christian domestic discipline

[april2000]

But I guess I was just pondering, hypothetically...what if a couple who is involved in a consensual D/s relationship happens to believe that relationship is commanded by God.

I actually know a couple that believes that. It's not for me, and I find it kind of sad that they feel the need to justify their kink, but they're happy with it, so who am I to argue? My only issue with them is that they feel that's the ONLY way to have a marital relationship, and I disagree with that. I don't feel like submitting outside of the bedroom and that's perfectly ok!

And believe me, I know about the knee jerk reaction. I say I'm a conservative Christian and all of a sudden, people hate me. Doesn't make sense. I'm opened minded with some things - after al, I'm posting here.

 

[ntp]

.....

 

[BiBunny]

I'm not a religious person but I do try to know something about the religions that have shaped the culture I live in, and I do get a little peeved by people trying twist their particular religion into saying what they want it to say about a particular subject. I feel like if you're going to live within a particular tradition, you need to take it as it comes, and live with it, rather than trying to make it say something it doesn't. (i don't mean this in response to any particular comment in here, or the original subject, it's just sort of a random musing.) I do think that trying to claim the Bible encourages lots of fun hot sex and kink between partners is stretching things a bit far. Read the beginning 1st Corinthians 7, for instance, which basically says that giving in to carnal desires is a form of incontinence and that celibacy is the spiritually preferable state, but that if you don't have the strength for that, you may as well get married rather than giving in to even worse forms of incontinence. Not a very cheerful world view, and certainly not one I care for, but it is written right there in the bible, so if you are a christian you're kind of stuck with that.
just my non-christian opinion...

Yeah, but Paul wrote Corinthians, and that's what gracie and the others were trying to get at.

 

[graceanne]

Paul wrote . . . what three books in the bible? He actually mentions sex and marital relationships rarely. On the other hand, read solomons song of songs. It's beautiful and sexual. It also made it into the bible. Paul is the only one, off hand, that I can think of who felt that sex was bad. I could be wrong. *shrugs*

 

[FluteMaster]

Paul wrote . . . what three books in the bible? He actually mentions sex and marital relationships rarely. On the other hand, read solomons song of songs. It's beautiful and sexual. It also made it into the bible. Paul is the only one, off hand, that I can think of who felt that sex was bad. I could be wrong. *shrugs*

I am somewhat puzzled by the idea that Paul thought sex was bad. My understanding was that when he wrote, the expectation was that Jesus was soon to return and bring about the perfect rule and judgement of God (Look at 1 Corinthians 7 v 26). In the light of this impending event...all other activities become subservient to what is about to happen.

So, Paul is trying to help people work out how they can follow the path of preparation, and yet still function on a day to day basis. Paul considered himself fortunate not because he thought sex was wrong or bad, but because he believed that he had fewer distractions to serving his Lord. He comment about "it is better to marry than burn in hell", was a dig at those who argued for everyone to do the same..irrespective of whether it was their calling to do so.

Unless you understand the context in which Paul is writing..then he doesn't make sense.

as an aside, btw, some translations have the phrase in Cor 7 v 1 "It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman" as a quote back to the Corinthians. In other words, these are the words the Corinthians used. Like all slogans, it makes good guidence for the time, but makes a bad rule for everyone. A bit like "Safe, Sane and Consensual".

 

[MechaBlade]

The flexibility that people employ in justifying their desires never ceases to amaze me.

Agreed.

And, it's not remotely related to BDSM, which is about finding and following one's own desire. It would demand that all people be hetero, that all men exercise power because that is demanded of "God" and that all women submit, in part because we are not capable of ruling our own lives or making rational decisions. A woman who is dominant, a man who desires submission and service, neither is allowed in this world view. Nor, ultimately, should these people have their way, would women be allowed agency in any sphere, public or private.

How is it not about BDSM? It features spanking as punishment, so there's your DSM right there.

What does it matter why the man is dominant? If anyone asks me why I, the man, am the dom, I'd say "because I desire it." If they probe further, I'd say it's because "It's the natural order of things." If I was the tiniest bit religious, I'd say it's because of god.

BDSM has nothing to do with being PC or nondiscriminatory. It's about bondage, discipline/domination, and sadomasochism.

 

[LadyAria]

The scarlet letter was first kink book. I use to have fantasies of Arthur Dimmesdale beating the hell out of himself in the closet. Metaphor of my early life...makes sense to me. Strict Christians come off kinky in my book. Only people I know that hang pictures of torture (crucifixion) in their house on the regular.

 

[MechaBlade]

Only people I know that hang pictures of torture (crucifixion) in their house on the regular.

Well, I do that, too.

I totally agree with Christians (specifically Catholics) as masochists. They have a whole holiday dedicated to suffering.

 

[LadyAria]

Well, I do that, too.

I totally agree with Christians (specifically Catholics) as masochists. They have a whole holiday dedicated to suffering.

I prefer pictures of fox hunts

 

[myinnerslut]

did anybody cath the very obvious contradiction on the website? the main page says something along the lines of (i dont feel like going back and finding quotes, so bear with me): while spanking is part of this, most people dont do it that often, and in the HOH articles, one guy talks all about how "maintanence spanking" should be practiced, and how he spanks his wife daily and advises it to others. i guess as much as the homepage wants to say there is, there is no one way to practice CDD, just like there is no one way to practice BDSM.

 

[neonflux]

Agreed.


How is it not about BDSM? It features spanking as punishment, so there's your DSM right there.

What does it matter why the man is dominant? If anyone asks me why I, the man, am the dom, I'd say "because I desire it." If they probe further, I'd say it's because "It's the natural order of things." If I was the tiniest bit religious, I'd say it's because of god.

BDSM has nothing to do with being PC or nondiscriminatory. It's about bondage, discipline/domination, and sadomasochism.

It's not BDSM because it's not necessarily consensual. There is no room for a woman who is dominant or a man who is submissive, and those who practice it do so under the guise of "following God's design" rather than because they want to get off (whether they do so or not is despite the point). Homosexual BDSM would certainly not be approved by this group. Therefore, the DSM that you describe is, if not anti-desire and anti-pleasure, at least providing a very prescribed and proscribed version of the same.

While BDSM may have nothing to do with being PC or nondiscriminatory, its current protocols and forms had their origins in the Gay Leatherman community of the 70s - hence our use of the term top and bottom, and the bondage, discipline/domination, and sadomasochism that you speak of is supposed to be "safe, sane, consensual" and done for the pleasure of both partners. In a world that views women, by virtue of their possession of ovaries, as creatures who "require the guidance and discipline" of a superior man, regardless of personality or intelligence, I would venture to say that much of what goes on is only nominally consensual for many of the women, at best.

Now, I am curious about why you see male dominance over women as "the order of things."

~ Neon

 

[LadyAria]

Paul wrote . . . what three books in the bible? He actually mentions sex and marital relationships rarely. On the other hand, read solomons song of songs. It's beautiful and sexual. It also made it into the bible. Paul is the only one, off hand, that I can think of who felt that sex was bad. I could be wrong. *shrugs*

And women shouldn't speak in church. Yes, Paul is the misogynist.

 

[intothewoods]

It's not BDSM because it's not necessarily consensual. There is no room for a woman who is dominant or a man who is submissive, and those who practice it do so under the guise of "following God's design" rather than because they want to get off (whether they do so or not is despite the point). Homosexual BDSM would certainly not be approved by this group. Therefore, the DSM that you describe is, if not anti-desire and anti-pleasure, at least providing a very prescribed and proscribed version of the same.

Agreed. I also wouldn't equate this to the BDSM lifestyle. I see some similarities between the domestic discipline and a 24/7 M/s relationship, in that in both scenarios, the Master/CDD husband leads the slave/CDD wife. However, in most M/s relationships, everyone gets their freak on. In a CDD relationship, it appears that any enjoyment of the discipline is sort of only barely acknowledged, in an embarassed sort of way.

 

[misspihla]

Isnt that site just about everything bad western countries see in how women are treated in islamic countries (sorry about generalization)?

IMO that is just as bdsm as taleban.

 

[neonflux]

Isnt that site just about everything bad western countries see in how women are treated in islamic countries (sorry about generalization)?

IMO that is just as bdsm as taleban.

LOL! Certainly similar to the Taleban and other fundamentalist groups like the Wahabis....

(My understanding is that the Koran itself is quite different and does not support the subjugation of women anymore than the bulk New Testament does... St. Paul excluded, of course.)

Neon

 

[MechaBlade]

It's not BDSM because it's not necessarily consensual.

"This site is meant to be a haven for married couples who practice safe and consensual Christian Domestic Discipline". It also says the site does not condone nonconsensual CDD. Sounds consensual to me.

There is no room for a woman who is dominant or a man who is submissive, and those who practice it do so under the guise of "following God's design" rather than because they want to get off (whether they do so or not is despite the point). Homosexual BDSM would certainly not be approved by this group. Therefore, the DSM that you describe is, if not anti-desire and anti-pleasure, at least providing a very prescribed and proscribed version of the same.

Yes, it doesn't accept certain types of BDSM. Just like many other types of BDSM. I'd have a hard time finding a role in Lesbian BDSM.

While BDSM may have nothing to do with being PC or nondiscriminatory, its current protocols and forms

I don't think there's one book on BDSM.

had their origins in the Gay Leatherman community of the 70s - hence our use of the term top and bottom, and the bondage, discipline/domination, and sadomasochism that you speak of is supposed to be "safe, sane, consensual" and done for the pleasure of both partners. In a world that views women, by virtue of their possession of ovaries, as creatures who "require the guidance and discipline" of a superior man, regardless of personality or intelligence, I would venture to say that much of what goes on is only nominally consensual for many of the women, at best.

That's a rather large assumption. That women surely aren't consenting purely because it's a rather unfeminist reasoning for considering males dominant.

Now, I am curious about why you see male dominance over women as "the order of things."

~ Neon

Because 1. I'd say it's more "natural" and 2. it's what I prefer.

However, in most M/s relationships, everyone gets their freak on. In a CDD relationship, it appears that any enjoyment of the discipline is sort of only barely acknowledged, in an embarassed sort of way.

Well, they're Christians. Admitting the fun and necessity of lust isn't easy.


I think you all are bringing your own opinions to this lifestyle for whatever reason. Everything you guys have said about Christian Domestic Discipline is stuff unknowing vanilla people say about BDSM in general.

 

[Etoile]

I think you all are bringing your own opinions to this lifestyle for whatever reason. Everything you guys have said about Christian Domestic Discipline is stuff unknowing vanilla people say about BDSM in general.

This whole thread is hilarious. That whole site is hilarious. The reason I started this thread was to encourage hilarity about a hilarious thing. I see I have been successful.

 

[intothewoods]

This whole thread is hilarious. That whole site is hilarious. The reason I started this thread was to encourage hilarity about a hilarious thing. I see I have been successful.

<laugh> But please can someone else mention the awesomeness of the pantaloons?

 

[neonflux]

This whole thread is hilarious. That whole site is hilarious. The reason I started this thread was to encourage hilarity about a hilarious thing. I see I have been successful.

with affection

ADDENDUM: Now at the risk of adding even more to the hilarity AND for your pleasure, read on

 

[neonflux]

"This site is meant to be a haven for married couples who practice safe and consensual Christian Domestic Discipline". It also says the site does not condone nonconsensual CDD. Sounds consensual to me.

Point taken. And I am exposing a strong bias with this one. I just don't buy this, if only because I've worked in the field of reproductive health for so long and have seen hidden agenda upon hidden agenda slowly but surely revealed...

Yes, it doesn't accept certain types of BDSM. Just like many other types of BDSM. I'd have a hard time finding a role in Lesbian BDSM.

I don't think there's one book on BDSM.

But lesbians would not dispute your right to practice it as a heterosexual (in fact I know a number who enjoy playing with men - including gasp! straight men). And where, praytell, did I suggest that there is one book on same - to mention the origins of a practice is not the same as to proscribe it.

That's a rather large assumption. That women surely aren't consenting purely because it's a rather unfeminist reasoning for considering males dominant.

I am not being flip - I don't understand what you mean here.

Because 1. I'd say it's more "natural" and 2. it's what I prefer..

On what evidence are you basing your assertion that it's "more natural?" Preferance isn't proof.

Well, they're Christians. Admitting the fun and necessity of lust isn't easy.

LOL, you and I must know a whole different set of Christians, then. Of course, I do live in the Bay Area.

I think you all are bringing your own opinions to this lifestyle for whatever reason. Everything you guys have said about Christian Domestic Discipline is stuff unknowing vanilla people say about BDSM in general.

I defer to Etoile here...

Neon

 

[MechaBlade]

But lesbians would not dispute your right to practice it as a heterosexual (in fact I know a number who enjoy playing with men - including gasp! straight men). And where, praytell, did I suggest that there is one book on same - to mention the origins of a practice is not the same as to proscribe it.

My point is that open-mindedness is not a requirement for BDSM. I can imagine lesbians frowning upon bisexual BDSM. I can't say I know any that would, but theoretically could exist and it wouldn't make their own lesbian experiences any less BDSM.

You talked about "its current protocols and forms", which implies there is one reigning thought on BDSM, as opposed to many different flavors (like Gorean) or, in this case, Christian-inspired.

I am not being flip - I don't understand what you mean here.

You ventured that CDD is only "nominally consensual" for many women which I don't think is a call you're qualified to make. You're basing that on purely the fact that this type of BDSM is gender specific, which may be somewhat misogynistic (or perhaps misandristic to burden men with being the sole doms). I think women wouldn't participate in it if they didn't want to.

On what evidence are you basing your assertion that it's "more natural?" Preferance isn't proof.

I say it's more natural because, in Western Civilization, the male is generally thought of as the head of the household and females hold a more subordinate role. Preference may not be proof, but it's a good enough reason.

LOL, you and I must know a whole different set of Christians, then. Of course, I do live in the Bay Area.

Yep. Most Christians I know don't like to talk about fucking or masturbating and think lust is a sin. One of my Christian friends doesn't believe in premarital sex and seems to feel guilty for feelings of lust. I've been to the Bay, but you seriously don't know any non-lascivious Christians?

 

[misspihla]

Bit besides the topic but I came across what Martin Luther had said:

"A woman has the right to take on a lover, if her husband isn't able to satisfy her in bed - and the husband should look on this with equanimity."

 

[@}-}rebecca----]

<laugh> But please can someone else mention the awesomeness of the pantaloons?

:smiles: Okay I'll fess up , they have a certain cheeky allure .

 

[neonflux]

:smiles: Okay I'll fess up , they have a certain cheeky allure .

with or without crotch ??? and would it be sacriligeous to ask to a have a pair custom made with either little crosses or Christian fishies on them?

(I will admit to entirely missing this initially - only now went into the store.)

Neon

 

[intothewoods]

Ha ha! People, pay attention to my posts! I wouldn't steer you wrong!!!