Dear Miss MacDonald,

Your April edition was, as usual, excellent. I read with interest the short letter from Bob on the question of whether petticoat discipline was really possible with a recalcitrant male.

I myself was brought up under petticoat discipline. I am, some would say, a slave to the ladies of the household, and perhaps that is true. It is a fact that I have been trained to obey and defer. On the other hand I am treated with love and affection. I accept that my
mother really would have preferred a girl child, and this may explain a large part of my upbringing, but I was never rejected.

As you pointed out in your reply there is a certain warmth and security when one's life is controlled lovingly by another. It could be said that I have no will of my own, but it is easily within my grasp to leave and set up a life away from home, I do possess professional qualifications so employment would not be a problem, I just have no wish to. I love to serve my dearest wife, mummy and auntie. I feel a peace and tranquility when in my frocks and pretty undies. I feel contentment pleasing those I serve. The other
side of the coin is that I have a lot of leisure time, more in fact than my lovely wife, who is the breadwinner. My Lady Anne is my senior partner and I like it that way. Auntie was, and still is, the head of the household, and that carries a reassurance. At such
times when Auntie tires of being head of the house then the responsibility will transfer to my Lady Anne. I accept her authority now, and will when she is head of the house, and be pleased to do so, as I do not want the responsibility.

To return to the original point, I think that you encapsulated your answer very well. Some would not accept petticoat discipline at any price, but they are not likely to be placed in that position anyway. Naturally, even innately, submissive men will gravitate toward strong women. Also a man that carries deep guilt over infidelity or another major marriage betrayal can be manipulated into petticoats and panties, and I am willing to bet that the majority will come to enjoy the role they have fallen into. A majority of households are matriarchal to a greater or lesser degree anyway: very few men will deny the wishes of the wife in the house. It may be just the choice of decor, but once an authority is created it is only a matter of steps and time before it is more than the decor that is in the wife's care. Once she is queen of her castle, it could be a short step to petticoating. There is little difference between my doing the washing up in a skirt and blouse and another man in an apron, we both do the washing up because our lady wishes us to.

This leads me to an experience a few years ago. A work colleague of Anne's and her husband were invited to dinner, which I would cook and serve. To avoid any embarrassment to our guests I was attired in male clothing. The friend, Rachael, and husband Mike, were not known to me beforehand. I was given to understand that she knew of my position and was quite fascinated. Mike did not seem overly friendly, indeed did not seem to want to be there. As the evening went on things were sometimes a little stilted. Mike had been sampling the wine very liberally and eventually began to get antagonistic toward me, he obviously objected to my role although I have since been told that he was unaware of the dressing side of it. He did in due course get round to calling me a 'poof'
to which I responded. Rachael ventured the opinion that he could take a leaf out of my book and he went ballistic. The evening wound up soon after that. It did not wind up for me however, as I was treated to a sound spanking with a paddle from Lady Anne at Auntie's behest. Auntie was of the opinion that no matter how boorish Mike was, he was nevertheless a guest and should have been
treated as such, if only out of respect for Rachael. Further, I was required to send Rachael a letter of apology the next day. Rachael has subsequently returned and seen me in all my finery and clearly loved it.

Some time afterwards Rachael and Mike split up. She told Anne that from the night of the dinner she had tried to work on him, to change him. Mike however had no sense of guilt that she could work on, and was too 'macho' to modify his behaviour. Rachael admitted that this initially attracted her to him, but a few years of living with him had dimmed the light, so to speak. After the break, and subsequent divorce, Rachael set about finding a submissive man that she could feminise. She eventually found one and has been training him to her requirements now for nearly two years, one of them as a husband. She is very happy and so is her new man, whose name, ironically, is also Mike, but she calls him Michaela or Micky when out. Mike (number one) was an example of a man that cannot be changed but I feel that they are a minority.

I hope that I have not bored you with this. I look forward to your next issue.
Thank you,

Pet

Pet and Anne have contributed the lovely photographs of Acadia National Park to this month's 'Country Views' section. I do sympathise with Pet standing up to this vulgar boor, but can see Anne's point of view too. Thankfully, Rachael  has now married a much more suitable husband. Some men are no doubt beyond redemption, but with the right love and insistence, petticoat discipline can be successfully initiated to the great advantage of both partners.
Susan