Christian BDSM

[Jenny _S]

I wasn't going to point this out, Pure. But YOU cited the scripture:

//Again, clearly not, e.g.
"Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men, nor thieves, nor covetous...shall inherit the kingdown of God."
1 Cor 6:49.
//

I would like to point out that chapter six of First Corinthians has only 20 versus. So making up 29 more is less than impressive.

In fact the only chapter in 1 Cor that has 49 verses or more is 15. 1 Cor 49 reads "And just as we have borne the image of the one made of dust, we shall bear also the image of the heavenly one." This doesn't even bare on the subject.

The verse you wanted to cite was 1 Cor 6:9,10. When I pointed out that Paul would not marry because his mind was set on he work, look at 1 Cor 12.

 

[MathGirl]

Dear JennyS,
You dared to correct Pure? That shows courage, but it won't do any good. Like casting pears before shine.
MG
Ps. Versus what?

 

[Jenny _S]

ROFL

Dear JennyS,
You dared to correct Pure? That shows courage, but it won't do any good. Like casting pears before shine.
MG
Ps. Versus what?

I think that should read "Casting pop-beads before pigs."

I corrected Pure because he was wrong. The bible is something he really shouldn't argue with me.

 

[Chicklet]

I was really wondering just what it is in Christianty that raises special issues regarding BDSM? What sort of things would they discuss in a Christian BDSM group that wouldn't be discussed in, say, a pagan BDSM group or an atheist BDSM group? What does it mean to be a Christian Dom or sub?

Could anyone other than a member of that group really answer you? I can't think of what they might say, but I guess I have some ideas.

You've got a group of people raised in a religion, so they all have the same background. You've got the same group of people narrowed down to having a small fetish. They're both members of two communities, the christian and the bdsm. Combine them and you've got a smaller number, and maybe more sense of belonging in the community. That might be the appeal. You're talking with people who not only share your very special relationship, but also your religion, which for some people is a major part of their lives. I think that's probably the appeal. Who knows what exactly they bring up? They could bring up anything...they probably feel more comfortable discussing sexual things with people they know have a more similar background than others.

-Chicklet

 

[MathGirl]

Oopsie

Scuse me, parme.

 

[Guest]

Jenni_S:

Hey, Jenn. Just adding my admiration for your thinking, expression and plunging into this muddy thread. I don't believe anyone on it knows much theology, and going mostly on personal experience, subjective ideas and anecdotes will end nowhere fast (hopefully).

In Catholicism one should know the current (i.e., back to the Vatican II preparations) thinking vs. doctrine/dogma which is only relevant to Rome and right-wing RC's. There are brilliantly creative thinkers among Christian theologians who focus on the nature of the human person and therefore human sexuality in ways that would boggle Pure's mind (well, a bit more than its current boggledness).

I'm staying out of this now, not worth my thinking here.

regards, Perdita

 

[MathGirl]

Re: ROFL

Originally posted by Jenny _S I corrected Pure because he was wrong. [/B]

Dear JS,
That is frequently the case. He states his errors with impressive length, certainly, and pedantry, though.
MG

 

[Pure]

Hi Jenny, aka "the Courageous"

Yes, that's a typo all right.


It should read, as you say. 1 Cor 6:9,10. You take 75 words to announce that correction? Bravissimo!

You've never addressed my points, however, or documented yours.

Should you ever present a case, I'll deal with it.

Tell about Paul's wife.

Tell why he might approve of SM; because he says nothing? An argument from silence is always weak. He didn't talk the Roman penchant for crucifixions and bloody reprisals, or widespread slavery and its evils, or whether he thought there was a virgin birth. The best conclusion is often: we don't know.
====

MG, I warned you about the problems of two clit piercings in a single day. Take a Tylenol and write when the swelling goes down.

 

[Jenny _S]

Hmmm

I will make two comments.

First, Timothy recognized Paul as an overseer to the 1st century congregation. I will direct you to 1 Tim:2-6. If you read that, in order to be an overseer it must be man who meets certain criteria, the first of which is "...a husband of one wife..." By this time Paul had to have been married since this epistle was written as an edict of the Christin Council.

Second, I would direct you to 1 Cor 7:3-9. This section defines the role of wives, husbands and children. In fact, verse 3 tells husbands to be screwing their wives. Does it say they have to torture their wives or have them submit to bondage in the terms that you want to assign? No.

The first century Christians saw women much as they were seen by the historic Hebrews, as something owned. Almost the entire book of Numbers is a census of the tribes. I dare you to show me where a single woman was even counted. The census deals only with men. Another Book that comes to mind is the story of Ruth in which the entire book is devoted to Ruth finding a new "owner" after the death of her husband.

At that time, and earlier in the Old Testament specifically in both Deuteronomy and Leviticus beatings are prescribed for women due to offenses. But these are real beatings intended as real punishment.

BDSM deals with sexual play. Beatings, spankings and so on come from assumed or contrived offenses and are intended for sexual pleasure. So, is there a place in the bible that says you cannot perform such an act? No. Are there scriptures that allow married men and women the freedom to perform sexual acts among themselves that bring pleasure. Yes, many. I've already cited a couple.

Your contention that if the bible doesn't say you can then you can't is ludicrous. Does it say you can fly in an airplane? Does it say you can sit here on the Internet? No. if you intend to say an act is unholy because the bible doesn't specifically approve, then you should move into the wilderness and give up everything except those things the bible allows.

Try another attack. That one doesn't hold water.

 

[Azalea]

The one day I decide to peek in to see what folks are up to lately, and I find a thread on Christian BDSM! Thanks, Dr. Mabeuse......this is all quite fascinating, and you well know it is of great interest to me.....

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Peering through all the smoke from the arguments, it looks to me like Chicklet must be right: that "Christian BDSM" means no more than the practice of BDSM by people who consider themselves to be Christians. It probably doesn't differ from regular BDSM in any substantial way.

It makes me wonder though: where does relion's general aversion to sex come from if it doesn't come from the foundation documents of Judeo-Christianity? Where did we get the idea that sex for pleasure was inherently wrong, if not downright sinful?

A lot of religions distance themselves from the idea of recreational sex being wrong these days, but I think most people would admit that for a long time most sexual practices other than coitus for procreation were viewd by the religious establishment as morally wrong. Where'd that idea come from?


---dr.M.

 

[gauchecritic]

I think most people would admit that for a long time most sexual practices other than coitus for procreation were viewd by the religious establishment as morally wrong. Where'd that idea come from?

---dr.M.

At a guess, probably from prostitution. Having sex without procreation for money could well be viewed as 'nasty'. Then it's just a short hop to sex without procreation that's deemed to be 'nasty'. So organised religion (read Government) merely reflects the will of the people.

Gauche

 

[Guest]

"family values"

I know many common senseical and progressive sociologists and theologians would add to Gauche's guess the focus on the nuclear family. Both in Jewish and Christian nations which survived within state-religions the family was the unit of commerce and government holding society together. Extra-marital sex (of any sort) became sinful/illegal (more so on the wife's part naturally) and so sex became something more than a special intercourse between men and women. It's still tied in to governments and institutional religions despite the separation between church and state in the first world; just ask Bush or Blair.

Perdita

 

[Guest]

 

[Pure]

Hi Jenny,

Thanks for the thoughtful response.

I'll not pursue the marriage of Paul issue, though I did survey a few sites through Google. There are occasional sources that think Paul was married, mainly because he was a Jew and even a Pharisee.

Responding to a couple paras.

BDSM deals with sexual play. Beatings, spankings and so on come from assumed or contrived offenses and are intended for sexual pleasure. So, is there a place in the bible that says you cannot perform such an act? No. Are there scriptures that allow married men and women the freedom to perform sexual acts among themselves that bring pleasure. Yes, many. I've already cited a couple.

OK, we're agreed that any sex straight or kink (SM) is not going to be allowed in a strict NT based Paul-based ethic, right?

I don't see that 'freedom to perform' or maybe don't know its meaning. There is freedom to have intercourse, clearly. Your quotation earlier sust says

Let the husband render unto the wife her due, and likewise also the wife unto her husband. ... Defraud you not one another [withhold sex] (1 Cor 7:3,5)

This does not sound like a general license to unlimited kink, but who knows. Which brings me to your last para.


Your contention that if the bible doesn't say you can then you can't is ludicrous. Does it say you can fly in an airplane? Does it say you can sit here on the Internet? No. if you intend to say an act is unholy because the bible doesn't specifically approve, then you should move into the wilderness and give up everything except those things the bible allows.

Quoting what I actually said,
//Tell why he might approve of SM; because he says nothing? An argument from silence is always weak. He didn't talk the Roman penchant for crucifixions and bloody reprisals, or widespread slavery and its evils, or whether he thought there was a virgin birth. The best conclusion is often: we don't know.//

it bears no relation to what you say. Further, your examples, unlike mine, are of things Paul couldn't have known. As in my quote, I'd say we often don't know. Where an issue existed before his eyes, like widespread slavery, it *may to justified, since the topic comes up in a minor way [without being condemned], to say, "He apparently had no objection to 'humane' slavery." In many cases though--would you agree--arguments from silence are shakey.

We can only look at Paul's general approach and principles, and those of the fellow Jews with whom he was educated, and try to extrapolate. Consider this BDSM scenario.

The wife strips her hubby, and lays him kneeling and bent over the bed, tied so. She dons a large dildo, strap on and commands, "Say you're my bitch." He does, "Now beg for it right up the ass." When he does not, she takes a cane to his butt, till there are bloody welts, then asks again; he says "Fuck my ass hard", and she jams the giant thing in there and does so. She then allows him only the satisfaction of rubbing off on the side of the bed.

I don't think Paul would approve because of change of sex roles, avoidance of intercourse, spilling of seed, among other things. Generally I'm inferring that Paul might have something like a natural law approach; certain sexual act have a purpose and justification in terms of 'natural consequences.'


Do you think the above scene would fall under your 'freedom to perform sexual acts...that bring pleasure'? If not, then perhaps a NT based ethic does not go very far in the direction of permitting not-so-mild bdsm.

I'm trying to avoid the likely error of saying "if it's not allowed it's forbidden'. Would it not be appropriate if you avoided the the opposite, blanket approach [which your quote about freedom may be saying; I'm not totally sure]: "if it's not forbidden, it's allowed."

Best regards,

J.

 

[deliciously_naughty]

Shrug...I'm pagan

We're all for sex in all consenting methods and means.


edited to add...between adults

 

[Guest]

 

[dr_mabeuse]

At a guess, probably from prostitution. Having sex without procreation for money could well be viewed as 'nasty'. Then it's just a short hop to sex without procreation that's deemed to be 'nasty'. So organised religion (read Government) merely reflects the will of the people.

Gauche

But how would the prohibition against prostitution mutate into the idea that things like oral & anal sex are immoral? I mean, I'm pretty sure there are still laws on the books here in some states that make oral sex illegal even between husband and wife. I think Georgia just recently threw out its anti-sodomy law within the last couple of years. Almost all states used to have them.

I guess what I'm looking for is the religious origins of Puritinism, the general idea that any kind of pleasure is suspect, but especially sexual pleasure. Puritanism is still a very formidable idea in America, less in Europe I think., and I think its roots go back to Northern Europe.

All religions I'm more or less condone aceticism and denial of earthly pleasures for those seeking spiritual development, but it's a pretty long jump from that to passing laws that forbid oral sex.


---dr.M.

 

[Guest]

I guess what I'm looking for is the religious origins of Puritinism, the general idea that any kind of pleasure is suspect, but especially sexual pleasure.

Mab., sorry I don't have time to answer substantively but Puritanism is tied tightly to the politics of the time (i.e., Church and State issues); witness their withdrawal to a new land (which still bears those founding fathers' prinsiples). The 'elders' fed the fodder to their flocks who already feared the flames of hell. It's not such a big jump as you put it.

Perdita

 

[Guest]

 

[Pure]

Mabeuse said,

I guess what I'm looking for is the religious origins of Puritanism,



Well, for starters it's an element in Paul despite his sanctioning proper sex in lawful marriage. To convey the flavor:

"Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without[outside] the body but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body. 1 Cor 6:13 RV


"if they [unmarried] are not practising self control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion" 1 Cor 7:9


... us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit. For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the spirit the things of the sprit. For the mind of the flesh is death; but the mind of the spirit is life and peace: because the mind of the flesh is enmity against God.... they that are in the flesh cannot please God. But ye are not in the flesh, but in the spirit,....
Rom 8:4-9

===
Now I think you will find body/mind dualism long before him, in Socrates and Plato; and more relevantly the Stoics. It's in the Judaism of the written Torah. But the one element was not so down graded. There's something about period about the start of Common Era (plus or minus a couple hundred years from 1CE) that led to world denials, as in Paul and most Christian Gnostics.
Maybe it's just the opposite end of the balance been from the likes of Nero and co.

As to governments, I don't see how they profit from the extreme; but every society suppresses sex in non-essential ways. (See Marcuse, 'surpless repression') Except for the Cainites and anti-nomian Gnostics (and their ilk) there's not community in history that has said, for the common person, "Have all the sex you want, any way you can get it, among consenting adults." I believe our time is pretty unique, though with GWB and 'born agains' [like our pal, rhino, when he's feeling holy ]we'll be re- instituting some of the laws against odd sex, kink, etc. that have been undone in recent years of corrupt liberalism, pinko atheist Supreme Court members, etc.

 

[Chicklet]

Puritanism is still a very formidable idea in America, less in Europe I think., and I think its roots go back to Northern Europe.

Although I know some stuff about religion, I don't know enough to try to start answering your questions. I do think that America will take a very, very long time to shrug off our puritan roots, though, even if we don't even realize they're still here. We sort of remain "behind" the rest of the world in that respect...showing breasts in magazines is baaaad, for instance.

 

[Guest]

 

[destinie21]

But how would the prohibition against prostitution mutate into the idea that things like oral & anal sex are immoral? I mean, I'm pretty sure there are still laws on the books here in some states that make oral sex illegal even between husband and wife. I think Georgia just recently threw out its anti-sodomy law within the last couple of years. Almost all states used to have them.

I guess what I'm looking for is the religious origins of Puritinism, the general idea that any kind of pleasure is suspect, but especially sexual pleasure. Puritanism is still a very formidable idea in America, less in Europe I think., and I think its roots go back to Northern Europe.

All religions I'm more or less condone aceticism and denial of earthly pleasures for those seeking spiritual development, but it's a pretty long jump from that to passing laws that forbid oral sex.


---dr.M.

As usual I'm going to go off on a tangent

Ready okay. To start we really need to go back to 16th century (1500s) England when King Henry VIII broke with the Roman Catholic Church. This event did not constitute the Reformation in England. Rather, an English Catholic church with Henry as its head was created. Today it is known as the "Anglican Church" or the "Church of England," and the reigning monarch
holds the title "Defender of the Faith." The American "cousins" of the Church of England are"Episcopalians."

Puritanism as a movement greatly influenced by the Reformation but whose main objective was to purify the Church of England of its Roman Catholic-style ritual, liturgy, and organization. The most radical of the Puritans sought a return to primitive Christianity. The important thing to remember is that it was a movement within the Church of England.
Those differences in ritual and liturgy should be fairly obvious to anyone who has been in Catholic, Episcopal, and Protestant churches.

The deeper differences of organization are not as visible, but they are very important for an understanding of the American experience. see the Puritans held very revolutionary ideas derived from both Luther and Calvin. The major ones were:
an insistence on vernacular services;
that the sermon was of great importance;
that a priest is not a necessary intermediary (as he is in the Catholic Church);
all believers are equal in the sight of God;
the church itself should democratically decide its leadership;

literacy because Scripture reading and sermons became extremely important, and even (gulp!) females needed to be taught to read;
However there was no way to keep the now educated “masses” (a term I use loosely as most couldn’t read) from reading untoward material. Enter censorship

Puritan beliefs appealed very much to the lower classes because of the democratic view inherent in the theology and organization

. That is, vertical movement was encouraged, and everyone did not have to stay in the position he was born. Naturally, as you might expect, these ideas were not popular with the monarchy. Puritans suffered for their beliefs, and their struggle had a great effect on the English history of this time, not to mention setting the stage for American revolutionary struggle.

The younger generation was losing its religious identity;
they perceived a threat from Arminianism (Jacobus Arminius -- everyone can be saved); they were not doing well economically. So Blurring of political and religious authority--theocracy, not democracy was birthed and Halfway Covenant developed to allow unbaptized members (children of Puritans) to vote and thus preserve influence of Puritan authorities. Which is the start of the puritanical laws The puritans and separatists and Calvinists began to outweigh the Original church in America and as a result each group came to political power(dominance) at one time or another so the laws became convoluted at every turn. Eventually all but the separatists sort of meshed and now we call them puritanical. The separatists of course wanted no part of the church. The others wanted the church but they sought to change it.

I don't know overmuch about Puritism in England except that it was more controlled because of the monarchy. Which may be why it didn't spin off as it did in america.

 

[deliciously_naughty]

Puritans & Sex

Puritans were actually not anti-sexual. Within the confines of marriage, sex was seen as a positive, and necessary aspect of life. In fact, in some early communities, marriage between two individuals might wait until there was evidence of a pregnancy, or the "marriage" might just be a swearing of commitment in front of their neighbors until the next time the preacher/minister circuted through. If you read "A Midwife's Tale" by Laurel Thatcher Ulrich, you will see that occasionally the father would not be named until the birth was in progress, for it was thought that a woman giving birth couldn't lie.

The Puritans were uptight, hell yeah. But what they were uptight about was the way in which God was viewed, and the way society should be organized. However, they were much looser about sexual contact then we are taught in school.

The idea that they were anti-sex is actually an American Myth, along with the idea that the first thankgiving had Pilgrims and Wampanouag Indians sitting together and having a wonderful full dinner, or that the 50's were a golden era of American history.