Istara said, “flip a fucking coin. If God is really bothered, He’ll make sure it’s always Heads Up for the man anyway.”
Istara’s funny 
Good grief. Why do people get so worked up over lifestyle D/S relationships? There are plenty of people in D/S relationships, and in many of those the D/S part isn’t just in the bedroom, it extends to their whole life. Why get so upset over someone’s sexual choices? Because the people in it claim they established the relationship because of the Bible?
There’s a big difference between doing it because a diety said to and coming to the agreement based on individual talent rather than sex.
Hmmm…I’m not sure that’s so “safe” to say at all. I’m glad other people mentioned the urban legend about the “Rule of Thumb” but to mention a few other details…as early back as the Code of Hammurabi men were forbidded from beating their wives, and women were clearly given rights to own property, divorce their husbands (although not as easily as today) and own their own businesses. Certainly we can all think of civilization in which women were horribly repressed…and there are still cultures today in which this occurs. For that matter there are and have been many cultures in which both men and women are repressed and treated harshly.
A problem with the Middle Ages and history written about it, is that most documented history during that period pertains almost exclusively to the upper class (who made up I think around 1-4% of the population.) The “law” was simply not handed out to the lower classes in any kind of systematic way, at least not until after the 14th century. It’d doubtful if there was any particular pattern regarding how marriages “looked” during this period. As noted by Barbara Tuchman in “The Calamitous 14th Century”, the fact that those old misogynistic monks wrote so volumously about how women should be quiet and obedient suggests that women during this period were anything but obedient and quiet. If they had been, it wouldn’t have been worth writing about. If it were commonplace it would be like scolding people for not breathing at least 10 times per minute.
Incidentally I have seen some evolutionary theories that actually suggest marriage is not so much for the benefit of either spouse, but rather for the survivability of the offspring, who benefit from two parents.
you can always take this out of the vows. My wife and I certainly did. That brings up an interesting story…my wife is a pretty outgoing person (she likes to talk). When we were chosing readings for our wedding we settled on a nice parable about how a good husband is supposed to act and how a good wife is supposed to act. There is a part in that passage about how a good wife is supposed to remain silent and not speak to often, or something like that. We both found that offensive to our values and decided to remove that bit from the passage. But we forgot to tell the best man, and during the rehearsal he read the entire passage until (knowing how talkative my wife is) began cracking up at the line. Funny time for all, but my wife has wished him fleas in his jockey shorts ever since.
Some of us actually foster our marriages with the ideal of a partnership…which is discussed maturely before the actual wedding. I think my wife and I live up to this rather well.
Wait a minute, do you really think that the Top in a D/S relationship is/should be more talented or able than the Bottom? No, that’s irrelevant…it’s just that the Top wants to be a Top and the Bottom wants to be a Bottom. If that’s how people want to live their lives, why try to argue with them about their kinky sex practices? So what if they think God told them to engage in kinky sex practices? I would think that WHY isn’t really any of our business. If Polycarp enjoys dominating his wife, and his wife enjoys being dominated, let them enjoy their own lives in their own ways.
Lemur, what are you getting at? There’s no comparison between a D/s relationship and a PK marriage. The s in a D/s relationship submits because they LOVE to submit, it turns them on. The attraction for them is the CHANCE to submit. Whereas with a PK arrangement, the submission is enforced from above so to speak, whether or not the wife/submissive enjoys it. And D/s relationships are not ALWAYS with the woman as the submissive, sometimes it’s the man. Sometimes the man and the woman switch places. Sometimes it’s not even male/female. Don’t think the PKers are gonna go for that.
It’s apples and oranges.
Exactly how do you know that’s not what’s going on? Why don’t you think that an appreciable percentage of PK type marriages are D/s relationships? You know, just because it’s a God-sanctioned relationship that doesn’t mean it isn’t kinky. And how is it enforced from above? This is a free country, any woman (or any man) who doesn’t want to be in a submissive marriage is free to leave.
Of course not all D/s relationships are male dominant/female submissive relationships, but some are. And if PK’s claim to be in such a relationship, how can you say that they aren’t?
Very good point, sir. The Pauline-style marriage works for us because of the particular style of people that the two of us are, with Barb preferring to have the decisions made in her behalf – with her will taken into account, and because I love her and want to make her happy. I don’t look on it as “it’s written in Scripture, so that’s the only way to do it.” If it failed to work for us – if my ongoing efforts to help her improve her self-image bear enough fruit that she becomes strongly assertive and uncomfortable with it – why, we’ll change it!
“In such conflicts the wife will always lose” is true only in the context of a direct clash of wills – and the terms in which the husband is supposed to exercise “headship” in Paul’s definition of it presuppose that no such direct clash will in fact occur, and that if it’s headed for one, it’s incumbent on the husband to do all he can to prevent it from happening – including, at the ultimate, “deciding” to do what she wants rather than what he himself wants.
I can very clearly see the potential for abuse in a aggressive-male/submissive-female sort of quasi-stereotype role imagery. But that’s not what we have; it’s not what either of us wants. My wife is an equal partner in our decision-making; I merely have the casting vote if we cannot agree, and that on two conditions: that she continues to assent to it, and that it’s incumbent on me to hold her wishes as dear as or dearer than my own in making that decision.
As for the D/S roleplaying stuff, just because it looks like a wolf from a distance doesn’t make it one; it could be a thylacine. I’ve tried to define as clearly as possible the difference between what I’m talking about an a “the man is always right” scenario – if you don’t buy it, that’s your problem, not mine.
First, I’d like to thank Polycarp, Jarbaby, Shodan, IzzyR and anyone else who I missed that has explained this type of marriage from their perspective. It was fascinating reading for someone to who the whole idea is completely alien. Thank you for clearing up some of my misconceptions
Another question; Does this style of ‘deciding’ have boundaries, or is everything included from what groceries are bought, where to go out and eat, whether sex is on tonight, what type of house to buy ? Is it an across-the-board way of life, or does it only come into play with the ‘big things’ ? Thanks in advance.
Cite, please ?
How exactly does marriage restrict a woman’s liberty, speech and action ?
Elfje, please read the above as referring to marriage today. Thank you.
I actually reckon that She’ll make sure it’s Tails Down for the woman, but that’s just me…
Polycarp, if you will concede to make her happy, what’s the point of making the rule? I realize it works for you, but how often do you actually exercise your authority? Once a week? Once a month? It seems like more lip service to a biblical/religious relic than an actual “system” that you use.
Also, just an observation on my part, but when you said, “if my ongoing efforts to help her improve her self-image bear enough fruit that she becomes strongly assertive and uncomfortable with it – why, we’ll change it!”, wouldn’t some practical decision-making exercises be more of an “effort” or a more effective form of encouragement than a rule that automatically makes your decision the final one? You’ve been married for quite some time, if I remember correctly. I’m interested in your answer – not looking to pick a fight.
It’s quite possible that some PK marriages are D/s relationships in the bedroom. But you need only read the posts on this board to realize that not all of them are. I don’t have a handle on how often PK marriages are D/s. Do you? It would be fascinating to know how much of the PK principles reflect in the bedroom.
I suspect that PK marriage does give guys who are inclined to dominate their wives excellent opportunities to do so. And I can see D/s elements slipping into the bedroom. Frex, a PK husband might say, “From now on, whenever we make love, I am going to tie your hands behind your back (or gag you or whatever). I would like you to wear these bonds, not in shame but as a joyful reminder of your submission to my will and to God’s will.” I mean, how could a proper PK wife say “No” to that one?
In short, I agree that God-sanctioned relationships can be kinky, in fact, I will bet that some of what goes on in a PK marriage outside the bedroom that isn’t overtly kinky would be close enough to D/s lifetyler behavior that your average outside observer would think it was kinda kinky.
And how is it enforced from above? This is a free country, any woman (or any man) who doesn’t want to be in a submissive marriage is free to leave.
Well, in a D/s relationship all that is keeping the relationship together is the interest of both partners in keeping it together. But in the PK instance, the matter of God’s will and the approval of the church come into play. That is what I mean by “enforced from above.” You can say that PK wives are still free to leave their marriages, but it’s just not the same thing. A devout believer is asked to accept the notion that her God demands that she does as her husband says, regardless of her feelings about submitting to him. Don’t you see the difference here? It is belief in God that is central in the PK vision of marriage, not D/s feelings.
**Of course not all D/s relationships are male dominant/female submissive relationships, but some are. And if PK’s claim to be in such a relationship, how can you say that they aren’t? **
The point here is not that PK relationships can’t be D/s, but that D/s relationships aren’t sexist because there’s nothing in the definition of a D/s relationship that demands that one partner be the s because of gender. There are a lot of guys who like to be the submissive, in fact, it’s generally believed that there are more guys who are wanting to submit than there are women willing to dominate them. But in PK marriages, it is always the wife who must submit, and the wife is always female. And that’s sexist.
As for PK, I missed the part where he said he and his wife are having a D/s sexual relationship.
I am of the opinion that much of human interactions that have D/s elements have sexual D/s underpinnings that are not generally recognized as such by the participants, but I’d have to have a much more thorough understanding of PK marriage practices before I’d venture an opinion on what is and what isn’t.
What your are saying is that your marriage is a benevolent dictatorship operating with the full consent of the, er, dictated. What I am saying is that it is still a dictatorship. Beyond that we shall have to agree to disagree.
I’m sure most of us have no bones about the situation: “Ah, well, I’m really not that bothered - you decide.”
But when who gets to decide is pre-negotiated, when one partner gets to make the final decision every time, that’s when it becomes freaky and unworkable to me. Any relationship should be a partnership, and situations and circumstances change.
That’s right. It’s psychologically demeaning (even if the demeaned one doesn’t realize it…other people may perceive it that way). A person might just start believing their decisions can’t possibly hold any merit, and slowly just stop thinking for themselves. Sort of like the kid who is told he’s a loser and then starts behaving like one, because that’s all that’s ever expected.