|
CuriousFerret -> RE: Do you think being collared is the same as marriage? (10/20/2012 11:46:16 AM)
|
Okay, a marriage exists, with or without the legal form. It's called common-law marriage, which doesn't necessarily have any legal standing. It's still a marriage, though, on a sui juris basis, if two people are living together as a married couple and are regarded as married, or some equivalent, by family and community.
It goes back to the question, "can a man and a woman on an isolated desert island be married?" The answer is, "damn straight." If they are intimate partners and sharing their lives with each other for decades, they are obviously doing a little bit more than dating casually.
Now, as for the collar, the D/s relationship that is implied by it is actually a lot like what people considered to be marriage for centuries, up until recent times. Although women could theoretically be property owners if they chose to never marry and lived out their lives as spinsters, a married woman could not own property. Everything in her world belonged to her husband. She belonged to her husband. Furthermore, husbands were considered to be within their rights to use corporal punishment on their wives. It wasn't just normal, but it was considered to be almost necessary for domestic tranquility. Not only were wives expected to be submissive toward their husbands, but a husband who didn't assert dominance with his wife was considered to be weak-spirited and probably not a man to be trusted.
Therefore, I think that the collar only represents an archaic form of marriage. Personally, I think that people ought to be considered to be within their rights to have this kind of relationship, with or without the kink culture baggage. I see it as perfectly honorable and valid.
But thank God we don't have to do it if we don't want to anymore.
|
|
|
|
