Christian Submissives: Brainwashed?

[HarlotMinx]

I agree with this sort of. My relativism stops somewhere.

I think it's perfectly fine to choose your adventure, barefoot, pregnant, sewing, cooking, doing ALL those much maligned and devalued things that need to be done in the world.

I get OFF the wagon when you start suggesting that I have gone awry because I'm not and I need more of your life in my life.

Then your choice loses my support. Then you are part of my problem.

Ahhh but don't you know, you just haven't been 'enlightened' to the better way of doing things yet.

 

[WriterDom]

St. Paul assumed a LOT of love for the Church or really didn't care much for women.

Nice to know you know so you know so much.

 

[Homburg]

Doesn't that make any relationship where the question of consent arises nonconsensual? If there is zero risk in saying no, there is no real relationship, and consent becomes a non-issue. If party A wants teh buttsex, and asks party B, party B has risk whether A ladles on a threat or not. B is aware that A wants it, and will likely be disappointed if it doesn't happen. That presents risk right there.

And it completely ignores serious chunks of the populace as Netz pointed out.

Blah. All sex is not rape.

 

[Netzach]

Nice to know you know so you know so much.

Hey, part of the fun of being a minority is you learn the majority culture like mad.

I love "Love is Patient" though, how can anyone not? And "I am a citizen of no mean city" - someone on NPR quoted that on 9/11 and I was a freaking mess.

 

[VelvetDarkness]

I was raised within quite a conservative Christian faction and the society I grew up in was completely male dominated. I won't name it but it is a global Christian faith with over 7 million adult members worldwide. Women obeyed their fathers and/or church elders until they married, then they obeyed their husband. Like JM said, women were taught that the father/husband is the head of the family as Christ is the head of the church and although there was the addendum that men should love their wives as Christ loves the church (i.e. not abuse their authority) it never seemed like much of a caveat to me. The men in my church were rarely, if ever contradicted, denied or argued with by their wives or daughters. A rebellious spouse or child was an embarrassment and discredit to them so the men were all the more zealous in their 'headship' than was often necessary. In this particular Christian church, women were not allowed to address the congregation and could not say a prayer aloud or on behalf of other people if there was a baptised male present. Some of these lads were baptised in their early teens and they automatically outranked a woman of any age/experience from that point on.

The authority these elders and men have over their women is all encompassing. Where no male authority figure is present in a family, an elder is assigned to take a particular interest in that family and give it guidance and instruction. Women were discouraged from pursuing education beyond the UK minimum of age 16, regardless of academic aptitude. Sex before marriage - any form of fooling around beyond a french kiss - was strictly forbidden and youngsters risked being rejected by their family and the church if they broke this rule and were caught or confessed. Clothing, particularly for girls and women, had to be modest, loose and inexpensive. People who rejected the teachings of the church and left in order to live as they chose were disowned by their families. People were instructed not to socialize outside of church members and kids were removed from any class that threatened the church's world view. Many were home-schooled and became docile, sheeplike adults who were wholly unequipped for adult life, let alone marriage and parenthood. They do not really follow current affairs and they do not vote. Global media and politics as a whole are amoral tools of the devil. Church members read church literature and the Bible almost to the exclusion of all else and any recreational reading matter had to be completely dull and 'wholesome' and was considered a waste of time. Films above an age 12 certificate were considered morally corrupt. Harry Potter was denounced as evil, occult and a tool of the devil because of its success and 'influence.' Soap operas were a licentious, morally corrosive waste of time. Swearing, violence of any kind, masturbation and a whole list of other activities were forbidden. There was almost no area of ones life where the church elders had no influence or authority. Any infractions and/or sins were to be confessed to an elder or male family head.

This may not be Tehran but narrowminded, oppressive religious factions and societies do exist in the 'enlightened' west. This is the environment in which I was raised. This is a mindset imposed from birth and reinforced at every turn with Biblical authority. To disobey your father/husband was to rebel against God and reject his wisdom. To seek academic, career or fiscal success was arrogant and therefore a path to the devil. They meet 3 times per week and many people are involved in congregation activities daily.

I socialized exclusively with people from the church until I transferred to a grammar school at 13 and started staying out late and making my own friends. When I finally realised that I had submissive leanings as an adult, I fought it for years. I thought it was something 'wrong' with me that needed fixing, a psychological throwback to my upbringing. I rejected their lifestyle from puberty onwards. I went to college and then university and I worked in medicine, an area of professionalism highly mistrusted by my erstwhile peers. I rejected their way of life and they rejected me right back; every single person with whom I had associated since birth, with the sole exception of my immediate family, who became distant for many years. I had to start from scratch without a single friend or acquaintance in the world and I did that as an impressionable teenager, which led to a few misjudgements along the way.

I don't want to get into the whole nature/nurture debate but there is no walking away from a lifetime of programming or 'brainwashing' like that. I still have the occasional twinge of conscience and wonder if they're going to be proven right and I'll be destroyed at Armageddon (which will be in 2012 if you want to pop it in your diary).

Whether or not I possess the elusive kink gene, my submissiveness was undoubtedly influenced by the male dominated 'thou shalt' guilt-trip that was my youth. As a free thinking adult I have owned that trait and now I yield to a Master who I chose for myself and who has no desire to clip my wings and keep me in a childlike, emotionally and financially dependent state. Everything I have the potential to become is part of my gift to him.

I believe the women in that church are not capable of consent. They've been trained and programmed from the cradle to grow up into little slaves. Like a puppy raised from birth to become an obedient, loyal, docile pet they know of no other reality. Throw fear of God, Armageddon, judgement and destruction into the mix and you have a powerful opiate for your people. These women often have no notion of the degree to which they have been manipulated, emotionally blackmailed and frightened into what they consider to be 'the best and only way to live before God.' They are subjugated before they are old enough to spell or comprehend the word 'consent.'

So I think that in many cases, maybe fewer than there have been throughout in other periods in history but huge communities and churches nonetheless, some people are raised in such a way that they lack the experience, knowledge and comprehension of the wider world to make an informed choice about their lifestyle. It goes way, way, way beyond deciding who and how to fuck.

 

[Recidiva]

I have to reject this sort of thinking just because it robs someone of their free will.

You can be raised to something and not be brainwashed.

I think the only thing that determines wehether or not you've been brainwashed is whether or not you're susceptible to brainwashing.

Susceptibility to brainwashing usually means that a person will believe the last strongest opinion that was expressed around them. Not that they choose something and are consistent in its application.

But even a person who waffles a lot isn't necessarily brainwashed, but inspired and not disillusioned yet.

So an easily brainwashed person will tend to change a lot and adapt to the person's values who is talking to them at the moment.

That's why fixing brainwashing is...ironically...brainwashing. If you're likely to respond to brainwashing, you're likely to respond to "Deprogramming" - which is - brainwashing.

 

[VelvetDarkness]

I have to reject this sort of thinking just because it robs someone of their free will.

Reject it all you like but that is exactly what these people set out to do.

You can be raised to something and not be brainwashed.

Agreed.

I think the only thing that determines wehether or not you've been brainwashed is whether or not you're susceptible to brainwashing.

Susceptibility to brainwashing usually means that a person will believe the last strongest opinion that was expressed around them. Not that they choose something and are consistent in its application.

Also true but take into account that these people are often 3rd, 4th or 5th generation in this religion. They do not socialize outside of it or seek outside knowledge. The degree to which these people are blinkered and led to 'God' by a halter and bit is hard to express. As a rational person exposed to a wide range of knowledge and opinion, your perspective is radically different.

But even a person who waffles a lot isn't necessarily brainwashed, but inspired and not disillusioned yet.

So an easily brainwashed person will tend to change a lot and adapt to the person's values who is talking to them at the moment.

Yep and these people are not hearing any other voices. If you raise a person in an underground bunker and tell them from birth that the world has suffered a nuclear holocaust and they must trust you and stay put forever or risk death by radiation poisoning, where does that person get the knowledge, perspective or opportunity to discover that it's all a hoax?

That's why fixing brainwashing is...ironically...brainwashing. If you're likely to respond to brainwashing, you're likely to respond to "Deprogramming" - which is - brainwashing.

I disagree. Fixing brainwashing involves handing people the knowledge to make informed choices. Making a new set of choices for them or offering 1 other equally blinkered alternative viewpoint just shifts the focus of the problem. My deprogramming involved therapy that very deliberately did not offer me opinions and advice, just knowledge. If I had chosen to go back with my eyes open and of my 'fee will' as you call it, that could also arguably be called fixing the problem.

 

[Recidiva]

Reject it all you like but that is exactly what these people set out to do.

Agreed.

Also true but take into account that these people are often 3rd, 4th or 5th generation in this religion. They do not socialize outside of it or seek outside knowledge. The degree to which these people are blinkered and led to 'God' by a halter and bit is hard to express. As a rational person exposed to a wide range of knowledge and opinion, your perspective is radically different.

Yep and these people are not hearing any other voices. If you raise a person in an underground bunker and tell them from birth that the world has suffered a nuclear holocaust and they must trust you and stay put forever or risk death by radiation poisoning, where does that person get the knowledge, perspective or opportunity to discover that it's all a hoax?

I disagree. Fixing brainwashing involves handing people the knowledge to make informed choices. Making a new set of choices for them or offering 1 other equally blinkered alternative viewpoint just shifts the focus of the problem. My deprogramming involved therapy that very deliberately did not offer me opinions and advice, just knowledge. If I had chosen to go back with my eyes open and of my 'fee will' as you call it, that could also arguably be called fixing the problem.

Plenty of people raised in repressive societies or upbringings use their own judgment, good or bad, to reject or accept. Adolescence pretty much makes it a hardwired deal.

I sort of raise my hackles at "these people" in this instance, because it's turning into an "us or them" thing, which is what brainwashing, and reverse brainwashing, thrives on. To me they're all just people. Misguided, malicious, weak willed, dull...still people. Not invincible machines of destruction. People.

I'm not at all attempting to invalidate any of your experiences, but I do believe that brainwashing is a specific process, and many people are entirely immune to it.

Therefore it's possible to be raised in a dysfunctional system, see it for what it is, and still choose to honor it for whatever value you've invested it with, which may actually work out to be a positive thing.

That's the opposite of brainwashing.

 

[VelvetDarkness]

Plenty of people raised in repressive societies or upbringings use their own judgment, good or bad, to reject or accept. Adolescence pretty much makes it a hardwired deal.

I sort of raise my hackles at "these people" in this instance, because it's turning into an "us or them" thing, which is what brainwashing, and reverse brainwashing, thrives on. To me they're all just people. Misguided, malicious, weak willed, dull...still people. Not invincible machines of destruction. People.

I'm not at all attempting to invalidate any of your experiences, but I do believe that brainwashing is a specific process, and many people are entirely immune to it.

Therefore it's possible to be raised in a dysfunctional system, see it for what it is, and still choose to honor it for whatever value you've invested it with, which may actually work out to be a positive thing.

That's the opposite of brainwashing.

You're perfectly entitled to your opinion. I think at this point we should simply agree to differ.

 

[Recidiva]

You're perfectly entitled to your opinion. I think at this point we should simply agree to differ.

I'm cool with that.

I did earn this opinion. I belonged to the Church of Scientology for years. I went to go bust the lid off this cult thing. Found some decent folks and some total assholes. I just believe there are shades of gray.

I joined alternative communities as a hobby for a bit. Not just one. Places accused wrongfully of being cults and places that should have been classifed as cults.

Christianity isn't even classified as a cult. I think it qualifies, certainly.

As long as people like me are allowed to exist without being told my choices are not my choices, I'm cool with it.

 

[Homburg]

Also true but take into account that these people are often 3rd, 4th or 5th generation in this religion. They do not socialize outside of it or seek outside knowledge.

There is probably a valid argument that they are selecting for docility as well. If their socialisation pool, thus breeding pool, is only open to other members of the same sheep-like faith, that is a very hard-coded selection for docility at that point.

Farmers breed atavistic traits out of their livestock, and those same traits have no place in such an organisation either. The shunning and disowning of rebellious offspring is as much a move to protect genetic sanctity as it is a social one, however unaware they may be of such things.

 

[Recidiva]

There is probably a valid argument that they are selecting for docility as well. If their socialisation pool, thus breeding pool, is only open to other members of the same sheep-like faith, that is a very hard-coded selection for docility at that point.

Farmers breed atavistic traits out of their livestock, and those same traits have no place in such an organisation either. The shunning and disowning of rebellious offspring is as much a move to protect genetic sanctity as it is a social one, however unaware they may be of such things.

The culls in this case though, become culls because they disagree. And culls exist, they're shunned and disowned. If it wasn't possible to rebel, those mechanics wouldn't be in place.

I would say that some are brainwashed and some are genuinely exerting their free will to stay part of a community that is their family.

Giving up your family entirely is a hard thing to do. Deciding to stick with them despite their flaws, is a valid choice. It may be a 49% bad, 51% good choice, but it's still a choice.

And bad judgment still qualifies as judgment.

 

[Homburg]

The culls in this case though, become culls because they disagree. And culls exist, they're shunned and disowned. If it wasn't possible to rebel, those mechanics wouldn't be in place.

I would say that some are brainwashed and some are genuinely exerting their free will to stay part of a community that is their family.

Giving up your family entirely is a hard thing to do. Deciding to stick with them despite their flaws, is a valid choice. It may be a 49% bad, 51% good choice, but it's still a choice.

And bad judgment still qualifies as judgment.

I wasn't commenting on the brainwashing. Just arguing that docility is a trait and they were essentially selecting for it. I guess it could correlate with the tendency to accept brainwashing concept, but that wasn't the point to my post. I essentially agree with you.

There is a lot of science to brainwashing, and the study of it is some interesting stuff. Scottish Revival preachers were doing it (in fairly modern form) in the 1800's, and the tradition continues today with tent revivals. The biggest difference is the addition of light shows, lasers, louder music, etc.

See "Joel's Army" for examples.

 

[JMohegan]

It's interesting that one rarely hears talk of how the males are "brainwashed" in these groups.

Seems ironic, as if the critics are implicitly supporting the idea that all males are naturally born D.

 

[Recidiva]

I wasn't commenting on the brainwashing. Just arguing that docility is a trait and they were essentially selecting for it. I guess it could correlate with the tendency to accept brainwashing concept, but that wasn't the point to my post. I essentially agree with you.

There is a lot of science to brainwashing, and the study of it is some interesting stuff. Scottish Revival preachers were doing it (in fairly modern form) in the 1800's, and the tradition continues today with tent revivals. The biggest difference is the addition of light shows, lasers, louder music, etc.

See "Joel's Army" for examples.

I don't think I'm disagreeing with either of you on the mechanics or the method.

Just disagreeing to the extent that Christian = Brainwashed or even Cult Member = Brainwashed.

To compare, if the vanilla world were to say that every masochist = brainwashed to like pain, I would have to disagree.

Every extreme philosophy exists because there are people attracted to extreme conditions. Being born into it and being suited to it can coincide.

Whether by breeding or temperament or otherwise, I think it's a mistake to make any blanket statement about extremophiles always being out of place.

Adapted to an environment does not mean unhappy in that environment or held there nonconsensually.

 

[Recidiva]

It's interesting that one rarely hears talk of how the males are "brainwashed" in these groups.

Seems ironic, as if the critics are implicitly supporting the idea that all males are naturally born D.

I think men doing the brainwashing are most likely to have been brainwashed. And the same applies to women.

Same way being sexually abused in youth leads to being a sexual abuser as an adult.

 

[rosco rathbone]

Not buying it.

There are always women in the most patriarchal of traditions who make a way for themselves, leave, synthesize, go stark raving crazy, or get killed if they must, but do not rest easily in a submissive paradigm.

It doesn't take a religion to make crazy people raise a child to be submissive. And it only takes genetic lotto to make it impossible. *raises hand as living proof*

So my point is that the idea that these people are pre-programmed nonconsensually by their worldview when it comes to this one thing is no more or less earth-shattering that the people freaked out are pre-programmed nonconsensually by their worldview to have their butts pucker over it.

Point being, if it wasn't fulfilling on SOME level to these people, they'd never consent to it. I know I wouldn't. If they weren't giant pervs even if they'd never call themselves that, it wouldn't work out for them whatsoever. Let's give women some shred of credibility for agency - this isn't Tehran, and even there, you'd be amazed.

You lost me here. You seem to be arguing for and against agency at the same time. Or are you saying that across-the-board lack of agency is just as good as its opposite?

 

[Homburg]

It's interesting that one rarely hears talk of how the males are "brainwashed" in these groups.

Seems ironic, as if the critics are implicitly supporting the idea that all males are naturally born D.

Is it an implicit D, or just society not seeing males as in need of "saving"? Not being argumentative, just wondering if the motivation is less power-based, and more a sexist thing. Big strong man doesn't need to be saved from this patriarchical cult that he's in, but poor, weak, helpless woman does. Sort of the knight in shining armour thing. The men are implicitly culpable, and thus villains, where as the women are, as usual, victims.

Just wondering if it is more a sexist thing in that direction.

--

I don't think I'm disagreeing with either of you on the mechanics or the method.

Just disagreeing to the extent that Christian = Brainwashed or even Cult Member = Brainwashed.

Eh, not my argument. I will say that that some cults are explicitly using the mechanics of brainwashing. Whether every follower or not is brainwashed is pretty immaterial to me. I'm approaching it, in this case, from an intellectual standpoint. Brainwashing is interesting stuff, as it speaks to human psychology and internal construction on many levels. The fact that we've been doing it since far before there was an understanding of these mechanics intrigues me.

 

[Recidiva]

You lost me here. You seem to be arguing for and against agency at the same time. Or are you saying that across-the-board lack of agency is just as good as its opposite?

The assumption of the thread is that an overwhelming nurture will overwhelm even an overwhelming nature. But I disagree.

The math might go like this.

Nature > Nurture

Nature = Nurture

Nature < Nurture

It isn't an equilibrium.

Even if the NURTURE is in caps...there's going to be a NATURE in caps that can overrun it.

But that might just be because I have the equivalent of a nature in caps, bold, italics and set to kill and not stun.

 

[rosco rathbone]

That's why fixing brainwashing is...ironically...brainwashing. If you're likely to respond to brainwashing, you're likely to respond to "Deprogramming" - which is - brainwashing.

*strokes chin*

So you are saying that there's no ultimate "frame of reference" by which to judge the degree or direction of brainwashing. Any change coming from outside is brainwashing.

 

[Recidiva]

Eh, not my argument. I will say that that some cults are explicitly using the mechanics of brainwashing. Whether every follower or not is brainwashed is pretty immaterial to me. I'm approaching it, in this case, from an intellectual standpoint. Brainwashing is interesting stuff, as it speaks to human psychology and internal construction on many levels. The fact that we've been doing it since far before there was an understanding of these mechanics intrigues me.

Yes, it has become more insidious and subtle. But it's been taking place for...the length of human history.

Most explicit for me is the sort where the Priest Class of the Aztecs would drug initiates and tell them that they're being taken to hell, and while the poor bastards are tripping, scare the hell out of them in a system of caves with statues they're informed are gods, and treated to terrifying pyrotechnics and suggestion and cap it off with pain and trance.

Way to go guys!

 

[rosco rathbone]

There is probably a valid argument that they are selecting for docility as well. If their socialisation pool, thus breeding pool, is only open to other members of the same sheep-like faith, that is a very hard-coded selection for docility at that point.

Farmers breed atavistic traits out of their livestock, and those same traits have no place in such an organisation either. The shunning and disowning of rebellious offspring is as much a move to protect genetic sanctity as it is a social one, however unaware they may be of such things.

I think the analogy between humans and livestock is kinda dubious. We are so much smarter than sheep or cows.

 

[Recidiva]

*strokes chin*

So you are saying that there's no ultimate "frame of reference" by which to judge the degree or direction of brainwashing. Any change coming from outside is brainwashing.

In a way, yes.

It's really a legal term. Is a person capable of knowing right from wrong, do they have diminished mental capacity?

The story of the Buddha shows how a royal child was indoctrinated to be served and pampered and kept from the world and sequestered in all ways, but seeing a mendicant on the street brought forth his compassion and he rejected his indoctrination, abandoning not only his legacy, but his family and traditions entirely.

If the Buddha had been another person who didn't give a damn about other people, he never would have questioned his indoctrination, never would have been the Buddha.

But there are moments where people are NOT capable of making their own choices, and if someone's will has been artfully degraded and destroyed over a lifetime, they are true victims. And it does happen.

There are however, people who are basically will diamonds and can't be cut in any way by other human interactions. They can maintain or recover their basic natures despite pain, deprivation or indoctrination. Also despite comfort, corrosion and weakening.

 

[rosco rathbone]

But there are moments where people are NOT capable of making their own choices, and if someone's will has been artfully degraded and destroyed over a lifetime, they are true victims. And it does happen.

There are however, people who are basically will diamonds and can't be cut in any way by other human interactions. They can maintain or recover their basic natures despite pain, deprivation or indoctrination. Also despite comfort, corrosion and weakening.

Well, I guess feminist theorists would say that these Christian females fall under your first category.

Who gets to decide?

 

[Recidiva]

Well, I guess feminist theorists would say that these Christian females fall under your first category.

Who gets to decide?

In my opinion, this theory has the flaw of really believing that only men support or perpetuate this system, and that's just not the case.

There's a great deal of power and influence for a woman in this world who is a paragon of that society. They very much make sure that the other women toe the line and can make them as miserable if not more miserable than the men can.

"Women's work" is supervised...and assigned...by women. Women in segregated societies will have as much contact with matriarchal women as patriarchal men. ALL of them telling them what to do in a regimented and enforced system.

Women find ways to be the "power behind the throne" and can prefer that to being the power itself, which makes a really big target.

It's a very good gig for women who pay their dues.

It's very much like why would anyone submit to frat or sorority hazing? Because they'll get power and authority and some day they can haze someone else.

Women are as much a part of this system just as men are. Equally capable of being victimized by it or enforcing it.