Our Rules

[ddlovelife]

When we first started practicing DD, we went crazy creating the rules. There were 15 at first and then little by little we started adding more . This was out of control. For one I had problems remembering every single one of them and in the other hand my husband felt also overwhelmed trying to follow up in my multiple mistakes.

This was not realist, we started to think that maybe DD was going to bring more stress to our relationship instead of helping us. After a couple of weeks, my husband call me to the room and in front of me tossed the long list of rules to the trash. He said I love you as I woman and I don't care to micromanage or try to change you, I just want to help you to be better. That night we discussed the main concerns about our relationship. We came up with 3 main rules: No Disrespect, No Disobedience (What ever he tell me to do,needs to be done as soon as I can) and No being moody. After all there are lots and lots of mini rules that goes into the main rules.

For us, these 3 rules work wonders. It is easy for him to enforce them and it is easy for me to know what is expected from me in our home.

[newtottwd]

We ran into the exact same thing. When we first started we went all gung ho. Had a huge list. It ended up fizzling out for the exact reasons you describe. Recently, my husband brought the idea back to me to try again but said we need to build a good foundation first. He said 'you don't build a house in one day, and if you do it will only fall'. So we are starting on our foundation with only a few rules. Ours are 1. that I need to consult him before spending money. Because I handle the finances I always know what expendable money we have, therefore it gets spent... ummm, by me. Then when he wants something there aren't enough funds for it. The second was no more cursing. I am not proud to admit, but I curse like a sailor. It wasn't until i started trying to stop that I realized how much I cuss! And we have kids... who have fb accounts... and here I am lmao-ing and smfh-ing in my posts. I knew what they meant but because they weren't spelled out, it didn't phase me...my husband pointed out 'would you want the kids using those acronyms?'... good point huh. The main reason to curb the cussing is that our teens pick it up and use it... The last one was to not burn dinner. I chuckled when he brought that up because I am, by far, not a good cook so I thought that one was a little unfair until he pointed out how many times I have started dinner only to forget about it and have it burn to char. I would then call him to grab take out on the way home from work. So, he said he will understand a dinner not cooked very well...but won't tolerate the unidentifiable char that warrants take out, lol. I really need a timer All of these things seriously tie into the one major thing that bugs him, and that is disrespect.
We shall see if starting small works better for us... i am curious to see if it works for you guys too!

[jay.p]

Happenef to us too. Then i reduced the rules to simple ; do what i say.
Of course therea rules my wife has to follow while im at work
As shes at home with our littles ones, she must cook, clean n do the laundry eveeyday.
After that comes the personnal rules. 1hour of workout by day, 3x tanning a week, keep herself fresh n pretty for me, being sexually avaiabe when i want, and dress well. Ive always made clear that even though shes at home she wont stay in het pyj all day. Dresses, skirts, nice cothes. She must be respectful, not yelling, no swearing of coursre. For me these are the basics things i expect from a woman

[Eayore]

That sounds pretty reactionary to me, jay-p. Hope you don't mind my saying so!

[lana]

Happenef to us too. Then i reduced the rules to simple ; do what i say.
Of course therea rules my wife has to follow while im at work
As shes at home with our littles ones, she must cook, clean n do the laundry eveeyday.
After that comes the personnal rules. 1hour of workout by day, 3x tanning a week, keep herself fresh n pretty for me, being sexually avaiabe when i want, and dress well. Ive always made clear that even though shes at home she wont stay in het pyj all day. Dresses, skirts, nice cothes. She must be respectful, not yelling, no swearing of coursre. For me these are the basics things i expect from a woman

Hi jay
As the mother of twins, some of your rules seem unrealistic to me(how do you do all those things while trying to keep track of toddlers all day? When would she ever have any free time if not during their nap?) Also i wonder how you enforce them. I think Id prolly not wear a dress till you got home since i prefer jeans-- and laundry and cleaning I would sometimes put off till once or 2x a week--not everyday!

I noticed you have the tanning 3x a week which is prolly one thing she likes and thats good-- but im pretty sure that both the sun and even the tanning booth cause skin cancer so that might be something you should both do research on before making it a rule doing it 3 times a week. Instead what about a rule where you babysit once a week or pay for a babysitter while she has her hair and nails done?

There is one i really do not agree with which is the sexually available-- unless this was her idea. I dont think DD should ever be a tool for forcing sex on someone if they are not wanting to do it--male or female. By the same token i dont feel withholding of sex should ever be a punishment.

Not meaning to be judgmental, but you say you are just starting and i think you two may be setting yourselves up for failure with so many unrealistic requirements.
btw--Welcome to ttwd.
lana

[artlover]

A rule that the bottom be sexually available when the top wants is pretty common, from what I have seen on various discussion boards. Many women say that it has enhanced their sex lives tremendously, by taking sex out of the realm of disputes between the couple and removing the minor excuses that may stand in the way of having sex, as well as connecting their sex life directly to their submissiveness. Of course, like any transfer of power to the Top, it is important that the power not be abused. I am sure that many of these women have "hard limits" with respect to what they will or will not do sexually, just like they have with respect to what punishments they will submit to. It is hard to ignore the testimony, by women themselves, in favor of such a rule. Of course, no doubt there are those who found they did not take to it, in which case presumably the couple will try something else.

And there are lots of couples (and we, averse to rules as my wife has been lately, are one) who have less extensive sexual rules, such as that there will be sex a certain number of times a week, or on a particular day, etc. It is the only thing, other than not exercising, for which my wife is still subject to being spanked. Of course, she might withdraw her consent if it came to actually spanking her, as she did with respect to the old rules we had (bed time, avoiding gaining weight). But that is always the case with rules, they only stay in place so long as they work for the bottom. Ultimately, bottoms decide what they will, and will not, accept by way of rules.

[Eayore]

artlover, I suspect a lot discussion boards are full of nonsense.

In my opinion, a rule to be sexually available at all times, or get spanked is totally unacceptable. I don't think it can - or should be - justified in any way. To me, it is abuse, pure and simple.

[artlover]

I don't know that most bottoms subject to such a "rule" are spanked if they don't comply. And even if they supposedly would be, as I say, such rules are really self adjusting, as bottoms simply stop complying with any rule that does not work for them. I think the very idea of having such a "rule" is a turn on for a lot of couples.

The forum I have read the most on is Taken in Hand. There are a LOT of posts in various threads on this topic there. Many of them have the ring of truth to me. And it is clear that these kinds of rules mean different things, and are implemented different ways, to different couples. To take one of several, if you read through the notorious "when rape is a gift" thread your will see the variety of views on the topic of what is really meant by what I would characterize as among the most "strict" versions of such a rule.

As for most boards being full of nonsense, I am sure that is true. But many boards cater to a much more, for want of a better term, "submissive" group of bottoms than we have here. Further, some bottoms who post here may not find it the most congenial forum for discussing that sort of thing.

[splorange]

Overall, I would be inclined to say that a rule to be sexually available doesn't negate the top's responsibility to love cherish and protect their bottom. IMO, once you are in a committed relationship thinking solely of your own pleasure during sex is massively immature. Most couples, I hope, have sex to foster a closer bond with each other, and through a balance of thinking of their partner's pleasure and their own, give equal weight both to giving and to taking. (Lack of interest in receiving pleasure and only wishing to give isn't conducive to optimal love-making either.) A good top is sensitive to their bottom's feelings and takes them into account. I cannot see how such a person could require their bottom to have sex when they didn't want to, because sex with an unwilling partner sounds completely unfulfilling for me, even before getting into the violation of their rights. So I think that an emotionally healthy bottom with a caring, skilled and sensitive top, who wants a rule stating they should be sexually available doesn't need to fear. (For clarity - I used a dangling modifier there - the BOTTOM wanting the rule is the key thing here, not the top.) Is there the potential for abuse by a bad top? Yes, infinitely and dangerously so. But they shouldn't be topping at all - I'm not sure that the rule in itself is necessarily the problem. Until I see evidence to the contrary, I am assuming that jay.p is a caring skilled and sensitive top and his wife is an emotionally healthy bottom. I also think that it should never be considered abuse of the safeword to withdraw consent on the spot.

That being said, here are some thoughts. My first instinct against this was a negative one. I felt that the potential for abuse of this rule was too great to justify the benefits. It was only when I put myself into the situation that I reasoned that the qualities of a top who can lecture and punish without abusing, hurting or belittling are also likely to lend themselves to not abusing a blanket consent to sex. My own top is so loving and cautious that I would feel quite safe giving such a consent. But if I ever felt that it would enhance our relationship and thus suggest it, I already know he would refuse to consider it. I do think though that a lot of the reasons why such a rule might be beneficial could be addressed more easily and safely by regulating around sex in another way.

A rule that the bottom be sexually available when the top wants is pretty common, from what I have seen on various discussion boards. Many women say that it has enhanced their sex lives tremendously, by taking sex out of the realm of disputes between the couple and removing the minor excuses that may stand in the way of having sex, as well as connecting their sex life directly to their submissiveness.

This is a good reason to consider implementing this rule. Being too tired or too busy for sex can slowly erode the sexual connection between a couple. I know that my chief and I have sex less frequently than we know we should for our relationship, because we don't live together. There are lots of other reasons too. We have addressed this by making a commitment to having quickies wherever possible. This is not a rule for me to follow and places equal demands on us both. However, I feel it's important to note that when one partner refuses sex after (for example) an argument, they are likely not doing so as a sulk, blackmail, or to punish their partner. It's quite natural that sex might not seem a priority when one is upset. Equally, the thought of sex with the partner after such an argument might be repugnant to them - which is NOT the same as having a sulk. A blanket consent to sex makes the assumption that the bottom's reasons for not wanting sex aren't legitimate, and this may not be the case. I would further say that where a couple has made this rule, it really should apply to the top as well. Their denial of sex has all the same effects on the relationship as the bottom's.

if you read through the notorious "when rape is a gift" thread your will see the variety of views on the topic of what is really meant by what I would characterize as among the most "strict" versions of such a rule.

I haven't read this thread and don't intend to, but I hope the writers are only guilty of naming something as rape that isn't (for example, when someone chooses to have sex despite not being in the mood out of a desire to please their partner) rather than the much more serious justification of a despicable crime whose name implies a trampling on an individual's rights over their own body.

Ultimately, bottoms decide what they will, and will not, accept by way of rules.

Would that it were so, artlover, but I know that not all tops are as sensitive as you, and I have seen stories of bottoms who accepted how they were treated out of fear, obligation and lack of self-respect. And I have read comments from tops that I could tell were coming from a place of what they wanted, rather than what was best for the relationship. I suspect that you, just like my chief, would never abuse your status and privileges as a top, and perhaps you project such benevolence onto other tops. But I think lana and eayore are right to be wary about the danger of a rule like this. I would only bring it into my own relationship once we were very experienced with ttwd and considered that it would bring a new dimension to the relationship, and I think we would proceed with caution. It's not something to be thrown in on a whim.

[artlover]

The rape is a gift thread is a intentionally provocative (overly so, IMO) title, though as I said, there are a variety of responses to it that show very diverse views.

Anyway, I do get the concern. I still think, however, that dd rules are always, in the final analysis, in the bottom's control. If the bottom wont accept discipline for breaking them, they are not rules at all. Most of the problems bottoms have with tops, from what I have seen, is getting more "vanilla" type guys to be more toppy. That is the one part the bottom cant control, whether the top will provide enough discipline. If it is too much, the bottom will just not bend over. If punishment is truly forced on a bottom, we are no longer talking about dd as I understand it.

[lana]

I am on a traditional forum that is mainly M/F DD. In most every case I can think of, (and Art lover is right that a few couples have this "rule") it is something that a sub female has thought of as a way for her vanilla husband to achieve more confidence in his new role as hoh. It was part of their DD agreement. It wasnt something that was imposed by an insensitive man on an unwilling woman. (which would not be dd imo)

lana

[splorange]

I hadn't considered the scenario where the bottom would offer it as a rule to help their top become more confident. I'm more comfortable with that. To me there is a world of difference between someone actually proposing something, which means they have to think of the idea and decide they are happy enough about it to bring it up - and someone agreeing to something suggested to them. It's innately unclear how comfortable they are about it if it wasn't their idea - they may be very enthusiastic, or reluctant, or feel under pressure. Even if they weren't pressurised - some people are very anxious to please and worried about saying no.

[Louise]

I have always thought that a rule that the wife should be sexually available to her husband shows a lack of confidence on the husband's part, I mean if he was confident he could get her interested when he wanted her he wouldn't need to make a rule about it, would he?

Louise

[Ice-cream]

I find myself very much in agreement with you art lover that dd is essentially self correcting and driven by what the bottom is prepared to accept, though I'm sure my own perspective as a bottom with a (less and less) reluctant top informs my view! Sometimes I feel as if DD is essentially a fantasy. I've studied psychology and the idea that you can effectively change and correct a persons behaviour through punishment is widespread but not supported by scientific evidence. Positive reinforcement is far more effective for a number of reasons. And if you systematically analyse the behavioural contingencies in a spanking encounter there is a great deal more going on than a simple punishment contingency. Obviously that's more technical than most would care for. Sometimes academic training is hard to put aside!! And again I'm probably guilty of bringing my own views to bear: I'm not convinced that himself can change me by spanking me, but when he punishes me I feel much more sweet and loving towards him and more committed to making him happy.
I am very turned on by the notion of having rules, and it allows me to feel safely vulnerable, appealing to my inner child I suppose! I've had a personal rule throughout our relationship of not refusing him sexually, but as art lover might predict it comes from me rather than being imposed on me. And I am blessed to have a husband with the sensitivity not to press his case when I've been ill or otherwise unavailable. With the best will in the world there are simply times when it would be disastrously destructive to our relationship to force the issue. Most of the time, we share a fantasy that I am sexually available to him, and on several occasions he has pushed harder than he would have in another relationship. I wont use the R-word because what I am trying to describe is utterly incomparable to the soul- destroying experience of other women. But for my part, things have happened between us that would have shattered any other relationship I've been in. I can't imagine tolerating it from anyone else but between us it's, well, its just a part of TTWD.
I'm not sure I'm explaining myself well at all, and I'm worried that the word fantasy might offend anyone.
Part of what draws me to this forum is that I don't feel I like I'm a fake if I don't subscribe to views like my husband has a god given authority etc.
Although, I do think that there is merit in the advice to tops on some CDD sites that they are supposed to love and cherish their wives, and that all authority and discipline should come from that love. While himself doesn't think god put him on earth to beat me, I think his attitude and treatment of me has always been grounded in loving respect.
Having children was an enormously difficult time in our relationship. The first few years when children are small is so inexpressibly intense for mothers especially. Be careful about weighing an already overburdened young mother with more demands. True leadership goes deeper than administering spankings. Giving support, practical help, gratitude, admiration and respect are vital. I know they sound like the things a bottom is supposed to give to a top but ttwd is a Paradox. To be honest motherhood made me seriously question the underlying assumptions of CDD. It seemed to me that if the creator god made a being in his own image, it was most likely woman, the gender who can create. And if he then created a helpmeet to support the important job of creation, then men with their muscles for carrying burdens, their skills of hunting and providing and protecting, makes sense. Just a thought! Suppose what I want to say is that being a mother is extraordinary but unappreciated. I would strongly advise reading something like " what mothers do" to try and appreciate it. Being a good mum is often invisible. Housework, tans and sex can all be quantified, but there are days when I've abandoned all my other responsibilities to sit with a sick child, or just taken them to the beach to make happy memories. If I was too afraid of the consequences to make those decisions I'd consider my relationship abusive. I'm not suggesting yours isJayP. And I can understand the need for external pressure to keep all the plates spinning. For me it can be so cathartic to be Punished for the chores I didn't get done. It relieves the pressure in some way I can't explain (yet) but ultimately our personal version of ttwd, even when it is uncomfortably real, is still fantasy.

[blackbird]

I loved your post ice-cream. It's so real and sane. I agree that ttwd is rooted in fantasy. And fantasy is so important - nothing wrong with it. Imagine a world without it! Your thoughts have prompted anew a realisation of the interweaving nature of it all, that core decency and respect are paramount, in any relationship, and that anything else is abusive. Yet, to live out our fantasies... how important too.... Every time I come on the board, there are usually 5 or 6 people visiting, and I always feel lucky that I had the courage to bring my desires to the foreground and base my sexual relationship on what most deeply turns me on. It all comes from there. And then the hard, subtle, dynamic work of interweaving begins.... and never ends!

But each time T and I falter (and it's so very, very often...), I know in my depths that because we share the same desires, we can go back to the well to replenish.

B