Slavery -- More Questions

Sara, in commenting on the post I wrote on slavery, asked the following question --

at the risk of being a complete irritant to you...I have another question. I could say much of the same as you have above, if you substituted 'wife' for 'slave'. How/why is the term 'slave' more appropriate than wife/lover, or sub, if it is in the context of a P.E. relationship? Is there something very different in the experience? I assume that he is not expected to take your wants into account, only his own, and yet that is not true, because he does, and you have chosen that sort of man. Just asking...?

To begin with, Sara, let me just say that questions posed like this are in no way irritating. I am happy to engage in this sort of dialog with anyone who, as you so clearly seem to, sincerely wants to understand the things that I write about. There is never any need to apologize for asking questions in this sort of tone -- honest curiosity is more than welcome here.


I also sincerely appreciate the thoughtfulness that has been part of the dialog that you have engaged in with me. I am most grateful for the pace of your conversation with me. There is a slow, pondering, steadiness to this conversation that I like. It takes out the kind of heated, knee-jerkiness that so often characterizes exchanges in cyberspace. It feels to me like there is enough time for me to really consider and contemplate what I want to say without needing to respond immediately. This little bit of discussion is happening at a speed that is comfortable for me, and I am glad for that.

I think there is way too much to this discussion for me to be able to respond reasonably to your question in the context of a comment, so I hope you won't mind if I turn my response to you into a full blown post...


I believe that what is central to your question, Sara, is this: is there really anything significantly different in what I do, and call "slavery," and what any devoted, loving, and dedicated, wife might do for a husband?

It is a fair question. After all, much of what I do is indistinguishable from what might go on in any reasonably well ordered housewife's routine. I cook, I clean, I manage the laundry, I pay the bills, I keep track of the prescriptions, I participate in the family "events," I rub His back, I darn His socks, ... There is certainly nothing that hints of leather or chains in any of that. It could go on in the house next door. It is perfectly mundane. In every discernible respect, what I do, day by day, looks exactly like what any "wife/lover" might do.


So, why the use of a term that is provacative as "slave" surely is? What is it about the experience or the reality that makes it valid or valuable to distinguish my status and dynamic from that of any other domestic living arrangement with a label that is so heavily laden?

For me, it feels appropriate to use the word "slave" precisely because it is descriptive of what cannot be seen. The parts of my life that seem mundane are deceptive. Like the still, quiet surface of very, very deep waters, there is much that is not evident in the day to day routines, and seeming ordinariness that is apparent to the casual observer. I am not His wife. Even if I were His wife, even if I were to be "allowed" to become His wife in this society, I would remain His slave, and that entails an entirely different set of expectations than the husband/wife relationship.


It is difficult to try and explain that to people who don't almost "intuitively" understand it. It would have been nearly impossible to explain it to me before I experienced it -- even as I read about it during the earliest days of my explorations into this lifestyle. It has almost nothing to do with the overheated "fantasy" stuff of much of the BDSM "literature" -- that lurid sort of writing that is so easy to tumble over online and in porn shops.

I never intended or "meant" to end up being anyone's slave. I started out creating a Domestic Discipline relationship with my husband of many years (very much as you and Grant did), and in the beginning, we experienced many of the same benefits and surprisingly positive changes that you write about in your blog. In fact, if I go back to the archives of 1Domestic Discipline and 1Household Discipline, I can find things that I wrote there in the beginnings of my DD "life" that echo your words almost exactly. Slavery, as I experience it, was something that came to be a part of the experience that was true of what Master and I shared as we "grew into" our relationship with one another. Part of what I think makes it "different" from being "wife" or "lover" is that I might be described by some of those terms too (in some contexts), but that does not change or impact upon the reality of the Master/slave dynamic that remains between He and I. We love one another intensely and completely, and I am ALSO His slave. In some very real sense, the two relationships exist on separate planes from one another.

Awhile back, I spent time contemplating the "obligations and responsibilities" that a Master might incur in assuming the ownership of human property. I ended up writing several of sort of convoluted posts on the subject that are referenced here , here, and also here. The conclusion, from my perspective, was that while He might choose to care for me in various ways; might choose to "maintain" my well-being as if I were of great value to Him; He does not have any de facto obligation to do that by virtue of His ownership.

Ownership, on His part, and the corollary slavery on my part, create a relationship dynamic that begins and ends with Him. Everything about the relationship is defined by His vision and His energy and His intention. For us and for me, that turns out to include a great deal of love and tenderness and concern and attentiveness, BUT none of that is owed to me as a requirement of the committment that we made to each other within the agreement as Master and slave, and none of it is obligatory on His part. He can expect my complete dedication and absolute obedience without any regard for my wishes, desires, or happiness.

You might wonder, Sara, how that works in practice. What does that mean in practical terms. Simply, it means that I am His to use and command without explanation or negotiation. For example, whereas your dynamic might include spankings that occur for some "reason" which make sense within the context that you have both carefully negotiated and agreed upon, I am often spanked BECAUSE He wants to spank me; for the simple reason that He enjoys and gets pleasure from hurting me. If, in the moment, I get some sort of masochistic pleasure out of that as well, that is fine, but it is not His concern. That is, probably, the most prosaic or maybe most common example, but if I thought about it, I could come up with all kinds of similar situations where, in my world, the base-level assumption is that whatever He wants WILL happen regardless of what I might or might not want.

I think that, in most husband/wife relationships, and (from my perspective) in most Domestic Discipline style relationshps as well, there is an underlying motivation or "goal" that both parties will get there needs met and end up feeling happy, satisfied, and fulfilled -- at least most of the time. In the Master/slave dynamic, the assumption and the goal is that His life will be made easier and fuller by His ownership of the slave. In our household, He is very often sincerely appreciative of the efforts made to keep His life moving along smoothly. On the other hand, there are a thousand little things that happen in His wake each day, that He never really sees. They are the expected, assumed, continued, "air He breathes." He knows, that it is His "right" to have the things He wants, and He simply expects that to be in His life. Providing that is my role (and T's).

All of which probably brings up the question of "why?" Why would someone choose to enter deliberately and consciously, with intent and full awareness into this kind of relationship (because the choice is critical and essential)?

I don't know that I can offer you an adequate answer to that question. I think, for me, the sheer power and energy that I found in Master were very compelling in the beginning. There is a definite part of my makeup that craves and responds to power and control. Our move into M/s was more gradual than the route that many people take. We had time to come to learn a great deal about one another; time to talk and converse and become friends, play partners, and then lovers BEFORE we found ourselves contemplating the prospect of His ownership of me. By the time we had reached that juncture in our relatedness, the step into the dynamic was not as extreme as it might have otherwise been. We already knew each other very well. We already knew what we envisioned for ourselves. We were THERE. For us, it was really a matter of acknowledging what was already the reality.

It isn't a relational dynamic for everyone. It isn't, truthfully, even a relationship dynamic for very many. There are plenty of times when I find myself talking to myself and saying, "you're a slave -- just shut up and slave. It isn't supposed to be glamorous." Some compare it to a spiritual path, and it can feel that way by times. Some find it to be incredibly erotic, and there can surely be that element to it as well. It is my belief that it IS a personal path that, because it fits with a simple truth about who I am in my deepest core, can bring me to my very best self. It isn't easy. It requires a good deal of integrity and intellect and awareness and personal committment and discipline, but it is a way that, for me, matches and answers echoes in my soul.

swan

As Promised...

Here they are... hot off the presses (as it were). Pictures! This is me, sunny-side up, strapped down on the "Christmas" massage table, and freshly spanked.

In the sunshine.

And yes, I am exactly that fuzzy! Sheesh!

swan

Massage Table

For just forever now, He has been wishing He could have a massage table. He has "lusted" after massage tables at places like Costco for ages, and He has made T and I just nuts over the darned things.

So...

As the holiday approached and we contemplated the giving of gifts, we tracked down a very nice massage table, and bought it for Him for Christmas. T even managed to wrap the absolutely enormous box that the beast was shipped in.

It looks like this.

I've been on it. I've not had a massage yet. He hasn't either. Pictures are supposedly coming. Stand by.

That ought to keep some of you checking back in here. ;-)

swan

BDSM and Domestic Discipline -- Questions

I have found myself involved in an e-mail dialog that is ranging across a breadth of topics. Recent exchanges, however, have focused on a rather off-hand comment I made that, in my experience, many BDSM'ers find the practice of Domestic Discipline appalling. That throwaway comment of mine brought a whole series of questions back, and led me to write the following (slightly edited for form) piece in response:

In response to your questions and comments about the differences and similarities between DD and BDSM, and the perceptions (about one another) in the two "camps," lets be clear that speaking for all BDSM'ers or all DD'ers is, by definition, an exercise in talking in HUGE generalities, and therefore questionable by its very nature. Still, there is, in my experience, a sense of bewilderment/bemusement in the BDSM community when they encounter Domestic Discipline. It really does seem that their response is the counterpart to the lack of understanding that I find in the DD community for BDSM practices.

It is probably fair to ask why some BDSMers find DD appalling?

Because of my history, I cross the lines between the two groups. I was a "DD'er" before I was a full-fledged "BDSM'er." I found my way into spanking through the gateway marked "Domestic Discipline." It is where I started out. I came to BDSM, and my eventual self-identification as submissive/slave, and masochist, later. What I knew/learned when I first began to explore my desire for spanking and control inside of my intimate relationships, I learned in the Domestic Discipline realm. So, that was my earliest exposure and vocabulary. To me, it made a kind of sense - at least in the beginning. My struggle with it was that I am submissive enough that if the rules were put in place to be and do (or not do) certain things in certain ways, then I worked intently and consistently to implement that. For me, that was about integrity and relational honesty. Very quickly, the need for discipline evaporated in my life - although my need for spanking didn't. Hence, the eventual move to explore other aspects of BDSM.

The simple truth for me is that I AM this way. It isn't something I do for fun or thrills (although there is certainly some element of fun and sexual excitement in what we do). It is my belief that there are all kinds of people who find their way into BDSM, but that, if we talk about experienced, sincere, serious BDSM practitioners, then most of those people are going to have some understanding that what drives their practice is something essential to their identity, and an elemental part of their sexual and erotic orientation. They understand that the kinds of relational dynamics that are found within the context of BDSM are connective, personally empowering (even when there may be control ceded for some individuals), and life enhancing.

I think that what causes some BDSM practitioners to be troubled by Domestic Discipline is the perception that it is a model that is founded in a cycle of establishing rules which are intended to be broken such that there can be repeated cycles of punishment. Honestly, the entire cycle is perceived as grim and damaging. Either that, or it is viewed as a bizarre sort of game aimed at creating a spanking environment without really acknowledging that as the goal. In that event, it seems a bit disingenuous (at the very least). Even among those who "play" with disciplinary-based scenarios, or who (like us) incorporate discipline within our dynamics, there is generally an assumption that true discipline is a sometimes necessary but rare, emotionally difficult, and the least enjoyable aspect of our relating to one another.

I realize that some of those (BDSM community) judgments may be erroneous and based on misperceptions and a lack of experience with real, functioning, healthy DD relationships. In that regard, those in the BDSM community who look askance at Domestic Discipline make the same mistakes about their evaluation of it as a relationship dynamic as the folks on the DD side of the spectrum so often do with regard to their BDSM brothers and sisters.

I always find that lack of basic understanding between these two "factions" interesting, because it seems so clear to me that they are related. It seems so obvious to me that Domestic Discipline is simply a "subset" of BDSM -- one of many variations. Still, over and over, I've been asked why I feel that way. The answer to that question begins simply, and then gets a little deeper...

At the most prosaic level, the letters in the acronym "BDSM" stand for a range of erotic/sexual/relational behaviors or practices: Bondage - Discipline - Dominance - Submission - Sadism - Masochism. I know of only a very few people within the lifestyle who actually participate in all the various parts of that list. I do know a whole lot of people who do some of those things within the context of their power exchange based relationships. In my view, the common thread is always that we all practice deliberate forms of relational power exchange. Some of us incorporate bondage but not sadomasochism. Some of us favor discipline dynamics without particular reference to dominance or submission. Others are "into" sadomasochistic eroticism and do not focus on the discipline aspect. There are relationships that are primarily service oriented but have no bondage or sadomasochistic elements. The point is that it is ALL BDSM. You do not have to do it all to be doing it. I've never found anyone who specializes in the very lovely practice of Shibari rope bondage that will claim that they are not into BDSM. They know that they are practicing out on one of the corners of the lifestyle, and that is all fine and good. It seems that it is only the Domestic Discipline wing of the family that insists that they are not "us." I've been through that discussion more times than I can count; been kicked off more than one online discussion forum precisely because I dared to give voice to the ultimate heresy: that DD is just a subset of BDSM. It does seem to make a certain segment of the DD world a bit crazy. I think it is entirely due to the image that we BDSM'ers have - that leathered up, fetished out, whip and chain-toting bunch of perverts that no sane, healthy, reasonable, responsible, "nice" person wants to be connected with. Never mind that many of those overheated images are directly from the porn industry, and have next to nothing to do with the real lifestyle; I am not ever going to convince the "Susie-Housewife-who-just-wants-her-HOH-to-spank-her" that it really isn't like that. To tell you the truth, I don't care what anyone wants to think about it all. Denying that DD is a subset of BDSM is (as Himself would say) like claiming that a Chevrolet is not an automobile. It is just silly.

No matter what kind of label you try to hang on your flavor of BDSM, it is about power exchange. Period.What different people then DO within the power exchange is as unique as the people who do it. It doesn't require a marriage license. It doesn't require a collar. It doesn't require that the partners live together fulltime. It doesn't require spanking, bondage, rules, piercings, boot blacking, service, sex, etc. It might involve just about any of those things -- or a whole list of other practices that I haven't listed -- but there is really only one place where ALL the various practices come together... That is in the realm of consensual, deliberate, intentional power exchange. While all human relationships / interactions involve power dynamics, what we do is done with conscious intent. That requires that there be individuals, aware of their own personal power, choosing to share and exchange that power in some intentional and defined fashion. There are an almost infinite number of structures for how that might be accomplished. Sometimes, that power exchange is very, very temporary, and at other times, it is intended to be permanent with regard to the lifetimes of the partners.

I believe that ALL of the conversations and battles that we get into about who is within the circle of BDSM, and then who is more or better or truer or whatever than anyone else is simply our natural urge to establish a "pecking order" among ourselves. We are, at the heart of it all, social animals. It is almost more than we can do to keep ourselves from that business of trying to establish (even if it is only in our own minds) which of us are further up the hierarchy. So. Yes. DD and BDSM go together, just like Lipton is, of course tea. They aren't the same, but they surely aren't entirely different either

swan

Slave

It is, as I sometimes forget, language that is challenging. Regardless of the context, it is a stretch, in our modern world, to simply declare that someone is a "slave." The word is evocative and loaded with a great number of connotations, most of them "negative" for the vast majority of people.


So, it is not especially surprising to encounter people who react strongly to the fact that I self-identify as a slave. That is exactly what I have been experiencing in the last several weeks. A variety of strong reactions to that language. The responses have been intense enough and frequent enough to cause me to ponder what it is that there is in my experience and choice that can be given or explained that would make it any more accessible.


I live within a relational power exchange that is commonly called Master/slave (sometimes called TPE, APE, Ownership relationships, etc.). The dynamic is, in simple terms, an agreement between us, that ultimate control is His. I have exactly the level of choice in any given situation that He opts to allow me. It is a power dynamic that is entirely voluntary in the sense that we both entered into this consensually and with a full understanding of what the relationship demanded of each of us.

The issue of consent is crucial if one is to understand how erotic slavery works.

Consider that in any sort of intimate relationship (not just BDSM ones) the issue of "consent" will arise. When we create intimacy with another person, we are continually faced with situations in which we must either choose to give consent or determine whether consent has actually been given. Regardless of whether we are talking about having sex or deciding to attend the opera together, if we are going to create a viable partnership, we must get to the point where we come to know how to give and get consent. Understanding how we arrive at consent, and what the conditions are for that consent to occur, can help to make it easier to move toward an understanding of the foundation for consensual Master/slave relationships as well.

A characteristic of healthy relational intimacy is that it is mutual, uncoerced, and consenting. Consent can be defined as present if four conditions are met. These conditions are not absolutes, but the more they are present, the greater the chance that both parties are consenting.

Condition #1: Both people are fully conscious. That would imply that both parties are in complete possession of their faculties -- not impaired in their ability to make reasonable and informed judgments -- not drunk or under the influence of drugs. Sane ( or mostly so).


Condition #2: Both people are equally free to act. The ability to consent implies that one is free to choose to not consent or to change one’s mind. It is essential, especially in the beginning of a relationship that there be open and clear communication that would forestall the potential for coercive situations to develop prior to full consent being established.


Condition # 3: Both parties have clearly communicated their intent.


Condition#4: Both persons are positive and sincere in their desires. Honesty is the basis of a healthy relationship. Insincerity makes it impossible for the other person to respond with integrity and clarity.


In July of 2002, when He put His blade to my flesh, and cut His initials in my left shoulder, it was with full consent and full knowledge on both our parts. We knew, insofar as it was possible for us to know, what it was that we were doing on that night. We had clearly communicated our intent to one another, both of us were entirely and utterly conscious, and neither of us were in any sense being coerced. I don't believe any two people have ever been more positive or more sincere in their desires than the two of us were that night. He placed the marks of His ownership on my body, but only revealed what already existed in my heart and mind. The conditions of consent were met -- fully and completely.



Of course, the beginning of a Master/slave relationship is only ... the beginning. Beginnings of things are often the easiest. I am held within the most benevolent of control dynamics. There are very few that I know, who claim the title "slave," who have the degree of latitude that I enjoy. Still, the reality is that I have no control that is not "given" to me. I sometimes bump up against that reality at the most inopportune times -- and I almost never fail to be surprised by those bumps. Whatever degree of latitude that is normally mine, if it is suddenly reduced, I find that exceptionally difficult. Imagine!



Because, I do. Still. Years later. I still must, cope with my reactions and responses to having my wants and desires thwarted, when that occasionally happens. I must still accommodate having my proud nature challenged. I must still remember and remind myself that I am His -- no longer my own. The move to the other is very quick and very much ingrained. It is a conscious thing to remain where I declared (on that July night) that it was my intent and desire to be.



Which leads me to consider the difference between "intent and desire" and "aspiration." It was my intent and desire to become His. I had no aspiration to somehow achieve a particular status within the lifestyle. And make no mistake about it, there are those who aspire to "super-slavehood." For some, becoming the quintessential "fantasy" or maybe "literary" BDSM slave is a goal toward which they strive, and for which they yearn. It fires their erotic imaginations and drives their seeking. They long for rules and flourishes and rituals that will announce and manifest their "slavery" to all who behold them. That was never what I looked to create in joining my life to His.



The slavery which I embrace is centered and focused on being and becoming what He would have me be. It does not "look" like what I read about in the BDSM stories. It has Him at its heart and center. So. There are very few rules; hardly any protocols; none of the fancy do-dads that the dreamers imagine slavery gets made of. It is about making a life with Him and for Him -- because that is the point. When I am at my best, as His property, He and I are utterly in tune with one another, and my slavery serves Him and enhances His life and brings us both a kind of peace and contentment that is simple and straightforward and fulfilling.

More and more, as we both age, as life and living make the kinds of demands on our time and energy that they do, I ponder how close we have seemed to veered toward the "vanilla" side of things. Except that I absolutely know that there is no truth in that. Our roots are deep nowadays. The seasons of our life flow from day to day and month to month, and there are surely ebbs and flows in the outward manifestations of our M/s dynamic. Structurally, though, we are solid with one another. We find out way to the touchstones that connect us, even in the midst of busy and difficult days. We take simple pleasure in knowing that there are secure understandings and absolute assurance between us. These things give us strength so that we can work together to make our lives work and be ready, whenever there is space for it, to tumble into the joyful celebration of our full identities with one another. Then, oh then, the whips and paddles come out, and I joyfully wear my collar, and the marks that He makes in my flesh speak of the truth that we build through all the other days, when the work of being for one another is far less sexy or flashy, but lays down the foundation upon which we stand in those glorious moments when we can simply soar away together.



swan

The War on Christmas

It has become quite fashionable in recent years for "Christians" to decry the "War on Christmas." This usually means that Christians have felt that somehow the celebration of Christmas has been separated from its Christian meaning.......or as they would put it its "true Christian meaning." I am here to debunk the true Christian meaning of Christmas and to claim my/our right as a non-Christian to celebrate this fabulous holiday.

It is always quite difficult to make a case about what it is "Christians" do, because whatever it is some Christian faction cites, another opposes and says, "Christians would never do that." There is a Christian BDSM Listserv on the web comprised primarily of Anglican BDSM-ers and if you cite any of the actions of the Fundamentalist right, or of conservative Catholics, etc. they decry those and declare them to be non Christian..........while of course their beleifes are entirely "Christian." Of course the fundamentalists would likewise proclaim these extremely liberal Anglicans to be infidels, etc. So discussing anything as being Christian or not is like trying to capture fog in a grocery bag.

What follows here are quotes from (non-theologian) historians about the origins of the holiday we celebrate today as "Christmas."

"The biblical narrative of Jesus' birth gives no date for the event, though it more likely occurred in spring than in winter. Saint Luke tells us that shepherds were "abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flocks by night" -- shepherds guarded their flocks day and night only at lambing time, in the spring; in winter, the animals were kept in corrals, unwatched. The idea of celebrating the Nativity on December 25 was first suggested early in the fourth century, a clever move on the part of Church fathers, who wished to eclipse the festivities of a rival pagan religion, Mithraism, which celebrated the birth of their sun god Mithras on December 25, and that threatened the existence of Christianity. It is important to note that for two centuries after Christ's birth, no one knew, and few people cared, exactly when he was born. Birthdays were unimportant; death days counted. Besides, Christ was divine and his natural birth was deliberately played down. In fact, the Church even announced at one point that it was sinful to contemplate observing Christ's birthday "as though He were a King Pharoah." On December 25, pagan Romans, still in the majority, celebrated Natalis Solis Invincti, "Birthday of the Invincible Sun God," Mithras. The Mithras cult originated in Persia and rooted itself in the Roman world in the first century B.C.E. By the year 274 C.E., Mithraism was so popular with the masses that Emperor Aurelian proclaimed it the official state religion. In the early 300s, the cult seriously threatened Christianity, and for a time, it was unclear which faith would emerge victorious. Church fathers debated their options. It was well known that Roman patricians and plebians alike enjoyed festivals of a protacted nature. The Church, then, needed a December celebration. Thus, to offer converts an occasion in which to be pridefully celebratory, the Church officially recognized Christ's birth. And to offer head-on competition to the sun worshipers' popular feast, the Church located the Nativity on December 25. The mode of observance would be characteristically prayerful: a Mass; in fact, Christ's Mass. As one theologian wrote in the 320s: We hold this day holy, not like the pagans because of the birth of the sun, but because of him who made it. Although centuries later, social scientists would write of the psychological power of group celebrations -- the unification of ranks, the solidification of collective identity, the reinforcement of common objectives -- the principle had long been intuitively obvious. The celebration of Christmas took permanent hold in the Western world in 337, when the Roman emperor, Constantine was baptized, uniting for the first time the Crown and the Church. Christianity had become the official state religion in 313. And in 354, Bishop Liberius of Rome reiterated the importance of celebrating not only Christ's death but also his birth. "


Prior to the fourth century and the convening of the Council of Nicea in 325 C. E. there was no Christmas, just as there was no virgin birth, Christ being the son of God, resurrection, holy Trinity, Easter, or Christmas. All of these were incorporations of pagan theology and more importantly holidays that were necessary to get the populace of that time to "swallow" a merger between the traditional Roman pagan religion and its newly morphed Christian/pagan hybrid religion. None of these precepts have any basis in any historically valid teachings of Christ, or his apostles. They are all fictional adptations to resolve political conflicts and market the new religion to both factions.

A further description of this process of the 'absorption" of Rome's pagan state religion follows:

"'Put the Christ back in Christmas’, we’re always told. ‘Jesus is the Reason for the Season’ they keep saying. Good people speak these things, earnestly and frequently. Unfortunately for such pious folk, Christmas is related to Christianity in the same limited way as Caesar’s wife is to history: only by marriage. Christ was never really in Christmas. In fact, when you celebrate Christmas by eating too much, drinking too much, feeling up the boss’ wife at the office party, driving the porcelain bus and/or spending a fortune on presents almost, but not quite, entirely unsuitable for the person to whom you gave them, you come rather closer to the real spirit of Christmas.
In the early days of the Church, Jesus Christ got along fine without a birthday. The Gospel writers were as unsure about his birth date as we are now: Matthew tells us that Herod the Great was on the Judæan throne when He was born, and then proceeds to narrate Herod’s massacre of the innocents. Luke, by contrast, times Christ’s birth to coincide with a Roman census. Herod died in 4 BC. Governor Quirinius carried out his census of Judæa in A.D. 6. Considerable interpretive latitude was thus already present in the narrative. No doubt the early Christians knew it and (sensibly) chose to leave well alone. In any case, birthday parties were worldly, pagan affairs, and Christians did not want to associate the good name of their saviour with any of them.
But when Christianity became a faith with claims to universality, the official religion of Constantine’s Empire, this lack of a birthday became something of an embarrassment. Besides, people still expected their twelve days off in December.
Lo! A multitude, handsome and well-dressed, Numerous as those on the benches, makes Its way all along the rows. Some carry basketsWith breads and napkins and luxurious fare,Others serve languorous wine in plenty…
Rome’s Saturnalia was a curious mixture of ancient fertility rite and social event. It celebrated the winter solstice, a time when people believed, perhaps, that they needed to make themselves a warm place. It also recalled - for all Romans - a mythical golden age in the distant past when the world was truly merry, a world without war, slavery or hunger.
Romans decorated their doorposts with holly and kissed under the mistletoe. Shops and businesses closed and people greeted one another in the street with shouts of Io Saturnalia! On one day of the twelve, masters waited on their slaves at table while, in the legions, officers served the ranks. A rose was hung from the ceiling in banqueting rooms, and anything said or done sub rosa went no further than the front door. That banqueting could get out of hand is attested to by Seneca, who tells of slaves detailed especially to clean up the spew. The government - in both Rome and the provinces - often laid on free public feasts. In the poem by Statius, we’re told how the emperor Domitian held one such feast in the colosseum, somehow combining (and the organisation can only be marvelled at) vast quantities of food with entertainment. The Romans, I should add, had no weekend, no useless and unproductive Saturdays and Sundays, so they looked forward to their sanguinary feriae with considerable relish. The festival of Saturnalia was a time, too, for family dinners, for parties, for amours, for socialising, for wishing others well.
And, of course, the Romans also did something for which the proprietors of department stores the world over should be eternally grateful. They exchanged gifts. Originally (before Rome’s citizens acquired great wealth) these were small earthenware statuettes known as sigillaria. By the end of the first century, however, Martial provides a list of such gifts - with accompanying decorations in verse - that reads for all the world like the David Jones Christmas catalogue: backscratchers, socks, medicine chests, comforters, woolly slippers, board-games, gold-inlaid dishes, jewellery - among other things.
That the commercial aspects of Christmas are Roman in origin should not cause surprise. ‘No one in Gaul ever does business without the involvement of a Roman citizen,’ boasts leading lawyer (and later politician) Cicero in one of his defence speeches, ‘there is not a denarius jingling in Gaul which has not been recorded in the account books of Roman citizens’. Set into the mosaic floors of a number of homes in Pompeii are the phrases Hello Profit! and Profit is Happiness! The Romans were probably history’s first unregenerate capitalists.
Now, as the shade of night steals on
What song heralds the scattering of largess!
Here are young women stirred to lust, easily bought;
Here is all that wins favour with skill and beauty
Buxom Lydians, cymbals of Cádiz, shouting Syrians…
Statius’ picture is a beguiling one, and it is easy to forget that these same Romans could also be rather correct, formal people, militaristic and bloody-minded all at once. Saturnalia, like Christmas, was a time of licence, when people would wink indulgently at each other’s foibles or look the other way. We’ve all heard horror stories about somebody’s brother’s friend’s office Christmas party where the brother’s friend hopes that the boss, his accountant, the head of department, the fellow from the tax office - whoever - will have as little memory of the insults they received as the person who did the insulting.
Christmas is a venerable pagan festival, on a sort of permanent loan from Ancient Rome, and is, perhaps, the very antithesis of Christianity in the lines of its pagan decent. Some of the churches know this, and have left Christmas to the revellers, appalled as much by the Teutonic Christmas tree (which has its origins in Germanic and Norse tree worship) as by the libidinous connotations of too much wine and too little thought, and by the merry jingle of all those cash registers (well, merry beeping these days. The good old capitalistic bell of yore has gone, it seems, the way of the blue suede shoe).
How many years shall this festival abide?Age will not destroy so sacred a season!While the hills of Latium remain,While Father Tiber flows, while Rome standsWith the Capitol you have made ."

I have no problem with Christians celebrating Christmas as they choose. While it would likely be more historically correct for me to celebrate Christmas as Saturnalia, the reality of this culture is that what we celebrate is Christmas. I do however believe I have no reason to have to celebrate Christmas as a Christian holiday. It is estimated that the celebration of December 25 as the ultimate annual holiday goes back 8 to 10 centuries before Christ. It was celebrated with feasting, drinking and evergreens and red berries, and gifts, singing songs naked in the streets, and, yes, bachanalian orgies, including the flagellation of women (an exceptionally fine Christmas tradition.:)


I claim Christmas as my favorite holiday and decry Christ's birth as anything more than an entertaining myth. I love the music and the food and drink, and fully intend to resurrect flogging as a tremendously potent aspect of commemorating the season.



There has been a war on Christmas, or more correctly a war an Saturnalia, which has been mounted by Christianity for the last 1682 years. Christmas is not the true holiday tradition at all but a bastardization of pagan winter solstice festivities to market a new hybrid religion to heal a politically threatening scism that was occurring in the first quarter of the fourth century between adherents to the old traditional Roman (previoulsy Greek, previously Egyptian, previously Mesopotamian) pagan religion and the upstart but rapidly growing Christian cultists that was threatening the empire under Emperor Constantine.



Merry Christmas to those of you who are traditionally Christian. Congratulations on yet another celebration of the birth of your saviour and blessed Emmanuel.


To the rest of us. Do not let the Christians, in their presumptious arrogance, steal this holiday from us once again. As they stole this holiday 1682 years ago and perverted its puposes and beliefs, there is no reason we should not be able to return the favor. IO SATURNALIA!!!! Let the feasting and licentiousness begin:)


Tom


Go confidently in the direction of your dreams. Live the life you've imagined.

I got Caned!

I got caned!
I got caned!
I got caned!
I GOT CANED!

swan