Yes, I agree that what your heart says is the thing that matters, but I always had guilty feelings about my desire to be submissive, because I felt it was stupid to want to be obedient when I didn't have to be, and when other women had stiven to gain the right to independence and self-determination. I felt it was a ridiculous thing for anyone to actually want to obey another person. Absurd, I thought to choose to be submissive when one could choose independence, which must surely be better.

That was part of the reason why I was so astonished and confused when I discovered this site, that people were actually living in reality the life I fantasised living, that women who described themselves as intelligent, independent, strong, etc, were nevertheless choosing to submit to their husbands for reasons other than religion or social pressure. I thought they couldn't possibly be serious.

I still sometimes find myself having guilty feelings about the way I am choosing to live, because there are so many reminders that life for women in places where female submission is compulsory rather than optional can be pretty grim. It is lovely if you have a man you can respect and trust enough to obey, but there are still many places where the mere fact of being a man gives him the right to do with his wife as he likes, and what she likes means damn all, he doesn't have to be worthy of trust or respect. So long as it's voluntary, it's wonderful, but how much of a kick would I get out of it if I didn't have any choice in the matter?

Individual choice is one thing but my honest feeling is that I hope the "Taken in Hand" choice never again becomes standard, out in the open, and accepted. It could, in the wrong hands, lead us right back into a situation where women are not free to make that choice. This is something that is best practiced in secret and away from the eyes of those who have a vested interest in subjugating whole classes of people.

"Pat"

"Pat" wrote:

I hope the "Taken in Hand" choice never again becomes standard, out in the open, and accepted. ... This is something that is best practiced in secret

As you can tell from the fact that I started this site, I disagree, and will continue to work for public acceptance of this idea in a variety of ways. "Pat", do you have any idea how many people have written to me to thank me for bringing this out into the open? There are many people who experience enormous relief when they find this site -- especially women -- and tell me that for the first time ever, they don't feel ashamed of their desires. Your desire to stop Taken In Hand becoming accepted (which amounts to denying many people the choice) is immoral and you should drop it.

Louise, you are so on target. Submission was not voluntary. Slavery was an accepted practice at that time. Did anyone ask a slave if he or she wanted to submit? Ha.

Submission was required of a person who was deemed an inferior. Women were deemed inferior to men. That's what these strictures were all about. I see no options offered in Paul's statement either.

Yes, people can choose or not choose to follow what the Bible says but then if they consider themselves believers they are going to suffer guilt pangs for not following the wording.

The one thing I do see that is an "out" in the Old Testament Garden of Eden story is that it is a creation myth and therefore it explains how society got to be the way it was, rather than being an injunction to remain this way forever. That is, the supposed explanation for women being subject to their husbands and suffering pain in childbirth was that Eve listened to the serpent and then tempted Adam with the apple. So this is more in the nature of telling women, "This is why your husband has power over you: your first mother was a naughty girl who disobeyed God and ate that apple! And then she tempted the man into eating it, too!"

The other part of it is the explanation to men, why they must work for a living rather than sitting around eating off the fat of the land. "You had that situation once but your first father listened to his naughty wife and ate the apple, so now you've got to work your buns off!"

But creation myths simply explain how things came to be as they are, they do not contain a restriction on how things could change in the future. Whereas Paul's statement is a direct order to wives and does imply that it should always be this way.

"Pat"

I'm with you on this the boss. I think that the more it is talked about, and the more information that is out there about Taken in Hand relationships that are not abusive the better. I think that if people could understand that differences between spanking for fun, or as part of a Taken in Hand relationship and abuse it would help people. Some people DO like being swatted by people, in certain times, by certain people. Hiding it does not change that. People may have a better understanding of what abuse is and what it is not. I think we have the right to consent to this, and that right should be upheld. People also have a right to privacy and making it more mainstream does not mean that everyone who participates will be made public. It just means that the people, who are happy to have it public, can do so.

I know that relief you are talking about. I stumbled across another site, what I read floored me. I was so fascinated that people had this idea, fantasy, too. I had always thought that there was something wrong with me. It was reading about Taken in Hand relationships on the net that gave us the courage to try it. It did give us a choice. I wish it had been an option to us earlier, so that we could have started sooner. If it had been a more mainstream choice, who knows maybe we could have done something sooner.

Take care,
Tevemer

I have often seen this particular quote brought forward as proof that women were/are regarded as 'inferior' to men, but, in fact, read in context, it is a very poor example of that concept, because the passage does not refer to female submission at all and is instead concerned with the duty of men to take care of their wives:-

"1 Peter 3:7 (NKJV) Husbands, likewise, dwell with them with understanding, giving honour to the wife, as to the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life, that your prayers may not be hindered."

To my mind, whatever the cultural custom of the day, this implies that the spirit of the woman is enclosed in a more delicate and weaker packaging (vessel) than that of a man and it is therefore his job to protect and care for her so that they can be, 'heirs together of the grace of life'. Unless anyone can prove to me that a female and a male athlete can run at the same speed, jump the same height or length, lift the same amount of weight etc, then the evidence I see before me tells me that a woman is indeed literally,'the weaker vessel'at least in a bodily sense.

True, there are other passages in the bible that have been used in such a way that they imply that women are inferior to men, but I just do not think you can argue the point and use this particular phrase to support it.

Ros

Whatever this passage from the Bible may, or may not, mean, the fact is that in the past, women were required to be submissive because they were thought to be weaker than men, not just physically but mentally and spiritually too. And this is still the case in many places in the world, and even sometimes in the West (as Bramble points out in her reference above to her former church).

It's very nice that nowadays we have the choice whether to be submissive or not, but for all the talk about a submissive woman being a strong woman, an empowered woman etc, that is not the way that female submission has been generally viewed in the history of the world, and I think we need to remember this fact. There are still plenty of people around who do view women as inferior, and who think that female obedience should be compulsory, not voluntary. You may think of a submissive woman as a strong woman, but that is not the world view., and I think we need to bear that in mind.

I have more or less come to terms with my own submissive nature, though I doubt I will ever be completely comfortable about it, it does still strike me as a rather peculiar thing to want to be.

Although the idea of a submissive woman as strong, independent, self-determining etc is very attractive, the fact does remain that generally women have been expected to be submissive because they were considered to be weaker than men, mentally and spiritually as well as physically. At the end of 'The Taming of the Shrew'when Katherine grovels so abjectly to Petruchio, she does not say that women should be submissive because they are strong and self-determining, but because they are weak.