It's because you two are using terms interchangeably when they are not, in fact the same thing.

Being supportive is not the same thing as being submissive. Women would love for the men in their lives to be more supportive. We talk about it all the time. But a truly supportive male partner is rare. They don't value skillsets that wouls lead to them being supportive in partnering.

Dominance is not the same as leadership. Leadership is an act of service or it's an act of coercive and exploitive domination with everything that goes with it.

Then, there's a natural separation between these terms in regards to sex and in regards to daily life.

You two keep talking about relationships like there has to be a captain and subordinate. It suits the two of you because you're both highly submissive, both in life and sexually. Somebody is "in charge".

That doesn't apply to most people, that includes women. Most women are not submissive by nature, sexually or otherwise. Note here, that submitting to sex is not the same as being sexually submissive.

You talk about relationships like they mimic a star and a satellite, with all the gravity held by one party, all the energy controlled released by one party, all the focus on one party with the nothinf left for the other but to spin around adding to that star's brilliance.

Ugh.

What women want is to be binary stars, cieing each other. Both caught in and contributing each other's gravity, both controlling and releasing power that amplifies the environment around them, both shining brilliantly, and with that attraxtion and gravity between them making them both more than they are separate without one being diminished of sacrifices to the glorification of the other.

Operationally, women want their partnerships to consist of an engineer and a navigator rather than a captain and a subordinate.

You, in particular have this idea that such an arrangement must be default lead to endless discussions and negotistions. That only happens when one party is 'venting plasma', or dropping the ball on being an equally brilliant and powerful star. Or trying to captain instead of navigate or engineer.

It doesn't work out that way, in real life. My grandparents had a relationship like this, partially within a traditional marriage arrangement (because they married in '42). They hardly ever spoke about logistics or achedules or who was going to do what. It was like they could read each other's minds. They just knew what the other needed and did what needed doing. No fussin'. Can you imagine the level of trust between partners it takes to just know they're going to be there with you and for you without you having to say a damned thing, having to ask/beg/plead for attention or resources, with the egos kept in check? To give yourself over completely to he gravity of the other and know inherently they won't consume you or burn you?

Your way suggests a lack of trust. People who can't do for themselves or others or can't be trusted with the care of others or important things have to be led either because they're literally incapable, unskilled, or they just don't really want to (they don't want the responsibility). Amongst fully actualized adults, youre saying you can't/won't trust your oartner or you know you can't/shouldn't be trusted by your partner to that degree. That's obviously separate from sexual submission, a form of sex play/expression.

I don't need a captain dictating to me the terms of my own life or a co-pilot/subordinate to keep me in check or so all my grunt work because I'm too good for it.

I don't need a satellite to give my life meaning by being a constant reminder of my brilliance or to be a satellite in order to have value as I'm already a star with my own gravity.