...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, I can't be bothered to detail endless conversations between me and him to prove some point. I tried to through in an everyday example, and you all howl: TAME. If I told you some stronger stuff, you'd slap that doormat label down.

There is nothing submissive about me, nothing, in every other aspect of my life. Only in relationships with men, specifically this man, because in years of searching, I've never been able to submit to any other because I didn't respect them enough and my personality's too strong.

*throw

You're beginning to sound scary now, or rather, he is. Sorry. You've finally found a man with a personality strong enough to submit to. I don't think most women would be glad to hear that from a friend or family member. It just sounds like the biggest red flag in the world.

Could you elaborate on the car thing? And on how you plan to bring up any children?

And honestly- and I say this as someone a lot older that you- if you think we might throw the "doormat" word at you, just consider if it might be true.

:)

Op I'm sorry if it feels like we are pestering you. I am genuinely interested in trying to understand, and I obviously don't want to know the ins and outs of your bedroom activities! So I was just trying to understand how the submissive thing works in practice outside of the bedroom. You are right the car thing does sound like what goes on in many relationships, as does having huge amounts of respect and trust, so I guess I'm still no clearer about what makes your submissive/dominant relationship different from any other relationship?
I'm not looking for opportunities to call you a doormat, I'm trying to understand what you mean when you use the words submissive and dominant because I have no RL people I can ask!

Good grief. What an existence, whether you've "chosen" it or not. Is there a reason you can't be trusted to use your own brain to make decisions? What a stand-up guy. Real hero. I would weep if you were my DD.

I'm sure you'll think I'm narrow-minded and don't "get" your special relationship, I think you have issues.

Oh, and if any of my friends vowed to obey their DH, I would be horrified. I wouldn't think they were into S&M. I would just think they had lost their mind. And I wouldn't think well of their new DH either.

I hate that something I see as genuinely beautiful has to stay hugely private or be torn apart like this.

My sexual relationship with DH is, to me, a beautiful thing. And a deeply private thing that should stay deeply private.

I see no need to flaunt it all over the shop.

Maybe you don't think you're flaunting yours.

But you are, by making such a fuss over words you're not going to be allowed to say anyway.

Okay, my take on a car thing would be (if it's been agreed and both partners prefer to work this way):

When it comes to big decision, the sub gets an input and expresses their preferences, and the Dom should be taking their opinion into good consideration - because they respect their subs opinion and trust it's a opinion based on good reasons, and I can't think of any Doms I ever met who wouldn't have thought carefully about balancing what their sub wanted with what they wanted.

However, on the final decision, it's the Doms decision, and the sub doesn't get to veto their final decision. If they don't like the car, they put up with it, tough luck

Voting is WAY more of a contentious issue, it's a debate and a half among the BDSM community. People like me think that telling your sub to vote for a certain party is wrong because it's giving yourself more than one vote, and some people don't see the problem (especially people who can't even see the point in voting in the first place!)

Martorana, responses have been made to the children issue - see Lilka's post upthread.

You're reminding me of people who used to (poss. still do) "worry" that gay parents would lead to a child being more likely to grow up gay. We all know sexuality's not like that, & I can't see how OP's kids would pick up D/S sexual tendencies. People (of both sexes) seem to have them or they don't.

Re. children seeing dominant / submissive roles in their parents as the norm - well, that certainly is a problem, I think, when you have situations like conservative Christian parents bringing up kids to believe that women SHOULD submit to men, that only men can have leadership roles, etc. etc.

In this case I don't see an issue unless OP started telling any children that their Dad was the Head of the Family, or the boss, or anything that impacted on their ability to take equal parenting roles or on the children's relationship to them. Re. anything else, it can just be put down to "what works for Mum & Dad, but it's not right for everyone".

I strongly suspect that the arrival of children would change the dynamic to some extent, anyway - I think most people's sexual relationship (& this really is part of OP's sexuality, not her belief system about men & women - she's made that so clear, so many times!) tends to slip down the list of priorities when children are on the scene.

This idea that a straight woman choosing to take on a submissive role somehow bolsters a patriarchal system & needs to be seen in a wider political sense, could of course be extended to heterosexual relationships as a whole. I've read at least one article by Julie Brindel defending political lesbianism, & making very similar points about how our sexuality isn't formed in a vacuum, we're all part of a wider patriarchal society, etc. etc. , & the very act of having sex with a man is contrary to feminist belief (penetration being dominant by nature, etc. etc. ).

I don't agree with this, & I don't think most feminists do. I think most of us would think "fuck that" if told to deny our sexual needs in order to promote a non-patriarchal society. But that's what you're telling the OP to do.

I'm sympathetic to your position. But let me put it another way.

Currently your formal relationship and your D/s status are maintained by mutual consent. You both consent to cohabit, share bills, etc. You consent to submit; he consents to take over responsibility. Within the scene it's well known that although the D is in charge, the s actually holds the power, and can withdraw consent at any - literally any - time.

When you get married, your finances are inextricably linked by law and you no longer have the choices surrounding linked finances, medical decisions, children if there are any, etc.

But you can't, and shouldn't, make a public declaration or private contract (fuck you, Grey) of your current dynamic. Because it can and will change one way or another as you age together and as circumstances external to your marriage change. What if in fifteen years' time he develops dementia? Must you obey him even if he isn't capable of reason? He's making no corresponding promise to make decisions always in both of your best interest, is he?

The vows including "obey" come from a time when a man had some legal responsibility for his wife's conduct. Regardless of the dynamic in your relationship, that no longer applies.

An interesting zombie thread about D/s lifestyles was resurrected recently with very intelligent discussion of their impact within a post-feminist society, relevance to equality and liberalism, and so on. If I can remember what it was called I'll try to link it to you by PM as it's well worth a read.

I do what he tells me to. I trust him not to tell me to do anything stupid or harmful. He doesn't, but he's demanding. I get spanked a lot. That's about the size of it.

Bravo to the right-on Mumsnet sisterhood for telling me my sexuality disqualifies me from being a feminist. Perhaps I should see if there are any shrinks or camps I can go to that can help turn me vanilla. That way I can stand up for women's rights again, because apparently all I'm good for at the moment is believing all women should be sweet, oppressed 'lil housewives who kowtow to their man.

Oh, who was it that objected to the expression 'bdsm' being used to describe a D/s relationship?

Because everything I have ever read/been told says that it stands for bondage + discipline, domination + submission, sadism + masochism. D/s is right there in it, and ime is seen as a big part of the scene (not everyone is into D/s, but not everyone is into sm either) - more people understand bdsm than D/s so that is the easier term to use.

Not wanting to be hit by your partner isn't vanilla

Yuck. Sorry. He sounds deeply creepy.

"You're reminding me of people who used to (poss. still do) "worry" that gay parents would lead to a child being more likely to grow up gay"

Wow. If I could be arsed I'd take offence at that, but hey ho.
So you think it's absolutely fine for children to be in a family where they ask their mother if they can go for a bike ride on Saturday, and she says "we'll have to see what daddy wants to do" because the Dom is in charge of what happens at the weekend. And if they query it, it can easily be sorted by saying "this is how Mum and Dad's relationship works, you can have one that's quite different if you like"

Thanks Fatal. If he got dementia I would take care of him, and wouldn't be obeying him anymore, because that would be ridiculous and our love for each other comes first.

We have a private contract already. We wanted to make it official with marriage but we probably can't anyway by the looks of it, and I'm not sure I could take the outpouring of sympathy anyhow about what a poor oppressed wee pathetic little mouse I am (even though I'm actually massively satisfied and have everything I always wanted).

Think after seeing how quickly and completely folk jump to conclusions, we'll keep it to ourselves!

But how is him choosing your car about your sex life? And why can't he share a manual car if that's hat you prefer?

I am not saying your sexuality disqualifies you from being a feminist. I am saying that a woman promising to obey a man, especially in a public ritual, is an anti-feminist act.

But surely you can understand how a relationship where a woman does what a man tells her to, and declares herself a feminist at the same time, is going to cause confusion?
I really appreciate you taking the time to answer questions here. I'm still struggling with what kind of man wants a partner who does what she's told and never makes a decision of her own. I think my partner would be embarrassed for me if I was like that but each to their own.
I guess it's just extended role play really. From what you've said if he told you to do something that you really objected to (eg sleep with someone you found deeply unattractive) you would say no, so if the game is that he only ever tells you to do things that you are happy to do anyway, then he's not really dominating you, you're just playing those roles. Nothing wrong with that really.

It's not "vanilla" not to want to be hit.

Please don't go down the "oh, all you boring missionary position mundanes have such vanilla lives". As I said, I am sure I am old enough to be your mother- possibly even your grandmother, and I have had experiences you couldn't imagine. And I say get out while you can. And do not have children with this man.

OP, can you answer the bike ride/cinema question?

In terms of the vows, is it true that you can't add any vows to a civil ceremony that are from other ceremonies? If so, surely this whole thing is irrelevant?

If I were going to a civil ceremony I'd think it was odd that someone had used a bit from what I'd consider a religious service within a secular one, so yes, I'd prick up my ears at that point. I don't think I'd make the assumption of a sub/dom relationship though.

It's possible to be in a D/s relationship and be a strong woman and a feminist. It does rather depend on where you draw the line, though.

I suspect you want to say it because it will give you a momentary thrill and forever afterwards he can growl "on our wedding day you promised to obey me" ::wibble::

You can make those vows in private on the day, later. It would be more intimate, more thrilling, more committed.

It's the publicity, the proclamation, that's really rather tacky, sorry. You're not going to wear a collar on the day exvept on your ring finger and it's nobody's business but yours (plural).

Did you get your ideas from Madonna Op?