Originally posted by Paddy O'Furniture:
Or, penile substitution!
![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
quote: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.
Originally posted by George Spigot
I'm interested in the Christian perspective on this subject.
quote:You raise a very good point. To be more precise I'm interested in what people who believe God is real and not just an idea have to say.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote: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.
Originally posted by George Spigot
I'm interested in the Christian perspective on this subject.
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.
quote:Of course there is a problem with ANY kind of sex with lack of full consent. Now, go back and answer the question again with a couple who both really like the idea of BDSM.
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.
quote:After you...
Originally posted by orfeo
Now, go back and answer the question again with a couple who both really like the idea of BDSM.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:Works for me. There you go, EE. Your turn.
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.
quote:I didn't.
Originally posted by orfeo
PS Also curious to know why you immediately assumed it was the man who was the domineering one.
quote:It wasn't apparent to me from the context that that bit was specifically talking about BDSM roles. It seemed a more general point. The bit that came across as being about BDSM roles talked about a domineering husband.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:I didn't.
Originally posted by orfeo
PS Also curious to know why you immediately assumed it was the man who was the domineering one.
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?)
quote:One vague answer deserves another one. So here we go from my first post:
Originally posted by orfeo
quote:Works for me. There you go, EE. Your turn.
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.
quote:There. We're even now.
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.
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:Yeah, assuming that "God" is just an idea or a projection.
Originally posted by orfeo
Terribly subjective standard, though.
quote:No, hang on a minute! It was YOU who said "what the couple believes", not me. It's got nothing to do with assuming God isn't real, because I think he is.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:Yeah, assuming that "God" is just an idea or a projection.
Originally posted by orfeo
Terribly subjective standard, though.
Bit different if he's actually real.
(Which he is).
quote:I don't, although I'm not into BDSM. As long as it's consensual and between adults, I don't have a problem with it. I'm guessing that up to a point it's more role-playing than actual dominance. But I could be wrong.
Woodworm: Does anyone else find this thread a bit creepy?
quote: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.)
Originally posted by Woodworm:
Does anyone else find this thread a bit creepy?
quote:Or, penile substitution!
Originally posted by tclune:
quote: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.)
Originally posted by Woodworm:
Does anyone else find this thread a bit creepy?
--Tom Clune
quote:Have I posted this before? I think I posted one of (not both) of the threads about pornography a while back. I certainly didn't start the posts mentioning 50 shades of grey.
Originally posted by tclune:
quote: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.)
Originally posted by Woodworm:
Does anyone else find this thread a bit creepy?
--Tom Clune
quote:Now you've got me thinking about cat woman.
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
quote:If there is (and I think there is) it is defined by principles like consideration, respect and self-giving love rather than in terms of positions and practices.
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Is there a Godly version of sex that people can deviate from?
quote:I don't think ‘consensual' alone is enough to make something not sinful. People are into BDSM for a variety of reasons. Some of those may be bad.
Is there anything about consensual BDSM that could be considered sinful?
quote:I think it depends why, and how much. I would find it easier to justify doing something to someone else and enjoying it because it gives them pleasure, than I would doing exactly the same thing and enjoying it because it has the appearance of cruelty and they would like to be cruel. In the first instance, it would be doing something because it is experienced as good, and one would not remotely want to do it to an unkinky person who would experience it as unwelcome. In the second instance, if one would get as much or more pleasure from hurting someone without their consent, but compromises on a willingly submissive partner for legal and practical reasons, then that would seem to me to be indulging a sinful inclination. I think for most BDSMers, consent is an absolutely vital ingredient, though. Part of the stimulus is that it is mutually enjoyable.
If a partner enjoys being hurt/dominated is it unchristian to oblige?
quote:Possible, but I wouldn't think that applies to most of them. It's a different sort of submission, and is not meant to be erotic.
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?
quote:Interesting. My (admittedly limited) understanding of the d/s dynamic is it essentially services the submissive.
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
quote:I thought penile substitution was all about buying an average Japanese car and fitting a huge rear spoiler and a noisy turbocharger.
Originally posted by Paddy O'Furniture:
Or, penile substitution!
quote: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)
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]
quote:After writing that, I thought I could probably have expressed it better, I'm just not sure how. I do agree with you that the principles of love and respect apply equally to both.
Originally posted by ecumaniac:
quote: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]
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.
quote:You mean apart from:
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.
quote:Yes, my fault. Sorry Eliab. It's certainly the majority position, though.
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:You mean apart from:
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.
quote:Yes, that's true (and there is plenty of hand-wringing and angsting from people exploring their dominant/sadistic side) but I would suggest that there can be an equally negative effect on the the submissive party, if they haven't thought it through.
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote:No, I don't know that it's even the majority position. It's a common starting point that's easy to agree upon. Consent is a fundamental, basic rule.
Originally posted by Unreformed:
quote:Yes, my fault. Sorry Eliab. It's certainly the majority position, though.
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:You mean apart from:
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.
quote: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.
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: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....
Originally posted by orfeo:
You've pretty much asserted that the risks are high here without articulating why.
quote:I could address your points sentence by sentence, but I doubt I'll change your mind on anything, and that's not really the point here. But I will make this point in reply:
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.
quote:I'm not sure you can necessarily say even that, based on the number of posters who've actually addressed the question.
Originally posted by Unreformed:
quote:Yes, my fault. Sorry Eliab. It's certainly the majority position, though.
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:You mean apart from:
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.
quote:Well, there is a slippery slope with sex generally, one would think, in terms of some of the issues you raised such as 'addiction'.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote: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.
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: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....
Originally posted by orfeo:
You've pretty much asserted that the risks are high here without articulating why.
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.
quote:By virtue of this identification, it becomes impossible to say something contrary without being open to the charge of personal attack. Nevertheless: 1. What you say me well be false. Not because you are intentionally lying, but because you are at the end of an addictive and/or abusive development. 2. If your sexual acts are sinful, then you should repress them, no matter at what personal cost.
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:Certainly a lot of these problems are quite general. The point is however that BDSM is a specific step towards these problems. Whether that step already crosses some line or not is a different question.
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:It is not necessary that every one of my remarks applies to every couple that is into BDSM. Some of them do use pain for sexual stimulation, and to them that remark applies. Pain is quite generally a warning signal for bodily harm. That is its natural purpose. Even if one attempts to induce pain in such a manner as to cause minimal (and fully reversible) harm, things may go wrong. One may end up unintentionally causing serious (and possibly non-reversible) harm. Things of course may go wrong in everyday life and during vanilla sex as well. But it is obvious that practices which rely on doing something that the body interprets as harmful, to which it hence responds with pain, carry an extra risk by their very nature. Furthermore, the pain response itself comes with physiological changes that may add health risks.
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:Certainly reading that verse in isolation, without the admonishments in Eph 5:25-28, has gone out of fashion. And rightly so. The question to what degree the inevitable power structures of a relationship should be projected into sex is an interesting one. 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. Furthermore, whatever one may think of the morality of sexual role play, it is clear that role play restricted to one specific activity can be much more extreme without ringing the alarm bells. It is one thing to play master and slave in bed, it is a different thing to live a relationship of master and slave. (And I think it is a historical falsehood to characterise any past structures of Christian marriage as "master and slave". Not that this would prove anything but how wrong things can go anyhow...)
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!
quote: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.
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.
quote:Not at all. If the relationship can be characterised as "master and slave" in its entirety, then I would call that a sinful corruption of marriage. Period. We are discussing here whether BDSM is licit at all, and so I'm looking at the "best case" (e.g., occasional role play in bed) and how far that can be pushed before things turn sour.
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.
quote:From my perspective you are just arguing my case here. Hence BDSM is problematic even as apparently harmless sexual play. It is not that "using handcuffs during sex" is necessarily a mortal sin as such. The problem is that this may well be a starting point of a development the outcome of which I would characterise as sinful. And unfortunately, those who are most attracted to this starting point are most likely to follow that development.
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.
quote:Why is that more likely with BDSM than other sexual practices?
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.
quote:Thank you with all sincerity for this post, as you've articulated an issue that I can genuinely see is an issue. There's a lot of food for thought in here.
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.
quote:Oh, the hugging and the kissing is there. Trust me on this one
Originally posted by Midlands Chaucer:
I don't have a detailed knowledge about BDSM (!), however I will venture a reply:
....
If a sexual relationship is based on administering/receiving physical pain, ie, whipping, the affective and romantic elements seem to be missing. Where is the hugging and kissing?
quote:Er... does this mean I shouldn't post here, then?
Originally posted by George Spigot:
In order to stay on topic and avoid DH I propose we limit our discussion to married people and not mention homosexuality.
quote:I don't think the new DH guidelines would in any way suggest that a person in a same-sex relationship couldn't talk about the role of BDSM in their relationship (in a discussion about BDSM) in just the same way that a person in an opposite-sex relationship could. Everyone's views are welcome. Discussions get moved to DH if they end up being primarily about some aspect of homosexuality, not simply because gay people join in the discussion with examples from their own life experience.
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:Er... does this mean I shouldn't post here, then?
Originally posted by George Spigot:
In order to stay on topic and avoid DH I propose we limit our discussion to married people and not mention homosexuality.
(Dang, there's been a lot of stuff on the Ship I've been missing out on...)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
And thank you, Robert! Sorry I have been away from the Ship for so long... ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif){kind=icon}
quote:Ah, but when people hear BDSM, they don't hear HKC (Hugging Kissing Cuddling), which is why I think a lot of people get squicked and the Wrong Idea.
Originally posted by ecumaniac:
quote:Oh, the hugging and the kissing is there. Trust me on this one
Originally posted by Midlands Chaucer:
I don't have a detailed knowledge about BDSM (!), however I will venture a reply:
....
If a sexual relationship is based on administering/receiving physical pain, ie, whipping, the affective and romantic elements seem to be missing. Where is the hugging and kissing?
quote:Define the submission of BDSM, then read my post again.
Originally posted by Garasu:
I thought the point of BDSM was that the participants don't find submission offensive?
quote:I agree - sometimes they are definitely pompous. But a dozen or two pompous sermons don't negate the truth of the Gospel, and a dozen or so pompous explanations by BDSM practitioners don't negate the value in it either.
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore:
The problem I have with BDSM is that it seems to rely to a great extent on what I would consider dubious pseudo-psychological explanations to justify itself. Sometimes these are as pompous as some of the sermons I've heard.
quote:I didn't ask for a general definition, I asked for a definition specific to the S of BDSM.
Originally posted by Garasu:
There's a general definition of submission as "to yield or surrender (oneself) to the will or authority of another".
quote:Oh well. Not to worry.
Originally posted by Garasu:
Well you're the one who said that it wasn't compatible with your complementarity thesis, so presumably you know it. I don't.
quote:Yeah, that's pretty much about what it means in terms of BDSM too.
Originally posted by Garasu:
There's a general definition of submission as "to yield or surrender (oneself) to the will or authority of another".
quote:I'm going to take you up on this one as well. What on earth do you have in mind as the DIFFERENT definition of 'submission' that applies in this context to any other?
Originally posted by daronmedway:
If people take their definition of submission from the S in BDSM then it's hardly surprising that they find complementarianism so offensive.
quote:Ah, that's helpful. But am I right in saying that BDSM can involve the conceptual pairing of domination with submission? I ask because the bible nevers pairs submission and domination in that way.
Originally posted by Snags:
Given that the S in BDSM is "Sado" not "submission" is this not something of a diversion? As others have said earlier, the B and D parts aren't necessarily problematic, and nor would the submission related to the domination be. The S and M, at face value, are more troublesome.
quote:It is? Are you sure? I thought it was submission. Could it be that submission is seen as the most common defination by people in the lifestle these day and Sado is a more archaic defination?
Originally posted by Snags:
Given that the S in BDSM is "Sado" not "submission"
quote:Well, yes, actually. Seeing as how people frequently fall to their knees in adoration of Christ.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
If you think that this is what the bible means by submission then you are right to reject it as abusive. Does this look like Christ and the church to you?
quote:Oh... Kaaay.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:Well, yes, actually. Seeing as how people frequently fall to their knees in adoration of Christ.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
If you think that this is what the bible means by submission then you are right to reject it as abusive. Does this look like Christ and the church to you?
quote:Only answer a rhetorical question if doing so will challenge the expectations of questioner.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Never ask a rhetorical question you don't actually know the answer to.
quote:Good point about Biblical submission.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
But am I right in saying that BDSM can involve the conceptual pairing of domination with submission? I ask because the bible nevers pairs submission and domination in that way.
quote:Think of BDSM as three different pairings, Bondage & Discipline, Dominance & Submission, and Sadism and Masochism. B/D, D/S & S/M. People may be interested in any part or all of the above and still consider themselves to be into BDSM.
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:It is? Are you sure? I thought it was submission. Could it be that submission is seen as the most common defination by people in the lifestle these day and Sado is a more archaic defination?
Originally posted by Snags:
Given that the S in BDSM is "Sado" not "submission"
quote:Unlike a certain group of Anglicans who seem to think that they can use "submission" in a wedding ceremony and expect everyone to accept a completely different definition from the ordinary meaning of that word!
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:I'm going to take you up on this one as well. What on earth do you have in mind as the DIFFERENT definition of 'submission' that applies in this context to any other?
Originally posted by daronmedway:
If people take their definition of submission from the S in BDSM then it's hardly surprising that they find complementarianism so offensive.
If BDSM practitioners weren't using the ordinary meaning of the word, they would have selected a different word that meant what they wanted.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
