Jesus says it’s okay to beat your wife

Matthew Cobb noticed a “tweet” (oy, do I hate that word!) from Tom Holland, to wit:

Screen shot 2013-06-22 at 8.11.37 AM

Well, that’s provocative.  Checking it out, Matthew and I found the Christian Domestic Discipline website, and it’seven worse than you can imagine.  At first I thought it was a joke, but it appears to be serious. You can find gems like this:

This website is intended to be a haven for those practicing Consensual Christian Domestic Discipline, and for those who ernestly wish to learn about Christian Domestic Discipline.

What is Christian Domestic Discipline?

In order to describe to you what is Christian Domestic Discipline, I’d first like to start with what it is not.

Christian Domestic Discipline is not domestic violence. Neither is it abuse. It is an arrangement between two adults who share the belief that the husband is the head of the household and with that position comes the right to enforce his authority.

Christian Domestic Discipline is not BDSM. It is not a game. While we do not deny its sometimes erotic nature, it is ultimately not for erotic purposes. It is often much different than the domestic discipline you will find outside of the Christian faith.

A Christian Domestic Discipline marriage is set up according to the guidelines set forth in the Holy Bible, meaning the husband has authority over his wife within the bounds of God’s Word and enforces that authority, if need be, through discipline including but not limited to spanking. He uses his authority to keep peace and order in his home, protect his marriage, and help his wife mature in her Christian walk.

In a true Christian Domestic Discipline marriage, discipline is tempered with the knowledge that the husband must answer to God for his actions and decisions in his position of authority.

(This website is not intended to offend anyone. If the subject of wife spanking offends, please just click the little “x” at the top of the page to exit.)

Yes, it’s about wife-beating “spanking,” physical abuse sanctioned and sanctified by the Holy Bible. The site is replete with gems like the following. At first I thought they must have all been written by men, but women are authors, too!

So what am I getting at? I am saying that you as a man will get all kinds of mixed signals from a woman. It’s not that she means to confuse you. She is probably confused herself. She has desires and wants of her own (and our modern culture has certainly taught her that she’ll only be happy if she can manage to meet those desires), but her created nature is never fully satisfied outside of the role for which she was created.

That is why a woman will say she wants a Prince Charming, only to run off with the first Black Knight that comes her way. She doesn’t understand it is her created nature that is causing the attraction to jerks. She doesn’t really want a jerk. What she senses in the jerk is simply masculinity in its darkest form. Her created nature can trick her into believing the jerk can provide just what she needs (until he beats her or goes out on her or otherwise mistreats her).

In reality, what she needs is a hero. Not a suave Prince Charming who brings her flowers and jumps to do her every bidding, but a Knight in Beat-up Armor who understands her needs as a woman and is self-disciplined enough to meet those needs.

Yes, a hero who understands that a woman’s needs include being upended over a knee and beat on the bum when she’s disobedient.

There are lots of lovely articles on the site, like this one from “Sir Don”:

Warm Up

By: Sir Don

When you discipline your wife, for either misbehavior or maintenance it is best to start slow and warm up her bottom, spanking her with less intensity and not going full force right out of the gate.

After a sufficient warm up you will be able to spank her with great intensity and a longer period of time, hence enforcing a proper punishment and the tears that are sure to flow.

Remember to take you time with the discipline, by spanking her longer you will find that the submission from her is greater than one done quick just to get it over with, By spanking her for a greater period of time also shows that you as her HOH take your responsibilities serious. . .

There is, of course, the requisite Scriptural justification; here’s a small sample:

1 Peter 3:1 Likewise, wives, be in subjection to your own husbands, so that, even if some refuse to believe and obey the word of God, they will be won over without a word, because of the behavior  of the wives.

1 Peter 3:5-6 For in the same way, the holy wives of former times, whose hope was towards God,  also adorned themselves, being in subjection to their own husbands; just as Sarah submissively  obeyed Abraham calling him, “Lord, who owns me”; whose spiritual child you became when you
began doing what was right and were absolutely not afraid of any terror.

Proverbs 13:24 He who spares his rod hates his son. But he who loves him disciplines him  diligently.

And there are explicit instructions about how to administer the beating, which is repeatedly distinguished from “abuse”. This is from Ned and Maria:

Her rear end and maybe ‘nearby’ is the only appropriate target. The Bible speaks of a rod to the  back, but she is more sensitive and I suggest you stick with the safer spot. You want to be ultra-cautious with your treasure and not do any harm. Discipline is to be temporary – never even THINK of doing something that would give a long-term harm. That would show a lack of concern for her well-being, and  she could lose respect for you. No, give her spankings to remember, and let her sit on pillows occasionally. But that’s it.

What a kindness to provide pillows!

Now I suppose this could be some twisted mixture of religion and consensual S&M, but they vehemetly deny it—while  still admitting its “erotic aspects”. I think it’s just religion gone awry, as it so often does. In this case, Christianity has morphed into a form of perverted sexism, akin to fundamentalist Islam.

67 Comments

  1. Posted June 22, 2013 at 11:33 am | Permalink

    Reblogged this on Critical Thinking – A World View.

  2. Posted June 22, 2013 at 11:36 am | Permalink

    You might look at some of the photos; it really appears to be a sexual “spanky” joke.

  3. Posted June 22, 2013 at 11:37 am | Permalink

    …this is beyond perversion…..disgusting bastards

  4. bipolariimom
    Posted June 22, 2013 at 11:41 am | Permalink

    Disgusting. Yes, as a grown woman, I want to be reprimanded in such an undignified manner. Who’s to say the a$$hole swinging the hand is correct…? Of course, God, what was I thinking. God is always right…. this is porn for Christians. Through and through. A way to get their jollies.

  5. Grania Spingies
    Posted June 22, 2013 at 11:42 am | Permalink

    There’s a fine line between S&M and abuse.

    It isn’t good enough to claim that there is “consent”, because real domestic abuse survivors often find ways to excuse and enable their abuser.

    One of the things that ought to be a red flag here is the fact that there is a gender-role assigned to this: the wife is the one who gets beaten, never the husband; as well as the fact that it is usually at the discretion of the man, never the woman.

    The only cure for this that I can see: parents, never teach your daughters to be “ladylike” or to avoid confrontations or to be obedient.
    Never tell them how a woman “ought to be”.
    Teach them to stand up for themselves and teach them that it is perfectly okay to tell anyone to fuck off in just so many words if they do not enjoy or desire their attentions.

    • Posted June 22, 2013 at 7:26 pm | Permalink

      That sounds to me very close to the old-school “feminist” claims that BDSM is inherently abusive, and not a valid form of sexual activity. Which is an argument I treat with the same contempt as the stigmatization of any other private, consensual sexual activity.

      It is certainly “good enough” if “consent” is actual, fully-informed consent, not some sort of mere ascent coerced from an otherwise unwilling partner. If fully-informed, freely-given consent is given, it’s really not up to third parties to second-guess that it’s merely an “abused” person “enabling” their abusers.

      There are, of course, people who hide abusive activity under the guise of BDSM, but these are people who are clearly violating agreed-to boundaries or not bothering to get consent in the first place, and in those cases, I’d say there’s a very clear line between consensual BDSM and the abuse of it.

      The CDD folks, of course, seem to be simply eroticizing abuse, since the consent of the female partner is simply assumed by virtue of being female, that being rationalized by “biblical mandate”, Exhibit Number Infinity of how religion f’s-up everything.

      • Posted June 23, 2013 at 7:46 am | Permalink

        My wife had a female co-worker who was into this and liked to promote it among to the other women at the factory. It seemed that, for this couple at least, the activity was basically mild BDSM, but it was cloaked in a “Christian” mantle to make it seem less naughty.

        • Fred
          Posted June 23, 2013 at 9:20 am | Permalink

          Isn’t naughty kinda the point of S&M. I’ve never been so inclined but it always seems to be spun that way.

  6. Diana MacPherson
    Posted June 22, 2013 at 12:07 pm | Permalink

    This has to be Christian kink and as so there is no safe word!

    I’m wondering at this “When you discipline your wife, for either misbehavior or maintenance….” Maintenance? What exactly is maintenance spanking?

    Anyone else see the irony of the “confused” woman wanting a “Black Knight” who “beats her”? The spanking husband is the one beating her! That’s the bad guy!

    • Mark Joseph
      Posted June 22, 2013 at 12:29 pm | Permalink

      I presume that “maintenance spanking” is to be understood as “showing her who’s the boss.”

      • Gabrielle Guichard
        Posted June 22, 2013 at 4:01 pm | Permalink

        That’s what I understand too. “Spank your wife every day. If you don’t know why, she does.”

        • Diana MacPherson
          Posted June 22, 2013 at 4:11 pm | Permalink

          Ugh – If you read the article about the origins of OTK (over the knee) not only are you treated to what to do to a wife who “refuses to cooperate” under the section entitled “Difficulties” but you also learn proper positioning under the section entitled “Positioning” with this helpful tip, “A towel on the husband’s thigh can both alleviate hygienic concerns as well as minimize the effect of unforeseen stress incontinence”. Holy crap! You beat your wife so hard this is what happens and they say it so matter of fact!

  7. Posted June 22, 2013 at 12:07 pm | Permalink

    Yep – porn for Christians – pure and simple. And while I really don’t care what consenting adults do with each other, doing this in front of their children should be considered child abuse. It’s sex and violence rolled into one and kids shouldn’t have to witness this – how badly warped are they going to be about gender roles?!? To be honest, I think people who would do this in front of their kids really shouldn’t be having kids in the first place. Our species has already dumbed down enough.

    Also, I couldn’t agree more about the ridiculous nature of the word *tweet* – I’m glad I’m not the only one. That’s actually a big part of the reason I haven’t been active on Twitter yet. I just can’t get myself past that “verb.”

    • Bob Smith
      Posted June 22, 2013 at 6:29 pm | Permalink

      The problem here is, this seems to contain an element of religious coercion which may compromise consent.

  8. Stephen P
    Posted June 22, 2013 at 12:20 pm | Permalink

    I’m inclined to think that this is neither a joke, nor serious in the way that you’ve interpreted it. It looks like the product of some BDSM fans who’ve been brought up as Christians, “know” that erotica and BDSM are awfully satanic and unacceptable, but have invented a biblically-acceptable way of indulging in their hobby. I don’t think they’re actually trying to push it on other people.

    But I’m not betting more than 2 cents on that.

    • Posted June 23, 2013 at 7:48 am | Permalink

      For the one couple I knew about that practiced this, this seemed to be exactly what it was.

  9. marksolock
    Posted June 22, 2013 at 12:33 pm | Permalink

    Reblogged this on Mark Solock Blog.

  10. Mark Joseph
    Posted June 22, 2013 at 12:36 pm | Permalink

    “Her rear end and maybe ‘nearby’ is the only appropriate target. The Bible speaks of a rod to the back, but she is more sensitive and I suggest you stick with the safer spot.”

    Matthew 15:6b-9 (emphasis mine): “Thus have you made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. You hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,

    This people draws near to me with their mouth, and honors me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.

    But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

  11. Diana MacPherson
    Posted June 22, 2013 at 12:43 pm | Permalink

    I like your hatred of certain words. I have a friend that hates the word w00t. Her husband says it all the time to annoy her and once I wrote it on her Facebook post and she deleted it because she hates the word so much. I keep my hated words secret in fear of payback. :)

    • Posted June 22, 2013 at 2:33 pm | Permalink

      I don’t understand word-hatred at all. They’re all just sounds/symbols, as innocuous together as they are separately. Why should “sweet” be OK and “tweet” not? Presumably you and Jerry would refer to birds tweeting without flinching, so why not people?

      I reserve my wrath for mispronunciations, at least when they give rise to ambiguity. Here in New Zeaaland if someone refers to three bares, it’s not clear whether they will feed them porridge or drink them. “Known” and “grown” are now implacably two-syllabled (the w is consonantalised, ard requires an epenthetic e, you might say), but at least they can’t be misunderstood.

      • Diana MacPherson
        Posted June 22, 2013 at 2:52 pm | Permalink

        Ha ha! You’re trying to get me to reveal my list! Never! :D

        • Posted June 23, 2013 at 12:18 pm | Permalink

          A compromise word between “b***” and “website” occurred to me the other day. Unfortunately it’s “blobsite”.

    • Marella
      Posted June 22, 2013 at 5:28 pm | Permalink

      Oh dear she’d hate my car, its number plate is WOOT, not spellt with zeros however. I get many compliments about it, mostly from young men though.

      • Diana MacPherson
        Posted June 22, 2013 at 5:30 pm | Permalink

        Ha ha. I used to hate the word too but then accepted it. I also hated meh but now love meh and use it a lot since it is the perfect expression of so many moments in my life!

        • SA Gould
          Posted June 22, 2013 at 5:44 pm | Permalink

          I like WOOT. But… when did it change from WOOF! (Arsenio Hall) and why didn’t I get a memo?

  12. Wolfkiller
    Posted June 22, 2013 at 12:48 pm | Permalink

    “At first I thought they must have all been written by men, but women are authors, too!”

    Oh no, I was looking at a website and Facebook group run by women all about this head of household/submission nonsense. If I can find the links I will later, but don’t doubt there are plenty of Christian women brain washed into supporting this behavior.

    • Diana MacPherson
      Posted June 22, 2013 at 1:02 pm | Permalink

      The oppressed often do well in helping to maintain oppression. As a woman I have seen this behaviour amongst women a lot (though thankfully much less often now) in the form of social shaming for doing things like keeping your own name if you get married, not getting married, not having kids, having a career, etc.

      It doesn’t surprise me as I remember learning about so-called stewards of slaves in ancient Rome which were basically the slave boss of the slaves. Often the slave boss was much more cruel than the master.

      • Gabrielle Guichard
        Posted June 22, 2013 at 4:06 pm | Permalink

        Perfectly illustrated in “Django unchained”

        • Diana MacPherson
          Posted June 22, 2013 at 6:45 pm | Permalink

          Honestly, I think it is perfectly illustrated in some work cultures as well. I have often thought of Ancient Roman slaves and their stewards while holding various corporate positions.

  13. muggleinconverse
    Posted June 22, 2013 at 1:01 pm | Permalink

    Nicholas at ‘The Unholy Book’ talked about this the other day:

    http://theunholybook.wordpress.com/2013/06/21/spank-for-jesus-christ-or-not/#comment-113

    I’ll say what I said there:
    I’ve read about this rather extensively. It seems that the wife is basically given the roll of a child. If the wife ‘breaks the rules’, she gets ‘punished’. The husband’s word is final and he is never to be in the submissive role, the wife must always bend to his will. He is basically the God of the home.

    It seems to vary whether or not the children are made aware of the arrangement. As a mother I can’t help but wonder how the children that do know would treat their mom, especially sons.

    To believe that this is the proper way, you have to believe that women are nothing more than ever-erring child bearers and men are ever-correct masters. It’s frightening. I can only guess how many truly abusive relationships are covered under this guise.

    • Diana MacPherson
      Posted June 22, 2013 at 1:05 pm | Permalink

      Indeed, women are considered children so they are treated as such. It’s a rather anachronistic view that fits an anachronism like religion.

      Agreed, kids who witness this would have a lot of issues later on – girls raised to be passive and believe they are limited by their own childishness (who most likely will attach themselves to domineering, violent men), never to be able to grow up or think for themselves and boys raised to dominate women.

      • muggleinconverse
        Posted June 22, 2013 at 1:20 pm | Permalink

        Indeed. It isn’t hard to see how this type of thing can become a vicious cycle.

      • Tulse
        Posted June 22, 2013 at 4:38 pm | Permalink

        kids who witness this would have a lot of issues later on – girls raised to be passive and believe they are limited by their own childishness (who most likely will attach themselves to domineering, violent men), never to be able to grow up or think for themselves and boys raised to dominate women

        I think that’s seen as a feature, not a bug.

        • Diana MacPherson
          Posted June 22, 2013 at 5:12 pm | Permalink

          Yes, I think you are right.

  14. Wolfkiller
    Posted June 22, 2013 at 1:08 pm | Permalink

    http://womenlivingwell.org/2013/05/the-husband-as-head-of-the-home-in-opposite-world/

    The comments from the women below the article are downright depressing.

    • Another Matt
      Posted June 22, 2013 at 6:56 pm | Permalink

      Wow.

      Glad I live in Opposite World!

  15. LilburnLowellDecker
    Posted June 22, 2013 at 1:13 pm | Permalink

    Wrong, wrong, wrong. Jesus NEVER says anywhere in the New Testament that it’s okay for a man to beat his wife. You will notice that none of the quotes above are from him. Further, one quote illustrates the point I learned when I was a Christian—that one should NEVER take the word of a preacher, priest, proselytizer or theologian when they say “The Bible says —“. In the quote of 1 Peter 3:5-6 the words “who owns me” have been added. They’re not in the text.
    (Lilburn Lowell Decker 06-22-2013)

    • Wolfkiller
      Posted June 22, 2013 at 1:54 pm | Permalink

      Another lesson to always remember is two people with opposite beliefs can read the bible and pick out parts that will back up their agenda. Hence why you can have goofballs like the Westboro Baptist clan and some more progressive pro-gay churches operating with the exact same book.

    • Notagod
      Posted June 22, 2013 at 6:28 pm | Permalink

      Of course, the christian bibel needs to be interpreted as doG intended. The words “who owns me” are not written but implied.

      • LilburnLowellDecker
        Posted June 22, 2013 at 6:40 pm | Permalink

        My quibble is that the verse is presented as if the words “who owns me” is in the text. If one claims to quote something they should do it accurately

        • Notagod
          Posted June 23, 2013 at 6:02 am | Permalink

          Yeah, I’m not disagreeing with you but, that’s the way the christian does it. It isn’t just this particular christian cult the lack of accuracy is pervasive within all of the christian cult. Even if they are inclined to quote their bibel accurately they almost always need to add an interpretation of what their god “really” intended.

          When you were a christian, if you read the bib, you did rearrange it to suit your needs at any particular time didn’t you?

          • LilburnLowellDecker
            Posted June 23, 2013 at 8:25 am | Permalink

            No argument from me that most Christians (past and present) interpret the bible to make it say what they want it to say not necessarily what it says. I did that when I was a biblical inerrantist Christian, not by adding words (I was careful not to do that) but to focus on particular verses and ignore anything to the contrary. For example, I accepted as literal Jesus’ statement about turning the other cheek and was a thorough pacifist but to do that I had to ignore the fact that Jesus in other verses both teaches and practices violent behavior.
            My major criticism in this particular instance is that one should not add one’s own interpretation as if it is in the text; that one should not attribute something to Jesus which he never said; and that there are plenty of things he is said to have done and spoken which can and should be quoted against him.

            • Notagod
              Posted June 23, 2013 at 9:42 am | Permalink

              things he is said to have done and spoken

              The bib is an old book that has been done and redone many times, even currently there are a few different versions in use.

              While I admire your want for accuracy I don’t understand how it could actually be attained, the words attributed to It are, as far as we can reasonably be sure, just words that somebody (scribe or otherwise) made up. I don’t want to seem to be justifying the addition or subtraction of words within a quote but, somebody did it somewhere at sometime or the bib simply wouldn’t exist.

              The book itself seems to cause enough problems that it has lost any usefulness as a reference as far as I’m concerned.

              • LilburnLowellDecker
                Posted June 23, 2013 at 11:07 am | Permalink

                Personally, I don’t want to be like the Christian bible thumpers, adding words whenever one wishes to prove a point. The gospel writers did that quite often as you can see if you compare the four versions of stories. Ultimately, my gripe isn’t about the bible only: Whenever someone claims to quote someone or some writing they should, IMO, do so accurately. Would you not care if someone quoted you and added something you didn’t say?

              • Notagod
                Posted June 23, 2013 at 2:21 pm | Permalink

                But, I’m a human bean. ;)

  16. Posted June 22, 2013 at 1:15 pm | Permalink

    That must be why my last two relationships failed. As an atheist, I didn’t know I was supposed to discipline my women thus. I guess there is no way for me to not “spare the hand”. I suppose I need to rediscover my faith and find me another wife (preferably much younger) as it is not good for a man to be alone, neither for his (spanking) hand to be idle.

  17. Posted June 22, 2013 at 1:18 pm | Permalink

    When I began looking for a way out of my own abusive marriage I turned to the internet. What I found were several websites of this nature. One in particular was selling some kind of “special lady garments” just for the purpose of getting spanked.

    I was particularly disgusted by the posting of a woman who decided that to surprise her husband and show him how willing she was to be a participant she purchased an implement with which to be disciplined. And because she hated to ‘wait’ for her discipline she chose something that wouldn’t make noise so he could spank her right away. Her husband then disciplined beat the hell out of her with an implement of his own choosing for daring to be so presumptuous as to assert herself in thinking she had the authority to choose an implement or time in which she should be disciplined. Then they had sex, her face stained with tears. Twisted.

  18. Sidney E Hardman
    Posted June 22, 2013 at 2:02 pm | Permalink

    i only read a little but this sounds  on par with the hypocrisy of christianity.

    ________________________________

  19. Torbjörn Larsson, OM
    Posted June 22, 2013 at 2:51 pm | Permalink

    So, I’m confused. Joke or not, why is it that “assertive behavior” need assertion? Or violence? Or misogyny, for FSM sake?

    But I’ll bet I’m not anywhere as unsure as the usual passive-aggressive christianist behavior.

  20. Posted June 22, 2013 at 4:11 pm | Permalink

    I’m all for instituting a ‘spank a Christian’ day. We could start with Mel Gibson, or the Pope. Or better yet, a ‘put your hand over a Christian’s mouth before they can speak’ day! :D

  21. Gabrielle Guichard
    Posted June 22, 2013 at 4:11 pm | Permalink

    It could be a site for jehovah’s witnesses as well.

  22. SA Gould
    Posted June 22, 2013 at 5:46 pm | Permalink

    For quite some time now, I have been unable to distinguish between reality and poe.

  23. Dermot C
    Posted June 22, 2013 at 6:21 pm | Permalink

    Shocking. Different to.

  24. Posted June 22, 2013 at 10:07 pm | Permalink

    Sorry, I can’t take this seriously – I’m afraid I can’t read this without thinking of Amy Farrah Fowler and Sheldon Cooper.

    As a sometime devotee of spanking (all depends on the partner’s predilections) I can’t say I’m too excited about all this. I expect we’ll find a website somewhere providing biblical justification for al-fresco sex (e.g. Song of Solomon’s “goats frolicking on the mountainside), or watersports (the potential homoeroticism in the concept of “baptism”), or whatever other mild kinkiness.

    Regrettably, of course, some will see such sites as a justification of abusive behaviour but then serious abusers don’t need justification, they just go ahead and plunge into whatever behaviour their narcissistic whim serves up to them.

  25. Naadir H. Khan
    Posted June 22, 2013 at 11:14 pm | Permalink

    HURRAY ! I FINALLY came across another homo sapien who HATES the word “tweet”. I am NOT alone !!! =P

  26. Naadir H. Khan
    Posted June 22, 2013 at 11:19 pm | Permalink

    I’m always like, ” I DO NOT “tweet.” I POST on Twitter.” =)

  27. Posted June 23, 2013 at 5:58 am | Permalink

    Sounds like a religious excuse for BDSM, to me, but I’m wicked like that ;)

  28. Jeff L
    Posted June 23, 2013 at 7:04 am | Permalink

    For the people saying that this is nothing more than a way for Christians to be a little kinky, go read this article on Jezebel about another CDD site:

    http://jezebel.com/spanking-for-jesus-is-exactly-as-fucked-up-as-it-soun-514271243

    Spanking is only part of it. There are many other punishments. To quote the section of the Jezebel article on priveleges:

    Removing Privileges. The list of privileges that “can be removed” include credit card privileges, driving privileges, “going out with friends” privileges, computer privileges, phone privileges, and cosmetic privileges.

    Other punishments include lecturing and corner time / bedroom time.

    This really is about more than just a little kinkiness. It’s setting up an abusive relationship and trying to find some justification for it.

    • Diana MacPherson
      Posted June 23, 2013 at 7:20 am | Permalink

      Absolutely – and it all hinges around submission of the wife to her husband. Take a look at the link Wolfkiller provided at #14 above and remember this isn’t confined to the bedroom AND the women often talk about how they don’t like the punishment but they see it as necessary for their marriage where they submit to their husband. It is nauseating.

    • Lourdes
      Posted June 24, 2013 at 7:46 pm | Permalink

      Clint of the Learning Domestic Discipline site also suggests Tabasco sauce or soap in the mouth for cursing and Caspian Cream rubbed on the bottom for those occasions (family vacations or holidays) when one can’t spank in complete privacy.

      Also, the consent issue is basically consensual nonconsent. The wife making a habit of withdrawing consent is frowned upon by Clint because “This gives the wife too much control, meaning she can pick and choose when she gets punished and when she doesn’t.”

      http://learningdd.blogspot.com/2012/10/withdrawing-consent.html

  29. Fred
    Posted June 23, 2013 at 9:14 am | Permalink

    “Remember when you discipline your wife for either misbehavior or maintenance…”
    “Maintenance” spanking sounds like my dad’s running joke: “That’s for nuthin’, now watch yourself.”
    This is some sick junk.

  30. John
    Posted June 23, 2013 at 9:30 am | Permalink

    It is disgusting what some simpletons will actually believe in order to follow a path of violence they may have followed anyway, if their religion had not given them an out. In my mind, there can be no other excuse for such barbarity.

  31. neil
    Posted June 23, 2013 at 2:57 pm | Permalink

    LOL. It gives a whole new meaning to jesus saying “turn the other cheek.”

    It would be even more kinky if the christian perverts spank their wives with the bible.

    • Dominic
      Posted June 24, 2013 at 2:11 am | Permalink

      My thought exactly!

  32. wildhog
    Posted June 23, 2013 at 3:42 pm | Permalink

    I didnt give the site much of a look but it doesnt look like a joke to me.

    “That is why a woman will say she wants a Prince Charming, only to run off with the first Black Knight that comes her way. She doesn’t understand it is her created nature that is causing the attraction to jerks.”

    Well maybe they got this part right (except for the “created” part). I think genetics explains why women are attracted to jerks, not the “low self esteem” explanation that is so commonly accepted.

  33. Posted July 2, 2013 at 12:07 am | Permalink

    I found myself on this website the other day & let me tell you, it was a shocker! I think these folks are sado-masochistics masquerading as christians.


One Trackback/Pingback

  1. […] I was torn about this for a whole 3 seconds before recognizing the problems with it. Basically, it’s a website that is encouraging a movement for “Christian Domestic […]

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 28,802 other followers

%d bloggers like this: