slaveluci
Posts: 4294
Joined: 3/2/2007
From: Little Rock, AR
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: kittinSol
While making her wear a blindfold. A lot of fun for us, kinky, deviant types, but something tells me this woman wasn't wired that way.
I agree that she certainly didn't seem to be into it. But then my question is, "Why did she do it?" I didn't see a gun to her head (so there was a choice) and I don't remember it said that she had to wear it. She wore it (supposedly) so that she would not feel compelled to dictate to him which route to take. She apparently had such a problem not nagging him how to drive that the blindfold was apparently to keep her from even seeing and thus nagging. I looked at this from a slightly different perspective: it's sad to think that a woman has so little control over her tongue that she feels the solution is to just have her eyes blindfolded so she won't feel the urge to nag/dictate/tell her husband how to do something. I can refrain from all those things without being blindfolded, I assure you.
quote:
a woman had to make her husband a smoothie for breakfast
Again, I'll ask the question: as opposed to subs/slaves who serve? If a dom/master expects that a smoothie be waiting for him in the morning, do we look at that as abuse because his sub/slave "has" to make it and have it ready? It's as if everyone is saying "Oh this poor wife. She is forced to serve." She married her husband as sure as I became Master's property. I'm assuming she knew who she was marrying as sure as I knew my Master. Can we give these women a touch of credit as to the fact that she just may have known that she'd be expected to fix her husband breakfast in the mornings? Cripe - my mother never once failed to fix my father's breakfast and get up with him every single day. She was never forced to or abused. She did it because she didn't work outside the home, he did and worked like a dog I might add to support her and their children, and she didn't feel right about snoozing in bed while he got his own breakfast. Thus, every day she did this for him. "Had to?" No. Wanted to out of respect and desire to make his life a bit easier and show her love for him? Absolutely.
quote:
The wife called the child's father by the name 'Daddy': it's creepy. It can make the child feel that somehow, her father is also her mother's father. It's just plain wrong: I call that abuse. Plus, you can BET the man never speaks to their daughter about "pleasing" and "honouring" the mother.
That is your opinion. I don't know where you live but I hear mother's speak to small children everyday about "daddy." After all, that is the name the child knows the man by - Daddy. Nothing creepy about it. As far as making the child feel that the "father is also her mother's father," I certainly don't think so. Again, my mother always referred (when speaking to us kids directly) to my father as "Dad." She'd say "Dad's on his way home for work" or something similar. I never once confused my Dad for her's . It's interesting that you call this "abuse." Again, that is so very subjective. Nothing abusive at all about it to me. An interesting side note here: recently on the "When is enough, enough" thread, Velvetears took a shredding for speaking about being at a BBQ and witnessing what she considered abuse as far as things being exposed to children. I guess it was debatable as far as whether or not to consider it abusive, but I feel it was definitely TMI in front of young ones. But here, simply calling their Daddy "Daddy" is abusive? Geesh...... As far as the man never speaking about "pleasing" and "honoring" the mother, we certainly don't have any idea whether or not that happens. I'm not going to assume it doesn't.
quote:
In that case, it's obvious she's deriving a lot of pleasure from giving personal service. I think that's quite cute.
What you consider "cute," I consider the basis of my relationship with my Master. Just because you may not personally have any desire to give personal service or get anything from it, can't you at least respect someone else's right/desire to without reducing it to something quaint? I think it's cute when people dress up in costumes and go do intimate things in public for an audience. I would never do that. That does not mean that I look down my nose at it or consider it a lesser form of BDSM.
quote:
And you think that's good general advice for women??? Lowrat Boyle is effectively saying that women should step down and behave as if they were inferior to their husbands. I think it's repugnant to advocate that women give over their bodies as if they were mere objects for the sexual relief of their husband. In such a case, they're not wives, they're hosebags.
Do I think that's good general advice for women? I certainly do. It's not behaving as if you're "inferior" in my eyes. It's allowing one's husband (or Master) to take his place as the leader in the relationship. No one has mentioned this line but it was said in the clip that it's like a partnership where the husband is senior partner and the wife is junior partner. I thought that summed it up beautifully. She's still a partner but he has final say. I just don't see what's so horrible about that. You think it's "repugnant" that wives become sexual "objects" for their husbands but yet any kink (including objectification) is A-OK here in the "lifestyle." I just cannot see why it's ok in the relationships you'll find here but horrid between a husband and wife. You'll probably say, "Well it's choice or consent." Yes, but she chose to marry the man and, as I said earlier, these women do not seem to be under physical duress to do as their husbands desire. They certainly aren't chained or tied. I am just floored by everyone's shocked reaction to these women living as they do when it's so similar to how many in what is defined as "BDSM" relationships do.
quote:
Please explain to me on which basis Lowrat Boyle says such a thing. I suspect it's pure manipulation: it's easier to catch flies with honey than with vinegar: it's all about massaging a man's ego so that he feels he has Da Power. Where's the mutual respect if he is so obviously manipulated!
On the same basis you say all you've said - opinion. You may suspect it's manipulation and trickery but again, that's just your take on it. I don't think these men were manipulated in the least.
quote:
It's fine if you and your partner have this kind of relationship.
I'm beginning to wonder . Seems like everything everyone is so angry and sickened about is the basis of our relationship. We aren't married yet but will be before the summer is out. Maybe then it will become wrong since we're legally married?
quote:
The problem I have with this book is that the author advocates all of the above with the aim of making sure the man stays happy. Her argument has nothing to do with the happiness of the wife.
No, but you can go to any bookstore and find a blue million books on that subject. Books with no focus other than to make sure the wife/woman insures her own happiness within her relationship. This author wrote a book from a different perspective and certainly has every right to. Making sure my man/Master stays happy is what it's all about for me. If that is not what these women want, they can refuse that dynamic and/or get out of the marriage. I am a slave - they are not.
quote:
It has nothing to do with a D/s relationship, because it isn't explicitly one. Therefore it leaves a lot of scope for taking advantage of the wife's submission. It allows for an infinity of interprations for the husbands. I think it's dangerous, I think it's repellent, and I repeat: the marriages in question won't last any longer than others. Simply, I think the wives will suffer a lot more collateral damage.
Again, I would point out that the only difference may be (because we do not know) that the wives didn't specifically consent. These wives all seemed to be intelligent women. If they are being "taken advantage" of, certainly they can take steps to remedy that. To you, it may be dangerous and repellent but to me it is not. It's obvious we come from verrrrrrryyyy different perspectives on what submission is and should be. To each their own but when something isn't for me, I don't do it. I certainly don't tell others if they do they are in "sick" relationships. (Actually, I did infer that with one relationship here but I have since learned that it's certainly not my place or right to do so and I issued an apology for being so presumptuous and judgmental). It's just not my right to dictate to another couple what's appropriate for them..............slave luci
_____________________________
To choose a good book, look in an inquisitor’s prohibited list. ~John Aikin
|
RE: Surrendered Wives on "60 minutes" Austrailia - 
Profile
.....thank you, Amygirl. Very well said..........slave luci
. As far as these wives always saying yes.....and that differs from lots of subs/slaves how? Do most of them usually refuse their doms/masters when they want sex? I wouldn't know because I don't have the option of saying "yes" or "no" since I'm not asked for my opinion about it. He wants anything and He gets it - it's not a debate. That's what I agreed to when I became His slave and that's what these women agreed to in their marriage. How is that wrong or boring?...........slave luci 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread