Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot
I'm interested in the Christian perspective on this subject.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot
I'm interested in the Christian perspective on this subject.

---

It depends what you mean by "Christian perspective". If by this you are assuming that Christianity is nothing more than a moral philosophy (and can therefore sit happily with atheism), then I would say that a "Christian perspective" would be extremely difficult to define in this case.

But if "Christianity" is actually about a God who is real, then the "Christian perspective" is something far more personal: what the Christian couple believes is right in their relationship with God.

Of course, there is a problem. A wife may be so terrified of her "spiritually" domineering husband that she may "consent" to practices which she secretly finds repulsive. That is why the church should teach husbands (particularly, though not exclusively) that their spouse's duty in marriage should not be taken for granted.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Of course, there is a problem. A wife may be so terrified of her "spiritually" domineering husband that she may "consent" to practices which she secretly finds repulsive. That is why the church should teach husbands (particularly, though not exclusively) that their spouse's duty in marriage should not be taken for granted.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo
Now, go back and answer the question again with a couple who both really like the idea of BDSM.

---

After you...


--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
It's about love--real love, which is considering the wants and needs of one's spouse. Which requires listening and paying attention. I'm not sure much more than that is needed in this area.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo
PS Also curious to know why you immediately assumed it was the man who was the domineering one.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo
PS Also curious to know why you immediately assumed it was the man who was the domineering one.

---

I didn't.

Hence the phrase "though not exclusively" in my original post.

Did you not notice that?

(Or were you just seeing what you wanted to see?)

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lamb Chopped
It's about love--real love, which is considering the wants and needs of one's spouse. Which requires listening and paying attention. I'm not sure much more than that is needed in this area.

---

Works for me. There you go, EE. Your turn.

---

quote:

---

But if "Christianity" is actually about a God who is real, then the "Christian perspective" is something far more personal: what the Christian couple believes is right in their relationship with God.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo
Terribly subjective standard, though.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo
Terribly subjective standard, though.

---

Yeah, assuming that "God" is just an idea or a projection.

Bit different if he's actually real.

(Which he is).

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Woodworm: Does anyone else find this thread a bit creepy?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Woodworm:
Does anyone else find this thread a bit creepy?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by tclune:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Woodworm:
Does anyone else find this thread a bit creepy?

---

I did the first couple of times George started one of these threads. Now, it just seems like one of the defining excesses of the Ship, like yet another thread on Penal Substitution (which strikes me as a roughly related topic.)

--Tom Clune

---

Or, penile substitution!

--------------------
God gave me my face but She let me pick my nose.

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by tclune:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Woodworm:
Does anyone else find this thread a bit creepy?

---

I did the first couple of times George started one of these threads. Now, it just seems like one of the defining excesses of the Ship, like yet another thread on Penal Substitution (which strikes me as a roughly related topic.)

--Tom Clune

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sandemaniac:
As the tone seems to have gone for a Burton, I'll just add that every time I see the thread title my brain adds ", Batman!" before I can stop it...

AG

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Spigot:
Is there a Godly version of sex that people can deviate from?

---

quote:

---

Is there anything about consensual BDSM that could be considered sinful?

---

quote:

---

If a partner enjoys being hurt/dominated is it unchristian to oblige?

---

quote:

---

Could it be possible that churches that heavily preach about wives submitting to their husbands in all things attract many who consciously or not have a bit of the dominant/submisive in them?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
I do think, though, that the dominant partner has more to justify, in terms of Christian ethics, than the submissive one. I

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paddy O'Furniture:
Or, penile substitution!

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:I do think, though, that the dominant partner has more to justify, in terms of Christian ethics, than the submissive one.[/QB]

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by ecumaniac:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:I do think, though, that the dominant partner has more to justify, in terms of Christian ethics, than the submissive one.

---

I'd be interested to hear why you think this. (Obvs I disagree!) All the Christian ethics involved would appear to apply to both parties, as far as I can figure out (consent freely given, respect & love, attending to the needs of your partner, um I can't think of any more) [/QB]

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Unreformed:
I notice everyone here just assumes that consent is the sole criterion for sexual morality, instead of first demonstrating that this is true.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
I don't think ‘consensual' alone is enough to make something not sinful.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Unreformed:
I notice everyone here just assumes that consent is the sole criterion for sexual morality, instead of first demonstrating that this is true.

---

You mean apart from:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
I don't think ‘consensual' alone is enough to make something not sinful.

---

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
Most dominant types I know would say that most or all of the pleasure involved is in doing something that their partner enjoys and gets a lot of pleasure out of, but some would say that there is more to it than that, and there is a pleasure involved in controlling and hurting somebody else which comes from the act itself and not only from their enjoyment of it. That, it seems to me, is an instinct which needs to be managed very carefully, and possibly, in some cases, suppressed altogether, Obviously it could only ever be ethically pursued with someone giving full and informed consent, but I don't think consent is an automatically sufficient justification, because the effect that this has on the personality and behaviour of the dominant party is also a moral consequence to be taken into account. I'm not arguing that the dominant role is wrong per se, but, for me, it raises more questions.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
I think an important concept to keep in mind with all discussions of sin is that of "near occasion of sin". What people typically want to know is whether there is any possibility of performing the act without some sin resulting. But people are very inventive in what they do, and even more inventive in how they interpret what they do. To prove that sin is truly inevitable, one generally has to go to great lengths in argument. And where sexual matters are concerned, that generally results in way too much information...

Yet prudence is not dictated by absolute necessity, but rather by likelihood. If it is merely quite likely that BDSM will result in some sin down the track, i.e., if BDSM is the near occasion of sin, then it is prudent to avoid BDSM. I think it is much easier to argue that than to argue that every couple practicing BDSM in every form will always sin.

I think there is plenty more that can go wrong with BDSM than with a regular intimate relationship, from a Christian perspective. Perhaps that should be enough to tell us that BDSM best be avoided by Christians.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Unreformed:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Unreformed:
I notice everyone here just assumes that consent is the sole criterion for sexual morality, instead of first demonstrating that this is true.

---

You mean apart from:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
I don't think ‘consensual' alone is enough to make something not sinful.

---

---

Yes, my fault. Sorry Eliab. It's certainly the majority position, though.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I'm not especially convinced by this. If you apply a really strong principle of risk aversion in other areas of life, you simply won't do anything. Don't drive a car because something might go wrong. Don't take communion because you might do it in the wrong way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
You've pretty much asserted that the risks are high here without articulating why.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:My actual point was that one has to consider all those risks and more, and then ask whether the supposed "benefits" of BDSM are worth it. In fact, one should also ask whether hunting for these "benefits" is not in itself questionable. Just how intense can the search for "more exciting / pleasurable sex" become, before we start to objectify our partner as a mere mechanism to achieve spectacular orgasms?

It is quite possible that a couple can do some role play or use some "tools" that one could vaguely class as "BDSM", and suffer no ill effects from it, merely spicing up their sex life a little. Well, I don't feel like discussing that much. There is something to be said for the privacy of the bedroom. I'm merely pointing out that there is a slippery slope there, and if one wants to keep this at the "fun and games" level, then one has to be rather conscious of that. And I do not believe that "serious BDSM" can be engaged in without sliding down that slope one way or the other eventually.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Unreformed:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Unreformed:
I notice everyone here just assumes that consent is the sole criterion for sexual morality, instead of first demonstrating that this is true.

---

You mean apart from:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
I don't think ‘consensual' alone is enough to make something not sinful.

---

---

Yes, my fault. Sorry Eliab. It's certainly the majority position, though.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I'm not especially convinced by this. If you apply a really strong principle of risk aversion in other areas of life, you simply won't do anything. Don't drive a car because something might go wrong. Don't take communion because you might do it in the wrong way.

---

Firstly, sin is a grievous thing, so we should have considerable concern with reducing the risk of it happening. Secondly, if we are going to argue for some kind of "healthy" BDSM, then in my opinion it has to be optional to the couple. Their relationship and sex life must not depend psychologically on BDSM, or we already can say that this is sinful. For then this form of "play" has become an "addiction" which now rules the regular expression of love between the partners, limiting in what way they can live together. Maybe sex can be in shackles, but love must not be.

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
You've pretty much asserted that the risks are high here without articulating why.

---

Well, more precisely I've said that there are many risks, leaving the question open how high each one of them may be. The sum of many small risks may still be a high one though, and anyhow, I think that some of the risks are indeed quite high in and by themselves. They also seem rather obvious to me, so I didn't bother spelling them out. If you like, here's a non-comprehensive list....

There is a risk of causing greater psychological or bodily harm than intended or wanted by the partner. There is a risk of removing the sexual act from the centre of love-making, turning it into merely one toy of BDSM play. There is a risk of importing structures of domination into everyday life. There is a risk of reducing sex to a mere pleasure-seeking exercise. There is a risk of making the procreation part of BDSM play. There is a risk of habitual hardening to the pain and concerns of the partner. There is a risk of sinking too much time and resources into this activity. There is a risk of thrill escalation, with every new round requiring more extreme expressions to achieve the same state of excitement. There is a risk of adultery in the heart by looking at pornography for "inspiration" or even in the body by involving others in the BDSM play. Etc.

My actual point was that one has to consider all those risks and more, and then ask whether the supposed "benefits" of BDSM are worth it. In fact, one should also ask whether hunting for these "benefits" is not in itself questionable. Just how intense can the search for "more exciting / pleasurable sex" become, before we start to objectify our partner as a mere mechanism to achieve spectacular orgasms?

It is quite possible that a couple can do some role play or use some "tools" that one could vaguely class as "BDSM", and suffer no ill effects from it, merely spicing up their sex life a little. Well, I don't feel like discussing that much. There is something to be said for the privacy of the bedroom. I'm merely pointing out that there is a slippery slope there, and if one wants to keep this at the "fun and games" level, then one has to be rather conscious of that. And I do not believe that "serious BDSM" can be engaged in without sliding down that slope one way or the other eventually.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by ecumaniac:
BDSM does not 'spice up' my sex life. It *is* my sex life. The "benefits" of pursuing BDSM activities is that I get to live my life as an integrated sexual being instead of repressing any and every sexual inclination.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Some of your views about pleasure vs procreation are ones that, as you know, I don't share, so there's not much point going into those in a lot of detail. Although again, I wonder whether those are terribly specific to this BDSM context.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
The first was the idea of causing more harm than desired. That does seem to presuppose that harm is desired to begin with, which reminded me of Spiffy remark about the focus being on the SM part of BDSM. But even then, does pain count as "harm"?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
The other one that struck me was about the risk of domination structures spilling into other areas of life. The reason that leapt out was because for centuries people didn't have the slightest problem with one partner in a marriage being dominant over the other, and now we've got the notion of equality so ingrained that it's actually BAD if an individual couple decides they want to live their life with a bit of submission. Ephesians 5:22 has really gone out fashion, hasn't it!

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
However, here we are talking about the introduction of power structures to sex, for purposes having to do with sex, and then projecting them from sex to the relationship. This puts the cart before the horse. Sex should be one particular expression of the relationship, the relationship should not be one particular expression of the sex.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I don't think this particular objection holds, Ingo, because it presumes that the reason for an interest in BDSM isn't already reflected in some way in the relationship. If a couple is using BDSM to express an element of dominance/submission that is present in their relationship, than this particular objection would fall away.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I would think that an interest in BDSM wouldn't occur in total isolation. The whole reason that either taking control or giving up control is sexually attractive would be an element of a person's personality, and it seems a bit unlikely that this element of personality would be totally isolated and totally absent from the rest of a person's life.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Midlands Chaucer:
Perhaps a significant objection to BDSM is that it focuses on an 'I-it' encounter at the expense of an 'I-thou' encounter.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Midlands Chaucer:
As someone has commented, I suppose one needs to define what BDSM is. Would mild spanking, for example, constitute BDSM? Could this simply fall into the category of 'playful' sexual encounter rather than a behaviour emphasising domination?

One of the fundamental things to say about christian love is that it is defined by encounter between persons. It involves an 'I-Thou' relationship rather than an 'I-It' relationship, to use the category created by the Jewish theologian/philsopher Martin Buber.

Perhaps a significant objection to BDSM is that it focuses on an 'I-it' encounter at the expense of an 'I-thou' encounter. That is, the person being dominated becomes 'objectified', simply an object, and a means used by the person being dominant to enhance his/her own sexual pleasure.

Any sexual activity where the personal encounter between lover and beloved is minimised or obscured, in favour of the private self-indulgence of either one or both partners, must be regarded as falling short of the dimensions of a real and fully-embodied christian love.

If sexual love between a man and a woman simply reduces either partner to an 'object', then something is fundamentally wrong. In such a scenario the tenderness and romance of love is missing. If sexual encounter is simply reduced to a matter of finding techniques which work, then the mystery and joy of encounter between persons is missing.

I remember several years ago seeing a tv programme where a couple were interviewed. Although not an example of BDSM as such, the girlfriend was so 'fixated' on the idea of using 'sex' toys, that when she made love with her partner a lot of time was given over to focusing on the use of these and finding the correct techniques. Because of these, the relationship was suffering, because the obsession hindered the romantic dimensions of the relationship.

God's love especially always means the desire to bless and to nurture others. Bearing this in mind, sexual activity which potentially involves the infliction of pain and bodily damage on a partner is a contradiction of what we would ordinarily understand as love.

---