...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'm sorry you think using the word 'obey' will lead people to realise you do BDSM?

"There are times when the husband will rightly obey the wife because she knows better and is in the lead in that area"

He doesn't actually promise to do it in the wedding service, though, does he?

Most of this discussion is irrelevant to the OP anyway. Yes, there are traditionalists who promise to obey while having no intention of actually doing it- odd, buy they ho. The OP wants to promise to obey because she is intending to actually obey her husband in all things, to be submissive to him. Doesn't matter what anyone else meant when they said "obey"- that's what she meant.

Load of sexist bunkum from the Bishop there. If "obeying" is such a wise, sensible thing to do - how come men aren't clamouring to do it?

Keep the little woman in her place

I have read the whole thread. It's v interesting.

The OP's idea of feminism (the freedom of choice to decide to be subjugated to a man in a relationship) doesn't fit with my idea of feminism (women are equal to men in all things, and this represents both power & responsibility). I can't comment on the BDSM thing as I have no experience of it. I certainly don't have a view on what the OP prefers sexually but it does seem odd to me that that submissive preferences need to be present in non-sexual areas of the relationship, but perhaps that's how it works, I don't know. The OP also said that this relationship worked for her after previous relationships where she had had to be the dominant one - is the current situation a pendulum swing as a result?

I know the thread has moved on but MrsC1966 quoted the Bishop of Norwich's interpretation of "obey" there are times when the husband will rightly obey the wife because she knows better and is the lead in that area. IMO that's a rather woolly dodge, and does not really constitute "obeying". That's taking advice.

If I seek advice from a tax lawyer because s/he is a specialist in that area and, as a result of that advice, I choose a certain path recommended to me by said lawyer, I am not "obeying" - I am making an informed decision. "To obey" is defined as "to comply with or follow the commands, restrictions, wishes or instructions of..." I don't think there is any place for "obeying" in any healthy relationship, and that includes healthy BDSM or traditionally religious marriages.

Submission in a sexual form is all about power, but not how most would think. The sub is the one with the power because they chose to be submissive. All the cards are in their hands and they can take away that submissive attitude at the drop of a hat. It's the choice of giving that person power over you, and it can be quite liberating for people who are into it.

But being submissive as in a good little wife for a easy little life is completely different, and abusive on the dominant's part.

The honour bit is good, but obey is outdated.

What Teauila said.

Tequila Yes. I have posted twice trying to articulate the difference and you just did it in a line.

I saw this thread when it was on page one, but thought I would read through the usual clap trap replies that happen on any BDSM lifestyle subject matter.

Then Tequila came along, who summed it up.

If the Sub wasn't in charge, she wouldn't get the choice whether she would be pledging to "obey", the Dom would, so this thread wouldn't need to exist.

OP, your only question should of been "if you attended a wedding and one person pledged (now we have Gay Marriage it could be either gender), would you get onto our lifestyle choice"?

You have had your answer, "No".

You have also got a clear picture that most people don't understand or know about BDSM lifestyles, as opposed to sexual fetish etc.

Never, Ever declare yourself a Feminist on MN, every decision you are making will be torn apart, even with the limited information available.

Just say it. Not many people will notice and not many people will care. Hardly anybody sticks to their vows anyway, and as it's a religious thing it's a meaningless tradition. Now stop being a drama llama.

She can't say it. She's having a civil ceremony. This entire thread is predicated on something that can't even happen.

The sub is the one with the power because they chose to be submissive. All the cards are in their hands and they can take away that submissive attitude at the drop of a hat.

If it is understood that you can take away the submissive attitude then it is ridiculous to vow to obey (unless you say that you will "honour and obey as long as you feel like it" of course)

"She can't say it. She's having a civil ceremony. This entire thread is predicated on something that can't even happen"

You can customise your vows, if you are getting married, having a blessing, or a civil ceremony.

"If it is understood that you can take away the submissive attitude then it is ridiculous to vow to obey (unless you say that you will "honour and obey as long as you feel like it" of course)"

Ok, so you don't get a BDSM lifestyle.

You could pick apart any vow taken, or declared lifestyle.

Just because you choose a lifestyle doesn't mean that you cannot change.

As with any lifestyle, religion etc.

We're all only human, very rarely do we stick by our promises of any sort, in all our relationships, even sometimes Parent and Child.

We're all only human, very rarely do we stick by our promises of any sort, in all our relationships, even sometimes Parent and Child.

Speak for yourself.

Can a BDSM r'ship survive the sub changing their mind and choosing not to obey? Genuine question.

Sorry I should say choosing not to give the dom the power, obey isn't the right word in the context I don't think.

I think don't say it because of the history of those words. You are doing this out of choice but for millions of women those words have meant a life of slavery, rape and violence which is allowed in law.
I think saying them is disrespectful and ignorant.
I do worry about why men like your partner want to dominate and control women. You may be ok with it but that doesn't make it ok.

It's silly to say the sub is in charge. It's like the idea that slaves actually have power over their masters. May be true in theory but in reality whose the one getting fucked.

I don't think it's fair to say someone's sexual preferences are silly. It's not for me, and I think the power dynamic could be abused (but then so can the dynamic in "normal" relationships). The world would be a v boring place if we were all the same.

We've not had an answer yet I don't think...

Is it only straight women that shouldn't be subs?

This sounds very confused to me.

OP, you have at times said that you submit to your DP in everything and yet at other times, and when things are important to you, you have said that you make your own choices. Which is it?

If you submit only with regards to things that are of minor importance, then it is not so much a submissive role but a lazy, or confrontation avoiding one. It's not really a D/s relationship but a 'deferring to his opinion on mundane stuff' one, but I can see how that doesn't sound as sexy.

If you submit to his decisions even when things are really important to you then it is not a feminist decision. Even if you say that feminism is about choice, what you are doing is making one choice to deprive yourself of a whole plethora of other choices. You are putting yourself in a situation where you have no choice or autonomy. It is a choice in the same way that a woman makes a choice to be prostituted by a pimp. Her only way out is to make the choice to leave.

You would say that this is completely different because he listens to your opinion and would only ever make decisions in your best interests - but what if you fundamentally disagree with regards to what your best interests are? On what basis do you say "against my better judgment I will acquiesce to his choice because ..."?

Because you think that his judgement is actually better than yours? It's not a feminist decision to reach this conclusion as an emotional one rather than logical or rational one.
Because you get off on it? Maybe a valid choice for you, but not a feminist one. It gives you a benefit as an individual, but not as a woman.
Because you have promised to? Again, an emotional rather than rational or logical one, so not a feminist choice.

I do wonder if you have actually had to test this scenario. I find it hard to believe that you would actually 'obey' your DP if he made a choice that was fundamentally contrary to your own views on an issue that is important to you. I suspect that making a promise to always obey actually comes with an unwritten caveat to do so only when it actually suits you and when you decide to, in which case making a vow at your wedding would actually be nothing more than window dressing and role playing and not an honest pledge.

I would say that it is up to you entirely what you do in the bedroom (so long as it is genuinely consensual) but I do find it sad that you feel that your wants and opinions have to be of secondary importance to maintaining your sexual relationship. I hope that don't end up burying your hopes and desires.

Finally, if you do actually acquiesce to his decisions at all times then why are you asking here? Surely you just let him decide.

But it is just role playing that you slip into and out of, isn't it? Don't you want your marriage vows to reflect the truth of your relationship and not the role play side? Or is your relationship based more in fantasy than reality?

It's silly to say the sub is in charge. It's like the idea that slaves actually have power over their masters. May be true in theory but in reality whose the one getting fucked

It's nothing of the sort. A slave is taken forcefully and has no choice other than to relinquish themselves to the masters.
A sub is willingly giving that power to the Dom. It can be taken away just as easily.

I can see it's hard for people to understand the BDSM lifestyle but that's just how it is.

I don't see it as being particularly healthy or honest for anyone of any gender or sexual presence to be in that sort of relationship. But it is a matter for that individual to decide if they want to regardless. I don't think it is healthy to model that sort of relationship to children, but otherwise (shrug) each to their own.

BDSM is unhealthy for anyone. And it is modelled on the idea that women being oppressed, is "sexy". Women are taught to eroticise their oppression.

The fact that in BDSM it is at times the man being dominated, makes no difference to the basic unhealthy aspect of the relationship.

And let's be clear, the ways in which a woman should sexually dominate a man, is still set by men. I read a very interesting chat between women dominatrixes where they were openly saying this. For example, that they wouldn't be able to say to the men in their lives that they were not going to shave, and that the men would have to put up with it. Male patriarchial standards still applied.