Tuesday, March 29, 2011

Christianity, Female Dominance, and Male Submission

Some time ago I read an interesting post as well as some thought-provoking comments regarding Domme's leading their submissive husbands and relating it to their faith as a Christian woman.  If you are interested you can read the post and attached comments at this link and I'd encourage you to do so.

As a Christian man, I too have wrestled with the thought of becoming a submissive and how it impacted me as a believer in God and follower of Jesus.  What I personally found so thought-provoking, and wondered as I read the above posts and similar posts from other bloggers during the past months, is the basis for such statements I read that included: 'it's my christian duty' and that the 'woman has a right and obligation (before God) to discipline her husband' (paraphrased). I wondered what the foundation for such statements was.

Of course, this post brought forth the radical right response of one anonymous poster who commented several times but it also brought forth a more 'leftist' post as well. One commented that "Christianity allows for husband's and wives to do as they enjoy".  I think I understand the intent of the latter post but there are limits there as well. For example, I don't believe cuckholding within a marriage has a biblical basis (eg. Sodom and Gomorrah story).

I will explain my position at some point as I have thought about this long and hard.  In fact, I refused to ask Katie to be my dominant until I first felt as if I, as a submissive male could live the life as both a Christian and as a submissive under Katie's loving guidance. I also didn't want to put her into position by asking her to be the dominant one in our relationship if would also compromise her faith as a Christian woman and wife that wanted to live in harmony with scriptural teachings.  But that, I will save for another time.  Until then, I would welcome the thoughts of others on this topic.
Until then,


  1. http://aroundherfinger.blogspot.com/2011/01/januaryfebruary-2011.html

    here is another link. Mr. Addison responds in the last section.

  2. ...As far as Cuckolding goes, there is a popular TV show on now a days called 'Sister Wives' about a polygamist family who are very devout christians. I see no reason a single woman should not be free to take more then one husband. I do know this is a radical view, but it is my personal belief.

    take care.

  3. SH,
    Thanks for commenting. I read the posting from the link you provided and would agree whole-heartedly with what was said. I think the writer is 'dead-on' with his comments and I will post my thoughts that will probably be redundant to what he said at a later time.

    With regard to your second comment, I'd love to hear the basis for that position - similar to how the writer of the linked blog you sent responded (with references). In other word, where does the Bible either state, or leave it open for a woman to use their husband as a cuckhold?

    The intent in my post was to get beyond the 'this is what I believe' or 'this is what I think' and to go a bit deeper to - 'this is what the Bible says and because the Bible states this, this is the foundation on which I believe what it is that I do'. Does that make sense?

  4. Yes, well it is clear the bible has many references to polyamory relationships. All are a single man with many wives, except for the queen of Sheba. Her reference seems to indicate a polyamorphic relationship under her rule. If it is can be agreed that the bible is filled with polyamory, I find it hard to argue platonic relationships the only one sanctioned by scripture. A polyamory relationship with one women and several men seems perfectly biblical to my read of scriptures. Adultery is forbidden, but modern day cuckoldry I feel since it is open in nature and not a sneaking, but with the consent of the husband, is not adultery, but a surrender of exclusive rights to the wife by the husband, which the wife accpts and enjoys.

  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

  6. This comment has been removed by the author.

  7. Just two things from my side:

    "A polyamory relationship with one women and several men seems perfectly biblical to my read of scriptures."

    I'd like you to have a look at e. g. Deuteron. 22 v. 22: "If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman."

    So, if the woman is married to an husband, the scripture clearly states that she musn't lay with another man.

    It's correct that there are many evidences of a man having several women in the Old Testament, but there seems to be not a single evidence of a woman living in marriage-like circumstances whatsoever with more than one husband/man.

    "... since it is open in nature and not a sneaking, but with the consent of the husband, is not adultery, ...

    Matthew 5, 27/28 clearly states that adultery is defined not just by having sex at all with a different person, but is already done, if you just *think* of having sex with that person:

    "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery'; but I say to you, that everyone who looks on a woman to lust for her has committed adultery with her already in his heart."

    So, I'd say that's without any importance whether your wife/husband *knows* something about your lustful thoughts or not. If you look at a person who's not married to you lustfully, it's adultery. And adultery already done. The simple act of lustfully looking at a different person is adultery. And adultery is clearly forbidden. So 'consent' won't change a bit.


  8. Mr. Rene,

    great post. Thx. Yes, the Matthew five reference is a great one. I think you stumbled into a counter argument on that one though. A woman and a man having a clandestine affair is no less of an offense then a teenager watching MTV. It is the same. Unless you are suggesting all males should be for ever forbidden from ever looking at a woman for fear of eternal damnation, you just proved that a clandestine affair is a relatively minimal offense, or at least equal to all other sin.

    IMHO, a husband releasing his wife from the obligation of fidelity and her openly having one or more relationship with other men is not adultery. It is a contractual change to their marriage agreement of which both parties are in approval of and therefore allowed. I refer back to the TV show 'Sister Wives' for a reverse example. The women in that marriage release their husband from the obligation of fidelity with them alone and he is free to have sex with other women who live in the same house. I see no biblical reason the opposite can not be true with a marriage arrangement agreed upon as such.


  9. SH,
    no, there's a fundamental difference between your teenager and the man Matthew speaks about. Since he uses the term "adultery", it's clear that the speaks of spouses, because you can't do adultery, unless you are married. So, of course, a man who isn't married may look at women also lustfully, but a husband must not.

    As I'm Hers I don't want to discuss personal believes or TV operas, but evidence in the Bible.

    "I see no biblical reason..." What about my point (1)?

    You can't "release" your spouse out of a marriage which you went in in the eyes of God. You'll still remain husband and wife, and married. And those Bible verses refer to husband and wife and marriage.


  10. The TV show follows a polygamist family. I know it unheard of in Europe, but in sections of the US, it is openly an accepted practice.


    as to the reference, let me append by saying there is no difference between a married man watching MTV and a clandestine affair. Both are equal. IMHO, it is a hard argument to say standing in an elevator with a scantily clad woman demands zero instantaneous thought concerning her attraction. If so, it is the same as a clandestine affair. I do agree with the passage that the two are equal.

    I am not suggesting a clandestine affair. I am suggesting an alteration of a binding contract. It is done all the time. You say this can not be done, but contracts are changed all the time. It is not a obscure practice. This contract change being concerning a marital arrangement. You and I appear to be at odds on this point. I can see you feel the need to counter. You may if you wish. I do not, as I consider it a small point of personal belief which I felt free to share.

  11. Mr. Rene,

    I was going to leave this alone, but I just can’t…..

    I spent my undergrad years at a Christian university, the likes of which I am sure does not exist in Europe and have extensive biblical knowledge. I have read it through cover to cover about twenty times and consider myself a knowledgeable student. I hightly doubt your knowledge on biblical topics comes close.

    Matthew Five (AKA the Sermon on the Mount) the passage you are referring to Jesus is ‘amplifying’ the requirement to live a sinless life, thereby indicating the futility of it and the need for intervention. Sin occurs without strength to abate and a spiritual solution is needed.

    The sister wives program outlines the biblical practice of polygamy and in their eyes is a practice free from sin. The family is a right-wing christian family. I do agree their marriage arrangement is free from sin as the marriage agreement is outlined as such, and is binding to all party’s involved. I likewise see no reason the same can not be true for one woman and several men.


  12. "I likewise see no reason..."

    Again, you obviously neglect my point (1) on purpose. There is layed out the reason. If a woman is married, she must not lay with another man. The passage is completely clear. It's not about adultery, it's just about the fact that a married woman must not have sex with a man different than her husband.

    You say, you see nor reason, and that your view is perfectly biblical. I'd say the verse I quoted is in perfect contrast to your view.

    About the holiness of marriage I too don't want to discuss with you. To me marriage is not just an ordinary contract. It is an agreement closed in the eyes of God. Nobody, but God himself, may alter it or amend it or quit it. To me it's impossible to see it as a contract man could change or amend anytime according to his/her wishes. If it just were a contract like other contracts too, both could agree to just quit it. But they can't. Divorce is adultery, and adultery is forbidden. (Matthew 19:9). To me my marriage and my marriage vow are holy, and I'd never dare to touch it or change it in any way. But, as said, - obviously due to my amateurish knowledge of scripture - I can't quote passages to back-up my view, so - other than you suppose -I don't want to discuss about this at all.


  13. Mr. Rene,

    I feel it futile to discuss this matter with someone who uses a concordance to form biblical opinion as it negates context. Deuteronomy is pentateuch, superseded by the law of grace. The matter of marital relations is a topic of biblical differing views, with one holding divorce in any circumstance to be sin. Others view marriage as a union between one man and one woman. There are many other views and scriptures are clearly open to interpretation on the matter as exemplified by such a wide spectrum of views. There are even Christian unions of same sex couples now a days. The age old practice of polygamy under Christian contexts another. I hold the view that marital union is defined by the marital agreement. If you hold a different view, I concede your right to do so. I do hope you do not suggest I am not free to hold a differing view, which I feel soundly scriptural.

    take care.


  14. Thanks to both of you for going at it. The comments were great and heart felt. I do appreciate both of you sharing and although I know that others read, but didn't comment that they too, would have left this dialog 'thinking' about what each of you said.

    Here are some thoughts I have on this matter:

    1. I believe that the Bible is a foundational text and one that we should abide by.

    2. I believe that the 10 commandments stated in the OT are to be followed.

    3. I believe that when Jesus spoke on the Sermon on the Mount in Mt 5-7 that he explained (in Matt 5) the intent of the commandments because of the crap the Pharisees were giving him with their legalistic attitude. Jesus stated quite clearly that it's wrong to murder, but it's also wrong to hate, that it's wrong to commit adultery but it's also wrong to lust. It's just as wrong to want what someone else has as much as it is to take it (steal). His intent was to get to one's attitude, motive and heart behind the sinful action. James, speaks to this as well in his book.

    With that said, I find it hard for a married woman to make love to another man who is not her husband and not have ANY form of lust or want for him. If that woman makes love to another man, isn't she lusting? Isn't she enjoying and craving the feeling of another inside of her? Isn't she loving the feel of his body so close to hers? If so, then she is sinning - that's pretty clear (based on Matt 5) and that's what SH pointed out that it's impossible to live a sinless life.

    I see nowhere in Scripture where it states that a couple can 'over-ride' what God says is and isn't sinful. I find it surprising that SH would suggest this having come from a background which sounds more conservative in nature and especially since he's read the Bible. The question then begs to be posed: When is it ever ok to just say in essence "God, I know you say this but the two of us have decided that this is ok. So, I know you will be OK with it too even if you said it's wrong, because 'we' agreed it was not wrong"? That statement sounds ludicrous in light of who it is being addressed to and isn't that the exact attitude that got God to ticked off at Job when he kept telling his buddies "if I could talk to god I'd tell him this and that? Well he did get to talk to God and God sat him down and said in so many words "who in the heck are you to even think we are on equal ground? Where were you when I formed the earth? Where were you when...."

    SH, I beg to differ with you here and feel as if you are on shaky ground philosophically and Scripturally when it comes to the contractual argument but I so appreciate you posting all the same.

    In any event, those are my thoughts and I do appreciate the comments of both of you and would love to hear Domme's weigh in on this. Afterall, they are the ones that would permit/not allow another to enter into their marriage bed as the leader of the relationship.

    The Sodom and Gomorrah story speak to deviant sex and that the cause for God's judgment on them was because they chose to go against His will causing him to 'turn away' from them and let them fulfill their own lusts. Its pretty clear that God was not happy with their actions. Isn't cuckholding akin to this? It sure seems so to me.

    Just some food for thought

  15. "God, I know you say this but the two of us have decided that this is ok. So, I know you will be OK with it too even if you said it's wrong, because 'we' agreed it was not wrong."

    Yes, indeed, I think likewise. If a man and a woman marry, they become "husband" and "wife". Regardless what they maybe decide or agree onto, they just are husband and wife, and their relationship is a marriage. So, every passage directed to a husband is referring to *any* husband, as well as every passage directed to a wife is referring to *any* wife. There's no rule in the Bible stating something like: "A husband must not do XYZ, unless he agreed with his wife that this rule shouldn't be applicable in their case." I'd say that a couple is certainly not back-up by the Bible in establishing any agreements, which would lead to allowing them to see some of the scripture's rules not longer binding to them. They are husband and wife - and rules referring to husband and wife are binding to them as well as to any other husband and wife, regardless. They can't get rid off them.


  16. no prob. thx for the chance to comment.

    take care.

  17. Mr. IH,

    Although it may appear on the surface that Mr. Rene and I are polarizing figures constantly at odds, we are actually quite chummy. Our wives both permit us to engage in such banter and I always enjoy his sharp wit.


    P.S.- Welcome to the club

  18. SH I love the banter as well.... but I'm sure wishing you'd comment and critique my post and share your thoughts/rebuttal :) I'm salivating just waiting to get lambasted by you. lol

    C'mon, take your best shot at what I said... but pleeeesse don't use a TV show for a reference. lol

  19. You asked for a domme's opinion on this matter, and I will try to give an answer, although I do not consider myself a Christian.

    Coming from a Catholic background, I would say that a Christian should not overestimate the bible. Especially I don't see any point in trying to find quotes from the scriptures to support one's view. Taking the bible literally is of no avail, because if you take one passage as the God's holy word from which you must not stray, there is no reason why you should not take all the other passages literally, as well, which may be stating that you "shall not round off the hair on your temples or mar the edges of your beard" or "since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head" or "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence."
    So I think, a Christian should not turn to the bible to look for detailed guidance for his or her daily life. - I don't think the way people shape their marriages or other relationships belongs to the core of what the bible has to say. - Even the 10 commandments are open to interpretation. - I think the most important aspect of Christianity is the dual commandment to love God and neighbour. This is the rule on which a Christian conscience should be based. And therefore, a Christian couple can, in my opinion, engage in cuckolding, if they try to make sure that nobody is hurt. Not the cuckold, not the wife and not the external partner they are taking into their sex life. Everybody ought to search their conscience to see whether they can justify to engage in cuckolding or not, based on the special situation of all affected people.

    Personally I think that cuckolding is very dangerous. You never know how feelings will evolve and the risk that at least one of the persons who engage in it will get hurt is very high. Too high for my taste.

  20. Thank you for your post Tamara. I too agree that cucking can be dangerous. I also don't see cucking as being respectful to the partner as it is by nature an act of humiliation of one marital partner toward another.

  21. Humiliation, yes!!!!! now we are getting somewhere. Interesting topic, humiliation.

    Well, wait. Let me let that sleeping dog lie.