Yesterday my wife suggested that as a house husband I might suffer from what Judith Warner described as modern motherhood's "perfect madness", and I realized that although I have always thought mothers generally felt the weight of gendered social standards far too heavily, it never occurred to me I might suffer from that same weight as a (female led) house husband and father. The more I think about it the more I think she is more right than she realizes: I intently desire to meet my wife's standards (because I want to make her happy), but I have some unrealistic ideas about her standards because I have been unconsciously using and incorporating the readily available ideas of society's gendered and stereotyped 'perfect mother' as a template for being a 'perfect house husband and father'. And that even she possibly has some unrealistic standards for me for the same reason only underscores the need to actively avoid reliance on stereotypes in (female led) relationship communication.
AND it is particularly disturbing because I do not like to kink on gender stereotypes, and now must suddenly wonder if I, even though unwittingly, have been. And more: I have lived an interior other than my own before because of my mental framework and symbols, and though I have no desire to ever to so again, I must suddenly wonder if I already have been.
(It seems far too simple to have overlooked this. I have even held this book in my hands and contemplated its central ideas in the vein on contemporary feminism, but never once thought about it in terms of my personal experience.)
Showing posts with label Kink. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kink. Show all posts
February 3, 2010
January 6, 2010
When the Symbol Fix Is In
Once uxorious men discover their erotic truth, they often have problems expressing and communicating their needs and wants in symbols their partner understands. The man wants new symbols to express and communicate with because the couple's previous signs of love and acceptance do not adequately address his new uxorious experience. Yet in the man's attempt to change relationship symbols, he often fails to adequately differentiate sex and erotic interest from love and acceptance. Because his own interior symbols remain compact, in relationship communication he uses these new and undifferentiated symbols in ways that are unclear and don't quite work for his partner.
The man often 1) wants her to express holistic acceptance of him and his uxorious nature, 2) wants her to express erotic interest in his uxorious sexuality and 3) wants her to express long term intentions of power dynamic authority. Usually the man wants these things expressed in specific ways, certain compact symbols he knows will work for him, the sexual act he desires (whatever his kink may be), semi-sexual physical objects (such as male chastity devices, collars, panties, whatever), and also language symbols (such as contracts, commands and other various authoritative statements of authority, names of power dynamics such as mistress, queen, boy, slave etc).
Sometimes these new symbols work, but often they fail because she sees them less as giving 'acceptance, interest and acknowledgment' and more like giving in to 'sex demands and kink.' Men fail to recognize their partner is not necessarily going to easily understand the new love symbol; in fact she's more likely confused as to why previous love symbols are suddenly no longer adequate. It's a problem both men and women struggle with; indeed, since it takes two to tango on this two way street, a woman's ability to understand her man and adapt her symbols to her partner is not only helpful but equally valid and valuable.
And though solving this is as simple as men and women learning to look outside their usual symbol box, symbol confusion remains difficult for anyone to conquer because it's difficult to know exactly which symbols are mismatched and affixed inaccurately when on your own interior you haven't differentiated where different symbols need to be used. In these classic cases of only understanding what we're looking for and only understanding what we expect to see, reattaching symbols more precisely so they are clear to both people can sometimes be a lengthy and frustrating process, one fraught with inherent instability and insecurity, and it often requires sincere trust to not feel offended, repulsed, or unloved.
Both partners need to understand the limitations of what they can give, be sincerely open to their partner's changing interior and symbol expressions, and respect their partner's limitations. It doesn't matter how it's solved of course, it doesn't matter who 'does more' or who 'does what' to solve it, there are no 'obligations' as such on anyone to solve it in any certain or specific way - whatever a couple works out, if it works out and works for them, it's a 'good' solution.
The man often 1) wants her to express holistic acceptance of him and his uxorious nature, 2) wants her to express erotic interest in his uxorious sexuality and 3) wants her to express long term intentions of power dynamic authority. Usually the man wants these things expressed in specific ways, certain compact symbols he knows will work for him, the sexual act he desires (whatever his kink may be), semi-sexual physical objects (such as male chastity devices, collars, panties, whatever), and also language symbols (such as contracts, commands and other various authoritative statements of authority, names of power dynamics such as mistress, queen, boy, slave etc).
Sometimes these new symbols work, but often they fail because she sees them less as giving 'acceptance, interest and acknowledgment' and more like giving in to 'sex demands and kink.' Men fail to recognize their partner is not necessarily going to easily understand the new love symbol; in fact she's more likely confused as to why previous love symbols are suddenly no longer adequate. It's a problem both men and women struggle with; indeed, since it takes two to tango on this two way street, a woman's ability to understand her man and adapt her symbols to her partner is not only helpful but equally valid and valuable.
And though solving this is as simple as men and women learning to look outside their usual symbol box, symbol confusion remains difficult for anyone to conquer because it's difficult to know exactly which symbols are mismatched and affixed inaccurately when on your own interior you haven't differentiated where different symbols need to be used. In these classic cases of only understanding what we're looking for and only understanding what we expect to see, reattaching symbols more precisely so they are clear to both people can sometimes be a lengthy and frustrating process, one fraught with inherent instability and insecurity, and it often requires sincere trust to not feel offended, repulsed, or unloved.
Both partners need to understand the limitations of what they can give, be sincerely open to their partner's changing interior and symbol expressions, and respect their partner's limitations. It doesn't matter how it's solved of course, it doesn't matter who 'does more' or who 'does what' to solve it, there are no 'obligations' as such on anyone to solve it in any certain or specific way - whatever a couple works out, if it works out and works for them, it's a 'good' solution.
December 31, 2009
More Than Two Ways
I once thought there were only two kinds of female led relationships, the 'bad' female domination of 'fear and tears' and the 'good' female led of 'love and respect'; and I believed only love symbol differentiation and clarification would help the former become the latter. I thought the 'fear and tears' was nearly always an ineffective and love symbol-obstructed, symbol-metastasized, version of the 'love and respect' goal (always beware of standards). However, I've changed my mind because there are an infinite variety of relationship love symbols, female led or not, and while there are always differing levels of accurate and adequate love symbols in any relationship, having different love symbols isn't wrong.
Now I still think many couples aren't really communicating with love symbols, aren't really attaining (enough) intimacy with the love symbols they have, perhaps only interpreting what they can, when they can, as a symbol of love so they can emotionally get by as well as they can. I think this often why many people desire their partner to give them the symbol love they want regardless whether that symbol is functional for their partner, whether that symbol means love for their partner. Of course, no one can silently suffer and sublimate their unhappiness for very long, and if we ask our partner to try, they are sometimes successful in learning a new love symbol, but how long can we ask our partner to try some specific love symbol before we decide love symbol effectiveness with our partner is more important than any particular symbolic expression?
Obviously, a person who instills fear in their partner (through whatever works for them) may have a functional symbol to express or feel whatever it is they seek to, but is it an accurate and adequate love symbol for both of them? A person might functionally feel and express love best when they feel humiliated, or spanked, or helpless, or overruled, or commanded, or other things in varying combinations, but are these accurate and adequate love symbols for both of them? The answers could be yes, and different isn't necessarily wrong. It doesn’t matter what they are doing, it matters what they are meaning by their actions and whether they effectively and adequately understand each other to attain the intimacy they desire.
Perhaps an erotic truth is only the discovery of love symbols so effective, so much a part of who we are, that they bypass much, if not most, perhaps all of a person's conscious awareness, yet a relationship needs functional love symbols for two people. And it may be that relationship compatibility is at some level actually about erotic truth compatibility, but it is certain all couples, must work out what love symbols work for them until they have enough symbols that work well enough for them.
Now I still think many couples aren't really communicating with love symbols, aren't really attaining (enough) intimacy with the love symbols they have, perhaps only interpreting what they can, when they can, as a symbol of love so they can emotionally get by as well as they can. I think this often why many people desire their partner to give them the symbol love they want regardless whether that symbol is functional for their partner, whether that symbol means love for their partner. Of course, no one can silently suffer and sublimate their unhappiness for very long, and if we ask our partner to try, they are sometimes successful in learning a new love symbol, but how long can we ask our partner to try some specific love symbol before we decide love symbol effectiveness with our partner is more important than any particular symbolic expression?
Obviously, a person who instills fear in their partner (through whatever works for them) may have a functional symbol to express or feel whatever it is they seek to, but is it an accurate and adequate love symbol for both of them? A person might functionally feel and express love best when they feel humiliated, or spanked, or helpless, or overruled, or commanded, or other things in varying combinations, but are these accurate and adequate love symbols for both of them? The answers could be yes, and different isn't necessarily wrong. It doesn’t matter what they are doing, it matters what they are meaning by their actions and whether they effectively and adequately understand each other to attain the intimacy they desire.
Perhaps an erotic truth is only the discovery of love symbols so effective, so much a part of who we are, that they bypass much, if not most, perhaps all of a person's conscious awareness, yet a relationship needs functional love symbols for two people. And it may be that relationship compatibility is at some level actually about erotic truth compatibility, but it is certain all couples, must work out what love symbols work for them until they have enough symbols that work well enough for them.
December 4, 2009
To Kink or Not to Kink
Speaking of watching my wants, kink is surprisingly not a question. On my list of wants to watch out for, it surprisingly doesn’t even rate. It’s surprising because ‘female domination’ and kink seem to go together so well with ‘female led,’ it’s like potatoes and gravy or peanut butter and jelly (and for some people it’s the same thing). Yet here it is: I am not particularly interested in bondage, anal play, water sports, forced male chastity or any of the rest of the mounting tactics of the wild human. My lack of interest in kink is half the reason I felt I had to start writing down my ideas - so I could have space to read and think without being constantly confronted with other people’s kink (or worse other people’s porn).
My favorite explicitly female led source is She Makes the Rules because they are tireless in pointing out female led relationships are a kind of category and so come in all kinds of varieties and there is no one right way to do it. While I defend the right of those who are kinky to be kinky, I think it says something that as a site about female led life and culture SMTR had to have a section dedicated to kink and that they have to moderate so well all the time. I admit I might be missing something by not being kinky, but I can’t help feeling sincerely thankful since I’m not sure I handle what I have well enough to handle more.
Anyway my point is, sometimes I wonder what the essential difference is between myself and the vanilla guy, or the kinky female led guy, other than that I apparently prefer potatoes and jelly. (Or is it gravy and peanut butter?) I just want my wife to be happy, actively happy, and so I want her to call whatever shots she wants to call for us and our lives together such that she is happy and actively so. And finding other adequate, non-kinky, female led expressions to help me do my best in this, well, that would be nice too.
My favorite explicitly female led source is She Makes the Rules because they are tireless in pointing out female led relationships are a kind of category and so come in all kinds of varieties and there is no one right way to do it. While I defend the right of those who are kinky to be kinky, I think it says something that as a site about female led life and culture SMTR had to have a section dedicated to kink and that they have to moderate so well all the time. I admit I might be missing something by not being kinky, but I can’t help feeling sincerely thankful since I’m not sure I handle what I have well enough to handle more.
Anyway my point is, sometimes I wonder what the essential difference is between myself and the vanilla guy, or the kinky female led guy, other than that I apparently prefer potatoes and jelly. (Or is it gravy and peanut butter?) I just want my wife to be happy, actively happy, and so I want her to call whatever shots she wants to call for us and our lives together such that she is happy and actively so. And finding other adequate, non-kinky, female led expressions to help me do my best in this, well, that would be nice too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
