Christian Submissives: Brainwashed?

[Evil_Geoff]

I love the idea of a submissive breeding farm, with those pens to hold the cows tightly so they can't move around when I come around and sew my seed. I mean, the girls. Actually, that would be a dom breeding farm. Hm. *scratches head*

&

What, you don't think they already exist? I'll have you know I come from a long line of slaves. I've been bred for the perfect look, demeanor, and milk production (don't ask). Why my mother was sold for a record price on the slave livestock market!

It's called...



Gor

 

[HarlotMinx]

Gor

I did not think that the spider plant would object to being watered by its master again. For it realized that it was plant, and that here, unlike on Earth, it was likely to be owned and watered by many masters.

 

[HarlotMinx]

I did not think that the spider plant would object to being watered by its master again. For it realized that it was plant, and that here, unlike on Earth, it was likely to be owned and watered by many masters.

May this one partake of her daily feeding? This one hungers for her master's seed!

 

[Evil_Geoff]

May this one partake of her daily feeding? This one hungers for her master's seed!

*LOL* Good girl! I should wrap you in red silks and sirik... have you fetch me paga and bosk steak... After being sated I might send you to the furs and make cruel and intense use of you...

 

[Recidiva]

I'm just resisting any flat simplifications. Homburg didn't hedge his claims at all, he just said "if you like blondes, it's cause you were bred for it" and that's highly controversial at best.

I think he said that if you choose a blond as a mate, you're selecting for it.

But I think that's a different thing. I might have misread it.

 

[rosco rathbone]

if you choose a blond as a mate, you're selecting for it.

Well, humans aren't peacocks. There are various claims about what humans have and haven't selected for sexually, but none of it is well-understood.

 

[HarlotMinx]

*LOL* Good girl! I should wrap you in red silks and sirik... have you fetch me paga and bosk steak... After being sated I might send you to the furs and make cruel and intense use of you...

*offers up a tray with a single ripe yellow peach on it, head bowed.* (reference Tribesmen of Gor)

Just a note, not a fan of Gor, just well read on the subject (makes me feel like I'm not a total bastard when I make fun of it).

 

[HarlotMinx]

Well, humans aren't peacocks. There are various claims about what humans have and haven't selected for sexually, but none of it is well-understood.

 

[Recidiva]

Well, humans aren't peacocks. There are various claims about what humans have and haven't selected for sexually, but none of it is well-understood.

I agree with the not understood.

The interaction between temperament, personality, upbringing, environment, genetics, brain chemical tendency, availability of resources to the brain to be able to function at baseline or optimum, physical and mental conditioning or talent...

I don't think any of that is predictable. I'd have to see a model where someone accurately predicts it that doesn't read like a weather report.

"70% chance of partly cloudy child."

 

[rosco rathbone]

I agree with the not understood.

The interaction between temperament, personality, upbringing, environment, genetics, brain chemical tendency, availability of resources to the brain to be able to function at baseline or optimum, physical and mental conditioning or talent...

I don't think any of that is predictable. I'd have to see a model where someone accurately predicts it that doesn't read like a weather report.

"70% chance of partly cloudy child."

It's all very Gattaca.

 

[VelvetDarkness]

Ok... let me organise my thoughts on this.

Homburg's comments about blondes were an example. The point he was making was that if you have an insular, anti-social cult where people do not seek experience or knowledge outside it, those who adhere to those tenets will stay, marry and breed, while those who do not will leave. That's a mild form of selection. Similarly, those who are recruited will join up because they have the temperament and character traits that suit such an insular life, which is also a form of selection. Give it a half dozen generations and you have a highly institutionalized (for want of a better word) group who do not question their society or the 'truths' and tenets they are spoonfed from birth.

If I understand Recidiva correctly, she went into Scientology as an adult with worldy knowledge and experience under her belt. She left Scientology with her eyes wide open too. This kind of experience is vastly removed from the lifelong conditioning and control that I witnessed and lived through as a child. That's not to devalue her experiences or perspective but I don't see how it's constructive to compare a social experiment she chose to conduct as an adult with the kind of religious community that I have been describing.

You can say that people always have a choice and that there are rebels in every generation but to assert that from the perspective of a free thinking liberal living in the tolerant west is IMO somewhat idealistic. Just as Stockholm Syndrome conditions captives into forming an attachment/dependency with their abductor, so that level of all encompassing control and conditioning in a religious community produces fearful and strongly emotionally dependent adults.

In my Christian community, it's not fair to say that only the women were conditioned or 'brainwashed.' The men were equally raised to believe that women require strong leadership, that they are inferior to men before God, that their place is in the home, preferably with children to raise and that women are predisposed by the deity that created them to be modest, submissive chattel. The men were not tyrants (though you always get a few) but they were utterly convinced of their divine right to govern the life of their spouse to whatever minuscule degree they deemed appropriate. Regardless of the temperament of the husband, it's still a lot of control to hand any one person and history has borne out the theory that - by and large - power corrupts.

Roscoe's original question was whether Christian submissive wives are brainwashed and I can say that from my personal experience, it is possible and it still happens today. I am not saying that every single person in this Church that I encountered fit within what I've been saying absolutely but I can say that the majority were as I have described. I don't consider lifelong social/religious conditioning to be conducive to informed consent and I don't believe that many of these people are given the opportunity or additional knowledge that they need in order to question their status quo.

 

[Recidiva]

Thank you VelvetDarkness. I tried to express that I'm not making comparisons between what's done consensually and what's done by choice, what's done to children and what's done by adults.

If I've been argumentatitive or invalidating in any way, that was unintended.

 

[VelvetDarkness]

Thank you VelvetDarkness. I tried to express that I'm not making comparisons between what's done consensually and what's done by choice, what's done to children and what's done by adults.

If I've been argumentatitive or invalidating in any way, that was unintended.

I don't feel you've been argumentative. If anything I've been frustrated at my own failings in articulating myself adequately. I do love this forum for that. When a discussion really kicks off you have to be very accurate and concise in posting. I consider it a great disservice to children to foist a religion onto them. Morals can be taught completely separately and as the more liberal churches have found, forcing a child into a faith often pushes them to rebel even more strongly. I think that infant baptism should be banned to be honest. I really don't see what purpose it serves beyond an excuse for a family gathering.

 

[Recidiva]

I don't feel you've been argumentative. If anything I've been frustrated at my own failings in articulating myself adequately. I do love this forum for that. When a discussion really kicks off you have to be very accurate and concise in posting. I consider it a great disservice to children to foist a religion onto them. Morals can be taught completely separately and as the more liberal churches have found, forcing a child into a faith often pushes them to rebel even more strongly. I think that infant baptism should be banned to be honest. I really don't see what purpose it serves beyond an excuse for a family gathering.

I feel the same way. I'm always perfectly willing to rewind and attempt to not mangle it this time.

I've raised my children to explore any religion they so choose, but please wait until later to pick one.

I also encourage them to date around, don't follow the monogamy model unless they want to.

Basically, start light and build to devotion. Devotion's a beautiful thing, but it's not done under fear or pressure. It grows like a tree with strong roots.

I view infant baptism as an introduction celebration party for a baby. An opportunity to gather and celebrate. But for me, babies are always a good reason for a party.

I know lots of things have menacing overtones. The idea that your baby's going to hell or more at risk if you don't do it - high on that list. I see most baby showers as pretty secular though. Less about hell and more about - LOOK! BABY!

If I get an invitation that has a big devil with an X through it saying "Let's Celebrate! My little bundle of joy is no longer be under Satan's sway at 2:00 on Sunday, bring Pot Luck!" I'll reconsider.

 

[FurryFury]

LOL!

GREAT post! This thread is turning out to be very enjoyable for me.

I feel the same way. I'm always perfectly willing to rewind and attempt to not mangle it this time.

I've raised my children to explore any religion they so choose, but please wait until later to pick one.

I also encourage them to date around, don't follow the monogamy model unless they want to.

Basically, start light and build to devotion. Devotion's a beautiful thing, but it's not done under fear or pressure. It grows like a tree with strong roots.

I view infant baptism as an introduction celebration party for a baby. An opportunity to gather and celebrate. But for me, babies are always a good reason for a party.

I know lots of things have menacing overtones. The idea that your baby's going to hell or more at risk if you don't do it - high on that list. I see most baby showers as pretty secular though. Less about hell and more about - LOOK! BABY!

If I get an invitation that has a big devil with an X through it saying "Let's Celebrate! My little bundle of joy is no longer be under Satan's sway at 2:00 on Sunday, bring Pot Luck!" I'll reconsider.

 

[Tawny_Temptress]

I was raised Christian and none of the women in my family are submissive. I am only interested in beng submissive, sexually and only sometimes, myself. *shrugs*

 

[Rhosyn]

I was raised christian as well, and never until now did I give much thought to their being a link between submissive behavior and christianity until now, reading through the posts. I suppose there is a soft of physchology behind it, not to say anyone that is or was christian is now in fact submissive. But due to the strong beliefs that christians have and depending on how discplined your parents were about you following that faith, would really have a rally big impact on how you view authority, therefore making you a bit on the submissive side. My grandmother who raised me, was very strict and just like someone else had mentioned earlier on, following God was the one and only way to realy ever proving yourself worthy i guess you could say. I personally dont follow christianity now after many years of studying and finding it to be one of the biggest lies around, along with great brainwashing techniques that churches and congregations use to trap you into believing one thing. Submissive behavior is ultimately something I choose for myself as an adult, that I find to be sexually arousing... If my childhood upbringing influenced that behavior * shrugs* perhaps, but I think I find it very enjoyable and would in any situation, whether i was raised that way or not.

 

[satindesire]

To me, my religion and my sexual choices are two seperate petals on a flower. They both are peices of me, but are in no way influencing each other.

 

[Homburg]

I have a problem with use of the term "brainwashing," in the context of a discussion of church teachings, such as the Baptist admonition that "a wife is to submit graciously to the servant leadership of her husband." Either *all* of a church's teachings are "brainwashing," or none of them are.

In my case, and I hope this was obvious, I was referring to a specific range of activities and techniques that are actually brainwashing. I don't use that term as a generic for teaching, conditioning, etc. It refers to a combination of psychology, effects, trappings, use of stimuli, etc designed to put humans into a mentally receptive state.

--

Of course, you could explain the uniform behavior traits in a small closed society just as easily-much more easily, actually-by nurture and culture. There's definitely a genetic component to behaviour, but humans, being much more complex and self-aware, can't be compared to livestock bred for temperament.

I did not deny nurture or culture. I think I was pretty clear in stating that it was an element. And, yeah, the comparison can be made. Enough time has been spent throughout history selecting for such thing. We just have a (thankfully) incomplete understanding of the topic because we're more complex than the livestock to which I am comparing us.

I'm just resisting any flat simplifications. Homburg didn't hedge his claims at all, he just said "if you like blondes, it's cause you were bred for it" and that's highly controversial at best.

Actually, I said, "Say you find blondes attractive, and tend to go for them as sexual partners. That's selective breeding."

I think he said that if you choose a blond as a mate, you're selecting for it.

But I think that's a different thing. I might have misread it.

And Recidiva was spot on.

ETA: To clarify, I'm not trying to imply some sort of evil intelligence directing breeding and such to some specific end. It is as simple as a preference for blondes. Societies such as we are talking have a preference for the docile in temperment. They select for that the same way someone with a hankering for blondes selects blondes. As VelvetDarkness said they want those traits and will look for them both in members and recruits.

--

Well, humans aren't peacocks. There are various claims about what humans have and haven't selected for sexually, but none of it is well-understood.

The Golden Ratio is pretty well codified, and present in our pan-human decisions on proper proportions. Symmetry is likewise pan-human vis a vis attractiveness. Hetero men, for example, tend to prefer a certain waist-to-hip ratio (probably the Golden Ratio again) in women, and studies have been done that show the "ideal" human face to be composed of lots of little Golden Ratios, and applicable to either male or female faces.

It may not be understood why we dig 1:0.618etc so much, but it is certainly documented extensively. And we can trace such things as hips-to-waist, skin tone, symmetry, etc to signs of healthy breeding stock. The blonde example may not fit pan-culture, but there are enough markers that do cross human culture and sexuality in broad enough terms to be consistently applicable.

So, no, we aren't peacocks, but this does not mean that we should ignore the lessons peacocks have to teach us, nor that peacocks, and animals in general, are useless for comparisons. When it comes to initial attraction, we are still looking for our version of the peacock's tail. It's just a more complex version.

ETA: Yes, there are exceptions, and plenty of them. Humans is complicated. But there are enough consistencies that we can predict what a serious chunk of the population will find visually appealing.

 

[Netzach]

It's not about balls. It's really about not caring. It's less trouble to go and to have your mom cook Sunday dinner and your wife sleep with you, than take a stand and go hungry and sexless tonight.

Some people go BECAUSE they don't care enough to fight it and they just don't listen anyway. It's just another social obligation.

Or it's just social.

You go because you like the people, some of them or most of them. If I were my FIL I would tell the Lutherans to stuff it and go to MCC, but he likes the 98 percent of the congregation that has no problem with him and his partner.

As a non church going or synagogue going or "ew, community center" kind of hermit person I really had to have this spelled out to me by my favorite Lutherans.

 

[Netzach]

If I get an invitation that has a big devil with an X through it saying "Let's Celebrate! My little bundle of joy is no longer be under Satan's sway at 2:00 on Sunday, bring Pot Luck!" I'll reconsider.

That's the only baby shower invite I'd ever be excited about.

 

[Netzach]

Paul had a LOT of issues. And thoroughly believed that the Second Coming would occur during HIS lifetime... That's why there's all the stuff about being celibate, and not wasting time and energy with sex and relationships and children. "Why get married and have a family when Christ is coming back tomorrow and the End Times will be upon us? Get out there and SPREAD THE WORD!"

It's great motivation to evangelize, but not so much for the how to build real relationships.

I think he's a totally fascinating cat. Totally the moneyed overachiever, even after conversion, in some ways. Your interpretation does also kind of imply the non-literal or maybe MORE literal interpretation of the Messiah as "guy who gets us out from under Rome."

 

[Netzach]

In my case, and I hope this was obvious, I was referring to a specific range of activities and techniques that are actually brainwashing. I don't use that term as a generic for teaching, conditioning, etc. It refers to a combination of psychology, effects, trappings, use of stimuli, etc designed to put humans into a mentally receptive state.

--



I did not deny nurture or culture. I think I was pretty clear in stating that it was an element. And, yeah, the comparison can be made. Enough time has been spent throughout history selecting for such thing. We just have a (thankfully) incomplete understanding of the topic because we're more complex than the livestock to which I am comparing us.



Actually, I said, "Say you find blondes attractive, and tend to go for them as sexual partners. That's selective breeding."



And Recidiva was spot on.

--



The Golden Ratio is pretty well codified, and present in our pan-human decisions on proper proportions. Symmetry is likewise pan-human vis a vis attractiveness. Hetero men, for example, tend to prefer a certain waist-to-hip ratio (probably the Golden Ratio again) in women, and studies have been done that show the "ideal" human face to be composed of lots of little Golden Ratios, and applicable to either male or female faces.

It may not be understood why we dig 1:0.618etc so much, but it is certainly documented extensively. And we can trace such things as hips-to-waist, skin tone, symmetry, etc to signs of healthy breeding stock. The blonde example may not fit pan-culture, but there are enough markers that do cross human culture and sexuality in broad enough terms to be consistently applicable.

So, no, we aren't peacocks, but this does not mean that we should ignore the lessons peacocks have to teach us, nor that peacocks, and animals in general, are useless for comparisons. When it comes to initial attraction, we are still looking for our version of the peacock's tail. It's just a more complex version.

ETA: Yes, there are exceptions, and plenty of them. Humans is complicated. But there are enough consistencies that we can predict what a serious chunk of the population will find visually appealing.

The problem is that so much extra visual information can cancel out the visual with us. Most of us, anyway. I admit I chased the tail.

 

[Homburg]

The problem is that so much extra visual information can cancel out the visual with us. Most of us, anyway. I admit I chased the tail.

I'm with ya. I'm just saying that we aren't so far removed from our less sentient friends when it comes to what we notice at a bar or the beach. Plumage is in whether you're a featherless biped or a feathered one.

 

[Recidiva]

Or it's just social.

You go because you like the people, some of them or most of them. If I were my FIL I would tell the Lutherans to stuff it and go to MCC, but he likes the 98 percent of the congregation that has no problem with him and his partner.

As a non church going or synagogue going or "ew, community center" kind of hermit person I really had to have this spelled out to me by my favorite Lutherans.

I was having this conversation with my husband last night and he said "An hour sitting in a pew thinking about something else is worth peace in the house. I'd go to church for you."

I wouldn't even ask him to watch movies I don't think he would like. So hearing this is nice.

I'd go to church for him also. No doubt. He's probably the only percentage of the congregation that would matter, but it would matter a lot to me that he's happy.

I'm a hermit. I have no social obligations and I like it that way.