Why FLRs Are Successful

I don’t really think that FLRs are more successful than vanilla relationships. What I observe is that the beginning of any relationship is intense, charged with sexuality, and that at least one of the partners is really working at it to make it succeed. Not necessarily in a positive way, but more in a way to satisfy his or her basic needs. I admit that this is indeed a jaundiced view, but then, we are all adults and know that there are avaricious people out there.

In a budding FLR most of the time it is the man who starts it. If it succeeds at first, it is because he puts in the time and the effort, and provides the incentives to the partner to begin and to continue the affair. Of course, the female has to participate to whatever extent is necessary. This is a time of trial, turmoil, and interesting experiences. It can fail for many reasons, most of which are caused by selfishness of either partner. But when it succeeds, it can be very satisfying for both partners. Regardless of claims to the contrary, an FLR is a D/S relationship.

A D/S relationship, regardless of who is in charge, is different from vanilla in the sense that one partner is committed to serve the other. The submissive still has expectations, but the very act of doing something for the partner is self serving and feeds back to the needs of the submissive. It is somewhat like masturbation, only doing it remotely. I challenge anyone to provide real experience where this is not true.

Without D/S the relationship reverts to vanilla where the dominance scale approaches, but seldom reaches 50-50. Read that as “nobody is in charge”. It can still work, but it is seldom an achievable match where both partners are satisfied with the idea. The traditional patriarchal relationship is usually from 60-40 to 90-10 with the man in charge. When it works, it is because the woman does not mind giving up freedom in exchange for protection and security. The man seldom has the opportunity to say, “Yes, I will be in charge, and she will be under my protection.” It has been simply understood that that will be the case.

That is why it is so unusual when the female becomes the leader through her own implementation of her needs. Here too, both have to support the idea, because it is against tradition, and it is unusual for the supposed stronger partner (the male) to give up leadership. By the way, if the usually stronger partner is the male, he is not necessarily more fitted to be the leader. If the woman is more intelligent or smarter than the man, it may be very hard on her to live with the submissive position unless she is or wants to be submissive naturally. I have known men who are not fit to lead a pack of roaches, yet they are supposed to be in charge of the family. Some of these men may not be smart enough to realize that it is the “little woman” who is the true leader, and that he is just a figurehead. With too much ego and testosterone these men cannot relinquish their position without feeling like a failure or a “sissy”. Yet these are the men who should definitely be in an FLR.

The ego issue is perhaps the most compelling for unenlightened people to oppose FLR. Listen to the bravado of macho males and you get the idea that they would rather die than give up their position, and that any hint that the woman is in charge is an insult to them. The adjectives, “henpecked” and “pussywhipped” are not applied in a benign way and face to face to a man. Yet both adjectives imply some level of FLR.

From my perspective it takes strength of character for a man to admit that he wants or needs his woman to be in charge of him. Sure, any man with bedroom fantasies will admit to wanting the woman to take charge during sex from time to time. But that is mostly unrelated to freely admitting to the unenlightened that he is submissive to his partner. It is like a homosexual who never comes out of the closet for fear of embarrassment.

I have read an “interview” by one of the best bloggers at http://vanillaedge.wordpress.com/2008/02/13/rika-does-vanilla/#comments.
The person being interviewed is Ms. Rika, whom I admire greatly. As I have been advocating the true submission to women, this quote, out of context, is telling:

“…D/s is about what he does for me, not what I do to him. We judge the success of the D/s dynamic on how satisfied I am; and on how good a job he does in anticipating my needs and fulfilling them….”

Indeed, it is not about my need, but about her need that my submission should exist. This is what most men in what they assume to be FLR fail to understand. This is why budding FLRs fail. This is why most males just go into a tailspin after “they do all they can and the female just does not see the rewards or benefits of what they have so selflessly given.”

Men, read Ms. Rika’s writings, and you might get a clue. If, after reading all of her writings and the question/answer blogs you still think that you are slighted by your female partner, you may not be what you profess to be. I don’t take away from your need and willingness to submit, just that you need to become real. You need to understand and admit the truth. I am not advocating rules, contracts, etc. They are just fun trivia. What I am advocating is understanding your needs and wants, and those of your partner. All else is like frosting on a cake.

There is one more point to present before beating this subject to death. Some women are not capable, or are not willing to be in charge, which is what is definitely required in an FLR. A man who is trying to develop an FLR in relationship with such woman must at some point admit that. It is not necessarily the end of the world as far as he is concerned. If the relationship is strong and loving otherwise, the two can still play FLR from time to time. He can still remain as good as he was while he thought that he was in an FLR. She can accommodate some of his kinks and still receive the benefit. The adapted relationship is not as blatant as he may have expected, but it can still be fun and satisfying for both. This is especially true when considering the alternatives: complete abandonment of FLR, reverting to a resentful vanilla relationship with who-knows-who-is-in-charge, or divorce and subsequent search for a more agreeable partner.

In closing I return to the premise of this posting. FLRs, when successful, are so because at least one of the partners is committed to make it work at almost all cost. The other partner, if she or he buys into the relationship, need not do quite as much. Nevertheless, it does take two to have this relationship. This may be true for vanilla relationships, but as I said, the closer the D/S gets to 50-50, the less chance there is that it is viable.

More Anticipation of the Trip

Packing and Pre-Trip Anxiety

MW and I are getting ready for our trip. It will require loading our vehicle with things that we need, things that we want, things that we may or may not need depending on the weather, etc. A rain or snow storm is predicted on our day of departure. We are planning to cross some high mountains, so we need to have survival items for contingencies. All of this means that we will take a lot of stuff that we will not use, and wish that we had brought others.

She has already told me to bring the piercing kit for a possible addition to my current state of anatomy enhancement. Might come in handy when we get snowed in. I get turned on every time that I think of it. She is aware of it, of course. It is unmistakable if you know where to look, and in my “natural state” it is quite easy. This morning she also said that I should pack a pair of sweatpants in case I need to wear something comfortable in public while being encumbered by things. I think that I convinced her (with respect!) that I am not a sweatpants man. I would rather wear something like a size larger than needed pair of old Levi’s which I happen to have. Of course, the topic gave me another erection. Yes, I need to contain myself.

Power Exchange

You may need to fasten your seatbelts before reading this posting. It is not just the controversial nature of the subject, although it may be controversial within our narrow context. It is more having to do with one’s credibility or willingness to visualize abstract concepts such as “the thing is there, only it is not”. All right. I am just toying with you. You will do fine.

A reader made a comment on my prior post about my meaning of “Exchange of power.” Since I don’t have anything of sensual or sexual or kinky nature to report this time in anticipation of the trip, I think that this would be a good time to define what I was talking about.

“You can keep digging deeper and deeper and find yourself coming out at the other side.” I am saying this again, and will probably repeat it as long as I support this blog. One reason is that I may have forgotten that I said it before. Hey, wine will do that to you! The other, the real reason, is to point out how some lines of reasoning can circle back in unexpected ways. I will give you an example.

Say, there is a man who deems himself submissive and selfless, and wants to serve a woman unconditionally. Her pleasure, her desire, her authority are paramount, whereas his are not. Let’s see, now, who gets what out of this relationship? By his own admission he gets nothing (he is selfless). By his own desire of selfless servitude she gets everything. Hm. I see something wrong here: he gets what he wants, she gets what he gives her.

You could turn this around, and assume that there is a woman who wants and needs to dominate a man. She succeeds to form a relationship that allows her to do just that. If the man wants to be dominated, is she really dominating him? If the man did not want to be dominated, my guess is that he would back out of the relationship. So, the question again, is, “Is she really dominating him, or is she giving him what he wants?”

I am not at all suggesting that the only male submissive relationship between male and female is when the male voluntarily gives up power to the female. If that were the truth, then the assumption that the male had all the power to begin with would have to be true. I see it differently.

I have demonstrated in an earlier post that all relationships are D/S. Their rules are dictated by the dominance scale that maintains a stable relationship. In this sense the dominance scale is a measure of power exchange. It is analogous to energy as defined in the physical sciences. One can not have energy, and one can not use up or waste energy. The only thing that one can do with energy is to convert it from one form or manifestation to another and reap the benefits in the process. Also observe that energy is essentially limitless in this universe (there is entropy but I don’t want to be too side-tracked by discussing it). One is not born with a given amount of energy and eventually use it up before or at death. Worse even, if one were to use it up while still living, what would he do for energy later?

In a like manner power can be defined from a psychological perspective (not physical as in the physical sciences) as “an ability to manipulate others.” One is not born with an amount of power that one can use up and then become powerless. Power by itself is useless unless one applies it to get what one wants. So, like energy, one can not have power and one can not give power to another person and possess less power as a result. But one can convert power into benefits. This enables the other person to use power to manipulate the one who receives the benefit in exchange. As to which person gets or receives the power conversion or the benefit is one of my circular assertions about “digging deeper and deeper until you come out the other side.”

As a final observation I will say that, “Power exchange is always defined from a certain perspective, and that another perspective will see the same in a completely different way.” Still, it is a convenient means to describe one’s point of view.

I am not sure where I was going with this, but I seem to have arrived where I started. It reminds me of the “European Vacation” movie where the Griswold family is traveling in a traffic circle in London.

Pontification #2: Relationships

In my post on Commitment I pointed out that it takes two to have a relationship, and that both partners must be committed and remain supportive. What I did not say was what kind of relationship. The reason for that was because I wanted to explore the subject later, which in part brings me to this posting.

Merriam-Webster has three definitions for the word, but my preferred one is “… the relation connecting or binding participants in a relationship.” It is circular in a way, but fits my current reasoning. I will take that to expose an underlying principle.

In any relationship there is tension, and a subsequent struggle to resolve the tension. One participant may be satisfied by the resolution, but the other may end up with more tension as a result. I could write a book about this, but would rather get to the point before I lose the readers’ interest.

The only way a resolution would satisfy both partners all of the time is if, on the dominance scale, one partner was one hundred percent and the other zero (100-0). The dominant would decide and all would be well. It turns out that humans are not that way, so we must compromise.

Why does any relationship work, even temporarily?

On the short term we don’t get too perturbed by things not turning out the way we expect. We keep hoping that they will be better and maybe try to do something to make it so. But if they keep going that way, after a while we have enough, and want to change.

On the long term, assuming that we got over the short term annoyances, we develop a working relationship: “you do this and that for me”, and in return “I do that and this for you.” As long as both comply with the assumed and developing rules of behavior, the relationship can last a long time. As mundane as this sounds, this covers all ranges of dominance and submission. The key issue here is that both participants get what they want out of the relationship. Neither is forced, either may quit, but they continue because generally they are both getting much of what they want. It is unlikely to be perfect, but it works.

I will take an example from my previous jobs to illustrate the point. A workplace is not a democracy. When I accept employment I am obligated to follow local rules and produce a product that my employer can use to make profit. Change any of this and either my employer or I are breaking the contract. In more simple terms, I do what I am told to do, otherwise I am out. If the employer is unethical or does not support my needs to produce, I find another job. Wow, that is some power exchange!

A marriage is somewhat like that, but has other layers of interdependence and complexity. There is love, lust, friendship, habit, mutual responsibility, etc. But the same rules apply as in any other relationship: both participants must get what they want, otherwise it does not work. Even strongly committed persons will give up if there are irreconcilable differences.

So how does a successful relationship work where others fail? I have heard of, read about, and seen in movies 50-50 marriages that supposedly worked. Marriage is a subset of a relationships, so all that applies to marriage does not apply to relationships in general. In this 50-50 marriage, fictional stories aside, both partners must be detached in order for the relationship to survive. This to me implies “impersonal”, “clinical”, “nothing but rational”, non-involved living and continual negotiations. It is fake, or the end of a formerly loving marriage. The union remains only for economical, financial, or some legal (having children in common) mutual obligation until such obligations are dissolved. Screw the 50-50 marriage. It is fake.

The following numbers are not based on scientific data. I am making them up only to illustrate my point. If a marriage does not have at least a 60-40 power balance, it is deathly dull. On the other hand, many marriages don’t survive a 60-40 or more diverse power balance. Either because the wrong person has the 60, or both want to have the 60 percent or more of power. Those that survive have figured out that one of the partners is more or less in charge, and the other complies. Hmm … What a novel idea! Too bad ideas cannot be patented.

In a Dominant/Submissive relationship the power exchange is more 80-20, or even 90-10. It is really never 100-0 for any length of time except maybe during a scene. But even then we don’t know for sure.

Female Led Relationship (FLR) is a subset of all relationships between a male and a female. In my next Pontification, if you are still around to read it, I will show you why FLR seems to work, and try to explode a related myth.