Monday, August 11, 2008

Primitive Nude Living


Primitive Nude Living  by Aileen Goodson
Many of us may be unaware that nudity is a normal condition that has prevailed throughout most of mankind's existence. Anything from complete nakedness to casual body covering was a lifestyle component from prehistoric times through the Greco-Roman civilizations and into part of the Middle Ages.
Even today, in various remote areas of the warmer climes, naked societies persist as primitive tribes whose members do not wear clothes. These societies point up, among other things, how drastically our attitudes toward nudity and social organization have changed throughout human history. Unfortunately, modern civilization's puritanical laws of decency have labeled unclothed tropical-zone cultures as offensive and inferior. Missionaries, settlers, and tradespeople have effectively forced compliance with western dress codes wherever primitive cultures are found. Due to such diligence, we are now able to travel worldwide to exotic islands, join African safaris, and explore South American jungles without having to confront the "embarrassment" of viewing tribal nakedness.
Inexcusably, as civilization encroaches upon many of these out-of-the-way places, the aboriginal cultures are often severely damaged or destroyed by the invading virus of a technologically superior society. Enticed by trinkets and modern conveniences, the native populations almost invariably succumb to the customs, clothing, diseases, and problems of our intrusive culture.
In 1988, the January 3rd issue of The Los Angeles Times reported that the Yanomamis of the remote northern Brazilian territory of Roraima, a primitive and naked tribe, are in danger of extinction because the government has discovered gold and diamonds on their land. The Yanomamis are the largest known tribe still isolated from the outside world: "Yanomamis hunt with poisoned arrows, and many use primitive tools. They shun clothes, decorate their bodies with fruit dye and flowers, and live under huge palm huts in communities of 50 people. The population of Roraima is about 100,000. Anthropologists, the Roman Catholic Church, and Indian-rights groups fear that forced acculturation by an onslaught of whites will further reduce the Yanomami population, largely through disease. Because of their isolation, the Indians have no immunity against common viruses and can easily die from flu or a cold."
The Tupari tribe of the Rio Branco, in the Amazon jungles of Brazil, furnish another example of nude living among aborigines. Tibor Sekelj, who lived with the Tupari for four months, wrote: "It is no wonder that the Tupari never created any kind of clothing, for the weather is always warm. Their natural nudity fits perfectly into the framework of their surroundings and, except for ceremony or decoration, they never think of covering themselves."
Men of the Tupari set off before sunup to hunt. Those men and boys remaining in the village work at preparing the ground for planting or collect firewood and building materials. Meanwhile, the women attend to the children, collect fruit, spin cotton, and weave hammocks. By three o'clock in the afternoon, their day's work over, men and women gather together, drink fermented chica,make bows, arrows, necklaces, and headdresses, and decorate their bodies. It is a life of unhurried simplicity.2
How remarkable it is that such idyllic scenes of ancient and perhaps prehistoric times still co-exist with our modernized, stress-filled lifestyles and complex governmental structures.
Nudity in Early Egypt
A fascinating tale of early sun worship and nudity was unearthed in 1887 at Tell-el-Amarna, a small Egyptian village on the banks of the Nile some 200 miles south of Cairo. There, an Arab woman accidentally stumbled upon the baked-clay tablet archives of Pharaoh Akhen-Aton (1385-1353 B.C.). It was learned through the subsequent translation of these tablets that the brilliant young pharaoh and his exquisitely beautiful queen, Nefertiti, considered the sun, Aton, to be the true wellspring of life and thus justified the practice of nudism for spiritual and physical advancement.3
Because of the discovery of these tablets and other artifacts at Tell-el Amarna, the seat of Pharaoh Akhen-Aton's government, it is now well known that he was not only a great religious reformer and mystic, who disputed the pantheism of the traditional priesthood, but also a poet of great sensitivity. On the scattered stones that had formed the original wall of Aton's Temple, archaeologists have found and deciphered the pharaoh's famous "Hymn to Aton, the Sun God," a portion of which appears in the Hebrew scriptures as Psalm 104 of the Old Testament. "Through this poem," writes J. Herman in King& Queen of the Sun, "the pharaoh reveals himself to be a lover of beauty in nature, in art, and in man."4
However, some of the archaeologists who unraveled the story of the Sun Pharaoh had difficulty accepting what they found and became highly critical of Akhen-Aton and Nefertiti. "Brought up in an environment of Victorian and puritanical notions, they condemned these entrancing figures of Egyptian history because they discovered that not only the Pharaoh and his wife but also their children and officials went around with too few clothes (transparent at that!) or no clothes at all, that they practiced nudity in the royal palace, in the royal gardens and swimming pool, that they loved physical beauty, valued good food and wine, and led a frankly joyful existence."5
The spontaneity, freedom, and humanistic values espoused in the lifestyle of this remarkable couple brought scathing criticism and retaliation from the conservative priests of the "old religion." Upon his death, Akhen-Aton was succeeded by son-in-law Tutankh-Aton ("King Tut," famous for the fabulous gold and jewels found in his tomb in the twentieth century), who was coerced by the priests into eradicating Akhen-Aton's reforms.
"They practiced a religion and nudist way of life that was far ahead of their time," writes Dr. deHoratev of the Sun King and his queen. "They came to an age that understood them not." He adds, rather dejectedly, that although future generafions may be more understanding of their message, "...our own day gives them a miserly recognition."6
While it is known that Akhen-Aton and Nefertiti were not the first Egyptians to luxuriate nude in the sun's rays (a fourteenth century, B.C. carving of a nude Sumerian priest is preserved in the British Museum, and a fifteenth century, B.C. painting of a nude Egyptian girl lutist is found on the wall of a Thebes tomb), he and his alluring consort did have their "day in the sun," breathing life into a freshly idealistic concept of community.
Nudity In Ancient Greece
Centuries later, Pharaoh Akhen-Aton's passion for holistic living was enthusiastically practiced by the early Greeks. While many cultures have recognized the contributions of ancient Greece to law, politics, literature, art, and philosophy, not much has been recorded about early Greek advocacy of freedom from clothing when practical and appropriate. The dress of both the upper and lower classes within Greek society was in accordance with the simplicity and forthrightness characteristic of Greek philosophy--that a draped garment that could be taken off in a second. Even the fancier gowns designed for both sexes, with jeweled or metal shoulder clips, were made from one piece of beautifully draped material.
"When a Greek wished to dance or work, he simply slipped out of his clothing and proceeded. It was the natural thing to do, and no one was dismayed by...seeing a nude person dancing or working. Archaeologists have found many vases depicting completely naked performers at festivals and laborers in the fields," writes Anthony J. Papalas in his article "Greek Attitudes Toward Nudity."7
Historians acknowledge this ancient Greek body-attitude mainly when they write about the athletic training that took place in the Greek gymnasium. The very word gymnasium is based on the root word gymnos (meaning "naked"), the gymnasium being defined, thereby, as a place where one stripped naked to exercise.
While nudity was so common in early Greek athletics and sculpture that historically it cannot be overlooked, historians tend to downplay or ignore the religious and philosophic foundations for nudism in Greek life. For example, the Greek gymnasium is rarely presented as a place for general education which, in fact, it was. Paul LeValley, in an article appearing in the naturist magazineClothed with the Sun offers a more accurate picture.
"The Greeks could think of no higher tribute to their gods than to imitate them--to become as godlike as possible, both mentally and physically. It was the whole person that mattered: the well-developed mind in the well-developed body. Apollo, the god of athletics, was also the god of music. In fact, the athletes trained to music. The gymnasiums were where philosophers like Socrates hung about. Almost every major school of Greek philosophy was headquartered in a gymnasium.... As Greek religion declined and was replaced by philosophy, Socrates often advocated nudity as a form of honesty."It is clear from this that the ancient Greeks sought balance--their goal of The Golden Mean in individual accomplishments as well as in matters of state.
Beginning with exercises in the nude, a typical day for the Greek student is described by Papalas in the article cited above: "After several hours of activity and instruction about the body, he bathed and went to his classroom--most often in the nude, for the mild climate of Greece did not require clothing except for some unusually cold days in winter.... Teachers and scholars attempted to establish an equilibrium between mind and body. The student, therefore, was required to devote the same amount of effort to physical progress as to mental."9
Pericles, the famous Greek statesman, general, and athlete, said that men should harmoniously work for "the perfect beauty of our bodies and the manly virtues of our soul.... We are lovers of beauty without having lost the taste for simplicity, and lovers of wisdom without loss of manly vigor."10
Darius, the Persian king, relying on the report of a spy sent to observe Greeks training for battle, mistakenly concluded from their attitude toward nudity and democracy that Greeks were weaklings.
The army infiltrator returned to Darius with an account of how the Greeks spent their time prancing around in the nude "or sitting, partially clothed, listening to idiots propound ridiculous ideas about freedom and equality for the individual citizen."11 Based on this information, Darius expected the Greeks would be an easy target, but his laughter turned to fear and grief when the Persian army was driven out to sea at the Battie of Marathon by well-trained opponents.
Though men of ancient Greece were offered an exceptional training as citizens (with the obvious exception of male slaves), Greek women were denied the high-level education of the gymnasium. This inequality was speciously justified by reasoning that women had less need for education because they were not permitted to participate in civic affairs along with the men. Such discrimination, however, diminished with the appearance of a women's rights movement.
Among the gains won by the women of this group was the establishment of female athletic competitions. During these games, women performed comfortably in the nude, as was the practice for men. "The Greek admiration for the human body and the willingness to display it were closely bound up with Greek honesty and intelligence. No one thought it wrong that young Spartan girls should go naked in public dances and processions. The young men who gathered to look upon the events displayed no lust or wantonness. Plutarch (the Greek biographer and historian) wrote that the appearance of these maidens was received with admiration, respect, and shamelessness."12
Eventually, nudity also became part of the tradition of the Olympic Games. Ancient historians suggest that the Olympic Games originated as far back as 1100 B.C. as peace treaty contests authorized by kings of the cities of Pisa, Elis, and Sparta. The games derived their name from the Valley of Olympia, where they were held. The first Olympic Festival for which there are records was held in 776 B.C. At least from that time forward, the Olympic Games were specifically dedicated to the Greek gods.
Athletes from Sparta are given historical credit for being the first to discard clothing while in training for competition. It's possible this occurred as early as the seventh century B.C. Since these pioneering athletes won an abnormally high proportion of the prizes because their bodies were not restricted by clothing, other Greek athletes began to emulate the nudity of the Spartans. Thereafter, nudity was an integral part of the Olympic tradition until 393 A.D., when Roman Emperor Theodosium, Christian ruler of Greece, banned the Olympic Games because he considered them to be pagan ceremonies. The gymnasia and all it stood for was then treated with contempt. It wasn't until 1896, some 1500 years later, that the Olympics were revived--but without nudity!
"Beauty to the Greeks was the very essence of virility. The perfect balance of mind and body followed the ancient Greek belief in 'meden agan,' which means 'nothing in excess.' And 'Kalos k'agathos'--the 'beautiful and good'--was the touchstone and secret of the preeminence of ancient Greece for more than five hundred years."13
Nudity in Ancient India
It is now known that social nudity in ancient Greece was encouraged by the existence of nudity among the holy men of India. For example, when Alexander the Great heard reports of nude ascetics in India, he sent Onesicritus, a Greek philosopher, to investigate the gymnosophists (a name given by the Greeks to these naked philosophers). The findings of Onesicritus must have impressed and intrigued Alexander, for he then traveled to India (in 326 B.C.) to meet with a gymnosophist group, and this meeting then led to other exchanges between the two countries.14
Pyrrho of Elis, founder of the philosophy of skepticism, studied with the gymnosophists and, upon returning to Elis, practiced their teachings, including nudism. 15 Further, when the Greek army was in India, the soldiers participated in numerous religious observances that were accompanied by nude sports activities. For several centuries thereafter, Greek athletes competing in India were occasionally reported as being both nude and in loin cloth.
In Alexander's time (356-323 B.C.) there were a number of ascetic sects in India whose members walked about naked as part of their spiritual discipline. The largest, Ajivikas, demanded complete nudity of its disciples. This group lasted about two thousand years before completely disappearing. Buddha was a naked ascetic before founding his own religion, and it has been suggested that Buddha had his followers wear robes mainly to distinguish them from the other sects.16
Today, most of the naked holy men of India are associated with the Jains, members of a major Indian religion founded about 500 B.C.  Mahavira, founder of the Jains, insisted on complete nudity for the monks as part of their vow to give up all worldly goods. In time there was a split in this group, nakedness being too much of a hardship for Jains in the colder northern parts of India. These northerners donned robes and became known as Suetambaras, or '4white clad," while the southerners were thereafter referred to as Digambaras, or "clothed with the sky." The Jains have many followers in India today.17
Paul LeValley, in his article "Ancient India," compares the Greeks with the gymnosophists: "The reasons each gave for their naked asceticism or their naked athletes were strikingly similar.... [They spoke] of efficiency.... Every known group of naked Indian ascetics praised the values of the simple life which nudity encouraged. ,the lawgiver of Sparta, advocated nudity among his citizens for the same reason... [plus] reasons of health.... The gymnosophists praised nudity as a method of building endurance, as did the Greeks." Another reason given for nudity was that it promoted "independent thought and self-assurance...."
LeValley further states that "Mahavira scolded the Greeks, who mostly confined their nudity to the gymnasium, for being less assured than Indian ascetics. Mahavira often mentioned nudity as a method of becoming free from bonds...contentment with no clothes...."18  Indians and Greeks both agreed that nakedness represented a state of purity and honesty.
LeValley also points out areas of difference between the two cultures, such as the Greek emphasis on the beauty of the human body, an issue of considerably less importance within the religious philosophy of India. Whereas the gymnosophists of India referred to their nudity as a "step toward attaining oneness with the whole universe, or moksha ('the bliss of enlightenment')," the Greeks considered nudity as a basis for and expression of the wholeness of the individual and society. The Greeks thus placed more emphasis on fun, music, dance, and physical pleasure.
"Perhaps the greatest value both groups held in common, Levalley continues, "...was the association of Indian asceticism and Greek athletes with the idea of peace."19 The basis for the Olympiads, for example, was to bring together dissident Greek city-states for peaceful competition and friendship, while the Jains, on their part, practiced nonviolence (ah imsa) and vegetarianism. To this day, some Jains carry these principles to an extreme, always wearing nose and mouth masks so that insects are protected from accidental entrapment. Ghandi based his modem political and social reform movement on this Jain practice of ahimsa.
During British control of India, the gymnosophist practice of nudism was greatly curtailed. However, now that there is an independent Republic of India, the jains are again unhampered in their religious practice of nudity. In India today, some women have also joined the ranks of the naked Jain ascetics.
The Sakas, a Hindu sect of India, have transmitted their traditions of nudity to modem India through the thousands of explicit sculptures that remain on the walls of the city of Khajurako. Built about 1000 A.D., this temple at Khajurako communicates its values to the modem visitor with a directness that leaves nothing to the imagination. "Tens of thousands of human and animal figures dance happily over and around the facade of these buildings.... Kings and commoners are depicted in joyous sexual union, completely naked except for beads, bangles, and decoration.... The beauty of the body was exalted, paraded even. And, since sexual function is part of the body, that too was exalted."20
The Khajurako temple is not an isolated example of a great tolerance for nudity in ancient India. Other Indian temples, such as the revered shrines at Konarak and Ellora, also display highly realistic erotic sculptures. These representations were obviously not regarded as obscene by the people who lived at the time they were created. Their directness of statement and their placement at central public locations shows that they were an essential part of the living experience of the community, part of the fabric of their social, educational, and religious life.
Art historian Mulk Raj Anand discusses these openly erotic sculptures in his book Kama Kala,using them to explain the differences between eastern and western attitudes regarding the human body and sexuality. Speaking of these celebrations of life, he says, "There is a mutual enjoyment which excites not laughter but reverence.... Worship of the sun [was] demonstrated in the energy which brings the human couples together.... The male and female forms thus become the manifestation of duality desired by the Supreme God, the earthly symbols of manliness and procreation. And just as our human love is seen as a symbol of the great love of the Supreme God, so the Joy of physical union reflects the limitless Joy of the Deity in creation."21
Mulk Raj Anand notes that sex has been driven into "furtive corners" in the west. He believes that modern attitudes of prudery originating from western religious teachings are an unfortunate part of western culture in general and do not adequately permit enjoyment or open discussion of the tenderness of coital practice.
While modern Indian tour guides cannot avoid showing these explicit nude sculptures of Khajurako, Konarak, and Ellora to tourists from other lands, it is reported by many observers that they are not comfortable in doing so. It is evident that the body freedom depicted in the public art of ancient temples is not incorporated into the westernized lifestyle of contemporary India.
Nudity in the Orient
Until the twentieth century, the Japanese sense of modesty strongly differed from that of Europe or America. Nude communal bathing, for example, was a basic fact of daily life until fairly recently and still exists in rural areas that are distant from Japan's westernized major cities. Nevertheless, Bernard Rudofsky in his book Are Clothes Modern? observes that nudity was not an acceptable subject for traditional Japanese artists. "Even lovers bedded down on acres of quilts--a favorite subject in [Japanese] art--are always fully clothed, not because the artists were prudes but because the Japanese seem to like making love entangled in each other's garments.... [This non-Christian culture] not only skipped Original Sin but never felt a need for adopting it. "22
However, the Japanese were far from being prudes! Their attitude that everything natural is moral is revealed in the "bridal books" published for hundreds of years in Japan as a means of practical sex education for young women. Through explicit text and pictures, this type of book prepared the unmarried Japanese woman for the sexual conduct that would, or should, take place after her wedding. Experienced couples were also provided with "pillow books," meant to be kept near the bed. These contained erotically stimulating illustrations to enhance marital enjoyment.
Members of the Chinese upper class were much more inhibited and even considered their unclothed peasantry to be subhuman. Nudity, even in art, was seen as immoral. In his essay The Future of Nakedness, John Langdon-Davies tells a story about the Jesuit priests who were horrified to learn that the Chinese regarded the Christian books containing beautifully colored religious pictures of male and female saints in classical drapery as pomographic.23
In ancient China, strict custom even prevented a woman of high rank from being unclothed in the presence of her doctor. The only way she could communicate with her doctor regarding her physical problems was to point to the corresponding place on a miniature ivory or alabaster nude sculpture. These little statues, items of considerable importance for every respectable Chinese household in more ancient times, can still be purchased by tourists in Chinese sections of modem cities throughout the world.24
By examining the bathing habits of a culture, it's possible to determine body-image attitudes with some precision. The Japanese, Turkish, and Scandinavian peoples in recent times, for example, have traditionally enjoyed communal nude bathing, as did their earlier cultures. In the Greco-Roman empire, until its decadent and declining years, the two sexes usually commingled during communal nude bathing because the emphasis of the culture was on cleanliness, health, and socializing, not on physical sexual differences. During the Middle Ages, the Roman Catholic Church suppressed such bathing practices.25 However, communal nude bathing where the sexes were usually segregated survived in parts of central and northern Europe until, finally, the modern nudist movement initiated the currently relaxed European attitudes toward mixed-sex nudity in spas and on beaches.
The western world, from the Middle Ages through the nineteenth century, was not known for body cleanliness. Since the unclothed body was thought of as sinful, the sensual practices of languishing in a nurturing bath or soaking in a communal bathhouse (such as the luxurious, body-pampering baths of the Orient) were not only unavailable for the vast majority of people but were unthinkable and unacceptable. Sponge or "splash" baths were the custom, and the use of perfume was more of a cover-up for infrequent bathing than a means for sexual allurement.
Turkish baths utilizing thermal hot springs were constructed wherever the Ottoman Empire ruled, introducing to many parts of Europe the pleasurable and health-promoting cycle of nude swimming, sweating, and massage regeneration. Both men and women of the Ottoman Empire used the baths as a social center, but always with the sexes segregated.
However, in Japan, a country blessed with natural volcanic hot springs, nude family and mixed-sex communal bathing were approved by the prevailing religions for over two thousand years. Some of the public bath houses in Japan today have private rooms of various sizes where families or social groups can experience the steaming pools in privacy. Most common, however, is the large community pool.
Originally a Shinto purification rite, the practice of social bathing in the nude spread throughout Japan and became as much a part of Japanese daily life as the rising of the sun. Shintoism, prior to 1945 the state religion of Japan, emphasizes personal cleanliness, both spiritually and physically. However, even the Buddhist monks built bath houses within their temple compounds. At the beginning of each day, these monks would gather branches of pine, holly, or boxwood trees in preparation for heating the thick-walled red clay "firebox" which was set on a floor of stones. The doors were opened to the public once the steam was up. Some bath houses offered tea ceremonies, while others provided fruit and other food. There were sansulces (bath boys) and bath maidens who offered their service of back scrubbing.
Therefore, most Japanese men and women have grown up accustomed to being viewed in the nude and to seeing the nudity of others at all ages. Yet, with the faster pace of life typical of the larger cities in Japan and with the westernization of home architecture, the neighborhood bath house is losing its previous prominence. The communal, nude thermal springs, however, remain prized vacation spots. In many areas of Japan, the winters are bitterly cold, and the natural hot springs traditionally have been a pleasurable and healthful refuge--steaming oases nestled in craggy mountains and lush forests. Some of these pools have now become the sites of modern resort hotels.
The presently popular use of hot-tub spas in the United States obviously originated from these ancient and traditional customs of communal bathing so prominent in Japan, Scandinavia, and Turkey.
Witchcraft and Satanism
To many people, the word witchcraft conjures up visions of evil Hailoween hags on broomsticks or strange and perhaps depraved rituals of nudity and sex. However, some historians believe that witchcraft is the oldest religion in the world and, therefore, quite respectable despite the prevalent prejudices of Judaism and Christianity. These historians of religion say that witchcraft's fertility rites are only a worship and awe of nature, and that the monthly new-moon "esbats" and seasonal "sabbats" are only ceremonial rituals in an appeal to the gods for fecundity of the earth and fertility of its inhabitants. The word witchcraft, for example, actually means "craft of the wise," since Wicca," its root, means "wise one." As civilization developed, this old religion became a blend of fertility cults, Egyptian occultism, and ancient kabbalistic studies.26
This attitude was carried to such extremes that huge numbers of innocent people were murdered. It is now known that the great majority of those unfortunate victims had no connection with wrong-doing other than being identified as immoral and evil by their fearful neighbors and enemies. Of course, it is conceivable that there were a few witches at the time who used their potions and pills for personal profit and revenge, as their accusers claimed, just as some witches must have "cursed" their persecutors with great forcefulness. But the Wicca tradition as a whole was a religion celebrating joy, health, and fruitful harvests.
This old religion is having a renaissance today as part of the "New Age" interest in metaphysics and psychic phenomena. Meditation and hypnosis, traditional tools of witchcraft, are now popular methods of "raising consciousness" toward accomplishing personal and global changes. Flowers, herbs, and crystals, the natural sacraments of the old religion, are also widely used by New Agers in their healing rituals.
Much of the evil that has been attributed to witchcraft is actually part of the quite different traditions of Satanism and/or Devil Worship. Cults of this type were based on atheistic hedonism rather than on nature worship. Like witches, the members also practiced ritualistic nudity, but their emphasis was on orgiastic sexuality. Their "black mass" was centered around a nude woman as the altar, and their rites included liberal usage of drugs and hallucinogenic potions.
Their theology was and still is different. Anton Lavey, whose Church of Satan was founded in San Francisco in 1966, believes that even if there is a God, He is unable to intervene in human events. Since Satan, according to LaVey's devotees, is the symbol of the material world and man's carnal nature, he becomes the worshiped idol. At one time, Satanism was acknowledged to be a functioning religion (or anti-religion) in Europe, but never on a large scale.
Through the ages, rituals of vengeance through animal and human sacrifice and weird stories of rituals with nude dead bodies have been associated with Satanism. While the possibility of the existence of secret devil-cult practices in modem times cannot be ignored, LaVey's Church of Satan seems to be a nonthreatening version of devil worship. But horror stories of killings and sexual abuse do surface on occasion and are often attributed to the rituals of "devil cults." For instance, on a recent television program (1989), Geraldo Rivera interviewed a law enforcement officer who stated that the infamous cult of mass murderer Charles Manson had been linked to the "Son of Sam " group, purported to be a satanic cult.
Early Christian Nudists
There are a number of ministers and priests in the contemporary nudist movement. In fact, the modem nudist movement was largely organized by ordained religious leaders, as discussed more fully in Chapter 8. These religious leaders used as their justification the many parts of the Judaic-Christian Bible which speak of accepting the human body without shame (such as references to those apostles who were fishermen, naked at their work). Religious nudists use these quotations as an answer to the fundamentalist preachers who sermonize about God's demand for clothing.
For example, the Rev. Martin Wadestone, author of "Nudism and Christianity," writes: "Actually, in the light of the Bible, there is no sin in nudity itself; but if a person uses the nudity for lustful or immoral purposes he has misused it, and this constitutes a sin. The Bible does not speak against nudity nor does it teach that the body is shameful. There is reference to shame in nudity, but this shame was produced in the mind of man, not by divine ordination."28
This was also the belief of at least five groups in the history of Christianity: the Carpocrations, Adamites, Adamianis, Encratites, and Marcosians. Most of the historical information we have concerning the beliefs and practices of these early Christians comes to us, in fact, through the recorded criticisms and diatribes of Roman Catholic Church authorities, since these authorities have largely destroyed the writings of those they considered heretical.
Platonic philosopher Carpocrates, born in Alexandria, Egypt in the second century A.D., believed in one God as creator of the world and all things in it. He combined the Christian ideal of the brotherhood of man with portions of Plato's Republic, advocating that the glories of God should not be hidden. He urged Christians, both male and female, to look upon the natural body with gratitude for the creative force of God-love. His disciples suffered ridicule and sometimes severe persecution but continued their practices into the fourth century A.D. Records indicate that nude statues and a museum were created to honor this sect. It was the Carpocrations who first portrayed Christ's body in the exposed form commonly seen to this day.
The Adamianis existed in the second and third centuries A.D. They were a group that hoped to regain the innocence mankind lost in the Garden of Eden and, consequently, worshiped in a state of nakedness and lived as a nudist community. It's believed that groups of Adamianis used deserted pagan temples for their own rituals.
Some generations later, Encratites and Marcosians, who developed out of the Adamiani tradition, appeared on the scene. The Encratites were vegetarians and many, if not all, practiced nudism. In ancient Gaul (France), a Gnostic teacher named Marcus and his followers became known as Marcosians and were well established in the Rhone Valley by the third century. Irenaeus, a conservative Christian writer of the day, criticized their nudity and religious beliefs, remarking: "Marcus is regarded by these senseless and brain cracked as working miracles."29
The Adamites (no connection with the Adamianis) were an active sect in Bohemia during the fifteenth century A.D. They were part of the Hussite Reformation. This group set up numerous religious nude communities.
Natural-living Christians were referred to by traditionalists as "Gnostic heretics," because their Christian doctrines were influenced by esoteric teachings and Eastern mystical thought. Henry de Horatev has written that, while in one sense they could be considered Gnostics, "they were not Gnostics but just plain radical Christians."30
These "in-the-buff" religious groups were not exhibitionists, preferring to live in isolated and inaccessible seclusion, protected by the forests in Gaul, the deserts in Egypt, and the islands of Greece.
They built sturdy stone walls for privacy and protection from the hostile communities surrounding them. DeHoratev reflects, "How much it is to be regretted that the only records we have of the early Christian nudists come to us from hostile censorious quarters! Let us hope that someday, in some European or African monastery or tomb, there will be discovered a cache of lost Gnostic books which will shed new light on the persecuted groups of the nudists of antiquity, just as the Dead Sea Scrolls have brought new understanding to the old Hebrew literature."3
Nudity as Protest
Nakedness has been used throughout history as a form of protest as well as an expression of positive human values. If one's aim is to get noticed, in a clothed society stripping is certainly an effective method of gaining attention. This was a tactic used by some hippies in the 1960s and also by a number of religious protesters throughout history. For example, regarding the famous St. Francis of Assisi: "0n being rebuked by his bishop, he snatched off his clothes and walked naked through the streets."32
While it is possible, of course, to interpret this as an act of religious humility rather than protest, there is no doubt about the Doukhobors of Canada, who left Russia in 1898 and still exist in small colonies to the north of the United States. An extremist and individualistic sect of anarchists who separated from the Russian Orthodox Church in 1785, the Doukhobors numbered some 15,000 persons when they first came to Canada. Calling themselves "Sons of Freedom," they were constantly in trouble with the law because of their refusal to conform with Canadian laws governing educational, civic, and cultural standards. The Doukhobors often protested en masse in the nude. Their first nude parade was in 1903, and though the demonstrators were prosecuted and jailed, they continued this unique manner of making a statement for several decades.
Body Freedom Related to Status of Women
Even after European religious practices placed tight restrictions on body freedom and sexual enjoyment, there were periods of relaxed attitudes, perhaps as a reaction to prolonged social and sexual repressions. Jorge Lewinski, author of The Naked and The Nude, notes that some historians connect such fluctuations with a changed status of women in these cultures. He points to the early Middle Ages as being strictly patriarchal, dominated by priests with repressive attitudes toward nakedness and sex. The later Middle Ages, however, are noted for chivalry, troubadours, admiration of women, and more relaxed attitudes. The Renaissance was an era of greater prestige for women, with its Greco-Roman dress and appreciation for nonreligious nude paintings. The increased body freedom appears to be related to the flourishing arts movement of the period.
Then came Calvin and Luther, who brought back patriarchal moral restraints during the Reformation movement. This was again followed by a relaxation of morals in the eighteenth century which, for a short time, restored women's social position. Next, there was a deep plunge into the restrictive, patriarchal Victorian period--from which the feminist-oriented twentieth century has not yet completely emerged.33
The Puritan Ethic, Victorianism, and Body Shame
The whole man from head to foot is thus, as it were, drenched in a flood of wickedness so that no part has remained without sin and so everything which springs from him is counted as sin.
John Calvin, 16th century Reformist
Our weakness lies not in our works but in our nature; our person, nature, and entire being are corrupted through Adam's fall
Martin Luther, 16th century Reformist
John Calvin, a Frenchman who was incensed by the wealth, flamboyance, and moral license of the ruling Catholic Church, became a leader of the Reform movement. Forced to flee his country, Calvin received recognition in Switzerland as the founder ofprotestant Presbyterianism. He also gained fame as a founder of the ''puritan ethic.''
Martin Luther, a German monk, was the "Father of the Reformation." In 1517 he broke with papal authority to form the Protestant Lutheran Church, rebelling against what he saw as the moral laxity and extravagances of the Catholic Church and its aristocracy. Luther brought fundamentalist, no-nonsense religion to a ready and willing middle class.
With the advent of Protestantism came biblical interpretations which stressed, as never before, the impurity and sin inherent in the human body. Also emphasized was devil-fear. While God was mind and spirit, the Devil represented evil and tantalizing body sensuality. Suspected witches were persecuted and put to death on the flimsiest of hearsay. A test for detecting a witch in England (abolished in 1219 but said to have been practiced until the 18th century) is described in Robert T. Smith's Cult and Occult. "First they stripped her. Then they tied the thumb of her right hand to the big toe of her left foot. Then the thumb of her left hand to the big toe of her right foot. Then they threw her into a river or pond. If she sank and drowned, she wasn't a witch. If she floated, she was helped by the Devil and they would pull her out and execute her. "34
The puritan ethic came to America with the Mayflower. Our first settlers were hard-working Protestant pilgrim pioneers who had neither the time nor the inclination for frivolity. Their body guilt and shame became the law of the land, and this law was even more extreme in the United States than overseas. In Europe, extreme prudery was largely confined to the middle class, since the aristocracy and lower classes were apt to take more liberties with the rules of religious moralists. However, in America, the moral prohibition against so-called "acts of the Devil" was stronger.
During the 1600s and 1700s, any deviation from the norm in behavior or lifestyle was suspect. Hysterical zealots carried out witch hunts that were even more senseless than those in Europe. And a law in effect while New Jersey was still a British colony allotted the same penalty given witches to women: "...whether virgins, maids, or widows who shall after this Act, impose upon, seduce, or betray into matrimony any of His Majesty's subjects by virtue of scents, cosmetics, washes, paints, artificial teeth, or highheeled shoes." 35
In Europe, the few years of physical and emotional body-freedom experienced during the Napoleonic period shifted to the version of puritanical repression known to history as Victorianism. A middle-class morality was developing that emphasized self-reliance, self-control, and love of work. This fit well with the views of religious moralists, whose beliefs were now supported by the ruling monarchy. In England, Queen Victoria (who reigned from 1837 to 1901) and Prince Albert set patterns of conduct that were accepted as the new morality of Europe and North America.
Shame regarding sexual desires and activities reached such extremes that a woman in the mid-1800s minimized and hid all body parts except her face. She wore layers of petticoats and was enveloped in clothing from high-collared blouse to floor-length bustled skirt, a bonnet completely covering her head and a shawl drawn around the body. "Even a lady's hands were hidden. An 1840 Victorian ladies' journal advised that "Gloves are always graceful for a lady in the house except at meals." And some women did not appear at the table "barehanded. They wore fingerless mittens."37 Men were also expected to be "proper' in both dress and manner.
However, obliterating the body was not sufficient for the morality of the Victorian period. Sexual words and references to body parts were removed from "proper" language to prevent the stimulation of sinful sexual desires. It was offensive to mention the human body in the mixed company of polite society. Legs became "limbs," a chicken leg became "dark meat," and a chicken breast "white meat." Some people took modesty to the extreme of covering such items as piano legs. Thomas Bowdler brought "respectability" to Shakespeare by publishing ten volumes of his works with all words alluding to sex or nudity removed.
The Victorian age lasted from mid-nineteenth century to the early twentieth century. Victorianism created a society of contradictions by placing body taboos on normal biological urges and needs. Medical textbooks of the time stated that any woman who had sexual pleasure was abnormal. Frigidity for women was considered desirable, and doctors prescribed sedatives for those who were not frigid. While it was acceptable for men to have sexual desires, the medical profession warned that male indulgences would lead to a permanent drain on their psychic and physical resources.
Nevertheless, the pride of the Victorian husband in having a "proper" wife was a facade that hid a dark side. There were more prostitutes per capita roaming the streets of London during this time than at any other period of that city's history. A flourishing trade in pornography and a profitable trade in virgins existed. Young girls were abducted: "The going rate on the clandestine market fluctuated between five and forty Pounds, according to their age and beauty."38 After having been disgraced, these girls often joined the ranks of prostitutes.
This was the heyday of surreptitious "French Postcards," printed photographs of nude females that by today's standards would be considered little more than coy or mildly suggestive. However, these postcards were undoubtedly "racy" to the deprived male who had no other opportunity to satisfy natural curiosity about the female body. Along these lines, it was reported that the famous poets who were symbols of nineteenth century romance, Elizabeth Barrett and her husband, Robert Browning, never saw each other's nude body.
There was censorship of books, art, theater, and dance. However, nudity was allowed in paintings of an allegorical or cherubic nature. It was also permissible to view the torture of nude or transparently draped saints, and pictures of the sensuous, suffering male Saviour were displayed in respectable homes. "In the penumbra of a chapel, Saint Sebastian triumphed on a canvas and in stone as a glorified pinup of the pious, while Adam and Eve, the perennial exhibitionists, could always be depended upon to rescue nakedness from oblivion. In plain daylight, however, the human body was carefully hidden from sight. Clothes were hermetic."39
However, reality in secular art provoked violent reactions during the Victorian period. Such familiar works as Gustave Courbet's Bathers and Manet's Luncheon on the Gross and Olympiawere considered obscene. While French writer Emile Zola passionately defended Manet, the extensive collection of Greek and Roman statues displayed in the Vatican was "fig-leafed." Nude sculptures sent to museums by missionaries were mutilated or covered with loin cloths.
In the late 1940s, a team from Life Magazine was assigned to take the first direct-color photographs of the renowned Sistine Chapel in the Vatican. Church authorities were cooperative with one exception. All photographs of Michelangelo's famed ceiling had to be cropped before publication to remove the frontal nudity of the figures. However, there was no restriction on photographing the murals on the lower walls. It was learned that one of the previous popes had assigned an artist to take care of lower-level nudity by painting drapes over exposed midsections. Since the famous ceiling was so inaccessible, its figures had not been subjected to draping.
The United States had Anthony Comstock, notorious for his crusades against anything suggestive of sex or sensuality. A special agent for the US Post Office starting in 1868, he waged a relentless fight against "smut," resulting in the confiscation of the masterpieces of such famous painters and writers as George Bernard Shaw, Tolstoy, Zola, Balzac, Stendhal, and Flaubert. His censorship powers limited the body freedom, art, and reading material of the nation for four decades. And his repressive mandates remained part of the U.S. postal regulations for many years after his death. 40
The literati of the day were constantly at war with Comstock. Writers and critics complained that "...many of his cases concerned books and plays and pictures which were pornographic only by the wildest stretch of the imagination."41 Comstock's obsession with what he considered smut made him privy to many of today's masterpieces of erotica, such as the works of D. H. Lawrence and Henry Miller, the Kama Kala temple art of India, and many sculptural and pictorial works of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. He also founded the New York Society for the Suppression of Vice, was given police powers, and carried a gun while looking for lewdity. "On one occasion he entered a brothel and offered three women fourteen dollars to strip naked, then arrested them when they did." 42 The predecessor of Comstock was "hell and brimstone" Rev. John R. McDowell. This protector of the masses from the evils of licentiousness was secretly a collector of pornography.43
Perhaps the most cruel and destructive manifestation of Victorianism was the insensitive treatment of native cultures by religious missionaries and European colonists. With no regard for native pride and dignity, for their religious customs, nor for the practicality of their dress and lifestyle, arrogant victorianism demanded conformity with European customs. Forcing clothing on those peoples whose cultures had previously permitted them to experience body freedom was not only demean ing and humiliating but an effective and constant reminder of their "inferior" heritage and status. An 1894 report by a former governor of a Tonga village describes these conditions: "It was punishable by fine and imprisonment to wear native clothing; punishable by fine and imprisonment to wear long hair or a garland of flowers; punishable by fine and imprisonment to wrestle or to play ball; punishable not to wear shirt and trousers and, in certain localities, coat and shoes also...."41
The Christian missionaries created cover-up garments from whatever source was available. They often forced the natives to wear sacklike coverings, but odd assortments of discarded clothing from the Continent were also given to them. Richard Harrington tells of seeing "a strapping black stevedore in Leopoidville wear a child's pink bonnet, unaware he was ridiculous to the eyes of the white man. I have seen African women with castoff brassieres arranged above their breasts for use as pockets."45
"Since the natives had never learned to wash or mend clothes, it took them a long time to adapt to European garments, which were at first worn until they fell to pieces. There was a great decline in cleanliness with resulting skin diseases and other infections."46 The natives were subjected to the same kind of embarrassment in having to be seen in clothing as we, in a clothed society, would feel upon being forced to abandon ours. It is a wonder that more missionaries didn't end up in the cannibal's pot!
However, there were always voices of protest against the moralistic, antisexual, and body-shame edicts of the Victorian period, especially from the educated classes. In 1833, Thomas Carlyle wrote a much-discussed book, Sartor Resartus, in which he challenged the dogma of the indispensability of clothing. He discussed the moral, religious, and polifical influence of clothes, humorously observing that if there were nakedness in the House of Lords, their power would be diminished. Also, he philosophically considered the possibility of a nude world.47
Benjamin Franklin wrote of his daily ritual, a nude cold-air bath each morning while reading or writing. Franklin is reported to have been seen swimming the Thames in London without clothing. In Leysin, Switzerland, Dr. Charles Rollier was obtaining cures of tuberculosis and other diseases by prescribing sunbathing as an element of treatment. British writers and artists, such as George Bernard Shaw, Oscar Wilde, and Aubrey Beardsley, ridiculed the mores of their society and demonstrated their beliefs by occasionally wearing extreme clothing or displaying unconventional behavior. In America, writer Henry David Thoreau and poet Walt Whitman expressed strong feelings about the need for back-to-nature innocence and body freedom.
Twentieth Century Modernism
At the turn of the century, famous American dancer Isadora Duncan started wearing loosely draped clothing in ordinary life and on the stage, saying, "I live in my body like a spirit in a cloud." She captivated audiences in America and Europe with the graceful new freedom and expressiveness of her performances in filmy, flowing Greek tunics. By her break with convention, Duncan not only started a new fashion in dance but opened the way to twentieth century modernism in clothing, making the corset obsolete.
The rebellion against Victorian clothing took another turn in Germany where, in 19O3, Richard Ungewitter wrote a book, Die Nacktheit, which advocated a return to ancient Greek attitudes toward nudity for hygienic and moralistic reasons. In 1905 Paul Zimmerman opened the first resort for social and family nudism, Freilichtpark (Free Light Park). At the same time another German, Dr. Heinrich Pudor, wrote a book titled Nacktcultur, which discussed the benefits of nudity in coeducation and advocated the enjoyment of sports free of cumbersome clothing. "Dr. Pudor called nudity aristocratic and slavery to clothes a plebeian characteristic, stating that all nations which completely disregard the rights of their people to nudity rapidly become decadent."48 The nudist movement (now international in scope) sprang from such simple beginnings, in bold defiance of what had become a century-long mentality of body denial.
The women's suffragette movement had begun to challenge the status quo prior to World War One, but it wasn't until after the war that the tight reign of repressive morality began to shake loose. When their men were sent off to war, women took charge of managing their families and worked at jobs never before available to them. By the 1920s women had emancipated themselves from restricting dresses and were showing off their bodies in abbreviated blouses and short skirts. Women even discarded the crown of femininity by "bobbing" their hair. Furtive curiosity about nakedness was replaced by the openness of nudity in entertainment. Burlesque striptease, Ziegfeld's Follies, Earl Carroll's Vanities, and George White's Scandals were spectacular and sensual displays of the joy and beauty of the female body. On the bolder Parisian stage, musical productions included full nudity.
However, the permissive glamour of the 1920s "flapper" era was tempered by the great depression that followed. By this time the body was liberated from cumbersome clothing, sexuality was publicly acknowledged, and it didn't seem possible to go back. Nevertheless, there were, and are, many indications that our culture as a whole has not broken completely from its heritage of guilt and shame rooted in the "original sin" written about in our biblical roots.
The naked body is still considered unnatural. Nudity on American televtsion is rare. During the daytime hours, when children are watching, nudity isn't permissible. Children are protected from the "damaging" effects of viewing a natural, normal, and harmless human body, but body violence is condoned as entertainment for our children and ourselves. Such confused value systems help fill the psychiatric couch!

1. Quoted from an anonymous article in The Los Angeles Times, January 3, 1988.
2. Tibor Sekelj, "Living in the Jungle,"Nude Living #39 (Los Angeles: Elysium, Inc., 1967).
3. Henry deHoratey, "The Nudist Pharoah," Nude Living#9 (Los Angeles: Elysium, Inc., 1962).
4. J. Herman, "King and Queen of the Sun," NudistAdventure #15 (Los Angeles: Elysium, Inc., 1968).
5. deHoratev, op. cit.
6. Ibid.
7. Anthony J. Papalas, "Greek Attitudes Toward Nudity," Nudist Adventure #13 (Los Angeles: Elysium, Inc., 1967).
8. Paul LeValley, "Ancient India," Clothed with the Sun, Vol.6.4 (Oshkosh, WI: The Naturists, Inc., Winter, 1986-87).
9. Papalas, op. cit.
10. Lynn Poole and Gray Poole, History of the Olympic Games (New York: Ivan Obolensky Publishers, 1963).
11. Ibid.
12. Papalas, op. cit.
13. Poole, op. ciL
14. LeValley, op. cit.
15. deHoratev, op. cit.
16. LeValley, op. cit.
17. Ibid.
18. Ibid.
19. Ibid.
20. Murray Wren, "A Nudist view of Social History,"
Nudist Adventure #9 (Los Angeles: Elysium, Inc., 1966).
21. Mulk Raj Anand, Kama Kala (Nagel Publishers, 1959) (from a book review in Evergreen Review cited in Nude Living#2) (Los Angeles: Elysium, Inc., 1961).
22. Bernard Rudofsky, Are Clothes Modern? (Chicago: Paul Theobald Publishers, 1947).
23. William Hartm an, Marilyn Fithian, and Donald Johnson, NudistSociety (New York: Crown Publishers, Inc., 1970).
24. Marvin K. Opler, "TheAbsence of Clothes Doesn't Mean the Absence of Morality," Sexual BehaviorMagazine (January, 1973).
25. L. Clovis Hirning, "(Clothing and Nudism," Encyclopedia of Sexual Behavior, eds. Albert Ellis and Albert Abarbanee (New York: Hawthorn l~ooks, 1961).
26. Nathaniel Lande, Mindstyles, Lifestyles (Los Angeles: Price/Stern/Sloan, 1976).
27. Justine Glass, Witchcraft, the Sixth Sense (North Hollywood, CA: Wilshire Book Company, 1974).
28. Martin Wadestone, "Nudism and Christianity," Sundial #19 (Los Angeles: Elysium, Inc., 1964).
29. Henry deHoratev, "Early Christian Nudists," Nude Living #2 (Los Angeles: Elysium, Inc., 1961).
30. Ibid.
31. Ibid.
32. Bernard Rudofsky, The Unfashionable Human Body (Garden City, NY: l)oubleday& Company, 1971).
33. Jorge Lewinski, The Naked and The Nude (New York: Harmony Books, 1987).
34. Robert T. Smith, Cult and Occult (Minneapolis, MN: Winston Press, 1973).
35. Lawrence Langner, The Importance of Wearing Clothes (New York: Hastings Rouse Press, 1959).
36. Edmund Kieman, "The 19th Century and Nudity," Nude Living#1 (Los Angeles: Elysium Publishing, Inc., 1961).
37. Emily Coleman and Betty Edwards, Body Liberation (Los Angeles: J. P. Tarcher, Inc., 1977).
38. Lewinski, op. cit.
39. Rudofsky, The Unfashionable Human Body, op. cit.
40. Lewinski, op. cit.
41. Hartman et al, op. cit.
42. Dennis Craig Smith with Dr. William Sparks, Growing Up Without Shame (Los Angeles: Elysium Growth Press, 1986).
43. Lewinski, op. cit.
44. Rudofsky, The Unfashionable Human Body, op. cit.
45. Richard Harrington, "The Vanishing Nude," Nude Living #27 (Los Angeles: Elysium Publishing, Inc., 1965)
46. Hirning, op. cit.

Religious training continued...History of Religious Sex



Religious training continued...History of Religious Sex



Goddesses of Pagan myth resources:

The religion of the Goddess, wherever it was practiced throughout history, has always been sex positive. The most famous of the ancient rituals is the Hieros Gamos, or Sacred marriage ritual. Records of this ceremony have been dated as far back as early Sumerian, about 5500 years ago. In this ritual the high priestess acting as avatar of The Goddess had sex with the ruler of the country to show the Goddess's acceptance him as ruler and caretaker of her people. Here is part of the ceremony as translated from an ancient Sumerian poem.
The High Priestess, acting for Inanna, is speaking to Dumuzi the new king.

My vulva, the horn,
The boat of Heaven,
Is full of eagerness like the young moon.
My untilled land lies fallow.
As for me, Inanna,
Who will plow my vulva?
Who will plow my high field?
Who will plow my wet ground?
As for me, the young woman,
Who will plow my vulva?
Who will station the ox there?
Who will plow my vulva?The symbolism is, I hope, obvious to you. If you've ever looked at an anatomical picture of the female reproductive system, you may have noticed that the vagina is shaped like a horn, it curves upward and narrows towards the back.
On the male side, an old time plow (not the modern day tractor type) had a long, hard projection that pushed into the ground.
Dumuzi, the king replies:
Great Lady, the king will plow your vulva,
I, Dumuzi the King, will plow your vulva Inanna accepts him saying:
Then plow my vulva, man of my heart
Plow my vulva.Then follows more details of the happenings
My eager impetuous caresser of the navel,
My caresser of the soft thighs;
He is the one my womb loves best,
My high priest is ready for the holy loins.
My lord Dumuzi is ready for the holy loins.
The plants and herbs in his field are ripe.
O Dumuzi, Your fullness is my delight.
The high priestess then directs things to be readied
Inanna called for the bed.
Let the bed that rejoices the heart be prepared
Let the bed that sweetens the loins be prepared
Let the bed of kingship be prepared!
Let the bed of queenship be prepared!
Let the royal bed be prepared!This bed was set up in front of the entire congregation. The people watched the entire ritual including the sexual part.
He shaped my loins with his fair hands,
The shepherd Dumuzi filled my lap with cream and milk.
He stroked my pubic hair.
He watered my womb.
He laid his hands on my holy vulva,
He smoothed my black boat with cream,
He quickened my narrow boat with milk.
He caressed me on the bed.
The King went with lifted head to the holy loins.
He went with lifted head to the loins of Inanna
He went to the queen with lifted head.
He opened wide his arms to the holy priestess of heaven.
We rejoiced together.
He took his pleasure of me.
He laid me down on the fragrant honey-bed
My sweet love, lying by my heart,
Tongue-playing, one by one,
My fair Dumuzi did so fifty times.
Now, my sweet love is sated.At the climax of the ceremony (or should I say, climaxes, fifty times, wow!) the populous would cheer and shout their approval and appreciation. This ritual brought prosperity to the people and to the land, so they were very happy to witness its successful completion.
A lot has been written since women's liberation about the performance anxiety men feel in our modern times. Performing sex in front of other people was not the stressful thing in ancient days as it is now. Sex was often done in religious ceremonies in groups--Orgies.
Nowadays the word orgy connotes something depraved and degenerate. That was not the original meaning for the word. The word "orgy" comes from the Greek word "orgia" meaning "secret worship". Since most secret worship involved sexual rituals, and Christians were opposed to anything sexual the word orgy came to have the debased meaning it has today, rather than the noble, spiritual meaning of the original word.
Many words that are used to describe extreme religious fervor are also used to describe great sex, such as passion, bliss, and ecstasy. There were many orgies throughout the year as celebrations in the religion of the Goddess. Many of these celebrations have been taken over by the Christians who removed their sexual nature. The best known is undoubtedly Christmas taken from the pagan festival of Saturnalia.
Saturn, from whom we get the word for the day of the week, Saturday, was the Roman name for the Greek God, Cronus and the Babylonian God, Ninip. Sometimes called the Lord of Death, he was represented by the sun at its lowest aspect at the winter solstice. That's when the earth is cold, and most plants are dead, and it was believed that the sun was approaching death. Today that's around December 21, but because of calendar changes, it was originally December 25th. Saturnalia celebrated the sun overcoming the power of winter, with hope of spring when life would be renewed. In Roman times, Bacchus, the god of wine, became the lord of these festivals. During the Bacchanalian festivals the everyday rules were turned topsy turvy. The masters waited on the servants. All sexual prohibitions were lifted. It was a time of true good will towards all men. Even dresses were exchanged with men dressing as women. Erotic dances were performed with a large erect phallus being carried around in the dancing processionals.
The custom of exchanging clothes during Saturnalia and Bacchanalia was an activity frowned upon by the Jews and Christians as it is prohibited by the Bible, Deuteronomy 22;5 "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment; for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy god" So much for Biblical transvestites.
However, the god Hermes in order to become a god of magic went into the temple of his consort Aphrodite where he wore a woman's robes and artificial breasts. In the temple he learned all the secrets of the Goddess Aphrodite which were exclusively taught to her female priestesses. The priests of the very masculine Greek hunk, Hercules, always wore female dress, probably in memory of Hercules service in female dress to the Queen Omphale. Zeus had sent Hercules to be a slave to the Queen for having killed a young man, Eurytus, after his father had insulted Hercules.
One of the most famous prophets and seers of ancient time, Teiresias, was a man who was changed into a woman and served in the temples as a priestess for seven years to gain the feminine powers of insight and divination. During this time as a woman he gave birth to a daughter before being turned back into a man. It was Teiresias who gave us the "scale of one to ten." Myth has it that Zeus and Hera once argued who had the most pleasure in sex. Zeus said it was the woman, while Hera asserted it was the man. They agreed that Teiresias should judge who was right. He did not hesitate to tell the God and Goddess, "Measured on the scale of pleasure, in the act of sex man has one measure to woman's nine." Hera became incensed by this, stating that judges, like referees in sporting events are all blind, and made Teiresias blind.
Anciently men's transvestism had its roots in the desire to attain female magic and powers and was common among the Pagan priests up to the time of St. Augustine who denounced the custom, saying that men who wore women's garments could never attain salvation, even if they were otherwise good Christians. So the good Catholics simply made the women's gowns into Priests robes. They looked the same, had the same function, but a "robe by any other name, does not a transvestite make."
Another favorite converted Pagan holiday is Valentines Day taken from the Lupricalia. The festivals of Lupricalia were noted for their wild, sensual dances in which sausages played a very important part. So important in fact that both dancing and sausages were outlawed by the Christian Emperors of the 4th and 5th century.
And, of course, May Day used to have great sexual frolics around that giant phallic symbol, the May pole. The May pole represented the Gods phallus in Mother Earth. People decorated it and danced around it. Kids still do today, even though they have no idea of its original meaning. The Christian church opposed May festivals because of its association with pagan gods. A 16th century English Puritan writer Philip Stubes, railed against May pole dancing. He said,
"What clipping, what culling, what kissing and bussing, what smooching and slobbering one of another, what filthy groping and unclean handling is not practiced in the dances." Stubes estimated, though how he got his statistics is unknown, probably from peeping through bushes, that not one girl in three retained her virginity after taking part in May pole rituals. After dancing around the Maypole celebrants would retire to the open fields where they would have sex with anyone and everyone in the plowed fields in order to insure the fertility of the land and prosperous yield of crops. May was a month of sexual freedom throughout rural Europe up to the 16th century. Marriage bonds were suspended for the month of May, commenced again in June - hence, June weddings.
All of these ancient rituals, these orgia, involved group sex and nudity. The hang ups and inhibitions that most people have about having sex in groups or in front of other people are largely the result of Biblical attitudes. Sex, was something to be done only in private behind locked doors, and only for procreation. Those restrictive ideas come to us from the Bible, in which nudity is condemned as soon as Adam and Eve ate the apple (or technically, the Fruit of Knowledge of Good and Evil).
Also in Genesis we read the story of Noah getting drunk and lying around naked in his tent. His son Ham, the father of Canaan, came in and saw him and went out and told his two brothers about it. They came in and, walking backwards, covered him. When Noah woke up he knew what Ham had done and he said,
"Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren" So the father curses his son and his descendants--who are according to some biblical interpretations, especially those of Whitehead and many Mormon, and some nineteenth century christian writers, the blacks--to be servants to his white brothers just because Ham saw him naked. A little extreme, I'd say. And it doesn't matter that some interpret this differently, as one of the justifications for American slavery of blacks was this interpretation of the Bible.
Nudity is frowned on by the Judaeo-Christian god, but Greek Gods are usually depicted as nude in magnificently detailed statues. The god of the Bible is always portrayed with plenty of flowing robes on. What does he have to be ashamed of? Did they cut too much off when he was circumcised?
In pagan religion rituals, men and women had sex with their friends and neighbors. The Bible forbids such activities in no uncertain terms, Leviticus 20:10,
"And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife even he that committeth adultery with his neighbor's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death." Even today some states still cling to archaic Judaeo- Christian religious laws making adultery a crime.
In ancient times a priestess could be married or unmarried. She performed sexual purification rituals with all worthy men regardless of her marital status. In some cultures all women were required to serve in the temple. Herodotus, the father of history, writing about the Babylonians states,
"Babylonian custom compels every woman of the land once in her life to sit in the temple of love and have intercourse with some stranger. The men pass and make their choice. It matters not what be the sum of money; the woman will never refuse, for that were a sin, the money being by this act made sacred. After their intercourse she has made herself holy in the sight of the Goddess and goes away to her home." That is unless she decided to continue as a full time priestess. The man was not paying for sex, but rather making an offering to the Goddess for allowing him to participate in the sacred ritual.
One hundred and fifty years later, Quintus Curtius, the historian who accompanied Alexander the Great on his conquests, reported:
"There is none other more corrupt than this people, or none other more learned in the art of pleasure and voluptuaries. Fathers and mothers suffered their daughters to prostitute themselves to their guests for silver and husbands were not less indulgent with respect to their wives. The Babylonians plunged into drunkenness and all the disorders which follow it. The women appeared at the banquets with modesty at first, but they ended by abandoning their robes, then the rest of their garments one after another, disrobing themselves little by little of modesty until they were entirely naked. And these were not public women who abandoned themselves so; they were the most respectable matrons and their daughters."
In some cultures, as in Egypt, the upper class women were priestesses. Almost all of the Egyptian queens were High Priestesses of the Goddess, up until Cleopatra. She was the 369th in a line of which I am 537th High Priestess. Egyptologists who know how sexual the high priestesses were, just cannot believe that a queen would have sex with anyone other than her husband-- like the good Jewish Queens of the Bible. They seem to think that Cleopatra, who had sex with 100 Roman noblemen in one night was unusual. The fact is, all priestesses, queens or otherwise had sex with thousands of men.
In ancient cultures with matriarch religions, sex was considered something ennobling and uplifting. Sex could take you closer to the Gods rather than alienate you from god.
An example of this come from one of the oldest stories in existence, the Gilgamesh Epic. Some place the Epic by tradition around 5,000 years before the current era. The story tells of many heroic adventures of Gilgamesh who is part human and part god. One particular story tells that the gods placed a wild man, Enkidu, in the wilderness area and required Gilgamesh to capture and tame him. Gilgamesh is told of this wild man by a shepherd who has seen him. Rather than run out with spears, arrows and nets, Gilgamesh sends a priestess of the Goddess to the watering place of the wild man. She takes off her clothes, exposing her charms. The wild man, finding her much more appealing than his animal friends, has sex with her for 6 days and 7 nights and is won from his wild life. He is calmly led by the priestess back to the city, to civilization.
This story dramatizes the ennobling, civilizing benefits of sex. Sex is portrayed as a force for good. Contrast that with the Biblical version of the first sex activities. Adam and Eve were living in Paradise without sex. They disobeyed their god's order not to eat fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. It is only after they eat of the fruit of knowledge that they become aware of their genitals and sex. As a result they are caste out of paradise, out of the presence of their god, into a cold, cruel, uncultivated world--where sex is evil.
In the Goddess religion sex brings one to civilization and the goddess, in the Judaeo-Christian religion sex drives one into the wilderness away from their god.
In Judaism, the sins of the individual are put on some animal which is ritualistically killed by the a priest, or sent as a scapegoat into the wilderness. In Christianity, the sins are put on the dead god Jesus, whom they believe died for all men's sins, past, present and future. (So since your sins are already all taken care of, why not enjoy yourself?) In the religion of the Goddess, the priestess takes upon herself the sins and transgressions of the man in the ritual of negation. In the Egyptian language the word, Negation, pronounced negation but obviously spelled differently in hieroglyphics, meant Semen or the essence of man. The word modernly means to cancel or wipe out, to make negative. You may wonder how it got from one language to the next with such a drastic change in meaning. That is because in the ritual of negation, a man ejaculates, or leaves his negation, his semen inside the twat of the priestess, as a symbol that he is willing to give up his all in order to have his sins wiped out. The term negation came to be applied to the whole ritual or wiping out ceremony. Gradually through the centuries, the semen, and religious connection got lost and only the wiping out part remained. The priestess literally takes upon herself the transgressions of the man, she intercedes on man's behalf with the Goddess, so that he can be purified. She is his guide in this life to bring him to the hereafter.
There have been some Christian sects through the centuries that have selectively interpreted passages of the Bible to allow them to indulge in sexual activity typically forbidden by their god. The Aegopy had open, free love when christianity first began. Other "heretical" sects in early Christianity, such as the Brothers and Sisters of the Free Spirit, were killed off by good christians about 600 years ago. A heresy is anything which the Catholic Church does not agree with. America has had several religious groups which practiced open sex. The Oneida Company of New York, which makes beautiful silver work was originally run by one such religious group. John Humphrey Noyes preached what became known as his "perfectionist" doctrine which required its members to lover one another--and make love to one another.
Another sect which was established about the same time was the Brotherhood of the New Life. It was started by Tom Harris who taught that people had a duty to love each other, not just spiritual brotherly love, but also physical love with many partners.
Most people know the Mormons practiced polygamy in the 1800's. But the Mormons also had secret sexual practices in which women were shared among the inner circle of male leaders in the early days of the church. John Law, one of the ruling three men of the Mormon Church, second only to Joseph Smith, had his printing press destroyed by angry church leaders when he threatened to publish accounts of the men who had had sex with his wife. This is emphatically denied today by Mormon leaders, but Mormons leaders also denied that they were practicing polygamy until polygamy became the "New and Everlasting Covenant of Celestial Marriage". Sex with several women became the "order" as long as you were married to them; and there appears to have be no limit put on the number of wives. The Mormons correctly pointed out that this practice was common among patriarchs of the Bible--Abraham, Israel, King David and Solomon, to name a few. Unfortunately Mormon women were never given the same freedom of having sex with other men as were the priestess wives of David and Solomon, and other patriarch.
This right of the priestess, to have sex with any man she desired, appears to have been originally taught by the founder of Mormonism, Joseph Smith, but was rejected by his wife, Emma, who also rejected polygamy. Why bother to twist and select passages from the Bible to allow sex in religion when there already exists the religion of the Goddess with its emphasis on spiritual sex?
Each of these modern religions gave up their attempt at spiritual sexuality, due to pressure from Judaeo-Christian religions. Sex is no longer just a religious issue, it is a political issue. From the mayors and councilmen of cities, legislators and governor, to the President, the politics of sex demands an outward profession of the Judaeo-Christian ethics. A politician is required to parade his wife, children, church attendance and sexual fidelity before the public as a sign of his character. In this land of the free where there is supposedly freedom of religion, we are slaves to Judaeo/Christian traditions which promote a male patriarchal order as "family values".
The sexuality of the Goddess has been feared by men from their beginning and Her sexuality is feared today. Christian fundamentalists are in dread of a sex-positive religion which will have a greater appeal then their sex-negative, ascetic doctrines. Christians fear the haunting shadows of their forgotten ancestors--those ancients who worshipped the pagan goddess and the Goddess in Her temples and groves--who still bring up images of hidden memories of her priestesses in their subconscious who speak a truth which Christians openly deny. Christians fear the obvious, that after 2000 years their dead god has not returned and the twilight of christianity has arrived--that long awaited time when the "Lady of the New Dawn" would arrive.
I have arrived

Tuesday, March 4, 2008

The Doctrine Of The Unowned Submissive

The Doctrine Of The Unowned Submissive

Author: Raven Usher ©



This article is copyrighted to the stated author(s) and can not be reproduced, copied, reprinted, or posted without the consent of the author. It is used here with permission of the author..



For the unowned or unaccompanied submissive, the BDSM world, or “lifestyle” as it is commonly referred to by it’s practitioners, is ripe with pitfalls and dangers. The “Doctrine of the Unowned Submissive” has been designed to minimize those pitfalls by giving the unowned submissive a road map through the BDSM fog. What follows here is by no means a hard and fast set of rules to be followed religiously. The Doctrine is a guideline. It is a generic tool to help unowned submissives find their way safely in what can be a very harsh environment.

For most lifestylers, BDSM is a safe and fulfilling way of life. Unfortunately, because of the cloud of “forbidden passions” and “dark desires” that loom over the lifestyle, many unsavory elements are also drawn to it. These people use the cloak of BDSM to mask dangerous, and sometimes criminal, behaviors. It is for this reason that it is imperative that the submissive who is walking these dark halls alone be as fully educated as possible. BDSM can be safe and joyous. The Doctrine is intended to help the unowned submissive achieve that goal.

chapter 1
Cautions
There are many things that an unowned submissive needs to keep an eye opened for within the lifestyle. Some of these pitfalls can be dangerous. Others will interfere with the submissive’s search for a mutually fulfilling Dominant/submissive (D/s) or Master/slave (M/s) relationship. Whichever the case, by falling victim to these traps, you may be set back in your journey or even prompted to leave the lifestyle all together. Remember, the Doctrine is not meant to discourage you, only to make you aware.

The first trap is the most subtle. It is a command for respect. New submissives are often pummeled with the notion that if you do not “respect” all dominants that you are not a “true submissive,” (whatever the hell that means). There are two things you must remember about respect. First: There is a very large difference between the entity of respect and the act of being respectful. Second: Dominants are just people and people (no matter who they are or what position they hold) must earn your respect.

Being respectful should be a no-brainer. No one is going to want to take on a disrespectful submissive. More to the point, disrespectful people are not any fun to be around. It is possible to be respectful to someone that you have no respect for. People do it in the business world all the time. It is also possible to be disrespectful to someone you have the greatest respect for. As long as you are unowned you need to keep your wits about you and act in a respectful way to everyone.

As far as having respect for people... they need to earn your respect. Officers in the military have to earn the respect of the men under them. Businessmen have to earn the respect of their employees. And dominants in the lifestyle must earn the respect of a submissive. M/s and D/s relationships are very much dependant on trust. You simply can not trust someone who has not earned your respect. So, do not just give your respect out blindly and especially do not just hand it over to someone who demands it. A demand for respect is the tell of someone who does not deserve it.

The most dangerous element that prowls the shadow of the BDSM lifestyle are rouge dominants. These are people who are not interested in mutually fulfilling relationships. They are out to hurt someone and have found a bountiful hunting ground by hiding on the edges of the lifestyle and preying on the unaware and inexperienced. Submissives have been seriously injured, permanently marred, and on the rare occasion even killed. The perpetrators of these injuries are rarely brought to justice because of a fear of discovery on the victim’s part. BDSM is still a very closeted lifestyle and few have the fortitude to risk exposure. So the rouge dominants often escape and are free to find new victims. The best way to avoid being victimized by a rouge dominant is to be aware and know the signs that identify them.
Rouge dominants come in all shapes and sizes and their intentions are equally varied. The most common are the players. The player rouge dominants are in a contest. They want something specific from you. BDSM is their game board and they will try to turn you into a game piece. There is a sure-fire way to ID players: Theory and practice do not match.
Players are con-artists. They talk the good talk and may even be exceptionally knowledgeable. They will use that knowledge to make you think that they are sincere and a well-rounded dominant. But when it comes time to put things in motion, there is a single, specific activity that interests them and they will continue to come back to it over and over again to the complete exclusion of any other activity. Players are not dominants. Dominants are aware of, and interested in, the wants and needs of the submissive. Players are interested only in fulfilling their own interest and have no regard for you.
“Sexual predators.” If you need that term defined for you, you are SO not ready to enter the lifestyle. I am not even sure you should be out in public for that matter. Sexual predators have one thing on their minds; sex. They will go to any length to get it. And they do not care who gets hurt in their pursuit of whatever form of sex they want. Too many sexual predators have learned that by stalking prey in BDSM they can often find quarry that will willingly allow themselves to be subdued. Once they make their prey helpless, it is too late for the unwitting submissive to save herself.
It is easy to spot sexual predators if you just keep track of what they talk about. Their conversations always come back to sex. No matter what form of BDSM the general conversation is referring to, they will manipulate it to include some sexual content. If the conversation is about serious bondage techniques, they will insert the idea of having sex with the submissive while she is bound. In a discussion about over-the-knee spanking the sexual predator will introduce the idea of having sex with a freshly reddened back-side. Sexual predators are dangerous. When they can not get what they want by persuasion and trickery, they will resort to force and violence. A rapist is a sexual predator that does not have the brains to trick a woman into his bed.
Most of the time you can avoid the attention of rouge dominants by avoiding “predator and prey syndrome.” Predator and prey syndrome starts when an unowned submissive acts helpless or lost. It is the animal kingdom at its finest. Predators target the weak and injured. A “helpless submissive” will attract the attention of rouge dominants as surely as a floundering fish will attract sharks. “Submissive” does not mean “helpless.” The two terms are not even listed as synonyms in dictionaries or thesaurus’. You should not, must not, portray yourself to be helpless at any time. If you do, you make yourself a target. If you do find yourself in the company of someone you suspect may be a rouge dominant you need to re-evaluate how you are presenting yourself. A strong submissive will find a good M/s or D/s relationship. A helpless submissive will find people who want to hurt her.

Even dominants who are sincere in their BDSM lifestyle pursuits will still attempt to use unowned submissives while avoiding any real commitment or responsibility towards them. This usually happens when the dominant is interested in playing with a new toy but does not actually want to bother with its upkeep. There is nothing wrong with negotiating a play session with a dominant that does not own you. It is a good way to fulfill a temporary need and gain valuable experience.
When the dominant expects you to be at his beckon call but does not reciprocate anything of lasting value, it is time to take a long look at the relationship. Your search for a long term meaningful M/s or D/s relationship can be seriously jeopardized by a dominant who makes a claim to you that you have not consented to. They do this by suggesting possibilities. They do not actually promise the submissive anything. They just make it seem like it could happen. You can tell that this is happening when they do not give you any specific goals or indicate a specific reward. They just want to keep you where they have ready un-obligated access to you.
One of the ways a dominant can keep an unowned submissive on the line is by using “the lure of ownership” as bait. It is a simple tactic. Find what someone desires and use it to manipulate them. Dominants know that most submissives seek ownership. So by eluding to the possibility of ownership (but never actually promising it), a dominant can build a large stable of ready submissives without having to go through the trouble of taking care of them.
Another way of doing that is to give the submissive a new name; a “submissive name.” If a dominant does not own you, he does not have the right to change your name. All too often, though, dominants give submissives names to keep them in line. The inexperienced submissive is made to believe that a new name is one of the steps towards ownership. The truth is, giving new names to unowned submissives is a control ploy. It is a trick that attempts to convince the submissive that, “you have the name I gave you, so you have to do what I say.” Do not fall for it. If you are not seriously negotiating ownership, you should not regard a new name as anything more than a playground nic-name.
The new name is not the only false promise a dominant will make to an unowned submissive he has no intention of ever owning. There are tons; way too many to try to list here. I am not trying to paint dominants as liars or being dishonest. It is just that keeping an unowned submissive or two available for play suits a dominant’s interests. So it is a good idea, from the dominant’s standpoint, to pursue it. If a submissive enjoys being part of an “unowned stable” there is no reason not to participate. It is important, however, for the submissive to understand the situation and not to allow herself to be kept in the stable by false pretences and empty promises.

There is a phenomenon in the lifestyle known as “velcro collars.” In some cases, velcro collars can come close to being mentally and emotionally abusive. They are certainly hurtful to the submissive. Putting on a collar is akin to putting on a wedding ring. It is a deep commitment. Just as many marriages fail, so do many M/s and D/s relationships. That is the nature of humanity. A velcro collar is something that is intentionally presented with a false commitment. A collar is a promise of longevity. A velcro collar is the lie of that promise.
Here is the worst part of velcro collars. It is exceptionally difficult for a submissive to identify a collar as being velcro when it is put around her neck. When they come off (and they always come off) it hurts more than any whip or cat-o-nine-tails. Velcro collars happen when an unowned submissive does not respond to the lure of ownership in a dominant’s favor. In that case, the dominant offers a fake ownership; one that he can dissolve at any time with out care or consequence to himself.
Despite being so hard to spot, there are a couple of tell tale signs that a velcro collar might be coming. The hard part is to recognize them before hand. The first one is the phrase “under consideration.” When a submissive hears this, her radar should go up. Basically, “under consideration” is a way for the dominant to make the submissive think that there may be possibly the chance of the dominant owning her sometime in the “who knows” future and he does not want her to find something better while he “weighs his options.”
An authentic training collar (often times referred to as a collar of consideration) is the trial time for deciding if actual ownership is right for both people; to see if dominant and submissive mesh correctly. The authenticity of a collar of consideration is easily established with a submission contract that outlines the conditions of the situation and the options for the future when the time period (also stated in the contract) of the collar is completed. Just being “under consideration” is a way for a selfish dominant to keep other dominants from playing with his toys while, at the same time, keeping the submissive blind to other options. Beware of counterfeit collars of consideration that have no set time limit. They are velcro collars.
The other sign of impending velcro is when a dominant “ear marks” a submissive. This can be hard for the submissive spot. Ear marks are intended to dissuade other dominants from getting involved with the target submissive. The dominant doing the ear marking most likely will not let the submissive know she has been ear marked. When other dominants begin to routinely ask a submissive, “Aren’t you with (name)?” she can be fairly certain she’s been ear marked. The best way to counter an ear mark is to answer that question with a resounding, “No,” and then reiterating your unowned status. If a dominant is not willing to make a commitment to you, he does not have the right to interfere with another dominant seeking you out.

Sometimes someone will try to falsely convince an unowned submissive that she has some kind of obligation to take part in something. This is usually attempted by using the “I did something for you so now you have to do this for me” ploy. It is like the opening scene of the Godfather; “Some day, and this day may never come, I’ll call on you to do me a favor.” Excrement! First of all, that day always comes. Second of all, unless a trade of services is negotiated before hand, unowned submissives do not owe anybody anything. Unowned submissives should regard anyone that tries to convince them otherwise as a player.
Unowned means no obligation outside negotiated terms. If a dominant wants an unowned submissive to submit to him, he needs to cut the deal before anything else happens. And guess what, the unowned submissive is the one who gets to dictate the conditions of the deal. Do ONLY what has been negotiated and ONLY for the length of time negotiated. At the end of a negotiated play session, the dominant’s claim to the submissive ends. Do not allow a dominant to make you think you owe him anything just because he participated. It does not matter how much time, money, planning or effort went into the session. As long as the submissive held up her end of the bargain, that is it. Obligation ended.

The “party favor” syndrome sneaks up on unowned submissives. Unowned submissives have the advantage of being able to play however they want with whomever they want. Being unowned, there is nobody to restrict how active they are in their pursuit of lifestyle pleasures. When the unowned submissive has the added advantage of operating in an organized group or club that provides a safe environment, it becomes easy to get overly involved.
It stacks up like this: The unowned submissive has free reign to attend any party and to participate in any activity. All too soon she is suddenly attending all the parties and is a key figure in most of the activities. At that point, she becomes a party favor. Some submissives like being party favors. If that is what they want, more power to them.
For the unowned submissive who is seeking a M/s or D/s relationship, being a party favor works hard to her disadvantage. Used submissives are in the same class as used cars. The more mileage it has, the less valuable it is. Refurbishing a submissive is harder than retooling a car. There are few dominants that will want to take the time or trouble to turn a party favor into a viable submissive or slave. Educating a submissive takes time and effort. Re-education compounds it.

The final caution is something that nearly all submissives have had a problem with at one time or another; addressing inappropriate behavior of a dominant. This is one of the greatest disadvantages of being unowned. If a dominant acts inappropriately to an owned submissive, she can report it to the dominant who owns her. It is then his responsibility to address it. Unowned submissives do not have that safety catch. That lack of protection often prompts a dominant to act in a way with an unowned submissive that he would not attempt with an owned submissive. That is not acceptable and unowned submissives should not tolerate it.
The problem is that submissives, especially unowned submissives, get bombarded with the idea that they should not talk back to dominants. Too often that idea makes unowned submissives allow dominants to take liberties they have no right to take. Dominants often defend this bad behavior by making a claim that they are “testing a submissive’s ability to submit.” That is a predatory tactic.
Unowned submissives need to draw a line of acceptable conduct and confront anyone that crosses that line regardless of how uncomfortable they may be doing it. This is particularly important when it comes to dominants. Allowing someone to interact with you in an inappropriate manner makes you look helpless and kicks in the “predator and prey” syndrome which will attract rouge dominants who will act even more inappropriately. If a dominant does not own you, he does not have the right to choose how he is going to interact with you. Self preservation starts with setting your own rules and sticking to them.

chapter 2
Philosophies

Unowned submissives have special concerns and considerations that owned submissives and slaves do not have to worry about. For the owned, the dominant assumes many responsibilities for the care and well being of the submissive. Not having that support to rely on is the main disadvantage of being unowned. The unowned are on their own. To successfully navigate through the BDSM lifestyle, the unowned need to keep a number of extra philosophies in mind.

Although obedience is a goal of all submissives, the unowned need to remember that they do not owe obedience to anyone. Obedience is a toll paid to the owner of a submissive. You do not pay a toll when you are not on a toll road. An unowned submissive may choose to offer her obedience to someone. That is, after all, a major goal of D/s and M/s relationships. No dominant has the right to demand obedience from an unowned submissive. If this kind of demand, or expectation, is being made to an unowned submissive she should back away from the person making the demand.
On the other side of that same coin, neither does an unowned submissive owe allegiance to anyone. One of the many advantages of being unowned is being able to choose which side of any issue you want to support. The unowned can pick and choose her own friends and acquaintances. When a dominant tries to dictate who an unowned submissive is allowed to associate with, that constitutes the “cutting from the herd” phase of predator and prey syndrome. There is an old saying, “When one person warns you against another, be on your guard... against the person who warned you.”

Unowned submissives also have rights that owned submissives do not enjoy. The strongest of these is “the right of refusal.” Yes, you read that right. Unowned submissives get to say, “No.” As an unowned submissive, you are the only one allowed and able to set limits for what you will or will not do. If there is anything that you are not comfortable with, that you consider unsafe or that you just plain do not want to do... refuse. Say “no.” Anyone that tries to convince an unowned submissive that she can not say “no” is either a player or a predator. In which case, the submissive should say “no” to everything that person suggests.
Unowned submissives should never play or participate in any activity that is demanded of them. Unowned submissives participate by request, not by demand. Only an owner has the right to demand action from a submissive. No ownership = no demand. Even if the submissive enjoys what is being demanded, she should still refuse the demand. By obeying the demand, the submissive sets a president of unearned obedience. Even a single display of this can trigger predator/prey sensors of rouge dominants. It is a weakness they can exploit. Unowned submissives have the right to negotiate every request made of them and refuse unwanted aspects. Do not give this right away.
Self preservation is not only a right of the unowned submissive, it is an important responsibility. “Unowned” often is synonymous with “unaided.” This means the unowned submissive has only herself to rely upon for safety. You should not, by any action or remission of action, allow yourself to be placed in a situation that makes you feel even the least bit unsafe. The whole of this Doctrine has been written with the intent of giving unowned submissives a tool they can use to establish a means of self preservation. In a nutshell; if you do not feel safe, you are not safe. So fix it.
An effective way of maintaining a good level of safety is to operate within a group/club/organization that offers a safe environment to its members. It is another rule of nature: there is safety in numbers. Groups can ID rouge dominants better than individuals. Clubs offer valuable education that can prevent a misstep. Organizations will have operating procedures in place that offer extra safety. Just because a submissive is unowned, it does not mean she has to be alone. Find friends, advisors, people who have proven themselves trustworthy. These people can not only make your journey safer but a whole lot more fun.

Submission is a precious commodity. If it was available on the stock exchange it would out-price gold. As with any commodity, buyers will do anything they can to get a deal on the price. They want to buy low and sell high. Unfortunately, the only way to “buy low” is to try to make the unowned submissive believe her value is lower than it actually is or to even try to convince her she has no value at all.
Submissiveness DOES NOT equal worthlessness. If it did, dominants would not expend so much time or energy on submissives. In a 24/7 M/s relationship, the submissive has all her needs provided for her. Everything from clothes and food to a place to live are given to her in exchange for her submission. For M/s and D/s relationships that are not 24/7, the level of that exchange varies with the conditions of the relationship. Either way, it is a serious investment in time, energy and often money on the part of the dominant. If submission had no value, they would not bother.
One of the ways of trying to convince an unowned submissive that she is devalued is by using humiliation play in a harmful manner. It is a common tactic of rouge dominants. There is nothing wrong with humiliation play as long as it remains play. When the humiliation tactics leave the confines of a play session and begin to attack real life self esteem, they become a predatory tool. The unowned submissive that consents to humiliation play must remember that it is not a personal value assessment. When a dominant’s humiliation tactics begin to linger outside the play space, it is time to break off contact with that dominant.
It is very common for submissives, owned and unowned, to be labeled with terms like “bitch,” “slut,” “whore,” and worse. Many times they are referred to as “it.” This is intended to remove undue pride. Unowned submissives must be sure to maintain a high level of self-respect. It is a priority for maintaining healthy mental and emotional states. One of the best ways to keep your self-esteem at a high level is to take pride in the labels. Play little games with yourself. i.e.: “I’m not a bitch. I’m the bitch and it’s Miss Bitch to you.” “Yes, I am a whore. But you couldn’t afford me with a year’s salary.” These types of games remove the negative connotations from the terms that some dominants might use to deflate your self esteem. Yes, many submissives are bitches, sluts and whores... and we’re damn proud of it! So you stay proud of yourself, Miss Unowned Submissive. Wear your unowned status like a badge of honor.

Unowned submissives need to hone their communication skills to a fine edge. Every negotiated play session requires good communication to set proper limits. Finding the right M/s or D/s relationship will require massive communications just getting to know a perspective partner. And the ultimate negotiation of a submission contract will take communication that will directly affect you for the whole length of the contract. This is not just a high school teacher preaching about skills needed for the future. This is your life. And as a BDSM submissive, your life has very specific aspects that that need a great deal of attention. The average person does not have to think about being bruised over a large area of their body on a regular basis for the pleasure of someone else. BDSM submissives do.
Self preservation, self-esteem, personal value and safety are also dependant on how well an unowned submissive educates herself. If you have read this far into the Doctrine, you obviously have some interest in learning and education. That is a good thing. Do not lose that, ever. You cannot be safe from danger by remaining ignorant to its existence. There are many resources for learning in the lifestyle; books, internet sites, people willing to teach. Unowned submissives, more than any other people involved in BDSM, need to take full advantage of every resource. They are the ones facing the most danger. Dominants do not have predators vying for a chance to hurt them. Owned submissives have protection. Unowned submissives’ success relies fully on their own knowledge.

chapter 3
Protocols

The best way to avoid the “helpless submissive” persona is to interact with people in the BDSM lifestyle in a manner that is socially acceptable within the confines of that lifestyle. The lifestyle is very structured. One of the key ways to identify a newcomer is by observing behavior that does not conform to lifestyle protocols. Getting a definite grip on protocol can be difficult because there are no set standards. Protocols vary from group to group and even from person to person.
Ultimately it is the responsibility of the dominant to set down the rules of protocol for the submissive he owns. Those protocols will set the groundwork for all rules that the submissives will be required to live by during her ownership. This leaves the unowned submissive at an obvious disadvantage. Being unowned, she has no one to set down any rules of conduct (protocols) for her. Without protocols she is an easy mark to make as being inexperienced. Luckily, since there are no hard and fast protocol rules for the lifestyle, the unowned submissive can adopt some generic protocols that most people involved with the BDSM lifestyle will acknowledge, accept and respect.

Protocols deal with behavior. They set a social norm of how people interact with one another. In the BDSM lifestyle, the protocols are much more strict than in standard society. All one’s inter-personal interactions will either be made or broken depending on how well one can adhere to acceptable protocols.
Protocol really is not a mystery. The best way to begin is to go back to kindergarten and take a refresher course on common courtesies. Mark Twain said, “Common sense ain’t all that common.” Well it seems that in the beginning of the 21st century common courtesy is not any more common. So go back to the basics. Being courteous and receptive to courtesy goes a long way.
Simple politeness is more valuable than can be accurately described. I know you probably think it is silly to actually say that. But the number of impolite and inconsiderate people head-butting their way through the lifestyle with no idea about why they can not connect for any length of time is astounding. Be nice. Any child who ever went out to play has heard their mother say, “Be polite and play nice.” Interacting with others in the lifestyle is a good time to do just that.
Since we are re-hashing things our mothers told us... watch your language! Yes it is true that the BDSM lifestyle very often involves heavy sexual content. That is no reason to saturate you speaking with all the words that have been deemed not appropriate for public broadcast by the FCC. Vulgarity for the mere sake of being vulgar is ugly. More to the point, it is not polite. Most to the point, it is not necessary. Sexual content can be discussed without degrading to vulgarities and offensive language. Yes, sometimes “fuck” is the proper word. But it should not be the single most common adjective in your vocal repertoire.
While you are being polite and watching your language, pay attention when others are talking. There go those kindergarten rules again. One sure-fire way to annoy and aggravate a dominant is to make him repeat himself. One sure-fire way to annoy and aggravate a dominant is to make him repeat himself. One sure-fire way to annoy and aggravate a dominant is to make him repeat himself. See how annoying that is? Dominants get very use to having their wills attended to swiftly. It is a punishable offence for an owned submissive to miss something that is said to her due to inattentiveness. As an unowned submissive searching for a M/s or D/s relationship, you need to display that you are capable of as high a level of attention as any owned submissive.

The Doctrine touched early on the importance of acting in a respectful manner. It is here, in the protocols, where that comes into play. When dealing with dominants, the unowned submissive should act with respect without obligation. There is that word “obligation” again. Remember, unowned submissives are not obligated to anyone. So neither you nor a dominant should imply obligation by your respectful actions. If a dominant politely asks you to fetch a drink, by all means do so. If he tells you to get it, stay where you are. An unowned submissive’s politeness is not a declaration of service. Politeness is a two-way street. The unowned submissive has every right to expect it from dominants.

When an unowned submissive does speak with a dominant, she should use titles that do not imply ownership. The safest titles are “Sir” for men and “Ma’am” for women. It is rare for a dominant to take offence at either of those terms. Do not use a dominant’s proper name unless it is made clear that it is ok to do so. Generally speaking, the best thing to do is to refer to a dominant with the term they are introduced to you with. Not all women like “Ma’am.” So if you are introduced to “Lady (name)” call her by the title, “Lady.”
The exceptions are titles that imply ownership. The two biggest of those are “Master” and “Mistress.” Any other term that feels like an implication of ownership should be avoided also. A master owns someone. So if an unowned submissive calls a man “Master” when speaking to him, it implies his ownership. That is a bad thing. Most dominants will act on the implication and attempt to take liberties that are not their due, even if it is a subconscious reaction. If you offer a dominant ownership you can not be surprised when he takes it. Do not make the offer.

A big pit-fall in protocol that many new and inexperience submissives fall into is not asking for permission to interact with others. Dominants have the right to decide who they will allow to talk to them. When an unowned submissive approaches a dominant for the first time, it is a good idea to start with something along the line of, “May I speak with you?” It is a great way to start off with a respectful demeanor and dominants will notice the effort. Once a dominant has given an unowned submissive permission for open conversation it’s not generally necessary to ask again. Unless the dominant has rescinded that permission for some reason.
Dominants also have the right to dictate who the submissives they own are allowed to talk to. If an owned submissive talks to you, it is a good bet she has permission to do so. When in doubt ASK. Most of the time you can ask the submissive. All owned submissives know who they can and cannot talk to. If however the unowned submissive wishes to catch the attention of the dominant, it is a good idea to ask the dominant for permission to talk to the submissive he owns.

This next protocol is a silent expression of respectful behavior. It is very simple, but the number of submissives, owned and unowned, who forget it is staggering. Submissives should keep their heads lower than dominants‘. It is like saluting officers in the military. It is a gesture that acknowledges their position as dominants. Of course, if the submissive is a six and a half foot Amazon of a woman exceptions will be made when she and the dominant are both standing.
This is so laughably simple it borders on incomprehension that so many submissives forget it. Submissive should not be on a higher level than the dominant. If the dominant is standing, the submissive should feel free to stand.
If the dominant is sitting, the submissive should sit. Where a submissive should sit is not always clear. It is a widely accepted “rule” of protocol that submissives should not sit on furniture unless given permission to do so. But it is not universal. Check in your area to be sure. If the dominant is sitting on the floor (which is rare) then the submissive should be on the floor as well. In a nutshell, do not stand up to talk to a dominant that is not standing.

Kneeling. Submissives spend a lot of time on their knees, owned more than unowned. Kneeling, when to do it, and to whom to do it for can be very tricky. To start with, let us define exactly what kneeling means in the BDSM lifestyle. 1) It is an act of respect. By kneeling in front of a dominant the submissive is acknowledging the dominant’s rank. 2) It is a show of submission. Kneeling is the submissive’s declaration that she is indeed submissive. You will never see a dominant on his knees without a gun to his head.
Now let us look at what kneeling is not. 1) It is NOT mandatory for the unowned submissive. Being unowned gives a submissive the right to decide to whom she is going to be submissive towards. That means she also decides to whom she kneels to and whom she does not. 2) If the unowned submissive does choose to kneel, it is NOT a declaration of servitude. Just because an unowned submissive kneels to show her respect, she is not tossing out everything the Doctrine has covered to this point. Dominants should consider it a gift of respect when unowned submissives kneel to them.

Finally, a few words on what can be a confusing aspect of the BDSM lifestyle; switches. Switches are people who play both sides of the dominant/submissive fence. They literally “switch” from one role to the other according to their desires. This does not mean that their submission or dominance is any less valid than anyone else’s. It just means that you have to guess what mode they are in from day to day.
For the unowned submissive, switches can pose some trepidation about what is the proper way to interact with them. It is a question with a simple answer. Unowned submissives should regard switches and interact with them the same as they would a dominant. Afford switches all the protocols and politeness that you give to dominants. This is done for one specific reason. Sooner or later there could be a chance that the switch will take the dominant position in a play session with you. That play session will go a lot smoother and be much more rewarding if the dominant/submissive protocols have already been established.

Here ends the lesson.