Taking history in hand
Sometimes it is important for a man to say “Enough is enough!”
His wife may be smiling sweetly; she may be caressing his back; and she may have just cooked his favourite dinner. But if she has misbehaved badly enough to warrant a whipping, it should be administered. Failing to break the tension between them breeds hostility and resentment. Both need an emotional release.
And when her screams drown out the emotional pain of the argument, both know that the argument has culminated in a successful resolution. Regardless of the merits of her case, she accepts his whip, just as she will later accept his penis. The precipitants that led to their argument are blown away by the force of the whip, and by the force of the sexual denouement.
In a sense, when the husband takes his wife in hand, they are rewriting their history by changing their memories. The former hostility is now remembered as the welcome mounting tension preceding sexual release and emotional reconnection.
Whipit
PS to Louise: It's not abuse if she needs wants it. ;-)
- Login to post comments
#1 The Secret
The whip is not - nor has it ever been - about the woman's buttocks. That is for stupid boys with an idle hand in their trousers and parlor games on their otherwise vacant minds.
Nor, is the whip always to be considered a cruel instrument of punishment inflicted by evil men on poor innocent women. Indiscriminate flogging of women is the largely the invention of lurid writers of pulp fiction and crafters of politically correct statutes.
Rather, whipping is about creating a clean slate in a woman's mind. Older, wiser women are quite aware of this aspect of domestic life. Women marinated in political correctness are only further befuddled by the prospects.
Silly women take pleasure seething in misandric rage and flaunting rather idiotic notions of absolute gender equality. Sensible women, more in touch with themselves, relish a clean slate washed with healing tears on which to write a new chapter of their life with the man of their choice.
Collective social amnesia often obscures the fact that, "May you marry a man who beats you [where you sit down]," was not always a curse. Instead, at a time when life was tenuous and to be a woman alone was to have died an early death, it was a benediction bestowing sanity, longevity, and procreativity.
The story of man making woman into someone with whom both can live is encapsulated in Saint George rescuing the maiden from the dragon.
Only, in real life, the dragon and the maiden are one. The man who slays the dragon lady gets to keep the maiden. Both are happy as a result. Otherwise, as suggested by the pile of bones littering the dragon's lair, the bloke becomes little more than an emaciated skeleton of his former self - withered by blistering words.
In time, he becomes treated by an increasingly odious woman as just another one of the linoleum lizards he fathered. Only, in her eyes, he will never grow up. (There seems to be no shortage of advertisers willing to exploit this vulnerability in liberated women.)
Meanwhile, some women have not forgotten that the modern human brain is inherited from millennia of accumulated ancestral wisdom. Women in touch with themselves - and, thus, with their inherited past - still want men to behave as men. Other women are simply more indiscriminate in their choice of mate.
Ignored in this abnormal age of invented and thoroughly superficial gender equity is that men - behaving as men - are more respected because they, as my wife says, "take charge." Part of that taking charge involves knowing when, where, and how to whip a woman so that she will love the man able to make her a new, more radiant creature.
And, here is the secret. With her words and, more importantly, by her actions, she will tell him all that he will ever need to know about how to whip her. Contrary to currently popular mythology, a man's penis is not the only thing a woman appreciates when quite firm and lovingly used to great effect in the right place!
#2 To whipit
I know it's not abuse if the woman wants it. When have I ever said that it was?
Louise
#3 Blistering words
Well, in our household it was generally my husband who used the blistering words, and I was the one who was withered. I admit I find having my bottom blistered infinitely more agreeable, and certainly I am better-tempered when I am frequently thrashed. However, my husband's temper has always been at least as nasty as mine, if not worse, and I think the improvement in our relationship has come from him keeping his own dragon under control (rather than slain, which I don't think it has been). Both of us seem to handle our dragons better. They're still around though, and they can emerge at times, breathing fire.
I do not have any nostalgia though for the days when a man could beat his wife at will whether she liked it or not. However superficial today's gender equality may be, it's better than what went before. That women nowadays have the right to be considered as equals does not seem to me a matter for lament at all.
Louise
P.S. What on earth is a linoleum lizard?
#4 Comment
Noone should write here more, too. I am curious of the St. George and will do my homework, however, your correlation to the modern day dragon lady is really well done.
While I appreciate what the women's movement has provided, it has gone too far and the media is largely to blame for it.
#5 Depends on the people concerned
Some of us have neither.
Many men and women are happily single, but not all.
Some men have always loved and indeed need domination by a woman. I don't like these generalisations although obviously I respond to what you write. Old Turkish proverb - can't remember exactly along the lines of that she always has either the after effects of your belt or your penis in or on her.
#6 Has the women's movement gone
Has the women's movement gone too far? I used to think so. I used to blame the women's movement for robbing me of what I as a woman truly want out of life: the chance to be a wife and mother, and nothing more. As I've matured a bit, and listened a bit more, I've come to realize that was not the result of the women's movement, but the result of economic and social necessity. I've realized that though I really don't want to work outside the home, I'm very lucky that I can. It takes two incomes to make our little household work. I would love it if one day he found a job that could support us both, but while he doesn't have one, it's nice to be able to contribute and help keep us afloat.
Are there "feminazis" out there who believe women to be superior? Sure. There are also mysoginists out there who believe women to be lower than dirt. I don't think the women's movement created either of them.
#7 The women's movement
The woman's movement, as you call, it will not have gone far enough until women have equal choices to men in all countries across the globe. If a woman wants an equal relationship with her man then she should be able to have it. If a woman wishes to live without being spanked and controlled then she should be allowed to do just that.
If she wishes to be soundly spanked every day of her life she should have the freedom to make that choice also.
Many women are still not free to choose how they live and that is fundamentally wrong.
Comments like that and noone's thoughts that women should be spanked and controlled by men and that is the natural order are what give sites like this a bad reputation as being anti women. Taken in hand is not anti women it is about choice and loving control and nothing to do with any preposterous idea that women should be kept under the thumb and spanked if they dare to rebel.
Sully
#8 Woman's Movement
You are right, women deserve to have the same rights as men and while countries like the U.S. and European have achieved great strides, there are still great imbalances particularly when it comes to salary.
I made the comment about the woment's movement and the media because I correlated it to women being encouraged to want more for themselves and to not necessarily appreciate having a man in their lives. Or they get some power working and start showing it at home which creates problems for their man.
Maybe I am off base on that comment, maybe strong women have always told men what to do but it just was not openly known.
At any rate, no harm meant.
#9 Inferior?
My husband belives that women are inferior to men and hates any sign of a woman demeaning a man. In some cases he denies this, in other builds logical reasons. I am curious whether all dominant men are the same in this aspect.
Hali
#10 "ALL" Excludes No One
No, not "ALL" dominant men regard women as inferior. I certainly don't. I also don't understand why a man would regard his wife as being inferior. If she is inferior, why would he want to be married to her in the first place?
Now, I can definitely understand his attitude toward women demeaning men. My feeling goes a bit further, though. I hate any sign of men OR women demeaning the other gender. It stirs up hostility and serves no useful purpose.
Mike Starre
#11 Beliefs
Well, my husband is certainly capable of making disparaging remarks about women's abilities in some areas, he doesn't think women can drive, for instance, and frequently makes somewhat derogatory comments regarding women's general abilities and intelligence (with particular reference to mine). How serious he is about all this I really couldn't say.
On the other hand, he sometimes expresses genuine admiration for a woman without any suggestion of inferiority coming into it. The other day, for instance, he was very despondent because due to unforseen circumstances he had missed a chance of meeting Ellen MacArthur, who he admires tremendously. And there's a woman who does model engineering who he speaks of with wistful admiration "She does real exhibition-quality work" he said to me once "Not like the rubbish I make."
As far as human relationships go, I don't think he believes that everyone should be in Taken In Hand relationships, but I am not entirely sure about that either. Once during the course of a row early on in our marriage he shouted at me furiously "You're a woman, you should do as you're told!" (had he said it in a different tone of voice, our marriage might have proceeded more smoothly)
He doesn't seem to have any problem with admiring a woman who is better than him at something. But he'll go to his grave still swearing that women can't drive.
Louise
#12 No, Hali
As Mike said, we certainly don't all think women are inferior. Far from it! I don't think it makes much sense to talk about one sex being superior to the other overall: at that level I think we have to say we're equal. But most of the people that interest me are women and it seems to me that of all the stupidity and nonsense that's abroad in the world, a disproportionate amount emanates from men. Looked at that way, you could argue that women are, on average, better people.
My own suspicion is that many dominant men may, like me, have little interest in other men and feel little solidarity with them.
#13 Why would a man want to marry someone inferior?
Well, traditionally men always have. In past centuries it was taken for granted that women were inferior, and in most of the world it still is. Men married women because they needed someone to bear their children, run their household, help out in the business (and, of couse, have sex with). They didn't feel any need to regard their wives as equals, though most women did at least an equal share, or more, of the work in the marriage. The notion that men and women should regard each other as equals is a very recent one. All societies in the past taught that women were inferior, and many still do.
Louise
#14 Thank you Mike and Carl
Nice to read your posts.
A concrete example: I with my husband watched together a detective film in which a woman interrogator, nice and blonde, took a rise of a kidnapper and she got him (the kidnepper's victim was a young pretty woman). My husband was unhappy with the kidnapper's stupidity.
Hali
#15 Lady detectives
My husband seems to take a dim view of lady detectives as well. "Interfering old bat" he always says whenever I am watching Miss Marple or Jessica Fletcher solve a case. He never reacts that way to any of the male detectives I watch.
Louise
#16 Old kind ladies
These old kind ladies produce a smile on my husband's face. This was a case of a young tough detective.
Hali
#17 Battle of the Sexes
When a man yells at a woman, he is simply demonstrating his lack of understanding in handling that woman. In his naiveté, he is trying to do battle with her on *her* terms and that simply does not work very well. Men behaving less than manly are but one of several curses inflicted on society by the currently unstable and unsustainable status quo.
#18 ER...can we go back for just
ER...can we go back for just a minute and find out exactly what this guy means by a whip?
#19 Equality of choice?
It is a popular sentiment, no doubt well intentioned, but it also nicely summarises exactly what is wrong with the philosophy of some parts of what we shall call (merely for the convenience of this discussion) this “women's movement”. Women will never have equal choices to men, in any country or region or home, at any time, ever ... on the rather simple but apparently often overlooked grounds of such equality being a biological impossibility. We have two genders and no amount of denial, wishful thinking or hearty political statements is ever going to make it one or three. The very fact of there being two genders means that there are inequalities (literally, not equal) between the genders ... differences (therefore inequalities) of need and of function. If men and women were not different (i.e. if they were equal) then there would be only one gender. Men and women are socially congruous but not mathematically congruent. That is to say we cannot universally substitute one with the other, no matter how many special interest groups claim otherwise.
This desire to give women equal choices is not only irrational but also a denial of the value of each gender, a denial of the distinctiveness of each and therefore ultimately a denial of humanity; i.e. a denial of what it means to be a human man or a human woman. Why can't women be valued for being women? For being good women but also for being good at being women? For being good at expressing womanhood? But of course to do this we must first try to understand what womanhood actually is, what manhood actually is and how they really relate to one another. We must seek to understand the reality as it is rather than accept what some ill-conceived political and economic agenda tells us the reality ought to be.
I have to disagree (no surprise there). People who don't bother to think rationally will, presumably, come to irrational conclusions. Most people would rather die before they'd think and indeed a great many of them will likely succeed. We are on a quest for truth (we might describe it in other terms but truth is always part of the goal) and we cannot afford to be waylaid by the fear of a bad reputation amongst unquestioning souls. If people want to be offended by this site they will find no shortage of material and I imagine that the site moderators must already have received and discarded a huge amount of hate-filled, angry rantings from offended persons.
In fact noone's comments are precisely not anti-woman but are in fact very pro-woman. His understanding might or might not be perfect or even good (I decline to offer a judgement either way) but his comments at least show a recognition that men and women are different and have different needs and that they find fulfilment in different ways. That is, I think, far more honouring to a specific woman, and also to womankind, than the irrational quest of those who want equality of choice. Noone's writing in this forum shows that he has been attempting to understand what womanhood really is and how the interactions between the genders can bring out the best of womanhood. Rather than making bold and popular statements about some mythical and unachievable equality he is inviting us to explore what he perceives to be the reality. Timid or irrational people may indeed be frightened or offended by such exploration but should we allow our enquiry to be limited by the feeblest and unwisest of minds? Shall we be constrained by the expectations of people who have not yet understood that difference automatically denotes some sort of inequality, and whose use of language and logic is so clumsy that they cannot articulate or grasp the distinctions between equality of function, equality of honour, equality of need, and equality of worth? If we do allow ourselves to be so constrained we fail to honour man or woman as genders, or even ourselves as individual people.
To look at it another way, how is it “pro-women” to set as the goal for womankind something that is impossible to achieve? To say that society is under-performing if women and men do not have equality of choice is merely to clothe tyranny in a more fashionable, less easily recognised outfit; it doesn't in any way help us to achieve greater understanding, harmony, fulfilment or contentment.
Those who seek to attain equality of choice and function are by implication seeking greater independence of men from women. Such an independence does not honour women or men, womanhood or manhood, nor is it even practical. Noone, by contrast, is encouraging us to explore the inter-dependence of men and women, ... to understand the differences between the genders, ... to understand how to use our differences to complement one another and find fulfilment in one another. Despite your denial, the natural order of men an women is a reality in the sense that men and women 'fit' together harmoniously in certain ways and don't fit in others. Some kinds of relationship tend to maximise the possibility of happiness and fulfilment and some kinds of relationship tend to breed misery; this forum contains several accounts of both kinds of relationships. If we deny that there is a natural order then we are denying our own feelings, emotions and experiences. I recognise that there are many people who claim that any combination of man and woman is possible and satisfying and that therefore there is no natural order but frankly their arguments are unconvincing and often irrational, and in any case their lives frequently contradict their claims. Trying to understand that natural order and the variations within it, and then applying our understanding constructively to our individual and unique circumstances is a noble cause and one worthy of our exploration and debate.
#20 true equality.
Lifeofcuriosity, I take no offence at all I love debate as it make me challenge my view or affirm them.
I do not view equality as a biological impossibility. In this day and age there is very little that is done by brute strength alone as humans have manage to utilise tools very well. Where strength is require I feel there should be equality. For example there was a debate recently regarding the pay that men and women get for winning Wimbledon. It was decided that the woman’s final pay packet should be the same as the man's. I thought this was wrong. The men play 5 sets and the women 3. By giving the same winning amount to the women they are in effect paying the men less per hour. In the army the woman's fitness entry has a lower requirement that the men's again this is not equality. If a soldier is required to reach a certain level of fitness then it should be the same for either sex. The differences are there and when strength is an issue they should be accepted and not pandered to.
A man and woman doing a job that requires mental skill should be paid equally and treated equally.
I have no desire to be valued for being a woman or for being a good woman. I couldn’t even begin to know what that means. To me that is far to subjective. Does this mean the ability to cook, bear children be empathic, be pretty etc. Often the view of what makes a good woman is something that I feel is quite negative and demeaning. I aspire to none of these values. I wish to be viewed as a good person, doing my work to the best of my ability, being a good parent, and helping to ensure that my marriage is equally satisfying for both of us.
"I recognise that there are many people who claim that any combination of man and woman is possible and satisfying and that therefore there is no natural order but frankly their arguments are unconvincing and often irrational"
On other sites that I write on there are indeed very many different types of happy relationship and some even have the woman in charge. Good grief what a concept. ;-)
They claim to be happy and that their relationship works for them I do not feel it is up to me to judge that.
If one is saying that there is this natural order then why are there laws in this country protecting women from men taking whomever they so desire? If there is this natural order why can a man not be allowed to have any woman he chooses, with the woman having no say? Why is it illegal to beat up a woman if she doesn't want it? Just because a man has the power to do something it doesn't make it morally or legally right.
I believe in equality not women being discriminated against either in a positive of negative way. I also believe in fairness. If I wish to do something then I should not be precluded from doing that based purely on my genetic makeup.
I hope that as a species we have moved on from the so called natural order of cavemen bopping the woman he choses on the head and dragging her off to his cave.
Sully
#21 Sexual preferences
LifeOFCuriosity, your claims resemble to that gay pairs and lesbian pairs are unnatural. There are more sexual preferences than just heterosexual. I personally expect there is a continuum of sexual preferences.
I am not interested in what is natural, I am interested in what is suitable for me and my hubby.
As Hera mentioned more times, arbitrary generalizations are counterproductive.
Hali
#22 Equality and the natural order
Well, if this is what you understand by the term 'natural order' then we are using the term to mean very different things so agreement is quite unlikely! Actually the kind of behaviour you mention still goes on but these days the classic cave club is not considered cool as it used to be. Nonetheless even using modern equipment the basic principle is the same; namely to force the woman to do something with a man that she wouldn't do if she wasn't forced. It probably occurs in every society although I expect societies differ as to how strongly they encourage or discourage such behaviour.
However this kind of enforced relationship is very definitely not the 'natural order' I had in mind so please let me try and explain how my use of the term 'natural order'. I will explain using an example that doesn't concern male-female relationships.
The natural order of human nutrition is for food to enter the mouth and work its way downwards through the stomach and gut and come back out, usually somewhat modified, just about where the legs begin. However this is not the only way that humans get nutrition. We can inject a special form of food directly into the blood stream and although this method is usually sub-optimum it is sometimes the best, or only, available option. We can also take nutrition in only liquid form, such as soup, down a pipe into the stomach without chewing, but that is also sub optimum because it has negative implications for jaw bone formation and dental health; its probably uncomfortable too. Anyway, there is more than one method of obtaining nutrition but the traditional method (putting the food in the mouth, then chewing, masticating, swallowing, and letting the food go downwards) is the one that, for most people most of the time, will give the best results not only in terms of nutrition but also in terms of all the other social and sensual benefits we get from eating.
Thus there is a natural order between the mouth and the throat and the stomach and the acids and the enzymes and the intestines and the bacteria and the exit door and each part has its own distinct role and can never be wholly replaced by any other part. At least, this is the natural order as it was understood for many centuries although some of the internal details of the order were only explored in the past few decades. However now we need to take a little history lesson in order to see how our understanding of this has changed as we have progressed.
Once upon a time some concerned students from a progressive university decided that they could no longer accept discrimination concerning the digestive exit. The exit, they said, has been forced to take a secondary role for far too long and should be given equality with the entrance. The digestive exit is forced to follow wherever the entrance leads and is inadequately consulted about the nature of the food. Naturally they created some good slogans:
... and so on. Those readers who are old enough to have participated in the “mooning marches” will, no doubt, recall what tremendous fun was had by all. The official spokesperson of the day did a formal interview and explained that it wasn't fair that the bum was treated as a unidirectional orifice when the mouth was allowed to swallow and to vomit (i.e. bidirectional activity), that it wasn't fair that mouths were allowed to choose where and when to perform while bums were expected to perform on demand, that it wasn't fair that mouths were taught to talk and sing while the vocal efforts of bums were ignored, ridiculed or, worst of all, actively suppressed ... oh the tyranny of it! At this point a radical splinter group formed and its members spread the message only by breaking wind leading to many of them serving time for public odour offences.
The official spokesperson of the moderate group later explained that the bums only wanted equality.
Unsurprisingly this talk of possible monetary advantage swiftly brought research funding and in due course the campaign group announced the first televised demonstration of the “Rump rocket”, a device that allowed the user to inject nutrients anally leaving the mouth available for other activities. These devices were initially trialled in call-centres and the launch of the first device was accompanied by a superb repertoire of popular tunes performed by “Anal Melodies”, an eclectic and forward thinking, rear facing, group of musicians who had trained for months to acquire acoustic control of their rectal sphincter muscles and flatulence formation. There were, incidentally, one or two unfortunate accidents with early models of the “Rump Rocket” but interested readers will need to do their own search for further information as these matters are outside our present discussion. Let it suffice to say that through their sacrifice, they made it possible for all of us to be propelled into a less discriminatory future.
So far so good. However some wicked and backward conservatives objected to this proposed liberalisation concerning the digestive orifices. Obviously, as we all now know, they lost their campaign against the liberalisation and all fair minded people would say that their defeat is a jolly good thing because such rigid attitudes fully deserved to be flushed into the sewers of history. However it is instructive to examine why they lost their campaign.
In the first place they made the mistake of telling the truth in plain language and thereby offended dozens of people who are easily offended. For example, remarks such as “these protesters are just a bunch of assholes” and “the campaigners for anal liberalisation are talking crap” which were actually straightforward statements of fact were misunderstood, interpreted as childish insults, and were therefore reviled and ignored, as insults in debate ought to be. In the second place they made the foolish mistake of appealing to convention and social norms saying things like “we've always treated our bums this way”, “we don't see any need to change”, “if was good enough for my grandpa it's good enough for me”. These assertions were all quite true but they didn't convey any real understanding of anything and, as arguments, they lack logic and conviction.
Eventually therefore the mood of the country changed and in due course the now well-known nutritional orifice discrimination law (the Bum Act, as it was called in popular parlance) was passed through parliament and it became a criminal offence to refuse to insist on being spoken to by a mouth or, to require that bums should be covered in public, or to fail to make provision in catering facilities for people who preferred to ingest upwards. Thus life went on much as it had always gone on.
Moving forward in time ... The nutritional orifice discrimination laws had been in effect for many years and the sight of a bum in public no longer astonished anyone. Those less adaptable people who were unreasonably offended by, for example, rectal discourse, generally had the good sense to keep their own bum shut for the sake of social harmony and a quiet life. Most call-centres decided that they still preferred workers to take five minute breaks and eat away from their desks and thus instead of adopting the second generation of anal injectors they chose to introduce microphones into the chair seats. These bumsets were (and, of course, still are) used in addition to the earlier headsets in order that the telephone operators could speak using whichever orifice seemed best suited to answer the caller's question. Additionally more or less all restaurants were able provide rectal cutlery if asked (Japanese sushi bars were particularly quick to innovate). Anal injector technology developed apace and the early “Rump Rockets”, although prohibited by health and safety rules, had come to be collectors pieces, highly sought after at auction, having been superseded by more efficient, more reliable, less lethal, apparatus.
All well and good, so what was the fuss about?
The fuss (though it was expressed so gently that it barely deserves to be called such) concerned a rising incidence of malnutrition and tenderness in the nether parts. In cooler climes there had also been an increased incidence of posterior chilblains. Although most people, when asked, consistently declared their unswerving commitment to nutritional orifice liberty and to treat bums and mouths equally there were a minority of people who had wondered out loud if all this equality of function was really what was needed.
Naturally there was an outcry. Many people resented the moral overtones in the use of the word “correct” and in the ensuing scuffles even some of those who favoured the liberalisation of nutritional orifices found themselves on the wrong side of the law (there was at least one instance in which a group of boisterous liberal fellows politely suggested that a conservative speaker might benefit from having his ass kicked, and were promptly convicted of a hate crime).
Slowly more and more people began to ask whether we had ever really understood what the bum was for and how it linked into the bigger nutritional picture. Was it possible, they asked, that attempting to achieve equality of function was actually damaging to both the bum and the mouth and everything else in between? Was it possible that by failing to understand how the bum was meant to work and by failing to understand its relationship to other nutritionally active organs, that we had actually reduced the opportunities for fulfilment and happiness for an entire generation of bums and mouths, stomachs, livers and for countless thousands of generations of intestinal flora? Not only did they question the prevailing understanding of the bum but they also questioned if we had ever really understood the mouth! They noted that the bum is very valuable and that the bum might even be more valuable than the mouth since laboratory trials and anecdotal accounts generally concurred that that one could manage comfortably without a mouth much more easily than one could manage without a bum. The bum, then, was not something they wished to ignore or devalue. Nonetheless, they noted that:
It was at about this time, as some readers will be aware, that the earth shook, the sky fell and all around the world people protested that they knew lots of friends, relatives and colleagues who could talk with their bums just as adequately as with their mouths and who were equally well nourished regardless of where or how they ingested the food ... and with such assertions they cleverly demonstrated that they had entirely missed the point.
Thus it was that to the present day society the questions of the doubting minds have been brushed aside unanswered. Questions such as:
Meanwhile the incidence of people seeking counselling for nutritional disorders continued to rise and the liberal authorities continued to respond with triumphal announcements of wider provision of bum services, bum clinics and colourful celebrations of nutrient ingestion equality.
Equally, some people , unsophisticated fools who had failed to embrace modernity and who could eat only with their mouths, continued to wonder if the rush for equality might have failed to take into account a real and natural order in the nutrient ingestion system.
#23 Arbitrary generalisations are extremely helpful
Hi Hali,
Your point about arbitrary generalisations being counterproductive is an interesting one.
I would have thought that arbitrary generalisations were extremely helpful, if not essential, for a productive life. Arbitrary generalisations are unlikely to ever be the whole truth but as far as I know they are certainly a valid expression of a truth and they form a useful reference surface against which exceptions can be seen and evaluated.
So what arbitrary generalisations do you find unhelpful?
#24 I see
So women are bums then?
Louise
#25 biology
Hi, lifeofcuriosity, thanks for the biolgy lession but I really don't think it is a suitable analogy.
Human behavior cannot be compared to the physiological and anatomical passage of food. The human psyche is far more complex that this.
Sully
#26 Complexity
Hi Sully,
Personally I don't think complexity is relevant to my quest but if, for the sake of discussion, I consider the complexity of systems I can observe round me (man made or organic) I observe that the more complex a system is the less interchangeable are its components.
An aeroplane is more complex than a bicycle yet they both have a natural order in their structure and also in their performance.
Regarding structure, the parts are not entirely interchangeable: We can swap one spoke for another spoke or one chain link for another chain link, but anyone who tries to interchange the handlebars and the front wheel is probably going to suffer. The natural order of a bicycle structure can accept some substitutions but not others.
Regarding the performance, both a bicycle and an aeroplane move optimally in only one direction. One can travel in reverse on both vehicles but only with a huge loss of performance.
So regarding men, women and relationships, what substitutions can be made without incurring a loss of performance? What are the inherent limits?
#27 You see?
I wrote a history, not an analogy. You can substitute the story of the campaign regarding blood transport systems if that helps you to understand. The blood transport system illustrates the natural order equally well but the “campaign for the liberalisation of veins and arteries” has never gained mainstream support; principally, I suppose, because while many lettered people, especially economists, have advocated a less autocratic, less centrally controlled, routing system for blood cells, all those activists who actually refused to “go with the flow” swiftly messy deaths did die. I question the timing; but a conspiracy was never proven.
However the main reason I avoided using that campaign for my example was because I feared that somebody would foolishly presume that the colours of the blood vessels were intended as symbols of political parties (democrat and republican, conservative and labour), thereby missing the point.
#28 People are not digestive systems
But as sully pointed out, human beings are more complex than a digestive system,a nd they are certainly more complex than machines. The digestive system can only work in a particular way, there is no other way for it to function. Likewise an engine (please do not try and tell me anything about how engines work, I get enough of that at home, okay?) This is not the case with human relationships. People come in an infinite variety of different types, and relationships can be arranged in more than one way. If everyone was blissfully contented with the status quo, then there would never have been a campaign for women's rights in the first place. The Seneca Falls convention would never have happened.
Naturally, on this site you get a lot of people who are happy to be be in male-led relationships and who have found that this improves their relationships, because that's what this site is FOR, it's designed for people who want that kind of relationship. why wouldn't you get a lot of people who like this kind of thing? That's how I found my way onto this site, because I was attracted by the idea. But that doesn't mean that it's what everyone has to like. I imagine a lot of people would simply pass the site by without even giving it a second glance, probably thinking "What a bunch of weirdos".
An aeroplane can only work in a certain way (and I have been carefully instructed, over and over again, in the process that makes it work and I STILL don't understand it). And I don't really understand why I get such pleasure from having my husband dominant in our marriage, but I do. It doesn't really matter to me why, it matters that it works.
But there are plenty of people who are left cold by this sort of thing, and who are perfectly happy with different kinds of relationships. Couples who are equal, couples where the woman is dominant, whatever. There was a message on a DD yahoo group I belong to yesterday from a woman who explained that she is married to a wonderful 'Alpha Male' who is a very good husband, but who,as she put it 'needs his attitude adjusted now and again'. She described how she regularly spanks him to tears, and how much good it does him.
Now, I don't want to be in relationship with an 'Alpha Male' who wants to be spanked to tears, but evidently some women do. This is one of the things that makes human being more interesting than jet engines (don't tell my husband I said that), they are complex and capable of relating to each other in many different ways.
It may be true, for all I know, that a majority of people do want to be in male-led relationships. But that still leaves what appears to be quite a substantial minority who do not wish to be in such relationships. The fact that for most of human history that is how all societies were organised does not, for me, make it the norm for evermore. For most of history, few human beings had any right to self-determination at all. We live in an age and a society in which people can make choices about how they live their lives. You don't have to live in a particular way that is dictated by society.
And that is what makes Taken In Hand so alluring, as far as I am concerned. It is precisely because I am not obliged by law or social expectations to defer to my husband that I get such a thrill out of doing it, I'm doing it because I want to, not because society says that I must. it's what makes the whole thing highly enjoyable.
Louise
#29 Ok let's talk bicycles.
There is more that one type of cycle. You have , BMX bikes stunt bikes, unicycles, Penny Farthings, tandems, tricycles, mountain bikes, racing bikes, 3 gear bikes, 10 gear bikes etc etc etc.
This is more like humans. They perform the same basic functions but all in different ways according to their make up. You can interchange many components eg drop handle bars with straight handle bars, spoked wheels with carbon fibre wheels etc to get the cycle that best suits your needs. In some styles you have male and female versions so that one can wear skirt on the cycle if one chooses (good for transvestites he he).
A cycle has a natural order in the same way as a human does I agree but you cannot do a limb transplant on a human and swap an arm for a leg and expect him not to walk with a limp. The brain however is slightly different it has plasticity. This allows it to adapt to new situations and grow new pathways.
You cannot compare a human brain with a mechanical or inflexible system. It has adaptability and the ability to learn and evolve over time.
Sully
#30 re: Ok lets talk bicycles
OK, that seems like a good point, and since brains (or minds might be a better word) play a role in relationships then we can posit that relationships need not be rigid. However, nobody has suggested that they should be. The point I originally took issue with was your assertion that we should have equality of choice and I objected that such equality was a biological impossibility. Then I attempted ask why we should hold this equality up as the goal in the first place. Men are men, women are women, why should they be equal? What are the boundaries of equality, the points at which equality is impossible, meaningless, counterproductive, foolish or all of those things? I then supported the view of there being a natural order and proposed that we would have greater fulfillment if we attempted to understand and fit within that order, rather than measuring our progress against an unattainable goal.
So, let me approach the same issue with some different questions: Why is a woman not a man? Why is a man not a woman? What is the essential difference between the genders?
#31 Essential differences
Well, men are bigger, stronger, faster, and they don't get pregnant, which gives them huge advantages over women to start with. Physically, a man can always get the upper hand over a woman if he wants to. Fortunately, in civilised societies nowadays, the law does not support the idea that Might is Right, which gives women some protection against their disadvantages.
Many of the differences that people who write about that sort of thing are always banging on about though do not apply in all cases. women are supposed to be more intuitive than men for instance, well I have sweet F.A. in the way of intuition. We're supposed to be better at expressing out emotions than men, again, my husband is streets ahead of me at expressing emotions. He emotes like anything. He's also much more domesticated than I am, which again is supposed to be a feminine quality.
All of this makes me sceptical about how great the differences between men and women really are, apart from the obvious biological ones.
Louise
#32 Arbitrary generalizations
LifeOfCuriosity, arbitrary generalizations are helpful as hypotheses, not as theorems.
Hali
#33 differences
"So, let me approach the same issue with some different questions: Why is a woman not a man? Why is a man not a woman? What is the essential difference between the genders?"
I answered much of this in my previous comment but let me pose this question to you. What do you believe are the fundamental differences between man and woman, apart from the obvious physical differences that is? And why do you believe that this means that women can never have equal choices to man.
I am curious because apart from the physical differences, which with the aid of modern machines, are less relevant in today’s society I really cannot see what leads you to believe that.
#34 I'm wary
I'm wary of attempting to define the respective 'natures' of men and women and thus talking in terms of a 'natural order'. The accepted view of the nature of women has seemed to change according to the mores of whichever society makes the definition. In the eighteenth century for example, women were considered to naturally enjoy sex but only within marriage. By the nineteenth century I believe women were not expected to enjoy sex.
I'm not well informed about research that might have been conducted into personality differences between men and women, but even such differences as research might have revealed are only, as has been pointed out, generalisations. Immense variability exists within populations both for men and for women. The problem with generalisations in my view is when they become oppressive or tyrannical, such that every man or every woman within a society is meant to conform to them or be considered deviant by the rest. If one speaks in terms of a 'natural order' then by definition, one is labelling any combination of behaviours which fall outside that definition as 'unnatural'. Speaking in terms of a 'natural order' tends to make the natural variability of humankind somehow unacceptable.
#35 Not inferior
I've never actually met a take-charge man who thinks women are inferior. I don't think most of them do in the West to be honest. Obviously those are the ones to avoid like the plague.
#36 Inferior - superior ???
Doens’t it depend not only on facts, but of one's point of view?
Back in history men and women both had no chance to choose their places in life. But they always had the choice how to make the best of it.
I’m quite sure that women thought men’s life to be easier, running around in the woods, hunting with his friends all day, and then come home and lay down near the fire and let the women serve the meal ...
And I guess, not the a small amount of these women thought of her own sex as superior, cause they do all the work at home, care for the children - and this little hunting and making war sometimes, could also be done by the women. But the men would be unemployed then ...
On the other side, men surely thought of a womans life as beeing easier. Always at home, only this little housekeeping stuff, chatting with other women and playing with the children all the day, while he had to do all the hard work ...
Both thought of themselves as beeing at least as important as the other, but too both was happy, that they had not to do both jobs. They both knew, that they depend on each other, and so kept their thoughts about their part more or less to themselves.
What would it be good for, if you know, that you can’t change your fate anyway? Who cares about the superiority or inferiority, when you know, that both are essential to lead a life?
And if you regard this as truth, ist’t it much easier to accept your own role and make the best out of it? Together?
#37 Women's place
There have been few periods in history when housekeeping and childrearing have been all that is expected of women. throughout most of history, women have been expected to contribute economically as well, in hunter gatherer societies by gathering plant food, in agricultural societies by working on the land, in medieval times by working at a variety of trades, either helping out in the family business,or in many cases, being in business on their own account. Women in the days of the early settlers in the USA made an important contribution to the economy, growing food, producing clothing, working in trades of all kinds. Women's roles have seldom been restricted purely to caring for children and the home.
Louise
#38 RE: Taking history in hand
I enjoyed this post very much. I wanted to add that sometimes, a couple is rewriting a past they didn't necessarily write in the first place.
My first marriage was good for the most part, but despite love, it ended badly. Sans the lurid details, he was unfaithful multiple times, and I never felt that I was the woman he truly wanted. Towards the end, I met a man at work. He, simply by his presence, brought feelings bubbling to the surface I didn't even know were there. I didn't even know it was him, really, that did it.
I began researching and came across Taken In Hand. I tried to introduce it into my relationship at the time, but he would have none of it. He was never comfortable with the idea...I had, for a long time, been the dominant one in the relationship, except that I always forgave his transgressions.
Months passed, and slowly I began to realize the pull I felt came from this other man. I realized why I was unhappy...I had been for about 4 years and could never really define why. The infidelity and the burdens of being head of household and taken such a toll that I no longer trusted or respected my husband. After 12 years of marriage, I asked for a divorce.
At this same time, the man in question was going though a similar situation in his own marriage. His wife, however, was shrewish...nothing he ever did was enough. He let her stay shrewish, because it was easier than fighting with her constantly. They divorced as well.
In this time, we got to know each other, and after two years, are still together. We spoke a couple nights ago about what it was that brought us together. We both felt a pull that was too great to ignore. I felt his dominating presence...like a black hole, that simply I could not resist. He is calm, level-headed, in control...I felt it from the first day I met him. He is average in height, athletic but a bit on the thin side for his height, yet he seems 12 feet tall. He never yells, or whines, rarely complains at all. This presence is sensed by everyone around him.He said of me that he sensed an innocence in me that he found intriguing, that I was sweet and kind, and he wanted to find out if it was true, or simply a facade.
We found in each other what we both needed to thrive. We are both professionals ( at work...he was my boss ), both well-educated. I am no shrinking violet in the work world and I demand equal pay and equal treatment for equal work. At home, I do not feel inferior to him at all...I feel his complementary equal. I have taught him to touch an emotional part of himself that lie dormant for years, to accept, and expect, respect and gentleness. He has taught me to be self-confident and has calmed me to a measure I didn't think possible( I had been manic-depressive, and my episodes have drastically reduced almost to nothing, in the last two years. The only recurrences, strangely enough, usually have to do with dealings with my ex-husband, with whom I have two girls. )
Relationships don't need to be equal...they need to be complimentary. If that complimenting approximates equality, it is a divine thing. In our relationship, we have undone many of the hurts endured in both of our pasts...we can look back now on those years without bitterness. We simply know that things had to change, and when we found each other, we found out why.
sunshine
#39 Natural order & choices
I have to say that I enjoyed LifeOfCuriosity's story of the nutritional system. I think I get the analogy. By embracing our roles as men and women, we can become more fulfilled and end our struggles. I do believe there is a natural order to things. Look all around. Look in nature. Each species has their way of doing things. A way that is natural for them. They don't question it. It just is.
I think the difference here is that humans are more intelligent than machines and animals and we have the ability to take a topic and mind f**k it! We don't just naturally accept things the way they are. We question everything. This, I believe, has lead us to where we are today. We have many different lifestyles that work for people. Is one better than the other? Who knows? I just know that I wouldn't be happy any other way. I choose my way of life. And I'm thankful for that choice.
Dynomite
#40 Inequality or difference?
My personal opinion is that Taken in Hand has nothing to do with sexual equality (or not in the Western World anyway) or the lack of it, but is instead concerned with recognising and acknowledging the differences between the genders and where their separate strengths and weaknesses lie. The fact is that, in Western culture at least, society as a whole now chooses not only to ignore these factors, but also often to belittle them as politcally incorrect and unworthy, and we have therefore lost much of the social respect that came with these inbuilt qualities. Why cannot the genders be treated as equal in worth but different in nature?
Ros
#41 Difference and inequality
I think women have generally throughout history been viewed as different and inferior. The societies that emphasise the differences most strongly are also those that grant women the fewest rights, or soemtimes none at all.
Western society may not be perfect, but it is a great deal better than any of the alternatives. Too much emphasis on difference in nature might lead, for instance, to people assuming that ALL women want to be in Taken In Hand relationships, which I do not belive to be the case. I do not notice that women in non-Western countries are treated with a great deal of respect. The more I see of other cultures, the greater my respect for Western culture. As P.J. O'Rourke put it in 'Holidays in Hell':
>So-called Western Civilisation, as practised in half of Europe, some of Asia and a few parts of North America, is better than anything else available. Western Civilisation not only provides a bit of life, a pinch of liberty, and the occasional pursuance of a happiness, it's also the only thing that 's ever tried to. Our civilisation is the first in history to show even the slightest concern for average, undistinguished, none-too-commendable people like us.<
Louise
#42 Different
Louise,
I probably expressed myself badly. I absolutely agree with you that we, as women in the western world, have by far the greatest degree of freedom and respect that exists for women in the world today. In my opinion, we have worked for this and proved ourselves and long may it continue to grow. However, some people equate the choice to pursue a Taken In Hand relationship with the erosion of this freedom and the subjugation of women. My point is that, it is simply one of the options that is open to us as women and it should be respected as a free will choice the same as any other.
With regard to differences, whether the stereotypical images of men and women are accurate or not, we all, as people, have different talents, strengths and weaknesses and the fact that one of us is better at maths while another is better at English, doesn't make one person worth more than the other - it just makes them different.
Ros