|
|
Post by bballgirl on Apr 16, 2016 7:23:24 GMT -5
I've read that article before.
I don't like it and I don't agree with it.
A woman or a man should not change who
they authentically are. As well a person
can be more dominant on one issue with the
marriage but not another.
To be overall submissive is not healthy
if you are compromising your true self.
The key to any relationship is communication.
I was submissive in my marriage and look
how that worked out for me. I am passive
by nature and believe in picking your battles.
I believe if early on in my marriage if I would
have said "look I need sex at least once a week
or we are heading for a divorce" then maybe
things would have turned out differently.
However my ex was a liar and manipulator
and I believed his excuses not to have sex.
Also the rejection took it's toll and when you
throw yourself at your husband to have sex
and you get rejected - well you can kick the dog
in the head so many times, eventually the dog
won't come back even though she will continue
to cook, clean and love him because the bottom
line is SELFISHNESS on their part.
SEX is the one thing that makes a marriage
different from any other relationship.
I have a lot of platonic male friends.
One in particular knows me better than my ex.
We talk and communicate. I learned a big lesson
from my failed marriage about speaking
my mind to my wants and desires and not just
sexually in order to promote compatibility.
Communication and Compatibility-Key!
As far as the sexual submission - most women
are naturally submissive and most men are naturally
Dominant. Sex should also be fun and
we should challenge ourselves to every once
in a while step outside our comfort zone and keep
it fresh!
|
|
|
|
Post by greatcoastal on Apr 16, 2016 9:23:15 GMT -5
What I am interested in for you - GC - is that you all kind of defined your roles from the get-go. You allowed her to be more dominant. That is a difficult ship to right. I am not saying that you abdicated your power - but when you set up your current situation - how far did you all go in discussing boundaries and the realms of each person's duty? Did anyone have misgivings before embarking on it that weren't totally fleshed out before doing so? Thank you for your concern! (That is 100 percent more than I will get from my detached wife in the next few months!) here are four main things that abdicated power that we "initially"agreed on; stay at home dad, homeschool, adoption, and father in law living with us. Duties and boundaries are established in the beginning. Things change over time, the devil is in the details, they creep up on you. Like you said, a difficult ship to right. Another big factor has been computers. My wife being a electrical engineer, and me being a truck driver and an optician, guess who has the upper hand. Computers involve, budget, finance, paying the bills, purchasing things, planning vacations, homeschool classes, homeschool events, entertainment, addiction to games, social sites, etc.... Yes I am on here daily. Not until the realization of SM. Before that an occasional posting of paintings. Life is quite nice without a computer, but not for the rest of my family! the other day it took me three days to post a painting! Due to our screwed up computer system. Far to many of them, loaded with different codes, tabs, passwords, etc.... I think about the day when I have my own place. One computer, with very little on it. Very few games for teens, things staying much straighter, and more outdoor activities! ( and sex in the rain in my own backyard!) |
|
|
|
Post by petrushka on Apr 16, 2016 9:41:16 GMT -5
I followed that link. I read the first 'chapter'. I just about ended up spewing into the keyboard. Who does this chippie think she is that she can explain God's thinking to me?
She's read one of the world's most ambiguous, self-contradictory and in parts outright lunatic pieces of literature and now she knows and understands everything, she is the mouthpiece of God, her interpretation has given her the authority.
Ye gods. Even the Pope is more gracious and measured than that, and he's been studying that book for decades, including Ancient Greek and Hebrew versions.
No, sorry, I didn't get past that first chapter. People like her live on a different planet from mine. She has nothing of relevance to say to me. Nada. Niente. Nix.
There is a flavour of fundamentalist X-tianity in America that, to me, smacks of Deepest Dark Ages, pre-medieval, theologically speaking, to my thinking. These people need to read some Spinoza.
|
|
|
|
Post by petrushka on Apr 16, 2016 9:49:48 GMT -5
As far as the sexual submission - most women are naturally submissive and most men are naturally Dominant. Sex should also be fun and we should challenge ourselves to every once in a while step outside our comfort zone and keep it fresh! I don't know about that, bballgirl. I've maybe had 40-50 sexual partners in my life. I don't think I've met one woman who was naturally submissive. It's always been about "I give you pleasure and you give me pleasure". And sometimes "I take my pleasure off you and some day you can take your pleasure off me" - always reciprocal. I've never been remotely interested in being dominant. Yeah, it doesn't always work out. That's for sure. If the things I like are the things you hate, if you want what I can't do for you, then we'd better stop doing this, since it's supposed to be fun, fun for both of us. Someone expecting to submit or expecting to submit to me in that situation is going to get a right real talking to. Unless being submissive is your particular kink, in which case you need to find a partner who can actually fill that need for you. |
|
|
|
Post by bballgirl on Apr 16, 2016 10:27:15 GMT -5
As far as the sexual submission - most women are naturally submissive and most men are naturally Dominant. Sex should also be fun and we should challenge ourselves to every once in a while step outside our comfort zone and keep it fresh! I don't know about that, bballgirl. I've maybe had 40-50 sexual partners in my life. I don't think I've met one woman who was naturally submissive. It's always been about "I give you pleasure and you give me pleasure". And sometimes "I take my pleasure off you and some day you can take your pleasure off me" - always reciprocal. I've never been remotely interested in being dominant. Yeah, it doesn't always work out. That's for sure. If the things I like are the things you hate, if you want what I can't do for you, then we'd better stop doing this, since it's supposed to be fun, fun for both of us. Someone expecting to submit or expecting to submit to me in that situation is going to get a right real talking to. Unless being submissive is your particular kink, in which case you need to find a partner who can actually fill that need for you. I agree with a lot of what you said and I am nowhere sexually experienced as you so I can only base my statements on my few experiences. I agree that it should be a give and take and compatibility is so important. I guess when I was referring to the gender dominant/ submissive roles. I think I was talking about wiring where a woman wants to be pursued including the bedroom and men are wired to be hunters and like the chase. My AP tied me up because he lost the SuperBowl bet we had. A month later I tied him up which was a challenge for me to do. I think the two decades of a SM have given me a lot of ideas about sex that I'm trying to rewire in my head. Sex is really the easy part of a relationship or at least it should be if you are with the right person. Again I agree with your point of view. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2016 12:12:46 GMT -5
I am not religious, although both my husband and I have had a relligious background in our childhood. Since my husband has begon to realize that there is a significant chance that I will leave him one day, he has been bringing up religious arguments. One of them that the man is the head of the family according to the bible. It annoys me enormously that now all of a sudden he is dragging God into it. In my opinion the bible is a human interpretation of life and religion and it is purely a wish of men (in biblical times) having women submit to them. Most of all I really can't stand it to bring up religion only when it can be used as a controlling tool. I agree. Religion seems to make a woman less of a human than that of man. That sounds like the attitude of a narcissist to me. Hear, hear! This is just one of many reasons why I don't trust organized religion. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2016 12:17:14 GMT -5
Most churches (not all) that I've encountered have two main rules:
1) Don't have sex (unless you're married & wiling to have a baby every year);
2) Give us money.
|
|
|
|
Post by DryCreek on Apr 16, 2016 15:18:02 GMT -5
A lot of today's relationship issues come from misaligned expectations. That gap in expectations is caused by a lack of clearly defined roles.
It used to be that those roles were clearly defined by tradition, so everyone had a clear idea of "who does what" in the relationship. People want to reject those traditional stereotypes and structures, but that comes with a requirement to clearly define the alternative early in the relationship, not just let it freewheel. That's not being done, and it's leading to a whole lot of chaos later.
In the effort to break stereotypes and encourage people to pursue their dreams / realize their true potential, society has taken the concept too far and demonized even the idea of structure and roles. "We're all equal members of a team, and decisions should be based on consensus."
That's not how functional structures work. Even teams have clearly defined roles, and those roles are filled based on a combination of interest and ability. And teams have leaders - everybody may have input, but the buck stops with one person.
Leaving roles ambiguous invites opportunity for things to fall through the cracks. Clearly defined roles translate to accountability - "It's your responsibility to ensure that X gets done. You might enlist others, but at the end of the day you're accountable for it being handled."
Point being, whether you assign "him" or "her" to different roles, it doesn't matter. The "traditional" model provided a default that everyone came to expect; while folks have been eager to break that mold, they haven't been so diligent to make sure that all the roles and responsibilities are clearly assigned. So we end up with "but I thought you had that covered".
|
|
|
|
Post by DryCreek on Apr 16, 2016 15:39:32 GMT -5
Most churches (not all) that I've encountered have two main rules: 1) Don't have sex (unless you're married & wiling to have a baby every year); 2) Give us money. Many (most?) religions and churches have long lost sight of their original mission. Human desire to control and a dependency on money frequently consume them. |
|
|
|
Post by greatcoastal on Apr 16, 2016 15:55:09 GMT -5
A lot of today's relationship issues come from misaligned expectations. That gap in expectations is caused by a lack of clearly defined roles. It used to be that those roles were clearly defined by tradition, so everyone had a clear idea of "who does what" in the relationship. People want to reject those traditional stereotypes and structures, but that comes with a requirement to clearly define the alternative early in the relationship, not just let it freewheel. That's not being done, and it's leading to a whole lot of chaos later. In the effort to break stereotypes and encourage people to pursue their dreams / realize their true potential, society has taken the concept too far and demonized even the idea of structure and roles. "We're all equal members of a team, and decisions should be based on consensus." That's not how functional structures work. Even teams have clearly defined roles, and those roles are filled based on a combination of interest and ability. And teams have leaders - everybody may have input, but the buck stops with one person. Leaving roles ambiguous invites opportunity for things to fall through the cracks. Clearly defined roles translate to accountability - "It's your responsibility to ensure that X gets done. You might enlist others, but at the end of the day you're accountable for it being handled." Point being, whether you assign "him" or "her" to different roles, it doesn't matter. The "traditional" model provided a default that everyone came to expect; while folks have been eager to break that mold, they haven't been so diligent to make sure that all the roles and responsibilities are clearly assigned. So we end up with "but I thought you had that covered". I like were you are going with this! A major flaw in such a system occurs in home and in business when a person willingly takes on a new position, finds out it wasn't what they were first told, problems can not be solved by other employees or family members, stubbornness kicks in when changes are suggested, finger pointing begins, and everything has to crumble before things get fixed. I just described our never ending home school situation. Throw asexual in there and you've got divorce. |
|
|
|
Post by RumRunner on Apr 16, 2016 16:22:39 GMT -5
I've read that article before. I don't like it and I don't agree with it. A woman or a man should not change who they authentically are. As well a person can be more dominant on one issue with the marriage but not another. To be overall submissive is not healthy if you are compromising your true self. The key to any relationship is communication. I was submissive in my marriage and look how that worked out for me. I am passive by nature and believe in picking your battles. I believe if early on in my marriage if I would have said "look I need sex at least once a week or we are heading for a divorce" then maybe things would have turned out differently. However my ex was a liar and manipulator and I believed his excuses not to have sex. Also the rejection took it's toll and when you throw yourself at your husband to have sex and you get rejected - well you can kick the dog in the head so many times, eventually the dog won't come back even though she will continue to cook, clean and love him because the bottom line is SELFISHNESS on their part. SEX is the one thing that makes a marriage different from any other relationship. I have a lot of platonic male friends. One in particular knows me better than my ex. We talk and communicate. I learned a big lesson from my failed marriage about speaking my mind to my wants and desires and not just sexually in order to promote compatibility. Communication and Compatibility-Key! As far as the sexual submission - most women are naturally submissive and most men are naturally Dominant. Sex should also be fun and we should challenge ourselves to every once in a while step outside our comfort zone and keep it fresh! You are soooooo very right! Very well written! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2016 19:40:57 GMT -5
This isn't about D/s or who takes the lead in bed. This is about women are supposed to defer to their husband in all things. This woman demeans women more than Larry Flynt. Hustler objectifies women but it doesn't tell them to obey. Obey. But hey a godly man won't withhold sex, so they must be doing something right. Dismantle patriarchy. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2016 19:44:01 GMT -5
Most churches (not all) that I've encountered have two main rules: 1) Don't have sex (unless you're married & wiling to have a baby every year); 2) Give us money. You got the order backwards. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2016 19:52:51 GMT -5
As far as the sexual submission - most women are naturally submissive and most men are naturally Dominant. Sex should also be fun and we should challenge ourselves to every once in a while step outside our comfort zone and keep it fresh! I don't know about that, bballgirl. I've maybe had 40-50 sexual partners in my life. I don't think I've met one woman who was naturally submissive. It's always been about "I give you pleasure and you give me pleasure". And sometimes "I take my pleasure off you and some day you can take your pleasure off me" - always reciprocal. I've never been remotely interested in being dominant. Yeah, it doesn't always work out. That's for sure. If the things I like are the things you hate, if you want what I can't do for you, then we'd better stop doing this, since it's supposed to be fun, fun for both of us. Someone expecting to submit or expecting to submit to me in that situation is going to get a right real talking to. Unless being submissive is your particular kink, in which case you need to find a partner who can actually fill that need for you. I've had seven partners. Two described themselves as submissive in the sack and lived up to the hype. One wanted me to take charge more. One wore a leather collar. The other three, one was my first so we had no clue what we were doing, one thought I was a homosexual, and one was about down the middle with dominance and submission. Your sample size is bigger (lucky bastard LOL) but at least my experience has been mostly with women who want to hand over the reigns (sometimes literally) in bed. |
|
|
|
Post by greatcoastal on Apr 16, 2016 20:00:37 GMT -5
This isn't about D/s or who takes the lead in bed. This is about women are supposed to defer to their husband in all things. This woman demeans women more than Larry Flynt. Hustler objectifies women but it doesn't tell them to obey. Obey. But hey a godly man won't withhold sex, so they must be doing something right. Dismantle patriarchy. Hey whatever floats your boat! For me this was about people, ( men included) that have a strong desire to control. And are against submission of any kind. Don't know why that is so hard to grasp. Maybe Larry Flint is easier to understand. I'll take your more than helpful, very considerate advice, for someone who is struggling with a manipulative controller in a SM. |
|
