Hi there

I am the head of my household, and this is my advice. You must act like he is head of the household. First, ask his opinion and permission on even the most minor matter. Always act on his direction. It is very important that you lower the tone and volume of your voice when seeking his blessing for a request. You must talk like "Please may I ..." in a soft tone.

Stay at his side at all times. As an extra mark of respect stay on his right hand side at all times. At all times be quiet, feminine and submissive in your behavior.

It is not a matter of persuading him to take you in hand it is a matter of you behaving as if you have been taken in hand. Harmony will suddenly appear in your relationship.

All Knowing Man

The main point, which seems to have been missed, is that if you act in a submissive manner he will be empowered to take control. Men do not take control because they believe that they will face resistance.

I don't mean for you to bug him, however you can lower the tone of your voice and simply be submissive in your day to day manner.

Try it, you will be surprised.

All Knowing Man

I agree with the idea, if not necessarily or always the specifics, of the 'all-knowing man's' comments. A man, who would otherwise be quite willing to assume a dominant role, may restrain himself because he believes that it will be unwelcome. It goes back to this expectation of a perfectly equal and 'fair' relationship. When I first stumbled across this concept of the male-led relationship, it struck home with me so hard that I shook. I sent my husband an email (he was out of town at the time) explaining what I had found and begging him to consider it. As it turns out, he was more than willing, but had feared that too much dominance from him would "crush my spirit." (His words. How sweet is that? He was willing to hold himself back because he thought that being all of himself would make me unhappy.) I was ecstatic, although it took a long time of reassurance from me that yes, this was what I wanted, and several times of pointing out specific areas of control that I was willing to surrender to him for us to get as far as we have.

To get back to my original point in commenting, there were behavioral changes that started at once when we began. I started saying, "Yes, please," where once I would have simply said "yes." I began asking permission for things, but not to the point of the ridiculous or annoying as was suggested earlier. It took a long time for me (although why, I don't know), but I began using "May I" for requests instead of "Can I" or "Would you mind if I." I suppose it's more formal, far less offhand. I remove his boots when he comes home from work; I offer, prepare, and serve snacks when I know he will want them. I keep the house cleaner. Most of these things could be done without annoyance, but for most they would surely be noticeable.

On the other hand, if it won't scare him off I recommend a conversation on the topic. I can understand dreading that talk - I wasn't scared he'd be frightened, but I was terrified that he just wouldn't be interested in it - in something I had only just discovered, but that I wanted to my very core.

If you are afraid that there needs to be a transition into it, try these three simple steps. 1)Dress with more care for the way he would like you to look, 2)Make a special effort to provide something he wants but you haven't wanted to bother with before (for me, that means stuff like cleaning the house and having sit-down dinners), and 3)Offer sex more often. It wouldn't hurt to let him know that you will give it to him (with gusto) whenever he likes. I guarantee that he'll notice something is up.

I think the point made by “All Knowing Man” (December 2006) is useful, important and in danger of being lost. The basic issues are (a) there is more than one way to get a message across. Conversation and verbosity are not the only tools of communication (even if I, personally, I am inclined to use both more than some people feel comfortable with) and (b) men are influenced by how their women behave.

“All Knowing Man” suggested some behaviours that he thought would be effective. The underlying principle is that one can use one's own behaviour in all manner of ways to bring about changes in somebody else's attitude, mood and behaviour, and to communicate a message. Those specific behaviours he described will work in a very large percentage of households. The fact they might not work for everybody all of the time is scarcely worth mentioning until somebody tries, fails and needs to choose a different form of expression that will work for them ... if we all spent our time thinking of the reasons why something might not work none of us would do or achieve anything.

Let's consider something less controversial; a smile.

A smile is universally understood as a sign of friendship, happiness and peace is it not? And a smile is always effective as a means of making somebody else feel at ease? Well, yes these things are perfectly true actually ... ummm ... but then again no. If you keep a rigid smile on your face at all times, I'll probably begin to feel a bit nervous. If you are smiling while I tell you about the latest disaster in my life I might feel that you are being rude and disrespectful. If I was paranoid or psychotic then I might feel nervous and upset whenever you smile at me, for any reason at all. Why should you be so bloody happy when my world is disintegrating between my ears? Stop trying to control me with your evil psychological smile techniques ... I shan't let myself be influenced!

Do these exceptions prove that a smile is ineffective for communicating friendship and happiness and peace, and for making somebody else feel at ease? Should we all stop smiling in case we upset somebody? No, no and no. Since the smile is obviously not such a clear cut form of communication as we'd like it to be should we all cease to care whether we smile more or less or not at all? No! Should we draw up a detailed protocol for the use of a smile, to ensure that only the correct form of smile is used and that the smile is only deployed under appropriate circumstances and when there is zero risk of misinterpretation or the harming of a child, and when there is consensus regarding the most suitable size, shape and duration of the smile after a period of consultation among all persons who might be exposed to the smile or otherwise affected by it? Yes, of course we should, this is extremely important and I would hope that some socialist committee is drawing up guidelines at this very moment, in order that we might all have an equal share of joy [See footnote 1].

The simple truth of the matter is that we can all make an effort to smile more and, generally speaking, more smiling is going to improve our relationships with other people. The simple truth is that a smile is effective in promoting happiness and peacefulness of attitude most of the time, for most people because we are designed to respond positively to a smile and (in general) we all know how and when to use a smile, even if a lot of us need to be reminded. (Kindly consider this to be your reminder for today)

Now back to those behaviours suggested by “All Knowing Man”: A softer tone of voice, asking permission on every matter, becoming quieter and behaving as if you are already taken in hand. Will they work? Yes, most of the time for most people. But unlike smiling these things don't come quite so naturally and people are more apt to do these things clumsily, to omit to do them, or to do them unnecessarily.

Did “All Knowing Man” mean that you should ask permission concerning literally 'everything'. No of course not and only a fool would think so. For starters you'd have to ask permission to speak or breathe and a fine little pickle that would be. “All knowing man” was trying to convey a very important idea using a small number of words (something I could learn from) and therefore he used a certain amount of hyperbole, relying on the intelligence of the readers to interpret the message constructively for their own situation.

So let's try looking at the same hypotheses from a different viewpoint:

Do men (in general) respond positively when a woman speaks more softly? Yes, they do.

Do men (in general) experience an increase in stress and agitation when exposed to loud or shrill female voices? Yes, they do.

Do men (in general) respond positively when consulted by their women about minor things? Yes, they do, because men (in general) want to feel involved and appreciated and that they have some sort of control and that their lives are not driven by the whims of another person.

Is being on the right hand side more effective than being on the left hand side and does it really matter if you are close or distant? The distance is certainly very important. Does anybody (in general) really think that standing twenty feet away has the same effect as standing close enough to be lightly touching? Probably not. However, do some women need to be reminded that where they locate themselves relative to their man has a moment-by-moment effect on the relationship? Probably yes. How many women bellow some message to their man when he is in another room, like a site foreman yelling at the underlings? How many women have ever stopped to wonder what the impact of that form of communication is on their relationship and whether standing close and speaking softly might be more helpful, more constructive, less irritating, more attractive? If a man wanted to be bellowed at he'd have dates with a walrus; they can be taught to do tricks as well. As for the left and right, I confess I'm not sure how important the right is relative to the left, but I am sure that in any given situation the two sides are not equal. Actually, if you let them, some men will gently put you on the side they prefer to have you and while it might vary from situation to situation there is likely going to be a preference at any given moment. The principle is to be sensitive to the effect that relative position has.

A woman is not equal with a man and ought not to be equal. If a woman is merely equal to her man what use is she to anyone? A man does not need an equal, he needs a complement ... that which makes a thing complete or whole and brings it to fulfilment. To be a complement is a noble goal, interesting, fulfilling for everyone and also difficult. “All knowing man” gave, I believe, some good suggestions as to how a woman can take small steps towards becoming a complement for her man. [See footnote 2] Some people will find the principle and apply it and some will dwell on the inappropriateness of the examples.

“All Knowing Man” was concise in his explanation but the principle to be recognised and that women (in general) often seem to fail to appreciate, is that men (in general) are strongly influenced by the conduct of their woman. A woman who acts with consideration, deference, gentleness and intimacy will (in most cases) bring about a change in her man's emotional state, making him feel more at ease, more peaceful and thus more able to think and act positively regarding their relationship. Men (in general) are designed to respond positively to such conduct; they can't not respond. If they are alive and human they will respond, and if they are alive but not quite human they will become closer to being fully human. If they are merely alive the outcome is, I confess, a tad harder to predict. To criticise the specific suggestions on the grounds that it isn't quite one's personal taste or that one knows somebody for whom it didn't work is rather like criticising the principle of a good night's sleep on the spurious grounds that some people work night shifts, or that one has an early train to catch on the morrow.

Interpret the principle for your own situation and act accordingly.

[Footnote 1] For, those readers not acquainted with the colloquial use of the English language in England, and for anybody else who experienced a tremor of nervousness when they read this section, I would like you to understand that I was emphasising a point by stressing the extreme opposite using an overused and unimaginative technique that was supposed to be irony but which might have failed to rise above mere sarcasm. Despite being in a belligerent mood I'm sincerely sorry for any distress this might have caused.

[Footnote 2] Note, 'a complement' not 'a compliment'; e not i. Mind you men (in general) would probably appreciate both.

Well, if the behaviour described by All Knowing Man would work in the majority of households, then all I can say is that the majority of households must be very strange places.

Would a majority of men really be gratified by women who stayed by their sides all the time? Would they really like to be constantly asked permission to do even the most trivial of things, would they really not find this irritating? I find that astonishing. If you say it is the case that a majority of men would like this behaviour, then I assume you know what you are talking about, obviously you have a wider knowledge of men than I do, but I would assume any normal man would be irritated by this kind of thing.

My own personal experience is that men are generally noisier than women, and shouting from another room tends to be a male habit rather than a female one (it's something my husband does all the time). However, the majority of men are obviously very different from the ones I know. You learn something new every day on Taken In Hand.

Louise