Having consent to take her whenever you want assumes that you will act wisely

Let me first dispense with the obvious. Women who have not given men consent to have sex with them should not be forced to have sex. That would be rape. It is a vile act and men who rape should be jailed or worse.

But there is a more subtle issue to consider. Some women on this site have said that they have given their husband consent to take them whenever he wishes. They relish the idea of consensual non-consent—they want to give their man the authority to disregard their stated wishes, and instead wish to allow him to proceed with the sex act if he chooses, or even to call the act rape itself!

But even when implicit consent has been given, a man should not always satisfy his sexual desires, even if the ongoing marital agreement allows him to do so.

Everyone may recognize that a boss in a business has the right to make decisions and have the employees abide by those decisions even if they disagree. But it is also reasonable for employees to expect the boss to take into account their interests, even if they must abide by the boss's decisions regardless. This assumes that the boss is generally reasonable and that his decisions do not harm his employees.

If a husband is blessed with a Taken in Hand wife who has given him consent to take her whenever he feels like it, that does not mean that he will take her without any consideration of his wife. The husband in a Taken In Hand relationship is expected to put his wife and their relationship first, rather than acting as a self-serving narcissist. If his wife is currently psychologically or physically disturbed such that being taken would not make her feel good, better, or improve her outlook in some way, the husband has no business taking advantage of his authority and forcing himself on her. A loving and protective man, given the gift of control and leadership in his relationship, must not only do what his authority allows, but also what is right.

As Bailey put it:

[G]iving someone the power to do things “whenever he wants” comes with an expectation that it will be used wisely. We wouldn't be with these people or in the dynamics that we have if that were not the case.

The husband in a Taken In Hand relationship is sensitive to his wife's needs. He would not take or take in hand his wife if she were at that time in a claustrophobic panic, very sick, or genuinely terrified. He exercises good judgement.

As Bailey put it:

Just because some of us are in relationships where our partners can take us whenever they want doesn't necessarily mean that they do. I've never once had him try to do anything sexual with me while I was sick, or on my period, and although I would have absolutely no qualms about complying, I think one of the reasons I am so satisfied in my relationship has to do with the fact that he exercises good judgement with his control. Actually I think this applies to all areas of the relationship.

Furthermore, because the husband in a Taken In Hand relationship is sensitive to his wife's needs and protects her wellbeing, his wife feels no need to hold on to control to protect herself.

As Bailey put it:

I don't have to hold on to much control because I know that he is not a selfish bastard who is going to make me walk out in traffic, or do anything else harmful to our family.

So to the men reading this: if you want your wife to give you more control, or you want her to give you consent to take her whenever you wish, ask yourself if there is anything you are doing or failing to do that might be causing your wife to feel unable to make herself vulnerable in that way? Does she feel safe with you? Do you have self-control? Do you put her and your relationship first? Are you sensitive to her feelings? If you are not sure, ask her what you could do differently to make her feel more inclined to give you the control you seek.


Taken In Hand Tour start | next



I agree. It's not always easy to get this right or other similar issues. I am not likely to object even if I have an objection and men can't read minds. Keeping means of commmunication open helps. For example how do you know she has a genuine headache if she doesn't tell you? Yet if you tell her she always has the veto over sex then that probably isn't what she wants. I suppose the answer is that she is obliged to tell you anything material and then if she's just a bit tired but he wants it he can take a decision to go ahead and she won't mind whereas if she's been up all night with a baby or at the office then the "bit tired" might be quite a bit more than a bit tired and probably not so kind to make her proceed.

Rape vs. Ravishment

Isn't there a difference? You know, between rape and ravishment?

I'm just so glad that 'cherish', and not just 'obey', were part of our wedding vows.

I love romance novels...to a fault. Frankly, I'm trying to let them go for awhile and come back into the real world. If I'm not mistaken, a lot of these 'rape' fantasies are actually 'ravish' fantasies. Who doesn't want their strong man to wrap her in his powerful arms and have his way with her? Hello Rhett and Scarlet!

I think the word 'rape' is kind of harsh. It invokes feelings of violence towards women that makes me very uncomfortable. I don't want to fantasize about being brutalized by some guy who's desire is to hurt me for his pleasure instead of for my own good (like spanking). I thought that was what BDSM was about. Not my cup of tea, but hey, that's why I'm on THIS website.

Now 'ravishment'...that makes me feel like mush. That's the look in his eye that says, "Right now I'm going to have you"! Token resistence is just that...'token'. We still want our guy to feel the thrill of the chase after all, right? Just not too much resistence.

Oh well. My opinion for what it's worth.


I agree!

Ruth, I couldn't agree more. I never could really fantasize about actual rape per se, but ravishment from the man I love...totally hot!!! I too attach feelings of violence towards women with rape. It's night & day in my book.

Noone, I'll agree that it should be about the marriage & the woman, but shouldn't it also be about the man sometimes? My husband isn't a selfish man. He's very good about placing my needs before his. But I'll have to admit that on the rare occasion that he does place his needs before mine, it's a total turn on! I think this goes hand in hand with the whole ravishment idea. Though it's not something I want often, I love it when it happens!


Overcoming my moodiness has been one of the most positive outcom

Dynomite wrote:

Noone, I'll agree that it should be about the marriage & the woman, but shouldn't it also be about the man sometimes? My husband isn't a selfish man. He's very good about placing my needs before his. But I'll have to admit that on the rare occasion that he does place his needs before mine, it's a total turn on! I think this goes hand in hand with the whole ravishment idea. Though it's not something I want often, I love it when it happens!

I agree. My husband is always sensitive to my needs but if I am cranky and disinterested for a number of days he requires that I submit to him sexually. He knows I love being spanked so he will ask me to submit to a spanking which I always do willingly even if I'm not in the mood to be spanked. By the end of the spanking I am in a submissive mood and happy to comply to his sexual demands even if I'm still not in the mood for sex. Usually the spanking does the trick and gets me in the mood sexually, and it is all fun then. But if it doesn't get me in the mood I am always happy that my husband's sexual needs have been met. I am satisfied knowing that I have met his needs and been a caring wife. I am usually less cranky because the spanking has let some of the steam out of my mood. So all in all it is good that my husband insists that I accept a spanking and take care of his sexual needs. I would hate for my moodiness to dominate our sex life. Overcoming my moodiness has been one of the most positive outcomes from being a taken in hand couple. I know neither of us would be willing to let my moods dominate our sex life or any aspect of our relationship any longer.

He is aware of my needs as well. He can see when I am exhausted and usually gives me the day off until I have regained my energy. In the case that I am continually exhausted for days on end he will let his needs overshadow my tiredness. I am perpetually tired and always have been so we both know we can't let my energy level be the gauge for our sex life. In the case that I am tired I can still be a passive partner sexually. He will try his best to make it short and comfortable for me. He would never require me to have sex if I am sick of course, which I rarely am so it is not usually an issue for us.

Occasionally I have been so angry with him that I won't submit to a spanking or sex. In these situations he doesn't force me. I am well aware that he could easily force me to have sex or have a spanking. He chooses not to and I don't really know how I would react if he did. I don't think force is his thing. It does sound rather erotic now that I think about it though! Maybe someday when the kids move out we'll try it! Anyway, in time I will feel guilty for my attitude and he will apologize for whatever he did to make me so angry. At this time I will willingly take my spanking and then of course sex will follow. So eventually I will meet his wishes. It is pretty rare for me to refuse to give him sex or to take a spanking.

Ravished or brutalized?

When I was young, and trying out my new found sexuality, my Dad told me that 'rape' wasn't about sex it was about power. He also told me that a sexually powerful man NEVER had to rape a woman. I'm not sure I truly understood the distinction then, but I do now.

Rape to my mind, is a 'weak' man doing what he wants, whether you will or no. A powerful man will 'ravish' you. His persuasion will excite you, his actions will cause you to have sex even though you didn't really want to at the start. I couldn't respect a man who 'made' me by force or fear do something totally against my will, yet I love the way my man 'handles' me. For me I can sum it up thus; rape makes one afraid ... ravishment doesn't.

My SO has blanket consent, because I love, trust and respect him and know he won't abuse any of it. I have a safe word, because he loves, trusts and respects me, I have NEVER used it. I don't think I will ever need to. In fact, I don't think I could have agreed to this complete surrender if I didn't have this feeling of total safety and security. I am excited by how excited he is by the freedom I have given him. Does that make sense??

We both enjoy what I suppose is best described as 'semi-consensual' activity. He is 'the Boss' and to all intents and purposes has the ultimate power, yet I have the ultimate veto ... should I choose to use it. To tell the truth, I don't even think about it when lost in the moment, and why would I? I have been ravished many times, spanked, and spanked hard I might add, against my will on nnumerous occasions BUT never once have I felt brutalized.

This is the first relationship I have ever had with that dynamic, and for me, it transcends 'topping from the bottom' [a phrase which can accurately sum up all my previous relationships ...] so much so that it isn't even in the same league!


I don't know about all the prostitution talk, and won't get into it, but a man I deeply love, responding to me out of pure, masculine need, how could I say no?

Maybe it would be more satisfying if I pretended to play hard to get, not sure, but it never even occurs to me to do that, if he wants it, it's time to GO :-) I know he'd do the same if I had a feminine need for sex, drop everything and go for it. But for me, foreplay starts first thing in the morning, and lasts all day with my little fantasies, so by the time he gets home, he really can do whatever he wants to me, and I'm more than ready to do whatever he wants in return.

I don't consider a deep Eros, or sexual love, prostitution, it can be tremendously bonding and spiritually satisfying.

Rape Versus Ravishment

Indeed, you are so correct! The woman feels wanted but not at any great risk, in any great danger. In nature the male animal prevails and the female animal succumbs.

One definition of the word-concept ravishment is simply to carry off, carry away. It is about possession but not violence nor brutality.

You, my dear, might well also write about the distinction between passion and lust.

Thank you.

Re: Rape Versus Ravishment

There are also animal races in which the male must woo the female (cats, tigers, bears..). The apes are as you describe. The male apes struggle for the right to copulate with females, not every male has a right to. The alpha males ravish the females. Maybe the the phenomenon of alpha malesiness is a part of this.


Rape versus Ravishment

Excellent, Ruth. There is indeed a difference between rape and ravishment (there are no exact synonyms in our language). In nature the male animal prevails and the female animal succumbs. This has nothing to do with being violent nor brutal.

Thanks, Ruth, for taking the time to post.

in nature???

"In nature the male animal prevails and the female animal succumbs "

Sadly this is untrue, if one regards the whole of nature, vis á vis, fish who simply release sperm into the water and hope for the best, insects like the praying mantis ... arachnids like the black widow ... and birds. Among birds, it is almost universal that the female chooses.
Or are these creatures NOT part of nature?

The real truth might just be that a woman [or female-of-the-species] actively chooses her mate, and actively chooses how she will relate to him.
A strong woman knows that a strong man is her best bet, likewise a strong man ....
The 'also rans', are entitled to view things differently, if that is their choice!

creatures vs. mammals

I think the creatures listed above are mammals. So as it might be more accurate to say that "In [MAMMALS] the male animal prevails and the female animal succumbs". Humans are mammals. But I would be careful with this argument all together. I would hate to see a man facing rape charges trying to explain he was just acting like a bear.

I cherish my wife

I am retired and my wife works all day, not becuase she has to but because she wants too. She runs a resturant and is proud of it. Some days she has good days some are wall-to-wall customers and complaints. The first thing I ask when she gets home is how was her day. By the way she looks and her response I know what kind of mood she is in. My wife would never say no to me. This is her choice and the way she desires it.
Our kids are grown and come and go as they please. When she is tired worn out, I still take her in hand, but in a different way. I run a bath with her favorite oils, light candles and then go get her off the couch and lead her to the bath, undress her , bathe her, and we talk and discuss her day. The tension melts away and she relaxes and calms down from the day. While toweling her off I say to her: you are home now and no longer the boss.
With those simple words she changes into a taken in hand woman. Yes she is pampered but she knows that with a single certain look from me she is mine and I will take her. The key is we think of each other not ourselves. So many times I hear men look at me and say you do the laundry, cook, clean. Why, well it is simple I have the time and if it means she can concentrate all her energy on being Taken In Hand and not doing laundry, cooking, or cleaning, we both get what we desire and want.
On a lighter note it has been scientifically proven that orgasm is the best cure for a headache. If you don't believe it, try it—it works better than any tranquilizer on the market.

Just Saw This!


I just wanted to join in and say hello, and I'm flattered. I had no idea I was being quoted so extensively, but I'm glad my words rang true for you. This was a good piece.


This helped me a lot with some deep feelings. I've had three relationships where I introduced a TH relationship. One was fine, another was a nightmare and the current is wonderful.

The nightmare was because of poor judgement on my part. I was with someone who turned out to be a substance abuser, and an abuser in general. My mental condition at the time was poor, to say the least. He was 'domineering', not the 'dominant' man that I wanted, and I wasn't able to distinguish. I thought if I just kept trying, kept letting him do what he wanted, that it'd be OK. I thought it was a bad situation because of ME not because of him. But I gave myself in that way to the wrong person while I was in a vunerable state, and he took advantage of it.

The part that hit home to me was that there are times when the man should execise good judgement and make a decision that is best for the relationship and the wellbeing of both people concerned—not for his own selfish needs. I gave that gift to someone who took advantage of it. The thing that bothers me most is that until recently I felt like I had no right to be upset by it because I had given him that control. Again, I could only blame myself. It didn't occur to me that he also had a responsibility to exercise good judgement and morals. It was a huge set back for me but reading this article really did help. Thank you.

Beyond the Self

Taken in Hand should be for the good of the marriage or it should be that which is best for the woman. It should never be about what the man wants now.

Missing assumptions

Your comments seem to miss certain aspects of the realtionship. A strong woman doesn't allow a man to control her unless she has trusts her man completely. A strong woman won't give her man the authority to take her whenever he wants if she thinks he will abuse it. Strong men in a Taken In Hand relataionship are not predators but leaders, and they know the responsibilities of leadership. You seem to have certain stereotypes of men in your mind.

I completely agree.

All I want to say is that I completely agree with this article. Thank you for writing this. ~HollyCakes

"Some women on this site have

"Some women on this site have said that they have given their husband consent to take them whenever he wishes."

That is treating the woman like a prostitute.

Lilly's comment about prostitution

"That is treating the woman like an unpaid prostitute"

What prostitute would do it for free?

Lilly's comment.

" that is treating a woman like a prostitute."

I am not sure why you would think or say that, except to be deliberately provocative.

To be honest, I have no experience of prostitution. It may well be that the brief liason between the two people involved is good for them [in that they both enjoy it] and based on love trust and respect. Somehow I doubt that. More like cold, hard cash.

The women here, myself included, that you so easily disparage with your glib 'one-liner' have spoken eloquently and openly about their feelings, fantasies and relationships. I think your comment says far more about 'you' and your limited understanding, than it does about 'us' and this thing we do .......

not quite

"That is treating the woman like a prostitute."

Well no not really...
Prostitues have sex for money. I do it out of love.
I don't believe that prostitues enjoy having sex with their clients partiularly. I do enjoy sex with my husband.
Prostitutes are used for the males pleasure only. I'm not.
Prostitues are not loved by their client. I am very much loved.
Prostitutes have sex with many men in one day. I don't.

Prostitutes are just an object to be f***ked. I am sometimes and I love it. :-) If it was with anyone other than my husband I certainly wouldn't love it. But with him it's safe and sexy and leaves me feeling thoroughly taken and totally satisfied.


I think the possible comparison with prostitution here might be that the woman is required to have sex with a man whether she feels like it or not. Presumably a prostitute does it with anyone who can pay, regardless of whether or not she is in the mood for sex. The idea that it doesn't matter whether you, the woman, feel like it or not is what I personally find unappealing about the 'sex on demand' thing, and it is perhaps what this poster means by equating it with prostitution. If you're paying for it then it doesn't matter whether the woman likes it or not, it's just a business transaction.



What's wrong with being 'treated like a prostitute'? It's great to see so many married couples with a great sex life. Don't knock it till you tried it!

Sexual consideration

I really like this article and I would like to add that if a man wants blanket consent to take his woman whenever he feels then he should be considerate of her sexual needs/desires being fulfilled as well. Women like me feel more encouraged knowing that it isn't a selfish motivation prompting a man to want this consent.

My man does take me whenever he feels but it is almost always with respect to what my day holds, my body cycle and the respect of that, my overall wellbeing... Basic intellectual caring of me.

I say almost because there have been the occasions where regardless of all but my overall wellbeing, he has just decided that this was what was going to happen and usually that was provoked by an argument gone into a spiral and he felt that the situation warranted him regaining control in an aggressive sexual fashion.

There have also been the rare times that he has taken me that have been for his pleasure only but he is very considerate to not let me go for to long without satisfaction.

Personally I could not be in a Taken In Hand relationship with a man who did not put me first even when an occasional experience might give the appearance of being selfish.

There is nothing selfish about my man!

almost always!!??

I'm sorry but I don't feel that the man "almost always" having respect for how the woman feels is good enough! My husband always has respect for how I'm feeling. If he didn't I would seriously reconsider whether he is worthy of that power over me.

No reconsidering needed here

Sully there is no need for me to reconsider the power in my relationship with my man as I have been very thorough with my decision to be in this type of relationship in the first place.

I am glad that you are clear on what you feel is good enough and are aware of the worthiness of your husband's power over you—as am I—but I believe that you misread my writing.

I stated that he ignored all but my overall well being!

In other words--how I was feeling at the time.

He is good enough and he always has respect for me or I wouldn't be with him.


I have re read your writing and I still interpret it the same. That is one disadvantage of writing over verbal communication I guess. Things can be written and meant as one thing but interpreted by the reader as another. But none the less I am glad you clarified the meaning behind your words as the thought of you being with someone who only “almost always” considered your feelings left me feeling uncomfortable, as that is not what it should be about.

Sully - I think what might be

Sully—I think what might be getting lost here is the fact that no one is perfect. While I believe my husband always makes decisions based upon what is best for me, then us, I would be wrong. Thinking that would presume he is perfect and he isn't—and neither am I. Consequently, I am not hugely disappointed when he demands something of me every now and again. For instance, we have been married 10+ years and I can count on one hand the number of times that he has demanded sex. They were the result of either his need for sexual release (after being away for a long time on business—which happened twice) or the result of an argument where he believed that aggressive sex as needed to put us back on the right track. I was angry at first, but quickly got over it—since I love my husband and love it when he makes love to me.

No one can be perfect 24/7 and if that is your expectation, you can expect to be disappointed.

The fundamental misunderstanding:

The fundamental misunderstanding that is repeated every time this concept is discussed is that "some man" has the right to take you whenever he wants (because you've given blanket consent to your body). I think the one thing that isn't stressed often enough is that it is not "some" man you've given this consent to. It's the only man who matters in this case, your spouse. There is a vast difference between "some" man having total access to you 24/7 and your beloved, cherished man having it. You'd think we were discussing a stranger having that access! It's really important to remember, I think, when we discuss these concepts, that we are talking about people who are precious and dear to us, people we trust, not the guy who tosses your newspaper onto your front porch whose name might be Ralph.

Some man

However beloved and cherished a man might be, there are still going to be times when you simply don't feel up to it, because you're ill or exhuasted or whatever. At those times I, for one, would be inclined to tell the beloved and cherished man to bugger off if he tried it on with me.

For that reason I would never say that my husband has 24/7 access to me, because it simply isn't true. As it happens I have never actually outright refused him sex since we started Taken In Hand, because on the (happily very rare) occasions when I haven't been feeling up to it, he has been quite aware of the fact (I am not one to be stoical in suffering), but if the occasion arose I would have no hesitation in saying "sorry, dear, I'm just not up to it tonight".