 |
| I hate this pic more than you can imagine. |
This quote comes from an article on CDD (Christian Domestic Discipline). CDD is supposedly a consensual lifestyle that is M/f in which the male spanks his wife assert his "biblical authority over her." While I have always had the "live and let live" policy towards personal relationships, I find this abusive. The article outlines not only the lifestyle, but the author uncovers that some women feel trapped and frightened by what their relationships have become. It says to me that the bible is being used to trap women into abusive relationships... something that is a chronic problem in this country and around the world. 1 in 3 women around the world has been physically or sexually assaulted by an intimate partner. That's not a lifestyle, that's an epidemic, and it needs to be stopped.
The quote above also sums up in just one sentence why I'm not really into physical discipline or humiliation to get a partner to submit to my authority. Very simply: I don't want to date/marry an infant. I think it's damaging to someone and creates an atmosphere of feeling trapped. I'm not about trapping or abusing someone I care about. How could I respect someone in that situation?
What I want to create is an aura in the relationship of safety where a man can feel it's okay to be everything society tells him it's not okay to be. I'm happy to take the role of leader and emotional rock, so he can heal the side of himself that has been crushed. I want him to express what is natural to him.
I can't do this, though, without his complete and complicit consent. I can't step into a relationship and order around a man that doesn't want this lifestyle. I suppose I could abuse a man into breaking, but what would that say about both of us? I'm not an abuser. I don't come to this without my own emotional baggage, but I am not looking to hurt anyone.
The Office of Violence Against Women (OVW) gives this as a definition for domestic violence:
"a pattern of abusive behavior in any relationship that is used by one partner to gain or maintain power and control over another intimate partner."
This can be anything from physical to emotional abuse to manipulation and threats. I don't want to be part of any of the above. I don't think taking the punishment for eons of male behavior makes up for any of it. I also think that acting as if you need abuse to "put" you in "subspace" is a cop out and purely a sexual thing. I'm not going to be an instrument of your self-centered sexuality.
To sum up, while I do think it's possible to have a consensual BDSM relationship, whether F/m or M/f, I do think it's important for the dominant to have clear boundaries for themselves and for their subs that is agreed upon by both ahead of time. If that contract is broken by the Dom/me, the sub has a right to leave or at the very minimum the right to question their behavior (and vice versa). Acting outside those perimeters is a recipe of disaster and will likely end in therapy.
I think BDSM can be a way of working through psychological issues, but it should never be used to inflict further damage. BDSM isn't a carte blanche and shouldn't be, regardless of what people's profiles say. No one has no limits. It's no wonder most of those subs never show up for meetings. They can't really go through with their fantasies because instinctually they recognize that what they find sexy is also seriously dangerous.
That said, this is not what I'm looking for. I am not aroused by inflicting pain or humiliation. I am possessive, and I can be a dictator, but I am benevolent one. I have the relationship's best interest at heart, even and above my own personal needs. I think it's important to have someone be the rudder in the relationship that is finely tuned to maintaining it's ecosystem's balance. I don't think men are instinctually capable of that and tend to be focused solely on what makes them feel good, but I would never tell others that they need to follow my way.
It's a bit ironic that I found your blog after enjoying Helene's posts on 'Worshipping Your Wife' and this is the top post. If you're not into it, you're not into it. There's no convincing someone to have a different preference when they don't. But you have an interesting and thoughtful blog, and that makes me want to reply to what I think is an overly harsh view.
ReplyDeleteThe best take I've heard on Christian Domestic Discipline:
"Hey! You got your fundamentalist Christianity in my BDSM lifestyle." "Hey! You got your BDSM lifestyle in my fundamentalist Christianity." In unison, "Mmmmm."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJLDF6qZUX0
Someone being trapped in a relationship where they want this to end is not just disturbing, but repulsive. That said, check out a few of the comments on that article now. The journalist seems to have come in with an agenda, and the interviewees claim they were misrepresented.
It's worth mentioning that judging by what's being blogged by those who use the label, it is the submissive who typically wants to get this started and many are quite happy once they've achieved it. The Bible isn't a factor with the majority those who self identify as practicing domestic discipline. Again, check out a few of the comments. Are they mentally healthy? Well, considering my own preferences I'd like to think so. There's also this story from Medical Daily: http://bit.ly/1fpaEKh
But what really got my attention was the use of "infant, -ilize, -ism". You've mentioned wanting to have some control over a partner's autonomy and to bring out their vulnerability. That's what heightens intimacy for most people who are into any BDSM type kink, including domestic discipline. It's in childhood where most of us have limits placed on our autonomy and where we are at our most emotionally vulnerable. This "regression", if that's what you want to call it, is present whereever anyone is enjoying a dominance and submission dynamic. I also think there's a difference between humiliation in the sense of showing contempt for someone else, and humiliation in exposing pretence, especially the pretence of not being vulnerable to someone else's authority. And the scolding and spanking in domestic discipline are meant to evoke the second - at least when practiced by the sane.
Going back to the topic of someone being trapped in an abusive relationship, when I was more interested in being a dominant I used to think about what it would take for me to feel comfortable exercising the level of authority that I find sexy. My answer is the submissive having a separate bank account with several months of living expenses. I don't believe too many people think about that sort of thing. If anything, they fantasize about the opposite. When you say that you couldn't do this "without his complete and complicit consent", I agree, I just don't think it would be all that hard to do. Many men want just this with someone they love and trust.
While I have my disagreements, I really appreciate the emphasis in your blog about the relationship being of benefit to the submissive and showing affection towards him. There's not too much of that on most FLR websites, which is just sad. I think dominance and authority is plenty sexy when it's affectionate; what's not is apathy combined with glee at reducing someone's quality of life. Perhaps not surprisingly, submissive women have written much more intelligently on why they're attracted to that role and how they want to practice it than men, but that's getting back to why I think the author of that article completely overstates the case. Anyway, I hope you continue with this blog.
P.S. Interesting selection of one, and only one, book in your Amazon widget.
For the record, as long as women are safe and happy in a lifestyle, then I am happy for them. How any chooses freely to live is none of my business, and I am not in the business of judging them.
DeleteWhat worries me greatly is that there are a lot of Fundie Christian groups out there that use the bible to scare women into believing that their version of a "biblical marriage" is the only way to live, that they are at fault if domestic violence occurs or they are in any way unhappy with this arrangement, and that they are sinful for leaving. This is the case with many LDS sects, the "Quiverfull" movement, and a bunch of others.
The reason I have a problem with "domestic discipline" is not because people mixed two fun things they love. If that's the case, have at it. My problem is that in this situation it is not always consensual and it gives men that might be abusive biblical authority to terrorize their wives.
I don't think you realize the power that a religiously-backed violence can have.
Whether or not these women were misrepresented, I think the mix is dangerous, unless it is clear that the male in the equation is capable of empathy and restraint. Many men are not. How would anyone know until they were already trapped in the situation?
Also, vulnerability and infantilism are not the same thing. I'm interested in nurturing vulnerability in a partner, but I do NOT want to marry a child that needs a mommy. If I wanted to be a mother, I would be. Men are terrible children when they haven't matured emotionally, and they make lousy partners.