Wife-Spanking: Neither parody nor porn

48 posts / 0 new
Last post
jrose
Wife-Spanking: Neither parody nor porn

 

jrose

I've been resisting posting this since yesterday, since I hardly wanted to give the [url=http://christiandomesticdiscipline.com/Home.html]Christian Domestic Discapline website[/url] the time of day, but I've continued reading more of the information provided on this site, as well as a blog from a “voluntarily submissive wife,” who shudders with fear as her husband approaches her with a belt, yet lets him, since its her duty as a wife. And, it has me livid!

Here’s part of the article from
[url=http://feministing.com/archives/007603.html#more]Feministing.[/url]

quote:

"What if your wife, even after graduating the prestigious homemaking course at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary with a degree in ladylike submission, still won't behave? Uber-conservative Christian patriarchs everywhere now have a solution!

Give her a good spanking. For how to incorporate this into your marriage, see the "Christian Domestic Discipline" site. ...

This is billed as completely consensual, with it made clear that "the husband has authority to spank the wife. The wife does not have authority to spank her husband." The site was created by wife-spankers who were sick of stumbling upon porn when they searched for other like-minded folks online. Lest you become confused that the CDD site is a BDSM site with a Christian spin, they're sure to reiterate that this is about adhering to Biblical gender roles -- not about sexual pleasure. ...

But what if sometimes your wife doesn't want to be spanked? Well, let's not use an inconvenient phrase like "domestic violence" or "spousal abuse." Nah, "non-consensual CDD" would be more appropriate, really. And the site basically says that it's a man's god-given right to hit his wife, even if those pesky laws against domestic violence get in the way.

Non-consensual CDD: [FROM THE CCD WEBSITE]

Though we believe the Bible gives a husband the authority to use spanking as one tool in enforcing his authority in the home with or without his wife's permission, in today's world we recognize the legality that mandates that all CDD must be consensual. Therefore we will do not condone nonconsensual CDD as a rule.

How progressive of them!

Lynn at Broadsheet delved into the blogs linked on the site, which are just so sad. One blogger, a woman named Debbie, has decided having her husband hit her is a cheap and effective weight-loss strategy. She recounts being beaten for accidentally leaving the stove burner on, and writes, "I felt my stomach drop when I saw my husband bring out a heavy belt." She continues,

I am not abused nor capable of being abused. I imagine that if one of you raging feminist find yourself beaten by a man you had better hope Leah or I (or someone of like mind) comes along to beat the stuffing out of him for you. I know I'm capable and from reading I sort of believe Leah is as well. My submission is quite voluntary. ...

On a much, much lighter note, the site also features a store... which sells crotchless pantaloons. (Picture available on feministing.com)

For the traditionalist Christian who's not quite into Frederick's of Hollywood, but finds the Laura Ingalls Wilder look totally hot."


[ 24 August 2007: Message edited by: jrose ]

Frustrated Mess Frustrated Mess's picture

Is this the type of thing they will be teaching at John Tory's faith based schools? That women should be submissive and consent to being beaten by their husbands for such trespasses as a late dinner? How does one consent to being beaten? I guess that will a school lesson.

jrose

quote:


How does one consent to being beaten?

These are some of the steps that the site provides as to how to convince a wife that she should submit and tolerate spousal abuse, though it proceeds an entire section on how a wife should convince her husband that she DESERVES to be discaplined!

quote:

Suggestions for Introducing CDD to Your Wife

1. Husbands, you are in a stickier situation. It is one thing to tell your husband you need correction, but it is quite another to tell your wife she needs discipline. Take it slowly. Maybe consider introducing it to her a bit at a time.

2. If she is already committed to living in a Biblical marriage (i.e. husband the head of the household), you are blessed. Explain to her the Biblical justifications for CDD (for more information, see Understanding Christian Domestic Discipline), and gently suggest you use CDD.

3. If she is not committed to living in a Christian marriage, suggest you do a Bible Study together on Biblical roles in marriage.

6. Reassure her of your love. Though you might bring her pain during punishment, you would never do her any lasting harm.

7. If she is afraid of spanking or completely set against it, begin with alternative punishments.

8. Suggest you begin CDD in a limited capacity (for example, agree to use only your hand with a ten swat limit) until she is more comfortable with the relationship.

9. Assure her you’re not a sadist, and though you might be turned on by seeing her behind or by her submission to you, you will never gain pleasure from causing her pain.


I love the dichotomy between living in a “Christian marriage,” and “Not committed to living in a Christian marriage,” basically saying if a woman is committed to living in a Christian marriage, than she MUST agree to submit in this way.

Michelle

Completely consensual spanking within a marriage, huh? Wow, those Crazy Christian Conservatives really know how to go kinky! [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img] Calling Tommy_Paine to the kink phone!

Seriously, though...

This is disturbing, although I suppose if it's consensual then who am I to say? I mean, there are couples who do the 24 hour BDSM thing and it's seen by many as a perfectly valid kink as long as it's consensual.

I suppose if you're really religious and feel like such kinkiness is against your religion, then harnessing your religion to support such a thing just might be a way of getting around it!

Unfortunately, the difference is that with the religious kooks, this is for keeps. There ain't no "safe word" or changing your mind. And getting out of it isn't as simple as just talking to your husband and saying, "Hey, this isn't turning me on anymore, let's take a break for a bit, huh?" It's a matter of becoming "disobedient" and having your whole religious community down on you if you do. From what I understand about BDSM, there is no pressure for people to engage in anything that makes them feel uncomfortable, and no pressure to continue if you've started something and find you don't like it.

Hey, they even talk about how erotic spanking is!

quote:

Eroticism:

Though we recognize by its very nature this subject can be erotic, we will keep this website as clean and wholesome as possible. However, we will not seek to deny the erotic nature of some CDD marriages as we believe it is a natural consequence of following God's plan. After all, He created eroticism to be enjoyed inside a Christian marriage.


"Oh, hubby, I've been a bad, BAD girl!"

P.S. Are we sure this site isn't satirical? That last point you quoted, jrose, is so funny that it sounds like a straight line. "I might get turned on by seeing your ass while I'm spanking it, but rest assured, I won't take any pleasure from it." [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]

[ 24 August 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]

jrose

quote:


This is disturbing, although I suppose if it's consensual then who am I to say? I mean, there are couples who do the 24 hour BDSM thing and it's seen by many as a perfectly valid kink as long as it's consensual.

I agree, but is it really consensual if the woman is crying by the end and shuddering in fear (as described in one of the blogs?). This doesn’t suggest consent to me. It suggests a level of fear in the marriage that if a woman doesn’t obey, the beatings might be far worse. This way, she might feel that at least she’s had some say in the terms of her “discipline.” And the site goes on and on to say that there is no sexual kink involved in this discipline (yea right!), making a clear separation between fetish and control.

jrose

quote:


P.S. Are we sure this site isn't satirical? That last point you quoted, jrose, is so funny that it sounds like a straight line. "I might get turned on by seeing your ass while I'm spanking it, but rest assured, I won't take any pleasure from it."

That's exactly what I thought too. Feministing seems to think it's legit. The blog seemed pretty contrived to me though.

Frustrated Mess Frustrated Mess's picture

It would be hilarious if it was a spoof, but sadly, probably not. [url=http://christiandomesticdiscipline.com/leahkelley.php]http://christiando...

Michelle

Did it? Several times I saw it said that this will improve your sex life, that it can be erotic (which is God's plan because eroticism within a marriage is God's gift), etc.

Personally, I think that if this site IS for real, then it's a Christian couple who have found an "acceptable" way to come out of the closet with their BDSM kink. I mean, come on. "Good girl spankings" and "Bad girl spankings"? "Play spankings"?? [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]

And did you catch the bit about "maintenance spankings"? From the description, those spankings aren't for doing anything wrong in particular. It's a regular spanking to make sure the roles are being enforced, and for all the little things that are too small in themselves to spank over. (In other words, it's an excuse to indulge in the kink without "sinning" first in order to get to do it!)

I'm sorry, I think this is funny. Throughout the site, they say over and over again that it must not be practised unless there is full consent on the part of the wife. And they even discuss how to go about setting boundaries and how everything has to be explicit, everything agreed to beforehand, even written down - that sounds an awful lot like BDSM rules to me.

I figure, whatever turns you on. [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]

[ 24 August 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]

Frustrated Mess Frustrated Mess's picture

quote:


I figure, whatever turns you on.

Generally, I agree. But I always think turn about is fair play and I always think that consenting couples can agree to role playing if that is what they are into. But this sites sets specific gender rules:

quote:

The wife is to submit to her husband,
and the husband is to love the wife.

CDD is practiced between a man and a woman.

In CDD, the husband has authority to spank the wife.
The wife does not have authority to spank her husband.


It is sort of indoctrination through kink.

jrose

quote:


It is sort of indoctrination through kink.

I agree. At first I laughed it off, as either a parody site, or a conservative fetish site, and heck, I’m all for spanking in the bedroom if that’s what turns your crank, and the same goes for a submissive/dominant relationship within the bedroom, no matter which gender plays the sub. But, if this is the case, where is the section on “How to spank your HUSBAND into submission.”

jas

I'm not going to go to the site, but I wonder, the really disturbing thing is what this does to the children in a "CDD" marriage. Does this mean automatically that the children, esp the girls? are also subject to this kind of discipline, and if not, how do you separate Mommy's discipline from child's?

I agree with Michelle. It's an excuse for kink. If the biblical man has a "right" to hit his wife, why spank her? Why choose a practice that is well-established erotically? If women are consensual with being disciplined physically, then they won't mind displaying their black eye or bruised cheek at church. (Presumably, being biblical women, they don't go to work.)

Michelle

Sure, turnabout's fair play, but lots of couples who are into spanking are only into one role or the other. Obviously, those couples where the man isn't into spanking and the woman isn't into being spanked aren't going to go for this.

Don't get me wrong - I find the whole idea of husbands having the "right" to hit wives a huge problem. But this site tickles me because it's basically a kinky Christian couple who have figured out a way to align their kink with their conservative religion, and they preach respect for boundaries and consent. As long as those two things are covered, I don't care.

jas, they fully admit that their practice is erotic. They say that God intended spankings to be erotic, it's His plan for marriage. If a black eye isn't erotic, then clearly it's not God's plan. Doesn't that fit nicely? [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]

[ 24 August 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]

jrose

God sounds like he was one kinky dude! haha [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]

remind remind's picture

I disagree, I do not believe it is an excuse for "kink", and if one believes this to be so, just how does one, as jas stated, separate, the "eroticism" from spanking mommy with the spanking of children?

quote:

A domestic discipline marriage is one in which one partner in the marriage is given authority over the other and has the means to back the authority, usually by spanking.

A Christian Domestic Discipline marriage is one that is set up according to Biblical standards; that is, the husband is the authority in the household. The wife is submissive to her husband as is fit in the Lord and her husband loves her as himself. He has the ultimate authority in his household, but it is tempered with the knowledge that he must answer to God for his actions and decisions. He has the authority to spank his wife for punishment, but in real CDD marriages this is taken very seriously and usually happens only rarely. CDD is so much more than just spanking. It is the husband loving the wife enough to guide and teach her, and the wife loving the husband enough to follow his leadership. A Christian marriage embodies true romance and a Christian man a true hero.

Though this seems unusual in today's United States, this kind of marriage has been practiced throughout history and is still practiced in many parts of the world today.


Excuse me but categorizing men as hero's for spanking their wives is NOT erotic, nor is stating a man has to 'guide' and 'teach' women.

They say this kind of marriage has been practised through out history, just how has this type of marriage worked out for women and children throughout history?

It hasn't. That is why we have laws against it.

It is so far from kink as to be unrecognizable as such.

Michelle

We don't have laws against consensual spanking. Nor do we have laws against "categorizing husbands as heroes."

Otherwise there would be a heck of a lot of people with rap sheets by now!

Lots of people who practice BDSM are able to separate spanking and tying each other up from spanking and tying up their kids. Lots of ordinary, everyday people engage in it. May not be your cup of tea, but it's lots of other people's!

I don't agree with their reasoning behind it, of course. This whole "husband is the head of the wife" thing is stupid and reactionary. But then, I think a lot of religious beliefs are stupid and reactionary, but it's none of my business if people want to believe them and practice them, as long as no one is getting hurt. (Well, that is, without their consent, at least!)

[ 24 August 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]

Frustrated Mess Frustrated Mess's picture

quote:


Sure, turnabout's fair play, but lots of couples who are into spanking are only into one role or the other.

Yes, but again consenting adults can choose to play one role or another. If one prefers the submissive and likes to be spanked, okay. But in this case the female is prohibited from ever doing the spanking and must always be the submissive and the husband is prohibited from being the submissive and must always do the spanking.

It is also worth noting that most participants in sexual role playing know it is sexual role playing and do not attempt to conflate it with religious dogma where in this case that line is crossed. And again it must be pointed out that religious adherents who believe women are subservient and men do have the right to strike their wives, also believe men have the right to strike their children.

Michelle

Yes, and so women who aren't into being the submissive all the time, or men who like to be the sub occasionally won't be into this.

You know, most Christians aren't into this weird shit. The vast majority aren't. So I don't think we need to worry about millions of Christian women being forced into kinky spanking games with their husbands. But those few who are into it now have a biblical justification for their little kink. More power to them.

There ARE anti-feminist rants on the site in a couple of places. I definitely take issue with that and do not in any way endorse that. But that's par for the course for most conservative fundies. But spanking between partners with full consent on both sides? Go for it.

BTW, for some people, BDSM doesn't stop in the bedroom and it's not just while they're having sex. I'm definitely no expert on the topic, but I've read accounts of couples who are into 24-7 BDSM, and they incorporate it into every part of their lives. Doesn't matter to me.

Children are a whole other matter, of course. They don't talk about corporal punishment of children on their web site. If they endorsed that, I'd be against it. I'm against all the mainstream Christian freaks who are in favour of corporal punishment. But you sure don't have to be kinky to enjoy smacking your kids around. Look at Dr. Dobson from Focus on the Family. He's all into that, but I've never seen him endorse spanking spouses.

They're two separate issues.

Frustrated Mess Frustrated Mess's picture

We will agree to disagree. But I think incorporating spanking of a spouse into a religious doctrine opens the door, purposely, to all kinds of abuse. Couples don't, and never have, required a religious sanction for what they do in the privacy of the bedroom.

Michelle

I totally agree with you that this does have incredible potential for abuse.

[url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=24&t=000954]Here's another, earlier thread on something similar.[/url] Except, in this case, it looks like it wasn't consensual, and it didn't end when the woman wanted it to. Consent makes all the difference.

remind remind's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]We don't have laws against consensual spanking. Nor do we have laws against "categorizing husbands as heroes." Otherwise there would be a heck of a lot of people with rap sheets by now![/b]

Well, as you have decided to be deliberately obtuse by taking those comments out of contextual value, and putting your own spin on them, I will again clarify my perspective.

Men did not just spank women to keep them in line historically, they beat them. As they did with their children and we do have laws against that. And we have laws against this because of the historical mistreatment of women and children, mistreatment that is still happening today at unacceptable levels

This site is saying men that spank their wives, and teach them, etc are heroes. I say they are NOT, because they are not, in any contextaul value.

First and foremost, these women, and indeed children, are indoctrinated by operant conditioning. There is NO free choice in operant conditioning, nor in any type of brain washing.

quote:

[b]Lots of people who practice BDSM are able to separate spanking and tying each other up from spanking and tying up their kids.[/b]

My question would be how many cannot?

quote:

[b] Lots of ordinary, everyday people engage in it. May not be your cup of tea, but it's lots of other people's![/b]

We are not speaking of ordinary everyday people now are we? We are speaking of people who are indoctinated into submission

quote:

[b]I don't agree with their reasoning behind it, of course. [/b]

I think you do.

[ 24 August 2007: Message edited by: remind ]

Michelle

Uh, okay. Well, I guess there's not much left to say, then, if I tell you that I don't think something, and you've decided, with your special mindreading capabilities, that I do!

I wasn't being deliberately obtuse. I thought you meant that it was illegal to spank your spouse as part of the abuse laws. My point was that it's not if it's consensual.

Stargazer

I don't think that brainwashing into consent is consensual and I don't find this to be as big a joke as some here.

voice of the damned

Going by Wikipedia, there would seem to be a whole movement based around this lifestyle, and most of the factions don't appear to be Christian-oriented. There is even one dedicated to female domination.

[url=http://tinyurl.com/gkzgt]http://tinyurl.com/gkzgt[/url]

I dunno. Despite the apparent denials of the various movement apologists, the whole thing seems more like an extended version of BDSM role-playing.

remind remind's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Stargazer:
[b]I don't think that brainwashing into consent is consensual and I don't find this to be as big a joke as some here.[/b]

No, it is not consensual, and it is not a joke, or even something to be supportive of and it is not an extended version of BDSM.

Stargazer

Odd then isn't it that the link to the Christian site above (as mentioned on Wikipedia) isn't working and that there is nothing really separating that group from the people who sign 'contracts' for this type of thing.

Women are not traditionally in a place of power. Given that, how much real consent can their be in this whacko Xian group? My guess? None.

jrose

I see consent as a very loose term in this case. Sure, the wife might agree to consent with it on the outside, but I suspect she’s doing so out of fear of repercussions, tied with the fact that she’s being told that she MUST do so in order to serve as a good Christian woman (more fear tactics!) tied to the fact that her husband I’m sure, as the breadwinner, the economic reliance/control over her as well, and she relies on him in this way as well. But if it is just sex play, awesome – more power to these couples for doing things in a sexual relationship (spanking, role-playing, BDSM etc. etc) that most people shy away from. I’m just having trouble believing that this is the case.

[ 24 August 2007: Message edited by: jrose ]

voice of the damned

quote:


Odd then isn't it that the link to the Christian site above (as mentioned on Wikipedia)isn't working

Do you mean the link in red on the Wikipedia article? If so, that's not a link to the Christian group's website, it's just a potential link to a Wiki article about the group. The link isn't working simply because no one has written an article about the group.

[ 24 August 2007: Message edited by: voice of the damned ]

Tommy_Paine

quote:


Calling Tommy_Paine to the kink phone!

Why, Michelle, you seem to be carrying the battle well enough without me. [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]

This has almost been all talked out, but I'll ramble on anyway.

On an everyday level, it does come down to consent. I'm not sure how the law determines consent. I have an idea it is of lesser quality than mine. In the above example, I don't think the quality of consent is there if someone's religious beliefs are used to coerce them. Any coersion is, at the very least, icky.

I'm not sure that in Ontario it is legal to hit someone even if they consent to it. Maybe Jeff, if he never tires of giving free legal advice, might shed some light.

Maybe it's like hockey. A hockey player, going into a game knowing both the rules and the way the game is played "consents" to be body checked and even consents to the possibility of getting into a fight.

Just like when you watch a live hockey or baseball game, you consent to the reasonable possibility of being hit by an errant puck or baseball.

Signed contracts in Christian or BDSM relationships are not a valid defense against assault charges if the person who signed them has a change of heart at any time after.

As it should be.

That's why I would never use contracts or safe words. If you are not paying enough attention to know the person you are with isn't having fun, then one should find another recreational activity.

I think Stargazer is correct. The level of coersion above is such that this isn't cute, and I doubt most practitioners of BDSM would recognize that Christian site as one of their own.

On one level, the nutty things that get us off should be taken lightly. Making love, after all, is supposed to be fun.

But some activities require some extensive soul searching before entering into, I think. And some research has to be done in regards to safety and exactly what it is one is up to.

I wonder how many accidental injuries there are from people who just play around. Binding someone in the wrong spot or in the wrong way can lead to injury or worse. And just putting someone in restraints means that you are, whether you realize it or not, taking responsibility for their life.

And it's not difficult to end up hitting someone in the wrong spot, or with more force than one intended.

That's why a lot of BDSM sites on line have safety tips, and that's why most have the phrase [i]"Safe, Sane and Consensual"[/i] featured prominently.

While I didn't read the whole site, I didn't come across any safety messages.

Michelle

Well, I did mention above that it's possible for there to be coercion that wouldn't be there with a BDSM thing, but the more I read the site, the more I thought that it seemed like they were a really tiny fringe who are marginalized by Christians as well. They mention a few times that this is something that's completely private, between the couple (so it's not like they have wife-spanking churches and such - likely they feel they are "persecuted" by Christians who hate what they do), and they talk a LOT about consent, which made me feel that this is basically a Christian twist on a dom/sub relationship.

But the points brought up by others here (and myself in my first post in the thread) about how there would be significant pressure on the woman not to withdraw her consent or to back away from anything that made her uncomfortable are well-taken.

Tommy_Paine

quote:


Though we believe the Bible gives a husband the authority to use spanking as one tool in enforcing his authority in the home with or without his wife's permission, in today's world we recognize the legality that mandates that all CDD must be consensual. Therefore we will do not condone nonconsensual CDD as a rule.

I found this troublesome. That's hardly a resounding condemnation of what they call "nonsonsensual" "CDD", or what I would call spousal abuse.

quote:

... they talk a LOT about consent, which made me feel that this is basically a Christian twist on a dom/sub relationship.

Oh, my off the cuff take before delving into it more was similar to yours. I was, in fact, kind of prepared to take on those who would condemn the site because in doing so it would condemn those who are, for lack of a better term "BDSMers".

But on closer examination, I can't find much to defend there.

If a Christian couple wants to engage in Bondage or Discipline or Sado-Masochistic behavior, I think that's just fine. I would defend to the hilt ( or whip handle ) their right to do so. But to down play spousal abuse, or give tips on coersion?

It's hard to defend on a feminist forum where we are to discuss things from a feminist point of view. And I don't say that to imply I would see it differently on another forum.

Gir Draxon

Am I the only one who went into the "links" section of that site hoping to find a link to the Landover Baptist site?

Unfortunately, the links seem to be consistent with the content of that page. I don't know if this is satire or legit, and that's the scary part.

Tommy_Paine

Oh, I think it's legit. I've come across in person and references on line that while not quite this explicit, do imply these kinds of Christian relationships, and use passages from the bible to justify it.

Michelle

Landover Baptist should link to THEM!

TemporalHominid TemporalHominid's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]Landover Baptist should link to THEM![/b]

at first, i thought this was a Landover Baptist spoof : )

I didn't know what to make of it

Slider

Well, it's been going on since the 50's, at least...

[img]http://www.themaskedblogger.com/images/birthday_spanking.jpg[/img]

1234567

Slider, you sure dress funny.

Slider

quote:


Originally posted by 1234567:
[b]Slider, you sure dress funny.[/b]

Fuck you! Apologize now!

Michelle

Slider, once again I'm going to tell you to chill out. Your hostility is not welcome here.

Tommy_Paine

I'd say someone spanked a nerve. [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]

1234567

Well, it's obvious from the picture that Slider doesn't mind getting a spanking!

Slider

OK, sometimes get angry. I had a ruff childhood. Sorry 123456, please don't fuck yourself.

jester

Now now,slider. No matter your ruff persuasions,putting both hands in your pants doesn't make a threesome.

remind remind's picture

Wonderful, just wonderful!

MegB

Man, there's so much about this "CDD" that's f---ed up, it's hard to know where to begin.

They can use the word "consent" on the site as many times as they like, I don't buy it. In order for a woman to give consent to these - or any other sexual or erotic activity - she has to have the power to consent or deny. In a relationship where the man has "authority" over a woman, she has no power. Period. You can't willingly give over something you don't have in the first place.

Traditional BDSM generally involves an exchange of power. It allows consenting adults to play out their fantasies in a safe way. The roles are not gender-specific, nor is it restricted to heterosexual participants. There is absolutely no resemblance between BSDM and "CDD" - as it is presented by these ultra-conservative Xians. "CDD" seems to me to be nothing more than an invitation for men to indulge in spousal abuse without getting nailed by the law.

Pretty sick shit.

Stargazer

quote:


Now now,slider. No matter your ruff persuasions,putting both hands in your pants doesn't make a threesome.

Jester that was one funny joke! Hahahahaha. I am going to have to use this one.

Westin

Leah Kelley is not her real name but I believe she uses a PO box:

Leah Kelley
P.O. Box 910613
Lexington, Kentucky 40591 USA

She attends a "mega-church" in Lexington that doesn't exactly endorse husbands spanking wives --but does demand submission.

I agree, quite a nutcase but there are many more like her.

One 60 yr old guy writes all the time, in great detail, how he spanks his wife, how it gives him the iron control he wants.

Leah Kelley's blog is filled with this coot's writings. His email:

noone2u2@yahoo.com

Noone never gives his real name.

Bacchus

Are you here merely to post personal information?