Female-Led Relationships

littlecordelera said:

Wow! Thank you, justplatonic!

It is difficult to answer some questions honestly out here. To do so would sound self-promoting, and I am not that way, or at least, I try not to be. For those questions, if they had been asked in a PM, my answer would have been completely different. I sometimes wonder if you guys can tell that I am dodging the question. Whatever the case, you are always welcome to send me a PM.

Justplatonic, guys like you are a breath of fresh air. I can't tell you how many times I have met a guy who is pretending to be something he is not. And yes, I can tell. It happens in PM's and email, too. So to be honest, I know why guys become so nervous. They want to impress me, of course they do. That's the way nature made it. The male has to impress the female. For some that nervousness is natural, and that's okay, I like that! But for others, they are nervous because instead of being themselves, they are pretending to be something they are not, and they are afraid I can tell.

I can tell, and I don't like it.

What impresses me is a guy who has the courage to be himself. It may not get him anywhere; he may not be what I am looking for, but the chances of fooling me are extremely slim, and the outcome is usually not pretty. When I meet that guy who can be himself - whatever that may be - and we click, I can take it from there, and you can bet I will. He doesn't have to be the alpha, very few truly are, he just has to be himself. I can play in different ways, and I am not afraid of sex. If we click, this experienced female who likes to call the shots, can show you a world the likes of which you've never seen. There is nothing I enjoy more.

That's the honest truth.

Click to expand...

Thank you littlecordelera... That means a lot to me (you've made my day)... I've never been referred to as a breath of fresh air, perhaps I should have that printed on a t-shirt...

littlecordelera is one of the few Women on Lit that know their place, and know where your place is. There is absolutely no denying the laws of nature. I personally find that very invigorating... But moreover, intelligence is often relegated to the bottom of the list. Funny thing is, it's this intelligence which propels littlecordelera and the other few Women on Lit to the dizzying heights of where they belong... Looking downwards at us mere mortals...

From my point of view littlecordelera, you're a bit of alright too...

In my view it is a mistake to associate leadership qualities with any given gender or group. Even if we could find a truly objective sample and develop an objective test to assess leadership abilities I do not believe we would find any absolutes. At most we might find that one gender is moderately more well suited than the other - but there will still be leaders and follower in both genders.

I also tend to feel that truly good leaders are much more rare than one per household. In traditional patriarchal society the man who is "head of the household" is frequently not a leader. He might be in charge or have authority but that doesn't make him a leader. In most cases those men were heavily influenced or outright directed by external leaders - politicians, religious leaders, union bosses, etc. - as to how to manage their household. Those men were metaphorically a little like the manager of the local McDonalds. They have authority to carry out somebody else's orders which were developed to support somebody else's vision. They can and often do play that role without offering any real leadership.

Lots of problems arise when people confuse authority with leadership or assume that their gender automatically imbues them with leadership qualities. That delusion leads them to make mistakes and exercise authority in a way that can have significant consequences for others and create friction with those they seek to lead. In the worst case that delusion convinces them that their actions are above reproach or that they are justified in disregarding alternative points of view - it is a very fine line between a great leader seeing things through in the face of opposition and an ignorant douche-bag just trying to get his/her own way or avoid admitting a mistake.

policywank said:

In my view it is a mistake to associate leadership qualities with any given gender or group. Even if we could find a truly objective sample and develop an objective test to assess leadership abilities I do not believe we would find any absolutes. At most we might find that one gender is moderately more well suited than the other - but there will still be leaders and follower in both genders.

I also tend to feel that truly good leaders are much more rare than one per household. In traditional patriarchal society the man who is "head of the household" is frequently not a leader. He might be in charge or have authority but that doesn't make him a leader. In most cases those men were heavily influenced or outright directed by external leaders - politicians, religious leaders, union bosses, etc. - as to how to manage their household. Those men were metaphorically a little like the manager of the local McDonalds. They have authority to carry out somebody else's orders which were developed to support somebody else's vision. They can and often do play that role without offering any real leadership.

Lots of problems arise when people confuse authority with leadership or assume that their gender automatically imbues them with leadership qualities. That delusion leads them to make mistakes and exercise authority in a way that can have significant consequences for others and create friction with those they seek to lead. In the worst case that delusion convinces them that their actions are above reproach or that they are justified in disregarding alternative points of view - it is a very fine line between a great leader seeing things through in the face of opposition and an ignorant douche-bag just trying to get his/her own way or avoid admitting a mistake.

Click to expand...

I just intelligent Women! You've inspired me to write this post policywank…

I agree... Not everyone is cut out to be a Leader, and there's too many people expected to be a Leader, when they're clearly not... The problem is, our society’s male bias isn't driven by nature… Most people know, when you suppress nature, or diminish it, there are significant ramifications.

We all know about the many examples in the insect world, where there are Females of many species reining supreme. This is very normal due to their natural superior biology and physiology. What does the subservient insect population do? Does it conspire, manipulate, or indoctrinate? No… It follows, without question, without pause… And to great success (as you’ll read soon)! Look, I know humans don't operate this way, but we have all evolved in the same world.

I feel if we stripped away societal influences (and manipulations), merely by virtue of Women’s, you guessed it, superior biology and physiology, would we align with the Female ruled insect population paradigm?

What is remarkable, there is approximately 1.4 billion (the figure does fluctuate) insects to one person. Consider how many instances of insect Females reining supreme in this group could be, versus the male bias in human society… The difference is staggering!

That's why we're here today, waxing lyrical about FLR, wishing it was more the norm… Simply put, the powers that be (I don’t mean just governments) distort society to fit their own collective agendas. Any deviation from those will always be frowned upon…

The best we can do in own small personal part of the world, is wave the biggest fuckin' FLR flag we can, love the best way we can, and in the way we want to...

There is another explanation too for Female Led Relationships besides just roles and responsibilities.

In Dr Chapman's book, "The 5 Love Languages" he speaks of "Acts of Service" as being number two on his 5 item list.

I think for many of us, myself included, I fall into this. I am a male, a natural born leader, but show affection by doing things for the women in my life. This can be as romantic as cooking a five course meal for my wife fully naked (just not bacon), or something as simple as changing out a circuit breaker.

In some ways I am female-led in this regard because I happily do the Honey-Do-List because to me it shows love. I want her home to be comfortable and inviting, and to me, giving her that IS love.

Or it is at least, how I show love.

policywank said:

In traditional patriarchal society the man who is "head of the household" is frequently not a leader. He might be in charge or have authority but that doesn't make him a leader. In most cases those men were heavily influenced or outright directed by external leaders - politicians, religious leaders, union bosses, etc. - as to how to manage their household. Those men were metaphorically a little like the manager of the local McDonalds. They have authority to carry out somebody else's orders which were developed to support somebody else's vision. They can and often do play that role without offering any real leadership.

Click to expand...

I think the McDonald's analogy is spot on! A perfect metaphor for what it means to be a cog in a machine (what you called "external leaders"), unthinkingly perpetuating the machine's wishes, while lacking any real insight into why.

I often think we live in a society that blindly worships those that are merely adept at operating the machine (the good managers). But those that operate it well often seem to lack any self-reflecting qualities that would cause them to question the very validity of the machine to begin with. And, yes, we often call these unreflecting 'lap-dogs' "leaders"...

According to ancient Sanskrit/Hindu Scriptures, Swayambara Pratha was a type of ritual where Princesses/Goddesses would select a husband from a line up of Princes/men at her father's Palace (FLR anyone?). Once a selection was made, she would gift him a perfumed garland of roses, chrysanthemums, or lotuses.

They'd consensually agree to live together, and their relationship is consummated. This didn't require consent of parents or anyone else.

According to Vedic records, this is one of earliest and common form of marriage in Rig Vedic times (1500 BC - 1000 BC).

I think they make a cute couple...

https://image.scoopwhoop.com/w620/s3.scoopwhoop.com/anj/gandharva_marriage/303251159.jpg

Thanks to Ashesh9 for the corrections...

liv2srv said:

I think the McDonald's analogy is spot on! A perfect metaphor for what it means to be a cog in a machine (what you called "external leaders"), unthinkingly perpetuating the machine's wishes, while lacking any real insight into why.

I often think we live in a society that blindly worships those that are merely adept at operating the machine (the good managers). But those that operate it well often seem to lack any self-reflecting qualities that would cause them to question the very validity of the machine to begin with. And, yes, we often call these unreflecting 'lap-dogs' "leaders"...

Click to expand...

That self-reflection requires an open mind which I think is an essential leadership quality. A leader needs to have confidence in their judgment and the courage of their convictions but IMO that comes from a constant review and assessment of circumstances rather than blind and unthinking fealty to a given notion or pathway. It is because of the uncertainty and ever changing nature of our existence that leadership is required.

On another note, I believe that in general as society has sought to evolve away from the problems of patriarchy we have limited our options to either matriarchy or an idealized equality. Matriarchy is the other extreme of the pendulum swing - different and perhaps better in some ways but not necessarily better overall. Meanwhile we tend to imagine equality in relationships as a sharing of responsibility - so in a way the absence of leadership. I think that seizing leadership responsibility from one group and giving it to or another or eliminating leadership altogether are both inadequate approaches that don't really reflect our human nature.

The better way to go is to recognize and accept the need for leadership while more carefully and thoughtfully choosing leaders. Meanwhile we need to leave room for the "strong betas" upon which much of society is built to be themselves without feeling the need to be something more.

For many couples neither partner is a true leader but they can still sort out their respective positions more effectively if they are honest with themselves and each other.

We tend to think in terms of strong alphas and weak betas. IMO there are very few alphas in the world. The vast majority of men and women are strong betas - people who subscribe to an ideology or approach established by others, adopt those values as their own and live their lives accordingly. They aren't grovelling or snivelling or weak but they are followers.

I think that the military is sort of a good metaphor for how these various groups are proportioned in society. The military is full of fit, strong, disciplined courageous people pulling together for common cause. But the vast majority are followers whose effectiveness is predicated on obeying a relatively few leaders and the slightly more numerous messengers that convey the leader's messages. Most of those men and women that are aggressive and strong and fearless are followers - strong betas.

policywank said:

That self-reflection requires an open mind which I think is an essential leadership quality. A leader needs to have confidence in their judgment and the courage of their convictions but IMO that comes from a constant review and assessment of circumstances rather than blind and unthinking fealty to a given notion or pathway. It is because of the uncertainty and ever changing nature of our existence that leadership is required.

On another note, I believe that in general as society has sought to evolve away from the problems of patriarchy we have limited our options to either matriarchy or an idealized equality. Matriarchy is the other extreme of the pendulum swing - different and perhaps better in some ways but not necessarily better overall. Meanwhile we tend to imagine equality in relationships as a sharing of responsibility - so in a way the absence of leadership. I think that seizing leadership responsibility from one group and giving it to or another or eliminating leadership altogether are both inadequate approaches that don't really reflect our human nature.

The better way to go is to recognize and accept the need for leadership while more carefully and thoughtfully choosing leaders. Meanwhile we need to leave room for the "strong betas" upon which much of society is built to be themselves without feeling the need to be something more.

For many couples neither partner is a true leader but they can still sort out their respective positions more effectively if they are honest with themselves and each other.

We tend to think in terms of strong alphas and weak betas. IMO there are very few alphas in the world. The vast majority of men and women are strong betas - people who subscribe to an ideology or approach established by others, adopt those values as their own and live their lives accordingly. They aren't grovelling or snivelling or weak but they are followers.

I think that the military is sort of a good metaphor for how these various groups are proportioned in society. The military is full of fit, strong, disciplined courageous people pulling together for common cause. But the vast majority are followers whose effectiveness is predicated on obeying a relatively few leaders and the slightly more numerous messengers that convey the leader's messages. Most of those men and women that are aggressive and strong and fearless are followers - strong betas.

Click to expand...

A very interesting read policywank, as I'm sure most will attest to. Thank you...

For many couples neither partner is a true leader but they can still sort out their respective positions more effectively if they are honest with themselves and each other.

I think the above underpins most of your post. From my point of view, many couples spend an entire lifetime never being quite honest to one another. May be they're 'happy' to 'settle' in to their respective roles as society sees fit?

Some honesty can break up a relationship... It almost happen to mine. But we worked through it... Although my Wife refused to listen to all my honesty (she's kink aversive), as part of my honesty I told her I was comfortable with her lead, and I wanted to behave true to myself, not what society expected of me.

I could tell she was a little shell shocked, but a couple of years later we argue far, far less... I no longer resent any decisions she makes without consulting me first, because I now appreciate she has my interests at heart. And I feel I understand her much more than I used to...

Justplatonic said:

A very interesting read policywank, as I'm sure most will attest to. Thank you...

For many couples neither partner is a true leader but they can still sort out their respective positions more effectively if they are honest with themselves and each other.

I think the above underpins most of your post. From my point of view, many couples spend an entire lifetime never being quite honest to one another. May be they're 'happy' to 'settle' in to their respective roles as society sees fit?

Some honesty can break up a relationship... It almost happen to mine. But we worked through it... Although my Wife refused to listen to all my honesty (she's kink aversive), as part of my honesty I told her I was comfortable with her lead, and I wanted to behave true to myself, not what society expected of me.

I could tell she was a little shell shocked, but a couple of years later we argue far, far less... I no longer resent any decisions she makes without consulting me first, because I now appreciate she has my interests at heart. And I feel I understand her much more than I used to...

Click to expand...

Yes we do frequently have a hard time being honest with one another. We also frequently have a hard time being honest with ourselves.

"Bad" leaders (however one defines that) are frequently people who are deluding themselves about their leadership qualities and unable or unwilling to accept that perhaps their partner could do better. And sometimes people are so conditioned to take a backseat that they deny others the benefit of their leadership.

Or perhaps in a situation such as yours a partner is following the lead of outside influences that tell them that "kinky" is wrong. I don't mean to be presumptuous - perhaps that isn't what happened at all. I tend to make a distinction between simply not liking something because it is not to your taste versus having a sense of judgment about it based upon a person's reaction. If a person simply didn't like "kinky" it would be no different than not liking ketchup - a "no thank you" would suffice. There would be no need for further tension or emotion.

To the extent that we have visceral, negative emotional reactions it is usually because something upsets us relative to a set of expectations. And those expectations don't just come out of thin air.

policywank said:

Yes we do frequently have a hard time being honest with one another. We also frequently have a hard time being honest with ourselves.

"Bad" leaders (however one defines that) are frequently people who are deluding themselves about their leadership qualities and unable or unwilling to accept that perhaps their partner could do better. And sometimes people are so conditioned to take a backseat that they deny others the benefit of their leadership.

Or perhaps in a situation such as yours a partner is following the lead of outside influences that tell them that "kinky" is wrong. I don't mean to be presumptuous - perhaps that isn't what happened at all. I tend to make a distinction between simply not liking something because it is not to your taste versus having a sense of judgment about it based upon a person's reaction. If a person simply didn't like "kinky" it would be no different than not liking ketchup - a "no thank you" would suffice. There would be no need for further tension or emotion.

To the extent that we have visceral, negative emotional reactions it is usually because something upsets us relative to a set of expectations. And those expectations don't just come out of thin air.

Click to expand...

Very thought provoking policywank… Thank you...

I’m certainly guilty of not being honest with myself in the past… I’ve admitted several times on Lit; I only became self aware a couple of years ago. In doing so, I was then truly able to be honest with my Wife.

You're bang on about societal influences, and how those taboos become imprinted on to the general public. Are we all subject to this? I’d say yes, until we find our way, if ever… I’m pretty sure my Wife’s disdain for all things kink comes from societal influences, and to an extent my introduction of very, low key kink (although I interpreted it more as a preference back then). The kinda stuff that would bore you to distraction, as I began to learn more about my Wife’s expectations, I knew I had to really dial it down. After five or so years of that (and occasionally asking to unconditionally ‘eat’ various parts of her anatomy which was admittedly a “no thanks” retort), I packed ‘it’ away, as I didn’t want to put more pressure on her.

I’ll admit it reads like the fence is chaffing my arse, but it is both… She did resent the pressure of my expectations, as I have of hers in other matters which correlate. So we’ve come to an agreement of sorts… To forgive each other, and accept each other as best we can. What I’ve learned is some of her knee jerk reaction to all things kink, she assumed it was all about my indulgence (without her inclusion), as we've chatted about it throughout the years. But I also remember her lack of confidence during this period. To be fair, she found that time challenging, as we also discussed to death. So I know she just wants to move past it, hence the disdain for all things kink. That's not as bad as it sounds... As to that end, we’ve compromised, and I now fuss over her (she now feels included) which she enjoys (as I do too), and in tandem it satiates some of my kinks…

swayambara ritual

Justplatonic said:

According to ancient Hindu Scriptures, there was a type of marriage where the Woman selected her own husband (FLR anyone?). They met each other of their own accord, consensually agree to live together, and their relationship is consummated. This didn't require consent of parents or anyone else.

According to Vedic records, this is one of earliest and common form of marriage in Rig Vedic times (1500 BC - 1000 BC).

I think they make a cute couple...

https://image.scoopwhoop.com/w620/s3.scoopwhoop.com/anj/gandharva_marriage/303251159.jpg

Click to expand...

it is called " swayambara pratha" in Sanskrit but only Princesses or Goddesses were allowed that privilege for all other girls it was father's choice, Family's choice or the Head Priest's choice as far as the groom or the bride were concerned .
In Swayambara ritual the handsome Princes or Dudes wud line up at the Palace of the Princess's father in a line and the demure princess moved down the line till she spotted Her heartthrob and garlanded him with a perfumed garland of roses , chrysamthemum or lotuses

Ashesh9 said:

it is called " swayambara pratha" in Sanskrit but only Princesses or Goddesses were allowed that privilege for all other girls it was father's choice, Family's choice or the Head Priest's choice as far as the groom or the bride were concerned .
In Swayambara ritual the handsome Princes or Dudes wud line up at the Palace of the Princess's father in a line and the demure princess moved down the line till she spotted Her heartthrob and garlanded him with a perfumed garland of roses , chrysamthemum or lotuses

Click to expand...

Thank you Ashesh9... I feel pants for getting that wrong, and I should research a little deeper next time. If you don't mind, I'll edit and credit you in the original post...

This was an amazing response. Thanks, LC!

littlecordelera said:

Wow! Thank you, justplatonic!

It is difficult to answer some questions honestly out here. To do so would sound self-promoting, and I am not that way, or at least, I try not to be. For those questions, if they had been asked in a PM, my answer would have been completely different. I sometimes wonder if you guys can tell that I am dodging the question. Whatever the case, you are always welcome to send me a PM.

Justplatonic, guys like you are a breath of fresh air. I can't tell you how many times I have met a guy who is pretending to be something he is not. And yes, I can tell. It happens in PM's and email, too. So to be honest, I know why guys become so nervous. They want to impress me, of course they do. That's the way nature made it. The male has to impress the female. For some that nervousness is natural, and that's okay, I like that! But for others, they are nervous because instead of being themselves, they are pretending to be something they are not, and they are afraid I can tell.

I can tell, and I don't like it.

What impresses me is a guy who has the courage to be himself. It may not get him anywhere; he may not be what I am looking for, but the chances of fooling me are extremely slim, and the outcome is usually not pretty. When I meet that guy who can be himself - whatever that may be - and we click, I can take it from there, and you can bet I will. He doesn't have to be the alpha, very few truly are, he just has to be himself. I can play in different ways, and I am not afraid of sex. If we click, this experienced female who likes to call the shots, can show you a world the likes of which you've never seen. There is nothing I enjoy more.

That's the honest truth.

Click to expand...

reply to Justplatonic

Justplatonic said:

Thank you Ashesh9... I feel pants for getting that wrong, and I should research a little deeper next time. If you don't mind, I'll edit and credit you in the original post...

Click to expand...

plz go ahead, Bro!!!

From a PM I just sent...

"I will sometimes tease my husband for days, even weeks, keeping his little sprout caged up and letting him out only to bring him to the edge and then deny him release. And then I put his stiff little sprout right back in it's cage. I really enjoy torturing him in this way. It turns him into a very, very obedient boy."

littlecordelera said:

From a PM I just sent...

"I will sometimes tease my husband for days, even weeks, keeping his little sprout caged up and letting him out only to bring him to the edge and then deny him release. And then I put his stiff little sprout right back in it's cage. I really enjoy torturing him in this way. It turns him into a very, very obedient boy."

Click to expand...

That's delicious littlecordelera... A Woman who knows how to control a man, is truly a Woman to behold... After reading that, my sprout is truly beholden...

littlecordelera said:

From a PM I just sent...

"I will sometimes tease my husband for days, even weeks, keeping his little sprout caged up and letting him out only to bring him to the edge and then deny him release. And then I put his stiff little sprout right back in it's cage. I really enjoy torturing him in this way. It turns him into a very, very obedient boy."

Click to expand...

I’m not caged but Im not allowed to touch myself ..anyway I’ve actually been fantasising that when my wife returns from 5 weeks away that she rings me, edges me, then cages me without release as she enjoys keeping me attentive.

Justplatonic said:

That's delicious littlecordelera... A Woman who knows how to control a man, is truly a Woman to behold... After reading that, my sprout is truly beholden...

Click to expand...

Of course, it's more fun when he knows that others are aware of his plight.

Jason and I were on our way into town one Saturday. Jason was driving, and I was in the passenger seat, legs crossed and texting. Holding my phone, I turned to him and said, "Jim wants to know if your balls ache yet." The life drained from Jason's face.

'Goddammit, Haley," he said. He looked at me, incredulous that I had told Jim, and then he added, "Yeah, they ache. Tell him they've been aching for two fucking days!"

He didn't know it yet, but he was being included in the texts. We arrived at a Lowes, and I waited in the car while he ran inside. He took his phone, and I knew he would see the texts between Jim and me. In those texts, I told Jim that Jason was going to be a very good oral boy that night. Jim asked me to "update [him] on the details tomorrow."

When Jason returned to the car, he tossed his phone into a cupholder and gave me a rather dirty look. I didn't say a word.

That night, I made sure to get my timing just right, and I got undressed, put on a robe, and sat myself down on the elegant loveseat that sits at the foot of our bed. It only took a few minutes before Jason entered the room to get ready for bed. He stopped short of the doorway when he saw me sitting there, waiting. I smiled with a gloat.

"Hey, baby," said sweetly, "I've been waiting for you."

He was such an obedient oral boy that night.

Justplatonic said:

That's delicious littlecordelera... A Woman who knows how to control a man, is truly a Woman to behold... After reading that, my sprout is truly beholden...

Click to expand...

My wife, Miss T, is definitely a Woman to behold. I introduced her to FLR when we first met and she embraced it. I am her happy chastised sub, and as of Monday, her cuck.

littlecordelera said:

From a PM I just sent...

"I will sometimes tease my husband for days, even weeks, keeping his little sprout caged up and letting him out only to bring him to the edge and then deny him release. And then I put his stiff little sprout right back in it's cage. I really enjoy torturing him in this way. It turns him into a very, very obedient boy."

Click to expand...

I must admit that I have never understood how this^ above can make me into an obedient boy. By being in that kind of relationship I am the sub and obedience is what I do and enjoy doing for my lady. The thought of disobedience is not on my mind.

Typically punishment involves some kind of action that is given to the subject so they will have a bad memory of the result of their actions so they will not do that again. In the case above, I get the feeling that a lot of guys like that kind of torture and the eventual release. So the incentive not to do X or "Bad thing Y" is not really there.

If I am not allowed to orgasm while my partner has many, that is something I get used to and it is still pleasurable that my partner or Domme does cum or enjoy herself.

I say all of this but I have talked to someone who did explain it to me and how it works. It is not easy to explain--that is why I brought it up--but I would describe it this way. It is more about control than obedience. I think the emphasis is on control. The direct control of her sub's genitals. The teasing, touching, and denial of release are part of that direct control. A big reminder of his status. Since men think about sex 99% of the time, this keeps the control part always on our minds. IF there was no teasing or that kind of play for weeks, I imagine it would seep out of our minds. And eventually, that kind of control would not work.

Just my two cents.

ES

littlecordelera said:

Of course, it's more fun when he knows that others are aware of his plight.

Jason and I were on our way into town one Saturday. Jason was driving, and I was in the passenger seat, legs crossed and texting. Holding my phone, I turned to him and said, "Jim wants to know if your balls ache yet." The life drained from Jason's face.

'Goddammit, Haley," he said. He looked at me, incredulous that I had told Jim, and then he added, "Yeah, they ache. Tell him they've been aching for two fucking days!"

He didn't know it yet, but he was being included in the texts. We arrived at a Lowes, and I waited in the car while he ran inside. He took his phone, and I knew he would see the texts between Jim and me. In those texts, I told Jim that Jason was going to be a very good oral boy that night. Jim asked me to "update [him] on the details tomorrow."

When Jason returned to the car, he tossed his phone into a cupholder and gave me a rather dirty look. I didn't say a word.

That night, I made sure to get my timing just right, and I got undressed, put on a robe, and sat myself down on the elegant loveseat that sits at the foot of our bed. It only took a few minutes before Jason entered the room to get ready for bed. He stopped short of the doorway when he saw me sitting there, waiting. I smiled with a gloat.

"Hey, baby," said sweetly, "I've been waiting for you."

He was such an obedient oral boy that night.

Click to expand...

Thanks for your reply littlecordelera... I really enjoyed reading it... I do think Jason is blessed to be with you. A Woman of such high caliber... It doesn't get much better than that...

eroticspank said:

I must admit that I have never understood how this^ above can make me into an obedient boy. By being in that kind of relationship I am the sub and obedience is what I do and enjoy doing for my lady. The thought of disobedience is not on my mind.

Typically punishment involves some kind of action that is given to the subject so they will have a bad memory of the result of their actions so they will not do that again. In the case above, I get the feeling that a lot of guys like that kind of torture and the eventual release. So the incentive not to do X or "Bad thing Y" is not really there.

If I am not allowed to orgasm while my partner has many, that is something I get used to and it is still pleasurable that my partner or Domme does cum or enjoy herself.

I say all of this but I have talked to someone who did explain it to me and how it works. It is not easy to explain--that is why I brought it up--but I would describe it this way. It is more about control than obedience. I think the emphasis is on control. The direct control of her sub's genitals. The teasing, touching, and denial of release are part of that direct control. A big reminder of his status. Since men think about sex 99% of the time, this keeps the control part always on our minds. IF there was no teasing or that kind of play for weeks, I imagine it would seep out of our minds. And eventually, that kind of control would not work.

Just my two cents.

ES

Click to expand...

IMHO, not every man is the same, right? What Women have to endure, is a rigorous period of training (a man). Some like you eroticspank, take to it straight away which is very commendable. There are those that take more training...

Let's not forget, there are those who revel being punished, and perhaps purposely fail to facilitate it...

What's truly undeniable (and so beautiful), is Women like littlecordelera, and policywank know all of the above (and a lot more) way better than men can ever comprehend. They always have our backs, way more than men realise, and our needs at heart...

I can't say it enough. Women are the best fuckin' thing on this ball of rock we call earth... I'm ranting now, I'm logging off...

eroticspank said:

I must admit that I have never understood how this^ above can make me into an obedient boy. By being in that kind of relationship I am the sub and obedience is what I do and enjoy doing for my lady. The thought of disobedience is not on my mind.

Typically punishment involves some kind of action that is given to the subject so they will have a bad memory of the result of their actions so they will not do that again. In the case above, I get the feeling that a lot of guys like that kind of torture and the eventual release. So the incentive not to do X or "Bad thing Y" is not really there.

If I am not allowed to orgasm while my partner has many, that is something I get used to and it is still pleasurable that my partner or Domme does cum or enjoy herself.

I say all of this but I have talked to someone who did explain it to me and how it works. It is not easy to explain--that is why I brought it up--but I would describe it this way. It is more about control than obedience. I think the emphasis is on control. The direct control of her sub's genitals. The teasing, touching, and denial of release are part of that direct control. A big reminder of his status. Since men think about sex 99% of the time, this keeps the control part always on our minds. IF there was no teasing or that kind of play for weeks, I imagine it would seep out of our minds. And eventually, that kind of control would not work.

Just my two cents.

ES

Click to expand...

It probably would not turn you into an obedient boy, ES. But you and Jason are two different people, and what I stated works quite well on Jason. Whether it is control or obedience, I really don't care. We do what we enjoy. It keeps the spark alive in our marriage, and creates a very strong bond between us. Every relationship is different. Please don't judge mine based on your own personal preferences.

I don’t know that I could do an FLR in everyday life. Definitely in the bedroom. It’s one of my biggest fantasies. That being said, although I don’t know if I could, I know my personality and definitely would haha

You know traditional polygamous marriages where one man has like multiple wives and he's in charge of the whole family?

Female-Led relationships for me take their ultimate form when you have one wife with say, two husbands.

Both men work and bring in the money. She however, makes the decisions. Logistical, sexual, vacations, having kids and when each of them will have kids with her, where they kids will go to school, where they'll live. They obviously are partners with each other and with her, but she is the decision maker. She hears them out, works with them, tries to make sure they are both happy and fulfilled and content. But she decides.

They would both make love to her regularly, sometimes alternating nights, but sometimes both of them together, DPing her, sloppy seconds, whatever she wants.

She wants one of them to make her breakfast while the other eats her pussy at the table, that's what happens.

She wants them to suck each other for her pleasure, that's what happens.

She wants them to take turns fucking her until she can't fuck anymore, that's what happens.

She does no manual labor and the only physical effort she exerts is sex and exercise for her own well-being. The two men handle everything around the house, often in various states of undress.

My wife and I right now have a pretty traditional marriage but I have a long-standing fantasy of sharing her with her brother who lives in Seattle. If I could have this kind of relationship with him as part of it, I'd take it in a heartbeat.

It'd be cool if one husband leaves/arrives home late, and the other one earlier. She sends pics of what she's doing with one husband to the one who isn't there, whetting his appetite for the next time they see each other.

She would also keep the peace between them if they ever have issues. Ideally they are best friends but if they ever disagreed, she decides how to help them settle their differences. If one of them is in the wrong, she punishes him often with different kinds of humiliation and domination. Maybe for a few days, instead of having sex with her, the husband who was wrong only gets to eat the other husband's creampies out of her pussy, maybe in a cockcage until his punishment is over.

It would totally relieve the burden on the guys making decisions and hand all the power to her. They just get to work at jobs they like, make love to their wife, and because they have a partner in taking care of her needs, can each spend time with their friends more often. Win, win, win.