...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...

I agree about "the game" - in fact several on this thread from the scene have used that phrase, although notably not the OP. Each couple probably draws the boundaries of the game slightly differently, but I don't know any who completely suspend body autonomy, for example.

Cross post (didn't refresh).

"The game" doesn't mean "the sex game" even though it does include sex. Like "our marriage" means more than just "my sex life with DH".

X-post

Yes, that's my problem. Having that bit seems inappropriate for a healthy D/s relationship. It's like a D/s couple having readings from 50 Shades of Grey at their wedding!

Erm... Sexuality doesn't just mean sex...

"I also don't understand why self-identifying as a feminist is so important to you."

Um, really? We're not talking quantum physics here... you couldn't hazard a guess?

Steely, sorry you've taken a drubbing from a bunch of asshats. I'm as MOR as they come, sexuality wise, but just wanted to wish you all the best with your wedding, whatever you decide to do about your vows.

But as loads of people have already said, and the OP has not acknowledged, she can't have the wording in a civil ceremony anyway. So no wedding sex games.

You can have the vows they suggest or write your own, non-religious ones. Taking the wording from the Book of Common Prayer and removing the God references is not allowed - I know because we tried.

(BTW no way was I including obey as even a civil ceremony was a feminist nightmare)

The comparison with gay people is irrelevant. Gay people, like straight people, are entitled to privacy in their sex lives. When one of them promises to obey the other, suddenly it doesn't feel so healthy and equal.

Look, is this a sex thing or not? I have zero interest in what consenting adults do in private. Spank away, it's none of my beeswax. But being a lifelong liberal I will never get behind the idea of anybody, male female gay or straight, behaving as subordinate to another in their daily lives.

I have loads of gay friends who have entered into civil partnerships. If I was attending their wedding I'd be aghast if one of them promised obedience to the other.

It's totally at odds with modern values.

We know that you don't get it; equally we can't remember not getting it.

I don't get how people can not want to progress in their career; to be intelligent and capable but pass up opportunities to progress (logistics excepted - taking a promotion that scuppers family life, for example). And I could argue against it rationally. But ultimately some people aren't driven by status and I just have to accept that.

Cross post. Yes.

And when you add in previous sexual assault and dealing with concepts of "wanting it" (no) or having been started off by it (also no)... well, damn.

Are private contracts actually a thing? I thought they were just a 50 Shades thing...

Is this like how Game of Thrones fans are naming their daughters Khaleesi?

Feminism is about achieving the liberation of women.

And whilst I agree that feminists can make anti feminist choices and still be feminists, willingly giving up liberation to a man is so fundamentally anti feminist that I don't see how you do that and still be a feminist. You're not just accepting a patriarchial way of life, you're supporting it. That's as anti woman as you get.

A man truly supportive of feminism wants an equal partner. So he's not a feminist either. All you seem to be doing is pandering to his ego and I can see why it makes you feel good. If I abdicated all responsibility for my life choices and day to day decisions to someone else and expected them to shoulder that responsibility, my life would be stress free.

I don't care what the dynamic in your relationship is but I do care that you think you are a feminist voice.

And the dynamics of other relationships aren't relevant because none of them have the oppressive dynamic that comes simply from a man/woman relationship dynamic in a patriarchal society.

Private contracts came way before that crappy book. It's a way of laying down expectations and consent from the off.

Thanks ImOnTop, Ilka, Loon and all the others who are open-minded and actually listening to me.

It's quite shocking how some posters are denouncing me and saying they're liberal in the same sentence, but you're right, it's outside the scope if their understanding and I do get that it's not 'normal', I've always known that.

I don't know, ImOnTop. Are you one ?

Yes he's older than me. All my partners have been, because of how I am. We've been together 3 years and it's the best relationship I've had by miles.

You are contradicting yourself a bit. You say that all your partners have been older than you "because of the way you are" but you also keep saying that your partner is the only person you have wanted to submit to.

I can understand people wanting to be submissive in the bedroom if that turns them on but wanting to expand that to the rest of your life seems a bit pathetic. I also think that it's very contradictory to call yourself a feminist but to then want to publicly declare that you will obey your husband. I know you're not suggesting that everyone should do that but if enough women did we'd go back in time. You really wouldn't be doing feminism any favours.