Jump to content
Gee

Some churches adopt "Christian Domestic Discipline"

Recommended Posts

From an article on Huffington Post:

Domestic discipline is the practice between two consenting life partners in which the head of the household (HoH) takes he necessary measures to achieve a healthy relationship dynamic; the necessary measure to create a healthy home environmental and the necessary measures to protect all members of the family from dangerous or detrimental outcomes by punishing the contributing, and thus unwanted, behaviors for the greater good of the family.

CDD is a lifestyle in which spanking and other punishments (loss of privileges, time outs, etc.) are used to maintain an orderly, Christian household, according to christiandomesticdiscipline.com. The man is dominant, and the wife is submissive, as detailed in the Bible, the site explains.

For further informations: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/21/christian-domestic-discipline-spanking-jesus-marriage_n_3479646.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting. I was thinking about starting a discussion on this myself, as I'm curious what people here think about it. This has been making the rounds among my FB friends, none of whom as far as I know are particularly kinky, but many of whom are Christians. (Full disclosure, I'm a Christian too, although not the judgmental kind. Anymore. Long story.) Reactions seem to be mostly along predictable "OMG what the heck is this?!?" lines, understandably enough.

The article raises some big concerns for me, maybe a bit more clearly from the Daily Beast piece that broke the story (source: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/19/spanking-for-jesus-inside-the-unholy-world-of-christian-domestic-discipline.html ) To try and put it simply, I think CDD as it's portrayed in the article fails very dangerously to draw a distinction between "We're both interested in spanking or D/s as consenting adults, and we believe God's cool with that" and "God requires you to do this even if you don't like it." (Good luck finding any respected Christian theologian who agrees with the second statement, by the way-- heck, even a nut like Bryan freaking Fischer thinks it's "ungodly.")

So worst case scenario, closeted spanko husband reads some CDD material, starts dominating and spanking his wife and secretly getting off on it, and manipulates her into it by telling her that if she doesn't like it she's going against God's Will thanks to those appallingly out-of-context verses. At that point (actually probably long before that point) it's not Domestic Discipline but Domestic Abuse-- coercion, not consent. I've actually worked informally with counseling a lot of people who have experienced various kinds of abuse in fundamentalist backgrounds, so I know that there really are cretins who would try just that given half a chance. As a Christian I happen to believe that coercion in the name of God is wrong, and any kind of abuse in the name of God is pure evil.

This however can be separated from the question of a consensual Christian couple deciding to practice DD, not as a divine mandate but as something they're both into. In that case, I think whatever floats your boat, as long as it floats both boats.

Mostly just trying to clarify my own thoughts here, so other people's opinions are welcome of course!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest acadienprincess

I have a bit of an issue with it, because it asserts that the man is the dominant because the Bible says so... however, what if the man was a poor role model and needed the discipline? Does that mean the wife is the HOH? But that goes against many passages in the Bible, so how would that work?

And what about homosexual couples that have either two men or two women? Who does what in that situation?

I dunno, I think it's all fine and dandy if it's consenting and the woman is completely on board with it because she WANTS to, not because the Bible TELLS her to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest acadienprincess
To try and put it simply, I think CDD as it's portrayed in the article fails very dangerously to draw a distinction between "We're both interested in spanking or D/s as consenting adults, and we believe God's cool with that" and "God requires you to do this even if you don't like it." (Good luck finding any respected Christian theologian who agrees with the second statement, by the way-- heck, even a nut like Bryan freaking Fischer thinks it's "ungodly.")

Well shoot, I was going to suggest that Fred Phelps would agree with the second, but then I read that you stated any respected Christian theologian :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to share my thoughts here...

I am a Christian, however my husband is an Atheist. And while I am a Christian, I certainly don't follow mainstream standards, I believe people are in charge of their own lives and are free to do what they wish so long as it doesn't impose on or harm someone else.

Having said all of that, now I hold some *very* old fashioned views of my own personally! They are my own and I wouldn't push them on anyone else... But they really do feel right to me , and I completely embrace them 100%.

This includes my role as a wife, my views on how a household and family should run etc... at least *for me* The truth is, I love my husband as the head of the household, I love being his wife, "submitting" to him, and "Caring for" the home and family... It feels so so super right to me.... I don't know all of biblical technicalities, what can be formally deemed Christian or not, but it certainly makes me feel like "This is how it's supposed to be"

Personally, when it comes to what I feel God wants , or what I should do or where I should be, I don't have a direct hotline to God that he can send me an instant answer.... but what I do have are my feelings... and I like to think that when I feel so completely right with something, when something fits just like a glove and I get that "This is how it should be" feeling that I'm just completely at peace with..... Well I like to think I'm doing whatever it is I should be, and if God wants me to do something or live in some way, if something was "meant" to be, than that is what it would feel like.

In my case here, its loving, obeying, submitting to and caring for my husband, who in return cares for me... and allowing him to discipline me when he sees fit, and accepting it and trusting him with those decisions...

I usually don't have a problem with this but there are times I confess I have to remind myself that my opinions are my own and others may not necessarily agree... Because there are moments when I'm going along with what some may consider a "Biblical marriage" and it feels so right I sometimes do get those thoughts "These are the roles we were meant for!" I know, not very "PC" but I'm human and I do get thoughts sometimes =)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This article was brought up on another forum I am a part of, and the responses are slightly different.

I have a major issue with the whole CCD "lifestyle". And I say "lifestyle" loosely. Why? Because this is another excuse for people to hide behind for their behavior if things go horribly wrong. Consent was brought up, and this is not something that both consent to because it's seen as more "just how it should be" element.

This is really no different from other religions using something as an excuse to keep women subversive and have no rights. When do the lines cross and it becomes abuse but it's ok because the Bible said it was? WoodenSpoon brought up some great reasons and issues.

I would like to think that people engage in DD relationships because they WANT to, not because it's what it expected of them because of their religion.

And I too wonder if a reversal 1950s household would cause these people's heads to explode? :P

Miss Lydia Lamour

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have a major issue with the whole CCD "lifestyle". And I say "lifestyle" loosely. Why? Because this is another excuse for people to hide behind for their behavior if things go horribly wrong. Consent was brought up, and this is not something that both consent to because it's seen as more "just how it should be" element.

Ms Lydia, If I may suggest an idea perhaps?

I personally have found those who take their religions seriously, and engage in certain religious practices which others may deem a bit "Crazy" do so, not because they feel they 'have to' and really don't 'want to' But because it feels "Right" to them. They feel "good" about it... and *feel* it brings them closer to God or living the life that they feel he would want them to live... and so they *choose* to cater to such feelings.... It is entirely consent....

I don't believe consent ceases being consent when a person decides "This is how it should be" ... Many religious people feel they should go to church on sundays, give their 10%, become baptized, fast during certain days of the year, etc etc... these are all things they can "Consent to" even if they feel it's "How it should be" I believe the same thing goes for spanking... regardless of ones biblical views or ideas of what roles a husband and wife should play.... it's still a personal choice for them...

I believe it greatly undermines ones intelligence to say that because they are religious, and subscribe to a certain set of beliefs and ideas that suddenly they become mindless creatures that are unable to think for themselves and cannot possibly 'Consent' to any of these things... We do not cease to think or reason because we have these beliefs.... It is my own thoughts and reasoning that made me decide this is what I believe, and feel is right for me, and what I should do.... I fully and knowingly consent to these things. And if I felt it was un-wise, not fit for me, or didn't feel right, I wouldn't do so.

What you describe doesn't sound as much like the CDD we often hear about.... but it sounds more like you are referring to something as what goes on perhaps in the middle east... where women do not decide, or give consent as to how their husbands treat them, because it is expected, not from themselves, but other people.... and when other people can decide what can or cant be done to you, or what you may or may not engage in, then that is where consent surely cannot exist.

But we are not in the middle east, and anyone who chooses to engage in CDD here, is most-likely doing it of their own accord, and free-will, their reasons or how they came to that decision do not matter, as long as they want to and are willing...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest acadienprincess
I don't believe consent ceases being consent when a person decides "This is how it should be" ... Many religious people feel they should go to church on sundays, give their 10%, become baptized, fast during certain days of the year, etc etc... these are all things they can "Consent to" even if they feel it's "How it should be" I believe the same thing goes for spanking... regardless of ones biblical views or ideas of what roles a husband and wife should play.... it's still a personal choice for them...

True, but coercing someone to follow that "lifestyle" because it's justified in a book that that person holds very high isn't exactly my definition of "consent". Not saying all Christian husbands in a CDD relationship do this, but there is ample opportunity for it. And I think that's where my issue with it comes in... consent vs coercion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think using the Bible to justify a DD relationship is shaky theology, nowhere in the Bible is chastiesement of wives recommended. And it is a disturbing idea that some wives might think they have to submit to being spanked because it is God's will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
True, but coercing someone to follow that "lifestyle" because it's justified in a book that that person holds very high isn't exactly my definition of "consent". Not saying all Christian husbands in a CDD relationship do this, but there is ample opportunity for it. And I think that's where my issue with it comes in... consent vs coercion.

Well this can be true of anything right? Not just CDD.... There are always exceptions, and always opportunity for abuse... but we cannot look down upon an entire lifestyle because of a few bad eggs right? You're right, coersion is *not* consent, and coersion *is* wrong.... I am only speaking of true consent...

i think using the Bible to justify a DD relationship is shaky theology, nowhere in the Bible is chastiesement of wives recommended. And it is a disturbing idea that some wives might think they have to submit to being spanked because it is God's will.

The bible is subject to interpretation , and hence we have so many differing beliefs and denominations... Religion is a very personal thing.... there are many ways we can bridge words together, and come up with different ideas.... I think the important thing, is if it feels "right" to them, and if they are "happy" with it, that is the important thing....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The distinction here may have to do with a phenomenon that some cult researchers describe as "Bounded Choice" (see http://truthspeaker.wordpress.com/2010/01/19/bounded-choice-as-another-component-of-thought-reform-the-appearance-of-choice-with-no-truly-viable-options/) -- that is, the appearance of a free choice that actually offers only one option due to a closed system. (Henry Ford: "You can have your car in any color you want as long as it's black.")

In other words, there's a distinction between what Cat is describing-- an informed choice among many equally valid expressions of Christian faith-- and what the CDD article appears to be describing, "If you don't 'freely choose' to do this thing you're turning your back on God." The latter becomes an insidious form of manipulation, and thus can be at odds with "consent" in the proper sense. Google the term "spiritual abuse" if you're curious; this occurs in most cults and even some mainstream churches (though of course definitely not all of them!).

Louise - "Shaky" is an understatement! Maybe "ridiculous" or "ludicrous" would be closer? Several commenters on Reddit even seemed to think the CDD site was an example of Poe's Law. I can see how someone might make that up, but then on the other hand I can also see how someone might take it seriously....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The distinction here may have to do with a phenomenon that some cult researchers describe as "Bounded Choice" (see http://truthspeaker.wordpress.com/2010/01/19/bounded-choice-as-another-component-of-thought-reform-the-appearance-of-choice-with-no-truly-viable-options/) -- that is, the appearance of a free choice that actually offers only one option due to a closed system. (Henry Ford: "You can have your car in any color you want as long as it's black.")

In other words, there's a distinction between what Cat is describing-- an informed choice among many equally valid expressions of Christian faith-- and what the CDD article appears to be describing, "If you don't 'freely choose' to do this thing you're turning your back on God." The latter becomes an insidious form of manipulation, and thus can be at odds with "consent" in the proper sense. Google the term "spiritual abuse" if you're curious; this occurs in most cults and even some mainstream churches (though of course definitely not all of them!).

Louise - "Shaky" is an understatement! Maybe "ridiculous" or "ludicrous" would be closer? Several commenters on Reddit even seemed to think the CDD site was an example of Poe's Law. I can see how someone might make that up, but then on the other hand I can also see how someone might take it seriously....

That is the problem, when 'free choice' is not really a choice at all. 'If you don't choose this you are not a good Christian, you're not following the word of God' isn't really giving someone a choice. it's telling them 'choose this or else'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a spanking top, and a rather rough one at times, but everything that I do is consensual. Most of what I've read about CDD I have found to be repulsive. It clearly states that women are not to be treated equally, not meant to be household leaders or "HoH"s as they call themselves (which is really the abbreviation they use in place of calling themselves abusive chauvinists). The women have no say in when they are to be punished or how hard they are to be punished. To me it really sounds like bad people using a very good book to justify fulfilling very sadistic desires. A consensual relationship exists between two EQUAL loving partners. Anything else is a justification for violent behavior in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had this conversation come up with vanilla's and geez.... o.O If CDD cannot be defended or respected even here, at a spanking and discipline site, there is really no hope for understanding in the vanilla world!

In other words, there's a distinction between what Cat is describing-- an informed choice among many equally valid expressions of Christian faith-- and what the CDD article appears to be describing, "If you don't 'freely choose' to do this thing you're turning your back on God." The latter becomes an insidious form of manipulation, and thus can be at odds with "consent" in the proper sense. Google the term "spiritual abuse" if you're curious; this occurs in most cults and even some mainstream churches (though of course definitely not all of them!).

Very true WoodenSpoonGuy..... ^_^;; But, if there is a difference between the two things you mentioned.... Is there any way we can agree that the first one, an "Informed choice" leading into a CDD relationship, well that there is nothing wrong with it if that is the case? and can we at least say it is possible for that to happen?

I am familiar with spiritual abuse... very familiar... I came from a very religious family, and all that fire and brimstone, confusion, pressure and manipulation, turned me into a pretty paranoid and messed up kid...

But I have since denounced the religion I grew up with, and the ideas I was once taught, although I am still Christian, my beliefs are my own, that I came to from my own reasoning... and the only reason I want to "Choose" this lifestyle, is because I "Like it" and it "Works for me" and it "Feels right" If I didn't like it, I would be free to choose otherwise.... o.O; I don't think spanking, or not spanking, will bring us any closer or further to either heaven or hell...

When I say I feel like "This is how it should be" I mean that in the same way I do when I talk about my own personal talents, dreams, goals in life or interests.... It's all part of what I like, enjoy, and what fits me... I was created by God, God made me a unique and individual person, and whatever path I choose in life, I choose because it feels right, and what feels right to me, is what God wants me to do..... It's not that *God wants me to do something therefore I must feel it's right* But *I feel something is right therefore it must be what God wants me to do!* This is how CDD is with me.

It clearly states that women are not to be treated equally, not meant to be household leaders or "HoH"s as they call themselves (which is really the abbreviation they use in place of calling themselves abusive chauvinists). The women have no say in when they are to be punished or how hard they are to be punished. To me it really sounds like bad people using a very good book to justify fulfilling very sadistic desires. A consensual relationship exists between two EQUAL loving partners. Anything else is a justification for violent behavior in my opinion.

I would very much disagree with you... and suggest there is a misunderstanding in the term "HoH" or in what we are referring to when we say "equal" Though this is something difficult to debate, because there are so many bible verses that may be used, and so many interpretations of those verses, and so many personal ideas... so let me share my own idea of this.

Disclaimer, because this is a touchy subject, this is my own *personal* viewpoint! This is what I *personally* "believe" just like my religious views... we all have a different take on things, and that is okay as long as we can respect this of eachother!

Yes, I am old fashioned, and yes I do believe that men and women have different "Roles" and were created "Differently" with different "Abilities, strengths and weaknesses" Maybe I'm wrong, but this idea appeals to me because it's what feels right with me personally.... meaning I love the old fashioned lifestyle and role of a husband and wife, man and woman, and my part seems to fit me so well! like a glove, I love it... I love it so much I think to myself, "This is what they are talking about when they talk about our roles as women, or being created this way, it just feels so right like I was born to do this! it feels so wonderful it's like its wired in me! "

Yes, I feel like my job is in the home, raising babies and caring for family. Yes I feel like I have more nurturing capabilities, and homemaking skills, and am rather emotional. Yes I totally feel like my husband should be in charge, making the decisions, and being the breadwinner.... Yes I feel I should honor, obey, and submit to him. Yes, I feel it is his role to "Rule the roost" **however**

No. I do not feel like I am "Inferior" to him, or "Lesser" than him! No. I do not feel I am a doormat that just needs to lay there to be walked on. No. I do not feel like my words or thoughts do not matter. No. I do not feel that I am incapable of making my own decisions , or choices when I feel the need to.

Yes , I do feel I am equal to my husband! Equal but "Different" We are both equal of the same amount of respect! We both have the right to our own views, minds, opinions and thoughts! We are both equal enough to have our own goals and ambitions, and to pursue any hobbies, talents or activities we wish! We are both equally human and both have lives just as valuable as the other.

CDD, in where a wife *chooses* To submit to her husband and **give** him that authority to take charge, is no different than any other 'ee who decides they would like to pass the reigns over to an 'er to help them.

I feel empowered in my DD relationship. My husband takes charge, because I *want* him to, it only happens this way, and he only has this position because ****I**** allow it and give it to him! Not because I am "inferior" But because I am wise enough to my own strengths and weaknesses, and to realize that for us, in our relationship, we are so different, we cannot both steer the ship. At some point, someone will have to take a step back and let the other have the wheel, and I have enough self-awareness to realize that for our relationship, that person would best be me. That for us personally, he is the person "Geared" more to be the leader, and I am "Geared" more to follow, and obey.

Chaos ensues when you try to have two leaders, trying to lead eachother, or two followers, with no one to follow.... Yes you can have two plain old "partners" doing the same thing, taking turns etc... but when one is geared to be a leader, and one is geared to be a follower, it only makes sense that to really make that relationship work we have the leader lead, and the follower follow! It's not a matter of superior/inferior or "equality" It's a matter of balance, complimenting traits etc...

And a CDD relationship I believe revolves around this idea, that men and women are created *equally* but **different** and if this is the case, it could *possibly* be beneficial for the husband and wife to take on their different roles... ***If*** men were created to be strong, rational, dominant creatures, and if women were created to be more emotional, nurturing and delicate creatures then in a home where this is the case, in order for it to run smoothly, it might make sense for the men to take charge, take the reigns and be responsible for the tough work outside the home with their strength, use their rational mind for important decisions, dominant nature to lead... and women can use their emotional and nurturing nature to care for and her family and husband, her more delicate nature to tasks most suited for her, around the home,

Yes yes, I know, this is enough to make the feminists cringe, and not one little bit of this is PC....... We've come a long way and realize that women can do whatever men can do, they can be just as strong, and men can be just as nurturing and caring.... women can fix a truck, and men can crochet... yes yes...

But it doesn't mean these types of men and women are extinct, it doesn't mean these roles are no longer "Right" and should be frowned upon! Dominant, strong, rational males still exist, (Right along with the females) and emotional, nurturing, delicate women are still showing up every now and then.... (Along with men as well) And if these two decide to get married, and if they are religious, and if they really are equally drawn to this idea, and the bible provides some comfort or reassurance, if it feels so right to them and feels so good that they feel it must be what God wants for them, so be it, let them go for it!


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrong way round in my view.

Yes, the husband should unequivocally be the HOH, but based on biblical teaching, I think he should be taking the spanking rather than giving it out. He should be her protector and ready and willing to take it for her. To me, there is nothing masculine about a man spanking his wife, but there is something definitely masculine about him presenting his posterior when asked to do so by his wife and taking what she gives him.

My wife and I are Bible-believers and this is how we do it. I am unequivocally the HOH, but every time before sex, she spanks me until she has gotten out of her system whatever is on her mind. I thoroughly recommend that other men try it this way: - it leads to great guilt- and stress-free sex afterwards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As usual, religion muddies the waters and unnecessarily complicates discussions that should be simple and factual.

1) Spanking between consenting adults is identical to spanking between religious consenting adults! Namely: Spanking between consenting adults.

2) If there is consent by the one being spanked, because it "feels right" for the person being spanked, then the additional designation of CDD is irrelevant and superfluous, since there is no distinction to DD. This is especially true, if the discipline is gender blind. In this case, the following rule applies: You happen to be both a subscriber to the DD lifestyle AND a subscriber to a religion, but you are NOT a subscriber to the DD lifestyle BECAUSE you are a religious person. In other words, the relation between the two lifestyles is not a causal one. The decision to “become” the spankee was made without manipulation!

3) If there is consent, because the (female) spankee subscribes to the age old Judeo-Christian view of male domination and female subjugation (by the male), especially when the bible (or any other religious book) says she should submit and this view is perpetuated by those around her, then she is being manipulated (even if she feels as though this is the right thing to do), possibly without knowing it. In this case the following applies: You are religious and subscribe to a male dominated religion AND THERFORE should submit to a male and if you are in a DD relationship the spanker MUST be the male. Meaning that there is a causal relationship between the two lifestyles! Here the extra designation of CDD actually does have a different meaning from DD: It no longer describes a setting where consent was given WITHOUT MANIPULATION. (The last sentence is crucial.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wrong way round in my view.

Yes, the husband should unequivocally be the HOH, but based on biblical teaching, I think he should be taking the spanking rather than giving it out. He should be her protector and ready and willing to take it for her. To me, there is nothing masculine about a man spanking his wife, but there is something definitely masculine about him presenting his posterior when asked to do so by his wife and taking what she gives him.

My wife and I are Bible-believers and this is how we do it. I am unequivocally the HOH, but every time before sex, she spanks me until she has gotten out of her system whatever is on her mind. I thoroughly recommend that other men try it this way: - it leads to great guilt- and stress-free sex afterwards.

There's nothing in the Bible that suggests either spouse shouod spank each other. However, I would find it highly confusing to be in a relationship in which the man claimed to be an 'HOH' and yet wanted me to spank him, I could not take him seriously at all. For me, the one who presents their posterior is the sunmissive one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There's nothing in the Bible that suggests either spouse shouod spank each other. However, I would find it highly confusing to be in a relationship in which the man claimed to be an 'HOH' and yet wanted me to spank him, I could not take him seriously at all. For me, the one who presents their posterior is the sunmissive one.

I don't really want to be doing that to my wife: - after all, I am supposed to be her protector. It doesn't seem very manly to me to dispense a spanking to someone who is weaker than me. To me, it feels masculine to be able to build up my resistance and take it without a wince.

I agree with the first part though. There is no specific mandate to do so, though I look to Jesus' example of being willing to suffer all manner of things. He submitted to it in apparent weakness, but he remains our heavenly king.

I wouldn't use the term "want" to be spanked. Rather, I would say I allow it to happen, having said I would rather this than the cold shoulder for several days after whatever has annoyed her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't really want to be doing that to my wife: - after all, I am supposed to be her protector. It doesn't seem very manly to me to dispense a spanking to someone who is weaker than me. To me, it feels masculine to be able to build up my resistance and take it without a wince.

I think this idea might make sense more when speaking of fighting or punching than disciplinary spanking.... o.O I can totally see a guy "Protecting" a girl, buy throwing himself in front of her if some guy was about to land a punch to the face or something... and it might seem a bit "Masculine" To be able to take a few punches in a fight without a wince....

But spanking isn't "Beating" It's not like punches or fist fights! If one is thinking of spanking on the same lines as that, I think there is something wrong or misunderstood... It's not something "bad" that one needs to become noble and take the heat in place of someone... It's not a pain-game...

Rather spanking should be loving, caring, and to *help* ...... neither party, not the husband, or the wife should be using spanking as a tool for revenge, to start beating someone senseless out of frustration.... as a way to "Get it out" It's not meant to put you as a human punching bag!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really want to be doing that to my wife: - after all, I am supposed to be her protector. It doesn't seem very manly to me to dispense a spanking to someone who is weaker than me. To me, it feels masculine to be able to build up my resistance and take it without a wince.

I agree with the first part though. There is no specific mandate to do so, though I look to Jesus' example of being willing to suffer all manner of things. He submitted to it in apparent weakness, but he remains our heavenly king.

I wouldn't use the term "want" to be spanked. Rather, I would say I allow it to happen, having said I would rather this than the cold shoulder for several days after whatever has annoyed her.

well, speaking for myself, my husband can stop me giving him the cold shoulder by acting decisively and giving me a good spanking. that tends to clear the air and puts me in a more cheerful and compliant state of mind. Spanking him would not induce those feelings, so it wouldn't work for me. i really prefer that he not let me get away with sulking, and take charge of the situation.

i don't really find it comparable with Jesus, since I don't equate crucifixion with spanking. jesus endured an unjust punishment for theological reasons. but spanking serves a different role in our relationship, it is something we have agreed to, so I don't find it unjust. if he was spanking me against my will, by force, then that would seem cruel and unmanly to me, but since we have agreed to this, in fact I suggested it, I see it as a means of improving our relationship and restablishing our roles. spanking him would not have the same effect.

But if this method works for you, that's great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the crucial thing is whether such a relationship is freely entred into by both parties. But the trouble is once you decide there is a theological reason for spanking, it takes away free will, if you believe it will displease God if you don't spank or get spanked, there isn't really freedom of choice any more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think this idea might make sense more when speaking of fighting or punching than disciplinary spanking.... o.O I can totally see a guy "Protecting" a girl, buy throwing himself in front of her if some guy was about to land a punch to the face or something... and it might seem a bit "Masculine" To be able to take a few punches in a fight without a wince....

But spanking isn't "Beating" It's not like punches or fist fights! If one is thinking of spanking on the same lines as that, I think there is something wrong or misunderstood... It's not something "bad" that one needs to become noble and take the heat in place of someone... It's not a pain-game...

Rather spanking should be loving, caring, and to *help* ...... neither party, not the husband, or the wife should be using spanking as a tool for revenge, to start beating someone senseless out of frustration.... as a way to "Get it out" It's not meant to put you as a human punching bag!

It doesn't involve being a human punching bag, as this implies I am co-erced into this, which I am not: - I could cease this way of doing things at any time, being the HOH. It is out of love and care that I go along with these stress-relief spankings. It is also for my correction though: - if I screw up, I voluntarily undergo this correction and take it like a man and improve the way I go about my role as HOH in future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the crucial thing is whether such a relationship is freely entred into by both parties. But the trouble is once you decide there is a theological reason for spanking, it takes away free will, if you believe it will displease God if you don't spank or get spanked, there isn't really freedom of choice any more.

I don't believe there is an explicit theological basis and I don't believe it would displease God to cease this, but I feel it is masculine for a man to take it without resistance like this, if only for his wife's stress relief, rather than for any specific wrongs.

It was freely entered into at my suggestion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
well, speaking for myself, my husband can stop me giving him the cold shoulder by acting decisively and giving me a good spanking. that tends to clear the air and puts me in a more cheerful and compliant state of mind. Spanking him would not induce those feelings, so it wouldn't work for me. i really prefer that he not let me get away with sulking, and take charge of the situation.

i don't really find it comparable with Jesus, since I don't equate crucifixion with spanking. jesus endured an unjust punishment for theological reasons. but spanking serves a different role in our relationship, it is something we have agreed to, so I don't find it unjust. if he was spanking me against my will, by force, then that would seem cruel and unmanly to me, but since we have agreed to this, in fact I suggested it, I see it as a means of improving our relationship and restablishing our roles. spanking him would not have the same effect.

But if this method works for you, that's great.

I suppose a husband could spank his wife for giving him the cold shoulder, but this seems like an unwillingness to face up to having upset his wife over something to me.

Of course, this can never be compared with crucifixion (Jesus' earthly sufferings were but a tiny proportion of his total suffering), but it was his general willingness to undergo suffering that I was referring to.

We also agreed to this, just like you agreed to your arrangement. In fact, this way of doing things was at my suggestion. Sex is supposed to be an expression of love and I enjoy being able to do it every time with any lingering resentment having been removed beforehand, hence my recommendation that other men try this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose a husband could spank his wife for giving him the cold shoulder, but this seems like an unwillingness to face up to having upset his wife over something to me.

Of course, this can never be compared with crucifixion (Jesus' earthly sufferings were but a tiny proportion of his total suffering), but it was his general willingness to undergo suffering that I was referring to.

We also agreed to this, just like you agreed to your arrangement. In fact, this way of doing things was at my suggestion. Sex is supposed to be an expression of love and I enjoy being able to do it every time with any lingering resentment having been removed beforehand, hence my recommendation that other men try this.

Well, if there has been a disagreement about something, and he feels he has been in the wrong, he will apologise. But if I keep sulking, he will act firmly to snap me out of it. This puts an end to the deadlock and banishes ill feeling.

I never feel that my situation in being spanked is similar to Jesus, since I tend to regard spanking as a positive thing in our lives, it reduces stress, relieves ill feeling, clears the air. It wouldn't feel that way if I spanked him though, for me it is impirtant that he takes an active rather than a passive role. I like to see him as the one in charge, the spanker, not the spankee. I just don't find passive men appealing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×