Taken In Hand works best when it is organic

Why do rules often not function the way some couples new to Taken In Hand expect? The core difficulty may be confusion of means and ends. In theory, rules become a means to an end. The desired end is a secure—and, therefore, a solid—relationship. When that does not happen, then frustration occurs because the rules get in the way of achieving the desired goal.

Another difficulty is that the concept of rules is borrowed from a source. If one considers that marriage and family are primal, then, rules borrowed from more complex structures may become burdensome. They simply do not fit the purpose.

Taken In Hand is much like sex. It works best when it is organic.

A couple can have textbook perfect sex and still have a rotten marriage. The same is true for Taken In Hand. It is simply one of those things which unlike—combinations of flour, sugar, milk, and eggs—cannot be put into a book of recipes for all to use with marvelous success.

Instead, successful Taken In Hand has to originate from within the couple.

As I pointed out before, I almost ruined my marriage by trying to do follow socially acceptable rules of engagement. It took my wife showing me this is what women need to straighten them out before I could even come close to saving our marriage.

For Taken In Hand to be successful, a man must get inside the woman's mind. If he fails to do that, the rest is wasted effort.

I found formalized rules to be burdensome. Instead, things have worked best for my wife and me when we simply did what was necessary to work out our difficulties at the time things needed to be straightened out.


Taken In Hand Tour start | next


careful of generalizing

Noone, I always enjoy your posts--until I get to comments like "this is what WOMEN [as opposed to a particular woman or women] need to straighten them out," etc. The constant assumption that all or almost all women want a Taken in Hand relationship keeps me from enjoying your writing. As you know, there are plenty of women who do NOT want to be taken in hand out there. Taken in Hand is a choice for people who want it, and we can't assume that the majority of women who DON'T want a Taken in Hand relationship just don't know what they want.

all women

I am not sure all women want a Taken In Hand relationship, but I do think families would function better if all men were take-charge husbands and women and men fulfilled the role for which they were created. I just think nature's plan is still the best plan. It is too bad we women were hoodwinked in the 60s and 70s to believe that we can do it all and have it all and that nothing had to give. The poor men of the world were forced to deny their very nature. This has had a devastating effect on society as a whole. How sad. I think that some women who feel they would hate a Taken In Hand marriage might find their feminity again if they gave it a try. What a freeing, liberating feeling to be allowed to be a woman. Thank God for my head of the household and for men like Noone who aren't afraid to be who they are, thereby allowing us to the privlege of being who we are.

What Women Want Is Not Always What Marriages Need

A few years ago, during a discussion, a Ph.D. observed that feminism may prove to be an accident of history spawned by a coincidence of events that will prove imposing to sustain or replicate.

Likewise, a female journalist during the Soviet era wrote that American feminists needed to be spanked by men for their insufferable arrogance. In particular, she noted, feminists failed to realize that their independence from men was precariously tied to good-paying jobs—which she correctly predicted would not last.

Unless she is young and naïve, a woman wants honesty from a man. As noted in a earlier post on a different thread, I have come across numerous women on the web and in life who are not nearly as perturbed by being honestly told they need a spanking as weak men trying to get into their panties.

Perhaps the greatest lesson I learned from my wife is that woman will cooperate when she thinks that a man is acting in her best interest. Difficulty is sitting does not bother a woman nearly as much as being ignored.

The great tragedy of the current political environment is that women have to, temporarily at least, pull men into their world and teach them how to *take charge.* Because of this fact of life, taking a woman in hand appears to be a choice when—in reality—it is much more visceral.

Yet, in time, time honored traditions will return. While would-be feminists will curse the day, more rational women will rejoice.

Re: What women want is not always consistent with marriage

The current cultural climate is indeed unsustainable...I very strongly agree with this post. I have seen many of my professional female friends, when first married, continue on with the charade of having dual roles within the home until children arrive and ultimately change the dynamics of those roles. Try pumping breast milk in between clients. Many struggle with the dual roles of children and work..We are at an unprecedented point in history where women feel that we have not the men to bring us protection, safety and provision. I ask myself why would love in an egalitarian marriage be enough to hold together a relationship that is explicitely absent of polarity and mutual need. My great-grandmother once correctly observed that the turning point in history came before the 60's and 70's. The beginning came during the second world war when many women went out into the work force to assist in the war effort. The sexual licentiousness of the 60's birth control movement contributed to the current cultural trend by removing any social taboo related to sexuality. Whence men no longer had any responsibilty toward women and their virtue, they no longer had an obligation toward the commitment and protection of women. In this way, history, culture and biology coincide in their contributing factors in regard to the ultimate demise of traditional cultural values while also creating mutual relational misery and chaos.

Women in the workforce

Women have always been in the workforce, it isn't something that started in WW2. The majority of women have always had to work for a living, not from choice, but from sheer necessity and in order to survive. The big difference is that in past times work was seen as something you did if you needed to, what is fairly new is the notion that it is essential to have a job outside the home in order to make you happy.

In past times, hardly anybody worked if they didn't have to, male or female. For instance, in her autobiography, Agatha Christie described the life led by her father at the turn of the last century:

It was the days of independent incomes, and if you had an independent income you didn't work. You weren't expected to. I strongly suspect that my father would not have been particularly good at working anyway.

He left our house in Torquay every morning and went to his club. He returned, in a cab, for lunch, and in the afternoon went back to the club, played whist all afternoon, and returned to the house in time to dress for dinner. During the season, he spent his days at the Cricket Club, of which he was President. He also occasionally got up amateur theatricals. He had an enormous number of friends, and loved entertaining them. There was one big dinner party at our home every week, and he and my mother went out to dinner usually another two or three times a week.

At the same time that people with money were leading these leisurely lives, hundreds of thousands of women toiled in domestic service, in factories, in shops, in the clothing industry etc. They needed to earn money in order to survive. It was necessity that obliged them to work. Over a million women were employed in domestic service in the UK at this time for example. They weren't waiting for a war to go to work.


The Circle of Change Continues

No, women in the workplace did not begin with World War II. In fact, during World War I, the United States had women in the Navy. These predecessors of World War II WAVES were called Yeomanetts. Along with the women working in defense industries, the Yeomanetts, women's contribution to World War I is one reason why women of that generation "got the vote" in the United States.

The real change in the attitude of women came in the wake of the 1960s. Advancing technology and equal rights legislation gave women a sense of entitlement to good-paying jobs. From those tranformations sprang independence from men.

As a result, collaboration with men was put on a level with consorting with the enemy in time of war. An assumption was born that a man could do, a woman could do better! The result was an aberration in the status of women that began to undermine the traditional social fabric created by men and women over millenniums.

Now, as the current economic crisis clearly demonstrates, the independence of women from men was predicated on the availability of good-paying jobs. As the supply those jobs—such as those found in the scheme of public education found in the United States with its generous retirement and benefits packages—have waned, the fragility of gender independence has been exposed.

In time, as the equality cookie continues to crumble, men and women will have to rediscover lessons taught by their ancestors. For formally liberated women, the process will be extricating. Yet, most women will survive the transition.

Those able to survive and reproduce will, much as did their ancestors, transmit their genes to future generations. The rest will simply be footnotes in history.

Although some women think that "Taken In Hand" is a choice, the urge is at least as visceral as it is cerebral. It is, in fact, a mechanism for survival that, at one time, was woven into the fabric of socialization through inculcation. Nature is, after all, a stern mistress.

That is why, despite repeated efforts to eradicate it, "Taken In Hand" relationships continue to flourish under tsunami of radicalized propaganda. In time, the abnormal flood will recede. When it does, men and women will continue to interact as they have always done. Unless someone has sufficient resources to afford the trial and error of artificial insemination, survival of the species depends on it.


I am really glad that you and your head of the household have a happy marriage, and I don't mean to be too judgmental. It is really easy to feel like, "what I want feels really natural to me, so it must be natural and good for everyone and come from God and be the way everyone would be happiest." I'm sure I do that too, with some things. But do you really think that all the women out there who aren't like you are hoodwinked? That seems not to make sense, since even among the different women on this site there are lots of different needs and wants. And do you think that they are all out of touch with their femininity and not (or don't feel like) "real" women? I feel like I meet a lot of feminine women who love being women, and most of them are not in taken-in-hand relationships. Some are single and some are even (gasp) lesbians. It doesn't make sense to me to think that they are all just kidding themselves or are acting against nature or something.

all men?

I don't think all men want to be take-charge husbands. Some are entirely unsuited to taking on this role. I know my late father would have been absolutely horrified by the very idea. He hated either giving or taking orders, and believed very strongly that everyone should do their own thing. The idea of anyone having authority over anyone else was anathema to him.

If all women wanted Taken In Hand relationships then I actually think it would be disastrous, because I don't think there are enough men who really want to be take-charge husbands to go around. There would be an awful lot of unsatisfied women, and men.


If all women wanted Taken In

If all women wanted Taken In Hand relationships then I actually think it would be disastrous, because I don't think there are enough men who really want to be take-charge husbands to go around. There would be an awful lot of unsatisfied women, and men.

I'm new to this site and I haven't yet made up my mind as to whether or not all women want a Taken In Hand relationship (I'm leaning towards no, but I'm keeping an open mind). However, it's my observation that there are an awful lot of unsatisfied women and men.

Reply to All Women

Bravo, Taken In Hand Reader! Very well said!

The 60s and 70s was very effective in deceiving women into looking for "independence" when their true liberation could be found in fulfilling the roles for which they were created, as you said. My life and my children's lives are sad statistics of how that independence failed (through divorce and devestated families), and we have longed for strong alpha male influences in our lives.

And, yes, thank God for men like Noone, CarlF, Gary, Stephen (and others I'm probably forgetting), who are not afraid to share their insights with us and to boldly be who they are! I would gladly accept their insights and counsel over some cookie-cutter, namby-pamby advice any day; so don't ever stop posting, gentlemen, we need you!

Insights From Lessons Mostly Taught by Wives

Your family is not unique. My wife's family is larger than the typical American family. It, too, has had its share of marital disasters. In fact, the only surviving first marriages among my wife's siblings are those in which the wives are paddled.

On the other hand, the marital failures among my wife's siblings were unions predominantly based on sex or money. Money was often a bigger motivator than sex. One of my wife's brothers is currently in the process of extricating himself from his second marital misadventure with a gold digger intent on mining the recompense of his talents for all she could get from him after a minimal investment.

Marriages among my wife's siblings are incarnations of the counsel given by a trophy wife many years ago. Only, in my wife's family, divorcing couples apparently never bothered to articulate the relevant question, much less fully explore the traditional alternative to divorce.

After the trophy wife's first husband proved unsuitable for taming her admitted tempestuousness—and sought comfort in the arms of a younger woman—she divorced him and found a more qualified husband. Based on her personal experiences—as well as her conversations with other women—she concluded that fate of marriage is not determined by how often to have sex or how to spend the money. Rather, the outcome is decided by what the couple does when the wife needs spanking.

Only a few generations ago, *wife spanking* was generally accepted by both husbands and wives. The practice fell into disrepute as the women's rights movement gained steam amid other frivolities associated with ostentatious consumption.

Reared in an age of relative affluence—that coincided with a profitability derived from the cheap labor provided by women in the workplace—the modern woman was susceptible to the utopian dreams perpetuated by feminists. While nibbling at the fringes of the lesbian-Marxist agenda, women convinced themselves that they no longer needed men—and, most certainly, they did not need men to spank them.

Money and sex on their terms were just fine, thank you. It was a situation that could not endure in perpetuity.

Shortly after the breakup of the old Soviet Union, a former Soviet journalist pointed out that the illusion of women's independence from men in the United States was predicated on a steady supply of easily available good-paying indigenous jobs.

The words penned by the journalist were not the sour grapes of some dodgy old Kremlin codger. Instead, they came from an attractive female intimately familiar with both Russia and the United States. Having seen the fate that had recently befallen the *formerly liberated Soviet woman*, the journalist clearly understood the precarious position in which American women had placed themselves.

In fact, the journalist was so disturbed by what she saw in the United States that she proclaimed liberal American women needed a dose of *Nietzsche's whip* to wake them up!

Since the collapse of communism a couple of decades ago, increasing numbers of post-modern women have grown weary of the deception foisted upon them by those expounding a utopian dream for liberated women. This restlessness is coupled with fallout from the present economic difficulties.

As things now stand, it may take a decade for Western economies to revive. By that time, at the current pace of change, many of today's workplace skills will be as obsolete as those of a keypunch operator looking for a job in an age of personal computers! In addition, geriatric maturation will move the primary concerns of aging liberated women from preceived gender discrimination to more tangible age discrimination.

Over a decade ago, as exuberance drove the stock market to dizzying new heights and Congress passed even more laws crafted to protect women from the presumed evils of men, I warned autonomous women that they had better savor the moment in history because it would not last.

It was not that I was a prophet. Neither could I claim access to some infallible crystal ball. I only knew the past. I was also acutely aware that history resembles a wheel in time that comes back around. Some say the wheel of time behaves more like a Foucault pendulum.

Being a youngster well before the Sexual Revolution, I am old enough to remember oral histories of women born in the late Victorian Era. Many of these grandmothers had been *flappers* during the Roaring Twenties.

They had come of age when women *got the vote*. As young women, they were the mothers of the *Rosy the Riveter* generation. The Rosy generation was the first to gain workplace experience by doing jobs traditionally done by men before settling into married life during the relatively prosperous 1950s.

Becoming wives and mothers about the time manufacturers of the modern hairbrush began mass production, women born during the late Victorian women were also the first to widely use the implement for disciplinary purposes. By the 1940s and 1950s, with a little help from door-to-door salesmen, their daughters popularized that other use for hairbrushs.

Much like the Rosy generation and their daughters, those women born at the end of the Victorian Era thought they had achieved equality with men. As one former flapper described the attitude of her generation, "[Victorian husbands] used to [spank] their wives; after we got the vote, we thought they wouldn't dare."

Then, as now, the illusion of gender equality was a dubious proposition. Before the end of the Roaring Twenties, the stock market crashed—and, along with it, the dreams of those late Victorians as they entered the first Lost Decade. The life that had once seemed to flow so sweetly from a hip flask began to taste more like topsoil blown by the Dust Bowl.

The adjustment to reality was a bitter pill to swallow for that footloose and fancy-free generation. Those accustomed to riotous living experienced the hardedge of life. Women previously unrestrained by convention had to forge alliance with men in order to survive.

Despite more recent feminist propaganda, the era from the beginning of 1930s into the mid-1960s was an age in which genuine *wife beating* ran afoul of laws in most states. Nor did that supposed *rule of thumb*—theoretically limiting the size of a *stick* with which a man could *beat* his wife—exist.

Concurrently, *wife spanking*—although not always with a man's hand—was typically considered to be a *family matter*. That understanding was pervasive during my youth.

Occasionally, women of the World War II generation made oblique references to having been spanked by their husbands. In an age when spanking was less controversial, some were more explicit. Several remain memorable.

In my late preteens, during a conversation about men, a relative dropped a less than subtle hint that her husband had soundly spanked her a few times. Although not totally enamored with the idea, she philosophized that *a man has to do what a man has to do*. The idea was consistent with the beliefs of the day.

About the same time, I witnessed another relative, old enough to have been my mother at the time, get her "backside spanked," as her approving mother later phrased it. The real lesson I gained from that experience came from observing the subsequent warmth the relative radiated to her husband.

Previously warned by her mother that she could still be spanked if she did not restrain her vixenish tongue, the initial expression on my relative's face—which is all I could see from my vantage point as her husband took her in hand—could perhaps be best described by a phrase resembling, "Oh, my God, not in front of *everybody*!" Her initial distress was quickly replaced by a series of palpable grimaces as each smack took its toll on her previously cheeky disposition.

After her manifest embarrassment—causing my relative's to flee to her parents' bedroom to reportedly to inspect the still blushful handprints in her mother's vanity mirror—she returned to exhibit a level of affection toward her husband that more closely resembled what one might expect from a woman with a new engagement ring rather than a decade-old wedding band.

Oddly enough, both relatives—the one that I saw spanked by her husband as well as the one admitting that her husband spanked her—were former beauty queens.

Shortly thereafter, I overhead one well-dressed middle-aged woman tell another about a conversation that she recently had with her daughter. Apparently—as a direct consequence of engaging in a behavior which the son-in-law deemed to be detrimental to the grandchildren—her daughter told her mother that she had gotten a *good spanking*.

As with the relative I witnessed being spanked by her husband, it was as if the son-in-law was acting as a de facto procurator for the mother-in-law's deep-seated desire to still be able to still put their daughters over their laps. Thus, it was as if the daughter had been spanked by proxy.

A few years later—thanks to a Freudian slip as well as a frank discussion on discipline in homes—I became aware that at least two mothers of peers had been spanked while wearing wedding bands. At about the same time, a friend said an older cousin told him that boys were lucky because her mother said grown women could still themselves *over a man's knee* if they misbehaved.

Sometime later, during a discussion—that might have been best titled *how to straighten out a young woman*—a former high school classmate volunteered that her husband "spanked" her.

In the era before the *bra burning* binge that was to follow the Sexual Revolution, *wife spanking* was not a forbidden fruit in conversation. Hence, her unequivocal admission did not come as a total surprise. On the other hand, her subsequent statement was a revelation.

She went on to say that getting her bare buttocks spanked by a man—outside the lineage of her family tree—got her attention like nothing else ever had in her life. Because it was so intensely personal with her panties down, it was also throughly effective. Without going into specifics, she also intimated that she richly deserved being put in her place.

As a result, the young wife recommended that I spank her undisciplined friend—who had also recently shared some intimate details of her complicated life with me, as if I was her unofficial spiritual confessor.

The would-be matchmaker said she had bluntly told our friend that she needed to be put *over a man's knee* and spanked until she *learned her lesson*! Then, she proffered that I was the most logical person to do it since her friend was already interested in me. Besides, in her opinion, I was sufficiently mesomorphic to restrain any rebellion and tame her egregious behavior.

While the assessments may have been accurate, I never followed-up on the suggestion. My primary rationale was that I did not feel comfortable with the idea at that point in my life. Among other things, I felt even more ill suited as a father figure than I did a father confessor. Furthermore, I had absolutely no interest in getting married or having a serious girlfriend.

Nevertheless, the explicit personal endorsement of spanking was as much a revelation to me as witnessing my thirty-something relative get spanked by her husband—primarily because the former classmate was one of the few women that I have heard explicitly verbalize a variation of the transitive verb *spank* when accompanied by a first person pronoun in a passive voice.

A few years later—after a brief marriage and subsequent divorce from an inattentive business-minded husband—the mutual friend looked me up. On the telephone, she said that she wanted to talk.

After explaining her situation in person—for which she blamed herself—she admitted that our classmate had been right about what she needed. She intimated that she might still me married if her husband had *beat* her buttocks after she had an affair. At least, then she would have known that he cared.

To prove that she was serious, she unambiguously presented herself over my lap. Having seen enough of life to know that any woman positioning herself to be spanked by a member of the opposite sex is *manhunting*—in a less lethal sense of the word—I was tempted. At the same time, I was also aware of what emotional abandonment did to women. As a result, I had no intention of creating an illusion of intimacy where none existed.

Although I had not yet spanked my future wife, we had begun dating. This time, I admitted to the wannabe girlfriend that I was not the right man for the job. Given the steadfast relationship that developed with my future wife, it was a decision I never regretted.

Decades later, as I watched couples divorce, I realized that the chief advantage I had growing up was that that I did so in an era when *wife spanking* was accepted by both genders. Before the Sexual Revolution of the mid-1960s, the topic was neither taboo nor was it saturated with Freudian libido. In fact, during my youth, spanking seemed to be more frankly talked about than was sex!

Attitudes toward *wife spanking* began to change after the Sexual Revolution. As the *me generation* came of age, divorce became more prevalent as men and women lost their commitment to each other as well as to the institution of marriage. It was as if couples had lost their capacity to work out their differences. Like a communicable disease, divorce seemed to be contagious.

Given the insights gleaned from my various experiences—both in my youth and as a husband— I began posting on Tom Newman's old traditional marriage board. Because that board was not moderated, it eventually turned into a flaming circus before the owner pulled the plug.

My initial post was inspired by a singular post left by "Mary" sometime earlier. As a widow, freely admitting to having been soundly spanked as a wife, she offered sage advice to a young wife apparently still smarting from being disciplined by her husband. Citing firsthand experience, Mary counseled that, so long as the husband confined himself to a disobedient wife's buttocks, she had not been abused.

Recognizing Mary's words as very much the same advice that brides used to receive their mothers and grandmothers—as well as other married friends and relatives—I shared my thoughts. Since then, on various forums, I have done little more than share experiences, provide a few insights, and express occasional opinions. Some of it has been welcomed. Other contributions have been vilified.

Since those early posts, I have realized that, unlike previous generations, post-modern women have to be more explicit with men regarding their expectations. Largely gone are the days when wives expected a panties-down spanking if they *deceived* their husbands—the traditional mortal sin about which brides were warned before various forms of the word became more restrictive in meaning.

Nor are former traditions currently fashionable. For example, prior to the full flowering of the Sexual Revolution, it was not uncommon for a woman to marry the man daring to spank her bare buttocks without her explicit permission! One was the former classmate recommending spanking. Another was my wife.

When I strapped my future wife through her wool skirt, it was the first time anyone had used something on her other than their hand. Although she would regret her acquiesce once over my lap, the university honor student eventually realized that it was something she had actually wanted to happen. It just hurt more than she ever expected and left bruises on her buttocks that could potentially prove embarrassing to explain to peers in physical education class as well as to her roommate!

At the time, my future wife's mother actually overheard her daughter's distress. Despite the fact that she was an outspoken opponent of spanking, my future mother-in-law did not intervene. As I have since told my wife, I suspect that her mother's frustration was appeased when someone finally put that sometimes-difficult daughter over their lap! Thus, the incident might also constituted *spanking by proxy*—only this time at the hands of a boyfriend rather than a husband.

After all, given the experiences of my youth—knowing that the spanking my thirty-something relative had been sanctioned by her mother and overhearing the immaculately coiffured woman approve of her daughter being spanked by her son-in-law—the inference was reasonable given that generation of mothers was there were those times when older daughters still needed to be spanked.

I also came to the conclusion because, after engineering our first date a few months earlier, my future wife broke a long-standing curfew of which I was unaware. When I took her to the door, her most unhappy mother was waiting. In a no-nonsense tone of voice, she intimated to her daughter that, unknown to me, she might get the first paddling in her life from her mother! I later learned that my future mother-in-law had purchased a hairbrush a decade earlier *just in case*, but had never used it on this daughter.

Sometime earlier, as I would also later discover, her father had more explicitly threatened to spank her. However, as with my future mother-in-law, her father did not followed-up on his initial resolve.

Perhaps half a year after the first spanking—when she found out that I was going to spank her with a switch for some teenage antic—my future wife later informed me that she wondered if I would have the nerve to bare her buttocks. She described the sensation of her dress being lifted up and her panties being peeled back as gratifying rather than embarrassing. Finally, she was over a man's lap with her panties down!

After reflecting on the event—presumably after the stinging subsided and with her virginity still intact—she made up her mind to marry me before other things went *too far*. As with many couples sharing similar experiences, we married much earlier than her mother wished.

Yet, had it not been for the experiences of my youth, I might not have known what to do with a provocative female. Still, despite my early insights, I thought that a spanking or two was all it took to straighten out a relationship.

Consequently, much as "Mary" informed the young wife, my wife had to explain to me that *hitting* a woman on her buttocks does no real harm. At the same time, it can do a distressed or disobedient wife a world of good. My mistake was that in thinking that doing it once or twice—which was all I was aware of happening to women I had known growing up—will not straighten out a woman or her marriage!

Deprived of lessons available to earlier generations, post-modern men are often even more oblivious.

Post-moderns know a great deal about sex. Conversely, they understand very little about the underlying dynamics of male-female interaction and even less about love beyond the passions of the moment.

To further compound already difficult situations, the proliferation of promiscuity in the United States has caused generations of women to mentally compare past lovers with their current boyfriend rather than getting down to the business of establishing a permanent bond with any one man. As serial marital statistics reveal, it is a losing proposition.

Consequently, to get what they really want, women are going to have to be more explicit in their conversations with the man with whom they wish to establish a lasting relationship. The problem is that this approach runs counter to their nature. Still, if she is sufficiently desperate, a woman will tell a man everything he needs to know to about disciplining her.

Meanwhile, although women seldom deal in specifics and use euphemisms when discussing marital discipline, website such as *Taken in Hand* are helping to fill the void created by the absence of more meaningful socialization.

Difficulties also tend to arise in this approach because of misinformed notions that *Taking in Hand* is only about sex and is an attempt to conceal parlor games played by hormone-driven and emotionally insecure young singles. While the vast majority of couples engage in copulation within twenty-four hours after the wife is spanked by her husband, the communion seems to be as much about reconciliation as anything else.

This indirect link between spanking and sex is typified by an exchange that I had with a young nursing student. At the time, she was recently engaged to a young man with whom she had grown up.

Not long after her fiancé gave her a ring, *his* mother privately informed the young woman that her betrothed had, of late, become aware that his mother was privately paddled by his father when he thought she needed it. The mother went on to say that, because wives are not always the sweet young things than men marry, she had counseled her son to follow his father's example if he wished his marriage to last.

As the mother explained, that even at her age, she did not always conduct herself properly. When she crossed a certain line of behavior, her husband would send her to their bedroom. Knowing why she was there, she closed the door, disrobed, and lay over the bed. Shortly thereafter, her husband would arrive and, presumaly after a suitable lecture, paddle her.

Once the deed was accomplished, her husband would depart. Then, after regaining her composure, the wife would dress herself before resuming her daily routine with marital harmony restored.

Despite the formality in the disciplining ritual, the nursing student described her fiancé's parents as warm and the mother as vivacious. In this regard, they stood in sharp contrast to the cold relationship of her parents' marriage.

At the same time, the young woman was worried because, unknown to her fiancé's mother, she had never had a paddling! Until she did a little research, she was not even aware that grown women could be disciplined in that manner.

The nurse's experience is somewhat similar to that of my future wife. Only, growing up in an era when spanking was not the social pariah that it would later become, my wife knew women could still be paddled.

Another wife reported that, when she and her husband began to disagree in front of their children, her husband would tell her that they needed to "talk." Whereupon she and her husband would excuse themselves and go to a private location. .

Away from the children, and without much formality, the wife would submit to spanking. When the issue was resolved to her husband's satisfaction, the two would resume more desirable interaction with their children. The wife was perfectly happy with this arrangement.

As with the husbands above, men are going to realize that, if they do not slay the dragon within their wives when it rears its ugly head, they will wind up living with a beast of their nightmares. Yet, men do not declare open season on women so much as they create an environment in which he can live with the woman and she can live with herself.

As with my future wife's awareness decades ago, young women must rediscover that there are some behaviors for which they can—and should, even involuntarily—find themselves over their husband or boyfriend's lap.

The best expressed sentiment on this subject came from a wife when she flatly said that her marriage would be much improved if her husband stopped pussyfooting around and paddled her. Only, like most wives aware of how to make a woman behave, she was not about to tell her husband what needed to be done to make married life more desirable!

More recently, a twenty-something college-educated mother—who admitted to having "never really been spanked" in her life because she was *the good girl* growing up—confessed that she was not totally adverse to getting "a whipping" if her husband thought she needed it. After talking with her friends, she understood that it was preferable to divorce. As with most women, informing her husband was another matter.

Although most often associated with discipline and punishment, spanking in marriage has another function. That one is cathartic. That may be why—half a century before it became associated with smacking the buttocks—*spanking* originally meant fresh and clean!

One of the greatest gifts that a husband can bestow upon his wife is to unload her emotional baggage cart—removing guilt and distress—so that she can feel pure again. It is something for which a woman will truly love a man for taking the time to do for her when she has been unable to manage the load herself.

As marriages mature, purgation replaces discipline as the principal utilization of effective *wife spanking*. Freed from accumulated guilt and anxiety, a wife gives her husband a truly heartfelt *thank you*!

Although they make take a different path to enlightenment, the next generation of young men need not know everything before taking a woman in hand. The truth is that, if they are attentive, women will teach them everything necessary to establish a stable and enduring relationship with a woman. This information is freely available to the man willing to pay attention to the subtle hints dropped by the woman in his life.

Spanking and economics

I often find Noone's arguments difficult to follow, and this one contains some puzzling references to the economic situation of women that I don't really get.

he seems to be saying that the present economic climate will cause a lack of jobs for women, which will lead to more women having to knuckle under and put up with being spanked by men, because they no longer have economic independence.

But this hardly seems to be borne out by the present statistics, which I understand show that there are more women in the workforce than men nowadays. The recession appears to have hit men worse than women. Does this mean that we are going to see more men being spanked by women?

According to Gail Collins in 'America's Women', the 1920s saw a decline in the number of women in the workforce. Young women did not find the idea of staying single to pursue careers appealing, unlike the 'New women' of the Pre-WW1 generation. They prefered marriage. But in the 1930s, with so many men losing their jobs or having to take lower-paying jobs, more wives joined the workforce as they tried to keep the family going. Gail Collins writes:

"The number of married women who worked cotninued to increase throughout the decade. Although most of these women sturggled to keep poor families above water, a number were middle class and were attempting to preserve the good things they had gotten used to since World War I—like electric lights and gas stoves, and the ability to keep their children in school. It was an important cultural shift that sent married women into the workforce in larger and larger numbers. And for all the endless debating about whether or not it was good for society, the issue was resolved not by social theorists but by the wives themselves, determined that they and their families would not only survive but also move up."

So it seems that more women, not fewer, were working in the 1930s, and it had nothing to do with the desire for independence, or not wanting to be spanked by their husbands, it was about economic survival. As it was for the men.


Women in the Workforce

Traditionally, women in the workforce are proportional to the need for surplus cheap labor. The situation in the United States has parallels to the 1930s. Currently the dual labor market has more adversely affected blue collar than it has pink collar.

The notion of gender equality is a fiction of law. The Bolsheviks sanctified egalitarianism and, although it took eighty years, the status of women reverted to a more traditional status after a abrupt change of régime precipitated by popular disenchantment with an unnatural status quo.

I really thought I was reading...

something by a sane and reasonable man when I started reading your story. Then the "all women need..." bomb was dropped. Shame on your wife (if it was, in fact, your wife who suggested it) to lump all women in with herself. Quite arrogant, I must say.

Then I read one of the responses you received and your response above. Ugh. Makes me wonder why I'm even looking into the head of the household thing.

As an historian, I have PhD and 2 Master's degrees in this field, I can tell you that since humans appeared on the scene the lives of women have been filled with nothing but strife, marginalization and exploitation. I don't have to prove this point because sadly, history proves it for me. Simply pick up any history book, on any shelf in any library anywhere in the world.

You know what an head of the household marriage is starting to sound like? Saudi Arabia. Shall we break out the burqas and revoke women's driver's licenses now, too? Where's it end? The WLM of the 60's and 70's was simply women's response to a patriarchal attitude that had been running the show far too long... and at women's expense. 40+ years ago women said, "Enough is enough!" and chnaged the rules of the game. A game that had gone unchanged for milennia. Men have been pouting ever since...forgetting that they had their chance to demonstrate their superior wisdom and "benevolent dictator" leadership style... and blew it!

If men want to shake their heads at anything, they should do a little research on WHY the Women's Liberation Movement ocurred and stop whining about it.

Re: I really thought I was reading...

Fierceandfeminine wrote:

I can tell you that since humans appeared on the scene the lives of women have been filled with nothing but strife, marginalization and exploitation. I don't have to prove this point because sadly, history proves it for me. Simply pick up any history book, on any shelf in any library anywhere in the world.

Goodness! I personally do not feel exploited or marginalised. I feel very lucky and blessed, and whilst I agree that the lives of women in non-Western countries (muslim ones especially) are truly awful, it seems a bit of a stretch to suggest that women living in nice cosy countries like USA, UK, Australia, etc, are similarly victimised. Moreover, I am not sure that having such a victim mentality is in your best interests. It warps thinking and is likely to sabotage relationships with men. I can't quite see how having such a low opinion of men is a good idea if you want a good relationship with one. (Not that you necessarily do, of course. Plenty of women prefer women.)

You know what an head of the household marriage is starting to sound like? Saudi Arabia. Shall we break out the burqas and revoke women's driver's licenses now, too? Where's it end?

I agree that without consent, a male-controlled relationship is more like Saudi Arabia than Taken In Hand.

The WLM of the 60's and 70's was simply women's response to a patriarchal attitude that had been running the show far too long... and at women's expense. 40+ years ago women said, "Enough is enough!" and chnaged the rules of the game. A game that had gone unchanged for milennia. Men have been pouting ever since...forgetting that they had their chance to demonstrate their superior wisdom and "benevolent dictator" leadership style... and blew it!

Gosh! You sound very bitter and angry with men, and in making these blanket statements about men, aren't you doing the very thing you are furious with Noone for doing? Isn't it time to stop making all these blanket statements about entire classes of individuals?

And again, it seems to me that in making these accusations against men, you are thereby saying that women are not strong enough not to be victimised by men—which at least to my own eye appears just as much of a sweeping generalisation as Noone's own silly "all women" thing. I do not share this victim mentality and I don't think it is psychologically healthy. Life is sweeter when you see the good in people rather than seeing men as being evil victimisers and exploiters of us.

YMMV. ;-)

Summation, Not an Exposition

The referenced quote was a paraphrase from my wife's show-and-tell and simply referred to the fact that—as noted in previous posts on the subject—a man's hand usually proves inadequate for overcoming a woman's psychological defenses. Moreover, my post was originally intended as a compendium rather than a definitive elucidation.

I agree to be careful of generalizing

Not all women (or men, or whoever) want a particular relationship. Not all women want a Taken In Hand relationship, and among the ones who do, not all want the same type. I actually think this is what Noone was trying to get at when he said it had to be organic from the couple—not everything works for every person, so you need to do what works for you instead of trying to follow a script. I do take issue with the "what women need" quote, though. Even if you were paraphrasing your wife, Noone, you could have said, "This is what [some] women need." It retains her words without generalizing. I think it's a good post aside from that, though.

And to the person who said all men should be take-charge husbands—I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with you. When women and men are forced into rigid gender roles not because they chose those roles for themselves, but because another person or society says, "Women/men have to be this/that." then it actually prevents a lot of people from being themselves. Personally, I'm glad I can freely CHOOSE to be in this kind of relationship instead of having it be something that's forced on me because that's how things are supposed to be, or whatever.


After two failed marriages I was forced to take a humbling look at the realities behind relationships. As a well-educated woman at first glance, concepts like this were hard to swallow. I must admit that If I had been taken in hand during my first marriage, i do not think there would have been the destruction and diminishment of desire on the part of my spouse and hence, a second marriage would never have come to be. Why do we repeat the same behaviors over and over again somehow expecting that the results will be different the next time we attempt them?

Well put!

Thank you for your response to Noone. You read my mind. There is no "ALL WOMEN" this or that any more than there is an "ALL MEN are..." or "ALL (ethnic group) are..."

I'm pretty sure Noone would take offense at being thrown in with the (many) stupid men on this site that express patronizingly paternal opinions or the ones that swing on vines and drag their knuckles (lots of them, too.)

Noone is incorrect is assuming that "nature" has made all men and women in a fixed and prescribed way. How small minded. Men and women fall into a spectrum ranging from extremely masculine energy to extremely feminine. My feeling is that the people at either end are caricatures, like cartoon characters of the male/female stereotype (i.e. Jessica Rabbit or Johnny Bravo.)

Thankfully those types are pretty rare...I find them annoying.

Re: Well put!

I agree that Noone's blanket statements about all women detract from his posts. On the other hand, when he is not talking nonsense about historical facts or making blanket statements about all women, his writing is often very hot, to me personally, that is. Despite the "all women" silliness, his writing speaks to my heart. For me—and of course I agree with you that others have very different preferences—a lot of what he says apart from those things has the ring of truth. And I'm not even into the whole spanking thing!

How does a husband get inside his wife's mind?

I'm always annoyed when people take a sentence out of a whole article and blow it up into something it wasn't intended to be...

I thought your article was interesting, as a whole. I've struggled with having strict rules for my wife, and every time we've tried, it's fizzled out. I think you're on to something, and I'll have to give it some thought.

How does a husband get inside his wife's mind? I would be interested in your thoughts on that, as well.

rules or organic relationships

Rule creation seems to be one of the many avenues that couples take when first entering the world of a male-led relationship. It may not work as they hope or expect but it is something many couples try in the early stages. Rules give the husband the opportunity to practice wielding his authority in a tangible way and the wife the opportunity to experience his authority.

I think that the use and discarding of rules is often a way station on the journey.
As Noone points out-
‘the desired end is a secure and solid relationship.’
Every journey must begin with the first step. Even a faltering one.

When the desire for a Taken In Hand relationship is not mutually agreed upon from the beginning of a relationship, it seems to me that progress is unlikely to be smooth.

I think that whilst the ‘aha’ moment, when it all makes sense, may not occur simultaneously, many husbands and wives have the capacity to nurture a belief that anything is possible.

Trust and a deep, abiding love for each other is an important ingredient. I suspect that Noone would not have been able to ‘get inside’ his lovely wife’s mind without her belief in his capacity to care.

In as much as mutual love and trust does come from within, it is therefore, by definition organic. A relationship predicated on this foundation striving to overcome their hitherto held beliefs about relationship dynamics to becoming a Taken In Hand couple, is in fact, organic.