Power Dynamics

[Brute_Force]

I have been reading about power dynamics in relationships and want opinions on the following hypothesis (not my own, but one I'm interested in exploring):

True or False: The person who loves the least in a love relationship is the one with the power.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Not quiet...you wanna know who the boss is?

"When your in bed with your partner and you get up to turn off the lights, turn around just before you do and the one still in the bed is the boss." Bill Cosby.

 

[bronzeage]

I have been reading about power dynamics in relationships and want opinions on the following hypothesis (not my own, but one I'm interested in exploring):

True or False: The person who loves the least in a love relationship is the one with the power.

You will need to define love and power, if you want a rational answer.

I don't know how either can be measured, so to say one loves more than the other, or one is more powerful is a very subjective thing.

A relationship is a set of mutual demands between two people. Most of these demands are easily met and are seldom noticed. It's common for both to demand sexual exclusiveness. This is the standard definition of a relationship.

If one partner demands something and the other is uncomfortable, something must change. The demand must be accepted, or modified.

In any relationship, where dominance and submission are part of the demands, it is always the submissive who holds the greatest power.

 

[3113]

You will need to define love and power, if you want a rational answer.

I don't know how either can be measured, so to say one loves more than the other, or one is more powerful is a very subjective thing.

A relationship is a set of mutual demands between two people. Most of these demands are easily met and are seldom noticed. It's common for both to demand sexual exclusiveness. This is the standard definition of a relationship.

If one partner demands something and the other is uncomfortable, something must change. The demand must be accepted, or modified.

In any relationship, where dominance and submission are part of the demands, it is always the submissive who holds the greatest power.

Beautifully and succinctly said! You get my "Hero of the Month" award

 

[Stella_Omega]

I have been reading about power dynamics in relationships and want opinions on the following hypothesis (not my own, but one I'm interested in exploring):

True or False: The person who loves the least in a love relationship is the one with the power.

That's not a power dynamic.

 

[The_Fool]

Start talking about power and dynamics and you are going to give Lisa a woodie...

 

[Handley_Page]

Start talking about power and dynamics and you are going to give Lisa a woodie...

I thought power & dynamics were part of the same thing and best found in Jet Engines, not a loving relationship.

It's highly probable that the one getting out of bed to turn off the light is merely being considerate, not actively submissive.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

I thought power & dynamics were part of the same thing and best found in Jet Engines, not a loving relationship.

It's highly probable that the one getting out of bed to turn off the light is merely being considerate, not actively submissive.

Not according to Bill.

 

[MzDeviancy]

I have been reading about power dynamics in relationships and want opinions on the following hypothesis (not my own, but one I'm interested in exploring):

True or False: The person who loves the least in a love relationship is the one with the power.

That seems like sort of an adversarial view of relationships. You know what, I'd have to say I actually agree with that.

 

[Carmenica Diaz]

In many relationships, the boss is the one with the vagina

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Such bullshit.

Back to the drawing-boards Happy Campers!

Think along the lines of what power is and means.

 

[bronzeage]

Such bullshit.

Back to the drawing-boards Happy Campers!

Think along the lines of what power is and means.

What is power and what does it mean?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

What is power and what does it mean?

Power is the means to act and prevail. It means I shape the world to suit me.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Swell bunch of evasions you get as answers.

I see what you mean, and I tend to agree. Let's not be naive. Power in this case is most easily defined as the ability to impose your will on the other person. In the armamentarium commonly used in a love relationship, the ultimate weapon is the threat to dissolve the relationship, a kind of amorous Doomsday Machine ("my way, or I'll blow the whole thing up!"). Since this is probably more likely to be used by the one who has the least invested in the relationship, I'd say the OP's hypothesis is fairly correct. Theoretically, at least.

In actuality, the one who loves more is often more invested in effecting change and can find more subtle and creative ways to do it than direct confrontation, so it's complicated. But I think, to a first approximation, the hypothesis is pretty good.

 

[midwestyankee]

Swell bunch of evasions you get as answers.

I see what you mean, and I tend to agree. Let's not be naive. Power in this case is most easily defined as the ability to impose your will on the other person. In the armamentarium commonly used in a love relationship, the ultimate weapon is the threat to dissolve the relationship, a kind of amorous Doomsday Machine ("my way, or I'll blow the whole thing up!"). Since this is probably more likely to be used by the one who has the least invested in the relationship, I'd say the OP's hypothesis is fairly correct.

I buy this explanation. In his book The Passionate Marriage, Dr. David Schnarch makes precisely this point. He illustrates the point with examples of couples wherein one partner is eager to have sex on a regular basis and the other wants to avoid sex. Unless the eager-for-sex partner is willing to leave the marriage, the unwilling partner holds all the cards.

 

[Brute_Force]

Swell bunch of evasions you get as answers.

I see what you mean, and I tend to agree. Let's not be naive. Power in this case is most easily defined as the ability to impose your will on the other person. In the armamentarium commonly used in a love relationship, the ultimate weapon is the threat to dissolve the relationship, a kind of amorous Doomsday Machine ("my way, or I'll blow the whole thing up!"). Since this is probably more likely to be used by the one who has the least invested in the relationship, I'd say the OP's hypothesis is fairly correct. Theoretically, at least.

In actuality, the one who loves more is often more invested in effecting change and can find more subtle and creative ways to do it than direct confrontation, so it's complicated. But I think, to a first approximation, the hypothesis is pretty good.

I completely agree. Thank you for your solid and razor-sharp response to what I believe is a workable hypothesis.

You're right about the fact that it is complicated. All of it is difficult to firmly grasp. But, I tend to think the hypothesis is a functional basic starting point to understanding power in love relationships.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I completely agree. Thank you for your solid and razor-sharp response to what I believe is a workable hypothesis.

You're right about the fact that it is complicated. All of it is difficult to firmly grasp. But, I tend to think the hypothesis is a functional basic starting point to understanding power in love relationships.

What fascinates me in relationships is the concept of moral authority, the ability of one partner to assume a position of inherent righteousness or correctness.

In most modern American middle-class relationships (marriages, for example), most of the moral authority generally belongs to the woman. Middle-class American values include reverence for marriage, family, monogamous fidelity, sobriety, religiosity, and sexual conservatism. As Christopher Isherwood points out, all of these are basically feminine values.

Isherwood claims that these values didn't become prevalent until the rapid industrialization that followed the Civil War, when men went to work and left women in charge of the home. The home thus became a female bastion where feminine values prevailed, and have ever since.

Now that things are changing, many of these values are being challenged, but they're still potent enough to confer moral authority on those who uphold them, and make Tiger Woods look like a sleazeball.

 

[bronzeage]

Swell bunch of evasions you get as answers.

I see what you mean, and I tend to agree. Let's not be naive. Power in this case is most easily defined as the ability to impose your will on the other person. In the armamentarium commonly used in a love relationship, the ultimate weapon is the threat to dissolve the relationship, a kind of amorous Doomsday Machine ("my way, or I'll blow the whole thing up!"). Since this is probably more likely to be used by the one who has the least invested in the relationship, I'd say the OP's hypothesis is fairly correct. Theoretically, at least.

In actuality, the one who loves more is often more invested in effecting change and can find more subtle and creative ways to do it than direct confrontation, so it's complicated. But I think, to a first approximation, the hypothesis is pretty good.

If one excludes criminal acts, "imposing your will" on another person is an illusion.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

In therapy the presupposition is people change unless theyre stupid, ignorant, afraid, like their mire, or theyre oppositional-defiant. You can fix ignorance with good information but the others requires bald-faced manipulation. Like Billy-Jack told the sheriff I'M GONNA PUT MY RIGHT FOOT UP AGAINST YOUR FACE, AND THEYRE AINT NUTHIN YOU CAN DO TO STOP ME.

You can change people with a Smith & Wesson, or a foot, or money, or grease the rails with what you know about them so they do exactly what you want to get the result you want.

 

[bronzeage]

In therapy the presupposition is people change unless theyre stupid, ignorant, afraid, like their mire, or theyre oppositional-defiant. You can fix ignorance with good information but the others requires bald-faced manipulation. Like Billy-Jack told the sheriff I'M GONNA PUT MY RIGHT FOOT UP AGAINST YOUR FACE, AND THEYRE AINT NUTHIN YOU CAN DO TO STOP ME.

You can change people with a Smith & Wesson, or a foot, or money, or grease the rails with what you know about them so they do exactly what you want to get the result you want.

Such is the stuff restraining orders are made of.

 

[LaRocha]

I assume you mean Erotic Love relationship. In situations where someone's infatuated the other can dominate them fairly easily, but that's not a love relationship. I don't think it's ever an equality in a erotic love relationship anyway, someone likely loves the other a little more if not a lot more. Is it then clear that either player has more power? Most people usually feel that they love their partner more, and from that stems various esteem issues, jealousies.

People aren't very romantic. When it comes down to choosing a long term partner each side is saying, "I guess this right here is as good as it gets for me, and I don't want to risk losing this for the possibility of something even better." Maybe you pair that with a partner who thinks, "Golly, this girl is out of my league, I can't believe I tricked her into marrying me." and you get someone who runs the show from their position of beloved.

I assume from years of observation that my mother loves my father more than he loves her. He's entirely selfish, she's basically entirely selfless in return. I think if there's a way of gauging these kinds of things it's a selfish vs. selfless scale. But then you get an S/M sub/dom game, where the sub is selfish and the dom is an archetype of selflessness.

 

[MzDeviancy]

In actuality, the one who loves more is often more invested in effecting change and can find more subtle and creative ways to do it than direct confrontation, so it's complicated. But I think, to a first approximation, the hypothesis is pretty good.

That's an interesting take. I answered that I agreed with the OP's hypothesis specifically because of what I see of relationships in reality. The less emotionally invested person seems to be able to ask for anything and the more emotionally invested partner will try to please them. One person always seems to be more in love than the other, and whoever that is seems to be always having to try harder, hurt when they fall short and thrilled when they've pleased their partner. My parents' marriage, my friends' relationships, and definitely my own as well: all seem to be like this to varying degrees.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Such is the stuff restraining orders are made of.

Such is the stuff conviction orders are made for.

When the judge sends the flasher in for a tune-up the flasher isnt much interested in change.

 

[bronzeage]

Such is the stuff conviction orders are made for.

When the judge sends the flasher in for a tune-up the flasher isnt much interested in change.

I thought most of your relationships would involve prison in some way or another.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I thought most of your relationships would involve prison in some way or another.

Today someone suggested I live a monastic life; I corrected them as they confused me with you. I told them, I'M NOT INTO LITTLE BOYS.