...to want to say 'honour and obey' in my vows?

[SteelyMindedLiberal]

Background: we're both feminists. He's a strong personality, very intelligent, very loving, considerate, supports my career, does (more than) half the housework, cooking etc. We're not Christian or conservative.

But...

I am completely submissive to him and he sets the tone in every aspect of our relationship. Obviously there is a strong (and very hot!) BDSM undercurrent to all this. But it goes way beyond the bedroom: he leads, I follow, it's obvious and noticeable, and we both love it.

He's 'in charge'; never controlling. I am always listened to, and feel completely equal. I just do as he says and trust him to do the right thing. We're not ashamed of how we are, it's fundamental to us and because of that we want it to be included in our vows. He says it's up to me but he would like it very much, and I really, really want to say it.

BUT: it would mean outing our 'activities' to all our family and friends. I don't want our wedding to become all about that one line. Maybe no one would really care or give it any thought? We're happy to simply say: 'that's our dynamic and it works for us', to most people, but he has a 20-year-old daughter and it's her we're most worried about. She's sassy and worldly and she'd get it at once and probably be fine with it in private, but might find it really embarrassing and awkward... argh!

Help! It's the whole please ourselves or please others thing, I suppose...

No children don't grow up in a vacum but the relationship they see played out between their parents has a profound effect. Doesn't matter if their best friend's parents, or their uncle and aunty are completely different, many people replicate what they were brought up with.

I've never read Fifty Shades of Grey as it sounds like total bollocks, a bit like the OP's "romantic" view of her relationship and her non-existent dilemma.

One of the reasons "Fifty Shades" is bollocks is its portrayal of a D/s relationship!!

I'd love to hear more about how your DH is a feminist.

See, he sounds like an abuser but perhaps he's swell once you get to know him.

I would say that the premise of consent ('I am doing this because of an acted role that brings mutual sexual pleasure, but I could stop at any time I wanted') kind of undoes the 'obey'. It's only really obedience if it's non-consensual, which is why so many feminists have a problem with it.

This is a paradox at the heart of BDSM relationships, and one that makes them a whole lot less 'deviant' than those who participate like to think.

Disregarding the tangent of this thread, I don't see why quote-lifting 'honour and obey' from a traditional Christian service would be desirable for a modern healthy D/s couple choosing civil marriage, who already have a far more relevant personal contract.

That section of marriage rite, from a time when girls had their husbands chosen for them, and had absolutely no rights to leave, and were forced to submit, rather than choosing, should have absolutely nowt to do with modern life.

And I would very much question a dom who called him/herself a feminist who wanted to cherry-pick that bit. What is he? A bloody Gorean?

But meh. Call me judgmental and mundane if you want. And try a specialist D/s forum.

Also, does he ever get to be the submissive one? Or can only a female be submissive?

I think I've changed my mind re the "can't possibly be a feminist" issue. The submission is just a role play, a choice you have been free to make as has your DP, even if you practise it in all areas of life. Bears no relation to the dominance exerted over so many women in the world who genuinely have no choice in the matter.
It's just a game, no matter what you elevate it to, unless you are in a situation where you have no choice but to obey the other person. You're not.

This thread has made me feel like I need a shower. OP why would you want to make any reference, veiled as it may be, in your wedding vows? It is deeply tacky. No other couple I have ever heard of have even thought about their sexual relationship in the context of their wedding. If there is a remote possibility of his daughter working it out FGS don't say it. I cannot imagine anything more cringe inducing than my dad and his new wife referencing their preferences, (be they vanilla, wild or otherwise) in front of a room full of people

Struggling you've said what I was attempting to say, far better than me

Also, does he ever get to be the submissive one? Or can only a female be submissive?

Haven't we been over this multipl times already this thread?

People have personal preferences as to whether they like being dominant or submissive, or whether they like doing both (a person who will play as both, is referred to as a 'switch'). Those people may be any sexual orientation, but they won't play in a role they don't find pleasurable.

Given OP hasn't said whether or not her DP is bisexual or a switch, clearly we can't answer that question.

But believe me, there are MANY F/m, or M/m (or F/f) relationships, and in my experience the majority of men I saw who were into D/s, were submissives. The women were a more evenly mixed bunch.

Excellent post from ImOnTop with a proper understanding of the scene and of the dynamic.

And yy to her reiteration that it's a game regardless of how earnestly we play it.

Your relationship, yes. However, at this point, you'd be cherry-picking bits of religious ceremony (while wanting a civil marriage) and ignoring the historical context they developed in.

It's is apparently, definitely not the OP's religion, otherwise there would never have been an issue. And no, no-one really gets to own religions.

And yy struggling too re the paradox.

Apparently my posts are invisible as I brought this up earlier and nobody listened

Some wonderful, well considered posts from Lilka and ImOnTop, among others. Expressing things far better than I could.

Or did you miss, by any chance, that the legal position is "you don't nick bits of the CoE service if you're specifically choosing the secular ceremony"?

Tilly that bit really is very important in the context of the thread, although OP says she's abandoned the idea for other reasons anyway.

ImOnTop she can say it, just not as part of her legal ceremony.

imontop

It's a direct quote from a religious ceremony, in its secular equivalent. We all know the source. If you tried that kind of thinking in your own writing, be it fiction or academic, you'd not only be a plagiarist, but a crap one!