To see a full-size view of the images posted, just click on them.

RULES FOR POSTING COMMENTS: This blog is meant to be interactive. Please utilize the comment feature to respond to posts that prompt a reaction. You do not have to agree with me to post, but I do ask that your comment pertain to the post itself. I also ask that "anonymous" guests attach some sort of name to their comments so readers can tell everyone apart. (If you cannot follow these simple rules, your post may be DELETED or at the very least mocked for the entertainment of those who can respect my guidelines.)

Thursday, August 2, 2018


Every now and then when one is involved in the DD online community, you bump into the occasional CDD person. If you listen to them (and can keep from snickering) AND you have limited knowledge of the Christian Bible, you may be lulled into thinking that even if you don’t agree with what they say, that there is at least some theological basis behind it. But if you do a bit of research you will soon find that CDD is not organized religion but little more than organized rationalization. It’s a way where religious folks who happen to have been born with a kinky streak can convince themselves that they are not evil perverts but rather true devotees of their faith. 

What little girl DOESN'T want to get spanked by Jesus?

The vast majority of CDD is M/f in dynamic. And these people have a piece of scripture they love to flash more than their butts over a lap:

Colossians 3:18 “Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.”

Basically “Colossians” is one of the several epistles written by St. Paul. Now, you have to admit that for a guy who only supposedly ‘met’ Jesus in a dream on the road to Damascus, he had a lot to say about how Christianity should work. He even went toe-to-toe with St. Peter, who purportedly DID hang out with Jesus (fishing buddies no less), as to how he was right and Peter was wrong in advancing the ‘church’. ( Imagine having the balls to do that…….and win? )  And, he wrote a lot of letters. (link) 

Jesus giving Peter a hand after a fishing trip got weird.

Now, I realize Paul is considered the main reason why Christianity spread rather than just remaining some reformed offshoot of Judaism, but when you get right down to it…...he was really kind of an asshole. Some of the most problematic New Testament passages can be traced right back to one of his letters to someone. So it is of no great surprise that the consistently misogynist Paul would say something like that….especially when he also said stuff like this: 

In his letter to Timothy: “Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness. A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.”

Or how about 1 Corinthians 14:33-35? "As in all the congregations of the Lord’s people. Women should remain silent in the churches, They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.”

Yeah old Paul was a real fan of the ladies, huh. Still, despite this heavy advocacy of male supremacy, you can still find good Christian couples who find a way around all of it and end up in F/m DD dynamics and still claim to be following Christian dogma. How can that be? Well, you do remember that I said that ALL of this is an exercise in creative rationalization? Theirs is just another one.

Protest art attacking the biblical justification of corporal punishment in schools.

The Christian Bible is loaded with stuff. Much of it contradicts itself much in the way traditional sayings do ( “Haste makes waste.”/ “He who hesitates, is lost”) So if you already have an idea for something you have plenty to sift through in order to cherry pick your scriptural support. And if even that doesn’t work?  just incorrectly interpret a passage to  your own liking. People do it all the time! Even from behind a podium. (link)

And the reason I say all this is because if you actually take the concept of putting an adult person across your lap for being a brat, you won't find a single shred of scriptural justification for it. Kids? yes. Slaves? yes'll even find it for judicial punishments (as long as you limit the count to no more than 40. Deuteronomy 25:3 ) But spanking a spouse? Nope. Jesus did not seem to have much to say on that one. He also was strangely silent on butt plugs, nipple clips, and studded collars. Never once did he discuss "maintenance versus punishment spanking". Not even on the "mount".

Now I don’t really care what anyone does or wants to believe…...especially if their doing so provides me with some free, side-splitting chuckles……… but there are real dangers mixed up in this nonsense. Just as any relationship can spawn abuse, D/s relationships have the potential for even worse outcomes, and when the rationale for the abuse becomes clouded with religious justification, you have a recipe for some hard core manipulation. And these cases have happened.

Now I love DD and am a huge advocate for it where it is consensual, but I believe we should do things with our eyes open and our minds clear, not because we feel some god wants it a certain way….especially when that “god-directed way” is really just OUR way supported with whatever rationalization we can weave around our own shit.


  1. As I have said on my own blog, I think one of the most striking things about any honest reading of the gospels is how utterly irrelevant family life and relations seem to be to Jesus. He just has very little to say about it, and what little he does say usually involves (a) ignoring or subtly dissing his own family; or (b) telling people to leave their families and follow him. So, I'm always fascinated by the evangelicals focus on "family values." But, as you point out, much of their views on male-female relations come from Paul, who as you say never met Jesus during his life, and his claim to a post-crucifixion encounter has always struck me as more than a little suspicious. It's interesting to think about how radically different Christianity might seem if just removed from the Bible all the content derived from Paul.

    On your actual topic of CDD, I admit this is an area in which I am blatantly sexist in my feelings. On the F/m side, I do agree that searching for a biblical justification seems like a stretch, and why not just do what I just did: admit that the guy who Christians actually look to as the basis for their belief just didn't care one way or the other what kinky stuff a husband and wife do to each other. M/f CDD, on the other hand, worries me. While I'm sure in many relationships it is positive, there certainly seems to be a greater chance of abuse when you add the supposed imprimatur of God to an already male dominated power dynamic. The plain fact is, most women cannot physically impose DD on most men against their will, but a man could impose it on his physically weaker wife. Now, add a supposedly biblical command into that mix . . .

  2. And, btw, I've never understood how thinking Christians can square the anti-female quotes from Paul that you kindly provided with what we read in the actual gospels. Every time I read them, I'm struck by the extent to which the male disciples are portrayed as mix of slow on the uptake and cowardly, but the women never desert Jesus even at the crucifixion while the men run and hide.

    1. Well it doesn't surprise me that we agree pretty much down the line on this one since we've thrashed about this weedy path before.

      And yeah, it's a double-whammy from beginning to end because if you are going to follow this religion, you first have to BELIEVE this obviously contextual, and often contradictory, man-made manipulation is divinely inspired......which is a big fucking stretch. And THEN you have to let your brain sift through everything presented and just 'believe' the parts you like and still claim to be an adherent to the overall faith. As I said, it's life's greatest rationalization, fueled by the fear of mortality.

    2. Yes and no, on the double-whammy. I'm not sure you really do need to believe in divine inspiration for the biblical text, though many Christians do. That's something that separates that Koran and the Bible. Standard Muslim doctrine is that the Koran came directly from God. I don't know many thinking, educated Christians who make that claim for the Bible. And, the idea that the stories in, for example, Genesis were ever meant to be taken as the literal truth is, likely, a modern idea. I think for thousands of years they were seen, rightly, as metaphors. When treated as such, they can be important as teachings even if not a single word were "true." I also think that fear of mortality drives some religious belief, but hardly all. I'm not Jewish, but my understanding is Judaism is remarkably fuzzy about whether there is any afterlife. Some of the apocryphal writings, including the Gospel of Thomas, also seem to be open to the interpretation that the "Kingdom of Heaven" predicted by Christ was meant as a metaphor and actually referred to a future state of life on this earth, not some divine afterlife. I definitely am one of those Christians who pick and choose, but for me that's fairly easy because: (a) the New Testament is named that for a reason, i.e. it was a new and different message from the Old Testament; (b) I don't put much stock in anything in the New Testament that was written or inspired by Paul's teachings; and (c) Jesus spoke in parables and metaphors, so even his statements are something you need to really think through and put in context.

    3. Well I was raised as a Catholic and the bible was touted in the schools I went to as being written by God through men. Though it is true that biblical scholars......even ordained ones......view much of the Old Testament as allegory or holdover teachings of Judaism. And as for the New Testament being pretty good for Humanist thinking.....I would agree.

      However, I also am not convinced that the Jesus of the New Testament is a singular, historical person but perhaps a composite of a lot of reform preachers from approximately the same time. And the "Son of God"-thing doesn't work for me at all and does a lot to discredit the teachings in an overall sense because the biblical Jesus repeatedly insists that not only is he the son of God but the only way to God. To me that is a warning sign of true hucksterism.

      And as for Paul? Well......I think you know my feelings there.

    4. Oh, I definitely heard the same thing in church growing up. I just don't really consider most preachers and priests my first choice for biblical scholarship. It's why even though I spend a lot of time reading about religion and religious history, I haven't been to a church in many years other than for weddings and funerals.

      I think when you look at what Jesus said, versus the comments of the apostles and later writers about him, he is actually maddeningly equivocal about his own nature. His favorite title for himself is, after all, "Son of Man." I tried to do some research on that a few months ago and really couldn't find much of anything on what he likely meant. He also says things like this, from Mark 10:18 “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone."

    5. Yeah, not only is this stuff all over the map, but the point you made earlier about leaving one's family to follow, was a major turning point for me back when I was still on the fence about faith-related pursuits.

      Anyway, as I've told you before, once I stopped trying to make excuses for god or rationalizing inconsistencies, everything just made so much more sense. It's like the astronomers who wanted the solar system to fit a certain ideological pattern and came up with all of these elaborate schemes for how it could work without much success. Then Copernicus just puts the sun in the damned center and it all makes sense....even if it defied church teaching.

    6. Agreed, though sometimes the simple answer is just wrong. When you look at some of the newest teachings of quantum physics, much of it is just seriously fucking weird and spooky and the interconnectedness and randomness of it starts looking way, way more like the "spirit" or universal consciousness you find in buddhism, taoism, and to some extent Christianity than to the mechanistic materialist view that everyone saw as settled science just a couple of decades ago.

    7. I should do a separate post on this issue. I am terrible in math and quantum physics reeks of math and probabilities. However, anything I have seen on even the weirdest of theories seems metaphysical only in how the given scientist tries to explain it. In other words, as weird as quantum theory is, I can't find any serious scientist willing to use it as some sort of evidence for "spirit".

      I found one very easy to understand article in Forbes that deals with the nature of this particular science, the way it's often awkwardly expressed to others, and how that can be misinterpreted as something it's not.

      For me it's easier to look back on basic science that shook the world and see how before it was understood, the explanation was metaphysical. To me quantum theory is the latest instance of this.

      I have also seen things like "Down the Rabbit Hole" and then fact-checked it......only to find out it was just sensationalized pseudo-science being passed along as fact.

      Yeah, I definitely need to do an entire post on this! LOL

  3. From CDD to QM, this two-way conversation between you two has been quite a leap from start to finish.

    The Copenhagen interpretation of QM is not the only way the same set of facts can be interpreted. There is a many-worlds interpretation that mathematically is equivalent to the Copenhagen interpretation, but seems completely different philosophically. Which is right and which is not? Perhaps neither. Most physicist, for good reasons, are content to practice their trade without delving too deeply into philosophy.


    1. >>>>>>>From CDD to QM, this two-way conversation between you two has been quite a leap from start to finish. <<<<<<<<<

      Would that make it a "quantum leap"? ;-)

      I agree with you on your comparison of interpretations, which was kind of my point to Dan. Physicists are taking measurements and others are working those measurements into philosophical theories. The very strange nature of wave/particle duality highlights the inadequacy of language... and even thought (by its nature rooted in experience).... to describe observations which have no equivalent in the world we experience.

      I agree it is better to keep observing, and keep proposing, but not reading too much into the interpretations as definitive until we know more.

      ( Yep. Definitely doing a post on this! LOL)

    2. Wave/particle duality is certainly weird, but weirder still is the effect of the observer on the observed. It's in that sense that consciousness seems to be play a role in causality that, while it may or may not be equivalent to what some call "spirit" seems a pretty fundamental challenge to the materialist or deterministic view of the world. We seem to be moving closer and closer to a theroy in which everything is interconnected energy that interacts in some very strange ways, including outcomes changing depending on whether someone is observing them. The line between science and philosophy has never been an easy one to draw. And, keep in mind, the multiverse theory is itself in many ways an attempt to find an alternative to the implications of the observed evidence that if the composition of the universe was just slight difference, life could not have arisen. Some look at that seemingly perfect layout and take that as evidence of design. In order to avoid that, some come up with the idea of multiverses in which our livable universe is the way it is only because it is one of an infinity of possibilities. Kind of the whole "if an infinite number of monkeys typed away for an infinite number of years one would result in a Shakespearean sonnet." What is that really, other than a philosophical theory?

    3. I agree, Dan, that the the universe we live in is "fine tuned for life." And the multiverse hypothesis has more to do with philosophy that physics. For me, the fine tuning of the universe provides clear evidence of a creator God. For others who find this unacceptable are stuck with postulating what cannot be observed.

    4. Doug, exactly. It's also a potentially inconsistent philosophical position for many of its adherents, because I'll wager that many of them also are proponents of Occam's Razor. Could there possibly be any theory more inconsistent with Occam's Razor than the multiverse hypothesis?

      Now, I say that even though I myself have never really bought into Occam's Razor. I see little if any evidence in day-to-day life that simpler explanations tend to be more correct than complicated ones. To the contrary, life is complicated as hell. As HL Mencken said, "For every complex problem there is an answer that is simple, clear, and wrong."

  4. I think you can be very grumpy at times, kd! I'm a more glass half full gal. If you believe in God, and you are kinky, go ahead and mix the two. Have fun! Usual caveat on consent, of course.

    1. I stand by my grumpiness as an essential aspect of my identity. ;-)

      I do think the world needs people like you offset people like me (who are kind of also needed.)