Lights, Cameras, and Telling Audiences What They Want to Hear
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.
I think you are confusing sexualization with domestic discipline. You don't see full blown panties down spanking in mainstream media because that doesn't pass the ratings board. To current society, CDD is too close to sexual. We need to get mad at the right people. In order to teach people about CDD you need to teach them to accept it as part of marriage, not as an alternative life style. Regular folks need to believe that spanking is part of marriage, not part of playboy mansion celebrity gossip. Accept it and it will be accepted.
Reply to this
I am not confusing anything. As suggested by my opening remarks, I intended to address concerns that I had for several months about an earlier post rather than construct a thesis on spanking in the movies.
My purpose was to point out that - whether operating under the morally strict 1930 Production Code or the more liberal and politically correct 1968 rating system - the entertainment industry fails to give an accurate assessment of effective cross-gender spanking in interpersonal relationships.
To be sure, sex sells. Movies are no exception. That fact alone may explain the scrapping of the 1930 Production Code in the wake of the Sexual Revolution and other misguided adventures in social engineering.
It must also be remembered that the movie industry writes its own codes. Both Will Hays and Jack Valenti - for whom their respective contributions are commonly known by last name reference - were Hollywood insiders with extensive Washington connections. Such men were useful to the money-hungry movie moguls.
In reality, the film industry pushes the boundaries of respectability to attract an audience. At the same time, it is careful to avoid a reoccurrence of the early twentieth century Mutual Film Corporation court decision - which, in essence, limited the *First Amenment rights* of studios.
Beyond entertainment, there are several factors that keep *domestic discipline* from becoming mainstream. To name a few, they are:
* Rampant feminism
* Widespread pornography
* Corruption of church doctrine
* Ease of divorce
* Acceptance of single parenting
* Proliferation of only children
* Popularity of professional counseling
* Monopoly of feminist-dominated pubic education
* Loss of local-based media
While there is enough blame to go around - and a post or two could be written on each of the above as well as other contributing factors - a more relevant locus centers on the three institutions that influence children.
One is the family. In the customary meaning of the term, *traditional families* are a minority in the United States.
Instead, we have *lifestyles* and *alternatives*. One *lifestyle* is supposedly as good as another.
Few boys these days hear an older sister get a spanking. Instead, if a teenage daughter has *behavioral issues*, she is more likely to receive highly profitable and open-ended professional counseling rather than the *unfriendly side* of her mother's hairbrush.
Another is the educational system. The paddle disappeared from the American schoolhouse because, beyond middle school, girls were more likely than boys to get paddled.
That reality few in the face of politically correct notions of gender equality; paddling had to go. At the same time, public education became a largely gender-specific occupation in which men were, quite often, not welcome.
This new mode of education was supposed to be nurturing and student friendly. Instead, it has inspired such resentment that the schoolhouse door is locked and prison-like guards patrol the halls. Police are often a constant presence.
Finally, there was the church. Along with the rest of society, it became increasingly feminized.
Female pastors were welcomed. The promise to *obey* disappeared from marriage vows. Men often found themselves relegated to secondary roles.
No one really expected marriages to last. Those that did were accused to being out of step with the times.
Heaven help the pastor in this new ecumenical and ecclesiastical order who even hints that it might be time for a husband to haul his gossiping or overly flirtatious wife over his lap and straighten her out with an old-fashioned spanking!
In each of the three cases above, a central ingredient was money and power. Much as with the currently fashionable talk about the environment, there was a rather naive belief that the social infrastructure could absorb all of the *alternatives* like a gigantic sponge and remain unaffected.
Rather obviously, that has not happened.
Reply to this
Dear Christian domestic discipline,
I am an unmarried straight woman. From what I have seen of this website, it seems like you are trying to bring women back into the dark ages. If you like your way of life by submitting to someone else and by surrendering yourself to someone else's idea of how you should be; by all means please do so. I can see how you would find the idea of not having to think as attractive.
I however, like my liberty. I like to vote. I like my education. I like working. I like making my own money. I like travelling on my own. I like being in charge of my own finances. I like what the feminist movement has enabled me to do. I like having choices. The feminist movement has not taken away any ones choices, it has merely given women more choices.
Although your lifestyle has made you happy it is not for everyone. I enjoy reading, while my sister doesn't. My sister likes to quilt while I dislike sewing. Not everyone has the same intrests and not everyone is happy doing the same things in life.
If any of you succeeded at your agenda of bringing the world back into the 1800s, I would be extremely unhappy. So although this may work for you please don't fool yourselves for one second into believing this is what every woman secretly wants and needs in order to be happy.
Not every woman wants a husband to submit to and countless children to tend to. I don't and I can guarantee you I'm not the only one.
Reply to this
The preceding post is filled with the usual misandric propaganda that drips, drops, oozes, and plops from women's study classes.
The first erroneous assumption is that only mindless women would let themselves be disciplined by a man. Even the most cursory reading of posts from women in *domestic discipline* relationships reveal a wide variety of educational levels and life experiences.
Conversely, to keep the illusion of gender equality going, the purveyors of politically correct propaganda must perpetuate the illusion that their rather pedestrian ideology of rebellion will make a woman into a superior being. In this regard, it is little more than political alchemy.
The feminist ideologues and their obsequious apologists never tell these naïve young women that the entire *liberation* scheme is predicated on easily available, good-paying jobs. Likewise, their *liberty* is equally precarious since it is based on laws that may or may not be here tomorrow.
In the end, the only *choice* that a *liberated* woman has is to work - usually for a lower wage than their male counterparts. Then, that was the intent - to provide an ample supply of cheap labor until even cheaper labor comes along.
Reply to this
Of course my husband takes my panties down during a spanking. He doesn't use a belt, but the paddle is taken off the wall. Real spanking exists in a loving Christian marriage and my husband is not afraid to use it when needed. I love and respect him for it while not enjoying the spanking/paddling as it's happening. A swat to my clothed backside with his hand is what he calls a warning! The real deal is definitely an "attitude adjuster".
Reply to this