Is BDSM the new chivalry?

[bridgeburner]

And all of that meandering around and explanation could have been easily dispensed with had you only included the obligatory "I am Netzach" answer.


-B

 

[Liana26]

I think that there are a lot of similarities, but as graceanne said, it doesn't have to be biblical. I guess it depends on the person. I voted yes, mostly because when I was a little kid and didn't know what BDSM was, bible verses like that turned me on. Naughty of me, no?

 

[dexwebster]

Is BDSM a twist on a biblical ideal? I'm gonna say no.

I'd say it's pre-medieval, pre-biblical, and completely natural, although normal is a different story. Canines bare their throats to the alpha males, bonobo chimpanzees have (shock of shocks!) non-reproductive and even homosexual sex as a matter of social discourse. The concept of dominance and submission has been around as long as there have been humans (and for damn sure as long as there were siblings), whether in a social or sexual sense.

As far as similarities between BDSM and the bible, I think it was pretty much just a continuation of the current social model, which some theories trace back to the agricultural revolution--not so coincidentally, around the same time as the collapse of most matriarchal societies and goddess-cult based religions (me personally, I think that, if anything, the writers of the Bible and the initial proponents of Christianity were pretty much guys scribbling in the margins so they could tell their wives, "Oh look, God says it just and right for you to be our slaves too, now you really have to do what we say, or you'll burn in hell." But that's just me).

Chivalry is a slightly different story. The biblical concept of woman-as-man's-property isn't exactly what I consider chivalry; it was more a man caring for and attending to a woman because she was too weak to do it herself, and they weren't necessarily sexual partners or spouses (which were often two different things--marriage has been political a lot more often than it has been romantic). It doesn't fit exactly, because BDSM thankfully doesn't have the underlying supposition of the woman's inferiority, but in some cases it shares that same idea of noble service/sacrifice, in more paradigms than M/f, ie., a submissive enduring goodness-knows-what-torment for the pleasure of his or her dominant. Sort of like chivalry without the condescension.


Oh, and the "Don't eat the damn bottom feeding shellfish" thing?

from www.godhatesshrimp.com, an absolutely hysterical parody site of Fred Phelps' church:

Leviticus 11:9-12 says:
10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
11 They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
12 Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

Deuteronomy 14:9-10 says:
9 These ye shall eat of all that are in the waters: all that have fins and scales shall ye eat:
10 And whatsoever hath not fins and scales ye may not eat; it is unclean unto you.

Shrimp, crab, lobster, clams, mussels, all these are an abomination before the Lord, just as gays are an abomination. Why stop at protesting gay marriage? Bring all of God's law unto the heathens and the sodomites. We call upon all Christians to join the crusade against Long John Silver's and Red Lobster. Yea, even Popeye's shall be cleansed. The name of Bubba shall be anathema. We must stop the unbelievers from destroying the sanctity of our restaurants.

 

[Aeroil]

Ick, Christians give me headaches....... no offence but I just wanna smack some of the fanatic ones and tell them to think for themselves. Okay I was leaving this morning, gonna comment on this fully now.

BDSM is just one of thousands of deviations created by the randomness of human development, as our society grows and evolves, so will we, we're gonna change. As for being chivalrous, the actual word chivalry is of course in reference to the knights' old code of honour. I follow honour, I consider myself quite chivalrous, but I think the knights back then had a pretty skew code of honour, chivalry to me is somewhat akin to valiance, merely correcting a wrong that you happen to see instead of just ignoring it because it's "not my problem". I see no ties at all between BDSM and chivalry.

 

[bridgeburner]

There aren't any unless one wants to look at Eleanor of Aquitaine as the original Queen Dominatrix and even that's a stretch and a skewing of what was really going on at the time which was more about class distinctions than gender relations except as it applied to Eleanor herself and then it was all about political power.


-B

 

[YinandYang]

I have never read the bible, so couldn't compare any quotes on the relation between BDSM and the said book, therefore I don't see the relevance in it.

 

[Marquis]

If anything, I think of BDSM as the new feminism.

I think women are so damn used to being treated different that they can't believe it when you offer them no extra courtesies than you would offer a male. I treat well those that treat me well, but why am I obligated to be nicer to females as a whole?

The thing that annoys me the most is the "sensitivity" thing. There's a whole bunch of shit you just can't say to women because they're too sensitive and insecure. And god forbid you should get into it with a female, you're always expected to be the first to back down. What kind of bullshit is that?

I guess many females are so overconfident that a man would not hit them, that they're not afraid of escalating the argument to the physical level. I would never attack a female, but I'll be goddamned if I don't shake the shit out of a bitch who raises her hands on me.

Where was I going with all this?

Nothing should come free because you're a female. My love, affection and attention, you gotta EARN this shit bitch! I don't give a fuck if you're the prettiest woman in the world. Your looks are just a flower in someone elses garden until you start giving me what I want.

 

[bridgeburner]

BDSM is a practice and those who practice it have many varied philosophies some of them more legitimate than others. I don't think you can say that BDSM is A school of thought because there isn't just one. It works or doesn't work for individuals because of the way those individuals are wired and while it may ultimately conform to some credo in the minds of indivicuals BDSM itself is not a philosophy.


-B

 

[bridgeburner]

And much as I hate to do it to you Marquis, I gotta call bunk on that. Your personal feelings about women in general don't say anything about BDSM. You may inform your version of BDSM with that view, but in and of itself BDSM is not about one gender or the other. Does it work for YOU on a gender level? Sure. Does it work for others on that level? Of course, but it doesn't work for everyone on that level or even most.


-B

 

[Marquis]

And much as I hate to do it to you Marquis, I gotta call bunk on that. Your personal feelings about women in general don't say anything about BDSM. You may inform your version of BDSM with that view, but in and of itself BDSM is not about one gender or the other. Does it work for YOU on a gender level? Sure. Does it work for others on that level? Of course, but it doesn't work for everyone on that level or even most.


-B

So you're saying BDSM is NOT the new feminism?

 

[bridgeburner]

So you're saying BDSM is NOT the new feminism?

Right. How does BDSM between two gay men have anything to do with feminism? How does the relationship between a FemDomme and a male sub support the idea that they are now equal enough for him to hit her when she gets mouthy? How do whips and chains determine which of two lesbian partners is the more liberated?

Now, I can see how in a Mf relationship BDSM practice can challenge PC ideals and satisfy a need to act against the radical big-F Feminist idea that women are somehow superior by their gender, but that's not something that the practice of BDSM brings to the table. That's something that the participants bring.

-B

 

[graceanne]

I think that BDSM is what you make it. If you want it to be biblical, it can be, if you want it to be the new form of feminism, it can be. *shrugs* I didn't even vote, cause I don't think that it's as pat as the options made it sound.

 

[Marquis]

Right. How does BDSM between two gay men have anything to do with feminism? How does the relationship between a FemDomme and a male sub support the idea that they are now equal enough for him to hit her when she gets mouthy? How do whips and chains determine which of two lesbian partners is the more liberated?

Now, I can see how in a Mf relationship BDSM practice can challenge PC ideals and satisfy a need to act against the radical big-F Feminist idea that women are somehow superior by their gender, but that's not something that the practice of BDSM brings to the table. That's something that the participants bring.

-B

I get your point.


However, I hold that a system of sexuality in which we get to choose our roles has the double function of relieving us of our responsibility to play the role society chooses for us.

 

[bridgeburner]

I hold that a system of sexuality in which we get to choose our roles has the double function of relieving us of our responsibility to play the role society chooses for us.

I can certainly agree with you there, but I don't think that choice of roles is confined to BDSM. From some perspectives there's perhaps less choice involved since many more seem to subscribe to the nature v nurture theory of role assignment.

However, any situation in which a person owns his or her sexuality is both empowering and liberating and I think the focus on sexuality in BDSM makes this more apparent.

-B

 

[Netzach]

actually, I think people owning and choosing and negotiating their own sexuality regardless of gender is consistent with feminist ideals, at least the ones *I* personally like to affiliate myself with, not the proscriptive paranoid "penis=evil" stuff.

 

[bridgeburner]

And what's wrong with evil penis anyway?

 

[Netzach]

I like 'em big and benign and ready for hurtin', but that's just me.