The subject of consent comes up immediately for nearly anyone if the subject is disciplining wives. We understand intuitively from our sense of fairness that consent in some form must be given. A spanking is something that most people do not desire. In the moment, they may in fact absolutely not want to experience it. Moreover, spanking acts as a punishment, and we all know that punishments are given in a system where there is authority. We naturally want there to be a choice as the whether to be under that authority or not. Nearly everyone expects consent to be there. Outside of domestic discipline, it is easy to find debates in the world of bdsm about the nature of consent, and how it can be given. Is it a one-time thing, or does it need to repeat itself? Can consent be revoked? I want to primarily look at where consent lies, and not at every other question. Spanking in marriage is uniquely tied to the marriage itself, so we should expect that the consent is as well.
While I understand the desire to form a unique spanking agreement, I firmly believe that consent for spanking lies in consent to marry. When a wife marries, she puts herself under the authority of her husband, and being under that authority, will be disciplined and corrected when needed. It’s part of the fiber of marriage itself. Living in a culture, however, that does not recognize the man’s real authority in marriage, it is useful if not necessary to distinguish a consent to spank from consent to unite as one. A man can explain to his wife beforehand how discipline works, and she can ask questions, and affirm she agrees to live this way. It is also naturally that the wife wants to know what she is getting into, and make sure it is not too totalitarian, or of the extreme nature. Here affirmation will come with knowledge of what will go on, and acceptance that this is a part of her man’s leadership of her. I spoke to my wife before marriage as well, and would not have expected her to know she would be spanked, even though there are still some cultures in which any wife would expect there to be discipline involved.
I see the true consent to be disciplined coming with the consent to be married — at the wedding. That is when the true and binding relationship of man and wife begins; when he formally becomes her head and protector, and she becomes his helper and subject to his rule. Any consent before then was naturally of the unbinding nature. It is the marriage which is binding, to make two one, and to unite for life. When she steps into that union, she steps under his authority, and he has the right to lovingly discipline her.
As I’ve written about before, there are couples who make a separate spanking agreement, apart from their marriage. It usually is written, contains proper affirmation by both parties, and many specifics of the spanking arrangement. It may show mutual agreement to authority and submission. It may list some or all of the behavior which will result in discipline, as well as the responsibilities of both parties. While I understand the usefulness of such an agreement, I am not a believer in them. It seems they are an attempt to mimic the marriage itself, when that does not need to be done. If anything, that would take glory away from the marriage, and place it somewhere else. It may be helpful to have some details spelled out, but one can discuss those details when discussing discipline. They do not need to be a part of a formal and separate agreement. I would keep the consent, and the basic structure of the relationship, in the marriage itself. The marriage has all the structure and the lifeblood to sustain a rich and continual relationship as head and helper.
Remember, that might be a hard concept to understand — that the correction of a wife is already contained in the union itself — but meditate on authority and you will understand. A man’s authority is real; not a highly limited kind or a mere play act. It is the same that parents, government, or God have. Real authority comes with making binding rules, and correcting those under you. That’s why many cultures, and other religions of the world, do not need such a long explanation as to why a man may spank his wife. They just understand authority, and that takes care of it. A man’s rule over his wife assures that he has the right to spank her.
Some men who practice discipline will accept the idea that consent can actually lie in the choice to accept an individual spanking. The idea that a spanking goes against the desire of an autonomous individual is threatening enough to them that they make sure that individual can refuse any one of them. The individual freedom, at all costs, must be protected. This view of consent, I think little of. I actually see that it is threatening not only to discipline, but to authority in general. A wife could be free to refuse correction at any time, with the result being, she is not corrected, and continues her bad behavior. She may feel free to disrespect her husband, knowing that any consequences she may face can be refused. Does the state ask the citizen’s consent every time it issues a fine or places a person in jail? Do police ask consent every time they make an arrest? No, of course not. That would make a mockery of authority in general, and uplift the individual over the government in a preposterous way. If we can see how that idolized human freedom to the point of absurdity, I think we can see how it idolizes human freedom to think a man needs to receive consent from his wife for every last spanking. Human freedom is just not THAT important. Other things are important, including right government, laws, and good behavior. So human freedom needs to take a step down at that point, including from the wife. When she agrees to marry her husband, she agrees to his rule. Once he is ruling, he doesn’t need to say “please” every time. If he did, there would be no point in being the head of the home at all.
What about revoking consent? If a wife’s consent lies purely in the act of marriage, and does not need to be repeated every time, that means she could never revoke it, correct? Let me say two things about that. Under ordinary circumstances, yes, she could never revoke it. That would be akin to rejecting her marriage union, since her husband is her head. Marriage is for life and so is the right to discipline. However, I do see that under far out circumstances, such as a husband who took discipline to a great extreme not discussed before, she has a right to refuse to consent to that. If it goes well beyond what she actually consented to at the start, it makes sense to see she can refuse at that point. Her consent was never truly given in the first place, since she had no idea he would take punishment to an extreme. However, if her concern is merely that she does not think she is getting much out of discipline, and sees it as more of a problem, I see that situation simply as a point of discussion between husband and wife. She may not revoke consent, but can make her concerns known, and if her husband discerns that the discipline is no longer helpful, or causes problems, he will choose to end or put a pause on it. That’s his choice, but it’s worth talking about if there are problems. The idea of absolute refusal would only be under the most extreme of circumstances.
A woman moves in her world as her husband’s body — beautifully according to his will. In soft accordance with his wishes. It is a world of constantly helping her man. It is a world of consent. She is a part of him and would never think of conflicting with him. The thought of being opposed to him is the thought of war. The consent that a woman gives in marriage is lived out in the submission she gives daily because in that moment they became part of the same body, he as the head. While it is far easier to accept some of a mans decisions than to accept a hard spanking, they both rest on the same reality — she is his. She is his to love, lead, nurture, protect. Accepting his love and his leadership means accepting a spanking. She may not want it in the moment, but she never thinks to refuse. The reject that would be to reject her man, and often inside she knows it helps her. She accepts his love, as she accepts his firm hand.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.