Analysis - was Nagging - from the 1HouseholdDiscipline list

Fondly and Firmly - the Gentlemanly Art of Spanking the Woman you Love
Home new/ misc/ 1HouseholdDiscipline list DisciplineandHarmony list links/ Contact

Analysis - was Nagging

Sat, 06 May 2000

Fine points about not suppressing valid discussion.
Increasingly demonstrative levels of response to a problem.

Self control.
Guidance.
Instruction.
Punishment.

What constitutes "nagging"?
DD should not suppress long-term desires.
Similarity between glowing bottom, erect nipples etc. and the flushed faces and argument which arises when the Nag Demon has its way.
Our education minister, Mary Delahunty, saying "She's gorgeous when she gets angry!".
An isolated colony to which Drama Queens may be banished.

Mr Fondman 7 October 2000
This is an edited version of something I contributed to the 1HouseholdDiscipline discussion list.

The list's homepage is here: 1hd/ .

© 1999 to 2000. Let me know if you would like to quote from this or if you can suggest any improvements.

(This was in two parts on the list, but here it is in one page.) I agree with what Vicki and others wrote concerning the dangers of suppressing discussion and concerning the distinction between "nagging" and proper discussion, with examples such as not sticking to the point, making personal attacks and so on. This is a long rambling and/or systematic analysis which goes beyond the problem of nagging and suppression of discussion. I feel like I am rehearsing my thoughts for my book project! The threat of spanking or other disciplinary factors could suppress vitally needed expression and discussion, which would be disastrous for the relationship and for the person whose behaviour was suppressed. By definition, such "disciplinary" arrangements are inappropriate, destructive and probably abusive. Thinking as the devils-advocate, perhaps there are matters which are not vital to discuss, but one person insists on doing so. Generally, I think that if one person wants to discuss something, that is all that is required to make it a vital topic for both partners. Perhaps though, in the long term, they have agreed that some topics have been fully discussed and that it is tiresome and destructive to bring it up again. That needs to be a careful decision, though I guess it is not a permanent ban, since one partner could seek to discuss the possibility of discussing the unmentionable matter. As others suggested, "nagging" involves needless and vexing repetition, personal attacks, bad "tone" and/or drawing in other matters to create a messy, disturbing "discussion" - which may turn into an argument. I think the test for "nagging", and many other actions which may warrant disciplinary intervention, is whether the woman (for example) chose a reasonable and constructive approach, rather than one which was inflammatory, hurtful etc. I think that ideally, in the long term, after the heat of the moment, and with the benefit of discussion, reflection and wise judgment, the couple would have a close agreement on whether a particular action was below the standards they expect of each other. But DD is not very effective if implemented only in the fullness of time. By then, the damaging course of action has been fully pursued. The woman has hurt her man, caused excessive upset for them both, and will probably feel guilty about it later. Possibly, the man has been drawn into a fight and behaved badly as well. (In extreme cases of prolonged provocation, a normally loving and peaceful man may be driven for a moment beyond his self-control, and hit the woman - against all his long-term principles and with the likelihood of lasting physical and emotional damage and guilt, as well as legal repercussions. It takes less than a second of loss of control to break bones and smash teeth - a man's fist is a dangerous weapon.) Let me think, perhaps pedantically, of what would ideally happen if The Nag Demon is a problem in a relationship. For simplicity, this example assumes the Demon is in the woman. 1 - Ideally, the woman's instincts, habits and conscious thought lead her directly to a constructive approach, so the Demon doesn't get a chance. 2 - Ideally the woman recognises the signs of this corrosive, destructive path appearing before her, and consciously chooses to conduct herself better. This is where prior disciplinary action (from a look or a warning, to a talking-to or punishment) should create a new link in her brain so when the Demon is around, a special bell starts ringing. I refer to this as a little bell, but one woman who had already been punished for destructive behaviour referred to it as Big Ben - on an occasion when it was chiming loud and clear and she was still ignoring it. 3 - Failing that, by example or specific suggestion, the man should help her follow a constructive approach to the discussion. 4 - Failing that, the man should recognise the problem and give her a clear instruction or warning to change her tack. 5 - Less ideally now, and if the previous three stages have failed, he may take more demonstrative action to stop the rot before it gets any worse. This could be a refusal to be drawn into the discussion on the current corrosive basis, or a talking-to or punishment to put a stop to it. He should seek to discuss the matter in a constructive way as soon as possible. If the Nag Demon does win, then the couple should discuss the matter later - as well as the problems, the constructive course the woman should have pursued and how the man can cope better in the future at keeping their interaction on track. Perhaps it would be appropriate to punish her (lines, spanking, corner time . . . ) to help her learn to avoid the same mistake in the future, and to deal with her guilt. Clearly the first or second stages are the best - because the problem is nipped in the bud. It is relatively easy for both people to decide, days or weeks later, whether a course of action was acceptable or not. The task the man faces is to see problems as, or before, they arise and to do his best to steer the woman onto a constructive course. He doesn't have the benefit of a longer-term perspective on this particular situation - but it may be a situation he has encountered before and thought about carefully. If he doesn't act quickly, the rot will set in and it will get much messier. Also, if it gets really messy, he may be drawn into at and conduct himself in less than gentlemanly ways - which hurts the woman, causes her to lose respect and limits his ability to instill discipline. So perhaps a test for "nagging" is whether this approach is a constructive approach to dealing with the woman's concern. Constructive means that it will strengthen the relationship (or at least not corrode it) and maximise the chance that the root cause of the concern (or all the concerns which she has) will be resolved quickly and without distress for anyone. Unfortunately, it seems, some women have a powerful emotional engine in their brain which gets on its hobby-horse and charges valiantly at perceived enemies, with all the emotions, words, arguments etc. it can muster. In that state, when the charge is being mounted, the woman may be blinded that the enemy she is taking on is in fact her beloved man, and that by following her most tempting and satisfying instincts she will hurt him and do things she will later be ashamed of. It is a human trait - not a particularly female one - but once a person is deemed to be the enemy, once they are seen to be wearing the Black Hat, we can forget much of our past experience with them and instead focus on getting stuck into them in every mean and fiendish way we can devise. We feel, at the time, it is in the cause of justice, rationality and so on, and that it is for their own good anyway. In the physical realm, men have the advantage. In the verbal, emotional sphere, many women can run rings around their man and stick the boot in in ways he cannot cope with. (Is "running rings around" someone a distinctively Australian phrase for thoroughly and publicly out-doing and outmaneuvering someone?) Women seem to be more prone to the grip of the Nag Demon and men seem to be more prone to the Brute Demon - suppression of their partners actions on threat of outbursts of anger and physical, economic and emotional abuse. A gentleman does his best to ensure he doesn't nag, threaten, thump or do any of these unfair and destructive things. The crucial thing is for DD to help her see the danger before it starts, or to make it very easy for her to see the trouble ahead and make the right decision after she starts pursuing a corrosive path. This is a situation where the woman has (in the short term) lost perspective, and the man still has his feet on the ground, can see the danger and acts upon it constructively (as defined above). Another aspect of the man's support for his loved one should be positive re-inforcement of her constructive approaches. Those approaches will, by definition, have their own rewards in the form of relatively rapid resolution of the problem - but it would be good if the man specifically encourages and remarks upon constructive approaches, and makes suggestions to help her. If, in the long term, the woman actively *wants* to nag (or take some destructive approach when a problem arises) then DD will not work. (Men should avoid such women!) This is beyond the realm of DD - if someone really (in the long term) wants to make others miserable, by nagging, hitting, threatening and the like, and they don't respond to persuasive requests from others, then it would be wise to keep a good distance from such people. If DD did work in suppressing a long-term core desire of the woman, then that DD would arguably be oppressive and perhaps abusive - except where it could be shown that her core desire was destructive to herself, rather than just to other people. (I believe that a person should be free to solemnly choose to be an arsehole. They have to put up with no-one wanting to be their friend, and the actions of people and the law in protecting themselves. But to forcibly change a person's attitude by crushing emotional or physical pressure is arguably oppressive or abusive - even if it does make the world a better place in most people's opinion. To forcibly change a person's *self*-destructive attitude is not necessarily abusive or oppressive, since it may save their life - but these are tricky judgments . . .) If DD helped the woman realise correctly that her core desire was wrong, and so she consciously changed herself, then this would be good. If DD caused a woman to think that a genuinely good core desire of hers was wrong, then this would be an abusive use of DD. More tricky judgments! (BTW, I reject the 1990s, PC, fashionable edict that everyone should be non-judgmental. This is a judgmental and therefore hypocritical position . . . and one which I think is stupid.) DD is necessary and appropriate where the day-to-day problems are caused by the woman's short-term thinking being at odds with her long-term, wisely made, choices about how she wants to live. DD can only be effective and appropriate where the long-term desires of the partners are in alignment. It is a long term approach to solving short term problems in one partner's attitude and behaviour. Generally, disciplinary measures can only be effectively taken when the loss of perspective affects one partner only at a particular time. If both partners lose it, then neither should be acting forcibly against the other in a disciplinary sense. Hopefully, DD can prevent this occurring in the first place. Perhaps if they both do lose the plot and behave destructively, then DD can deal constructively with the problems later, when they have both cooled down. M->F DD requires that the man make the right decisions, in the short-term, in the heat of the moment - including issuing warnings and instructions, and perhaps administering punishment, interfering with the thinking and actions of his partner, against her strongly felt wishes at the time. Of course, at the time, she thinks or feels her actions and emotions *are* in harmony with longer-term wisdom. In the case of nagging, this probably means she *knows* that he must discuss this matter and take the actions she is urging . . . or "subtly suggesting" . . . him to take. The man has to over-rule this mistaken thought - in some cases forcefully, by spanking the woman there and then, against all her protests. He had better not suppress something important! (Or else . . . . !!!) Any disciplinary arrangements which stopped a couple discussing problems at all, or which suppressed the most constructive forms of discussion, would be a really bad thing, and arguably abusive. This email uses an errant woman and a wise, strong man as examples. Its not always like that - sometimes, the woman may have her feet on the ground and can see her beloved man heading for trouble. Sometimes, its always the man who is in need of discipline, and the woman is well placed to give it. DD can be just as appropriate for same-sex couples too. Nagging, however, does seem to be a peculiarly womanly activity. Fortunately, I have little experience of it! The above is written on the assumption that the couple, in the long term, wishes to minimise conflict in their relationship. However, some people like a bit of conflict - or a lot of it! Some people like their nipples teased pinched and inflamed. Some people, in the long term, like their bottoms slapped so hard they gasp and suffer intense pain, regret and angst at the moment. So it should not be discounted that some people, in their longer-term, wise thinking do like a good argument, like to provoke others emotionally and so-on. As our Victorian state government Minister for the Arts, Mary Delahunty (a well known former news reader) said in Parliament recently, of a female member of the opposition parties "She's gorgeous when she gets angry!". A glowing bottom and burningly erect nipples have their attractions, so its easy to imagine people thrilling to their beloved having a fuming and fiery mind and face. Some people are happy to get to this state with spanking and sensual/erotic teasing - pinching, tickling and the like. But a good taunting and argument produces similar effects. Some people no doubt, in the long term, consent to or relish such attentions. The above analysis still applies if the two partners agree, one way or the other, in the longer time and without pressure, that the optimum amount of drama, argument and conflict in their relationship is not zero. Of course, there may be no such agreement, which makes it tricky. For simplicity, assuming there was such an agreement, then a disciplinary arrangement which suppressed conflict below what was agreed to be healthy would be inappropriate. I don't know that it could be called "abusive". If it could be shown that a certain level of conflict was *vital* for the health of an individual and/or the health of the relationship, then suppressing of that conflict would arguably be abusive. There are some people who seem to thrive on drama - "Drama Queen" is the well recognised term for these people, men or women, here in Australia. Is this a recognised term in other countries? Ideally, drama queens would be sent to an isolated colony populated entirely by their own type, but I suspect that this would not satisfy them - they need fresh meat, they need to create genuine drama entangling people who hate being entangled, to fulfill their needs. Vampires don't get off sucking the blood of other vampires, do they? So if the recipient of DD genuinely, in the long term, wisely or unwisely wants or believes in the benefits of a significant level of conflict and drama, and the disciplinarian enforces a regime which prevents this from occurring, is that regime oppressive? The judgment involves deciding what is best for each individual - of which a major, but not necessarily over-riding, factor is their partner's happiness and the continuation of the relationship. - Mr Fondman