Christian Submissives: Brainwashed?

[rosco rathbone]

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.

I think the "power behind the throne" factor has been overlooked. Women have always had enormous emotional power over men.

 

[Recidiva]

I think the "power behind the throne" factor has been overlooked. Women have always had enormous emotional power over men.

I think men and women are equally capable of being the salvation or the damnation of the human race.

You just can't tell which one is going to be which by their genes.

 

[JMohegan]

"Ma, Dad is so stubborn. What he says goes. 'Ah, the man is the head of the house!' "

"Let me tell you something, Toula. The man is the head, but the woman is the neck. And she can turn the head any way she wants."

 

[Recidiva]

"Ma, Dad is so stubborn. What he says goes. 'Ah, the man is the head of the house!' "

"Let me tell you something, Toula. The man is the head, but the woman is the neck. And she can turn the head any way she wants."

Amen.

 

[Netzach]

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.

None of this is always 100 percent effective. There's always someone who leaves and doesn't come back. Who rejects their family if need be - fuck- people who flee countries when they know their families might be killed. I'm not saying these people are necessarily better people than those who follow their inherited belief system - but the existence of these people in any situation anywhere - the very nature of dissident humanity suggests that we're not mere products of environment.

In some ways the training I got as a child was just as insidious and just as fucked, only not communal. I've certainly absorbed parts of it and escaped scathed but escaped. My mother - no. In choosing my escape, a physical escape, I would never even have thought I was trying to escape. It was a large push from my very core, my subconscious I think, to go to MN. I never would have said "I am getting out of the reach of the tentacles if it kills me" but I was. I realize I was.

 

[Netzach]

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?

No, I'm saying that these women probably do have more agency than their feministing.org counterparts would ever give them credit for having.

 

[Netzach]

Amen.

There are also women for whom that's not good enough. Which, frankly, is the only reason I'm probably able to read this or write this.

 

[HarlotMinx]

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

Who gets to decide?

I really wouldn't think so. I feminism is not really anti Christian, anti Muslim, or anti Zoroastrian even. It's not about the religion, religions don't brainwash people, it's individuals.

I mean, I know a ton of decent Catholics, friendly Jews, and female rights supporting Muslims. The issue is the individuals or group of individuals that form a religious group. For example, a dear friend of mine is both catholic and lesbian... not sure why but she is. Now she by no means fits the catholic stereotype, though I'm pretty sure her partner and her don't use condoms. On the other side, my uncle, who is also catholic, pressured his son into joining the priesthood after he got a DUI. He also made it clear to my cousins that they are by no means to talk with me or interact with me lest I corrupt them with my ideals.

So I think it wholly inaccurate to say Christians brainwash people, Christianity encompasses a wide range of sub religions like Quakers (who will freely marry Gay and Lesbian couples). I think it's the mothers, fathers, family members, religious leaders, and figures of authority who are responsible for any conditioning. It's important to draw a distinction between religions and people who do things in the name of their religion.

 

[00Syd]

It's important to draw a distinction between religions and people who do things in the name of their religion.

That is an excellent point.

 

[Netzach]

I really wouldn't think so. I feminism is not really anti Christian, anti Muslim, or anti Zoroastrian even. It's not about the religion, religions don't brainwash people, it's individuals.

I mean, I know a ton of decent Catholics, friendly Jews, and female rights supporting Muslims. The issue is the individuals or group of individuals that form a religious group. For example, a dear friend of mine is both catholic and lesbian... not sure why but she is. Now she by no means fits the catholic stereotype, though I'm pretty sure her partner and her don't use condoms. On the other side, my uncle, who is also catholic, pressured his son into joining the priesthood after he got a DUI. He also made it clear to my cousins that they are by no means to talk with me or interact with me lest I corrupt them with my ideals.

So I think it wholly inaccurate to say Christians brainwash people, Christianity encompasses a wide range of sub religions like Quakers (who will freely marry Gay and Lesbian couples). I think it's the mothers, fathers, family members, religious leaders, and figures of authority who are responsible for any conditioning. It's important to draw a distinction between religions and people who do things in the name of their religion.

If there were no people who took risks with scary indoctrinating authority in any way or were unwilling to lose family ties, no religion would ever have changed or factioned and a ton of religions would not even be. Jesus was looking at some pretty hefty authority, as a historical figure.

 

[HarlotMinx]

If there were no people who took risks with scary indoctrinating authority in any way or were unwilling to lose family ties, no religion would ever have changed or factioned and a ton of religions would not even be. Jesus was looking at some pretty hefty authority, as a historical figure.

Well said.

On that note, I am now accepting memberships into the church of bootlicking bitchpig for any interested parties. Just a note, all new members are entitled to free cookies!

 

[Recidiva]

There are also women for whom that's not good enough. Which, frankly, is the only reason I'm probably able to read this or write this.

Double amen. I can stand up and support that too.

If I can get what I want, I don't care what anybody thinks. I don't actually care for recognition and I go out of my way to avoid it. I do realize that's a choice and that's a preference, and so I honor the opposite choice and preference because the mechanics are basically the same, the same payoff, anyway.

If I can't get what I want on anything other than my express and explicit defiance of any and everything that is put in my way, I'll do that too.

 

[satindesire]

It's important to draw a distinction between religions and people who do things in the name of their religion.

How many times have I said this exact same thing on this site and been told that I am a narrow-minded, conservative bigot and am somehow a bad person because I chose the religion I chose. As if the people who chose a certain religion are personally responsible for the actions of ALL the people who claim their religion.

Kay, let me just hop into my TIME MACHINE here and go back and apologize for the Crusades. That'll show 'em that Christians aren't all bad, right?

Ugh, I'm going to bed. Too cranky for this bad train of thought. Always makes me feel so frustrated.

 

[Homburg]

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

The analogy had nothing to do with brains, and everything to do with genetics. We humans have been practicing selective breeding for basically the history of our existence. Say you find blondes attractive, and tend to go for them as sexual partners. That's selective breeding.

In this case, they are not allowed to socialise with those outside their faith. This means limiting the pool of possible breeders. Livestock and pet breeders do this all the time to help ensure the purity of a breed line. Bad seeds are culled from the society, such as VelvetDarkness' case in which she was shunned for getting an actual education. Again, breeders do the same when they discover an animal that does not possess the proper traits such as coat colour, temperment, size, etc.

Limiting the breed pool to prevent certain traits and emphasise others is common across all sorts of closed societies.

 

[Recidiva]

The analogy had nothing to do with brains, and everything to do with genetics. We humans have been practicing selective breeding for basically the history of our existence. Say you find blondes attractive, and tend to go for them as sexual partners. That's selective breeding.

In this case, they are not allowed to socialise with those outside their faith. This means limiting the pool of possible breeders. Livestock and pet breeders do this all the time to help ensure the purity of a breed line. Bad seeds are culled from the society, such as VelvetDarkness' case in which she was shunned for getting an actual education. Again, breeders do the same when they discover an animal that does not possess the proper traits such as coat colour, temperment, size, etc.

Limiting the breed pool to prevent certain traits and emphasise others is common across all sorts of closed societies.

But most of the organizations are forced to recruit from the general population or they dwindle, so they have to adapt to that.

Most virulent forms of thought involve some sort of delivery vector.

 

[Homburg]

But most of the organizations are forced to recruit from the general population or they dwindle, so they have to adapt to that.

Most virulent forms of thought involve some sort of delivery vector.

Depends. Many did not, and thus they died out. Still, it doesn't matter a whole lot as those that recruit from outside aren't bringing in rebels. They're bringing in followers.

 

[Recidiva]

Depends. Many did not, and thus they died out. Still, it doesn't matter a whole lot as those that recruit from outside aren't bringing in rebels. They're bringing in followers.

Followers have to be habituated and broken. There's a lot that can go wrong in that stage. And after.

I think you're acting like this is some unfailable machinery of demonic efficiency, it's a lot more like "Jurassic Park" where the attempted fences just do not always work.

That's why the most virulent forms of these groups don't last long before they metaphorically or literally eat each other alive.

 

[Homburg]

Followers have to be habituated and broken. There's a lot that can go wrong in that stage. And after.

I think you're acting like this is some unfailable machinery of demonic efficiency, it's a lot more like "Jurassic Park" where the attempted fences just do not always work.

That's why the most virulent forms of these groups don't last long before they metaphorically or literally eat each other alive.

I think that you think that I am making some point that I am not making. All I am talking about is how insular societies attempt to ensure continued control, in part by controlling the sort of people that can enter into and stay in that society.

I'm not making judgements here. What I said is as apt to Celtic tribes that left infants with deformities in the woods to die.

And followers are not necessarily habituated and broken. Where does that come from? Some people are just followers by nature. I would think that much would be evident on a board with a BDSM focus. There are some people that don't need breaking to follow. A whole helluva a lot of people actually.

I'm not sure what you think I'm saying. Honestly. Or even where you think I'm coming from. Religion, by and large, is a topic of study for me, not something I personally seek to experience. And I think that I've already mentioned the sort of selection I'm talking about here is not necessarily conscious or intended. It is effect, not the result of planning. This is why I used the "you like blondes" example above.

 

[HarlotMinx]

I think that you think that I am making some point that I am not making. All I am talking about is how insular societies attempt to ensure continued control, in part by controlling the sort of people that can enter into and stay in that society.

I'm not making judgements here. What I said is as apt to Celtic tribes that left infants with deformities in the woods to die.

And followers are not necessarily habituated and broken. Where does that come from? Some people are just followers by nature. I would think that much would be evident on a board with a BDSM focus. There are some people that don't need breaking to follow. A whole helluva a lot of people actually.

I'm not sure what you think I'm saying. Honestly. Or even where you think I'm coming from. Religion, by and large, is a topic of study for me, not something I personally seek to experience. And I think that I've already mentioned the sort of selection I'm talking about here is not necessarily conscious or intended. It is effect, not the result of planning. This is why I used the "you like blondes" example above.

Nono, I get what your saying 100% Cults abduct blond people for cattle breeding. I don't get where the hang up is. See, I'm smart, this is why I dye my hair red, it's so those cult people don't notice me! I know, pretty smart eh?

I was just thinking about it, I wouldn't so much call them a cult but a good example of a closed community which doesn't draw in new followers but manages to survive pretty well is the Amish community. As far as I know they don't really take in new members and yet they've been quite successful. Actually I have a lot of grudges with the Amish I'm not going to go into but I think they're a perfect example.

They absolutely have selective breeding. Inbreeding has actually become a increasingly big issue in the Amish community. Not so much because of marrying cousins but because theirs such a limited pool of people to marry and over the generations they've all become so closely genetically related to each other.

 

[Recidiva]

I think that you think that I am making some point that I am not making. All I am talking about is how insular societies attempt to ensure continued control, in part by controlling the sort of people that can enter into and stay in that society.

I'm not making judgements here. What I said is as apt to Celtic tribes that left infants with deformities in the woods to die.

And followers are not necessarily habituated and broken. Where does that come from? Some people are just followers by nature. I would think that much would be evident on a board with a BDSM focus. There are some people that don't need breaking to follow. A whole helluva a lot of people actually.

I'm not sure what you think I'm saying. Honestly. Or even where you think I'm coming from. Religion, by and large, is a topic of study for me, not something I personally seek to experience. And I think that I've already mentioned the sort of selection I'm talking about here is not necessarily conscious or intended. It is effect, not the result of planning. This is why I used the "you like blondes" example above.

Okay. I'll focus on the point I'm trying to make. I'm not trying to argue. I'm giving my reasons for not thinking there's a one-for-one comparsion of training and culling animals, and training and "culling" humans. I didn't intend to imply that was your point. I'm just going tangentially and making a distinction between how effective those methods are when applied to humans. Sometimes horrible results that backfire in ways that don't apply with animals. Animals rarely break out of their cages and set the farmer's house on fire. Humans do that all the time.

I agree with you on the breaking bit, I mentioned that earlier, so hopefully I can clear up that I'm not really disagreeing with you.

I immersed myself in a cult on purpose. Then kept doing it in order to learn what I could. I'm not expressing things from reading a book. I'm expressing things I learned from being the person who "must have been" brainwashed. I believe you can probably kill me, but not brainwash me.

This isn't an area of study for me, same as VelvetDarkness is using her own experiences, I'm using my own.

Velvet wasn't a voluntary member. I was. Therefore it makes all the difference in the world whether or not you think you're doing something consensually or it's forced on you. I could also make the argument that my suburban upbringing was also failed brainwashing that makes a cult look like an awesome vacation. Childhood is not consensual. Sometimes adulthood can be.

But "informed consent" is what I'm talking about here. Since I did things on an inherently consensual basis and Velvet did her bit without any choice, that's what I'm focusing on here. And there's probably absolutely no comparison to the two. I have a pattern of telling people "Oh HELL no" since I was born. I believe I'd be that way if I were born into a cult also. I'd be a cull so damned fast. I'd either die of it or kill someone over it if there were no escape route otherwise.

People can consensually commit horrors or atrocious acts just as they can commit them without consent. That's really my main point here. That "consent" is very complicated and has to evolve around the moments when you're asked a question and you comprehend the action.

A woman can be raised in a cult and accept that she should be subservient to a man for a lifetime, then have a daughter (or a son) and decide what was okay for her was not okay for her child. It's just as awful to raise a tyrant as a slave. Or vice versa. You can be the most self-involved person in the world and have a baby and then become the most selfless person imaginable. Then it doesn't matter if tyrant or slave exist because - BABY!

My allusions to "machinery" that is employed, miseducation, starvation, deprivation, or building up the ego to insane levels, being "chosen" - these are the mechanisms used to overcome personal choice and will. But a weakened person can also be closer to the unreasonable snapping and killing everyone stage.

That all definitely influences whether or not you're going to choose to be a mother (or a father). But there's a difference between being taught something's right...and then being put in the position of doing it. I think the moments of doing it, of deciding, are pivotal, and can overcome indoctrination.

I'm not arguing with you or Velvet, I'm just bringing out the extremes of indoctrination and will and basically tossing them into Thunderdome.

Sometimes will walks out, sometimes indoctrination walks out. But you really can't tell which one is going to happen.

My bet on me personally is that you can starve me, beat me, call me a Goddess and chosen, and I will either fake looking broken until I set the farmhouse on fire or make some converts of my own.

I've won at least some of my fights in Thunderdome. If you lose, you come away with a different idea of whether or not Thunderdome can be survived. If you lose in childhood...that's entirely different from losing as an adult. But if you never had a chance, that gets my sympathy, not my disdain.

I'm trying to put a more specifically human face on it. Yes, my specific human face might be Mad Maxine.

 

[Recidiva]

Nono, I get what your saying 100% Cults abduct blond people for cattle breeding. I don't get where the hang up is. See, I'm smart, this is why I dye my hair red, it's so those cult people don't notice me! I know, pretty smart eh?

I was just thinking about it, I wouldn't so much call them a cult but a good example of a closed community which doesn't draw in new followers but manages to survive pretty well is the Amish community. As far as I know they don't really take in new members and yet they've been quite successful. Actually I have a lot of grudges with the Amish I'm not going to go into but I think they're a perfect example.

They absolutely have selective breeding. Inbreeding has actually become a increasingly big issue in the Amish community. Not so much because of marrying cousins but because theirs such a limited pool of people to marry and over the generations they've all become so closely genetically related to each other.

The Amish are wise in "Rumspringa" - they suspend Ordnung, which is their laws, for the young. At a certain age they're required to leave the community to see the world, and then choose.

Amish children CHOOSE being Amish adults.

 

[Homburg]

Nono, I get what your saying 100% Cults abduct blond people for cattle breeding. I don't get where the hang up is. See, I'm smart, this is why I dye my hair red, it's so those cult people don't notice me! I know, pretty smart eh?

You are awful. And impertinent.

Fortunately, you are also funny.

I was just thinking about it, I wouldn't so much call them a cult but a good example of a closed community which doesn't draw in new followers but manages to survive pretty well is the Amish community. As far as I know they don't really take in new members and yet they've been quite successful. Actually I have a lot of grudges with the Amish I'm not going to go into but I think they're a perfect example.

They absolutely have selective breeding. Inbreeding has actually become a increasingly big issue in the Amish community. Not so much because of marrying cousins but because theirs such a limited pool of people to marry and over the generations they've all become so closely genetically related to each other.

This is a good example of a closed society, and, by and large, they handle it really well.

--

Okay. I'll focus on the point I'm trying to make. I'm not trying to argue. I'm giving my reasons for not thinking there's a one-for-one comparsion of training and culling animals, and training and "culling" humans. I didn't intend to imply that was your point. I'm just going tangentially and making a distinction between how effective those methods are when applied to humans. Sometimes horrible results that backfire in ways that don't apply with animals. Animals rarely break out of their cages and set the farmer's house on fire. Humans do that all the time.

It is not a one-for-one comparison, and was not intended to be. It is a comparison, that is all.

And I would argue that it can backfire with animals with horrible results too. It is just less common because our capacity for evil has far more depth than that of, say, a cow's capacity for same. Pigs are more capable of evil, but you can't trust a pig, and everyone knows that...

I agree with you on the breaking bit, I mentioned that earlier, so hopefully I can clear up that I'm not really disagreeing with you.

I immersed myself in a cult on purpose. Then kept doing it in order to learn what I could. I'm not expressing things from reading a book. I'm expressing things I learned from being the person who "must have been" brainwashed. I believe you can probably kill me, but not brainwash me.

This isn't an area of study for me, same as VelvetDarkness is using her own experiences, I'm using my own.

Velvet wasn't a voluntary member. I was. Therefore it makes all the difference in the world whether or not you think you're doing something consensually or it's forced on you. I could also make the argument that my suburban upbringing was also failed brainwashing that makes a cult look like an awesome vacation. Childhood is not consensual. Sometimes adulthood can be.

But "informed consent" is what I'm talking about here. Since I did things on an inherently consensual basis and Velvet did her bit without any choice, that's what I'm focusing on here. And there's probably absolutely no comparison to the two. I have a pattern of telling people "Oh HELL no" since I was born. I believe I'd be that way if I were born into a cult also. I'd be a cull so damned fast. I'd either die of it or kill someone over it if there were no escape route otherwise.

People can consensually commit horrors or atrocious acts just as they can commit them without consent. That's really my main point here. That "consent" is very complicated and has to evolve around the moments when you're asked a question and you comprehend the action.

A woman can be raised in a cult and accept that she should be subservient to a man for a lifetime, then have a daughter (or a son) and decide what was okay for her was not okay for her child. It's just as awful to raise a tyrant as a slave. Or vice versa. You can be the most self-involved person in the world and have a baby and then become the most selfless person imaginable. Then it doesn't matter if tyrant or slave exist because - BABY!

My allusions to "machinery" that is employed, miseducation, starvation, deprivation, or building up the ego to insane levels, being "chosen" - these are the mechanisms used to overcome personal choice and will. But a weakened person can also be closer to the unreasonable snapping and killing everyone stage.

That all definitely influences whether or not you're going to choose to be a mother (or a father). But there's a difference between being taught something's right...and then being put in the position of doing it. I think the moments of doing it, of deciding, are pivotal, and can overcome indoctrination.

I'm not arguing with you or Velvet, I'm just bringing out the extremes of indoctrination and will and basically tossing them into Thunderdome.

Sometimes will walks out, sometimes indoctrination walks out. But you really can't tell which one is going to happen.

My bet on me personally is that you can starve me, beat me, call me a Goddess and chosen, and I will either fake looking broken until I set the farmhouse on fire or make some converts of my own.

I've won at least some of my fights in Thunderdome. If you lose, you come away with a different idea of whether or not Thunderdome can be survived. If you lose in childhood...that's entirely different from losing as an adult. But if you never had a chance, that gets my sympathy, not my disdain.

I'm trying to put a more specifically human face on it. Yes, my specific human face might be Mad Maxine.

I kind of get what you're saying. I think we are talking in different directions.

Still, I have to ask: Why? Why go on serial cult exploration?

 

[HarlotMinx]

The Amish are wise in "Rumspringa" - they suspend Ordnung, which is their laws, for the young. At a certain age they're required to leave the community to see the world, and then choose.

Amish children CHOOSE being Amish adults.

I didn't imply otherwise, I did say however that the church only allows marriage within the church and they survive by bringing new members into the fold by biology and not converting people so they by default are breeding within a closed and selective pool... though they don't practice planned marriages to my knowledge. It's just an example of selective breeding

 

[Recidiva]

It is not a one-for-one comparison, and was not intended to be. It is a comparison, that is all.

And I would argue that it can backfire with animals with horrible results too. It is just less common because our capacity for evil has far more depth than that of, say, a cow's capacity for same. Pigs are more capable of evil, but you can't trust a pig, and everyone knows that...

I kind of get what you're saying. I think we are talking in different directions.

Still, I have to ask: Why? Why go on serial cult exploration?

I've known an evil horse. I adored her.

I did it because I could. To prove I could. To prove it had no power over me, or that I could defeat it. I willfully chose something that other people were terrified of doing, and went to go do it. For me it's the spiritual equivalent of taking heroin and betting I wouldn't be addicted. For the "HAH HAH! I knew it! I'm awesome!" factor. But you really don't KNOW things like that until you try them. I have yet to try heroin as my body isn't all that cooperative in the way that my will is. There were other weirdnesses and reasons, but I really think that it was my ego made me done it.

I think that's why people choose BDSM also. To explore all the power it has over a body and a mind. Sometimes it kicks their ass and they're terrified and think everyone involved are freaks, and sometimes it's just so..."is that it? Really?" and some people just find a comfy home with a perfectly situated dungeon close to the facilities.

You can consensually join a cult for the challenge of the thing. I thought I'd be some sort of hero, undercover reporter...ended up finding out it's just humans.

I think most BDSM people figure that out eventually too and stick around because at least they're interesting humans.

Interesting people thrive in extreme environments and in fact seek them out to challenge and test themselves. There's also just reveling in how easy something can be that is such a struggle for other people, either through hard work or natural talent or both.

I suffered from spiritual ego. But for me it was because my body was weak so for a while my motto was "Soul of Titanium, Will of Steel, Body of Silly Putty."

My body's gotten a bit better, and the titanium was an overstatement. Steel's pretty good though.

I don't do stuff like that any more, because I have kids, because I've done it before...because there's a limit to how self-destructive I want to be to prove I can survive destruction.

But I get the mindset and the reveling and how it's still all just humans. Some pretending to be more or less than they are to get by, some being exactly who they are.

 

[Recidiva]

I didn't imply otherwise, I did say however that the church only allows marriage within the church and they survive by bringing new members into the fold by biology and not converting people so they by default are breeding within a closed and selective pool... though they don't practice planned marriages to my knowledge. It's just an example of selective breeding

I didn't imply that you implied otherwise.

What's with all the implying today? Am I wearing Eau De Imply?

Anyway, I won't imply, but will state that it is my opinion that selective breeding in limited populations isn't selective, which implies lots of choices. It just doesn't have many options. It's default inbreeding.