Helen...I think you have managed to surmize the intent of Intimate Discipline pretty much in a nutshell...at least the element of it we use for solving conflict.

You write:

One man I know who recently left his wife said that his wife left him in his cave, and he stayed there so long he forgot that his wife was outside! How many women bravely wait outside the damn cave, even though they would like to feel close again... while all the time their husbands ache just as much as they do for connection but are unable to express it?

I think anyway, that men need to be given the responsibility to communicate for connection (i.e. HOH/HOR). Otherwise, women will wait while the husband simply struggles with ways to express his own needs. The dynamic you talk about of the husband withdrawing, usually before the woman, is well known and discussed by Gottman (and others) and, you're right, it is punishing the wife which would leave her feeling like the whole problem is her fault. The punishment is a punishment of isolation and this can only lead to increasing isolation of both the husband and wife. To be happily married, we do need to find a better way.

In Intimate Discipline, we can successfully use the spanking discipline because there is an otherwise natural erotic pull for us. Vanilla couples likely could not use it without it being something like 'only beating her into submission.' The beauty of this kind of discipline we use is that in the end no one of us is at fault, no one of us is allowed the 'cave' of stonewalling and angry withdrawal, both of us are responsible to each other and our relatiosnhip.

Anyway, your article is exceptional and describes very well both the intention and practice of Intimate Domestic Discipline, using an otherwise erotic pull (even though the discipline may not seem erotic at the time) as a way of getting back on the track of physical, emotional and intimate connection for both the husband and wife.

Frank

how did you finally get through to him, what you wanted and did it work out,, thanks Martie

Helen...
I just think, and I'm sure this is a cultural thing, but there is a BIG difference between a "beating" and a spanking... When someone says he "beats" his wife, it conjures up images of facial injuries, black eyes and such... when someone says he "spanks" his wife, it conjures up images of a woman across a man's lap...somewhat sexual in nature... ya know? I'm not sure where you live, but here in the U.S. we have to VERY careful how we say things...

Wolfgirl

Perhaps he would like to beat the tar out of her with the spoon or whatever. But spanking is not acceptable unless there has been some communication about it beforehand. The sulking is the "acceptable" way of beating unless it has been specifically agreed that it should be otherwise. The fact that the sulking is taking place means that neither person has developed enough courage to make that kind of a connection. *Someone* has to do it. In a case like this, it is simply the person who "explodes" first that takes the initiative. In this example, the woman "exploded" first, couldn't handle the break, and presented the spoon. Face it, if you are not already aware of it, this society is royally messed up, so there's a big risk involved if things happened "naturally". If natural relationships were possible without hiding it, sites like this would not be necessary.

KrosRogue

thanks for having this site very good imformation and insight of a d/s and spanking
thanks
linda(blg)
blg363att.net

Helen's friend said:

In the days before my husband got smart about the kind of relationship I want, our life together was a lot less peaceful. He would get angry and sulk for hours or days, and I would be frozen out. Then I would get angry and freeze him out in turn. It was hell. It wasn't easy getting through to my husband about what I want. For some reason he didn't believe I was serious when I first told him.

(the boss writing:)

I have read similar statements on various forums, and wonder why this is so? Why is it that men often don't think we are serious? Is there more to it than the obvious? If we are telling a man seriously that this is what we want, is it so unbelievable? To the men out there: what can we say that would make you sit up and take notice (i.e., know that we are serious)?

I wish to briefly reply to a puzzlement expressed by the boss on this thread. Her sense of wonder and bafflement meshes with my own, which I expressed recently on another thread in terms of not letting it sink in, what another expresses as their sincere desire or belief.

(In the context of this thread, I do not think there is anything more you can say. In the case under discussion, the fellow sat up and took notice when she fetched and returned with the wooden spoon.)

I think the real issue here is not “what can we say” but rather, why is he dismissing what you have clearly and emphatically stated. Here the statement is “don’t walk away, smack my buns.” In the other context in which I addressed this, the gist was “she loves her man’s control.”

Why is this unbelievable to a man? Let me suggest some possibilities beyond the most fundamental one, that he does not know what it is to mean what one says and to say what one means.

1. It is too good to be true.
2. It is too intimidating to be true.
3. It is too intense to be true.
4. It is too simple and too simplifying to be true.
5. It is too true to his intuitive impulses about women.
6. It is too culturally incorrect to be true.
7. He does not take you seriously, therefore, anything you say…
8. It entails the risk, responsibility, and courage to take your happiness seriously.
9. In his squeamish, sentimental love he sees you as a fragile flower.
10. It puts an end to his career as a sulky lazy boy in your romance.
11. He must give up easy, cheesy control and assume real control.
12. (to round to a dozen) He doesn’t know what fun is.

Why is this unbelievable to a man? Let me suggest some possibilities beyond the most fundamental one, that he does not know what it is to mean what one says and to say what one means.

I know what it is to mean what *I* say and to say what *I* mean. It requires a huge capacity for trust, which I lack, to know that of someone else.

1. It is too good to be true.

Most definitely. This happens only in dreams and movies, never in real life.

2. It is too intimidating to be true.

Judging from what I see on the legal front, that is correct.

5. It is too true to... [my] ...intuitive impulses about women.

My "intuitive impulses" are about the legal ramifications.

6. It is too culturally incorrect to be true.

That would play a huge part in a real-life scenario.

7. [I don't take her] ...seriously, therefore, anything [she says] ...

I would never take a woman seriously when it concerns her accepting violence on her person.

8. It entails the risk, responsibility, and courage to take... [her] ...happiness seriously.

I suppose it does. Personally I don't have the courage it would take to risk a ride to prison for presuming a woman to be serious about her desire for violence.

StarreGazer