There are moments when one has to choose between
living one's own life, fully, entirely, completely-or dragging out some false,
shallow, degrading existence that the world in its hypocrisy demands. - Oscar Wilde
It sounds like I'm not the only one. ZM noted: "We have fallen down in a big way on weekly check-ups because of a full house during summer and I can clearly see the impact on my productivity. I think self reporting is very difficult and for me it really isn't that effective." Amen, brother.
I do think our weekly report card idea is worth continuing, but I think for some period of time, we really need a daily regimen. A few weeks ago, I posted a "report card" we were contemplating using for daily reporting, and we do need to explore it, then use the Saturday reports as more of a summary or weekly review to check in with each other address anything that wasn't taken care of during the week. While weekly check-ins serve a role, it may be more about role enforcement than making sure bad behavior is addressed. As new commenter Helen points out in a comment to last week's post, the ideal really should be addressing bad behavior when it happens. Now, to a big extent that was not an option for us this week, thanks to the independent and overlapping travel schedules. But, as a general matter it should be the goal.
There were a lot of interesting comments going on last week. In relation to the discussion about weekly sessions and their potential downsides, Helen observed:
"If it was part of a weekly grade, no way. For the same reason, we don't do maintenance spankings. We both believe that punishment works best when it is visceral: Misbehavior, correction, lesson learned. When we have to delay it because of the circumstances, we deal with it as soon as possible. And we do not combine behaviors; when I have to address more than one misbehavior with Andy, I spank for the first thing, send him to the corner to contemplate, and then put him back over my knee to spank for the next thing. I know it may work differently for other couples but that is how DD works for us."
That part about not combining behaviors has been on my mind for a while. When I have weeks like this one, where one bad behavior follows another follows another, there does come a point where, when faced by the next temptation, I just think, "Well, what the fuck, I'm going get spanked already anyway . . ." Making sure that separate offenses are addressed with separate spankings would fix that, though the challenge becomes the commitment on her part to take the amount of time required to do that.
DJ, Alan and I had a series of exchanges regarding the prevalence of DD and the extent to which the culture may be more judgmental of F/m discipline than when it is a male spanking a female. As we discussed, I don't think that is entirely true. I think the vanilla culture may be more tolerant of F/m spanking but not F/m disciplinary spanking. In the disciplinary context, all sorts of concerns arise about domestic abuse and "politically correct" concerns about male dominance. In the F/m context, the condemnation is more about whether men in DD relationships are "manly." More on this below, but I do think Alan raises this interesting prospect:
"I can envision a moment when F/M discipline becomes very PC as female power and authority increase in society as a whole while awareness of domestic violence mostly against women increasingly shocks and disgusts. Outside of cult films I don't believe there has been any film project depicting an F/M relationship that is comparable to 50 shades or Secretary, 9 and a half, etc. (I am excluding the dominatrix films ) When that does happen we are entering a new era."
There also were a series of exchanges regarding "manliness" and "humbling." ZM observed:
"There is no doubt that the actual punishment sessions aren't very manly, and in fact I think the effectiveness of the punishment is directly related to how much I feel like a little boy (or girl) during the process. If humiliation is included, then it even more humbling and less “manly.” This humbling can be hard to accept and is probably hard to watch, but I do think it is important and even though it may not look or feel very manly at the time, it is playing a key role in making me a better man. There is good precedent for this methodology as it is similar to the philosophy of military boot camp... Break a person down and rebuild them from the bottom up... I guess my wife and I are just focusing a lot on the “bottom” part. ;-)"
Another commenter accused me, wrongly, of having a problem with men who are part of a dynamic involving "unmanly" dress, stating: "Sometimes manly men get spanked. Sometimes they wear aprons too. And I don't think the ones who get spanked should cast stones at the ones who wear aprons."
As I pointed out, I had not said any such thing and had, instead, made a more general point about Domestic Discipline being focused on improving male behavior and performance, while some forms of Femdom may actually reinforce the idea that men are weak and, instead of seeking to make them perform better, seek to reinforce his weakness and her supremacy.
But, the comment on "aprons" actually got me thinking about a topic for this week, particularly in combination with ZM's comment that for him "the effectiveness of the punishment is directly related to how much I feel like a little boy (or girl) during the process."
A few years back, I posted a topic about gender roles and balancing male and female energy. I had been reading a book on Tantric philosophy(not the Americanized sexual stuff, rather the real philosophy that has a lot of similarities with some forms of Buddhism). This particular book posited that posited that within each of us there are elements of the opposite gender, and that one goal of Tantric practice is to bring out and develop the inner woman within each man and the inner man within each woman. My question for the group was, to what extent is that part of what is happening with F/m domestic discipline and Female Led Relationships? In your own relationship, does submitting to a spanking involve some reshaping of your male gender role and allowing some more feminine element come to the fore? Conversely, if you are a female disciplinarian, does giving a spanking or taking control of the relationship involve some channeling of your inner man? To what extent is switching up the gender roles an explicit goal in your DD relationship?
And, I got a whopping four comments. It was one of the biggest flops I've had with a topic. But, that may speak to the strength of the taboo itself, and today we seem to have a group of commenters who are a little braver, a little more "out," and a little more self-aware and open to exploring what lies within that was the case back in 2013. So, let's try answering those questions again. But, let's also add a more specific one: Does your Domestic Discipline or Wife Led Marriage include some element of "feminizing" or humbling by wearing female clothes or clothes more generally associated with females, such as aprons, panties, etc.? If so, was that at her instigation or yours, and is being put in such gender-bending clothing or accessories considered part of punishing you, or is it something you are into and want to do in order to express your female energy? Or, is it just about being naughty and kinky?
Have a great week.
Great topic, Dan! Thanks. By the way, I must confess, I am the guy who misinterpreted your post last week. Once again, my apologies for that. I’m glad that we had a fruitful exchange after that.
ReplyDeleteMy answers to your questions:
1. Does your Domestic Discipline or Wife Led Marriage include some element of "feminizing" or humbling by wearing female clothes or clothes more generally associated with females, such as aprons, panties, etc.?
Yes. The main “feminine” item I wear is an apron, mainly because I do all kitchen work. The aprons I have so far are not overtly feminine. They have unisex designs, but the fact that I wear aprons and my wife never does feels like a gender role reversal to us. A couple of my aprons were gifts from my wife, which makes the wearing emotionally richer. Friends and family who come to dinner are used to seeing me in an apron because I cook and serve when guests are here too. A few times people have commented (or joked?) about what a nice apron I have. That isn’t really embarrassing because I have a practical reason to wear an apron when I am cooking. But it makes me blush inwardly because I feel as though my secret self is really close to the surface. My wife sometimes teases me that she is going to get me a nice, frilly pink apron to wear when guests are there. A part of me fears that she might actually do that, but that is a potent erotic fantasy.
When I make breakfast in the morning, I wear only an apron and a long pink t-shirt that just barely covers my bare butt. With the apron tied tight around my waist, the t-shirt feels like a flippy little skirt. My wife will sometimes make me blush by telling me how cute I look and patting my bum while I am busy getting breakfast ready.
I have a couple of pairs of panties that my wife bought for me when shopping for panties for herself. I can only really wear them in the bedroom. I’ve tried wearing them under my clothes, but that’s not practical. Women’s panties tend not to stay up on men.
If so, was that at her instigation or yours, and is being put in such gender-bending clothing or accessories considered part of punishing you, or is it something you are into and want to do in order to express your female energy? Or, is it just about being naughty and kinky?
Gender-bending was my idea, but I was surprised that my wife took so readily to it. I should say that when I first start exploring my submissive side, I would have been horrified to think that I was being “unmanly”. But the expression “She wears the pants in this house” has always excited me. That is, of course, a metaphorical expression, but I think it is a short step from being aroused by the metaphor of gender role reversal to acting it out openly: if she wears the pants, I should wear the apron, and maybe the panties.
As I found myself being drawn more and more towards gender role reversal, I did some research about it and discovered some interesting things. I read one really interesting article about gender role reversal (I believe it was in Psychology Today). The thesis of the article was that men and women both have male and female traits. Dominance is generally considered a male trait, and submissiveness a female trait. The article said that when men behave submissively, they may activate a wider range of “feminine” personality traits that are contiguous with submissiveness. That seemed to be happening to me. My wife is still very feminine, and she likes to dress in feminine ways, but I feel as though being the boss has tapped into some masculine personality traits on her side. She has become much more assertive, not only with me but in her life outside the house. Also, when I am bent over the sink, up to my elbows in dishwater, like a 1950’s housewife, and my wife, who wouldn’t think of helping me, comes up and pats my bum, I feel as though she is channeling a 1950’s patriarchal husband. That embarrasses and arouses me.
DJ
Hi DJ. No problem regarding the prior comment. One big downside of blogging and commenting is it is difficult to discern things like tone, and a poorly phrased line in a post (as mine probably was), leaves itself open to misinterpretation.
DeleteI included "aprons" among potentially feminizing clothing, because you referred to them in your prior comment. But, like Richard, I don't really think of aprons in general as feminizing. As you said, chefs wear them all the time. As did Bugsy in the movie of the same name. Now, the chef hat made him look ridiculous, but the apron didn't leave a feminine impression on me.
My original post on this several years ago focused on balancing the male and feminine, not so much a "reversal," but just as talked about with Femdom versus Wife Led, there is a spectrum here.
I do feel like as my wife has started really internalizing a desire for a Wife Led marriage, her dress has changed. I don't know if its more "masculine" per se, since I don't think of things like knee-high boots as manly. But, definitely a more confident look, and also a bit more structured and high-end. She used to spend the weekend in fairly shapeless t-shirts and blouses. She now tends to go a bit dressier even on weekends, and her whole look just seems more professional and structured.
You are right, Dan, an apron is not inherently feminizing. But it can be symbolically feminizing, based on context. In my wife’s traditional, patriarchal family, only women wore aprons because all the work requiring an apron was done by females. Thus, if a husband is made to wear an apron by a wife who never wears one, it can be perceived as a feminizing role reversal. That’s the beauty of an apron. I can wear an publicly as a symbol of my submission to my wife, but family and friends can see the apron as nothing more than a practical kitchen garment, though some may wonder whether it is symbolic of my status, especially when my wife leaves all the traditional “women’s work” to me when we have guests.
DeleteThe wide range of apron styles available also allow for playfulness in the selection of an apron. A plain white, no-nonsense chef’s apron invites little symbolic interpretation. But apron designs can also be “pretty” and to varying degrees “feminine” in appearance. If a husband wears an apron with a colourful floral pattern, some eyebrows may be raised. And if he wears a frilly pink apron with a pretty bow, he might as well wear matching nail polish and lipstick. See what I mean?
I totally get what you are saying about the way your wife’s clothing has changed. There is nothing masculine about knee high boots. In fact, I see high boots as ultra feminine, but expressive of power. And giving up “shapeless t-shirts and blouses” for a dressier look that is “more structured and professional looking” is the feminine version of “power dressing.” You aren’t submitting to another man. You are submitting to a powerful woman, your wife, and it sounds to me as though she is, either consciously or unconsciously, dressing for the part.
DJ
Thanks for answering my questions, DJ. I agree with what you say about aprons. I sometimes wear an apron myself when cooking and don't really find it feminine. To me it is a unisex garment.
ReplyDeleteYou say: "It took me a while to get up the courage to tell her I wanted to try wearing panties". It was the same with me when I told my girlfriend I like to be spanked. I feared she would find the idea ridiculous, but in fact she very soon became enthusiastic about it.
You also say: "I agree with you that it shouldn’t be humbling to wear female clothes. But there is nothing logical about the feelings we men have about our masculinity. Does that make sense?" Yes, it does make sense. Gender roles have changed dramatically in the course of the last hundred years or so. The change is still in progress, so it is not surprising that people often have ideas that seem to be paradoxical. Maybe your wife liking to dress in feminine ways while at the same time being assertive is another example of this.
I found your closing comment very amusing: "Also, when I am bent over the sink, up to my elbows in dishwater, like a 1950’s housewife, and my wife, who wouldn’t think of helping me, comes up and pats my bum, I feel as though she is channeling a 1950’s patriarchal husband. That embarrasses and arouses me."
It is exactly the same with my girlfriend. She sometimes swats my bottom when I am not expecting it, she has done it several times in front of other women. Like you, I feel both embarrassed and aroused when she does it.
richard
Richard, I suppose it is kind of paradoxical that my wife likes to dress in a feminine way, though she "wears the pants" symbolically. But it makes sense, if you think about it. I believe that dressing in a way that makes her feel like an attractive, sexy woman is empowering. And, let's face it, it is because I find her attractive and sexy that I want to submit to her in the first place. Her most basic power over me is the power of the feminine. But she is also empowered to "act like a man", being assertive and authoritative, so she gets the best of both worlds.
DeleteI should point out that my wife grew up in a traditional, patriarchal family in Europe. It was expected that all the domestic work would be done by mother and daughter. I saw this when I visited her family home early in our marriage. The women prepared and served the meals and cleaned up afterwards. I offered to help at first, but her mother said, "Don't be silly." So I would enjoy a brandy with her father and brother after dinner, while she and her mother cleaned up. Afterwards, my wife would complain to me about it. We were trying to be fair and equal in our own marriage. She often told me that she really resented the male privilege she grew up with, and though we didn't have an FLR back then, she sure wasn't prepared to grant me that kind of male privilege. When we had arguments, it was generally about housework: I would think I was doing my fair share, and she would disagree. (In retrospect, I know she was usually right).
My wife rejected my initial overtures towards FLR and DD. She thought DD was just kinky, and she said she wanted to be my equal, not my superior. When she changed her mind and decided to be the boss, however, she was all in, and she knew exactly how to do it. Her own patriarchal family provided a model for her; she only had to reverse the gender roles and claim the kind of “male privilege” she once resented for herself. She didn’t have to give up being feminine to do that. But she no longer had to wear an apron. She handed the apron to me.
DJ
Interesting topic Dan. I occasionally wear panties and FYI they make pouch panties for men, that are comfortable but still look feminine. It was my idea, but my wife really enjoys them, and will request that I wear them occasionally. I think it is part of being submissive that is sexy. It's similar to being spanked by a female over her knees like a little boy, that is sexually simulating to all of us.
ReplyDeleteIt's similar to being locked up in chastity, it's the the fact you aren't in control over your sexual needs and dependent on a female for them. To me it's all part of giving up control in part of my life, when I'm in charge most of the time. All of these items would be be very humiliating for other women to find out, but at the same time very exciting to think about. Have had a couple of women see the chastity cage, but I owned it and it was more exciting than humiliating, and they were very interested.
John
Hi John. While we don't practice locking for chastity, I can totally understand how it could be part of the process of giving up control. I hadn't quite thought of it that way and in the perspective of my own efforts to reduce those parts of life where I am the one wholly in control, but you have given me something to think about.
DeleteI don't have much to add but sometimes Dev wears a specific dress when she is going to address an issue. Sometimes she tells me in advance other times not. It's very subtle and only we know the true meaning. At times she will leave out a pair of her panties to put on. It shows her control but also a bit kinky.
ReplyDeleteSounds like ZM's wife wearing the camouflage shirt. You two really do have me thinking . . .
DeleteTha camouflage shirt was her idea, and it flowed out of us making this an extended boot camp time where she would intentionally be more demanding and significantly raise her expectations. The idea was to make a big deal out of small details so that I would become more conscientious, and hopefully as I learned to take care of small things, some big things would improve as well. We were joking about her being the drill sergeant, and she was like "I have just the thing to wear!"
DeleteOnce we had ascribed special meaning to that shirt, it suddenly became a very clear signalling device. This has been especially useful during these summer months, when our house has been full. If she walks in the room wearing that shirt, nobody else will notice in the least, but for me, time stops. I then know that I have dome something wrong and she has decided to punish me as soon as we are alone. One additional "benefit" (though I am not really sure it is positive), is that once she puts on the shirt, she is also basically committed because she knows she sent the signal. If it weren't for her putting on the shirt and signalling her intentions, probably in many cases by the time we were actually alone, she would have forgotten about what I did, or decided it wasn't worth doing anything about, especially because these usually are small things resulting in big punishments.
I will mention the shirt again in another comment below as well, since it strangely enough ties in with this weeks topic.
-ZM
I'm going to answer more generally. But I believe addressing the main point in question.
ReplyDeleteI have never felt "feminized" by spankings. I have definitely felt that "little kid" thing, and embarrassment, and a raft of other stuff. But I have never felt feminized.
I am not in the least afraid of my feminine side though. I freely experience my feelings and share them with others. I am quite empathetic, and glad of it. I don't prefer to feel vulnerable, but it comes with the human thing.
Yin/Yang - The whole is composed of both aspects.
Hi Tomy. This pretty close to where I am. Although maybe I should, I have never really felt less "manly" from spankings, let alone feminized. I haven't even quite gotten to the "little kid" thing, though I increasingly do feel like my attraction to DD is tied to certain aspects of that maternal-little boy dynamic -- not because I am trying to recapture them but because they were lacking. And, while I have a long way to go in exploring my feminine side, like you I don't run from it and am not afraid of it. Rather, my natural tendencies are pretty Alpha and controlling, so letting feminine side through requires almost a conscious effort. But, it pops up in small ways. As I said in a comment a few months ago, I probably own more computer bags than my wife owns purses. I am very prone to see a new pair of well made dress shoes and buy them, whether I need them or not. There are several "chick flicks" among my list of favorite movies. I used to spend most of my weekends landscaping and gardening. All this to the point that some of my former female co-workers used to tease me about being "very in tough with your inner "@&%." I won't say the actual word in these PC times, even though they said it in jest and with affection. And, like you I am very empathetic. In fact, one reason I succeed in what some people see as a very manly profession is I read people and their emotional drivers way better than most of my male peers.
DeleteA European I know who has had a ton of experience with the F/M dynamic once told me that most women come to use panties as part of male discipline. As I recall he said that if a woman spanks more than a couple times, that she will introduce panties by the next spanking. I can't verify that but know both my former girlfriend and my wife used them although my wife no longer does. My girlfriend used them about every third spanking and made me wear them after the spanking until the marks disappeared when I could " politely" ask to stop wearing them. They were always a pair of hers which I was to hand wash every night and that was emphasized)There are probably lots of reasons panties ( and other feminine attire) work there way into F/M relationships.But I don't think most women want to feminize their man. They want to get his ego under control and under their authority. Panties symbolize literary who wears the pants and who wears the panties. And in our culture until very recently people who wear panties didn't have the power. So panties are really a symbol of the power exchange and the males acknowledgment of it. I would compare panties to the strap on that a woman can use to underline and reinforce her authority. I think my wife no longer incorporates panties into punishment because there is o question she is in charge and I obey her. If I ever were to rebel she probably would bring the panties back out.I would love to hear others views about this.
DeleteAlan
Hi Alan. "But I don't think most women want to feminize their man. They want to get his ego under control and under their authority. Panties symbolize literally who wears the pants and who wears the panties." That's a really interesting observation. There does seem to be a bit of a debate between you and DJ about who typically introduces panties -- the male or the female.
DeleteIt's hard for me to say, and in the post I didn't give my own experience. I will here. My wife has never tried to introduce them. A few months ago, however, when I started getting more serious about "sanding off my rough edges," I myself started exploring "pouch panties," i.e. panties made specifically for males. Here are a few thoughts:
-- I use mine almost as self-imposed punishment. Typically, I use them only if I have had a night of over-indulging.
-- They are NOT comfortable, though I think I may have them one size too small. One reason I started using them after violating our rules on over-indulging is it forces me to spend a whole day wearing something that I am acutely aware of that is not at all comfortable.
-- The thing I am most aware of with thong-line "pouch panties" is my exposed ass cheeks rubbing against by pants, which keeps me very aware of the exact area that she may be spanking that night.
-- I don't know how "kinky" we really can consider this these days. When I went shopping for pouch panties, the search also turned up large numbers of male "thongs" that are marketed just like traditional male underwear and often made by traditional makers of male underwear. That was a trend I was not aware of, and the thongs are virtually indistinguishable from female panties.
Self-imposed punishment aspect - I am certainly getting familiar with that.
DeleteOne kind of interesting thing I do is leave certain implements out in the open if I feel some minor reminding would be useful. She used to do that sometimes and my eyes would go to them like a crow to a shining object.
Dan, I’m not sure Alan and I are in a debate about who introduces the panties in FLR’s. It would incautious to say women never do. There is, however, a considerable amount of research about sexuality showing that men who want to submit to women far outnumber women who want to dominate men. That’s why femdom S&M is such a lucrative sector of the sex trade. It is also known that men’s kinks tend to be hardwired and almost impossible to change (by sex therapists, for example), and that women more flexible in their sexuality. In other words, although very few women are attracted to submissive men, women who discover that the man to whom they are married is submissive may well be able to adapt to their partner’s kink. Thus, a wife who is initially turned off by a husband’s request that she spank him may, nevertheless, give him what he wants out of love and a desire to make the marriage work better. And because women’s sexuality is more malleable, she may grow into the role, become turned on by it, and seek to extend the range of her dominance, if that’s the way her husband wants her to go. That happened with my wife.
DeleteNow, the wife in a D/s relationship with a man may take the initiative of forcing him to wear feminine clothing, but I believe that the ways women dominate, control, and “humiliate” are taken from cues about the erotic imaginations of the men. Any man who submits to being spanked wants to be spanked, and any man who submits to “forced feminization” wants to be “forced” that way. Incidentally, “forced feminization” is a major subgenre of femdom erotica, and in those stories the man is always feminized against his will. Of course, that non-consent is an illusion because those stories are read by men who fantasize about being “forced” that way.
On your point about the wide range of “panties” now being made for men, don’t you think it’s great to live in a time that is giving men the freedom to break out of stereotypical images of what it means to be a man? I do.
DJ
Tomy, I can totally understand the psychological impact of leaving out tools as a reminder to behave.
DeleteHi DJ. Great observations. A lot to unpack in there and much worth exploring. You say "There is, however, a considerable amount of research about sexuality showing that men who want to submit to women far outnumber women who want to dominate men." I don't have any doubt that is true, but I think the cause and effect chain is far from clear, as is the mix of social and genetic factors. For example, it may be that there are fewer women who want to dominate than men who want to be dominated, but I propose the somewhat radical notion that it may because there are simply far more people in the world who want to follow than those who want to lead REGARDLESS of gender. Among most social animals, it seems to be the case that there are far more followers than leaders, which makes a lot of sense when you think about what would happen if the proportion of leaders was higher -- lots of in-fighting, battling for prominence, conflicting orders given to the pack, etc. Things just seem to work better when the ratio of leaders to followers is few to many. I don't think the dynamic is that much different in M/f relationships. Most of the women in the DD group I was invited to in Facebook complain frequently about their men being reluctant leaders, at best. And, in those relationships it seems to also be very, very common that it is the dominated party who initiates the D/s part of the relationship, not the other way around. I also found this article on Physchology Today that illustrates the extent to which most of us are raised to follow, sometimes with tragic consequences: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/naturally-selected/201204/natural-born-followers.
DeleteI agree that women seem to be more flexible in their sexuality. As Dennis Miller once riffed, "Every woman is five drinks away from a bisexual experience." But, I wonder there to how much is innate and how much is socialized. You don't have to look all that far back in recorded history to find societies where the sexual roles were much less binary, even for men. Bisexuality is extremely common in ancient Greek and Roman writing. Socrates and Aristotle both wrote very openly of the value of male-male sexual relationships.
"Any man who submits to being spanked wants to be spanked, and any man who submits to “forced feminization” wants to be “forced” that way." Now, I do think that goes too far. There is a difference between submitting and wanting. I agree that in the vast majority of cases the man does want the spanking relationship, though whether he wants the discipline or accountability as the end and the spanking as the means, or the spanking in and of itself, varies. But, I do think there are cases here and there in which the wife does initiate it, and I don't think that it is a given that because he submits to it he wants it, any more than a boy being punished by his mother wants to be spanked just because he goes over her knee when he might be physically capable of resisting.
And, it will be interesting to see how these tendencies change over time. I personally think that more men want to be dominated in private because more of them have been in control in public. That yin-yang symbol is powerful, and I think it directs each of us toward balance. If you are the one in charge at work, I think there is a natural tendency to feel a craving to balance that out at home.
As you'll see in some of my prior posts, I'm on the fence about the value of breaking out of stereotypical constraints. I *like* that what we do is seen as a kinky, minority practice. I have a pathological resistance to authority, but also to conformity. I *like* swimming against the tide, and I really don't know whether I would get the same emotional charge out of these things we explore here if they were more common or more openly accepted.
Same for me. So much "FUN" being involved in a "kinky, minority practice."
DeleteOn this observation - "I really don't know whether I would get the same emotional charge out of these things we explore here if they were more common or more openly accepted." That's very provocative; gives me somehthing challenging to think about.
DJ, I too stay away from opening up the forum to views on corporal punishment of children, though it does come up when we talk about how we all got here. You are right that analogy between husband/wife spanking and mother/son spanking is imperfect because a child has no choice. But, it also seems that aspect is precisely what some men would like to recreate, or experience if it was not part of their own childhood. It comes up in the comments (my own included) about wanting the discipline to be "imposed," i.e. to feel involuntary even if, in the bigger picture, it plainly is consensual. While we talk a lot about the necessity of consent, in reality many men seem to crave that involuntary aspect. And, not just with the discipline, but with compliance with orders for those who are in an FLR. There is a a complex but undeniable turn-on in knowing you simply do not have a choice.
DeleteThat is exactly what I want, and where we try to stay. Consensual for the relationship with discipline imposed (so not necessarily consensual on a per-incident basis) within the framework of the pre-defined relationship. That ends up pretty real, and in fact mirrors many aspects of life where our larger choices (like where we live or work) make us subject to rules to which we don't necessarily agree but that are just part of the package.
Delete-ZM
Dan
ReplyDeleteSo love it when a topic releases how folks really feel. I loved Helen's comments about perhaps three separate sessions with small breaks but on the same day.. My only reason for all of this from my point
of view was to bring back the 50/50 aspect that our marriage was at the start.
Discipline works, however neither Peter nor I want this to become a routine. More and more I think of it
as a reset. Sometimes i slide into the mom/ wifey mold/ he into the what the hell man. Discipline is a reset
for both of us.
Another thing I have used is after a spanking I have put him in panties for as long as a week a few times.
Last summer when we were alone for a month I even resorted to locking his cock up for 10 days. Just
a reminder ! Love you and all the men and women who are working through the mess of a world we live
in.
Anna
All the comments regarding locking, and the fact that my wife so quickly gravitated toward chastity when she finally started reading some DD and FLR books and blogs, makes me worry that may be in my short-term future.
DeleteA "reset" is probably a great way to think about it.
Dan, that's great that your wife is reading about DD and FLR. I think you can probably look forward to some exciting times as she gets ideas for forms of control that aren't YOUR ideas. Incidentally, I think that reading about these things can have a powerful transformative effect. I had no interested in feminization until I read a story about it. That story awakened something that I didn't know was there.
DeleteMy own wife has shown little interest in chastity. She thinks the chastity devices she has seen--well, that I have shown her, to be honest--are silly and expensive. She has, however, used orgasm denial in one very powerful way: allowing me to give her orgasms, either through cunnilingus or with one of her sex toys, then telling me to go to sleep without having an orgasm myself. Now, that's a power exchange!
DJ
Hi DJ. Yes, that is the dangerous thing about going down this road. By its very nature, exploring power sharing that is at all real has the built-in risk that the newly in charge partner may take things in directions that you didn't anticipate and may not like so much. In addition to chastity, my wife gravitated hard and early to "service" domination, i.e. handing out chores, telling me to bring in the groceries, etc. Lots of emphasis on doing common tasks at her request. All of which I passionately hate. But, she gets to have her needs met too, right? If not, then it just isn't real.
DeleteI definitely understand reading something that has a very transformative effect. As I've noted many times, I am not a natural "spanko" if that means having some pre-existing interest in spanking and corporal punishment. I had never once thought of "real" adult spanking until well into my 30s. I watched one HBO show that perked me up a bit regarding erotic spanking, but it was just a mild interest. It was only when I came across the Disciplinary Wives Club website, and specifically the stories on it, that something really hit me. I went from not even knowing there was such a thing as Domestic Discipline to being completely obsessed and overwhelmed by it.
Dan, I totally agree about the "danger" that maybe she will take it in a direction that is not exactly what we want, but I also think that is exactly what many or even most men here secretly want. We want and need the loss of control, as evidenced by almost every story on the DWC website. Even though it was almost always our idea for her to lead us and/or punish us, we want it to be real, and that only happens when she starts to actually take the reins. I was so very happy when she began to bring my fantasy to life, but when "my fantasy" became "our fantasy" I was (and am) in heaven in this regard, and that isn't even taking into account just how fabulous she is in every other way as a friend, lover, wife, partner, and soulmate!
DeleteBTW, I largely (at least in principle) agree with DJ on his very insightful statement: "Any man who submits to being spanked wants to be spanked, and any man who submits to “forced feminization” wants to be “forced” that way."
In reality, that is often the way that it goes. HOWEVER, what I WANT is for me to desire and consent to the disciplinary relationship, but for her to take the ball and run with it, which means that sometimes she is going to take it into places that are very uncomfortable for me, and maybe even into some places I really, really don't want to go! That is ceding real control to her, and that is exactly what I am seeking. As she takes it new directions and as we do things that I may not prefer or may even may strongly dislike, the whole thing becomes real.
YES, I DO want to be spanked, which is why I am in a consensual spanking relationship, but at the same time I DON'T want to be spanked FOR THIS, RIGHT NOW, THIS TIME!!! And maybe I don't want to be feminized, but if she decides to do so, then because I choose this relationship dynamic with her being in charge, I just might find myself in lacy red panties... So I may not want to submit to "forced feminization" specifically, but I do want to be "forced" in general, so if she decides to go that way, I can either go along with it or change the whole relationship dynamic to something more vanilla. And even if I am not really that turned on by the specific thing she has chosen, I am still always very turned on by her having the power to choose it!
And of course even though she might occasionally take us down a path that I wouldn't choose myself, she loves me and always considers my needs and desires. She started doing this whole thing to fulfill MY desires, and this is still her primary motivation, even though now she gets turned on by all of it. Even as she starts to make it her own and make some of her own desires fulfilled and get more benefit from it, she still will always consider my wants and needs, and will only choose what she considers to be good for both of us.
-ZM
"Dan, I totally agree about the "danger" that maybe she will take it in a direction that is not exactly what we want, but I also think that is exactly what many or even most men here secretly want." I agree that many of the men here want this, but I'm not so sure about most. And, even for the many, I'm not sure that they still want it once confronted with the reality. You and I are obviously open enough and maybe have enough "thrill seeker" in us that we accept and, as you saw, get turned on by, our wives asserting their power, even if she takes it in a direction we may not want to go. Because, anything else wouldn't be a real transfer of power, would it? And, on some level we need that authenticity. So, we are will to live with the trade-offs. I am not so sure that is true of a majority of those who visit here and that, in the end, they won't reassert control if the reality starts deviating too much from their side of the fantasy.
DeleteAnd, regarding "their side of the fantasy," I love your reference to "my fantasy" becoming "our fantasy." It has taken us a long, long time to get there. I think in the beginning she was basically helping me fulfill my DD need, though even then I think the power appealed to her. Then, two or three years ago, she got more comfortable admitting she likes being the disciplinarian and does get off on the power. But, she still wasn't actively exploring it, reading books on her own, and starting to kind of run her life around it more. That has really only happened in the last few months, but it is happening.
Dan, I like your following comment:
Delete“In addition to chastity, my wife gravitated hard and early to "service" domination, i.e. handing out chores, telling me to bring in the groceries, etc. Lots of emphasis on doing common tasks at her request. All of which I passionately hate. But, she gets to have her needs met too, right? If not, then it just isn't real.”
Exactly! If the wife’s needs aren’t being met foremost, it wouldn’t really be a wife led marriage.
I find it difficult to imagine that “service domination” wouldn’t be a part of any marriage in which the wife is truly empowered because deciding on the division of domestic labour is the most practical perk of power. The extent to which the wife exercises that power will probably depend on circumstances. If the wife stays at home and the husband works long hours outside the home, her domestic service demands will probably be fairly limited and largely symbolic. Women tend to be practical and fair that way.
When my wife and I agreed to change our marriage to a wife led one, both of us still worked outside the home, but I worked longer hours and was the main breadwinner. My wife had always held, however, that I didn’t do my fair share of the housework. I always disagreed, and that was the most common source of arguments. Once she was in charge, my share of the housework increased significantly, but I could see that she was being fair, as she saw it. She also became very assertive as an overseer of my chores, telling me exactly how she wanted things done and scolding me when she was dissatisfied.
As she became more confident of her authority, she gradually increased my share of the housework, to the point that it was “unfair”. On a Saturday, she might go out for shopping and lunch with her friends, leaving me at home with a list of chores to do. I didn’t hate housework any more than I ever did, but I didn’t argue because it aroused me to be dominated that way. It really aroused me if she threatened to spank me if this or that wasn’t done properly by the time she got home. And I’m proud to say that I never tested those threats on purpose. I took pride in serving her well, so she has rarely had to act on a direct threat, and I feel truly ashamed when she punishes me for some failing.
A couple of years ago I retired, while she has continued to work part time. That’s when I became her “1950’s housewife”, doing all of the cooking and cleaning, while she claimed for herself all the kinds of privilege previously enjoyed by patriarchal husbands…the kind who spanked his wife. That’s when she first gave me an apron as a gift, so it felt very symbolic to me. I think we both felt it as a kind of gender role reversal. As mentioned in another post, she continues to be very feminine, and she likes to dress in ways that make her feel womanly and sexy, but I think she loves being liberated from the domestic drudgery she was raised to consider a woman’s role.
When I was taken with this idea that I might want to be symbolically feminized further, by wearing panties, I was nervous about telling her. In fact, I told her in writing because I was embarrassed to tell her face to face. I was in a state of suspense until after she read the note, but she was wonderfully accepting and understanding.
Anyway, I think this arrangement is working well for us because we are both getting things that we want and need from it.
There, I have probably written way too much about this. But thanks for asking those questions, Dan.
DJ
While I hate the service domination aspect for all sorts of reasons, in our house if there has been an unfair split on household tasks, it's really been me doing more than her.
DeleteI have to say that neither I or my wife have any interest in feminization as you described as a means of balancing power in the relationship.In fact I would say it was demeaning enough to
ReplyDelete'unbalance ' the scales in the other direction which is not healthy.I believe empowering her to deliver a spanking , especially if I am naked and she is fully dressed , especially if she is dressed smartly as you mentioned , is sufficient to have a balanced exchange of power.
It's interesting the extent to which some feel humbled or, moreover, "demeaned" by the spanking itself, while others really don't.
DeleteGlenmore, as a guy in a 24/7 FLR, I understand your discomfort with FLR. If I understand your point, when women were denied freedom and independence in a patriarchal society, that was "demeaning" and "unhealthy". So why is the gender reversed version of patriarchy any less unhealthy? Have I understood your point? If so, I would answer that consent makes all the difference. As I see it, my submitting to my wife's authority is no different from your submitting to a spanking from your wife because in both cases, not only do we consent, but we desire it. Like you, I believe in equality, and like you, I am a self-sufficient, independent person. I could pull the plug on FLR at any time or say to my wife, let's stop and talk about this if she goes too far. In fact, our D/s relationship works because of extension communication about both of our needs and desires. Therefore, I would argue that the consensual inequality in our relationship is founded on a deeper commitment to equality. By the way, I am a big fan of your website. I love your spanking cartoons.
DeleteDJ
Years ago I caught my husband sneaking my panties and wearing them under his work clothes. I paddled him HARD for it because: 1. He was stretching the elastic. 2. He did it without my permission. Afterward I half-jokingly said, "You can wear my panties if you get down to my size." He promptly lost 40 pounds and held me to my promise! Now there is no male underwear in the house; we share the same panties (mostly Jockey's No Pantyline Promise Hi-Cut). He swears they are more comfortable and that male underwear is not made of the same material. And of course he enjoys the secret kink of it (though he has some embarrassing stories from the gym and the doctor's office which have made me laugh hysterically). I don't see him as less manly; I see him as cute--and MINE. That's what I really get out of it: I know that his man parts are constantly surrounded by something of mine--a representation of ME!
ReplyDeleteI'm always surprised that men find women's panties comfortable. As I said, I said in response to Alan, I have not experienced real female panties but, rather, panty-like underwear designed for me. Given our different equipment, it is just hard for me to envision how a woman's underwear could be comfortable. But, then again, my wife wears primarily thongs.
DeleteHelen - that is SO SWEET. I love it. Good for both of you!!!
DeleteThank you, Tomy. And prayers for you on the loss of Aunt Kay. DWC has helped so many, including us. Wish we could have met her!
DeleteThank you for sharing your perspective, Helen. Your husband is a lucky man. I like that you use the word "cute" to describe him. My own wife calls me "cute" sometimes to tease me in an affectionate way if I am wearing panties or doing housework wearing only an apron and a t-shirt or bent over the edge of the bed with my bottom bared, waiting for her to get to me with the paddle or strap.
DeleteDJ
Thank you for the prayers Helen - I need every scrap of help from the Universe that I can get.
DeleteNo, nothing like that with us. Neither I nor my wife ever had any desire for this. As far as we're concerned, a husband's bottom is for spanking and taking it shows manhood. Therefore, we wouldn't want to water down my masculinity.
ReplyDeleteAs I said above, I don't think it has much to do with masculinity (or femininity) and lots to do with power. Panties don't work or aren't needed in some( many?) situations but when a guy needs to be taken down a peg or taken under control they do the job. Most women who use then as a disciplinary tool would not do so if they feminized their guy because most women ( there probably are exceptions) don't want anything but a very masculine guy who submits to their authority and obeys them.
ReplyDeleteAlan
Alan, I agree. And, it's hard for me to imagine what a woman would get out of someone who was, well, easy to dominate. I don't think my wife would have any interest in "humbling" me if I were already overly humble to begin with. I think my wife takes pleasure in making me obey, precisely because my manly ego makes it so hard for me to submit.
DeleteThat's it in essence I never though about this much before: but maybe why some men find establishing DD relationships possible and even natural is that they do project masculinity as well as a desire for some accountability and imposed authority. While other men present themselves as submissive early on and even "slaves". There are probably women who want "slaves" but I never met one I would want to spend time with and my guess is most women feel the same way about overly submissive men
DeleteAlan
I agree completely. I think one reason we don't more female DD bloggers is that the few who venture into this world instantly get inundated with a bunch of, "Oh my Goddess, will you please consider letting me serve you, even though I know you're married . . ." comments, get turned off, and stopped blogging entirely. Even if you are wired with those needs to be very submissive and servile, there is a "know your audience" aspect to all human communications. This also explains why some men say they've had no problems getting a "vanilla" wife to consider DD, while others say they can't find a willing partner. It may very well be a matter of some men are looking to tweak an existing relationship in a way that gives her more power but doesn't require a huge personality shift, while others are going to be satisfied with nothing less than a full Femdom dominance thing with all the trappings, and many wives just aren't there and are never going to be.
DeleteYou both make good points, Alan and Dan. I'm not sure whether the difference between a Mistress/slave relationship and a Wife Led Marriage/FLR is that the first is a more extreme version of the latter, or whether they are two separate beasts. I don't think the men you would describe as "very submissive and servile" are necessarily truly submissive at all, to be honest. I think the desire to be treated like a "slave" is an extreme masochistic kink, and Mistress/slave relationships fall under BDSM. In fact, your yin and yang idea may apply strongly to some men like that, Dan. Men pay a lot of money to be cruelly demeaned, physically punished, and treated live slaves by professional dominatrices. Often they are powerful, successful men. They practically have to be, considering that the services of a dominatrix would be beyond the means of most men. I would say that a guy who wants his wife or girlfriend to become, in effect, his private dominatrix (on call to fulfill his fantasies 24/7 free of charge) is not truly "submissive" at all. He will not actually do the dishes, but he will expect to be "punished" for not doing them. Any sane woman would reject such a man--except as a paying customer--because she would be the real slave in the relationship. If I am honest, I have to admit that I too am a masochist. But I have the self-awareness to know that I have to keep that inner beast on a very short leash because men who give that beast too free a rein are incapable of healthy relationships with women. Moreover, any woman who frequents websites dealing with FLR can tell you that the Internet is populated by guys like that. Women call them "do me" guys. I don't think a guy can be truly submissive to his wife unless he knows how to be truly equal. That's why successful "wife led marriages" often evolve out of marriages that aren't "wife led" to begin with. That's my theory.
DeleteDJ
Yes, I think it is very hard to parse out whether some of these things are variations on a common theme, points along a common linear spectrum . . . or are they really different categories entirely. There are times I do think a Wife Led marriage or an FLR is a "less extreme" form of Femdom. Or, possibly they are basically Femdom without the BDMS trappings, whip and chains, etc. But, I do think that while they do overlap, they aren't the same, and the difference is (a) the goal; and (b) the extent that it is "real," and not just fantasy play. Though, even there it gets complicated.
DeleteGood point that even men paying for extreme Femdom treatment may, in fact, be very successful and driven in their work lives, and may have to be to afford such treatment.
In terms of prevalence, I used to think that most men who were into DD probably were fairly Alpha or controlling in their personal lives and that they sought DD as a way to balance that. But, that may have just been projection on my part, as the polls and topics I've run on it don't support that. Instead, the readership here seems to be split about 50-50 between "natural" submissives versus those who are leaders in their work lives but want DD to balance that out. It was actually very surprising to me how many self-identified as "followers" in "real life."
I agree totally with the commenter who said that it has much more to do with power than anything else. What I have realized is that I feel a lot of power when Andy transforms into a traditionally female role at my behest. I can't deny that he is in a female role when he is functioning as my "housewife": running around doing chores wearing a pair of my panties! It turns me on mentally and physically. But what I get to thinking while I am watching him (and sometimes giggling I am so drunk on the power) about is what he is going to do to me later with his man parts--when he will be functioning as ALL MAN. So in my mind (and his) I am not feminizing or emasculating him. He often has a hard-on throughout his chores, and most of the time he is going to get to use it. So we are back to power: My big strong love-making husband is also my "panty-wearing maid"--all because I want him to be. His "voluntary relinquishment of control" (a phrase we made up to describe our power exchange) is the gift my MAN has given me.
DeleteHelen, thank you for a beautiful testimonial about the wonderful relationship you have with your husband. I am also my wife's "housewife" when I cook and clean for her. For us, my aprons are the main symbol of my housewife status. My standard "maid" uniform consists of nothing but an apron and a long t-shirt that has the feel of an overly short skirt that doesn't entirely hide my exposed bottom. She often reminds me of my status when I am busy working at the sink and she gives me a possessive pat on the bum and teases me that I'm "cute." I don't know whether she is "turned on" by the power the way you are. I know she really enjoys the main perk of her power, which is to have her "housewife" husband do all the work she was raised to think of as "women's work." Like your husband, I often have a hard-on through my chores, especially if my wife is enjoying some leisure activity while I am doing them. I like to think that exercise of power turns her on the way you say power turns you on. What I do know for certain is that, like for your husband, my efforts to be a good "housewife" seems to lead to rewards in the bedroom.
DeleteDJ
Hi Helen,
DeleteWhat you described is exactly what I was trying to say when I said it is all about power for us. Whether I am temporarily reduced to a naughty boy being spanked, temporarily put in a female role, or even in the role of a baby for a while (as I found myself last week), the purposes and results are always the same:
- It humiliates me and knocks me down a peg for a bit, so my big ego is less in the way and I can actually hear her heart.
- It demonstrates her power over me. The fact that I gave her that authority only makes it all the more real.
When she does something like this, it has nothing to do with trying to make me feminine or infantile, she is trying to make me feel humiliated. And the activitiy, whatever it may be, really isn't that important. Much more important is what it does to the power dynamic.
Generally, if she does something to humiliate me, it is in the context of punishment. And I always feel bad when she punishes me, because I simply hate that I hurt her feelings. However, when it is over and all is forgiven, we usually find ourselves more passionate than ever because her exercising power like that makes us both very hot, even though it was in the context of administering a punishment.
-ZM
I have totally neutral feelings on wearing 'female' attire. It neither repels nor excites me, but I do see the "angle" that may appeal.
ReplyDeleteInterestingly enough, wearing panties started out as Rosa's idea......but not so much for humbling. She says it was for a feeling of ownership. She said having me wear her panties made her feel like I was her 'toy/doll' that she could dress however she wanted.
Once I started doing it, I kind of got the feeling of not being in control of something like my own underwear, but my only dislike of the practice was falling out of the panties. A little research on my part led to the discovery of pouch panties and from there it became a sort of mutual interest in picking out different styles for different intentions, from very basic looking boy cuts, to super frilly thongs.
She still seems to like it enough to be the one to suggest it more often than me, but there are times I have suggested them......particularly one time when I was acting as a proxy for a female friend that pissed her off and thought the panties would enhance the illusion that I was that person.
We also have a feminine apron along with several standard cooking aprons......one of which is very masculine being a barbecue apron my daughter brought me from an Alcatraz gift shop! So aprons? I guess they're multi-faceted depending on the intention (as is the case with most things.)
So, is our use of panties and the occasional apron "feminizing"? I don't think so. I think we see it as 'something else' although what that is exactly is hard to explain. Perhaps it's more of an embarrassing 'claiming' than a shift in gender perception?
And on that note, I'd like to address something in the earlier part of the post about Eastern Tantric philosophy. You stated that the theory was that both genders embody traits from the opposite gender and that Tantra helps an individual tap into them. I think that perhaps there is no such thing as a gender-specific trait except as defined by the human mind to begin with. Maybe we just all embody TRAITS and that no trait has any gender association except for what a society wishes to imbue it with? Meaning simply that we are complex beings capable of many things and labeling those things with a male or female 'tag' is a societal thing and not an inherently biological one.
Personally I think I have a real mix of talents, traits and interests that split wildly across sociologically defined gender lines, yet I don't really believe ....or feel.....I'm any more masculine when shooting a gun than when a woman shoots a gun or any more feminine when arranging flowers than a woman is when arranging flowers.
Maybe that's why the panties thing is more of a 'costume issue' for me rather than a thrill? Even my embarrassment at having someone see the frilly lace trim of a pouch panty from the cut-out view of my chaps is based more on what OTHER people associate those frills with than what I do. For me the embarrassment of the chaps is way more centered on the fact that the color of my lower exposed cheeks show that I have been spanked than anything else.
Still, we do like our small pouch panty collection and have no plans to toss them out......but nor are we in any great hurry to add more styles than we already have.
That's an interesting angle -- panty wearing as an assertion of ownership or control.
DeleteI hear you on traits and whether there really is an inherent male or female component, but the view that it's all societal labeling doesn't seem to square with the experiences of many Trans people, who say that they always felt like a man inside, even though both their external biology and the societal expectations and labels resulting from it assumed they were a woman. And, vice versa. In many of those cases, there seems to be a very strong and enduring identification with one gender and not the other, even though both external biology and societal labeling are pushing hard in the opposite direction.
That's an interesting take on the issue, kdpierre, very different from mine. The diversity of perceptions and feelings people bring to things like this fascinates me. I tend to perceive everything in symbolic terms. But you remind us that, to alter Freud slightly, "Sometimes an apron is just an apron."
DeleteSpanking is highly symbolic for me too. To me it is a potent symbolic representation of one person's authority over another. But I have known "spankos" for whom spanking isn't discipline or D/s or humiliation or anything like that. For some people, it is a purely sensual experience between people who give and receive it without either of them being "dominant" or "submissive".
Thanks, "Anonymous". It's easy to see things either the way we personally experience them, or the way we read about them, but I have noticed that the older I get, the more different takes on things I see. So at this point in my life I really think that anything can mean anything or nothing, depending on the people involved. And that doesn't apply to just DD.
DeleteDan: I think in the case of gender identity there is more at work than traits. Identity is more about who you think or feel you are than what you do and how those things align along gender stereotypes. I guess what I'm saying is a person can be biologically male, pursue a typically 'male' career or role, feel out of sync with one's biology, become transgendered and still feel at home performing the same 'male' type of career. I had a casual acquaintance who fit this perfectly: very large, masculine male, ex-military, working in law enforcement, fully transgenders to female (hormonally, emotionally, and surgically) and still works in the same very male-dominated field without feeling out of place as a current female. The 'trait' of being tough had nothing to do with the person's "identity" as a female in a male body.
DeleteAnd perhaps that's the whole thing right there? Take any trait or inclination, label it according to the gender it stereotypically connotes......and then ask yourself: is it REALLY a male or female 'thing' or is it just thought of that way by a majority and therefore assumed as such?
Hi Dan,
ReplyDeleteMy wife and I talked about your questions. Me submitting to a spanking does not reshape my gender role, and when she gives a spanking it feels VERY maternal. “Switching up the gender roles” is not a GOAL though it is sometimes a MEANS.
There may be a tantric connection for us, but in a different way. I have a book called “Domestic Discipline” by Jules Markham, which offers great insights into the underlying philosophy of DD. The author talks a lot about tantric energy. Since I have a male psyche, my emotional cycle is driven by achievement and competence, whereas my wife's emotional cycle is driven by worthiness.
Several years ago I experienced a crushing failure of my business, first marriage, and many relationships. This resulted in a deep and prolonged negative emotional cycle where I don't achieve much because I feel bad about myself, and my lack of success makes me feel worse about myself, which makes it harder to succeed.
My wife had a failed marriage and ultimately returned to her birthplace. Here, women are often treated as second-class citizens. Being divorced with children made her even less desirable in the eyes of society, though all who know her personally have always held her in high regard. She had resigned herself to a life alone; while she deemed herself worthy of a good husband and happy marriage, society and her status made that almost impossible.
In me, she found someone who sees her great value, and it has resulted in an increase in her sense of worthiness, not only of my love and affection, but also of a good life.
One of the things we are doing with DD is having check-ins (which she informed me yesterday are returning starting now) for my work activities. She is pushing me to overcome negative feelings and to achieve real success, which will cause a positive emotional cycle for me and a much better life for us. Her doing this seems nurturing and maternal, though I guess the “drill sergeant” part may be channeling her “inner male” a bit, as I think about it!
DD is very much about bringing and keeping balance in our relationship and lives, and imbalances are usually best corrected with a very strong (albeit temporary) imbalance in the opposite direction. A good punishment will be memorable for a long time and will cause strong emotions which hopefully will help change attitudes, behaviors, and patterns. But for this to happen, at least without her beating me to a bloody pulp, requires a very strong shift in the power dynamic.
Dress is very powerful in helping to create that dynamic. She could administer a punishment in any attire, but if she dons more “powerful” clothes, she is already halfway there both in getting herself in the right frame of mind and in projecting a strong persona. In the same way, since I am male and have spent most of my life making sure I appear as big, strong, and masculine, anything that makes me feel little or feminine will go a long way in affecting this temporary shift of power.
Which is why last week my punishment (which spanned 2 days because of logistics) had me wearing red panties in between the punishment sessions and ended with me wearing a diaper and standing in the corner, where she informed me I would remain until I had wet the diaper. Neither of us are really into feminization or infantilism, but they are effective tools to make a very memorable punishment and to strongly reinforce the power shift.
This concept was maybe better understood by those 50 years ago than in current times; to make an impact, don't just spank the bottom of the punishee, but instead take away control of more of their body and bodily functions. My parents were likely to get a strong dose of castor oil or an enema when spanked, which took the control of their bodily functions out of their hands. Though newer to the scene, chastity cages would have similar effect.
For me, DD and FLR are more about the shift of power and control than about the specific activities which are used to exert control or show power.
-ZM
"DD is very much about bringing and keeping balance in our relationship and lives, and imbalances are usually best corrected with a very strong (albeit temporary) imbalance in the opposite direction." Totally agree!
DeleteAt some point, I may have a topic again about the maternal aspect. Though it makes some squeamish. For a long time, I didn't perceive that as a significant part of my dynamic, but I now think that part of what drives me was having a mother with a very strong personality, but it was very inconsistently applied and destructive and didn't involve reining me in. Quite the opposite. So, for me the archetype of a strong AND consistent disciplinarian is very powerful.
I can't say that I have ever had any attraction to diapering but, then again, there are all sorts of things we are experimenting with now that had no attraction not so long ago.
Also, I looked for that book. One of the few that isn't available as an e-book, and the used versions are WAY pricey.
DeleteActually, I didn't ever have even the slightest interest in diapers before either. However, when she was reading "The Good Wife's Guide to Taking Charge," diapers and panties (and a few other humiliating things) were all things that caught her eye. She highlighted the things she found interesting, and we went through the highlighted sections together.
DeleteBefore the last punishment, we were in the grocery store, and she said "pick some diapers. They are for you." The next day, she took me to a lingerie store (all of them are small boutiques here) and she bought panties, but she told me they were for me so she wanted me to pick them. I'm sure the salespeople thought they were for her.
Despite both of these being her ideas, I don't think she has even the least bit of interest in feminizing me (or using diapers, etc.) outside of punishment. She just viewed it as a very easy way to break down some of my defenses so I would be able to be in the properly humbled position to truly hear her and to make the punishment more effective.
-ZM
I've read that same book, and the diapers sections were the only parts I did not like. But, for that very reason, they might be a great way to break down those defenses!
DeleteAgain, our relationship seems to be different than most. My Dominant has no interest at all in feminizing me, during punishment or even doing chores. No bra, no panties, no aprons or anything else. As I have stated here before, I am kept totally nude whenever in the house and during chore time, I must wear nipple clamps or cock and ball bondage or a butt plug. I even volunteered to be placed in chastity, but she did want that either. She wants ALL of me to be accessible to her use or abuse all the time. As far as an outward display of ownership, I have to shave my head and wear a pendant which identifies me as a collard, male, submissive.
ReplyDeleteI found the comment from DJ very interesting, especially the following sentences: "I would say that a guy who wants his wife or girlfriend to become, in effect, his private dominatrix (on call to fulfill his fantasies 24/7 free of charge) is not truly "submissive" at all. He will not actually do the dishes, but he will expect to be "punished" for not doing them. Any sane woman would reject such a man--except as a paying customer--because she would be the real slave in the relationship."
ReplyDeleteAn ex-girlfriend of mine, who was divorced, told me that her ex-husband had been exactly like that. He was into being caned, but he merely wanted the physical sensation, he was not all submissive. When she refused to fulfill his masochistic wishes, he became unpleasant and aggressive, and she eventually divorced him.
richard
Adding to the discussion about women's preferences: https://www.dailywire.com/news/32556/study-reveals-what-women-are-hard-wired-find-amanda-prestigiacomo
ReplyDeleteBTW, I seldom plug for specific websites, but if you are an omnivore like me when it comes to learning new and interesting things, with a dash of eye candy included, check out http://extragoodshit.phlap.net/, which is where I found the above today in it's daily posting. It is my favorite site for keeping up on a variety of interesting stuff in the world of psychology, sociology, medicine, technology and politics. And, yes, it has some pictures of naked women. It's kind of like Playboy for guys who really do read the articles!
That was a good article (and the website that you found it on is good too, for that matter). I think it reinforces what many people already know. It may not be politically correct to imply that women may want to feel protected, but I think that is largely a matter of the peaceful time in which we live. In times of chaos and war, physiological differences between men and women make it generally favorable to have a big, strong guy by your side if you happen to be of the fairer sex. Those who have been on the dating scene also know that most women are attracted to "manly" men.
DeleteAlan had an incredibly brilliant and insightful point earlier when he said "maybe why some men find establishing DD relationships possible and even natural is that they do project masculinity as well as a desire for some accountability and imposed authority." I think he is probably correct, because it IS the general nature of most women to want masculine men. If you are the strong alpha type guy, it probably increases the chances that your wife will be open to DD, because she knows just how much of a man you are. And your wishes to be accountable and to improve make you seem even more manly, even if the methods don't. In fact, for a "manly" man to even suggest something so very "unmanly" makes him seem even more confident in his masculinity, and women LOVE confidence. On the other hand, if a guy appears pretty submissive and not very masculine, then any attempts at DD likely come across as even further weakness.
-ZM
"I think he is probably correct, because it IS the general nature of most women to want masculine men. If you are the strong alpha type guy, it probably increases the chances that your wife will be open to DD, because she knows just how much of a man you are."
DeleteThis does seem like the stars coming into alignment. At least some Alpha men may be more inclined to want to balance that out by her taking the reins at home, which she may be more inclined to do if he's already established his "manly" creds and, in fact, she may have (like me wife) sometimes suffered through the negative consequences of his overly Alpha nature.
-ZM and Dan,
DeleteThanks for the support and I do believe men that project masculinity ( authentically) do have a much easier time establishing a DD relationship with a previously vanilla woman.From what I am reading in the recently released Kinsey Institute data,women often fantasize about "rough sex ( a term I don't like) including the dominant role. So a man introducing DD into a commuted vanilla relationship may well be offering wife or girlfriend a chance to act on fantasies previously unexplored. Its not a one way street. Certainly many women are natural disciplinarians when allowed to express it.But the yin and yang are essential and what makes much of it work
Alan
That’s an interesting article, Dan, even though the findings of the study are unsurprising. One could draw the same conclusions based on a study of romantic novels or chick flics.
DeleteThe article uses the term “chivalrous” to describe the “benevolent sexism” most women find attractive in men. That reminds me of a discussion that took place on a website I used to frequent about FLR. The female members unanimously agreed that the perfect partner in an FLR should be “chivalrous” rather than “submissive”, since “submissive” has a connotation of weakness. The work “uxorious” (dedicated to one’s wife) was popular too.
I would like to point out that “chivalry” is, in fact, a kind of male submission to the power of the feminine, but it is submission combined with masculine strength and courage.. It refers to the code of honour once followed by knights, and that code of conduct involved service and devotion to one’s lady. One image that represents chivalry is that of a knight kneeling before his lady or his queen, like Sir Lancelot kneeling before Queen Guinevere in one famous Pre-Raphaelite painting .
The chivalrous conduct described as “benevolent sexism” in this article is different than the kind of toxic masculinity which seeks to maintain male privilege and to lock women into their pre-feminist condition as second class citizens. I think a weakness of the article is a failure to make that distinction in an effort to trash the ideals of feminism. As I see it, there is no contradiction between wanting to protect and provide for one’s wife and a willingness (or desire) to “submit” to her authority and discipline, like the knight kneeling before his queen.
DJ
I agree on all this, and especially that chivalry is really the opposite of toxic masculinity. KD Pierre is also big into the Queen/knight metaphor. I admit it has never quite worked for me at a gut level, maybe because I always associate with Lancelot, and he always seems to be portrayed as a bland, not very charasmatic, not very interesting alternative to the king. There never seems to be any "bad boy" in the portrayals of Lancelot, despite the fact that he screws the queen behind his friend's back. I personally gravitate more toward the samurai ideal of warrior service, but it doesn't quite work because his commander, the emperor, was always a man.
DeleteHi Alan. I wonder whether those "rough sex" fantasies can be satisfied by the one doing the roughing, instead of the one being on the receiving end of it? I don't know. I do think it is very interesting how many previously vanilla women can, when given the opportunity, develop into a very dominant force in the marriage. I don't know whether it works that way for men. Personally, while I can be very dominant in a work setting, I have absolutely no desire to dominate a woman in a relationship. In fact, the whole idea kind of repels me.
DeleteDan,
DeleteFrom the Kinsey study: apparently many women report fantasies of "rough sex" with them playing the dominant role. The fact that( apparently) few women initiate DD without their partners encouragement suggests to me that cultural inhibitions suppress at least some women from exploring these dominant fantasies until pushed by their partner. But once that push has happened they experience emotions that were more or less unconscious
Alan
Very interesting!
DeleteHave to say this is the best dialogue I have heard here ever! So open all of us !
ReplyDeletePeter
I never spanked anyone until my husband Andy. But I do admit that I was always very interested when my younger brothers were getting the hairbrush from my mom. I also, like many women, used sex or rather the lack thereof to get what I wanted. What was a revelation to me was how much I was turned on by having power over my husband. I have always been attracted to powerful men, and also to having power. But what amazed me was how turned on I was by having power over a powerful man. That is what really turned me into a disciplinary wife. I love that he willingly relinquishes control to me. This gift of power is as intimate as anything I could ever imagine. So yes, I agree with the commenters that there is likely a disciplinary wife inside of many women who aren't aware of it. But they may be aware of their attraction to power, and that may be the connection that a submissive husband can utilize to turn her into a disciplinary wife. But she has to know that he will capitulate, that he will accept any punishment that she decides, and that he will never use his physical strength to avoid submitting to her.
ReplyDeleteAnd as for Lancelot, come on guys! His chivalry was all about seduction. Of course Guinevere was at fault too. The one who should have been chivalrous was King Arthur. He should be on bended knee before Guinevere, instead of hanging out with his boys at the Round Table. And she should have motivated him with the flat side of Excalibur!
ReplyDelete