Her relationship depended upon the approval of her adult (or near adult) son’s opinion? I find that rather odd.
I assure you, it’s not bullshit. If my ADULT son was going to have the gall (because the last person I’m taking relationship advice from is a freakin’ 18-year-old) to try to dictate who I was involved with, and go so far as to try to intimidate and bully my boyfriend/husband into abandoning the relationship, you can bet your goddamn ass he’s going out the door unless he has a REALLY good reason for it. Even if he does, the proper procedure to is bring it to me and let me know the reason, and then let me, as an adult, decide whether or not to kick the boyfriend/husband to the curb. My (hypothetical) son is not my father, or my big brother, or my attorney, or my guardian, or my husband. He has no say. He can bring concerns to me, but he cannot dictate to me.
Maybe it is a “You don’t have children, you don’t understand” thing. If so, fine. But the fact remains that unless you can prove that these children are being harmed by this (and I mean prove…court-ordered evaluation, maybe, but not your personal opinion on what is “right” and what is “wrong”), it’s none of your goddamn business.
Not to hijack, but…Word?? I am stunned to be learning that many would consider me a bad parent. Especially since everyone, including my daughter, has always assured me the opposite.
Under no circumstances would I allow my child to choose my man. I am the adult and make the choices that I think are best for my child. Not vice-versa.
And for the record,** Justin**, I hadn’t quoted you before because I feel that you are wrong for having your opinion. I actually quoted you just to show that contrary to what was stated in this thread, people actually were indeed, suggesting that the woman should have her kids taken away.
Yeah, you know, if I said “I think he’s a scumbag and I don’t think he’s right for you” she would have taken that opinion to heart because I am her son. I’m family. Any potential SO is not.
There was also the fact that my father died very suddenly and it was very hard on my sister (who was in her young teens).
I just love how many people have picked up on one isolated incident (dog collar! in public! damn punks!) and turned it into HAPPENS EVERY DAY NON-STOP THINK OF THE CHILDREN behaviour.
And the “children aren’t stupid!” followed by the assumptions that the same non-stupid children will apparently be unable to make up their own minds or live their own lives because of a dog-collar.
I’m also fascinated to learn that when myself and my three siblings would dog-pile on my dad Sunday mornings for a tickle-fight that we were actually being forced (FORCED) to participate in his public humiliation and sexual fetish.
Color me unimpressed with freakalette. She’s like an kid with a new toy, it just happens to be sub stuff ATM. Give it a year, and she’ll be on to someone/something new.
She reads like a 17 year old, surprised she hasn’t squee’d yet.
Notice how she started off all slave, sub, hitting, 24/7 in her first couple of posts? The last couple of posts in the other thread, she’s trying to make herself look like June Cleaver with a tasteful dog collar.
freekalette as a user name? Nothing like pigeonholing yourself, babe.
I’ve known women like her before, they have such a need to be recognized, loved, that they’ll do anything for attention, especially male. 3 kids, at least two fathers, 28?
Meh.
As much as I have reversed some of my opinions and am trying to approach this topic with more respect, this particular argument (made by others as well as you, lest it seem like I’m singling you out) is one which irritates me and misses the point. **No one **said that all tickling = sexual behavior/fetish/abuse.
But when I say that I hate to be tickled, I truly mean it. It’s very difficult for me not to just lash out and strike the person tickling me. You can be damned sure that if my husband tickled me and wouldn’t stop, and conscripted our children to do the same, I would consider it abusive behavior.
Context, people. Context.
Did you happen to notice the multiple references to 24/7 posted by the Doper in question?
Regards,
Shodan
Eleanor, I was trying not to engage you, but it’s just too much. Show me ONE QUOTE of mine in this thread which justifies this characterization of my position. I have no fucking idea why you came out of nowhere acting like I stormed in here and tsk-fingered everybody for failing to be completely accepting, so I’d really like to see where the fuck you got that impression.
That is too funny.
Did you happen to notice that she said it happened one time? I know how much trouble you have grasping simple English but I’ll quote it again just for you!
I’m sure someone as puffed up with by their own presumed intelligence as yourself can quickly point out where in that quote she mentions being forced to wear a dog collar all day, every day, as well as having to loudly mention the meaning behind such an action whenever minors are within hearing range so as to warp their little minds.
Rape is non-consensual sex. That does not take place in D/s. You miss the point that there is a great difference between freely consenting to sex even when one is not particularly in the mood, and not consenting to sex. In D/s, the submissive can simply withdrawal consent by saying no to further play.
Flogging in the typical BDSM scene is far less physically damaging than football, where sprains, tears, breaks and concussions are common. You miss the point that in BDSM, the submissive can simply withdraw consent by saying no to further play.
As far as the public humiliation goes, usually half the participants in a football game are losers, and need I mention the heckling that goes on at football, baseball and hockey games? You miss the point that in D/s, the submissive can simply withdraw consent by saying no to further play.
The bottom line is that people consent to being bashed about and humiliated. You find it acceptable in the sports sphere, but you deny that consent is possible in the sexual sphere, and, to repeat it one more time, you miss the point that in D/s, the submissive can simply withdrawal consent by saying no to further play.
Even one use of the dog collar in front of the children is inexcusable, but the 24/7 game-playing of control and domination in front of the kids is just as bad, whether it’s obviously sexual or not. Only an asshole would constantly degrade a mother in front of her own children and not feel any shame about it. The mother is even worse. This is someone who (as eleanorigby put it) abdicated her responsibilities as a parent in order to indulge in her personal sexual psychodrama. I don’t care what kind of “contract” these people imagine they have, the children didn’t sign onto that contract and they have a right to see their mother treated with respect, PERIOD. I think parental responsibilities have to be prioritized ahead of sex games and pschosexual role playing. If that makes me vanilla and judgemental, than I’ll wear those titles proudly (albeit I’m an atheist judgemental prick, not a Christian one).
What I am curious about, and somewhat concerned about, is what the children of a 24/7 D/s couple will learn about how to treat others.
The football comparison is stupid. Neither side consents to anything. Both sides are trying beat the hell out of the other. There is no automatic presumption that one side is obligagted to be subservient to the other.
We’re also talking about something very immediate and personal when we’re talking about children. A stepfather coming into a household and demeaning a mother in front of her children simply because he gets a sexual thrill out of doing so is profoundly fucked up. Some of us ae getting mocked for saying “what about the chikdren?” but that’s not always an illegitimate question and that kind of mockery is made even more disingenuous by the imagined martyring ofthe so-called “SMBD community” on the cross of intolerant, vanilla society. “Won’t somebody think of the poor sadomasochists” is the truly risible sentiment here.
Why? It’s just a dog collar. I don’t know enough about the situation that freek is in to judge it, but I don’t get why wearing a dog collar around your own kids is so wrong.
Just to make this more clear: Where did she state that it was a dog collar? I saw a mention of “my collar” but nothing about dogs. I may well have missed that specific qualifier, though.
Because it’s humiliating and inappropriate and inexplicable to the children. Do you have any kids? I wonder if a single person here who’s defending Freek is actually a parent. I think I see the reactions breaking down somewhat along those lines.
Quote:
A few weeks ago I came across a very attractive young couple dressed to the nines with lots of shiny black leather, collars, studs, chains, a razor Mohawk on the guy, and a deep red/black blunt cut on the girl. They looked different from most folks (given that I don’t live in an urban centre where such attire is as common in many large cities), but none the less, they looked very good.
The only problem was that they were all dressed up for court – I came across them filing for divorce from each other. I wonder what the story of their relationship was?
In any event, wearing a collar is no biggie. Just a different type of attire. Bear in mind that when I came across these two young people, I was wearing a wing collar, tabs, and a bat cape, and I did not feel humiliated in the slightest.
To be fair, if I saw my mom wearing a dog collar at that age, I would definitely think it’s weird. I don’t know if it would scar me for life, but it would certainly have an impact on me.
I concede that the relationship in question would require a lot of parenting skills that perhaps other, more conventional marriages wouldn’t. I do not see how that automatically leads to fucked-up kids. Plenty of functioning adults come from what might be judged as fucked-up households and vice versa as well. We can speculate on how it will end up affecting their children, but a lot of posters here are talking as if the kids are already doomed.