Is BDSM the new chivalry?

[jasonlf]

I know you read about how back in midevil, even Biblical times, that a relationship wasn't neccessarily 50/50... the man ruled it.

Now, I know we have some female dommes in here, but I'm asking this purely from a perspective of male dom / female sub.

Is BDSM the new chivalry? I mean, it seems to fit. Whenever I have a girl, she's the most valuable thing to me in the world, but because of that, she has to be diciplined and such.

"22 You wives will submit to your husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For a husband is the head of his wife as Christ is the head of his body, the church; he gave his life to be her Savior. 24 As the church submits to Christ, so you wives must submit to your husbands in everything. 25 And you husbands must love your wives with the same love Christ showed the church. He gave up his life for her 26 to make her holy and clean *snip* 28 In the same way, husbands ought to love their wives as they love their own bodies. For a man is actually loving himself when he loves his wife."-- Ephesians 5:22-28 NLT

Now, at the risk of sounding sacreligious, BSDM, at least in the way I've experienced it, seems to follow that very well. The sub loves his/her dom, and shows it through submission. The domme loves his/her sub, and shows it through discipline.

Just some food for thought

 

[Aeroil]

Dammit, where's AS when you need him.....

 

[Marquis]

I think bdsm is the new pimpin', but that's just me.

 

[NCShin]

To make a long story short, no.

I do not think that God had leather, ropes, dongs, buttplugs, cock worship, crops, or any other items associated with D/s in mind when s/he said that.

I think that he meant that the man was the head of the household. I do not think that translates into any sexual activity.

If you are going to take those verses with a sexual conotation, then what about this?

Genesis 16:9 (New International Version)

9 Then the angel of the LORD told her, "Go back to your mistress and submit to her."

Is he also prmoting D/s between women?

Also if you read earlier in the chapter it reads:

Ephesians 5

3But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God's holy people.

So no, I do not think this is any new "chivalry"

 

[jasonlf]

You kinda missed the point. It's not JUST about bdsm. It's about themes of submission/dominance throughout history, including midevil and biblical times, and how extending that to sexual situations is more of a natural evolution than a kink.

 

[Marquis]

My favorite scripture


Leviticus 4:20

20 And woman shall lay with another woman to honor her husband and praise her man as she does her God.

 

[Brinnie]

i pick (1) because God knew everything before it happened.

 

[Vixandra]

Goddess I'm glad I'm Pagan.

As for whether BDSM is biblical- yeah, sure, if it makes you happy to base your relationship on the bible and such, knock yourself out.

Only one man has ever told me that women should submit because of thier gender alone because the bible says so. Sadly, the SOB is married to my mother, so I don't talk to either of them unless she's visiting family out of thier local area.

Didn't agree with him when I was 16 and he said it, and I sure as hell don't agree with him now.

Its a context issue- at that time, men needed to protect thier wives and to do that, thier women had to listen to them. Women were not equiped with the knowledge or, quite frankly, the time to protect themselves and thier brood more often then not. Someone had to do it- its hard to weild a sword when one is 8 or 9 months pregnant. So it fell to the man to fulfill that roll. At the time, it was a working practice that suited the society that the bible was written in.

Now and days- nah. A pregnant woman can defend her family just as easily as a normal man. I use the example of a pregnant woman because that's my idea of when a woman is most vulnerable physically under normal circumstances. She can weild a gun and shoot just as well as a man, even then so I think the practice of demanding a woman be submissive because she needs a man to protect her is outdated and archaic.

That's just my view on the whole thing.

 

[Netzach]

Chivalry was a society-wide code of honor, and you could argue that it favored the woman's power in certain ways -- read the Sir Gawain story again if you don't know what I mean.

BDSM is a fringe and usually despised sexuality subculture. The new Chivalry it ain't.

 

[WriterDom]

My favorite scripture


Leviticus 4:20

20 And woman shall lay with another woman to honor her husband and praise her man as she does her God.

I think you have the wrong verse there.


Le 4:20 And he shall do with the bullock as he did with the bullock for a sin offering, so shall he do with this: and the priest shall make an atonement for them, and it shall be forgiven them.

 

[Netzach]

"Don't eat the damn bottom feeding shellfish"

--Lev. something or other.


I may have been born into the chosen tribe, but all it got me was a predisposition to Crohn's and a disdain for the ways of 6000 year old goat herders as they apply to my day to day.

 

[Marquis]

I think you have the wrong verse there.


Le 4:20 And he shall do with the bullock as he did with the bullock for a sin offering, so shall he do with this: and the priest shall make an atonement for them, and it shall be forgiven them.

Oh, my bad.

 

[Marquis]

"Don't eat the damn bottom feeding shellfish"

--Lev. something or other.

But they're sooooo tasty! Especially in a nice cream sauce.

 

[graceanne]

Ok, I think that BDSM can be biblically based. It also doesn't have to be. Like most things in life it is what you make it. There is nothing in the Bible against BDSM, I know cause I've looked. I've also talked to AS about this, and as everyone knows he's a pastor. As for me and K I believe that God endorses what we've chosen to do.

 

[rosco rathbone]

I think it is certainly the case that some people, predisposed for one reason or another towards a more "traditional" (note quotes) relationship--a type now regarded as outmoded if not entirely unacceptable by much of this society--look to "BDSM" for a culture that justifies their predilection. One has only to look at things such as "Taken In Hand", and more to the point, the Christian/BDSM/"traditional marriage" scene.

 

[Netzach]

I think it is certainly the case that some people, predisposed for one reason or another towards a more "traditional" (note quotes) relationship--a type now regarded as outmoded if not entirely unacceptable by much of this society--look to "BDSM" for a culture that justifies their predilection. One has only to look at things such as "Taken In Hand", and more to the point, the Christian/BDSM/"traditional marriage" scene.

Yep, and it works great for them, and that's totally cool. However, it does not incline me to characterize my BDSM practise as something that fosters or is oriented around same or lends itself naturally and easily to same.

 

[jasonlf]

I didn't mean this as a suggestion (accusation?) that all BDSM relationships are based in tradition.

I was simply trying to observe that the idea of domination+submission isn't a new one, and that IMHO, bdsm shouldn't be considered 'deviant' or 'kinky' as it's just a natural evolution of many larger themes.

 

[rosco rathbone]

Yep, and it works great for them, and that's totally cool. However, it does not incline me to characterize my BDSM practise as something that fosters or is oriented around same or lends itself naturally and easily to same.

That's why I said "some people".

Good to have you back!

 

[Netzach]

I didn't mean this as a suggestion (accusation?) that all BDSM relationships are based in tradition.

I was simply trying to observe that the idea of domination+submission isn't a new one, and that IMHO, bdsm shouldn't be considered 'deviant' or 'kinky' as it's just a natural evolution of many larger themes.

I consider myself extremely deviant and kinky and maladjusted completely to many things people consider natural and assume are normal. I don't feel the need to have my sexuality sanctioned by other people or OK'd by religious leaders, or even be something that I can talk about in polite mixed company. That's why I like Lit and why my friends are deviants too. And I think that, rather than trying to legitimate BDSM at every turn, I and "we" should we choose, should be granted the right to do as we please and left alone unless we do something totally unethical or harmful to the unwilling.

This said, I have no doubt that my Creator/Creatrix/God/Tao/Whatever is totally on board with my sexuality.

 

[Netzach]

That's why I said "some people".

Good to have you back!

Oh I know I know, I'm just adding on.

Good to be back, thinking of themes other than self-pity.

 

[jasonlf]

I consider myself extremely deviant and kinky and maladjusted completely to many things people consider natural and assume are normal. I don't feel the need to have my sexuality sanctioned by other people or OK'd by religious leaders, or even be something that I can talk about in polite mixed company. That's why I like Lit and why my friends are deviants too. And I think that, rather than trying to legitimate BDSM at every turn, I and "we" should we choose, should be granted the right to do as we please and left alone unless we do something totally unethical or harmful to the unwilling.

This said, I have no doubt that my Creator/Creatrix/God/Tao/Whatever is totally on board with my sexuality.

I don't think BSDM should be 'legitimized' ... I just think it should be non-taboo'd. I mean, I've talked to people who view BDSM as abuse -- maybe I just think it should lose enough of the taboo-ness that people can become educated.

 

[Netzach]

I don't think BSDM should be 'legitimized' ... I just think it should be non-taboo'd. I mean, I've talked to people who view BDSM as abuse -- maybe I just think it should lose enough of the taboo-ness that people can become educated.

So the best way to non-taboo something, if I'm reading you right, is to assert that it's always been that way, it's traditional, it's natural and evolutionary, it's commonplace, even...

rather than maybe explaining the nuances and the role of consent in BDSM? Putting the dialogue out there?

As an analogy, I think if early gay rights activists had limited themselves to talking about how there's a great precedent for gayness throughout antiquity everyone would still be in the closet.

 

[WriterDom]

. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly);

 

[slave C]

I have been a christian for all my 40 something life. However, in the last couple of years Master and I have discovered BDSM. Yes, I honor my husband/Master. He is the head of the house. However, we discuss and decide toghether things that are pertinent to our home and personal life. I am submissive to Him because I have given the power over me to do so. We have become closer andhappier since finding our new life and it is great. In early times women were mere chattal and they knew their place. However, they were not free to vote or even leave the castle. They were not submissive by choice. Today BDSM is for those who wish to dominate and submit willingly but, still be allowed to grow. I still believe in God and always will. The whip for some reason tends to get the point across quicker and sticks in the brain longer than saying prayers and getting talked to by the pastor. I have been a submissive nature all my life because its right for me. Master if firm sometimes lenient the next. He loves me for who I am. You can take history from different countries and find people who are dominanat and submissive. Some willingly and some not. Hope this helps. submissively slave c

 

[bridgeburner]

I voted 'maybe' rather than 'no' because it seemed less far from what my actual answer is --- which didn't happen to be on the list.

Behavior comes long before the codification of such. Mankind was having wild monkey sex for millennia before we had words for the act -- or any other thing under the sun, for that matter.

The impluses to dominate or submit or fight or flee are part of our lizard brains. They seriously pre-date not only the Bible but the concept of language itself.

That being said, I see a tenuous connection solely because both the codified religious doctrine and whatever regularized sexual doctrine of BDSM exists spring from the same primordial ooze. They may affect one another now in reactionary ways, but neither is the root cause of the other.

So, no, I don't see BDSM as the new chivalry or as having any sort of ties to religious or philosophical belief at its root. The urge for the act exists before we get heady on it and try to name names and assign reasons. Those urges in and of themselves are what produce the wealth of ponderings about why and should we and under what circumstances -- the Bible, philosophical treatises, the legal code, self-help books and sex manuals.


-B