Noone wrote:

A woman is not likely to engage in fantasy when she is with a strong man. Nor, from my observations, is she as likely to seek escape in novels or mind-altering substances.

The only reason I go through phases of not reading much is out of deference to my over-loaded bookshelves and the bank balance. I am a voracious reader – I always have at least one book on the go, quite often 3 or 4. I prefer to read than to watch TV.

B is a strong man, definitely HoH, and has spanked me on more occasions than I can remember. I do not want – or need – to escape him. But when I read to escape, I read to escape certain aspects of my life, to immerse myself, however briefly, in someone else's imagined reality. I still engage in fantasy too – although the sexual ones revolve around B, and if I fantasise with any clarity, then it gets shared with B. But those fantasies can be pretty vague – centring around sensation more than anything ;-) But I indulge in other fantasies, in day-dreams, in making up stories to tell myself, in conducting debates in my head with people I know only through reading their words.

However, I do not read (or fantasize) as a substitute for life – and I suspect this is what Noone means. I know enough people who read fluffy pink romance novels, or watch their equivalent on TV or at the cinema, and complain that their life doesn't measure up to these "ideals" without actually doing anything about it. And the more they take refuge in this world, the worse their own seems by comparison, so the more they withdraw. Their partner is either blissfully unaware anything is wrong and carries on as normal, or feels something is wrong – but believes the other to be happy, so carries on as normal...

With a strong partner, the withdrawal possibly would never have happened, or would be nipped in the bud if it started. F'r example, there are times I feel that all I want to do is just crawl into my shell and pretend the world doesn't exist. On almost every occasion, that isn't what is best for me, and B has slowly learnt he can force me into doing something, and that whilst I may complain bitterly at the start, by the end of the day I'll have thoroughly enjoyed myself. (It's an entirely different matter if in between the protestations of wanting to be left alone I'm chanting a mantra consisting solely of the name of the medication I take for migraines).

As for mind altering substances, does chocolate count? ;-) B has on a couple of occasions accused me of coming close to orgasm by eating an especially good chocolate...

As a submissive woman whose husband's not wired for this type of dominance I know where you're coming from. I wish my dh felt as you do, so many times I've wanted my dh to do what youre telling men to do & forget the niceynicey and GET SERIOUS but he can't see it & I've come to see that although he calls himself a Dom he has no interest in being in control apart from in the bedroom and even there it's a different type of control than you're describing. I'm going to show him youre post & hope it will help him get what I've been telling him..........

Wow, that was... utterly chilling (particularly the part about the phallus being "used on the woman" to bring her to subjection and take control of her life.. and I thought that was just a man-hater's fantasy of how men think).

This is an argument for assault and rape -- and not the emotionally-satisfying, fantasy-fulfilling kind of forceful sex the boss's written about.

Why? Because in the moral world of this argument there's absolutely no need for the trifling matter of consent .

After all, all women are submissive by nature, and all respond to severe corporal punishment, ultimately, with love and gratitude.

Really? Are you absolutely sure? From where did you get this universal wisdom? And what if you're wrong? What if your loving female partner responds to an unwanted physical assault by pressing charges, leaving you or simply knocking your teeth out (or calling on her big protective male friends to do the job for her)? Would she be wrong if she decided to meet violence with violence? And if so, why?

Because it's man's God-given right to dominate his mate? Because secretly all women need to be dominated, whether they admit it or not? Because your love for her is bound to shine through the pain you inflict on her against her will?

Without consent, lovemaking becomes rape, spanking becomes physical assault and discipline becomes abuse. Now, maybe you'll get lucky and use severe corporal punishment on your loved one and win her heart and maybe that's what's happened in your relationship with your wife. But maybe you won't get lucky. Because if you decide to take that leap and you're wrong, then God only help you...

It's consent and not intent that makes the difference. If you, with all the love in the world, punch your partner in the face and knock her to the ground, you're guilty of assault. If you, with the very best intentions in the world, take your partner against her will, you're a rapist. And if you, without consent, decide to take control of your partner's life in a direct and physical way, based on your superior knowledge and masculine intuition, then you, my friend, deserve everything that you get.

Hi Max! How lovely to see you posting again!

I was interested to read your comments, because whilst I heartily agree with you about the importance of consent, I do not personally see Noone's article as advocating anything really non-consensual, and indeed, the bit you found particularly chilling, I find highly erotic! Noone did not submit this article to me: I asked him to permit me to post it! I did that because it speaks to me and because I know from the mail I get that it will speak to quite a number of Taken In Hand readers. So evidently you and I are interpreting it in very different ways.

As I said, I strongly agree with you about the importance of consent, so let me go through the article and give you my own take on it.

For every man willing to take control and use discipline with a woman, there are hundreds of women wanting that. Look at any of the DD lists and this will be obvious. On those lists, and on this web site, it is women who are crying out for men like you, KrosRogue, Frank and Noone. On these lists and web sites, you rarely if ever see a man posting that he has been seeking this sort of relationship for X years and has never found a suitable woman, but you often see women saying that.

So I do not agree that this article is advocating giving women something they don't want: I think it is advocating giving them something they want very much – so much that, as Noone points out, it can be dangerous for the woman if she is not very careful to check that she is with a good man rather than a bad one. As Noone has said so wisely, women would be well advised to notice how a man treats her when she is vulnerable, and they should see red flags if a man puts them down at such times.

Moving on to the main substance of the piece:

It is quite common to find people who think that OTK discipline is erotic; it is also quite common to find people who think that there is nothing erotic about it and that it should not have any erotic element (Ramileous, for example). But Noone is one of the few writers I have found who understands the significance of the erotic response and does not seem to think that if a woman finds the whole idea erotic, she is not taking it seriously enough or it is all just a game and not real. He also understands that if it is real, that doesn't mean it can't seem erotic:

Her groans of erotic ecstasy will blur with her cries of fiery pain until even she will not be able to sort them out in her mind. They are all one in her mind.

Women with a preference for being with a take-charge man may well not have any interest in being spanked per se – or indeed in discipline per se. But they might well respond sexually to the real control Noone is talking about. For those women, there is nothing misogynistic, Fascistic, or in any way chilling about this piece.

Until I read Noone's comments explaining what he means by “the rape aspect of discipline” (another idea I find erotic!) I had been thinking that I have no interest in being spanked, and that I'd particularly hate being put over a man's knee and handspanked. Until I read his comments, I thought that that sounded humiliating and infantalising, and the idea of being a little girl put over daddy's knee does nothing for me at all. I think of myself as a powerful woman, not a little girl. But when I read this piece, I suddenly stopped finding the OTK idea off-putting. But I am no more attracted to the little girl idea now than I was before, so it must be the control implied by Noone's comments that appeals to me. And I know, from the mail I get, that this is true for many other Taken In Hand readers too. And, hey, any article that can make me want something I have never remotely been able to see the appeal of before must be quite something! :-)

It's interesting with this article (as with many others) to read the varied replies, and how the luggage we each of us pick up as we go through life colours our replies. Especially with an article like this where some aspects are implied (or not, depending on how it's read).

Noone's words spoke of consensual nonconsent to me. In particular this bit (italics mine)

A woman knows that the pain visited on her bottom is meaningful only if the man does it because he loves her. Otherwise, she will build a stonewall around her emotions.

. She knows it's meaningful because she knows he's doing it because he loves her. There has to be some dialogue for that knowledge to be available to her. If she even for a minute doubts his reasons, she'll clam up on him. And that knowledge certainly couldn't be gained through some creepy scene with a pyschopath beating her up whilst crooning "I'm only doing it because I love you".

I am a grown woman - I don't need B (or anyone else, for that matter) to teach me right from wrong by the use of physical discipline. However, B having control over me (taking control away from me?) is a very effective means of stopping negative/destructive behaviour. It's also both non-arousing and arousing at the same time. I may not want the spanking, and so am not aroused by the thought of it, but B's control is arousing, and so I get aroused despite myself. Not always though - there are times I just appreciate it as a means of stopping a situation spiralling out of control and returning me to myself. It's not something I've ever found infantalising - partly because I am not being treated as a naughty child, and partly, I suspect, because I never was given an OTK spanking as a child - a few slappings, yes, but not what I'd term a spanking. And, of course, because I've agreed to it (consensual non-consent again...)

In a curious way, the phallus and the rod (stick, cane, paddle, etc.) are much the same. Both are controlled by the man and are used on the woman. Both can bring a woman into subjection. The phallus with a child. The rod by denying her composure. Both deny the woman control over her life – which, of course, is why feminists object to women being subjected to either.

I don't know which feminists you are talking about here because both my husband and I are feminists, he more than me. We have no objections about to women being subjected to discipline.

Obviously no one movement has a single cohesive doctrine one way or the other. As long as there are two people in a movement, religion, philosophy, or political party, there are likely to be two interpretations of what it is about. Binary thinking in the form you express it is falsely divisive and always erroneous.

OTOH why would any loving man want to deny a woman control over her life? Can he guarantee he is going to outlive her so that she will never know the trauma of being widowed and left unable to think and function independently? That's not much of a legacy of love IMO.

The greatest gift of feminism to women and their partners was that of choice. Which means that a true feminist respects the choice of another woman to submit to her husband, if she has a husband worthy of the trust implied therein. It also means if a woman does not choose to submit to a Taken In Hand relationship, a feminist (read: believer in egalitarian principles) respects that choice as well.

I think the world can only be a better place when we tolerate each other's POV, whether it's the dominant male-submissive female dynamic, or something altogether different. Being intolerant and trying to narrow other people's choices has been practised on most of this planet, since man first stood upright, with predictable results.

Maddy

OTOH why would any loving man want to deny a woman control over her life?

Because she wants that, obviously!

When it is something that does not appeal to you (i.e., one, the general reader), your natural reaction is to find it appalling and to assume non-consent. Whereas when it is something you yourself want, then the answer seems obvious, and you can't understand what all the fuss is about. (And I'd be the first to admit that I have made this mistake in the past, myself!)

The very thing that bothers Maddy and others makes this article feel freeing to me! Given that (as you can see from the volumes I have written on consent) I passionately agree that consent is vital, that suggests that we are reading this article with different assumptions. I am assuming consent. And if one makes that assumtion, it is not only not necessary to state it (or not every time, in every article!), it becomes a drag to have to state it every time.

For me, Noone's piece would have lost something if he had mentioned consent. So it would be nice if everyone would assume consent when reading any article on this site. I will never put up any article that I think is advocating abuse/real non-consensual, scary stuff.

If a woman is freely choosing a Taken In Hand relationship, I don't think it is giving up control at a fundamental level, because she is choosing this man and this style of relationship instead of some other. It is not the same kind of lack of control that a person in prison has, or a child has, or a battered wife has. She still has a real choice. This is important! (See also, this article.)

My argument is not that you should feel the same way I do, merely that it is a mistake to leap to dark conclusions about something that doesn't appeal to you.

When I read stuff that makes my hair stand on end, these days I try to step back and assume that there is something I do not understand, instead of jumping to the conclusion that what is being discussed is bad, unhealthy, non-consensual, etc.

Clearly reactions to Noone's opus is going to claim nearly as much of Taken In Hand's bandwidth as reactions to When rape is a gift. So far the cries of outrage (from men and women) seem to be outweighed by the cries of delight (from women). Take my word for it, some of us guys got a kick out of reading it, too. Not as much as any woman could, obviously: the male role in this scenario carries the responsibility of the driver, while the woman's role is to enjoy the ride. But still, it's fun to imagine oneself licensed to be ruthless, and getting one's money's worth.

I certainly am not saying that Noone's piece is fantasy. On the contrary, I believe him when he tells us that his long and happy marriage is based on this sort of relationship. And I believe he's telling the plain truth about what happens when a woman gives her consent to being taken in hand, and finds herself on the roller-coaster, the ride totally out of her control.

What grates a bit is that there's no sense in this piece that the man is enjoying a gift given him by the woman. If Noone's wife withdraws her joyful consent, he will be helpless, since he's not a criminal but a decent man. There's no sense in this piece of gratitude that she doesn't do that. Perhaps Noone thought a note of humility would spoil the me-Tarzan tone.

Theo

An anonymous commenter wrote:

Maybe his wife's the one that feels he's giving HER a gift. Maybe gratitude would feel more like a burden than a plus. Is humility always a virtue or can it sometimes be draining on those dealing with the humble?

Gratitude's not a burden and it's not humility. It's something all decent people feel frequently and acknowledge.

Theo

I noticed a good portion of the articles posted get blasted at some time or another for not throughly including consent, and an explaination of consent, even though at times it's clearly implied.

Maybe there could be an automated notation at the bottom of each original article explaining that all of the above should only be done with consent, whether it is consent each time w/ a safe word, or consentual non-consent, the list goes on.

I can't for the life of me understand how this could be confused on a website that clearly promotes monogamous, long-term consentual relationships? Or am I missing something?

If it needs to be said each and every time, with each and every article, the disclaimer should be written out and posted up somewhere so when an article is written, it can be easily copied and pasted.

Bound

Interesdom wrote:

If there is a gift, it is from both to both, reciprocal and hopefully complementary. Just as in any workable relationship.

I can completely agree. So both partners need a suitable sense of humility.

To feel grateful to my woman for me having to discipline or punish her seems crazy. Frankly, I'd rather not have to but I will do so ...

You should feel grateful not that you have to, but that you have that route open to you. I imagine you had to travel a long road to find a woman prepared to submit (this isn't a crack at you - this would surely be true of the most alpha of alpha males, which you might well be for all I know). So that's why gratitude would be in order.

I detect a whiff of bluster when a man treats his dominance as the exercise of simple right.

Best,

Theo
chas_daryahoo.co.uk

Interesdom: To feel grateful to my woman for me having to discipline or punish her seems crazy. Frankly, I'd rather not have to but I will do so ...

Theo: You should feel grateful not that you have to, but that you have that route open to you.

I've given this one a lot of thought and still struggle with it. I've tried analogies: 1) I should feel grateful not for having to work but for being able to (well, OK, maybe) 2) I should feel grateful not that I have to nurse her when she is sick but that I have that ability (hmm, I suppose so).

I still don't see a compelling reason for me to either believe I have a notable gift from her (which was my original point) nor that there is anything special to be grateful about over and above what it might be healthy for her for feel grateful for. Punishment is only a tool available to me because the woman wants it to be. She is not sacrificing something but gaining something in desiring a Taken In Hand relationship.

Should she feel grateful because I want to hold her in my arms? Should I feel grateful because she wants to make love to me? Too much gratitude in a relationship tends to kill it: ultimately, we only do what is in our own interests.

Theo: I imagine (you) had to travel a long road to find a woman prepared to submit...

Take a look around at a site like this: there's plenty of women wanting a dominant man. Most women never even mention it because it's both so obvious and so taboo.

Sure, some of the women I have dated aren't interested in me leading - that's fine and not stopped us being friends but we'd never be anything closer.

Theo: I detect a whiff of bluster when a man treats his dominance as the exercise of simple right.

I rule by acclamation, not decree. That's not bluster, anymore than a man who wants a woman of a certain intelligence level, or matching humour or any other compatibility.

Much of what Noone suggests is brutality. It is so very different from being Taken in Hand.

I strongly disagree. Nothing in this article is brutality, or I would not have asked him to allow me to publish it. I can assure you that many women find this article highly erotic and true. Not all, of course, but many do.

Not everyone in a Taken In Hand relationship engages in any kind of violent engagement, but many do, and many appreciate Noone's perspective. What I like about his perspective is that he has a really deep understanding of some women's need for subjection. You will never see Noone whining about how women need to be more submissive. In fact, he has written against the idea of pretending to be submissive when you feel anything but. You will never see him talking about being passively served by a woman. That is clearly not what he expects from his wife. And yes, he understands the need of some women to be firmly and thoroughly taken in hand, and this article is one of my favourites in that respect. It may seem like brutality to you or someone else, but it definitely doesn't to me. He may not understand you, but he understands me very well, and I am not even a spanko!

We are all different. The kind of man who would please a woman who would find this brutal is probably not the kind of man I would want to be with. It really does take all sorts. Let's try to remember that.

FTR, I could be mistaken but it is my impression that the word “beat” has different connotations in American English vs English English. It does not sound necessarily abusive to me, but I have noticed that it does to many Americans. The same is true with other expressions, such as “a jolly good thrashing”, and other colourful phrases.

I too feel the pain of being spanked and the ecstacy quite seperately. Although I do have a very strong desire to be spanked, and afterwards usually feel pretty blissful, I don't feel ecstatic while it's happening, I just feel pure pain. I absolutely hate it, and yet I would be disappointed if my husband stopped before he decided I'd had enough. Usually, at some stage while being spanked, I will slither off his knee onto the floor, whimpering, but he can always make me go back. "If you don't get back there instantly, I'll go back to the beginning and start again" was his ominous threat to me last night. I find that concentrates the mind wonderfully, anything is better than having him go back and start again. I know I want him to do it, I know I need him to do it, but I don't feel ecstacy while he is doing it, anything but!

Much of what Noone suggests is brutality. It is so very different from being Taken in Hand..... Equally so, I can differentiate between a damn good spanking from my husband and a thrashing. And I can tell the degree of love he has for me even while I am being spanked.

Your comment suggests knowledge that you simply do not possess. It may very well be true that you know for yourself when discipline turns into brutality, but you can not know by Noone's words alone that what he proposes is brutal. There are many in society who would think that because you are being spanked by your husband that you are being brutalized. Yet, for some reason you think your way is superior. Don't you think that that might be a little presumptuous?

Having read much of Noone's writing, I sense an implicit consent that exists in his relationship with his wife. I remember him once remarking that one reason she loves him is BECAUSE he knows how to handle her. My wife has the same desire to be handled. If I was unable to handle her she would be sorely disappointed.

The woman who wants to be taken in hand desires the man to be in charge and to firmly discipline her when he thinks it is necessary, both for her sake and for the health of their relationship. My wife does not enjoy a disciplinary spanking, but she loves the fact that I know how to handle her, which sometimes means putting her over my knee and firmly spanking her behind when she behaves in a way that I find unsatisfactory. As much as some would like to suggest, this is not a scene, it is a matter between a husband and his wife. I see no brutality in what Noone writes about how he handles his wife. What I see is a man who deeply understands his wife, knows what needs to be done, and is willing to do it.

You write very well. For some women it's what we want... just make sure before you commit to someone that she's wired that way, though.

Leaving that aside, the point is control - male control of what is done and when it stops. I respect men who take charge and take responsibility and know what's right. When I haven't wanted it, when it's hurt more than I wanted...(I'm not remotely masochistic), then it can have more meaning too. I am not particularly into physical punishment except as erotic play as it muddies boundaries for me, but it certainly makes things simpler when you know what a man can or would do. Ouch.

Some find erotic the very thing the previous poster is contrasting with 'erotic'. They may or may not be excited at the time, but they are most definitely very aroused by it.

There are erotic spankings in our household--I love 'em and so does my husband. They differ greatly from punishment spankings. First, in an erotic spanking, there is touching, stroking, kissing, breaks between whacks, and other things that MAKE it erotic for us. In a punishment spanking, there is none of that. We first have a discussion about WHY the punishment is being given. This puts me in the right frame of mind for the spanking to BE punishment, not erotic. Then, the sentence is passed--how many whacks with which implement(s). I bare my behind--I am never punished with clothing on my bottom--and bend over the end of the bed to receive the punishment. Note, erotic spankings are not given in this location or position. Before beginning, He always asks if I am ready. This gives me one final opportunity to back out. It took a long time to get my husband to understand that it was OKAY to punish me, that I needed it. To refuse a punishment that He has deemed necessary would undo that trust between us. Therein lies the consent that everyone talks about. Actually, at times, I feel I should be punished more severely than the punishment that is given. We have discussed that one day I will receive a punishment in which I am paddled without mercy until I cry; however, he knows that I am also very afraid to receive that same punishment, so he has not yet given it to me. Are the punishments I receive painful? Definitely. Do I feel ashamed afterward? No. I feel ashamed BEFORE. The punishment allows me to put the shame aside and for us to move on. I ASKED for the very first punishment this man ever gave me. Why? Because I couldn't sleep because of an unsettled matter between us. Talking about it didn't settle it for me. A spanking did. Do I enjoy the punishments? NO. Definitely not. Do they turn me on? Sometimes they do. How can they turn me on if I don't enjoy them? I cannot explain that. Usually, they turn HIM on. Very, very seldom, however, does a punishment spanking turn into a sexual encounter in our household. Punishment is just that--it's not supposed to be fun. I do not wait eagerly for the next punishment. Quite the opposite--I dread it, especially if I know ahead of time that it's coming. I have one coming at bedtime tonight that I am not looking forward to at all; however, since we are trying to break a self-destructive habit of mine, I will accept this paddling--however hard or painful it may be--as just punishment and go to bed with a stinging/burning rear end. If He didn't care about my bad habits, he wouldn't discipline me for them. I want very much to be cared for. I need to be punished or disciplined (whichever term you prefer).

Punishment spankings, in themselves, are most definitely erotic to me. What's even more erotic relates back to the original post -- knowing that he "carries a whip" and is willing to use it. What muddies the waters for me is that I don't like to let my husband down, and when I receive a spanking, in most cases that's exactly what I've done. In that way I don't enjoy the moments leading up to it while I'm being lectured, but the actual walloping is both pleasure and pain. Every now and then I get a "this is to remind you you're not in control," spanking which feels my need to feel his authority in a discipline-type way without having actually misbehaved.

Lucy

He mentioned that the woman would resist by physical struggle, calling him names, and calling the cops...

I'm no expert on role-play, but I don't think that threatening to call the cops would be included in typical role-play...=...I think that means that she doesn't want it to happen.

hehehe Louise. Meow. Yes, the streak of ruthlessness!

It's incredibly thrilling to me to be with a man who just has absolutely no shame.

I read this article and many of the responses to it and I'm sorry, but the denial of consent intrinsic in it makes it a dangerous guide to behavior.

Do some...perhaps many....women long for this kind of interaction? Perhaps. Perhaps many want nothing to do with it. Perhaps many are curious, but unsure how far they wish to go? Until we see a statistically valid study, we can only guess. And guesswork is bad groundwork for actions which can land someone in prison for a couple of decades.

Yes, prison. We are talking assault and rape.

The vital component of "Taken in Hand" relationship is consent. The woman must freely consent to surrender a part or even, all of her will to the man. That is fundamental. It has to be clear, not simply assumed.

Now, does every action have to be approved ahead of time? No. Certainly not. But the important....vial.....area of consent is the surrender of power to the man. The woman must, prior to any act of force, agree to be icontrolled. That needs to be clear.

Sir Stephen said to O in the Pauline Reage book that O had to obey him. She had only one decision - to belong to him or not to belong to him. But as long as she belonged to him, she was his property. She must obey.

But fundamental to the relationship of O and Sir Stephen was her agreement to belong to him. This, I believe, is a valid relationship. It's a relationship grounded in consent.

To simply assume that all women are the same and can be whipped into their place is quite simply, a ticket to prison.

"Or am I mistaken…is the belief actually that men and women are fundamentally equal but merely choose to be in a relationship in which the man is in control?"

I think you'll find it depends who you ask on that. I certainly do not feel that I am inferior to my boyfriend. We each have certain strengths that make our relationship work. And the owner of this site has stated repeatedly that Taken In Hand is not about the woman being inferior to the man.

We don't incorporate the punishment dynamic very well yet in our relationship. That's something that I would like to see more of, but he has trouble initiating.

In our case it is definitely a choice to be in a relationship with the man in control. I think many (perhaps most), on this site feel the same way. That being said, I have seen posts that indicate that for some couples Taken In Hand is almost a biological necessity. They feel that it is the morally right thing for a man to lead and the woman to follow. In my mind that view is okay too, as long as the woman truly wants to follow. It would be abusive for the woman to be forced to follow because the man believes that is "the right way" to do things.