Christian Domestic Discipline

I have always found this paradox very interesting and revelling. Religion has a long history of self-mortification, just look at Opus Dei and the use of the cilice, etc. Christian history is full of it. Certain Muslim sects are also renowned, I would guess most people have seen crowds of Sunni Muslims self flagellating themselves in a mass hysteria, or cutting themselves with swords.

Obviously anyone who does this is so wedded to dogma that they are barking mad.

An interesting question is thrown up by this paradox though. Why is someone who abuses for sexual pleasure, using the consent defence, any more legitimate than a religious person, using the same defence, who abuses as part of their devotions to god?

I find it amusing that sadists can rule that consensual violence in a religious setting the province of extremists, and yet the same violence in a sexual setting the province of the enlightened and progressive.

I believe both groups are equally totalitarian and it speaks volumes that they find themselves as such strange bedfellows, fighting desperately not to be associated with each other. They have far more in common with each other than they realise.

It’s really funny as well.

I believe both groups are equally totalitarian and it speaks volumes that they find themselves as such strange bedfellows, fighting desperately not to be associated with each other. They have far more in common with each other than they realise.

No, they don’t. The distinguishing factor is that BDSM practitioners, sadists and masochists alike, clearly advocate actions as part of consensual sexual interaction, whereas fundamentalist Christians, or Muslims or people of any religion call it God. The difference between the two is that God is absolutist, singular, monopolizing, monotheistic, etc., whereas sex is individual, diverse, multifarious, and personally empowering.

The fact of the matter is that sex and sexuality is the most threatening thing on this planet to ideas of gods and religious dogma. Why else do you think every monotheistic religion in the world is so obsessed with controlling people’s sexuality? These religions are not stupid, they are systematically built to undermine people’s sexuality because their creators understand sexuality’s danger to their religious dogma’s tight grip of control on the poor masses who follow it blindly.

Maymay, you may dislike the process that fundamentalists use consent to defend, but many people equally dislike the abuse that sadists use consent to defend.

You see, many of the crimes that you accuse fundamentalists of; absolutist, singular, monopolising, monotheistic, are exactly the components that empower sadists. What is a d/s relationship if it isn’t about some person feeding their narccistic supply by elevating themselves to a god like figure demanding the adoration of someone who has swallowed their dogma?

Of course its all ‘consensual’, but if the defence works for a sadists and their sexual empowerment, its hypocritical at the very least to rule that it doesn’t work for a fundamentalist in their adoration towards god.

The fact of the matter is, that both groups are wedded to a Dogma that wider society has little value for, are totalitarian in their approach, and both believe that theirs is the only truth.

This paradox cuts right to the heart of both belief systems. It shows that despite the mutual loathing that each has for the other, they both teach that their belief system is superior to others and that they are the guardians of some special truth only achievable through membership of the group.

You see much of what you accuse fundamentalists off, is exactly what sadism practices. Sadism is as fundamentalist as any god fearing sect, its object of adoration may be different, but the way it goes about promoting this belief is exactly the same process that fundamentalists use to address worrying contradictions that arise in their groups.

Belief in a sacred science, Intolerance of others opinions, Adherence to group think, Shunning anyone who dares to question the Dogma of the group

I ask again. Why your consent is any more legitimate then their consent? Answering that what you do is right and what they do is wrong is simply stating an opinion, not forming a coherent argument.