religion and D/s

[laurasunshinegal]

after seeing another thread on ethnicity and D/s, a slightly different topic got going in my mind: does your religion (or general faith outlook) draw you towards Dominance? submission? how about the opposite: does your faith push you away from D/s?

any thoughts?

 

[heatsink]

after seeing another thread on ethnicity and D/s, a slightly different topic got going in my mind: does your religion (or general faith outlook) draw you towards Dominance? submission? how about the opposite: does your faith push you away from D/s?

any thoughts?

An interesting and provocative question indeed. An observation for starters and that is looking at the basis of Christian marriage (Until Christianity was watered down by false prophets ), the wife's role was regarded as submissive IMHO.

 

[funbg]

after seeing another thread on ethnicity and D/s, a slightly different topic got going in my mind: does your religion (or general faith outlook) draw you towards Dominance? submission? how about the opposite: does your faith push you away from D/s?

any thoughts?

I was raised in an organized religion, but now I follow my own path. In my opinion, religion encourages subservience in its followers when it comes to doctrine and deity, but Dominance when it comes to converting or "saving" outsiders.

 

[funbg]

...the basis of Christian marriage (Until Christianity was watered down by false prophets ), the wife's role was regarded as submissive IMHO.

I want to clarify what I think I just read in your statement... You're saying that the true Christian way is for the wife to be submissive to her husband? I believe in religious freedom... until it begins to trample on the rights of others.

 

[laurasunshinegal]

An interesting and provocative question indeed. An observation for starters and that is looking at the basis of Christian marriage (Until Christianity was watered down by false prophets ), the wife's role was regarded as submissive IMHO.

i appreciate your careful wording ("IMHO") but i think that you are right--traditional (for lack of a better word) Christianity does call for the wife to be submissive to the husband.

In my opinion, religion encourages subservience in its followers when it comes to doctrine and deity, but Dominance when it comes to converting or "saving" outsiders.

while i guess i started the topic more about individuals, you raise a really good point about religion as a whole.

 

[heatsink]

I want to clarify what I think I just read in your statement... You're saying that the true Christian way is for the wife to be submissive to her husband? I believe in religious freedom... until it begins to trample on the rights of others.

I'm saying that if you look at the marriage service in The Book of Common Prayer, as originally written, it is quite clear.

 

[funbg]

I'm saying that if you look at the marriage service in The Book of Common Prayer, as originally written, it is quite clear.

Where I take issue with your original statement is when you use the words "false prophets" and "watered down". Those suggest you don't believe a woman should have equal rights within the marriage... which I strongly disagree with on the basis of human rights. That's not to say a woman cannot choose to be subservient to her husband, God, or any combination. But forcing subservience as a matter of religious doctrine is another matter entirely.

In terms of the Book of Common Prayer, what do you mean by "original"? I seriously doubt you've read the 16th century version! Have you given any thought to looking at the BoCP (or the Christian Bible for that matter) in a historical context, that is what life was like at the time?

 

[OK_babygirl64]

i appreciate your careful wording ("IMHO") but i think that you are right--traditional (for lack of a better word) Christianity does call for the wife to be submissive to the husband.

Quite true ... Women were chattel ... given from father to husband and expected to be husband's helpmate. Marriage was not about love or romance ... it was procreation and property.
The Old Testament is quite explicit on the female's role ... and the basis for the Surrendered Spouse movement.

 

[laurasunshinegal]

... That's not to say a woman cannot choose to be subservient to her husband, God, or any combination. But forcing subservience as a matter of religious doctrine is another matter entirely.

i think we can all (hopefully) agree that force is a completely different matter than choice. do some religions attempt "force" by one way or another? sure. but hopefully to bring things back to the D/s end, there is always that choice.

 

[heatsink]

Where I take issue with your original statement is when you use the words "false prophets" and "watered down". Those suggest you don't believe a woman should have equal rights within the marriage... which I strongly disagree with on the basis of human rights. That's not to say a woman cannot choose to be subservient to her husband, God, or any combination. But forcing subservience as a matter of religious doctrine is another matter entirely.

Suggest all you like, I passed an opinion without once disclosing my beliefs. Anyhow the last time that I looked nobody was forcing people to join the Christian Church or get married into it's doctrine?
Further I live in a society which is moving toward a situation where your precious ECHR is going to soon become a thing of the past and replaced by what worked well for a few hundred years, namely Magna Carta.

In terms of the Book of Common Prayer, what do you mean by "original"? I seriously doubt you've read the 16th century version! Have you given any thought to looking at the BoCP (or the Christian Bible for that matter) in a historical context, that is what life was like at the time?

By original I should have said ''Up to 60 or so years ago and as for your question about The Bible is that the same Bible that warns us against the false prophets that I highlighted in my first post?
Also it is clear that the question relates to current practice, so the realities of life in other eras is not relevant, although the religious literature may be.

 

[DeepGreenEyes]

An interesting and provocative question indeed. An observation for starters and that is looking at the basis of Christian marriage (Until Christianity was watered down by false prophets ), the wife's role was regarded as submissive IMHO.

Leaving aside for a moment the question of whether religious practices should adapt to the realities of the age (I believe they should), and whether there is one twue "Christian marriage," (I believe there isn't), I would posit that, for Christians seeking religious guidance on gender roles (a dicey prospect, but okay), looking only as far back as the 1928 (or earlier) BCP is, in a word, dumb.

Check out recent scholarship on the early church (like Elaine Pagels' work) and you'll find that women had a prominent and robust leadership role in the early church... Until they were smacked down. Too uppity and all.

 

[sereneone4u]

Where I take issue with your original statement is when you use the words "false prophets" and "watered down". Those suggest you don't believe a woman should have equal rights within the marriage... which I strongly disagree with on the basis of human rights. That's not to say a woman cannot choose to be subservient to her husband, God, or any combination. But forcing subservience as a matter of religious doctrine is another matter entirely.

In terms of the Book of Common Prayer, what do you mean by "original"? I seriously doubt you've read the 16th century version! Have you given any thought to looking at the BoCP (or the Christian Bible for that matter) in a historical context, that is what life was like at the time?

That is not true, that is the way it is twisted.

The wife is to obey her husband and the husband is to love her like Jesus loves the church.

Nothing unequal to it.

 

[KoPilot]

If you look to pagan and polytheistic religions, you actually start getting to some pretty exciting stuff. You've got folks who participate in s&m in the name of a deity, godslaves and godspouses who are sometimes called to obey the every command of their master, who are sworn to complete celibacy for them, etc. And don't get me started on Dionysians! Religiously-inspired kinky sex sounds way more fun than the grim D/s prescribed by Christianity.

 

[funbg]

Sorry, but this is going to get a little long people!

Quite true ... Women were chattel ... given from father to husband and expected to be husband's helpmate. Marriage was not about love or romance ... it was procreation and property.
The Old Testament is quite explicit on the female's role ... and the basis for the Surrendered Spouse movement.

And the Christian Bible also says a slave isn't allowed to escape from his or her involuntary servitude... unless they are Hebrew and held in bondage by the Babylonians, Egyptians, or Romans. Hmm...

I will admit going into this that I've never read Doyle's book, but quickly reading a list of the core Surrendered Wife/Spouse principles, I don't anything there advocating wives submit to their husbands:

1. The wife lets her husband control his own life (NOT him control her life)

2. She respects her husband's decisions for his life (NOT his decisions for hers)

3. She does at least three things a day for her own pleasure (NOT only if her husband grants permission)

4. She should accept compliments and gifts graciously (good manners, submissive?)

5, She should thank her husband for the things he does (is he not supposed to do the same in her direction?)

6. She shouldn't be afraid to show her vulnerability and take the feminine approach (maybe a man shouldn't show his "feminine" side, but he can show love, kindness, and tenderness to his wife)

* Relationships with abuse, addiction, or cheating are frowned upon (NOT advocating subservience not matter what)

From what I can tell, the list in a good unisex guide for a balanced relationship, NOT a call for female subservience! You could substitute he and she, and she for he all over the place and the basic message would remain unchanged. But as I said, I've never read the book that started the movement, so maybe I'm just full of shit!

i think we can all (hopefully) agree that force is a completely different matter than choice. do some religions attempt "force" by one way or another? sure. but hopefully to bring things back to the D/s end, there is always that choice.

There is an aspect of coercion in most, if not all religions. "If you don't do what we say, you are going to hell" (i.e. fear) can be a strong motivator. More concrete examples of force include circumcision of male infants (I was circumcised as a baby, but hold no malice) and the Crusades.

Am I wrong to say the a "proper" D/s relationship demands a certain kind of equality between the participants. For example, shouldn't an s have the right to leave the relationship even over the D's objections?

Suggest all you like, I passed an opinion without once disclosing my beliefs. Anyhow the last time that I looked nobody was forcing people to join the Christian Church or get married into it's doctrine?

Further I live in a society which is moving toward a situation where your precious ECHR is going to soon become a thing of the past and replaced by what worked well for a few hundred years, namely Magna Carta.

By original I should have said ''Up to 60 or so years ago and as for your question about The Bible is that the same Bible that warns us against the false prophets that I highlighted in my first post?
Also it is clear that the question relates to current practice, so the realities of life in other eras is not relevant, although the religious literature may be.

I am not intentionally singling out Christianity. It's just the context in which this discussion is taking place, most likely because of a shared Western background. That said...

Your word choice STRONGLY intimated your personal beliefs. I suppose you could just be playing devils advocate, but what would be your motivation for that? Force happens in religions all the time! At the family level (you're my kid and you don't want to go to Church? Tough!), at the societal level ("one nation, under God"... NOT the original wording by the way), and on the global stage ("Islamic" Jihad).

My precious ECHR? Doesn't it say in my profile that I'm from the United States? Putting that aside for the time being, do you know what the Magna Carta came into being in the first place? As an acknowledgement that a sovereign does NOT have the right to trample all over his subjects!

"Life in other eras is not relevant?" Yeah, that whole trying to learn from history is just a load of crap, isn't it?! If you can't put yourself in the shoes of those who wrote down the words you hold in reverence, how on earth are you supposed to understand their full meaning?!

 

[funbg]

My thoughts on the latest responses.

Leaving aside for a moment the question of whether religious practices should adapt to the realities of the age (I believe they should), and whether there is one twue "Christian marriage," (I believe there isn't), I would posit that, for Christians seeking religious guidance on gender roles (a dicey prospect, but okay), looking only as far back as the 1928 (or earlier) BCP is, in a word, dumb.

Check out recent scholarship on the early church (like Elaine Pagels' work) and you'll find that women had a prominent and robust leadership role in the early church... Until they were smacked down. Too uppity and all.

Finally, some sanity!

That is not true, that is the way it is twisted.

The wife is to obey her husband and the husband is to love her like Jesus loves the church.

Nothing unequal to it.

Perhaps, since the SOCIETAL expectations throughout the writing of the Christian Bible, "original" BocP, etc. were for women to obey their husbands, the authors of the passages you're referring to were using an EXAMPLE that their readers could understand and connect with?

Am I correct that your view is God is in a Dominant position over his "children"? If so, that means his relationship to the male half of a marriage is unequal. If the wife is to have a similar relationship to her husband that he has with God (husband = demi-god?), that would make the relationship between man and wife unequal.

If you look to pagan and polytheistic religions, you actually start getting to some pretty exciting stuff. You've got folks who participate in s&m in the name of a deity, godslaves and godspouses who are sometimes called to obey the every command of their master, who are sworn to complete celibacy for them, etc. And don't get me started on Dionysians! Religiously-inspired kinky sex sounds way more fun than the grim D/s prescribed by Christianity.

Well put! I especially like that you mentioned celibacy as a manifestation of control. That certainly is my interpretation of it's use throughout history.

 

[sereneone4u]

My thoughts on the latest responses.



Finally, some sanity!



Perhaps, since the SOCIETAL expectations throughout the writing of the Christian Bible, "original" BocP, etc. were for women to obey their husbands, the authors of the passages you're referring to were using an EXAMPLE that their readers could understand and connect with?

Am I correct that your view is God is in a Dominant position over his "children"? If so, that means his relationship to the male half of a marriage is unequal. If the wife is to have a similar relationship to her husband that he has with God (husband = demi-god?), that would make the relationship between man and wife unequal.



Well put! I especially like that you mentioned celibacy as a manifestation of control. That certainly is my interpretation of it's use throughout history.

No, you are very incorrect in how I view my God. The man's leadership role is one of servant leadership. They were not using an example they were writing the word of God. If you do not care for the Christian religion, that is your right, but don't assign thoughts to people in order to justify your beliefs. It does not say anywhere that the man is a demigod and equal to God. I can see this is going to be one of those conversations where you convolute what others are saying to push your own agenda instead of having a real discussion.

A decent discussion does not involve stating that only the person that agrees with you is the sane one. Btw, hello DGE, I hope you are well. Hugs

Have fun!

 

[loneranger8921]

I don't know the answer to your question of religion and BD/SM. I feel the threads run through the catholic religion.
I have a purpose for the palms I received at palm Sunday mass I plan to use them on my sub as a spanking implement I thinking about it while they were going through the passion of Christ.

 

[laurasunshinegal]

I don't know the answer to your question of religion and BD/SM. I feel the threads run through the catholic religion.
I have a purpose for the palms I received at palm Sunday mass I plan to use them on my sub as a spanking implement I thinking about it while they were going through the passion of Christ.

goodness, well THAT certainly is going to start a discussion or two!!

i do want to thank you though, loneranger, for your ethnicity and D/s thread. it's the one that got my mind wandering for this topic. thank you!!!

 

[funbg]

No, you are very incorrect in how I view my God. The man's leadership role is one of servant leadership. They were not using an example they were writing the word of God. If you do not care for the Christian religion, that is your right, but don't assign thoughts to people in order to justify your beliefs. It does not say anywhere that the man is a demigod and equal to God. I can see this is going to be one of those conversations where you convolute what others are saying to push your own agenda instead of having a real discussion.

A decent discussion does not involve stating that only the person that agrees with you is the sane one. Btw, hello DGE, I hope you are well. Hugs

Have fun!

I'm not here to push an agenda... simply expressing my thoughts. I was incorrect about your view of God and His word? Fair enough.

"They were not using an example they were writing the word of God..." I respect your right to interpret the Christian Bible literally. The Parables were stories told by Jesus to make a point, through example. The stories themselves may have been true or not, Jesus may have actually told the stories or not, but regardless there is no denying that use of example does exist in the word of God.

As I said, I respect your right to hold a literalist view. However, I would ask you to simply acknowledge that such an interpretation has its problems. I will once again bring up the CB's approval for (or at least lack of condemnation against) slavery, a practice that the "civilized" world no longer supports. Click on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_consistency_of_the_Bible (yes, I know it's Wikipedia) for an overview.

Regarding male "servant leadership", I would ask you to explain why God grants certain leadership roles to men but not women. In your view, other than the obvious of the act of giving birth are there any roles in life in which women can take a dominant role? Are women subservient because of "original sin?"

In terms of my sanity comment, I stand by it not because I agree with it but because of his stance on the use of scholarship as a means of understanding religious principals. I'll take it a step further and ask, how was the Christian Bible compiled at all the various "councils"? I submit, divinely inspired selection processes or not, it was by the religious SCHOLARSHIP of the time.

I don't know the answer to your question of religion and BD/SM. I feel the threads run through the catholic religion.
I have a purpose for the palms I received at palm Sunday mass I plan to use them on my sub as a spanking implement I thinking about it while they were going through the passion of Christ.

Do you view that as sacrilegious? Why or why not? I personally find it arousing.

 

[DeepGreenEyes]

I have no problem with people organizing their relationships around anything they choose. Conservative Christianity. Star Trek. I'm sure they shape relationships around the colors of Crayola, Android apps, the General Mills organizational chart, who has athlete's foot at any given time, and numbers of Harlem Shake youtube appearances.

I don't care.

Huzzah to them.

(Of course no one cares about my dynamics, either, so everyone is even.)

The only thing I do care about is:

Is it abusive? (and I don't mean fully-intentional, freely-chosen, adult consensual D/s kinda pain. I mean abusive.) Cause I don't like that.

Are they trying to influence public policy and culture with an end toward requiring others to adopt their thing? Cause I don't like that either.

Are they saying that THEIR Christian way is the only Christian way? Or that their religion is or should be the only religion? Or that their dynamic should be the only dynamic? Cause I think all of that is just silly.



And hi, sereneone. I am well. I hope you are.

And I am the only sane one. Always. In fact, my beliefs are the only true beliefs, and should be accepted as such.

 

[knot_sweet]

I have no problem with people organizing their relationships around anything they choose. Conservative Christianity. Star Trek. I'm sure they shape relationships around the colors of Crayola, Android apps, the General Mills organizational chart, who has athlete's foot at any given time, and numbers of Harlem Shake youtube appearances.

I don't care.

Huzzah to them.

(Of course no one cares about my dynamics, either, so everyone is even.)

The only thing I do care about is:

Is it abusive? (and I don't mean fully-intentional, freely-chosen, adult consensual D/s kinda pain. I mean abusive.) Cause I don't like that.

Are they trying to influence public policy and culture with an end toward requiring others to adopt their thing? Cause I don't like that either.

Are they saying that THEIR Christian way is the only Christian way? Or that their religion is or should be the only religion? Or that their dynamic should be the only dynamic? Cause I think all of that is just silly.



And hi, sereneone. I am well. I hope you are.

And I am the only sane one. Always. In fact, my beliefs are the only true beliefs, and should be accepted as such.

Hooray, a zillion internetz and a chocolate cookie for Deeg.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Personally, I am an atheist and have been since birth. My BDSM inclinations come from myself, not from any religious or even societal influences-- I was raised by wolves.

At the same time, I have felt persecution coming from religious people-- I mean that literally, not figuratively. I was ostracised for instance, from the Brownies troup as a wee Stella, when the den mother found out that I didn't believe in god. So not only am I not religious, I am anti-religion because it gets in my face.

I know people who get a big kick out of playing with Catholic imagery and I tend to avoid those scenes as much as possible. I recently made a big stink when a community event was themed around Catholic nuns and penance and suchlike. I do not mind when people play with it themselves but it has no place in community-wide events. I had to make a decision that was more difficult than it should have been, on whether or not to attend. A few other people chimed in-- and some people said that they DO believe, and didn't like seeing their religion parodied.

To their credit, the organisers kinda-sorta apologised, and moved much of the altar stuff out of the main room.

 

[sereneone4u]

I'm not here to push an agenda... simply expressing my thoughts. I was incorrect about your view of God and His word? Fair enough.

"They were not using an example they were writing the word of God..." I respect your right to interpret the Christian Bible literally. The Parables were stories told by Jesus to make a point, through example. The stories themselves may have been true or not, Jesus may have actually told the stories or not, but regardless there is no denying that use of example does exist in the word of God.

As I said, I respect your right to hold a literalist view. However, I would ask you to simply acknowledge that such an interpretation has its problems. I will once again bring up the CB's approval for (or at least lack of condemnation against) slavery, a practice that the "civilized" world no longer supports. Click on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_consistency_of_the_Bible (yes, I know it's Wikipedia) for an overview.

Regarding male "servant leadership", I would ask you to explain why God grants certain leadership roles to men but not women. In your view, other than the obvious of the act of giving birth are there any roles in life in which women can take a dominant role? Are women subservient because of "original sin?"

In terms of my sanity comment, I stand by it not because I agree with it but because of his stance on the use of scholarship as a means of understanding religious principals. I'll take it a step further and ask, how was the Christian Bible compiled at all the various "councils"? I submit, divinely inspired selection processes or not, it was by the religious SCHOLARSHIP of the time.



Do you view that as sacrilegious? Why or why not? I personally find it arousing.

I don't have to acknowledge anything other than I see things differently than you and tell you not to put me in a box and make assumptions.

One can't have an intelligent conversation when one person insists in telling the other what their beliefs are.

 

[sereneone4u]

Personally, I am an atheist and have been since birth. My BDSM inclinations come from myself, not from any religious or even societal influences-- I was raised by wolves.

At the same time, I have felt persecution coming from religious people-- I mean that literally, not figuratively. I was ostracised for instance, from the Brownies troup as a wee Stella, when the den mother found out that I didn't believe in god. So not only am I not religious, I am anti-religion because it gets in my face.

I know people who get a big kick out of playing with Catholic imagery and I tend to avoid those scenes as much as possible. I recently made a big stink when a community event was themed around Catholic nuns and penance and suchlike. I do not mind when people play with it themselves but it has no place in community-wide events. I had to make a decision that was more difficult than it should have been, on whether or not to attend. A few other people chimed in-- and some people said that they DO believe, and didn't like seeing their religion parodied.

To their credit, the organisers kinda-sorta apologised, and moved much of the altar stuff out of the main room.

I am sorry for that Stella. Even as a Christian there are times I feel ostracized by my faith.

I have some very very "religious" Christian friends and we argued during the election over the rape and abortion issues. One of them even told me that she would consider rape a blessing. This is a woman that has only known her husband sexually and lived a wonderful childhood being protected and cherished and is very naive even in her forties. I was so horrified and my heart was so hurt with her. As someone who was molested as a child and profoundly abused, raped as a young woman, I know the ugly horrible reality of both sexual abuse and rape and it is not in anyway a blessing. She was coming from a place of God using evil for good and that sometimes bad things do happen and sometimes the end justifies the means. However she does NOT understand that sometimes something is just pure evil. There is nothing good about it or will come out of it, it is just evil. I almost asked her if we could toss her in a prison yard for how long it takes her to concieve and see what a blessing the thought that was...and add visitation for the father of said baby and see what a blessing her husband would find that to be and having her children exposed to said father of the baby to be.

It saddens me that a lot of my Christian friends instead of being thankful for their blessings, use these blessings to look down upon other people and act superior. I think it is one of the biggest problems of the church. Ghandi I think has said he loves our Christ but he does not love Christians. I rarely see my friends of other faiths or non-faiths act so sanctimonious. I attend church sporadically and in one of the past sermons recently the pastor addressed this problem and I hope it sunk in with some of the parishioners.

And now I have gotten off topic, I apologize.

 

[sereneone4u]

I have no problem with people organizing their relationships around anything they choose. Conservative Christianity. Star Trek. I'm sure they shape relationships around the colors of Crayola, Android apps, the General Mills organizational chart, who has athlete's foot at any given time, and numbers of Harlem Shake youtube appearances.

I don't care.

Huzzah to them.

(Of course no one cares about my dynamics, either, so everyone is even.)

The only thing I do care about is:

Is it abusive? (and I don't mean fully-intentional, freely-chosen, adult consensual D/s kinda pain. I mean abusive.) Cause I don't like that.

Are they trying to influence public policy and culture with an end toward requiring others to adopt their thing? Cause I don't like that either.

Are they saying that THEIR Christian way is the only Christian way? Or that their religion is or should be the only religion? Or that their dynamic should be the only dynamic? Cause I think all of that is just silly.



And hi, sereneone. I am well. I hope you are.

And I am the only sane one. Always. In fact, my beliefs are the only true beliefs, and should be accepted as such.

You my dear Sir, are practically perfect in every way.