A high-dominance woman taken in hand

A high-dominance woman taken in hand

While reading the few recent threads posted over the last few weeks, I got to thinking about my power dynamics inside and outside my relationship(s) and my work and social life, both currently and pre-Taken-In-Hand. It has occurred to me that I may, perhaps, be a little hypocritical in regards to my beliefs and actions. This doesn't necessarily present a problem for me, and I've reconciled my feelings and beliefs within myself. I do, however, find it a bit curious.

I deal mostly with men, day to day, in my job. The main part of my job consists of fixing technical problems, repairing electrical and electronic equipment, specifying technical systems for jobs, project management, and lots and lots of talking with architects, engineers, contractors, and other myriad tradesmen. I get a lot of the macho, pat me on the head, don't take me seriously, “It'll be okay little darlin'—I'm a man and I can take care of it,” or worse, complete and utter disrespect and disdain, because I am a woman. I refuse to put up with this kind of behavior from the boorish, clueless, prejudicial chauvinists. Most other times, I come across the respectful but dominant type who expect to be able to bully me into acquiescence. Even these types, who will be respectful and listen (but ooze an air of dominance), are off-putting to me. I know what I am doing, and when it comes to the equipment I am trying to discuss and instruct them about, I absolutely demand their attention and compliance with any requirements, specifically relating to installation and operation of this equipment. If they usurp my authority and decide not to follow my instructions, I can be a real ball buster—a force to be reckoned with. To an extent, I tend to get a kick out of standing my ground and being in control. It's a rush to come out on the other side of a challenge with their respect, grudgingly, or not. In a work or social setting, when I sense weakness, in women or men that I work with, I remain respectful and civil, but I find myself in a constant state of irritation. I would much prefer to deal with the chauvinist, or the dolt, than the indecisive, hesitant, nervous type. I don't do well in the reassurance department, other than when my children are involved.

I work with my significant other. We've been together for most of 11 years, now. He's the boss at work—not only over me, but over our entire (small) company. He's the top dog, and runs the place. We have an excellent relationship at work. His niche in our industry is a little different from my own. If not for me, he would likely get rid of the sales/service/installation portion of our business. His focus is elsewhere. Our agreement was that he would let me do what I wanted, and grow what I wanted, provided I could at least cover my salary and my costs. In turn, he would leave me virtually autonomous. He does not question me, he does not micromanage, he interferes in no way with my little portion of our company, other than to be there with a friendly ear if I need to bounce something off him, or on the rare occasion I don't feel comfortable making a large financial decision, and to keep a very distant eye out and make sure things are well. He is ultimately my boss, but he treats me as an equal. I can't ever recall a time where he has pulled rank. Sounds like the ideal, laidback wonderful boss (and he IS!).

Hehehe—here's the twist. He is the head of our household. It's his way or his way, and I am expected to obey. He is the leader of our home, and there is no equal power or say-so. When I walk in the door (or even when I am away, as I travel a lot), he's a totally different kind of “boss”. He's very particular about certain things, and insists that I accept his authority. It's a night and day difference. He does not let me roam free and on an unlimited leash with pretty much unlimited say-so, as he does at work. I'm expected to ask before spending money (that's OK—see below), call with updates when I am out of town for business, and just generally keep him in the loop. It sounds like common courtesy, and generally, it is, but the difference is that there are consequences if I forget to—or decide not to—do as I am expected. I'm expected to do other not-so-common things, like go to bed at a certain time, and not wear clothing when in bed with him.

I am so completely in charge and dominant in my professional life. I am really dominant in general, I suppose—except in our relationship. It literally changes me. I just simply respond in a way that is so completely different from the rest of me—from the me that I present, genuinely, I might add, to the rest of the world. My dominance and control out in the world isn't faked or forced, but neither is my acceptance of his control and authority. It simply puts me in a different place...and naturally!

At work, I virtually demand that I am allowed to spend what money I need to in order to perform my job correctly, and I honestly think I would resent it if I had to ask permission. At home, I have a very serious issue with money in general (opposite what you may think—I am a NON-spender). I spent many years with no money and in much financial stress, and I don't like to spend a single dime (actually, that goes for work too). If it were not for him, I would be in a constant state of distress at the mere thought of pulling a dollar out of my wallet to pay a bill or purchase something. I can't spend money. I freak out! I am always afraid of not having enough in the event of some strange unforeseen event or emergency. I am always waiting for the other shoe to drop and for us to run out of money, with some catastrophe ensuing. We, of course, do not run out. All the bills get paid, almost always on time. We have what we need, for the most part. The children get generous gifts (and they deserve them) on birthdays, holidays, and when they've done something extra-special to earn such. I am so very thankful he is able to handle our finances. I could cope, if I had to, but I certainly would not be as happy and relaxed and secure-feeling. It's so much better to be able to simply ask if I can have something I need, and be told yes, or no (it's never a no for anything unless there's a legitimate reason).

I believe I have always had this need to be taken in hand, in a relationship. I haven't always known it, and when I first got an inkling of what I wanted, I was afraid and denied it. I tried to be stronger and more dominant, in the hopes that I could just convince it to go away, or overcome it. I find it curious that I can (virtually) seamlessly slip between these two roles now—and that I've reconciled both as such that I don't resent or fear either one. I enjoy me—and all the opposing parts. Back when I discovered that consenting adults could exchange power, and what the many facets and ramifications of that were, I was very intent on understanding why I was the way I was, and was confused that I could be so completely different professionally, as opposed to personally. Before I discovered this Taken In Hand part of me, I was always in charge, in control—or at least I always endeavored to be. I didn't have much patience for people like me who wanted their man to be in control. I thought they were just uninformed, misinformed, or even weak. I mean, and then meant, no offense, it's simply how I felt. Discovering I was, in part, the very thing I had snubbed, was a real eye opener for me (hence my hypocrite comment). I find much amusement in the fact that I often get a bit frustrated with my situation and want to feel more control on a more regular basis.

Techiechic

The Taken In Hand Tour start | next

Comments

Who knew?

"I didn't have much patience for people like me who wanted their man to be in control. I thought they were just uninformed, misinformed, or even weak. I mean, and then meant, no offense, it's simply how I felt. Discovering I was, in part, the very thing I had snubbed, was a real eye opener for me (hence my hypocrite comment). I find much amusement in the fact that I often get a bit frustrated with my situation and want to feel more control on a more regular basis. "

I couldn't agree with this statement any more! You took the words right out of my mouth, Techiechic!

Though I don't work out of the house, I still like to be in control of all other aspects of my life. But there's just something so intoxicating about being under Sparky's (my husband's) lovingly controling hand! It just feels so right!

Great article!

Dynomite

Excellent Observation!

I too am a professional woman who is strong, competent and well thought of in the business sector. I came to know I deeply desired and needed a Taken In Hand relationship a long time ago and am still seeking it. I have been on the other side of the feminist counter. Even though I was angry and demanding, secretly, I wanted a strong man to put me in balance so I could feel the 'containment' I so desperately needed. So, I can only speak for myself, but if there is a man who can contain this strong and professional woman, then I will feel completed and loved.

“I think there's some connection between absolute discipline and absolute freedom.” Alan Rickman

Oh goodness.

Oh goodness. Here's one for contrast. I met your almost-clone the other day—a woman that had not learned the priceless lesson you bring forth here. In this case, an over-generalizing obsessive-compulsive business owner who couldn't understand that her attempts to control me in a social setting would only result in failure. It's not an accident that a Latin gattina holds my heart strings and not the self-made women of the world. (Of course, YMMV).

Listen up you otherwise intelligent feminists.

Take the lesson of Techiechic to heart.

Yes. You have equal rights. Which simply means you get to vote and you are equal under the law. And in professional circles we should treat you as the professionals you are, with supervision concomitant to experience.

Beyond that, drop the pretensions.

You are and always will remain sex objects in social settings. Your happiness is to be controled in relationships. Don't waste your (and our) time by demanding control. You will be unhappy if we give it to you (if we acquiesce you think us weak and lose respect). Don't waste your (and our) time by demanding equality. You don't want to be equal. The secret desire you avoid is that you want to look upto and admire your man. Which means you want the controled position and not equality. Which also implies that you have to choose men worthy of admiration. If I had a dime for every feminist that selected poorly we could retire the national debt. (And don't blame us—the choice side of the equation belongs to you. All we can do is offer.)

Obligatory disclosure: I'm a 40-something male that is fed up with the over-broad aspects of feminist nonsense. I blame this absurd philosophy with both the downfall of Western civilization's fertility (yes Virginia, women should have babies often [2 or more] and early in life) as well as the destruction of my first marriage. I have a wonderful relationship with a lovely woman who is hell-on-earth if I cross her but loves living under my control. Who on earth needs more to be happy?

Marriage failure

It is interesting that you blame feminism for the failure of your first marriage. Has it ever crossed your mind that you might have had something to do with it?

Louise

equality

I have chosen to give my man blanket consent. That is consent to discipline and control me in any way he choses. This does not make me inferior to him. I am still his equal.

Why??

because if I choose to withdraw that consent I can.

Sully

Somebody's a little bitter...

"You are and always will remain sex objects in social settings. Your happiness is to be controled in relationships. Don't waste your (and our) time by demanding control. You will be unhappy if we give it to you (if we acquiesce you think us weak and lose respect). Don't waste your (and our) time by demanding equality."

I'll admit that I have no idea who the "you," "your," and "our" are that you're referring to, but I'm grateful that my husband doesn't think like you.

I am utterly befuddled by men who seem to think that the problems of male-female relationships lie strictly with the woman and a broadly (and often incorrectly) defined version of feminism. Part of being an adult (regardless of your relationship dynamic) is learning how to take responsibility for your actions, instead of blaming some inspecific group of people.

Catch More Friends With Honey

Young man, I wouldn't bother trying to find a relationship, conventional, Taken In Hand or what have you, until you get over your anger at your ex wife and get things into better perspective. Angrily telling women what we are and what we want and need isn't going to attract anyone to you.

I happen to be in a marriage of almost 20 years that is equal and working fine. I'm sorry yours didn't work out but don't blame all women and feminism for this. You come off sounding like you want to punish women by treating them as subordinates, and that's not going to have them lining up on your porch.

"Pat"

LMAO

I bet that your ex is still laughing her ass off as to what a joke you were!

You could never handle a strong woman because a strong woman requires a strong man-- not a man like yourself who is so caught up in his own inferiority complex that he has to assign blame of it to women! What a cop out!

You certainly allude to being weak and small and nothing dominate comes from your writing.

Take responsibility for yourself and quit blaming women. Anyone who uses the blame card lacks the ability to lead and this is where I and women like me leave you in the dust!

Pity it was spoilt

Nice first post.

Pity it was spoilt by Mr Got his Knickers in a Twist "2007 May 14—17:26". Many women want control and lots of men love to be sexually dominated. Don't foist your generalisations on us. This is not a one size fits all planet despite what the male leaders in Saudi, Iran or even the land of the Free might think.

Back on the original post if it works for you hand over the finances. I'm not sure I would or could but that might just be my age and stage and all the finances troubles of divorce plus never met a man better at money and tax than I am although I remain to be convinced.

I don't know. If I was a man

I don't know. If I was a man in today's worold I'd be angry too. And the truth is we women are largely responsible for it. We have demasculinated them. There isn't one really good macho type husband represented on TV or anywhere in society.
No. I am not just a sex symbol but I love a man who makes me feel sexy.And I love looking up to my man-knowing he has control of me. So yes, many things are true in this post. But truthfully, the anger issue needs to be dealt with. You sound like you hate women and that doesn't help anyone.

Demasculating men

I don't believe women have demasculated men. And I don't see what men have got to be angry about. Men still dominate most professions, they still occupy most of the top positions, they still have the inbuilt advantages of greater strength, greater size, and they don't get pregnant. They still have all advantages that Mother Nature has given them. What exactly have women done to 'demasculate them'?

There are plenty of macho men on TV, action movies abound with macho men. James Bond is still going strong after more than 40 years for instance. And romance novels are absolutely full of them. Macho Man is not dead by any means.

And as Aubrey Andelin points out in 'Men of Steel and Velvet' a real man doesn't let himself be demasculated anyway. According to him, if a woman gets uppitty, it's the man's fault for not being master in his own home. So if men are demasculated, they're doing it themselves.

Louise

There are plenty of examples

There are plenty of examples in society that show how men have become demasculinated. The most obvious are the sitcoms we have in America, where the woman is portrayed as having all the common sense and must take of her idiotic husband (The Simpsons and According to Jim are just two examples.)

Plus, the pervading presence of "Men are evil and harmful and women must be protected against them." This is very obvious in the court system here. Woman have the advantage over men in divorce cases and child custody cases. And if a woman cries abuse-whether the man is guilty or not, chances are he will be treated guilty.

For a time, "I hate Boys" t-shirts were really popular here in America among teen and pre teen girls.
Where have our girls learned this? Certainly not from the men!

True, men have let the ball drop. And hopefully our sons will pick it up. But we can't be blind to the obvious. James Bond or not-men are not respected like they used to be; and until that respect returns, people like us who have taken in hand relationships, will continue to practice them in secret.

Sitcoms

Yes, but the point about sitcoms like that is that the husband is the star, isn't he? He's the funniest character, and the wife is just in a supporting role.

My personal opinion is that the greatest sitcom ever was 'I Love Lucy' in which the Lucy was always behaving like an idiot, but she was the star of the show. The insipid Marge Simpson, doting slavishly on her idiot husband, is scarcely an inspirational role model for women. She may have common sense, but she seldom gets to use it, as sheis completely under Homer's thumb. I see 'The Simpsons' as far more insulting to women than it is to men, since the message of the show is that even if your husband is an idiot, you should still do what he says and put up with everything. I gave up watching 'The simpsons' some years ago because Marge's behaviour infuriated me so much.

I have never seen a girl wearing an 'I Hate Boys' t-shirt, the girls and boys I see around mostly seem to be on quite amiable terms with each other, in fact the ones I see around here remind me of the headmaster of a co-educational school who was asked how he seperated the boys from the girls; "We prise them apart with a crow-bar" he replied. You'd need to use a crow-bar on a lot of the teenagers round here in order to seperate them. There doesn't seem to be much hostility between the sexes as far as I can make out.

I can't say I practice Taken In Hand in secret, my husband has always been quite bossy, and doesn't have any particular qualms about being bossy with me within the hearing of other people, if he feels like it. We certainly don't talk about the spanking part, but then I think that is how it should be, I think things like that should be private.

I don't really care what kind of relationships my sons have, so long as they are happy, and i have no particular wish to see them in Taken In Hand relationships, unless that is what they and their partners want.

Louise

Differing views

Respect is earned and not given to you based on gender. A woman can be and should be respected if she is worthy as well as a man should be if he is worthy.

If in fact respect for men has suffered as prevalently as you contend then maybe it is worth asking the question of why this occurred instead of blaming women or sitcoms for it.

I live in America as well and their are plenty of strong male role models abound in sitcoms and shows like C.S.I. Miami, 24, Prison Break, James Woods character in his new show...

There are also sitcoms that in my opinion belittle or sexualize women like Family Guy or The man's show.

If men have let the ball drop then it is their place to pick it up and become respect worthy if that is what they are striving for.

I don't share your belief at all that the court systems are slanted towards women in America. Women get custody more often because frankly (and this has been acknowledged by men that I personally know) men don't want the every day responsibility of the job of raising kids. And in the arena of abuse the court systems can be brutal to a woman and short of DNA evidence the accused are more often let go in cases of rape.

To angry male taken in hand reader--I am still laughing my ass off only harder now!

CarlF. your understanding of your wife shines in your writing and I am sorry for her that she had to suffer such abuse at the hands of her own mother. Reading that brought tears to my eyes! Soldier on Elle with your loving dominate man leading the way!

The problems I have with the

The problems I have with the statement that women have demasuclinated men is:
1. I don't see how demanding equal rights demasculinates men. Simply having rights does not make men masculine. It certainly doesn't make women less feminine. Just because a woman wants to be able to do what men do, doesn't mean she wants to be who they are.
2. If men are strong and masculine, and women are weak and feminine, how can we take that maculinity away from them?

I will agree that there are not many examples of "macho" men on TV, but does life mirror art, or does art mirror life?

The problems I have with the

The problems I have with the statement that women have demasuclinated men is:
1. I don't see how demanding equal rights demasculinates men. Simply having rights does not make men masculine. It certainly doesn't make women less feminine. Just because a woman wants to be able to do what men do, doesn't mean she wants to be who they are.
2. If men are strong and masculine, and women are weak and feminine, how can we take that maculinity away from them?

I will agree that there are not many examples of "macho" men on TV, but does life mirror art, or does art mirror life?

Demasculation

Yes, week men were demasculated by emancipation of women. Now you must earn the leading role in a family, it is not simply given to you because of your penis.

How sore is the view of a world half full of weak men. Did they grow in the long era of women suppression? (Remember matriarchy !)

But to be truth, feminism denied the idea of a head of a household. Feminism grew from wrath, this always produces evil effects aligned with beneficts. The benefit is freedom of women.

Hali

Have babies? How about YOU have a baby.

No, women should not have babies unless they choose to do so. For some women, pregnancy and nursing are physically difficult conditions, and pregnancy can be life threatening in some cases. I've been pregnant, and given successful live birth. Pregnancy was uncomfortable for me, and can even be painful, regardless of the wonderful result. Giving birth was not fun for me. If you think women should have babies, I think someone should stuff a bowling ball into your anal opening, and then force you to pass it back out. Doing both those things may give you an idea of what it's like to give birth, although it won't improve your outlook and certainly won't teach you to take responsibility for your mistakes, or to behave in a mature fashion.

No, women should not have babies unless they choose to do so. In spite of "equal rights" and "feminist concerns" a woman is still treated as a professional inferior, and her "inferiority" is "proven" when she needs time off to recover from pregnancy and the birth process, and although it is illegal to fire a woman for taking pregnancy leave, it can be and often is done—using other reasons, such as trumped up "failures" including "consistently late", and other "does not perform to standards" double-talk.

No, women should not have babies unless they choose to do so. In purely financial terms, it's difficult to raise children—whether you are a single mother, single father, or stable couple of either or both genders. Children cost money. It takes money to house them, clothe them, feed them, and provide for their medical care.

No, women should not have babies unless they choose to do so. This planet is already overpopulated, and there are myriad social problems arising in part from that overpopulation. One of the major issues is that of world hunger.

... And it's so simple to alleviate a little bit of world hunger. Adopt a child or two. Actually legally adopt them, and bring them into your household, or "emotionally" adopt them through one of the many child-sponsorship agencies.

But don't "have babies" just because some underinformed, out of control, passive-aggressive person demands that you do so.

Having babies

I agree that people should only have babies if they want them.

However, it is not true that world hunger is caused by overpopulation. There is enough food in the world to feed everyone. World hunger is caused by corrupt government, not overpopulation.

See 'The Skeptical Environmentalist' by Bjorn Lomborg, and'All the Trouble in the World: The Lighter Side of Famine, Pestilence, Destruction and Death' by P.J. O'Rourke

oh no!

I'm 27, almost 28 and I've not had any children yet. I'm so sorry to be the cause of the downfall of western society. I'll work on popping a couple out soon so all is right with the world again.

*eye rolling*
I've read this site extensively and love most of the posts. But, then there are a select few... mostly written by pigs in men's clothing... that just irritate me. I am not a feminist, but I am however very choosey about who I would like to procreate with. I'm shocked to find out that this selectivity in a mate is bringing society down crashing around us.
My bad.

Night clothes

"I'm expected to do other not-so-common things, like ... not wear clothing when in bed with him."

Is this a cultural thing? Certainly in the UK nightclothes are (in my limited experience) rather rare. I should perhaps exclude my niece who would be in pyjamas until midday at least.

Please explain.

Bill

PS And another thing I discovered is that (at least two) American women were appalled at the idea of a hair brush in the kitchen. This may link back to another discussion I saw recently about being open with things that bother.

Night clothes & hair brushes

Well Bill, I can't speak for all American women, but I believe most do wear some sort of clothing to bed. I'm not really sure why. I guess it's because we always have since we were little & it's just carried over. Or maybe it's out of convenience. When getting up in the middle of the night with kids, you're already clothed. Who really knows why. It's just been my experience.

About the hair brush in the kitchen...not really sure why they were appalled except the idea of getting hair in the food being prepared. That's totally gross!

Dynomite

Well, I see I started a true

I'm not bitter. I bounced off the lid of hell to land in heaven. Anger, to the extent there is any, is directed at an idea system that views me as an enemy as opposed to an integral part of life. Now, if I don't hear from a woman in the first ten sentences a sense of life that screams "I love men" she is out. Period. That eliminates a fair fraction of US women but buys me most of Europe and all of Latin America. I passed this little insight along to my male friends and guess what—3 years later they are all in happy relationships. Who knew so simple a filter can change things so drastically!

Sometimes I wonder, given the clarity of English, how anyone can miss salient points. But let's be clear. I have been in a wonderful relationship now for over 3 years, in part because it is a male dominant relationship with a woman who I can respect and whose attitude is superb. By contrast, my ex-wife "isn't laughing her ass off" but is instead crying her eyes out as boyfriend #6 rotates out of her life.

I was a model husband who went above and beyond the call of duty to work for the marriage. I did abide by my vows, she didn't. Paraphrasing a great author, whatever my errors, she was the cause and bears the responsibility for the failure. I can, and do Louise, reject any unearned guilt. My ex made her choices and now she suffers the undiverted consequences of her actions. What is happening is justice.

To SouthSister—AMEN girl. You understand the message and you are in tune with your inner core. Long life and prosper!

And how did anyone conclude from the post they were "inferior" or looked-down upon. We are discussing dominance in romantic relationships. Your choices are and always have been: dominant, equal, sub-dominant. Pick one. Hint: For most women it really isn't the first two. Of course, your mileage will vary miss-20-yr-equal-marriage.

One further note on fertility. Natural law is natural law. To maintain a population, it's 2 or more children per woman. It's math. Thanks to feminism women felt "empowered" to ignore their childbearing nature and have careers. Well, guess what kids... it doesn't work. All you end up with is declining populations and unhappy childless women. What? You think the fertility clinic boom is an accident? To the not-so-young lady that has already squandered her most fertile years, yeah—get going if you intend to have any children.

Lastly, no man ever crossed a room to meet a woman because of her stellar personality. Of course, you are more than a sex object—your brain and personality kept him from walking away, but it's not what got him into your sphere of action. Think of that the next time you want to beat up a poster for telling the unvarnished truth—in a social setting you are sex object. For cryin' out loud, it's not men that dress up like packages with a ribbon, and y'all still do it regardless of 50 years of feminist nonsense.

Well back to work....

Thank you

Reading your comment makes me profoundly thankful for my husband. I never appreciate him more than when I'm reading the absolute cobblers spouted by men like you.

Louise

One of my favorite scenes in

One of my favorite scenes in a movie comes from "9 Months" (funny because I loathe Hugh Grant). One of the characters is going on and on about the valuable contribution she is giving to the planet by having and raising children. Her brother kindly reminds her of the over population and millions of starving children.

I do not feel it is my duty to have children or that I should be valued less if I don't. Motherhood is perhaps the most noble profession, but that doesn't mean it's for everyone. It is a far greater disservice to humanity to have children that you are ill-prepared to care for, than not to have them at all.

Overpopulation and starvation

I don't believe that anyone should have children unless they feel like it. However, over-population is not the cause of starvation. There is enough food in the world to feed everybody. Famine is caused by bad government.

In All the Trouble in the World: The Lighter Side of Overpopulation, Famine, Ecological Disaster, Ethnic Hatred, Plague, and Poverty P.J. O'Rourke quotes Professor Amaratya Sen:

"There has never been a famine in any country that's been a democracy with a relatively free press. I know of no exceptions. It applies to very poor countries with democratic systems as well as to rich ones. It's no accident that the familiar horror stories...occured in one-party states, dictatorships or colonies: China, British India, Stalin's Russia."

The world's most densely populated country is, so I understand, the Netherlands, but they have no famines.

Louise

I didn't say it was the most

I didn't say it was the most intelligent quote I'd ever heard in a movie...just one of my favorites. My point was mostly that there are so many children born to such terrible parents. Not everyone needs to have children. Not having children does not make a person less of a woman.

Salient points

Sometimes I wonder, given the clarity of English, how anyone can miss salient points.

A great many people respond more readily to style than they do to substance and unfortunately your ideas and remarks were twice presented to the reader in a style not entirely dissimilar to a mild punch in the face. Half the readers will likely miss the salient points because they're preoccupied with rubbing their bruised noses. No matter ... let's just assume you were busy and in a hurry to make your points and, in your enthusiasm, didn't pay quite as much attention to etiquette as would have been wise. Now to the substance:


Regarding fertility and the collapse of “western civilisation”; you are right it is just arithmetic and there is certainly a risk that very soon we, the people of the free world, will be fighting to retain our liberty because we will be outnumbered by people who subscribe to barbaric ideologies, have more than two children per woman and have them early, and who advocate a non-consensual version of “taken-in-hand”. Its hard to say exactly who, if anyone, ought to be blamed for this. If we want to avoid a repeat of the dark ages in Europe we certainly need to be doing something, and doing it now.

I was a model husband who went above and beyond the call of duty to work for the marriage. I did abide by my vows ...

For husbandly performance you can have 10/10 and a gold star but for modesty its 1/10 and “could try harder”.

Your happiness is to be controled in relationships. Don't waste your (and our) time by demanding control. You will be unhappy if we give it to you (if we acquiesce you think us weak and lose respect). Don't waste your (and our) time by demanding equality. You don't want to be equal. The secret desire you avoid is that you want to look upto and admire your man. Which means you want the controled position and not equality. Which also implies that you have to choose men worthy of admiration. If I had a dime for every feminist that selected poorly we could retire the national debt. (And don't blame us—the choice side of the equation belongs to you. All we can do is offer.)

You generalised most terribly and expressed yourself somewhat crudely but my experience also leads me to think that equality is misunderstood and over-hyped and I'd be very happy to see “western civilisation” rethink the whole equality business a bit more carefully. It does seem to me that it has encouraged at least as many problems as it solved. If you'd expressed these ideas a little more gently it might have yielded a pleasant discourse amongst friends.


And after years of being sympathetic to women in unrewarding and destructive relationships I did finally have to concede that in most cases (not all) they had chosen those relationships despite obvious warning signs that things were going to be bad. They had, as you suggest, chosen to be controlled but hadn't been too careful about who they chose to do the controlling. It might even have been another case of responding to style over substance. There's possibly a good discussion to be had there somewhere.


Furthermore I know seven women who are presently looking for relationships and at least four of them are seeking to be controlled. Two of them have expressly verbalised that desire, three have indirectly indicated it by their behaviour and comments and the other two have personalities that would lead me to think they'd like to be controlled to some degree but they haven't otherwise indicated that desire. However I doubt if any of them are reading forums like this one.


Regarding the desire for equality: Most women I know have said they wanted to be loved and appreciated and assisted and to have great sex and romance and cute children. I don't think any of them have ever articulated a desire for equality as such and if we could get to the core of their desires I am not sure we would find a desire for equality there at all. There would however be a desire for respect and recognition, which is a related but somewhat different matter.

"Lastly, no man ever crossed

"Lastly, no man ever crossed a room to meet a woman because of her stellar personality. Of course, you are more than a sex object—your brain and personality kept him from walking away, but it's not what got him into your sphere of action. Think of that the next time you want to beat up a poster for telling the unvarnished truth—in a social setting you are sex object. For cryin' out loud, it's not men that dress up like packages with a ribbon, and y'all still do it regardless of 50 years of feminist nonsense."

I can't speak for anyone else but I hadn't actually seen my husband before we were attracted to each other. We were both sat down on a bench/table thingy and he made a comment loudly enough for me to hear. I added a comment to it and we both laughed. It went from there.

Quite frankly I find your view of women as dressed up as packages with ribbon highly insulting. As for men not dressing up well, you obviously walk around with your eyes closed. Men wear aftershave, gel, fashionable clothes etc. what is that if it's not dressing up.

Just because a woman makes the best of herself and wants to look attractive it is not because she wants to be leered at my sleazy men who view her as an object. It is because she wants to look in the mirror and feel good about herself.

Please pull your head in and stop being such a sexist arse.

The way you talk about women is the way one would discuss a dog at crufts. I am very glad that my husband's view is totally opposite to yours.

Sully

On arrogance, blame and the meeting of minds

I'm very glad that you have such a happy relationship. I fear, however, that it may not last. Why? Because you have not learned from your last failed relationship.

I feel that I can speak with some authority on this subject because I, like you, was the model partner who was abandoned by my unfaithful husband. I was also every bit as arrogant as you in thinking his behaviour to have been 100% at fault. However, despite this initial thinking, I was totally committed to the vows I made when I married him and I was determined to find out if there were some way that I could repair my failed marriage. Initially I thought this would involve getting my husband put right. Perhaps a counsellor would be able to show him the error of his ways. To kick-start the process, I read everything I could lay my hands on but the more I read the less palatable the message became. Despite my fidelity and loyalty, it became apparent that everyone with any deep understanding of how relationships work believed me to have been 50% responsible for the ending of my marriage. My fidelity and loyalty and "model wife" act hadn't been worth a hill of beans because I hadn't listened to or met my husband's needs.

Over the years building up to the failure of my marriage, I was quite sure that I was right in just about everything I thought, said and did. Others didn't think so however. My husband called me arrogant; my lovely, kind, gentle mother called me arrogant. My sisters and even one or two of my best friends told me I was arrogant. I told them all that they were wrong. I told them that I listened to their comments and that I acted on them. But the truth is that I didn't. Now I know the truth. I was an arrogant fool, but a lucky one, because I finally got the message—and in the nick of time to save my marriage and my wonderful family. My husband likes the newer, gentler, more responsive me. He didn't want a new model, he just wanted a wife who would respect him and listen to him. And I guess that's what we all want, male or female, taken in hand or not.

What has this all got to do with you? Well it was your display of a similar arrogance, disregard and downright disrespect for the views of others which set me off. It is not for nothing that a number of women posters have responded so strongly to your writing. It is your arrogance that has prompted their response. In my case it was those arrogant little words "I was a model husband" that got me. For the truth is that you can't have been a model husband—if you had been your wife would never have left you. Maybe you were being what you thought a model husband should be but did you ever stop to find out if you both shared the same model?

This is not to say that I think your ex-wife blameless. Clearly she wasn't. But in any relationship we all carry 50% of the responsibility for the good and for the bad.

I accept that you are now in a wonderful relationship and that you consider yourself to be extremely lucky. And so you are. But I think it would greatly help during the good and bad times ahead if you could develop a little humility and listen carefully to your partner. For now you seem to be meeting her needs and that's great but also apparently entirely fortuitous. It will likely happen that her needs change as you move through life together. Remember then, if things start to unravel, that to be the model partner you must learn about and meet your partner's changing needs. If you can genuinely do that you then you will undoubtedly have a lifetime of true happiness and may even discover that your ex-wife was not so bad after all, perhaps just as misguided as you.

Oh and just for the record I know of at least one man who crossed the room because of the sparkling intelligence of the woman concerned and not for her dazzling good looks. The woman was me, the looks definitely middling, the repartee electric. The man concerned was lovely—a wonderful life-long, enduring love. I remember the sigh he gave one evening after a highly charged and absolutely electric debate; "God, I miss arguing with you". He had moved away and was only back for a very brief visit. If you have ever watched the daft film "Red Sonya", our arguments were like the unending fight between Sonya and Arnie. Two minds absolutely equal but with one partner longing to submit while remaining resolutely determined to be brought to submission rather than surrender voluntarily. Delicious. But based entirely on minds meeting and not bodies. Sadly, since we can only live one life, that relationship is forever frozen in a "who knows what might have happened?" place. But there you go—another small thing you've got wrong.

Re: On arrogance, blame and the meeting of minds

What a beautiful post you have written.

I'm very glad that you have such a happy relationship. I fear, however, that it may not last. Why? Because you have not learned from your last failed relationship.

So true. So many people make that mistake—and go on making the same mistakes in future relationships. Some never see that they themselves may have been at least partly responsible for the problems in their preceding relationships.

The man to whom you are responding says he is not bitter, but his messages positively SPEW vitriolic bitterness. Perhaps one day he will re-read his posts here and see how they come across to other readers. Or perhaps not.

When a person seems very bitter about an ex (and especially if he or she seems bitter about more than one person with whom he/she has had a relationship) and if he/she also seems given to global hatred of a whole group, such as American women, that is a bad sign.

"To the not-so-young lady tha

"To the not-so-young lady that has already squandered her most fertile years, yeah—get going if you intend to have any children."

If my selectivity in choosing a mate means that I don't have children yet, but that I also don't have to put up with a man (piggie) like you for 18+ years...it's worth it.

And didn't the US's population just hit a record high?
I guess I'm NOT causing society's decline.

WOW just WOW

I actually had to go back and re read the original post after all that, as to that I too hope to find a man who can be so fantastic and meet my needs as richly as yours have been. However in response to the ridiculous man who was so silly as to say such OFFENSIVE things, I am 30 with no children—so I guess by your standards I have no chance at happiness, and I should just shoot myself now before I burden society with my barren presence. How dare you say make such a horrible accusation as to say it is my responsibility to have children. I dare say if my only choices for a mate are simple arrogant fools like you I will gladly stay single forever. Thankfully I know not only from reading so many beautiful posts as the one that originated all of this, but from personal friendships that there are men of far greater compassion and caliber than you. So put that in your pipe and smoke it!

~Ambivalence~

We are quite similar... I am

We are quite similar... I am in charge at work—100%—the buck stops with me for my department. I like that power, but it is draining. I don't want that power at home. At home, my husband is in charge. He cares for us all, and in return expects obedience.

In the beginning of our marriage, I wasn't very obedient, but to be honest, he 'spanked' that out of me. Now, for the most part, in our personal life, I allow him to direct my life and I am happy with it.

When I do move towards the line that I should not cross, he gently, but firmly, brings me back and it is a wonderful feeling.