What Taken In Hand is, and what it is not

What Taken In Hand is, and what it is not

The Taken In Hand site is focused primarily on the underlying psychology of happy marriage in which the husband wears the trousers—to his wife's delight. For those with Taken In Hand inclinations the husband being in charge is exciting, erotic and fun. That is, for those with Taken In Hand inclinations: if this isn't your cup of tea, Taken In Hand is definitely not for you.

What is Taken In Hand about?

It's about…

Love
Marriage
Becoming and being all you want to be
Passion
Amazing communication
These relationships are deeply connected, engaged and intimate
Great relationships
Concentrated focus
Sexual exclusivity
Relationships that last forever
Married for life
Wholehearted relationships
You and me—ordinary people
Women wanting their man to be in charge
The psychology of control
Many Taken In Hand women need to be conquered
Masculine power
Men wearing the trousers/pants in the relationship
The man has the balance of power
The man puts the relationship and his wife first
Men seeking/in Taken In Hand relationships ACTIVELY control
Strong women making a free choice
Strong, competent, high dominance alpha women who are not submissive—they don't have the D/s submissive need to serve and obey—but who are nevertheless lovely people, not domineering misandrist termagents
A deep feeling of peacefulness
A powerful erotic connection
Acceptance
Appreciating the one you love
Being brought to submission—if that's your cup of tea and not otherwise
Being head of the household because it is fun, fascinating and highly erotic for both of you, as opposed to as a duty or a right
Being sensitive to each other’s needs and wishes
Cherishing one another in a relationship
Civilised gentlemen
Consensual non-consent
Dignity
Dynamic, evolving relationships, not static, stereotypical ones
Exploring your deepest desires
Feeling appreciated, accepted and admired
Feeling intensely alive
Flourishing, blossoming, evolving, personal growth
Fun
Hardcore high intensity challenging interactions
Harmony
Having courage
Honouring those you love and yourself
Improving relationships
Improving your relationship
Individuality
Intimacy
Joy
Kindness in a relationship
Learning from your mistakes
Living a rich, vibrant, fulfilling life
Maintaining a non-defensive spirit
Maintaining control because that's what both spouses want
Men enjoying feeling powerful with women who find that sexy too
Men who are delightfully protective
Men who cherish the one they love
Mutual support in a relationship
Being mastered; mastery if that appeals
Openness and honesty in a relationship
Ownership and being owned
Possession and being possessed, for the sheer eroticism of it
Pride
Problems seem easier to solve
Questioning assumptions
Reconnecting and remaining connected
Resolving disagreements quickly, creatively and positively
Reverence (reverent relationships)
Solving problems
Strength
Support
Taken In Hand feels liberating
Taken In Hand feels right
Taken In Hand philosophy
The Taken In Hand relationship is wholeheartedly consensual and for the delight of both spouses. Although the husband is firmly in control, the marriage is very much a joint endeavour. We see it as an exciting, fascinating and fun adventure
Taken In Hand relationships come in many varieties
Taking action
Taming, being tamed—because it is fun and exciting, not because the woman is a shrew
Tenderness
The psychology of the man in a Taken In Hand relationship
The psychology of the woman in a Taken In Hand relationship
Thinking
Treating each other with respect
Women often feel powerful and free when taken in hand

What Taken In Hand is not about:

Taken In Hand is not about abuse, wife-beating or battering, bullying, non-consensual violence, or men being domineering, and if you think you may be in an abusive relationship, seek help immediately.

Taken In Hand is not about men being self-serving narcissists who passively sit around expecting their wife to act submissive and selflessly serve their endless needs and obey without question their demands no matter how immoral, repugnant or hurtful the demands may be. In fact, having power over their wives, husbands in Taken In Hand relationships take great care to put their wife and relationship first.

Taken In Hand is not about immature, thoughtless, self-absorbed drama queens who behave appallingly badly, fail to take responsibility for their own actions, and expect their husband to selflessly serve their endless needs and cure their personality defects and other problems. In fact, women in Taken In Hand relationships take responsibility for their own actions.

Taken In Hand does not assume the women are out of control emotionally or that the men are paragons of all known virtues. In fact, Taken In Hand recognizes the reality that individuals, whatever their sex, have strengths, weaknesses, virtues and faults, areas in which they think rationally and other areas plagued by irrationality The control in a Taken In Hand relationship is nothing to do with one spouse being better, stronger, more rational and more competent, or the other being faulty, deficient, or more irrational.

Taken In Hand is not about “Doms and subs”. In fact, Taken In Hand women tend not to describe themselves as “submissive”, despite the fact that their husband’s control makes them melt. And most men in these relationships are more likely to describe themselves as being in charge, or wearing the trousers/pants, than being “dominant”.

Taken In Hand is not about stereotypical behaviour or fixed roles that prevent the flourishing of either husband or wife. Whilst we all, as individuals, have our own ideas and preferences, Taken In Hand is not about one size fits all. There is no recipe for a Taken In Hand relationship. They come in many different varieties, and evolve in many different ways.

Taken In Hand is not about the denial of women's rights, or any wish to return to the Dark Ages or indeed, the 1950s (though some Taken In Hand folk find that idea erotic as fantasy!).

Women drawn to Taken In Hand relationships want a relationship with a down-to-earth, decent, dependable good man who wants to be in charge in his relationship but feels no need to act the swaggering “Dom”, knowing that real control in a fully committed marriage to a Taken In Hand inclined woman is ultimately far more erotic. Taken In Hand women do not expect their husbands to be superhuman, they want a real relationship with a real person.

Men drawn to Taken In Hand relationships want a relationship with a full human being who has a mind, ideas and wishes, and who does not diminish herself or lose herself in a relationship. They want a real woman, not an imaginary docile mindless yes-woman. In fact, many men say they positively revel in the challenge of being married to and in charge of a competent, strong, take-charge woman with a mind of her own, who is therefore a bit of a challenge. Some say that being married to a woman whom they have brought to obedience (taken in hand) is much more satisfying and erotic than being with one who was compliant or submissive from the outset so never needed to be taken in hand.

Taken In Hand is not about casual sex, harems, or uncommitted relationships, it is about fully committed, permanent, sexually exclusive, faithful, emotionally and practically invested, happy marriages—for those who prefer that.

Taken In Hand women do not diminish or lose themselves in the relationship. In fact, many report feeling more themselves, more creative, more productive, more able to do what they want to do and more able to make progress in their lives

Taken In Hand is not about women being told they need to be more submissive, and you will not see many instances of women being accused of “topping from the bottom” on this site. Whilst such posts may be appropriate on some sites, they are not appropriate here, because Taken In Hand does not advocate submissiveness—kindness, considerateness, behaving decently, yes of course, but self-sacrificially serving and obeying? No. The Taken In Hand relationship is wholeheartedly consensual and for the delight of both spouses. Although the husband is firmly in control, the marriage is very much a joint endeavour. We see it as an exciting, fascinating and fun adventure.

Taken In Hand is not about spanking, or having a discipline or punishment fetish, and despite complaints that the site is thus focused, many or even most Taken In Hand relationships involve no spanking, ‘discipline’ or ‘punishment’.

Taken In Hand is not about intolerance for others' choices in life. Not sharing others’ preferences is not the same as disapproving of them.

Taken In Hand is not about any particular politics (there are Taken In Hand people in all parts of the political spectrum, from the most libertarian to the most conservative) or religion (there are Taken In Hand Christians, Jews, Buddhists, pagans, Wiccans, agnostics and atheists, etc.); and Taken In Hand is not about being anti-feminist or indeed pro-feminist.

The Editor

Taken In Hand tour start | next

Comments

Bravo!!

I am so proud of you for writing such an outstanding description of Taken In Hand.
This site is so popular that I often read (elsewhere) of relationships where one of the partners is 'Taken In Hand'. The quote alone has taken off.

I would also like to give thanks to the great writers, the great readers and of course to you and the site owner.

For keeping this site a safe, sane and very readable for anyone with an interest in the so-called traditional or alternative lifestyle as it can be called both.

But mostly because it is richly filled with ideas, opinions and acceptance from those who may not even have the same point of view.

I'm sorry you have had criticism, but like all great publications, there will be criticism from those who have envy.

Bravo! Don't bow to ignorance.....Blush

Bravo indeed!

This is a wonderful definition of a vision which is both uniquely yours and shared by so many others.

As for critics, I think it's inevitable that one will get criticism, both constructive and deeply un-, from all quarters whenever one states a strongly held personal opinion, particularly if that opinion has any political dimension (cannons to the Left of you, cannons to the Right of you...). If you can tune out the ad feminem attacks, finding smart, interesting people to disagree with can be a wonderful way of helping define your own thinking and vision, as you've shown here in this "apologia pro sua blog."

Well Said...

Just remember that pioneers, innovators, and others with creative juices naturally find themselves on the forefront. Being in this position is risky—not the least of which is the risk of exposing yourself to criticism, naysayers and others who could never assume that role.

Just keep moving forward and the noise of the rabble becomes only a sound in the distance.

Sam (of Sam and Missy)

What Taken In Hand is About

Before I address what I feel "Taken In Hand" is All About I would
like to give the lot of you all a little background of why and when I became involved in Taken In Hand. I feel the need to do this as this is my first post ever.

First off my wife I and were high school sweethearts and tied the knot fresh out of school. We have had a very successful 30 year marriage. We have 3 children ages 27 to 13 and our 2 older children have blessed us with 3 very beautiful grandchildren.

Almost a year ago, my beautiful wife gave me her unconditional consent to take her in hand.

My compliments go out to all the writers on this web site, in particular because it helped GT come to terms with feelings that she had suppressed for 28 years. Once finding the Taken In Hand site it helped her realize that it was okay to crave the masculine-feminine dynamic that happens in Taken In Hand.

Once given consent I was looking for ideas. GT told me about this site, which by the way has some very inspirational, and helpful posts that are written by the male gender as well as the female gender. After reading several posts I came to the conclusion that the only way for me to be a successful head of the household was for me to make GT and this lifestyle my total focus and passion.

Taken In Hand has played a very big part in the success that GT and I have had. Never has our communication been so alive, never has sex been so erotic and steamy, never have we had so much confidence—I could go on and on but that would take a
totally differant post.

In closing I personally would like to thank Gary, Stephen, Random, Noone, and Frank for their posts. These have really helped a rookie make tremendous leaps.

'Live and let live' is what I always say. Taken In Hand has made such a possitive impact to GT and my relationship that I don't know why we didn't start it 28 years ago.

Respectfully, Race

Thanks for this site

And your comment was well stated Blush. I agree with all you said.

Those who criticize just aren't open to understanding anything beyond what they have been 'spoon-fed' to believe as normal.

Thanks for providing a site where open honest discussion can take place even though opinions and ideas may differ.

Well said, and thank you!

Thank you for providing and maintaining this site, well said for that article.

Now all you need do is get it printed on a rounders bat for the especially thick-skulled out there... ;-)

--

"There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so" Hamlet, somewhere.

Why not religion?

I am having some difficulty in understanding why you have included religion in your list of what taken in hand is not about. Perhaps you could clarify your reason(s). Although I understand that the discussion of religion can descend into an endless argument about interpretations of scripture, I do not think it is right to include it in your list of what taken in hand is not about.

I have never argued that the Bible supports a husband's right to spank his wife (neither does it forbid it). However, it does explain and support a husband's authority in marriage. Is that not a subject worthy of consideration for those of us who live in a taken in hand relationship? Much of what we practice and understand about marriage in the western tradition has its origins in Christianity and the Bible. If understood correctly, there are some passages which beautifully describe the union of a man and a woman. I can not be the only one who participates in the discussions on Taken In Hand who's taken in hand relationship has a basis in their faith.

Having said this, I have learned from past experience how controversial and divisive this subject can be. Nevertheless, just as some have discussed works of great literature, the Taming of the Shrew for example, I think it is wrong to suggest religious themes as being antithetical to a taken in hand relationship. If it is OK to reference Shakespeare, Freud, Ayn Rand, and many other worthy sources, why not religious sources?

Perhaps I am overreacting, but I am always put off by the bias that many secularists have toward religion, especially the Christian faith.

Unfortunately, many with little or no background in Christinaity, view it only in light of the American fundamentalists such as Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. Christianity is a very big tent which includes within it many points of view. Would you be so kind as to explain why you think Taken In Hand is not about religion. Thanks.

Stephen

Knowing when to plant does not always require an almanac

One of the BIG mistakes that opponents of taking women in hand have made is in the assumption that the authority of men emanates from a single religious text or even cluster of similar religions. The practice is much older.

It helps to think of biblical admonitions on patriarchal authority as a kind of old American-style farmer's almanac that includes planting tables.

One farmer faithfully believes the almanac and plants his seeds according to the table.

Another farmer does not own an almanac and believes them to be a waste of good money. Nevertheless, this farmer knows the local climate and the soil of his land. He plants his seeds when he senses the time is right.

Obviously, when both farmers plant their seeds within a few days of each other, the existence of the almanac only serves to provide assurance to the first farmer. Whether or not the almanac existed does not change the rhythm of life.

So it is with two husbands.

One believes that God has given him authority over his wife and exercises it. He can point to chapter and verse to justify his decision.

The other husband is of a different turn of mind. Having watched other marriages come and go, he senses that the time has come and takes his wife in hand with the same surety as the first.

Much the same thing can be said of two women. One, a godly woman, searches her Bible and believes that her husband should take her in hand. Another, though unchurched, feels herself straying from her husband and knows that decisive action on his part is necessary to preserve her marriage.

Whether from the husband or from the wife, whether from religious precepts or secular insights, the wisdom that something must be done flows from the depths of the soul. Reading a religious text did not cause the *need* in the respective marriages anymore than the almanac made the seasons of planting and harvesting.

Just as the farmer failing to heed either the almanac or the seasons finds himself in considerable difficulty at harvest, so does the husband devoid of either divine guidance or intuitive insight when his marriage grinds upon the rocks.

What I meant about religion

Hi Stephen,

It is perfectly fine to mention the relationship between your religion/faith and your Taken In Hand relationship. The only thing that is not acceptable is to use this site to promote a religious or political agenda. In other words, if it is on-topic for the site, I have no problem whatsoever with religious references. Indeed, if you go to the Quotations section, I have included a whole lot of quotes from the Bible, most of which I hunted down myself!

All I meant was that being religious is not a prerequisite for a Taken In Hand relationship. I certainly did not intend to imply that being religious is incompatible with a Taken In Hand relationship. I merely object to the contention by Taken In Hand critics that only religious people could possibly want a Taken In Hand relationship. If you can think of a succinct way to express that in the list, do let me know. I am very open to changing it.

Not necessarily about religion

I think that a rationale for "taken in hand" relationships can be based in science, just as easily as in religion. For example, a book by Steven Pinker called The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature looks at the evidence for much of human behaviour being innate. One chapter is specifically devoted to male/female differences and relationships. See: http://www.mit.edu/~pinker/slate.html

Some people might start from an assumption that male dominance was an evolved characteristic of humans and use this as the basis of their thoughts concerneing "taken in hand". Others might start from their religious beliefs about what God has ordained. Still others might view "taken in hand" as merely their personal preference, not having any wider general significance.

One of the interesting things for me about this site is to see there are different ways of experiencing "taken in hand" relationships. People here come up with different ways of explaining and understanding what is happening. I find it very helpful to consider these ideas as I grow in understanding of myself.

J

What it's about

It's a shame that there are so many misconceptions about a romantic inclination that so many men and women find so fulfilling. I hope the lists above go some ways towards clearing up any confusion; but I also know that when people have blinders on, they can be very hard to remove. Partly the prejudice is due to people just not being able to conceive of something unfamiliar; if they regard all masculine dominance as abusive, then they just have trouble imagining a relationship where that can be the epitome of love. It's also partly about how we use language, because it's so easy to think we're talking about the same thing, when we're really just using the same words to describe a very different thing.

Or sometimes we're using different words to describe the same thing; I think that may be going on here, to some extent, with words like "submission" and "bullying" and maybe "domineering." I've seen various D/s websites—especially MaleDom/femsub sites—that I can relate to in some degree. But from what I've read on this website, I feel it's the first one I can relate to so fully and completely; it's the first one that seems to fit so naturally and comfortably with my own inclinations. But I have no hesitation about describing myself as a sexually submissive woman. I can see how that's something that might be problematic, given that what I've seen described as 'submissive' on some other websites (D/s, bdsm, etc.) is more what I would call 'servile' and sometimes it does strike me as a lot of artificial posturing. (There's also a lot of men artificially posturing at being 'dominant'—but that doesn't negate the concept of real masculine dominance.) What I mean by 'submissive' is a deep, feminine, erotic desire to surrender to a strong, masculine man; it's a very authentic tendency, one that I could not repress or deny no matter how hard I tried. So I'll probably continue to use the word 'submissive' here, with that understanding.

And I think I can understand and appreciate the distinction that The Editor is trying to make here between authentic masculine dominance versus 'bullying' or 'domineering' behavior. But it's also the case that I personally want, need and respond positively to a certain amount of what I would call harmless bullying. That is, I need to experience a certain amount of direct, intense, physical coercion from a man. I need to be physically dominated, overpowered, and even intimidated in order to bring out my submissive tendencies, and move me to a place of blissful feminine surrender. What that does not imply, however, is any real physical harm or injury. Nor does it imply that the man is inconsiderate of my needs and desires, or that he thinks that physical coercion is the answer to any and all issues in the relationship.

It just means that I need a man who enjoys using his masculine strength to overpower me, and I enjoy being overpowered, and so that happens on a regular basis in order to keep the erotic heat and desire alive in the relationship. But when it comes to settling issues like "where are we going to get the money to fix the roof and also pay for college tuition?"—then resorting to physical coercion is probably not the best strategy. But there are other, less urgent, matters in which I would welcome a man being somewhat domineering, or even engaging in a bit of harmless bullying.

As regards religion, and why this website (and the "Taken In Hand" concept) is not about religion, or about what 'God' says, I think there are some obvious questions to raise: "Which religion? Which God? Which sacred scripture?" We don't all follow the same religion or the same gods, obviously. The Editor alluded to this by saying that people of various religions can take part in a Taken In Hand type of relationship. I mentioned in a post on another forum topic that I'm a pagan myself—specifically, a Wiccan—and for me that is definitely relevant to my ideas about an ideal relationship between the masculine and the feminine. But someone from another religion will make those connections in very different ways, obviously. Spirituality and sexuality are deeply intertwined for many of us; but not in the same ways at all. But then, it's our differences that keep the discussion topics lively, eh?

- Dee

Misunderstandings

You are so right, Dee, about the way that people use language. I was in a newsgroup discussion some months ago and mentioned that I was sexually submissive. One person took this to mean that I was passive and non-responsive during sex. Of course, this was not what I meant at all.

J