M/s...why or why not?

[Netzach]

I can't be bothered micromanaging everything, but I definitely demand final say in the things that matter to me.

Exactly. When it matters it really matters.

I hate being pestered because I haven't found enough reasons lately to enforce. Just chill out in the absence of further details. Jesus.

It takes a special kind for a Type B creative, like me.

 

[rosco rathbone]

Exactly. When it matters it really matters.

I hate being pestered because I haven't found enough reasons lately to enforce. Just chill out in the absence of further details. Jesus.

It takes a special kind for a Type B creative, like me.

...you know, the important things, like what kind of panties and that dress isn't tight enough.

 

[Netzach]

...you know, the important things, like what kind of panties and that dress isn't tight enough.

Sure, sure.

You want me to tell you what kind of car to buy? Don't be stupid.

 

[00Syd]

That's just not who I am. I need to have my own independence and I need to know that my opinions will be listened to when it really matters. I don't think that I would ever willingly give that up. It would just be too goddamn frustrating!

I mean, please, by all means, slap me if I start getting too talkative and annoying, but don't restrict me voice. Please, tie me up if you want me to stop moving, but don't tell me not to move. I'll struggle against your bonds, and I will revel in them.

ETA: Yes, I think that's it. I enjoy the struggle, and M/s is all about not struggling. There's no fun in that.

 

[Homburg]

and if you are M/s, what is it that makes the concept of any other kind of power dynamic unappealing to you? what do you think would be different if you lived within a power dynamic that was not based in Owner/property?

My answer will not be popular.

I find D/s to be unappealing because it does not feel serious enough for me. While M/s is characterised best for Netz by that switch between this and that, for me, it is best characterised by constancy. While our behaviour is modified by situation, observers, etc, the headspace is constant. There are no questions of who is in charge, when, and why. No power retained, no decisions made wholly in the interests of the pyl alone. In each case, any decision made by viv or MIS has the layer of my interests laid over it, and generally within guidelines.

No, I'm not saying that D/s submissives are selfish and making their decisions only on their own interests. Just that there are no decisions made that are not informed by the dynamic, and no areas where her interests take exclusive primacy.

And I think that I've made clear my opinion on safewords within my own dynamic. Safewords are power, plain and simple. I do not wish to leave that power on the table. In both cases, MIS and viv have whatever power I let them have. The only thing they solidly retain per our agreements is the ability to leave.

For me, D/s felt like roleplay. M/s just feels like living. This is no judgement on how other people live, or the terms they use for their own relationship. It has as much bearing on anyone else as me saying that I don't like the taste of mushrooms. You can like mushrooms (blech) all you want, and I won't judge you for it. Just don't expect me to be happy with your plate if you're eating them.

Hopefully, that makes sense and I won't have sixteen dozen people whinging about how I am "judging" them, or denigrating D/s. I'd certainly rather be in a D/s relationship than a vanilla one, but M/s makes more sense for me. ME.

--

i can grok that. because of who the two of you are together, the M/s flavor comes naturally and makes sense. with someone else, or within a different kind of relationship and commitment, it wouldn't.

"Grok"

--

If he showed up on my doorstep with a strict much more commonplace M/s framework tomorrow, I'd agree to it.

This is really sweet, and made me smile. Not the M/s part, just the whole idea.

--

Second, I'm not that trusting. Honestly, I have more parenting experience than K. I'm more patient, I'm more understanding. I won't release the power I have with the kids; I don't think he's got enough control of his temper for that kind of power. Power over me, I can handle. Over them? - not gonna happen.

Meh. Do you honestly thing I lord the status I have in my relationship with viv over the children? They aren't part of our agreement/dynamic. And goodness knows she is better at dealing with them than I am.

Delegation of authority is one of the most important lessons learned by anyone in charge. You CANNOT do everything yourself if your organisation is more complex than you and one other person. And if you try, you aren't really in charge at all, as you are the one doing everything.

--

I am not interested in controlling all aspects of a partner's life, and not interested in pretending that I do.

This is one of my problems with the whole discussion, and with M/s before I tried it. Everyone and their brother conflates M/s with micromanagement. I had this same issue before I started, and Evil Geoff was one of the big ones that set me straight on the topic.

A good slave does not need to be told to do every little thing. My two, and the others I know, have duties, responsibilities, often jobs, and carry those out sans any sort of day-to-day directions at all. I don't tell mine what to wear each day, or what to eat, or when to go to bed. Days will go by without me giving management style directions at all. I would lose my mind if I had to micromanage every little thing. I don't have time for that, let alone interest in it.

Yes, I have the option to control these things, and the veto power in general, and? Every dominant type that posts around here says the same thing. Micromanagement is micromanagement, and not even remotely specific to M/s. If anything, I've seen more instances of what I would call micromanagement in self-identified D/s relationships.

I can't even begin to go into the rules I've seen in some D/s relationships. I'm talking bullet-pointed lists multiple pages long. My gals have two rules. Two.

--

People have some odd ideas about M/s. I can understand why, as I had some of those odd ideas myself. There's not so much difference day to day. The bullshit that shows up in erotica is just that, bullshit. People in M/s dynamics have to live their lives just like you and everybody else, and a lot of the concepts people have about M/s are in direct contradiction to living life on a day to day basis for most people.

 

[JMohegan]

This is one of my problems with the whole discussion, and with M/s before I tried it. Everyone and their brother conflates M/s with micromanagement. I had this same issue before I started, and Evil Geoff was one of the big ones that set me straight on the topic.

No, the problem with these discussions was noted by Etoille, above.

You define M/s differently than I do. You define D/s differently than I do as well. That's the problem. (Not saying either of us is right or wrong; just pointing out the problem inherent in these discussions.)

For the record, I do not conflate M/s with micromanagement. When I say that I am not interested in controlling all aspects of a partners life, I am referring to things like:

- I am not interested in telling her she can't be friends with Julie, even if I find Julie annoying as hell. Who she hangs out with when she's not with me is her business.

- I am not interested in taking control of all of her assets and cash.

- I am not interested in making her career decisions.

That's big picture stuff that I am not interested in controlling, and not interested in pretending that I do.

 

[MisterSir]

That phrase keeps popping up and I'm wondering, is anyone interested in micromanagement to begin with? Every time I see it it's accompanied with some sort of note saying "...which I'm not into"; law of averages says somebody's gotta enjoy it, but maybe they're too busy organising two lives instead of one to talk about it.

 

[Homburg]

You define M/s differently than I do. You define D/s differently than I do as well. That's the problem. (Not saying either of us is right or wrong; just pointing out the problem inherent in these discussions.)

I wasn't trying to single you out. Just using your post as an example. Other posts on this thread were just as relevant. Yours happened to be the shortest.

And I have no idea. I've not heard a definition out of you for M/s. Or even D/s. You tend to proclaim that what you do is different. Similar, but not the same. Not challenging you here, just making the comment that I don't know what your definition is.

Mine is pretty simple. M/s is total power exchange. A slave retains no personal power, holding only that which is delegated by the owner. This means no personal limits, no safeword, no veto.

D/s is negotiated power exchange, limited to areas and activities agreed upon in advance, and subject to renegotiation as situations change or come up.

These are not intended to be all-inclusive, dictionary-style definitions. Just relational ones to show the difference between my view of M/s and my view of D/s.

For the record, I do not conflate M/s with micromanagement. When I say that I am not interested in controlling all aspects of a partners life, I am referring to things like:

- I am not interested in telling her she can't be friends with Julie, even if I find Julie annoying as hell. Who she hangs out with when she's not with me is her business.

*shrug* I am the same way. So long as Julie is not toxic and affecting my partner negatively, I don't really care.

- I am not interested in taking control of all of her assets and cash.

If someone is living with me, and part of the big financial picture of my household, I expect some sort of access. Not interested in controlling it because they should control it themselves. Delegation of authority again.

- I am not interested in making her career decisions.

See above comments in regards to toxicity and negative impact on life.

That's big picture stuff that I am not interested in controlling, and not interested in pretending that I do.

I'm not interested in controlling it either. The only thing that differentiates M/s from D/s is the amount of power exchanged. In this case, it is the ability to control those things. There is no absolute requirement to do so, nor any guarantee of interest. Control can exist without being exercised.

And I'm not proselytizing M/s here. It is not for everyone. I just find some of the arguments against it to be weird, and not based on the reality of M/s in my experience (and, admittedly, that of those that I associate with that are likewise involved in M/s).

To turn the idea on its' head, you are involved in a relationship with Susan. It is one where you have set things up in the manner you prefer, leaving Susan her own finances, friends, career choices, etc. For whatever reason, Susan decides that she tired of her career and wants to head downtown to panhandle. Are you, as the dominant party, going to say no? Are you going to moderate this decision? Or let her head off and do what she wants with her career? Let's say she wants to sell drugs or turn tricks, or some other illicit occupation. Still not interested in moderating? Or say she decides to give her money away to some cult and divest herself of material possessions. Or becomes bosom buddies with a rabid white supremacist?

Sure, there are compatibility issues likely, but are you just going to stand by and proclaim disinterest if your partner makes some patently absurd decision just because you don't want to touch friends/career/finances? I doubt it. I don't think you are the sort that would passively sit by and watch that sort of absurdity. At that point, it may be more accurate to say that reasonable career choices etc would not be tampered with, etc. Even vanilla relationships have that sort of attitude.

 

[Homburg]

That phrase keeps popping up and I'm wondering, is anyone interested in micromanagement to begin with? Every time I see it it's accompanied with some sort of note saying "...which I'm not into"; law of averages says somebody's gotta enjoy it, but maybe they're too busy organising two lives instead of one to talk about it.

Yes, I've seen it. Seen evidence of it more to the point.

The instances I've seen were D/s, and, usually, distance D/s at that.

 

[ownedsubgal]

On this board, osg, you come across as an intelligent, articulate, friendly, polite, respectful person with very strong convictions, who is capable of holding her ground in meaningful discussions. An adult interacting with peers in a healthy way.

Does your Master tell you what to write here? If not, then perhaps thinking about your time on this board will help make the concept less confusing for you.

The fact that a woman has her own career, family, and friends doesn't mean she runs the show wherever she goes outside the home she shares with the D, and it doesn't mean that she switches off her feelings of devotion and deference toward the D at any point during the day. It just means that she's a fully functioning adult, interacting with society at large in a healthy way.

first, thanks JMohegan for the kind words.

secondly i certainly did not mean to imply that simply having a career, family or friends means that a woman is in control in those areas. but if the Dominant is NOT in control in those areas, then how does that work? that's what i wonder.

i post here on lit because my Master gives me the privilege of doing so, primarily because he feels it is good and healthy lifestyle "social" interaction for me. still, of course i am always mindful of what i post, how i express myself, and how i respond to others, to make sure all of those things are in line with his guidelines and rules. i have been banned from websites for falling short in those areas, or because he did not approve of the majority of posters on a particular board or online group. so even in an area like online communication, he has control.

so if you have no interest in exerting any authority or control over your woman's career, and say she has to make a major decision in that area concerning whether or not to go for a promotion...does she make that decision based on what would be good and healthy for her as an independent adult? or does she make it placing your needs and desires into consideration?

likewise, say a family member of hers in another state becomes gravely ill...she wants to be at that person's side. does she function as if she has no one to answer to and just go? does she ask your permission? does she refuse to go because it would mean inconvenience to you?

this is the confusing bit for me...every aspect of life, no matter how small, is all within the realm of my Master. the weekly grocery list that i make is not full of my favorite things but his (i can't tell you how much i miss beets!), the way i clean the toilets is not the way i would do it on my own but the way he says it should be, the people in my life are only those he finds to be positive influences in some way.

so when one is in a D/s relationship and has to sort of go it on their own in major areas of life, just how is that done, how are those decisions made...if you are in a 24/7 D/s relationship, how are your needs/desires/guidelines/rules as a Dominant NOT a part of the equation for your submissive?

 

[Netzach]

This is really sweet, and made me smile. Not the M/s part, just the whole idea.

Thanks, and that's really sweet, but it's this:

However it's as likely as 4 feet of snow falling tonight. So I put my focus on what he does like.

That I'm particularly proud of. Go me. Ha.

I think the issue is more where people find organic-ness and comfort. You find it in M/s.

I find M/s necessary but not necessarily relaxing as an owner. It's just different. It doesn't feel like fakey roleplaying, but it does take energy to muster in order to be and access that really organic deep down version of myself that I just. do. not. have. every day.

I find more organic ness in "oh God do I have to pick a label for this?" submission with T and "oh God, do I have to pick a label for this"ness with M.

I also have to say that the idea that H turns it on and off at his discretion is kind of flawed and I don't want people to think that. I've dropped him in the middle of the day at his office just because I can and to remind him I can. That on some level he leaves home and functions at all insamuch as I want him to.

T has absolutely no interest in feeling that way with me or on my behalf. Whatsoever. So I'm doing my best Ginger Rogers and he doesn't have to worry about it.

 

[Netzach]

so if you have no interest in exerting any authority or control over your woman's career, and say she has to make a major decision in that area concerning whether or not to go for a promotion...does she make that decision based on what would be good and healthy for her as an independent adult? or does she make it placing your needs and desires into consideration?

likewise, say a family member of hers in another state becomes gravely ill...she wants to be at that person's side. does she function as if she has no one to answer to and just go? does she ask your permission? does she refuse to go because it would mean inconvenience to you?

Inasmuch as M is pretty much an egalitarian spouse who likes being beaten on the butt, we discuss those things and arrive mutually. I don't pack the dishwasher how he likes evidently, and he has a few hats I don't want him to wear in public.

I know that if I put my foot down I'll get my way on most of this small shit. But it is small shit, and I've got H to torment that way. As for the larger shit, most of the time, that too. Sometimes not though. I've found some limits to what I can control, but I can live with them.

I know that M hated my being pro with every fiber of his being, but realized that he was not going to make that decision. He just *is* more submissive than I am in the relationship, but if I actually name it or call it into shape he pushes back like a small child. Which I then have to calm and pet on the head and be nice to, and I can avoid the whole thing by using the carrot and not the stick in the first place.

I think in the way you personally go about thinking out D/s as "innate submissive personality" versus "innate Dominant personality" we're D/s. The more we are together the less formal that is, but the deeper it goes.

 

[BlitzKrieger]

No, the problem with these discussions was noted by Etoille, above.

You define M/s differently than I do. You define D/s differently than I do as well. That's the problem. (Not saying either of us is right or wrong; just pointing out the problem inherent in these discussions.)

For the record, I do not conflate M/s with micromanagement. When I say that I am not interested in controlling all aspects of a partners life, I am referring to things like:

- I am not interested in telling her she can't be friends with Julie, even if I find Julie annoying as hell. Who she hangs out with when she's not with me is her business.

- I am not interested in taking control of all of her assets and cash.

- I am not interested in making her career decisions.

That's big picture stuff that I am not interested in controlling, and not interested in pretending that I do.

I don't want to over-step my bounds, or speak for Homburg (whom I greatly admire), but I think that's kinda his point: You shouldn't have to make those decisions. If your pyl is looking at the world through a 'master first' colored lens, then those decisions will be made in your best interest, with you in mind at all times. The pyl won't have to come to you and ask what choice should be made, if they know their master then they will know the correct choice to make.

To counter point your examples:

-She knows that Julie annoys the hell out of you, but Julie is a life-long friend, so she keeps Julies presence in your life to a minimum, to please you.

-She can handle her own assets, checking account balance, savings, ect. because she knows that you have enough on your hands without that added inconvenience, so she keeps her ducks in a row on her own.

-(this one can be tricky, because there are so many variable situations that can arise, so I'll just pick one) She takes the promotion at work, because, despite the increased workload and hours, the extra insurance, pay, and yearly two-week vacation will greatly increase the happiness and security of the household. All of which are things that she knows you want to increase.

To me, M/s isn't about micromanagement. It is a symbiotic relationship. Two people are intertwined and joined, more completely than in most relationships/dynamics, together and as one entity they forge a life together. When the focus of a relationship is that tight the need for a list of rules and regulations, penalties and rewards is just silly and mote.

But, as I said: that is MY definition of M/s.

 

[ecstaticsub]

The chance that I will ever be in a live together 24/7 power exchange type of relationship is pretty close to zero. (happily I will add because I would not want my or my PYL's marriage to end)

However, if present circumstances were to change and Daddy and I were to live together it would be D/s and not M/s. The difference to me is purely mental.

I see M/s as an osg type of M/s. Not where I would be micromanaged but where I would be submissive in all situations. I know this is not how everyone who is M/s conducts their relationship but it is how I, personally define M/s.

I want to work, I need for my own mental health to work at my chosen profession at least part time. I would have a difficult time switching from being a slave at home to being in charge, in control, supervising others and having to make quick decisions at work. Plus I don't think I could give up control of my money.

For me it is also something about the word "slave". Mentally being called a slave would feel like I have surrendered my soul. Which may be why some want to be in a M/s relationship. But not me.

 

[ownedsubgal]

oh yeah, i guess i'll go ahead and answer my own question.

first of all i'm one of those weirdos who considers M/s to be a particular type of D/s relationship. so that is why i will sometimes use them interchangeably at least in reference to my own life, because i relate to both. kinda like the sub/slave thing, it's not necessarily one or the other, one can be both.

now with that cleared up, the Owner/property dynamic appeals to me because i am a submissive who does not function well at all without clear and consistent structure. it is not just a relationship thing for me, it is a LIFE thing. fortunately or unfortunately, i do not seem to be made up of the ingredients required in order to be a healthy, fully functional independent adult. left entirely to my own devices, i basically just float around not caring much what happens to me and letting people in my life use me however they please. that is the state i was in when my Master found me, and i truly think he came along just in time.

so yes, the structure. the security i feel within that structure. but the other big thing that is appealing about M/s...no fuzzy, blurry lines. it's simple. rather black and white. He's Master, i'm slave. it answers all of life's crippling and annoying questions, like what about my future? what is my purpose in life? and there are no relationship power struggles...he has all of the authority, i have none. simple. all that crap i dealt with in vanilla relationships...wondering where the lines were, dealing with feelings of entitlement or resentment, there is just no place for that in M/s.

and perhaps the mushiest reason i dig M/s, is the longing i had to give myself entirely to the man i love. for there to be nothing held back, nothing saved for me, to just completely and totally lay it all out there and say "this is yours, do with it what you will." that is just the way i feel and accept love.

 

[ownedsubgal]

Inasmuch as M is pretty much an egalitarian spouse who likes being beaten on the butt, we discuss those things and arrive mutually. I don't pack the dishwasher how he likes evidently, and he has a few hats I don't want him to wear in public.

I know that if I put my foot down I'll get my way on most of this small shit. But it is small shit, and I've got H to torment that way. As for the larger shit, most of the time, that too. Sometimes not though. I've found some limits to what I can control, but I can live with them.

I know that M hated my being pro with every fiber of his being, but realized that he was not going to make that decision. He just *is* more submissive than I am in the relationship, but if I actually name it or call it into shape he pushes back like a small child.

so when M has a significant decision to make it is discussed and some kind of mutual resolution is reached. cool beans. but does he have the prerogative to go ahead and make a decision that is NOT really in line with one you would make for him? can he ever just say, "well i understand this is not what you would prefer, but i'm going ahead with it anyway" ? that is the kind of scenario that comes to mind when i think of a Dominant not taking control in certain areas...that in those areas, the submissive can actually go against the Dominant if they choose. and like, the Dominant is cool with that?

 

[JMohegan]

first, thanks JMohegan for the kind words.

secondly i certainly did not mean to imply that simply having a career, family or friends means that a woman is in control in those areas. but if the Dominant is NOT in control in those areas, then how does that work? that's what i wonder.

i post here on lit because my Master gives me the privilege of doing so, primarily because he feels it is good and healthy lifestyle "social" interaction for me. still, of course i am always mindful of what i post, how i express myself, and how i respond to others, to make sure all of those things are in line with his guidelines and rules. i have been banned from websites for falling short in those areas, or because he did not approve of the majority of posters on a particular board or online group. so even in an area like online communication, he has control.

so if you have no interest in exerting any authority or control over your woman's career, and say she has to make a major decision in that area concerning whether or not to go for a promotion...does she make that decision based on what would be good and healthy for her as an independent adult? or does she make it placing your needs and desires into consideration?

likewise, say a family member of hers in another state becomes gravely ill...she wants to be at that person's side. does she function as if she has no one to answer to and just go? does she ask your permission? does she refuse to go because it would mean inconvenience to you?

this is the confusing bit for me...every aspect of life, no matter how small, is all within the realm of my Master. the weekly grocery list that i make is not full of my favorite things but his (i can't tell you how much i miss beets!), the way i clean the toilets is not the way i would do it on my own but the way he says it should be, the people in my life are only those he finds to be positive influences in some way.

so when one is in a D/s relationship and has to sort of go it on their own in major areas of life, just how is that done, how are those decisions made...if you are in a 24/7 D/s relationship, how are your needs/desires/guidelines/rules as a Dominant NOT a part of the equation for your submissive?

In any life-partnership-style relationship, there is no such thing as a truly "independent" big picture decision. Obviously, a promotion or sustained out of town trip by one partner will have an impact on the other.

My general answer to your question is to say that she would make decisions in the non-D/s realm based on what's good and healthy for the relationship, taking both of our needs and desires into consideration. As would I.

If there ever came a time when either of us was behaving in a way that the other found unhealthy for the relationship, or detrimental to the other partner, then that would be a sign that we'd have much bigger problems than whatever issue was immediately at hand.

To answer your career decision specifically, as life partners, we would discuss the ramifications of any such decisions, and make mutual decisions accordingly.

With regard to the out of town example, yes she would need my permission for that, because otherwise she would be derelict on a host of standing expectations, such as being available for fucking on a regular basis and serving dinner at 7.

 

[rosco rathbone]

I like to just think of myself as the bossy, controlling boyfriend type...the kind of guy you see on Jerry...."My Boyfriend Is A Controlling Jerk". I'd rather steer clear of any acronyms for my way of being; which has always been around.

 

[JMohegan]

That phrase keeps popping up and I'm wondering, is anyone interested in micromanagement to begin with?

Sure. Some people find micromanagement arousing, comforting, and satisfying.

See this thread, for example.

 

[ownedsubgal]

In any life-partnership-style relationship, there is no such thing as a truly "independent" big picture decision. Obviously, a promotion or sustained out of town trip by one partner will have an impact on the other.

My general answer to your question is to say that she would make decisions in the non-D/s realm based on what's good and healthy for the relationship, taking both of our needs and desires into consideration. As would I.

If there ever came a time when either of us was behaving in a way that the other found unhealthy for the relationship, or detrimental to the other partner, then that would be a sign that we'd have much bigger problems than whatever issue was immediately at hand.

To answer your career decision specifically, as life partners, we would discuss the ramifications of any such decisions, and make mutual decisions accordingly.

With regard to the out of town example, yes she would need my permission for that, because otherwise she would be derelict on a host of standing expectations, such as being available for fucking on a regular basis and serving dinner at 7.

ahhhh so when it comes to those "out of bounds" areas, it is basically like a healthy egalitarian vanilla relationship, where the influence and consideration goes both ways? when making significant decisions within your own life, she has a voice? or is just that you take the potential impact/effect on her and your relationship into consideration?

an example: when Daddy is considering a career change or major promotion, he tells me about it, usually somewhere around the time he has made his decision on the matter. we are "life partners" as you say, so that is normal. however, my opinions or feelings on the matter are not asked or wanted. i have no voice. He makes his decisions based on what he feels would be best for him and his needs and goals. is this something that differentiates non-ownership D/s from M/s, or are they not so different in that area?



*btw, Daddy likes dinner at 7 too *

 

[ownedsubgal]

I like to just think of myself as the bossy, controlling boyfriend type...the kind of guy you see on Jerry...."My Boyfriend Is A Controlling Jerk". I'd rather steer clear of any acronyms for my way of being; which has always been around.

but you have too many teeth and too much book-larnin' to pass for one of those guys on Jerry.

 

[rosco rathbone]

but you have too many teeth and too much book-larnin' to pass for one of those guys on Jerry.

I don't go for women four times my size, either.

 

[ownedsubgal]

I don't go for women four times my size, either.

they're mighty popular tho, so there must be some special mystical magic betwixt those mountainous thighs.

 

[Homburg]

You shouldn't have to make those decisions. If your pyl is looking at the world through a 'master first' colored lens, then those decisions will be made in your best interest, with you in mind at all times. The pyl won't have to come to you and ask what choice should be made, if they know their master then they will know the correct choice to make.

*snip*

But, as I said: that is MY definition of M/s.

Really excellent post.

--

I want to work, I need for my own mental health to work at my chosen profession at least part time. I would have a difficult time switching from being a slave at home to being in charge, in control, supervising others and having to make quick decisions at work. Plus I don't think I could give up control of my money.

For me it is also something about the word "slave". Mentally being called a slave would feel like I have surrendered my soul. Which may be why some want to be in a M/s relationship. But not me.

This is why I say that it doesn't work for everyone. You've raised some solid and realistic objections to the idea, based both on your perception of the situation (based on real world examples, not erotica-based misconceptions), as well as core-belief issues with the structure.

--

With regard to the out of town example, yes she would need my permission for that

This is exercising control. Regardless of the reasoning, and I do agree with the provided reason, this is exercising control over an aspect of your partner's life. In this case, relationship with a friend/loved one that is gravely ill. In short, it is controlling who she can see and when; it is just doing so in the negative.

 

[JMohegan]

ahhhh so when it comes to those "out of bounds" areas, it is basically like a healthy egalitarian vanilla relationship, where the influence and consideration goes both ways? when making significant decisions within your own life, she has a voice? or is just that you take the potential impact/effect on her and your relationship into consideration?

an example: when Daddy is considering a career change or major promotion, he tells me about it, usually somewhere around the time he has made his decision on the matter. we are "life partners" as you say, so that is normal. however, my opinions or feelings on the matter are not asked or wanted. i have no voice. He makes his decisions based on what he feels would be best for him and his needs and goals. is this something that differentiates non-ownership D/s from M/s, or are they not so different in that area?



*btw, Daddy likes dinner at 7 too *

This is the difference, as I see it, in a nutshell.

In every committed relationship I've ever had, *both* of us have had careers, friendships, community service commitments, and family relationships that comprise significant parts of our lives.

If I just decided to pick up and move across the country, for whatever reason, doing so would have had a very significant impact on the life of any partner I've ever had. She would expect to have a voice, and I would want her to have a voice, in that decision. For something like that, the influence and consideration goes both ways.

Like Rosco, I'm a control freak, no question! I want things in my home the way I want them, have ZERO patience for pushback, arguing, or negotiation in day-to-day living, and absolutely must be the aggressor or one in control in order to become physically aroused.

But the property thing doesn't interest me. I don't know why, it just doesn't.