One of the eternal illusions of mankind is that of linear progress. *Enlightenment* promised to be an improvement over what when before it. So did *Modernity*.

Each promised to release mankind from it past chains. Instead, each only succeeded in chaining mankind to a new set of ideological paradigms.

Feminism proved to be no exception to the trend. While promising to deliver women from perceived enslavement to men, it only succeeded in making *liberated* women slaves to the corporation.

Few woman - certainly none of them Americans with giddy heads stuck in the clouds of promised equality - quite understood that their independence from men was predicated on good paying jobs. *Equal pay* was the rallying cry of the new wave of wage slaves - largely products of public education - who never quite understood why they were allowed to gain so much political ground so rapidly.

Only now, are they beginning to see that they were merely a convenient stepping stone - even a doormat at the door opening - to hoards of even cheaper Third World labor. Six-figure housing prices financed by greedy bankers and increasingly shaky five-figure salaries paid by employers, eager to drive the wage scale even closer to four-figures as the cost of living spikes upward, are turning the feminist golden coach into the proverbial pumpkin!

If they are to survive, men and women are going to have to rediscover how to relate to each other in a more traditional manner. They are going to have to see each other as something other than competitors. For some, this will be an extremely painful process.

Rapidly disappearing are the days when marriages can be tossed aside as if they were disposable napkins at a fast food restaurant. Soon to follow will be the days when police will rush to save an odious woman from her inclination to provoke men.

In the absence of plentiful employment and a taxpayer-funded protection racket, *liberated* women will find themselves increasingly isolated, lonely, and forgotten. They will simply become as expendable as the traditional marriages they so vociferously shunned.

In pre-Christian mythology, one of the personifications of temptation was the Siren. Although the descriptions of the creatures often changed with the telling, Sirens were seducers of man.

Although there never have been any literal Sirens, their equivalents dominated political thought in the Western World for much of the twentieth century. However, unlike the Sirens of mythology, these seducers preyed on women as well as men.

While one of their enchanting songs claimed that women did not need men, another is more germane to this forum. It was that, despite the cumulative wisdom of the ages, spanking was not necessary.

In various newsgroups, internet forums, and books, the latter day Sirens sing their song. In each instance, the words are remarkably similar - spanking is not necessary; there are alternatives.

Even where spanking seems to be permitted, it is often so watered down as to be ineffective. Then, that seems to be the intent.

The latter aspect of Siren's song is of particular interest because, during the early years of our marriage, I was truly ignorant that, despite all the talk about a *kinder gentler* husband, there are simply those times when a woman expects an old-fashioned bare-bottom blistering! Otherwise, she will come to despise the man whom she once promised to love.

Over the years, one pattern has emerged in tales of adultery. Typically, there is an undisciplined wife looking for a man able to handle her. This fact may explain why spanking is more common in second marriages than in first marriages.

The penchant for adultery in undisciplined women may be as much a biological urge to find a dominant mate, as it is a personal choice. As much as anything, it explains the predictability of the phenomenon after a few years of unfulfilled marriage to a weak or timid male.

At times in human history, survival of the species has depended on the woman's ability to find a dominate male. Despite the trappings of a *modern* and supposedly *civilized* society, this instinct is still resident in the female mind.

Merely spanking a woman is not the same as *disciplining* her. It has to be more than going through the motions. Nor is ineffectiveness in spanking necessarily age specific - as the following insightful instance illustrates.

When asked what lesson she learned after her mother - by then a thoroughly exacerbated but nevertheless certified professional child expert - finally bent her irrepressible daughter over to supposedly straighten her out, the unfazed preteen quipped, "Mom can't spank!"

According to the Sirens, in their calculated *war on spanking*, the ridiculous outcome exists as proof that all spanking is an ineffective disciplinary tool. Obviously, even the preteen knew better.

Along the same lines, my wife confessed that - early in our marriage - she often wondered when her husband was going to finally get it through his silly head that he was not *getting through* to her. By that, she meant that she could not understand why my spanking her with my hand on her bare buttocks was not as effective as intended.

In time, my wife had to explain to me that women require a paddling - or equivalent - of their bare buttocks if the experience is going to reach their brain. It was not that I did not know how to do it; I was oblivious of what women consistently expect.

Initially, women understand spanking much better than do men. It is, after all, very much a *girl thing* after a certain age.

This is not to say that post-pubescent boys never can be paddled. However, the way they process the *pain in their posteriors* does not lend itself to repeated applications. They tend to rebel.

On the other hand, girls *internalize* the experience and incorporate the *lessons* learned as a guide to future behavior. This specific difference in gender responses is what makes *domestic discipline* possible.

How much of her intrinsic and experiential knowledge a woman is willing to share with a man often determines the outcome of the marriage. As one well-educated trophy wife put it: It is not how to spend the money or how often to have sex that determines how the marriage turns out; it is what to do when the wife needs spanking.

Moreover, the woman added, the spanking had to *hurt* to be effective. It was her way of saying that the application had to reach the woman's mind.

Despite the Sirens' song, spanking is necessary - even desirable. Privately, women acknowledge the fact.

Traditionally, women have expected men to figure all of this out for themselves. It was a test of suitability for mating.

Now, however, in a world of only children raised by single mothers and forced to attend feminist-dominated public schools, young men have trouble understanding what women really expect men to do when they test them.

The result of this ignorance - largely created by the Siren's tempting song - is the cause of much of the family instability and dissolution that troubles the United States today.

If men and women are going to survive the present *turbulence*, they are going to have to ignore the allure to the Siren's song and, much as their ancestors did before them, do that which is sometimes necessary to make the marriage work.

That, despite politically correct propaganda to the contrary, involves a panties-down paddling that leaves the woman's bottom sore, but her mind clear and calm. This really is not something that a woman can do for herself. Nor can another woman even do it as effectively!

As women have pointed out, both physically and psychologically, females were made to be spanked by a man. Despite the latter day Siren's song, it really is in the genes.

An earlier post - titled When Men Were Men - inspired these thoughts.  Although I said nothing at the time, the original post troubled me - not because of what it said; rather because of what went unsaid. 

True, under the Hayes Code, women were more frequently spanked - or threatened with a spanking – in the movies.  The problem was that these were not real spankings.  Even worse, they left audiences with the mistaken impression that spanking was imbued with some magical quality.

More recently, under the Valenti rating system, spankings may have become more *authentic*, but they also left audiences with the impression that spankings were highly undesirable. 

Whether under the influence of Hayes or Valenti, one central truth remained.  Audiences were told what they wanted to hear.

In an age awash in politically correct propaganda, what used to be called *wife spanking* is out of fashion.  Never mind that it still happens; and, it is still quite effective in producing stable relationships. 

At the same time, the practice is not accepted as *mainstream* in an age in which gender quality is all the rage.  On screen, no one - other than villains - is supposed to do it.

Any man thinking that Hayes Code era films depict reality is only fooling himself.  By the same token, any woman thinking that Valenti inspired movies mirror typical events is equally deceived. 

The truth is that most women are not spanked on their underwear.  Even more ludicrous is the notion that women really feel much of anything when spanked with a man's hand through a full dress or pair of blue jeans.

In real life, men get down to business and women let them.  Belts come off.  Panties get taken down - if not removed altogether.  The results are, more often than not, *domestic tranquility* rather than an angrier woman. 

Even women never spanked by their husbands privately admit that their marriages would be better if their husbands did spank them.  Despite all the politically correct propaganda to the contrary, panties down spanking is something of which women frequently approve after the fact.

Meanwhile, the entertainment industry deals in illusions.  So long as there is money to be made from doing so, writers, directors, and actors will continue to tell paying customers what they think they want to hear.  Seldom do the onscreen results mirror real life.

While one size may not fit all, all sizes may be made of the same fabric.  The preceding statement is as true of spanking as it is of clothing.

Another analogy to spanking relates to the common kitchen stove - where the same heating element can serve a variety of purposes.  For example, depending on where the control knob is set, it can boil water or simmer soup. 

Although the basics may look the same, all spanking was not created equal.   Hence, the following discussion is intended to shed some light on the topic. 

It is not that any of the following categories should be considered as set in ideological concrete or etched into sacrosanct stone.  Rather they should serve as guides to understanding.

In practice, the attitude of the participants has as much to do with the categorization as anything else.

The most superficial spanking may mere be a mere playful slap on the seat of a dress or pants.  It may extend into those activities that used to be called a *birthday spankings*.

Although lost with the passage of time, *birthday spankings* are simply the surviving remnants of ancient fertility rituals.  When carried a little further - especially when accompanied by the removal of clothing - they can become quite erotic.  Then, that was their intended purpose!

Erotic spankings usually administered by the hand to the bared buttocks.  Voluntary nudity and enthusiastic submission are not uncommon. 

These episodes are more about play than about pain. Still, in the scheme of things, they serve a useful purpose because vaginal lubrication signals the first stage of female submission to male prerogatives.  That is why it is often the gateway to discovering the virtues of *domestic discipline*.

With an increase in intensity and duration, spanking moves into the *proper* range.  At this level, tears are common and, depending on the degree of pent-up emotion or frustration, real crying is likewise possible. 

Typically, *proper* spankings sting during the application, but the sensation quickly fades after the administration stops.  It is probably the most familiar type.  These are the common and sometimes embarrassing panties-down, over-the-knee, red-bottom and red-faced spankings of folklore.

*Proper* spankings are valuable because, especially early in the marriage, the woman begins incorporating the *lesson* as a guild to her future behavior.  That is why they are often considered to be useful for *maintenance spankings*.

At the same time, effect of a *proper* spankings is often limited to the potential for embarrassment.  Thus, *bare bottom corner time* sometimes follows the administration.

Beyond the *proper* range, are more serious spankings.  Sometimes these are called *warnings* because they almost always will involve the use of an implement.  In addition to tears and crying, these are virtually guaranteed to produce involuntary verbalizations because they really *hurt* more than they are embarrassing.. 

Visually, they may be distinguished by intense redness as well as a * hot orange peel feel* associated with being *really spanked* to the offended area.  Following an initial administration, it is not uncommon for a woman to *examine herself* in a mirror in order to triangulate *how it looks back there* with how her brain feels, and how it felt *getting it*.

When carried further, the result is punishment.  These are the *don't you ever do that again* spankings!  They usually leave lingering *marks* on the buttocks as well as *talk* to the mind in a way that few things are able to do with equal vigor. 

Rarely used in most marriages, they are also known as *the licking of my life*, *an old-fashioned whipping*, or similar vivid descriptions.  They are - and are intended to be - highly memorable.

At the extremis, there is abuse.  Although it may have the outward appearance of other spankings of similar intensity to punishment, there is one important difference in that they are all about inflicting pain.  They are power trips and have no place in *domestic discipline*.

As noted above, while there are no fixed boundaries between the above divisions, they serve as a reminder that, despite politically correct propaganda, there are *shades of gray* between erotic spanking and abuse.

Not all spankings are created equal.  Nor, should they be in the complexities of human interaction. 

At the same time, one person's serious spanking can be another's punishment - or, vice versa.  Still, most women actually prefer to be spanked harder than men often realize.  It is not the spanking they crave so much as the release they experience.   That said, the above categories can serve as a useful guide.

Names in the following have been changed to protect the guilty.

Although Professor Sly O. Hand railed against spanking, he *hit* his own children when politically correct *alternatives* proved ineffective. Nevertheless, in searching for data to fit his agenda, he used a sampling of unwed teenage mothers in an attempt to show that the more *all* parents spanked the worse their children behave.

When mature parents finally realized all the good professor had discovered was that well behaved children do not need to be spanked, he unearthed yet another shocking realization - inappropriate behavior among college students tends to cluster. Ignoring the effects of alcohol consumption on the undeveloped brains of youth, Professor Hand constructed another statistical analysis. This time, he claimed that young people spanking each other caused immature youths to engage in unsafe sex and other risky behaviors. This time, it did not take long before even college freshman began wondering what Professor Hand had been drinking!

On the other side of town, Psychiatrist Cheatham Goode was engaged in a thriving business. Among his most prized lessons acquired, as he earned the many diplomas that hung on his wall, was that his clients must never learn that they might solve their own problems without professional guidance. He made a fortune by sharing half a fortune to secure referrals from physicians at the country club.

Unknown to Dr. Goode, one of his new patients played golf with his wife. One day, as Mrs. Goode was about to tee off, Mrs. Doun asked if her husband's counseling her helped explain why she was always so chipper. Without breaking her swing or realizing that she was talking to one of her husband's patients, Mrs. Goode sprightly replied, "Oh, Darlinks, the only counseling I get is over his knee!"

On her next visit, Mrs. Doun asked Dr. Goode what he thought would happen if her husband were to spank her. In keeping with his professional facade, Dr. Goode assured Mrs. Doun that her *case of the blues* would only get worse. He went so far as to cite studies supposedly *proving* that spanking causes depression.

Intrigued by the contradiction, Mrs. Doun asked Dr. Goode if he had ever considered spanking his wife. When the psychiatrist denied that he would ever lay a hand on her, Mrs. Doun plotted her revenge.

On her way out through the crowed waiting room, Mrs. Doun announced that Dr. Goode spanks his wife to cure her blues - that she was going home to tell her husband - and that if the rest of the woman had half a brain, they would do the same thing!

Although it took Dr. Goode quite some time to figure out where Mrs. Doun got her information, she was persona non grata in his office from then on!

Sadly, Dr. Goode and Professor Hand represent a profitable and protected industry that thrives on making people dependent on the Big Es of *experts*, *education*, and *elitism*. The result is a nation unable to think for itself and is dependent on the Big Es. For the Big Es, life as been the Big Easy in accumulated wealth and pervasive influence.

Consequently, we have also become a nation of Big Ds - *dissatisfaction*, *disposability*, and *dependent*. Gone are the days in which couples were expected to workout their differences and raise children fit to live with. They are gone because there is too much money to be made from *alternatives* such as divorce and counseling!

Because partners going their separate ways need two of everything, divorce is so profitable that entrepreneurs are holding *divorce fairs* - even advertising that: "If you manage to separate amicably, your divorce day could also be the best day of your life."

It matters little that such attitudes make a mockery of the sanctity of marriage. The service providers love their money - even if the love thereof is the root of all evil.

The list of potential services includes lawyers, investigators, mediators, paternity verifiers, dating services, psychiatrists, child counselors, realtors, retailers of furniture and appliances, and bankers hawking credit card applications to finance the big split. All can be highly profitable to currently well-positioned third party providers.

Despite the advent of no-fault divorce - yet another product of godless communism - disposing of a marriage is not as easy as carrying out the trash. As with abortion - which is increasingly being linked to mental illness - there are long-reaching and deleterious consequences to divorce.

For one thing, no-fault divorce suffers from the same intergenerational problems as institutionalized welfare. Not surprisingly, children of divorced parents are more likely to get divorced than children raised in more stable homes.

Having no models within the family after which to pattern their lives. So far, and counting, *irreconcilable differences* have become a convenient excuse for at least three generations of Americans to rip a marriage license, forget vows, and discard wedding rings.

Not only are children of divorce are more likely to divorce, children raised in single parent families headed by women are several times more likely to engage in those risky behaviors that Professor Hand finds so convenient in his *war on spanking*.

Yet, times are changing. One woman said that she got the shock of her life when her remarried but otherwise thoroughly liberal mother told her future son-in-law that he had her permission to spank her daughter the first time his bride used the d-word!

Even liberals are starting to realize the downside of divorce. Although the above entrepreneurial spirit increases the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), the cumulative effects diminish the quality of life in much the same way as a giant oil spill - which, likewise, creates more jobs for people and helps to raise spreadsheet productivity.

In addition to the social fallout caused by divorce and the proliferation of single lifestyles - common in children of divorce - useless multiple families leave a much larger *carbon footprint* than that left by married couples. Thus, praises of marriage may become intertwined with *save the planet* ideology.

Moreover, governments are quickly realizing that, not only do they no longer have the financial resources to investigate every little complaint of *domestic violence* - especially if it *draws no blood, breaks no bones, or leaves no scars* - they can no longer afford to play big brother to emotional and verbal abuse protagonists in domestic soap operas.

Likewise, after three generations, divorce with children has taken a heavy toll on public education. Little Johnny cannot read; Little Mary is unable to figure out the price of seven apples if three apples cost fifteen cents. In the grocery store, her mother - also a product of divorce and public education - is equally lost.

Still another product of widespread single parenting and *sex education* at taxpayer expense is one in four - twenty-five percent of - teenage girls in the United States infected with a sexually transmitted disease! The cost of testing for potentially deadly sexually transmitted diseases is cutting into more genuine healthcare needs.

As the list of disasters grows, dependency on the Dr. Goodes and Professor Hands of this world will diminish. Sooner or later, most people will figure out that the *professional experts* of this world are in it for themselves.

Increasingly, men and women will discover that, not only do they need each other, but also that they can workout their problems when forced by circumstances to do so. One way or another, the *dependency nation* will cease to exercise their undue influence - that often amounts to little more than politically correct propaganda - as all-knowing, all-wise *experts* providing profit-driven media with *news on the cheap*.

A famous ordinance from Huntington, West Virginia permits *wife beating* on the courthouse steps - Sundays only. Notice that there is no mandate to *beat* one's wife - only that it is strictly legal on a certain day at a particular place.

The Huntington statute is an example of one type of law. It allows something to happen, but does not make it an obligation.

Other laws prohibit certain behaviors. Among the oldest and best-known laws of this type may be found within the *Ten Commandments*.

Actually, however, twelve statements comprise the *Ten Commandments*. Many people seem unaware that three of the rules to live by are of the *thou shalt* variety. The other nine - three-quarters of the twelve - consist of the more commonly known *thou shalt nots*.

Diverse faiths sometimes divide the twelve statements into slightly different groupings. Nevertheless, all twelve constructs are usually all present within the accepted text.

The above description of the *Ten Commandments* gives some insights into the nature of law. In other words, it is possible to write laws that either mandate or encourage certain behaviors while, at the same time, prohibiting others.

Those who oppose *domestic discipline* harp on either the compulsory or the explicitly permissive mode of law giving. This explains their continually demanding to know where in the Bible husbands are instructed to *beat* their wives. Of course, such commandment is not to be found within the received text.

At the same time, opponents of *domestic discipline* conveniently ignore the other side of law-giving. In particular, they never quite get around to pointing out that neither is there - in over six hundred biblical laws - a single *thou shalt not* concerning what was known half a century ago as *wife spanking*.

The truth is that - except for certain prescribed areas of life - believers are free from a rule-bound reality. This fact of life annoys the politically correct to no end. That is why opponents of *domestic discipline* wish to rewrite the Bible to suit their self-serving moral palate.

At the core of the New Age eclectic wizardry is a mandate for gender equality - something that is most certainly not to be found in any but the most curious of recent biblical rewrites. Thus, the politically correct place their emphasis on the age - dividing children from adults, as if were daylight and darkness - rather than in acknowledging rather obvious psychological and emotional differences that accompany the physical characteristics that separate men and women after a *certain age*.

The reason for the age emphasis is to divert attention from post-pubescent gender differences that make *domestic discipline* a realistic alternative to divorce and similar destabilizing outcomes in heterogeneous relationships. Age twelve is currently the *great divide* because, nominally, it is the last age at which the genders can be treated the same using that most common of disciplinary techniques.

With the onset of puberty these days comes a feminist-inspired *extended adolescence* that constitutes a moral no-man's-land in which social controls are inadequate, inappropriate, or frequently non-existence. Yet, because the teenaged brain is largely emotion-driven - seeking pleasures of the moment without regard to consequences - this chronological *wild card* causes much of society's ills.

So far as New Agers are concerned, God is dead. Science - often junk science - is the new religion and atheism is its new article of faith. Hedonism is tantamount to worship.

While demanding that practitioners of *domestic discipline* produce a Bible verse commanding husbands to *beat* their wives, they often behave as if the Bible commands women to usurp the natural authority of men! Of course, they will be equally hard pressed to find even one verse that specifically justifies their behavior!

The war waged by feminists is not only with God and biblical precepts; it is even with long established life processes and attendant social organization! Traditional families have long been prime targets of their assaults.

First wave nineteenth century feminists not only wanted the vote and access to birth control, they also wanted the freedom to divorce. Mid-twentieth century feminists accelerated the trend by importing no-fault divorce from the late and not quite great Soviet Union.

Divorce is a feminist-driven institution intended to put women in the driver's seat. For over a century, women have kept divorce lawyers in business. In the early twenty-first century, absent *domestic discipline*, marrying a college-educated woman in the United States is an almost certain invitation to divorce!

Yet, brains are no barrier to the effective administration of *domestic discipline*. Very bright women are often more aware of this than are men.

In reality, the proliferation of divorce represents the overwhelming rejection of passive males by females. This explains why weak men eventually become so despised by women.

Despite a facade of formal education, the factors that affect a choice of mate remain more primal than cerebral. There simply are times when a woman expects man to behave like a man and, when the man fails to live up to her expectations, she rejects him. Divorce is simply a formal manifestation of that rejection.

At the same time, men need to understand that the freedom to spank a woman exists within a relatively narrow spectrum of circumstances. Instead of being a self-indulgent orgy, it exists for a purpose.

*Wife spanking* is predicated on the assumption that marriage is preferable to divorce or perpetual bickering. Moreover, marriage is better for the society, the children, as well as the couple.

Because, *domestic discipline* is so effective in producing a bond between man and woman, those most likely to reject *wife spanking* are likely to be the same ones to regard marriage with either distain or indifference.

Make no mistake. Paul wrote in I Corinthians 11:19 that "there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you." While those opposed to *domestic discipline* think it a heresy, feminism is a godless heresy.

In feminism, "the works of the flesh are manifest." Among them are "adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like...which...shall not inherit the kingdom of God."

Conversely, within home practicing *domestic discipline*, there is more likely to be ""love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, [and] faith." That is why these marriages last so long, are so stable, and the children they produce are less likely to engage in the self-destructive practices that beset the children of divorce and single parenting.

In his infinite wisdom, God did not command *domestic discipline*. Neither did He forbid it.

Above all, one hidden obstacle derails the practical application of *domestic discipline*. It is anger.

One reason is that spankings often occur when things are not otherwise going well in the marriage. They can temporarily exacerbate an already tense atmosphere.

Another reason is that getting spanked hurts. Sometimes women are genuinely surprised at how much they hurt. Moreover, getting spanked can be genuinely embarrassing.

Many times, men have little idea what to do when physical pain and mental anguish combine in the woman the love to produce seething anger. The associate venting has been compared to *expelling the demons*.

The above can become especially acute in young women - especially if they have never before been spanked or only perfunctorily spanked.

The secret to getting past a woman's resistance is much the same as for getting a motor vehicle through a stretch of mud on a back road. Keep going and do not get bogged down.

Unless the house is literally burning down, a man should *never* leave a woman angry! To do so is to give her the worse of all worlds in that her body has been put in pain without doing her mind any good.

It cannot be said enough that, when it comes to spanking, time is more important that brute force. In order to achieve the desired ends, the unremitting sting on her buttocks must reach her mind if it is to relieve her tensions.

As thoroughly complex beings, the connection between what a woman says or does, and her motivations can seem helplessly convoluted in the mind of a novice male. Yet, in the mind of the woman, it all makes perfect sense!

Because the truth eventually tumbles out, one of the advantages to spanking a woman is in gaining insight into how women think. For example, despite any arduous objection, most women are not as adversely disposed to an old-fashioned, over the lap, bare bottomed spanking as they would have men believe.

The veracity of the above insight can be verified in observing unguarded remarks by women about badly behaved women - such as, "She needs...," "Somebody ought to...," or "If I could I'd...!" Many times such expressions end in some reference to the means or ends of a sound spanking.

At the same time, it is equally important to remember that, although most women do not enjoy being spanked, they relish the calm after the storm. Getting through the paroxysm can be difficult.

Any initial resistance on the part of the woman is usually cerebral. Often, it is quite calculated. As part of their natural defenses, women can be emotionally and psychologically abusive.

By nature, women test a man's resolve. It is only after he has proven himself capable of handling her that this attribute fades.

More strenuous objections arise as the woman loses control. Unless a woman has already been *taught to cry* - and, thus, relieve her tensions - when spanked, this can be where the real power struggle begins.

Many a man has been taken back by the degree of anger than lurks within that sweet young thing he married. It is paramount that men understand that, if not curbed, the rage becomes a wrath capable of wrecking the marriage. It is equally important to for men to understand that, as with penicillin, one dose may not cure the malady!

The above difficulties can be compounded if a woman has been trained that she is the equal of any man - especially if she believes that women are mentally tougher than men - there is an underlying expectation of always being in control. By the same token, previous bad experiences with a man - such as her father or former husband - many only reinforce her need to resist.

This is where *time* is paramount, because many women are aware that they can *outlast* a man's hand. As a result, one way of assuring a woman that the man is up to the task at hand is to have a suitable implement - commonly a paddle or hairbrush in the United States - already in hand. Not only does the visual effect convey the message that the utensil in hand will *win* over a woman's brain when applied to her bare buttocks, it also keeps the man from the awkward realization that his hand is inadequate to task at hand.

The emotional collapse of the woman should be tacitly palpable. There should be no doubt in her mind, or his, that *he* is in control.

Despite politically correct rhetoric, there is security in the knowledge that the man is *in charge*. That singular fact of life explains why *domestic discipline* survived - even thrived under - the feminist onslaught.

With this security comes not only a sense of well-being, but also an ability to think more clearly and behave more constructively. To use a biblical illustration from Proverbs 14:1, a woman is less likely to destroy her house!

As a postscript, it is worth pointing out that the inability to overcome cumulative and chronic anger is one reason why self-administered spankings are not nearly as effective as those given by a man. Short of dementia, it is impossible for a woman unpeel all the emotional layers.

More likely than not, a woman going through the motions simply succeeds in putting her body in pain without doing her mind any real good. While she may shake her overloaded emotional baggage cart, it is doubtful that she will tip it.

Experienced husbands know that women usually come with into a marriage with more than adequate psychological defenses. Some are quite good at avoiding being spanked.

Other women are thoroughly adept at *hijacking a spanking* and turning the tables on their husbands. Examples of this accusatory style can often be found in debate-oriented *domestic discipline* forums.

One simple method of preventing the latter is, initially at least, to paddle a little harder and a lot faster than they might think necessary. For example, a typical male technique might be to spank at a rate of about one smack every five seconds on alternating cheeks to let the effect *sink in*.

For a thoroughly wound up woman, this may give her enough time to regain her wits and tell her husband a thing or two. Hence, a more effective strategy is to randomly paddle - left, right, and center - two or three times per second with something that really stings.

While rapid moderate paddling does no real damage, it does get a woman's attention from the start. As women who have experienced this method acknowledge, the paddles does the *talking* and their brain does the listening! There is simply not enough recovery time for her to get a word in edgewise.

Once the authority of the husband has been established, it is important to fill the woman's mind with what she needs to hear. Putdowns must be avoided. This is not about winning or losing. Rather it is about straightening out the marriage.

The effect of a paddling on a woman's mind is not that different from that described in Luke 11:24-26. While a paddling cleans a woman's mind, it does not fill it with anything. That is why what a husband says to his wife during this time of vulnerability is so important.

He must neither leave her mind an empty vessel nor fill it with more garbage. To do so is to destroy the woman. This is how evil men create prostitutes.

When the wife is vulnerable, her husband's words must be positive. Although considered trite by feminists, there is nothing wrong with telling a wife that she is loved.

Likewise, any expectations for future behavior should be presented in a constructive manner. The paddling already says that there is a problem. Beyond an initial lecture, there is no reason to dwell on the point.

Sometimes young husbands have great difficulty in understanding that women need to cry. In this regard, the sting from a spanking offers a convenient excuse.

Because some women fear being seen *at the worst possible moment*, they are reluctant to cry. Beyond coming to an understanding that the woman is expected to cry, a convenient remedy is to administer stinging spanks to the back of the upper back of the thigh just below the crease since this area is impossible to *tighten* and is quite tender.

Since spanking makes women submissive, it is common for women to receive their husbands afterwards in an act of contrition and reconciliation. Although not an absolute necessity by any means, informal surveys have estimated that three-quarters of couples make love after a spanking.

In hindsight, one trouble with the Hollywood Hayes Code era was that onscreen spanking was treated in much the same way that firearms are handled today under Jack Valenti's Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) film rating system.  In both cases there is an almost magic quality about the results achieve and a disregard of reality.  Then, that is the nature of the entertainment industry. 

On screen, the swat of a man's hand under the Hayes Code was able to penetrate a woman's dress and undergarments as if they were but a single sheet of tissue paper smartly struck by flat side of a wooden hairbrush.  Difficulties arose because, in a society lacking meaningful coming of age rituals and relevant discussions thereto, this was often the only tutelage young men growing up in the late twentieth century had when it came to straightening out a badly behaved woman.

In real life, a man's hand is ill suited for spanking a grown woman - regardless of her clothing or lack thereof.  It is not that adequate results cannot possibly be achieved with a man's hand.  Rather, it is not the way to bet because, by nature, women expect to be conquered.  It is one test of fitness for mating.  Women not thus wired are more inclined to become promiscuous or, at the other extreme, too cold to replicate.

Until men become fathers with older daughters, they often fail to appreciate that the haughtiness of young women exists for their protection.  Truly bad things happen when girls are deprived of this mechanism.  No man in his right mind wants to see it happen before a woman's judgment of men sufficiently ripens.

Many times, marital stress results when a new wife refuses to let go of her girlish ways or insists on the illusion of absolute *equality* in marriage.  Husbands used to know now to handle these situations. 

An older woman once admitted slapping her new husband when, although admittedly quite gentle, he put his hand were the then quite young bride did not think a man ever had any business touching her.  She realized the rules of the game had significantly changed when her husband rather calmly seized her hairbrush and acknowledged that what followed really was a much-needed application in a thoroughly appropriate place!   

One of the great lessons that my wife taught me was that women expect men to know more than most young husbands understanding about *getting through* to a willful woman.  The reality is that undisciplined women today tend to be presumptuous in behavior and disdainful in attitude, while men are abysmally ignorant when it comes to straightening them out.  Rather obviously, as a consequence, society is littered with wrecked marriages and rampant gender antagonism. 

Among the most common mistakes made by men intent on disciplining a woman is to put her body in pain without doing her mind any good.  This is very much what Hayes Code era Hollywood put into it films.

While it is not uncommon for a woman in real life to examine herself in a mirror after a first serious spanking, thereafter, the examinations in which she engages involve more mental calculus than physical arithmetic. 

From a woman's perspective after her initial experiences, spanking is *always* about her mind rather than her buttocks.  This is, in fact, how women separate discipline - even punishment - from abuse.

Likewise, the seminal issue for a woman is cleansing rather than pain.  A woman would rather be *spanked to death* than be tormented by unremitting guilt!

Forget diamonds, making a guilt-ridden wife feel clean again is among the most precious gives her husband can give in her hour of need.  Inside and out, a woman wants to feel pure as the proverbial new-driven snow.

Spanking is much like cooking.  To be sure, it is possible to cook with the gas jet wide open or the heating element on high.  Doing so, however, greatly increases the chance of a less than satisfactory outcome than is usually achieved with less heat and more time.

When it comes to spanking, time is more important than force.  While spankings need to *hurt* to be effective - and, despite what they say, women do expect a spanking to *hurt* - three wallops does not an effective spanking make.  It merely shows the power of the man rather than his understanding of the woman.

In a woman's mind, time translates into caring.  So does knowledge of how women view things.

It is not spanking to which women object so much as indifference and infidelity.  Those are two slights that women will take personally.  A woman needs to know that she can count on a man to be there for her - even when she *needs her backside spanked*!

Despite the current spate of politically correct propaganda, women not only need to be spanked, but have it administered with an implement to their upturned bare buttocks.  All but the most egocentric women know that there are those times when they need to be bent over and straightened out.  Women in more satisfactory marriages find men able and willing to do the necessary when the need arises.

Ask a woman in love why she lays on a man's lap and, quite likely, her reason will be superficial.  Yet, deep in her psyche, there is a drive to position herself to submit once she has found the *right* man for her. 

On one level, it means that she is comfortable with her choice.  On another, especially for a young woman, the subtle positioning has more profound implications.

Although largely emanating from the subconscious, it is perhaps the strongest signal that a woman can send that she trusts the man to do what needs to be done when it needs to be done.  The urge can be so strong as to appear in a semi-public setting. 

In time, if a man fails to fulfill that primal need, the woman will come to despise him for his weakness.  Find a woman belittling her husband, and you have found a woman whose deeper needs have not been met. 

Wise men do not spank to achieve their own ends.  Rather they do so for the benefit of the woman and their marriage together.  Moreover, they take the time necessary to thoroughly accomplish the deed.  Women thus handled will love and respect the man.  Her marriage will last.

Swamped by a tsunami of politically correct hysteria, the normal interaction between men and women has become a perceived aberration.  Women have been told that they cannot trust their inner voice - unless, of course, it coincides with politically correct ideology.  Men have not only been told, but also coerced into being something less than manly in behavior. 

The result of the above brainwashing is a societal infrastructure that is teetering on collapse.  Feminist-dominated public schools are zoos.  One on ten are labeled *dropout factories*.  According to the most recent statistical analysis, fourth graders are losing ground in literacy - again.  Weapons and drugs abound in many schools.  They have become places where not a pupil is spanked or a lesson worth learning is taught.

While foreclosures grab the headlines, broken and dysfunctional homes are the untold story.  Children raised with single parent household head are several times (not just a few percent) more likely to have trouble in school, engage in substance abuse and sexual experimentation, have failed marriages, raise dysfunctional children, and even kill themselves than are children raised by their biological parents.

God knew what He was doing when He designed human reproduction so that it required two people of different genders to come together, copulate, and then raise the fruits of their interaction with each other.  Likewise, He provided a mechanism for keeping households stable.

First, God put men in charge.  It is sexist; but it is also true.  Despite reams of politically correct propaganda, God did make men a little brighter and a little stronger so that they could be in charge.

Second, He gave men a mechanism for maintaining order.  Call it *domestic discipline*, *moderate restraint*, or *wife spanking*.  Properly used, it will sufficiently stabilize the relationship between a man and woman so that they are able to raise viable children even in a turbulent age.

Third, both physically and psychologically, He designed women to accept the authority of men.  As Leah pointed out, most of the time it is the WOMAN, rather than the man, who wants discipline in the home.  When men are unable to provide that which the woman requires or unwilling to restrain their own behavior, women want out of the relationship in about the same percentage as request *domestic discipline*.

Even physical tyranny is not the ultimate cruelty in marriage. Indifference is far more deadly both to women and relationships.  Women in *domestic discipline* relationships know that men who really care also spank.  That is why they both love and respect husbands unafraid to raise a hand over bared buttocks when necessary.

Although it cannot neither make a woman love a man nor put a bad marriage back together again, spanking can provide a means for two people willing to work out their differences to make things right again.

Spanking is effective because it is the backdoor to a woman's mind.  A woman 's buttocks are the *ears* that she cannot stop up and refuse to listen.  When coupled with a firm, but concerned voice, it can say things that will not be heard any other way.   

Deep inside, both men and women know what needs to be done to preserve their marriages.  The question is will they listen to that inner voice that bids them straighten things out before it is too late.