She wants to be taken in hand against her will?!

You might like to read the first two articles in this series before you read this one. To go to the first article now, click here.


There is something worth discussing that is deeply consensual but appears for all the world to be non-consensual, and it is not easy to express in words in the English language without using the term “non-consent”. Many in the DD community are adamant that they absolutely hate what they call “punishment spankings” and that there is absolutely no sexual element to them, and that they would do anything to avoid getting one.

They say all this, and I have no doubt that they are sincere, but they are clearly not in the same state of mind as a battered wife. They do actually prefer to be with a man who will do that, and not in the way that the abused wife ‘prefers’ not to leave her battering husband. The abused wife would most definitely wave the magic wand that would turn her abusive husband into a non-batterer; the DD wife would definitely not wave that magic wand to turn her husband into a man who would never give her a ‘punishment spanking’.

The states of mind are simply not the same. In the one case, there is no consent; in the other, there is. It may sound non-consensual, and one can understand why the casual reader might find it all rather alarming and horrifying, but as I have tried to show, it is actually consensual.

Given the limits of the English language, it is not unreasonable to describe this as “wanting non-consent” or “consensual coercion” or “consensual non-consent”. But for those who can't even begin to understand why anyone would want this, let me explain more clearly what this is all about, and thereby show that this is not a sign of being screwed up. So, what is going on in the mind of a woman who “wants non-consent”?

For the sake of simplicity, I think of this in the following way (and I'd really appreciate feedback/criticism on this, BTW).

There is the core “me” that must be consenting on an on-going basis and absolutely not distressed, otherwise there is a risk of a psychological catastrophe. Think of this as the underlying reality, such that if the core “me” were not consenting, I'd be in the same terrible state of mind as the battered wife. I want to explore, learn, evolve; I want to forge new paths and discover new things, but that always involves psychological risk, and I want to avoid real non-consent like the plague, because real non-consent is real distress, and that can be very damaging, as we have established.

Nevertheless, that is not the end of the matter, for there is something that draws even perfectly sane individuals to this thing I am calling “non-consent” but which is consensual. Why do so many seem drawn to explore these potentially risky psychological waters? Because such exploration, if successful, creates valuable new knowledge for that person. The exploration of ‘non-consent’ is (if all goes well) under the psychological control of the ‘non-consenting’ person. It is not psychologically infinite. It is circumscribed.

Think of it as being in just one part of your mind. That part of your mind might be not consenting, whilst the core you is enjoying what is happening in that part of your mind, a bit like you might enjoy a very scary film. Part of you has to be scared otherwise the film does not move you, but if the whole of you—or the core you—is scared, then you are overwhelmed with fear and thus distressed. The successful exploration of non-consent, like enjoying watching a scary film, is a rendering. In the one case, you have a rendering of non-consent; in the other, you have a rendering of being scared.

What do I mean by rendering (mental representation)?

Imagine your mind as a series of interconnecting thoughts, ideas, values, etc. Each thought you have is in a semantic context of other thoughts, standards, values, etc. The ideas are related to each other. In your mind, you could have a representation of and ideas about something. At this moment, I am thinking about drinking a cup of tea. In my mind, I have a rendering of that happening, except that I am typing, not drinking, so I also have thoughts about wanting to stop typing and actually drink some tea.

Now I am drinking my tea and typing one-handed, and I have satisfied tea-drinking feelings in addition to the idea of drinking tea I had before. But note that what I have in my mind is only ever a rendering of tea drinking (a mental representation of tea drinking), never the actual thing, because I don't have any magical way of drinking tea directly with my mind, I drink it in the ordinary way, through my mouth and down my throat. The tea doesn't go anywhere near my mind, so my mind's experience of tea drinking is not direct but only ever a mental representation, a rendering.

However, drinking tea and merely thinking about drinking tea are two different experiences. Just as being coerced and merely thinking about being coerced are two different things, when I am actually drinking tea, the tea-drinking rendering in my mind is richer, more complex. My brain is receiving more information when I am actually drinking tea.

There are different levels (loosely speaking). In a sense, when you (1) think about being raped or spanked against your will, you have a low-level rendering of non-consent in your mind. In this case, if you are just thinking about it and have no particular problem thinking about it, you don't really experience the non-consent. It doesn't affect you noticeably.

You could, if you were of a mind to, get more into thinking about that daydream. You could think about it in more detail, (2) imagine what the non-consent might feel like, think about more details of the experience, think about it as an experience. This would be a higher-level or richer, more complex rendering of non-consent. Part of you would be in some sense ‘experiencing’ the non-consent. For some people, this would be enough to distress them. Even this would feel psychologically dangerous to them.

Similarly, some individuals can't watch films depicting violence without being distressed, whereas others can enjoy them. Those who can enjoy such films have the ability to engage with the rendered violence without being adversely affected at their core, as it were. It is not that most who enjoy violent films are “desensitised to violence”: on the contrary, if they were, they would not enjoy such films, they would be bored by them or indifferent to them. Part of the enjoyment of the film is being interested in it, engaging with it, caring about the characters, wanting the good guys to prevail, and so on. You can only care about that if part of you fears that the bad guys might win, for example. That rendered fear or “being on the edge of your seat” is exciting.

Similarly, if you were, say, physically anaesthetised and drugged such that you were desensitised to pain and not really conscious, anything that might happen to you would not be having much effect psychologically at the time at all. That would not be exploring non-consent in the sense I refer to. So it is not that those who are drawn to ‘exploring non-consent’ are somehow desensitised. When you are exploring non-consent (for example, receiving a serious spanking ‘against your will’) part of your mind must be engaging with the non-consent, affected by it.

Another thing you could do would be to (3) act out some approximation of your daydream of non-consent with another person. This interactive version could be more circumscribed and pre-planned in detail, to reduce the psychological risk. Or it could be less planned, less circumscribed. This would increase the psychological risk and increase the complexity and richness of the rendering. That is to say, the less pre-planned and circumscribed the interaction, roughly speaking, the closer the approximation to ‘the real thing’.

Some individuals at some times will not even want to think of being subjected to something against their will (perhaps if they have just been raped for real), but at other times, might be quite happy to engage in quite a realistically acted-out rendering of non-consent. Some individuals will be interested in only very circumscribed role-playing acting out of non-consent. They might well prefer a set time for this role play, and think of it as a ‘scene’, and have a safe-word. These are ways of reducing the psychological risk—of circumscribing the rendering so that it does not get out of hand and cause real distress in their core self, as it were.

Other individuals are actively exploring and engaging with the idea of non-consent, and for some of those individuals, the ways of circumscribing the experience I have just mentioned would destroy the value of the exploration. For them, circumscribing it that much would make the experience empty and barren of knowledge-creating potential. They would not get much out of it. These individuals want to explore the idea more deeply. They want a richer, more complex, less circumscribed rendering.

It is quite possible to take the position that you would absolutely never willingly submit, even though you really want more than anything to be brought to submission by a strong man. Some women fight, run, lock doors, kick and scratch like a wildcat, or behave like real shrews, and yet, they can be bitterly disappointed if the man does not use force to make them submit.

In some cases, some individuals will want a much more realistic approximation to the real thing, and at some point, it seems not totally unreasonable to describe that as the person “wanting non-consent”. In a sense they don't, in that if the rendering in their mind is out of control psychologically, they will be distressed and definitely not wanting it, not consenting. But if it remains circumscribed and under their control, then they might well be in a state which can be described as “wanting non-consent”.

As to why individuals are interested in exploring non-consent, there could be many reasons, but what it boils down to is the pursuit of knowledge (in the broadest sense), psychological growth or improvement, increased psychological strength. It is not actually that people want to suffer the distress of coercion: what they want (consciously or unconsciously) is to learn something. Engaging with non-consent is psychologically challenging, and when you survive and meet a challenge, you come out the other side stronger, more able to meet other challenges too. That is a powerfully satisfying feeling, and knowing that you can do this can enable you to remain rational in entirely unrelated difficult situations. This is useful in life. Amongst other things, it means that you are less likely to be upset by things.

Of course not everyone is interested in this, and some increase their strength in other ways, or are intellectually engaged in other spheres, and that is fine. But for those who are interested in this particular psychological exploration, it is valuable.

Suppose a woman has spent 20 years searching for a man who will administer serious discipline against her screams and protestations, and when she finally finds such a man, she willingly gives him blanket consent to be in control and to administer discipline if he thinks fit. Suppose that she finds that instead of being happy and peaceful, she feels distressed and unhappy. Then she is not consenting, and unless she is in the paralysed state of mind many battered women are in, she will seek to make changes or leave the man.

But if instead she feels happy and peaceful and loves the man passionately and would not change him for the world, I think we can safely say that she is consenting, even if she says that she hates being spanked. Saying that she hates it and even thinking that she hates it is all part of her rendering, and is fruitful psychologically. And as I have said before, for many women, it is not the spanking per se that they crave, it is the authority and control of the man, and one way that might be expressed is by force (such as discipline) on occasion.

I have been looking at this from the perspective of the person wanting to experience things ‘against their will’ but the person wanting to explore it from the other side is also on a quest for knowledge. Rendering non-consent is not just psychologically risky and potentially valuable for the person receiving it, the same is true for the person doing it too. I shall say more about this in a future article.

The Boss

Taken In Hand tour start | next

Comments

Playing with fire

Wow, what a fascinating perspective and the questions that it generates are intriguing. Maybe it's the post holiday fuzzies, but this was difficult for me to follow in some places, so if I have misinterpreted portions of the message please set me straight.

I have heard other Men on this list voice their opinions on the necessity of consent and the understanding that they are giving their partners the attention and physical interaction that they have agreed on as part of the relationship. One of the more difficult areas for me as the instigator of most of the overt physical activity (spanking) has been in accepting that consent can be given by someone who may not really seem to be enjoying the attention. That makes sense, and follows much of what the boss (and others) has written on the subject. It is not always a matter of simple black and white and so sometimes mistakes can be made and interpretations can be out of synch, but this region of non-consent seems to be a landscape of shifting shades of grey.

Shifting is probably the optimum word to use here, because as the boss has mentioned, this is not a sign of being screwed up, but rather an attempt (I think) to deal with the line between fantasy and what-might-be-welcome-under-ideal-circumstances. The trouble is that circumstances can change quickly and alter the entire situation beyond recognition, leaving a person in real peril if their partner lacks the connection or required empathy to deal with the new dynamics. So a forced spanking can actually become a sexual assault, and if the person *thought* she was ready for something new but was not in reality prepared for the actual event, it will become an ordeal. We can learn much from ordeals, but given the choice most of us would prefer not to endure the discomforts or dangers associated, preferring to engage our imaginations to bridge the gap.

My wife Sam has shared her fantasies with me many times and one of her recurring favorites is that she”s alone on a country road and a van full of *rough looking* men drives by and then wheels around and she is pulled inside the vehicle by the men who have their way with her repeatedly, with her being *forced* to service them. Now, as a past victim of rape you might wonder why she would *choose* to have a fantasy of this nature…I can”t answer that, but I can tell you that this is NOT something that she would welcome in real life.

She has shared this fantasy with me during sex play, and sometimes I introduced details for her that enhanced the scene and kept it in line with the floating and light feelings that often accompany surface fantasies such as these. I”ve learned that she prefers it when I help steer the fantasy in certain directions that emphasize the positive aspects of the situation, as opposed to extreme rough play and forcible coercion. I say this because her fantasy is rather light on details and doesn”t focus on sex as an act of rape as such. She is blocking out the negatives of non-consent in this fantasy and in doing so gains more control over the situation and indeed becomes aroused and involved in the situation to the level of her acceptance within the fantasy. That is her way of dealing with the psychological risk involved. I have learned through discussion that this is not a fantasy she would WANT to experience, but would the fact she has considered it make her less vulnerable to the trauma that such an event could cause if the unthinkable happened? I hope we never have to find out.

I thought it interesting that you addressed the flip side as well the boss, in questioning what might be the mindset of someone determined to give someone discipline "against her will" but with the implied consent underlying the non-consent. That is a very powerful concept, but one that demands even more from a man who might otherwise wish to protect and defend his woman from harm. To be the instrument of (potential) harm when consent issues go awry would require a very strong relationship and a large amount of trust on both sides. Not taking NO for an answer is one of the things that lands a fellow in prison these days, and rightly so. How would you go about building or creating that level of non-consent? It sounds very risky and though I agree that the level of reward is sometimes proportionate to the risk involved, this would not be a road I would travel without some very clear signposts and a mutually agreed upon destination. I look forward to reading more along these lines.

Howard Frank

Against Her Will

I have to admit that I did not catch all you were trying to say but as one of those women who want it "against her will", I will try to explain what's going on in my screwed up little head! I really like the aspects I see in DD and am finally coming to terms with my own wiring. However because of my history I have little to no trust in people anymore—and I do mean anyone. So I have developed a very strong instinct to protect myself. I cannot allow myself to be vulnerable. Some have heard me talk about this.

If, God forbid, I am ever arrested, I can fully expect them to add a charge of resisting arrest. I simply cannot passively put my hands behind my back and allow them to put handcuffs on me. In that same vein, while I desperately want to find a man and incorporate a DD lifestlye, he will have to understand that, at least in the beginning, I will fight him tooth and nail when he tries to put me over his knee. Will this ever go away? I don't know. I hope at least some of it will as I learn to trust him but it is so ingrained that I may never come to a point where I will just drape myself over his lap.

So that's one lady's explanation for this.......

Tmir

What about trust?

Doesn't a man need to be able to trust that you'll be consenting? My husband wouldn't act without my consent ever, isn'tthat an absolute basic necessity? If you want it, why would you resist??

Cara

The Consent is Pre-consent

For me, whilst I resist punishment, I consented upfront in my vow to obey my husband. The reason that it isn't abuse is because we defined for our relatinship what obedience meant and how it would be implemented at the outset.

On resistance

i see the nonconsent aspect as part of the general resistance against authority people naturally exhibit, only on a much more intimate level. It's human to test boundaries and want to bump up against something solid that you can count on to be there. A more general example would be government, which most people complain about because of the various ways it constrains our lives. Yet it is a solid bulwark in our lives without which we'd feel vulnerable. Consensual nonconsent in an intimate relationship is a similar paradox of psychologically finding comfort and frustration in the same place. If the bulwark weren't close enough to frustrate, it wouldn't be close enough to give the same amount of comfort either.

Real Discipline

Sometimes the route to self-understanding and rehabilitation is through real punishment for a real reason such as to cleanse away low self-esteem syndrome. Being taken upstairs and quite entirely undone by a stern but caring Mistress, can for some women, be THE BEST medicine.

Hairbrush's post

I am so surprised that this post about being "taken upstairs" by a stern Mistress didn't resonate more than it has. Thinking about that made me catch my breath. What would that be like? What does "undone" mean?

With consent, or without consent

I think in the sense of with consent, or without consent is the whole thing in this thread. If someone said "OK the boss," I am going to take you upstairs and spank you...........if there was even a hint of "may I" that would make it entirely different from being told the same thing in a different tone. I don't find the idea of being spanked, or undone, whatever that means, no matter how stern, exciting at all, unless I had no choice in the matter. If someone asked me I'd laugh. If someone told me.... who could.... that would be VERY DIFFERENT. I can feel that in my tummy even writing this. I'm sure I'm not alone either.

Undone? You can't figure it out? Really now!

To be undone is the beginning of the point at which false contrition, all insincerity, foolish bravery and residual modesty have vanished and a true cleansing can begin. It can not be faked. It is like an exorcism. I would be happy to privately explain the process. Should you wish to discuss this, you may message me on yahoo at Hairbrushterri.......hbt

against her will

What’s so good about this site is that there are so many different opinions and different lifestyles and practices, yet one overall theme. There are interesting paradoxes, too, and the principal one is contained in the phrase “consensual non-consent”. Those who think with their heads only and not with their guts cannot understand this so easily. Yet to me, there is nothing strange about a woman wanting to be taken against her will. I applaud that desire. If a woman wants to feel the assertive power of her man, that may be a very good way of doing it. But I’m glad I don’t have a wife who wants that, as I should have difficulty wanting to do it that intensely.
Wanting to feel boundaries, to feel guided, and to accept a “punishment spanking” with gladness even though she hates it does not seem strange to me. She might, too, be turned on by the high (is it adrenaline?) produced when she is anticipating it. Years ago I spoke on the telephone to a woman who was to be severely punished by her husband and me in a few days’ time—we’d all agreed that. “How do you feel?”, I asked. “Very scared”, said she. “Isn’t that what you want?” I asked. “Well, yes . . .” was her reply. She wanted to test herself, to feel and deal with the fear in the safety afforded by two men whom she trusted, to put herself in our hands; but also to enjoy the high running through her veins whenever she thought about what was coming to her. It was highly charged and sexy for her. I have no difficulty accepting this, I liked and admired the woman very much, she was intelligent, friendly, sexy and caring, and I was quite envious of her husband. She was made to wear a skirt without underwear for a week before, to intensify these feelings.

I like a submissive woman. I’ve met several, but never made a lasting relationship with most of them, for one reason or another. The woman who has been my wife for the last thirteen years and more is submissive not so much by choice as by virtue of the family culture in which she has been brought up, but she certainly isn’t weak. Here in this obscure corner of a far Eastern tropical country, it’s generally accepted that the husband is Head of the Household; but my wife wants to be consulted and feel that she has been fully considered, after that she is happy to accept whatever decision I may make on a matter. Although she says she has no interest in spanking, it doesn’t do anything for her sexually, and she is not one of the many who are consciously looking for a Strong Man to Take her in Hand, she has recently agreed, after a long time of thinking about it, and probably thanks partly to some good articles on this web site, that I can spank her not as a punishment (she doesn’t like having to behave in a certain way for fear of punishment), but whenever I like! That’s a gift I really appreciate. I’m not a very decisive man and might have difficulty deciding when she should be punished, and justifying it to myself, unless there were a lot of tiresome rules the infraction of which would automatically entail punishment, and neither of us likes rules. There’s a potential for arguments over the interpretation of rules, and my wife is a champion arguer, much better than me. I’m an easy-going man and not a disciplinarian. However, I like spanking her, and the gift is certainly going to be used, most likely as a reminder for something she has procrastinated about. (I suppose you could call that a punishment spanking, but I don’t want to put it that way.) She’s not brattish, careless, foul-mouthed, deceitful or anything like that, but she does put off doing things. That, too, is a cultural characteristic, but she has more than her share of it.

Let me explain

I am a person that enjoys being spanked against my will. A fact I have discussed with my partner this afternoon. For me it's the ultimate fantasy, other than being spanked by a stranger which in reality I wouldn't want to happen anyway. I guess it's because I am surrending all of my control to my partner by giving him free reign to spank me as he sees fit.

I tend to be quite a moody person that deals with big problems in life extremely well but not so well with the silly minor things. In the past this has led to tension between us. I end up getting more and more angry until usually I take myself off alone somewhere and sit and cry out my frustration. He ends up feeling aggressive towards me because he wants a quiet life in his own home. He has felt stuck with what to do as he feels like he wants to lash out at me but never has done.

I have given him permission to spank me when I get like this for two reasons. This helps me to calm down as we have agreed under these circumstances I should be spanked until I cry, therefore washing all the emotions away and he gets to smack out the frustration that he feels. I trust him not to take it too far.

Under these circumstances I am going to be in no mood for a spanking so will not willing oblige him by laying timidly over his knee. He's going to have to drag me there kicking and screaming and ignore any apologies or excuses at this stage.

Deep down I know it's the right thing for both of us, it calms me down and lets out his frustration. When I begin to cry I expect him to stop shortly afterwards and then cuddle me on his lap for me to bury my head in his shoulder and tell him I'm sorry. If he were to walk away and leave me or I was to walk away from him, I would feel abandoned, upset, alone, etc. But by being spanked hard and then ultimately cuddled this makes me feel loved, secure, safe and protected.

She Wants To Be Taken in Hand Against Her Will

As a six foot two female I have been subject to a lot of reaction about my extreme height. Over the years so much contempt has built up for the wimps that make up the majority of men that the idea of meeting someone who, at the first bit of cheek, would haul me over his knee no holds barred is a fantasy that occupies my mind every day. I have tried for a long time to work out the whys and wherefores. I decided that I couldn't be a masochist since it hurts too much and induces no enjoyment from the pain alone. A submissive seemed the nearest and yet I couldn't see myself as one who could obey for the sake of it. Much preferring the idea of being Taken in Hand for any of my numerous faults with no choice in the matter the only conclusion I could come to was being a contradictive sub. Your article on consensual non-consent was a joy to read. Not only because I've now got a name for how I feel but also it's a relief to know I'm not 'weird'. The feeling that comes over after being put in place leaves me feeling everything from 'cleansed' to secure. I only wish I'd learnt all this before I got married.
Thankyou to the boss.

She wants to be taken in hand against her will (2)

Now Michelle is to my mind the ideal girl! I understand her comments about her size being misleading. I am lucky enough to have a male-controlled relationship with her and although it has existed in one form or another for over 12 years, this site has helped it develop to a more permanent and understood part of our lives. There is no malice at any stage in administering 'correction' for 'mistakes', in fact I can honestly say that the relationship would not work without love. There has to be both trust and confidence on both sides, even though she sometimes feels a degree of fear at what may happen when 'errors' are detected. She is strong enough (both physically and mentally) to accept that being taken in hand is a fullfilling experience to both of us. I am sure that our relationship can only develop even further, thanks to understanding the consensuel non-consent that exists on her part. It is not a case of brute force to gain control, but more a case of maintaining a balance between the dominant male and the strong female! We will keep reading this site for inspiration,

I second this

I second this an i'd love to show michelle a thing or two!

wow....

*gulp* There actually are males that understand... everything.. perfectly.

The non-clairvoyant man in a Taken In Hand marriage

Picture this: A gentle and loving man sees himself as the head of household and expects his woman to enjoy being in his male-controlled home. When he wants sex and she refuses without a valid reason (e.g., she's not sick, etc.), he wrestles her to the floor and has sex with her anyway. When she doesn't follow his orders and doesn't have a good excuse for disobeying him, he puts her over his knee and gives her a good spanking so that she will learn she has to obey him.

When this man is clairvoyant and can read his woman's mind, there is no problem. But if the man is not clairvoyant and has miscalculated what she wants, he could find himself in trouble with the criminal justice system.

There has to be a way for couples in a Taken In Hand relationship to communicate their desires. "Consensual non-consent" is fine as long as both partners are on the same page. The woman only has to consent once and in a manner that lets the man know clearly that she has consented. Then he can run his male-controlled household without worrying that he has misread his partner.

There also needs to be a way for the woman to communicate to the man that she wants to withdraw consent (which will likely dissolve the Taken In Hand marriage, but those things happen sometimes). The non-clairvoyant man needs this communication to avoid getting himself in trouble with the criminal justice system.