What you’re doing is making shit up. I’m concerned for your kids, at least one of their parents keeps creating things out of whole cloth.
She meantioned that he made her wear her collar out to Bob Evans. You then made it up in your head that 1) she wore it in front of the kids 2) wore a dog collar 3)wore a spiked dog collar.
Rather than ask for clarification, you made shit up. That’s not healthy, especially for a parent. Get some help right away.
Oh, as an aside, do you like “Want You Bad”? That’d be a hoot if it was one of your favorite songs.
Way back in the early pages of this thread, there were a number of cites showing that children raised in households where one parent was beaten and humiliated were often negatively affected thereby. No refutation of these cites was ever produced - merely the assertion (without evidence) that abuse, rape, and humiliation motivated by sado-masochism were different, somehow.
Vehemence and repetition are no substitute for logic and evidence, I am sure you would agree. And we certainly should never condemn a relationship without solid evidence to back up our condemnation.
Well and good. Please produce the peer-reviewed studies [ul][li]that husbands who dominate and humiliate their wives out of religious belief do not discuss this with their wives at all []Never give the rationale for this relationship to their children, and []that such a religiously motivated relationship is several times more harmful to children than one motivated by sado-masochism.[/ul][/li]Of course, if you pulled it out of your ass, then you can change the subject and start blustering. And then it will be clear who is being the judgemental prick.
The OP has up until now referenced three different times her kids saw her wear a collar. She has also referenced one time she was required to wear one to Bob Evans, but it is not clear whether her kids were along. I think Diogenes the Cynic is referencing a different time than you are.
This right here, stated far more eloquently than I could, sums up my head-tilting at the thread in question. More than the kids issue, even. Masking your depression and anxiety by allowing another person control over your life does NOTHING to help you cope with and eventually conquer it.
She said several times in that thread that her kids have seen her wear a dog collar and she has specified that it’s a spiked dog collar. I’m not making up anything.
So you did. I am not doing well with reading comprehension today. Good thing my SATs are years in the past.
Obviously, I can speak only for myself, and so this is probably indicative of little, but if my mother hadn’t offered religion as an explanation for such behavior, I would want to talk to her about why she chose to act that way. If I were sure that she didn’t feel coerced, was doing it freely, and was happy with her decision, what more could I do than wish her the best?
Come to think of it, that’s not much different from what actually happened, except that in the situation you propose, her answer would have originated from something other than religious beliefs. Religious reasons, non-religious reasons, either way, she’s a big girl, and entitled to live her life free from my interference and independent of my approval.
Dude, do you know how many people I see come into the science center wearing those kinds of collars? Go down to your average goth club and check it out. Dog collars are cheaper, maybe?
This is not true. They actually DO sit down and discuss it. Just ask them. We’ve had posters on this board who told us that they mutually agreed to a religious sub/dom marriage before they tied the knot.
The Bob Evans incident is irrelevant. She said her kids have seen her in a dog collar at least three times. God only knows what else they’ve seen her in. I don’t trust her self-reporting.
So am I. People don’t usually enter into thos kinds of patriarchal marriages without discussing it up front. It can also be argued that women stay in thm are “consenting” to do so.
What is your basis for the belief that fundamentalist d/s’s do not communicate and agree to this as a big picture, but that people doing it for non-religious reasons do? Personally, I think - without a cite - that we on this board are quick to jump down the throat of anyone who justifies any behavior from religious belief and quick to excuse anything that can be seen as free minded expression of sexuality. Its a blind spot for us.
They’ve seen her wear what amounts to goth fashion on the way out the door to dinner. I’m not seeing the big deal here. I once saw my parents come home from a bar crawl (probably the first one they’d been on in decades) with T-shirts that said something like “show me yours and i’ll show you mine” or something. I even knew that they were swingers. The Horrors! I think I came out just fine. Some may argue that I’m an asshole, but I’m a functioning and productive member of society. I did get my assholish debate style from my father, but that has nothing to do with my parents’ sex life (well, other than the fact that it might keep him from getting laid sometimes).
So what you’re saying is that those marriages are just like freekalette’s? What’s the problem, then?
Good thing I’m not the one throwing around rape and abuse allegations, then.
The point made by Shodan was that if an unequal marriage is framed or described in religious terms, then everyone (rightly) jumpps down the fundies’ throats. If it’s presented as a just a free-wheeling sexual choice then everyone falls all over themselves to show how tolerant they are…everyone who isn’t a parent, that is. Around these parts, there is no such thing as an unhealthy sexual choice, it’s never a symptom and here’s nothing that shouldn’t be exposed to the children. That’s an immature, self-righteous, college freshman attitude. Some of us have a little more persective and experience, mkay.
Hey, freekaletta is the one who said (or strongly implied) that her husband has non-consensual sex with her (that it’s “tough” if she isn’t in the mood, that he wakes her up and “ignores” her when she says no). If she doesn’t want people to think she’s being raped, then she needs to be a little less fucking cute with the language that she uses.
As for abuse, I think they are at least showing the children an appearance of abuse, and the way it looks to the children is all that matters.
