What he said might ALSO have aroused you because he had the power to say it. As Henry Kissinger so aptly put it, "Power is the ultimate aphrodesiac..." most definitely including the power to say "No." In my case, I must admit, he could have turned me on the rack before I tried the sparking green tea...but then, I don't like those energy drinks either. :)

A CUPCAKE, during erotic play? You mean...you have found the way to combine sex AND chocolate? My mind is BOGGLING! But in a good way. :)

Especially when the cupcakes have a filling inside or something yummy like that.

We have food with sex quite often. It can be a little messy, but it's fun!

I understand your scepticism. It does seem kind of like a chicken and egg argument I guess, but if you could feel it from my side, their would be no doubt. I could really relate to Dadelion's post because it is the comfort of that control that I crave. The feeling that someone is looking out for my best interest, even when I'm not able to do so myself, is powerful. It's powerful to be cared for in that way.

I will not deny getting an erotic charge out of it when he looks out for me. Yes it turns me on. If I thought he were only looking out for me because it turned me on, however, I would feel hurt. We look out for each other because we're in a relationship and we love each other.

Thank you so much for your post!

I agree that we should celebrate the sheer physical eroticism of our lives, and shouldn't devalue it with meaningless analysis and evaluation. Attempts to justify our healthy and natural desires through psychoanalysis have taken the joy out of many a happy moment for many couples. But I assure that is not the case here - while your skepticism is understandable, it misses the entire point of the article.

The "no" is sexy BECAUSE it makes me feel noticed, not that I think it's sexy and need to justify it. However, that is a common misunderstanding about the sexuality of women. Current thinking frequently ascribes to the belief that women, uncomfortable with eroticism, will justify it through psychology; but in actuality, psychological need CREATES the erotic response...

On this board I have written about the "stand alone eroticism" of fantasy - without need of justification - and the celebration of said kinkiness. That eroticism does deserve to be celebrated on it's own, without my deconstructing it to make it acceptable.

However, in this case, the entire physical aspect of this verbal exchange is completely missing, and to tell the truth, I don't believe my husband was even aware of his sexual effect on me when he told me "no". He didn't threaten any "punishment", and he certainly didn't promise me any "erotic spanking" in the exchange. That's what made it so intriguing to me; how could such a "non-sexy" event, taking place in such a mundane environment, cause such a overt sexual reaction in me?

That reason for my reaction illustrates perfectly what most men (and a good many women) don't understand; the root of most female sexual fantasy is revealed in psychological as well as physiological needs. In my case, I have a deep-seated need for someone to verbally express that they care about my behaviors, good OR bad. Having grown up in a very permissive household, where no one would intervene unless someone was "actively bleeding or on fire" as one writer put it, I am always pleasantly surprised when someone notices me at all...

Not that my parents didn't care; they were just too busy nurturing our inner beings to notice that our outer beings were out wandering in the woods by ourselves with the bears and moose and sliding down a 40-foot cliff by a hanging vine (but I digress). I did have a wonderful childhood, it just left a certain need in me.

In this case however, if the "no" was merely rooted in his need for control, it wouldn't have the same effect on me, and in fact would have had the opposite effect. If "no" had just been about his need for control, then it would have been all about him, and my psychological need would have been unfulfilled - resulting in no erotic response to his demands...

As far as the "self-destructive" behaviors go, well, I'm not really sure that picking up one or two energy drinks would really fall into the "self-destructive" category (although I do think that bathing in them would probably be a bad idea). Agreed, if I were engaging in intentional attention-seeking bad behaviors, then it would certainly offset or even negate the joy of the erotic aspect. However, having grown up around people who engaged in self-destructive behaviors, I am VERY careful to never let myself fall into such ill actions. The *unintentional* bad choice I made was unnoticed by even me, due to a hurried schedule and late hour - but my husband took time to notice and add his opinion.

Oh yes, and he was sexy too. That did help...

In conclusion, the erotic aspect of this exchange was conceived in the psychological need; but that doesn't dilute either the eroticism or the psychology. Find that psychological need and fill it, and you will unlock the secret of most female (and many male) sexual fantasies. And that's certainly something worth celebrating!

It just proves that the most sexual organ of a woman's body is her mind...

BYP, I think you make a good point. I sometimes wonder about this myself.

In my case, I completely understand how having my husband say "no" to me could be reassuring and even a sexual turn on. I crave his attention, and feel loved when he lets me know that he is paying attention to what I do and will object if I am doing something that could be harmful to myself or to our relationship.

I have my own theory about why this is for me. I grew up with two alcoholic parents. I had to be the responsible adult for as long as I can remember. At twelve, I was responsible for making sure we had enough money to pay the rent. At sixteen, I was late for my History final because I was bailing my mother out of jail. At the time, I don't remember feeling much of anything about it. I was too exhausted by my constant vigilance, and tension about what they might do next. Only once I got married did I start to learn what a healthy relationship is like, and the effect that my parents had on me growing up.

I trace my intense desire for my husband's loving attention to this. Fortunately and unfortunately, he has been put into a position where he is in some ways giving me the parenting that I never got as a child. We've talked about this, he understands it, and fortunately doesn't mind. I feel that I should be a healthy enough adult not to need this from him, but I am not, and I can't seem to change that. Fortunately, he likes paying attention to me, and is happy to step in to provide some boundaries for me.

However, I remember having thoughts about spanking when I was as young as 3-4 years old. I didn't understand it at the time. I was merely curious about it, but I was aware that I was much more curious about it than I ought to be, and therefore stayed quiet about it.

So, you may be correct, BYP. Perhaps I do justify my spanking desires this way. But, I trace my need for his attention more to my treatment by my parents during my pre-teen and teen years. (I was raised by my very responsible grandparents until I was ten, and so got the attention that I needed until then.) So I think the most likely situation for me is that my need for spanking and my need for my husband's attention and boundaries are separate. I imagine if I weren't interested in spanking, I would still find my husband's attention incredibly reassuring. It is because I am turned on by spanking that it goes even further for me and becomes a sexual turn on as well. I consider myself lucky that these two separate needs work so well together.

I much prefer an exploratory discussion to a confrontation that may generate more heat than light. So let me begin by regretting the way I explained my scepticism. Inadvertently, I have disparaged Dandelion’s feelings of being well-loved, genuinely cared for, by her husband’s firm ‘No’ in response to her unhealthy food choice. That was not my intention. I am happy for Dandelion, and indeed for all of you who welcome your husband’s limits and firm hand as a loving form of control. I have no desire to cast a skeptical eye on your experience or the integrity of your relationships. I was trying to raise a concern about a way of explaining that experience, of giving it meaning and investing yourselves in it, which I shall call the paternal rationale.

Imagine if Dandelion’s husband had said: “It’s your choice to buy those drinks. You’re an adult; you make your own decisions. But it’s a poor choice from the standpoint of your health. You know that as well as I do. So would you please explain to me why you’re buying them?”

Surely, this response is as caring as a flat no. Does it not also stem from genuine concern for a spouse’s health and well-being? But it’s not really what most Taken In Hand women long to hear, and it sure isn’t sexy or enthralling! But nor is it wishy washy, indifferent, sullen or sneering. The man who responds in this way is not letting you off the hook, ignoring you, shaking his head in despair and walking away. Instead, he demands, when you are acting irresponsibly, that you take responsibility for your conduct rather than making the decision for you.

Most women would greet this “what are you doing?” response far more favorably than the flat “No.” This is because other women do not thrill to the threat of being controlled, and even if their relationship is male-dominated, they would prefer not to have their decision-making autonomy infringed to that extent. A confrontation may be tense, but they can handle that. A husband who treats them as if they were in need of his control would be completely beyond the pale. It’s not hard to understand why – they don’t have the desire to be controlled.

You do this because it is satisfying; it fulfills a deep need. I agree with you Dandelion, that this is not just about sexual desire; it is primarily about emotional connection. That’s the strongest grounds for a Taken In Hand relationship in my view – to foster a loving connection.

Finally, then, on men’s motives. The paternal rationale we hear from some DD folk breaks down badly here because spanking children and spanking one’s wife are – hopefully – two radically dissimilar experiences. It gives a healthy father no pleasure to discipline his children (however he does so). We fault him if he fails to set limits and trust that he is motivated by love for his children; we also trust that it gives him no pleasure to discipline them; he does so from a sense of concern and parental duty.

By contrast, it gives a DD man or erotic spanker great pleasure to ‘discipline’ his wife and lover – it certainly does me! I think we have a hard time saying this candidly for fear that it will denigrate the motive of loving care, of deep concern, for our wife’s health and well-being. I am not disparaging such motives! But a man may also be moved by his own desire to exert authority over his wife. Let’s not deny the enormous pleasure he receives from taking you in hand! Base pleasures of possession, control and mastery and selfless motives of loving concern can, and do, coexist, flowing together in the same relationship. That happens in a Taken In Hand relationship at its best.

Don't worry, I don't feel disparaged at all! You are putting your thoughts out there quite well, and it leads one to think about it in a whole different light.

In fact, I think it's an interesting illustration of the differences in the intellectual superego/yang (in this case, male) vs. the sensual id/yin (in this case, female), and your hypothetical question brings this up quite nicely:

>blockquote>Imagine if Dandelion’s husband had said: “It’s your choice to buy those drinks. You’re an adult; you make your own decisions. But it’s a poor choice from the standpoint of your health. You know that as well as I do. So would you please explain to me why you’re buying them?”

In fact, my husband and I have had this conversation almost word for word. I think the difference here is it invites conversation, which invites analysis - which short circuits the purely physical. By calling me to think about self-discipline - especially my sensually-driven choices - he is calling me away from physical cravings/id and into the intellectual/super ego. While it leads to better choices in life as a whole, it deliberately calls the person analysing the choice away from gratification and towards willpower. That's very good for healthful lifestyles, but it is exactly the opposite of where I would usually need to go to become erotically involved. Because I am an inhibited person at many levels, as are many strong and willful women, it is the call to self-denial that frequently stands in the way of my own sexual self-fulfillment.

It would certainly be a more adult and normal conversation to have with my husband, and in most cases that is good. However, my husband, in this case, simply took a short cut and assumed the role of his sensible superego/yang and took my sensual id/yin in hand, thereby allowing me to remain in that sensual mode without calling me out of it. As a result the health results were the same - I didn't drink the caffeinated carbohydrate cocktail - and I continued following my sensual id-driven thoughts instead of answering an intellectual challenge.

Of course, had my husband challenged me to better self-discipline, my answer would have been, "You're right, Sweetie, I don't need it - but I want it. However, just because I want something doesn't mean I should be able to have it..."

Self-disciplinary analysis is a call for self-denial, trading the sensual for the sensible - which of course, is the exact opposite of the thought process necessary to enter an erotic mindset!

Long and taxing trips are one of many things that bring out my husband's bossy side. Yesterday we were on the second half of a thousand-mile drive home (we'd done six hundred miles the previous day).

We stopped at a service station because he wanted to use the loo. The children wanted to go too. "Do you want to go?" he asked me. "I might as well" I replied casually. I didn't want to go to the loo, I just thought it might be a good opportunity for me to visit the shop. However, he divined my purpose without too much difficulty. "You're not going to the shop" he told me sternly(I had spent rather a lot in the one we went in the previous day). "I could just look, and not buy anything" I suggested hopefully. "No" he said firmly. "Well, I'll stay in the car then" I said sulkily.

When he speaks to me in that way, i find myself obeying instinctively even when (as in this case) I really didn't want to.

Louise