Taking a girl in hand is not about spanking (spanking's for kids) or discipline (let's face it, that's play-acting) and nor is it about whipping, paddling, or cropping (I pride myself on not needing any props). It's not about violence at all (I'm as civilized as the next ten thousand guys and don't understand some guys' desire to beat their wives up). It's a primarily psychological thing.
I don't believe in using violence to settle a dispute. No real man does that. You can call it spanking or discipline or taking her in hand but no civilized guy would use violence in that way—not if you mean real violence that is non-consensual. A real man can solve problems without resorting to blows. A real man uses words not a whip to settle a dispute. A real man can persuade using reasoned argument expressed without rancor. How does a whip get an argument across? You can't express much except displeasure with a whip.
I believe there are two types of leadership: authoritarian leaders, and natural leaders. Natural leaders have authority without having to force the issue using implements, violence, and/or threats. Natural leaders command respect without effort. Authoritarian leaders resort to using violence (spanking, whipping, paddling) using the fact that they are bigger and stronger than the girl to make her comply. Is that the kind of guy you want?
I'm not opposed to violence where it's a consensual part of the sexual act. I like to challenge boundaries and very violently too with a girl that can take it and wants that, but I'd never do that with most girls because most couldn't handle it or have no interest in it. I'm not going to raise my hand to a girl unless I know it's what she wants. But using violence to settle a dispute is to me a cowardly way out of a difficult situation in which reason should prevail. Taking her in hand is not a contact sport it's about natural leadership. A natural leader doesn't need to put a girl over his knee or mete out any other forms of “discipline”.