It’s not violence it’s discipline

I will let you in on a little secret.

I hit Tiga.

It’s not what you think. it’s consensual. A little slap on the arse. OK… going to be in the doghouse over this but here goes.

S&M is not abuse although it is prone to it. You may pin someone down, you may tie them up but the most important thing is that the control remains with the person being tied up or hit. That person can stop it any time they like. It’s them who says “harder or softer”. Tiga mentioned she enjoyed a light spanking so one night we did it and all I got was “you can hit harder than that”.

The difference between domestic violence and S&M is about who has the control in this. Even for the tame 50 Shades of Grey audience this is important. Safe Words and Safe Sex are important. I am afraid if your partner cannot keep to safe words and sex that you are comfortable with then you are being abused.

It’s the same rules that apply to all sex. You may fantasise about being raped but the rape fantasy when acted out involves your partner PRETENDING to be a rapist. It’s silly when you think about it but I know a couple who role play “date rapes” and even “murders” by “poisoning” each other with Tic Tacs. It sounds weird but then again so is shooting bits of DNA at specific parts of a lady. It makes them happy and harms no one.

You may say “Avi, how can you fight for women’s rights despite knowingly hitting one” and I will say “It was consent”. It’s sex between two consenting adults of normal intelligence and responsibility. We don’t harm anyone and I don’t hit her like I punch a weight bag at a gym. At any point if she says “stop” (Or in our case the traffic lights. Red means stop, yellow means slow down, green means “stop faffing about and get on with it!”) I will follow that. The same rules apply to her (Let’s just say I had to walk around with a scarf for a few days because I said stop rather late….)

The problem with this? Is that it follows none of the rules of consent. It works under the notion that the status quo. It equates “holiness” and “god” with submitting to “beatings” and punishments that include the loss of access to money. It’s meant to turn women into slaves and to excuse domestic violence and abuse.

It’s just feels icky reading this. This is the language of abuse made florid and excuse written. It places an inordinate amount of power in the “male” (because men are always dominant eh?) and there is no sexual pleasure from this. This is pure dominance for the benefit of the man.

“Before I left for work you said you’d get all the laundry done, but it sounds like you’ve watched
TV all day instead. No more TV until the laundry is finished. It’s up to you as to when you get
your TV privilege back.” 

Really? This is an adult we are discussing. Not a 12 year old with homework.

“Since you are clearly having a hard time listening, you need to spend a few minutes in the corner and think about why it’s important to listen to me.” Second, it’s important the HoH express how he or she expects the submissive partner to conduct themselves in a similar future situation. “All I asked you to do was turn down the volume so I can focus on what I’m doing. A few minutes in the corner should be enough time for you to think about your behavior and why it’s a problem. Next time please just turn the volume down when I kindly ask you to do so.”

Again? This is an adult. And this would be considered a wild abuse of parental “power” if it’s a kid.

We’ll start with a definition of spanking. A spanking is a punishment in which the head of the
household strikes the buttocks and/or sit spot of the submissive partner with a hand or an
implement in an effort to correct an unwanted, dangerous, or detrimental behavior. Spanking
should only be done in a calm, collected, level headed, reasonable, rational, and loving
manner. The head of the household MUST be under control when administering a
spanking. Spanking in a discipline sense should only be administered when a mistake is made,
or poor judgment is exhibited by the submissive partner.

No mate. If a woman doesn’t put food on the table in time then no amount of calm will excuse the fact that you are hitting her is just abuse.

It doesn’t matter if you hide behind your god or not, this entire concept is designed to get women to submit to provide some sort of binding consent for all eternity. Here is the thing. Consent is transient and changing. What may be not permissible today may be tomorrow and vice versa. Hell, what was okay minutes ago may not be now. Which is why it’s important.

The entire exercise is the usage of Christianity to take submissive women and torment them if they “misbehave”. While this may have been attractive the inability to “Stop” this makes this nothing short of slavery.

It is said there are more slaves today than ever in the history of mankind. Perhaps we should stop making more.


  1. iplon says

    The danger takes the form in a twisted form of consent: can there truly be consent when the options are presented as, “Consent to this or risk burning in hell for all eternity: your choice.” There’s no true consent to be found there, and that’s why it’s abusive.

    I think it is best described as a rider parasite that’s hooked itself into the religious framework (which is also somewhat parasitic in nature). Religion, like the Fluke often brought up by Dennett, can manage to spread by hijacking existing pathways, such as the fear of eternal damnation. This particular belief is just an extension of that: once you’ve come to believe the claims, it is possible to take it a step further and believe not only must you attend church and believe in Jesus, but you must also submit yourself sexually to your husband if you are the woman in a “traditional marriage”.

    It’s sexual abuse in the realm of priests molesting their charges. You establish yourself as an authority on entering paradise, and now people feel the need to obey you.

  2. Turi says

    A (rather quick) search for men, male or he gave only one result, which you already quoted: “Second, it’s important the HoH express how he or she expects the submissive partner to conduct themselves in a similar future situation.” The same for female, women or she.

    So you can say, that at least it is not sexist? That does not make it better, but maybe more correct.
    And of course, the target audience would never think of “Head of Household” as anything else than than a men, so in the end you have the same result.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>