There is very public attention given to the need for consent in making a deed right, rather than wrong. It is nearly a litany of the modern era to say — if two consenting adults do it, then I don’t have a problem with it. This is the ham sandwich of the modern diet, and is used to justify any number of immoral behaviors, because consent says it is right. Consent equals right. Lack of consent equals wrong. We’re a free country and two free people can do what they want to together. This kind of argument is obviously not very ethically deep, but it gives a convenient and practical philosophy to millions of people, at least when it comes to morality. But if consent is the engine of the modern idea of ethics, it seems very strange that it just stops mattering when it comes to certain things. When I say “certain things” it means behaviors that the modernist loathes — like, you know, the subject of this website! Like male authority. Like spanking badly behaved wives. When this arena is opened, the consent worshipers go into a tizzy anyway, and spew their anger and their hatred. You’ve got to ask why they no longer worship consent? Are they betraying their god who guides their life? Or are they revealing their true colors?
It’s not hard for the average reader here to guess I regularly receive all kinds of hate mail, along with more responsible letters, that still speak disapprovingly of wife spanking, this despite the fact nearly all who practice it in America do so consensually. They have decided to enter their marriage consensually. They have decided to practice discipline consensually. If it doesn’t really matter what two consenting adults do, wife spanking would be the least controversial activity in modern relationships. It’s just two more people following their hearts and living according to the freedom the nation allows. But the power of consent to justify deeds diminishes greatly in this arena for the modernist, who views it either as very dangerous but tolerable, to perhaps among the most evil things a person can do in this lifetime. They believe women should have free choice, except the choice to submit.
Wife spankings, while it is consensual, upsets other commandments of modernism besides consent. So the modernist must pit one commandment against another and see which wins. In this case, consent often loses out to some other mandates in their godless Decalogue: thou shalt not fail to empower a woman, thou shalt treat woman the same as man, thou shalt not define marriage as between male and female, though shalt give woman’s emotions equal place to Scripture and reason in defining truth, woman shall not be under man.
This Decalogue gives rise to other statutes which treat any husband as evil who rules his wife. This is clear in the statutes defining the sin of “abuse.” To the modernist, male headship itself is abuse, a husband criticizing his wife is abuse, a husband controlling the finances is abuse, a husband deciding what to purchase is abuse, a husband disciplining his wife is abuse, a husband smacking his wife’s bottom is abuse . . . and abuse is evil. If you’re a man and you lead a traditional marriage, you are an “abuser” by default.
With commandments, statutes, and judgments like that, it’s no wonder that the modernist feels overwhelmed by hatred and disapproval of wife spanking. His consent god, whom he always counts on to enlighten his eyes, just does not stand up to the many piercing arrows he feels that shoot up his whole philosophy. Consent must take a bow to his misrepresented view of women and of marriage, and once this is done, he can justify pouring out his hatred on the wife spankers — and more broadly as you certainly know, on male heads of the home in general, who are almost as despicable in their eyes. Having a leadership position suddenly makes one prideful and narcissistic. Telling someone what to do now becomes domineering. Practicing discipline makes one purely sadistic and evil: Just. Like. The. Nazis. The eternal mystical feminine has been offended. She is very very angry. So tolerance will not be granted despite nearly universal consent.
This is nowhere more clear than in the general acceptance, even while holding the nose, of bdsm. You can see that bdsm, with all its extremes of punishment, near medieval torture, and artificial master-slave relationships (often with the woman getting whipped) still is met with overall acceptance by the secular Humanist. Somehow it’s not the whipping that really pisses them off. It’s not even the vertical relationship. It is real marriage, and what real marriage represents that they hate. It is the union of one man and one woman for life, with the man guiding his wife as the King of the Universe guides His people that really makes them puke. They’d take brutal leather games outside of marriage, full of fornication if not homosexual behavior, over the beautiful, wholesome, life-giving power of marriage. That is the twisted and confused view of one lost in the secular world. It will choose Barrabas over Jesus any day of the week.
It’s worth taking the time to point out how foolish it is to put so much weight on consent to begin with. While consent may be a deciding factor in justifying actions in a very limited domain, it doesn’t succeed that far out of it. If you consent to speeding, the cop will still write you a ticket. If you consent to marry a small child, you can still be put away for a long time. If you consent to take off your clothes entirely at an ordinary beach, your consent won’t matter either. If you consent to a drug transaction, that drug transaction can still land you in jail. If you consent to illegal trade with a foreign nation, it doesn’t matter if you both agreed to it. If you consent to serving and eating trans-fats you can end up in big trouble. If you consent to not wearing a mask when the government is ritually controlling you during a pandemic, consent flies out the window. So really, we’ve got to see how weak that leaning heavily on consent is to begin with.
I think the reason you still hear so much about consent today is that it was habitually utilized to justify immoral activities when Christian values were cast off in the 20th century. It was used to justify evils such as fornication, sodomy, immodesty, living in sin, so it became part of the cultural thinking, and an easy ethical equation anyone can use to sound like they have a grip on how liberty works. But outside of the popular vices it is used to justify, even the modernist can see how atrocious of an argument it really is, and reverts back to less libertarian thinking, willingly condemning all manner of consensual behavior they find offensive or dangerous. The liberal will sacrifice consent on the altar of big government without end.
The disapproval of wife spanking specifically is very emotional for the modernist. It truly threatens his worldview and personalized religion. A man humbling, lecturing, baring, and spanking his wife is the Grinch that stole their Christmas . . . or excuse me . . . their Holiday Tree. It obliterates their concepts of equality, and often of female superiority. The morally superior, wise, more peaceful being is being totally put to shame in their eyes. She shouts about her rights, but her rights are nowhere to be seen as she is placed laying over a man’s lap, and given the strap over and over. Her only rights at the moment are to be a good wife, to repent, and behave better in the future. Her empowerment is in seconds dissolved, as she is made to kneel, honor her man as sir or lord, and punished firmly by her husband. She comes to tears. She bawls — “I’m sorry sir, I’ll be good. I belong completely to you.” Her illusion of sexual autonomy is dispelled, as her flesh and her intimate places are on full display as she is chastised, and as she later is enjoyed by her man for sexual pleasure, often for his own enjoyment. He takes her as he pleases. She is nowhere independent, but is led by rules, is guided with oversight, needs to ask her man’s permission, and is spanked for stepping out of line. Pretty much all their illusions are shattered in a traditional marriage, and then melted to oblivion in the discipline of wives. And the icing on the cake to whisk up their frothy hatred is that the marriage union pictures Jesus Christ, the King of the Universe, the Savior calling them to repent. He calls them to be humble, and to obey Him. That they cannot stand or tolerate. It is the end of their illusion. They’re not good people. They are condemned. They need a Savior.
I have to ask the very question to all of the strongly disapproving readers, so they can ask themselves and really seek an answer to the question: Where is your consent god now?
Well where is it?
If you truly bow down to consent, what is your purpose of complaining about male headship and wife spanking.? If two free adults can do what they want in their own relationships, why the hate? Why the intolerance? Why the promises of violence against men? At the minimum I think the hater ought to spend some time in better understanding their OWN worldview, and try to make sense of it all. There’s something off there, a fundamental contradiction, which they need to face. Why is it there, and what are they going to do about it? Look your problem square in the eye. You’re not writing hate mail to femdom websites, are you? You’re not writing hate mail to gay leather boys. You’re not writing hate mail to people who play a game as a hobby that you don’t personally like, or writing hate mail to people who cook foods you don’t find tasty. So what really gives? Honestly, I think you just hate the man being in charge. You hate the male.
At best, I hope some can recognize the poor foundation if not emptiness of the modernist worldview, and seriously turn and seek another worldview. There is another good, true, and eternal worldview, that we only come to when standing on the rock of God, which is the Christ. It is not empty but full of life. Truths we could not have seen before, can be known from this strong base, from this vantage point, and from the living spirit in us. What was a mystery about God becomes clear now in the light. Life is not about human desire, or cultural preferences, and claiming we are ethically pretty good people. It’s not about being nice either. The ultimate good is not defined by whether consent is always present, but by a moral law and God’s loving character. There is a much deeper truth than our opinions offer, one which does not change and which brings life to mankind. There is something the modernist KNOWS he is missing inside, and he ought to have to face the shaky tower of his leaning faith. It is going to fall.
A Note: Just in time for writing this article, a recent leftie Reddit page posted my link again. Among the loving and tolerant comments was one which suggested they “gather together and prank” me, in order to report me to the police. They’ll be unpleasantly surprised to learn there is nothing illegal about adults spanking adults, in marriage or otherwise. There is something illegal about making false police reports. Another enlightened, advanced life form responded with, “Monsters. Absolute Monsters!” That’s kind of what I’d say, except while being sarcastic. Do they realize what a parody of themselves they manage to be? Aghast over a spanking. These pearl clutchers illustrate my point that consent as a moral manager only counts when they want it to count, and it goes out the window otherwise. Another post on the same website invites readers to commit a crime by hacking this website. Clearly when they believe someone’s been naughty they like to dish out all sorts of punishment, and to do so without asking for consent. They just can’t stand it when a naughty woman has to take it, and accepts it from her husband.
Hypocrites.
Note 2: I just got what is probably my first link from Fetlife. I guess I should be honored.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.