NationStates Jolt Archive

and the president runs that corporation, with a board of Directors, there is the Chairman of the board. one leader, one figure that has the ability to make the ultimate decision.

Erm, not always quite right (legal aside warning, step away if you want to avoid legal mumbojumbo).

Typically in a "board" situation, you are dealing with a corporate enviornment. The chairman of the board is typically the one who formally calls meetings, addresses the agenda etc, however the chairman still has one vote, among the board. A decision can be made by plurality vote of the board that rejects the chairman's proposition.

A chairman in a corporation does not have the ultimate say in most typical situations, and then you're ignoring stockholder votes, etc etc.

Sorry....legal aside over.

Because it doesn't respect the dignity of one of the parties involved. Sure, the party herself may see it fine to be disrespected, but that still doesn't make it right.

What is right is that she lives the lifestyle she CHOSES to live. That makes it right, for her.

Maybe not for you, but you're irrelevant.

As I said in an earlier post in this thread, I'm currently involved in a dominant/submissive "relationship" (put in parenthesis because I hesitate to call our current level of commitment a relationship, not because I don't believe a d/s dynamic can form a proper relationship).

In my case the role is reversed however. In our case she (she being the s in our dynamic, not the OP, who I'll call the OP) has a submissive role, although not for ANY of the reasons the OP puts forth (it's not a religious thing at all). We have our lines and our boundaries, which are mutually discussed and agreed to, and followed.

If a line accidentally gets crossed, it gets corrected. Most people couldn't "wrap their heads" around that kind of relationship either, and are often quick to dismiss it as "wrong", which I never understood. How could something, anything, engaged in by consenting adults, limited to consenting adults, and harms nobody that does not wish to be harmed, be wrong?


But is it a truly submissive if it is so conditional? I mean it is you just choosing to go with her leadership until it gets to a point you don’t like or can’t handle (which have been pre defined in your case) that seems rather just like normal human interaction.

I go with where my girlfriend wants to go eat or what movie she wants to watch unless it is out of the bounds of what I feel comfortable eating then she has to re-choose something within bounds

It may not be a valid choice for you to live under, but how could any decision, made by a rational consenting adult on how to live his/her life be invalid? The very definition of making a choice, with consent, MAKES it valid.

It just may not be one you could chose for yourself, but that does not make it an invalid relationship dynamic for her because you wouldn't do it.

You're not her.
And thank whatever there is out there that I'm not her. Regardless of whether or not she chose it, it's still an invalid choice. I believe in respecting the dignity of all people; by labelling certain human beings as submissive, and not respecting their opinion, beliefs, or wishes, these people are being robbed of their dignity. That violates my fundamental belief that all people deserve to be treated equally and each with equal dignity.

and the president runs that corporation, with a board of Directors, there is the Chairman of the board. one leader, one figure that has the ability to make the ultimate decision.
There are often boards that have veto or censure power of the president (sort of like with the USGOV) there is a leader but if there is a strong enough will from the country the presidents decision can be overturned (or blocked)

There are plenty of ways to have two heads of the household.

Hell look at my parents my mom tends to take charge of the financial situation bills and checkbook balancing because she has more patience for such things then my dad. My dad tends to be in charge of researching and going through with large purchases though (as long as the financial part is alright) things like cars and boats and land he is the one that makes that sort of decisions.

It has worked for them for 30 years or soand the fact that they are not sharing leadership. They divided the responsiblities of the household between them, each with their own little departments. it sounds like when it comes to Financial Matters, your Mother is the one making all the decisions. she determines if the financial situation is stable enough for your father to make any large purchases. in that matter, she is the one with the ultimate decision making power.

Why does there have to be one leader? In the case of government, most of us would call that system a dictatorship, a system that is typically oppressive...because a household is not a government.

There are plenty of ways to have two heads of the household.

Hell look at my parents my mom tends to take charge of the financial situation bills and checkbook balancing because she has more patience for such things then my dad. My dad tends to be in charge of researching and going through with large purchases though (as long as the financial part is alright) things like cars and boats and land he is the one that makes that sort of decisions.

It has worked for them for 30 years or so
sounds very similar to my household. I am the checkbook keeper, I manage our financial life for the most part, he invests money on the side.

I swear I don't know where this idea came from that I am off in "la-la land" while he does everything.

But is it a truly submissive if it is so conditional? I mean it is you just choosing to go with her leadership until it gets to a point you don’t like or can’t handle (which have been pre defined in your case) that seems rather just like normal human interaction.

If you're talking about MY relationship, not the OPs relationship, you've got your roles reversed. NOt me going with her, other way around.

Just saying for point of clarification.

As for what I said before, ALL submissivness is conditional. What you said is basically what people in these kind of relationships say ALL THE TIME. EVERYONE has conditions in which we are willing to submit to the others, those in a submissive role in these sort of d/s relationships just place those conditions in unconventional places.

"submissive" is really a....general term, not so much a specific one? It describes the role of the relationship, but it is always considers as CONDITIONAL, she just might place her conditions waaaaay further than most will.

I go with where my girlfriend wants to go eat or what movie she wants to watch unless it is out of the bounds of what I feel comfortable eating then she has to re-choose something within bounds

It's, for her, I think, beyond the levels of "comfort?" I think these are bounds beyond just comfort and more absolute CAN NOT DO THIS sort of things....

And that’s why I respect her choice (as stated over and over and over) while still wishing to discuss it and “Wrap my head” around her state of mind.

I don’t have to agree with something to respect that persons right to choose it
*nods in agreement* what's good for the Goose is not always good for the Gander.

and the fact that they are not sharing leadership. They divided the responsiblities of the household between them, each with their own little departments. it sounds like when it comes to Financial Matters, your Mother is the one making all the decisions. she determines if the financial situation is stable enough for your father to make any large purchases. in that matter, she is the one with the ultimate decision making power.
The topics were too close together my bad… but continuing with that example if my mom wishes to make a large purchase in witch they have the financial ability (as determined by her) but my dad determines it is a bad product even though she wants it he will make the final decision on if it is worthwhile

It is sort of intertwined like that

And thank whatever there is out there that I'm not her. Regardless of whether or not she chose it, it's still an invalid choice.

No choice, made by an adult, with consent, is invalid. To say my choices, or her choices, or anybody's choices is invalid based on YOUR beliefs is to substitute yours for others. THAT is the dictatorship you claim to abhore.

That violates my fundamental belief that all people deserve to be treated equally and each with equal dignity.

I see no reason to suspect she's disrespected. And nobody has the RIGHT for someone to do something because they want them to. A marriage is a dynamic, she sets the terms of her dynamic with the conditions that work best for her, nothing more.

As I said in an earlier post in this thread, I'm currently involved in a dominant/submissive "relationship" (put in parenthesis because I hesitate to call our current level of commitment a relationship, not because I don't believe a d/s dynamic can form a proper relationship).

In my case the role is reversed however. In our case she (she being the s in our dynamic, not the OP, who I'll call the OP) has a submissive role, although not for ANY of the reasons the OP puts forth (it's not a religious thing at all). We have our lines and our boundaries, which are mutually discussed and agreed to, and followed.

If a line accidentally gets crossed, it gets corrected. Most people couldn't "wrap their heads" around that kind of relationship either, and are often quick to dismiss it as "wrong", which I never understood. How could something, anything, engaged in by consenting adults, limited to consenting adults, and harms nobody that does not wish to be harmed, be wrong?

it would be better to start a new thread to discuss bdsm. just be very careful of the title so that the mods dont have to edit it for you.

there is a difference between acting out a sexual fantasy and living your life in submission day to day. where is the safe word when your husband decides to empty the bank account in order to invest in a canadian diamond mine?

and the president runs that corporation, with a board of Directors, there is the Chairman of the board. one leader, one figure that has the ability to make the ultimate decision.

not *all* boards have a chair. some rotate facilitation duties.

just speaking from experience working for non-profits.

Erm, not always quite right (legal aside warning, step away if you want to avoid legal mumbojumbo).

Typically in a "board" situation, you are dealing with a corporate enviornment. The chairman of the board is typically the one who formally calls meetings, addresses the agenda etc, however the chairman still has one vote, among the board. A decision can be made by plurality vote of the board that rejects the chairman's proposition.

A chairman in a corporation does not have the ultimate say in most typical situations, and then you're ignoring stockholder votes, etc etc.

Sorry....legal aside over.
I believe it does come down to who owns the most Controlling stock. that person can then fire anyone on the BoD including the chairman who heads the board. but that is neither here nor there, the fact is even on a board, you do have one 'head' who runs/calls the meetings, adresses the agenda... etc. it's not a board of equals.

Even the round table, the symbolic equality of all of King Arthurs Knights had a leader, now whether it was Arthur or Merlin.... :rolleyes: ;)

sounds very similar to my household. I am the checkbook keeper, I manage our financial life for the most part, he invests money on the side.

I swear I don't know where this idea came from that I am off in "la-la land" while he does everything.
That’s why I am starting to wonder if submissive is the right word to describe you or if you are placing a word with too much emphasis on something that is just more normal human interaction

it would be better to start a new thread to discuss bdsm. just be very careful of the title so that the mods dont have to edit it for you.


Yeah, it's why I'm trying NOT to hijack the thread here, merely interjecting my own personal experiences in a way to relate them, as closely as I can, to the OPs, and draw parallels.

I wouldn't really start a thread on the subject, because I don't really feel like elaborating to great extent on my lifestyle choices, but rather just say "those of us who live with the lifestyle I do, who have grappled with these kind of questions, and are the ones often discussing them, define terms such as submissive as this, and that this definition may fit to this situation"

And thank whatever there is out there that I'm not her. Regardless of whether or not she chose it, it's still an invalid choice. I believe in respecting the dignity of all people; by labelling certain human beings as submissive, and not respecting their opinion, beliefs, or wishes, these people are being robbed of their dignity. That violates my fundamental belief that all people deserve to be treated equally and each with equal dignity.
how do you get that my wishes, opinions, beliefs and desires are not being respected?

see? this is the whole point of my thred, people make assumptions based on what they believe to be true, and when the truth is presented they ignore and go back to "but it's bad because you think you are unequal"

not *all* boards have a chair. some rotate facilitation duties.

just speaking from experience working for non-profits.
and during that rotation, you still have only one person. it may not be the same person any given length of time, but it's still only one person at that time.

and during that rotation, you still have only one person. it may not be the same person any given length of time, but it's still only one person at that time.

:rolleyes:

what part of facilitation do you not understand? it doesn't mean making decisions, it means calling a meeting to order and keeping people on point to an agenda.

This came up on a related thread, but I want to post it here because it seems to fit with the topic:

Smunkee has expressed the personal belief that women should submit to their husbands. In her case, this is based on the religious beliefs that she and her husband share, which state that the male spouse should lead while the female spouse follows.

Just as an experiment, what would people think about somebody saying that black people should submit to white people? How would people feel about a black man who shared his belief that he should submit to his white wife because she is white and he is black?

That’s why I am starting to wonder if submissive is the right word to describe you or if you are placing a word with too much emphasis on something that is just more normal human interaction

As I said, there is no such thing as TRUE SUBMISSION. Every relationship has some submission to it, we ALL do, it's conditional submission.

The difference is where we put that line, and she might put that line WAAAAY further out than most, as does a submissive in a d/s relationship. The fact is, if we consider a LITTLE conditional submission "normal", then a conditional submission with the conditional being far beyond the normal baseline, we can consider that person "more conditional submissive than normal".

But since that's a mouthful, could we not just call those who have a larger conditional submissiveness than normal just "submissive", with the understanding that ALL submissiveness is conditional and that is implied in the word?

how do you get that my wishes, opinions, beliefs and desires are not being respected?

see? this is the whole point of my thred, people make assumptions based on what they believe to be true, and when the truth is presented they ignore and go back to "but it's bad because you think you are unequal"
You said that your husband's opinion is the only one that holds any sway in the end, that you do as he says, etc. I think that makes it pretty clear of how your opinions, wishes, and beliefs are not being respected. Of course, you have willingly given up your dignity, but that still doesn't mean that the way your relationship works is right.

That’s why I am starting to wonder if submissive is the right word to describe you or if you are placing a word with too much emphasis on something that is just more normal human interaction
I am trying to point out that people have a very skewed version of what submission really means.

Does it mean that I sit in a corner and wait for instruction from him, having no intelligent thought of my own? no.

Does it mean that when I am doing the checkbook and we have $300 extra that I discuss with him options of how to allocate that money? yes, we discuss but his decision is final.

there is a difference between acting out a sexual fantasy and living your life in submission day to day. where is the safe word when your husband decides to empty the bank account in order to invest in a canadian diamond mine?

What makes you think a d/s relationship style is only, or even primarily, about sex?

The topics were too close together my bad… but continuing with that example if my mom wishes to make a large purchase in witch they have the financial ability (as determined by her) but my dad determines it is a bad product even though she wants it he will make the final decision on if it is worthwhile

It is sort of intertwined like that
if you look closely, tho. the bottom line is, she has to determine the financial stability... right?

another point to make, is that this system works for your parents, Smunkee's works for her and her husband, and the system my parents have works for them. to say its wrong for Smunkee to be submissive, especially when, a) she's happy, and b) it works, is out of line for us. if it doesn't work for you, then it doesn't work.

*you meaning those who don't want to submit.

This came up on a related thread, but I want to post it here because it seems to fit with the topic:

Smunkee has expressed the personal belief that women should submit to their husbands. In her case, this is based on the religious beliefs that she and her husband share, which state that the male spouse should lead while the female spouse follows.

Just as an experiment, what would people think about somebody saying that black people should submit to white people? How would people feel about a black man who shared his belief that he should submit to his white wife because she is white and he is black?
I would think about the same as I have expressed on this topic.

Though when she further elaborates I am less and less convinced that it is actual submission rather then just normal human interaction taking place. We all fall into comfort zones in relationships and this is hers.

I have a feeling that while she calls herself submissive if he ever does anything wrong she will be alittle spitfire and he WILL pay the consequences of not listening to her lol

Just as an experiment, what would people think about somebody saying that black people should submit to white people?

I don't agree that anyone should submit to anyone else unless they wish to.

How would people feel about a black man who shared his belief that he should submit to his white wife because she is white and he is black?

If that was his belief, and he believed in it rationally, and was not forced into that decision, then that's his decision.

I may not agree with the justification (just as much as I do not agree with the OPs biblical justification) but it's his right to believe in it if he wishes (just as it's the OPs right to believe it if she wishes).

:rolleyes:

what part of facilitation do you not understand? it doesn't mean making decisions, it means calling a meeting to order and keeping people on point to an agenda.
look what you wrote. one person calls the meeting. one person keeps the people on the agenda to keep the meeting runing smoothly. one person is running that meeting. for that meeting, one person is leading it.

if you look closely, tho. the bottom line is, she has to determine the financial stability... right?

another point to make, is that this system works for your parents, Smunkee's works for her and her husband, and the system my parents have works for them. to say its wrong for Smunkee to be submissive, especially when, a) she's happy, and b) it works, is out of line for us. if it doesn't work for you, then it doesn't work.

*you meaning those who don't want to submit.
Yup and he determines the product quality ... its more like the un with both of them having veto power

In thoes cases anyways thats how it balances out ... trying to think of examples in the rest of their life that are meaningfull but hard to think of a good example right now

Though when she further elaborates I am less and less convinced that it is actual submission rather then just normal human interaction taking place. We all fall into comfort zones in relationships and this is hers.

As I said before, there is NO SUCH THING as consentual true submission. It does not exist (except maybe in some fringe groups in bdsm, and maybe in religion too, but even then it's questionable).

All a submissive relationship is, be it sexually submissive, lifestyle submissive, or family submissive, is that the submissive in that relationship STILL has lines, but those lines are put further than "average" would. That's all it means. It just means "more conditionally submissive than normal" so that if we consider the baseline of everyone normal, the submissive has a greater degree of submissivness, and we just call him/her submissive, when it means, in reality, a situation of conditional submissiveness, where the conditionals are placed beyond where they would normally be placed.

I would think about the same as I have expressed on this topic.

Though when she further elaborates I am less and less convinced that it is actual submission rather then just normal human interaction taking place. We all fall into comfort zones in relationships and this is hers.
explain acutal submission.

I have a feeling that while she calls herself submissive if he ever does anything wrong she will be alittle spitfire and he WILL pay the consequences of not listening to her lol
funny but not actually true. He has made mistakes, I don't hold them against him, in fact I never bring them up again.

explain acutal submission.


That's just it, there's no such thing as ACTUAL submission. All submission is just conditional submission with the conditions being placed further than baseline.

Your submission may come from the form where you conditionally let him make the family decisions, provided it doesn't come to the level of abuse.

My um...let's call her my friend, her submission comes in...other areas, provided that my actions do not cross predefined lines

explain acutal submission.


funny but not actually true. He has made mistakes, I don't hold them against him, in fact I never bring them up again.
I did not mean holding a grudge on some mistake I mean if/when he actively chooses to go against your advice on something crucial … it may not have happened it may not happen for years but with humans it probably is going to happen at some point.

Just like I am perfectly happy to let me girlfriend decide on a lot of things specially when there is more then one “Right” answer.

As for submission it just does not seem to fit … I don’t know why It just does not … when I come up with a better way to describe it Ill let you know lol

I have a feeling that while she calls herself submissive if he ever does anything wrong she will be alittle spitfire and he WILL pay the consequences of not listening to her lol
and if she made it known, I believe there will be an army of pissed off posters ready to back her up. :)

As I said before, there is NO SUCH THING as consentual true submission. It does not exist (except maybe in some fringe groups in bdsm, and maybe in religion too, but even then it's questionable).

All a submissive relationship is, be it sexually submissive, lifestyle submissive, or family submissive, is that the submissive in that relationship STILL has lines, but those lines are put further than "average" would. That's all it means. It just means "more conditionally submissive than normal" so that if we consider the baseline of everyone normal, the submissive has a greater degree of submissivness, and we just call him/her submissive, when it means, in reality, a situation of conditional submissiveness, where the conditionals are placed beyond where they would normally be placed.
By that description really anyone that is slightly less aggressive in decision making is “Submissive”

There has to be some level or some better way of defining it. Me letting my girlfriend make the decisions on where we go to eat really should not qualify me as “Submissive”

That or the word is way the frig too broad to accurately describe anything

That's just it, there's no such thing as ACTUAL submission. All submission is just conditional submission with the conditions being placed further than baseline.

Your submission may come from the form where you conditionally let him make the family decisions, provided it doesn't come to the level of abuse.

My um...let's call her my friend, her submission comes in...other areas, provided that my actions do not cross predefined lines
*wispers* I know all about what you are talking about.........

look what you wrote. one person calls the meeting. one person keeps the people on the agenda to keep the meeting runing smoothly. one person is running that meeting. for that meeting, one person is leading it.

one person is not making the substantive decisions. that happens collectively. they are only in charge in terms of saying "we've got 15 minutes before we need to move on to the next topic" they are not saying "all things considered, i decide that this is where funds will be allocated."

thanks for the exchange, but i'll keep to my family where spouses don't submit. happy families come in all types, and that's more important than the methods they use to get there.

While I don't hold your difference in opinion against you, I do disagree with it. On a daily basis, it is insinuated that I am submissive to my fiance because I cook, clean, do laundry, etc for him while he is at work. I get accused of being "Suzie Homemaker", and I am reminded that I'm paying a hell of a lot of money to get a BBA and "make something of [my]self."

My answer? I eat the food too. I cook what I want to eat. I contribute to the messes as well, so it's my personal responsibility to at least partially clean up. My laundry gets thrown in with his too. He works. I am in college, on summer vacation. He has given me a safe place to stay, a fair distance from my parents and about 2 hours from the stresses of my apartment. The least I can do is help out as if I were a roommate, right?

However, I frequently disagree with him over spending money, political issues, and many decisions that would affect both of us. More often than not, we compromise or I am referred to as "the voice of reason", and I get my way. So now it's flipped -- I seem to be controlling him. That gets me hell too.

The point is, in the interest of keeping our relationship healthy, we keep it a partnership -- neither of us has to shoulder more responsibilities than the other. Neither has more stress or more power than the other. That's what makes US work.


Your relationship, on the other hand, appears to work in a vastly different way, but you still feel that it is healthy and successful. Apparently your husband agrees. I support your right to have your relationship continue to exist like that, as long as neither party feels wronged or neglected.

That's just it, there's no such thing as ACTUAL submission. All submission is just conditional submission with the conditions being placed further than baseline.

Your submission may come from the form where you conditionally let him make the family decisions, provided it doesn't come to the level of abuse.

My um...let's call her my friend, her submission comes in...other areas, provided that my actions do not cross predefined lines

The impression I have is that it is largely a trust thing. Smunkee trusts her husband to make the right choices for her and her family, just as your, um, friend trusts you not to go beyond her boundries. If the trust is broken, the consequences can be greater than in more conventional relationships, but as long as that trust is justified, everything is fine.

By that description really anyone that is slightly less aggressive in decision making is “Submissive”

There has to be some level or some better way of defining it. Me letting my girlfriend make the decisions on where we go to eat really should not qualify me as “Submissive”

That or the word is way the frig too broad to accurately describe anything

The word also has a bit of a suggestion of lack of give and take in the situation.

Do you also decide when you go to eat, or does she do it all the time?

Do you let her decide because she may know the restaurants better, and it's simply rationale to defer to her judgment?

The word has meaning, I just question whether that meaning is understandable from the outside...

The impression I have is that it is largely a trust thing. Smunkee trusts her husband to make the right choices for her and her family, just as your, um, friend trusts you not to go beyond her boundries. If the trust is broken, the consequences can be greater than in more conventional relationships, but as long as that trust is justified, everything is fine.

Quite, as I said a few hours and a few pages back, submission and trust are inseperably linked, can't have one without the other...

well, lemme rephrase, can't have submission without trust, can have trust without submission, although one wonders that if you trusted your partner's decisions, wouldn't you submit to them?

There has to be some level or some better way of defining it. Me letting my girlfriend make the decisions on where we go to eat really should not qualify me as “Submissive”

OK, this may be a better way. If you let your girlfriend decide where you eat, then each time you do so you are submitting to her decision, right?

If you eat where she decides to eat, you submit to her decision in that regard.

Now that doesnt make you submissive, no, not that singularly. But if it goes beyond just where to eat, and starts working in other aspects, so that you go with what she says more often than not, and refusal to do what she says becomes the rare exception to that...then yes we may call you submissive at that point.

The word also has a bit of a suggestion of lack of give and take in the situation.

Do you also decide when you go to eat, or does she do it all the time?

Do you let her decide because she may know the restaurants better, and it's simply rationale to defer to her judgment?

The word has meaning, I just question whether that meaning is understandable from the outside...
Well then I would love to understand the meaning

I differ to her judgment in this case because the decision in this case (food) is unimportant to me. As such I would rather have her decide so that she may achieve the most pleasure out of where we eat as I like food just about anywhere.

In this case it stems from a lack of interest in the subject matter, it is of no importance.

On a subject of importance I will fight but compromise on something, depending on the topic she will defer to me sometimes (I tend to be more experienced then her and keep my head about me so it is less of a I am in charge sort of thing more of a letting the experience help make the decision sort of thing)

But as she picks up more life experiences that happens less and less and that’s cool with me



if any of that makes sense

OK, this may be a better way. If you let your girlfriend decide where you eat, then each time you do so you are submitting to her decision, right?

If you eat where she decides to eat, you submit to her decision in that regard.

Now that doesnt make you submissive, no, not that singularly. But if it goes beyond just where to eat, and starts working in other aspects, so that you go with what she says more often than not, and refusal to do what she says becomes the rare exception to that...then yes we may call you submissive at that point.
At what point is it defined though … (I know hard or impossible to say for sure) For some reason smukees seems to be more in that grey area to me … not sure why just the feeling I get

Well then I would love to understand the meaning

From a general sense, I think what I said above was good, if it's in one area, you are submitting, in that area, so it can be said you are submissive when it comes to making choices on food, in that literally you submit to her decision.

On a subject of importance I will fight but compromise on something, depending on the topic she will defer to me sometimes (I tend to be more experienced then her and keep my head about me so it is less of a I am in charge sort of thing more of a letting the experience help make the decision sort of thing)

But as she picks up more life experiences that happens less and less and that’s cool with me

If to the point that your disagreement in a particular area is so infrequent to be considered never, or very rare, and you consistantly submit to her decision, we may call you submissive, in that area.

It has to do with the frequency in which you try to assert your decision to it. If never, or practically never, we may well consider you submissive in that area.

At what point is it defined though … (I know hard or impossible to say for sure) For some reason smukees seems to be more in that grey area to me … not sure why just the feeling I get

That's the problem, it's always grey, so we basically allow individuals to form their own definitions that suits them.

So if she wants to call herself submissive to the extent that she submits to her husband's will in areas concerning the family in almost all regards...well that seems like a perfectly functional and operative definition.

It's easier I guess with the "conventional" imaging of the word, all whips and chains and leather and bizaare costumes (for the record, I find the whole costume thing silly and unispired, but again, that's just me), which draws very strict lines between "reality" and "fantasy".

When it begins to creep into day to day life, the lines do blur, this is true.

That's the problem, it's always grey, so we basically allow individuals to form their own definitions that suits them.

So if she wants to call herself submissive to the extent that she submits to her husband's will in areas concerning the family in almost all regards...well that seems like a perfectly functional and operative definition.

It's easier I guess with the "conventional" imaging of the word, all whips and chains and leather and bizaare costumes (for the record, I find the whole costume thing silly and unispired, but again, that's just me), which draws very strict lines between "reality" and "fantasy".

When it begins to creep into day to day life, the lines do blur, this is true.

Naturally. I must confess that, despite my blister and personal distaste for marital submission, her situation and personal happiness appear to be enviable. The notion of "submission" in a marital sense would, to my mind, imply that one pertner makes the significant decisions with no conultation.

Naturally. I must confess that, despite my blister and personal distaste for marital submission, her situation and personal happiness appear to be enviable. The notion of "submission" in a marital sense would, to my mind, imply that one pertner makes the significant decisions with no conultation.
I am going to assume you mean consultation, and yes there is consultation.

con·sul·ta·tion
n.
1. A conference at which advice is given or views are exchanged.

I am going to assume you mean consultation, and yes there is consultation.

con·sul·ta·tion
n.
1. A conference at which advice is given or views are exchanged.

I think that's his point. He considers "submission" to be a situation in which consultation did not occur, and since it does occur in your situation, he does not wish to define it as submission.

Submission however literally just means one side submitting to the will of the other. Whether the decision formed by that will were done by consultation, or just spur of the moment without any consultation, is irrelevant to the definition.

So it is quite possible to be a submissive in a relationship even if your opinions and beliefs are taken into consideration via consultation by the "dominant" partner, submission only requires one to submit to the decision, it says nothing about HOW that decision was reached.

In other words, the process in which the "dominant" partner reaches his/her decisions is not really relevant towards submission, by definition submission is the act of submitting to that decision. The word does not in any way define the process by which that decision is reached.

I think that's his point. He considers "submission" to be a situation in which consultation did not occur, and since it does occur in your situation, he does not wish to define it as submission.

Submission however literally just means one side submitting to the will of the other. Whether the decision formed by that will were done by consultation, or just spur of the moment without any consultation, is irrelevant to the definition.

In other words, the process in which the "dominant" partner reaches his/her decisions is not really relevant towards submission, by definition submission is the act of submitting to that decision. The word does not in any way define the process by which that decision is reached.
exactly. it's funny how you can understand and nobody else seems to grasp it.

although, I know why you understand.

I think that's his point. He considers "submission" to be a situation in which consultation did not occur, and since it does occur in your situation, he does not wish to define it as submission.

Submission however literally just means one side submitting to the will of the other. Whether the decision formed by that will were done by consultation, or just spur of the moment without any consultation, is irrelevant to the definition.

So it is quite possible to be a submissive in a relationship even if your opinions and beliefs are taken into consideration via consultation by the "dominant" partner, submission only requires one to submit to the decision, it says nothing about HOW that decision was reached.

In other words, the process in which the "dominant" partner reaches his/her decisions is not really relevant towards submission, by definition submission is the act of submitting to that decision. The word does not in any way define the process by which that decision is reached.

Semantically, you are correct, however the notion that consultation, if not always followed, still constitutes submission, is flawed.

An exchange of views does not render the relationship equal, but it does elevate the supposed submissive beyind the general perception of the submissive wife.

exactly. it's funny how you can understand and nobody else seems to grasp it.

although, I know why you understand.

I understand it because, to be frank, I am in a relationship with a very similar dynamic.

However, our roles are reversed, the justification for that dynamic is different, and the areas in which the "submissive" submits to the "dominant" are very different. That and my "relationship" is far less a serious one than your marriage.

But the fundamental dynamic is still largely the same.

Semantically, you are correct, however the notion that consultation, if not always followed, still constitutes submission, is flawed.

An exchange of views does not render the relationship equal, but it does elevate the supposed submissive beyind the general perception of the submissive wife.

I think you just put your finger on the OPs point. She is saying she IS a submissive wife, but does NOT fit that general perception.

I think the whole point of this thread is to CHALLENGE what the idea of a "submissive wife" really is, or at least to show a different side to it.

I think you just put your finger on the OPs point. She is saying she IS a submissive wife, but does NOT fit that general perception.

I think the whole point of this thread is to CHALLENGE what the idea of a "submissive wife" really is, or at least to show a different side to it.

In which case, I must apologise for my misconceptions regarding Smunkee's relationship.:)

I understand it because, to be frank, I am in a relationship with a very similar dynamic.

However, our roles are reversed, the justification for that dynamic is different, and the areas in which the "submissive" submits to the "dominant" are very different. That and my "relationship" is far less a serious one than your marriage.

But the fundamental dynamic is still largely the same.
yeah.

oh, you have a TG

In which case, I must apologise for my misconceptions regarding Smunkee's relationship.:)

Then I think you're doing well by the topic. I think what she was trying to say was, she is submissive in that she accepts her husband's will in issues of the family over her own.

But just because she accepts that it does not mean he runs roughshod over her, chains her to the kitchen, and orders her around. I think that's the point, that not all submissive relationships are like that.

And I can accept that proposition, because my own relationship, having some elements of d/s to it (again, roles reversed however in mine and her case) is NOT like that, and I think combatting that stereotype is a very common theme in BDSM communities (although I HATE that term, I am NOT a sadist), thus I can sympathize with her point.

yeah.

oh, you have a TG

I have a what now? transgendered? huh?

Oh, when I said "our roles are reversed" I didn't mean that. I meant YOUR role in your relationship and MY role in my relationship are reversed. While you consider yourself the submissive in the context of your relationship, I would be considered the dominant in mine.

I didn't mean sexual role reversal, I meant that even though I can understand and sympathize with YOUR position, having experience in a....similar relationship dynamic, my role in MY relationship dynamic is the opposite of yours in YOUR relationship dynamic.

No actual gender role switching involved.

I have a what now? transgendered? huh?
a telagram, go to your nation page, you will have a message.

a telagram, go to your nation page, you will have a message.

Oh, hehe, I took "tg" as "transgendered", or cross dressing, which I though you took from my meaning of "role switch"...I elaborated in my edit.

Then I think you're doing well by the topic. I think what she was trying to say was, she is submissive in that she accepts her husband's will in issues of the family over her own.

But just because she accepts that it does not mean he runs roughshod over her, chains her to the kitchen, and orders her around. I think that's the point, that not all submissive relationships are like that.

And I can accept that proposition, because my own relationship, having some elements of d/s to it (again, roles reversed however in mine and her case) is NOT like that, and I think combatting that stereotype is a very common theme in BDSM communities (although I HATE that term, I am NOT a sadist), thus I can sympathize with her point.


BDSM communities? Right.

Do go on, I'm genuinely intruiged.:)

BDSM communities? Right.

Do go on, I'm genuinely intruiged.:)

I'm not sure that would be appropriate for the thread, as that wasn't the nature of her discussion of "submission" in that context.

Although I suppose I could field general questions, I don't want to disrupt the topic as is.

I'm not sure that would be appropriate for the thread, as that wasn't the nature of her discussion of "submission" in that context.

Although I suppose I could field general questions, I don't want to disrupt the topic as is.

I wouldn't mind a seperate thread on it, if such a topic could get past the mods.

I wouldn't mind a seperate thread on it, if such a topic could get past the mods.

I saw a thread here once on male chastity (don't ask...just...don't), that seemed to fly ok....

I have to go for about an hour, but should a topic arise, I suppose I could field a bit about it..

I'm not sure that would be appropriate for the thread, as that wasn't the nature of her discussion of "submission" in that context.

Although I suppose I could field general questions, I don't want to disrupt the topic as is.

Make a new thread perhaps?

Couldn't read very much of this it got repeatitive quickly, but:

The only thing I question is your reasoning for submitting.

...You appear to believe that your husband is meant to lead by virtue of his maleness, while you are meant to submit based on your femaleness....

Good point. Also, your children seem to be very, very aware and I'd be kinda concerned about what a mother who submits to her husband because he's a man will tell her daughters... not intentionally of obviously, and you are a great mother but you might want to, not send that message to your kids.
that's my thing, I don't understand why it's wrong for me to question a swinging couple, or a gay couple, or even a BDSM couple........but it's okay for people to tell me I am "wrong" and "bad" and "naive"
to be fair you brought it up.

other then that if it makes you happy and helps your relationship...

Sounds like a weird christian version of S&M... And pretty uninteresting, I don't find drones without willpower who contribute nothing to be attractive...

But hey, you found someone who does. I hope it works out for you.

Good point. Also, your children seem to be very, very aware and I'd be kinda concerned about what a mother who submits to her husband because he's a man will tell her daughters... not intentionally of obviously, and you are a great mother but you might want to, not send that message to your kids.
I don't submit to him because he is a man, I submit because I choose to, and because it is the way our relationship works, they see other relationships with different dynamics, they know what works for one doesn't neccesarily work for another.

Sounds like a weird christian version of S&M... And pretty uninteresting, I don't find drones without willpower who contribute nothing to be attractive...

But hey, you found someone who does. I hope it works out for you.
interesting. and when do you plan on learning how to read?

Make a new thread perhaps?

OK back now. I would not be opposed to creating a thread for a frank and honest discussion of d/s and bdsm relationships, as long as we can agree to keep it civil and there's still an interest.

OK back now. I would not be opposed to creating a thread for a frank and honest discussion of d/s and bdsm relationships, as long as we can agree to keep it civil and there's still an interest.

I'm interested, though I may have to take a break soon myself.

I'm working on a post that should, hopefully, at least lay some groundwork and allow for some open discussion.

OK the thread is made, and I'm willing to put myself out there and discuss those aspects there without derailing this thread.

So bring further questions or topics of discussion there, I don't want to derail this thread further.

interesting. and when do you plan on learning how to read?

When my wife orders me to :p


Anyway... I read the thread, what I wrote above is still my conclusion.

I dont think there is anything wrong with what you are doing Smunk.

I think I have a pretty good idea of how it works and I am certain all your feelings are considered and accounted for---and that what you give your husband is what every spouse should giv ethe other ... trust.

I imagine he depends on your council, and that he rarely disappoints you when the decision is made---and if he does I imagine you dont vaporize him over it.

You dont seem weak to me.

God Bless you.
Mike.