Stealth Uxory

It occurred to me that those in and around submission-dominance relationships hear often of ‘stealth submission’ but never ‘stealth uxory’ because one is a relationship dynamic with a converse, ‘dominance’, while I think uxory simply needs no parallel partner corollary to complete the subjective experience of its relationship dynamic. Thus ‘submissive man’ implies a dominant partner but ‘uxorious man’ does not necessarily immediately imply anything about the partner.

I think of the ‘stealth’ in ‘stealth submission’ as meaning submission unacknowledged by the partner (or meaning the uxory a man hopes will segue into submission-dominance is currently unacknowledged as submission-dominance). But I also think of ‘stealth’ as a reference to the ‘indirect exemplifying’ love symbols as opposed to the (more) ‘directly speaking’ love symbols as well as a reference to stealthily avoiding the wife’s outright rejection of submission-dominance as love symbol, a rejection often felt as a rejection of the person.

But ultimately my curiosity is primarily (almost entirely) about how people generally see, view, understand, use and negotiate love symbols so large and wieldy as nontraditional submission-dominance and semi-traditional uxory: 

For if the difference between submission and uxory is (on an essential level – though not the only essence) about the ‘traditionality’ (or lack thereof) of love symbols, then is ‘stealth’ (on an essential level – though not the only essence) about trying to get your partner to ‘see’ -by (selectively limited) example- the efficacy of nontraditional love symbols?

I also think it’s somewhat ironic (if occasionally somewhat fitting and often very sad) that the men most likely to stealthily present ‘uxory as love symbol’ actually mean by their intent ‘uxory as segue’ partially because they do not ‘see clearly’ the value, do not feel the adequacy and accuracy, of the uxory symbol they themselves temporarily present; they instead happen to ‘see’ (understand, value more, feel more adequacy in) submission-dominance symbols.

As such, I remain sympathetic in such cases because they, like we all, can only use the symbols we already have and understand – and if everyone’s symbol tool box is inevitably limited in some ways, I am certainly no better than they. I just happen to tend (almost exclusively) towards the uxory end of the spectrum and as I am (happily, fortunately) not in stealth mode about anything and naturally more readily ‘see’, understand, find more value in, uxory symbols, I also (occasionally) see some seemingly significant differences at the other end of the spectrum.