Is Taken In Hand a moral matter?

[This is an FAQ question (answers to frequently-asked questions). Click here for the FAQ index.]

Is Taken In Hand a moral issue? (i.e., Is Taken In Hand something everyone should do? Are those who prefer other kinds of relationship immoral?)

No, Taken In Hand is not a moral issue – something everyone should prefer. It may seem thrilling to Taken In Hand folk; it may feel natural to us; it may be the only possible relationship that some of us could or would consider; it may be morally unobjectionable for those who enjoy it; but it is absolutely not that we think that we have a moral right to demand such a relationship. It is a choice, and it must be a genuinely free choice.

The proper attitude in a Taken In Hand relationship is for both the man and the woman to try not to take for granted the power the man has, but to think of it as a very precious part of the relationship and to feel thankful that the other person also wants this kind of relationship.

In cases where the power is deemed a right and a duty, this causes no end of trouble and leads to much misery. For example, if a man thinks he has a right to the power, or that his wife has a duty to obey him, then when his wife doesn't immediately do what he expects, he can become angry or start demanding obedience as the sine qua non condition of a relationship, and being completely unreasonable and unpleasant and refusing to listen to his wife's concerns, silencing her with spiteful put-downs and becoming ever more self-serving and pathologically egotistical. And when a woman views this as a right, she can become very demanding, resentful, accusatory, horribly inconsiderate, and behave generally abominably.

I can't myself imagine why anyone would think such treatment would be in any way encouraging to the other person. How much better things would go if instead of thinking of their relationship as the other person's duty and their right, they took the warm, positive, mutually-accommodating attitude of Thorney and his wife.

To avoid killing the other person's desire to engage in this kind of relationship therefore, even if the kind of relationship you want is a very extreme, irrevocable one, and even if you have both raised obligations by your own freely chosen actions in having this kind of relationship, try not to stand on your rights. That will turn the control into a chore instead of a choice. Not very appealing, is it?

Whether it be a Pat Allen style relationship or a ‘total power exchange’ one which you both regard as permanent and irrevocable, consensual means that both persons wholeheartedly want this kind of relationship. Try to retain an underlying gratitude that the other person shares your desire for this instead of dragging him or her down by making it a moral issue. That way, the two of you will be more likely to treat each other kindly and respectfully and enjoy the full benefits of a Taken In Hand relationship.

See also:
How often do you have sex?
Authority in a Taken In Hand relationship
Surrendered in love
A gentle giant who loves and serves the woman he leads
Barbie is the doll, Ken is just an accessory.
Consent, control, connection
Acts of love
Is the man's authority real if consent can be revoked?
My husband and I face the world as a team
The difference between dominant and domineering

FAQ index

Take the Taken In Hand tour

2005 Jun 14 - 13:45 | login or register to post comments | latest article | previous article | next article |

It depends on your view of things

the boss,

I believe one could answer the question "is Taken In Hand a moral matter?" with "yes or no, depending on one's view of things". As a simple analogy, consider vegetarianism.

Some people do not eat meat products for moral reasons, they believe that animals are mistreated and consuming their bodies contributes to an immoral practice.

Others do not eat meat for practical reasons, they believe that cholesterol and other parts of meat are not good for the people who eat the meat.

It is also possible to refrain from meat eating from a combination of moral and practical reasons.

I think it could be sensible for a couple to consider their Taken In Hand relationship part of a larger moral philosophy that includes submission of women. It could also be possible to choose such a relationship for the practical reasons you - and others - have stated. And it could be a combination of reasons, just like being a "vegan".

by a Taken In Hand reader on 2005 Jun 16 - 18:45 | login or register to post comments

A moral matter?

Crikey, that's a real passion-killer. My reason for having a Taken In Hand relationship is that I find it sexy, neither moral nor practical reasons appeal at all,if anything could put me off the whole idea completely it's that it could be a 'moral matter'.

by Louise C on 2005 Jun 16 - 19:59 | login or register to post comments

It doesn't need to be justified

It would be a mistake for me to assert that among the thousands of Taken In Hand readers there are none who consider Taken In Hand to be a matter of morality. I am sure that one or two do consider it the only morally right sort of relationship, just as there are others who believe that this kind of relationship is a biological drive and that those who engage in other kinds of relationships are fighting against nature. No doubt there are some who believe all sorts of other things too.

The point is that none of these elaborate justifications is needed. If you want a Taken In Hand relationship, there is nothing wrong with that! You do not need to start trying to justify it. You do not need to defend what is a perfectly reasonable choice to make. The mere fact that the two persons involved prefer it is all the justification needed.

I think that it is objectively wrong to impose this choice on others, so I do not want my web site used in that way. I also happen to think that the sociobiological theories some readers like are false, so I'd rather discussions about hard-wiring and the like be posted somewhere else. Similarly, I groan when I read posts trying to justify this choice on the basis of some imagined halcyon era. It doesn't matter what others did or didn't do in the past; what matters is whether we like this idea now.

To me, all these attempts at justification miss the simple fact that there is nothing immoral or unnatural about wanting a Taken In Hand relationship! It is not a moral issue, and it is up to anyone who thinks Taken In Hand is immoral or unnatural to justify their contention. I don't see any need for us to be defensive, here! (Also, many such arguments are fallacious, and I like to think that those reading Taken In Hand are not that gullible, easily intimidated, or philosophically naïve.)

by the boss on 2005 Jun 16 - 20:28 | login or register to post comments

attempting to understand it

the boss,

I agree with you that there is nothing wrong with Taken In Hand relationships. Having more than just sexual reasons to be in a Taken In Hand relationship does not mean there is anything wrong with them. Explaining why you are Taken In Hand can only give us more insights into the people who post here. I know that for some people, trying to understand where it comes from helps them to have a greater understanding of themselves. People who write here are often trying to get a better understanding of all this male led relationship business. Looking to places where male led relationships is/was accepted or the norm sometimes helps people to understand that it can be normal or acceptable. Sometimes not.

I know you find these conversations tedious, but a lot of people find it fascinating. I for one am very interested in why someone might choose a Taken In Hand relationship for religious or moral reasons. I want to know why people think it might be biological. Maybe somebody has learned something I have not along the way. I think it helps to broaden my horizons and makes me more tolerant of other people. It also helps me to understand the varied lives of people who all call ourselves Taken In Hand. I think the more we understand about other people, and why they do what they do, or why they did what they did, the more we can learn about human nature. Perhaps we can learn a little more about ourselves in the process as well. Maybe one day I will understand why I feel this need, and others do not. Maybe I will never understand it. I do not think it hurts to try. The only place to even attempt to understand it is on websites like this one where people with my interests congregate and discuss things.

Take care,
Tevemer

by Tevemer on 2005 Jun 16 - 20:53 | login or register to post comments

Thanks, Tevemer

Actually, it is not those discussions I dislike. I was unclear; sorry! In fact, I have asked a number of individuals to submit articles that would fall under the categories you mention, Tevemer! (Still hoping someone will write on Taken In Hand in an orthodox Jewish household.) What I dislike are fallacious arguments for Taken In Hand, and hostile arguments about off-topic contentious issues.

Thanks so much for all the criticisms, everyone! It is very helpful. Clearly, some re-wording is necessary. ;-)

by the boss on 2005 Jun 16 - 22:35 | login or register to post comments

two or more sides to a matter

If one interprets the question "Is a Taken In Hand relationship a matter of morality?" as asking whether the decision to enter a Taken In Hand relationship must be based on some kind of moral decision, then I think the answer is emphatically no.

Perhaps your original post was quite clear and some readers just chose to paraphrase the question as "could a couple decide to enter a Taken In Hand relationship based (partly or fully) on their concepts of moral behavior". That's the way I took it.

The key point is "could is not the same as should".

And by the way Louise, moral philosophy can be hot.

by a Taken In Hand reader on 2005 Jun 17 - 21:29 | login or register to post comments

It's not a matter of morality

It's not a matter of morality at all. This kind of relationship is neither moral nor immoral. However, I personally feel that a male dominant relationship is natural and instinctual, and denial/ignorance of this part of human nature causes a great many problems. I base these beliefs on logic and honest observation, and I came to them slowly and cautiously over the years. This is not to say that genuine exceptions don't exist (women who consider themselves strictly dominant, for instance), but in my experience it holds true for the vast majority of people and makes the most instinctual and historical sense.

by ender313 on 2006 Jan 14 - 00:28 | login or register to post comments

The vast majority?

I seriously doubt that the vast majority of people want to be in a Taken In Hand relationship. I think it's strictly a minority taste. Which is all right with me. Who on earth wants to be in a majority anyway? I can't imagine anything more boring.

by Louise C on 2006 Jan 14 - 01:56 | login or register to post comments

Comment viewing options

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