![Chains wrap a young man’s wrists as he holds his hands together, bowing his head.
I love the way the lighting in this photograph almost seems to drape itself over the model’s hands and the chain around his wrists. The limited view we get lends itself to many possible narratives. Psychoadept, who sent this picture in, had this to say about the image:
Hard to tell what the subject is wearing, but it’s not hard to imagine he could be in a religious setting, maybe even a young monk. And yet there’s nothing explicitly religious about it, and it makes me think about how many parallels there are between sexual submission and religious “submission,” right down to the control of sexual urges and sexual behavior.
As this picture suggests, constraints often foster creativity. Strict rules of meter inspired some of the world’s most powerful poetry, just as Twitter’s 140-character rule made it a breeding ground for innovation. In an ideal world, I’d only face restrictions (religious or otherwise) I chose to challenge myself with. But in the real world, influence is too often sought via imposition or intimidation, turning constraints that could be opportunities if you were to choose them for yourself into obstacles because they were chosen for you.
Equally horrifying, I think, is the hypocrisy spawned by self-righteous sanctimony. It’s amusing (to say the least) that devout Catholics appear to be the group most easily stimulated by Donna M. Hughes and Margaret Brooks to bandy baseless accusations of child molestation at me, especially when the media is afire with evidence of decades-long coverups by the Catholic Church of that exact crime. Just as the Catholic Church continues to conflate homosexuality with pedophilia, so-called prominent feminist Donna M. Hughes and Margaret Brooks are conflating speaking about sex with child sex trafficking.
As Thomas has suggested on numerous occasions, I think [Donna M. Hughes and Margaret Brooks are] not really interested in protecting children. I think they’re interested in shutting down the conferences and silencing kinksters. Is it any wonder, then, that those who try to impose their own sexual morality on others find such fertile ground for their disingenuous crusades among the religiously zealous?
Among all the parallels between sexual submission and religious “submission” is this one, as well: consent is moral, oppression is not.
-maymay](http://30.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l0wycxizmL1qzs83zo1_r10_500.jpg)
Chains wrap a young man’s wrists as he holds his hands together, bowing his head.
I love the way the lighting in this photograph almost seems to drape itself over the model’s hands and the chain around his wrists. The limited view we get lends itself to many possible narratives. Psychoadept, who sent this picture in, had this to say about the image:
Hard to tell what the subject is wearing, but it’s not hard to imagine he could be in a religious setting, maybe even a young monk. And yet there’s nothing explicitly religious about it, and it makes me think about how many parallels there are between sexual submission and religious “submission,” right down to the control of sexual urges and sexual behavior.
As this picture suggests, constraints often foster creativity. Strict rules of meter inspired some of the world’s most powerful poetry, just as Twitter’s 140-character rule made it a breeding ground for innovation. In an ideal world, I’d only face restrictions (religious or otherwise) I chose to challenge myself with. But in the real world, influence is too often sought via imposition or intimidation, turning constraints that could be opportunities if you were to choose them for yourself into obstacles because they were chosen for you.
Equally horrifying, I think, is the hypocrisy spawned by self-righteous sanctimony. It’s amusing (to say the least) that devout Catholics appear to be the group most easily stimulated by Donna M. Hughes and Margaret Brooks to bandy baseless accusations of child molestation at me, especially when the media is afire with evidence of decades-long coverups by the Catholic Church of that exact crime. Just as the Catholic Church continues to conflate homosexuality with pedophilia, so-called prominent feminist
Donna M. Hughes and Margaret Brooks are conflating speaking about sex with child sex trafficking.
As Thomas has suggested on numerous occasions, I think [Donna M. Hughes and Margaret Brooks are] not really interested in protecting children. I think they’re interested in shutting down the conferences and silencing kinksters.
Is it any wonder, then, that those who try to impose their own sexual morality on others find such fertile ground for their disingenuous crusades among the religiously zealous?
Among all the parallels between sexual submission and religious “submission” is this one, as well: consent is moral, oppression is not.