According to your model, is a relationship where the giving and the taking is balanced possible, as in neither being has a "giving" or a "recieving" role?
I'm not talking of a relationship where there is no "giving" and no "recieving", but of one where the two forces balance.
You mean...each participant is 50% masculine and 50% feminine, with individual facets/qualities/personality quirks/etc complementing each other?
A B
M F
M F
F M
M F
F M
F M
M F
F M
Instead of:
A B
M F
M F
F M
M F
F M
M F
Sure. That could happen. That's fine.
Is it even concievable in your model, or is every relationship bound to be defined by a
more-ore-less strong degree of one part doing more "giving" than "recieving"?
Short answer: Yes, it's conceivable. No, relationships need not be defined in that manner.
There's no fundamental reason for complex participants possessing more than one "quality" to necessarily have a majority of their qualities swing one way or another. Though there are probably trends. For example, if you have 100 participants with 100 assorted "qualities" with each quality being either male or female...assuming any kind of moderate distribution, odds are good that probably a lot of them won't be precisely 50/50.
But...in any "system" of participants actively engaging in energy exchange, the overall balance of the exchange itself has to be even, by definition. If you view an actor/receiver as a single entity, their exchange will work out to net balance. For example, if the event: "a meteorite collides with a planet" occurs, then obviously there had to be a planet receiving the impact. You can't have more masculine or more feminine energy exchange within a single event.
"Energy" itself is not an event. Energy is the potential for an event to occur. Saying that someone "is" masculine or feminine is a gross simplification, as you point out above with your mention of the net balance of forces. It might be more accurate to describe people as having various potentials and preferences for potentials, and preferences for how their potentials are used. For example, let's say Bob wants to sexually dominate Sara, but there is no contact between them. Bob wants for a masculine/feminine exchange to occur in which his masculine energy meets with her feminine energy in a sexual capacity. But let's imagine that instead...Tom comes by and punches him in the face. Bob didn't want to be on the receiving end of that masculine energy, but he nevertheless had the female potential to be punched in the face, and his exchange with Tom occurred. Bob is probably unhappy with this. But he did have the female energy potential to be punched in the face.
So...looking at that...do we say that Bob has a surplus of female energy? We probably wouldn't look at it that way. Saying that someone "is masculine" or "is feminine" is similarly a bit inaccurate. Really what we're describing is a preference for how potential energy is put to use. Those Ms and Fs in the answer to the above question are probably "preferences" exhibited by each individual rather than individual, specific energy exchanges from an event. But both of those examples were "100% harmony" examples because there were matching Ms for every F. It doesn't really matter what the distribution is.
And, if it is possible, is it any more right or any more wrong than any other kind
of relationship (where also the two parts fit each other) your model describes?
...I'm not sure what sort of criteria could be applied to make a "right or wrong" judgement. "Morality" isn't relevant to the model. Your question is kind of like asking whether it's "good or bad" that the force of gravity pulls equally on apples as it does oranges of equivalent mass.
I suppose..."are both participants happy with the exchange?" would be a reasonable criteria. But that criteria doesn't suggest any preference for of against your scenario one way or another.
I don't believe relationships should work as a game of power.
I know that's the way the great majority of them DO work (that's why LordBucket's model makes sense, it is applicable to reality), but that doesn't stop me from believing it's... wrong.
...well, I think that's a personal bias showing up. There's nothing wrong with being female. Ask any woman who's had an orgasm. Exchange events don't need to be unpleasant, and there's no need for use of power to be any kind of "cruel game." If you want to do X, then find someone who wants to have X done to them. There's no need to play power games.
And it's sad when guys are afraid, or feel guilty about doing X when there are a bunch of women sitting around wishing for it to be done to them. That's kind of what I think is going on with the "nice guy" phenomenon. And that's not exclusive by any means to just sex. I'm sure it happens at least as often that a girl wishes a guy would just choose where to eat dinner rather than making a big production out of asking for her preference.
Author
Topic: "Why don't women like nice guys?" (Read 43748 times)