I am not sure what you are asking or what point you are making. It's a bit like this: being a great big elephant is fine if you are with another great big elephant, but if the person you love is a dear little ant, you will find yourself worrying about stepping on him all the time, and if you love that little ant, that will be stressful. So while I may not consider myself the submissive type, I do have a strong preference to be with a man who takes charge and would not be intimidated or overwhelmed by me – a fellow great big elephant, so to speak. It is not that I think there is anything wrong with other men, it is just a preference of mine because I'd hate to step on anyone.

But what I mean by this elaphant metaphor is not that I want to dominate, merely that I am a strong and confident woman. I do not consider myself dominant in the sense of having a need to control a man in an intimate relationship. I have zero desire to control a man.

I think that many couples might find life more full of delight if they didn't think of their sexual connection as being separate from the rest of life. People say that the sexual connection inevitably fizzles out over time, but what if they are wrong about that? What if that idea is itself part of the problem? My past experience totally refutes the idea that the connection necessarily fades over time. One of the things I have noticed that might be part of the problem is this separation of the sexual side of life from the rest of life.

Thinking of sex as being about the obvious physical activities and giving insufficient significance to what is happening in the mind is one of the ways people make this (to me) artificial and fizz-reducing separation, but perhaps I should save that for another post.

"What works between two people is fine - there is no 'right' or 'wrong' if both are happy". I agree that bringing the dominance out of the bedroom can have a wonderful effect on the dynamic of the relationship (at least for me). To keep the dominance purely for sexual games might be enough for some, but for me, it would feel too much like play-acting - one would don a mask as one entered the room, and leave it behind as one exited.

I agree with the boss that bringing the dominance out of the bedroom (or better yet, let's say "bringing the sexual fantasy out of the bedroom") and living what you are fantasizing, makes life far more interesting (for me, at least). If you bring the fantasy out into the real world, and live it, then you are constantly living an erotic life, rather than just indulging in play in the bedroom. At some point, at some level, if you are just "playing", then emotionally deep down the odds are you recognise this for being what it is - a fantasy.

Why not live the dream, or at least try to?

Paul

It's great you are still as sexual as the day you married. Maybe for you and your husband it's the "taken in hand" thing that does it, but since being dominated never was on my radar, I know it wouldn't increase my attraction to my husband. I like things stopping at the bedroom door and not pervading the rest of life. It's like having a naughty little fun secret.

Also you have to look at people's ages and relative health when you think about how strongly sexuality is going to hold up. Today is my 17th wedding anniversary. I'm almost 50 and my husband is almost 53. Maybe some people our age are still swinging from chandeliers but let's face it, most aren't.

Secondly we have both been through a lot of health problems in the last few years. We are both cancer survivors. We're lucky to be breathing, let alone jumping each other's bones every minute. Sexiness all the time works..for a while. Let's all meet in 20 years, and some of you will have a whole new perspective on this.

Sex is great and fantasy is great, no doubt about it, but as you get older and health issues set in, you better be prepared to kiss some of it goodbye and not feel your whole relationship revolves around it.

Otherwise, your marriage would go the way of the unfortunate 50%. Personally I think it's the people who DO understand that sex is just one part of life, who can handle the longest haul.

My husband and I are in our late 40's. It will be our 25th anniversary this spring. We have both dealt with (and are dealing with) health concerns. We nevertheless experience a great deal of sexual attraction to each other. It is not just "in the bedroom" but permeating our lives. We have special ways to look at each other, code phrases and little gestures that might not be obvious to others, but we know that we are thinking about sex.

Age has not diminished our feelings towards each other yet and I see know reason to believe that it will in the future.

J

If, like the man I quoted in the article (and Claudia Varrin) you take the view that the man's authority, control and dominance is just a sexual fantasy, strictly for bedroom games, not reality (because in the rest of life, we must have strict equality in every sense, whether we like it or not) then, for me at least, that control/dominance/authority would lose its erotic power. As I have attempted to explain above and before, not everyone is turned on by the idea of make-believe let's pretend fantasy games of dominance, some are more turned on by the real thing. My ‘fantasy’ is the reality, not the fantasy, as it were.

Another thing I have noticed is that when you don't separate sex and the man's authority off from life and lock it in the bedroom toybox, less is more. That is to say, if it is all just pretend games, the games sometimes have to be a lot more energetic, hardcore, physically intense and extreme, and can require a lot more planning and equipment (as can be seen in Claudia Varrin's book, BTW) to get the erotic results desired.

Don't get me wrong – although I fully admit to being the mother of all pussies when it comes to certain types of pain (for example, even the thought of nipple clamps makes me feel queasy) I am not saying that I in any way rule out acting out wild hardcore fantasies and engaging in ultra-intense extreme sex, all I am saying is that one can be as intensely excited by a mere word or look when the dominance/authority being expressed is real, as one can be via difficult, advanced, hardcore sex, or perhaps even more so. (Is it clear that I am not disparaging extreme sex? I am not at ALL!)

At one point in her book (which BTW, despite how it might seem, from the comments I have made on it so far, I do think excellent for anyone with a more BDSM perspective) Claudia Varrin talks about how to get yourself in the mood for a sexual scene when you are not in the mood. Whilst when there is no male authority in my life my arousal levels can sometimes be such as to make me wonder whether I still have a pulse, the merest hint of real male authority can send them off the other end of the scale. When in a relationship in which the man wears the trousers, my experience is exactly what Louise said in the comment I quoted in my article above – in such a relationship, the idea of needing to do elaborate things to ‘get myself in the mood’ is completely alien to me.

That part of Varrin's book reminded me a bit of those sex therapists who tell couples who go to them complaining that the spark has gone from their sex life, to try a new position, buy a new sex toy, do it on the kitchen table instead of in bed, etc. The advice is all about what to do to tinker with the symptoms when the sexual connection that could be infusing life with the glow of arousal is sick or dead. But tinkering with the symptoms does nothing to cure the underlying disease or bring the connection back to life. It is only a temporary measure; its results won't last.

What are you going to do when you've tried every position and every place, and every toy, etc? Then what? You are back to square one. Because sexual desire and arousal is not primarily about the mechanics and the overt physical aspects, it is about what is happening in your minds, and it is about the sexual connection the two individuals have. So instead of locking the sexual side of life in the bedroom, I personally prefer to let the sexual connection infuse the whole of life rather than shutting it away in the bedroom and labelling the man's authority as just a sexual fantasy to be rigidly distinguished from reality and kept locked in the bedroom.

But what if male authority and dominance isn't the thing that turns either of us on?

What if keeping it in the bedroom works, and neither of us is interested in thinking about our sexual connection 24/7?

For you, sexuality has to pervade everything. Not everybody is like that.

You remind me of me when I first came to this site..... I was looking for resources for a workshop I was running. The workshop was for women seeking to get in touch with their dominant nature. I was in the lifestyle for .... oh I don't know, maybe 16 years... That's Femdom/malesub. lol! This website used to irritate me as much as it seems like it does you but I couldn't keep from reading it and one day it hit me that in my soul I'm not dominant, I'm a switch..... but I'm coming to think I'm not a switch..... I'm submissive.

Have any others here had this experience? If so, how did you tell people you were in relationships with? I haven't been able to tell my lover yet. It's like coming out as gay when you're married. He's going to feel betrayed and hurt. Help!

"Mary"

When I first realised that at least sexually I wanted the man to be in control and was to some extent submissive I consoled myself by expecting to be able to treat those feelings as purely sexual and therefore only to be brought out in the bedroom. I thought that was more acceptable than crossing a line into a Head of the house relationship, 24/7, complete submission or whatever you want to call it. That idea lasted about as long as it took me to get used to the idea of taken in hand and to rethink and merge it with my former feminist views - not actually very long.

Romance books are filled with portrayals of dark and commanding strangers seducing innocent virgins but the slightest hint of dominance out of historical context, light erotica or media in general is suddenly taboo. It seems like a lot of women do want men to be masculine in the sexual part of their relationship but that dominance cannot cross over into the rest of their lives. I understand why they feel that way but I'm sure for some women sexual dominance is a stepping stone to discovering what they would be most satisfied with. Personally I would feel that making a divide between a sexual relationship and the rest of it would be fake and to be submissive in only part of a relationship would for me, be a half measure. If I'm going to bother with taken in hand I want to go the whole way. For a man who was naturally dominant I would expect suddenly losing all that control in less sexual things would be frustrating too.

Jessica

What do I mean? I mean reality is simply a matter of perception. If you can think it you can do it. Have you ever noticed that some folk can do whatever they set their mind up to do? That's because they have a firm grip on *fantasy*, or, shall we say, controlled insanity.

The only thing holding anyone back from realizing a wholesome fantasy is self-doubt, which is the opposite of self-confidence. Doubt is the obstruction. Confidence removes that obstruction.

KrosRogue

I believe confidence is like a muscle. Your husband seems to believe this also. He pushes you out of your comfort zone so you can develop your confidence and make it stronger. Moving out of your comfort zone is never pleasant, but as you are learning, it is sometimes necessary.

KrosRogue

This has been a very interesting post.

What if your (or my) reality/fantasy is NOT the same as my husband's? What then? No matter how much I may desire or fantasise about it, if hubby isn't willing or able, then what?

I'm a strong woman (although I'm definitely not a dom or anything like that, just strong character), who needs a strong man. Not a bully, but someone who can stand up to me, make me think, encourage me where I need encouraging and show me when I'm wrong (as I do for him and he appreciates).

My husband is a dear, kind, gentle man who seems unable to be stronger than me despite all the talks and explanations we've had regarding my needs.

His dominance does not come through in reality or fantasy, either in every day life or the bedroom.

I don't want to dominate or control a man, and I don't think I do, not my husband or any other man or woman for that matter. We are good friends, we talk to each other but we do our own thing as we each see fit (if that makes sense).

You can only carry out your fantasy (especially in a Taken In Hand relationship) ONLY if your partner is willing to participate. I cannot be Taken In Hand if my husband is not willing to take me in hand, no matter how much I fantasise about it. My own perception of joy in our relationship and my husband's perception, are on two different levels.

Grace :-)

> I have long thought that separating sex from the rest
> of life must logically tend to make the rest of life
> less sexy than it can be if you don't.

Events of our lives usually have different meanings simultaneously. Sometimes we experience these different meanings as coexisting, but most of the time we suppress some of the meanings, and act or make judgment according to the meanings we don't suppress. Usually we automatically see one meaning as primary, and there is a good reason for it: it enables us to single out the most important aspect of the situation. However, we can more or less consistently imbue certain situations with a 'secondary meaning' (or maybe, just not suppress it). It has a benefit of allowing us to see some meaning that we like in the situations that otherwise would be boring or even unpleasant for us.

But it has a drawback too: the 'secondary' meaning changes our perception of situation so that we can underestimate the importance of or even completely overlook some very important aspect of the situation, partially because we can't deal with too many different meanings simultaneously, partially because this habitual 'secondary' meaning makes the situation look more familiar to us than it really is, and partially because when we really like something we tend to delude ourselves about the probability and severity of its negative consequences. So, when we habitually imbue the situations we go through in our lives with pleasant overtones of some 'secondary' meaning we like, it can make our choices and decisions different from what they would be if we did not.

Yes, the rest of the life can be sexy, that is, imbued with sexual meaning. We can 'sexualize' our lives just as we can 'aestheticize' them, or 'intellectualize' them, or whatever. But it is not a universal recipe for happiness. It is just a personal choice.

Is sexualized life necessarily better that non-sexualized? No. Is it better FOR YOU? Probably, although not necessarily. Only you can decide. Your decision may be right, or it may be wrong. It depends on your self-knowledge and knowledge of life in general. But someone else's decision will be wrong, because even if he/she knows you rather well he/she will lack the information necessary for it.