Force majeure

Suppose that after much careful consideration and communication to ensure that M (a man) is decent and worthy, W (a woman) consents to a male-led relationship and transfers full authority to M. Perhaps they marry and she vows to obey. For many months or years, everything goes well and W willingly obeys M, who protects and cherishes her. But like all human beings, M sometimes makes mistakes and sometimes acts wrongly. Most of the time, these mistakes are not disastrous; but one day, M decides to drive W somewhere when he is under the influence of a mind-altering substance such as a high-strength prescription narcotic or more than a little alcohol. W is aghast at the idea and refuses, to which M replies that she has no choice and that she either trusts him or doesn't. How can such a scenario be resolved? What should W do?

My personal take on this is as follows. It assumes that (1) we are talking about people who live in a free society, and (2) that there has been no concerted, intentional employment of psychological programming/brainwashing, etc., on the woman.

(I make this second very specific stipulation because I think that people in emotionally intense relationship always end up doing some 'psychological programming' to each other; and I want to be clear that I am talking about someone whose will/self-identity, etc., has not been intentionally and profoundly altered through a systematic process, but about someone whose will/self-identity has been altered, if at all, only in the 'normal' way that can (does?) happen in any intense relationship. Though I guess it's not a bright-line issue when I think about it. Anyway.....)

It seems to me to be clear that submission or authority transfer, even when declared by the submitter to be enduring and irrevocable, contains an implicit element of constant contingency, constant re-commitment and re-evaluation, if you will. This is true even in relationships where there is meta-consent or consensual nonconsensuality, as in some Taken In Hand relationships; much more so in a relationship where the limits of authority transfer have been implicitly or explicitly defined to be something short of these extremes.

With this in mind the woman always has both the right and the wherewithal to withdraw consent. Even if she says, “I have made my last choice, and that was the ability to freely choose,” this is, as a practical matter, not really true (again, in a free society). She must thereafter constantly choose not to choose again, even if she does not consciously do so.

What keeps a woman from withdrawing from that commitment, even when it causes her to cross some ethical/situational line she had not necessarily considered when she granted it to the man, is entirely interior to the woman.

In some (relatively unusual) cases she actually may not be able to, having truly reached a condition of ‘internal enslavement.’ This is, of course, very similar to what happens in brainwashing, I think, in a lot of ways.

She may not be ‘internally enslaved,’ but may have invested so much in the relationship in terms of emotional capital, self-identity, etc., that she concludes that breaking her commitment to the relationship would be more damaging to herself than crossing the line that she is being compelled against her better judgment to cross would be.

Or she may see it as a point of honor, as a matter of personal integrity or self-identity that she not go back on her word, her commitment.

But ultimately, I believe, there can always be a deal-breaker.

This is why, of course, people must be very careful about making such commitments, if they do truly see them as commitments and would be bothered by the necessity to break them.

But given that is impossible to be certain that one knows everything about a person one needs to know in order to responsibly make such a commitment – I've been in the same relationship for over twenty years now, and I am still learning important things about my wife, and she about me, I think – the potential for this sort of re-assessment of things is always there, even among people who are very thorough and conscientious about getting to know each other, who have done a lot of ‘due diligence.’

Then, too, people change during relationships, of course, so that as time goes by they are less the people they were when the commitment was made. Ideally they grow and change together as things go along, but sometimes, for whatever reason, they grow or change in separate ways; and this can cause a necessity for re-evaluation of whether one can or should stay in the relationship as well.

So what's the upshot of all this: what should W do in this case?

Ideally, M will listen to W's pleas that he not drive, or will later thank her for having taken away his car keys or insisting on driving herself or getting a taxi instead. But if he does not, she may have to take responsibility for her own protection.

How M responds to W's actions after the fact – whether he thanks her for saving them from his mistake or chastises her for disobedience – will say much, I think, about the shape of the relationship in the long-term, and may push W to the point of making the sort of re-assessment of the relationship to which I refer earlier here.

Marz Blak

Taken In Hand Tour start | next


Have you seen the following articles?
Equality isn't all it's cracked up to be
The submission of a Taken In Hand woman
Cherishing the family: little things have big effects
If you want a woman to submit, here's what it takes
Women want men who are more dominant
What women don't want
The joy of the master-queen dynamic
The paradox of the master and the queen
Domestic discipline (DD)
Is your new man dominant, domineering, or a dithering wimp?

The key issue

I think for me the key issue is that there always is a choice. Unless as in the situation you mentioned at the beginning of the article there has been some severe degree of brain washing I always have a choice. Trying to put myself in that situation I'm honestly not sure what I would do. I would like to think that I would refuse to go, and that I would do everything in my power to keep my man from going out in that condition, regardless of the consequences. I would hope that my partner realized later that he had been the irrational one and wouldn't want to end a relationship over the situation. That being said it would certaily put me in a great deal of turmoil, not so much because I would feel as though I weren't behaving as I should, but because in my mind either response is the wrong one. I would constantly be second guessing along the lines of: "well, he knows his body better than I do...but what if he doesn't? What responsibility to I have if I let him get in this vehichle, especially if I encourage him by getting in with him? What if I refuse to go and he goes anyway? Should I call the police and report it, knowing it will almost certainly disolve the relationship--what if he's right and he's really okay to drive? What if he's not and he injures/kills someone or himself?" It is the uncertainty that would make things difficult, not the fact that I am a taken in hand woman.

My responses have to do with being a woman who values her relationship as well as the protection of her man and others. Taken in Hand may absolve me of a little bit of individual decision making and responsibility in our relationship, but that doesn't mean I'd do anything regardless of legal/moral ramifications. I wanted a Taken in Hand relationship because I love and trust my boyfriend. If he were to make me doubt his trust in such a way that it endangered himself or others, or involved something illegal, the Taken in Hand element would have to be set aside. I love him too much, and respect others too much allow my desire for him to be in charge and me to be submissive to put others at risk.

Force majeure

I don't see why this is an issue--nobody in their right mind's going to get in a vehicle with a driver that's drunk. Vowing to obey when you get married assumes the guy's not going to ask you to put your life at risk, or that when he's off his head you don't play the lemming. If he's got a problem with you disobeying in this type of situation, he needs help IMO.

Where I disagree with the previous poster is even if you're with a good guy and you trust him he's going to do something stupid sometime--we all do. Sh*t happens! Get over it. You can't expect a guy to be perfect--nobody is, right? You just have to do the best you can at the time and take each incident as it comes. If your relationship's in jeopardy because of one act of stupidity your relationship's going to be in jeopardy because there's no guy on the planet that's NEVER going to do something stupid.

Thank you Marz

For pointing out that there are always going to be situations where the Taken In Hand submissive partner's right to withdraw consent is going to be tested as is her willingness to obey even in a circumstance where clearly she should not.

I keep on suggesting that there are times when consent must be taken back and owned by the person who originally gave it. A situation like this where the dominant partner is being foolish and putting both their lives at risk is one of them.

You could go a lifetime without this issue coming up, perhaps, but as the second reply stated, there are times when everyone does something that is foolish and wrong and even dangerous. To blindly obey in that circumstance would be adding to the folly. If one places the man's demands above one's own life, well, I think that speaks to a major self-esteem problem.

Further and especially if there are minor children of this union, to place herself into the car with her intoxicated husband and risk her children losing both parents at once would not only be stupid but immoral. There should be NO dilemma here. It should be a clear cut case where she says no, and if he attempts to chastise her she should stop him by ANY means necessary.

"Pat"

The chances of something like

The chances of something like this happening in my relationship are slim to nil, partly because I do most of the driving, and partly because neither my boyfriend nor I really drink, and when he does, he knows how hard it hits him. I can't imagine that he would ever insist on even riding a bicycle in this condition.

I do think, however, that something like this could destroy a relationship because it is a big issue. This isn't a disagreement about whether we let the cable bill or the credit card bill lapse this month. This is a situation that endangers yourself, your partner, and others. Yes, we all make stupid mistakes, and I'm not suggesting I'd end a relationship because my partner wanted to drive impaired. I am suggesting that when significant legal/moral issues are involved and you find yourselfs on totally opposite sides of the issue, perhaps there is a need to worry about compatibility (unless, of course, as I mentioned above, in a more sober state he realizes that he was irrational and you were right to keep him home). I personally don't think I know any man who would happily come back to a wife who called the police on him for any reason, even if she was just looking out for his own safety or the safety of others.

Then again, to me relationships are hard work. Any argument, stupid or not, is a potential relationship wrecker. It is by putting in the hard work and being accepting and forgiving that we make relationships work. If BOTH parties aren't willing to do that, I don't think it can work, but I'm a product of multiple divorces, so I acknowledge that I may be a little bit jaded.

This should be obvious

Ultimately, living in a Taken In Hand relationship should be about discovering and establishing her identity within such a relationship, not losing herself in it. Although you offer a rather extreme example, there may be a few situations where a woman's trust in a man needs to be conditional. We may love to use the romantic language of obedience and devotion, but whether a woman's consent to her man is explicit or implicit does not absolve her from the responsibility to be guided either by a higher set of principles or simple common sense.

For many reasons I firmly believe that the traditional male-led relationship is superior to other relationship models. Nevertheless, any man who would place his authority above the physical and emotional safety of his beloved is not worthy of leading and the woman has a duty to herself and to her conscience to withdraw her consent when she knows he is wrong.

Unless it is something in the extreme, withdrawing her consent need not be for all time. Any man is capable of momentary lapses in reason or exhibiting selfish behaviors. Once he has acknowledged his mistake and the woman feels that typically he demonstrates good judgment and concern for her well being she can in good faith restore her commitment to his leadership.

My wife almost always obeys me when I give her a directive. I do not believe her choosing to follow the dictates of her conscience would undermine my authority as the head of our home. I doubt these kind of situations happen very often (if at all) in most realtionships. Living in a Taken In Hand relationship is not about blindly following your husband and I doubt very many women think they should. If a woman finds it necessary on a regular basis to question her husband's judgement or even worse his loving concern for her well being, then it is time for her to reevaluate their relationship.

Mindless obedience

If I'd wanted mindless obedience I'd have got a dog. I wanted a woman with a mind who would be obedient and follow my leadership, sure, but not to the point of imbecility or mindlessness. That's plain daft. I expect my wife to use her brain, not act as if she's had a lobotomy.

There should be no contest with obedience

In the specific issue given, I don't think there is going to be a problem. When a woman agrees to obey, she should be doing so with informed, rational consent, which includes the assumption that he is going to remain an informed, rational leader.

If he goes mad, or becomes someone other than himself because of drugs (temporarily or otherwise), then he is someone whom she has not agreed to obey. This might sound like rationalising double-speak but it is reality. Her decision should be made soberly, seriously and with knowledge and acceptance. As is pointed out, he will over time change anyway and if he changes so much that he is not the person she committed herself to, then she may re-evaluate her decision. This is one reason why a serious discussion on a relationship is worthwhile every now and then (such as on an anniversary).

Out of Bounds...

Principles are invaluable in all walks of life. They guide you in your decision-making. Here is one of those principles:

All authority has limits - even that of the President of the United States, the most powerful man in the world (re: President Nixon / Watergate).

"I was just following orders," is a common defense plea that has been heard in cases involving the military, the government, relationships, and even marriages.

When authority exceeds the bounds of civil or moral law, its power is negated. We are held accountable to OBEDIENTLY follow the higher authority.

W remains SUBMISSIVE and OBEDIENT - but to an authority higher than M.

Sam (of Sam & Missy)

withdrwing consent?

Stephen, what do you mean by "withdraw consent"? Why does she need to take such a step? Why not just disobey as appropriate? When you talk of her "withdrawing consent" it sounds like a bigger deal than it is. Like you say, everyone has momentary lapses.

Withdrawing consent

I should have been more precise in my wording. What I meant was that a wife should not blindly obey her husband. You are quite correct in suggesting if her husband typically shows good judgement, but has a momentary lapse, it would be better for her to simply disobey. However, I was also thinking of a woman who might be involved in a Taken In Hand relationship with a man who does not possess the kind of maturity he needs if he is to lead his wife. If he has a habit of showing poor judgement, then I think it would be appropriate for her to reevaluate their Taken In Hand relationship and perhaps withdraw consent. I would also suggest that a man who has been using narcotics, has been drinking, and insists that his wife get in an automobile with him at the wheel is a very serious matter. IMO this rises to a level above the momentary lapses of judgement that everyone from time to time makes.

question

How does a woman stay from acting like a 'dog' but still let you make all the decisions?

Acting Like a Dog? Hardly!

While I understand that there are many couples in which the preferred dynamic is for the male to make all the decisions, that is not the case in our household.I am an equal partner in this marriage. I usually choose what to cook for dinner, although I sometimes ask him what he'd prefer (hmmm...sounds kinda normal so far, huh?). Sometimes HE even cooks (he's a better cook than I am, thank you very much!) My husband asks my opinion of his dreams, plans, and ideas and inquires about my own. Sometimes he follows my advice (GASP!). I manage the money. Out of courtesy, he checks with me to make sure the funds are available before buying something. I pick out my own car, although he does make the final decision regarding whether it is safe, reliable, or overpriced. I ride my own motorcycle. Doesn't sound like doggie behavior to me! I go to bed when I am ready to do so, although I usually choose to go to bed with him because we both enjoy the cuddle time and pillow talk.

On the other hand, the Taken in Hand aspect of our relationship applies to those times when I do things that we agree are either harmful to myself, harmful to someone else, or harmful to our marriage/relationship. If I don't pay the electric bill and the power gets cut off because I spent the money on "frilly stuff"--guess who is getting a spanking? If I get a speeding ticket because I procrastinated about getting out of bed and was in a hurry to get to work, SOMEONE'S getting a sore rear--how sore depends on the cost of the ticket. He's a fair guy, though. He got into an accident and was ticketed recently. I jokingly asked him if that entitled me to a "Get out of one spanking free" card--he actually said YES (um...but it's only applicable for traffic fines). If we have a disagreement and I throw something in his direction, yep, you guessed it, my hiney will soon be a few shades redder than it was before--UM, for the record, I only did that once...won't do it again. Not a good idea.

Basically, what I'm trying to say is that I do not sit, stay, roll over, or speak when told to do so and neither do I fetch, carry, lie down, or shut up when ordered. I am an intelligent, college-educated, career-oriented woman with a mind of her own who is encouraged by her husband to use it. When I am Taken in Hand, it is either for my own good or for the overall good of our family. I even have input regarding whether/if I will be disciplined. We are, for the most part, a very normal married couple EXCEPT that we don't argue, fuss, and fight. We overlook and forgive the small stuff and I am disciplined for the big stuff. I am deeply loved and cherished by my husband, and I love him immensely.

Acting like a dog?

A woman, a human being, will never act like a dog. All human beings comply, obey, or agree to someone else's decision at some time. Some women choose to obey, most of the times, a man they have chosen to trust. Obeying a man does not make them less free, or less human, just like accepting your boss's authority at work does not make you his slave either.

It is so refreshing reading t

It is so refreshing reading the viewpoints of the men on this subject and to all who posted you didn't disappoint.

Any man that would end a relationship over this situation is in my opinion an immature tyrant or a man looking for a reason to end his romance.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.