Taken In Hand

[Recidiva]

"The Fantasticks" ! Wow. It has been along time since I thought about that play.

Not to quibble semantics, ... well, actually, yes, to quibble semantics since we ARE discussing semantics ("rape" vs. "ravishment")....

No slight intended to you at all Recidiva.

However, as an interesting bit of trivia.... the song from "The Fantasticks" was using the word "rape" in it's original meaning, which was to refer to an act of kidnapping. In it's context, the character was proposing the conduct of a fake kidnapping.

"I know you prefer abduction, but the proper word is rape. It's short and businesslike."

This word is way too charged with too many legal and violent meanings now.

Ravishment is good enough, but consensual stuff is really fantasy fulfilment. It's not rape, it's theater. As in the Fantasticks.

 

[Mr. Mann]

Yeah... the song is actually a really good case in point.

Every time some high school or local community theatre wants to put the play on, some big hulabaloo ensues over the song. - based more on people's modern perceptions instead of it's actual and intended meaning.

Ironically, when you put on any one of a number of plays by Shakespeare, you put on some much more bawdy and violent bits... it's just that most people don't understand them.

 

[rosco rathbone]

The original definition of abduction was : "the unlawful carrying off of a man's wife or child or ward for the purpose of marriage or unlawful intercourse".

 

[Recidiva]

Yeah... the song is actually a really good case in point.

Every time some high school or local community theatre wants to put the play on, some big hulabaloo ensues over the song. - based more on people's modern perceptions instead of it's actual and intended meaning.

Ironically, when you put on any one of a number of plays by Shakespeare, you put on some much more bawdy and violent bits... it's just that most people don't understand them.

Very true. People just aren't up on their Elizabethan. Poor bastards.

I was completely bummed to see that in a film production of Fantasticks with Joel Grey, that the song was missing. I threw a fit and turned it off, it was my favorite!

I'll always have Jerry Orbach.

Anyway, I'm assuming that anything here defined as "rape" is essentially lawful and consensual. They just need a new word, if "role playing" sounds too light on the gravitas.

 

[stirbird]

Stirbird,

It is clear to me that you and I view the TIH website from very different perspectives. I am not interested in revolutions, or counter-revolutions, or converting those who sit on the fence, or stirring things up.

I think you are very interested in all these things, and from the personal perspective, as Sarah is. Many of your posts in this mesasge board, for example, are extremely political and designed to promote a conservative point of view.

There is no excuse for censorship of any sort. I was brutally raped at 14, that's how I lost my virginity. It made me frigid around people for years. I nevertheless appreciate Sarah's thread and applaud her right to free speech. I am glad she doesn't even start to cave in to the old "You can't say that because you'll hurt the poor vicitim" drek. Poor traumatized rape victims should take some damn responsibility for the frail fading flower sensitivities and not read a bdsm/power exchange website where such topics such as rape are likely to come up. To take your arguement to extremes, we shouldn't be allowed to post about any sort of sex on Literotica because some poor woman who was profoundly sexually abused as a child could freak
out over it and be traumatized. I don't buy it, Alice. People who use this argument tend to do so because they their realpolitik (whatever they pretend to be doing) is to shut down free speech and discourse on topics that personally bother them.

The fact that you've got the buffon who is terrified of strong outspoken submissive women actually applauding you (see below) ought to tell you something about the condition of your argument. He's as preditible as a weather vane: wherever he points, you can bet your sweet bippy that honesty is far, far away....in the other direction.

 

[stirbird]

One more remark I wish to respond to:

"On an intellectual level, every person I know is intelligent enough to grasp the difference between being taken by force consensually, and actual rape. However, the word rape produces a strong and very negative visceral reaction in most people. "

I adore the word rape. "Ravishment," an alternative that has been suggested in bdsm circles for at least ten years now, does nothing for me sexually or emotionally, it leaves me cold and doesn't convey at all what turns me on about forced sexuality. It also usually to be used as political (once again) whitewashing word, on the order of calling brutal professional killers "Peacekeepers." I resent the idea that anybody dare tell me what words I can and cannot use or should and should not like. Shrug. So kill me. Plenty have threatened to.

 

[alice_underneath]

Many of your posts in this mesasge board, for example, are extremely political and designed to promote a conservative point of view.

Gracious, Stirbird. Surely there must be a more effective way to promote a political agenda than random postings on a porn board.

As for the idea that my views are conservative.... Wow. I don't know where you live, but frankly - I'd like to move there.

The fact that you've got the buffon who is terrified of strong outspoken submissive women actually applauding you (see below) ought to tell you something about the condition of your argument. He's as preditible as a weather vane: wherever he points, you can bet your sweet bippy that honesty is far, far away....in the other direction.

Since Mr. Assassin is the one who applauded, I assume you are referring to him with these comments.

I do not know Mr. Assassin, but I must say I find your assessment of him to be more than a bit absurd, given what I've seen from him on this Board.

Just guessing here, but I'd say a guy like that wouldn't waste 5 minutes with a spineless, brainless submissive. No challenge. No thrill in the chase, or victory in the capture.

In any case, though I appreciated Mr. Assassin's applause very much, I do not seek validation for my opinions from him, or you, or anyone else on this Board.

I'm just posting my thoughts here while I wait to enforce bedtime at my house.

Speaking of which.... it's midnight. I am off to sleep.

Alice

 

[AngelicAssassin]

Just guessing here, but I'd say a guy like that wouldn't waste 5 minutes with a spineless, brainless submissive. No challenge. No thrill in the chase, or victory in the capture.

In any case, though I appreciated Mr. Assassin's applause very much ...

Likewise appreciated, but unnecessary. i put the shit stir on ignore after the outburst of histrionic vitriol with 'Cisco. Sometimes, it's just easier to open the window and let any random breeze blow a noxious fart out of the room.

 

[rosco rathbone]

A fine article:http://www.takeninhand.com/node/104


I like this:

But that's not all. One of the problems of conventional relationships is that small errors in signalling and interpretation lead to huge fights and, worse, to withdrawal and stonewalling. The most trivial problem can turn into an all-out war. Even tiny accidents and misunderstandings can set off a chain of events leading to an out-of-control downward spiral of ill-will and misery. You think he is being unfriendly (when in fact he is just preoccupied) so you are slightly less friendly yourself. He subconsciously notices your slight negativity, and responds more guardedly than he would otherwise have done. You think he is being unpleasant and can't understand why, and you feel annoyed and respond accordingly. He thinks your evident annoyance is out of order and becomes annoyed himself. And pretty soon you have a fight on your hands. …. And all because of a tiny mistake in your interpretation of his state of mind at the beginning of the interaction. Unfortunately, many conventional couples simply have no means of arresting such downward spirals of bad feeling.

 

[graceanne]

A fine article:http://www.takeninhand.com/node/104


I like this:

Actually that's one of my favorites from that site. I've read it several times, and so has K.

edited to add: A lot of the stonewalling and stuff wouldn't happen if the woman would just ask if he's mad instead of assuming. If I think K's mad at me I ask him. Otherwise I spend the rest of the day worrying about something that might not be an issue.

 

[Kajira Callista]

A fine article:http://www.takeninhand.com/node/104


I like this:

me too.

 

[Netzach]

That's the only thing I've every read that made physical punishment with a masochistic bottom make the remotest amount of sense to me.

I still don't believe in it, but it doesn't sound so stupid.

 

[Mr. Mann]

A comment re: the "I Blame The Patriarchy" blog has ben posted int he TIH comments section.

link - http://www.takeninhand.com/node/216?from=270&comments_per_page=90

"A fascinating discussion elsewhere on the internet

There is a long and fascinating discussion about When rape is a gift on a feminist blog. You can find it here. Most of the commentators seem to take the view that Taken In Hand, and this article in particular, reinforce patriarchy and harm women. They do not approve of people choosing Taken In Hand relationships.

But what is the difference between forbidding the choice to be Taken In Hand, and forbidding the choice not to be Taken In Hand? What good will it do anyone to replace one set of prescriptions and proscriptions with another? As I have always said, I no more want to dictate to others what their choices should be for their own lives, than I want them to dictate to me what mine should be. And if the day were to come when Taken In Hand were in danger of becoming compulsory, I'd be fighting to the death to prevent that appalling outcome. It would be an abomination if it were compulsory.

The view that says that Taken In Hand should not exist, and that it is harmful, rests on an incredibly pessimistic view of people. I do not personally think of other people as being weak, impressionable sheep. I think that they are perfectly capable of reading this site critically and making up their own minds. They don't in fact need to be protected from themselves and prevented from making their own choices lest they come to harm. I think people are more autonomous and critical than some of the posters on the above-linked site would have us believe.

by Sarah Cavendish on 2006 Feb 26 - 09:21"

 

[alice_underneath]

by Sarah Cavendish on 2006 Feb 26 - 09:21

Very eloquent, and of course I agree with what she wrote.

But your femifascist post made the exact same point and was much more entertaining.

 

[Netzach]

Why would you expect validation from these people?

I mean I sort of wanted to hug that one femsub chick on the comment thread. Why do women always need our sexuality validated, if not by men, by other women?

And I'm with Recidiva here, who called it out perfectly. If Ravishment is too romantic, that's grand, but the minute you want it, it's not rape anymore. Rape depends on the lack of desire/consent as a construct.

How about "I want you to hold me down and nail me into the hardwood floor?" Rape it ain't.

 

[Recidiva]

Why would you expect validation from these people?

I mean I sort of wanted to hug that one femsub chick on the comment thread. Why do women always need our sexuality validated, if not by men, by other women?

I don't need my sexuality validated.

And if I'm feeling not so sexy there's always masturbation. That fixes it.

"I don't know what you guys think about me from out there, but from in here it feels GREAT!"

*nods*

 

[alice_underneath]

That's the only thing I've every read that made physical punishment with a masochistic bottom make the remotest amount of sense to me.

I still don't believe in it, but it doesn't sound so stupid.

Nothing makes sense in every situation. But for many long-term relationships, I think the ideas in that piece are brilliant.

Consider this excerpt:

"It is not about knocking a faulty woman into shape. If it were, why should any man want such a tiresome burden? Why not just get a dog? And how many men would feel perfect enough to stand in judgement over their woman?"

I feel submissive to my husband because I want him to be in charge and I love to please him. This has nothing to do with him being more intelligent or inherently better behaved.

True, he may have a few IQ points on me (and that's part of his appeal), but generally speaking we are intellectual peers. We are also both reasonably mature, responsible adults. Of course, I have my moments - but so does he.

Keep in mind that the article is not talking about bedroom scenes or role playing. It is talking about the way two people interact on a day-to-day basis.

If you look at the excerpt in Mr. Rathbone's post above, you'll notice that both people are misinterpreting and miscommunicating. Both are therefore responsible for the disagreement that ensues.

The problem is resolved not by him enforcing discipline based on his fabulously superior intelligence or self-control, but simply by him taking charge of the situation.

He is not trying to train her. Rather, he is simply asserting his authority in order to clear the air and move on.

 

[Netzach]

What graceanne said, though. The whole thing could be headed off at the pass if the person says something instead of acting out like a passive aggressive.

And then you'd be stuck I don't know, using SM as a reward or something.

 

[alice_underneath]

What graceanne said, though. The whole thing could be headed off at the pass if the person says something instead of acting out like a passive aggressive.

And then you'd be stuck I don't know, using SM as a reward or something.

This concern makes sense if the woman is usually to blame for disagreements and miscommunication, but that's not true in every relationship.

From what I have observed in many relationships (including mine), sometimes disagreements will be her fault. Sometimes his. Most times it will be really hard to tell how the whole mess started in the first place!

Cavendish wrote:

"The primary object is not actually punishment, it is your sexual and emotional connection."

The goal, as I understand it, is closure for the specific incident and reinforcement of the couple's roles & commitment to one another.

A mutually rewarding way to deal with the unpleasantness that pops up from time to time in all relationships.

 

[graceanne]

Whether you blame yourself or not for them being angry, if you don't ask then you're being childish and imature. I'm sorry, but just cause someone's not paying enough attention to you is not a good reason to give them the silent treatment, or have a hissy fit or whatever. If you THINK someone's mad at you then ASK. If they say no, and they're lying then it becomes their problem. That's when you shrug, say whatever and go about your day as you would normally.

Frankly I would never be with a person who won't be honest when they're mad. I don't have the patience for that kind of passive aggressive bullshit.

 

[Kajira Callista]

Whether you blame yourself or not for them being angry, if you don't ask then you're being childish and imature. I'm sorry, but just cause someone's not paying enough attention to you is not a good reason to give them the silent treatment, or have a hissy fit or whatever. If you THINK someone's mad at you then ASK. If they say no, and they're lying then it becomes their problem. That's when you shrug, say whatever and go about your day as you would normally.

Frankly I would never be with a person who won't be honest when they're mad. I don't have the patience for that kind of passive aggressive bullshit.

 

[Recidiva]

Whether you blame yourself or not for them being angry, if you don't ask then you're being childish and imature. I'm sorry, but just cause someone's not paying enough attention to you is not a good reason to give them the silent treatment, or have a hissy fit or whatever. If you THINK someone's mad at you then ASK. If they say no, and they're lying then it becomes their problem. That's when you shrug, say whatever and go about your day as you would normally.

Frankly I would never be with a person who won't be honest when they're mad. I don't have the patience for that kind of passive aggressive bullshit.

I'm not sure I agree with this, mostly because many people do not wish to acknowledge the "flaw" of being angry, and secondly many people can't trace back the cause of the anger, so they're going to stonewall and not look stupid.

This is particularly true of highly confident, highly intelligent people who continue to handle emotional and intellectual roadblocks, but are still going to stumble, yet they do NOT want to stumble.

Anger and expression of it, is a hugely complicated issue and just can't be dismissed. The people who do the most work in this area are prone to uncover the hardest truths to face.

Everyone is trying to face something they either can't quite comprehend or can't quite make out in the darkness. The aspect of scale, in trying to understand someone's emotional state, is key.

I've had to guide many a person around in the emotional dark, enough to know you can't expect everyone to be able to handle everything, or that you can know what fear or issue they're facing that makes them reticent to express it.

 

[alice_underneath]

Whether you blame yourself or not for them being angry, if you don't ask then you're being childish and imature. I'm sorry, but just cause someone's not paying enough attention to you is not a good reason to give them the silent treatment, or have a hissy fit or whatever. If you THINK someone's mad at you then ASK.

I agree with your comments as a general guideline for avoiding trouble in personal relationships.

But I also agree with Recidiva that sometimes people are unable to trace back the cause of their anger, and everybody (even the most fabulous Dom on the planet) sometimes slips up in the communications department.

Glancing back up at the TIH excerpt in Mr. Rathbone's post, a scenario in which the genders are flipped seems just as likely to me as the one described. That's really my point, and I suspect that it is part of Cavendish's point too.

"It is not about knocking a faulty woman into shape. If it were, why should any man want such a tiresome burden? Why not just get a dog? And how many men would feel perfect enough to stand in judgement over their woman? Let's face it, chaps, more often than not, she is a lot more sensible, reasonable, capable, and responsible than he is, so presumably she would have her hands full knocking the faulty man into shape too!"

http://www.takeninhand.com/node/104

 

[graceanne]

I agree with your comments as a general guideline for avoiding trouble in personal relationships.

But I also agree with Recidiva that sometimes people are unable to trace back the cause of their anger, and everybody (even the most fabulous Dom on the planet) sometimes slips up in the communications department.

Glancing back up at the TIH excerpt in Mr. Rathbone's post, a scenario in which the genders are flipped seems just as likely to me as the one described. That's really my point, and I suspect that it is part of Cavendish's point too.

"It is not about knocking a faulty woman into shape. If it were, why should any man want such a tiresome burden? Why not just get a dog? And how many men would feel perfect enough to stand in judgement over their woman? Let's face it, chaps, more often than not, she is a lot more sensible, reasonable, capable, and responsible than he is, so presumably she would have her hands full knocking the faulty man into shape too!"

http://www.takeninhand.com/node/104

If you [general you} can't remember why you're [still general] angry, don't you think you should drop it?

 

[siren319]

Actually that's one of my favorites from that site. I've read it several times, and so has K.

edited to add: A lot of the stonewalling and stuff wouldn't happen if the woman would just ask if he's mad instead of assuming. If I think K's mad at me I ask him. Otherwise I spend the rest of the day worrying about something that might not be an issue.

I can honestly say that in my Ds relationships this has been less of an issue but it isn't always just the women. Men have a tendancy to say they aren't mad when in fact they are. Most Doms have figured out that the silent treatment is torment and worse than most other forms of punishment because it plays havoc on the mind of the sub making her unsure of her value to the dom. A Dom is also in the position to be upfront about changes in his mood and whether or not it is in regaurds to the sub. I am quick to ask if I've done something wrong like you said for the same reason. On that same note, a Dom has to know him/herself enough to know when it has nothing to do with the sub either.