Why won't he spank me when he's angry?

Why won't he spank me when he's angry?

Why won't he spank me when he's angry?

Why won't your husband spank you when he is angry or annoyed? Well, there could be a lot of reasons, but one of the most basic may be the fact that men have to overcome a lifetime of conditioning that tells us that it is wrong to hit our wives in anger.

Our dads told most of us that hitting girls/women is wrong—not just wrong under certain circumstances, wrong, wrong, wrong.

So, for a man to spank you erotically (as foreplay), he probably had to put aside a deeply held moral conviction. That's not an easy thing to do.

And that's only the first layer of wrongness.

The second layer comes when a wife asks her husband to go beyond erotic spanking and discipline her. Now, he is being asked to hit his wife when she does something wrong. When she somehow "needs" it or has "earned" a spanking. This not only goes against the "hitting women" rule, it turns him into something that most of us call a wife-beater.

If he's old enough to remember The Honeymooners or other television/movies of the nineteen-fifties, he probably associates wife-spanking with the kind of loathsome creature who thinks he's "better" than a woman. Those are the men of his grandfather's generation who hit their wives "because they deserved it" or "because she asked for it".

Those men were despicible bastards—neanderthals that we are ashamed to have in our ancestry.

In today's world, those are the kinds of men that other men take out behind the barn (or behind the tavern) and teach a lesson to. (The lesson being: You don't hit women and you most certainly don't hit your wife).

Those of us who post here have come to understand that there is a difference between wife beating and disciplinary spanking. But that understanding often comes as a result of a long hard look in the mirror and a deep re-thinking of our understanding of women.

It isn't easy to get to the point of disciplining a woman.

Furthermore, even if your husband is somehow able to get past both of those “don't ever do this” rules that are deeply ingrained into his conscience, you are now asking him to take a third step: to spank you in anger.

This request is reminiscent of Alice in Wonderland (“... believe three impossible things before breakfast”).

Not only is he supposed to hit a woman—and punish his wife as if she were a child—now he's supposed to do it when he's angry.

To understand why this is even more difficult, let's consider another basic thing about men: Men learn how to control their anger. That's one of the things that differentiates men from boys and from animals. If you can't control your anger, you aren't a man. But, for some of us, it's not that easy.

Male anger is a strong thing—a very difficult thing to control. For some of us, the best we can do is to shut down or withdraw when we are angry. It isn't the best level of control, but for some of us, it's all we have.

Asking a man to spank you at a time when he is angry requires him to engage his anger, rather than shut it down. You are asking him to wrestle with it and somehow maintain control of himself at the same time...

... while he is hitting you, and violating the other two most basic rules of life as a man.

And what if he fails? What happens if he releases his anger on you and spanks you—allowing himself to inflict his anger on your body—and he is unable to rein it in?

What happens when you scream at him to stop in the middle of his fury when he is hitting you too hard—when you suddenly realize that his anger is more than you can stand?

What happens, is that he loses you. You go screaming home to your mother, file for divorce, have him arrested for beating you, and he ends up in jail—or at least that's what he fears will happen. Note that he isn't really afraid of you (nor your mother). He's afraid of the power of his own anger.

I presume you are asking him to spank you with some of his anger, not all of it. I presume that you want him to have control while he is doing it, rather than just letting go and giving you everything he has. Sure, that's possible, but it ain't easy—especially for someone who has never done it before.

It isn't something that most of us practice doing. We aren't supposed to hit people when we're angry—and we aren't supposed to hit women at all. So hitting a woman with some of our anger—and keeping it under control—Good Grief! Nobody told us that we had to learn how to do that! (There are exceptions: boxers, soldiers, police officers etc.)

How do you get your husband past all of this? Here's one suggestion: talk to him at a time when he isn't angry and discuss something that is kind of a pet peeve of his. Tell him that you know that your behavior in some area annoys him and that you would like to use it as a test case.

Tell him you want him to spank you the next time you make him mildly annoyed.

Since it will be a pet peeve and not a major issue, it should allow him to wrestle with anger on a small scale (otherwise referred to as “annoyance”). If you frequently burn the toast at breakfast, that's probably a good choice. It's annoying. It's worth a good spanking and a lecture about paying attention, but it isn't something that most of us get furious about.

If he is willing to try out his anger on you over a small annoyance, it will give him a taste of what it can be like to spank you when he is truly angry over something more important—and it will give you an idea of what to expect if he does choose to express real anger in a spanking.

I was surprised when my wife told me that she wanted to feel my anger. I told her that she didn't know what she was asking for. But she wanted it. She insisted.

And I gave it to her.

But she made it easier for me: she was asking me to scold her, to yell at her, not to spank her. Even so, I hurt her badly (emotionally) and sent her crying into another room. (Trust me, when I scold, I do a damned good job of it).

She came back in, five minutes later, and hugged me and thanked me. I'm not so sure that would have been the result if I had spanked her in anger.

If you really want your husband to spank you in anger, please make sure you understand what you are asking for, and please figure out some way of doing it in small stages.

Men's anger was designed to be lethal. It was designed for killing—for those times when a bear is attacking you or when a gang of rapists is after you—for those moments in history when the really bad guys invaded our homeland, intent on destroying us. We modern men don't face those situations much anymore. We don't get a lot of practice in legitimate uses of anger.

Asking us to use our anger on you with the kind of delicate finesse that you require (i.e. a spanking, not a beating) is asking an awful lot.

Remember that you are asking your man to do something that (hopefully) his father told him he was never supposed to even think about doing.

When my wife and I moved to actual spanking in real anger, we found a way of handling it. But it took us years to get there.

Why won't your husband spank you in anger? Quite possibly because he has a long path ahead of him to reach a point where he can do it without losing his soul in the process.

Oh, by the way, it took me 18 years to begin to understand that my wife wanted me to use my anger on her. It took an additional six or seven years to get to the point of spanking her (physically) in anger.

CarlF

previous | FAQ index | next

Taken In Hand Tour start | next

[This is an answer to a frequently-asked question: this page is part of the FAQ. Please try to ensure that your post is answering the question or discussing the above post. The question is: Why won't he spank me when he's angry?]

Comments

Thanks for an insightful article!

CarlF, thanks so much for another wonderful and insightful look into the workings of a Taken In Hand relationship! Just as the workings of a woman's mind are sometimes difficult for a man to comprehend, so are the mysterious workings of a man's heart and soul—and you have captured for us the essence of the struggle over protecting and disciplining your woman without allowing your anger to harm her. Women long for a strong, "manly" man to take charge, but sometimes we forget that the very characteristics we seek can be a double-edged sword.

It is a wise woman who knows that learning patience and not pushing her man to do something he is not ready for can be the thing most needed to allow their relationship to grow.

Perfect

Carl, you have explained it wonderfully and accurately.

When going through my divorce, I had two 'professionals' telling me about anger management even though I had never done anything more than shout at my unfaithful wife. That's how it is for a man: anger = bad.

I am learning to physically discipline but still will not do so in anger. Using physical force when angry still seems to me to be an act of aggression and I can not see how I, the protector, may allow myself to become an aggressor.

Douglas.

Thank you

Thank you, Carl, for helping me to understand. This is something we have discussed, but that I couldn't quite see where he was coming from. You are right—I really don't think I want him to spank me with his FULL anger. I only want that little bit of it that I have earned at that particular point in time, and likely could only handle that much. And that may be a very difficult thing for him to do.

The release of the tears that come from a spanking are wonderful, cathartic and good for both of us—now I see how the anger that could be utilized might also be terrifying for both of us. If we ever reach that point where he does spank in anger, it will be a long way down the road, and it will be a road very carefully traveled.

Another suggestion

Carl offered an excellent suggestion for learning to deal with the central issue, which is how to engage anger in a controlled way, instead of suppressing it or losing restraint altogether.

Asking a man to spank you at a time when he is angry requires him to engage his anger, rather than shut it down. … you are asking him to spank you with some of his anger, not all of it. … to have control while he is doing it, rather than just letting go and giving you everything he has.

As Carl said, anger is difficult to control, and some deal with the danger by shutting down or withdrawing.

This isn’t the best approach, because it doesn’t give a woman the type of resolution that she needs, it causes feelings of abandonment, and so on. Nevertheless, it is possible to use it as the first step to something better.

The most important point for a man to recognize is that once you can control yourself and not fly off into a rage you have already passed the most difficult test. The next step is to put your anger into its proper context and within a boundary, and that is much easier.

You can choose to seethe or you can ask yourself the three “why” questions that illuminate the cause and suggest solutions: Why are you angry? Why did she behave in that way? Why does that cause exist?

An honest answer to the third question should place an upper bound on your anger since, in one way or another, by commission or omission, you are partially at fault, at least for allowing it to get to that point. (Nevertheless, for reasons discussed in many articles on this site, this doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t spank her.)

As soon as you start to think, you are no longer just “feeling your feelings.” Thinking is not the same as suppressing, and it won’t cause your anger to evaporate (it will still be “real”). But it should cause your anger to diminish to a still active but controllable level. And it will also allow you to visualize what you should say and do.

Visualizing the spanking from beginning to end is essential, because doing so will allow you to anticipate (and mentally interact with) her reactions and, most importantly, you will create a behavior template for yourself. This complete mental rehearsal should create an almost automatic restraint when you approach the limits, in real life, that you have already set and experienced in your mind.

Learning to control the situation in this way might take a while the first few times, but then it will become second nature and occur very fast.

The time it takes.

Both John and Carl talk about the time it takes. This site can sometimes be like a home improvement show...where you watch a house be remodeled in an hour. I think it is very good to remember that all of this does take time. Also, I like the fact that both men talk about doing small test. Letting out a little anger on ones wife. Then stepping back and re-evaluating how that went. I remember the first time my husband was able to let out on me in this way. It helped me to go back and remember all of the warnings he threw at me just before it. Now, even when I am being emotional...I am able to hear the warnings better and curb my behavior before we get to that point.

But I would have never know the need to listen while being emotional if he had continued to close up and walk away. Showing me once...what he was really feeling when he sends out those warning...helped me learn so much about him. I think what our husbands do not realize is that it is better in our minds to know the real man we are living with...then to all ways get the cold controlled shoulder. Then we can work on making each other less mad, together.

Undiminished Anger

My initial comment about spanking with "some" of your anger would (as John suggested) serve as a first step.

John makes a good point in his followup:

You can choose to seethe or you can ask yourself the three “why” questions that illuminate the cause and suggest solutions: Why are you angry? Why did she behave in that way? Why does that cause exist?

An honest answer to the third question should place an upper bound on your anger [...]

As soon as you start to think, you are no longer just “feeling your feelings.” Thinking is not the same as suppressing, and it won’t cause your anger to evaporate (it will still be “real”). But it should cause your anger to diminish to a still active but controllable level. And it will also allow you to visualize what you should say and do.

This would be a good "intermediate" step.

Taking steps like this with my wife got us closer to where she wanted to be. However, those beginning and intermediate steps still had to be followed up with more.

She could see that my anger was controlled, lessened by my process of thinking about it, and that "diminished" anger was not enough for her.

She wanted my anger undiluted and undiminished. She wanted it now, in the moment.

I was only prepared to give that to her after I saw that she was able to handle the earlier, diluted phases.

Now, (actually a couple of days ago for the first time) I am able to spank her before asking myself "Why?" and, in fact, I am able to use the spanking as part of the process of understanding the anger.

That allows her to be part of the process. It allows her to feel it before I reign it in. It allows her to feel the raw power of it—the kind of power that I would use "in the moment" if she ever needed to be protected from some kind of imminent danger.

It also allows her to feel safe in the knowledge that she could handle it if I ever did lose control of the intensity of my anger.

A few observations

I agree that a woman who wants to feel her man’s anger does tend to want it “undiluted and undiminished … and now.”

But she, at most, wants to feel appropriate anger in its undiluted and undiminished form.

The type of anger that is reasonable to direct toward your woman, even when undiminished, is still extremely diluted in comparison to anger that CarlF likened to “protecting her from some kind of imminent danger.” (But anger in that situation would likely be of a different type and intensity, and quite possibly counterproductive.)

And anger within a relationship should never have anything in common with what is experienced while dealing with imminent danger. The autonomous fear response and adrenaline rush, the uncertainty of not being in control of the situation and the necessity of rapidly choosing and acting on the least undesirable option with incomplete information while under threat are the opposite of how a man who is in charge, who is in control, should react toward his woman.

I mentioned the visualization technique in my earlier comment as a simple and practical way to learn to transform anger in a constructive way. It is a way to control the situation by experiencing and limiting your behavior in advance, rather than allowing events to choose themselves and spiral out of control.

Also, notice that “thinking” has been used in different ways.

For example, one idea is that you shouldn’t overanalyze an incident to the point of starting to resolve it in you mind, because then you become less able to resolve it on her bottom, which would be the most constructive way at a certain stage in some Taken in Hand relationships, and which may require taking it beyond where she thinks the limits should be.

(This is an example of consensual non-consent (discussed on other threads), which is appropriate only with a self-aware woman who has integrity (one who doesn’t change her mind after the fact and isn’t vindictive), and which should first be made clear in the minds of both, and then made explicit once (and then assumed to be ongoing, unless terminated during a neutral discussion). An explicit understanding is a necessity in the current social environment, and it makes everything more real, since it eliminates guessing games, uncertainty and hesitancy.)

Another non-conflicting idea is that you must analyze yourself sufficiently so that you don’t go beyond where you think that the limits should be. This necessary self-check should verify that your mindset won’t lead to unintended consequences and that, for example, you are not on a path to rage. This is especially important if you feel betrayed in some way, instead of merely angry about some impersonal event.

If you read CarlF’s article The final step, which he references implicitly, you will see that he actually modulated his behavior significantly. And notice that she had refused to help him when he needed her, so he was probably also hurt rather than just annoyed. He handled this well, since this is a condition under which anger can easily spiral out of control.

There wasn’t any disproportionate anger or unthinking rage, a quintessential example of which is dropping a weight on your foot and then breaking your hand by punching a wall.

He first comprehended his anger (through a thought process that has become second nature, unnoticed and fast), and then used the spanking and interplay with his wife’s immediate feedback as part of the process of resolving his anger, and of understanding his wife and their relationship, which their interaction partially redefined. This allowed him to realize that his wife had been trying to move him, and not to hurt him.

His thinking, in this context, has become a form of instantaneous referencing, because he invested four years in observing and thinking in great detail about his wife and their relationship.

With respect to the original article, there is also another possible cause of sulking and disproportionate anger. I think that a man who throws temper tantrums doesn’t actually see himself as the leader in his relationship, and is afraid that this will become evident. Self-indulgent anger always seemed to me to radiate resentment at not being “given” control or “allowed” to be a man.

A man who is truly in charge knows that he has the power to guide or stop anything in its early stages, or whenever he chooses, in any way that works for them. This is why, in my earlier comment, I said that he is always partially at fault if a situation reaches an unacceptable level.

Even men who are lucky enough to be, as Alba said on another thread, “adored, respected and trusted by women who don't cross boundaries and are simply in hand without the need to be taken there” should still overtly take control whenever conditions inside or outside of the relationship start to become unstable, and do so in a way that is worthy of that adoration, respect and trust.

Whenever both people are willing to invest enough time and energy in a relationship, then anger tends to becomes self-limiting. The more the two of them care for and connect with each other, the more layers they create that naturally moderate anger.

And relationships with very little anger can also be extremely passionate and emotionally and physically intense. Feelings aren’t suppressed, but when two people are actively looking for ways to engage with each other and to make each other happy, many causes of anger are inevitably swept away.

Anger is neither the same as passion nor necessary for it, so don’t assume that you are missing out on anything if you are delighted with each other most of the time and can’t help showing it. (An added bonus is that you get to drive the “usual suspects” crazy.) ;-)

Apart from the issue of anger itself, some of the ingrained doubts mentioned in the original article will dissipate as a man begins to understand the different positive effects that a spanking can have on a woman. These effects are discussed in many articles on this site, and I summarized some of them in the first comment on Looking for insight.

I think that the successful scolding that CarlF did as a first step is actually the more difficult option, because it is very easy to say something that means a lot more than you actually intended or even realized. And cutting words can’t be unsaid and can destroy the emotional foundation of a relationship.

Women tend to be much more sensitive to nuance and interpretation, even in a calm conversation. So just imagine the damage that a man could create by accidentally blurting out thoughts that he shouldn’t have been suppressing, using nasty words that don’t actually describe how he feels.

And I think that a woman who wants to know her man by connecting emotionally with him, through physical interaction when he is angry, is unlikely to need any “earlier, diluted phases.”

Assuming, of course, that her man carefully minimizes the possibility of doing any real damage, understands her, and has self-control (as a protective undercurrent that separates what would help her from what would hurt her, and not as a form of “emotional nonexistence”).

He must also understand the situation at hand (which, in a familiar relationship, tends to require at most a few moments of reflection). Otherwise, he may discover too late that he has misunderstood or misinterpreted, and acted on half-baked assumptions, which isn’t the hallmark of a trustworthy leader. (And this is not the same as the issue of “fairness” that has been discussed on other threads.)

When connecting through anger, the physical sensation is secondary to the emotional interaction, and a man may not have fine control over details (like how long and how hard) so, until he gains experience and receives feedback from his woman, he should use only his hand.

It is impossible, for almost everyone, to injure a healthy woman by smacking the lower part of her bottom, and even her thighs, with an open hand. And the physical connection of his hand directly on her skin can lead to a more intense emotional response.

But the first step should always be to understand, truly understand, his woman. And to always remember one of the best descriptions of how a man should strive to make his woman feel (from Toms Pookie, on another thread):

But I always knew I was safe, too. It was always safe to be wrong and imperfect in my husband's arms.

John has it right

I think John's writing ability is much better than mine. He is doing a better job of saying a lot of what I was attempting to say in the first place.

In addition, he has some insight that I would like to call attention to:

If you read CarlF’s article The final step, which he references implicitly, you will see that he actually modulated his behavior significantly. And notice that she had refused to help him when he needed her, so he was probably also hurt rather than just annoyed. He handled this well, since this is a condition under which anger can easily spiral out of control.

There wasn’t any disproportionate anger or unthinking rage, a quintessential example of which is dropping a weight on your foot and then breaking your hand by punching a wall.

He first comprehended his anger (through a thought process that has become second nature, unnoticed and fast), and then used the spanking and interplay with his wife’s immediate feedback as part of the process of resolving his anger, and of understanding his wife and their relationship, which their interaction partially redefined. This allowed him to realize that his wife had been trying to move him, and not to hurt him.

His thinking, in this context, has become a form of instantaneous referencing, because he invested four years in observing and thinking in great detail about his wife and their relationship.

This is very true.

Four years ago, I would not have been able to go through the "unnoticed, second nature and fast" process to comprehend my anger in the moment. I would have needed to withdraw for a while or to talk about it with her.

This is something that women need to understand about their men if they want them to express anger "in the moment": How sophisticated is his anger management?

A lot of us didn't learn how to do that kind of thing as we were growing up. We learned to bottle it, withdraw and handle it alone.

Being able to talk about it or express it in some other way might require a man to develop skills he does not currently have. Developing those skills takes time.

I think that the successful scolding that CarlF did as a first step is actually the more difficult option, because it is very easy to say something that means a lot more than you actually intended or even realized. And cutting words can’t be unsaid and can destroy the emotional foundation of a relationship.

Yes. This is an "anger management skill" that I developed early on in life. A man who does not have a nuanced ability to verbally hurt "just enough" could cause irreparable harm.

Being able to spank in anger requires a similar nuanced ability to hurt "just enough" with a hand, and that is a skill that I had to develop.

Women tend to be much more sensitive to nuance and interpretation, even in a calm conversation. So just imagine the damage that a man could create by accidentally blurting out thoughts that he shouldn’t have been suppressing, using nasty words that don’t actually describe how he feels.

I have 20+ years of experience as a public speaker. To me, expressing anger (or anything else) with the spoken word is second nature. I sometimes forget how difficult that is for most people.

And I think that a woman who wants to know her man by connecting emotionally with him, through physical interaction when he is angry, is unlikely to need any “earlier, diluted phases.”

Assuming, of course, that her man carefully minimizes the possibility of doing any real damage [...]

And there's the rub (so to speak).

I never in my wildest imagination expected that I would need to develop the skills to hit someone and cause varying degrees of damage. To me, hitting was something I would do in self-defense. In that situation, the goal is to disarm and disable.

It is impossible, for almost everyone, to injure a healthy woman by smacking the lower part of her bottom, and even her thighs, with an open hand.

Oh! Now you tell me! :)

It took me two+ years of carefully escalated spankings to learn that.

My prior experience with spanking was on the receiving end as a child. To me, spanking was a dangerous activity—something that caused life-long emotional damage.

Obviously, the effect on an adult is much different from the effect on a child, but one still needs to be careful.

In summary, there are a number of skills that man has to bring to the table in order to be able to spank in anger, primarily the ability to evaluate and modulate anger in real time, the ability to modulate the physical pain of a spanking and thorough knowledge of the woman.

right!

Carl I understand totally, if my husband wants to "come down" before he spanks me. It is first his fear to hurt me seriously and second wouldn’t it fit in his ritual to hug me before spanking, to stroke and to tell me that he really really loves me and everything will be fine and forgiven after the spanking.He forgot this, his own rule just one time and I looked like a pavian afterwards, bruised all over staying in every colour of the rainbow for more than a week. Happend in summer and we could not go out swimming, because the marks were not covered by the swimsuits. I felt the punishment was correct but he was
upset about it. To live taken in hand should be good for both—and so I accept his refusal and his decision to wait, if he feels too mad about my behaviour.

Thanks CarlF.

Thanks CarlF.

S does not spank me when he is fully angry. He might be annoyed and spank me, but when he is angry at something I have done, he doesn't touch me. He collects himself first and spanks me at a later time. Now granted the spanking is severe because it IS a discipline spanking. That being said, S is significantly stronger than me and bigger than me, so if he hit me with all his anger, it would be tantamount to a beating—not a spanking.

We have discussed this—because I used to think when he was boiling and went into another room to compose himself that I was off the hook. It took a while for me to figure out that he has a memory like an elephant and once he is angered over something I have done, I will get spanked. It may take a while—depending upon what I did, but he'll get to it. He has told me that he will not hit me when he is not in control of himself because he knows he could do damage & that isn't the goal.

Anger and strong men can lead to a severe conclusion, so any woman asking a man to spank in real anger should be prepared for severity.