Marriage does not imply consent to anything, not sex, not housework, and certainly not to being controlled, these are all things which may or may not take place within the relationship, but neither partner has a right to expect or impose them on the other. We were all created with a free will, and the ability to exercise it, the people in a relationship define it together. There is no true relationship where one partner imposes their will on the other citing some implication of consent by existance of the relationship.

Wow, some things Noone said here were so insightful that I just have to repeat them:

A better way to control a woman is to take her in hand. Although decried by detractors as ‘violence’ against a woman's will, it is the most honest of the four methods. It is emotionally and physically healthier for her in that it is not psychologically manipulative.

It is pressure releasing rather than tension building. Consequently, it is actually the most liberating of experiences for women in that it facilitates the cleansing power of tears as she is being held in secure arms.

As a cathartic experience, it effectively purges guilt and other emotional baggage. It that it clears the mind rather than clutters it, taking a woman in hand is the antithesis of psychological manipulation.

This antithesis between the physical (?) act of taking a woman in hand, versus the psychologically manipulative ways of trying to control here, is really useful thing to point out. Like many (or most) people, I can instinctively sense when someone is trying to manipulate me, and I tend to react with rage. To my mind, that only adds insult to injury, that someone thinks they can somehow figure out just the right levers to pull, just the right carrots to dangle and (metaphorical) sticks to wave, to try and push me where they want me to go. That is usually a very quick trip to a heated yelling match.

But I react in an almost completely opposite manner to being physically overpowered. Like Noone said, that seems much more direct and honest to me, and it's much more effective. It skips the manipulative b.s. games, and goes straight to the heart of the power struggle. But for me, at least, the "taking in hand" needs to be physical. If a man thinks he can somehow "handle" me "mentally" or just by talking to me in a way that he feels should be sufficient to manipulate me, that will have exactly the wrong effect. Frankly, I've never found anyone who could "handle" me mentally or verbally, and I doubt that I ever will. But I'm sure that a strong man could easily handle me physically, and that is a more honest, direct, and effective approach.

What about consent? Actually, I'm not quite sure what Noone was advocating there, if he was advocating anything. I read him as saying that he likes traditional marriages where the husband's right to physically discipline his wife is assumed implicitly as part of the marriage contract. But given that is not the case today, what then?

I think the problem is that people seem to mean very different things by marriage, and have very different expectations of what duties and privileges it involves. There was also a time when a husband had an undisputed right to have sex with his wife, whether she objected or not. Then the laws against "marital rape" started raining down from on high, and now there are very few of the "privileges" that men thought they had in marriage; it's no wonder that some of them might have doubts about whether it's worth it, what's in it for them.

What I do think we need is for people to be encouraged to write out their own premarital agreements, and for the courts to be willing to accept that -- even if both husband and wife agree that he has the right to swat her if she misbehaves. The problem today is that even if people *want* this type of marriage, and even if they clearly *consent* to it before the wedding, there are very few courts that would let such an agreement stand as legally binding. That's the real problem, is that the government is determined to treat us all as little children who cannot possibly know what's good for them, hence cannot be trusted to make their own decisions in this matter. I don't think there's anything wrong with negotiating consent before marriage, as to what sort of relationship it will be; the only problem is if the cops are determined to drag the husband away, even if they have all the marriage paperwork that indicates that the wife consented to this sort of relationship.

To answer the original question in the title of this thread -- yes implicit consent should be enough, between a man and a woman who already know each other and have established a relationship along those lines. But one cannot read "implicit consent" into a marriage if it was never talked about at all. Because wishful thinking is apt to take over, and the man may imagine that he already has her "implicit consent" for all sorts of things that she never once intended to consent to. It may be true that she would be better off, and the whole marriage would be better off, if the man takes her in hand even though she has never expressed her explicit consent for that. But the fact that it might be good for the marriage does not make it legal, and that's the sticking point. If the man gets hauled off to jail for a few days then that is going to have a negative impact on his perceived "dominance."

The leading article states:

Traditional marriage implies consent for a woman to be taken in hand. Where political correctness has gotten the cart before the donkey is in demanding that consent for a taken in hand relationship be explicit.

Actually it should be the other way around. A woman should have to show – especially through her behavior – why she should not be taken in hand on occasion.

...

Within marriage, women have a right to expect to be loved and treated as something other than a girlfriend on an extended visit. At the same time, within that stable arrangement comes the implicit consent to be taken in hand.

This rules out the need for any explicit consent at all, ever, except maybe before marriage or in a live-in situation. Or is that supposed to apply to common-law marriage also?

I strongly disagree and maintain that at least in the initial instance there must be explicit consent. The newlyweds should sit down together and discuss this. Otherwise I think that acting out the fantasy of taking her in hand against her will is going to result in resentment, anger, and ultimately divorce.

Furthermore there should be periodic discussions and updates. If either is feeling deeply dissatisfied with the arrangement they need to reevaluate, change it or maybe jettison it altogether.

"Pat"

(OK, I just realized I need to address this, too.)

Noone wrote:

A variation of the above is telling the woman she is crazy. Woman have a basic and compelling need to know that they are normal – whatever that may mean to society at the moment.

"Normal"?? Uh, no. Some of us are quite happy to march to the beat of our own idiosyncratic drummer, and we regard "normal" as something akin to an insult. I've never had much regard for what society thinks of as "normal," nor can I really understand why that seems to be a big deal to so many people. Anyone who has an independent mind, and a clear sense of their own self-worth and their purpose in life, is not going to be driven by a craven need for societal acceptance and approval. And that independence of spirit, and imperviousness to the collective whims of society, is a much better criterion of wholesome sanity than "normal" is.

Although extremely effective as a control mechanism, to deny a healthy woman the sense that she is sane and rational is the ultimate mental torture. It is probably the most physically and psychologically debilitating of the methods.

Sorry, but I had to laugh at this. I cannot imagine how any other person could possibly "deny" me the sense of my own rationality. I don't depend on anyone else to validate my sanity or my intelligence or my worth, or anything else. I am a fully self-validating critter, as are we all, unless we surrender our mental and emotional autonomy to somebody else. Any man who was hoping to "debilitate" me by questioning my sanity would instead provide me with more hilarity than he could imagine.

I cannot even imagine where one would get the idea that this sort of silly manipulative tactic would be "extremely effective as a control mechanism," unless one has been associating with women who are pathetically insecure and needy for the approval of others.

Nor can I imagine the "ignoring" tactic working very well, because any man who would ignore me is one who is unworthy of my attention, and I would leave him. And the "keeping her busy" tactic would not work with me, either; because I'm already busy enough with my own commitments that I would be reluctant to take on any additions that would unduly burden me. Like I said, manipulative tactics of any sort tend to backfire when used on me. But what puzzles me is the idea that such tactics would actually work on anyone.

However, I do appreciate that you realize that such tactics are manipulative and unhealthy, and label them as such; and that you point out that the direct approach to dominating a woman by taking her in hand is both more honest and healthier for all parties involved.

I do not deny my husband the right to dominate me physically. He is well aware that he had my permission to do as he sees fit whether I verbally approve or not. I always defer to his discipline and I have never said no yet. Sometimes I whine a bit and try to get out of it but if he is verbally assertive I will always defer. I can't help myself. It is truly just my nature to submit. He doesn't have to drag me into position or anything like that. I ALWAYS bend over willingly.

But on the other hand I would not have liked it if he had assumed it was ok to take me in hand without my permission. It would not have been ok when we were younger. I would have no doubt left him if he tried anything physical with me. I just was not ready for that kind of relationship at twenty-one.

Back to the same thing again and again and again. I’m not talking about consent every time. Once consent is given it is given. Now he can do as he pleases as long as it is to my rear end and no other part of my body (well maybe the back of my legs). He no longer needs consent. He needed it the first time though.

Even today I would certainly never want him to punch me or kick me. That would not be what I consent to. We all have limits as to what we will allow and these things have to be verbalized. I am not his slave, I am his wife. I will submit to him and obey him as much as I am able. Yet I am still a person in my own right and I will always have limits on what I will allow done to MY body. I would never want to physically dominate someone else without their consent, and I can’t imagine anyone wanting to do that to me or anyone without their approval. It sure sounds like abuse to me. It doesn’t sound like something a good person would do that’s for sure.

You cannot have a legal contract or agreement to do something that is illegal. Thus you can have a pre-nup agreement, but if that agreement includes something that is illegal, such as physical abuse of one of the parties (usually the woman) then it will not stand up in any court.

I can't understand why you think abuse is acceptable if it was agreed to in a pre-nup. Many of the Governments laws are there to protect people in unforseen circumstances. Also I can't understand anyone how would accept such an agreement in the first place. If someone wants an option to abuse you, you are better off without them.

You wrote 'I do not think that courts should accept a contract where a person is agreeing to abuse'.

What I know about the laws of the US comes from several political science classes and from watching the TV series 'The Paper Chase'. :)

First thing:
As best I remeber, you are correct to state that a court would not enforce a contract which would lead to the death of or significant injury to either party. I could sign a contract to donate a kidney in return for payment and I think a court would enforce that contract. But a court would not enforce any contract where I promised to donate both kidneys since that would lead to my death.

I think this legal principle assumes that my consent to donate both kidneys is irrelevant; the courts just won't allow people to harm themselves. Based on this principle one has to wonder why boxing is legal and concensual discipline is not, but that's the way it is.

Second Thing:
I believe the laws of the US do recognize a principle called 'implied consent'. I have heard of this in cases where a drunk driver appealed a conviction because he or she did not consent to a breath test. The courts hold that applying for an using a driver's license implies consent to submit to a test for alchohol or drug use while driving.

IMO, the legal concept of implied consent does not strongly apply to personal relationships. But it is worth noting that the US legal system thinks it is possible, or at least not ridiculous, that one choice of action leads to an additional responsibility.

So I think it reasonable to state that a person who freely 'contracts' to live in a Taken In Hand relationship does give implicit, but limited, consent to another person.

Third Thing
Someone stated in this thread that marriage does not imply consent to anything. I believe that one spouse is responsible for the lawful debts of the other in many situations. I don't think that fact refutes the idea that marriage does not obligate a wife to submit, but we should always be careful about 'anything/nothing/never/always' etc.

RichM

Yes the law and the legal system can be very strange. But our laws do come from what we, as a society, believe to be right and wrong. So I think it is sometimes useful to look at your personal relationships from a legal point of view.

Again, I don't have professional experience, but what I wrote about non-enforceble contracts is true. No court would enforce a contract that called for someone to give up both of their kidneys. As to what would happen if you agreed to sell one and then changed your mind, I think a court would award monetary damages to the other party and not force you to undergo surgery to remove one kidney.

As to contractual spanking, you misunderstand a bit. No one can give or receive 'rights' by contract. I don't know, but would guess, that a lawyer might be willing to draw up an agreement where a wife states that she consents to spanking and will not call the police and charge her husband with assault if and when he spanks here. (Wow, that sounds very lawerly). A good lawyer would add some language that places limits on the husband's spanking. The whole purpose of such an agreement would be to protect the husband. Now that's an odd one!

Would all that matter if the wife did indeed call the law? I have no idea.

Would a court rule that a wife must submit and order the bailiff to hold the wife down? I doubt it. Most contracts have time limits or cancellation clauses so the wife could just say "sorry, it's over". Perhaps a court would award the husband some monetary compensation for 'loss of fun'.

BTW, I think professional boxers sign some kind of document that states they understand and assume risk of injury. You don't hear about a boxer charging an opponent with assault.

RichM

fortysomethingwife wrote:

But on the other hand I would not have liked it if he had assumed it was ok to take me in hand without my permission. It would not have been ok when we were younger. I would have no doubt left him if he tried anything physical with me. I just was not ready for that kind of relationship at twenty-one.

This is where I differ from a lot of submissive women. I was always submissive. When I was younger than that I was. I was always aware of it and what it was. When I met my soon to be then husband I was 20 and I was passing him huge chunks of power - you decide, buy this spanking magazine, you take charge, do XYZ. So at 21 when we married I certainly was ready (although sadly he was not willing) to enter a Taken In Hand relationship. The difference between me and some other women is I've always entered every relationship expressly as submissive and since I divorced I will, when I have anyone, typically be going to dinner with someone who knows I'm submissive.

Obviously there are things to discuss when it's appropriate but there's no need for discussions (if a relationship develops) about implied continuous consent to sex or spanking. Experienced dominant men (who are wonderful in my view) know what to do and how to sound you out on what's acceptable. None I've been with and probably even my ex husband (we were married for 19 years) would accept a withdrawal of the consent and I wouldn't seek to do that. It would be a relationship killer in a way, me ruining the dynamic.