Sex on command
I believe sex dies in an enormous number of marriages after some years and the partners consequently become emotionally distant. (Yes, I'm generalizing from my own case.) Sex first becomes a matter of repeated negotiation, and then withers. This happens because both partners implicitly subscribe to the romantic theory of sex: that intercourse is valuable only if it's prompted by spontaneous desire, unprogrammed, unplanned, unchosen. You must be overcome by a lust that you haven't organized; for only then does the occurrence of that lust affirm the worth of the person who has inspired it.
This is what LifeOfCuriosity describes as “the notion that emotional feelings are undeniable, uncontrollable, unaccountable and that not to take action in accordance with such emotions or to resist those emotions is somehow dishonest”.
On this view, sex from a sense of duty is a sad substitute for sex that comes from passion. Sex undertaken to make a relationship flourish is far inferior to sex that is the expression of a flourishing relationship. Sex undertaken to appease an angry partner is the lowest of all, the opposite of sex undertaken from love.
So you wait for the moment for spontaneous desire to come. If you just don't feel completely right about sex, it's not the right thing to be doing, and you either do not submit to it, or do so with a bad grace. Again and again the opportunity for sex is lost, or the experience is spoiled by the sense that it's just not being done in the right spirit, from the right emotions.
And when two people have become used to each other after years of being together, are less physically attractive than they once were, have accumulated a thousand resentments against each other over time – it's unlikely that mutual lust will kindle spontaneously and simultaneously.
And yet, they can enjoy sex with each other; they don't need to find pleasure with other bodies that are more stimulating because more attractive or less familiar.
But they need to recognize that sex is central to the relationship, not peripheral; that sexual desire can grow in the course of sexual activity, and that pleasure can follow on from that; that it can therefore be right to demand sex; and that, just as a headache, tiredness, resentment, lack of desire, are unacceptable reasons for refusing to do some necessary household chore, they are far, far less acceptable reasons for refusing the vital sacrament of sex. What husband or wife would say they didn't load the washing-machine “because they had a headache”? Take a couple of Ibuprofen and get on with it!
“So to you sex is like loading a washing-machine, is it?” No, it's infinitely more important than loading a washing-machine!
“I won't give him sex just because he demands it!” Then what are you married for? What does marriage mean in that case?
The emotions of loving sex will follow the actions of the dutiful performance of sex. And dutiful performance will be best ensured if one partner takes command, and the other willingly submits to authority.
Have you seen the following articles?
Could this kind of relationship be for you?
The Total Woman, by Marabel Morgan: a book review
The face, the mask, and the dream
An overview of Taken In Hand
The resistant woman
Women who take responsibility for their own actions
Taken In Hand relationships are hot and close
Now I want my husband all the time
What you need to know about Taken In Hand
The carrot or the stick?
- Login to post comments
#1 One learns to love by loving
Yes indeed, Theo.
So when both parties try to sexually satisfy the other partner, even if each does not exactly feel like it at a particular time, each partner's attitude accommodates to his efforts. And each partner then LEARNS to find the other sexually provocative. I wonder if the frequency of sexual relations is really any less in so called “arranged marriages” vs. modern marriages? Degree to which sex is enjoyed?
Many world religions do indeed have specific days of the week when it is considered (close to) an obligation to have sex, in the same way that in these same faiths, it is close to obligatory to do a good deed, if one can. In Judaism these good deeds (called “mitzvot”) are sometimes considered particularly blessed in the eyes of G-d, if they are done on holidays. So it is considered a uniquely wonderful “mitzvah” in Judaism to have sex on the Jewish Sabbath (Friday night). In an almost obligatory way, Orthodox couples do precisely that!
I had never understood why until your post, Theo.
Thanks for enlightening me.
One learns to love by loving.
#2 Two (or more) separate issues
I love the warm and giving attitude expressed in the previous post. If two individuals get married and promise to engage sexually with each other and no one else, they are in effect promising to meet each other's sexual needs, and this is not something to take lightly or casually renege on later. It would be wrong to expect the other person to remain sexually exclusive while depriving him of one of the most important things that distinguishes a marriage relationship from a mere friendship.
BTW, as the previous poster suggested, in Jewish law sex is a positive obligation on the husband, and if the man does not meet his sexual obligations to the woman, that is grounds for an immediate divorce.
Withholding sex, in my view, amounts to divorcing in all but name, and is a passive-aggressive form of punishment or even torture. Call me extreme but I take the view that when two individuals are married, they have no right to deprive the other of sex, and unless my husband were unfaithful (in which case the marriage would be over) I would consider him to have a fundamental right to have sex with me, no matter what. (OK, if I have a raging kidney infection or something, I'd hope that my spouse would be understanding about that, but there is a big difference between that and depriving your spouse of sex in the absence of acute illness.)
When two individuals who take this view marry, they each make a great effort to meet each other's sexual needs. They do not sulk and withhold sex from each other. Even if one does not feel in the mood, he or she finds a way to satisfy the other person.
That, I believe, is the right attitude. And anyone getting married who shares my view would be well-advised to check carefully that the person he or she is marrying feels the same way. If he or she doesn't, you could find yourself in the nightmare scenario of being obliged to be sexually faithful to someone who is depriving you of sex. You could find yourself in a marriage in which you are lucky if you have sex once a week – or once a month – or once a year. (A terrifying thought!)
Having said that, what if you are in that nightmare “don't start from here” situation already? It's too late to have that conversation and check that you both take your conjugal obligations seriously. Your spouse is already depriving you of sex. What is the answer?
Well if you are already in this situation, you need to keep clear in your own mind that there are two separate issues here. First, there is the issue of your conjugal rights and the fact that your spouse has a moral obligation not to deprive you of sex. But secondly, there is the completely separate issue of what to do about the problem.
The problem is unlikely to be solved by simply demanding your conjugal rights. If the other person is depriving you of sex, something has gone very wrong somewhere in your marriage, and unless the other person shares your view that there is a fundamental obligation not to deprive the other person of sex in a marriage, standing on your rights at that point is likely to be counterproductive. It might be counterproductive even if he or she does share that view! You need good psychology to solve the problem, not an approach that would compound the problem.
When one spouse starts saying "You owe me X", the other starts feeling like not giving X. It is human nature. Appealing to the other person's duty puts him or her in a self-sacrificial mode, leading to resentment, which is unlikely to make the person feel well-disposed towards you.
The cure for a thousand resentments is NOT causing more. Resentments are bound to cause untold damage to a relationship. They eat the warmth away until the relationship is cold and bitter. It is not in the slightest bit surprising if, in such a case, one or both parties would rather do just about anything than have sex (with the spouse, anyway). In a good marriage, there is absolutely no need for all this resentment and bitterness. It is not inevitable.
Moreover, whilst standing on your conjugal rights – demanding sex in the spirit of “You owe me this, so take some ibuprofen and get on with it!” – might get you your way in the short term, the long-term damage to the relationship of such an attitude doesn't even bear thinking about!
Whilst the idea of sex-on-demand or sex-as-a-duty might well be highly erotic in a good relationship, in a relationship in which sex is an issue, or in an otherwise bad relationship, that attitude is likely to be catastrophic. It is enough to turn sex from a thrilling and wonderful thing into something vile and sickening – even in the most passionate and sexual of individuals.
Resentments can best be soothed by being nice to the person (that is, in that person's terms), not by adding yet another cause of misery.
This is not to say that I think it wise or nice to keep refusing one's husband sex. As I said at the beginning of this post, I certainly don't! That in itself undoubtedly leads to terrible problems. But here I am not speaking to that person, I am speaking to the person who might think, from reading Theo's comment, that the solution to his problems might be to stand on his rights in this way.
Finally, in the case of Taken In Hand folk who connect sexually through ‘rape’ and other kinds of consensual non-consent, a man in the position of being denied sex might (other things being equal) do far better to take action of that sort rather than to ask, beg, or appeal to the woman's sense of duty. A Taken In Hand woman of this sort might be thrilled by the man's daring if he were to take her, whereas she might find the asking or begging or grumpily demanding (but not taking action) weak and off-putting.
#3 On the wrong track
Theo, I hear your pain and frustration but I don't think ordering her to have sex with you is the answer. I have been in that position more than once. I have had sex when I was truly not in the mood but gave in because he (boyfriend at the time) wanted it. What a colossal mistake.
Once one boyfriend managed to override my objections that I had a terrible headache. "Take a few ibuprofen and get on with it," indeed! I felt violated, used, and completely not considered. I did not "get with it" and feel sexy because I had succumbed to his masculine prowess. I felt lousy. Even more annoying was his pleasure over my feeling unusually "warm" inside.
Guess why? Because I was coming down with an adult case of chicken pox! That warm feeling was fever! I'm only sorry he was immune.
So don't overlook physical causes. If she's past menopause, it can be physically painful to have intercourse unless some extra steps are taken. Or had you considered that at all?
If resentment is stopping sex from taking place then it makes more sense to do something about reducing the resentments rather than insisting that sex happen despite them. That's only going to add up more resentments.
Sometimes taking a weekend away from home and responsibilities brings back the sparkle. Sometimes it takes other things. One person simply commanding the other to have sex, is counterproductive in my mind. Oh and of course, it would have to be the man commanding the woman, because what would a woman in charge say? Get it up or else???
On the other hand what I have found useful in my own situation (a husband with almost no interest in sex, in addition to physical problems) was to tell him point blank that I didn't get married to be celibate, and if he didn't take steps to improve the situation, I wanted an open marriage. This has worked several times to gain some extra cooperation. It doesn't work in the immediate sense of getting sex to happen right then and there, as you seem to be saying the man ought to be able to command, but it does get the ball rolling since he is very much against the idea of open marriage.
In short, I don't think anyone should have to live without sex, and if you can't get it willingly from your partner, the threat to go outside should be made. And if it isn't successful, well, she dug her own grave: go get what you need. But forcing it by commanding her is not going to turn her all mushy, gushy and warm for your form.
"Pat"
#4 Dutiful sex
The idea of having sex because it's your duty may be appealing to service-oriented submissives, but it's entirely possible that other submissive women would find the idea rather horrifying, to say nothing of the general population. In my relationship, I'm the one who's more proactive about our sex life. I don't wait for desire to spontaneously hit me: I plan for sex ahead of time, but I don't demand sex, and neither does my husband. Quite frankly, he'd find the idea rather mortifying, as would I.
amba_k
#5 Love and duty
There used to be quite long periods in the early years of our marriage when I didn't feel like having sex with my husband, and saying 'no' to him quite often, as I did, made him very frustrated and sometimes angry.
However, in later years, when we were getting on better and I felt more kindly disposed to him, the situation changed. I found that I wanted to have sex more often than I used to anyway, but even if I didn't I was more likely to go along with it, because I felt more kindly disposed towards him, and consequently more willing to do things to please him even if I didn't particulalry feel like it. I eventually made the interesting discovery that if I just relaxed, and let myself go with the flow as it were, I would generally warm up and get into the swing of things, which made it much more enjoyable.
I feel quite strongly that it should be love, rather than duty, that prompts you to have sex if you don't really feel like it. It was having kindlier feelings towards my husband, because we were getting on together better generally, that made me more willing to have sex when I didn't feel like it myself, rather than a sense of 'duty' which does seem to me a rather off-putting reason for doing it.
As for having a headache being a good reason for not loading the dishwasher, well in our house actually it would be. If, as occasionally happens, I have been felling unwell and haven't done much around the house, I tell my husband that I'm not feeling well, and he accepts that as a reasonable explanation, just as he would if I told him I wasn't feeling well enough to have sex.
And being older and less physically attractive and more used to each other does not necessarily cause a diminishment in sexual desire. In my husband's case,as far as I can judge, he seems to find me as desirable as he ever did, and in my case, due to the regime change, I find him more desirable these days than I have ever done in the past. I am not 'overwhelmed by lust' very often, it is true, but I do have a sort of low-level feeling of sexual desire whenever he is around, which he can easily ignite if he wants to.
I think it is reasonable to have sex out of love, without lust being present, as in doing it because you want your partner to be happy, but sex performed as a 'duty' rather than out of either love or lust strikes me as a rather depressing concept, and not one I think that would greatly appeal to many women.
#6 Love, not duty
Louise wrote:
So well said, Louise.
Acting out of love is a generous, wholehearted thing; being expected to act out of duty (unless, I suppose, that happened to be what thrills the person -- stranger things have been known!) feels unpleasant, self-sacrificial, resentment-inducing, anything but wholehearted. The one is freely given; the other is extracted or through gritted teeth.
#7 sweep her off her feet!
Theo, you haven't said what other methods you've tried to encourage her to have sex besides negotiating but could I suggest a more demonstrable act.
Over the last 15 years or so, I've experienced rejection from my wife regarding sex because our opportunity usually arises late at night and she objects that she is too tired and has to get up earlier than me to go to work.
When it first became a problem, I decided instead of arguing, to pick her up and carry her off to the bedroom and see if she would be more agreeable.
Even today, this little demonstration usually does the trick. She enjoys being carried off. On rare occasion when it doesn't work, I just put her down and wait till a better time.(If I didn't, I'd get an elbow in the side of the head)
Okay, not every middle-age guy can carry off their woman, but some other physical act of aggression might work alot better than talking.
#8 Sex on Demand
Theo, you expressed it so well.
You give him sex exactly because he demands it in my book anyway. I never expect when I am in a relationship with a man in charge (which I have been) that he will always ask. He can take. It's agreed, fundamental. Obviously not everyone is made that way of course.
I remember when my ex husband and I were having pre-marriage religious instruction the priest said each party in marriage should always consent to sex with the other if the other wanted it. Wise general advice perhaps.
Certainly for women who like to be taken in hand it certainly works well. I always found it hard to initiate sex anyway.
Also if you always wait for the right moment it may never happen. I love the idea of pleasing whoever I am with whatever mood I might feel in at the time.
#9 A proper degree
I used to submit to my usband's sexual demands in our first years of marriage no matter what my mood was, which almost completely damaged my passion!
You may occasionally demand sex, but be careful.
Nowadays I some times submit to my husband's will, but it often makes me hot too. We are experiencing the honeymoon period again, and it is the value of love and feeling of the other that makes the difference.
Hali
#10 Wife duty
In my opinion it is a woman's duty to fulfill a man's need for sex. A man should have the right to demand it. But I understand that not all women feel this way. Theo I suggest, if nothing else works, planning a sex date with her. I read that sometimes as women go through chemical changes they are never in the mood to do it, and someone else suggested that the couple plan a date, like regular, but with sex a guaranteed part of the date...the person who shared this idea with me also said that doing this once or twice can bring back natural arousal in women sometimes. I am not sure how true it is... but it's better than never having it at all...
#11 Demanding sex
I don't feel that anyone should have the right to 'demand' sex from someone else. What kind of man goes around 'demanding' sex anyway? Would any woman really want to be with a man who actually thought he had a 'right' to demand sex, irrespective of whether the woman wanted it or not?
In Corinthians 7:14 it says; "The wife hath not power over her own body but the husband, and likewise also the husband hath not power over his own body but the wife."
Although I am not a huge fan of Saint Paul, I must say this sounds to me a more agreeable concept than the 'woman has a duty' thing, at least it implies a mutual fulfilling of needs, rather than it all being about the wife satisfying the husband.
#12 Re: Demanding Sex
A man should have the right to demand sex from his woman only if she feels comfortable with the thought of him having that right. The thought that I belong to my husband and him having the right to demand sex is a turn on for me. I know that I can trust him completely, he would not abuse that right by demanding sex when I`m not feeling well. I don`t believe that every man should have the right to demand sex from his woman.
Autumn
#13 The centrality of sex
It must have been at least a year ago that I first posted this piece. Looking back at it, I think I got the first part right (the romantic theory of sex, and the harm it does). And I made a complete hash of the second part ("it can therefore be right to demand sex"). My tone was completely petulant and unloving. I must have been in a strange mood when I wrote it. But I'm grateful to the posters who got past my incompetent expression and assumed the best of me.
Perhaps I should have restated the Taken In Hand mantra: what I'm talking about only makes sense and is only justified in the context of a loving relationship in which the woman gives blanket consent to the leadership of the man. I took that for granted.
I wrote "it can therefore be right to demand sex..." That word 'demand' was disastrous – naturally it made contributors think I was talking about pleading. Obviously that would be a passion-killer. I should have said "to require sex". And I should have added "He and she have to be clear that sex is vital and central, and promises have been made." I'm all for sweeping her off her feet with deeds rather than words. I would also personally enjoy spicing the action with a stinging verbal lesson about the rights and wrongs of the case, but maybe that's just my own kink.
The point is that the man has to have confidence in himself and the rightness of his actions. To have that confidence he has to be convinced of the centrality of sex.
But I think it's quite funny that so many fine people on this site who get hot about spanking or being spanked suddenly get indignant about a bit of scolding. And that others who get hot at the idea of the woman always being available for sex should get indignant about the idea of sex being required (demanded). "Sex on command" is precisely what they like.
Theo
#14 Being demanding
Louise wrote:
OK, Louise, let's try that with spanking / being spanked replacing sex.
I think you'd have your own answers to the second version. See how the same answers might apply to the first version?
Theo
chas_dar@yahoo.co.uk
#15 Sex and spanking
Well, my husband spanks me because he knows I like it, and if I go more than couple of days without getting spanked I tend to get restive. So it's not like it's something he's actually doing against my will.
If a woman enjoys having her husband demand sex from her then presumably that would turn her on and so it would be pleasurable to her. Which could be fun. Though I still prefer to think that my husband wants me to get pleasure out of it too.
The idea of doing it as some kind of duty is frankly a bit of a passion-killer for me, but I suppose if you've got a man who doesn't mind whether his wife is turned on or not, and a woman who doesn't expect to get any pleasure out of sex, then it could work. It doesn't sound like a very enticing prospect to me, but I suppose it could work all right for some people. I still feel that doing it out of love rather than duty is better though.
Likewise I get increased pleasure from being spanked by my husband these days, because I feel that nowadays he actually gets some personal satisfaction out of it rather than simply doing it for my gratification. The more I feel that he is getting something out of it the more satisfaction it gives me. I awlays knew he liked doing it to give me pleasure, but now I know it can satisfy him in a way as well it's much more of a thrill.
#16 Sex and arousing
As I got to know from this site what taken In Hand relationship is for a woman is that it is erotic, arousing. When your woman is not aroused there must be something wrong.
As for me, I can be aroused afterwards, after the intercourse. And therefore I would submit to my man demanding sex. If she doesn't, I think you should find a mistake.
Hali
#17 Love and duty
I'm re-reading Agatha Christie's 'Death in the Clouds'at the moment, and I was struck by this passage which seemed to express somewhat how I feel about these things. A young english girl is discussing with a young French archaeologist the difference between Englishmen and other men.
I think that's rather how I feel about the whole sex as duty thing. Just as I would prefer that my husband enjoyed spanking me rather than thought of it just a something he had to do, I like to think that my husband would prefer me to enjoy having sex with him rather than thinking of it as a duty. I think that's what I mean anyway.
#18 RE: Sex On Command
Hi:
Just reading some of these posts and was really riveted by this particular discussion.
Is the consensus in Taken In Hand that women cannot reject sexual advances of their mate?
ML
#19 I'm not sure how I feel about
I'm not sure how I feel about that. I generally do not reject advances, and I don't think it's a good idea to make it a habit to reject someone you love. That being said, I know my body. I know when I can handle sex and when I can't (to me it is more often painful than pleasant). I need to have the freedom to say "not tonight."
#20 Rejecting sex
Well, there does seem to be a fairly common situation on Taken In Hand where 'sex on demand' is part of the deal. However, this doesn't happen in our relationship, since sex has not really been an issue between us for many years now. During the early stormy years of our marriage there used to be quite long periods when I didn't feel like having sex at all, and this did cause a lot of aggro. However, in recent years we have got along much better and had sex more frequently anyway, and I was much less likely to refuse to have sex even if I wasn't in the mood, because I felt more amiably disposed towards my husband anyway.
When we started our Taken In Hand relationship it never occured to me to say "You can have sex with me whenever you want" because sex wasn't something that was causing annoyance in our relationship, and we were having it pretty frequently anyway. I mean, I hadn't had any complaints for a long time, so it wasn't something that came up. If my husband had said to me "I want to be able to have sex with you whenever I like whether you're in the mood or not" I think I would have been slightly taken aback, and probably slightly hurt as well, because I didn't think sex was a problem between us, and I would have been rather dismayed to discover that my husband saw it like that. Also I don't think I'd have been particularly thrilled to learn that my husband didn't care whether I was in the mood for sex or not.
What I have found though is that as a result of our Taken In Hand relationship there doesn't seem to be any time when I am not in the mood for it. I have a sort of mild feeling of sexual desire whenever my husband is around, and he can ignite me with ease any time he wants to. This is very pleasant, but it is a result of the regime change, rather than a deliberately implemented policy.
#21 sex on demand
We do have this in our relationship and I proposed it. One, I thought it would be a sure fire way to get him to try this way of life if we started off with just one rule: "I don't feel like it" is not an adequate reason for me to refuse sex. If I want to refuse him sex, I have to have a very good reason. This also applies to individual sex acts. I have given him authority over this body and what he does with/to it. Two, I very much used refusing sex as a way to get back at him for many percieved and actual misdeeds or as leverage in an argument or whatever, before Taken In Hand. If I have to forgive him before I have sex with him now, then I have to explain that to him, I can't just roll over and go to sleep in a huff.
This works for us, because the idea of him owning my body turns me on. It also works because he knows that if I say no, it means it is important enough to me to take a *punishment spanking* for it...or it means I want a spanking but then I would probably refuse with some bratty phrase like, "why don't you just try to make me?"
Has he ever taken advantage of this, e.g. forcing me to have sex when I was truly in some distress, either physical or emotional? No, and I can't imagine him doing that. If I thought he would, I would probably not have given him that authority over me. Has it ever come up? Once or twice. Usually, even if I think I am tired, he just has to put in thirty seconds of effort to get me right in the mood. Usually, it is me coming on to him these days and he has to rein me in once in awhile. Not that he would deny me just because he can, but a body has limits, LOL! Well, a male body does anyway.
I think when sex was a battleground for people before they got Taken In Hand, this kind of understanding can be very useful. It removes that as an option for the woman and it puts the man in a position to really take it seriously when she does protest. Just because you have an agreement that the man *has the authority* to punish the woman for something (like refusing sex) doesn't mean that he has to. We are still talking about human beings here with discernment and discretion, not robots dealing out punishment for committed misdeeds.
In addition, it can be a very tangible, everyday reminder of a man's authority when two people are well matched so don't disagree very often or the woman doesn't break the rules very often or when they don't do domestic discipline.
But, no, by no means is sex on demand a requirement for a relationship to be Taken In Hand nor do I think it is even a component of the majority of the relationships that are represented on here. I haven't taken a poll though, so it might be.
o*
#22 Reject? NO!!!
Rejection is a very strong word. Her rejection of sex is not an option in our household. But, to understand how things work with us, it is important to understand the difference between Rights and Responsibilites.
I stated the following in a comment in another Taken In Hand article on a similar topic:
"It's like any other position of authority. Rights accompany Responsibilities, which accompany Rights. I've never been in a position where I've had the right without the accompanying responsibility. Come to think of it, I don't believe that I would value the right if this were the situation. I want to earn the right by my attention to my responsibility.
This particular right to require the availability of my wife when I need her comes with the overall responsibility for the well-being of my wife - physical, emotional, mental, and spiritual. And this responsibility is of the higher order and comes before my right can be exercised.
Her submission and availability follow the practice - not just the theory - of this self-imposed rule."
Does she have the right to reject? No.
But, then, I don't have the right to ignore my responsibility for her well-being and force her compliance when I know that she is distressed.
Sam (of Sam & Missy)
#23 Rights and Responsibilities
Sam,
I never thought of it this way, but yes, that fits very nicely with my view of the subject, though our semantics are a bit different.
I am also not allowed to "reject" outright. I only can tell him how I feel and what I am comfortable with and I trust that he will act accordingly. If I were to reject outright, I would be getting it for that some time, somehow, even if it had to wait until I was well again.
Oh, and I think that Rights without Responsibilities are called Gifts. =) (sorry, just feeling a little punchy today!)
o*
#24 The right to reject
This wouldn't work for me. I need to know that I have the freedom to say "not tonight, I don't feel up to it" without having to rely on my husband's judgement as to whether he goes ahead and does it anyway or not. I prefer that he take my word for it.
#25 Further thoughts
I think what I would find off-putting about my husband insisting that I have sex with him whenever he wants, regardless of my own feelings in the matter, is that to me this would indicate a lack of confidence in his own ability to get me interested in sex. Why would he think that I wasn't interested? Why would he think that he needed to demand sex, instead of just taking it for granted that he could make me want it any time he did? Why would he be so insecure that he would need to do that? This is what I would start wondering, if my husband suggested this arrangement. Why does he need to insist on my having sex with him as 'a duty'? why can't he just sweep me off my feet? This is what I would wonder.
#26 without regard to my feelings
I think this is where our understanding of "sex on demand" differs. For us, at least, and in what Sam described (though I would never try to put words in someone else's mouth), there is no "without regard for the woman's feelings". My husband never does *anything* without regard to my feelings. The "sex on demand" rule does not mean that I can't say no to sex *at all* (though that is the simplest way to state it), it means that I can not disregard his feelings in this arena. It means that I can not *simply* say no. I am not allowed to flat out refuse him sex by simply saying, "no, not tonight", anymore than I could simply flat out refuse to clean the house or go to the store or do any of a number of things that he might request I do in our day to day life.
If he says to me, "The laundry is getting behind. Don't do any other housework, just catch up on the laundry today." I would be in trouble if I said, "no way, I'm not doing it. I don't feel like it." Now if I had some other things planned then I can tell him that and we discuss what is more important to our lives and what has priority.
The same would go for sex. I can tell him, "I don't really feel like it because of ABC." Can he go ahead anyway? Yes, but if he does it will be with the explanation that he needs to do this and I can just lay there. Of course, just going through the motions always puts me into the mood, so it is good for everyone. It works that way for me, too. If I need sex and he is too tired, he will do what he can to help me, whether it be him giving me some other form of gratification or helping me while I gratify myself.
It is very similar to our system of punishment and discipline. Basically, we both have the same rules, but if I break them, I get punished because it turns us both on. If he breaks them, he doesn't because neither one of us would like that. He also tries to never refuse me sex but the idea of me owning *his* body doesn't turn either of us on, so we don't talk about it that way. I expect him to satisfy me and we both acknowledge that he has an obligation to do that. We just think about it in a slightly different way than the right he has to my body. This is just another form of domination and authority for us.
And my husband's ability to sweep me off my feet would have absolutely no bearing on my attitude if I was feeling tired and pissy and wanted to punish him by denying him sex, LOL.
#27 not a punishment
Interesting to kid about punishing by denying sex. I think that may be one of the great points of a Taken In Hand relationship; sex is not used as a tactical extension of emotional disruption. Again, while Otter made the point in jest, we know there are people who withhold because they are mad about something often petty and that just clutters a relationship.
#28 Expecting sex on command
Too much of nothing
Can turn a man into a liar,
It can cause one man to sleep on nails
And another man to eat fire.
Ev'rybody's doin' somethin',
I heard it in a dream,
But when there's too much of nothing,
It just makes a fella mean. ~ Bob Dylan
This discussion of sex on command reminded me of this Dylan tune from the Basement Tapes. It reminded me of the men I know who live in mostly sexless marriages. These are healthy men who (from what I can tell) have a normal sexual appetite. Most men need sex regularly. Many of these men complain bitterly about this circumstance in their lives and feel betrayed by their wives. And just as Dylan sings, some of these fellas have turned mean (or sullen) from "too much of nothing".
It is a rather awkward situation to give men unsolicited advice about their sex lives. It's not something I have done, at least not directly. I have often wondered how this lack of intimacy comes about. I will not assign blame because who knows what goes on behind closed doors. As in most problem marriages I'm sure there is plenty of blame to go around. As Theo correctly points out, "it's unlikely that mutual lust will kindle spontaneously and simultaneously". Only a concerted effort to effect positive change in himself will make him more attractive to her.
Men who become desparate too often resort to emotional blackmail, whining and complaining, sullen withdrawal, or all of the above. This tactic may appeal to his wife's sense of duty or even worse her guilt. Although he may gain some immediate relief, his sense of manly pride will turn to self loathing if the so-called intimacy was nothing more than "courtesy sex". Ultimately, it makes him less attractive and less likely to get what he desires.
There are too many variables for there to be an easy remedy for such an unfortunate situation. However, the only solution that has any chance of working is for the man to be proactive. If he has any interest in taking her in hand he can not simply lay the blame on his wife and expect the appeal to guilt to have any long lasting affect. Instead, he has to find ways to not only make himself more desirable, but also do whatever he can to make his wife know he finds her desirable.
Of course this does not absolve the wife from making an effort too. Although in a taken in hand relationship there is a relative inequality between the man and his woman, both have equal responsibility to making the relationship a successful one. She must know that her man's health and happiness is dependent on an active sex life. She must know that if their relationship is to remain alive and vital she must make herself available to her man regularly. She can not expect him to be the man she wants him to be by denying him her body. A woman has much power to heal a man simply by giving him some good loving.
What I have discovered is if a man puts his woman first and shows his love for her in demonstrable ways most often she will respond. Hey, it may even get to the point where she can give her self to him fully and willingly knowing that he can expect sex on command.
#29 From someone new to Taken In Hand
I read many comments following this article in which the person seemed to think that sex on demand implied sex lacking any enjoyment for the wife/girlfriend. Only one or two mentioned the fact that her man could "bring her around" or make it enjoyable for her as well. I'm a submissive type myself, and very much like the idea of this kind of arrangement with my husband (who is currently stuck in his home country for the past year, but hopefully coming home to a new start for both of us soon, perhaps with some help from this site).
I suppose IMHO, if he made the effort to make it enjoyable for me every time, why wouldn't I be happy with it? What husband would seek this arrangement with his wife if he knew that at least some of the time, she wasn't enjoying it at all? I would think that would take alot out of it for him, as well. And if he knew that she honestly was not feeling well, or too tired to move, he should respect that and wait for a better time.
~ His ~
#30 Sex on command
As touched upon, sex at its best is an expression of the intimacy you already have in your relationship. Sex without that relationship does not bring true intimacy. Having said that sex in marriage will help maintain that intimacy you have. My wife is always responsive to my needs whenever. I would also be responsive to her but as it happens I am always the initiator. So it works well.
Ray
#31 The wrong attitude
As long as women are in charge of the relationship, by granting men the power they do have, then all is well (from the woman's perspective). However, as soon as a man actually uses that power, the fur starts to fly.
I find this attitude not a little short-sighted and illogical. I thought you wanted him to have power to take control of the relationship? No wonder men are confused.
There is such a lack of logic here, it's frustrating to read, and such a double standard. It's okay for a woman to say "I'm always available for sex," but not okay for a man to take advantage of that, at his discretion, upon command? This is so childish. Either he can take what he wants or he can't. Make up your minds. You're going to have to stop being so squeamish about actually having the man in charge if you want him to be in charge. This means getting comfortable with handing over control and power, and accepting that being taken in hand means exactly that – taken. Not asked for permission each time you feel like it!
Real women in real relationships who have said, overtly, that they want the man to be in control, take responsibility for that statement and act like grown-ups. If you said you'd be available for sex any time, then you're available at his command. It's not simply a matter of semantics; honor and live up to that agreement, no matter what your reason in the moment you yield to his desire, be it duty, love, lust, etc. An agreement is an agreement, and either you meant it or you didn't.
#32 I agree
I and my wife have just started together on our journey with Taken In Hand after a 30 year miserable marriage. I am absolutely convinced that this is the only way for us to save the marriage. I would like to take this opportunity to express my heartfelt thanks to all the contributors here. This site is a goldmine of good advice.
A major disagreement all through the marriage has been my wife's steadfast attitude, despite infinite attempts to try to make her see reason, that sex is an optional part of the marriage. This despite the fact that I made it abundantly clear that in my mind there is no marriage without sex. Recently we have gone years without sex. My wife was convinced she was frigid until recently (not any more, after we started Taken In Hand). To be sure there are other underlying problems, for example my wife has suffered from mild depression, which does not make things easier. Anyway, with even a hint of such an attitude from the wife, the husband may eventually conclude that sex with his hand is more satisfying than sex with his wife and this is certain to destroy any intimacy in the relationship resulting perhaps in a marriage in name only.
It may be that subconsciously my wife has been both testing my resolve for the marriage and begging for me to take her in hand. However, we have not had the emotional tools to stabilize the marriage until we saw this site.
BTW, I had the initiative in starting Taken In Hand, after recently seeing this site. Some of the women here have complained that their husbands do not take the initiative in Taken In Hand. This sounds somewhat unreasonable to me in many cases. I could do this because we have 30 years of marriage and two children and despite all our difficulties I have a strong conviction that my wife has a basis of sanity, trusts me and will not drag me through a messy divorce with accusations of domestic violence. I absolutely would not have had the initiative in steering the relationship toward Taken In Hand at the beginning of our marriage despite all the turmoil in our marriage at that point. And at that point my wife would not have had the confidence in herself to do that either.
For a man taking the initiative in Taken In Hand is analogous to him putting his neck on the chopping block and hoping the axe doesn't fall. That is not much of a confidence builder in a relationship. If the wife has been constantly testing his resolve and seemingly doing her best to convince him that she is emotionally unstable and can't be trusted then this is a desperate thing to do.
#33 Jabber, if I read your post r
Jabber, if I read your post right, you have started disciplining your wife, and she has reacted by discovering that she is not, in fact, frigid. I would take that as pretty strong evidence that you are very much on the right track. Sounds like this may work very well for you indeed.
BTW, I believe it is not uncommon for a woman to be physically aroused by being disciplined, but block that out from her conscious reaction to the experience. So, if your wife recognizes the link between discipline and arousal, and views that positively, you may really be a lucky guy, on the verge of a big positive change in your marriage. Good luck!
#34 That is correct
Thanks for your reply, artlover. You are correct that we have recently started on this course, completely consensually, of course. However I do not (at least yet) have strong reason to believe that discipline is sexy to my wife, although it clearly does serve some deep needs for her. Discipline, or at least potential discipline, is in my opinion essential for the well-being of our marriage.
Authority, power and security are definitely sexy for her. We will simply play this by ear and I believe I will need to expend a lot of effort trying to analyze my wifes feelings (as well as my own), as I get the impression it is hard for her to do that on her own. Or perhaps she is reluctant to tell me what she feels I should figure out on my own, which seems to be a common theme on this blog.
#35 And, yes, you are correct
And yes, artlover, you are correct that my wife discovered she was not frigid after we started on this course. BTW, I never believed she was frigid, but I knew it was very hard for her to give her feelings free rein. It is still hard for her but getting much better. And, as you imply, I am a really lucky guy and I and my wife are both convinced that Taken In Hand makes it possible for us to resolve the problems in our marriage. It has already given both of us much greater happiness and a conviction that we will always be able to solve our problems.
#36 But what if it is the husband?
What happens if the husband is not interested in sex? What if he had rather play on the computer? What if he made the statement that he is getting too old to do that (he just turned 51) and he can't do it anymore because he pays for it the next day with aches and pains in his back? What is the wife to do?
#37 Re: But what if it is the husband?
He is not too old. I turn 50 next month and this year I have had my 1st multiple orgasms. It has only happened a couple of times but it happened.
I am getting more sex now than ever because my wife now gives me sex any time I tell her too. She's having a better time than ever as well.
If it's not all in his head then I suggest he get himself off to a doctor for a checkup. Have his testosterone levels checked, ask about his back and tell the doctor he has lost interest in sex.
Joseph K
#38 Another option...
If I simply demanded sex of my wife and gave no thought of her feelings and needs, I would feel like a world class heel, and rightfully so.
What can work really well is understanding where neither spouse is allowed to say no to the other, but they can can try to persuade the initiator to withdraw the request. For example, instead of 'No, I'm too tired and just want to sleep', it would be: 'I am so tired I would love to just go to sleep and make love in the morning, but if you need me now I'm all yours.'
This way neither of spouse is ever rejected and nobody ever feels resentful because the person who asked is the one who decided to put it off out of love and concern for the other. Also, an answer like that builds anticipation for the morning.