wood said: The other day me and wife agreed we both have this want for conquest whenever we feel lust. We are going through a drought period in that it's been a while since any of us had sexual encounters with anyone else. Its absurd when comparing to my previous long term relationship. I could never imagine having this conversation with my ex.
So, you and your wife are both self-aware dominants? One of my post-marital/divorce therapy practices is that I attempt to have very open conversations with all of my sexual partners with varying degrees of success. The Cowboy keeps saying things like "Mmmmm...there's one I wouldn't mind going poly-amorphous with." whenever a random attractive female walks by. And the Permaculture Manager said "Do you mean are you just one of my many wives?" and started laughing when I asked him if he was poly-amorous. A better word than poly-amorous has got to be found. Maybe just CNM for consensual-non-monogamy. Like world-wide-web vs. internet.
System 2, the slow analytic system, is also the system I have to activate in order to not do or say something wrong when dealing and discussing contracts and commitment with females. This system sometimes works against me in that I can appear quite cold/cynical/analytical when they ask something like "so what are we" on the topic of relationship status. The lesson I've learned so far is to do my internal analysis first, then reply, but thinking before speaking works way better when texting than in a face to face situation. In the face to face situation, I will either appear too cynical and they will start second-guessing the point of interacting with me, OR system 1 will cause me to fall into some kind of trap where I commit to something I later regret, like "always being there when she's sad" (just an example). Have you ever had this challenge or does it come natural to you after some time?
It's different for me because I am not a dominant and/or I am not a male. I currently self-describe as a free-agent, post-feminist, femme submissive. Therefore, generally, I do not offer contract or seek to conquest. I accept or decline offered contracts and I seek, prefer or allow conquest. IOW, as Ginger Rogers said "I do it backwards in heels."
So, I would more likely be the one inclined to ask a question along the lines of "so what are we?", in order to get better grasp on what sort of culturally-pre-packaged contract I was being offered. Except, although I do occasionally slip, it is my best practice to not ask dumb-azz questions like that, but rather to take men/dominants at their literal word. The more control the submissive directly seeks to achieve through contract, the weaker the power exchange becomes. The core value of a dominant is the desire for respect and cheating or disappointing the terms of a FREE contract will kill self-respect, so the vast majority of the time dominants will fulfill contracts they freely offered. My vocabulary is getting a little squidgy here because "can make contract" is pretty much the definition of a free adult, and a submissive is, hopefully, also a free adult. It's like if you agree to give a female a ride in your car to San Diego because you wanted some company, you are kind of a total dick if you dump her on the side of the road in St. Louis, but if she decides to bail out of the car in St. Louis herself because she doesn't like the way you drive or you didn't stop when she said she had to pee, then that is different, because you were the one who had control of the vehicle. IOW, because the dominant has more control within the realm or terms of the contract, in order for the balance of power to be equal, the submissive has to retain more control over the existence of the contract. If the dominant relinquishes too much control or the submissive exerts too much control within the realm of the contract, then the relationship loses potential energy.
Anyways, my simple answer to your question would be that even though "backwards in heels" is a different challenge, the fast vs. slow systems rule of thumb does apply, and it has been my experience that some of the better practices I have learned that were relatively easy for me to apply once accepted or acknowledged to "work" have become so natural for me that at this point I can't not do them. For instance, it has been many years since I gave a speck of thought, speculation, life-energy or hope to whether any particular man was going to call and ask for a second date. Either a specific literal contract/statement was offered, such as "I will call you on Wednesday about the film on Friday." or no contract/no relationship exists. I am naturally absent-minded with short-attention-span, so this practice was easy for me to adopt. Others are more difficult. For instance, according to Deida, if a guy is doing something you don't like, such as accidentally making you feel like your legs are going to be popped out of their sockets, then instead of saying something like "Stop, stop, stop!!! You are hurting me, you evil careless monster.", you are supposed to say something like "I feel pain." or just "Ouch!", and I sometimes find that difficult advice to follow. Actually, I'm pretty easy-going, low-maintenance and low-anxiety, so I usually find it kind of cute how men are almost always pro-actively looking out for my comfort and security as part of the contract-in-the-moment.
I'm kind of regretting suggesting that you offer commitment within the realm of CNM as part of your contracts. The association between exclusivity and commitment is so tight in our culture that this really might be likely to backfire on you. I am not a person who needs very much emotional support, so if somebody offered "I will always be there when you are sad.", that would be of dubious value to me, whereas "I will take you to the symphony or the theater every weekend this season." would make me say "Yay!", but be very disappointed/cold-angry/politely-dismissive if that didn't happen unless there was a very good reason, not inclusive of anything along the lines of "My wife said she felt threatened by this behavior." Can't trust a man to keep contract if he isn't fully in possession of his own gonads, and there are very limited circumstances under which one female is going to give a flying fig about your ability to fulfill your weak contract with another female. So, it is DEFINITELY best practice to err on the side of committing to less than you are likely willing/able/wanting to offer rather than more. In fact, given that most females do not follow the best practice of "listening for the literal", I wouldn't even offer vague suggestions or common associations if I were you. "I will always be there when you are sad." is a seriously weak contract, because a contract requires clear exchange of two valued items/services with enforceable terms. Since "sadness" or any emotion can be infinite, you can't include emotions in strong contracts. Of course, the contract I suggested for theater-going was also phrased as just-a-promise, but the unspoken second half would be something like "in partial exchange for your continuing sexual availability..." , therefore, "cold dismissal" is the to be expected simple enforcement of contract.