Men and Women’s Rights in Marriage

For people in the West, rights are pretty much the air you breath. Everyone insists on their rights, even if they’re not sure what they are, nor where they really come from. It may seem odd to be proud of our rights in an era when government restrictions control such an incredible amount of life, but it is ingrained into how we think. While the western notion of rights is a blending of a few Christian ideals with Humanist ones, I would look with skepticism about where they come from in our culture, and find the stronger basis of rights is in the God of the Bible and in His law, rather than from what western thinkers a few hundred years ago dreamed up.

The original discussion of rights in the West was among Christian thinkers. Rights were not — at that time — simply the right to follow your heart as long as you don’t hurt anyone, nor were they very subjective ideals based on a loose notion of human dignity. Rather, rights involved the right and just thing to do. Theologians looked at God’s law, and sought to discover what was just in any given circumstance. On examination they saw that if an obligation existed, then by inference, we could see a certain right as well. If I am obliged to give to you, then you have a right to receive. If I am prohibited from stealing from you, then you have a right to your property. Rights were derived from God and His law.

Over time, these rights were co-opted and blended with more Humanist ideals. Instead of a set of rights clearly stemming from divine revelation, they echoed the allegedly enlightened notions of their day, giving only a philosophical nod to being rooted in the Creator, and in a concept of human dignity. We ended up with an impersonal God of nature, and “divinely” founded rights that sounded suspiciously like the secular thought of the day. Eventually the notion of being rooted in God and revelation was dropped, and we ended up with a system which does not claim any more objective foundation for rights than mankind and his culture. Our rights flow from us, in the contemporary understanding. That’s why today we have a right to commit immorality, a right to lewdness and pornography, a right for a woman to act like a man, the right of a woman to have her baby killed in the womb, and more clearly self-serving liberties. No one really knows what our actual rights are anymore, and they’re clearly just making them up as they go along. Right becomes synonymous with the lust of the heart, at least the ones the current culture condones. The original purpose has been overturned. These are not the actual rights we have, and should not be confused with them.

I want to examine the concept of rights as it pertains to men and women. Since I find rights must be rooted in God, and in nature, I’m going to look at what rights we receive naturally from our obligations before God. Our rights, we will find, are very different if we look at them that way. They do not change with the times. They allow us the freedom to do what is right, and to use our selves as we are designed. But they do not include the freedom to do what we feel, just because we feel like it. They do not include the freedom to sin. That kind of sounded like wishful thinking to begin with, didn’t it? Let’s look at both women and men’s rights in marriage, and we’ll briefly mention children as well.

Women’s Rights:

The right to be provided for: Because women have full time work in caring for the children and the home, it is her natural right to be provided for. That responsibility firstly lies on the husband, who when marrying his wife, takes on that obligation. If his income is not enough, family, church, and community can help provide the rest. If the husband becomes injured or dies, the woman should not feel obliged to leave the home to work full time. Until she can remarry, church and society should support her, so long as she is living a moral lifestyle and responsibly cares for the home and children.

The right to bear children and nurture: Similar to the right to be provided for, no wife should be robbed of her purpose in marriage, and the use of her unique gifts. She should be bearing the children God gives her, and have the time and resources to nurture them. Bearing children is an obligation to God as well, and cheating one’s spouse in this regard is an attempt to rob God.

The right to be protected: A wife can reasonably expect that any husband she married will protect her from harm. It is a part of his job. She is the weaker vessel. He not only protects her from physical harm, and takes up the more dangerous work around the house, but he also protects her from spiritual harm. The woman is more susceptible to the spiritual attacks of the devil, as evidenced in the Garden, and her man must be sure to keep her from false religious teachings and the occult. He should keep her from the feminist influences of this era as well. She should not have to fend for herself in these areas.

The right to be led: She has a right to receive her man’s leadership. He will lead the household liturgy, make practical and ethical decisions for the home, and also supervise her activities. His leadership should provide her helpful guidance, comfort, safety, and reassurance. His strength will make her strong.

Men’s Rights:

Right to govern/rule his home: The man is by position the leader once he has married his wife. He has rule over his wife and children. No government nor church has any authority to tell a man he cannot use his authority in marriage. By right of being the husband, he has right to set the rules, tell his wife what she must do, and correct or discipline her if she is out of line. Discipline comes with governance, and it is impossible to attack the right to discipline without also attacking the right to rule. Take away that right, and the decisions of a governor become mere suggestions. Along with a man’s authority always comes the right to discipline.

Right to his wife’s submission: Since a man is the head, and since his wife is given the role to submit, a man has a right to receive his wife’s obedience. Her respectful words, sincere help, and submission are all things he can expect, by the simple fact that he is her husband. Of the many people who try and reinvent the meaning of submission, so that it means something more like being considerate, they are wrong, and do damage to the home. The wife submits by putting herself under her husband’s authority and obeying him. It is the same as any other vertical structure.

Right to his wife’s help: Along with receiving her submission, comes receiving her help. Since being his helper is her job, it is right for him to expect this. She is there to assist in his goals, assist in his needs, and make it her part to be available to him. Along with helping him practically includes that she helps him by bearing and nurturing the children. She raises them and trains them up as he instructs her.

Both Men and Women’s Rights:

Right to Marital Affection: Both a husband and a wife have a right to sexual intimacy from their spouse. Marital affection should be normal, and never withheld. That is the teaching of Holy Scripture. Similarly, it should be regular according to love for a man to meet his wife’s needs for affection which is non-sexual, such as holding her, or holding hands, and make her feel safe and comfortable physically. Since the husband has the authority, he also has the right to insist if his wife withholds affection. He can enjoy his wife sexually as he desires to, and can expect his wife to obey him in bed as elsewhere.

Right to faithfulness: Faithfulness can speak of faithfulness to marriage responsibility in general, but here I specifically mean faithfulness to the spouse, sexually and physically. Marriage is by nature monogamous, and any spouse can expect the other to be monogamous with them. It is their right due to the nature of the union, as well as God’s condemnation of adultery. It is important to point out, that while adultery is a violation of the covenant, it does not end the covenant. Man and wife are joined until death, and all spouses will sin at some point in marriage. Sin is warrant to forgive, not warrant to pick another partner. Monogamy rules out adulterous affairs, “open” marriages, polygamy, and remarriage. You are locked together for life.

Right to lifelong fulfillment of the responsibilities: In line with the right to faithfulness, is the right to receive our spouses responsibilities in a lifelong way. They are not part-time pursuits. When we marry, we agree that that union, and the obligations we have to the other, do not cease until death. Husband and wife each plays their role continually, and can expect the other to do so as well.

Children’s Rights:

Right to father and mother: Since it takes a male and female to make a child, any child has a right to both his father and mother, and for them to be together. We know this also from the command for man and woman to become one flesh, and the fact the bond is only broken by death. A child should be able to expect his father and mother are united for life, and are both available to him.

Right to teaching, protection, and to be provided for: Since Scripture commands we teach our children, the child has a right to such teaching, firstly spiritually and ethically, and also training in practical work he can make a living with. He also has a right to protection both due to his smaller size and less developed mind, and the commands of the Lord not to harm children. Any child has a right to receive food, clothing, and housing from his parents. If they are unable to meet these needs, some extra help can come from family, church, and community.

Right to a peaceful home: Since man and wife are commanded to live in love, are given a harmonious working order of headship and submission, and are called to peace, any child has a right to be raised in a peaceful home, which is known by edifying words, loving admonition, and fatherly discipline. Fighting, screaming, cussing, and violence are all violations of that rights, as are having a broken home and needing to be shipped back and forth between houses.

Right to only two parents: While there are tragedies, and sometimes children lose a parent, and find he has a new one, this only occurs out of necessity when someone dies. A family by nature and design has only two parents — father and mother — and no child should be exposed to a rotating network of boyfriends, girlfriends, or step-parents. All of these not only break the structure of marriage, but are also more likely to harm a child, and nearly always love them less. Children also bond less with such adult figures, and are more likely to lash out violently at them.


At a time when virtually everything under the sun is considered a right, it’s important to remember that our rights are limited by our obligations. They are not infinite. They are not there so we can seek personal satisfaction, or fulfill our lusts. Rights are only observed to be there as we examine what one person is obliged to do for another. In that sense they are secondary kinds of truths. The root of the matter, and where they come from, is our duties, and those duties come from God. They are limited by what God teaches are right and wrong. If we concerned ourselves much more with these important duties, and ceased making excuses for not doing them, we would need reliance on rights far less, and would not need to debate exactly which we really possess. A marriage done according to God’s ordering will fulfill man, woman, and child. They will lack nothing.

Your can find most of these articles organized by general category here any my About Page.

NOTE: For readers who write to me from proton e-mail accounts, I regularly have my replies returned to me. If you do not receive a reply that is likely the reason, so it may be better to use another kind of account.


40 responses to “Men and Women’s Rights in Marriage”

  1. Very solid, as per usual. Far too often even those who say they subscribe to the Christian institution of marriage want to disregard these facts and make this just another lifestyle choice. These are not given to us as suggestions, but as facts of creation and requirements of the Christian life.

  2. matthewlouisclark Avatar

    Genuine question if you could role back or take away some of the rights women enjoy today which ones would you choose?

    1. That’s a good question. I thought of addressing it somewhat in the article, but I think it would drift too much away from the main focus.

      I am not aware of every last “right” the modern in the West claims to possess, but clearly there are some alleged rights which are in conflict with what we know to be true from God and nature. If they are not real, then we don’t actually do away with them, but simply ignore allegations that they exist. Then we build a law and government on our duties before God, including only the rights founded on God’s Word.

      One that comes to mind is the woman’s “right” to vote. To be clear, I don’t really think men have a “right” to vote either, but simply that we have found it useful to organize ourselves that way politically right now, and it’s appropriate for men to do it. If voting allows a nation to better serve God, then it is good. If it does not, then it’s bad. But I fail to see how anyone has an actual right to vote.

      However, concerning rights in this nation currently, the claim that women have a right to vote because men do is absurd. Men and women are different, so their rights related to their duties will be different. The fact that men vote does not logically lead to the conclusion that women should also. Men are the leaders in society, so it is appropriate, that if we choose our leaders by voting, men are the ones to vote. Men are also the heads of the home, and make the decisions for the home, including political ones. The woman’s vote historically has done little but elect people who disrespect the Bible, who are liberals, who support abortion, and the humanist philosophies of the day. There may be exceptions, but that is the overall effect of the woman’s vote. They bring their softness to the voting booth, and feminize leadership.

      Women should not have the “right” to expect that they will be hired onto the same jobs as men. That is in part because men are naturally stronger at some jobs (and not just physical ones), but also because a married woman already has a job — at home. No employer should be mandated to hire a married woman, but rather should reject her, and find a man for the job. If she gets married while employed, she should know she’ll need to hand in a letter of resignation around that time and depart. You cannot work two jobs at once, or have two bosses.

      The same thing goes for schools as it regards higher education. No school should be expected to take on women students unless they desire to. Men need those institutions to learn and to pursue a career later. Women do not, but for rare exceptions.

      Similarly, no woman has a right to expect equality in marriage. Marriage is not equal in the positional sense. No rights have been violated when a woman gets married and needs to take a position under authority. Rather the husband’s right to rule, and to discipline his wife, needs to be respected. Discipline in marriage needs to be recognized by law. A woman should not expect to be making financial decisions in the home either. While money and resources are shared property, the decisions are made by the man. He can forbid her from using finances for certain purposes, and can overrule a financial move she has made if it was in error. These are simply common sense things that were understood for years, but really have to be stated clearly again.

      Ultimately looking primarily at rights is a very limited way to view the topic. I think we get a better view simply by drawing from the truths of Scripture and nature, and using reason. The Bible does not speak in terms of rights, so it’s a somewhat artificial construct to begin with. I only write the article because rights theory is so misused, and many people are unaware of where these rights came from historically. I just want to set the record straight as much as I can in a short article.

      Thanks for your question.

  3. The matter of any rights or responsibilities in society is a political one, and when this blog gets into politics, it is going all wrong.

    1. Hello Rosa, This website deals with what I desire it to deal with, because it is my website, and I provide the content regarding marriage for the good of my readers. This entire article is about marriage, with a passing mention of discipline, and touches on rights theory in general as a means of getting into what rights in marriage truly are.

      Considering the the government has its hands in marriage and in morality, any discussion of marriage and morality will by nature include things both personal and political. Simply saying the husband has the right to have authority in marriage is a political statement, because the government claims he does not have such a right. Claiming a husband has a right as head to discipline his wife is also a political statement, as long as the government says he does not. Saying that marriage is for life is a political statement, as long as the government says you can end it, and do so easily.

      So ultimately, there is no separating wholly the personal and political.

      The article above is about rights in marriage. It includes:

      Women’s right to be provided for
      to bear children
      to be protected
      to be led

      Men’s right to govern the home
      his wife’s submission
      his wife’s help

      Both spouses’ right to marital affection
      lifelong fulfillment of responsibilities

      Children’s right to both father and mother
      to be taught, protected, and provided for
      a peaceful home
      only two parents

      That is the main content of the article, within the framework of dismissing man-made rights in general, and affirming that true rights or rooted in God and nature. I believe that content is helpful in viewing more accurately what marriage is and how it functions. I will accept few comments outside of that main discussion.

      If you believe rights flow from man, they are not rights in any fundamental sense, but opinions, and could disappear tomorrow if man changes his views. Rights, like all truth, flow from God.

  4. Hi, I have a real question about faithfulness, what if your husband is unfaithful or wife is unfaithful? Should the marriage end? Or should the wife be punished? What about the husband?

    1. Hello Jess, I appreciate your bringing up this concern. Faithfulness is central to marriage. However, it is not the end of the world if either husband or wife sins in this arena. They should simply confess and repent of this sin, as of any other, and return to right living. The marriage continues, and can be happy and fruitful.

      I do not believe the marriage bed should end if one spouse is unfaithful. It would seem hard-hearted and bitter to try and end it only for that reason. However, if either one is running around with many sex partners, which of course should never happen, it probably is safer not to sleep together, since it could bring some nasty diseases. It really becomes a health risk.

      Certainly a husband has a right to discipline his wife if she is unfaithful. It is a serious sin. However, any discipline ought to be in the context of other work they are doing to make sure their marriage is repaired, and adultery does not happen again. A wife cannot discipline her husband, but if there are ongoing problems with serious sin, such as adultery, she can ask his male peers, or elders at a church to lead him out of it.

      I hope that fully answers your question.

      1. Thanks you for your response, it’s really clear that up for me.
        I think that I was getting a feminist mindset and thinking the husband doesn’t have to answer to anyone but of course he is under god.
        I really need to stop with feminism, I don’t feel it helps with marriage.
        Thank you for your time and advice

        1. It’s my pleasure. Definitely get any feminism or humanism or egoism out of your system. They do harm marriage. It can take time as we cleanse ourselves of previous forms of thought. Embrace what is good and live it. Trust in God and in Christ. We see more clearly over time as we are conformed to His image.

        2. Hi Jessy!

          Feminism is misogyny. Don’t hate yourself.

  5. Hi Aron,
    Great post. I don’t know where to start, I have a few different things swirling around to say or ask about this one, that I don’t perhaps want to say all at once.

    First I want to thank you for pointing out that the Bible doesn’t work with “rights” as much as it does responsibilities. And rights that flow from those responsibilities. If I hear you correctly, you’re saying that we have rights for those in authority over us and around us to faithfully execute their responsibilities towards us. So when someone doesn’t carry out their responsibilities and obligations, therein is found injustice. And God hates injustice.

    I like the fact that this is not a BDSM or a Patriarchy-movement blog where the husband has unquestioned absolute rule and no responsibility (except perhaps a safe word in the case of BDSM) but instead this is a distinctly Christian Domestic Discipline blog, and you are proving that. You’ve taken a stand, it would seem, against a husband having absolute and unquestioned authority over his wife. He is under a higher Law, and his authority only extends to where that Law extends it — to rightfully govern His home in the parameters of God-given instructions to have a marriage and household that has a productive, healthy, and life-giving order to it… And his responsibilities to his wife and children to do right by them are huge.

    Sometimes some of the comments here scare the willies out of me, like that gal whose husband didn’t care how she healed after pregnancy, but was demanding sex from her a week in. This kind of post seems to be very needed. So thank you.

    1. Hello Heather, Thanks for your comment. Yes we do get a much clearer understanding if we look at our duties, rather than supposed rights. Our rights should just be there to make sure we are able to do what is good, and that people all do their jobs.

      The husband does have broad authority in marriage, but naturally also has responsibilities to fulfill, and cannot govern outside of the law of God. There are some examples out there of extreme forms of discipline, as well as distorted concepts of authority, for sure. I don’t know how for real all those are, but some of it is well outside of godly use of authority.

    2. Hi Heather, you hit the nail on the head in your above comment (I couldn’t see an option to reply on your comment addressed to me. ) I was having some issues with pain and intimacy for almost a month. I do think I could have discussed it with My husband beforehand, maybe tried to give him some tips to make it less painful for me. But honestly, I had been reading a feminist blogger for awhile who said I could wait until *I* was in the mood, which of course I wasn’t in the mood because I was in pain. So I kept turning my husband down, even getting frustrated with him for continuing to ask knowing I was having this issue.

      After he spanked me, he said turning him down for 3 weeks was only part of it. He said he noticed an overall pattern of disrespect for him since before Christmas. He thinks I put the children before him and he hates when I step in before he can discipline them. He’s right about that, but I’m not sure how to fix it.


      1. Hello Sophie, Thanks for providing more explanation. I would not trust a feminist blogger for guidance with marriage, especially if you understand the man in the head of the home. I believe it would help prevent a problem from becoming ongoing like that if your husband showed more active oversight. That could be verbally letting you know if you are stepping out of line, giving clearer instruction of what he needs from you, along with warnings and prompter spanking.

        If pain were an issue, that is something that can be discussed with your husband. You may both find a way to be intimate without any pain, or find that it goes away entirely. Many women live with some degree of pain in making love, even if it is only temporary, so only in very rare cases does it truly prevent intimacy.

        Making love in general does not need to come down to rules and authority, however, if a wife is refusing her husband, he does have a right to insist, and surely since you respect him you will accept that. Many men are also somewhat influenced by feminism. They have had a lot of ideas drummed into their heads which will influence them to lead less clearly. Some have been taught it would be wrong to demand your wife to be intimate with you. Naturally, good communication on both ends will help you avoid this in the future, but I believe most rests on your husband’s active guidance.

        I hope you see some improvement, and learn to be intimate more freely. Take care.

  6. husbandwilliam Avatar


    Thank you for this post. It is one of your finest blog posts yet. Understanding the why behind the Christian worldview is more important than your methods, and it is deserving of its own post as you have done above.

    The idea that marriage is a covenant between God and husband and wife is central to the understanding of what marriage is. Once understood it is not hard to understand both the husbands and the wife’s responsibilities in marriage which you outlined above.

    The secular world view does not understand these ideas and is hostile and may like your methods but has no understanding of the why behind them.

    Thank you please keep up the good work

    1. You’re welcome William. I’m very glad you appreciate the article. I know some secularists will hate it. However, I would hope at least the open-minded secularist would gain something from a glimpse at the Christian worldview, and see the good behind it. God’s word presents a consistent understanding of this world, and brings love and blessing to humanity when we follow it. This is especially true within the covenant of marriage.

  7. Very interesting post, Aaron.
    Thank you.
    I’m curious about how to treat the political rights and freedoms of a married woman.
    With my wife I keep it this way:

    When we became a family through marriage, the civil and political rights and freedoms of both of us became “pooled” in the family and I as the leader of the family exercise them for both of us for the good of our family – this way out family becomes stronger and destructive individualism is held at bay:

    Freedom of speech: In the general public I speak for our family, my wife speaks when I ask her. In family settings or among friends the rules are more relaxed, but she still has to be respectful and meek at all times. I can and will restrict her speech further when necessary – as a punishment, a precaution, or simply for training and instruction.

    Freedom of movement: The main place for my wife is in our home or at my side. If she needs (I will not allow it, if she simply ‘wants’ it) to go out on her own, she has to get my permission first and follow the additional rules I may add (places she goes to, people she meets or talks to, duration, dress code).

    Freedom of association: I want to be informed with whom my wife interacts, be it friends, relatives or people in our church. I have the final say on the friendships she’s allowed to keep.

    Freedom of press: I have the final say on what media are consumed in our family and when and by whom. Some works like the bible are generally open for everyone, others require permission from the head of the household.

    Right to vote: I as the leader of our family chose whether we vote and for which candidate. I generally don’t want our votes go to waste so I usually have my wife vote for the candidate I chose.

    My wife generally accepts these restrictions and that I have those rights over her, she sometimes struggles with her speech restrictions, which are also the cause of most of the punishments she gets. But I believe that speech strongly influences thinking, so I think they are necessary to keep her in a submissive mindset.

    1. Hello Carl, Thank you for the overview of how you treat freedoms in marriage. I actually do things similarly, although I don’t spend a lot of time trying to define them as rights. I think those are helpful strategies, and would be good for any home. The key principle is that the man is head in all domains of life, whether it be in the manner of direct control, or general supervision. A wife is not autonomous in any domain.

      There certainly are areas when I tell my wife what she needs to do, but in other areas, I may allow a range of choices, depending. She knows various decisions have to pass through me first, including media and any teaching tools for the children. Anything other than habitual or very minor purchases need my permission.

      Using speech is very important, especially in public, when situations might get fairly chaotic. I let my wife know that in such group situations she should let me speak first, and if someone approaches her as the one to talk to, that she defer it to me. I may remind her before we go out if I suspect it will come up. This avoids headship getting foggy at various kinds of meetings or gatherings.

      I believe many men do not clearly know the authority that they have, nor are they active enough in using it. Some men have learned a very watered down form of headship, and do not get directly in charge and make the changes they must. We need more active men making the home a holy domain, which then is a weapon of war for God.

      1. Hi Aron,
        I wanted to follow up again with another comment after this became the subject of a bunch of discussion this morning in our women’s telegram group. Whether the specifics of what you and Carl expect in terms of control/oversight seem excessive or not to us or anyone else, the one thing that is pretty evident behind all of that is that you have a very clear vision of what your marriage and home life is meant to accomplish, and these are the things you feel are necessary to ensure the success of that vision. If men don’t have the same type of vision for what they want to see accomplished in their marriage and family they may agree that their wives are to submit to them but they might have very different ideas about what kind of submission is beneficial or useful since they are aiming at a different set of goals/vision.
        So just a suggestion/thought/request:
        Maybe sometime you would write a post about your vision for what a marriage and home is meant to do, aka, what a “holy domain” is and how that is a “weapon of war for God” — and why keeping such a tight reign on your wife’s activities helps accomplish that.

        1. Hello Heather, Thank you for your ideas. I may put together a comment that replies to various individual questions, which I have received from readers so far, in forms both coherent and highly emotional. It is also a good idea to do an article on how the man can make the home a holy domain and weapon for God. I will make a note of it for the future.

          The use of speech, and freedoms in general, definitely is a topic for meditation, and we should consider on the practical level how it works. No authority on the planet believes in a hammered flat freedom of speech, none. Nor should husbands even consider letting any speech go. Men need to set standards and make rules. That is a part of their just and loving leadership, and is good for their wives, both in their virtue, and in functioning as a subordinate.

          My wife is not allowed to simply speak freely if we are having meetings, for example over purchases or financial matters. I am the head so I represent the home. I will do the speaking and replying to whomever we are meeting with, both because I head the home, and so the other party can know whom he should be addressing in general. My wife may ask questions if she needs to, typically asking politely if she may. If there’s something I don’t know, I may ask my wife to explain it, nodding to her. Otherwise, she doesn’t butt in, and generally waits for me to nod to her.

          Among friends, things are more casual. People for the most part speak freely during a meal. After a meal, things tend to break down into men’s group and women’s group anyway. With family, it is more normal to have talk between men and women. My wife still will not try and speak above me, and she knows not to butt into a conversation without asking.

          No matter the setting, there are certain general rules of speech that apply. Obviously, she needs to speak with respect. Vulgarity, lewdness, blasphemy and the like are not accepted. She may not be argumentative with me, or raise her voice with me. If I thought her conversation was inappropriate or disrespectful with someone else, I would tell her, and she would stop. She may not be filthy or rude speaking with anyone else. She knows these things, and has good character, so it’s not something I often have to correct her for.

          It is quite normal for the head of an organization to speak for the entire group. Representatives of the nation vote at the UN for a variety of decisions, but you and I do not. Heads of a company have meetings with other companies, or with each other. Their subordinates are not necessarily included, nor are workers. When senators and representatives vote in congress, they vote on behalf of their entire constituency, and that is simply something which comes with their position. They’re the heads, so they represent the group. The people under them do not always get their individual voice in there, and there’s nothing wrong with that.

          We could also get into language. Speech codes in secular society, for example, are more restrictive than in the average traditional marriage. In secular society if you offend a special group, you can lose your job, or be shunned by your peers. If you speak out against the evil of sodomy or state the biological fact there are two sexes, you can likewise lose your job or be shunned by the group. If you state the dangers of certain medicines, you can be kicked off social media, even if what you say turns out to be factually true, as we have seen with many of the warnings against the new RNA therapy being confirmed.

          We could go on and on about speech rules among worldly people, and the list could get quite long. I’m sure you know that. There obviously is nothing wrong with having certain limitations on speech — everyone on earth does it — but it’s only a matter of which bar to set. The bar should be set according to God’s Word, and secondarily what we know to be true through reason. In the home, the person who sets the bar is the husband, because he is the leader. It’s not that hard to understand if you recognize he has real authority. Of course he sets the bar.

          I hope that makes some things clearer regarding freedom as well as speech in marriage. I will write later about some of these topics for sure.


      2. Hello Heather and Aaron,

        i maybe have to explain a bit about our relationship that this “rights thing” in my post becomes understandable:
        From the beginning of our marriage up until around 2 years ago my wife ran the show. She wasn’t actually bossy or something, she always asked for my wishes and respected for them, but she managed it all. From making dinner reservations to talking to contractors – she did it because she was used to doing it from her stressful job and she didn’t mind.
        I was happy, because I didn’t have to do those things and had more time and power for my hobbies.

        Then she broke down – burn out, depression.
        I had to take over those tasks and in the process also much of her life, as getting out of bed in the morning was already a major task for her. I made her quit her job, while she was still on sick leave.
        Later I started to assign her tasks and chores that she was required to do, just to get her away from destructive brooding. That’s when we started spanking – there had to be consequences, when she didn’t do her chores. First rather playfully, but after a while I was seriously punishing her and she began to fear those spankings.
        But her soul began to heal and so we continued.

        We began to like or respective roles – I as the leader and the person responsible for our family, she as the submissive and obedient follower with limited responsibilities and rights.

        At one point during that process she complained, asking “do I have no rights here, or what?” when I had made a decision she didn’t like.

        I sent her to the corner, because she wasn’t (and still isn’t) allowed to make arguments or demands, she can only talk about her feelings or kindly ask for things (“please sir, can I” instead of “I need to, because”) – she has always had a tendency to overthink things and this should help her to connect more with her emotional side and keep her rational side at bay.

        While she was standing in the corner I thought about our relationship in the term of rights and I came up more or less with the thoughts I posted:
        These rights apply to individuals in a nation. When she became my wife, or rather when I took up the reins she lost the ability to exercise those rights, as the needs of our family now stand above her individuality (and likewise mine). Those rights are not completely lost, though. I as her husband and the leader of the family she is part of, can exercise our pooled rights in the outer world in the interest of our family.

        She later got her spanking for arguing, but I also explained my thoughts to her. She largely accepted that those rights no longer apply to her, as the individual she once was is now willingly submitted to her husband in everything.

        It took me some courage to actually exercise the rights I have over her, but it was a worthwhile endeavor. I used to think in ways of “It annoys me that my wife does (or doesn’t) do X”, which is destructive and leads to resentment. Now I simply tell her what I want her to do and she obeys or gets punished until she does. No need to get resentful, because in the end everything is in my hands.

        Over some time I became bolder – having less scruples actually making orders or setting rules for her – while she became meeker, more eager to please and quicker to submit . We both became happier.
        If I don’t feel that it is necessary to actively use my rights over her (by explicitly requesting her obedience) for a specific thing, than this point is probably not worth the worry anyway.

        As an example:
        Problem: She used to waste time on social media and became emotionally involved in the drama there.
        Old “solution”: Plead with her to reduce that and start arguing after some time, become angry at her.
        New solution: No more computer time and a simple “dumb” phone for her. Permanently. (there are a few exceptions involving specific things and strict supervision, but generally my wife is off the internet)
        Some time ago, I would have thought “But you cannot do this, she has rights!”. No. Her rights lie with me.

        1. Thank you for the explanation, Carl. I’m glad to hear about how you took on leadership in your home.

          It’s important to see the practical applications of headship and submission, including in the limitations set on things which may become harmful, and the forms of guidance that exist beyond giving a spanking. It is that whole experience of leadership, protection, and guidance that helps the wife to grow as a woman of God.

          We also find that many of those applications are subjective, and they may change with time over varying circumstances, and a wife’s overall behavior. I appreciate your care and concern for your wife.

      3. I got a severe spanking the other day. My husband said it was for denying him sex for almost 3 weeks and for being disrespectful to him in front of the children. I guess those things should be givens but we’ve never actually sat down and discussed rules. He did say he has a right to sex though whenever he desires it.


        1. Hello Sophie, Sex in marriage is a responsibility, even outside of marriages that include discipline. Part of uniting in marriage is becoming one flesh. Your body is shared with your spouse and that is normal.

          Certainly, if you have been led in submission for some time, and have committed yourself to it, you’d never think to deny your husband, much less for three weeks. To refuse is also a simple act of disobedience, like any other. I’m sure you know you earn a serious correction that way, and need to change your behavior. You belong to your husband.

          It would be best if he is clear with you about what he expects in the future, and what the rules of the home are. Simply ask him if you are not sure. Yet even without that discussion, I”m sure you know you should neither disrespect nor disobey your husband.

          I know you can do better from now on.

      4. Hi Sophie!
        You didn’t give many details why you would avoid intimacy with your husband for three weeks, (and honestly, why would you? as this isn’t exactly the most private conversation here…) but I know that for some of us ladies sometimes sex is less than enjoyable (read: painful) which, after a while, makes it less desired and more something women start wanting to avoid. If this is the case, I just want to suggest that you could reach out to other women (especially those who went through something similar) because someone might be able to troubleshoot that with you. It’s generally something that can be remedied if that’s happening for you.

        Or maybe nothing like that is going on. In which case, it is true as Aron said that refusing the marriage bed is an act of disobedience not only to one’s spouse. But it’s tragic if it really comes down to obedience alone. My husband tells me he wants me to want him. If he had to punish me to get me to agree to intimacy with him, I can only imagine that that would make sex half empty for him. His reward in it is knowing that he is wanted, embraced, received, that’s what makes sex beautiful for spouses, is that it’s not about mere physical sex, it’s about making love to one another, giving and receiving from one another. If he had to punish you to get you to agree to your marriage bed, you now unfortunately have an uphill battle now to show him that despite sex being demanded, that you actually want him, that he means the world to you, that he indeed is your beloved, that you’re not with him just to give him the mere minimum “requirement” he demands and not just to “keep the rules.” Husbands want to be enjoyed, they want our hearts not just our bodies. But we show our hearts with our bodies, as well as with everything else.

        Who wants a marriage without love and affection? Be careful not to let that be what you create. Maybe he has been hard to love, hard to submit to, hard to want lately. Again, I hope you can find someone to talk to who can help you find your way through that. What we invest of our hearts into our spouses is a huge part of what we create with them together, it determines the spirit and flavor of what our marriage will be like for us and them.

        Forgive me though for putting my nose in. I hope it helps though.

        Blessings Sophie

        1. “But it’s tragic if it really comes down to obedience alone.”

          This is true of more than intimacy; it is the very crux of marriage.

          I want to positively radiate the joy I walk in with this man to whom God has given me.

          I am so glad we found each other. I feel blessed every day. I can’t believe how lucky I am.

          His take on headship runs more to packing my lunch and bringing me coffee, than to chastising me for faults real or imagined, so it’s often challenging to figure out how to submit to him or what would best please or honor him.

          I know it pleases and honors him that I try. 🙂

      5. Good day, Aron and thank you for this blog.

        Since we are new in DD marriage (we have been married for almost 20 years). I have now and then gone out with my female friend and had a few drinks but I have also skipped alcohol and if I drink I never drink more than 3 drinks. This is not often, maybe once every 4 months.
        I am wondering what others in DD married think about going out in the evening with female friends and your husband being home with the kids. This is not often, perhaps once every 4 months.

        Best regard Anna.

        1. Hello Anna, You’re welcome. Thank you for sharing your questions. It is not safe or appropriate for a married woman to be going out for drinks with her friends at night. There are some good situations to be with other women, such as for fellowship and women’s meetings in church. If you really see a need to meet with friends outside such a context, it should not be by yourself, over drinks, at night. It could be in a safer setting during the day. It could be meeting to take children to the park, for example, or a museum. I think that’s common sense.

          It also matters that your company is godly. If these women are a poor influence on you, then it’s best to stay away from them anyway, unless there are legitimate reasons to be with them, such as sharing the Gospel. Your husband ultimately can draw the lines as far as where you can go, but I would not allow my wife out in such situations.

          Alcohol, especially with women, is a danger, and can lead to immense trouble which you’ll have to deal with for years. While I do not abstain from alcohol, it is unwise for a woman out at night to be drinking unless her husband takes her somewhere. I’d keep any drinking for a safe and virtuous environment, with your husband present. Women in general need to drink more moderately than men to be safe.

          I hope that helps to make the matter clearer in your mind. Blessings to you and your family.

    2. His-bride-Lauren Avatar

      Hello Carl, please forgive me if this is impertinent, but I was wondering if you would be able to go into more detail about the freedom of movement right of your wife? I fully understand that a woman’s place is in the home, be it cooking, cleaning, looking after the children, engaging in home worship or bible study and a million other home-based tasks that women are responsible for. But if she has finished her chores and she wants to go to the park or to get a coffee at a cafe, what is the danger in allowing her to do this? She doesn’t “need” to do those things, you’re right, but she is not under house arrest, is she? Taking an hour once or twice a week to go for a walk or to do some window shopping is enjoyable, even if it’s not necessary. It sounds like she is permanently grounded under your rules, which seems unduly harsh. Please could you explain your reasoning behind this rule? Is she not allowed to take the children to the park, just for fun? FWIW, we follow your additional rules and my husband has final say regarding who I meet, where I go, what I wear and what time I should be home by, but we don’t have a rule of me only being allowed out when I “need” to go somewhere (provided all of my chores are done on time and to a high standard). Does it not make your wife miserable to be effectively housebound?

      1. aronhusband Avatar

        For your reference, I don’t know if people will get notifications for replies to older comments. I had to download all the content of my old website, and upload it into this new one, and I’m not sure that those subscriptions and contacts are still active. That would apply to anything before November 2023. Thank you.

        1. His-bride-Lauren Avatar

          Ah ok, thank you for letting me know. Just out of curiosity, what are your own views on people not allowing their wives to leave the house unless there is a “need” for it? Do you see any reason why a wife cannot go for a walk or for a coffee, if all of her chores are done and she has no other tasks around the house? I know she doesn’t “need” to, but surely recreation and fun are important to men and women. Maybe we’re too lax, but I am allowed to go to the park, a cafe, the shops, etc. (so long as it doesn’t affect my role in the home). My heart hurts for any woman who is not allowed to leave the house unless there is a need for it (I am interpreting “need” to be things like doctors appointments, grocery shopping, etc). What are your thoughts?

          1. aronhusband Avatar

            Hello Lauren, I trust my wife in taking care of her responsibilities outside of the home. The restrictions I have are not very limiting. She can go out places, so long as it does not get in the way of her other responsibilities. Naturally, she should not go anywhere inappropriate, or dangerous. She should not go out with bad companions. She needs to let me know where she is, and when she will be back, and be punctual with her return.

            In general my wife handles it well, and I don’t need to worry about it. If she has to go somewhere I think may be dangerous, either I will go with her, or have an older male member of the family accompany her. Naturally, for a responsible and godly married woman, outings which are not necessities such as shopping or the doctor’s, are simple things like trips with the kids, or visiting a church friend for lunch. No one’s going out to bars or anything.

            I hope that answers your question.

  8. Good day, Aron and thank you for this blog.

    We are new in DD marriage, we have been married for almost 20 years and have 3 wonderful children. My husband and I both have good jobs and work both full-time jobs outside the home. I have a university education, work in a demanding job and I love my job and to provide for my family.
    I was the one who introduced DD lifestyle to my husband. I have always been fascinated by old-fashioned marriage and desire to be submissive to my husband.
    This is a delightful marriage as long as both parties are fully supported and desire it for their marriage but I also have a strong sense of justice and respect the rights of women as well as men. What if for example the wife doesn’t want a DD lifestyle anymore in her marriage, I’m not talking about me since I want this for my marriage. I’m talking about a woman’s right in general if she changes her mind about CDD marriage?

    I wanted to ask what you and the opinion of the readers have to say about this.

    Best regard Anna.

    1. Hello Anna, I believe the topic has come up before in the comments. I may also deal with it in my article on consent. A husband takes on his authority role, and a wife takes on her submissive role when they get married. Consent is given on the wedding day. Since a marriage by nature lasts for life, that consent if for life as well.

      A woman is led by her man, and he has the right to correct her when correction is needed. None of her rights are violated at all. She is not autonomous anymore. Rather, she lives out her rights in marriage, by submitting to her husband, bearing children, being loved, led, and protected. If she does not feel like a spanking one day, it doesn’t change anything. She needs to accept it because that is the nature of the marriage union.

      I realize that’s not the answer the secular world would give. Nor does it conform to the culture. But that is the only answer consistent with rights as we know them from God and nature, as opposed to the man-made kind. Remember, the same kind of people who would be appalled by the answer I give you, don’t want a criminal to be asked if he feels like being arrested or thrown in prison. He doesn’t get to change his mind. He’s just punished, because he broke the law. None of his rights are violated when he is chased down, put in handcuffs, put on trial, and incarcerated. He has an authority over him, and he is rightly punished.

      Take care.

  9. I have refused . My husband wants oral and to make his deposit in my mouth. I was violated when I was very young. In fact an evangelist called me up and wanted to pray with me and he verified that yes I was violated when I was very young.I don’t remember everything and my memories are from the understanding I had that age. My husband was in church when the evangelist called me out . I never wanted to do this in fact it took me a long time to even give oral. He still asks but he never gets mad when I say no. I just don’t see myself ever able to do this. It is just to tramatic for me. In this case is it acceptable to say no ?

    1. Hello Jen, Thank you for your comments. In general, a woman preparing to get married should know beforehand that sex will be a part of it, and that she will do what her husband enjoys. That is a norm in marriage.

      It is good that your husband understands if you have been molested as a child, and does not push you in that area. I think most men are willing to be patient. However, I also believe any person can overcome past traumas, and whoever mistreated you has no control over you now whatsoever. You can do and be what God wills you to be, including that you participate in full sexual enjoyment with your husband. You are free from any harm someone sought to cause you.

      You belong to the Almighty, and not the person who mistreated you. You are completely free in Him. I would aim never to refuse your husband anything, and do your best to please him, but you can feel free to talk it out with him.


  10. Fluer Avatar

    Lovely article

    I came about DD at university I’d been on several depressingly boring dates with men who were more interested in being equal or submissive to me. One of my dormitory friends could see this was boring me and invited me to her bible group, she was very keen to tell me that her group where not traditional Church of England and was more conservative and traditional in there values.

    The more I listened and more I invested time with them the more I realised this is what I needed and wanted a man I could love honour and obey and they would take care of me and release me from the pressures of being a modern thinking woman.

    I was lucky to meet my husband through this group when he came to teach his passion on the subject of family made me realise he was the one ( luckily he liked me too! )

    I am his property and he loves me in return, he values my input when required and treats me with respect. Like any modern woman introduced to DD I still need reminding that his word is law.

    1. Thank you for sharing your background, and how you met your husband. Traditional churches or fellowships are often a good place to find men and women who are clear about their roles in marriage. Nearly any wife needs to be reminded sometimes that her husband’s word is law. It brings wonderful joy to marriage. Bless you.

  11. I love that you put the right to be provided for in here. It is absolutely the husband’s and the father’s responsibility to be the provider. This is not the woman’s burden. I have been saying this for years yet I kept coming across these housewife blogs and CDD blogs that touted women’s careers. Finally, I have found someone like me who understands, it appears. Men are the providers and protectors. Women should accept this and accept being led. It’s so much more peaceful, erotic, and overall wonderful that way.

    -B.A. Hunter

    1. Thank you. Very many people have compromised on the woman’s role in the home, or treat it as a minor issue. Rather, it is very important to marriage. The woman provides the heart and the life of the home. That cannot be done part time.

Leave a Reply