“Without getting into a fight about BDSM, it seems only fair to point out that the “Taken in Hand” folks are very clear that they’re not, not, not into BDSM because it is role-play. They see what they’re doing as something completely different and, I think, deliberately patriarchal, folks.”

I read through the site and one of the things I remember reading there casts a slightly different light, and one that you may be missing.

One of the women there said that if she were to be coerced or compelled to do something, even if it is something she would normally do anyways, she would rebel against it. Feminism has created an environment in which they are not forced to take that position, but now that they are not compelled to do so, they CAN choose to do so, and it really is THEIR choice.

I thought that one of the things about feminism was giving women the right to choose. Doesn’t that mean that they have the right to choose not to be feminist, or to choose exactly how much of themselves they offer to their partners?

Hedonistic wrote:
“What the Patriarchy Blamers are saying is that the whole taken-in-hand dynamic, just like the BDSM dynamic, is patriarchal to the core, and therefore (by it’s very definition) completely fucked up.”

The TIH dynamic can’t exist in a patriarchy as you envision it because(and this is something that they seem to stress often) in order for it to be TIH the woman has to choose to follow that path, and in your vision of a patriarchy she doesn’t have that choice. In fact, without feminism TIH wouldn’t be possible.

Also, someone commented that if you put something on the internet then you are forcing other people to be subjected to it. They have created a site for likeminded people. If I want to sit around blaming all the ills of the world on the patriarchy, I go to http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/ and if I want to read about TIH relationships I go to http://www.takeninhand.com. If this material offends you, don’t read it, its that simple. It is really easy to NOT go to that website…

I’d like to thank sully and louiseculmer for enlightening me.

What amuses me is that these so-called submissive women are usually so very aggressive in their defence of their sexual practices, especially towards feminists.

The anger engendered by being bullied in the bedroom must have to find an outlet somewhere and what better way to express it than to take it out on other women.

Aboslutely, well said. I find angry women everywhere, who unable or unwilling to vent at the appropriate target (their oppressor), they vent at and scourge other women whenever they have a chance.

I hate shoes, I only own two pairs and don’t want any more. But if I did like them I would know that it was because I liked them, not because ‘the patriarchy’ was making me. I don’t regard myself as a puppet of ‘the patriarchy’, but if anything could reconcile me to being one, it is the notion that the alternative is to be the puppet of the Loony Feminist brigade.

Ever since I told my husband about this site he keeps asking me “Am I oppressing you dear?” at frequent intervals. To which my answer now would be “Yes, and thank god for it” It’s infinitely more enjoyable than the alternative.

Like Sully, I’m outta here. Enjoy being oppressed.

What the Patriarchy Blamers are saying is that the whole taken-in-hand dynamic, just like the BDSM dynamic, is patriarchal to the core, and therefore (by it’s very definition) completely fucked up. Sort of the way I know my sexy-shoe-fetish has its roots in patriarchy, and therefore is completely fucked-up (Note: I accept my fucked-up-ness and wear my stilletto heels anyway.)

But I suppose you don’t want to hear this, sooooo, “whatever.” Carry on.

In the immortal words of Vinnie Jones in Lock stock and two smoking barrels.
“It’s been emotional” :-)