You know how sometimes an idea niggles and you keep end up cycling around the same basic concept picking at the threads and unraveling the complexities?
Yeah, been having some of that, and the most recent niggle is in part because of a post over on Dumb Domme (she isn’t). Although I am not discussing the same thing she did, it brought the whole general discussion of relationship dynamic up, in terms of equality, etc. I should say, it brought it up again.
Some time ago I posted about relationship inequality as it relates to FLRs and the best part of the whole deal was actually in the comment section.
Ferns and Celtic Queen were (of course!) insightful,
Stabbity was pretty much on the same page as me, Fizz was struck by the way feminine leadership has to be emphasized, and Tom Allen blamed society for the fact that I made a clown car/vagina reference, or… ummmmm, or something like that.
However, the two replies of two commenters in particular are what I wanted to focus on.
DC said,
Without attempting to define FLR’s, when I read blogs and profiles I sense of a few flavors and attendant rationales:
FLR – inherently (genetically?) based
FLR – unhealthy choice based (low male volition, manipulation, irresponsible abdication)
FLR – healthy choice based (high volition) and the space this operates in can range from just sexual to sexual + takeout food decisions + everything in between.The first two flavors seem the dangerous kinds mentioned above and last much more healthy and a type where reasonable people can be accepting of variation because fundamentally there is mutual respect, equality, and fully informed consent (ie. not a ‘minor’ maturity-wise).
In that comment DC very nicely summed up and neatly categorized the difference between what I see as healthy vs. unhealthy in purposefully power imbalanced relationships. I love it when someone comes along and says things that encapsulates ideas floating in my head in this way. I am not uncomfortable with the idea of FLR exactly, or desired power imbalances in relationships, it is the stuff DC points out that makes me uncomfortable.
And now to the last comment I want to discuss;
Peroxide said,
At some point even in an egalitarian partnership one member will have to take the lead.
I’m just curious outside of the sexual arena (where you reign as undisputed queen) if Hubby wants Chinese food and you want Mexican who gets their way? (assuming you don’t end up and *Casa de Changs*)
There was, following that, much consideration on my part about relationship dynamics and since this post in June I’ve continued to re-approached this idea. Egalitarian is all well and good, but someone typically serves as the final word. So, who is it?
After months of evaluation and observation I have a conclusion!
Well, after that exclamation point this is a bit anti-climactic but my conclusion is… I’m still not sure.
I am mostly pretty easy-going… as long as I am not being pushed on or pulled at. I happened to marry someone who is quite particular about rather a lot of stuff and I am really not. For the most part I am content to let him decide where we go on vacation and what restaurant we will eat at. As a proportion, he probably gets what he wants most of the time.
However, that is not really the heart of the matter, is it? The question is, if I have my heart set on one thing, and he has his heart set on something else… who gets what they want?
Very early in our relationship I did a lot of coaching on how he ought to approach this because I refuse to be manipulated or pressured and he tended to try persuading that way. Pushing on me, or pulling on me is about the quickest way to ensure I dig my heels in and then I won’t relent just because I absolutely will not allow that sort of crap to succeed. I respond much better to a logical or concrete basis for persuasion (the Consumer Guide rated his preferred vehicle as a better choice, for example) and I am typically fairly easy to convince.
I asked my husband who he would say wears the pants around here and he gave me a weird look while asking, “Who says stuff like that anymore?? I don’t think anyone does.”
In some one-on-one time with each of our children, a teenager and a preteen, I asked who they thought ran things around here. The elder one gazed into the mid-distance and said, “It seems like it’s dad, but I think really it’s you.” The younger one, a terrible smartass, when asked the same question thought a moment then said with a grin, “Mostly you let dad be in charge.”
My husband tends to remember the to-do list and be more focused on the matters that actually… matter. I specialize in recalling trivia and arcane information and I’m hardly ever focused on day-to-day details of life. The net result of this is that he generally minds the minutiae, and sometimes that includes texting or calling me to tell me what last minute items he needs to cook dinner, and reminding me of when and where to pick up or drop off our kids. This can give the impression he is running the show.
Also, because he is a detail person and very aware of his environment, it tends to really bother him if our house is chaotic at all. Directly as a result of that the children and I have always tidied up just before he comes home from work. It is important to him and I have always rather felt this was a major way in which I deferred to him. I am no fan of squalor but a couple books askew on a coffee table and the like are not likely to even catch my notice, never mind bother me. I do this for him, and only for him.
However, it was recently pointed out to be that although I am certainly accommodating his preference in the matter it probably doesn’t count as an area in which he runs the show because if I am really busy, or otherwise deeply occupied (say for example, I am in the midst of reading a 1042 page book), the tidy up is neglected and he accepts that when it occurs, and either waits til I get around to it, or does it himself. So, is that really him running that show? I don’t know that it is.
There is so much give and take, accommodation and adaptation that occurs in a long term relationship that there isn’t really a definitive—” I am in charge,” or “he is in charge”, or even, “I am in charge of that and he is in charge of this.” We tend to agree on things or persuade each other til consensus is reached, but I think, to be completely honest, 95% of the time, if I have my mind made up— it’s going to go my way,
BUT
between the fact I usually DON’T have my mind made up and that 5% of the time he gets his way even when I do… I feel pretty accurate in declaring it an egalitarian approach. Egalitarian-ish.
January 8th, 2012 at 2:55 am
When discussing with one of my roomates a girl he was seeing for a bit that maybe I might be interested in (I honestly don’t remember how the conversation started.) I asked why it didn’t work out between them and he said, “it was really clear that she wanted to wear the pants in the relationship, but my be you’d like that.”
Being smooth as I am I said, “Well, I do hate wearing pants.” (Way to dodge hat bullet.)
So people do still talk like that.
It seems weird to me that this should be so important to anyone for whom it isn’t a D/s thing. As if it matters so much, that someone likes to have things a certain way, as long as there aren’t major differences shouldn’t these sort of accommodations be easy?
Maybe, it’s just me not completely understanding the desire for dominance, D/s or vanilla, that’s causing my confusion. Or maybe it’s just 3 in the morning.
January 8th, 2012 at 3:25 am
I find the equality thing really interesting.
Whether you call it D/s or not, I honestly think very very few people have equal relationships, even though it’s somehow held up as some ideal and people like to pretend that they do.
Vanilla people don’t explicitly talk about the power imbalance, but it’s always a bit one way because someone has to have the final say in disagreements, someone ‘usually’ wins the fights, someone will have more influence, someone will more often ‘give in’. Whether it’s for healthy reasons or not is debatable.
I’ve had enough vanilla relationships (both before and after ‘finding’ BDSM) to know that if I don’t have the power, it won’t work in the end, because it makes me feel resentful and/or guilty and that shit will eat me up and destroy it.
That’s why it’s important regardless of D/s or not. Some people need to be in a relationship where need a level of control/authority/whatever, and if it’s strong enough, they may end up seeking their counterpart in the BDSM world. I assume for most, the need is there before they identify as ‘dominant’ or ‘submissive’.
Ferns
January 8th, 2012 at 12:05 pm
I thibk Ferns has it about right. In some relationships someone has to be in charge. What CQ and I have is a relationship simply put, built on a kind of company board basis with her having the casting vote ie a 51/49 split. She will always listen to reasoned argument and may change her mind. @DD, if your Husband does the detail etc etc, isn’t that just having a really efficient PA?? You do the strategy, he does the tactics? I only have to listen to my work colleagues and watch any contemporay TV show and you hear things like, “I will check with HQ” or “I will see if I can get a pass out for the night” , or “she who must be obeyed” I think many vanilla relationships operate with someone in charge, maybe FLR’s just formalise it? As Ferns says someone “wins” the argument, in an FLR (ours anyway) the resentment is removed.
January 8th, 2012 at 5:49 pm
My husband, a former military guy, has used that parlance, referring to me as the CO (commanding officer), as in “Yeah, I’d love to go for a weekend motorcycle trip with the guys, let me run it by the CO and get back to you.”
He has also referred to himself as my attaché since logistics, paperwork, and scheduling tend to fall to him. I’ve told him he is actually just a very overworked XO.
I don’t want to, and don’t have to (since I have such an organized and efficient attaché) deal with the daily detail of being in charge. I am happy to leave that up to him and he is good at it. If push comes to shove though? I typically draw the bottom line and it is not a matter of resentment.
January 8th, 2012 at 5:21 pm
Ferns, I found Dumb Domme’s take on this very interesting for the fact that she went through various ways she and J are equal and ways they are not.
I think it is pretty complex and gets more complicated the longer a relationship runs. In the list you gave for example;
final word- usually me
“wins” fights- usually me
has more influence- usually him
give in more often- usually me
So how does that fit together exactly?
January 8th, 2012 at 5:08 pm
3 am hardly ever helps with clarity, but I think really it mostly matters only if it causes problems.
January 8th, 2012 at 6:12 pm
“So how does that fit together exactly?”
It fits together however it does to make you happy! *cop-out smile*
For me, it works this way:
There’s a bunch of stuff I don’t care about.
There’s a bunch of stuff I care about but don’t want to deal with.
There’s a bunch of stuff I care about.
There’s a bunch of stuff that he cares about and I don’t.
For the first, whatever is fine.
For the second he has to take care of it how I want.
For the third he has to do what I say.
For the fourth, he can do what he wants, but I’m not doing it.
In vanilla relationships, I have found that very hard to negotiate. I either get the men who are cowed into doing what I want, or I get the men who want to fight about stupid crap. The ‘vanilla submissives’ work a treat, but it’s difficult still because it’s inherently unfair and funnily enough, most vanilla relationships require a level of perceived ‘fairness’, even if the power is imbalanced, and arguing against that makes me a bitch.
I don’t want to argue about crap (leads to unhappiness). I also don’t want to give in (leads to resentment). I also don’t want him to ‘give in’ (I make a distinction between ‘giving in’ and doing it happily) (leads to guilt). The power plays in those relationships is exhausting to me.
I think it only matters if the magic of navigating it wordlessly (a la most vanilla relationships) doesn’t work. If Peroxide’s friend *knows* that he wants to ‘wear the pants’ and she doesn’t like it, it’s a perfectly valid way to say ‘she isn’t for me’. I would do exactly the same.
I’d add that since obedience is my kink, that is another layer on top, I’m not even really covering that in the above.
Ferns
January 8th, 2012 at 11:02 am
This only concerns so called one on one relationships a.k.a. monogamy. In those relationships that “who’s in charge” thingy is always there indeed. It simply belongs to the culture of vanilla life, including its d/s variant. Power, competition, fake negotiations, coercion, manipulation, punishment etc, it’s all there, all of the time. Sometimes hidden, sometimes out in the open. Sometimes brutal, sometimes polite. But it’s there. Always. And it bothers many. Many get frustrated and confused by it. It’s then when the discussions start.
The workshops, the conferences, the clubs, the blogs, u name it. To find a solution? Nah. To ease the pain? Yeah. To make the uncomfortable comfortable? Sure. People don’t like change. Even resist it when it would be in their best interest. They rather keep things as they r, and discuss things to find a middle road, a compromise, or something. Anything to avoid change, anything to go what they’re really dreaming of. It’s sad. It’s a waste of time. It’s keeping people from making the only decision they should make. We can do without all that. I do.
January 8th, 2012 at 5:23 pm
Good for you.
January 8th, 2012 at 9:44 pm
Oh oh, now i feel guilty for having such an easy life, for never having to think or bother about equality, finding out whose turn it is to have the pants, and other dangerous threats which could damage or ruin my multiple relationships, while u gals have to live in those terribly complicated and complex situations. It’s not fair dammit.
But u know what they say eh? Life is a bitch. And u know what’s so good for me also? I’m living with a few of them.
January 9th, 2012 at 1:05 am
No need for guilt.
You’ve found a way that works for you. That’s great.
Enjoy yourself, Ayesha, and your relationships.
At my house we also have a working system. I don’t find it particularly easy to define or categorize, but my ability or inability to describe and analyze our dynamic doesn’t mean change its effectiveness.
Many people prefer monogamy and heterosexuaity, and exploring ideas about power exchange within that context is interesting to us. The sharing of ideas on the matter, and the thoughts provoked by those ideas, are the purpose of posts like this. It’s about living a life examined, not about registering complaints.
BTW, I’ve not seen that anyone here was complaining that their life was unfair.
I understand you reject all these matters out of hand, and you are certainly welcome to do so. You’ve made yourself quite clear. Your lack of interest and support is duly noted but be prepared, this topic is no where near an end, so there will undoubtedly be more conversation.
January 9th, 2012 at 8:46 pm
More conversation? Oh okay. Maybe the club could converse this?
1) FLR is an invention of males, embraced by women lacking the courage to stand up to their man all by themselves.
2) Chastity is an invention of males to save themselves from the embarrassment of premature ejaculation, or other penile dysfunctions, embraced by women who have difficulties with saying “no” to their man when not in the mood.
January 8th, 2012 at 7:50 pm
First, I hope it’s okay that I’m flattered by having re-aggravated your niggle.
Second, does anyone have a review of that Casa de Chang’s that Peroxide mentioned?
While I muddle about in a not-unpleasant volley of thoughts in my head and simultaneously admire the eloquence of various ladies and gents here and elsewhere, I’ll need to find someplace to go for dinner tonight.
January 9th, 2012 at 1:08 am
DumbDomme,
Ooooh, yes, be flattered. That is a completely reasonable response.
I’ve never been to Casa de Changs, so I am no use to you there, so sorry.
January 8th, 2012 at 7:52 pm
What seems to me ‘equal’ about great D/s or FL relationships is that both sides have tremendous ‘freedom to choose’. The Dom/me obviously makes many choices But as Ferns has pointed, submission ends when the submissive no longer consents – so even the submissive has significant freedom in choosing to yield.
You may cede many of the day to day decisions because you don’t have strong opinions or you don’t care to ‘own’ the logistics (or you don’t care to put pants on that day and allow him to!). But the bottom line is you still have the freedom to make the choice when you care to.
In the book I mentioned on Dumb Domme’s blog, Sen says economists and philosophers have tended to look at equality of resources/assets or happiness (utility,), but his focus is on the equality of “the substantive freedoms people have … practical choice to function in important ways if they so wish…” (this from the wikipedia version). He also points out how people may have less freedom… through ignorance, lack of resources, poor health, etc. When these are at play, one can predict that the D/s dynamic is more at risk.
So even though, in any given decision or context, things may seem unequal, maybe there is neat ‘equalness’ in each person’s freedom to choose.
Okay I’ve blabbed on long enough.. Feel free to choose to silence me!
January 9th, 2012 at 12:22 am
DC,
ooooooh, good point, there is a great deal of equality when each person exercises their freedom to choose, I like that!
January 9th, 2012 at 12:30 am
@DC: “What seems to me ‘equal’ about great D/s or FL relationships is that both sides have tremendous ‘freedom to choose’.”
To me this is a different discussion. If we are going to go there, we have equality of value, equality of right to happiness, equality of participation etc.
If we are going the route of ‘freedom to choose’, I’d argue that the real power is with the one least invested in the relationship because they are most willing to walk away.
In relationships that work, that’s not an explicit type of power, even if each party might know who that is, but in relationships that *aren’t* working, the one who is afraid that the other will leave is the one who will compromise everything to keep them. It’s hellishly common, and ‘dominant or submissive’ there is completely irrelevant. I’ve seen dominants become service tops in an effort to ‘keep their man’. It doesn’t work for long.
Ferns
February 16th, 2012 at 2:18 pm
[...] little bit ago we were again discussing how things work around the dishevelled domicile, in terms of who is in charge. Somehow the topic came up in chat [...]