Wednesday, January 16, 2008

Open Discussion on Domestic Discipline and Patriarchy


This is meant to be a placeholder post on the issue of domestic discipline and patriarchy. There is no article but the comments section could be quite long. This topic comes up inevitably on various patriarchy discussion, and the idea is to create a place for people to discuss this topic without any rules.
  • Be as explicit as you want
  • Feel free to ask questions, any questions and hopefully someone will answer
  • If you want to post anonymously please sign the post with some sort of fake handle to keep the various anonymous posters threads clear
If anyone shows up I'll try and see if I can get some people who are into DD to join the conversation.

There are thousands of weblinks on this topic a small sample:
Just so everyone knows my editorial bias:
  1. I consider DD to be part of the BDSM umbrella
  2. I don't consider the practice immoral or oppressive
  3. I see lots of evidence that what's going on is that CDDers are using patriarchy as a fantasy backdrop, to their play. That doesn't mean they may not genuinely believe in traditional roles and/or see these roles as biblically sanctioned.
  4. I think patriarchy has lots of D/S themes but I see no evidence that a large percentage of the woman involved are either sexually or non sexually masochistic.
Feel free to disagree with any of the above or raise any part of this topic.

__________

Addendum

Well the discussion deadlocked. I'm going to discuss this more in a future post. Moreover, in trying to achieve a goal to far I violated my own integrity regarding best possible sources by not including, the bondage.com link. I'm repenting and fixing that now
  • Taken in Hand an excellent support how/to site
  • An article and discussion on bondage.com (warning banner ads may be R/X)
  • Under Much Grace discussion (including because the discussion to be forking to there)
  • A website run by psychologists discussing the difference between BDSM and abuse (some nudity)

22 comments:

CD-Host said...

This comment is in response to Cindy's blog post on this thread.

My concerns about this involve neurophysiology and the fact that men (but not women) process sex and violence in the same regions in the brain. They are in close proximity to one another, and for those who have been abused, these two areas can "fuse" in the brain. So I believe that what takes place for a man who would engage in this behavior is very different from that which takes place for the woman.

My reading of the DD literature is that you pretty much see two types of woman that are into the DD:

1) Sexually Masochistic: woman that experience a type of sexual pleasure from spanking. For some the spanking is the major sex act and the penetrative sex is more for the husband. For others the spanking is foreplay and helps them get aroused enough to be orgasmic during sex. These are the ones that talk about "bratting" (i.e. deliberately breaking the rules and thus incur a spanking) when they want sex.

2) Submissives that seem to get their pleasure from the controlling aspects. Their excitement seems to focused on the acts of submission (standing in the corner after the spanking, knowing the husband is in control)....

Assuming you agree with the above how is this any different than what men experience as the bottom in a D/S relationship?

Cindy said...

My knowledge of sexual behavior from a clinical perspective is limited to what the individual experiences, and I will only discuss this matter with women. I don't even think about the interraction per se but rather the patterns of behavior and what about any behavior the person finds gratifying on an emotional level.

It just so happens that I attended a lecture on sex addiction at a conference in October, and the act itself is often not the most gratifying aspect but rather the ritual leading up to the act. The whole process is all about control and shame management. The same spectrum of emotion is also seen in women that self injure and also in eating disorders like bulimia.

Also, what I did not say in that comment was that sex, for the woman, is not localized in the brain like it is for the man. Nearly every region of the brain has some level of activity for women during sex, so it a much more complex process for a woman based on brain imaging. A recent book by Daniel Amen looks at some of these differences in "Sex on the Brain" and reviews gender differences and also relates these and other factors to the latest data we have from recent advances in functional brain imaging.

I don't understand what the last sentence means in that last comment, but I don't really want to know either. I don't approach this issue in that way or to elucidate that type of information. My concern regarding this topic is really limited to the overlay or fusing of sex which is a pleasurable experience with pain, anger or discipline through a pattern of abuse. These patterns are seen in the sexually abused, and I'm curious about how Christians might be deeming this as acceptable Christian conduct that is defended in Scripture.

In other words, I think that you run the risk of frightening off people by approaching the topic asking some of these more explicit questions.

CD-Host said...

OK you have clarified what you mean

Relax the last sentence was nothing bad or explicit. It means how is this different for a man that is the submissive partner in a dominant /submissive relationship. The reference wasn't to bottom in the homosexual sense. But you answered it below.

In other words, I think that you run the risk of frightening off people by approaching the topic asking some of these more explicit questions.

No one who reads my blog is under 18 (much as I wish I could reach teenagers) AFAIK. The group you are talking about usually has a bunch of kids. I think they've had their birds and their bees talk.

I'm being respectful for example bondage.com had a great discussion on CDD which I would have loved to link to, but I was afraid the banner ads might be a bit too explicit. I'd rather not dance around this topic, lets talk like adults and see who joins in. You attended lectures on sex addiction I don't think I'm going to get any more graphic than that probably was.

The same spectrum of emotion is also seen in women that self injure and also in eating disorders like bulimia.

I can buy that. Lots of masochists men and woman comment on how much the act of physical release corresponds to emotional release. So I'm assuming we agree on cutters and my type 1 DDers essentially having a similar reaction to the experience? If we assume so, then I'm hard pressed to see how DD isn't substantially better than the other alternatives to achieve that release. Bulimia is incredibly destructive, with cutting its hard to up the pain without doing real damage. On the other hand the gluts are covered fatty material and a very think layer of skin, under that big muscles.... You can achieve quite a bit of pain with no real damage nor permanent injury.

My concern regarding this topic is really limited to the overlay or fusing of sex which is a pleasurable experience with pain, anger or discipline through a pattern of abuse. These patterns are seen in the sexually abused,

Well it depends what you mean during the abuse or long after? No question masochism often comes from abuse (emotionally, physically or sexually) parents. But where I'm disagreeing is that DD is abusive itself. It seems to meet the SSC criteria (safe, sane, consensual) .

I'm curious about how Christians might be deeming this as acceptable Christian conduct that is defended in Scripture.

Most of the DD woman feel (type 2 here) they are unable to submit without physical stimulation. Also both types seem to express that spanking enhances their ability to submit and furthers their love for their partner. It helps to relate to him in a non equal way. If you assume submission is desirable and you have a woman who indicates she is having trouble doing it. It seems logically consistent.

Even men and woman who have no ideology of submission agree that SM sex tends to make them much more appreciative and tuned into their partner. Lets approach this from the other direction. What is scripture prohibits SM?

Cindy said...

Actually, the sex addiction workshop was not graphic at all. Because it is so ritualistic, that was the most provocative aspect of the discussion. The goal, like with any other addict is to identify the underlying shame and get control of behavior.

Regarding cutting, it is not about pain but about dissociation. In a sense, that is what any addiction is about -- escape. It's all just a matter of one's drug of choice.

I would say that all scriptures would prohibit S/M. Especially Ephesians 5, late in the chapter. Man, if anything, is to lay down his life and bear punishment for the wife if need be. The golden rule would certainly prohibit it too. Having not really given it any more thought beyond that, I don't know.

CD-Host said...

Regarding cutting, it is not about pain but about dissociation. In a sense, that is what any addiction is about -- escape. It's all just a matter of one's drug of choice.

I buy that but the pain is the means to achieve those effects. Insufficient pain and you don't get the high.

I would say that all scriptures would prohibit S/M. Especially Ephesians 5, late in the chapter.

That's the one that gets quoted by them.

Man, if anything, is to lay down his life and bear punishment for the wife if need be. The golden rule would certainly prohibit it too.

How, "honey will you do that sex thing that really turns me on". What man wouldn't want the do unto others part of that?

Meloff said...

CD-
I am truly sorry to have disappointed you (or anyone else) with my "outcry." In the interest of full disclosure, I did email Karen offline to alert her to the topic, only. This was after coming to your site and following some of the links. Even the ones that you did not label as “R” rated led to some sites/discussions that I certainly would not call “PG” and presented images that I’m sorry I saw. Nonetheless, I did not ask Karen to take it off the thread. If there was going to be discussion about it, there was going to be discussion.

However, I see a clear responsibility to my sisters in Christ and in particular to those that are not as strong in the faith. The Bible is clear that we should not push them into things that are beyond them. I have no way of knowing who is weaker (and truly even that I am “stronger”) and so I know that may sound rather presumptive. But as I post from time to time on TW, I did not want to waste time or beat around the bush about something that I find utterly abominable and no more "Christian" (or Biblical) than handling snakes.

Personally, I think there *are* topics that truly are not fruitful - that can get a quick “up/down” vote, as it were. Paul in 1 Timothy 1: 3 - 6 writes:

“As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. These promote controversies rather than God's work—which is by faith. The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. Some have wandered away from these and turned to meaningless talk.”

*****************************
One of the authors that you link to (I’m not going to go back to figure out which one) wrote that women need the physical discipline so that they can be cleansed of their rebellion/disobedience/sin - whatever you want to call it. This is Biblical hogwash. Calling the man in this case the HOH and saying that this gives him the right to mete out said punishment and thereby mete out forgiveness of sin is blasphemy. It is putting the responsibility for the salvation of the woman on the man. And it forever keeps the woman from being what she is in Christ: a co-heir and part of the Royal Priesthood.

What leads to repentance? Romans 2:4 says, “Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you toward repentance?”

What causes a woman to carry around guilt? (one of the other reasons advanced for DD in the sense that it is better to spank her to tears rather than let her carry around guilt) 2 Corinthians 7, “Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation and leaves no regret, but worldly sorrow brings death.” So the kind of “guilt” that a Christian woman would continue to carry around does not come from God. When God forgives, it is gone, forgotten. Psalm 103, “For as high as the heavens are above the earth, So great is His lovingkindness toward those who fear Him. As far as the east is from the west, So far has He removed our transgressions from us. “ (the whole Psalm is beautiful)

To whom should we as women appeal to for forgiveness? Our husbands? 1 John 1:9 “If we confess our sins, He (God) is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”

Never, ever, ever in Scripture is the Husband responsible for disciplining and then granting forgiveness or absolution from sin for his wife. Neither are parents (more specifically fathers) ever given this for their children.

***********************
From a completely non-religious viewpoint, this is either abuse that has been dressed up or it is sex that has been dressed down. But either way, it is sick, in my opinion. I’m so offended (NOT by you asking for discussion, or that it is simply done, but) that there are people that do this and call it Biblical. I’m offended as a woman and I’m offended as a part of the Bride of Christ, as a daughter of the Most High God. But mostly, I am disgusted that there are those who would try to present it as a Biblical practice.

You wrote in post 518, “Everyone involved in topic X are Christians (primarily woman) claiming to be performing a Christian practice to better serve God and family.” Matthew 7 makes it clear that there will be those who claim to be Christians and who will do a lot of things “in the name of Jesus” who will be turned away with “I never knew you.” The Lord rebuke the teachers of this in the name of Jesus. I pray that the husbands and wives may find true forgiveness where it is truly found - in Christ alone.

I’m sorry - this probably is a very strong-sounding post, once again. There are just some things that to me are so clearly defined that I cannot be anything but strong about them. But my anger is truly directed toward the teachers of this heresy and how they would lead other others astray through it.

While I’m not saying that it would be “fine” with me, if Karen decides to repost the original comments (which is her prerogative as the “owner”), I’m certainly not going to go stomping off if that is her decision. :-)

Pax,
Mel

Meloff said...

Well, CD, as I take my foot out of my mouth, I went back to check and indeed I did ask her to "consider deleting [your] comment". But I honestly don't think I carry that kind of "weight." In fact, I'm sure I do not! Maybe upon consideration Karen will decide it is appropriate for her thread.

I'm truly sorry for misrepresenting that. Again, if she decides to put it back up, I'll probably be doing my share of discussing it.

Again, I'm sorry - not trying to stifle "free speech" just this topic leaves me absolutely stunned that anyone (even in Patriarchy-land) could consider it Biblical.

With kind regards,
Mel

CD-Host said...

Mel --

Glad you came here to discuss this! If I remember the original you were surprised that I linked to it something along the lines "he's provided good information before...". So here is my answer, Church Discipline is not meant to be an edifying blog. I've never claimed that, and I wouldn't want to limit the topics in a way that would be edifying. What I am for is factual accuracy and completeness in coverage with regard to Christian discipline.

As I mentioned above I'm willing to be sensitive as long as it doesn't interfere with those two goals of completeness and accuracy but never at their expense. The discussions I linked to are some of the more mild ones. Further its actually milder than other stuff on this blog which is why I found reaction to be surprising if you are a regular reader. As I mentioned on TW the most offensive (at least to me) book I've linked to was Gui's inquisitors manual (lets call it NC-17) which is just page after page of horrors. But this is a great example because it contained a crucial references on the religious practices of the Beguines which you'll remember I needed to argue the Beguines were proto-protestants. In other words I'll try and limit links for a Christian audience but in the end evidence is more important to me than edification and I'll include even material I think deserves an NC-17. In my major posts there is also mention of golden showers, lesbian incest, ritualized adultery, suicide, prostitution, swinging... This is adult blog. I've never claimed anything else and if ever led you to believe that I censor rather than explore a topic in Church Discipline I apologize for that. If it is any consolation the one of the best link on Domestic Discipline I found was on bondage.com but I was worried about the banner adds so I felt that I could safely skip it.

So I felt to you objecting to me not doing something that I had even implied I wouldn't do. As far as writing Karen, I suspected as much but thank you for taking ownership of the act.

From a completely non-religious viewpoint, this is either abuse that has been dressed up or it is sex that has been dressed down

That is actually my point. I'm arguing its just sex that has been dressed down. I'm not sure what sick about it, I happen to think its kind of cute... But I'm fairly tolerant.

I see a clear responsibility to my sisters in Christ and in particular to those that are not as strong in the faith. The Bible is clear that we should not push them into things that are beyond them

I'm trying to ask this in a way that doesn't sound sarcastic and I'm not being successful. So please ignore the tone and treat this question as serious....
TW has a customer base that have had kids. I don't think a discussion of spanking as foreplay is going to be outside their experience level, do you? What are you protecting them against?

One of the authors that you link to (I’m not going to go back to figure out which one) wrote that women need the physical discipline so that they can be cleansed of their rebellion/disobedience/sin - whatever you want to call it. This is Biblical hogwash. Calling the man in this case the HOH and saying that this gives him the right to mete out said punishment and thereby mete out forgiveness of sin is blasphemy.

I agree with you, including the blasphemy part. Moreover I'd agree that just about any Christian knows that. The theology is obviously a ritualized pseudo-Christian theology, far enough from any sort of mainstream Christianity that it would be hard to imagine a mainstream Christian believing to be true. Moreover, most of the DDers belong to mainstream churches . So you can conclude one of several things:
1) They don't really believe that
2) They aren't really conservative Christians
3) They are kind of stupid
4) Some combination of 1-3.

Since they are fairly articulate lets rule out #3. And now you see where I'm going. What I think is really happening is:

a) They believe in orthodox Christian doctrine
b) They have sexual fantasies about redemption through personal suffering
c) They verbalize those fantasies using quasi Christian language
d) They are well aware their verbalizations are not orthodoxy nor do they represent their real beliefs.

You can tell this by the fact that all keep their kids out of the DD relationships. This is completely opposite of what you see in the Gothard / Phillips type churches where they socialize their children into their heresies.


I’m sorry - this probably is a very strong-sounding post, once again. There are just some things that to me are so clearly defined that I cannot be anything but strong about them. But my anger is truly directed toward the teachers of this heresy and how they would lead other others astray through it.


Mel I really don't think anybody is being led astray. And every time this comes up that's my point. Its a healthy outlet for things that if they got suppressed would express much more destructively in the Gothard / Phillips world. Where the heresies are real and the damage is more than a sore butt.

While I’m not saying that it would be “fine” with me, if Karen decides to repost the original comments (which is her prerogative as the “owner”), I’m certainly not going to go stomping off if that is her decision. :-)

I think its important for Karen to make that choice. Its a fundamental choice. Is your God a God of truth or one that hides from Truth. Doug Phillip's God has to scurry like a rat terrified of truth, and Doug talks about this frequently that confronted with non cultic literature how you will corrupted. You've seen this discussed his doctrine that everything not explicitly holy is satanic. Karen (and you I suspect) have to decide for yourself which God you want to worship. Is your God the one that set the Earth in rotation about the Sun or the one that burned Copernicus?

What she did was took down a discussion which she herself had taken part in so that other people wouldn't know this topic has come up before. That's the sin of pride in my book, not caution for weaker believers.

And if that is the case, then I'm not sure what her meaningful objection to Doug can be. He burns almost the right books but not quite?

Peace,
CD-Host

Annie C said...

Interesting discussion topic CD-Host, I was wondering if it was ever going to come up.

Now before I even play catch up (and will someone please clue me in on what I missed on the other blog) I have to turn this on it's head. And I'll take it directly to you, CD-Host, since from what I have read so far you and I might be the only ones who have been concerned with the patriarchal movement and have some familiarity with the BDSM lifestyle.

How much of the current rise in the popularity of BDSM, or the BDSM lifestyle, do you think, can be traced to women/couples wanting a more traditional to outright patriarchal relationship without the religious baggage and not supported in any other context in the modern US?

CJ said...

Here's the Phil Kent essay on discipline of wives. The McDonalds used to link to Phil's site from their Patriarch's Path website:

I don’t want to discuss it either, but in investigating the various aspects of the Patriarchy movement, I found plenty of evidence of this.

The old Patriarch’s Path website used to link to the Phil Kent Family website.
Here is what Mr. Kent had to say on the matter:

Does a Husband Have the Right to Discipline His Wife?

This was a question on the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood forum in early May, 2000.

Mike Klos answers, “No, the husband does not have a right to discipline his wife, he has the responsibility to.”

I totally agree that the husband, as the spiritual leader for the entire home, have a responsibility to discipline both his wife and his children.

Someone suggested these definitions for Discipline:

To train by instruction and practice, especially to teach self-control to.
To teach to obey rules or accept authority.
To punish in order to gain control or enforce obedience.
To impose order on: needed to discipline their study habits.
I do not believe that these definitions fit the above question well. I do not agree that any Biblical definition of discipline should ever include the word “punishment”. I believe that punishment is a word that communicates the wrong thoughts in our day and age, and is best avoided. It is my understanding that most Christians parents move away from corporal discipline as the child get older. The one area where we still continue to use corporal discipline with my older children is in the area of rebellion. If you are interested in learning more about Biblical discipline and instruction for children, I would highly recommend the book Shepherding a Child’s Heart by Ted Tripp. A review of the book is available at: http://www.bravewc.com/sis/reviews/shepherding.htm. Ted Tripp is a Reformed Baptist pastor in PA.

As I understand it, the Biblical church does not use corporal discipline with church members. It seeks to train, and help members to understand what God requires of them. Rebellious church members are disciplined by removing them from church membership (Matt 18, 1 Cor 5).

Discipline should include some form of corrective influence, but the more important aspect of Biblical discipline is training. Without this training (pay me now) we will have many problems (pay me later). If your wife does not understand the importance of Biblical Roles for men and women, there will much she will need to learn. I know that there is much I need to learn, and to regularly practice as I assume my responsibilities as a servant leader in my home.

If my wife was to blatantly go against my authority, I would seek to understand her point of view, before I begin to try and help her understand what I want and expect from her. God has given us our wives to help us, and we men are foolish to not listen to them, and consider their wants and needs. However, God holds men accountable for leading their families. If we believe that our wife is continuing to sin, and we are at an impasse with them, we should seek help from spiritual brothers and sisters (Matt 18). The failure to discipline rebellion will have serious impacts on those who are aware of the situation, especially our children. I believe this is why God dealt harshly with rebellion.

My experience has taught me that I would have had an easier time being a spiritual leader in my home, and had less problems with my wife and children, if I had been more faithful earlier in my marriage and parenting. I’ve only myself to blame as I seek to discipline myself and my family to live Biblical lives.

As the marriage is a covenant relationship, I believe we should draw our conclusions on the restoration of other covenant relationships in the Bible. We should continue to love our wives as Hosea loved Gomer, and as God love Israel. And yet we should never back down from where we believe God is leading us.

However, there are many minor concerns that should be overlooked and given over to God. If she fails to put the cap back on the toothpaste, don’t get upset about it. It’s not important! If we feel that we need to correct every problem in our spouse, we will be in for a never ending battle.

To summarize my thoughts:

Discipline should include both training and correction.
God holds men responsible for spiritually leading his entire family, and this includes discipline.
Discipline should match the age and maturity of the one needing discipline.
I ask God’s wisdom on all of us as we seek to better understand His will for our lives.

Phil Kent

philkent@erols.com

http://www.erols.com/philkent

Annie C said...

"Calling the man in this case the HOH and saying that this gives him the right to mete out said punishment and thereby mete out forgiveness of sin is blasphemy."

"This is completely opposite of what you see in the Gothard / Phillips type churches where they socialize their children into their heresies."


OK, I agree. But we have already agreed (I think, and correct me if I'm wrong) that

1) The patriocentrists believe that women can only approach God/worship God/learn about faith/learn about correct behavior/and so on through the Patriarch of their house, be it their husband or father in the case of single women.

2) It is the responsibility of the parents, predominantly the father, to discipline the children. Including physical discipline.

Really, how big of a step is it from those two to say it's the Patriarchs/father's/husband's responsibility to discipline the adult women in the house? I mean, at what point does disciplining your children end? When they hit puberty? When they turn 18? Both of those would be sanctioned by the culture, but they reject that culture, do they not? And when do you know your child is an adult when they make none of the usual major transitions to adult, they never leave home, they never go to college, graduation is in name only, they never even vote or get a driver's license. The one marker left is marriage, and again, how big a step is it for the authority for physical discipline to pass from patriarch to groom at the wedding?

And another thing, CD-Host, while I agree that the sites you link to look to be BDSM wrapped in Christian calico if the patriocentrists do cross that line, they have no knowledge of SSC guidelines. Is safewording a sin before god because you're questioning you husband? Can you say you're consenting when your salvation resides on you being a good wife and obeying your husband? How do you know what's "sane" when your sexual education had been limited, to the point of being discouraged to even think about the other sex until your courtship or betrothal? And does it really set a good or bad example to have the children witness father disciplining mother? Or eldest sister?

CD-Host said...

Annie C --

Now before I even play catch up (and will someone please clue me in on what I missed on the other blog)

Sorry I don't recognize the handle so I not sure which blog you mean. Jen's about 6 months ago, TW or SGUncensored?

I have to turn this on it's head. And I'll take it directly to you, CD-Host, since from what I have read so far you and I might be the only ones who have been concerned with the patriarchal movement and have some familiarity with the BDSM lifestyle.

How much of the current rise in the popularity of BDSM, or the BDSM lifestyle, do you think, can be traced to women/couples wanting a more traditional to outright patriarchal relationship without the religious baggage and not supported in any other context in the modern US?


You are going to disagree with me strongly but I'm not sure there has been a rise in popularity in BDSM lifestyle. What I think happened was the mainstreaming of porn in the early 1970s taught a huge number of BDSMers a common language and style of expression. The homosexual component of the BDSM crowd rode the gay liberation of the 1970s into "coming out" and then made it possible for heterosexuals into BDSM to come out. Then the sex education craze hit and along with oral and anal sex other types of sex play got popular among even people who weren't into fulltime BDSM. in 1991(?) Odyssey the first adult discussion for comes out suddently BDSM have a way to get in touch with another. Then AOL in 1995... Now with broadband internet you have BDSM porn widely available. But I don't really see a rise in the BDSM lifestyle what I think I see is:

1) More open acknowledgment
2) Its become much more social
3) There is a much much wider degree of people incorporated aspects of BDSM into their everyday sex lives.

1954 is the story of O, which gets reviews even in Newsweek. By 1963 you have an International block buster, "The Whip and the Body" and this explores a woman who can't achieve erotic fulfillment in a vanilla relationship. Now for this to be a box office smash 1963 audiences needed to have familiarity with the theme (especially since they had to be very indirect about the references).

OK, whew. That's my answer. I'm ready for you to completely disagree.

Now where I would agree with you is DD I think came directly from the collapse of traditional relationships. Female submissives are probably having a harder time establishing a submissive relationship. Spanking IMHO is almost always a woman's fetish, which is why I'm almost positive its the woman that are driving the creation of these DD relationships.

As far as the ties between patriarchy and BDSM its been a frustrating search for me. The ties seem obvious but every time I try and come up with a theory it keeps being disproved... In this post I expressed this but I'm not sure the SGers got it. You sound like you might be able to help and I could use the help. I'm stuck.

CD-Host said...

nd another thing, CD-Host, while I agree that the sites you link to look to be BDSM wrapped in Christian calico if the patriocentrists do cross that line, they have no knowledge of SSC guidelines. Is safewording a sin before god because you're questioning you husband? Can you say you're consenting when your salvation resides on you being a good wife and obeying your husband? How do you know what's "sane" when your sexual education had been limited, to the point of being discouraged to even think about the other sex until your courtship or betrothal? And does it really set a good or bad example to have the children witness father disciplining mother? Or eldest sister?

Annie --

I like you! Great question. I see no evidence of sexual ignorance among the CDD crowd. Their blogs and seem to show a causal awareness of BDSM literature and the wider community. Further the BDSM community likes DD stuff so unlike the more mainstream Christian blogs they actually get non Christian hits and posters. In a funny way there might be an evangelism opportunity here :-)

I'm pulling this out of air, but I'd imagine if the woman were drawn to non mainstream erotica that would have forced them to abandon the approved reading list and got that into the cultural mainstream.

As far as SSC. My basic feel is:

Safe / Sane = spanking is very very safe. The butt of an adult woman is a very thick set of layer of skin with lots of fat, a very large group of muscles that are ligaments designed to withstand punishment and then the huge hip bones. Its pretty hard to do any real damage

Besides they don't even seem to play till they bleed (one exception I could find where the woman when she was "really bad" got spanked with wire) this sounds very mild. And remember they do all sorts of sensual after care.

Consensual = This one is tricky. Clearly the DDers do seem to take breaks. The husbands don't seem to be using much force to hold the wives into the spankings. Most of the spankings are preceding by "bratting" which is there word for doing something deliberately to provoke it.
This looks to me like standard D/S stuff using a Christian encoding. I don't really see any evidence of genuinely non consensual play and lots of evidence that they have the same sorts of cycles as everyone else into long term BDSM relationships.
The woman don't seem to express any hesitation in wanting to take breaks. The "sin" stuff seems to be for them in game.

Does that make sense?

CD-Host said...

Really, how big of a step is it from those two to say it's the Patriarchs/father's/husband's responsibility to discipline the adult women in the house? I mean, at what point does disciplining your children end? When they hit puberty? When they turn 18? Both of those would be sanctioned by the culture, but they reject that culture, do they not? And when do you know your child is an adult when they make none of the usual major transitions to adult, they never leave home, they never go to college, graduation is in name only, they never even vote or get a driver's license. The one marker left is marriage, and again, how big a step is it for the authority for physical discipline to pass from patriarch to groom at the wedding?

Annie --

If a man is trying to terrorize an adult woman into obedience the last place he is going to hit her is the butt. He's going to pick something this is much more painful given the level of external bruising and where she muscle is going to be enough. For example the shoulder, or the elbow which is why in domestic violence you see spiral fractures all the time where the abuser pushed just a little further than the agony point.

The type of behavior is just inconsistent with domination by violence. Spanking just doesn't hurt that much and the effects don't last very long. For a young child it may be enough but even parents that believe in corporate punishment don't use spanking much beyond 5-9 or so. They either have to escalate or stop.

Meloff said...

Thank you, CD, for welcoming me and not blasting me about the comment deletion - for which you probably could have.

About your blog - I actually have not read much of it, but I have read a lot of what you've written in other places, and that was what I was referring to. And I have always appreciated your desire for the truth and your clarity in what you write.

I can’t remember what I originally wrote on the TW blog either and didn’t make a copy anywhere else. Thank you for the opportunity to try and say something that comes even remotely close to what I’m thinking and trying to put into words.

When I talk about protecting “weaker” sisters - this is not a matter of censorship. There is much imagery in Scripture that compares new Believers to babies, needing milk. And we are not to stay in that state - we are supposed to mature and move onto more mature things.

I remember having a conversation with an uncle a few years back who was giving me grief for homeschooling. IHO,I needed to put my kids in school where they could be in touch with “reality.”

Well, we’ve lived in places where “reality” is not pretty. I’ve seen a lot of “reality.” So I asked my uncle about, for instance, taking my kids down to the local red light section one Friday night and letting them sit and watch what was going on. Or maybe we could go hang out in the ER on a Saturday night. (I think you probably know where I’m headed here). The point I made with my uncle is there are “levels” of reality. I have no desire for my kids to grow up in a bubble. (Bubbles always get popped, anyway.)

However, I do believe that I must make that introduction with reality a more stair-stepped event. Sometimes it is thrust upon them and we have no choice but to deal with it (like being greeted by unhappy soldiers with automatic weapons when we were in a foreign country, or being intimately involved in the illness and death of our beloved Memaw). But the rest of the time, by God’s mercy and with His wisdom (James 1:5) I think we protect very hard when they are young and gradually introduce them to “reality” as they mature.

I don’t think it is any accident that Jesus describes becoming a Christian as a “new birth.” And then in other places in Scripture the Spiritual growth of a believer is described as I wrote above. And I don’t think maturity is necessarily a matter of years as it is a *Spiritual* maturation process. But I don’t think it happens over night either.

Onto your question (which I did not take as sarcastic at all): “ TW has a customer base that have had kids. I don't think a discussion of spanking as foreplay is going to be outside their experience level, do you? What are you protecting them against?”

No, I don’t think a discussion of spanking as foreplay is going to be outside their experience level. I can imagine that most husbands/wives have probably at least joked about it. What I’m concerned about is that as “weaker” sisters go to these sites and read twisted Scripture that “backs up” the practice as somehow being ordained by God.

Many of the women who come to TW left Patriarchy or some other cult-like authoritarian church a long time ago. But some are not that far removed.

When someone has not been removed very long from an abusive situation it is very hard to discern, “just what is truth? just what is right?” I watched this in my own community with the breakup of Trinity Baptist Church when NCFIC director, and “elder” Scott Brown was disciplined for abuse of his authority. As people began to unpack his teachings and saw them for the falsities and twisting of Scripture that they were - there were some that were for a season devastated. It was hard to even pick up a Bible. Where did the truth end and the lie begin? It took time and an outpouring of God’s love to start to wash away the lies. But, to go back too early and revisit some of the teachings (via archived sermons) was almost like drinking the koolaid again. Should this not at least be warned about?

Cindy has written what it is like for physical abuse - the battered wife syndrome. I can attest to “battered child” syndrome. Hopefully there is healing and a moving on and the ability to re-visit the past and be able to say, “Boy was that a lie, and look! Here’s another, and another. . . .” But again, that doesn’t happen overnight.

However, I am not the Messiah. :-) And so, maybe I was wrong to protest. I really have no answer for that. I think that given a second chance I would probably be nearly as “outraged.” But I hope I would direct it more clearly toward those who would call this practice “Biblical”. I don’t want to shoot the messenger. Please forgive me - if that is what I did, I will more than gladly go back to TW and ask your forgiveness there!

About gods and God. There is only one God. “Hear, O Israel! The Lord is our God, the LORD is one!” (Deut. 6:4). It may be a matter of semantics, but Doug Phillips does not have “a” God. He has a false belief in who God is.

None of us will ever know God completely here on this earth. Two pieces of Scripture come to mind: first from Paul, who after years of ministry and who met the Lord Jesus himself (and Jesus said about Himself, “he who has seen me has seen the Father”) said that he desired to “know Him, and the power of His resurrection” and went on to tell that he had not yet attained such a thing, but that he was ever reaching forward, pressing on. (Phil 3: 10 - 14).

Secondly is 1 Corin. 13:12 “For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known.” which gives us the real hope, the surety, that we can and will know God fully when we see Him face to face.

God is certainly not afraid of truth. Jesus said “I am the way and the truth.” Romans 3:3 & 4, “What then? If some did not believe, their unbelief will not nullify the faithfulness of God, will it? May it never be! Rather, let God be found true, though every man be found a liar. . . “

As a child of God, I have no need to be afraid of truth. Even of the truthful things that take me outside of my “comfort zone.” You are 100% correct in this.

However, can everyone handle “all” of reality? Is “right now” the best time to jump into just anything? Can it be said, “this is not the time for X” but not mean it is *never* the time for “X.”

And, again, I just think there are some things that don’t need a lot of discussion. I didn’t not say they don’t ever need to be addressed - they just don’t need a whole of dissection to know they are rotten.

As for the last comment, “ What she did was took down a discussion which she herself had taken part in so that other people wouldn't know this topic has come up before. That's the sin of pride in my book, not caution for weaker believers.”

I cannot speak for Karen’s motivation, but I have not seen “pride” of this type in her. I know my motivation is what I have explained it to be.

Perhaps you are correct, CD, in that no one would ever be led astray by this kind of teaching. But I never thought there would be mainstream (or even close) teachers out there who would fall in to Patriarchy.

All the Best,

Mel

CD-Host said...

Mel --

Thank you again for taking the time to articulate your position. In terms of kids I understand, I have them too. Now in terms of weaker sisters:

No, I don’t think a discussion of spanking as foreplay is going to be outside their experience level. I can imagine that most husbands/wives have probably at least joked about it. What I’m concerned about is that as “weaker” sisters go to these sites and read twisted Scripture that “backs up” the practice as somehow being ordained by God. Many of the women who come to TW left Patriarchy or some other cult-like authoritarian church a long time ago. But some are not that far removed.
When someone has not been removed very long from an abusive situation it is very hard to discern, “just what is truth? just what is right?”


First off I'm glad the problem is simply heresy not sex. So lets dig in.

1 day after your baptism would you have found Sir Don's analysis of marital relations compelling? And if not why do you suppose another young Christian would even one recently from Doug Phillips. We both agreed that Sir Don's analysis was so obviously full of wholes that it didn't even warrant being seriously addressed, in fact so far full of holes that I was questioning whether he even meant it to be taken seriously.

After you answer, let me extend your complaint a bit. This blog is on church discipline , I link to heretics all over the place. Moreover many of them are well reasoned articulate bright thinkers who make compelling arguments. This blog is also cross denominational, I link off freely to Mormon sites, to Catholic sites, to liberal Christians sites, to Jehovah Witness sites. Since you mentioned patriarchy lets use that one as an example. In part 3 of defense, I aimed to show what was the church's position on marital sexuality during the 4th-5th century. And so I present Jerome, the greatest bible translator ever; Augustine, one of if not the greatest theological philosophers; and Ambrose who is no slouch either. We aren't talking here about Sir Don the spanking fetishist, these men can write and can defend their position quite well. In the text I explain careful and in detail their views and then I link off to expanded treatments of their views. Worse yet, Jerome argues for this position via a style of biblical exposition that modern protestants would find compelling.

And Jerome's position is that marital sexuality is permanently and irrevocably damaging to one's relationship with God. Now just to compound this problem not only do I present their arguments, I indicate that these were upheld by the authorities of their day: Council of Milan, Council or Rome and the Emperor and this being upheld was against a view considerably more moderate than the one you would uphold. To even further compound it, the chapter ends by noting that it was Attila the Hun that primarily discredited those views, not someone the baby Christian is likely to hold in high regard. And since this was a defense against Patriarchy and not a defense against Catholicism there isn't one word indicating disapproval of this position. All I show is that the patriarchist claims about history are demonstrably false. I make no attempt to clarify what the "correct" position is or should be.

This blog is not edifying, it was never meant to be. It was meant to be informative and accurate. Karen knew this. I can understand if you weren't a more frequent reader that you might not have. But then again this blog is about Church Discipline, and the meatest cases are heresy cases....

As a child of God, I have no need to be afraid of truth. Even of the truthful things that take me outside of my “comfort zone.” You are 100% correct in this.... And so, maybe I was wrong to protest. I really have no answer for that. I think that given a second chance I would probably be nearly as “outraged.” But I hope I would direct it more clearly toward those who would call this practice “Biblical”. I don’t want to shoot the messenger. Please forgive me - if that is what I did, I will more than gladly go back to TW and ask your forgiveness there!

Well thank you for asking. I'm not sure what you are asking me to forgive. On the charge that this blog isn't edifying I've agreed with you quite strongly. I haven't disputed it in any way. So there is no need for an apology, guilty as charged. On the heat I wasn't upset to begin with, I started this thread on my blog because every-time this topic came up there was more heat than light, I expected the heat. Moreover the heat had led to censorship which is why I was hosting it here. Censoring the link caught me off guard. More below....


About gods and God. There is only one God. “Hear, O Israel! The Lord is our God, the LORD is one!” (Deut. 6:4). It may be a matter of semantics, but Doug Phillips does not have “a” God. He has a false belief in who God is.

I'm sorry but I don't agree with you on Doug's God. Your God is the way the truth and life. Your God is the maker and heaven and earth. Your God has nothing to fear from truth, he is truth. Doug's God needs a constant shield of lies to support him. To support those lies he needs ignorance. So Doug and his god is terrified of almost every book, and of almost every persons speech. He can only survive in an environment devoid of all thoughts. That in my book is an idol not God.

I cannot speak for Karen’s motivation, but I have not seen “pride” of this type in her. I know my motivation is what I have explained it to be.

Fair enough you've explained your motivation well. So far Karen has refused. So instead of an apology what I would ask you to do is go back to TW and say something like "I was the one that originally asked for this link to be deleted and I've changed my mind. .... (include link)". That way the original complaint is revoked and hopefully the issue put right. Lets find out if her motivation was an instinctive reaction to controversy, which is my sincere hope. I'd be profoundly upset if someone who has done so much good in the end is really driven by a deep seated desire to subvert the truth. Lets see if she mocks Doug for changing a painting just because he changed the wrong painting or changed it in the wrong way, or if this was but a momentary mistake. In other words, don't apologize but instead lets see if her God needs to scurry away like Doug's does.

Blessing to you and yours,
CD-Host

Meloff said...

CD - Karen has already put up the link along with an explanation (#531).

God's blessings,
Mel

CD-Host said...

Nicely done, Mel. Thank you!

Cindy said...

CD Host,

I know that we've discussed this issue very briefly offline and you express a desire to see other people liberated from these patterns of discipline if in fact they are abusive. I still don't understand why discussing the dynamics of this practice of DD in the way that you present it in your first comment here directs people out of the behavior. I read very little on two of these websites and have not looked at them again. I am not interested in knowing the specifics. If these sites you list here are offensive, I encourage you to put some kind of better disclaimer on them.

The issue for me is that of the problem of physical discipline of wives and how that is legitimized as a Christian practice. I believe that anyone engaging in this behavior has suffered some degree of trauma or abuse. If this practice is desired for whatever reason, it is a symptom of a greater problem. I'm concerned for people, women in particular, that have been taught to accept this behavior as Christian or as acceptable because I don't find it to be a legitimate Christian practice.

Spiritual abuse and the dynamics that perpetuate it are remarkably similar to the dynamics of domestic abuse. There is also a high correlation with addiction and codependency, so I've no doubt of the potential for this behavior in patriarchal homes.

The comment that I made on my blog that you copied here is significant not because I seek to understand the specifics of these dynamics. If this is a practice that patriarchalists condone or practice, it fits the pattern of male superiority, already a dynamic that is well documented, complete with theological arguments. My comment was meant to demonstrate the danger that this practice poses for women, not to explore the specifics of specific behaviors.

The best argument against the practice which is the argument (my belief) is that this is just another example or form of inappropriate abusive behavior. Would not the best discussion and the best approach to this be to present the better alternative of a non-patriarchal model? Declare that domestic discipline is wrong and unbiblical. Human behavior and sexual behavior is very individualized and personal. It seems to me that the reasons for the behavior and discussion of that would only perpetuate the issue.

The Christian in Christ is under no condemnation and shame becomes obsolete under the Blood of the Lamb. That is the best message that anyone could declare. Shame should not be a part of a healthy marital relationship. If Christians perpetuate this, it is counterproductive. The patriarchy movement thrives on shame, and declaring a message of freedom from such attachments to other carnal elements of the marital relationship should be paramount.

As God's creatures, we are subject to sin and carnal influences until we are no longer subject to our mortal coil, but we should not seek to promote them but are called as Christians to mortify the deeds of the flesh. I disagree with your comment that safe is acceptable because all of this promotes the flesh and shaming activities. In that sense, I don't see how any of these activities can be consistent with healthy Christianity. Whether these activities are harmful or not is not the issue for a Christian, for Paul directs us to refrain from discussion of the private acts of perversion.

I see no efficacy in the discussion of what party finds which particular act or aspect more gratifying. In fact, discussion of the specifics perverts the mystery of the act in some sense, as sex is very much something of a mystery reflecting Christ's love for the Church. This is not prudery but reverence for the sanctity of marriage. As so many other aspects of patriarchy, this discipline business corrupts that sanctity, just as the theology does.

Having said all of that, I don't really have anything additional to contribute.

Cindy said...

Before I drop out here, I would like to recommend a book that is soon to be available by Maureen Canning entitled "Lust, Anger, Love"

http://www.amazon.com/Lust-Anger-Love-Maureen-Canning/dp/1402208685/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200619202&sr=8-1

CJ said...

Cindy said,
"I see no efficacy in the discussion of what party finds which particular act or aspect more gratifying. In fact, discussion of the specifics perverts the mystery of the act in some sense, as sex is very much something of a mystery reflecting Christ's love for the Church. This is not prudery but reverence for the sanctity of marriage. As so many other aspects of patriarchy, this discipline business corrupts that sanctity, just as the theology does."

Agreed 100%.

"Having said all of that, I don't really have anything additional to contribute."

Me either.. and call me squeamish, but I do not want to discuss the specifics of this perversion, or any other.
I came here to discuss its prevalence within the Patriarchal movement, not the technical hows and whys.
When my other computer is back up, I'll send you some more documentation of this sort of thing within the Patriarchy, but till then, I'm outta here.

CD-Host said...

Cindy --

I never know how to respond to these long statement with a sign off type messages. Since I've known you a while I'll give a real response and hopefully you'll join back in or at least I'll rephrase what I've said above for lurkers in a way that may be useful.

So:

I still don't understand why discussing the dynamics of this practice of DD in the way that you present it in your first comment here directs people out of the behavior.

I'm not trying to direct people out of the practice. I've read the DDers stuff and I don't see either patriarchy or domestic violence. In fact in many cases the CDDers and DDers don't even seem like fundamentalist Christians.
Evidence:
a) Not abusive = meets the SSC guidelines above
b) Not patriarchal = the theology is littered with obvious tongue in cheek comments.

c) Not fundamentalist = Let me raise a simple point here. Most of the fundamentalist woman can't believe that when discussing a sexual fetish we actually need to discuss acts. Now look at the DD&CDD blogs, mostly run by woman and mostly about their erotic life. How many TW woman run blogs about their foreplay? I'm thinking 0. Additionally as I have mentioned before, there seems to be a casual comfort and awareness with popular entertainment including "adult entertainment". That's not characteristic of fundamentalists who are very concerned about issues of modesty, and generally ignorant about adult entertainment.

I think my anti Patriarchy credentials are pretty solid. I know Patriarchy, I can't stand Patriarchy. This stuff ain't Patriarchy, its fantasy roleplay using Patriarchy as the backdrop. Now you may disagree with my assessment but that is going to require specifics.

I believe that anyone engaging in this behavior has suffered some degree of trauma or abuse. If this practice is desired for whatever reason, it is a symptom of a greater problem.

And your evidence for this is what? You are arguing in a big circle here: You know its abuse because the woman are traumatized you know they are traumatized because they enjoy spanking. You know the spanking is abusive because its being done to traumatized woman.

You need to prove one of these without assuming the others.

If this is a practice that patriarchalists condone or practice,

Which Patriarch condones or practices this? I've never heard Doug Phillips or Brian Abershire or the Bayly brothers of C.J. advocate this. As far as practice.... there seems to be a great percentage of masochistic woman in patriarchy than in the population at large which isn't surprising. Patriarchy is a good system for masochistic woman to get their emotional needs met. It just happens to be a terrible system for non masochistic woman since they are attacked for not responding to events they way a masochist would.

OTOH they are far from the majority. So yeah I expect Patriarch woman are into this. But... in all fairness I didn't find a single example of it.

but we should not seek to promote them but are called as Christians to mortify the deeds of the flesh.

Col2:16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ. 18Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you for the prize. Such a person goes into great detail about what he has seen, and his unspiritual mind puffs him up with idle notions. 19He has lost connection with the Head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow.

20Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules: 21"Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!"? 22These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. 23Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.

This is not prudery but reverence for the sanctity of marriage.

No actually it is prudery. Cindy you are a nurse. Nurses deal with piss, vomit, blood and every body part mangled and distorted in every way imaginable. I'm just not buying this even rates a 3 on the 1-10 scale for you.