(A
note from Mark Remond: There have been several comments critical of one of the Protocols
mentioned in Dennis' earlier posting on that topic. That Protocol reads: “the man
takes vows of obedience and fidelity; She does not!” Commenter Greg writes: “In
this household, the women have partners other than their husbands? But the
husbands remain faithful? I was under the impression that most women prefer
monogamy so this part actually goes against what I believed most women want.”
And Ronald comments: “I am kind of confused. People keep talking about women in
femdom relationships being allowed to date other men. Why is that a sign of an ‘advanced’
FLR? Regardless of who is in charge shouldn't both partners be faithful to one
another? Isn’t that the very definition of a relationship? Mutually exclusive
love? If anything these relationships where the women are allowed to date other
men should be called extreme relationships not advanced ones.” Taking the opposing view, Anonymous commented: “I too promised to love, honor and obey my Wife. She
only promised to love me. While She has not dated other men, I know it is Her
right to do if She wishes. While that might hurt me at first, my only concern
is Her happiness. She is free to do as She pleases with no regard to my wishes.
I belong to Her, not Her to me.” With that preamble in mind, here is Dennis’ clarification
of his position, which is obviously in complete sync with the letter and spirit
of The Protocols.)
*
Wedding
vows for a couple entering into or already in a Female-led marriage are
specifically structured to support a role reversal over patriarchal norms. Her not taking a vow of fidelity can simply be
very symbolic of Her authority and his acceptance of it, or it can empower Her
to do as She pleases. It's funny how men as a group have tacitly or openly embraced
infidelity for centuries, but when Women do the same, men get all concerned.
In
a Female-led lifestyle a man fully accepts Her authority to to whatever She
pleases. He also accepts any limits She places on him. It's not a cafeteria
plan where he picks and chooses what She can and cannot do; it's Her choice and
Hers alone, PERIOD! We know of situations where Wives have elected to “pursue
other options,” most often quietly, but sometimes quite openly. Nancy's Aunt
was quite open about Her boyfriends. Carol, my boss, also has boyfriends, but
quietly; it's Her prerogative and i don't say a word to Her husband whom i know
well. On the other hand, were i to find out that Carol's husband was guilty of
an infidelity, i'd tell Carol as i have other Women in the past when their
man's behavior was out of bounds.
i'm
not advocating infidelity, simply accepting one of the tenets of a Female-led
relationship, that being, it's always Her choice
—d
26 comments:
Thank you for writing an article to clarify. I think a relationship's value is largely dependent on how well personalities match up. That will end up dictating how happy they are and how well they work together.
The norm is you stay faithful because you don't want to hurt the other person's self-esteem or take away from what you have with them. But if the principle of focusing on her happiness is how both of your personalities match up, then it might work.
For the sake of argument though, it is easy to say that a wife's freedom is acceptable when it is Nancy's aunt, your boss, or somebody else's wife who is doing it. Have you had to personally deal with your wife spending the night at another man's house knowing she was enjoying herself?
-Greg
Hi,
I'm going to post something BEFORE I even read today's post. This is because I found two VERY interesting articles reported on the news and I am going to tell you what I think this will mean a few years from now (because when you see the articles, posted on CNN today, you will say "wow! the future IS here! and this is going to advance even more, as I will explain, but it's my opinion).
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/02/05/health/bionic-hand/index.html?hpt=hp_t3
and
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/08/28/health/brain-interface/
Both articles are about biological breakthroughs using modern technology to control the nervous system / brain and how it communicates with our bodies and in the second one, even more fascinating, how one brain can communicate with another person's body.
I think this is exactly the foundation for the technology needed to have a feeling "dildo" or a prothesis of a vagina. Not only that, it is also the foundation for one person feeling what the other is... for example a man and a woman switching places completely.
The reason this is so important is because I think this will forever change the way we are able to look at ourselves -- if we are able to see ourselves not as the people inside our bodies but rather as people regardless of the bodies we are in. Of course, I gave sexual examples (sex is a biological function and I did NOT do it to gross anyone out) but I think the implications for example for me, who would love to feel what it is to be a girl are clear. I wonder if anyone here agrees and understands why this is such an important thing for someone who is into Loving Female Authority and who likes to be feminized.
OK read your post and totally agree. This is Matriarchy, and Women are free to manage it as They want. If you don't like it be sure to suck it up and continue to be pretty, pleasing and obeying to your Superior Wife.
I guess I have to choose my words carefully here, since everyone's relationship is different, female-led or not.
In my case, my wife and I married with the traditional, modern vows of loving and cherishing each other faithfully, with no promise to obey on either side. We got married because we wanted to make a public declaration of our love for each other, not some unnamed suitor of the future. This applied every bit as much as to me as to my wife - being a bit faithful is like being a bit pregnant: not really possible.
We are both strong characters, but as time went on, it became clear that my wife was not always right most of the time, but that life seemed better when I was obeying her, pleasing her and putting her first. That didn't apply to other women - I didn't and don't feel inferior to them - but in my relationship, I had to acknowledge that my wife was my superior and rightfully the head of the household.
That has now been the situation for the past three or four years. We discuss things, but her word is law - I am respectful and obedient or I suffer the consequences. To underline the change in our status, we re-stated our wedding vows recently. They were the same as our original vows, except that I promised to love, honour and obey her while kneeling at her feet. When our children have grown up and left home, my wife intends to revert to her maiden name and would like me to assume that name as well. For formal purposes, we shall become Mrs and Mr her first name, her surname.
However, our fidelity to each other will never vary. That was part of the original attraction - constancy, to give it an old-fashioned name - and that long pre-dates the female-led aspect of our marriage.
Thank you for taking the time to post this Dennis, very informative. HOWEVER, just one concern I have is, if for all of history in a men-ruled world, men were taking vows of fidelity along with the woman, despite either one cheating, how does it make sense for only 1 side to make the vow even when that side is now the dominant.
Allow me to clarify: even when males were dominant they still took a vow of fidelity. Because marriage is the union of TWO people. Regardless of who is in charge, who owns who, who obeys who, marriage is about the coming together of two people that love each other. Even if a woman doesnt take vows in order to set the precedent for the marriage that SHE is in charge and has no obligation a to her man, doesnt she still love him? Isnt a marriage about love?
That is my problem. If a woman loved her husband, she would not feel any need to make love to anyone else. She has a man willing to suit her every need and fulfill all her wishes whom she LOVES. So why is it that the women of Nancy's family take other lovers? The implication of this is that they dont love their husbands.
Of course a man should belong to his wife, of course her word and needs should always come before his. Of course he should seek to make her happy no matter what. And she does NOT belong to him and of course is superior. I agree with all of these things it was quite well said and I wouldnt frequent this blog if I didnt.
The problem arises when the woman takes other lovers. Regardless of vows a healthy marriage has a foundation on trust and love for one another. When you obey her every wish and command with a second thought and never question anything she ever does, you are trusting in her ability to rule. And she in turn trusts you to serve her needs. But if she is taking other lovers, regardless of her capacity and right to do so, which I am not arguing, is that really healthy for a relationship? Why would your woman do that when she has you, if she loves you?
-Ronald
To Ronald,
I love my dog, but I decided to go out and buy a second one.
Some people can separate sex and love, others can't. If you love somebody, can you still be attracted to another person? Can you enjoy flirting? Kissing? Sex?
Sex is a need of the body. Like scratching an itch. It can be combined with other emotions, but you can still feel and enjoy satisfactions of the body even without the feeling of love.
If we are still not on the same page, can you give me logic that supports your statement. That a wife having sex with another man, in all cases, means she does not love her husband. If not, then there are some situations where both exist, and Dennis' is possibly one of them.
Steve
Great article. The Wife and i enjoy WLM and She has no vow of obedience or fidelity to me. i enjoy our Marriage that way and so does She.
Thank you for a great post. You are touching on a powerful, explosive and often appealing subject. I get the feeling that dennis is not allowed to post about his Wife's activities on this blog. If so, please say so. If not, we would love to hear how you have handled this situation.
a poet
Well said Steve. For some people to seperate love and sex is understandable and its true that all relationships are different.
HOWEVER, if love and sex are truly seperate of one another, in a relationship such as this. And sex is to be considered a physical need comparable to an itch, then why isnt Dennis allowed to take other lovers too? If sex and love are completely separate then why must Dennis take a vow of fidelity? It seems a bit hypocritical. If love and sex were truly separate and sex was a mere physical whim, then shouldn't Dennis' wife be completely fine with him having sex with other women? Since by your logic it has no relation to his love for her?
Just something to think about.
-Ronald
Ronald,
Because they both get off on the role reversal / hypocritical power exchange. He works so she can play. He obeys so she can spend her time doing as she pleases.
It wouldn't make sense for both people to be obedient to each other. Then it wouldn't be FemDom it would be SubSub.
Her dating while he is at home cleaning just adds to that power exchange.
-Steve
Thank you for this much needed article.
As much as husband and wife, female and male, are different in all ways; physical-sexual, emotional, social, intellectual; a couples marriage vows should never be equal/the same vows. A wife has physical-sexual needs a husband could never understand, and females are naturally more social. The husband is happier when he has a wife to watch over him and to be obedient to. A wife needs freedom to be out with friends doing things she shouldn't have to explain to her husband. Her sexual needs often cannot be satisfied by her husband.
When we married 18 years ago, we used generic vows which committed us to each other, the typical vows almost all marriages used. About five years ago we understood I needed more freedom for myself an he was happier staying home with some chores to keep him occupied. Our sexual lives had become boring-to me. We decided I should have to freedom to do as pleased me, even taking a boyfriend if I chose to.
But I told him i was not able to accept that kind of freedom because of my marriage vows to him. Two years ago we decided to renew our marriage vows: He: to promise to love honor obey and worship me, to surrender all his freedom to satisfy my needs and desires; Me: To promise to love, lead, and discipline him, to accept and enjoy complete freedom. Our marriage is much better today. Taking a boyfriend was not something I jumped right into. After we renewed our vows we walked carefully into this, with many conversations. We both knew this would hurt him but he finally consented to this (even though I did not need his consent with my complete freedom in our vows). After I finally took a lover this past fall, the stress over this went away. He has never met my lover and I do not share many details. But he understand his place in our marriage and he is happier then he ever used to be. And with all my freedom I am happier than I could ever have imagined before
Every marriage vow should allow the wife all the freedom she needs.
To me there are three answers to the question of whether it is justified for the wife to be free to pursue sexual relationships outside of the marriage while the husband is bound to be loyal to her. First, as several have already said, marriage is a joint choice. If the husband goes into it with his eyes open, he has nothing to complain about. Second, a female-led marriage is not just about female leadership. It is about female privilege and female entitlement. Women need the time and space to develop and fulfill themselves. They also need to confidence to go into the broader world and reshape it according to female values. As Helene says, women need the “self-confidence and personal power that comes from an unstoppable sense that what you have to offer is unique, valuable, and perfectly respectable.” This is the premise of a matriarchal world, and it derives from the condition of female privilege in marriage.
The third reason is that men benefit. They get their ego cut down to size by having to concentrate on pleasing their wives. If a man’s wife can have boyfriends on the side, then her husband will have extra incentive to make himself and his actions pleasing to her. If she strays, it is his fault, and it his responsibility to win her affections back. Alternatively, he can take personal pleasure in her conquests and her sexual pleasures. Either way, he has to learn to get his pleasure vicariously from hers. This is a higher male mindset, one of being a “serviceable martyr.” As Blanche Black says, “To be generous, supportive, and yielding to another person by choice is to take on the role of a nurturer. . . . I believe men instinctively crave this experience, this heightened level of self-sacrificial love, and can only fully realize their true masculinity by developing it through finding their role as a nurturer of others.”
While not everyone would be suited to the kind of marriage dennis describes, it does have its win-win logic as Charlotte’s previous post indicates.
LS
Dear Ms. Charlotte,
Thank you for your breathtaking comment. (whew...) Do you tease your husband about his status and your freedom? Could you tell us more about this?
Thank you,
a poet
I liked the comment about dogs. If the male is property his Female owner is allowed to acquire other pieces of property as well. However, it has been my experience that Female owners who use males other than their primary slave will often "loan the slave out" to other Women. This maintains the primacy of the Female and yet does achieve a rough equipoise as the male has the opportunity to be used by other Women. I have been loaned out from time to time usually to full figured firm handed Women who can apply a heavy stroke to my behind and Wife is always amused when She examines the marks left on me when I have been returned. (lawslave)
To respond to the wonderful Charlotte and LS thar were kind enough to give me a response...
LS
1) Of course if the man agrees to it tSince shouldn't be any complaining...thats not what was being discussed though. The topic of discussion is whether or not that should be a protocol to begin with. Any good obedient man should always accept whatever his wife says. But the topic at hand is whether or not its right of a woman to ask that if the FLM is to be considered a healthy one.
2) Of course women are entitled to female privelge and should be given all the space necessary to develop themselves. But since when did privelge equate to doing unjust and harmful things. And since when did women NEED to commit acts of adultery to grow? To gain more confidence? There is a reason why infidelity is also called "cheating."
Of course the women of today should grow up with more confidence and room to grow. By the way to do that is to reinforce that they are intelligent and can also succeed in careers in areas relating to math and science. To reinforce that they are just as capable of getting jobs and moving up to management positions. Not by telling women its ok to have multiple partners despite being married to one.
If a woman really needed room to "grow" in that sense, then why get married at all? She might have well have multiple men serving her every need at home like second class citizens.
3) You are saying that men benefit from having a woman hurt them...the woman can easily hurt the man in other ways that aren't as psychologically damaging and characteristic of abusive relationships. She could punish him physically like many FLR women do to their significant others, or she could simply tell him. Communication is the key to a healthy relationship and all a woman in that situation needs to do is tell her husband he isnt up to par and he should be doing everything in his power to make it up to her. If he doesn't then cheating on him probably wouldn't help a man like that either. He would either get even more disobedient or try to leave the relationship all together
-Ronald
To Miss Charlotte...
I do not doubt that women have sexual needs that men can not understand. After all, the primary difference between male and female is just that: sex. However...by the same logic can't the same be said of the converse? That there are needs that men have that women cannot understand either?
Let's take a look at it from a biological perspective. Think back to the days of cavemen. If a woman has multiple partners she can only be impregnated once every 9months, and when she does become pregenant it is at great physical cost to herself. This is why women in general are a bit picky about what man they let into them, since they must be lest they pick the wrong man and have to carry his baby to term.
Men on the other hand can have as many partners as they want, even multiple a day and still potentially impregnate all of them. With no physical cost to his body since the testes produce semen all the time anyways. From this we can see that from a biological perspective it actually makes more sense inherently for men to have sex with multiple partners compared to women. This would lead to the inference that in fact men have greater sexual needs warranting multiple partners.
BUT thats not the main point here.
You explained the way things worked in your marriage, and I am glad that things have worked out for you. If both parties consent, I dont think there is any argument for multiple partners being a problem.
However, should all FLR without question have this as a tenent? Of course everything should be up to the woman to decide...but what justification is there for her to love a man, marry him, and then take other lovers? That is not a healthy marriage. Even if the woman doesnt have the obligation per say to remain faithful to her husband, if she actually loves him and wants to have a healthy marriage she should make sure that he is ok with it first.
Of course women have sexual needs, but isnt that what a husband is for? I urge everyone here reading this to explore into blogs on FLR in other parts of the world. For example in Malaysia. To quote one blog in Malaysia they treat their husbands like their most prized possession. A property worth showing off to all your friends. Why would you ever need to take another lover when you have one trained to service your every need?
The implication of that is that by taking another lover, you as a woman have failed to train your man to be the best he can be. In a true FLR, the responsibilty is on the woman for everything. If the sex Isnt good the woman must train her man to be better. Make him go to the gym. Control his diet. Train him to please you. If the man in a FLR isnt up to standards then it is the owner and trainer that is at fault, no?
-Ronald
Dennis responds to LS above:
Thank you for your thoughtful post. Your three points are indeed valid ones. Your first, men going into a marriage with open eyes, is so true; many Women are being up front about telling their partners that they are keeping their options open as regards 'friendships' outside of marriage. In all of the female-led relationships we know of, every one of the men was put on notice by his Wife. It doesn't mean that She does or will exercise that option in each case, but that She has the option.
Men have no say in these Wife-led marriages. It is about Female privilege and entitlement and in an FLR, SHE is in control. Most progressive gentlemen in these situations recognize this and act accordingly. Others, particularly those who renewed wedding vows with this new provision, were more uneasy, and a few of us helped these men accept their new situation. We reminded them that, contrary to what men think, it is highly unlikely that any one man can completely satisfy a Woman. Rather, the complex needs of Women necessitated them having other options. men have NOTHING to do with this aspect of Women's lives, and Women are under no obligation to provide details or justify themselves in any way, and that's the way they want it! Many Women need regular 'Girl's-Nights-Out as well as opportunities to date and pursue romantic interludes. Each Woman does this to Her own needs. Wives date openly, sometime having their boyfriend pick them up at home, or having an occasional encounter during business travel, enjoy visiting clubs and bars to “have a few eyes on them”; and some have ongoing relationships with a regular boyfriend(s).
As for the men, more and more they accept their new roles. They find themselves in happier marriages since She is having Her needs fulfilled and he is having his need to serve and obey Her fulfilled as well. Men have accepted the new status quo and are not afraid – at least within our little group of progressive gentlemen – to mention that his Wife is out on a date, or on a business trip having packed a rather sexy club dress and platform heels. And there's always some men engaging in a little gossip when they get together as to what the Wives are doing... It's all very exciting for Women AND men!
d
Dear Mark,
I was wondering if dennis had any response to Mr. Ronald's post above? I can only express my disagreement but can not find the words to argue with him.
Thank you dennis for your clarifying reply. I agree with you that it is a very exciting time because people like you and Nancy are breaking new ground and serving as great examples for new ways of living. You are a great model for a man completely trusting his wife’s leadership, guidance, and supervision and realizing that a man can get fulfillment from that role, including gratification that comes from seeing our Wives enjoy themselves outside of marriage.
I’ve learned from what you say about Women’s “options.” Whether our Wives date is not up to us. That’s their privilege, which is merely the flip side of us getting to be followers and nurturers. No one likes to talk about it, but there are real joys in being subordinate to a powerful woman. There is nothing wrong with it. (recognizing this openly is what so great about this forum) I have had some experience in this and I know that one of those joys is gossip. I can’t quite explain it—maybe it’s a way of participating in our Wives’ interesting, exciting lifestyles —but it is delicious.
LS
I am all for Women fulfilling themselves and exercising their rights and entitlements in order to complete themselves.
However who are they enjoying these relationships with especially if her husband I part of a wider Matriarchal community. Well it would be other males living in the bliss of a Female Led marriage or relationship.
So they would be having extra marital or relationship affairs.
If the males being used to help fulfil a woman were from o/s the Female Led community then perhaps they would be ultimately very unsatisfying to a Woman who likes to lead.
Femsup
dennis responds again to LS:
Your comments show that we truly have role reversal underway. Just as Women under patriarchy were subordinate to men, today we have the emerging elements of Matriarchy, and we, men, are the subordinate ones. Powerful men did as they pleased, and now powerful Women are doing the same. I appreciate your comment about gossip and your speculating that it is one way to participate in the interesting and exciting lifestyles Women are forging.
another response from dennis to LS:
Society is changing and Women are gaining more and more power and influence. With this power comes privilege and we as submissive men have got to accept this. It's all about Her happiness!
A Woman-in-control relationship isn't a smorgasbord where we can pick and choose; it's about Women doing the choosing. When roles were reversed under patriarchy, men never complained; let Women exercise their newfound freedom and men are expressing concern.
d
One small thing missing from this discussion seems to be the question of chastity.
My Mistress/wife discovered my submissive nature before we married as a result of my acceptance of her need for lesbian sex.
I have been her devoted husband and slave for 35 years. During this time I have always had to earn my sexual pleasure. With the addition of chastity for me, very common in FLR i cannot possibly satisfy her needs.
Therefore it is quite proper for Her to seek sexual outlets elsewhere. It in no way diminishes my love and respect for Her and indeed the high She gets from a sexual liaison benefits me tremendously.
FLR means exactly that. It is HER needs that are paramount.
My needs are satisfied by her happiness in my service and devotion to Her.
One small thing missing from this discussion seems to be the question of chastity.
My Mistress/wife discovered my submissive nature before we married as a result of my acceptance of her need for lesbian sex.
I have been her devoted husband and slave for 35 years. During this time I have always had to earn my sexual pleasure. With the addition of chastity for me, very common in FLR i cannot possibly satisfy her needs.
Therefore it is quite proper for Her to seek sexual outlets elsewhere. It in no way diminishes my love and respect for Her and indeed the high She gets from a sexual liaison benefits me tremendously.
FLR means exactly that. It is HER needs that are paramount.
My needs are satisfied by her happiness in my service and devotion to Her.
Thank you for this informative article.
Goddess - You are most welcome. I'm glad to be of service.
Post a Comment