Printable View
not that much of a generalization- the difference being career vs. job. My grandmother began her career after having to get a job in the factory whilst her husband and all his brothers were at war. It was the reality of the times.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorne
nods head in agreement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorne
Yes, i do. Simply because i chose to submit to someone, and retain the right to get out of my submission again if i want (and if i am able) to.Quote:
Do you see the D/s lifestyle having more freedom and respect for the woman than these scriptures?
For me, littlepet has summed it up rather nicely.
I agree. The notion that if someone believes something, everyone else has to believe it, is something I just cant comprehend. You may preach to me (in a friendly and respectful manner), you should practice what you preach (if you want me to respect you)...but this need human beings have when someone doesn't live according to their "values" that their natural impulse is to convert with force, and if that doesn't work to kill. Never mind that "values" they preach usually include manifests against violence and bloodshed, and how they fail to see the hypocrisy of it...:confused:.Quote:
Originally Posted by denuseri
This is an extract (click on it for a link to original) from one of my favourite blogs, I share her sentiments:
"So much mistrust, hate fueling hate, revenge begetting another bloody round of revenge… Where does this all end?
Religion is a very personal matter, it belongs in our minds and in our families and homes, at most. How can we fight and kill each other over something so personal and subjective? Would you kill me if I said my husband was the best husband in the world? Would you mistrust me only because I did not marry yours? Sounds ridiculous, doesn’t it? I am sorry, but I find the other argument just as ridiculous too.
I am Hindu and I’d like to tell the so-called saviors of my Hindu pride, I don’t really care about rebuilding a temple that may or may not have been destroyed so many years ago if it is to happen at the cost of communal peace. And I have no interest in reclaiming the so-called lost honor of my religion. I never thought it was lost in the first place. I am very proud of my religion and would have been prouder still if you had never entered the picture.
Having said that, I am also least interested in establishing the supremacy of my religion over others. I am quite okay if you consider your religion superior to mine. Maybe it really is, who knows! I respect all religions equally, I truly do. I find as much peace of mind in a church as in a temple. I bow my head in reverence each time I pass a mosque. And I have Muslim friends who I am sure would like to say something similar to the terrorists supposedly waging war on their behalf.
So let me ask you both, fanatic Hindus and Muslims, do you care about the thousands of innocent lives being lost in this farce, lives of the very people whom you claim to protect and later avenge? Did they volunteer to be sacrificed in your war? Men, women and children, the bombs did not distinguish between Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs and Christians - simple folks like yours and mine out for some Saturday evening fun with the family."
While there may be some spirituality in it (as in any close relationship), I don't think bdsm has anything to do with religion. I am submissive and a woman; I am not submissive because I am a woman. For me its an entirely matter of sexual eroticism...but I can see how easily the confusion can be made...it is in human nature to seek high purpose and in no other matter is the purpose higher and D/s dynamic clearer than in religion.
For me what it comes down to, is choice. It horrorfies me when I see matters of private choice made into a law. If it were a free (meaning, no implied threats) choice of each woman individually to wear Abaya, I have no problem with that- but as long as its law, its never a free choice. I could be wrong, but based on what I have read, its not even something thats written in Qur'an, but a social norm made up by (weak) men.
I subscribe to Unitarian Universalism, its a faith that comes naturally to me...so I find studying Islam fascinating. I even tried googling Islam and bdsm, but nothing of substance came up?
This to me is true Islam, (not something I am looking to convert to), but its the interpretation I have no problem with and respect very much:
"The rights of husband and wife
Q). Different problems arise in different marriages, I should be grateful if you would kindly comment on the rights and duties of a husband and wife when the following problems arise.
1. If the wife is disobedient in both domestic and religious matters.
2. If she misuses the money given to her by her husband and gives it to her relations although they may be rich.
3. If she refuses to move to her husband’s home, where he wishes to live permanently.
4. If she passes offensive remarks against her husband, claiming that she is only joking.
5. If she refuses to resign from her employment.
6. If she refuses to give their child the name her husband wants to give him
7. Is a husband within his rights to talk to his friends about his wife?
(Name and address withheld)
1. Islam views marriage as a relationship, which brings two persons together in frieand compassion. Problems and quarrels arise in almost every marriage. Rare indeed is a marriage, which is free of them. It is when such problems and differences arise that compassion, consideration and affection are most needed in order to overcome the difficulty, reconcile the partners and ensure the safety of the marriage and the family, and above all to safeguard the interests of the children. It is important, therefore, to make the rights and limits of each of the two partners absolutely clear in order to reduce the effects of these problems to the minimum. It is also important that authority in the family should be well defined. Islam gives that authority to the husband, on the basis that it is he who earns the money and is required to look after his wife and children. Islam, however, does not neglect the other half of the marriage, namely, the wife. It ensures that the wife is treated with respect and honor and makes it clear that she is entitled to exercise her rights, which are commensurate with her duties. The prophet says:” The best among you is the best in his treatment of his household, and I am the best of you in my treatment of my household” The prophet was not boasting about his treatment of his wives when he said so. Far is it from him to boast about anything he does. The prophet said that only because he is the example Allah expects us to follow. When we know that he has extended to his wives the best treatment a woman can dream of, then by following his example, we are practicing our religion, earning reward from Allah and ensuring our own happiness.
Having said that, I realize that not all marriages can be happy. Some of them are stormy, and some always suffer form the incompatibility of the personalities of both partners. Problems which in the beginning may be small are soon compounded and family life becomes a continuous misery. In order to solve problems of the type mentioned in the reader’s letter, it is important to know what are the rights and the duties of each in every situation. Taking these cases one by one, let us consider the Islamic answer to them.
1. It is the duty of a wife to obey her husband in all matters which affect the family, provided that his wishes and what he tells her to do does not contravene any Islamic law or regulation. Having said that, I should perhaps add that life in the family should not be treated as life in a military camp, with orders issued morning and evening and differences of opinion treated as disobedience leading to mutiny. If the husband, however, expresses a certain wish or expects something from his wife which he makes clearly understood, then his wife should endeavor to fulfill that as long as it does not badly affect her or their family and it does not constitute a disobedience of Allah. The Prophet says: ”No creature may be obeyed in what constitutes disobedience to Allah.” If the wife is habitually disobedient in ordinary matters, her husband should counsel her that her attitude is bound to leave adverse effects on both of them and their children. The Qur’an speaks of three different stages of dealing with such disobedience. Allah states in the Qur’an: As those women whose rebellion you have reason to fear, admonish them first: then leave them alone in bed: then beat them(lightly): and if they subsequently pay you heed, do not seek to harm them. Allah is indeed most high, great. (4:34) It must be clearly understood that the physical punishment mentioned in verse is treated as the last resort and it must not be severe or on the woman’s face. It should be viewed only as a corrective measure, which is not used except in extreme cases. Admonition and staying away from bed must be tried first. As for the disobedience in religious matters, the Qur’an advises us Bid your family to pray, and be patient with them. This divine instruction may be carried over so as to include all religious duties. One has to tell his wife and members of his family to attend to their religious duties and treat them wisely so as to encourage them to fulfill those duties. He should explain to them their duties toward Allah, quoting always from the Qur’anic verse implying clear instruction that he or she should do something, he is far more likely to comply than when the instruction is given in the words of human being.
2. The prophet makes clear that woman should not spend her husband’s money without his consent, not even for charity. This is because it is normally the husband who earns the money. Hence, he should have the final say in how it is spent. The prophet says: ”No woman may spend something from her husband’s house without his permission.” The prophet was asked: ”Not even food” He said: that is the best of our money.” It is, however, permissible for a woman to give away perishable food if she fears that it will perish if kept, and her family does not need it. She need not wait for her husband to give his permission in that particular case. If a woman nevertheless spends some money, which belongs to her husband for a charitable purpose, he earns the reward for it and she incurs the blame for spending it without having his consent first.
3. If her husband’s home is adequate for the family and meets all the requirements of a home, then it is her duty to move to it if her husband asks her to do so. If she does not, she is considered rebellious and she forfeits her right to financial support by her husband.
4. This attitude cannot be condoned at all. It is indeed forbidden. The prophet was asked: “who has the greatest claim over a woman?” He answered: “Her Husband” He was then asked: “who has the greatest claim over a man?” He answered “His mother.” In view of this hadith, passing offensive remarks to the person who has the greatest claim to a woman’s respect and good treatment is the direct opposite of her duty.
5. The normal situation is that the husband works in order to earn his living and support his family. A woman is not supposed to work because she does not need to do so. A recent ruling by an Egyptian court, however, states that if a man marries a woman when she is employed or having a regular job, and he agrees to her continued working, then he has no right to prevent her from continuing with her work. If he, nevertheless, asks her to quit her job and she disobeys, then her disobedience is not considered rebellion in the technical sense which makes her forfeit her right to be supported. This ruling is based on the assumption that her husband's agreement to her work at the time of their marriage is deemed to be one of the conditions of the marriage. The prophet says: “Believers, abide by whatever conditions they accept.”
6. Ii is the right of the husband to give his children their names. Here again mutual agreement promotes good and healthy atmosphere in the family. This should never be an issue of contention in any family.
7. It is not appropriate from the Islamic point of view to speak to other people about one’s wife. It is permissible, however to seek advice from people of wise judgement or to seek good counsel. If it is for that purpose that one speaks about his wife to others, then he must always remember that he should not speak ill of her, so that they form a bad opinion of her. What he says about her should never be tantamount to backbiting her. He should remember that she also has a right over him to protect her and to make others hold her in good esteem. He should never say a word of untruth about her."
Smiles! a very strong statement jeanne..."My sexuality comes from God - He made me this way. If I don't honor myself, including my sexuality...". I hope every one takes it in the right way...that you meant...
Child abusers, serial killers or all those who believe in "might is right" may consider themselves gifted too...so if they try to get away from it, it would not mean they are dishonoring.....(And yes, 'No', I do not see direct relation between christianity and BDMS (personal opinion!)
I just saw this - and you got me thinking! Always a good thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by awakening2
In reading through this thread again, I find a sort of consensus (I think) that in our daily lives we have a duty to not harm others. When I state that my sexuality is how God made me, I do believe it. But, the expression of my sexuality is where choice comes in. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that my sexuality included pedophilia. Could I then say to myself "this is how God made me, therefore expressing it by having sexual relations with children is okay"? Well, I suppose I could. But, then I run into the idea of harming others. Suppose again that I have the intelligence and will to recognize that the expression of 'me' is not okay when I harm those who are unable to give consent, whether by age or mental defect. What do I do then? I find a way to satisfy that need, perhaps through role-play with other adults, or I suppress that need and turn my attentions another direction.
I think we have an obligation - not from God or any other diety but simply as human beings, thinking, breathing, living - to care for each other. To accept the fact that although we each have needs and desires and a fundamental 'self', we must find a way to live our authentic selves in harmony with other human beings.
Gosh. I'm exhausted. :rolleyes:
Jeanne, all I can say now is that if I were wearing a hat, by now I would have been on one knee, in front of you, taking it off my head acknowledging respectfully the considerate genius in you!
Now you get to acknowledge the blushing fool who can't believe you said that. I'm incredibly flattered - thank you.Quote:
Originally Posted by awakening2
:wave:
That speaks of your humble nature, which I call "noble", to thank the thanking who thanked because of your virtue...I consider that nobleness, your answer was really beautiful...!
Looking at the picture (and surprisingly missed this thing before...), I do wonder about the ankle straps, if they are for self-restraints...or what...?Some of the 'wanna be saints' in the past used to place them on their ownself to pass through the terrain leading to enlightenment...though there also were the ones who were made to wear (slaves)...wonder who you are and what you seek... but TY and yes my...
Regards anyway!
Hmmm. The ankle cuffs belong to my Dom and I wear them (and the wrist cuffs) always when we are together privately. They are simply a symbol, and in some ways a path to submission for me. He puts them on me as soon as possible when we see each other, because He knows that my mental and emotional attitude will immediately become focused on His pleasure by the wearing of them. Who am I? His. I am His.Quote:
Originally Posted by awakening2
Smiles, will always wish you the best for you!!!
You make a very intriguing point. It can be applicable to the BDSM lifestyle (which is actually quite interesting!)
It is true that St. Paul believed that womyn should be subservient to men, as stated in his letter to the Ephesians. Though, to my knowledge, it also extends to men. In it he proclaims that man's sins blacken their wives souls as much as their own, because they were one body, person, and soul after holly matrimony. God may be sexist, but the bible also has domination-female themes. Such as Lilith, Adam's first wife. She decided to choose her own destiny and chose NOT to be subservient to Adam. Which is a statement practically saying that womyn can choose their own destiny.
BDSM at least gives people a choice whether to submit, much better than I can say about religions that stem from Catholicism.
So I believe that bible or not we all can create our own destinies. Whether it be to rebel, such as Lilith, or to submit such as Eve (though technically she rebelled in a way.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mishka
I think that Paul took the theories behind the relationship dynamic to a much more sexist level than was necessary or even intended. Here is why I think this. Paul discusses how women should be silent in church. He even says that if a woman has a question, she shouldn't even ASK there. Instead, she is to wait until she is at home with her husband and then ask him. I don't believe that God and Paul share this same thought. There are many examples of women leaders throughout the Bible...women leading communities, churches, the first Minister of Music was a woman (Miriam...Moses' sister), and one of the Judges was a woman--Deborah, I think. Obviously it isn't such a big deal to God. Why is it to Paul? Well, first of all, we have to remember that Paul was Saul before he changed his name. And Saul was very highly esteemed in his Jewish community. He was one of the Pharisees; he knew the law perfectly...he was in charge, and he had a lot of status/power. Couple this with the culture of that time, which basically said women were property, and it isn't too hard to figure out that Paul (though he had some good ideas and understood many things very well) missed the boat on this one. So the fact that God puts women in positions of power in church while Paul says women shouldn't speak in church tells me that Paul was just wrong. Good intentions, but wrong.
It is true that the church believes Jesus is the Messiah, but when the Bible says that "he should love her as Christ loves the church," that isn't what it means. The Bible says on multiple occasions that there is only one God, that a man cannot serve two masters (which in my opinion refers to the two masters being on the same level; it is possible to have two masters, as long as one master is the ultimate master and above the lesser master). So when it says "as Christ loves the church," it means unconditionally and even to death. Christ died for the church even when He didn't do anything wrong. He suffered out of love. That's what it means. A wife is not supposed to worship her husband--this is not a command for her but for him. He is to love her so much that even if she's wrong he will take the fall for her out of love...it means there should be no limit to the sacrifices he will make for her good.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mishka
I believe it is. But I don't believe women are commanded to be submissives per se. My belief is gray: Women should be submissive to their husbands in the sense that they should have respect for them. To me, it is no different than the respect husbands should have for their wives; the difference is in the way the respect is shown. I think the main point here isn't WHO is submissive but just that you can't have a peaceful home if everybody wants to be the boss. I think that instead of explaining in detail how it doesn't really matter which person in the couple prefers to be Dominant and which prefers to be submissive, it was just easier to say women should submit. But then again, I don't know if there would have been riots if it were worded in any other way...because back then, women had no rights at all. Submitting wasn't really a choice like it is now. And really, (some people will disagree) God isn't that petty. Honestly, do you think that He's spending time brooding over which one of you is Dominant and which one is submissive? He doesn't care. I really believe it's just not that big of a deal. I think that all of these guidelines were written the way they were becauseQuote:
Originally Posted by Mishka
1)They reflected the culture of that time and
2)The goal is the big picture--peace in the home.
Could you imagine if you lived back then, and you decided you wanted to be the Dominant while your husband would be submissive? I think it's a safe bet that a statement like that would not exactly foster tranquility in your house.
Bottom Line: The Bible clearly states that both people in a couple are to respect and honor one another. It instructs men to not be harsh (because they have a tendency to be) and women to call their husbands 'Lord' (or Master, because it is a sign of respect). So, as long as love is present on both sides. It doesn't matter which person is playing which role. Just because you're a woman doesn't necessarily mean you're stuck in the 'wife' role and vice versa. If God is so petty that it TRULY bothers Him whether or not it's me or my husband who is the Dominant one in the relationship, then I guess I would probably need to re-evaluate the validity of God's promise that "I know the plans I have for you...plans to prosper you and not to harm you..." Really? So if I'm female and I want to be the Dominant, and if God made me and created me to have a natural urge to Dominate, then the only way that would NOT harm me is if God has no problem with me being a Dominant.
If anyone is interested, there is a book titled Unchristian by David Kinnaman and Gabe Lyons. This is basically just a compilation of statistics about people's opinions concerning those who call themselves Christians. It's extremely interesting and empirical. They do not discuss their personal views much...it's just data from research, which I appreciate.Quote:
Originally Posted by TomOfSweden
I absolutely hate it when Bible-thumpers twist what the Bible really says and makes up things that don't exist just so they can control people. Now I'm Christian, and I believe the Bible. But to me a Bible-thumper is the kind of person who thinks they are closer to God than anyone else; usually those people are the FURTHEST away, which is why Jesus always had tongue-lashings to hand out to the Pharisees. Just makes me sick.Quote:
Originally Posted by isabeau6
As for the organized religion bit, my husband is a Minister of Music. So I have the 'privilege' :rolleyes: of seeing how church is run behind the scenes. If you want to find the meanest, most evil, controlling, manipulative, and deceptive people in your community, the local church may be your best bet. It's sad to say, but it's true. Organized religion is worthless and harmful; all it does is set people apart from each other (while people should be unified in love) and twist the truth. Organized religion seems to work much more against faith than it does for it...that's really sad.
Ephesians 5;25
All these posts about obedient women. How many of you men measure up.
Ah, yes. "5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;"Quote:
Originally Posted by Canyon
This would be the church that wasn't even founded until years after Christ's death? Kinda hard to love something that didn't exist yet.
But, in answer to your question, I have loved my wife for almost 38 years now. And it didn't take a single Bible quotation to do it, either.