Will you/do you teach your children about D/s?

[catalina_francisco]

I dunno, I like to think that if there is a God, that entity is not as cursed with narrow minded judgementalism and failure as those created. Stands to reason really.....if those who do not conform to this simplistic, idealised picture of big, strong, dominant/domineering, heterosexual, man and small, weaker, softer, submissive, heterosexual woman are not as was intended, then the human making that statement IMHO is in essence making a judgement on God and saying s/he makes a lot of mistakes and fuck ups.....because sorry to introduce cold reality here, but the majority on earth do not fit that image of male/female so called perfection. My thinking is if we owe our very existence to some omnipresent being, and that means everyone is a creation of that God not just some, we are hardly in a position to, or being respectful to make such a judgement when our power is so much less we can barely get through a simple life unscathed.

Perhaps in the required wisdom of one who creates and controls all, there is diversity and need for difference and growth more so than the idea the original creations were the prototypes and all who differ in any way from their image or personality are defective......because really God is credited with creating everyone isn't s/he, not just Adam and Eve? Let's face it, if you want to get down to basing such judgements of who is living as God intended and approved, for a start no-one on earth would qualify, but also wouldn't it be just as reasonable to insist that we should look exactly as Adam and Eve looked (anyone got pics?), be of the same race (hmmm, don't think there were white Americans, Aussies, Pommies, Chinese etc. in those days so they are defective to start with in this way of rationalising everything), dress the same as in those early times (now there is an argument for nudism as from what I have seen A & E weren't dressed when they were created ), and just not move forward at all in any way?

I am always amazed at Christians who hold this view, and those who also discriminate against those of the race and region where it all is said to have begun.....there seems to be this Anglo way of deleting the knowledge that Adam and Eve would not have been nice,white, educated, and married...just as there is selective judgements made on other characteristics and things which the one judging does not have as part of their make up. That IMO is not God giving approval but humans taking it upon themselves to decide for him/her what is and isn't acceptable...IOW, discrimination and oppression. It is also part of the reason I do not support the death sentence..... how many innocent people have been wrongly sent to their death by just such self righteous people who felt they knew and saw all when they knew zilch but were drunk on the false power they felt was theirs to exercise?

By all means follow whatever religion you choose, but don't do it blindly, without thought and research, or use it to judge some but if they are your friend...well then they are OK and exempt..own what you are doing, and most of all, don't use it to condemn others while promoting your own view of your right to be who you are by presenting selective and simplistic views..be honest and look with open eyes...come to think of it, I always believed Jesus was portrayed as being a smallish man, no muscle bound, dominant type male, so was he too 'not really up to scratch' and not considered a 'real man'? It is this blinker like, dogmatic belief pattern which creates one war after another....what makes it so difficult for Christians who feel so strongly they are living as God intended (and thus want to impose that system of belief on everyone), to understand that perhaps someone of an opposing religion, but with just as strong a fanaticism and feeling of being right, could just as easily see it as their right to impose their system on everyone? Oh, that's right, that's because they are wrong.

Catalina

Edited to add an explanation I found in the Bible we were given as a wedding gift from one of my closest friends who spends every waking moment serving God and the church......I admire her, but it isn't for me.

"Why the unique creation of woman? - God himself concluded it was not good for the male to be alone. While the animals and other creatures had been created in pairs, the Lord allowed Adam to come to the self realisation that he needed fellowship, freindship and intimacy from a creature corresponding to himself. Thus God made him a helper . This does not mean that women are inferior to men or that they are designed merely to be assistants to men. The word helper may more accurately mean a strength or a power , and thus women are comparable to men. Often God himself is designated be the term helper or strength (eg. Psalm 33:20). God, therefore, made woman for the man as his equal and his match as a partner in life. She was taken from one of the man's ribs , probably to show an interdependence. She was dependent on the man; men are dependent upon a woman to give birth to them. "

 

[His_pita]

I actually have discussed my beliefs in length with several people on this board. Before I go into it, I also want to state that I don't believe that any sin is greater than another. I am a gossip, I occasionally lie, I covet, I'm EXTREEMLY prideful . . . you get the idea. I think, though, that the most overlooked sin in the Christian community is judging. Judge not, lest ye be judged. Until the day that I am perfect I will not be judging others. Or at least I'll try not to. I am human - but I try. The Christian community will tell you in one breath that all you gotta do to be saved is accept Jesus is your savior and he died for your sins, and in the next breath say 'But you can't do this or that to be saved, and you can't believe this or that''. The hypocrisy annoy's the hell out of me.

I agree with this statement very much. I am a Christian also but truly try to only judge and worry about myself. It's not my job to go judging anyone for what they do. I don't want them judging me. That is my God's job and He is more then capable of doing it.

On the subject of if I would tell my child. I am going to be in a D/s relationship, we plan to introduce it slowly, and only to the point of her knowing what she needs to or ask about.

She is 13 and we have an extremely open relationship when talking about sex. I think you tell them what they can handle at the time. I will say that kids today seem to know much more then I did at that age. But, she is still a kid and I am her mom so I plan to be very careful about what she is exposed to.

 

[Kajira Callista]

what does religion have to do with what you would tell your child about your sex life? they are two separate entities in my world. just wondering

 

[nightdancer2876]

No it's not an acronym. I was just curious, I wasn't trying to be rude, promise


D

 

[catalina_francisco]

what does religion have to do with what you would tell your child about your sex life? they are two separate entities in my world. just wondering

LOL, I think it began as a diversional discussion into the rightness of the M/f model and thus D/s being designated as the way things were intended according to Christian belief and the Bible and that F/m or F/f or M/m was not approved of or intended by God and Christianity....so I expect then if you raise your children with that belief system, they are getting the message in a subtle, indirect way. I can see a connection for anyone who might have any religious belief system they follow, but more so in a way of how you treat your fellow man or woman (ie. ethics etc.) and how you accept not everyone has to be a clone of each other.

Catalina

 

[jasonlf]

"Why the unique creation of woman? - God himself concluded it was not good for the male to be alone. While the animals and other creatures had been created in pairs, the Lord allowed Adam to come to the self realisation that he needed fellowship, freindship and intimacy from a creature corresponding to himself. Thus God made him a helper . This does not mean that women are inferior to men or that they are designed merely to be assistants to men. The word helper may more accurately mean a strength or a power , and thus women are comparable to men. Often God himself is designated be the term helper or strength (eg. Psalm 33:20). God, therefore, made woman for the man as his equal and his match as a partner in life. She was taken from one of the man's ribs , probably to show an interdependence. She was dependent on the man; men are dependent upon a woman to give birth to them. "

Here's a piece of Biblical trivia for you.

The word "helper" in the creation account, when referring to the woman, is almost better translated as "lifesaver"...

 

[Netzach]

Jason, Grace, I'm not putting words in your mouths, or thoughts in your head. I genuinely believe that you are both nice people, and are sincere in your good intentions. I am made nervous, however, by the fact that you fall back on the same justification for your views that has been used for centuries to justify all sorts of inhumane behavior. Do I think that either of you is likely to personally do harm to me or anyone like me? No, of course not. But do I think that people who use the same belief system that you subscribe to will attempt to judge, legislate, and otherwise control the private personal lives of all the people in this country, up to and including altering the Constitution to serve the viewpoint of a single religion? Yes, quite frankly, I think that exact thing is already happening as we speak.

Without intending to condemn either of you individually, I stand by what I said in my previous post--that this exact pattern of reasoning, if it continues to dominate our country, will result directly in the reversal of over two centuries of religious and personal freedom. I also stand by my belief that as people whose sexual inclinations lie outside the heterosexual, baby-making, man-on-top, get-it-done-fast-and-who-cares-if-she-enjoys-it vaginal intercourse between married people will be among the first to have their freedoms and privacy stripped away. That means all of us--not just the gays, not just the Femme tops and male bottoms, but anyone who owns a pair of handcuffs, a dildo, or a tube of KY.

I'm sorry if my fear of people who think the way you say you do offends you. But when you say that your relationship is OK because it's approved in the Bible (though I maintain it isn't, because, as I've said before, the Bible doesn't give a fig for the woman's consent to be dominated), while mine is "not a sin," but also "not Biblical," and Etoile's is sin plain and simple--yeah, you make me nervous. Maybe you're willing to leave the judging of me and Etoile up to God, but a whole bunch of folks who think what you think are perfectly happy to step up and start in on the judging in this life. So, no, I don't think I'm out of line in challenging your position.

Note to Etoile: Sorry to drag you into this; I needed an example of someone in a same-sex relationship who was known and respected on this forum, and you were the first one to pop into my head. My apologies for singling you out.

So let's pretend I'm a practising Jew for a moment.

I am now responsible for the actions of the Israelis, because other practising Jews send money to right wing settler fanatics and whatnot.

Very scary thought.

Taking it a step further, shall we blame a Muslim who says "I intentionally wear the headscarf because it is appropriate according to the law where women are concerned" and hold her responsible for 9/11 by mere association?

If you have a political problem, I suggest addressing your pandering legislators. I don't think blaming every single person of faith is really the issue at all, simply the ones who are trying to effect the legislation you are worried about.

 

[Willow Rain]

Well, as a Mom I've thought about this. The common family structures in my family, mine, parents, siblings, aunts, uncles... etc... on my side of the family all have some version of power differential. Some would call it old fashioned style marriages, or biblical ones. I would call it a version of D/s. We even have one couple, my one aunt, where she is the one in charge and he is the more submissive. So there is a lot of variety, long long solid marriages, and power differentials. My kid is hardly going to miss it, or not notice. There isn't tons of fetish gear in the house. We don't do a lot of formal, Sir address kind of stuff. Mostly we live on equal footing and he gets to pull rank when he wants to. I realize that when she gets wider into the world, she is going to kinda grock that our family dynamic is a little off the modern standard.

Mostly I try to help my daughter be confident and true to herself. I am utterly not invested in how she chooses to live her life as long as it is healthy, makes her happy and gives her a sense of acomplishment and fullfillment.

But... there are some .... well.. interesting side issues that come up. As example:

One of her favorite games, to get her Daddy to come in to wrestle with us and pinch her (which she utterly loves), is to lump on me and squish me and whisper to me, "Yell for help. Yell for help, Mommy." This has long been a silly game, where I will yell for help and he will come in and squash and tickle us both.

As a toddler she would be playing with her Dad, and I had one rule I set in place. It was important to me that when she said stop, that that was respected by adults in her life. I think it is cruel to tickle kids beyond what they can bare. Anyway. He would tickle her and she would yell stop, he would stop, she would catch her breath and then howl happily, "tickle me Daddy." Over and over this would go on.

She and I are lounging in the hot tub recently and she gets up out of it to sit on the edge. We are at a hotel, and she is a tween by the way. SHe says to me, "I don't like it, it makes my bones feel all melty. I like to feel strong. I don't like to feel weak."

At about six one day we were talking about zombies. I explained to her that Zombies are not real. She was really disapointed, horribly so, and I couldn't understand it. So I gently got it out of her, what was so distressing. She apparently had been planning to aquire a zombie to keep in her closet. She wanted one of her own to yell at and tell to do things. Very funny to me.

She also announced one day that she would like to be a cop. The idea of yelling at people for money sounded really good to her. This kid just slays me she is such a hoot.

As a side note we are both pretty authoritarian parents, and our house is pretty structured. Lots of room for adventure and exploration though and free and independent thought is more than encouraged, it's rewarded. As long as you use a polite voice, you can say anything in our house.

I figure one day she will have a nice and sweet little zombie, I imagine I will call him son in law and he will be very fond of his closet.

 

[graceanne]

Night: Oops, I guess I'll stop capitalizing it.

Jay: You mean I can't argue with thin air? Well that's no fun

KC: I don't consider D/s to be only about my sex life, that's how this got going. And the reason I continue to post on it is cause people have decided that I am just blindly following the bible. Because I believe differently than them, that means that i haven't done any research or know why I believe what I believe.

Cat: I don't recall, at any point in what I said, infering that God sees women as inferior. I said that he created woman second because he wanted Adam to know that he needed her. I don't feel that that implys that that women are inferior. The bible also says for a man to love his wife like Christ loved the church, and Christ DIED for the church. Women are not inferior - nothing in Gods creation if inferior, it's all amazing and miraculous.

I also don't think that adam and eve were necessarily anglo saxon - as a matter of fact I strongly doubt it. And pictures of Jesus that show him as anglo saxon irritate the hell out of me, since he was a Jew. Beyond that, in heaven I don't think that anyone is a specific color. It's hard to explain but I don't think we're white, black or tan. Either that or in heaven color doesn't matter, and no one notices if people are different colors. There's a joke my dad told me once about a white man and a black man standing in line at the pearly gates. They get into a friendly discussion of whether God is white or black. The gates open, God walks out and says "Hola, Senor!".

As for color - yes I believe in evolution, I also believe that if we were meant to evolve spiritually then God would have sent someone or something. But I believe that the Bible is God inspired, and therefore the way he wants us to live. (And before you get into it - I feel that the Old Testament is more for history - because if you dont' know your history you're bound to make the same mistakes.) Obviously whether the bible is God inspired can be debated, but that's what I believe, if I didn't believe that I wouldn't be here arguing this.

r use it to judge some but if they are your friend...well then they are OK and exempt..own what you are doing, and most of all, don't use it to condemn others while promoting your own view of your right to be who you are by presenting selective and simplistic views

I also don't judge people who aren't my friends EITHER, and I don't appreciate the implication that I do. As I've said many many times through my posts - I am not going to judge anyone because I'm far from perfect. I stated, at least once, that I do not lead a perfect biblical life - I just try to.

Plus the pictures of Jesus are ridiculous, all of them. One - Jesus was a carpenter, I seriously doubt he was without muscles. Two - Jesus was Jew, I sincerly doubt he was blonde. Three - Jesus spent all his time out in the sun - I doubt that he had a peaches and cream complexion. He also spent his time with the poor, the sick and children. I'll bet his robes were rumpled, dirty and stained with sweat.

I also feel the need to specify what I consider a real man. Actually it'd be easier to specify what I don't feel is necessary to a real man. I do not feel a man must be muscle bound or athletic or anything like that to be a real man. It's something inside. A quadro-palegic can be a real man as much as someone who looks like Arnold Swarzenegger (sp?). I also think that building up your muscles doesn't make you a real man anymore than having a deep voice does. A man who spends all day working on a computer can be a real man, and a cowboy isn't always.

I'm sorry if you feel I'm attacking your lifestyle or beliefs, but I'm not. I'm explaining my lifestyle, my beliefs, and what I will tell my children. That's what was asked, whether I would tell my children about D/s, and why. When you discuss what you tell your children, and why, I don't call you undeducated or infer that you must not have researched what you believe. They're your children, and I know that you love them and are therefore going to teach them what you believe, cause you want them to be happy. I would appreciate the same respect in what I tell my children.

 

[jasonlf]

So let's pretend I'm a practising Jew for a moment.

I am now responsible for the actions of the Israelis, because other practising Jews send money to right wing settler fanatics and whatnot.

Very scary thought.

Taking it a step further, shall we blame a Muslim who says "I intentionally wear the headscarf because it is appropriate according to the law where women are concerned" and hold her responsible for 9/11 by mere association?

If you have a political problem, I suggest addressing your pandering legislators. I don't think blaming every single person of faith is really the issue at all, simply the ones who are trying to effect the legislation you are worried about.

Hey, that's almost better than your avatar!

 

[nightdancer2876]

Gracie, if it makes you happy to cap it, you go right ahead. I just didnt know if was capped for a reason that I was missing. I'm pagan (but not Wiccan) and I was about ready to run off to the books to see if there was something I had missed.

Have a great day,

D

 

[ShreveportMaster]

"I think that to use the Bible to justify the sort of SSC D/s relationship is a fallacy. Maybe I'm projecting my own feelings on the community as a whole (and by that, I mean the whole BDSM community, NOT just the lit BDSM forum community), but the kind of male-dominated relationship that the Bible promotes is the exact opposite of even an M/f D/s relationship as we generally accept and discuss it. Why? Because there is no option in the Biblical model--the man is the head of the household, and the wife will submit to him, no questions, no options, no room for any other conformation. Whether the woman WANTS to submit is irrelevant; so is whether the man WANTS to dominate, for that matter."

Howdy, I feel I've got to give My 2 cents worth here. Please realize that what I'm about to say, is ONLY going to apply to T/those who are practicing Christians, if Y/you are not, no one expects you to believe, or act like one .
Jay, first of all, You are not correct in assuming that the woman will submit, no options. Wives are commanded to love their husbands, and submit to them as they are submitted unto Christ If the Husband is not submitted unto Christ, for example he says" honey, tonight we're going to have an orgy" since the wife knows that is contrary to Scripture; she can, with God's blessing tell him to go piss up a stick!
Now as far as consenual, well yes, up to a certain point. When a woman says, I do, she's expected to do just that. If she does not want to be obedient to her husband, no one is forcing her to marry. Even Paul said sometimes it is better NOT to marry.
BUT, even if she does, the husbands are commanded to love their wives as Christ loved the church, giving Himself up for it. Now if the wife is a masochist and likes/needs pain to be satisfied, then he is obligated to a point to provide it (the point being injury) if He likes pain, and she is a sadist, then he can righteously order her to flog the shit out of him. In a marriage founded upon Biblical principles, abuse just is not possible, as long as BOTH parties adhere to them.
As far as being tolerant of O/other types of BDSM, as I say, if you are not a practicing Christian, I certainly don't expect you to play by O/our rules, anymore than a profoundly vanilla couple would be expected to play by the rules of ANY BDSM relationship. I for one do not have a problem with the female being the Top, her Husband has every right to submit to her sexually, if that is His desire.
You are correct in stating that the Biblical model does dictate a certain set of behaviors, although I personally believe that they are a bit broader than you see them. If you choose to be a Christian, you play by God's rules. Simple enough. If you screw up, and repent...last time I checked, God was still in the forgiving business.
I am not condemning anyone to anything. Acording to the Bible, W/we condemn O/ourselves, no O/one can do it to U/us. I realize this has probably pissed you off, though this was not My intent. I just wanted to get in a few points for U/us kinky Christians ;-)

 

[Kajira Callista]

you gotta drop the "O/o Y/y" thing your doing, it reads like you are studdering. *shrug*

 

[jasonlf]

Jay, first of all,

Having another Jay on the forums is annoying (I go by jay most places, just not here).... I thought at first you were talking to me. Hehe.

 

[graceanne]

you gotta drop the "O/o Y/y" thing your doing, it reads like you are studdering. *shrug*

I gotta agree. It gives me a headache trying to read through that.

 

[chris9]

I started reading the bible (again) last night, so I can give my 2 cents without being proved wrong right away. Didn't get this far, but enough to start in the discussion.

No one is born capable of being exactly how God saw it when he originally made the earth. And as I stated, I don't feel that a F/m relationship is a sin, I just don't think it's how God wanted it to be.

Personally, I have a problem with taking what men wrote 2 1/2 to 3 centuries ago (according to my bible, the Pentateuch was written between 900 and 550 BC) to be what God wanted the earth and humans to be. There may be some truth, but the possibility of women having equal rights, being able to do anything but housework is pretty new, so it wouldn't be in the bible.
The same goes for the New Testament. It was written under Roman law. And in Roman law, the man was head of house, the women (and younger males) not even able to have money. So to me the Bible couldn't know of other forms of existence. (Just for the whole thing, in Germany it was only in 1970 that the law stopped considering the husband head of house and introduced joint head-of-house-ship (?) )
Grace, this is nothing against you or anything, I just thought of this when I read the above quote and wanted to use it to write about how I figured it out FOR ME. This means I'm not saying what you (general you and particular you, I guess) believe about the rightness of M/f from a biblical point is wrong. It's just saying that I solved this part for myself differently.

Let's face it, if you want to get down to basing such judgements of who is living as God intended and approved, for a start no-one on earth would qualify, but also wouldn't it be just as reasonable to insist that we should look exactly as Adam and Eve looked (anyone got pics?), be of the same race (hmmm, don't think there were white Americans, Aussies, Pommies, Chinese etc. in those days so they are defective to start with in this way of rationalising everything), dress the same as in those early times (now there is an argument for nudism as from what I have seen A & E weren't dressed when they were created ), and just not move forward at all in any way?

When God saw how well all the peoples worked together when building the tower of Bables, he shattered the tower and put the peoples to all different regions, giving them each their own language. So there would be different races, even if the bible doesn't speak of colour differences.
When Adam and Eve ate from the fruit that made them see good and bad (little note on the side: I read a German translation from the Greek and Latin text that translated the Hebraic, now I'm putting it into English. Please don't mind that I won't be able to use the exact words used in the official English translations.), thus introducing sin into the world, they became aware of their nakedness, dressing in fig-leaves. When God kicked them out of paradise, he made them clothes of furs. So, sorry, Catalina, nudism was outdated on the second page of the bible


Back to topic:
Many who posted here said they would tell their children in an age appropriate way. Sound really good. Now my question especially to the parents who have faced this: How do you determine what is or is not age appropriate? I'm not sure if it's possible to say, but maybe you have some examples?
I did notice that my parents often thought my little sister being 'smaller' than she was, wouldn't understand things, couldn't do things (never noticed it for myself, but then I was a party involved). So if something like this happens and you tell your child something too easy, too young, because you think that's the level they understand, it could (not saying it will) damage the open channels you try to create incouraging the children to freely ask and get information.

 

[Marquis]

You know, I haven't read a lick of this thread since I started it.

 

[chris9]

You know, I haven't read a lick of this thread since I started it.

To a large part it was off-topic anyways

 

[catalina_francisco]

Now my question especially to the parents who have faced this: How do you determine what is or is not age appropriate? I'm not sure if it's possible to say, but maybe you have some examples?
I did notice that my parents often thought my little sister being 'smaller' than she was, wouldn't understand things, couldn't do things (never noticed it for myself, but then I was a party involved). So if something like this happens and you tell your child something too easy, too young, because you think that's the level they understand, it could (not saying it will) damage the open channels you try to create incouraging the children to freely ask and get information.

I think the way I did it was for the most part to not set out to tell them anything, instead waiting for them to introduce a topic or subject with the questions they had. Of course, some of that was introduced inadvertently through them seeing something like me watching the Sydney G&L Mardi Gras, or friends who were not exactly average suburban types, but then my daughter in particular began befriending people at school who were not the 'norm' and well on their way to gay glamour before barely getting out of first grade...and before seeing any of it at home. I also went on what teachers indicated as in their level of understanding....lol, I will never forget the day I was called in by my son's Grade 2 teacher because she just needed to share with me she was finding herself out of her depth and continually getting into deep environmental and social discussions with him then having to consciously remind herself he was 7, not 40.......but she did say she learned a lot because she always raced home to check out what he had been talking about and found he knew what he was saying. I think as a parent it becomes something you tap into through knowing your child, and their ability to approach you with their thoughts and questions in a way which makes sense.

Catalina

 

[Aeroil]

haha, curse you grace, I was looking forward to cornering someone who doesn't believe in evolution when I read that earlier.

*ahem*
As far as my view on religion, or rather, spirtualism, I have a sort of scientific view of them... though I see it as just being more being simply logical. If there's no 'material' proof of something, if it cannot be seen to impact the material world, then it doesn't belong in the material world, spiritualism is unproven theories, really. So I think it's pointless in it's entirety to talk about spiritual beliefs, or give them any merit when affecting your decisions.

And if, I end up with a diety angry at me after the Spectre takes me for whatever reason, then I wouldn't want to change my life for something that would do evil by punishing good people anyway.

 

[FurryFury]

snip>Back to topic:
Many who posted here said they would tell their children in an age appropriate way. Sound really good. Now my question especially to the parents who have faced this: How do you determine what is or is not age appropriate? I'm not sure if it's possible to say, but maybe you have some examples?
I did notice that my parents often thought my little sister being 'smaller' than she was, wouldn't understand things, couldn't do things (never noticed it for myself, but then I was a party involved). So if something like this happens and you tell your child something too easy, too young, because you think that's the level they understand, it could (not saying it will) damage the open channels you try to create incouraging the children to freely ask and get information.

Hi Chris 9!

Well the great thing about being a parent is you get to decide stuff and fuck it up sometimes.

I frankly don't care much about what the bible says or doesn't. I used to be very religious but I like my life better now. I don't judge others who do go by what they think the bible says or try to. So far everyone on this thread has been very respectful of each other even though they disagreed a lot. I've had several people tell me over the years that religion keeps them from killing their families and such. Hey whatever works for you if just fine with me, even if I have no interest in it.

Now here is an example on the thread topic. When my son could talk he wanted to know exactly how did Daddy got his part of my son into me. He couldn't have been more than four at the time, perhaps he was even younger. I told him that I would be happy to tell him the details when I decided he was old enough. This turned out to be the summer before second grade. At that time I gave him the full "talk" with condom on banana practice and a book he could read whenever new questions arose. Of course he could always ask us but I like the kids to do their own research too.

I wanted to wait until he was old enough to keep the information to himself. I felt second grade was the right time. Now did I give him too much information too early?

It's possible I did. It is my belief that as long as you put information out there and don't do it with too much interest in their own sexuality (which makes them feel all icky, I know from my own childhood,) they will take what they need and ignore the rest.

This seemed to work for my kids so far. We can talk about anything. It was hard for me to do it at first but now I am pretty easy going about talking with them about sexual things and life in general.

Fury

 

[Jay Davis]

OK, I'm back in town and at the keyboard. Let the beatings commence.

So let's pretend I'm a practising Jew for a moment.

I am now responsible for the actions of the Israelis, because other practising Jews send money to right wing settler fanatics and whatnot.

Very scary thought.

Taking it a step further, shall we blame a Muslim who says "I intentionally wear the headscarf because it is appropriate according to the law where women are concerned" and hold her responsible for 9/11 by mere association?

If you have a political problem, I suggest addressing your pandering legislators. I don't think blaming every single person of faith is really the issue at all, simply the ones who are trying to effect the legislation you are worried about.

Netzach, perhaps I was out of line to let my political opinions bleed through into this forum. Unfortunately, I see all these things as being irreversably connected, and it's very difficult to limit a discussion which has impact far beyond the bedroom to such a degree that referring to the social and political implications is against the rules.

The basic problem we have here is that some of us are willing to accept "Because the Bible says so" as sufficient justification for an opinion, theory, or philosophy, and some of us are not. Leaving aside the fact that many (not all, but many) of the people who justify their positions on the basis of selected passages from scripture happily ignore other passages that are inconvenient or contrary to their personal preferences, the bottom line is, our differences here are religious by definition. They are things we believe in deeply, and which aren't likely to be shifted by a few rants from the other side in a sex forum.

Even so, we can choose to ignore, deny, or dismiss the wider implications of these differences if we like. But to do so is dangerous. What worries me is that people who use Biblical passages to justify D/s or any alternative lifestyle--particularly while separating their personal version out as more Biblical than any other--may be perceiving that they have social and religious allies that they do not have. I am minded of David Brock, the former conservative journalist who wrote the rather savage The Real Anita Hill* and The Seduction of Hillary Rodham. When he was finally outed as gay, he enjoyed a brief honeymoon as the Republican party's tame fag, but ultimately found himself excluded and ostracized by people he had thought were his good friends and allies.

Kinky people who believe themselves to be good Christians are very likely to suffer the same fate, I believe. Simple possession of sex toys or erotica by a private individual is prosecutable in many states. If you live in Arizona and have any watersports jpegs on your harddrive, you're a sex offender. If you live in Texas and own more than two dildos, you're a sex offender. Simply believing that your kink is OK because it's superficially similar to behaviors laid out in the Bible is not going to protect you when the fundamentalist thought police break down your door.

And that, ultimately, is my point. Some of us may think our D/s lifestyle is more "Christlike" than others, but we are all perverts and deviants in the eyes of the Christian right. None of us should fool ourselves into thinking we are safe from persecution just because it's the man who ties the woman down in our house.

So, yes, I follow politics. Any US citizen who has any interest at all in participating or even lurking on these forums or the Literotica story collections who doesn't is either foolish, irresponsible, or hypocritical, given the current state of American politics.

==========================

*In his own more recent book, Blinded by the Right, Brock apologetically admits that his book on Anita Hill was researched solely by collecting second- and third-hand anecdotes from staunch conservatives and Republican partisans, all of whom were openly hostile toward Hill and dismissive of her allegations about Clarence Thomas. Brock describes his own book on Hill as political propaganda posing as investigative journalism. He reveals that he has offered Hill a direct and personal written apology for the damage to her character caused by the book, and says that he hardly blames her for not replying to that apology.

 

[Netzach]

I'm a very political person whose politics are probably right in line with yours, believe it or not. What I'm asserting is that someone can be religious without that necessarily oppressing other people, although someone else might be religious and an oppressive zealot and be aligned with the same faith. The issue is not the belief, it's what people do with that belief. You seem to be saying that there's no way to be Christian and orthodox and not part of the right wing as we know it, and not out to force everyone into the same choices.

 

[Jay Davis]

I'm a very political person whose politics are probably right in line with yours, believe it or not. What I'm asserting is that someone can be religious without that necessarily oppressing other people, although someone else might be religious and an oppressive zealot and be aligned with the same faith. The issue is not the belief, it's what people do with that belief. You seem to be saying that there's no way to be Christian and orthodox and not part of the right wing as we know it, and not out to force everyone into the same choices.

No, that's not quite what I'm saying. What I'm saying is it's not possible to be kinky and not be a target of the right wing as we know it, whether you believe yourself to be an orthodox Christian or not. Convincing yourself that you're living a Christlike life isn't going to impress the Falwells, the DeLays, the Frists or the Bushes when they start going after the kinky businesses, forums, products, and private lifestyles that we on this forum hold dear. No one is going to say, "Well, we shut down that sinful gay website, but this other bondage site can keep running, since it's about men tying up and flogging women, and that's Christlike, according to the Bible."

I'm not saying that Grace is trying to turn me into a Dom, or make my gay friends turn straight. But I'm guessing that she'd be happier in a world where those things were true. She's willing to cut me a break, and say that my sexuality is merely not Biblical, and therefore, I suppose, neutral on the good-evil scale. But she's said herself in this very thread that she feels that homosexuality is sinful, which means deep down inside, she thinks it's evil. And that makes me worry that she's not going to fight too hard for, and might well vote against, basic human rights for gay people.

My point is, we are all in this boat together. Anyone who tells themselves that they can keep one foot in this boat and one foot in another boat heading in the exact opposite direction is eventually going to have to make a choice, one boat or the other, or wind up in the drink, or squashed between the two boats.

 

[Private_Label]

... Convincing yourself that you're living a Christlike life isn't going to impress the Falwells, the DeLays, the Frists or the Bushes when they start going after the kinky businesses, forums, products, and private lifestyles that we on this forum hold dear. No one is going to say, "Well, we shut down that sinful gay website, but this other bondage site can keep running, since it's about men tying up and flogging women, and that's Christlike, according to the Bible."...

I don't give a rat's ass what impression the Falwells, the DeLays, the Frists or the Bushes think about me personally. I also defend the rights of gays/lesbians/bi- to live the way they want to live as long as it is consensual and doesn't physically hurt anyone outside the relationship (unfortunately there are some family members who will feel emotionally injured no matter what people do... *sigh*) I seem to recall one time a number of years back (1980 I think - and either Georgia or Alabama but I could be wrong) there was a sodomy law was challeneged in court - the police broke into someone home and arrested two people who were practicing anal sex - the court threw the case against the arrested men out since sodomy was the *only* reason they were arrested. The rights of consenting adults in the privacy of their own home was upheld... at least at the time.

This is one reason why I dislike the "Patriot Act." It give far too many rights to law enforcement and strips away too many of the "traditional" privacy rights that were once upheld in court - now everything looks like a terrorist, except the terrorists. That really scares me -that one day the country founded on freedoms to pursue life, liberty and happiness, will only be free to live in whatever manner the government deems fit to leave us.