Discovery

[JMohegan]

First bolded section: Absolute agreement, especially since the Women's Lib movement essentially won the war.

Second bolded section: If you'll allow me, JM, I'll make one tiny addition/clarification: "... expected, to some extent." Having lived among Southern Baptists a goodly portion of my adult life, I would agree that their ethos greatly favors a D/s mindset (M/f, of course!), but that all but the most dogmatic might find a M/s relationship, if not beyond the pale, at least fast approaching the edge of the cliff.

I don't mind addition and clarifications at all. I've never lived among Southern Baptists; I'm just going by what they say.

The SBC assertion that "a wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ," endorsed by Huckabee et al. That type of thing.

With regard to an "M/s relationship," are you saying they would object to the labels, or to a relationship in which the wife defers to her husband in all things?

 

[neci]

I don't mind addition and clarifications at all. I've never lived among Southern Baptists; I'm just going by what they say.

The SBC assertion that "a wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ," endorsed by Huckabee et al. That type of thing.

With regard to an "M/s relationship," are you saying they would object to the labels, or to a relationship in which the wife defers to her husband in all things?

i think the hang up is with the labels. when you take the labels away and close the doors to the bedroom, the two are quite similar in outward appearance.

 

[princesssuzanne]

I'm of the 52 year old demographic, but have always found less acceptance for the control aspect than the kink.

You're asking a good question, though. And why I asked the OP about her situation in rural Texas. She has said she lives in a "church run town," and is female with a male partner. If the town is Southern Baptist, then presumably the submission aspect is not just accepted, but even expected.

It's a church of christ town.

 

[neci]

It's a church of christ town.

i think the church of christ would object more to the premarital sex than the D/s (M/f) dynamic.

 

[JMohegan]

It's a church of christ town.

Okay, thanks.

I googled, and found this.


In any case, submission connotes a relationship of one who leads and another who follows. It "demands readiness to renounce one's own will for the sake of others . . . and to give precedence to others" (Gerhard Kittel, ed., Theological Dictionary of New Testament Theology, 8:45. It certainly involves deference (i.e., polite regard for someone else's wishes, ideas, etc.) as used in Word Biblical Commentary (J. Ramsey Michaels, Word Biblical Commentary: 1 & 2 Peter, p. 167.

This submission emanates from the wife. It is not forced by her husband as a man might beat a beast into compliance, but rather it is an action displayed from a free will. Scripture does not exist that would imply that a husband is allowed to force, slap, beat, kick, or threaten his wife into submission. Just the opposite is true. (Matt. 5-7; Eph. 4:29-32; 5:22-33; 1 Pet. 3:7; et al) In fact, to abuse a wife is sin. A man who believes he can physically force his wife into submission is mistaken, as she will only acquiesce out of fear for her physical well-being.

Submission as illustrated in 1 Peter 3:5-6, where it is said that "Sarah obeyed Abraham calling him Lord." Her respect for her husband was manifested by giving him a customary/cultural title. This pronouncement from Genesis 18:12 displayed her attitude and her willingness to be placed under the direction of her husband.

Women today who also adorn themselves ". . . in subjection unto their own husbands" are spiritually Sarah's daughters (1 Pet. 3:5-6). Indeed, this comparison is a great and noble compliment, especially as contrasted with the worldly "icons" for women in the twentieth century.

The women of the world are boisterous and ungodly, while Sarah was meek (i.e., strength grown tender) and chaste. Sarah was courageous and willing to submit while the ungodly women of today are weak and rebellious. A submissive wife does not usurp authority (1 Tim. 2:12) nor seek to be the boss, "wear the pants," nor seek to dominate. Conversely, she must support, follow, and respect her husband.

 

[seela]

I'm of the 52 year old demographic, but have always found less acceptance for the control aspect than the kink.

I'm a little bit surprised. I thought the disapproval of (especially women's) submission would be a newer thing. OSG's post also seems to support my initial thought and also refects my own experiences. Interesting. Have you noticed any change in acceptance over the years?

First bolded section: Absolute agreement, especially since the Women's Lib movement essentially won the war.

I've been accused of single-handedly bringing the women's emancipation back a hundred years by submitting to a man in my relationship. The woman who said it to me didn't have any problems with BDSM, as long as it meant bondage, discipline, sadism and masochism and skipped the dominance and submission part altogether.

I find it deliciously ironic, that the women trying to liberate people of gender roles automatically shove all people in a new box of gender appropriate rules. I'd assume they, better than most, know that one size does not fit all.

 

[intothewoods]

Nothing like the Lit boards to rekindle my inner feminist.

i think the church of christ would object more to the premarital sex than the D/s (M/f) dynamic.

Agreed.

 

[JMohegan]

I'm a little bit surprised. I thought the disapproval of (especially women's) submission would be a newer thing. OSG's post also seems to support my initial thought and also refects my own experiences. Interesting. Have you noticed any change in acceptance over the years?

I was born in '58, and raised in the northeast. Here's a timeline showing key events in the feminist movement, that took place over the course of my childhood and formative years.

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/womenstimeline2.html

The communities in which I have always lived have been filled with progressive folks. When I was in middle school, the finest universities in the country went co-ed. By the time I went to college, my female peers enrolled therein. When they graduated, most took jobs that had been previously unavailable to women.

This is a big country, with widely disparate attitudes and experiences. In my part of the US, in my generation, my female peers actually fought for acceptance and equality in a way that young women really don't have to today. To many in this group, deferring to a guy in a personal relationship was seen, and still is seen, as a mark of personal weakness, as well as a form of betrayal to the cause.

 

[satindesire]

The sexuality of -everyone on this planet- is on a strictly need-to-know basis.

If someone doesn't -need- to know, it's not necessary to tell them.

It's something that's worked well in my life for sure.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I'm a little bit surprised. I thought the disapproval of (especially women's) submission would be a newer thing. OSG's post also seems to support my initial thought and also refects my own experiences. Interesting. Have you noticed any change in acceptance over the years?

as a female-bodied person of the 54 year old demographic, i would guess that my generation is far less accepting of female submission than the 21-year-olds will be. We are the ones who fucking fought for our rights. And I do mean fought. The kids haven't had to.

I've been accused of single-handedly bringing the women's emancipation back a hundred years by submitting to a man in my relationship. The woman who said it to me didn't have any problems with BDSM, as long as it meant bondage, discipline, sadism and masochism and skipped the dominance and submission part altogether.

I find it deliciously ironic, that the women trying to liberate people of gender roles automatically shove all people in a new box of gender appropriate rules. I'd assume they, better than most, know that one size does not fit all.

Ah, she's nuts. There will always be people-- male AND female-- who are submissive. As long as you don't go talking about your submission in terms of your "womanhood" and his "manhood" or any sweeping universal bullshit, you're good.

Tell your interlocutor that the relatively few women who make that personal and un-coerced choice to submit are not going to turn back the tide of interpersonal emancipation.

 

[seela]

as a female-bodied person of the 54 year old demographic, i would guess that my generation is far less accepting of female submission than the 21-year-olds will be. We are the ones who fucking fought for our rights. And I do mean fought. The kids haven't had to.

Makes total sense now that you spell it out. But I guess I still would have expected to see more influence from the way the previous generation largely saw the gender roles. I also think the cultural background makes a big difference here. My mom's 9 years older than you are and she's never had to really fight for her rights, at least not for what I see as basic rights such as education, working and earning her own living. She's studied just like the men did at her time and she's never been a SAHM. Actually the only thing I remember her complaining about women's right-wise was that she had to get her dad's permission to get married, because she was under 20. But I admit, I haven't looked into the history of women's rights here at all, so I don't know how many things were fucked up for women in her time. I just know what my mom and aunts have told me.

And we also were pretty much an agrarian society until the 40's. That plays a big role, too.

But still I've found more acceptance of submission amongst the older generations, that have at least seen their grandparents in a similar relationship dynamic.

Ah, she's nuts. There will always be people-- male AND female-- who are submissive. As long as you don't go talking about your submission in terms of your "womanhood" and his "manhood" or any sweeping universal bullshit, you're good.

Tell your interlocutor that the relatively few women who make that personal and un-coerced choice to submit are not going to turn back the tide of interpersonal emancipation.

And yep, her perky 25 year old body is full of nuttyness. That's why talking about BDSM with her makes for a good entertainment, but only in low dosages.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Makes total sense now that you spell it out. But I guess I still would have expected to see more influence from the way the previous generation largely saw the gender roles. I also think the cultural background makes a big difference here. My mom's 9 years older than you are and she's never had to really fight for her rights, at least not for what I see as basic rights such as education, working and earning her own living. She's studied just like the men did at her time and she's never been a SAHM. Actually the only thing I remember her complaining about women's right-wise was that she had to get her dad's permission to get married, because she was under 20. But I admit, I haven't looked into the history of women's rights here at all, so I don't know how many things were fucked up for women in her time. I just know what my mom and aunts have told me.

You've made some very good observations here-- probably belong in a different thread. My male partner is ten years older than me, and there are things about my anger that he just doesn't get. But I think-- while "the basics" are important, the trimmings make a huge difference. We can be grateful for "the basics" when we get them-- but then we start to see that there are privileges that those who have granted us "the basics" are enjoying and keeping for themselves. Darn women! Give them an inch and they want a mile!

And we also were pretty much an agrarian society until the 40's. That plays a big role, too.

But still I've found more acceptance of submission amongst the older generations, that have at least seen their grandparents in a similar relationship dynamic.

well,duh. So to say.

And yep, her perky 25 year old body is full of nuttyness. That's why talking about BDSM with her makes for a good entertainment, but only in low dosages.

Be kind. Her nuttyness is not a show for your entertainment. If it's anything like my nuttyness, it entails some real pain that she has to deal with. Don't make it worse for her.

 

[BrightlyGo]

Why is it that when we discover something in ourselves, we worry that those around us may not accept it?

Maslow would call that 'acceptance needs' - a big deal when you're younger. As you get to be my age, you stop giving a damn.

For that matter, what the hell is "normal"?

The mode average, how most people are. Most people are dissatisfied with their sex lives. If you're kinky and happy with yours, you're not normal, you're lucky.

If I choose to go tell everyone that i am a submissive by nature, does that make me less of a person? Does that make me not worthy of their respect?

No, not at all. Submissives are just as much people as doms and switches and those who are all repressed and propper about their sexuality. OK, some of us crave humiliation, and like to feel like being submissive makes us lesser beings, or that our particular domme is a goddess or whatever... but that's personal feelings, not morality.

Is there something wrong with me because i need to give up control to another to have a sense of normalcy in my life?

I don't think so, but then I also have that need. Being submissive is like being gay or straight. It's an orientation. A 'difference' not a 'defect.'

Why is it that the world has these specific ideas of what is "normal" or "socially acceptable"?

My guess would have something to do with evolution of humans as social animals and culture. Humans depend on others, on culture (including technology) to survive. A sense of cultural norms keeps societies stable and functional. Which norms matter vary. Abhorence of sexuality was very important to the Victorians, not so much so in the West, today. There's no reason you couldn't have a DS culture - there have been many fantasies written about such things - and 'the scene' is a BDSM sub-culture.


But, being submissive is something you don't have to be that open about. Keeping it a 'secret' can even be part of the fun. Often, once She's gotten me deep into some submissive game, She'll take me out - shopping or dinner or whatever - under orders to 'act normal.' It can actually be pretty intense. OTOH, sometimes people figure it out. We made a new friend recently, and she very quickly figured out that we were a DS couple and I was the sub - but she only figured it out because she was submissive, herself.

 

[mrtomthumb]

Why is it that when we discover something in ourselves, we worry that those around us may not accept it?

Is it because it doesn't fit in with what it "normal"?

For that matter, what the hell is "normal"?

If I choose to go tell everyone that i am a submissive by nature, does that make me less of a person? Does that make me not worthy of their respect?

Is there something wrong with me because i need to give up control to another to have a sense of normalcy in my life?

Why is it that the world has these specific ideas of what is "normal" or "socially acceptable"?

I think everyone worries at some point if they are "normal".

Sadly many times we only use what others define as normal to define us.

I am not interested much at all in the BDSM lifestyle or find that dynamic of particular interest to me...yet I can completely identify with your post.

I think that is the human condition that we all share..

The ones who walk around judging others are usually the worst of them all...

It makes me think of this kinda funny (and slightly disturbing) cartoon I once saw..

there are two street bums sitting in a pile of garbage both holding old dirty tampons..one says to the other..."you eat the strings too...thats gross!"

makes me shudder and laugh at the same time.

if you are lucky you find someone that lets you be you....(as long as it is not inflicting damage to yourself or those who depend on you..)

its all just a different tint of paint to color your canvas with.