than not can barely put in 30 grand annually.
It would have probably made more sense if you said something like this the first time I can dig this.