Christian BDSM

[rosco rathbone]

Thanks for the link.

OTK is hot, of course. But I'm not into the discipline thing - which could explain why, to me, that piece reads as pure parody.

More broadly, I don't get the appeal of the CDD dynamic. Partly because the sexism and homophobia embedded in the model, as presented, are thoroughly disgusting. But also because I get my control-based rocks off by knowing a partner chooses to participate as a reflection of her devotion to me, rather than participating as a form of allegiance to some perceived divine covenant. A wants, vs. has to, thing.

You've mentioned a fondness for 'has to' in the past, rosco. Is the threat of damnation as ultimate coercion part of the appeal for you?

Are Christians really motivated by the threat of damnation, or is it just the surrounding culture?

 

[JMohegan]

Are Christians really motivated by the threat of damnation, or is it just the surrounding culture?

I assume there's a self-sustaining loop. Culture uses the threat to perpetuate the culture, which gives voice to the threat, which strengthens the culture, etc.

But they're not a monolithic bunch, and many do seem quite skilled at both selective reading and individually tailored justifications. So... I don't know. Ask them.

 

[intothewoods]

http://christiandomesticdiscipline.com/originsotk.html

Really, is that much direction required? I think having to read that article in its entirety would be far more effective punishment for me than OTK spanking.

Thanks for the link.

OTK is hot, of course. But I'm not into the discipline thing - which could explain why, to me, that piece reads as pure parody.

More broadly, I don't get the appeal of the CDD dynamic. Partly because the sexism and homophobia embedded in the model, as presented, are thoroughly disgusting. But also because I get my control-based rocks off by knowing a partner chooses to participate as a reflection of her devotion to me, rather than participating as a form of allegiance to some perceived divine covenant. A wants, vs. has to, thing.

You've mentioned a fondness for 'has to' in the past, rosco. Is the threat of damnation as ultimate coercion part of the appeal for you?

So, what you're saying, essentially, is that you don't want Jesus stealing your thunder? I get it. It's tough to compete with the beard and the robe.

Are Christians really motivated by the threat of damnation, or is it just the surrounding culture?

Through another site (vanilla), I know a couple who does follow the model of Christian submission. She's never mentioned discipline and I sure as heck aren't asking. Anyway, for her it sounds more like because Jesus said so rather than fear of damnation. Maybe those are the same things?

Am I remembering correctly that the husband is sort of the physical representative of Christ in the home? Like a preacher would be in the church?

 

[JMohegan]

So, what you're saying, essentially, is that you don't want Jesus stealing your thunder? I get it. It's tough to compete with the beard and the robe.

How do you know I'm not bearded and robed?

Through another site (vanilla), I know a couple who does follow the model of Christian submission. She's never mentioned discipline and I sure as heck aren't asking. Anyway, for her it sounds more like because Jesus said so rather than fear of damnation. Maybe those are the same things?

Am I remembering correctly that the husband is sort of the physical representative of Christ in the home? Like a preacher would be in the church?

It's written, right there on the home page of the site to which Rosco linked. Just before the discussion of "radically selfish feminism," the "evil" of homosexuality, and whatnot.


This website is intended to be a haven for married couples who practise safe and consensual Christian Domestic Discipline (CDD), or for those who would like to learn more about CDD. It is intended to provide support and encouragement for those who believe in traditional Christian marriage, with the husband as the head of the household, and the wife as his helpmeet.

This website is intended to provide a refuge for those interested in a Christian Domestic Discipline marriage. Here they might find information and share fellowship with other CDD couples without having to wade through pornography, warped practises, or distorted ideals of what we believe God created for marriage. This site is not the typical "spanking" site prevalent on the web. This site focuses mainly upon improving marital relationships by sharing the guidelines and marital roles listed in God's Word.

A Domestic Discipline (DD) marriage is one in which one partner is given authority over the other, and has the means to back up that authority, usually by spanking. The application and practise of DD in each marriage is as unique as the individuals who make up that marriage. There is no "One Ring of Power" in the Domestic Discipline world, to which all DD couples must bow; no singular path to "true DD enlightenment". What works well for one DD couple may not be a good fit for another marriage. Therefore, you may see many different suggestions espoused on this site and elsewhere.

A Christian Domestic Discipline (CDD) marriage is simply a traditional, male-led, Christian marriage which utilises aspects of Domestic Discipline. It is set up according to Biblical standards.

Therefore, in a CDD marriage:

- The husband is the head of the household, whilst the wife is submissive to her husband as if the Lord Himself was her husband. See Eph. 5:22-24.

- The husband is to love his wife as himself, and as Christ loved the church. He is to be a servant, and leads by example. He is to lay down his life for her. See Eph. 5:25-29.

- The wife is to reverence her husband. She is to obey him, so long as his instructions are not in opposition to God's commands. See Titus 2:5, Acts 5:29.

He has the ultimate authority in his household, but this authority is tempered with the knowledge that he will answer to God for his actions and decisions. The final decision rests with him, and therefore, the final responsibility, whatever the outcome, is his to bear. A wise husband will not make a major decision without prayerfully asking God for wisdom, and without seeking his wife's counsel. Prov. 20:5

He is to be the head of the home. She is to be the heart of the home.

He is not a dictator. She is not a doormat.

He is not a overbearing Lord of the Estate, seeking to trample over his family. She is not some weak-minded lass, needing to be molly-coddled, or seeking to get straightened around.

He has the responsibility for leading his family and is accountable before God for their well-being and development. He has the authority to spank his wife for disciplinary reasons, but in real CDD marriages, this authority is taken quite seriously and usually happens rarely. Most CDD marriages do use spanking, generally for serious offences, such as the "Four D's" (Disobedience, Disrespect, Dishonesty, or Dangerous [as in dangerous choices... reckless driving, disobeying doctor's orders, etc]). Some CDD marriages also use non-corporal disciplines, such as writing lines, or the temporary forfeiture of a favourite privilege. Again, every marriage is unique, and CDD is much more than just corporal punishment or spanking.

CDD is not a "magic pill", and this website does not claim CDD will prevent all marital rows. It is simply a tool, one method which many couples round the world feel is quite effective in strengthening their marriages, and improving the quality of their relationship.

CDD is the husband loving his wife enough to patiently guide and unselfishly cherish her.
CDD is the wife loving her husband enough to follow his leadership and trust his direction.
A Christian marriage should embody selfless love and true romance.
A Christian couple is to be a reflection of Jesus and His Bride.

How clear is your reflection?

This style of traditional male-led Christian marriage may seem unusual in today's "modern", liberal, politically correct, anti-God culture. This unholy culture, with its radically selfish feminism, and wholesale bias against true manhood, launches relentless attacks against traditional Christian family values. (Keep in mind, this is also the culture with well over 50% divorce rates, both in the church and in the secular world. Most rational people would agree the "modern" way doesn't work so well!)

Romans 12:2 says, And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God. Here, Paul warns us not to live like the world, not to be fashioned like them, or molded to the same pattern as they are, but to be changed. Strong's Concordance says, "literally or figuratively "metamorphose".

The traditional male-led Christian marriage has been practised throughout history and is still practised in many parts of the world today. Our American friends, for example, need only look back to the era just prior to the 1960's. Domestic Discipline was a widely accepted premise, oft seen in films at the cinema and programmes on the telly. Many companies showed it in advertisments. If you prefer not to utilise "modern, popular culture" as a guide, consider that DD also has quite a long history as a common literary theme, dating back hundreds of years, from several cultures worldwide.

What Tenets do we Accept?

1, The Bible:

God's perfect, complete, and inerrant Word. We will honor it as literal and valid for all time.

2, Eternity:

There is only one way to Heaven, and only one name by which mankind can be saved. That name is Jesus Christ. The Holy Son of God, Jesus lived a sinless life, died a sacrificial death, was raised as the Living Saviour, and now sits at the right hand of God the Father. One day, every knee will bow, and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, according to Romans 14:11 and Phil. 2:11.

3, Marital Roles:

The wife is to submit to her husband, and the husband is to love his wife. See Eph 5:22-28.

4, Parties Involved:

CDD is practised between a man and a woman. In most cases, it is practised between a husband and a wife.

5, Discipline:

In CDD, the husband has authority to discipline the wife. The wife does not have authority to discipline her husband. See Gen. 3:16


What Topics do we not Discuss?

1, Non-Consensual CDD:

We do not condone truly nonconsensual CDD. See this article regarding "Non-Consensual Consent" for more information.

2, Spanking of Children:

We shall leave this to other blokes to argue over elsewhere. It shall not be discussed here in any depth.

3, Eroticism:

Whilst we recognise by its very nature this can be an erotic subject, we will keep this website as clean and wholesome as possible. However, we will not seek to deny the erotic nature of some CDD marriages as we believe it is a natural consequence of following God's plan. After all, He created eroticism and sexuality to be enjoyed within the healthy, safe, and exclusive boundaries of marriage.

4, Things What God Defines as Evil:

Though some in today's culture may call CDD an "alternate lifestyle", the Bible gives no clear command either way. Marital discipline is neither commanded nor condemned in Scripture. However, God's word clearly defines some other "alternate lifestyles", such as homosexuality, as evil. If you don't like it, there are plenty of other sites. We will not accept posts glorifying such lifestyles. We are here to glorify God, not to be politically correct or lauded by the masses.
Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. Matt. 7:13, 14

5, Other Topics:

We do not discuss homosexual relationships, Female Dominant/male submissive relationships, or BDSM. This is not a dating service, nor do we list personal advertisments. We are not interested in your bratting escapades. If that is what you seek, you will find many places on the internet to fulfill your desires. However, this website shall not be that place.

 

[rosco rathbone]

There's a book of essays I read by this guy, can't remember his name, he's a conservative British essayist who used to work as a doctor in prison hospitals in the UK.

ANyhow, he worked with lots of young Muslim men and has this whole theory that the main roots of Muslim rage and terrorism have to do with the fear that the West is going to destroy the Muslim family, which means, specifically, that women will be liberated.

They can't stand that idea, apparently.

 

[JMohegan]

There's a book of essays I read by this guy, can't remember his name, he's a conservative British essayist who used to work as a doctor in prison hospitals in the UK.

ANyhow, he worked with lots of young Muslim men and has this whole theory that the main roots of Muslim rage and terrorism have to do with the fear that the West is going to destroy the Muslim family, which means, specifically, that women will be liberated.

They can't stand that idea, apparently.

Holy shit, Jerry Falwell was right.

 

[WriterDom]

The bible is thoroughly supportive of the master/slave thing, including corporal punishment for the disobedient - yes?

Jews are limited by the 40 minus one rule. However, bring in a heathen Roman and he can flog all night!

 

[intothewoods]

How do you know I'm not bearded and robed?

As the kids say, pics or it didn't happen!

It's written, right there on the home page of the site to which Rosco linked. Just before the discussion of "radically selfish feminism," the "evil" of homosexuality, and whatnot.

Kooky. It's consistent with Christian D/s, but the physical discipline is kind of another level.

 

[Bebeslut]

To JMohegan:
I don't agree that homosexuality is evil. It is natural to a lot of good, loving people, and to think otherwise because some book of uncertain provenance says it is is wrong.
Furthermore, such uncritical reliance s a cop-out; it's an easy way out of the responsibility for thinking and judging for oneself.
I do thank you, however, for the detailed discussion of the subject.

 

[Ravenwind]

Are Christians really motivated by the threat of damnation, or is it just the surrounding culture?

Depends on who you ask, and whether they are still a "child" or have "matured" in their faith. Those who don't get the bigger picture of the Bible are the legalistic, "fire and brimstone", "you're damned if you have any fun" sorts, or, at the opposite end of the spectrum, are the "I can do all the wrong I want, and I'm still forgiven" types... but those of us who actually sat down with the Bible, have read it cover-to-cover, and have actually put 2+2 together, are actually motivated out of love- for God, for one another, and for mankind... as for ourselves, we are "meh, whatever".

In the end, for those of us who "get it", our actions are about "Have I wronged you? Then I realize I am in the wrong, and then I want to rectify the situation of my own will- both with mankind and with God. Have you wronged me? Then I forgive you, and what happened becomes as if it never even happened- it's water off a duck's back". We become changed from what we were- for us, it is not about "hell and damnation", but rather, the desire to not hurt ourselves or another, and to be kind, charitable, and forgiving toward one another... to love one another as we would want to be loved ourselves.

...That said, those of us who genuinely "get it" are few and far between. Most Christians can't even name the 2 Commandments Jesus gave, let alone the 10 Commandments, let alone understand the reasoning behind why they were implemented in the first place.

@ JMohegan - Yes and no.
* No, in the sense of "forced slavery"- there are times where it was "merely accepted" as a fact of 'then-modern life', but never promoted, and in fact, strove against it (ever see The 10 Commandments, or listen to Creeping Death by Metallica? "Let my people go!" sort of thing).
* Yes, in the sense of "choosing such a life for yourself"... by permitting yourself to become weak, you are lifted up to become strong; by choosing to serve, you yourself will be served in kind; by saying "I am free, and slave to none", you make yourself a slave to your own selfish wants, but by saying "I am a slave to the One who can save me", you are given true freedom. The last shall become first, the first shall become last, if that makes sense to you (if not, read the children's poem "Ladies First" [Shel Silverstein- A Light in the Attic], and you will understand a little better ^_~).

As for corporeal punishment... it's reserved for extremes- extreme defiance, or extreme unrepentance, (or in some cases, extreme stupidity). Put simply, it's reserved for "brats" who refuse to learn, and those who would seemingly bring about the destruction of mankind from one bad choice. It is far better to use a kind word to teach where someone goes wrong, then to outright smack them for it. If one person's words don't work, then the words of many... if not the many, then everyone... failing everyone, *then* corporeal punishment.

 

[Stella_Omega]

...That said, those of us who genuinely "get it" are few and far between

But you, of course, are one of the Enlightened Few. I always get a kick out of that.

 

[rosco rathbone]

those of us who actually sat down with the Bible, have read it cover-to-cover, and have actually put 2+2 together,.

I've read it cover to cover 1.5x, but haven't gotten around to putting 2 +2 together.

 

[JMohegan]

* No, in the sense of "forced slavery"- there are times where it was "merely accepted" as a fact of 'then-modern life', but never promoted, and in fact, strove against it (ever see The 10 Commandments, or listen to Creeping Death by Metallica? "Let my people go!" sort of thing).

Yes, I know that story. The one in which god murders all the first born children of Egypt in the process of freeing the Jews.

I don't recall god ever trying to free Abraham's slaves, or urging Abraham to let those people go. Nor do I recall jesus giving instructions for the emancipation of human beings, in the midst of his other kindly behavioral instructions. But perhaps I missed those passages. I have not read the text cover to cover.

 

[Ravenwind]

But you, of course, are one of the Enlightened Few. I always get a kick out of that.

Well, would you consider one who gets it as being one who focuses on one thing, without consideration of all other things? Love, over the reason for the love; damnation, over the reason for damnation; forgiveness, over the reason for forgiveness?

I don't recall god ever trying to free Abraham's slaves, or urging Abraham to let those people go. Nor do I recall jesus giving instructions for the emancipation of human beings, in the midst of his other kindly behavioral instructions.

There are no such passages for the first. As I said, it was "tolerated" to an extent. For the most part, slaves of Jews were from those willing to sell themselves off as slaves (and thus, treated not as slaves, but rather, as a hired worker for 6 years, and released on the 7th if they sold themselves to another Hebrew; or had the potential to be bought back by a family member for unpaid time, if sold to a foreigner), or of those sold off in other countries. If a priest bought a slave, the slave was to be treated like a family member. Finally, no Hebrew was to forcibly sell another Hebrew into slavery, but rather, it had to be a personal choice.

You see, the Hebrews were set apart to be an example to the rest of the world at the time (and as to that, the priests were to be an example to the Hebrew populace): If the entire world followed the same pattern of slavery, then there would have been next to no lifelong unwilling slaves, but merely indentured workers, and those who chose to be lifelong slaves out of love for the family. If everyone had the reassurance of "after 6 years, I'm done", "someone's gonna hopefully pay for my debt before then", and "I will be treated as family, despite my situation", would it have been that bad, considering that there would have always been a "way out"?

As for the second, the concept of "slavery" is much bigger than mere "buying and selling of chattel", so that "emancipation" really is a non-issue... "...Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many." (Mark 10:43-45). Then, also consider, "...Jesus said, "If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." They answered him, "We are Abraham's descendants and have never been slaves of anyone. How can you say that we shall be set free?" Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed." (John 8:31-35). Finally, Romans 6:18, "You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness." and 1 Cor. 7:22 "For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord's freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ's slave."

It's not about "being free, or being a slave", but rather, what are you freed from, and what are you a slave to? We are *all* slaves to someone or something, even if it is to nothing but their own wants. But, a slave who embraces what is good is far more a free man, than the master who knows nothing but selfishness. ...In the end, it does not matter if you wear a literal collar around your neck, with another person holding the chain, but rather, "who or what holds the chain to the collar around your heart". That is what defines true slavery.

 

[radepor]

Ok; did I misspeak

Maybe I misread the Bible; maybe it was simply the way man has interpreted it.

How did we (U.S.) get so sexually screwed-up (repressed)?

p.s. If you don't think religion has promoted the idea of "let's out procreate the other guys, think again.

Wait a second. I'm a Christian, I've read the Bible cover-to-cover, and I don't recall one verse saying "Thou shalt not have fun while having sex". Likewise, I don't recall one verse that says "Promote Christianity amongst mankind by having kids", but rather "Promote mankind amongst the earth by having kids".



1.) Yup. The point is, don't cheat on the one you love- be it your spouse for worldly things, or be it God for spiritual things. If you're gonna do something, be dedicated about it, otherwise don't do it at all- wishywashiness and flip-flopping doesn't cut it.
2.) Polygamy was *tolerated* for a while. It was not approved, and come the time of Deuteronomy, it was denied for kings (who were supposed to be the example of "good behavior" to the people). Even in Genesis, the ideal was "one man, one woman, becoming as one flesh". And finally, Solomon's downfall was because of his polygamy.
3.) Not through lust, but rather, the love of the groom-to-be for his bride-to-be, and that of her for him as well.
4.) No, Leviticus forbids homosexuality, it doesn't forbid straight/solo anal.

@ the topic at hand, I really don't see what the problem is with Christian BDSM. Jesus taught "Love your neighbor as yourself"... on a most basic level, that means "treat one another good, just as you yourself want to be treated good". Within BDSM, that simply means "Sadist, hurt the masochist you love, in the way they want to be hurt/maso, cry out in the way that pleases the sadist you love" or "PYL, dominate your pyl in the way they desire/pyl, serve your PYL in the way that they desire"... give 100% of yourself to pleasing the one you love, regardless as to whether that pleasure comes come dominating or submitting, cropping or crying, going to work or making lunch for the one going to work... be good to them, just as you want them to be good to you.

 

[Ricanbandit]

How did we (U.S.) get so sexually screwed-up (repressed)?

.

Cause this country was initially populated by repressed Puritans, remember?

 

[Netzach]

I've read it cover to cover 1.5x, but haven't gotten around to putting 2 +2 together.

Don't worry. They're not too hot at math in this thing.

 

[sb2009]

Welll, I've read the bible cover to cover several times, studied it in Hebrew and Greek, have owned, read and re-read several modern translations as well as the good ol' KJV...and I think it's a bunch of hogwash and bullshit. So...there are people who "get it" differently than you do, even after the read the good book.

 

[Netzach]

I've seen Christian FemDom materials, also, believe it or not.

As long as you're *socially* and *spiritually* subservient to your husband it's fine for you to have to call all the shots in bed and in the home life which don't really count. You're basically an indentured prodomme to his sex kinks and then you get to defer to him when it matters.

Par tay. I think I'd rather be a taken in hand bottom than this.

 

[Ravenwind]

Maybe I misread the Bible; maybe it was simply the way man has interpreted it.

How did we (U.S.) get so sexually screwed-up (repressed)?

p.s. If you don't think religion has promoted the idea of "let's out procreate the other guys, think again.

I would say the latter is true... I mean, consider how repressed "Churchianity" is over masturbation, yet the single act of it in the Bible isn't about the act itself, but rather, the guy refusing to do his duty of providing an heir to the family line... the guy essentially gave God, society, tradition, and his dead brother, all at once, the middle finger. Yet, everyone who reads that passage says, "oh, it must have been the act itself that was bad, not the attitude".

(Having such a manner of thinking, some people would then consider Ananias and Sapphira as having sinned by not giving to the church, as opposed to them being deceitful and lying to Peter and to God... you can see the guilt trips modern preachers use, and modern churchgoers believe, then, in that sort of thinking in regards to giving... as opposed to a more Biblical understanding of "Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.").

I'm sure you've read about the Pharisees... they made life miserable, by making up rules to prevent people from breaking God's rules: "You can't pick up a mat on the Sabbath, because that might be mistaken for work"... yet Jesus corrected them and said "the Sabbath was made for man, not the other way around". I think the problem, here in the US, is the same thing. Everyone is so concerned about the legalistic aspects of something ("Is it sin? Could it be sin? Does it look like something a sinner did once?"), everyone forgets the purpose of it ("Was it meant for good, or for evil, or neither? Where was your heart and mind when you did it? Was someone hurt in doing it?").

Doing good, and doing God's will, is something that must be voluntarily done... it isn't something that can be forced upon another. Yet, when people embrace legalism as doctrine, it leads to repression of everything that is good. Sure, there's a few things forbidden in the Bible, but because those few things are banned, those who are legalistic say, "well, if *this* is sin, then *that* must be sin too, because it looks like the first thing".

In addition, there is the additional problem of taking man's word above God's word. There was this one Catholic priest, I cannot think of his name for the life of me, who had written that the only position that glorified God was the missionary position. Then there was Rev. Graham who believed eating healthy would stop carnal urges. Now, compare with what the Bible says... Song of Solomon shows just how much a man and woman can love one another (and I wouldn't consider "oral" as being part of "missionary"), and that marriage itself was instituted to curb "carnal desires"- that the wife was to always be there for the husband's sexual needs, and he for her equally. ...When people start respecting man's word over God's word, there's bound to be problems, like repression.

As for out-procreating, of course- I would be a fool to believe otherwise, as far as religion (that is, man's opinion of dogma and doctrine, as opposed to an individual's genuine faith and trust) goes. But nowhere in the Bible does it say "out-reproduce other religions"... After all, what good is it to God, to Christianity as a whole, and to the child, if a Christian couple has a child who is Christian only in the sense of "birthright", but doesn't act like a Christian at all? It defeats God's purposes for the child, it gives Christianity a bad name, and the child is worse off than the non-believer (as they have know and have experienced the truth as revealed in their family, but do not believe the truth; whereas the non-believer has only heard, if that much).

@ sb - To each his own. If you believe it's hogwash, I'm not here to change your mind.

@ Netzach - The problem with that, is that it is based off of half of a passage: "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord". The other half (and the *majority* of the passage, that *everyone* seems to forget) states, "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her". Jesus was far from a "PYL", but rather, was a "pyl", despite being in a "PYL-like" position, so to speak- no PYL worth his whip would be washing the feet of the pyl, yet Jesus washed the feet of His disciples. ^_~ Thus, it can honestly go either way, with one sub and the other dom. Certainly, the man might have "the last word", but that last word is meaningless if it is for anything less than the woman's utmost good (and knowing what is good for her involves knowing her opinion as well)... knowing this, then, the man has just as much right and ability to "wash the feet" of the woman, as the woman does to "wash the feet" of the man.

I heard a joke once, that sums it up succintly: A Christian man and wife were arguing once, and it got so heated, that he resorted to quoting the Bible, "Woman, submit to me". She quieted down a moment, thought, and then retorted with a smirk on her face, "Die for me, first".

...Who, then, is the one that must truly give of themselves? They both must, to one another.

 

[WriterDom]

Really, is that much direction required? I think having to read that article in its entirety would be far more effective punishment for me than OTK spanking.



So, what you're saying, essentially, is that you don't want Jesus stealing your thunder? I get it. It's tough to compete with the beard and the robe.



Through another site (vanilla), I know a couple who does follow the model of Christian submission. She's never mentioned discipline and I sure as heck aren't asking. Anyway, for her it sounds more like because Jesus said so rather than fear of damnation. Maybe those are the same things?

Am I remembering correctly that the husband is sort of the physical representative of Christ in the home? Like a preacher would be in the church?

While a wife is told to submit, kids and slaves are told to obey. So I don't about all this Christian submission stuff. Also while the husband has rights to his wife's body she also has the same rights to his. To me that means no one can say no. Which is probably good advice for most marriages. Now there is a lot on the web about what the Greeks meant by submit and obey, but clearly if the wife was to obey, it would have said obey.

I'd be interested to read what the Koran says about women. They did seem to get a very short stick from what I know about Islam.

 

[WriterDom]

I would say the latter is true... I mean, consider how repressed "Churchianity" is over masturbation, yet the single act of it in the Bible isn't about the act itself, but rather, the guy refusing to do his duty of providing an heir to the family line... the guy essentially gave God, society, tradition, and his dead brother, all at once, the middle finger. Yet, everyone who reads that passage says, "oh, it must have been the act itself that was bad, not the attitude".

(Having such a manner of thinking, some people would then consider Ananias and Sapphira as having sinned by not giving to the church, as opposed to them being deceitful and lying to Peter and to God... you can see the guilt trips modern preachers use, and modern churchgoers believe, then, in that sort of thinking in regards to giving... as opposed to a more Biblical understanding of "Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.").

I'm sure you've read about the Pharisees... they made life miserable, by making up rules to prevent people from breaking God's rules: "You can't pick up a mat on the Sabbath, because that might be mistaken for work"... yet Jesus corrected them and said "the Sabbath was made for man, not the other way around". I think the problem, here in the US, is the same thing. Everyone is so concerned about the legalistic aspects of something ("Is it sin? Could it be sin? Does it look like something a sinner did once?"), everyone forgets the purpose of it ("Was it meant for good, or for evil, or neither? Where was your heart and mind when you did it? Was someone hurt in doing it?").

Doing good, and doing God's will, is something that must be voluntarily done... it isn't something that can be forced upon another. Yet, when people embrace legalism as doctrine, it leads to repression of everything that is good. Sure, there's a few things forbidden in the Bible, but because those few things are banned, those who are legalistic say, "well, if *this* is sin, then *that* must be sin too, because it looks like the first thing".

In addition, there is the additional problem of taking man's word above God's word. There was this one Catholic priest, I cannot think of his name for the life of me, who had written that the only position that glorified God was the missionary position. Then there was Rev. Graham who believed eating healthy would stop carnal urges. Now, compare with what the Bible says... Song of Solomon shows just how much a man and woman can love one another (and I wouldn't consider "oral" as being part of "missionary"), and that marriage itself was instituted to curb "carnal desires"- that the wife was to always be there for the husband's sexual needs, and he for her equally. ...When people start respecting man's word over God's word, there's bound to be problems, like repression.

As for out-procreating, of course- I would be a fool to believe otherwise, as far as religion (that is, man's opinion of dogma and doctrine, as opposed to an individual's genuine faith and trust) goes. But nowhere in the Bible does it say "out-reproduce other religions"... After all, what good is it to God, to Christianity as a whole, and to the child, if a Christian couple has a child who is Christian only in the sense of "birthright", but doesn't act like a Christian at all? It defeats God's purposes for the child, it gives Christianity a bad name, and the child is worse off than the non-believer (as they have know and have experienced the truth as revealed in their family, but do not believe the truth; whereas the non-believer has only heard, if that much).

@ sb - To each his own. If you believe it's hogwash, I'm not here to change your mind.

@ Netzach - The problem with that, is that it is based off of half of a passage: "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord". The other half (and the *majority* of the passage, that *everyone* seems to forget) states, "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her". Jesus was far from a "PYL", but rather, was a "pyl", despite being in a "PYL-like" position, so to speak- no PYL worth his whip would be washing the feet of the pyl, yet Jesus washed the feet of His disciples. ^_~ Thus, it can honestly go either way, with one sub and the other dom. Certainly, the man might have "the last word", but that last word is meaningless if it is for anything less than the woman's utmost good (and knowing what is good for her involves knowing her opinion as well)... knowing this, then, the man has just as much right and ability to "wash the feet" of the woman, as the woman does to "wash the feet" of the man.

I heard a joke once, that sums it up succintly: A Christian man and wife were arguing once, and it got so heated, that he resorted to quoting the Bible, "Woman, submit to me". She quieted down a moment, thought, and then retorted with a smirk on her face, "Die for me, first".

...Who, then, is the one that must truly give of themselves? They both must, to one another.

Jerking off?

Are you talking about the line about spilling your seed on the ground? I would think in a Jewish tribal culture that was fighting wars every time someone sneezed, that would refer to pulling out of your wife rather than getting her pregnant.

Same thing with homosexuality. You probably would want to eliminate that just because it doesn't produce offspring. As cruel as eliminate sounds, it may very well mean it's just not that important anymore.

 

[Ravenwind]

Jerking off?

Are you talking about the line about spilling your seed on the ground? I would think in a Jewish tribal culture that was fighting wars every time someone sneezed, that would refer to pulling out of your wife rather than getting her pregnant.

Same thing with homosexuality. You probably would want to eliminate that just because it doesn't produce offspring. As cruel as eliminate sounds, it may very well mean it's just not that important anymore.

Yeah, regardless as to whether he pulled out (which I agree sounds more like what really happened) or jerked off, the point was that he had been told, "produce an heir for your dead bro", and he didn't, because the child wouldn't be considered his. But that's where the supposedly "Christian" hangup about masturbation comes from... that one line about spilled seed.

Homosexuality is explicitly stated as being off-limits, though (in contrast to the vague masturbation), and it's considered right alongside with incest and bestiality, so while "no kids" would sound to be a good reason on the surface, I don't think that's quite the case, as you can certainly get kids with incest (albeit retarded ones with really messed up family trees...).

I think the reason is a little deeper than that- everything that's listed as a "thou shalt not" has a really good reason for not doing it... take eating pork or shellfish, as they run a high disease risk if they are not properly cooked and cured. Consider the kosher rules about mixing meats and everything else- something anyone who's suffered from food poisoning from their own cooking takes pretty seriously. Last, consider cooking a kid/lamb in its own mother's milk- that milk was meant to keep the animal alive, and cooking it that way is really heartless (one could liken it unto stealing an oxygen tank from someone suffering from lung disease, just so you could get high off it... what, then, does that say about the person doing it?).

I think that homosexuality was prohibited was because, first, on a spiritual level, God created man and woman as the natural order for humanity (and therefore, for those who *choose* to act that way, reject God's will for them [please don't get me wrong, I do believe there are those who choose, and those who are born as such, but I only mean the first]), and secondly, on a physical level, there are physiological and pleasure issues in acting upon it... there is a reason the vagina is capable of producing mucus, and the anus is not; and there is a reason why fingers aren't as big as dicks. ...I mean, think about it, how far must a gay couple go to achieve what a straight couple does with ease? Males use KY (an emulation of vaginal mucus), and females use dildos (an emulation of a penis)... without 'em, you're left with "dry" and "shallow" sex (literally and metaphorically), and where is the fun in that? Finally, there's the health aspects of it... infections from scratched and torn tissue and damage from poorly-kept nails are never fun.

(All that said, I hope everyone realizes I'm not trying to judge anyone, I'm simply speaking from my own experience, and what I've learned through the years).

 

[intothewoods]

<snip>
I think that homosexuality was prohibited was because, first, on a spiritual level, God created man and woman as the natural order for humanity (and therefore, for those who *choose* to act that way, reject God's will for them [please don't get me wrong, I do believe there are those who choose, and those who are born as such, but I only mean the first]), and secondly, on a physical level, there are physiological and pleasure issues in acting upon it... there is a reason the vagina is capable of producing mucus, and the anus is not; and there is a reason why fingers aren't as big as dicks. ...I mean, think about it, how far must a gay couple go to achieve what a straight couple does with ease? Males use KY (an emulation of vaginal mucus), and females use dildos (an emulation of a penis)... without 'em, you're left with "dry" and "shallow" sex (literally and metaphorically), and where is the fun in that? Finally, there's the health aspects of it... infections from scratched and torn tissue and damage from poorly-kept nails are never fun.

(All that said, I hope everyone realizes I'm not trying to judge anyone, I'm simply speaking from my own experience, and what I've learned through the years).

Your own experience as a straight man. Sexuality is not a choice. And sure, a man can get off inside a woman "with ease" but most can come inside wherethefuckever with relative ease as well. PIV sex doesn't typically get a woman off "with ease" either.

 

[Netzach]

Your own experience as a straight man. Sexuality is not a choice. And sure, a man can get off inside a woman "with ease" but most can come inside wherethefuckever with relative ease as well. PIV sex doesn't typically get a woman off "with ease" either.

I don't think this poster is a straight man, but I don't remember.

As a Jew I do appreciate some of the "Leviticus isn't all crazy" meme - but so much of it is that this meme needs to be dealt with. What exactly is going to happen if you mix linen and wool, that kills you? What's this thing with taking off your sandal and spitting in your brother in law's face, specifically, if he refuses to marry you after your husband dies? The only reason I have to go to Harry Halal to eat lamb in yogurt like the rest of the entire region isn't because we had animal rights but because we wanted to *differentiate* ourselves. "No thanks, I don't EAT lamb in yogurt" was our version of being trendoid vegan douchewads of the Holy Land. Or Hashem making us so crazy with all these dirty dishes that we get enlightned and actually go vegetarian, depending who you ask.

Why aren't these fine customs kept alive by Christians, if they're so great?

I am alive because someone spliced mouse proteins onto chemicals and they put it into my vein every 8 weeks, the amount based on my weight.

There's a lot of freaking unnatrual stuff we do. God obviously wants the hemophiliac babies to die too if form has to follow function.

Incidentally, there's plenty of fun in "shallow" sex. Stuffing myself like a porn turkey is not a big part of my orgasms, I know it is for a lot of people but I think we'd procreate either way. If we're the only animals on the planet that have to be persuaded with mutual orgasm to reproduce, then we're the stupidest, not the guys on top. Orgasms pair/bond us long enough to raise these ridiculous slow children of the animal world that we have.

And good Christian folk in a nutshell right there: you're not trying to offend people, but you sure the fuck have to make sure you do. We know why you believe what you believe. It's not that we're going to agree with you with enough education poor heathens, we know the score, we've read the story, we've studied the detail and we're not in agreement, it's not speaking to our insides, our souls or non souls or whatever we do or don't have.