Hi Howard,

To answer your question, I did not mean either of those things, I just meant that the two individuals have to be broadly in agreement, whatever that might mean for the individual couple. For some, it might mean a more overtly equal relationship; for others, it might mean one prevailing or being generally in control. As long as they agree, I don't see a problem.

I think that when people feel free to be themselves, they are more likely to develop or retain a fun, exuberant attitude to life that minimises bad feeling and conflicts.

If you have a dominant, strong, masculine personality, or part of your personality has that character, attempting to see yourself as a submissive little girl is asking for trouble. To have a good relationship, you have to relate to one another as the individuals you are, and evolve from there. A relationship requiring that you enact fixed stereotypical roles is bound to be handicapped and a handicap to your own individual growth.

Oh boy, does this resonate! I can't do 'little girl' at all. I don't talk baby talk. I am not into 'weak and helpless.' Many times I wondered what on earth I was doing in a Taken In Hand relationship given my inherent strength and how I saw the 'ideal Taken In Hand woman' portrayed. Not here - but most certainly at virtually every DD site I have been to.

A strong man is not threatened by a strong woman; like you said, he is confident and maybe even pleased that she will not wither under the force of his personality.

But I do submit to MB's leadership. He is very clear that is expected of me. Because he does not abuse his authority with arbitrary or demeaning rules or orders, I have no trouble reconciling my obedience to him with my own intelligence and decision-making abilities. He doesn't expect me to obey mindlessly but he does expect me to obey. Period.

I think that when people feel free to be themselves, they are more likely to develop or retain a fun, exuberant attitude to life that minimises bad feeling and conflicts.

MB has always encouraged who and what I am. In return I have supported him and his interests. Because of that mutual respect we continue to grow together in a marriage characterised by uncommonly enduring romance and fun.

When someone watches over you with the love and concern MB has demonstrated unfailingly for me, it's not hard to trust that their decisions be in your best interests. I wouldn't empower just any man with the type of submission I give to my husband. But he knows my strength and he knows my Achilles' heel. He manages them both beautifully. And, in doing so, he has become a much stronger and more confident man himself.

Maddy

Bizarrely, and initially worryingly, I found myself becoming more feminine after B became head of the household. It was entirely of my own volition, too. It took me a while to realise that far from anything sinister happening, I was actually starting to take care again over how I looked. And, fortunately, I look far better in boot-cut jeans than I do in any style skirt :)

More surprisingly, I've found myself being better at being strong/dominant at work. And at home, I am far from being meek and weak-willed. But I am submissive to B - simply put, when it comes to a clash of wills, he is far stronger than I am.

--

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

Intersting article, made me think some....

If I have understood what you are saying, you are suggesting that a relationship between two dominant-minded individuals can potentially free a woman more than a stereotypical dominant-submissive relationship.

Without someone "in charge" in a relationship (a court of last authority as it were), it seems like a recipe for conflict... If there IS that person who makes the final decisions, then surely you have a D/s relationship, but with the submissive part by a strong person who CHOOSES to submit to the authority of her partner? I may well have misunderstood, but I like Colin's comment -

HOWEVER - when the chips are down, the woman has to know who's boss, ie me. ;-)

It may be that I can not properly envisage how a relationship between two dominant people can be anything other than a competition, unless one chooses to "allow" the other to be charge. At that point, it becomes a D/s relationship, albeit with two dominant people. There again, it may just be that I am a little too competitive for my own good (those male hormones again, I guess).

An anonymous poster asked:

Do any of you submit because the Bible requires it?

As a non-Christian, the answer for me has to be "no".

I would expect that even between two dominant personalities one will be stronger than the other. If they are 100% evenly matched in that respect maybe Taken In Hand isn't for them.

A poster wrote:

Boss, what I don't get is why a dominant woman like your self would want a dominant man.

The mistake you are making here is to assume that a dominant person will want a submissive partner. Where did this assumption come from? I don't know, but what I do know is that not all dominant individuals would be happy with a submissive partner, and not all submissive individuals enjoy being with a dominant person. It depends on the individuals and on exactly what we're talking about. Evidently those who are dominant in the BDSM sense value extreme submissiveness highly. But other dominant men would find that uninteresting.

Given that, as I said, being a dominant person does not necessarily imply wanting to get the upper hand in a relationship, I don't really understand why the idea seems so strange to some readers. Perhaps it is time to question a few BDSM assumptions?

I think there's a lot of us out there who are dominant and want a man or woman who's also got a bit of fight in her, we're all used to thinking D/s is the way but I like a dominant fiesty lady not a submissive one. I used to think it was a submissive lady I wanted, being a dominant guy, then I got into a D/s relationship and I got bored real soon. This idea makes sense to me.

Jeff

This is all words. If you want a dominant man, you're submissive, end of story. I think the guy who said you're in denial was right.

Although I'm not the boss, I too am a high dominance woman. The reason high dominance women want dominant men is because we high dominance women types can and will walk over a less dominant man. We dominant women need and want a challenge, the dominant male keeps us in check so to speak. They enable us to remain dominant and submissive at the same time. In turn, they are not weighed down with the co-dependent person who is high maintenance as we high dominance women types are very capable of doing things for ourselves from time to time.

Or does it?! It depends, doesn't it? And those terms mean different things to different people. And some react against such ways of stating these things. I am quite happy to call myself “a woman who would prefer the man to lead in an intimate relationship”. Will that do for a label?

If you are a dominant woman and want to always be dominated by your man - as opposed to being willing to submit - then I see this as being a recipe for clashes and discomfort as no-one can live under the siege of constant struggle forever, through illness and other setbacks.

I agree wholeheartedly with this, Interesdom. However, the real point of my article was not to substitute the word “dominant” for the word “submissive” but to free those who feel uncomfortable adopting any given labelling system from the tyranny of those labels. Perhaps I should have made a bit more of this bit:

Those of us with an aversion to being (metaphorically as opposed to literally) pinned down

and used the word “dominant” a bit less, because it does seem to have caused some confusion among those viewing life through D/s or BDSM lenses.

Whilst you might not make any assumptions about the kind of person a woman is if she calls herself “submissive”, others certainly do, and their assumptions are all wrong.

You may say that D/s defines the relationship, not the people, but in practice, in real life, people do not act as though that is the case. Using the word “submissive” to mean that you accept a man's leadership in a relationship doesn't work, because that word generally gets you treated as though you are a certain kind of person that you might well not be at all. And if the cap doesn't fit, why wear it?

Interesdom,

I think you made an important point here. I think saying that D/s talks about the relationship, not the people is a good distinction to make. I think part of it is that people have a generally negative opinion of what they think others mean by submissive. When it comes down to it there are as many different types of submissive people as there are people. I tend to agree that someone in the taken in hand relationship must be more submissive than the other. If you have one person leading then you must have someone following. It does not mean that person is a weak willed door matt. It is true that Taken In Hand women are not looking to be taken in hand outside our relationships. I know that my husband appreciates that I am a strong capable woman who know how to go out into the world a get what she wants. It is part of what attracted him to me. I think it makes my submission to him all that much sweeter knowing that I am a strong woman, and I choose to submit to him.

Take care,
Tevemer

As someone new to the whole sub/dom 'taken in hand' thing, I have always considered myself a feminist, but have recently discovered that i enjoy being sexually submisive. But to me its make perfect sense what you are saying, to me its simple to allow that in some areas of life we might want to be dominant and in others submissive, and even within a relationship, the roles can change, and frequently.

I understand her completely. I am a super tomboy young woman, I love pink and boxing, lipstick and playing in the dirt, short skirts, heels, and roughhousing.

Here is my hypothesis : A woman who is naturally a dominant person, and is accustomed to getting whatever she wants, will find that many men eventually become thier "little bitch' and they think that they are pleasing her..when really it is annoying and makes the woman lose all respect for the man. Then she starts to want a man who will stand up for himself...and then probably fantasies of a man who is strong enough for her and more. Strong women are suffering because society today makes sissy men. To ask a woman with a dominant personality to change is synonomous to "dumbing down" the education system...so noone is left out. It is sad that a woman would have to fake some cheesy steriotypical idea femininity to feel like a woman, or make a man feel like a man....just because the bar is set so low. Where are the men? What did they put in the water? I shouldn't have to fake incompetence in order to prevent accidently emasculating a man.

While the submissive woman is an undeniable turn-on to me, the dominent woman is just as exciting. Some men (like me) enjoy both types. It is a great find to meet a woman who is confident enough to play both roles and enjoy them for what they are worth. The excitement is not the same in each case. Having a woman submit to whatever devious plot I might impose is a pleasure rooted in my own self worth and confidence. If I have had a very hard day and suffered the many rude and selfish customers we all see from time to time, having someone be submissive is a relief to the nervous system. It puts me back in the driver's seat. Makes one whole again!

Jamie

I came across this site becasue a friend of mine has a preference for this sort of relationship and gave me a link. he's a man by the way, and i'm a woman.

but on to my point, even though by nature - i'm a very dominant woman, easily submissive men don't atract me either, which is why my husband is just as dominant as me, sometimes more so.

however, just becasue one person conceeds to another's opinion at some point doesn't make it a D/s relationship. for instance - in our relationship, points of view are discussed and debated and if I make a better point - he conceeds. likewise when he makes a better point - I conceed. and more often then not - we find a middle ground that pleases us both. all major decisions are made as a team where both have to agree equaly. but neither of us obeys. ever. If he tried to make me obey just becasue he was my husband, even if he were right in that specific instance, i still would not have obeyed out of principle and by now we'd be divorced. needless to say - ours is NOT a "taken in hand" relationship

the way i'm seeing it - if you are willing to obey at some point of the relationship (not the same as conceeding after evaluating both points of view, yours and your partner's) - you are submissive in some way. you're not a doormat, but you are still submissive (or a switch in case where you can do both). no matter how dominant you are in other aspects of your life. nothing is wrong with that, but lets not confuse things.

For a dominant person obedience is not natural, its not pleasant, it chafes and its something that they do only when they have no other way out. you choose to obey? it that regard - you are submissive, period. you're just trying to justify your submission to yourself and others, and in my opinion if you have to do that - you're not as happy with it as you say you are.