I came across this site (http://christiandomesticdiscipline.com/Home.html), and I found it, well, "interesting." I found the blog "Leah's Life" (http://leahslife.christiandomesticdiscipline.com/) particularly interesting, as well.

From what I can tell, domestic discipline means:


The man controls the family. Basically, it's the "bitch, get into the kitchen and make me a sandwich" mentality.
When the wife breaks the rules, the husband gets to spank his wife in a semi-erotic way in order to punish her.


I find some of the passages from the aforementioned blog disturbing.


My husband informed me this morning we were going to have a maintenance session this evening for the first time in months.

My husband thinks a maintenance session might help me get back on track. I have neglected my health as of late and have been a bit ill, followed by an exacerbation of fibromyalgia. I am behind on housework a bit (just a bit--I've been careful to keep that going). I'm behind on homeschooling. My husband calls these the three H's-- Health, House, Homeschooling. Letting these slide will get me in trouble faster than anything.

Thankfully, my husband tells me we are not starting regular maintenance again, just doing one session to keep things from escalating until I earn a punishment spanking.


A "maintenance session" is where the wife tells the husband all of the rules that she's broken recently and then the husband administers appropriate "punishment."

Now, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with this spanking stuff, I guess a lot of people are into it when it comes to sex. But the way this whole thing is structured, the "dictator-subject" relationship between husband and wife, seems unhealthy (to say the least) to me.

Please stick to the 'christian' aspect of this people.

Please stick to the 'christian' aspect of this people.

Haha, I just realized that my post has some overt "S&A" qualities to it.

spanking+Jesus=eternal life!

It makes me sick at what people would do to please something that might not even exist. Such selfishness.

well if you believe the bible to be the undisputed word of god and follow it all as fact then ya. The man runs the show and the woman is a tool. Its like that with islam and judaism too.

This isn't Christian.

This is stupid.

^Same thing.

I had the displeasure and misfortune of growing up around Pentecostals for a few years. They not only celebrate punishment, but also take joy in doling it out.

Got sent home from 4th grade because they thought my legs were covered in ringworm - when it was actually fresh welts from the rivets of one of those skinny, metal women's belts. My crime? Flavored, clear lip gloss.

The "maintenance session" is the most ridiculous thing I've read in awhile. These women have no spine. No spine whatsoever.

I had the displeasure and misfortune of growing up around Pentecostals for a few years. They not only celebrate punishment, but also take joy in doling it out.


I just went to a Pentecostal church a few days ago and didn't get that feeling. Although I did get the feeling most of them were faking it.

Were they jubilant? Yelling at the top of their lungs? Turning cartwheels and dancing jigs in the aisles and slapping the hard oak pews with their bare hands?

You should travel down South sometime, Rizzo. You'd have yourself a ball with these folks.

Edit: Also, it's unlikely that you'd witness their brand of punishment in their house of worship. I'm sure all the really ugly stuff goes on at home, behind closed doors so the neighbors can't witness it.

Were they jubilant? Yelling at the top of their lungs? Turning cartwheels and dancing jigs in the aisles and slapping the hard oak pews with their bare hands?

Pretty much.


You should travel down South sometime, Rizzo. You'd have yourself a ball with these folks.

I hope to see everywhere, at some point.

Edit: Also, it's unlikely that you'd witness their brand of punishment in their house of worship. I'm sure all the really ugly stuff goes on at home, behind closed doors so the neighbors can't witness it.

Then they aren't much different from anyone else, are they? :p

Then they aren't much different from anyone else, are they? :p

hahaha

Eh, if they're both okay with it, I don't see what's even remotely wrong with a domination/submission relationship. Oh no, just because the man is the dominant one, it must be some primitive shit, and we can't have cave men running around in our beautiful world! (Excuse me, I'm going to tie up a prostitute and twist her nipples for a few minutes before making her eat a pint of chocolate syrup off my balls.)

Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with two adults living the way they want to? It's not like they're killing fem-dom couples, or any shit like that...

Oh! I get it. Because they're Christian, their sex and relationship life is now automatically sexist and wrong because it's similar to some ideas expressed in their faerie tales. What about sexual freedom? What about freedom? Aren't we adults free to choose the way we live...even if it's not based around ultra post-modern Godless beliefs?

Ya know, it seems like some of the atheists are getting their fair share of fascism in. Oh wow...I bet in 20 years, the Republican party is going to be the platform for both the Religious Right and the 'Free Thinkers'...hahaha, fucking tools.

Wow, Hex -

Social said it was unhealthy. I said the woman was spineless. Rizzo said it was stupid. A buddhist, an atheist and a gnostic commenting on a domestic issue, and suddenly the atheists are fascists? That's a pretty long reach you made there.

Sub/Dom relationships aren't freakish, and they certainly aren't uncommon. I remarked that the woman was "spineless", but would have made that same comment had she been a teenager (of any sex) being subjugated by their parents to that kind of verbal (and retarded) disciplinary routine. It's not that it's sexist, or wrong, per se - it's just ridiculous. That's all.

hahaha, fucking tools

Careful! You're not only kind of contradicting yourself (remember: Objectivity! Attitude! Perception! (http://www.totse.com/community/showpost.php?p=8411894&postcount=59)), but you're inching closer and closer to wiggling right out of your absolute neutrality and becoming somewhat of a sympathizer for the "good guys".

;)

Wow, Hex -

Social said it was unhealthy. I said the woman was spineless. Rizzo said it was stupid. A buddhist, an atheist and a gnostic commenting on a domestic issue, and suddenly the atheists are fascists? That's a pretty long reach you made there.

Sub/Dom relationships aren't freakish, and they certainly aren't uncommon. I remarked that the woman was "spineless", but would have made that same comment had she been a teenager (of any sex) being subjugated by their parents to that kind of verbal (and retarded) disciplinary routine. It's not that it's sexist, or wrong, per se - it's just ridiculous. That's all.



Careful! You're not only kind of contradicting yourself (remember: Objectivity! Attitude! Perception! (http://www.totse.com/community/showpost.php?p=8411894&postcount=59)), but you're inching closer and closer to wiggling right out of your absolute neutrality and becoming somewhat of a sympathizer for the "good guys".

;)

Ahahaha, quick again, Femme. I was hoping for at least 2 pages of tangent commentary before someone rocked me, but alas, the first reply.

I might have to move to a different set of forums soon. After all these years, you totse folk are finally catching on.

NO! Don't stop.
Contradictions are fun. It's what keeps us all from going on auto-bot just 24/7.

NO! Don't stop.
Contradictions are fun. It's what keeps us all from going on auto-bot just 24/7.

It's more that all my fun dissipates if people can easily pick out my total BS posts from my genuine posts. I like being able to argue just about anything without anyone being able to tell if I really believe what I'm saying...it's sort of like the ultimate Devil's Advocate.

More like the ultimate Angel's Advocate.



:p

Are dom/sub relationships uncommon? No, but usually, thats a choice. in this, the relationship isn't a choice, because its part of a religion.

Lets say this woman decided to actually get a spine. She'd get beaten, first, and if she kept doing it, she'd be cast out of her community and alienated from the entirety of her life. There isn't any choice, and this relationship isn't a sexual one. There isn't anything sexual in a dictatorial relationship that's based on a hierarchy that's imposed from birth with a total lack of choice on either party.

Whatever works... all the power to them.

Are dom/sub relationships uncommon? No, but usually, thats a choice. in this, the relationship isn't a choice, because its part of a religion.

Wow, I am sorely lacking in my religion then. Please, reverend, show me where it says I am to *reads print* "smack my bitch up". I want to go to heaven! :(

Yea, Femme, they are spineless. Its sad when you know people like this that get beaten like any other man no matter what but still come back to their husbands after leaving them many times.

Yea, Femme, they are spineless. Its sad when you know people like this that get beaten like any other man no matter what but still come back to their husbands after leaving them many times.

It's epidemic. And it's also a mindset that's probably very difficult to snap out of, regardless of religious influence.

Sad state of affairs, indeed.

Wow, I am sorely lacking in my religion then. Please, reverend, show me where it says I am to *reads print* "smack my bitch up". I want to go to heaven! :(

Leviticus and the Gospels. The Gospels go so far as to say that she should just take it and turn her head to the left. Leviticus is more of a digging up a pit, throwing her in there, and then throwing in some rocks into the pit with her so she won't be so lonely.

Leviticus and the Gospels. The Gospels go so far as to say that she should just take it and turn her head to the left. Leviticus is more of a digging up a pit, throwing her in there, and then throwing in some rocks into the pit with her so she won't be so lonely.

Ahem, could you please direct me to the specific passages that say this.

Ahem, could you please direct me to the specific passages that say this.

Leviticus Chapter 20 for who gets stoned for what and the Jesus telling people to turn the other cheek is famous enough to google.

"Turn the other cheek" isnt about discipline, dumbass. It is a lesson in subjecting yourself to being wronged and accepting it. It is the opposite of "an eye for an eye."

Punishments laid out in the Old Testament are relevant only to Judaeists (is this the correct usage/terminology to say "those who practice the religion of Judaeism"?), not Christians. A very good case for such a statement comes from Jesus staying the punishment for a woman accused of adultery because she repented of her sin. Jesus, being the God's Son and all, would have killed her himself if the law was still applicable.

"Turn the other cheek" isnt about discipline, dumbass. It is a lesson in subjecting yourself to being wronged and accepting it. It is the opposite of "an eye for an eye."

Dumbass? Ran out of TaBs again I see. Geez... you are such a bleeding pussy. Everytime someone says something you don't agree with, you get all bitchy. Anyways, in essense, if a man hits his wife because he thinks its a correctional tool, turning the other cheek means she accepts it instead of hitting him back or just dumping the marriage out of spite. As you said.

Punishments laid out in the Old Testament are relevant only to Judaeists (is this the correct usage/terminology to say "those who practice the religion of Judaeism"?), not Christians. A very good case for such a statement comes from Jesus staying the punishment for a woman accused of adultery because she repented of her sin. Jesus, being the God's Son and all, would have killed her himself if the law was still applicable.

Jesus said he was there to fulfill, not replace. Also, he said it was not okay for people as equally as guilty to punish the guilty. Not so much as in just throwing out the Law because he gets to pick and chose when it applies.