Taken In Hand
- Thread starter rosco rathbone
- Start date
graceanne
iteroticalay urugay
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2004
- Posts
- 27,579
siren319 said:
I know that the silent treatment is used in many relationships as punishment. But normally the sub knows what she did and knows why her dom's mad. It's not a matter of guessing. My sisters soon to be ex used to do that to her - get mad and then tell her wasn't. It's one of the reason's he's soon to be her ex - it's abusive.
And I know that a lot of women do that. "Well if you don't know, then I'm not gonna tell you." I'm not saying that only men do this. I think it's bullshit either way. Let me tell you, if I'm pissed at K he knows it and why. Same with the other way - if he's pised at me I know it and why. I then can decide whether I think his anger is founded or not, but at least I'm not playing the 'why's he mad' guessing game. It also works when he's not mad, cause if I ask him if he's mad and he says no, I know he really isn't.
I guess it boils down to honesty. If you lie when someone asks you if you're mad, then you are asking for trouble, cause sometime they're gonna ask when you're really not mad, and you won't be believed.
agreed
I am honest when I'm pissed because it is easier than letting it snowball into something else. With people who always say, "nothing" I tend to assume the worse i.e. I did something wrong. After a while of this, I usually find I end up with a F--- this attitude and stop caring about whether the other person is pissed.
I am honest when I'm pissed because it is easier than letting it snowball into something else. With people who always say, "nothing" I tend to assume the worse i.e. I did something wrong. After a while of this, I usually find I end up with a F--- this attitude and stop caring about whether the other person is pissed.
Recidiva
Harastal
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2005
- Posts
- 89,726
graceanne said:
It's not about remembering an issue, it's about discovering its source.
Some people can easily trace back and handle why they're mad at something and express it. Some people don't have this much insight, and benefit from talking about it more, having leading questions.
I know with my husband when he gets pissy about something, he's not a naturally pissy person...he's got something happening. If I ask him straight, he won't know why. He's just pissed. I have to track back through time to the moment when pissiness occurred and try to reconstruct what might have been set off in him. Often it has absolutely nothing to do with the circumstances,
He might think he's irritated with our son, but the irritation doesn't go away like usual over time and he doesn't come back to his emotional baseline. He continues to be irritated. So it might take me six hours, but I'm going to have to point to the issue, get past his defenses (a better armed person you have yet to meet, any request about thought processes brings out the fortified machine gun nest, it's like storming Normandy) After a few hours I can wave the emotional white flag convincingly so he doesn't think I'm just out to get him, and then maybe figuring the issue out by asking lots of questions, that maybe he's pissed because his parents weren't as nice to him as we are to our son, and that has him upset...something like that. Then we can deal with the actual issue and adjust parenting styles or forgive parents or something.
Usually if someone continues to be a jerk when the original issue has subsided, there's something deeper. Who knows where it's gonna lead, but once you find the actual issue through some introspection, there's one of those "Oh. I get it." moments. Then you can deal with someone's emotional state in a constructive way and make choices about now that have been inexplicably affected by things unseen.
Both my husband and my daughter have absolutely no introspection or insight. If they're upset, they just find something close to blame, and their upset won't dissipate at all without someone sitting them down to say "Look, what exactly is going on here" and getting past the clueless bull to the actual issue. Then they feel better, but if they don't find the problem, they'll just be pissed forever.
rosco rathbone
1. f3e5 2. g4??
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2002
- Posts
- 42,430
I love Taken In Hand; I agree with all their precepts....but all the guys who post there are tools.
The mod never lets any of my snarky comments through, either. She really keeps a tight rein on that place.
What kind of moron describes himself as a "HOH" with a straight internet face.
I don't get it.
The mod never lets any of my snarky comments through, either. She really keeps a tight rein on that place.
What kind of moron describes himself as a "HOH" with a straight internet face.
I don't get it.
intothewoods
Truth seeker
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2007
- Posts
- 10,966
First of all - please do not pm me for cyber? That's fucking hilarious.
Second - HOH = head of household? Are you objecting to the term or the acronym?
rosco rathbone
1. f3e5 2. g4??
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2002
- Posts
- 42,430
The little "I am owned-do not attempt to contact me" blurbs that people put in their sigs here are annoying to me. That's my homeopathic cure.
What I object to is people without any sense of self-reference, self-mockery, self-criticism or self-irony. That place is one big shooting gallery of straight-men.
graceanne
iteroticalay urugay
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2004
- Posts
- 27,579
Netzach
>semiotics?
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2003
- Posts
- 21,732
Who said you could have my brain?
rosco rathbone
1. f3e5 2. g4??
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2002
- Posts
- 42,430
If it wasn't for my sharing a brain with you, you would find me a disgusting patriarchal swine instead of loving me as you do.
I was reading Simon Reynolds book about post-punk today, talking about the feminist girl groups like the Slits and Nico and John Cale and stuff and I actually thought of you.
rosco rathbone
1. f3e5 2. g4??
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2002
- Posts
- 42,430
And I mean "straight men" in both senses of the term, which so often go together, unfortunately.
intothewoods
Truth seeker
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2007
- Posts
- 10,966
I need a variation of that in my sig. Maybe, please pm me for religious inspiration.
Netzach
>semiotics?
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2003
- Posts
- 21,732
Maybe it's the brain sharing, but I like to think it's this:
Sweet, if someone thinks of me when they think post punk all has to be right in the world.
rosco rathbone
1. f3e5 2. g4??
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2002
- Posts
- 42,430
You got that right.
graceanne
iteroticalay urugay
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2004
- Posts
- 27,579
Still, I have this mental picture of you, over a barrel full of straight-guy fish with a loaded gun.
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
interesting pov
from a main writer at 'taken in hand'. i find the distinction odd.
http://www.takeninhand.com/from.bdsm.to.taken.in.hand
Then I encountered Taken In Hand, which is right on the edge where fantasy meets reality. Also, on a certain level, somewhat similar to base-jumping or sky-diving, it appears irresponsible to one who is accustomed to BDSM scenes. I can't remember who said it, but Taken In Hand is lived by the seat of the pants, with no rules other than what is made up as time passes.
This is in sharp contrast with acceptable BDSM practices, which may seem to some to be almost overburdened with rules of consent, safety, and conduct. These practices differ from Taken In Hand in that they are planned procedures of what will be done when by whom to whom with whom as a scene. Even the so-called “24/7 lifestyles” are pretty much extended scenes that can be stopped, re-planned, and re-started. In my admittedly limited understanding: BDSM enacts fantasies; Taken In Hand lives them. BDSM concentrates on the activities; Taken In Hand concentrates on the relationships.
The most dangerous Taken In Hand concept, from the BDSM point of view, is consensual non-consent, which seems to them too vague to be truly safe, hand-in-hand with the lack of a safe-word in most cases. From the BDSM perspective, this is much like driving a car full-throttle after bleeding out all the brake fluid and dismantling the emergency brake.
In consensual non-consent there is always room for doubt, a chance of overstepping an unexpectedly-changed boundary. In a situation with overt consent such an event is far less likely to occur. As risky as their acts are, BDSM folk still want all the rules and consents plain and clear. I think that the lack of consent – or rather, the seeming appearance thereof – is the single scariest thing about Taken In Hand to the BDSM mind.
KrosRogue
i do see his point about casual SM encounters and explicit consent.
i'm puzzled by his dismissal of longer term arrangements. surely ongoing arrangement, including 24/7 did not have explicit consent for each act.
i think the general effort of the TIH people is to "sell" it as NOT bdsm. just a hot, authoritarian arragement. they are not keen on people saying "this is just traditional xianity or judaism'; male as head of household. but of course it's exceedingly close.
from a main writer at 'taken in hand'. i find the distinction odd.
http://www.takeninhand.com/from.bdsm.to.taken.in.hand
Then I encountered Taken In Hand, which is right on the edge where fantasy meets reality. Also, on a certain level, somewhat similar to base-jumping or sky-diving, it appears irresponsible to one who is accustomed to BDSM scenes. I can't remember who said it, but Taken In Hand is lived by the seat of the pants, with no rules other than what is made up as time passes.
This is in sharp contrast with acceptable BDSM practices, which may seem to some to be almost overburdened with rules of consent, safety, and conduct. These practices differ from Taken In Hand in that they are planned procedures of what will be done when by whom to whom with whom as a scene. Even the so-called “24/7 lifestyles” are pretty much extended scenes that can be stopped, re-planned, and re-started. In my admittedly limited understanding: BDSM enacts fantasies; Taken In Hand lives them. BDSM concentrates on the activities; Taken In Hand concentrates on the relationships.
The most dangerous Taken In Hand concept, from the BDSM point of view, is consensual non-consent, which seems to them too vague to be truly safe, hand-in-hand with the lack of a safe-word in most cases. From the BDSM perspective, this is much like driving a car full-throttle after bleeding out all the brake fluid and dismantling the emergency brake.
In consensual non-consent there is always room for doubt, a chance of overstepping an unexpectedly-changed boundary. In a situation with overt consent such an event is far less likely to occur. As risky as their acts are, BDSM folk still want all the rules and consents plain and clear. I think that the lack of consent – or rather, the seeming appearance thereof – is the single scariest thing about Taken In Hand to the BDSM mind.
KrosRogue
i do see his point about casual SM encounters and explicit consent.
i'm puzzled by his dismissal of longer term arrangements. surely ongoing arrangement, including 24/7 did not have explicit consent for each act.
i think the general effort of the TIH people is to "sell" it as NOT bdsm. just a hot, authoritarian arragement. they are not keen on people saying "this is just traditional xianity or judaism'; male as head of household. but of course it's exceedingly close.
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
on the guys
rr I love Taken In Hand; I agree with all their precepts....but all the guys who post there are tools.
i think the problem's inherent in the framework. consider this posting by "ardent feminist", maddy:
For almost 17 years I have been married to one of the most ardent feminists I have ever known – my husband. His genuine and empathetic love of women has meant he has never been short on female friends. I am just glad that he is straight! Most men who understand women as well as he does are gay. He’s also an excellent cook and loves shopping. You can see why he may seem sort of borderline to strangers. On the other hand he can handle a rifle, loves rock climbing, and golfs and fishes when he gets the chance. He’s male through and through.
I could never submit to an insecure man who felt some arbitrary patriarchal role made his opinions more valid than mine or his decisions inherently superior. MB would no more use his position (and all that that entails – paddle, hairbrush – whatever) to try to silence my opinions about human rights (especially the F-word) than he would use it try to change my favourite colour. Winning through beating? Where’s the victory in that?
Ironically, MB is the one who reads or points out articles that inflame his sense of injustice – frequently as they pertain to women. He notices inequities that escape me. I love, respect, and trust him simply because I know he has a deep sense of fair play and right and wrong.
the authority, here, is fair minded, humane. eminently worthy. BUT the next fellow who comes along, and says "I'm the kinda guy who wants to take his partner in hand, and insists on it." Well, there's a good chance he's NOT up to the description above. Maybe he's a jerk. That's a topic NOT ever discussed at TIH: suppose the male partner is utterly unsuited to be any kind of authority over his wife. he's a gambler and a slacker. i suppose the answer is 'dump him.' but fellows like the above do not grow on trees. there's a good chance the 'authority' one searches out, the HOH, will, in some ways, have feet of clay.
the closest one gets to this issue at TIH is the hubby who's NOT quite an authority. i read of a fellow "too preoccupied" to 'take his wife in hand'--but of course he's brilliant and a leader elsewhere. and of course the answer is, 'nudge him to take things in hand, and fulfill his basic leaning.'
as with any pre set framework recommended wholesale--e.g. traditional marriage-- the TIH authority setup will really fit a minority only. but it's being peddled as having wholesale application. a kind of remedy to the chaos of modern 'equal' marriages. hence lots of women who say, 'i'm taken in hand' are, regardless of what their beliefs, in fact implying, 'I'm under the authority of a jerk.'
rr I love Taken In Hand; I agree with all their precepts....but all the guys who post there are tools.
i think the problem's inherent in the framework. consider this posting by "ardent feminist", maddy:
For almost 17 years I have been married to one of the most ardent feminists I have ever known – my husband. His genuine and empathetic love of women has meant he has never been short on female friends. I am just glad that he is straight! Most men who understand women as well as he does are gay. He’s also an excellent cook and loves shopping. You can see why he may seem sort of borderline to strangers. On the other hand he can handle a rifle, loves rock climbing, and golfs and fishes when he gets the chance. He’s male through and through.
I could never submit to an insecure man who felt some arbitrary patriarchal role made his opinions more valid than mine or his decisions inherently superior. MB would no more use his position (and all that that entails – paddle, hairbrush – whatever) to try to silence my opinions about human rights (especially the F-word) than he would use it try to change my favourite colour. Winning through beating? Where’s the victory in that?
Ironically, MB is the one who reads or points out articles that inflame his sense of injustice – frequently as they pertain to women. He notices inequities that escape me. I love, respect, and trust him simply because I know he has a deep sense of fair play and right and wrong.
the authority, here, is fair minded, humane. eminently worthy. BUT the next fellow who comes along, and says "I'm the kinda guy who wants to take his partner in hand, and insists on it." Well, there's a good chance he's NOT up to the description above. Maybe he's a jerk. That's a topic NOT ever discussed at TIH: suppose the male partner is utterly unsuited to be any kind of authority over his wife. he's a gambler and a slacker. i suppose the answer is 'dump him.' but fellows like the above do not grow on trees. there's a good chance the 'authority' one searches out, the HOH, will, in some ways, have feet of clay.
the closest one gets to this issue at TIH is the hubby who's NOT quite an authority. i read of a fellow "too preoccupied" to 'take his wife in hand'--but of course he's brilliant and a leader elsewhere. and of course the answer is, 'nudge him to take things in hand, and fulfill his basic leaning.'
as with any pre set framework recommended wholesale--e.g. traditional marriage-- the TIH authority setup will really fit a minority only. but it's being peddled as having wholesale application. a kind of remedy to the chaos of modern 'equal' marriages. hence lots of women who say, 'i'm taken in hand' are, regardless of what their beliefs, in fact implying, 'I'm under the authority of a jerk.'
Last edited:
infinity706
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Posts
- 2,886
I like to look at gender equality from an Orwellian perspective.
We're all equal, some of us are just more equal than others.
If I remember correctly, that was also said by a pig.
I can sort of understand this concept. We have to remember, though, that it also should mean that sometimes, the women need to take the guys over their knees, too.
her_soffie
Experienced
- Joined
- May 22, 2008
- Posts
- 74
Very well said. The same principle holds true I believe when the male/female roles are switched, or for any D/s gender relationship. It is all about bonding.
MystressWorld
