‘Belts; Bible and BDSM’ is part of the series
on sexuality and religion
Belts; Bible
and BDSM: a plea for God in the Dungeon
We all know
how helpful belts can - literally - be to keep good things, like your pants, up.
But also in a more figurative sense; they is something to belts that is
striking.
Take for
example the term ‚Bible Belt’. This is stands informally for a region in the
south-eastern and south-central United
States Easton
For our
sake we can describe sex negativism as the idea that there is something wrong
with our sexuality as the result of the ‘Fall into Sin’; even to the extent
that sex is mostly seen as sinful or connected with sin. This also goes vice
versa; just consider a phrase like ‘living in sin’.
As a
consequence, current sexual praxis that does not reflect the customs as they
were four thousand years ago, are being rejected as morally wrong, perverse or
both.
Well, even
in BDSM circles, some sexual praxis is being questioned, so yeah, perhaps there
is such a thing as wrong kind of sex, but the same goes for politics, scientific
theories or, indeed, theology: it is not all gold that shines. We carry many beliefs over our lifetime, but we soon discover that not all our beliefs can be upheld; we change.
However, the
idea that sex-negativism is actuality that what the Bible teaches is itself an
example of such false belief. Elsewhere and also likely in this blog, I have
and will argue that this idea is not the only option that is available. Nevertheless
it the concept of ‘wrong sex’ is strangely enough equally welcomed by most
within the ‘Bible Belt’ and by some that rather prefer to use the ‘belt’ for
something ‘unbiblical’, like marking the back of your lover.
It seems this
contrast in positions does constitute a polar dualism that gives energy to both
sides for condemning the other; the more wrong the other is, the more right you
are. Either you condemn those who do what you cannot do yourself, even when you - secretly - wish so (Bible Belts), or it is about condemning those who forbid you to do
what you wish, condemning them hard, as you feel hurt by their rejection (BDMS
Belts).
Yet, during
his way towards an integrated BDSM, Sir Cameron soon recognized, that as any
act, also kinky sexual acts have a facet which we can describe as the moral
sphere. Not for nothing have the pioneers of BDSM-theory hammered on moral
issues, clothed in now well known phrases like ‘consensual kink’ or ‘safe, sane
and sound’. We all realize, that in order to feel good about what we do, we
need to reflect on our morality. When we do so - despite living in a post-Christian
culture – we soon find out that many our ideas about ethics are historically rooted in precisely those texts
that are used to condemn kink or the rejection of this.
Sir Cameron
takes a different stance and there is a simple reason for that: I believe that
taking what a tradition claims to be the meaning of a text for the one and only
possible meaning is a gross mistake. For the first 150 years or so, there were
many different Gospels in Christianity (up to thirty); there was no biblical
canon and no agreement on what represented the Truth . To conclude from this
that we can then come away from Christianity and say, “It’s so full of
contradictions that we cannot trust it”, seems to over do it a little.
Now, I am
certainly not arguing we should trust tradition unconditionally, or regard it
as harmless – which fundamentalism obviously is not - but we have to see the
past in its own context. Critically spoken, this means that unless we have very
compelling arguments for claiming an indisputable Truth derived from old texts,
we better simply acknowledge that we cannot be sure about what Jesus said and what
tradition claims to be his words. We have no historical records. We have copies
and translations of copies; albeit in good quantities.
We, as
BDSM-theorists, stand in the same tradition as conservative theologians and I
see no convincing reason why we should not use our past and the development of
our culture as a source of inspiration that we can and might use for theorizing
on the many coloured sides of BDMS, both theoretically as practical.
It is not a
matter of legitimisation - as the authority of the Church is also a presumed
one - but rather a question of interpretation. We have the same right to
reflect on our culture and past as any other person; no exception when it comes
to ‘Holy Scriptures’.
If there is
Truth to be found in it, there is nothing to fear. Truth - however vague this notion
might seem - does allow you to seek and find it, as long as you remain true
both to the Truth and to yourself. In this sense there is no real problem in
asking what the Bible could mean for you. If you only can understand the Bible
as sex-negative, you will find condemnation, if you are open for other
interpretations, it might actually be of help: not only in understanding our own past
or our current ideas, but also in dealing with difficulties we meet in our
contacts with people that adhere to certain dogmas.
Particularly
within the BDSM community, we are aware that only by accepting others as they
are, is the first step to understanding them. Even when we personally do not
grasp the point, we still can learn a lot from each other.
We do not
have to go far to see, how those that are in bondage within the Bible Belt do
suffer under their own teachings. They are facing the same or similar urges in
themselves as we do. They try to find a different solution, that works for them
or not. We also see that there is a lot of false superiority. When we simply
belief in our own convictions and experiences, we do know the whole issue is a
matter of how you see yourself function in the world, with all its ethical and
religious diversity.
Coming from
a conservative tradition myself, I can tell all of you, that there are many
happy people, kind people too, they really can be exemplary and do to a certain
extent show nice qualities, like being wise, generous, loving, caring and forgiving. But these are not virtues
that can be exclusively claimed by a particular group or religion; we all can be like that,
if we see the necessity of it and have learned how to do it.
Certainly,
not all inside the leather scene will feel equally attracted to the approach I
take here, nor should they. As long as the sincere wish to understand oneself
out of a religious tradition is acknowledged. Many of us do that, as many religions offer ways of
deepening our own experience. All should this not be understood as claiming
that all religions say one and the same thing. They do not; instead they
provide different answers to similar questions. Not the answers are universal,
but rather the questions for as far as they are true human questions in which
we try to find an understanding of our selves and the world we live in.
We own
ourselves, and we are free to choose how we wish to explain the world as we
experience it. Taking a look at our thoughts, reflect on it and be open to how
others see the same things differently is not a weakness, but rather a way to
find out more about the world as it is too. Only together we are humanity; an isolated individual view is only one of the many.
We may be
ourselves, we should be ourselves, but we may also be with others, as opposites
or as close allies, as long as we not forget that the world itself is larger
and stranger as just the few of us.
Next time, we will look at the Goddess. Please
come back and rate me +1.
Sir Cameron
No comments:
Post a Comment