the boss --

I was expecting that the author of this article would be a man, from the way you wrote it. I'm surprised it's a woman and even more surprised it's a woman who by her own admission wants to be 'taken in hand'. What's with that? You have command presence but you're not controlling? How does that work?

It is not my intention to offend, I'm just surprised and wondering if you're a dominant in denial.

Bill P.

Bill,

although I was also a little surprised to learn at the end that the article was written by the boss, once I'd gotten over my initial double-take, it made perfect sense. Many (not all, certainly, but quite a few) of the spankophile women I've met are naturally quite dominant in the outside world. They take charge easily, achieve great things and are naturally respected by those around them. They enjoy being able to do this and it is a very real part of who they are, but at the end of the day they can also feel quite tired by always being in charge. Being a leader can be quite a lonely affair, and while it is in their nature for these women to take charge in many situations, it is also in their nature to want to be able to be let down their guard at home with a trusted and loved partner, to be vulnerable, taken care of and, of course, taken in hand when needed.

It's an interesting and very human paradox, and also a very loveable one in my opinion. I think it's very much the same dynamic that drives the most successful CEO's and other leaders to want to be able to submit, in a safe environment, to a bare bottom spanking from a sexual nurturer. In the end, everyone needs balance.

the boss, these are just my observations -- I'd be very interested to know how you feel on this fascinating paradox. (And by the way, I love this piece -- it rings utterly true for me. In many ways, I find that as I become more and more comfortable with myself I become simultaneously more relaxed and more naturally dominant).

All the best,

Max Maximovich.

Random, you wrote:

I believe that a commanding presence is simply there, or it is not (classic "Charisma"). People who do not have that presence can learn to *emulate* it, and that is what a lot of military training schools try to inculcate into their students. However, I am suggesting that there is a "natural" command presence and a "learned" command presence. Though they may both have the same effect on their partner(s) during the easy days, the ability of the learned response in times of stress to maintain that effectiveness is far far harder than for the "natural leader". In times of stress, we tend to revert to type - our natural, rather than learned, behavior takes over.

Hi the boss,

Thank you for the reply. I would respond as follows......

People change and develop; personalities mature and shift as our experiences in life change. I did not mean to suggest that people either have presence or do not, and are then fixed for life; rather that people's attitudes result from their experiences. As a person gains more and more experiences (i.e. age), their attitudes become more and more "stable" (or fixed), with a far wider ranging trigger required to shift those attitudes. I would suggest that it is similar to a ball rolling down a hill - a minor shift at the top of the hill (i.e. when a child) can have dramatic impacts near the bottom (adulthood). Conversely, if you apply the same event near the bottom of the hill as was applied at the top, the impact is minimal. (applying physics to psychology is never a pleasant sight ;-))

Thus, I feel that giving people guidance on how to be dominant would not work unless they are either dominant already and need advice on how to control and display that dominance, or they are relatively young and add the experience of applying the above rules to their baseline experience, that they then use to base their future actions on.

I appreciate that this appears to change my original argument away from the "nature" side, back to the "nurture" issue (your note forced me to re evaluate what I was trying to say),

but at the same time I stand by the argument that someone is either dominant (i.e. as a result of their life experience) or they are not. Note that I do not have any empirical data to prove this - this is just how it feels to me, so it is quite possible I am wrong....

One more thing:- I LOVE this web site! It allows me (in fact, forces me) to examine the way I feel about things, along with the motivations I have. I have only recently moved into a relationship where I am explicitly the dominant partner; previously the dominance was implicit rather than explicit. The key lesson I have already learned is that true consent must exist, else the relationship is abusive (fortunately, my partner and I can discuss such elements openly - the benefits of an explicit dominance vs implicit where things may be kept "buttoned up"). Keep up the good work!

Random

Howard, you wrote:

I would think that it's more likely that someone with strong leanings one way would also have it within them to understand the POV of the other

Random, please write that article-I'd like to read it.

Hey Melanie...you sound like you *know* what you're talking about, so you're probably right about the boss ;-)

Shortly after I revealed my desire to be taken in hand, my husband proposed the theory that people's "kinks" may be the result of a personality seeking balance.
"So you're saying I'm a domineering bitch?" I said.
"Well, that's not exactly how I was going to put it," he said.
This exchange has become one of our little in-jokes.

But seriously, I was pretty much the HOH for most of our relationship, and it is not at all easy to let go of this. Part of me wants to, and part of me doesn't at all. At the beginning of our relationship, I would say that Paul was not a dominant guy. But over the years, he has found his niche, and developed into a charismatic leader. I don't think I could have asked him to take me in hand back then. Now I can. So I think it's partly nature, and partly opportunity to develop traits that may be latent.

Random - I love this site, too! So much thinking goes on here! And I frequently begin to write a post, and then change my opinion before I get to the end. It's pretty irritating!

Melanie

I love what I've read so far on this site, it does make me think! I'm thinking on the commanding presense thread that I'm out of my depth. What is the paradox you are talking about Max? I'm not getting your point.

Cara

Carl, how are things going with your wife? My concern is that if you don't ensure that you have a good strong marriage the rest of your life - your business etc - is in danger. Your marriage - your relationship with your wife - should give you the strength for other things, it shouldn't suck strength from you but by the same token, it's something you can't ignore. Feed and water it like a delicate plant and it will end up giving you strength not taking it. Good luck Carl.

--Jasmine

It is very refreshing to see in this modern age that some women ebrace the idea of willing submission. Although I don't have a problem with women of any variety, this is still a welcome treat. Thanks ladies.

Intuit

On both fronts, that is. He already had a commanding, gentle-but-firm presence that I could see. That's why I opened up to him with all these deeply-bured desires. He is the first man I've been with who seemed up to the task, and who I also trusted not to abuse my devotion. It's all new to him as well, but we are learning together.

I believe we understand that Taken In Hand means a lot of different things to a lot of different people. To us, it does not mean corporal punishment. That idea simply does not seem arousing or productive to either of us. I have been spanked once, and it was by my request. I felt guilty and contrite enough simply from the disapproving look he gave me. I knew I needed to be spanked, without him ever saying so.

I believe that the submission/devotion that I give him--as well as the dominance/guidance that he shows me--are firmly rooted in trust, love, and respect. I desire for him to be in control, while also retaining respect for my feelings. And so far he seems to be doing a wonderful job. A simple disapproving look or a guiding hand speak volumes when coming from him. And whether his request is verbal or non-verbal, it is a rare day when he has to ask me twice.

However there is an exception that last statement. I have had a tendency to keep attempting conversation with him in bed when he is truly too tired to continue. In the past, I was even quite insolent about it. I would push, whine, and pout. He has been teaching me though, to respect all that he gives to and does for me. First it was through explanation. Then I would be good sometimes, but not others.

He finally said, "You say you want to obey me. You want to respect what I say. Usually you're so good to me, but how can I make you behave when you're not?" To some of you, it may seem like a silly thing for him to ask me that. But we are both very new to this. Add to that his genuine respect for my thoughts, and his question is entirely legitimate.

I said to him, "You know how sometimes I tie a scarf around my mouth when we play in bed?" He said yes. Then I told him, "When I really will not be quiet in bed--will not behave, respect you, and let you sleep--you should tie one of those scarves around my mouth so that I can't speak properly. I may squirm a bit in your arms; but just hold me and I'll quiet down soon enough."

So that's what he did. And it worked! Anyhow, thank you for the article which explored deeper and alternative ways to carrying out dominance in a male-led relationship. Spanking has its place; but I think that what most on this site are trying to accomplish runs more pervasively into the relationship than spanking alone could ever accomodate. ~HollyCakes

I have never considered myself a dominant person, though I wonder if somehow I manifest this "Commanding presence" you describe. When I go places, I am frequently approached and asked if I am the manager. People regularly come to me and ask for advice. Once, a co-worker spontaneously asked if I wanted a secretary, implying that she would be happy to have that position.

I always thought it was simply because I was "approachable", but now that I have done some research, it could be that I've been a "natural" alpha and never realized it. Another example, at a prior job, when I go out to lunch or dinner with a bunch of co-workers, it seemed to be my rising that was the herd "time to go back" trigger. After I left that company, some months later I went back to visit, and went out with the same group, but it was someone else that everyone looked to for signals, and I was the "outsider".