the boss
I have written before under a name you still quote. We are in the fourth decade of marriage and have never been happier. This woman, my woman, is not into D/s, BDSM, submission, etc; she is not non-educated, she not nutty... she is a highly intelligent professional who has chosen to dedicate herself to me as my slave after years of happy marriage.

She gives love, her everything... I give love, my care, my everything in return... if that makes us nuts, then we are nuts... but very happy nuts!

Her Slave's Creed beautifully captures what we stumbled into two and a half years ago...it may seem 'kinky' but it is not.. it suits us well and never have we had such love...

PS Why cannot other sites be as good as yours; open, honest, mainly non-confrontational, a complete gem.

An avid Taken In Hand fan....

the boss,

Just remember that pioneers, innovators, and others with creative juices naturally find themselves on the forefront. Being in this position is risky - not the least of which is the risk of exposing yourself to criticism, naysayers and others who could never assume that role.

Just keep moving forward and the noise of the rabble becomes only a sound in the distance.

Sam (of Sam and Missy)

And your comment was well stated Blush. I agree with all you said.

the boss, those who criticize just aren't open to understanding anything beyond what they have been 'spoon-fed' to believe as normal.

Thanks for providing a site where open honest discussion can take place even though opinions and ideas may differ.

Dear the boss,

I am having some difficulty in understanding why you have included religion in your list of what taken in hand is not about. Perhaps you could clarify your reason(s). Although I understand that the discussion of religion can descend into an endless argument about interpretations of scripture, I do not think it is right to include it in your list of what taken in hand is not about.

I have never argued that the Bible supports a husband's right to spank his wife (neither does it forbid it). However, it does explain and support a husband's authority in marriage. Is that not a subject worthy of consideration for those of us who live in a taken in hand relationship? Much of what we practice and understand about marriage in the western tradition has its origins in Christianity and the Bible. If understood correctly, there are some passages which beautifully describe the union of a man and a woman. I can not be the only one who participates in the discussions on Taken In Hand who's taken in hand relationship has a basis in their faith.

Having said this, I have learned from past experience how controversial and divisive this subject can be. Nevertheless, just as you yourself have discussed works of great literature, the Taming of the Shrew for example, I think it is wrong to suggest religious themes as being antithetical to a taken in hand relationship. If it is OK to reference Shakespeare, Freud, Ayn Rand, and many other worthy sources, why not religious sources?

Perhaps I am overreacting, but I am always put off by the bias that many secularists have toward religion, especially the Christian faith. Unfortunately, many with little or no background in Christinaity, view it only in light of the American fundamentalists such as Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. Christianity is a very big tent which includes within it many points of view. Would you be so kind as to explain why you think Taken In Hand is not about religion. Thanks.

Stephen

One of the BIG mistakes that opponents of taking women in hand have made is in the assumption that the authority of men emanates from a single religious text or even cluster of similar religions. The practice is much older.

It helps to think of biblical admonitions on patriarchal authority as a kind of old American-style farmer's almanac that includes planting tables.

One farmer faithfully believes the almanac and plants his seeds according to the table.

Another farmer does not own an almanac and believes them to be a waste of good money. Nevertheless, this farmer knows the local climate and the soil of his land. He plants his seeds when he senses the time is right.

Obviously, when both farmers plant their seeds within a few days of each other, the existence of the almanac only serves to provide assurance to the first farmer. Whether or not the almanac existed does not change the rhythm of life.

So it is with two husbands.

One believes that God has given him authority over his wife and exercises it. He can point to chapter and verse to justify his decision.

The other husband is of a different turn of mind. Having watched other marriages come and go, he senses that the time has come and takes his wife in hand with the same surety as the first.

Much the same thing can be said of two women. One, a godly woman, searches her Bible and believes that her husband should take her in hand. Another, though unchurched, feels herself straying from her husband and knows that decisive action on his part is necessary to preserve her marriage.

Whether from the husband or from the wife, whether from religious precepts or secular insights, the wisdom that something must be done flows from the depths of the soul. Reading a religious text did not cause the *need* in the respective marriages anymore than the almanac made the seasons of planting and harvesting.

Just as the farmer failing to heed either the almanac or the seasons finds himself in considerable difficulty at harvest, so does the husband devoid of either divine guidance or intuitive insight when his marriage grinds upon the rocks.

It's a shame that there are so many misconceptions about a romantic inclination that so many men and women find so fulfilling. I hope the lists above go some ways towards clearing up any confusion; but I also know that when people have blinders on, they can be very hard to remove. Partly the prejudice is due to people just not being able to conceive of something unfamiliar; if they regard all masculine dominance as abusive, then they just have trouble imagining a relationship where that can be the epitome of love. It's also partly about how we use language, because it's so easy to think we're talking about the same thing, when we're really just using the same words to describe a very different thing.

Or sometimes we're using different words to describe the same thing; I think that may be going on here, to some extent, with words like "submission" and "bullying" and maybe "domineering." I've seen various D/s websites - especially MaleDom/femsub sites - that I can relate to in some degree. But from what I've read on this website, I feel it's the first one I can relate to so fully and completely; it's the first one that seems to fit so naturally and comfortably with my own inclinations. But I have no hesitation about describing myself as a sexually submissive woman. I can see how that's something that might be problematic, given that what I've seen described as 'submissive' on some other websites (D/s, bdsm, etc.) is more what I would call 'servile' and sometimes it does strike me as a lot of artificial posturing. (There's also a lot of men artificially posturing at being 'dominant' - but that doesn't negate the concept of real masculine dominance.) What I mean by 'submissive' is a deep, feminine, erotic desire to surrender to a strong, masculine man; it's a very authentic tendency, one that I could not repress or deny no matter how hard I tried. So I'll probably continue to use the word 'submissive' here, with that understanding.

And I think I can understand and appreciate the distinction that the boss is trying to make here between authentic masculine dominance versus 'bullying' or 'domineering' behavior. But it's also the case that I personally want, need and respond positively to a certain amount of what I would call harmless bullying. That is, I need to experience a certain amount of direct, intense, physical coercion from a man. I need to be physically dominated, overpowered, and even intimidated in order to bring out my submissive tendencies, and move me to a place of blissful feminine surrender. What that does not imply, however, is any real physical harm or injury. Nor does it imply that the man is inconsiderate of my needs and desires, or that he thinks that physical coercion is the answer to any and all issues in the relationship.

It just means that I need a man who enjoys using his masculine strength to overpower me, and I enjoy being overpowered, and so that happens on a regular basis in order to keep the erotic heat and desire alive in the relationship. But when it comes to settling issues like "where are we going to get the money to fix the roof and also pay for college tuition?" - then resorting to physical coercion is probably not the best strategy. But there are other, less urgent, matters in which I would welcome a man being somewhat domineering, or even engaging in a bit of harmless bullying.

As regards religion, and why this website (and the "Taken In Hand" concept) is not about religion, or about what 'God' says, I think there are some obvious questions to raise: "Which religion? Which God? Which sacred scripture?" We don't all follow the same religion or the same gods, obviously. the boss alluded to this by saying that people of various religions can take part in a Taken In Hand type of relationship. I mentioned in a post on another forum topic that I'm a pagan myself - specifically, a Wiccan - and for me that is definitely relevant to my ideas about an ideal relationship between the masculine and the feminine. But someone from another religion will make those connections in very different ways, obviously. Spirituality and sexuality are deeply intertwined for many of us; but not in the same ways at all. But then, it's our differences that keep the discussion topics lively, eh?

- Dee