I do have problems with this technique in that acting 'as if' is in some ways denying 'what is'. If 'what is' is a source of dissatisfaction, then it's hard to act as though you're already receiving the benefits of whatever it is you want because acting that way would be incongruent with what you're feeling. From this point of view acting 'as if' is, in essence, acting, rather than being genuine.

It might also convey to the other party that you're in fact satisfied with the staus quo, signalling to them that there's nothing more they need to really do. I believe it would have operated this way with my husband. A partner who does not really want to change, who is uncomfortable with the whole idea, will be only too pleased if, instead of his wife acting as if change is necessary or articulating any needs in that direction, she is acting as if she is fully satisfied by things exactly as they are.

Does this technique accord with the concept of attempting to 'seduce' the other partner's dominance by behaving submissively towards them that is recommended on some other websites? If so, then however well intentioned, I can't avoid the conclusion that it's manipulative as ultimately it's seeking to change the other for one's own benefit but without making this explicit. It seeks to elicit certain 'desirable' behaviour from the other partner without stating that up front.

I can see how acting 'as if' might work when say, someone who has no spiritual beliefs or practices acts as if they do to receive the benefits that spiritual practice brings. In those circumstances no change is anticipated in another person, only in the self. Where I think it becomes problematic is if the motive is to change someone else's behaviour. However much you may be thinking that you're changing yourself, if you're doing it in a relationship context, having tried a more direct means, then the conclusion is inescapable that it's really your husband you're still hoping to change. After all, a woman who attempts this is already convinced of the benefits of a Taken in Hand lifestyle. It's the man she's hoping to convince by one means or another.

I suppose I think that joint issues cannot really be tackled effectively unless they're first articulated. I agree that if a wife is consistently pressing her husband to change then he may well feel not accepted as he is and put up resistance because he feels criticised and threatened. Perhaps the challenge is managing to present these needs to one's husband in a non threatening and uncritical manner, emphasising what is already fulfilling in the relationship.

I agree that if one changes one's own behaviour then from a systemic viewpoint other parts of the 'system' (the husband in this case) will adapt. The thing is, his reaction will be determined by him and may not be at all in the direction wanted or anticipated by the woman. And whilst it is always good to change in the direction of giving one's husband more respect and consideration, I question whether one could smile more or be more animated in circumstances where one is feeling disappointed or frustrated. Where one is feeling satisfied by other aspects of the marriage, then of course this would be quite genuine and not acting 'as if'.

To give an example from my own marriage. If I attempted to consult my husband more, he acted angrily as though I was pressurising him and should be able to make these decisions on my own. Any asking of his opinion would usually be met with irritation. I could not demonstrate I wanted him more sexually. I did want him sexually; it was he who consistently rejected me sexually. In these circumstances I could not be more animated and smile more because I felt at fault for pressuring him and rejected sexually. Giving him more of what he wanted would have meant leaving him alone more and tolerating a level of interaction, shared social activity and sex that was far, far below what I needed and, I have to say, far below what most people would consider acceptable in a marriage.

Changing the self is certainly focusing on the only person one has the power to change. But I can envisage a situation when one might get fed up acting 'as if' one is getting what one needs when one clearly isn't. And I wonder how long you need to act in this way to get results. Is it the self who changes to become satisfied with providing their own submissive fulfilment (or whatever someone is seeking) without a great degree of active participation from their husband? Or is the hope that one's husband will get to like it and, having already had an introduction by more direct means, be led to reflect and reconsider things for himself?

Surely there comes a point, if no changes take place in your husband, where you're back to considering whether you need to drop the issue and find a way to live enjoyably with your husband without it, or to find a new partner who will better satisfy your needs? Surely for any meaningful progress to be made in any direction, one eventually has to accept 'what is'?

I'd have to agree with Lauren on this one. To me, Taken In Hand is all about meeting the needs of both parties, based on effective communication. That communication can take on many forms: verbal, written, body language, and others.

As in any relationship, it takes two to fly this airplane. If the husband just isn't interested in being in the cockpit (and it sure sounds like it in Lauren's case), you'd better consider the flight grounded.

Sam

Rich,

Thank you for your comments on my post. It's always interesting to consider another perspective.

I understand you have a different interpretation and approach to acting 'as if'. My view around the word ‘act’ in this context probably comes from my difficulty with being incongruent – feeling one thing but acting another. I don’t feel I’m being genuine in those circumstances. Others may take a more detached approach and see it simply as a technique to employ.

Perhaps whether one believes it is worth attempting depends on the degree of dissatisfaction in the relationship and whether one believes it will have a positive outcome. Most people make predictions after all before embarking on a course of action.

To take an extreme example, if a woman’s husband becomes violent and hits her when he is angry and she has tried to sort this out in direct ways but has been unsuccessful, it will not benefit her to act as if her husband does not hit her and as if he is already behaving in a non violent way. Sometimes people’s personal issues are too strong for a change in their partner’s behaviour to make very much difference.

Where the marriage is otherwise good however, and, as an example, it may be an issue of the man feeling uncomfortable at departing from the ideal of ‘equality’ encouraged by society - or perhaps being uncomfortable with aspects of physical discipline (and I can understand men may be uncomfortable when introduced to this) - then the woman acting ‘as if’ may well work to demonstrate the benefits of this type of arrangement and allay the man’s reservations.

However, people’s personal resistance to assuming dominance can be based on many things – perhaps a reluctance to assume greater responsibility or greater engagement. Perhaps being completely unmoved personally by this kind of dynamic. In these sorts of cases then I think personal aspects of the individual will subvert any attempts by a wife who is acting ‘as if’. As we agreed, the man’s reaction will be determined by him, not by what his wife hopes for. There are any number of possible reactions. It may go completely contrary to what was hoped for. The woman behaving in a manner which indicates she is fulfilled and satisfied may give the man licence to be even more uninvolved.

If a woman is trying to get her man to assume a dominant position in the relationship and this is not working, then more fruitful I would think, would be approaching him in a non threatening way and trying to really understand what his objections are or where the stumbling blocks are occurring. It seems to me there are a number of qualities that someone must possess in order to be dominant. One is a willingness for the high level of engagement this entails. A high level of personal responsibility is necessary as is a rational approach. A man must also know his partner very well I should have thought, in order to always act in her best interests. Without these abilities, or the willingness to go to the effort of assuming them, then I suppose I think dominance is a bit of a non starter.

The techiniques in this post work with my husband. I'm the one who gives up – I'm way too impatient – then I have to start all over again. My frustration is that he isn't changing as quickly as I'd like. I am a dominant person who married a very laidback man. But he is a good man and I don't want to leave him. I would be insane to. So I have to work on 'acting as if' a lot, and I have to see every small effort on his part as a huge deal, because for him and me it is.

The good news is he is changing (if I can just hang in there) and he is worth the wait.

If I knew then (25 years ago) what I know now I would have married a different kind of man. But I didn't and I love what he is becoming, and he likes it too. I guess I'm more worried that he will get frustrated with me and decide I'm not worth it. These three articles by the boss are ones I have to go back to again and again. For women like me, they are worth their weight in gold.

Any suggestions from women who've been down this road? Or men who have learned to take charge? How long did it take you? Any short cuts, secrets, things to avoid, etc?

Thanks