About the site owner
How can I contact you? You can leave a comment below. If you wish your comment not to be displayed, please write at the top of your comment: “PLEASE DO NOT DISPLAY THIS COMMENT. IT IS A MESSAGE FOR THE SITE OWNER.”
Do you write everything on this site? No. Very little of it, in fact. Check the attribution at the end of each article. Look at the long list of contributors.
Do you agree with everything on this site? No. There are many different opinions presented here. With only a few exceptions I post articles on the front page because there is something about them that appeals to me, but I certainly don't agree with everything said in front page articles, let alone those that aren't on the front page. I don't even agree with things I myself have said in the past on this site, so it would be a bit difficult to agree with everything everyone else has said too!
What was your aim in starting this site? I wanted to create a new kind of site – not a standard relationship site on which it is completely taken for granted that to have a good relationship, husband and wife must be equal and seen to be equal (whether they like it or not) – and on the other hand, not a standard traditional site on which it is taken for granted that the wife should submit to her husband – but also not a BDSM / D/s / SM sex site (which all leave me personally completely cold, if not queasy). I wanted my site to be free of the cliquey language, embarrassing rituals and modes of address and the surprisingly narrow thinking one finds on D/s and BDSM sites, and as a non-spanko, I wanted a site that would also not be a DD site. I wanted this to be a site on which no one would be accused of ‘topping from the bottom’ or of being insufficiently submissive. I wanted the site to foster non-stereotypical, evolving, exciting unlabelled relationships in which the spouses do not feel trapped in ill-fitting role boxes. I wanted to provide a forum on which women would feel free to be themselves rather than trying to squeeze themselves into the ‘submissive’ box, and where men would not feel pressure to put on a ridiculous swaggering so-called ‘dominant’ act (at least, I hope it is an act!), and where the ‘more submissive than thou’ types and the self-serving narcissists would be given short shrift. In fact, I rather hoped that the words ‘submissive’ and ‘dominant’ would never appear on the site. And that the site would not be full of posts about spanking or punishment.
I imagined a site on which lovers of books like Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged would have deep philosophical discussions with lovers of Jane Austen's novels, and where men who appreciate Doesn't Anyone Blush Anymore?, by Manis Friedman would happily rub shoulders with women who love books like Helen Andelin's Fascinating Womanhood and Laura Doyle's The Surrendered Wife.
I hoped to create a positive, warm site that would be neither anti-men nor anti-women.
I wanted to create a site that, while being firmly focused on relationships in which the husband wears the trousers in the relationship (because that is my personal preference), was not hostile to other paths.
I wanted the site to be supportive of lifelong, fully committed, sexually exclusive, faithful marriage, by showing that monogamy need not mean monotony but in fact can be much more exciting and sexually fulfilling than less focused (e.g., open or poly) relationships, staying single or having adulterous affairs.
I wanted to create a site that would focus on the joy and psychology of the Taken In Hand relationship, not one that would focus on sex or particular practices. I wanted my site to be one in which private information (such as intimate details about what posters do in the bedroom, or wherever) would remain private rather than appearing on the site. I wanted my site to appeal as much to Orthodox rabbis, conservative Christians and readers' parents or grandparents, as to individuals who might also read obviously racy, graphic sites.
I wanted a site that would take it for granted that different men, and indeed couples, have wildly different preferences in regard to how the control can be manifested in a Taken In Hand relationship, rather than being a site that would be dominated by one preference in this regard.
I hoped that readers would be able to see the beautiful substance beneath the overt form of the Taken In Hand relationship in general, and of individual couples' relationships in particular.
I hoped that people would see this site not as a throwback to darker times when women had no choice and life was hard, but as an expression of the real choice women (at least Western women) now have. I hoped that this site would give women who have, in psychological terms, had no choice but to choose so-called equality, the psychological freedom to choose a Taken In Hand relationship instead of that miserable (for them) so-called equality. And I hoped that this site would, similarly, make men, too, feel more free to embrace their preference for a Taken In Hand relationship. In no way do I want to make anyone feel compelled to change any preference they might have.
Have I achieved my aim? Erm... not yet, not perfectly at least, but nevertheless the site does have its own unique identity, and people seem to be discussing Taken In Hand relationships – and using my chosen phrase, ‘Taken In Hand’ to do so – all over the internet.
Why did you choose the phrase ‘Taken In Hand’? The phrase ‘taken in hand’ is not perfect, in that it is often taken to imply that the women in Taken In Hand relationships are spanked or disciplined or punished, whereas, in fact, many or most are not. DeeMarie, for example, is thoroughly Taken In Hand inclined, but takes a very dim view of the whole spanking/discipline idea. I chose the phrase ‘taken in hand’ because it seems to me to put the focus on the husband's active control of his wife, rather than suggesting the need for the wife to diminish herself or act submissive. It suggests that the man takes charge and actively retains control, as opposed to expecting his wife to obey without any action to bring that about ever being needed.
I specifically wanted to avoid giving the impression that the kind of relationship I am talking about implies a submissive woman. The typical Taken In Hand woman doesn't have a submissive bone in her body, and her take-charge husband positively loves her spiritedness. The typical man in a Taken In Hand relationship derives great pleasure from the fact that he and he alone can, through his own actions and the power of his will, bend his spirited, not-submissive wife to his will. Were the woman already in hand why would there be any need for any taking in hand? So I chose the phrase ‘taken in hand’ because it really does put the focus squarely on the man's active control.
I also like the fact that the phrase suggests interaction, connection, and movement (towards an ever-better relationship).
Are you in this kind of relationship yourself? Yes. As are most of the many other writers on this site.
The Taken In Hand Site Owner and Creator
The Taken In Hand Tour start | next
Have you seen the following articles?
Woman whisperer
How to understand and appreciate a woman
My Review of Laura Doyle's "The Surrendered Wife"
Be patient!
When your love doesn't want to get married
Life with Woman and How to Survive it, by Joseph H. Peck: a review
I was drawn to his old-fashioned ways
I'm so lucky to have found the right man
Hoping for a happy marriage?
Practical hints for men - times of stress
- Login to post comments
Comments
#1 Congratulations on creating a great site!
You have created an intelligent, fascinating site that deals with the subject in an interesting and natural way without being pornographic in the slightest. I appreciate the way the selection of articles respects women as wives and their need to find marital happiness and romance through encouraging their husbands to be strong. Keep up the good work. Wm.
Thomas Bray
#2 Superb Web Site but...
This is a superb Web Site you've created but what is it? You talk about Traditional Relationships, but you say you don't think it's Natural and you're not religious. Is it a DD site? Parts of it look like a Spanko Site. There's a lot of D/s on it, are you D/s? It's confusing because you've said comments against BDSM but the Site could be a TPE one.... except you don't accept the slave/master dynamic. What are you????
#3 What are we?
We are many unique people with different insights and opinions. You've stated you think the website superb so why the need to put the writers here in neat little categories? Each of us is confident in who we are as I suppose you are confident in yourself. I think one of the best things about this site is that it can be so many things for so many people and each can take away what he needs or wants.
Peace,
Daisy
There are two ways of spreading light: to be the candle or the mirror that reflects it.--Edith Wharton
#4 Superb Web Site but.......
Mary Lou Day's comments are interesting and not at all perplexing, in my opinion. This site is about very traditional relationships (like marriage/monogamy), it is not about religion (though it does seem to follow the Judaeo-Christian ethic of love), it is about domestic discipline (who has not, man or woman, mentally or physically disciplined their lover), it is a 'spanko site' (because some of us spank or whip), it is D/s (because some of us use D/s methods), it is BDSM (because, if we are honest, we all love to be tied down and 'taken'), it is TPE (because we all exchange huge amounts of power when we give ourselves to each other)... we all incorporate PART of all these systems (and many, many others) into that great and gorgeous brew we call love - with marriage, partnership, care, freedom, equality, the kids.. everything all gets mixed in.
Clearly I can't speak for the site owner – whether or not he or she is into D/s or heavily into TPE or whatever... but since he or she appears to be a very human being, he or she is, presumably just like the rest of us... taking whatever he or she needs from wherever to be a unique human being... just like the rest of us.