This is a beautifully written, and well thought out article, and explaining in 'heart' detail of what kind of relationship can bring real happiness, not only to both partners, but, for the entire family, when it is fully respected by both partners.

Time, sweet time, is the answer for true respect that just as submission must be earned, and once it is, may it NEVER be taken for granted for even a moment by either partner.

Thank you forever, Rick.

There is a big difference between theory and practice. Since the 60's and onward, egalitarian relationships has been the standard. As time has gone by, we've learned more accurately about the distinct differences between male and female. It's not a question about who is in control and who is controlled as class conscious women's groups would argue, but rather each sex has a different role to fulfill. There is harmony when the male accepts his role as dominant and the female as submissive. The problem today is that many men and women are struggling with themselves regarding this issue, some aware of it and others unaware of what's going on inside of them.

An egalitarian relationship is one that by its nature becomes hypocritical and dishonest because the male acts as he is supposed to rather than how he really feels inside and so does the female. In other words, each is living their lives according to the theories and plans set out by politics and special interests. To move away from this and live simply according to how our biological differences dictates is where true equality lies. Equality is about balance and when both sexes fulfill their respective roles, then you achieve harmony. Egalitarianism lumps both men and women into one group and role, completely eradicating the natural differences between them. As we have seen, after all the fingerpointing is done, the idealistic promises of the 60's is beginning to show its wear and tear.

I liked the comment above Louises but i have to agree with her. I think the thing is that we need to accept how we feel and not condem the feelings of others. Every relationship be it friendship or even twin siblings has one person more dominant then the other. we need to find the person that fits with us. Where the power dynamic is comfortable and productive to the relationship.
I believe that what people need to learn is not that males are naturaly dominant and females submissive (though that may generally be true) but that the power dynamic in any relationship is ok. People should accept that what is natural is for one person to be more dominant in all relationships. What matters is the comfort and happiness of the two people involved. It could be strong or subtle and is for no one to judge what is best in any individual relationship so long as the people that are in it are happy.

Ashley

No i agree with you totally. I'm glad you wrote this article. Submission is very much something that can only be opened up with trust and one must always earn trust. i was referring to the comment above Louise's. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Ashley

>I believe the most harmonious way to run a home, and >which feels most natural to me personally, is for my >husband to be in charge.

A number of women would feel this way. The best way, many think, to live in the most harmonious home is for one spouse, normally the man here, to be 'in charge' and generally have final decision making authority. This is a continuing theme of Taken In Hand and DD discussions. If this is what you want and what feels most natural for you then you have found a good way.

>If a man is to lead a household, he must be able to >determine which course is best and make his decision even >if his wife disagrees.

Some primary articles on this site, such as the boss's article describing Taken In Hand relationships, say there can be differences, there is no one right way. Many people go through a lot of trouble emphasizing 'whatever works for you' is okay in Taken In Hand. Okay. This is not just this post but many like it that will take out this non-existent rule book and insist on the formula that in a male led relationship the man MUST be the one who makes the final decisions in ALL cases of couple disagreement.

I wonder why this has to be so? Is it fair to define male leadership as his ability/willingness to the best of his ability 'make the best call' under ALL circumstances?

I am not criticizing anyone who has this construct of male final decision making. I am pointing out some difficulty in claiming, on the one hand, there are no rules for a male led relationship and in the next breath stating a formula for success....a rule right out of a supposedly non-existent guide.

Does it occur to the intelligent reader there may be other ways which may even be more powerful to gain leadership, the sense of authority, etc. without even the need for him to make ANY tie breaking decisions? What about him being thoughtfuly engaged and emotionally present? What does this do? Is it necessary for him to make the final decisions in order to prove he is emotionally present and directly engaged? You tell me, I have no idea.

Frank Nelson

>My hope is that the responsibility of having the final >say will keep him fully engaged because for me the >engagement is the end goal.

Hi Otter...This is my real point. A great amount of authority and control is expressed in a man's continuing engagement, his PRESENCE as I have recently called this on the taken in hand yahoo groups discussion.

Most of the time, at least over major or life changing decisions, a couple will come to some sort of agreement, other times the final decision is either clearly the man's to make anyway or is more rightly the province of the woman. In this latter case, the man is said to 'defer' to the woman because he respects her ability, her judgment, not to mention her superior abilities in some areas. So much is made of the actual final decision, whether the man makes it himself or defers it to his wife, that the whole process of PRESENCE and emotional involvement by both is not really talked about.

>My question would be: if a man does not have the >authority to make final decisions, what then does HOH >mean? How would such a relationship function?

Women make decisons all the time. So do men. You say yourself that if you had to choose between his engagement (i.e. 'emotional presence) and his final decision making, you would choose his engagement. Sometimes standing firm to ground is part of this emotional engagement....sometimes relinquishing control or the final decison to the woman is part of emotional engagement. It is simply not useful for me to declare that my final decision is to defer to her when the reality is that a final decison is hers to make anyway. By doing so, I diminish myself and I diminish her equal value in our relationship.

One tries, I think, to equate final decision making with engagement or presence and I say final decision making in a a tie breaker situation (for us anyway) falls naturally to one or the other. It is my engagement, my emotional/mental/sexual interaction with her she seeks the most. It is the PROCESS of this mutually satisfying interaction and presence that in the end is its own reward...no matter the final decison outcome.

Frank Nelson

It is simply not useful for me to declare that my final decision is to defer to her when the reality is that a final decison is hers to make anyway. By doing so, I diminish myself and I diminish her equal value in our relationship.

Are you saying here that final decision making authority is perhaps just a trapping and, to your mind, not necessarily a very desirable one? Or perhaps, that it is simply not necessary?

I think we are dancing around the same point here but just stating it in different ways. That perhaps is a product of different perspective, most notably that you are an HOH and I am a, well, woman, for lack of a better word (what is the female/non-HOH called in Taken In Hand? I have never really liked the term "submissive" in this context. I like that term for a more BDSM type application. Anyway...).

I also think I see what you are getting at. When I look at the practicality of our relationship, yeah, he doesn't really make most of the major decisions. We make them together. We talk it out and very often he will do what I think is best or he will do a bit of what we each want. Sometimes, we come to that compromise together and sometimes he takes all the factors and comes to a decision on his own.

There are also many things, fairly important things that he leaves to me, with no discussion from him. For instance, I chose the school are kids are going to with almost no input and no research on his part. That is just not something he wanted to help decide. If I had needed some help or wanted his input he would have given it, but he had no drive to be in on the decision personally.

I do feel that the statement that he has final decision making authority is important to our relationship. When he leaves a decision to me, I don't think of it as him deferring to me, but merely as him delegating to me a duty as he delegates the housework to me or the cooking. I think his having this authority relieves stress for both of us and sets certain parameters which are very helpful. If there were a major thing that we had to decide on and we couldn't come to an agreement or compromise on it, it would be up to him to make the final decision and I have agreed to abide by that decision. (Honestly, I can't imagine this happening, but it is what we have agreed on theoretically. I can't say what would actually happen in the real situation. It has never happened, really.)

If an issue comes up, no matter how small,if I am unsure as to what to do, I know that I can just ask him and he will make the decision.

Just yesterday, the lightbulb in the garage burned out. Our garage has about a 20 foot ceiling and we do not have a ladder high enough to reach it so there are a number of ways we can handle this. Call maintenance, have his dad bring us a ladder this weekend or go buy a ladder. I can't personally change it even if we had a ladder, I am deathly afraid of heights. So I tell dh and he simply says, well, I'll put in a call to the office. That's it.

It just means that there are things I don't have to think about and, for us, it is what defines the role of HOH. He makes the rules, he makes the decisions, he delivers the consequences.

On a more pragmatic level, though, that particular authority or his role as HOH is not what it is about at all. It is all about connection and his presence. The idea of his authority to make the final decision is just a manifestation of that authority.

I am not sure if I am adding to my point, clarifying it or just saying the same thing over and over, LOL. I guess I will find out when I get your response. =)

Otter*

"The moment that I looked into your eyes, you owned me."
-Kenny Chesney

Hi Otter,

I certainly do not seek to in any way denigrate the value of a womans submission - submission is something I value very highly. I guess that submission is something that I equate to love and I don't see love as a gift - more a compulsion. I don't choose to love my partner - I can't help but love her and I don't think she can choose to submit to me. She submits because she has to - because she is naturally submissive, because she loves me, because she trusts me, because she views me as her 'alpha male', and so on. All these things add up within her to a compulsion to be submissive towards me.

To me, considering submission to be a gift brings to mind a woman saying to herself "this man is worthy, therefore I will give him my gift of submission". That seems to me to be somehow false. Also as I asked before, if submission is a gift, is not the same true of dominance?

Having said all that, it is really just a question of semantics and personal opinion so I am not saying you are wrong - I'm just expressing a personal view.

In our house, no one makes the final decisions. This has cost us a lot of money but we have not seen fit to change it in our ten year marriage. We both prefer to hire someone to make the decisions and tell them exactly what we want, but good people are hard to find, so no one makes the decisions.

No one makes the decisions because we are both too busy and we are both conquerors and we don't have time to conquer and manage every detail of the spoils. We are busy dreaming and plotting. We are busy with intellectual debates and it takes us years to conclude one portion of a part of a hypothesis; and that is if we are lucky.

I want him to be completely dominant and I want to be completely submissive; at the exact same time I want to be completely dominant and for him to just get out of the way and answer questions efficiently. This he does and with too much efficiency ( Two days of physics and math calculations were necessary to find the best way to hang the holiday lights proportionality on a pole because many other abstractions emerged from the project) After much debate we did make the decision to get rid of the pole so we would not have to struggle again during a holiday.

It is a contradiction and it works. For us, it is like having different rooms in a fun house. We put on different hats for the occasion. If you have a very large pie than you cannot eat it all yourself, conversely if you have an elaborate life you cannot handle all the decisions and you have to hope that your managers will do a good job.

Decision maker is a bogus tittle. There are so many divisions and subdivisions, so many restrictions, demands, regulations; so many random obstacles; the laundry list goes on and on and on. One has to emerge victorious from a meritocracy.

Our erotica is an energetic exchange, a physical discipline that requires an unusual focus for the both of us. In ten years we have not discovered a way to navigate it. This is not necessarily bad, but good, since we obviously enjoy spending much time thinking about abstractions; and to us, this is an abstraction.
Hubby thinks we should buy a love shack in the country with lots of secluded acres, just for this purpose.

There are no rules. To each his own.