Actually Nancy Friday analyzed this desire quite well a generation ago. It is the outcome of sexual repression and the feeling that nice girls don't and shouldn't want hot sweaty steamy aggressive all out sex. Nice girls shouldn't initiate it, or take any responsibility about it or they become "sluts."

The way around that is to put all the responsibility on the man to come along and "take" her by force.

All very well, but that was a generation ago. I find it sad that so many women are still sexually repressed enough not to want to sometimes take a man by storm too.

I DO and he LOVES IT.

Put that in your pipes and smoke it!

Two comments, first, the association between the boss's description of rape fantasy and a spanking by a man, whom a woman is in love with, who is willing to take all control rings deeply true for me. I do believe Stephen is correct when he equates the two as being synonymous. I agree that the spanking might not be erotic at the moment, but then again neither would a real rape. The context of a fantasy rape or a consensual non-consensual spanking does hold huge elements of erotic flavorings for both partners. (I do realize there is a difference here between this sort of spanking and real rape, in relation to it not feeling erotic at the time, it's hard to define, but I am aware) Anyway, my feeling is he is right on the mark.

Second, as far as sexual repression being the reason for desiring this kind of control dynamic in a relationship, I have to admit that what I feel does not feel at all like repression. It may be that I am "taken" but the hot passion it generates could hardly be described as being repressed. My response to this sort of interaction is such that he is quite happy with my "active" participation in any sexual interplay we enjoy. It does not preclude any initiation on my part, simply enhances it deeply. As far as taking the man by storm, I smiled at this, as there may be many ways to view this sort of thing. Some storms are outright sexual advances and some are just not so obvious, but sexy nonetheless. I actually use both, but it's fun to have an a big bag of possibilities.

As the boss said, sweeping assumptions about the nature of someone's sexuality are hard to make, but I do understand what you were trying to express. Wanting to be taken in hand does not preclude in any way taking initiative in a sexual relationship, it's just how the couple chooses to interact together to enhance their particular intimacy.

Annie

(Inspired by ConfusedofHomeCounties, here)

To the poster who urged us to take up pipe smoking, I'd like to ask the following question about a possible double standard you have there:

You said that you take a man sometimes, and he loves it.

OK, that's great.

We said that when a man takes us, we love it.

But you do not think that's great, you think it is “sad”, and that we are “repressed”.

It's okay for a man but not for women? That looks to me like a very sexist double standard. Tell me it ain't so! :-)

the boss said:

It's okay for a man but not for women? That looks to me like a very sexist double standard. Tell me it ain't so! :-)

On the other hand, traditionally women weren't expected to be in charge of anything but cooking and raising babies. And, they were not expected to have sexual desires, but to accept and accommodate their husband's desires.

So for a woman to want to be taken sexually by "force" was a great way around society's dictate that she not be the active party in sex. It relieved her of guilt because "he made her do it." She was free to enjoy it because she bore no responsibility for what happened.

In both cases there's a pleasure in giving up the responsibility but it happens for very different reasons. Yes, when it's happening to take away the guilt of being a "bad girl," I think it's a sad state of affairs.

If, on the other hand, she's also taking her man sometimes and it's a mutual respite from too much real life stress, that's a whole different thing.

It's kind of surprising to hear complaints about sexism from people who believe the man should be the boss, and where I read articles about how equality isn't what it's cracked up to be.

A reader wrote:

It's kind of surprising to hear complaints about sexism from people who believe the man should be the boss, and where I read articles about how equality isn't what it's cracked up to be.

So, I have summarised what I've picked up from here in this article.

The complaints about sexism arise, I think, because most of us here think that the man should only be in charge if that's what both partners want, need and desire. Most people here don't seem to think that the man should be in charge regardless of what the woman wants. And finally, most of the women here, from what's written anyway, seem to be strong women in the outside world, involved in jobs in all sectors, including usually male roles.

--

"There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so" Hamlet, somewhere.

Some other aspects:

The Roller Coaster Effect

For some women (and some men) it is fun to be in a situation of apparent risk and terror but still have a feeling of safety.

Most people who enjoy roller coasters get some measure of the same feeling from it. It is going to feel like you could be killed any second but... you trust the designers and operators of the roller coaster to keep you safe.

Of course, every once in a while, someone does actually get killed in a roller coaster so there is the very small theoretical danger of actual death. Some people like to experience terror as long as they know that they are going to come out of it OK.

It's too late to change your mind

Using the same metaphor, there is also a thrill of knowing that once you have strapped yourself into the car and it is underway, you can't change your mind.

This can help explain some of the non-consensual consent aspects that Stephen's wife (and my wife) seem to want:

She describes it as a mixture of feelings that are both scary and exhilarating at the same time. My wife emphasized that it is very important that it not be something she can control. All control must be stripped away. Those women who desire such an experience do not want to have to ask for it or orchestrate it; otherwise it loses its power to move them. This loss of control over their bodies is the key to the whole experience. It must be raw, animalistic, scary, forceful, unpredictable, hot and sweaty.

Once that button has been pushed, she hopes that everything will be set in motion and it will be too late for her to stop it.

This ain't just a woman thing

A lot of men, especially strong men, crave the same kind of thing from their wives.

I, for one, would love to be ‘raped’ by my wife. I would enjoy the thrill of having her ‘best’ me with a greater commanding presence?, some hidden physical strength or even treachery.

One stipulation: I would want her to summon some strength that allows her to overpower me. I would not want to have to weaken myself to make it happen.

BTW: Elle actually did this many years ago... exactly once. It was incredible.

Knowing that she could is enough

For some women (and, again, some men) the notion of being able to rape or be raped is enough. Just because she has the ability and permission to do it doesn't mean that she has to.

The right to do something also implies the right to not do it. That “right to not do something” is just as empowering.

Being able to overpower a man and choosing not to do so is not a sign of sexual repression. It is the exercise of power. A woman who ‘rapes’ her husband exactly once exercises power. She has demonstrated to herself and to him that she can do it but that she chooses not to.

A Taken In Hand reader wrote:

When you look at the traditional roles, for a man to want to be taken by storm is a rest and a respite from a life where he's always expected to be in charge.

On the other hand, traditionally women weren't expected to be in charge of anything but cooking and raising babies. And, they were not expected to have sexual desires, but to accept and accommodate their husband's desires.

Traditional women: ancient history

Traditional women existed a long time ago and I would bet that very few of them are posting on this site.

In fact, most women (and men) of my generation (those born in the 1960's) have mothers who worked outside the home as we grew up (perhaps part time).

Of course, individual families vary, but in order to find a traditional women in my family (or my wife's family) we would have to go back our grandparents: the generation born 1900 - 1910.

Today's women

Women who are coming of age today were born in 1986 and probably have parents near my age (42). Not only are their mothers not likely to be traditional, their grandmothers probably weren't traditional.

Today's eighteen-year-old woman might not even remember the generation of women who were traditional. They were probably her great-grandparents.

The strong women who post here

Many of the women who post here have plenty of outside-the-home pressures and (just like men) need the respite in life where they do not need to be in charge. These women have corporate ladders to climb, careers to Shepherd and layoffs to avoid.

What these women ask of their men

If, on the other hand, she's also taking her man sometimes and it's a mutual respite from too much real life stress, that's a whole different thing.

In fact, most of the women posting here find/found it difficult to convince their men to take them in hand. Small wonder: why on earth would a man want a woman to shirk her responsibilities as an equal partner? Why would he want to take charge of her and make her decisions for her? Why would he want to ‘be on top’ most of the time, much less ‘rape’ without the pleasure of being ‘raped’?

Why the H*** shouldn't she carry her own weight?

The man's perspective

I, for one, felt cheated when my wife started to act on her ‘traditional’ desires to be submissive. (I didn't mind her having those desires, just that she expected me to cater to them full time.) That wasn't the deal we had when we were married. The word “obey” was never spoken in our wedding ceremony.

I married a feminist: a woman who was my equal and who carried her own weight in the relationship. We lived that way for twenty years and I was happy with it.

For me (and for a lot of men in today's world) the challenge is to put limits on women's submissiveness; to find ways of giving women the domination, leadership or whatever they crave without allowing ourselves to be enslaved by their desire to be submissive.

Sexual repression? Hardly.

These Taken in Hand women aren't sexually repressed. In fact, if they were not willing to share the responsibilities of domination and if they gave nothing else in return, they would be sexually greedy.

Yes! Wanting to be pseudo-raped without being willing to reciprocate is an exercise in sexual greed (unless it is balanced by something else).

But let's be fair: many Taken in Hand women are quite willing to take the reins sometimes. Some of them are dominant spouses (i.e. taking their husbands in hand). Even the women who want to be continually submissive are willing to give something in return (see What Men Get Out of It).

The gifts of pseudo-rape, spanking, Taken in Hand etc.

the boss had it right: It is a gift. These women are asking their husbands and lovers to make a sacrifice. By being dominant, in whatever form, a man is taking responsibility off of his wife's/lover's shoulders and putting it on his own. This is something that a women is absolutely not entitled to.

A Faustian bargain

When a man is reluctant to take a woman in hand, it is because he knows that domination can be a Faustian bargain. It looks tempting on the surface but it carries a great burden.

We men have every right to say “no” and we would be wise to exact a high price for saying “yes”.

A rare breed

The point is: the woman who wants to be pseudo-raped and/or spanked and/or taken in hand is the mirror image of the dominant man who wants to surrender to a strong woman.

These aren't timid, sexually repressed women who being scooped up by throngs of vulturous men waiting to take advantage of them. They are powerful women looking for a rare breed of even-more-powerful men. Men who, quite often do not want to take them in hand.

Either this is one big intellectual pursuit or the ladies here desperately wish some man with a good character, brains and a touch of ambition would come along and treat them like a queen. In return, the ladies promise to completely submit to him across the board IF he is willing to enforce that submission… starting with a good trip across his knees and ending with an ‘assault’ on the living room floor… all while they’re saying ‘no.’

Better yet ladies, try this:

“Look you imbeciles… love me, respect me and keep me interested… you can start by listening but don’t forget to sometimes pin me against the wall and take me from behind, bruising my wrists by holding them so tightly over my head I think they might break, and sometimes push me down on the floor or bed and RAPE me: I WANT a MAN to TAKE me and I want it hard and ROUGH and heavy sometimes, OK? Sometimes (just sometimes, not all the time) I want to feel like I can't breathe, entirely under your control, totally overpowered, TAKEN, RAPED, VIOLENTLY, by a MAN. Sometimes I want to be SCARED, to be aware of you as a dangerous, powerful MAN. Don’t try to figure it out… we ladies need that sort of thing from time to time… it is very comforting knowing our men want us THAT way sometimes, because you could have ‘fuzzy bunny’ sex with a pumpkin… and sometimes fuzzy bunny sex isn't enough. Sometimes, we want RAW SEX. THIS is what we want. Understand?”

Am I missing something or does this sum up all the conjecture and debate?

We humans, especially women, have simply overcomplicated the subject and added foreplay and courtship. The purpose remains the same.

Maybe Peter Pan said it best: “girls talk too much…”

Admit it ladies, from time to time you like being treated like property or objects.

Carl has raised some interesting points, and his comments above serve as a reminder that not all men want to be the dominant partner, just as not all women wish to be the submissive one.

In fact, most of the women posting here find/found it difficult to convince their men to take them in hand. Small wonder: why on earth would a man want a woman to shirk her responsibilities as an equal partner? Why would he want to take charge of her and make her decisions for her?

From this site, it looks like most of the women who want or are in a Taken In Hand-syle relationship do not want to be micromanaged. They do not want their man to make all her decisions for her. They don't want or need to be told when to do the laundry, when to cook dinner etc. They are after some-one who has the attributes of a good leader - and a good leader does not try to tell everyone what to do all the time, nor do they make decisions unaided. Yes, they have the final say, but a good leader takes into account the views of those likely to be affected as well as their own.

Wanting to submit does not mean wanting to be looked after as a very young child must be. For me, part of it is that I want someone who can stand up to me when I need it. I can get into terrily destructive moods that takes a long while for me to sort out. Now we've made this change to our relationship, B can step in and get me to stop. The result is I'm much calmer, there are less rows, and B feels much happier at home. And now that B feels more comfortable asserting his authority at home, I in turn feel softer and more inclined to make home as a nice a place as possible for him. For decisions, B has the ultimate say, but anything of any importance is discussed - he may be making the decison, but he isn't making it on his own. And possibly more importantly, he knows I'm not going to argue about it once he has decided. And because of this,

Part of the problem in getting a man to take you in hand is not the man fretting about the unfairness of it, but in how society has become. It is not deemed acceptable to hit a woman, and it is not deemed normal for one partner to be in charge - and even worse if they actually both want it! My husband had wanted to be HoH for some while. But he was scared, with good reason, I'd walk out if he raised the matter - I've always been used to asserting my independance and my ability to take care of myself. And he was even more worried I'd hit back if he tried to spank me. All that he wanted to be in our relationship was what we'd both been told wasn't acceptable any more. And I couldn't, at the start, even consider what I've since discovered I want to be because it would be considered weak and girly. B is the "voice of authority" in our relationship, but paradoxically this has made life easier for both of us. I am suddenly far happier doing most of the chores, and he's now far happier dealing with the more awkward stuff - from what he's said, partly because it falls under the looking after/protecting me, and partly because it can get me so stressed out that life can become hell for the both of us.

But in the end, it comes down to what works for each relationship. What works for B & I may not work for Carl and Elle, or anyone else for that matter. The important thing is that both partners talk to each other, and even more importanly - listen and understand.

--

"There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so" Hamlet, somewhere.

Stephen this is a beautiful piece on submission. I feel this way about submission too. It is a powerful thing to be taken, forced to submit to the man in your life. It is an empowering feeling. I feel more in love with him in those moments, than in any other. The effect of it seeps into all the other areas of our relationship. If you are wired for it, it can be very powerful.

Take care,
Tevemer

To the poster who believes that women have rape fantasies or that somewhere within "any" 'form' of rape for that matter are "free to enjoy" it because she "bore no responsibility for what happened":

That is about the most ridiculous thing I've ever read. Consider, if you will, what happens after a real rape of a woman with a strange man whom she has never met before; the guilt that she is somehow at fault often takes YEARS to get past!

Granted that a fantasy rape or one enacted out between two consenting parties will not hold the same type of guilt; but if these are two people who have sex on a regular basis "anyway", why would she "need" any sort of release of guilt for doing the same thing she's been doing with him but with some greater force behind his actions? This makes no sense whatever.

It is far more likely that this all has to do with the surrender of power in general be it emotional physical intellectual or otherwise, (or all of the above at once).

This simply is not so different than giving up power or control in some other similar manner to a man who is obviously stronger than you are; and again, this includes all aspects be they emotional, physical, intellectual or otherwise. Prevalent, however, and probably worth noting, is that in a rape fantasy or enactment "all" of these are covered at once, making this a very stimulating and arousing event indeed.

I realize how haughty this might sound, but I still believe it to be true: I believe that there are a LOT of women out here who are SO intelligent and SO capable of the most intricate manipulations as well as those who are SO emotionally "rocks" inside for whatever reasons they ended up this way, that the loss of control and power is something that she literally "falls welcoming" into with a great inner sigh of relief.

But I mention day to day life after having found domination and submission in general. A rape fantasy is just a step deeper, a step further if you will; not at all what one would wish between a violent angry man and a non suspecting woman who shall become his victim; no: This is something completely removed from that sort of thing. This, rather, is to simply fantasize taking the possibilities of our own submission to their greatest heights, first in our minds, then possibly in conversation with one whom we "have" come to trust with our submission, and then through that great keyword - trust - via the actions of that one we've entrusted power and control "to".

I've read the When rape is a gift article. I've come to believe that there were folks who responded to that article who got so caught up in the technical meaning of rape that would otherwise be stated in a dictionary, that they missed the entire point of the article. Surely one would have to be a monster to want to engage in a most violent act as rape as defined through dictionary terms; but that isn't at all what is being referenced here, even if better terms for whatever it is we are fantasizing about could be reached. That isn't the point, in other words. And I mention that here, because I suspect that if I do not, the same thing will happen in response to what I am writing as well. Perhaps being "taken in hand" is all that needs be said to some; but that "literary" definition has already been taken and was used to describe acts far less involved than what we are discussing here; thus, we are running with the word rape to describe, if nothing else, for lack of better (and available) terms. Sorry if that offends anyone; I'm sure we're all doing the best we can here to convey the ideas and points that we wish to make without setting fire to anyone's nerves. :-)

Surely there can't be many women in this day and age who think that they're not supposed to enjoy sex or that if they do they're whores? The notion that women shouldn't enjoy sex is something that arose in the 19th century, and I would have thought had long since died out. Are there really still women who feel guilty about enjoying sex? Given the number of books and magazine articles that proliferate nowadays about how to have more orgasms etc, I have rather got the impression that nowadays you're supposed to feel guilty if you don't enjoy sex.

I think that whether or not you want to be a career woman is actually a separate issue from whether or not you want to be Taken In Hand. I think there are a lot of women on here who do have careers. Having a career and being Taken In Hand can go together. Likewise you can be a stay-at-home mother without being Taken In Hand (my mother was a stay-at-home wife and she wasn't Taken In Hand in the least). My desire to stay at home with the children has nothing to do with being Taken In Hand, I simply do it because I like it, and because I'm much too idle to want to pursue a career anyway.

I found it exasperating, frustrating, and difficult to have to walk out the door and be one half of me, and come home and leave it at the door to become the other half. I always pictured myself as career oriented. Some higher power, or some drive within me, led me down a different path. I will not apologize for wanting the life I want, or for my desires to be taken in hand. I have interests I pursue, simply not as aggressively as I may have done or thought I would do in years past. Sometimes, time gives you pause or reflection, and you can realize that what you thought you wanted, what you were seemingly driven to do, is an empty road.

If I woke up tomorrow, alone, the dishes might still be in the sink, dust may accumulate on the wood, the dog will likely have shed some more fur, the grass might need to be cut, and the vehicles might need an oil change or gasoline. I would not care. Stuff needs to be done in life, but it is not the heart of life.

Much like every day cannot be filled with carefree emotion, nor can it be consumed by only what gets done. If you work, and love it, and it contributes not only financially, but emotionally to the well-being of your marriage, then go for it! We are not all independently wealthy people (I'm certainly not!) and bills need to get paid, life's material obligations have to be met, but that does not mean those have to be met from sacrificing the passion and emotion in life.