The dance of consent

Wanting your husband to take you in hand, maybe to spank you if you get out of line, to take control of the relationship, is not a fashionable way to want to live in this day and age. It seems to imply to those on the outside that the woman is deemed inferior to the man, that she has no say in things, that she has to do everything he says or else, and that she’s obviously just been lucky so far that he’s not asked – no, told – her to do something she really doesn’t want to do. And at that point it’s all too easy to point the finger at the man and cry “Abuser!”

It’s an understandable reaction given the emphasis placed on things like domestic violence and women’s equality. It’s a prevalent opinion that if a man hits a woman and they’re not involved in any obvious sort of BDSM then he’s abusing her. It’s also a prevalent opinion that a woman shouldn’t answer to her (male) partner in their relationship and that to do so is somehow being wimpy and letting the side down. But without knowing the more intimate details of a relationship, it’s very easy to draw completely inaccurate conclusions, and people seem to quick to think the worst of someone – possibly because the actual truth is inconceivable to them.

And in this day and age, it does seem inconceivable to some people that a woman would want her man to be in charge. Yet clearly many of us do. We want to feel his control and know it as an extension of his love for us. We want him to take us in hand and know that is one of the ways he shows he cares. We follow his lead, but we don’t expect to be treated as mindless automatons, but rather as a valued participant in the relationship.

Yes, we give him our consent to do what he likes – even to spank us if at the time he decides to, we definitely don’t wish to be spanked. Consensual non-consent is a simple enough idea, but to the unwary it could lead to a very nasty can of worms being opened. Which is why a sensible degree of caution is needed. The type of relationships discussed on this site seem to me to be more suited to long term relationships where both partners are prepared to invest some time and effort in simply getting to know each other and gradually scaling things up. However much you want it, however much you know he wants it, it can be a very scary moment when you say to your partner “I want you to be in charge.” But if you have some knowledge of each other than you can give what seems like blanket consent to him and still know you're going to be safe. If both partners are reasonable adults, if there is a mutual bond of trust, then any hiccups and problems are more likely to be talked about than ignored. If not, then whatever style of relationship you’re in, there's going to be problems.

There is potential for problems – someone desperate to explore her submissive nature may get taken in by a would-be abuser. But then again, so might someone desperate to lose their virginity. Taking risks is dangerous, but life is often about taking risks – the trick is in minimising them. Getting to know someone as a person before you embark on any sort of longer term relationship is a sensible precaution.

The real effort in maintaining this type of relationship – or any, I suspect – is hard to describe. It's more mundane than what is and isn't allowed, what has and hasn’t been discussed. It’s about all the little things – noticing how your partner reacts well to certain things and with repulsion and fear to others, and altering course accordingly. It’s about all the odd little chats and comments that somehow all contribute to the framework but are so hard to pinpoint. It’s about all the little rituals that mean so much to you and all the little irritants that really get on your nerves but – if anyone mentioned either you’d be surprised because until they’re brought to your attention you’re unaware of them. Consent becomes more than just the woman saying to the man he’s in charge – it becomes a complex dance with each reacting and adapting to the other’s reactions.

ConfusedofHomeCounties

Taken In Hand Tour start | next

Have you seen the following articles?
What easy-to-say word gives every lover pleasure?
The alpha male and masculine power
The paradox of the master and the queen
Monogamy
Joyful submission
Each relationship is a unique work in progress
The face, the mask, and the dream
How I turned the fantasy into reality
From vague awareness to a beautiful relationship
Secretary: the film

2004 Dec 22 - 12:42 | login or register to post comments | latest article | previous article | next article |

so hard to explain to people

CoHC,

Very nicely said. You are right that it is a lot of mundane, day to day stuff. The kind of stuff that hardly seems worth a mention! The little things are nothing and everything at the same time.

Consensual non-consent is a difficult thing to explain to people. People who are not interested in it, who would not be comfortable with it, for some reason seem unable to grasp exactly what it means. I guess if you are not the kind of person who trusts another person enough to give this sort of consent, it would seem dangerous. I suppose if you took a risk and trusted the wrong sort of person then yes you might be in trouble. Life is worth the risks. I agree with you that you need to minimize them and use common sense. You need to trust your instincts about people too, including yourself. Some times taking risks can lead to wonderful things.

For us, Taken in Hand has been mostly about communication, and respecting each other. Those things are important in any relationship, but they did not work well for us, until we started Taken in Hand. I do not really understand myself why it does work so well now. How can allowing your husband lead, giving him consensual non-consent to do as he sees fit to lead make such a difference to us? I do not know. It is just the way we are. I think if maybe I understood the why's a little more, maybe it would be easier to explain to others. Who knows, maybe not! :)

Take care,
Tev

by Tevemer on 2004 Dec 22 - 21:00 | login or register to post comments

Well Done

Wonderful, well thought out and articulated article, C.

I too think that it is a strong love, coupled with implicit trust in your partner, that makes being Taken In Hand work so well.

by Jayda on 2004 Dec 30 - 07:18 | login or register to post comments

One thing many people do not

One thing many people do not seem to understand is that a strong woman can be submissive. A strong woman can want to be in a relationship with a man who is stronger, just like a tall woman may want a taller man.

by a Taken In Hand reader on 2007 Feb 13 - 22:31 | login or register to post comments

My own view of 'consensual non-consent'

> Consensual non-consent is a difficult thing to explain
> to people. People who are not interested in it, who
> would not be comfortable with it, for some reason seem
> unable to grasp exactly what it means.

Lots of consensual non-consent goes on in the conventional relationships. For example, when a woman almost forcefully takes away her drunken husband or boyfriend from the party and he is grateful for it later, in fact wants her to do it again if that is needed, in my opinion that is an example of consensual non-consent. Just as when a man, for example, prevents his wife from overspending when they go shopping and she continues to go shopping with him, in fact wants him to do that.

One can imagine lots of situations involving consensual non-consent in the context of conventional relationships. However, these situations have much in common. First, the person being thus coerced has his/her ability to make sound judgments impaired at that time. This may be due to intoxication, affective state, certain bad habit that comes into play in the current situation. Second, a person being thus coerced is an immediate beneficiary of the action: a partner of that person is doing it with an intention to secure the best interests of that person in the situation when he/she is unable to do it himself/herself. Third, a partner doing the coercion does not get much pleasure from it, in fact from his/her point of view it would be much better if there were no necessity to do so. Only real necessity to do something to protect the best interests of his/her partner forces him/her to override the self-determination of the partner. (By the way, this can include preventing your partner in such a state from doing something that will damage your relationship - if your partner really wants to do such a thing, he/she should do so in a sober judgment). Forth, it is not ideological. The persons involved may have their own ideologies, egalitarian or not, but what is done is not about ideology, it's about being a responsible partner rather than disinterested observer.

I think that what I've described is going on in many relationships, egalitarian, Taken in Hand, whatever. In an intimate relationship people need to take some responsibility for each other or else their relationship will soon degenerate into a disengaged cohabitation. In a good egalitarian relationship the frequency of such situations tends to go down with time as the partners mature, but it is not reasonable for them to expect that consensual non-consent will become unnecessary at some point in the future. We are fallible human beings after all.

I don't think it would be so hard to explain that concept to somebody who probably has some personal knowledge of it and just doesn't call it so. When it is about the situations they either experienced firsthand or can easily imagine being in such situation, it won't be that difficult to make them understand.

However, when they are presented with the situation when one person forces another person to do (or not to do) something just because he gets pleasure (sexual or otherwise) from it or wants to demonstrate or strengthen his authority over the other person, most people look upon it as an abuse. And when they are told that the other person in fact consents to such treatment, they react with disbelief or disgust. The contemporary sensibilities pertaining to the equality of sexes only aggravate this, but are not the main cause of such reaction. Deep in our hearts we know that essentially we are all equal; political movements such as feminism are founded on this inner knowledge, not vice versa.

by a Taken In Hand reader on 2007 Aug 22 - 13:53 | 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.