Male/female roles and relationships

[longrhythm]

One of the things that very much attracted me to Taoism was the clear definitions of male and female roles. Between the cultural climate of coastal US city life, and my personal upbringing, I felt that as something really lacking in my life, and spent years in all sorts of ways seeking to develop that part of myself that is aware of distinctly masculine and feminine traits. It was a relief to find something that cut all the way down to the spiritual level that addresses these distinctions so beautifully.

 

Something I have found in my own experience, is as a man, I fear being used for my status, accomplishments, and intellect, and want to be loved by women for who I feel I really am, which I tend to identify as my body if not more specifically my heart.

 

Something I feel I've observed about many many women is that they fear being used for their bodies, and want to be loved by men (or at least respected) for their status, accomplishments, and intellect.

 

From a socio-political standpoint, this looks quite simply like a grass is always greener scenario, but more recently for me, through my practices and studies, I have come to see male as primarily spirit occupying body, and female as primarily body containing spirit.

 

In that way, I see the yin in yang and yang in yin as being the driving force behind heterosexual attraction, in that I don't want to be used for my spirit, as that's what I am, but rather for my body, which is what I have- and a woman would not want to be used for her body, which is what she is, but rather for her spirit, which is what she has.

 

So it looks that way that we want to be wanted not for what we are, since nobody wants to be possessed, but rather for what we have, as that is what we can actually give.

 

Just some thoughts I wanted to put out there and I would love to hear responses, tangents, anything else that comes to mind.

 

Brian

Edited October 26, 2009 by longrhythm

[Lucky7Strikes]

One of the things that very much attracted me to Taoism was the clear definitions of male and female roles....

 

I am not my body, the body is neither mine or not mine. It is an expression I have chosen, and although it delivers much pleasure and anguish, it is a tool for freeing myself from the limits of my illusions.

 

Dual cultivation is when you share in the journey with someone else. .

Edited October 26, 2009 by Lucky7Strikes

[goldisheavy]

First you say this:

 

Something I have found in my own experience, is as a man, I fear being used for my status, accomplishments, and intellect, and want to be loved by women for who I feel I really am, which I tend to identify as my body if not more specifically my heart.

 

Then you say

 

So it looks that way that we want to be wanted not for what we are, since nobody wants to be possessed, but rather for what we have, as that is what we can actually give.

 

Are you sure you're not confused? Because if the second quote is correct, then why would you have a problem with a woman wanting you for your status and material possessions?

 

I think as long as you make a sharp distinction between what you are and what you possess, you'll have trouble understanding the situation.

 

In any case, I think you should try being more down to Earth in your thinking about matters such as these. For example:

 

"I am rich now and of course the woman wants to bathe herself in my riches. I became rich because I enjoy riches. Surely I can understand when another person, a woman, also enjoys riches. I am a lazy man and would accept more riches than I deserve. As a CEO I don't work very hard compared to the workers in my company, and yet I get paid 500 times more for something that's clearly not 500 times more effort. Since I understand myself to be greedy, I can also understand when someone else, a woman, is also greedy and wants to bathe herself in maximum possessions with minimum effort -- that's what I want! Since I enjoy abusing people in order to gain advantage, I understand why a woman will enjoy abusing me to gain an advantage. If I shared all my possession with all the parties that had a hand in my success, I wouldn't be rich at all. No wonder women will marry a man for his money, and divorce to take a half."

 

See, when you come down to Earth like that, it all becomes simple. You don't need Taoism to understand this at all.

[longrhythm]

Well you certainly caught the contradiction in my post without question, but your example is a little off the mark and I'm not so sure I'm anywhere off the Earth here. I'm not rich, or a CEO, or someone that would use other people for money, but I have been with more than one woman who over time it became clear that what drew her to me were things about me that I didn't consider were really enduring.

 

I have always felt wary of people who admired me for my hobbies and pursuits, and I have always had women in my life who sought approval for their hobbies and pursuits. This is the observation I was making, and Taoism does have some great notions that to me account for it.

 

This is not even a question about money, in fact I never mentioned money or riches- status, accomplishments and intellect. These aren't even things I COULD share, as in my life they are mostly intangibles- still they tend to be an attracting factor to the women in my life and this feels like something that is not ME.

 

I hope I've been clearer with this one, not sure how else to put it.

 

First you say this:

Then you say

Are you sure you're not confused? Because if the second quote is correct, then why would you have a problem with a woman wanting you for your status and material possessions?

 

I think as long as you make a sharp distinction between what you are and what you possess, you'll have trouble understanding the situation.

 

In any case, I think you should try being more down to Earth in your thinking about matters such as these. For example:

 

"I am rich now and of course the woman wants to bathe herself in my riches. I became rich because I enjoy riches. Surely I can understand when another person, a woman, also enjoys riches. I am a lazy man and would accept more riches than I deserve. As a CEO I don't work very hard compared to the workers in my company, and yet I get paid 500 times more for something that's clearly not 500 times more effort. Since I understand myself to be greedy, I can also understand when someone else, a woman, is also greedy and wants to bathe herself in maximum possessions with minimum effort -- that's what I want! Since I enjoy abusing people in order to gain advantage, I understand why a woman will enjoy abusing me to gain an advantage. If I shared all my possession with all the parties that had a hand in my success, I wouldn't be rich at all. No wonder women will marry a man for his money, and divorce to take a half."

 

See, when you come down to Earth like that, it all becomes simple. You don't need Taoism to understand this at all.

[goldisheavy]

Well you certainly caught the contradiction in my post without question, but your example is a little off the mark and I'm not so sure I'm anywhere off the Earth here. I'm not rich, or a CEO, or someone that would use other people for money, but I have been with more than one woman who over time it became clear that what drew her to me were things about me that I didn't consider were really enduring.

 

I have always felt wary of people who admired me for my hobbies and pursuits, and I have always had women in my life who sought approval for their hobbies and pursuits. This is the observation I was making, and Taoism does have some great notions that to me account for it.

 

This is not even a question about money, in fact I never mentioned money or riches- status, accomplishments and intellect. These aren't even things I COULD share, as in my life they are mostly intangibles- still they tend to be an attracting factor to the women in my life and this feels like something that is not ME.

 

I hope I've been clearer with this one, not sure how else to put it.

 

Yes, this is much clearer. If I understand you correctly this time, you are saying that you don't want the woman to like you for something that can change. You want her to like you for the real you which does not change. Right?

 

So for example, if the woman likes you because of a hobby and you lose interest in that hobby, then what happens? The woman leaves you, since she only liked the hobby and not you. But if the woman likes the "real you", even if you drop the hobby she will still love you. Isn't that wonderful? Then even if you change any of your behavior she will still love you. For example, if you begin to take drugs, she will love you. If you cut off your arm, she will love you. If you cut off your woman's arm, she will love you. If you run away from her she will love you. Why? Because she loves you permanently since you are a permanent and unchanging entity. So this will be the most reliable kind of love. It would mean you could do anything and still be loved.

 

So is this what you want?

 

By the way, do you love any woman in that manner that you want to be loved?

[z00se]

Then even if you change any of your behavior she will still love you. For example, if you begin to take drugs, she will love you. If you cut off your arm, she will love you. If you cut off your woman's arm, she will love you. If you run away from her she will love you. Why? Because she loves you permanently since you are a permanent and unchanging entity. So this will be the most reliable kind of love. It would mean you could do anything and still be loved.

 

So is this what you want?

 

By the way, do you love any woman in that manner that you want to be loved?

 

You have a good point. Both people are in it for some reason. There are no absolutes. Things change, constantly, always. Love waxes and wanes. You can't be fully logical because love is not logical. It's just some funny feeling.

 

Its the way you are now which is why a woman is staying with you now. Its the way she is now and thats why your with her now. It's life. There is no real fairytale love, everyone has arguements.

 

Thats why i think the ultimate enlightenment is not discarding your feelings or your emotions because they are very important.

[longrhythm]

This is looking like an exercise in hyperbole. What about your thoughts on the matter, as opposed to your rhetoric soaked critique of mine?

 

Yes, this is much clearer. If I understand you correctly this time, you are saying that you don't want the woman to like you for something that can change. You want her to like you for the real you which does not change. Right?

 

So for example, if the woman likes you because of a hobby and you lose interest in that hobby, then what happens? The woman leaves you, since she only liked the hobby and not you. But if the woman likes the "real you", even if you drop the hobby she will still love you. Isn't that wonderful? Then even if you change any of your behavior she will still love you. For example, if you begin to take drugs, she will love you. If you cut off your arm, she will love you. If you cut off your woman's arm, she will love you. If you run away from her she will love you. Why? Because she loves you permanently since you are a permanent and unchanging entity. So this will be the most reliable kind of love. It would mean you could do anything and still be loved.

 

So is this what you want?

 

By the way, do you love any woman in that manner that you want to be loved?

[King Kabalabhati]

There is a relevant point in Goldisheavy's typing, and I want to add mine..

 

We are changing creatures in a changing universe. We simply cannot point at a thing in us that definitely won't change. I can't be sure she wont change. If we change and love is not there anymore, it doesnt mean the relationship was a failure, assuming it was good while it lasted. To everything a season. Some relationships last until death but it doesn't mean they're of better quality, some of them are but some just include a strong clinging to a long relationship, kind of an obsession to keep going it for some internal or external reason.

 

I had a woman who loved me for all the "right" reasons; my character, my sense of humour, my kindness, my lovingness, you know, all these good virtues of mine. But eventually she got tired of me and wanted out. Because she changed.. And because I wasn't giving her WILD SCREAMING ORGASMS (I've read David Shade )

 

But seriously, it has been very educational for me to realize I wasn't much of a man in that relationship. For the possible next one I'm going to improve on it a lot, with more yang type charasterictics such as more muscle and a commanding attitude

[Mal]

One of the things that very much attracted me to Taoism was the clear definitions of male and female roles.

 

I'm still struggling to think of Taoist male/female roles. Obviously I've dismissed them as yin/yang receiving/active rather than female/male

 

with more yang type charasterictics such as more muscle and a commanding attitude

 

To throw out a Frank B Kermit quote

"In every relationship, there is one partner more dominant than the other.

There is always one partner that leads more than the other.

One person always loves the other person more.

One person always needs the other person more.

One person is always more dependent on the other.

One person is always giving to the other person more.

One person is always taking from the other person more.

One person shoulders the burden of the responsibility of the relationship more.

One person is always more relieved of the responsibilities of the relationship more.

One person always has more choice of potential other partners than the other.

One person needs and asks the advice and guidance of the other.

In every relationship there is a leader and a follower."

 

I struggle with the "Manly Man Stereotype", however there really does seem to need to be a polarity creating tension to give spark to relationships.

[Enishi]

My girlfriend, and all the other women I've dated, like it when I take a more dominant role. I don't tell them what to do in their day to day lives, but when it comes to the bedroom, it's a different story.

[longrhythm]

Now we're cooking with gas!

 

KK- You're very right in some ways- Something that's important to me though- I guess the drive for spiritual pursuit in the first place- it's a desire to find something enduring. That might be the witness, might be God, might be unconditional love, it might be the part of us that's all connected to each other, but it's certainly there. I know every cell in my body is new by 7 years old, but I know me, so something was awake the entire time to see it pass. And that to me, is the driving force in intimacy. Sure it's probably not possible, which is why intimacy often pairs with varying degrees of frustration, but the main motivator for me to get close to someone is to reconcile, expose, release that enduring part of me that's been there all along. C'est la vie.

 

Mal- I used to have this kind of perspective, too. It took a long time and alot of struggling with unhealthy relationships for me to acknowledge that in my own life, I wanted clearer definitions of the roles for more defined relationships. I guess according to Frank B Kermit you could say I went from relationships that swing through his definitions like a pendulum, where everyday was a battle for who was gonna be the one more than the other, where those roles were set up straight from the outset, and since defining them it has become much more obvious when it's time to let go of a relationship.

 

KK- Those clinging situations- those were what I found over and over, until I started to define male/female roles and relationships. Having clear definitions in the beginning of a relationship creates a context, and that context acts as a kind of barometer, so it's clear to see when it's not gonna play out any further. For example, if it starts off where, on the Frank B Kermit scale, I'm the one with more potential partners than her, and at some point that changes, the dynamic shifts greatly, it leaves the defined context, and one of the factors that fueled the attraction in the first place disappears. I have my own checklist, that's not exactly Kermits, but includes some of the same, and once an item or two gets checked off, I know it's time to cut losses.

 

This has certainly spared me lots of the pain I used to experience hanging on to relationships that were past their expiration date, wondering why things weren't going well anymore.

 

HOWEVER- this brings me back to my original point- with some new clarity (thanks guys)

 

If a context can act as a barometer for the success of a particular relationship (and I feel this is the case because of the tendency for a relationship to play out over time according to it's initial unique terms of engagement, much the way a top spins after you let it go) then the context defined can absolutely determine the success or failure of that relationship. Now obviously there will always be hidden and unconctrollable variables. But the goal for me is, knowing that I want to feel connection with that part of me that has endured, and always will endure, to find the context, the definition of male/female roles, that will be most conducive to forming that sort of relationship. Thank you guys very much for your thoughts. You certainly have granted me some clarity.

[Zenshiite]

Most traditional religious/spiritual traditions have fairly clearly defined ideals of male and female roles that stretch right into the metaphysical. There's a good book called The Tao of Islam by Sachiko Murata that gets into the Islamic perspective on gender from the metaphysical to the human. I haven't read anything from Taoist sources that are as clearly defined as the Islamic relationships, but perhaps you direct me there. At any rate, there are obviously Taoist sources regarding sexual yoga that emphasize certain means of gender relationships especially in sex. Hsi Lai's White Tigress books certainly emphasize a sense of submissiveness and surrender on the part of woman in sexual relations in order for woman to awaken her sexuality and her spirituality to the fullest.

 

Anyways, intersting topic. There are studies that suggest relationships with clearly defined divisions of labor tend to work out more and have more happiness than those that don't have clearly defined divisions of labor.

 

My wife and I are striving to implement a more traditional Islamic conception of roles for spouses in our household, from the sexual to the rest.

 

I'm actually surprised there's not more controversy with this whole line of discussion. But the discussion of how our metaphysical archetypes shape our roles in life is endlessly fascinating and is perhaps much more compelling than simply saying "accord with nature" when we have to get into a whole discussion about just what is this "nature" and how the metaphysical plays into that.

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

There are obvious 'natural roles' that are present in any perspective.. beyond that, i sense no limitations or separations by gender.. each person, regardless of gender, has a vast unlimited field of possibilities to explore..

 

Be well..

[freeform]

It's a masculine endeavour to create timelessness - something that endures. It's a feminine endeavour to flow - something that changes constantly.

 

The Yang within yin is that the flow is a constant - it never stops flowing and changing. The Yin within yang is that the enduring is constantly re-born out of nothing.

 

Abstract I know.

 

The woman looks to yang (for completion) and the man looks to yin (for completion). So woman looks for spirit, man looks for body. Your spirit completes her. Her body completes you. (using your terminology here).

 

Now what confuses me is the possession thing. That and wanting.

 

I tend to think in terms of 'inspiration' - my spirit inspires her... it gives her a spark. Her heart (prefer that to body) inspires me - it gives me the fuel. This is a relationship creating a whole. But as a whole person - the spark and the fuel are all inside of you. So the female reflects to you your inner female and the I, the male reflect to her her inner male.

 

I wrote all that. But I'm considering deleting it... it just seems.... too... 'absolute'. It's the male in me creating a structure that endures change

 

Feels devoid of my inner female - which works on a personal level - not a theoretical one. If you would like to, engage us on a more personal level, and then maybe my response will come from a deeper place... I dunno

[Andrei]

[goldisheavy]

I will put here a text posted on a Gurdjeff forum sometime ago, that may be relevant to this topic and produce some discussions:

 

This is absolute piece of crap. I don't want a slave as my life companion and partner. I want a free-thinking individual. I could never love a slave. It would be a waste of my emotion.

 

Slaves are property, like chairs and cars. I don't have any sentimental feelings about chairs and cars. I replace them on a whim and if one breaks, I don't cry over it. It's an inconvenience, but not a major loss.

Edited October 28, 2009 by goldisheavy

[Mal]

[Birch]

I'm so glad other people answered before I did. I kept seeing it and wondering. Does Steam believe this is good? If so, then what does he have to say apart from repeating a text? If he doesn't then why didn't he say more about it? If his goal was to provoke, then he perhaps laid it on too thick;-) If his goal was to ? Alright, ya got me

 

The polarity of the situation I get. But the example of using fear to maintain a relationship which in those days (i.e. some distant time in a bizarre universe) by definition was pretty much an economic and social dependency already anyway...I don't "get" so much.

 

I don't know enough about him to begin to imagine "where he was coming from". I suspect that we are somewhat out of time...

 

I think we might look at polarity - in the absence of fear and dependency? OR are these obligatory? OR we could look at the desire of a man to maintain a woman (or it seems he wanted to have a few to choose from) in a state of fear. Why would he want to do that?

 

Do men still want that? I sometimes wonder...

 

Steam?

[soundhunter]

I'm not a fan of the master slave wording, it leans towards a more abusive relationship. But that sort of power dynamic is everywhere. Work springs to mind. And you see it in relationships too. The classic bad boy getting all the girls, wife maintaining the home and kids while husband does whatever. Equality in a relationship would be stastically rare

 

I'm in the get married buy house have kids season of life, and most of my offline friends, aquaintances etc are in this same season. Not so rare at all actually, all the relationships I know around me are equal. I live in a cool liberal minded off beat rural island where women are construction workers too! But even in Vancouver, and Victoria BC, two big cities where I know many married families with kids who are in my age group, equal relationships are the norm, anything other, such as dominate male led homes are what's rare.

 

What attracts me to Taoism is a lack of what seems to be attracting longrhythm to it, if there is an emphasis on traditional gender roles in Taoism and a formal set of rules on how each should behave I will find myself a new path, but I've yet to find this emphasis and as a woman not interested in being submissive to my husband, as a feminist not interested in men determining my life for me, and as a mother to two little girls (and a son) I have found Taoism to be the least limiting spiritual path yet.

Edited October 30, 2009 by soundhunter

[Tao99]

This is absolute piece of crap. I don't want a slave as my life companion and partner. I want a free-thinking individual. I could never love a slave. It would be a waste of my emotion.

 

Slaves are property, like chairs and cars. I don't have any sentimental feelings about chairs and cars. I replace them on a whim and if one breaks, I don't cry over it. It's an inconvenience, but not a major loss.

Right on the money. I'm in total agreement.

Edited October 30, 2009 by Tao99

[Zenshiite]

I'm in the get married buy house have kids season of life, and most of my offline friends, aquaintances etc are in this same season. Not so rare at all actually, all the relationships I know around me are equal. I live in a cool liberal minded off beat rural island where women are construction workers too! But even in Vancouver, and Victoria BC, two big cities where I know many married families with kids who are in my age group, equal relationships are the norm, anything other, such as dominate male led homes are what's rare.

 

What attracts me to Taoism is a lack of what seems to be attracting longrhythm to it, if there is an emphasis on traditional gender roles in Taoism and a formal set of rules on how each should behave I will find myself a new path, but I've yet to find this emphasis and as a woman not interested in being submissive to my husband, as a feminist not interested in men determining my life for me, and as a mother to two little girls (and a son) I have found Taoism to be the least limiting spiritual path yet.

 

 

I think "submissive" has a certain ring to it in our culture that is unsavory, to say the least.

 

There are certainly Taoist sects that encourage women to embrace surrender and a air of submissiveness. I thought the whole point of Tao was that yin, by it's very nature of being yielding, is able to overcome all things. You'd probably yield just that much more power over your husband by appearing to be submissive, and you may not even realize this. The White Tigresses certainly suggest that. Especially in the sexual relationship.

[Mal]

I think "submissive" has a certain ring to it in our culture that is unsavory, to say the least.

 

Yes, it's hard to contemplate or even discuss relationships that are not egalitarian. In my relationship with D I'm certainly the submissive one. Bluntly she gets what she wants.

 

I see many happy relationships, striving for balance and sharing, but not interchangeable equality. Everyone seems to have roles and while they take the other person into account (they are loving relationships after all) I don't think the dominant/submissive dynamic is a negative trait as long as the needs of the other partner are a priority.