Taken In Hand

[ammre]

that made me feel a little bit better... I'm going to be working in my school's women's center next year... I'm part of the feminists usinted club (F.U.) too... but i'm totally a sub in bed... and in my sexual fantasies that don't necissarally involve the bedroom (attendent, toy, goods, etc..) I get so conflicted feeling about some things sometimes...

(by the by, my dad was the house husband, my mom was the breadwinner, they had equal say in matters, and they were still going very strong as a married unit until he passed away, husband and wife roles, psht. fuck the roles and just use a lot of communication, isn't that what we learn here too... communication, communication, communication!)

 

[Marquis]

(by the by, my dad was the house husband, my mom was the breadwinner, they had equal say in matters, and they were still going very strong as a married unit until he passed away, husband and wife rolls, psht. fuck the rolls and just use a lot of communication, isn't that what we learn here too... communication, communication, communication!)

One day I'm going to open a restaurant and serve an appetizer called Husband and Wife Rolls. They will be very buttery, with a pinch of my secret ingredient, gunpowder.



Sorry, I've lost my ability to make sense. Check back in a few.

 

[ammre]

One day I'm going to open a restaurant and serve an appetizer called Husband and Wife Rolls. They will be very buttery, with a pinch of my secret ingredient, gunpowder.



Sorry, I've lost my ability to make sense. Check back in a few.

I can't say i've ever liked the taste of black powder... i remember once loading a old gun and getting a little puff of black powder near enough to me that i could sort of taste it in the air... not pleasent. I don't think your rolls will sell... (Although the smell of block powder after it's used is actually quite appealing to me)


yes, i spelled it wrong... oh well, i haven't slept much.

 

[Marquis]

I don't think I understand what you were trying to say in your post.

 

[SueJ]

Do timeouts in the closet count or does it have to be physical?

IMO, absolutely they count. In fact, for many reasons they are often the best way. "Taken in hand" can really backfire if not done right. My husband knows that a spanking for punishment purposes will encourage my bad behavior, but that if he ignores me, I'll be groveling in no time. We're not into a lot of pain here, so a spanking is more of an erotic experience given as a motivation to do something. It serves as a good motivator for me, but a bad deterrent. (I hope that makes sense...It does to me.) Ignoring me makes me consider where I went wrong, and assess why things are so much better when he's in control and I just do what I'm told, and how badly I screwed it all up. When I try to "top from the bottom" and he just gets up and walks away (especially if it's in the middle of sex), that sends a very strong message.

Sue

 

[Marquis]

IMO, absolutely they count. In fact, for many reasons they are often the best way. "Taken in hand" can really backfire if not done right. My husband knows that a spanking for punishment purposes will encourage my bad behavior, but that if he ignores me, I'll be groveling in no time. We're not into a lot of pain here, so a spanking is more of an erotic experience given as a motivation to do something. It serves as a good motivator for me, but a bad deterrent. (I hope that makes sense...It does to me.) Ignoring me makes me consider where I went wrong, and assess why things are so much better when he's in control and I just do what I'm told, and how badly I screwed it all up. When I try to "top from the bottom" and he just gets up and walks away (especially if it's in the middle of sex), that sends a very strong message.

Sue

It's like you read my mind.

 

[YinandYang]

The nature of this particular paradox is this: That it is in my partner's nature to be a strong, independent and, at times, even commanding force in much of her life, while also having a genuinely and lovingly submissive side that she chooses to share with a trusted partner. It is not that the strong, independent, commanding side of her is an act, a way of ‘being tough’ for the outside world – it is who she is and neither she nor I would ever choose to change it.

Both sides of her are equally ‘her’ and each one feeds the other – the strong, independent side helps her to grow and explore and to protect herself in a world that is by no means always benevolent or benign. But her submissive side, the part of her that will always be a young girl – playful, loving and constantly reassured by having a stronger, guardian force there to nurture and guide her – helps to give the womanly, independent side strength.

Human nature being what it is, although I believe we have these polarities ‘hard-wired’ into us, we are not designed to be able to meet all of our own needs. However independent any of us may be, we are truly social animals, and it is important to honor and respect that. By nurturing and encouraging both sides of my beloved M (the sides of her that is “My lady” and the side that is “My girl”) I help make both stronger.

This has touched me today!

 

[Killishandra]

geeze, I am fascinated by that site. I could spend hours there!

Many a strong, high dominance resistant woman with a commanding presence and alpha tendencies, constantly fears that she might inadvertently overwhelm and control her man.

Story of my life right there. Plus, it always HAS happened.

When such a woman knows that the man is an autonomous person very much under his own control with real power and authority he won't shrink from using to command respect from her, she can relax at last. The welcome fear has liberated her from the unwelcome fear. For the Taken In Hand woman, this is deeply relaxing, endlessly fascinating, and intensely erotic.

hmmmm


Why I, a dominant man, prefer a strong woman

....you certainly can't respect a woman who's always placid or overly submissive. I respect J and what she wants, and she respects my needs, and accepts that I make the decisions for both of us. It is a meeting of equals but with different roles. I could not do this with a woman who was my inferior. I need to be able to respect my woman. That's why I prefer a strong woman to a weak, placid, one.


Gives me an idea for a thread.

 

[laurel-marie]

Why I, a dominant man, prefer a strong woman

....you certainly can't respect a woman who's always placid or overly submissive. I respect J and what she wants, and she respects my needs, and accepts that I make the decisions for both of us. It is a meeting of equals but with different roles. I could not do this with a woman who was my inferior. I need to be able to respect my woman. That's why I prefer a strong woman to a weak, placid, one.

Big area of confusion for me. I do not think of myself as independently strong. It is my husband who makes me strong. So does this make me a weak and placid person on my own? Hmmm...gives me something to think on.

 

[rosco rathbone]

Instead of allowing little problems to metastasise into misery, accusations, fighting, or icy silence, the dominant man can use serious discipline or some other way of expressing his authority to invoke the relationship. Instead of withdrawing and breaking their connection, he can, through taking or re-establishing control, highlight and re-affirm his commitment to their relationship. Taking a woman in hand is a way of invoking the relationship that can be done without losing face, without any damage to his pride or ego, and without any emasculating grovelling to the woman or loss of power on his part. Through this action, he signals to the woman that he is ready to put the troublesome issue behind them rather than dwelling on it, fighting about it, sulking or stonewalling. It minimises if not eliminates the build-up of niggling resentment that can do so much damage to relationships.

This is just great.

 

[Marquis]

That's great for the man, but do you think the issue really just washes away for the woman?

Or does she just tolerate the beating and feign compliance long enough to struck when the dish is cold and the iron is hot?

 

[Recidiva]

What I would really like to know, though, is where does a man go when he's gone off the deep end...just constantly deeper and deeper?

Isn't a woman there to provide a bit of balance to that impulse?

There are times when I have to be able to tell my husband "Dude, you can't do this, this is my job" and I get to be in charge.

Where's the balance in always being in charge?

At what point does ego end and real life start, a guy gets to say "I got nothin'" and a woman gets to say "Let me get this one."

Doesn't the guy get spanked then and this is just being excluded from the picture?

At what point do you stop spanking for reminders and just do your job?

 

[Quint]

That's great for the man, but do you think the issue really just washes away for the woman?

Or does she just tolerate the beating and feign compliance long enough to struck when the dish is cold and the iron is hot?

Depends on the issue. If it's just frustration ("you never remember to take out the trash" variety), oftentimes by the end of a nice whacking I'm purring and all is both forgiven and forgotten. If it's a serious issue ("I think I'm pregnant" variety), then whooooooboy there ain't no toleration happening, in hand or out of hand!

This actually reminds me of what I teach my team about remaining in control of their callers. If you start out in control, you troubleshoot pretty much any unwelcome twists. With that approach, the "little problems" are solved before they start, by and large. I say daily, nay, hourly beatings is the answer--whup the sass out of her before it raises its head!

Quint "You already told her twice!"

 

[Marquis]

Depends on the issue. If it's just frustration ("you never remember to take out the trash" variety), oftentimes by the end of a nice whacking I'm purring and all is both forgiven and forgotten. If it's a serious issue ("I think I'm pregnant" variety), then whooooooboy there ain't no toleration happening, in hand or out of hand!

This actually reminds me of what I teach my team about remaining in control of their callers. If you start out in control, you troubleshoot pretty much any unwelcome twists. With that approach, the "little problems" are solved before they start, by and large. I say daily, nay, hourly beatings is the answer--whup the sass out of her before it raises its head!

Quint "You already told her twice!"

LOL

I think my biggest problem is my guilt. I am mentally capable of doing all sorts of horrid shit to a female that a lot of men probably couldn't bring themselves to do, but at the end of the day, if I spanked my girl every time she complained about me not taking out the trash I'd still walk away thinking;

"why the fuck don't I take out the trash every once in a while? I'm such a jerk."

Which doesn't help the situation because women prey on insecurities like vultures and I ain't taking out no fucking trash.

 

[Netzach]

What I would really like to know, though, is where does a man go when he's gone off the deep end...just constantly deeper and deeper?

Isn't a woman there to provide a bit of balance to that impulse?

There are times when I have to be able to tell my husband "Dude, you can't do this, this is my job" and I get to be in charge.

Where's the balance in always being in charge?

At what point does ego end and real life start, a guy gets to say "I got nothin'" and a woman gets to say "Let me get this one."

Doesn't the guy get spanked then and this is just being excluded from the picture?

At what point do you stop spanking for reminders and just do your job?

I think I have to stalk you all over Lit.

This is what keeps me and mr. netz going -- it's related to perception.

His job is to make me happy and my job is to keep him happy. Sometimes we do the same things for each other, coming at it from the angle that's consistant with how we see ourselves, so we're integrated.

Fuck, even I need a spanking sometimes, metaphoric if not physical.

 

[graceanne]

I think all relationships should be about making the other person happy. If I'm worried about making K happy, and he's worried about making me happy then we're both happy.

As for what RR posted - i thought it was cool. But I think it's more for the big issues, where the chick just can't move on from it. I've seen people do this (I don't - and K will back me up on this - I REFUSE to nag). Whatever it is is over, but she keeps wanting to talk about it and rehash it and go over it again and again.

Plus, if all the chick has to complain about is that he's not taking out the trash - she's lucky, and she's looking for a fight. Either that or she's really pissed about something else, but the trash is just the 'straw that broke the camels back'.

 

[Recidiva]

I think I have to stalk you all over Lit.

This is what keeps me and mr. netz going -- it's related to perception.

His job is to make me happy and my job is to keep him happy. Sometimes we do the same things for each other, coming at it from the angle that's consistant with how we see ourselves, so we're integrated.

Fuck, even I need a spanking sometimes, metaphoric if not physical.

I'd spank you when you needed it.

And I'd know.

 

[nusubgurl]

A lot of what "taken in hand" means to me, is the idea that women need both be able to have their emotional outbursts--it is female nature---but they also need to feel the presence of a firm hand that will tolerate no bullshit. It' s a balancing act. Men of my generation and background were raised to go out of our way to take very seriously everything out of a woman's mouth--as if any kind of hysteria, venting, and so on had to be dealt with in the context of rational discussion. The idea of saying 'woman--any more of your PMS and I am going to turn you across my knee" was completely unthinkable--but I happen to have come to believe that much of what I was taught about females in the aftermath of the sexual revolution was complete and utter bollocks .Women will be women and that is what makes them magical but they are often irrational and need a firm guiding hand.

the first time i went to the site "Taken in Hand" i didn't stay too long because i couldn't grasp the concept for some reason...but i did hook onto the idea of the alpha submissive female and i could strongly identify with that.

Now that i have a bit of experience, i went there again to catch up with this thread and particularly some of the sections AA references. NOW it is much clearer to me and i am identifying more and more with it's philosophy.

it really addresses that there are two distinct sides to a woman's personality...her public world and her intimate world. I am absolutely in control in my public world and need Him to recognize and appreciate my strength in that arena. but in my private world i really, really NEED Him to maintain control of me.

when i surrender to my submissive self.. i am so immersed in my emotions that i'm usually not well balanced. it makes sense and feels very desireable to have Him recognize and even anticipate that unbalance and exert a powerful emotional based control to help me get back to center.

Using rational discussion and logic will not wrk as i am not in that side of my brain...those words fall on deaf ears. I am needing physical and emotional proof that i am worthwhile and spanking and being sexually taken is something the emotional side of my brain can process.

He's operating from His animal behaviors in response to my animal behaviors. Logic and rationality no longer enter into it at that point

As for Netz and others' comments...when we are both in our "right" minds, whoever needs to be in charge of the public life/real world should just do it..most times i would happily cede that to Him as well, but if He couldn't for some reason, of course i would step up and maintain our life as best i could. Whatever was need to both our self preservation would take precedence.

 

[Pure]

How about this?

The Taken In Hand relationship is a consciously and consensually male-controlled exclusive monogamous relationship in which the man's power is real and for the purpose of creating a deeply connected, fully engaged relationship with a white-hot sexual connection. How the man expresses his dominance is an individual matter, but it is for the benefit of the relationship rather than being purely self-serving. The Taken In Hand man protects and cherishes the woman he leads. The Taken In Hand woman responds positively to her man's control.

Taken in Hand gives a woman's perspective on a traditional 1-1 relationship. Likewise some of the books recommended [approved of at least partially] on the site, such as
Laura Doyle_The Surrendered Wife_, and Susan Jeffers _Opening Our Hearts to Men_. There is good stuff at the site, but I'm surprised to see roscoe and some others endorse it unreservedly.

 

[Recidiva]

I suppose what I'm trying to express is that there are specific relationships that have to do with very specific people.

Private and public personae that are specific.

Then I hear comments like "women prey on insecurities like vultures" as stated by Marquis and I wonder which part of the specific is being honored.

I don't prey on insecurities. The fact that I can see them and I'm perceptive and I can point them out to people so they won't trip over them is to me like pointing out a deep hole in their own psyche's ground so they don't fall into it.

If I were a vulture, I'd let them fall into it so I could then blame it on them and prey on their weakness. I could do that very easily.

Instead I make people aware of their own weaknesses, point them out and help them compensate for them, empowering them instead of belittling them. But in order to learn something, you have to be willing to listen. In order to teach, you have to be willing to be an authority. In either role, you have to be willing to be an example. In order to live a life where there is growth and change, and not a static ideal, there is dynamic change and an attempt at balance because life presents changing conditions. Things like hurricanes and wars and children.

I'm with a man who also is very perceptive about people and is very patient and helpful. So we exist.

There is such a thing as a self-fulfilling prophecy, so if you go out looking for only one thing and won't acknowledge that something else exists, you will certainly only find evidence of that thing existing.

There is a difference between a symbiotic and a predatory relationship and although the difference may be subtle, I am trying to have a conversation about it.

 

[Shrimps'n'Peas]

 

[Pure]

a small question

what is the difference between the taken in hand approach and that of the authors of the famous, explicit evangelical sex/marriage manual, characterized thus, but one writier.

Tim LaHaye, coauthor of the apocalyptic "Left Behind" novels, and his wife Beverly, founder of Concerned Women for America, are also highly influential leaders of the evangelical right wing. Their 1976 evangelical sex manual, The Act of Marriage, is still quoted, especially their assertion that, "God designed man to be the aggressor, provider, and leader of his family," claiming that such attributes are omehow tied to his sex drive." emphasis mine). They add, "The woman who resents her husband's sex drive while enjoying his aggressive leadership had better face the fact that she cannot have one without the other" (p.22).

The La Hayes are among the orginators of the approach: Follow the plan that God, through Christ, gave us for marriage and procreation, with the male as the monogamous head of the wife-for-life and of a lifelong, Christ-ordered family unit and BOTH man and woman will have 'white hot' sex.

 

[stirbird]

what is the difference between the taken in hand approach and that of the authors of the famous, explicit evangelical sex/marriage manual, characterized thus, but one writier.

Tim LaHaye, coauthor of the apocalyptic "Left Behind" novels, and his wife Beverly, founder of Concerned Women for America, are also highly influential leaders of the evangelical right wing. Their 1976 evangelical sex manual, The Act of Marriage, is still quoted, especially their assertion that, "God designed man to be the aggressor, provider, and leader of his family," claiming that such attributes are omehow tied to his sex drive." emphasis mine). They add, "The woman who resents her husband's sex drive while enjoying his aggressive leadership had better face the fact that she cannot have one without the other" (p.22).

The La Hayes are among the orginators of the approach: Follow the plan that God, through Christ, gave us for marriage and procreation, with the male as the monogamous head of the wife-for-life and of a lifelong, Christ-ordered family unit and BOTH man and woman will have 'white hot' sex.

Two things:

1. TIH has no religious spin to "justify" or make acceptable the sort of relationship the enthusiasts like.

2. Unlike most Christain bdsm'ers and Goreans, TIH people for the most part--there are exceptions in every group, of course--don't press a misogynistic or male superiority (as in all men are dominant, all women are sub) agenda. I like Live and Let Live-ers--people who do what they like but do not claim the whole world should be (or really are, in secret) exactly as they are.

 

[Recidiva]

Two things:

1. TIH has no religious spin to "justify" or make acceptable the sort of relationship the enthusiasts like.

2. Unlike most Christain bdsm'ers and Goreans, TIH people for the most part--there are exceptions in every group, of course--don't press a misogynistic or male superiority (as in all men are dominant, all women are sub) agenda. I like Live and Let Live-ers--people who do what they like but do not claim the whole world should be (or really are, in secret) exactly as they are.

Occasionally, though, this does mask stuff like autism and schizophrenia and paranoia.

Teasing out the threads of habit and addiction and pathology from choice can be difficult.

The more virulent the response, the more difficult the discussion.

It's like asking someone to stop smoking. Yes, sometimes it does take giving it up for a day to make the point.

Though sometimes you have no right to ask someone to give up something for a day and that's also a fact.

But everyone should be able to ask themselves...what would you not be able to give up for a day, and why?

 

[rosco rathbone]

There is good stuff at the site, but I'm surprised to see roscoe and some others endorse it unreservedly.

Oh, I don't know about that. I just pick out passages here and there that I like a lot.