Some readers may have noticed that I rarely write about dominance and submission. Instead, I might say that a couple knows what needs to be done or equivalent wording.
The reason that I do not write about dominance and submission is that I am coming from a different point of view from some writers on Loveawake dating site in that I write about families and children – which are central to the purpose of men and women forming unions.
Thus, to me, the question which comes first – dominance (control) or submission – becomes a chicken and egg argument. It does not much matter which comes first. Women tend to be drawn to men whom they know will meeting their needs by being a good provider and father to her children. (That is, in fact, the definition offered for middle dominance women – who comprise most of the female population.)
Conversely, those who come from the high dominance perspective can be (not necessarily are) a challenge. In return for their respect, these women expect a man to go one better. Consequently, a man might have to prove his superior dominance to such a woman before she will submit to him.
On the other hand – as described in articles such as Our new beginning, How I became submissive, and In praise of Fascinating Womanhood – more conventional women might become submissive in order to achieve (for them, at least) a higher end.
To complete the triangle, a low dominance woman may need to be drawn out of her shell so that her fear becomes respect. She might need to be spanked because she is loved and, for all of her initial terror, needs to know that she is important to the man she married. Regardless of dominance level, most women understand a man laying a firm hand on their backside much better than his walking out and leaving her. Furthermore, regardless of his faults, women come to appreciate the committed man as she becomes older.
The most likely scenario for a typical couple is that there are two parallel tracks on which successful relationships run – not unlike a railroad. When the relationship bends one way or the other – as in a curve – the weight of the relationship may shift more heavily on one rail or the other. Even on a straight run, the train (relationship) may sway more to one rail or the other and back again in a rocking motion.
At the same time, it must be realized that women can and do test men as part of their innate survival mechanism. Women do give implicit permissions on which the expect men to act. In time, if men fail to act, women will despise them.
Simultaneously, most women – as well as the relationship they are in – would benefit from being taken in hand physically (soundly spanked) on occasion. Otherwise, women acquire the ‘mark of the beast’ in that they acquire metaphorical horns and become combative.
In time, neglected women can become evil – doing great damage to their husbands, their children, their families, and themselves. Some become politically correct fanatics!
When all is said and done, whether submission or dominance comes first probably depends on the type of relationship as well as the individuals in it. Some women can be quite subservient. Others require a looser reign.
To try to impose a singular, absolutist style on all would be sheer folly. It is its own brand of political correctness.
I have no way of knowing how common the desire to be spanked is among women, because it's not something I've ever discussed with women I know in real life, nor could I ever imagine doing so. But I can't assume that because it's something I want is therefore something that most women want.
Most women probably do want men who are good providers and fathers, if they can get them, but that's not necessarily the same thing as wanting a man who is dominant. I have known men who were good providers and father without being the slightest bit dominant, my own father was one.
Certainly I know from personal experience that if you're a woman who wants to be spanked then not getting it can make you frustrated and irritable, but becoming evil? I think that's a little bit of an exaggeration.
This very question is one that is discussed repeatedly in my home. And quite frankly I agree that each relationship takes it's own course and that is how the dynamics are laid. In my case I suppose by the labels provided I am considered (by you) a High Dominance woman. Yet when thinking of my two sister In-in Laws, one who needs control to validate her life, and her bitch, oops, her greatest admirer, the other, the idea of any dominance is preposterous. Their relationships are determined by how high my brothers can jump. They both consider themselves 'feminists of the highest order'. Yet even in their dominance, my brothers' wellbeing is second only to their pleasures.
We do not see eye to eye at all, yet I am the happiest, most well balanced and have the most harmony, and that's what's only visible.
Is it because I was able to embrace the submission that Gary was able to spot then seduce out of me?
But there it is in our house. The dominant had to be available so the submissive could spread her invisible wings. Was I submissive before? Not even in my fantasies, well except I submitted to spankings.
I am fascinated with this debate though, although it comes to an understanding of individuality
Seduction can come in many forms, and for us seducing the submission out is that gentle firm nudge that many of us need to acknowledge and then to embrace.
If a heavy hand is used to force an issue, then not only is the end result forced, but then emotional byproducts have to be dealt with as a result.
So it's a fight for each and every step. Doesn't sound appealing to me at all.
In my life, Gary gently made remarks that allowed me to see my own personality.
And that very gentleness has allowed me to trust him and then to give him that very same submission that I didn't even know I had.
But who reaps the rewards? Is that the same question as what comes first, the submission or the dominance?
But to agree with you Jayda, in complete fulfillment, the wonderful relationship speaks more volume than anything else can.
I was in a relationship for thirty years....it failed when my ex walked out and decided to be 20 something instead of in his late 40s. I took a major role in the marriage and much of the responsibility-particularly financial fell to me...not a role I sought or enjoyed. In the end I lost respect for him and I do know I changed towards him......I don't think I became evil but I can identify with what Noone says....... If I had been held and he had taken a firmer role I don't think the marriage would have ended with the acrimony it did.....Just a thought......
Most men are not going to take you in hand unless they know for sure that is what you want, a lot of women would react very negatively to any sort of forceful behaviour on the part of a man; most sensible men won't risk trying anything of that nature unless the know you would welcome it.
A sensible man does not just take it for granted that he has a woman's consent to spank her or whatever, you need to let him know. Presumably your husband thinks you're going out boozing with your friends because you enjoy it, it's a not unreasonable assumption. If you want him to place limits on you, he needs to know that. Talk to him about what you want, he's not a mind reader.