you're reading...
Dating Mating Sex and Reproduction

Wife-Led Marriage

I’ve been browsing dating and sexuality sites today, and found an interesting article at Our Cheating Ways.   It’s called Starting a Wife-Led Marriage – The Orgasm Opportunity.   The author suggests that women “train” their husbands to not only accept but genuinely enjoy a relationship in which the woman’s every sexual whim is always satisfied and the man’s sexual satisfaction is always contingent on the woman’s whims.  Most men, I think, will recoil in abject terror at some of her suggestions for accomplishing this feat.  Probably a lot of women, too.

The first step toward a successful wife-led marriage is to eliminate his ability and opportunity to masturbate. You want to make sure that most of the time he’ll need you to be involved to reach orgasm. There are many different ways to do this. Some women like to “catch” their men looking at online porn and then use his embarrassment to set new rules in the house – like he has to leave the door open when he showers and goes to the bathroom. Other women purchase chastity belts for their partners and keep the keys hidden out of sight and out of mind.

Chastity belts?  Really?

After reading this paragraph, I realized that I was reading an article directed towards very dominant women with “Omega” men, but I was still very interested in some of the implications of the wife-led marriage.  I was more interested in the comments, which predictably included outrage over the idea of treating men like dogs to be trained.  Here are some more of her suggestions:

  • Ask him to do something around the house — a chore — and then reward him sexually after he completes it.
  • Always be “out of the mood” when he doesn’t do household chores
  • Make him ask permission to have an orgasm.  Say no often.
  • Take away his porn.  Don’t let him masturbate.
  • Constantly tease him, but don’t put out all the time.

There’s a reason a lot of this looks very similar to techniques we would use to train a dog.  It’s exactly the same thing, in fact.  People are like dogs — just very smart ones.  We can be trained, and we can be manipulated in surprisingly simple ways.

Let’s just get past the outrage and “degradation” we feel when we talk about training humans.  Nearly every country in the world has a government funded institution designed specifically to train humans like dogs.  It’s called “The Army.”  Like every other animal, we are conditioned by our experience.  Just like Pavlov’s dogs, we unconsciously develop emotional and physical responses to different stimuli.  Back when wives called in the family with a dinner bell, everybody including the dogs salivated at the sound of the bell.

Some of the ideas in this article are a bit extreme.  Sure, there are some men who can be trampled into sexual submission, and there are some women who would be perfectly happy with men who subserviently give in to any and every whim.  These will be the outliers, though.  This approach is an example of taking a valid principle and extending it far beyond its reach.

For one thing, females have innate, instinctual desires when it comes to males.  To put it bluntly, females like males who are ambitious, upwardly mobile, and well… manly.  Because of these female preferences, most males are manly.  That’s how natural selection works.  Females want something, and the males who have it get to reproduce, and their children have it.  There’s a good reason most men wouldn’t put up with this kind of manipulation.  It’s emasculating.

Having said that, there are some truths contained in these over-the-top suggestions.

  • Men and women can both be conditioned, and sex can be used as a reward — for either sex.  There’s nothing inherently wrong with a certain amount of training using sex.  In general, such conditioning needs to be positive.  Both women and men tend to respond negatively when sex is withheld as a manipulation tactic.  Better to manipulate by offering extra-special sexual favors when a particularly good behavior is demonstrated.
  • Inconsistency can be a useful training tool.  Ask any dog trainer.  When we give a a dog a treat every time it sits on command, the dog learns that sitting is how it gets treats, not that sitting is what we do when we’re told to sit.  Humans work the same way, and not just with sex.  The article suggests tying sex to household chores, which will teach men that doing chores is how to get laid, rather than teaching them that doing chores is good in and of itself.
  • Watching porn and masturbating can negatively effect a couple’s sex life, but not because there’s anything inherently wrong with either one.  In fact, most research I’m aware of clearly demonstrates that masturbation is good for both partners when things are going well.  Women gain much greater control over their own orgasms when they masturbate frequently, and for many men, masturbation is the best and simplest way to control premature ejaculation, and to learn about how to control their level of excitement during intercourse.   If either partner is masturbating frequently and not having sex, it’s indicative of another problem.  Preventing masturbation is likely to cause more problems or exacerbate the ones that already exist.

I do agree with the author on one point that she doesn’t explicitly make, but that is implicit in her whole proposal.  Humans, being social animals, are conditioned rather easily, and we can set up “training scenarios” with our mates, and they will work if done properly.  We can even tell our mate exactly what we’re doing.  I’m reminded of a couple I used to know in which the woman would constantly interrupt her boyfriend when he was talking.  She always felt bad about doing it, and asked him to help her stop doing it.  He told her that from then on, whenever she interrupted him, he would pinch her side.  And so he did.  For several weeks, she had a bruise on her side, but she stopped interrupting him.  What made it work was that the pinch wasn’t done out of anger.  It was just done very matter-of-factly, and then the man kept talking as if she hadn’t said anything at all.

Maybe this sounds a little “dehumanizing” to you, but that’s exactly the concept I’m trying to debunk.  To say that training another human is dehumanizing is to say that humans aren’t “supposed” to be trained.  In fact, what we humans tend to dislike immensely is when we are trained against our will.  For the most part, people join the army willingly.  They go to college because they want to learn a new skill.  They learn their job because they want to get paid.

In an open, honest relationship, both partners will want the other to be sexually fulfilled.  To that end, it’s perfectly reasonable for them to train each other to respond positively to each other’s desires.  If there’s a need for underhanded, involuntary training, I’d suggest that perhaps there’s a bigger problem than orgasms.


10 thoughts on “Wife-Led Marriage

  1. For the most part, people join the army willingly.

    This is, at best, stretching the truth. The only time where this might’ve been an honest statement was in America after Pearl Harbor (and even then, it’s hard to justify the term “willingly”).

    Far more people have been forcibly drafted into service or pressed into it by aggressors than have ever happily picked up a weapon and gone on the march. In contemporary times, where drafting has finally been recognized as the monstrosity that it is thanks to the Vietnam conflict, it’s become simpler just to send recruiters in to coerce impoverished and naive young people to join the army.

    And, of course (in Western countries), you’re literally trapped in place once you’re in. They ‘pre-pay’ for your services, effectively imprisoning their work force. Decide that it isn’t all as it was advertised to you? Well, too bad. Keep fighting or go to jail.

    Do military organizations put you through a training regimen? Of course. Is that the reason people stay in the army? They’ve been conditioned/brainwashed? I don’t see the evidence for that. If there were not the legal requirements in place, and if there were not coercive programs out to recruit uninformed poor people, and we *still* saw that people signed up with and stayed within the military, I’d accept the argument. But this has never been the case.

    Posted by Kevin R Brown | October 6, 2009, 8:48 pm
  2. That is certainly true in many cases, but there have been numerous mercenaries over the centuries, which suggests otherwise. Even “volunteer” soldiers are more-or-less mercenaries.

    Furthermore, it is mainly true of lower-level troops. Even in drafted armies, upper-level officers usually willingly choose to make a career out of their positions.

    Posted by lpetrich | October 6, 2009, 9:22 pm
  3. Well, Kevin, where to start…

    First, I’m not too concerned about historical perspectives on armies. It’s not really relevant to my point. The U.S. Army is all volunteer these days, and regardless of whether or not joining is a “nearly forced” choice for many poor recruits, the bottom line is that virtually nobody is literally forced into the army. Yes, the army is the only reasonable option for many people, and yes, it’s damn hard to get out once you’re in. I’m not here to tout the glories of enlistment. I simply pointed out that lots of people join the army on purpose, and willingly go through boot camp and the other training regimes. It’s just an example of one way in which humans willingly undergo behavioral conditioning.

    Second, I don’t recall saying anything about why people stay in the army. Again, it’s not really part of the argument. I also didn’t say anything in particular about whether or not the particular training people receive in the army is generally good or bad for them or for society. In short, I think maybe you read a lot more into my passing reference than was intended.

    Posted by hambydammit | October 6, 2009, 10:23 pm
  4. I simply pointed out that lots of people join the army on purpose, and willingly go through boot camp and the other training regimes. It’s just an example of one way in which humans willingly undergo behavioral conditioning.

    …Look, all that I’m saying is that this particular example is inapplicable. There aren’t ‘lots of people’ who join organized military service out of their own desire for doing so. Hell, if you don’t live within the tiny fraction of the population that owns all of the world’s wealth, you don’t have any say at all; even in Israel, which isn’t so bad off, IDF service is mandatory for all citizens.

    I’m not arguing against your position; I’m just saying that you might want to rethink including military service as an example. It’s not a form of voluntary *antyhing*, much less voluntary behavior modification.

    Posted by Kevin R Brown | October 6, 2009, 11:13 pm
  5. I think this will make divorce lawyers very rich.

    Posted by Alison | October 6, 2009, 11:59 pm
  6. I think this will make divorce lawyers very rich.
    OH! You’re my new favorite blogger fyi

    Posted by Alison | October 7, 2009, 8:17 am
  7. it turns out the wife holds all the power in the marriage.
    we don’t realize until being married for a bit.
    you don’t ignore hubby….you tease him….and almost please him
    he will submit within a few weeks if you do it in sexy way……
    after that he gets used to being submissive
    trust me…..the stronger the sex drive the weaker he is

    Posted by duh-winning | October 21, 2011, 2:12 pm
  8. Wife led marriage, also called Around Her Finger relationships, make sense for some people on so many levels. It is typically the men that initially desire these relationships, but women learn to love them based on the greater level of intimacy and emotional connection that they engender. Their is much more heady material on the topic on Emily and Ken Addison’s Around Her Finger blog…and much more on their monthly updates page (not sure of the links).

    Posted by Jerry | December 6, 2011, 8:12 am
  9. I have entered an FLR and love it. However I have always despised and been unable to respect passive-aggressive women and women who ‘subtly’ attempt to manipulate men. I love my girlfriend because she openly states her mind and her desires. So I wholeheartedly agree that what people hate is being trained against their will. I have chosen to be trained and conditioned by my GF and it has opened up a wonderful array of facets to our relationship.

    Posted by thewanderingvagabond | November 26, 2012, 10:36 am
  10. Great post.. In my case since the start of our WLR my wife has my free time already planned for me. My weekends and nights are scheduled with chores or any projects that she wants.By chance if we do get caught up there is always something she will have me do for our kids. If there happens to be a family event when the guys go off to do something she will have me stay and watch the grandkids which works out great. We love are relationship and it has brought us much closer than ever.

    Posted by jhon marker | August 1, 2013, 2:34 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow Me On Twitter!

%d bloggers like this: