Jump to content
IGNORED

How to Discipline your Wife


Lady

Recommended Posts

I assumed (maybe wrongly?) that it was consensual. I know they don't use safewords, but there are also people into non-fundy kink that don't have safewords (my understanding is that it's looked down upon, but still happens that people "choose" not to have safe words).

shrug. :think:

It specifically says that the wife cannot withdraw her consent before, during, or after the "event". It really sounds like abuse and nothing else. It's bothering me that people are just chalking it up to just "kink".

Just because it's "kinky" doesn't mean it's just "kink".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply

If it were kink, the rules would be mutually agreeable, and either party would be able to change his or her mind at any point and stop.

I'd like to see a book about how to discipline a husband.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kink. There's communities on fetlife (yes even tailored towards Christians!) devoted to the subject. There's also a kinky christian yahoo group. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/C_L_I_C_K/

Please explain how it's kink and not abuse as the wife cannot withdraw her consent.

Just because kink exists in Christian groups and this involves "spanking" does not mean that this is not abuse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please explain how it's kink and not abuse as the wife cannot withdraw her consent.

I don't think it's much different than BDSM couples who don't use safe words. Essentially, the wife consents to there being times when she cannot withdraw consent. Does it go against everything I'm personally comfortable with? Absolutely. Should it still be the woman's choice to engage in kink where she knows she cannot withdraw her consent at certain times? Yes. I'd also probably have a bigger issue with it if I didn't think that the woman protesting against it and saying "no" was all part of the kink.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are we sure that this isn't a spoof? The weird, MS Paint underlining at various points throughout the page make it hard for me to think it's serious. That and the absurdity of it all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know BDSM couples who play without safe words. I know other couples who will discipline is a safeword is used where one is not warranted (and on the other hand, I know couples who will discipline if one holds out on using a safeword where it is necessary!)

Humans run across a wide spectrum and what some couples choose may be different than what I would choose but I respect their right to choose it. I am less worried about the individual women (in this case) who give their consent and consent to being unable to withdraw their consent than I am about the person who might read this website and think a) God wants me to do this and I am bad/a sinner if I don't want to and b) the only way to do this is to give someone carte blanche/take complete control with no way of knowing if I'm going too far; and there's no turning around or going back ever the end amen. Neither of those things are at all true in the vast world of kink.

PS -- as for reenacting childhood abuse, I believe BDSMers are no more likely to have experienced abuse than the general population. It *really* is more of a case of these people needing to religiously justify what is just a diff'rent strokes lifestyle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I don't think this is always abuse I think it's very likely more times than not used as abuse. If one cannot remove consent it doesn't limit the other party from going too far and then claiming it was consensual because the person couldn't say no or it wouldn't be respected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It specifically says that the wife cannot withdraw her consent before, during, or after the "event". It really sounds like abuse and nothing else. It's bothering me that people are just chalking it up to just "kink".

Just because it's "kinky" doesn't mean it's just "kink".

Absolutely. Just as saying "I do" is no longer considered to be legal consent to sex for life, getting into kinky stuff is not and cannot be a blanket consent for a husband to beat his wife past the point that it is no longer fun for her, and she's crying and begging for it to end. It's not 'shrug'. It's assault. No means no.

I also question the voluntary nature of this once religion gets mixed in. In most cases, kinky people know that they are kinky, the rules of engagement are clear and people don't get involved in it unless it happens to be their thing. Once you bring in this religious stuff, though, the dynamic can change. There's a not-distant history of social acceptance of violence against women, and an ongoing history of teaching that ALL women - not just those into kinky stuff - must submit to their husband's authority. I don't think that there is necessarily enough distance to say that is so distinct that a woman won't be pressured into submitting to a beating when she doesn't genuinely want it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm guessing that there may be some couples for whom this is the religious excuse for doing what they want. I'm also pretty sure that there are some arrogant patriarchal bastards who are using this as an excuse for beating their wives over trivia. I've met a couple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly. I would only have a problem with it in a couple very specific instances-

1) If the woman didn't want it and the man pressured her.

2) If the man didn't want it and the woman pressured him.

3) If both the man and woman want it but with the man on the receiving end, which this philosophy doesn't allow.

Yup! Exactly. What two people do in their own bedroom... whatever, ya know?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it's much different than BDSM couples who don't use safe words. Essentially, the wife consents to there being times when she cannot withdraw consent. Does it go against everything I'm personally comfortable with? Absolutely. Should it still be the woman's choice to engage in kink where she knows she cannot withdraw her consent at certain times? Yes. I'd also probably have a bigger issue with it if I didn't think that the woman protesting against it and saying "no" was all part of the kink.

I've never met anyone into bdsm who don't use safewords, and thus unable to withdraw consent at any point in a scene. This is just patriarchal abuse. Again, I'm digusted when I read these things, but not surprised, at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I poked around a bit and would like to second the "what the fucking fuck?!" response as the author explains that if you don't spank your wife she'll divorce you, take the kids, keep the house, and generally be a horrible bitch.

http://www.christiandomesticdiscipline.com/monster.html

Funny, because if someone I was married to did try this shit on me, divorcing him, taking the kids, and keeping the house while generally being a horrible bitch would be exactly what I'd do. And I'm not inclined to any of that sort of thing before 'attempt to work it out' in practically any other situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I knew a couple who engaged in domestic discipline both as a kink and as a way of dealing with the problems in their relationship. It was mutual, though. They both disciplined each other. At any rate, they agreed not to revoke consent at the time of discipline, but there was implied consent just by being there, because they were both independent people who could have walked out and said "to hell with this." There wasn't a safe word at the moment per say, but there was always "fuck you, I'm leaving."

I'm skeptical that all "christian d/d" is kink-related. I suspect at least a few men just think this is the right thing to do. In other cases, it's probably the husband's kink but not hers. Typically, if both people have a kink to the same degree, it's because they sought each other out via the interwebz. Some of these fundies don't even know each other when they get married.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the looks of it, they describe situations where the husband may be holding the wife in place as she's struggling and crying, so she wouldn't be able to get up and walk away at that point.

I'll say it again: this is physically and legally hazardous.

What if she's genuinely in distress, but he's all caught up in the "discipline" and reacts to her protests by doing it harder and longer?

What if the discipline is more than she had anticipated, and she no longer wants to continue? What if she has doubts in the middle of a particularly bad session, ends up with tons of bruises, and heads to a women's shelter?

What would happen if courts recognized this "consensual non-consent" crap? How would you stop every defense lawyer from trying to use it in domestic violence and partner rape cases? Would it be, "oh, she stayed with him or returned to him, so that's proof of consent"?

I'm not objecting to consensual role-play - but the consent partg needs to be crystal-clear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the looks of it, they describe situations where the husband may be holding the wife in place as she's struggling and crying, so she wouldn't be able to get up and walk away at that point.

I'll say it again: this is physically and legally hazardous.

What if she's genuinely in distress, but he's all caught up in the "discipline" and reacts to her protests by doing it harder and longer?

What if the discipline is more than she had anticipated, and she no longer wants to continue? What if she has doubts in the middle of a particularly bad session, ends up with tons of bruises, and heads to a women's shelter?

What would happen if courts recognized this "consensual non-consent" crap? How would you stop every defense lawyer from trying to use it in domestic violence and partner rape cases? Would it be, "oh, she stayed with him or returned to him, so that's proof of consent"?

I'm not objecting to consensual role-play - but the consent partg needs to be crystal-clear.

Agree 100%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What would happen if courts recognized this "consensual non-consent" crap? How would you stop every defense lawyer from trying to use it in domestic violence and partner rape cases? Would it be, "oh, she stayed with him or returned to him, so that's proof of consent"?

They wouldn't, because ending up in court would pretty much negate the consent angle. Hitting someone without their consent if, of course, abuse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Along those lines, we have this, from a twisted branch of the Islam tree:

theblaze.com/stories/beat-by-hand-or-stick-islamic-marriage-guide-teaches-husbands-how-to-control-their-wives/

It's a marriage guide that instructs Islamic men how to beat their wives. And the book is so popular that the Toronto shopkeeper interviewed for this article can't keep it in stock.

When I was leaving christianity, I became very interested in what other religions had to say. I read the Bhagavad-Gita, the Teachings of the Buddha, and the Qur'an (in translation). Unfortunately, I had to put the Qur'an down after I read the Surah an-Nisa, in particular, this verse:

34. Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has made one of them to excel the other, and because they spend (to support them) from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in the husband's absence what Allah orders them to guard. As to those women on whose part you see ill-conduct, admonish them, refuse to share their beds, and beat them, but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance). Surely, Allah is Ever Most High, Most Great.

I got mad decided I wasn't going to continue with that one, because not even the Bible insisted on beating disobedient wives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know BDSM couples who play without safe words. I know other couples who will discipline is a safeword is used where one is not warranted (and on the other hand, I know couples who will discipline if one holds out on using a safeword where it is necessary!)

What in hell would you (or these couples you mention) define as safeword used when not warranted?

The very idea that somebody has the concept of a safeword, but judges and even punishes its use, makes me want to fucking puke.

Also, and again, this is not necessarily directed at you but it is for everyone who plays without a safeword or equivalent: generally, I don't care about what stupid shit people choose to do. You want to stick your fingers into the electrical outlet, go right ahead, it's your right. God knows I do unhealthy, gross, stupid shit I shouldn't do cause I want to anyway. Once, however, you start inflicting pain and distress on another person, you have a fucking obligation to play safe (or, you know, as safe as possible). You have to provide safeties and assurances and take on some fucking responsibility. Even if your partner says they don't want to be safe, if you take them by their word, you are an idiot and, far as I am concerned, scum too. Goes for the sub and the dom alike.

Yep, people do stupid fucking shit. Sometimes they're even lucky and it doesn't bite them in the ass. Doesn't mean it's right or good, and really fucking doesn't mean it's something to model or emulate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PS -- as for reenacting childhood abuse, I believe BDSMers are no more likely to have experienced abuse than the general population. It *really* is more of a case of these people needing to religiously justify what is just a diff'rent strokes lifestyle.

But in this particular case, assuming these people were raised in the fundie lifestyle, it does sound very much like the type of abuse the Pearls and the Dobsons and others promote. It's the whole ritualized corporal punishment that they most likely received as young children turned into a sexual fetish. I would be very surprised if most of these people hadn't undergone that type of abusive discipline.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I explored the CDD site and I have no words. I really did not know people like this existed. And by that I mean the women who claim to like and want this garbage. I just cannot imagine this...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.