![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Oct. 7th, 2014 10:24 amIn one of my bits of writing (just bit of writing practice I do with some of my RPG characters), there is a heterosexual couple where the man - who superficially is a macho, tough soldier type - comes from what I headcanon to be a traditionally woman-led society and from a society that canonically has women (who are equally capable fighters, but often taller) initiating the sexual relationships.
When I write about these two, I often forget this fact, but just changing who does the initiation would affect all kinds of dynamics.
It would also imply that the men-types (it’s a culture where the genders don’t quite as neatly map to ours) are the gender that is the sex object, and possibly, often sexually harassed.
It would imply that men-types in relationships would be concerned with being “desirable” and concerned with women-types finding them attractive and probably would be the more accommodating gender in that kind of a social set-up. It means that there might be a subtle pressure on the male-types to do more of the accommodating - i.e., a subtle prioritization within the relationship, of the female's desires and goals, with men often doing hands-on jobs that are more "portable" from location to location. I.e., perhaps in this dynamic you'd see a woman with a less portable, replaceable job - such as scientist, professor, et cetera - with a man commonly in more menial jobs that a strong guy could do anywhere (such as builder, bricklayer, security, etc).
A male might experience pressure to change his job to accommodate a bond when the female types might not deal with any such pressure at all, or only minimally.
It implies that women are the ones who take mates but men are the ones who worry about being attractive, and about holding on to them. None of this is stated in canon, but it’s how I head canon a society that canonically positions women as the initiator.
Because a lot of dynamics change when you’re reared to think of yourself as someone who would passively “attract” a mate versus just going and getting one, and a lot of dynamics change when you are in a society where women are given authority and deference but men are basically expendable (and mostly valued - in a society with dramatically and catastrophically falling birth rates - for the fact that they continue to produce semi-viable sperm well into old age).
Given survival/financial support isn’t wrapped up in this (everyone has a job they do and it’s a collectivist society where everyone is supported by a larger group of people), and given that physical dominance doesn’t come a huge amount into play, and given how much the society privileges one specific relationship type that isn’t any of the relationships described here, there’s only so much that the power dynamic will be affected by just a change in initiators.
But it will inevitably change some of the dynamics and the psychology of the people within the relationship, and how people within it think of *themselves*.
When I write about these two, I often forget this fact, but just changing who does the initiation would affect all kinds of dynamics.
It would also imply that the men-types (it’s a culture where the genders don’t quite as neatly map to ours) are the gender that is the sex object, and possibly, often sexually harassed.
It would imply that men-types in relationships would be concerned with being “desirable” and concerned with women-types finding them attractive and probably would be the more accommodating gender in that kind of a social set-up. It means that there might be a subtle pressure on the male-types to do more of the accommodating - i.e., a subtle prioritization within the relationship, of the female's desires and goals, with men often doing hands-on jobs that are more "portable" from location to location. I.e., perhaps in this dynamic you'd see a woman with a less portable, replaceable job - such as scientist, professor, et cetera - with a man commonly in more menial jobs that a strong guy could do anywhere (such as builder, bricklayer, security, etc).
A male might experience pressure to change his job to accommodate a bond when the female types might not deal with any such pressure at all, or only minimally.
It implies that women are the ones who take mates but men are the ones who worry about being attractive, and about holding on to them. None of this is stated in canon, but it’s how I head canon a society that canonically positions women as the initiator.
Because a lot of dynamics change when you’re reared to think of yourself as someone who would passively “attract” a mate versus just going and getting one, and a lot of dynamics change when you are in a society where women are given authority and deference but men are basically expendable (and mostly valued - in a society with dramatically and catastrophically falling birth rates - for the fact that they continue to produce semi-viable sperm well into old age).
Given survival/financial support isn’t wrapped up in this (everyone has a job they do and it’s a collectivist society where everyone is supported by a larger group of people), and given that physical dominance doesn’t come a huge amount into play, and given how much the society privileges one specific relationship type that isn’t any of the relationships described here, there’s only so much that the power dynamic will be affected by just a change in initiators.
But it will inevitably change some of the dynamics and the psychology of the people within the relationship, and how people within it think of *themselves*.
