How to Stop Falling For the Wrong People
Sexes Share the Same Relationship Dealbreakers
Contemporary Male Mating Strategies
Pop Culture Feeds Rape Culture
Hookup Culture Rightly Laid at Feminism’s Feet
Hookup Culture Not to Blame For Our Single Status
A Drunk Man Never Lies
Chicks Dig Altruists
Some of the things that cause concern to Pat also cause concern to me. For instance, you say that your husband knows you dislike having your feet touched, so he doesn't do it (I dislike it also). But then you go on to say that as he is head of the household, he could, in theory, tell you to put up with it. Do you mean that if he really wanted to do something that you disliked, you would let me anyway, just because he is head of the household? Even though you knew that he knew that you didn't like it?
I wouldn't, you see, I'd just tell him to get stuffed. Does this mean I'm not Taken In Hand? Well, I suppose so. Because Stephen seemed to be saying that a woman has no say in what her husband does to her, she has no choice in the matter seemed to me to be his attitude. I don't feel like that at all. If being Taken In Hand means that you have no say at all in what your husband can or cannot do to you, then sod it, Im not Taken In Hand and never will be!
by Louise C on 2004 Dec 21 - 13:43 | reply to this comment
Not making myself clear
Louise,
Don't think I was making myself clear.
Yes, in theory he could touch my feet. In practice, I know he won't, purely and simply because he doesn't want to cause me the amount of distress doing so would cause. If for some reason he decided he was going to irregardless of my distress, then... well, at the very least he'd get kicked and told to sod off until I'd calmed back down. The same for anything else that causes me genuine distress. (And as daft as it may sound to anyone who doesn't have this phobia, having my feet touched does cause me real, genuine distress. Even thinking about it sometimes causes me problems.)
The point I was trying to make was that although we theoretically agreed he could do whatever he wants, we both know there are limits based on what either or both of us could and couldn't handle. We care too much for each other to intentionally cause distress, and we trust each other not to do so, and neither of us intends to deliberately betray that trust. Also, he is secure enough to not need to prove any points by doing something to me I really don't like.
I was trying to use that example to show that whilst I hadn't explicitly withdrawn consent for that, he respects, loves and cares for me enough that I don't need to.
The thought of him being able to do whatever he wants to me is a real turn on for both of us. However, when the fantasy becomes reality we both know there are some things better not done.
I'm not entirely sure I've made myself any clearer, though!
Sexes Share the Same Relationship Dealbreakers
Contemporary Male Mating Strategies
Pop Culture Feeds Rape Culture
Hookup Culture Rightly Laid at Feminism’s Feet
Hookup Culture Not to Blame For Our Single Status
A Drunk Man Never Lies
Chicks Dig Altruists
Some of the things that cause concern to Pat also cause concern to me. For instance, you say that your husband knows you dislike having your feet touched, so he doesn't do it (I dislike it also). But then you go on to say that as he is head of the household, he could, in theory, tell you to put up with it. Do you mean that if he really wanted to do something that you disliked, you would let me anyway, just because he is head of the household? Even though you knew that he knew that you didn't like it?
I wouldn't, you see, I'd just tell him to get stuffed. Does this mean I'm not Taken In Hand? Well, I suppose so. Because Stephen seemed to be saying that a woman has no say in what her husband does to her, she has no choice in the matter seemed to me to be his attitude. I don't feel like that at all. If being Taken In Hand means that you have no say at all in what your husband can or cannot do to you, then sod it, Im not Taken In Hand and never will be!
by Louise C on 2004 Dec 21 - 13:43 | reply to this comment
Not making myself clear
Louise,
Don't think I was making myself clear.
Yes, in theory he could touch my feet. In practice, I know he won't, purely and simply because he doesn't want to cause me the amount of distress doing so would cause. If for some reason he decided he was going to irregardless of my distress, then... well, at the very least he'd get kicked and told to sod off until I'd calmed back down. The same for anything else that causes me genuine distress. (And as daft as it may sound to anyone who doesn't have this phobia, having my feet touched does cause me real, genuine distress. Even thinking about it sometimes causes me problems.)
The point I was trying to make was that although we theoretically agreed he could do whatever he wants, we both know there are limits based on what either or both of us could and couldn't handle. We care too much for each other to intentionally cause distress, and we trust each other not to do so, and neither of us intends to deliberately betray that trust. Also, he is secure enough to not need to prove any points by doing something to me I really don't like.
I was trying to use that example to show that whilst I hadn't explicitly withdrawn consent for that, he respects, loves and cares for me enough that I don't need to.
The thought of him being able to do whatever he wants to me is a real turn on for both of us. However, when the fantasy becomes reality we both know there are some things better not done.
I'm not entirely sure I've made myself any clearer, though!