Where is the outrage over mom 24/7 sex slave

The BBQ Pit
281

[QUOTE=Rubystreak]
Question: what if the older children’s father objected to his children living in this situation? Could freekalette lose custody of her children? What would a judge (whose job it is to, you know, judge, something we’re not supposed to do here on the SDMB) think of the whole 24/7 BDSM deal? The judges in family court have to ask themselves all day long that horrible question, “What about the childreeeeen?” that we so revile here. So I’m curious about that aspect of things.
[/QUOTE]

A wife’s time honoured Christian wedding vow is often “to love, honour and obey” her husband.

22 Wives should be subordinate to their husbands as to the Lord.
23 For the husband is head of his wife just as Christ is head of the church, he himself the savior of the body.
24 As the church is subordinate to Christ, so wives should be subordinate to their husbands in everything.

[INDENT][INDENT]Ephesians 5::22-24 http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/ephesians/ephesians5.htm[/INDENT][/INDENT]
3 But I want you to know that Christ is the head of every man, and a husband the head of his wife, and God the head of Christ.

[INDENT][INDENT]1 Corinthians 3:3: http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/1corinthians/1corinthians11.htm[/INDENT][/INDENT]
1 . . . you wives should be subordinate to your husbands . . . .

[INDENT][INDENT]1 Peter 3:1 http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/1peter/1peter3.htm [/INDENT] [/INDENT]
16 To the woman he said: “I will intensify the pangs of your childbearing; in pain shall you bring forth children. Yet your urge shall be for your husband, and he shall be your master.”

[INDENT][INDENT]Genesis 3:16 http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/genesis/genesis3.htm[/url][/INDENT][/INDENT]
74. . . . the honorable and trusting obedience which the woman owes to the man. . . .
75. . . . this false liberty and unnatural equality with the husband . . . .

[INDENT][INDENT]Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubbi, (Encyclical on Christian Marriage, 1930, at 74-75): http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121930_casti-connubii_en.html [/INDENT] [/INDENT]
11. . . . The husband is the chief of the family and the head of the wife . . . .

[INDENT][INDENT]Pope Leo XIII, Arcanum Divinae Sapientia, (Encyclical on Christian Marriage, 1880, at 11): Arcanum Divinae (February 10, 1880)
Of course examples can be found that promote equality, but the simple fact remains that submission by the wife to her husband is deeply entrenched in Christian matrimonial tradition.

If the worst presented to a Court was that Freekalette was submissive to her husband, the Court would be very hard pressed to find that to be a reason to take her children from her.

I expect that what a Court would do would be to look at all the circumstances of both bio-parents’ lives with a view to the best interests of the children. Yes, submission to her husband would be a very significant factor to be considered, but it would only be one of many factors.

If all other things were equal between the parties, much would come down to how the facts were construed. Is Freekalette a sexual deviant who cannot control her urges to the degree that her children are embroiled in her perversion, or is Freekalette a goodwife, in the best Christian tradition, who is exemplary in how she conducts herself in proper submission to her husband, so as to best provide a stable and loving home for her children?

In practice, however, all things between the parties are rarely equal. When it is that close, often the advantage obtained by one side or the other through an early temporary custody order will tip the balance.

I have found that when one or both of the parties in a custody dispute is/are D/s and/or BSDM, both spouses often (well, usually, in my experience) accuse the other of being abusive, regardless of whether or not there actually was any non-consensual abuse, and regardless of who the actual abuser was. It is especially common for one party or another to start the litigation off with a bang by getting an ex parte emergency order (where one side runs to court and gets an order without the other having an opportunity to respond) for temporary custody based on there having been spousal abuse, and then put the brakes on the case. That leaves the kids in the house, the allegedly abused spouse in the house with the kids, and the allegedly abusing spouse on the street until the matter can be properly heard, essentially having to defend against “Have you stopped beating your spouse?” with the response “My spouse beat me!” or “My spouse made be beat him/her!” That usually results in a social worker or other expert getting involved to report to the Court on what actually was going on in the family, which of course takes time, during which the accuser is in the house and the accused is still on the street, paying child support and possibly spousal support while at the same time trying to find an affordable home for the children should he or she ever get custody. After enough months go by, the accuser pushes the issue of stability (all things being equal, it is best for the children to not be removed from their home), so it can be quite an uphill battle for the accused, even if the accusation was groundless.

Kinky and non-kinky people use these tactics, but as you can see, if the opposition is a bit kinky, it makes it easier for the party going for an emergency order to get away with it. What it comes down to, is that with custody litigation, the gloves come off, such that even the most constructive, loving, and consensual acts are often portrayed as being destructive, hurtful, and non-consensual, so people who are kinky are certainly at a disadvantage, even if their kink is totally unrelated to their parenting ability. When there may be an overlap between the kink and the parenting ability (for example, the 24/7 nature of Freekalette’s submission), then the kinky person would be at a very significant disadvantage, for even if the kink eventually were to be discounted (e.g. showing that she was being a Christian goodwife as opposed to a perv), getting custody back after an initial interim custody order is made is always an uphill battle.

282

[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]

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.”
[/QUOTE]

Despite your long (and essentially irrelevant) post, you’re begging the question. You will need first to show that chosing to enter such a relationship proves one is mentally incompetent. You’re just taking that as a given and fail to demonstrate anything, or even to give any indication about what makes you think so.

283

[QUOTE=A Priori Tea]
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!
[/QUOTE]

I was trying to save time and my fingers. I was referring to your post #266.

[QUOTE=A Priori Tea]
st 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.
[/QUOTE]

My post serves for both you and Ensign. Unfortunately for the above POV, the world consists of more than just the D/s community (and not one person here has said that community should be destroyed or banned or done away with), so universal approval will not happen (and apparently doesn’t–not even in the D/s community. Again, pot meet kettle).

284

[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
You should probably get out more.
[/QUOTE]

You ought to buy a flogger. And then figure out with your partner who likes to give or receive.

Start with a small, light weight one, or better yet, just get a riding crop (easy to master) and build your toy-box from there.

Welcome to the Wonderful World Of Kink!

285

[QUOTE=clairobscur]
Despite your long (and essentially irrelevant) post, you’re begging the question. You will need first to show that chosing to enter such a relationship proves one is mentally incompetent. You’re just taking that as a given and fail to demonstrate anything, or even to give any indication about what makes you think so.
[/QUOTE]

It’s no more irrelevant than the general idea that “because grandma got bossed around by grandpa x is equal to y.” Explaining that in a manner sufficient (in my opinion) took a few paragraphs, I’m sorry if that was “long” to you.

The purpose of that post was to show that the analogy to 19th century marriages does nothing to prove that such a relationship is something mentally competent people engage in, I didn’t say it disproved it either.

I’m sorry if that seemed irrelevant to you, if you think it irrelevant you probably didn’t realize it was a direct response to a direct question, completely relevant to the question asked. Maybe not entirely relevant to the flow of the entire thread, but unless you’re a blithering idiot you should have been able to sort out the different discussions.

As to the crux of your post here, I have to prove nothing. Society is the judge here, not me. I tend to think society is on my side on this one. The only way to even notice that something is “wrong” with someone, is because something out of the ordinary happens. Defining the ordinary isn’t easy, it’s impossible to really do it as one person–it’s a collective thing.

286

[QUOTE=A Priori Tea]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Right, but my fear is that someone like freekalette will lose her capability through her involvement with this lifestyle…especially in light of what she said about doing it to manage her anxiety. That’s what I meant about it being infantilizing…making decisions, even about mundane things like picking a restaurant or grocery store, is a skill which can and will atrophy if not used.

And I appreciate your dilligence in learning what is healthy and what’s not, I think it does sound a little infantile when you say that Robin chooses to identify as a boy and not a man.

287

Whoops, missed the 20th century one in my preceeding goodwife list:

  1. . . . the honorable and trusting obedience which the woman owes to the man. . . .

  2. . . . this false liberty and unnatural equality with the husband . . . .

[INDENT]Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubbi, (Encyclical on Christian Marriage, 1930, at 74-75): http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121930_casti-connubii_en.html[/INDENT]

288

[QUOTE=Nzinga, Seated]
It would be easier for me to condemn freekaleet if I felt it was possible to do without being a hypocrite.
[/quote]

But where do you draw the line? This is a honest question. It seems as if you’re saying people shouldn’t judge freekalette because their own households aren’t perfect. Okay, but how many of us are putting our households on display like she has done? How many of us are broadcasting our business to a public forum, knowing that it breaks with social convention? If we can judge Britney Spears for walking around with her ass hanging out, then I don’t see why we can’t judge a regular person for walking around with a stupid looking dog collar because their man gets off humiliating her. Neither Britney or freekalette have a direct effect on me, but I still feel it’s okay to say what I think about their behavior. It would more hypocritical to castigate Britney while letting freek off the hook.

I haven’t see anyone advocating that freek lose custody of her children. What I do see people saying is she might not be making the best decision by carrying on like a slave around them. It’s not hypocritical to say “hey, this doesn’t sound healthy for your children and here’s why; have you really considered the implications of your actions?” It’s kind of lame that people refuse to acknowledge the valid points that have been raised in this thread and instead focus on pushing the “how dare you persecute this woman!” angle, as if a crew of Dopers are threatening to call CPS on the woman.

289

[QUOTE=astro]
…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.
[/QUOTE]

As someone with close to a quarter century’s worth of experience with D/s I am honestly surprised at how difficult the above concept is to understand for well, basically most people. The bare fact is that the one setting the limits (sub) is the one in actual control of the situation in so far as it cannot go past what they’ve agreed upon – for of it does, it stops being 'consensual." Key word for moi.

Disclaimer: I have not delved into the thought process that drives a true SM relationship (as opposed to D/s which is my interest) to either frame the control issue nor proffer any insight into their psychological well-being. Though being in the community these many years I have seen some pretty repulsive things when it comes to inflicting/receiving pain…

290

[QUOTE=RedFury]
As someone with close to a quarter century’s worth of experience with D/s I am honestly surprised at how difficult the above concept is to understand for well, basically most people. The bare fact is that the one setting the limits (sub) is the one in actual control of the situation in so far as it cannot go past what they’ve agreed upon – for of it does, it stops being 'consensual." Key word for moi.

Disclaimer: I have not delved into the thought process that drives a true SM relationship (as opposed to D/s which is my interest) to either frame the control issue nor proffer any insight into their psychological well-being. Though being in the community these many years I have seen some pretty repulsive things when it comes to inflicting/receiving pain…
[/QUOTE]

So when Martin has me tossed into a psych ward should I reserve a room for you as well? :smiley:

291

[QUOTE=you with the face]

I haven’t see anyone advocating that freek lose custody of her children.
[/QUOTE]

From Justin_Bailey:

From Martin Hyde:

I’ll bet I can find more, if I cared to pour over 6 pages.

But hey, call me crazy…I never criticized Britney Spears for walking around with her ass hangin’ out. I am so disgusted with folks that think they are doing everything right, that I rarely can muster up much bile for folks that are doing things that the up-righters consider so wrong.

292

[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
Right, but my fear is that someone like freekalette will lose her capability through her involvement with this lifestyle…especially in light of what she said about doing it to manage her anxiety. That’s what I meant about it being infantilizing…making decisions, even about mundane things like picking a restaurant or grocery store, is a skill which can and will atrophy if not used.

[/QUOTE]

I cannot see Freakalette as a helpless victim here. I cannot see her as anything but selfish --which I suppose IS infantile, since infants are inherently selfish and cannot survive independently. I see a couple who choose to parade their sexual choices in front of their kids (seriously, how many of our kids know we prefer oral over fill in the blank? Most likely none. Her kids know she prefers to be dominated, so much so, that she is willing and happy to do so 24/7. There are lines crossed here that are not healthy). Who discusses such things with children? Where are the boundaries in this family? Where does she and her needs (and Joe’s needs as well) end and the kids’ needs begin?

IMO, she (and Joe) have abdicated their primary responsibility as parents–she is not in a parental role when the dynamic is her, Joe and the kids. She is what? a child? a servant? a pet? an other? The confusion arising from her running the show when she’s by herself and then the submissiveness she says she loves (and probably does) when Joe is there is confusing enough for the kids. Throw in the whole “nudge-nudge; wink-wink” stuff and my nausea starts. It’s like performance art for the whole family or something. Except that the kids didn’t choose to be part of the act. It’s obvious she’s having a ball telling us all about this. I wonder (like some have upthread and in the other thread) if this isn’t just a great big show for her and we’re feeding her narcissism and her need for criticism and judgement–is she in fact, “being a brat” (what adult woman refers to herself as such? How emotionally immature is she?) by bringing this all to the Dope? Fighting ignorance is one thing–exhibitionism for an ego stroke is quite another.

I am done here–the D/s advocates don’t seem willing to hear (or perhaps are just too defensive) valid concerns. If it is vanilla and square and rigidly judgmental to express concerns about these choices, I’ll take the moniker gladly.

293

The United States was founded by hyper-religious narrow minded people.
We are still paying for it over 300 years later, as evidenced by attitudes in this thread.
:rolleyes:

294

[QUOTE=Ensign Edison]

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.
[/QUOTE]

Whether there is “huge difference,” if so, exactly what that difference is, is precisely what I was hoping to determine—and where supporters of this sort of arrangement draw their own lines, if any.

Personally, I don’t think the difference between a theoretical racist sex-slave relationship and a “normal” sex-slave relationship is quite as glaring as that between abortion and “torturting five-year-olds to death.” The notion of either relationship sounds fairly repugnant to me, but I posited the “slave/massa” example as something that I, and I would assume any reasonable person, would judge on its face to strongly indicate a relationship that is certainly unhealthy, if not fundamentally pathological.

You say the example is ridiculous, that there’s an obvious “huge difference” between the two scenarios—and yet admit that depending on contractual details, “her goals in the relationship,” et cetera, that even such an extreme case might also be acceptable. Which does provide the answer I was looking for, at least where your opinion is concerned. Others are free to comment as well: is there any situation where, contract or no, you would begin to worry about the participants’ mindset? At what point does the “whoa.. that is just so wrong” alarm sound in your head?

295

Everybody is wired a little differently. Our life experiences are unique. If they are happy ,it is none of my business. I do doubt they can go through life without a major explanation to their kids though.

296

[QUOTE=Nzinga, Seated]
But hey, call me crazy…I never criticized Britney Spears for walking around with her ass hangin’ out. I am so disgusted with folks that think they are doing everything right, that I rarely can muster up much bile for folks that are doing things that the up-righters consider so wrong.
[/QUOTE]

Why am I wrong for saying what I would do within the legal bounds of family court? I honestly believe these children are not in a good situation and if I was their father I would not want them to be a part of this (and again, by freek’s own admission, they are a part of it).

It’s common enough that children can be resentful towards a stepparent or new significant other, throw all this slavery stuff into the mix and then what happens?

I believe freek said the oldest was 11 or 12, what will she do if this kid asks her to stop the slavery stuff (because let’s face it, with dog collars and spankings, this kid already has a decent idea what’s going on)? Will she have to ask stepdaddy first?

I was 15 when my father died and 17 or 18 when my mother started dating again. If she started doing this slavery stuff with some guy in our house (our house, not his), I would probably leave and never come back. But probably after giving this guy a good dose of his own dominating medicine.

297

[QUOTE=Muffin]
Shodan, does American football sicken you? Should adults be prohibited from watching it or playing it? Should children be prohibited from watching or playing it?
[/QUOTE]
I think this analogy is strained to the point of near-absurdity. Suffice it to say that, if American football really involved the rape, flogging, and public humiliation of a woman twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, and was being held up as a model for children, then it would be a lot harder to recruit cheerleaders for the sidelines.

Except on the SDMB.

Regards,
Shodan

298

[QUOTE=Justin_Bailey]
I believe freek said the oldest was 11 or 12, what will she do if this kid asks her to stop the slavery stuff (because let’s face it, with dog collars and spankings, this kid already has a decent idea what’s going on)? Will she have to ask stepdaddy first?
[/quote]

I would say so no matter what the behavior that was being asked to stop, if it involved both of them, D/s relationship or not. It was a mutual decision to begin this stage of their relationship, it needs to be a mutual decision to end it, too.

It’s not YOUR house, it’s HER house (unless you happened to be on the mortgage/deed), and you and the new boyfriend both just happen to be living there because she’s generous enough to allow that. Frankly, if my SON beat up my husband/boyfriend and tried to bully me, I’d throw him out of the house first. You’re 18? You don’t approve of my lifestyle? There’s the door. You’re an adult.

299

[QUOTE=eleanorigby]
I cannot see Freakalette as a helpless victim here. I cannot see her as anything but selfish --which I suppose IS infantile, since infants are inherently selfish and cannot survive independently. I see a couple who choose to parade their sexual choices in front of their kids (seriously, how many of our kids know we prefer oral over fill in the blank? Most likely none. Her kids know she prefers to be dominated, so much so, that she is willing and happy to do so 24/7. There are lines crossed here that are not healthy). Who discusses such things with children? Where are the boundaries in this family? Where does she and her needs (and Joe’s needs as well) end and the kids’ needs begin?

IMO, she (and Joe) have abdicated their primary responsibility as parents–she is not in a parental role when the dynamic is her, Joe and the kids. She is what? a child? a servant? a pet? an other? The confusion arising from her running the show when she’s by herself and then the submissiveness she says she loves (and probably does) when Joe is there is confusing enough for the kids. Throw in the whole “nudge-nudge; wink-wink” stuff and my nausea starts. It’s like performance art for the whole family or something. Except that the kids didn’t choose to be part of the act. It’s obvious she’s having a ball telling us all about this. I wonder (like some have upthread and in the other thread) if this isn’t just a great big show for her and we’re feeding her narcissism and her need for criticism and judgement–is she in fact, “being a brat” (what adult woman refers to herself as such? How emotionally immature is she?) by bringing this all to the Dope? Fighting ignorance is one thing–exhibitionism for an ego stroke is quite another.

I am done here–the D/s advocates don’t seem willing to hear (or perhaps are just too defensive) valid concerns. If it is vanilla and square and rigidly judgmental to express concerns about these choices, I’ll take the moniker gladly.
[/QUOTE]
To be honest, there are a bunch of angles to this thing that I find upsetting, and I have been trying to parse out in my own mind which ones I think are reasonable on my part, and which I think are unreasonable. I’m still not sure, to be honest! I can’t disagree with anything you say here, Eleanor…I agree that when freekalette is with her husband and children, she is not playing the role of a parent by any definition I have ever thought to be valid. No matter how many times people bring up the mores of 100 years ago, I can’t see it as a valid analogy. Even 100 years ago, women had authority over the running of their homes and children. In certain areas…financial, for instance, the “man of the house” would be in charge, but even then, it was about setting a budget, for example, and the woman having to run the household and make decisions within that parameter…it wasn’t about the husband making each and every little decision about where the money was going. And more to the point…if a husband had controlled his wife to that extent, I would have thought that seemed very very odd. It’s actually against age-old stereotypes of men and women for a man to be concerned with the piddly details of running a household.

And, I do think that calling oneself a “brat” is emotionally immature. This is part of what I mean when I say that I see this as infantilizing. She is putting herself in the role of a child to a certain degree, and that is part of what I think is so strange about this. A Priori Tea says that Robin Goodfellow identifies as a “boy” (or “boi”), not a man. What is that if not infantilizing oneself (or child-izing oneself, if I may coin a phrase)? Even just thinking about an adult relationship as having things one is “allowed” and “not allowed” to do sounds like what a kid would say about a parent, not what two adults say about their relationship. So, you are right, Eleanor, I think freekalette is occupying some kind of whitespace inbetween child, parent, spouse, and partner in a way I just don’t understand.

300

[QUOTE=jayjay]
It’s not YOUR house, it’s HER house (unless you happened to be on the mortgage/deed), and you and the new boyfriend both just happen to be living there because she’s generous enough to allow that. Frankly, if my SON beat up my husband/boyfriend and tried to bully me, I’d throw him out of the house first. You’re 18? You don’t approve of my lifestyle? There’s the door. You’re an adult.
[/QUOTE]

That’s bullshit and you know it. But since we’re on the subject, my mother asked my opinion of her boyfriend and told me if I wasn’t cool with it then that would be the end of it. That’s what a responsible parent does, they put their children first.

Although I imagine acceptance of this idea will split down the same lines as the acceptance of freek’s relationship.