Is Taken In Hand about dominance and submission?

Is Taken In Hand about dominance and submission?

Is Taken In Hand about dominance and submission?

No. Most Taken In Hand couples do not identify with those labels. In fact, many find those labels positively off-putting.

While it is true that in the Taken In Hand relationship the husband actively dominates and submits his beloved wife, he is more likely to think of himself as being the man of the house, or as being the one who wears the trousers in his marriage, than to call himself ‘dominant’.

Moreover, for him, being with a woman who serves and obeys without question and lives only to please would get old fast. He prefers life with his delightfully spirited woman and would hate her to diminish or lose herself, because he loves her the way she is, and finds her interesting.

In much of the D/s world, many who think of themselves as dominant have a strong preference to be served and obeyed without question, and have no interest in dominating and submitting a woman. Many such men prefer to have multiple women serving and obeying them. Such men would never want a Taken In Hand woman, and nor would a Taken In Hand woman ever want such a man. Their preferences are too different.

Taken In Hand wives tend not to call themselves ‘submissive’. They do serve their husband, just as he serves them, and they do respect, honour and appreciate their husband and try to please him—they are definitely not domineering misandrist shrews—but they do not have the deep need to serve that many in the D/s world consider to be the essence of submissiveness.

In many parts of the D/s world, it is frowned upon for the ‘submissive’ partner not to serve and obey without question. Indeed, ‘submissive’ individuals who do not serve and obey without question are disparagingly branded ‘faux-subs’ and ‘fake subs’, and accused of ‘topping from the bottom’, as though they have a duty to serve and obey without question, and are derelict in their duty if they ever don't do so.

In the Taken In Hand world, there is no duty to serve and obey, and as stated above, the husbands in these relationships would find that a bit boring. We are a bit less frowny and a bit more fun. If what you are doing is not fun, fascinating and sexy, why do it? We are about creating vibrant happy marriages, not having people grit their teeth and do their alleged duty whether they like it or not.

Similarly, there is a curious phenomenon, from a Taken In Hand perspective, of some D/s folk contending that ‘dominance’ is a burden that the ‘dominant’ partner must shoulder, gritting his teeth if necessary. Again, if it feels onerous, why do it? Life is too short for shouldering unnecessary heavy burdens you hate.

So is this about dominance and submission? No, not really. We're just a bunch of ordinary couples who simply prefer that the husband wear the trousers in the relationship.

See also:
What you need to know about Taken In Hand
The subjection of women
Why do some prefer a Taken In Hand relationship to a conventional relationship?
Is a Taken In Hand relationship for everyone?
Why do many Taken In Hand folk reject the D/s label?

The Taken In Hand Site Owner and Creator

previous | FAQ index | next

Taken In Hand Tour start | next

[This is an answer to a frequently-asked question: this page is part of the FAQ. Please try to ensure that your post is answering the question or discussing the above post. The question is: Is Taken In Hand about dominance and submission?]