>>And that’s the important part of this story: this wasn’t for effect, or playing with my head, or teasing. As far as I can tell, my wife was too tired or not in the mood for messy sexual activity and just wanted a quick wank. I was in the way of that, so she ordered me out of the room.
...this seems kinda.... Hmmm. Idk how to say it. NORMAL to me? And I did NOT have a d/s relationship with my late partner (tho obviously even my vanilla is probably leaning d/s - ish way sexually).
So, it seems normal in the sense that in any LTR we'll be *doing things for our partner's (also sexual) comfort or convenience*. I'm skipping the "cell" part. And while "ordered" seems important (it implies you were expected to obey, exactly), really, without d/s you probably still wouldn't try to force your presence or participation on a LTR partner who just wants to have a wank in peace, tho you might try to persuade her otherwise. So yes, that lack of pressure is nice, and probably rare without d/s. But I'm still kinda struggling to see a QUALITATIVE difference here, in the individual act(s).
And I think it's because the acts don't matter all that much. I can easily imagine an egalitarian dynamic where partners respect *each others'* right to wank in peace. The key here being "each others'*.
What matters, what defines the dynamic, the d/s-ness of all this is RELATIONAL. It's the fact that *she* can do that and *you* cannot do the same/equivalent/complementary thing. It's the asymmetry that does it.
> But I'm still kinda struggling to see a QUALITATIVE difference here, in the individual act(s).
This is useful. I may have to expand the article a little.
Taking the easy one first.
"Fetch my phone" is something couples do for each other. However - usually - the request is reasonable, or couched in a way that appeals to reason. I might say to Xena, "Oh, I just got comfortable and I left my phone in the other room. You're still on your feet - would you mind...?" Xena, however, will ask me to fetch something for her even if she's on her feet and I'm comfortably seated or in the middle of some other non-work activity.
The "give me the room so I can masturbate in private" one is more nuanced. Yes, healthy vanilla couples give each other space for such things. However, I suspect it's much rarer for them to start on kissing and caressing, the wife to get turned on, and then banish the husband so she can get off on her own. I doubt it's generally acceptable to terminate intimacy in order to pursue solo activity.
Yes, these are useful elaborations. So we have asymmetric but also somewhat UNREASONABLE (by current vanilla standards anyway) "doing things for".
And I feel that it's important to emphasise that in the second example, which is a good example of a definition of sexual dominance I've stolen from an online friend, the goal is to "have the sex she wants and none of the sex she doesn't", and if that behaviour presses the sub's buttons then that's good for him, and at times it might be hot for her too, but pressing his buttons is NOT her chief / ultimate goal. I think this is hard for many submissives to get their head round, actually.
I'll have more to say but for now, this:
>>And that’s the important part of this story: this wasn’t for effect, or playing with my head, or teasing. As far as I can tell, my wife was too tired or not in the mood for messy sexual activity and just wanted a quick wank. I was in the way of that, so she ordered me out of the room.
...this seems kinda.... Hmmm. Idk how to say it. NORMAL to me? And I did NOT have a d/s relationship with my late partner (tho obviously even my vanilla is probably leaning d/s - ish way sexually).
So, it seems normal in the sense that in any LTR we'll be *doing things for our partner's (also sexual) comfort or convenience*. I'm skipping the "cell" part. And while "ordered" seems important (it implies you were expected to obey, exactly), really, without d/s you probably still wouldn't try to force your presence or participation on a LTR partner who just wants to have a wank in peace, tho you might try to persuade her otherwise. So yes, that lack of pressure is nice, and probably rare without d/s. But I'm still kinda struggling to see a QUALITATIVE difference here, in the individual act(s).
And I think it's because the acts don't matter all that much. I can easily imagine an egalitarian dynamic where partners respect *each others'* right to wank in peace. The key here being "each others'*.
What matters, what defines the dynamic, the d/s-ness of all this is RELATIONAL. It's the fact that *she* can do that and *you* cannot do the same/equivalent/complementary thing. It's the asymmetry that does it.
> But I'm still kinda struggling to see a QUALITATIVE difference here, in the individual act(s).
This is useful. I may have to expand the article a little.
Taking the easy one first.
"Fetch my phone" is something couples do for each other. However - usually - the request is reasonable, or couched in a way that appeals to reason. I might say to Xena, "Oh, I just got comfortable and I left my phone in the other room. You're still on your feet - would you mind...?" Xena, however, will ask me to fetch something for her even if she's on her feet and I'm comfortably seated or in the middle of some other non-work activity.
The "give me the room so I can masturbate in private" one is more nuanced. Yes, healthy vanilla couples give each other space for such things. However, I suspect it's much rarer for them to start on kissing and caressing, the wife to get turned on, and then banish the husband so she can get off on her own. I doubt it's generally acceptable to terminate intimacy in order to pursue solo activity.
which is what Xena did.
Yes, these are useful elaborations. So we have asymmetric but also somewhat UNREASONABLE (by current vanilla standards anyway) "doing things for".
And I feel that it's important to emphasise that in the second example, which is a good example of a definition of sexual dominance I've stolen from an online friend, the goal is to "have the sex she wants and none of the sex she doesn't", and if that behaviour presses the sub's buttons then that's good for him, and at times it might be hot for her too, but pressing his buttons is NOT her chief / ultimate goal. I think this is hard for many submissives to get their head round, actually.