I’ve had someone point out something rather interesting recently—the name of my blog, Evolving Your Man, and how it might actually sound better as Evolving Your Male. They suggested that “male” implies ownership, as if I’m stating that the man in the relationship is my property. I thought that was a fun little observation, and I’ve been mulling it over. After all, words carry weight, and the nuances of what we call things can spark entirely new conversations.
So, let's break it down. The idea behind the blog’s name has always been about partnership, not ownership. Yes, we engage in a kinky and fun dynamic where I hold the reins a bit tighter, and yes, there’s an element of power exchange involved with our cuckold dynamic, orgasm control, and erotic humiliation. But at the end of the day, Kev and I are both mutually in love, mutually respected, and mutually aware of each other's needs and desires. We’re both each other's partners, lovers, and dare I say, property in some sense—if I’m his, then he’s definitely mine, too.
Now, this concept of mutual "property" really touches on something much deeper. Historically, the idea of being someone’s property, especially in relationships, comes with some heavy baggage. Let’s talk about coverture for a moment. Back in the not-so-distant past, when a woman got married, she essentially lost her legal identity. Coverture was a legal doctrine where a wife was subsumed under her husband’s identity—her rights, property, and everything else became his. A woman was legally invisible in a lot of ways. This notion is pretty horrifying today, especially when you think of the freedoms women enjoy now, but for centuries, it was the norm.
If I were born in the 1800s, instead of sitting here writing a blog about cuckolding, sexual health, and kinky female-led relationships, I’d be more like… a ghost of myself. I’d have no legal identity. My voice? Not heard. My rights? Nonexistent. The funny thing is, the doctrine of coverture was basically just a legal endorsement of something that had already existed in religious and cultural traditions—spouses being each other's "property," but only in the sense that the man owned the woman. A woman was expected to submit to her husband’s authority, and that, my friends, was backed by all sorts of religious and societal pressure.
Speaking of religion, the Bible is often thrown into the mix when discussing these old-school dynamics of male-female relationships. Since I’m agnostic, I don’t see the Bible as some divine rulebook, but I do recognize its influence as a piece of fiction or literature, much like The Handmaid's Tale but with a bit more staying power. Biblically speaking, wives are often portrayed as property of their husbands, expected to be obedient and submissive. “Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands” is a line I’m sure many of us have heard at one point or another, whether we wanted to or not. It's not exactly the romantic partnership I imagine when I think about Kev and me. Sure, I take the lead in our dynamic, and yes, there’s an element of submission on his part, but that’s because we’ve agreed on it. It's consent-based, mutual, and more about empowerment than ownership. It’s erotic and playful, but no one’s actually "owned" in a legal or biblical sense.
Now, let’s play a little game of "what if"—what if we flipped this entire thing on its head and imagined a world where male coverture existed? Imagine a time where, when a man got married, he lost his legal identity and became subsumed under his wife’s identity. Picture it: A world where men were the ones who had no legal standing, no right to property, no voice. I think we’d see a lot of men suddenly far more interested in male chastity (although maybe not as consensually and erotically as Kev is, wink!). Imagine, too, the kinds of conversations that would dominate male-focused spaces—how to regain control, how to feel empowered in their relationships, and how to deal with the emotional angst of being the submissive gender.…
