The subjection of women

Subjection: (noun) 1. The act of exercising lordship or control; dominion, domination, control. 2. Submission; obedience. 3. Subordination. 4. Subjugation. etc. (Source: an ancient OED)

Subjection: 1. forced submission to control by others. 2. the act of conquering; conquest. (Source: princeton.edu)

Conquest: (noun) 1. the act of conquering. 2. mastery of something difficult. 3. the act of winning the love or sexual favour of someone.

The subjection of women raises the ire not just of a few feminists but of all decent people. Women who want to be brought into subjection—and there are many such women—have a lot of explaining to do. Men who countenance subjection—are there any? Given the risk of being thought to be an abusive predator, is it any wonder that the idea of subjection—even if the woman wants that—is repugnant to most men?

Subjection is not for sissies. It is difficult. It is dangerous. It isn't the done thing. It sounds non-consensual.

Like rape.

Actively exercising control; dominating. Forced submission to control by others. Forced.

It is easy to get so tangled up in the words that we lose perspective. We forget that conquering the woman and bringing her into subjection wins her heart. We lose sight of the fact that after forced comes submission. We get hung-up on the form at the expense of the substance.

“Bring a woman into subjection? No! I must have consent, or I will not control. I abhor violence! I am a firm believer in fully equal rights for women.”

“What I want is a submissive woman who will willingly surrender, not a shrew who needs to be tamed.”

“Forced submission? If submission is not freely given, I don't want it!”

If a woman wants to be brought into subjection, ipso facto, she is fully consenting.

If a woman wants to be brought into subjection, that is not like The Subjection Of Women. It deprives no one of any rights.

If a woman wants to be brought into subjection, it is not like The Taming of the Shrew. She gives her submission just as freely and willingly as the one who surrenders.

The form may be non-consensual, but the substance is fully consensual.

“But why does she want this? If she wants her man to lead, why doesn't she just follow him?”

Some women want and need to be brought into subjection. They crave the man's control and respond positively to active control, but without active control on his part submission is impossible. These women cannot fake submission; it must be real. It cannot be a pretence, a role-playing game or a lifeless cardboard cut-out imitation. It must be from the heart and soul, no hint of artificiality, acting or mendacity. But when a man brings such a woman into subjection and thereby releases her delitescent submissiveness, the power and reality and unforced naturalness of her submission can be awe-inspiring.

Do not be misled by a woman's need for subjection: it does not mean that she is dominant but in denial. It is often the most resistant women who are the most deeply submissive.

Such a woman might feel the need to be controlled whether she likes it or not—constrained by an unstoppable force; restrained; bound, reined in; no choice; no decisions, hers; under his authority, his lordship, his control—not because of incompetence, emotional lability or any lack of desire to take responsibility for her own actions, and not because she needs a man to make decisions for her, but just because that is the way it has to be. Because it feels right and proper. Because primal forces compel it. Because she wants it and he relishes it. Because to worship his power and strength, she must feel his power and strength even when her own is undiminished. Her full self in all its strength, overpowered, conquered, in subjection. Resisting, and finding that resistance is futile, she can finally relax. She needs that safety. She needs to be sure that he won't crumble under her strength. She needs not to be in control, not to have a choice, not to place limits on the man's power. No lists of rules for the man to follow, no shoulds, no ifs and buts, no no's. In subjection. Letting go completely. Peace. Floating on air. Effortless flying. Paradoxes. Out of body and totally relaxed, yet so present and excited that the intensity is indescribable. Power in powerlessness. Freedom in chains. Deep autonomy in bondage. The self strengthened in subjection. She stoops to conquer. Force wins her love. Deep serenity. Surrender. Peace.

Men who have brought a woman to that state—that melted, peaceful, dreamy state, that state of grace—have spoken of it with awe in their voices and echoes of ecstasy in their eyes. They have talked about the delectability of it, the life-changing power of it, the intense eroticism of it. They do not sound like burdened, resentful men who have grudgingly beaten a woman into subjection.

Nor should it be assumed that the force required to bring a woman into subjection is necessarily violent. It might be, or it might not be. It might involve physically restraining a woman, or physically forcing her to obey, or it might not. The force required in the subjection of women is not necessarily physical at all, but psychological: force of will. It might just involve a kindly quiet word here or a little firmness there. It can happen when a man merely looks at a woman, piercing her eyes with his until she is too flustered to hold his gaze.

The force only works to the extent that it reaches the woman's heart and mind. It only works if she wants it.

“Be that as it may, why would a man have any interest in fighting a woman for control?”

Whether physical or purely psychological, the subjection of a willing woman is not fighting. Fighting is sniping spouses lashing out at each other. Fighting is wounding words that can never be unsaid. Fighting is cruelty and spite, pain and distress.

If a woman wants to be brought into subjection, it is not like that. It is nothing like that.

“But still, the question remains, why bother?”

For fun. For the adventure. For the higher purpose of creating the conditions under which the two of you can scale the highest, most challenging mountain of life together, working together and supporting one another all the way.

Because not every woman is happy to pretend to be something she is not. Because not everyone feels right when she fakes submission.

Because not every woman can be submissive in the absence of subjection.

Because if the two of you behave in ways natural for each of you instead of trying to act out stereotypical roles, the relationship that evolves between you will be richer, deeper, and more genuinely suited to the two of you as the unique individuals you are.

Because if you can bring a woman into subjection without needing her to diminish herself to make it possible for you, you will have fully mastered her, and you will both know that, and it will inform all her actions in the future.

Because when such a woman is brought into subjection, she bonds so strongly and completely that there is nothing she wouldn't do for you.

Because that is what it may take to make her totally yours.

“Sounds like a lot of work to me. Why would any man want a woman who is so difficult?”

Why, indeed?

Most don't, of course. Most prefer the path (or indeed woman) of least resistance. Most prefer “easy”. And that's fine—for them.

But some of us—men and women alike—do not stick to the easy path through life. Some of us prefer “difficult”—because worthwhile endeavours are usually difficult, and that which is easy often turns out to be less valuable in the end. Sauntering along a well-travelled path doesn't take us where we want go. We want to scale the highest mountain.

And if you want to scale the highest mountain, you have to be sure that the person you are climbing with is up to the climb. It would be no good trying to drag someone weak or unwilling up the mountain.

Some men with “mountain-climbing” aspirations have no time for the idea of subjection. They are impatient to begin the exciting adventure, and understandably just want to get on with it, not have their ascent impeded by a resistant woman. To them, a woman who needs to be brought into subjection is a woman who is pulling in the opposite direction before they have even started the climb.

But, gentlemen, what that woman is doing is not impeding the climb but sensibly checking all the ropes and other climbing equipment, double-checking that they are both strong enough for the climb, and querying any potential problems she has identified so that they will be as well-prepared as possible when the climb gets tough. The better prepared they are for the climb ahead, the better the actual climb will be. If a man is too impatient, lacking in insight about what their intended endeavour entails, or unrealistic or blasé about the dangers, is it a good idea for the woman to put her life in his hands?

Some men do understand a woman's need to make these pre-climb checks, and (with a willing woman) enjoy the challenge and find it amusing that a woman might question or try to test their strength. They do not find it insulting or threatening, they find it a fun aspect of conquering a woman. It would never occur to these men to complain or ask a woman to be more submissive or obedient: they simply take action and handle the woman. They relish the contest of wills that brings the woman into subjection, just as those passionate about sword fighting relish their next fight. It's all part of the adventure!

These men inspire worship. Reverence. Deep gratitude. An overwhelming desire to kneel, to please, to obey. Passion. Peace.

In subjection. Mastered. Conquered. His.

the boss

Taken In Hand Tour start | next


Have you seen the following articles?
The sexuality of ‘non-sexual’ dominance
Who says you have to be submissive?
The carrot or the stick?
How should a woman dress?
Communication
The alpha male and masculine power
Ownership as bonding
There is no knight in shining armour
Wanting a masterful man
When rape is a gift

Comments

How deep you have probed...

the boss,

The depth of your article is breathtaking. For once, I have nothing to say, nothing to add.

Thank you for saying it.

Sam (of Sam & Missy)

You need to write a book

To the writer of this article: you need to write a book, and you should have written my personal ad for me, because THAT is exactly what I wanted to say and THAT is exactly who I am looking for... but the BAD NEWS is that there are zip-zero-nada men out there like that, and if there are any, they must already be married.

Yep, lots of 'em want to spank, but will not take the time to allow the testing and trying first, and then for me it's like, "Baby, what else ya got besides a paddle, 'cuz you won't even let me be *me* or allow me to test you a little, without you wigging out and running for cover---so if you think *I* would follow you anywhere, much less get over your knee...pffftt."

And then I think, "Wussie, in wolves' clothing."

And then it is so over for me. Passive-aggressive psuedo alphas.

I don't know what they think of me. "Passion junkie" maybe. Better to be "addicted to passion", methinks, than addicted to...Hagen-Dazs. Less fattening, and way more fun.

Great article. Thank you!

Kim

Kim

Kim—

You are very pessimistic about us blokes. I suggest if you open your eyes you'll see there's a lot of wolves in wuss's clothing.

- Dan

Wolves disguised as Wuss'

YES! So I found out with my husband- it seems. Nicest, quietest, most mild-mannered person I've yet to meet. Gentle with kids, awesome to his mother, described always as "sweet" by those who think they know him. I am an outgoing assertive, woman who is not afraid to speak her mind in any situation. He is shy, soft spoken and appears, to outside observers, to be submissive to me. In fact a few close friends have commented as such. HA! At home, when the doors are shut... I don't mess around. What he says goes. Period. I test. I push. I assert. NOPE. What he says goes. And I love it. It wasn't always this way. Give a man a chance... They, like us, have been conditioned by society to believe a certain way about what women are supposed to want. It can take awhile for THEM to build the condfidence that this REALLY IS TOTALLY OKAY. Then watch what happens. WHO LET THE WOLF OUT??? WHEW!

If you do push and succeed then it makes it all the more sweet

I read this and I get a general sense about a strong man who is not afraid to stand up to a resistant woman. Who will dominate, but does not expect a woman who will follow without question. I thought it was a powerful piece and I showed it to my husband who thought the same thing. This speaks to me because I am in a lot of ways the way the boss describes the woman, always pushing, always testing. If I want to submit to Mike I have to trust him 100%. I am always testing the lines to see if they are still strong.

My man is not afraid of this pushing and testing. He revels in it, expects it. I doubt very much he would want a woman who does not double check what he is doing. I think it makes my submission to him as a leader in our relationship all the more sweet. If I just mindlessly followed him, if there was no challenge, how special would that be? If everyone could run a marathon at the drop of a hat then there would be nothing special about the challenge of pushing oneself to the limits of your capabilities.

If you do push and succeed then it makes it all the more sweet because of your hard work and the knowledge that you accomplished what many think is too difficult to even contemplate. Getting a strong willed resistant woman to submit to you as leader in your relationship is a challenge too. Only one for people who do not expect everything to be handed to them on a platter. The challenge, the overpowering me, is all part of the dance Mike and I do.

This is a very powerful piece of writing the boss. You have captured in many ways how I feel about submission to Mike and how Mike feels about and leads our relationship.

Take care,
Tevemer

This Is Taking A Woman In Hand

To the writer of this article: as a male reader and long time lurker on this site, I think this is the best posting on Taken In Hand. This is what a woman should be in my opinion and there *are* men like you describe. I am one of them. My son is another.

JS

The real reward

Wow! It's not often you see such a glimpse of yourself in an article, but you've really done it! It's very enlightening to see the female side of the equation revealed and it answers some (but not all, dammit) of the questions a man has when he takes this step for the love of a woman. And make no mistake boys, this is part of a love equation, because the boss has it dead nuts on about the reward for bringing your woman to this state; when you do, by force of will (and maybe a little muscle) earn the submission of your woman, you are made to feel that you have provided a little slice of heaven. That floaty and serene feeling of peace she enjoys, I *have* witnessed it and shared it and it is part of a bonding beyond anything else.

This is not casual rape and unwanted physical attention though, and if you can't get beyond that, then I'd be wondering why you're even visiting this page. Taking your woman in hand is an act of love. Yeah it's got some tender loving violence in it, but sex is basically banging body parts together until something gives, so get over your inhibitions and realize that having control over someone is not always a bad thing, as long as that control has been earned and is freely given (one without the other is a recipe for disaster).

Kudos to the writer of this article, for getting it so right. I hope you are putting all this stuff to good use.

A Respectful Posting From a MAN

I found your Website earlier and want to comment on this material.

Your position somewhat invalidates the Dom's position as Controller of the relationship. I would not tolerate a sub telling me what to do. I give a woman two choices: to obey or to leave. If she wants subjection she won't get it from ME. I like my subs *submissive*.

A Real MAN

Some people enjoy a little resistance!

There is a big difference between challenging a man and telling him what to do. My husband has a way of bending me to his will, even when it is not the thing I believe I want at the time. I think for a man to really dominate me he must be able to prove his worthiness; he must be able to prove he can take what he wants. Telling me to do it or "hit the road" will only make me laugh and leave. Nothing will make me want to do what someone wants less than telling me that they will withdraw their love for me if I do not do what they say. For of course asking me to leave because I am not submissive enough would be throwing away a lot more than a sub. We are husband and wife. We are great friends and lovers. Submission for us would not be worth throwing away everything we have in 13 year marriage.

For me it is the fact that my husband CAN overpower me that excites me about this whole Taken In Hand relationship that we are building. My husband does not let me tell him what to do either, but he is in no way afraid of the strength that I feel within myself. He encourages me to be who I really am. If the person I really am needs to push and test, my husband is more than up to the challenge of over-powering me in my more resistant moments to get what he wants. Some people enjoy a little resistance too!

A Real Man can actually dominate her

Quoting the original article:

It is often the most resistant women who are the most deeply submissive.

Yes, absolutely. And it cannot be said enough, because this is something that many "dominant" men seem to be utterly clueless about.

Such a woman might feel the need to be controlled whether she likes it or not—constrained by an unstoppable force... Because to worship his power and strength, she must feel his power and strength even when her own is undiminished. Her full self in all its strength, overpowered, conquered, in subjection. Resisting, and finding that resistance is futile, she can finally relax. She needs that safety. She needs to be sure that he won't crumble under her strength.

Yes, that is exactly the point. A man who cannot forcefully bring me under control cannot dominate me. If he's unwilling to actually take me in hand—or if I hold back on my resistance at all—then there's the inevitable nagging feeling that maybe he's really a wuss, maybe he's not really strong enough to dominate me after all, etc. I cannot see why a man would just expect me to take it on faith (or whatever) that he is capable of dominating me, without him actually bothering to prove that to me.

And I would also think that if he's truly dominant, then he will relish the chance to overpower me and forcefully put me under his control—because that's just what it means to dominate a woman. Any truly dominant man should be willing and easily able to pass the test of actually dominating a strong woman. If he is unable or unwilling to do that, then why in the world would he even imagine that I would consider him "dominant"?

"A real man" wrote:

Your position somewhat invalidates the Dom's position as Controller of the relationship. I would not tolerate a sub telling me what to do. I give a woman two choices: to obey or to leave. If she wants subjection she won't get it from ME. I like my subs *submissive*.

Wow, you are so missing the point here that I don't even know where to begin. Taking a woman in hand does not "invalidate" the man's dominant position—rather, it establishes and reinforces his dominance.

It's what makes his dominant position possible in the first place, and it's what validates his dominance in his woman's eyes. If he doesn't have the power to actually put his woman under his control, then how in the world is he exercising any real "control"? If he can't truly put her under control, then his "control" is an illusion—and an illusion that is totally at the mercy of her whims. The moment she decides he is not going to control her any more, the game is over; that's the end of his imaginary "dominance."

You say that you would "not tolerate a sub telling you what to do." But, of course, the boss advocated no such thing. The question is, what is your alternative to tolerating it? If your only other option is to run away from her, then that does not seem very manly at all. It's the man who is powerful and forceful enough (and determined enough) to get the woman under control and keep her there who is the real dominant.

You say you give the woman the choice of "obey or leave" and you think that's dominance? Or that it makes you "a real man"? But here's a newsflash: that requires no masculine strength at all. Any 18 year old girl who's four-feet-ten inches and 85 pounds could make the same demands on the men she dates, and then claim to be "dominant" because she has weeded out anyone who's not a total servile wimp. Does that make her "a real man," too?

What you're doing is weeding out all the strong-willed women; possibly because you fear that you could not actually handle a strong woman. But if you could take on a strong-willed woman and conquer her, then that would make you more dominant, not less. If the only women you can conquer are the mousey ones, then how does that make you "dominant"?

You say that you like your women "submissive," but it sounds like you don't really understand that a woman's most intense submissive response comes from being conquered by a strong man. If you never actually demonstrate any force or power over her, but she just passively goes along with you anyway, then I would not even call that submissive, myself. "Compliant," maybe—but in my book, true submission is the feminine response to actually being conquered by a strong man.

Not all men are up to the task, like the boss said. But women who are truly and deeply submissive, and who are looking for a strong man to worship, are not going to "submit" to the first biological organism that comes along with a swagger and delusions of dominance. A truly submissive woman wants to make certain that the man she submits to is much stronger than she is, and thus deserving of her trust and her submission. She wants to make sure he is "a real man"—just because there are so many pretenders out there, who would not know how to actually subjugate a real woman, even if their color-coordinate leather wardrobe accessories depended on it.

You taught here something I r

You taught here something I really missed out for half a human beings life! Thank you so much to the boss!
Even HOW you wrote it: this comes close to poetry!
Thank you so much DeeMarie for enforcing these important observations with your own voice, giving additional clues.

I realize how deeply my generation is spoiled by feminist ideals, men and women alike. Your thoughts are TRULY LIBERATING.

David, from ol'Germany

To 'A Real Man'

So your definition of 'a real man' is someone who is too lazy to put any effort into enforcing his dominance? That wouldn't work for me, I couldn't be submissive to my husband if he didn't put a certain amount of effort into making me that way.

I don't revere and worship him, but I do respect my husband a lot more when he is firm with me, and if he was passive in the face of any resistance or willfullness on my part, it would not improve our relationship.

Yesterday, for instance, he bought me a mobile phone, something I didn't want at all (I hate all telephones, mobile ones most of all). "I want to be able to check where you are and what you're doing," he said. "And I want you to be able to call me if there's an emergency." My objections died in the heat of his certainty that I would have a phone, whether I liked it or not. "You take it with you when you go out, and if you leave it at home you are in Big Trouble—trouble with a capital 'S'" he told me.

I slighty despise myself for being this way, but I absolutely adore it when he is firm like this, and overcomes my resistance. I didn't think this article was applicable to me at all, but maybe it is, just a little bit.

Prepare Yourself for Trouble

Well, Louise, then you are going to get in trouble sometime. Everyone forgets cell phones once in a while and he is being unreasonable to think you won't. I can't tell you how many times we have both forgotten them here.

I even put a big sign on the door that says, "Take your cell phone! This means you!" It worked for a few days and then it became part of the decor and we started forgetting again. LOL.

Personally I would be pleased about the caring but I would resent his saying I'd be in trouble if I forgot to take it along. We aren't accustomed to cell phones and it's not that easy getting used to reaching for them, charging them up every night, etc.

"Pat"

Getting in trouble

Well, if I was a normal person I too would probably resent being told I'd be in trouble if I forgot to take it with me. Being the way I am though, I get a pleasurable thrill from the prospect of getting in trouble if I do forget the phone!

I am frequently punished for having forgotten to do this or that, but I don't resent it because it's preferable to what might have happened in the pre-Taken In Hand days, which was him being sarky orlosing his temper and shouting at me about whatever it is. Nowadays his reaction to my having forgotten to do something is more likely to be slightly stern but amused "How many times have I told you not to ...." whatever it is, rather than irritation.And I find myself meekly saying "I'm sorry" instead of flouncing out of the room in a self-pitying sulk.

I know being punished for forgetfulness seems highly unreasonable, but it mysteriously puts both of us in a better humour. Sometimes I almost succumb to the temptation to 'forget' something on purpose, for the pleasure of getting that reaction. The other day I'd gone out to get something from the car, and I was about to lock it again when I hesitated, contemplating pleasureaby what the reaction of my HRH would be if he went out and found it unlocked. Then common sense reasserted itself and I considered what his reaction would be likely to be if he went out there and found the car gone. Not so much fun. Anyway, it would be cheating. God knows I don't need to forget things on purpose, it happens often enough naturally.

A respectful posting from a man who's not sacred of a challenge.

I'm fairly new to this site, and I've never posted anything on it before, but after seeing your comment I had to say something. First of all, you say you won't tolerate being told what to do by a "sub", but nowhere in his article did he say anything about letting a woman tell him what to do. It talks about letting a woman TRY to resist because he knows that he really is dominant so isn't insecure about taking charge. You tell your "sub" to obey or leave, but what you're really saying is that at the first sign of a challenge you give up and try to find someone else to boss around without giving anything back. Maybe you should make sure that you understand what an article is about and that you know what a real take-charge man is before you go commenting on an article claiming to be a "real" man. My wife would break you. I control her even though no one else can. That is love. That is dominance. That is a REAL man. To be able to control a STRONG woman is real. To hide from one and tell her to leave is not.

Challenges

There is one pitfall that seems to be going unsaid here about challenges in general. Between two reasonable, mature adults this "dance" of subjection will be reasonably played out to a usually foregone conclusion as male and female energies mesh naturally.

The exception to the rule is the shrew or extreme brat however. She will challenge her man for control of the relationship but never really get the idea of being "conquered". She will ruin exactly that which she has accomplished for while she likes her man's control she never is completely comfortable in it. She only takes subjection to the next scenario, a step of expected subjection in a situation that she contrives for less than useful purposes. She has to reach for a level of disrespect far worse than the first. She does that because quite frankly she can with little regard to the lasting consequences to the trust within her relationship.

To simply call a strong-willed woman strong makes no more sense than calling an abusive man dominant. A truly strong woman who will thrive in this relationship also understands what it is to be conquered and to act accordingly. Constant testing is a sign of insecurity in a woman to me, not a sign of she just wants to feel my control. In moderation, this article is fine. The woman who takes this article as a license to steal in my opinion misses the point just as much as the man who wants no challenge.

Randy

"The only man who never makes a mistake is the man who never does anything."-Teddy Roosevelt

Real Man

PFFFFT!

You miss the point of Taken in Hand completely.

"I like my subs submissive"

You speak in multiples. This website is about the beauty of a monogamous (not multiples) loving male-led relationship.

I respectfully suggest that you might move on to that BDSM website you were surfing for when you found this one.

Also, LOL, I truly and completely enjoyed the sound of my true blue genuine REAL man, laughing to tears, at your comment.

His azure

Such a delicious concept

Subjection! Such a delicious concept. I'll admit I didn't know of this definition before your article. Surrender, submission seemed so forced to me. But subjection implies a measure acceptance to me.

I prefer this definition:

From Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Revised 6th Ed (1856):

SUBJECTION. The obligation of one or more persons to act at the discretion,
or according to the judgment and will of others.
2. Subjection is either private or public. By the former is meant the
subjection to the authority of private persons; as, of children to their
parents, of apprentices to their masters, and the like. By the latter is
understood the subjection to the authority of public persons. Rutherf. Inst.
B. 2, c. 8.

An obligation to act. If a woman is brought into subjection she accepts the obligation to act according to the judgment and will of another. It is unlikely that a woman would be promiscuous with her acceptance of this obligation. Rather I would expect her to be very circumspect. It follows that her resistance is part of her "due diligence", if you will.

Resistance of her subjection is not a lack of submissiveness. It is a very practical test of just how deep an obligation she should accept. If she is testing you, she is hopeful that you can touch that place deep inside. Accepting the obligation for a weekend is much less risky than accepting it for a year. Acceptance for life, which is the ultimate goal here I believe, requires constant diligence. If she stopped testing even after subjection, she would stop feeling his strength; she would start to doubt his will; she would grow fearful her devotion us unfounded.

The man should provide her with opportunities to prove her subjection. Small innocuous tasks or requirements for her to accomplish. Each provide her with an opportunity to meet her obligation, thus feel the warmth of her subjection; to resist and feel the strength of his will; or, should she rebel, a tripwire to warn of greater concerns. Creating the opportunities for her to show her subjection allows the man to control the tests. He will then be able to manage the relationship and seize the moments to overcome her resistance to penetrate deeper into her heart.

Useful Comment

Your comment was useful to me Jeff. Due diligence, I like it. It's also good to see there's alot of guys posting on this newsgroup.

Another Jeff

Wonderful article

I think this is one of your best articles on the site. I've read it and re-read it, each time giving me different thoughts.

“But why does she want this? If she wants her man to lead, why doesn't she just follow him?”

I'm glad you answered this so well. Part of being taken in hand is following the man's lead and I can't imagine myself following someone I did not respect, at least in the narrow way I was following them. So it makes sense that my woman is the same and the more I require of her, the more it makes sense for her to be sure of my strong lead. I think it impossible to be totally sure under all future circumstances and at some stage, it takes faith in the person to willingly follow, even though they make errors at times.

...why bother?

Looking back on a previous relationship I had with a woman who was quite naturally submissive to me, I can see that if I had started out with subjection then when things turned sticky, that would have been a far easier and more obvious step to take again rather than try to subject her later. So although I don't feel a need to subject a woman if she is going to be submissive anyway, I can see long-term benefits in doing so.

It would be no good trying to drag someone weak or unwilling up the mountain.

Whichever way around I read this, it makes sense. I've been there, tried that and it wasn't good: all she did is turn on me while I was on a tough part of the climb. I don't see how a woman can, on the whole, drag a dominant man anywhere (though there certainly can be specific areas of expertise where he may be happy to have her lead, under his overall control).

In subjection. Mastered. Conquered. His.

For a single man, a difficulty can be to identify a woman who might respond well to being subjected. I have some 'tricks' I use to tell me early if a woman has a submissive heart but when a non-submissive woman may not even know that she will be delighted to be conquered, what is a man to do?

Douglas.

Find New Home In Trash

You like humiliating women?

If I were you I would tuck the tip I'm about to give you in the back of your mind. The tip is to remember it's possible to seperate a male from his testicles. Permanently.

niceI totally agree wit

nice

I totally agree with you

though I use the baseball bat to the head approach, yours works too

Subjection of women

Here Here!!! Cheers to you, I have never seen it stated so perfectly, nothing left out, so purely honest and to the point. My hat is off to you....

blah... just have a "safe word".

When you FORCE a person into submission, she obviously doesn't want to submit... how could you like that? (Ex. you put a gun to some random female's head and command her to say "I love you", would you then believe that she really loves you?

True submission doesn't have to be forced, she will do it from the start... the rest can be role-playing

"If a woman wants to be brought into subjection, ipso facto, she is fully consenting."--that's role-playing, dumbass

"Such a woman might feel the need to be controlled whether she likes it or not"--I can't even begin to understand how someone could want something and not like it = she's just shy and afraid that someone will think badly of her if she submits from the start = she's faking the disliking part, give her a saftey word and do what you please.

I think that men can control the relationship, but never fully control a womans body.

whatever you do, PLEASE use a safe word... most women need to feel a little control over their own saftey...

this should keep it from getting to the point where she calls the cops on you.

narcoleptic87, Some peop

narcoleptic87,

Some people want to be REALLY controlled. Yes, they might not like any given individual spanking or punishment or act forced upon them, but they are just wired differently from you. They want to be controlled and probably not by everyone, likely just by one person.

One assumes that there was a lot of soul searching and serious discussion before this kind of relationship dynamic was put into place. That a blanket consent was given for all things, whether she wants them done to her at the time they actually occur or not.

Some people don't want safewords, some people don't want to play.

If power is never wrestled forcibly away from someone, they can never feel the actual power over them. Some people like to feel it. A bedroom game or "scene" just doesn't do it for everyone. And for some, safewords just kill the experience.

Being forced

Physical force does not appeal to me at all, but I find I don't really feel submissive towards my husband unless he uses a certain amount of mental force to make me feel that way, if he doesn't assert himself to be dominant, I do not feel at all submissive. Therefore I am not 'submissive from the start' I need to be made to feel that way.

Although physical force does not appeal to me at all, it evidently does appeal to a lot of women, and it seems to bring out a submissive response, whereas in me it simply produces frustrated rage. One way or the other, some people do seem to need to have a submissive response evoked, or 'forced' from them.

Louise

Being overpowered

I had one of those lightbulb moments reading this article! I am a very competitive, athletic, strong female. I really struggle with my ego in being controlled by my husband. It is definately a turn on, but it doesn't always come naturally. My husband & I have played out M/s roles in the bedroom, but it always felt staged & fake.

This site was an incredible find for us. Neither of us enjoyed the role-playing aspect, or the fact that with M/s it was always about him. He is highly turned on by pleasing me. I get excited feeling helpless & controlled by him.

This article made me realise that because I am a strong willfull woman, I need him to overpower me for real. It is not because I am weak, and it is not something that I can fake (well, I could, but that's not who I am). Don't get me wrong. I do have a submissive side. I love pleasing him and do things for him every day. But every so often I need to feel his strength & power. It truly makes me feel like a woman. Of course we are very new to the Taken In Hand idea & I haven't yet experienced being subjected when we are in a disagreement or by being punished. Maybe then I'll be singing a different tune! LOL! But I just wanted to say thanks for a great article & a great site! Any advice would be appreciated!

Expressed perfectly

I am so grateful for having come across this site. It so effectively communicates all the things I am trying to say, and in a responsible, clear-cut manner.

[For the rest of this comment, see Stepping out of the way and into his arms—The Editor]

Why subjection?...

I am drawn to men who are protective and a bit more dominant than I, as I have both a very stubborn, proud, ambitious side, and a gentle, soft, loving one.

However, I find this article to be very disturbing. Why would anybody want to not belong to themselves anymore? Nothing is "acceptable" until we make it so. In my opinion your article describes the psychology of a master-slave relationship... Why would anyone want to be a slave?! How could that not be fundamentally degrading to human nature?...

I might add that I am not a feminist. As I mentioned above, I enjoy a slight degree of dominance from a strong man. However, I know there is a limit that, if crossed, the relationship would become emotionally traumatic for me. And that limit is precisely the one that I myself set. It is all charming and sexy as long as I get to be dominated in the amount I myself want to be.

You implied there should be no "limits" on a man's authority and control over you; that he should get you to the point where there are no "ifs" or "if not". No conditions set by you. You implied that a relationship in which you lose control of your OWN self and have NO power of will is sexy. I say it is not. The day I will cease to have control over my own destiny and over my own actions will be the day I'll know I'd have to stop living.

"Limits" mean you are controlling him, in my opinion

First I want to say thank you to the writer for such a perfectly explained concept.
Also, I wanted to comment to a voice's comment, I must say that I feel like if I put any constraints upon my husband's authority and control over me, it means I am really the one in control. The erotic part for me is knowing that you have given up ALL control. It is crazy. It is big trust. It is opening up something deep in me, to say that to my husband. I am still encouraging him to understand that I really mean it. I am one of those women who needs to feel his (physical, mental, etc.) strength to feel safe. He is a really wonderful man. I wouldn't be able to hand over the reins if he wasn't! But if I were to say "You can control me EXCEPT for this and that..." I'd be in control of the relationship and the magic would start to go away.

Limits

Personally, I would always acknowledge the possibility that something might come up where I simply would not be able to follow my husband's wishes. This has occured once in relation to one of our children, where I went against his wishes because I felt it was in the best interests of our child—my husband actually acknowledged afterwards that he felt I had done the right thing.

I don't regard this as meaning that I am controlling him, but merely that I retain control of my common sense.

Louise

"Literature is mostly about having sex and not much about having children. Life is the other way around"—David Lodge

Limits = 'at least some' control.

I can understand your point about common sense and your children.

And for that reason, some may feel they cannot have, or do not want, their husbands to have total control over them.

Any limits you have, will decrease the amount of control your husband has over you.

You may not be micromanaging him, but by definition you are exercising some control over him by limiting his control over you and his right to direct and guide you in every area, he might feel necessary.

Now, perhaps in this situation you were correct and your husband even saw that you were right.
So it worked out that time.

When both the husband and wife trying to be the leader (or even equals, because ultimately in every instance and each decision, someone is leading, anyway) this ruins many marriages.

Even those that did not end in divorce, were in many cases, still rocky and not all that pleasant for either the husband or the wife.

Sometimes, even the most well meaning disagreements can turn into horrible marriage ruining fights.

Some couples may feel that for them (not telling others what they must do)only a total no limit relationship will be sure of not having any of those conflicts arise, not even from well meaning sincere disagreements.

The husband usually allows his wife to bring up concerns
and any worries she has but they both understand that he
will always have the final say.

In such relationships, his wishes are her commands and there is no questioning of his authority or rights over her that could ever lead to such horrible divorce causing fights.

Some couples realize that even if the wife might be right sometimes, she might be wrong at other times.

If the husband is a natural leader, he probably established that by being more successful, more often, then not, throughout his life.

This would be his qualification for your having that trust to follow his lead and obey him.

Most decisions like with those involving raising children are not irreversible.

So even if he did make a mistake and you followed him and obeyed him with no limits, you still most likely in the vast majority of cases, would be allowed to talk to him later and if you trust him enough to recognize when he might be making a mistake then he could change the decision then, and it would be a learning experience for both of you.

You might grow in trust and learn that obeying even when you think he might be wrong will strengthen your marriage and everything still works out, even with a mistake made.

I am not saying you personally should have no limits or change your relationship dynamics.

I am just saying that for those who do not have limits, it is not the same as throwing common sense, out the window.

I have heard from many women who have accepted their husbands total control over them (and in many cases even beg for harsh discipline and very strict control over them and their house hold from their husbands (including how to raise the children and everything else)).

And in these no limits relationships, they have said they feel more secure then at any other point in their lives, including feeling more secure then when they were Taken in Hand, but it was not yet a total control.

For the husband, there is a freedom that is not comparable to any other relationship where he never has to think or be concerned that his wife will not support him or will in any slight way ever undermine him, even accidentally.

Many couples have expressed that for them (Again; This is not to judge others or their relationships)even a Taken in Hand relationship, that is not so total, is not quite the same, with the same sense of security and belonging for both and has not ever compared to the bliss and security they have said they felt, after it was a total, no limit, relationship.

Limits and control

Well, there are limits to the amount of control my husband has. As a Taken In Hand woman, I am not really interested in playing the "more submissive than thou" game, so I am not going to get involved in one of these "if you wouldn't jump off the roof if your husband told you to then you're not really submissive" conversations.

I'm never going to win the title of Mrs Submissive 2010, but then I'm not competing, so that doesn't bother me. It's not really how I see myself. And nor is it how other Taken In Hand women see themselves. Taken In Hand is not about women being submissive.

When it comes to the wellbeing of my children, I am prepared to go against my husband if I think it is in the best interests of the children that I do so. And if that means that I am 'really exercising control', well frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn.

The women you describe as having given their husbands total control, regardless, HAVE thrown common sense out of the window, as far as I am concerned. And I think they are damned fools. Life is about more than feeling good. What use is it to feel good if your children are not happy?

For me "are the children happy?" is the one question I ask first, last, and always. And if the answer to that question is not 'yes', then I will do whatever I can to make it 'yes', no matter what.

These women may be blissfully happy with their total control etc, but what is the use of that if their kids aren't happy, eh? What then? These women need to stop thinking with their crotches, if you ask me.

Louise

Thank you!

This article is great, thank you so much. No one seems to understand that I don't want to just lie down and "submit"; I want to be conquered. It makes the relationship so much more meaningful to me.

-JMT

Discovering who we are.

Astounding article! Thank you for writing this!

This is my wife. In and out of the bedroom. It is also me as well. But is wasn’t always this way.

This is how we got there.

Joseph K.

So true

I love the way you compare the women's need to be brought into subjection to her checking all the ropes before mountain climbing. It is so true. I know I will not be with just anyone because that would not be sensible. It needs to be a man I can trust. A man who proves he is worthy of the control he will have over me.

Last year I was going on dates with a very masculine man. I remember being instantly attracted to him. I felt that "spark". He was tall and strong. He had a very even temper and was very sensible. He always treated me kindly and genuinely listened to me. I am tall for a woman, but I have a very slender figure so I always felt so safe when he held me in his arms because he is so much bigger than I am.

Everything was going really well for a while between us, but then something went wrong. I hadn't discovered this site yet, which was unfortunate because that meant I still hadn't realized that what I want is to be under a man's control. Instead I continued acting the way most women in America are raised to act, which is to challenge men to "prove" we are equals. Which I now can see only causes problems. I do believe men and women are equal, but I have realized that does not mean we have to act the same. I personally like the idea of the man being the protector, provider, and leader, while the woman is the nurturer who welcomes his authority happily because she trusts him.

Before I realized this I began challenging and questioning the man I was dating, which I think he eventually got sick of. What I was doing was not just "checking the ropes" as you mentioned, it was challenging him to prove we are equals, which I thought was how it was supposed to be in this society.

We stopped talking, but I couldn't move past him. Every time I would go on a date with someone new I would leave the date thinking he does not compare. It took me quite a few months to realize why these other men didn't compare and it was because they were not manly enough for me. I began researching to see if any other women felt the same way I did and I was relieved to find out I was not the only one. As I read articles and did research I realized my feelings were normal and instinctual, which has been such a relief to me. Now that I realize this I feel like I can finally be myself. It makes sense now. I have always struggled trying to fit the typical American woman ideals.

I know now that I want a taken in hand relationship. I want a man to lead me firmly and lovingly and with the best interest of our relationship at heart. With that being said I can't help but wonder if this article would clear things up for the man I was dating last year. We haven't spoken in quite sometime, but part of me wants to send it to him. Any thoughts?

I wouldn't.

Colette, I would not send him this article. Think about how he will intepret that. I know that in sending him the article what you would be trying to do is to apologise to him for your bad behaviour, but he is more likely to hear a very different message. He is more likely to think that what you are saying is that your bad behaviour was checking the ropes before the climb, i.e., perfectly reasonable—and that he was thus wrong to reject you. That is not your intended message, is it?

Checking the ropes before the climb is nothing like behaving badly. Checking the ropes before the climb is something you do when you are fully aware that you want to make this particular climb. It is very wise and sensible, just as it is wise and sensible for the man wanting to make the climb to make his own checks too.

If you don't know you want to be making this kind of climb in the first place, or if you are wrestling with your desire to do so, as I think was the case in your case with this man, your behaviour is inauthentic. You are fighting yourself. You are aping those who genuinely don't want to make the Taken In Hand sort of climb, instead of being true to your Taken In Hand heart.

Because you are not a 50-50 modern equal relationship sort of person, your attempt to act that part failed dismally. You don't have a good feel for how to be 50-50 and nice simultaneously because it's not you, and acting that 50-50 part clashed violently with your core being. You overcompensated for your desire to live under the control of a man, and behaved badly as a result.

The article is not about behaving badly, the point about the pre-climb checks was about the importance of checking carefully that the person you are considering marrying is worth marrying and that he or she will persevere and work to solve problems when they arise instead of giving up. Making such checks assumes that you know very clearly that this is the kind of climb you want to make, and that you are not fighting yourself. If one or other person is fighting him- or herself, he or she is not yet ready for this kind of climb.

So instead of sending him this article, why not tell him directly that you have now realised that you behaved badly, that you are terribly sorry for how you treated him, and that although it is no excuse, you do now know the reason for your bad behaviour. Briefly state that you now think that you were subconsciously trying to act the part of a conventional 50-50 modern woman because that is how you thought women are supposed to be, and that you failed because that is not who you are. You were overcompensating for your desire to live under the control of a man. He unfortunately got caught in the crossfire of your own internal and unconscious battle. Tell him that you wish you had behaved differently, because he did not deserve to be treated like that. Thank him for having been the catalyst that propelled you to discover what you really want in a relationship, and perhaps say that you only wish you had discovered this in time to have been able to appreciate him as he deserves to be appreciated. Keep it brief, calm and not too heavy. If you sound anguished or self-loathing, grovelling or too guilt-ridden, that might be just as off-putting as if you appear to be failing to take responsibility for your bad behaviour.

The subjection

I agree, it would be unwise for a woman to choose to be with a man who did not possess the endurance to bring her under subjection. Life is a lot tougher than any of us. The leader in the midst of war must be the most courageous, calmest, and earn the respect of those under his authority if he expects them to follow him into battle.