# Taken in Hand [relationships where the man controls the woman]



## Olena (Jan 2, 2011)

> A Taken In Hand relationship is a wholehearted sexually exclusive marriage in which, to the delight of both spouses, the man actively controls the woman. The degree of control and the way the husband retains control vary from Taken In Hand couple to Taken In Hand couple, but in all cases both husband and wife actively want the husband to have the upper hand. No matter how strong, tough and forceful a Taken In Hand wife may be, and no matter how hard she might try to take control in their marriage, she would be aghast if her husband were to let her get the upper hand. Likewise, no matter how loving, kind and considerate the husband may be, he prefers to keep his wife firmly in hand.



Front page articles | Taken In Hand


'Brought to submission'
'When rape is a gift'
'Equality isn't all it's cracked up to be'
'Men serve and lead, women receive and obey'

(Yeah, I picked slightly negative title articles to put here, but there are many more others in the link, if you want to look.)

I am very interested to hear everyone's opinion on this idea. 

I'm aware that everyone has their own likes and dislikes, but I was curious as to what you all thought of this.

I wanted to ask 'Would you be interested in attempting a relationship like this?', but I think any men who said they would, would probably be attacked haha.

Ahem.

I dislike the way it's gender specific. If this was more...gender neutral, I think it would be slightly better. (but it would probably just be 'BDSM' then)
This does nothing but promote gender stereotypes, and it feels like we end up going backwards. I really dislike gender stereotypes. (But I do believe we should all be allowed the freedom of choice in how to handle our relationships so I will not judge anyone)

I don't like the way the word 'rape' is thrown around. They can spend the entire article explaining what they mean by 'rape', but frankly, they should've just called it non-consensual play. Or something. Someone reading these articles, and then only seeing what they choose to see, would be a very dangerous individual.

[I had another section here that had an article where a feminist who participated in this kind of relationship, gave her opinion. I cut it out because I know feminism topics tend to go crazy.]

Anyway, thoughts on this type of relationship? On this relationship, not feminism. =/

EDIT: I wish I could think of a catchier, shorter thread title.


----------



## quadrivium (Nov 6, 2011)

I don't really understand this concept. Seeing the phrase "rape as a gift" is a little unnerving. If this is the relationship they both agreed upon, then what can I really say? 
What people do in their marriage isn't really any of my business.


----------



## AphroditeGoneAwry (Jan 10, 2012)

If done voluntarily, I have come to see it as an expression of the natural dom/sub interests of an individual within a relationship. Women are typically naturally submissive and men dominant. However, those same men at times want to be dominated, and those same women want to dominate; and if they can switch roles occasionally, more the better for the relationship, and a balance of power arises that can be very gratifying (I imagine). 


Dom/sub traits have a bad rep in our society right now, except for in the fringe minority. But I think it's a fascinating concept, and a real and present part of personal expression and _way of being_. It would behoove us to get more comfortable talking about and understanding our inherent natures in this regard, as it so affects relationships (and who we are attracted to) without us even being consciously aware of it.


----------



## Eerie (Feb 9, 2011)

When is implicit consent enough?

There are at least four basic ways to control a woman.

One way is to ignore the woman – denying her needed companionship and love – making her desperate. This is emotional and psychological management

In the extreme – perhaps even committing adultery – she can be declared an unfit mother for her children or suffer equivalent degradation

A variation of the above is telling the woman she is crazy. Woman have a basic and compelling need to know that they are normal – whatever that may mean to society at the moment.

Although extremely effective as a control mechanism, to deny a healthy woman the sense that she is sane and rational is the ultimate mental torture. It is probably the most physically and psychologically debilitating of the methods.

Another way to control a woman is to keep her busy. While children can be one way of doing this, one frequently sees this in business where an ambitious wife is brought into a business or organization in an ancillary position that keeps her too busy to cause trouble in other ways.



I read this on that site, and puked in my mouth a little bit.


----------



## Sina (Oct 27, 2010)

I find the whole thing ridiculous and, undeniably, sexist. I'll get back to you with the rest of my thoughts. I've browsed their website in the past. Fun.


----------



## Shahada (Apr 26, 2010)

Actually never seen this before, pretty weird/gross. That just sounds like abuse masquerading as a lifestyle/relationship choice. Like basically D/S play but gender specific and with no regard whatsoever for consent, in fact they seem outright contemptuous of even the concept of consent in this type of relationship. So yeah...creepy.


----------



## changos (Nov 21, 2011)

Interesting but I'm confused, the quote and the link (leading to a list of articles) opens up the discussion to many angles that make it harder to stay on one area at a time. I wouldn't like that kind of marriage (and I was really close of getting into one of these), I know many families live that way, it just isn't my thing. But by that quote I understand that it's a mutual agreement, no violence, no one forcing no one.

*Regarding your quote only*, I got to know two woman like that, I dated them and they told me that they trusted me so much they would be happy to let me "take the upper hand". Both seeked equal rights but were surprised on my ways, I couldn't get a complete explanation but to me, it was a message like "_I just want to be a passenger_" and I didn't like it. We went diff ways and I can say I never quite understood what happened, both were against being "dominated" but suddenly they allowed it without me wanting it. Sounds confusing and it is.

I asked their opinion many times (not permission) and told them not to ask for my permission, just my opinion. Suddenly they told me my courtesy was making miracles on their world, they no longer felt threatened by the possibilities of power struggles. There is a say in my country, "you can achieve more with honey than with [something bitter]" there is no direct translation with rhyme sorry.

- - - - - - 

I'm confused, I feel some of the articles titles are misleading regarding the content.

- - - - - -

"No" means "take me". Couldn't skip this one... Had two relationships with two beautiful women, one of them being a real hottie. 

Case A. Some of her attitudes (specially fears) were scalating as time went by (nothing to do with me). One day she went out of control and I had to calm her, nothing worked until I shaked her a bit... she loved it. She told me how much she loved to feel my strenght... But instead of feeling attacked she felt protected. She is one of the girls who proposed me leading everything (I dind't like it).

Case B. This is the weirdest, she is a real hottie, and with no reason (really) she began mutating into this defiant woman. One day she physically challenged me (I have martial arts training) and I told her NEVER to repeat that, because I'm against violence BUT you develop some reflexes hard to avoid. She maked fun out of the situation and some other day attacked me, I *gently *dominated her and put her into submission (couldn't move, AIKIDO has plenty of gentle techniques), it was a turn on for her... I was shocked. Then she asked me to begin sexual intercourse that way, she went nuts!!! I tried just to explore that area out of curiosity but I was playing a role, working... then she asked me to TRY a raping scenario (yes you can imagine my face). I wanted to see how far this could go and tried but playing, she insisted on trying as real as possible, she even brought some sexy clothes meant for me to tear apart. I was sooooooo confused. Then she told me it was hard to accept how much she was enjoying being dominated because she's always been the strong one and suddenly my "controlled" strenght was a turn on and also a prove that I could protect her... (don't ask me, I don't undestand this). Then we split, she pursued me for about 3 years, and told me she had huge respect for me because I was the first man who never went on my knees for her... Impossible to dominate by her looks.

So far, I don't understand anything that happened. I'm kind, loving and caring. I get the need to "explore" but not this much.


----------



## Jennywocky (Aug 7, 2009)

Skimming through the thread, it sounds far more extreme than what I'm into. 

I like it if the man engages and initiates, since I happen to be a great responder but initiating everything wears me out. Plus, I find it affirming to me as a woman -- I like "letting him lead on the dance floor" so to speak, and supporting that effort to make what we accomplish together better than what either of us could do alone. It's just what I do well.

But I still perceive the relationship itself as egalitarian... and we still invest the same in the decisions / need to agree, etc. I'm not one to be "managed" ... and especially not abused. Ick.


----------



## changos (Nov 21, 2011)

I've discussed similar topics with some friends (females) and I can't help but rememering the "300" movie, where the king of Sparta was very rude, powerful, the image of inmense power, but he was kind with his wife, in fact he asked her opinions and approval just looking into her eyes. She never felt scared because she knew he would never hurt her, "_he was an admirable example of power under self control and honor, etc_". A beast that can be loving with his family. 

But that's just an example, and... is just a novel. 
But... many women showed admiration towards that example.

Now that I think about it, I feel there is some relation about this post and this thread about passion. I'll need a new thread to discuss this, but I believe some women try to dominate (encarcelate) their love partners, and if the guys allow it, they would lose respect of them, but if the guy stands tall, their women would have huge respect... and I don't think this would be a one time episode, it will happen from time to time.


----------



## changos (Nov 21, 2011)

*I know the whole thing can be taken the wrong way,* but a couple, a marriage is about two, so don't only look to the guy "dominating" the relationship as the bad guy, also consider the lazyness of the other one who doesn't want to play an active role. You could consider this as "feeding out of the relationship". It would be more draining to the active part I guess.

I found a document on the web but can't locate it, been looking for it for a week. It talks about codependency and abuse relationships, and it says that after taking a deep look into those relationships, it is not surprising to wonder if the "abuser" is really the abuser, but a victim, because there are many cases where the "victims" look for, seek and choose their abuses to make them play a role, it has a lot to do with sabotage too, because for some, if there is no problem, it should be created (creating an angry guy).

Just my two cents. I like to research a lot about this but I can't memorize everything to quote it here or post the sources. I know it will ring bells.


----------



## Shahada (Apr 26, 2010)

changos said:


> *I know the whole thing can be taken the wrong way,* but a couple, a marriage is about two, so don't only look to the guy "dominating" the relationship as the bad guy, also consider the lazyness of the other one who doesn't want to play an active role. You could consider this as "feeding out of the relationship". It would be more draining to the active part I guess.
> 
> I found a document on the web but can't locate it, been looking for it for a week. It talks about codependency and abuse relationships, and it says that after taking a deep look into those relationships, it is not surprising to wonder if the "abuser" is really the abuser, but a victim, because there are many cases where the "victims" look for, seek and choose their abuses to make them play a role, it has a lot to do with sabotage too, because for some, if there is no problem, it should be created (creating an angry guy).
> 
> Just my two cents. I like to research a lot about this but I can't memorize everything to quote it here or post the sources. I know it will ring bells.


This just reads like a real roundabout way of blaming the victim. People who are being abused often make mistakes and don't handle the abuse as well as they could (the nature of abuse tends to make it more difficult to make clear-headed decisions in your best interest) but the real problem is still the actual abuser, not the victim.


----------



## Everyday Ghoul (Aug 4, 2009)

"When rape is a gift" 










On a more serious note, this looks like a variation on the master/slave relationship, aimed at couples into a BDSM lifestyle, regardless of what's in the FAQ. Not to say that a male couldn't read this and attempt something non-consensual and blame it on this literature, but that's like blaming school shootings on Manson and video games. If it's a consensual thing between two adults, I don't have a problem with it. Not sure why people insist on taking their moral standards and using them to damn everyone on the planet who doesn't fit into them. I used to think that was unique to the religious crowd, but this website has taught me better than that, a lesson it teaches every other post. But, whatever, man.


----------



## Shahada (Apr 26, 2010)

Big bad wolf said:


> On a more serious note, this looks like a variation on the master/slave relationship, aimed at couples into a BDSM lifestyle, regardless of what's in the FAQ. Not to say that a male couldn't read this and attempt something non-consensual and blame it on this literature, but that's like blaming school shootings on Manson and video games. If it's a consensual thing between two adults, I don't have a problem with it. Not sure why people insist on taking their moral standards and using them to damn everyone on the planet who doesn't fit into them. I used to think that was unique to the religious crowd, but this website has taught me better than that, a lesson it teaches every other post. But, whatever, man.


It talks about effective ways to manipulate and coerce your wife which is kind of beyond the bounds of consensual BDSM play. Also if you're at all familiar with BDSM the literature on the site is very different, in fact for the most part it doesn't mention BDSM specifically at all, it's all about controlling and degrading women for the sake of the man and not because the individuals involved have a fetish for that sort of thing.


----------



## Olena (Jan 2, 2011)

Big bad wolf said:


> If it's a consensual thing between two adults, I don't have a problem with it. Not sure why people insist on taking their moral standards and using them to damn everyone on the planet who doesn't fit into them. I used to think that was unique to the religious crowd, but this website has taught me better than that, a lesson it teaches every other post. But, whatever, man.


I asked for opinions aka people's outlook on this kind of thing.

If you don't care, then don't post in this thread. I stated in my first post that I'm fully aware people have their likes/dislikes, but I wanted to see opinions on it.

If you just want to post to say 'To each his own', you have no opinion and are not contributing at all, so just leave the thread. I want to see thoughts on this topic, not someone whining on people having thoughts on this topic.


----------



## Olena (Jan 2, 2011)

changos said:


> *I know the whole thing can be taken the wrong way,* but a couple, a marriage is about two, so don't only look to the guy "dominating" the relationship as the bad guy, also consider the lazyness of the other one who doesn't want to play an active role. You could consider this as "feeding out of the relationship". It would be more draining to the active part I guess.


There's nothing lazy about submitting to someone and there is great joy to see someone submit to you, if it's what you like. You don't like, I get it, stop bashing others. You gave your opinion, and you don't need to stay to belittle others.

I'm in a relationship where my partner tends to lead things along, very drastically, and catering to him/doing as he says is not 'feeding' off the relationship, as we both benefit from it. I need direction, he gives me direction which helps me. I comply to his requests, that helps him.

Just because you don't like this kind of thing, doesn't mean you should judge it so harshly. I'm a great lover of BDSM and dominating/being dominated as there is an amazing amount of trust in it. It's a partnership, no one does more work than the other.

Although my relationship has nothing to do with gender, like this Taken In Hand concept, which I have to frown upon due to the gender roles.


----------



## changos (Nov 21, 2011)

Olena said:


> There's nothing lazy about submitting to someone and there is great joy to see someone submit to you, if it's what you like. You don't like, I get it, stop bashing others. You gave your opinion, and you don't need to stay to belittle others.
> 
> I'm in a relationship where my partner tends to lead things along, very drastically, and catering to him/doing as he says is not 'feeding' off the relationship, as we both benefit from it. I need direction, he gives me direction which helps me. I comply to his requests, that helps him.
> 
> ...


Another one taking things the wrong way. I never attack or judge, it was my opinion, if you like doing that, good for you, mi ex enjoyed a lot of things that I don't, I never gave her a difficult time regarding that.

I posted examples and info, that's it, and on one bit I exposed my opinion (I don't like it) that's it, I don't like many chocolates and that doesn't mean they arent sweet or popular, or that they are bad.


the ration of missunderstanding here is lower than on other places, but still exist. 


I don't like some things, period, I don't get why you take it as having some relationship with your life, what you do, there is no relationship. Read my posts, I never attack or judge nobody, so please save me the trouble.


----------



## changos (Nov 21, 2011)

Olena said:


> I asked for opinions aka people's outlook on this kind of thing.


I posted mine and you didn't like it... then what do you want? opinions only if they fit your view? only if the words satisfy your liking?



Olena said:


> If you don't care...


I cared and wanted to share a bit, and I make clear that I found the topic confusing (not a complain, but as a warning, I can't be perfect commenting on something I don't fully undestand.

quoting myself, I posted:
_"Interesting but I'm confused, the quote and the link (leading to a list of articles) opens up the discussion to many angles that make it harder to stay on one area at a time._"

I don't understand you, don't react that way if I just wanted to participate on a discussion (never attacking, never judging). If you get this a lot with others I understand it, but I'm me, not "others".



This is the most confusing part about your thread:

_*YOU: I wanted to ask 'Would you be interested in attempting a relationship like this?'*_
I answered and you didn't like it... in fact my answer goes beyond that because there was an attempt on two relationships, so is not that I have no idea about me regarding the matter, others? each person is different.


----------



## SilentScream (Mar 31, 2011)

Anything non-consensual is wrong. Just plain and simple wrong. 

Anything consensual is ok, as long as the line between consensual and non-consensual is completely clear - and _will_ remain clear in a sustained relationship. 

I'm thinking that even if such relationships may have a certain appeal in the short-term, there's a very high risk of them turning abusive in the long-run as the line between consensual and non-consensual becomes blurred. 

I also liken this to brain conditioning and mind control [unhealthy mind control] where the level of submission may increase over time and end in consensual abuse. This is where I have serious issues with. In many cases, I believe that some forms of sexual control and relationship control are abusive even if they are consensual ... that's where humanity and human rights come in and at certain points, if the line is blurred, even the kindest dominant member of a relationship can actually be abusive if he's not paying attention to the long-term consequences of that 'consensual abuse' on his wife/partner.

Even if a partner is unwilling to draw boundaries, one of the people in the relationship _has_ to be responsible enough to draw those boundaries and respect them and even encourage their partner to understand why such boundaries are important.


----------



## Where Love Died Laughing (Jan 5, 2012)

Call me close minded, but I find this disgusting. I have nothing against BDSM, but this seems to border on constant psychological abuse. After being abused like that for years, you begin to accept it as something normal. It still doesn't make it write, though...

I'm sure others won't agree with me, but here's a few quotes from the site:

_My husband wants a natural birth with no pain relief (not even gas and air) and he wants me to breastfeed his baby on demand for 1 year and then he wants me to carry on suckling until the baby is 2 years old. My body is a vessel for my man's creation and his baby's need comes first._

This sounds pretty abusive to me. Of course raising a child should be a joint decision, but I don't think the husband has a right to force a woman to give birth how he wants...

_Or the man can take her by the wrists, and then drag her over to the sofa. He can sit down and force her to kneel between his legs while he still holds her wrists, and then take her head by the hair and make her look up at him. With her head at that level, it's an excellent position from which he can remind her once again who's boss._

_I ‘rape’ my girlfriend regularly. She knows that whenever I want sex, she must submit to my desire without question._

I'll stop now. But to me it jsut seems as if both the male and female in the relationship have serious psychological issues.
I don't like to impose my beliefs upon others, but this just seems unhealthy. I wonder what psychologists say about these relationships...


----------



## Olena (Jan 2, 2011)

changos said:


> I posted mine and you didn't like it... then what do you want? opinions only if they fit your view? only if the words satisfy your liking?
> 
> 
> I cared and wanted to share a bit, and I make clear that I found the topic confusing (not a complain, but as a warning, I can't be perfect commenting on something I don't fully undestand.
> ...


Yeah, you answered whether you would attempt it or not, but your tone had a very 'possibly disgusted' tone. Perhaps I was supposed to read it as a 'confused' tone? That's your opinion, fine, but don't make judgement on every woman who likes it a bit rough. 

This Taken in Hand thing is about a man controlling a woman. Fully. Not just a bit of rough sex. 

...hmmm, then again, you say you were confused about the topic, perhaps you didn't truly understand it. I shall apologize, forgive me, it seems maybe you are thinking of the wrong thing. This is not just violent/rough sex, it's full 100% control.


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

Cheveyo said:


> Hell, half the time the femboy gets "wet down there", because that _totally_ happens to guys.


Actually, it can happen to guys. Pre-ejaculatory fluid can emit from some men's penises when they are sexually aroused.


----------



## Cheveyo (Nov 19, 2010)

Torai said:


> Actually, it can happen to guys. Pre-ejaculatory fluid can emit from some men's penises when they are sexually aroused.


I'm referring to their rear end when I say "down there".


----------



## Chrysantheist (Jul 1, 2011)

Something about this whole thing makes me really... nauseated. As much as I want to be all like "hey, if both people agreed to it..." I don't know how you can see this relationship as anything but one-sided. Odds are her brain is being re-wired so that _even if she wanted the dynamic to change_ she wouldn't know how to ask for it. And if she did, what would happen? He'd just be like "oh yeah, honey, no big deal." ???? I just can't get behind this at all. It makes me feel ill. 

Also, with regard to rape fantasies - I'm one of those chicks that has them occasionally but will never ever ask to have them acted out. I've had enough scary encounters with near-rape situations that I'm afraid acting out on my fantasies would trigger a negative psychological reaction. Not something I really want to do to any of my partners, I'm afraid.


----------



## Olena (Jan 2, 2011)

Cheveyo said:


> Considering how the uke in Yaoi is basically a female, anyway, I'd still say it counts. In Yaoi, it's basically a female without a vagina(with a penis instead). They don't act male, they barely dress male, if it weren't pointed out all the time that they were male, you'd think they were female. Their speech and voice are usually extremely feminine, as well.
> 
> "Bara" is MalexMale. Yaoi is MalexFemboy.
> 
> Hell, half the time the femboy gets "wet down there", because that _totally_ happens to guys.


A feminine personality and being submissive in sex doesn't make someone a female. I've read tons of yaoi, I own tons of yaoi, and sure 90% of Yaoi features a masculine man and a feminine man but it's not Taken in Hand-like.

The moment you take away the gender roles of Taken in hand, it's just BDSM. No homosexual pairing can ever imitate Taken in hand as there as to be a male and a female since that is the entire basis of Taken in Hand. If yaoi resembles Taken in hand, you're just noticing Dominance/submission, which isn't strictly Taken in Hand.

I've heard of this 'getting wet down there' thing before but with a woman. It was some woman talking about anal and she's like : "We had to use lube until the natural lubrication came', and I was like "Since when does the ass lube itself up????"


----------



## sprinkles (Feb 7, 2010)

Olena said:


> Japanese men like submissive women. They also like their women to have 'painful' expressions during sex. It's probably why the hentai always looks like rape.
> 
> Gimme some manga names that has this type of relationship in it. I would like to see. I have seen implications of it in anime, but that's just appealing to the male audience again.
> 
> Also, Yaoi is guyxguy. Taken in hand is strictly MalexFemale. GuyxGuy would just be BDSM then.


There's scads of femdom manga too. You've obviously only been exposed to genre selection bias if you don't know this.

Actually for just about anything you can imagine, there's a manga for it. Your generalization is way off.


----------



## Olena (Jan 2, 2011)

sprinkles said:


> There's scads of femdom manga too. You've obviously only been exposed to genre selection bias if you don't know this.
> 
> Actually for just about anything you can imagine, there's a manga for it. Your generalization is way off.


I know. I've read a lot, I own a lot, I've even diverged into guro. However, the majority of it is *not* femdom. I speak of the majority of porn and hentai. I'm always surprised when I see a hentai where the girl is smiling during sex.

I've also read that Japanese men, do in fact, prefer submissive women. Outspoken women are generally disliked. In fact, they find simple things 'rude' in females. Women being meekly seems to be traditional and it's why Japanese women probably end up carrying the idea of D/s over when they create yaoi.

To be honest, am not sure how your post is relevant to anything. I was speaking of majority, much like he was speaking of majority. Then you show up speaking of minority and claim I generalize when in reality, it's obvious NOT EVERY SINGLE MAN IN JAPAN wants a submissive woman. I believe you took what I said out of context deliberately, or you simply took it literally.

Much like people say 'Indians enjoy spicey food'. I'm sure they do, and I'm sure there are many who don't. That's a given possibility.


----------



## sprinkles (Feb 7, 2010)

Olena said:


> I know. I've read a lot, I own a lot, I've even diverged into guro. However, the majority of it is *not* femdom. I speak of the majority of porn and hentai. I'm always surprised when I see a hentai where the girl is smiling during sex.
> 
> I've also read that Japanese men, do in fact, prefer submissive women. Outspoken women are generally disliked. In fact, they find simple things 'rude' in females. Women being meekly seems to be traditional and it's why Japanese women probably end up carrying the idea of D/s over when they create yaoi.
> 
> ...


You did not SPEAK of majority because you did not even use the word. Maybe you *attempted to imply it* but obviously your attempt failed with me.

I wouldn't have been surprised if in fact you did claim that every single man in Japan wants a submissive woman. I'm not in the mood for unwritten shit right now.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Chrysantheist said:


> Something about this whole thing makes me really... nauseated. As much as I want to be all like "hey, if both people agreed to it..." I don't know how you can see this relationship as anything but one-sided. Odds are her brain is being re-wired so that _even if she wanted the dynamic to change_ she wouldn't know how to ask for it. And if she did, what would happen? He'd just be like "oh yeah, honey, no big deal." ???? I just can't get behind this at all. It makes me feel ill.
> 
> Also, with regard to rape fantasies - I'm one of those chicks that has them occasionally but will never ever ask to have them acted out. I've had enough scary encounters with near-rape situations that I'm afraid acting out on my fantasies would trigger a negative psychological reaction. Not something I really want to do to any of my partners, I'm afraid.


I doubt a woman's brain could be "rewired" that easily if she initially was intelligent and had a strong will. In fact, it's absurd. Either you're a hardcore sub or you aren't.

My ex tried to convince me that some of the stuff he did was okay, and as much as I was in love with him, my reaction to that was "HA HAHA HA" even after six years.

A woman with a strong sense of who she is may be convinced to put up with a certain amount of bullshit if she's in love, but in truth, I don't think ANYONE ever goes past their *real* level of dominance or submission. I think whatever submission I've exhibited was in me to begin with, and my limits are mine.

I've seen women who put up with shit that I think is absolutely reprehensible (for example, ugly fat guy telling them they need to lose weight...another situation where my reaction would be "HA AHAHA you're fat and ugly, fool!") ...and I think it's because they were VERY abused as children and/or had it in them already to be a complete submissive.

I'm not saying all submissives were abused, just FYI.

I'm saying that whatever is in you, is in you. Even if sometimes things go a little past your boundaries, you will have a natural breaking point that already existed, where you say no.

It's not like these women are being tortured in a war prison. 

I do think absence or presence of father figures does make a difference, though. My father figure was very strict, overprotective and dominant, but I was never beaten and his presence was constant. I've noticed that women who have more severe issues in some cases either had no constant father figure, or their father figure actually beat or molested them, something very abusive.


----------



## Sheppard (Jul 4, 2011)

fourtines said:


> I doubt a woman's brain could be "rewired" that easily if she initially was intelligent and had a strong will. In fact, it's absurd. Either you're a hardcore sub or you aren't.


It's not that absurd. Below is a part of an interview with a renowned FBI Profiler, Roy Hazelwood.



> *Can you tell us about one of the women you interviewed in your study?*
> It's important to understand that a sexual sadist is one who is aroused by the suffering of his victims. The interviews lasted from five to fifteen hours. We asked about their history, the men's history as best they knew it, their courtship, and their life. One of the women that I talked to was involved with her husband in the murder of more than five people. (Five of the women were involved in homicides, and all five were incarcerated when I spoke to them.) This woman was a very intelligent and attractive person. Prior to meeting her husband, she was successful. He was an ex-convict when she met him and she told me that she perceived a dark side to him that was kind of attractive. She'd led a rather sheltered life. When they dated, he was always a perfect gentleman. He brought gifts and he was older by several years. He was everything she wanted a man to be. He was a considerate and sharing lover, spontaneous, exciting to be around, complimentary, good-looking. And he introduced her to a dark side with friends and associates. She thought that was exciting. She fell in love, but after she did, she started seeing another side. Then after they got married, he began to beat her, primarily on the sexual parts of her body. He used vulgar terms for various parts of her body and for his sexual organs. He had sadistic fantasies involving degradation—verbally, sexually, and physically—which he acted out on her. Eventually he convinced her that he wanted a sex slave, so they kidnapped one and he killed the victim. According to this woman, that was a surprise. She didn't anticipate that, but now she's an accessory to homicide. They continued with this and ended up with more than five victims.
> 
> *How did he transform her into a murder accomplice?*
> ...


source


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Sheppard said:


> It's not that absurd. Below is a part of an interview with a renowned FBI Profiler, Roy Hazelwood.
> 
> source


Yes, it is. 

A woman can be "decent" and "successful" and still have more extreme tendencies.

For example, I don't date ex-cons. If a man beat me on sexual parts of my body I'd stab him with a kitchen knife.

A woman who can be "re-programmed" that utterly and completely has it in her already, unless she's drugged and held hostage and subjected to a real, complete loss of reality.


----------



## electricky (Feb 18, 2011)

Ummmm yeah, as long as there is an air of consent, whatever dynamic is going on at your house is your business.

Personally though, it's extremely unappealing. I don't really fully 'get it' as someone who is pretty much the opposite of this. I wouldn't say that I'm a dominant but find discomfort in the typical submissive female role that is popularized (i.e., being chased, doors held open, being "taken care of"). Even the slightest hint of an attempt to control and I'm gone before you can say "flighty" So this sort of setting seems hellish as something more than the very-occasional play. 

@fourtines, it would be interesting if this has anything to do with functions... since it seems I don't want a caregiver, but definitely do not want a victim or aggressor, or to take care of anyone else. So maybe I would like someone with the Si role best, but it's more in the sense of liking someone who is equal but a naturally helpful, responsible person, rather than actually wanting a caregiver-infant dynamic (childlike in spirit =/= needing to be treated like a child :bored.



Cheveyo said:


> Isn't this basically what books like Twilight are?
> Hell, the majority of the manga that exists out there, that's aimed at women, ends up being nothing more than this sort of relationship over and over. That includes the majority of the Yaoi that exists out there.


Ehhhhh, Twilight, this is why I hold off on watching your last movie. Mildly entertaining, but the Bella/Edward thing looks so much like an allusion to Taken in Hand that it's difficult for me to watch. 

At least Anime/Manga likes to parody this tendency a lot and have all sorts of unusual dynamics at work


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Note that when I say she "has it in her already" it's not an accusation of guilt or shame. It's me saying something happened to her in her childhood to make her that way, or she's naturally very submissive, or something.

A lot of women would be ashamed to say some of the stuff I say, like I would stab a man if he beat me on sexual parts of my body, but I WOULD. That's what is in me, and I'm honest about it. My ESFJ ex actually liked this about me, that I have this sexually submissive nature on one hand, but if he actually hurt me, I'd violently fight back. Don't mess.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

ElectricSparkle said:


> @fourtines, it would be interesting if this has anything to do with functions... since it seems I don't want a caregiver, but definitely do not want a victim or aggressor, or to take care of anyone else. So maybe I would like someone with the Si role best, but it's more in the sense of liking someone who is equal-but-helpful than actually wanting a caregiver-baby dynamic.


I don't know that it does...I mean the "baby" thing is extreme, that's like a fetish. But I seem to repeatedly pick SJs, and the more "parental" they seem in some regard the more I like them...except for their age. I do not like much older men, I don't physically want a father. But SJs who have these traits seem to make me feel safe:



> Careful
> - *See other people in a caring but maybe arrogant way as if
> they are somekind of "parent figure" and everyone else
> needs their attention and help *
> ...


Of course, there are variations on this. For example, an ISTJ who had so little Fi or Ne development that he never listened to my ideas and was a stuffy old bastard would not appeal to me...but a "softer" ISTJ who was more balanced in function development, at least strongly in Fi if not entirely in Ne, is someone I can easily relate to, despite some of our differences.

I also couldn't handle some hyper-religious ESFJ who constantly corrected my morals, but most of the liberal, normal, balanced ESFJs I've known (including my ex who isn't exactly balanced, but was raised very liberal and is very smart) is fine, too.

I don't want some rigid schoolmaster or distant authority figure as my mate, nor do I want any kind of "baby" play (eww) ...but I am strongly attracted to those traits.

I probably am attracted to men who are a mix of Caregiver-Infantile or Caregiver-Aggressor. 

I'm a mix of Infantile-Aggressor myself.

What I do know is that Victims turn me off, and straight-up Infantiles can get on my nerves, like I see them as trying to one up me, and probably would attempt to make ME go into the "caregiver" role. 

I honestly don't know how much it has to do with functions, but it very much does make sense for Se = Aggressor, Si = Caregiver, Ne = Infantile if you think about it. I don't know why Ni = Victim, but it does.


----------



## Sheppard (Jul 4, 2011)

fourtines said:


> Yes, it is.
> 
> A woman can be "decent" and "successful" and still have more extreme tendencies.
> 
> ...


That's you, but considering you're here, you realize not everyone is the same. I think your really underestimating the subversive and insidious power of emotional manipulation. How it's possible to pit a persons own needs and even their own strengths, such as commitment, against them. Take this case here for instance. Pretty sure this guy didn't have it in him, and enen though he could have walked out at any time, it just wasn't an option he perceived anymore. In a situation like that it's easy to lose sight of the forest for the trees.

Personally, I don't think it's possible to categorizes people into dominant and submissive without missing out on these not being inherent inborn traits, but expressions of other underlying needs, which aren't untouchable constants.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Sheppard said:


> That's you, but considering you're here, you realize not everyone is the same. I think your really underestimating the subversive and insidious power of emotional manipulation. How it's possible to pit a persons own needs and even their own strengths, such as commitment, against them. Take this case here for instance. Pretty sure this guy didn't have it in him, and enen though he could have walked out at any time, it just wasn't an option he perceived anymore. In a situation like that it's easy to lose sight of the forest for the trees.
> 
> Personally, I don't think it's possible to categorizes people into dominant and submissive without missing out on these not being inherent inborn traits, but expressions of other underlying needs, which aren't untouchable constants.


I'm not sure what you're arguing with me about. I said I'm not passing judgement on these people, or holding them unduly responsible for being able to be manipulated (especially since many of these people carry over childhood issues) ...I'm just saying that EVERYONE and ANYONE doesn't just have this in them, to happen at any moment. 

I've always been more worried I would kill someone that would abuse me, than I would tied in a closet and tortured. I fear prison more than I fear extreme bodily injury. 

You're acting like I'm saying these people deserve it; I'm not. I'm arguing that people's underlying personalities do not change wildly within a relationship. Some people don't know themselves and what's in them, and then _quelle surprise _when somebody digs it out, that's all.


----------



## DeductiveReasoner (Feb 25, 2011)

There are women out there who are actually okay with this?


----------



## Sheppard (Jul 4, 2011)

fourtines said:


> I'm not sure what you're arguing with me about. I said I'm not passing judgement on these people, or holding them unduly responsible for being able to be manipulated (especially since many of these people carry over childhood issues) ...I'm just saying that EVERYONE and ANYONE doesn't just have this in them, to happen at any moment.
> 
> I've always been more worried I would kill someone that would abuse me, than I would tied in a closet and tortured. I fear prison more than I fear extreme bodily injury.
> 
> You're acting like I'm saying these people deserve it; I'm not. I'm arguing that people's underlying personalities do not change wildly within a relationship. Some people don't know themselves and what's in them, and then _quelle surprise _when somebody digs it out, that's all.


I don't think you're saying that. I'm not offended or anything by anything you said. This here is the statement I was referring to:



fourtines said:


> I doubt a woman's brain could be "rewired" that easily if she initially was intelligent and had a strong will. In fact, it's absurd. Either you're a hardcore sub or you aren't.


I don't think it's absurd. I don't think you're either a sub or you're not. I think people are a far more volnurable to emotional manipulation that they'd like to think. It's a very potent and dangerous tool. You look at psychopaths, and you look at sexual sadists, or other human predators, and you look at what they do, and who they do it to, how they excel at this kind of stuff, and it stops being absurd. There are a lot of methods to just make people lose their mind, and self assurance. To cast doubt. Google gaslighting one of these days. By its very insidious nature it just blindsides people. The drawbridges don't go up, the alarm bells don't go off, because nothing externally dangerous is perceived, so often they don't realize something is wrong, that anything is going on, until it's way too late.


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

It sounds pretty dangerous. I can imagine how easily a man might think he is in this kind of relationship, where he falsely believes his partner wants to be controlled and physically assaulted during arguments, or that she sometimes secretly wants to be raped, while the woman might just be tolerating these conditions to avoid rejection, and might actually be damaged by the experience. 

Some people might actually be into it, but it would be very easy for some especially submissive women to just play along if they found out it was what their partners wanted, losing themselves in the process. Seeing so many women talk about wanting to be treated this way is disturbing, not because those women shouldn't be free to have the kinds of relationships they want, but because it might encourage certain dominant men who read such things to abuse or take advantage of other kinds of women who would rather be respected, but who are naturally too meek to stand up for their boundaries.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Sheppard said:


> I don't think you're saying that. I'm not offended or anything by anything you said. This here is the statement I was referring to:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think it's absurd. I don't think you're either a sub or you're not. I think people are a far more volnurable to emotional manipulation that they'd like to think. It's a very potent and dangerous tool. You look at psychopaths, and you look at sexual sadists, or other human predators, and you look at what they do, and who they do it to, how they excel at this kind of stuff, and it stops being absurd. There are a lot of methods to just make people lose their mind, and self assurance. To cast doubt. Google gaslighting one of these days. By its very insidious nature it just blindsides people. The drawbridges don't go up, the alarm bells don't go off, because nothing externally dangerous is perceived, so often they don't realize something is wrong, that anything is going on, until it's way too late.


I watch horror movies constantly and have been studying serial killers and psychopaths since my teens, I tend to get obsessed with some of the true crime cases, and I'm fascinated by neurosis and mental illness.

That being said, people respond differently to different stimuli. There are people who do not approve of some of my choices of men, but those women would not be happy at all with the kind of man I'm attracted to. I've been surrounded by women who get into relationships with complete and utter scumbags, and I don't comprehend their psychology.

It has to do with low self-esteem, low self-efficacy, whether or not you feel comfortable with your own aggression and violence and ability to fight back (some people don't and would shockingly rather be a victim than fight back because they think that would be morally wrong somehow...). 

One of the ways that people like Ted Bundy picked up victims was because of the tendency for women to be conditioned to be "nice."

I know what gas lighting is, as well.

You seem convinced that anyone could be a victim in this extreme, and I'm not, just as I'm not convinced that everyone would fight back like me, because they wouldn't.

My exes paternal grandmother shot his grandfather (not fatally) for being an abusive cheater. My mother divorced my dad while she was pregnant to protect me from him being abusive. Other women would never have the guts (or they would feel it was "morally wrong") to shoot their abuser, even in the leg. Still others stay with their abuser and subject their children to it.

Not everyone responds the same way, they just don't.


----------



## Sheppard (Jul 4, 2011)

@fourtines

No. I'm not convinced, nor did I say that anyone could be a victim of this. I just don't think that the notion that it can happen is absurd, considering it does happen, including to intelligent strong willed women. You can take that intelligence, and that strong will, and turn it against themselves. Self destruction isn't uncommon. It's not going to have a 100 percent success rate, but it's going to have a rate of success.


----------



## electricky (Feb 18, 2011)

fourtines said:


> I don't know that it does...I mean the "baby" thing is extreme, that's like a fetish. But I seem to repeatedly pick SJs, and the more "parental" they seem in some regard the more I like them...except for their age. I do not like much older men, I don't physically want a father. But SJs who have these traits seem to make me feel safe:


Yeah I totally didn't mean in a fetish sort of way, but like being "babied," like the sort of people who read my flighty eccentricity as "she just needs a good dose of discipline and learn the workings of reality" and get all baby-talky and condescending. The stuff that you bolded is pretty much specifically what I am talking about and what really annoys me. Ne and Si are the same coin but they're still opposing sides of it, so I'm not sure how a pure infantile/caregiver thing would work out. It makes more sense in blends, like in your case you are more of a blend probably because you are not perception-dominant, so there's less of a direct opposition.



> I probably am attracted to men who are a mix of Caregiver-Infantile or Caregiver-Aggressor.
> I'm a mix of Infantile-Aggressor myself.
> What I do know is that Victims turn me off, and straight-up Infantiles can get on my nerves, like I see them as trying to one up me, and probably would attempt to make ME go into the "caregiver" role.


This makes sense. Victim, in theory, would be about as close to opposing your type as can get. LOL, about the one upping thing, as I'd imagine me pairing with another infantile would be fun except that we'd be too busy trying to outdo each other that we'd always be going our own ways and have no real relationship 



> I honestly don't know how much it has to do with functions, but it very much does make sense for Se = Aggressor, Si = Caregiver, Ne = Infantile if you think about it. I don't know why Ni = Victim, but it does.


That part does make sense, which is why I'm wondering now if any of the rest of this makes any sense. Do opposites really attract? Do Se and Ni tend to have more of a classic Dom/Sub dynamic and Ne/Si prefer things on more equal footing? 

Or I could just be taking Socionics way too seriously and too far


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Sheppard said:


> @fourtines
> 
> No. I'm not convinced, nor did I say that anyone could be a victim of this. I just don't think that the notion that it can happen is absurd, considering it does happen, including to intelligent strong willed women. You can take that intelligence, and that strong will, and turn it against themselves. Self destruction isn't uncommon. It's not going to have a 100 percent success rate, but it's going to have a rate of success.


Sure women can be very intelligent and have martyr-like morals, or be like "oh my gosh I'm a good person I could never do xyz" and next thing you know, they're locked in the basement with no phone. 

I am not advocating open aggression in women, or man-hating feminism (certainly not, because I'm actually not aggressive until I'm crossed, and seem quite docile in my daily life...it's like my NTJ shadow has to be provoked) and I like men, and even enjoy being sexually submissive.

That being said, for whatever reason I was granted a strong sense of self-efficacy i.e. "I CAN change this situation." It's been a guiding theme in my life. I could never martyr myself for anything or any body. I value vengeance in extreme circumstances.

An examination of someone's value system and level of self-efficacy (that is, a person who actually believes that they have empowerment to change their circumstances) may relate to whether or not they'd be more likely to fall victim to Stockholm Syndrome. 

I am not suggesting that I am incapable of being manipulated by a man that I'm in love with, but I know from experience that once things reach a certain level of bullshit, I just walk, or tell them to go fuck themselves. 

Did my family raise me to be that person? Probably. My mom says I also biologically take after my father, but I don't know how much stock to put into that. 

I don't take 100% credit for being who I am. I know I was lucky to have what I did, and that I have clear weaknesses and obvious neurosis...but I make it my business to actually have knowledge of what my own darkness is, and face it. 

Some people are afraid to do that until it's too late.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

ElectricSparkle said:


> Yeah I totally didn't mean in a fetish sort of way, but like being "babied," like the sort of people who read my flighty eccentricity as "she just needs a good dose of discipline and learn the workings of reality" and get all baby-talky and condescending. The stuff that you bolded is pretty much specifically what I am talking about and what really annoys me. Ne and Si are the same coin but they're still opposing sides of it, so I'm not sure how a pure infantile/caregiver thing would work out. It makes more sense in blends, like in your case you are more of a blend probably because you are not perception-dominant, so there's less of a direct opposition.


Yeah I actually like baby talk (the ESFJ did that) and I've had an ISTJ who sort of talked to me in a disciplinary way, or tried to give me a push toward accomplish things, and cornered me sometimes into conversations like "what are going to DO about this?" even when I wasn't ready to think about that and "what do you want out of your life?" 

I actually need someone like that around. I even have a female ESFJ friend, who is older than me and closer to my mommy's age, and sometimes I even feel _relieved _if she says "do this" or "do that" (around the house) as long as she doesn't get too bossy or invasive. I can take initiative but if someone gives me a framework, even better. 

Yes, I liked it when my ESFJ ex said I was his little girl...sometimes. As long as he didn't attempt to entirely rob me of my self-efficacy, which he didn't.

That's why I prefer Caregivers to Aggressors. An over-the-top Aggressor is more likely to even try to take your self-efficacy away, which is why they are more compatible with Victims than Infantiles. An over-the-top Caregiver is pretty much embodied by an ESFJ saying "look we clean the house before we play, okay Chi-lee?" and "drink this water. now. you drink too much soda" and that sort of thing. Fortunately my ex wasn't as bad as an ESFJ female...I honestly tend to believe the females can be worse. My ESFJ friend even gets annoyed by the way her adult daughter cuts cake and handles business...to me that is TOO controlling. I am glad I am her friend and not her daughter, and I couldn't date a man who was THAT controlling. 



> This makes sense. Victim, in theory, would be about as close to opposing your type as can get. LOL, about the one upping thing, as I'd imagine me pairing with another infantile would be fun except that we'd be too busy trying to outdo each other that we'd always be going our own ways and have no real relationship


Another Infantile would never make me feel secure, would make me feel like I had to bring out my own Aggressive tendencies in order to mimic a Caregiver, and like I said, would eventually just get on my nerves. 





> That part does make sense, which is why I'm wondering now if any of the rest of this makes any sense. Do opposites really attract? Do Se and Ni tend to have more of a classic Dom/Sub dynamic and Ne/Si prefer things on more equal footing?
> 
> Or I could just be taking Socionics way too seriously and too far


I'm not sure if Ne/Si necessarily want things on more of an equal footing. That may be just you. I have seen people who seem very adamant about having an equal. 

That's why I don't think "type compatibility" systems work for everybody, just for some individuals. Like one type compatibility system will work for some person (like how ENFPs are supposed to love ISTPs in one system) but not in another (like how ENFPs are supposed to be more compatible with either an INFJ or INTJ ...Ni dom to support their Ne dom).


----------



## shadowofambivalence (May 11, 2011)

I can see how a woman would want to experience this as a short term fling, but I don't understand why they would want this as a lifestyle. Personally I have tried something similar to this and could not get into it and came to the conclusion that I don't like to feel emotionally/mentally cornered or controlled in anyway.


----------



## Olena (Jan 2, 2011)

sprinkles said:


> You did not SPEAK of majority because you did not even use the word. Maybe you *attempted to imply it* but obviously your attempt failed with me.
> 
> I wouldn't have been surprised if in fact you did claim that every single man in Japan wants a submissive woman. I'm not in the mood for unwritten shit right now.


You're just looking for an argument, lol. 

"There is an exception to everything" is common sense and something we see every day.

Oh yeah, I'd insist every man wants that, especially after submerging in Japanese porn myself and realizing that clearly can't be true. derp.

Shitty mood=feelings. So you decided to use your feelings when quoting my posts? I see. It explains my confusion. I cannot reason with you then nor will I be able to understand what you are attempting to do. I am not personally attacking you, but you seem to take things personally.

To avoid drama, I shall no longer respond.



Sheppard said:


> @fourtines
> 
> No. I'm not convinced, nor did I say that anyone could be a victim of this. I just don't think that the notion that it can happen is absurd, considering it does happen, including to intelligent strong willed women. You can take that intelligence, and that strong will, and turn it against themselves. Self destruction isn't uncommon. It's not going to have a 100 percent success rate, but it's going to have a rate of success.


Maybe the 'strong will' was just their walls hiding who they actually were inside. It's not uncommon for us to drastically change our 'outer' selves from our 'inner' selves.

In my experience of dealing with submissives (mainly male in my case), many have quite reasonable limits. Those with 'no limits', either tend to lie or be a bit 'over-pleasing'. I once met a man who told me he'd submit to me but he was sexually abused when he was younger and told me he'd break if I made him be with another man yet the implication I could still make him do it was there. I think a 'catalyst' is needed in someone's life to make them excessively submissive. This is just my theory though.

For myself, much like Fourtines, I have this limit. When it's reach, I become angry and aggressive. I have then had enough dominance bullshit. Not everyone can be a victim, there's a possibility they can,but that doesn't mean it's definite. Some people are just not keen on trying to be manipulated. I'm always aware when I'm trying to be manipulated, and it's my choice whether I respond or not. But...that's me.

@fourtines

Reading your posts has given me a new outlook on certain types. I think I seek out Caregivers myself. Well, Caregivers/Aggressors most likely.

Hmmm, I'm going to read up on more of Socionics.



> I value vengeance in extreme circumstances.


Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.:tongue:


----------



## sprinkles (Feb 7, 2010)

Olena said:


> You're just looking for an argument, lol.
> 
> "There is an exception to everything" is common sense and something we see every day.
> 
> ...


I'm not looking for an argument, I'm simply tired of playing assumption games on this forum.

It has nothing to do with feelings about what you said. It's about being sick of having to assume things that people did not write, and being sick of having people assume things that I did not write and never intended to imply. 

I went by what you wrote and only that. How am I to know that you wouldn't insist something about every man? I've seen worse than that done here. I don't know you and I really don't care to presume what you mean using 'common sense'.


----------



## 7rr7s (Jun 6, 2011)

I see nothing wrong with it. Some women like to be dominated more then others, especially sexually. The rape fantasy is a dark reality for a lot of women even if they are too scared/ashamed/embarrased to admit it. My ex girlfriend had fantasies similiar to that, and I was a little shocked at first but after reading My Secret Garden by Nancy Friday, nothing really shocks me anymore. 

To me it's nothing more than D/s lifestyle, but with gender roles included, which is a good thing also in my opinion. Nothing wrong with dominating a woman as long as it's consensual. Most of them not only like it, but crave it on some deep level as well.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

shadowofambivalence said:


> I can see how a woman would want to experience this as a short term fling, but I don't understand why they would want this as a lifestyle. Personally I have tried something similar to this and could not get into it and came to the conclusion that I don't like to feel emotionally/mentally cornered or controlled in anyway.


It would be even more dangerous and humiliating as a short term fling. I think this could only be done "properly" within a relationship of trust.


----------



## KINGoftheAMAZONS (Jun 21, 2011)

DeductiveReasoner said:


> There are women out there who are actually okay with this?


Exactly. It might be something different if the roles weren't completely dependent upon gender.


----------



## twoofthree (Aug 6, 2011)

Just reading the titles leaves me stumped for words.

If people abide by that lifestyle, then that's up to them.

But personally, I do belong in anyone's hand. Hell no!
I'm not going to allow anyone to control me for their own purposes. I have my own.

I'm just not that kind of woman. I can't even get my head around the idea of submitting to someone. I value my own self and intellect too highly for that. No other person could possible know what's best for me. So it could only be for them. . . and I am NOT selfless.


----------



## KINGoftheAMAZONS (Jun 21, 2011)

twoofthree said:


> Just reading the titles leaves me stumped for words.
> 
> If people abide by that lifestyle, then that's up to them.
> 
> ...


Hallelujah!!!!


----------

