|
xssve -> RE: Is collaring disappearing? (9/21/2012 10:37:15 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Spiritedsub2
quote:
ORIGINAL: twonearvancouver
quote:
ORIGINAL: marsneedswomen
Collaring ceremonies were once a strong presence in bdsm community, but I am getting the sense that the ceremonial collaring of submissives by dominants seems to be occurring less frequently if at all. Does anyone else notice a decline or is it just not being discussed?
mnw
I see marriage as a failure of a relationship to develop properly and a sign the people involved shouldn't be together, so perhaps my opinion isn't exactly commonplace.
This was an arresting statement; would love to have you explain why.
I think he's making a distinction between external controls and genuine commitment, and I'm not sure I disagree entirely - i.e., marriage is on on side, and external display of commitment, you're telling everybody you're committed, you'r eoff the market, you're gonna make a life with this person, and on the other, something you're supposed to do, like a obligation to the community, whether it's church or whatever, i.e., it's a commitment to an institution, rather than another person.
Like when the right talks about "family values" and "traditional marriage", w/respect to same sex marriage, it's not marriage per se they're defending, on the contrary, they're trying to actually break up and nullify existing marriages, it's the institution of marriage they seem to think is jeopardy, and when a thing gets institutionalized like that it loses something of it's uniqueness, it becomes commodified and devalued, because it's no longer about how two people feel about each other, it's become a ritual demanded of the community - possibly why Baptists have the highest divorce rates, and atheists the lowest, Baptists presumably are getting married for all the wrong reasons, and then discovering it's not as easy as it looks or it's made out to be, and bailing when it gets hard.
A personal commitment is in some sense, saying you're gonna stick it out however hard it gets, and the language in the traditional marriage formula reflects this, in sickness and in health, etc., but for the most part those are empty words anymore, and conservatives tend to blame that on liberal divorce laws, but I think it's just as much a side effect of hijacking the whole thing into an institutional value.
Real traditional marriage, was as I described: it's an announcement that you're off the market, and no more complicated than jumping over a broomstick Three times or something, marriage contracts had more to do with inheritance and alliances between wealthy families, the whole middle class is basically an 18th century invention, and institutional marriage a middle class institution - prior to that there was mainly the aristocracy and everybody else, although there are antecedents to the middle class, the burghers, tradesmen, etc.
Anyway, just trying to make the distinction I think, between the commitment you make to another human being and a commitment you make to some third party, a community of some kind, be it a church or whatever, and the institutions thereof.
Funny, it occurred to me yesterday that a collaring ceremony is the opposite of a traditional proposal, in which the man gets down on his knee and asks the woman to marry him - instead, he grabs a handful of hair and forces her to her knees and tells her, "you're my bitch now", lol.
|
|
|
|
