Try taking her in hand verbally, or see how she responds to threats. I love the article, DG, but the truth is, it doesn't work with all women, and we don't want guys thrown in jail for abuse!

My question would be: how? When you say "take her in hand" what do you mean by that? Unless you say how to do it, you're giving yourself a pretty good out when I come back to you and say it didn't work for me.

Jez

I have one piece of advice for any men thinking of starting this. Never spank her in haste. Always talk to her about why you think a spanking is called for BEFORE you do it. Random has several times spanked me without talking to me about it first, such as when we've been out shopping. When he's done that, I've always hated it and felt it was unfair, unjust, and wrong. Don't think that if it's just a little smack it's ok. It's not ok. It feels unjust, and that's destructive to the relationship.

When you smack her without talking to her first, you'll sometimes find your reason for spanking her wasn't correct. IMO men should NOT spank EVER without a full discussion and time to hear the woman's defence - not even one smack. Hearing her defence may not change your mind but if you spank her without listening to her defence, you have no way of knowing if your reason for spanking her's a misunderstanding. This happens! So please guys, don't spank her without discussion.

Secondly, never smack her in public, not even a single smack after checking nobody's looking. It feels disrespectful and humiliating and it's a bad habit to get into.

J

The things you describe here don't seem to me to be any big change in lifestyle nor are they part of what I would consider "taken in hand." It's just simple caring to say these things to her and be concerned about her safety. Similarly I would surely hope that she would point it out also if she saw you making a judgment error that could be harmful to you. This doesn't seem to me to have anything to do with who is head of the household or discipline or any of that. Sure, caring for each other helps, but a sexual panacea? Not even Viagra is that.

If your attitude is "You can talk to my lawyer", then it seems to me that the "Taken In Hand" philosophy is definitely not for you. From what I understand, this is about total love and total commitment. If you think it's rape, then perhaps either the love or the commitment or both are missing in the relationship.

Just my humble opinion.

KrosRogue

Hello Melanie,

It appears I have misread what the OP meant to convery, and you are right, my comment is inappropriate. I originally thought the author meant by exerting dominant role over his partner, he can have sex with her despite her being indifferent, tired, or suffering headache, thank you for correcting the misunderstsanding, I apologize for the insulting comment.

Hello KrosRogue,

Thank you for your comment. Again I misread the OP, I apologize for inappropriate comment for the article.

But I don't think willingness to stand up for my legal rights is mutually exclusive to submissive lifestyle. Just because I consented to be lead does not mean I consented to have all my civil rights taken from me; just because I consented to be disciplined does not mean I consented to have sex coerced on me when I feel indifferent, tired, sick, or otherwise not ready for sex. That is to say, if my partner disrespects my boundaries or mistreats me in anyway that is beyond what I consented to, I will offer resistance in whatever way I deem appropriate, including use of law enforcements.

I think willingness to stand up for yourself, when the boundary of consent and respect is trespassed, should be REQUIRED condition for all submissive living the Taken In Hand lifestyle. Abuse is a two way street, by being willing victim, you allow and even invite abuses to develop within the relationship. I don't mean to incite law enforcement in the first instance there is the slightest disagreement, though I certainly am not afraid to use it if situation calls for it, such as in attempted rape.

Bottom line is, submission is not a free ticket for me to stop fending for myself, or for others to use me and take me for granted. In fact, I consider it a commitment to a very robust lifestyle of power sharing and exchange, which is great and fulfilling in itself, but it also demands greater responsibility from BOTH partners. By letting my partner know he cannot abuse me even if he try, he is a little freer to explore; by offering no resistance and allow others to walk all over me like a defenseless doormat, he is left in the dark, never sure how far he can take things.

But I do apologize for misreading the OP u_u

-sudolly
-----------------------------
the belief in truth is precisely madness - Nietzsche

Excuse me but are you advocating rape?

Please, guys, tell me this is not what you are REALLY after. Do you REALLY want to assume a dominant role in your partner's life so that you can selfishly fulfill your sexual desires and needs without regards of her volitions??

No, no, no, Sudolly! Others have answered and I agree with what they say. I know I don't write the best but I never thought anybody would think I was advocating rape.

If your attitude is "You can talk to my lawyer", then it seems to me that the "Taken In Hand" philosophy is definitely not for you. From what I understand, this is about total love and total commitment. If you think it's rape, then perhaps either the love or the commitment or both are missing in the relationship.

KrosRogue, what you said!

Melanie, thanks for getting what I was driving at:

DG says that taking your woman in hand will get her so hot for you that you'll never have to do without sex again, implying that she will want sex as often as you do. There is no suggestion, or even implication of forcing sex on her, in this article or any other article I have seen here. I find your comment very insulting to all the men who write here, men whose words show them to be completely committed to the well-being and happiness of their women.

Sudolly, I appreciate your comment and thank you for the opportunity to clarify what I was saying:

I originally thought the author meant by exerting dominant role over his partner, he can have sex with her despite her being indifferent, tired, or suffering headache, thank you for correcting the misunderstsanding, I apologize for the insulting comment.

I'm not into sex with somebody who's not enthusiastic -which is more than can be said for many guys in modern relationships.

...just because I consented to be disciplined does not mean I consented to have sex coerced on me when I feel indifferent, tired, sick, or otherwise not ready for sex.

I don't think you'll find any disagreement here about that.

Abuse is a two way street, by being willing victim, you allow and even invite abuses to develop within the relationship.

Here I have to bow to your knowledge as I've no experience of abuse.

Thanks for the good discussion.

DG

I think I owe you a personal apology, DG. And trust me, with my pride, this hurts me more than any spanking or even caning ever will.

I misread your OP and made an a$$ of myself by insulting you, I apologize, I am sorry u_u. The "rape" accusation was totally uncalled for.

You said, "I know I don't write the best but I never thought anybody would think I was advocating rape."

That might have something to do with the fact that English is not my first language. I have only been living in the west for a few years :-)

You said, "Here I have to bow to your knowledge as I've no experience of abuse."

*laughs*, tell me about it. I can't speak for all, but I am training to be certified to teach women self-defense in West Canada; it amazes me how many women will just freeze and stand there and do nothing to fight back even during training scenarios. Further, in a calm, open discussion, it amazes me how many women claim they cannot "do anything to hurt anyone even if they are trying to kill me." This is what convinces me that abuse is not just an immorality of the strong - when you are *that* weak and *that* willing to be a victim, you are literally asking for it.

regards,
-sudolly
-----------------------------
the belief in truth is precisely madness - Nietzsche

KrosRogue - I agree that legal action is a threat of violence - it's not even a stretch. If you don't do what the court decides - no matter how unjust or bizarre - guys show up with guns to put you in a cage. No one should make legal threats lightly. Sudolly mentions "politicization," which is legal violence on a larger scale, encompassing a whole society. I guess this is all beyond the scope of this site, but most political movements are about people trying to control others by force while pretending that force is not involved. Very hypocritical.

I don't know what "biological determinism" is either. Sounds like something emanating from an American college in the last 20 years. To some people, it feels "natural" for men to be dominant, "natural" meaning a given, a part of our biological makeup. It's also natural for people to have blond hair and blue eyes, though the majority of people on this planet have dark hair and eyes. My point is that something can be natural to one group of people, while not being natural to other groups. Something can be natural to a small minority.

I think that probably the majority of men are naturally dominant and the majority of women are naturally submissive. And this is a beautiful thing when they can follow their natures in a context of freedom. However, this fact can be politicized, i.e., made into a legal threat against women who don't submit, and it then becomes something ugly. Ugly for everyone, but especially ugly for those whose "nature" doesn't fit the majority mold. (The issue of homosexuality illustrates this pretty nicely.)

However, in our current Western culture, the political/legal threats tend to go against dominant, overtly masculine men rather than non-submissive women. This is no less ugly, no less a crime against freedom and humanity. Seriously, why can't people just live and let live? It seems there's also something in human nature that just can't allow others to be different - it's not in my nature, and I have a difficult time trying to understand it.

Melanie

Hello Melanie,

I am not sure when did the term "biological determinism" emerges, but it's certainly not new. It's just a fancy term that describes your stance on the "nature versus nurture" debate, which is as old as....? It goes along the line of linguistic determinism (you can't think what you cannot speak), cultural determinism (your culture determines your behaviours). Biological determinism is when your biological make up determines your behaviours, such as the idea that "women are born submissive."

Most would agree most of personality traits are a combination of all these factors, but sometimes, some traits are biological in nature, such as Down's Syndrome. People are still debating whether homosexuality is entirely biological (I disagree, but thats irrelevant here).

You brought up "feeling natural," the trouble with that is, you cannot tear out social conditioning, cultural influence, from biological make up. No "submissive gene" has been identified, no "submissive center" has been found in human brain to cause submissive behaviour. However, a lot of social and cultural factors has been identified within patriarchal society to produce submissive females and dominanting males, through the use of language, architecture, social structures, institutional rules (such as internal rules of a company, or a school), mass media, the list goes on.

As with your politicization accusation, I don't think I politicized the issue of rape at all, I think it has been politicized long before I was born. I do apologize for misreading the OP, but I stand by my claim that I am not afriad to invoke law enforcement in the hypothetical situation that my legal rights are infringed up. Would you like to depoliticize rape and make it legally acceptable? Or, would you advocate that certain laws become norminal (in name only and never enforced)?

Something doesn't has to be a legal threat to be politicized. By proliferating speech that subjugates a particular group (such as women),
one is still perpetuating a social hierarchy and expectation subtly. Just because nothing has been written on paper doesn't mean it is not politicization, or that it doesn't has power within a society or culture.

Take racism for example, in 1947, Canada ceased Institutional Racism, the law no longer tolerate discrimination based on race - which still doesn't mean there is no racism within Canada. By making racial jokes, proliferating stereotypes, using derogatory race terms, you are still politicizing race, even though you did not invoke laws.

The same goes for gender ineqaulity. Just because most western society no longer legally tolerate gender inequality, doesn't mean inequality doesn't exist. By proliferating concepts that "women are naturally subordinate to men," one is still creating an environment that justifies unequal rights of men and women.

As with political climate that goes against "overtly masculine men" - what do you mean? As far as myself, your rights to swing your fist ends at where my nose begins (J. Locke),
you can be as masculine as you like as long as you don't infringe upon my rights. I don't see any legal barrier for someone who wants to get his MBA at Harvard, become a CEO, works out in the gym 5 days a week to maintain his 6 pack, and otherwise conform to the stereotype of what "masculine" behaviour "should [sic] be."

If, however, a male *expects* women in general to become hyperfeminine (whatever "feminine" means) in order to define his masculinity, I will not hesitate to tell him where to shove it. Each woman's submission is her gift, and hers alone to give (according to my ideology, anyway). If a male expresses his dominance or "masculinity" by coercing subjugation upon others; or by attempts to create a culture or inequality, I am all for legal actions that prevents or punishes it.

If you mean a tendency for people to frown upon consensual DD relationships - hey, I am with you, discrimination against personal and harmless lifestyle stinks.

I look forward to hear about legal aspects that is directed to limit dominant, masculine men who do not infringe upon rights of non consenting others. I am also very curious about what you meant by "human nature" - especially when it is something that is supposedly intrinsicly human but somehow not in your nature.

-sudolly
-----------------------------
the belief in truth is precisely madness - Nietzsche

sudolly,

Yes, we all have our sensitive issues, and the law in regard to marriage is a particularly sore spot for me. You mentioned to Melanie something about laws limiting the dominant man. Well, in a nutshell, the man is at the mercy of the woman in the eyes of the law. All she has to do is press charges of violence, regardless of the validity of those charges, and the man is removed from the home and placed behind bars pending trial. The trial then determines his guilt or innocence. If found innocent, she can still place a restraining order against him and keep him PERMANENTLY out of his own house.

Not exactly a pleasant environment, wouldn't you say?

KrosRogue

Kros - I am so sorry you have been wounded in this way. I hope that someday you can heal and find new love. Women wonder why men are reluctant to "commit" these days, yet a woman can so easily take everything the man has spent his life working for: his home, his children, his money, even if he's been a good husband and father. Our society is definitely prejudiced against men and everything traditionally masculine; but there's a price. Men don't want responsibility if the rewards are so uncertain. Fewer men choose to invest themselves, body and soul, in marriage and family.

You might like reading "The War Against Boys" by Christina Hoff Sommers. She shows how America's war against masculinity begins in school.

As for Sudolly's comments, I thought about answering in detail, but when I read through it all I just don't want to bother. It's just no fun when people are so touchy - misreading things and getting indignant about things people didn't even say. I said nothing at all about politicizing rape, so how were you accused of that? And linking the musings of people on this site about dominant/submissive love relationships to the Nazi Holocaust? That's just going out of your way to be offensive.

Melanie

Alas, I have been vanquished by Sudolly's awesome wit, and am fleeing in terror ....

Seriously, though, I just don't have time to get sucked into arguments on the computer! I'm pondering some of these points, however, and may produce an article sometime soon.

Melanie

KrosRogue

sudolly,

Your writing reminds me so much of my ex-wife it's spooky. I think that is the reason I felt some hostility toward you at the beginning. Sorry for the comparison, but that is my problem to deal with.

KrosRogue

That's okay, guilt by association is a fallacy, I am a little annoyed, but not offended. I agree these are your problems to deal with, and I can only wish you best luck.

-sudolly
-----------------------------
the belief in truth is precisely madness - Nietzsche

KrosRogue, you wrote that "My "intellectual side" knows what is right, but my "emotional side" doesn't believe it yet."

What does your intellectual side know is right? What is it your emotional side doesn't believe yet? I like what you've written and I'll add my condolences in regard to your legal problem. It sounds like my worst nightmare.

Rick

KrosRogue said:

If your attitude is "You can talk to my lawyer", then it seems to me that the "Taken In Hand" philosophy is definitely not for you. From what I understand, this is about total love and total commitment. If you think it's rape, then perhaps either the love or the commitment or both are missing in the relationship.

You speak the truth, KrosRogue. I wish I had a man like you. It's real sad you've had such a bad experience...

JellyBean

Curiosity,

"I approach a woman presuming her to be submissive". Hmm, I guess you could read a lot more than I intended in that statement, and probably nothing resembling what I meant. I probably should have said something like "I approach a woman presuming her to be my future wife". As yet, that hasn't been the case, but presuming the positive rather than the negative does get me better results. By that I mean if I act like she will be, she will either react to me more quickly in a positive or negative manner. It helps speed up the weeding process, in addition to building callouses on a wildly battered ego. ;-)

I do this in somewhat of a half-hearted fashion because I don't think my wounds are healed enough for me to actually start a new relationship, but it does ease the loneliness somewhat.

As far as the type of submissiveness I want; quite simply, that she will give me a nearly total submissiveness without sacrificing herself as a person. At one time, I thought I wanted a slave, but a slave is too much like a robot, and as I've stated before, I certainly don't want one of those.

KrosRogue

KrosRogue, my sympathy goes out to you over your misfortunes with women. Where I live, what you say happened to you is just about unthinkable. What’s so damaging to a woman to have sex forced on her by someone she knows and trusts, and why is she resisting anyway? It’s incomprehensible to me. I’ve never forced sex on a woman, and haven’t had the opportunity to experience what you experienced; but if I even suspected it might go that way, I would say goodbye immediately – I have no interest in a woman with that sort of attitude – where’s the love there?. Sudolly is only 23, let’s hope she mellows as she gets older, and maybe spends a few years with a good man, if one can be found willing to deal with her! I am optimistic for her, since she spends a lot of time reading this site and seems to have a keen interest.
But take heart, KrosRogue, there are fine women around. How about advertising yourself on this site, lots of women here know you by now.

As for getting over your wounds, I seriously recommend the use of EFT, a kind of Energy Psychology you can learn to apply yourself. I find it extremely useful, not only for myself but for others too, so much so that I have devoted my personal website to it. Visit www.eftphilippines.com, follow some of the links there, especially the very fine site created by Gary Craig. Contact me personally if you wish, my address is on that site. You can dump that baggage.

J, you do say in one of your posts that Random spanked you in a car park for running yourself down, and you said nothing about him discussing it first. It was a public place, there doesn't seem to have been any discussion or enquiry as to whether it was right, and you don't say that you hated it or that it felt unjust, unfair or wrong. Have I misunderstood you?

Feminism is only the crazy idea that women are equal human beings!!! Spanking should NEVER NEVER happen at all!! The only reason these silly books "work" is because men stay the way they always have and women become more submissive- sure- I would like a slave too! especially one that always looked cute, always cooked and always was sexy! who would'nt? women!!! love yourself enough to be a human being. DONT dull yourself down to become less than you are or less than human so that a man (who is not some "devine" or more worthy creature) can go on with his silly life without interruption. I am outraged.

While I DON'T think the original post is advocating rape, I would say that there will be times - maybe not many, but there will be times when a woman REALLY doesn't want to have sex.

When I was married, 99.9% of the time, I wanted my husband. There was once when I didn't (after an extremely hurtful argument)and he reminded me that I was 'his wife' in a way that made me feel guilty for refusing. So I conceded and when we were 'done', I cried myself to sleep. I mentioned it once to him. He didn't apologize and I never mentioned it again - I also never said no again, but the 'fire' that had been us was doused by the fact that I was very hurt and (I thought) he didn't care. Did I mention that this is my ex? Truly forcing sex (not playing, but being unaware or uncaring of her feelings) can do a lot of damage.

I have absolutely no idea, all I can say is that I find being bossed by my husband extremely sexy.

However, if you are not naturally bossy, and don't find the idea of being in charge appealing, there are plenty of women (the majority, I would imagine), who do not want to be bossed.

Louise

It took me some time to find the comment to which you were responding, but I think it's one from Sudolly. If she was thinking of suing anyone over this, I think it's probably too late to advise her against it. But I have the idea that she was speaking hypothetically in her comment.

As far as telling a man he can have sex whenever he wants goes, while I am in general quite happy to have sex with my husband whenever he wants, there are times (happily very rarely) when I do not feel up to it, and then I would make it clear that I'm not in the mood because I'm ill or very very tired or something. I would take a dim view if he persisted in trying to have sex with me at times like these, which is why I would never personally give a man carte blanche to have sex whenever he wants, because there would always be the possibility that one day I might not be up to it.

And frankly I am sceptical as to whether providing a man with unlimited sex will necessarily prevent him from committing adultery. There are plenty of men married to loving and devoted wives who nevertheless go elsewhere for sex. There are other reasons why men are unfaithful. And some women advise that it actually a good idea to keep a man hungry now and again. For example, in 'Fascinating Womanhood' Helen Andelin says that it's not a good idea to give a man sex whenever he wants, because it's like giving a child cookies whenever he wants them.

Now, I don't myself care much for the idea of withholding sex in this somewhat calculating fashion, but I really think that an adult man ought to be able to cope with the idea that, just now and again, his wife might not be up to having sex. If he really wants unlimited sex without the possiblity of ever being refused, then I think that getting himself an inflatable doll would be the best solution.

Louise

Interesting points about whether giving a man the right to have sex whenever he wants makes a relationship hotter and closer, thus making a man unlikely to look elsewhere.

Whilst it isn't directly relevant to this site, some other sites often discuss how keeping a man in chastity makes him more attentive and focused on his woman. This is a more severe form of the deprivation theory, as seems to be recommended for occasional use by Ms Andelin. I don't know why Ms Andelin didn't consider that a deprived man might be tempted to go off and find a more interested and cooperative female elsewhere. Perhaps when she wrote Fascinating Womanhood in 1963 the idea was unthinkable (although plenty of men did of course). Or perhaps the other practices she advocates in the book for strengthening the marriage would produce a union wherein it was unthinkable because of bonds of emotion and loyalty.

I've never liked what seems like a manipulative approach to sex, denying a man sometimes to heighten his interest. It seems a bit controlling to me. Even the cookie jar anology seems to put men in the same category as chidren, as though the wife has to ration the husband's pleasure or consumption for his own good.

The right to have sex whenever, wherever and however he wants works in my relationship. Of course he doesn't force the issue if I'm obviously laid up with a viral infection or suffering some significant emotional upset - he'll give the appropriate response, look after me or talk or whatever. He's a caring person, not brutish. That's one of the responsibilities of a man in a Taken In Hand relationship – to be aware of the woman's best interests and act in line with them.

I agree with Louise that infidelity can be multifaceted. I don't think that a wife providing unlimited and varied sex necessarily acts as a guarantee, but complete sexual availability with a man whose moral values commit him to fidelity and where there's also strong engagement between the two on the mental, emotional, social and spiritual levels would be pretty cast iron I'd say.