How to Enforce Order in a Heterosexual D/s Relationship

If I actually had the universal answer to the problem indicated by the title of this piece, I wouldn’t be giving it out for free but rather I would soon become very rich. Rather, I can only speak in terms of my own experiences, to include participation in BDSM discussion groups, where one necessarily has to avoid the third rail in terms of inviting state or community scrutiny upon one’s relationship.

I am inspired by this piece: Word for Men’s Rights (1856)

It’s a terrific read and I recommend it to anyone possessing of the notion that women have ever been “oppressed” by anything other than biology.

Enforcing order when one is prohibited from punishing a woman is a dilemma which many a burned man refuses to engage in. Such is likely a strong motivation for many who call themselves MGTOW.

Those who are instead reduced to snarky, bitter, and deceptive seduction practices have my sympathy but I don’t feel myself that I have any obligation as to right the wrongs of my gender particularly when it is my own gender who has most wronged me. Men who adopt the same practices of women of poor character in order to punish women of superior character may indeed be cynically reacting to an impossible dilemma however this doesn’t mean that I ought to be the one to cater to them.

Rather, I merely wish to disabuse such men of the notion that “an intelligent woman” is the solution to all of their problems, particularly, given my track record with the Han, is somewhat of a dubious distinction on my part. Rather, it would seem that my hard-worn knowledge has made me into a liability for future, less-than-polished con artists. By liability, I mean that I waste their time and/or inspire their invective.

Should I feel sorry that I didn’t fuck a mean, bitter, and sniping sort of twit? Should I feel as if it is my loss? How about his sour grapes assessment of me? Should I feel as if I am not worth the time of a mean, bitter, and sniping sort of attention-span bereft idiot? Am I supposed to feel bad?

Well I do, and it isn’t about myself. It’s about my chances on this planet in this time with my baggage.

I also feel relieved that my instincts once again allowed me to dodge a bullet—a few of them in fact. My survival thus far both speaks well of my instincts as well as creates of me a sort of sour grapes target. I suppose that’s the price I must pay.

An additional obligation that I believe is my own is to attempt to provide just a touch of optimism toward men who are not yet completely gone over to the dark side with regard to the impossible situation that society puts them in.

So, how does one punish a woman who by heart or law or something belongs to you?

By the way, if you’re reading this and you’re breathing, I don’t belong to you, and so my techniques herein are not going to work for you on me, especially when used specifically rhetorically, as opposed to actually in my presence. I am largely immune from all electronic rhetoric. Rather, I find it entertaining. So, please do not feel discouraged from disgorging your spleen in this blog. Please do!

Now, without further ado…

Firstly, the situation with regard to the burgeoning state has made heterosexual romance illegal. Only “egalitarian” (gynocentric) relationships are legal. Therefore, it would behoove all men to only make “egalitarian” remarks to women online or in any position to be recorded.

Should you find yourself a woman who you can trust (and there are of course ways to ensure that trust, however, none of them are legal), then she needs to be reasoned with both rationally and irrationally via the carrot and the stick approach.

However, when it comes to the stick, the only stick you effectively have is withdrawal of carrots. Explain to her, rationally and reasonably, that you are unable to provide her carrots unless she obeys you and otherwise respects your leadership role. If she does not respect your leadership role in the relationship, then the relationship is already over in terms of romance, and has therefore devolved into merely a legal one (and that includes any sort of relationship nowadays between a man and a woman). Therefore, you can agree that should the relationship no longer be a romantic relationship, that you recognize that it is still your legal duty (if you’re married) to satisfy her sexually and that you are prepared to accommodate her access to other lovers, or purchase for her a vibrator (keep the receipt), but that you are unwilling to allow yourself to be raped by a woman who does not respect you.

Furthermore, for any services you may perform for her, you expect her to repay you in terms of specific services, which may include whatever things she is capable of doing for you in such a way that pleases you. Therefore, if she wants something from you, respond with the price for that service.

Ideally, however, things will never degrade to this point. Rather, to keep it from degrading to this point, you must cater to her irrational nature. To do this, it would behoove you to take the time and patience to truly discover what she likes about you. Ask her about it. Discuss it with her, and over time, see for yourself whether she is honest about these things. If it would appear that her description of what she likes doesn’t apply to reality, then ask questions in terms of your understanding and hers. If she’s shy or difficult about it, try a little sexual withdrawal torture, i.e., “make her beg for it.” While she’s begging for it, make her explain until there is some agreement with “reality” and her words.

Once you get that agreement, reward her, exactly as she has stated that she wants to be rewarded.

Now explain what it is that you want from her.

 

16 thoughts on “How to Enforce Order in a Heterosexual D/s Relationship

  1. Pingback: How to Enforce Order in a Heterosexual D/s Relationship | Manosphere.com

  2. This was an interesting post and really got me thinking.

    Normally i would agree that the only lever a man has (early in a relationship) is withdraw of attention. But in reality a man with a bit of imagination can calibrate attention and feedback.

    I have taken petulant princesses to Taco Bell for dates after they indicated displeasure with my choice of table cloth restaurant at our last meeting. So far it’s been a fantastic leash yank. I also take second dates to a Cigar Lounge these days. If you think about it many people will not judge a pot smoker (especially where it’s legal). But Cigar’s have a mixture of taboo and exotic maleness to them. It good to see how a potential will react in a male dominated Cigar Lounge where men will inspect them openly.

    But in reality there are so few levers you just have to play the probabilities and keep the top end of the funnel filled.

    • Such efforts need to be tailored to the individual female animal. We’re not all alike! However those who insist on running with the herd are by definition alike. Separating a woman from the herd needs to appear as if it is her idea otherwise, watch out what the herd does. All that said, a visit in a cigar lounge for me, for instance, is a treat rather than a hardship!

      • Ah yes the infamous be special for the “special snowflake” argument.

        I disagree. If you date enough women you will see patterns. You make contact. You elicit interest. You talk on the phone and share. Then you prompt committal by asking them to dinner. Inviting them to the park, whatever really. At that point you have qualified her interest in you. Just like a salesman qualifies a lead by the prospect taking a meeting. Here is the first test of interest level you get with a woman.
        Either the meeting happens or it does not. But in any case you have information. Information that is valuable to decide how you wish to spend your time with which women. Because any true salesman does not depend on one prospect to turn into a sale. Nor should any man depend on one woman to turn into a lover. He should always fill his funnel. Always be looking for new women (all of which believe they are special snowflakes like no other).

        Rollo on his blog said the most profound statement on dating ever stated. “She’s F–king someone maybe not you but she’s F–king someone”.

        Truer words were never spoken. I have had women cancel long planned weekend getaways for “Mom is in Hospital” stories that turned out to be “Tony from College is in town”. I don’t judge anymore. I just recognize that either the relationship progresses… or it does not.

        We all have to dynamically decide where to spend our most precious resource of time. It’s a numbers game. The challenge is to catch a women in the cycle of interest in you, cycle of lack of interest in other men and over all cycle of interest in dating all lining up for a successful outcome. Sometimes it just does not work out. But Rollo made another statement on his blog, memory fails me but I believe it was like: “You don’t have to wonder if she’s into you… if she’s into you, it’s obvious”. And I agree. That is the one lever you have in modern dating. Either the fair lass is INTO YOU enough to maintain her interest lock-on between handshake to penetration or it’s not meant to be.

      • Naturally of course there are patterns between women that share a certain make-up, and there is something known as selection bias. If men were to only dwell on the ones who got away that would be pathetic. However, to presume that one who is not fully known is exactly like the others who one has known, is just another version of “sour grapes.” That said, to quote my favorite French “terrorist”: “Americans must love consistency”. Anything that doesn’t fall within the purview of an American doesn’t exist, because he says so.

  3. Many women gain control in relationships simply by denying male control. Physical violence is unacceptable, even as a restraining or defense method; but psychological violence is fine, even if it drives the victim to suicide. Pressure is unacceptable, everyone should do as they please in their own time; but denial is fine, as it hurts nobody to be denied sex, parental rights or access to their own home. Direct statements are unacceptable, as they harm feelings; but unclear, passive-aggressive behaviour is fine, as it doesn’t cause confrontation directly.

    My humble suggestion: deny her control as well. Ignore or deflect psychological violence, when denied something call her out or seek elsewhere, when she is being passive aggressive, disregard and instead be even more direct.

    Removing his control may be enforced legally, but there is no legal boundary to her control because female control is inherently undefinable. So a man can still completely ignore her efforts at controlling. I suppose that is what is achieved by aloofness, though.

    • Excellent points. Hardening one’s heart is necessary when one is constantly being manipulated by it. I think that the manipulation of men’s hearts is epidemic. Logically, this could easily result in hard-heartedness being the norm. Ideally, I would also like to see men learning to identify this sort of behavior in a woman early on as evidence of her low character even if she may also manipulate the heart in a positive manner, in the beginning. Some women can be “fixed” and some can not. Expecting the worst today is entirely understandable.

      • As a counter-point of sorts: even though hard-heartedness is understandable, I do think it’s the easy way out for a man who is under no legal obligation to commit. If your heart isn’t hard enough, most women will take advantage. If it’s too hard, then you aren’t winning over the people worth fighting for. Some people will harden their hearts to everyone and then wonder why nobody wants to make a home in there.

        That said, seeing what a delicate position men are in, from the romance and sex perspective, makes me glad to be a woman. It’s all well and good to discuss where the ships need to pass, but it’s another thing entirely to navigate the waters.

    • I agree when it comes to outside influences from popular culture as an overriding influence on female “herd behavior”. That said, I think that connections of some form, even if highly exclusive, are necessary for human existence and satisfaction. It becomes increasingly difficult however as our expectations of privacy are diminished by the ever-intrusive State such as to effectively forbid close alliances not under the State’s aegis.

  4. Maybe the problem here is trying to find some sort of common ground between a BDSM relationship and modern sexual politics when none exists.

    Having considerable experience in the former, I can tell you that it discipline has never seemed like a tricky issue. If everyone involved agrees to the construct, and everyone involved is honest about their needs and desires, it doesn’t seem like it should require any involvement by the state or any concern about how it fits into the modern leftist concept of morality.

    If the men you are running across are even thinking of this – you are probably fishing in the wrong pond.

    • I’m a California refugee. I apologize for the bleed over of undesirable BDSM advocates into State and therefore World politics. The two worlds are in fact colliding to the benefit of neither. BDSM does not benefit from complete inclusiveness and neither does any reasonable vanilla community. However, now that it would seem that my pond is polluted, I might as well grab a float and go with the flow.

  5. Pingback: Dear Roosh | caprizchka

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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