It might have been an attempt at humour.
It was on par with going up to a random woman on the street, feeling her up, and shoving your tongue in her mouth. Not very funny.
Just because freakalette is a sub does not mean that anyone can just randomly dominate her. D/s relationships are built on trust. The sub isn’t just sub to anyone…s/he gives herself to the Dom because s/he trusts the Dom not to abuse her trust. If Shagnasty were to go to a BDSM event and decide to spit on a random woman in a leash and collar, he could well find himself hurting in multiple places.
To repeat…just because someone is a sub does not mean that any random yayhoo off the fucking street gets to dominate her.
It wasn’t funny at all.
And being the sub in my relationship… yeah, I know.
I wasn’t responding to the fact you found that funny; I was responding to your short and mindless contributions to the thread in general. I suppose I should have made that clearer.
Shagnasty may have been attempting to be funny, but, er, it wasn’t.
Yeah, but to my mind, there’s a yawning gulf between making the choice to be subserviant to your husband because of religion and doing it because you want to. And the gap comes from the fact that with religion, you’re following the dogma of your religion because of your desire to follow that religion. Thus the dogma is a set of rules that you’ve agreed to follow because acting in accordance with your religion makes you happy. In deciding that you want to be a sub because it’s your kink, the kink itself makes you happy.
To clarify, an extremely christian woman may hate the fact that she always has to cook meatloaf for her husband, but she does it because christianity tells her to, and being christian makes her happy (or she’s just scared of satan, which is worse because there’s no happiness, only fear avoidance). On the other hand, a sub is made happy by the fact that (s)he is told to make meatloaf for the dom. There’s no dislike of the act at all-- there’s no meta level in between the act and the pleasure like there is in religion.
The comparison with couples in a patriarchal society is wrong
First, D/s relationships go well beyond what was considered the norm in patriarchal societies. Yes, the men were assumed to be the ones with authority, and they made the decisions, but that is where it ended; there was not such a strong component of deliberate humiliation and punishment, which seems to be an integral part of D/s relationships.
Your father, I assume, did not deliberately order your mother to wear something weird to church or to a restaurant, as “punishment” for being “bad”. Even if your particular father did that, this was not defined as part of what was normal for a husband to do, even in a patriarchal society.
Second, even if being ordered around was considered “normal” a few generations ago, the fact that someone wants to re-enact that in the company of modern people who view it as wrong is strange.
For example, slavery was considered “normal” in the South in the US at some point. Does that mean that if someone wants to be treated like an actual black slave was back then in the present day, in front of friends and family, everything is hunky dory?
If one of your black friends had a fetish about acting like a slave 24/7, e.g. talking to all his white friends in terms like “yes massa John”, “please don’t be hitting me massa”, etc wouldn’t you think he has a screw loose? Would you want to hang out with him?
So, just because some societal structure (patriarchy, slavery, etc) existed, and somehow people survived it, does not mean that it is mentally healthy to re-enact it in today’s society.
BTW, I read these posts in the other thread
All I can say is: Wow.
How can anyone read the above and not think that something very unhealthy is going on?
In the case of freekalette, she enjoys the *humiliation *that kneeling implies, she enjoys the visible show of her husband’s power over her, and she likes to be reminded of “her place”.
In the case of The Weird One, she enjoys feeling “small and helpless and vulnerable but still completely protected and taken care of”.
I’m not sure what the term is for someone who enjoys being humiliated and being put in his/her “place”, but I would think it would involve low self-esteem.
And if wanting to feel “small and helpless and vulnerable but still completely protected and taken care of” is not regression to childhood, where “daddy” will take care of you, I don’t what is.
I dunno, don’t a lot of people in “vanilla” (for lack of a better word) relationships often want to feel protected and taken care of? I mean, traditionally, holding, whispering sweet nothings, caressing, and treating our lovers much as we treat children is what we humans do.
Absolutely. I got all these barges to tote and bales to lift, just lying around!
so, a KILF?
You’re equating mental illness with “having characteristics that make a person socially awkward to hang out with.”
Mentally healthy does not equate to socially acceptable.
A question I would want to as to you and to people who feel like you (on the “kneeling” issue or other similar stuff previously mentionned in this thread) :
I assume you knew before this thread that D/s, SM, etc… existed… If you’re that surprised… What exactly did you think these kinks were about? You thought that a submissive disliked feeling helpless, disliked humiliation, disliked being taken care of, disliked being used, disliked whatever else you have a problem with? Then, why on earth a person disliking all these things would want to be invoved in D/s at the first place?
That’s a serious question, because at this point, I’m really wondering : What did you think people in D/s, SM, were doing, were feeling, were enjoying? 
Actually, I suspect I’ve an idea of what, maybe, people thought, but I’d rather read some genuine responses.
Ah, I see. While I do think the rest of their relationship is rather disturbing, I was just saying that wearing a spiked collar/choker/whatever isn’t really an abuse area. Just that she didn’t want to wear it then.
ETA: it doesn’t though sound QUITE as bad as it did at first, though, since she gave more details. Just kinda creepy.
I just want to throw in with HazelNutCoffee. Kids aren’t idiots. The idea of individual interests is something that they can get. “Little bobby likes Batman better. Little Johnny likes Superman better.”
A relationship which assumes that women exist to be submissive is something worrisome. Not all women want to be subservient. A relationship which assumes that men exist to make all the decisions and be strong and detached is also worrisome. Not all men are comfortable to be that way.
But what’s worrisome about two people saying “this is the sort of person I am”? I don’t see any reason to assume that the kids would even equate their parents relationship to being a male/female = dominant/submissive thing. Christianity might teach that there’s a relationship between your sex and your standing in the household, but there’s no reason to think that such a thing is being taught in this household. The daughter might associate more with dad and the son associate more with mom for all we know. They might decide that from their experience at home, from watching TV, books, and anything else that neither is their thing.
And why should we assume that they’ll take what is clearly explained as the personal household structure of their parents as being immutable and natural? Freekalette and her husband state that they’ve taught their children that there are other ways to live. How many people can admit to having introduced their children to the idea that, “How we’re raising you and how we are as a couple isn’t the only way there is.”?
Can any of you prove that a pair of people who teach their children that there are other ways to go about things will be unsuccessful? And can any of your prove that families which don’t do this aren’t being way more indoctrinative than the freekalette household?
Ultimately, until alternate styles of living have had several generations to exist and sufficient scientific evidence pro- or con- of the results on the children can be found, it’s just as easy to argue that either side is in the right. If you have a hypothesis of what sorts of things could go wrong and methods to test for the expected results, then go ahead and start working on a study. If, on the other hand, you feel the whole thing to be vile and vomit-inspiring, then frankly you’re an idiot. People thought much the same thing about whites marrying blacks a hundred years ago. And many–though not as many on this board–think the same thing about homosexual partnerships, and these couples raising children today. Yet if you look at statistics, the resulting children raised by white/black couples, homosexual couples, polyamorous couples, etc. appear no more likely to commit crimes or lose social mobility than anyone else raised in the same income bracket. That might hold over to D/s relationships, and it might not. There’s no saying until the cards are in. Just, like I said, many people felt physically ill and certain of the depravity and world-endingness of all these relationships and appear to be quite wrong so…why should we bow to the vomiters in this instance?
Shagnasty, if you were, in fact, trying to be funny, you succeeded. (At least to me, obviously others had a problem with it.)
Nothing else to say, since my offers to answer other questions are being met with (mostly) ridicule.
HazelNutCoffee, fuck off right back, bitch.
After you have three kids and your ex-husband (who, say, got joint custody because you had so many episodes of angry overreaction to events) and his new girlfriend decide to live as master and slave 24/7 AND IT’S OK because you are so smart and openminded, then I’ll be impressed.
I’m not sure you can generalize. Evil Captor is making the case this isn’t a choice for a lot of d/s’s. Where I happen to know its a choice for at least one religious couple. I think your own anti-religious “if done for the glory of God and you get satisfaction from that, you are screwed” bigotry is showing.
While a lot of these relationships (regardless of the root driver - religion or kink) ARE indeed consensual, many of them are built on fear. Fear of Satan. Fear if I don’t do this he’ll leave me. Fear of their own anxiety/depression or emotions.
One of the big issues is that while you are in the relationship and when you are out of the relationship you may have a different perspective in hindsight. I have a number of acquaintances who I knew when I was in my 20s who had alternative relationships (d/s, poly, open) - some of these families are still together today and happy - some in the same form, some in a different, more traditional form. And some of these people look back on a period in time when they looked me in the eye and told me they were happy and that they made a choice and now feel that they were abused during that period in time. Now, some of this is my own reaction to my own “if I wanted him to stick around I had to live with an open” marriage that fell apart. Or my sister’s “voluntary” relationship that was just plain old abusive, but started out as kink.
Not knowing freekalette, I can’t say if she’ll regret this. IME, SHE can’t say if she’ll regret this, no matter how she feels about it at this moment.
Thank you. It was meant to be funny in a very strange style that I have never written in before but this subject seems to warrant it. I was trying to probe a little about how deep this subject goes with you just out of curiosity. I obviously wasn’t trying to truly insult you. You gained some pretty serious street cred at least with me.
I’m not saying I’m not biased against religion, and I’m not saying that your point about whether Freek may regret her choice later is wrong. All I meant was that people like Shodan are holding religion up to be a 1:1 comparison to this situation, and that the durned librals on the board would be freaking out if this were couched in religion and not in a new-agey sexual kink choice or whatever. I just wanted to point out that basically there were great differences between those two situations.
Excellent post HNC, I too believe that kids are way more resilient and smarter then people give them credit for. To me, what’s important is that the kids know they are loved and that their parents love each other. I don’t think anyone can dispute that fact.
If anything was damaging to the kids, it was their “real” father, the crackhead unemployed deadbeat. Freek is young, so is her hubby, so yes they will make mistakes, so do all of us.
All this moralizing and outrage is pathetic IMO, Freek is happy, she loves her kids, she does what she can to minimize their exposure to the “freakier” side of her kink, so what’s the big deal?