You talked about the ping pong style fighting followed by make-up-sex. In our Taken In Hand relationship, we have replaced the ping-pong fighting and make-up-sex with, preventative spanking and pre-talk-sex.

What I mean is, any start of a fight results in a spanking, which usually puts us in the mood for what is essentially make-up-sex. However, the difference is, we do not say the hurtful thing that a ping-pong fight always eventually leads to. The sex helps to relieve the aggression, that in turn helps us talk better. The important thing is not to forget, that this is pre-talk-sex. You have to make sure that you do not forget to have the discussion afterwards. But I am usually in a better mood, and remembering that he is head of the household.

Alleister wrote:

I must say that this all confuses me a lot. I have always tried to be a gentleman... i always tried to grant my partner in a relationship the same rights and duties... i was always willing to do my part in the household... i was always the person female coworkers wanted to work with at my company, because i did not treat them any different from my male coworkers.

That some women might actually have expected the opposite behavior from me is pretty shocking.

Maybe I'm off here, but I think most taken in hand women do want to be treated that way. That's the big misconseption. My husband is a gentleman & treats me with respect. He helps out around the house & is respected in the workplace by men and women alike.

Just because we like the control, doesn't mean we want to be treated with any less respect or treated as a maid.

As far as the churches go, I don't think I'm strengthening their position at all. Taken in hand women do have equal rights. In fact we are the ones who gave our husbands the right to lead us to begin with. Not the other way around. Taken in hand is not something that is imposed. If it is, then it's abuse. There's a big difference. I think many taken in hand women would agree that they do, in fact, feel respected by their husbands. If we didn't, we wouldn't be in this type of relationship.

Dynomite

Taken in hand women do have equal rights. In fact we are the ones who gave our husbands the right to lead us to begin with. Not the other way around. Taken in hand is not something that is imposed. If it is, then it's abuse. There's a big difference.

But that is not the point... the point is, if woman indeed want to be controlled it is right to control them. That is what is strengthening sexist points of view.

Of course controlling someone doesn't have to be in a disrespectful way, but spanking someone is indeed something that i would consider disrespectful. After all, that puts me in a position that implies the person i punish isn't capable to decide for herself.

"spanking someone is indeed something that i would consider disrespectful. After all, that puts me in a position that implies the person i punish isn't capable to decide for herself."

If spanking is not something one is wired for it could, and probably would, be seen as disrespectful. If people knew I was spanked I would be embarrassed so I guess in a way it is not surprising that you see it as disrespectful. The act in itself is something that has connotations of punishing an errant child. I think what needs to be seen is what lies behind the action when applied to adults who choose it. It is not that my husband believes that I am unable to decide for myself. It is that we have decided this is how it suits us best to deal with a problem. Spanking is something that I have found calms me so if I'm getting too het up it can give me a release and allow us to solve the existing issue constructively.

There seem to be distinct features attending Taken In Hand relationships that almost every accidental visitor finds outraging. Maybe it would be useful to make a list of them and explain each of them how it should be understood to avoid recurrent exasperated posts and comments. I think such list would be on a fore place of this site. Yes, there is the "New to this site?", but I think it is too modest. I think it should be of a form guarding against hostility. Too many accidental visitors read a fragment, spit their disgust and never come again.

Hali

One reader wrote:

"...However if you've given your husband 'technically' that right (on the assumption that he would not do it anyway :)) this is not enough to make your relationship male-controlled. Frankly, I can't understand from your article what makes your relationship male-led."

Giving him the right to her body isn't the only thing Sully & her husband have going for them here. In her first paragraph she says she does what here husband says. Just because he isn't demanding, doesn't mean it's not a male-controlled relationship.

Our relationship is very similar. In fact, most people would be shocked to discover we were in a taken in hand relationship. It appears very "normal" from the outside. I have just as much say in things as my husband does. The only difference is, if we disagree (which is very rarely) he gets the final vote.

If I want to go out with friends, I ask him if he minds. Likewise, if he wants to do something, he asks me if I mind. We show mutual respect for each other.

My husband also demands very little of me. But make no mistake, if they aren't met, he'll take action!

He wants me to be strong and have opinions on things. What fun would it be if I suddenly became this submissive little mouse of a wife that blindly followed him around? He has a dog already. He needs to be challenged just as I do.

I guess I'm confused on the reader's view of how taken in hand relationships "should" be. I see strong, assertive women all over this site. It isn't a D/s site. The women here are very strong, free thinking women.

Taken in hand comes in all shapes and sizes. Read on...

Dynomite

However your assumption that the husband's "right" to his wife is assumed is not in line with modern politically correct feminism. It is the fact that "no means no" is drilled into the minds of young people everywhere

I believe in "no means no" as strongly as any "politically correct feminist". I think that sex should be based on mutual consent, and if one partner doesn't consent that's a strong enough reason not to have it.

However it is natural to want sex and to feel frustrated if you don't have it when you want it. I think that marriage or any other close relationship that includes sex is based on assumption that partners care about feelings and frustrations of each other. So when the wife just says no to the husband (or vice versa) and does not even care to explain why she is hurting him that way, she acts as if his feelings, desires and frustrations were not important to her. I believe that it is utterly abusive.

I think that she has a final say about the way her body will be used, just as he has a final say about the way his body will be used. But if she does not want sex and does not consent to it despite his desire, she should frankly explain to him why she took such decision. (And vice versa, if he does not consent to sex he should frankly explain his decision.) And she should be prepared to discuss her decision in case he insists on such discussion (unless, of course, there are some circumstances that preclude such discussion).

That's my point of view on "sexual ethos".

if I think I am better off doing my own thing, I am wrong.

So, if you were doing your own thing you would be even worse off because of his disciplinary action? Is it correct paraphrase of your statement? ;)

Protect me against what? Well for one thing, people who try to tell me that I have the right to deny my husband sex. This in turn protects him from the abuse of having his wife say no. And in case you where not sure, sex can be very controlling. It is all in how it is done.

But why do you need protection against people who tell you that you have right to something? Well, they are not cops trying to arrest you, are they? :)

And why do you think that if you believed that you have the right to deny your husband sex you would use that right? Maybe you secretly resent "how it is done" ;)

Flipping a coin feels like a fight. In it you seek an arbitration, not a consent. When I submit to my husband's decision, I am consenting to him and connecting us. I also value his responsibility for our concern, his willingness to bear consequences. My and my family's well being is in his hands and this is great. Thanks he likes it.

Newer were we so connected then now.

Hali

I agree with "no means no" in the early stages of a relationship, before consent is established. I too am proud to be a working, equally payed in my field, feminist. So my point, in my statement is more to the effect of how these thing have put stumbling blocks in marriages. Some women will continually tell their husband "NO", without offering a reason. I think the least a women should do for her husband if she is busy or not in the mood, is plan on a time when they can get it together. Call it a date if you will. If nothing else, a stay home in bed together date.

However, I have found that when I tell myself that I need to say "YES", the things that use to get in the way, go away. Do I really need to finish all the chores right now, when he is obviously in need of some attention. Believe me the chores will always be there. I want to make sure he is always there for me. Not that I fear him running off, just that it is my chief concern as his wife, to keep him happy. The number one reason married men go to prostitutes, is that there wives do not put out. I want my man to come to me when he need some action. If I keep saying "NO" he might give up. But his needs are not going to go away.

As for her having the final right for how her body is used. I would not deny any women that right. However in the contests of a marriage, it might be interesting, from time to time, to give up that right. There might be new and interesting things a married couple can discover if they would just let go of there preconceived ideas of what sex is supposed to look like. If you are into that kind of thing. ;)

What I mean about me not being better off doing my own thing, is similar to not thinking about his feeling when it comes to things like my work schedule and the amount of money I spend. It is not in my best interest, because it could hurt the trust established in our relationship. At this point in time, he pays the bills. This job has changed hands several times in our marriage. However, right now he is the one that knows what bills need to be payed when. If I where to go shopping, on pay day to get a new outfit for myself, that might at first seem like a good idea. Until I talk to my husband about the fact that he is still paying for the car repair from last month. (Just an example.) So it is not a good idea for me to do whatever I want. It would hurt our finances. Like wise, if I take a job with complete opposite hours as his because it is something I want, that would not be good either. The truth of the matter is, he does make more then me. So in order to stay connected in our relationship I work similar hours to his.

So where is the control in that? It sounds normal and healthy. The kind of things all married couples go through. The control is in the fact that I give him the power to end the fight before I push him in to a detrimental diction. He has the power to end a fight before it gets out of hand. Sometimes it looks normal. "Hon, I do not think that is a good idea right now, I have other bills to pay." Sometimes he has to suppress my emotions. "Hon, I said no, and that is final." Or the last straw, with consequences. "When I am done with you, you will take that back to the store." We do not get to level three very often. The art of control, is a man knowing how to communicate with his wife in a way that lets her know when he means business. This keeps him from getting hurt, and keeps me informed of what is going on.

So why do I need protection from other people's opinions? There are people out there that would not take the time to notice that I am happily in love with my husband. They might only look at one aspect of my relationship and assume that I am abused. They might not even look at my relationship at all. They might simply say, spanking is abuse, period. This is so far form the case that I do not even like wasting my time on this point. So let me just say, it hurts my feeling to have people assume that the man I love so much with all my heart and all my life is an abuser. So he is not really protecting me per say. He is helping me deal with the feeling I get when others judge our lifestyle.

Lastly, I know I have the right to deny him sex. That is kind of a non-point. Why would I want to? I do not resent how he does it. I picked him because of how he does it. I would not settle for anything less.

> I do not think I would like to trust decisions to fate
> if we cannot decide on the best course of action I would
> rather trust my husband's judgement. He may well decide
> to flip a coin to make the decision but that would be
> his decision to do so :-)

Well, I've never did this in reality. To do something like that one need to reach the point in discussion with one's partner where they both can understand that their disagreement can't be solved through further argument, so there is a need to use some arbitration.

In my relationship with my former wife we were not able to argue long enough to understand this while remaining composed enough to do the right thing :)

But for me to flip a coin (or to do something equivalent) is actually the least submissive thing that is still fair. Because forcing the partner to do as she is told is not fair.

Of course, if she agreed beforehand to give me the final vote in such circumstances it would not be necessarily unfair: the final vote rule is just another arbitration strategy, just as flipping a coin is an arbitration strategy.

If I believed in God or thought about "fate" in anthropomorphous terms I would not consider flipping a coin to be a good arbitration strategy. In that case I would prefer to get the final vote. The second best would be to give the final vote to my partner, since it is less submissive to submit to the partner chosen by you than to the "fate" or God elected by no one.

> Without the threat of punishment I would run roughshod
> over him

Personally, I don't understand why it is necessary either to "consider my lover’s needs before my own" or to "run roughshod over him" while there are less altruistic ways to be considerate, but that is probably the way you are.

I didn't present my failed marriage as a positive example. Surely there was something that caused my marriage to fail. As far as I can see it was my conviction that I know better than my partner how she should live her life, what she should expect from it and what she should strive for.

> I see people's misconceptions coming from the idea
> that a Taken In Hand relationship CANNOT possible be
> normal, happy, or healthy.

No, I don't think so. After all, this site presents a lot of evidence to the contrary. Besides, I should say that there is some appeal in it for men.

However, I don't understand it on an emotional level. I would never agree to be taken in hand even if I were woman (or maybe especially if I were woman with her reproductive vulnerability). If I were treated like that I would immediately become aggressive, and in case I'm not strong enough to resist successfully I would come to hate my partner. That's the way I am.

And to build relationships where you can't emotionally understand some aspects and behaviours of your partner, aspects and behaviours that you have to deal with daily, is not something I would like to do. If I can't understand that means I can't make reliable predictions.

> I see people's misconceptions coming from the ideas
> that everyone NOT like them must be crazy.

It's a common human predisposition to think so. I try to avoid it. Sometimes I try successfully, sometimes not :)

If I were treated like that I would immediately become aggressive

I can relate to this, these were my feelings when I first met seriously ment ideas about male dominance in a modern marriage. It got a long period for me to gain trust in my husband, and to my surprise this brought us in loving connection not known to me before (and I believe also not known to him). Ve both value it much.

Hali

I hope you realize that my comments where not directed at any one person. Thus the title "Summery", and the statement about "(From the original post all the way down)" :)

"As far as I can see it was my conviction that I know better than my partner how she should live her life, what she should expect from it and what she should strive for."

That sounds like a dominant trait to me. You also show a caring attitude about what is being sacrificed by the women. This would make you a good Taken In Hand spouse for an interested person.

"If I were treated like that I would immediately become aggressive, and in case I'm not strong enough to resist successfully I would come to hate my partner."

If I was treated this way immediately, I to would become aggressive. I have been married for 11 years and it was not until the 10th year of my marriage that I was able to give blanket consent. Up until that point I would agree to consensual non-consent for short period of time. It was during those times that I would gained more and more trust. Even with blanket consent, my husband still does not go in like a bull in a china shop. He still slowly worm me up each and every time. I know this about him and that is why I can give him blanket consent.

The point for me at least, is not to be strong enough to resit. It is the giving in eventually, and realizing his strength that I need. Sure I give a good fight, but this proves even more that he is physically stronger then me. I have a strong desire for independence, that translates in to a desire to run away. This desire it detrimental to the stability of my relationship. For me to feel for short periods of time, that I can not get away, makes me want to stay. INTELLECTUALLY I know I can go if I want to. INTELLECTUALLY I do not want to. In the id is an irrational battle that I do not understand. I do not even claim to be able to explain it. I just know that it is there, and to be held down by someone stronger then myself, that I love and trust, quenches that desire. My daily life becomes calmer when my id is quenched.

"It's a common human predisposition to think so." (that others are crazy.) "I try to avoid it. Sometimes I try successfully, sometimes not :)"

Why of course. That was the point. To pull this into people consciousness in order to help them to correct it.;)

> I do still find it very hard to ask for help especially
> where emotional issues are involved. He insists I open up
> to him when I'm hurting about something and does not let
> me disapper inside myself

I think this is the reason why egalitarian relationships don't work for you. You reject something you truly need, so he needs to force you in order to give it to you. There is a big difference between giving in and letting someone in :) However if you invite someone and then refuse to let him in he must either force his way through or go away :(

> he has shown that I can allow myself to be vulnerable
> to him and he will look after and nurture that side of me.

That's good. But can HE allow himself to acknowledge HIS vulnerability to you? All people are vulnerable, and many of them need that their loved ones accept them being vulnerable without dismissing them as weak. Will you look after him when and if that's needed? Or will you run roughshod over him?

I liked the description above of male controlled compared with male led relationships, although I suppose it's only semantics.

There is always consent in the UK/US because we can leave marriages if we choose. But within them we can give continuous consent. Even then it's a fantasy because legally no does mean no. In the UK we change the law in my life time - men can now be prosecuted for raping their wives. Previously that was not so because marriage did mean a continous consent (although not a consent to other forms of assault).

Also yes I agree with someone above who said why politicise it with terms used - there is no need. Plenty of men love to be taken in hand or dominated by their wives and although this site is not aimed at them they are out there in huge numbers and have very loving long term happy relationships where as with people here, the boundaries are clear and there is less conflict in some ways because although you want to be listened to you know who ultimately decides things. It works really well if you're this way inclined whether you're male or female.

"Plenty of men love to be taken in hand or dominated by their wives and although this site is not aimed at them they are out there in huge numbers and have very loving long term happy relationships...."

I have read this claim many times, but I wonder if this is really true. Although, I know men who are weak and men who are stong, but passive, I don't know any man who desires to be dominated by a womman. I am not saying there are no men like this, but you said there are huge numbers of men who live this way. Can you provide evidence for this claim?

Stephen

I wonder if men who like to be dominated by their wives would admit it to another man. Perhaps it's not surprising you don't know any. Perhaps you do but they haven't admitted it! I haven't admitted the Taken in Hand nature of my relationship to any friends and family.

If you take a look at Elise Sutton's site or Disciplinary Wives Club, you'll find such men.

Hi again Stephen

Well rough and dominant certainly does it for me! However I wonder if having the male in control in their relationship is what most women want now. Certainly the pattern of human relationships in history might suggest this but women had very few legal rights and were without the financial means to be independent in historical times.

My partner is a take charge kind of guy (naturally, considering I write on this site!) That certainly does attract a lot of female attention and always has. If we’re out in a club and he goes to the bar to get drinks I often find women try to chat him up, not realising he’s got a partner sitting back at a table. He had lots of interested women making approaches to him before I met him (I didn’t approach him by the way, he approached me).

However just as many women seem to be repelled by his take charge and directive ways. This was a problem in his first relationship where they had a constant power struggle. Some women, even friends of his, have humorously told me that I must be a saint to be in a relationship with someone who’s so directive but I absolutely adore the way he is, I wouldn’t change anything. I love the way we relate!

Perhaps these other women haven’t realised the dictates of their genes yet or met the right guy or perhaps they’ve been brainwashed by the values of our culture. Or perhaps they just don’t want this kind of relationship.

Certainly to me it feels ‘natural’. Subjectively I feel I’m fulfilling my feminine role in response to his masculine one. I feel more feminine in this relationship than in any other and that’s deeply satisfying for me. But I wouldn’t like to assume it’s the same for all women or even the majority. I think you’re right and we do have different views of a Taken in Hand relationship. I do view it as more of a lifestyle. I feel I’m fulfilling my personal needs in this relationship and so is he.

I agree that women are looking for men who are confident, strong, caring, committed and trustworthy. However I’ve read on Elise Sutton’s site of men who have exactly these qualities but want to submit to their wives rather than direct. I’ve mused in the past at the similarities between many of the men there and the men here. Both have the desire to protect their wives, to look after her best interests, but there they’re doing it from a position of wanting to submit rather than dominate. In the outside world many of these men are very successful and very assertive. The women on that site seem delighted by their husbands’ submission, even women who initially had reservations. As here, many couples attest to how much closer it’s brought them having introduced that dynamic into their marriage.

With men who want to submit however there does seem a greater propensity to indulge in fetishes than you’d ever find with contributors to the Taken in Hand site, so I can understand your view of this as some kind of ‘kink’ compared to a Taken in Hand relationship which seems more natural to many. However I don’t know if these men are very few as you suspect. Much like women who want their men to take charge, society’s values run contrary to their freely expressing their needs - so I suspect the ones we see appearing on such sites might be the tip of the iceberg.

Possibly you’re right and there is a greater desire in the general female population for a powerful man. After all, look at the popularity of romance fiction with a strong and masterful hero. I’d say the market for this was almost entirely female and I don’t know of any corresponding genre for men (except perhaps pornography). Also the most common sexual fantasy for women is apparently a rape or ravishment fantasy. I think the most popular male sexual fantasy is having two women simultaneously! However people don’t necessarily shape their relationships around their fantasies.

I can’t know for sure, obviously, but I suspect men and women who want to submit in their relationships are both in the minority in the general population. However possibly that’s because I see this in terms of sexualities rather than a natural social order. Certainly for me I feel like I’m expressing my sexuality by choosing this kind of relationship. Sexuality of course extends way beyond the arena of the actual act. If living within my man’s control ceased to be erotic to me then I would no longer have the desire for it.