For instance, she had scrub the kitchen floor on the obey list last week, even said I could do it in sections for the baby’s sake and encouraged me that it wouldn’t take so long. Not so big a deal really, I’ve scrubbed the kitchen floor before when she has told me to, and I even wrote a story with the same theme.

So, today I happen to be on the phone with her about baking the lemon lavender scones she had put on the obey list (they turned out quite well), when I get an email from her saying,

“I notice you left the kitchen floor off the list–you need to keep up with that.”

So I ask her over the phone “Um, you want me to scrub the floor again?” as I’m thinking I thought she felt I did a good job with that, why again?

“Yes, I want you to do a section everyday. If you do a section everyday, it’ll be easy to keep up with.”

As you can imagine, I’m realizing now:
Oh, scrub the floor over and over again for the rest of my life, one section at a time…

“…Aye, Captain.”

“Good.”

Because yes, I’m okay with that.
Because it’s clear she wants (me to do) it.
Because I like it when she wants (me)(so clearly).
Because her wanting is so beautiful and fiery.

I must say I love how she’s approaching this as simultaneously fun and serious –there have been as many laughs as tasks accomplished.  I also love how she’s simultaneously cautious and effective –she doesn’t give me orders so much as expect me to obey/comply with her wishes, and she expects practical, tangible, bottom-line results.

It means she’s doing things her way and finding her own style of being more firmly in charge, it means she’s making sure she’s getting what she wants out of the added dynamic –making sure the symbols mean something that she wants and values, and that the symbols work in a way that works for her. And of course it also means I’m happy and motivated because I’m at one with her and her desire (harmony) and effectively feeding her fiery self.

I admit I haven’t been perfect with everything but it’s clear that what is getting done happens with more intentionality, more goodwill towards one another, and more intimacy.

In short: it’s working and life is good.

Better actually.

Now my wife only has one sister so I usually take it with salt when she calls me her favorite brother in law. However, I give her credit because she does know we’re neither technophiles or rolling in moola –my wife works but I stay home with the kids. We don’t have smart phones, large televisions, tivo, sweet sound systems or anything else. My wife has an ipod. We just got a printer for our computer because her work loaned it to us after they decided they didn’t need it anymore. You get the idea. I don’t know how much web cams go for, if this is cheapie or a high end. I don’t know if this is something the sisterhood collaborated on. What I do know is that whatever happens with it I’m going to be very … positive.

No less, Christmas (and New Year’s) fall on Sunday and it’s Friday before Sister-In-Law emails me: “Hey my sister said you’re hooking up the webcam and we can use it tonight!”

Well, we all knew who was going to be hooking it up. But I’ve suspected Sister-in-law has some inkling about the dynamics of our marital life. I mean we’re not exactly D/s and we don’t kink (we don’t even “just play in the bedroom”), but I’m pretty sure that my wife is in charge enough, and that I’m uxorious enough, that it shows. We’re happy and don’t try to hide it, say like when we visited last year.

But right now I have no idea if my wife is telling me to do something by way of her sister, or if Sister-In-Law is in some sort of webcam withdrawl and is desperately trying to get one past my wife. So I call my wife who says “Yes, see if you can get it hooked up. My sister has all the details.” Right.

Somewhere around six Sister-in-law emails, four hours (yeah, maybe this is why I’m not a technophile), and a ‘wife’s-name’ google+ account later (’cause they let you webchat free), I’ve finally got this thinga-ma-jig hooked up.

The next day, Saturday, New Year’s Eve, the day after the nieces, nephews, sistahs, and aunts try out the webchatter and have a great time, I’m sitting at the computer minding my own business (or as close as makes no difference for this story) happily thinking how glad I am to have gotten that whole web-camera-chitterer out of the way, and lo! this google+ IM window pops up with:

“Hey!”

Me: Um, hey?
['Cause why would I have a clue what's going on.]

“Very good, Favorite Brother-in-Law!”
[Of course, despite the fact this is my wife's account, said sister-in-law just would know it was me.]

Me: Thank you!

SisInLaw: Ha-ha! Tell my sister about this IM feature.

Me: Sure Sis-in-law, she’s putting Elder Daughter to bed now but I’ll tell her about it.

SisInLaw: NOoo! Tell her to come here now, put her fingers on the keyboard and make her do this!

Me: Um, have you tried to make her do anything lately?
Yeah… I’ll just tell her about it.

SisInLaw: Lol! Okay, so what resolutions have you made?

Me: Specifically for New Year’s? Never.
Every other day of the year? Always.

SisInLaw: Really? Like what?

Me: Like I’m going to be nicer to people – no, wait. I’m going to be firmer with people so I can have enough room to be true to who I am.

And like I’m going to write more. No wait. I should really probably write less and get more things done.

SisInLaw: Lol You sound conflicted!

Me: Yeah, so I don’t make big changes all at once. Better a little bit at a time.

SisInLaw: Right. Don’t change horses in mid stream.

Me: ‘Xactly. How about you?

SisInLaw: Well, I’m going to use social media to keep in touch better…

Me: Oh, now I see the master plan: a socialist media!
[Really I'm just saying this to cover for how stupid I feel for not figuring her long term intentions from the beginning]. 

SisInLaw: So you can keep in touch with Mao?

Me: ‘Xactly.

You get the idea: Others are good with resolutions. I am not good with resolutions (and many other things too, but I’m focusing here). I tell my wife all about this conversation of course, but I’m still surprised when this morning, New Year’s day, she says to to me, “Now since I know you weren’t going to bother making resolutions this year, I went ahead and made them for you.”

As my wife hands me a small piece of paper, I’m thinking –ok well, possibly not exactly thinking but: “Whoa. Ok. Actually, um, that’s kinda hot.” But of course what I really do is smile, laugh and say, “Really?”, and cover my reaction by looking down and starting to read the short list – which I read out loud because, well, I don’t know why, but I do.

“One new recipe per month.” Okay this has a lot of backstory to it and I’m not surprised – really it’s very cool because she’s the one who wants more variety and she’s making a resolution for me to cook for her to her satisfaction.  So I look up at her and I smirk a little smile while she looks all innocent and I go on.

“Light incense.” Again not too surprising, lot of allergies and asthma on this backstory, but when I look up she just says, “I like it” with all due emphasis on her ‘I’. I just say “Aye, Captain”, my stock affirmative phrase which means “you said it, discussion’s done, I’m doing it” and I go right on.

She’s talking to our eldest child as I read: “Exercise everyday” and “Drink water everyday”. Yes, I’m (ahem) a few pounds overweight, hard to lose as a house husband if you don’t make the time. And this is admittedly a resolution with some backstory I’d rather skip over.

My wife has dismissed our daughter to some task, so I take the opportunity to read out: “Write something everyday.” Sigh. I love my wife. She knows I love writing even when its hard and I just read books instead. (You wouldn’t believe the amount of philosophy I’ve been reading lately.) I look up as she smiles and nods at me. Yes, she knows.

There’s only on more. I read. “Obey your true love–” (and I’m starting to get that ‘thinking-but-not-exactly-thinking-feeling’ again) “–she is loaded with good ideas, and your life will be better for it!”

Well. I’m dumbfounded. I mean we’ve used the word ‘obey’ in casual conversations before –referring more to the expectation of my willful intent to do to make her happy than to any sort of ‘force-demand’ dynamic. Certainly not in any situation remotely even close to serious like a resolution – even if it is only New Year’s.

Don’t get me wrong, I love the part of her that demands and forces the world (including me) bend to her fiery, willful, and bossy inner self and I don’t mind using ‘obey’ –if carefully. But she’s an egalitarian feminist who has specially reserved names for the “women obey your husband” thing. On the rare occasions when she does use it, she always follows it up with ”and your life is better for it” precisely because of the historical connotations of people’s lives NOT being better when they obey others.

But here it is as her resolution for me.

I look up, and see this very large smile on her face. –Kiss. —Hug.

Well. Resolution to increase the usage of the word ‘obey’ is hereby  –Passed.

Perhaps by now you deem it true
but never am I more certain than
whenever I am far from you
(or upon reflection closest too)
the place that I am meant to stand

is by your side no matter how,
doting, adoring as best I may,
to love and feed your fire obey
so much more than any vow,
so much more than times allow.

.

~

As Richard John Neuhaus puts it [in 'American Babylon'], ‘libido dominandi’ is “the lust for power, advantage, and glory.” It shouts, “My way or no way!”

This lust for domination doesn’t just characterize politics in the City of Man, it characterizes each of us. The libido dominandi is that within each of us that plots and strives to have our own way and force others do as we say.
~ James Tonkowich, Libido Dominandi: St. Augustine and the Lust for Domination (emphasis mine)

Of course power and passion are close cousins in human experience, we can see how close by looking closely at the word ‘ambition’:

Ambition:
an earnest desire for some type of achievement or distinction, as power, honor, fame, or wealth, and the willingness to strive for its attainment

Synonyms:
appetite, ardor, aspiration, avidity, craving, desire, drive, eagerness, earnestness, emulation, energy, enterprise, enthusiasm, hope, hunger, initiative, itch, keenness, longing, love, lust, passion, pretension, push, spirit, striving, thirst, vigor, yearning, zeal

I might like to think of myself as a passionate ‘sensitive guy’ but it is no secret men often have their interior experiential want and desire for things egotistically attached to their sex drive as if their will-to-power‘s force of self were the very fist of their phallus.

It’s why St. Augustine called it ‘libido dominandi‘, “the lust [to dominate and] for power, advantage, and glory”. So it is I wonder if my interior “desire for” is comparatively merely more attached to ‘emotional requite-ment’ of passionate (romantic) love, rather than to lustful (orgiastic?) climax of powerful domination. In a way this topic could easily be about ‘sorts of uxory’ and the difference between uxory and submission, however rather than compare kinds of relationships I think this issue more educational about negotiating a functional power-passion dynamic within a single relationship.

For I don’t think libido dominandi is always bad (certainly not always “sinful”) in and of itself; the libido dominandi by another name might be Nietzsche’s ’will-to-power’, something neither moral nor immoral but merely essential about life and living. And if some women like a sensitive man, I can also see how some women find the sensitive man “too (emotionally) needy” and instead prefer a man with more ambition, drive and will-to-power. In fact such grit, moxie and determination is sometimes thought courageous, independent, self-reliant and oft idolized in ‘the rugged individual’. And of course, not only is there going to be a range of behaviors among men and expectations among women (or vice versa) along this spectrum, but there’s certainly also variance within any particular individual character from time to time – and such variance of personalities and expectations  within a relationship dynamic means (re)negotiation, adjustment and coping.

And if some men like a sensitive woman, I can also see how some men instead prefer a woman with more ambition, drive and will-to-power. I think my wife manages to minimally define any other person when she says “I want” – rather than forcing another to do it “my way or no way” she more often simply says ”I just want what I want – and you can do what you want”. But if I happen to like ”her will to power” more than “her power over me”, I can surely see how other people might prefer something further down the spectrum and may even experience a more dominating dynamic as something more intimate, loving and functional – for them.

Moreover what I might label my “passionate, emotional sensitivity” (or ‘emotional requite-ment’ of passionate romantic love) my wife sometimes labels with a simple “emotionally needy”. This mismatch doesn’t happen often enough to be a serious issue for us (though it can in some relationships) and when it does we adjust and negotiate: I find a balance of self and other that’s right for me (as does she) and each of us (with our partner in mind) try (re)negotiating our love symbols in order to attain a balance that is functional for both of us. And of course we don’t get everything we want right away and we often end up coping with whatever unmet desire (for ‘more of the other’ or for ‘more space’) as best we can. I always try to remember that she doesn’t always get everything what she wants either, when she doesn’t get all the relationship ‘space’ (or the immaculately clean home) that she wants (from me) she has to cope with possibly having more guilt and less freedom than she wanted.

Along with distance balanced love symbols and directionally balanced relationship metaphors comes finding the right balance between self and partner. This balance is tricky however as it’s comprised of three different balances and two different perspectives on those balances: each individual strikes an interior balance between themselves and their partner, they negotiate with their partner for a third external balance, and of course they each have their own perspective on all three. Yet these together allow individuals and couples to know where and how they are and aren’t integrated with their partner, where and how they may and mightn’t, will and won’t, intimately ‘meet’ their partner.

When I first approached my wife with the idea of having a female led relationship*, I was seeking to (re)negotiate our love symbols not only in order to get more adequate love symbols to express myself (this is my interior balance between self and partner) but also so that we might meet and integrate with each other better and more intimately (which is my perspective on our exterior balance between self and partner). Well, my wife was rather skeptical about my idea. She naturally wanted adequate love symbols for her (her interior balance between herself and her partner) but she also wanted to get wherever our relationship was going in an organic and non-artificially structured way (her perspective on our exterior balance between herself and her partner).

Negotiating between her desire for organic growth and my desire to already have the symbols I wanted took some time, and if during that time the issue wasn’t exactly an open secret, it often felt like the unspoken elephant in the room. But like my open secret theorizing, our agreement to retain ambiguity and semi-silence over the issue was an instrumental part of a slow change plan/process for acceptance and the (re)negotiation of love symbols, an instrumental part of a way to balance individual need for relationship fulfillment of desire with a partner’s need for emotional space and comfort.

It wasn’t a real open secret since she knew generally how I felt, what I wanted, what I intended, nearly as quickly as I was aware and since all the specifics were always readily available nothing was being hidden. At the time I felt strongly (and still do) that it was of utmost importance to communicate to her what I was generally thinking and feeling** even if she didn’t want many specifics. Likewise did she manage a basic communication about how she felt, and again even at the time I thought she was right not to listen to me past a certain point. As she said, since I didn’t have adequate symbols to communicate what I wanted there was no point in talking about the issue until we verbally worked out some negotiated plan. Our relationship should be allowed to grow of its own rather than placing uncomfortable and artificial strictures and outlines around it, whether to stretch or hem it in any way.

Thus, both having good points, we ended up looking for a good (negotiated) balance between [1] what I wanted for us and the symbols I thought would better fit us down the road (direction) and [2] how she wanted our relationship to grow and how she wanted symbols that fit us constantly between the “here and now” and “wherever we end up down the road” (speed). And though our subsequent semi-tacit agreement was  somewhat akin to the frog in a pot scenario I’ve mentioned before, there yet remained a great deal of intentional ambiguity about what her specific (speed) limits were for my pressing uxory were, and over where (direction) our negotiation might ultimately lead us. And our agreement needed ambiguity, uncertainty and semi-silence so we could grow as individuals (grow our interior balance between self and partner) and as a couple (grow our exterior negotiated love symbol balance) and get to the place of comfort we both enjoy today.

The (semi-)silence was a tool, the anti-intimate distance between us was a tool, ambiguity itself a tool, one we actively and consciously agreed to use in order to attain a better more adequate, more intimate, (negotiated) balance between us. And when the silence did not serve us we did speak of the elephant in the room, especially if she felt I was driving to hard, ‘exceeding the speed limit’ (metaphors driving metaphors), if she felt I were uncomfortably playing a role ‘at her’ rather than organically playing myself with her. And the idea of playing roles speaks quite well to her fears at the time and to why (as I said above) she wasn’t sure she wanted to know and talk about all the specifics of what I thought, wanted, felt and fantasized. For no matter how “no strings attached” such information about my interior is, she knew she’d always feel confronted and obliged to do something (anything) for me because she loves me.

That information about my interior can easily affect her perspective and the way she negotiates love symbols with me – indeed even seriously compromise her perspective and negotiation. In a way by maintaining distance from and ambiguity about my interior she was protecting our relationship – because if she were to lovingly catering to my ideas, symbols and fantasies out of a sense of obligation or guilt, she might actually help that larger process of organic and balanced love symbol negotiation instead devolve into a fantasy-based role-playing relationship.

And in another way, she was using intentional ignorance to protect her freedom and choice (which are part of her fiery self): by not knowing all the specific details in my head she didn’t have to feel (as) guilty or obliged when she made choices towards what works best for her, by not talking about some things she could get the ‘space’*** she needed to deal with the issue the way she wants to, the way most comfortable for her, the way that maintains her interior balance between herself and myself. And because I knew this at the time I didn’t press the issue, because I don’t want to be on her “to do” list - because if she hates feeling obliged, so too do I hate making her feel obliged.

Of course, it is always difficult to make the choice to be patient, to accept and cope with having an interior imbalance long enough to grow your relationship, to grow and balance your exterior love symbol negotiation in the way that’s best for both you and your beloved. Yet it can very much be a choice between making your partner feel obliged and making you both feel guilty on one hand and on the other hand feeling as if you are suffering in silence without happiness or fulfillment. With any fortune one can cope/manage an interior peace for as long as is necessary – because coping and living with a bad choice is worse than being patient, appropriate and considerate when (re)negotiating love symbols with the one you love most.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

* Today I might point out how “uxorious” is a better dynamic descriptor for us than “female led” and that even uxorious has it’s problems as a label, but back then I didn’t have any better or adequate words, symbols or metaphors to communicate my meaning.

** This is a significant and distinct difference from the so called “stealth submission”, which I think is semi-deceptive and do not condone in anyway. For her not to have that basic information about me and my thoughts, for me to withhold basic information about how I feel and what I want, would not have been fair or loving to either of us.

*** To her credit (and apropos of ‘where does it all end?‘), if there were always and only ever going to be this neverending frog-in-a-pot semi-tacit process of potential guilt and/or uncomfortable obligation and the closing of her freedom, if there were never going to be any set of symbols “good enough” for me, if she were doomed to constantly working to protect and defend her freedom and our relationship, then I wouldn’t blame her for wanting some sort of space. To be ever, always and increasingly uncomfortable? No, I do not want that for her; I don’t think anyone would want that for the one they love.

Driving, of course, is commonly used even in ‘vanilla’ relationships to metaphorically point at which partner is “behind the wheel” and is ultimately in control of where the couple is going, how fast they’re going, what route they’ll take to get there. This despite the fact that at sea the one making such decisions quite often isn’t the one “behind the wheel” – or that many “in charge” people prefer to have a driver and to make those decisions from the back seat in a more ‘driving Miss Dominant’ scenario. Picking driving as a metaphor, no matter how complex one makes the metaphor or how accurate it is, will only highlight a limited number of specific relationship dynamic aspects and only to a certain degree; a metaphor always remains an illustration of part of something and will never be the ‘real thing’.

And by highlighting some certain relationship aspects, other aspects are diminished. Certainly the ‘passenger’ ‘drives’ his own life and likely ‘drives’ a number of aspects in the relationship as one person actively making every decision seems unlikely. At some point all metaphors break down and/or need other (new) metaphors to better adequately “point” at whichever aspects happen to currently be under illustration.

Perhaps rather than ”Mr. Submissive” driving “Miss Dominant” or vice versa (I should probably admit I never saw that movie), perhaps they each have their own car, each driver making equal and individual driver decisions in tandem coordination as they move along together, perhaps caravaning one in front of the other, perhaps sometimes side by side (almost as if in the same car), perhaps sometimes the other in front of the one depending on who has better information about the area they’re navigating at the time.

Of course there are going to be times when they get separated, either accidentally or perhaps intentionally in order to rendezvous later. And it might happen that they arrive at a ‘stop sign intersection’ simultaneously from perpendicular directions (or in another example from opposite directions). In such situations my old driver ed teacher taught me to make eye contact and communicate with the other driver over who would proceed through the intersection first. Will waving the other driver through first be the ’safe’ and ‘prudent’ choice or the ‘passive’ and ‘submissive’ choice? There’s always the ‘driver to the left’ rule of right-of-way and there’s always the possibility these two particular drivers may already have some prearranged rule on the matter. And then of course there’s always the option of merely waving a thank you at the other driver (or skipping this entirely) and ‘aggressively’ (hopefully not quite ‘recklessly’) gunning it through the intersection, perhaps thereby dominating the intersection? or dominating the other driver? Or ‘forcing’ the other driver to take the ‘passive’/'submissive’ position?

Well once again, at some point all metaphors break down, and I’ll be honest up front: in this example I’m not sure it matters who proceeds through the intersection first so long as there isn’t an ‘accident’ or ‘incident’ — and if on some level such a thing as “right-of-way” doesn’t matter, then certainly there’s will be a level at which labeling people by such relative and aspectual ‘relationship positions’ will seem silly too.

~

It is true that in both cars and relationships every person  fears ‘personal injury’ and the expense of ‘repairing’ their ‘vehicle’, or much worse ‘replacing’ their ‘vehicle’. These fears aren’t bad in or of themselves, but another fear we all have about ‘accidents’ or ‘incidents’ is that those we love might be injured, even fearing our loved ones’ subsequent emotional injury should anything ‘accidentally’ or ‘incidentally’ happen to us. And we tend to classify some fears as more noble because they’re focused on people and other people at that. Moreover when one has ‘too much’ self-centered fear when compared to fear on behalf of others, that person is usually considered ’self-centered’, ‘weak’ or ‘cowardly’ –precisely the words often heard in association with ‘passive’ or ‘submissive’. Yet clearly people can do the same thing (the ‘action’ of avoiding accidents and incidents however done) for different, multiple and even ambigious reasons, and a closer look at more than one aspect is often warranted.

For if in my real life driving I always wave the other driver ahead, always take the ‘passive’ or ‘submissive’ position largely (though admittedly not solely) because I fear for my loved ones, in my real life relationship I always wave my wife ahead, always cede to her the right-of-way, not out of fear, but because I passionately love her and passionately love seeing her go, quickly and lively, wherever she wants to go. In fact, I’m going to turn whatever way I need to in order to follow her through that intersection because I want to continue seeing her go, not because I am fearful of going, or passionate about ‘stopping’, or passionate about ‘ceding’ or about the ‘passive’ ‘following’ ‘position’. Yet even so, might someone accordingly, relativistically, relationally, positionally, label me (pejoratively or not) ‘submissive’.

And it is certainly true that my wife is more passionate about ‘going where she wants to go’ (obviously preferably with me) than she is passionate about ‘stopping me’ or my ‘ceding’ anything. Yet from another perspective (possibly about other aspects) this isn’t entirely true because I’m surely (at least) equally passionate about having what I want, even if what I want passionately is to be in the car/caravan/ship/whatever with her, even if my other interests and self definitions are more ‘portable’ than hers, even if we’ve made/negotiated other arrangements/agreements. My wife (who isn’t really interested ‘dominating’ per se) ends up ‘driving me’ (‘leading’, whatever the current metaphor is) merely because I passionately, uxoriously, wave her through/on/by the ‘intersection’ of whatever relationship choice happens to be current. Yet even so, might someone accordingly, relativistically, relationally, positionally, label her (pejoratively or not) ‘dominant’.

Thus I think there’s really only one thing that always remains important and relevant regardless of which relationship aspects one’s preferred metaphor illustratively highlights. If it is true that we ‘point’ with metaphors at aspects of our relationship, we shouldn’t be surprised our attention is on what we’re pointing at. (How many times has a driver pointed at something out the window for the benefit of others and promptly made a regrettable driving error?) Where and how we “point” is going to be where our attentions are, is going to be how we think about our relationship. How we choose to think about our relationship, even which aspects we predominantly choose to highlight, will shape our interior perception of our relationship and subsequently affect our relationship “driving decisions”.  A balanced approach to how we think about our relationships is important.

~

(And for the record, in real life when we do go somewhere in the same car, I do all the literal driving, largely because she thinks I’m a better (=safer) driver. Whatever aspect that may metaphorically point at about our relationship.)

…when symbol confusion leads one to love power exchange instead of loving one’s partner, the resulting relationship becomes philosophically untenable if not functionally untenable as well.
~ OH, Monsters

And though many of us may be “addicted” to symbols involving behaviors less than physically or mentally healthy or sometimes to behaviors and symbols that do not actually fulfill the interior ‘hole’ [need] very well at all [too much 'fetishizing], yet when a symbol really works for our interior need and desire, it really works and we know it.
~ OH, Passion Addiction

I’ve written before about what happens in intimate relationships when symbols and their objects get too close, but I’ve missed putting such objectification in perspective with having symbols and objects too far apart.

The fact that objects are more easily dominated (used) than people is perhaps the heart of the “objectifying fetish”: I am so without objection (so submissive) that I am like unto – nay, I have become – an object. And I can imagine for some people the feeling of being dominated (manipulated, used) like an object (or the experiential movement from personhood into the “objecthood” of a “tool”) is an important part of their submissive experience, either for a more masochistic sense of dehumanization or simply for the meaningful sense of perfect use of thing/person (or other senses and combinations).

Of course I can also imagine that fetishistically having less distance between symbol and object like this might be accepted, functional and welcomed in an individual’s interior and even in a couple’s relationship. However for me there’s a point at which tend to feel more as if I’m an actor on a stage, too aware of ‘playing’ a ‘role‘ to experience the meaning I seek. This is why I rather think my ’electric’ uxory is more interactively communicative dynamic rather than objectifying symbol fetish and is why I believe I understand and maintain the difference between ‘being the object of her desire/passion’ and ‘being an object/tool that gets used by her’.

But of course on the other hand it’s about aspects in a spectrum with abstract poles and about finding and negotiating a range of symbol functionality (a ‘sweet spot’). For if on one hand there is the symbol-object ‘distance collapse’ of  fetish, on the other end there is symbol-object ‘distance mismatch’ of miscommunication, where intimacy or significance is entirely lost because symbols don’t seem to carry enough (or the ‘right’) meaning either among partners (relationship dissonance) or within one individual (interior dissonance). And if every individual is likely to have a slightly different comfort zone so also will every couple have a slightly different ‘distance range’ in their negotiated love symbols; yet what works, works – and when it does, we know it.

So in putting my “electric” response to my wife’s fiery self in the perspective of such a spectrum, an awareness rises of purposefully treading a balanced middle ground between symbol and object:

While I am comforted by my constant effort to make love symbols clear and transparent (without ‘too much’ mis-communicating distance between symbol and object) and by my avoidance of fetishized symbols that stop the movement of meaning from one interior all the way through to the other interior (because they don’t have ‘enough’ distance between symbol and object), still yet I tread with fear and trembling as I differentiate and negotiate a balance that works for me, my beloved and us.
~ Rephrased from Monsters

Changing one’s last name with marriage isn’t the sort of love symbol that’s for everyone; it’s not for all men, it’s not for all women. I did change my name though my wife was a tad worried I’d someday regret it (I riff a bit on this in the fictional story Mr. Uxory).

It’s been quite some time since I changed my name (still without regret) yet this past election day was the first year the voter registration roll finally managed to properly reflect that name change.

When my wife came home from voting she said, “It was really sweet to see your name right there by mine.”

Such things are happinesses made of.

One common theme I’m often thinking about is the interior/exterior point of “letting go”: “accepting one’s passionate uxorious self” in relationship dynamic with progressive “surrendering” or “submitting” to one’s partner as a matter of priority and freedom.

For me the hardest thing was an ‘interior surrender’ – though I hesitate to say ‘of control’. What I had to let go of was the idea that I had to or ought to do anything in a relationship any specific way. To some extent this was letting go of some stereotypic egoistic macho gender role ideas, you know: I as a man should do “men things”, she as a woman should do “woman things”.

Realizing and accepting that I didn’t really want to do just only those prescribed “men things” (however ill conceived and poorly defined) was hard because I would then need to commit to going against the accepted social grain – defining myself in a way and an area I didn’t originally expect to and wasn’t originally prepared to.

But far and away more difficult – before I could allow my self to commit to just doing whatever my wife wanted, I had to accept the reality that I loved her enough, that I actually loved her so much, that I really would do anything for her that I could. Well, anything I could do while still remaining me of course – but I also realized at the time the difficulty this was going to present because that self definition was going to be under significantly more self revision than I originally expected.

It is surprisingly hard to explain that interior point but – before I could pursue her the way I realized I wanted to (and needed to if I were ever ‘have’ her), before I could follow after her (that is follow my love for her and allow my love for her to lead me after her) I had accept the reality that (by outwardly following through on my choice to follow my interior love and passion for her) I had to commit myself to a lifetime of such a choice. I had to accept that I was committing to forever choosing to allow how my love for her was going to always put her first – her happiness, her wants, her desire, her passions, yes even her choices and decisions.

I know this sounds an awful lot like normal ‘vanilla’ ‘commitment issues’ regarding one’s interior choice, intention and plan for harmonizing and balancing one’s self with one’s partner, and perhaps that all my uxory stems from such a vanilla interior point speaks volumes. But I think there is a little twist of control and self determination issues in here too, and once I made my choice on this interior point… Well, then my exterior actions lined up with my (apparently naturally) uxorious interior and everything after has only been increasingly easier. And it’s only ever been easier perhaps because I’ve ever since then I’ve been the happiest I’ve ever been and I’ve never regretted making this choice, that day or every day since.

(And if you haven’t sent me an email at OctopusHeart at live dot com, or sent me a message on SMTR, or commented on any post on this blog, then I look forward to hearing from you soon!)

Apropos of the addiction experience (though quite aside from lumping “uncommited sex” and “one-night stands” in with ‘transgressive infidelity’), this report about a specific variant of the DRD4 dopamine receptor biochemically links addictive behaviors with ‘sexual thrills’.

“What we found was that individuals with a certain variant of the DRD4 gene were more likely to have a history of uncommitted sex, including one-night stands and acts of infidelity.

The motivation seems to stem from a system of pleasure and reward, which is where the release of dopamine comes in. In cases of uncommitted sex, the risks are high, the rewards substantial and the motivation variable — all elements that ensure a dopamine ‘rush.’” (Original Research Report)

People with the thrill-seeking gene variant were about twice as likely to report a history of one-night stands as those without the gene variant. Half of those with a love of risk imprinted in their DNA reported committing infidelity in the past, compared with 22 percent of those without the variant.

It also states fairly well why (fascinating though they are) these sorts of biochemical science bits have never had much experiential explanatory power with me:

“The study doesn’t let transgressors off the hook. These relationships are associative, which means that not everyone with this genotype will have one-night stands or commit infidelity. Indeed, many people without this genotype still have one-night stands and commit infidelity. The study merely suggests that a much higher proportion of those with this genetic type are likely to engage in these behaviors.”

The interesting aspect to me (whether one is submissive, uxorious, prudish, promiscuous or anything else)  is that there are so many ways in which we are ‘predispositionally programmed’ (for lack of a better phrase) –even biochemically– to look for ‘the good things’ in life (‘feeling alive’: fire, zest) yet there are no guarantees about our path choices for getting there (meaning, significance). It’s all part of why I think of life and living life as a “game” we “play” within a “biological meaning matrix“.

~ ~ ~

When consequences overwhelm,
when futility looms ‘neath the edge
of inevitable end of all,

I remember:
We want things, make choices.
(And whether we get what we want or not,)
Life, consequences, continue, happen.
(And whether we cope well or not at all,)
Life always goes on (until it doesn’t).

We’re always who (biologically ‘what’)
we are; the experiences (and too
the symbolizations) of fate, free will,
decision, destiny, choice, desire,
love, drive, want, passion, the will to power,
ambition, transcendence, significance,
meaning, numinous, sacred and mundane –

all, each and every one, remain, persist,
and often, confusingly, coexist.

Funny enough, just today I read the best ten pages on relationship dependency, something present in all relationships to some degree, according to “The Sexual Self” by Avodah Offit, M.D., a psychiatrist and sex therapist (not me or anyone I know). The author also notes dependence has a long history of being erotic: sexual relations between teacher and student recapitulate children’s parental dependency; low libido’s links to lack of security and stress (e.g. financial trouble) are an inverse of the eroticism of dependence; men once dependent on their wives for their career prospects, will have an affair with the secretary when their career takes off and they become dependent on their secretary. So I rethought the question: if submission is simply a greater degree of dependence than average(?) relationships, does this greater degree mean sex becomes the only thing, or most important thing?

No, for two reasons. First, the logic doesn’t make sense. Since dependence is always present, the greater dependence of submission would have to push something else out of the relationship mix so that shear sex is all that’s left. Possible I suppose, but then the person would also have to pursue a simple sex exchangeable on the relationship market, forgetting there was anything better. Now I can imagine some people out there, submissive or not, think and live this way all the time – everything up for trade and exchange. But this attitude seems a different problem having little to do with submission itself.

So reason two: Where’s the love? I want the desire I have for my wife to be the background hum of my life, but a desire rooted in who she is, a desire to draw us closer and more intimately so. Sex is great and naturally there is a sexual aspect in my desire for my wife. But sex doesn’t even consume my idea of intimacy with a person, let alone my idea of a great relationship with a person. I don’t even have much kink beyond my desire to please my wife and make her happy. Why do I want to make her happy? Because when she is at her best and clicking (not a rare event), it is truly a sight to behold. Strong, smart, intelligent, intuitive, witty and holistic. In a word, amazing. At times like these (and most others too) I want nothing more than to feed her fire – the fire in her that is her – do my best to keep it growing. And yes, do my best to enjoy the raw beauty. Thus at the worst, you might think me a selfish and perhaps spineless voyeur of others’ character virtues, but I don’t think you could reduce my ‘submission’ to a ploy for sex. I’m simply in love with her, her character, and frankly a bit in awe of her as well. I love participating in the process of optimizing her happiness (and thereby our happiness) by any means she deems, because I love her and want to make myself as useful as is possible.

Yet the principle behind the honesty truism is that though we clearly want to somehow dispose of, ignore and protect ourselves and our partner from feelings we think are ‘wrong’ unhealthy or detrimental, those feelings don’t just simply disappear if we paper them over. Inevitably they will seep out and we will have uncomfortable symptoms of some sort or variety, likely making things worse down the road.

Is always biting the bullet the best way to handle these things?
For the most part, I rather think so. With caveats. For certainly every couple and individual manages and negotiates their own balance and standards of honesty and integrity – but there are varying degrees of honesty and awareness as well.

I’ve said before my wife tends towards the compact and holistic way of experiencing life; to her my more differential way of viewing things is more like a way to ‘suck the joy out’ of any experience. She doesn’t want to be aware of everything I have going on in my head because she wants to enjoy her own experience too and doesn’t want me to constantly and conversationally hack away at the mystery and beauty of our love and lives together. Does it matter whether we share every little thing with each other? We have found, and continue to find, our own middle ground as we go along: we don’t lie, but we have a semi-tacit agreement about some matters to skip discussion, to use discretion, to maintain a ‘need to know basis’.

And so it is I have tried (more than once) to put ”stealth submission” in a similar context. For I usually think of it as a bit like trying for some frog-in-a-pot effect, the idea being to slowly introduce the benefits of having a submissive partner in order to help your partner accept it more easily. (I don’t think anyone hopes she mightn’t even notice.) Yet while I’m certain the fear and possibility of rejection is quite real, if he is aware and is trying to avoid the possibility of being rejected it seems also entirely possible that she is too. She may be equally aware and trying to avoid the possibility of feeling as if she has to reject him, she may love him but not know or be certain what she wants or can handle and so – and so she opts for that pot’s slow adjustment period. The frog needn’t always be clueless about the pot, and in her awareness she can end up controlling the situation with a well placed look or glance – until she gets to the temperature she decides is best for her, or decides to get out of the pot. (Hopefully this is the only time I compare women to frogs.)

Obviously this sort of “silent but open secret” doesn’t exactly the same level of honesty as conversational full disclosure, but if both are aware there’s more to deal with someday why not decide to let whatever it is play out organically instead of facing it square on with endless and romance-killing conversation and debate about it. Could such a silent slow change model become a collaboratively tacit plan for a couple’s process of acceptance and (re)negotiation of love symbols?

I might encourage her to unchain and release her interior kraken, encourage her to stop differentiating between loving me and loving what I do for her …

…when symbol confusion leads one to love power exchange instead of loving one’s partner, the resulting relationship becomes philosophically untenable if not functionally untenable as well.
~ OH, Monsters

What an interactive, communicating, expressive, symbol means to one person on their interior (including connotations, nuances, significance and relative importance and priority) will have important implications for the resulting relationship’s dynamics. This is why the process of getting our “symbol straight” in a love symbol negotiation is so important and never ends.