https://bit.ly/3JzcskC
https://bit.ly/3Jr4hqq
https://bit.ly/351RUlG
https://bit.ly/3t79Rb5
https://bit.ly/3Brw9Yy
https://bit.ly/3Bs6MG9
https://bit.ly/33ya0LS
https://bit.ly/3HYn38l
Relinquishing power frees a woman from her fear that her husband will abandon her or lose interest. Repeated conflict poisons relationships. When anger is not channeled into something more positive, such as passionate love, homeostasis can only be maintained by dissociating from the anger or by ceasing to care. And when positive emotional engagement has gone, the marriage is effectively over, even if not legally over.
Her relinquishing control invites correction, control, and chivalry from a respectful man. And her respect for him as a man, in her act of submission to him, virtually guarantees his continued erotic interest in her. The termination of conflict in the act of lovemaking is the glue that binds Taken In Hand couples together.
There are many ways of cementing relationships; none necessarily better than others. Mutual love, shown by Taken in Hand couples, is the best proof of the efficacy of this philosophy of intimate relationships, regardless of the arguments of those who do not understand it.
What is the counter argument to this in the professional world?
Is it discussed at any length?
And what is the most common belief about these kind of relationships and how and why they function.
Sorry for all the questions, I am just fascinated.
I realize this is not a type of relationship for everyone but if it has made a couple closer and happier for an extended period, surely that is taken in to consideration isn't it?
Lo
