Dear Miss Susan,

I hope that you do not mind me writing again but I thought that my initial letter was a little short on content, mainly because it was written on the spur of the moment.

I have been reading your magazine and decided to relate a little of my experience. Soon after I was married my wife had noticed that I had a marked interest in her undies. I had no cross dressing practices, but there must have been something dormant within me. When she suggested that I wear a pair of her panties in the bedroom I jumped at the chance, even though they were a little small for me. A few weeks later she presented me with a couple of pairs which were the right size for me, and made it known that she had no objection to my wearing them outside the bedroom. We further experimented with stockings, slips and other items. This was over a period of months, and I was becoming hooked on it.

This 'role reversal' in our marriage took about two years [I think] to mature fully. We just sort of fell in with the sort of relationship that we both sought. My wife, then Mistress, had touched on a concealed interest in ladies' undies and it went from there. It was gradual, first undies in the bedroom then outer clothing. And when hooked, an introduction to housework...

It was suggested one day that since I liked to act the woman at times, then I should help with the housework - in those days few men did housework. This seemed a fair trade to me, so I helped my wife, gradually doing a little more. I cannot pinpoint the time when it changed from me helping my wife with the housework to her helping me. It just dawned on me one day that I had become the de-facto 'housewife' and that my wife had assumed the role of authority. When the idea occurred I just found it to be natural - I really felt at ease with it, and never questioned her authority. When the light bulb had come on, I said to Mistress at the time that,
'I seem to be the housewife now'. I can remember her reply as if it was five minutes ago: she said, 'Of course you are dear, now run along and make me a nice cup of tea'

It was an enormous thrill to have it actually confirmed, and I remember making the tea feeling very happy and excited. I did not flout her authority, and bullying and physical punishment were never used. She did not have screaming fits, and if there was something
that she was not happy about, then she would talk to me patiently as one would to a child. Her authority was gently, lovingly but firmly applied. She did not want me to look like a woman so there was no wig or make-up apart from clear nail varnish and a little clear lip gloss if we went out. She wanted me in a dress, and under her control.

It was pointed out that most men buying knickers for themselves would get items that are totally inappropriate, but mine had to be a correct fit. When I asked if I could wear knickers all the time, the options were discussed. Mistress decided that if I were to go to work in them, then they had to be plain, white, and unadorned - nicely ambiguous. It was decided that it would be a mixture of Marks & Spencer and Sloggi, and I have to confess that they are most comfortable. At home I could wear something prettier. I had no maids' outfit for the housework but used ladies' button-up overalls, and, for lighter work, a pinny. I would not have minded a maids' outfit but Mistress said that they were not practical, and so that was that.

I began dressing more and more when it was convenient, and ceased to wear male underwear. For work I wore just my plain white, but very soft and comfortable, knickers (if only more men realised how nice and soft ladies' undies are to wear!) My wife was also at work, and, as I got home first I would generally tidy up and prepare the evening meal, and sometimes change and have everything ready for her. Our relationship was based on loving trust. There was no coercion and no punishment so I cannot call it 'petticoat discipline' as such. Mistress also introduced me to nighties, and to this day I still use nighties. Matching knickers were also a requirement of hers, to keep my private parts 'in petticoats' so to speak..

I was never exposed or threatened with exposure in front of others. Everyone knew that she 'wore the trousers' but noone suspected to what degree. I was allowed down the pub now and again, and had the usual let-you-off-the-leash jokes. I would then get chapter and verse about nagging, complaining, wives. Mistress never nagged, she did not need to, orders were orders. There were off days of course when Mistress was feeling moody, and at those times overattention by me would irritate her, so then I kept my head down and got on with it.

If Mistress felt that more than a rebuke was needed, then I would be required to wear items that I really did not like, such as tights for stockings and a firm control girdle, to give one example. On the one occasion that I really upset her she took away my knickers and made me wear male underwear again, thereby withdrawing my greatest pleasure. A week of grovelling brought the return of my privilege. I never for one second regretted surrendering control. Alas my wife is no longer with me, and although I still wear knickers, despite a raised eyebrow from my doctor, I no longer dress, as it does not seem the same.

I know, Miss Susan, that this letter is not as racy as some, but hope that it is of interest. I congratulate you on your magazine and look forward to many more issues.
I am your servant,

Charles

It is one of the most wonderful letters that has ever crossed my desk; whatever gave you the idea that I was after 'racy' letters? It's quite the opposite; on a limited number of occasions I have had to 'tone down' the expression in letters I have received, because my sense of modesty would not permit me to publish them as they stood.

This letter from Charles demonstrates how petticoat rule can operate within an atmosphere of love and trust, in a peaceful, well-ordered home. It also gives an idea for those who are troubled by the thought of discussing their submissive needs with their wife or partner, and I discuss this in more detail in the 'Communication with your Beloved' page.

Charles, I wish you had mentioned the name of your dear wife. At least to a woman, it helps one visualise her. And she must have been a wonderful spouse. Even better, if you have a picture of her, scan it and send it to me. I will put it up on this page.

You may disagree, but I would call it petticoat discipline - to me the term does not connote coldness or cruel punishment. At its best it means a relationship in which the man is submissive, and is kept reminded of his obedient and docile role in the household by the wearing of feminine clothes of a submissive kind, such as maid's uniform, or little girl  frocks, or babies' nappies. And the wife's rule should be maintained strictly, but with patience and love.
Susan

Thank You for publishing my letters, I had thought them a bit amateurishly written and perhaps a little tame when compared to some of the delightful letters on your site. I am so pleased that I found your site, quite by accident as it turned out. I was very flattered at your comments concerning my letters. I do apologise that I had not included my wife's name. Until I re-read my letters I had not realised that I had excluded her name. She was Katie on an informal day, and Miss Kate on a strict day.

I agree that the soft touch of cotton ladies' knickers is so pleasurable as well as being practical wear. I think that they are ideal for work wear. The styles that I use are generously cut, which means that there is no constant re-adjustment during the day to compensate for an ill fitting garment, such behaviour will only attract comment. I have recently discovered Pretty Polly soft cotton rib panties, and these are lovely. I keep all my cotton knickers soft with liberal use of fabric conditioner. Satin and lace are fine at home, or when out in the evening, but for work cotton is so much better.

A comment that drew my notice concerned gingham. I have a 'little girl' gingham dress that was a reward item, I was allowed to wear it once a month. It was the only thing that I was allowed to wear a wig with, albeit a cheap one. I have no scanner to send a copy
so I will put one in an envelope for surface mail that you may if you wish to publish. I had gained an interest in little girl dresses and school uniforms. Miss Kate said that I could have one of them, I could choose, to be worn only when she thought I deserved it. Regression to nappies was out of the question, I didn't fancy that and fortunately neither did she. No criticism is implied to those that do regress that far, or the ladies that administer nursery discipline.

The sheer range of letters and experiences is quite wonderful. If one or two are a little embellished, they are none the worse for that. The range could not really be wider, from my own submission that had no corporal punishment, to those with strict physical discipline. My wife/mistress exercised psychological control instead of the whip or cane. Different submissive husbands require different handling, what worked for me would not neccessarily work for another. Likewise although I would, when required, be fully dressed there would be no wig or make up. It was not intended that I emulate a woman, I would be a man in a dress. Some submissive spouses are subjected to humiliation in the form of exposure to third parties. My own dear mistress did not require that of me, although there was another couple in a similar relationship that we saw socially but that is different. If you would like to know more of that Ma'am I will seek permission from the lady, but cannot be forthcoming until that is granted.

Your servant Ma'am,
Charles
 
Thank you for the further note Charles. Miss Kate was very generous and loving in letting you wear a little girl gingham dress, with lots of ribbons and full petticoats, I am sure! I must do a web search and see if I can find out more about Pretty Polly panties - they sound adorable.