Look for love

I have often read women pine for a dominant man. Of course he should have all the right qualities. He should be loving, firm, sexy and someone naturally dominant would be perfect.

But here is what life has taught me and what I have told friends and internet friends who are single and looking.

When you meet someone, it's almost impossible to find out immediately if he is dominant. In fact that's not what is the most important quality anyway.

Everything in a successful marriage has one thing in common. They love each other. Pure, true love and devotion. So much can be overcome once this has been established. Once a relationship is established, then the points in question can be looked for. Can you submit? Can or is he dominant? Is there wiggle room in your basic natures to accommodate what you want or need? Is there a place to grow and change, for the positive? I think this is what needs establishing before anyone gets controlled or dominated.

We have often read of couples who are in long term marriages and one of them brings this to the table. And it works. After peaks and valleys, they find a path. And why does it work? Because there was always the denomination of love. Now, if you are in a marriage where you love your partner—not a passion, but some other love—this may or may not work. It still depends on basic character and natures.

But when you are in a budding relationship, I still say it's the love that will endure. Dominance and discipline can come and go, depending on circumstance and life. But love will see you through. Look for that, and the rest is about honesty and being forthright and playful. Then everything will fall into place. At least in my opinion.

With a foundation, you have trust and deep love. While intimacy may mean being naked and having sex, that is not the real deep meaning of it.
To give your trust, your vulnerability to someone, that is intimate. To open yourself and your body to someone who loves you is far the greater risk than having a quickie with someone you'll have the choice of seeing again or not.

So much of being Taken In Hand starts with a mind-frame. A woman may give her submission, but it's when she trusts her partner/husband to love her, she is giving her submission with the desire to give even more than she knows how. He will prod and evoke. She will bend and submit. Very erotic, very intimate, very trusting and full of love. Can this be done with someone who doesn't love you? I seriously doubt it

Blush

Take the Taken In Hand tour

Comments

Love, devotion, respect

Beautifully said. I have often thought the same. Most important in a relationship is the foundation and building on that with deep love, devotion and respect seems to make a taken in hand relationship work at its best. There is so much more to this than just being taken in hand.

Looking for Mr. Gooddom?

Greetings Blush,

While your words are nicely said, I must respectfully disagree, both with your premise and your conclusion.

To begin, I feel that, long before love enters into a relationship, there should be lust. Giant tsunamis of hot desire that carry on far beyond the first couple of encounters. While love between friends is all well and good, it is difficult to be married to one person (in particular if they intend to be monogamous) if the relationship lacks in its ability to generate and sustain significant quantities of lust.

Love takes time to build. It requires trust, respect, affection, etc. These qualities do not spring from the ground fully formed. Rather, they represent an ongoing process of development and discovery on the part of each person.

Lust on the other hand is instantaneous, chemical, and impulsive. You get that feeling right away, or you don't.

Is lust a good indicator of dominance? Well, I would certainly suggest that the way a man has sex with a woman should be some indicator of his degree of domination. If he can't exert his control in bed, how will he do in more domestic situations? Besides, long before a couple enters into domestic relations (i.e. marriage) they will be involved in the hot sexuality of a newly discovered partner.

So yes, I think there are some very good indicators of a man's dominance, even before you might be married.

As to your conclusion, that given enough love things can work out, I also disagree. A person can not change their nature. It would be like finding out your husband is gay, and saying that if he really loved you he would go straight. It just doesn't work that way.

Now it is possible that he has been holding himself back, not controlling the situation for fear of crossing into the dangerous realm of political incorrectness. In that case, I believe a discussion on the topic would do wonders.

But thinking that "love can conquer all" is perhaps a bit naive in this situation. I love my wife fully, she is in every way my soul mate. Our commitment to each other is to face all adversity together. But having said that, I can not change her basic character.

For example, a number of years ago, at the age of 42, sandra (my wife) developed cancer and had to undergo chemotherapy. As you know, one of the side affects of this form of treatment is to put a woman into menopause. Her hormones went through a dramatic re-balancing, and the end result was her testosterone levels were considerably reduced from what they had been before hand. And so was her sex drive.

Did I leave her because she no longer wanted sex three times a day like before? Of course not. But neither could I sit down and tell her I wanted more sex with her. That wasn't going to happen. I had to adapt to the way she had changed. Just because she loved me, did not mean she could change the results of what her treatments had ravaged upon her.

Which is my point, Blush. Hoping, that because your husband loves you, he will take you in hand, is imo, a false hope.

Endurance...

Greetings back, mackenzie. While I can appreciate your opinions, I'm not sure you really understood my meaning. I do want to say that while I was reading your post, it came to me that this must be a man writing this. Only because it seems that some men enjoy the conquest without capturing the heart. Some women too of course, but for men it seems more prevalent.

But to clarify my thoughts, I have always found that to capture any part of me at all, a man needed to seize my mind, or at least pique my interest. The lust could or could not be there. I would not sleep with anyone, or almost anyone for that matter. It was the time we took to acquaint. The time and effort to evolve and if things worked out, then we could respond the the lust. But perhaps I am different in needing an emotional bond. My body is not absent from my brain.
Once love was established, or at least deep affection (Gary insisted on love) then the act of submitting was possible. In fact Gary who is quite dominant did not control anything at all in the bedroom to begin. In fact he gave me wide berth to observe and gain control so I would ultimately trust him with everything. And in a very short order, he did in fact control everything. With my knowledge he loved me and would care for me always.

Never once did I infer that love conquers all. In fact I know that depending on the nature of your relationship and what your natural inclination is, that alone depends on the outcome.

I broke up with many men for their lack of strength. Not that I was looking for a dominant back then, I just realized that the passion was for me was missing. Very intelligent men. But they couldn't hold my spark. I'm not naive enough to think that just because they are rich, or handsome or whatever someone is looking for is going to be the solution. Nor would giving in to immediate intimacy. Where in fact, I feel the real intimacy is lacking when he doesn't know my mind very well.

And that alone is what I waited my whole life for. What I wish for every woman who is looking.
And the love I have with Gary is not lacking his taking me in hand. A natural combination based on love and connection. Which was discovered with the time we took to find out.
Peace...Blush

Love and lust.

I just read through all of the comments here, and I find that I must disagree with Mackenzie. Lust is all well and good, but you can find lust anywhere. Go into a nightclub and you see people falling all over themselves with lust. Lust, in itself, is almost meaningless as far as I am concerned.

I do not want to go into details of my life because, frankly, I doubt anyone really cares. Generalities, however, will suffice for this. I have met women who I didn't feel much, if any, lust for. In the case of a few of them, however, we developed that emotional connection. We talked, we got to know each other, and I found that the more I got to know them, and respected them, and cared about them. The more emotionally involved I was in them, the more appealing they were to me and the more lust there was.

I just came out of a long term relationship, and before we even got together we were talking on the phone every day for months, and exchanging emails. When we first met in person, there was a lot of lust and desire present, despite the fact that she is not my 'type' and I am not hers.

Lust is necessary for a healthy relationship, I agree with that. Lust should not be the basis of the relationship, however. There are too many people who think "Let's hook up, and we will see if we are compatible after"... Lust is something that can be created. It can be generated, even by just changing the way you look at your partner.

As for people changing. Before you tell me I don't understand, my partner had MS, so I know a little bit about physical limitations, though I am sure it is not to the extent your wife suffered. I agree withy ou 100% that you cannot expect them to change when their behaviour is constrained by a physical condition... On the other hand, claiming that "A person can not change their nature." is a bit ridiculous. That is like saying that a chronic overeater cannot learn to control himself and lose weight. That a chronic smoker can't stop smoking. That people can't decide to better themselves. That there is no room for self-improvement, whatever you are, you are and you can't do anything else so there is no point in trying.

I beg to disagree. People can and do change, and the first step towards change is to admit that its necessary, to decide that you need it. They say in Alcoholics Anonymous that the first step towards getting better is admitting you have a problem, and then making a determined effort to correct it. Are you telling me that all these people have no hope?

I'm sorry if I seem to be ranting, but I know people who have changed. People who have improved themselves. People who have made a difference, in their own lives and the lives of others, and it just bothers me that someone can just blithely say "nope, can't be done".

Love, lust, and dominance

Well, I had a number of comments in mind, but Mackenzie mostly beat me to them, with his very observant post. Let me say this: Blush, if this "love first" approach works out for you, that's wonderful. Miraculous, even. But I don't think it's going to work out equally well for everyone. I've had plenty of loving relationships that lacked the dominance, conquest and passion that I need; so now I've got to start putting my priorities there.

And I do think that it's possible to tell whether a man has dominant tendencies before getting involved in a committed relationship. Certainly that should show up in bed, as Mackenzie said; but I would hope it would show up well before then, too. (And at this point, I'm just about ready to start raising the issue early on, since I'm tired of wasting my time on men who are not dominant.) There are plenty of ways that a man can test for submissive tendencies in a woman, too; and really, I think the ball should be in his court when it comes to that. I don't know about other sexually submissive women, but I just hate having to try and come up with coy ways of letting a man know that's what I'm like. It would be so much easier for him to pull a few dominant moves and find that out firsthand. But if I did have to broach the subject, I guess I can think of various ways to do it.

One thing I do like is arm-wrestling; I enjoy feeling the man's strength, and if he's got a dominant streak then that should be enjoyable for him, too; so I'd look for that wicked, domly gleam in his eye as he's overpowering me and pinning my arm to the table. But I can think of other ways of tilting the conversation in that direction, too; start talking about politics and feminism, and whether women should serve in the military and the police, etc. It should not take much time at all for him to realize that I have some very definite feelings about masculine versus feminine roles. Then he really needs to take charge at some point, even if it's in a fairly mild way, like pinning my arms behind me when he kisses me or whatnot. He needs to make *some* kind of move, or else I can most reasonably conclude that he's either not dominant enough, or he's too scared to express it. (Which also can be interpreted as not dominant enough.)

Anyway, not that I think jumping in bed is the first order of business; but I'd certainly want to make sure we're sexually compatible before embarking on any sort of committed relationship. And while I might like the man and care about him a lot before that time, I don't think we could truly be said to love one another until we've experienced each other sexually and related on that level. But what I would like to have before that is that we like each other a lot, and that we trust each other, and that we treat each other with respect and consideration. I think those things would ideally come before getting sexually involved. But lust and sexual connection are major facets of romantic love, so I think the love would follow after we become sexually intimate, and not before then.

Anyway, no one should undervalue love, of course; but I've met too many sweet, kind, loving men who were not in the least bit dominant; and that is just not enough for me. Not any longer, and not by a long shot.

And again...

Hi DeeMarie, I can see that now there are many people who seem to feel relationships are like shopping for apples.
Chose the style, color and texture of the fruit, and it appeals to you, take a bite.
And if that works for you, or even if that works for the majority, then I suppose there must be something in that. Like you, I dated many lovely men, whom I broke up with as the dynamics were just wrong for me. Did I sleep quickly with these men as well? No, I took my time as I always had and chose men whom I found I could care for, perhaps love before I was willing to dedicate my body and mind to.
It took me time to find out that the sizzle was not the steak with these men. And I was glad I had not just tasted their brand of sexuality before I got to know them. Even if they did have a dominant gene in them, I don't know if I could have cared or loved them enough to marry them. But I took the time to find out.
Because I met Gary when I was a bit older (late 30's) I felt I had nothing but time. We spent so much time learning of each other, finding out what made us tick respectively, and flirting with what our ideals were.
I don't care if he were the most masculine man on the earth, if he couldn't hold some kind of key to my mind, I would not offer my body. And while we discovered our love early, yes it has blossomed to more today. Of course things nurtured often do.
But if we had started with testing our sexuality, he would have lost me day one. I can undress, offer my body and at the same time, I will close down my mind and throw away the key. He never would have found out who I was, where my feelings lay, and in my case, exploring my submission. I was not as clearly conscious of my tendencies then. And I was not a teenager.
So, if the system of look, test, taste, and then learn if it's compatible works for you, then enjoy and hopefully you'll find true love....Blush

Upon further thinking...

Sorry to write twice on this DeeMarie, but I wanted to be sure I wasn't missing anything when I read and reread your comments the first time.
And here is something that I've often thought, and you seem to be saying it as well.
Perhaps there is as place for commitment without love. I don't think it's miraculous at all. I think you have to be open for it, ready or not. But love is no miracle. However saying that, whether it's you, or the other gentlemandom, but there must be a place for subs and doms to committ without love. And I'm sure there is a great many marriages based on that as well.
What is the shame in that, is that you really can't get to that 'higher place' that love and devotion take you. Your needs may get met, and maybe being dominant is the first thing you can look for in a man before seeing if has any other qualities that make up what is most important to you. But you have to wonder just how far that takes you in the journey of discovery when one does not love you, nor you him in just that way.
But my thoughts, sure, it can happen and probably does all the time. Not something I'd like to see happen to my daughter though....Blush

Love is Forged, not Found

In all honesty, Blush, I think us old-married-folks need to be careful when we talk about marriage being based on true love and devotion.

If you remember back to the beginnings of your relationship, you might remember passion, lust, love, friendship but perhaps a nagging feeling that "this isn't quite what I thought marriage was supposed to be".

True love and devotion is rarely present in the first few years of a relationship. The seeds of it are there but the kind of devotion that we experience in a long term marriage is forged over the entire length of the relationship.

I guess my point is that single people should not judge their relationships based on a standard of the kind of love that their married friends have.

Too many single people fear that he/she isn't "the one" because their feelings of love aren't the same as those they see around them.

Love in the first few years of a relationship is not the same as love in a ten, twenty or thirty year relationship.

I'm not sure that "true love and devotion", at least as we experience it, is possible in a relationship that has not stood the test of time.

All brands of different..

Hi carlf, I appreciate your point of view. But in my case, I am not that long married girl. In fact Gary and I are going on 6 years now. A second marriage for both of us. And frankly, my first marriage was very violent and I was told repeatedly by family and friends that when you marry, you make it work, despite any problems.
Not such good advice. And when I looked at the marriage of my friends back then, there were some pretty big problems brewing. And staying, as the advice and observation I had, only made me a broken woman, at least physically. And emotionally fractured.
When Gary and I bumped into each other, I had no intention of a relationship at that time. I was scared of men, I was tentative and I wanted only what was safe. And I had a very young daughter to protect.
Yet Gary recognized my fears, he heard me when I told him repeatedly we had 'nothing in common' as was my way of rebuffing him. And he refused to be brushed off. He saw potential in us I had not seen yet. And so he started the dance of 'knowing each other'. If he would have pushed, or suggested we sleep together, never once would this have worked. Yet it only took a couple of months for me to recognize that I loved this man. And I was well aware of his feelings for me. Was it that he showed such strong signs of protection, nurturing..perhaps. But I was craving that type of affection, needing his warmth and comfort. And I was not young enough nor naive to see this was something else. This was love.
And you are very right about one thing though. Love changes after years. The devotion magnifies, the love engulfs and the bond strengthens. While those feelings can only be had with time, the seeds must be there to sow. It takes more than a kiss and a pinch to find that out....Blush

Love is important, but is it really everything?

I loved what you wrote. I thought it was truly beautiful. You are right that love is the most important thing in a relationship. I would never have slept with my husband if I did not love him. Lust was not enough, and we were young, so believe me we had plenty of that! I had tried a quick one night stand in my late teens and it scared the heck out of me. I vowed never to have sex again unless I was willing to marry the person.

My husband and I were (and still are) great friends. We have a lot in common, so it was easy to spend time together. We loved each other deeply right from the early days. We have been through a lot together, if we had not loved each other I doubt we would have lasted. We have been married 11 years and things have been getting better and better. For a few years however we were on a downward slide, despite our love. It never failed, but we lost our connection, our friendship for a while. Love was not enough. I suppose it could be argued that because we loved each other we were willing to try different things, willing to work it out. We were falling apart though.

It was not until we changed the way were relating that things started to right themselves again. If he stopped being dominant now, I am honestly not sure if we would last, despite our love. I do not know that without his dominance if we could meet each others needs any more. Who knows, it is all hypothetical really.

I am a romantic and I would also tell people to look for love first. Then look to see if they have the other qualities that you need. I am not sure if love alone should be the only thing single people look for. I think if you know you want and need a dominant man you should find out if the person meets this quality that you need. If not I think that it may be difficult to have a good lasting marriage. It just seems all too often that people come to this site wanting a husband or wife to be more dominant or submissive and it is just not in their natures. How do you last after you know the person you are married to will never be able to meet your needs? Even if you love them, it may not be enough to sustain you through a marriage.

But then again if I lost my submissiveness or he lost his dominance maybe we would simple find a new way to relate. Maybe love would hold us together. It is just hard for me to fathom it.

Take care,
Tev

The priority...

I have often questioned if love would be enough to hold us together. I know it was the initial connection. It was the first realization that I wanted, needed to continue to go forward and for the first time, to look really deeply into who I was, who I am.

Gary probed and discovered my needs. And refined them until I could no longer deny them, my submissiveness. His dominance. And he took his time to cement these roles, these natural roles we each had and complimented the other with. Now, saying that, we do have bumps. But never once have I questioned my love of him. In this big world, the one fact I know I can rely on bar none, is that Gary loves me. He will care for, attend and nurture me with all the gentleness and love one man could possibly have.

There was a time when I didn't now if I even wanted spanking any more. I seemed to have lost my 'need' for it. I didn't like that change. But never did I consider myself to stop submitting to Gary. I don't know what would happen if he stopped leading our relationship. If he were to be ill, I would always love that man. But if the conditions are right, I never want him to stop guiding me, us. But to tell you the truth. With the seed of love firmly planted, all the changes, good and not as good, we'd continue and we'd be strong.

Without that thread of mutual love, what happens when the bumps hit? That is a scary thought. Which is why I have always suggested to look for love first. You don't have to marry someone who is not compatible. But if you are, then love can get you through the duration...