[CherylNYC]

Since this thread was revitalised posters on both sides of the debate have had their legitimate questions roundly ignored, gotten triggered, touched on social dominance and submission, wondered whether they were being called bad feminists, and discoursed about the evils of the institution of marriage as it was originally conceived. Several other hot-button subjects have been broached, but I'm not motivated to go back far enough to count them up. Somehow this discussion has remained polite, for which I'm thankful. I have no desire to make anyone feel defensive about their choices. I hope nothing I've written about my own strong feelings has made anyone feel judged.

To be clear, even though marriage was formerly an institution that literally enslaved women, I'm an active, enthusiastic proponent of marriage equality. That's at least in part born out of my personal experiences having the doo-doo hit the fan when my late partner and I were not protected by legal recognition of our relationship. Our community can and does reappropriate words and customs that have been formerly used against us. I call myself a dyke even though that's still a fighting word for kids who are at this very moment being bullied in school.

I also have no problem whatsoever with a woman being submissive to her dominant partner, whatever their gender presentations. I'm active in the BDSM community, and I'm profoundly sexually submissive. While I've never been socially submissive to my partners, I know many people who are. Like me, that's their essential nature, but it doesn't mean that they're less-than, or that they're weak, and it certainly doesn't mean that they're not feminists. As it happens, many who are full-time submissives to their dominant partners are kick-ass women, and very competent, well respected professionals.

In my circles, people in full time D/s relationships often use the language of ownership to signal their status. A Dominant might say, 'My girl/sub/slave', without necessarily naming her. Just as Dude described the butch who relentlessly identified her partner as 'My wife' without naming her. Someone collared to Jane might be honored to be known as Jane's boi. If they married, that boi might choose to take Jane's name. Or not. In our BDSM community those conscious choices are made with full consent and a great deal of awareness about their ramifications.

Correlation is not causation. I AM NOT saying that a woman who takes her partner's name outside of a BDSM context is by definition signaling her submissive position in the relationship. I AM saying that a woman in relationship with a masculine or male partner who takes their partner's name reflexively, without processing that choice, and without having a conscious reason for doing so, is -willingly or not- participating in the overwhelming dynamic in our culture of presumed masculine dominance and feminine submission.

I'm deeply troubled when straight women presume without questioning that they'll take their husband's name, and even more deeply troubled by entitled men who assume that this is their right, because this is how it's always been. If a femme wants to take her butch partner's name that's her business and her decision to make. I just hope that women- straight, queer, femme or otherwise- would think those choices all the way through before making them.

It's the reflexive presumption part that makes me cranky.