christian domestic discipline

[neonflux]

Bit besides the topic but I came across what Martin Luther had said:

"A woman has the right to take on a lover, if her husband isn't able to satisfy her in bed - and the husband should look on this with equanimity."

Wow! Martin Luther? Who ever would have guessed!!! Thank you for that tidbit.

 

[neonflux]

My point is that open-mindedness is not a requirement for BDSM. I can imagine lesbians frowning upon bisexual BDSM. I can't say I know any that would, but theoretically could exist and it wouldn't make their own lesbian experiences any less BDSM.

There's a difference between an individual's rejection of a particular practice and a whole society's rejection of same. I went out for coffee with a woman on Saturday who said she'd never gone to an SF Citadel monthly play party called the "Queer Playground" because she couldn't bear seeing men top women. However, she would never dispute their right to do same. The radical right would like to control ALL behavior, including access to hormonal birth control, that doesn't fit into their narrow interpretation of what is religiously correct. I will admit that I am making a bit of a leap here concerning CDD, in linking it to the radical right, but in terms of their justifications for their desires, when it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

You ventured that CDD is only "nominally consensual" for many women which I don't think is a call you're qualified to make. You're basing that on purely the fact that this type of BDSM is gender specific, which may be somewhat misogynistic (or perhaps misandristic to burden men with being the sole doms). I think women wouldn't participate in it if they didn't want to.

Now who is making assumptions? Please! There are a number of amazing heterosexual male Doms on this board for whom I have nothing but great respect, admiration and affection. The Dom whom I trusted enough to do my cleansing (no safewords) is bi but only has ongoing romantic relationships with submissive women w/in the context of a D/s relationship. I called it "nominally consensual" because it leaves no room for men or women whose desires & personalities run counter to conservative Christian social norms. And honestly, can you imagine a woman who lives in a radical right Christian household would turn down a husband who approached her with a desire for this type of relationship and grounded it in scripture, no matter what her own sexual desires were?

I say it's more natural because, in Western Civilization, the male is generally thought of as the head of the household and females hold a more subordinate role. Preference may not be proof, but it's a good enough reason.

But preference is only proof that male Dominance is natural to you, not to the human condition. I am not going to go into a history lesson here. But culture is a "construct." There is nothing inherently "natural" about the more recent "western" creations of same. Let's instead go to biology. Our closest relatives genetically among the great apes are chimps. The most recent research has found a 98.5% match in our DNA. Among chimps, the bonobo are our closest living relatives on the evolutionary tree. I profer a 1995 article on bonobo society and sexual norms that was initially published in Scientific American.

Yep. Most Christians I know don't like to talk about fucking or masturbating and think lust is a sin. One of my Christian friends doesn't believe in premarital sex and seems to feel guilty for feelings of lust. I've been to the Bay, but you seriously don't know any non-lascivious Christians?

Well, I grew up in Texas and spent about 3 months as an "evangelical, speaking-in-tongues, pentacostal Christian." (Was 14 and trying to heal my dad, who'd had permanent brain damage while in a coma, through a "proxy" laying on of hands.) Does that give you any indication? Actually, to be less flip, I do know folks like this and it makes me sad...

Neon

P.S., Oh, re: your Gor reference - even in Gorian society, which is actually far from Christian-based, Dominant women are given some slice of the pie - albeit a very, very teensy weensy and never in a leadership position over a man slice...

P.P.S., Hoping at least some of this tickled Etoile's very funny bone

 

[ownedsubgal]

well personally i found nothing silly or funny about the Christian DD site, tho i don't share their religious views and might find them somewhat misguided, their beliefs aren't illogical to me.

there are actually some of us in the lifestyle who do believe in a Natural Order, meaning that a female's rightful place is in submission to a Male, we just don't use the Bible or the Gor novels as a basis for this. tho i wouldn't go so far as to say that there is no such thing as a female Dominant or male submissive, i would certainly say that such people are anomalies, and that many more claim the titles than actually fit them. i'm an anti-feminist...the whole feminist ideal of free choice and you can be whatever you want to be just doesn't sit well with me, there's no solid ground, no higher PURPOSE (imo) behind such an ideal, and that makes me uncomfortable.

as for culture...i grew up in a culture and a household in which everything taught/pushed me to grow up to be an independent, roaring "don't need a man"-she-wolf. submit to a man...in ANY way?? i was taught the very idea was abhorrent and not to EVER let a man try and control me. i'm sure many of my generation can relate to such an environment...in today's western world, men and women are not simply supposed to be equals, but women should almost be dominant. anything else is seen as ignorant, backwards, abusive. but this never felt right to me. it occured to me that every single female-dominated relationship i knew was fraught with drama, tension, unhappiness. and the very few male-dominated relationships i saw were peaceful, fluid, content. i became a student of anthropology, and i observed how male dominated societies have been the natural course of things since the dawn of time, and how the few societies or cultures which have veered to female dominated or even "equality" have almost always ended in destruction. this is what i feel will eventually be the fate of western society, because we have veered sooooo disturbingly far from the Natural Order, and it makes me sad to be honest.

but, my Master and i realize most lifestylers don't share our views on this, although there are subsets here and which do specifically preach the Natural Order.

then again, my Master and i don't consider ourselves part of the "bdsm" lifestyle. we are D/s, we are M/s, but we are not bdsm. in fact i feel it'd be an insult to those who are true bdsm'ers for people like my Master and i to claim the label, as our views and values are so drastically opposed to the bdsm/leather philosophy and history. had we never heard of D/s, or consensual slavery, little would be different in our relationship. He would still be the Boss, the HOH, he would still discipline and punish me when he saw fit, i would still be under his complete control, with no vanilla rights and freedoms, because that is a dynamic that comes naturally for us and feels right to us.

 

[neonflux]

Hi ownedsubgal, you know, I wanted to ask you about a comment you made a while ago that was related to this. I appreciate your post very much. While we clearly disagree on much (my undergraduate major was anthropolgy, btw, and we could have an interesting conversation about egalitarian vs. patriarchal societies), I am only posting to say that I am glad you found your Master and a way of living that suits you. I wonder why you would suggest that claiming the BDSM label for your relationship together would be an insult? (As a switch who will likely never live in a 24/7 D/s relationship, this statement struck a chord with me. That said, I still feel strongly that I have a place here...) Neon

well personally i found nothing silly or funny about the Christian DD site, tho i don't share their religious views and might find them somewhat misguided, their beliefs aren't illogical to me.

there are actually some of us in the lifestyle who do believe in a Natural Order, meaning that a female's rightful place is in submission to a Male, we just don't use the Bible or the Gor novels as a basis for this. tho i wouldn't go so far as to say that there is no such thing as a female Dominant or male submissive, i would certainly say that such people are anomalies, and that many more claim the titles than actually fit them. i'm an anti-feminist...the whole feminist ideal of free choice and you can be whatever you want to be just doesn't sit well with me, there's no solid ground, no higher PURPOSE (imo) behind such an ideal, and that makes me uncomfortable.

as for culture...i grew up in a culture and a household in which everything taught/pushed me to grow up to be an independent, roaring "don't need a man"-she-wolf. submit to a man...in ANY way?? i was taught the very idea was abhorrent and not to EVER let a man try and control me. i'm sure many of my generation can relate to such an environment...in today's western world, men and women are not simply supposed to be equals, but women should almost be dominant. anything else is seen as ignorant, backwards, abusive. but this never felt right to me. it occured to me that every single female-dominated relationship i knew was fraught with drama, tension, unhappiness. and the very few male-dominated relationships i saw were peaceful, fluid, content. i became a student of anthropology, and i observed how male dominated societies have been the natural course of things since the dawn of time, and how the few societies or cultures which have veered to female dominated or even "equality" have almost always ended in destruction. this is what i feel will eventually be the fate of western society, because we have veered sooooo disturbingly far from the Natural Order, and it makes me sad to be honest.

but, my Master and i realize most lifestylers don't share our views on this, although there are subsets here and which do specifically preach the Natural Order.

then again, my Master and i don't consider ourselves part of the "bdsm" lifestyle. we are D/s, we are M/s, but we are not bdsm. in fact i feel it'd be an insult to those who are true bdsm'ers for people like my Master and i to claim the label, as our views and values are so drastically opposed to the bdsm/leather philosophy and history. had we never heard of D/s, or consensual slavery, little would be different in our relationship. He would still be the Boss, the HOH, he would still discipline and punish me when he saw fit, i would still be under his complete control, with no vanilla rights and freedoms, because that is a dynamic that comes naturally for us and feels right to us.

 

[intothewoods]

Wow! Martin Luther? Who ever would have guessed!!! Thank you for that tidbit.

Jewish men are obligated to keep their wives satisfied in the bedroom. L'chaim!

 

[intothewoods]

There is nothing inherently "natural" about the more recent "western" creations of same.

I just want to echo this point. "Natural" is one of those words that can mean so many things it ends up meaning nothing. Do I think men and women are the same, in some politically correct view of the world? No. There are differences between men and women. But I don't think you can immediately say that men are naturally dominant. So much depends on your environment, your cultural background, your family, and on and on.

 

[neonflux]

I just want to echo this point. "Natural" is one of those words that can mean so many things it ends up meaning nothing. Do I think men and women are the same, in some politically correct view of the world? No. There are differences between men and women. But I don't think you can immediately say that men are naturally dominant. So much depends on your environment, your cultural background, your family, and on and on.

~ check! ~

 

[misspihla]

About natural order...

At least Africa there are places where women are in charge of pretty much everything. Reason for this is that traditionally men did work like fishing and taking care of animal while women look after family and did trading goods. So all money into families goes through women. And when society modernized women were rich and dictated how money was spent. (Quite different from the common image how things are in Africa.)

There the natural order probably would be seen so that women are naturally in charge. And still genes and those differences in genders are about same as everywhere.

 

[FluteMaster]

Natural order

It's always a difficult thing to talk about "natural order" with regard to human behaviour. Almost everything we do is culturally determined, (like misspihla's post above), and it is hard to identify what, if any, the biological or evolutionary component is in any culture.

In addition, the range of behaviours for populations as a whole means that any attempt to identify a "natural" way of doing this will be flawed.

As an example..think of the "fact" the men are "stronger" than women. Well, an "average" male may well be able to bench press more than an "average" female", but there are still plenty of women who are stronger than the average male, they just happen to be towards the top end of the strength/fitness scale.

However, the frequency with which cultures are arranged in a patriachal way does seem to suggest that there is a bias towards dominance in males and submission in females. But although the populations are weighted in that way, that doesn't mean that all the individuals in that population need to act accordingly.

 

[FluteMaster]

...........

 

[@}-}rebecca----]

..................

 

[april2000]

The radical right would like to control ALL behavior, including access to hormonal birth control, that doesn't fit into their narrow interpretation of what is religiously correct.

Not quite true. I'm considered radical right, even though I personally consider myself libertarian (small "l"!). I'm also considered fundementalist Christian, which I agree with. I have a very narrow view of what is considered "correct". And I don't want to control the behavior of others, because eventually, the majority would be able to control mine. I understand that unless everyone else has freedom, I don't have freedom. Maybe a bit selfish of a way to think about it, but as long as you aren't throwing your business in my face, you ought to have the right to do it. But I want the ability to avoid you if I disagree with your behavior.

I would have assumed the BDSM folks to be a little more openminded, but I guess I was wrong. It's hard enough to get support from Christian friends when you have a kinky personality, and it's harder still to see the people who SHOULD support your kink to be so judgemental about another part of your life. Sigh...

 

[FluteMaster]

Not quite true. I'm considered radical right, even though I personally consider myself libertarian (small "l"!). I'm also considered fundementalist Christian, which I agree with. I have a very narrow view of what is considered "correct". And I don't want to control the behavior of others, because eventually, the majority would be able to control mine. I understand that unless everyone else has freedom, I don't have freedom. Maybe a bit selfish of a way to think about it, but as long as you aren't throwing your business in my face, you ought to have the right to do it. But I want the ability to avoid you if I disagree with your behavior.

I would have assumed the BDSM folks to be a little more openminded, but I guess I was wrong. It's hard enough to get support from Christian friends when you have a kinky personality, and it's harder still to see the people who SHOULD support your kink to be so judgemental about another part of your life. Sigh...

Sadly, I think we have to accept that even the most liberal may have some prejudices.

We are all of us a confusing mix of accepting and rejecting, and sometimes it takes someone like you to stand up and identify with the group being targeted to make others reconsider their viewpoint.

Thankyou for your courage.

 

[neonflux]

Mea Culpa

Not quite true. I'm considered radical right, even though I personally consider myself libertarian (small "l"!). I'm also considered fundementalist Christian, which I agree with. I have a very narrow view of what is considered "correct". And I don't want to control the behavior of others, because eventually, the majority would be able to control mine. I understand that unless everyone else has freedom, I don't have freedom. Maybe a bit selfish of a way to think about it, but as long as you aren't throwing your business in my face, you ought to have the right to do it. But I want the ability to avoid you if I disagree with your behavior.

I would have assumed the BDSM folks to be a little more openminded, but I guess I was wrong. It's hard enough to get support from Christian friends when you have a kinky personality, and it's harder still to see the people who SHOULD support your kink to be so judgemental about another part of your life. Sigh...

April, I am sorry if you felt that I was coming off as judgmental about people who have fundamentalist Christian beliefs. I was not, although I can see how it might come off that way. There is a reason that I use the term Radical Right, rather than Radical Religious Right - because I don't think that those who would force their beliefs on others are doing it for religious reasons only and I separate out political activity from religious belief, as you do. (I also have a soft spot for libertarians, BTW.)

I admitted earlier to jumping to conclusions about the end desires of the CDD movement. I am also willing to admit it if I am wrong and would be more than happy to be educated. My suspicious- and I know extremely strong initial reaction came from three primary sources:

1) Having worked in the area of sexual/reproductive health for over 2 decades and seeing the harm that the current administration has done to programs providing sexual health services to young and poor women (we are often their only source of health care).

2) Having experienced people of the Fred Phelps variety at funerals of people I loved.

3) Knowing that were some of the most radical among the Radical Right (I am NOT including you here) to have their way, I could be in big, big trouble - I'm old enough to remember the days when just going to a gay or lesbian bar could land you in jail - in fact narrowly escaped a raid when I was in college. And I know that there are still lgbt people in other parts of the world who even risk being killed by the State for following their desires.

I am sorry if I made you feel judged or unwelcome. I would never want to do that; I very much value your presence here on the boards.

Neon

 

[MechaBlade]

There's a difference between an individual's rejection of a particular practice and a whole society's rejection of same.

Not in defining whether or not it's BDSM.

Now who is making assumptions? Please! There are a number of amazing heterosexual male Doms on this board for whom I have nothing but great respect, admiration and affection. The Dom whom I trusted enough to do my cleansing (no safewords) is bi but only has ongoing romantic relationships with submissive women w/in the context of a D/s relationship. I called it "nominally consensual" because it leaves no room for men or women whose desires & personalities run counter to conservative Christian social norms.

So because it's exclusive that somehow makes it nonconsensual for one of the parties?

And honestly, can you imagine a woman who lives in a radical right Christian household would turn down a husband who approached her with a desire for this type of relationship and grounded it in scripture, no matter what her own sexual desires were?

Yes. Though I don't think I would call a practitioner of CDD "radical right". Politics aren't mentioned on the site and getting kinky in marriage sounds pretty liberal to me.

But preference is only proof that male Dominance is natural to you, not to the human condition.

No, there is also the fact that males are dominant in Western culture.

I am not going to go into a history lesson here. But culture is a "construct." There is nothing inherently "natural" about the more recent "western" creations of same.

But for those raised in Western culture, male dominance is more "natural" because it's ingrained in us early. Also, culture may be constructed, but it is rarely constructed by one person. Instead, it takes into account the thoughts and actions of many people over thousands of years. Taking this into account, surely some natural human behavior influenced gender dynamics.

Well, I grew up in Texas and spent about 3 months as an "evangelical, speaking-in-tongues, pentacostal Christian." (Was 14 and trying to heal my dad, who'd had permanent brain damage while in a coma, through a "proxy" laying on of hands.) Does that give you any indication? Actually, to be less flip, I do know folks like this and it makes me sad...

Yes, it tells me that surely you know some Christians that have difficulty admitting the fun and necessity of lust, like I said.

P.S., Oh, re: your Gor reference - even in Gorian society, which is actually far from Christian-based, Dominant women are given some slice of the pie - albeit a very, very teensy weensy and never in a leadership position over a man slice...

Still sounds discriminatory to me, yet doesn't take away from its BDSM-legitimacy.

 

[neonflux]

You are responding to what you want from my statements and ignoring the rest. For instance, I never for a second stated that I thought Gorians were not practicing BDSM - but then again, they claim that term for their "way of life," something that CDD folk, from what I can tell, do not. So, if it is up for individuals or groups to define what they do as BDSM, which you also seem to be suggesting not only here but in some other threads, then clearly by that standard, in the final analysis, CDD folks are not practicing it.

:exits stage left:

Not in defining whether or not it's BDSM.



So because it's exclusive that somehow makes it nonconsensual for one of the parties?


Yes. Though I don't think I would call a practitioner of CDD "radical right". Politics aren't mentioned on the site and getting kinky in marriage sounds pretty liberal to me.


No, there is also the fact that males are dominant in Western culture.


But for those raised in Western culture, male dominance is more "natural" because it's ingrained in us early. Also, culture may be constructed, but it is rarely constructed by one person. Instead, it takes into account the thoughts and actions of many people over thousands of years. Taking this into account, surely some natural human behavior influenced gender dynamics.


Yes, it tells me that surely you know some Christians that have difficulty admitting the fun and necessity of lust, like I said.


Still sounds discriminatory to me, yet doesn't take away from its BDSM-legitimacy.

 

[MechaBlade]

You are responding to what you want from my statements and ignoring the rest.

I ignore only the irrelevant parts. For instance, I don't see what bonobos have to do with why I feel male-dominant BDSM is more natural.

For instance, I never for a second stated that I thought Gorians were not practicing BDSM - but then again, they claim that term for their "way of life," something that CDD folk, from what I can tell, do not.

I never implied you did. I was making a comparison to two types of BDSM, one you consider valid and another you don't.

So, if it is up for an individual group to define what they do as BDSM, which you also seem to be suggesting, then clearly by that standard, in the final analysis, CDD folks are not practicing it.

:exits stage left:

I agree they seem not to define themselves in the realm of BDSM at the website. Normally I go byt however people define themselves. But I think that's probably due to wanting to be associated with the dirty, sexual world of BDSM and a misunderstanding about what BDSM really represents. I imagine if you talked to someone who participates in CDD, they'd admit to practicing a form of BDSM.

 

[neonflux]

I ignore only the irrelevant parts. For instance, I don't see what bonobos have to do with why I feel male-dominant BDSM is more natural.


I never implied you did. I was making a comparison to two types of BDSM, one you consider valid and another you don't.


I agree they seem not to define themselves in the realm of BDSM at the website. Normally I go byt however people define themselves. But I think that's probably due to wanting to be associated with the dirty, sexual world of BDSM and a misunderstanding about what BDSM really represents. I imagine if you talked to someone who participates in CDD, they'd admit to practicing a form of BDSM.

OK, I am going to bed now...

 

[Etoile]

Still enjoying this thread, though perhaps learning a bit more than I expected to. +10 points to osg for use of the word "fraught" - nicely done!

Of course, if male-dom is more "natural" than FemDom, that may explain why so many FemDom practitioners feel "entitled" - as if from a sense of "we've been submissive long enough, now we're taking charge."

 

[misspihla]

Of course, if male-dom is more "natural" than FemDom, that may explain why so many FemDom practitioners feel "entitled" - as if from a sense of "we've been submissive long enough, now we're taking charge."

I think that apply only when you think domination as being stronger, active, aggressive and so on...

However it is as well known fact that men are very much slaves to their instincts. And there have always been a lot of women who know exactly how to pull strings to get men do what is wanted. It is very different domination: subtle and passive.

Somehow modern bdsm for Mistresses is often very masculine way to dominate. I think more natural way to dominate is such that men actually all the time are blinded enough by their lust that they actually never realize being controlled.

(And yes I do know this pretty black&white way putting it...)

 

[catalina_francisco]

Hmmmm, well with the news this week that a hammerhead shark has given birth without any contact with a male, joining the many insects and reptiles which also can do this, one wonders if in future generations males may be placed in a position much more vulnerable than they are at present...ie, they will need women to reproduce, but the reverse may not be true. It also emphasises, at least in my mind, that despite a lot of religious propaganda which sells this idea that sex is purely for reproduction, not pleasure, that natural adaptation may prove the religious purpose as not being realistic.

Catalina

 

[kajira311]

Sprayed the keyboard!

Just spit water all over when I found the CROTCHLESS pantaloons! The contrast between these vintage looking drawers and the idea that they're split for easy access?!

 

[FluteMaster]

Hmmmm, well with the news this week that a hammerhead shark has given birth without any contact with a male, joining the many insects and reptiles which also can do this, one wonders if in future generations males may be placed in a position much more vulnerable than they are at present...ie, they will need women to reproduce, but the reverse may not be true. It also emphasises, at least in my mind, that despite a lot of religious propaganda which sells this idea that sex is purely for reproduction, not pleasure, that natural adaptation may prove the religious purpose as not being realistic.

Catalina

It's been an interesting debate...whether Males are doomed to extinction either

a) because there are species where females can reproduce without Males, and once that secret is cracked...then we can dispense with Males.

or b) Because it has been thought that the Y chromosome is a dwindling declining chromosome and may even by eliminated within 5 million years.

However...there is a very good reason why the process of sexual dimorphism is so popular in nature...tending to be the preferred method of reproduction in most species. And the reason is Variation. Where you have parthanogenesis (virgin birth) the offspring are genetically identical to the mother. Where you have two mates...you have offspring which are genetically distinct from either parent.

Where the environment is such that a mate is very hard to find, (as in the desert), there there may be some advantage in being able to reproduce without needing a mate so at least that genetic line will survive a little longer. However, in the event that the environment changes...then you won't have the ability to produce more than a small amount of genetic variation, and so adapt as a species to the new environment.

In the case of the dwindling Y chromosome, it seems that talk of its demise is somewhat premature. I refer you to a relevant article in New Scientist. Decoded Male Chromosome

On th issue of religion and sexuality...I would argue that it's not actually religion which is the real culprit...but natural human unease with variations from the norm, (look at the way kids tease those who are different). Religion has often been used as a way of ensuring conformity, (even though its great teachers have argued against that). However...religion is administered by its members not the teachers, and so attracts those who wish to lay down rules for others. The same attitude can happen in any attempt to run societies, (The Nazis were hostile to all who stepped outside the norm).

 

[ownedsubgal]

Just spit water all over when I found the CROTCHLESS pantaloons! The contrast between these vintage looking drawers and the idea that they're split for easy access?!

they were split for easy access to the loo, not a penis. tho i'm sure it helped in that area as well.

 

[Etoile]

they were split for easy access to the loo, not a penis. tho i'm sure it helped in that area as well.

Not according to the descriptions:

"These split-crotch pantaloons will keep you cool and comfortable while making your husband very happy."
"These split-crotch pantaloons trimmed in eyelet and your choice of ribbon color will make you feel sexy and cherished all at once."

Sounds to me like it was meant for easy access but it's probably easier for bathroom use too. (Now if only I could find an affordable women's wetsuit with a relief zipper...they are all so expensive!)