One of the reasons I hate the "review" feature at Amazon.com is that it brings out all the crazy dipshits in the world.
I'd rather be alone for the rest of my life than ever submit my autonomy (Except for some of that fun bdsm stuff ^.- ).

Just another reminder of how far we haven't come.

Hurl.

I cannot believe that woman has another book. Although given that her methods apparently resulted in her divorce, I guess it's only appropriate that it's about being single.

From the "positive" review that Jessica linked to and from the interview with Skye, who was an admitted control freak, as well as the last woman who just couldn't seem to stop giving directions even when blindfolded it seems like this book is speaking more to women who actually do have extreme control issues with their spouses and need to take a step back. I'm NOT saying this is good, it's not, what's it's doing is like stopping a car that's going 70mph by slamming on the brakes.

It doesn't seem to me that either partner knows how to be a good partner in the relationship and both have to have absolute control in order for the relationship to "work" for them (not necessarily BOTH).

Originally, the woman is "nagging" and telling the husband what to do all the time and after the book it's the husband who is telling the wife what to do all the time, going from one extreme to the other. There is no middle ground where the couple is talking and relating to each other, both giving and taking. That, to me, seems unhealthy either way it goes.

People who already know how to relate to each other and treat their partner with respect would probably find this book ludicrous.

ikkin says:

Just another reminder of how far we haven't come.

Not true, you know. The reality for some women has been this bad or even worse, but now there are so many voices speaking up against this kind of crap. My wife and mother-in-law are staunch feminists, and within their own lifetimes you can clearly see the extent of improvement!

Of course, there will always be assholes in this world, but you can't let that get you down.

I clicked on the amazon reviews and I want to rip my eyes out.

Amanda is bang on with her contrast between this and consensual BDSM: "This submission is real. The wife doesn’t get to say, 'Okay, playtime is over, I’m not your servant anymore.' She’s always his servant."

Some people enjoy being "punished" or "degraded" for play with someone they trust. Being degraded for real is an entirely different matter. Those who can't tell the difference should not attempt to be intimate with anyone.

"How romantic! And if she always has to say yes to sex, than it's not rape, right? Right?"

this manipulated and forced "consent" is so much like date rape, it makes me wanna die. it is the same thing as date rape. i just love that Peter models his sex life around the practices of some high school and college boys, who force themselves on women and girls through relentless badgering and manipulation. . .

. . . sorta like that scene in the film Fat Girl, where the dude date rapes the older sister.

breaking down women so that they "let" you into their panties does not seem very healthy or consensual to me.

Is the fact that I can't see anything at the aussie website just because I have a Mac? It wouldn't play the video because I don't have windows media player, but then it wouldn't even let me read the transcript...

At any rate, I find that the second a guy thinks its okay to offer his unsolicited opinions on what I should wear/do with my hair, etc., that is about the time that he and I need to break up.

I know guys who might enjoy this kind of relationship, but they tend to be the one who might also be entertained by a ball of yarn for extended periods of time. What good is a relationship if your partner does not add anything that a maid or personal assistant couldn't? Any man with half a brain or half a heart would get bored and want more.

While what the book describes is a really bad idea, there is a grain of truth (please no flames) in it, but that grain certainly didn't start there.

In marriage counseling or when simply learning to communicate with loved ones I've learned that it's important to focus on communicating your needs rather than trying to directly change your partner since trying to change them often just make things worse. The lesson is you can only change yourself; other people will only change their behavior if they want to and so asking them to is a request, not a right. And these rules apply to both genders.

The small grain of truth comes from the fact that I believe, in addition to being taught that their bodies are the most important things they have to offer, women are also taught that they should act through men versus acting independantly which has risen to nagging as an effective way of getting what the nagger wants. Certainly the nagger archetype appears in media (e.g. Honeymooners, Flinstones, Jetsons, Simpsons, Everybody Loves Raymond, etc.) and is one role model that girls and women see.

So, for me, the solution is two-fold... one both partners in the relationship should communicate their needs to each other and two, understand that if one partner disagrees with the other that their opinion is valid and worthwhile even if its perceived as wrong or harmful.

i saw a woman on tv saying how great it was to be a surrendered wife because it made everything more efficient and stopped arguements since there was never any opposition...

therefore surely surrendered husbands would be and equally beneficial idea? cant see that one taking off...

The headline to one of the Amazon reviews was "If You Only Buy One Book to Fix Your Husband Or Boyfriend, Buy This One." I think this sums up the mindset of the book's target audience. If you're going into a relationship with this attitude, you're asking for trouble. You don't "fix" people! You don't try to turn them into your idea of the perfect person, and you sure as hell don't claim to be doing it "out of love." I can think of few things more emotionally damaging than having your identity constantly invalidated by someone else; being perpetually reminded that you're not good enough, not smart enough, not attractive enough, etc.

If this book stopped at telling controlling women to back off their husbands, then fine. I think I'd prefer if it was communicating the message to controlling people, but whatever. I think it's certainly harmful to a relationship to treat your husband like an incompentent infant, but I fail to see how the solution to that is to allow him to treat you like one. That's not "respect." If it was wrong for you to do it to him, why on earth is it wonderful when he does it to you?

As for being "happier"--having no responsibilites and no accountability can feel relaxing and liberating, at least at first--that's why people say crap like "oh, to be a kid again"--but it gets old fast. Having no sense of agency or identity, or feeling like everything is beyond your control, are classics among those who suffer from chronic depression and suicidal impulses. Therefore I'm inclined to think it's a BAD THING.

That video is just...sickening. A quote from the transcript:
"We talk a lot about Jesse's, 'He's your daddy and you're supposed to obey your daddy and we want to honour him and we want to respect him'. And just talking about why we are cleaning. We want to have a clean house so that we can honour Daddy because Daddy likes the house to be clean. Put it right there. Do you know why we're making the fruit pizza? We're making it for Daddy. We want to please him. We want to do special things for him. Daddy's the king of our home, isn't he? You said that you wanted me to do the ironing."
How long do you think it will take before "Daddy" gets bored with having a simpering doormat of a yes-man for a wife, and cheats on her with a firey, opinionated woman who poses more of a "challenge" to him? (I'm betting 6 months.)

As for the wife, living your life solely for the pleasure of someone else is not fulfilling. My grandmother, who was a dutiful mother and housewife during the 1940s, is now alone and profoundly depressed, because her husband is dead, her children grown and gone, and she has no remaining identity. She feels she's ready to die, because she's no longer "needed" and doesn't know what to do with herself. That's not something to aspire to.

If you want self-help, here's a little Therapy 101: You can't change other people, you can only change yourself and how you interact with them. Accepting THAT will make you happier, because it allows you to focus on thing you CAN control, rather than toiling like Sisyphus trying to "fix" the people around you.

Sorry for the rant.

Orion is right... there is a grain of truth to this, which is what makes the rest of it so sickening.

Yes, women (and men) would do each other a favour by not nagging. Yes, sex makes a marriage healthier. Yes, there are couples who have decided to never refuse each other for sex. Yes, mutual submission is required for a good marriage.

All of those things put a responsibility on both partners. They are each responsible to give in to each other's needs - much in the way that friends give in to each other without a second thought. Some people will romance their partners until they get into the mood - but the idea is that you make the other person want it, not make the other person want to give in to you.

It's like they took all of the reciprocal obligations that make these systems really work and made everything the woman's fault.

This reminds me of a Wife Swap I saw in England...one of the wives was a "dutiful" wife, which sounds like about the same thing. She always wore garter-belt stockings and Japanese silk dresses cut to the thigh. One got the distinct impression she had gone on the show to show everyone how lovely a dutiful wife is. When her husband came home from work every day, they left their kid alone in the backyard to have "private time".

Is it just me, or does this seem like women just running away from the growing pains of feminism? Our society is going from a totally male dominated household to an equal partner standing in a sociologically minute period of time. This, of course, causes discourse. As women fight to obtain the rights that they deserve, men fight back to maintain their position. This causes many terrible consequences, but its something we as a society have to accept until we mature enough to have equality without fighting. It seems like these women simply feel that fighting is too much, as we should just go back to "the good old days". I hope they realize that its not worth it.

What I find so interesting about the video (and the reviews on Amazon)is that proponents of "surrendering" claim that it will lead to happier marriages, and more loving husbands. As I watched the first couple featured, though, (the attorney who gives his wife lists before he leaves for work), I was struck by how incredibly cold and distant he seemed. At one point, he was standing several feet away from his wife, watching her make him a smoothy, gazing at her with a warden-like stare. Later on in the video, he gets up to go to work and neither one of them makes a move to kiss each other goodbye or otherwise demonstrate any sort of affection. Although I can see some value in encouraging women (and men!) to be more accepting and gracious to their spouses, it seems like this book could just as readily serve as ammo for abusive, controlling men looking to keep their wives firmly under their thumb.

I may decide to get all sexy with my husband even when I'm not in the mood, trusting that I'll shortly get in the mood. But I'M the one making that decision, never him.

And that's really sick that everything in the house revolves around "honoring Daddy." I want to teach my son that it's great to do things for his dad because they love and respect him and want to make him happy, but I also want to teach him to honor and respect himself, me and the other people with whom we share our neighborhood and world. The world doesn't revolve around Daddy, and if god forbid my husband should ever have to go away (death or divorce), I want my son to know that he's still totally valid as a person even though his father isn't around to please.

Ok, I haven't read the book but...

What the heck?

I'm in a fairly traditional marraige, but if my husband ever asked me to put his toothpaste on his toothbrush I'd just laugh at him. Alot.

I think these people are *really* missing the point that in a "traditional" marriage the man is to "Honor and Love" his wife. Forced sex is neither.

This is just beyond words.

I think these people are *really* missing the point that in a "traditional" marriage the man is to "Honor and Love" his wife.

Bingo. Honour and love - as Christ honoured and loved his Church. He died for it.

It seems to me that these are just abusive relationships gussied up with language like "surrendered."

How are they "gussied up"? How is "surrendering" putting a pretty face on anything?

If you've "surrendered", you've been "captured". You've been dominated. You've lost the war. You're a prisoner.

"Surrendering" only sounds good to these assholes because they see nothing wrong with wives as war booty or prisoners. Naturally, then, you can make them work for you, rape them, and blindfold them. The language they use perfectly fits the behavior they exhibit, and they're so far gone they can't see a problem with either one.

You think this is bad? Check out the Christian Domestic Discipline crowd. "Loving Wife Spanking in a Christian Marriage."

Ew.

Like Amanda, I’d be just ducky with this stuff if it were simply a consensual 24/7 kinky dominance/ submission relationship. But when you start bringing in the idea that this is what all marriages are supposed to be like because God wants it that way, which we know because the Bible tells us so... then you start veering away from a freely chosen lifestyle and into indoctrination territory.

I mean, is there really that much difference between telling a woman that she has to submit to her husband because otherwise he'll beat her or kill her, and telling her that she has to submit to her husband because otherwise she'll be tortured and burned in hellfire for all eternity?

The book was written by a woman. So you know that these voluntary subjugators are gaining traction in places where conservative governments lead. Like this country and Australia where right-wing goverments rule and encourage power, control and domination. That's my theory anyways. But, the video was just appalling. I wanted to gag especialy with the scene with the woman in the blindfold. My viscera starting turning when I heard that these women reliqunish the right to their bodies to their neanderthalic husbands. It angers the hell out of me that we've come so far, yet we have women who still abase themselves. I honestly hate servile women and don't want anything to do with a fembot.

Did anyone see the movie "The Secretary"? This kind of reminds me of that -- except that the entire movie leads up to the conclusion that the situation works for the couple only because they are both so entirely fucked up.

Gross. There's compromise, which is essential to a successful relationship. And there's a balance of work--I do think that if one partner works out of the house significantly more than the other, then the other should do more work in the house. But this "submissive wife" crap is gross. It infantalizes both partners--the wife doesn't get to make any of her own decisions, and the husband loses the ability to care for himself. I can't see how anyone would possibly think, "Gee, this sounds like a fun way to spend the rest of my life."

It sounds like what these people are doing IS 24/7 D/s relationships, whether they're calling it that or not. I don't think that makes what they're doing any better, but it is a consensual sub/dom relationship. Which means that just because something is consensual doesn't mean it isn't totally messed up, regressive, and awful.

Oh, Laura Doyle, is there not some middle ground to be found between a hysterical shrew who (in the Amazon blurb) mocks, hectors, and insults her husband, and a mindless slave? Of course it works! Of course it makes (some) husbands happy...when two people in a relationship becomes one person giving orders and the other person obeying them, conflict tends to die out pretty quickly. Maybe I need to read the book, because I can't for the life of me understand how surrendering my preferences, needs, will, voice, desires - identity, really - will make me 'regain intimacy' with my partner. We'll have less fights maybe I suppose. The not-really-suppressed disapproval of feminism in these books is really irritating as well. But if these gals want to back quietly into the before-last century, then more - I mean less - power to them.

It seems like these women simply feel that fighting is too much, as we should just go back to "the good old days". I hope they realize that its not worth it.

There are a lot of women who have got the message from various sources that any relationship or marriage is somehow better than no relationship or marriage. They can't value themselves except in the context of a relationship, and so they will go as far as denying their own dignity and humanity to protect what they see as their only source of self-worth.

90% of these "self-help" titles, including Surrendered Wife and all related cack, could be replaced with no loss in value by one sentence: Don't marry an asshole.

On the other hand, a book like this might be nice to have on the coffee table as a sort of litmus test. If a guy you bring home is immediately (and sincerely) disgusted by it, you know you have someone at least potentially decent.

"There are a lot of women who have got the message from various sources that any relationship or marriage is somehow better than no relationship or marriage. They can't value themselves except in the context of a relationship, and so they will go as far as denying their own dignity and humanity to protect what they see as their only source of self-worth."

This plays into the idea that women are taught to act through a man instead of independantly of him. Women are taught this reliance and so it seems to create a kind of mindset that says that they can only get things done in a supportive role and never as the primary actor.

This is perpetuated through themes of nagging, support careers (like nursing), and even in video games or heroic stories where they support the male hero, but are never the hero themselves.

Another random musing. "Surrendered" is when you hold up a white flag and get taken prisoner. And this appeals to some women??

She has the Surrendered Wife and the Surrendered Single....where the Surrendered Husband book,
dammit? If it's good for one half of the couple to surrender to the other, why not the other half?

She has the Surrendered Wife and the Surrendered Single....where the Surrendered Husband book, dammit? If it's good for one half of the couple to surrender to the other, why not the other half?

Perhaps any woman who's in a relationship so desperately crap that she would consider following this wonderful advice should surrender her husband to the author.

roro80, i loved the movie 'secretary'...and i thought their relationship worked because they both seemed to really respect and care for each other, in the end. definitely a very different kind of relationship that what was written about in this book.

Heehee. I just offered my husband, "Baby, look! I could be a surrendered wife!"

"Mmm..no."

"Whyever not?"

"Too much micromanaging for me."

You have to love lazy men.

Daddy's the king of our home, isn't he?

All right. Let's take a look around and see how many successful, first-world countries with the high standard of living that these couples seem to have are run by an absolute despot. Anyone? Anyone?

Aux armes, citoyennes, aux armes.

Did anyone see the movie "The Secretary"? This kind of reminds me of that -- except that the entire movie leads up to the conclusion that the situation works for the couple only because they are both so entirely fucked up.
I adore Secretary, that's one of my favorite movies. Secretary was way more interesting than any of these "surrendered" people.

Greta Christina mentioned "Christian BDSM" pages. The thing that bugs me there is that 90% of them insist that the only "proper" Christian d/s relationship is male dominant / female submissive. Not only is this exclusionary, but by extolling this as "the natural order", as opposed to something entered into by adults free to choose other options, they're denying women agency in a non-consensual way.

On the other hand, you've got folks like Skip Chasey, the gay Christian leather-daddy.

I too ventured onto Amazon to see what people think of this book. I was very pleasantly surprised at the post entitled "Must Read in conjunction with "1984"!" The author first discussed her confusion as to how, as in Orwell’s book, an entire society could accept a new vocabulary, known as Newspeak, where freedom is slavery, war is peace ect. The author observes:

But now I see Orwell was right: apparently, only a few of you women have experienced any difficulty when attempting to internalize the contradiction "submission is liberation!" No state-sponsored totalitarian regime had to foist it on you, or conjure up specters of imprisonment or internment to frighten you into accepting logically contradictory outcomes. You managed that all on your own.

Terrifyingly true. Isn’t bad enough that our government is continuously taking away our civil rights that we now feel we should just had them over to our husband as well. The idea that we should give up our opinions, ideas, advice, sense of self, personal desires and perhaps most importantly our financial security all for the sake of making our partner happy is a betrayal to ourselves and our civil liberties.

I do agree with many of the points the reviewer brought up (the link you provided) but i dont think that is how most people would take it. yes, of course wives should not treat their husbands like children and criticize them and tell them there is a better way. yes i do think many women are control freaks who need to back off, you wouldnt hear men complain so much if they werent. HOWEVER, i dont think this book is about respecting one another which is common sense. i think its about an extreme form of submission that is truly a setback. opinions should be discussed and shared, no one should nag and criticize, but in no way should any person in the marriage be controlled. god i cant imagine how horrible it would be if either the man or womans ego was left unchecked to do whatever to the other person.