# Wife Led Marriage



## ladymisato

I am new to this forum but I have been browsing the topics looking for discussions of wife led marriage. I have been experimenting with it in my own marriage for over a decade and I recently self-published a book on the subject.

I've found it very difficult to discuss this topic in public, it seems people are either offended by it or embarrassed to admit it in their own situation. It crosses many social taboos not least of which is that traditional male led marriage ought to give way to equality in marriage. Nobody is alarmed when a man is head of the household but when the wife asserts herself at home she is assumed to be a shrew or worse. (I publish under a pseudonym for this reason.)

But with more men unemployed and more women successfully advancing in their careers and with the growing trend of women being better educated, it seems like a timely subject and perhaps its appropriate for couples to finally come out of the closet.

What is the general sense here? Is anyone open to sharing their own experiences?


----------



## DoF

I don't believe in dictatorship or EITHER sex leading "the marriage".

I believe in balance and equality. And I also believe that BALANCE is an extremely important part of a healthy/long term marriage.

Mind you, I don't want you to take above to he extreme. There will be some areas when one person has more responsibility than other (based on household situation). 

For example, my wife wants no part of finances/bills (even though we do both go over it on regular basis). HOWEVER, I still feel that she should be part of major financial decision process (even though I can just take control and run with it, and she won't even care).

I also don't think there is anything wrong with woman led marriage, as long as both parties are happy and it works for them. Especially since men had so much control in our history (why not). Whatever floats that boat.


----------



## Almostrecovered

It's very evident that I don't particularly like the whole vibe a segment of posters here push in regards to traditional roles

for the same reason I can say I won't be a fan of your agenda either. I think when couples play to their strengths in leadership and have equitable say in all things important then it tends to be a more productive one. I can respect one's choice to do otherwise if they have their eyes open to what they're doing but I can honestly say I wouldn't want an imbalanced relationship in terms of who "leads"


----------



## murphy5

not sure where you are from, but in USA i would guess that most marriages are not "led" by either side. There is a natural division of duties, usually determined by what each partner does best. For instance, it would be unlikely to see my wife trying to repair a closet door, and it would be unlikely for me to try to sew a rip in my pants. But cooking and food shopping i do, mostly because she sux at cooking. Big financial decisions we both make together.


----------



## Hicks

I would say that most marriages are wife led marriages.


----------



## DoF

murphy5 said:


> not sure where you are from, but in USA i would guess that most marriages are not "led" by either side. There is a natural division of duties, usually determined by what each partner does best. For instance, it would be unlikely to see my wife trying to repair a closet door, and it would be unlikely for me to try to sew a rip in my pants. But cooking and food shopping i do, mostly because she sux at cooking. Big financial decisions we both make together.


Agreed

I think the big trick to this question is exactly what kind of equality are we talking about? 

Are we talking abou above what Murphy stated (which CAN be presieved are "equality" but it certainly is very balanced and healthy.

OR are we talking about "Get your ass back to work, do yard work and cook you SOB" type of a deal (and other way around for Men lead relationship?

Devil is in the details hehe


----------



## ladymisato

DoF said:


> I don't believe in dictatorship or EITHER sex leading "the marriage".


I think this is the most common reaction that I see. Leadership equals dictatorship which is bad. Equality good.

Of course, as you and others point out, different people have different strengths. Men are good at some things, especially, like fixing things. Women are generally better cooks.

But playing to strengths is not the same as leading. If you think about a business, everyone employed is doing a job that they are (presumably) good at. But there is only one CEO.



> I also don't think there is anything wrong with woman led marriage, as long as both parties are happy and it works for them. Especially since men had so much control in our history (why not). Whatever floats that boat.


Of course, that is always the goal. And I don't mean to suggest that this is some sort of revenge for historical wrongs, I am only saying that there is, in fact, a need for someone to be head of the household and women are quite capable of fulfilling that role.

But I invite you to ague with me on that.


----------



## ladymisato

DoF said:


> I think the big trick to this question is exactly what kind of equality are we talking about?
> 
> Are we talking abou above what Murphy stated (which CAN be presieved are "equality" but it certainly is very balanced and healthy.
> 
> OR are we talking about "Get your ass back to work, do yard work and cook you SOB" type of a deal (and other way around for Men lead relationship?


Can we all agree that the later form is bad regardless of whether it is the wife or husband? Let's focus on a loving marriage to avoid straw man arguments.


----------



## EleGirl

I agree with the others. A marriage is strongest when they share responsibilities based on their strengths. 

Your ideas that education and income somehow dictate whobis the leader is flawed. It assumes that these things makes a person more entitled. It also assumes that it makes them a better leader. Not so. I can introduce you to many highly paid, highly educated people who cannot balance a check book or lead a horse to water.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ladymisato

EleGirl said:


> I agree with the others. A marriage is strongest when they share responsibilities based on their strengths.
> 
> Your ideas that education and income somehow dictate whobis the leader is flawed. It assumes that these things makes a person more entitled. It also assumes that it makes them a better leader. Not so. I can introduce you to many highly paid, highly educated people who cannot balance a check book or lead a horse to water.


What, in your opinion, determines which spouse will be the head of the household? What is the attribute that defines that strength?


----------



## GTdad

Hicks said:


> I would say that most marriages are wife led marriages.


Yeah, me too. The default position of a whole lot of men, me included for a long time, was to go along to get along, not rock the boat, and whatever other cliche you want to plug in there.

In the short run, it's the easy path. Not so much in the long run, though.


----------



## Almostrecovered

I guess I don't understand the need to have a "head of the household"

any big money decisions should be made together
child discipline is for the most part agreed on, discussed and meted out accordingly
sex is mutual and needs and wants are either discussed or tried out
plans are suggested and made or not made depending on schedules
any emergency that comes up I trust my wife to make the right decision if I cant be reached and she feels the same for me


----------



## Regret214

When one has children, they tend to be in a lot of control.

BRB...I have to go pick up my daughter and her friend.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ladymisato

Almostrecovered said:


> I guess I don't understand the need to have a "head of the household"
> 
> any big money decisions should be made together
> child discipline is for the most part agreed on, discussed and meted out accordingly
> sex is mutual and needs and wants are either discussed or tried out
> plans are suggested and made or not made depending on schedules
> any emergency that comes up I trust my wife to make the right decision if I cant be reached and she feels the same for me


This is an important question. Throughout history it was understood that there was a head of the household and it was the man. The modern notion, as I mentioned, is that this is old-fashioned and that some sort of equality must prevail.

But the reality is that when decisions have to be made, and when the spouses do not agree (which is often), that they need to at least agree that one or the other spouse will make the decision. If they cannot even agree on that, call the lawyers.

It is also simply a convenience for one spouse to make the important decisions with input from the other instead of treating every decision as if by committee.

So, yes, I am saying that there is, and will always be, a need for a head of the household.


----------



## DoF

ladymisato said:


> Of course, that is always the goal. And I don't mean to suggest that this is some sort of revenge for historical wrongs, I am only saying that there is, in fact, a need for someone to be head of the household and women are quite capable of fulfilling that role.
> 
> But I invite you to ague with me on that.


I'm not going to argue that because I agree with it.

HOWEVER, for every great woman that is capable of above there is 10 (if not 100) that will take advantage and run with it to the extreme > turn relationship into hell.



Above applies to man as well BTW. We are no better.


----------



## samyeagar

I guess I'm not seeing where this is anything new, different or radical? I think if marriages were put on a bell curve, the peak would show that successful marriages are "led" by both partners at different times, and towards the ends, that there are, and always have been marriages "led" by either the husband or the wife.


----------



## Wolf1974

This is something I couldn't be a part of personally. Too traditional and strong willed. But I will say this. I have two friends who are definitely in this type of marriage. They are blissfully happy so if it works for them I am happy for them


----------



## samyeagar

ladymisato said:


> This is an important question. Throughout history it was understood that there was a head of the household and it was the man. The modern notion, as I mentioned, is that this is old-fashioned and that some sort of equality must prevail.
> 
> But the reality is that when decisions have to be made, *and when the spouses do not agree (which is often)*, that they need to at least agree that one or the other spouse will make the decision. If they cannot even agree on that, call the lawyers.
> 
> It is also simply a convenience for one spouse to make the important decisions with input from the other instead of treating every decision as if by committee.
> 
> So, yes, I am saying that there is, and will always be, a need for a head of the household.


Not so sure I agree with that premise...


----------



## Almostrecovered

ladymisato said:


> This is an important question. Throughout history it was understood that there was a head of the household and it was the man. The modern notion, as I mentioned, is that this is old-fashioned and that some sort of equality must prevail.
> 
> But the reality is that when decisions have to be made, and when the spouses do not agree (which is often), that they need to at least agree that one or the other spouse will make the decision. If they cannot even agree on that, call the lawyers.
> 
> It is also simply a convenience for one spouse to make the important decisions with input from the other instead of treating every decision as if by committee.
> 
> So, yes, I am saying that there is, and will always be, a need for a head of the household.


well gee, guess I was just smart enough to marry someone with similar values that we haven't had any huge disputes or problems or decisions that stemmed from needing a presumed "head of the household".

honestly, if you can't work out major decisions with someone you love by compromise or some other means of tact then I question the relationship's ability to survive


----------



## Hicks

Leadership is something that occurs daily and is done by every person in a marriage / family. Even the kids can lead the family at times.

The concept of one anointed and permanent leader is not reality. It is simple to explain and possibly a great topic for a book but it is not reality.


----------



## SadSamIAm

ladymisato said:


> This is an important question. Throughout history it was understood that there was a head of the household and it was the man. The modern notion, as I mentioned, is that this is old-fashioned and that some sort of equality must prevail.
> 
> But the reality is that when decisions have to be made, and when the spouses do not agree (which is often), that they need to at least agree that one or the other spouse will make the decision.


I don't agree with this. Although we may not always agree (at first) we always come to workable solution. Sometimes I get my way, sometimes she gets her way. 

There is no reason to call one person the leader. If a decision needs to be made about what appliance needs to be purchased and we don't totally agree, then I let her decide. Because she knows more about it and will use it more. If a decision needs to be made about investments and we don't totally agree, then she lets me decide. Because I am more interested in this and do more research than her.


----------



## EleGirl

CEOs are hired by the owners of a company to run the company at the direction of the owners. 

Marriages are not corporations. They are closely held and run partnerships. As such they are run by the partners, called huband and wife. There is no need for a head of a household, or CEO. After all, Since a CEO answers to the owners, a CEO spouse would have to get direction and approval from the other spouse. You analogy just don't work.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SpinDaddy

Hummmm, I’d generally associated this notion to be in the arena of sexual fetishes, BD/SM, D/s and etc. At a broader and practical level, I’d think this is a very generational specific issue. 

Notwithstanding our relationship being “traditional,” with Ms. Spin being a SAHM, we are a Gen-X couple, both highly educated and both having been or continuing to be white-collar types.

That said, I think “leadership” at the Spin House means something different to myself and Ms. Spin than it did/does to our parents. But I was fortunate to have known my Great Grandparents who were around before the last turn of the century (effectively pioneers in the Western United States) and I believe our notions of family “leadership” are more similar than not to theirs.

At the high level of leadership – our morals and values, how we raise our children, where we live, and the type of people we are – these are mutual givens and the basis in our marriage. At a step down, the ministerial day-to-day forms of leadership, Ms. Spin clearly has the upper hand in decision making authority because the consequences are most likely to affect her.

To put it into corporate parlance, Ms. Spin is the CEO and I am the Chairman of the Board.

Now with respect to the sexual aspects – well that’s a question to pose in a separate discussion forum. :awink:


----------



## norajane

SadSamIAm said:


> I don't agree with this. Although we may not always agree (at first) we always come to workable solution. Sometimes I get my way, sometimes she gets her way.
> 
> There is no reason to call one person the leader. If a decision needs to be made about what appliance needs to be purchased and we don't totally agree, then I let her decide. Because she knows more about it and will use it more. If a decision needs to be made about investments and we don't totally agree, then she lets me decide. Because I am more interested in this and do more research than her.


:iagree:

Responsibility can also switch if there is a change in circumstances, too.

For example, my SO plans a majority of our vacations these days because he loves to scuba dive and has specific requirements. I'm content to go along to tropical islands, so with some input on what I need, he plans the whole thing. However, once we get to our early retirement, I will be planning more of the vacations because we will have the time to travel around Europe and Asia, where I have my list of places I want to see. 

One leader all the time seems designed to cause problems for both, either in terms of being forced into heavier responsibilities and risks, or frequently feeling silenced.


----------



## treyvion

ladymisato said:


> I am new to this forum but I have been browsing the topics looking for discussions of wife led marriage. I have been experimenting with it in my own marriage for over a decade and I recently self-published a book on the subject.
> 
> I've found it very difficult to discuss this topic in public, it seems people are either offended by it or embarrassed to admit it in their own situation. It crosses many social taboos not least of which is that traditional male led marriage ought to give way to equality in marriage. Nobody is alarmed when a man is head of the household but when the wife asserts herself at home she is assumed to be a shrew or worse. (I publish under a pseudonym for this reason.)


What? What world do you live in? All around me if a male is in a leading position in the household he is outcast. I don't mean leading the entire house with the prioritization of the household in mind, I'm talking about leading any single position. It's almost like it's considered illegal.



ladymisato said:


> But with more men unemployed and more women successfully advancing in their careers and with the growing trend of women being better educated, it seems like a timely subject and perhaps its appropriate for couples to finally come out of the closet.
> 
> What is the general sense here? Is anyone open to sharing their own experiences?


Well with the current trends, It would not be fair at all for an advancing amount of male homeless ness and men living with their mothers. For all these 1000's of years, didn't have to work and would be provided for often even have a person who would sacrifice his life for her and his family.

And now we are going to forget about all this male priviledge to take on dangerous jobs, step in front of bullets, and to carry the entire load without any reward.

So with women taking on more of the "breadwinner" positions, I expect there become a crop of well groomed, strong and respected "house husbands". Currently men are finding out it usually won't happen that way.


----------



## Davelli0331

Marriage is a team, and IMO one of the penultimate teams. Effective teamwork involves all parties playing to their strengths to contribute to the whole while not losing themselves in the process.

And good teams have leaders - but the leader is contextual and can change depending on whose strength is needed in the given situation.

I prefer my marriage to be egalitarian. Some people prefer different situations.

Certainly I don't think a "wife-led marriage" is the answer to centuries of male rule (with the obligatory nod toward the oppression that such may have caused). That sounds a bit too revenge feminist for me.


----------



## treyvion

Hicks said:


> Leadership is something that occurs daily and is done by every person in a marriage / family. Even the kids can lead the family at times.
> 
> The concept of one anointed and permanent leader is not reality. It is simple to explain and possibly a great topic for a book but it is not reality.


In many households, it is a reality that is forced by bullying and control tactics. Of course someone will end up not happy and cheat or leave eventually.


----------



## Almostrecovered

EleGirl said:


> CEOs are hired by the owners of a company to run the company at the direction of the owners.
> 
> 
> 
> Marriages are not corporations. They are closely held and run partnerships. As such they are run by the partners, called huband and wife. There is no need for a head of a household, or CEO. After all, Since a CEO answers to the owners, a CEO spouse would have to get direction and approval from the other spouse. You analogy just don't work.
> 
> _Posted via Mobile Device_






2 years ago Amazon bought my marriage in a hostile takeover

Still not quite sure how that happened


----------



## Nikita2270

> So, yes, I am saying that there is, and will always be, a need for a head of the household.


Completely disagree.

The best marriages are the ones where each person has a series of strengths which they utilize in the marriage and each person has separate and equal contributions. 

In immature relationships with people with identity issues, control is necessary. One person dominates the other...the other submits and generally only one person's needs get met. This isn't sustainable. Eventually, the relationship will break down in one version or another.

People in mature relationships recognize the individual gifts that each person brings to the union. They don't take each other for granted. And each person takes charge of the portions of the relationship that is their area of expertise. They take the back seat in the areas where they aren't. People that use their power to take control over the other spouse are foolish...eventually it will backfire.

In a happy relationship, the only person you need to control is yourself. 

I think there are people with mental or emotional issues which put them into a position where they are ripe to be controlled by a weak, power-hungry person. But those relationships are unhealthy and disturbing. Normal people do best when they figure out ways to understand and compromise with each other.

I cannot imagine tolerating someone attempting to dominate me or wanting to dominate another adult person. I am a strong, intelligent woman and I want the same in a partner. If you want someone you can dominate, you need to recognize that you need that because of something messed up within yourself. Strong, whole people want someone to compliment them...not a weak person to control.

Your whole premise is based on situations where two weak-willed, incomplete individuals feed off of each other and that's not a partnership. That's a parasitic relationship.


----------



## Lostinthought61

i believe that the traditional marriage roles went out, during the latter part of the 60's and certainly by the 70's (with the loud family), that aside, if you look at the division of labor in most marriages today you would be hard press to find an all male dominated marriage (male homosexual marriage exclude ;-)) Most marriages today from an economic perspective are dual income, just to stay on top of a lifestyle of home, kids, cars, my wife and i have split the division of labor, she handles the books, while i handle the repairs, we both handle the kids and i even cook, clean, iron and do dishes...not sure there is a need for absolute rule marriage from either sex today. so i am curious what are you suggesting guidelines of a wife led marriage?


----------



## sinnister

It depends what you mean by wife led marriage.

I think for the most part all marriage is led by the wife. That may be my own jaded perspective but even before my issues with this woman I believed the wifes role is absolutely vital in all things having to do with the marriage. In most cases she is the glue. Sure its a joint venture, but if we're being realistic the more nurturing spouse will keep the marriage going more often than the other one will.


----------



## committed4ever

Husbands and wives bring different strengths and weaknesses to the marriage. Each spouse should contribute in a way that works best for their marriage. 

That being said if one or the other leads the household then it's nothing wrong with that as long as they are both ok with it. Speaking for myself I prefer a take charge man. It works for us and we have a very strong and fulfilling relationship. It doesn't mean I don't have a say it means I've had my say and I say he's in charge.


----------



## Propel

Well its probably uncomfortable for people to talk about since its not the norm and kills the libido of many men and women alike. I think every couple creates an explicit or implicit agreement about leadership and how it'll work in their relationship, so the balance varies. If they can't agree on how they'll share power it'll creates resentment and eventual separation. So in reality, a leader is granted power, demanding or taking it just doesn't work...not long term anyway. I agree with the others that a good marriage will alternate the lead role if doing so serves the marriage best. 

I don't like the dictator model, not for marriages at least. I think it should be closer the model of a leader being the servant. When forced to be the tie breaker, a leader is thinking in the best interest of their partner and the relationship and not just themselves. 

And the whole thing about who is going to work and who is staying at home more closely correlates to what roles are seen as more masculine or feminine and not necessarily an indicator of the balance of power in the relationship.


----------



## Mr. Nail

DoF said:


> HOWEVER, for every great woman that is capable of above there is 10 (if not 100) that will take advantage and run with it to the extreme > turn relationship into hell.
> 
> Above applies to man as well BTW. We are no better.


"we have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion."

This is nothing new. The art of being a leader comes naturally to very few people. 10% sounds about right. Quite a bit of what I do is to train leaders. Which is funny, because I'm only an average leader myself. I actively avoid leadership. More later.
MN


----------



## Caribbean Man

Nikita2270 said:


> Completely disagree.
> 
> *The best marriages are the ones where each person has a series of strengths which they utilize in the marriage and each person has separate and equal contributions. *


Completely Agree.

The problem with marriages today is that everyone strives to do 
the "_ politically correct_" thing and not what can work for _their_ marriage.

They are unhappy and worse yet, they expect positive results.

So they believe if they apply this formula then they are guaranteed good results.

No.

There is no such formula.

People enter into relationships with different personality traits , strengths and personality disorders. Throw finances, careers, kids in the mix and it becomes clear that there is no
" leadership template " that can work for all couples or even the vast majority.

What works is a goal oriented custom tailored solution that meets the personal needs of the married individuals.


----------



## ladymisato

EleGirl said:


> CEOs are hired by the owners of a company to run the company at the direction of the owners.
> 
> Marriages are not corporations. They are closely held and run partnerships. As such they are run by the partners, called huband and wife. There is no need for a head of a household, or CEO. After all, Since a CEO answers to the owners, a CEO spouse would have to get direction and approval from the other spouse. You analogy just don't work.


Granted, it's not a perfect analogy, but I think you missed my point: saying that each partner brings certain strengths to a marriage does not preclude one of the partners leading the marriage.

Absent a leader, what happens is that a consensus becomes a requirement for each decision which is both inefficient or worse. 

Now the interesting question is how you differentiate between a marriage with a head of household from one that is by consensus. If, for example, one spouse defers to the other on important decisions, is that an example of consensus or a head of household?

The reason that I pose the question that way is to make people think there is a tendency to imagine that a head of household is a tyrant forcing himself or herself on the other partner. That's not the norm.


----------



## Hope1964

For certain things *I* make the final decision no matter if he disagrees. For other things *he* does it. Two heads are far better than one.


----------



## ladymisato

treyvion said:


> What? What world do you live in? All around me if a male is in a leading position in the household he is outcast. I don't mean leading the entire house with the prioritization of the household in mind, I'm talking about leading any single position. It's almost like it's considered illegal.


I think you must be using a hyperbole, right?



> And now we are going to forget about all this male priviledge to take on dangerous jobs, step in front of bullets, and to carry the entire load without any reward.
> 
> So with women taking on more of the "breadwinner" positions, I expect there become a crop of well groomed, strong and respected "house husbands". Currently men are finding out it usually won't happen that way.


This is one part of the question I'm posing. Suppose that society were ready for wife led households and say at home dads. What would that look like? My guess is that the wives would pretend not to be head of the household and the men would pretend that things are equitable. Change is always gradual and people often fail to see what's happening until it's already happened.

A couple people noted that, in some sense, all marriages are wife led. I think there is at least a grain of truth to this. But while people are willing to joke about it, few are willing to say it seriously, openly, and to think about what it really means.

It's safer to advocate egalitarian marriage.


----------



## ladymisato

Davelli0331 said:


> Marriage is a team, and IMO one of the penultimate teams. Effective teamwork involves all parties playing to their strengths to contribute to the whole while not losing themselves in the process.


Yes, this has been said many time and in many ways. I think we all agree on this. I noted the example of a corporation for which this is also true but which still has a CEO.



> And good teams have leaders - but the leader is contextual and can change depending on whose strength is needed in the given situation.


This is true sometimes but as a practical matter it does not resolve the matter.



> I prefer my marriage to be egalitarian. Some people prefer different situations.
> 
> Certainly I don't think a "wife-led marriage" is the answer to centuries of male rule (with the obligatory nod toward the oppression that such may have caused). That sounds a bit too revenge feminist for me.


This is a misconception. It is not revenge but, in fact, a realization of the limits of egalitarianism.


----------



## GTdad

ladymisato said:


> Suppose that society were ready for wife led households and say at home dads.


Whoa whoa whoa, letting my wife rule the roost is one thing; me staying home with the kids is something else entirely.

So what does the dynamic at your house look like, LadyM?


----------



## Davelli0331

ladymisato said:


> Yes, this has been said many time and in many ways. I think we all agree on this. I noted the example of a corporation for which this is also true but which still has a CEO.
> 
> This is a misconception. It is not revenge but, in fact, a realization of the limits of egalitarianism.


The "limits of egalitarianism"? Your solution to which is for the woman to be in charge?

Not judging, asking for clarification

There are certainly some cases where a single point of authority/responsibility is preferable. The military is an example that comes to mind. Corporations, not so much, and of course you're skipping over the fact that the CEO acts at the behest of the Board of Directors, who themselves are (supposedly) serving the interests of the shareholders.

However, my wife is not in my platoon, nor are we a business entity (in the strict sense, anyway).



> This is true sometimes but as a practical matter it does not resolve the matter.


 What does that even mean? It's a vague rebuttal with no actual information imparted.


----------



## ladymisato

Nikita2270 said:


> In immature relationships with people with identity issues, control is necessary. One person dominates the other...the other submits and generally only one person's needs get met. This isn't sustainable. Eventually, the relationship will break down in one version or another.


You are assuming that leading means that the leader gets his/her needs met and the other does not. While I will not disagree that this happens, it is not the norm, much less the ideal.



> People in mature relationships recognize the individual gifts that each person brings to the union. They don't take each other for granted.


And here you are assuming that the leader takes the other spouse for granted. Again, this is not the norm much less the ideal.


----------



## Almostrecovered

I let my wife *think* she's in charge

MUHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


----------



## ladymisato

Xenote said:


> i believe that the traditional marriage roles went out, during the latter part of the 60's and certainly by the 70's (with the loud family), that aside, if you look at the division of labor in most marriages today you would be hard press to find an all male dominated marriage (male homosexual marriage exclude ;-)) Most marriages today from an economic perspective are dual income, just to stay on top of a lifestyle of home, kids, cars, my wife and i have split the division of labor, she handles the books, while i handle the repairs, we both handle the kids and i even cook, clean, iron and do dishes...not sure there is a need for absolute rule marriage from either sex today.


Since roughly the same time, marriages have trended toward divorce. The egalitarian ideal of marriage is not working.

But I think you do recognize the central role of income in marriage. So my question for you is: what would you expect to happen as women earn as much or more than men or where men are more often unemployed?



> so i am curious what are you suggesting guidelines of a wife led marriage?


One of the most obvious examples is where the wife works and the husband keeps the home.


----------



## ladymisato

sinnister said:


> It depends what you mean by wife led marriage.
> 
> I think for the most part all marriage is led by the wife. That may be my own jaded perspective but even before my issues with this woman I believed the wifes role is absolutely vital in all things having to do with the marriage. In most cases she is the glue. Sure its a joint venture, but if we're being realistic the more nurturing spouse will keep the marriage going more often than the other one will.


Yes, I think this has been brought up a few times. I agree that there is an implicit recognition of this tendency but I would challenge you to find an example of a husband who would admit this of his own marriage without feeling the need to make a joke of it. And certainly wives are very uncomfortable publicly acknowledging their leadership role in marriage.


----------



## Mr. Nail

ladymisato said:


> Suppose that society were ready for wife led households and say at home dads.


Looking at the animal kingdom and at existing matriarchal societies, the males do not become stay at home dads. (I'm not saying that would be a bad or even unpleasant thing) What they become is wandering inseminators. Now I'm pretty sure that is not what you have in mind for your wife led family, but it is sadly what we most often see.

MN


----------



## Marduk

My marriage was absolute crap when I let my wife lead it. I have 2 close buddies who's marriages are all but done and dusted that have gone down the same path, and know offhand of at least 3 others going there.

So anecdotal evidence only, but having the women lead seems to be a bad idea. Intuitively this seems correct, as a submissive male doesn't attract many females. So staying sexually attracted to your submissive husband may be problematic.

If you don't believe me, check the many, many, threads here from stay at home dads who's wives suddenly aren't into them any more and out partying with work friends and worse.

When I started to lead my marriage, it initially got a hell of a lot better. My wife started paying attention to me more, we had way more sex, and she was a lot more kind and considerate.

But then two things happened: #1 I got tired of having to lead all the time and #2 my wife seemed to slide into a deep funk.

So instead of trying to lead all the time I spent more energy building my wife up. "Wife, I've sorted out sitters for tonight and have made reservations at cool place #1 and cool place #2. I know you love them both, it's your call." "Wife, you look fantastic in that outfit, have you been working out?" "Wife, I know you've always thought about having a career in X, I've found some classes you might like." "Wife, that's a great idea for a new business, can I help write up a business plan for you?" Etc.

At the same time, I've tried to be a lot more emotionally open to her. Even with the bad ****. Not "mommie I've got an owie" stuff, but the real stuff. The hard stuff.

And we've found a new balance. An equal balance. Where we have the same amount of power, the same voice. Where we listen to each other but don't necessarily do what each other wants. But always take it into consideration.

Isn't equality what partnership is based upon?


----------



## Almostrecovered

ladymisato said:


> Since roughly the same time, marriages have trended toward divorce. The egalitarian ideal of marriage is not working..



I'll argue it's because marriages aren't truly egalitarian


----------



## ladymisato

committed4ever said:


> That being said if one or the other leads the household then it's nothing wrong with that as long as they are both ok with it.


Absolutely, I hope that we can all agree on this.



> Speaking for myself I prefer a take charge man. It works for us and we have a very strong and fulfilling relationship. It doesn't mean I don't have a say it means I've had my say and I say he's in charge.


Allow me to suggest that you feel completely confident and free to say this publicly. But have you ever heard a man saying the equivalent? Why not?


----------



## Davelli0331

Arguing that the rising divorce rate is due to increased equality and egalitanarism is to ignore the vast *other* radical social shifts in lifestyle, attitudes towards the contractual entity of marriage, sexual mores, etc, many of which have been more closely linked to divorce than "the woman not being in charge".


----------



## ladymisato

Propel said:


> Well its probably uncomfortable for people to talk about since its not the norm and kills the libido of many men and women alike.


That is certainly the opposite of what I and most wife-led couples I know have experienced. Generally speaking, wife-led marriages are more sexually charged than traditional or egalitarian marriages. (Perhaps you are referring to situations of henpecking?)



> I think every couple creates an explicit or implicit agreement about leadership and how it'll work in their relationship, so the balance varies. If they can't agree on how they'll share power it'll creates resentment and eventual separation. So in reality, a leader is granted power, demanding or taking it just doesn't work...not long term anyway. I agree with the others that a good marriage will alternate the lead role if doing so serves the marriage best.


I think you hit the nail on the head here!

So why do we not see an open acknowledgement of marriages in which the husband granted power to the wife to lead the marriage? Why is that so taboo?



> And the whole thing about who is going to work and who is staying at home more closely correlates to what roles are seen as more masculine or feminine and not necessarily an indicator of the balance of power in the relationship.


This is also very true, though I know many exceptions. I would go further and suggest that marriages in which the wife earns significantly more than the husband are more likely to shift toward her leadership.


----------



## ladymisato

samyeagar said:


> I guess I'm not seeing where this is anything new, different or radical? I think if marriages were put on a bell curve, the peak would show that successful marriages are "led" by both partners at different times, and towards the ends, that there are, and always have been marriages "led" by either the husband or the wife.


I would suggest that it is not a normal distribution but a bimodal distribution with the marriages in the middle having the hardest time of surviving.


----------



## ladymisato

Davelli0331 said:


> Arguing that the rising divorce rate is due to increased equality and egalitanarism is to ignore the vast *other* radical social shifts in lifestyle, attitudes towards the contractual entity of marriage, sexual mores, etc, many of which have been more closely linked to divorce than "the woman not being in charge".


I agree that there are a lot of issues involved but I still say that the egalification of marriage is the main cause of divorce. The other big cause, an unwillingness of the partners to adapt and change to make it work, is closely related.


----------



## Davelli0331

ladymisato said:


> I would suggest that it is not a normal distribution but a bimodal distribution with the marriages in the middle having the hardest time of surviving.


Eh, I mean absolutely no offence, but a lot of what you're pushing is coming across as someone with an agenda trying to make facts and figures fit the ideology you're pushing.

But again, I'll say that if that dynamic works for some couples, more power to them.


----------



## ladymisato

Davelli0331 said:


> The "limits of egalitarianism"? Your solution to which is for the woman to be in charge?
> 
> Not judging, asking for clarification


Please let me be very, very clear: I am not advocating that all marriages have to become wife led.

I am arguing that egalitarianism in marriage is problematic and that, in a growing number of situations, it makes sense for the wife to take the lead.

And I am noting that even when this happens, the fact is clouded and hidden because of social taboo. The main taboo seems to be that marriage ought to be egalitarian (either literally or by strength or by consensus).


----------



## COGypsy

I guess I'm having a difficult time imagining a situation where one person or another would just throw up their hands, give up their agency and dump all responsibility on the other--of either sex. 

When I was married most things were either decided together or delegated to whoever had more available time or interest in the matter at hand. I can't imagine what would have gone on that would require constant deference or unilateral power?


----------



## norajane

ladymisato said:


> But I think you do recognize the central role of income in marriage. So my question for you is: what would you expect to happen as women earn as much or more than men


In my world, that means we have extra money for vacations and can save up much more and much faster for early retirement. That's about it. Income disparity has no bearing on leadership or decision-making in our relationship.


----------



## norajane

ladymisato said:


> I agree that there are a lot of issues involved but I still say that the egalification of marriage is the main cause of divorce. The other big cause, an unwillingness of the partners to adapt and change to make it work, is closely related.


Where does cheating fit in to your theory? Sexless marriages? Abusive spouses? Neglect? 

I'd say those were bigger reasons for divorces than sharing decision making.


----------



## ladymisato

Mr. Nail said:


> Looking at the animal kingdom and at existing matriarchal societies, the males do not become stay at home dads. (I'm not saying that would be a bad or even unpleasant thing) What they become is wandering inseminators. Now I'm pretty sure that is not what you have in mind for your wife led family, but it is sadly what we most often see.


So we have another theory of what gives one spouse authority over the other: insemination.

I agree that it is very natural for the inseminator to be the leader since the inseminator tends to be the bread winner and that gives him power in the marriage.

However, I think you need to acknowledge, first, that stay-at-home dads exist in the human species. That they are increasing in numbers. And much of that increase is the result of layoffs, not choice.

So the question becomes: what would you expect in terms of leadership dynamics in those marriages?


----------



## ladymisato

COGypsy said:


> I guess I'm having a difficult time imagining a situation where one person or another would just throw up their hands, give up their agency and dump all responsibility on the other--of either sex.


I don't think you are being honest. For most of human history women let men lead in marriage.



> When I was married most things were either decided together or delegated to whoever had more available time or interest in the matter at hand. I can't imagine what would have gone on that would require constant deference or unilateral power?


I am not saying that there is anything wrong with deciding things together. I'm saying that it is not a general solution and it leads to divorce.


----------



## Hope1964

ladymisato said:


> the inseminator


----------



## ladymisato

norajane said:


> Where does cheating fit in to your theory? Sexless marriages? Abusive spouses? Neglect?
> 
> I'd say those were bigger reasons for divorces than sharing decision making.


I won't claim that wife-led marriage is a cure-all but the more problems it solves, the less the other issues tend to crop up and damage the marriage.


----------



## ladymisato

norajane said:


> Income disparity has no bearing on leadership or decision-making in our relationship.


This is just not consistent with what we see in marriage.


----------



## ladymisato

marduk said:


> My marriage was absolute crap when I let my wife lead it. I have 2 close buddies who's marriages are all but done and dusted that have gone down the same path, and know offhand of at least 3 others going there. So anecdotal evidence only, but having the women lead seems to be a bad idea.


I am very sorry to hear that. However, my anecdotal experience is entirely the opposite. I know many marriages that were saved when the wife stepped up and took the lead.



> Intuitively this seems correct, as a submissive male doesn't attract many females. So staying sexually attracted to your submissive husband may be problematic.


Again, my anecdotal experience is different. In fact, if you only stop and think about it for a moment, you'll see how wrong your point is: what do men do when they are courting women? Boss the around or serve them?


----------



## norajane

ladymisato said:


> This is just not consistent with what we see in marriage.


I guess you didn't poll me in your research, and others like me, then.


----------



## ladymisato

GTdad said:


> Whoa whoa whoa, letting my wife rule the roost is one thing; me staying home with the kids is something else entirely.
> 
> So what does the dynamic at your house look like, LadyM?


It's not for everyone, of course, but it is happening more and more.

My husband quit his job to stay home full-time while I am now the breadwinner of the family.

Sometimes it is voluntary, like us, but more often it happens as the result of unemployment. If the husband is unemployed it makes sense for him to become the homemaker, right?


----------



## ladymisato

norajane said:


> I guess you didn't poll me in your research, and others like me, then.


You will find a strong correlation between income advantage and marriage leadership. I know of plenty of exceptions so I am not surprised if you are also an exception. But I am talking about general trends.


----------



## Caribbean Man

ladymisato said:


> You will find a strong correlation between income advantage and marriage leadership.


I agree with this statement.


----------



## Hope1964

ladymisato said:


> If the husband is unemployed it makes sense for him to become the homemaker, right?


Only if it's what both of them want.

You asked us for our opinions and we gave them. Now you're trying to convince us all that you're right. If it works for you, great, but for most couples it isn't going to.


----------



## Mr. Nail

ladymisato said:


> So we have another theory of what gives one spouse authority over the other: insemination.
> 
> I agree that it is very natural for the inseminator to be the leader since the inseminator tends to be the bread winner and that gives him power in the marriage.
> 
> However, I think you need to acknowledge, first, that stay-at-home dads exist in the human species. That they are increasing in numbers. And much of that increase is the result of layoffs, not choice.
> 
> So the question becomes: what would you expect in terms of leadership dynamics in those marriages?


Woah you completely missed the point here. This Wandering inseminator is no leader. He is barely a contributor. Like the bull Elephant he only participates in the family when the Matriarch (mother leader) invites him. 

While I agree that there are more and more stay at home dads currently. I strongly suspect that they will not "stay at home" for long. Either the matriarch will send them out, or they will wander out to race motorcycles, drown worms or hunt bambi, until some other matriarch invites them in with the promise of a hot meal and a video game system. That will last untill he gits bored or until she gets tired of picking up his smelly socks.

This is not flattering to the good men here who are trying to hold together solid families. What this is is the model of existing matriarchal societies (human) over the past 30 years.
MN


----------



## ladymisato

Hope1964 said:


> Only if it's what both of them want.
> 
> You asked us for our opinions and we gave them. Now you're trying to convince us all that you're right. If it works for you, great, but for most couples it isn't going to.


Agreed on both points. However, I think there is more to this than has been discussed so far. This is an emotional subject that generates some very heated responses.


----------



## Faeleaf

There is definitely NO "leader" or "CEO" in our marriage. Both I and my husband would be horrified by that notion. 

When we don't align perfectly on issues (for example, I want to spend a bonus on Christmas presents, he wants to spend it on travel) we share our concerns with each other, really listen super hard to each other's perspectives and desires, and won't stop brainstorming until we come up with a solution that makes both of us happy and satisfies both of our desires. Period. This is how we work, and frankly, we 'work' really well.

We are a team, and we both look out for the other and protect each other's interests. For us to pull apart, each trying to gain an upper hand over the other in decision-making, would be horrendous.


----------



## ladymisato

Mr. Nail said:


> Woah you completely missed the point here. This Wandering inseminator is no leader. He is barely a contributor. Like the bull Elephant he only participates in the family when the Matriarch (mother leader) invites him.
> 
> While I agree that there are more and more stay at home dads currently. I strongly suspect that they will not "stay at home" for long. Either the matriarch will send them out, or they will wander out to race motorcycles, drown worms or hunt bambi, until some other matriarch invites them in with the promise of a hot meal and a video game system. That will last untill he gits bored or until she gets tired of picking up his smelly socks.
> 
> This is not flattering to the good men here who are trying to hold together solid families. What this is is the model of existing matriarchal societies (human) over the past 30 years.


You are not saying so directly but I suspect you are talking not about marriage but about non-marriage relationships. I agree that this is also a growing trend and it works exactly as you say. It is not the topic I wish to discuss here but I will say, in passing, that it is about the worst outcome imaginable. What you are describing as a matriarchal society is not a society of wife-led marriages.


----------



## Hope1964

ladymisato said:


> Agreed on both points. However, I think there is more to this than has been discussed so far. This is an emotional subject that generates some very heated responses.


I don't see any 'heated responses' ??? 

Whatever floats your boat I guess. Carry on lecturing then.


----------



## COGypsy

ladymisato said:


> Agreed on both points. However, I think there is more to this than has been discussed so far. This is an emotional subject that generates some very heated responses.


I would hazard to say that this entire discussion can be nothing but emotional since you seem to have very little data, concrete examples, or even a particularly distinct hypothesis to support the premise of your post.


----------



## Revamped

I always equated "head of household" to be the absence of a spouse. In which case, authoirity falls onto one person only. When in a relationship, the authority is divided among the two partners, based on experience, strengths and willingness.


----------



## notmyrealname4

ladymisato said:


> . . . . .
> i*t seems people are either offended by it or embarrassed to admit it in their own situation. *I . . . .*when the wife asserts herself at home she is assumed to be a shrew or worse. (I publish under a pseudonym for this reason.)*
> 
> . . . .But with more *men unemployed* and more women successfully advancing in their careers and with the *growing trend of women being better educated,*
> 
> What is the general sense here?



Testosterone doesn't follow; it leads.

Men don't *decide* "I want to be in charge". They are *driven* to be in charge.

There is plenty of good, kind testosterone out there. Testosterone does not equal caveman behavior. At it's worst it can be that.

Estrogen can be gentler and nurturing. It can also be the "wicked witch" variety.

I agree with you, OP. We are currently in the midst of an acute type of change regarding "head of household" type issues.

And, of course, whoever's got the $, always makes the rules.

Is that Eleanor of Aquitaine as your avatar? If so, it's very fitting for this thread topic.


----------



## norajane

ladymisato said:


> Please let me be very, very clear: I am not advocating that all marriages have to become wife led.
> 
> I am arguing that egalitarianism in marriage is problematic and that, in a growing number of situations, it makes sense for the wife to take the lead.
> 
> And I am noting that even when this happens, the fact is clouded and hidden because of social taboo. The main taboo seems to be that marriage ought to be egalitarian (either literally or by strength or by consensus).


It seems like YOU are the one who believes there is a taboo, and maybe are the only one who believes there is a taboo.

Others, like me, don't say marriage ought to be egalitarian because of any social taboo against saying that women can or should be the head of household. Others, like me, say marriage should be egalitarian because we believe it to be the true and that's how we work it in our relationships.

I know, I know, you would suggest otherwise, but that's purely YOU suggesting it. You've also suggested divorce is caused by egalitarianism, and I don't buy that either.


----------



## Davelli0331

ladymisato said:


> Agreed on both points. However, I think there is more to this than has been discussed so far. This is an emotional subject that generates some very heated responses.


I don't see any heated discussion, just people challenging your very tenuous (and so far, unsupported by you) connection with equality and egalitarianism in marriage to the rising divorce rate.

So basically, you're wanting us to accept the conclusions you've drawn based on the anecdotal evidence of your marriage while ignoring every scientifically performed study about the changing attitudes toward marriage and divorce, because clearly your way is right.

LMAO, you're gonna fit right in here at TAM.


----------



## ladymisato

Hope1964 said:


> I don't see any 'heated responses' ???


I say "heated" because a number of posts involved very absurd characterizations, such as equating leadership and tyranny. I don't believe that people really regard them as the same, I am suggesting that they are reacting emotionally. I am hoping to get past that sort of discussion and focus on the more genuine and interesting issues.


----------



## Almostrecovered

intheory said:


> Testosterone doesn't follow; it leads.
> 
> 
> 
> Men don't *decide* "I want to be in charge". They are *driven* to be in charge.
> 
> 
> 
> There is plenty of good, kind testosterone out there. Testosterone does not equal caveman behavior. At it's worst it can be that.
> 
> 
> 
> Estrogen can be gentler and nurturing. It can also be the "wicked witch" variety.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with you, OP. We are currently in the midst of an acute type of change regarding "head of household" type issues.
> 
> 
> 
> And, of course, whoever's got the $, always makes the rules.
> 
> 
> 
> Is that Eleanor of Aquitaine as your avatar? If so, it's very fitting for this thread topic.




Oh dear lord


----------



## Mr. Nail

ladymisato said:


> You are not saying so directly but I suspect you are talking not about marriage but about non-marriage relationships. I agree that this is also a growing trend and it works exactly as you say. It is not the topic I wish to discuss here but I will say, in passing, that it is about the worst outcome imaginable. What you are describing as a matriarchal society is not a society of wife-led marriages.


Yes exactly, though often there are serial marriages to sort of legitimize the whole thing. An honest observer would describe it as a matriarchal society of family groups without marriage or fathers.

So based on the existing (granted non optimal) societies, a society of wife led marriages seems unlikely to evolve from our current society. In fact we do see the seeds of this worst possible outcome. So what should an individual wife led family do to avoid falling into this trap. First the leader wife needs to cultivate respect for the homemaker husband. She needs to see that he is covering an equal and important part of the families needs. He needs to value and respect his role as an active supporter of her. And they both need to be very careful of the society that is going to be trying to break them down. For example the mom who tells the wife that she deserves more, or the guy friend who tells him how much fun he could be having.

MN


----------



## COGypsy

Do you write The Gentle Seductress blog? Your POV and avatar choices seem awfully similar.

If so, I'm guessing that your lifestyle views aren't going to be terribly consistent with most of the posters here.


----------



## ladymisato

Mr. Nail said:


> Yes exactly, though often there are serial marriages to sort of legitimize the whole thing. An honest observer would describe it as a matriarchal society of family groups without marriage or fathers.


Let's agree that these non-marriage situations are not in any way attractive and look, instead, at wife-led marriage.



> So based on the existing (granted non optimal) societies, a society of wife led marriages seems unlikely to evolve from our current society. In fact we do see the seeds of this worst possible outcome. So what should an individual wife led family do to avoid falling into this trap. First the leader wife needs to cultivate respect for the homemaker husband. She needs to see that he is covering an equal and important part of the families needs. He needs to value and respect his role as an active supporter of her. And they both need to be very careful of the society that is going to be trying to break them down. For example the mom who tells the wife that she deserves more, or the guy friend who tells him how much fun he could be having.


You raise two different sets of issues here both of which are very worthy of further discussion.

The first are the problems within the wife led marriage. These are easily solvable. I have solved them in my marriage and I have helped other couples solve them. When two people wish to make it work it can work. (In fact, it is sufficient for the wife to decide it will work but that's another matter.)

The second set of problems is social acceptance of wife led marriage. I do agree that this is a much bigger set of problems. Many have accused me of imagining taboos but this is really what I am talking about. Most couples in wife-led marriages hide behind a smokescreen of egalitarianism.

Now what is interesting is that, at some point, there will be enough wife led marriages that these couples can come out of the closet. We are not yet at that point. And until we are it will be hard for husbands who concede leadership to their wives.

But it is not as bad as it might seem. Those marriages tend to compensate for the lack of social acceptance in other ways. In addition to hiding behind an egalitarian smokescreen, which is not very helpful when the husband stays home, the tendency is for the couple to be even closer than it might otherwise be. If they find that friends don't respect them for their marital arrangement then they spend more time with each other.


----------



## ladymisato

COGypsy said:


> Do you write The Gentle Seductress blog? Your POV and avatar choices seem awfully similar.
> 
> If so, I'm guessing that your lifestyle views aren't going to be terribly consistent with most of the posters here.


No, no blog. But it's ok with me if we don't agree on lifestyle choices. I only hope to have an interesting discussion.


----------



## Almostrecovered

ladymisato said:


> . I only hope to have an interesting discussion.



Sorry, wrong website


----------



## ladymisato

So I received a private message complaining about the focus on egalitarianism in marriage.

I am quite bored with it as well. I knew when I started this thread that this would be a complaint against wife led marriage. Let's all agree that wife led marriage is not egalitarian and that those who prefer egalitarian marriage will not choose a wife led marriage.

Is that fair enough?

Can we move on now?


----------



## Revamped

ladymisato said:


> When two people wish to make it work it can work. (In fact, it is sufficient for the wife to decide it will work but that's another matter.)


I disagree. Wishing things to work out isn't the same as it WILL happen. Too many factors are at play. And saying that a WIFE is the determining factor on the success or demise of a marriage is just plain wrong.


----------



## Nikita2270

> Granted, it's not a perfect analogy, but I think you missed my point: saying that each partner brings certain strengths to a marriage does not preclude one of the partners leading the marriage.
> 
> Absent a leader, what happens is that a consensus becomes a requirement for each decision which is both inefficient or worse.
> 
> Now the interesting question is how you differentiate between a marriage with a head of household from one that is by consensus. If, for example, one spouse defers to the other on important decisions, is that an example of consensus or a head of household?


Actually, in practice...the person who has strengths in certain areas would lead the decision making process in that area.

You can definitely make decisions in consensus. I do it at home and do it at work and it is the best way to make a decision because you have buy-in from the involved parties. Mutual decision making guarantees that all parties are heard, get their feedback incorporated into the decision, etc.

I guarantee that one person making unilateral decisions is a guaranteed way to ruin a marriage.

With my partner and I, when we make decisions I guarantee that there are considerations that he'd miss or I'd miss if we weren't talking and coming to an agreement together. I need his input and he needs mine. He respects my thoughts and I respect his. Being listened to in a relationship is one of the most important components. Someone dictating a decision to someone else results in a parent/child relationship that is unhealthy.

And no doubt there are a lot of long-lasting unhealthy marriages but no one normal would want to be in one.



> And the whole thing about who is going to work and who is staying at home more closely correlates to what roles are seen as more masculine or feminine and not necessarily an indicator of the balance of power in the relationship.


Regardless of whoever stays home...you are setting yourself up if you do not have some financial independence in a relationship. Absolute power corrupts. When one partner knows that the other is in an extreme financial disadvantage, it creates an inequity that over time is unhealthy and unwise. If I had a dime for every woman on this forum that relied on a man for money and then couldn't get out of the relationship and take care of herself and her kids, I'd be a richer woman.

The bottom line is that the best relationships will always be ones where both partners bring expertise into a relationship...both are independent and choose to be with each other...and neither is interested in dominating or being a subservient to the other.

In good relationships, partners are greater than the sum of their parts because they're capable of higher order though due to their collaborative relationship.

Same thing is true in successful businesses. The dynamics are very similar.


----------



## ladymisato

Revamped said:


> I disagree. Wishing things to work out isn't the same as it WILL happen. Too many factors are at play. And saying that a WIFE is the determining factor on the success or demise of a marriage is just plain wrong.


Keep in mind that the part you quoted was in the context of problems internal to the marriage. It doesn't matter how many such factors are at play, if two people wish to make the marriage work, they can. Divorce is never a valid choice in that situation as there is *always* the option of one (or both) spouses making a necessary sacrifice for the marriage.

I know that sounds old-fashioned but that is the truth.


----------



## Nikita2270

> And, of course, whoever's got the $, always makes the rules.


lol, In my relationship...we both have money.

Both of us are dominant personality types too...but I defer when its his area of expertise and he defers when its mine.

Works out just fine.

Stereotypes about gender on here get so very, very boring.

Not all women are emotional and/or financially-retarded. And not all women require a man to make decisions. Women have been running households alone since the dawn of time just fine, if they need to.


----------



## Revamped

ladymisato said:


> Keep in mind that the part you quoted was in the context of problems internal to the marriage. It doesn't matter how many such factors are at play, if two people wish to make the marriage work, they can. Divorce is never a valid choice in that situation as there is *always* the option of one (or both) spouses making a necessary sacrifice for the marriage.
> 
> I know that sounds old-fashioned but that is the truth.



I again, disagree. Some sacrifices are too great to bear. You're being too clinical in your observation and not taking into account human nature.


----------



## ladymisato

Nikita2270 said:


> Actually, in practice...the person who has strengths in certain areas would lead the decision making process in that area.


Agreed. The question is whether this is a general solution, it is not.



> You can definitely make decisions in consensus. I do it at home and do it at work and it is the best way to make a decision because you have buy-in from the involved parties. Mutual decision making guarantees that all parties are heard, get their feedback incorporated into the decision, etc.
> 
> I guarantee that one person making unilateral decisions is a guaranteed way to ruin a marriage.


And yet, in fact, throughout most of human history marriage worked pretty much like that and there was far less divorce.



> With my partner and I, when we make decisions I guarantee that there are considerations that he'd miss or I'd miss if we weren't talking and coming to an agreement together.


You are confusing leadership vs. consensus with isolation vs. consultation. I need his input and he needs mine. He respects my thoughts and I respect his. Being listened to in a relationship is one of the most important components. Someone dictating a decision to someone else results in a parent/child relationship that is unhealthy.[/QUOTE]
You can have consultation without agreement (on the issue) or any of the other three combinations. The wife can certainly listen to the husband before making a "unilateral" decision. Let's dispense with the false dichotomies.



> Regardless of whoever stays home...you are setting yourself up if you do not have some financial independence in a relationship.


This is a very cynical view of marriage.


----------



## ladymisato

Revamped said:


> I again, disagree. Some sacrifices are too great to bear. You're being too clinical in your observation and not taking into account human nature.


We'll just have to agree to disagree, then. I am not saying that humans don't fail, I am saying that success is always possible and that failure in marriage is always a choice. A bad one.


----------



## waylan

My 2 cents - The best marriages are led by both spouses in a contextual manner.

You can pretty much throw historical data out - Remember not too long away a wife was considered her husbands property. Divorce wasn't an option. Of course the divorce rate increased as society changed to a more equal arena.


----------



## JWTBL

This is way too cerebral for me.


----------



## Revamped

ladymisato said:


> We'll just have to agree to disagree, then. I am not saying that humans don't fail, I am saying that success is always possible and that failure in marriage is always a choice. A bad one.


I disagree, again. Certain circumstances can come along, and although two parties WANT to make a marriage work, the SITUATION makes a marriage unworkable.

It's not a matter of choice, but a matter of fact.


----------



## GTdad

JWTBL said:


> This is way too cerebral for me.


Some context would be helpful. I'm pretty skeptical of the whole thing, but at this point I don't know what I'm skeptical of, exactly. The OP still hasn't made it clear what her marriage looks like, other than she's apparently the boss and her husband stays home with the kids. Some examples and specifics might be useful. Or at least give us something besides generalities to argue about.


----------



## Davelli0331

*Re: Re: Wife Led Marriage*



ladymisato said:


> We'll just have to agree to disagree, then. I am not saying that humans don't fail, I am saying that success is always possible and that failure in marriage is always a choice. A bad one.


A failed marriage may be the result of a series of poor choices by both parties, and certainly the act of signing the divorce petition is an act of choice, but to make a blanket statement that a failure in marriage is a bad choice is a naive and gross oversimplification of the majority of ended marriages, I think.


----------



## ladymisato

Revamped said:


> I disagree, again. Certain circumstances can come along, and although two parties WANT to make a marriage work, the SITUATION makes a marriage unworkable.
> 
> It's not a matter of choice, but a matter of fact.


Why don't you give us an example. (And, please, no wife beating. Something representative of a marriage where both parties want to make it work but are forced, by circumstances, to divorce.)


----------



## ladymisato

Davelli0331 said:


> A failed marriage may be the result of a series of poor choices by both parties, and certainly the act of signing the divorce petition is an act of choice, but to make a blanket statement that a failure in marriage is a bad choice is a naive and gross oversimplification of the majority of ended marriages, I think.


The only poor choice that matters is the last one to divorce. Everything else can be repaired if the spouses want to make the marriage work. I am including, for example, an affair.


----------



## ladymisato

GTdad said:


> Some context would be helpful. I'm pretty skeptical of the whole thing, but at this point I don't know what I'm skeptical of, exactly. The OP still hasn't made it clear what her marriage looks like, other than she's apparently the boss and her husband stays home with the kids. Some examples and specifics might be useful. Or at least give us something besides generalities to argue about.


I do wish to retain some privacy so I can't share my home movies here. Is there something particular you'd like to know? I'll do my best to satisfy you.


----------



## Nikita2270

> Agreed. The question is whether this is a general solution, it is not.


And I would counter that most relationships are unhealthy with very unhappy people in them. I'm discussing successful relationships.



> And yet, in fact, throughout most of human history marriage worked pretty much like that and there was far less divorce.


Mostly as a result of the fact that people couldn't get out of marriages. Women and children were considered chattel and couldn't financially sustain themselves and therefore had to tolerate many relationships that would be considered intolerable today. There were also unbearable social stigmas on divorcees that don't exist to that extent today.

There are still marriages that people stay in today because one person has made themselves financially dependent on someone else. But as more people gain independence, they have to put up with less crap.

If you're suggesting that having a male-run or female-run household would alleviate divorce in a time where people are often self-sustaining...I call b.s. on that assumption.



> You are confusing leadership vs. consensus with isolation vs. consultation.


Actually I'm not because the consensus often changes the original premise of the decision. Ultimately the final decision becomes a myriad of points, counterpoints and additions made by both parties. The parties then calculate all the inputs made by both and come up with a reasonable conclusion. Its not just about "I asked you before I made the decision"...its about both people providing input and changing the original premise.

If you do this well, you don't need one person to make a decision...the decision is made based on reasonable data. The data leads you to a conclusion. No one needs to trump the other person. Its simply about two people who are equals making the arguments. If you have a weak person in a debate, they'll get overruled pretty easily.

That's why I said that the best marriages are ones where the two people are equally capable and have an equal voice. They are able to hold their own in a decision making process. 

Its not to stay that both weak and domineering people can't have lasting relationships...they can and do...its just not a relationship that I personally would be interested in having....nor do I consider those relationships emotionally/mentally healthy. However, that is my opinion looking at them from afar...ultimately, to each their own.



> This is a very cynical view of marriage.


Not cynicism. Its reality. Read the forum sometime. You'll see a lot of evidence of exactly what I'm speaking of.


----------



## Revamped

No need to. My point is made.


----------



## Davelli0331

*Re: Re: Wife Led Marriage*



ladymisato said:


> The only poor choice that matters is the last one to divorce. Everything else can be repaired if the spouses want to make the marriage work. I am including, for example, an affair.


Sry, but wrong. There are some acts that cannot be moved past for most everyone. If my wife slept with my brother or killed my dog in cold blood or intentionally set my house on fire, I couldn't move past that, and I would venture to say everyone has that line in the sand, regardless where it may be. 

Again, you're taking a very idealistic and naive view on married couple interaction, and I say that as a husband whose marriage has successfully weather an affair.


----------



## Mr. Nail

ladymisato said:


> The first are the problems within the wife led marriage. These are easily solvable. I have solved them in my marriage and I have helped other couples solve them. When two people wish to make it work it can work. (In fact, it is sufficient for the wife to decide it will work but that's another matter.)


That sounds a bit like tyranny. In order to make it work two people have to overcome social and possibly evolutionary/biological programming. She has to overcome the deep rooted idea that a nurturing nice guy is not in fact an inferior gene provider. The idea that because he doesn't go out to fight the paper dragon does not make him unattractive. It is more than just promising not to wander it is promising to be attracted. This is a promise that the woman of today is refusing to make. Every day I hear you cant help who you will be attracted to. He has the same battle to save his self respect. Most guys see entering into this situation as being fundamentally emasculating. He has to learn to value his role. Strangely this is also a struggle for stay at home moms. My wife was and is happier working. Part of his feeling of success will likely come from ownership. The house will be his pride. the things he builds and maintains.



ladymisato said:


> The second set of problems is social acceptance of wife led marriage. I do agree that this is a much bigger set of problems. Many have accused me of imagining taboos but this is really what I am talking about. Most couples in wife-led marriages hide behind a smokescreen of egalitarianism.
> 
> Now what is interesting is that, at some point, there will be enough wife led marriages that these couples can come out of the closet. We are not yet at that point. And until we are it will be hard for husbands who concede leadership to their wives.
> 
> But it is not as bad as it might seem. Those marriages tend to compensate for the lack of social acceptance in other ways. In addition to hiding behind an egalitarian smokescreen, which is not very helpful when the husband stays home, the tendency is for the couple to be even closer than it might otherwise be. If they find that friends don't respect them for their marital arrangement then they spend more time with each other.


I doubt that this is going to catch on as quickly as the egalitarian marriage did. It may be generations before coming out of the closet is easy. With egalitarianism there was always the idea that women shared leadership anyway. I think that society has progressed to the point that only pushy salesmen would scoff at a man for consulting his wife before a purchase. 

I think the proposal overall should be a short term "stay at home" either for mom or Dad. Really once the kids are in school. The nurturing parent can and should (at least for their own sanity) work part time. 

MN


----------



## norajane

ladymisato said:


> Why don't you give us an example. (And, please, no wife beating. Something representative of a marriage where both parties want to make it work but are forced, by circumstances, to divorce.)


One absolutely wants a child, or more children, and the other absolutely doesn't.


----------



## Nikita2270

> We'll just have to agree to disagree, then. I am not saying that humans don't fail, I am saying that success is always possible and that failure in marriage is always a choice. A bad one.


lol...

I always find it amusing when a person considers staying married the only success factor in a relationship.

Its not about staying married....its about being in a happy relationship where both partners are getting their needs met.

Divorce often has nothing to do with failure...its simply a recognition that your current partner can't make you happy and you can't attain life goals with them and vice versa.

Its completely narrow-minded to suggest that marriage is success. I know so many miserable, empty married people its hard to fathom.


----------



## cuchulain36

In a marriage someone will be a stronger more dominant personality, equality is a good thought, but ultimately someone will rule the roost, it can an always has been a split between men or women, even when men made the money plenty of wives controlled the money and the decisions.

However I disagree with women being better educated they are still getting very soft degrees and opting to stay home in greater percentages than men. Women need to make a lot of strides in science and engineering to supplant men as higher level earners. And of course stop having babies and taking off from the work force for months to years at a time.

it also begs the question whether the changes made in public schools to benefit girls decades ago hasn't hurt boys. Boys with strong personalities are punished in elementary school as disruptive and unruly. I saw it with my own son, his second grade teacher basically hated him because he was just a rambunctious good natured boy. But that's probably a discussion for another forum.


----------



## Nikita2270

> One absolutely wants a child, or more children, and the other absolutely doesn't


Yes Nora.

There's a billion examples of fatal incompatibilities.

Not just between partners either...also between families. 

Anyone that thinks that married=success is beyond reasoning with.


----------



## GettingIt_2

There is no "best" way to structure a marriage. I would never be so presumptive to suggest that what I have would work great for everyone because it works great for me and my husband. 

Some marriages do better with a male head of household.
Some marriages do better with a female head of household.
Some marriages do better with no head of household. 

ANY of those arrangements can work beautifully, as long as the husband and wife are happy with the division of "power." Furthermore, just because you have one arrangement today doesn't mean that, as the marriage evolves and circumstances change, a new arrangement can't be adopted down the road. 

I don't understand why anyone cares what works for others, or why anyone cares what others think of their own particular dynamic. That's between you and your spouse--who else's approval do you need? 

I also think the notion of "equal" in marriage means different things to different people. To some it means that each person does just as much work as the other. To others it means that each person has equal say in all decisions. I think what is most important is the respect that spouses have for each other's agreed-upon contributions to the marriage. If one spouse is harboring resentment because they feel they're doing more housework, or putting more effort into intimacy, or doing more to meet financial goals, AND on top of that they don't respect the contributions of their spouse, then obviously there is need for communication. 

But "equal" is a fairly useless term in these sorts of discussions because it's meaning is so subjective.


----------



## ladymisato

Nikita2270 said:


> And I would counter that most relationships are unhealthy with very unhappy people in them. I'm discussing successful relationships.


I'm not quite sure what you would classify as "successful". In my opinion, a successful marriage is any where both spouses are working to improve it regardless of any mistakes they make along the way.

The term "unhealthy" raises a concern for me. It is a term often employed by divorce advocates as an excuse for ending, not mending, the marriage. Perhaps you did not mean to imply that.



> Mostly as a result of the fact that people couldn't get out of marriages. Women and children were considered chattel and couldn't financially sustain themselves and therefore had to tolerate many relationships that would be considered intolerable today. There were also unbearable social stigmas on divorcees that don't exist to that extent today.


No, divorce has been around since ancient times. What is new is no-fault divorce. Try defending that.



> There are still marriages that people stay in today because one person has made themselves financially dependent on someone else. But as more people gain independence, they have to put up with less crap.


What you are arguing is that there are marriages where one party wishes to leave but is only prevented by a lack of finance. I am suggesting, instead, that most "unhealthy" marriages are fixable especially if both spouses wish to make it work. Finance, then, is irrelevant.



> If you're suggesting that having a male-run or female-run household would alleviate divorce in a time where people are often self-sustaining...I call b.s. on that assumption.


Well, we are moving into a much bigger subject here (and getting offtrack in the process). But let me just say that if one spouse is consenting the leadership of the other there is not much risk of divorce.



> Actually I'm not because the consensus often changes the original premise of the decision. Ultimately the final decision becomes a myriad of points, counterpoints and additions made by both parties. The parties then calculate all the inputs made by both and come up with a reasonable conclusion. Its not just about "I asked you before I made the decision"...its about both people providing input and changing the original premise.
> 
> If you do this well, you don't need one person to make a decision...the decision is made based on reasonable data. The data leads you to a conclusion. No one needs to trump the other person. Its simply about two people who are equals making the arguments. If you have a weak person in a debate, they'll get overruled pretty easily.
> 
> That's why I said that the best marriages are ones where the two people are equally capable and have an equal voice. They are able to hold their own in a decision making process.


I understand what you are saying here but I stand by what I said. Leadership does not preclude discussion or even argument. It only means that, in the end, one spouse has the final word. It also means that if a quick decision is made that both spouses know ahead of time who will make it. There are a myriad of ways that a wife (or husband) led marriage can solve problems that an egalitarian marriage cannot.



> Its not to stay that both weak and domineering people can't have lasting relationships...they can and do...its just not a relationship that I personally would be interested in having....nor do I consider those relationships emotionally/mentally healthy. However, that is my opinion looking at them from afar...ultimately, to each their own.


I appreciate that you prefer an egalitarian marriage. However, I hope you will excuse me for challenging your description of non-egalitarian marriages as unhealthy.



> Not cynicism. Its reality. Read the forum sometime. You'll see a lot of evidence of exactly what I'm speaking of.


Well, I have not spent enough time here but I have some real world experience in this. But I think the first discussion above is really the issue here.


----------



## ladymisato

GettingIt said:


> There is no "best" way to structure a marriage. I would never be so presumptive to suggest that what I have would work great for everyone because it works great for me and my husband.


Thanks for offering this. I am frankly surprised that this is such a minority view here.


----------



## Theseus

Davelli0331 said:


> I don't see any heated discussion


Have you even read this thread? I guess you missed some wildly irresponsible and insulting statements like this one: 



Nikita2270 said:


> Your whole premise is based on situations where two weak-willed, incomplete individuals feed off of each other and that's not a partnership. That's a parasitic relationship.


There is *NOTHING* morally wrong, sick, or unhealthy about a dominant partner relationship as long as *both* partners agreed to it beforehand. That is the key. My own marriage markedly improved after we changed to this kind of dynamic and set some firm rules. Not only did it cut down on arguments and stress, but our sex life went through the roof. 

Of course it's not for everyone! But I also agree with the premise that many men (as well as many women) would be happier if they came out and admitted they wanted their partner to take charge in major ways. I used to spend a lot of time on fetish sites like fetlife, and whenever a woman claimed she was dominant and looking for submissive men, she would be absolutely deluged with responses. And these aren't weird guys - these include doctors, lawyers, accountants, policemen, etc. It's a far more common desire than most people think, among both men and women.


----------



## Nikita2270

> However I disagree with women being better educated they are still getting very soft degrees and opting to stay home in greater percentages than men. Women need to make a lot of strides in science and engineering to supplant men as higher level earners. And of course stop having babies and taking off from the work force for months to years at a time


I agree. The "Prince Charming" syndrome of women who choose to stay at home with no financial plan is still entirely to pervasive these days.

I have girl children. My oldest has an engineering degree and my youngest will probably follow suit. I was raised to be self-sufficient and one of the reasons that I've managed to stay happy in life is because I'm self-sufficient. Being financially independent doesn't make you happy by itself but having freedom and choices does.

Again, topic for another thread but the point is that as women become more self-sufficient...consensus in marriages will become more popular. As such, I think you'll see less marriages but happier marriages. Ultimately, marriage is an outdated concept that needs to change anyway.


----------



## ladymisato

norajane said:


> One absolutely wants a child, or more children, and the other absolutely doesn't.


I'm going to have to call you out on that weasel word "absolutely". You are trying to have it both ways.

It is very often the case that one spouse is ready for children before the other. Sometimes that is resolved by waiting. Sometimes it involves some negotiation. Or it may be that the spouse who is not ready goes ahead anyway. (Nature will do that sometimes.) This is true even if the spouse who doesn't want children doesn't want them ever.

The above is not a circumstance that dooms a marriage.


----------



## ladymisato

Theseus said:


> There is *NOTHING* morally wrong, sick, or unhealthy about a dominant partner relationship as long as *both* partners agreed to it beforehand. That is the key. My own marriage markedly improved after we changed to this kind of dynamic and set some firm rules. Not only did it cut down on arguments and stress, but our sex life went through the roof.


Thank you for joining the thread. This is what I have seen with my own eyes in my own marriage and in many others.



> Of course it's not for everyone! But I also agree with the premise that many men (as well as many women) would be happier if they came out and admitted they wanted their partner to take charge in major ways.


Can you offer an opinion on why men are so reluctant to come out of the closet on this? (I called it a taboo but many posters disagreed.)


----------



## ladymisato

Nikita2270 said:


> I agree. The "Prince Charming" syndrome of women who choose to stay at home with no financial plan is still entirely to pervasive these days.


I don't see this as the main problem today. What I see, instead, is that in spite of the fact that women are often as educated or better educated as men, they are still seeking a more successful spouse. In Japan it is very common for women to earn a very decent salary and not to marry. They are not sitting at home without a financial plan waiting for prince charming, they are choosing a career over a marriage.


----------



## Nikita2270

> I'm not quite sure what you would classify as "successful". In my opinion, a successful marriage is any where both spouses are working to improve it regardless of any mistakes they make along the way.


Successful = both people getting their needs met.



> No, divorce has been around since ancient times.


Divorce isn't a feasible option if you can't support yourself. Are you actually suggesting that women didn't stay married because they literally had to to eat? lol...seriously?



> Finance, then, is irrelevant.


Its relevant because it gives one partner highly inequitable leverage. Are you denying that people stay in bad relationships due to financial considerations? 



> I appreciate that you prefer an egalitarian marriage. However, I hope you will excuse me for challenging your description of non-egalitarian marriages as unhealthy.


As I said, unhealthy in MY opinion. I think one person domineering over another and overriding their voice is demeaning and disrespectful. However, as I also said to each their own. People can make their own choices about what kind of life they have.

We'll simply have to agree to disagree. You are entitled to your opinion.


----------



## Revamped

ladymisato said:


> I'm going to have to call you out on that weasel word "absolutely". You are trying to have it both ways.


Infertility.


----------



## Nikita2270

> There is NOTHING morally wrong, sick, or unhealthy about a dominant partner relationship as long as both partners agreed to it beforehand. That is the key. My own marriage markedly improved after we changed to this kind of dynamic and set some firm rules. Not only did it cut down on arguments and stress, but our sex life went through the roof.


Like I said, there are a lot of people with a myriad of issues that require them to not be able to have real partnerships with people unless they're either being subjugated or dominating someone else. There are many people that will never be able to tolerate an equal because they don't capability to do so.

As such, you and your partner can choose whatever type of relationship you want.

And I can choose to call it unhealthy.

Get over it.


----------



## ladymisato

Revamped said:


> Infertility.


Nope. I know many infertile couples who are not divorced.


----------



## Revamped

I'm out.

There's no reasonable argument you'll find that that you'll feel right on.

Another "right" fighter.


----------



## Nikita2270

> It is very often the case that one spouse is ready for children before the other. Sometimes that is resolved by waiting. Sometimes it involves some negotiation. *Or it may be that the spouse who is not ready goes ahead anyway.* (Nature will do that sometimes.) This is true even if the spouse who doesn't want children doesn't want them ever.


lol...are you suggesting that a person who's partner doesn't want children should just go ahead and sabotage their decision and get pregnant anyway?????!!!!???

Yea ok...I'm done with this thread. That's seriously messed up.


----------



## ladymisato

Nikita2270 said:


> Successful = both people getting their needs met.


No realist would write something like that. People always want more than they have. We are naturally discontented.

Sadly, many people blame their spouse for not getting what they want. Probably that is the main source of modern divorce.



> Divorce isn't a feasible option if you can't support yourself. Are you actually suggesting that women didn't stay married because they literally had to to eat? lol...seriously?


I'm suggesting that women stayed married because they were committed to making the marriage work. The idea of leaving a marriage because you're not getting something you want is a very modern notion.



> Its relevant because it gives one partner highly inequitable leverage. Are you denying that people stay in bad relationships due to financial considerations?


You are still thinking from the position of how to get out of a bad marriage instead of how to make a marriage work better.



> As I said, unhealthy in MY opinion. I think one person domineering over another and overriding their voice is demeaning and disrespectful. However, as I also said to each their own. People can make their own choices about what kind of life they have.
> 
> We'll simply have to agree to disagree. You are entitled to your opinion.


Agreed.


----------



## ladymisato

Nikita2270 said:


> lol...are you suggesting that a person who's partner doesn't want children should just go ahead and sabotage their decision and get pregnant anyway?????!!!!???


I see you're talking about a wife who wants children and a husband who does not. Yes, this happens.

But what I was actually referring to is something more general: that one way to make the marriage work is for the spouse who is not ready for children to have them anyway. That includes your example but many others as well. It might be, for example, that the wife decides that it's time to have children and the husband consents to her decision not because he is read but because she is the head of the household.

My point is that your example does not doom the marriage. I hope I have shown why I believe that.


----------



## GettingIt_2

ladymisato said:


> Thanks for offering this. I am frankly surprised that this is such a minority view here.


I'm not so sure it is a minority view here. Your thread is a siren's song to those who don't like what you have to say. That's usually how it works around here, so you might want to consider the self-selecting nature of your respondent pool.


----------



## Big Tree

ladymisato said:


> This is just not consistent with what we see in marriage.


Data?

(you were responding to this: "Income disparity has no bearing on leadership or decision-making in our relationship.")


----------



## Theseus

ladymisato said:


> Can you offer an opinion on why men are so reluctant to come out of the closet on this? (I called it a taboo but many posters disagreed.)


I assume most men think it would hurt their career chances, and their social prestige.

Keep in mind the context on this forum. Since this is not a BDSM or fetish site, a lot of people don't understand the dynamic you are talking about. 

When many people here read the words "wife = boss" they often associate it very negatively, because there are so many threads of women henpecking, cheating, and/or and manipulating their husbands in all kinds of abusive ways, then taking them for all their money in the divorce (go to the "Coping with infidelity" forum for some prime examples). 

Ditto with the image of "husband=boss". That also has a strongly negative connotation, because many women here associate that image with their own physically abusive relationships with their ex-husbands.


----------



## Revamped

I wish instead of a "like" button, there was a "you're seriously deranged" button.

Then, I'd "like" it.


----------



## norajane

ladymisato said:


> I'm going to have to call you out on that weasel word "absolutely". You are trying to have it both ways.
> 
> It is very often the case that one spouse is ready for children before the other. Sometimes that is resolved by waiting. Sometimes it involves some negotiation. Or it may be that the spouse who is not ready goes ahead anyway. (Nature will do that sometimes.) This is true even if the spouse who doesn't want children doesn't want them ever.
> 
> The above is not a circumstance that dooms a marriage.


You really don't read any of the threads around here, do you? 

Anyway.

You asked for an example, I gave you one, and now you're arguing that it's not always like that. 

That doesn't change the fact that the example I gave is actually an example of irreconcilable differences.


----------



## Theseus

Nikita2270 said:


> As such, you and your partner can choose whatever type of relationship you want.
> 
> And I can choose to call it unhealthy.
> 
> Get over it.


:scratchhead:

Why the hostility? Is that last statement really necessary? Did I ever say I had a problem with you expressing your opinion?

You have every right to do so. As do I, incidentally.


----------



## ladymisato

Big Tree said:


> Data?


Sorry, I don't have the statistics handy. And it would require an honest assessment of marriage leadership which is not going to be simple since, as I have said, wife led marriages are in the closet.

Historically, the two were strongly correlated. The husband was the bread winner and he led the marriage.

In modern times you had dual income marriage and they were, as we would expect, more egalitarian. So again the correlation.

Finally we have the most modern marriages, those where the husband stays home and the wife is the bread winner.

Are you seriously arguing that those are going to be led by the husband? How egalitarian do you really expect them to be?

I'm not saying that in all marriages the spouse who earns more leads the marriage, I know plenty of exceptions. I am saying that there is a very strong correlation between the two.

One poster gives one reason: the spouse who earns the bigger paycheck has more negotiating leverage.

But there is another simpler explanation: the most important decisions are where to live and work and much else follows from that. It is natural, then, for the spouse with the bigger paycheck to determine what job to take and thus where to live. As well, this spouse decides whether to take the raise with more responsibility or keep the same position earning less.

And since one spouse will tend to decide these things it is natural for that spouse to lead the marriage in every other way.


----------



## Nikita2270

> No realist would write something like that. People always want more than they have. We are naturally discontented.


lol...maybe you are.

I wake up every single day feeling unbelievably lucky. I have everything I want and probably more than I deserve. I do a lot of charity work for this reason. Not just because its a nice thing to do but because it makes me feel like I'm giving something back for all of the unbelievable gifts I've been given and gives me the sense that I'm evening things out.

There are a ton of books written by people who have learned the art of happiness and contentment...maybe you should actually read some.

Anyway, enough with this idiotic thread...I'm finding something else to read.

Misogyny really ain't my thang.


----------



## ladymisato

norajane said:


> That doesn't change the fact that the example I gave is actually an example of irreconcilable differences.


I realize that you believe that it is an example of irreconcilable differences but I wish you would see why it is not.

Divorce is common because so many couples accept things as irreconcilable which are not.


----------



## Big Tree

ladymisato said:


> Finally we have the most modern marriages, those where the husband stays home and the wife is the bread winner.
> 
> Are you seriously arguing that those are going to be led by the husband? How egalitarian do you really expect them to be?


Yes. I am seriously arguing that.


----------



## notmyrealname4

Nikita2270 said:


> Again, topic for another thread but the point is that *as women become more self-sufficient...consensus in marriages will become more popular. *





Nikita2270 said:


> lol, In my relationship...*we both have money.*



Yes, that is my point *("whoever has the $ makes all the rules"*). As women bring more financial clout to the marriage; of course they get more say.

And if only one spouse earns money. That spouse has most of the power. Regardless of gender.


----------



## GettingIt_2

Nikita2270 said:


> Like I said, there are a lot of people with a myriad of issues that require them to not be able to have real partnerships with people unless they're either being subjugated or dominating someone else. There are many people that will never be able to tolerate an equal because they don't capability to do so.


But don't these people you see as incapable of "equal" deserve to fall in love and be happily married, too? 

I think they do. And if consensual, joyful, rollicking-good-time domination gets them there, then why judge? After all, riding crops and handcuffs are a hell of a lot cheaper than therapy bills. :rofl:


----------



## Marduk

ladymisato said:


> Again, my anecdotal experience is different. In fact, if you only stop and think about it for a moment, you'll see how wrong your point is: what do men do when they are courting women? Boss the around or serve them?


Not me. I would pick the place, what we do, always open to input but always with a plan.

Seemed to always work out for me.

It's not about being the boss.

It's about having a plan and having your crap together.

They all seemed very interested in me having a stable, well-paying job as well...


----------



## ladymisato

Big Tree said:


> Yes. I am seriously arguing that.


I will agree that this will happen for a while by tradition but it is already changing.

Women in marriages where the husband stays home are naturally rethinking gender roles and increasingly taking a more decisive role in the marriage. Wife led marriage is most common where the husband stays home.

That should not be surprising. But you won't find that reflected in casual statistics. So I can only share anecdotal examples.


----------



## Big Tree

intheory said:


> Yes, that is my point *("whoever has the $ makes all the rules"*). As women bring more financial clout to the marriage; of course they get more say.
> 
> And if only one spouse earns money. That spouse has most of the power. Regardless of gender.



Leadership and power are separable notions.


----------



## norajane

ladymisato said:


> I realize that you believe that it is an example of irreconcilable differences but I wish you would see why it is not.
> 
> Divorce is common because so many couples accept things as irreconcilable which are not.


This couple where one absolutely wants a child and the other does not stays married only if one gives in and has a child they absolutely do not want, or the other gives in and never has a child.

Yes, people can stay married if they do that. Miserably, of course, but married.

I'm out. This is pointless.


----------



## ladymisato

intheory said:


> Yes, that is my point *("whoever has the $ makes all the rules"*). As women bring more financial clout to the marriage; of course they get more say.
> 
> And if only one spouse earns money. That spouse has most of the power. Regardless of gender.


This is true as long as we all understand that it is a trend and a tendency. There are plenty of counterexamples.

But, yes, as women earn more they demand more say and when the women is the sole bread winner, she is less content to let the husband lead or even to share decisions.


----------



## Big Tree

ladymisato said:


> I will agree that this will happen for a while by tradition but it is already changing.
> 
> Women in marriages where the husband stays home are naturally rethinking gender roles and increasingly taking a more decisive role in the marriage. Wife led marriage is most common where the husband stays home.
> 
> That should not be surprising. But you won't find that reflected in casual statistics. So I can only share anecdotal examples.


Leadership and roles are separable notions. I think you will find women led relationships exist where the woman is a leader.


----------



## ladymisato

norajane said:


> This couple where one absolutely wants a child and the other does not stays married only if one gives in and has a child they absolutely do not want, or the other gives in and never has a child.
> 
> Yes, people can stay married if they do that. Miserably, of course, but married.


That's not misery. It's sacrifice. And it happens all the time in healthy marriages. In fact, I would say that a marriage that is not capable of making such sacrifices is unhealthy.


----------



## jld

ladymisato said:


> Divorce is common because so many couples accept things as irreconcilable which are not.


I think this is true. We live in a very self-oriented culture. 

Am I happy? Am I getting my "needs" met? What do I want in this marriage? Me, me, me; I, I, I. 

It is a wonder marriage survives at all.


----------



## Binji

Wife led marriage is just some new age trendy term to men who cant get a job and therefore by default is fulfilling womanly duties. No women is out searching for this or sexually desiring it. Its all due to some unfortunate circumstance. Just a bunch of folks trying to some sugar in their bitter coffee, then trying to advertise it like its some refreshing new drink.

A man with a job sitting a home in his underwear playing xbox, is a sexual buzz killer, what makes people think women are going to start getting sexually wild for for a man who is sitting at home, iron and folding clothes, and color coordinating tupperware bowls?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Mr. Nail

ladymisato said:


> Women in marriages where the husband stays home are naturally rethinking gender roles and increasingly taking a more decisive role in the marriage.


Too frequently that is not the only thing being rethought. You are fortunate that you were in favor of a less dominant partner.
MN


----------



## ladymisato

Big Tree said:


> Leadership and roles are separable notions.


Truly, we had a lot of discussion early on about spouses and their relative strengths. (For example, one spouse may be good at lifting heavy things, the other at making dinner.)



> I think you will find women led relationships exist where the woman is a leader.


Yes, though I think that's called a 'tautology'.

But what some are overlooking is that among the ways that marriages evolve and grow is that each spouse is maturing and learning and adjusting to the other.

One way that this occurs is that one spouse may learn to become a better leader in the marriage.


----------



## Davelli0331

GettingIt said:


> But don't these people you see as incapable of "equal" deserve to to fall in love and be happily married, too?
> 
> I think they do. And if consensual, joyful, rollicking-good-time domination gets them there, then why judge? After all, riding crops and handcuffs are a hell of a lot cheaper than therapy bills. :rofl:


I don't personally have a problem with any marital setup that works for that couple. What I have a problem with in this thread is this idea that OP has reiterated multiple times:


ladymisato said:


> I agree that there are a lot of issues involved but I still say that the egalification of marriage is the main cause of divorce.


OP offers this incredible leap of logic with no real empirical evidence, and when someone finally asks for data to back it up, OP sidesteps it with an incredibly convenient, "Oh, well I don't have any data, and oh drat, it's so taboo no real data can be gathered anyway:


> Sorry, I don't have the statistics handy. And it would require an honest assessment of marriage leadership which is not going to be simple since, as I have said, wife led marriages are in the closet.


Again, if this setup works for OP or for anyone else, great. Marriage is a team just like any other where teamwork requires figuring out that dynamic.

But making such fantastical connections is dubious at best, sensationalism at worst.


----------



## jld

Decorum said:


> I make *ALL* the big decisions in our marriage. Always have, always will!
> 
> How Europe was to be divided after the war, the level of Nuclear threat posed by the Soviets, and weather or not there really is a bigfoot.
> 
> I left all the little stuff to "the wife", how we should budget the finances, raise the kids, and how I spent my "free time".
> 
> Hold on, what? Garbage out? Ok I'm on it!
> 
> Gotta go!


----------



## ladymisato

Mr. Nail said:


> Too frequently that is not the only thing being rethought. You are fortunate that you were in favor of a less dominant partner.


It was not easy for us. We both did a lot of learning and adjusting.

But having gone through it, and helped other couples through it, I can say that it can really, really well.


----------



## Marduk

This study seems to dispute your hypothesis
"Support for (wife’s) independence effect hypothesis: The higher the wife’s share in the couple’s income the higher the divorce risk"
http://www.demogr.mpg.de/papers/workshops/041125_paper07.pdf

This one states that female mate selection is strongly biased towards the male earning more:
http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/emir.kamenica/documents/identity.pdf

Here's a good quote from the New York Times:
"Given these findings, it isn’t surprising that when a wife earns more than her husband, the risk of divorce rises, too."

And this one from Huffington Post:
"Couples in which the wife earns more report less satisfaction with their marriage and higher rates of divorce." 

All of this was on page one of a google search with the terms "divorce rates in marriages where wives make more"

I'm not saying that such marriages cannot work or cannot be happy, I'm saying that the probability of such a marriage being as successful in current western society is less likely than where the man makes as much as the woman does, or more.

I dispute your entire hypothesis, and given that you've provided zero data to support it and not much else but stirring the pot, I label thee a troll.


----------



## I'llUseMyEars

Ya, im gettin in way late on this but oh well.
I dont agree with either wife led or husband led marriage.
Why do we need to denote a leader at all??
When you join together in marriage, isnt it a "TOGETHER" thing from the start??
You have to be able to run a household, raise kids, etc....TOGETHER!
I dont care how many books you've written on the subject, get off your high horse and be a team! TOGETHER!!


----------



## ladymisato

marduk said:


> This study seems to dispute your hypothesis
> "Support for (wife’s) independence effect hypothesis: The higher the wife’s share in the couple’s income the higher the divorce risk"
> http://www.demogr.mpg.de/papers/workshops/041125_paper07.pdf
> 
> This one states that female mate selection is strongly biased towards the male earning more:
> http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/emir.kamenica/documents/identity.pdf
> 
> Here's a good quote from the New York Times:
> "Given these findings, it isn’t surprising that when a wife earns more than her husband, the risk of divorce rises, too."
> 
> And this one from Huffington Post:
> "Couples in which the wife earns more report less satisfaction with their marriage and higher rates of divorce." This is not the first time I have heard this one -- so here is where I come in to overanalyze why this may or may not be the case."
> 
> All of this was on page one of a google search with the terms "divorce rates in marriages where wives make more"
> 
> I'm not saying that such marriages cannot work or cannot be happy, I'm saying that the probability of such a marriage being as successful in current western society is less likely than where the man makes as much as the woman does, or more.
> 
> I dispute your entire hypothesis, and given that you've provided zero data to support it and not much else but stirring the pot, I label thee a troll.


Let's be very careful about how to understand this data because it is very important.

I am saying that wife led marriage works well in situations where the wife makes more than the husband (especially when the husband stays home). I am not saying that marriages where the wife earns more are more successful. In fact, quite obviously, when the wife earns more this creates stresses in the marriage and so we should not be surprised that divorce is often the result.

Now, as I hope I've made very plain, I am strongly against divorce. I think it is almost always a bad choice. So the question is, what is the solution when the wife earns more than the husband or where the husband stays home?

The solution, increasingly, is for the wife to lead the marriage.

Now it's conceivable that marriages where the wife earns more or where the husband stays home are more likely to divorce if the wife take the lead in the marriage. But the statistics you cite don't demonstrate that.

Now I have already agreed, previously, that wife led marriages face social stigma. And this, again, could conceivably increase the risk of divorce. But, again, the studies you cite don't show this and the solution that most wife led marriages adopt is to masquerade as egalitarian. And it's not obvious to me that such social stigma necessarily increase the risk of divorce, it could as easily bind the couple more closely. And, most importantly, we should expect to see any negative effect from this to abate as these marriage become more accepted.

Does that make sense?


----------



## ladymisato

I'llUseMyEars said:


> Ya, im gettin in way late on this but oh well.
> I dont agree with either wife led or husband led marriage.
> Why do we need to denote a leader at all??
> When you join together in marriage, isnt it a "TOGETHER" thing from the start??
> You have to be able to run a household, raise kids, etc....TOGETHER!
> I dont care how many books you've written on the subject, get off your high horse and be a team! TOGETHER!!


Yeah, many people objected to the idea of a wife led marriage on this basis. I think we agreed to disagree on it.

What I said was, essentially, that marriage works better when there is a way to resolve differences and the tried and true way to do that is when one spouse leads the marriage and the other consents to her leadership.


----------



## I'llUseMyEars

But, is your "wife led" marriage based on "your" income, and the fact that hubby stays home? If so, that is where I disagree. Or, do you just like the title?


----------



## SCDP Joan

Hubby used to be the major breadwinner.
Now he's the SAHD while I earn the majority income.
No change in the way our marriage operates. We are partners.

Why does it seem like you're pushing so hard to convert on this? Is there a blog or a book you're publishing?


----------



## Davelli0331

SCDP Joan said:


> Hubby used to be the major breadwinner.
> Now he's the SAHD while I earn the majority income.
> No change in the way our marriage operates. We are partners.
> 
> Why does it seem like you're pushing so hard to convert on this? Is there a blog or a book you're publishing?


From the OP


ladymisato said:


> I am new to this forum but I have been browsing the topics looking for discussions of wife led marriage. I have been experimenting with it in my own marriage for over a decade and *I recently self-published a book on the subject*.


----------



## GettingIt_2

Davelli0331 said:


> OP offers this incredible leap of logic with no real empirical evidence, and when someone finally asks for data to back it up, OP sidesteps it with an incredibly convenient, "Oh, well I don't have any data, and oh drat, it's so taboo no real data can be gathered anyway:
> 
> .


Well, I can't agree or disagree with OP on whether or not the notion of "equality" in marriages is to blame for the higher divorce rate. However, here is an interesting lecture from Stephanie Coontz, professor of history and family studies, in which she argues that it was the advent of marrying for love that is to blame for the weakening of marriage as an institution. You see, it was when people began to expect to find emotional fulfillment in their marriages that they they began to fail. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwtb7jz8G4k

It makes sense: if you can't come to an agreement with your spouse on what an "emotionally fulfilling" marriage entails, then you don't have a happy (read "successful") marriage. You can either compromise, or leave. 

Marriage bears a much higher burden than it used to. Not saying that's a bad thing, but back in the day no one really expected their marriage to make them happy, so there was less point in exiting the situation.


----------



## Binji

Wife led marriage is just another way of saying "Husband lost his job."
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## I'llUseMyEars

SCDP Joan said:


> Hubby used to be the major breadwinner.
> Now he's the SAHD while I earn the majority income.
> No change in the way our marriage operates. We are partners.
> 
> Why does it seem like you're pushing so hard to convert on this? Is there a blog or a book you're publishing?


Maybe your right Joan.....perhaps a book deal is at work here! I just dont see the persistance in having a so called leader in the marriage.
Now, if you were a stay at home mom, would you be complaining how your hubby just doesnt understand all that you do all day, with NOOO accolades??
C'mon, be happily married TOGETHER!!


----------



## ladymisato

I'llUseMyEars said:


> But, is your "wife led" marriage based on "your" income, and the fact that hubby stays home? If so, that is where I disagree. Or, do you just like the title?


We had a marital crisis while we were both working but I was earning more. After a very long and complicated dance involving various issues of domestic responsibility, I asked him to stay home and he agreed. But his agreement followed his consent to let me lead the marriage.

In other cases that I know, it was the the opposite: the husband lost his job or he was earning less and they agreed he should stay home and then, over time, it evolved into a wife led marriage.

Life is complicated.


----------



## ladymisato

GettingIt said:


> Well, I can't agree or disagree with OP on whether or not the notion of "equality" in marriages is to blame for the higher divorce rate. However, here is an interesting lecture from Stephanie Coontz, professor of history and family studies, in which she argues that it was the advent of marrying for love that is to blame for the weakening of marriage as an institution. You see, it was when people began to expect to find emotional fulfillment in their marriages that they they began to fail.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwtb7jz8G4k
> 
> It makes sense: if you can't come to an agreement with your spouse on what an "emotionally fulfilling" marriage entails, then you don't have a happy (read "successful") marriage. You can either compromise, or leave.


I hadn't thought of it that way but she has a point.



> Marriage bears a much higher burden than it used to. Not saying that's a bad thing, but back in the day no one really expected their marriage to make them happy, so there was less point in exiting the situation.


It's possible, of course, to pursue a fulfilling marriage but to put in the effort to make it work even when it's not or when you don't think it's going your way.


----------



## I'llUseMyEars

GOOD LORD!!
I just dont understand WHY you feel the need to have the crown of leader!
You both obviously have your roles in the marriage as it stands, but it REALLY seems like you just enjoy the fact that you have dubbed yourself the leader! AND, as you said, your husband "consented" to this. Um, did you get it in writing, did he sign the contract? Just so there is no question "who" is leading this "2 PERSON MARRIAGE"


----------



## jld

Binji said:


> Wife led marriage is just another way of saying "Husband lost his job."
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## U.E. McGill

I'm late to this, but hear goes. 

I think a woman's penchant for covert communication, hypergamy, **** tests, and living through her emotions make this a difficult proposition. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there's an example, but it's not the norm. 

Don't get me wrong, women are equal in the eyes of the law, they can be doctors lawyers and cops. I have zero problems with this. But men and women are not equal.

I believe in the captain/first officer model. I can root through these very boards and find 1000 examples of where a man surrendered his leadership in the family, only to loose the respect and desire of his wife. Women say one thing, like a desire for equality, but their actions say something else. Things like seeking security, and being sexually dominated. 

In my house, it's ultimately my decision. My wife has her choice on that, she can be with me or not. There's a great deal of trust she has in that leadership mind you. I'm not a
Ruthless dictator, I have a great deal of faith in her, and her ability to make decisions. Some of the worst points of my marriage are when I've surrendered leadership to her, and she resented me for it. Looking back I realize it was the same in other relationships too. So now I take the tact that I'm in charge, and there's been a lot more harmony because of it. 

Sure you can find a couple that wants this, just like there's successful poly couples or gay couples. There's a spectrum for everything, this just isn't part of the median.


----------



## ladymisato

I'llUseMyEars said:


> GOOD LORD!!
> I just dont understand WHY you feel the need to have the crown of leader!
> You both obviously have your roles in the marriage as it stands, but it REALLY seems like you just enjoy the fact that you have dubbed yourself the leader! AND, as you said, your husband "consented" to this. Um, did you get it in writing, did he sign the contract? Just so there is no question "who" is leading this "2 PERSON MARRIAGE"


We both have our roles AND I am "crowned" the leader. Among my roles is earning income for the family. His roles revolve around taking care of the home and the children (before they all left).

No, I didn't get it in writing but it was the end of a lot of turmoil in our marriage and the start of something very wonderful.


----------



## Faeleaf

This topic has caused more laughter in our house than any others so far. Husband and I are getting a real kick out of it...please, keep it up!


----------



## ladymisato

U.E. McGill said:


> I'm late to this, but hear goes.
> 
> I think a woman's penchant for covert communication, hypergamy, **** tests, and living through her emotions make this a difficult proposition. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there's an example, but it's not the norm.


Here is something you might find interesting: I confess that I was the source of a lot of drama in our household. But after he consented that I should lead the marriage I became much better about all that. I won't claim that I'm perfect, nobody is, I'm just saying that it made a big difference.



> I can root through these very boards and find 1000 examples of where a man surrendered his leadership in the family, only to loose the respect and desire of his wife. Women say one thing, like a desire for equality, but their actions say something else. Things like seeking security, and being sexually dominated.


This too changed in our marriage.



> In my house, it's ultimately my decision. My wife has her choice on that, she can be with me or not. There's a great deal of trust she has in that leadership mind you. I'm not a
> Ruthless dictator, I have a great deal of faith in her, and her ability to make decisions. Some of the worst points of my marriage are when I've surrendered leadership to her, and she resented me for it. Looking back I realize it was the same in other relationships too. So now I take the tact that I'm in charge, and there's been a lot more harmony because of it.


I'm glad that you feel that you can express this publicly without shame. One of the points I have made is that wive and husband have to be much more careful in wife led marriages.



> Sure you can find a couple that wants this, just like there's successful poly couples or gay couples. There's a spectrum for everything, this just isn't part of the median.


This is true at the moment because we are discussing a new trend and because those leading the trend hide behind declarations of equality.


----------



## SCDP Joan

So, leader in your definition is the primary breadwinner?


----------



## GettingIt_2

ladymisato said:


> It's possible, of course, to pursue a fulfilling marriage but to put in the effort to make it work even when it's not or when you don't think it's going your way.


Sure it's possible. I'm not going to tell someone when they've done enough or not done enough though.


----------



## Big Tree

ladymisato said:


> We both have our roles AND I am "crowned" the leader. Among my roles is earning income for the family. His roles revolve around taking care of the home and the children (before they all left).
> 
> No, I didn't get it in writing but it was the end of a lot of turmoil in our marriage and the start of something very wonderful.


I have been a SAHD for 18 years. I am the leader. My roles are to raise our boys and support my wife's career.

I am concerned that you conflate economic control with leadership. I hope you will address this conflict.


----------



## I'llUseMyEars

ladymisato said:


> We both have our roles AND I am "crowned" the leader. Among my roles is earning income for the family. His roles revolve around taking care of the home and the children (before they all left).
> 
> No, I didn't get it in writing but it was the end of a lot of turmoil in our marriage and the start of something very wonderful.


Sooooo, you "are" crowned the leader huh? Has dear hubby succumbed to this on his own, or was the hammer dropped before him?
Honestly, I dont get it. I think a marriage can work either way, stay at home mom, or dad. But, with the overlord attitude you seem to have, I'll keep an eye out for ya on another section of the forum.....
Cant we just respect each others roles, all for the greater good, with equality?
Hmmmmmm.....


----------



## ladymisato

SCDP Joan said:


> So, leader in your definition is the primary breadwinner?


No, but those tend to be correlated.

My definition of the leader is the spouse who makes the final decisions after discussion or who makes the quick decisions when discussion is not practical. (And here I mean important decisions.)

This is not a new concept, it's been around since the dawn of humankind.

You can think of it as an agreement ahead of time how to resolve such situations.


----------



## Marduk

ladymisato said:


> Let's be very careful about how to understand this data because it is very important.
> 
> I am saying that wife led marriage works well in situations where the wife makes more than the husband (especially when the husband stays home). I am not saying that marriages where the wife earns more are more successful. In fact, quite obviously, when the wife earns more this creates stresses in the marriage and so we should not be surprised that divorce is often the result.
> 
> Now, as I hope I've made very plain, I am strongly against divorce. I think it is almost always a bad choice. So the question is, what is the solution when the wife earns more than the husband or where the husband stays home?
> 
> The solution, increasingly, is for the wife to lead the marriage.
> 
> Now it's conceivable that marriages where the wife earns more or where the husband stays home are more likely to divorce if the wife take the lead in the marriage. But the statistics you cite don't demonstrate that.
> 
> Now I have already agreed, previously, that wife led marriages face social stigma. And this, again, could conceivably increase the risk of divorce. But, again, the studies you cite don't show this and the solution that most wife led marriages adopt is to masquerade as egalitarian. And it's not obvious to me that such social stigma necessarily increase the risk of divorce, it could as easily bind the couple more closely. And, most importantly, we should expect to see any negative effect from this to abate as these marriage become more accepted.
> 
> Does that make sense?


Ah, now we're altering the hypothesis to fit the data.

OK then.

So what you're saying, to be clear, is in marriages where the wife happens to make more, they can be successful if the wife also leads the marriage.

So, kinda, sorta, the one who makes the dough makes the rules, then it can kinda sorta work out?

Wow. After all that pot-stirring, way to take a stand.

I ask what is the basis for you to make this statement: "The solution, increasingly, is for the wife to lead the marriage."

Based upon a sample size of what? You?


----------



## Davelli0331

GettingIt said:


> Well, I can't agree or disagree with OP on whether or not the notion of "equality" in marriages is to blame for the higher divorce rate. However, here is an interesting lecture from Stephanie Coontz, professor of history and family studies, in which she argues that it was the advent of marrying for love that is to blame for the weakening of marriage as an institution. You see, it was when people began to expect to find emotional fulfillment in their marriages that they they began to fail.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwtb7jz8G4k
> 
> It makes sense: if you can't come to an agreement with your spouse on what an "emotionally fulfilling" marriage entails, then you don't have a happy (read "successful") marriage. You can either compromise, or leave.
> 
> Marriage bears a much higher burden than it used to. Not saying that's a bad thing, but back in the day no one really expected their marriage to make them happy, so there was less point in exiting the situation.


I have read many of the same studies and completely agree. Millenials (of which I am one) are one of the first generations whose primary driver for marriage was emotional and spiritual fulfillment, instead of building a family unit as in generations past. And that lack of immediate gratification of fulfillment has been found in those studies to be a leading cause of divorce.

But somehow conflating that with the lack of wife-led marriages is, again, a bit of a fantastical leap.

Moreover, divorce is trending downward: See here for census data for each state comparing divorce rates from 1990 until now, and here for more general statistics.


----------



## I'llUseMyEars

Now, is this suddenly big news because you are the leader? Or have you been a champion of the cause for a long time, even when a man is the "leader"?
I think this is all a very big ego trip you have for breakfast, lunch, and dinner on a daily basis.


----------



## Revamped

ladymisato said:


> I'm glad that you feel that you can express this publicly without shame. One of the points I have made is that wive and husband have to be much more careful in wife led marriages.


Shaming your husband because he doesn't earn as much money as you do isn't a fact "I'd" publicly be proud of.

Maybe that's a source of contention in your marriage you should address.


----------



## COGypsy

According to a Google search, "wife-led" marriages have strong elements of humiliation and BDSM. It's probably not a far leap of logic to guess that the same "character" elements that would lead a woman to WANT to be degraded and injured in a relationship would eventually lead to a woman who WANTS to be the one doing the degrading and injuring eventually. Thus a construct to accommodate that desire would emerge to justify the abuse.


----------



## ladymisato

marduk said:


> Based upon a sample size of what? You?


It is not a scientific sample, I have only worked with a self-selected set of wives. I make no scientific claims, I am only explaining what I have experienced and seen.



> So what you're saying, to be clear, is in marriages where the wife happens to make more, they can be successful if the wife also leads the marriage.


None of the wives I know ended up getting a divorce although many were thinking along those lines initially. So by that measure, they were all successful.



> I ask what is the basis for you to make this statement: "The solution, increasingly, is for the wife to lead the marriage."


My experience and the experience of others I know.


----------



## ladymisato

I'llUseMyEars said:


> Now, is this suddenly big news because you are the leader? Or have you been a champion of the cause for a long time, even when a man is the "leader"?
> I think this is all a very big ego trip you have for breakfast, lunch, and dinner on a daily basis.


You may choose to dismiss me if you like but I can honestly say that I am in favor of led marriages generally. Earlier I stated that marriages are bimodally, not normally distributed. I have no qualms with husband led marriages when they are working.


----------



## GettingIt_2

Davelli0331 said:


> I have read many of the same studies and completely agree. Millenials (of which I am one) are one of the first generations whose primary driver for marriage was emotional and spiritual fulfillment, instead of building a family unit as in generations past. And that lack of immediate gratification of fulfillment has been found in those studies to be a leading cause of divorce.
> 
> But somehow conflating that with the lack of wife-led marriages is, again, a bit of a fantastical leap.
> 
> Moreover, divorce is trending downward: See here for census data for each state comparing divorce rates from 1990 until now, and here for more general statistics.


Just for the record--though I find it all very interesting--I don't have a horse in this race. 'Cuz I'm happy with what I got.


----------



## SCDP Joan

ladymisato said:


> No, but those tend to be correlated.
> 
> My definition of the leader is the spouse who makes the final decisions after discussion or who makes the quick decisions when discussion is not practical. (And here I mean important decisions.)
> 
> This is not a new concept, it's been around since the dawn of humankind.
> 
> You can think of it as an agreement ahead of time how to resolve such situations.


Maybe 'you' can think of it as that but we don't in our marriage. I would say that in most of the marriages I know, it isn't considered that way. 

When my husband was breadwinner, we discussed and agreed on things. As breadwinner now, I don't assume I am the leader. It would be insulting and demeaning to both of us to classify it that way. The money is not mine nor his, it is ours. We have joint accounts and pool all resources. 

So, in the example you cite where you both discuss it, being the one to take action on that decided upon outcome is also a 'leader'? In that case, my daughters were the leaders many Friday nights when calling in a pizza delivery order! They'll be pleased to know!


----------



## I'llUseMyEars

And these books you boast of, were summed up from data collected from a 
"Self Selected" group of wives? Seriously? 
Do you pee standing up now too?
Look, if this works for you, well obviously it works for "you".
Fine and dandy, just be wary of preaching to the rest of us with your self selected data, and your superiority comlex....


----------



## Marduk

ladymisato said:


> It is not a scientific sample, I have only worked with a self-selected set of wives. I make no scientific claims, I am only explaining what I have experienced and seen.
> 
> 
> None of the wives I know ended up getting a divorce although many were thinking along those lines initially. So by that measure, they were all successful.
> 
> 
> My experience and the experience of others I know.


OMFG I swear you just made me laugh out loud.

So you took a pre-selected group of women, and then made conclusions based upon that group, and came up with your hypotheses and correlations?

Here's some of the first things they teach you about science:
List of cognitive biases - RationalWiki

Pick one. Hell, you could probably pick a dozen biases in your work.

One question for your self-selected group: how often do these couples have sex?


----------



## Marduk

FrenchFry said:


> Just to take a step back--
> 
> Instead of talking about science and hypotheticals and studies,
> 
> How about just tell us why this works for you. What your day looks like, how major decisions are made. You mentioned "less drama," how did that come about? What was the process like? What is the biggest difference in you, your husband and your house?
> 
> Also, do you believe your marriage is in the realm of BDSM or is it just a dynamic without the fetish element involved?


That's an interesting question, but she's made several statements about causation, correlation, and the like.

You can't sidestep the pesky facts that don't happen to fit your hypothesis.

It's not about science. It's about being rational, and being intellectually honest.

She's being neither.


----------



## I'llUseMyEars

Thank you marduk! And this is a study to base a book on??? Wow!


----------



## Revamped

FrenchFry said:


> Do you believe your marriage is in the realm of BDSM or is it just a dynamic without the fetish element involved?


It worked in 50 Shades, so it's GOTTA work in REAL LiFE!

Um, no....


----------



## Big Tree

ladymisato said:


> No, but those tend to be correlated.
> 
> My definition of the leader is the spouse who makes the final decisions after discussion or who makes the quick decisions when discussion is not practical. (And here I mean important decisions.)
> 
> This is not a new concept, it's been around since the dawn of humankind.
> 
> You can think of it as an agreement ahead of time how to resolve such situations.


I really appreciate your thoughtful questions and answers ladymisato!

To me, leadership is so much more than being the person who controls the decision making process. Leaders lead. Controllers control.

I hope you will forgive me if I am wrong, it seems to me that you are ennobling controlling behavior by calling it leadership.

Just my two cents.


----------



## ladymisato

marduk said:


> So you took a pre-selected group of women, and then made conclusions based upon that group, and came up with your hypotheses and correlations?


As I said, it was not scientific. But, yes, I am drawing conclusions based on a self-selected group of marriages. By "self-selected" do not mean that I selected them but that they selected themselves.



> One question for your self-selected group: how often do these couples have sex?


More than they did before.


----------



## ladymisato

SCDP Joan said:


> When my husband was breadwinner, we discussed and agreed on things. As breadwinner now, I don't assume I am the leader. It would be insulting and demeaning to both of us to classify it that way. The money is not mine nor his, it is ours. We have joint accounts and pool all resources.


I'm not suggesting that anyone assume anything. I am, however, saying that historically the man was the breadwinner and the man was the head of household. But when the woman becomes the breadwinner, she doesn't just _assume_ she is the leader.


----------



## ladymisato

Big Tree said:


> To me, leadership is so much more than being the person who controls the decision making process. Leaders lead. Controllers control.


But I didn't describe leadership as controlling the decision making process, that is your interpretation. I said the leader is the one who makes the final decision. And that can only work in a marriage when the other spouse consents to be led. Which is why I described it as an agreement to let one spouse make the final decisions.


----------



## Marduk

ladymisato said:


> As I said, it was not scientific. But, yes, I am drawing conclusions based on a self-selected group of marriages.


If it's not scientific, then upon what basis do you draw conclusions?

How did you gather data?



> By "self-selected" do not mean that I selected them but that they selected themselves.


Based on what criteria did they select themselves?

How did you find them?

What is your sample size?


> More than they did before.


How much did they have before and how much after?

What behaviours changed to delineate the before and after?

What information do you have on the men's marital/sexual satisfaction? Or did you only talk to the bosses?


----------



## I'llUseMyEars

ladymisato said:


> I'm not suggesting that anyone assume anything. I am, however, saying that historically the man was the breadwinner and the man was the head of household. But when the woman becomes the breadwinner, she doesn't just _assume_ she is the leader.


LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE!!
You have stated over and over and over.......you go to work, hubby stays home.......you are the leader! Oh, yes, and make the decisions too.
So, as leader, what is hubbys stance on this thread, or is it above his pay grade?


----------



## Revamped

ladymisato said:


> I'm not suggesting that anyone assume anything. I am, however, saying that historically the man was the breadwinner and the man was the head of household. But when the woman becomes the breadwinner, she doesn't just _assume_ she is the leader.


Not only did you ASSUME leadership, you made sure your husband KNEW you were in control.

And you wear that crown proudly, as if it were a trophy to be WON, rather than disregarding titles and positions to be awarded.

You are the ultimate anti-female, one who is to be pitied rather than regaled.


----------



## ladymisato

FrenchFry said:


> I understand. I'm just not interested in the science part but the relationship part.
> 
> Also, I understand you disagree, please don't derail the thread.


I think also its important to remember that science always begins with observations and speculations. I have made some observations. I am exploring them. I doubt I will ever do a scientific study but perhaps someday someone else will.


----------



## Marduk

FrenchFry said:


> I understand. I'm just not interested in the science part but the relationship part.


I'm interested in the relationship dynamic as well, but only if we're going to be honest about it.


> Also, I understand you disagree, please don't derail the thread.


Derail the thread?

Oh, sorry.

I thought we were talking about reality, not someone's self-selected version of it where they get to be in charge.


----------



## ladymisato

I'llUseMyEars said:


> LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE!!
> You have stated over and over and over.......you go to work, hubby stays home.......you are the leader! Oh, yes, and make the decisions too.
> So, as leader, what is hubbys stance on this thread, or is it above his pay grade?


I've actually said more than that. I have said that the two are strongly correlated and that women who are sole breadwinners tend to become leaders of the marriage. I never said by what means that happens and I certainly did not mean to imply that it happens by assumption. In fact, several times I said that leadership can be thought of as an agreement to give one spouse final decision.


----------



## ladymisato

marduk said:


> If it's not scientific, then upon what basis do you draw conclusions? How did you gather data?


Science is not the only way to draw conclusions.



> Based on what criteria did they select themselves? How did you find them? What is your sample size?


They approached me to help with their marriage. Close to a hundred a this point.



> How much did they have before and how much after?
> 
> What behaviours changed to delineate the before and after?
> 
> What information do you have on the men's marital/sexual satisfaction? Or did you only talk to the bosses?


I did not take observations. I relied upon their descriptions. But in many cases I talked to both spouses and did not find any tendency of wives to exaggerate the sex.

Before/after is roughly before they came to me and after I spent some time with them.


----------



## I'llUseMyEars

ladymisato said:


> I've actually said more than that. I have said that the two are strongly correlated and that women who are sole breadwinners tend to become leaders of the marriage. I never said by what means that happens and I certainly did not mean to imply that it happens by assumption. In fact, several times I said that leadership can be thought of as an agreement to give one spouse final decision.


You may say that, but you certainly come across in a different tone in your case. You said earlier, "yes, I am crowned the leader". I believe you see that more as a victory than an arrangement.


----------



## GettingIt_2

Here is how one can make the *mistake* of believing that "head of household" marriages are more stable, "happier" marriages. (Bear with me.)

If you set out to do a study, you might ask your subjects to self-sort into marriage categories that read something like this:

A. In my marriage, the husband is the agreed upon head of household. 

B. In my marriage, the wife is the agreed upon head of household. 

C. In my marriage, there is no agreed upon head of household. 

Folks who select A and B are going to be those who are _jointly_ comfortable with the HoH dynamics . In other words, a wife who is unhappy with her husband's attempts to be the dominate partner against her protests won't self-select into A, just as a man who is unhappy about his wife's belief that she should lead won't describe his marriage as B. 

So, from the get-go you have a "happy" bias in your A and B category. 

Who picks category C? Well--couples who are jointly happy with not having a named HoH, of course . . . . AND EVERYONE ELSE. Yes, this category is gonna be a catch-all for the unhappy couples who have one spouse who wants a HoH and one who does not, plus all the couples who jointly do not want a HoH, but who are unhappy for myriad other reasons. 

But, you ask, there must be SOME couples in A and B who are unhappy for reasons other than their chosen and agreed upon HoH dynamic. Sure there will be--but there will be fewer because the simple fact of the matter is that HoH marriages take a TREMENDOUS amount of respect and communication and trust to work. If things go off the tracks, the first thing to go is the willingness to say, "Yes, I'm in a marriage in which I defer to my spouse." Sigh . . . and into category C you go, where your unhappy marriage will screw up the reputation of honest-to-goodness happy non-HoH dynamics.

Now, I really must get back to Ana and Christian. I KNEW he loved her, that scoundrel!


----------



## ladymisato

marduk said:


> I'm interested in the relationship dynamic as well, but only if we're going to be honest about it.


Do you have some reason to think that I have misled you? I have been very forthcoming about the fact that it was not a scientific study.


----------



## ladymisato

I'llUseMyEars said:


> You may say that, but you certainly come across in a different tone in your case. You said earlier, "yes, I am crowned the leader". I believe you see that more as a victory than an arrangement.


I was being facetious because that's the term that was used in the post I replied to. But, in fact, I do use the Queen/Knight metaphor so it's not inappropriate.

The important point, though, is that it is not unilateral, how could it be? It may be messy, it may even be contentious at times, but, in the end, one spouse consents to the other leading the marriage.


----------



## ladymisato

GettingIt said:


> Here is how one can make the *mistake* of believing that "head of household" marriages are more stable, "happier" marriages. (Bear with me.)
> 
> If you set out to do a study, you might ask your subjects to self-sort into marriage categories that read something like this:
> 
> A. In my marriage, the husband is the agreed upon head of household.
> 
> B. In my marriage, the wife is the agreed upon head of household.
> 
> C. In my marriage, there is no agreed upon head of household.
> 
> Folks who select A and B are going to be those who are _jointly_ comfortable with the HoH dynamics . In other words, a wife who is unhappy with her husband's attempts to be the dominate partner against her protests won't self-select into A, just as a man who is unhappy about his wife's belief that she should lead won't describe his marriage as B.
> 
> So, from the get-go you have a "happy" bias in your A and B category.
> 
> Who picks category C? Well--couples who are jointly happy with not having a named HoH, of course . . . . AND EVERYONE ELSE. Yes, this category is gonna be a catch-all for the unhappy couples who have one spouse who wants a HoH and one who does not, plus all the couples who jointly do not want a HoH, but who are unhappy for myriad other reasons.
> 
> But, you ask, there must be SOME couples in A and B who are unhappy for reasons other than their chosen and agreed upon HoH dynamic. Sure there will be--but there will be fewer because the simple fact of the matter is that HoH marriages take a TREMENDOUS amount of respect and communication and trust to work. If things go off the tracks, the first thing to go is the willingness to say, "Yes, I'm in a marriage in which I defer to my spouse." Sigh . . . and into category C you go, where your unhappy marriage will screw up the reputation of non-HoH dynamics.
> 
> Now, I really must get back to Ana and Christian. I KNEW he loved her, that scoundrel!


Ok, good points all, but the self-selection was not by those categories. The self-selection was those wives who came to me about their marriages and generally they came to me because they were unhappy with their marriages in one way or another.

Afterwards the were happier with their marriages. In those cases where the husband was part of the discussion, the husband was also happier.

There are all sorts of potential biases in this situation but I still think it is reasonable for me to conclude that when the wife take the lead in the marriage, both spouses are happier.


----------



## U.E. McGill

I have a question, because I don't give a crap about all this bickering. 

OP, what do you bring to the table as a leader compared to say me?

I'm my marriage I believe my wife is 100% replaceable. There's a million women who could replace her. It gives me a certain high level perspective when making decisions about the family. As a woman lead
Marriage do you do the same?

Do you still give your hubby shît tests?

Do you still communicate emotion and him content, and how does this dynamic work in the context of the familial leadership?

How's your approach different than mine?


----------



## I'llUseMyEars

ladymisato said:


> I was being facetious because that's the term that was used in the post I replied to. But, in fact, I so use the Queen/Knight metaphor so it's not inappropriate.
> 
> The important point, though, is that it is not unilateral, how could it be? It may be messy, it may even be contentious at times, but, in the end, one spouse consents to the other leading the marriage.


So, if it cant be unilateral, how did you ever get married? Was this arrangement discussed in the vows? 
Really, do you make any decisions together?


----------



## ladymisato

I'llUseMyEars said:


> So, if it cant be unilateral, how did you ever get married? Was this arrangement discussed in the vows? Really, do you make any decisions together?


In fact, we had the classic modern egalitarian marriage for some time. I'm not sure what you mean by making decisions together but I have said several times that even in a wife led marriage decisions include consultation when practical which is probably most of the time on important decisions.


----------



## ladymisato

U.E. McGill said:


> I have a question, because I don't give a crap about all this bickering.
> 
> OP, what do you bring to the table as a leader compared to say me?
> 
> I'm my marriage I believe my wife is 100% replaceable. There's a million women who could replace her. It gives me a certain high level perspective when making decisions about the family. As a woman lead
> Marriage do you do the same?
> 
> Do you still give your hubby shît tests?
> 
> Do you still communicate emotion and him content, and how does this dynamic work in the context of the familial leadership?
> 
> How's your approach different than mine?


I sure hope that you are joking. No, I do not regard my husband as "replaceable". I married for life. To death do us part.

It sounds like we are very different in our leadership styles.


----------



## inquizitivemind

I think that if one spouse makes significantly more money than another spouse or is the sole bread winner, that person usually ends up being the "leader" of the family. This is traditional and I think it is not widely accepted in America today. 

If you ask me, many women who are trying to "lead" their family end up unhappy. They also feel more guilt if they have children and are gone a lot to work. Personally, my husband and I share the responsibility of leading in our own way. We make decisions together and always come to a compromise. 

I can't tell you how many threads we have here about men whose wives step all over them and end up cheating. At least from evidence on TAM, many women don't respect men who are pushovers and not making them feel secured and safe. I agree and would not be attracted to a man who doesn't work or wants me to take on the major responsibility alone. 

I honestly don't think there is a right or wrong answer here. It's just what works for some people won't work for others.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ladymisato

inquizitivemind said:


> I think that if one spouse makes significantly more money than another spouse or is the sole bread winner, that person usually ends up being the "leader" of the family. This is traditional and I think it is not widely accepted in America today.
> 
> If you ask me, many women who are trying to "lead" their family end up unhappy. They also feel more guilt if they have children and are gone a lot to work. Personally, my husband and I share the responsibility of leading in our own way. We make decisions together and always come to a compromise.
> 
> I can't tell you how many threads we have here about men whose wives step all over them and end up cheating. At least from evidence on TAM, many women don't respect men who are pushovers and not making them feel secured and safe. I agree and would not be attracted to a man who doesn't work or wants me to take on the major responsibility alone.
> 
> I honestly don't think there is a right or wrong answer here. It's just what works for some people won't work for others.


I can only say that this is not what I have seen.

But you do present one of the problems that I have seen. It's bad enough when a man becomes temporarily unemployed, even worse when he joins the long-term unemployed. That requires a big adjustment by both spouses. But I have seen the adjustment work many times. I have never seen it fail. (Which is not to disagree with what you said, only that it doesn't happen with the couples I work with.)

Now I certainly cannot argue with your preferences. But just think for a minute what you would do if your husband became long-term unemployed? Would you really be so unwilling to rethink your marriage?


----------



## I'llUseMyEars

ladymisato said:


> In fact, we had the classic modern egalitarian marriage for some time. I'm not sure what you mean by making decisions together but I have said several times that even in a wife led marriage decisions include consultation when practical which is probably most of the time on important decisions.


Are you kidding? Sooo, only when its practical, is there some consulting on decision making? You are truly a piece of work ma'am......
I would love to know honestly how the peasants of the household feel about this...


----------



## U.E. McGill

ladymisato said:


> I sure hope that you are joking. No, I do not regard my husband as "replaceable". I married for life. To death do us part.
> 
> 
> 
> It sounds like we are very different in our leadership styles.



Not at all. 100% serious. 

I married for intimacy. I married for procreation. 

Like I said, there's decisions I make because I could easily walk away. I choose to stay married. 

So as the family leader how would you approach a loss of sexual intimacy in the relationship? Who sets the pace? Does hubby confer with you what you want for dinner the rest of the week?

Just trying to see where you are coming from.


----------



## Theseus

inquizitivemind said:


> I can't tell you how many threads we have here about men whose wives step all over them and end up cheating. At least from evidence on TAM, many women don't respect men who are pushovers and not making them feel secured and safe.


I agree and said something similar earlier. I think there's so much hostility here to the OP because of some of these horror threads on TAM. But a wife manipulating/abusing/cheating on her husband is VERY different from a relationship where they husband made an open and conscious decision to give up control to his wife.


----------



## Theseus

I'llUseMyEars said:


> You are truly a piece of work ma'am......
> I would love to know honestly how the peasants of the household feel about this...


Among all your insulting and condescending posts, you come up with one good idea. I think it would be helpful to hear from the OP's husband. I guess some people here can't imagine that he would actually be happy with this lifestyle.


----------



## nikoled

I haven't read this entire thread, but will say that my marriage was wife lead for the first 19.75 years. We just celebrated our 20th anniversary and have been making some big changes since his affair was revealed about 4 month ago. Being wife lead didn't work well for us. Not to make excuses for his poor choices, but me being controlling was not good for him, for me, or for his marriage. I'm naturally a better leader than he is. But by me backing off of this role it is forcing him to take charge and lead his family. Some great things have happened as a result of that- his self esteem has grown, he is making great decisions instead of poor ones, he is more successful in his job, he is feeling empowered, etc. In feeling more responsibility for his family he is making better choices and it is showing in all aspects of his life. It has been great for me too- I gladly give up control to him. He is no longer out of control himself and therefore does not need me to be in control. In the past he had been indecisive,wishy washy, etc. No more. It's not that I don't think women can lead a family, but I do think it is preferable for a man to do so. I also think that marriage is a partnership, but I prefer that my partner do the leading at this point. My husband and I both tend to be pretty conservative and traditional though...


----------



## ladymisato

U.E. McGill said:


> So as the family leader how would you approach a loss of sexual intimacy in the relationship?


Thankfully I have not encountered that problem personally. But I have seen it in other cases. There are many ways to address the problem that are not appropriate for public discussion.



> Who sets the pace?


It is primarily up to me to set the pace. I know you won't like that answer. But this is a very complex subject.



> Does hubby confer with you what you want for dinner the rest of the week?


Yes, he does. Though by now we know each others tastes pretty well.


----------



## ladymisato

Theseus said:


> I agree and said something similar earlier. I think there's so much hostility here to the OP because of some of these horror threads on TAM. But a wife manipulating/abusing/cheating on her husband is VERY different from a relationship where they husband made an open and conscious decision to give up control to his wife.


Certainly I would agree that abusing and cheating are altogether different categories. Manipulation, on the other hand, is a rather biased term for a very common practice: getting what we want. Human beings are constantly bumping into one another in various ways and adjusting ourselves and making choices. But, yes, in the long run it is the conscious decision that counts.


----------



## Regret214

This thread is a hoot! First, OP says she has no data and isn't going to bother looking for it. Then someone posts some data and gets, "Wait, wait, wait. We can't rely on that".

Here's some reality from the Regret & Dig household: Up until three years ago Dig flew private jets for wealthy people all over the world. He made close to six figures. We were quite comfortable.

But _I_ was home taking care of the children and our home and finances and everything else while he was away. He made twice the money I did, yet I was "in control" of most everything. Well, as most know the story, Dig left his career after a decade of being gone all the time to be home. He missed us and felt as if he was missing out on everything important. He basically became a SAHD on his own accord and guess what happened. HE began taking care of the majority of things that I had been. He took over as the "leader".

Basically, it's the exact opposite of everything you're pushing here. And I say pushing cuz, honey you came in asking for opinions yet get quite testy when challenged.

Oh, by the way, basically by forcing your husband into what you see as a submissive role is possibly gonna come back and bite you in the behind. Unless of course you live in Seneca Falls, NY and that's just par for the course.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## GettingIt_2

ladymisato said:


> Thankfully I have not encountered that problem personally. But I have seen it in other cases. *There are many ways to address the problem that are not appropriate for public discussion.*


Ah, you might be surprised. Try us!


----------



## ladymisato

nikoled said:


> I haven't read this entire thread, but will say that my marriage was wife lead for the first 19.75 years. We just celebrated our 20th anniversary and have been making some big changes since his affair was revealed about 4 month ago. Being wife lead didn't work well for us. Not to make excuses for his poor choices, but me being controlling was not good for him, for me, or for his marriage. I'm naturally a better leader than he is. But by me backing off of this role it is forcing him to take charge and lead his family. Some great things have happened as a result of that- his self esteem has grown, he is making great decisions instead of poor ones, he is more successful in his job, he is feeling empowered, etc. In feeling more responsibility for his family he is making better choices and it is showing in all aspects of his life. It has been great for me too- I gladly give up control to him. He is no longer out of control himself and therefore does not need me to be in control. In the past he had been indecisive,wishy washy, etc. No more. It's not that I don't think women can lead a family, but I do think it is preferable for a man to do so. I also think that marriage is a partnership, but I prefer that my partner do the leading at this point. My husband and I both tend to be pretty conservative and traditional though...


I am very sorry to hear that. I wish you all the best in repairing your marriage and I commend you for working on it instead of giving up on it.

Although I am a big proponent of wife led marriage when the situation is right, I am an even bigger proponent of marriage for life and I hope that those who criticized me for defending it will hear what nikoled is saying in that regard.


----------



## Marduk

What if I came up with a counter-hypothesis that seems to fit the data (such as it is) that you've asserted so far?

What if your self-selected group were women from marriages where there was no leader? Not only was the woman not leading, but the man wasn't either.

One leader is almost always better than none. If both have abdicated their responsibility to be considered to be equal, then one must lead.

How would you know this wasn't the case?

How stable are these marriages long-term? Being in a subordinate position is known to drop men's testosterone levels, which is known to kill sex drive and assertiveness.

Which can keep the man subservient, sure. And support your conclusions. Initially.

But also drive the woman crazy when her previously buff sex-hungry man-slave becomes fat, lazy, and not horny. Ask some women around here how much they like their low-T husbands.


----------



## ladymisato

GettingIt said:


> Ah, you might be surprised. Try us!


Seriously, people who worry about this have no imagination. I have not come up with anything new in this area and when the situation is beyond simple answers I refer couples to professional help. But in most cases it just takes a little creativity and a commitment to making the marriage work.


----------



## U.E. McGill

So OP do you fît test your husband? Serious question. I've known plenty of women who claim they don't but have first hand seen every single women in my life do it. 

Even though your the leader do you still find times where you need reassurance that your husband is confidant in himself?


----------



## GettingIt_2

ladymisato said:


> Seriously, people who worry about this have no imagination. I have not come up with anything new in this area and when the situation is beyond simple answers I refer couples to professional help. But in most cases it just takes a little creativity and a commitment to making the marriage work.


People who worry about what? Lack of sex in a marriage? Or the details of why what you recommend isn't fit for public discussion?

I guess I was wondering if you had something NEW up your sleeve that helps put the sex back in sexless marriages. It's a big problem around here, you know. And really, we've talked about it all on TAM, when it comes to sex . . . haven't we?


----------



## ladymisato

marduk said:


> What if I came up with a counter-hypothesis that seems to fit the data (such as it is) that you've asserted so far?
> 
> What if your self-selected group were women from marriages where there was no leader? Not only was the woman not leading, but the man wasn't either.
> 
> One leader is almost always better than none. If one has abdicated their responsibility to be considered to be equal, then one must lead.


It's funny that you say that because I have taken a lot of grief for saying the same thing. I have said it in many different ways and annoyed many people for it.



> How stable are these marriages long-term? Being in a subordinate position is known to drop men's testosterone levels, which is known to kill sex drive and assertiveness.
> 
> Which can keep the man subservient, sure. And support your conclusions. Initially.
> 
> But also drive the woman crazy when her previously buff sex-hungry man-slave becomes fat, lazy, and not horny. Ask some women around here how much they like their low-T husbands.


This is not a problem in the situations I am familiar with. I am familiar with low-T problems but I have not seen stay-at-home husbands lose their sex drive as you describe.

In fact, men are almost always in subordinate positions if not at home then at work. I'll grant you that those who rise to the top tend to have high-T but equating the rest of males to those suffering low-T problems is mistaken.


----------



## ladymisato

U.E. McGill said:


> Even though your the leader do you still find times where you need reassurance that your husband is confidant in himself?


I am quite satisfied in this. He has many outlets for that and we both enjoy his achievements.


----------



## Nikita2270

> I'm my marriage I believe my wife is 100% replaceable. There's a million women who could replace her. It gives me a certain high level perspective when making decisions about the family.


Wow, there's someone with a more vomit-worthy marriage than Ladymisato's.

Why even bother to have a relationship? Just blow up a doll...its much cheaper.


----------



## ladymisato

GettingIt said:


> People who worry about what? Lack of sex in a marriage? Or the details of why what you recommend isn't fit for public discussion?


People should worry a lot less about disparities in sex drive and be more creative about solving those problems. That's enough on that.



> I guess I was wondering if you had something NEW up your sleeve that helps put the sex back in sexless marriages. It's a big problem around here, you know. And really, we've talked about it all on TAM, when it comes to sex . . . haven't we?


Well I'm not comfortable talking about it.

Sexless marriages are almost always not about sex. Usually something else is going on and the symptom that gets attention is the sexless part. When it's not medical there is a lot that can be done. My own marital crisis came to a head when my husband complained about sex.


----------



## GettingIt_2

ladymisato said:


> People should worry a lot less about disparities in sex drive and be more creative about solving those problems. That's enough on that.
> 
> Well I'm not comfortable talking about it.
> 
> Sexless marriages are almost always not about sex. Usually something else is going on and the symptom that gets attention is the sexless part. When it's not medical there is a lot that can be done. My own marital crisis began this way.


Ah, well, it's a shame you don't want to share. Success stories are so few and far between around here. Some creativity might be welcome . . . 

But carry on, I won't prod you for details you're not comfortable providing.


----------



## ladymisato

GettingIt said:


> Ah, well, it's a shame you don't want to share. Success stories are so few and far between around here. Some creativity might be welcome . . .
> 
> But carry on, I won't prod you for details you're not comfortable providing.


I will share this much: part of the solution was my taking the lead in the marriage. That resolved many issues that, as I said, had nothing to do with sex but for which sexlessness was a symptom. At the same time, our marriage became much more passionate.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

I am a proponent of two leaders in the home. Full on partnership where the division is 51%/49% male dominant with a very strong female quite capable of filling his shoes when needed. Mutual respect, mutual submission.


----------



## GettingIt_2

ladymisato said:


> I will share this much: part of the solution was my taking the lead in the marriage. That resolved many issues that, as I said, had nothing to do with sex but for which sexlessness was a symptom. At the same time, our marriage became much more passionate.


Before you took the lead, who was the parter who wanted more sex--you or your husband? 

I'm genuinely curious because my husband and I also fixed our sex starved marriage through consensual power exchange.


----------



## aug

ladymisato said:


> I'm not suggesting that anyone assume anything. I am, however, saying that historically the man was the breadwinner and the man was the head of household. But *when the woman becomes the breadwinner*, she doesn't just _assume_ *she is the leader*.





ladymisato said:


> But I didn't describe leadership as controlling the decision making process, that is your interpretation. I said the *leader is the one who makes the final decision.* And that can only work in a marriage when the other spouse consents to be led. Which is why I described it as an agreement to let one spouse make the final decisions.





ladymisato said:


> I've actually said more than that. I have said that the two are strongly correlated and that *women who are sole breadwinners tend to become leaders of the marriage*. I never said by what means that happens and I certainly did not mean to imply that it happens by assumption. In fact, several times I said that leadership can be thought of as an agreement to give one spouse final decision.


Money makes you the leader, so you say.





ladymisato said:


> I sure hope that you are joking. No, I do not regard my husband as "replaceable". *I married for life. To death do us part.*
> 
> It sounds like we are very different in our leadership styles.



Seems like the only escape your husband has is death. Oh well, his choice.


----------



## ladymisato

GettingIt said:


> Before you took the lead, who was the parter who wanted more sex--you or your husband?


My husband complained that he was not getting enough sex. But it was not that I had some medical condition, I felt overwhelmed and resentful about my responsibilities. Once we solved that, our sex life became better than when we were newlyweds.

And it wasn't just me. I've seen the same solution in many other situations.

There are many ways to solve this because it is almost never a medical problem.



> I'm genuinely curious because my husband and I also fixed our sex starved marriage through consensual power exchange.


I think this is more common than people wish to admit.


----------



## Regret214

I'm confused now. So, you weren't the bread winner and did your wifely duties. You got pissed off and resentful because of it and your solution was to put your husband in that role?

Sounds plausible.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ladymisato

Regret214 said:


> I'm confused now. So, you weren't the bread winner and did your wifely duties. You got pissed off and resentful because of it and your solution was to put your husband in that role?


I was earning much more than my husband. I was taking care of the home and the kids. I was too tired for sex. We fixed that.


----------



## SCDP Joan

I really don't get it.

You state that you were resentful about having so many duties and responsibilities so then taking on more responsibilities as 'leader' alleviated that? 

Why was sharing responsibilities not even an option? Seems very imbalanced going from one end of the spectrum to the other, IMHO.


----------



## ladymisato

SCDP Joan said:


> I really don't get it.
> 
> You state that you were resentful about having so many duties and responsibilities so then taking on more responsibilities as 'leader' alleviated that?
> 
> Why was sharing responsibilities not even an option? Seems very imbalanced going from one end of the spectrum to the other, IMHO.


Really? Honestly, you don't get it?

After we changed things around I focused on bringing home income and he quit his job to stay home. So I ended up with more authority in the marriage but less work.


----------



## EleGirl

Regret214 said:


> This thread is a hoot! First, OP says she has no data and isn't going to bother looking for it. Then someone posts some data and gets, "Wait, wait, wait. We can't rely on that".
> 
> Here's some reality from the Regret & Dig household: Up until three years ago Dig flew private jets for wealthy people all over the world. He made close to six figures. We were quite comfortable.
> 
> But _I_ was home taking care of the children and our home and finances and everything else while he was away. He made twice the money I did, yet I was "in control" of most everything. Well, as most know the story, Dig left his career after a decade of being gone all the time to be home. He missed us and felt as if he was missing out on everything important. He basically became a SAHD on his own accord and guess what happened. HE began taking care of the majority of things that I had been. He took over as the "leader".
> 
> Basically, it's the exact opposite of everything you're pushing here. And I say pushing cuz, honey you came in asking for opinions yet get quite testy when challenged.
> 
> Oh, by the way, basically by forcing your husband into what you see as a submissive role is possibly gonna come back and bite you in the behind. Unless of course you live in Seneca Falls, NY and that's just par for the course.


Good post. I agree with your points. 

I'm really bothered by the idea that the one who earns more income is by default 'the leader'. The assumption seems to be that the only valuable contribution to a marriage is money. A marriage is a lot more than money.


----------



## Regret214

Dom meet Sub.

It's all the rage and I'm thinking there really are guys out there who love it. I mean OP seriously thinks she's the one in control. It's a perfect George Costanza example in real life!!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SCDP Joan

Nope, I don't. As a 'leader' you would be shouldering more responsibility and duties which you cite as resentment causing when the reality is you don't like housework or caring for children. 

I am not saying one is better or worse than the other but working outside of the home while your spouse is a stay at home parent does not make you a leader. 

Like I said, I earn the primary source of income. I gladly share all income and assets as well as household duties and responsibilities. Likewise, when he was primary breadwinner, our assets and responsibilities where shared as they are today. 

It's called balance of power and by textbook psychology guidelines fits a healthier relationship model. 

So, what is it that you do that causes women in unhappy marriages to seek you out as you cite them?


----------



## ladymisato

EleGirl said:


> I'm really bothered by the idea that the one who earns more income is by default 'the leader'. The assumption seems to be that the only valuable contribution to a marriage is money. A marriage is a lot more than money.


It's not by default but it's the tendency and I think there are many good reasons why it is the tendency. Marriage is more than money but money is very important to a marriage, perhaps the single most important thing in a modern society. Much of family life is organized around the making of income. It determines, for example, were the family lives.


----------



## EleGirl

ladymisato said:


> It's not by default but it's the tendency and I think there are many good reasons why it is the tendency. Marriage is more than money but money is very important to a marriage, perhaps the single most important thing in a modern society. Much of family life is organized around the making of income. It determines, for example, were the family lives.


The idea that money gives one spouse the 'leadership' is a tactic generally used by abusive men to control their wives. It's not the basis for a healthy marriage. Money is necessary in our society as no one can just live off the land anymore. However there are things in life equally as important for a person's mental and physical wellbeing.


----------



## ladymisato

SCDP Joan said:


> Nope, I don't.


It really sounds to me like you prefer not to get it. You have jumped to several conclusions that seem intended to reinforce your own choice rather than to understand the choices that I made. If you said you don't care to get it, I could understand. But it really sounds like you don't want to get it.


----------



## ladymisato

EleGirl said:


> The idea that money gives one spouse the 'leadership' is a tactic generally used by abusive men to control their wives. It's not the basis for a healthy marriage. Money is necessary in our society as no one can just live off the land anymore. However there are things in life equally as important for a person's mental and physical wellbeing.


No, this is not the usual case. The usual case is that the man is the breadwinner and the head of the household and that there is no spousal abuse in the marriage.

Money is necessary and many decisions flow from that. So it is no surprise that the income and family leadership tend to be correlated.


----------



## SCDP Joan

I haven't jumped to any conclusions. I have asked questions that you choose to ignore while citing how and why balance of power works in my marriage of thirteen years.

I do not see how taking GREATER responsibilities would cause LESS resentment if it were simply a matter of feeling overwhelmed. What you describe, albeit briefly, is simply that he took over housework and childcare. 

Again, what is it that you do that would cause random sampling so of wife leading marriages to come to you? This whole thread feels very agenda-ish.


----------



## U.E. McGill

Nikita2270 said:


> Wow, there's someone with a more vomit-worthy marriage than Ladymisato's.
> 
> 
> 
> Why even bother to have a relationship? Just blow up a doll...its much cheaper.



I have no problems with my statement. I choose to stay married. 

Funny, the first thing we tell betrayed spouses is "hey there's other fish in the sea". "You don't need your wife, there's other women who can be a great woman for you!", that's ok. But when I articulate it as a stand alone statement you call it vomit worthy. 

I think you're naive. We're all replaceable. We all have choice. My wife could replace me tomorrow. I choose to stay married. Simple fact.


----------



## ladymisato

SCDP Joan said:


> I haven't jumped to any conclusions. I have asked questions that you choose to ignore while citing how and why balance of power works in my marriage of thirteen years.
> 
> I do not see how taking GREATER responsibilities would cause LESS resentment if it were simply a matter of feeling overwhelmed. What you describe, albeit briefly, is simply that he took over housework and childcare.
> 
> Again, what is it that you do that would cause random sampling so of wife leading marriages to come to you? This whole thread feels very agenda-ish.


I've tried to be very open in answering questions. However, many of your questions presumed things which were not true. Maybe you really believed that I had said something that led you to believe that they were true but I hope you will understand if I decline to answer questions based on false beliefs.

Why don't you step back and ask what you really want to know without larding your questions with false accusations. I will do my best to answer then.


----------



## treyvion

EleGirl said:


> The idea that money gives one spouse the 'leadership' is a tactic generally used by abusive men to control their wives. It's not the basis for a healthy marriage. Money is necessary in our society as no one can just live off the land anymore. However there are things in life equally as important for a person's mental and physical wellbeing.


So someone else should dictate and control where I spend my hard eared wages through my labour and time?


----------



## SCDP Joan

Ok, please answer this question:



SCDP Joan said:


> Again, what is it that you do that would cause random sampling so of wife leading marriages to come to you? .


----------



## ladymisato

treyvion said:


> So someone else should dictate and control where I spend my hard eared wages through my labour and time?


Neither extreme is realistic or appropriate to marriage. It makes no sense to pretend that money doesn't matter. Nor is it right to assume that the breadwinner is solely entitled to his wages.


----------



## ladymisato

SCDP Joan said:


> Ok, please answer this question: Again, what is it that you do that would cause random sampling so of wife leading marriages to come to you? .


Well, this is an example of why I declined to answer your questions. I did not make the claim that I obtained a random sample of wives. We had a long discussion about that already. I have already conceded that the sampling was not random and the conclusions were not scientifically sound.

Was that really your question? You are genuinely curious about my sampling methods?


----------



## EleGirl

treyvion said:


> So someone else should dictate and control where I spend my hard eared wages through my labour and time?


What does your wife contribute to you, your marriage, your children and your family?

Is money the only thing that matters in your life?


----------



## Marduk

ladymisato said:


> It's funny that you say that because I have taken a lot of grief for saying the same thing. I have said it in many different ways and annoyed many people for it.


Well, I'm annoyed because that's not what you said.

Again you change your story to suit you.

If you would have said "I have found a group of successful women that happen to make more than their husbands who are unhappy with the state of their marriage because it has no direction so they decided to lead it and make it better" I would have been right behind you.

But that's not what you said.

You said that women who make more than their husbands should lead their marriages and you've correlated that with better marriages.



> This is not a problem in the situations I am familiar with. I am familiar with low-T problems but I have not seen stay-at-home husbands lose their sex drive as you describe.
> 
> In fact, men are almost always in subordinate positions if not at home then at work. I'll grant you that those who rise to the top tend to have high-T but equating the rest of males to those suffering low-T problems is mistaken.


The reduction in testosterone is in subordinate social situations.

Marriage is a social situation.


----------



## ladymisato

marduk said:


> Well, I'm annoyed because that's not what you said.


I was referring to discussions with other posters. I got a lot of anger directed my way for saying that egalitarian marriages are problematic.



> Again you change your story to suit you.
> 
> If you would have said "I have found a group of successful women that happen to make more than their husbands who are unhappy with the state of their marriage because it has no direction so they decided to lead it and make it better" I would have been right behind you.
> 
> But that's not what you said.
> 
> You said that women who make more than their husbands should lead their marriages and you've correlated that with better marriages.


One can always add all sorts of qualifiers. Your statement is fine and clearer than your summary of mine. (Though, in fact, it was not only successful women but that's another topic.)



> The reduction in testosterone is in subordinate social situations.
> 
> Marriage is a social situation.


Yes, my point is that few men are not in subordinate social situations. And there is more to testosterone levels than social standing, there are ways for wives to boost their husband's libido if that is a problem. Again, I can only speak from my experience and the experience of those I know.


----------



## SCDP Joan

So what would cause these women you cite in your posts to come to you and share these findings? Would you answer FF's question about the fetish side?

ETA: nm. Wish you luck. Still feels very agenda-driven to me. Peace, out.


----------



## gumtree

My situation is certainly not the norm but having led in a marriage that ended in disaster I can firmly state that I would rather be led by a trustworthy man than lead in partnership. Im usually leading in my career but to come home to a competent male leader is lovely, takes the pressure off. I guess im a feminist in many ways but cannot respect or be attracted to a man that looks to me to take charge of situations. Maybe its an alpha thing since im always quick to step up if less dominant people do not. So there is relief and joy in submission as long as I feelmy opinion counts for something in the decision making.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Blossom Leigh

gumtree said:


> My situation is certainly not the norm but having led in a marriage that ended in disaster I can firmly state that I would rather be led by a trustworthy man than lead in partnership. Im usually leading in my career but to come home to a competent male leader is lovely, takes the pressure off. I guess im a feminist in many ways but cannot respect or be attracted to a man that looks to me to take charge of situations. Maybe its an alpha thing since im always quick to step up if less dominant people do not. So there is relief and joy in submission as long as I feelmy opinion counts for something in the decision making.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_



Ditto, my 2% default is best placed with a loving competent male leader who hears my heart while being confident to make great decisions based in wisdom, integrity and compassion.


----------



## Dollystanford

I think I'm 99.99% sure that I won't buy this book


----------



## Big Tree

Leadership is providing a vision. You provide a vision of the way things can or should be and then you transfer that vision (communicate, achieve "buy in", etc.).

In marriage, you express your vision by creating a plan and plotting a course to make it happen.

OP, you describe a leader as someone who gets to "makes the final decision". Please forgive me, but that is not leadership. That is management.

OP, it looks to me like you found comfort in control. You felt resentment for your husband when you thought about having to provide so much while still having to share control. Once you gained full control, with consent from your husband, your resentment evaporated.

Again, this is not leadership. Many posters have brought this notion to your attention to help you refine your message. I hope this helps.


----------



## jld

Hmm. The OP did not seem controlling to me. She answered questions quite gracefully, even while being repeatedly disrespected. 

I think controlling describes the people who tried to silence and ridicule her.

The OP does not need help. She is managing all of her detractors quite well. She certainly seems like a leader.


----------



## ladymisato

gumtree said:


> My situation is certainly not the norm but having led in a marriage that ended in disaster I can firmly state that I would rather be led by a trustworthy man than lead in partnership. Im usually leading in my career but to come home to a competent male leader is lovely, takes the pressure off. I guess im a feminist in many ways but cannot respect or be attracted to a man that looks to me to take charge of situations. Maybe its an alpha thing since im always quick to step up if less dominant people do not. So there is relief and joy in submission as long as I feelmy opinion counts for something in the decision making.


Interestingly, you are describing almost exactly what husbands have said in the reverse situation. We talked a lot about marriages like mine where the wife works and the husband stays home. But there are also many wife led marriages where the husband works and the wife stays home. The husband enjoys checking his ego at the door and letting his wife run the home. In fact, I would say that this probably reflects an informal reality that is the most common situation.


----------



## ladymisato

Big Tree said:


> Leadership is providing a vision. You provide a vision of the way things can or should be and then you transfer that vision (communicate, achieve "buy in", etc.).
> 
> In marriage, you express your vision by creating a plan and plotting a course to make it happen.
> 
> OP, you describe a leader as someone who gets to "makes the final decision". Please forgive me, but that is not leadership. That is management.
> 
> OP, it looks to me like you found comfort in control. You felt resentment for your husband when you thought about having to provide so much while still having to share control. Once you gained full control, with consent from your husband, your resentment evaporated.
> 
> Again, this is not leadership. Many posters have brought this notion to your attention to help you refine your message. I hope this helps.


I think you are relying on an idealized view of leadership.

In reality it is not so easy to separate leadership and management because most leaders also manage. But to say that anyone who manages cannot be a leader is a mistake.

So, yes, I manage the home in many ways. I manage it toward the "vision" of marriage that I think is ideal. It just so happens that my husband quickly came to share that ideal and so readily agreed and cooperated in the change.

I do appreciate your point. I is useful to distinguish leadership and management. But you need to be more careful about assuming that where there is management there is no leadership.


----------



## ladymisato

SCDP Joan said:


> So what would cause these women you cite in your posts to come to you and share these findings?


Now I understand your question. No, they did not simply come to me and report their experience. I helped them solve problems in their marriage. (I said that earlier but this is a pretty long thread now.)



> Would you answer FF's question about the fetish side?


I can assure you that there are no whips and chains involved.

It turns out that the key is something much simpler: courtship.

Is courtship in marriage fetishistic? Perhaps. It is certainly outside the norm and it is titillating. One reason I dismiss the concern about male libido is that reintroducing courtship invigorates the male libido.


----------



## ladymisato

Blossom Leigh said:


> Ditto, my 2% default is best placed with a loving competent male leader who hears my heart while being confident to make great decisions based in wisdom, integrity and compassion.


I think that is a very common sentiment among women.

Would it surprise you to learn that there are many men who feel the same way toward their wives?

But how likely is it that such a man would say so directly what you just said here?

Any of you men want to share with us your feelings on this?


----------



## Blossom Leigh

ladymisato said:


> I think that is a very common sentiment among women.
> 
> Would it surprise you to learn that there are many men who feel the same way toward their wives?
> 
> But how likely is it that such a man would say so directly what you just said here?
> 
> Any of you men want to share with us your feelings on this?


Sure, mutual love, respect, wisdom, integrity, compassion would be a boon for any relationship.


----------



## ladymisato

Blossom Leigh said:


> Sure, mutual love, respect, wisdom, integrity, compassion would be a boon for any relationship.


These are all very valuable things and they are not sacrificed when one spouse take the lead in the marriage. In fact, from what I've seen, when underlying problems are resolved the result is a greater level of mutual love and respect even when one spouse takes a leading role in the marriage.


----------



## jld

Would you please give some specific examples of how you take leadership? And exactly what you mean by courtship?


----------



## Almostrecovered

regret214 said:


> dom meet sub.
> 
> It's all the rage and i'm thinking there really are guys out there who love it. I mean op seriously thinks she's the one in control. It's a perfect george costanza example in real life!!
> _posted via mobile device_


serenity now!!


----------



## jld

Blossom, did you not take charge of your marriage after your husband pointed a gun at you (is that correct?) and cheated on you? Did you not almost singlehandedly turn that around, without involving the police? How is that not a wife-led marriage?

And Hope1964, did you not turn your marriage around when your husband cheated on you? Did he not submit, and continue even now, to submit to your requirements to be able to continue the marriage? How is that not a wife-led marriage?


----------



## Davelli0331

One spouse effecting change for the betterment of the marriage, while certainly admirable, does not make one a de facto leader. They may be a leader in that particular context, but not the overall leader that the OP is talking about in this thread.


----------



## ladymisato

jld said:


> Would you please give some specific examples of how you take leadership? And exactly what you mean by courtship?


The two are closely related in a wife led marriage.

Big Tree is right that leadership is more than management. But he is mistaken in trying to separate the two.

Courtship means the husband pursuing the wife. We are all familiar with courtship in dating. What happens when courtship is practiced in marriage? You get a very different marriage dynamic.

My own case was very messy in the transition, I do not hold it up as a model. However, my husband and I eventually worked things out and the solution we found is what I shared with other wives. I now have a vision of how a wife led marriage works and I lead and manage our marriage on that basis. It is now simply a matter of fact in our household that I am the head of the household and my husband relies upon me to set the direction.

Perhaps the most practical example of that is when I decided that he would stay home. That was my idea, not his. My "vision" of a good marriage is one in which I work and my husband takes care of the home. I can think of many less dramatic examples but I hope that is a good illustration.


----------



## Almostrecovered

jld said:


> And Hope1964, did you not turn your marriage around when your husband cheated on you? Did he not submit, and continue even now, to submit to your requirements to be able to continue the marriage? How is that not a wife-led marriage?


I doubt Hope has final say as ultimate supreme leader in everything in the marriage and neither do I, despite that my wife cheated

setting boundaries to repair a marriage is certainly leadership but it didn't mean that I usurped all control over everything nor even the majority of things non-affair related. It didn't become imbalanced, if anything our ability to work on things as a team greatly improved due to the focus we had to devote on communicating more effectively, thereby giving us better tools to agree on decisions.


----------



## ladymisato

jld said:


> Blossom, did you not take charge of your marriage after your husband pointed a gun at you (is that correct?) and cheated on you? Did you not almost singlehandedly turn that around, without involving the police? How is that not a wife-led marriage?
> 
> And Hope1964, did you not turn your marriage around when your husband cheated on you? Did he not submit, and continue even now, to submit to your requirements to be able to continue the marriage? How is that not a wife-led marriage?


This is a darker side of marriage but it is also something I have seen. Many women rethink their marriage after an affair and decide to make changes. Perhaps, as in Blossom's case, the changes are made and then they go back to an egalitarian marriage. But quite often, as in Hope's case, the wife simply takes the reins and keeps them.

A more common situation is when the wife is simply unhappy with the marriage. Same thing though.


----------



## jld

ladymisato said:


> Courtship means the husband pursuing the wife. We are all familiar with courtship in dating. What happens when courtship is practiced in marriage? You get a very different marriage dynamic.


Not clear on this. You tell him to pursue you? Is that kind of it?


----------



## ladymisato

jld said:


> Not clear on this. You tell him to pursue you? Is that kind of it?


Exactly! (Of course, it can be more complicated than that but that's what it boils down to.)


----------



## GettingIt_2

ladymisato said:


> My husband complained that he was not getting enough sex. But it was not that I had some medical condition, I felt overwhelmed and resentful about my responsibilities. Once we solved that, our sex life became better than when we were newlyweds.
> 
> And it wasn't just me. I've seen the same solution in many other situations.


Interesting. You say you felt overwhelmed and resentful about your responsibilities. Have you reflected on whether or not that resentment actually had its root in lack of attraction for your husband rather than in feeling tired and overwhelmed due to your work load. I know it's a fine line, but it's an important distinction. Losing sexual attraction for a partner is crushing, and I think people tend to look outward for reasons, rather than inward. It's easier to say "I'm too tired" than it is to say, "you don't turn me on." 

I, too, at one time blamed "being tired and overwhelmed" for my lack of libido. My libido was just fine; I just wasn't sexually attracted to my husband due to the dynamic we had at the time.

Where am I going with this? Well, to the eroticization of power. While it might not be true for everyone, I think power dynamics in many marriages are highly influential when it comes to sexual attraction. However, many people overlook this, or don't know how to locate within themselves the nexus of power and sex. How one's sex drive is affected by power dynamics can be something that many people would rather deny. 

It was disastrous for me to ignore it in my marriage. 

So, I'm asking you: do you think aligning your lifestyle in a way that best reflects how you eroticize power was at the root of the success you found? To put it crudely, you aligned your lifestyle with your kink. By "kink" I don't mean to conjure classic BDSM images. Simply that you tend towards "domme" in your eroticization of power. You are happier in this dynamic because you feel sexual attraction in this dynamic. From that, it follows, that your husband accepts (and perhaps is happy) in this dynamic because he is getting the sexual affirmation from his wife that he needs. 

Interesting stuff!


----------



## Almostrecovered

and since I messed out last night on the discussion...


to purposely seek out a single reason why the majority of failed marriages fail is quite the canard

there are oh so many reasons for why marriages fail, a day spent reading the other forums will indeed show patterns and many common issues but there is still great diversity in what makes things go wrong from infidelity to health to money to sex to mental disorders to simple boredom and inability to communicate. To try to find an underlying cause and then pigeonhole your "facts" into a solution is a dangerous assumption imo


----------



## Davelli0331

ladymisato said:


> Perhaps the most practical example of that is when I decided that he would stay home. That was my idea, not his. My "vision" of a good marriage is one in which I work and my husband takes care of the home. I can think of many less dramatic examples but I hope that is a good illustration.


Thank you for giving a real world example of what you're actually talking about.

You unilaterally making the decision that your H should stay home is reflective of the more patriarchal marriages of the past, where the H did the same for the wife. Society has moved away from that model as women have gained more rights in the workplace and in the home.

You are wanting to reverse that trend, but this time in the direction of the woman. Why? The unspoken assumption you're making is that, at least in your opinion, women make better leaders. I don't take offence to that, I would simply re-word it to say that "some people make better leaders than others, sometimes even only within certain contexts of a team".

The above is why I can't help but get a bit of a "revenge feminist" feel to your whole framework. Again, if it works for some people, that's great. No problem there, but you're pushing this as the fix to the current divorce rate.


----------



## ladymisato

GettingIt said:


> Interesting. You say you felt overwhelmed and resentful about your responsibilities. Have you reflected on whether or not that resentment actually had its root in lack of attraction for your husband rather than in feeling tired and overwhelmed due to your work load. I know it's a fine line, but it's an important distinction. Losing sexual attraction for a partner is crushing, and I think people tend to look outward for reasons, rather than inward. It's easier to say "I'm too tired" than it is to say, "you don't turn me on."


In fact, at the moment of crisis, I said something almost exactly like that. I didn't find him attractive anymore. But it wasn't because he had grown bald and fat. It was all psychological. My libido recovered, and then some, after we made changes in the marriage.

Keep in mind that I'm summarizing a few years crisis into a few sentences.



> I, too, at one time blamed "being tired and overwhelmed" for my lack of libido. My libido was just fine; I just wasn't sexually attracted to my husband due to the dynamic we had at the time.
> 
> Where am I going with this? Well, to the eroticization of power. While it might not be true for everyone, I think power dynamics in many marriages are highly influential when it comes to sexual attraction. However, many people overlook this, or don't know how to locate within themselves the nexus of power and sex. How one's sex drive is affected by power dynamics can be something that many people would rather deny.


I think there is something to that. But it's not whips and chains, it's courtship.



> It was disastrous for me to ignore it in my marriage.
> 
> So, I'm asking you: do you think aligning your lifestyle in a way that best reflects how you eroticize power was at the root of the success you found? To put it crudely, you aligned your lifestyle with your kink. By "kink" I don't mean to conjure classic BDSM images. Simply that you tend towards "domme" in your eroticization of power. You are happier in this dynamic because you feel sexual attraction in this dynamic. From that, it follows, that your husband accepts (and perhaps is happy) in this dynamic because he is getting the sexual affirmation from his wife that he needs.
> 
> Interesting stuff!


My husband and I did experiment with some kinky stuff at one point and found it superfluous. The wives I have advised skipped that entirely. It turns out that reintroducing courtship is all the eroticization you need.

Let's not forget the inherent power dynamic in the courtship ritual.

So I think you are pretty much right here.


----------



## jld

I do not get any "revenge feminist" feel at all. I don't get any of the projecting people are doing in this thread.

LadyM, is your husband happy? Was this his idea at all? Or was it all yours, and he accepted it? Is he happy about it now?


----------



## ladymisato

Davelli0331 said:


> Thank you for giving a real world example of what you're actually talking about.
> 
> You unilaterally making the decision that your H should stay home is reflective of the more patriarchal marriages of the past, where the H did the same for the wife. Society has moved away from that model as women have gained more rights in the workplace and in the home.
> 
> You are wanting to reverse that trend, but this time in the direction of the woman. Why? The unspoken assumption you're making is that, at least in your opinion, women make better leaders. I don't take offence to that, I would simply re-word it to say that "some people make better leaders than others, sometimes even only within certain contexts of a team".
> 
> The above is why I can't help but get a bit of a "revenge feminist" feel to your whole framework. Again, if it works for some people, that's great. No problem there, but you're pushing this as the fix to the current divorce rate.


I think you are making far too much of it. This is not a "movement", it is a trend.

I do agree that there was a transition from traditional male dominated marriages toward more equitable marriages in the last few decades.

I'm simply pointing out that this trend has continued into wife led marriages.

I am quite vexed by divorce, I do not deny that. I know from experience that wives can prevent divorce by taking the lead in their marriage, I have seen many examples.


----------



## jld

So basically, he is pursuing you all the time, and you both are happier?

I think a lot of women would like that. I love attention from my husband. I feel like I beg for it, at least sometimes.

But for me, if I only get it after I ask for it, it is not as special as when it is just freely offered. Don't get me wrong--I will take it however I can get it. But I wish he were more attentive and affectionate all on his own. I just don't think he is wired that way, though.


----------



## ladymisato

jld said:


> LadyM, is your husband happy? Was this his idea at all? Or was it all yours, and he accepted it? Is he happy about it now?


In our case, he was very enthusiastic about it. Although we went though a few years of confusion he was very eager to work through it and readily accepted the changes that we made. Many of the things I learned from our experience came from his own mouth. 

His staying home was my idea but many other things we tried were his. For example, it was his idea to experiment with some of the kinkier things. As I said, these turned out not to be important (he agreed) but they did give us other ideas to try.

He is absolutely happier now than ever before.


----------



## Davelli0331

ladymisato said:


> I think you are making far too much of it. This is not a "movement", it is a trend in the statistical sense. In your personal life, yes, but not overall.
> 
> I do agree that there was a transition from traditional male dominated marriages toward more equitable marriages in the last few decades.
> 
> I'm simply pointing out that this trend has continued into wife led marriages.
> 
> I am quite vexed by divorce, I do not deny that. I know from experience that wives can prevent divorce by taking the lead in their marriage, I have seen many examples.


I mean no offence, but you and your 6 or so friends finding success in this style of marriage does not constitute a trend.

And furthermore, you're lending an awful lot of credence to anecdotal evidence. I know many divorces that were prevented by the man taking the lead, I know many divorces that were prevented by taking a more egalitarian approach, I know many divorces that were prevented with both people becoming _less_ leadership oriented and learning to have sympathy for each other. You see them all here on TAM all the time, but that does not an overarching trend make.

ETA: However, please continue sharing your specific examples of exactly how you are conducting yourself in your marriage. While I may not agree with your overarching framework, I've found there's always something useful to glean from other POVs.


----------



## ladymisato

jld said:


> So basically, he is pursuing you all the time, and you both are happier?


That's right. And it's one of those things where you slap your forehead and wonder why nobody ever thought of it before.



> I think a lot of women would like that. I love attention from my husband. I feel like I beg for it, at least sometimes.


Very, very common problem. I would go so far as to say the norm.



> But for me, if I only get it after I ask for it, it is not as special as when it is just freely offered. Don't get me wrong--I will take it however I can get it. But I wish he were more attentive and affectionate all on his own. I just don't think he is wired that way, though.


You and just about every other wife, I think. But it's not how he's wired, it's just the how marriage is practiced.


----------



## Davelli0331

ladymisato said:


> That's right. And it's one of those things where you slap your forehead and wonder why nobody ever thought of it before.
> 
> Very, very common problem. I would go so far as to say the norm.
> 
> You and just about every other wife, I think. But it's not how he's wired, it's just the how marriage is practiced.


The lack of courtship behavior from the man after marriage is a well-documented and researched complaint from women. When I first came to TAM years ago that was one of the biggest ideas being pushed. Men may not have been acting on those complaints, but I think that's probably a complaint almost as old as the institution of marriage itself.


----------



## ladymisato

Davelli0331 said:


> I mean no offence, but you and your 6 or so friends finding success in this style of marriage does not constitute a trend.


It's quite a bit closer to a hundred now but the trend that I am referring to is more general, the trend of women being better educated, earning more, of men being long-term unemployed, etc.



> And furthermore, you're lending an awful lot of credence to anecdotal evidence.


I know. I am sorry that I cannot provide you the "data" that you would like.



> I know many divorces that were prevented by the man taking the lead, I know many divorces that were prevented by taking a more egalitarian approach, I know many divorces that were prevented with both people becoming _less_ leadership oriented and learning to have sympathy for each other. You see them all here on TAM all the time, but that does not an overarching trend make.


I don't doubt for a second that there are many such marriages but there is no trend driving that.

The trend that is against that is what came a few decades ago, women entering the workforce. That began the trend away from traditional male dominated marriage. Most people settled on egalitarian marriages.



> ETA: However, please sharing your specific examples of exactly how you are conducting yourself in your marriage. While I may not agree with your overarching framework, I've found there's always something useful to glean from other POVs.


That's a very broad question. Could you narrow it a bit?


----------



## ladymisato

Davelli0331 said:


> The lack of courtship behavior from the man after marriage is a well-documented and researched complaint from women. When I first came to TAM years ago that was one of the biggest ideas being pushed. Men may not have been acting on those complaints, but I think that's probably a complaint almost as old as the institution of marriage itself.


Complaining is not the solution. Complaining is not necessarily nagging but it's certainly in that direction. Few things are as futile and destructive of marriage as a nagging wife.


----------



## Hicks

ladymisato said:


> But there is another simpler explanation: the most important decisions are where to live and work and much else follows from that. It is natural, then, for the spouse with the bigger paycheck to determine what job to take and thus where to live. As well, this spouse decides whether to take the raise with more responsibility or keep the same position earning less.
> 
> And since one spouse will tend to decide these things it is natural for that spouse to lead the marriage in every other way.


This is where your problem is. You think leadership is about decisions. It is not. Leadership in marriage is about creating an environment.

So, in the example where a husband needs the family to move for work / income. How many posts come on here that the wife is "not happy" and miserable and misses her hometown and all of these things. The marriage is in shambles. No one is happy. On the brink of divorce. This IS a wife led marriage.

And, wives are the primary leaders of marriage becuase it is the wife who primarily creates the environment.

You are basically using an undeveloped thought process about leadership (Breadwinner = Leader) and acting like you are creating a controversy.

First prove how wives are not already the primary leaders in most marriages, then and then how you are actually asserting yourself differently than any other wife already does.

Happy Wife = Happy Life..... This expression is a testament to the wife led marriage.


----------



## jld

Well, I have repeatedly asked for attention, repeatedly told him what I want, repeatedly been as clear as I can think to be. But his default is his own nature, which is way more lower affect than mine.

I know he loves me. I just wish there would be more externalizations of it, in ways that speak love to me.

I cannot, or am not willing, to take the leadership role, though. Sounds exhausting. And I don't want all that responsibility. Dh knows so many things that I do not, like finances and just other things that are pretty important, but that I don't have much interest in or patience for.

I am sure I would grow from it, though. We always grow when we are stretched. And if he died or had a terrible illness, I would have to take on the leadership role.


----------



## ladymisato

Hicks said:


> This is where your problem is. You think leadership is about decisions. It is not. Leadership in marriage is about creating an environment.


We will simply have to disagree here. Decision, choice, is central to human existence. Creating an environment begins with a choice to do so and involves many decisions along the way. It doesn't just happen because you envision it.



> You are basically using an undeveloped thought process about leadership (Breadwinner = Leader) and acting like you are creating a controversy.


Sorry, we have gone over that many times. I appreciate that you may not have read the entire thread but what I said, in various ways, was that there is a tendency for leaderships to correlate with breadwinning.


----------



## ladymisato

jld said:


> Well, I have repeatedly asked for attention, repeatedly told him what I want, repeatedly been as clear as I can think to be. But his default is his own nature, which is way more lower affect than mine.
> 
> I know he loves me. I just wish there would be more externalizations of it, in ways that speak love to me.
> 
> I cannot, or am not willing, to take the leadership role, though. Sounds exhausting. And I don't want all that responsibility. Dh knows so many things that I do not, like finances and just other things that are pretty important, but that I don't have much interest in or patience for.
> 
> I am sure I would grow from it, though. We always grow when we are stretched. And if he died or had a terrible illness, I would have to take on the leadership role.


In my case, I found relief in taking leadership. I do manage the family finances but I know plenty of wife led marriages where the wife delegates that to the husband. That's part of the strengths and roles model of marriage which is entirely compatible with a wife led marriage.

But I think you make a very good point. Wives do grow in this role. Many, like you, begin hesitantly and are often driven by dissatisfaction with the marriage. Sure, it would be nice if the husband would just do what is needed but sometimes you have to do more than wish for it.


----------



## jld

Hicks said:


> This is where your problem is. You think leadership is about decisions. It is not. Leadership in marriage is about creating an environment.
> 
> So, in the example where a husband needs the family to move for work / income. How many posts come on here that the wife is "not happy" and miserable and misses her hometown and all of these things. The marriage is in shambles. No one is happy. On the brink of divorce. This IS a wife led marriage.
> 
> And, wives are the primary leaders of marriage becuase it is the wife who primarily creates the environment.
> 
> You are basically using an undeveloped thought process about leadership (Breadwinner = Leader) and acting like you are creating a controversy.
> 
> First prove how wives are not already the primary leaders in most marriages, then and then how you are actually asserting yourself differently than any other wife already does.
> 
> Happy Wife = Happy Life..... This expression is a testament to the wife led marriage.


I am not sure why you have to be so aggressive with her?

I think what you are saying is that wives have plenty of power to resist changes made by their husbands. There is push and pull in marriage.

I think that viewed this way, every marriage is an equal marriage, with power shifts happening back and forth in different areas regularly.


----------



## jld

My husband would not accept this, Ladym. It would never go over. 

And it is not like he forces things on me. I can say no. He does not want a big rebellion on his hands. He really wants the best for our family.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

ladymisato said:


> These are all very valuable things and they are not sacrificed when one spouse take the lead in the marriage. In fact, from what I've seen, when underlying problems are resolved the result is a greater level of mutual love and respect even when one spouse takes a leading role in the marriage.


Agreed... In our situation, I too was overwhelmed and when my H took an active role in unloading some of my load and partnered in our life together tensions decreased. There were many layers here but when he became intentional about caring for me through a spirit of understanding, meeting needs, and sharing compassion, it made a big difference. I was WORKING MY A$$ OFF. From my perspective it just sounds like different ways of keeping one of the two persons from overwhelm. Shouldering loads as partners taking the "load" off just one person goes a LONG way to keeping feelings, libido's room to breathe while keeping resentment at bay.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

jld said:


> Blossom, did you not take charge of your marriage after your husband pointed a gun at you (is that correct?) and cheated on you? Did you not almost singlehandedly turn that around, without involving the police? How is that not a wife-led marriage?
> 
> And Hope1964, did you not turn your marriage around when your husband cheated on you? Did he not submit, and continue even now, to submit to your requirements to be able to continue the marriage? How is that not a wife-led marriage?


LOL!!! omg... where did you ever get the idea that he pointed a gun at me... I never said exactly what he did. 

And yes, I most certainly did take charge. When he cannot lead well, I refuse to let my family suffer under that moment and I take over immediately until he can get himself straightened around, then I let him take it back when he is ready. And I work to leave it with him which can be difficult for an alpha female. I love it that he has learned to speak up and say when he wants to be involved and when I am stepping on his toes.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

ladymisato said:


> I am quite vexed by divorce, I do not deny that. I know from experience that wives can prevent divorce by taking the lead in their marriage, I have seen many examples.



We must take the lead when the men fall on their faces... we owe it to our kids. There is no way I could ever just leave that leadership vacuum there to destroy my childs life. It would be inexcusable. I step in with a singular goal of creating safe, loving, fun, peaceful home with appropriate structure and then if H comes to his senses and partners with me in that scenario then he has my 100% support. And if he takes over that scenario and executes it well, I have no problem stepping out of the way and being the candy on his arm. My talents are always sitting on ready to engage, but I can let them strategically idle to let him feel his oats in his leadership. When he blossoms in that area... major turn on for me. I don't like the idea of me taking them and keeping them because I expect more than that out of my husband. I expect him to learn how to lead well. We tend towards a power couple in some respects.


----------



## jld

Blossom Leigh said:


> LOL!!! omg... where did you ever get the idea that he pointed a gun at me... I never said exactly what he did.


I remembered you said he had done something with a weapon, but that you talked him into laying it down? I was not sure on the details. That is why I asked if it was correct. 



> And yes, *I most certainly did take charge.* When he cannot lead well,* I refuse *to let my family suffer under that moment and *I take over *immediately until he can get himself straightened around, then* I let him *take it back when he is ready. And *I work to leave it with him *which can be difficult for an alpha female. I love it that *he has learned to speak up and say *when he wants to be involved and when I am stepping on his toes.


See, that to me says wife-led marriage. And it is obviously working very well for you. 

And realistically, to me anyway, it sounds like the safest, healthiest way of staying married to him.

I don't know why this lady is being criticized. She has found something that works for her and many of her friends, and wants to discuss it. 

I think this type of marriage is more common on TAM than many people realize. Some of the people in one may not even realize they are in one. 

Really, people ought to do whatever works for them.

*I am really wondering if everything is equal marriage, with some people just more on one end than the other, and some truly in the middle.*


----------



## Nikita2270

> I have no problems with my statement. I choose to stay married.
> 
> Funny, the first thing we tell betrayed spouses is "hey there's other fish in the sea". "You don't need your wife, there's other women who can be a great woman for you!", that's ok. But when I articulate it as a stand alone statement you call it vomit worthy.
> 
> I think you're naive. We're all replaceable. We all have choice. My wife could replace me tomorrow. I choose to stay married. Simple fact.


That you think your wife is replaceable is exactly how you know you haven't really married the right person.

I was married for over 20 years. I knew the entire time that not only my then-husband replaceable but that I was fairly certain that I had picked an incompatible partner.

After I got divorced, I tried to date and met potentials who were kind, good men but when I met my current partner 5 years ago I realized that I had found the person I have been looking for all my life.

And if you were with that person for you...there's something you figure out. That even if they leave you, or die, or a bus hits them...they aren't replaceable. In fact, when you're with that person, I guarantee that you don't want to do anything to pollute or cloud the memories of the moments that you've share. There's a reason that you see certain people that were in-love and never remarried. Its because they can't. When you finally find the right person...nothing else is ever gonna do.

My partner is a brilliant, unique, special man that not only isn't replaceable but who deserves my absolute loyalty for the rest of my life. 

Its not that I'm naïve...its that you're incomplete.

In addition, your tone is seriously disrespectful to your partner. I feel sorry for her.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

jld said:


> Blossom, Did you not almost singlehandedly turn that around, without involving the police? How is that not a wife-led marriage?


I absolutely did turn it around without the police, with firm vision on where we were going and firm vision on where we would no longer go. Held that vision up with firm resolve, used firm boundaries to keep me and my son on the new path and refuse to accept anything different than than acceptance and engagement of the new path from my H. 

There were people that came along side of us to reinforce that new path, so I would not say it was singlehandedly, but I was totally prepared to do it singlehandedly if I had to. God was just gracious in surrounding me with support.

And yes, it is totally wife led in that moment.


----------



## Big Tree

ladymisato said:


> I think you are relying on an idealized view of leadership.
> 
> In reality it is not so easy to separate leadership and management because most leaders also manage. But to say that anyone who manages cannot be a leader is a mistake.
> 
> So, yes, I manage the home in many ways. I manage it toward the "vision" of marriage that I think is ideal. It just so happens that my husband quickly came to share that ideal and so readily agreed and cooperated in the change.
> 
> I do appreciate your point. I is useful to distinguish leadership and management. But you need to be more careful about assuming that where there is management there is no leadership.


I would never suggest that those who manage cannot also be leaders. 

I presume that you are both a good manager and a good leader.

In my mind, you just demonstrated that you lead in your marriage with your vision and your consensus building.

Your leadership ability is not tethered to your gender, income, or role. It is a separate skill.


----------



## ladymisato

jld said:


> I think this type of marriage is more common on TAM than many people realize. Some of the people in one may not even realize they are in one.


This is partly what I'm exploring now. I know of many wife led marriages (where both spouses privately acknowledge this), including my own, which publicly present themselves as egalitarian. So, naturally, I am curious how many marriages that publicly appear egalitarian but are something else behind closed doors.

I am curious also how often spouses believe that they are in an egalitarian marriage when, in fact, the wife is making the important decisions and the husband is deferring to her on a regular and normal basis. The difference between consenting to be led, being consulted in decisions, and sharing equally in decisions is more gray than black and white.


----------



## ladymisato

Big Tree said:


> I would never suggest that those who manage cannot also be leaders.
> 
> I presume that you are both a good manager and a good leader.
> 
> In my mind, you just demonstrated that you lead in your marriage with your vision and your consensus building.
> 
> Your leadership ability is not tethered to your gender, income, or role. It is a separate skill.


Good points all. I will admit that I do not always make an effort to distinguish leadership from management. It's easier to distinguish them in politics or business than in a household where most decisions and discussions are very close at hand.

The relationship between leadership and income is, I think, more complex than some people here are allowing. It's not entirely separate and it's not tethered. But each influences the other. There is a natural human tendency to organize around sources of money and power for both practical and psychological reasons.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

jld said:


> I remembered you said he had done something with a weapon, but that you talked him into laying it down? I was not sure on the details. That is why I asked if it was correct.


Yes, he was holding a knife to his own throat. With the aim of emotional manipulation when he said "why don't you just stab me with this, because this is what you are doing to me."

He was trying to keep me in the house as I was trying to leave due to escalation before that and I KNEW it needed to cool off. And in his last ditch effort to control my choice, he made an extremely poor choice of that emotional expression. But I didn't talk him into laying it down. * I took it out of his hand*. Total instinct took over. I was just shocked later to realize I walked toward him and took the knife out of his hand and laid it down, looked at him and said "What are you doing" when most would have never done that. I left immediately after doing that. 

It was GROSS emotional blackmail on his part and could have gone in any direction, I ignored my own safety and was almost 100% focused on his and my sons. I took the butcher knife out of his hands and then turned and scooped up our son and left.

I have spoken to my counselor about my ability to walk towards that level of danger, so we flesh that out from time to time, but ultimately it was the pinnacle of poor choices from my H and he was in no way justified in making that choice. And has been told that never again will I NOT call the cops. He has also been told that any further affairs will result in divorce. So this time right now is a one shot deal. 

Thanks for asking if it was accurate.


----------



## Big Tree

ladymisato said:


> The two are closely related in a wife led marriage.
> 
> Big Tree is right that leadership is more than management. But he is mistaken in trying to separate the two.
> 
> Courtship means the husband pursuing the wife. We are all familiar with courtship in dating. What happens when courtship is practiced in marriage? You get a very different marriage dynamic.
> 
> My own case was very messy in the transition, I do not hold it up as a model. However, my husband and I eventually worked things out and the solution we found is what I shared with other wives. I now have a vision of how a wife led marriage works and I lead and manage our marriage on that basis. It is now simply a matter of fact in our household that I am the head of the household and my husband relies upon me to set the direction.
> 
> Perhaps the most practical example of that is when I decided that he would stay home. That was my idea, not his. My "vision" of a good marriage is one in which I work and my husband takes care of the home. I can think of many less dramatic examples but I hope that is a good illustration.


I think this is a perfect illustration of how you lead.


----------



## Davelli0331

ladymisato said:


> This is partly what I'm exploring now. I know of many wife led marriages (where both spouses privately acknowledge this), including my own, which publicly present themselves as egalitarian. So, naturally, I am curious how many marriages that publicly appear egalitarian but are something else behind closed doors.
> 
> I am curious also how often spouses believe that they are in an egalitarian marriage when, in fact, the wife is making the important decisions and the husband is deferring to her on a regular and normal basis. The difference between consenting to be led, being consulted in decisions, and sharing equally in decisions is more gray than black and white.


It's all dependent on how you frame a given situation.

E.g., my wife and I moved across the state so that she could attend veterinarian school. There's any number of ways we could frame that:
- I uprooted my life so she could follow her dream, so she was the "leader"
- or, I studied the target area, saw that employment opportunities were better for my industry, we both decided it was a good move, so we made the decision jointly
- or, my wife decided she wanted to go to veterinarian school, a decision that I ultimately approved once I saw that the job market there was better for me, so I was the "leader".


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Davelli0331 said:


> It's all dependent on how you frame a given situation.
> 
> E.g., my wife and I moved across the state so that she could attend veterinarian school. There's any number of ways we could frame that:
> - I uprooted my life so she could follow her dream, so she was the "leader"
> - or, I studied the target area, saw that employment opportunities were better for my decision, and since we both decided it was a good move, so we made the decision jointly
> - or, my wife decided she wanted to go to veterinarian school, a decision that I ultimately approved once I saw that the job market there was better for me, so I was the "leader".


Perspective, attitude and intention is everything


----------



## Big Tree

New questions for OP...

How do you feel about marriages with egalitarian leadership (shared vision transfer) but with singular management by one partner (final decision maker)?

Does your husband feel like he can help shape your marital vision? Do you ask for his sense of things? As a manager...do you deliver?


----------



## anchorwatch

ladymisato said:


> Men are good at some things, especially, like fixing things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Sunita Williams, woman*
> 
> 
> Women are generally better cooks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Gordon Ramsey, man *


Well then, witch one is it? 

Just my $.02


----------



## Davelli0331

Blossom Leigh said:


> Perspective, attitude and intention is everything


Sure, but how do you quantify those things? In an example like what I gave where the scenario can be reframed any number of ways to make one person (or no person) the "leader", how do you measure perspective, attitude, and intention to unequivocally say, "This person was the leader".

And further, how do you logically extend that to "And since this person was the leader, the marriage has achieved success and is more poised to avoid divorce."


----------



## Almostrecovered

fun website you have there

you actually go as far as saying women should punish their husbands and include withholding sex as a valid punishment

frankly any marriage where one has to treat the other like a child to me is quite absurd


----------



## Almostrecovered

"Taking control of sex entails training your husband that sex is for your benefit, not his. It is not the case that he is no longer to be allowed to enjoy sex. On the contrary, you will find that under the new arrangement he will be more excited and satisfied than ever. It is simply that even when sex is directed at your satisfaction, your husband will inevitably be satisfied as well. "

let's face it, this is just dom sub stuff and is hardly the norm nor a rising trend

whatever floats your boat I guess


----------



## Regret214

There's a website to go along with this? Oh, joy!!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## samyeagar

ladymisato said:


> I would suggest that it is not a normal distribution but a bimodal distribution with the marriages in the middle having the hardest time of surviving.


Just from the small sample size here on this thread, anecdotal for sure, but a sample space none the less...I think it shows that you are wrong in your assessment. The majority of marriages represented are without a declared male or female leader, share leadership responsibilities...pretty clearly a normal distribution...


----------



## Davelli0331

Another tidbit from OP's blog:


> Erotic power is the key to igniting passion in your marriage. Erotic power is a strength and force, which you can exert to arouse sexual desire in your husband. *Erotic power is your capacity to exercise control over your husband through his sexual desire for you.* Erotic power is your femininity unleashed against boredom and familiarity in marriage.* Erotic power is the unrestrained exploitation of his sexual desires and fantasies toward your personal goals.* Erotic power is the uninhibited expression of your femininity.


So, you consider using sex as a means to manipulate and control your husband as "leadership"?


----------



## ladymisato

Davelli0331 said:


> It's all dependent on how you frame a given situation.
> 
> E.g., my wife and I moved across the state so that she could attend veterinarian school. There's any number of ways we could frame that:
> - I uprooted my life so she could follow her dream, so she was the "leader"
> - or, I studied the target area, saw that employment opportunities were better for my industry, we both decided it was a good move, so we made the decision jointly
> - or, my wife decided she wanted to go to veterinarian school, a decision that I ultimately approved once I saw that the job market there was better for me, so I was the "leader".


I agree that this is all very grey. But sometimes it helps to be clearer. So maybe a given situation or even the pattern of a marriage is ambiguous but if you agree that one person is head of household then it provides a background to these grey decisions that helps frame them better.


----------



## SCDP Joan

Agenda revealed: drive traffic to website and increase sales.


----------



## Almostrecovered

it's like scientology, you don't hit the prospective new member with the crazy stuff until after you get your hooks in them


----------



## ladymisato

Big Tree said:


> How do you feel about marriages with egalitarian leadership (shared vision transfer) but with singular management by one partner (final decision maker)?


There are many ways to blend things and, in fact, it is unlikely that the subordinate spouse would just go along blindly with everything. And I don't want to start another argument about egalitarian marriages so I'll leave it at that.



> Does your husband feel like he can help shape your marital vision? Do you ask for his sense of things? As a manager...do you deliver?


I ask for his sense of things all the time. And our household is more peaceful and happy than ever though I hesitate to say I 'delivered' that. It was a joint accomplishment. (We fought very hard in the early years but many couples do.)


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Davelli0331 said:


> Sure, but how do you quantify those things? In an example like what I gave where the scenario can be reframed any number of ways to make one person (or no person) the "leader", how do you measure perspective, attitude, and intention to unequivocally say, "This person was the leader".
> 
> And further, how do you logically extend that to "And since this person was the leader, the marriage has achieved success and is more poised to avoid divorce."



I don't think you can. WAY too many variables.

In my situation, my leadership in no way be labeled a "success" in that my H could still choose to leave. The ONLY part that is successful on my end is choosing a better environment for my home. The success on my H's end is choosing to partner with me on that vision. I think it is a danger to say "if I do this I am guaranteed success" because once the heart of someone is set on leaving, fate follows regardless of how excellent the care was. What I focus on is my best integrity, choosing loving behaviors, maintaining expectations of growth (as this was declared up front when we met, I will never be someone who stops growing, so whoever is with me is best cut from the same cloth) and no longer accepting abuse. So to apply that to a broader population will break down on some level. What does track is that no matter what choices my H makes in the future I will know to the best of my ability that I operated in my best choices, intentions, perspectives and attitudes that contributed to creating joy in our home and not undermine them. I choose things that are constructive and not destructive. Which includes accountability and consequences for destructive choices made by those around me.

And when we screw up, which is normal, we operate in grace, mercy, compassion.


----------



## Almostrecovered

well, my work here is done, time to get back to the ship and to my homeworld


----------



## SCDP Joan

"You can deny him sex for weeks or even months to make a point."

Sounds very reasonable and healthy, right?


----------



## ladymisato

Davelli0331 said:


> So, you consider using sex as a means to manipulate and control your husband as "leadership"?


Well, its a bit more complicated than that. Many things came together for us.


----------



## Regret214

Bah! This book is from 2007. Hardly new. 

Hey, OP...what kind of terrific career that is so high paying do you have that allows you to post here for basically 24 hours with only a little bit of sleep. I'd love that job. And I'm pretty sure if I had it, Dig would love for me to be his sugar momma!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SCDP Joan

Another quote below. Seems like a way to coerce your husband into accepting your leadership to me.

"Additionally, it is often helpful to reduce sex more radically in the beginning of training and then to increase slightly once he has openly accepted your role as head of the household."


----------



## Dollystanford

I'm 100% sure I won't be clicking on your website


----------



## ladymisato

Regret214 said:


> Bah! This book is from 2007. Hardly new.


You found a very old version.


----------



## Davelli0331

ladymisato said:


> Well, its a bit more complicated than that. Many things came together for us.


Hey, if the lifestyle works for you, that's awesome. If it's improved your marriage and works within your marriage dynamic to create a better marriage for you guys, then I say more power to you.

But let us not confuse what you're talking about with leadership, and let us admit up front that there are very few people who would ever want to willingly take part in the kind of dynamic you're describing.

Hell, you can go look at all the sexless marriage threads (started by both genders) in the Sex In Marriage subforum to see the kind of misery that what you're pushing creates.


----------



## Regret214

Davelli0331 said:


> Hell, you can go look at all the sexless marriage threads (started by both genders) in the Sex In Marriage subforum to see the kind of misery that what you're pushing creates.


That's not misery...that's leadership!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ladymisato

Davelli0331 said:


> Hey, if the lifestyle works for you, that's awesome. If it's improved your marriage and works within your marriage dynamic to create a better marriage for you guys, then I say more power to you.
> 
> But let us not confuse what you're talking about with leadership, and let us admit up front that there are very few people who would ever want to take part in the kind of dynamic you're describing.


Perhaps. But as I said earlier, it has worked well for many others too.



> Hell, you can go look at all the sexless marriage threads in the Sex In Marriage subforum to see the kind of misery that what you're pushing creates.


This is wrong, I am not pushing sexless marriage. Quite the opposite.


----------



## Almostrecovered

honest question, do you wear the whole studded leather get up with high heels, whips and stuff?


----------



## ladymisato

Almostrecovered said:


> honest question, do you wear the whole studded leather get up with high heels, whips and stuff?


Honest answer (already answered before), no. We found that to be superfluous.

It turns out that reintroducing courtship was sufficient.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

SCDP Joan said:


> "You can deny him sex for weeks or even months to make a point."
> 
> Sounds very reasonable and healthy, right?


This creates and addiction in him. Eventually that will blow up. That is literally creating Stockholm Syndrome intentionally which is a gross abuse of power. 

His behavior will ONLY become sweet manipulation to get his "fix."

That is not operating in integrity.

That is using manipulation and control to create an unhealthy addiction in someone else to feed your own addiction for control and power. Its not right.


----------



## Almostrecovered

yes mistress


----------



## ladymisato

Blossom Leigh said:


> This creates and addiction in him. Eventually that will blow up. That is literally creating Stockholm Syndrome intentionally which is a gross abuse of power.
> 
> His behavior will ONLY become sweet manipulation to get his "fix."
> 
> That is not operating in integrity.
> 
> That is using manipulation and control to create an unhealthy addiction in someone else to feed your own addiction for control and power. Its not right.


While it's not unfair to call it an "addiction" I think you are overmoralizing and missing the most obvious fact: we have been doing this for almost two decades. It has not "blown up". We are both happier than ever.


----------



## Davelli0331

ladymisato said:


> Perhaps. But as I said earlier, it has worked well for many others too.
> 
> 
> This is wrong, I am not pushing sexless marriage. Quite the opposite.


You're right, you're pushing something just as bad as sexless marriage, and in some ways, worse: You're pushing the idea, in your own words, of using your husband's desire for sex as a means to control him toward your own personal goals.

Now, if both spouses agree to that kind of dynamic, then that's fine, but I don't really get the impression that's what you're all about.

If anything, women using sex as a means of control has been a common male complaint since pretty much the dawn of man, and part of our move toward egalitarianism has been to get away from that dynamic. In that sense, you're wanting people to socially regress.


----------



## Regret214

Almostrecovered said:


> honest question, do you wear the whole studded leather get up with high heels, whips and stuff?


Looks more like Guenivere and Lancelot.

Oh, wait...they had an affair. Which is perfect for TAM!!! Let's go with that.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ladymisato

Davelli0331 said:


> You're right, you're pushing something just as bad as sexless marriage, and in some ways, worse: You're pushing the idea, in your own words, of using your husband's desire for sex as a means to control him toward your own personal goals.
> 
> Now, if both spouses agree to that kind of dynamic, then that's fine, but I don't really get the impression that's what you're all about.
> 
> If anything, women using sex as a means of control has been a common male complaint since pretty much the dawn of man, and part of our move toward egalitarianism has been to get away from that dynamic. In that sense, you're wanting people to socially regress.


There is much truth in what you write. And, yet, it works. As you say, it is as old as mankind.

I understand your attachment to egalitarian ideals. I don't share that opinion. We had an egalitarian marriage. It wasn't working. We tried something different. It worked. I shared that insight with others and it worked for them too.

I hope I'm not being unfair in dismissing your concerns.


----------



## Hicks

SCDP Joan said:


> "Additionally, it is often helpful to reduce sex more radically in the beginning of training and then to increase slightly once he has openly accepted your role as head of the household."


Hardly a new idea.
Old as time itself.


----------



## ladymisato

Hicks said:


> Hardly a new idea.
> Old as time itself.


And, yet, how many wives demand that their husbands court them? Sometimes the best ideas are old ideas.


----------



## Hope1964

Oooo, another 25 pages to read over my morning coffee. While I work at my higher-paying-than-my-husbands job. After I drove my bigger-than-my-husbands SUV to work.

What does it mean if the wife's is bigger than the husbands?


----------



## Almostrecovered

Hope1964 said:


> Oooo, another 25 pages to read over my morning coffee.



no don't drink your coffee while reading this, you'll spit it out


----------



## Almostrecovered




----------



## Davelli0331

ladymisato said:


> There is much truth in what you write. And, yet, it works. As you say, it is as old as mankind.
> 
> I understand your attachment to egalitarian ideals. I don't share that opinion. We had an egalitarian marriage. It wasn't working. We tried something different. It worked. I shared that insight with others and it worked for them too.
> 
> I hope I'm not being unfair in dismissing your concerns.


Like I said, if it works for you, then it works. No complaints from me.

But let's call a spade a spade: That is not leadership. That is manipulation, and even if it works toward a common good, I don't think very many people would conflate that with leadership (or at least a positive view of leadership) nor want to be an active part of something like that.

And acting as if that's the end-all, be-all solution for ailing, egalitarian marriages to prevent divorce is ludicrous. I truly am glad it worked for you but let us not be dubious into the realm of fantasy.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

ladymisato said:


> While it's not unfair to call it an "addiction" I think you are overmoralizing and missing the most obvious fact: we have been doing this for almost two decades. It has not "blown up". We are both happier than ever.


Oppression, regardless of its spin ALWAYS blows up eventually. 

Took me decades to stand up to my mother because of stockholm syndrome in me, but it happened all the same. And when it did, it blew big. There were addictions created in me, big time. And when I grew tired of being "leveraged" I learned hard and fast how to become "deleveraged" and prefer to stay that way.

I ALMOST ended up with a man who had leverage down to a FINE science... EXTREMELY ADDICTIVE for me. I am deeply grateful I wised up and cut those ties before I entered deeper into that relationship. I knew full well by stockholm syndrome tactics he could have made me do ANYTHING, and because I was where I was I knew I would be nothing more than an addict chasing a fix the rest of my life. I wanted different and probably escaped with my life to be honest. 

Why wouldn't you be happier than ever.. its two addicts constantly getting their fixes off each other. If that is y'alls choice so be it. For me... I had to walk away from that and am actively choosing different.


----------



## Davelli0331

ladymisato said:


> And, yet, how many wives demand that their husbands court them? Sometimes the best ideas are old ideas.


See, this is what kills me. This makes sense. I totally agree with this statement.

But you're conveniently leaving out your overt views on holding sex over a man's head to get what you want out of him.


----------



## Entropy3000

Hope1964 said:


> Oooo, another 25 pages to read over my morning coffee. While I work at my higher-paying-than-my-husbands job. After I drove my bigger-than-my-husbands SUV to work.
> 
> What does it mean if the wife's is bigger than the husbands?


It means that the wife has penis envy possibly. 

My wife used to drive an Expedition because she was hauling kids around. My car was blown but not as big as an Expedition. In this case size mattered but I was looking for a car that could knock my socks off. I mean it is all about G's. Finding that enjoyable G spot in ummm. Performance.

I like POJA personally. Indeed there have been a few times in our marriage I have had to take charge but they were very specific cases that needed my particular ... prowess.

In unbalanced marriages there is a level of dom/sub that I suppose fits some. Whatever works for them.


----------



## ladymisato

Davelli0331 said:


> That is not leadership. That is manipulation, and even if it works toward a common good, I don't think very many people would conflate that with leadership (or at least a positive view of leadership) nor want to be an active part of something like that.


Let me give you a pedestrian example. Most people earn a salary doing a job. That salary contingent upon working. At the same time the company has a CEO who is expected to lead.

Are people being manipulated into doing what the CEO says or are they following his lead? Both are present.


----------



## ladymisato

Blossom Leigh said:


> Oppression, regardless of its spin ALWAYS blows up eventually.


And if it doesn't blow up then it's safe to say its not oppression.


----------



## ladymisato

Davelli0331 said:


> See, this is what kills me. This makes sense. I totally agree with this statement.
> 
> But you're conveniently leaving out your overt views on holding sex over a man's head to get what you want out of him.


As with my employment analogy, that is only part of it. I understand that it is the part that concerns you but you should not make the mistake of seeing only that.


----------



## Regret214

ladymisato said:


> And if it doesn't blow up then it's safe to say its not oppression.


Wasn't that in Mein Kampf?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## anchorwatch

ladymisato said:


> And if it doesn't blow up then it's safe to say its not oppression.


No. Its safe to say the victim doesn't see a way out.


----------



## Hope1964

Entropy3000 said:


> It means that the wife has penis envy possibly.


Well that's certainly true.


----------



## Hope1964

The employment analogy doesn't fit. If I withheld sex from my boss, I am sure I'd get fired and not promoted.


----------



## ladymisato

anchorwatch said:


> No. Its safe to say the victim doesn't see a way out.


Or maybe the "victim" doesn't want out. I'm not relying on my husband's word alone, I've had many conversations with other husband in wife led marriages and they are much happier in a marriage where they are courting their wives.


----------



## ladymisato

Hope1964 said:


> The employment analogy doesn't fit. If I withheld sex from my boss, I am sure I'd get fired and not promoted.


Now you are being silly. Money, not sex, is the currency at the office. It's only an analogy, not a literal copy.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Entropy3000 said:


> It means that the wife has penis envy possibly.
> 
> My wife used to drive an Expedition because she was hauling kids around. My car was blown but not as big as an Expedition. In this case size mattered but I was looking for a car that could knock my socks off. I mean it is all about G's. Finding that enjoyable G spot in ummm. Performance.
> 
> I like POJA personally. Indeed there have been a few times in our marriage I have had to take charge but they were very specific cases that needed my particular ... prowess.
> 
> In unbalanced marriages there is a level of dom/sub that I suppose fits some. Whatever works for them.


lol...

In our marriage we have mutually shared prowess... There are times I LOVE him taking full on charge and there are other times he loves it in me. hmmmm.. adrenaline junkies we are... LOL


----------



## Davelli0331

ladymisato said:


> Let me give you a pedestrian example. Most people earn a salary doing a job. That salary contingent upon working. At the same time the company has a CEO who is expected to lead.
> 
> Are people being manipulated into doing what the CEO says or are they following his lead? Both are present.


The CEO leads by providing a vision. However, he is completely reliant on my technical leadership to act upon and implement his vision.

Without my technical leadership, his visionary leadership has no means of moving forward, and without his visionary leadership, my technical leadership is without direction.

Again, contextual leadership leading to the overall success of an organization.


----------



## Hope1964

ladymisato said:


> Money, not sex, is the currency at the office.


Hmmm, maybe I need to think about a different job.


----------



## samyeagar

This may work for a select few people, but if the goal is to have anything whatsoever helpful to women in general, the vast majority who would even consider following this will be sorely disappointed, though it does seem to fit with a lot of the rest of pop-psych empowering women crap going around now a days...yet another thing for women to be left scratching their heads when they realize they have been fed a line of crap that doesn't remotely resemble reality.


----------



## ladymisato

Davelli0331 said:


> The CEO leads by providing a vision. However, he is completely reliant on my technical leadership to act upon and implement his vision.
> 
> Without my technical leadership, his visionary leadership has no means of moving forward, and without his visionary leadership, my technical leadership is without direction.
> 
> Again, contextual leadership leading to the overall success of an organization.


In a marriage, though, there are no layers of management. It's just two people. So we see all these smashed together and picking them apart is not as easy as it seems.


----------



## ladymisato

samyeagar said:


> This may work for a select few people, but if the goal is to have anything whatsoever helpful to women in general, the vast majority who would even consider following this will be sorely disappointed, though it does seem to fit with a lot of the rest of pop-psych empowering women crap going around now a days...yet another thing for women to be left scratching their heads when they realize they have been fed a line of crap that doesn't remotely resemble reality.


Empowering women is one of the "pop" trends that are driving this, I think. I can understand your cynicism, though.


----------



## Regret214

7.2 BILLION people in the world. Taking the statistical ratio of 1.01:1 (men to women) that's roughly 3.6 BILLION women.

And your sampling is about 100.

Okay.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## U.E. McGill

Nikita2270 said:


> That you think your wife is replaceable is exactly how you know you haven't really married the right person.
> 
> 
> 
> I was married for over 20 years. I knew the entire time that not only my then-husband replaceable but that I was fairly certain that I had picked an incompatible partner.
> 
> 
> 
> After I got divorced, I tried to date and met potentials who were kind, good men but when I met my current partner 5 years ago I realized that I had found the person I have been looking for all my life.
> 
> 
> 
> And if you were with that person for you...there's something you figure out. That even if they leave you, or die, or a bus hits them...they aren't replaceable. In fact, when you're with that person, I guarantee that you don't want to do anything to pollute or cloud the memories of the moments that you've share. There's a reason that you see certain people that were in-love and never remarried. Its because they can't. When you finally find the right person...nothing else is ever gonna do.
> 
> 
> 
> My partner is a brilliant, unique, special man that not only isn't replaceable but who deserves my absolute loyalty for the rest of my life.
> 
> 
> 
> Its not that I'm naïve...its that you're incomplete.
> 
> 
> 
> In addition, your tone is seriously disrespectful to your partner. I feel sorry for her.



See this is where your incomplete. You wallowed away for 20 years with a man who you knew you shouldn't be married to only to divorce him. Had you ignored the sunk cost fallacy maybe you would have met your beloved sooner instead of wasting 20 years. 

Thanks you for supporting my opinion with facts. With 7 billion people on earth your partner is no snowflake. It's great you met him, and you choose to be with him. Good for you!

I feel sorry for you, as it took 20 years to find him.


----------



## anchorwatch

ladymisato said:


> Or maybe the "victim" doesn't want out. I'm not relying on my husband's word alone, I've had many conversations with other husband in wife led marriages and they are much happier in a marriage where they are courting their wives.


Sorry, I don't buy that, and stand by what I said. Your other husbands, or wives in that situation are experiencing nothing more than the Stockholm syndrome

Now I see why you've had a problem with negative feed back. It not the readers, its you premise.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

ladymisato said:


> Or maybe the "victim" doesn't want out. I'm not relying on my husband's word alone, I've had many conversations with other husband in wife led marriages and they are much happier in a marriage where they are courting their wives.


Oppression test...

Is your husband allowed to withhold sex from you?

If he does withhold it, what happens

Many agendas get whitewashed, if I were in your shoes I would self assess to make sure I wasn't whitewashing abuse. Objectifying a spouse is not a loving act.

IF you are consciously using your husbands bodily reactions to illicit hyper reactions to your wants, that is playing with fire and the dark side imho. and IF your husband is in that mode and doesn't realize it, there are some camps that would define that as brainwashed.


----------



## Entropy3000

Blossom Leigh said:


> lol...
> 
> In our marriage we have mutually shared prowess... There are times I LOVE him taking full on charge and there are other times he loves it in me. hmmmm.. adrenaline junkies we are... LOL


My wife is at the helm much of the time with day to day things. My job consumes much of my energies. Big decisions we agree on. When my family is threatened in certain ways I have been known to intervene. Think real danger here.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Entropy3000 said:


> My wife is at the helm much of the time with day to day things. My job consumes much of my energies. Big decisions we agree on. When my family is threatened in certain ways I have been known to intervene. Think real danger here.


Same here

Though lately he wants more leadership role and willingly takes it on and I step out of the way and honor that. I just take my leadership talents and give them a rest, knowing they are still fully in tact and at my finger tips 

My hubs has a back bone for days, so I LOVE watching him take on that standing up like a bear mode in protection of our family. It was when he was directing that energy at me that we struggled, now he is learning better.


----------



## ladymisato

Blossom Leigh said:


> Oppression test...
> 
> Is your husband allowed to withhold sex from you?
> 
> If he does withhold it, what happens


He tried it, didn't work. Never does.



> Many agendas get whitewashed, if I were in your shoes I would self assess to make sure I wasn't whitewashing abuse. Objectifying a spouse is not a loving act.
> 
> IF you are consciously using your husbands bodily reactions to illicit hyper reactions to your wants, that is playing with fire and the dark side imho. and IF your husband is in that mode and doesn't realize it, there are some camps that would define that as brainwashed.


I do agree that this is "playing with fire", sexual passion is very powerful. You can call him "brainwashed" if you like, but the fact remains: he is happier now than before.


----------



## Regret214

Yeah. Cuz he doesn't have to work.

Like I said, he's brilliant!!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Hicks

ladymisato said:


> Let me give you a pedestrian example. Most people earn a salary doing a job. That salary contingent upon working. At the same time the company has a CEO who is expected to lead.
> 
> Are people being manipulated into doing what the CEO says or are they following his lead? Both are present.


IF a CEO were to stop paying employees in order to get them to work harder, would that be considered leadership?

Not withstanding the illegalities of such a thing, it would be the act of an ill equipped leader.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

ladymisato said:


> He tried it, didn't work. Never does.
> 
> 
> I do agree that this is "playing with fire", sexual passion is very powerful. You can call him "brainwashed" if you like, but the fact remains: he is happier now than before.


fires of hell Darlin' ... fires of hell...

of course he is... he is strung out on a chemical addiction inside his own body...


----------



## ladymisato

Hicks said:


> IF a CEO were to stop paying employees in order to get them to work harder, would that be considered leadership?
> 
> Not withstanding the illegalities of such a thing, it would be the act of an ill equipped leader.


People who don't work get fired. Everyone understands this and so they work.

In addition, many executives and managers and salesmen receive performance bonuses tied to objectives. They also understand the contingent nature of these.

At the same time, a CEO exercises leadership. Many of the initiatives he leads are implemented, in part, through management objectives. Others determine who gets hired or laid off.

You cannot untangle these things as if in a laboratory.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

ladymisato said:


> He tried it, didn't work. Never does.


Why....


----------



## ladymisato

Blossom Leigh said:


> Why....


I hope I don't get in trouble for saying this, but men and women are different biologically. I am not a biologist but I know enough about human sexuality to understand this. The male and female sex drives are categorically different. That doesn't mean that one is better than the other or that there is no variation among men or among women. But they are different.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

ladymisato said:


> I hope I don't get in trouble for saying this, but men and women are different biologically. I am not a biologist but I know enough about human sexuality to understand this. The male and female sex drives are categorically different. That doesn't mean that one is better than the other or that there is no variation among men or among women. But they are different.


So I am going to read between the lines a bit if I may...

You basically discovered your H has a higher drive sexually than you do and realized you could gain benefit if you consciously chose to use the mechanics of his drive to illicit cooperation. Yes/no?



so... question.. 

Your husband also has bodily mechanisms which drive him to eat food. Would you ever consciously choose to manipulate that drive for food in your husband to illicit cooperation?


----------



## samyeagar

Much of this sounds very similar to another frequent poster here who frequently pushes an agenda of veiled abuse eerily similar to your own, only with her husband as the leader and her taking the child role...the opposite of what you are pushing...wife as the leader and the husband as the child.

As I have told her many times, I will tell you the same. You are very fortunate to have found a compatible husband, because very few marriages could survive, let alone be healthy with your dynamic.


----------



## ladymisato

Blossom Leigh said:


> So I am going to read between the lines a bit if I may...
> 
> You basically discovered your H has a higher drive sexually than you do and realized you could gain benefit if you consciously chose to use the mechanics of his drive to illicit cooperation. Yes/no?


No. What I mean is that men can be more easily induced to want sex than women. Regardless of where each spouse is on the H scale, it's easier for a woman to stimulate a man than the reverse and harder for a stimulated man to ignore his desires. I hope I'm not being to graphic.



> so... question..
> 
> Your husband also has bodily mechanisms which drive him to eat food. Would you ever consciously choose to manipulate that drive for food in your husband to illicit cooperation?


I gave the analogy of employment. That's exactly what happens when a salary is contingent on work. So be shocked if that's your thing.


----------



## Faeleaf

ladymisato said:


> I understand your attachment to egalitarian ideals. I don't share that opinion. We had an egalitarian marriage. It wasn't working. We tried something different. It worked. I shared that insight with others and it worked for them too.


If you could listen as well as you talk, we probably wouldn't still be going around and around on this. That's ok...everyone struggles with that, wanting to be heard but not hear. I can relate, because of course I do too.

I hear you say that an "equal" partnership didn't work for your marriage. This wife-led marriage is working for you, so you're a big fan of the system. You're attached to it, because it's made you (and your spouse, presumably) happy and made your marriage function smoothly.

Can you imagine how amused you would be, if you came to this website, happy in your marriage and the system that makes your marriage run so smoothly, and saw someone declaring that wife-led marriages were inferior, leading to unhappiness and divorce, and that whatever system THEY were using was the answer to the modern marriage's divorce and woes? 

You might be annoyed. You'd definitely chuckle at the ignorance of the poster. And your opinion about your own happy, functioning system wouldn't change one iota. That person's opinion couldn't make a dent in your own conviction, because you're HAPPY with what you have. 

Honestly, this is kind of what I feel like. I think my spouse and I have a TREMENDOUS, equal, collaborative partnership, and we're happier than any other couple I have ever met. The way we resolve conflicts, the way we complement, appreciate and respect each other, the way we JOINTLY make decisions, makes me wake up every day thankful to be alive. 

Your opinion about equal partnerships being inferior is just amusing to me. I'll tell you what, I was IN a relationship where I was the leader. I didn't like it one bit. I loved him - I was devoted to him, but I sure didn't respect him. That relationship is over, and I'm a part of something wonderful now.

Different things work for different people. I am not preaching the religion of equal partnerships either, trust me, because frankly I think a lot of people do them wrong. My sister and her husband are in an equal partnership, and they are both miserable. They want to be equal - and in fact *need* to be, (if you knew them you'd know the impossibility of either one "submitting" to the other...it's laughable honestly...they'd self-combust into tiny glittery shards first) but they still do it wrong. Without the genuine respect, trust, appreciation, and ability to listen with empathy that make equal partnerships golden. 

I hear a lot of talk about how "someone" needs to make the "final call" on decisions, and I understand that's a fairly common conception of how partnerships work. Please hear me on this though - that's NOT how it works in my marriage. When we talk to each other and share our individual desires, when we respect that each other's viewpoints are as important and valid as our own, it changes everything. No longer is it him wanting A, and me wanting B. It's both of us wanting AB, because of how much we like and trust each other, how much we want both of us to be happy. And we don't rest until we figure out how to get that. We are a tremendous, creative, persistent team. 

Putting those two viewpoints together changes everything - gives us the binocular view that sees more clearly, that we couldn't access alone. You've heard the old proverb - one blind man insisting that he's touching a tree trunk, while another blind man insists that he's touching a wall. This is the two blind men listening to and trusting each other, and so correctly concluding that they are both touching an elephant. When done correctly, equal partnerships can be MAGIC.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

ladymisato said:


> No. What I mean is that men can be more easily induced to want sex than women. Regardless of where each spouse is on the H scale, it's easier for a woman to stimulate a man than the reverse and harder for a stimulated man to ignore his desires. I hope I'm not being to graphic.
> 
> 
> I gave the analogy of employment. That's exactly what happens when a salary is contingent on work. *So be shocked if that's your thing*.



HA... blameshift... AND avoidance

must have struck to close to the nerve...


----------



## ladymisato

samyeagar said:


> You are very fortunate to have found a compatible husband, because very few marriages could survive, let alone be healthy with your dynamic.


That's what I thought at first. I learned different from the experience of other couples. It's more general than a simple compatibility.


----------



## Entropy3000

ladymisato said:


> People who don't work get fired. Everyone understands this and so they work.
> 
> In addition, many executives and managers and salesmen receive performance bonuses tied to objectives. They also understand the contingent nature of these.
> 
> At the same time, a CEO exercises leadership. Many of the initiatives he leads are implemented, in part, through management objectives. Others determine who gets hired or laid off.
> 
> You cannot untangle these things as if in a laboratory.


No but all too often CEOs are very short sighted. They move on and let the next CEO deal with the fallout.

These days at least in my industry employees firing their management. Seriously.


----------



## ladymisato

Faeleaf said:


> If you could listen as well as you talk, we probably wouldn't still be going around and around on this. That's ok...everyone struggles with that, wanting to be heard but not hear. I can relate, because of course I do too.
> 
> I hear you say that an "equal" partnership didn't work for your marriage. This wife-led marriage is working for you, so you're a big fan of the system. You're attached to it, because it's made you (and your spouse, presumably) happy and made your marriage function smoothly.
> 
> Can you imagine how amused you would be, if you came to this website, happy in your marriage and the system that makes your marriage run so smoothly, and saw someone declaring that wife-led marriages were inferior, leading to unhappiness and divorce, and that whatever system THEY were using was the answer to the modern marriage's divorce and woes?
> 
> You might be annoyed. You'd definitely chuckle at the ignorance of the poster. And your opinion about your own happy, functioning system wouldn't change one iota. That person's opinion couldn't make a dent in your own conviction, because you're HAPPY with what you have.
> 
> Honestly, this is kind of what I feel like. I think my spouse and I have a TREMENDOUS, equal, collaborative partnership, and we're happier than any other couple I have ever met. The way we resolve conflicts, the way we complement, appreciate and respect each other, the way we JOINTLY make decisions, makes me wake up every day thankful to be alive.
> 
> Your opinion about equal partnerships being inferior is just amusing to me. I'll tell you what, I was IN a relationship where I was the leader. I didn't like it one bit. I loved him - I was devoted to him, but I sure didn't respect him. That relationship is over, and I'm a part of something wonderful now.
> 
> Different things work for different people. I am not preaching the religion of equal partnerships either, trust me, because frankly I think a lot of people do them wrong. My sister and her husband are in an equal partnership, and they are both miserable. They want to be equal - and in fact *need* to be, (if you knew them you'd know the impossibility of either one "submitting" to the other...it's laughable honestly...they'd self-combust into tiny glittery shards first) but they still do it wrong. Without the genuine respect, trust, appreciation, and ability to listen with empathy that make equal partnerships golden.
> 
> I hear a lot of talk about how "someone" needs to make the "final call" on decisions, and I understand that's a fairly common conception of how partnerships work. Please hear me on this though - that's NOT how it works in my marriage. When we talk to each other and share our individual desires, when we respect that each other's viewpoints are as important and valid as our own, it changes everything. No longer is it him wanting A, and me wanting B. It's both of us wanting AB, because of how much we like and trust each other, how much we want both of us to be happy. And we don't rest until we figure out how to get that. We are a tremendous, creative, persistent team.
> 
> Putting those two viewpoints together changes everything - gives us the binocular view that sees more clearly, that we couldn't access alone. You've heard the old proverb - one blind man insisting that he's touching a tree trunk, while another blind man insists that he's touching a wall. This is the two blind men listening to and trusting each other, and so correctly concluding that they are both touching an elephant. When done correctly, equal partnerships can be MAGIC.


I appreciate your well thought out points. I have no major disagreement with them. I admit that my experience with egalitarian marriage has biased my opinion of them. On the other hand, as I mentioned a few times, I masquerade my own marriage as egalitarian in public and I know that most wife led couples do too. I also know that it is quite common for the woman to believe the marriage is egalitarian and for the man to think otherwise because women have been told that its wrong for them to exercise power and influence in marriage. So I am not so willing to just take people at their word. I like to prod a little. I realize I may have upset some people by this and I do apologize for that.


----------



## ladymisato

Entropy3000 said:


> No but all too often CEOs are very short sighted. They move on and let the next CEO deal with the fallout.
> 
> These days at least in my industry employees firing their management. Seriously.


Yes, this is a problem. Human beings are fallible creatures and not all CEOs are equally good just as not all marriages work as well. But I think your taking the analogy too literally, I only meant to illustrate the complexity of human relations where leadership is concerned.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I haven't read all of the thread, but I've known some online friends who have wife led marriages. They seem quite happy. Some men and women fit better into this dynamic than a husband led marriage, or a egalitarian marriage. But some men and women also fit better in non-monogamous marriages than monogamous ones. I think people can and should get creative to find out what truly works for them and go for it. It really shouldn't be that big of a deal to anyone else what any particular marriage's participants do.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Faithful Wife said:


> I haven't read all of the thread, but I've known some online friends who have wife led marriages. They seem quite happy. Some men and women fit better into this dynamic than a husband led marriage, or a egalitarian marriage. But some men and women also fit better in non-monogamous marriages than monogamous ones. I think people can and should get creative to find out what truly works for them and go for it. It really shouldn't be that big of a deal to anyone else what any particular marriage's participants do.


I agree, but the how is important and must be based in ethics and integrity and there is question of that here.


----------



## Regret214

ladymisato said:


> I also know that it is quite common for the woman to believe the marriage is egalitarian and for the man to think otherwise because women have been told that its wrong for them to exercise power and influence in marriage.


Yeah, it's like 2014. I believe that mentality went out in the 60's and 70's. Beaver Cleaver is not alive and well any longer.

So...since when in current time are women told "it's wrong for them to exercise power and influence in marriage"??

Seriously.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife

Blossom Leigh said:


> I agree, but the how is important and must be based in ethics and integrity and there is question of that here.


What did I miss then, or what page?


----------



## samyeagar

Regret214 said:


> Yeah, it's like 2014. I believe that mentality went out in the 60's and 70's. Beaver Cleaver is not alive and well any longer.
> 
> So...since when in current time are women told "it's wrong for them to exercise power and influence in marriage"??
> 
> Seriously.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


This is all pretty much laughable and completely transparent...one of the first rules of sales, and general sheisterdom is to make a product, and then create a problem that only your product can fix...


----------



## Faithful Wife

Regret214 said:


> Yeah, it's like 2014. I believe that mentality went out in the 60's and 70's. Beaver Cleaver is not alive and well any longer.
> 
> So...since when in current time are women told "it's wrong for them to exercise power and influence in marriage"??
> 
> Seriously.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Well, I definitely don't hear that message coming toward me personally, but from what I understand many conservative christians still believe and teach this to each other.


----------



## Regret214

You might actually have to read the entire thread to get it. It's the theme since page 1.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faeleaf

ladymisato said:


> I appreciate your well thought out points. I have no major disagreement with them. I admit that my experience with egalitarian marriage has biased my opinion of them. On the other hand, as I mentioned a few times, I masquerade my own marriage as egalitarian in public and I know that most wife led couples do too. I also know that it is quite common for the woman to believe the marriage is egalitarian and for the man to think otherwise because women have been told that its wrong for them to exercise power and influence in marriage. So I am not so willing to just take people at their word. I like to prod a little. I realize I may have upset some people by this and I do apologize for that.


Of course. Just as you've heard others react with skepticism regarding how happy a husband truly would be to be subservient partner in the marriage. Their skepticism is also understandable, because it doesn't agree with any of their experiences of men and husbands. I don't share that skepticism on a broad scale - I know it works for some marriages (though I'd probably differ from you on how many) because my dad and step-mother have one, and they are both devoted to each other. 

So prod at me. I'll tell you that my spouse and I, both, would recoil in horror at the notion of leveraging power or authority over the other. It shows a preference for our own desires/opinions, and a disregard for the other's desires/opinions, that we frankly don't have. We wouldn't want to impose our will on each other, because we are happiest when we BOTH get what we want, in fact can ONLY be truly happy when we both get what we want. 

It's as if a man and a woman were each handed a die, and told that if they rolled a 1-3 they would lose, and if they rolled a 4-6 they would win. Each thinks, "Well, that's ok then. I'll win roughly half the time. That's fair."

But now they are married to each other, and realize that they DON'T "win" half the time. They only "win" if they BOTH roll a 4-6, because if either of them has a losing roll, they are unhappy. It's not enough to just be glad for their own individual wins anymore. They feel each other's pain, mourn each other's disappointments, and can't bear for either of them to lose anymore. And so they won't settle for anything less than win-win any longer.


----------



## Regret214

samyeagar said:


> This is all pretty much laughable and completely transparent...one of the first rules of sales, and general sheisterdom is to find a product, and then create a problem that only your product can fix...


Like pharmaceuticals!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ladymisato

Regret214 said:


> Yeah, it's like 2014. I believe that mentality went out in the 60's and 70's. Beaver Cleaver is not alive and well any longer.
> 
> So...since when in current time are women told "it's wrong for them to exercise power and influence in marriage"??


I guess we just see things differently, then. It's true that the assumption of male head of household went out in the 60s and 70s but it was largely replaced by the ideal of an egalitarian marriage. Generally speaking, up to now, women have pursued equality.

We have seem several husband state quite openly that they are head of the household in their marriage. You will not find wives speaking so openly when they lead the marriage.


----------



## samyeagar

Regret214 said:


> Like pharmaceuticals!
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


And evo-psych and pop-psych...modern day snake oil


----------



## Mr. Nail

SO 18 pages ago I went to bed and let this whole idea percolate. Then I presented it to Mrs. Nail, who resists leadership as much as I do. She said no she would not use sex to manipulate me. (dang) upshoot of the whole conversation? Dishwasher replacement has moved up in the priority queue. 
MN


----------



## Regret214

I still don't understand why the thought of EQUAL is so horrible.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Faithful Wife said:


> What did I miss then, or what page?


Correct me if I am wrong OP, but there is a tactic being used by the OP by which her husbands cooperation is managed heavily by the granting or withholding of sex to a degree that brings veiled abuse into question. To the point of withholding for months?

OP, have you ever withheld sex for months to "make a point" with your H?


----------



## Entropy3000

ladymisato said:


> Yes, this is a problem. Human beings are fallible creatures and not all CEOs are equally good just as not all marriages work as well. But I think your taking the analogy too literally, I only meant to illustrate the complexity of human relations where leadership is concerned.


I just went with your analogy.

Most businesses are about climbing the ladder and stockholders. Not the people. The company are NOT the people

Before IPOing companies can be very much about the people in the company and about their customers.

So I perfer a marriage that is about love and respect. For me anyway that takes a more level balance. But this is me. Some folks may not like balance. They have that right. For me though anyone that has to be in charge all the time has issues. Kinda like someone who cannot work with others or have to be the smartest person in the room. So they hire submissive people who are ok with this. Now this sounds critical but I am saying this from my personal perspective. It turns me off. I want a strong intelligent and capable woman. They are the prize. Someone with high self esteem. Also not one that is insecure and must make all the decisions. In general though working with ones strengths is good. Ultimately I am in control. But so is my wife. We can opt out at anytime. Fire each other.


----------



## ladymisato

Faeleaf said:


> So prod at me. I'll tell you that my spouse and I, both, would recoil in horror at the notion of leveraging power or authority over the other. It shows a preference for our own desires/opinions, and a disregard for the other's desires/opinions, that we frankly don't have. We wouldn't want to impose our will on each other, because we are happiest when we BOTH get what we want, in fact can ONLY be truly happy when we both get what we want.


The rest of your post is well said but I want to disagree with you here. Your assumption, and many others have argued similarly, is that leveraging or exercising power or authority precludes a regard for the other. That is simply untrue.

And this is a fundamental point of disagreement. If you believe as you do then you will naturally take the view that good marriage must be egalitarian where decisions are made by consensus. But you might consider the possibility that a spouse who is the acknowledged head of the household can still hold a deep regard for the other.

I believe to miss that is to miss out on a lot in life.


----------



## Regret214

samyeagar said:


> And evo-psych and pop-psych...modern day snake oil



It's like Tony Robbins and Simone de Beauvoir wrapped into one!! How grand.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## samyeagar

Just so we're all clear here...the back and forth, criticism, what not...we are feeding her martyrdom complex...the whole misunderstood artist, unrecognized in her own time sort of thing. Sort of like how some Christians NEED to feel persecuted in order to feel validated in their belief...I think we have something similar to that going on here.


----------



## GTdad

Okay, I followed the trail of links, and I think I have a better idea now of what the OP has been attempting to advocate. In the OP's words:

"As head of the household, you should indulge your own judgment, opinions, and priorities. You act on your own beliefs and values whenever the facts are unknown, insufficient, inadequate, or differently perceived. He must subordinate his judgment, opinions, and priorities to yours. For example, if you feel uncomfortable in a situation you should step back, form your own judgment, and then act on it whereas, once he has offered his opinion to you, he must accept your decision regardless of how it might conflict with his own judgment, opinions, and priorities.

As head of the household, you control the family finances. He is required to justify his expenses to you. However, there is absolutely no need for you to explain anything whatsoever about the family finances to him. If you give him a budget, it is his duty to follow it; if you require approval for certain purchases, he must obtain such approval. You, on the other hand, are free to spend as you alone see fit whether, in your judgment, for the benefit of the family or merely for your own enjoyment. For example, if you want to buy a new car, that is your decision alone, but if he wants to purchase a new shirt, he must seek your permission.

In many ways, time is money and so it is that his time is yours to budget or manage as you see fit. You should feel free to offload time consuming or otherwise undesirable tasks on him including family care, housework, shopping, and running errands. It is his responsibility to follow your direction in the management of his time and to seek permission for any deviances from your expectations with respect to his time."

Holy sh*t.


----------



## ladymisato

Blossom Leigh said:


> Correct me if I am wrong OP, but there is a tactic being used by the OP by which her husbands cooperation is managed heavily by the granting or withholding of sex to a degree that brings veiled abuse into question. To the point of withholding for months?


I understand why you might view it that way. But you are latching onto an extreme and presenting it as normal.

As I said earlier, my husband was a very eager participant and educated me a great deal about sex from the male perspective. There was never a time after our marital crisis that I felt the need to show a heavy hand with him.



> OP, have you ever withheld sex for months to "make a point" with your H?


I have not. But I have advised others to on occasion. In one case it was an affair. In another, some very bad behavior that was equally disruptive. It's not the norm.

The norm is for the husband to court the wife. Is there anything wrong with that?


----------



## U.E. McGill

So why portray your marriage as something it's not? Why hide behind the ruse of egalitarianism and proudly stand behind what you practice ?

I make no secrets about my philosophy. My wife's sister loves to but her nose in my shît. Yet her marriage is 10x unhappier. Me, I don't even bother addressing it because I don't carw what she thinks. 

People love to criticize because of their own unhappiness. Who cares?


----------



## Regret214

So, you advised an affair?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ladymisato

Regret214 said:


> So, you advised an affair?


Please. I advised a wife whose husband had had an affair. She was ready to get a divorce. I talked her out of it.


----------



## Regret214

ladymisato said:


> Please. I advised a wife whose husband had had an affair. She was ready to get a divorce. I talked her out of it.


Please. Your context was not clear.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## samyeagar

Regret214 said:


> So, you advised an affair?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Probably if it was the husband trying to withhold sex from the wife. If it was the man who had the affair, it was advice that the woman withhold to teach him a lesson, put him in his place.


----------



## ladymisato

U.E. McGill said:


> So why portray your marriage as something it's not? Why hide behind the ruse of egalitarianism and proudly stand behind what you practice ?


This is something we agreed to early on and have seen no reason to change it. It was primarily his concern but I understand the concern.



> I make no secrets about my philosophy. My wife's sister loves to but her nose in my shît. Yet her marriage is 10x unhappier. Me, I don't even bother addressing it because I don't carw what she thinks. People love to criticize because of their own unhappiness. Who cares?


I think you are too cynical.


----------



## samyeagar

ladymisato said:


> Please. I advised a wife whose husband had had an affair. She was ready to get a divorce. I talked her out of it.


He probably had the affair because they tried buying into this crap...


----------



## ladymisato

samyeagar said:


> He probably had the affair because they tried buying into this crap...


They put the affair behind them and have been quite happy since she took the lead in the marriage.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

ladymisato said:


> leveraging or exercising power or authority precludes a regard for the other. That is simply untrue.


Truth... someone has to lead and at times exercising power is a part of that picture and when the person exercising that power does so with honor, integrity, truth, compassion, all those goodies, then good and well.... when the utmost regard is had ...

I don't include withholding sex for months in the camp of utmost regard. Nor feeding addiction, nor creating stockholm syndrome in the one you say you love. I am very familiar with an environment that creates a intense reaction by withholding sex. And if you are intentionally withholding sex *in order to* create that intense reaction, THAT is feeding an internal chemical reaction in your H's body that is highly addictive. That is consciously creating an addiction in him, and then choosing to feed it to keep it alive. That falls outside of ethics, integrity and honor for me. That is creating a narcissistic supply where you are the opportunist and your H is the host. This is the very relationship I avoided by the skin of my teeth. It is cruelty veiled in love. That opinion based on my personal experience with such. Take it how you want.


----------



## Hope1964

Please - lets not go into affair territory. The advice I foresee will probably be enough to make me want to chuck my coffee cup at my monitor.


----------



## Faeleaf

ladymisato said:


> The rest of your post is well said but I want to disagree with you here. Your assumption, and many others have argued similarly, is that leveraging or exercising power or authority precludes a regard for the other. That is simply untrue.
> 
> And this is a fundamental point of disagreement. If you believe as you do then you will naturally take the view that good marriage must be egalitarian where decisions are made by consensus. But you might consider the possibility that a spouse who is the acknowledged head of the household can still hold a deep regard for the other.
> 
> I believe to miss that is to miss out on a lot in life.


You are right - that is most likely the basis of my belief system. 

However, this basic disregard is just as likely to be seen in egalitarian marriages were decisions are based on consensus. Disregard for others, or if you prefer, more regard for ourselves, is baked into the human psychology and likely to pop up in every kind of human system, regardless of who, if anyone, is leading it. All I have to do is witness my sister's "equal" partnership, circling the drain as it is, to know that it is this very DISREGARD, the preference for oneself over the other person, that undermines marriages. Not the kind of leadership structure in place, since *no* leadership structure alone can prevent such destructive rot from taking hold. You'll find it in unhappy unions everywhere - whether egalitarian, wife-led, or husband-led. 

I'm extraordinarily grateful to have found a partner who shares my view that we win together or lose together, and that this mindset makes a "leader" _unnecessary._ It is not necessary, because we keep rolling the die until we both get a win - keep brainstorming problems until we find a solution that meets both our concerns. When that is the goal of decision-making, designating one party the final arbiter is pointless.


----------



## ladymisato

Blossom Leigh said:


> Truth... someone has to lead and at times exercising power is a part of that picture and when the person exercising that power does so with honor, integrity, truth, compassion, all those goodies, then good and well.... when the utmost regard is had ...


Yes.



> I don't include withholding sex for months in the camp of utmost regard. Nor feeding addiction, nor creating stockholm syndrome in the one you say you love. I am very familiar with an environment that creates a intense reaction by withholding sex. And if you are intentionally withholding sex *in order to* create that intense reaction, THAT is feeding an internal chemical reaction in your H's body that is highly addictive. That is consciously creating an addiction in him, and then choosing to feed it to keep it alive. That falls outside of ethics, integrity and honor for me. That is creating a narcissistic supply where you are the opportunist and your H is the host. This is the very relationship I avoided by the skin of my teeth. It is cruelty veiled in love. That opinion based on my personal experience with such. Take it how you want.


Again, I think you are overmoralizing (and overmedicalizing) on this. We'll just have to disagree on this.


----------



## Regret214

Instead of asking questions about specifics, everyone should just go to the Real Women Don't do Housework website that she runs. That way you know PRECISELY where she's coming from. It's all there in 1's and 0's.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## samyeagar

And just so we're on the same page here, and no misunderstandings...I'm not trying to sway any thoughts or opinions in any direction, or provide anything constructive...I'm just openly mocking you for entertainment purposes only


----------



## ladymisato

Faeleaf said:


> However, this basic disregard is just as likely to be seen in egalitarian marriages were decisions are based on consensus. Disregard for others, or if you prefer, more regard for ourselves, is baked into the human psychology and likely to pop up in every kind of human system, regardless of who, if anyone, is leading it. All I have to do is witness my sister's "equal" partnership, circling the drain as it is, to know that it is this very DISREGARD, the preference for oneself over the other person, that undermines marriages. Not the kind of leadership structure in place, since *no* leadership structure alone can prevent such destructive rot from taking hold. You'll find it in unhappy unions everywhere - whether egalitarian, wife-led, or husband-led.


Agreed.


----------



## Faeleaf

GTdad said:


> Okay, I followed the trail of links, and I think I have a better idea now of what the OP has been attempting to advocate. In the OP's words:
> 
> "As head of the household, you should indulge your own judgment, opinions, and priorities. You act on your own beliefs and values whenever the facts are unknown, insufficient, inadequate, or differently perceived. He must subordinate his judgment, opinions, and priorities to yours. For example, if you feel uncomfortable in a situation you should step back, form your own judgment, and then act on it whereas, once he has offered his opinion to you, he must accept your decision regardless of how it might conflict with his own judgment, opinions, and priorities.
> 
> As head of the household, you control the family finances. He is required to justify his expenses to you. However, there is absolutely no need for you to explain anything whatsoever about the family finances to him. If you give him a budget, it is his duty to follow it; if you require approval for certain purchases, he must obtain such approval. You, on the other hand, are free to spend as you alone see fit whether, in your judgment, for the benefit of the family or merely for your own enjoyment. For example, if you want to buy a new car, that is your decision alone, but if he wants to purchase a new shirt, he must seek your permission.
> 
> In many ways, time is money and so it is that his time is yours to budget or manage as you see fit. You should feel free to offload time consuming or otherwise undesirable tasks on him including family care, housework, shopping, and running errands. It is his responsibility to follow your direction in the management of his time and to seek permission for any deviances from your expectations with respect to his time."
> 
> Holy sh*t.


This honestly sounds more like a parent-child relationship than any marriage between adults that I have ever seen. I'm trying to keep an open mind here, but I'll echo under my breath..._Holy sh*t._ 

I'd feel exactly the same if the genders were reversed in the above. 

If that's a wife-led marriage then I'll have to take back what I said about my dad and step-mom. While she is the dominant partner, their marriage looks NOTHING like that.


----------



## GTdad

samyeagar said:


> And just so we're on the same page here, and no misunderstandings...I'm not trying to sway any thoughts or opinions in any direction, or provide anything constructive...I'm just openly mocking you for entertainment purposes only


It's okay. Those In Charge types are tough enough to take it.


----------



## Regret214

Here's just a sample of OP's expressive thoughts from her website...

"While I had steadily advanced in my own career, his contribution to the family finances had been erratic owing to the fact that his reach too often exceeded his grasp. It was not that he was lazy, he worked hard, but his efforts tended to be all for naught. He was a loser".

What a terrific example of her true inner thoughts and insight to her honest feelings. Instead of the softer approach she's attempting here.

Shame.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Hope1964

I was actually kinda done when the term 'inseminator' was used.


----------



## samyeagar

Faeleaf said:


> This honestly sounds more like a parent-child relationship than any marriage between adults that I have ever seen. I'm trying to keep an open mind here, but I'll echo under my breath..._Holy sh*t._
> 
> I'd feel exactly the same if the genders were reversed in the above.
> 
> If that's a wife-led marriage then I'll have to take back what I said about my dad and step-mom. While she is the dominant partner, their marriage looks NOTHING like that.


As I pointed out in a previous post of mine, there is another member here who has pushed an eerily similar parent-child dynamic as the ideal, only hers is with the husband being the leader, and the wife as the child...almost identical in though process...


----------



## samyeagar

Regret214 said:


> Here's just a sample of OP's expressive thoughts from her website...
> 
> "While I had steadily advanced in my own career, his contribution to the family finances had been erratic owing to the fact that his reach too often exceeded his grasp. It was not that he was lazy, he worked hard, but his efforts tended to be all for naught. *He was a loser*".
> 
> What a terrific example of her true inner thoughts and insight to her honest feelings. Instead of the softer approach she's attempting here.
> 
> Shame.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


And just think...she was the one who decided to marry the loser...I wonder how much of this tripe is her trying to over compensate for what she sees as a bad decision on her part...


----------



## Entropy3000

Regret214 said:


> So, you advised an affair?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


The affair reference flirts with an extreme form of this which can involve denying the husband sex and taking a boy friend. NOT what she is saying here. And yes my reference is a far cry from someone who is the breadwinner leading the marriage in certain ways. But there are those who seek out that extreme. As creepy as that seems.


----------



## Big Tree

Faeleaf said:


> This honestly sounds more like a parent-child relationship than any marriage between adults that I have ever seen. I'm trying to keep an open mind here, but I'll echo under my breath..._Holy sh*t._
> 
> I'd feel exactly the same if the genders were reversed in the above.
> 
> If that's a wife-led marriage then I'll have to take back what I said about my dad and step-mom. While she is the dominant partner, their marriage looks NOTHING like that.


My initial reaction, 20-some pages ago, was that the OP had some serious control issues. I waffled for a page or two...but now I am firmly back in that camp.

Interestingly, the OP admitted a bias against egalitarian relationships since they didn't work for her. Perhaps her controlling behavior wasn't conducive to a successful egalitarian relationship.


----------



## Almostrecovered

ladymisato said:


> They put the affair behind them.



that's called rug sweeping and it may be one of the worst things to do in infidelity


----------



## Davelli0331

Big Tree said:


> My initial reaction, 20-some pages ago, was that the OP had some serious control issues. I waffled for a page or two...but now I am firmly back in that camp.
> 
> Interestingly, the OP admitted a bias against egalitarian relationships since they didn't work for her. Perhaps her controlling behavior wasn't conducive to a successful egalitarian relationship.


LOL, now *there's* a thought


----------



## Faeleaf

Big Tree said:


> My initial reaction, 20-some pages ago, was that the OP had some serious control issues. I waffled for a page or two...but now I am firmly back in that camp.
> 
> Interestingly, the OP admitted a bias against egalitarian relationships since they didn't work for her. Perhaps her controlling behavior wasn't conducive to a successful egalitarian relationship.


I'm sure slave-master relationships can be mutually beneficial and even benevolent. I read and enjoyed _The Story of O_. I'm sure some people seek out that dynamic.

I still wouldn't advise anyone I care about to sign up for it.


----------



## Mr. Nail

Hope1964 said:


> I was actually kinda done when the term 'inseminator' was used.



sorry about that Hope. Fortunately it faded quickly, unfortunately OP considered it a positive role for men.
MN


----------



## Entropy3000

Hope1964 said:


> Please - lets not go into affair territory. The advice I foresee will probably be enough to make me want to chuck my coffee cup at my monitor.


I drink a lot of coffee. Thinking maybe you do too.


----------



## Entropy3000

There are shirts in the store!!! I think one of those would be cool with a one percenter patch.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

There is no overmedicalizing when it comes to raging sex chemicals. Thats hard core biology right there. And yes, it can create a serious addiction.

I'm glad you claim to have not done this to your husband. I advise against any withholding of deep needs like sex, food, subsistence in "managing" a household. That is straight up abuse regardless of how willing the participant is since they are in an addiction fog. Be careful with advising such to others.

If your husbands work ethic was destructive I would have approached that from expecting him to learn how to be constructive. Making him quit never addresses the underlying problem of eratic work ethic. When my horse cant stand still, I dont put him back at the barn. I make him stand on his own longer until he learns to keep his feet still. It is in his best interests to learn some reasonable patience when tied to the fence post. If he doesnt he can injure himself or others. The only reason your husband is no longer destructive in his work habits is not that he learned better and does better, but that he is "kept" in the barn so to say. Would not have been the choice for us.


----------



## samyeagar

Blossom Leigh said:


> There is no overmedicalizing when it comes to raging sex chemicals. Thats hard core biology right there. And yes, it can create a serious addiction.
> 
> I'm glad you claim to have not done this to your husband. I advise against any withholding of deep needs like sex, food, subsistence in "managing" a household. That is straight up abuse regardless of how willing the participant is since they are in an addiction fog. Be careful with advising such to others.
> 
> If your *husband*s work ethic was destructive I would have approached that from expecting him to learn how to be constructive. Making him quit never addresses the underlying problem of eratic work ethic. When my *horse* cant stand still, I dont put him back at the barn. I make him stand on his own longer until he learns to keep his feet still. It is in his best interests to learn some reasonable patience when tied to the fence post. If he doesnt he can injure himself or others. The only reason your husband is no longer destructive in his work habits is not that he learned better and does better, but that he is "kept" in the barn so to say. Would not have been the choice for us.


You may be onto something here...


----------



## Blossom Leigh

samyeagar said:


> You may be onto something here...


Lol... Save a horse, ride a cowboy 

When those around me choose destructively, I expect them to take responsibility for that choice, take their lumps that typically roll in that kind of choice, learn from it, grow in maturity to choose constructive instead, and do so of their own accord.


----------



## samyeagar

Blossom Leigh said:


> Lol... Save a horse, ride a cowboy
> 
> *When those around me choose destructively*, I expect them to take responsibility for that choice, take their lumps that typically roll in that kind of choice, learn from it, grow in maturity to choose constructive instead of their own accord.


Depends on who they are...sometimes it's just fun to make some popcorn and pull up a chair...kinda like this thread


----------



## Blossom Leigh

samyeagar said:


> Depends on who they are...sometimes it's just fun to make some popcorn and pull up a chair...kinda like this thread


Yes, correct... 

When those closests to me .... Should start that line

i stand corrected. 


Thanks!


----------



## ladymisato

Blossom Leigh said:


> If your husbands work ethic was destructive I would have approached that from expecting him to learn how to be constructive. Making him quit never addresses the underlying problem of eratic work ethic.


Maybe if we were depending on his income we would have explored something like you suggest. But, as it happens, we were not and, as it turned out, he is a great homemaker. I think we found the right solution.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

ladymisato said:


> Maybe if we were depending on his income we would have explored something like you suggest. But, as it happens, we were not and, as it turned out, he is a great homemaker. I think we found the right solution.


Its a good thing he is pulling that weight... 

Why was he eratic in work ethic elsewhere 

But isnt at home?


----------



## Davelli0331

ladymisato said:


> Maybe if we were depending on his income we would have explored something like you suggest. But, as it happens, we were not and, as it turned out, he is a great homemaker. *I think we found the right solution.*


Although I guess in your framework, based on what you've put in your blog you don't really particularly care whether or not your husband agrees that it is the right solution, as his wants and needs are simply tools for you to use in manipuation...

But if you ever did decide that you care, how could you ever know that he was giving you an honest answer and not one that you manipulated him into giving?


----------



## ladymisato

Blossom Leigh said:


> Its a good thing he is pulling that weight... Why was he eratic in work ethic elsewhere But isnt at home?


He needed structure. He had it when he had a regular job. He lost it when he quit to do consulting. He got it again when he became a homemaker.

I think everyone is overanalyzing simple things and missing some of the more interesting and creative opportunities in marriage.


----------



## ladymisato

Davelli0331 said:


> Although I guess in your framework, based on what you've put in your blog you don't really particularly care whether or not your husband agrees that it is the right solution, as his wants and needs are simply tools for you to use in manipuation...
> 
> But if you ever did decide that you care, how could you ever know that he was giving you an honest answer and not one that you manipulated him into giving?


In my case it was pretty easy. As soon as we started down this path, he became very enthusiastic about it. He never offered the least resistance to me once I suggested that I become the head of household. At each step along the way he suggested ways to make it work better for us.

So, yes, I have no doubt about his happiness with the outcome.

Now in other marriages it can be more ambiguous. But generally it ends up the same way. Both spouses are happier with her leading the marriage.


----------



## Davelli0331

ladymisato said:


> In my case it was pretty easy. As soon as we started down this path, he became very enthusiastic about it. He never offered the least resistance to me once I suggested that I become the head of household. At each step along the way he suggested ways to make it work better for us.
> 
> So, yes, I have no doubt about his happiness with the outcome.
> 
> Now in other marriages it can be more ambiguous. But generally it ends up the same way. Both spouses are happier with her leading the marriage.


But how do you know unequivocally that his enthusiasm was genuine and not due to your manipulating him, since manipulation is the very crux of your framework?

And how do you define "happy" in this case? When put in any adverse situation, even the smallest nicety can make one relatively "happy", but not nearly so happy as if that person wasn't in that situation at all.


----------



## ladymisato

Davelli0331 said:


> But how do you know unequivocally that his enthusiasm was genuine and not due to your manipulating him, since manipulation is the very crux of your framework?


What you seem not to appreciate is that we developed this "framework" together. It was not a straight line, it was very messy, there were many dead ends, we had to solve many problems. But eventually we got it right.



> And how do you define "happy" in this case? When put in any adverse situation, even the smallest nicety can make one relatively "happy", but not nearly so happy as if that person wasn't in that situation at all.


This is true. It is a mystery of life. But it does not take away from the fact that he is not just happy but happier. Happier than he was before we changed things. And this is what I have seen in other wife led marriages also. Both spouses are happier after the change.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

ladymisato said:


> He needed structure. He had it when he had a regular job. He lost it when he quit to do consulting. He got it again when he became a homemaker.
> 
> I think everyone is overanalyzing simple things and missing some of the more interesting and creative opportunities in marriage.


As long as "interesting and creative" isn't code word for whitewashed abuse... I'm fine with it.

So... why did he quit the first job and what was his line of work?


----------



## ladymisato

Blossom Leigh said:


> As long as "interesting and creative" isn't code word for whitewashed abuse... I'm fine with it.


Well, I think we have to recognize the fact that you consider things abusive that I don't. I tried using the workplace analogy to explain why I don't but I guess I didn't succeed.



> So... why did he quit the first job and what was his line of work?


He wanted to have a go at consulting. It's a very common career trajectory but not everyone is suited to it.


----------



## samyeagar

ladymisato said:


> In my case it was pretty easy. As soon as we started down this path, he became very enthusiastic about it. He never offered the least resistance to me once I suggested that I become the head of household. *At each step along the way he suggested ways to make it work better for us*.
> 
> So, yes, I have no doubt about his happiness with the outcome.
> 
> Now in other marriages it can be more ambiguous. But generally it ends up the same way. Both spouses are happier with her leading the marriage.


I wonder if he's smarter than we've given him credit for so far...sounds almost like the old adage of letting the woman THINK she's in charge...damn this guys pulled a good one here!


----------



## Blossom Leigh

ladymisato said:


> Well, I think we have to recognize the fact that you consider things abusive that I don't.


Yep, Darlin' 

abusers never do consider their abuse abusive

but they DO dismiss others who do see it

look down their noses

blameshift

gaslight

avoid

evade

shall I go on?

I choose to look it straight in the eye and say "I see you"

I prefer exposure to the light over the darkness and all your veiled words aren't fooling me.

your blog promotes using "erotic power" to manipulate and control for YOUR goals. 

and for you to come back and respin that as "interesting and creative" is total B.S. Darlin...

You are making a conscious choice to use the chemicals inside your husband's body to achieve your goals... nothing more than a crack dealer mentality.. and there is no justification for that. Sorry... I'm out


----------



## Regret214

samyeagar said:


> I wonder if he's smarter than we've given him credit for so far...sounds almost like the old adage of letting the woman THINK she's in charge...damn this guys pulled a good one here!


That's why I called him brilliant last night. It's like Dig screwing up the laundry so he knows I'll notice and never let him near the washer again! Just f'ng brilliant!!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Davelli0331

Blossom Leigh said:


> Yep, Darlin'
> 
> abusers never do consider their abuse abusive
> 
> but they DO dismiss others who do see it
> 
> look down their noses
> 
> blameshift
> 
> gaslight
> 
> avoid
> 
> evade
> 
> shall I go on?
> 
> I choose to look it straight in the eye and say "I see you"
> 
> I prefer exposure to the light over the darkness and all your veiled words aren't fooling me.
> 
> your blog promotes using "erotic power" to manipulate and control for YOUR goals.
> 
> and for you to come back and respin that as "interesting and creative" is total B.S. Darlin...
> 
> You are making a conscious choice to use the chemicals inside your husband's body to achieve your goals... nothing more than a crack dealer mentality.. and there is no justification for that. Sorry... I'm out


Unfortunately, OP likely got exactly what she wanted - traffic for her blog, exposure for her book, etc.


----------



## ladymisato

Blossom Leigh said:


> You are making a conscious choice to use the chemicals inside your husband's body to achieve your goals... nothing more than a crack dealer mentality.. and there is no justification for that. Sorry... I'm out


There is a clinical definition of addiction and it is not that. There is also a colloquial usage that is a closer fit. I didn't deny the addiction term in the colloquial sense. But please do try to avoid equivocation.


----------



## samyeagar

Regret214 said:


> That's why I called him brilliant last night. It's like Dig screwing up the laundry so he knows I'll notice and never let him near the washer again! Just f'ng brilliant!!
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Great minds think alike you and I? Or something like that...sorry I missed your post on that. I didn't bother reading them all...didn't need to to realize that I just wanted to have a good laugh at all this...too far over the top to even remotely be taken seriously...but that's probably just me being too embarrassed and conformist, and complaint to societal standards to admit that this is actually indeed the BEST THING EVER!


----------



## Blossom Leigh

ladymisato said:


> There is a clinical definition of addiction and it is not that. There is also a colloquial usage that is a closer fit. I didn't deny the addiction term in the colloquial sense. But please do try to avoid equivocation.


:rofl::rofl::rofl:

Tell these people that....
http://www.adrenalineaddicts.org/

and these
http://www.adultchildren.org/

and these
https://saa-recovery.org/

and these
http://www.shopaholicsanonymous.org/

and these
http://www.gamblersanonymous.org/ga/


and on and on....


----------



## samyeagar

"Everything is awesome...everything is cool when you're part of a team..."


----------



## samyeagar

ladymisato said:


> There is a clinical definition of addiction and it is not that. There is also a colloquial usage that is a closer fit. I didn't deny the addiction term in the colloquial sense. But please do try to avoid equivocation.


Gah...no doubt...that Blossom...such an equivocator...ya hear that Blossom? You're nothing but a no good, low down equivocator!


----------



## Theseus

Davelli0331 said:


> The above is why I can't help but get a bit of a "revenge feminist" feel to your whole framework. Again, if it works for some people, that's great. No problem there, but you're pushing this as the fix to the current divorce rate.



It might surprise you to know that man-hating feminists generally don't want anything to do with dominating men. It's easy to expect they would, but the really hard-core "revenge feminist" women know that submissive men get their rocks off from being dominated, and so they want no part in it. That's my impression from knowing many other people in dominant/submissive lifestyles.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

samyeagar said:


> "Everything is awesome...everything is cool when you're part of a team..."


omg you are cracking me up SY! "when we live in our dreams...

I'm just not a believer in "addiction-lite"

There ARE addictions outside of external substance abuse that involve the very internal chemicals you are playing with OP.

In good conscious I could not go there... to use them for my own means.

As they say here in the South, "That just ain't rite"


----------



## Theseus

Regret214 said:


> Wasn't that in Mein Kampf?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Regret, since you decided to go to ludicrous extremes with the Nazi comparison, I will too. IMHO your constant bullying in this thread, insults toward the OP, and attacking her on a personal level smacks of Nazi-tactics far more than the OP. 

Several pages back, French Fry (the moderator) had to ask people to tone down the hostility. Now it's back up again. I'm guessing now she doesn't want to read this far out into the thread. 

This is a message for everyone: if you can't make your point without insults, then it's probably not a point worth making. 



Regret214 said:


> I still don't understand why the thought of EQUAL is so horrible.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Hmmmm OK. So why don't you ask a gay couple what is so horrible about heterosexuality?? Answer: not everyone wants to be heterosexual. Not everyone wants a "vanilla" egalitarian relationship either. 

Look, I have no clue why on Earth any man would enjoy being married to another man. I have no clue why anyone would enjoy eating eggplant either. But I don't have to understand it in order to support their freedom to do it.


----------



## Regret214

Bullying?? Okay.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## samyeagar

FrenchFry said:


> I'm just at work, monitoring.
> 
> I understand there is going to be disagreement. The point can be made without snarkiness, hostility or the like.
> 
> I hate closing down threads and I'm more apt to do so than clean them up. I'll be here after hours...


Do I get any special consideration since I blatantly stated so as to avoid any misunderstanding that I was going to be openly mocking in this thread?


----------



## Almostrecovered

Surely I'm your favorite FF (bats eyes)


----------



## samyeagar

Almostrecovered said:


> Surely I'm your favorite FF (bats eyes)


Hey...I'm the woman in THIS relationship...(bats AR over the head)


----------



## GettingIt_2

FrenchFry said:


> I'm just at work, monitoring.
> 
> I understand there is going to be disagreement. The point can be made without snarkiness, hostility or the like.
> 
> I hate closing down threads and I'm more apt to do so than clean them up. I'll be here after hours...


I just spent ten minutes trying to figure out what the moving lips in your avatar are saying. No luck.


----------



## Davelli0331

GettingIt said:


> I just spent ten minutes trying to figure out what the moving lips in your avatar are saying. No luck.


After staring at it intently for longer than I should have the best I can work out is "flat dudes flelmeta splesh sploing"


----------



## Nikita2270

ladymisato said:


> Empowering women is one of the "pop" trends that are driving this, I think. I can understand your cynicism, though.


Female empowerment has zero to do with manipulating weak men.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## samyeagar

Nikita2270 said:


> Female empowerment has zero to do with manipulating weak men.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Sure makes it easier to create the illusion though...


----------



## Regret214

FrenchFry said:


> I'm just at work, monitoring.
> 
> I understand there is going to be disagreement. The point can be made without snarkiness, hostility or the like.
> 
> I hate closing down threads and I'm more apt to do so than clean them up. I'll be here after hours...



"Are you not entertained?!". Maximus, in Gladiator
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Hope1964

Gawd, I wish this thread WOULD be shut down. 

Ladywhatever, why don't you ask to join this social group? Maybe the people there will actually agree with you. In case it isn't obvious, the vast majority here on the main board certainly do not.

http://talkaboutmarriage.com/groups/getting++good!.html


----------



## Nikita2270

U.E. McGill said:


> See this is where your incomplete. You wallowed away for 20 years with a man who you knew you shouldn't be married to only to divorce him. Had you ignored the sunk cost fallacy maybe you would have met your beloved sooner instead of wasting 20 years.
> 
> Thanks you for supporting my opinion with facts. With 7 billion people on earth your partner is no snowflake. It's great you met him, and you choose to be with him. Good for you!
> 
> I feel sorry for you, as it took 20 years to find him.


Wise people realize there's no such thing as a wasted life experience unless you learn nothing from it. 

I've learned to never waste a minute of my life with someone that I would insult and degrade by calling them replaceable.

I hope your wife eventually finds the same. I'm sure she's worth someone who truly values the unique creature that she is.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Theseus

Faeleaf said:


> This honestly sounds more like a parent-child relationship than any marriage between adults that I have ever seen. I'm trying to keep an open mind here, but I'll echo under my breath..._Holy sh*t._
> 
> I'd feel exactly the same if the genders were reversed in the above.
> 
> If that's a wife-led marriage then I'll have to take back what I said about my dad and step-mom. While she is the dominant partner, their marriage looks NOTHING like that.



There's a difference between what your parents had, vs. overt dominant/submissive relationships. If the control of one person over the other is openly agreed to and acknowledged, it greatly lessens the chances of misunderstandings or abuse. 

If you saw some of the things my wife and I were up to behind closed doors, you would probably say "Holy sh*t" then too. But it's more common than a lot of people think.


----------



## Nikita2270

_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faeleaf

Theseus said:


> Hmmmm OK. So why don't you ask a gay couple what is so horrible about heterosexuality?? Answer: not everyone wants to be heterosexual. Not everyone wants a "vanilla" egalitarian relationship either.
> 
> Look, I have no clue why on Earth any man would enjoy being married to another man. I have no clue why anyone would enjoy eating eggplant either. But I don't have to understand it in order to support their freedom to do it.


Support freedom - absolutely. 

However, to be fair, if you came to TAM and started a thread promoting _homosexual marriage_ as a cure for _struggling heterosexual marriages_, you'd probably get more than just a raised eyebrow in response. 

Since it seems that most people here are pursuing egalitarian unions, and trying to make the best of them, offering as a counter what could be termed "radical totalitarianism" (which the OP has soft-pedaled a little, but which her writing elsewhere seems to promote), where one partner has total control over both spouses's decisions, money, and time...well, she's going to get more than just a raised eyebrow in response. 

In the first example, unless you were pre-disposed to be homosexual already, the notion that you should leave your wife and settle down with a man would be abhorrent to you. And no amount of promotion from the OP would change that. 

Similarly, unless you were pre-disposed to WANT to either completely dominate, or be completely dominated by your partner, the idea that you should start that up with your spouse - that in fact that arrangement is _SUPERIOR_ to being equal - is likely to fall on your ears like utter nonsense. 

I am not encouraging rude behavior, snarkiness or sarcasm. I'd like to think we're better than that - in fact I'm sure we are. Just that our incredulity - even dismissiveness - is to be expected to a certain degree.


----------



## Marduk

Almostrecovered said:


> "Taking control of sex entails training your husband that sex is for your benefit, not his. It is not the case that he is no longer to be allowed to enjoy sex. On the contrary, you will find that under the new arrangement he will be more excited and satisfied than ever. It is simply that even when sex is directed at your satisfaction, your husband will inevitably be satisfied as well. "
> 
> let's face it, this is just dom sub stuff and is hardly the norm nor a rising trend
> 
> whatever floats your boat I guess


... and here's my core problem and why I went immediately to the data and the science/rationale behind the data.

From the beginning, there has been a clear power agenda in play here.

This hasn't ever been about being egalitarian. It's about control.

Some people are happy being controlled. Some people are happy being controlling.

This doesn't mean it's a trend, or that it works for most people, or that it's even a stable situation that you can recommend to others.

In short, I would argue that it's likely quite harmful and serves no purpose other than the author's agenda.

I puked up the red pill and the "male agenda" nonsense for much the same reason.


----------



## treyvion

ladymisato said:


> Interestingly, you are describing almost exactly what husbands have said in the reverse situation. We talked a lot about marriages like mine where the wife works and the husband stays home. But there are also many wife led marriages where the husband works and the wife stays home. The husband enjoys checking his ego at the door and letting his wife run the home. In fact, I would say that this probably reflects an informal reality that is the most common situation.


This is more real than a household where everyone knows the man is "in charge". I just don't see that happening very often, and if it does people would be angry.


----------



## Faeleaf

marduk said:


> ... and here's my core problem and why I went immediately to the data and the science/rationale behind the data.
> 
> From the beginning, there has been a clear power agenda in play here.
> 
> This hasn't ever been about being egalitarian. It's about control.
> 
> Some people are happy being controlled. Some people are happy being controlling.
> 
> This doesn't mean it's a trend, or that it works for most people, or that it's even a stable situation that you can recommend to others.
> 
> In short, I would argue that it's likely quite harmful and serves no purpose other than the author's agenda.
> 
> I puked up the red pill and the "male agenda" nonsense for much the same reason.


I was completely on board with you until the end, which seemed to be worded a little strongly. 

If couples desire a controlling/controlled relationship, and it's done in a caring, benevolent manner, I doubt it's harmful.

Agree that this will appeal to a small fringe of couples, however, and that pushing the idea mainstream would not be beneficial for the majority of marriages.


----------



## Nikita2270

The only issue with this thread is the OP trying to not call her marriage...or anyone like it, for what it is.

There will always be insecure individuals who either need to be controlled or have someone else control them because they are weak , damaged or incomplete. These people don't understand the benefits of having an equal partner and need to manipulate someone to feel OK with themselves. This is nothing new and there's nothing wrong with it for those individuals. They aspire to nothing more and are satisfied with their inferior relationships because they can't fathom anything else.

If she's OK with her weak willed husband who she insults on her website and he let's her do it. Or If he let's her use sex as a weapon and she brags about it. Good for them. Its what they're capable of.

Of course her suggesting its superior to relationships of equals is ridiculous but she...and others like her....wouldnt be able to grasp that.

Weak people attract weak people and have relationships...nothing wrong with it.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## GettingIt_2

I don't mean to be obtuse, OP, but I still don't understand what is radical about your idea. I still don't understand your notion of leadership. Perhaps its because I don't have a good feel for how it plays out in your marriage. (Other than with income, which I admit I think is a red herring when it comes to establishing leadership.) Like, what happens when he fails in his role? Is there a sanction, a punishment? What happens when you fail to lead well? Does he pick up the slack?

I understand how HoH marriages work in general; I just am at a loss as to see how yours qualifies. Again, I'm not trying to be obtuse, but what does it look like for you to lead?

Hmmm . . . let me see if I can come up with an example. Lets say you come home from work at the end of a long day and your husband didn't meet your expectations as far as his duties go. He didn't get the laundry done, or he forget items from the store again, or your dry cleaning is still sitting at the dry cleaners. Whatever. What to you DO about this? Is there a formal structure in place where he goes without sex for three days (for example)? Or is that just what happens when he doesn't please you? Your attraction to him plummets and he doesn't get laid?

I guess what I'm after here is: where is the accountability? What has he agreed upon as far as this goes? Have you discussed it?

And what is his recourse when he feels like you're falling on your face as a leader? When he feels you are making an unwise financial choice, or an unfair parenting choice, or even that you are not taking good care of yourself? Surely he as a loving husband and father would not abdicate all agency in this marriage. It doesn't seem responsible to do that. He owes that much to his children, if not to his wife. 

I won't quibble with you if you say he is happy with the current dynamic--but I look at it and say, well what man wouldn't be? He doesn't have to work, his wife is content, and he is getting more sex than he ever did. And all he has to do is agree (to you, not to society at large) that he is in a wife-led marriage, and "court" you--which I'm guessing means treat you lovingly and romantically and in ways that demonstrate his attraction to you. 

You can flip gender roles here and say the same thing about women who placate their husbands by allowing them to believe that they are the HoH. Give him sex, stroke his ego, keep his shirts ironed and his sandwiches coming . . . and do whatever the hell you want with your mind and time when it's not occupied with keeping husband happy. 

It's not like people in HoH marriages go around announcing to their friends--hey, I'm in a marriage where one of us submits to the other. These marriages, from the outside, look pretty much like "equal power marriages" (for lack of a better term). 

No one that I know IRL would guess that I'm in a 24/7 D/s marriage. They wouldn't' even know if they came to my house and stayed with me for a week! 

So what possibly could have been your husband's incentive to say "no" to this? Unless he's got a strong need or desire to be a dominate himself, he's got it made. All he has to do is say, "Sure honey, you're in charge." 

I do apologize if I've missed a salient point somewhere in this long thread. But your marriage, to me, just looks like one in which the two spouses found an arrangement that works best for them as far as division of labor goes. You like to have more say in the day to day, your husband likes to have more sex--seems like a negotiated trade more than a power shift. Not that there is ANYTHING wrong with that.


----------



## Entropy3000

Regret214 said:


> That's why I called him brilliant last night. It's like Dig screwing up the laundry so he knows I'll notice and never let him near the washer again! Just f'ng brilliant!!
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I think Dig should dress up in a French Maid outfit and do some cleaning.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

:lol:


----------



## GettingIt_2

Davelli0331 said:


> After staring at it intently for longer than I should have the best I can work out is "flat dudes flelmeta splesh sploing"


Rocky Horror Picture Show--Science Fiction Double Feature!


----------



## samyeagar

GettingIt said:


> I don't mean to be obtuse, OP, but I still don't understand what is radical about your idea. I still don't understand your notion of leadership. Perhaps its because I don't have a good feel for how it plays out in your marriage. (Other than with income, which I admit I think is a red herring when it comes to establishing leadership.) Like, what happens when he fails in his role? Is there a sanction, a punishment? What happens when you fail to lead well? Does he pick up the slack?
> 
> I understand how HoH marriages work in general; I just am at a loss as to see how yours qualifies. Again, I'm not trying to be obtuse, but what does it look like for you to lead?
> 
> Hmmm . . . let me see if I can come up with an example. Lets say you come home from work at the end of a long day and your husband didn't meet your expectations as far as his duties go. He didn't get the laundry done, or he forget items from the store again, or your dry cleaning is still sitting at the dry cleaners. Whatever. What to you DO about this? Is there a formal structure in place where he goes without sex for three days (for example)? Or is that just what happens when he doesn't please you? Your attraction to him plummets and he doesn't get laid?
> 
> I guess what I'm after here is: where is the accountability? What has he agreed upon as far as this goes? Have you discussed it?
> 
> And what is his recourse when he feels like you're falling on your face as a leader? When he feels you are making an unwise financial choice, or an unfair parenting choice, or even that you are not taking good care of yourself? Surely he as a loving husband and father would not abdicate all agency in this marriage. It doesn't seem responsible to do that. He owes that much to his children, if not to his wife.
> 
> I won't quibble with you if you say he is happy with the current dynamic--but I look at it and say, well what man wouldn't be? He doesn't have to work, his wife is content, and he is getting more sex than he ever did. And all he has to do is agree (to you, not to society at large) that he is in a wife-led marriage, and "court" you--which I'm guessing means treat you lovingly and romantically and in ways that demonstrate his attraction to you.
> 
> You can flip gender roles here and say the same thing about women who placate their husbands by allowing them to believe that they are the HoH. Give him sex, stroke his ego, keep his shirts ironed and his sandwiches coming . . . and do whatever the hell you want with your mind and time when it's not occupied with keeping husband happy.
> 
> It's not like people in HoH marriages go around announcing to their friends--hey, I'm in a marriage where one of us submits to the other. These marriages, from the outside, look pretty much like "equal power marriages" (for lack of a better term).
> 
> No one that I know IRL would guess that I'm in a 24/7 D/s marriage. They wouldn't' even know if they came to my house and stayed with me for a week!
> 
> So what possibly could have been your husband's incentive to say "no" to this? Unless he's got a strong need or desire to be a dominate himself, he's got it made. All he has to do is say, "Sure honey, you're in charge."
> 
> I do apologize if I've missed a salient point somewhere in this long thread. But your marriage, to me, just looks like one in which the two spouses found an arrangement that works best for them as far as division of labor goes. You like to have more say in the day to day, your husband likes to have more sex--seems like a negotiated trade more than a power shift. Not that there is ANYTHING wrong with that.


Your point about missing the point I think is the point  There is absolutely nothing new or revolutionary with the OP's point, and I think she is just having a hard time accepting that there really is nothing special about her and her marriage.

You are spot on in that what they have found is essentially the exact same thing that every other successful marriage has found...the two partners finding a way to make it work for them.


----------



## Nikita2270

samyeagar said:


> Your point about missing the point I think is the point  There is absolutely nothing new or revolutionary with the OP's point, and I think she is just having a hard time accepting that there really is nothing special about her and her marriage.
> 
> You are spot on in that what they have found is essentially the exact same thing that every other successful marriage has found...the two partners finding a way to make it work for them.


Agreed.

Personally I can't say I could do it. The idea of having to financially support a grown adult is abhorrant to me. Having sex with a financial dependent wouldn't work for me and bossing them around wouldn't help. I need the excitement and challenge of an independent equal.

To each their own. The point is you have to find out what works for what level you are in life.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife

samyeagar said:


> Your point about missing the point I think is the point  There is absolutely nothing new or revolutionary with the OP's point, and I think she is just having a hard time accepting that there really is nothing special about her and her marriage.
> 
> You are spot on in that what they have found is essentially the exact same thing that every other successful marriage has found...the two partners finding a way to make it work for them.


I actually think that people finding what works for them and being successful in marriage IS special.


----------



## Davelli0331

GettingIt, as you're in an admitted D/S marriage, can you tell me, are the things that OP has put forth in her blog typically the way that D/S marriages/relationships operate, irrespective of which gender is the dom and which is the sub?


----------



## Eagle3

_Gawd, I wish this thread WOULD be shut down. 

Ladywhatever, why don't you ask to join this social group? Maybe the people there will actually agree with you. In case it isn't obvious, the vast majority here on the main board certainly do not.

http://talkaboutmarriage.com/groups/getting++good!.html _


I wouldn't be so sure of that.


----------



## Regret214

Entropy3000 said:


> I think Dig should dress up in a French Maid outfit and do some cleaning.



I'll suggest that. But only for Friday nights.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## samyeagar

Faithful Wife said:


> I actually think that people finding what works for them and being successful in marriage IS special.


The nuance is in what I said...successful marriages by definition means the couple HAS found what works...


----------



## Blossom Leigh

And the "way" she is achieving it is not an unloaded issue for sure since addictions can worsen over time *if *this is how she is achieving her means. *If* he has an underlying addiction, what happens when it hits the wall.

I get the whole sub dom thing... been there done that, could have been a serious addiction for me as the sub, and I love it when hubs gets aggressive with me behind closed doors, but once we are on the living day to day side of those doors mutual love, respect, submission with him leading well with me as his wing man (not back seat driver), is my ideal. Hubs knew about my propensity for addiction in that area and consciously chose not to enable, feed or be controlled by it. It is to his credit big time for making that choice.


----------



## GettingIt_2

Davelli0331 said:


> GettingIt, as you're in an admitted D/S marriage, can you tell me, are the things that OP has put forth in her blog typically the way that D/S marriages/relationships operate, irrespective of which gender is the dom and which is the sub?


I have not read her blog. 

Also, I was a little uncomfortable after submitting my last post. The last thing I want to suggest is that there is a "one way" to establish HoH or D/s arrangements, and that I somehow know what it is just because I have a D/s marriage. 

D/s marriages are negotiated like any other marriage dynamic, and are at the mercy of two cooperating individuals to thrive. That being said, there usually is a formal AGREED UPON way to address failures by the "submissive" in the relationship. You don't just get to say, "no sex for you!" if that's not a pre-negotiated part of the deal. 

I'll also add that I think HoH is not necessarily D/s. Lots of people would agree that they are in a HoH marriage but would be horrified if it was suggested that one partner was the Dom/me and one was the submissive. 

I see HoH as more of a desire for a marriage in which one person plays the traditional (male) role, and one the (traditional) female role, even if those roles are reversed. D/s, IMO, is driven more by the desire to recognize and honor psycho-sexual desire as it relates to power. In other words, what drives desire in the bedroom is used to dictate how the relationship is structured outside the bedroom instead of the other way around, where what happens outside the bedroom dictates the quality of what happens in the bedroom. 

I hope that wasn't over-answering your question. It probably was. Sorry.


----------



## ladymisato

Nikita2270 said:


> Female empowerment has zero to do with manipulating weak men.


Feminism and female empowerment has different meanings to different people. Some women are just a little less inhibited about their power than others.


----------



## Entropy3000

Regret214 said:


> I'll suggest that. But only for Friday nights.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


TGIF :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:


----------



## Faithful Wife

samyeagar said:


> The nuance is in what I said...successful marriages by definition means the couple HAS found what works...


But they have found what works for them, haven't they? I was responding to your saying she can't accept there's nothing special about her marriage. IMO, successful marriages ARE special, so why would she have to accept her is not special?


----------



## ladymisato

treyvion said:


> This is more real than a household where everyone knows the man is "in charge". I just don't see that happening very often, and if it does people would be angry.


I'll grant you is it much less PC to say either spouse is "in charge" but the difference is that women fell free to describe their husbands as head of household while the reverse is not (yet) true.


----------



## samyeagar

Faithful Wife said:


> But they have found what works for them, haven't they? I was responding to your saying she can't accept there's nothing special about her marriage. IMO, successful marriages ARE special, so why would she have to accept her is not special?


Using the subset of successful marriages, they have found what works for them, as has every other couple in the subset of successful marriages.


----------



## Entropy3000

And yes it is not inconceiveable that her husband is down with this.


----------



## Faithful Wife

samyeagar said:


> Using the subset of successful marriages, they have found what works for them, as has every other couple in the subset of successful marriages.


And successful marriages ARE special so again, why should she not feel hers is special? Who is anyone else to say it isn't special?


----------



## skype

This controlling relationship model was the reason for the women's liberation movement in the 1960's-1970's. While it may work for a small number of people, I don't think that it will widely adopted because most of us do not want to be "led" (controlled) by our spouses. 

We have to yield to the decisions of our company's CEO, and we have to put up with bad decisions of our politicians; we damn well want to have some power in our own homes, without having to submit to a spouse who supposedly knows what is best for us, just because they control the money in the family.

The OP asks why she is supposed to pretend to the outside world that they have an egalitarian marriage. It is because family and friends lose respect for anyone who willingly gives up their power to a spouse, no matter how "happy" that makes them.


----------



## Nikita2270

ladymisato said:


> Feminism and female empowerment has different meanings to different people. Some women are just a little less inhibited about their power than others.


Wrong. Exploitation of a weak financial dependent has ZERO to do with female empowerment... ZERO.

Empowerment is a personal development process that comes from achieving goals...not manipulating weaklings.

Again if this works for you and your partner let's you treat him this way...whatever but it has nothing to do with female empowerment and its offensive that you call it that.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Yep.. there is a whole chapter in her book about withholding sex and making him beg to serve you again as punishment and further idea of penance. 

If my H begged to serve me it would turn my stomach

on the flip side

avoiding being the sub to a true dom was the right choice for me... addiction behaviors would have been my m.o. and I had grown to a level of health at the time where I KNEW I didn't want to live like that.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Nikita2270 said:


> Wrong. Exploitation of a weak financial dependent has ZERO to do with female empowerment... ZERO.
> 
> Empowerment is a personal development process that comes from achieving goals...not manipulating weaklings.
> 
> Again if this works for you and your partner let's you treat him this way...whatever but it has nothing to do with female empowerment and its offensive that you call it that.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_



Exploitation may be the accurate word here... just depends on what is truly happening which we will never truly know in this thread.


----------



## Davelli0331

GettingIt said:


> I have not read her blog.
> 
> Also, I was a little uncomfortable after submitting my last post. The last thing I want to suggest is that there is a "one way" to establish HoH or D/s arrangements, and that I somehow know what it is just because I have a D/s marriage.
> 
> D/s marriages are negotiated like any other marriage dynamic, and are at the mercy of two cooperating individuals to thrive. That being said, there usually is a formal AGREED UPON way to address failures by the "submissive" in the relationship. You don't just get to say, "no sex for you!" if that's not a pre-negotiated part of the deal.
> 
> I'll also add that I think HoH is not necessarily D/s. Lots of people would agree that they are in a HoH marriage but would be horrified if it was suggested that one partner was the Dom/me and one was the submissive.
> 
> I see HoH as more of a desire for a marriage in which one person plays the traditional (male) role, and one the (traditional) female role, even if those roles are reversed. D/s, IMO, is driven more by the desire to recognize and honor psycho-sexual desire as it relates to power. In other words, what drives desire in the bedroom is used to dictate how the relationship is structured outside the bedroom instead of the other way around, where what happens outside the bedroom dictates the quality of what happens in the bedroom.
> 
> I hope that wasn't over-answering your question. It probably was. Sorry.


Nah, not over-answering at all. If you'll go back (or care, really) a few pages in this thread, you can see a few excerpts from OP's blog, and I was just wondering how that lined up with your understanding of that subculture, with the up front admission of course that different couples might adhere to or implement that subculture differently.


----------



## ladymisato

Nikita2270 said:


> Wrong. Exploitation of a weak financial dependent has ZERO to do with female empowerment... ZERO.
> 
> Empowerment is a personal development process that comes from achieving goals...not manipulating weaklings.
> 
> Again if this works for you and your partner let's you treat him this way...whatever but it has nothing to do with female empowerment and its offensive that you call it that.


I am sorry to have offended you but the word "empowerment" is a derivative if "power". And suffice it to say that wives can achieve goals at home. So, honestly, I don't know why you are so offended by this. (I am assuming that you are not taking your own straw man seriously, of course. Just because a wife "manipulates" her husband to achieve her domestic goals does not mean that he is a weakling.)


----------



## Entropy3000

Random :



> As noted previously, overstimulation can result in a messy end to a conversation. Some men will simply not last a useful period of time. Eventually, you will find yourself desperately trying to hold back an eruption.
> 
> As it turns out, interrupting the male climax is very easy. The male climax is essentially a series of contractions to force an expression of fluids through the duct running along the base of the member. If you constrict this tube with your thumb, while gripping his member firmly in your hand, the fluids back up and the climax is aborted. Maintain your hold until his spasm passes which may take as much as a minute. This is known as “choking the chicken”.
> 
> This has two effects: it is extremely frustrating for him and it is slightly painful like a quick, sharp pinch deep in his testicles. Now saying that it is slightly painful may cause you to recoil. Remember, however, men do not regard pain the same as we do. For a man, pain can be an expression of devotion. If you set the context right, he will react quite well to this. The key to making it work is to convey the message “not yet.” That is the essential context of the technique.
> 
> There is no health harm in occasionally blocking expressions so long as there is an eventual release, say, at least once a month. Use this technique sparingly and with purpose.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

The empowerment she speaks of are those things like education, rights to vote, job opportunities that empower you as an individual female to provide for yourself and those who depend on you and give you a voice.

IF you are exploiting someone who is dependent on you, she is saying that does not fall under the category of female empowerment in her opinion and she finds it offensive that you place it there.

You feigning not seeing why she finds that offensive is b.s. You knew exactly what she meant.. therefore your comment was an attempt at gaslighting her.


----------



## Entropy3000

> Power Grip
> 
> When you are making important statements to your husband, you should assume the power grip. In the power grip, you hold his member gently in one hand while you hold his testicles firmly in the other. The position itself will demand his full attention. Additionally you can alternate between giving pleasure and discomfort depending on the point you are trying to make. For example, if you are discussing his failure to put the toilet seat down you might punctuate your displeasure with a slight squeeze of his testicles. Then when he promises not to do it again, stroke a little faster.



There is an actual a separate section concerning Punishment. Like :



> 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. Public disobedience can be met with public revelation of this tender fact. The panties will be a constant reminder of the precariousness of his situation in the marriage.
> 
> Revelation
> 
> Even men who embrace submission to their wives are reluctant to allow others to know about it. This provides you with great leverage.
> 
> 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.


So some typical dom/sub stuff.


----------



## GettingIt_2

Davelli0331 said:


> Nah, not over-answering at all. If you'll go back (or care, really) a few pages in this thread, you can see a few excerpts from OP's blog, and I was just wondering how that lined up with your understanding of that subculture, with the up front admission of course that different couples might adhere to or implement that subculture differently.


I saw the excerpts. Without her husband's honest input, it's impossible to know whether or not their arrangement is "healthy", aka fully consensual between two mentally competent adults. 

I mean, it could be that her husband is a sub and loves to beg for sex when he's bad. There really isn't enough info in this thread to know--at least not enough for me to be comfortable passing judgement. 

Despite the fact that I'm in a D/s marriage, and love every minute of it (well, okay not EVERY minute ) I don't feel the need to defend it against people who don't respect it as healthy. I guess I just don't care enough what other people think. I don't NEED other people to understand it or like it. You either get it or you don't. I'm happy to answer honest questions, but defend my marriage? Nah, don't need to. 

I think that's sort of the tide that OP is pushing against here. She's really into her marriage dynamic. It works great for her and (she says) for her husband. But she is looking in the wrong place if she wants affirmation. I'm happy she's happy, but don't ask me to judge whether or not it's healthy, LOL. I'm half of the mind that MARRIAGE ain't healthy, period! :rofl:


----------



## ladymisato

Blossom Leigh said:


> The empowerment she speaks of are those things like education, rights to vote, job opportunities that empower you as an individual female to provide for yourself and those who depend on you and give you a voice.


Alright, I am educating women about their feminine powers. I am empowering them, as individual females, to become the head of their household and otherwise reorder their marriage. In some cases, I am helping them to pursue a career by having the husband stay home.

Now I'll grant you it is not exactly the same as you are describing but it's pretty close and so I'm not at all clear why you believe that your examples of female empowerment are more legitimate than mine.



> IF you are exploiting someone who is dependent on you, she is saying that does not fall under the category of female empowerment in her opinion and she finds it offensive that you place it there.


You are being circular, though. The dependency comes as a result of the reorganization of the household. In my case, for example, I became head of the household first and then asked my husband to become a homemaker. Of course, he became dependent upon me then but that was a result of my decision as head of the household.


----------



## U.E. McGill

Nikita2270 said:


> Wise people realize there's no such thing as a wasted life experience unless you learn nothing from it.
> 
> 
> 
> I've learned to never waste a minute of my life with someone that I would insult and degrade by calling them replaceable.
> 
> 
> 
> I hope your wife eventually finds the same. I'm sure she's worth someone who truly values the unique creature that she is.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_



She did, me! Thanks for the words of encouragement. 

It took you 20 years to learn that so maybe your learn at a slow pace.


----------



## Marduk

This stuff is horrific in my opinion, and if I were to suggest it to my spouse or any of my partners I would expect a visit from the local constabulary and to be single for a very long time.

A little dom/sub stuff in the bedroom can be fun.

However I would consider this stuff to be abuse and I think there would be a lot of legal/psychological president to support this statement.

Consent of the exploited doesn't make it acceptable, it makes it pathetic.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

GettingIt said:


> fully consensual between two mentally competent adults.



This is a very key point... yet I am not sure the degree described in these posts a full consensual competent adult would submit to this day in and day out for decades. At what point is there underlying issues making it a compulsion and therefore the dom has moved from fun and games and erotica to full out exploitation.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

marduk said:


> This stuff is horrific in my opinion, and if I were to suggest it to my spouse or any of my partners I would expect a visit from the local constabulary and to be single for a very long time.
> 
> A little dom/sub stuff in the bedroom can be fun.
> 
> However I would consider this stuff to be abuse and I think there would be a lot of legal/psychological president to support this statement.
> 
> Consent of the exploited doesn't make it acceptable, it makes it pathetic.


:iagree::iagree::iagree:


----------



## Hope1964

Entropy3000 said:


> Random :
> 
> As noted previously, overstimulation can result in a messy end to a conversation. Some men will simply not last a useful period of time. Eventually, you will find yourself desperately trying to hold back an eruption.
> 
> As it turns out, interrupting the male climax is very easy. The male climax is essentially a series of contractions to force an expression of fluids through the duct running along the base of the member. If you constrict this tube with your thumb, while gripping his member firmly in your hand, the fluids back up and the climax is aborted. Maintain your hold until his spasm passes which may take as much as a minute. This is known as “choking the chicken”.
> 
> This has two effects: it is extremely frustrating for him and it is slightly painful like a quick, sharp pinch deep in his testicles. Now saying that it is slightly painful may cause you to recoil. Remember, however, men do not regard pain the same as we do. For a man, pain can be an expression of devotion. If you set the context right, he will react quite well to this. The key to making it work is to convey the message “not yet.” That is the essential context of the technique.
> 
> There is no health harm in occasionally blocking expressions so long as there is an eventual release, say, at least *once a month*. Use this technique sparingly and with purpose.


What the................................:wtf:

There is so much wrong with this I don't even know where to begin.


----------



## Marduk

Wikipedia:

Psychological abuse, also referred to as emotional abuse or mental abuse, is a form of abuse characterized by a person subjecting or exposing another to behavior that may result in psychological trauma, including anxiety, chronic depression, or post-traumatic stress disorder.

deg·ra·da·tion
noun
the condition or process of degrading or being degraded.
"a trail of human misery and degradation"
synonyms:	humiliation, shame, loss of self-respect, abasement, indignity, ignominy


----------



## ladymisato

marduk said:


> Psychological abuse, also referred to as emotional abuse or mental abuse, is a form of abuse characterized by a person subjecting or exposing another to behavior *that may result in psychological trauma, including anxiety, chronic depression, or post-traumatic stress disorder*.


Thanks for posting that. This is the distinction that matters (bolded). Absent these things, there is no abuse.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

Cults are cut out of this same cloth


----------



## Blossom Leigh

ladymisato said:


> Thanks for posting that. This is the distinction that matters (bolded). Absent these things, there is no abuse.



Sorry, but unless your husband is submitting himself to testing by a professional after these tactics being used on him regularly I do not believe you are qualified to declare these things being absent in him. You are running the risk of causing these types of injuries in him whether he is a willing participant or not.


----------



## Entropy3000

ladymisato said:


> Alright, I am educating women about their feminine powers. I am empowering them, as individual females, to become the head of their household and otherwise reorder their marriage. In some cases, I am helping them to pursue a career by having the husband stay home.
> 
> Now I'll grant you it is not exactly the same as you are describing but it's pretty close and so I'm not at all clear why you believe that your examples of female empowerment are more legitimate than mine.
> 
> 
> You are being circular, though. The dependency comes as a result of the reorganization of the household. In my case, for example, I became head of the household first and then asked my husband to become a homemaker. Of course, he became dependent upon me then but that was a result of my decision as head of the household.


No. This is not about being a head of household at all. 

The rhetoric you are writing here does not match up with the your website.

This is not about empowerment or career guidance.


----------



## ladymisato

Blossom Leigh said:


> Sorry, but unless your husband is submitting himself to testing by a professional after these tactics being used on him regularly I do not believe you are qualified to declare these things being absent in him. You are running the risk of causing these types of injuries in him whether he is a willing participant or not.


You don't have to believe it but, in fact, we all make such judgements all the time. I would presume that a professional would be better qualified to make such judgments but that doesn't mean I, or anyone else who interacts with him for that matter, can't. Typically, people go to a professional when they feel such symptoms, not as a periodic check to satisfy theoretical worries.


----------



## ladymisato

Entropy3000 said:


> No. This is not about being a head of household at all.
> 
> The rhetoric you are writing here does not match up with the your website.
> 
> This is not about empowerment or career guidance.


Can you enlighten us why you hold this opinion? I gave my reasons for thinking as I do.


----------



## Entropy3000

ladymisato said:


> Thanks for posting that. This is the distinction that matters (bolded). Absent these things, there is no abuse.


You state this like it is a fact. Indeed you are trying to be assertive. Part of the role I suppose. Part of the affirmation / reprogramming process. Or as you say the training. One persons education training is anothers manipulation / reprogramming.

I get that your being assertive of your opinion or your view.

So what is your formal training here? Not that such a thing is required to have an opinion, a website or give advice.


----------



## Regret214

More "empowerment" techniques from her website...

Once you are sexually satisfied, you are ready to begin the conversation.

To do this, stimulate your husband’s member manually, with your hand. Position your husband in bed, on his back. Straddle his thighs with your legs so that your rear is resting just above his knees or simply lay beside him. Dab some KY Lubricant on your hands for lubrication. You can then easily stimulate his member with your hands while you engage him in a face-to-face conversation.

As you stimulate him, you will notice his breath growing shorter and his concentration wandering. This is the sign that he is tipping toward an orgasm. With the right touch, you can keep him in this state almost indefinitely. It is in this state that he will be most suggestible. All his rational thought will be focused on achieving orgasm.

In this state:

he will more freely answer any question you put to him;
he will tend to agree to anything you suggest to him;
he will quickly promise anything you ask of him;
your words will enter his subconscious directly without rational filtering; and
you will create powerful, lasting sexual associations with the content of your suggestions."
"
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ladymisato

Entropy3000 said:


> You state this like it is a fact. Indeed you are trying to be assertive. Part of the role I suppose. Part of the affirmation / reprogramming process. Or as you say the training. One persons education training is anothers manipulation / reprogramming.
> 
> I get that your being assertive of your opinion or your view.
> 
> So what is your formal training here? Not that such a thing is required to have an opinion, a website or give advice.


Formal? No. But experienced.

And, honestly, I don't mind the disagreement, I only wish it were more thoughtful. I am interested in hearing other views. I appreciate the objections that are being offered, I am not ignoring them as I assert my view.

My opinion is that most wives are too timid about fixing their marriages and too eager to call it quits.


----------



## Regret214

Sorry, but that stuff is not about empowerment, women's lib or anything except pure manipulation. Any attempt to state otherwise is kind of bunk.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Entropy3000

ladymisato said:


> Can you enlighten us why you hold this opinion? I gave my reasons for thinking as I do.


They do not match. Your website is very specific on controlling and reprograming another human being. I persoanlly have no problem with using knowledge to help a relationship. But if at its heart it is so one sided then no. It is abuse. Do some people like abuse? It seems so.
You very may well believe that you have given sufficient explanation but you have not. You have your own definitions is all. We all can play at that game. I am talking consistency and focus of message.

You are equating a D/s relationship where humiliation and punsihment are involved. You see that as head of household. Many of us reject that notion. Indeed you can keep repeating it because that is how one reprograms and asserts. I toally get the manipulation. I am a professional.  I live in corporate Amercia after all. 

At least in America Head Of Household has certain connotations. You are taking much license to infer it has to do with this type of pysycho / sexual relationship. 

So no you have not. But you do not have to. I Just see a clear difference in your rhetoric here and what is on your website. Spin. More PC here. But not quite transparent.

Indeed at least part of your aim is to get folks to go look at your website. --check that one off.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

ladymisato said:


> You don't have to believe it but, in fact, we all make such judgements all the time. I would presume that a professional would be better qualified to make such judgments but that doesn't mean I, or anyone else who interacts with him for that matter, can't. Typically, people go to a professional when they feel such symptoms, not as a periodic check to satisfy theoretical worries.




Belittling, Condescending and Patronizing - This kind of speech is a passive-aggressive approach to giving someone a verbal put-down while maintaining a facade of reasonableness or friendliness.

Denial - Believing or imagining that some painful or traumatic circumstance, event or memory does not exist or did not happen

www.outofthefog.net


----------



## ladymisato

Regret214 said:


> Sorry, but that stuff is not about empowerment, women's lib or anything except pure manipulation. Any attempt to state otherwise is kind of bunk.


I empower wives and they are liberated.


----------



## ladymisato

Blossom Leigh said:


> Denial - Believing or imagining that some painful or traumatic circumstance, event or memory does not exist or did not happen


You are inventing symptoms for people you have not even met.


----------



## Regret214

As I said, I think you teach merely manipulative behavior.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ladymisato

Regret214 said:


> As I said, I think you teach merely manipulative behavior.


I do not disagree with this (aside from the 'merely'). But there are important things that happen out of it, e.g. the wife pursuing a career.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

ladymisato said:


> I empower wives and they are liberated.


keep telling yourself that...


----------



## Blossom Leigh

ladymisato said:


> I do not disagree with this (aside from the 'merely'). But there are important things that happen out of it, e.g. the wife pursuing a career.


There are PLENTY of wives who pursue careers without your so called "help."


----------



## ladymisato

Blossom Leigh said:


> There are PLENTY of wives who pursue careers without your so called "help."


There are more with my help.


----------



## Davelli0331

GettingIt said:


> I saw the excerpts. Without her husband's honest input, it's impossible to know whether or not their arrangement is "healthy", aka fully consensual between two mentally competent adults.
> 
> I mean, it could be that her husband is a sub and loves to beg for sex when he's bad. There really isn't enough info in this thread to know--at least not enough for me to be comfortable passing judgement.
> 
> Despite the fact that I'm in a D/s marriage, and love every minute of it (well, okay not EVERY minute ) I don't feel the need to defend it against people who don't respect it as healthy. I guess I just don't care enough what other people think. I don't NEED other people to understand it or like it. You either get it or you don't. I'm happy to answer honest questions, but defend my marriage? Nah, don't need to.
> 
> I think that's sort of the tide that OP is pushing against here. She's really into her marriage dynamic. It works great for her and (she says) for her husband. But she is looking in the wrong place if she wants affirmation. I'm happy she's happy, but don't ask me to judge whether or not it's healthy, LOL. I'm half of the mind that MARRIAGE ain't healthy, period! :rofl:


Awesome answer. And, as I've said numerous times, if this dynamic works for OP, then GREAT. More power to them.

Where I originally took issue is in OP's assertion that such a dynamic is a cure-all for ailing marriages.

However, now after reading her blog, my objection has shifted more into the realm of consent and mental cognizance and competence. I note that OP has generally sidestepped the issue of whether or not her H fully consented, with full mental cognizance and competence, to this lifestyle.

So did he, LadyMisato? You talk about this dynamic that you've built in your marriage to save it and how bumpy the path was for you to build it. Was your husband fully aware and cognizant, each step of the way, of the lifestyle that you two were building? Was his consent fully informed, without duress of your "manipulation" (or whatever you want to call it)? Is he fully aware and competently consensual of the dynamic, and is he a fully aware participant in it?

I ask bc the literature in your blog could honestly read either way.


----------



## Entropy3000

ladymisato said:


> Formal? No. But experienced.
> 
> And, honestly, I don't mind the disagreement, I only wish it were more thoughtful. I am interested in hearing other views. I appreciate the objections that are being offered, I am not ignoring them as I assert my view.
> 
> My opinion is that most wives are too timid about fixing their marriages and too eager to call it quits.


I suggest it is highly thoughtful.

I think a wife being timid about fixing their marriage is a far cry from dominating and purposely humiliating another person. Just because you can do this does not mean it is right or justified in any way.

I asked because I was wanting to know if your experience was based on being a senior manager at a fortune 500 company or whether you ran a dungeon or whether you had a PhD in abnormal psychology. Again those are not required here. Perhaps you were in the military.

I am really looking for your story on how you arrived at all of this. What IS your career that your husband stays at home for? What IS that experience?


----------



## Blossom Leigh

ladymisato said:


> You are inventing symptoms for people you have not even met.


Do you admit you run the risk of creating these injuries in your spouse by choosing these tactics no matter HOW careful you are... it is an inherent risk

if your answer is no... that is Denial plain and simple

The belittling and condescension has been seen plainly by me and many here, so that one is spot on.


----------



## Revamped

If it works for you, great!

What I truly do not understand is why you picked THIS forum to push your agenda.

Considering the responses to you so far, do you think this "wife led marriage" fits in here well?


----------



## ladymisato

Entropy3000 said:


> I suggest it is highly thoughtful.
> 
> I think a wife being timid about fixing their marriage is a far cry from dominating and purposely humiliating another person. Just because you can do this does not mean it is right or justified in any way.
> 
> I asked because I was wanting to know if your experience was based on being a senior manager at a fortune 500 company or whether you ran a dungeon or whether you had a PhD in abnormal psychology. Again those are not required here. Perhaps you were in the military.
> 
> I am really looking for your story on how you arrived at all of this. What IS your career that your husband stays at home for? What IS that experience?


Aha, well, I claim no advanced degree in psychology. I have held various executive positions in business. I hope that will suffice.


----------



## Nikita2270

U.E. McGill said:


> She did, me! Thanks for the words of encouragement.
> 
> It took you 20 years to learn that so maybe your learn at a slow pace.


I know you're trying hard to insult me but someone who refers to his own wife as "replaceable" and brags about controlling her isn't capable of doing so.

You and the OP fall in the same category... Like I said, to each their own.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ladymisato

Blossom Leigh said:


> Do you admit you run the risk of creating these injuries in your spouse by choosing these tactics no matter HOW careful you are... it is an inherent risk
> 
> if your answer is no... that is Denial plain and simple
> 
> The belittling and condescension has been seen plainly by me and many here, so that one is spot on.


I see only happy husbands in my own marriage and those I've helped. Where is the risk in that?


----------



## Entropy3000

ladymisato said:


> I empower wives and they are liberated.


Liberated by some new definition of liberation. But unfortunately it seems at the expense of another person. Indeed liberating someone to be free to dominate another.

I am all for spouses using techniques to heat up the marriage. But I am not for techniques that result in remvoing simple human dignity. 

I do not see the roles being reveresed and stating this is about a man being liberated. No I would call a man doing these things as abusive.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

ladymisato said:


> There are more with my help.



So arrogant... Trust me, they would have eventually found it without your help... because the desire was first in their heart.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

ladymisato said:


> I see only happy husbands in my own marriage and those I've helped. Where is the risk in that?


Normalizing - Normalizing is a tactic used to desensitize an individual to abusive, coercive or inappropriate behaviors. In essence, normalizing is the manipulation of another human being to get them to agree to, or accept something that is in conflict with the law, social norms or their own basic code of behavior.

And I will say it again... when addicts get their fix... yes, they are happy so that in NO way justifies...


----------



## Hope1964

ladymisato said:


> I see only happy husbands in my own marriage and those I've helped. Where is the risk in that?


Are you saying that every single marriage you have 'helped' has been much improved by you?

How many would that be exactly?


----------



## Regret214

ladymisato said:


> I do not disagree with this (aside from the 'merely'). But there are important things that happen out of it, e.g. the wife pursuing a career.


I'm a career teacher with a masters in biology. My husband was a captain on private jets, now becoming a police officer. A woman can HAVE a career if she chooses. Manipulation isn't needed. If it is, then the real issues will surface eventually. Just my opinion.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Nikita2270

Entropy3000 said:


> There is an actual a separate section concerning Punishment. Like :
> 
> 
> 
> So some typical dom/sub stuff.


Lmao...nothing more uber hot than an unemployed, middled-aged dude in women's panties.


F'ing goofy. I think I'm gonna pass on buying this book.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Blossom Leigh

ladymisato said:


> I see only happy husbands in my own marriage and those I've helped. Where is the risk in that?


AND you totally evaded the question... 

again...


----------



## ladymisato

Entropy3000 said:


> Liberated by some new definition of liberation. But unfortunately it seems at the expense of another person. Indeed liberating someone to be free to dominate another.
> 
> I am all for spouses using techniques to heat up the marriage. But I am not for techniques that result in remvoing simple human dignity.
> 
> I do not see the roles being reveresed and stating this is about a man being liberated. No I would call a man doing these things as abusive.


We talked about why this is not abuse. See above.

Nor do I agree, obviously, that this removes human dignity though it's obviously not an egalitarian marriage.

And I guess I'm just not as alarmed by the wife dominating the marriage as you.


----------



## Entropy3000

ladymisato said:


> I see only happy husbands in my own marriage and those I've helped. Where is the risk in that?


We all have tunnel vison for one. ALL of us. You perceive happy husbands.

I think one could also say the same about D/s Cuckold.
It baffles me however sure, that there are men who want this type of humiliation and abuse.

So this is about men who seek out abuse for some pyschology reason.

This needs to be up front. Otherwise I can see women trying to move their relationship this way causing significant hurt.


----------



## ladymisato

Blossom Leigh said:


> Normalizing - Normalizing is a tactic used to desensitize an individual to abusive, coercive or inappropriate behaviors. In essence, normalizing is the manipulation of another human being to get them to agree to, or accept something that is in conflict with the law, social norms or their own basic code of behavior.
> 
> And I will say it again... when addicts get their fix... yes, they are happy so that in NO way justifies...


You really are quite convinced that these husbands are, unbeknownst to all around them, victims of abuse. Now you are providing explanations for the lack of symptoms. All based on your own theoretical conviction that manipulation is abusive.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

ladymisato said:


> We talked about why this is not abuse. See above.
> 
> Nor do I agree, obviously, that this removes human dignity though it's obviously not an egalitarian marriage.
> 
> And *I guess I'm just not as alarmed by the wife dominating the marriage as you*.




Self-Aggrandizement - A pattern of pompous behavior, boasting, narcissism or competitiveness designed to create an appearance of superiority.


----------



## jld

From what you have written on your blog, it appears you are a sadist.

In my marriage, D/s is all about love. There is no evil in it.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Blossom Leigh

ladymisato said:


> You really are quite convinced that these husbands are, unbeknownst to all around them, victims of abuse. Now you are providing explanations for the lack of symptoms. All based on your own theoretical conviction that manipulation is abusive.


Darlin... these are things I see in YOU

You normalize abuse
Shame those who dont see it the way you do
Self aggrandize at your perceived success over those who don't define abuse the way you do
You are in denial about the risk of choosing these tactics...

My addiction was not know to those around me... 

I've lived and experienced the lifestyle you are pushing.. so you are not fooling me about the extent of injuries that are at risk. NOR about your innocence in knowing such. You'll have to bark up another tree for that masquerade. Cause this chick knows... has seen.. been there, done that... come on now... you have no idea what I have seen... you know I know... this is a straight up dangerous life style that can be taken WAY too far


----------



## treyvion

ladymisato said:


> You are inventing symptoms for people you have not even met.


How do you feel about a wife who prefers her husband to be more masculine and she likes to add to that image? That she likes him to be in control for the most part and wants to please him?

Does this fall outside of your framework?


----------



## Entropy3000

ladymisato said:


> Aha, well, I claim no advanced degree in psychology. I have held various executive positions in business. I hope that will suffice.


Almost but tell us more. What industry? I will just say I have been in Engineering most of my adult life but have worked in different industries. They can vary in approach.

But many if not most executives are all about manipulation. Some of them more melevolent than others. Some have more finesse than others. 

I was told at the DoD division let's call them Yoyodyne, that I intimidated uppper management. So I have my own issues. Probably career limiting ... but I am cool with that. I have formed and created a few teams but I am more like a Robert Noyce in attitude. In microcasm surely. This works in some cases and in others not. But it is an insight into how I view and respect others. Very often it is about breaking people and just getting what you want from them that way. Not my style but in the corporate world that can be rewarded.


----------



## Davelli0331

You still have not answered these questions


Davelli0331 said:


> So did he, LadyMisato? You talk about this dynamic that you've built in your marriage to save it and how bumpy the path was for you to build it. Was your husband fully aware and cognizant, each step of the way, of the lifestyle that you two were building? Was his consent fully informed, without duress of your "manipulation" (or whatever you want to call it)? Is he fully aware and competently consensual of the dynamic, and is he a fully aware participant in it?
> 
> I ask bc the literature in your blog could honestly read either way.


Obviously you don't owe anyone here any answers, but I can say for me personally, the answers to the above questions are the demarcation between a healthy (for you), if different and admittedly odd to me, dynamic, and what is essentially emotional abuse.


----------



## Entropy3000

ladymisato said:


> I do not disagree with this (aside from the 'merely'). But there are important things that happen out of it, e.g. the wife pursuing a career.


A wife does not have to resort to such a thing to persue a career.


----------



## Fozzy

The excerpts I've read so far to me boil down to one thing--is this agreed upon with full disclosure up front, or is this being done as manipulation without the other person's full cooperation? I realize in OP's case, it's done with consent, so fine. My concern is that this is a resource for manipulation tactics to be used in more unsavory ways. And that makes me puke in my mouth a little.


----------



## Entropy3000

ladymisato said:


> There are more with my help.


Perhaps not. This assumes that it does more good than harm.


----------



## pidge70

Holy Hell, skimmed her blog. Christ on a cracker! I am an extremely dominant female, but Joe and I are equals. No way he would go for something like that and no way in Hell would I even try to introduce this kind of lifestyle. I have too much respect for him to try and make him be my lil b!tch.


----------



## Regret214

Fozzy, I quoted directly from her website on page 36. I'd like your honest assessment.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Anon Pink

ladymisato said:


> I empower wives and they are liberated.


I guess that's one way to look at it.

I've read so much of this thread and the one thing that sticks out to me is your lack of tenderness toward your submissive. I find this pretty offensive actually.

I am all for empowering women, for helping them reach their potential in whatever realm of life they require support but I'm not sure your answers to empowering women are any better than the alpha/beta crap that is so popular here at TAM.

I don't think many people who live in a D/s type dynamic would willingly do so unless they felt loved and cherished. For some, being the submissive in response to their spouse being the dominant is a clear way to cherish. The burden the dominant partner has is ensuring that their submissive feels cherished through the dominance. 

I'm not seeing any of that from you and this concerns me.

Most D/s relationships that I know of were actually suggested by the submissive.

There are lots of men who enjoy being dominated and some of those men enjoy punishment (or they enjoy the feelings a punishment can promo such as fear or humiliation) and some of the men are sexually turned on by submitting.

As GettingIt pointed out, the erotic atmosphere created by D/s play in the bedroom gets extended to include the day to day dynamic outside the bedroom. IOW, the mutually enjoyed sex play gets expanded to incorporate the entirety of the relationship.

But this can't be done without both partners fully enjoying the dynamic and both wanting to extend the dynamic.

From what I have read of your thread, your submissive and his needs are woefully under represented and that's why you are coming across as abusive, controlling and a tad callous. 

I'd like to hear more about your marriage from your husband's POV. If you have already mad posts on this, I apologize and just ask if you could provide post numbers?


----------



## Fozzy

Regret214 said:


> Fozzy, I quoted directly from her website on page 36. I'd like your honest assessment.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


It wouldn't work for me, I'll tell you that. However, if some guy actually agrees to being treated like that BEFOREHAND, with full disclosure...fine.

If he's being manipulated, sexually or otherwise, without consent--I absolutely think that's abusive.


----------



## GettingIt_2

Blossom Leigh said:


> This is a very key point... yet I am not sure the degree described in these posts a full consensual competent adult would submit to this day in and day out for decades. At what point is there underlying issues making it a compulsion and therefore the dom has moved from fun and games and erotica to full out exploitation.


I don't disagree with this. I think the lifestyle can be exploitative, just as any other relationship between two people. There are bad people who happen to be doms who will willfully exploit a submissive. There are bad people who happen to be submissives who will willfully manipulate a dom. Weakness and the danger to get hurt exists on both sides of the equation. 

One thing that seems to get shunted aside in discussions of this sort is the notion of TRUST. I was with my husband for 24 years before we formalized this lifestyle. It's driven my my kink, not his. There is no way for me to quantify, explain, or express the depth of trust required by our particular dynamic. The people that I have met online with similar lifestyles all are in long term monogamous marriages, too. This is not something you set up with someone on a whim. 

There is no way for me to explain to people "on the outside" how this works for me and for us on so many different levels. I rarely try. Like I mentioned before, I'm open to answering questions, but the answers are rarely cut and dried.


----------



## Entropy3000

ladymisato said:


> We talked about why this is not abuse. See above.
> 
> Nor do I agree, obviously, that this removes human dignity though it's obviously not an egalitarian marriage.
> 
> And I guess I'm just not as alarmed by the wife dominating the marriage as you.


This is not the droid you are looking for. I am not sure if alarmed is strong enough but lets for the sake of common ground go with that.

I am _alarmed_ when one human being dominates another to this degree. As you state this is not role play. It is real. This matters. Hopefully this is clear enough and direct enough. I would be no less alarmed if the gender roles were reversed. I have had plenty of run-ins with abusive "men". I am not so nice with them.

I see this as abuse. You do not. So we agree to disagree. From your experience as an executive you know about perceptions.

Humiliation is the antithesis of dignity.

e·gal·i·tar·i·an
iˌgaləˈterēən/
adjective
adjective: egalitarian

1. of, relating to, or believing in the principle that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities.


Sorry this just violates my beliefs fundamentally. Maybe you do this but now but you should be up front. That you do not believe in equal rights. 
I am old school. You know all that We the People stuff.


----------



## Theseus

Faeleaf said:


> Support freedom - absolutely.
> 
> However, to be fair, if you came to TAM and started a thread promoting _homosexual marriage_ as a cure for _struggling heterosexual marriages_, you'd probably get more than just a raised eyebrow in response.


Yet, if I promoted homosexual marriage as a cure for *SOME* struggling hetero marriages, I think most people would agree, since there are some hetero marriages where one partner is a closeted gay/lesbian, struggling with that, and would be better off in the long run with a same sex partner. 

That's all the OP has been doing, saying it works for them and would work for many other couples. Understand the difference?


----------



## Regret214

Unless a hetero partner was manipulated into said homosexual position.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Binji

How is the sex in a wife led marriage? Is your husband breaking your back, ravaging you like a wolf in the night or is he letting you lead as well? Take us through a scene?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Theseus

Nikita2270 said:


> There will always be insecure individuals who either need to be controlled or have someone else control them because they are weak , damaged or incomplete. These people don't understand the benefits of having an equal partner and need to manipulate someone to feel OK with themselves. This is nothing new and there's nothing wrong with it for those individuals. They aspire to nothing more and are satisfied with their inferior relationships because they can't fathom anything else.
> ...
> Weak people attract weak people and have relationships...nothing wrong with it.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


 No, nothing wrong with it at all. Except that they are "weak-willed", "damaged", "incomplete", and "insecure"!! 

Your prejudice is only matched by your ignorance. My wife and I practice D/S in our home and neither one of us are any of those things. 

Moreover, we were equal partners for 15 years, so yes we understand the benefits and drawbacks of both lifestyles very well. Much better than you understand them.


----------



## Wolf1974

Wow I haven't seen a thread burn up TAM like this since wilderness was on here.


----------



## Anon Pink

Theseus said:


> No, nothing wrong with it at all. Except that they are "weak-willed", "damaged", "incomplete", and "insecure"!!
> 
> Your prejudice is only matched by your ignorance. My wife and I practice D/S in our home and neither one of us are any of those things.
> 
> Moreover, we were equal partners for 15 years, so yes we understand the benefits and drawbacks of both lifestyles very well. Much better than you understand them.


Thanks for this post Theseus! I was going to respond to that blanket generalized insult but decided to ignore it because my response would have been no where near as polite as yours.


----------



## Anon Pink

Wolf1974 said:


> Wow I haven't seen a thread burn up TAM like this since wilderness was on here.


:lol:

Sometimes I miss that crazy man!


----------



## U.E. McGill

Nikita2270 said:


> I know you're trying hard to insult me but someone who refers to his own wife as "replaceable" and brags about controlling her isn't capable of doing so.
> 
> 
> 
> You and the OP fall in the same category... Like I said, to each their own.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_



I wouldn't say I was trying to insult you. 

You didn't read what I said, my wife has choice and free will.


----------



## GettingIt_2

Anon Pink said:


> Thanks for this post Theseus! I was going to respond to that blanket generalized insult but decided to ignore it because my response would have been no where near as polite as yours.


I thought my response was best.


----------



## Binji

She brings home the bacon. Her husband cooks it. Nothing new under the sun.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Anon Pink

GettingIt said:


> I thought my response was best.


You mean the post in which you ignored her post? 

Or the post right after her post which was an excellent post, BTW, but didn't directly refute her suggestion that submissive are weak, damaged and or incomplete?

Was your post a picture of of the NY salute? I think it was deleted...


----------



## Faeleaf

Theseus said:


> Yet, if I promoted homosexual marriage as a cure for *SOME* struggling hetero marriages, I think most people would agree, since there are some hetero marriages where one partner is a closeted gay/lesbian, struggling with that, and would be better off in the long run with a same sex partner.
> 
> That's all the OP has been doing, saying it works for them and would work for many other couples. Understand the difference?


You could be right, but I remember reading different posts - especially ones where the OP specifically stated that wife-led marriages were _superior_ to egalitarian marriages, and in fact that egalitarian marriages were contributing to the rise in divorce. This is different than finding that targeted audience of closeted gays, and helping them come out. This is promoting homosexuality TO heterosexuals, and then being defensive when the heteros shoot down your proposals as ludicrous. 

I do not deny that her proposed solutions would fit some fringe subset of the population. The problem is that _she_ seems to deny it, aiming for a more mainstream audience as if her lifestyle is a good idea for nearly everyone...like a gym membership, or fat-free ice cream. It's not.


----------



## GettingIt_2

Anon Pink said:


> You mean the post in which you ignored her post?
> 
> Or the post right after her post which was an excellent post, BTW, but didn't directly refute her suggestion that submissive are weak, damaged and or incomplete?
> 
> Was your post a picture of of the NY salute? I think it was deleted...


I mean my post that went: 

<crickets>

Come on Anon, the NY salute? Don't you know me AT ALL??


----------



## ladymisato

Entropy3000 said:


> But many if not most executives are all about manipulation. Some of them more melevolent than others. Some have more finesse than others.


I think it's fair to say that executives are comfortable with this. Others may regard it as malevolent. Facts of life.


----------



## ladymisato

treyvion said:


> How do you feel about a wife who prefers her husband to be more masculine and she likes to add to that image? That she likes him to be in control for the most part and wants to please him?
> 
> Does this fall outside of your framework?


Several such examples came up in this thread, I had no issue with that. I wouldn't exactly call it in my wife led "framework" but it is within my larger framework of working marriages. I pointed out the lack of men announcing their similar feelings. Men are not comfortable publicly declaring their desire for a leading wife to takes control and wants to please her.


----------



## ladymisato

GettingIt said:


> One thing that seems to get shunted aside in discussions of this sort is the notion of TRUST.


Yes, this is a good point. Trust is key.


----------



## Faithful Wife

ladymisato said:


> Several such examples came up in this thread, I had no issue with that. I wouldn't exactly call it in my wife led "framework" but it is within my larger framework of working marriages. I pointed out the lack of men announcing their similar feelings. Men are not comfortable publicly declaring their desire for a leading wife to takes control and wants to please her.


Some men are comfortable with publicly declaring that. See MMSL.

(wait...I read your quoted statement wrong...however, do see MMSL anyway, as to me, it is the same thing you are proposing, only over there they call it SCIENCE).


----------



## Entropy3000

Dollystanford said:


> I think I'm 99.99% sure that I won't buy this book


I will encourage your SO to get this for you for Boxing Day.

He may really want this.


----------



## Anon Pink

GettingIt said:


> I mean my post that went:
> 
> <crickets>
> 
> Come on Anon, the NY salute? Don't you know me AT ALL??


Boring!

I know I know you have a rep to maintain. A little judicious acid with your wit can be so much fun!


----------



## ladymisato

Entropy3000 said:


> Sorry this just violates my beliefs fundamentally. Maybe you do this but now but you should be up front. That you do not believe in equal rights.
> I am old school. You know all that We the People stuff.


We already covered those grounds. I agree that wife led marriage is not egalitarian. I know that upsets some people. I'm sorry for that.


----------



## Entropy3000

ladymisato said:


> I think it's fair to say that executives are comfortable with this. Others may regard it as malevolent. Facts of life.


They are not mutually exclusive. The world is full of of all sorts of wrong. It is a predatory world. Facts of life as well.


----------



## Entropy3000

ladymisato said:


> We already covered those grounds. I agree that wife led marriage is not egalitarian. I know that upsets some people. I'm sorry for that.


So what shall be your penance then if you are sorry? 

But seriously, you are not interested in the marriage. This is trying to jusify something altogether different.


----------



## Revamped

Entropy3000 said:


> So what shall be your penance then if you are sorry?


It sure wouldn't be to stop posting...


----------



## ladymisato

Faithful Wife said:


> Some men are comfortable with publicly declaring that. See MMSL.
> 
> (wait...I read your quoted statement wrong...however, do see MMSL anyway, as to me, it is the same thing you are proposing, only over there they call it SCIENCE).


I've never seen that before, thanks for the reference. Yes, quite some similarity. I'll spend some time there. Thank you.


----------



## ladymisato

Binji said:


> How is the sex in a wife led marriage? Is your husband breaking your back, ravaging you like a wolf in the night or is he letting you lead as well? Take us through a scene?


Quite a lot of sex and erotization of the marriage, by the very nature of this approach. (Mind you, not all of it leads to his orgasm.) I give some details in the book but I'm not comfortable posting that here. If others think that is appropriate, that's their call.


----------



## Davelli0331

Faithful Wife said:


> Some men are comfortable with publicly declaring that. See MMSL.
> 
> (wait...I read your quoted statement wrong...however, do see MMSL anyway, as to me, it is the same thing you are proposing, only over there they call it SCIENCE).


I do agree completely that MMSL (and all that idiotic alpha/beta BS) and what's being pushed here are eerily analogous.

I would not call that comparison a favorable one nor a compliment of any kind.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Well, I get the feeling that ladymisato isn't going to be insulted by anything we have to say here. She isn't threatened by differing opinions or being challenged. I can admire that. 

Personally, MMSL wouldn't be offensive to me if they did NOT try to call it SCIENCE. If they just said "hey we want to live this way and we are choosing it for our own reasons" I'd have no issue with that. Seems to me that is exactly what lady is saying..."hey we want to live this way and we are choosing it for our own reasons".


----------



## Davelli0331

Oh, I agree completely, it absolutely is not science. Psuedoscience horsesh!t is about the nicest thing I can say about any of it.

As for OP, she still has not indicated that her husband is a fully aware, cognizant, and competent participant in this, so saying it is a lifestyle that _they_ have accepted is still not necessarily a true statement.


----------



## Almostrecovered

Davelli0331 said:


> As for OP, she still has not indicated that her husband is a fully aware, cognizant, and competent participant in this, so saying it is a lifestyle that _they_ have accepted is still not necessarily a true statement.




http://youtu.be/Z6QHmJR5-H8


----------



## Marduk

Davelli0331 said:


> Oh, I agree completely, it absolutely is not science. Psuedoscience horsesh!t is about the nicest thing I can say about any of it.
> 
> As for OP, she still has not indicated that her husband is a fully aware, cognizant, and competent participant in this, so saying it is a lifestyle that _they_ have accepted is still not necessarily a true statement.


You cannot reason with the insane. 

That's kind of what makes them insane. 

OP I wish you all the compassion that issue your due as perhaps one day you realize your sociopathic nature. 

As I wish your husband and all the hundred others that you have "helped" all the support to get away from such toxic abusive people.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Blossom Leigh

She evades a lot. "Withholds information" cracks me up to watch her make her dom moves thinking no one is tracking that...

Anyone need popcorn? 

The other sub/doms on here are WAY more forthright... It is why I smell a skunk..


----------



## Entropy3000

Almostrecovered said:


> My favorite movie - YouTube


Speaking of simple minds ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwwexXJla0k

I love despotism. This whole equal rights thing has not worked out. We need to re-evaluate the ROI for it. It is just too hard.


----------



## Anon Pink

ladymisato said:


> Quite a lot of sex and erotization of the marriage, by the very nature of this approach. (Mind you, not all of it leads to his orgasm.) I give some details in the book but I'm not comfortable posting that here. If others think that is appropriate, that's their call.


But you fail to mention how your husband feels about this.

Some men totally dig orgasm denial, so do some women. But if this is just a by product of your dominance, a way to deliver punishment without hurting you swinging arm without it having been a part of sex play, it is abusive. It is abusive because you don't indicate that he agrees with this, in fact you indicate the opposite, that he has no choice BUT to agree.

So I'll ask again, how does your husband get to feel your love for him? How do you demonstrate to him that you have HIS best interests at heart when you make decisions for the common good of the marriage?


----------



## Binji

ladymisato said:


> Quite a lot of sex and erotization of the marriage, by the very nature of this approach. (Mind you, not all of it leads to his orgasm.) I give some details in the book but I'm not comfortable posting that here. If others think that is appropriate, that's their call.


So do you like to be dominated during sex, or are you the agressor? How old are you?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## GettingIt_2

OP, I was hoping you could speak to some of the questions I raised in this earlier post: 

http://talkaboutmarriage.com/9894042-post485.html

regarding accountability in your marriage. 

I understand if you're not comfortable, but just was wondering what the agreement is within your framework for when you fail to lead effectively or when your husband fails to follow to your specifications. Is there formal discipline? Is there a mechanism for him to air grievances?

On another point raised in my post: what of his duty to retain agency to act responsibly as a husband and father, even when it calls for him to defy you?


----------



## Eagle3

_Quite a lot of sex and erotization of the marriage, by the very nature of this approach. (Mind you, not all of it leads to his orgasm.) I give some details in the book but I'm not comfortable posting that here. If others think that is appropriate, that's their call._

OP, this is a valid question and one that would interest a lot of people but you passing this off for details a book makes your skeptics have legit points. You have posted enough for 41 pages I think couple sentences are not too much to ask. 

I myself don’t have probably a straight forward marriage to most but if you talk around questions on top of inconsistencies from your blog its hard to take what you are saying at face value. Just saying, I don’t have a dog in this fight but am starting to see why some are having a hard time getting what you are trying to convey.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

She's not going to answer straight forward... That information control is giving her a high.


----------



## ladymisato

Anon Pink said:


> But you fail to mention how your husband feels about this.


I don't expect everyone to read the entire thread, but I have answered this before, at least in a general way.

Here are the main points:

*) Contrary to some theoretical assertions to the contrary, my husband is much happier now with our marriage than before.

*) My husband was very active in helping us discover this arrangement. He told me things that allowed me to better control him, that I have shared with other wives to help them in their marriages. I sometimes say that he is a traitor to his sex.

*) He is quite excited in many ordinary situations (e.g. doing housework).



> So I'll ask again, how does your husband get to feel your love for him? How do you demonstrate to him that you have HIS best interests at heart when you make decisions for the common good of the marriage?


I demonstrate my love for him by making him happy.


----------



## ladymisato

Binji said:


> So do you like to be dominated during sex, or are you the agressor? How old are you?


That's a hard question to answer because there are so many things going on. Outside the bedroom I am the "aggressor". In the bedroom there are some thing we do were I am passive and vice versa. I hope you'll forgive me if I pass on the age question.


----------



## Regret214

Yet you refer to him as a loser.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk

Anon Pink said:


> But you fail to mention how your husband feels about this.
> 
> Some men totally dig orgasm denial, so do some women. But if this is just a by product of your dominance, a way to deliver punishment without hurting you swinging arm without it having been a part of sex play, it is abusive. It is abusive because you don't indicate that he agrees with this, in fact you indicate the opposite, that he has no choice BUT to agree.
> 
> So I'll ask again, how does your husband get to feel your love for him? How do you demonstrate to him that you have HIS best interests at heart when you make decisions for the common good of the marriage?


For those that lack empathy such a question will either be a foreign concept or reinterpreted with a concentual lens.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Davelli0331

IOW he is not fully aware that he is taking part in this dynamic, and likely never gave any explicit consent to it nor did you two make any explicit agreement regarding it. You consider the way you're manipulating him OK because he is happier.


----------



## ladymisato

Eagle3 said:


> OP, this is a valid question and one that would interest a lot of people but you passing this off for details a book makes your skeptics have legit points. You have posted enough for 41 pages I think couple sentences are not too much to ask.
> 
> I myself don’t have probably a straight forward marriage to most but if you talk around questions on top of inconsistencies from your blog its hard to take what you are saying at face value. Just saying, I don’t have a dog in this fight but am starting to see why some are having a hard time getting what you are trying to convey.


There is no blog. There is an old website and a newer book. There have been some improvements but nothing of significance so I don't object to people quoting the website.

I'd rather discuss things more generally. I try to answer questions or state why I choose not to. Help me with a question of your own.


----------



## ladymisato

GettingIt said:


> OP, I was hoping you could speak to some of the questions I raised in this earlier post:
> 
> http://talkaboutmarriage.com/9894042-post485.html
> 
> regarding accountability in your marriage.
> 
> I understand if you're not comfortable, but just was wondering what the agreement is within your framework for when you fail to lead effectively or when your husband fails to follow to your specifications. Is there formal discipline? Is there a mechanism for him to air grievances?
> 
> On another point raised in my post: what of his duty to retain agency to act responsibly as a husband and father, even when it calls for him to defy you?


Sorry I missed that earlier post. I'll go back and reply to it as best I can (it's a bit long).

The main consequence of failure to lead is that the marriage goes offtrack and it's the wife's responsibility to get it back on track. He airs his point of view anytime he wants. I can't imagine any situation where he would need to defy me for the sake of the children but he's still a legal adult.


----------



## Marduk

ladymisato said:


> There is no blog. There is an old website and a newer book. There have been some improvements but nothing of significance so I don't object to people quoting the website.
> 
> I'd rather discuss things more generally. I try to answer questions or state why I choose not to. Help me with a question of your own.


How convenient it is of those that exploit and have power to rewrite history.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Blossom Leigh

marduk said:


> How convenient it is of those that exploit and have power to rewrite history.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


And totally gaslight all who call it for what it is.

I could have way more respect if she acknowledged the inherent risks at the level she is playing dom, than to rug sweep it and then gaslight.

Those are the moves that make me doubt her pollyanna presentation of her "experience"

And I'm sorry.. in all those that you are "helping" it is not possible statistically that they ALL are injury free. The responsible advice to give is proceed with caution.


----------



## Miss Independent

ladymisato said:


> Here are the main points:
> 
> 
> 
> *) Contrary to some theoretical assertions to the contrary, my husband is much happier
> now with our marriage than before.
> 
> 
> 
> WHY WASN'T HE HAPPY?
> 
> 
> 
> *) He told me things that allowed me to better control him, that I have shared with other wives to help them in their marriages. I sometimes say that he is a traitor to his sex.
> 
> 
> 
> IS IT IMPLIED IN YOUR POST THAT MEN LIKE TO BE CONTROLLED BY THEIR WIVES?
> 
> 
> 
> *)I demonstrate my love for him by making him happy.




CAN YOU GIVE AN EXAMPLE? 

I asked a few questions in your paragraph. Sorry I'm on my iphone, so I couldn't properly quote it


----------



## ladymisato

GettingIt said:


> Hmmm . . . let me see if I can come up with an example. Lets say you come home from work at the end of a long day and your husband didn't meet your expectations as far as his duties go. He didn't get the laundry done, or he forget items from the store again, or your dry cleaning is still sitting at the dry cleaners. Whatever. What to you DO about this? Is there a formal structure in place where he goes without sex for three days (for example)? Or is that just what happens when he doesn't please you? Your attraction to him plummets and he doesn't get laid?


We did use a more formal structure early on. We don't find that necessary any longer.



> I guess what I'm after here is: where is the accountability? What has he agreed upon as far as this goes? Have you discussed it?


He is accountable to me. I am accountable for making the marriage work and keeping him happy.



> And what is his recourse when he feels like you're falling on your face as a leader? When he feels you are making an unwise financial choice, or an unfair parenting choice, or even that you are not taking good care of yourself? Surely he as a loving husband and father would not abdicate all agency in this marriage. It doesn't seem responsible to do that. He owes that much to his children, if not to his wife.


No recourse is necessary because either I see the problem and work with him to fix it or I see that he is not as happy as he should be and do what I need.



> I won't quibble with you if you say he is happy with the current dynamic--but I look at it and say, well what man wouldn't be? He doesn't have to work, his wife is content, and he is getting more sex than he ever did. And all he has to do is agree (to you, not to society at large) that he is in a wife-led marriage, and "court" you--which I'm guessing means treat you lovingly and romantically and in ways that demonstrate his attraction to you.


He keeps the home, that is work. Before the children left, he was the primary caregiver. He works. But otherwise you paint an accurate picture.



> You can flip gender roles here and say the same thing about women who placate their husbands by allowing them to believe that they are the HoH. Give him sex, stroke his ego, keep his shirts ironed and his sandwiches coming . . . and do whatever the hell you want with your mind and time when it's not occupied with keeping husband happy.
> 
> It's not like people in HoH marriages go around announcing to their friends--hey, I'm in a marriage where one of us submits to the other. These marriages, from the outside, look pretty much like "equal power marriages" (for lack of a better term).


Well, that is one of the points I've made several times.



> No one that I know IRL would guess that I'm in a 24/7 D/s marriage. They wouldn't' even know if they came to my house and stayed with me for a week!
> 
> So what possibly could have been your husband's incentive to say "no" to this? Unless he's got a strong need or desire to be a dominate himself, he's got it made. All he has to do is say, "Sure honey, you're in charge."


I think you're right!



> I do apologize if I've missed a salient point somewhere in this long thread. But your marriage, to me, just looks like one in which the two spouses found an arrangement that works best for them as far as division of labor goes. You like to have more say in the day to day, your husband likes to have more sex--seems like a negotiated trade more than a power shift. Not that there is ANYTHING wrong with that.


That's pretty much it.

What I would add is this. I found that there were many other wives unhappy in their marriage who were able to make a similar change. I recognize that there are certainly many people who are deeply offended by what I am proposing but there are also those who might be willing to try.

Where I really push hard is when I see a marriage on the road to divorce. I really angers me to see people choosing divorce over working on their marriage creatively. That, more than anything else, is my motivation.


----------



## Eagle3

_There is no blog. There is an old website and a newer book. There have been some improvements but nothing of significance so I don't object to people quoting the website.

I'd rather discuss things more generally. I try to answer questions or state why I choose not to. Help me with a question of your own. _

I feel like i am jumping in line here as there are others that have questions you have chosen or not have answered. But here goes. In what you have going on in your dyanmic do you have love and respect for your husband overall? Did he have much input into what you guys are doing? Asking because if what others have posted that you in the website or book (sorry i cant keep a thread with 45 pages straight) have referenced him as a loser or weak etc...than I question that. I think in any relationship be it "normal" or something of a D's there has to be some type of love and respect for your partner for it to be healthy and worth following.

Without that it just looks disrespectful or a type of domination that only one party is either privy too or getting anything out of it.


----------



## Regret214

"The key to reviving courtship in marriage is to withdraw the certainty of romance."


"To become the object of his adoration, to become Queen of your household, you must learn to comfortably and confidently wield your erotic power over your husband."




Not manipulative in the least!! And these two sentences are in the first couple pages.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ladymisato

spinsterdurga said:


> WHY WASN'T HE HAPPY?


Before the crisis came to a head he was unhappy for many reasons. We fought all the time. We resented each other. And he wasn't getting enough sex. I'm sure I could think of more examples but those were the big ones.



> IS IT IMPLIED IN YOUR POST THAT MEN LIKE TO BE CONTROLLED BY THEIR WIVES?


I get a lot of emails from husbands asking me how they can introduce their wives to this. There are those.

Most men get very excited by this from the start.

And virtually all men come to appreciate this arrangement even when they did not give initial consent.



> CAN YOU GIVE AN EXAMPLE?


Did I answer that or was there something else you wanted and example of?


----------



## ladymisato

Regret214 said:


> Not manipulative in the least!!


I know you are shocked but I never denied that. In fact, I give a warning to that effect somewhere in the introduction.


----------



## Marduk

OP, how exactly did you receive consent for this behaviour?

By repeatedly bringing him to the point of orgasm and then deny it?

By causing him pain/discomfort in his testicles?

By making him wear your underwear and live under the threat of letting his friends and family know it until he consented?

What rational person or court of law would consider this consent?


----------



## Davelli0331

marduk said:


> OP, how exactly did you receive consent for this behaviour?
> 
> By repeatedly bringing him to the point of orgasm and then deny it?
> 
> By causing him pain/discomfort in his testicles?
> 
> By making him wear your underwear and live under the threat of letting his friends and family know it until he consented?
> 
> What rational person or court of law would consider this consent?


See bolded directly from OP


ladymisato said:


> Before the crisis came to a head he was unhappy for many reasons. We fought all the time. We resented each other. And he wasn't getting enough sex. I'm sure I could think of more examples but those were the big ones.
> 
> I get a lot of emails from husbands asking me how they can introduce their wives to this. There are those.
> 
> Most men get very excited by this from the start.
> 
> *And virtually all men come to appreciate this arrangement even when they did not give initial consent.*


----------



## Marduk

ladymisato said:


> I know you are shocked but I never denied that. In fact, I give a warning to that effect somewhere in the introduction.


Oh, that makes it OK, then.

The consent of the exploited does not make it acceptable, only pathetic.

Go and work in a women's shelter (as I have) where you see the net result of such manipulative behaviour first hand.

The flipping of the gender roles doesn't make it any better.

Many prostitues love their pimps.

Many slaves loved their masters before they were freed.

Many abused spouses love their abusers.


----------



## GettingIt_2

ladymisato said:


> We did use a more formal structure early on. We don't find that necessary any longer.


What was it? 



ladymisato said:


> He is accountable to me. I am accountable for making the marriage work and keeping him happy.


Can you give a real-life example? 




ladymisato said:


> No recourse is necessary because either I see the problem and work with him to fix it or I see that he is not as happy as he should be and do what I need.


Tell us about a time when you did this. 



ladymisato said:


> What I would add is this. I found that there were many other wives unhappy in their marriage who were able to make a similar change. I recognize that there are certainly many people who are deeply offended by what I am proposing but there are also those who might be willing to try.


How does a wife make this sort of change? What is the first thing she does? Does she tell her husband she wants him to be her sub, or does she begin exhibiting dominant behavior first and explain it later? What happens if the husband says, "no thanks"?



ladymisato said:


> Where I really push hard is when I see a marriage on the road to divorce. I really angers me to see people choosing divorce over working on their marriage creatively. That, more than anything else, is my motivation.


Why does divorce anger you?


----------



## ladymisato

Eagle3 said:


> I feel like i am jumping in line here as there are others that have questions you have chosen or not have answered. But here goes. In what you have going on in your dyanmic do you have love and respect for your husband overall?


Absolutely, yes. I have more love and respect for him now than before. When our marital crisis came to a head I had lost all respect for him. (I won't say I had lost love but it was hard to feel it at the time.) I have the utmost respect for many reasons but especially for the fact that he went along with these changes and trusted me not to abuse the power he handed me. I hope that makes sense.



> Did he have much input into what you guys are doing? Asking because if what others have posted that you in the website or book (sorry i cant keep a thread with 45 pages straight) have referenced him as a loser or weak etc...than I question that. I think in any relationship be it "normal" or something of a D's there has to be some type of love and respect for your partner for it to be healthy and worth following.


A lot of posters picked out the most outrageous quotes they could find without context. (And I don't mind repeating myself, I do get a little testy when people say I haven't answered a question that I have.)

So, in fact, he was very active in shaping this. He revealed much to me from the male perspective. I call him a traitor to his gender. I would not have figured this all out on my own.


----------



## Marduk

Davelli0331 said:


> See bolded directly from OP


OP, where do you live?

I'd very much like to speak to local law enforcement about your "consensual" activities.


----------



## Regret214

Just. Wow.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Anon Pink

ladymisato said:


> I don't expect everyone to read the entire thread, but I have answered this before, at least in a general way.
> 
> Here are the main points:
> 
> *) Contrary to some theoretical assertions to the contrary, my husband is much happier now with our marriage than before.
> 
> *) My husband was very active in helping us discover this arrangement. He told me things that allowed me to better control him, that I have shared with other wives to help them in their marriages. I sometimes say that he is a traitor to his sex.
> 
> *) He is quite excited in many ordinary situations (e.g. doing housework).
> 
> 
> I demonstrate my love for him by making him happy.


Thank you.

You're right, those are VERY generalized answers. So much so they actually indicate something entirely different to me, and I'm here in this thread specifically to support the idea of a D/s marriage.

You're making it extremely difficult to support this idea. You come across as someone who is intelligent and articulate so when you evade and choose your words so carefully that send alarm bells ringing for me. Think the bull sh!t empty words that come from all politicians today. Do we trust them or believe them? Not if we have an ounce of sense in us!



> My husband was very active in helping us discover this arrangement. He told me things that allowed me to better control him, that I have shared with other wives to help them in their marriages. I sometimes say that he is a traitor to his sex.


This can be interpreted in many ways and I think you are well aware of it.

I don't think you're here to dialogue, but to create interest in your book or create a hot mess on this forum.

I am a submissive but I hate being toyed with. I'm out.


----------



## Marduk

GettingIt said:


> Why does divorce anger you?


Because she'll lose control over that which she exploits and sees as sub-human.


----------



## Blossom Leigh

ladymisato said:


> We did use a more formal structure early on. We don't find that necessary any longer.
> 
> 
> He is accountable to me. I am accountable for making the marriage work and keeping him happy.
> 
> 
> No recourse is necessary because either I see the problem and work with him to fix it or I see that he is not as happy as he should be and do what I need.
> 
> 
> He keeps the home, that is work. Before the children left, he was the primary caregiver. He works. But otherwise you paint an accurate picture.
> 
> 
> Well, that is one of the points I've made several times.
> 
> 
> I think you're right!
> 
> 
> That's pretty much it.
> 
> What I would add is this. I found that there were many other wives unhappy in their marriage who were able to make a similar change. I recognize that there are certainly many people who are deeply offended by what I am proposing but there are also those who might be willing to try.
> 
> Where I really push hard is when I see a marriage on the road to divorce. I really angers me to see people choosing divorce over working on their marriage creatively. That, more than anything else, is my motivation.


So basically, your answer to the accountability question was a veiled no. You are not accountable to HIM.


----------



## ladymisato

GettingIt said:


> What was it?


A nightly grading system.



> Can you give a real-life example?


Well, if I see that he is unhappy I find out what is wrong and what I need to do. (Of course, I'm not talking about ordinary mood swings but things of substance.)



> Tell us about a time when you did this.


A little example: missing time with male friends. It's come up a few times and we made adjustments to our marriage for that.



> How does a wife make this sort of change? What is the first thing she does? Does she tell her husband she wants him to be her sub, or does she begin exhibiting dominant behavior first and explain it later? What happens if the husband says, "no thanks"?


No, first there is a lot of internal reordering. She decides that she deserves a good marriage and will do whatever it takes. The main first step with her husband is to demand courtship for romance. There are some initial experiments designed to build confidence. And so it goes.



> Why does divorce anger you?


To me marriage is a lifetime commitment. It's about learning to make a life with someone. There is no good reason to divorce. Given that, a wife should do whatever it takes to make the marriage work. Whatever.


----------



## ladymisato

Blossom Leigh said:


> So basically, your answer to the accountability question was a veiled no. You are not accountable to HIM.


That's correct. I am accountable for his happiness but not to him.


----------



## Davelli0331

ladymisato said:


> So, in fact, he was very active in shaping this. He revealed much to me from the male perspective. I call him a traitor to his gender. I would not have figured this all out on my own.


Anon Pink is absolutely right. You know exactly what we're asking you. I have asked you directly and you have not replied. 

Was your husband a fully aware, fully cognizant, fully competent, of his own free and un-manipulated will, participant in building this dynamic, and is he such now?


----------



## Marduk

Davelli0331 said:


> Anon Pink is absolutely right. You know exactly what we're asking you. I have asked you directly and you have not replied.
> 
> Was your husband a fully aware, fully cognizant, fully competent, of his own free and un-manipulated, will participant in building this dynamic, and is he such now?


I suspect his consent wasn't received until he was properly trained to do so.


----------



## ladymisato

Davelli0331 said:


> Was your husband a fully aware, fully cognizant, fully competent, of his own free and un-manipulated, will participant in building this dynamic, and is he such now?


Nobody is free of manipulation. You are posing an absurd standard. So the simple answer is "no".


----------



## Regret214

And you'd be okay with everything if a man did this to a woman?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Fozzy

ladymisato said:


> Before the crisis came to a head he was unhappy for many reasons. We fought all the time. We resented each other. And he wasn't getting enough sex. I'm sure I could think of more examples but those were the big ones.
> 
> 
> I get a lot of emails from husbands asking me how they can introduce their wives to this. There are those.
> 
> Most men get very excited by this from the start.
> 
> *And virtually all men come to appreciate this arrangement even when they did not give initial consent.*
> 
> 
> Did I answer that or was there something else you wanted and example of?



This is so blatantly disrespectful and violates trust on so many levels...

Trust. You remember that word? It's predicated on honesty. Think about it.


----------



## committed4ever

LadyM, does your husband have the option to say "I'm done. This is no longer working for me." 

And if so, where do you think your marriage would go from there?


----------



## Marduk

Regret214 said:


> And you'd be okay with everything if a man did this to a woman?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I don't think she'd give a damn, because it would help validate her behaviour.


----------



## ladymisato

committed4ever said:


> LadyM, does your husband have the option to say "I'm done. This is no longer working for me."
> 
> And if so, where do you think your marriage would go from there?


Since I cannot take away his legal status as an adult, yes.

Of course, since my first priority is the marriage we would look for a new solution.

But we've been at this for almost two decades. I think we're both pretty settled into it now.


----------



## Davelli0331

ladymisato said:


> Nobody is free of manipulation. You are posing an absurd standard. So the simple answer is "no".


Thank you for finally answering me as directly as I figure you're ever going to. 

There's not really much else polite or constructive I can say about any of this. I feel the same way about this as I did about that alpha/beta/golden ratio/MMSL crap that became so popular here.


----------



## GettingIt_2

I'm going to agree with AP, and with what my gut's been telling me from about page two. 

See y'all!


----------



## Blossom Leigh

ladymisato said:


> That's correct. I am accountable for his happiness but not to him.


You know I have to laugh.. it was only AFTER I said quite intentionally that you would not answer straight up that now you have been more forthcoming... So who is the DOM now... Gotcha...

Yep, so I say for the final time with the rest... I'm out... Cya


----------



## ladymisato

Regret214 said:


> And you'd be okay with everything if a man did this to a woman?


It wouldn't work to do a mirror reverse. But I have no issues with it in theory. I'm not some sort of female supremacist.


----------



## Regret214

ladymisato said:


> It wouldn't work to do a mirror reverse. But I have no issues with it in theory. I'm not some sort of female supremacist.


Why wouldn't it work? It's simply manipulation.

Well, I'm gonna try to step out on this one now. We're talking with someone who condones mental and physical abuse under the guise of consent. I don't know about anyone else, but this crap is way worse than anything Athol Kay ever wrote. And I really don't care for him.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ladymisato

Regret214 said:


> Why wouldn't it work? It's simply manipulation.


Anyone can manipulate but men cannot manipulate women the same way that women can manipulate men.


----------



## Regret214

That's right. Cuz biologically we're superior and cannot be manipulated with sex.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faeleaf

ladymisato said:


> *There is no good reason to divorce.* Given that, a wife should do whatever it takes to make the marriage work. Whatever.



There are.

Very good reasons.

For divorce.

Every single divorce was wrong? Every single couple that wanted one was _wrong? _From the dawn of time? And this you know, without ever talking to them, without hearing a single word in their defense? You know better than they do_ about their own lives_ and choices? Judgement for the wives of:

Abusers. 

Serial killers.

Rapists.

Child molesters.

Arsonists.

Ax murderers.

Heroin addicts.

The psychotically insane.

Hitler.


All I can say is that you have a very, very high regard for your own opinion, to imagine that you know better than EVERYONE whether or not it is wrong for them to get divorced.


----------



## ladymisato

Regret214 said:


> That's right. Cuz biologically we're superior and cannot be manipulated with sex.


Different. Now we can certainly give examples of men manipulating women with power and wealth.


----------



## Miss Independent

ladymisato said:


> Before the crisis came to a head he was unhappy for many reasons. We fought all the time. We resented each other. And he wasn't getting enough sex. I'm sure I could think of more examples but those were the big



I meant can you list those reasons? It's vague saying that he was unhappy. Why wasn't he getting enough sex? 

He gets enough sex when he lets you control him? 




ladymisato said:


> I get a lot of emails from husbands asking me how they can introduce their wives to this. There are those.
> 
> 
> 
> Most men get very excited by this from the start.
> 
> 
> 
> And virtually all men come to appreciate this arrangement even when they did not give initial consent.



I was asking about the ones who didn't ask for a controlling wife. Your post implied that men like controlling wives. 

How many men have been excited about being with a controlling women. You stated that "most" men were excited about your ideas. My question is are you saying that the majority of men like to be dominated by their wives? And those who are not excited about it (don't like it) are in the minority? 




ladymisato said:


> Did I answer that or was there something else you wanted and example of?




An example of what you do to make him happy


----------



## ladymisato

Faeleaf said:


> All I can say is that you have a very, very high regard for your own opinion, to imagine that you know better than EVERYONE whether or not it is wrong for them to get divorced.


None of those are good reasons for divorce.


----------



## Faeleaf

ladymisato said:


> None of those are good reasons for divorce.


It is literally _not possible _for you to know that. You don't know _anything about_ the people you have made this decision on behalf of. 

You value your own opinion too high, and others' opinions too low.

This may be why the only marriage that suited you was the one where you made all the decisions.


----------



## Miss Independent

ladymisato said:


> None of those are good reasons for divorce.



Do you have kids?


----------



## ladymisato

spinsterdurga said:


> I meant can you list those reasons? It's vague saying that he was unhappy. Why wasn't he getting enough sex?


The list that followed were the main reasons. He was not getting enough sex because I had lost interest in sex. I had lost interest in sex because I was overwhelmed between work and home.



> He gets enough sex when he lets you control him?


More than that, the whole marriage is eroticized.



> I was asking about the ones who didn't ask for a controlling wife. Your post implied that men like controlling wives.


Let's be precise. I'm referring to wives who practice what I teach. One of the things I teach is not to be a nag. Men are absolutely not attracted to nagging wives.



> How many men have been excited about being with a controlling women. You stated that "most" men were excited about your ideas. My question is are you saying that the majority of men like to be dominated by their wives? And those who are not excited about it (don't like it) are in the minority?


I was giving three categories of men. Those who seek it out on their own, those who are excited when it is presented to them, and those who accept it after the marriage has been transformed. Altogether that is an overwhelming majority of men.



> An example of what you do to make him happy


Mostly just being there with him and doing what I do and being who I am.


----------



## ladymisato

spinsterdurga said:


> Do you have kids?


Yes, grown and out of the house.


----------



## Regret214

ladymisato said:


> None of those are good reasons for divorce.


Oh FFS!!!!

Child molestation is NOT a good reason for divorce??!!! Are you freaking kidding me here?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Almostrecovered

And there ya have it

If something is presented as a panacea then it's a sham


C ya


----------



## ladymisato

Faeleaf said:


> It is literally _not possible _for you to know that. You don't know _anything about_ the people you have made this decision on behalf of.
> 
> You value your own opinion too high, and others' opinions too low.
> 
> This may be why the only marriage that suited you was the one where you made all the decisions.


Ok, but my attitude leads me to this: I am always willing to help a wife save her marriage. I am never willing to help her end it. She doesn't have to come to me for help with that, she can find plenty of lawyers who are happy to take her money to do that.


----------



## ladymisato

Regret214 said:


> Oh FFS!!!!
> 
> Child molestation is NOT a good reason for divorce??!!! Are you freaking kidding me here?


No. Call the cops. Have him go to jail. Help him turn his life around.


----------



## Faeleaf

ladymisato said:


> Ok, but my attitude leads me to this: I am always willing to help a wife save her marriage. I am never willing to help her end it. She doesn't have to come to me for help with that, she can find plenty of lawyers who are happy to take her money to do that.


What you are willing to do has no bearing on whether or not a divorce is wrong.


----------



## Regret214

Funny thing about child molesters...they're typically unable to be "turned around".
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ladymisato

Faeleaf said:


> What you are willing to do has no bearing on whether or not a divorce is wrong.


Our opinions determine our choices. I explained mine.


----------



## Faeleaf

ladymisato said:


> No. Call the cops. Have him go to jail. Help him turn his life around.



I'm sorry. The remark I'm deleting here was needlessly snarky, and that doesn't align with my ideals for a helpful discussion.

OP - kudos on keeping your cool. I started out skeptical and slightly aghast. I'm ending here in full-on horror. I'm sad we weren't able to see more eye to eye. Good luck with your dogma.

Love you all.


----------



## treyvion

ladymisato said:


> It wouldn't work to do a mirror reverse. But I have no issues with it in theory. I'm not some sort of female supremacist.


You said it. I couldn't even begin to put it in words, but you said it. "Female supremacist"


----------



## Miss Independent

ladymisato said:


> I had lost interest in sex because I was overwhelmed between work and home.



Can you intelligibly explain what part he played in you being overwhelmed (ex: didn't help with the house work, ect...) ? 




ladymisato said:


> More than that, the whole marriage is eroticized.




Can you intelligibly answer my question? If you don't want to answer or defend your ideas, maybe you should promote it elsewhere...it's a suggestion. 




ladymisato said:


> Let's be precise. I'm referring to wives who practice what I teach. One of the things I teach is not to be a nag. Men are absolutely not attracted to nagging wives.




I wasn't referring to nags. One doesn't have to be a nag to be controlling. You're philosophy is controlling.

I'll really appreciate it if you refrain from putting words in my mouth. 




ladymisato said:


> I was giving three categories of men.




Three categories of men who seek your help or three categories of men in the world which one is it?



ladymisato said:


> Those who seek it out on their own, those who are excited when it is presented to them, and those who accept it after the marriage has been transformed. Altogether that is an overwhelming majority of men.




Majority based on what? 





ladymisato said:


> Mostly just being there with him and doing what I do and being who I am.



You make him happy by existing/being alive? 😏


----------



## Miss Independent

ladymisato said:


> Yes, grown and out of the house.



If your husband murders one of your kids, you'd help him turn his life around? 

Bless your heart!


----------



## ladymisato

spinsterdurga said:


> Can you intelligibly explain what part he played in you being overwhelmed (ex: didn't help with the house work, ect...) ?


I was doing all the housework and childcare plus providing virtually all of the family income (which required long hours).



> I wasn't referring to nags. One doesn't have to be a nag to be controlling. You're philosophy is controlling.


Yes, my philosophy is controlling. But there are many, many ways of being controlling that are counterproductive. When I say that most men enjoy being controlled, I mean precisely in the way that I describe and in no other way. Nagging is just an obvious example of an unproductive way to control.



> Three categories of men who seek your help or three categories of men in the world which one is it?


I don't try to help husbands. I gave up on that long ago. Three categories of men in the world based on my experience with the wives. (Though, as I said, I get lots of emails from men asking me to help them.)



> Majority based on what?


My nonscientific experience with helping wives.



> You make him happy by existing/being alive?


Well, I think he would be a little disappointed if I were alive but not with him.


----------



## ladymisato

spinsterdurga said:


> If your husband murders one of your kids, you'd help him turn his life around?


Yes. Though obviously that would be very difficult. Still, I would not divorce him.


----------



## Revamped

ladymisato said:


> Yes. Though obviously that would be very difficult. Still, I would not divorce him.


You should stop.

Now.

Over the top.

May you never have the pain of losing a child.

Enough of this.


----------



## SCDP Joan

And you think this is healthy? And if a woman cannot or will not look past someone who physically harmed her and or her children divorces, that is wrong and unhealthy?

I think you've been removed from reality somehow because those narrow views on the world are frightening. 

If we were unable to make things work in a partnerships, your solution would not work for me. Ever. I need and want an equal and someone who needs and wants the same from me.


----------



## Revamped

This whole thread needs removed.

It's too much. How can I flag this?


----------



## Miss Independent

ladymisato said:


> I was doing all the housework and childcare plus providing virtually all of the family income (which required long hours).




You cut off sex because he wasn't helping you with the housework and childcare...gotcha👍. 






ladymisato said:


> Three categories of men in the world based on my experience with the wives.



How receptive was that Asian guy you helped? Since it's three categories of men in the WOLRD I'm assuming you interacted with Asian, African and European men. Can you tell me how receptive each one of them was?





ladymisato said:


> Well, I think he would be a little disappointed if I were alive but not with him.



Well I couldn't agree more. Based on your posts, he is ecstatic to be married to you and that's his only need.


----------



## Miss Independent

Revamped said:


> This whole thread needs removed.
> 
> 
> 
> It's too much. How can I flag this?



You can report it


----------



## over20

Revamped said:


> You should stop.
> 
> Now.
> 
> Over the top.
> 
> May you never have the pain of losing a child.
> 
> Enough of this.


:iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree:


----------



## over20

If we all stop posting it will kill the life in this thread and become a bad memory......on 3?


----------



## Revamped

How do I report this?

I don't see a link to the moderator.


----------



## Revamped

over20 said:


> If we all stop posting it will kill the life in this thread and become a bad memory......on 3?


No.

Belittling a loss of a child is sick and demented.

She needs to go. All of it.


----------



## Theseus

marduk said:


> OP, where do you live?
> 
> I'd very much like to speak to local law enforcement about your "consensual" activities.



Yeah, Marduk, let me know how that goes.

_"Hey, is this the local police? I have a wife-led marriage I want to report. She's denying her husband orgasms! And she doesn't have have written consent for that. She's a menace to society, and must be stopped immediately!" _

Good luck with that.


----------



## Revamped

Stop.

This has gone beyond insane.

No more posts.


----------

