Submission Complementing Dominance ?
In entry 225 I wondered about the possibility of women's submission being instinctive. Googling I came across the concept of the Taken-In-Hand relationships:
http://wikibin.org/articles/taken-in-hand.html
http://www.takeninhand.com/what.is.a.taken.in.hand.relationship
In entry 225 I wondered about the possibility of women's submission being instinctive. Googling I came across the concept of the Taken-In-Hand relationships:
http://wikibin.org/articles/taken-in-hand.html
http://www.takeninhand.com/what.is.a.taken.in.hand.relationship
"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. "http://www.takeninhand.com/the.resistant.woman
"What I look for in a girl is neither submissiveness nor dominance but resistance. I want is a woman who has the strength to be resistant. "
This web site gives the impression, that it is all about men getting a kick out of gaining ultimate control over fiercely resisting women, who in their own contributions describe themselves as strong, independent, intelligent, successful These are typically the qualities, that I would expect in those women, who successfully refuse to be dominated.
My first reaction as an egalitarian woman was wondering, if these women could be mentally ill, in a different way as incomprehensible as the muslim converts in entry 225.
But then I looked at the phenomenon from the perspective of evolutionary biology. If these women are breeders attempting to optimize their strategy for having fit offspring, it all makes sense. If women are plainly submissive for the purpose of procuring mates not only to make them pregnant but also to provide for their offspring, then such a selection could be a mistake concerning the quality of the men's genes. Therefore the women, who consider themselves as alpha-females, want the proof of the males' abilities by being dominant not only over male competitors, but also over themselves. Such women, who perceive themselves as powerful, independent, capable, strong, struggle fiercely to make sure, that the men are capable to dominate them in spite of all their resistance. Then they can accept the men's genes as good enough for their offspring.
For the men, subduing the females with the highest health and genetic quality is also a challenge in the competition for fit offspring. The harder they have to struggle to overcome the resistance, the higher quality the genes of the women, when they finally surrender.
Even though the people on that website claim, that Taken-In-Hand is very different form simply being in consent about allowing the domination and the submission instincts rule, in the reality it is just that. Ultimately the women submit, but they are picky and put up a high threshold by checking the strength of the men's power to dominate.
In entry 211, I wrote: 'Therefore men with high instinctivity often choose women, with whose body they get infatuated, and who are noticeably inferior by education, status, financial power, and therefore submissive. Doctors marry nurses, engineers their secretaries, shop manager the cashiers.'
But maybe these women are also not simply submissive, but strong, independent and self-confident of their good looks and they struggle to be as much respected as possible while in the end they surrender to the fact of being in an inferior position. That would give those men just the Taken-In-Hand relationship.
On the takeninhand web page, there were no clues to be found about the equality or difference concerning status, formal education and career success of the people discussing their own Taken-In-Hand relationships, so I cannot evaluate my assumption of the effect of the lower status of the women.
The concept is very new under this name. Googling gives no results at all for the search of 'Taken-In-Hand relationship' before the year 2001. Nevertheless this concept is the closest to what seems to have persisted of the mating dynamics from millions of years back, while all values and concept of being egalitarian can only have evolved along with or following the evolution of cognition.
But this concept got me wondering, if the assumption, that dominant men prefer simply and plainly submissive women, may be generally an error. Maybe many dominant men want to enjoy the victory of have conquered women into surrendering. Maybe for most men, a relationship is based upon the taken-in-hand principle, they just do not consciously have a name for it and they may take it for granted and as their birthright.
But for me as an egalitarian woman, domination is abomination. Evolutionary biology and evolutionary psychology can explain behavioral tendencies as connected with instincts. This cannot be accepted as an excuse or a justification.
No man has a right to dominate a woman or to attempt to dominate her. If he does, he is a jerk, an emotional moron, at least very immature.
My first reaction as an egalitarian woman was wondering, if these women could be mentally ill, in a different way as incomprehensible as the muslim converts in entry 225.
But then I looked at the phenomenon from the perspective of evolutionary biology. If these women are breeders attempting to optimize their strategy for having fit offspring, it all makes sense. If women are plainly submissive for the purpose of procuring mates not only to make them pregnant but also to provide for their offspring, then such a selection could be a mistake concerning the quality of the men's genes. Therefore the women, who consider themselves as alpha-females, want the proof of the males' abilities by being dominant not only over male competitors, but also over themselves. Such women, who perceive themselves as powerful, independent, capable, strong, struggle fiercely to make sure, that the men are capable to dominate them in spite of all their resistance. Then they can accept the men's genes as good enough for their offspring.
For the men, subduing the females with the highest health and genetic quality is also a challenge in the competition for fit offspring. The harder they have to struggle to overcome the resistance, the higher quality the genes of the women, when they finally surrender.
Even though the people on that website claim, that Taken-In-Hand is very different form simply being in consent about allowing the domination and the submission instincts rule, in the reality it is just that. Ultimately the women submit, but they are picky and put up a high threshold by checking the strength of the men's power to dominate.
In entry 211, I wrote: 'Therefore men with high instinctivity often choose women, with whose body they get infatuated, and who are noticeably inferior by education, status, financial power, and therefore submissive. Doctors marry nurses, engineers their secretaries, shop manager the cashiers.'
But maybe these women are also not simply submissive, but strong, independent and self-confident of their good looks and they struggle to be as much respected as possible while in the end they surrender to the fact of being in an inferior position. That would give those men just the Taken-In-Hand relationship.
On the takeninhand web page, there were no clues to be found about the equality or difference concerning status, formal education and career success of the people discussing their own Taken-In-Hand relationships, so I cannot evaluate my assumption of the effect of the lower status of the women.
The concept is very new under this name. Googling gives no results at all for the search of 'Taken-In-Hand relationship' before the year 2001. Nevertheless this concept is the closest to what seems to have persisted of the mating dynamics from millions of years back, while all values and concept of being egalitarian can only have evolved along with or following the evolution of cognition.
But this concept got me wondering, if the assumption, that dominant men prefer simply and plainly submissive women, may be generally an error. Maybe many dominant men want to enjoy the victory of have conquered women into surrendering. Maybe for most men, a relationship is based upon the taken-in-hand principle, they just do not consciously have a name for it and they may take it for granted and as their birthright.
But for me as an egalitarian woman, domination is abomination. Evolutionary biology and evolutionary psychology can explain behavioral tendencies as connected with instincts. This cannot be accepted as an excuse or a justification.
No man has a right to dominate a woman or to attempt to dominate her. If he does, he is a jerk, an emotional moron, at least very immature.
