Emotional needs

I often use the word 'care' here. For example, I've often expressed the opinion that dominance is a form of 'care' in my mind. On a website called Marriage Builders Dr. Harley writes that, "As it turns out, care in marriage is doing what it takes to make each other happy".

It's well worth a few minutes to read what he has to say because it identifies the emotional needs of most people and notes that each person may put those needs in a different order. For instance, admiration may be more important to one person, higher on the list, than affection is to another. Or, 'family commitment' may be more important to one person, or higher on their list, than 'sexual fulfillment' is to another. Once those needs have been identified in each person, the other person needs to make for quality time to have those emotional needs of the partner met.

In a separate link on the site Dr. Harley has written out a 'Policy of Joint Agreement'. It boils down to this one golden rule:

'Never do anything without an enthusiastic agreement between you and your partner.'

He explains the rule in this way. "In marriage, your interests and your spouses interests should be considered simultaneously. One of you should not suffer for the benefit of the other, even willingly, because when either of you suffer, one is gaining at the other's expense. If you both care about each other, you will not let the other suffer so that you can have what you want. When you are willing to let the other sacrifice for you, you are momentarily lapsing into a state of selfishness that must somehow be corrected before damage is done. The Policy of Joint Agreement provides that correction."

If this statement is considered in terms of a power exchange, more than one interpretation about a power exchange relationship can be made. Let's face it, the dominant may very well say that he wants something because...well, because he (or she) wants it. It's somewhat immaterial to him, in the moment perhaps (?), that he or she doesn't necessarily have a genuine enthusiastic agreement from the partner. Then again, if it is non-consensual consent that's been given, and that's what they both like and want, at least on some level, maybe the rule of 'enthusiastic agreement' doesn't apply.

That said, the dominant who wishes to maintain a relationship in good order really has no choice but to seek enthusiastic agreement for what he or she wants because a life lived with someone who either does not feel in enthusiastic agreement with the partner, or does not seek enthusiastic agreement of the partner, is in for unhappy times. It's undeniable that a happy union is made up of TWO (or more) happy people.

Some people have a mindset that can ignore the good order of this rule. First, there is the type of person that gives in to the other, regardless of his or her own feelings. They make do. They try to let their own feelings go. They accommodate. They accept. They do their best under the difficult circumstances of not feeling in enthusiastic agreement.

The other type of person is inclined to want his or her way. They have difficulty focusing on the fact that they've bullied the other person, in small or large measure. They see their way as the best way and disinclined to negotiation or to ensuring that the other is giving their agreement enthusiastically (their unenthusiastic agreement being more than enough, for perhaps they'd have their own way without agreement at all) they simply assert their position and proceed with their own plan.

Of course, neither position is good. It's no better, really, to give in than it is to insist on one's way regardless of how the other feels. It ultimately breeds resentment. It ultimately leads to one partner feeling disconnected from the other; uncared for; unloved.

If you have a submissive nature, and if you see that certain things matter very deeply to the other, if you know that your lack of agreement will cause disharmony, pouting, angry and/or loud arguments, you're likely to put your own needs to one side. The big question is, can you do this forever? No loving partner should really ever ask this of a submissive soul. It's taking advantage, I think, of her unselfish nature; her desire for harmony even at her own cost; her strong penchant to want to give and to serve the other; to sacrifice.

This is where assertiveness skills come in. We need to express our feelings, our desires and needs in such a way that it is clear what matters to us. Even if we have given our consent to the other to decide, those decisions must be made with a full understanding of what makes us happy. A person who takes on full decision making for another human being must ask a lot of questions or assumptions about the other's emotional needs, and/or neglect of those emotional needs will come back to bite him. If the dominant should choose to go ahead and do what he wants, regardless of the cost to the submissive, regardless of how those emotional needs are in jeopardy, he runs a huge risk, because each person's emotional needs must be met to ensure the happiness of the union.

I like the above website. It's not at all designed for power exchange relationships but it has some very important things to say about how to remain a happily married (committed) couple. In the end, whatever the union, power exchange or not, people's emotional needs must be met.