RE: What kind of kink is this, if it is kink?

RE: What kind of kink is this, if it is kink? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

Rule -> RE: What kind of kink is this, if it is kink? (8/11/2013 6:34:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NiceButMeanGirl As for what those bible quotes say, I don't believe a word in the bible. Oh yeah, I've read it cover to cover and it's a great story for sure, but it's a work of fiction in my opinion This tells more about you than about the Bible.

Rule -> RE: What kind of kink is this, if it is kink? (8/11/2013 6:37:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CertainlyDom Ephesians 22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. What this actually says is: stand by your husband.

metamorfosis -> RE: What kind of kink is this, if it is kink? (8/11/2013 7:24:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: metamorfosis quote: ORIGINAL: CertainlyDom I never considered the concept of consent because, once again in my mind, the modern age was the reference point and I assumed consent (no arranged marriages and no forced enslavement like might be found on fictional Gor). Even with the modern age as the reference point, the concept of consent is still a shaky one. For example, many modern foreign marriages based on those ideas are absolutely arranged. And, even here, many Christian faiths believe in male led relationships and also believe that it's sinful not to marry. So although a woman may have a choice of who she submits to, she really is expected to submit to someone, or risk damnation. I'm not sure that can be described as "consent". So, without saying so, you expected us to assume modern days, assume a country without arranged marriage, and assume that religion itself is not some form of compulsion. That was a lot to assume. In other words, you've made a series of unfounded assumptions. Despite your urging that we do so, it is impossible to ignore the question of consent when considering Bible versus about a husband/wife's place. Because of that there's no direct equivalent from Christianity to BDSM.

JeffBC -> RE: What kind of kink is this, if it is kink? (8/11/2013 9:21:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule quote: ORIGINAL: CertainlyDom Ephesians 22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. What this actually says is: stand by your husband. OK, this surprises me. Normally I find you very logical Rule so I'm a bit confused by this. Are we having a dialect problem because in no way whatsoever does "submit" mean "stand by" anywhere that I've been.

kalikshama -> RE: What kind of kink is this, if it is kink? (8/11/2013 9:38:45 AM)
quote: One thing that I have found interesting since being here is how often submissive women talk about being screwed over by dominant men. Many religious women complain that men don't understand and live by the requirements of them in the passage I posted to start this. When I first discovered Dom/sub, it seemed to me that the Dom takes on the responsibility for the sub and the relationship. To me that meant you planned for the well being of the sub now and in the future. Yes, I have encountered quite a few dominants who want all of the privileges of being a Dom and none of the responsibilities.

kalikshama -> RE: What kind of kink is this, if it is kink? (8/11/2013 9:45:03 AM)
FR to the original post, I would argue that it is not a kink, but social mores of the time. If individuals today want to use those principles as guidelines in their own relationships, fine. But I object to the use of the plural - I don't believe all women and all men should be held to/guided by these standards.

DesFIP -> RE: What kind of kink is this, if it is kink? (8/11/2013 9:48:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CertainlyDom When I first discovered Dom/sub, it seemed to me that the Dom takes on the responsibility for the sub and the relationship. To me that meant you planned for the well being of the sub now and in the future. It just seems that a sub that complains about being screwed over had a Dom that didn't fit what I thought a Dom should be. In this thread, not many people talked about the original post being Dom/sub. Mostly, not always, the focus was on the submission/slavery with little talk about requirements the other direction. Interesting is all. Then you're highly naive to believe that just because someone slaps the label of dom on themselves that they automatically become self aware, self actualized, magically acquire a history of excellent decision making and training in communication skills and relationship skills plus experience at being a good manager. Half the fault lies with the submissive, male or female, who is as naive as you are and also believes without any verification that the dominant will have those needed skills and traits simply because of the label. There are managers who are incompetent and can't inspire their subordinates. Why would you think the same does not exist inside of personal relationships as well as work relationships?

kalikshama -> RE: What kind of kink is this, if it is kink? (8/11/2013 10:14:32 AM)
In three decades of working, I've only had four managers who were inspirational.

Rule -> RE: What kind of kink is this, if it is kink? (8/11/2013 11:53:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffBC OK, this surprises me. Normally I find you very logical Rule so I'm a bit confused by this. Are we having a dialect problem because in no way whatsoever does "submit" mean "stand by" anywhere that I've been. To submit, as I perceive it in this context: do not oppose your husband, i.e. stand by your husband.

JeffBC -> RE: What kind of kink is this, if it is kink? (8/11/2013 12:16:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule To submit, as I perceive it in this context: do not oppose your husband, i.e. stand by your husband. Fair enough. But that spin on "submit" is quite a long flight from it's core meaning and I surely wouldn't ever read or interpret it that way. The closest word I can think of is "obey" in this context and that's a LONG way from "stand by".

CertainlyDom -> RE: What kind of kink is this, if it is kink? (8/11/2013 2:36:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesFIP quote: ORIGINAL: CertainlyDom When I first discovered Dom/sub, it seemed to me that the Dom takes on the responsibility for the sub and the relationship. To me that meant you planned for the well being of the sub now and in the future. It just seems that a sub that complains about being screwed over had a Dom that didn't fit what I thought a Dom should be. In this thread, not many people talked about the original post being Dom/sub. Mostly, not always, the focus was on the submission/slavery with little talk about requirements the other direction. Interesting is all. Then you're highly naive to believe that just because someone slaps the label of dom on themselves that they automatically become self aware, self actualized, magically acquire a history of excellent decision making and training in communication skills and relationship skills plus experience at being a good manager. Half the fault lies with the submissive, male or female, who is as naive as you are and also believes without any verification that the dominant will have those needed skills and traits simply because of the label. There are managers who are incompetent and can't inspire their subordinates. Why would you think the same does not exist inside of personal relationships as well as work relationships? Let me try to readdress this. I didn't say that it was completely unexpected that there would be Doms that screw over their subs. I agree with the assertion that the sub shares responsibility for that. Actually, in that statement I was pointing out the universality of people ignoring the responsibility of the leading partner, as if they can do any damn thing they want. I did label the facts as interesting. If you really dig deep, you would find that I have a relatively low opinion of people in general.

FrostedFlake -> RE: What kind of kink is this, if it is kink? (8/11/2013 10:11:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: metamorfosis quote: ORIGINAL: FrostedFlake And the particular religion it is is utter tripe...To put that another way, I am not impressed by ignorance. Even if it is called the word of god. Many people were quick to denounce the OP's premises. Why haven't those comments been pulled for "insulting other people's kinks"? By way of comparison, if someone said: "This particular lifestyle is utter tripe... To put it another way, I am not impressed by ignorance. Even if it is called polyamory." "...Even if it is called Leather." "...Even if it is called "Gorean". "... Even if it is called a TPE." Do you think those comments would have been left stand? Not snark, I am genuinely curious. If there is a difference, what is it? The difference, Pam, is fire and sword. Catholics do not cotton to the notion that people have minds and should use them. It's a top-down social order diagram that you either accept or get rejected by. You have said it yourself, you so completely rejected the dogma that you rejected God too. Baby out with bathwater. Why? Could it have been the seeming lack of alternative explanations for ... everything? Whence comes this apparent lack of alternatives? It comes, of course, from the Catholics. They have MODERATOR : LOOK HERE a long and well documented history of killing people that don't agree with them. It wasn't an actual Church Policy, until the Cathars came along. The Cathars were actually important to the Catholics, because they each followed one of Christs Apostles. Apostles who had diametrically opposing views. The followers of Saint john believed in good works. Taking care of everyone. The followers of Saint Peter believed in other people doing what they told them. Money, power and influence. They couldn't both be right. Question : Who is more likely to pick up a knife? A man who believes he should help, or a man who believes he should rule? That was the essential situation. In the late 1100s, the Catholics took to murdering their brothers in Christ. They found it so easy to do, in large part because the Cathars didn't fight back and didn't even know how to fight back, that the Catholics soon gave up the idea of arguing and got down to the serious business of killing. It went on. And on. And on. And on. And on. In 1209 Pope Innocent declared a Crusade. This same year the phrase "Kill them all, let God sort them out" attained currency. In Latin, it goes like this : "Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius." The man credited with the words does not claim them, but reported to Pope Innocent that 20,000 were slain that day and the town of Beziers looted and burned. The Pope was not upset. I invite you to work out for yourself what Christ might have thought. This policy of killing in the name of God was very successful and was practiced on an official basis for centuries.. The Salem Witch Trails were a part of that gaudy parade. It is not for nothing the First Amendment reads as it does. Yet, even with the First, you can't use the word God in this country without folks just automatically assuming you are talking about the Catholic god. The lack of alternatives is that complete. Far from being ancient history, which, of course doesn't have anything to do with anything today (WINK) we have here today the example provided by our own Mr. Rule. quote: ORIGINAL: Rule quote: ORIGINAL: FrostedFlake wars of extermination (the Cathars, to cite the best example The Cathars were crazy. Good riddance to them. In plain English, that means Rule would kill the Cathars again today, if only that were possible. That is his religion talking. And who is this Catholic god, anyway? In fact, he is the Jewish tribal god, Jehova, or Yehwah. Yehwah got promoted, you see. Before, he was only the local god of one small group of people. He was NOT the creator of the universe. He wasn't even monotheistic. Yehwah acknowledged that there were other gods, and forbid his people having any of those other gods before himself. Not because Yehwah was bigger, better or more fundamentally cool. Just because Yehwah would kick your blankety-blank, right good and proper, if you did. This is the origin of the top-down philosophy the Catholics are so taken with. Yehwah / Jehove resembles the god put forward by the Catholics in no way other than this authoritarian particularity. Yet, it's the same god. So, WTF? Why does anyone swallow it? Is there anything unfair, or unreal, about anything I have said here?

metamorfosis -> RE: What kind of kink is this, if it is kink? (8/11/2013 11:55:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: metamorfosis Religion must often fail the consent test. That is why religion based power dynamics within marriage cannot be properly called BDSM. This was my point. The OP doesn't qualify as kink because it ignores the issue of consent which must be present for a thing to be called BDSM. *And not* because Christianity is bad/stupid.**

FrostedFlake -> RE: What kind of kink is this, if it is kink? (8/12/2013 12:02:45 AM)
I'm sorry, Pam. It seems I miss your point. ETA : Read it again. Still don't get it.

metamorfosis -> RE: What kind of kink is this, if it is kink? (8/12/2013 12:20:12 AM)
My point is I have far too much time on my hands.

metamorfosis -> RE: What kind of kink is this, if it is kink? (8/12/2013 12:28:50 AM)
Where did my post go? For the love of god, I will not write that shit up again.

metamorfosis -> RE: What kind of kink is this, if it is kink? (8/12/2013 12:42:01 AM)
Okay. Here's the deal, Frosted Flake. The reason you don't understand my post is that I posted another long post before it which apparently got eaten by the system. It didn't get pulled. It didn't violate an rules. It just went poof. Let me take a minute and think about whether I want to type it up again. It was a really long post.

metamorfosis -> RE: What kind of kink is this, if it is kink? (8/12/2013 1:26:51 AM)
Aw, fuckit. Like I have anything better to do. But this time it's gonna be the condensed version. This thread is not about whether you approve of Catholicism, or think it's stupid, or whether Christians borrowed their god from pantheism, or whether too much blood has been spilt in the name of Jesus, or any other such thing. The thread is about whether the verses in the OP can be properly called BDSM. I asked the difference between recognized kinky power dynamics (such as Gorean, leather, TPE) and the religious, gender-based power dynamic described in the OP. I think Jeff beautifully articulated the difference as "consent". This is why they are different: Many people don't choose their religious practices. At least not with the same degree of freedom that they might choose to fly a kite. Most people are born into a religion, and grow up thinking they may risk eternal damnation by defying their religion. At very least, they risk social stigma. There is a strong pressure on those individuals to comply with religious convention. That pressure may be strong enough to interfere with a person's ability to "consent" to the practices of their religion. And the idea of consent is central to BDSM. Religion must often fail the test of "consent." That is why we can't equate the gender-based authority dynamics in the OP to BDSM.

FrostedFlake -> RE: What kind of kink is this, if it is kink? (8/12/2013 9:29:33 PM)
I see, Pam. I may have been tired yesterday evening. It may be we may have been pointing the same thing out to one another. Fire and sword means much the same as lack of consent. But comes across in a different way. I'm sorry I was being so dense. I'll try not to do it again for a few hours.

metamorfosis -> RE: What kind of kink is this, if it is kink? (8/12/2013 9:31:51 PM)
I didn't say you were dense. And I didn't understand what "fire and sword" meant, either.

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4] 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875