Why being married beats playing the pickup game

If you have a lot of women you can get good at the psychology of pickup and for some men that's what they want. But for me as the dominant male in a Taken In Hand marriage, marriage is much more enjoyable.

When you're doing pickup, you have to act the way that works to close the deal, or the woman won't put out. The women are in control, not you. You're controlled by the women and by the game of pickup. You're not yourself, you're a performing circus monkey entertaining the woman and her friends with your carefully crafted stories and your props. It's unsatisfying. If you put on a good enough show, say the right things and make the right moves at the right time, you get the reward. If you don't, she doesn't put out. The women are in control, not you.

That's dissatisfying if you're a male that wants to be in control as I do.

Compare that with my situation now: with my wife, I don't have to put on a show or play the performing monkey to get what I want—I am being myself and have complete control over my wife—and she even likes it.

Why would I want to go against my dominant nature and be controlled by one woman after another when I can be myself and have real total control of a woman who wants me and enjoys being submitted by me—and who never says no to me? There's no comparison.

I never thought I'd ever have this much control of a woman but I do, and it's incredible. My wife is the best. Marriage to her is much more erotic than any number of one nighters. The sex is MUCH better, because I'm actually in control, and being in control is very relaxing for me. Pickup didn't give me the real control my dominant nature and sexuality needs. And besides, who wants to play the performing monkey all your life?


Taken In Hand Tour start | next


Huh? I am confused.

I think relationships are beautiful and are a great way to get to know someone over time, but what makes you think you have to be a performing circus monkey to hook up with multiple women?

Women also have sexual needs and for their own reasons, do not want to be in a relationship, just like some men.

In the game of pickup, it's the woman who control whether you ge

It's about control of sex. As a husband in a Taken In Hand marriage, whenever I want sex, I get it—immediately, and I don't have to use barrier protection. I'm in control.

When you're playing the pickup game and you want sex, you're meeting women you don't know, and they can say no. They're in control. To get them not to say no, unless you're a natural you have to put in effort to seduce them. Even if you meet a woman that will just have sex with you without you having to work to get her in the sack, you still have to meet her, and that takes time and work. And if you're bedding multiple women you need to use protection too if you want to avoid hiv, hepatitis, herpes, hpv etc. But most of the time if you're playing the pickup game you're not getting sex immediately you want it, like I do, it takes at least a few hours of work to meet the woman and close the deal, and until you get her in the sack you don't know for sure she won't say no. She's in control not you. It's very relaxing for me to know that if I want sex I can be doing it within seconds, not hours, and it's the best sex I've ever had in my life.


Casual sexual relations

I wish to second AverageJoe's quick words endorsing less-than-full-commitment sexuality. Just because a man/woman connection is not "everything" does not mean it is nothing. For those with some respect for serious religious thought I will point out that one of the chief uses of sexual intercourse, per Saint Thomas Aquinas, is to get to know one another. Relations have to get underway somewhere and that is more enticing prospect than endless garrulous chatfest. Many seem to think that a sexual gentlemen-start-your-engines somehow impugns the purity and meaningfulness of what a relation may become. Just what is so awful about lustful desire at the starting line? If one's awareness is nuanced and discriminating one's lust will seek out appropriate correlated "objects" of desire.

Not to impugn motives in turn, for I cannot know this for a certainty, but I cannot but speculate that there may be a note of Clintonian pandering in this sigh of relief of never again having to deal with those lovely comely honies so easily persuaded to spread their thighs. Who, I wonder, is peddling what to whom? And let us show a tad more gratitude and honor to those sweet-hearted girls who, when they become fond, are unable to hold themselves back. We men have to learn somewhere, for I pity the girl whose man comes to her in virginal ignorance.

I will take occasion to do a bit of combat with a sometimes strong tendency here to take significant jollies in how not like the "others" we are. Much of this is not without "what a good boy am I, mommy" blushing beaming pride. These external comparatives, be they against "pickup artists" or "wieners" or "little boys/not 'real' men" are normative and gratificatively ($100 for that latinizing atrocity) dead-ends. To put this in my quirky way, this is not unlike boys around a campfire, trading stories of their "conquests". The joy is taken not so much in the actual doing, but rather in what in my youth we would call a circle-jerk. In more modern and perhaps less polite times we call this: "pissing contest". There is always someone "better", always someone "worse". Best to attend to one's own resources and make do and make best usage of what you've got. The only ultimate "proof" in these proving behaviors is to make good and come across with your own stuff.

It is certainly lovely that you may now pop your committed darling in the ease of your lazy-boy wish. There is a different school of thought in this that says, if you are not constantly seducing that girl of your heart and desire, then you just ain't doing it right. And what is more manly joy than the girl of your fond exclusivity whose resistant needs occasion some firm insistent masculine persuasion. Now we're having some fun!

For those who will inevitably chide about promiscuity, venereal disease, sanitary precautions, I will simply note that some of the very worst betrayals in health risk can occur within the frame of "fidelity" where partners who in trust and certainty of the faithfulness of the other, abandon all health precautions and find themselves infected through the temptation of "It didn't mean anything" weaknesses.


Assumptions unfounded

My wife hooted with laughter when she read the multiple unfounded assumptions in the comment by VelvetHammer. She says I'm the least lazy guy she has ever met, and that I seduce her all the time, through persuasion, force, the penetration of my mind and body, and through many other things that excite both of us. She contrasts me with "guys without the desire or more likely ability to be committed successfully to one woman."


Re: Casual sexual relations

I come from a very different generation—one where commitment counted and a sense of duty was expected.

On the field of play, one remained committed to one's teammates regardless of win or loss. On, over, or even under the battlefield, one remained loyal to one's comrades regardless of personal cost.

Consequently, I carried the same level of commitment into marriage. Faithfulness was an expectation—as was dedication to the children that one fathered.

To use a woman and to assume no responsibility for her future welfare is the height of cowardice. It is the equivalent from fleeing in the heat of battle. Real men do not do it. They would rather die first.

[For the rest of this post, see this article.—The Editor]

The worth of marriage

Although JB's comments concerning premarital sexual relationships seems a bit harsh, he does get it right when it comes to the value of marriage. On a site dedicated to taken in hand relationships, one can not overstate the significance of marriage. Casual sexual relationships, no matter how sweet initially, can never reach the depth of knowing and trust that are the essential ingredients of a taking in hand marriage.

In their youth many a woman may behave promiscuously, but inside is always hopeful that he is the one. Yes, she may enjoy the heat of the moment, but ultimately will hope for more. To argue otherwise is a denial of reality. The man who is well beyond his youth and continues to use women to satisfy his ego and/or sexual appetite must suffer from a Peter Pan complex. Where is the honor in that? He can rationalize it all he wants arguing that he never found the right one, but perhaps the problem lies with him.

No matter how great casual sex may feel in the moment, it can never equal what a man feels when he commits himself to one woman. Simply because many marriages fail in the modern world says nothing about the worth of marriage. If it did, why do so many divorced men and women remarry? The problem lies not in marriage, but in the bad choices and/or lack of commitment of the people involved.

For the man who commits himself to one woman in the bonds of marriage, there are delights, sexual and otherwise, that the womanizer will never know.

Performing monkeys

When the point of a “pickup” is to get the woman to “put out,” the woman, acting as a “prospective employer,” is necessarily in charge. This isn't the start of a Taken In Hand relationship, or any other type of true emotional connection, instead it is more like a job interview, and for a very temporary position, at that. The man degrades himself in order to manipulate the woman. Ugh!

And to VelvetHammer:

I know how hard it can be when you are just starting to learn a language, so let me highlight for you the point of this site, in the words of The Editor:

A Taken In Hand relationship is a wholehearted sexually exclusive marriage in which, to the delight of both spouses, the man actively controls the woman.

The most important words to look up in your dictionary are “exclusive” and “marriage.”

This website is dedicated to discussing various aspects of Taken In Hand relationships, with the point being to understand and achieve them. We accept that other arrangements are preferable for other people, so we don’t need convincing in that regard, and belaboring that point just wastes our time.

But please feel welcome to return, once your English improves to the point of your being understandable, and if you can think of something sensible to say.

You could start to educate yourself by reading the articles on this site that describe the profound connections and experiences that are possible through this type of a relationship, and how this type of trust and willing vulnerability creates a bond that overwhelms the superficial allure of promiscuity.

Dominant or Circus Monkey

I believe that we are all dominant to some, while submissive to others. Strategy and/or choice, such as the willingness to perform like a circus monkey as a behavior to satisfy a need, want or desire is by no means a dominant strategy. Watch children, or animals, they too 'perform' for desired attention.
It is all about exploring who we are and where we fit in the overall scheme of things. For both men and woman there is huge comfort in knowing that the comforts we desire, are within our control.

"Huh? I am confused." Why? WHAT confusion?

I think relationships are beautiful and are a great way to get to know
someone over time, but what makes you think you have to be a
performing circus monkey to hook up with multiple women?

Personally, I think your idea of a "circus monkey" is what LIMITS you.

I choose NOT to be a "circus monkey". I CHOOSE to be who I TRULY AM!
And, apparently UNLIKE you, I choose NOT to "hook up with" multiple
women. THAT has NO appeal to me WHATSOEVER. I want ONLY one. I am NOT
so GRANDIOSE as to think myself ABLE to satisfy MORE than one, so why
should I waste my effort? TRULY, this philosophy of muliple women
makes NO SENSE to me. If I find MY TRUE MATCH, what care have I for
OTHER women? SHE satisfies me, SHE drains my desires so I have nothing
left, so what room have I for OTHER women? This line of reasoning
makes NO SENSE to me AT ALL.

Mike Starre

Different experiences


First, please lay off the allcaps stuff. It makes your posts unpleasant to read. It looks like shouting even if that is not your intention, because that is the generally accepted internet meaning of using allcaps.

JB never said that his experience and his found solution was for everyone. He was saying, for him, while relating his own experience for those whose experience may have been similar, he has found something that works for him and might work as well for some readers.


I agree with Mike Starre's conclusion but don't get why he thinks my "idea of a "circus monkey" is what LIMITS" me.


For JB (and your wife)

JB, I may be wrong but when I read Mike's piece, I felt he didn't seem to have seen the crucial three words 'with my wife' in your opening article. You were (in my view) quite clearly extolling the virtues of what is a beautifully fulfilling marriage for both of you and you were contrasting that with the jumping-through-hoops that you felt can be involved in getting to know a woman in the first place. Personally, I saw no other interpretation of what you said and, from a woman's point of view, it was refreshing and very nice to read.

You referred to seeing a woman with a group of friends and I can see exactly what you mean. I've never been into going out for drinks in a bigger group (except after concerts with a mixed choir who all know each other anyway), but if I had been, I can see it would be that much more difficult to meet eyes and click with a suitable woman who may be in that group. In a similar way, without the one-to-one intensity, I would probably assume that the man is more interested in the woman in the group who's doing the most flirting or who is dressed in the most, shall we say, provocative way. (It was not until finding this site that I realised that some men appreciate a soft and feminine look and don't want the tight jeans and plunging necklines that the media tell us are 'sexy'.) How can a woman who longs to live under the control of a loving husband put that across in that kind of group?

Very occasionally, I do sessions for large groups of primary teachers. These sessions require, alongside cogent argument, a certain element of "circus monkey" if they are to be successful and memorable. I wonder whether a dominant man watching me in action would recognise that off stage I would be absolutely thrilled to be silenced by a glance?

I wish you both every happiness.

Performing monkey

When i was young, I had sex with quite a lot of men, and i never required them to be performing monkeys in order to get it. Sometimes women want sex just for the fun of it, like men (contrary to popular belief, we don't all require to be in love first)

I think if you can find one person to have a fulfilling relationship with that's great, but I think it is possible to have sex with women without having to put that much stenuous effort into it. Some men possibly have to try harder than others, I suppose it depends on the man.

I think sex is more rewarding when it is with the person you love, but I don't think it necessarily requires less effort than having sex with multiple partners, in some ways I think it requires more, since you have to pay attention to your partner's needs and feelings, which isn't of such importance with a casual encounter.


Mating Dance

I whole heartedly agree with the notion that marriage, or a deeply committed relationship, is much more erotic than one night stands.

I think what tripped others up, and tripped me up on my first reading, was the assumption than women are holding all the power initially. Maybe I'm just the oddball but I've never felt like I had all the power when I was first dating or even flirting with someone. He's trying hard to impress me and I'm trying hard to impress him. We're both running around and "acting like circus monkeys"; it's kind of a mating dance. Both people are sizing each other up and trying to magnify their better qualities and assess if the person is worth pursuing.

I would just add to your post that the reason you may be more relaxed in marriage because all that figuring each other out is past those initial stages and there are explored roles you've slid into. There isn't all this guessing and worry, just ease and comfort from understanding each other and complementing each other in your relationship. I think you mean to express this but I don't see it clearly in your article.

-Katie H


I'm disappointed in the tone of this article and how the main focus is sexual access. I think it completely reduces the Taken In Hand relationship to something it isn't. I mean, with such a thought provoking and deep subject about why marriage is more fulfilling than casual flings, this is the best we could do? Talk about sexual access and focus on what it does for one individual rather than the couple as a unit? Make it seem like the major pro of this relationship is only the sex? I thought the point was to go beyond the sexual, which is a major part but not the CORE. You can argue all you want about how it's implied or hinted at, but as a stand alone article, this is almost degrading to the philosophies of a Taken In Hand relationship.

Personally, I won't give the time of day to men who were ever into the casual sex scene. I'll take the man who, from the start, realizes the power and depth of a true relationship. There is no bigger turn off than a man who plays the field and then wants the good girl as the last resort. He is already too ingrained with power games, parlor tricks, and a warped ego.

Not JUST sex...

Ms. Jade, I don't think JB was trying to say that sexual availability was the reason for getting married. I got the impression that he was more contrasting the quality of a married Taken In Hand sex life vs. a single sex life. There's a stereotype that, for men especially, getting married is the end to a good sex life. I think he's just trying to say that being in a comitted relationship has, in fact, improved his sex life.

And to everyone who says "Oh, some women are just looking for no-commitment sex," don't kid yourselves. The VAST majority of women want far more than casual sex. Even those women who claim they are just looking for a "good time" are generally just too afraid of failure or of looking "husband-hungry" to admit that they DO want someone who will be there through thick and thin. Instead, most girls think they should ACT like "good-time" girls, using sex to lure a man in, then try to convince the man (who may not be looking for marriage) to marry them. Frequently girls "forget" to take their pill, hoping that a baby will convince a man he's ready to settle down.

Please stop acting like women genuinely just want sex. It's NOT true, and a lot of women feel like they have to act that way to be "competitive" in their search for true love.

JB, you don't know what pick

JB, you don't know what pick up is. Pick up is not about acting like a circus monkey. It's about understanding the rules and follow them. Just like a Taken In Hand relationship is about understanding the rules and follow them. I'm using the term "rules" here loosely, as once you've internalized the rules, you don't follow them anymore. You become the rules, so to speak.

What makes a long term relationship better than picking up women every night is that a deep relationship with another human being is so fulfilling. No wonder many pick up artist end up in long term relationships after a while.