Christian Domestic Discipline.
Git yer crotchless pantaloons here!

Whatever bangs your shutters, people.
[h/t DR reader Leslie]
« "Ah remember when Ah was poor | Main | Stumbling back to the White House, »
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bf82953ef00d8351322d653ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference From the "God, I hope this isn't real" files...:
This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

You owe me breakfast, because I just lost mine. Please, please, please tell me this is a parody.
Posted by: piegrrrl | May 10, 2007 at 11:13 AM
Holding out for the split crotch Our Lady of Perpetual Discipline Cat Suit and Sling of Abraham discount pack.
Posted by: pvt pyle | May 10, 2007 at 11:33 AM
No, no, no, it seems real. I couldn't resist linking to their website. Also available: wife-spanking novellas ("contemporary and historical"). They really mean "domestic discipline."
Laughable, sad, and predictable how these hypocrites point their salty/sticky fingers at the rest of us.
Posted by: Saturn 5 | May 10, 2007 at 11:36 AM
There's been speculation lately about Mitt Romney's funny Mormon underwear, but this is more than we needed to know.
Let's hope Rudy G's oppo team gets a hold of this
Posted by: Space | May 10, 2007 at 11:42 AM
'Short and Sassy' looks kind of long and baggy to me.
What's with the crotchless thing? Is that for when one is out hoeing in the back 40? Or what?
Posted by: Caveat | May 10, 2007 at 11:46 AM
Caveat--Crotchless undies save hubby time and effort, so he'll get back to work and prayer quicker, with more energy.
Think of them as the conjugal equivalent of drive-thru banking
Posted by: Space | May 10, 2007 at 11:52 AM
What's with the crotchless thing?
Women's underwear in olden days typically had an opening at the bottom rather than a closed seam, so the wearer wouldn't have to remove the garment or pull it down when, say, using a chamber pot. You could call most men's underwear "open-front" for the same reason.
Posted by: Capital J | May 10, 2007 at 11:54 AM
Hey Caveat--Which of us do you believe? Capital J's historical approach or my intuitive one?
Posted by: Space | May 10, 2007 at 12:07 PM
Either way, the girls are getting some air with those crotchless pantaloons! I really think they are for the modest woman who does not care to disrobe for the wedded conjugal bliss. Because banging uglies while nekkid is DIRTY.
Posted by: mothra | May 10, 2007 at 12:45 PM
Whoa haven't I been barkin' up the wrong tree!
Well color me Christian!
Hooooweee!
Posted by: queek | May 10, 2007 at 01:13 PM
Woah.
I went and read one of the excerpts from the books.
Christian oriented spanking. I guess there is something for everyone.
Posted by: David (Austin Tx) | May 10, 2007 at 01:38 PM
well now, wonder how long before those end up in the vermont country store catalogue.
Posted by: pansypoo | May 10, 2007 at 01:40 PM
I was particularly taken with the section that deals with (sorry, can't help myself here)covering your ass on the legal front. Covering the husband's ass that is, by signing a consent-to-thwacking agreement. If the wife one day decides she's had enough of the breeze in her netherregions and the (supposedly) Biblically cheerled "discipline" of the "weaker vessel" by uber-Christian hubby, there's less of a chance he'll get arrested or sued. It's not some playful Christian S&M--it's about the legitimizing and fetishizing of the subjugation of women. But with neato workbooks and period lingerie! OK, off to barf now. --Yansu
Posted by: Yansu | May 10, 2007 at 02:14 PM
I simply LOVE the description of 'The Chronicles of Angelcynn Series': "Includes three complete novels! Erik of Falconhearst, Braden of Draigmere, and Torin of Cumberwulf".
CUMberwolf?! Hysterical.
Posted by: Margie in Austin, Texas | May 10, 2007 at 03:46 PM
Crotchless pantaloons - for the coolest Renaissance Fair/Talk Like a Pirate Day costume EVER!
Posted by: dan mcenroe | May 10, 2007 at 03:46 PM
Yup, I did send this one to WT
[/laughing]
Posted by: leslie | May 10, 2007 at 04:12 PM
bugger me senseless: christian spanking scenes?
Mme X would be laughing her socks off, as indeed did i
e
Posted by: emale_n7 | May 10, 2007 at 04:18 PM
This seems pretty real.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/A3DA46DUKT4P98
Posted by: Monica_A:Buddhist For Christ | May 10, 2007 at 04:27 PM
I just can't resist...
Who Would Jesus Spank?
Posted by: Varangian | May 10, 2007 at 05:24 PM
It is absolutely authentic for women's Victorian-style underwear to have an open crotch. The reason: Ever tried to pee while wearing a hoop skirt and corset, without stripping completely naked?
It's hard enough in less restrictive forms of historical costume, thanks... Where they're taking this, though, is just beyond weird.
Posted by: Interrobang | May 10, 2007 at 05:26 PM
Wow, major competition for Victoria's Secret.
Seriously, those people are sick.
Posted by: Leila | May 10, 2007 at 06:35 PM
O.M.G.
Posted by: res ipsa loquitur | May 10, 2007 at 07:06 PM
O.M.G.
Posted by: res ipsa loquitur | May 10, 2007 at 07:07 PM
Mormon garments used to be one piece, union suit like, and have a split crotch. This was until the early 1980s. Friends of mine wore regular undies over the garments, because, frankly, they were baggy as all hell. Then there was a revolution: two piece garments. The top (for women) looks like a chemise with cap sleeves, and the bottoms look like bike shorts. I've worn those.
But now I live in Arizona, and unlike so many of my neighbors, I don't wear garmies anymore. It's hot enough!
Posted by: Mirele | May 10, 2007 at 08:27 PM
the ablution solution: 100% prewashed muslims! what's not to like?
Posted by: punaise | May 10, 2007 at 08:40 PM
Another Islamic Threat!!!
PreWashed Crotchless Muslims!!!!
CODE RED!!!!
Posted by: larue | May 10, 2007 at 09:47 PM
Really, You have to go here ---->
http://360.yahoo.com/profile-0qBsZy09fqez8GOKBC1DcsJTlWM-?cq=1
This is the profile of the person who writes the Christian Domestic Discipline books.
I may post this again above.
Posted by: leslie :-D | May 10, 2007 at 10:34 PM
Hey Space,
I believe both you and Capital J. The original purpose, the modern (ha ha) application.
Man, these people are strange. Really strange.
Posted by: Caveat | May 11, 2007 at 12:10 AM
Leslie, methinks Leah has some "daddy" issues. Check out the hyper romantic background of the web page.
There is some "Christian" series of books out there that my brother's sister-in-law loaned me a while back that I just couldn't bring myself to read after the first two chapters. I couldn't decide if it was my own cynical outlook or actual perversion on the part of the author that made the book so squicky. Every line of dialogue between the heroine and her father was just oozing sexual overtones and the incestuous nature of their relationship, while not overt, was obvious. I was physically revulsed by this book and put it away to collect dust. I managed to forget about it until said person came to retrieve it before moving from the area. I've never looked at her the same way since, believe me.
Posted by: lowly grunt | May 11, 2007 at 12:43 PM
"Romantic Christian Spanking Fiction"--???
As opposed to "Romantic Christian Spanking Non-fiction"????
I am so confused.
The term "Spank the Monkey" must be problematic for these eroticized Bible Pumpers.
Jesus.
Posted by: JimmyDean'sFuckedUpCousinClyde | May 11, 2007 at 07:23 PM
I was particularly taken with the section that deals with (sorry, can't help myself here)covering your ass on the legal front. Covering the husband's ass that is, by signing a consent-to-thwacking agreement.
Don't laugh. There are more than a few attorneys who run thriving boutique practices dealing with just such agreements. Quite a few in "god's country"--not that they'd ever have need of that sort of thing, but one can never have too much CYA.
Posted by: Ruthie | May 12, 2007 at 01:04 AM