Do you say things for effect, like the following statements? “My wife is my slave, my property. I have the right to do anything I want with her, including killing her or commanding her to commit murder. No, I would not accept a limit on that power. I am the master.” “The first thing I do with my girls is to have them strip, then I grade each body part objectively on a scale of A to F. F is for ‘fail’ but just remember that my subjective assessment could be very different from my objective assessment.” “I don't care! What, you think I care what you want?! I don't! I'm in charge; why should I care what you want?!”

A single person hearing one of these statements is likely to be slightly horrified, whereas a D/s or M/s person is more likely to understand instantly that such a statement is all part of the fun, and said for effect, to create drama, not least to thrill the woman. This theatricality is just pretend, a bit of fun, acting, playing. It's not real. The man may say that he doesn't care what the woman wants but actually, he does care very much, and he is saying that very thing to give her what she wants. Similarly, it may thrill the M/s-inclined woman to suffer the humiliation of the slave inspection. And to some women, a man who dramatically pretends that his woman's life may be ended at his whim is the man for them.

Not so the woman. One of the things single folk mean when they stress that the man's control is real as opposed to role-played or acted, is that the man is not saying things for effect. Or, on occasions when he does say things for effect, person would think of that as a play part of their relationship rather than the ‘real’ bit. When there is real control, a little goes a long way. It is so thrilling to those who like that sort of thing, that there is no need to say things for effect. Not only that, but for many people, the playacting stuff is either distressing or extremely off-putting (if they do not realise that it is just pretend) or it has no power to thrill them (if they do understand that it is just pretend). Those who want real control do not necessarily enjoy play-acted control. Some do, but many don't.

This is in no way to say that there is anything wrong with a bit of acted control, playing, and so on, I am merely drawing attention to the fact that, at least to your average person, there is a difference between the two. The difference may not strike some as being valid, because the woman is legally free to leave her husband at any time, so in a way, she has control of her own life. If you therefore think that the control is no more real than the BDSM control – or that they are both real – then let us agree instead that if nothing else, there is a difference in matters of taste, here. Single person's taste is for control that is clearly respectful and caring and considerate, whereas the D/s or M/s person's taste might well be for control that is ostensibly uncaring, disrespectful, humiliating, and so on. The point is that whatever the difference actually is – whether a real vs. play difference or a difference in taste – there is a difference.

Men tend not to make statements for effect. They tend not to say that they don't care about the woman's wishes, because they do care, and their caring is an important and explicit part of the relationship. In D/s or M/s relationships, there is not necessarily any lack of love and caring, it is just not so apparent. It is a person's desire for the control to be/feel real and respectful that also makes some folk completely uninterested in DD, discipline, and spanking. These things may feel real to many Taken In Hand individuals but they don't to everyone. To some, they feel plain silly. To others, all that stuff is a kinky game. And to some folk, it all sounds appallingly disrespectful. Folk tend to find all the ‘protocol’ of the D/s and M/s communities, and the stylised ‘you've been bad; now you need to be punished’ stuff of some parts of the DD/CP community, extremely tedious, silly, theatrical and entirely unappealing. To many persons these things feel artificial, and folk want real.

The 3 examples you started the post with are NOT what i'd want to hear my husband say to me--we have more of a DD/T-I-H marriage than a D/s one. I guess I don't understand why any wife would want to hear her husband doesn't care or thinks he has a right to end her life but i guess everybody's different. I also don't understand why some T-I-H people don't like DD/spanking. I don't agree with you that discipline and spanking is like saying things for effect. It's very real in our marriage.

I agree that most folks in relationships are generally turned off by the kind of stuff you suggest is possible in D/s or M/s relationships. I mean stuff like slave training, slave inspections, etc. would be out of the question for most....both the men and women. However, I am a little puzzled by what you mean saying a woman wants the 'control' of a man when you say what he does or what he says is not simply for the EFFECT of gaining or sustaining that control. If we can assume that a D/s dominant man does in fact care about the submissive (woman) but simply shows his caring in a somewhat peculiar way, is the difference you speak of simply the obvious distinction of him saying "I don't care what you think, I'm in charge around here' and the man saying "I have listened to your feelings, have heard your concerns but I'm in charge around her, I have the control you asked me to exercise and enforce, so I am going to take the action (make the decision, exercise the control, etc.) I think is best for the relationship.' What is the difference in substance between these two sets of actions even if there is a difference in form? What makes one 'real' while the other is pretense of some sort? What makes the man's decision 'best for the relationship' and hence meaningful and connective control if the couple disagrees on what should be done? I'm not saying his decision is not in the long run what is best for all concerned. I am saying the man justifying his actions by claiming 'what is best for the relationship' is a problematic litmus test to establish or sustain male control. In my experience, an individual (either man or woman) will make a decision in his or her best interest, the relationship itself changing to meet individual needs. So why the pretense of doing 'what is best for the relationship' if not only for the effect this has on male control and authority? Or, if it is something different from this, what do you mean by saying a woman seeks male control?