What is CDD?It gets better (by which I mean more absurd) but it might not be safe for work, unless you are self-employed.
A domestic discipline marriage is one in which one partner in the marriage is given authority over the other, and has the means to back up that authority, usually by spanking.
A Christian Domestic Discipline marriage is simply a marriage set up according to Biblical standards.
Therefore, in a CDD marriage, the husband is the authority of the household.
The wife is submissive to her husband as if the Lord Himself was her husband.
The husband loves his wife as himself. He is to lead by example. He is to lay down his life for her.
The wife treats her husband with respect. She is to obey him, as long as what he directs her to do is not in opposition to God's commands.
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.
He is to be the head of the home. She is to be the heart of the home.
He has the authority to spank his wife for punishment, but in real CDD marriages, this is taken very seriously and usually happens only rarely.
CDD is not a "magic pill", and we do not claim it will solve all marital woes. It is simply a tool which many couples feel is very effective in strengthening marriages. CDD is so much more than just spanking.
Is it just me or is anyone else thinking "You Tarzan, Me Jane"?
Dusty satin top hat tipped graciously in the direction of Cynical-C.
16 comments:
I was actually thinking they should have a safe word. Just in case she decides she wants to stop.
Do they shop for Christian discipline accessories at the Christian discipline toy shop?
From the CCD site;
This kind of marriage may seem unusual in today's "modern" culture, with its radically selfish feminism, wholesale bias against manhood, and relentless attacks against traditional family values. (Keep in mind, this is also the culture with well over 50% divorce rates. I don't think their way works so well!)
Do they realise that in America, divorce rates are far higher in the states with a high proportion of fundamentalist Christians? The pattern has been consistent for years.
Remember some weeks ago, there was a post (Julie's I think) featuring pro-virginity t-shirts that said the wearer wouldn't be having sex because her father was watching?
Madeleine argued that putting her sexuality into the hands of her father or husband is a legitimate expression of a woman's autonomy, and it was paternalistic for leftie feminists to argue otherwise.
If you're about, Madeleine, I'd be interested in your take on this. Is it an expression of a woman's autonomy to put her husband in charge of disciplining her (presuming it's consensual)?
Okaaay...
As a Catholic I think we have a pretty normal "Biblical" marriage, I'm at home with the kids, hubby has the job, push come to shove I'll defer to him (since he's more likely to be right, I'm more impulsive). He always put us first over his own stuff.
But that website is just weird. Spanking? Bratting? Err... okay. Sounds more like kinky love than Biblical love.
But hey, if it works for a couple, who am I to moan about it? It's no stranger than BDSM top/bottom stuff. Although I suspect they slot in the "Christian" word just to make themselves feel better about it all.
I think that I may just be too sheltered. This is bizarre.
I think the same, Muerk - ie the participants want to think about what they're doing in a Christian framework because it makes them feel better. And I tend to think that if it makes them happy, good on them.
But the thing that bothers me about this is that I actually can't work out whether it's entirely consensual. I'm out of my area of expertise here, but doesn't 'traditional' (lol) BDSM involve ensuring that things are consensual and safe?
It seems to me that a relationship between participants who genuinely believe men have a natural right to hit women, and without any safeguards to protect participants from non-consensual stuff, has the potential to move towards the abusive.
Alison could you site the research on the following statement
"divorce rates are far higher in the states with a high proportion of fundamentalist Christians? The pattern has been consistent for years."
Agree with the site being a little weird. But if this model of marriage was used in New Zealand - minus the spanking bit- i believe our society would be better off.
But hey, if it works for a couple, who am I to moan about it? It's no stranger than BDSM top/bottom stuff.
It's not BDSM, it's Total Power Transfer, which most BDSM practitioners find deeply squicky.
BDSM is totally dependent on consent. The person who has the final call in any situation is the bottom, the sub. BDSM also totally rejects any gender role in submission. There are as many female Doms as there are female subs, and as many female Doms as there are male Doms. A third of BDSM practitioners identify as LGBT.
So yeah, I find the comparison not only inaccurate, but also annoying, because it plays to commonly held misunderstanding about BDSM practice. Deborah is quite right that consent is a BIG deal there.
One of my closest online friends is in one of these relationships. She defers to her husband in everything. He's a total idiot. But. She did freely choose it, within the constraints of her upbringing, and she appears to be perfectly happy.
He doesn't spank her, but.
Ozy: Divorce rates by region and religion:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm
Ozymandius, I can't find the study I was reading the other day (it was in a sociology text) but this ranked list shows some correlation between more liberal states having a lower divorce rate than many more conservative ones.
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/lif_div_rat-lifestyle-divorce-rate
Thanks for the links. Interesting reading. I have my view but we would end up chasing our tails!!!!
One comment people often over look in this argument is
"The husband loves his wife as himself. He is to lead by example. He is to lay down his life for her."
Not easy for the man to do.
Instead they focus on the man having all the power and telling the wife to do this and that.
You need to have a mix of both in a successful relationship. At times willing to give control to the other person at other times let the other person lead.
Emma - fair enough, I don't know anything about BDSM.
However I stand by my argument that this is a weird, sexual control thing and that the "Christian" label is there just to make people doing it feel better somehow.
If people want to have a marriage like this, it's not my business to argue. Provided both parties are willing, it's fine by me.
While there is certainly a Biblical precedent for men being the head of the house, I can't for the life of me work out where you'd find a justification for this extra-curricular stuff. It suggests that the couples involved don't feel they can explore sexually without a (half-arsed) Biblical mandate, which is actually a bit sad.
Oz, you're right that the requirement of the man to lay down his life for his wife may be overlooked, but that's probably because it's completely unenforceable should the man decide he doesn't want to do it any more. When a woman enters a 'traditional' marriage and has babies, she usually has no income and becomes dependent on her husband for her subsistence. She doesn't have much choice but to defer to his authority, but she's not in much of a bargaining position if he decides to abuse his power in some way or otherwise fails to keep his end of the bargain.
Also, Oz, do you think a marriage can't function successfully with the partners being moral equals? Suggesting that women need to defer ultimately to men's moral authority suggests women can't be expected to be fully morally responsible for themselves - and I would have thought this goes against the teaching of most Christian denominations. If women are morally deficient, it seems strange that most men feel so comfortable entrusting the majority of childcare to us.
It was Anna who made the point about consent first, not me, though I agree with her.
What gets me is just how vulnerable the woman is in a relationship like this. She has given a huge amount of authority to her partner, and abandoned her safety to his understanding of the scriptures. That could be okay if he's a good, kind and decent man, but if he changes, then she is in danger. So even while he is good, kind and decent, she's vulnerable, because the situation could change at any time. That's one of the critical differences between this and BDSM. There's no safe word, and if you read the site, although she can choose to exit the arrangement, she may not do so immediately before, during, or immediately after being assaulted. My understanding is that in BDSM, the safe word can be spoken at any time - there are no limits on using the safe word. That means that the submissive is not vulnerable.
I also am deeply dubious about any adult resigning her responsibility to think for herself. That seems unethical to me.
Okay, in NZ (and most western nations) quite frankly the likelihood of the husband ever being in a position to "lay down his life for his wife" is pretty damned low. Besides, in a loving relationship wouldn't EACH partner be prepared to do that for the other?
I can think of drowning, crime, and maybe some manner of structural collapse as being situations where one party is in danger and the other party needs to put themselves at risk to attempt rescue. And, short of becoming a martial arts blackbelt olympic swimmer and fully trained rescue worker, in those situations one is usually better off calling for help.
I can't swim. I guess this means I shouldn't get married.
All in all, the circumstances where husbands try to justify beating (sorry, "disciplining") their wives are a lot more common than those where a husband is anywhere close to a position to sacrifice his life.
I think it's a red herring.
Post a Comment