Taken in Hand (sometimes referred to as TiH)

[WriterDom]

Taken in Hand (sometimes referred to as TiH) in terms of sexual human relationships refers to a committed, heterosexual relationship which is male-led, and in which the female defers in matters of everyday life, as well as sexually, to her partner.

Anyone familar with this?

 

[where]

Rosco. I think there's a website for it.

 

[intothewoods]

Rosco. I think there's a website for it.

Rosco: I'm not only the TiH President. I'm also a member.

He started a thread on this, I believe.

http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=647309

Thought there was another one too.

 

[girlowned]

Taken in Hand (sometimes referred to as TiH) in terms of sexual human relationships refers to a committed, heterosexual relationship which is male-led, and in which the female defers in matters of everyday life, as well as sexually, to her partner.

Anyone familar with this?

Isn't this the same as TPE (Total Power Exchange) between a male Dom and female sub? i guess everyone likes to have their own way of saying things.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Isn't this the same as TPE (Total Power Exchange) between a male Dom and female sub? i guess everyone likes to have their own way of saying things.

I think there's a Christian religion flavor to TIH. TPE is non-denominational.

 

[WriterDom]

The Fetlife group has almost 1900 members.

They seem to be using this site as a guide. It doesn't seem to be very religious in nature. I've yet to find any reference to God or anything. But I can see it appealing to that crowd.

http://www.takeninhand.com/faq

Well from this it sounds like anti-casual bdsm. Where have we heard that before?


Why do Taken In Hand folk reject the D/s label?
[This is an FAQ question (answers to frequently-asked questions). Please ensure that your post answers the question. Click here for the FAQ index.]

Why do Taken In Hand folk reject the D/s label? What is the difference between Taken In Hand and D/s (or BDSM, M/s, etc.)?

Some D/s (or BDSM, M/s, etc.) relationships are Taken In Hand relationships, but most are not.

A Taken In Hand relationship is, inter alia, a permanent, sexually exclusive, fully committed marriage. There are some such marriages within the D/s (or BDSM or M/s) community, but those terms do not necessarily imply even a relationship, let alone a permanent, sexually exclusive, fully committed marriage. Labels like D/s, BDSM and M/s, etc., can apply to open or poly relationships and casual sex, whereas that cannot be said of Taken In Hand.

That is one important difference. That is one reason very few Taken In Hand folk identify with labels like D/s, etc.

Many Taken In Hand folk also like the fact that Taken In Hand is focused on the relationship rather than sex. Read any book or internet site about D/s, BDSM, M/s, etc., and you will see that it is almost all about sexual practices and making sex between people who don't know each other safer. In real life, many people in the D/s community go to parties at which people who don't necessarily know each other engage in elaborate theatrical sexual practices. This is very far from Taken In Hand. Given that Taken In Hand assumes sexually exclusive marriage, definitely not having sex with people you don't know (and in a semi-public place too!), perhaps you can understand why many Taken In Hand couples might not identify with labels like D/s, etc. Taken In Hand folk tend to prefer to keep private matters private, and tend to consider sex private. Moreover, the BDSM focus on sexual practices misses the main point, at least for Taken In Hand folk, which is being happily married and thereby living a more creative, productive life.

Another thing people coming to Taken In Hand from the D/s, BDSM, etc. world often say they really appreciate about Taken In Hand is that Taken In Hand stresses that the relationship is for the benefit of both spouses, not just one of them. In the D/s and M/s communities in particular, there are all too many people taking the view that it is all about the dominant partner, and that the other partner must serve and sacrifice all for the one in control. This is not necessarily the case, I know (please hear me!), but there is so much of this in those communities that people find it refreshing that Taken In Hand stresses that the husband in a Taken In Hand relationship is not a self-serving narcissist with antisocial tendencies, but cares deeply about the happiness of his beloved wife and puts her and their relationship first.

Likewise, in the DD community, one occasionally gets the impression that it is all about the wife and her needs and her happiness, and the husband's needs seem to get forgotten (and again, this is not to say that this is true in most cases). So many couples like that fact that we stress that Taken In Hand is for both husband and wife, not one to the exclusion of the other.

Another reason some Taken In Hand folk don't identify with the D/s label is that D/s implies dominance and submission, whereas most Taken In Hand women don't in the slightest identify with the “submissive” label, and many men in Taken In Hand relationships don't want a submissive wife, and actually prefer having a resistant wife who needs to be tamed, taken in hand, forced, brought into subjection. Or as Huey once wrote (on a BDSM yahoo group!) “I've always preferred a women to be feisty and contentious on the road to submission.” As we have discussed many times on this site, whilst the “submissive” label can indeed apply to such women, and some women – like DeeMarie, for example – calls herself “submissive”, most Taken In Hand women do not identify with that label. They have typically moved away from that label when they have found that when they have described themselves as “submissive”, men identifying as dominant, at least in the D/s community, have typically expected something other than a woman who wants to be brought forcefully to submission by the right man in a sexually exclusive, loving marriage.

Another difference some folk coming to Taken In Hand from the D/s community notice is that whereas the D/s, BDSM, M/s labels refer to an alternative lifestyle, Taken In Hand is not a lifestyle, let alone an alternative lifestyle. It is about creating a happy marriage.

Some religious Taken In Hand folk have found that their values have been shunned by the BDSM community, but (despite the fact that we ask readers not to proselytise on this site) not by the Taken In Hand community.

Many Taken In Hand folk dislike the idea of any label whatsoever, not wanting to accept any standard role, and not wanting to be put in a stereotypical box. A Taken In Hand relationship is not stereotypical but evolves in its own unique way. Some find that the more they think of themselves as being this or that label, the more they tend to fall into a boring stereotype instead of interacting as the individuals they are.

The D/s, BDSM etc communities make a point of being inclusive and make no assumptions about which person of which sex is doing what with whom. Taken In Hand is specifically about consensually male-controlled sexually-exclusive marriages, simply because that is my preference as the owner of the site.

I have also received furious messages from BDSM folk because we do not sprinkle the BDSM dictum “safe, sane and consensual” all over the site. This, again, highlights another difference: the BDSM community needs such dictums because BDSM is about sex, and not necessarily between people who know each other well. Taken In Hand is about longstanding marriages, not sex, and certainly not about having sex with strangers, so it would be a little odd to find sprinkled around the site material about how to keep yourself safe when having sex with strangers. If you are having sex with strangers, you are not in a Taken In Hand relationship and are presumably not looking for one either.

Another complaint I have had from BDSM folk is that Taken In Hand is the most dangerous thing they have ever heard of, since we don't stress that it is all a sexual game and then we go home to our normal lives. This does not apply to many D/s folk, since many D/s folk have in common with Taken In Hand folk that it is not just a sexual game, but I mention this complaint to answer the question why Taken In Hand folk might not identify with the “BDSM” label. (And then there is the fact that BDSM folk often wear embarrassing costumes (black leather) and wander around wearing studded dog collars and the like. Most Taken In Hand couples do not share that predilection.)

Finally, there is no getting around the simple fact that to be willing to associate yourself with a given label or idea, that label or idea has to appeal to you. Since D/s, BDSM, M/s etc tend to leave Taken In Hand folk cold, that suggests that there is a difference between Taken In Hand and these other things. Even if there isn't from the perspective of D/s folk, there is from our Taken In Hand perspective, and that should be respected. A Taken In Hand woman is more likely to be put off or repulsed by a prospective partner approaching her in the sort of manner D/s men seem to adopt, whereas, presumably, a woman into D/s would find it thrilling. Similarly, a Taken In Hand inclined man would not actually want a servile sweet-submissive type. Taken In Hand inclined men prefer a non-submissive woman whom he can enjoy taking in hand and thereby bending to his will through his own action, as opposed to someone who is already in hand and thoroughly submissive. Hence the name “Taken In Hand” as opposed to “Already In Hand” or “Docile”

Having said all this, may I stress (please hear me!) that I am not saying that no D/s relationships are Taken In Hand, and nor am I criticising D/s, I am merely answering the question I have been asked several times recently, namely, why do Taken In Hand folk reject the “D/s” (or BDSM etc) label? What is the difference between Taken In Hand and D/s (or BDSM etc.)?

(And to answer the gentleman who has recently challenged me (three times) to answer this question, and accused me of being hung up on labels, it is surely not I who am hung up on labels, but those who keep insisting that I adopt their preferred label! I personally hope no one ever wants to discuss labels ever again!)

 

[Stella_Omega]

BDSM is about sex, and not necessarily between people who know each other well.
Well, that's the way I play it, for sure. I bet you didn't know that about me, right...

I wonder if osg would find friends among the TIH crowd? It does seem more like her lifestyle than not.

Although the guff about "Taken In Hand inclined man would not actually want a servile sweet-submissive type. Taken In Hand inclined men prefer a non-submissive woman whom he can enjoy taking in hand and thereby bending to his will through his own action, as opposed to someone who is already in hand and thoroughly submissive."

That sounds like Domly wanking to me.

 

[BiBunny]

I think there's a Christian religion flavor to TIH. TPE is non-denominational.

I think the Christian Domestic Discipline thing is a spin-off of Taken In Hand, or vice-versa.

 

[Etoile]

Haven't we had several threads about TIH before?

 

[Netzach]

"I like feeling helpless and swept up but I don't want to be associated with Sadomasochism or ewwy queers."

 

[seela]

"I like feeling helpless and swept up but I don't want to be associated with Sadomasochism or ewwy queers."

Definitely this.

I have a couple of friends, who ID their relationship as being Taken in Hand and not D/s. For them, at least as far as I've understood, TiH is a relationship with a sexual power twist and D/s is powerful sex with a relationship twist. So yeah, Netz hit the nail on the head as far as I know.

And none of my friends, who are into TiH are Christians. I still don't get what role Christianity plays in all that, but I often hear people conjoining the two.

 

[fuckmeat]

Definitely this.

I have a couple of friends, who ID their relationship as being Taken in Hand and not D/s. For them, at least as far as I've understood, TiH is a relationship with a sexual power twist and D/s is powerful sex with a relationship twist. So yeah, Netz hit the nail on the head as far as I know.

And none of my friends, who are into TiH are Christians. I still don't get what role Christianity plays in all that, but I often hear people conjoining the two.

I think it appeals to the Christians who believe that men are superior to women in terms of physical strength, emotional stability and even intelligence. There are more than a few Christian men who keep their women in a very sheltered existence, dependent upon them to handle things like money. They treat their partners more like wayward children than intelligent adults with the capacity to be a man's equal if that's her wish.

There's plenty in the Bible about the man being the head of a marriage/family and the good Christian woman being one who defers to him in all things. There can also be a flavour of some Islamic delusions as well, that women are temptresses who need locking up in order to keep them faithful. That if a man attacks a woman sexually it's more likely to be due to some failing on her part to be a modest Christian than on his part as the perpetrator. There are plenty of Christian men who see sex as an inalienable marital right and believe that no man is even capable of raping the woman he's married to, his chattel.

All this falls in with the TIH philosophy of treating women like children and corporal punishment etc is a big part of that.

 

[WriterDom]

Haven't we had several threads about TIH before?

Well I searched and looked in the library.

 

[Etoile]

Well I searched and looked in the library.

Then you did your due diligence, and I commend you.

 

[Netzach]

Definitely this.

I have a couple of friends, who ID their relationship as being Taken in Hand and not D/s. For them, at least as far as I've understood, TiH is a relationship with a sexual power twist and D/s is powerful sex with a relationship twist. So yeah, Netz hit the nail on the head as far as I know.

And none of my friends, who are into TiH are Christians. I still don't get what role Christianity plays in all that, but I often hear people conjoining the two.

I agree, I think there's more emphasis on "I'm NORMAL" versus any religious agenda, it just dovetails for people well.

 

[Etoile]

I agree, I think there's more emphasis on "I'm NORMAL" versus any religious agenda, it just dovetails for people well.

Of course, "normal" in our society often DOES indicate Christianity...

 

[Netzach]

Of course, "normal" in our society often DOES indicate Christianity...

Sure, but not always. I know secular vegan crunchy lesbians who would fit the TIH mold of sexuality they're all "ew BDSM but you know Kim is the pants hee hee"

It's clear that fundamentalist Christians would like it because it overlaps their feelings about sex and marriage and head of household stuff. But it also overlaps the general stuff about marriage and head of household that we're ALL indoctrinated with (snore) with those dark and inexplicable feelings that a lot of people have but - leather ew. Gay people - weird scary bad.

 

[eastern sun]

My marriage bears remarking similarities to the Taken In Hand models, but it doesn't appeal to me as an identifying label. In large part because of its conservative, Christian overtones (which apparently it doesn't actually have??).

I'm much more interested in perceiving us as "out-of-the-box," not quite fitting in neatly anywhere, and therefore being able to chart our own course without being limited by convention.

Says the slave devoted to labels.

 

[DVS]

Our way is better, safer, smarter... Although this guy says he isn't talking down to D/s relationships, in the very next sentence, he pretty much says that this TiH thing is comprised of people who think their way is better. But when all of the dust settles, it's just another way to pigeon hole people so there can be groups who consider themselves superior.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Our way is better, safer, smarter... Although this guy says he isn't talking down to D/s relationships, in the very next sentence, he pretty much says that this TiH thing is comprised of people who think their way is better. But when all of the dust settles, it's just another way to pigeon hole people so there can be groups who consider themselves superior.

Ya gotta grab status where you can...

I like the bits where they claim that the wife is just as important as the husband but that the husband takes the wife and bends her to his will-- turns her into a submissive. From a self-willed, autonomous human being.

Crreeeepeeee hetero shit. blech!

 

[JMohegan]

"I have no wish to just be submissive. To me this seems dull and boring. No fun at all.

I want to be made to submit. I want him to earn my submission. I want him to spank me and control me so that I feel I have no other course of action but to accept his control. I then call him master and mean every syllable of it.

I am not a submissive person in any way shape or form. Never have been and I hope I never will be but I want to feel the urge, no the need, to submit to him. It is the biggest thrill in the world when I know with no uncertainty that he is in charge of me. My every breath is under his control. He is my lord and master, for that moment he is my god. Just the thought of it takes my breath away and leaves me starry eyed for this man who has learnt how to tame me and can do so whenever he chooses."

http://www.takeninhand.com/i.do.not.want.to.be.submissive


My response to that type of woman is: fine, then don't be submissive.

But don't expect to get a rise out of me with this "make me" stuff, because I'm not interested in serving as your puppet disciplinarian. Go find someone else who is, and rock on.

 

[intothewoods]

If the motivation isn't necessarily religious, and it's not a sex thing, and it's not necessarily a personality thing, then what is the point exactly?

 

[eastern sun]

If the motivation isn't necessarily religious, and it's not a sex thing, and it's not necessarily a personality thing, then what is the point exactly?

the free exercise of power, including corporeal punishment? and the companion feeling of being overpowered?

I am going to show my prejudice here, and suggest that the men I've met who are like this often need an outlet to express their cravings for power, usually from a feeling of frustration in the world at large.

 

[intothewoods]

the free exercise of power, including corporeal punishment? and the companion feeling of being overpowered?

I am going to show my prejudice here, and suggest that the men I've met who are like this often need an outlet to express their cravings for power, usually from a feeling of frustration in the world at large.

Huh. I had assumed it was sort of a men in charge = natural order kind of thing, whether biblically informed or not. So the guiding principle is more this works/feels good? And the "this" may be an arrangement between a, forgive the term but, naturally dominant male and naturally submissive female or the whole taming of the shrew model.

 

[Netzach]

"I have no wish to just be submissive. To me this seems dull and boring. No fun at all.

I want to be made to submit. I want him to earn my submission. I want him to spank me and control me so that I feel I have no other course of action but to accept his control. I then call him master and mean every syllable of it.

I am not a submissive person in any way shape or form. Never have been and I hope I never will be but I want to feel the urge, no the need, to submit to him. It is the biggest thrill in the world when I know with no uncertainty that he is in charge of me. My every breath is under his control. He is my lord and master, for that moment he is my god. Just the thought of it takes my breath away and leaves me starry eyed for this man who has learnt how to tame me and can do so whenever he chooses."

http://www.takeninhand.com/i.do.not.want.to.be.submissive




My response to that type of woman is: fine, then don't be submissive.

But don't expect to get a rise out of me with this "make me" stuff, because I'm not interested in serving as your puppet disciplinarian. Go find someone else who is, and rock on.

Not that they care seeing as I'm a freak of nature, but same.

I don't "do" led around by the nose pyschodrama. My response to that paragraph is "that's nice. I don't give a fuck what you want, darling."

"I want" in the context of heart-to-heart communication ok. "I want" in your mission statement? Don't think so.