I keep my visions to myself

Reader-submitted question: Did you go to Bible camp?

Yes, many times.

My dad is an Anglican priest, so I had plenty of opportunities to go to Bible camps and conferences in my late teens. I was a pretty normal teenager, I think. I had a lot of fun with interesting people I would never have met if I hadn't gone to those camps and conferences. They were pretty normal, too. I think. In fact, I ended up going away to university with someone I met at a Bible conference.

Completely by coincidence, one of the people I think of as the "Bible-camp boys" just Facebooked me with this message:

Are you still playing the minx that papa could never oppress?

Hmmm.

Now I don't remember what I was going to say.

Even more fun

What first-time visitors to my other blog are looking for:

i don't care what you say (over and over)
I am angry at my children
celebrity endorsement from god (and) god of winner
atheists are stupid
what to do without god
wash my hands in innocence (LOTS of people are looking for this)
massah and meribah
the land will vomit them out (I use this phrase sarcastically, but it pops up in my stats often enough that I have to assume that some people do not)
screw you guys (another favourite)
fertility is a gift (and) "i want lots of babies" (and) why wasn't birth control allowed (and) is birth control enough? (and) do dermatologists ask for proof of birth control
it is very hard to be me
when are things going to change god
warning in case of rapture this vehicle will be unmanned

What a cheerful group they are.

Uhhh...

Right. All non-Christians are praying that Barack Obama will be elected. That's why it's important for the REAL God to step in right away and fix the election. God's reputation is on the line.

People are saying that all of these prayers are pre-approved, but I have a hard time believing that any political leader would approve this garbage. In fact, I can hardly believe any Christian would approve this.

You have to watch this

There's been too much anger around here. It's very un-Canadian of us. On to something happier.

I really enjoy Stuff Christians Like. You should read it.

The author calls this an unintentionally funny Christian video. He describes the five stages of dealing with a video like this:

1. Denial and Isolation
"That can't be real. There is no way a church is doing that. That has to be fake. Maybe that is something the parody website, The Onion, did. That's got to be a joke. Am I the only Christian that thinks that is ridiculous? Is it bad that I think that is ridiculous? Is it wrong to mock something a church did? I am so alone."

2. Anger
"This is why God gets such a bad rap. When my friends say Christianity is corny or cheesy, this is the kind of stuff they're talking about. I hope the guys at work don’t see this and email it to me since I’m the ‘Christian guy’ in the office."

3. Bargaining
"I shouldn't send this to friends, but it’s so funny. Look at that moonwalk. I have to share this with the world. But if I email it out, am I just perpetuating the idea that Christians are cheesy? Or is it a good thing to send it to my friends? Maybe it will let them know, 'hey, I get it, this kind of stuff is silly, but we're not all like that. I promise.' I'll just send it to a few people. I won’t send it to my entire contact list."

4. Depression
"All hope is lost. That video was viewed 20 million times on youtube. It was even on "The Soup" with Joel McHale, whom I love and think is hilarious, but that's beside the point. It's everywhere. Now, millions of people have had their misconceptions about Christianity confirmed. And I emailed it to the guys at work. All hope is lost."

5. Acceptance
"OK God, you're in control. I don’t get to define what you are pleased with. Maybe that breakdancing was exactly what you wanted and there were people that were deeply moved by that. But between you and me, I hope that when I get to heaven you'll do a little pop and lock, pull me aside and whisper, 'hey, even I thought that video was funny.' But we'll just have to wait and see."

This made me laugh

From the comments at Friendly Atheist:

How many atheists does it take to tell a joke?

33!

• 4 to tell the joke.
• 12 to wonder if joke-telling sends the “wrong message” to the religious majority.
• 7 to argue back and forth about why humour is or is not an appropriate mind-changing tool.
• 3 to sternly suggest that religion is NOT a laughing matter.
• 4 to self-righteously assert that children NOT be let in on the joke. Because that is child abuse.
• 2 to intone darkly about how this “doesn’t reflect well” on atheists.
• 1 to imagine that the joke actually will metamorphose into the thing being parodied, and that atheism will then make a religion of itself, with all the same trappings, robes, songs and candle-lighting.

This should really be on the Uriel blog

Reader-submitted question: I'm not sure how you are taking Edward Current's comments. As I watched this video, it became apparent that Ed is being facetious. For one thing, he calls the Bible "unerrant." The word used by those of this opinion is "inerrant." For another, he blatantly points out conflicting instructions given in the Bible and just says (and I paraphrase), "Accept the contradictions and act accordingly." No inerrantist would say this. They would claim very loudly that there are no *real* contradictions in the Bible, only *apparent* contradictions. They would then go through a great song and dance explaining why the contradictions aren't "really" contradictions.

So my question is, are you a biblical inerrantist or not? If you are, then I can see why Ed's video is bothering you. If you are not, then maybe you aren't picking up on his facetious tone, and you are bothered by the fact that the Bible might be inerrant but that you haven't believed this up until now, and you are wondering if God will condemn you for your lack of inerrantist belief.

Yeah, this should definitely be on the Uriel blog, but I don't want to break character over there.

Edward Current is a satirist. He and Uriel have a lot in common: many people think they are serious. They are not. It is all in jest.

Uriel is currently going through a crisis that was brought on when she showed kindness to a traveling missionary. When she meets people who follow other religions, she usually spits on them and tells them they are going to hell. For some reason, she actually listened to this guy's stories and realised that he has a holy book that says the entire book is true. She is not sure how to handle this. She is comforting herself by spending even more time than usual on the Internet, trying to find someone who will tell her what to believe. She thinks Edward Current is her soulmate. In a way, I guess he is.

I'll bring Uriel back when I figure out what to do with her, I promise. However, your questions still deserve answers.

Uriel is an inerrantist. She is also a member of a splinter sect that meets only on the Internet and uses the Bible along with several other "holy" books that have been passed along through the generations. Of course, they all exist only on the Internet. She believes that the hard copies were destroyed by the government because they were TOO TRUE. She also believes that you cannot trust hard copies, because they have both jots AND tittles. Online versions, on the other hand, are completely electronic and much more accurate.

Everything in those books (well, websites) is 100% true. None of it is metaphorical. As you point out, she goes through a song and dance trying to figure out how it can all be true when it clearly isn't.

I personally am not an inerrantist. Thanks for your question.

You're filing a human-rights complaint? Not if I get there FIRST!

You probably didn't realise this, but we Canadians have a limitless ability to be offended. It is our new national pastime now that our hockey teams appear to be incapable of beating the (clearly inferior) American teams they are forced to play against.

Mike Myers' new movie is the latest thing to ruffle our feathers. It has not even been released yet, but we are already upset about it. You see, it is insulting to Hindus. It would be completely reasonable for a person to see this movie, think it is a realistic portrayal of the Hindu religion, and laugh at people who practise that religion. That's why it is entirely acceptable for people to take preemptive offense and claim that the movie is about their religion even when the filmmakers say it isn't. We support them in being offended.

Some people might claim that nobody would think a Mike Myers movie accurately reflects a real religion. We Canadians do not listen to these arguments. We sat by while Mr. Myers mocked many, many other people, and we simply can not accept it any more.

I mean, it was funny when he made fun of time-traveling Americans with scars:


That's hilarious. And we LOVED it when he mocked the English:


And the Scots:


And metalheads who live with their parents:


And Germans:


And Jewish mothers from New York:


Those things were all hilarious. This new movie none of us have seen, on the other hand, is OFFENSIVE TO SOMEONE'S RELIGION and it must be stopped. We are pretty sure that Hinduism is just like the movie, which would mean that Mr. Myers is exposing people to ridicule. That is one thing we definitely cannot accept from our comedians.

I am apparently NOT the centre of the universe

Reader-submitted question: Are you a Ray Comfort fan?

No.

I sort of see why you might think that, though. Uriel has mentioned him a few times.

Ray Comfort is the host of The Way of the Master, a Christian evangelism show. He is also known for street preaching: he hangs around with a TV camera, ambushes unsuspecting passersby, and asks them to answer a few simple questions: if his religion is true, will they personally suffer all of the torments he suspects they deserve? Their responses are broadcast on TV for Ray's fans to cackle at.

Ray's blog has become a hangout for fundamentalist Christians and atheists. Yes, it's an odd group. They try to convert or de-convert each other. Some are really vicious: mostly the Christians, who threaten their critics with eternal damnation.

I almost never go to his blog, but when I do, I almost always end up doing a Uriel post because I become so annoyed with his fans. Uriel is not Christian -- she is a member of a splinter sect that meets only on the Internet and prays together on message boards -- but she has a lot in common with Ray's fans. Well, she's currently having a crisis of faith that was brought on when she showed kindness to a traveling missionary, but I suspect she'll find her way eventually. Actually, I got the idea to write about the missionary by thinking about Ray's fans: would they convert to another religion just because someone told them to?

However, I have developed a new appreciation for Ray himself. I am starting to think that he is a satirist. I haven't been to his blog in a while, but I see that he has just posted a how-to guide for spotting a con:

• "Blind the simple with pseudo-eloquence";
• When you ask for ONE transitional fossil, complain because there are too many examples;
• Use a unique definition of "transitional fossil" and "survive"; and
  
• Insist that even if all of the evidence points to evolution, it is really proof of creation.

As I write this, no comments have been posted on this particular post, but it's just because Ray moderates comments. By the time you click that link, there will probably be dozens of responses, about half thanking him for proving the atheists wrong, a quarter patiently explaining why he's made a mistake, and a quarter explaining his mistake much less patiently.

I was planning to answer this question today anyway, but finding this post at the top of his blog this morning is a perfect coincidence. (Wait -- Ray probably doesn't believe in coincidences.) I really do think he might be a satirist. He thinks people should complain because there are TOO MANY fossils?

No, he can't be serious. This has to be a joke. His fans just haven't figured it out yet.

Dear Grampy,

You are very good at writing sentences.

If something's real, that means it's real. Sometimes you can't see things that are real. But they're still real. But sometimes people make up stories, and that isn't real. And if it isn't real, I can't believe it. That is why I do not believe in angels. I think it is just a story.

I want some things to be real, but they're not, so I do not believe them. I cannot believe it if it isn't real.

From Michael

Why didn’t I see this coming?

Dear everyone,

My mom says if there’s no tooth fairy, I don’t get money for my teeth. I want to get money, but I can’t believe it if it isn’t real.

Now I am thinking that maybe there is no such thing as angels. I think they might just be a story.

My mom says that my grampy has studied a lot and he is sure there are angels, but I think maybe he made a mistake. I think he might just think that because he is a church person. Church people might believe things that aren’t real. I like to go and watch church sometimes when my grampy is there, but I’m not a church person. I do like the bread at church. It would be good to have bread like that that was the size of my house. It would probably take me three days to eat it all.

If it isn’t real, I can’t believe in it. I can only believe in things that are real. Things like Cleopatra that are in books about real things. I know that Cleopatra was real. There are some books that are just stories and some books that are about things that are real.

Maybe angels aren’t real. I don’t know that for sure, but I don’t know how I would find out. I don’t think God needs guards. That doesn’t make sense. And I am pretty sure that angels are guards for God.

From Michael

I've seen fire and I've seen rain

Reader-submitted question: I am impressed with Flame of God: didn't think there was that much fire & brimstone that close to the pole, but you seem to be carrying the torch admirably (heh). I have to wonder, though, how many of the people you are targeting actually appreciate which side of the skewer they are on, god bless 'em.

Interesting question. I'm not sure what the answer is.

Uriel's about fundies, not your normal mainstream Christians. I happen to know several of these, and they are quick to distance themselves from the personality you'll see over there. They'll send me messages that are clearly intended to reassure me that they're not fundies, like Ha Ha! That was hilarious! or Man, those people rot my socks. Thanks for pointing out that they're hypocrites.

Uriel popped into my head the day after the 2006 American election. I used to keep those posts here on this site, but I set up the other blog about a year ago after lots of people didn't get the joke. Somehow they were able to see that the Hasselhoff worship is all in fun, but they knew or knew of too many people like Uriel to be sure that it was satire.

Her blog gets almost no comments, so I honestly don't know what her readers think of it. A few Christians have contacted me to say that it's insulting or completely unrealistic. Most of the posts are based on something somebody's saying or doing, so I don't accept that it's unrealistic. I think the people who don't like Uriel would be better off dealing directly with the real-life fundies who are making their entire religion look bad.

Uriel doesn't specify which religion she's in, but she's based on real people in North America, so that doesn't leave many options available. That said, I don't consider her a true Christian, and neither would my friends who call themselves Christians.

Thanks for your question.

Leave the archbishop alone

I am simply THRILLED that the Archbishop of Canterbury wants Sharia law to be recognised in England. This is PERFECT.

In fact, I think that all people should be free to follow any laws they want, as long as they're religious. Civil laws, of course. Criminal laws would obviously continue to be set by the state. Otherwise, there would be anarchy. ANARCHY, I TELL YOU. The archbishop is a genius.

For example, there is a so-called "law" in Canada that says I'm not allowed to murder people, even if they annoy the hell out of me. I grudgingly accept this because it's a criminal law. The civil law, on the other hand, should be something I'm free to dismiss if I don't think it's in total compliance with my religion. Therefore, things like contract law and family law should be run any way I want. Yes. ESPECIALLY family law. Who said anything about the best interest of children? It should be all about ME, ME, ME.

And this is perfect timing, because I've just made up my own religion and the current civil-law system here in Canada is causing me a LOT of cultural stress. It just does not work with my values. It is great to have support from a fellow religious leader for my new laws.

Of COURSE I'm the leader of my new religion. Duh.

"My only criticism is..."

Reader-submitted complaint: ...NOT ENOUGH HOFF. Your blog has been a little light on the Hoff lately.

Yes, I know. I've had a lot of reader-submitted items and haven't been able to get to the stuff that really matters. This will be rectified shortly.

Until then, I leave you with proof that God exists: He talks to David Hasselhoff.

Amid all the adversity, whenever I had problems, God always said 'Here's Chicago, here's a book, here's the No. 1 TV show, here's the No. 1 movie, here's a recording deal, here's two million downloads. I'm gonna make you the biggest star in the world, David, and I'm going to give you responsibility with that, and you can either take it or you can fuck it up.' I fucked it up, I've taken it.

He is so inspiring. David, I mean. Well, now that I think about it, so is God. How come I never get messages from heaven promising to make me the biggest star in the world? It must be because I'm not hot enough.

Take no prisoners, only kill

Today's episode of Little Miss Know-it-All: Don't hand weapons to your critics.

A school board in southern Ontario has pulled The Golden Compass and the rest of the series out of its libraries after ten years of destroying faith, claiming that the books promote anti-Catholic values. (I imagine that their next step will be to ban Protestant churches.)

My other alter ego (actually, she's an "altar ego") wrote about this yesterday, but this is the sort of thing that Little Miss Know-it-All would normally write about, and I would not want to disappoint anyone. To anticipate a few readers' reactions: No, you do not have to apologise for the idiots on the Halton school board.

I have not read these books, but I certainly will now that I know they are so subversive that they could shake the faith of people who are otherwise secure in their belief in transubstantiation. All of my information about the series comes from the media.

I hear that the books include an evil organization called the Magisterium that controls the planet. Some Christians are furious. How dare anyone suggest that their religion tries to suppress speech it doesn't like? Ban that book immediately! Who cares about freedom of speech? Real freedom is freedom to censor!

I wish I was joking.

I'm going to hand out some free communications advice to anyone who is thinking about doing something similar:

• First, please don't do it at all. It's just asking for trouble. You will be laughed at, and even people who share your religion will be embarrassed.
  
  
• If you decide that you really have to clamp down on dissent, it's better if you're not doing it in the name of an organization that's already known for similar activities. For example, if you're a member of a religion that, say, used to burn people at the stake for having different ideas, don't say that your actions are being done in the name of the same religion.
  
  
• If you can't stop yourself, do it quietly, for goodness sake. (And for God's sake.) Don't put out a press release that proudly announces that you are pulling books out of the library because they accuse your religion of trying to silence its critics.

The best reaction, of course, would be one or more of the following:

• Laugh. These are NOVELS. It's great that kids are reading instead of playing video games. And you're secure enough in your beliefs that a novel's not going to change anything, right?
  
  
• Teach kids to think critically. That way, they'll understand why your religion is right, right?
  
  
• Just shut up. Why give extra exposure to books that you don't want kids to read?

I think what bugs me most about this is that these books were apparently fine until the last few months. Who cares that the author's an agnostic? Is the school board going to pull every agnostic author's books out of the libraries? Where does THAT stop?

I don't mind having specialised libraries with a focus on a particular topic. For example, my alma mater's library has a special focus on classics, theology and journalism, reflecting the classes that are taught at the school. But I don't recall any announcements from the board of governors that Galileo's writings were being banned because his understanding of motion challenged the Aristotelian Cosmos. (Perhaps this is because my school is not Catholic.) (HAHAHAHAHA. Just kidding.)

This one time...

Reader-submitted complaint: Hey! What's wrong with band camp?!

Nothing. Is someone overly sensitive today?

I've never been to band camp. It would wreck my ironic hipster image.

HAHAHAHAHA.

The truth is that I am far geekier than anyone who went to band camp. I have been to Bible camp more times than I can count for many different kinds of workshops, camps and conferences.

I went to Bible camp for about eight years. It's how I met a lot of the people I was friends with throughout my teen years. I even ended up going to university with one of them -- he is now a clergyman in a town near Bay Roberts.


Other than my parents, I think my overseas readers will be the only ones who will know who this is. Jonathan partnered up with my best friend for some time after Bible camp in 1994 (I can't bring myself to use the word "dated"), but that eventually didn't work out. In any case, the three of us went to Halifax to go to school together, and my friend discovered that yet ANOTHER boy from Bible camp was more to her liking.

If I'm giving the impression that Bible camp was all about hooking up, it sort of was. Parents: do not let your kids go to Bible camp. Nothing good can come of it.

My dad was almost always at Bible camp when I was there. I am what extremely annoying church people call a "PK", which is short for "preacher's kid". If you already knew what a PK is, please don't say so. It will completely destroy my mental image of my readers as ironic hipsters. I would really rather not know that you have covered your guitar case with Jesus Was Way Cool stickers, and I'm better off without knowing that you have a Real Men Love Jesus tattoo. Way to tacky up your own religion, guys.

If there were band camps when I was in high school, I wasn't aware of them. Perhaps a reader can enlighten the rest of us. Is it like Bible camp? Do you know it's geeky and yet wear it as a badge of honour?

Oh. My. Gawd.

What the hell is a strap wrench and why is Lydia getting beaten with one EIGHT TIMES whenever she misses a pill or raises her voice?

Please, please, someone tell me this Christian Domestic Discipline thing is a sick joke. I cannot stand it any more.

Lydia's feeling really good, because she now has a list of things about herself that she needs to improve. Sometimes she doesn't do enough housework, or she doesn't sleep enough. Also, Lydia has a big attitude problem. Fortunately, her husband is determined to beat these things out of her, and they are making real progress. Even though her kids have been sick and she has been very stressed, she has only raised her voice once in the last nine days.

WHY did I subscribe to this woman's feed?

More about CDD.

This is just too much

I hesitate to put the "religion" label on these Christian Domestic Discipline ("CDD") posts, but that's the label the practitioners have put on themselves, so...

Our buddy Lydia (the one who is required to ask for a beating every night before 9pm) has a friend. And not the sort of friend who would be helping her with a safety plan or finding a secret signal that could be used to call the police, but a friend who is helping her "normalize" wife abuse.

I don't know why I even look at these things.

Joannie has a really loving husband, especially when she's tired after a long day of working and taking care of the house. He helps her fall asleep by beating her. On Friday, he was even more loving than usual, because she was extra stressed. He beat her extra hard, and when she told him it hurt a lot, he beat her even harder. Then he had his way with her. What a loving husband. It's always nice when sadism and family violence can mix together so smoothly. He should write books like the ones Lydia is now selling. Then even MORE people could think that this is a religious obligation.

Best of all, Joannie's husband is passing this loving lifestyle on to the next generation. Their grandson lets Mr. Joannie know when she needs a beating. Her serious crimes include:

• Paying one of her daughter's bills
• Buying candy
• Being tired
• Getting upset about the constant interruptions when she's trying to work
• "Refusing to shut up after a warning"
  

Joannie's husband is super loving. For example, when they go on trips, she's not allowed to leave their hotel room by herself. I can't imagine what it would be like to be so loved, especially when she is obviously such a bad person that she needs to be beaten to keep her in line.

More about CDD

S&M for men = religious obligation for women?

More about Christian Domestic Discipline

Quick, quick!

The Christian Domestic Discipline site has de-password-protected itself. Hurry up, would-be wife beaters!

Here's my favourite quote from the entire site, from a true gentleman who calls himself "Pastor Bob":

If I demand that my wife wear anything that makes her uncomfortable, causes her pain or puts her health at risk, embarrasses or humiliates her, then I am no longer acting in the Spirit of Christ as commanded in Ephesians 5.

The context is important. Pastor Bob wants everyone to know that women can wear pants if they want to. Got that, guys? Your wife doesn't have to wear dresses all the time, as long as she lets you beat her whenever you think she needs it. It's in the Bible.

If the site makes you vomit, I've summarized it here. The two bloggers haven't posted anything in a while. I don't know if they've been driven underground or if they've been beaten so badly they can't blog.

More about CDD

What. The. Fuck???

UPDATED NOV. 4: Welcome! I seem to be getting a lot of hits to this page. There's a whole blog here, and most of it's not about domestic discipline. I'm not sure how you got here, but please feel free to look around.

I was surfing the Internet the other day and had the distinct pleasure (or not) of stumbling across a website for practitioners of "Christian Domestic Discipline" (CDD).

No, it's NOT a fetish site. It's for people who are sick and tired of finding nothing but porn every time they search the Interweb for information about wife-beating. I thought it was a parody site at first, especially when I saw they were selling crotchless bloomers, but apparently those are intended to make the beatings easier on the man. No need to wait for your wife to drop her underwear if she's wearing those!

I couldn't pull myself away. I kept reading in horror. You probably thought that hitting women was family violence, but boy oh boy, were you ever wrong. It's called "non-consensual CDD". These guys are against that. The wife has to submit to it freely, even if she's hurt or scared. You see, if the woman agrees to the beating, it's totally OK. Those other sickos who beat their wives without consent are the real problem.

There's even a list of frequently-asked questions for men. They include questions about whether women really need to be beaten to tears (Answer: Yes, because it humbles women), if it's good to listen to what women say (Answer: No, because women already have plenty of girlfriends to listen to them), and what to do if the beatings don't help the problem (Answer: Beat her again, of course!).

In the interest of transparency and all that Web 2.0 stuff, these guys have linked to blogs by women who are doing this. If I could figure out where they live, I would call the police to rescue them. This is truly awful stuff.

Lydia Russell is upset because some visitors to her site have offered help to get out of her abusive marriage. Others have told her she is going to hell. I have to say that this is probably not the best way to help a victim of family violence. If you go over there, please don't say anything like that to her.

Lydia and her husband have put a few rules in place:

1. She can ask for a beating if she is feeling guilty about something.
2. She has to ask for a beating every night before 9 pm.
   
3. She cannot change her mind about getting beaten.
4. If she does not ask for a beating, her husband will beat her anyway, and then she will be required to ask for two beatings the next day.
   
5. She has to trust that he will beat her as hard as he thinks she needs it.
6. Her husband will decide how much recovery time she gets after each beating. If she selfishly wants more time, she will get a second beating.
7. She has to do what he asks her to do when he asks her to do it. Otherwise, you guessed it, she gets another beating.

This is causing problems, because:

1. She does not want to be beaten. Just when she knows she needs it the most, she remembers how much it hurts.
2. She does not always want to do what he tells her to do, and sometimes wants to wait a minute or so before she does it.
3. Sometimes she wonders if he really needs to beat her as hard as he does. Other times she thinks she needs to be beaten harder.
   
4. For a while, the beatings were just another part of the evening routine. She wants them to be more than that.

Debbie Lee, on the other hand, is struggling with a weight problem and really wants to weigh 140 pounds. I would like to recommend the SELF Challenge instead of what she is currently doing: getting beaten every time she eats more than 1800 calories in a day or doesn't lose weight in a week. Her husband walks her to the scale and she tracks her weight to the tenth of a pound.

Debbie's blog also details beatings for the following misdemeanors:

1. Burning a pan on the stove.
2. Accidentally turning on the stove while cleaning her in-laws' house.
3. "Disrespecting" her husband. I have no idea what that means.

Fortunately, at least in Debbie's mind, she deserves every beating she's ever gotten. These beatings leave her sore but not bruised the next day. Therefore, there's nothing wrong with them. (I seem to recall that Bill Sampson was almost never bruised during his daily beatings in Saudi Arabia. That was probably OK, too, especially since he was also being punished for mistakes.)

A few readers have described their own weight-loss efforts and suggested that it might be easier if there were no beatings involved. They have experienced weeks of no weight loss, even when they have stayed on the diet. Debbie does not agree.

I think I might throw up. Both women have female readers who have left comments about their own need for beatings: Sometimes they forget to log off the computer! They don't set reminders on their cell phones! What, do you expect their husbands to just forgive them for mistakes? Then there's this gem from someone named Will: "Your husband is so lucky to have a wife who understands when she need discipline from his belt. My fiance has some understanding, too, but she is still far too outspoken. I will continue to be patient with her as I teach her to be submissive one spanking at a time."

UPDATED: More about CDD