Comments on: Headship in the Bedroom

By: LJR

LJR — Mon, 06 Nov 2006 01:48:43 +0000

Lori: It may start out a mutual decision; but once DD is embraced, there’s no way out for the wife. I’ve talked to some of the people in these relationships. I can’t give certain details on this forum about what these people have said, so let’s just say that the word “negotiation” no longer exists and leave it at that. Only the husband’s acceptance of Biblical equality (or at least a repudiation of DD in favor of a more mainstream comp marriage… I can give comps some credit when it’s due) can give the wife back her freedom (or at least some of it).

By: Paula

Paula — Sat, 04 Nov 2006 23:56:09 +0000

If there’s anything that could make God puke, I’m sure this “domestic discipline” must be it. It reveals the depths to which pride and prejudice can stoop. It is unconscionable for any Christian to think of any other Christian as inferior or to treat adults as lower than slaves. At least the Quran is honest in openly admitting that it views women as on the level of animals or children at best, but the twisted belief that the God of the Bible would condone such a thing is more than just wrong, it’s evil. Shame on any Christian who would practice or accept DD.

By: Lori

Lori — Sat, 04 Nov 2006 11:56:03 +0000

I first heard about “domestic discipline” back on the old Egalitarian Christian Alliance forums. I, too, couldn’t believe it until I saw the websites myself. They say that practicing this stuff is supposed to be a mutual decision, but I wonder. When the wife has been, for a lack of a better term, brainwashed to believe that she has to submit to just about everything, can you really call that mutual?

By: Kathryn

Kathryn — Fri, 03 Nov 2006 23:28:56 +0000

I looked it up too, and pornography is the right word for it.

By: LJR

LJR — Fri, 03 Nov 2006 17:25:20 +0000

Re: comment #5:
Sadly, what Lainie posted is true. I ran across these people several years ago on the Delphi forums. They hold extremely traditional Christian beliefs, so they back up what they do with Scripture. I’m not saying they use it correctly, but they do use Scripture to justify themselves.

By: Lainie Petersen

Lainie Petersen — Fri, 03 Nov 2006 16:51:14 +0000

Sadly, it appears that at least some do, and justify their perversion by, you guessed it, the “headship” texts.

Think about it: If a man is the “head of his home” and he is justified in applying the “rod of correction” to his kids, why not apply it to his wife? Particularly if one has predilections in that direction.

AGAIN: I do NOT believe that the vast majority of complementarians or patriarchalists go for such things. Most are likely as appalled at the idea as we feminists/egalitarians are. However, I think that we need to consider how a “plain sense” understanding of Bible passages can lead to some very unintended consequences.

By: sally

sally — Fri, 03 Nov 2006 02:48:54 +0000

RE #2
I looked at your link and was thoroughly appalled by what I found - it was practically pornographic.

Surely this can’t be ‘Christian’ can it? Surely no Christians worth the name would go in for this sort of stuff? If they do, it’s a horror!

By: Liz

Liz — Thu, 02 Nov 2006 02:47:09 +0000

I think PS is on to something. It’s always preferable to prevent rather than pick up pieces and it’s something that needs to be taught very early in life. Recently I mentioned to a friend that I had always known that I had to answer to God and not people and that this was a freeing thing. The other person was amazed that I knew this as a child. Maybe some of these truths are not plainly taught, just assumed, and children get the wrong idea as they try to fit into the big world.

By: PS

PS — Tue, 31 Oct 2006 21:31:55 +0000

Maybe more fundamentally, it would be good to educate people that they can’t get their happiness or fulfillment from other people. Other people can’t make us happy, sad, hurt, etc. We react with our feelings based on lots of things in our background, but other people don’t control these feelings.

Unfortunately, many of us never hear this except in therapy.

But my point is that this could be helpful to both the man and the woman in an abusive relationship. The abuser is trying to get something, some feeling, some control, etc. from what he/she does to the other party. And, yes, the woman can be the abuser as well. Perhaps she is less often the physical abuser, but remember, sarcasm is also a form of abuse, as is disrespect. But I agree that the “complementarian” philosophy feeds this in its most simplistic form.