An alpha female bares her throat only to her mate

My introduction to the Taken In Hand site was an essay on submission, which made me think about my relationship with my husband of seven years. I'm neither controlled nor submissive—we have what our relationship guru, Dr. Patricia Allen, calls a covenant relationship: which is based on equity; on chosen and complementary roles. Dr. Pat defines a covenant relationship as one in which the roles are designated: that is, each of us naturally has the full range of male and females energies, but we choose to remain anchored in our preferred energy.

Pat also teaches:
convenient relationship: where the partners are both masculine energy and feminine energy, both get respected and cherished; although if their timing is off, it can result in clashes or hurt feelings and anger; and
co-dependent relationships: where one person wants to be both respected and cherished, and the other person gets neither—Peter Pan and Wendy are the exemplars—she gives and (over-)gives hoping to get back from him but he never gives back! (Very occasionally, a co-dependent relationship between two strong narcissists works because each is able to hold their boundaries against the other. Lots of fireworks usually, though.)

I prefer to be the feminine-energy partner in a covenant relationship. That means that I am gratefully receptive to Mike; I am available to receive whatever and whenever he wishes to give, whether positive or negative (I am a woman with a career, not a career woman: he comes first!); and respectful of him. It also means I give up my natural right to present my wants, opinions, and directions freely to him. If I wish to offer a suggestion or opinion to him, I get his permission first—that is, I don't ambush him by suddenly turning into a Yang masculine-energy competitor for leadership. It also means that unless he suggests something that's illegal, immoral, or unethical, I follow his lead—no whining about what restaurant I want to go to, or what color I want to paint the living room.

I'm a very strong woman, and I need a very strong man if I am to respect him. I had wistfully decided there was no man so strong, and thus I was doomed to never marry. Then Mike showed up: he is that strong—I have no fear of ever being able to out-think or use force with him—and so I am entirely comfortable subordinating myself to him, as only an alpha female wolf can! The alpha female knows herself to be naturally superior in rank over all the other pack members—but defers to her alpha male.

Sadly, too many of the ladies on my Pat Allen-related lists can't hear that yet; they're still mired in the egalitarian fantasy and believe they can have a man who will provide for, protect, and cherish them but also see them as equals! I hope to awaken them to the fact that men really are different. If you want an alpha male/Yang mate, you're not going to get a sweetness-and-light wimp; you're gonna get a guy who likes weapons and women! A man who is intent on his status and his ranking against other men—because women's rankings of him don't count! Real uncomfortable stuff, that, for most “modern” women.

Mike is the Yang, masculine-energy partner in our marriage: he provides for me, he protects me, and he cherishes my feelings above his. That means he ensures I feel comfortable and secure. It also means that he must suck up his own negative feelings or anger, and not dump them on me without first getting my agreement to hear him. That way I am not ambushed into trying to take care of or sooth or “manage” his feelings unexpectedly. It also means he doesn't get to blow off steam from work at me! I am protected not merely from the world, but from his frustration. If I am doing something that bothers him (something he feels bad about), he makes an appointment with me, so I am prepared and receptive to hear his feelings, but otherwise he manages his own feelings, and takes care of mine!

I am the yin, feminine-energy partner, the receptive and cherished follower. That only applies in our relationship, between us—not at work, or in a store, or with other men and women where I am my usual Yang self! I am willing to control my Yang masculine-energy self (with Mike) and I work to remain anchored in my feminine-energy self, because that complementarity allows for Mike and me to have the best, most intimate, most balanced, and happy marriage. (Remember: all people have both kinds of energy.) I'm not submissive (in the textbook sense), and yet I recognize and respect him as the alpha male; the leader of our “pack”—I would (and will) follow him anywhere he leads! And I am a pretty damned good leader myself!! But I choose to be his loyal and loving subordinate—not his slave or servant or toy! He has as much care and responsibility to me as I do to him!

the boss wrote:

In some Taken In Hand couples, the woman sees herself as a shrew being tamed; some women want to be brought to submission; some think in terms of having their resistance broken or of being conquered.

I got a chuckle out of this: we joke about Mike “taming his feral female”: because I was a serious (angry) feminist, a really masculine Yang woman when we met—in self-defense of the wounded little girl that he recognized and came to protect. But he and I do not find comfortable (for us—whatever floats your boat, eh?) the concept of “breaking” a woman; because who wants a broken woman? What does it say about a man (and his perception of manhood and of himself as a man) that he wants to “break” her, instead of choosing to cherish, protect, and guide her?! I have not been “broken”—I have been shown that while I may be head and shoulders above most other people, to Mike I am a beloved subordinate.

Most women want a man who is stronger, and can't be pushed or led around. None of us wants a wimp! (Or a husband-son!!) Rather than love and domination, I’m confused by this notion of domestic discipline / bondage / S&M, which seems to turn into further breaking someone already broken. Only someone who is already broken would consider being hit some version of love. I'm all for domination: the master is a master because he is better (bigger, stronger, smarter, more willing to be violent—but with his peers and competitors, not with his lover!—he's protective of her against all others!) Just because a man can beat up his woman does not make him worthy of her respect or make her willing to follow his lead.

It's not being submissive when you defer to your chosen alpha male. And he's not being an authoritarian dictator when he sets the plans and leads you—he's taking appropriate care of his woman. Pat Allen makes the balance and rewards of complementarity clear: when a woman is cherished, she feels respected. When a man is respected, he feels cherished!

Personally, I don't understand the need for physical discipline. If it is a sexual pleasure for you, have at it! However, if it is necessary in order that the woman “stays within his directions,” well, I’m not sure what that says about her willingness to make and keep her commitments to him. An alpha female wolf does not need the male to discipline her; she is entirely aware of her responsibilities as his second; she is subordinate to him because she chooses to be so, not because he can force her to be so. (She's worthy of his leadership!)

Of course, this may be the difference between an alpha wolf woman and a more naturally submissive or feminine woman. I am not naturally submissive—I am naturally rather aggressive and entirely elitist. I had given up on ever finding a man I was willing to marry, because I was not willing to subordinate myself to any man I had met until Mike showed up. But now I am, wholeheartedly and completely:

Mike's Girl

Take the Taken In Hand tour

Comments

Dear Mike's Girl

Glad you are enjoying your relationship. One place where I disagree with you: it is not true that you can't find a man who will love and provide for you but also treat you as an equal. I did.

"Pat"

Dear "Pat"

Are you not, then, in a male-led relationship? If you and he are equal, how does he lead?

Mike's Girl

Re: Dear Pat

Dear Mike's Girl:

We are in an equal relationship and we don't care or think about who leads. My point is, he loves and provides for me without having to be the leader. This was something you mentioned as being a contradiction in terms of the other women who wanted an equal relationship. But it isn't a contradiction and it does exist.

"Pat"

Preventative Medicine

Beyond taming the shrew, the taken in hand relationship is not so much to "break" the woman as to prevent dissolution of the relationship through the accumulation of stress. For decades, doctors have noticed that stress in marriage is often linked to hospitalization.

Anecdotal observations from the medical community were recently confirmed when American Psychosomatic Society research discovered that bickering in couples retards surgical healing. Marital stress retarded the creation of proteins necessary for healing. Conversely, participants in marriages in which there was less stress healed faster.

Consequently, digitally reducing relationships to either convenient (emotionally symbiotic) or co-dependent (emotionally parasitic) is to oversimplify matters greatly. For example, there have been times when my wife has said that she can feel rejuvenating energy rushing into her body when I touch her. Likewise, she says she experiences a healing quality just from being held at night.

At the same time, she freely admits (to me at least) that being physically taken in hand and paddled on her bare bottom clears her head like nothing else. For her, it is the ultimate catharsis. To say that she is outwardly "broken" by the experience tells only half the story. To say the she is inwardly renewed is to give a much more realistic description.

Is it cause, or result?

noone wrote: For example, there have been times when my wife has said that she can feel rejuvenating energy rushing into her body when I touch her. Likewise, she says she experiences a healing quality just from being held at night.

At the same time, she freely admits (to me at least) that being physically taken in hand and paddled on her bare bottom clears her head like nothing else. For her, it is the ultimate catharsis. To say that she is outwardly "broken" by the experience tells only half the story. To say the she is inwardly renewed is to give a much more realistic description.

Is this not the same experience of an addict when she gets a hit of her “substance”? Your wife (/anyone’s woman) is “gratified” by the release of dopamine from the combination of pain, reassurance, and sexual pleasure—however, as seems likely from Theresa Crenshaw’s book (and others: Helen Fisher, for example), it only works for a time; and then the... desire or need... (the change/drop in dopamine in the brain) builds again and so she has to again be “gratified” by the same experience to release more dopamine. Over time, will she need a more—or more drastic—- experience to release a effective dose of dopamine?

I don’t know if most folks into “domestic discipline” (or bondage and discipline, or just plain spanking) do over time, need to “up” their dosages... My impression of the “BDSM world” is that, yes—both the beater and the beaten come to/seem to need more, and more drastic, “scenes” and implements and application of physical pain to achieve the same release.

I’m not a doctor—merely an interested observer of the medical research into brain chemistry and relationships... As I said in my message that I’m hoping the boss will repost, I THINK it’s dopamine, but which brain neurotransmitters do what is not (yet) fully known, and my reading and studying is ongoing...

Mike and I have been discussing this too—he asks if it’s like most “drug” use. That the majority of users never have any particularly negative life effects from their habit; they “spank” and never go beyond. It remains a totally satisfactory gratification for both parties, with no need to escalate. {shrug} I don’t know either. My impression from my previous research into the BDSM world is that it seems to escalate—but that may be akin to the people whom drugs destroy. That is, they are the minority; the majority (?) are able to use drugs successfully their whole lives without adverse effects. (But I don’t know if there IS a majority of drug users who don’t, over time, need to escalate—which side can you trust for their stats and recommendations?!) I don’t know if most spankers just do that and never escalate.

Mike’s Girl

Nobody Knows

Nobody knows what "most spankers" do or don't do. It's not all that easy to take a poll, since many don't want to out themselves.

But I'll give you my answer. I used pot fairly often as a teenager and into my mid-twenties. It never really escalated though I experimented with one or two other drugs. One day I just wasn't happy with the effects any more and I stopped, just like that, and never missed it.

As far as spanking goes, by the same token, I have been interested in spanking since I was a small child. Over time and with more experience I have been willing to experiment a bit with other things, for instance implements I once swore would never touch my body (for example canes). However, it did not escalate from spanking to brutal whipping, to blood sports and other more extreme practices of BDSM. None of that has any appeal for me.

"Pat"

Cocaine on the Breakfast Cereal

The *up the dosage* analysis is actually quite amusing. The real question is whether the same analysis makes sense in other areas of human activity—or, is spanking just special.

For example, I have been eating food for about sixty years. While at times I did *up the dosage*, I have not always done so over extended time. If I had, I would have made it into Guinness by now! (I would have also made it to the morgue—in a wide-load transfer truck!)

Likewise, my wife and I have been married for almost forty years. During that time we have had sex a few times—and still do. However, while I never kept records, I do not believe that we *upped the dosage* over time. Nevertheless, there have been times when we have had more sex than at other times. (If we had *upped the dosage* in that arena, we would be X-rated Siamese twins by now!)

The comparison of a fairly normal human activity like spanking to BDSM—which very much an artificial contrivance—is equally amusing. It is like saying that because I wear clothes, I must eventually wear a formal attire cummerbund each time that I dress. Moreover, because I get all dressed up every time I get dressed, I must put on more clothes than I did last time. (Tonight, when I go to bed, should I wear a cummerbund and top hat?)

Apart from the humor, one of the curious things that my wife and I discovered over the years is that, even through menopause and the various problems of post-modern life, those all-important little numbers from her various physical exams and lab tests have remained in the normal range. She and I both believe that the usual tensions of daily life are not allowed to accumulate for long periods of time in her system before being purged.

Probably our biggest secret has been that we never really made a big deal out of spanking—we just did it and went on with our lives. Meanwhile, it seems, those who make a big deal out of spanking are those who do not practice it—especially if they suspect they should be.

Various researchers have attempted to reduce life activities to chemical reactions. This includes women falling in love as well as feeling better after a spanking. The important thing to remember is that, even if true, the chemistry does not negate the positive implications of both examples offered above.

In the end, the *up the dosage* analysis is little more than the old *slippery slope* argument that the politically correct attempted to use in connecting spanking—via domestic violence—to murder. The illicit drug analysis is little more than a red herring.

Finally, if someone really does have a problem with my holding my wife's hand in public, opening car doors for her, seating her at a restaurant, or spooning with her in bed at night after almost forty years of marriage, I feel sorry for them. Really, I do.

Well do whatever you want. N

Well do whatever you want. No i don't have a problem with it.

Reply to: An alpha female bares her throat only to her mate

“I’m confused by this notion of domestic discipline / bondage / S&M, which seems to turn into further breaking someone already broken. Only someone who is already broken would consider being hit some version of love.”

I have to agree here; breaking someone is the last thing to make a happy relationship. Generally I’ve found that physical punishment isn’t a very good way of disciplining anyone. I don’t know if real punishment is really an appropriate method of discipline at all. Taken in Hand is about consensual dominance and submission, and if a woman is willing, guidance is far more likely to achieve results than punishment, as the real punishment is the disappointment in yourself for having let your man down, the punishment pales into insignificance anyway, unless the woman is the angry type in which case it only leads to more problems!
Bondage and SM belong “in the bedroom”, for positively strengthening the power exchange situation in a relationship, not as tools of punishment. If obedience is the goal and the woman hasn’t achieved what both the couple are hoping for, clearly they need to work on something rather than use something self-destructive.
But no, you don’t have to be broken to consider being hit a form of expressing love, if you get sexual pleasure from it that’s an entirely different and far more enjoyable route for that feeling!

“The alpha female knows herself to be naturally superior in rank over all the other pack members—but defers to her alpha male.”

-Exactly the same way I feel about it.

Just a dominance and submission remark

I find this to be completely absurd to tell you the truth.

I think that some of you people are attempting to make excuses for your own behavior that seem biologically correct. I don't think it's true. To me it seems as if you are attempting to justify your own previous inability to think for yourself or you are of the male species attempting to convince females that they are intended to be submissive.

I see it a bullsh*t and frankly because of the general superiority of physical strength of the male gender the male species is more suited to be the slave to the dictating female.

I'm just saying if it has to be one way or another I can see myself owning a man. I can see having him automatically inclined to perform functions that I simply am incapable of due to my feminity. Therefore the man should be on the leash and should be commanded how to function.

LOL well I'm simply stating if dominance were absolute one way or another. The male species is more like the wild animal.

Sorry for the late comment but I just read this today.
I've been thinking about this subject for a long time now and it instinctively seems like the logical path.

However the way some women are with power, they are worse then men. Everything the woman does is almost always underhanded and subversive. So, when it comes down to it, I'd rather have a master because I lack trust in most of my female counterparts and I would trust a man before most women.

This is just a bs rant I guess.

Learn to balance your own emotions

In my personal relationship, I am married to a former military SMSgt, Viet Nam vet, a hobby shooter who collects guns; the world might perceive him as a very alpha male; however, I know all aspects of him (we have been friends for over 30 years, married for 11). He is courteous of my feelings, but isn't afraid to express his own. I do not need him to suppress his feelings because I am capable of handling them, and my own. Men and women have the same emotions, but often different ways of handling or expressing them. There is no distinction for us emotionally in that we respect each other; we recognize that nobody gets the spotlight any more than another. We know that two heads are better than one. I have skills he doesn't, and vice versa. We are mostly sensitive to each others' feelings (being human, we sometimes err). When we catch ourselves, we apologize and make amends. If he or I were ever to strike each other, the marriage would be over. It is outside our guidelines for a balanced and healthy relationship.

I personally suspect that inside the women who are taken in hand is a childlike persona covered over by an over-compensating facade of competence in the world. The fact that the term "girl" is often used on this site appears to be supportive of this idea. A grown woman does not need a man to help her to manage her feelings. A little child does need guidance and guidelines, so protestations to the contrary are not believable to me. Rigid roles in relationships is a sign of fear of ambiguity; a desire to live in a black-and-white cut-and-dried absolute truth type of world which doesn't even exist; all issues on this planet are shades of grey (as evidenced by the fact that all types of beliefs are played out everywhere—there is no absolute way of belief; people choose their beliefs by their emotional state and perceived needs.)

I would be greatly concerned for those women when their men suffer even mild heart disease or show symptoms of Alzheimers or other dementia illnesses, or develop something like Lou Gehrig's disease. So much is at stake when a person sets aside any part of their personality for development towards another flawed human being, most men dying before women. Unless the female develops her life skills completely, the time may likely come where she will be at a serious emotional loss when the male dies or becomes disabled.

Spiritually, it's all just another lesson to be learned—equal respect and concern for another person in a committed relationship not involving the manipulation of brain chemistry. I do not think most people who have any addiction wants to admit to it, and I sense emotional denial on the female and male points of view in this system of thought.

I could go on, but won't. Really, the bottom line is to learn to balance one's own emotions—no soul can do the work of another soul, and we are in bodies in order to spiritually grow.

So right...

Mike's Girl, that's one of the best descriptions I've read. Perhaps I only think that because you're similar to how I am. I suppose there is wide variety of how women and men are in these kinds of relationships that what may be right for you (and me) may not work for everyone. I'm not into punishment in relationships between adults. I disagree on equality simply on the moral basis that all people are created equal—although some are cleverer, stronger, better looking etc than others so that's just semantics.

I always want and need someone "better" otherwise how can I, a patently alpha female wolf, using your terms, feel I could cede control to my man? It's the only way it works for me. I am not identical to you in that although I'm certainly elitist and successful in career terms I'm fairly submissive generally.

Various parts of your post were useful to me and familiar. The last man I was seeing was a bit like you describe—there would never be any dumping of his feelings/difficulties on me and I respected him for that and wanted him to keep his privacy, almost and only share what he wanted to share. It was protective of me.

Also you wrote "If you want an alpha male/Yang mate, you're not going to get a sweetness-and-light wimp; you're gonna get a guy who likes weapons and women! A man who is intent on his status and his ranking against other men—because women's rankings of him don't count! Real uncomfortable stuff, that, for most “modern” women." Absolutely right. Competitive men who love women and can sometimes be hard to live with but well worth that price....

Finally a love story i can relate to.

Just wanted to say that I really loved your post. I am as well an alpha woman and it was wonderful to see someone with the same views as me! Thank you :)

The only serious problem in t

The only serious problem in this otherwise thoughtful post is that the author thinks it's okay that women's "rankings" of the guy don't make any difference to him. That's not "uncomfortable" (what a derisive, snarky little turn of phrase, btw), it's unacceptable. Women inherently deserve equal status to men—a voice, a vote, and full standing. And that should be recognized by all men, regardless of how "masculine" they are.
Furthermore, only if women recognize that we inherently possess—and always demand recognition of—these things of value, will our individual choices to surrender them to the individual men we love be worth a hill of beans.