I seriously wonder, often, if my interior experience and erotic truth, what I am and what I want, really qualify me as an uxorious man or not. After all, for me it’s not her domination but her desire, not her control but her drive to control, not her power over me but her will to power, not her leading me but her desire to go where she will. And I don’t think I just have an attraction to confidence, although my wife does come by confidence naturally. I just like it when she desires something – when she loves me, wants me, or wants me to do something of course, but more basically I just want her to want things, anything, deeply.
I know everyone is different and that in any category there always remains a range of variation, but the label you accept is the label used. So if I feel ‘female led’ isn’t quite accurate enough, is there a more accurate label, symbol, or phrase? I am 'foolishly doting' and uxorious is accurate enough for what it describes, but it also continues to carry a context of submission, so it’s not good enough, not adequate enough, to indicate the difference between the power dynamic of female led and the desire dynamic of loving my wife.
Of course on some level I don’t care about labels; I have good reason to believe ‘that which we call a man by any other name would still be as sweet’ to his wife.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
[...] to action as well as my lack of motivation and natural passivity – and I suppose, being an uxorious and female led man, in a way I do have both, by being a part of the whole that is my wife and I. [...]
ReplyDelete[...] in her assessment of self and others she refuses such establishing phrases ands labels like ‘female led‘; we just are who we are, have the relationship we have, have the symbols we have. [...]
ReplyDelete[...] addiction or even an addiction to sexual energy; sex by itself does not equal the erotic truth or the desire dynamic I experience. I (now) think of it as a passion addiction, and this I believe is the culminating [...]
ReplyDelete