A man who is in control - of himself

I had a marriage in which my husband, the poor man, tried very hard to make me happy. This meant he grew increasingly frustrated as all his attempts to figure out what I wanted and then give it to me made him progressively crazier and more resentful.

When he stood up to me, though, he was so angry he was scary. What I wanted was for him to take charge, without bending over backwards, without getting so angry his face was red, without throwing things. That kind of aggression is not the control Taken In Hand implies; it's abusive.

It's the calm control, over himself and his woman, that makes a Taken In Hand man attractive. Without that self-control, no woman will ever respect any man, I don't care how physically attractive he is, how wealthy, how important. It's the self-control that is deeply impressive. A man who can, calmly and efficiently, do what is required in the moment, to keep potentially stressful interactions from affecting him to the point of irrationality is the man I respect.

I don't need a man to cater to me, pamper me, tell me I'm wonderful all the time, shower me with roses, or lie down like a doormat and let me do anything I want. I do need a man to tell me enough is enough, and we've had quite enough of that. Cheerfully, sometimes. Gruffly other times. Just so you know who is in charge. Because, for me, someone has to be, and I don't want that responsibility. Not in the home, no.


Taken In Hand Tour start | next


Communmication is key

She should communicate to him that this is the kind of relationship she desires. Unless there is substance abuse, a man would only lose control if he felt she was out of control.

New man

The new man in my life has some kind of internal switch that goes on or off and when I do or say something that irritates him, he is able to stop me instantaneously; he turns it into a joke, if it's not terribly serious, or he gives me a look, or uses a certain tone, when I've transgressed. I am a very sensitive person. I do not require a man with brute strength or a brutish mind to 'crush cans' in my presence. I want a gentleman, and I want to behave more like a lady. These are values I was raised with, and I have always believed in them at a deep, core level that my upbringing interfered with. Therefore, to find a man who behaves the way men used to before everyone forgot their manners, is wonderful. Also, I was not raised in the backwoods and do not value physical aggression. A man who can take me in hand with a word or glance is my ideal.

No thanks, not for me

Well, there are all kinds of people interested in Taken In Hand, with all kinds of inclinations. Sometimes I find myself wondering if we have much in common at all. But anyway—no, I don't share this viewpoint much.

What I love and admire and adore in a man more than anything else is his emotional depth and intensity and spontaneity—and especially when it erupts in raw, wild, animal passions of all kinds. I want a man who gets carried away with the fire of his feelings, and who thereby has the power to carry me away too.

If he gets angry—which he will do sometimes, if he's got that fiery intensity—then I want to see and hear and feel that anger as it erupts, not watch him try to strangle and stifle himself into some "calm" and "in control" and utterly boring cardboard cutout of a man. He needs to maintain enough control over his behavior that he doesn't do me any real injury, of course; but that is not the same thing as controlling his emotions. I need a man who feels dangerous, who can arouse my fear and my submission; but whom I can trust to not actually become dangerous.

If he gets so mad that he backs me into a wall and screams in my face and pounds his fist against the wall, then that might well terrify me at the time; but it's not going to do any real physical injury at all, and in the long run that kind of dominance display on his part is the very thing that brings out my submissive bliss and kindles my deepest erotic desire for him. As long as I can trust him not to actually harm me, then I want to see and feel that passion.

"It's the calm control, over himself and his woman, that makes a Taken In Hand man attractive. Without that self-control, no woman will ever respect any man..."

Um, no. Speak for yourself, please; not for all of us. What makes a Taken In Hand man attractive to *me* is the raw intensity of his emotions, and the ways his dragon fire can burn me up in ecstatic rapture, as he conquers me and forces me to surrender to his powerful, predatory, dominating masculine sexuality.

I need to be able to feel the raw, male sexual power and heat of his physical aggression, directed towards conquering and subduing me, claiming me and making me his possession. A man who is "always in calm control of himself" does not have the capacity to ravish his woman senseless and plunge her into the dark heart of Eros.

All this talk of calm self-control and discipline and safety and efficiency and etc. is the kind of thing that bores me to death and tears. (Well, ok, maybe just to sleep.) If I wanted a safe, calm, efficient, well-controlled life, then I would just go and get a lobotomy.

That's not for me. What I want is a life of dionysian ecstasy and passion and romance. I want a fiery, wild, intense and deeply dominant man—one with the power to push me to the very edge, and then send me tumbling over it. Free-falling together, tumbling out of control, into the blissful dark abyss and spinning vortex of fervent erotic love.

Wanted: Meta partner.

I read Pericles article and thought 'brilliant, finally an explanation of taken in hand that makes sense to me—this is what my partner is looking for from me'. Then I read your comment DeeMarie and thought 'Wow, that sounds fabulous. That is what my partner is looking for from me'.

Even though you seem to disagree, there is some commonality: You are both clear on what you want (at least in this snapshot of your lives) and you are both searching for a partner to satisfy that desire.

I believe you are both looking for the same type of partner—one who recognises your needs and is confidently capable of fulfilling them—A sort of 'Meta Partner'. They don't have to be all things to all people, but they need to be all things to you.

The alternative is to find a partner whose character just happens to match the traits you specify in your posts. There are problems with this: the match probably won't be perfect, your needs will change, their character will change, there is no understanding of what part of you pleases the other.

Good luck, especially if you are searching for a male partner. My experience tells me there are very few 'meta males' out there which gives us the following two relationship equations:

Meta Match
low chance of finding one X high chance of successful relationship

Or Character (partial)Match
Higher chance of finding one X lower chance of successful relationship.

Thanks for the insightful posts—you are helping me in my quest to become a meta man.

I want both

I too want the passionate intensity DeeMarie describes and I hate the idea some DD folk enjoy, of the moody, unstable woman who needs a guy to discipline her and keep her stable. That leaves me more than cold—it makes me want to vomit. For me, Taken In Hand is for adults only, not overgrown little girls with mental instability and half a brain cell between them.

But I also like the idea of being with a guy that has self-control like Pericles wants.

Are these necessarily incompatible?


I think they are totally compatible personality traits for my head of the household. Sometimes he is totally cool, calm, and collected. Sometimes he blows his top to let me know I have reached my limit. He seems to know which demeanor I need in a situation. As he has often said, I seem to set the mood for the house. No matter his demeanor, I can rely on the fact that he is always able to handle whatever it is that needs handling.

Passion is all well and good...

but not when your furniture is destroyed, flooring has to be replaced, gouged walls have to be respackled... this gets tedious, all this emotional, home-wrecking 'passion.' You who are asking for fist-pounding into walls passion... have clearly not had to live with it on a daily basis. I wish you good luck finding that particular kind of passion, but I warn you now: have plenty of money to replace what gets destroyed. Twenty years of that brand of 'passion' have worn me down. I am a tired person. I want peace.

Remember: there is passion, then there are rage-aholics. Those are two completely different places to be. Be careful, because they look similar on the surface.

Full-spectrum passion

"Passion is all well and good...but not when your furniture is destroyed, flooring has to be replaced, gouged walls have to be respackled... this gets tedious, all this emotional, home-wrecking 'passion.'"

Like I said, I want a man with the full spectrum of human emotional depth and passion. If the only emotion he ever felt or expressed was anger and rage, then he would not be a very well-balanced person emotionally. But if he never felt or expressed that, then he would be a zombie.

What might be a reasonable frequency to expect that? Human life is too complex to pin it down; it depends on what else is going on then. If he never went a day without flying into a rage, that would be too much. But in times of crisis there might be a few months when he's just overwhelmed emotionally, and it comes out quite often. I would hope that we would be able to endure those periods and get back to the sweet life.

But even when the going is good, there are things that will make us mad sometimes. And anger is not a bad thing; it can be a very positive and powerful motivating force to make things right. (Most social progress movements were born out of righteous anger, for example.) If he happens to go a week or so without getting really angry, I'm not going to complain. (But if I'm feeling the need for some forceful domination on his part, I might be tempted to tweak him just a bit.) However, if he never gets visibly angry for months on end, then I would think he's probably suffering from some kind of emotional illness, such as depression.

And who says that his expressions of rage need to involve breaking the furniture? Maybe he needs a good punching bag; or a set of drums to bang on. How about chopping firewood? Or hammering nails? That can be a good outlet for anger. Or maybe there are things that do need to be torn apart and broken down. When he's angry it might be the perfect time to tackle what's left of that old brick wall in the garden that needs to come down. When the anger is not quite to the rage point, there are a lot of options for channeling it to good use. How about those aluminum cans that are waiting to be recycled? I would find it very sexy to watch him crushing metal cans in his hard fist. Of course, I think the very best use of the force of his anger is to sexually dominate his mate and ravish her senseless. But it's not the only outlet for that kind of energy.

The thing is, there is a very wide gap between the man who is always raging out of control like a wild bull in a china shop, and the emotionally flat cardboard guy who is always in complete, calm control of his emotions. (Or so he imagines. In reality, his subconscious has a mind of its own.) There is not only a whole spectrum of emotional states in between those two extremes, but there are emotional states in lots of other directions as well: fear, sadness, lust, playfulness, enchantment, enthusiasm, and many more. I want a man with a broad and deep emotional capacity, in all directions.

I just really can't see any point to life at all, if you're not going to *feel* it fully while it's here. I think few ideas are more senseless and destructive of our full human potential than the ridiculous idea that men should try not to be too emotional. Stifling your emotions and killing your passions is equivalent to strangling your own life. There is no freedom in that, no power, and no juice; nothing that can light us up and motivate us, make us create, make us strive for more. Our life force, the spark and fire flow that animates and motivates the human spirit, derives from the power of feeling.

Anyone can have a tantrum. I

Anyone can have a tantrum. In fact a good many folk (men and women alike), have not yet outgrown this gratuitous display of their inner disharmony. What makes a tantrum dissimilar to passion is in the expression of the emotion itself. Whether training dogs, children, or shaping a wife, an outward display of anger brings about fear. When fear is present learning is stunted and the effectiveness of the lesson is reduced. When a well thought out consequence is metered, coupled with correct timing and precise rewards, learning occurs and an improvement of behaviour is the end result. Women who find themselves wishing to be frightened are merely seeking the thrill of adrenaline of that moment. Much like paying for a ride in an amusement park—once the ride is over she is left with only a sickening in her stomach. Women wishing to be truly taken in hand will recognize a more subtle force as it reveals an inner strength greater than the one first imagined.

An example of passionate intensity...

that works for me... I was told today, in no uncertain terms, in that way that only some men have mastered: Listen to me. His tone of voice thrilled me, and of course I was already paying complete attention to him, but what he was about to say was very important to him, and he wanted me to understand something that happened to him today that affected him deeply. So I listened to him, and made it completely clear that I take him seriously.

This was one small moment between us. We are both extremely intense people and every moment is spent conveying that. There is nothing remotely 'calm and cool' about any of it. It is all emotion, all the time. For most people that I have known in the course of my life, this level of emotion would be impossible to live with. However, it is not violent, it is not abusive, and we are respectful of one another. Screaming and yelling and throwing punches is not part of that picture for either of us, and it never will be, because when you cross that boundary line, my firm belief is you have lost the precious core of what makes the relationship between men and women so complicated and so sweet.

It is precisely because a man can usually beat a woman to a pulp if he wants to, that that is the one thing he should never, ever threaten, by word, look, or deed. To cross that line... is to abrogate the one rule that, when breached, turns the challenge of the sexes dealing with one another into the war of the sexes it can be, when that thin veneer of civilization is stripped away. There is always implied violence at the core of the man-woman dynamic. That is the unspoken truth that not-so-secretly thrills women about men's dominance and strength. However, the man should never have to prove that. It is implicit in every relationship between every man and woman on the face of the planet, and for that reason, its very commonness is what makes it uninteresting when expressed overtly.

If it is the one thing that binds us together and pushes us apart at the same time, then does it need to be overtly expressed? It's always there anyway. It's how men and women handle that underlying reality that is so interesting, at least, for those of us who have no need to be brutalised or threatened. The threat is always present. Speaking of it... is unnecessary, unless we're analysing it here, where it makes sense and does some good.

In a real relationship, however, how much good does it do for the man to shake his fist at a woman, or blow up in anger, or become physically enraged in response to her behavior? We all know he can. The question is, how effective is that response, over time?

I suggest that over time, that behavior will appear more and more childish, more and more irritating, and more and more objectionable. The woman will grow tired of cleaning up after his excesses, for excesses these are. Passion that seethes under the surface and does not require a balled-up fist to express itself is sexy and appealing and interesting.

Passion that is channelled into raw, explosive anger sounds like what is so appealing about it on the surface: it's a metaphor for the man's orgasm, for the moment when he can no longer hold back, when he must let go. The appeal of that moment is undeniable, but I cannot lie underneath a man forever, waiting for that explosion, any more than I can forever endure a man in the throes of explosive rage. If one wishes for that moment of raw explosion, I fully understand, but call it what it is.

The desire for urgent, raw sex is completely understandable, and how you get there... is none of my business, that's for sure. But if that's what we're really talking about, then let's say that, instead of saying that an out-of-control man is a Taken In Hand man, because I believe it's clear that the consensus is saying he's not.

Dynamic passion and control

"I want both: Are these necessarily incompatible?"

No, of course not. That's a good point to raise. I'm usually a both/and kind of person myself, instead of either/or. I want a man who has a balance of passion and control; but it will be a shifting, moving, dynamic balance—not just some fixed point in between those two extremes.

I would find it quite crazy-making if I were with a man who could not control his behavior when we're out in public, for example. (But, as I've said elsewhere, I don't think you need to control your feelings in order to control your behavior.) But in the privacy of the home, or other places where the passion can flow freely, then I want him to be able to cut loose and express that, and not hold back and stifle himself. He needs to be able to modulate how he expresses his feelings, to fit the context of the moment.

From my view, the man's dominant power in the relationship comes down mainly to his physical strength and his emotional force, the power of his passions. If he keeps strangling his own feelings, then he's cutting himself off from the very source of his male power. (And even though the example I gave was that of anger, I want a man with the full spectrum of emotions, in all their glorious intensity. I could never be with a man who didn't cry at sad movies, for example.) However much I might be attracted by a man's beauty or body or brains, it's his soul that I fall in love with; and his soul comes out in his emotions.

Daniel wrote:

"I believe you are both looking for the same type of partner—one who recognises your needs and is confidently capable of fulfilling them—A sort of 'Meta Partner'. They don't have to be all things to all people, but they need to be all things to you."

Well, no doubt Pericles and I are both looking for a man who is compatible with us and therefore good at filling our needs; but it sounds like she and I have very different kinds of needs. Also, I don't really care for the idea that a Taken In Hand marriage is all about fulfilling the woman's needs; what about the man's needs? I don't want a relationship where I'm perceived as the "needy" one and it's his "job" to take care of me, etc. I think I have a lot to offer to the right man, and it would be nice to feel that he needs me as much as I need him. I like a relationship that's mutually beneficial in that way; even if the balance of power ultimately rests on his side. For example, I want a man who is not only willing to be dominant, but a man who absolutely *needs* to be the dominant partner, and to express his alpha male dominance sexually and in other ways.

I would also like a man who turns to me for advice and wisdom and insight and good counsel, in spiritual matters and in life in general. I definitely don't want a man who imagines that it's his job to be my guru or teacher or guide or mentor or counselor, etc. (Probably one of the reasons why I'm attracted to younger men; they don't try to pull any of those "daddy/daughter" roles that turn me off; and they're more willing to regard an older woman as a fountain of wisdom.)

I mean, we can be there to support and counsel each other mutually, yes; but if he imagines himself as "wiser" and thinks he's going to be my mentor or my "guide" then that will only lead to turmoil, rage and endless blowouts. His dominance rests on his superior male strength, not his wisdom. I think women usually have the edge in intuitive wisdom anyway, it's more of a feminine virtue; and he really needs to respect women's wisdom or there's no hope of a compatible life together.

"Good luck, especially if you are searching for a male partner. My experience tells me there are very few 'meta males' out there..."

So true, sadly. But the good news is, I only need one. (That is your "Meta Match' option.) I like the term "meta male" by the way; it reminds me a bit of Nietzsche's "ubermensch" idea, which got turned into "superman." (Different idea really, but a similar expression anyway.)

Nietzsche. To be a superman r

Nietzsche. To be a superman requires four sets of personalities: Apollonian trait of male, Dionysian trait of female, cold intellect of an old man and incessant curiosity of a child.

Good luck finding him in real life. Especially for a woman who understands Nietzsche.

Calm control does it for me

I find it very sexy when my husband is able to keep control of himself, and also, thereby, of me. We are both very highly strung people who fly off the handle easily, and he has always been worse than I am, so the fact that since the regime change ("the new era of detente"as he refers to it). He does still blow his top sometimes, but though I accept that this is going to happen from time to time, since nobody is perfect, it always shakes me up somewhat, though it doesn't scare me as much as it used to in pre-Taken In Hand days, because I know he will get back on course pretty quickly.

I don't find violent displays of emotion at all appealing, and it is much sexier when my husband is able to keep his temper, than when he loses it. I respond much better to firmness than to bellowing. When he says "we've had quite enough of that" or something similar, it sends a frisson of excitement through me. I find that the firmer he is, the more cheerful I tend to feel, when he is really strict with me I feel positively buoyant.


From a man's perspective

One of the things that many men find frustrating is the seemingly conflicting messages we get from women concerning the types of things being discussed in this thread. It's the whole "nice guy / bad boy" distinction, similar to the "Madonna / whore" message that women get.

From the perspective of most men, there is no contradiction in the "Madonna / whore" message. They simply want a good, kind woman who is carefree and guilt-free in bed. Similarly, women often don't see the contradiction in the "nice guy / bad boy" distinction. They simply want a good man who isn't boring.

Unfortunately, neither side tends to phrase these things in ways that make sense to the other side. Some of this comes from unfortunate choices in phrasing. For example, most men I know are very confused about why being a "nice guy" is suddenly a bad thing. The use of "nice" as a synonym for "doormat" makes little sense. What it does do is lead men to believe that women want arrogant, emotionally abusive partners, which is reinforced when they encounter women who don't understand the distinction between confidence and arrogance, dominant and domineering, etc.

On the other side of things, a lot of women tend to be confused by men's use of the word "slut" when they refer to desirable qualities in a partner. For a lot of people, "slut" has very negative connotations. Men have are misusing the term, just as women misuse "nice." What most men mean when they say that is that they want a woman without a lot of sexual hangups.

Getting back to the original post and all the comments following it, the two opposing viewpoints don't necessarily need to be contradictory. A man can have calm control over himself in general, but still be able to display his passion when appropriate ("appropriate" being the key word).

I tend to be a very calm person, with a tremendous amount of self-control. Part of that comes naturally with my personality, and part of it was learned from necessity, when I was very young. I am incredibly slow to anger, and when I do get angry, it is rarely a red-faced yelling type of thing. I don't push down my emotions—I simply don't display them in a stereotypical drunk-in-a-bar way, because that isn't my natural form of expression.

That doesn't mean that I'm incapable of blowing up and even getting violent. Seeing someone abuse animals, children, the elderly, and other relatively helpless living things would make me violent. I was raised to believe that violence is only acceptable in moments of self-defense or defense of another (a wife, for example), and I firmly believe that.

Some acts that might be seen as violent—spanking, for example—fall outside of that general rule, because there is the mitigating factor of mutual consent.

Explosive anger and violence are probably not the thing that most Taken In Hand women (or women in general) find attractive in a partner. If a man has no control over himself, it would be hard to imagine that he could do a good job of the type of control inherent in a Taken In Hand relationship. I suspect that what many are really referring to is a man's ability to display passion on occasion and show that his self-control does not indicate a lack of emotion.

In my case, my strong self-control and general calmness definitely don't indicate a lack of emotion. I do display passion in more outwardly obvious ways, in particular circumstances (the bedroom, for example). I do not, however, allow my emotions to override my good judgment, as a general rule. To do so would be detrimental to me and to my partner.

- Jesse

Breaking Through

Explosive anger in the presence of a woman is much like a hammer smashing a walnut. While breaking the shell, it also damages the desirable food inside.

*Taken in Hand* is more like a nutcracker in that it breaks through a woman's self-protective shell—allowing the man to peel it away the hard exterior and expose the beauty of the inner woman.

Natural emotional authenticity / an individual thing

Noone wrote:

"Explosive anger in the presence of a woman is much like a hammer smashing a walnut. While breaking the shell, it also damages the desirable food inside."

Well, I'm glad that I'm not so delicate and easily damaged as all that. Not psychologically anyway. But I do enjoy feeling physically fragile compared to a man; and that's what's so exciting to me in feeling his strength and his anger, that edge of danger that brings me to a submissive swoon. So I don't relate much to your analogy here; except maybe the part about being a nut. :-)

Jesse wrote:

"One of the things that many men find frustrating is the seemingly conflicting messages we get from women concerning the types of things being discussed in this thread. It's the whole "nice guy / bad boy" distinction, similar to the "Madonna / whore" message that women get."

What you're describing is what I call the "wuss/jerk" dichotomy. Many men seem to imagine their only choice is between being sensitive, considerate doormats who are unworthy of respect, versus being insensitive stupid louts who are unworthy of love. But no, there are many other directions and role models to choose from; such as the hero, who is both a paragon of masculine strength and willpower, as well as having a genuinely good and noble heart.

But even bright sun gods and solar heroes can get boring if there's no reprieve. How about a dark byronic hero—one with a darker and more mysterious side, living on the margins of society, and whose values might be very different from those of the culture he finds himself in. Batman might fit that mystique; or V for Vendetta. How about a bit of mad genius in there too; and a bit of mischief, a trickster or a rascal? The best men are full-spectrum, multidimensional beings, or at least they should be. Speaking just for myself, I want it all; all the adorable and exciting stuff wrapped up in one.

This question that men seem to make so much more difficult than it should be—"What do women really want...?—has an easy answer, I would think: We all want something different. That explains the gap in preferences between Pericles and me. There is not just one way to have a Taken In Hand relationship, but many ways.

However, I think you will find very few good women who would not mind being called "slut" or other horrible names, like the one that rhymes with "blunt." Words like that don't indicate a healthy sexual desire, they imply a lack of deeper feelings. It connotes someone who regards sex as something tawdry and cheap, instead of something sacred and precious. There are words that are much sexier, which are also cute and sweet and feminine and coy and modest; like "vixen" or "kitten" or "pet." Or if you really get off on thinking of your woman as a prostitute (!?!) there are even better words for that, like "hussy" and "trollop." Just about anything is better than "slut." It seems to connote sexual aggressiveness, which is not feminine at all.

Pericles wrote:

"I want a gentleman, and I want to behave more like a lady. These are values I was raised with... Therefore, to find a man who behaves the way men used to before everyone forgot their manners, is wonderful. Also, I was not raised in the backwoods and do not value physical aggression.

Well, I wasn't raised in the backwoods either, but I sure wouldn't mind living there. Especially if it would make it easier to go romping naked through the woods, dancing and drumming in the night, leaping over bonfires and howling at the moon, dizzy on music and sweet red wine, ecstatic and intoxicated with the divine presence of the Gods.

See, I have a strong set of values, too—but they're not just the ones that my family or society spoon-fed me. I never just accepted the values of our culture without questioning them. Rather, I honor the strong *pagan* values that I came to hold dear as the result of a lifelong quest for meaning and purpose in life. Ethics is a big part of that, and even manners. But to my heathen soul, nothing is more holy than Nature Itself. And to be true to one's deepest feelings—to follow one's heart fully and with integrity—is to be in tune with one's own inner nature, and living a life of purpose and spiritual depth.

To stifle our passions and strangle our wildness would be to deny and betray the Gods, our own spirits, and Nature Itself. That would be like a living death; because life derives from Nature and cannot be separated from It. But diversity is an essential feature of Nature, too; so it does not really surprise me too much that we all have different needs, and different levels of emotional intensity that we feel enlivened by.

Female Sexual Aggressiveness

This is my very first post to this delicious, delightful site.

Dee Marie, as always your articles are well thought out and expressed, and profoundly, poetically moving. It is clear you are a woman of much heart and great depth. As another woman, however, I have questions in regards to just a few of your words..."Just about anything is better than "slut." It seems to connote sexual aggressiveness, which is not feminine at all."

Since when is sexual aggressiveness not feminine? Since when does the word "slut," take on only negative connotation? It can mean one thing to one person and entirely another to another. It is all in the heart and mind of the beholder and receiver. Once upon a time, when I was still a young, dumb, shut down, repressed and confused female (and I do not mean to imply that you are or were), I too, was deeply offended by the word "slut," as I had never seen or known of it in a positive light. However, that was before my heart and sexuality blossomed, which got me in touch with my divine inner slut and the desire not only to be ravished by a man, but to ravish him. No doubt they are much better ravishers (those magnificent beasts), but I think it can be a good thing, from time to time. Experiences, balance, mood, energies, etc., being what they are, are never static. We are all in a state of flux and growth from the moment we check in till we check out (and then, maybe, even some). I am different now from what and who I was then. Perhaps later I will be different from who and what I am now, and will agree more with you on this point, then. Regardless, you should know are a brilliant treasure and I cannot tell you how much pleasure I receive from your words and wisdom.