Christian Domestic Discipline

[Anise]

My apologies if this has been posted before: christiandomesticdiscipline.com

It's hilariously and shockingly disturbing. Behold:

"Part of the curse was that we would no longer easily follow our husband, but rather try to control him. Since we have a sin nature, we have a hard time submitting and willingly following, BUT we are still happiest when we do exactly that. CDD puts us back into the place where we can submit and willingly follow; thus, we are happy again. That is why we are so peaceful after discipline... why we can curl up in his lap and feel forgiven and clean, all our rebellion with all its ugliness gone."

"The concept of nonconsensual consent means that consent is given once in the beginning for the duration of the relationship, rather than specifically for each individual instance discipline is to be carried out."

Oh yeah, and they're totally not kinky: 'Those who don't practise CDD (and who never would), wag their fingers at "that thing we do" and claim that we are "quite right kinky". They surmise we are people who attempt to hide behind "lifestyle choices" or "religious beliefs."'

[ILoveJellybeans]

That is disturbing, especially because I bet these couples also spank their children.

[greek_chorus]

Maybe it's their kink and they just don't realize it? Perhaps they're unfamiliar with feelings of arousal. I started reading the post about My First Time and now my eyes need to be cleaned with bleach.

[NotALoserLikeYou]

You know, I have seen this posted in various places for years and have never been able to believe that it is real.

[treehugger]

:shock: WTF - The "Christian" version of BDSM complete with "Biblical proof"

I can't believe this is for real - but if that's your kink... whatever works I guess

ETA: I just hope this is only practiced between consenting adults - the problem with dragging all these Bible verses into it is that it lends itself to abuse

[FairyPrincessK]

Pretty sure this has been posted before and that someone determined it was either a spoof or a dressed up naughty site.

[lilith]

This has been posted here quite a few times.

[Buzzard]

This has been posted here quite a few times.

Yup. Its totally role play shit.

[OnceModestTwiceShy]

I will eat my hat if the originator of this idea was just kinky. There is approximately zero difference between the language on those sites and of non-Jesusy bdsm. However, I worry that some of these couples might actually think it is for real.

[OnceModestTwiceShy]

I will eat my hat if the originator of this idea was not kinky. There is approximately zero difference between the language on those sites and of non-Jesusy bdsm. However, I worry that some of these couples might actually think it is for real.

[2xx1xy1JD]

I normally don't care what adults do in the bedroom, but the "consensual non-consent" stuff is a real problem.

Consent = all good, close the door and have a good time.

No consent = rape/assault, go to jail

Don't confuse the 2 concepts. They are different. We no longer have laws that treat marriage as permanent consent to sex. Consent can revoked at any time.

[Lostie]

I normally don't care what adults do in the bedroom, but the "consensual non-consent" stuff is a real problem.

Consent = all good, close the door and have a good time.

No consent = rape/assault, go to jail

Don't confuse the 2 concepts. They are different. We no longer have laws that treat marriage as permanent consent to sex. Consent can revoked at any time.

This.

I know we've discussed this a few times in the past and it's always the "consensual non-consent" that really bothers me. I really don't care what others do in the bedroom as long as everyone consents to it and I don't care if they put consensual in front of it, it is still non-consent.

[lilith]

The difference is that kink couples are doing it with self awareness and mutual enjoyment. No kink community subs are submitting because they think God wants them too, and that revoking consent would be to go against God's wishes.

[valsa]

I normally don't care what adults do in the bedroom, but the "consensual non-consent" stuff is a real problem.

Consent = all good, close the door and have a good time.

No consent = rape/assault, go to jail

Don't confuse the 2 concepts. They are different. We no longer have laws that treat marriage as permanent consent to sex. Consent can revoked at any time.

I know of one BDSM couple who occassionally does "consensual non-consent". However, done properly, it is only done very, very carefully and in a very specific circumstance. For those who don't know, consensual non-consent is when the sub partner agrees to a sexual encounter/scene without a safe word/safe action that allows them to stop if they want to. It should only ever be a one-off circumstance (or else the sub partner should re-agree to it every time) and should only be used if both the dom and sub partners are very comfortable with the dom's knowledge of the sub's limits. I've never known of a case where it is a default all-the-time thing.

[Dinorah]

I've always assumed that it's basically the fundie version of kink.

Is it really a widespread phenomenon, anyway?

[2xx1xy1JD]

The difference is that kink couples are doing it with self awareness and mutual enjoyment. No kink community subs are submitting because they think God wants them too, and that revoking consent would be to go against God's wishes.

Exactly. WAY too close to abuse dynamics.

If people engage in clear role play - and it's clear that those are CHOOSING to do this at all times and can end it at any time through a safe word or signal - fine.

I'm not fine, though, with the whole concept that it is even possible to give consent once at the beginning of a relationship and have that override subsequent protests. That's far too close to old laws and attitudes that permitted marital rape and abuse.

I'm not fine with promoting this dynamic as something that is demanded by God. I don't know if this particular site is a spoof (at work right now and not about to look at it), but that idea IS promoted elsewhere and causes women to refrain from leaving or protecting themselves in abusive situations. As a lawyer, we then have to deal with the "why didn't she leave or object" question and explain the religious coercion at work.

I'm not fine with a man hurting a woman, over her protests, past the point that she is crying, when he has no way to know that her cries and protests are part of the scene and are not genuine. If it is not possible for her to express her lack of consent, then this action is a crime. It's the same with having sex with someone who is asleep or unconscious. What happens if the sub was initially ok with it, but the dom does something new, or it's more painful, or it feels like something is wrong?

Sorry if this makes life less exciting for those who want more realism in their scenes, but the law needs to clearly protect all of those who DON'T consent.

[valsa]

It's the same with having sex with someone who is asleep or unconscious.

Weirdly enough, I know several women (non-BDSM, just regular married women) who've been okay with their husband having sex with them while they're asleep. I've just never figured out how they could actually sleep through it.

[J'ean Skirt]

Pretty sure this has been posted before and that someone determined it was either a spoof or a dressed up naughty site.

I dunno. I have hung around the periphery of the BDSM scene for a while and one of the folks I know is involved in the Christian Discipline thing.

It's ... a little icky.

[Turtle]

I know of one BDSM couple who occassionally does "consensual non-consent". However, done properly, it is only done very, very carefully and in a very specific circumstance. For those who don't know, consensual non-consent is when the sub partner agrees to a sexual encounter/scene without a safe word/safe action that allows them to stop if they want to. It should only ever be a one-off circumstance (or else the sub partner should re-agree to it every time) and should only be used if both the dom and sub partners are very comfortable with the dom's knowledge of the sub's limits. I've never known of a case where it is a default all-the-time thing.

I've heard of "consensual non-consent" before too. I don't know if I'm just closed minded or what, but I just can't see how that's a good idea.

[Olive Plant]

Ok, so I enjoy sexual spanking and mild BDSM, but I would be PISSED AS HELL if my boyfriend spanked me for something in our everyday life that irritated him. That seems to be what this is about: teaching women not to do things that annoy their husbands under the guise of Biblical headship. To me there is a big difference in ACTUAL corporal punishment, which is what this is, and role-play within very specific parameters. Sure, both could maybe be kinky if done correctly, but actual corporal punishment of your wife is just... it makes me feel a bit ill.

If the husband does something the wife doesn't like, who's going to spank him, please? The elders? I'd like to see that.

[Anise]

What surprises me most about it is how the authors tend to divorce the act from its sexuality.

I wonder if the denial of the sexual nature of the act was not something learned from childhood. It can be uncomfortable dealing with sexual feelings from an act committed by a parent. Denying it is probably the easiest way of dealing with it.

[J'ean Skirt]

I've heard of "consensual non-consent" before too. I don't know if I'm just closed minded or what, but I just can't see how that's a good idea.

I can't necessarily understand it, either. But... I have to trust the people involved are adults and know what they're doing. If there is a problem and the person involved is a friend, I can be helpful and supportive and do what needs doing to get them out of the situation.

I read a couple of consensual non-consent blogs and there have been times I've wondered "are you really happy? is this really what you want" (Mostly when the top decides a life changing thing and the bottom isn't convinced and uses their blog to work things out). In one case the pair has been together 20+ years so something must be working.

If it were a friend I would take the opportunity to bring up my concerns, let the friend know I was totally supportive of them and their happiness and that I was a resource if needed.

YKIOKBINMK is one to live by.