>>it takes alot more strength, >>imo, to submit than it does to antagonize in a relationship > >all i can say to that is my strength/independence should never >be seen as "antagonizing". with this i mean being so strong willed that you are not willing to compromise, being so independent that you show no vulnerability at all(build up walls..etc). what i was trying to say is i think it takes more strength to submit than it does to be combative and belligerent. and when i say submit it's not unanimous with being passive and controlled. sort of like..its harder to open yourself up to another individual than it is to just close down and isolate yourself emotionally.
>furthermore, i cannot see predicating my "protection" and >"guidance" on any man outside of my father. and even that was >in my childhood.
oh, but we are not talking about 'any man' here. we are talking about one that you trust as well as you trusted your father as a child. not to liken being a wife to being your fathere's lil daughter. but, i dont blame you. for the longest time, just the thought of sharing my complete self with someone outside of myself(this man) to the extent that we mesh on all levels..well, that frightened me and i never thought i'd go there. surface relationships were much safer.
>as an adult, imo, my mate should serve as a complement to my >full womanhood, not to "raise" me all over again.
i dont mean to imply that women should be 'raised' when i say guide or enlighten or protect or teach/lead. but even when we are all the way grown, we still have alot of growing and learning. men and women alike.
>this is VERY opposite of where i am in my >thinking/relationship...and my s.o. is involved w/ the nation >as well.
we find that there are differences within the nation.
>either way, i'm glad you're happy/secure where you are.