# IS MALE DOMINANCE CULTURAL OR BIOLOGICAL?



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

A WHILE BACK I MET A PAIR OF RARE LADIES, THE “FEMALE” OF WHICH WAS ENDOWED WITH ALL THE ATTRIBUTES THAT WOULD HAVE CAUSED A WILD MAN TO CHASE HER DOWN AND ENDOW HER WITH HIS CAVE, HIS AXE AND ALL THE LITTLE ATTRIBUTES THE CAVE WOULD HOLD.

BEING A NORMAL WILD MAN HE WOULD SOON HAVE BEEN ENGAGED FROM DAWN TO DUSK BRINAING HOME BACON IN ANY FORM AVAILABLE.

HIS CONVERSATION (WHEN THE LITTLE ATTRIBUTES WERE AWAKE) WOULD CONSIST OF “WHAT, WE ARE OUT OF PANGOLIN AGAIN---BUT I JUST BROUGHT HOME SIX DAY BEFORE YESTERDAY! OK, ILL GET SIX MORE, PLUS THE HORSE AND A BUFFALO IF I CAN FIND ONE. “

“OH? YOU WANT A LEOAPARD? BUT DON'T YOU ALREADY HAVE TWO LEOPARD SKINS? OK, IF I CAN FIND ONE, BUT IT MAY TAKE A DAY OR TWO.” “NO, I CANNOT TAKE LITTLE ELPO WITH ME; HE CANNOT HANDLE A SPEAR WELL ENOUGH TO TAKE ON LEOPARDS---MAYBE WHEN I GO OUT AFTER AFLOOPS OR NORFLOPS. AND KEEP EYE ON HIM---DID YOU SEE THE WAY HE AND THE MOOG GIRL WERE BEHAVING AT THE LAST FIRE-STARTING?"

“S IT OK IF I STOP OFF AT GLUG'S AND SAMPLE SOME OF THAT FERMENTED GRAPE JUICE HE SELLS? I WON'T STAY LONG AND I WON'T SPEND MORE THAN A RABBIT”

NOW I KNOW THAT IN PARTS OF THE US THERE ARE MEN WHO FLOUT THE LAW AND MAINTAIN MULTIPLE WOMEN, EACH WITH HER OWN CLAIM TO HIS AFFECTIONS. HOWEVER, I DO NOT SEE HOW THIS MAN COULD EXERT HIS DOMINANCE OVER MULTIPLE WOMEN AS DID THE WILD MAN OVER HIS ATTRIBUTES

NOW, IN AFRICA AND ALL OVER ASIA AND THE NEAR EAST THERE ARE SOCIETIES WHERE WOMEN ARE LITTLE MORE THAN PROPERTY. PARTS OF INDIA ARE CLOSE TO THIS IN TERMS OF WOMEN'S RIGHTS.

OPINIONS? I HOLD THAT MALE DOMINANCE, AS DEMONSTRATED BY WILD MAN, IS BIOLOGICAL AND ONLY CHANGED BY ADVANCES IN CIVILIZATION AGREED TO BY MEN. IN THE EVENT OF A BREAKDOWN IN CIVILIZATION THE CULTURE WOULD REVERT TO PURE MALE DOMINANCE.


----------



## Oregon1986 (Apr 25, 2017)

Honestly I don't know if it is biological or what but in the case of a breakdown of civilization and say your prediction is true,I am glad I have lots of boom sticks  No male dominance allowed in this cave!


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

I think that it is one of those things that is neither right or wrong, good or bad, it just is. We in the west seem to worry about it more than others. When I was younger and "on the hunt", I liked outspoken assertive women. You always know where you stand with them. I married one, she keeps me on my toes. She says that I wear the pants in the family, and she wears the bra. Who do you think wins more arguments?


----------



## FarmboyBill (Aug 19, 2005)

What is a BOOM stick ? lol


----------



## kotori (Nov 15, 2014)

The argument really shouldn't be biological or not, imo. the biological differences are there, we know that. But I liken it to a pre-teen girl having a period: biologicaly, she can have a child, but should she? Much more a discussion of morals and of what we value as a society. Exerting dominance shouldn't be the basis of a relationship at all. it's there, it's going to happen at various times for various reasons, but I don't think it should be a unilateral thing. Also, the talk of the man 'endowing' her with various things misses the point. Things come and go and can be acquired at the drop of a hat, but when a partner is chosen, it should be for the innate things that can't be changed.

But to circle back to the question, it's culturally enforced. We're past the point in most people's day to day lives that the greater physical strength isn't a factor, and when it is tools and such can be utilized. but it has been deeply ingrained into the culture/society in most places. It's a complex issue and to really look into it means to look into several other things as well -- the man box pops to mind.

sorry for the ramble but this isn't a 'question' with a succinct 'answer'.


also, BOOMstick : you try to stick me, you get the BOOM


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

muleskinner2 said:


> She says that I wear the pants in the family, and she wears the bra. Who do you think wins more arguments?


I would have replaced the word "more" with "all."


----------



## Terri (May 10, 2002)

I would say that it is both. In hunter-gatherer societies, the women bring in at least as much food as the man does, but he really is larger than she is. 

For myself, as a Mother of a son. I can tell you honestly that strength is not everything: before I finished raising him my son was taller and MUCH stronger, but he did not try to boss me around. Strength is not everything. In the end I would say that it is whatever the people work out.


----------



## geo in mi (Nov 14, 2008)

Of course....biological, cultural, political, Biblical…..

geo


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

Sp far no dissents. Muleskinner and "G"TX understand male dominance perfectly. Nature does not change, but she sure plays some awful tricks on a few.


----------



## Wolf mom (Mar 8, 2005)

Not an either/or answer. A combination of both cultural and biological. People forget that most things are on a continuum rather than either or. The emphasis can be on whatever culture decides - especially today. Just the old genetic/environmental question reframed.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

In biological terms, sexual dimorphism generally exists so that males can overpower other males that seek to mate with their females, not for the purpose of overpowering females. Except for some induced ovulators, like mink, in which case the male does need to be bigger and stronger in order to force mating. Humans being cyclically polyestrous and not induced ovulators, it would seem that our evolutionary drive for disparity of size and strength between our sexes would be for the purpose of dissuading other males from mating with our female(s).


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

barnbilder said:


> In biological terms, sexual dimorphism generally exists so that males can overpower other males that seek to mate with their females, not for the purpose of overpowering females. Except for some induced ovulators, like mink, in which case the male does need to be bigger and stronger in order to force mating. Humans being cyclically polyestrous and not induced ovulators, it would seem that our evolutionary drive for disparity of size and strength between our sexes would be for the purpose of dissuading other males from mating with our female(s).


 That being said, with time, societal and cultural constraints could cause genetic drift, and bring about less disparity in size and strength. Most likely in the form of smaller, more feminine men. But that would take a very long time, and would assume that societal influences remained constant, which so far has proven not likely.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

Interestingly enough, there are species in which the female is bigger. Unlike some female mustelids which have to be hunted down and overpowered by the male, female rabbits are biologically driven to desire mating, and the female's larger size favors reproductive success.

Many bird species have larger females than males, egg production and incubation favoring a larger body mass. Birds that maintain harems of females tend to be larger than females of their own species. This need arises as a result of being able to defend that harem from other males.

Many mammal species have a very brief mating window in which estrous occurs, and the male with the largest reasonable body mass can survive the longest without eating, fighting with other males, and breed the most females in that short window. It would seem that perhaps we are designed to compete with other males and establish a harem of females, but then we must consider more social species.

The wolf is a good example, they generally have a designated mate, and operate within a society. The biggest strongest and smartest wolf ifs likely to be the leader of his pack, and as a pack leader, his offspring are guaranteed a spot when feeding on a kill. Subservient pack members may not be allowed to breed, in order to ensure resources for the offspring of the Alpha pair. Native Americans, being attuned to nature, often used wolves and coyotes as models of human society, and often as deities. They probably had it pretty close.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Culture is basically the rules a society lives by to optimize opportunities for success. Culture is slow to change which is usually a good thing. The problem is that over hundreds and even thousands of years, we forget why certain rules were made. Culture is also not very tolerant of rule breakers, even though every generation has its artists, homosexuals, nonconformists, criminals, etc.

The question becomes whether a culture is strong enough to survive. Some parts of culture seem universal and are found in all cultures. Other parts are unique to a particular culture. 

Ox thinks that if culture broke down, we would return to a male dominant society. But what if the breakdown was caused by a virus that only affected men? Wouldn't it make sense to have a woman dominant society? If culture is for the optimal survival of the society, then any change in culture caused by a breakdown of civilization, should morph into a new culture that optimized survival - maybe male dominant, maybe female dominate, maybe most intelligent dominant, or most physically capable dominant, etc.


----------



## lmrose (Sep 24, 2009)

My personal opinion is ; it is natural for a male to want to provide for and protect his family. I have also seen men protect and help unrelated women simply because they were stronger and able to do so. But I also have seen men who abuse their power of strength over women because they want to dominate and control the woman. That part is learned behavior.
I married a man who came from a male dominated family where men ruled and women were expected to not question their authority. Although they were kind and not abusive the women in the family were not allowed in on the decision making. 
I had a Daddy who was kind and didn't like making decisions but he provided for and protected us as long as he could. My example was my Grandma who had to make decisions because my Daddy wouldn't. 

So when my husband and I got married his " Natural self " worked hard to provide for us both earning money and producing food. But his " Learned behavior" told him he had to dominate and control of me and the children. The fan hit the fire! Because I had been in survival mode for many years and forced to make decisions and no one was going to now turn me into servitude and dominate me! We had our battles those first few months and he said it was like trying to tame a cyclone ! He knew nothing about negotiating our differences and neither did I. But we learned.

I know the part of male dominance that wants to control is a learned behavior. If it wasn't my husband would not have been able to change his interaction with me. I learned to respect his physical strength as well as his intelligence; talents ,knowledge and efforts to provide for us. Of course he is stronger and can do many things that I can't. He learned to respect the fact I have a mind of my own and can use it. What I lack in physical strength compared to him, I make up in intuitiveness and the ability to see a matter from all sides and project ahead and see consequences.

So we compromised He does the physical part of farming which I am unable to do. I help where I can. I do the cooking and canning etc. because I have had more experience at those things. I also handle our finances because I understand money matters better than he does and know how to stretch dollars and know how to save. Still what ever is done I keep him informed. He really has no interest in finances and I had to explain certain things in case I died he will know what has to be done.

The end result is he fulfills his natural male inclinations to provide and protect which I greatly appreciate. The learned control and dominate behavior is long gone and we are partners in life . Neither of us dominates the other. We each fulfill what is lacking in the other and are each others best friend. He is practical and I am emotional. He is my rock and I am his soft place to fall.


----------



## frogmammy (Dec 8, 2004)

Myself, I kinda favor the Praying Mantis approach.

Mon


----------



## Oregon1986 (Apr 25, 2017)

FarmboyBill said:


> What is a BOOM stick ? lol


LOL a gun!


----------



## Oregon1986 (Apr 25, 2017)

frogmammy said:


> Myself, I kinda favor the Praying Mantis approach.
> 
> Mon


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

Moon and Imrose make points that we must acknowledge. In every successful marriage the man and woman must cooperate. The extent of that cooperation will and should depend on the expertise and experience of each partner.

In the end, a complete breakdown of our society would still result in a male dominated society much as I and Imrose describe it. The partner who does a particular thing best will take that chore, but it will always be the woman who bears the children and must have a good man around if she is to do well--WHEN OUR CIVILIZATION BREAKS DOWN. In today's world a woman can do pretty much as she pleases and if she screws up the government will rush to rescue her. 

Witness; the Roberts woman who just hauled Hunter Biden over the coals. Bad decision, bad man, the law to the rescue.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Oxankle said:


> In the end, a complete breakdown of our society would still result in a male dominated society much as I and Imrose describe it.


So physical strength would be more important than knowledge? I think you may be equating male and knowledge. You are assuming men will know how to make a fire, how to find food, how to make a shelter, etc. 

Try watching _naked and afraid_ and see just how incompetent and what prima donnas men can be. I still say knowledge will be dominant and it won't make any difference if it is male or female. More along the line of being a tribal elder or medicine man/woman.


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

Moon: My point is that in any pair there are differences in areas of competence. In every successful pairing the couple work out between them the areas of interest that each will handle. The one aspect of marriage that cannot be changes is child bearing; to do that the woman, in a primal setting, must have the support of a man or a tribe. Few tribes anywhere are ruled by women, though women rule the roost.

Example; the vote; do you think for an instant that women would have been granted the vote had their husbands, fathers, brothers, not agreed? And that was not even in a primitive setting.

Go back a bit further here on this continent where, before Europeans brought the horse, women and dogs were the beasts of burden. We don't even have to consider the nations which, today, consider women chattels. One of my acquaintances married a girl from a near-east country. He had to explain to her family that in this country we do not pay bride prices--his wife had the harder task in telling her family that she would be married, bride price or none.

It is still,and always will be, a man's world. Women can shout and protest all they wish but they cannot change nature. It is man's choice that matters--he submits to his wife's wishes by choice, and that choice is generally the desire to have a family and a home. There are plenty of women to be had, but it takes a man AND a woman to make a complete home. The tendency of women today to shack up without marriage (or just be a baby mama) is made possible only by easy times and lax societal norms. Almost always that works out better for the man than for the woman. Again, a man's world.

PS: Naked and Afraid is fiction.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

You are assuming most men have your level of basic knowledge. This is 2019, not 1960.


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

960, 1960, 2020, 4150, human nature changes ever so slowly. And no, I assume nothing; facts are facts.


----------



## lmrose (Sep 24, 2009)

Oxankle said:


> 960, 1960, 2020, 4150, human nature changes ever so slowly. And no, I assume nothing; facts are facts.


In the event of the breakdown of society any woman or man who has knowledge of how to stay safe, find water, food and shelter will be of great value to what ever group of people they are around. It doesn't matter whether they are male or female if they have skills that will save lives.

True only women carry babies and birth them but men are just as capable at raising children if given the opportunity. There are many single Dad's. My Dad was one of them with three daughters.

Men do like to dominate as proven by the world's history of wars going back many centuries. Way back in time most women were caring for their children while the men were out fighting. Of course that all changed with women going to war in the twentieth century and some before. I do believe world wide there are more male soldiers than female though still. 

Whether biological or cultural ; differences between men and women should be appreciated for what they both have to offer each other and the world as a whole. Life is a collaboration not a competition and yes human nature is extremely slow to change.


----------



## Terri (May 10, 2002)

It is no longer a man's world: just ask Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Ms Clinton

As for what would happen if it was the end of the world as we know it, I do not know.


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

LOL, Clinton? The woman whose associates die and whose husband was a regular pal of Jeffrey Epstein? The woman whose husband has a love child by a black prostitute in Arkansas? The woman who still thinks she won the presidential election? Etc, Etc.

Ginsburg I don't know much about, but we are not in a primitive situation here anywayl. Men permitted women to gain power and status, so here we are in an advanced civilization with well-educated, smart, ambitious and powerful women. Sort of like Cleopatra.


----------



## Terri (May 10, 2002)

Oxankle said:


> LOL, Clinton? The woman whose associates die and whose husband was a regular pal of Jeffrey Epstein? The woman whose husband has a love child by a black prostitute in Arkansas? The woman who still thinks she won the presidential election? Etc, Etc.


Yes. Ms Clinton, who is more powerful than 99.999% of the men in the world


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

And exactly why is this supposed to impress anyone? What exactly does her supposed "power" mean to anyone not dependent upon her? To most of the men in this world she is just an insanely ambitious and crooked broad whose husband made a household joke of her. Were it not for her repugnant personality and history she would be a person to be pitied,


----------



## Terri (May 10, 2002)

What good does having power do for ANYBODY? I dislike Ms Clinton, by the way. 

Ms Ginsburg, who is on the Supreme Court, does better


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

Agreed; I do not see eye to eye with her policies, but she seems to be a respectable woman.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Ok, I'm still trying to sort out this "male dominance" thing. Women have always been the boss in any relationship! Any man who thinks differently is a fool. I don't see that changing anytime soon. Matter of fact I like it this way.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

muleskinner2 said:


> I think that it is one of those things that is neither right or wrong, good or bad, it just is. We in the west seem to worry about it more than others. When I was younger and "on the hunt", I liked outspoken assertive women. You always know where you stand with them. I married one, she keeps me on my toes. She says that I wear the pants in the family, and she wears the bra. Who do you think wins more arguments?


I dont like women that don't say what they mean. Waste of time for me.


----------



## Miss Kay (Mar 31, 2012)

We live in a society where women have more rights than in some countries so if you want to see examples of male dominated societies look to the middle east. When I was in college, I tutored men from Saudi Arabia. Our school had an agreement with their country so we had a relatively large population of them in our accounting program. I was curious so I asked a lot of questions about how the men and their relationships with their wives. They were very curious about our culture too. One told me it was very nice that my husband "let" me go to college. I let him know quick that my husband never "let" me do anything. I can think for myself, however I respect my husband enough to want to discuss my life choices with him and then consider his point of view but my decisions were my decisions. They eventually explained that though it was legal and they had the right to dominate or even beat their wives, it was their desire to keep her happy because in every culture, a happy wife means a happy life! Now I call that power!


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Miss Kay said:


> We live in a society where women have more rights than in some countries so if you want to see examples of male dominated societies look to the middle east. When I was in college, I tutored men from Saudi Arabia. Our school had an agreement with their country so we had a relatively large population of them in our accounting program. I was curious so I asked a lot of questions about how the men and their relationships with their wives. They were very curious about our culture too. One told me it was very nice that my husband "let" me go to college. I let him know quick that my husband never "let" me do anything. I can think for myself, however I respect my husband enough to want to discuss my life choices with him and then consider his point of view but my decisions were my decisions. They eventually explained that though it was legal and they had the right to dominate or even beat their wives, *it was their desire to keep her happy because in every culture, a happy wife means a happy life! *Now I call that power!


 exactly! and may the good lord have mercy on the man who doesn't "get it"!


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

There has to be a limit. 
"happy wife means a happy life! Now I call that power!" 

Eve may have been a happy wife, but she was a damned poor judge of character. Keeping a wife happy is a full time job if a man wants a family, but even then he has to be sure that the family has food on the table and a roof over their heads. The man who marries a high-maintenance woman who is lazy or a spendthrift had better get busy and do some tall persuading. Take a look at why Benedict Arnold turned traitor. Had he the intestinal fortitude, or the charm, to get his wife in line he might never have tried to sell out to the English. 

True enough; there are men who have no business being married---irresponsible, lazy, incompetents, drunks and dope heads---a woman married to such a loser either must leave him or become the head of the family---a bit much to put on a woman if she wants children.


----------



## frogmammy (Dec 8, 2004)

So, his WIFE made him do it?

A Twinkie defense, before there were Twinkies! 

(You were reaching with THIS one)

Mon


----------



## Miss Kay (Mar 31, 2012)

Yep, men should choose wisely. Make sure she's worth keeping happy!


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Women may not It like it but having a child inherently requires submitting her body to another another’s dominance. 
In times past that could be with or against her will. 
Not so much now .
In any case for nine months another. Person controls her life right down to when she goes to the bathroom.
Now that is dominance!


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

Check it out, Mon. Arnold courted and married a little harridan, daughter of a rich loyalist doctor, beautiful and spoiled rotten, a spendthrift.

Nearly broke, General Arnold agreed to turn West Point over to the English for 20 thousand pounds sterling but was found out. He, and she, escaped to England but the wife found that they were not welcomed into high society there and returned to the US. LOL, found that after the war she was not welcome there either, returned to England and died there.

Had Arnold the guts to put his foot down we might count him among our great men.


----------



## frogmammy (Dec 8, 2004)

Thanks, I was wondering about his wife! Still, what he CHOSE to do, did not depend upon his wife and her spending habits, it depended on his moral structure which appears to have been absent.

Mon


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

;Mon; correct; he allowed his wife to dominate him. [deleted*] I have known several such men, perfectly competent in their work but whimpering saps at home. Equal works both ways.







*Content originally in brackets exceeded HT profanity limits.


----------



## frogmammy (Dec 8, 2004)

Ox, his wife was 18 when they married (it was his second marriage), he was 38!!!!

He was in financial difficulty at the time of the marriage...Washington had taken him to court for mismanagement (AKA disappeared $$$) of funds during (a minimum of) two military campaigns. 

Less than two months after their marriage he contacted a Loyalist man that his wife knew and offered to give information to the Loyalists for a sum of money.

When it was found he was a traitor, he took off running and left his 20 year old wife to face the music. What a guy! She was able to convince people that she was nuts, so she wasn't jailed.

So, I don't see where his wife *made* him into anything that he wasn't already, she just encouraged and enabled him.

I t appears they were two peas in a pod, one enhancing, and encouraging the other. Truly suited to one another. They stayed married and had more children until he died.

Mon


----------



## oregon woodsmok (Dec 19, 2010)

I'd say it is strictly cultural because there are several cultures in this world where the men are noted as fierce warriors but they live in a matriarchal society.

The Chiricahua Apache were some of the toughest warriors this world has ever known. The USA didn't finally defeat them until 1932. But in his home, the mother of his wife had total control.

Jews have a matriarchal society also and you certainly can not fault the Israelis as warriors.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

oregon woodsmok said:


> I'd say it is strictly cultural because there are several cultures in this world where the men are noted as fierce warriors but they live in a matriarchal society.
> 
> The Chiricahua Apache were some of the toughest warriors this world has ever known. The USA didn't finally defeat them until 1932. But in his home, the mother of his wife had total control.
> 
> Jews have a matriarchal society also and you certainly can not fault the Israelis as warriors.


Iroquois too and many other ones. 


And this little girl here is such a Polyanna.....











https://www.standardmedia.co.ke/ure...ts-up-man-who-tried-to-steal-her-mobile-phone


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Male dominated societies are imaginary. Women always run things, some allow men to think they do.


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

Men claim to be the head of the family but women are the neck and they turn the head any way they choose.


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

LOL, Emdeengee

Correct, up to a point. If a man wants children and a home, breakfast and supper, clean socks and shorts in his bureau, a bit of lovin' now and then he had better keep his woman happy.

Feed her well, buy her the trinkets she wants, put up with her moods and in general treat her like royalty. Only growl at her if she threatens to ruin the household finances or cause trouble in the family.

Trying to convince her that she cannot get a better deal anywhere else is a full time job even for a handsome young man with all his wits about him. They get more and more assertive as they get older and realize that they have tenure. Old men just shrug it off and go on about their business.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Ahhh, the good ole days. Glad I can buy my own trinkets and take care of my own finances just fine..


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

There will always be those who prefer to grow old and lonely alone. Out here there are several men I know who cannot or could not keep a woman. Not woman haters, just inept and unable to manage.

I'm sure there are women, who once finding themselves independent, feel no need of or cannot hold a man.

apparently we do not all have the same drives or needs.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Yep, we all live our lives in our own way. As to being alone, not worried about that at all, large close family and a man that feels the same way. Our Thanksgiving get together was over 40+ people mainly family but a lot of friends.


----------



## rkintn (Dec 12, 2002)

I have no intention of being old and lonely. Old, sure. Lonely, never. I do not need a man to keep from being lonely or to have a fulfilling life. Obviously, some do but please don't assume that just because someone chooses to not have a romantic relationship that they are some how, less. Or their life is less. Maybe someday the right guy will come along but for now, I'm happy with myself. I'm sure I'm not the only one.


Oxankle said:


> There will always be those who prefer to grow old and lonely alone. Out here there are several men I know who cannot or could not keep a woman. Not woman haters, just inept and unable to manage.
> 
> I'm sure there are women, who once finding themselves independent, feel no need of or cannot hold a man.
> 
> apparently we do not all have the same drives or needs.


----------



## Terri (May 10, 2002)

Ox, DH went to his job and I went to mine. And, I handled the finances because he did not want to. You can be equal and still have a relationship, you know. 

Obviously you and your wife prefer the more traditional route, but, some folks prefer a different path, and are very happy together because they are doing what suits them, just as you and your wife are doing what suits the two of you


----------



## geo in mi (Nov 14, 2008)

I paid forty cows for my wife.

geo


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

LOL, Geo: "With all my worldly goods I do thee endow" Forty cows is just the down payment.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Oxankle said:


> LOL, Geo: "With all my worldly goods I do thee endow" Forty cows is just the down payment.


It different in Kentucky. The bride only gets half of the worldly goods on the wedding day. She gets the other half along with all future goods during the divorce.


----------



## FarmboyBill (Aug 19, 2005)

Could it be that cave woman liked the male body so much, (hard to believe), or certain parts of it, in order to procreate, that it became a habit that men realized they could use to subdue women, but they themselves got into the habit of doing the hunting gathering with other men so as to get out of the cave, and because women couldn't keep still when dino walked by lol


----------

