I read the blog yesterday of a guy who calls himself a “dom”, on which there was a recent post by Allie, a woman who allows herself to be abused by him.

After work, she quickly entered a shop to buy a magazine. He found out about it. For that reason, she was, and is still, painfully punished. I would not go into the sexually explicit details of humiliation and punishment, but it is clear from her writings that she has a terrible self-image (she calls herself i, not I), cried of both pain and frustration today, and she is getting more and more disconnected from her feelings. (“Don’t ask me how i feel. He decides what i feel.”)

She claims she begged him to take charge of her.

Now don’t get me wrong. I believe there are “submissive” people in the world with a healthy self-esteem; who play rough but know that they are valued and valuable and not just an object; who can and do make many decisions of all sorts most of the time, but like time off when they leave decisions to the dominant partner; who still have several healthy human relationships. What they do in the bedroom is their business. But this woman is not one of them.

She may have started out saying something like:

I am a consensual adult. I choose to play rough.

But now she says:

 I i am a consensual adult an object. I i feel can’t say how i feel. I choose to play rough. He chooses for me.

This is not consensual. Whatever words the supporters want to coax it in, she went so far down the road that she, in her own words, is not a consensual adult any more. Her mental health is such that she needs protection. Exploiting a woman like that should fall in the same category as sexually abusing a child, or a mentally handicapped person. There ought to be a law against it.

By the way, the mental health article I link to also mention “learned helplessness” as a factor that can compromise mental and emotional health.

People like Allie (apparently an intelligent woman, by the way she can verbalize her thoughts on the internet) are mentally ill to a level that need intervention. And someone who would exploit someone so clearly not accountable for her own actions, and break her down further, deserves jail time. The same way that there are laws against sexually using the seriously mentally handicapped, women like this need that past consent to some lifestyles should not count, when you no longer are allowed to have a say. Perhaps this should, like child abuse is in some countries, a mandatory reporting crime for those who know about it?

———–

PS: Comments that link to BDSM or DD sites will not be published. On this site, I am the “dom”, and your comments are submitted to me.

(After the Seafarer comment, small edits were made to emphasize that this should not be regarded as consensual.)

Who is right? Both are, probably. The statement “you cannot be good without God” does not mean what the atheist, or non-atheistic member of the public, think it does.

Philosophers ask: Can people be (objectively) good without (the existence of) God?

The atheist answer: People can be good (according to society’s majority opinion of good) without (believing in) God.

The atheist gives a red herring answer: “Without God” and “without believing in God” are not synonymous.

The real question, for better minds than mine, is: “If no higher being exists, is their anything/ anyone that can objectively be called good? Or would that mean the sadist’s subjective standards of good is as valid as the standards of the philantrophist, because no arbiter higher than the sadist and philantrophist can say which standard is right?”

You cannot answer that one by being a respectable atheist. But then, the atheist who understands the question don’t have to feel offended. This is no more a slur on the atheist than on the believer: If no higher being exist (so say this idea), neither the (falsely believing) religious nor the atheists can be objectively good.

In Arkansas, Ohio and Rhode Island, boys can sleep around at a younger age than they can marry, even with parental permission for the marriage. In Indiana and Washington , both genders can sleep around at a younger age than they can marry, even with parental permission.

Is there something wrong when a society claim teens could be old enough to sleep around, but not yet old enough to decide to make a responsible long-term commitment? Or would there something worse about a society that claim teens could be old enough for long-term commitment, but not old enough to choose sleeping around without commitment?

All jokes aside, if you like the posts on topics like gender equality or patriarchy on this blog, please drop in at my new one, which is now open. (Posts that were copied to Biblical Personhood will soon be deleted from this one.)

I got more half-finished posts on this than will ever be worth finishing. My new blog, which will be solely about these themes, will be up as soon as I succeed in importing posts from this blog to that one. When the Biblical Personhood blog is up, you will be invited. Meanwhile, I am praying that God will use my words, and that I will not mislead in what I blog.

Some atheists told me that atheism is good for society and that the world’s most atheistic societies are also the healthiest. And that they get their views from a guy by the surname of Zuckerman. I saw right out that the Zuckerman numbers simply cannot be used to support what they say, and I assumed Zuckerman was very wrong.

And I made two blog post showing that what these atheists claim simply cannot be supported from the numbers, even those Zuckerman use. My boo-boo was to believe that Zuckerman indeed say everything that atheist/humanist blog commenters claim he does.

Today a commenter on this blog, Ianam, presumably an atheist or humanist, convinced me that Zuckerman’s views are more nuanced than I give him credit for. (Ianam also implied some slanderous nonsense on another topic – what Good News Clubs teach- that I know not to be true. I have the official certificate and experience to prove my knowledge of Good News clubs, but that is another story.) This led me to make blog changes and send him this e-mail, so Ianam know that I am trying to improve on my mistakes:

Hi, Ianam

You posted on my blog today.

You will notice that I set my two Zuckerman posts from published to draft, so readers here can no longer see them. You convinced me that I misrepresented Zuckerman. You see, I always heard of him from atheists who indeed made the claims represented here.

But if those claims are not Zuckerman’s, but only that of his fans, then my posts are indeed up for major revision. The numerous misrepresentations of Internet atheists who quote Zuckerman need to be showed to be wrong, but I have no right to blame Zuckerman for what his fans say.

This happens time and again when I trust Internet atheists- they end up lying, and then I lie when I believe and quote them.

Retha

PS: I hope you were honest about your e-mail address, and this e-mail goes through.

Guess what? The e-mail did not go through…

Should this remind me about anything regarding Internet unbelievers?

This post have been moved to: http://biblicalpersonhood.wordpress.com/2011/03/27/how-not-to-win-the-culture-war-for-christ/