Consent makes all the difference in the world

I went to visit a vanilla friend of mine the other day and she proceeded to tell me all about how controlling her boyfriend was. He is a friend also of Master and me. My friend said her b-friend had lots of rules like that she had to be home when arrived home from work, that he wanted the house clean and dinner ready also. He has a bedtime for them and he limits her time on the computer, etc.. etc..

She says that he doesn't get violent or anything when these things are not met but that he scolds her a little and stresses his rules. She also said that he is a very loving person and he tries his best to meet her needs. But she is finding the control thing to be abusive.

As she is telling me this I could not help to think about how much consent really means. What she finds abusive, others seek out. She has no idea as to how structured my daily life is. She doesn't know that I'm slave or that my master has lots of ‘rules’ for me also. But I consent to this; I live this happily. For my vanilla friend however, it is emotional abuse and domineering behaviour, because she doesn't consent to such things.

This got me thinking about the importance of consent. Feel free to comment.

servantDasha

Taken In Hand Tour start | next

Have you seen the following articles?
When rape is a gift
Is this really consensual?
Could you be a slave, owned, property?
Do you have a commanding presence?
The joy of the master-queen dynamic
The sexuality of ‘non-sexual’ dominance
My husband and I face the world as a team
Women want men who are more dominant
Who says you have to be submissive?
Acts of love

2005 May 13 - 07:10 | login or register to post comments | latest article | previous article | next article |

Conventional relationship?

It doesn't sound like a conventional relationship to me. Making all these bizarre rules for your partner sounds very unconventional. He expects her basically to do everything, cooking, cleaning etc (does he help in the house at all?), and in addition to that he has the cheek to tell her when she can go to bed, limit her time on the computer, scold her if she doesn't do exactly what he says? Why doesn't she tell him to get stuffed?

by Louise C on 2005 May 13 - 07:21 | login or register to post comments

Consent matters

The thing is, in a standard relationship both parties (or the ruling one..) have no knowledge about creative, consensual "abuse" and that it is found erotic by some people.
I know it, I have been ill-treated by my former partner who is completely conventional but still very domineering, abusive, destructive, emotionally disturbed.
Now I know the BIG difference between being obedient because of fear vs. of love. I cannot express how diferent it is!
I was ordered to cut off my links with friends, given new ones, not allowed to talk about him with anybody (incl. my a his family!) never allowed to talk about my successes in study (because he was a terrible student and failed), he changed my clothing style into a gothic-sluttish that I never liked (but I thought I am unattractive so I obeyed)...
in conclusion - discipline without consent is destructive while "discipline" with consent can be very enriching.
Anna (Prague, EU)

by Anna (Prague) on 2005 May 13 - 13:29 | login or register to post comments

Completely vanilla?

I had always thought that 'vanilla' meant normal, as in ordinary, bland, safe. There is nothing remotely normal about telling someone what time they can go to bed, how much time they can spend on the computer etc. And the way the person you described treated you, he sounds like a sadist, rather than someone 'vanilla', not safe at all. Enjoying making someone else suffer doesn't sound normal to me. He may not have been into doing kinky things in bed, but it seems to me a twisted kind of sexuality, certainly not normal. Can you be a warped, twisted sadist, and still vanilla? Raspberry ripple maybe, or possibly rum and raisin, but vanilla doesn't seem appropriate. I tend to think of myself as mint chocolate chip.

["Vanilla" is BDSM jargon for a person who is not BDSM or a non-BDSM-identified relationship. I ask people not to use this term on the Taken In Hand website. On this site, I suggest people use the word "conventional" or "regular" or "non-taken-in-hand", because that is what most people on this site mean. - Editor]

by Louise C on 2005 May 13 - 13:59 | login or register to post comments

Anna's post

I think what Anna's post points up is the difference not just between consent and the lack of it, but between the kind of misogynistic, negative control that some men want to exert over women, and the kind of positive dominance and leadership that characterises a Taken in Hand relationship. I don't know whether your ex's attitudes were related to his sexuality, Anna, but frankly I think it's pathetic for a man to want to isolate a woman socially and to reduce her achievements. What kind of man is that? A man who knows he's inferior to you and all your friends, I suspect, and unworthy of your love and respect.

Unfortunately, though, I've seen it before myself. So many women have abusive, awful partners. One woman told me once how her ex-husband's nickname for her was "Stupid" - and this was a woman with an Oxbridge degree. No wonder he was an ex.

This kind of thing brings me to a little epiphany, actually, realising that although sometimes I feel guilty and dodgy for wanting to seriously dominate a woman, my needs are very different from this unmanly nonsense. I want to don my Superman costume (even though I prefer the girls to wear the tights normally) and arrange for all these women to be taken in hand, so they can be bigged up into the fulfilled, loved, fabulous women they're entitled to be!

by Carl on 2005 May 14 - 00:18 | login or register to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.