The importance of conquest

When I describe myself as “submissive” I mean something rather specific: I mean that I really enjoy being conquered by a strong, masculine, dominant man, and being forced to surrender to him. But I don't just submit to a man if he is not able and willing to actually conquer me. I don't even quite know what that would mean.

I find it hard to relate at all to the idea of submission without conquest. If the man is just going to sit there like a lump of jello and not actively dominate me, then why in the world would I submit to him? I might as well “submit” to the sofa.

That doesn't mean that I would always put up active physical resistance to the man's authority; it just means that he has to be willing to use his strength on a regular basis to physically reinforce and emphasize his dominance over me. I do enjoy play fighting, and if I didn't get “conquered” at least a few times a week, then I'd start to wonder just who this guy thinks he is, trying to boss me around. Without some forceful physical conquest, I would just resent him giving me any orders.

The forceful conquest is what moves me into surrender and bliss. There's that sweet moment when my challenge and my resistance suddenly crumbles under the erotic thrill of fear and being overpowered; where I suddenly become incredibly weak and melt in a puddle of submissive desire. I guess maybe that's what swooning is. If so, it's a wonderful thing. :)

But I couldn't begin to figure out how to melt into a puddle on my own. Nor would it be any fun, of course. That wouldn't be the same thing at all. The man has to learn how to make me do that.

So “submissive” to me has more to do with how submissive I feel, and not so much to do with how readily I obey a man's commands. That latter criterion is what I might call “obedient” and I suppose I'm not really very obedient at all; unless the man brings that out as well.

So I guess maybe the order that things go in for me is: Tension/challenge/resistance —> his physical force —> his conquest —> my surrender —> my submission —> my obedience. (But, of course, sex also fits in there somewhere too; at least sometimes.)

Notice that in this Taken In Hand model of submission, the man is the one doing most of the work. Attaining conquest over a spirited woman is not an effortless thing. Whereas in another common view (I'll call it the “Lazy Boy” version of submission), all the man has to do is just say what he wants and then the woman does all the work of “serving” him and catering to his whims; and that's considered “submission”. Umm, no thanks.

DeeMarie

Taken In Hand Tour start | next

Comments

Concerning the conquest of females

Greetings DeeMarie,

I think your first paragraph sums it up nicely. You want to be physically conquered on a regular basis, and forced into surrender.

Hmmm... without putting to fine a point to it, I believe there is a word for men who beat their partners into submission on an ongoing basis, and as I recall, the word mentioned was not "dominant".

Seriously, how do you expect someone to react to your demand of having to be physically forced to submit (though you were unclear what that means: spanking, whippings, hot wax, slaps across the face, cutting your flesh, being given over to the dogs, etc), or you consider him a wimp? Huh? When last I looked it was not the submissive partner's job to make demands, or to require their dominant partner to behave according to their wishes.

In fact, why should he cater to your kink at all? Hey, if you don't like the way he treats you (or I suppose in this case doesn't treat you) you have a choice, you can leave.

Or perhaps "forceful physical conquest" is a euphemistic term for having rough sex? You know, where he wants to fuck you, you say no, and then he does it anyway? Is that it? Does it gives you a charge since it almost feels like rape? I ask since you used the terms "fear" and "overpowered" to describe the sensations involved.

I have no real problem with this perspective. Rape fantasies are commonplace. I have them on occasion myself. Of course, mine might involved enjoying seeing the terror in a woman's eyes at the point when she suddenly becomes aware of the vulnerability of her position. Such thoughts can give me a great deal of pleasure. As I am sure yours do as well.

But does this having anything to do with submission? If you are involved in the rule making (“force me to my knees three times a week or you’re a wimp!”), then there is no submission involved. It is really only having your own kink catered to, in the manner you prefer. So who is serving whom?

Yes, there are times when the use of force can be used as a method to reinforce the power dynamic of the relationship. When a girl behaves badly she is punished. While there is nothing particularly sexy or erotic about the punishment, it does tend to reinforce our relative positions. If the behaviour continues, so does the punishment. If it happened on a weekly basis, I would probably not keep the girl very long. From this you may infer that the “Daddy I’ve been a bad girl please punish me” fantasy is not high up on my list of all time favs.

I realize that there may be many at this site who find spanking erotic. Perhaps there are masochists who get turned off at the thought of a good beating. When the mood strikes me, I enjoy binding a girl shibari-style and using her for my pleasure.

But have her demand certain treatments from me? I think not. Of course, you are perfectly entitled to both your kink, and your perspective. Its just that I don't see your words as being in any way indicative of being submissive. And, the fact that you choose to redefine the word according to your own desires, does little to change my opinion.

OTOH—I do wish you, and your partner, a great deal of enjoyment and pleasure exploring your own variants of being taken in hand.

Mackenzie

www.mackenziecross.ca

To Mack

I don't see any reason why a woman can't ask for and negotiate for what he she wants. It isn't supposed to be a one way street. This is a relationship and both partners should be getting their needs met.

On the other hand DeeMarie seems a little demanding and contemptuous of men who do not measure up to her view of a dominant male so she might not find a suitable man. I don't agree that a woman should have no say, though.

DeeMarie needs to learn what submitting and letting go is about, and to quit telling men how to act. It doesn't even work well with vanillas!

The dominant man serves: this I see and believe. It is not all about the man at all. In point of fact the woman is the centerpiece and the focus of attention. But the man deserves to get something out of it just because he is there, putting in the effort. The woman gets plenty, but should not be doing DeeMarie's thing and cracking the whip.

"Pat"

Is submission an event?

I don't see submission as an event that happens a few times a week, which is what this post seems to be talking about.

I guess this is physical submission? Like spanking, rough sex?

I don't see submission as a physical act. I see it as the way we live. It involves how we handle money, how we make decisions about kids, where we'll go on vacation, how/when/where I spend free time, how involved I get in activities etc outside the family. Husband makes final decisions.

It never involves roughing me up or any type of physical dominance, which is fine with me.

I'm not a child, I work full time, am involved in several school organizations, teach occasional workshops for child care providers in the county.

I'm responsible and bright, but have a tendancy to get run over by demanding people. Oh well, we can't all be balls of fire. I'm not very demanding, tend to be easy to get along with, and people I scarcely know confide the most intersting things to me.

Husband, on the other hand, is big, loud, aggressive, active and has no patience with fools or users. He is a plain talker--not real tactful, heehee. I would say he is a natural leader. He gets very frustrated in situations where he is not the 'boss.' Usually he is the boss--in work situations, coaching, volunteer groups etc.

We 'fit'. Our marriage, with him as Head of the Household, allows us both to relax and be who we really are. While we talk about decisions, we very rarely fight. If something has me upset, he listens, because I rarely get upset with him. His decisions usually turn out well, so I trust his instincts.

Concerning the Conquest of *this* female

Mackenzie wrote:

How do you expect someone to react to your demand of having to be physically forced to submit...

I expect not to have to "demand" it at all. I expect that he'll be thrilled by the same things that I'm thrilled by, so that no "demands" on my part will be necessary. (Although I can imagine ways to give him a seductive hint or two, that I'm in the mood to be conquered.)

Mack:

In fact, why should he cater to your kink at all?

He's doing it because it's also his "kink." That's what makes us sexually compatible, see? You're making the same mistake that "Pat" was—assuming that the man I love would not enjoy physically dominating me. But of course he would, or I'd never even get involved with him in the first place.

You also seem to assume that "dominance" and "submission" must necessarily mean what you use them to mean, and not what I use them to mean. But my post was precisely about that: what these terms mean to me. I don't consider it particularly "dominant" when a guy just sits on the sofa and demands that I deliver him a beer. Other people might consider that "dominance" but I don't. I consider it "dominance" when he grabs my wrists, pins them together, and forces me to kneel at his feet. That's what brings out my submission. Then if he wants to lean back on the sofa and demand that I fetch him a beer, I will be most obedient to that command, and I'll love doing it. See?

But it's not like he's doing the forceful dominance thing just for me, and I'm doing the obedient beer-fetching just for him. No, it's that both of us enjoy both of those aspects of his dominance and my submission.

You were also asking just what I meant by "forceful physical dominance." I don't mean just spanking or slapping, although it could include that. It also includes ravishment or "rough sex"—but it's more than that, too. But it's not usually the ritualized bdsm stuff like hot wax or fancy ropework or violet wands, etc. What I mean is what I've described before as a sort of "gentle bullying"—the man using his superior size and strength to intimidate me and overpower me, in ways that will do no real injury.

That would include: wrestling, pushing me, towering over me and forcing me to back up, pinning me to the floor or against a wall, gentle slaps to the face, pinning my wrists together, forcing me to my knees, etc. It would also include more gentle reminders of his physical advantages—like arm-wrestling or hugging me and not letting me go. Rough sex is fine, provided that I'm ready for it; but it's the other rough stuff that would make me want sex in the first place. I described the sort of physical forcefulness that I enjoy once before, in this article.

What these terms mean to you

Greetings DeeMarie,

I have no problem whatsoever with your chosen lifestyle. As I have said, I wish you the best of luck in finding a suitable partner. There seems to be a fellow by the name of Eric who says he is your type and if he exists, I am quite sure there must be others.

Also, my thanks at the sharing of information concerning the meaning of "forceful physical". My understanding is increased.

In fact, if your post had just been focused on sharing your own vision of being taken in hand, I would have found it most interesting, and not felt compelled to respond at all.

But that is hardly to the point. My objection was to your use of the labels of submissive (and dominant) to define your need for being manhandled. For myself, the word "dominate" means precisely what it means—to control a place or a person—How that is done, and in what manner, is up to the individual. The same may be said about submission.

The way I see it, your submissive response is provoked by being roughed up a bit. You yourself have said that once your get your hit of rough-housing you are a happy obedient girl until you need another fix. For other women it might require a whip. Still others may only require a spoken word. It varies from girl to girl. But once brought to the surface, your submissive response is much like any other females, you do as you are told.

IOW—it is not the manner in which you are put in your place that makes you submissive, it is how you behave once you are in that place that defines your nature. You seem to be confusing the two. Even Eric seems to prefer the use of the term resistant rather than submissive.

So, from my perspective your nature is submissive, but you require your own kink to get you there. Not my cup of tea, I prefer girls who require less ongoing maintenace, but then again that is hardly the issue.

Mackenzie

www.mackenziecross.ca

Hum.. I don't care for Macken

Hum.. I don't care for Mackenzie's indifference to his women (plural) or "girls." There appears to be no authentic emotional connection, no inherent human value. They sound like just disposable bodies. Is that even Taken in Hand or just misguided BDSM?

I'd definitely want my dominant man to love me and value me above all, no matter the level of submission or dominance. Otherwise I just don't get the point.

Skye

Not all women...

Mackenzie,

Not all women who want to be dominated are submissive. And if a woman wants to be forced to submit, what's it to you? You don't have to be involved with her.

You can be in a relationship with a perfectly perfect obsequious submissive who never questions you and never fights back. If that's your cuppa have at it. There are plenty of women out there vying for the "Suzy Q More Submissive than you" award. I'm sure they would make you happy.

There are actually many dominant men who want to force submission from a woman who wants to be forced to submit. So in these men, it's not a big trauma to force. Sometimes they want to force obedience. And then sometimes they just want to spank, not because their woman has disobeyed, but because it pleases them to do so.

In my relationship I'm often forced to submit. As in, I can choose to obey or I can choose to be punished and then forced to obey. I don't see how this in any way undermines Tom's power or authority. In what way exactly is he "catering to my whims" instead of the other way around?

Now am I a "true submissive?" Well I honestly don't know, and I honestly don't care. I know I want to please him, and I know occasional brattiness pleases him. (He'd be very bored if I obeyed the first time every single time like a robot.)

Some of my submission is voluntary, some is forced, but the end result is always the same.

Re: Concerning the conquest of females

In his post titled “Concerning the conquest of females” (“females” plural???) Mackenzie wrote:

Seriously, how do you expect someone to react to your demand of having to be physically forced to submit (though you were unclear what that means: spanking, whippings, hot wax, slaps across the face, cutting your flesh, being given over to the dogs, etc), or you consider him a wimp? Huh? When last I looked it was not the submissive partner's job to make demands, or to require their dominant partner to behave according to their wishes.

In fact, why should he cater to your kink at all? Hey, if you don't like the way he treats you (or I suppose in this case doesn't treat you) you have a choice, you can leave.

Or perhaps “forceful physical conquest” is a euphemistic term for having rough sex? You know, where he wants to fuck you, you say no, and then he does it anyway? Is that it? Does it gives you a charge since it almost feels like rape? I ask since you used the terms “fear” and “overpowered” to describe the sensations involved.

I have no real problem with this perspective. Rape fantasies are commonplace. I have them on occasion myself. Of course, mine might involved enjoying seeing the terror in a woman's eyes at the point when she suddenly becomes aware of the vulnerability of her position. Such thoughts can give me a great deal of pleasure. As I am sure yours do as well.

Mackenzie, wow where did that come from? That is not at all what I got out of the original post. To me she sounded very much like she and her husband enjoy a little tussling around. Play fighting is suppose to be fun. He chases you run, he catches then game is on. Being subdued by your partner in a playful manner is fun and normally leads to a nice smile on his face as well. Some men enjoy a good romp and it does not mean a woman has to be physically or mentally abused by a man for it to be enjoyable for both partners. You sound a bit angry and violent to me.

When last I looked it was not the submissive partner's job to make demands, or to require their dominant partner to behave according to their wishes.

In fact, why should he cater to your kink at all? Hey, if you don't like the way he treats you (or I suppose in this case doesn't treat you) you have a choice, you can leave.
[...]
But does this having anything to do with submission? If you are involved in the rule making (“force me to my knees three times a week or you’re a wimp!”), then there is no submission involved. It is really only having your own kink catered to, in the manner you prefer. So who is serving whom?

When I last looked, Taken In Hand was not all about the man and what he wants, or about him being served and obeyed without question, and nor is it about women having no say in anything other than whether to leave or not. From what I read, unlike D/s submission, Taken In Hand wives don't have the service kink, and unlike you their husbands don't want a service submissive woman that just does as she's told mindlessly, they get a kick out of actually dominating and submitting their wife as opposed to the woman just acting like she's been submitted when she hasn't.

My understanding is that Taken In Hand relationship is for both people, it is not necessarily a hardcore D/s relationship where a woman gives up all rights other than to leave if she dislikes how things are. In wanting your “females” to serve and obey you without question, like it's all about you and your wishes and it's not for them to get their own needs met too, it sounds to me like you might have a kink more than DeeMarie. To say that a woman should not also seek pleasure in her relationship is not Taken In Hand.

Yes, there are times when the use of force can be used as a method to reinforce the power dynamic of the relationship. When a girl behaves badly she is punished. While there is nothing particularly sexy or erotic about the punishment, it does tend to reinforce our relative positions. If the behaviour continues, so does the punishment. If it happened on a weekly basis, I would probably not keep the girl very long.

Not all men are purely self-serving and want a scared mouse they can order around like they are owned property. Taken In Hand relationships are lifelong marriages, not about “girls” you “keep” as long as they “serve” and obey you to your satisfaction, and dump on a whim. How is your dangerously self-serving kink anything to do with Taken In Hand? In a Taken In Hand relationship the husband in charge puts his wife and their relationship first. It's between one man and one woman—husband and wife, not about a man having a bunch of “girls” serving him. It's for both of them, it's not about a self-centered man acting like the world revolves around him and his whims.

My man does

Hi Dee,

I, like you, like to be conquered. I will not submit to a man if he is not willing to show he is able to "make" me submit on a regular basis. I disagree with Pat; I do not think it is an unrealistic expectation. While she would tire of it, my husband thinks of it as a challenge. He does not think that being the dominant head of the household is more work at all. He does not see it as work that makes him tired. He loves that he has this intelligent, strong, woman who he can bring to submission when he wants. We play a lot too, and he is quite comfortable in his role to remind me of his dominance on a regular basis.

I am not able to give my submission on a silver platter, so there is a challenge to keep it. My husband knows this about me, and he likes it. He says he can only conquer small parts of me for a short time. He would not want me to submit all the time anyway, where is the fun in that? There are men out there who would be willing to keep up with you. I do not think it is unrealistic at all to be looking for one. Although I am not sure how many of them there are out there, I doubt I have the only one, but if I do, sorry you can not have him! :)

About the math thing, I am better at strategy games than my husband far more competitive and he will take me in hand if I beat him too often. He is perfectly comfortable with me being better. He loses like a gentleman, but later he will show me that even if I am better at games, he can always put me in my place any time he wants. It is part of our dynamic, a wonderful spirited part that we would not give up for anything. I understand why you want it; it gives us some kind of balance. Makes us feel good.

I understand how telling someone you want them to dominate you can take something away from it. I do not like to tell my husband I want or need a spanking. Somehow part of my pleasure (?) comes from him deciding and knowing to take me in hand. But at some point, this day in age, I expect that you will have to give the man explicit consent, no matter how dominant he may be. Every fiber in his being may want him to ravish you, but he may not do it unless he feels he has permission. In fact you may turn away a perfectly dominant man because he does not think you want to be dominated. I think it at some point it is up to the submissive partner to start the ball rolling. Give a man consent explicitly to be dominant, and you may be surprised that some seemingly non dominant man can be very dominant indeed. I think that while it is not impossible to find someone who will dominate you with implicit consent, most men want and need explicit consent for their own safety. They err on the side of caution, for very good reason they can go to jail, or unintentionally hurt someone, if they misjudge.

It never occurred to my husband to be dominant actually. We were married for 10 years and he was never very dominant. He is so dominant now, but it never occurred in his wildest dreams to be dominant with me. It was not the way he was brought up. Once I gave him permission it was like releasing a lion. He had pent up this dominant person, stifling himself actually. Rightly or wrongly there was a dominant man in my husband, but he never understood it. Well I guess it took me some years to know I was submissive! I was not brought up to be that way either! I just think that while you are waiting for a knight to happen by, a knight who does not know he is one, maybe closer than you think. I believe many men are far more dominant than they know. Sometimes we need to encourage them to get started, and then they can take off from there..

Take care,
Tevemer

Releasing the Lion

Like your husband, Tevemer, once I gave Q permission to be dominant, he took off like a lion and somewhere along the path I realized that I was submissive as well.

In the 20 years prior to our beginning a taken in hand relationship, I was the 'leader' in our household—at least for the most part. If Q really really felt strongly about something, he would step in. He was raised to 'never raise a hand to a woman' and I was raised to be totally independent.

It is now, through our newfound Taken In Hand relationship, that our relationship is blooming with new life and a deeper love, respect, and understanding of each other than either of us ever dreamed possible.

Re: Doing the Work

"Pat" wrote:

If the dominant person cannot be assured of some obedience and always has to fight for it, you are going to wear any man out. The submissive partner is expected to respect the work the man is doing and not always test and push him.

You seem to be assuming that the man would share your "obedience" model of submission, rather than my "conquest" model of submission. But I'd be unlikely to get involved with such a man, because I'm looking for a man who is sexually compatible with me.

I assume that my dominant man would get his thrills from the same things I do—namely, forceful physical conquest. He would enjoy towering over me, pushing me around, backing me into the wall, pinning me to the floor; that sort of actual physical domination is what would light his erotic fires. If he gets his kicks out of ordering me to go wash his socks instead, then we might have a problem. Not that I would never obey him, and not that I have anything against washing socks; but that sort of obedience would be contingent upon an ongoing physical conquest.

Preferably that would happen on a daily basis, so I could stay constantly in the mental/emotional zone of submission. If we were to go more than a few days without him asserting his dominance (and that means through physical force), then I would start feeling very unsubmissive indeed. I'm guessing that's what prompts many a submissive woman to act 'naughty'—it's because her man has not been doing enough to make her actually feel dominated. So, they 'misbehave' in order to get spanked, or pushed, or whatever makes them feel the thrill of submission. I'm not saying that I would never be obedient; I'm just saying that my submission and my obedience is fueled by regular doses of physical conquest.

"Pat" wrote:

What you expect of a man is simply not real. No guy wants to have to prove himself over and over.

Why not? What makes you think he wouldn't just love the opportunity to grab me, overpower me, push me around, pin me down, and put me firmly in my place? In the relationship I'm looking for, that's where he would get his thrills, that would be what fulfills his most dominant fantasies. Why do you seem to assume such men don't exist? Or is it just that you don't approve of me wanting such a man?

Do such men exist?

Thanks to both Tevemer and to Eric for their comments; they seem to provide evidence that such men exist, and so do the women who appreciate them. I read Eric's article, which was original and insightful; thanks, I may have some comments on that later. And with regard to Tevemer's point about men nowadays being afraid to initiate forceful physical aggression without explicit permission, I just made a post to the "submissive alpha female" thread that addressed that. (Basically, I think a man can initiate forceful dominance, if he works up to it slowly.) Now, with regard to "Pat's" comments:

"Pat" wrote: "He doesn't exist..the guys who are like that are abusive and dangerous."

You know, you're going to have to make up your mind on this one, because "dangerous" and "nonexistent" are two fundamentally incompatible ontological categories. :D

OK, seriously. I've seen you (assuming you're the same "Pat"—i.e., the same gender-ambiguous anonymous poster) do this particular dance of paradoxy before, bouncing between the two contradictory extremes of: (1) Such men don't actually exist and/or (2) Such men are very, very dangerous. That's a blatant logical fallacy, known as the "false dilemma" or "the fallacy of the excluded middle."

You seem to be claiming that any man would either (A) not enjoy any sort of physical forcefulness, or (B) if he enjoyed it at all, it would have to be so extreme that the woman would be in danger of serious injury. That just does not make sense; there is a whole vast area in between those two extremes, that you are deliberately choosing to ignore or deny. There is no reason whatsoever why a man could not enjoy just the same sort of activities that I enjoy—harmless, forceful, physical aggression and domination. Obviously, I exist—so why wouldn't he?

Oh, and this statement in your post, offered as evidence of such men's utter nonexistence, does not really seem to reflect stellar reasoning, either: "No such man has appeared."

You mean, no such man has thus far appeared in my life, who also happens to be compatible with me in all of the other ways that I require of a mate. That is not even evidence that my ideal mate does not exist; and it certainly is not evidence that no men at all exist who enjoy dominating women through forceful physical aggression.

I don't want to run too far off-topic here with the subject of my own quest-for-mate; but since you keep trying to use that as some sort of proof of nonexistence of forceful dominant men, it's worth addressing in brief. The thing is, if you add up all the things I'm looking for in a man—compatibility in the areas of physical, intellectual, emotional/spiritual, sexual, lifestyle, etc.—then the math comes out that I'm looking for someone who's maybe one in a billion. (I started to spell out the math here, but it was running off-topic; maybe I'll post it in the forum just for fun.)

Therefore, it's hardly surprising that I have not found my compatible mate yet. (And maybe I never will; that's something I can live with.) And the forceful physical domination is only a small part of that equation; so the fact that no man has yet come along who fits all my criteria for a mate cannot logically be used as evidence that no men exist who would fit that particular criterion.

Anyway, not to be a persnickety logician here; but I just get tired of hearing the same thing about how such a man either doesn't exist, or is too dangerous for me to actually want him as my mate.

"Pat" also wrote: "It's not a divide between exciting thrills and chills as he slaps you flat against the wall and forces you to look into his piercing eyes, versus "washing his socks" on demand. There are plenty of things that can be done by a man that aren't one or the other and can be plenty exciting."

"Exciting" to whom? I've already made it clear what excites me. But you seem to persist in thinking that I should be excited by what you or other people think would be "exciting." I'll tell you what—if you're so sure that you know what would excite me, why don't you just post those suggestions here and I'll be happy to tell you whether those things would excite me or bore me. OK?

"Pat": "Your idea of the range is painfully limited."

Excuse me, but you're the one who cannot imagine a man being anything in between a gentle wuss who would never, ever slap a woman, versus a destructive brute who would gladly break his woman's bones in a mad rampage—and you're telling me that I'm the one who can't imagine anything in between the far extremes??

Right

You're right, Dee. If they're dangerous they must exist. But what I meant to say, and missed the mark, was, men like that do exist but they are not suitable mates. The wonderful, stars in the eyes kind of guy who also does that, he's the one I don't feel exists.

I'm not going to do your homework for you. There are BDSM checklists out there on the net and there are plenty of things a man could do with you that might well ring your chimes. Go and study.

"Pat"

Right

No more "homework" is needed on my part, Pat. You are once again assuming to know more about me than you do. I've read up on BDSM for about ten years, belong to a few discussion lists, have met plenty of people in the "scene." It just does not appeal to me much, that's all.

I'm not interested in all the "playing" and the "protocol" and the ritualized behavior and the posturing I see going on. And washing a man's socks is far more interesting to me than ball gags and nipple clamps. That's not to say that there are no BDSM-type activities that I enjoy, but I don't particularly think of them as BDSM. I've seen various "checklists" and probably 90% of the activities listed have either zero or negative appeal for me.

Most of all, I find the BDSM/kink/leather community unappealing because of their inclusion of all varieties of D/s. I am only interested in masculine domination and feminine submission; and I find the opposite downright repugnant, personally. That does not mean that I'm "narrow-minded" or that I would interfere with their right to their own preferences. It just means that I have a right to my preferences, too.

I don't mind gay men's D/s at all, and sometimes even find it appealing, in a naughtily voyeuristic way. But I really don't like to see women posturing at sexual "domination"—it doesn't seem natural to me, or authentic. Mainly, Femdom/malesub is a big turn-off for me, because what I most enjoy seeing is men dominating women, so something that's the exact opposite of what I find most appealing is very unappealing.

And with regard to the potential existence of a loving man who enjoys pushing his woman around: you are just plain wrong. You are theoretically wrong, because you are committing the logical fallacy of excluding the middle ground; and you are empirically wrong, because some of us have had relationships like that, and they work well. See Eric's post and Tevemer's, too.

And I once had a boyfriend who was a black belt when I was learning karate, and we spent maybe 15 hours a week practicing—which involved not just pushing, but punching, kicking, sparring, throwing on the ground, and etc. I felt much safer with him than I would have felt with a man who was not a trained martial artist; because he was very aware of the risks and how to ensure safety. But he certainly did enjoy getting physical with me, and I enjoyed it as well. Often it ended in some rough-and-tumble sex. Strangely, though, it never really got into the realm of dominance and submission. He once hinted at spanking, and another time dangled a pair of handcuffs at me provocatively; both times I giggled at him, because I thought all that stuff was silly, and that was the end of it. (It's just as well, probably, because while I loved him a lot, he was not really the right man for me.)

You are mistaken in insisting that there are no wonderful, loving men who would enjoy pushing a woman around and wrestling her into submission. It's the same kind of mistake as the "virgin/whore" division that many men seem to want to make among women. There, the idea is that if you respect a woman you shouldn't have sex with her (and she would not enjoy it); and if she does enjoy having sex, then she doesn't deserve respect. It would be hard to find a misconception more antagonistic to a healthy romantic relationship. Women want to be both loved and respected, and also made love to.

And your misconception—that a man will either love and respect a woman or enjoy physically dominating her, but never both—is along the same lines. Such an idea would undermine any hope of finding true love in a marriage that includes forceful male domination. (Which, for me, is equivalent to the entire sexual aspect of the relationship. If a man did not enjoy getting rough and forceful with me, I would not have much desire for him.) Women who admire and desire physically forceful men also want, need, and deserve to have loving romantic relationships, too. And such marriages can and do work.

Men like that do exist

I completely agree with you DeeMarie. Men who enjoy being forceful with a woman, overpowering her, dominating her, grabbing her by the hair, pinning her to the wall, play-raping with her do exist, and I for one am like that. I consider myself to be a very loving and caring partner and will only do those things with someone where we explicitly have agreed where we stand, but that kind of rough, physical, overpowering dynamic is something that is indispensable for me in a relationship.

However in my case personally I need someone who is also very obedient and prides herself in her high standards of submission, obedience and eagerness to please her man. I couldn't have a brat who is always answering me back and arguing with me. I relish the idea of coming home from work to a very obedient and good wife that from the first moment is very eager to make you happy. Is only when I see her that submissive and precious, that desperate to please her husband, that all my dominant instincts come to the fore and I want to grab her and rape her and force her like there's no tomorrow.

I hope that helps. Men that enjoy being physically dominant do exist and they can be well loving as well.

Best wishes
Jack

my abusive brute

"Pat,"

bwahahahahahahahahaha

You said:

"You're right, Dee. If they're dangerous they must exist. But what I meant to say, and missed the mark, was, men like that do exist but they are not suitable mates. The wonderful, stars in the eyes kind of guy who also does that, he's the one I don't feel exists."

This is very funny to me, because my guy is nice and loving and affectionate, and yet, DeeMarie's checklist for what she wants in a guy, is what he is.

He's growly and physically forceful and dominant. The list of physical dominance behaviors, is what he does. Am I being abused if it's consensual? Really? Seriously? wow. I had no idea I was abused. You know with my first marriage I figured it out, but I must have just gotten dumber or something.

If he's dangerous, he's waiting a long damn time to show his hand. This relationship has been going on for 5 years now. Maybe he's going to crack tonight. ZOMG.

*Is scared now* bwahahahahahahahaha.

Sorry, I'll stop laughing now.

hahahahahaha.

Or now.

Seriously though, the more I hear people disparage this type of dynamic or deny its existence, the more I know how very lucky I am.

Thanks "Pat"!

Absolutely they exist!

Dee, yes they do exist and mine just walked right into my life, swept me off my feet, made sure that I was madly in love with him, made sure that I felt loved,safe,and secure, and then slowly and methodically began to back me into walls, gently but very firmly holding onto me by my hair, pinning me to the floor with his weight and holding me down, pinning my hands above my head with one hand while he moves all over my body with his other, holding me tight and not letting me move, forcing me to look at him...

The more physical things like spanking and rape came later but are now very much a part of our life whenever he wants. My man craves this in his life and tells me that he cannot live without it. He tells me all the time what a precious gift I have given him and because of it his desire for me has only increased!

My man calls it knowing what he wants and needs and taking it from his woman.

I understand Pat's concerns about abuse and this is why my man approached our Taken In Hand lifestyle with love and respect well in place before any attempt at control came into play.

I have never been happier nor felt more loved or secure than I do now with this man! Not ever!

Precious Baby

In control at work; controlled at home

I have a very similar relationship with the man who took my breath away. First with his intellect, sense of humor and pure attentiveness to my needs. As our relationship continued the take-charge side of him emerged. He was wise enough to move slowly and be perfectly honest about how he planned on loving me and how he hoped I'd respond. In my professional life I am very dominant but the minute I am home I am a woman who prizes my husband's possession of me.
It's been 10 years of this lovely life wherein all my needs are met.

DeeMarie

I have no idea why I didn't post to this thread before, "Pat" says that what you want isn't real, but I assure you that it is. I have it. If you have the need to be forced to submit over and over, I assure you, there are men out there who have the need to force in the same way.

Obviously you have to learn to read moods. You can't just "brat out" every single second of every single day. It'll wear him out. But I probably do at least one minorly bratty thing a day and get the requisite force heh. And sometimes if I'm for some reason not bratty enough for his liking, he'll make something up to smack me around for. ;)

The end result is he always wins anyway. heh.

There is a difference in "bratty play" and serious issues. Obviously we have certain rules and protocols that I don't break ever. I would never in any way try to honestly disrespect him, hurt him, or disobey on something just to get a punishment.

There is, IMO a difference in manipulative bratty and fun playful bratty.

In fact, I wasn't totally clear for a very long time that there was any other way. I didn't really "get" that there were actually men out there who would throw a fun brat to the curb.

WTF? All I can say is, they don't know what they're missing. ;)

The art of the conqueror

Men like this do exist. And why shouldn't women want them? And yes, we can put up a fight, but our surrender is highly pleasurable. I like this up front, hands on (hands everywhere!) approach and sometimes I like to be a little defiant. For example, my husband likes me to clean out the ashtray before he comes home. If I'm in a particular mood where I want the wrath of the conqueror, then I'll leave it, dimps and all, for him to find and express his disgust. This usually results in a trip upstairs and a good disciplinary session. However, to coninuously repeat the exercise would be a little predictable, so I like to surprise.

Many readers on this site may not like some of my preferences and fantasies. I feel I relate to DeeMarie strongly in my choice and that we should not feel ashamed or bothered by non-approvers. Hell, there are things on here that I think "why on earth would she....x, y and z" but I take the view "each to their own" and pass the articles of little/no interest by with respect and acceptance.

And a man is not proving himself by being a conqueror. He's enjoying his complementary personality traits and relationship states with a willing, consenting partner. What's not to like about that?

Re: The Importance of Conquest

Sometimes I read things, like this, and wonder if someone crawled inside my head and took a picture of what I feel and turned it into words. Thank you for saying this. "Submitting to a sofa", is not at all comforting...thank you.

Learning to make a woman melt...

////But I couldn't begin to figure out how to melt into a puddle on my own. Nor would it be any fun, of course. That wouldn't be the same thing at all. The man has to learn how to make me do that.////

How can a man learn this?

I have 2 friends who are a couple. The woman really needs this. The man seems naturally inclined, but lost about how to go about it. How can he learn how to be dominant without simply being controlling to the point of annoyance?

I notice the OP focuses on physical signs of dominance. I believe my friend is more interested in non-physical and non-sexual signs of dominance that could be woven into daily life somehow.

I'm hoping someone can recommend some specific resources or give some tips for him. I expect that you might need some more info from me to determine what is best. If so, please ask.