What is the counter argument to this in the professional world?
Is it discussed at any length?
And what is the most common belief about these kind of relationships and how and why they function.
Sorry for all the questions, I am just fascinated.
I realize this is not a type of relationship for everyone but if it has made a couple closer and happier for an extended period, surely that is taken in to consideration isn't it?

Lo

I am a man, and I think the statement in the above posting is fundamentally correct. At least it is true for me, and I believe it is true for many other men as well. However, don't miss the subtleties in the statement. The submission described here is an indication of genuine and abiding respect. We are talking about the submission of a woman who is discriminating in her standards and secure in her own identity, not a woman with a burning need to submit for its own sake. Also note the emphasis on continued erotic interest. I suppose it is possible for respect and submission to spark erotic interest, but it seems to me that it has a more natural role in sustaining it.

My father and brother are psychiatrists and my sister is a psychologist, but I wouldn't dare discuss my submissiveness with them, although I'm sure they have an inkling about it.

I would have assumed most psychiatrists' views were pretty against that kind of relationship, although there are "kink aware" therapists around. I have never had any abuse and it annoys me that people make an assumption that I'm submissive because of something in my past. Some submissive women have been abused but by no means all.

So pleased with your post above. Thanks.

Personally I don't really submit to spanking to solve conflict. It's erotic and I prefer to distinguish it from real punishment. The giving up of so much control to the dominant man even without spanking is what a lot of people think is psychologically unhealthy of course (in most UK/US culture, although certainly not around the world or historically where it's often been the norm).

The most equable peaceful relationship I have had was D/S/takeninhand. I don't think we argued once, although we didn't live together and until you're picking up someone's sweat socks you can't really compare to any other real relationship.

A child who is sexually violated and/or beaten, especially if she is being told that these hateful acts are expressions of love or correction (and particularly if she is genetically predisposed to intense physiological and emotional reaction to stress) may neurologically and psychologically pair nurturing feelings with rape and violence. Even in those who have not been violently abused, failing to respect the autonomy of the child by either abandoning her emotionally or physically or encroaching on her personal privacy space, or both, may have the same effect.

But some experts then draw conclusions which do not necessarily follow. For example, some draw the conclusion that, having been subjected to abuse as a child, an adult woman then seeks an abuser with whom to reenact her childhood experience of juxtaposed love and hate. But – so the story goes – the woman is now trying to master her experience by seeking another abusive man who, instead of just violently objectifying her and abandoning her, as she experienced as a child, will also love and care for her and treat her as important.

Some mental health professionals (not those who are sympathetic to Taken In Hand) say that the wires in such a woman's brain get crossed because of childhood abuse. Pain/control and love become entangled in her mind and these juxtaposed experiences are delivered to her by the dominant man. But instead of the subsequent abandonment that she felt as a child by her parents or from a cruel world that did not respect her unique needs, she now seeks a chivalrous man who will both abuse her AND remain emotionally engaged with her. So finally she has safety, and at least a kind of sexual fulfillment, despite her disturbed mind that is now in need of medication and psychotherapy to sort out its pathologies.

As I said, “so the story goes”. Certain professionals scoff at Taken in Hand relationships because they have a theoretical model of the mind that assumes that our wants and desires should be rational and fully consistent with a prevailing orthodoxy that extols reasoning, seemingly even in the bedroom, over the various types of passion that often bind real people together in happy relationships. And many Taken In Hand participants were never abused or abandoned as children, but still prefer this type of relationship.

The fact of the matter is that all of us are making do with brains and minds that are filled with idiosychratic ideas, confabulations, and downright irrational ideas. Indeed from the well-spring of these contradictions we make sense of the world as best we can and we write the dramas that enrich our lives and give us some measure of peace, security and sexual fulfillment. This is as true whether one has been abused or not. We certainly have no objective standard that defines a healthy relationship.

I ultimately agree with the Taken in Hand reader who says,

If it has made a couple closer and happier for an extended period, surely that is taken in to considerations isn't it?

Why yes, it certainly should be.

Hera wrote:

The giving up of so much control to the dominant man even without spanking is what a lot of people think is psychologically unhealthy of course

The problem is that giving up control is indeed unhealthy for many women, and it is because many in unequal relationships would much rather be in a thoroughly equal relationship, that we see statistics suggesting that the best relationships are those that are the most egalitarian. No doubt for most people, it is very important to create an egalitarian relationship without any whiff of power dynamics. We probably all know people in very unhappy relationships with a controlling partner and much resentment. Giving up control is not necessarily wonderful. It depends for a start on whether you want to do that, and on many other factors. And women in many places in the world have no choice but to be in horribly unequal relationships whether they like it or not, and that is indeed terribly harmful.

But this site is aimed at individuals who actively want a so-called ‘unequal’ relationship (in a sense, there is nothing unequal about it, in that it is totally consensual and the wholehearted wish of the alleged underdog). And for those individuals, giving up control can be both healthy and delightful.

Yes, there are risks. Yes, you have to be very careful to choose a man who is good, kind, and nice, not a self-serving narcissist abuser. Yes, you and your spouse are bound to make mistakes, some of which may be harmful to you and/or to your relationship. But for those drawn to the idea of a Taken In Hand relationship, there is not always another option. And I'd be willing to bet that if you took a bunch of Taken In Hand folk and gave them therapy to help them learn how to have the ‘equal’ relationship alleged to be the best kind of relationship, if they actually managed to cut out the power/control/discipline dynamics and each do 50% of the household chores and so on, most of them would be less happy than they are in their Taken In Hand relationship.

There are many reasons why individuals may enjoy a Taken In Hand relationship. Eroticizing everyday life is certainly one of them. Thanks for pointing that out.

I appreciated this thread very much, would love to see more like it. It reminded me a bit of what I had read in this article, http://www.submissivewomenspeak.net/healthysub.htm

Personally I did grow up in a highly abusive home. And, related or not, I have been drawn to taken in hand type dynamics since childhood really. And though near the end of my training I decided not to pursue it professionally my backgrund is in counseling. The field felt so empty to me, and the glorification of independance and the demonization practically of dependence was one of the biggest reasons why. Probably didnt help that my academic circles were highly "progressive". I can't tell you how many times I heard assumptions taken as gospel truth such as that if you need someone you don't really love them. Every feminine bone in my body recoiled. Women are Adam's rib, need is at our very heart, receptivity and dependence at our core, and this is a sacred thing to nurture and to treasure not a "pathology" or "unevolvedness" to fix.

I can share that in my case one thing I have learned so far is this: my abusive background is indeed a huge factor in my draw to traditional relationships, but not in the ways most would asssume. I am drawn, as was also expressed here in some of the other posts of others, not to add to the abuse but to heal it. At the root of my abusive background was a lack of strong and protective male energy in my life, a lack of headship. My father was an alchoholic, often quite effeminate in his dynamics (as Patricia Allen explores, alchoholism tends to cause harmful reversals, making men more effeminate, women more emasculated), and he expected me to be the male energy and take care of him in too many ways to even count. Ways all very subtle and very very powerful. His dependence (and lack of providence and protection) was seen as fine--my dependence not allowed--the natural roles were reversed and left quite a wound and I have sought more natural traditional dynamics like a plant seeks sunlight truth be told, they are that healing to me.

The draw to "emotional intensity" is there in a sense too, though that doesnt quite express it right for me--I dont seek the dramatic but more a depth of bonding. Things need to feel deep, and very "real", for me... as the opposite is far too familar and wounding a road which I've seen the horrible fruit of firsthand. Lack of bonding, too much lightness, game playing (not just the obvious and manipulative kind but also the emotionally irresponsible new agely "life is game lighten up" sort of mentality), etc are the red flags for me (along with the red flag of natural gender being roles reversed or not taken seriously).

I've found in my life that I can handle almost anything from someone if the bond is deep and real, but can handle very little if there is detachment or superficialness or irresponsibilty there. So I can see the childhood connection there too, as I recieved the invasiveness of sexual abuse along with a dynamic of abandonment/irresponsibility/detachment right alongside and can see the rather large wound that horrible combination left. But there again, I think the draw to depth, male responsibility, and true bonding here, which is a huge part of some sorts of taken in hand type relationships, is not a pathology but my body and heart naturally seeking healing. What I grew up with was a mockery of how femininity should be treated--it was used but not nurtured, drained and at the same time taken lightly, treated irresponsibly and with "dont depend on me please, you shouldnt need to anyway" being the constant "song" in the background. The very opposite of how things are designed to be for "Adam's rib". So its no big surprise that an amplification of natural male and female energies in relationships like some taken in hand types are is a real draw. A healing draw I feel.

I don't see this all as only personal though but in some ways far broader-- I think a woman needing to know she can truly depend on her male partner is a very healthy need, and a good sign she is under headship.

I look forward to following this thread (or others like it) if it continues, it's the first one to strike a cord here in a very long time and it was a healing experience reading it : )

As a man, I've found the quote "And her respect for him as a man, in her act of submission to him, virtually guarantees his continued erotic interest in her." to be so true it surprises me sometimes. My wife and I have been together for over 30 years, and in the last 8 years or so have increasingly applied TakenInHand principles. The respect, love, committment and passion we enjoy has never been better. As has been said in many ways on this site, it can draw out the very best in masculinity and femininity.

Hera wrote:

If they are inside your mind, making you comply in a sense the border between what you consent to and what they make you accept is not at all clear.

What, are we back to the hypnotic mind control thing again? Sorry, but I just do not believe that it is possible for someone to be "inside your mind" in this way. If it were possible that someone actually cannot distinguish the boundary between their own mind and that of another, if they feel their mind is under the control of an external agent, and that they can't be sure any of their choices are of their own free will, then that would sound like a serious mental health issue.

But I doubt that's usually the case, with most people who claim to be under someone else's "mental control." Rather, I believe this is a fantasy that they happen to find very pleasurable, so they like to pretend that it's true. Maybe in a few cases it goes beyond fantasy, and they are actually under the illusion (or delusion) that their mind is under the control of someone else. That sounds psychologically dangerous to me, although I'm certainly not a professional. Our society functions on the default assumption that our minds are our own, and we are not subject to mental invasion by external forces controlling us. If that sort of thing did actually happen, then it would require a HUGE overhaul of our legal system and also our mental health system, in order to deal with it. But it does not happen. At most, someone might have a delusion that it's happening, which is scary enough; and I would hope they would seek help for that.

That always interests me as an issue because I am not sure I really do consent.

I would suggest that if you cannot even be sure of your own consent, then this sort of relationship might not be good for you. Taken In Hand is based on the consent of both partners, and both partners need to be aware that they are consenting.

isn't it a bit like when you're with an abusive partner and cannot get away even though there are refuges and physical means of escape psychologically you can stay tied to that person for years unable to break free? In those cases yes you have a free consent to leave but you cannot exercise it because of the psychological position you have got yourself into?

No, I don't think it's like that at all. Because physical constraints and coercion are REAL, and this fantasy of "mind control" is an ILLUSION. People who cannot distinguish their illusions from reality do not belong in a Taken In Hand relationship, in my opinion. Maybe they don't belong in any relationship at all, until they can get clear on the distinction between fantasy and reality.

In saying that "mind control" is an illusion, I'm not denying that the effects of hypnosis can be real. Only that hypnosis is not a matter of someone else being "inside your mind," and forcing you to do things you might otherwise choose not to. Hypnosis can influence someone's behavior, but the idea that people can be "controlled" that way for any length of time is a fantasy. I'm also not saying that there cannot be cases where some unfortunate people actually are so psychologically traumatized in some way that they effectively lose their autonomy and free will. But when that happens, it should be regarded as an illness to be treated and cured; not an ongoing state of mind that one should be happy to live with.

So in my case seeking a dominant man I am in a sense looking for someone whose control I would want so much I would seek to give him a power over me which could similarly make it hard for me to leave.

If you're looking for a relationship where you have no real power to leave -- whether through some real physical force or threat, or whether through some illusion of "mind control" -- then it sounds to me like you are looking for a relationship that is ultimately nonconsensual. But my guess is that you realize that mind control is only an illusion, and you enjoy the fantasy of being in a nonconsensual relationship where you have no power to leave. That's a very different thing; like the difference between rape fantasies (and their enactment) versus rape reality (a truly unwanted rape).

I hope that is not a good analogy and that the better analogy is happily married couples who work through problems and don't easily leave each other because of ties/family etc rather than because of the mind control of one over the other.

Now I'm confused. It sounds like you find this fantasy of "mind control" very erotically appealing, and that you want a partner who can make you feel that it's real. (Even though, I would claim, it will never be; unless you succumb to some mental health problems.) But now you're saying that you hope it doesn't turn into something nonconsensual? Is this anything like the DD submissive women who worry and fret that their husbands are going to give them a frightfully painful spanking, when that's exactly what they're hoping will happen?

If you're suggestive, submissive, dependent, malleable in the hands of someone clever, manipulative and with experience of control techniques as well as being naturally dominant, there may be very little he is unable to make you do and more importantly very little he cannot make you want to do.

It sounds like a fine fantasy, if you both enjoy it. But if you start to confuse it with reality, then I'd suggest that you seek professional help. As I see it, the Taken In Hand lifestyle is not really aimed at women who are so "suggestive, submissive, dependent, and malleable" that they are likely to lose control of their own minds and imagine that the man is controlling them via his psychic brainwaves or whatever. This is a relationship style based on consent, and the ability to consent requires that your full mental faculties -- especially including your own personal autonomy -- remain fully intact.

That's good; it's fun; it's risky, edge play in a sense, much more than the risk someone might hit you too hard.

It's risky if you start to confuse your fantasies with reality, yes. But there is no actual danger from "mind control" because that's just what it is, a fantasy. So the risk of actual "mind control" happening is negligible; whereas the risk that a man could break your bones by hitting you too hard is much more dangerous, because it's real.

Dominant control over submissive mind is what I've always sought since I was about 12.

I will confess that I don't understand at all how that would be appealing or erotic or romantic. If it were possible, I would find it creepy. But it's not possible, so I suppose it can be a harmless fantasy. However, I get concerned when people imagine this fantasy is a reality. I get concerned both for them, because it sounds like maybe they should consult a psychologist; and I also get concerned for the rest of us, who are seeking truly consensual relationships. Because this ideology seems to blur the line between consensual and nonconsensual, and that could adversely effect us all.

For example, if a man is being prosecuted criminally for engaging in a consensual relationship, the court may not admit or consider as valid the testimony of his wife; especially if they feel her autonomy has been compromised and she has been mentally "controlled" in this way. I think it's to everyone's best interest to make it very clear that the people involved in Taken In Hand relationships are fully functioning adults, whose autonomy and free will are intact, and who are willingly *choosing* such relationships, not being mentally "controlled" and mentally "forced" into it.

Someone might object that the whole idea of "consensual nonconsent" also blurs the line between consent and nonconsent. But I would not agree with that, because the woman always retains her option to end the relationship. (In a Taken In Hand relationship.) Pretending that women don't really have that option because they're helpless victims is one of the more destructive politically correct ideologies running amok these days. In some abusive relationships, the poor woman may truly have lost all her options due to the very real threat of deadly violence. But more often that is not the case, because most men are not psychopathic killers, not even potentially. So I think they're is a lot of fantasy out there, regarding the victimization of women -- both by women who hate that idea, and also by women who find it appealing in some odd way. (Like, the masochistic slaves of the Gorean lifestyle.) But Taken In Hand is not about the woman's victimization at all; it's about her finding happiness and having her deepest romantic desires fulfilled.

The kind of relationship Hera refers to briefly, where a woman finds herself unable to escape an abusive and controlling partner, may not be based solely upon the threat of violence.

Abusive men can use subtle methods of control, not just the threat of violence - for example progressive demoralisation of the woman so that she comes to believe she has few options outside the relationship. One such method would be knocking away her sources of external support, for example subtly telling her that her friends don't really care for her, inventing things they have said to indicate they don't like her, feeding her misinformation so that she feels she cannot trust her friends. Alternatively, himself being so unpleasant to her friends that they find it difficult to maintain the friendship. In this way a man might reduce external sources of information to a woman so that the view of her and their relationship he is feeding her becomes the dominant view for her.

If a couple have children, an abusive man might use the children to manipulate the woman. For example telling their five year old that mummy wants to split up the relationship and that is making him very unhappy, so that the woman becomes racked with guilt and questions whether she is doing the right thing, telling the woman that if she was any sort of good mother, she would not be trying to leave him and split up their family, telling her that she is positively harming the children by wanting to get away.

He may refer to her family as a means of control, telling her that her family will think less of her by the way she is behaving (trying to get away), that they will see that she has failed, that she can't manage anything in life. Any negative view that a parent may have had about the woman may be capitalised upon and emphasised by an abusive partner.

He might undermine her self belief in terms of getting a job and being able to support children on her own by a stream of comments such as "Who would employ you, look at you?", "What do you have to offer? Don't be ridiculous", "How do you think you're going to survive on your own with the children, you're crazy"

He may undermine her belief in her own perceptions and sanity by frequently telling her she's crazy, and asking how she can possibly be feeling what she's feeling.

An abusive man might make her believe that she will never get another relationship by frequently undermining her physical appearance, even blaming his own abusive attitude towards her on her being physically 'unattractive' - or alternatively saying he behaves the way he does towards her because of something she has done - or fails to do - that his abuse of her is all her fault.

Psychological control of a woman by a man in an abusive relationship exists and bears no resemblance to stage hypnotism or the mind control seen in science fiction.

People frequently question how a woman can become involved with such a man in the first place. Unfortunately not everyone will be equipped by their childhood experiences to make an immediate healthy choice of adult partner and of course, few men present themselves this way at the outset.

I introduced two issues. Sorry. One is women (and sometimes men) who can't leave abusive relationships. I don't agree we are all sitting here in life in the US/UK with "freedom". We do have legal rights to leave abusive partners, nice partners and partners who have taken us in hand but in reality people can feel tied. The abused and those co-dependent often really just "cannot" leave. Their mind or will doesn't let them. People might think them pathetic for not doing so but in a sense their feelings/mind etc is not entirely their own. I probably should not have introduced that issue on this thread. I don't think there is any difficulty in distinguishing abusive relationships from caring taken in hand ones, although I know a lot of people in the world think any woman who consents to physical punishment whether for erotic fun or other religious etc reasons must be mad. Obviously I don't.

On the differences in submissive women, I don't think I have mental health issues if I want to be controlled by a man.

When it is said it must be an erotic fantasy, aren't many couples together because of that state called love, which is just brain chemistry which brings upon them a kind of immediate madness almost and then they stay, bond, gel and hopefully form nice long term relationships. Isn't therefore the mind taken over by love/lust at the heart of virtually all Western romantic relationships anyway?

All I can do is describe what I have felt. My best DS relationships have been where I've felt controlled and dominated by a man. I know we're getting into the very heart of consensual BDSM here but I'm not sure it's any different from any classic seduction scenario where men weave their erotic and romantic power over women and snare them in (as indeed women do over men). In a sense all sexuality and romanticism surely involves an element of conning the other person, persuading them of your charms, controlling them, making them want you -isn't that mind control in a sense? I just don't think we walk around as people unaffected by others around us. In any long term relationship you get some dependency and some control and we aren't in a sense free agents all the time.

Sexual attraction to someone makes people do silly things. Look at all the married people who go off and have affairs In a sense their mind is affected by the chemical balance in the brain caused by the lust/love.

My main point was this - that I was unsure I do consent once I've taken that first decision to submit to someone; that someone skilled and dominant and whom I trust could make me do things I might otherwise not want to do. I know that is so. I have felt my mind is controlled. I hope I've got the sense then to leave or stop something which is damaging. People control others all the time. Good leaders do it in business. Parents use clever techniques to get the behaviour they want from their children. Dominant men do it.

I haven't had time to read all the post above. I may come back to this.

Hera,

No man could make me jeopardise my self, my child, or my safety. I would recognize immediately that I was dealing with a self serving narcissist and move on as he would be unworthy of my time. Women need to know their self worth. To Thy Own Self Be True.

However that doesn't mean that this is an illusion. It is a very real phenomenon and one that you have every right to consider as it could be detrimental to your happiness (maybe not in the begining) at some point in the relationship. This screams to me as a woman who is competent and aware and not someone suffering from mental health issues as someone above suggested. Some may consider religion or spirituality as being a fantasy but who are any of us to make the judgement call? I understand your thoughts completely and am happy that your shared.

Suppressing anger tended to be something I did quite a lot of in pre-Taken In Hand days, because most of the time I didn't feel I could talk to my husband if something had upset me, I was often scared that he would be angry if I expressed myself,and I tended to bottle things up and not talk about them, and often I would sulk for long periods if he had upset me in some way, without actually talking about whatever it was. And if we did have a real row and I shouted at him, I used to get a brief adrenalin rush from losing my temper, but I generally felt shaken and miserable afterwards, and it never really made me feel better.

Nowadays I am much better at expressing myself and tend to talk about things that have upset me, and the air tends to get cleared much quicker. If I am genuinely upset about something, i find that my husband will usually listen to me if I speak to him about whatever it is in a reasonably civil way, and if he thinks he is in the wrong he will apologise. If I am in bad mood because of something my husband has said or done, usually because he has told me off about something, he can usually overcome my bad mood quite easily. I find that if he doesn't allow my sulking to make him lose his temper, and responds firmly and decisively, my sullen mood just melts away. sometimes I find it mildly annoying that he can overcome my powers of resitance so easily, but mostly I find it very pleasurable. I think that my feelings are actually less suppressed now than they were before.

Louise

M.D. wrote:

Some mental health professionals (not those who are sympathetic to Taken In Hand) say that the wires in such a woman's brain get crossed because of childhood abuse. Pain/control and love become entangled in her mind and these juxtaposed experiences are delivered to her by the dominant man.

As the owner of this site, but also as a psychologist, I am sympathetic to Taken In Hand, but I think it very likely that some women who have suffered physical or sexual abuse in their childhoods have indeed got their wires crossed, as M.D. put it, and that it still does not follow that Taken In Hand is a bad idea for those women. Such women may have to be extra careful to avoid ending up with an abuser, and they may well need some outside help as they create their Taken In Hand relationship, but I thoroughly disagree with the view that says either that Taken In Hand is yet more abuse (if it is, then it is not a Taken In Hand relationship but an abusive one!) or that previously-abused women must avoid relationships having any whiff of power/spanking dynamics.

Most readers of this site, as far as I can tell, have not been abused and are not remotely unstable. One of the things women often say when they email me is that they really like the fact that this site is for ‘normal’, down-to-earth people. But since the discussion on this thread is about the view mental health professionals have of Taken In Hand, in this post I want to make a point not about the general readership of this site but about a small proportion of readers – about women who, perhaps because of physiological vulnerability and exposure to abuse in childhood, are very reactive and have many problems.

My view is that for these very unfortunate women, Taken In Hand can be a positively therapeutic thing. Even much of the standard literature on borderline personality disorder (see, for example, Marsha Linehan's work) admits that individuals with borderline personality disorder tend to do well if they are in a stable relationship, and badly if they are not.

[For the full article from which I took the above, click here. - Editor]

As a licensed social worker it's my belief the material presented on this forum is irresponsible and should be removed. This material could suck women with Borderline Personality Disorder into intense abusive relationships that only compound their issues. I'd advise anybody that was abused as a kid or who's got a Diagnosis of Borderline Personality Disorder to stay away from this forum and the abusive lifestyle advocated. If this page was truly written by a psychiatrist shame on you.

I hope I will have time to reply fully to the contention that Taken In Hand is bad for women with BPD but in the meantime, I just want to stress that not everyone in the field of mental health agrees with the poster to whom CJ is responding.

CJ & Louise, I couldn't agree with you more! I don't know how things are in the UK, but here in the US, in many cases the minority rules. A small group will change the law to suit their needs/wants & who cares what effect it has on the majority!

I like the fast food example you gave, CJ. That's exactly what I'm talking about. It's a shame people think you must take things away from decent, law abiding citizens just because a small fraction of the population can't handle it. For example, here in the US, lawmakers are trying to ban certain firearms. This is to "protect" us. They aren't thinking about how it will affect hunters & sportsmen and women. If these guns are banned, it will only affect the law abiding citizens. The criminals will find a way to get them. We do have a black market. The same goes for these women with BPD. Should we ban the internet so they might not be exposed to something potentially harmful to them? This is just absurd.

I'm not a social worker, but I do have a college degree in this area. In no way do I feel this site would be harmful to a woman with BPD. In fact, I think it could show her the difference between an abusive relationship and a loving relationship. This site promotes loving, consenting relationships. Should anyone think differently, I say read on...

Dynomite

I am very sorry for women who have BPD, but honestly, if you're going to delete anything from the Internet that might possibly do harm to a mentally disturbed person, that's rather tough on the sane majority who are looking for some personal happiness and fulfilment, and who might possibly find it here.

Louise, your straightforward comments are very wise.