The Private Man

Attraction and dating information for all men

Relationship Language Ruined By Political Correctness

It’s known that women are turned on by dominant men. We’re just not allowed to use the word “dominant”. Political correctness has assigned way too many negative connotations to that word so we are left with an enormous linguistic problem. Do we plow through the connotations and still use the word and suffer the cruel stupidity of the politically correct by being anti-PC? Or, do we find alternate words that may lack the soundness and accuracy of “dominant”.

As I am a proselytizer of the Red Pill philosophy, I choose to find alternate and safer words and phrases to make the concept of a dominant man less noxious to the politically correct crowd. For example, “leadership role” is a handy phrase. A man needs to take a leadership role in a relationship. This works because the word dominant connotes that “submissive” must be somewhere in the relationship. “Submissive” is anathema to political correctness.

Ironically, submission is a key part of male-female relationships yet the word cannot be spoken. Shakespeare got it quite right when he penned “The Taming Of The Shrew”. He well understood that a man must lead in the relationship. Yet with “lead” comes the role of “follow” and once again we are potentially in the blades of the politically correct shredder.

This is all ferociously awkward and there is no easy solution. Interestingly, there is a small collection of foreign words regarding relationships that truly define some elements of a relationship that the English language can’t quite cover. Hat tip to the Hooking Up Smart forum for that. What we really need is a new word. As English is a rather flexible language, a new word is not inconceivable. Here is the definition of that new word.

A happy relationship where the man is leading and the woman is eagerly and lovingly accepting his leadership.

The word must have no negative connotations or associated meanings. It’s a tough order to fill. Even though I am a writer, I am rather stumped. Or, maybe I’m just lazy.

If the Germans weren’t so, well, German, there would be a word in that language.

Advertisements

Single Post Navigation

14 thoughts on “Relationship Language Ruined By Political Correctness

  1. johnnymilfquest on said:

    Aren’t renaming schemes the very essence of Political Correctness?

    Screw “Charisma”. I want to improve my Game.
    Screw “Leadership”. I’d rather dominate.

    • Your point is well taken. But the problem is that the Manosphere is not yet in the position to equally butt heads with political correctness.

      I’d rather be a sneaky son of a bitch and infiltrate linguistically with Red Pill philosophy.

    • I agree with this. When I meet a woman who is unhappy in her relationship, I give her a quick overview of my world view. I explain that she wants to submit to a strong, dominate male. She will disagree and bullshit, but then I say, “You’re sick of the men in your life not taking charge and being men, right?” To which they agree. Simply explain, That is male dominance and female submission.

      Whether by evolution or grand design, we are wired to have a dominant/submissive male/female relationship.

      I prefer to take the anti-PC road.

  2. I have a working model for the term you are searching for and indeed the concept came to me while watching the Idaho Shakespeare Company’s “The Taming of the Shrew”, an excellent production directed by Tracy Lords.

    In that version, it is very clear Kate’s spirit is not at all compromised in pledging her troth. She still has all the brains, moxy , drive etc. in the relationship. And it will be there should they need it (Shakespeare implies that with her dipshit husband they most certainly will). But first and foremost she loves him, and is willing to sublimate on a superficial level her apparent “independence” in service to that love. She will always be 10 steps ahead of him, and will always be the “neck” to his “head” (ref “My Big Fat Greek Wedding”).

    My model term is “pseudo filial acquiescence”. Pseudo of course you know; filial means in the nature of a child, usually feminine. In last summer’s TTOS the actress portrayed this marvelously; she’s giving him what he needs without losing anything of herself. Epictetus taught that the formal relationship is not what governs, but knowledge and skill. If your slave knows better how to teach your son are you going to forbid it because you own him?

    Jalal Rumi used the example of the mouse leading the camel. The camel goes along because he’s headed in that direction anyway, but then they come to a raging river. The camel then says to the terrified little mouse “Hey, I thought you wanted to lead? So go ahead.” The point here is that character, knowledge, skill, guts, all come to the fore. Who does the lieutenant look to when “the shit” hits? Another West Point grad? Nah, his sergeant who knows how to fight and get his men back alive.

    That’s my 2 cents, adjusted for inflation.

    • Yo Munson…

      Paragraphs.

      Look into them.

      You’re welcome.

      [Ya, I fixed your long post.]

      • I’m sorry-and thanks!! I was in a hurry to get over to HUS and write my romantic interlude. Guess what-Susan didnt mind, and another girl said it was colorful (Susan had used the same word).Colorful-“licking your asshole like a sno-cone) I think I could write “I EAT ROSE KENNEDY’S PUSSSY” over there; those NE cunts would know who she is. I wish I could transfer my entire How Will they Find Husbands rant over there.

  3. Ain’t one word; so sue me.

  4. Your definition implies she has abandoned her free will and intelligence and therefore asks too much. The problem is “leadership”; it goes to far in its implications. And it’s bullshit anyway.Outside those polygamists cults etc. no man does that, and I doubt they do even in those. Women always inform; in fact incessantly. And if you piss her off well maybe you can get her to strip and fuck her but by God she’ll be sure you get as little out of it as fucking a wax doll. My model gets to the heart, a healthy promotion that corresponds to how the needs and capabilities actually play out in the real world. Replace leadership with “allows him to lead” as in dancing (I never learned to do ‘cuz my sister showed me how and SHE led).He’s NOT CONTROLLING her (your implication) he’s leading her around the dance floor, and she’s cooperating with love. The image is also nicer and makes a better sell.

  5. the dude on said:

    Führungsstärke

  6. How about “masculinity” or “masculine”? To me it implies a certain level of dominance. Like, talking about a masculine man implies talking about a dominant man.

  7. Submissive/happy female: Liedenfrau.

    I guess I see things as rather hopeless. Too many college educated women with an attitude and an incredibly high requirement to be gamed that will leave the average man completely enervated.

    There’s a good word for you.

  8. Mom- “son, in every relationship, there’s. Leader and a follower.”

    Me- “what am I?” (I was 14 at the time).

    Mom- “you’re a boy…..you lead.”

    It took me some time to figure out that conversation. But eventually I did. Most of the women I know who dumped their husbands all say the same thing, and it runs along the lines of him turning to a supplicating douche.

  9. I am, in fact, a Dominant. I subjugate women under my authority and they love it. I push them and challenge them, and they love it. I even exert physical Dominance through BDSM type play. They LOVE that.

    I make no bones about it. It does have to be tactfully presented, but the more shrewish a woman is, the more blunt I am about it. It’s hilarious. Usually, it intrigues them endlessly. Score.

    We don’t need a politically correct word for Dominance, we just need to illustrate that women, if they can be honest with themselves for a moment, want to find that and submit to it. Often even the harshest critics have to reluctantly agree. All women are submissives, some of them just don’t know it yet.

    I don’t keep women down, I polish them to shine under my rule.

    They have to understand that being second-in-command will be their best self, their ideal arrangement for them to be their best. That includes a man who is competent enough to correct or rebuke them, discipline them, make them do hard shit. Yes, they hate all that.

    And yes, they LOVE ALL THAT, and in fact, if they do not get it, they will not feel loved, just as an undisciplined child feels unloved. They know they need it, and it makes them feel loved.

    Throw in the facts that my approach incorporates dirty sex (they love) and also the protocols are kind of like a game, so you can play kitten-and-string as much as you want.

    If a man gets this right, his women will worship him.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: