FH, I'm sorry but I cannot agree with you.
Men were commanded to love their wives as Christ loves the church. Christ stated that those whom he loves He rebukes and disciplines if they are in sin (from the context of "be zealous therefore and repent). He does not rebuke and discipline those who don't need it. Men are commanded to hold their wives accountable. So, it isn't so much that the man has the Scriptural authority to physically discipline his wife if he chooses to, of course he has that authority, rather, it's that he has the obligation to hold her accountable for her behavior. And if it takes physical discipline because she's that way, then it would be a refusal to love his wife if he refused to do so.
I understand that Slumberfreeze is making the argument that the definition of love does not include physically disciplining a wife even when she truly needs it. And, since the husband is the only one who can make that decision, to take that attitude is to say that he refuses to love his wife in certain areas, because in his opinion it's not necessary. However, if Christ disciplines us when we need it, then obviously adults sometimes need it and that includes wives. To claim that is something that should not happen to wives is to say there are some areas in which he refuses to hold his wife accountable and thus refuses to love her. There are some spots she'll just have to live with because he refuses to go there. He'd rather allow her to suffer in her sin than correct her.
All this goes all the way back to Genesis 3:16. What does that word "rule" mean? No pastor in his right mind will preach on that. Not if he wants to keep his job.
And the idea of kink is silly. You are being judgmental in violation of Romans 14 and should be ashamed of yourselves. Perhaps someone could tell me what this word "Kink" means if it somehow means anything other than "something *I* wouldn't do."
I'd also like to point out how ridiculous it sounds to me to talk about how much women really want to be spanked for being naughty.
UntoldGlory, you are conflating a goal with a mechanism. I said some women would act like a brat in order to get the spanking they wanted. Not the same thing. Some women like to be spanked occasionally by the *right* man. But not just any man. In my experience, it only happens after the woman has been spanked a time or two. Otherwise it's dormant. You and Slumberfreeze call "KINK" like it's a sin. Really? Sounds Popish to me.
Maybe you like to have your back scratched occasionally or like it if your wife gets in the shower with you and scrubs your back. Not just any woman, only your wife. Please tell me how either spanking or backscratching is more of a "kink" than the other. Seriously. Is showering with your wife OK but its kinky if you turn the light out and do it in darkness? Is letting your wife manscape you with a straight-razor kinky? This word kinky is being tossed around as a tool to shame and vilify. Contrary to the commandment not to judge. I might think putting ketchup on prime rib is a perversion (I confess, I do), but that doesn't make it wrong and we are commanded not to judge.
As nearly as I can tell, kinky is one of those words applied almost exclusively to women. Which makes it a backhanded accusation of being a slut because where would she have gotten those desires and proclivities otherwise? And why would anyone care what turns someone else's crank behind closed doors if they're married? The Catholic church floated that doctrine for centuries, saying the church had the right and responsibility to police the marital bed. Phooie.
As far as abuse, I've recently been seeing one woman in particular who *loves* it when I slap her on the ass. Especially in public. I would love to see you try to tell her that it's abuse because a couple of weeks ago some old harridan saw me do it and said just that. The old biddy was told in very precise and graphic language that it was none of her business and she only wished she had a man who could slap her ass and make her smile. I've been doing things like that all my life and as a rule the women love it. Last year I got to know a masochist and we had some long conversations about her particular desires in that area. I don't claim to understand the mechanism, but I can agree with her that if she uses pain to achieve a state of ecstasy then that's her gig and more power to her. Show me where God said that's wrong.
people who want to justify acting like a "canoe for transporting feminine hygiene products"
Contextually that seems to be aimed at me and it's probably either an age or geographic thing, but I have no idea what that means. Feel like elaborating?
I think one thing that drives Christian men nuts in this feminized environment of today is what Scripture actually says about women, which conflicts wildly with the desire of most men to put them on a pedestal. Genesis 3:16 did NOT say that he would rule over his wife only in certain things or only if she agreed. Numbers 30 specifically said all vows, all agreements, even the rash words out of her lips that have binding obligations are subject to review by her husband. Yes, he has the authority... but that means he has the responsibility and obligation to review them. He doesn't get to say "Well, you agreed to it..." and one day the husband will be judged on this. Ephesians 5 says submit in *everything* without exceptions. NOT "everything except that." In context with the rest of Scripture, "weaker vessel" is not talking about women being physically less strong than men. Women are to be held accountable, lovingly.
There are two major reasons why this makes most Christian men *extremely* uncomfortable: they don't want to be vilified and shamed by feminists for acknowledging the truth of what Scripture says; and the responsibilities of the husband are far, far greater than men want to acknowledge.
It's so much easier for men to claim they don't have the authority and therefore don't have the obligatory responsibility to hold their wives accountable for their behavior. The flip-side of Genesis 3:16 is an obligation for men to be fit to rule. I see maybe one out of five hundred who are fit to rule, with a handful more who come close.
There are other things I could say because it's way more complex than that. Try living in a house with 4 women all cycling together and all of them have PMS. You'll learn things about women. Their girlfriends come over and you're not invisible, but they'll say anything in front of you. Try observing first-hand that women will do things for a man they are highly attracted to that they absolutely will not do for a man they are not that attracted to. My experience and first-hand observations over the years indicates that when a woman is highly attracted to a man she will share him (threesomes), she will submit to him, she will go out of her way to take care of him, she will desire to be held accountable by him (and yes, that includes getting spanked), basically she won't say no to what he wants. The same woman with a less-attractive man (she settled) will absolutely refuse to do that sort of thing because the guy she settled for doesn't get her best. And the word "attractive" does NOT have to do with looks, although looks can be part of it. Start with masculine dominance and massive confidence and pile other things like looks, money, power and status on top of that. That's attractive.
Women will deny this stuff, most of them anyway. So think about 1st Peter 3:6. What is that fear Peter is talking about? Where does it come from? What can take away that fear? Ever had a woman call you "master" and mean it? I'm not talking about a BDSM relationship. I believe that it is the confidence of the man that makes him attractive and that confidence drives away the fear in the women. To put it in different words, women tend to be highly attracted to men they can call "master" and they cannot do that with a man they are not highly attracted to. Because they're scared of giving him that much control. Because they don't completely trust him. Which is why they are not highly attracted to him.
