lifestyle relink1
https://bit.ly/3NsvEmP https://bit.ly/36V2wnw https://bit.ly/3DiNWCm https://bit.ly/3tPE67C https://bit.ly/3iGPAEm https://bit.ly/3IOpM3L https://bit.ly/3Nvzrj3 https://bit.ly/3ISbOh8 https://bit.ly/3tNX5zJ https://bit.ly/3IQ3hLR
BDSM is thus seen as a sexual kink, safe, sane and consensual, non-sexist, nondiscriminatory, an equal opportunities lifestyle, tolerant, inclusive, trendy, thoroughly liberal, and not having an atavistic tendency in sight! All in all, what could possibly upset anyone about BDSM? It meets all the criteria for political correctness.
By comparison, Taken In Hand has a loooooong way to go to achieve the same level of acceptance from the wider community. Taken In Hand casually violates just about every taboo in the book. For a start, whilst Taken In Hand is very much a choice and highly consensual in a deep sense, you won't find the BDSM maxim safe, sane and consensual peppered around this site. Secondly, this site is aimed strictly at those whose preference is for a relationship in which the man is in control of the woman. This is because Taken In Hand is my website, and I am more interested in exploring my own preferences than in toeing the line or winning any popularity contest. So Taken In Hand has been accused of being sexist, discriminatory, old-fashioned, and atavistic. (I don't think it is at all.) And I have been accused of advocating taking away women’s rights, and of avocating even non-consensual “violence against women”. (I'm not.) Taken In Hand folk tend to have little interest in “safewords” and “scenes” (or indeed, in “the scene” or “the lifestyle”), and unlike many in the BDSM community, we stress that the control is real. To some, if it is real, then it is by definition abuse. Is it any wonder then that Taken In Hand triggers a little social disapprobation both from society in general and to an even greater extent from some corners of the BDSM community?