Functional Dynamics
July 2, 2010
At first I thought there two kinds of ‘female led’ relationship but then I realized it was because I had picked only two variables and ignored the spectrum between them. (See here and 1, 2, 3 and also here.) However, my mental space seems to have grown fond of these usual love symbol suspects, often thinking of them in an abstract short hand manner:
submission is to force
(demanded, enforced, semi-sadomasochistic obedience & power dynamic)
as
uxory is to passion
(free chosen, optional, semi-traditional free will & love dynamic)
But of course despite my efforts to nail them down better, this large scale grouping of tendencies is only functionally accurate so long as they remain inadequate, amorphous abstractions – there’s a large dose of useless inapplicability here.
And of course, useless for one purpose is helpful for another – for in realizing there are so many options, combinations and points in a spectrum as only these two ideas alone afford (and also in reading a recent forum thread) has made me ever more certain that which set of symbols and which kind of dynamic a couple negotiates for use in their relationship is less important than whether those symbols are adequately emotionally functional for both of them.
July 3, 2010 at 5:58 am
Of course there is a spectrum between the variables. Always will be. And to make life even more difficult the spectrum can change as life changes. Nothing is set in concrete.
However what the thread made clear to me, and for me personally, is that one can flow into the other but not the reverse. And really I think I am not the only one in that :-)
July 4, 2010 at 6:18 am
I too observe a tendency to move from force to passion – if that’s what you mean. Although I wonder if this is partially because the place I observe (the internet of all places) tends towards a population bent on force to begin with.
I, for instance, had plenty of passion before discovering force, and though I did not stick with force, I think I might never have known uxory had I not discovered force first. Of course, separating uxory from passion, even temporally, only again proves the separability of qualities within the spectrum.
Next time I really give this line of thought a go I’ll have to pick more than these two variables and a handful of qualities. Of course that’s rather daunting task and and I think differentially needless too as I’m sure it crosses the line about knowing which labels to leave alone.
July 20, 2010 at 3:35 am
[...] a great deal about different sorts of uxory and their interior motivations, ultimately deciding the exact sorts are innumerable and unimportant when compared to acquiring adequate emotional functionality in a relationship. And though I [...]
July 26, 2010 at 12:08 am
[...] passion dynamic I am trying to signify. (Always remember there’s a large dose of useless inapplicability to these sorts of wide-sweeping generalizations!) And on the other hand, despite my understanding [...]
August 21, 2010 at 3:14 pm
[...] semi- functional a symbol as this power (control, force, demand) concept is for me (and fantastic though it may be) such a complete surrender of power and individuality [...]
November 27, 2010 at 12:05 am
[...] course rolls right back around to sorts of uxory and functional relationship dynamics – from what I think is my most accurate post on the subject with the added suggested difference of experiential [...]