I got halfway through the second page of this thread, and I’m not going to read any more. Two things:
To those who have been understanding and/or supportive, thank you! You are fantastic, and I appreciate your thouhts.
To everyone else, I’m not allowed to say what I really think, even in the Pit.
If you need me, I’ll be in the other thread.
Are we still talking about tickling? I hate to be tickled. My daughter loves it, and her dad seems not to mind it either. Sometimes they gang up on me and tickle me. I hate that. I will laugh along sometimes, then get all serious and eventually they leave me alone and have a good laugh at me. All this time…I hadn’t realized that I was being forced into a submissive posture. I thought we were just teasing eachother a bit with some family fun.
What if they do have major mental issues? Just, what if? What if it was a 60 year old guy who liked underage girls, and a 30 year old woman who looked 14 that liked old men?
People have issues. I’ve got issues. Hell, I’ve got subscriptions, especially in regards to dealing with other people. So what? It’s how you adapt to them, live with them, cope with them, and thrive with them. These two people have realized they have matching issues, and are thriving together, trying to be as strong as they can, and are trying to raise their family the best they can.
What if it were two men, one with a kid from a previous family, and the 1970s? What if? Same concern, generally, but as long as they tried to raise the kid properly, who the hell cares?
Forgive me for not quoting specifically - I’ll see if I can take this one point at a time and give some clarity, for those asking for it. 
Re: consent. Yes, you can construe “if she’s not in the mood, tough” as marital rape, if you desire. However, I believe that her continued willingness to engage with him in a D/s capacity negates that connotation. Put simply, she has the ability (and the responsibility) to communicate to him when she cannot or will not be obedient to his wishes. Because this is a relationship based on love and consent, I think we can safely presume that he has no desire to rape her, in the sense that he would engage in intercourse that would be harmful to her physically or psychologically. That, I think, is a different animal than using her expression of obedience to both their benefit. Believe it or not, some people get off on being used for someone else’s pleasure, so even if they’re “not in the mood,” they’re still getting something out of the experience. Marital rape, in my mind, is in a different category all together - because, given the choice, the person being raped would choose not to be. By remaining with him, and not communicating to him that she is going to be damaged (physically, psychologically, spiritually, or otherwise) by this or that act, she is continuing to give consent to his use of her in the ways he deems fit. By allowing him to call the shots, she is saying that she would rather have sex when she’s not in the mood than see him unhappy because of her disobedience, and I don’t fault her for that.
Yes, you can take some of those sentences out of context and make the argument that they condone marital rape. That would be ignoring the basic premise that they are a loving couple, who each want the other to be happy and fulfilled. It is that presumption which allows all the other things to follow, and it is a presumption that I believe is correct.
To give you an example (which Robin has already referred to): he doesn’t enjoy being tickled. He, in fact, really hates being tickled - to the point where he will physically fight me to get me to stop doing it to him. However, it also pushes a good hot button for him, and a tickling session can make him feel pleasantly used and fulfilled for hours or days afterward. You can certainly make a case that me physically restraining him and tickling him looks like humiliation and abuse. However, I don’t believe (and nor does he) that it is damaging or abusive in any way. I am not saying that this is the case with freekalette and tickling, because I don’t know. I am saying that things that look like abuse without context are not necessarily so.
Re: the difference for the children of an abusive relationship vs. a consensual relationship. I do not have peer-reviewed studies to back up the following, as it is based on my personal experiences (in my own home life and seeing in-depth the home lives of others). Abusive relationships lead to unhappy people - the abused person is generally extremely unhappy, and the abuser is often unhappy as well. Consensual relationships, by and large, lead to happy people - because if the people involved aren’t happy, they’ll leave. I think that, barring some extreme examples (beating her black and blue in front of the kids, etc), the specific kink-related behaviors are much less important than the fact that Mommy and Daddy are both happy and in love with each other. When you add in the fact that they are aware of how unorthodox they are, and therefore go to some lengths to mitigate the effects that specific behaviors may have, you come up with an overall very positive effect.j
Re: the tickling particularly. I will admit to a bias on this, because I enjoy tickling Robin. However, I think that it’s being cast in a much more sinister light than is deserved. Yes, if it does emotional damage to her or drives her to tears (the unhappy kind, not the laugh-too-much kind) or heart palpitations, then there’s something bad going on. However, I think it’s likely that it’s more in the spirit of a game - “let’s make Mommy laugh until she says uncle!” sort of thing. Yes, if it’s done too often or in the wrong context, it might send a bad message. But again, they’re communicating with their children. And, frankly, I’m willing to bet that there’s been at least one time where it’s gone too far, and she’s gotten genuinely upset, and he’s stopped. I think that it’s much more likely that they will have a discussion about boundaries and what is and is not appropriate with other folks than that they’ll simply assume their kids will “just know” what is and isn’t appropriate.
That’s the thing that I think most people are just not picking up on - no, he doesn’t have to stop. But he loves her, and so he’s going to stop even though he doesn’t have to! I think maybe some folks are taking the “power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely” thing a little too seriously.
Re: the “vanilla” slur. Yes, it gets tossed around too easily and too often, rather than trying to have a productive discussion. It may be helpful to realize, though, that slurs and insults are being thrown on both sides, and are equally productive on both sides. It sometimes becomes hard to have a polite conversation when the tone of question is much more “prove that you’re not criminal psychopaths” than “I don’t get it - can you explain?”
And, anecdotes that are not data: to date, I have met a little over a dozen children and young adults who have been raised or are being raised by overtly kinky people. They have, without exception, been perceptive, respectful, intelligent people. My opinion is that having parents who have carefully negotiated their boundaries and preferences in the context of a loving relationship is beneficial, not detrimental. I think that the assumption that the children will pick up on all the negative aspects of the relationship while somehow whooshing by the positives is unnecessarily pessimistic. Yes, they’ll get some of both - but with care, attention, and a willingness to communicate (which kinky people must have, in order to get and keep a partner), the positives are quite likely to outweigh the negatives.
Hey, Captor. I stand by what I said above. You understand what I mean by it?
Characterize/minimize as you like–it would appear that you are being included in an activity that you “hate”. Either you don’t feel that strongly about it or you are willing to put up with it for other reasons–most likely that IN CONTEXT, you realize that it is all good fun. Freekalette’s context is that she is being punished. Big difference. Physical touch, the motives for, the situation, the degree and amount of contact–all of that matters in relationships. Nowhere does she say this tickling is “playful” or “enjoyable”–she hateshatesHATES it.
Here’s a study about agression and play etc. gender differences in tickling etc
Nah. There’s an obvious and well-developed hatred of BDSM on the Dope, ESPECIALLY maledom/femsub stuff. I mean, shortly after “Ask the slave” came out, there’s a “Why don’t we tar and feather teh bitch?” thread (i.e., this one). And all the people who protest my threads but there’s never been a protest over “Hey, straight guys, would you be gay if you tripped and you fell dick first into another guy’s butt? Or vice versa? Hmmmmmmm?”
It’s so frickin’ OBVIOUS.
jayjay, I remember once an exchange between two members of the board…both gay men…about this very subject. I can’t search for it right now, obviously, and even if I could, I don’t think I’d want to, because it was in a pitting of 3rd party, and it’s not really fair to dredge it up again. One of the posters made basically the same point you are making here…that you are seeing an analogy between this kind of sexual kink and being gay. The other poster took great exception to that, and the reason he did was because he sees being gay as being about relationships, not about sex. You say here yourself that you are “vanilla,” which clearly indicates that you understand that there are a range of potential sexual options within your gender preference. If I meet a gay couple, all I have learned about them upon that meeting is that they prefer to date members of the same sex. I haven’t learned anything about what they like to do together in bed. There is a HUGE world of difference between that and someone who describes their relationship in such a way that makes it clear that you now know exactly what it is they like to do in bed. Likewise, if you met me and my husband, as we typically present ourselves, you would only know that we are a straight couple. However, if you saw us walking down the street, one of us with a dog collar and a leash on, that’s what they call TMI (not that this is what the OP is doing, I’m just using it as an illustration). It is the display of the sexual part of the relationship in front of children that people are objecting to. freekalette seems to be saying that she doesn’t let the kids see the sexual side of it, but if the whole point of the 24/7 is about being a sexual kink or turn-on, then they ARE seeing it.
Yes, I do. And I disagree. You think I post too much about bondage. You feel the origin of this feeling is that I do it so often. I think the origin is that you dislike discussions about bondage, or bondage imagery or whatever, making you more sensitive to my posts on the topic than to people who post on issues like homosexuality, which as we all know is widely discussed on the Dope.
In any event, I’m not posting on the topic and not likely to. I’m not spending nearly as much time on the Dope as I used to, and will probably be spending less as time goes on.
Well said, Sarahfeena–I agree. I am disappointed that the OP has not come back and clarified some points, but I also completely understand why she hasn’t.
There have been a few posters here who have the “burn the witch!” tone to their posts, but I tend to think that they are posting while still reacting to what is an unconventional lifestyle not without ramifications (ie the impact on the kids). I think most of the posters here have been most concerned about these ramifications which is not unreasonable or a condemnation of the sexuality, as Sarahfeena said.
[slight hijack]Evil Captor–we get it. Truly. I barely even recognize your moniker and yet I know you’re heavily into bondage. We don’t care. We don’t want to hear about it. We especially don’t want to hear about how it turns you on. We think you get turned on by posting about it and reading our negative reactions to it. Go forth and bind up someone willing and stop telling us about it. Please. Thank you. [/sh]
As weird as it might seem after some of my posts, I’ve never been bothered by Evil Captor. I don’t know why but he just doesn’t seem that creepy to me. Maybe it’s because he’s upfront about it being a kink and doesn’t try to dress it up with a bunch of serious technical language, or maybe it’s because I never sense any real hostility to women in his posts (he’s into bondage but I never sense that he’s sadistic or misogynist). he doesn’t try to sell himself as a martyr to his sexuality and has some self-awareness that other people might think he’s weird. Maybe I’m self-contradictory but EC doesn’t bug me.
For the record, my problem with the scenario described in this thread is the living out of the fantasy in fron of the children who don’t know how to process it, not the fantasy itself (although people who can’t ever turn it off have some issues to work out).
And two more, just 'cuz I’m on a roll… 
Re: female submission vs. feminism. I have heard a lot of arguments on both sides, but my own view comes down to the one I heard that makes the most sense. Feminists have always been fighting for women to have a CHOICE. They aren’t fighting to send women to work - they’re fighting to give women the option. One of those options is staying home and raising children, because they want to. They aren’t fighting to get all women to have abortions - they’re fighting to give women the option. I’m sure you see where I’m going, here - feminism is a fight to give women as many options as men have, as many choices. Choosing to be submissive is just as valid a choice as choosing to be dominant. Choosing to stay home is just as valid a choice as choosing to work. Etc.
And one more on the point of loving, consensual couples. Every time I’ve referenced Robin in these threads, I’ve told him what I intend to say, and asked if he’s okay with it. I don’t have to - I have the right, conferred by his consent, to reveal whatever the hell I please about him and/or our relationship. I choose not to exercise that right, though, because I want him to be happy, and I know that he is a somewhat private person. I would lay money that freekalette’s husband has the same frame of mind (exercising privilege with restraint), because most dominants with happy submissives do. Coming from that frame of mind, it is very hard to see how he would regularly engage in behaviors that make her unhappy or humiliated (outside the bedroom). I don’t think that this is fundamentally different from how other relationships work - partners have certain privileges, which they exercise with due restraint. It’s simply the extent and type of the privilege that differs.
Hey, on preview, here’s #3! (Boy, I am long-winded tonight.) The other thing that may not be coming across is this: 24/7 does NOT NOT NOT mean that everything they do has a sexual charge. This is not just a sex game, where everything is designed to reinforce her sexual role. Her sexual role is a part of the larger structure, where she submits to his will. And, you know, it’s easy to eroticize a lot of things, but the mundane day-to-day stuff gets non-sexual in a hurry, even for people whose relationship is intensely sexual to begin with. 24/7 dynamics are by and large emotional, with sexual being one small facet of the bigger picture. It’s about emotional fulfillment and happiness, primarily - so while it’s not easy to keep the sex entirely away from the kids, it’s not nearly as hard as some of the posters in this thread are making it out to be.
I think people are seizing on this one aspect of it and not recognizing that “sexual kink or turn-on” is not something that is left in the bedroom even with “normal” couples. Frankly, anything that will cause your children to say “Moooom! Daaad! Get a room!”, including wicked little glances, light caresses as you pass in the living room, a little growl in your voice, a raised eyebrow, a touch on the hand, a so-clean-it’s-not-even-blue joke or remark to your spouse…all of those things are “turn-ons” and telegraph loud and clear just what you’ve got on your mind, even to your children. Do “normal” couples strive to keep any show of desire or feeling for their spouse out of their interaction for the sake of the children? Isn’t that just a little bit sterile?
How is this any different, except in the fact that it’s not within the “normal” range of sexual/relationship activity? Is a neck massage any more of a sexual “tell” than the lack of a “please” or “thank you”? Is a quick little cheek-to-cheek dance as you pass in the hallway any more an exposure of sexuality than wearing what amounts to an unusual choker?
A Priori Tea, I have a(hopefully) non-confrontational question. If Robin were to hypothetically tell you one day that he no longer wanted to continue with a 27/7 Dom/Sub lifestyle, would that be a relationship deal breaker for you or would you just roll with it? In other words, I’m asking whether you would prioritize the person or the lifestyle.
There’s a difference between showing affection and showing the appearance of abuse.
You seriously think a choker is as innocuous and unloaded as a dance?
If you don’t have any kids, I don’t have any problem with you. I meant “you” in the generic since, not you personally.
People wear chokers as regular jewelry all the time. It’s definitely not something that’s only limited to one esoteric lifestyle choice.
Thank you, Eleanor. I must say, though, that I didn’t say it nearly as well as the original poster…his post was quite eloquent on the subject. He was passionate about it, because it offended him to think that his sexual orientation was being brought down to the level of a kink. The way he saw it…that was exactly what gay folks are trying to get people NOT to do. That is, he wants people to see that being gay isn’t just some kinky sex thing…it’s about the very essence of love and relationships.
See, I think that it’s the telegraphing of the specifics of what’s going to go on in the bedroom that is treading into dangerous territory for childen. I think that the quick little cheek-to-cheek is a world of difference from the “unusual choker.” For one thing, the cheek-to-cheek is generally an expression of romantic affection, not sex. For another, even if the kids do think that mom & dad are going to do it, they aren’t going to be able to imagine from that what will actually be involved. By the time a kids’ in junior high school these days, they are going to know what a dog collar’s for, and it ain’t for vanilla sex.
I have to say, that I saw my mom and dad do little affectionate things from time to time, and I never, EVER imagined them having sex. If I saw mom in a dog collar, it would have been made loud and clear.
Anything goes as long as it’s in the service of breaking taboos and convention. The minute you try to give a rationale against anything unconventional, it’s assumed you’re a busybody and a prig.
How about a ball gag or a leash?
Personally, I’m more bothered by the modelling of the mother as being obligated to submit to the father. This bothers me with or without the sex stuff (the sex itself, I actually don’t care about). A mother modelling herself as subservient or subordinate to her husband is the most problematic thing about this to me. I’d think that if they never had sex at all.