Don't forget your whip

Unless there is some mitigating circumstance, women generally feel more comfortable with a man who will take charge. It is not a man's tyranny that hurts woman so much as his indifference. It is widespread, even epidemic, apathy and indifference that may be ripping into women's health today.

Nature abhors a vacuum. Yet, when women try to fill the vacuum created by a weak man, all sorts of problems emerge.

I tell men that, if they really are serious about wanting to spend the rest of their life with a woman, it perfectly normal to want to turn her over their knee at some point—and, if they want to live in relative peace with the woman, they had better act on their desire at some point.

A woman knows that the pain visited on her bottom is meaningful only if the man does it because he loves her. Otherwise, she will build a stone wall around her emotions. That is why I recommend that men turn women over their knee early in the relationship—before they get surprised.

For one thing, it gets the “he hit me” out of the way in a sane and safe fashion. It also sends a signal that, whatever professors told her in women's studies, she can be spanked and getting spanked is not a traumatizing experience that will ruin the rest of her life.

If the man is thorough in his task, he gets to see what a real witch the love of his life can be—and it gets that out of the way as well. Once all the unpleasantness is dispensed with, they can get down to the real job of building a relationship.

I agree with Friedrich Nietzsche.* Whether he uses it or not, women do need to know that the man has a whip. And sometimes, it is necessary to get beyond the polite and tasteful, and into the rape aspect of discipline.

For some women, it might begin with a woman threatening a man with a call to the police if he lays a hand on her. The battle royal might start when he physically hauls her into the bedroom. (The “Put me down this instant!” demand.)

Other women might go along with an unwanted spanking until it really begins to hurt—as when her husband transgresses from laying it on her bottom to thrashing the back of her thighs. Still another woman may suspect or know that her loss of composure is going to be overheard by others.

It does not matter at what point the resistance occurs. Even the reason does not matter much. It might be that she has told him that she will not tolerate a belt being used on her. Or it might be being turned over his knee like a child—so she cannot easily tighten her buns and which causes abdominal distress—that sets her off.

It might be that she is so frustrated about so many things over which she does not have any real control that she believes that her normally loving husband has turned into an unreasonable tyrant.

The particulars are not nearly as important as the predictable explosion. Figuratively speaking, her curses may blister the wallpaper! She may call her husband names that would shock her mother. She may throw a temper tantrum that would positively astound a spoiled-rotten two-year-old.

When it happens, no matter what form it takes, the man simply gets the woman beyond it. In the end, both know that he is in control—not her. This is the shrew tamed.

Men who can take control bring healing power to a woman's mind. A woman is not likely to engage in fantasy when she is with a strong man. Nor, from my observations, is she as likely to seek escape in novels or mind-altering substances.

Much the same methods that are used to tame a shrew can also be used to create a prostitute or a slave. The difference is in the words the man uses when the woman is at her most vulnerable. For good or for evil, given time, the woman eventually becomes what the man makes her.

The man who takes control of a woman does just that. When it comes time to smack a woman's bottom he chooses the time, place, position, instrument, rhythm, duration, and the like. By doing so, he creates a contradiction in that, while very little he does at the moment pleases her, everything he does is for her. In the end, both he and she must understand that he is in control. The ritual is a contest of wills in which he wins without doing her any permanent damage, and she respects him as a result.

For the man, it is a time-consuming endeavor—much like taking a second job, pursuing an demanding career, or catering to an expensive mistress—that turns a willful woman into an willing wife. That is why, for many men, it is easier to find another than to make the commitment that a woman really needs.

The man's effect on the woman will be like the cycles of malaria's chills and fever. Whether he caresses her lips or blisters her bottom, he will have her undivided attention. More importantly, she will have his. Her groans of erotic ecstasy will blur with her cries of fiery pain until even she will not be able to sort them out in her mind. They are all one in her mind.

That is why I believe that, when it comes time to face the music, many women prefer nudity. She knows whatever the man does, it will be because he loves her and she wants absolutely nothing to stand in the way of that experience! It is where sin and sensuality mingles with pain and penance to produce love and respect.

While I have little or no inclination to withhold a well-deserved spanking as punishment, I do believe that customary punishment should be administered at the man's discretion and should be little affected by the woman's machinations. In other words, she should not be allowed to dictate the time and place any more than to interfere with meddlesome hands or verbal combativeness.

In a curious way, the phallus and the rod (stick, cane, paddle, etc.) are much the same. Both are controlled by the man and are used on the woman. Both can bring a woman into subjection. The phallus with a child. The rod by denying her composure. Both deny the woman control over her life—which, of course, is why feminists object to women being subjected to either.

Footnotes

* “You go to a woman? Do not forget your whip.” Nietzsche: Thus Spake Zarathustra (XVIII: Old and Young Women)

Noone

Taken In Hand Tour start | next

Comments

A bookworm turns...

Noone wrote:

A woman is not likely to engage in fantasy when she is with a strong man. Nor, from my observations, is she as likely to seek escape in novels or mind-altering substances.

The only reason I go through phases of not reading much is out of deference to my over-loaded bookshelves and the bank balance. I am a voracious reader—I always have at least one book on the go, quite often 3 or 4. I prefer to read than to watch TV.

B is a strong man, definitely head of the household, and has spanked me on more occasions than I can remember. I do not want—or need—to escape him. But when I read to escape, I read to escape certain aspects of my life, to immerse myself, however briefly, in someone else's imagined reality. I still engage in fantasy too—although the sexual ones revolve around B, and if I fantasise with any clarity, then it gets shared with B. But those fantasies can be pretty vague—centring around sensation more than anything ;-) But I indulge in other fantasies, in day-dreams, in making up stories to tell myself, in conducting debates in my head with people I know only through reading their words.

However, I do not read (or fantasize) as a substitute for life—and I suspect this is what Noone means. I know enough people who read fluffy pink romance novels, or watch their equivalent on TV or at the cinema, and complain that their life doesn't measure up to these "ideals" without actually doing anything about it. And the more they take refuge in this world, the worse their own seems by comparison, so the more they withdraw. Their partner is either blissfully unaware anything is wrong and carries on as normal, or feels something is wrong—but believes the other to be happy, so carries on as normal...

With a strong partner, the withdrawal possibly would never have happened, or would be nipped in the bud if it started. F'r example, there are times I feel that all I want to do is just crawl into my shell and pretend the world doesn't exist. On almost every occasion, that isn't what is best for me, and B has slowly learnt he can force me into doing something, and that whilst I may complain bitterly at the start, by the end of the day I'll have thoroughly enjoyed myself. (It's an entirely different matter if in between the protestations of wanting to be left alone I'm chanting a mantra consisting solely of the name of the medication I take for migraines).

As for mind altering substances, does chocolate count? ;-) B has on a couple of occasions accused me of coming close to orgasm by eating an especially good chocolate...

Books & mind altering substances

1) I agree with Confused about books: I can't live without them, but they are not a substitute for living.

2) Yes, chocolate is DEFINITELY a mind altering substance!

3) Noone's article turned me on, and it wouldn't have done that if I thought consent was not involved.

Consent

I noticed a good portion of the articles posted get blasted at some time or another for not throughly including consent, and an explaination of consent, even though at times it's clearly implied.

Maybe there could be an automated notation at the bottom of each original article explaining that all of the above should only be done with consent, whether it is consent each time w/ a safe word, or consentual non-consent, the list goes on.

I can't for the life of me understand how this could be confused on a website that clearly promotes monogamous, long-term consentual relationships? Or am I missing something?

If it needs to be said each and every time, with each and every article, the disclaimer should be written out and posted up somewhere so when an article is written, it can be easily copied and pasted.



Bound

Interesting, though difficult article - Advanced stuff!

Interesting article. For me, the article implies two major things

First, that either the man is in control and he ignores any figurative lines in the sand or he is not. Once consent is given, that consent is total from the woman's point of view and the man needs to know that and act on it. It is an expression of love and faith by the woman to her partner. Once consent is given, any tantrums that occur on the way to punishment (or whatever) are ignored by the stronger partner. This is what the woman wants, and this is part of why she chose this man and not a man less able to give her the control she seeks. For a woman who wants this level of control, it is very satisfying to be with a man who takes this seriously. Women I have been with have described feeling peaceful after having been given the thrashing of their life. To give them that peace does sometimes mean going beyond a little pat on the rear, despite any kicking or screaming at the time. But I think you'll find some readers will find this a difficult concept to understand. The key point is that this is about what the woman wants, not something a man should impose—that would be abuse.

Second, something that I think the article does not bring out but implies—any relationship such as this will inevitably have a strong impact on BOTH partners. To me, this is not emphasised enough—the woman may change her behavior to what they both agree is a better basis for the relationship to succeed (i.e. less need to take her in hand), but the man will inevitably change HIS actions as well, as he takes on the role of guardian and watch-keeper....

As I said—interesting article for Taken In Hand fans, though it's definitely in the "Advanced" category!

Stay well all,

Random

Thankyou for this profound post

As a submissive woman whose husband's not wired for this type of dominance I know where you're coming from. I wish my dh felt as you do, so many times I've wanted my dh to do what youre telling men to do & forget the niceynicey and GET SERIOUS but he can't see it & I've come to see that although he calls himself a Dom he has no interest in being in control apart from in the bedroom and even there it's a different type of control than you're describing. I'm going to show him youre post & hope it will help him get what I've been telling him..........

Not all women want this

When you say 'women generally feel more comfortable with a man who will take charge' this may be true of a lot of women, but certainly not all. I imagine a lot of women do not want a man who will turn them over his knee: try it with the wrong sort of woman, and you'll end up getting kicked in the nuts. As for Nietzsche, he was a nasty little fascist who loathed and despised women. I wouldn't take his opinion as gospel. It's dangerous to generalise from your own experiences, you may enjoy being dominant with women, but clearly a lot of men do not (there are recent postings from women on this site about this very subject). Likewise, it is equally clear to me that a lot of women don't want a dominant man, as I've said, look at the number who are keen on Hugh Grant.

Not all women want this, but some do!

We agree: not all women want this, and my advice to a man would be to be quite careful to find one who does (if that is what he wants, of course) rather than one who does not. It is clear that there are plenty of women out there who positively long for a man like Noone, so why waste time with one who would not appreciate this control?! Many Taken In Hand readers want to be tamed, overpowered, brought to submission, controlled, led, and want to be with a take-charge man. Many women experience some considerable stress in the absence of what Noone is suggesting, and I think he is absolutely right that for these women, a man's control is very soothing.

All women want this-Maybe not-but I do!

Not all women are wired to desire a strong take-charge man. But many are. As for me, since my husband became master of the home, I am so much happier. My bottom may be sore quite a bit of the time, but I no longer have a sulking, or angry husband and I am no longer a frustrated wife. I get disciplined for disobedience or disrespect and I have agreed that it is his right to discipline me as he see fit. When I am disciplined, it makes me want to obey and respect even more. I see him as powerful and masterful and I adore that! It is so sexually arousing to be taken in hand by a strong powerful husband. After a hard spanking I am excited and ready for sex. My husband controls when we have sex now, even that makes me more turned on for him! He is my very exciting brute of a husband and I wouldn't have it any other way.

Bowling for Andrea Dworkin

Wow, that was... utterly chilling (particularly the part about the phallus being "used on the woman" to bring her to subjection and take control of her life.. and I thought that was just a man-hater's fantasy of how men think).

This is an argument for assault and rape—and not the emotionally-satisfying, fantasy-fulfilling kind of forceful sex written about here.

Why? Because in the moral world of this argument there's absolutely no need for the trifling matter of consent .

After all, all women are submissive by nature, and all respond to severe corporal punishment, ultimately, with love and gratitude.

Really? Are you absolutely sure? From where did you get this universal wisdom? And what if you're wrong? What if your loving female partner responds to an unwanted physical assault by pressing charges, leaving you or simply knocking your teeth out (or calling on her big protective male friends to do the job for her)? Would she be wrong if she decided to meet violence with violence? And if so, why?

Because it's man's God-given right to dominate his mate? Because secretly all women need to be dominated, whether they admit it or not? Because your love for her is bound to shine through the pain you inflict on her against her will?

Without consent, lovemaking becomes rape, spanking becomes physical assault and discipline becomes abuse. Now, maybe you'll get lucky and use severe corporal punishment on your loved one and win her heart and maybe that's what's happened in your relationship with your wife. But maybe you won't get lucky. Because if you decide to take that leap and you're wrong, then God only help you...

It's consent and not intent that makes the difference. If you, with all the love in the world, punch your partner in the face and knock her to the ground, you're guilty of assault. If you, with the very best intentions in the world, take your partner against her will, you're a rapist. And if you, without consent, decide to take control of your partner's life in a direct and physical way, based on your superior knowledge and masculine intuition, then you, my friend, deserve everything that you get.

This article speaks to me

Hi Max! I was interested to read your comments, because whilst I heartily agree with you about the importance of consent, I do not personally see Noone's article as advocating anything really non-consensual, and indeed, the bit you found particularly chilling, I find highly erotic! Noone's article really speaks to me, so evidently you and I are interpreting it in very different ways.

As I said, I strongly agree with you about the importance of consent, so let me go through the article and give you my own take on it.

For every man willing to take control and use discipline with a woman, there are hundreds of women wanting that. Look at any of the DD lists and this will be obvious. On those lists, and on this web site, it is women who are crying out for men like you, KrosRogue, Frank and Noone. On these lists and web sites, you rarely if ever see a man posting that he has been seeking this sort of relationship for X years and has never found a suitable woman, but you often see women saying that.

So I do not agree that this article is advocating giving women something they don't want: I think it is advocating giving them something they want very much—so much that, as Noone points out, it can be dangerous for the woman if she is not very careful to check that she is with a good man rather than a bad one. As Noone has said so wisely, women would be well advised to notice how a man treats her when she is vulnerable, and they should see red flags if a man puts them down at such times.

Moving on to the main substance of the piece:

It is quite common to find people who think that OTK discipline is erotic; it is also quite common to find people who think that there is nothing erotic about it and that it should not have any erotic element (Ramileous, for example). But Noone is one of the few writers I have found who understands the significance of the erotic response and does not seem to think that if a woman finds the whole idea erotic, she is not taking it seriously enough or it is all just a game and not real. He also understands that if it is real, that doesn't mean it can't seem erotic:

Her groans of erotic ecstasy will blur with her cries of fiery pain until even she will not be able to sort them out in her mind. They are all one in her mind.

Women with a preference for being with a take-charge man may well not have any interest in being spanked per se—or indeed in discipline per se. But they might well respond sexually to the real control Noone is talking about. For those women, there is nothing misogynistic, Fascistic, or in any way chilling about this piece.

Until I read Noone's comments explaining what he means by “the rape aspect of discipline” (another idea I find erotic!) I had been thinking that I have no interest in being spanked, and that I'd particularly hate being put over a man's knee and handspanked. Until I read his comments, I thought that that sounded humiliating and infantalising, and the idea of being a little girl put over daddy's knee does nothing for me at all. I think of myself as a powerful woman, not a little girl. But when I read this piece, I suddenly stopped finding the OTK idea off-putting. But I am no more attracted to the little girl idea now than I was before, so it must be the control implied by Noone's comments that appeals to me. And I know that this is true for many other Taken In Hand readers too. And, hey, any article that can make me want something I have never remotely been able to see the appeal of before must be quite something! :-)

Beautiful, Noone!

This is not the first time I've felt sexually aroused by one of your articles—what you say speaks to my erotic soul. I love how you just leave out all explanations of "consensual nonconsent." After all, haven't we already analyzed consensual nonconsent in excruciating detail? Why would we include such analysis in every article, especially when it would take away from the feeling of the piece?

Just a word about reading, eating, drinking, etc., as an escape from an unsatisfying relationship: it's the need to escape from your relationship frequently that indicates an unhealthy relationship or at least an unsatisfied need. I don't think Noone is implying that there's anything wrong with reading novels per se, especially if they're good literature. There's nothing wrong with a little "escape" now and then, if you love the reality that you come back to.

Melanie

Life's luggage

It's interesting with this article (as with many others) to read the varied replies, and how the luggage we each of us pick up as we go through life colours our replies. Especially with an article like this where some aspects are implied (or not, depending on how it's read).

Noone's words spoke of consensual nonconsent to me. In particular this bit (italics mine)

A woman knows that the pain visited on her bottom is meaningful only if the man does it because he loves her. Otherwise, she will build a stonewall around her emotions.

. She knows it's meaningful because she knows he's doing it because he loves her. There has to be some dialogue for that knowledge to be available to her. If she even for a minute doubts his reasons, she'll clam up on him. And that knowledge certainly couldn't be gained through some creepy scene with a pyschopath beating her up whilst crooning "I'm only doing it because I love you".

I am a grown woman—I don't need B (or anyone else, for that matter) to teach me right from wrong by the use of physical discipline. However, B having control over me (taking control away from me?) is a very effective means of stopping negative/destructive behaviour. It's also both non-arousing and arousing at the same time. I may not want the spanking, and so am not aroused by the thought of it, but B's control is arousing, and so I get aroused despite myself. Not always though—there are times I just appreciate it as a means of stopping a situation spiralling out of control and returning me to myself. It's not something I've ever found infantalising—partly because I am not being treated as a naughty child, and partly, I suspect, because I never was given an OTK spanking as a child—a few slappings, yes, but not what I'd term a spanking. And, of course, because I've agreed to it (consensual non-consent again...)

Reply Concerning Nietzsche's Whip

It's a lovely idea, really, but I'm afraid you've got it backwards this time. Nietzsche's whip was wielded by Lou Salome, the femme fatale with whom both he and his friend Paul Ree were infatuated. There's a photo they had taken of them demonstrating their own "take" on this posted at http://uno.edu/~asoble/pages/SALOME.HTM

[Editor's note: the above link did not work for me, but here is the picture I think you are referring to:]

Feminism gave women a choice

In a curious way, the phallus and the rod (stick, cane, paddle, etc.) are much the same. Both are controlled by the man and are used on the woman. Both can bring a woman into subjection. The phallus with a child. The rod by denying her composure. Both deny the woman control over her life—which, of course, is why feminists object to women being subjected to either.

I don't know which feminists you are talking about here because both my husband and I are feminists, he more than me. We have no objections about to women being subjected to discipline.

Obviously no one movement has a single cohesive doctrine one way or the other. As long as there are two people in a movement, religion, philosophy, or political party, there are likely to be two interpretations of what it is about. Binary thinking in the form you express it is falsely divisive and always erroneous.

OTOH why would any loving man want to deny a woman control over her life? Can he guarantee he is going to outlive her so that she will never know the trauma of being widowed and left unable to think and function independently? That's not much of a legacy of love IMO.

The greatest gift of feminism to women and their partners was that of choice. Which means that a true feminist respects the choice of another woman to submit to her husband, if she has a husband worthy of the trust implied therein. It also means if a woman does not choose to submit to a Taken In Hand relationship, a feminist (read: believer in egalitarian principles) respects that choice as well.

I think the world can only be a better place when we tolerate each other's POV, whether it's the dominant male-submissive female dynamic, or something altogether different. Being intolerant and trying to narrow other people's choices has been practised on most of this planet, since man first stood upright, with predictable results.

Maddy

Me and Feminism

With me, feminist feelings come and go a bit. It all depends on how I feel about what i've read at the time. Like the feeling of submission, which with me tends to come and go a bit (though these days I seem to feel submissive a lot more of the time than I did).

Please assume consent

OTOH why would any loving man want to deny a woman control over her life?

Because she wants that, obviously!

When it is something that does not appeal to you (i.e., one, the general reader), your natural reaction is to find it appalling and to assume non-consent. Whereas when it is something you yourself want, then the answer seems obvious, and you can't understand what all the fuss is about. (And I'd be the first to admit that I have made this mistake in the past, myself!)

The very thing that bothers Maddy and others makes this article feel freeing to me! Given that (as you can see from the volumes written on consent on this site) the vast majority of Taken In Hand readers passionately agree that consent is vital, that suggests that we are reading this article with different assumptions. I am assuming consent. And if one makes that assumtion, it is not only not necessary to state it (or not every time, in every article!), it becomes a drag to have to state it every time.

For me, Noone's piece would have lost something if he had mentioned consent. So I personally think it would be nice if everyone would assume consent when reading articles on this site.

he mentioned that the woman w

He mentioned that the woman would resist by physical struggle, calling him names, and calling the cops...

I'm no expert on role-play, but I don't think that threatening to call the cops would be included in typical role-play...=...I think that means that she doesn't want it to happen.

Consent revisited

I don't think, when you are dealing with contentious issues of one person giving another the right to administer corporal punishment, that the issue of consent can ever be over-emphasized. I think it is something that we should never lose sight of.

Maddy

Different ways of not having control

Maddy asked:

So is this the general take on a Taken In Hand relationship? That women give up all control?

No, no, no! Only if they want to. And anyway, I don't think it is giving up control at a fundamental level, because she is choosing this man and this style of relationship instead of some other. It is not the same kind of lack of control that a person in prison has, or a child has, or a battered wife has. She still has a real choice. (See also, this article.)

My argument is not that you should feel the same way I do, merely that it is a mistake to leap to dark conclusions about something that does not appeal to you.

When I read stuff that makes my hair stand on end, these days I try to step back and assume that there is something I do not understand, instead of jumping to the conclusion that what is being discussed is bad, unhealthy, non-consensual, etc.

Different ways of not having control

If a woman is freely choosing a Taken In Hand relationship, I don't think it is giving up control at a fundamental level, because she is choosing this man and this style of relationship instead of some other. It is not the same kind of lack of control that a person in prison has, or a child has, or a battered wife has. She still has a real choice. This is important! (See also, this article.)

My argument is not that you should feel the same way I do, merely that it is a mistake to leap to dark conclusions about something that doesn't appeal to you.

When I read stuff that makes my hair stand on end, these days I try to step back and assume that there is something I do not understand, instead of jumping to the conclusion that what is being discussed is bad, unhealthy, non-consensual, etc.

Consent is everything

Personally, I think Ms Dworkin is a despicable human being (deeply damaged to be sure, but she chooses to write, so that would make her responsible). She's the kind of "feminist" misogynists love and quotes like "the phallus and the rod (stick, cane, paddle, etc.) are much the same, [b]oth are controlled by the man and are used on the woman, [b]oth can bring a woman into subjection," sound like vintage Dworkin to me...

As for me, I'm a staunch Libertarian when it comes to issues of sexual relations and I take pride and pleasure in being able to get under the skin of both the traditionalist Right and the PC Left. I believe that there is nothing more precious to us than our freedom to live our lives as we wish to: that's why I believe in gay marriage and "traditional" male dominant relationships. Why? Because those are choices people are free to make, and all consenting adults should be able to form the kind of relationship they wish to with no interference from the church, government or anyone else at all. But, yes, consent is everything and if you try to bring someone else into the kind of relationship you believe is right and proper without first discussing it with them, then... Well, as I say, you may get lucky, fulfill their wildest fantasies, push their deepest emotional buttons and win their eternal affection, or you may end up in a world of physical, emotional and legal hurt.

Make the consent more explicit please

I completely understand what you're saying about non-consensual consent / blanket consent etc. and I know that that is what people here believe in. I was very impressed by the article When rape is a gift—it disturbed me but I didn't feel offended or angered, because the author of that piece did discuss consent and fantasy and she made it clear that these were her feelings, not those of universal womanhood. But there would be a big difference between that article and one which was written without any concept of consent or desire on the part of the woman, but implied that this is secretly what all women want...

As for consent being implicit because this is an article on this site, and how it is obvious that people on this site obviously do believe in consent, again, I understand, but respectfully disagree. Perhaps if there were a disclaimer or a mission statement posted here that might be a good idea, but reading and re-reading the article I didn't see anything in it that implied consent of any kind and a lot that implied that this really is what all women want and need (whether they know it or not). Did I misread that?

When you say that you find this idea of male control erotic that makes perfect sense to me, just as it would make perfect sense if you found the idea deplorable. It's your absolute right as a consenting adult to pursue your desires (not to mention life, liberty and happiness). And of course what you desire long-term (happiness and security) will at times conflict what you desire in the short-term (freedom from pain and discomfort)—this is no different than deciding to take up a fitness regime with a trainer that may involve a great deal of short-term discomfort.

But that long-term, deep-down decision to consent to what the relationship or the exercise program may involve is all important and never to be taken for granted. And it's important at every step of the way.

Disgusting

I felt sick to the stomach reading this article.

I am a submissive wife in a DD relationship, but this doesn't mean that I have given up equality with my husband, or control over my life. What this writer is advocating is not a return to the Dark Ages, but to the time of cave-dwellers!

Where is the love, the care, the communication and all those other aspects of DD that make such a relationship fulfilling? How can a man and a woman possibly relate to each other without consent?

This is SICK.

I am disgusted that the management of this site saw fit to publish this piece of $%*!

Nina

Love, care, consent, communication

Nina wrote:

Where is the love, the care, the communication and all those other aspects of DD that make such a relationship fulfilling? How can a man and a woman possibly relate to each other without consent?

This is SICK.

I am disgusted that the management of this site saw fit to publish this piece of $%*!

To me, there is nothing in Noone's article that implies any lack of these things. Evidently not everyone agrees. But then, most people react this way to the idea of “wifebeating”, as a friend of mine rather sweepingly referred to any kind of spanking.

Thorough in his task

Clearly reactions to Noone's opus is going to claim nearly as much of Taken In Hand's bandwidth as reactions to When rape is a gift. So far the cries of outrage (from men and women) seem to be outweighed by the cries of delight (from women). Take my word for it, some of us guys got a kick out of reading it, too. Not as much as any woman could, obviously: the male role in this scenario carries the responsibility of the driver, while the woman's role is to enjoy the ride. But still, it's fun to imagine oneself licensed to be ruthless, and getting one's money's worth.

I certainly am not saying that Noone's piece is fantasy. On the contrary, I believe him when he tells us that his long and happy marriage is based on this sort of relationship. And I believe he's telling the plain truth about what happens when a woman gives her consent to being taken in hand, and finds herself on the roller-coaster, the ride totally out of her control.

What grates a bit is that there's no sense in this piece that the man is enjoying a gift given him by the woman. If Noone's wife withdraws her joyful consent, he will be helpless, since he's not a criminal but a decent man. There's no sense in this piece of gratitude that she doesn't do that. Perhaps Noone thought a note of humility would spoil the me-Tarzan tone.

Theo

Who's Getting the Gift?

What grates a bit is that there's no sense in this piece that the man is enjoying a gift given him by the woman. If Noone's wife withdraws her joyful consent, he will be helpless, since he's not a criminal but a decent man. There's no sense in this piece of gratitude that she doesn't do that. Perhaps Noone thought a note of humility would spoil the me-Tarzan tone.

Maybe his wife's the one that feels he's giving HER a gift. Maybe gratitude would feel more like a burden than a plus. Is humility always a virtue or can it sometimes be draining on those dealing with the humble?

If there is a gift anywhere it is at least as much the man's.

What grates a bit is that there's no sense in this piece that the man is enjoying a gift given him by the woman. If Noone's wife withdraws her joyful consent, he will be helpless, since he's not a criminal but a decent man. There's no sense in this piece of gratitude that she doesn't do that.

I think what's important to realise is that this is about a relationship. A complementary relationship with consent on both sides.

Yes, the woman could withdraw her consent (i.e. stop being the partner she needs to be). The man could also stop being the partner he needs to be and start expecting equality from her. That kind of thing would get neither anywhere—and would almost certainly be the beginning of the end for the relationship.

If there is a gift, it is from both to both, reciprocal and hopefully complementary. Just as in any workable relationship.

To feel grateful to my woman for me having to discipline or punish her seems crazy. Frankly, I'd rather not have to but I will do so if she's of that nature where it is for her own sake or the good of the relationship, or just needed to keep her in the place she needs to be.

An exchange of gifts still calls for gratitude!

Interesdom wrote:

If there is a gift, it is from both to both, reciprocal and hopefully complementary. Just as in any workable relationship.

I can completely agree. So both partners need a suitable sense of humility.

To feel grateful to my woman for me having to discipline or punish her seems crazy. Frankly, I'd rather not have to but I will do so ...

You should feel grateful not that you have to, but that you have that route open to you. I imagine you had to travel a long road to find a woman prepared to submit (this isn't a crack at you—this would surely be true of the most alpha of alpha males, which you might well be for all I know). So that's why gratitude would be in order.

I detect a whiff of bluster when a man treats his dominance as the exercise of simple right.

Best,

Theo
chas_dar@yahoo.co.uk

Theo

You are SO right!

Humility always but both WANT this relationship

Douglas: To feel grateful to my woman for me having to discipline or punish her seems crazy. Frankly, I'd rather not have to but I will do so ...

Theo: You should feel grateful not that you have to, but that you have that route open to you.

I've given this one a lot of thought and still struggle with it. I've tried analogies: 1) I should feel grateful not for having to work but for being able to (well, OK, maybe) 2) I should feel grateful not that I have to nurse her when she is sick but that I have that ability (hmm, I suppose so).

I still don't see a compelling reason for me to either believe I have a notable gift from her (which was my original point) nor that there is anything special to be grateful about over and above what it might be healthy for her for feel grateful for. Punishment is only a tool available to me because the woman wants it to be. She is not sacrificing something but gaining something in desiring a Taken In Hand relationship.

Should she feel grateful because I want to hold her in my arms? Should I feel grateful because she wants to make love to me? Too much gratitude in a relationship tends to kill it: ultimately, we only do what is in our own interests.

Theo: I imagine (you) had to travel a long road to find a woman prepared to submit...

Take a look around at a site like this: there's plenty of women wanting a dominant man. Most women never even mention it because it's both so obvious and so taboo.

Sure, some of the women I have dated aren't interested in me leading—that's fine and not stopped us being friends but we'd never be anything closer.

Theo: I detect a whiff of bluster when a man treats his dominance as the exercise of simple right.

I rule by acclamation, not decree. That's not bluster, anymore than a man who wants a woman of a certain intelligence level, or matching humour or any other compatibility.

Sin, Sensuality, Pain and Penance, and Ecstasy

Oh, how fascinating is this thread started by Noone. Such differing views are expressed.

But surely there is a great difference between being spanked and being beaten? They both might be painful but they are very different. Cathryn Hepburn was once asked if she was spanked as a child. She replied, very firmly, “No! I was beaten.” She was clear what the diffence was.

There is a vast difference you know. If I were asked if my husband beats me I would say, “No!” If I were asked if he spanks me, I would say, “Yes.” This does not mean that I want to be spanked, or that I enjoy beiing spanked. He can control me in any way he feels is right, and long as he controls me with love. He can spank me painfully, but I know he is not being brutal. It is not abuse. He is not beating me. The occasional spanking may be very painful and thorough, but it is not a beating, and it is certainly not a thrashing. Not for a second does he stop loving me. I know that even though he sometimes makes my bottom smart considerably.

There is no doubt in my mind that sin and sensuality mingle with pain and penance to produce love and respect, as Noone suggests, but such emotions do not occur at the same time. My cries of fiery pain do not occur at the same time as my groans of erotic ecstasy. My awareness of sin and my acceptance of penance do not occcur while I am OTK. And I can sort them out in my mind, believe me. Ecstasy might follow the fiery pain, but these feelings are very separate and occur for different reasons. And during the experiencing of either of these I am not thinking of love and respect. That awareness occurs during day-to-day activities.

Much of what Noone suggests is brutality. It is so very different from being Taken in Hand. Maybe Noone cannot uderstand how a woman can diffentiate between being raped by a husband and being taken forcefully and passionately. I can, and I am sure so many of my sisters can too. Equally so, I can differentiate between a damn good spanking from my husband and a thrashing. And I can tell the degree of love he has for me even while I am being spanked.

Not brutal at all

Much of what Noone suggests is brutality. It is so very different from being Taken in Hand.

I strongly disagree. Nothing in this article is brutality, and many women find this article highly erotic and true. Not all, of course, but many do.

Not everyone in a Taken In Hand relationship engages in any kind of violent engagement, but many do, and many appreciate Noone's perspective. What I like about his perspective is that he has a really deep understanding of some women's need for subjection. You will never see Noone whining about how women need to be more submissive. In fact, he has written against the idea of pretending to be submissive when you feel anything but. You will never see him talking about being passively served by a woman. That is clearly not what he expects from his wife. And yes, he understands the need of some women to be firmly and thoroughly taken in hand, and this article is one of my favourites in that respect. It may seem like brutality to you or someone else, but it definitely doesn't to me. He may not understand you, but he understands me very well, and I am not even a spanko!

We are all different. The kind of man who would please a woman who would find this brutal is probably not the kind of man I personally would want to be with. It really does take all sorts. Let's try to remember that.

FTR, I could be mistaken but it is my impression that the word “beat” has different connotations in American English vs English English. It does not sound necessarily abusive to me, but I have noticed that it does to many Americans. The same is true with other expressions, such as “a jolly good thrashing”, and other colourful phrases.

Careful what conclusions you draw

I notice that people get a lot out of this site, but that most people get something quite different from others.

If you saw brutality in the post, it's because you draw that comparison where another woman sees loving attention. To smack the bottom of your beloved for discipline or erotic fun (and that that can be the same action with different contexts and emotions highlights the fact that we are all very different people to begin with ;-)) is not in the same category as spousal abuse, although some would argue that as well. Consent-intent-punishment-foreplay-release-reward-...words, concepts and ideas that we use to form our own thoughts about why we do what we do...why we MUST do what we do.

The real brutality is assuming that your interpretation is the only one that matters to other people. Personally, I like the idea of stepping back and wondering if I'm missing something, but I may have to practice that before it works as well as it should for me.

Definitely Not Brutal

I am one of the women that sees no brutality at all in Noone's article. That may very well be because in his article, Noone describes my marriage very well. My DH is in charge and has full and complete control of the relationship and me. While we discuss things, he makes the final decision in all things. He's not only shown me his whip, he has used it when he deems it necessary. Feeling his control even if it's just in the tone of his voice or the way he holds my hand, gives me peace and an internal calm and glow that is difficult to explain unless this type of life is for you. People who know us or see us out can't believe that after 7 years of marriage we still are like newlyweds. Because of his control and my submission to it, our love will always stay new and fresh.

Pain and ecstacy

I too feel the pain of being spanked and the ecstacy quite seperately. Although I do have a very strong desire to be spanked, and afterwards usually feel pretty blissful, I don't feel ecstatic while it's happening, I just feel pure pain. I absolutely hate it, and yet I would be disappointed if my husband stopped before he decided I'd had enough. Usually, at some stage while being spanked, I will slither off his knee onto the floor, whimpering, but he can always make me go back. "If you don't get back there instantly, I'll go back to the beginning and start again" was his ominous threat to me last night. I find that concentrates the mind wonderfully, anything is better than having him go back and start again. I know I want him to do it, I know I need him to do it, but I don't feel ecstacy while he is doing it, anything but!

Not Macho

I don't think Noone is being macho or pretentious or abusive. He is expressing a fact about his relationship with his wife. The facts of his relationship are the stuff of fantasy for many women. And for the few women who experience gifts from someone like Noone, they know the peace, security, and eroticism such a relationship brings to them.

Many men know that many women need this type of relationship. Men who naturally take charge in their marriages choose to live with these women because it is part of their nature to control and love in this way. So it brings them peace as well.

Erotic harmony occurs with complementarity in psychological preference and physical need. He draws from her her screams of pain and ecstacy, into which he himself is drawn, both with mutual faith and trust in each other.

In contrast, in abusive relationships, both feel out of control. The screams are literally discordant. So abuse is a response to a chaotic relationship. Taken in Hand relatonships are the exact opposite of that.

I see no brutality

Much of what Noone suggests is brutality. It is so very different from being Taken in Hand..... Equally so, I can differentiate between a damn good spanking from my husband and a thrashing. And I can tell the degree of love he has for me even while I am being spanked.

Your comment suggests knowledge that you simply do not possess. It may very well be true that you know for yourself when discipline turns into brutality, but you can not know by Noone's words alone that what he proposes is brutal. There are many in society who would think that because you are being spanked by your husband that you are being brutalized. Yet, for some reason you think your way is superior. Don't you think that that might be a little presumptuous?

Having read much of Noone's writing, I sense an implicit consent that exists in his relationship with his wife. I remember him once remarking that one reason she loves him is BECAUSE he knows how to handle her. My wife has the same desire to be handled. If I was unable to handle her she would be sorely disappointed.

The woman who wants to be taken in hand desires the man to be in charge and to firmly discipline her when he thinks it is necessary, both for her sake and for the health of their relationship. My wife does not enjoy a disciplinary spanking, but she loves the fact that I know how to handle her, which sometimes means putting her over my knee and firmly spanking her behind when she behaves in a way that I find unsatisfactory. As much as some would like to suggest, this is not a scene, it is a matter between a husband and his wife. I see no brutality in what Noone writes about how he handles his wife. What I see is a man who deeply understands his wife, knows what needs to be done, and is willing to do it.

Is this erotic or painful spanking?

I'm confused. When I spank my wife, she has waves of orgasms. Are you guys spanking your wives so it's painful and they feel ashamed afterward because they did something wrong? Or are your wives secretly enjoying it because they are getting off?

Different strokes for different folks

Some find erotic the very thing the previous poster is contrasting with 'erotic'. They may or may not be excited at the time, but they are most definitely very aroused by it.

Painful or erotic?

Well, I find all the spankings I get both painful and erotic. I don't find it erotic during, but afterwards I am left with a happy, warm glow and feel very contented and relaxed. I seldom feel ashamed when spanked, though I do tend to feel contrite about whatever I am being spanked for, the more pissed off my husband is the more contrite I tend to feel. Although I really want him to spank me, and am always glad afterwards that he did, during the spanking I find myself struggling, screaming, pleading for mercy (I never get it) and wishing, quite sincerely, that I hadn't done whatever it is I'm being spanked for.

I don't have waves of orgasms when spanked, but then I don't have waves of orgasms anyway, for any reason, I generally count myself lucky if I am able to have even one, and that is never caused by spanking, though thinking about being spanked certainly helps me to have one.

There are people who can apparently experience spankings as either 'erotic' or 'punishment' without any overlap between the two, but this is quite beyond me. Spankings are both as far as I am concerned, and I need both sensations. If it isn't 'punishment' then the erotic element is missing for me, and if it didn't have an erotic effect on me, I don't think I could stand it.

My husband, I think, does it for both reasons too, he knows I find it erotic, but he also gets definite satisfaction form "taking it out on your bottom" as he says when he's annoyed with me about something. When he is really pissed off then I believe he is thinking more about punishing me than about gratifying my desires, though he knows perfectly well that being spanked hard does satisfy me deeply.

The night before last he was very annoyed with me, and I got a very hard spanking, he made me go and damp my bottom first, and those are always the worst. He really made me scream. I was still really sore yesterday morning, and when I said something a bit lippy to him he looked at me and said "Do you want another session like you got last night?" I looked right back at him and said, truthfully: "Yes". Those spankings, the really hard, painful ones, driven by his wish to punish me, are the most satisfying for me. The pain and the eroticism go together.

Louise

re: painful or erotic

Louise, you crack me up... you are so cute! (You also have very intelligent remarks.)

Painful?......

Louise,

I have never experienced a dd relationship, but the way you tell it, I don't want to. I want to have an head of the household that doesn't ask, and doesn't threaten.

I'm not sure, but I don't want to want a spanking, I do want to know what I need. If that's a spanking, so be it, but if it's a little stroking, some gentle words, a show of understanding, then I want that too.

I don't crave pain, I crave love, tenderness, understanding, and, as said before, if a spanking is necessary, than that too. I don't want to control my head of the household. I want to release the control, and relax.

stormy

To Stormy

I don't really understand what you are talking about. I have always had a very strong craving to be spanked, and my husband is perfectly well aware of that. It's not a question of me 'wanting' to want a spanking, I just DO want spankings, and always have! My husband is perfectly well aware of that, since he is not an idiot.

I don't crave pain exactly, what I crave is the dominance and control that comes with the pain. Without those, the pain does nothing for me, which is why for me there is absolutely no point in the 'fun' or 'good girl' spankings that people sometimes talk about, they do nothing for me at all.

And for that matter, as for 'wanting' the pain, sometimes i find it almost unbearable. There was an occasion a few weeks ago, for instance, when he had spanked me with the steel ruler, and then proceeded to the cane. It was really, really painful, and he had gone on quite a long time, and I really don't know what came over me, because I have never done anything like this before, but i twisted round and bit him on the leg. He was, understandly, outraged by this. He got out the wooden paddle (the implement I fear the most) and gave me a good walloping with it. It was excruciating. I didn't 'like' it at all, but i did like the fact that he was still in control of the situation, in spite of my sudden outbreak of mutiny.

have I ever said that I wanted to control my husband? I don't think so. On the contrary, I love it when he controls me, and the more authoritarian he becomes, the more I love it. I lap it up in fact. For instance, I have recently become extremely fascinated by an internet site called yahoo answers, I have spending more and more time on it, I find it quite addictive, and I was getting up earlier and earlier in the mornings to go on it. I'd been falling asleep in the afternoons because i was so tired from getting up so early and being on the computer so long. So he forbade me to get up before 6am. I find this maddening, but at the same time quite gratifying, since it shows me he is concerned about me. Also it is very sexy. He's restricted the amount of time I can go onit during the day as well. I absolutely love it when he lays down the law about things to me, even when they are personally inconvenient to me, like this computer restriction (last week was half term, and he insisted I didn't getup until 6.30, which was Really cruel!).

I absolutly blossom when he does this kind of thing, so i don't really understand what you mean about wanting to control my husband, i have no desire to control him whatsoever, on the contrary, I absolutely adore it when he controls me.

Louise

Both erotic AND painful

There are erotic spankings in our household--I love 'em and so does my husband. They differ greatly from punishment spankings. First, in an erotic spanking, there is touching, stroking, kissing, breaks between whacks, and other things that MAKE it erotic for us. In a punishment spanking, there is none of that. We first have a discussion about WHY the punishment is being given. This puts me in the right frame of mind for the spanking to BE punishment, not erotic. Then, the sentence is passed--how many whacks with which implement(s). I bare my behind--I am never punished with clothing on my bottom--and bend over the end of the bed to receive the punishment. Note, erotic spankings are not given in this location or position. Before beginning, He always asks if I am ready. This gives me one final opportunity to back out. It took a long time to get my husband to understand that it was OKAY to punish me, that I needed it. To refuse a punishment that He has deemed necessary would undo that trust between us. Therein lies the consent that everyone talks about. Actually, at times, I feel I should be punished more severely than the punishment that is given. We have discussed that one day I will receive a punishment in which I am paddled without mercy until I cry; however, he knows that I am also very afraid to receive that same punishment, so he has not yet given it to me. Are the punishments I receive painful? Definitely. Do I feel ashamed afterward? No. I feel ashamed BEFORE. The punishment allows me to put the shame aside and for us to move on. I ASKED for the very first punishment this man ever gave me. Why? Because I couldn't sleep because of an unsettled matter between us. Talking about it didn't settle it for me. A spanking did. Do I enjoy the punishments? NO. Definitely not. Do they turn me on? Sometimes they do. How can they turn me on if I don't enjoy them? I cannot explain that. Usually, they turn HIM on. Very, very seldom, however, does a punishment spanking turn into a sexual encounter in our household. Punishment is just that--it's not supposed to be fun. I do not wait eagerly for the next punishment. Quite the opposite--I dread it, especially if I know ahead of time that it's coming. I have one coming at bedtime tonight that I am not looking forward to at all; however, since we are trying to break a self-destructive habit of mine, I will accept this paddling--however hard or painful it may be--as just punishment and go to bed with a stinging/burning rear end. If He didn't care about my bad habits, he wouldn't discipline me for them. I want very much to be cared for. I need to be punished or disciplined (whichever term you prefer).

Erotic punishment

There is no seperation between erotic and punishment for me, all the spankings I get are both, and I definitely look forward to them. The fact that there is no kissing, stroking, or breaks between whacks is what makes them sexy for me, the more 'real' I feel they are the more erotic they are for me. Purely 'erotic' spankings don't do much for me, it is the element of real punishment that give me an authentic thrill. And they definitely are fun. Whether we have sex afterwards or not depends on my husband, but whether we do or whether we don't the punishment is always erotic for me.

Louise

re: erotic punishment

I agree with Louise. The more real, the better. My husband tends to put breaks between wacks and I would much rather he didn't. It breaks the rythm of the spanking, making it difficult to last longer. For anyone who doesn't quite see the connection, try looking up Tantric spankings on the internet. I also like being told ahead of time that I'm going to get a spanking. I enjoy that fear/anticipation factor. It gives me time to think about how my bottom is going to look and feel. That greatly adds to both the pain and pleasure.

Definitely both for me, too

Punishment spankings, in themselves, are most definitely erotic to me. What's even more erotic relates back to the original post—knowing that he "carries a whip" and is willing to use it. What muddies the waters for me is that I don't like to let my husband down, and when I receive a spanking, in most cases that's exactly what I've done. In that way I don't enjoy the moments leading up to it while I'm being lectured, but the actual walloping is both pleasure and pain. Every now and then I get a "this is to remind you you're not in control," spanking which feels my need to feel his authority in a discipline-type way without having actually misbehaved.
Lucy

Re: Lucy's reminder spankings

Lucy (and anyone else), those "this is to remind you that you're not in control" spankings are called "maintainence spankings". You can read more about them on the site Fondly and Firmly, and the Christian discipline site. Sorry, I forgot that one's exact address, but if you just type in "Christian domestic discipline" it will take you right to it—usually the first listing.

Re; Lucy's reminder spankings

There is nothing in particular that spankings have to be called. A 'this is to remind you who's in control' spanking may sound more appealing to some people than 'maintenance' which makes it sound too much like a chore to some people.

Personally, my husband tends to refer to these spankings as 'pre-emptive' spankings, or sometimes "If I don't know what you've done, you do."

Re: "Who's Getting the Gift?"

An anonymous commenter wrote:

Maybe his wife's the one that feels he's giving HER a gift. Maybe gratitude would feel more like a burden than a plus. Is humility always a virtue or can it sometimes be draining on those dealing with the humble?

Gratitude's not a burden and it's not humility. It's something all decent people feel frequently and acknowledge.

Theo

Pages