Where is the outrage over mom 24/7 sex slave

[Evil_Captor]

[QUOTE=eleanorigby]
[slight hijack]
[/quote]

No I’ve not hijacked the thread. I am maintaining that a large part of the reason for the hostility toward Freakalette’s thread is that there’s a strong dislike for BDSM on the Dope, especially maledom/femsub stuff, and the repression of my posts is part of it just as the call for outrage over Freakalette’s thread is … and whatever happened to jarbabyj, the female submissive who used to post here a lot?

I maintain that people who post on BDSM topics frequently or strongly get driven off the Dope by a coterie of people who don’t like the topic (but won’t admit to it) and the Mods who either share their displeasure or just don’t want to be bothered by the BDSM prudes and so do what they want so the prudes will stop bothering them.

Evil Captor–we get it.

No, you don’t. You’re not even CLOSE to getting it. Really, you are out in the woods on this one.

Truly. I barely even recognize your moniker and yet I know you’re heavily into bondage. We don’t care.

Yes, you do, or you’d just ignore my posts. That’s what I do when posts or posters don’t interest me. It’s not even difficult for me. I don’t understand why it’s so difficult for you.

We don’t want to hear about it.

Yah, I get that.

We especially don’t want to hear about how it turns you on.

I don’t recall ever posting a hell of a lot on the Dope on that topic. Are you sure you’ve actually read my posts on this topic?

We think you get turned on by posting about it and reading our negative reactions to it.

No, I just post what I think on a topic and let you guys sort it out. Or used to.

Go forth and bind up someone willing and stop telling us about it. Please. Thank you. [/sh]

You’re not welcome.

[A_Priori_Tea]

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
A Priori Tea, I have a(hopefully) non-confrontational question. If Robin were to hypothetically tell you one day that he no longer wanted to continue with a 27/7 Dom/Sub lifestyle, would that be a relationship deal breaker for you or would you just roll with it? In other words, I’m asking whether you would prioritize the person or the lifestyle.
[/QUOTE]

First there would be a talk about why, to see if we could come to a compromise between “all” and “nothing.” Very often, a desire to change the dynamic comes from unhappiness with a specific behavior - if there’s something I’m doing that’s making him unhappy, I’d rather change the tire than buy a new car, you know?

If he is simply unhappy having a D/s dynamic, then we’d have to renegotiate the terms of our relationship, but I would be perfectly willing to continue to have a relationship. I love him, not his submissiveness. Yes, it would cause upheaval in our home, and yes, I would no longer be getting something key out of the relationship, so it would take a lot of work on both our parts to come to a mutually satisfactory agreement. But if you’re asking, would I dump him for going all egalitarian on me? Hell no. He’s too good a lay.
So, Diogenes, I have a return question for you - do you truly, rationally believe this:

Only a psychopathic, sadistic, pathologically self-centered individual would want to live in that kind of profoundly abusive relationship (and I don’t want to hear any bullshit about how it’s “consenual.” Suck my dick. It’s "consensual because the victim is fucking mentally ill and being exploited by a slimeball pervert). It’s not a “relationship” at all. It’s a codependent sex addiction.

is applicable to all D/s relationships? If so, I would very much like to know on what evidence you assert that Robin and I are mentally ill, and on what evidence you assert that I am abusive. If not, I would like to know why you’ve made the assertion with such a terribly broad brush: you don’t assert that any particular behaviors are “profoundly abusive” or “codependent,” but rather that the relationship itself is. Could you please clarify?

[VarlosZ]

@Sarahfeena

In the case of the tickling, she does not enjoy it, and the only possible reason that her husband could therefore get a charge out of it, or even bother to do it at all, is that he knows she hates it…there’s nothing else for him to get out of it. That’s a bit twisted, IMO. And the fact that the children are apparently encouraged to do the same is teaching them a very bad lesson about how they ought to treat their mother, and a future spouse as well.

In regards to the tickling issue, I was just going to say something like: “Are you guys serious? It’s tickling! You’re supposed to hate it and screech ‘NoNoNo! Stop!’ That’s what makes it fun.”

I see, however, that A Priori Tea is more patient and considerate than I, and has actually addressed the matter in a thoughtful way. So I’ll mostly second what she said.

In short, we can’t know exactly what’s going on with the tickling in that household, but it certainly sounds to me like it’s effectively indistinguishable from almost every other tickle-fight in America.

@Revenant Threshold[/quote

But surely, if the problem stems from a lack of knowledge that the accusers share, then it’s equally as overly judgmental to assume that the proclamation is wrong?

If it was an insult devoid of any other implications, no problem. “I think you’re being overly judgmental, we can’t assume one way or the other” = fine by me. But it’s not just that; it’s “You’re being overly judgmental, plus you’re wrong/i’m right”. Neither party has more knowledge than the other, yet, somehow, it is overly judgmental to be on one side, but entirely reasonable to be on the other.

That’s all true enough, I think. That’s why myself and others are careful to be Social Cops instead of Sexuality Cops. It’s the difference between (A): “We have no good reason to believe that they cannot be or are not being good parents, so it’s rude to withold the the benefit of the doubt.”

. . . and (B): “You just can’t imagine how it could work because you’re a prude.”

Admittedly, it can be a fine line, especially because some people really do have hang-ups about sex that cause them to react strongly to this sort of thing, though, of course, we ought to grant the benefit of the doubt and keep our mouths shut about our suspicions in that direction.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

[QUOTE=A Priori Tea]

So, Diogenes, I have a return question for you - do you truly, rationally believe this:

is applicable to all D/s relationships? If so, I would very much like to know on what evidence you assert that Robin and I are mentally ill, and on what evidence you assert that I am abusive. If not, I would like to know why you’ve made the assertion with such a terribly broad brush: you don’t assert that any particular behaviors are “profoundly abusive” or “codependent,” but rather that the relationship itself is. Could you please clarify?
[/QUOTE]

I admit that was over the top. I apologize. My initial emotional reaction was very averse, but honestly, it wasn’t the sexual aspects that bothered me, it was the acting out in front of the kids, in particular (like I’ve already said), it’s the modelling of male-female relationships to children as being unequal and giving the impression that women should be subordinate to men. I don’t think that children are capable of grasping the idea that it’s role playing (especially if it’s role playing that never gets switched off).

For couple who don’t have kids, I don’t think it matters (although I admit to wondering what either partner gets out of it).

[Evil_Captor]

[QUOTE=VarlosZ]

. . . and (B): “You just can’t imagine how it could work because you’re a prude.”

Admittedly, it can be a fine line, especially because some people really do have hang-ups about sex that cause them to react strongly to this sort of thing, though, of course, we ought to grant the benefit of the doubt and keep our mouths shut about our suspicions in that direction.
[/QUOTE]

Well, if it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck and looks like a duck, it’s probably a duck.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

It’s obvious that the freaks have unfurled their flags, have come out to play, and are enjoying the moral indignation of the supposed “moral majority”.

While I accept a dildo up the ass from the wifey on occaison (BUT I’M NOT GAY, DAMMIT!), I simply laugh at the outrage expressed here.

I see both sides, and I agree in part with both.

But ultimately, this is America, you can fuck and enter into agreements with whomever you please, and as long as you aren’t breaking any laws, so be it.

Personally, I find this reprehensible, but I cannot judge someone if they state they are happy, even if they are lying (and I’m not implying they are).

I have kids and a wife, and I could never imagine such an arrangement (and btw, you don’t need such an arrangement to have freaky sex…just AFTER the kiddos are safely ensonced in their beds, then let it fly), but who are any of we to judge someone else’s interpretation of their marriage?

I know, I know, “what about the children!”

Well, what about them? We have no way of knowing how overt this relationship is in terms of “damaging” the kids “fragile” psyches, and as others have stated, many kids form more self-worth from interaction from peers than from parents anyway.

How is this any different than my (true story) step-daughter walking out of her room way past her bedtime and witnessing her Mom administering the blowjob of a lifetime to me?

Unless you’re Woody Allen, the answer is it doesn’t.

Some things are for adults, and some things are for children.

[Sarahfeena]

[QUOTE=VarlosZ]
In regards to the tickling issue, I was just going to say something like: “Are you guys serious? It’s tickling! You’re supposed to hate it and screech ‘NoNoNo! Stop!’ That’s what makes it fun.”

I see, however, that A Priori Tea is more patient and considerate than I, and has actually addressed the matter in a thoughtful way. So I’ll mostly second what she said.

In short, we can’t know exactly what’s going on with the tickling in that household, but it certainly sounds to me like it’s effectively indistinguishable from almost every other tickle-fight in America.
[/QUOTE]
Except that every other tickle-fight in America goes exactly like A Priori Tea herself says:

[QUOTE=A Prioi Tea]
However, I think it’s likely that it’s more in the spirit of a game - “let’s make Mommy laugh until she says uncle!” sort of thing.
[/QUOTE]
If you don’t have a safe word, which freekalette says she doesn’t…then there is no “uncle,” is there?

In any case, most of what bothers me about this is what Diogenes says…I do not believe that in any relationship that someone should be the “boss.” freekalette says in her thread that she explains it this way to her kids, that in some relationships the woman is the boss, in some the man is the boss, and in some, it’s equal. I don’t believe in a “head of the household.” I think having different gender roles is fine (meaning, the husband works, the wife takes care of the house and kids), but not for someone to be the authority over the other adult.

[A_Priori_Tea]

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
I admit that was over the top. I apologize. My initial emotional reaction was very averse, but honestly, it wasn’t the sexual aspects that bothered me, it was the acting out in front of the kids, in particular (like I’ve already said), it’s the modelling of male-female relationships to children as being unequal and giving the impression that women should be subordinate to men. I don’t think that children are capable of grasping the idea that it’s role playing (especially if it’s role playing that never gets switched off).

For couple who don’t have kids, I don’t think it matters (although I admit to wondering what either partner gets out of it).
[/QUOTE]

Thank you for the apology - I understand reacting strongly emotionally, and realizing afterwards that maybe you were a wee bit over the top.

As to your continued concern for the children, I think I have given all the rational explanations I can, so let me add an anecdote from my own experience, to try and help. I have a couple of friends, who are a married, polyamorous, kinky couple. She is submissive to him in every area; he “owns” her, and they are very much in love. They have two children, aged approximately 10 and 8. The older is a boy, the younger is a girl. On one occasion, I saw the boy swat his little sister on the butt, because he wanted her attention. She turned around and poked him in the chest (fairly hard) and said “That’s my butt! Leave it alone!” He immediately looked chagrined, and said “I’m sorry - come play with me now?” And they toddled off to do some mysterious kid thing.

Yeah, kids pick up things you don’t want them to sometimes. But it’s also perfectly possible to teach them about boundaries and consent and appropriate behavior in social groups, if you’re willing to put as much work into it as you do into your dynamic. Responsible kinky parents often have fairly open conversations with their children as often as they think is necessary or feasible, to help them understand that not everybody is like Mommy and Daddy, and that it’s Not Okay to treat everybody like that.

On preview: no, Sarahfeena, she doesn’t have a safeword. But not having a safeword doesn’t mean she can’t say, “Seriously, guys, quit it!” and be respected. Couples who do not use safewords almost invariably have a plethora of other (sometimes better) ways of communicating, so that the submissive is able to get across when s/he’s had enough. Not having a safeword is not in any way equivalent to making her unable to say no - it just means that she has to communicate her distress in other ways.

As to not believing one adult should ever be in charge of another - I can’t help you with that, and I’m not going to try. I disagree, obviously.

[Robin_Goodfellow]

[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
Except that every other tickle-fight in America goes exactly like A Priori Tea herself says:

If you don’t have a safe word, which freekalette says she doesn’t…then there is no “uncle,” is there
[/QUOTE]

Ah, jeez. And here I’ve been agonizing whether to forgive my older half-brother for tickling me for, like, three minutes straight when I was a little boy, or if I should go to the police and start the process for a child molestation report. After all, I was too young to offer informed consent about safewords, and even if I’d had one, how would I know that my half-brother would respect it? :dubious: dramatic chord

Seriously, people. Tickling is a game. It’s a game played in just about every culture at just about every age where the energy and spare time is allowable. I seriously doubt that freekalette’s husband is breaking out the cuffs and strapping down the missus so all the kids can join in the sexual molestation of their mom.

(Here I imagine a panel where the demonic Chick-tract grin appears on the kids’ faces. “Yeah! Let’s tickle mom… and then we can do even worse to her!! Good thing God has left this household!” Suddenly, stern-faced preacher appears! “God never leaves his flock!” and they shirk away from the light as he starts quoting Bible verses in footnotes.)

Sorry, where was I…?

The example the mom-OP used was to show how the kinky side of their relationship could meld innocently with the family-togetherness side. It’s a game. The worst imaginable result is that one of their younger kids has to learn firsthand at school that tickling people even after they seriously want you to stop is Not Good ™ and is a violation of space. If they’re any older than 7, it’s likely they’ll internalize that well before the time when they start destroying their peer’s minds with forced tickling.

And, as Priori Tea has mentioned, good doms don’t very often push the limits of their allowed power. If mom is seriously upset by the ticklin’s, it’s likely they’ll stop so she can catch her breath and look more like a loving relationship in front of the little ones. I don’t know why the worst has to be assumed.

Oh and, Diogenes… thankyou for not biting my head off for not being a parent myself o.o Given the subject matter, I figured the devaluing of my opinion was inevitable, but I’m sorry for making that assumption about you.

[astro]

[QUOTE=Argent Towers]
The only thing that outraged me about that relationship in that thread was the fact that her husband made her eat at *Olive Garden.
*

Fuck Olive Garden. Their pasta is flavorless and floppy. Their breadsticks are mostly composed of air, with some greasy oil smeared on as an afterthought. Their alfredo sauce is runny, watery and disgusting, and tastes like yak cum. And it’s all a gigantic ripoff, on top of all that.

If my husband forced me to eat at Olive Garden, I’d cut off his fucking pecker and force feed it to him.
[/QUOTE]

Word.

[DocCathode]

Okay lemmesee if I can adress the issues

She’s Mentally Ill- I don’t think so. I’m pretty good at picking up insanity in posts. I haven’t seen anything yet.

It’s Abuse- Except that she agreed to it, doesn’t want to leave, and enjoys it.

JayJay is gay- Why was I not told? So all those references to ‘bearfests’ in his LiveJournal are some kind of homosexual code?

Evil Captor- I have to agree you had the habit of posting your kink in pretty much any thread you could. Note that I post about She-gor only when relevant. I can’t search right now, but it’s been a handful of threads over the years.

Personally, I could use slave to clean up my laboratory and iron all my double-breasted Victorian lab coats.

[Scissorjack]

C’mon, no-one believes that thread, do they? It’s obviously crafted to push as many buttons as possible and spark an eight page Pit thread.

[SmartAleq]

[QUOTE=Scissorjack]
C’mon, no-one believes that thread, do they? It’s obviously crafted to push as many buttons as possible and spark an eight page Pit thread.
[/QUOTE]

No way, dude, if it were just a button push there are any number of us who could do a REALLY good job of it! I think it’s kinda sweet, definitely pretty mild compared to some couples I’ve known. Ask me about the BDSM BBS parties I used to go to sometime…

[Inner_Stickler]

I only have a few things to say:

1. I’m not outraged. Sorry. Sure, freekalette’s kids may grow up to be fuckheads. But there are plenty of kids from supposedly normal (whatever the hell that is) homes that grew up to be fuckheads, so…
2. The DSM-IV doesn’t classify BDSM as a mental illness so I don’t think we should either, unless you have some extremely pertinent evidence otherwise.
3. Being all strident and screechy about the kids and pathologically sick and fucked up and stuff doesn’t endear you to the people you’re trying to reach. If your goal is to convince them to stop with what you consider immoral and wrong, you’ll need to try a different tack. However, if your goal is to ostracize, offend and destroy any possibility of an understanding, congratulations. P.S. that’s really jerky.

[clairobscur]

It seems to me that what people who think that such a relationship is by definition abusive don’t understand is that :

-In an abusive relationship, the woman suffers from it and would be happier out of it

-In the case of freekalette relationship, she enjoys it and would be less happy out of it

Some people also don’t really understand how someone could dislike a particular sexual act (or not be in the mood for it) and still find fulfilment and pleasure in it being imposed on them, but I assume you have to not be adverse to D/s (on either side) to get it. Honestly, when youre in this kind of thing it’s quite blantantly obvious that he sub does enjoy it. A lot. Just look in her eyes, you’ll know.

So, even though it’s perfectly possible that a sub will be taken advantage of or abused in such a relationship, I would need evidences of it to make such a statement. And I don’t see any such evidence in ** freekalette **'s posts.

Finally, as for the husband being a self-centered jerk… hmmm… actually I don’t dare to think of how much work he must have to put into the relationship for it to work (except of course, if he’s actually a self-centered jerk, but this would have to be proven first). Being in charge 24/7 really isn’t going to be 24/7 recreation time. No way it will work if the Dom is self-centered.

To sum up, I wouldn’t have an issue with discussing whether or not such a 24/7 D/s relationship is healthy, but calling it abusive by definition is just a lack of understanding of its basic dynamics.

However, like many others, I have reservations regarding the children issue, because it’s clear that some elements of the D/s relationship are made apparent to them and I can’t see it as being a good (or even neutral) thing.

[astro]

QtM nailed it pretty early on with the Calvinist reference.

Times change but the the large majority of people, regardless of how progressive they like to think of themselves (and dopers are certainly no exception here) are pretty middle of the road in terms of what they consider culturally acceptable with respect to relationships. The delicate spun glass construct of most dopers self image of themselves as progressive and relatively non-judgmental is put to the test in a relationship where a woman is choosing, even dictating to certain extent, that she wants an overt D/s relationship and lifestyle.

The fact that this makes many otherwise fairly deliberative dopers practically lose their minds is evidence of just how rigid and inflexible people people are, especially those who regard themselves as progressive and tolerant, when something comes along that challenges their core beliefs about how relationships in modernity should be mediated.

If the OP being pitted was a submissive daddy, dominant mommy thread it would not generate 1/10th the condemnation or comment it has received. A lot of the comments here are being expressed in terms of concern “for the kids”, when in fact I believe the real hot button being pressed here is the voluntary submission by a female to male dominance in a relationship she (by her own admission) has effectively orchestrated.

That IMO is the hot button being pressed here like a 3rd grader going after a Whack-a-Mole game. It’s not a respect issue, it’s a power issue, and the fact that a modern, intelligent, seemingly sane woman chooses to transfer or otherwise delegate her power to her husband, which is effectively what she is doing, is causing many dopers to question her mental stability.

What people are losing sight of here is that the REAL power in this relationship is hers. She has willfully and deliberately constructed a relationship that satisfies her psychological and emotional desire to be dominated. Despite her “surrender” she’s the one calling the tune in this scenario.

[Hostile_Dialect]

@Shodan

Women don’t always leave their husbands when they are beaten.

As usual, it’s all hyperbole and black-and-white-thinking fallacies from your corner. It’s been pointed out several times that this is not an abusive relationship. Now go away, so we don’t have to hear you boasting about how ignorant you are.

@Priceguy

This I can agree with. All the “sick and dysfunctional and fucked up” and “only a psychopathic, sadistic, pathologically self-centered individual would want to live in that kind of profoundly abusive relationship” and “the victim is fucking mentally ill and being exploited by a slimeball pervert” stuff? No.

Seconded. It’s one thing to be legitimately worried about the children, but most of the people who claim to be worried about the children are also using hyperbole to redefine the participants as they see fit, and everyone else on their side of the argument is buying into the age-old oppression tactic of declaring anyone whose practices you wouldn’t abide by in your personal life to be “mentally ill” and demand they be forcibly removed from society. It would be sad if it weren’t so funny.

@featherlou

I am a helluva lot more disturbed by religious fundamentalists raising kids than I am by two consenting D/s people raising kids. I’m fairly sure that the religious fundamentalists never communicate with their kids that this isn’t necessarily the way the rest of the world does things, and that different can be okay - as far as I know, religious fundamentalists raise their kids to accept ONLY religious fundamentalist behaviour as correct, and that worries me a whole lot more than daddy not saying “please” when asking mommy for a cup of coffee. My point here is that there is a lot of crap child raising going on that isn’t raising any eyebrows because it is mainstream and accepted.

Ditto. As for those of you going on and on about how the kids will supposedly learn that this is a normative relationship–the parents are apparently regularly telling them that it isn’t, and why. What part of this is so difficult to understand?

BTW, Q.E.D., since I’ve been a dick to you lately, I just wanted to step aside real quick and tell you that I think you’re right on the money here.

[Rubystreak]

Couple of questions, asked out of ignorance, not antagonism:

[QUOTE=astro]
If the OP being pitted was a submissive daddy, dominant mommy thread it would not generate 1/10th the condemnation or comment it has received. A lot of the comments here are being expressed in terms of concern “for the kids”, when in fact I believe the real hot button being pressed here is the voluntary submission by a female to male dominance in a relationship she (by her own admission) has effectively orchestrated.
[/quote]

Do you really think that’s true? There have been a number of threads here about how wrongly men are treated in modern society, how wrong it is to stereotype men as bumbling morons, etc. I’m not sure you’re right about people’s button issue being the sex. I think it’s more the idea that kids are being exposed to an extreme sexual kink that has grown to pervade freekalette’s entire life. That is a debatable point, obviously, but that’s how it seems to me.

That IMO is the hot button being pressed here like a 3rd grader going after a Whack-a-Mole game. It’s not a respect issue, it’s a power issue, and the fact that a modern, intelligent, seemingly sane woman chooses to transfer or otherwise delegate her power to her husband, which is effectively what she is doing, is causing many dopers to question her mental stability.

It’s more than that. It’s the hitting, the humiliation, and the public and 24/7 nature of it that has caused people to question her mental stability. I don’t think that it’s the power dynamic. Everyone has a power dynamic but not everyone has the other qualities, which no one can argue fall outside of the realm of most people’s idea of “the norm.”

What people are losing sight of here is that the REAL power in this relationship is hers. She has willfully and deliberately constructed a relationship that satisfies her psychological and emotional desire to be dominated. Despite her “surrender” she’s the one calling the tune in this scenario.

Maybe I just don’t get it-- that’s entirely possible-- but I think her husband is calling the tune. She does things she doesn’t want to do, suffers pain she doesn’t want to suffer, has sex she doesn’t want to have, wears things she finds humiliating in public… but she’s calling the tune? She’s getting what she wants, but so is he, and it sounds like he’s getting it a lot more often than she is. I thought the whole point is that HE is calling the tune and she likes it that way, that she gives up her own desires in specific situations in order to get what she wants in general, though he seems to be getting what he wants almost all the time. Please correct me if I’ve got it wrong.

[Martin_Hyde]

[QUOTE=Antinor01]
What I mean by discussed is that we learned after we got together that we were both into that sort of thing. So we’ve talked about turning it into a 24/7 D/s relationship. At this time I don’t wish to do so because it is a large commitment to make and quite frankly, I’m not sure I’m up to it.
[/quote]

So you both decided that you were “into” behaving as though both or one of you was a mentally ill incompetent who should be dominated and abused to maximize the exploitation of that incompetence–gotcha.

[Martin_Hyde]

[QUOTE=freekalette]
I got halfway through the second page of this thread, and I’m not going to read any more. Two things:

To those who have been understanding and/or supportive, thank you! You are fantastic, and I appreciate your thouhts.

To everyone else, I’m not allowed to say what I really think, even in the Pit.

If you need me, I’ll be in the other thread.
[/QUOTE]

Well I am allowed to say what I want in the pit. You’re a monster, should have your children taken away, and most likely you should spend a significant portion of the next several years in forced mental health treatment.

Talking to you is akin to communicating with a baboon–there is the same possibility of meaningful dialog. Sorry, but us (the collective Dope) aren’t psychiatrists, we aren’t equipped to deal with you or your insanity.