# Why Do You Hesitate?



## ladymisato

I have been practicing wife led marriage for almost two decades. By now it is as natural to me as breathing. And, yet, I look around at so many unhappy marriages that could be successful if the wife would only give it a try.

Whenever I try to explain why wives don't explore their own erotic power I find that it is much easier to first describe those women who are more willing.

Let us begin with the naturally dominant woman. Although for reasons of biology and culture women are, on average, less dominant than men, still, overall, by sheer dent of numbers and probability, it is frequently the case that the wife's will is stronger than her husband's. You've all met, I'm sure, women who show no hesitation to voicing their opinions in mixed company and domineering women have long been the brunt of jokes; they have always existed.

On the other hand, there are naturally submissive men. While culture encourages men to dominate their wives even if they are weak in every other aspect of their lives, there are some men who are comfortable with the fact that they are less willful than their wives and who are quite willing to allow their wives to tell them what to do. Wives who sense this often step into the power vacuum and do so.

On a sadder note, there are far too many marriages in grave difficulty and on the road to divorce. Sometimes wives recognize this in time and open up to unorthodox methods to solve their marital problems.

But while the above may dispose a woman to exploring her erotic power, still, there is one additional essential ingredient: comfort with sexuality. Women who are confident about their own sexuality are much more willing to explore their own erotic power.

So what is holding women back? I have identified several ideas that stand in the way of wife led marriage.

The most obvious and common is simple caution. A cautious person will prefer almost any present difficulty to the risk of losing ground. That applies ten-fold where one's marriage is concerned. Sadly, this risk aversion extends event to many women who are facing divorce: they would rather go through divorce than test their erotic power.

Much of this risk aversion flows from another hurdle: tradition. Cultural tradition places women in a particular position in marriage. The old tradition held that a wife should submit to her husband. Modern tradition holds that women should aspire to equality with men. But there is no tradition of women leading men in marriage. And, further, sex in marriage is traditionally regarded as something to be kept to a minimum in the bedroom. Ironically, there is far more sexual liberation outside of marriage than within!

Finally, there is the desire for normality. Let's be honest, a wife led marriage is not normal. Erotic power is not normal. Everyone is not doing it. To take your marriage down this path is to diverge significantly from the herd.

Culture teaches ideals and many of these ideals run counter to erotic power.

The most common ideal of marriage is the idea of romance: a woman and a man love each other and dedicate their lives to each other in a bond of mutual respect and admiration. Erotic power upsets this ideal by enabling the wife to have an outsized control of the marriage and a disproportionate influence over her husband. And while the romantic ideal may allow for seduction into marriage it does not traditionally account for seduction within the marriage.

In a similar vein, a woman may recoil at erotic power out of deference to her husband's autonomy. Modern ideals of human autonomy discourage coercion and celebrate the unencumbered life. Live and let live. A woman may insist, for example, that her husband should freely choose to do things for her, not be coerced or seduced into it. Erotic power is, after all, a power and, as the belief goes, coercive.

Perhaps the most formal impediment to erotic power is the egalitarian ideal. After struggling for sexual equality for decades women are naturally hesitant to throw that away for a position of dominance in their own marriage. They want to be equal partners with their husbands. How can you be equal to someone you dominate?

Lastly, sexuality is a very difficult subject for many women for a variety of reasons. Many women are, quite frankly, uncomfortable with their own sexuality and with the difference between men and women in this regard. They would much rather relegate sex to the bedroom where it is kept in a small box only to be opened when absolutely necessary. Wives tend to be far more comfortable nagging than seducing.

And, yet, you would have a very difficult time finding a woman who doesn't, in her heart, believe that her marriage would be far better if only her husband would listen to her more often. She would be happier and, truth be told, he would too. If only he would do what she says!

Women recognize that, in many ways, they are better decision makers than their husbands. They want to have more control over their marriages and even over their husbands. But for the above reasons they are uncomfortable with this desire for control. They deny, avoid, and suppress it and suffer the consequences.

My hope is that in identifying the various reasons that wives hesitate to explore erotic power in their marriage I can prompt some to rethink their own preconceptions and ideals.

After all, how valuable can an idea be if it destroys your marriage?


----------



## Sbrown

Huh...

Scott


----------



## tigerlily99

I feel like I would understand what you are saying better if you gave a practical example or two. 
I'm assuming your not JUST talking about the bedroom when you discuss using 'erotic power' to make decisions? But I have no idea what that would look like. 
Can you elaborate?


----------



## aine

This sounds like an academic paper, you could make the same points in one sentence 5-6 bullet points. And yes, you need practical examples.


----------



## ladymisato

tigerlily99 said:


> I feel like I would understand what you are saying better if you gave a practical example or two.
> I'm assuming your not JUST talking about the bedroom when you discuss using 'erotic power' to make decisions? But I have no idea what that would look like.
> Can you elaborate?





aine said:


> This sounds like an academic paper, you could make the same points in one sentence 5-6 bullet points. And yes, you need practical examples.


Yes, begins in the bedroom but applies to the marriage, generally.

What would it look like? It looks like seduction. You seduce your husband to get your way.

Here is an example: suppose you and your husband disagree on some subject, say what movie to go see or whether to eat at home or go out for dinner. Erotic power trumps all other ways of deciding. You get your way and he agrees.

Or suppose you want your husband to do more work around the house. You apply a little erotic power and he agrees.

Or maybe you want him to quit his job and become a SAHD because you are making more than him. Even though he is making less he has the typical male attachment to his career. You press hard and he agrees.

What does it look like? A bit like a 1950s marriage in reverse.


----------



## Sbrown

Lmao, and if he doesn't agree and just expects his wife to be his wife? What if he flipped it around on her? Then who wins? If my wife offered to trade sexual favors for me to do what she wants I'd throw her the BOB and tell her to have fun. Smh. Do you really believe that men are just mindless sex craved maniacs that will do anything for sex? 

Scott


----------



## Heatherknows

Sbrown said:


> Lmao, and if he doesn't agree and just expects his wife to be his wife? What if he flipped it around on her? Then who wins? If my wife offered to trade sexual favors for me to do what she wants I'd throw her the BOB and tell her to have fun. Smh. Do you really believe that men are just mindless sex craved maniacs that will do anything for sex?
> 
> Scott


My husband isn't a mindless sex craved maniac. He'd rather take a nap. Naps are my lure.


----------



## tigerlily99

Heatherknows said:


> My husband isn't a mindless sex craved maniac. He'd rather take a nap. Naps are my lure.



Haha! I should use that one to my advantage too.
I could see it now: "If you do x,y,z I will give you full protection from the child, door bell and wandering dog to take a long luxurious nap without interruption."
Bwhaha!


----------



## Thundarr

My guess? A lot of women want a guy who is willing lead. Even dominant women often want a partner to share the lead with. So digging into their erotic power to lead the relationship won't make them happy if their need for a partner of equal leadership ability isn't being met. Just my thoughts.

They hesitate because it's not what they want or at least it's not the way they want to get it.


----------



## Adelais

Thundarr said:


> My guess? A lot of women want a guy who is willing lead. Even dominant women often want a partner to share the lead with. So digging into their erotic power to lead the relationship won't make them happy if their need for a partner of equal leadership ability isn't being met. Just my thoughts.
> 
> They hesitate because it's not what they want or at least it's not the way they want to get it.


This woman is strong, but wants a stronger man to respect, to protect her, to help make decisions and to help get things done, to look to for advice and wisdom when I am not sure. If I thought my man could be manipulated to do whatever I want just by using my erotic power, he would not be interesting to me. He needs to have a mind of his own, but that mind needs to be in tune, "one" with mine, where he knows that we both have similar goals, while having different needs.


----------



## frusdil

Thundarr said:


> My guess? A lot of women want a guy who is willing lead. Even dominant women often want a partner to share the lead with.
> 
> They hesitate because it's not what they want or at least it's not the way they want to get it.


^^Yep.

I myself want just that. I don't want to be in charge, I don't want to "be the man", I want my husband to do it.

That doesn't mean I get no say or am a submissive waif of a wife. No way. I'm very vocal about my needs/wants, and hubby and I discuss everything as a team. I get the same input as he does. He makes the final decision on most things - sometimes he'll ask me to as he's unsure, but in either case, we both trust the other to do what's right for our marriage and family.


----------



## Married but Happy

Dominant wife plus submissive husband - female lead marriage. This can work.
Dominant husband plus submissive wife - male lead marriage. This can work.
Both competent and confident - co-equal, cooperative marriage - IMO, the best kind of partnership.


----------



## Thundarr

IMFarAboveRubies said:


> This woman is strong, but wants a stronger man to respect, to protect her, to help make decisions and to help get things done, to look to for advice and wisdom when I am not sure. If I thought my man could be manipulated to do whatever I want just by using my erotic power, he would not be interesting to me. He needs to have a mind of his own, but that mind needs to be in tune, "one" with mine, where he knows that we both have similar goals, while having different needs.





frusdil said:


> ^^Yep.
> 
> I myself want just that. I don't want to be in charge, I don't want to "be the man", I want my husband to do it.
> 
> That doesn't mean I get no say or am a submissive waif of a wife. No way. I'm very vocal about my needs/wants, and hubby and I discuss everything as a team. I get the same input as he does. He makes the final decision on most things - sometimes he'll ask me to as he's unsure, but in either case, we both trust the other to do what's right for our marriage and family.


Most men need to be respected and most women need a man they respect. This is something we men are statistically inferior on. Too many men are happy with arm candy alone. I'm not sure how relevant this was to your comments IMFarAboveRubies and frusdil. It just popped in my head when reading your posts .


----------



## EleGirl

To find out more about what the OP is suggesting.. there is this thread:

http://talkaboutmarriage.com/general-relationship-discussion/211954-wife-led-marriage.html


----------



## Holland

No hesitation at all here, it simply is not how I want to live, it would go against my nature. No judgement call on those that it works for but to suggest there is any hesitation is not correct.

I am a strong, independent, successful, hard working, feminine, sex loving woman. I do not want to manage my man as my preference is for a team that is based on equity (as opposed to equality for the sake of it). I enjoy the banter and discussions we have, the way can compromise and how we work together.

I could not respect a submissive man. I am a mother and a good one at that but I don't want an adult man that needs mothering, that would kill my desire for him faster than just about anything.

For me personally the best life is one with a mate that can work well with me, that can lead when needed and listen when needed. It took a long time but I finally found the right man for me, very high IQ and EQ.


----------



## jld

tigerlily99 said:


> I feel like I would understand what you are saying better if you gave a practical example or two.
> I'm assuming your not JUST talking about the bedroom when you discuss using 'erotic power' to make decisions? But I have no idea what that would look like.
> Can you elaborate?


From Lady Misato's blog:

_"Sex, being a primal human desire, has deep emotional and psychological roots. When you manipulate your sexual relationship you are reaching past your husband's consciousness and manipulating the deepest parts of his subconscience.

As a result of this sexual manipulation, your husband's emotions and feelings about you and your marriage become fundamentally altered.

As you pair sex and authority you begin to wield erotic power in your marriage. Your husband experiences this differently than either sex or power alone. He very quickly becomes addicted to your erotic power. He experiences this addiction as an irresistible desire, arising out of his deepest subconsciousness, to submit himself to your authority. He begins to crave every opportunity to obey your command. He starts to feel great joy in serving you.

Ultimately, he begins to worship you."_
_Posted via Mobile Device_
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Heatherknows

Holland said:


> I could not respect a submissive man. I am a mother and a good one at that but I don't want *an adult man that needs mothering*, that would kill my desire for him faster than just about anything.


A man like that would make me vomit. :|


----------



## Omego

I can't think of anything less attractive than a submissive man.... I've seen some and it's not a pretty sight....
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Sbrown

Heatherknows said:


> My husband isn't a mindless sex craved maniac. He'd rather take a nap. Naps are my lure.


Lmao I tell my wife...."I'm going to go take a nap." And shockingly enough she let's me and protects me from the dog and child. No need to play games.

Scott


----------



## Sbrown

TAM is full of submissive men... hell I was one. They're here to figure out why their wife won't have sex or why she's having sex with the dominant guy in her office. 

My wife and I are a team! We discuss everything and typically come to an agreement. But if the occasion ever comes up that we can't decide as a team I will make the call. 

Scott


----------



## jld

Sbrown said:


> *TAM is full of submissive men... *
> 
> Scott


Thank you for saying it, Scott. It might be easier for guys to hear from another man than from a woman.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## NoSizeQueen

I divorced a man because I always had to lead him and bribe him with sexual favors. I want a partner, not someone I have to manage.

Pass!


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

This works for some couples, it's no better or worse than husband led. It's just what the couple decides is best for them. I've always wondered why this OPs threads get so much negative attention when the reverse is more often accepted and even promoted. 

I would be a terrible partner for either wife or husband led, that's why I wouldn't be in that relationship. I would not be ok with him having final say simply because he was born with a penis and I'm not ok with me having it because I have a vagina. 

Our strengths determine who does what. If we simply can't agree I would look to more of a PoJA The Policy of Joint Agreement resolve.


----------



## Faithful Wife

FLR's are no different than TIH relationships. Both work for some people very well.

An overview of Taken In Hand | Taken In Hand

This is a lifestyle choice more than a relationship style.


----------



## Heatherknows

Sbrown said:


> TAM is full of submissive men...
> 
> Scott


Which ones?


----------



## ladymisato

Thanks, everyone, for sharing your thoughts.

Perhaps the most common comment is that I have neglected wives who are happy with letting the husband lead the marriage. (More generally, we could consider people who are simply happy in their marriages whatever the arrangement.) It's tempting to say that these situations are valid reasons to hesitate.

The truth is that while there are marriages that naturally lend themselves to being led by the wife, most of the wive I know who have tried wife led marriage had come to some crisis in their marriage that pushed them into it. That is to say, the husband and wife both expected the husband to lead the marriage but it did not work out well.

But I don't find that to be a satisfactory answer given the high proportion of problem marriages discussed in these forums. My impression is that many people come here because they are not satisfied with their marriage. If they are not in an outright crisis they sense that something is wrong. They are not happy with the status quo.

Then, too, there are those women who exhibit a pattern of marrying and divorcing in a serial search for that perfect husband who will lead the marriage in the way that they desire. They would rather divorce and try again with another man than fix the marriage that they have. (And, too often, other here encourage exactly that.)

So I wonder: what is it that inhibits a wife who is unsatisfied with her marriage from exploring this option?


----------



## jld

I think you have to be wired for that sort of thing. Otherwise it is just a huge turn off. Not worth it, even if it "works."

The part that concerns me is the manipulation. Though I suppose those guys would not go along with it if they did not truly want to.


----------



## ladymisato

jld said:


> The part that concerns me is the manipulation. Though I suppose those guys would not go along with it if they did not truly want to.


Let's discuss this further. It is definitely manipulative. And, yes, one could have an endless debate about whether the husbands in these marriages are going along with it as some level.

But, first, let me ask: what is it about manipulation that disturbs you? Are you disturbed when a parent manipulates her child to do the right thing (e.g. by spanking or encouraging)?


----------



## jld

ladymisato said:


> Let's discuss this further. It is definitely manipulative. And, yes, one could have an endless debate about whether the husbands in these marriages are going along with it as some level.
> 
> But, first, let me ask: what is it about manipulation that disturbs you? Are you disturbed when a parent manipulates her child to do the right thing (e.g. by spanking or encouraging)?


It disturbs me in marriage because it is not how I would want to be treated. My husband and I discuss everything. Transparency, full disclosure, debating issues until we come to an agreement we both can (more or less) live with.

Yes, I have spanked my children. But as they get older, they naturally get more freedom to make their own decisions, whether I agree or not. It is their life, after all.


----------



## Omego

Sbrown said:


> TAM is full of submissive men... hell I was one. They're here to figure out why their wife won't have sex or why she's having sex with the dominant guy in her office.


I'm not sure submissive is the correct term. I'd say they're... well.... gentlemen. 
Let me explain: it sounds like a lot of these men value their marriages. They value commitment and feel like it should be for life, but are unfulfilled and don't know how to change their situation. They don't want to be rude and say: "give me sex or I'll leave', and thus begins a downward spiral of resentment. It's just more complicated than saying they are submissive and weak....


----------



## Pluto2

Manipulation aims to change the behavior of others through underhanded, deceptive, or abusive tactics by advancing the interests of the manipulator, often at another's expense and are usually considered exploitative, abusive, devious, and deceptive-none of the characteristics most people seek to promote in a healthy relationship.


----------



## SurpriseMyself

ladymisato said:


> Thanks, everyone, for sharing your thoughts.
> 
> Perhaps the most common comment is that I have neglected wives who are happy with letting the husband lead the marriage. (More generally, we could consider people who are simply happy in their marriages whatever the arrangement.) It's tempting to say that these situations are valid reasons to hesitate.
> 
> The truth is that while there are marriages that naturally lend themselves to being led by the wife, most of the wive I know who have tried wife led marriage had come to some crisis in their marriage that pushed them into it. That is to say, the husband and wife both expected the husband to lead the marriage but it did not work out well.
> 
> But I don't find that to be a satisfactory answer given the high proportion of problem marriages discussed in these forums. My impression is that many people come here because they are not satisfied with their marriage. If they are not in an outright crisis they sense that something is wrong. They are not happy with the status quo.
> 
> Then, too, there are those women who exhibit a pattern of marrying and divorcing in a serial search for that perfect husband who will lead the marriage in the way that they desire. They would rather divorce and try again with another man than fix the marriage that they have. (And, too often, other here encourage exactly that.)
> 
> So I wonder: what is it that inhibits a wife who is unsatisfied with her marriage from exploring this option?


Because she wants a man, not a mouse? A partner, not a follower? Seems pretty simple to me. A passive man is unattractive, so why would he become more attractive to her if she can manipulate him sexually? And it seems like an unhealthy attitude, generally.


----------



## ladymisato

jld said:


> It disturbs me in marriage because it is not how I would want to be treated. My husband and I discuss everything. Transparency, full disclosure, debating issues until we come to an agreement we both can (more or less) live with.


I can't speak of all marriages but here is something I've seen that is very, very consistent: wives who are unhappy in their marriage, who do not feel that their husbands are debating issues to arrive at an agreement, are quite willing to engage in very destructive behaviors starting with nagging and ending with divorce and often visiting infidelity along the way.

Would you at least concede that manipulation through erotic power is better than nagging or divorce?


----------



## ladymisato

Pluto2 said:


> Manipulation aims to change the behavior of others through underhanded, deceptive, or abusive tactics by advancing the interests of the manipulator, often at another's expense and are usually considered exploitative, abusive, devious, and deceptive-none of the characteristics most people seek to promote in a healthy relationship.


This is a half-truth that I think harms the discussion.

I agree that manipulation aims to change the behavior of others through underhanded, deceptive tactics. That is more or less the definition.

It does not necessarily have to be abusive or advance merely the interest of the manipulator at the other's expense.

Suppose, for example, that a wife uses underhanded, deceptive tactics to influence her husband into doing something that is good for the marriage (e.g. controlling spending or spending time with the children).

Is that manipulative?


----------



## ladymisato

SurpriseMyself said:


> Because she wants a man, not a mouse? A partner, not a follower? Seems pretty simple to me. A passive man is unattractive, so why would he become more attractive to her if she can manipulate him sexually? And it seems like an unhealthy attitude, generally.


You are familiar, I am sure, with traditional marriages in which the wife submits to the husband. Those were, nevertheless, partnerships.

Were these wives unattractive? Were these marriages unhealthy?


----------



## SurpriseMyself

ladymisato said:


> You are familiar, I am sure, with traditional marriages in which the wife submits to the husband. Those were, nevertheless, partnerships.
> 
> Were these wives unattractive? Were these marriages unhealthy?


In my opinion, yes and yes.


----------



## SurpriseMyself

Lady - it sounds like no one on TAM is buying what you are selling. And let's be honest, that's what you are trying to do here. You have a blog and books and counseling services all around this idea of sexual power. Your original post sounds like you pulled it right from a pamphlet advertising your services.

In case you were unaware, rule #7 of TAM is "No posting just to advertise products, services, or other websites."

And here it is! Real Women Don't Do Housework: Why Do You Hesitate?


----------



## Sbrown

Heatherknows said:


> Which ones?


Read the ones started by men in the infidelity area. Most have become or were from the start submissive to their wives. 

Scott


----------



## jld

ladymisato said:


> I can't speak of all marriages but here is something I've seen that is very, very consistent: wives who are unhappy in their marriage, who do not feel that their husbands are debating issues to arrive at an agreement, are quite willing to engage in very destructive behaviors starting with nagging and ending with divorce and often visiting infidelity along the way.
> 
> Would you at least concede that manipulation through erotic power is better than nagging or divorce?


No. I can understand it, though. I can think of something I have done in my marriage that was manipulative. I later told my husband about it. He said he knew, anyway. And I don't do it anymore.

I just don't feel comfortable with dishonesty. I think marriages should be transparent. If the partners really cannot get along just with openness and honesty, without using manipulation, I don't think they are well-suited for each other. I think in those cases divorce is the healthiest answer. 

But what you speak of in your book does not necessarily sound non-consensual. Those guys that accept to wear women's underwear as punishment or submit to spankings from their wives or let her decide when he gets to orgasm are doing it because it enhances their own pleasure, at least as I understand it. They want a woman in charge. They would not feel right otherwise. It's an emotional need for them. It's how they feel safe.


----------



## Sbrown

Omego said:


> I'm not sure submissive is the correct term. I'd say they're... well.... gentlemen.
> Let me explain: it sounds like a lot of these men value their marriages. They value commitment and feel like it should be for life, but are unfulfilled and don't know how to change their situation. They don't want to be rude and say: "give me sex or I'll leave', and thus begins a downward spiral of resentment. It's just more complicated than saying they are submissive and weak....


I'm not sure I agree. A lot of men have been beat down emotionally for the last few decades. Told by society and their wives that they're wrong for wanting sex. 

Scott


----------



## Sbrown

ladymisato said:


> This is a half-truth that I think harms the discussion.
> 
> I agree that manipulation aims to change the behavior of others through underhanded, deceptive tactics. That is more or less the definition.
> 
> It does not necessarily have to be abusive or advance merely the interest of the manipulator at the other's expense.
> 
> Suppose, for example, that a wife uses underhanded, deceptive tactics to influence her husband into doing something that is good for the marriage (e.g. controlling spending or spending time with the children).
> 
> Is that manipulative?


Are you married to a man or a child? If you have to manipulate your husband to get him to spend time with his kids....

Scott


----------



## Fozzy

My 2 cents:

While wife led marriages are uncommon, I don't think there's necessarily anything wrong with them **for the right couple**. Just like husband led marriages or equal partnerships, different people seek different things in a relationship, and the right combination can make fireworks.

I do NOT agree with sexual manipulation--or in fact any kind of manipulation at all. There's a reason Svengali was looked down upon as a villain. 

Minus the manipulation however, if you have a woman with natural dominant tendencies, and a man with natural submissive tendencies--go for it. Just don't force it. Hammering a square peg into a round hole is a recipe for disaster.


----------



## jld

SurpriseMyself said:


> Because she wants a man, not a mouse? A partner, not a follower? Seems pretty simple to me. A passive man is unattractive, so why would he become more attractive to her if she can manipulate him sexually? And it seems like an unhealthy attitude, generally.


He is unattractive to _you_. And to me, too, quite frankly. 

But some women are very happy with passive men. Different strokes for different folks.


----------



## ocotillo

-*Morticia* [to Debbie] You have enslaved him. You have placed Fester under some strange sexual spell. I respect that. But please, may we see him? 











---Sorry, OP. I'm sure you're sincere.


----------



## jld

I think these are her viewpoints, and she wants to talk about them. It's an interesting discussion.

Lady M, I hope you are not being chased away.


----------



## EnigmaGirl

Nothing more annoying than a woman that uses sex as a weapon.

Only dumb, weak men fall for this crap and my husband is neither dumb or weak.


----------



## jld

EnigmaGirl said:


> Nothing more annoying than a woman that uses sex as a weapon.
> 
> Only dumb, weak men fall for this crap and my husband is neither dumb or weak.


I think it is something these guys want. Some may even approach their wives with it.


----------



## NoSizeQueen

When I was on here a year ago getting advice on leaving my husband, Lady M was here, trying to sell me her book about avoiding divorce by making my husband submit to my will. I wondered what had happened to her!


----------



## Thundarr

NoSizeQueen said:


> When I was on here a year ago getting advice on leaving my husband, Lady M was here, trying to sell me her book about avoiding divorce by making my husband submit to my will. I wondered what had happened to her!


Lol. I'm not opposed to her message since it might actually work for a few. It's the verbiage that's hard to get past. YOU WILL SUBMIT TO MY EROTIC VAGINA POWER is about as odd as hearing YOU WILL SUBMIT TO MY HURCULIEAN PENIS POWER lol. That aside, I can see her angle.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Thundarr said:


> Lol. I'm not opposed to her message since it might actually work for a few. It's the verbiage that's hard to get past. YOU WILL SUBMIT TO MY EROTIC VAGINA POWER is about as odd as hearing *YOU WILL SUBMIT TO MY HURCULIEAN PENIS POWER* lol. That aside, I can see her angle.


Some chicks would dig this. Did you read the TIH link at all? 

A lot of people love sexual power exchange.


----------



## Thundarr

Faithful Wife said:


> Some chicks would dig this. Did you read the TIH link at all?
> 
> A lot of people love sexual power exchange.


Hah. The notion makes sense. Just not the proclamation.


----------



## Sbrown

EnigmaGirl said:


> Nothing more annoying than a woman that uses sex as a weapon.
> 
> Only dumb, weak men fall for this crap and my husband is neither dumb or weak.


What about naps as a weapon....

Scott


----------



## tigerlily99

I can't tell if you're joking or not @Sbrown but the nap thing was totally said by me in jest! I would never manipulate my husband with naps...or sex for that matter. And whenever he's napping I protect him from being awakened wherever/whenever he happened to fall asleep . I love naps too after all and he does the same for me.


----------



## Cosmos

> *Lastly, sexuality is a very difficult subject for many women for a variety of reasons*. Many women are, quite frankly, uncomfortable with their own sexuality and with the difference between men and women in this regard. *They would much rather relegate sex to the bedroom where it is kept in a small box only to be opened when absolutely necessary.* *Wives tend to be far more comfortable nagging than seducing*.


Does this sort of nonsense really deserve a reply? That would have to be a No.


----------



## Sbrown

tigerlily99 said:


> I can't tell if you're joking or not @Sbrown but the nap thing was totally said by me in jest! I would never manipulate my husband with naps...or sex for that matter. And whenever he's napping I protect him from being awakened wherever/whenever he happened to fall asleep . I love naps too after all and he does the same for me.


Lol im assuming this entire thread is satire. But "heatherknows" made the nap comment....

Scott


----------



## Heatherknows

NoSizeQueen said:


> When I was on here a year ago getting advice on leaving my husband, Lady M was here, trying to sell me her book about avoiding divorce by* making my husband submit to my will*. I wondered what had happened to her!


LOL!

My husbands taking a shower I'm going to forbid him to wash off the soap and see how he reacts. 


















(No, I'm not. :nerd: )


----------



## Heatherknows

Sbrown said:


> What about *naps* as a weapon....
> 
> Scott





tigerlily99 said:


> I can't tell if you're joking or not @Sbrown but the *nap* thing was totally said by me in jest! I would never manipulate my husband with naps...or sex for that matter. And whenever he's napping I protect him from being awakened wherever/whenever he happened to fall asleep . I love naps too after all and he does the same for me.





Sbrown said:


> Lol im assuming this entire thread is satire. But "heatherknows" made the *nap* comment....
> 
> Scott


...I never thought my husbands naps would become so controversial.

I'm going to post a youtube video of him taking a nap to see if It'll go viral.


----------



## Omego

Heatherknows said:


> ...I never thought my husbands naps would become so controversial.
> 
> I'm going to post a youtube video of him taking a nap to see if It'll go viral.


:lol:


----------



## NoSizeQueen

For a while, I was interested in a guy I know. After we talked for a bit, I found out that Lady M's method was exactly what he wanted from a relationship. He wanted a woman to dominate him and lead him, physically and sexually.

He thought i would be a good partner for him because I'm smart and strong. I tried to wrap my head around it, but I just couldn't get there. Not for me, I guess. I know he has a lot of trouble finding women who were into that, because a lot of them would dump him when they found out what he wanted. I felt kind of bad for him, he was a little embarrassed by his submissive tendencies and was so afraid people would find out. We never actually dated, but he made me promise not to tell his friends about his quirks.

This was nearly a year ago, and he's still single, so I guess he's still looking.


----------



## john117

ladymisato said:


> Would you at least concede that manipulation through erotic power is better than nagging or divorce?


Manipulation thru erotic power smells like:

- covert contracts
- withholding until you get your way
- some other reward / punishment scheme

Am I missing some crucial detail?


----------



## ocotillo

Thundarr said:


> Lol. I'm not opposed to her message since it might actually work for a few. It's the verbiage that's hard to get past.


Yes. If it works for some people, I'm very happy for them. 

The delivery conjures up outlandish images (Like Addams Family Values) or maybe Odysseus being held captive by Calypso. 

It's not an altogether unpleasant picture (I remember Calypso being played by Vanessa Williams) but I've never met a man (Or woman either) who would want that type of existence and it's certainly not for me.


----------



## jld

john117 said:


> Manipulation thru erotic power smells like:
> 
> - covert contracts
> - withholding until you get your way
> - some other reward / punishment scheme
> 
> Am I missing some crucial detail?


I think the men this "works on" actually want it this way. It fulfills an emotional and/or sexual need for them. I think LM said that her husband taught her at least some of what she does to him.

That is the part people seem to have a hard time wrapping their heads around.
_Posted via Mobile Device_
_Posted via Mobile Device_
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Heatherknows

jld said:


> I think the men this "works on" actually want it this way. It fulfills an emotional and/or sexual need for them. I think LM said that her husband taught her at least some of what she does to him.
> 
> That is the part people seem to have a hard time wrapping their heads around.


I have a hard time wrapping my head around people pondering this stuff at all.

Crap...I just want regular things and they seem impossible to get. Maybe if I was really wealthy and didn't have to worry about anything my mind would have time to think about this stuff. Right now, I just want to make sure I have enough money to pay the bills and get a little passion and`romance. But I'm not going to sit around and think of some bizarre convoluted plan on achieving this. It's a bit stupid.


----------



## NoSizeQueen

Of course they're having a hard time understanding this, she's trying to convince a mainstream audience to build their relationships around a very specific kink.

There would be a similar reaction if I came in here taking about how swinging would solve nearly all of the relationship problems on this forum, because it worked so well for my partner and me...

You've got to know your audience!


(BTW, I'm not a swinger, that was an example. No lectures, please!)


----------



## john117

I should write a book about men using their "financial power" to get their wives to play along... How far would this go?

I have no issue with wife led marriage but the "erotic power" part is a bit alarming.


----------



## Pluto2

john117 said:


> I should write a book about men using their "financial power" to get their wives to play along... How far would this go?
> 
> I have no issue with wife led marriage but the "erotic power" part is a bit alarming.


Selling a book on this is what the OP was doing.

which is my she was banned.


----------



## Heatherknows

Pluto2 said:


> Selling a book on this is what the OP was doing.
> 
> which is my she was banned.


...awww.

This thread was funny.

:frown2:


----------



## jld

john117 said:


> I should write a book about men using their "financial power" to get their wives to play along... How far would this go?
> 
> I have no issue with wife led marriage but the "erotic power" part is a bit alarming.


More alarming than the manipulation tactics in MMSLP?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

Pluto2 said:


> Selling a book on this is what the OP was doing.
> 
> which is my she was banned.


She said her book is free.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## john117

jld said:


> More alarming than the manipulation tactics in MMSLP?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


About the same. 

They both make the same fundamental mistake in not understanding human nature when they define the method without clearly setting the applicability of the method...

Maybe if they studied decision analysis a bit more...


----------



## Holland

It is easy though to manipulate men via sex which I found out without even trying. I had one partner that would have done pretty much anything for me bc of sex. It dawned on me slowly but when I realised what was happening it became a huge turn off for me. No doubt there are plenty of women that use this to their advantage.

However the end result was that it lowered my respect for him. It also lowered my desire because I don't want to manipulate others, it made me feel bad about myself.

This is not a healthy dynamic at all.


----------



## Pluto2

jld said:


> She said her book is free.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


She was a self-proclaimed manipulator and should be treated as such. I have no respect for someone who comes here to manipulate others for the purpose of increasing the traffic on their website, selling a book or collecting data for their thesis.


----------



## Marduk

If you don't know what ladymisato is about, I suggest you read this website:
Real Women Don't Do Housework

In short, mind control, manipulation, ego depletion, and general nastiness... Without the partner's consent.

You have been warned.


----------



## jld

Pluto2 said:


> She was a self-proclaimed manipulator and should be treated as such. I have no respect for someone who comes here to manipulate others for the purpose of increasing the traffic on their website, selling a book or collecting data for their thesis.


Isn't this where Athol Kay got his start? And where his book is regularly promoted?

I certainly think manipulation is a bad idea. That was the disagreement LM and I were having yesterday on earlier pages of this thread. I don't think she needs to include it at all in her promotion of wife led marriage. 

Unless of course those men actually want it, and I would not be surprised if some do.


_Posted via Mobile Device_
_Posted via Mobile Device_
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Heatherknows

marduk said:


> If you don't know what ladymisato is about, I suggest you read this website:
> Real Women Don't Do Housework
> 
> In short, mind control, manipulation, ego depletion, and general nastiness... Without the partner's consent.
> 
> You have been warned.


Then I must not be a real woman because not a day goes by that I don't do housework. I guess I'm a fake woman.


----------



## john117

This may not be a good time to ask, but how about a sandwich 

Seriously, i think her methods are a lot more overt than MMSLP in terms of openness...


----------



## Marduk

john117 said:


> This may not be a good time to ask, but how about a sandwich
> 
> Seriously, i think her methods are a lot more overt than MMSLP in terms of openness...


Agreed. She makes some of the worst red pill stuff seem tame. 

Even trying to relate it to BDSM is like trying to describe psychological torture as an educational tool. 

I don't give a **** what kind of relationship you have as long as you're mentally healthy and have consented to it. 

This **** is just sick.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## tigerlily99

marduk said:


> If you don't know what ladymisato is about, I suggest you read this website:
> 
> Real Women Don't Do Housework
> 
> 
> 
> In short, mind control, manipulation, ego depletion, and general nastiness... Without the partner's consent.
> 
> 
> 
> You have been warned.



I didn't take the warning seriously...oh boy! You weren't kidding. It's like puppy training but for men! Sad.
This serves as a good reminder that I do like my man to have a will. (As much as ours clash.) It IS the part I find most attractive about him, that he is separate from me and not just an extension of MY will.


----------



## SurpriseMyself

john117 said:


> This may not be a good time to ask, but how about a sandwich
> 
> Seriously, i think her methods are a lot more overt than MMSLP in terms of openness...


I'll be happy to make you a sandwich.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> Agreed. She makes some of the worst red pill stuff seem tame.
> 
> Even trying to relate it to BDSM is like trying to describe psychological torture as an educational tool.
> 
> I don't give a **** what kind of relationship you have as long as you're mentally healthy and have consented to it.
> 
> This **** is just sick.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Marduk, relax. It is just a book. No woman in your own life is manipulating you with sex. 

Right?
_Posted via Mobile Device_
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SurpriseMyself

jld said:


> Marduk, relax. It is just a book. No woman in your own life is manipulating you with sex.
> 
> Right?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Have you read anything on her site? It's nuts!!

She talks about using hand jobs and sex as primary and secondary reinforcers to train your husband, like you would a dog!!

Or how about her recommendations on how to punish him when he makes you mad!!

"Penance provides you with a means to overcome your anger, pain, and frustration at your husband. Penance provides your husband with an opportunity to express his love and remorse by enduring the punishment you have selected.

Ideally, you should always have a punishment and penance available for any given wrong. "

HOLY COW, it's NUTTY!!!


----------



## Fozzy

SurpriseMyself said:


> Have you read anything on her site? It's nuts!!
> *
> She talks about using hand jobs and sex as primary and secondary reinforcers to train your husband, like you would a dog!*!
> 
> Or how about her recommendations on how to punish him when he makes you mad!!
> 
> "Penance provides you with a means to overcome your anger, pain, and frustration at your husband. Penance provides your husband with an opportunity to express his love and remorse by enduring the punishment you have selected.
> 
> Ideally, you should always have a punishment and penance available for any given wrong. "
> 
> HOLY COW, it's NUTTY!!!



I've never done that to my dog.


Maybe that's why he still pees on the rug.


----------



## jld

SurpriseMyself said:


> Have you read anything on her site? It's nuts!!
> 
> She talks about using hand jobs and sex as primary and secondary reinforcers to train your husband, like you would a dog!!


Yep, I think it is crazy, too. 

But you know that there are men who really like that, right? That it gives them a sexual thrill? And makes them feel safe and cared for?

LM said once that her husband taught her at least some of what she does to him. As strange as it may seem to you and me, there are some men who _like _being treated like that. She has said she gets favorable, appreciative comments from them on her blog.
_Posted via Mobile Device_
_Posted via Mobile Device_
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> Marduk, relax. It is just a book. No woman in your own life is manipulating you with sex.
> 
> Right?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Dammit now I'm going to go and search my router's logs for this nutcase's website!

J/k of course.


----------



## jld

Fozzy said:


> I've never done that to my dog.
> 
> 
> Maybe that's why he still pees on the rug.



_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk

SurpriseMyself said:


> Have you read anything on her site? It's nuts!!
> 
> She talks about using hand jobs and sex as primary and secondary reinforcers to train your husband, like you would a dog!!
> 
> Or how about her recommendations on how to punish him when he makes you mad!!
> 
> "Penance provides you with a means to overcome your anger, pain, and frustration at your husband. Penance provides your husband with an opportunity to express his love and remorse by enduring the punishment you have selected.
> 
> Ideally, you should always have a punishment and penance available for any given wrong. "
> 
> HOLY COW, it's NUTTY!!!


 @jld was kidding.

I think.


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> Yep, I think it is crazy, too.
> 
> But you know that there are men who really like that, right? That it gives them a sexual thrill? And makes them feel safe and cared for?
> 
> LM said once that her husband taught her at least some of what she does to him. As strange as it may seem to you and me, there are some men who _like _being treated like that. She has said she gets favorable, appreciative comments from them on her blog.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_
> _Posted via Mobile Device_
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Like I said... If somebody is mentally healthy and consents to such a deal, go for it.

If somebody wants to covertly manipulate them into being controlled against their will, there are laws against it.

Same thing goes as far as the red pill stuff is concerned.


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> Like I said... If somebody is mentally healthy and consents to such a deal, go for it.
> 
> If somebody wants to covertly manipulate them into being controlled against their will, there are laws against it.
> 
> Same thing goes as far as the red pill stuff is concerned.


And if she were still here, we could ask her about the legal consequences of what she is recommending.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SurpriseMyself

jld said:


> Yep, I think it is crazy, too.
> 
> But you know that there are men who really like that, right? That it gives them a sexual thrill? And makes them feel safe and cared for?
> 
> LM said once that her husband taught her at least some of what she does to him. As strange as it may seem to you and me, there are some men who _like _being treated like that. She has said she gets favorable, appreciative comments from them on her blog.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_
> _Posted via Mobile Device_
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I visited her blog. Zero comments.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ocotillo

marduk said:


> If you don't know what ladymisato is about, I suggest you read this website:
> Real Women Don't Do Housework


Wow. Just wow..

There are an awful lot of decisions that need to be made by the person with superior knowledge, especially in an emergency. That's no time to be playing games. 

If there was any acknowledgement of that reality on the website, I didn't see it.


----------



## NoSizeQueen

Some guys are into this, and good for them!

But those relationships usually have a strong focus on consent, respecting boundaries, and aftercare. I'm having trouble finding that stuff on Lady M's site.

She directly says to introduce this concept "under the guise of sexual experimentation", because men will almost always agree to experiment. That doesn't sound like clear disclosure and consent to me.


----------



## Heatherknows

SurpriseMyself said:


> Have you read anything on her site? It's nuts!!
> 
> She talks about using hand jobs and sex as primary and secondary reinforcers to train your husband, like you would a dog!!


Now, I'm interested.


----------



## knobcreek

"Humiliation

Humiliation can be tricky so it should be used carefully. In most cases, the threat of humiliation is more effective than the actual deed. For example, by requiring your husband to wear panties as his underwear he will always be at risk of humiliation."

From Real Women Don't Do Housework

LOL if my wife proposed this I would tell her to fvck off... Any guy who goes along with this nonsense is obviously doing it because they like the idea of being a submissive, this would only work on a very small subset of men, and if the man and woman both dig it then God bless. But this wouldn't work for most couples as most women are more submissive and men more dominant. You can't just flip the script and expect every average Joe to go along with it, or average woman to want it.

I don't think most women want their men in their panties and training them by forcing them to do chores for sex, I mean get real.


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> And if she were still here, we could ask her about the legal consequences of what she is recommending.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


But then she would be here, and that would be tacit passive approval for what she is doing.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

SurpriseMyself said:


> I visited her blog. Zero comments.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I clicked on the link Marduk provided, and there were some on the very first page.

_Posted via Mobile Device_
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> But then she would be here, and that would be tacit passive approval for what she is doing.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


She used to post here, mostly in the divorce section, I think.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

NoSizeQueen said:


> Some guys are into this, and good for them!
> 
> But those relationships usually have a strong focus on consent, respecting boundaries, and aftercare. I'm having trouble finding that stuff on Lady M's site.
> 
> She directly says to introduce this concept "under the guise of sexual experimentation", because men will almost always agree to experiment. That doesn't sound like clear disclosure and consent to me.


Yes, the manipulation is the concerning part. 

I did not get the impression she beats him, so not sure if/how aftercare figures in.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SurpriseMyself

knobcreek said:


> "Humiliation
> 
> Humiliation can be tricky so it should be used carefully. In most cases, the threat of humiliation is more effective than the actual deed. For example, by requiring your husband to wear panties as his underwear he will always be at risk of humiliation."
> 
> From Real Women Don't Do Housework
> 
> LOL if my wife proposed this I would tell her to fvck off... Any guy who goes along with this nonsense is obviously doing it because they like the idea of being a submissive, this would only work on a very small subset of men, and if the man and woman both dig it then God bless. But this wouldn't work for most couples as most women are more submissive and men more dominant. You can't just flip the script and expect every average Joe to go along with it, or average woman to want it.
> 
> I don't think most women want their men in their panties and training them by forcing them to do chores for sex, I mean get real.


LOL! Panties!!!!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## john117

SurpriseMyself said:


> I'll be happy to make you a sandwich.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I knew I was born to be a hyphenated American when I developed a liking to sandwiches from a very young age


----------



## Sbrown

Heatherknows said:


> ...I never thought my husbands naps would become so controversial.
> 
> I'm going to post a youtube video of him taking a nap to see if It'll go viral.


Link it! Lol

Scott


----------



## EnigmaGirl

lol, sounds like her goal was to get a bunch of people to go to her idiotic website.

Guess it worked.

Bottom line, a partnership is only as strong as its weakest link. So if your husband is a panty-wearing, wimp who lets his wife use sex against him...then that's how strong your relationship is.

I won't be visiting her website. She's obviously trying to be controversial but in reality its just lame. Just like men who pick far-too-young or too-passive women so they can be domineering and controlling because they're too insecure to manage an equal partner...she's just the opposite gender version of this.

She's with a weak husband because that's all she can handle. People who are interested in real marriages and real partnerships find her philosophy to be silly and illogical for obvious reasons.


----------



## tech-novelist

So this wasn't a troll thread? It sure looked like it was!


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> So this wasn't a troll thread? It sure looked like it was!


A troll wearing a dog collar and girl's panties maybe.


----------



## Hope Shimmers

Ludicrous. Just complete insanity.

My guy would tell me to fvck off in about five seconds flat. (And if he didn't for whatever reason, I would leave him in about five seconds flat).


----------



## EleGirl

technovelist said:


> So this wasn't a troll thread? It sure looked like it was!


It depends on how we define a troll. 

She was here to drive traffic to her site as she always does. From that point of view, she could be considered a troll.


----------



## Faithful Wife

There is a huge population of men who are submissive or want to be dominated. And a huge population of women who are dominant. Lady Misato is very popular in that community. There are couples who want a strict FLR and they find her blog and books, etc.

Here's a site by a guy who links to her site frequently and highly promotes her:

Worshipping Your Wife

I think she may have coached him, too. 

Anyway...there are other huge populations of other lifestyles that would freak people at TAM out as well. FLR is just one of many amazing sexual/romantic/emotional lifestyles. They aren't for everyone, but try not to underestimate the large population that they are for. 

I think Lady Misato is not in the right place at TAM to successfully spread her message to a lot of people, but I am positive she has received PM's from submissive males or dominant females asking for more information.

Like @jld said, I don't see this much that much different than MMSLP, in practice.


----------



## Holland

All good FW but lets not forget the out cry here when there are threads on men manipulating women to get what they want. Sorry but I would not use the words "amazing lifestyle" to describe something that is about manipulation no matter which gender plays which role.


----------



## DayOne

Some more 'pearls of wisdom' from her site:



> First, you, and you alone, should have power of attorney. With a power of attorney properly executed, you can do virtually anything in your husband’s name; anything he can sign, you can sign for him just by showing that document.
> 
> Second, you should move all assets into your sole control. For bank accounts, this means removing him from the account or creating a new account in your name only and transferring the bulk of the money to it. Real property is a little more complicated but essentially you just have his name removed from the deed. If your husband works, make sure that his paycheck is direct-deposited into your account, not the shared account. If this is a new account then he will have to make the change at his work.
> 
> you should require him to keep receipts and to provide you with a report of his expenses to the dime.
> 
> He will need your permission for anything beyond his allowance and he will have to report his expenditures of his allowance. You can use his allowance as another device for punishing and rewarding him. Even when you do not feel it worth the bother to review his purchases, going through the motions sets a proper tone to the marriage.





> The first step is, of course, to keep track. Make a habit of keeping a notepad or pda handy at all times either in your purse or in a pocket. Record not only his acts but also your reaction to them at the time.
> 
> He should print and sign the report each night, considering ahead of time any areas where he recognizes that he has not met your expectations. He should bring the signed report to you as you both retire for the night. This should be a regular practice regardless of whether you plan to engage in sexual activity that night.
> 
> If he has done well then all that will required is for you to accept he signed report from him, assign your score for his behavior that day, and then put the report in your drawer or file.





> One technique for establishing your authority is to put up a photograph of a close adult relative or close friend and then make a number of marks on the photo (e.g. ten). Then each time that he disappoints you take him to the photo and cross out one of the marks. Inform him that when all the marks are crossed out you will have a talk with this person telling him/her about your new marital relationship.


And this is just.. fked up.



> For you the act of spanking can be a way to release and direct your anger. The next time you find your anger has overwhelmed your love for your husband, try pulling down his pants and paddling him on the buttocks, hard, until you can truly forgive his wrong and make love to your husband. Vent your anger against his buttocks until you forget his transgression and feel sorry for him.


Anyone who's looked into, or lives, BDSM knows this so wrong. Hitting someone because you're angry isn't love. It's abuse. 

It doesn't matter if the relationship is male or female led, what this nutball is preaching is abuse. Physical abuse, mental abuse, financial abuse.


----------



## tech-novelist

"First, you, and you alone, should have power of attorney. With a power of attorney properly executed, you can do virtually anything in your husband’s name; anything he can sign, you can sign for him just by showing that document.

Second, you should move all assets into your sole control. For bank accounts, this means removing him from the account or creating a new account in your name only and transferring the bulk of the money to it. Real property is a little more complicated but essentially you just have his name removed from the deed. If your husband works, make sure that his paycheck is direct-deposited into your account, not the shared account. If this is a new account then he will have to make the change at his work."


Why not just get divorced? It has much the same effect in many cases. >


----------



## Omego

I can't help but state the obvious: if the genders were reversed in the above quotes all he!! would break loose.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Heatherknows

Omego said:


> I can't help but state the obvious: if the genders were reversed in the above quotes all he!! would break loose.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Some women might like this stuff. Some men might like this stuff. But it seems like a huge waste of time. I don't understand how people come up with this crap. Sounds like erotic fiction or something along those lines. IDK. I'd rather do housework.


----------



## jld

I think power exchange is on a spectrum, and some people go farther with it than others. What might feel like too much to one might feel perfectly fine to another.

LM might seem very strict, but I can imagine some men want that. It may be harder in some ways to make a man in a heterosexual relationship feel "owned" than a woman in such a relationship. LM provides ideas on how to do it. 

She also talks about promising never to divorce. For men that want that comfort, that they will never be abandoned in divorce, her methods may meet their needs.
_Posted via Mobile Device_
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

Heatherknows said:


> Some women might like this stuff. Some men might like this stuff. But it seems like a huge waste of time. I don't understand how people come up with this crap. Sounds like erotic fiction or something along those lines. IDK. I'd rather do housework.


LM probably just looked back in history a hundred years or so and reversed the sexes.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Pluto2

jld said:


> LM probably just looked back in history a hundred years or so and reversed the sexes.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


That is such a crappy argument to support abuse. If it was wrong and abusive to women 100 years ago, reversing the genders does not give it any legitimacy. 

I also don't believe that the men who recommend MMLSP because they have applied the principles to their lives and thought it worked, (not sure I agree it ever works-but TAM posters say it does so whatever), is the same as driving TAMers to a website. In one instance, people who were in pain with actual problems are saying "this program helped me" in the other instance the OP is saying "support my business" which is a violation of TAM rules.


----------



## SurpriseMyself

EnigmaGirl said:


> lol, sounds like her goal was to get a bunch of people to go to her idiotic website.
> 
> Guess it worked.
> 
> Bottom line, a partnership is only as strong as its weakest link. So if your husband is a panty-wearing, wimp who lets his wife use sex against him...then that's how strong your relationship is.
> 
> I won't be visiting her website. She's obviously trying to be controversial but in reality its just lame. Just like men who pick far-too-young or too-passive women so they can be domineering and controlling because they're too insecure to manage an equal partner...she's just the opposite gender version of this.
> 
> She's with a weak husband because that's all she can handle. People who are interested in real marriages and real partnerships find her philosophy to be silly and illogical for obvious reasons.


It's like peopleofwalmart.com! You can't look away!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

Pluto2 said:


> That is such a crappy argument to support abuse. If it was wrong and abusive to women 100 years ago, reversing the genders does not give it any legitimacy.
> 
> I also don't believe that the men who recommend MMLSP because they have applied the principles to their lives and thought it worked, (not sure I agree it ever works-but TAM posters say it does so whatever), is the same as driving TAMers to a website. In one instance, people who were in pain with actual problems are saying "this program helped me" in the other instance the OP is saying "support my business" which is a violation of TAM rules.


Telling people on TAM to buy MMSLP does not support Athol Kay's business?

He has a forum, too, right? He must make money from that, too?

There are not "people in pain with actual problems" who find relief from LM's methods?

Iirc, it was not LM who linked her website in this discussion. 

The risk from her methods, as I see it, is that a vulnerable man may agree to something, at least in his actions, that he later regrets, though it seemed to meet his needs at the time. 

And yet we have people here all the time saying the equivalent of "Buyer Beware! It is your own fault if you get/got hurt!" 
_Posted via Mobile Device_
_Posted via Mobile Device_
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Thundarr

I haven't read any of her stuff but I don't see the huge controversy that everyone sees. If a woman is in a failing marriage and other things haven't worked then why not try something like this? I'm pretty sure LadyM's choice of words (erotic power) is aimed toward women who feel like they have no control or say in a relationship or women who get no passion and desire from their husband.

Maybe it's the calculated approach that's ruffled feathers here. I don't know but I like it when my wife throws a little hip action in her walk for my benefit. If it puts me in a little better mood then so be it. To me the motive is important. A woman being sexy and seductive with the intent of making her marriage stronger just doesn't sound all that evil to me. And a man doesn't become a pvssy because he enjoys extra intimacy and attention.


----------



## samyeagar

I'd imagine that the number of actual healthy people who would enjoy, desire, and function well in this dynamic is exceedingly small, and even then, I suspect that successfully maintaining it long term would be nearly impossible for a healthy person. Unhealthy people on the other hand might actually tolerate it rather than go to counselling. I have a feeling too that keeping the man away from any mental health professionals would be crucial to success.

With regards to the fear of abandonment in divorce, and the wife's promise to stay, again, the cases where that can actually be healthy I suspect are almost nil.

I know for myself that the very premise this is all based on would make it a non starter. My own sense of self worth, self esteem, and even self preservation trump my sexual desires. In other words, while I have a pretty high sex drive, sex is not really something I can be manipulated with.


----------



## Pluto2

jld said:


> Telling people on TAM to buy MMSLP does not support Athol Kay's business?
> 
> He has a forum, too, right? He must make money from that, too?
> 
> There are not "people in pain with actual problems" who find relief from LM's methods?
> 
> Iirc, it was not LM who linked her website in this discussion.
> 
> The risk from her methods, as I see it, is that a vulnerable man may agree to something, at least in his actions, that he later regrets, though it seemed to meet his needs at the time.
> 
> And yet we have people here all the time saying the equivalent of "Buyer Beware! It is your own fault if you get/got hurt!"
> _Posted via Mobile Device_
> _Posted via Mobile Device_
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Oh please!
the people on TAM who recommend a book don't have an ownership interest in the website-and you know that.

Lots of people on TAM recommend different books-some free, some not. That is perfectly fine. The OP uses manipulating methodology to drum up business. Guess you are ok with that.


----------



## jld

Thundarr said:


> I haven't read any of her stuff but I don't see the huge controversy that everyone sees. If a woman is in a failing marriage and other things haven't worked then why not try something like this? I'm pretty sure LadyM's choice of words (erotic power) is aimed toward women who feel like they have no control or say in a relationship or women who get no passion and desire from their husband.
> 
> Maybe it's the calculated approach that's ruffled feathers here. I don't know but I like it when my wife throws a little hip action in her walk for my benefit. If it puts me in a little better mood then so be it. To me the motive is important. A woman being sexy and seductive with the intent of making her marriage stronger just doesn't sound all that evil to me. And a man doesn't become a pvssy because he enjoys extra intimacy and attention.


I think the fear is due to possible manipulation. There is a concern for the vulnerable.

And some folks may not be able to wrap their heads around the idea of a male submissive, or at least one this far along on the spectrum. 

Some may reject the idea of submission, period. It may not be something they can relate to.
_Posted via Mobile Device_
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## DayOne

I think, if Atholls book advocated manipulation, humiliation, public humiliation, blackmail, giving up all your legal rights, and beating your partner in anger, as LM's does, it might be "recommended" a lot less....


----------



## jld

Pluto2 said:


> Oh please!
> the people on TAM who recommend a book don't have an ownership interest in the website-and you know that.


Do we know that? How can we be sure? 

They are promoting sales of his book and may encourage people to use his website, which may earn him money.



> Lots of people on TAM recommend different books-some free, some not. That is perfectly fine. The OP uses manipulating methodology to drum up business. Guess you are ok with that.


I brought up the concern about manipulation to LM at the beginning of the thread, back on page two or so. 

I don't think her motive is making money, though I would guess she does not want to lose money if she does not have to, either. 

Spammers, imo, are the ones who slap an ad on here, nothing more. LM made several posts that reflect her ideas on the importance of avoiding divorce over in the separation and divorce section last spring and winter. The true spammers never devote that time and effort. I think she really thinks her ideas could help people.

Allowing her to express herself here and really pushing her to confront our very legitimate, imo, concerns about her ideas could have been revealing and enlightening, both for her and for us.

To my knowledge, she does not suggest her methods be used on anyone under 18. Everyone over 18 is at risk, though. Wouldn't some education and awareness on this subject be helpful?
_Posted via Mobile Device_
_Posted via Mobile Device_
_Posted via Mobile Device_
_Posted via Mobile Device_
_Posted via Mobile Device_
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

DayOne said:


> I think, if Atholls book advocated manipulation, humiliation, public humiliation, blackmail, giving up all your legal rights, and beating your partner in anger, as LM's does, it might be "recommended" a lot less....


It recommends "dread game," correct? How is that not both manipulative and humiliating to a wife?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## aine

ladymisato said:


> Yes, begins in the bedroom but applies to the marriage, generally.
> 
> What would it look like? It looks like seduction. You seduce your husband to get your way.
> 
> Here is an example: suppose you and your husband disagree on some subject, say what movie to go see or whether to eat at home or go out for dinner. Erotic power trumps all other ways of deciding. You get your way and he agrees.
> 
> Or suppose you want your husband to do more work around the house. You apply a little erotic power and he agrees.
> 
> Or maybe you want him to quit his job and become a SAHD because you are making more than him. Even though he is making less he has the typical male attachment to his career. You press hard and he agrees.
> 
> What does it look like? A bit like a 1950s marriage in reverse.


This turns a woman into a sexual object without a brain or anything else going for her, a bit like a high class prostitute. You are also assuming that all men are sex starved and only think with their d*** when it comes to a woman, pluzzzzzzzz!:scratchhead:


----------



## DayOne

jld said:


> It recommends "dread game," correct? How is that not both manipulative and humiliating to a wife?


My comment was not to endorse Atholl's book. I have read it, as you know. BUT, there was a lot in that book I took issue with. Manipulation being one of them. Manipulating, coercing your partner is wrong, no matter who has written a book on "this is how you save your marriage".

If either partner is playing the dread game, then it's game over (IMO). If you have to resort to mind games to save a relationship, it's time to walk away.


Edit, I did also mention "advocating, humiliation, public humiliation, blackmail, giving up all your legal rights, and beating your partner in anger". Any response to that? All way beyond the line, IMO.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> There is a huge population of men who are submissive or want to be dominated. And a huge population of women who are dominant. Lady Misato is very popular in that community. There are couples who want a strict FLR and they find her blog and books, etc.
> 
> Here's a site by a guy who links to her site frequently and highly promotes her:
> 
> Worshipping Your Wife
> 
> I think she may have coached him, too.
> 
> Anyway...there are other huge populations of other lifestyles that would freak people at TAM out as well. FLR is just one of many amazing sexual/romantic/emotional lifestyles. They aren't for everyone, but try not to underestimate the large population that they are for.
> 
> I think Lady Misato is not in the right place at TAM to successfully spread her message to a lot of people, but I am positive she has received PM's from submissive males or dominant females asking for more information.
> 
> Like @jld said, I don't see this much that much different than MMSLP, in practice.


I'm surprised you seem to condone her "amazing" take non-consentual relationships, shaming, manipulating, and emotional abuse when you rail against MMSL. Unless I misunderstand your intent, of course.

I have no issue with dominant females and their happily submissive male partners, but I sure have a problem with the non-consentual aspect of it all.


----------



## Marduk

Thundarr said:


> I haven't read any of her stuff but I don't see the huge controversy that everyone sees. If a woman is in a failing marriage and other things haven't worked then why not try something like this? I'm pretty sure LadyM's choice of words (erotic power) is aimed toward women who feel like they have no control or say in a relationship or women who get no passion and desire from their husband.
> 
> Maybe it's the calculated approach that's ruffled feathers here. I don't know but I like it when my wife throws a little hip action in her walk for my benefit. If it puts me in a little better mood then so be it. To me the motive is important. A woman being sexy and seductive with the intent of making her marriage stronger just doesn't sound all that evil to me. And a man doesn't become a pvssy because he enjoys extra intimacy and attention.


All of that is fine and good.

But if you read her stuff, it's more about non-consentual ego-depletion and using sexuality to dominate -- whether your partner likes it or not.

If I remember right, there's even a part on how to do it if your partner clearly states that they want you to stop.


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> It recommends "dread game," correct? How is that not both manipulative and humiliating to a wife?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


How can you be so against MMSLP and condone LM?

The only conclusion one can draw from this is that it belongs in your increasingly large pile of stuff that is good for the gander but not the goose, or vice versa.


----------



## jld

DayOne said:


> My comment was not to endorse Atholl's book. I have read it, as you know. BUT, there was a lot in that book I took issue with. Manipulation being one of them. Manipulating, coercing your partner is wrong, no matter who has written a book on "this is how you save your marriage".
> 
> If either partner is playing the dread game, then it's game over (IMO). If you have to resort to mind games to save a relationship, it's time to walk away.
> 
> 
> Edit, I did also mention "advocating, humiliation, public humiliation, blackmail, giving up all your legal rights, and beating your partner in anger". Any response to that? All way beyond the line, IMO.


I agree that if you feel you have to resort to manipulation or coercion, you would be better off walking away. You are not with a partner you are naturally compatible with. 

There are people who want to be beaten or humiliated, who find it fulfilling, who you do not need to manipulate in any way to do that to them, if that is what you both desire.

MMSLP, as I understand it, recommends manipulation and humiliation in the form of dread game. LM's methods go farther than that. I suspect that is because of her niche "market" wanting and being open to more than that. 

I put market in quotes because I doubt she makes much money off this, certainly not in comparison to Athol Kay, who was able to quit his regular job and now works full time on his writing and website.

His market is broader and so he has to be more careful of what he says. The financial risk is higher. And his own personal convictions are likely different than LM's, too.


_Posted via Mobile Device_
_Posted via Mobile Device_
_Posted via Mobile Device_
_Posted via Mobile Device_
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

marduk said:


> How can you be so against MMSLP and condone LM?
> 
> The only conclusion one can draw from this is that it belongs in your increasingly large pile of stuff that is good for the gander but not the goose, or vice versa.


I am not condoning it. I think I was the first one in this thread to oppose her, in direct conversation with her, on her use of manipulation. I do not think manipulation is healthy.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife

Holland said:


> All good FW but lets not forget the out cry here when there are threads on men manipulating women to get what they want. Sorry but I would not use the words "amazing lifestyle" to describe something that is about manipulation no matter which gender plays which role.


A chosen lifestyle is not at all the same as one partner deciding to intentionally dupe or coerce the other partner. A chosen lifestyle is always the choice of both parties (or more) and both parties really enjoy the benefits of that lifestyle, for their own reasons.

So I'm not really sure what men manipulating women has in common with TIH or FLR lifestyles. It is not the same thing at all, because it is not consensual.


----------



## Marduk

jld said:


> I am not condoning it. I think I was the first one in this thread to oppose her, in direct conversation with her, on her use of manipulation. I do not think manipulation is healthy.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


She clearly advocates abuse.

I struggle to picture you having a polite conversation with a man advocating this to other men about how to treat women.


----------



## tech-novelist

marduk said:


> How can you be so against MMSLP and condone LM?
> 
> The only conclusion one can draw from this is that it belongs in your increasingly large pile of stuff that is good for the gander but not the goose, or vice versa.


Equal treatment is so misogynistic! >


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> A chosen lifestyle is not at all the same as one partner deciding to intentionally dupe or coerce the other partner. A chosen lifestyle is always the choice of both parties (or more) and both parties really enjoy the benefits of that lifestyle, for their own reasons.
> 
> So I'm not really sure what men manipulating women has in common with TIH or FLR lifestyles. It is not the same thing at all, because it is not consensual.


Have you read her stuff?


----------



## Faithful Wife

DayOne said:


> Anyone who's looked into, or lives, BDSM knows this so wrong. Hitting someone because you're angry isn't love. It's abuse.
> 
> It doesn't matter if the relationship is male or female led, what this nutball is preaching is abuse. Physical abuse, mental abuse, financial abuse.


Well no, this isn't really true. In TIH and other female submissive relationships, there is spanking as punishment and some females want the spankings even more when the man is angry, because then she feels it is "real". There are some women who will deliberately be a "brat" because they want to be beaten that way.

Look - there are lifestyles where people burn, beat, punch, electrocute, and lock each other up in closets for days at a time.

What people do in consensual relationships is up to them.


----------



## Pluto2

jld said:


> Do we know that? How can we be sure?
> 
> They are promoting sales of his book and may encourage people to use his website, which may earn him money.
> 
> 
> 
> I brought up the concern about manipulation to LM at the beginning of the thread, back on page two or so.
> 
> I don't think her motive is making money, though I would guess she does not want to lose money if she does not have to, either.
> 
> Spammers, imo, are the ones who slap an ad on here, nothing more. LM made several posts that reflect her ideas on the importance of avoiding divorce over in the separation and divorce section last spring and winter. The true spammers never devote that time and effort. I think she really thinks her ideas could help people.
> 
> Allowing her to express herself here and really pushing her to confront our very legitimate, imo, concerns about her ideas could have been revealing and enlightening, both for her and for us.
> 
> To my knowledge, she does not suggest her methods be used on anyone under 18. Everyone over 18 is at risk, though. Wouldn't some education and awareness on this subject be helpful?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_
> _Posted via Mobile Device_
> _Posted via Mobile Device_
> _Posted via Mobile Device_
> _Posted via Mobile Device_
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


So by this I should now assume you work for Dr. Harley since you recommend him so often?

Everyone here is for the free flow of ideas, that's how anyone can determine which ideas are full of crap. But TAM has its rules that all must follow. Those rules are to prevent the manipulation of people in pain who come here seeking help from folks who have been through the wringer and survived. She chose not to follow the rules.

So there were boundaries, and she ignored them, consequences follow.
Why are you defending this?

ETA: you want to learn more about her ideas, go read her book.


----------



## Faithful Wife

DayOne said:


> I think, if Atholls book advocated manipulation, humiliation, public humiliation, blackmail, giving up all your legal rights, and beating your partner in anger, as LM's does, it might be "recommended" a lot less....


Except the sneaky little problem here is that MMSLP is not about consensual acts...it is about the man manipulating and duping the woman. 

Whereas FLR and TIH information is about consensual acts, chosen by both parties.

I personally can respect people who jointly and awarely join a lifestyle together...but I can't respect people who want to dupe and coerce someone else because they can't get their consent.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> I'm surprised you seem to condone her "amazing" take non-consentual relationships, shaming, manipulating, and emotional abuse when you rail against MMSL. Unless I misunderstand your intent, of course.
> 
> I have no issue with dominant females and their happily submissive male partners, but I sure have a problem with the non-consentual aspect of it all.


Where is the non-consensual part?


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> Have you read her stuff?


Have you read anything other than her blog about FLR?

Did you read anything from this link:

Worshipping Your Wife

Do you understand anything about people who WANT to be controlled, beaten, and "kept in their place", because it gives them a sexual thrill?

If you don't understand anything about those people, that's fine. But then it should also be obvious that you don't understand why they would choose this lifestyle.

MMSLP is not a lifestyle, it is self-identified "game" for marriage. "Game" is to manipulate others, typically so that you can "get sex" from them.


----------



## john117

I would worry more about the non sexual results of the two methods. In MMSLP worst case you don't spend money, put assets on the line, and so on. In LM, one could find themselves in deep financial trouble if the (lolz) lead uses a power of attorney or similar in a bad way. 

Emotional damage is bad but financial damage is too....


----------



## ocotillo

Thundarr said:


> A woman being sexy and seductive with the intent of making her marriage stronger just doesn't sound all that evil to me.


I was thinking along tamer lines too, but I was wrong. The website reads more like sections of _Psychopathia Sexualis_

I'm not a prude about what consenting adults do and agree that there are type A and type B personalities even right here on TAM

However just as Alex from _A Clockwork Orange_ is not typical of type A's, men who are into this stuff are not typical of type B's. We're talking about a fairly small segment of the male population and I really think the OP is fishing in the wrong creek.

--Either that or I'm just naive - LOL


----------



## DayOne

Faithful Wife said:


> Well no, this isn't really true. In TIH and other female submissive relationships, there is spanking as punishment and some females want the spankings even more when the man is angry, because then she feels it is "real". There are some women who will deliberately be a "brat" because they want to be beaten that way.
> 
> Look - there are lifestyles where people burn, beat, punch, electrocute, and lock each other up in closets for days at a time.
> 
> What people do in consensual relationships is up to them.


I realise that there are 'relationships' that go WAY beyond what some people (myself included) would consider 'safe'. But to suggest (as LM does) beating your anger out onto someone else? I know people do it, I just don't agree with it. And I think TAM is way too vanilla to preach those ideas.


----------



## Heatherknows

jld said:


> It recommends "dread game," correct? How is that not both manipulative and humiliating to a wife?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Anthol is a tool.


----------



## Faithful Wife

DayOne said:


> I realise that there are 'relationships' that go WAY beyond what some people (myself included) would consider 'safe'. But to suggest (as LM does) beating your anger out onto someone else? I know people do it, I just don't agree with it. And I think TAM is way too vanilla to preach those ideas.


I agree TAM isn't the right audience.


----------



## Heatherknows

marduk said:


> How can you be so against MMSLP and condone LM?
> 
> The only conclusion one can draw from this is that it belongs in your increasingly large pile of stuff that is good for the gander but not the goose, or vice versa.


JlD is one of my favs but I'm really freaking disappointed in her support of this abusive book written by a female psychopath. For the most part TAM seems reasonable but this crap is nuts.


----------



## EnigmaGirl

lol....The whole theory is goofy and kind of revolting/sick.

If this is the kind of abusive relationship you want (I won't label it a partnership because it clearly isn't one) go buy a blow-up doll. Its so much easier and its ok to physically abuse a blow-up doll.

Real woman want real men...period. This is what happens when weak people, who are intimidated by those who can stand their own ground, try to find partners. They choose weak-minded and weak-willed individuals. They need to feel dominance over someone because they have no confidence in themselves and are unsuccessful at life (hence her trying to drum up traffic here because she can't find it anywhere else). Normal, mentally-healthy women enjoy the intellectual and emotional challenges of a partnership with an equal and have no desire to emotionally, financially, sexually or physically abuse their mate. In fact, in a healthy relationship, the very thought of abusing the other person is repugnant.

And you have to really ask yourself about what type of person would be sexually turned on only when they have someone under their complete mental control. That sounds extremely disturbing and sick to me....like everything else about this "woman" (and I use the term lightly).

I won't be going anywhere near her website. I'm opposed to abuse and won't be giving this kind of sick nonsense any attention because it shouldn't be validated in any way.


----------



## Heatherknows

Great. 


*Just freaking great.
*

This picture might have turned me off of sex forever. (It was the man in frilly panties pic. didn't show up on my post...)


----------



## DayOne

Faithful Wife said:


> Except the sneaky little problem here is that MMSLP is not about consensual acts...it is about the man manipulating and duping the woman.
> 
> Whereas FLR and TIH information is about consensual acts, chosen by both parties.
> 
> I personally can respect people who jointly and awarely join a lifestyle together...but I can't respect people who want to dupe and coerce someone else because they can't get their consent.


Totally agree. Which is why I dropped Atholl's 'guide' way back in the beginning, soon after day one. The kind of 'man' that uses 'dread' to control weak women is no Man. It's PUA BS. 

But LM's 'guide', with it's emphasis on 'erotic power' to coerce weak men is no better. Upping the Ante with financial control, blackmail, just makes it worse.


----------



## Faithful Wife

DayOne said:


> Totally agree. Which is why I dropped Atholl's 'guide' way back in the beginning, soon after day one. The kind of 'man' that uses 'dread' to control weak women is no Man. It's PUA BS.
> 
> But LM's 'guide', with it's emphasis on 'erotic power' to coerce weak men is no better. Upping the Ante with financial control, blackmail, just makes it worse.


Did you read any of the other site I linked a couple of times now?

Read some of the mens own words who WANT to be treated this way.

We don't get to decide for others what turns them on and what they are into...even if it squicks us out.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> Where is the non-consensual part?


Ugh... You're asking me to read it again?



> Why would any husband willingly submit to his wife? Why don’t husbands resist? Some do, in fact, but only a very small percentage. If your marriage is like most, you will find that your husband will become addicted to your erotic power in very short order. If resistance is offered at all, it will consist merely of token rebellions from time to time for the sake of his ego and to test your resolve and seriousness. In actuality, he will enjoy this as much as you do and he would be extremely disappointed if you were to back away from your new expectations of him.
> 
> Of course, not all men are alike and you will need to experiment with your erotic power to learn what works best for your marriage.
> 
> Your husband will discover an incredible joy and happiness in his submission to your erotic power. Erotic power taps a deep and primal nerve in the male psychology. Once you learn how to tap that nerve, you will have him forever wrapped around your finger.


And



> Step One: Offer to Experiment
> 
> Probably the best cover for this approach is to present it under the guise of sexual experimentation. Men love to experiment sexually so if you offer to “try something new” you are very unlikely to meet resistance.
> 
> Tell your husband that while you enjoy your current sexual routine that you would like to try something different tonight. (Tell him you read about it in a women’s magazine or heard about it from a friend or just tell him you read about it on the web.)


(Then there's a bit about how to get comfortable jerking your husband off while getting him to confess his fantasies or talk about the marriage)



> Repeat as necessary to get comfortable with the technique and to get him addicted to it.


And there's a whole page dedicated to conditioning:


> There are two types of behavioral conditioning: respondent conditioning and operant conditioning. In respondent conditioning, a neutral stimulus, such as words of praise, is paired with a primary reinforcer, such as sex. Through a repetition of the pairing, the neutral stimulus takes on the ability to elicit the response, it becomes a secondary reinforcer. Note that a secondary reinforcer may be paired with still another neutral stimulus to create a tertiary reinforcer but such a reinforcer will tend to be weaker than one paired with a primary reinforcer. It is therefore always better to associate new secondary reinforcers with your primary reinforcer, sex. Note that operant conditioning refers to behaviors that are not under your husband’s control. Your husband is naturally aroused by sex. Use the secondary reinforcer to mark the exact instant of behavior for which your husband is going to be rewarded. If, for example, you pair sex with words of praise then the words of praise will come to arouse your husband by themselves. When your husband learns that sex always follows words of praise, the words of praise are said to be conditioned.


And


> You are, in effect, rewiring his brain to enjoy doing the chores for you. Your husband might initially be willing to make the personal sacrifice to do the chores for you. As the training progresses, doing the chores will become less a personal sacrifice and more a self indulgence. A wise husband who has committed to serving you will therefore eagerly cooperate in the training.


And


> One technique for establishing your authority is to put up a photograph of a close adult relative or close friend and then make a number of marks on the photo (e.g. ten). Then each time that he disappoints you take him to the photo and cross out one of the marks. Inform him that when all the marks are crossed out you will have a talk with this person telling him/her about your new marital relationship.


And there's much, much more. All deliberately done without consent, under the guise of "fun."

A wise man would walk away from any woman who pulled stunts like this.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> Did you read any of the other site I linked a couple of times now?
> 
> Read some of the mens own words who WANT to be treated this way.
> 
> We don't get to decide for others what turns them on and what they are into...even if it squicks us out.


FW, I seriously doubt D1 would care if men consented to this as a form of play.

I don't care about male submissives. Fill your boots if that's your thing.

This isn't that.


----------



## As'laDain

i have only two issues with LadyMisato's book, but they are rather large issues. 

the first is that it is kept secret from the man. it is deliberately deceptive, the deception being justified by the premise that men are too prideful to know what is good for them, so must be "tricked" into it because they are not smart enough to see it as being in their best interest. at least, that is the excuse for the deception. while i do find her appraisal of male agency to be rather insulting, it doesn't bother me nearly as much as the deliberate deception. if the whole endeavor were to include honesty, it wouldn't bother me at all. 


second is the assumption that her methods will work on any man. i can tell you that i am certainly not the kind of man they would work on. if a woman were to follow her advice, it could very well blow up in her face, and in spectacularly terrible fashion because of the aforementioned lack of transparency. 


imagine if i told a man to spank his wife in order to turn her on. the goal is to manipulate her emotions, make her feel horny. if the man walked up to his wife and slapped her on the back side, it could go one of two ways. either she will like it, or she wont. now, if she really doesn't like it at all, she could react quite strongly to it, and probably would lose trust, gain resentment, etc. 

now, take that same situation and add honesty. the goal is still the same, to manipulate her emotions. make her feel horny. the man goes to his wife and tells her that he read somewhere that many women like to be spanked, that it turns them on, and he would like to try it with her to see if it turns HER on. lets say she agrees to try it but doesn't like it at all. 

how much damage do you think such an experiment would do to the relationship?


----------



## DayOne

Faithful Wife said:


> Did you read any of the other site I linked a couple of times now?
> 
> Read some of the mens own words who WANT to be treated this way.
> 
> We don't get to decide for others what turns them on and what they are into...even if it squicks us out.


Again, I.GET.THAT. I've seen some sh*t that turns my stomach, on other sites. And if that's what people are into, so be it.

But equally, I get to say "WTF" to some of these practices, in writing, on here, if I choose. I don't 'decide' what they're into, But i do get to be 'squicky' about it.

Edit: IF it helps you, at all, I'd be equally 'squicky' about a MLR that was as controlling, as abusive, as LM's is.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> Have you read anything other than her blog about FLR?
> 
> Did you read anything from this link:
> 
> Worshipping Your Wife
> 
> Do you understand anything about people who WANT to be controlled, beaten, and "kept in their place", because it gives them a sexual thrill?
> 
> If you don't understand anything about those people, that's fine. But then it should also be obvious that you don't understand why they would choose this lifestyle.
> 
> MMSLP is not a lifestyle, it is self-identified "game" for marriage. "Game" is to manipulate others, typically so that you can "get sex" from them.


Absolutely -- Again, if you're a male submissive go for it. Hell, I know a guy (not well) who loves it when his wife wears stilettos and steps on him -- if that's what gets you off, and your wife is happy to do it, go for it.

I work around male executives every day, and I know damn well that a sizeable percentage of them probably go home and beg their wives to Dom them just so they don't have to make decisions any more. Groovy. No issue.

Read her stuff, FW. It will make your head spin. This is not a BDSM thing. This is an abuse thing.


----------



## Fozzy

Faithful Wife said:


> A chosen lifestyle is not at all the same as one partner deciding to intentionally dupe or coerce the other partner. A chosen lifestyle is always the choice of both parties (or more) and both parties really enjoy the benefits of that lifestyle, for their own reasons.
> 
> So I'm not really sure what men manipulating women has in common with TIH or FLR lifestyles. It is not the same thing at all, because it is not consensual.


I'll confess that I haven't taken the time to read her book or browse her website at length, but previous comments she has made on TAM indicated to me that she was completely ok with manipulating men without their knowledge. 

Do they end up happier for it? Maybe some do. I have a problem with it ethically though when there's a lack of informed consent. Another case of do the ends justify the means.


----------



## DayOne

marduk said:


> FW, I seriously doubt D1 would care if men consented to this as a form of play.


True. I don't give a hoot if a person wishes to be a submissive, no matter their gender. I just don't agree with how some people (Atholl or LM) propose going about bending their partner to their will.


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> second is the assumption that her methods will work on any man.


It will work on any man that has no other alternative but to be with a "woman" like this OP.

My husband has lots of options and the day I start mistreating him is the day he'll exercise those options and rightfully so. I'm under no illusions...my guy is freaking awesome and could easily find someone else.

Good men deserve to be treated well and don't need to be manipulated into being good partners. They are just naturally good partners. 

I feel sorry for her that any woman that has to stoop to these deceptions to get their dog-like husband to do what she wants him to do. If I want my husband to do anything for me, all I have to do is ask him.


----------



## john117

The methods could work up to a point but I can't see many men signing over financial control of their own assets due to "erotic power"... I have a couple properties in Europe worth about $1M total, cleanly titled to me by my parents. It would take a lot more than " erotic power" to sign such things or even my 401k over. The keys to the Mini Cooper... Maybe. 

LM methods, however, just like MMSLP, don't scale very well. I'm not saying they don't work - they do, for the right individual. But the right individual isn't likely to be the one that can likely financially reward the Dom.


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> But the right individual isn't likely to be the one that can likely financially reward the Dom.


lol, good point. But maybe he's handing over his Burger King paycheck every week like a good pup.

Clearly if she's here trying to drum up business for her ailing abuse site, she's not raking in the cash from her man-on-a-leash.


----------



## As'laDain

FrenchFry said:


> This does feel like the good ol' days of MMSL discussion. Ahhh.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


yeah, it does have similar things that i dislike about MMSLP. but at least with MMSLP athol actually gives the message that YMMV and if it doesn't work, just move on. 

ladymisato presents it as if its a one size fits all kinda deal. i hope that flaw is as obvious to others as it is to me. if not, i feel for any woman who doesn't realize that it may very well not work out for them at all...


----------



## Thundarr

ocotillo said:


> I was thinking along tamer lines too, but I was wrong. The website reads more like sections of _Psychopathia Sexualis_


I just read some of her stuff. I found it more absurd than I imagined it would be. That way of thinking isn't for me or anyone I know of. Maybe next season of American Horror Story should be based on it.


----------



## john117

It is absurd only because of the underlying assumptions. That is, that "erotic power" alone is a sufficient reason to relinquish control. 

So it comes back to what I said earlier, it may work in a limited set of men but not in general, and more importantly, the men that this would be the likeliest to work may not be prized catches to begin with.

I'm thinking of a framework that would help explain why one would choose this approach; Maslow's hierarchy of needs is the obvious choice because sure as heck it ain't rational motivation or extrinsic motivation theory we are talking about. One has to throw away any and all rationality to go this route.


----------



## Marduk

john117 said:


> It is absurd only because of the underlying assumptions. That is, that "erotic power" alone is a sufficient reason to relinquish control.
> 
> So it comes back to what I said earlier, it may work in a limited set of men but not in general, and more importantly, the men that this would be the likeliest to work may not be prized catches to begin with.
> 
> I'm thinking of a framework that would help explain why one would choose this approach; Maslow's hierarchy of needs is the obvious choice because sure as heck it ain't rational motivation or extrinsic motivation theory we are talking about. One has to throw away any and all rationality to go this route.


It sure won't work on anybody -- male or female -- that knows they have options.

"What was that, wife? You're going to disclose our kinky sex life to my relatives if I don't do the dishes? Let's call them right now and tell them all about it. Right after I call my lawyer and tell Becky and Suzy that I'm single."


----------



## john117

That's the thing. MMSLP depends too much on non verbal communication (the dread game) and on one's partner to be unaware of what's going on. LM is the opposite after a while, as it assumes complicity.


----------



## Holland

Faithful Wife said:


> Well no, this isn't really true. In TIH and other female submissive relationships, there is spanking as punishment and some females want the spankings even more when the man is angry, because then she feels it is "real". There are some women who will deliberately be a "brat" because they want to be beaten that way.
> 
> Look - there are lifestyles where people burn, beat, punch, electrocute, and lock each other up in closets for days at a time.
> 
> What people do in consensual relationships is up to them.


Someone that wants to be burnt, beaten or locked in a closet all day is not mentally sound, for another to take advantage of that then it is not consentual at all.

Some women stay with men that beat them up, they do so through fear, low self esteem and because they are not mentally healthy. In this case the man is taking advantage over the woman's inability to hold herself in higher esteem, that is not consentual. 

This is not the realm of consent at all, it is manipulation.


----------



## As'laDain

Holland said:


> *Someone that wants to be burnt, beaten or locked in a closet all day is not mentally sound*, for another to take advantage of that then it is not consentual at all.
> 
> Some women stay with men that beat them up, they do so through fear, low self esteem and because they are not mentally healthy. In this case the man is taking advantage over the woman's inability to hold herself in higher esteem, that is not consentual.
> 
> This is not the realm of consent at all, it is manipulation.


someones kinks do not make them unhealthy and it does not mean that they are not mentally sound. it just means that they emotionally respond to situations different than the culturally accepted majority and they are ok with that difference.

both women and men often stay with partners that treat them terribly because of fear and low self esteem. that is not the same as practicing a kink, and should not be confused with abuse or mental illness.


----------



## SurpriseMyself

As'laDain said:


> someones kinks do not make them unhealthy and it does not mean that they are not mentally sound. it just means that they emotionally respond to situations different than the culturally accepted majority and they are ok with that difference.
> 
> both women and men often stay with partners that treat them terribly because of fear and low self esteem. that is not the same as practicing a kink, and should not be confused with abuse or mental illness.


This isn't about kinks. What lady was advocating was total submission inside and outside the bedroom. She lays out a clear plan that includes how to get your man to associate sexual arousal with anything you want him to do, from changing a diaper to cleaning the floors. It's a pure mind game bend on total dom in all areas of his life. Similar to trauma bonding, the man supposedly will like doing the dishes because he associates it with sex. Sick stuff.

And she also lays out how to instill fear when he does not comply outside the bedroom. Sexual pleasure is not really on the table in this scenario. Dom as a fetish is not the same at all.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Heatherknows

SurpriseMyself said:


> This isn't about kinks. What lady was advocating was total submission inside and outside the bedroom. She lays out a clear plan that includes how to get your man to associate sexual arousal with anything you want him to do, from changing a diaper to cleaning the floors. It's a pure mind game bend on total dom in all areas of his life. Similar to trauma bonding, the man supposedly will like doing the dishes because he associates it with sex. Sick stuff.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Her Blog should be called: How to Abuse Your Spouse. 

I think this thread should be pulled. The more we post the more attention she gets.


----------



## Marduk

Why she's not perma-banned, I have no idea.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife

As'laDain said:


> yeah, it does have similar things that i dislike about MMSLP. but *at least with MMSLP athol actually gives the message that YMMV* and if it doesn't work, just move on.
> 
> *ladymisato presents it as if its a one size fits all kinda deal*. i hope that flaw is as obvious to others as it is to me. if not, i feel for any woman who doesn't realize that it may very well not work out for them at all...


MMSLP definitely DOES say that all women are the same, that we ALL are sl*ts who are just waiting for the opportunity to cheat on our men (because "evo-psyche" and because "hamsters). It also says all women are attracted to the same things and that all women will respond to what the book proposes. It also says all men are the same and respond the same. Again, because "evo-psyche".

Even though it may say YMMV, the author attributes this to a relationship that is just too far gone, NOT to any differences in individual preferences and responses.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Holland said:


> Someone that wants to be burnt, beaten or locked in a closet all day is not mentally sound, for another to take advantage of that then it is not consentual at all.


I know it may look that way from the outside, but there are plenty of mental sane and sound people who want and enjoy these things.

We can't relate to it, so to us it seems insane.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> And there's much, much more. All deliberately done without consent, under the guise of "fun."
> 
> A wise man would walk away from any woman who pulled stunts like this.


I still did not see anywhere that this was deliberately done without consent.


----------



## Faithful Wife

SurpriseMyself said:


> This isn't about kinks. What lady was advocating was total submission inside and outside the bedroom. She lays out a clear plan that includes how to get your man to associate sexual arousal with anything you want him to do, from changing a diaper to cleaning the floors. It's a pure mind game bend on total dom in all areas of his life. Similar to trauma bonding, the man supposedly will like doing the dishes because he associates it with sex. Sick stuff.
> 
> And she also lays out how to instill fear when he does not comply outside the bedroom. Sexual pleasure is not really on the table in this scenario. Dom as a fetish is not the same at all.


It is actually exactly like the TIH information, which IS about kinks and does include total submission inside and outside the bedroom. In TIH the man is the total dom in all areas of the couple's life.

And as I mentioned previously, some of the wives in TIH enjoy the fear of "being in trouble" and "being punished".

Keep in mind, many of the people in FLR's are also into **** stuff and the wives have other sex partners and sometimes the husbands "get" to watch the wife have sex with these others.

This is definitely about KINK. We have guys wander in to TAM wanting to be a **** fairly regularly. It is quite common and goes hand in hand with FLR's.


----------



## As'laDain

SurpriseMyself said:


> This isn't about kinks. What lady was advocating was total submission inside and outside the bedroom. She lays out a clear plan that includes how to get your man to associate sexual arousal with anything you want him to do, from changing a diaper to cleaning the floors. It's a pure mind game bend on total dom in all areas of his life. Similar to trauma bonding, the man supposedly will like doing the dishes because he associates it with sex. Sick stuff.
> 
> And she also lays out how to instill fear when he does not comply outside the bedroom. Sexual pleasure is not really on the table in this scenario. *Dom as a fetish is not the same at all*.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


that is exactly my point. if LM simply said "here is a guide to being a super Domme for your submissive husband" nobody would really find it so appalling. 

the association stuff wouldn't bother me a bit if it were clearly stated. its much the same as we all do without even thinking about it. but, its not sex we associate. its love. LM holds the assertion that a man can feel love through no other means, and advocates using it as a tool to manipulate men. 

there are men who would be perfectly happy with this. there would be nothing wrong with a man wanting that, so her methods of providing that for them aren't wrong in of themselves. a complete power exchange dynamic is not wrong in of itself for those who want it. 

the part that is wrong is the deception. it is based on a seemingly delusional assertion that all men respond the same, and that all men would be led by a woman who uses sex to influence them. 

it simply doesn't work the way she sells it. if she finds herself trying to use these methods on a man like myself for instance, it wont work. sex is not my driving desire. i'm too much like her in terms of what drives me. our methods bear some resemblance, but our philosophies and purpose for our dealings differ greatly.


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> FW, I seriously doubt D1 would care if men consented to this as a form of play.
> 
> I don't care about male submissives. *Fill your boots if that's your thing*.
> 
> This isn't that.


Was this directed at me?

If so, stop being obtuse. You know I have not once said anything about my preferences on this thread. Trying to jab me like that simply because I understand this concept and have nothing against the lifestyle is immature and beneath you.

If you don't care about male submissives, then move on from this thread, because that's what it is about. No harm, no foul.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> Was this directed at me?
> 
> If so, stop being obtuse. You know I have not once said anything about my preferences on this thread. Trying to jab me like that simply because I understand this concept and have nothing against the lifestyle is immature and beneath you.
> 
> If you don't care about male submissives, then move on from this thread, because that's what it is about. No harm, no foul.


How was that possibly a jab at you?

LM has little to do with Dom/sub fetishes. 

And I've said many times that I have no issue with male submissives or dominant females. 

What is this about for you FW?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> I still did not see anywhere that this was deliberately done without consent.


Omg. Did you read what I posted? What's on her website?

You can't be serious. In her own words, do it in the guise of... Get him addicted... How to condition and train... 

_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife

marduk said:


> How was that possibly a jab at you?
> 
> LM has little to do with Dom/sub fetishes.
> 
> And I've said many times that I have no issue with male submissives or dominant females.
> 
> What is this about for you FW?


If "fill your boots if that's your thing" was directed at me, then it was a jab at me. If it was meant simply to anyone who may be into FLR's or male submissives, then it is still a jab but not directed at me. You do clearly think you are superior to anyone who is into what is being discussed here. That's why it is a jab.

All this is about to me is a lifestyle choice, one of many that are out there, many much weirder than this one. I have no issue with people's lifestyle choices and know a lot about a lot of them due to lots of reading over the years, and knowing some very kinky people.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> If "fill your boots if that's your thing" was directed at me, then it was a jab at me. If it was meant simply to anyone who may be into FLR's or male submissives, then it is still a jab but not directed at me. You do clearly think you are superior to anyone who is into what is being discussed here. That's why it is a jab.
> 
> All this is about to me is a lifestyle choice, one of many that are out there, many much weirder than this one.


I meant fill your boots as in have at 'Er or go for it. 

What did it mean to you? How is it a jab?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife

Faithful Wife said:


> If "fill your boots if that's your thing" was directed at me, then it was a jab at me. If it was meant simply to anyone who may be into FLR's or male submissives, then it is still a jab but not directed at me. *You do clearly think you are superior to anyone who is into what is being discussed here. That's why it is a jab.*.


----------



## As'laDain

john117 said:


> That's the thing. MMSLP depends too much on non verbal communication (the dread game) and on one's partner to be unaware of what's going on. LM is the opposite after a while, as it assumes complicity.


the non-verbal is what i would like to see removed from the equation in both books. 

in both cases, it will work for some, but fail spectacularly with others. a little clear and honest verbal communication could go a long way to avoiding any hiroshima moments.


----------



## As'laDain

Faithful Wife said:


> If "fill your boots if that's your thing" was directed at me, then it was a jab at me. If it was meant simply to anyone who may be into FLR's or male submissives, then it is still a jab but not directed at me. You do clearly think you are superior to anyone who is into what is being discussed here. That's why it is a jab.
> 
> All this is about to me is a lifestyle choice, one of many that are out there, many much weirder than this one. I have no issue with people's lifestyle choices and know a lot about a lot of them due to lots of reading over the years, and knowing some very kinky people.


i live a power exchange dynamic, and i really didn't see marduk's comment as a jab at anyone. 

why do you believe that marduk finds himself superior to anyone into power exchange dynamics? am i missing something?


----------



## Marduk

As'laDain said:


> i live a power exchange dynamic, and i really didn't see marduk's comment as a jab at anyone.
> 
> why do you believe that marduk finds himself superior to anyone into power exchange dynamics? am i missing something?


Ya. I'm lost here. 

I'm usually pretty clear about it if I'm taking a jab at someone. 

And I have a few friends in the kink community that dabble both sides of the d/s spectrum, and they've never said that to me. 

My issue with LM is the same as D1s or Aslas - deceit and non-consensuality. Big things to the kinksters I know about.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Heatherknows

As'laDain said:


> i live a power exchange dynamic, and *i really didn't see marduk's comment as a jab at anyone. *
> 
> why do you believe that marduk finds himself superior to anyone into power exchange dynamics? am i missing something?


Neither did I. 

This stuff is just weird.


----------



## As'laDain

Faithful Wife said:


> I still did not see anywhere that this was deliberately done without consent.



from her book:



> Naturally, a seductive approach is somewhat sneaky. *After all, you will be initiating an important change in your marital relationship without his prior knowledge or approval.... Eventually even the most stubborn husband will come to terms with his newfound desire for submission to you because the lure of your erotic power will be overwhelming. Ideally, by the time he figures out what you’re up to he has already embraced his submission to you. Then it is simply a matter of your openly acknowledging this new reality in your marriage.*


----------



## ExiledBayStater

Faithful Wife said:


> Have you read anything other than her blog about FLR?
> 
> Did you read anything from this link:
> 
> Worshipping Your Wife
> 
> Do you understand anything about people who WANT to be controlled, beaten, and "kept in their place", because it gives them a sexual thrill?
> 
> If you don't understand anything about those people, that's fine. But then it should also be obvious that you don't understand why they would choose this lifestyle.
> 
> MMSLP is not a lifestyle, it is self-identified "game" for marriage. "Game" is to manipulate others, typically so that you can "get sex" from them.


I'll chime in here. I've read RWDDH and WYW. RWDDH outright dismisses the need for meaningful consent from the man, as do some of the guest bloggers on WYW. Maybe that's part of the kink. Read literally, such content is vile.

I have not read MMSLP, even though I've been advised to when I was at a low point. For me, making it clear that I didn't have the will to stay in a clinically sexless marriage brought about changes. My wife needed my love, patience, and participation to reach her sexual potential, not manipulation and coercion.


----------



## Faithful Wife

As'laDain said:


> from her book:


(somehow it did not quote the part of the book I was meaning to but anyway...)

Yes, I see how it is written. And I see this can be interpreted as non-consensual, trickery, or whatever.

Though the author does seem to also believe the man will come to submit consentually, which leaves a gray area. If she's talking about a truly submissive man who does want this lifestyle, then it reads differently.

Again keeping in mind, she is only one of lots of authors and doms who have books and blogs about FLR's...and the vast majority of true male submissives want to be forced to submit (consentually, even though they want it to appear non-consensual).

Did you read any of the "worship your wife" blog? They write and read fantasy about literally getting beaten into non-consensual submission. There's a lot more to this stuff than LM's blog.


----------



## Faithful Wife

There was a guy in Portland who was in a kinky lifestyle relationship who literally kidnapped his woman, beat her up, gagged and tied her up, and restrained her in the back seat of his car. Then went rampaging all over town while he cussed at her and told her he was going to rape her and kill her. She squealed as much as she could while gagged and tried to get herself loose from the restraints.

He stopped at a gas station and someone noticed her in the back seat and called the cops and gave them his plate number. The cops caught up with them and were going to arrest him, but after untying the "victim" she said "no no, this is all just a kinky sex game we are playing!"

This was on one of those "sex sent me to jail" type shows, but I had already heard the story because people in this lifestyle thought the whole thing was funny.

My point: people get a rush out of weird stuff, and some specifically want it to look and feel non-consensual.


----------



## ExiledBayStater

Only in Portland!


----------



## NoSizeQueen

Faithful Wife said:


> My point: people get a rush out of weird stuff, and some specifically want it to look and feel non-consensual.


Yep. 

And some people don't understand this, and they read a blog and think it's okay to "trick" their spouse into submission to get their way.

Even when people want it to feel non-consensual, they usually have an agreement and a safe word. LM is encouraging women who are not a part of this lifestyle to push their husbands into it to "save their marriage". Her approach is irresponsible. Power games require some sort of an agreement, and she doesn't make that clear at all to the uninitiated.


----------



## Faithful Wife

NoSizeQueen said:


> Yep.
> 
> And some people don't understand this, and they read a blog and think it's okay to "trick" their spouse into submission to get their way.
> 
> Even when people want it to feel non-consensual, they usually have an agreement and a safe word. LM is encouraging women who are not a part of this lifestyle to push their husbands into it to "save their marriage". Her approach is irresponsible. Power games require some sort of an agreement, and she doesn't make that clear at all to the uninitiated.


I agree. I just think it is a fuzzy area.

I could easily find fuzzy blogs by male doms that talk the same type of stuff about controlling and forcing submission via threats, taking away money, and physical harm.

I'm not saying it is responsible, but I am saying it is common.

It is also quite common for men to want to be a **** and to be degraded and humiliated by his woman and the OM. They come here all the time and people poo poo them.

I mean there is sooooo much out there. Not all of it is good and not all of it is sex positive. But it is quite diverse.


----------



## NoSizeQueen

Faithful Wife said:


> I mean there is sooooo much out there. Not all of it is good and not all of it is sex positive. But it is quite diverse.


That's the truth!

I have no problem with power games or cuckolding with consent. But I can't get on board with any philosophy that recommends tricking and manipulating people into that lifestyle. There are too many stupid people in the world who don't understand the consequences of those actions.


----------



## Marduk

Faithful Wife said:


> (somehow it did not quote the part of the book I was meaning to but anyway...)
> 
> Yes, I see how it is written. And I see this can be interpreted as non-consensual, trickery, or whatever.
> 
> Though the author does seem to also believe the man will come to submit consentually, which leaves a gray area. If she's talking about a truly submissive man who does want this lifestyle, then it reads differently.
> 
> Again keeping in mind, she is only one of lots of authors and doms who have books and blogs about FLR's...and the vast majority of true male submissives want to be forced to submit (consentually, even though they want it to appear non-consensual).
> 
> Did you read any of the "worship your wife" blog? They write and read fantasy about literally getting beaten into non-consensual submission. There's a lot more to this stuff than LM's blog.


Oh come on. 

Submitting after one is manipulated into doing it has a name. 

It's called brainwashing.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife

NoSizeQueen said:


> That's the truth!
> 
> I have no problem with power games or cuckolding with consent. But I can't get on board with any philosophy that recommends tricking and manipulating people into that lifestyle. There are too many stupid people in the world who don't understand the consequences of those actions.


I first encountered LM here at TAM, but because I used to have a sex blog, I later ran into her on twitter and other places where lots of sex bloggers hang out and tweet or FB each other and their followers.

Her lifestyle is not any more strange to me than a lot of other kinky lifestyles I encountered in the sex blogging world. There are people who are tables, for gods sake.

I have talked to LM a few times via email, and PM at twitter...and for awhile she had my blog linked on hers (not sure if it still is and my blog is turned off now so it wouldn't go anywhere anyway). I asked her once why she would link my blog on hers, since my blog was more along the lines of worshipping my husband and was in some ways the opposite of her lifestyle and what her blog is about. I mean, I was on the blog roll as the only non-FLR blog in a list of MANY FLR blogs. Anyway, she said it was because she liked my blog and because she respects other lifestyles, too. 

I haven't talked with her since then and she was gone from TAM for quite awhile. But when we did talk, she was a lot different than what I expected. I gained some respect for her, even though I have never wanted anything close to her lifestyle, however, she would never want mine, either.

If you guys like, I will email and ask her about the consent and manipulation issues.

Personally, I don't read it how some here are reading it...but that isn't saying I get it or like it, either. I do have respect for other alternative lifestyles though, and this is by far not the strangest.


----------



## ExiledBayStater

To be fair, there is this line at the bottom of the Intro page on RWDDH. I don't remember that being there before, but the copyright on the website is 2012.

"This website is for emotionally strong couples in a stable, loving marriage. You are responsible for the consequences."


----------



## Thundarr

NoSizeQueen said:


> That's the truth!
> 
> I have no problem with power games or cuckolding with consent. But I can't get on board with any philosophy that recommends tricking and manipulating people into that lifestyle. There are too many stupid people in the world who don't understand the consequences of those actions.


I agree. This website has tabs for control, management, and punishment. Talk about red flags. It's the non-consentual aspect that I don't like as well.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

I hesitate to even post on this thread.. as I really don't understand or can comprehend what sort of man would want this.. but having done some scant reading on kinks & fetishes.. there are plenty of things that I would never in this life understand...but does that make all these people sick twisted , demented and mentally ill.....I guess I'll leave some room for the bizarre... 

I bet many of them hold regular jobs & such.. and one would never KNOW what goes on behind closed doors... I didn't click on the blog though...I haven't found LadyM to be rude or disrespectful to anyone here -that I have seen.. it's just a VERY different dynamic ...Taken in Hand all backwards or something down that road. Which is more extreme for 95% of couples.. so I'd think. 



jld said:


> Yep, I think it is crazy, too.
> 
> But you know that there are men who really like that, right? That it gives them a sexual thrill? And makes them feel safe and cared for?
> 
> *LM said once that her husband taught her at least some of what she does to him. As strange as it may seem to you and me, there are some men who like being treated like that. *She has said she gets favorable, appreciative comments from them on her blog.


 We'd all be interested in hearing *his* side of the story... can anyone find this !?




jld said:


> He is unattractive to _you_. And to me, too, quite frankly.
> 
> But some women are very happy with passive men. Different strokes for different folks.


Yep... my husband is more on the passive side.. though nothing to the extremes spoken on this thread.... he wants honesty, sincerity, desire, my passion.... not manipulation of any sort.. I've always felt I had "sexual power" over him.. he would agree with this.. but it's for our mutual pleasure, benefit & enjoyment .... 

@ladymisato posted a # of times in this older thread >> http://talkaboutmarriage.com/ladies-lounge/251081-power-sex.html.... she appeared on a similar wavelength as a number of female posters here..... manipulation came up in this discussion as well.. The Power play on THAT thread.. I can understand easily... I don't see manipulation in it.. @FormerSelf (post #67)... he explained it so very well.. though all this could be an off shoot to the lifestyle discussed in this thread *?? * 

I guess I am confused.. as she said in one of her posts , an exchange with FW saying


> Originally Posted by *Faithful Wife*
> 
> It is hard to discuss the particular power you are talking about because it really sounds so arrogant or manipulative when you say it out loud. But it is actually natural, primal, and love-based. The feeling that comes with it is amazing but not egocentric. It hits you in your heart and gut, not your mind.
> 
> Originally posted by *ladymisato*:
> 
> I'm sure you are aware how contentious this subject is on TAM. But I'm grateful you shared your positive experience with us.
> 
> Not every appreciates the power dynamic in marriage, many can't help but see malice and vanity in it. But those of us who have experienced it can attest to the many ways in which love can be expressed through it.


 Just doesn't sound all that Bad here - to me...


----------



## Heatherknows

Faithful Wife said:


> Her lifestyle is not any more strange to me than a lot of other kinky lifestyles I encountered in the sex blogging world. *There are people who are tables*, for gods sake.


I've never felt normal. But now I do. :nerd:


----------



## ocotillo

What I don't understand (And think irresponsible) is the lack of anything resembling qualification. If a couple wants to play this game, fine. I don't understand it and find it distasteful, but who am I to judge? But what if your spouse is an MD or has some other medical training? What if a child's life is in danger? How does that play out in a dynamic where you're not automatically deferring to their superior knowledge? 

*Your Spouse: * Honey, I think we need to take little Sally to the emergency room.

*You:* Why?

*Your Spouse:* Look at this rash on her ankles. It's not an ordinary rash. This is called, "petechiae" and it could be indicative of something serious.

*You:* What?

*Your Spouse:* Thrombocytopenic purpura for one.

*You:* What's that?

*Your Spouse:* A shortage of thrombocytes. You know, platelets.
*
You:* What are platelets?

*Your Spouse:* We're wasting time here. Can we talk about this on the way? -Please?
*
You:* Answer my question!


This scenario borders on the outrageous, but that's the whole point. Erotic games have their place, (I guess..) but the author doesn't present it as a facade that can (and should) be dropped when necessary.


----------



## NoSizeQueen

ocotillo said:


> What I don't understand (And think irresponsible) is the lack of anything resembling qualification. If a couple wants to play this game, fine. I don't understand it and find it distasteful, but who am I to judge? But what if your spouse is an MD or has some other medical training? What if a child's life is in danger? How does that play out in a dynamic where you're not automatically deferring to their superior knowledge?
> 
> *Your Spouse: * Honey, I think we need to take little Sally to the emergency room.
> 
> *You:* Why?
> 
> *Your Spouse:* Look at this rash on her ankles. It's not an ordinary rash. This is called, "petechiae" and it could be indicative of something serious.
> 
> *You:* What?
> 
> *Your Spouse:* Thrombocytopenic purpura for one.
> 
> *You:* What's that?
> 
> *Your Spouse:* A shortage of thrombocytes. You know, platelets.
> *
> You:* What are platelets?
> 
> *Your Spouse:* We're wasting time here. Can we talk about this on the way? -Please?
> *
> You:* Answer my question!
> 
> 
> This scenario borders on the outrageous, but that's the whole point. Erotic games have their place, (I guess..) but the author doesn't present it as a facade that can (and should) be dropped when necessary.


And that is why people playing these games need (and usually have) a safe word. They need a clear signal that means it's time to stop NOW.


----------



## Heatherknows

ExiledBayStater said:


> To be fair, there is this line at the bottom of the Intro page on RWDDH. I don't remember that being there before, but the copyright on the website is 2012.
> 
> *"This website is for emotionally strong couples in a stable, loving marriage. You are responsible for the consequences."*


Regardless, I still feel the author is a nut job.


----------



## Marduk

Heatherknows said:


> Regardless, I still feel the author is a nut job.


And dangerous.

Narcissists and sociopaths can be very charming and disarming. 

It's how they do what they do.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Heatherknows

marduk said:


> And dangerous.
> 
> Narcissists and sociopaths can be very charming and disarming.
> 
> It's how they do what they do.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


The author might be doing this as a way to make money. Maybe she read up on how to make money as an erotic fiction writer and decided she'd make her millions writing this crap. IDK. Last year, I made a bunch of fitness videos in hopes of being the next fitness guru and that didn't work out too well. Some people find traditional jobs hard to keep and will often go to great lengths to figure out a way to survive. However, writing a book about abusing people to make money is massively wrong.


----------



## Marduk

Heatherknows said:


> The author might be doing this as a way to make money. Maybe she read up on how to make money as an erotic fiction writer and decided she'd make her millions writing this crap. IDK. Last year, I made a bunch of fitness videos in hopes of being the next fitness guru and that didn't work out too well. Some people find traditional jobs hard to keep and will often go to great lengths to figure out a way to survive. However, writing a book about abusing people to make money is massively wrong.


I don't think so.

She clearly thinks she understands what is good for her husband even if he doesn't agree.

And thinks it's fine to manipulate him into agreeing with her with sex -- a primary motivator.

This is classic narcissistic behaviour, and the total lack of empathy is a giant clue.

As is publicizing it and wanting attention and people to do what she does. Because that makes her a leader and trailblazer.

My wife and I have spent time in various child and women protection services as volunteers -- I know the classic MO -- usually from men.

I'm not surprised it's not any different from women.

The consent of the exploited and weak doesn't make it right, especially after they've already been exploited.

It makes it pathetic.


----------



## ExiledBayStater

ocotillo said:


> This scenario borders on the outrageous, but that's the whole point. Erotic games have their place, (I guess..) but the author doesn't present it as a facade that can (and should) be dropped when necessary.


This is certainly a valid criticism.

Having said that, I would hope that anybody reading this would be smart enough to realize that emergencies are no time to exercise or submit to erotic power. I'll reverse the genders just for fun. I would hope that the non-MD wife, upon hearing the MD husband say it's time to go to the ER, would agree to go to the ER. I would also hope that the MD would not wait for permission from the spouse, and would just take the child to the ER with or without the non-MD.

We as Americans have a lot of faith in each other's ability to make responsible choices. We choose our own leaders, we have access to countless things that can ruin our health, from tobacco to alcohol to Twinkies. We have lots and lots of porn that shows awful things, sadly some young folks try to emulate it. I see LM's blog as being on par with porn.

Having said that, promoting porn on TAM is not cool, so the ban makes sense.


----------



## john117

Maybe I should write my own version that uses alcohol to control the husband... My birth country has some pretty good liquors, Kentucky has lots of bourbon also... 

What could possibly go wrong


----------



## ocotillo

ExiledBayStater said:


> Having said that, I would hope that anybody reading this would be smart enough to realize that emergencies are no time to exercise or submit to erotic power.


You would hope so. 

Realistically though, even if all you're doing is writing a fluffy article about the latest diet or exercise program for a trendy health magazine, it's still a good idea to qualify it with a cautionary note about seeing your physician first. This is not just a legal and ethical consideration, it's for your own peace of mind as well. 

But that is a little wide of the point I wanted to make though. The author presents erotic power not as an end unto itself, but as a tool to gain control.

Control itself is the goal and it's presented in sweeping, unqualified terms: (Emphasis is mine) 




> "What does it really mean to be a married female head of the household?
> 
> In the simplest terms, it means that your word *is his law*; your husband’s primary duty is *always* to yield to you and obey your wishes.
> 
> To elaborate, being head of the household means that you make the *important decisions* and your decisions are final, *including deciding what your husband is allowed to decide on his own.* Where you disagree, *he defers to your decision.* You should develop the confidence to act on the basis of your role as head of the household and the strength and determination to help him adjust to his own supporting role.
> 
> You *might* ask his opinion to help you form your decision. It is one of his responsibilities to share his opinion when you ask for it or when he thinks you expect or need it. However, you should ultimately retreat to the privacy of your own mind to form your decision and own that decision once it is made. Say, “Thank you for sharing your opinion. Let me think about it and I will give you my decision when I am ready.”



The scenario I presented would be absurd were it not for the fact that the author doesn't exclude absurdities.


----------

