If you have never witnessed an equal marriage that works then you must have led a remarkably sheltered life. I have witnessed plenty.

And if you enjoy 'accepting' your husband's authority then you are submissive, whether you like it or not. You can call it acceptance or submission or what you please, but if you get a kick out of the idea of your husband being in charge, then you are submissive.

And the 'Surrendered Wife' concept is, in my opinion, vile. It is about a woman pretending to be stupid when she isn't, pretending not to have any likes or dislikes when she does, pretending she doesn't notice if her husband takes a wrong turning etc, it is TOTALLY stupid!

The word "submissive" means many things to many people, and some or none of the meanings may apply to you. My wife, Mrs. Thorney, is 80 years old and we've been married over 20 years. (I'm 60) From my point of view, she is an exquisite submissive. She denies any interest in being submissive and denies that submission has anything to do with our relationship.

In most ways, we are very equal. I have no hesitation in deferring to her in areas where she is more expert. She is perfectly free to talk back, criticise, etc.

On the other hand, I pick which panties she is going to wear and confiscate them if I'm in the mood; I'll often wait for her to ask "Please, Master, may I have some panties?" in the morning. I spank her (playfully) whenever I feel like it. I like having my feet kissed, and I like her being ready to lick my cock anytime she is sitting down. I like her doing a reasonable amount of housework naked, and coming by so I can swat or squeeze her bottom. I think of this as kinky fun. She says "What's kinky about it? I enjoy it, you enjoy it, we have fun, noone gets hurt."

I like lots of sex and sexplay, she likes lots of attention and affection. She says she has simply tried a lot of things, seen what gets me to give her the attention she wants, and then repeats it as needed or as requested by me. I often feel I'm "seducing her" into the behavior I want - by praise and attention - rather than by ordering her, although I do -playfully- order her around quite a bit ("Walk upstairs, and hoist your skirt so I can watch your bottom.") I do expect a "Yes, Master" - but she can giggle all she wants whikle saying it.

She has telephoned me at the office to say "I've been thinking about you, and my panties are so wet I need to change them. You like to watch me change panties, do you have time to come home and supervise?" I did. I guess she is the one ordering me around, doing that, but believe me it gives me a happy-dominant feeling.

Submissive? I'm not at all sure what the word means, or rather it means as many things as there are people who use it. Concentrate on building the relationship you want, and don't worry about the word used to describe it.

Thorney

I think of myself as submissive because I cannot think of any other way of describing the fact that I get a sexual thrill out of thinking of myself as being obedient to my husband. And I cannot think of any other way of describing the effect that he has on me when he is able to, for instance, bring me out of a bad mood simply with a word. The way I react to his authoratitive way of dealing with me when I'm in these kind of moods cannot be described as anything other than 'submissive' as far as I can see. It is a submissve response to his exercising of authority.

And of course there are limits to my submission, everyone has limits. If being submissive is supposed to mean that I would do aboslutely anything that my husband told me to, regardless of how I felt about it, then it's quite true, I'm not submissive, but in that case I don't know anyone who is, because I imagine that there isn't any woman on this site who wouldn't draw the line somewhere when it came to doing what her husband wanted.

The fact is that my husband and I both do things for each other, he cares about pleasing me at least as much as I care about pleasing him, probably more. But because of the way I am constructed, I like to think of the things I do for him as 'submitting' whereas I like to think of the things that he does for me as him showing consideration, indulging me or whatever. I get a buzz out of the idea of being submissive, he doesn't. As someone recently pointed out to me, it comes down to the same thing, we just use different words to describe it, depending on our natures.

I fought for years against the impulse I had to think of my husband as an authority figure outside of the bedroom instead of just inside, now I have given into this impulse, it seems to have improved our relationship. Pretending that it's not because I am submissive would be pointless.

Louise,

Unless I have got this completely wrong, which I may well have done, it seems from what you have said here and in other discussions, that your 'official' submission to your husband's authority doesn't really extend beyond the sexual, except in the sense that you have discovered that it enhances and improves your relationship in other areas if you treat him with greater respect and consideration than perhaps you gave him in the past. Overall though, if you chose to withdraw that gift of extra respect, it wouldn't necessarily change your bedroom dynamics, where the D/s aspect would still prevail and you would still regard youself as 'submissive' within the bounds of your particular arrangement.

In the past we have fairly often discussed the difference between being 'submissive' and being a 'doormat'. Perhaps unintentionally, on these occasions, you and several other people who have a similar views, have, implied that, even if she has chosen to do so of her own volition, a woman who gives up control to her partner in other areas of her relationship, whether it be a limited control over practical things like finacial matters or a much more far reaching control over more personal things like mode of dress, is not 'submissive' but is a 'doormat'.

When you give the word that type of connotation, is it any wonder that some people don't want to be given the label 'submissive' even if they DO submit in some areas?

Just a thought,

Ros

If I were not naturally inclined to be submissive, then it would not be easy at all. Life isn't always easy. And for those of us for whom religion is the center of our lives, "dragging" it into any arena is absolutely essential. You also seem to think that any woman who finds pleasure in submission, must consider herself to be submissive. Perhaps she finds pleasure in a happy marriage, in her husband's contentment, in knowing that her marriage is going to last, and in pleasing God. There are many ways to experience pleasure! Charlotte

"I find it very difficult to understand why any woman would want to regard her husband as being in charge if this did not give her pleasure, but perhaps it's a Puritanical thing. Maybe it's all right to defer to your husband as long as you don't enjoy it."

And there you have it. Who exactly decides or judges what is right and enjoyable for the two participants of a particular relationship? Them? Or you, because anything that isn't done the way you would do it has to be wrong?

Ros

I enjoy this site because it allows everyone the freedom to believe as they wish and the acceptance of that.

Submission is something I am still learning. It has been quite a journey for me. To be submissive I have to want to do it. I am at a point now (finally) that I want to be submissive. I have found that since I have been working on this that it has enhanced our marriage. I thought I had arrived at some destination a while ago about obedience etc and found that I still have a ways to go. It is my choice to submit no one is making me.

I was a control freak for years and I was never a doormat. Since my choice has been to submit I feel I have softened but I still am learning. Having been a control freak it has taken me time to loosen my grip on things but when I have done it it feels much better.I will not ever be a doormat and I can speak for myself quite well and I know my husband likes that because it is part of who I am. However sometimes I step over the line and all he does is to give me "The Look", a word or a meeting time and I know exactly who is in control and it isn't me. Sometimes all he does is to put his hand on my shoulder to quietly remind me. I love how he loves me.

I have a dear friend who many years ago wed and within hours she was involved in a terribly abusive marriage. It lasted several years because she felt it was her duty to remain in that relationship. Years later she met a wonderful man who adores her and they married recently and they are both very much in love. I enjoy it because I know where she had been and to know she is happier than she has ever been well, I am thrilled for her.

If he asks me to make him a cup of tea, then i do, but he doesn't ask me unless he is too busy doing something else himself. He prefers making it himself when he can. I realise this is probably difficult for you to understand, but not all men want to be waited on hand and foot, and he is one of them. He has always been very independent, he grew up in a household where his mother worked full-time, and he and his brothers learnt to fend for themselves from an early age. I don't wait on him much, but he doesn't want me to.

I try to keep the house clean as best I can, but when he isn't working he does a bit of housework too, again it is just something he does as a matter of course, it wouldn't occur to him not to. Most of my time is taken up looking after the children, trying to stop them murdreing each other/wrecking the house etc. Being waited on simply isn't something he's that interested in, he'd rather be out in the workshop doing strange and wonderful things with bits of metal. Sitting around giving me orders isn't something he's that interested in.

I really couldn't care less whether you think I'm dominant or submissive or what, my husband and I have a relationship that works pretty well, and since we started having a Taken In Hand one it seems to work better. We communicate better, we are more relaxed with each other, I feel ready for sex whenever he does, and we haven't had a row for eight months. So something is working okay, and that's all that matters. Frankly, who is dominant or who is submissive doesn't seem to me to be a matter of the least importance, frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn.

Feminazi

Another good article with many thoughtful comments.

But, I must post a disagreement to the basic concept of this thread; the definition of a person as dominant or submissive.

These terms can only be used sensibly in the context of a relationship and not as labels for an individual.

Who does a "lone Alpha wolf" dominate?

We have many relationships (unless we are hermits with Web access) and we may may have different positions in each. One may be superior, subordinate, or a peer in the office and something different at home.

So I think it is most accurate to say somethig like "I am dominant (or submissive) in my relationship with my spouse or significant other.

Like most readers on this site, I very much dislike the idea that there is only one way of conducting a marriage, and that the wife must be submissive etc. I agree that there are too many varieties of human beings to fit into only one mould.

I find, myself, that the submissive feeling ebbs and flows quite a lot, it's partly hormonal, and partly to do with what's going on. My resolve at the beginning of our Taken In Hand relationship to be totally obedient and submissive to my husband frankly didn't last very long, and rebellious feelings started to assert themselves again pretty quickly. What I was very surprised (and pleased) to find was that my husband could make me feel submissive again quite easily by asserting himself in the right way. I love it when he does this, but he does need to do it quite often, which wasn't exactly how I had envisiged our relationship working when we started. He just seems to take it for granted that if I'm not feeling submissive, it's his job to make me. I respond very well to this, but if he couldn't have done it, I think our Taken In Hand relationship would very quickly have fallen apart.

What you say about your ex-husband being good at washing nappies is interesting, because the notion that a 'traditional' relationship consists of the woman doing all the housework, childcare etc, while the man is the provider, is actually quite a recent one. If you go back to the pre-Industrial period, you find that it is actually more 'traditional' for men to be actively involved in household matters.

In A World of Their Own Making: A History of Myth and Ritual in Family Life John R. Gillis writes:

In the eighteenth century, it was the presence of its male head(what the Germans called Hausvater) that made a mere dwelling a real house. A woman could stand in as his surrogate, but in the eyes of the law, as well as popular opinion, the house was a masculine domain. Most men were deeply involved in the day-to-day running of the house, including child care, activities that were fully consistent with the prevailing definition of masculinity.
Of course, the fatherly presence varied by class. It was weakest at the highest and lowest ends of the social scale, for the search for work sent poor men into the households of others, while aristocratic fathers were often away on military service. It was at the middling level that the household economy gave fathers a prominent place in family life. Not only artisans and farmers but business and proffesional men conducted much of their work in the house, assisted by their wives and children. Marriage was a working partnership until the middle of the nineteenth century, and a man's vocation was not allowed to interfere with his fatherly responsibilities. When it did, it was not uncommon for middle-class men to opt for early retirement, clearly indicating the priority they put on domestic life.
The time and space of the Hausvater were inseperabel from those of the family. As long as the rhythms of life were set by household tasks, there was no difference between his time and that of his wife, children and servants. They all ate and prayed together, they got up and went to bed on the same schedule. Males felt no need for a special place of retreat because domesticity posed no threat to their masculinity. They were as comfortable in the kitchen as women, for they had responsibility for provisioning and managing the house. Until the nineteenth century, cookbooks and domestic conduct books were directed primarily to them, and they were as devoted to decor as they were to hospitality. Even in his absense, the Hausvater's presence was always felt.

I have always felt that my husband was a very non-traditional male because of his involvement in housework, childcare etc, and the fact that he cares far more about how the house looks, and how tidy it is etc, than I do. It is gratifying to learn that his involvement in these things is actually quite 'traditional' after all!

I agree with much of what Hera said. I don't know if I'd go so far as to say it is morally wrong to try to be submissive if you are not, it certainly can't be good for a relationship for either partner to try to force themselves to be something they are not. A woman who feels no desire to be submissive will make herself miserable trying to turn into something she's not. And I guess I do think it is morally wrong to live a lie.

As for the biblical references, I'm always glad to know I'm not the only frustrated Catholic out there:) I also believe that God made everyone in his image. I don't think, however, that means he made us all identical. We aren't all identical on the outside, so why would we all be identical on the inside? I think we were all made how God made us, but he didn't just make black and white, he made lots of shades of gray. We were also given free will and the ability to make our own decisions. This further complicates things.

As for "right" and "wrong," just because something isn't "wrong" according to the bible doesn't mean that it's "right" in modern society. The bible also outlines the proper treatment of slaves. That doesn't make owning slaves "right."

I appreciate Hera's perspective because I can identify with it. I do not choose to renounce my faith because I find a lot in it that is important to me, but I also don't look to it as a justification for everything I do or every perspective I hold. I just try to take what I view as the key tennets and apply them to my life. I love my neighbor as myself (be he gay, straight, dominant, submissive etc), and I believe God is benevolent and merciful and will forgive me if I am wrong in loving my neighbor as myself and accepting and respecting everyone's perspective.

LMFAO this:

Surely, a psychological need of someone to pigeonhole people and to call them names and labels is an aberration, and there is probably a clinical name for the neurosis that inclines some people to do so.

This is one of the best lines I've seen. I confess to being a label-slut. ;) Though I try hard not to label others, to only label myself. (Of course I know this doesn't happen, I'm quite sure someone can go through my posts and point out places where I've labeled others) I think the problem with it all can be:

We find a label/labels to define us in figuring out who we are. At first its not so much to explain it to others, but to explain it to ourselves, to conceptualize. But sometimes we forget that words are not the thing itself, they are the symbol of the thing.

We often take our symbols as literal realities. It then becomes easier to judge other people. It also becomes easier to get upset with people we feel have horned in on our labels, cause we JUST got them all sorted! hehe.

Anyway, thanks for this. I DO find that sometimes my insistence to label things is divisive for myself and for others and one of these days hopefully I'll learn. ;)

Labels are shorthand. I'm so verbose anyway, do I really need shorthand?