just stop beating about the bush (puns intended) and say it.
and do it here, on the sex board, rather than small fire, cause you know it'll just get moved here anyway.
I want to explain this right. I don't want to scare my friends away...
Go for it. Say what you want to say; there's an appropriate place for it now. Some people may respond badly, but they'll be in a minority.
love, Carolyn
quote:
Originally posted by Erin:
Just say what you want to say. If people don't like it, screw 'em (that's always been my philosophy).
Erin - in light of your comments on the other thread, was that pun intended?
OK, CM. How does leather relate to faith?
You don't have to say anything that you don't want to. But what you do want to will be listened to with respect and affection by your friends. 
Still not used to making more than coy remarks here. I try to even keep my "Oooo, Sean Connery is cute!" comments to a minimum on the Ship.
And even in the gay leather community, I often have to explain things... not even the theological stuff --- just some aspects of the leather stuff -- to the leather people! (Abrupt memory of a children's TV show called The Letter People... "Come and meet the leather people...") I mean, if I just use the words I'm used to using... I'm even capable of weirding out people in the leather community just by taking it as seriously as I do. Case in point: If I say that I follow "Old Leather" traditions, I'll have to explain that it's not merely playing games with bondage and S/M and saying "Yes, Sir" -- that it's a real way of life on its own -- and more, that what most people call "Old Leather" really is pretty recent, spinning out of the late 1940s and 1950s -- and that the principles my own Master taught me and that I follow go back much further than that, being rooted in notions such as noblesse oblige -- Eeeeeeeee!! The parts that don't baffle people will scare them away, and the parts that don't scare them because I'm gay will scare them because I'm an extreme traditionalist...
Well, OK, I guess I'm just worried... 
Maybe it's stage fright? I've also seen so many annoying trolls that I absolutely don't want to be like them, even by accident.
I really could use advice, people...
-------------
Of course, I'm also horribly professorial when I go on about a subject I know a lot about. And I mean that in the worst possible sense. I can natter on and on and on and alienate people...
HUGS
David
PS: Could use prayers here. I have some time to think about what I want to post anyway because I must get back to work now and won't be able to post more till late tonight.
(And, interestingly, this is because my local leather-related club is having its monthly "pants-on dinner" and then we're having "bar night," neither of which I've ever been to, and after The Relationship Which Finally Ended, in which I wasn't involved in any of my club activities -- not the leather club -- not the Master/slave discussion group -- not even the gay science fiction club, for that matter -- and darn it, I am getting out of the apartment and going out to be involved and meet people and not just be lonely and depressed at home. So tonight I am getting together with my foster uncle's partner and we are going to the dinner and bar night. It should be fun, and God knows I need that right now. Went to a dungeon party on Saturday, and the gay SF group got together and saw The Time Machine on Sunday, and it was wonderful to be involved in things again.)
There's so much of my life I've had to censor, and I hope I can explain/discuss/explore it without going too far...
Well, I guess this is a start. OK, one final blurb before I head back to work (gotten very little done today), just to make the basic minimum clear:
(1) I am a Christian, of the Anglican, catholic and orthodox end of the spectrum variety.
(2) I don't believe in sexual intercourse (i.e. genital penetration of any bodily orifice, and/or deliberate stimulation to orgasm) apart from male-female marriage, as permitted to Christians.
(3) I am a member of the gay community. Please note the way I put that; I don't define people (their minds, their hearts, etc.) in terms of gay, straight, bi, etc. as much as in terms of their biological gender, what they do with their genitals, and of what communities or subcultures or cultures they are a part of. But saying "I'm gay" is good shorthand which most people will understand. Mostly. If anyone's heard the term "gay tribe" it might be a helpful term.
(4) I am a member of the leather community. I pretty much take this further than many other people in the leather community do -- as a way of life, not just for play or fun. It's not just for "fetish" -- it's... well, like being part of a tribe. I'm in the part which is very old-fashioned and traditionalist. (Surprise to anyone who reads my other posts! ) And I go further than most who call themselves traditionalists -- which stretches back to something like the 1940s and 1950s at most, usually -- see above re "noblesse oblige."
(5) Just as a tribesman from a south seas island who converts to Christianity can be a proud member of his tribe and practice their traditions -- but avoids those things which are forbidden by his newfound faith -- so do I, in my tribes. And of course this means I get fewer "dates"... but c'est la vie... (as well, there are gay Christians who believe sex apart from male-female marriage is permitted. I don't. Which of course means I don't have a lot of common ground with the very people you'd think I'd have it with. I simply don't fit easily into any one category.)
(6) I look on hierarchy, obedience, etc. as very good things which I find spiritually helpful as a Christian. I look on a lot of the physical practices as helpful in other ways which may sometimes be erotic (as distinct from sexual), but not always, but are/can be sensual, invigorating, strengthening, etc.
And now I must go... more later after people respond!
To all those who may wish to make some snide remark or whatnot, remember:
Minds are like parachutes - they only function when they are open.
I say this because sometimes you post stuff I disagree with and sometimes you post stuff that I do not understand. I find myself not entering into discussion with you because I do not understand where you are coming from.
This saddens me because you are clearly intelligent and caring and sometimes even funny 
(though not often)
Please trust me (us?) enough to just take on board the information you give me without me judging you over it or forcing you to defend it every five minutes. This will allow me to get to know you better/see past this barrier of my ignorance.
We all think/feel/belief some pretty wierd shit on board and we still manage to get on, mostly.
P
I still don't really understand what you mean about the old Leather thing. And could you explain why you apparently see Chastity as a virtue - does that mean you think sex is not OK? - but you don't have a problem with S&M. I mean, is it just a question of taste or is there some kind of philosophical basis to all this? You seem to be implying that there is, but I'm not very quick on the uptake so it might help if you could elaborate further. But please tell me I don't have to read de Sade.
If this is unhelpful, please ignore it.
So what is a "Leatherman", and are there "Leatherwomen" too?
bb
Are "Leatherpeople" a sub-group of the gay and lesbian culture, or do you get straight leathers?
If leather isn't a sexual stimulant, then what is the attraction?
Hope that these questions give you a starting point.
bb
Your post made me cry ... Thank you for being brave enough to be so honest.
Echo bb's questions and add one - why the no sex thang?
Hugs
Nikki
Although I do not always agree with you on matters (e.g. Women Priests), I have always enjoyed your contributions they are most courteous and thoughtful and I hope than everyone will respond to you in the same way.
Even if you don't want to reveal personal things perhaps you could explain to us uninitiated ones what a Leatherman is.
Love
Astro
Go on, define it a little. I expect we all have an idea what we THINK you mean.. but we'll never know if we're right or not - okay, answer some of our questions, there's your way in. First babybear's...
Then, is it not counted as sex if there's no orgasm? Is it 'an expression of love'? Or just fun?!
Do you feel that your leatherdom defines you as a person, the same way some gays might?
Why are you so much more involved than others/ Do you take things seriously which they treat as a laugh?
Etc....
Love and hugs.
Gill xxx
) is how your concept of the nature of god fits into this all.
Please note that I don't necessarily agree with everything everyone says on these links either but it can give some more info. There are diverse opinions in the leather community even though we're all connected. (Like the Ship, I suppose!) (Gah, now In The Navy is in my head, all my own fault!)
Bless you all for your kind responses by the way. I was very nervous! *HUG*
An essay: Old Guard, New Guard, and Stand & Model
The Deviant's Dictionary: specifically on "leather" and related terms
Leather Leadership Conference (see links to various papers and essays)
Leather Cares.Com -- history and links -- and yes, we do have contests. Lots of them. Proud winner of 1st runner-up for Mr. Suncoast Eagle 2000.
Profile of the Leather Archives and Museum in Chicago
Good heavens, I didn't know till I did a search that there is a Leather radio station on the net.
I hope this is a helpful start... be aware that of course most of these are adult links but NONE should link directly to anything graphic, at least till you click on a second link.
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
I would appreciate you giving a clear and concise overview on your sexuality/leather/faith thing.
... not funny often? 
quote:
Originally posted by Qlib:
Would it help if we question and challenge?
quote:
I still don't really understand what you mean about the old Leather thing.
quote:
And could you explain why you apparently see Chastity as a virtue - does that mean you think sex is not OK? - but you don't have a problem with S&M.
quote:
I mean, is it just a question of taste or is there some kind of philosophical basis to all this?
quote:
But please tell me I don't have to read de Sade.
quote:
Originally posted by babybear:
David, what is a "Leatherman"? At the moment I have a picture of a gay guy in leiderhosen. I don't think that is what you mean though.
I suppose somewhere there are... yes, just checked the Web. It's not porn, but if you want to see a gay lederhosen dance troupe, then here is one.So, What is a Leatherman or woman? That link will take you to a pretty good explanation. Another essay (which won second place in the same contest -- aiee, more contests) is here, and the excerpt below answers your next question:
quote:Of course, I'm being homo-male-centric. The milieu of lesbian leather is outside my experience, but I learned my first year as a sub that when you need to recharge your leather batteries, nothing works as well as the company of a leather dyke. The one who mentored me when I first joined an NLA chapter hardly ever wore leather, preferring a black shirt and blue jeans, yet she is one of the leatheriest leatherwomen I've ever met.
are there "Leatherwomen" too?
Leather isn't what she wears; it's who she is. I've also ignored the heterosexual side completely. One of my best high school friends and his wife spring to mind; he subs, she switches. They have both shared and divergent play interests, so they are also polyfidelious with two other couples. She's bi; he's the straightest straight boy I've ever met. He looks dang good in chaps and engineer boots though. Are they leatherpeople?
Both of these are on Jack Rinella's Leatherviews site, which has more essays and info than you can shake a flogger at! The best page for info is here.
quote:
Are "Leatherpeople" a sub-group of the gay and lesbian culture, or do you get straight leathers?
quote:
If leather isn't a sexual stimulant, then what is the attraction?
quote:
Originally posted by Mrs Tubbs:
Your post made me cry ... Thank you for being brave enough to be so honest.
*HUG*quote:'Cos it's what I believe doctrinally -- see above.
why the no sex thang?
quote:
Originally posted by Astro:
perhaps you could explain to us uninitiated ones what a Leatherman is.
quote:
Originally posted by Gill:
Then, is it not counted as sex if there's no orgasm? Is it 'an expression of love'? Or just fun?!
quote:Well, I do see it as my calling in life; I suppose it might define me as a person in some ways, like being a citizen of a country or a member of a tribe.
Do you feel that your leatherdom defines you as a person, the same way some gays might?
quote:Part of it is I have found it a very healing thing in my life -- helped me grow and mature and develop, in general, as a person -- to become civilised. The principles and traditions my own Master taught me have helped to really socialise me. I see it as something which can indeed be just for fun, but which is also one of very few windows in our place and time for very good things to come through -- even if most other people into are doing things I don't think we ought to as part of it. The hierarchy and obedience is a major part of it for me, at least as far as the more serious aspects are concerned. Fun with flogging, etc., is not the heart of it as such, though it can be part of it.
Why are you so much more involved than others/ Do you take things seriously which they treat as a laugh?
For an amusing comic strip about a gay werewolf who does take it for a laugh and a leatherman's reaction to it, here's another silly link for you. (I love Buster Wilde...)
quote:
Originally posted by nicolemrw:
ok, what i want to know is ... how your concept of the nature of god fits into this all.
Hugs to all -- I hope this explains things somewhat, as a start!
David
I think there's an element in all this of being true to yourself or, at least, knowing who you are, which is commendable. Call me old-fashioned but I'm ever so relieved to learn - if I understand correctly - that you aren't into being paraded round the streets in a collar and leash.
I did use a search engine, and the inital flash movie made me decide that it wasn't suitable viewing for a bear, especially when there were bearcubs around. The site had a warning and very kindly re-directed me to Disney.
bb
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
No fear -- I haven't read de Sade, but what I have heard doesn't sound very good to me. I may have misheard some things, but he was, for one thing, anti-church at least; for another, his fantasies (at least) were focused on non-consensual things. This is if I have heard right; I may be mistaken here.
( I really don't know what I'm doing getting into this )
CM - you are right on De Sade, as I have read some of his "work". What he describes sounds very different from what you talk about. He gets most of his kicks from Sadism - rape and abuse, usually non-consentual.
And he is very anti-church, because he is anti-authority, and the church is one representative of authority.
And don't read him - very very hard work.
which doesn't really help me here ... Any chance of a PM with a numpty's guide?!
Tubbs
I think my sister and I play acted in this same way as kids: I was the slave, she the wicked queen... (The game was "Kings and Queens"; I was the good Queen's daughter, she died, the king married a witch before dying, then I was enslaved. During this enslavement, a cat would comfort me, before the prince came, killed the witch, married me, and the cycle began again. My sister who is younger than me played all roles except the princess...)
How interesting that I find corsets etc so, um, well... you can guess the rest!
Only I honestly can't see it as anything other than a sexual stimulant.
quote:
Originally posted by Qlib:
that you aren't into being paraded round the streets in a collar and leash.
quote:
Originally posted by El Cooto:
Where are the good pages with the pix of International Mr Leather/Ms Leather and the local comps?
quote:
Originally posted by Mrs Tubbs:
Any chance of a PM with a numpty's guide?!
quote:
Originally posted by Nunc_Dimittis:
Only I honestly can't see it as anything other than a sexual stimulant.
quote:
Originally posted by Astro:
Thanks David I can see it is community that gives a sense of belonging and fun.
Wow, no flames at all. God bless you. Was really worried for a long time how people would react!
HUGS
David
(naw, you know i'm not gonna' flame)but seriously. your call, chastmastr, you want debate on this thread, another thread, or should i pm you?
Some of these could be separate threads, whether here or on Small Fire. There's a lot of stuff I've held off on saying much about because... well, I didn't know how to approach this without opening up a huge can of worms. It's not just about leather, same-gender issues, etc.
And today I go to an "immersion workshop" which will deal, at least somewhat, with spirituality. Will see if it provides extra insights!
I have lots of other stuff I can talk about, by the way, but am focused more on answering questions right now. Please feel free to ask anything you like!
Hugs to all -- will be back later -- the workshop goes from 9 AM till 10 PM so may be tomorrow for me!
)too.I hope you and your group continue not to be persecuted. In a parallel universe, you might well be the norm......
I'm glad that there is finally an appropriate place for you to fully explain what you believe and educate those of us who are interested. I also admire your guts in doing this. Your honesty and acceptance of yourself and your willingness to try to find a way to live which incorporates this understanding with your belief in God seems to me to be a serious and genuine (if unorthodox) spiritual path.
Actually, we (both gay people and people into leather and related things) often have been persecuted, for a long time; it's only recently that society is relaxing some of its laws and such.
The all-day event was incredible.
Hmmm, no comments on the Buster Wilde comic strips mentioned above. (I wonder if a thread on gay/lesbian online comics would be appropriate on this board? I know of some quite good ones but have avoided posting them elsewhere due to possible content.)
quote:
Originally posted by 'Chorister:
How individuals prefer to group themselves into communities really is no business of the church anyway - they should accept people whoever they are and however they dress.
(Going to break this into paragraphs because it became one hugely long parenthetical paragraph!)
Meeting Master genuinely civilised me in a way I never was before. I don't know how I would have made it without his help. After I escaped my (fairly destructive, abusive and neglectful) parents, I always hoped and tried to find someone in the Church who would be like a big brother or surrogate father to me. Spent about ten years or so seeking and failing. Always loved, but never got enough, hugs.
It took a non-Christian man who was involved in (I believe) forbidden sexual intercourse with a startling number of other men to reach out to me and give me the love I sought but could not find -- without sex, which frankly astonished many of his friends -- that he would take on a slave/boy (Imprtant note: "boy" here is a term of rank and position, not of age; Master NEVER did anything with underage men!) without sex, and hold him, and love him, and teach him, and train him, and give him a caring family (of one, but still!) with family traditions, and help him with numerous health problems (I lost 75 pounds, though I have gained some back since his death; still 40 pounds lighter than before and working on getting the rest back off -- my ill-fated relationship with Aussie David did not help that), even specifically, though Master was not a Christian, to help me in my devotion to Jesus (!), etc. etc. -- and frankly take me on as an apprentice to pass on this way of helping men who never had the father they needed...
He gave a cup of water to a man dying of thirst when no one else would. I pray for him every day. I trust that Jesus has him in His care, and still look to Master's teachings as a basic guide for life.
(Hmm, that should give people something to talk about...)
Hugs all!
I guess I'm saying all this, because I'm hearing something similar in your story. What you are doing doesn't make sense to a lot of people, but it seems to be where God wants you, and the evidence is the inner peace. (I hope I'm not putting words in your mouth).
As far as the Church and how people group themselves into communities, I find myself agreeing with both you and with Chorister. Figuring out how to be open to, reach out to, and simultaneously not label people in a "sub-group" of some sort is very tricky. Which is why I talked about needing to be able to see one another as truly neighbors just like ourself.
(And all of this is making me think of the thread about Notice Boards - in Hell? - where so many of us admitted to our knee-jerk prejudices! "Please spare me the Family Service." "Heaven forbid I find myself at the Praise Band service.") This "one in the Body of Christ" thing is awfully difficult in real life, isn't it.
quote:
Originally posted by jlg:
I guess I'm saying all this, because I'm hearing something similar in your story. What you are doing doesn't make sense to a lot of people, but it seems to be where God wants you, and the evidence is the inner peace. (I hope I'm not putting words in your mouth).
Thank you!
in any case as i hinted above, my main disagreement with you is in the heirarchical (sp wrong i know) nature of god, and our realationship to him. yet my acknowledgemnt of my powerlessness, and my acceptance that only god can "restore me to sanity" (step two), seem to be similar to your view of gods role....
i could expound on this, but not sure if it would be appropriate....
I do see leather as, at least partly and/or potentially, therapeutic. HUGS!
Do I see "the erotic and the fatherly" in conjunction, in this context, as causing difficulty? Well, no, not at all, though I have known some people who aren't as comfortable with "Daddy/boy" relationships (note once more that this has nothing to do with anyone underage) because of that. In many ways, the kind of paternal/filial intimacy can make up for a lack of paternal affection in earlier life; my own relationship with my own Master/Daddy certainly has.
I think this may involve a more fluid notion of "erotic" than some people are used to, admittedly. But not all intimacy is erotic, and perhaps as well we use the word "erotic" when we mean "deeply intimate." Or perhaps, when we are adults, any deep intimacy has a good chance of "spilling over" into the "erotic" to some degree. I don't know; but I have no problem with this, regardless...
(And I don't know a great deal about leather lesbians personally -- if they have a "Mommy/girl" parallel to the "Daddy/boy" paradigm, and if not, why not.)
Interestingly, I have read that even animals, when they become amorous, often exhibit similar behaviour (tones of "voice," body language, etc.) to the behaviour they showed as pups, kittens, etc. in some respects -- which doesn't surprise me, as I see most things as variations on a theme (the vulnerability/tenderness combination could apply both to childhood and to romantic situations -- and, I believe, in our relationship with God).
Hmmm. In fact, we do already have a notion of a relationship which can be expressed both as a parent/child and a romantic relationship -- that of Christians with God -- both adopted children of God and at the same time the Bride of Christ -- He is our Father (and Elder Brother in Jesus' case), and yet our Lover at the same time. Yet there is nothing incestuous or abusive about it... I certainly see leather and hierarchical relationships as a microcosm of that greater Relationship.
Food for thought!
David
(PS: Still getting well, so I'm going to blame any mild incoherence on getting over being sick!) 
Is there a parallel with rape fantasy? You know, rape fantasies aren't really about rape because the fantasiser is actually in control. So is that a valid comparison with leather values, or would you find that insulting?
Thanks for the note. I just stopped by to say hi.
Speaking of leather, have you heard Pat Boone's CD "In a Metal Mood: No More Mr. Nice Guy"?
He's wearing leather on the cover and was admonished by TBN for it. Bad, Pat Boone. Bad.
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
... It did take me a long time to accept those passages {about submission and obedience}, and I struggled a lot with them, but they make more sense to me now. I realise this is certainly a rare position nowadays, but here I am.I had the peculiar experience of taking a class in university once in which we read some of Milton's Paradise Lost. I was the only one (including the professor) who liked it -- everyone else thought the image of God and Eden and so on was horribly oppressive and nasty and tyrannical. I've always thought that part of the reason for our difference was that I had and have a very similar worldview to Milton's, though I am not a Puritan nor an Arian.
Mind you, believing in hierarchy doesn't necessarily mean one is good at obeying it ...
quote:
I wouldn't insult the slavery of the Old or New Testament eras by comparing it with the actions of modern corporations, which in my opinion are acting far worse overall. They show no sense of responsibility, no paternalism, no noblesse oblige or any of the other things which, while not always followed, perhaps not often followed well, were expected as the actions of moral masters (and kings and other authorities) over their slaves, serfs and subjects. Old slavery, whether one agrees with it or not, at least included rules and regulations for the proper treatment of slaves -- see even the Old Testament on the subject of how slaves could and could not be treated. There is even a verse giving rules for a ceremony to perform if a slave does not want to ever be freed by his owner and chooses to remain his slave permanently (he would put his ear against the doorframe and an awl driven through his ear (Deut. 15:17)). This isn't the same kind of master that, say, the Nike corporation acts like.What is the evidence for "the early church did not believe in accepting the institution of slavery, but was undermining it to the best of its ability," for "the early church fought heroically, stubbornly and scandalously against the subjugation of women, in the only way it could - by giving them equality within the church," etc.? I have never heard proof of this. Paul even goes further than many people have since about women and their position in church. If the early church wanted to overturn societal norms further than they did, they had an ample opportunity -- they were willing to die for their faith as it was, be mistreated in general, they wrestled with whether to lay on Gentile believers all sorts of rules from Jewish tradition, and did not do so -- they could have, but they prayed about it and did not. If they really wanted to change that, since they were changing so many other things, why wait?
quote:
But it doesn't say "those in authority, it is your Christian duty to change the essential nature of the hierarchical relationship you are in"; it says, "Husbands, love your wives as Christ loves the church," and "Masters, remember that you too have a Master in Heaven."
quote:
As a side note, I'd say that accepting spousal (or even master-slave) abuse is not the same as submitting to authority. I think, in fact, that the loss of hierarchical traditions in our modern era is one of the causes of our being less able to make the distinction -- we have very little to compare it with in our own era.(And in a similar way, actually, speaking as someone from the US where we don't have kings or lords as such, I think it makes it harder to understand God as "King of Kings and Lord of Lords" if we have no kings or lords to use for a reference point. "President of Presidents" just doesn't have the same connotations; after all, we didn't elect God Creator, Ruler and Owner of the Universe...)
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
No, I have to disagree with that -- Jesus fulfilled the Law -- that is not the same thing. Paul also was one of the people who preached obedience to rulers, masters parents and husbands. The interpretation which wholly abolishes hierarchy seems like a very, very recent thing, historically, and I see no reason to think that everyone from the early Christians on down till the last few centuries just got it wholly wrong. To me, the notion of hierarchy seems to be one of the wise things people from the past, across cultures for that matter, have handed down to us.
... off to go see a presentation...
feel better soon...
1 hour left to get stuff done at work now (4 PM here) -- will try to reply when I can!
quote:
Originally posted by Qlib:
But a lot of real-life hierarchies aren't actually very nice.
quote:
Real slave and master relationships, for example, are not remotely erotic, are they?
quote:
Does that matter?
And I am taking a break from practising mastery for a bit as the whole thing has got me a bit burnt out for a while -- playing and learning, more from the bottom side, though not at all seeking a replacement for my own master (who I believe is always with me anyway, and whose rules and principles I am committed to following for the rest of my life in any case, to the best of my ability).quote:
Is there a parallel with rape fantasy? You know, rape fantasies aren't really about rape because the fantasiser is actually in control.
I think part of the attraction, for some, of the "non-consensual" fantasy (whether rape, or kidnapping, or whatever) is the notion of someone else showing interest in one -- without oneself being able to provoke that interest, or drive it away -- i.e., while not unconditional love per se, unconditional interest. Which I do think is a fallen and somewhat distorted notion of the unconditional love (with authority and control, as well) that good parents show small children, and that God has for us -- that the desire for nonconsensuality (in that sense, of capture and forcible domination) may be the only form the person can recognise of unconditional love. I think they are missing that unconditional love can be much more powerful than selfish desire. There are countless porn stories of the kidnapped victim being abducted and then taken control of one way or another, and most of the ones I have seen are generally written from the victim's point of view -- with the victim realising how much he wants it again at the end, etc.
When I saw the parallel between this sort of thing and some conversion stories, I was rather startled. I mean conversion stories -- even of St. Paul on the road to Damascus, in fact -- in which God takes control, even against the person's will, but the person realises that this is what they need, deep down inside. Perhaps some of the impetus for this is a desire, ultimately, for God (or someone) to take control? I certainly think so, but I believe in microcosm and macrocosm. -- That what they are saying, deep down inside, when they seek (either in fiction or in role-play of abduction or rape) is "Please. Someone. Be interested in me. Don't let me stop you. I don't want a kind of relationship where I can shut you out. Break down the door. Take me against my will. Don't let go of me no matter what I do. I don't want to have the power to say no because deep down inside I am afraid I will always push away someone who is interested in me, or cares about me..."
I am sure this is not always the case, but pretty sure it applies to some of us, anyway. It certainly did to me! But the problem is -- I have seen this myself (even to some extent with my ex-doulos) -- that when the person insists on having things on those terms, or on role-playing having things on those terms, it really can be shutting people out on that deep level. I think they do need to understand that they have to at least unlock the door of their hearts before someone can come in. Maybe God can break it down in a way which won't damage them, but I certainly don't think I can. My own master was asked from time to time to force someone to change and he always refused -- they had to actively let him help them. And I believe in doing this the same way. So I think that this desire may indeed show a need -- but it does not guarantee that it can be fulfilled. In some ways, demanding that it be fulfilled on those terms may make it impossible -- it's one thing to say "please break down the door" and another to keep holding it shut rather than try to help the master (or even, perhaps, God) break it down.
Mind you, consciously role-playing something non-consensual, in which it really is consensual, is different than this kind of relationship. (Which is perhaps one reason in the leather/BDSM community we often use "safewords," such as "yellow" or "red," to signify that the bottom is not doing well with or enjoying things -- so that they have the freedom to say "no" without meaning "no" -- but all of this is established beforehand -- communication in matters such as this is absolutely essential.
By the way, "the bottom is in control" may apply to some (not all) SM play, and some relationships, but it is not the way the kind of "Old Leather" relationship works, at least in the traditions I come from. If I were in control -- though I did give it freely and consensually to my own master, and he always respected my limits -- then I could not have learned and grown the way I did under his authority.
quote:
So is that a valid comparison with leather values, or would you find that insulting?
quote:
Originally posted by nicolemrw:
what i've never been able to understand is your often-repeted belief that real slavery is acceptable.
quote:
real slavery does not have the reciprocal respect that is supposed to apply in a, um... b&d type relationship.
) But I will say that even many aristocrats through the ages were constrained very much, while they did have power over others, by their own obedience to those above them; to some people nowadays, perhaps to most people, such a life -- not only having others to command, but having to "bend the knee" and swear fealty to others -- would seem uncomfortably close to slavery. In a certain sense I see the kind of consensual hierarchy I practise as one of the only pinholes or chinks through which the (getting melodramatic here) light of hierarchy/chain of being/etc. can still shine through today, though often blocked out by the whole set of principles the modern world is (I think) based on.
I used to be very much into medieval/Renaissance fairs, though I do still enjoy them. After I met Master we went to one, and I realised it all seemed, while still nice, much less real to me -- because I had, even in the modern world, the real thing. I really had a "feudal lord" to whom I owed fealty. I really had, at last, someone to look up to to guide me. And someone, an earthly touchstone, to help me model the very Christian (in my belief, anyway) principle of obedience, even in small things. As I say above in the Giant Set Of Quotes, I think it is very hard to understand Jesus as King of Kings and Lord of Lords if we have no experience of kings or lords on an earthly level -- here in the US, the president (no matter how good he is) just isn't the same for us. (We didn't elect God Creator and Ruler of all that is...)
quote:
if your master had really and truly been your master, it would have been up to HIM weather or not there was sex, not you.
Important disclaimer: I do think we have had some terrible abuses of all of these principles, in recent centuries in particular; so perhaps it is right, in this time and place, that hierarchy go on in a purely consensual form. I don't know what the world may be like a hundred or a thousand years from now, whether the old hierarchies will come back then or not, but I think we do have a need for it -- and for some of us who see that need in ourselves can get great good out of it in the forms we have available to us.
In an amusing, ironic twist, by the by, Master was always much more a fan of the American Republic than I was, and often referred to Thomas Jefferson as "Old T.J." Because of this I have more interest in that than I might, in fact -- and is probably part of the reason I am happily employed where I am (Federal service). I may not believe the American Revolution was the right thing to do, but I do accept the government we have (if England hadn't recognised it as valid I may not have, but it did so I do), believe in supporting it, and in fact have actually defended it (as such, not any given action per se) in argument with people who are much more in favour of that revolution than me.
Well, I hope this is helpful. Perhaps also in getting into some of the theology involved for me, not only "the kinky stuff."
Hugs all! Please keep discussing; I haven't written stuff like this in ages...
Batter my heart, three-person'd God; for, you
As yet but knocke, breathe, shine, and seeke to mend,
That I may rise, and stand, o'erthrow mee,'and bend
Your force, to breake, blowe, burn and make ne new.
I, like an usurpt towne, to'another due,
Labour to'admit you, but Oh, to no end,
Reason your viceroy in mee, mee should defend,
But is captiv'd, and proves weake or untrue.
Yet dearely'I love you,'and would be loved faine,
But am betroth'd unto your enemie:
Divorce mee,'untie, or breake that knot againe,
Take mee to you, imprison mee, for I
Except you'enthrall mee, never shall be free,
Nor ever chast, except you ravish mee.
(For the curious: no, those apostrophes aren't typos - Donne is running the vowels together in one syllable - interesting, because he usually doesn't do this nearly so much in so few lines - but he really is beating the language into submission here.)
"... capture me
I surrender to Your sanctity
Then You capture me
I win the freedom of this slavery
Embracing all that you impart
Hear the crying in my heart
And capture me ..."
from Capture Me
Words and Music by Terry Taylor
©1987 Broken Songs
Any way, while I can't quite "get" your mindset CM about this topic, it's highlighted for ma something about how I think all Christians shape our faith.
I think we all actually have a two way street going where our faith affects our world view and behaviour - for instance in your decision not to particpate in certain sexual acts because you believe they are contrary to Christian teaching. At the same time our world view also affects and shapes our faith. I'm a feminist and a Christian, and mu practice of each shapes the other.
I do think that all Christians are like that, and that none of us sees life or does life in a way that is "purely" Christian. I'm afraid that in some of the evangelical circles I've moved in people think they're "only" Christian but they're a bit deluded.
I don't want to get off on another post evangelical thread as that's been done a fair bit. I just wanted to talk about wordviews and faithviews mixing. I hope it makes sense and that Chastmastr especially can understand these half warmed thoughts. I'd be glad for anyone to develop them further.
We must get beyond the exterior to see that the heart is what's important.
It must begin with our own hearts. If we regard those who are "different" with fear or loathing, it will show in our faces and attitudes. To love them as Christ does is something few know how to do.
We are instructed to reach out to "the least of these, My brethren." Christ ate with tax-collectors, touched lepers, and talked with women as though they were worth taking the time to teach. May His legacy live on...
Christ died for the sake of love. God wrote this book we call the history of the earth and all its inhabitants. He could have written it differently. Why did He write it as He did? Why did He include this gift, a challenge almost beyond His ability, but one He faced and won?
Has anybody seen the movie, Patch Adams? Why can't Christians care as much about humankind as a loony medical student?
As an Anabaptist (Mennonite) with a very 'low' view of authority - and a second generation Holocaust survivor who is very aware of how authority can go wrong - I disagree profoundly with your views on hierarchy. But I admit they're internally consistent.
What strikes me most forcibly is that all the community, re-parenting etc that the gay leather scene has given and gives you, is what the church ought to be giving you if it were doing its job properly (and yes, I'm the church too, so I fail just as much). For me, much of this job has been done by a Christian qualified psychotherapist, who cost me lots of money but was eminently worth it and was a vitally important friend for 9 years. Some of the job, I'm glad to say, has been done and is still being done by my small, intimate and very caring Mennonite church.
In the area of my sexuality, which is still a major problem (my marriage is currently sexless), there is a lot of work still to be done. Maybe I will have to have the courage to do that work in contexts and relationships which from a traditional Christian standpoint will be regarded as sin. I don't have that courage or opportunity yet. And I don't want to 'use' another person of whatever sex as part of my own therapy.
So I admire you greatly for being able to integrate your sexuality and your faith without compromising the 'traditional' sexual morality you (and I) hold to. I pray that you will also find support in a Christian context (as you have in SoF).
I can't help still regarding your leather thing (and maybe even the gayness, though I'll be unpopular for saying this) as to some extent a pathology, and ultimately a result of being in a fallen world. But hey, what I want to say most (and I'd like to say this on every thread on this board, but I won't inflict that) is that there is no 'normal' and 'abnormal', with straight and no frills in the first category and all other modes in the second. We all have our sexual problems, temporary or permanent. Sex is hugely fallen, and no one escapes. My theory has always been that it's the best thing God created, (I speak from theology not experience) and so Satan chose to mess it up most.
Sorry for long post - I could have said it in several small ones but I'm not here that often.
quote:
Originally posted by Esmeralda:
I admire you greatly for being able to integrate your sexuality and your faith without compromising the 'traditional' sexual morality you (and I) hold to.
I admire the intellectual feat and I have no quarrel with you personally or with the choices you have made. But does your theology 'work'? Obviously it works for you - but it's very particular, isn't it? I find it too imprisoning to be applied universally - I personally would suffocate under its weight. But doesn't a successful theology of sexuality have to apply universally? Can you have one theology for one group of sexual preferences and another for another?
Happy Easter, btw.
quote:
Originally posted by Lovely Doggie:
I think we all actually have a two way street going where our faith affects our world view and behaviour . . . At the same time our world view also affects and shapes our faith. . . .
I do think that all Christians are like that, and that none of us sees life or does life in a way that is "purely" Christian. I'm afraid that in some of the evangelical circles I've moved in people think they're "only" Christian but they're a bit deluded.
I believe in learning from all sources possible. I use Christian Tradition as my main guide (not so much the last few hundred years, but going all the way back, with special emphasis on the first 1500 years or so), but I also try to learn from Jewish, Pagan and other sources, where they do not contradict the heart of the faith.
I certainly think that, if our culture (Christian or otherwise) is leading to counter-Christian (or counter-"Christian-culture") movements, then we should take a good hard look at them -- not in the primarily confrontational role many people seem to, or adversarial role -- but ask "What is it that these people are getting from this which we are not giving them?" I think these things spring from need which is not being met, and if we can help to meet that need without heresy or sin, then we ought to. For example, time and again I have known Pagans, raised in the Christian faith, who have said to me that if their faith had shown them a more positive view of nature, they might still be Christians. We have St. Francis and others, and in times past we had more focus on harvest festivals than we do now. While I don't believe in worshipping deities other than the Christian God (happy Ostara, nonetheless, to my Wiccan friends), I think we have much more wiggle-room in approaching the wonderful Earth which He has made and in celebrating it, its times and its seasons, perhaps now more than ever in our non-agrarian, industrialised society. And we can explore this without changing our basic theology. (I believe we could even approach modern Pagan culture the same way we have approached -- at our best, not in a destructive way -- other Pagans at times, by allowing for the best in their culture to be "baptised" and approached in a Christian context. Technically, this is where many of our holidays' symbols and fun come from -- why do you think we have chocolate bunnies at Easter?)
I have seen material on Native American (Indian) Christian churches here in the US, in which their cultures' symbols and approaches have been incorporated into their approach to their Christian faith -- and I don't mean in a syncretic way in which the heart of the faith is changed, but more in the way that the early converts incorporated their own cultural leanings into their approach. For example, in poetry, we see in The Dream of the Roodthe way Jesus leaps up on the Cross, like a warrior doing battle, as the Anglo-Saxon converts were a warrior-focused culture; in art we certainly see quite a lot from various places the world over. In holidays we see many mixtures and incorporations. Yet when a subculture is in our own midst, rather than saying, "Hmm -- perhaps a Franciscan approach to nature, and allowing a place for that for those who feel drawn to it, would be appropriate here -- and bringing back the seasonal festivals (apart from just Harvest Festival in UK and Thanksgiving in the US) would help too," we often cry, "ugh! People different from us! Run away! Fight them! Eek!" or such.
Oops, digressing again. I should do something with the above in Small Fire, I know...
quote:
Originally posted by brodavid:
I find it surreal that I have more agreement on sexual morality with a gay leatherman than I do with many of my fellow straights on the Ship.
quote:
I also liked what I read about reaching sub-cultures, such as the leather crowd, with the gospel.
quote:
Originally posted by Poet_of_Gold:
If we regard those who are "different" with fear or loathing, it will show in our faces and attitudes. To love them as Christ does is something few know how to do.
quote:
Originally posted by Esmeralda:
What strikes me most forcibly is that all the community, re-parenting etc that the gay leather scene has given and gives you, is what the church ought to be giving you if it were doing its job properly
quote:
Originally posted by Esmeralda:
I can't help still regarding your leather thing (and maybe even the gayness, though I'll be unpopular for saying this) as to some extent a pathology, and ultimately a result of being in a fallen world.
quote:
Originally posted by Qlib:
But does your theology 'work'? Obviously it works for you - but it's very particular, isn't it?
"Then we must go higher. We must go to him whose office it is to put down tyrants and give life to dying kingdoms. We must call on the Emperor."
"There is no Emperor."
"No Emperor . . ." began Merlin, and then his voice died away. He sat still for some minutes wrestling with a world which he had never envisaged. Presently he said, " . . . This is a cold age in which I have awaked. If all this West part of the world is apostate, might it not be lawful, in our great need, to look farther . . . beyond Christendom? . . . Sir, I believe it would be lawful to seek help even there. Beyond Byzantium. . . . "
--- C.S. Lewis, That Hideous Strength
(Note: Bold ellipses are mine, others are in the text.)
Happy Easter to you too!
[fixing italics]
[ 31 March 2002: Message edited by: Louise ]
I'm afraid that for myself, though, I will continue to talk back to God as an equal. How else will it know that I am just a manifestation of itself?
You consider God your equal????
eek! I wouldn't want to be in your shoes!
We don't "talk back" to God unless we want Him to respond with allowing situations that can humble us. And it does sound rather insulting to refer to God as "it". I mean, I agree that a spirit is neither male nor female, but saying "it" seems less than human instead of more than human or even equal (which He is not).
"Hallowed be Thy name."
While looking for links for another thread, I found this one on Mary as the "ultimate submissive":
"In short she submitted, freely and totally. No pre-negotiated scening among equal partners, no safe-words, no limits and no opt-out clause. Nothing but pure, unadulterated submission, based on faith alone.
Now it would be a mistake to read into this that Mary was the ultimate submissive in any BDSM interpretation of the term. She was not a kinky lady. But her example is worth noting nonetheless, in a community that prides itself of going farther, deeper and higher than "normal" people can. For all its lack of direct perv appeal, Mary's submission was far more genuine and total than what most of us in the lifestyle would consider adequate.
It is inconceivable that any sub or slave could emulate that level of courage and commitment . . ."
I started life as a Roman Catholic in a very politically active working class east end (London) family. I went on an Aldermaston march in my pram! Anti-apartied was our principle concern, but issues of equity and social justice were intimately tied to how I was taught Jesus' message.
When I was 15 in 1979, I knew I was gay, I also knew I wasn't prepared to lie about it or accept the my God who died for me could love me any the less because of it. Gay rights are part of social justice the same as anti racism and and anti sexism.
When I went to my Parish Priest he used Polonus’s line from Hamlet (not very Scriptural, but absolutely right in the circumstances) "Above all else unto thine own self be true" .
So at the tender age of 16 I found my way onto the gay leather scene, I found community. Very few long term gay male relationships are monogamous (see the project Sigma research, Prof. P. Coxon "Between the Sheets") but we do build our own families of choice and chance, my partner's ex-partners, ex is actually remarkably close, love is what binds us and love can't be wrong.
ChastMastr makes a distinction about penetration however it’s worth noting as Prof. Coxon, points out that only 1 in 5 sex acts between men involve penetration anyway.
By the way in my many years as a volunteer on a Lesbian & Gay phone line one of my favourite suggestions to the many heterosexual men who phoned wanting to know where they could get fucked was to buy their wife a strap on.
SM is a complex subject, I do tend to view it as a hobby 'recreational sex' being about sensation and mutual pleasure sometimes with my partner sometimes with others as well or separately, it’s for each of us to make our judgements for our own consciences. Much as liberal priests said after Humane Vita if you believed the right wing everyone using contraception will be burning in hell.
The leather is an emphasis of masculinity (although the old joke that the two acceptable subjects for conversation in leather bars are Opera and cooking remains true, I was in my local last week discussing the Bach St John Passion at the Coliseum, then the wonders of the Delia Online website) much the same reason as we have facial hair, it’s men we are into.
In the end sex, SM whatever, is actually a small part of who we are and God sees us in the whole. I’m happy that I will stand before my God and know I’ve never caused physical pain to anybody who didn’t want it.
That is probably quite enough for a first post.
PAX
J.
Hugs all!
David
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Sebastian:JLG,
You consider God your equal????
Um, this seems backwards, don't you mean to be asking if I consider myself equal to God? But in a way, yes. I believe in Catholicism it is the heresy of Docetism.
quote:
Originally posted by Poet_of_Gold:
jlg:eek! I wouldn't want to be in your shoes!
We don't "talk back" to God unless we want Him to respond with allowing situations that can humble us. And it does sound rather insulting to refer to God as "it". I mean, I agree that a spirit is neither male nor female, but saying "it" seems less than human instead of more than human or even equal (which He is not).
"Hallowed be Thy name."
I have found that the more I "talk back" to God, the more I am able to hear Him "talk" to me and the better my life gets. While He has sometimes shown a mischievous sense of humor at my expense, I haven't noticed any divine retribution. (Unless it was getting me to convert to Catholicism at age 50 after decades of calling myself a Buddhist?)
I realize that my use of 'it' in my earlier post was much clunkier than I intended it to be, but I also try very hard to not get into the habit of anthropomorphizing God. And I find that the usual Christian ways of referring to God seem to encourage picturing the benevolent Grandfather in the Sky. God is something way beyond what our human minds can comprehend, and also way beyond taking offense at what we use and whether it is capitalized.
Which leads back to what I didn't explain very well in my earlier post. I have always found all the 'feudal' and hierarchical language in Christianity to be irritating. I don't accept or deal with Lords and Kings in my daily life. But in reading ChastMastr's explanations of what being in a loving but hierarchical and obedient relationship has meant to him, I have found a way to understand the traditional church language and think about how it might relate to my life. His posts here and elsewhere on the Ship have given me a lot of spiritual meat to chew on.
I do wish UBB allowed a "Preview" of the posts!
I apologize!
Now I see that you were not intending insult. And you're absolutely right about being honest. God would rather we be brutally honest than that we would sweetly try to lie. If one honestly feels something, even something incorrect, it is better to speak it honestly than to try and hide it in one's heart.
RM
quote:
Originally posted by Joeinbow:When I went to my Parish Priest he used Polonus’s line from Hamlet (not very Scriptural, but absolutely right in the circumstances) "Above all else unto thine own self be true" .
PAXJ.
I agree entirely! 
My foster Dad/Master had a web page someone else set up for him, which became a memorial page. Most of the images don't load anymore, so I think the page is on its last legs, but till then you can see its final remnants (nothing is sexually explicit) here, his picture (from 1998) and eulogy here, and -- I had forgotten this was there! -- a pic of me (in 1998 when I was fatter than I am now) here and up close here.
Wow. I didn't know this was still out there till in an idle moment I wondered if anything with his old e-mail address still existed anywhere, or if anyone had taken it since the account was cancelled.
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
[QB(Abrupt memory of a children's TV show called The Letter People... "Come and meet the leather people...") [/QB]
Come and meet the Letter People,
Come and meet the family,
Words are made of Letter People,
A,B,C,D--Follow Me!
http://www.methuen.k12.ma.us/mps/MHS/tv10/letter%20people.gif
Dave, I think I'm going to enjoy reading the posts here at SoF, thanks for inviting me. I just wanted to say that the more I read about your leather experience, which I stil know little about, I feel that there is a similar thing happening with me and the experience of being both Catholic and gay. I know that can open up little cans of gummy worms. Anyway, I am really interested in the 'bridging' concept here. I really love good Christian Gay sites like URL=http://www.angelfire.com/nc/yakkow/]Justin's World[/URL] and others which allow for differing viewpoints on this. As a Catholic who actually believes and attempts to follow the teachings of my Church, I find at times that this life is difficult. I am also a huge Andrew Sullivan fan since he articulates so well the way alot of gay Catholics feel. I like how you pulled alot of resources together to share about the leather community and the leather reality. I hope one day to have a good website which will pull together resources like this for the topic of homosexuality. Thanks for the vision.
Always yours, Bill
1. because I'm lazy, and 2. because I haven't time, can somebody tell me if there's anywhere in this BB where heterosexual d/s in a christian context is being discussed?
What I mean by that is is there any discussion of mother/son type relationships within a christian marriage. For me, as a single young male, it is important that I have some kind of relationship like this, as I find I keep digging holes for myself unless I have somebody watching over my shoulder - and I would prefer that somebody to be my (future) wife. However, there seems to be much fewer resources available to help me deal with this than for the gay d/s community - because I'm not interested in most kinky stuff, it's the relationship that's important, not the clothes.
If anyone has any suggestions, I'd love to hear them.
(I'm already a member of the Yahoo!group BDSMchristians)
Many thanks
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Links, glorious links, we're dying to try them...CADS (Christians and Domination/submission)
BDSM Christians, based in the UK
[/URL]
I have spoken to some Christians who think a woman should never be in charge. But in the Old Testament, in the days when women were thought least highly of, there was a prophetess named Deborah who was married to a man named Lapidoth, and she was the one who gave orders for Israel, not her husband. She told Israel's commander, Barak, what to do. She spoke for the Lord, and her words came true in the prophecy that a woman would defeat Sisera.
I have written an entire article on why Christians should not assume that a man is always the leader of his household, and that it is not necessarily scriptural to try and force all women to be "submissive". I would gladly send the article as an email attachment to anyone from the Ship who would like to read it.
I know that I could not be in a marriage where I ran it. I would choose to delegate. Why? Because I'm disorganised, and I can be really lazy, and really hurtful. I don't want to be, but when I get angry I try to hit out. I know I do. I try to control it, but there are days when we all lose sight of reason. And I'm good at working in a disorganised, messy sort of way. Which is fine for academic work, or cooking. But it doesn't get the house cleaned, or the washing done. And I most certainly would not want to be in a relationship where I work all day, get home and expect food on the table, because I'd like to be able to treat my partner as at least an equal, because we are all equally highly valued in the eyes of God. And I'd like to be with someone who isn't trapped in the house, because I want someone to talk to and debate with, and go to the cinema with, someone who is intellectually stimulated, and is allowed to use her intelligence in daily life. Life isn't like that anyway, because it's very likely that to support a marriage and a family both me and my partner would need to work to help pay the bills.
I would not be able to handle a submissive wife. I barely trust myself to sort my own stuff out, let alone trying to lead a family from the front. I'd much rather be in a situation where my wife respects and honours me so much she would be willing to 'dominate me' (for want of a better term) *IF* I did something (like went crazy in front of the kids, or didn't do something important or critical which affects the well-being of the marriage or the family) which was out-of-line. That's what true love would mean to me. For me the ultimate sign of respect, love and trust is a wife who is willing to rebuke me for things which I have done which are wrong. In being willing to take control, she would be submitting to me. When thinking rationally and reasonably, I would want her to take control in the event I became unreasonable or unrational. And in saying that I have made her submit to me by respecting the wishes of my rational and reasonable mind, by reducing my ability to do harm when out-of-control.
Take an analogy of a taxi. When you get in a taxi, and say where to go, you are in control, because you can dictate the route. But, you are not driving. In control, but not driving. And if you told the taxi driver to turn the wrong way up a one-way street, he wouldn't do it. He wouldn't do it to protect himself, you, the taxi, and all the other road users. Common sense. And he'd still carry on and take you to your destination. So the taxi driver is 'submitting' to you by taking you where you wanted to go, but he is 'dominating' you by taking a safe route, not the route you said.
Taking the biblical route (although I'm not particularly hot on this one, which is why I left it till the end). When Paul wrote about wives submitting to their husbands, he was writing in two specific letters to the Ephesians, and the Colossians. Now although "all Scripture ... is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness", not all of it is appropriate given today's society. Paul wrote that to speak into certain situations in those two churches, and did not necessarily mean it to apply literally in every situation. And look at 2 Tim 3:16 closely... it says is useful for (The NKJV says "is profitable for"), not should be always unthinkingly adhered to. I think God would much rather we think about why that is written, and the situations in which it applys and how. I think Scripture was not written to be blindly followed, but rather to be interpreted by the Holy Spirit in our hearts and minds, and the action taken according to that spiritual insight. Also, Paul is human. He has his own philosophy, and sexual persuasions, no doubt shaped by the fact he was a zealous Jew, so his writings, although inspired by God (or God-breathed, to use another term), are his own, and reflect his views. So how can we tell that part of that sentence "all wives should submit to their husbands..." wasn't shaped by his upbringing, and society, which doesn't necessarily apply now (well, for sure, I don't live in Jewish country occupied by the Roman empire!)?
I've pondered the notion in my own life -- perhaps as a Lenten discipline? -- of taking on a slave who would, as part of his obedience to me, flog me from time to time. Or of writing a short story about such things.
What would happen if you grew and developed such that after several years you no longer needed or wanted someone else to be in control of you in that way, though? (In my own father-son relationship with my own master, it's a different sort of relationship -- in a romantic one I imagine it could be quite different.)
I was trying to make my profile pic work and poked around on the memorial website above, and found at least one pic of my foster Dad I did not have before!!
God bless Ship of Fools for being the indirect cause of my finding this pic!
The directory of his own pics is here and of the site's pics in general is here.
All the pics with the green leafy background were taken in Florida, and I was there!
WOW!!!
I want to thank everyone here responsible for T & T for giving us a forum, and for me it's been difficult before this to know how to explain my own perspective on the whole thing; since leather and theology are pretty much connected for me, it meant being quite nervous about mentioning much about this on any of the other boards...
Hugs all! I have felt more accepted here than I knew possible, and it is a wonderful, wonderful thing!!
So -- any last questions or thoughts? (Assuming the thread will not continue elsewhere, in which I may be mistaken.)
Hugs all!
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
If it is not going to go to Dead Horses (or to the Archive?), then could someone tell me how I could archive it for my own home computer, so all my writing and links and stuff don't vanish? I think some of the resources I found would be good to have on hand, and digging them all up again from scratch via Google would drive me nuts...Hugs all!
Right-click in the frame, select "View frame source" and then save that as a text file with .html as extension.
I guess on some of the newer browsers you can do File_Save, but I've found that the above is the only way I copy these pages to my hard drive. (Purely for later perusal, of course!)
RuthW
former TnT host
Inevitably,
David
(I've been wanting to post that line for simply ages now...)
plagiaristic orthodox guy
Which is NOT stone throwing, believe me.
As in pornography and masturbation - we are kidding ourselves.
Today would be Daddy's 64th birthday. Planning on celebrating it and his life with a friend at a steakhouse.
Would love to post more on all of this and have some good discussion -- thoughts, questions, etc.?
I am confused... more by my own background than what you've shared here... So here are a few questions. I want to premise my questions first, though, with the hope that my words do not come off sounding critical in any way, for that is not what I am feeling. I value what you are sharing.
Just to clarify... my upbringing was VERY sheltered (picture chubby little blond sitting in fundamentalist church 3+ times per week). I left that church after divorcing my abusive husband of ten years. I learned much about the world (World?) from that experience and in my training/practice as a clinical psychologist in San Francisco... but that's not helping me here, for those experiences are very different from what you're sharing.
I had a former patient that described herself as a leatherwoman... but her lifestyle and views were very different from yours. She was into pain. And pain inflicted by a dom was a sexual stimulant.
Here's my question... Is pain part of your process? How is that beneficial? Or (dare I say it?) Biblical?
I recognize I tend to lean too far toward the gentle loving God picture (more personal baggage here... need that gentle nurturing in my life right now)... And I appreciate your "bondslave" (doulos)analogy... God is not truly God unless S/He rules my life. So another question comes to mind... What about a balanced view of God? You seem to suggest an unusual (to my limited understanding) relationship with your master... more father/son than dominant/submissive. Is this true of any other folks in your tribe?
Another question: Is there any potential of this lifestyle being damaging to your influence over other young believers. You seemed to have gained from your relationship... but I guess I still am wondering how common this is in the leather community.
I am curious about your master. Do you feel you may have put him in the place of God in your life... I know there have been many times when I've wished there were a voice from heaven that would say, "Do this... Do it now." I wish even more that I had the ability to trust someone else (a human) enough to obey without question. How did your master/slave relationship develop? I'm very interested in the fact that your master wasn't a man of faith... Didn't this get in the way at all??? What did he think of your faith?
Thanks for tolerating my long post and all my questions...
In Christian love,
lisa
quote:
Originally posted by mysticlisa:
Blessings on you.
(blush!)quote:
I had a former patient that described herself as a leatherwoman... but her lifestyle and views were very different from yours. She was into pain. And pain inflicted by a dom was a sexual stimulant.
Here's my question... Is pain part of your process? How is that beneficial? Or (dare I say it?) Biblical?
quote:
So another question comes to mind... What about a balanced view of God? You seem to suggest an unusual (to my limited understanding) relationship with your master... more father/son than dominant/submissive. Is this true of any other folks in your tribe?
That seeing Him as Master in a very personal sense is a part of that -- and also that for me, my relationship with my own earthly master/daddy was/is both father/son and master/slave, rather than just one or the other, or even one being primary over the other. But then, to me, father/son is a hierarchical relationship; I'm old-fashioned about that. And in the leather community we have all sorts of permutations and combinations of such things, yes! quote:
Another question: Is there any potential of this lifestyle being damaging to your influence over other young believers. You seemed to have gained from your relationship... but I guess I still am wondering how common this is in the leather community.
quote:
I am curious about your master. Do you feel you may have put him in the place of God in your life...
quote:
I wish even more that I had the ability to trust someone else (a human) enough to obey without question.
quote:
How did your master/slave relationship develop?
quote:
I'm very interested in the fact that your master wasn't a man of faith... Didn't this get in the way at all??? What did he think of your faith?
quote:
Thanks for tolerating my long post and all my questions...
Hugs!
David
Nothing wrong with that.
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not:
So you freely give yourself to your husband then?
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not:
So you want Christian sanction for your sin?
[HOST HAT ON]
This is getting dangerously close to too personal for Purgatory (or TPFP). We debate issues here in Purgatory. Please stick to same or the thread will have to be closed, or moved to Hell.
[HOST HAT OFF]
Reader Alexis
Rdr Alexis
I therefore unqualifiedly apologise.
But in that case I wonder where the border is?
I see that I have strayed over it, but the very nature of the thread is one seeming to be a proclamation of Christianly unorthodox sexuality to which only declarations of 'understanding' if not approval are invited.
I will endeavour to rephrase my responses or say nowt.
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not:
Sorry, have I misunderstood? We aren't talking in any way about sex or paraphilic activity outside of heterosexual, Christian marriage?
You may have missed the bit at the beginning of this thread where Chastmastr says that he believes sex outside marriage to be a sin, and consequently is himself sexually celibate.
HTH
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not:
I therefore unqualifiedly apologise.
*HUG*quote:
I see that I have strayed over it, but the very nature of the thread is one seeming to be a proclamation of Christianly unorthodox sexuality to which only declarations of 'understanding' if not approval are invited.
Since the boards are going into suspended animation for two weeks, though, and the time here is about 3 PM in the afternoon, I may not get to answer (or even see) comments/questions till two weeks hence, as I am at work with limited time online. But I'll do what I can. At the moment I have about 2 hours before heading home and probably won't be online tonight at all.
Hugs again, to all!
I'm very sorry, I had indeed missed CM's declaration of celibacy, Oriel. Thanks.
The blighter (that's you CM) seems all too decent and forgiving.
Rats.
This is going to do my head in, I know. I once got in to a superb debate with a gay radical on Christia, I think. Couldn't fault the guy. Disagreed with his premiss but not what logically followed at all, we got along famously.
Sheesh.
Well CM, young feller, me lad, still think you're in to a paraphilic area you'd be better off out of, but what are you going to fill the vacuum with?
You seem frighteningly genuine and I'm concerned for you. But you've got this far without me!
You want God in 3D. His demands are greater than I can bear, but perhaps not for you. I tell you 'straight', weak hypocrite that I am, you will have to forego The "Leather" Thing. All of it.
That's a coupla commandments gone to hell ...
Regards - fascinated, open, conservative, gobsmacked by grace - Martin
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not:
So you freely give yourself to your husband then?
No husband here! (See earlier post re: my divorce) Involved in a love relationship with my Lord alone! I should probably check out threads relating to celebates, because I'd love to dialogue with y'all about that.
My family and friends have struggled with my choice.... Not necessarily to the same degree as what you probably face CM... but I know a little about judgement and scrutiny and the opinions that somehow I'm damaged and that's why I've made the choices I've made.
Your patience and openess in explaining your thoughts & life is amazing!
Peace to you.
Lisa
![[Sunny]](graemlins/flowerface.gif)
Thank you!
Embarrassed orthodox guy who should have thought more before hitting "add reply"
![[Happy]](graemlins/happy.gif)
Sorry I've been away... yes, I have noticed that "kinky" ads are more popular now (see the ad gallery -- many of them! over on the Altoids website -- and many others over on the appropriate section of The Commercial Closet as well, which includes the Macho Mint Altoids ad I couldn't find on the Altoids site).
quote:
Originally posted by Asaltydog:
Anyway, I just wanted to say thanks for getting the grey cells going again, and I'll reply again when I've finished the whole thread....
blush Thank you!! *hug*quote:
Originally posted by Slubgob:
...I just wanted to encourage you.
more blushing ![[Heart]](graemlins/heartpump.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Anonymous 4:
Which left me wanting to say thank you for daring to tentatively step out. It was nice to be thinking of thread for reasons other than wanting to disagree........
still more blushing quote:I've never seen the original references for all these -- but then anything can be salacious if we only try. ("And then we... baked a cheese omelette." "So?" "No, I mean we... baked... a cheese omelette... know what I mean, say no more?" "And then we... edited the article... we debugged the program... ")
Originally posted by Gill H:
The London Underground ad says 'that's where you punched my ticket' actually.
quote:And the posts since then back this up. Hold tight for a gallop with other dead horses.
Originally posted by ChastMastr (way back on 30 June):
Does anyone have any more real questions to ask? If not, then perhaps this thread could be archived or moved to Dead Horses? I'd be pleased as punch for it to remain a resource to point curious people to, but if there's no real new ground to cover, there's no need to keep it going.
Thank you!