While I am sure that there are many who are blissfully happy being treated like an object, called names, humiliated, commanded to serve, cruelly punished, etc., evidently that sort of thing does not thrill all women in the BDSM community, let alone the Taken In Hand community.

I have had many email messages from women who have arrived at Taken In Hand from M/s or D/s relationships, and one of the recurring themes in these messages is that Taken In Hand feels more to their taste than the kind of relationship or community they have come from because they didn't enjoy being treated as a slave or they did not like the idea of being enslaved and nor do they like the annihilation of self that that idea implies.

In many cases, women report that they did not function well in a master-slave relationship, that their self-esteem suffered, that they did not feel protected and cared-for, and that they did not enjoy being expected to wait on the man hand and foot, and that they felt disrespected. Ultimately, a relationship must please both persons not just one, and if one person has an aversion to the idea of being a slave, and the other one insists on treating her like a slave, the relationship is doomed, as we have seen in some of the posts of this sort on this site.

In a Taken In Hand relationship, the two individuals care about and put one another first. It is not all one way. The man is protective and caring and respectful, not a self-serving narcissist. There is a mutuality about the relationship. It pleases both, not just the man, as you can see from some of the lovely articles you can find on this site by and about men in Taken In Hand relationships.

Perhaps another difference is that many Taken In Hand people are excited by ‘non-sexual’ dominance but are actively turned off by the sort of overtly sexual dominance that many in the M/s and D/s communities seem to enjoy.

How do you find out what he does with the power without being under it and suffering any adverse consequences if he's an enslaver? Alot of guys talk good.

Noone that's intriguing. Could you give us a general idea what you mean by: the 2 times in your married life when you "turned your wife into psychological putty". Not personal details, just what prompted your wife's meltdown. Why that situation? is she weaker than other women? And how might someone have taken advantage of her in that weak condition?

I suspect that the hidden assumption in your comment about women not wanting to be slaves is that this would be a lifelong mode of relation. But I'm not sure that this would necessarily have to be the case.

Back in the era of 1960s unconventionalism, my college English teacher (an older woman with whom I was having a clandestine affair in the role of Boy Toy) casually mentioned that, as the Story of "O" was one of her favourite novels, she would like it a lot if I would familiarize myself with it so that we could re-enact it, scene by scene.

Women are full of surprises. Looking back, it seems that sometimes they've wanted such activity from a desire to explore or play. Other times, they've grown so heartily tired of being in the drivers' seat that they've sought this out in an attempt to balance their own emotional books ("I've looked at life from both sides now").

Who can fathom it ?

Noone wrote:

A woman must know what is in a man's heart. It is imperative for a woman to find out what a man will do with his natural power over her. She must not be deceived.

I understand what is meant here but I do not think this is enough. First, the 'power over her' is in my view wholly a sexual and erotic interaction that can take many forms, not at all 'natural'for man over woman but specific to the individuals involved. This is why some women 'like' being a slave while others balk at even its mention.

Secondly, I think SOME woman who follow a man's final decisions over disgreements, based on the premise that the man is 'stronger' than the woman or is in some way better suited, even when it is erotically thrilling for her to do so, will in the long term feel a litle compromised and her 'submission' or 'surrender' may take some processing in order for her to accept her place within the usual Taken In Hand framework such as described by noone.

I don't think it is good enough that the man have entirely pure motives and intention. I think a woman who submits our of fear of violating her agreement or violating her consent will over time feel compromised even with a good and trustworthy man.

Frank Nelson

Yes, the thing is, you can't find everything out about a person by just observing. I found out fairly early on in my relationship with my husband that he was capable of exploding when things went wrong, but I was used to that, I had a mother who exploded all the time, even when things didn't go wrong, so I didn't find this very surprising. He was never condescending, but he could be rude to people, and indeed still can. One of the major sources of friction between us though, the fact that he is far more house-proud than me and exasperated by mess, I didn't find out until after we had married, because it was a direct result of us buying a house together that revealed this hitherto unknown aspect of his character to me. I saw absolutely no sign of it before we were married. Some things dating can't prepare you for, in our case even living together for several months before we were married didn't prepare me for it (or, apparently, him either).

And whatever else may have been wrong between us, at least I can honestly say that my husband has never tried to reduce me to psychological putty, and as far as I know has never had a wish to do so. I can't imagine why any man would want to do this to any woman that he was fond of.

It is interesting how certain words, 'slave' for example, don't sit well with some people, while words with similar meaning and connotation, like 'property,' are perfectly acceptable. I am one such person. The idea of being a slave makes me roll my eyes with indignation. But I get enormous pleasure from the knowledge that I belong to him. It is a comfort knowing that he considers me his property.

Further, I suppose my behavior toward him could certainly be considered that of a slave: I would do anything for him. But that is voluntary, not forced. If I was a slave, I wouldn't have a choice is the matter.

I think first of all, that it's not for everyone. I think second of all that this site takes no official position on it. i.e. the site is a basic foundation of control patterns and each individual couple can add and layer onto that what they need, or not.

SOME couples here, will be "vanilla" and very much a traditional relationship. SOME couples here do this AND play kinky sex games. SOME couples fit this mold AND consider themselves owned property/slaves and consider their husband their master.

This may be disturbing to some, just like some people prefer the term "ravishment" to "rape fantasy" It's all about individual psychology. I don't think that when one person (like myself and some others I've been reading) refer to themselves as owned property that they are in ANY way suggesting that that is what Taken In Hand IS. It's what THEY are, and something about the Taken In Hand site resonates with them and that.

I always wanted to be owned. I live in a 24/7 M/s and sometimes I shudder to think what people think we must be doing all the time. I'm certainly not referring to my husband as Master in public (because it is alienating). But we do use those titles/labels. And I Do genuinely consider myself his property to do with as he wishes.

And I don't consider this unhealthy, because when I gave him all this power, I knew he could handle it. Much the same as anyone here who ISN'T using the master/slave model, knew when they gave up that control that their man could handle it.

Involuntary enslavement is not the only model of slavery. (Let's not superimpose the American South's view of slavery onto ALL slavery. There were many times in several places in history where people voluntarily became actual slaves, as hard as this might be to believe.)

The definition of a slave is: "a person who is the owned property and under full control of another." That is it. It has nothing to do with being locked in a cage, money exchanging hands, or any other thing that has been ADDED ON to that definition.

Being a slave has nothing to do with being a doormat, being extremely kinky, doing weird stuff all the time, wearing weird costumes, or having no opinions or thoughts of one's own. It doesn't always have to do with obedience. (it just means punishment if you disobey.)

Any of those things can apply to individual dynamics but they cannot be applied across the boards. So slavery isn't weak, and neither are slaves.