>>29295044
Another thing:
Traditional gender roles are a comprehensive guidebook on how people should behave in nearly all aspects of life. How should I dress? I like the nice girl at the library — how do I approach her? Should I get married? Should I be in a polygamous relationship? How should I manage my money? Should I have a retirement fund? How should I manage marital disputes?
Traditional gender roles, and tradition more broadly, has some guidance for all of these questions.

"Bottom", "top" and "switch" are BDSM roles. They are an abstraction created entirely for sex. They only become relevant in intimate contexts, usually after a relationship is well-established, and they offer zero guidance on the rest of life’s demands. The BDSM roles are narrow. Traditional gender roles are broad, almost all-encompassing in comparison. Trying to replace one with the other is like swapping out an entire cultural operating system and replacing it with three commands from a niche terminal script you found online. It's not forwards thinking; it's hopelessly naive. If you want to discard some parts of traditional gender roles, the alternative has to cover the same breadth of life challenges. Otherwise, you’re just leaving people without a working script and hoping they improvise. That's a recipe for disaster.

For your benefit, I'll ignore the "we taught kids" part. Yeah bro — let's teach kids about BDSM roles as instead of giving them a working (if imperfect) framework for how to run their lives. Are you a democrat governor by chance?