This woman is so very, very wrong...
This article is written in in pure "reporter" style. It's impossible to guage the author, Kathryn Jones' true feelings on the subject matter.
But the subject herself, Martha Peace? Oh boy, that lady is messed up.
There are only two situations where I would want any woman to "submit" to me, and that is within the restrictions of a dance floor, or during a roleplaying scenario. If I am leading, I expect the person I am dancing with to follow; to give up their intentions and act only within the guidelines of my suggestion. That what partner dancing is about. If we are acting out dominance/submission roles in some kind of game, I expect the person I am playing with to act within the boundaries of the game.
In everything else?
Don't you even think about "submitting" to me. Not if you want me to respect you, to care about you, to love you.
I neither need nor want a human mirror of myself. I can act and negotiate to achieve the things I desire for myself. Equal partnership is what I desire. I can't imagine wanting any other thing.
Now sure, sometimes I can sound a little dogmatic about things. I have clearly defined opinions about a great many things. But I'm not actually dogmatic about anything. I welcome argument. And when I say "argument", I don't mean "shouting match", I mean "a series of statements forming a rational conclusion". Almost every opinion I have I reached through such arguments. And thus, I can be argued out of them, with sufficiently persuasive arguments. Ok, there are some opinions that are not amenable to argument. My positions on oral sex, brussell sprouts and beer (one of these things is not like the others!) are purely personal preferences, so you're unlikely to have much effect on those.
But most important to me is the notion of who is responsible for each person's happiness. In the end, only themselves. I am responsible for my happiness. You are responsible for your happiness. Anything we do with the goal of increasing each other's happiness is a gift, not an expectation, and especially not a duty.
That type of thinking just makes me shudder.
But the subject herself, Martha Peace? Oh boy, that lady is messed up.
There are only two situations where I would want any woman to "submit" to me, and that is within the restrictions of a dance floor, or during a roleplaying scenario. If I am leading, I expect the person I am dancing with to follow; to give up their intentions and act only within the guidelines of my suggestion. That what partner dancing is about. If we are acting out dominance/submission roles in some kind of game, I expect the person I am playing with to act within the boundaries of the game.
In everything else?
Don't you even think about "submitting" to me. Not if you want me to respect you, to care about you, to love you.
I neither need nor want a human mirror of myself. I can act and negotiate to achieve the things I desire for myself. Equal partnership is what I desire. I can't imagine wanting any other thing.
Now sure, sometimes I can sound a little dogmatic about things. I have clearly defined opinions about a great many things. But I'm not actually dogmatic about anything. I welcome argument. And when I say "argument", I don't mean "shouting match", I mean "a series of statements forming a rational conclusion". Almost every opinion I have I reached through such arguments. And thus, I can be argued out of them, with sufficiently persuasive arguments. Ok, there are some opinions that are not amenable to argument. My positions on oral sex, brussell sprouts and beer (one of these things is not like the others!) are purely personal preferences, so you're unlikely to have much effect on those.
But most important to me is the notion of who is responsible for each person's happiness. In the end, only themselves. I am responsible for my happiness. You are responsible for your happiness. Anything we do with the goal of increasing each other's happiness is a gift, not an expectation, and especially not a duty.
That type of thinking just makes me shudder.