How I see it, is that the Aggressor/Victim dynamic is not an abstract equivalent to actual rape. In the most extreme sense, it is rather like "rape play".
Is it "rape" when one person has a rape fantasy, and they tell their partner about it, and they make a consensual agreement to play out that fantasy?
I do not think so. And I would say the same applies to the Aggressor/Victim dynamic, in a sense.
The Victim/Aggressor dynamic is the good old "playing hard to get", or rather, the Victim is actually "hard to get" and the Aggressor is thrilled by the "hunt" of "capturing" the Victim, while the Victim gets a thrill out of being "captured" by someone worthy or in other words to relinquish control to someone worthy. That is why I equated the Victim/Aggressor dynamic with the Prey/Predator dynamic in the animal kingdom in a blog post of mine. (Though this is not the best analogy, because the prey doesn't want to be captured.
)
The other Romance Styles "do not get it" – I am pretty sure those countless blog posts, articles, and so forth about the question "Do I have to play hard to get?" are written by women who aren't Victim and likely not Aggressor either, but instead Caretaker, and once in a while Childlike. The men they are interested in are mostly Aggressors, and would respond well to the "hard to get" scenario, so that is why they are often trying to "play hard to get" to appease or thrill those men, but it typically doesn't work too well for them. It is better to be true to your Romance Style, so you find the right fit for yourself. Otherwise, you'll have to fake another romance style the entire time while being with this person, and that would be tiring and frustrating to say the least.
For
and
valuing individuals, romantic/sexual interactions are primarily about force, power, and control: who exerts it and who "takes" it or who "channels" it.
Rape is certainly a "forceful" act, it exerts force on someone unwilling. I suppose the term "Victim" comes a bit too close to the term "Rape victim"...
The Victim may seem to be the "victim" in a sexual situation (mostly applicable to Beta NFs in the most literal sense), but they actually enjoy it.
Whereas real rape victims didn't enjoy the act, obviously.
So again, the Victim/Aggressor dynamic is more like "rape play". And I suppose Childlike/Caretaker is more like "baby play"?
Of course I am describing the most extreme versions here. For most people, the interplay is much more subtle.
All in all, that is why I like the original terminology. It hints at the most basic dynamic behind the styles, aka what I described as "rape play" vs "baby play".
P.S: I'd like to add that in the sexual sense, even Aggressor women like the idea of a guy being more forceful than them, or at least they rather have a guy being forceful than being Caretaker-like, because they value
. And the Victim men, especially the Pseudo-Victim ones, also often prefer playing the "perpetrator" opposed to the hardcore "Victim" in a sexual scenario, because they also value
. However, when it comes to the romantic interaction and how couples came together, I note that the Romance Styles will be rather true to themselves and fit the descriptions, more or less.
Originally Posted by Chae
Aggression, by definition, means that you act with the intent of hurting someone. Victims are defined by having their consent stepped on, they do not want to be harmed. Transferring that to romantic attitudes is equalling this specific partner interaction with rape. Gulenko wasn't woke enough to realize that, completely missing the social dynamic that he wanted to describe. Instead, he came at us with this ancient rhetoric of interpersonal violence instead of expressing love.
Reply With Quote
