I'm at a loss as to how, or whether, to rejoin this discussion!
Possibly the word "fantasy" is problematic though I'm unsure what to offer as an alternative.
I'm not saying that ttwd doesn't work - but that it works as a whole package. There is a lot more happening in any ttwd-interaction than just punishment (that's why we all get so confused about our feelings). Artlover, I think, has expanded on it beautifully and much more cogently than I can. One of my concerns is that when the relational side of ttwd is ignored it can lead to a dangerous misapprehension that a failure to effect a change in behaviour can only be corrected by escalating the severity of the punishment. Over and over again I've read descriptions of the state of connection and catharsis that comes after a "good" spanking. But when a top starts off too hard and heavy, it can be difficult to sustain the episode long enough to get to that point. As a bottom I can testify that there is a world of difference between those types of spanking. If the detterant factor alone were controlling my behaviour then it would make sense that the latter type would be as or more effective than the former. But in reality, what is more likely to stop is the bottom's willingness to submit, rather than the behaviour that was the target of the punishment.
Louise - I didn't intend to be offensive in my deconstruction of CDD (well I guess I did really, but I'm sorry if I have upset you). Splorange has reiterated my point so nicely I don't need to. But it isn't my position that men are in anyway worthless or expendable or interchangeable. Sometimes when I watch Himself watching our children with such naked pride and love in his face, I think that if something were to happen to him, or if our relationship were to fail, and I ended up with a new partner, that another man, no matter how kind, would never look at the chidren that way. It frightens me so much to think of losing him, for his sake, for mine, but most of all for the children.
But I think that any society/philosophy/religion that does not value children above all else is dangerous and wrong, and history proves that over and over. Where children aren't treasured, mothers don't matter, women aren't valued, and men, who may hold the outer trappings of power are interchangeable at best, cannon fodder at worst. Hmmm, I suppose it is only fair to admit that I'm recovering from a deeply embarrassing Phillipa Gregory binge!!! But even more recently the layers upon layers of the clerical child abuse scandals coming to light surely back up my point?
I think men and women are different but equal, and I think that one of the goals of modern feminism is to cherish men. If we can't value each other, or we believe one better than the other, we are only paying lip service to the notion of equality.
Splorange - I think you were quoting your boyfriend's view originally on the expendability (?) of men, and I can't help wonder if that view is in part his way of coming to terms with the risks of a military career?
This has become such an intersting thread, but it has swung off it's original course and I'm conscious I haven't addressed the original topic! I love the simplicity of the approach you've achieved ddlovelife - it covers a multitude and the only parts to remember are the most important principles instead of tonnes of rules. We are still in the early stages, and have too few rules to forget yet. I hope we get to the point where we need to simplify one day!