Απόκρυψη ανακοίνωσης

Καλώς ήρθατε στην Ελληνική BDSM Κοινότητα.
Βλέπετε το site μας σαν επισκέπτης και δεν έχετε πρόσβαση σε όλες τις υπηρεσίες που είναι διαθέσιμες για τα μέλη μας!

Η εγγραφή σας στην Online Κοινότητά μας θα σας επιτρέψει να δημοσιεύσετε νέα μηνύματα στο forum, να στείλετε προσωπικά μηνύματα σε άλλους χρήστες, να δημιουργήσετε το προσωπικό σας profile και photo albums και πολλά άλλα.

Η εγγραφή σας είναι γρήγορη, εύκολη και δωρεάν.
Γίνετε μέλος στην Online Κοινότητα.


Αν συναντήσετε οποιοδήποτε πρόβλημα κατά την εγγραφή σας, παρακαλώ επικοινωνήστε μαζί μας.

Who says you have to be submissive?

Συζήτηση στο φόρουμ 'BDSM Art and Literature' που ξεκίνησε από το μέλος íɑʍ_Monkeץ, στις 4 Ιουλίου 2015.

  1. íɑʍ_Monkeץ

    íɑʍ_Monkeץ Contributor

    Please read on...

    Who says you have to be submissive?

    If a woman reacts strongly against being described as submissive, and delights in having a commanding presence but likes it when a man takes charge with her, is she “dominant [but] in denial”, as Bill P. suggested, submissive but in denial, or just plain confused? If she enjoys expressing all the different aspects of her personality and feels exuberant and free when with a man who appreciates all of her instead of wanting her to express only one bit of herself, is she marvellously multidimensional or in need of psychiatric help?

    Those women with an aversion to being (metaphorically as opposed to literally) pinned down think about these things the way others think about football or world hunger.

    In a comment on Taken In Hand, Scarlett wrote:

    In D/s, there's almost a parallel “gender” created, the dominant and submissive

    When I read that, I was struck by the thought that the way I'd prefer to interact in a relationship would be more DD than D/s, as in “dominant-dominant”.

    Preferring naturally dominant men, I have sometimes attempted to think of myself as being submissive—but that label just doesn't fit. Not at all. Not even remotely. For some women, submission can feel liberating and exciting and they feel anything but diminished by it. That is marvellous! But when I read the wonderful writings of such women, no matter how beautiful the style and no matter what the content is, I just can't relate to it. And nor could I remain happy and vibrant with a man who wanted me to give him submission. Apparently I am not alone in this. This inability to identify with the “submissive” label appears to be characteristic of the taken in hand woman.

    Several women have said that when a man likes only their soft, feminine side, or wants them always to dress that way, or tells them never to cut their long hair, or expects mindless obedience and a submissive attitude at all times, they find it off-putting. Not only do those things feel like a push towards the stale boredom of stereotypical womanhood and a static, lifeless relationship, they feel like a push to eviscerate a valuable part of the woman's personality: the dominant, effective, assertive, even masculine side.

    Dominant and strong I may be, but the last thing I want is to dominate a man. Whilst I have the greatest respect for non-dominant, submissive men, I am not drawn to them as men. I want a man even more dominant than I. A man who exerts control as a natural part of his personality. And whilst I am not at all the fighting sort, in the event that there are any conflicts, I want the man to win. I want the man to be in control—but not by requiring of me that I shut down half my personality and become unnaturally submissive, and not by requiring that I diminish myself in any way.

    This is not about being in denial, it is about recognising the reality and examining the implications. If you have a dominant, strong, masculine personality, and you can't relate to the little girl idea, attempting to see yourself as a submissive little girl is asking for trouble. To have a good relationship, you have to relate to one another as the individuals you are, not as the individuals you think you ought to be. A relationship requiring that you enact fixed stereotypical roles is bound to be handicapped and a handicap to your own individual growth.

    So if you think you may be falling into the mistake of damping down your dominant, masculine side, challenge your assumption that that is necessary or in any way desirable. It simply isn't true that if you want a dominant man, you have to be submissive. You can both be dominant!

    You may think that with two dominant personalities what you'd have is one almighty power struggle but that is not necessarily so. It depends. Do the dominant characteristics of each person arise out of weakness or out of strength? If the former, there is bound to be a power struggle; if the latter, any struggles there may be are likely to be fun rather than destructive. If both individuals need to “win” to increase their self-esteem or protect their fragile ego, there may well be problems. But if they each appreciate and even encourage the dominant, masculine side of the other and they broadly feel in accord with one another about how to run their relationship (for example, at least one of them does not want to “win”), and they share a sense of fun in their interactions, they may well have a blast together.

    Recognising that expressing your dominant, masculine side need not be a threat, and need not lead to fights, but may lead to a deeper, more exciting, more fulfilling relationship is liberating. It frees you from the psychological tyranny of self-imposed pseudo-submission. It frees you to be fully yourself. It frees you to interact as the person you are. And contrary to what you might think if you are in certain sections of BDSM sub-culture, many naturally dominant men prefer naturally strong, dominant women, because if a woman is obviously strong, the man can relax and not worry that his strength will overwhelm her, just as is the case in reverse.

    These liberating insights can free women from the thought that they are lacking in femininity or that they need to act or become more submissive. Once you feel free to embrace and express the dominant/masculine aspects of yourself, you are no longer fighting a battle for control of your personality. And when you stop waging that war on yourself, you are bound to lose the defensiveness that is inevitably associated with that sort of inner conflict. This can bring a deep and abiding sense of peace. Paradoxically, this peacefulness can give the woman a softness that seems exquisitely feminine.

    Who says that if you want a dominant man, you have to suppress your dominant side and be submissive?!

    http://www.takeninhand.com/node/260
     
  2. thief

    thief παλιοπαιδο ο Νικολακης Contributor

    μεταφρασμενο το κειμενο δεν υπαρχει ?
     
  3. margarita_nikolayevna

    margarita_nikolayevna Δ Contributor

    Τις τελευταίες μέρες προσπαθώ να διαβάζω πολύ προσεκτικά και αναλυτικά πώς λέγεται ή γράφεται κάτι.
    Και σε αυτό το κείμενο νομίζω ότι οι όροι που δίδονται στην Κυριαρχία και τη υποταγή ΔΕΝ είναι οι bdsmικοί...
    Επομένως ναι, συμφωνώ, δεν χρειάζεται κανένας να είναι υποτακτικός.
    Και στο BDSM δηλαδή δεν σε αναγκάζει κανείς να είσαι υποτακτικός.
    Το να θες όμως να είσαι είναι δικαίωμα σου και είναι αναφαίρετο    
     
  4. gaby

    gaby Guest

    Το taken in hand είναι τελείως άλλο πράγμα, καμία σχέση με BDSM. Αντιλήψεις περί γυναικών που χρειάζονται προστασία, καθοδήγηση, έλεγχο και ενίοτε λίγο πειθαρχία ενώ οτιδήποτε γίνεται σε αυτό το πλαίσιο δεν (πρέπει να) είναι σεξουαλικό και να έχει ως σκοπό του τον ερωτισμό.
     
  5. thief

    thief παλιοπαιδο ο Νικολακης Contributor

    το να θες να εισαι υποτακτικος ειναι το ευκολο .... το να μπορεσει καποιος να σε υποταξει ειναι το δυσκολο  
     
  6. kazolin

    kazolin Guest

  7. íɑʍ_Monkeץ

    íɑʍ_Monkeץ Contributor

    Some D/s (or BDSM, M/s, etc.) relationships are Taken In Hand relationships, but many 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 (D/s, BDSM, M/s) 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, mentorship relationships of finite duration, and relationships in which the dominant partner reserves the right to have sex with whomever he wishes, irrespective of his partner's feelings about that. Indeed, in many cases, it is frowned upon as bad form for submissive individuals not to meekly accept such a state of affairs. That idea is as unappealing to Taken In Hand couples as Taken In Hand is unappealing to many D/s folk. Our preferences differ.

    I hope this does not sound holier than thou. Indeed one of the things that does not appeal to me about the online D/s/M/s/BDSM world is that there are so many insults, holier than thou judgements and snobbish, scathing comments that completely take for granted various questionable ideas (such as, for example, the idea that there is a hierarchy of submissiveness with the lofty slave being at the top of the ladder, and the alleged faux-sub being beneath the bottom rung, and a lot of tedious discussion about who has a right to call himself a master, etc). But to be fair, many a RL TPE/M/s/D/s person feels the same way about that. Many of them enjoy this site. Regrettably, we too sometimes have similarly objectionable comments here despite heavily discouraging them. I mention this merely to explain one of my personal reasons for wanting the Taken In Hand site to remain outside the online D/s/M/s/BDSM world rather than becoming subject to what seem to me its oppressively narrow and rigid prescriptions and proscriptions.

    Taken In Hand is just one set of many possible preferences. Within Taken In Hand there are millions of individual variations. We all start from our own perspective and sometimes think we know best and that others are wrong, but I am at least trying to correct such mistakes in my thinking. I try to remember that I'm not actually an omniscient, infallible god, but just a mere mortal who makes a lot of mistakes. I recognise that my preferences are merely my preferences. In no way do I think that everyone should share my preferences. I am a staunch supporter of the idea of individual freedom, including the freedom of others not to share my preferences in any way.

    The Taken In Hand site is not a sex site: we focus on the psychology and the relationship rather than sexual practices. On most D/s/BDSM/M/s sites there is a huge amount of focus on sexual interactions and practices.

    Whilst the Taken In Hand is not a sex site, the purpose of the Taken In Hand relationship is to create a white-hot sexual connection that permanently bonds husband and wife together in a vibrantly happy relationship that will last a lifetime. Taken In Hand is sexy and fun or intensely erotic. If it were not, why bother?

    On the other hand, many in the D/s world take the view that D/s is a very serious matter, not at all about having fun, and that it is not even necessarily a sexual thing (their heavy focus on what seems to us like sexual practices notwithstanding!). Some D/s authorities state categorically that the submissive partner must submit—that it is her duty to submit, and that if she doesn't, she is not truly submissive. They bandy about terms like “faux-sub” and “fake sub”. Some D/s authorities also regard dominance as a great burden that the dominant partner must bear. It all sounds decidedly unpleasant. Teeth-gritting, dutiful self-sacrifice and burden-shouldering is not Taken In Hand.

    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. The mere fact that this is my preference in no way means I think everyone else should share my preference! (Have I said that enough times to get through yet?!) I positively love the fact that many who read and enjoy this site have different preferences from mine. You might be surprised by how many gay, lesbian and female-dominated couples read the site.

    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. 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 prefers a woman whom he can enjoy dominating and submitting, and thereby bending to his will through his own action. Just as a mixed martial artist would not want to be in the cage with someone who submitted without any action on his part, men with Taken In Hand inclinations would not want to be with someone who is already in hand and thoroughly submissive. Hence the name “Taken In Hand” as opposed to “Already In Hand”

    Having said all this, may I stress (please hear me!) that I am not saying that no D/s (or indeed M/s, etc) 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” label? What is the difference between Taken In Hand and D/s?

    http://www.takeninhand.com/why.do.many.taken.in.hand.folk.reject.the.Ds.label
     
  8. íɑʍ_Monkeץ

    íɑʍ_Monkeץ Contributor

    If you are gagging, suspending and bullwhipping your wife, does that mean that your relationship can't be a Taken In Hand one?

    If you are a woman who sometimes kneels before your man and reflexively submits to him, can your relationship still be classed as a Taken In Hand one, or are we now talking D/s or M/s?

    If you have a closet full of BDSM paraphernalia or a dog cage in your bedroom (but you don't own a dog), can your relationship be a Taken In Hand one?

    Actually, yes, it might well be a Taken In Hand relationship.

    There are many readers whose skin would crawl at the idea of some of the hardcore sadomasochistic practices some Taken In Hand folk employ, and there are other readers who disapprove of the use of any physical techniques of control at all, even spanking. However, despite what some readers might think, there are many couples in loving, considerately and consensually male-led, male-dominated, male-controlled (and thus Taken In Hand) relationships, who engage in all sorts of shocking sadomasochistic practices and overt control and submission.

    Some think of this merely as sexual play; but for others, such activity develops as an inherent part of the control they both desire. On the Taken In Hand site, we focus on the psychology of control, and on issues pertaining to relationships, rather than on particular details of how the man maintains control, or what form his dominance or leadership takes. That is because Taken In Hand is not a sex site but a site about the underlying dynamics of male-led relationships. It is also because the underlying dynamics are present in a much wider range of relationships than those involving BDSM-style physical techniques. For example, you won't find any hint of bondage or whipping or in books like Laura Doyle's The Surrendered Wife or your average romance novel. But many of those who read these books have Taken In Hand inclinations, whether or not they like the idea of any particular techniques. Techniques are about form; this site is about the underlying substance.

    But what determines whether or not a relationship is a Taken In Hand one is nothing to do with whether or not this practice or that is used. Those things are an individual matter. It is about whether or not the relationship is male-led because both the man and the woman prefer that, and it is about whether or not the relationship is psychologically healthy and fulfilling for both persons—the husband in a Taken In Hand relationship puts his wife and relationship first. And it is about sexually-exclusive, long-term, monogamous relationships, as opposed to “open marriages” or relationships in which one or both partners are sexually-intimate with others, or casual sex.

    On this site, we value privacy and a certain modesty. There are many sites that clearly welcome exhibitionistic posts giving every last detail of posters' sexual adventures. This is not such a site. But although you won't see posts about BDSM sexual practices, there is a lot of sex happening in Taken In Hand homes, including, in some cases, hardcore BDSM.

    Why do we ask readers not to post sex posts? Partly, it is a matter of taste. Many readers do find BDSM literature a bit repulsive rather than erotic. Many readers of this site strongly prefer not to read or post exhibitionistic material, and exhibitionism is huge in BDSM culture. We get many complaints whenever anything exhibitionistic does get onto the site. The other reason is that we are trying to keep the site focused on the relationship and the psychology. Blow-by-blow accounts of last night's hardcore BDSM sex would encourage further such posts and before you know it Taken In Hand would have become a sex site.

    I hope this reassures all those who have asked or wondered if their relationship can be Taken In Hand if they employ BDSM techniques or play.

    The Editor

    http://www.takeninhand.com/sm.ds.bdsm.in.a.taken.in.hand.relationship