On mutually beneficial femdom marriage- Ms Rika

I liked this comment from Ms Rika (*name edited by Mod ) in the fem dom marriage group at fet.
It seems like pretty sound reasoning. Some good advice? But I feel it can be hard for a horny guy to see things like this, when we have so many hot fantasies we'd Like to act out

This also explains how my wife can get tired of multi day chastity play when she's partly acting out a role, instead of defining submission more for herself.

=============
The major difference that I see between scene-based dynamics and lifestyle dynamics, is that you can get away with acting a role and being someone you're not in a scene. You can do things that are not natural to you, you can become someone else for bounded period of time (no pun intended).

However, in lifestyle dynamics, where you are "in your position" 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, you HAVE to be yourself. No one can be expected to play a role or to act all the time...potentially forever. People who attempt to change themselves in order to be the submissive or dominant in a dynamic, often lose interest, are inconsistent in their ability to deliver, and even grow to resent the dynamic and sometimes their partner.

What this means is that the dynamic needs to be defined by things that are natural to you. The content of submission needs to be focused on things that will be relevant over time. Submission tends more towards the WHY of activities than it does the WHAT. Service needs to serve actual need. And, most importantly, the attitudes of the partners needs to match their natural personalities.

My approach to establishing D/s dynamics addresses the major differences between scene-based and lifestyle demands. If the dominant is to remain who they are and also be served by a submissive, then the manner in which the submissive submits, the type of service the submissive delivers, and the attitude and content of that submission, needs to fulfill the dominant's natural personality. The dominant needs to FEEL served and actually BE served. Anything that doesn't fit the dominant's definition of what serves them, is not part of submission. Therefore, my approach starts with the dominant defining submission. In other words, what does the dominant consider to be submission to them? There is a place for the things the submissive wants to be available within the relationship, but NOT as part of the definition of submission.

The next step is for the submissive to LEARN what their dominant's definition of submission is. Then, they have to deliver against that demand with all of their focus. They have to commit themselves to fulfilling those definitions, so that they can FEEL that they are serving in a way that truly fulfills the dominant's wishes and preferences.

Then, the dominant and submissive agree on the rights of expectation. The submissive, understanding the dominant's preferences, needs to commit to delivering submission in the way that the dominant specified, and to award the dominant the RIGHT OF EXPECTATION that they will strive to deliver it. In other words, the dominant is given the right to demand and expect that the submissive will strive to serve at all times and the submissive commits to respond to those expectations.

It is this last agreement that transfers the power and establishes the power dynamic. From this moment on, the dominant is in a position to define submission, communicate it, expect it, recognize it, assess it, and provide feedback to the submissive so that they can improve their service over time. You'll notice that I have not mentioned WHAT submission entails. I have left that up to the "preferences of the dominant". Submission and service can mean a lot of different things to different people. This approach remains agnostic regarding the WHATS of a dynamic, rather, it is about INTENT, COMMITMENT, and EXPECTATION.

We know that no relationship can last if it's completely one-sided. You likely have noticed that all of what I described above occurred without consideration for the desires and preferences of the submissive. I never mentioned what the sub prefers once. For creation of a lifestyle power dynamic, submission needs to be that "one-way", as this is what defines actual service to the non-role-playing dominant. But clearly, there needs to be a place where the preferences of the submissive are considered. Aside from the satisfaction and fulfillment of knowing that their actions satisfy the most natural needs and desires of their dominant, submissives still have other desires - and as partners in a relationship, have a right to try to have those desires met. This is where the definition of the dynamic stops and the natural characteristics of the relationship continues:

It is important for partners in relationships to know the likes and preferences of the other. I always encourage submissives to write down and share what they like: To detail scenarios that they want to have and describe service the way they would prefer to give it...particularly if it's different than what the dominant has defined. I encourage dominants to pay a lot of attention to their submissive's preferences. These are things that the dominant can choose to give their submissive at any time. I further encourage dominants to give these things to their submissives often. The key here is that these things are not part of the definition of submission. Since they don't serve the dominants true preferences, they CAN'T be part of effective submission - but they CAN play a role in the relationship.

So dominants can choose to add in things that they know their submissives enjoy and want. They can blend those things into the service that the sub is striving to deliver. They can still have scenes wherein they act a role for a bound period of time. Both partners know that these things are not part of the sub's commitment, but rather are being given by the dominant as a partner in a relationship, who cares about the happiness of their partner and the longevity of their relationship. The dominant is not OBLIGATED by the commitment to give the sub what they want...the obligation of the commitment is from the submissive to the dominant. However, the dominant will WANT to see their partner satisfied...so even though not obligated, knowing what their partner wants and wanting to have a happy partner, results in a natural generosity and fulfillment.

What this does is establish a dynamic that obligates the submissive and informs the dominant. D/s is not "Fair". By definition, there is an imbalance of power. Imbalances of power obligate some people and advantage others. In this case, the dominant is advantaged - voluntarily - by the commitment of the submissive. The commitment obligates the submissive. Note that although the dominant doesn't need to make a conciliatory commitment, the commitment does NOT absolve them of their responsibilities as a partner in a relationship, either. As a partner in a relationship, they still have a responsibility to the overall health of their partnership and to care for their partner. That will include making sure that their partner is fulfilled and happy.

The key is that the sub is bound to perform against the commitment and that's different than a "vanilla" relationship. We don't obligate the dominant...the dominant is not the one submitting. However, the dominant retains their responsibility as a partner in a relationship - the same as in a "vanilla" relationship. The dynamic is based on the commitment of one party to serve the other...in which the definition of submission is based on the dominant's preferences so that it can naturally serve the dominant and not encumber the dominant or obligate them. The dominant then adds in things that they can give the submissive, unattached to the sub's commitment, so that their partner is satisfied and fulfilled with the relationship.

This approach creates a dynamic that has been proven to achieve longevity in lifestyle D/s relationships. Consider it.

- Rika.

 

Yes, as in the title, this Authors name is Ms. Rika, though autocorrect does change it to RITA.