What is More Important to Your DD Spanking Relationship - Dominance and Authority or "Fairness" (Club Meeting - 565)

“In any given moment we have two options: to step forward into growth or step back into safety.” — Abraham Maslow

Hello all. Welcome back to The Disciplinary Wives Club – Tribute blog.  Our weekly on-line gathering of women and men who are in, or would like to be in, a Domestic Discipline relationship of the type advocated by the former Disciplinary Wives Club (archived copy in the “Links I Like” list, below right).

I hope you all had a good week.  Mine was another challenging one, and I’m running out of summer faster than I’m able to get past this physical setback.  But, it is what it is, I guess.

 

 

A couple of weeks ago, I tried out using a captioned spanking meme as a launching pad for a discussion about strictness.  It led to a good discussion about how we each define the level of strictness we want, or think we want.

 

One of the threads suggested an extension of the topic.  It began with a comment from Al about the effect of certain comments from his wife:

 

Comments whose purpose is to belittle or humiliate are a turnoff for me - and thankfully Susan doesn't find them tasteful either. On the other hand - comments that empower Susan's authority to spank at will are very much a turn on - such as Dan's example of "Are we clear?" Just a few days ago, Susan and I were having a minor difference of opinion, and I asked her why her idea was any better than mine. Her reply - "because I'm the one with the paddle". And, I just said "yes ma'am" and let it go. :)

 

 

That last part caused some concerns for T.:

 

I think I would have a bit of a problem if my wife and I had a difference of opinion on something, and she stated I’m the one with the paddle. I guess of course it depends on the circumstances.

 

Al responded:

 

Just to clarify, her comment was actually said in jest - as the issue at hand was of minor importance. Although - it does reflect her comfort level as a disciplinary wife - but we've been a DWC couple since 2001, so probably not unexpected.

 

Which led Norton to observe:

 

"Because I am the one with the paddle" is basically the same topic T and Dan were describing above, as they both had trouble accepting spankings they perceived as unfair or for trivial reasons. In our house, is if she feels motivated to spank for any reason, I have no desire to challenge her, and want her to be dominant. Ms. Terrapin said a while ago, when she realized that she didn't need to be fair, it freed her up to stop second guessing herself. Basically, she assumes the role of a strict mom, and she could stay out late every night if she wanted to, but that didn't mean he could. Of course, you would have to really trust her, and if she really was unfair or selfish, you would probably soon resent it. A future topic could be "what is more important to you in your relationship with your dominant wife - fairness or dominance? That may be an oversimplified question, but it might generate some discussion.

 

So, let’s do that as topic. 

 

Of course, as a preliminary matter, I’m guessing some may say the term “dominant wife” doesn't apply to them, as their wife is not, in fact, dominant. And, the fact that they may do so demonstrates just how separable DD is from FLR and Dominance/submission lifestyles. Note that I didn’t say it’s “separate” from those relationship styles, as there clearly are overlaps for many of us in practice.  But, the fact that some will say they are in a DD relationship but that their wife is not “dominant” shows that the act of discipline may be separate from decision-making power, even when it comes to what is spankable. 

 

I admit, I don’t spend much time thinking about “fairness” in our DD relationship.  But, admittedly, that may be because my wife is someone who does care about fairness and, in the context of DD, probably thinks about it more than I do.

 

And, even though I don’t concern myself that much about fairness, I don’t think I am on the same side of the line as Norton, based on the almost total discretion he is comfortable giving to his wife.  For me, when I say we have an “anytime, anywhere, for any reason” approach to DD, implicit in that is that I know Anne is not the kind of person who acts arbitrarily or might get drunk on her own power.  She’s just not.

 

So, I don’t spend much time thinking about fairness because, in the context of our relationship, I don’t have to.  But, focusing more on Norton’s specific question, our “anytime, anywhere, for any reason” approach probably answers that question by erring on the side of dominance, though I think of it more as “authority” (though that’s undoubtedly just semantics).  Psychologically, I know that I get huge benefits from having someone impose rules and guardrails, and for that to feel real, it can’t be subject to debates about “fairness” or proportionality.  I need to feel that her authority is pretty close to unlimited and, just as importantly, I need her to feel that way.

 

Again, that’s not to say there are not limits or that fairness isn’t a consideration.  If her decisions to spank were arbitrary, I would have a problem with that. But, for me, there is a difference between "arbitrary", on the one hand, and her declaring something is spankable and me thinking it shouldn't be, on the other.  She has a reason, and it may be as one-sided as, "Because that thing you keep doing annoys me," but that doesn't make it arbitrary.

 

 

Similarly, a spanking that was literally for no reason would be a big problem for me, though in part that is because Anne is so binary in her approach, with every spanking being at true punishment levels.

 

"Proportionality", in terms of the severity of the spanking matching the severity of the offense might be another aspect of "fairness", but I think its a potentially problematic one in the context of Domestic Discipline, which is between fully-grown adults.  It's tempting to say that a minor offense should get a moderate spanking, but the reality is, we are fully-grown men, and for a spanking to be disciplinary, it probably needs to be quite hard.  

 

It's also the case that many men who ask for these relationships have at attraction to spanking and, therefore, in order to overcome that attraction, it has to be hard. Period.

 

I also think there is a distinction between "looking for a reason" and there not being any reason.  Right now, thanks to our extended hiatus, I think Anne is very much looking for reasons to spank and wishing she could. But, taking advantage of some conveniently-timed misbehavior as an excuse to spank is not the same thing as not having a reason.

 

 

In any event, whatever concerns I might have about fairness are outweighed by the practical, psychological, and, yes, erotic benefits I get from her being in charge.  So, for me, the answer to Norton's question is that having her in an authoritative, dominant role is more important than abstract concerns about "fairness".

 

It’s also interesting (to me at least), that the concept of “fairness” is almost completely absent from most of the Disciplinary Wives Club website materials and guidebooks.  I ran a quick search on the two main relationship guidebooks, and the terms “fair” and “fairness” don’t appear anywhere in the texts.  I probably shouldn’t be surprised, given Aunt Kay’s emphasis on the unbounded nature of the wife’s authority:

 

The definition of a DWC relationship is that the woman's role involves providing moral and behavioral guidance to the man and he invests her with the absolute authority to decide upon and wield punishments accordingly. The man's role is to accept this authority and strive to gain benefit from it.

 

So, were Aunt Kay and the DWC founders cavalier or dismissive about notions of fairness? I don’t think so.  Just like I don’t think much about fairness because I know Anne does, the DWC seems to implicitly assume the wives’ decisions are grounded in wanting to do the right thing. One of the guides makes it explicit, observing:

 

“Women come from a feminine place of intrinsic wisdom and nurturance.  In fact, we do “know what’s good for men” more often than not.”

 

The wives’ authority was also grounded in the domestic nature of the relationship itself:

 

“Love comes first.  Only with a loving relationship can you have loving discipline. Discipline should be administered because it will benefit both parties.”

 

So, I think Aunt Kay didn’t talk much about “fairness”, because she felt it was already inherent in the maternal discipline mode the DWC promoted.

 

However, note that whatever the DWC founders might have thought about fairness, they would have agreed with Mrs. Terrapin as quoted by Norton that it doesn’t mean the parties are subject to the same rules.  One of the guidebooks noted:

 

“There is an implied "child/authority figure element to the DWC Lifestyle. If a kid gets a discipline spanking from Mom or Auntie, they don't get to say, "Well O.K. but you smoke and drive too fast, so you have to get a spanking too". They just have to accept it, like it or not.”

 

How about you?  How would you answer Norton’s question as which is more important to you, dominance/authority or fairness?

 

Finally, I came across this picture the other day. It seemed to me to perfectly encapsulate how some of us are innately fascinated by female authority, and for some of you it happened at a formative age.

 

 

Have a great week.