I was hoping people reading my post would notice the words yank, fake, and contrived.
Instead we’ve latched onto the emotionally charged words, sanctimonious christians.
This was just a reference to my perception of the timing of the whole affair but it does help to illustrate how a few well place buzzwords can shift the direction of discourse. Which is what I believe the whole thing was about.
Are you suggesting just scarred ?
Its come to my mind that perhaps a case for the consensual dominant/submissive relationship is similarly out of the norm of today’s western society as the homosexual relationship.
Progressive minds see no harm to the children of homosexual partners so why should there be concern for children of the subject of the OP ?
I should add that in the past, the wife and I have allocated days where I am the slave and I get ordered around. A whole lot of housework gets done enthusiastically where otherwise I would find it loathsome.
Whoa-when was-oh wait. Never mind-we can’t search.
Fuck it. :mad:
Back on topic:
And again, I’m with eleanorigby
As for the kids-I’m guessing that once they’re old enough to understand, they’re going to be disgusted beyond belief. Kinda like finding out how babies are made, and realizing your parents did that!
I daresay I am the highest authority on what my own opinion is, and that there is no one more qualified than I to give it. You are welcome to read it, ignore it, or (as you chose in this instance) use it as fodder for an unprovoked personal attack.*
You say the scenario is “absurd”—perhaps, but until recently I’d have thought it absurd that anyone would willingly enter into an agreement described by the OP in the original thread. I asked the question not because I think it’s likely to happen, but to ask whether there is any limit to the “acceptance” one is supposed to afford, unquestioningly, to the behavior of others.
You being no stranger to improbable hypotheticals, perhaps you could deign to answer the question directly: if you DID know a couple such as the one I described, whose 24/7 kink were founded on racist humiliation, would you be A-OK with that too—or would you perhaps feel the slightest bit of concern for the woman’s well-being, and contempt for the white male partner “getting off” on his role?
I forgot the best part. You don’t even have to be the perp to warrant Martin Hyde’s death sentence. You just have to be in the car with him. Three words for you: teenage pancake thief. Hope that rings some bells. It went on for quite some time so Hyde had plenty of chances to show what a man of compassion and conscience he is.
Just a quick note on principle to those asking not to be judged for their judgments:
If you judge me, you give me the right to judge you. If you accuse me of something baselessly, you give me the evidence to draw conclusions about your ability to think. If you paint a whole culture of living and loving and laughing as mentally unstable because you don’t understand what drives it, you are setting yourself up to be judged.
And here’s the thing: when you say “they must be sick” or “there’s something unhealthy in relationships that are unequal,” you are indicting and accusing with a very broad brush, even though you may not intend to. Having and investigating specific concerns is admirable, even when we don’t agree. Drawing conclusions about the mental health of someone else based on little or no evidence is not a valid tactic for resolving or understanding differences.
Damn, I’ll have to look for that when the search comes back, or well, “if”.
Back on topic: do you guys ever have a “time out”? Whoever wants it?
I have been keeping up with freekalette’s thread, and what Autoclyus said there really made me think (damn, that kid’s smart for being so young!) I think the thing that bothers me the most about this is that I just don’t think it’s a sign of a healthy adult that freekalette (or Robin Goodfellow, for that matter) wants to abdicate all decision-making to another adult. It’s infantilizing. And I really don’t think the reason for doing so is all that relevant…whether it’s for religious reasons, sexual pleasure, or even if freekalette hired someone off the street to make her decisions for her, as a way of managing her anxiety problems. An adult should be able to make basic decisions for him or herself, and they should want to make some decisions for him or herself, as well. I think the focus on this being a sexual kink is maybe putting the focus in the wrong place.
True, but freekalette comes right out and says she has depression and anxiety issues, and this is how she manages them. I think that this is enough information for a 3rd party to say, hey, are you sure this is the most healthy way to do that? Or is maybe some therapy in order here? What if her husband gets hit by a bus tomorrow? I have a feeling that the longer this goes on, the less and less able she will be to manage life on her own. It seems a little dangerous that way.
As recent history demonstrates, I didn’t need your permission, but thanks for letting me know I have it. I do feel more welcome now.
Why ask that? Isn’t it another topic entirely? We seem to have plenty on our hands just working out what we think of the real examples actually going on without inventing insane new ones. It doesn’t seem like you’re really asking an innocent question, but rather trying to make a ridiculous rhetorical point based on a common and transparent logical fallacy.
Indeed, as you say. I enjoy them in their place. Now I understand why you were so adamant in the thread you’re referencing; you were assuming I must be doing that which you yourself do.
I would need much more information than this to answer. Unlike many people here, because I know something about this topic I know I can’t assume very much from the basics you’ve described. How much negotiation have they done? Do they have a contract? How many other people know about the situation – what kind of support network do they have? What are her hard and soft limits, and does he respect them? What are his responsibilities toward her? What are her goals in the relationship and in life? It doesn’t much matter, because what you’ve described is just a slippery-slope hypothetical so obviously based in ignorance of the real subject that it’s a lot like me saying ‘Well if abortion is okay, then what about torturing five year olds to death, huh?’
Yeah, some people think it’s the same thing, but most people with accurate information understand there’s a huge difference.
Why darling, I didn’t know you cared. I’ll fetch the cattle prod and you set up the rack.
You mean D/s ‘lifestyle’ people? Of course. How to invoke that is a major part of D/s negotiation whether it’s 24/7 or not. There are extreme cases but they’re a fringe which is usually looked down on by the community.
I’m glad you asked this question, actually.
Firstly, I very seriously doubt the following things:
That in 1890, most American women had to consent to sex with their husbands whenever they demanded, regardless of their mood or desires.
That in 1890, most American women were essentially held as chattel by their husbands. We’re not talking about a situation in which the male is dominant, i.e. he’s the “head of household” who gets to make major decisions for the household mostly by himself (like: where are we going to live, what home will we live in, where will we move to, what Church will we attend et cetera.)
In the 19th century it was very common for the male to be the dominant partner–but marriage was still viewed as a joint arrangement in which both sides had both rights and responsibilities. Yes, the wife typically had the responsibility of “keeping the home”, but the husband had a responsibility to provide for the wife financially. One of the biggest reasons families wouldn’t give consent for marriages in the 19th century was when they doubted the husband’s financial ability to care for the wife.
Furthermore, in the case of “24/7 sex slaves” the dominant partner is making decisions over extremely trivial things purely for the purpose of showing their dominance of the submissive partner: where they will shop, what time they will go to sleep, what the sub will wear that day.
That is nothing at all like a “normal” 19th century marriage. By and large yes, the males were the dominant partners but they didn’t walk around with their women on a leash.
Even slave owners typically didn’t exert this level of minute and comprehensive oversight of their slaves–primarily if the slave was working and not causing trouble the slave owner was happy not to have to micro-manage their affairs.
But going to the heart of issue, I’ll use a slightly different analogy than someone’s great-great grandmother. Let’s look at black slaves in the United States. They had no say over where they lived, they could be beaten without cause, they could be subjected to rape and sexual abuse (many of the females were), their children could be taken from them and sold to other slave owners on a whim or for financial profit. Must we conclude then, that since millions lived in such a condition in the 19th century, someone being a willing slave today is “normal”? Obviously not.
Black slaves faced the reality of torture and death if they tried to escape slavery. They are blameless in “submitting to slavery.” The slave owner’s aren’t blameless though, they were using the power of the State and the society in which they lived to exploit these people for financial gain. I’m lead to believe many slave owners knew their actions were morally indefensible.
The key thing for many people seems to be choice–enslavement of blacks was wrong because there was no choice, but “two consenting adults” that’s a different thing.
I argue that there are not two consenting adults. If I have sex with someone who is comatose, or mentally incompetent, in most states I have committed a serious crime because I have taken advantage of the person’s mental incompetence for my own gratification. Likewise, if I have sex with children, that is a crime (this is why the phrase is consenting adults it isn’t the age but the mental incompetence that comes with it that is the key factor.) People who are sick, two young, physically incapacitated et cetera don’t have the capacity to willing enter into sexual relationships. Anyone willing to be a “24/7 sex slave” likewise has proven by entering in to such a relationship that they lack the mental capacity to look out for their own best interests. They should be wards of the state or appointed a guardian. They should not be beaten and raped by an abusive sadist who is lucky enough to come into possession of them–all under the guise of “consent.”
It’s not my job to diagnose the mentally ill. As a member of society I have a vested interest in seeing those diagnoses made correctly and seeing these people treated.
The behavior exhibited by “24/7 sex slaves”, especially in light of extreme lack of concern for the effects it will have on their children, is clearly deviant behavior. Society has an interest in controlling deviant behavior.
My feeling is this deviant behavior is probably some sort of mental instability in one or both of the people involved–I openly admit that may not be the case. But the public should investigate these matters and I think many of these people should be declared incompetent and given a guardian to manage their affairs–they have proven they cannot do so themselves.
The thing about a mental illness is, many people are mentally ill who cannot be correctly diagnosed. Many people get physical ailments that their physician cannot diagnose (at least not prior to death.) There’s a reason people get looked at in the first place though, since time immemorial regular people have been able to recognize that some individuals aren’t “right in the head.” The investigation of such people has lead to the mental health profession as it stands today, and like all medical fields it is not perfect–just because there may be no diagnosis for the subject of the OP doesn’t mean it isn’t a bonafide mental illness. That’s like saying ALS didn’t exist prior to it being entered into diagnostic manuals–that’s asinine. It just hadn’t been classified and identified to the proper degree by medical professionals.
On the off chance we aren’t looking at some sort of mental illness, then society has an interest in simply criminalizing this behavior and imprisoning the participants due to the harm they are imposing on their children.
One of the best ways to avoid getting shot by a police officer is to not be a criminal, YMMV.
I can’t speak for freekalette and her husband, but Robin and I don’t have "time out"s as I think you mean them. We’re not in a “role” - we’re being who we are comfortable being, so having a “time out” would be closer to playing a role than what we do from day to day.
I’m trying to think of a good example - for instance, most normal couples I know have certain basic expectations of who does what (he does laundry, she cooks, etc.) and how they’ll treat each other (generally with respect and courtesy, but particularly with specific endearments and behaviors - calling one another “honey” and remembering birthdays, for example). Everything they do from day to day is extemporaneous, within that particular framework of expectation. Most things that kinky couples do are just like that, except that the framework is different.
For instance, if you (hypothetical you) one day were in a foul mood, and called your significant other a cocksmoking cuntmonkey, probably they would take it amiss. What they did would differ depending on what you expect from each other - maybe they’d yell back, or call you a different name, or not respond to the insult, or whatever. My point is that whatever they do, it’s because that’s what’s normal for them - that’s how they instinctively respond to that behavior from you particularly. Very often, that response will be different to how they would respond to that behavior from someone else - a relative, a boss, a homeless person, whatever. It will also be different depending on who’s around - they will respond differently to your behavior in front of kids, or in front of other adults, or in front of close friends who know you very well.
To us (me and Robin - can’t speak for anybody else), me calling him a “good boy” and him doing what I tell him to is just like “honey” and remembering birthdays - that’s what we do, because we love each other. Taking that away would be a sign of a serious problem, of somebody being really unhappy with what the framework was doing or bringing to the relationship. Yes, certainly, if he (or I) said “I’m not happy with this, let’s try coming at it from the perspective of people with equal power,” then we’d try that to see if it fixed the problem. But that would be a tool to use to fix the problem, not a reward or punishment.
Let me hammer on one more point before I wrap up (yet another long-winded) post. I think that the concept of “time out” being necessary is predicated on something that is probably not true - that submissives are not allowed to express themselves or their concerns with dominants. Robin is allowed (and, in a lot of cases, required) to tell me when he’s unhappy or uncomfortable or just flat thinks I’m wrong. Most D/s relationships I know or know of are the same way. Yes, there are some restrictions on it (like, he’s not allowed to roll his eyes at me in lieu of making a point), but the ability for him to communicate is not in any way diminished by our power dynamic. That mostly eliminates the need for time outs, and a desire for one is something that we would handle on a case by case basis. (And yes, by we, I mean both of us. Just because I am in charge of making the final call on something doesn’t mean he has no say; far from it.)
Ladies and gentlemen, allow me to present Martin Hyde!
Fucknugget. Can we get him sent off for a year or two mental hold, since he’s obviously insane and no doubt a danger to himself and others?
It would be easier for me to condemn freekaleet if I felt it was possible to do without being a hypocrite. Hypocracy is the most repulsive of all human behaviors to me.
If she is ‘harming’ her kids by living by her own set of values, then someone should have taken me away from my mother when she fucking traumatized me by trying to get me to believe that I may some day burn and suffocate eternally in hell. All because I couldn’t ‘believe with all my heart that Jesus could save me’.
I’m glad no one took me from my mom. She was doing her best to raise her kids the best way she could, following her own beliefs. But she sure wouldn’t have any room to criticize any other parent who isn’t meaning her kids any harm.
You know, it’s interesting how very close we are to agreeing on this issue. In some of the more common classes I’ve attended and helped teach, there’s a lot of emphasis on Kink Is Not Therapy! Your Top Is Not A Psychiatrist! I agree that there should be some serious thought and attention put into ensuring that she is capable of functioning on her own, without the presence of a dominant person - and I’m sure that her dominant agrees, too. If you’ll notice, she says that she is a very dominant-type personality in day to day life - with the children (making decisions for them in her capacity as mother) and outside the home. Yes, she has depression and anxiety issues. Yes, it’s possible that she’s dealing with it in a unhealthy way. That’s a concern that you’d have to address with her, because none of us have enough information to make a call on whether or not what she’s doing is the best course of action for her. However, I must point out that whether she is choosing the healthiest thing for her has little, if any, bearing on whether adults in general can choose to be submissive and still be considered adults. I disagree strongly with your use of “infantilizing,” and I think that presuming someone chooses not to make decisions because they are incapable of doing so is doing a great disservice to a large number of very capable people.
On preview:
SmartAleq, your point is well taken, but can I point out that you are engaging in the same sort of pointless, unprovable accusation that he is? Regardless of whether you agree with him, using his less savory tactics is not going to forward your own agenda any.
What’s that? A part of the community looks down on the extremes? Why, that sounds a whole lot like judging–pot, meet kettle, A Priori Tea. The irony is unbelievable. So, it’s ok to judge if you’re one of the community, but otherwise we have to accept, approve and support? Hell, no.
We all judge one another. Such is life. Where does universal approval get us? Where are standards of behavior to be drawn? What is pathological versus eccentricity? What limit does the pursuit of personal pleasure have, if any, and what to do with the involuntary observers (and participants)? Why is the default that anything goes and any limits thereon are to be frowned upon?
I think most of us on the Dope are ok with whatever between consenting adults, in private. We may not like it or enjoy or understand it, but that is what tolerance is. The difference comes with the kids. Surprising as this may seem to some, there are standards when it comes to childcare and parenting. Most of these come from convention and societal mores. Some of these are delineated by the state–and they can be arbitrary and capricious. I doubt this would qualify for state interference. I doubt it should qualify. I do doubt that what is going on is good for the kids, that it is “over their heads” so they won’t be affected by it, that in choosing to act out in this manner there is no negative impact on the kids.
I would be more than happy to defend a point I had actually made. As this is not one of those, I’ll leave it to Ensign Edison to field.
Side note: thanks, EE, for your contributions to the thread!
You know it’s possible to have compassion for other human beings even when they’ve done bad things, and that in this civilization we have a whole system of law for determining degrees of offense which is the opposite of your “criminals are criminals and they’ve all earned their own deaths” philosophy? You do know, we went over this for pages and pages. You’re just a vicious, self-righteous sadist who clearly projects onto others his own capacity for sickening amorality.