Parenthood = Non-consensual D/s?
As most people in the BDSM scene surely know, consent is the linchpin of ethical BDSM. You cannot spank someone, tie them up, pierce them, brand them, flog them, dominate them, or control their decisions unless you have obtained their prior consent. No one is your submissive, or even slave, nor does anyone owe you any deference or submission, until that person has agreed to being such. (A lesson many male dominants and tops need to learn...) Even in TPE, or "total power exchange," situations, where it is argued that the slave's consent is no longer relevant, it is not ethical unless the slave has consented to the irrelevance of his/her consent. In short, you cannot hurt or dominate another person without his/her approval.
One day, it occurred to me that the parent/child relationship, in ALL societies, is much like a D/s relationship -- if not Master/slave or, in some cases, even TPE! Think about it... The parents control:
*what the child eats
*wears
*reads
*listens to
*watches on TV
*says (After all, how many of us got in trouble as kids for "talking back"?)
*does for fun
*where he goes
*who she associates with
*how he worships (or doesn't worship)
*her hairstyle and color
*his classes and extracurricular activities
*her sleeping patterns
*his verbal habits and demeanor
*how she decorates her room
*his access to information (about other religions, other political viewpoints, about sex and contraception)
*her medical decisions
The parents also get lots of license -- legally and socially -- as far as their kids are concerned:
*If the kid turns out to be gay and the parents happen to be religious nuts, they are allowed send him to some evangelical ex-gay camp to turn him straight.
*Parents are given the option to mutilate their childrens genitals, both male (circumcision) and, in some cultures, female (clitoridectomy).
*If the child is born intersexed, the parents get to choose a gender and impose it on the child.
*The parents are able to deny an injured child a life-saving blood transfusion or organ transplant.
*They can send the child to private schools (and homeschooling) in order to deny him/her exposure to alternative political and religious viewpoints -- so that once s/he gets to learn about other views, s/he'll be so thoroughly steeped in the parent's own worldview as to be mentally closed to anything else.
In fact, about the only thing parents AREN'T allowed to do to their kids is screw and fondle them. Oh, wait, I forgot...spanking. That's right! As your child's parent, the law entitle you to punish your child by making physical contact with his/her behind (widely recognized in our society as a "private part") using either your own hand or some implement. Sometimes on the bare behind or even completely nude -- the latter of which, believe it or not, I have actually heard of.
So, there you have it, in the parent/child relationship, the former have near-total control over the latter, who are (or can be) denied autonomy, individuality and self-expression, and boundaries (even physical boundaries, as in the previous paragraph). Just like an intense D/s relationship between two adults. The difference being, in a regular D/s relationship, the s-type has consented to entering the relationship, accepting the D-type's collar, and submitting to his/her authority. The child's consent, by contrast, is never even considered. Specifically...
*The parents do not have to obtain the child's consent to bring him/her into the relationship. (Which would be physically impossible, in any event.)
*There is no option for a contract to ensure the child gets some things and is not subjected to others (aside from difficult-to-enforce laws against abuse and neglect).
*The child does not get to have a list of limits (e.g., "no spanking" or "no forced religious participation")
*The child does not get a safeword (Visualize... Parent: Junior, eat your brussel sprouts now! Junior: Red!)
*There is no option to extricate oneself from the relationship -- except in rare cases -- as vanillas can do by breaking up or as a Dom/sub pair can do by transferring the collar back to the Dom.
*Finally, the only way the D/s component ends is once the child becomes a legal adult. However, even then, that does not necessarily happen because
(1) parents tend not to willingly relinquish control and use any resources at their disposal (finances, manipulation, etc.) to maintain it
(2) newly legal adults are not always able to exercise their new legal independence for various reasons, such as financial dependence on parents or remaining "mentally collared" by them
I mean, think about it for a bit. As a society, we condemn sexual intercourse with underage partners even if they do consent (in the sense of agreeing and going along with it) -- which, of course, is justified because persons below the age of consent generally do not have the emotional maturity or knowledge to have sex responsibly. Yet, we see no problem with holding children in what amounts to full-on D/s relationships without their consent. As far as society is concerned, children are the parents property to do with as they please, tinkering with them and manipulating them until the parents get the results they want. (Even if we don't openly acknowledge the "property" aspect.)
Now, I realize that what I've been saying here flies in the face of everything that we, as a society, take for granted about what the parent/child relationship should be -- especially in terms of such things as parental authority and children's obedience. And, in fact, I'm not arguing that parents should be without authority, nor am I arguing that kids should simply be able to do whatever they want. Indeed, when I have kids of my own, they WILL be getting vaccinations and check-ups and going to school, and certain things, like bigotry and abusive behavior, WON'T be acceptable in my home.
What I'm basically proposing here is a kind of intellectual exercise. First of all, is there, in fact, any warrant in seeing parenthood as a form of non-consensual D/s? Secondly, if we were to view parenthood in this light, then what implications would it have for the ethical use of parental authority?
If we simply accept parenthood as is commonly understood, with the implicit "property" aspect, then there is no real issue because it's simply a matter of "This is MY child, and I'll raise him/her as I see fit!" If, however, we see the child as an individual (with individual wants, needs, preferences, personal boundaries, etc.) who has had D/s foisted upon him/her non-consensually, then surely this should affect how we see parental authority and how we parent.
I welcome your thoughts, including specific parenting practices one might be compelled to adopt or reject as a result of considering or accepting this view. For my own part, here are some ways this could affect my parenting:
*No spanking. For years, I have been opposed to spanking. Not necessarily because of the potential consequences, which are debatable in any event. Rather, my opposition is because I see it as a violation of the child's physical boundaries and bodily autonomy; in my mind, the only way physical punishment of a child could be ethical would be if the child were given a choice between that and some alternative non-physical punishment, like being grounded.
*Parental evaluations. Maybe a few times a year, have the kids fill out evaluations of us as parents. Stuff like, "How often do we misuse our parental authority? Always, Often, Occasionally, Seldom, or Never?" "What do you like best about how we've been raising you? What suggestions for improvement would you make? What are your overall impressions of our parenting style?" Imagine how that could affect the parent/child dynamic. The parents actually accepting some level of accountability to their kids for their decisions, even if the most they have to worry about is a poor evaluation.
*Intellectual and spiritual freedom. The freedom to explore political and religious worldviews other than the ones being taught at home. And, more to the point perhaps, the freedom to worship and support causes besides those that I would support.
*Freedom of self-expression. The freedom to dress as one sees fit, decorate ones room as one sees fit, and say what's on one's mind. This also include no "forced respect" (i.e., going through the motions of "being respectful," regardless of one's actual feelings) or "forced apologies" (stuff like "Young man, you tell her you're sorry right now!").
These are just some ideas I have now. I may come up with more later and post them here.