Tradition, feminism, Victoria and Albert

The phrase taken in hand comes from the expressed sentiment that there are times in a woman's life when a man needs to take her in hand and straighten her out. Women from more traditional backgrounds are likely to use the phrase taken in hand – or its derivatives – as a euphemism for getting a spanking in which they may not be totally willing participants at the moment.

While the world has changed since phrases such as taken in hand were understood, one thing to remember is that there was a time when, while society did not completely condone wife spanking – as it was sometimes called – there was a general agreement that, as long as it did not transgress into abuse, that reducing a woman to tears across man's knee was preferable to smoldering resentments and eventual divorce.

Domestic discipline in today's society seems so out of place because the misandric solution for all domestic difficulties has been to kick the man out of the house. Relegated to the fringes of society by an entrenched matriarchal new world order that continually portrays women as victims and men as evil buffoons, domestic discipline has developed its own jargon – much of it borrowed from the bondage community. However, until fairly recently in terms of human history, the practice did not require elaborate schemes to work.

Men and women understood each other and what to expect from each other better than they do today. For example, a boy who had heard an older sister get a spanking or two intuitively comprehended that the female anatomy and psyche are not nearly as fragile as they have been more recently portrayed. Girls understood that fact of life as well. (While women still understand it, men do not.)

So it was that without lists of rules and punishments, women understood when they had crossed the line and what they might expect as a result. For the most part, mostly from girl talk and motherly advice, brides understood that if a wife deceived her husband then she could expect to be spanked. Absent implicit social understandings, today's domestic discipline has to rely on more explicit arrangements.

While the women's liberation movement has been good for women in many respects, an increasing number of women are becomingly increasingly frustrated with the gulf that separates them from men. They know that it is not nature, but are unsure as to what to do about it. Men are likewise bewildered.

Keeping the above in mind, perhaps the best thing that a website can do is dispel the modern myth, largely created by a radicalized and embittered feminist movement bent more on misandry than anything else – that spanking is either abusive or else it is titillating – that it either degrades a woman to the point that she must be certifiably crazy to endure it or else it is a kink foisted on her because she was spanked as a child by her father.

The problem for women and domestic discipline is the same as for women and Christianity. Some of the most unmitigated disasters occur when a woman drags post-modern feminist ideology into a spin-off of an ancient patriarchal religion. Much the same thing is true when the same post-modern woman tried to merge feminism with domestic discipline.

That integration of domestic discipline and feminism may be difficult�becomes evident in a story told of Prince Albert in his potentially awkward relationship with Queen Victoria. Although Albert had no inherent position in government, when the two were alone, he only had one question: Was he addressing Victoria as queen or as wife? If she were queen, he was the obeisant subject. Conversely, if she were wife, he was her husband.

Whether Victoria was ever spanked – which she may well have been on occasion given the attributes of the age that bears her name – is less important than the model her dual role offers to women who have achieved positions of responsibility in the workplace. For domestic discipline to work, women have to let men take charge. It requires a rethinking – even leaving it at the door –�that many women find difficult if not impossible. The result is matrimonial carnage.

Noone

Taken In Hand tour start | next

Have you seen the following articles?
Do you have a commanding presence?
An 1897 woman's “ideal of manhood”
William Godwin: Familiarity breeds contempt
Domestic discipline (DD)
Being taken in hand is hot!
Why is BDSM so popular?
Empowering dominance
Happy living in fear of a man?!
Does it have to hurt to be Taken In Hand?
She wants to be taken in hand against her will?!

2003 Sep 30 - 12:27 | login or register to post comments | latest article | previous article | next article |

Asexual?

I slightly disagree with one bit of this:

Keeping the above in mind, perhaps the best thing that a website can do is dispel the modern myth ... that spanking is either abusive or else it is titillating – that it either degrades a woman to the point that she must be certifiably crazy to endure it or else it is a kink foisted on her because she was spanked as a child by her father
Specifically, whilst I agree that (with a woman who prefers this kind of relationship) it is not degrading, and I agree that it is complete nonsense to say that it is a kink foisted on the woman because she was spanked as a child by her father, I disagree with the preceding implication that it is asexual. As someone said on this site, even when it is not sexual, it is sexual in a sense, because a woman who prefers this sort of relationship is unlikely to be excited by a man who does not do this, at least, not in the long term. It follows that there is a sexual element underlying this. This does not mean that the woman is aroused every time she is taken in hand, just that if she is never taken in hand, or if that is not at least a possibility in her relationship, she will lose attraction to her man.

by the boss on 2003 Oct 2 - 11:10 | login or register to post comments

Asexuality in Perspective

The reason that I wrote the sentences to which you object was because of the very naïve and prevalent belief that, if fathers never spanked little girls, the problem (as some see it) would go away. It will not, because the needs of woman for a man who will protect her even from herself is so strong that it is, most probably, embedded in the interaction of her genes.

Failing to realize the depth of woman's need, opponents have tried to relegate spanking to the fringes of human behavior by claiming that it is either abusive (something that evil men impose on defenseless female victims) or kinky (appealing only to abnormal women).

Most of the sexuality arising from spanking flows as a natural byproduct of the love and respect that a woman develops for the man who can tame her wiles. For if a man can tame the shrew within her, woman is inclined to believe that he can protect her from all else.

It is not that spanking is wholly asexual. Rather it is that a woman's response to spanking travels through much deeper emotional and spiritual waters within her before emerging in the fountain of lovemaking. In this regard, spanking for a woman is very much like the complexity of orgasm. To believe otherwise is to suggest that woman is a mechanical being that need only be spanked to copulate.

by Noone on 2003 Oct 10 - 21:59 | login or register to post comments

Wow -- you really caught it!

I have never been able to understand why I was drawn to the strength of a man who would hold me accountable with a spanking -- until I read your words, "For if a man can tame the shrew within her, woman is inclined to believe that he can protect her from all else."

Yeah . . . that's it. Wow.

by a Taken In Hand reader on 2003 Nov 30 - 23:52 | login or register to post comments

Victoria and Albert

I don't think Albert ever spanked Victoria, though she might have wanted him to. They frequently had tremendous rows, but he tended either to try and reason with her, to which she was not amenable, or else go out of the room, in which case she would just follow him and continue arguing. Myabe she would have enjoyed being spanked, who knows? Whether wife-spanking was realy as prevelent in the past as the author of this article seems to think is, I feel doubtful. There isn't much mention of spanking (or any that I can recall) in 19th century fiction, quite a lot of references to children being beaten, but no wife-beating, except in 'Martin Chuzzlewitt' where the man doing the beating is a brute who ends up dead, not a role-model for modern spankers. No spanking in the rest of Dickens, or Eliot or Trollope or Henry James or the Brontes (the Brontes liked brutal men in their stories, but none ever beats the woman he loves that I can recall). Mark Twain? Children only, I think. Suggests to me that when it went on it was a sexual activity, not something you'd write about in mainstream fiction then.

by Louise C on 2004 Jun 20 - 10:03 | login or register to post comments

Bearing the shrewish side--does one dare?

I am well aware of the loss of control that occurs when stress and frustration are poorly managed. I know when I should go for a walk, pray, meditate, go see a movie, anything really, to calm down or get things in proper perspective. Yet, life gets in the way and without disciplining myself in maintenance of my "overload", the pressure builds. Then there she morphs, the shrew from the pit of Styx, throwing what could easily be construed as a childish temper tantrum. Typically, the instigating factor to such an outburst is something mundane, making my behavior seem even more irrational. Actually, I simply did not keep a tight hold on my inner reins, and this angers me even more; the thought that I was not more mature in controlling my emotions.

I understand the shrew, but will he? If I lose my cool and he see's the unnattractive side of my nature, will he be repulsed and reject that unpleasant part of who I am? Will the strength of the shrew send him away? Standing up to the shrew, taking her in hand, and getting hold of the reins I failed to secure, is paramount to also securing a trust and confidence that the whole woman is accepted and loved. Submitting to such leadership and unconditional love that fears not the worst of who I can be is a great liberation and truly strengthens my resolve to do better the next time--and make him proud of my honest efforts rather than exasperated by fighting against his authorian attempts. His committed strength strengthens the very core of who I am, when I allow it. If women could once again remember how much strength they can absorb through obedience, to love honor and "obey" would make a resounding comeback at the altar.

by MaeR on 2004 Jun 29 - 01:55 | login or register to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.