I have to disagree. I am submissive, in every way, Sexually and homemaker. Where BDSM is fantasy lived out and Taken in Hand is a lifestyle choice. My master and I have a safe word. If we will embark on something new and exciting we discuss it first and agree to try it, if during our new experience if I am in pain, uncomfortable, not enjoying it or feel unsafe I use my safe word and he stops. I appreicate the after care because during a sexual experience I am free of my inhibitions and get very worked up, so after care is very important. To know my master has enjoyed our experience, to know I did well in my part, and for him to know I enjoyed it and want to do it again. In my life style choice I feel safe, cared for, and very well loved. I don't know if BDSM fantasy person can say they feel loved and connected to their partner after they act out a fantasy, the way I do.

My humble opinion,
Pet a submissive

My only knowledge of BDSM comes from reading and some very mild play with my husband, but I find Carlf's evaluation of BDSM unduly harsh. Most BDSM practices aren't for me, but many of the accounts I've read make it clear that there often is a lot of warmth, spontaneity and deep feeling between the respective partners.

The notion that authority is only 'real' if the person in charge has no rules governing his behaviour strikes me as very odd. In most other hierarchal relationships - parent/child, employer/employee - there is a system in place to insure that the commanding party doesn't abuse his position; this doesn't mean that the authority that they do wield isn't real. Many Taken In Hand couples do make use of paraphernalia borrowed from the BDSM world, such as safewords, and they shouldn't have to face charges of inauthenticity because of that.

I don't think that having a Taken In Hand relationship necessarily means you want there to be some 'line' that your partner might be going to cross. There isn't any such line in my own relationship, and I don't think either of us would want there to be. I think my husband would be very disturbed by the idea that he might be going to do something that I would need to forgive him for. I don't think he wants to be in a position where this might happen. Nor do I. Having a Taken In Hand relationship has made me feel safer rather than less safe, and that's one of the biggest benefits of it for me.

Just because BDSM is a very controlled thing, I don't see why this means it must be less passionate than Taken In Hand, it depends, I would imagine, on the people involved and how they feel about it. They could be very passionate about each other and what they are doing together.

Most BDSM practices aren't for me, but many of the accounts I've read make it clear that there often is a lot of warmth, spontaneity and deep feeling between the respective partners.

Warmth and spontaneity, certainly. But depth? BDSM, by its very nature, provides a coccoon of protection in order to prevent depth. The idea of BDSM is to play but to have specific boundaries in order to provide a level of safety. Those boundaries allow people to go farther than they would otherwise be able to because it isn't real.

The notion that authority is only 'real' if the person in charge has no rules governing his behaviour strikes me as very odd. In most other hierarchal relationships - parent/child, employer/employee - there is a system in place to insure that the commanding party doesn't abuse his position; this doesn't mean that the authority that they do wield isn't real.

In fact, we want very strict limits on the kind of authority that parents have over children, and employers have over employees. We do not want that authority to extend beyond what is absolutely necessary. The line of abuse is the point at which the authority becomes real: when an employee no longer has a meaningful choice in the matter or when the child is fully subject to the parent without the tightest of strictures.

In both of those relationships, the person in authority is the servant. "Employer" roles, i.e. managers, supervisors etc, exist only for the purpose of enabling the employee. Supervisors serve no other useful purpose. "They toil not nor do they sow." (Yes, some supervisors do toil and sow, but those are people in blended roles: both supervisor and worker.)

Parents, likewise, have authority only to serve the needs of the child. If there is a question of abuse, that question is: "Did the parent's actions serve the needs (or best interests) of the child?"

The difference between real authority and the subservient authority exercised by parents and employers is the same as the difference between BDSM and Taken In Hand.

The dominant in a BDSM relationship is subservient to the submissive. In a Taken In Hand relationship, the submissive has surrendered authority to the leader, thus making them, paradoxically, more equal.

The power in a BDSM relationship is in the hands of the submissive, whereas the power in a Taken In Hand relationship is in the hands of the leader.

Many Taken In Hand couples do make use of paraphernalia borrowed from the BDSM world, such as safewords, and they shouldn't have to face charges of inauthenticity because of that.

The difference is that Taken In Hand relationships are not required to use the borrowed paraphernalia. If a Taken In Hand couple decides not to use a safeword or if the dominant acts in a way that is not in service of the submissive, they have stepped beyond the bounds of a BDSM relationship. The freedom to step outside those bounds is a wonderous gift that a BDSM relationship cannot give.

BTW: a Taken In Hand relationship is perfectly authentic even if safewords and other boundaries are always in place and always respected. You don't have to use all of the freedoms of a Taken In Hand relationship in order to enjoy them.

Likewise, a BDSM relationship in which the safeword is never spoken is perfectly valid as long as the safeword is always available.

To expand on my comment above: The power in a BDSM relationship is in the hands of the submissive even if the submissive never uses it, whereas the power in a Taken In Hand relationship is in the hands of the leader even if the leader never uses it.

A whip is powerful even if it forever remains hanging on the wall and a fire extinguisher affords safety even if you never use it to put out a fire.

I agree with this post. Having the power to rule doesn't mean the husband has to rule inconsiderately.

Well, I think the idea of a man having total power over a woman might be a frightening thought for any woman, radicalised or not. I imagine that in most Taken In Hand relationships there is a certain amount of negotiation. You can like the idea of a man being in charge without thinking of yourself as a helpless slave, bound to obey his every command. Any relationship, whether Taken In Hand or not, can have changes made to it if one or both of the participants don't like what is going on. No relationship is set in stone.

I didn`t read in Carl`s posting that he believes a Taken in Hand relationship is not real if the man doesn`t have total power and I also don`t believe that a woman who is a totally submissive slave is at the same time totally helpless. It takes a lot of inner strength to be totally submissive. Women who can handle that are in my eyes very capable of taking their own life in hand if they have to.

Carlfby has given, briefly, an overview of only one aspect. Scene-oriented, party or private, BDSM can be much as he notes with the submissive person 'in charge' (whether female or male). Much of the publicly visible material is like this.

There has been of recent years a very strong sense of style active in this mileu (eg, Goth, visible piercings or tattoos, clothing covered with metal studs or prongs, ...), though it's not universal, nor are all Goths etc into any sort of BDSM. I personally think that much of this is not built on inherent qualities of mind or fundamental sexuality, but is much more epater les bourgoise -- if I recall the phrase right. In plain English, it's something like cocking a snoot at the squares. One of the rites of separation / independence from parents and all that stodginess.

Many of these folks are young, not so well informed about themselves or the possibilities of relationships, a they might be. Some others are not interested in a relationship but rather a sort of intense one night stand, which will cause some to think uncomfortably of exploitation. And there is some of that, surely.

However, there is a substantial body of not especially scene oriented folks for whom the submissive person is *not* in charge and it is just that which forms the core of the relationship in a substantial sense. These folks are usually older and less easily distinguishable on stylistic grounds from the hoi polloi; some may be close by, unknownst to you! Clear and consistent communication is required, as there is a more permanent underlying relation than in scene-oriented BDSM. Except in unusual circumstances the submissive person is still obliged to exist in the mundane world (job, driving citations, concerts, landlords, ...), and so there cannot be the sort of micro control imagined (or desired or feared) by some.

The difference from Taken in Hand relationships of these latter is that physical kink of one sort or another is more common (though none is universal given differing desires / triggers / needs), and, perhaps because of this, that the arrangement between the parties is likely to be more formal and explicit. Or should be. In many respects, there is a convergence with Taken in Hand.

Surely if you have an inconsiderate lover or husband there must be SOMETHING you can do about it? If he's your lover you can leave him. If he's your husband you can divorce him. You don't have to sit there and passively take the inconsiderateness. Do not be so defeatist. Stiffen up the sinews, summon up the blood, and imitate the action of the tiger. One of the many advantages of the age we live in is that inconsiderate men can be disposed of.

I read this post and have to say coming from the BDSM lifestyle that the differences between BDSM and Taken In Hand are very plain to anyone that knows anything about them both. BDSM is about control and power exchange plain and simple giving one control or should I say the illusion of contol. Taken In Hand is about women wanting to liver under the loving control of a strong man in a lifelong marriage. It is about comitment and relationship not about safe words or scenes. I was a Master to women in my younger days but as with anyone here I put away that childish thing. I'm not saying BDSM is childish but as anyone knows in the BDSM lifestyle you grow learn and teach and when it stops being a game then you realize what is missing and find Taken In Hand which is the natural evolution of a D/s relationship, when trust, honor and faith in your loved wife's joyful acceptance of your control is such that safe words and scenes seem childish and you become yourselves not players.

To me BDSM is like a box full of chocolates. You know, the verity pack. Some of it I look at and I know, I am not going to like that. Some of it I just want to give a taste, and then I think, no that was not good. Then some of it I give a full blown try and am so happy with it that I want a whole box of that flavor.

Taken In Hand is the framework in which we have chosen to operate. Too much free style is stressful for me. If I know my role in the relationship, then I am less scared to try new flavors of chocolate. Taken In Hand is also easier for us to maintain.

I also think a lot of the rules of conduct you see with BDSM are less necessary in a long term marriage. In that way I would agree that Taken In Hand is a bit more grown up.

For me, the final check is, am I staying true to myself. Am I able to be me in this environment that we are creating. Right now I feel more true to myself then I ever have ever in my whole life.