Taken In Hand is not fair but it is fun - and just

Taken In Hand is not fair but it is fun - and just

In discussions about fairness in Taken In Hand relationships, it seems posters sometimes confuse fairness with equivalency or justice.

It is not fair that my lovely woman (greatest gal on the planet!) follows my directions, but can't give me directions. She makes requests, that I consider. Usually she gets exactly what she asks for, sometimes she doesn't.

Nor is it fair to me that she isn't responsible for making decisions that I have to make all the time for our mutual benefit, so she doesn't have to worry about those things.

I do listen to her, and discuss things with her, but when it comes down to significant decisions (and even not-so-significant decisions), I'm the one making the choices, easy or difficult. I also accept full responsibility for making those decisions and any consequences for them.

How is that fair to me? It's not. We're simply taking advantage of our strengths.

Mind, I'm not complaining about these things, I just don't look at it as being a fairness issue. Fairness requires one to count and tally things but a Taken In Hand relationship should not be like that. As I see it, a significant part of Taken In Hand is acknowledging that one person is to be the leader, and the other person will follow that lead (by force if necessary!). It's a matter of authority and power. I've seen plenty of relationships (and been in enough of them) to now recognize that many conflicts are about power, or who's leading in any given moment.

What Taken In Hand offers is a clear definition of who is the final authority, who is going to take responsibility for decisions that aren't easily made when such decisions would often involve conflict when discussed among peers attempting for consensus. I don't expect or look for consensus, but then we have an exceptional amount of trust. She knows I will listen to every one of her concerns, and do my best to address them as (I see fit) in my decisions. She trusts my decision making. She can express disappointment in my decisions, and we may discuss how my decisions affect that disappointment. But she doesn't second-guess my decisions—she trusts that I have her best interests at heart (that's a big responsibility for me).

Think about work...are the decisions your boss make always fair? No. They can't be, because someone will always not get what they wanted. Your boss's primary responsibility is to the business needs, not the individuals. Just as the husband's responsibility in Taken In Hand is to the relationship.

(And before anyone jumps on it...I know our relationships aren't the same as work, but the leadership aspect is applicable everywhere.)

Fair? I think not.

Just? As just as I can be.

Bob TC

Taken In Hand Tour start | next

Comments

Decision making

I think the importance of decision making can vary in different relationships.

You, for instance, judging by what you write, seem to have to make a lot of major decisons all the time. Whereas in our marriage, major decisions come up very seldom, it's mostly minor decisions that have been the source of grief between us, and letting my husband make those has certainly made things easier between us.

Major decisions he prefers not to make on his own, he likes them to be mutual, it's the minor stuff that he's really bossy about. The one time since we started Taken In Hand that he did make a unilateral major decision, without any reference to me at all, I failed dismally at abiding by his wishes. When the opportunity came to flout his decision and do something entirely different, I seized on it with alacrity, I didn't even hesitate. Then I spent two days wondering if it would be better to run away to sea rather than tell him that I had done the very thing that he had specifically told me not to do.

In the end it was okay, he actually wasn't angry when i told him, and he agreed in fact that I had done the right thing. But it was touch and go there. I thought he might be going to say "forget the whole thing. if you're not going to listen to me, I'm not doing this any more". But he didn't. Because in the end, with us, it's been the small things rather than the big things that have been a source of stress between us, and Taken In Hand works fine for dealing with those.

Louise

Bob TC wrote:

Bob TC wrote:

...I do listen to her, and discuss things with her, but when it comes down to significant decisions (and even not-so-significant decisions), I'm the one making the choices, easy or difficult... She can express disappointment in my decisions, and we may discuss how my decisions affect that disappointment...

In a Taken In Hand relationship there is only one leader and it's the husband. But to have the "right" to be so, he needs the trust of his wife. And the trust is obtained from his capacity to be a real leader, one who listens to his wife and wishes the best for both of them.

When established, he doesn't have to discuss with his wife before making a decision. Because he already knows what she thinks and probably he knows her limits or fears that could stop him from making what has to be done. But it's true that major decisions have to be discussed and somehow "accepted" by the wife. Even if she's not comfortable with the option. So the husband will address the disapointment of his wife.

Louise C wrote:

...The one time since we started Taken In Hand that he did make a unilateral major decision, without any reference to me at all, I failed dismally at abiding by his wishes. When the opportunity came to flout his decision and do something entirely different, I seized on it with alacrity, I didn't even hesitate... In the end it was okay, he actually wasn't angry when i told him, and he agreed in fact that I had done the right thing.

We're not really in DD but if my wife had done that to me, she would have a punishment spanking for that... after having sort it out together. Why? Because she would have been rebellious, would have jeopardized our relationship by not submitting but more importantly by doing so in secret without telling me of her disappointment (or disagreement). A wife must preserve the trust to her husband at any cost. Even if he did wrong. But than again, was he wrong or was he a leader? Even for a major decision, if there is no time or no more place to discuss and a decision has to be taken, than the leader has to take it. And the wife has to live with it.

The bitterness of a wife who is unsatisfied that things don't go her way is the best way to weaken the relationship... or at least the leader.

The husband TAKES HIS WIFE IN HAND

The poster above wrote:

she would have ... jeopardized our relationship by not submitting

Then IMO you do not have a Taken In Hand relationship, because in a Taken In Hand relationship, it is assumed that the wife will, on occasion, 'not submit', and that the husband will take her in hand and set her straight and MAKE her obey.

In a Taken In Hand relationship it is recognized that the wife is not necessarily submissive but that both she and her husband want the husband to be firmly, actively in control, using force if necessary. The idea that the wife might jeopardize the relationship by not submitting is no part of Taken In Hand thinking. What I like about Taken In Hand is that husband and wife are realistic and down to earth and not given to moralistic pronouncements about how a woman must submit. A Taken In Hand wife will obey given sufficient active control on the part of her husband, and if she isn't, it is because the husband is failing to keep her in hand. So you could say it would be you who would be jeopardizing the relationship, not her.

"Fair" and "just" are the sam

"Fair" and "just" are the same thing.

People who think "fair" implies them getting what they want are misunderstanding the term. Even if it was "comfortable" for a person, an unjust decision that benefits them is not fair, unless you only count "fair" to mean what is "fair" to that single human being.

Fair Just

Some people may consider Fairness to equal Justice, but from my observations and reading I've seen a difference, and that is how I used those terms-to clarify a difference.

"Fairness" tends to connote absolute equality, i.e. everyone gets exactly the same thing.

"Just" more often connotes a sense of flexibility-to treat according to the unique needs of the individual.

Immediately one can tell that treating men and women exactly the same may be fair, but it's unjust, because we're different.

i.e Jewelry as a gift wouldn't be seen as much of a gift to most men, but would be to most women. Fairness would say give them the same thing-justice says give them something that is significant *to them*.

When playing Monopoly, everyone is treated fairly-there is one set of rules and one set of consequences. We don't play a "just" game, we play a "fair" game. All rules are applied exactly the same to everyone.

Out legal system is (supposedly) "just"-the sentence is according to circumstance, not simply what the crime was.