To the boss:

I agree with most of what you say here. The difference is that I simply disagree with the narrowly focused definition of DD. Most of the people I identify with on DD sites do not think that DD is about discipline at all. Connection is the focus where I tend to go. I do not think it is about discipline, except there is an element of discipline, or control through male authority, there for me. I just do not limit my definition of DD to the more close minded, tightly focused on spanking group. I think it has a much broader definition.

It is all moot, because we use no definition to guide our actions as a couple. I consider us DD, so I consider anything we do DD, or Taken in Hand. It makes no difference to me at all what people call it. I have found that everyone seems to "practice" everything slightly differently. This site focuses on men in charge, or in control, I could however see people who are F/m who identify with much of what is written here. I find it just as easy to talk with people who come from different orientations because I find that the insights they have are insightful to me too.

What gets me mostly is people who let OTHER people's definitions of DD or Taken in Hand limit what they do as a couple. Saying DD people do not spank erotically, so they do not, only to be considered DD. I find that bewildering. Who really cares if people tell you that you are not really DD because you spank for fun, or that you like spanking, or that spanking is about connection not behaviour. People should focus on what they want and need and forget what other people think is right.

I have seen people go as far as telling someone that they were not really DD because they were not married and they had a long distance relationship! I mean who made that rule while I was not looking? I think you need to be committed, but who says you need to be married? Who says that married people can not live long distance anyway? There are all these little rules in every community and I think it is silly. So I take what works for us, and leave the rest.

I can not think where we would be without the online community at all. It has been a godsend for us to help us work through all the conflicting emotions we had. It is good to have people you respect tell you that no you are not crazy, that there are intelligent, thoughtful people out there who see things like you do. Thanks to people who make this site possible and the people who contribute here, whether they agree or disagree.

Take care,
Tevemer

Anyway, that's what it looks like to me. Feel free to correct me if I am misunderstanding what I read. I've spent some time on the MSN DD sites, and I must say, I do not at all feel comfortable on them.

While people say domestic discipline is all about connection, when I read the threads on those DD boards, it is all about spanking and punishment. And the things women get spanked over--not vacuuming? Staying up too late?? So many of those women get spanked sooo much, several times a week. They must never be bruise free.

My KIDS were never that naughty. The women must like the punishment, or why would they keep doing the infractions?? It sounds so immature--'I stayed up til three am 4 nights in a row and was too tired.' Well, duh? Are you a grown up? Can you calculate 8 hours?

I read that stuff and my eyes start to glaze over. I think, these people are raising children? This poster seems like a child herself. My 12 year old sounds more responsible.

To me--no offense to those who are into domestic discipline--it reminds me of children who act up to get attention, even if it is negative. Huge drama over small things that you'd think people could handle with out fifty wallops.

They must like it, they consent to it, it must do something for them...though then again, you read how spankings are not erotic.

But I sure don't want to be associated with it.

Of course I agree with you. I did not intend to imply that everyone who considers himself a part of the domestic discipline community focuses narrowly on discipline - I know that people like you, Stephen and Frank don't - but still, possibly because of the name, "domestic discipline", many of those posting, and many of the discussions, revolve around discipline.

The same is true of Taken In Hand at the moment, but I would like to see it having a much broader focus.

Someone wrote:

I see where you're coming from when you say some people start acting up more often in order to get what they long for. But this isn't ALWAYS the case. I was like that at first, when I first introduced domestic discipline to my guy, because I wanted to make sure he'd follow through with it. I learned it wasn't the way to go - and now I try hard to stay out of discipline's way.

This seems to me quite normal and understandable, and not the thing that makes me feel uneasy. A woman either in a new relationship or in one in which the partners have just started moving in the direction of a Taken In Hand relationship might well feel compelled to test her man's control of her. This is because she fears that he might not be in control, and she really wants him to be. It is not that she is a horrible shrew who just can't give up control, it is that she passionately wants not to be in control and needs to be sure he is. Once she is sure, she won't keep testing him. Not that she will never disobey (there are limits!) but it will not be a constant, wearing battle.

This, I understand. What makes me uneasy, OTOH, is that I have noticed that some people do not seem to be merely seeking reassuring evidence that the man is in control, but getting off on the idea of being a recalcitrant child type who can't function properly unless she is constantly being disciplined, and whose behaviour and ability to function seems to decrease rather than improve. I agree that such people are in a minority, and if the man enjoys that dynamic then I have nothing against it except that they give the impression that they are unaware that it is merely the way they connect erotically.

I wanted domestic discipline because I know there's things about myself I want to improve. For me, and for many others, it's about self-improvement. And, like Taken In Hand, it's about the re-connection, and about keeping the relationship in a good shape, not letting silly small things ruin something wonderful.

Well said.

I noticed you said a woman who had been battered and abused by someone, go to her and ask if she'd like DD.

Nooooo! That is not what I meant to say. I know of several women who have been abused in the past who like this kind of relationship, just as I know several people who have been raped who fantasise about rape. The point I was trying to make was not to say that previously-abused women will never like to be beaten, but that it is a mistake to think that the DD woman (or indeed the Taken In Hand woman) is genuinely not consenting. They are. I was trying to show what real non-consent is by giving an example of someone currently (or who has just escaped from her abuser and is still in a battered women's refuge) being abused. Their attitude to being beaten is not at all the same as the attitude of the willing Taken In Hand wife. They HATE it. The Taken In Hand or DD wife might well hate to be WITHOUT it (or at least, without the control on the part of the man that that implies.)

Well, in my early teens I was in a violent and abusive relationship, beaten up and raped many times. I hated it. Absolutely hated it, I just wanted to die, and even now, I'd love to get amnesia or something to forget it. But, it's SO different from DD. So very very different. Domestic discipline feels loving

Yes, this is exactly the point I was trying to make. I shall try to re-word it to make that more clear.

I feel loved because my boyfriend is willing to help me improve myself. Our rules mostly consist of the things that I want to improve, ME.

I think that is wonderful!

To the boss:

Generally, I agree with much of your assessment of DD. Although, it is true, as Tevemer has already pointed out, that there is a diversity of opinion on what constitutes DD among DDers. There have been fierce arguments over what constitutes a "real" DD relationship many times on 1DD. I will not quibble over its definition here because I don’t find these labels very useful anyway. For each couple, it is what it is. What puzzled me and captured my interest was what you wrote about discipline and spanking. Perhaps I am misinterpreting your meaning, but there appears to be a contradiction in what you write. So I am requesting some clarification. On the one hand you wrote:

I personally do not have a discipline fetish and am about as interested in spanking as I am in knitting, and I do not fantasise about writing lines, being made to stand in the corner, ‘loss of computer privileges’ or other infantalising ‘punishments’. So for me personally, the focus of DD forums on ‘discipline’ and punishment and spanking is a bit off.

And on the other hand you wrote:

The only respect in which I have any interest in spanking is if it is the way a man is expressing his control, as in this article. Otherwise I find the whole idea altogether boring. I am not a spanko.

It seems to me that Noone's article demonstrates his belief that spanking is an appropriate form of discipline. Reading Noone’s post seems to contradict what you write above concerning punishment and spanking. Noone makes it quite clear that there are times when a woman needs to be disciplined and that the woman will have no say in how that discipline is applied to her upturned bottom. He wrote:

While I have little or no inclination to withhold a well-deserved spanking as punishment, I do believe that customary punishment should be administered at the man's discretion and should be little affected by the woman's machinations.

What does that mean, a well deserved spanking? Does this conflict with what you wrote in your article concerning not needing discipline? Noone doesn’t say what the reason was for the spanking. (perhaps Noone will share with us some of the reasons why he punishes his wife) From my reading of this article Noone is plainly disciplining his wife for some specific reason.

So my question is, how do you reconcile this aparent contradiction. In what way is this different from DD or is it expressly Taken In Hand?

I admit it may be just me. I may not be understanding the distinction you are making here. Perhaps there is no contradiction, but it would help me if you might clarify this point.

On another matter, I would like to take issue with your claim that spanking or being made to stand in the corner is "infantilizing". If it is the way the man in charge decides to enforce his authority then you will have little to say about it. It is indeed humbling and perhaps embarrassing, but infantilizing? In fact my wife claims the opposite, expressing my control in this way makes her feel more in touch with being a feminine woman.

I am amused by your rejection of these forms of control only because this decision will most likely be out of your control. It may be that your own man will decide to implement these very same measures. If he is in charge of you the way I am in charge of my wife and Noone is in charge of his wife - what then?

If your wife chooses to allow you to control her in this way, that's fine, but it is her choice. If she chose not to allow you to do these things to her, there would be nothing whatsoeve that you could do about it. To say that she has little to say about it is absurd. There is no legal or social reason for a woman in this day and age to allow a man any more control over her than she chooses, you and Noone are 'in charge' of your wives only because they allow you to be!

"Pat" wrote:

Doesn't work that way in your relationship? So you say! Check out the assumptions your SO is making about you, gal. If he's like a lot of the men on here, you have already been relegated to the second-class and minor child category.

Definitely doesn't work that way in my relationship. We're neither of us interested in viewing me as some sort of child. Nor do either of us view me as in need of correction. The control dynamics, on the other, are a major turn on for both of us. I am, so I'm told, a strong woman in my own right - and I'm attracted to men who are stronger than me. Fortunately, my husband is - but the difference is not great enough for me to be a complete push-over.

And personally? If he wants to drool at my bare behind - that's great :)

--

"There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so" Hamlet, somewhere.

"Pat", you won't be surprised to hear that I totally disagree with you. When you say:

DD as well as Taken in Hand contains dangerous elements of disenfranchisement for women.

what you are actually saying is that you do not want women like me to be allowed to make the choice we make. THAT is disenfranchisement, not this! Why not just live and let live, "Pat"? If having a choice means merely that we all fall into line with your narrow prescriptions and proscriptions, that is an obscene misuse of the English language. Having a choice means that we can choose something you disapprove of, or it means nothing!

I'd be very cautious of giving up control, thinking a man understands my parameters, only to be later met with a unilateral declaration of, "I'm going to spank you, like it or not, because this is how I deem it proper to control you."

"Pat", I am convinced: Taken In Hand is not for you. So pursue your own choices! There is nothing wrong with not understanding mine. I feel zero desire to convert you. I respect your choices. They are just not for me.

My response would be, talk to my lawyer..and to the judge.

The idea that Noone or Stephen would want a woman like you is laughable. I do not mean that as an insult; it is just that you obviously would not want the kind of relationship they would want. So they would no more want you than you would want them.

Then again, if she is truly smart, she will seek a man who views her as an equal, and a grownup.

The purpose of your fallacious argument is to insult and disparage those women who choose a Taken In Hand relationship by questioning their intelligence unless they fall into line with your ideas. But before you go insulting people, consider the possibility that you might just be mistaken that your choices are best for everyone else. I would rather remain single than be in a relationship in which I was in control of a man. I am not saying that your choice is wrong for you, merely that it would do violence to me psychologically to be in a relationship like that. Different people really do have different choices, "Pat".

Doesn't work that way in your relationship? So you say! Check out the assumptions your SO is making about you, gal. If he's like a lot of the men on here, you have already been relegated to the second-class and minor child category.

This is not how I see it at all. One of us must be wrong about this, "Pat". What I don't understand is why you seem so angry that Taken In Hand women feel differently from the way you do. Why not just let us get on with it, and you do the same? Why do you want to stop other women freely choosing to live the way they want to live?

Pat,

I wonder when I read this if you have read the some of the articles from the site which are not on the front page. From what I can tell Stephen and Noone have consent from their wives, to do as they see necessary in their own relationships. This one by Stephen in particular points out how he and his wife met, and why his wife is obedient to him. From what I can see there was clear consent on her part and she knew exactly what she wanted from Stephen in their relationship.

You seem to understand consent differently from how I do. I think there is nothing at all wrong, in an adult relationship, to have an agreement of non-consent. There is nothing keeping any of us, men or women, in our relationships if we really wanted to leave, if we really did not consent. People are comfortable with different amounts of control in their relationships. Why does that anger so many people? Noone and Stephen are not trying control you. No one here is. So what if there are women who like to be spanked for not dusting or staying up late? If that turns their crank what is it to you and me?

That level of control is not really what my husband and I want, so we do not do it. And despite what you may think, there are women, and men, who would want someone to pee on them. Why does that anger you so? I do not want that, but I do not care what other people do. There are whole websites devoted to people peeing erotically on each other! People must like it.

Obviously a Taken in Hand relationship is not for you. That is ok. It is not for everyone. I certainly would not try to convince you that you should want one. I am not quite sure why you are here posting if it disgusts you to the point that you need to insult people. You seem not to be able to trust someone with the kind of control that would be necessary for a Taken in Hand relationship. I have to have faith that my husband will keep my self-respect in mind with what he does. It is just trust in him that I have. I trust him not to do things that I would find demeaning and to take me seriously if I told him something he was insisting on would be demeaning to me.

Has he taken me in hand whether I wanted it or not, despite my protests, just because he thought that was what was needed? Absolutely. But I want him to have this power. He knows I want this. He knows I trust him. It is an awesome responsibility for him to have this kind of control. He knows this. He respects this. He respects my trust in him. You do not need to trust anyone this much. You do not need to give anyone that power over you. Everyone is comfortable with different levels in trust in others. That is ok, because there are a lot of men out there who would not ask you to trust them to have this power over you. There are lots of men who would be happy not to take you in hand.

Take care,
Tevemer

"Pat",

When you say:

Do not tell me it is "insane" to suppose they are doing this without consent. Read what they say. I have no reading comprehension problem and I understand them just fine. They think it is their God or Nature-given right to impose their will, and not to have to negotiate or respect limits.

have you actually considered that this may well be how their wives are happy for them to behave? How they want their husbands to be? They may well have "negotiated" limits at some point - be it a formal discussion or just through living together. (My husband knows not to touch my feet unless he absolutely has to, for example. It was nothing we ever discussed, but he saw my reaction to it, and stopped. And he's the head of the household so could, in theory, tell me to put up with it. However, he cares for me and loves me, and so would never do anything that would cause me real distress. It's a silly example I know, but it perfectly illustrates what I'm trying to say.)

As has been said before, this site is about consensual relationships. You shouldn't assume that consent has not been given just because it's not mentioned in each and every post or comment. If you're going to assume anything, assume the opposite ” that unless otherwise mentioned, consent has been given.

You seem to have a real issue with how most of the people posting here have chosen to conduct their relationships. You've posted elsewhere that your (mostly) submissive husband was a victim of abuse, and I wonder if that's flavoured your outlook? A lot of women (myself included) here would not want the male in the relationship kneeling at their feet, but I suspect none of them are going to try to convince you to stop living like that (I'm not - if it works for you and your husband, great). Please - stop trying to convince us we're wrong. We've chosen (or want) to live in a relationship where the man is in charge. It's our choice, freely made. It's not for everyone, same as your lifestyle isn't. Please respect the fact we've made these choices, and stop acting as if you think the women here are largely a bunch of abused women in denial about the fact.

Yes, abuse goes on. It goes on in all aspects of life, in all flavours of relationship, in many different forms. None of us, I think, deny that.

--

"There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so" Hamlet, somewhere.

Louise,

Don't think I was making myself clear.

Yes, in theory he could touch my feet. In practice, I know he won't, purely and simply because he doesn't want to cause me the amount of distress doing so would cause. If for some reason he decided he was going to irregardless of my distress, then... well, at the very least he'd get kicked and told to sod off until I'd calmed back down. The same for anything else that causes me genuine distress. (And as daft as it may sound to anyone who doesn't have this phobia, having my feet touched does cause me real, genuine distress. Even thinking about it sometimes causes me problems.)

The point I was trying to make was that although we theoretically agreed he could do whatever he wants, we both know there are limits based on what either or both of us could and couldn't handle. We care too much for each other to intentionally cause distress, and we trust each other not to do so, and neither of us intends to deliberately betray that trust. Also, he is secure enough to not need to prove any points by doing something to me I really don't like.

I was trying to use that example to show that whilst I hadn't explicitly withdrawn consent for that, he respects, loves and cares for me enough that I don't need to.

The thought of him being able to do whatever he wants to me is a real turn on for both of us. However, when the fantasy becomes reality we both know there are some things better not done.

I'm not entirely sure I've made myself any clearer, though!

--

"There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so" Hamlet, somewhere.

Dear "Pat" and Louise,

If you were to read more carefully you should have noticed that my comments were directed to the boss knowing full well that she wants to have a relationship with a caring, dominant man. I already knew that she would give her consent to the right man which leaves your hyper-sensitive concern about consent moot. What I find so ironic is that even on website dedicated to the exploration of male led relationships each and every post must pass through thought police like yourselves insuring that every post carries the disclaimer - a woman *must* give her consent to this kind of relationship. Perhaps the boss would be willing to place the surgeon-generals warning at the bottom of each post - warning: a male led relationship could be harmful to your bottom.

If you were to read my recent response to KrosRouge you would know that I advised him on the importance of gaining consent at the early stages of the relationship before he or anyone engage in this kind of relationship. I have no interest in being with a woman who does not appreciate or desire such a relationship. If you were to read my article titled Obedience, which is on this site, you would have a better idea of how I view this subject. But what particularly bothers me here is that on the thinnest of evidence you feel free to make broad accusations of me and others assuming you know us so well that you can judge us as abusers.

Pat, not once have you offered any details of what kind of Taken In Hand relationship you have or desire to have. You have not offered up one intimate detail of your life, yet you feel free to harshly judge others who generously share their own. Your bias is clear. Would you be so kind to share your experiences in a Taken In Hand relationship or what kind of Taken In Hand relationship attracts you? Or could it be that you have an agenda to warn the world of evil men like me.

Louise, I have laid out my views and experiences for all to read. I don't mind accepting a critique from someone like you who has generously shared intimate details of your own relationship. But since you read and comment on every single message posted to this site you must know, unless you are a very poor reader, that I have written other messages like the one to KroRogue. You have even gone so far as to sarcastically refer to my "perfect" wife. What have I done to you to deserve such derision. Are you so arrogant that you really think you know me or my wife and how we conduct our relationship. Are you the final arbiter of what constitutes a healthy male led relationship? You have no idea what has been negotiated between my wife and I. The fact is that men who lead their relationships do not abuse. I have never read one post in 3 years of reading from these kind of sites of a woman who has complained of being abused. Their most common complaint is that he won't be as firm as they desire him to be. If they are to live in the kind of satisfying relationship they so evidently desire then they must relinquish their control. Must it always be said - only to the man they trust knowing that he deeply cares for them. Is it not already so obvious that it does not need to be mentioned every time one makes a comment or writes an article? The relationship I have with my wife has nothing to do with oppression and everything to do with a loving and caring relationship.

Ultimately, people like the two of you are indestructible. I really don't care what either of you think, but I do care that this site remains free for a variety of people with different views to post a message without having to fear that they will be unfairly accused. The truth is that it takes some courage for people to share the intimate details of their lives. They are exploring something that is most precious to them - their relationships. I have no problem with a healthy debate and I do not expect for all people to agree with me. For example, Tevemer and I have shared our differences in a respectful way. Yet the two of you consistently assume the worst.

All I ask is that you remember that real people write to this site. We are not all perfect in our understanding or practice, but lets at least treat each other with simple respect.

I know I'm repeating myself, and others, but it seems to need doing.

We don't state in every single post and comment that what we're talking about is consensual because this site is ONLY advocating consensual relationships. Check the Read This Before Posting article if you don't believe me.

Yes, there's a chance people reading this site might get the wrong idea. They might get the wrong idea from the bible or - as you pointed out - from films. Or anywhere else including the voices in their heads that tell them so.

--

"There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so" Hamlet, somewhere.

"Pat", you appear to have misunderstood what I said:

Furthermore, the boss stated she had no interest in spanking and your reply was that her desires with respect to that would mean zip, zero and zilch once she finds her dominant man and hands over the reins.

What I said was that I am not a spanko, and that the only respect in which I have any interest in spanking is if it is the way a man is expressing his control, as in this article. I then clarified that statement confirming quite clearly (or so I thought) that the mere fact that the idea of being spanked doesn't make my pulse race does not mean that I would want to say "no spanking" to my man. Indeed, as I said, if it was the way the man was expressing his control, I would be all for it.

In another post, you posed the dramatic question, what if the man were to turn out to be a man who would require me to drink urine. Indeed -- what if the man turned out to be a monster who would require me to have an arm cut off to show my devotion? Or what if he were a violent thug? Or a terrorist? Or a paedophile? Or any other kind of criminal type? Or what if I suspected him of being a serial killer or a rapist or a cannibal?

I do not understand why the answer is not obvious: for a start, I'd leave him. And obviously, that is what anyone, male or female, should do if they find themselves with someone either fundamentally incompatible (I have an aversion to the idea of injesting urine) or worse. (If I thought that he was a serial killer, of course I'd be going to the police too, but that is a separate issue.)

Being in a relationship in which the man is in control in the way Stephen and Noone have talked about would not make me a slave: I would always be free to leave; I just would never want to. So the way I see it, I would be consenting on an on-going basis, and wholeheartedly so at that. As I tried to explain, you can tell that Taken In Hand women are consenting by asking them. Battered women are not consenting, and there is no similarity between how Stephen's wife feels and how a battered woman feels. None whatever!

This is not to disparage anyone else's choices, but when a Taken In Hand woman places herself in her man's hands and trusts him to care enough to cherish her instead of destroying her, that is not the action of a blind, foolhardy woman, that is the action of a strong woman who is deeply in love and deeply trusts her man.

Call me an eternal optimist or naïve if you like, but I don't think that every man on the planet is a monster who needs to be watched like a hawk for the first sign of trouble. I think quite a few of them are human beings just like us, and that they are worth trusting.

Yes, they will make mistakes, and if you are the kind of woman who fears that you may be destroyed by a man's mistake, I'd advise you not to go for a Taken In Hand relationship. Or probably any relationship actually, but especially not a Taken In Hand one.

In a Taken In Hand relationship, you do not hand over the responsibility for your own happiness, let alone mental health, to the man, you are still responsible for yourself. If you want to live under the control of a man, you had better be strong enough to be magnanimous when he does make a mistake. Mistakes will happen. You can't reasonably enter this kind of relationship expecting a man to be infallible. You have to assume that he is fallible like the rest of us. But innocent mistakes made by individuals of good will who love each other need not be harmful.

However, if your judgement of the man turns out to have been mistaken, and he turns out to be a monster or just plain incompatible, LEAVE!

Louise, you wrote:

You said to the boss that she would have no say in what a man did to her. I insitinctively find that very objectionable. I do not like the idea that, just because a woman is Taken In Hand, that means she has no say in what happens to her.

Louise, Stephen knew that what he said would appeal to me. And if you have read his articles, you can see that he cares very much about consent. Do keep that context in mind. If Stephen were saying that to someone who does not want this, then yes, I'd agree with you, but he wasn't, and he wouldn't.

And incidentally, I wasn't being sarcastic when I refered to your perfect wife. My lack of interest in housekeeping has been a source of genuine distress in our relationship, causing terrible rows and indeed divorce (we were divorced after a couple of years of marriage, though we got back together again). Reading your article did make me feel quite genuinely depressed, wondering if my husband would really have been happier all along with someone like her. This is something that still makes me wonder. I know my husband loves me madly, but is love enough? Would he be happier really with someone whom he loved less madly but who didn't irritate him so much? It wasn't sarcasm, Stephen, it was sadness.

I knew it wasn't sarcasm, Louise. I thought it was a lovely post you wrote. And it sounds as though your husband is extremely happy with you, so don't be too hard on yourself. I am sure your husband would not want a domestic goddess when he can have you. How many other men do you know who are passionately in love with their wife? He could hire a maid to help you with the housework, but I am willing to bet that to him, you are irreplaceable.

Well, this has been an interesting thread to read. Frankly, I don't understand why the consent issue keeps coming up. Consensual relationships are the assumption here; we should not have to repeat that with each and every single discussion. I guess some people don't quite get the idea of "consensual non-consent" -- that is, a woman consenting from the start that her husband has the right to do things to her that she might later resist or object to. But it is still consensual, as long as she has the right to leave him if she becomes unhappy.

So, those two things are all that's technically needed for consent: (1) That she agrees that the man is the boss, and he has the final word; and (2) That if this results in an unsatisfactory marriage from her point of view, she has the right to leave him. But that's not all that's implied, of course. Because if the man is truly to fill his dominant role, then that includes making it a happy marriage. And that means plenty of communication; the man will seek out her input and advice, and make it his responsibility to ensure that the marriage is a satisfying one for her as well as him. If he ignores or dismisses her input and her desires, and if he continually does things that his wife hates, then he is being irresponsible, and that is anything but dominant. She would be right to leave him, in that case.

Perhaps the analogy with a job would clarify this somewhat. When I take a job with a company, then I need to do what my boss says. Presumably, he will be a competent and considerate guy, and will choose his orders wisely, and with much input from me as regards my own likes and dislikes, and areas of expertise. (I'm talking about my own experience in engineering here, but I imagine it would apply to any sort of professional career.) But undoubtedly I will be assigned some things that I don't really like, or I'm not really good at. I'll still try to do them, maybe with some extra help or guidance. But if he keeps assigning me jobs that are not what I felt I signed up for, then I can always quit that company and go elsewhere. Likewise, the company could fire me if I'm not doing what they feel is satisfactory.

So, theoretically, my boss has the right to demand that I make coffee or clean the bathrooms, even if that's not really fitting to my career as an engineer. He also has the right to demand that I work the afternoon shift, or stay late some nights, etc. But in almost every job I've been in, bosses are unlikely to mistreat their employees that way; because skilled employees are valuable, and the boss does not want to go through the pain and bother of hiring and training new people. Instead, my boss will usually seek my input and advice, and give me a large degree of autonomy in how I structure my work, what hours I work, and etc. Because he knows that if I get too unhappy on the job, I can walk right out the door.

Likewise with a male-dominant marriage - unless the man is a senseless oaf, he's not going to regard the woman's consent as a license to do all sorts of things that she would hate. And if he is a total oaf, then she can leave him. (Or, much more likely, she would never have married him in the first place.) I don't see at all how this is "emotional blackmail." What Pat and Louise seem to be saying is that the marriage itself must be more important than all of one's other desires and preferences; so that even if one's husband or wife is completely incompatible, you should still stay there and save the marriage at all costs. But why?? Why in the world is it so important to stay in a marriage with someone whose interests and desires are not compatible with your own?

Well, I suppose some people might decide to stay together for the sake of their children. (And that's one way in which children can trap people in an unhappy marriage, and it's why I never wanted children.) But whether or not there are children, it's important for both husband and wife to be happy, and to have their sexual and romantic needs met. If that's not happening, then I would advise just getting out. And children don't seem to be the issue in the relationships that "Pat" is so concerned about; so I don't know what her issue is.

I would guess that what Pat objects to is the very fact that some of us take our dominant and submissive desires so seriously that we would not be willing to stay married to anyone who did not fulfill those desires. This is not just a little erotic "game" to some of us; it is at the very core of what it means to be a man or a woman, and to be in a loving erotic relationship. In my experience, many switches do consider it just a spanky "game" of sorts, even if they happen to tie it in with domestic discipline. By contrast, those of us who are irrevocably either dominant men or submissive women tend to regard the aspect of male dominance as an absolute necessity in our marriages. It's not the only necessity, of course; but if the marriage lacks the sort of male dominance we need and desire, then that's as good a reason to leave the marriage as any other sort of irreconcileable difference.

To the boss...

I wanted to comment on your article describing what you feel are the differences between DD and what you mean by Taken in Hand. A number of people, you mention Tevemer in your article, would feel Taken In Hand is simply another label for DD. I agree with this in part and I disagree in part. My objections to the presentation of the DD construct on web sites such as Mr Fondman's and Digit and Maryanne's, Bethany's, etc. are much the same as yours. Fondman wrote his web site as a single male with only a theory, the other two are more like D/s and use the term DD as a way to describe an element of their D/s practice, at least this is the way it appears to me. I don't think these ideas of DD being a tool or tactic within an overall relationship structure is how people with experience and mature relationships actually go about things. I am referring here to those couples who label themselves DD and distance themselves from the D/s label. Some will go the other way and consider D/s a part of their bedroom play, giving D/s a definition of only erotic enhancement. So, we have on the one hand a group who label their relationship structure D/s (it is how they relate) who use DD as a (misguided) tool for behavior management or modification and those in DD who use D/s as a role play for temporary sexual enhancement. What is wrong with this picture? Let us examine things in a bit more detail. You write:

To take the second bit first, my focus, and thus the focus of Taken In Hand, is on the idea of living under the control of a man -- not because men are superior, or biology or the Bible dictates it (as you may have noticed, I try to keep discussions of why off this site, because we all disagree and that is a different issue) but just because it is my preference. And the more in control the man is, the better, as far as I am concerned. It is erotic. It feels right. (If anyone jumps to the conclusion that I am saying that other preferences are wrong, I will feel like using intemperate language in exasperation at their wilful misunderstanding!)

I personally believe male control is a biological imperative rather than something that is only true for some men and some women. It is a behavior selection that has allowed evolutionary growth in humans taking the form of mother/infant bonding, sex for pleasure and a long period for offspring development before they reach adulthood. I think this male control as a natural selection will take a lot of different forms ranging from the strictly vanilla to the hardest extremes in BDSM practice but natural it must be because it seems the only way to give a female a fighting chance for survival in the evolutionary development of humans. The tactics may be different for different people but the underlying biological necessity for the woman to keep the male connected to the family instead of dispersing to get as many offspring as possible is the same. Male control does that and so is a useful strategy. I do think male control is much more erotic for some women than others and certainly some forms of control are more erotic for some women than others but behavior selection in evolution does not imply all members of a species are going to be equal. Still, male control in some form seems to be sexual in some way for nearly every woman I've come across even if some may adamantly deny it like we see in some rather extreme feminist views.

I think it important not to describe a set of actions and label them control because by so doing we limit our understanding of what others do.

The focus of the domestic discipline (DD) community is slightly different. The discussions on DD forums tend to be tightly focused on 'discipline', lists of rules and infractions, 'accountability', 'boundaries, limits and guidelines', 'consistency', and punishment, and how all this allegedly helps women's behaviour improve.

I agree with this or at least agree this happens a lot. I think it is okay for people in dysfunctional marriages to try some of this out as a way to 'teach' the kind of control the wife wants her husband to take but I do think the whole concept gets out of hand way too easy. DD really isn't about that by most who label themselves such. I never could understand the part about such a huge focus on the woman's behavior. It seems to me the husband's behavior is usually quite a bit worse but this is just my own life observation. I don't understand about limits and guidelines either. That sounds boring too me. I think for the most part it is a lack of understanding of their sexual need and so they make stuff up as they go along. Well, they are told “Do what works for you” and this is fine but, hey, isn't it okay to look at the experience of others?

I was already a little nervous that lost my husband's debit card because I did not put it in my wallet like I know I am supposed to do and he has told me to many times before. By the time we called it in missing somebody had already spent $75 on it. I knew I was in big trouble then. When I got home he wouldn't even talk to me cus he was so mad at me.

For those who like this kind of thing, great! But if so then I think it is a mistake to try to claim that what they are doing is really about behaviour modification. It clearly isn't. It is how they connect erotically, that's all. There is nothing wrong with that; I just find the ostensible explanations people give for what they are doing transparently false.

I agree here also. But again, these women visit sites like Bethany's, fondly and firmly, Digitand maryannes, and this is what they read about how DD is supposed to work. Managing behavior is the core need for wanting 'discipline.' Well, the core need is control. Control will always be the core need. Managing behavior is not a core need. This is absolutely absurd. I know, i know, this may be true for me but not for others! Hogwash. No one likes to be told how to live their lives and I'm certainly not doing that but some things we can know for sure. Like I know the sky is blue. I know the stars are really a long ways away. I know the core need is control. Some people may try to explain things in a way that are transparently false but I think this comes down to a lack of understanding and, in some cases unfortunately, a lack of ability to ever understand even the simplest concepts.

For example, how long did people believe the earth must be the center of the universe? Or how long did people believe the earth was flat because they couldn't see it as a circle? All one has to do is look at the horizon line to at least question this obvious falsehood but instead people chose to accept the dictates of their 'betters.' We see the same sort of thing happening here, people simply and blindly accepting the glaring inconsistencies and tortured concepts of those who claim to have authority. It is sad but it is still a misunderstanding and not an intentional deceit.

There seems to be quite a lot of self-delusion in the domestic discipline community. As I argued in these articles and these articles, the idea that domestic discipline of women is just like parents spanking their children is patently false.

I have read this idea of woman as a child creature. In my mind that particular notion is patently offensive because it seems to appeal only to prurient interests, in my opinion.

Many in the DD community are in denial about this, in my opinion.

Many people in the DD and BDSM community have some rather distorted ideas about why they do what they do.

Nor am I a woman who needs discipline, ‘domestic’ or otherwise. I am a fully-functioning, competent, able adult whose parents were sticklers for formal etiquette. I know how behave impeccably, and I don't need a good thrashing to 'teach me the errors of my ways', any more than any man does (and quite possibly a good deal less!).

We recently had this discussion on 1DD. What do we mean by discipline? The objection was that if were not trying to correct a behavior or change an attitude then how could we possibly describe what we do as discipline? Well, we are trying to change behaviors, change attitudes. In fact, we are trying to change them to the extent that we actually change the whole relational style of a couple in a marriage or relationship.

If you want to change a specific behavior, you start with introducing a 'control' behavior. For example, when I decided to stop drinking I introduced the control behavior of 'one day at a time.' and so every day I would allow this control behavior to keep me from drinking for that one day. Control behaviors can be anything depending on the behavior you are trying to manage or modify. Some don't work and some simply involve too much risk to be useful. For example, a wife may want to control her husbands drinking and so she tells him every time he drives anywhere he must take the children with him. The wife wants to control the behavior of drinking and so she puts her children in the car with a drunk. Well, it works for some people, some fathers don't drink with their children in the car. Some mothers hate the results. Not a good control behavior, obviously. The point is that a control behavior to be effective must have acceptable risk, be easy enough to enforce and actually accomplish what it is supposed to accomplish.

In DD, we are not really considering one or even several behaviors but normally a wide range of behaviors ranging from the most obvious to the most subtle. We institute usually several different control behaviors such as 'final say'. There is usually some misunderstanding of this concept and for the most part I don't think people really explain it very well. Apparently, I don't.

I understand the application of this discipline as being a relational adjustment rather than blind permission for the husband to exercise unilateral power and control. We are not talking about a patriarchy. 'Final say ' is simply a useful, acceptable risk and effective control behavior to get a couple to relate in some sort of reasonable way. It works well in situations, for instance, where the wife has a relational style that is aggressive,; i.e.. she tends to yell and scream a lot and the husband is more reserved and would rather talk things through calmly instead of fighting. Giving the consent for final say is a simple way to change their relating style though it probably doesn't change the course of any really significant or life changing decisions. "Final say' also has the clear advantage of giving the couple a way of effectively handling catastrophic life events such as the loss of a job, the death of a child or any of a number of natural or man made disasters such as hurricanes or the like. The point is this discipline need not be limited in its application because the intent is to allow both the husband and wife some way of feeling their real feelings and sharing their hopes and dreams. Like any good control behavior, 'final say ' can have many deeper uses than what appear superficially. Like 'one day at a time' has many more uses for me than it did the first day I used it. I'd say for its purpose, 'final say' is a fine discipline.

So, yes, boss, I'd guess you are likely a woman who needs some kind of discipline as long as you don't define DD as spanking.

I cannot remotely identify with the idea that women are out-of-control childish creatures in need of a firm hand, while men are paragons of self-control and all other virtues in the known universe and quite possibly a few more besides. We are all human beings; we all make mistakes; and I don't think it is helpful to pedastalise men in this way.

For me, being under a man's authority is about retaining our awareness of one another as being different from each other. It is about being aware of myself as a woman, and being aware of the man as being a man rather than sexless/unisex.

In order to live like this in practice I think requires some form of discipline in the form of any number of control behaviors such as 'final say' if it applies or any number of possibilities. I especially like devices such as this because their applications can be so varied or so flexible. But any number of behaviors are possible.

I also think what you describe is the primary distinction between a Taken In Hand community (including traditional DD) which uses primarily spanking as the sexual impact behavior and BDSM which can run a gamut of some odd seeming and rather horrifying sounding 'stuff.' You want to relate to a man and you want to relate to him as a woman. I think in the BDSM community in general, the operating agenda is to relate to each other as either a 'dominant' or a 'submissive' and gender has very little to do with anything. i think if we are going to make any distinctions we must distinguish between relational differences like this rather than depth of understanding and I personally do not see any difference between the man/woman connection in what you describe asTIH and DD. I think they are the same. I think there is a huge difference between this and the bDSM community.

Another problem I personally have with domestic discipline is that the heavy focus of DD forums on 'discipline' is at the expense of all other forms of expressing control. I personally would like to see a more general focus on the idea of the man's authority and control instead of on punishment and in particular, spanking. When spanking is the focus, people seem to lose sight of more subtle forms of control, and indeed, more extreme forms of control.

I can sympathize with this. One of the problems people have in both DD and BDSM is they describe behaviors as being either dominant or submissive but my own experience in power exchange tells me we need not make such definitions. I am dominant when I switch because the connection involved allows me a particular experience in which I feel a change in my own perception of how I relate and connect to the world. I need Annie for this because this kind of perception requires an interaction with another human being. By Annie giving me consent (she says she loves me in a different way) this magnificent gift allows me to control how I perceive the world around me and will change how I relate to it and to Annie forever. It's pretty powerful stuff.

I believe too that the meaning of consent was frequently explained here. I haven´t read any letters of battered women who would like help in getting out of there relationships. There was one woman who wrote a letter to her husband she said: "I`m giving you my consent to do something 'non-consensual' when you think it´s necessary". I think she had a very good point.

I believe you are right about DD. From what I have read a lot of people advocating DD are still denying their soul what truly is going on. I do not believe that it's about improving behavior. If God forbid something should happen to their husband would these women run naked in the streets committing every foul act around just because the is no one to take them over his knee?

No of course not. Unlike you though I do need to be spanked, But NOT to keep me from becoming some kind of menace to society. It along with other forms of dominance cleanses my soul. Clears my mind, makes me feel safe and connected to my husband.

Some (not all) DD couples I believe are afraid to say that their very soul cries for this kind of attention. Instead they fool themselves to believe it has nothing to do with sexuality or their deeper needs.

Unfortunately religion plays a role in this as well. Don't get me wrong, I'm for religion. I am not for pretending feeling sexual desire has nothing to do with why we (women) crave a strong man. And I don't believe that Christ ever intended for the Bible to determine what a couple should and should not feel they want and need. Not all relationships are the same, you can't learn how to be married to your (specific) partner from a book, class, or even spiritual leader. It's a journey of self discovery that never ends and always changes.

I have found Taken In Hand a lot different than other DD sites. I have seen a lot of males on Taken In Hand, but I see mostly females. On other DD sites, it's just the opposite. I belong to one called Fondly and Firmly. If you read through some of their postings, you will see the big difference. Taken in Hand seems to be more relaxed. There seems to be more...umm...varieties of DD. I'm having a hard time trying to explain that. Mr. Fondly is very strong in how he feels in how a man should be disciplining his wife. And the wives should be more obediant. We tend to follow the stricter DD. I see in Taken In Hand that there is a lot of contraversy over what DD is. I have posted several different messages and there is always a reply where people don't agree with me. There seems to always be an argument. I understand that Taken In Hand is just about all the different ways a person could be taken in hand, but when one starts talking about DD, I believe they should understand that DD is about total surrender. Not partial surrender. If I say I am a better person because of the discipline my husband gives me, I don't understand how a person could argue that point if I am coming from a DD relationship. Yes it does change your character. I used to be this loud abnoxious person. That was my character. Now I am quiet and low voiced. It's not just about changing your behavior. After all as we grow up from children and we get punished, the punishments we get are what make up our character. How can you argue that? I think DD is more direct. Yes that's it. That is the big difference. It's more direct. I have very strict rules that I have to abide to. It's not just an attitude, it's a way of living. I mean I haven't been living like that long but I understand that it involves a total life change. The way I used to dress, the amount of makeup I use to wear. The manner in which I talk to my children, the way I respond to my husband when I am in a mood or not feeling well, and the way I behave around friends or in public. Also, a lot of people seem to want to keep their relationship hush hush around family and friends, if you are living in a life changing surrender, how can you hide that and why would you want to. My family all know and yet they say I am so much happier. They don't judge me. I mean when we are with family, they wont hear me getting spanked, but they will certainly see my husband letting me know he isn't going to take any of my crap. And that's if I even dare to misbehave infront of others.

I went to this other site just to check and see what their idea of DD was and all I saw was older gentlemen flirting with younger women. I know in a DD relationship, there is no reason for a husband to be flirting with a younger woman. I'm sure it can happen, but not like what I was seeing over there. Like it was the common thing to do. In a DD relationship why would you even want to take the chance of your husband finding out you were talking to another man in private or being talked to. I am not even aloud to talk to strangers unless they go through my husband first. That's just being a lady. And thats another point, I believe that being in a DD relationship molds you into a lady. I am not talking about any lady out on the street as in female. I am talking about a feminine: quiet, properly dressed, keep your legs crossed, no cursing, no spitting, knowing when to speak, having your husband pull out your chair, open doors, etc etc... To me if you are living in a relationship of DD and you are not involved with these practices, then your not really living in a DD relationship. Speaking of cursing, I have to apologize, earlier I posted a message in another area and used a word I shouldn't have. It wasn't a curse but still it was a word that a lady should never say. I am still fairly new at this. Some old habits still haunt me.

I think after today I will have to reconsider how much time I am spending on my computer. Sometimes I just want to talk to other ladies that go through the same thing I do.

I should mention that http://fondlyandfirmly.com has a link to takeninhand.com

Spanking for disipline purposes has been very effective for us. it is done in complete privacy and not discussed with anyone. after consentual agreement, our life has more meaning and hours formerly of discussion, silence, going on for days is eliminated. the process of giving a real old fashioned spanking can be done in fifteen minutes. the pain may linger but not more than overnight and the next morning thanks are given and promises kept so the process is not repeated.

Taken In Hand is closer to DD than to D/s. D/s is so loaded down with tedious sterotypical roles, rituals and (to my mind) rather distasteful BDSM paraphenalia. Taken In Hand is about real relationships, not pre-defined roles like 'dominant' and 'submissive'. I personally do not identify with the 'submissive' label, despite strongly preferring to be in a relationship in which the man is in control in reality. I and many other Taken In Hand folk reject the standard D/s ideas, and favour a more evolutionary, individual approach. Give me DD over D/s any time. But as you say, this article was about my problems with DD, and I consider myself neither DD nor D/s, but Taken In Hand.

Well, it's not unpleasant for me, or for my husband. I love being spanked, and while my husband is not as into spanking as I am, he definitely enjoys giving me a good walloping when I've done something that annoys him.

And I don't personally see that there must be discipline in a Taken In Hand relationship, unless both parties find this agreeable. There are couples who consider themselves to be Taken In Hand without discipline being involved at all. It is an optional part of a Taken In Hand relationship, not an essential. My husband is quite capable of quelling mutiny without spanking me, if I get stroppy or argumentative with him about something he can generally put a stop to it with a few well-chosen words, or sometimes just a look is enough. The spanking is something that gives both of us satisfaction, but for other people it might be irrelevent.

I think there must be other solutions to a disagreement in a relationship other than either spanking or walking away: what's wrong with talking things over for instance?

Louise

Well, it always is sexual for me, and the more like 'real' punishment it is then the more of a turn-on it is for me. I cannot imagine what it would be like to be spanked if you didn't enjoy it, and I don't want to. I can't imagine my husband would do it if he didn't know that, deep down, I do enjoy it, however much I may squirm and whimper while it's going on, he knows that really I want him to do it to me. Even when he's really pissed off with me, he knows that however much it hurts, afterwards I will be left with that happy afterglow that I always have. If I didn't get that happy afterglow, then I think he would just see it as abuse. He knows it's a massive turn-on for me, and that's one of the reasons he does it. That he also gets to take out any irritation he feels with me that way is another big benefit for him, but it's still sexual for me, and he knows it. I can't imagine it ever being not sexual. if he thought I really didn't enjoy it, then I don't think he'd do it.

Louise

My husband has never suggested using any other form of punishment apart from spanking, it does not seem to have ever occured to him. However, there are some punishments that I have seen described that, if he chose to use them, would definitely make me feel alienated from him rather than making me feel closer to him as spanking does.

Therefore, if he started wanting to do those things to me, I might begin to feel distanced from him, which I don't think would be a good thing. 'Topping from the bottom' doesn't come into it, it's about what is going t bring us closer, and what is going to drive us apart. I don't regard a Taken In Hand relationship as being some kind of endurance test to prove how submissive I am by what I will put up with. It's about what makes us get along better and being subjected to punishments I found alienating r ather than connecting would not be of benefit to the relationship.

Louise

I find being punished so powerfully erotic that I think most punishments other than spanking would be a turn-on for me rather than a turn-off. That is, even if they were something that I really didn't like, like being banned from using the computer or something, the fact that it was a punishment would make it an erotic experience for me.

My only experience of this was one day about a year ago when my husband was furious with me because I'd done something that had made a mess of the kitchen. "I want the kitchen cleaned up" he said to me "and you're not to put on the computer or the TV until it's done, and if any parcels come for you you're not to open them until I say so." Then he went up to his office. I cleaned up the kitchen, I didn't touch the computer or the TV, and a parcel that came for me was left lying on the dining room table until he came down again.
"I'm glad to see you're doing as you're told" he said to me sternly. "I wouldn't dare do otherwise" I replied.

While not being able to go on the computer, and not being able to open a parcel that had come for me, are things that I regard as serious inconveniences, the mere fact that I had been ordered not to do those things made not doing them highly erotic. They certainly didn't make me feel distanced from him. And I think the same would be true of most punishments. Although they might be things that in theory I wouldn't like doing, in practice the mere fact of them being punishments would render them highly erotic to me.

In the case of certain physical punishments I have read about other than spanking, I think that having them done to me would be disturbing in a way that might render them un-erotic, and in those cases I think they would create distance rather than closeness.

I don't really believe in the 'no matter what' relationship. I think everyone has limits, and there is always the possibility that there might be something that you will say 'no' to.

Louise