Yes she does. She owes it to her children who depend on her. The well-being of her kids needs to take prioriy over her selfish indulgence in pathological sex games.
There’s a difference between sexual orientation and gender identity and the voluntary acting out of kinks in front of children.
Sorry, you’re right. I conflated that thread title with this one. But the overall point remains: It seems impossible to argue that the concern is over exposing children to the lifestyle without involving at least an implicit value judgment regarding the lifestyle.
Of course the children will be exposed to their parent’s lifestyle. And there’s a sexual dynamic that is visible in this lifestyle. A lot of the commentary in this thread has concerned the exposure of the children to this. But there are sexual dynamics that are visible in other, more common lifestyles, and it’s rare to see anyone object to children’s exposure to those – in fact, I think most here would argue that such exposure is healthy. Consequently, it would seem inaccurate to argue that the concerns being expressed do not involve in any way a value judgment regarding what’s being seen as an abnormal sexual practice.
Please note, I’m not taking any position on whether or not such value judgments are appropriate. I’m just asking that we not pretend that they’re nonexistent.
Sure there’s a value judgment - it’s bad to expose children to a model of family dynamics that involves hitting and humiliating one “partner” over the other.
The only difference is that it is being expressed as somebody’s kink. Had it been some fundamentalist talking about how he forces his wife to submit to him sexually at his whim, the flames would have rivaled Gehenna. But even if it has been established that relationships that involve hitting women are bad models for children, we get the usual nonsense about how this is perfectly fine.
Some people’s minds are so open, their brains fall out. Same here.
Regards,
Shodan
Again, you’ve never seen a spiked choker? You need to get out more.
She said it was a spiked dog collar, not a choker, and I never saw my mother in one, how about you?
Naw, your mom looks good in fishnets, though.
Well, you can just pay for my therapy now.
I think I’m pretty much done with my comments, because there’s no sense in trying to make the same points over and over. But, I will say this…I strongly believe that Shodan is right, here. If the reason for submission was because of religion, I truly cannot see the folks here defending it.
For that matter, what would everyone think if every time I spoke of my husband, I referred to him “allowing” me to do this, that, or the other thing? What if I said to you all that he’s really great because he “allows” me to spend time on the SDMB? And if questioned about it, I didn’t give it a fancy label or refer to a sex kink or my religion, or anything…I just said, “hey, he’s the boss, and I’m glad he’s there to tell me what to do.” Would everyone be defending it like they are?
Well, it was in response to a paternalistic pile of bullshit, so at least I was successful in keeping in theme.
What? Show me where I “screeched” at you? Are you sure you’re not reading into my posts or conflating my posts with someone else’s? I addressed 2 remarks to you–neither of them intemperate in nature. I believe my first remark was a simple statement that you were incorrect that this was only taking place in Freekalette’s bedroom; the second I have already posted about. I have no idea what you are on about. Nowhere did I accuse you of “tsk-fingering” anyone. And I rarely rant, and have not at you.
Can I say I’m sorry that I’m not going to apologize for something? This has entered into the realm of the bizarre. 
Mathematically, I think it’s the null class in the class of all classes that are not members of the given class, but I could well be wrong. 
That’s a pretty accurate description of my mother and step-father’s relationship. It can be a bit grating to hear her defer to him like that, but I know she does it by choice. She believes her religion requires it. And I know he loves her and is deeply committed to her, as she is to him. Their relationship is not the one I have or want with my wife, but it works for them, and I do think they’re entitled to live as they wish.
There are a few things I never want my children to witness me doing. One is wearing a spiked dog collar - or, in fact, any bondage paraphenalia - or for that matter, black nail polish and too much makeup and boots with four inch heels. Another is doing jello shots. A third is being spanked by my husband while he calls me a “bad girl.” A fourth is drinking straight out of the milk carton while standing in front of the fridge. There are some behaviors you need to have modeled for you by your friends or your college roommate - not your mother.
I am neither confirming nor denying I have ever or currently participate in any of these activities.
No. The thing is, and I could be misremembering - I’m not going to go read the other thread all over again, I’m getting the vibe that she used the “slave,” “allow,” “punishment,” language in kind of a playful way. Unless she’s just posting whatever would now make her situation look acceptable, she’s been clarifying her relationship in ways that make it clear that, she (again, I think, more playfully than seriously, at least playfully compared to what the concept of slavery feels like to us) considers it allowing and slavery, but the way that it plays out in front of other people (in the way an outsider would perceive the relationship) looks pretty much like a respectful, loving, ‘normal’ relationship. Yeah, he “makes” her do things and “punishes” her, but they’re both polite and respectful about it, at least it in front of their kids/other people. Does that make any sense? Am I completely off base here?
Like being tickled being a punishment. She clearly doesn’t mind it enough that it becomes what a punishment would look/feel like to someone else, but they get off (for lack of a better word - and I don’t mean just sexually) on role-playing it that way in their minds. She hands a kid a plate and says, give that to daddy, and that’s her being made to serve him, but other people wouldn’t describe it that way.
I honestly don’t mean that to be condescending, **Freekalette **and others in Dom/sub relationships. And I don’t really like using the word play, but I don’t really have any other way to describe it. I apologize in advance for any offense.
I think you may be right. 
This is a really weird place to put this, but—I love your posts. 
That’s because men who keep their wives subservient because of traditional religious practices:
-
Don’t sit down with their wives beforehand and work out a total consensus on every aspect of said subservience
-
Typically don’t explain to the kids that not every family works the way theirs does, and that it’s not OK to treat their partners the way they do without making sure it’s what their partners want
If anything, such families tend to teach the children that they’ll go to hell if they do anything but raise a family the same way. That’s several times more harmful than freekalette’s family dynamic, if you ask me, yet we have lots and lots of examples of people who come out of it as healthy, respectful individuals.
This has been covered, by the way. Do try to keep up.
You can fuck right off.
I know at the beginning of my post, I was talking about religion, but in the question part at the end, I excluded religion. What if it had no reason at all other than I just like it and it makes me happy? Would no one question where that was coming from, or whether it was healthy?