Friday, 17 August 2007

Okay, fuck this shit.

Agh.

Just agh:

http://sparklematrix.wordpress.com/2007/04/09/let-us-draw-the-lineso-bite-me-im-a-nun/#comment-29593

Not linking directly because I don't want any "they LINKED TO ME" histrionics.

Witness:
As I say, I know quite a lot of women who have been involved in BDSM and I don’t think objecting to BDSM as a practice is objecting to them as people - love the ’sinner’ hate the ’sin’, so to speak. I don’t doubt that BDSM desires are strong, since I know at least one woman who is currently trying to balance her own attraction to BDSM with the feeling that it’s inherently harmful to her. And I personally also don’t doubt, for the same reason, that BDSM is harmful.
Anyone else struck by the sheer irony of feminists using "love the sinner, hate the sin" language?

People tend to roll their eyes at me when I compare these sorts of anti-SM sentiments to antigay sentiments among the "loving" Christians who just want to "teach" people not to get involved in "a sinful, self-destructive lifestyle"... but it's exactly the same. The rhetoric, the understanding of what's wrong with us, the notion of us as fallen from a radical feminist ideal.

And here you see it in the same words. The exact same ones.
The advocates/current practitioners of BDSM I personally have met are not in the slightest bit willing to accept that the practice may be in any way abusive. It is only former practitioners who seem to be willing to brook discussion.
Well, duh. If I thought that the way I fuck were inherently abusive, I would not fuck. I would choose celibacy. (Shades of the "good Christian gays and lesbians are called to celibate lives...") As would any decent human who "accepted" that her fetish meant, unavoidably, abusing others.

The idea that we'd still be doing it, that we'd nod our heads accepting "yeah, that us being abusers thang, you really have a point there!" is ludicrously illogical.

Of course people who do BDSM are not going to "accept" that we're abusers. I'd worry profoundly about anyone who continues to participate in it and does "accept" this. (Same goes for vanilla sex. I don't believe that, say, blowjobs invariably = patriarchal dominance imposing sexual cruelty on women, but if some guy accepts that ludicrous theory and continues to get blown... that's not a person who ought, methinks, to be sticking his dick in people's mouths thx.)
Just as when the Mormons stop you in the street and ask if you believe in the afterlife, they don’t really want to hear your views on Joseph Smith, they want to spread the word.
The word? That's rich. When a homophobe talks to you, do you listen respectfully and answer with "well, you do have a quite valid point about my loneliness and my family dynamics, and I'll concede that some of that may be part of why I'm queer, but I believe that I can 'do' queerness healthily! Because I'm an especially together queer, unlike most people who, as you say, are terrible sinners who just need to get their shit together and would never fuck people of the same sex if they actually realized where it's really coming from!"

or do you answer "fuck off, you're speaking from hate and ignorance and I don't have to put up with either, good day."

I know where I stand. And I know where I think we should stand, personally.

And I'm not particularly interested in "debate" for the aforementioned reasons, thanks.

Call me "intolerant" if you will. I'll laugh in your face, just the same as if you'd said the people who don't want prayer in schools are "intolerant" of evangelical Christianity.

(speaking of Intolerance, that's a damn good song, that is *crankin' up the TOOL and yellin'*)

51 comments:

Zonk said...

From the comment thread

"It’s as if porn is some sort of ‘unholy’ textbook for them. Sad really, that they need a picture book to know what to do — perhaps because it actually is unnatural and therefore they need instruction in its practise?"

Haha, they are arguing that it's unnatural? The similarity to the right wing godbag arguments against homosexuals is hilarious. God radfems are so adorable sometimes.

Trinity said...

Yeah. Exactly.

And no, I don't need porn to show me how to do it. Do you take snapshots of your dog because you need instructions on how to pet it?

And what I've been looking at lately has been manga, mostly: you know INTERESTING PLOTS that make the sex more interesting...

(not that all pr0nz need a plot)

Trinity said...

and hell

the mangas I mentioned are yaoi manga

where's the oppressed wimminz?

Dw3t-Hthr said...

Today's joke's-on-who comment:

The closest I've come to having porn relevant to my life, ever, was ... yesterday. With photography taken as part of the ritual preparation for my formal collaring.

By that standard, I am the fucking textbook.

Dw3t-Hthr said...

Pulling a Belledame and posting again. ;)

But really, it's a funny thing. Some fraction of y'all like porn, so you talk about it, say. And there are relevant-to-the-blog issues there to engage with, for people who have knowledge and interest.

And of course in superficial scanning and ranting world, the fact that some people talk about porn (in a not-negative way) means that everyone over here cares about it/uses it/whatever. It's really hard to notice people not talking about things that don't interest them. Lack of participation in a discussion, especially in a semi-anonymous medium like this one, is near completely invisible.

People don't go around saying, "Look at me not talking about porn because I have nothing to contribute to that discussion!" or "Look at me not talking about rubber processing in Malaysia because I have nothing to contribute to that discussion!" or "Look at me not talking about typewriter repairs because I have nothing to contribute to that discussion!" The list of potential subjects I have nothing to contribute to is endless; if I went around specifying my lack of opinion, data, or insight on everything I know jack shit about or couldn't care less about I'd never have time to eat, sleep, or fuck.

Trinity said...

"And of course in superficial scanning and ranting world, the fact that some people talk about porn (in a not-negative way) means that everyone over here cares about it/uses it/whatever. It's really hard to notice people not talking about things that don't interest them."

Yeah.

And also: of course, if I do BDSM and like porn, these two things couldn't possibly come apart. They're (supposedly) two pieces of the same insidious ideology.

Which really confuses me. I mean I get the radical feminist argument that porn is the theory and BDSM is the practice and all. I just have trouble not scoffing, as I knew I liked erotic dominance long before I had any inkling what pornography even was.

That's part of why the whole connection between "BDSM thinking" and "porn thinking" (as if either is a worldview or theory) never made sense to me. I was using John Donne, Sylvia Plath, violent visual art to arouse me long before I looked for femdom pix on the 'Net or subscribed (yes, I have paid for porn. I AM A CONSUMER. HIDE YOUR WOMEN... oh wait that's us never mind) to CyberDyke or whatever else.

Zonk said...

I too was aroused by kink long before I even dreamed that other people were as well, and that these people produce porn.

Trinity said...

Zonk, you might be interested in this post over at my spot:

http://trinityva.livejournal.com/694511.html

Trinity said...

But yeah, the ENDLESS! conflation between kink and porn drives me bats. Yeah, I'm pro-both. No, this is not because they're sekritley teh samez.

belledame222 said...

Well, duh. If I thought that the way I fuck were inherently abusive, I would not fuck. I would choose celibacy. (Shades of the "good Christian gays and lesbians are called to celibate lives...") As would any decent human who "accepted" that her fetish meant, unavoidably, abusing others.

The idea that we'd still be doing it, that we'd nod our heads accepting "yeah, that us being abusers thang, you really have a point there!" is ludicrously illogical.

Of course people who do BDSM are not going to "accept" that we're abusers. I'd worry profoundly about anyone who continues to participate in it and does "accept" this. (Same goes for vanilla sex. I don't believe that, say, blowjobs invariably = patriarchal dominance imposing sexual cruelty on women, but if some guy accepts that ludicrous theory and continues to get blown... that's not a person who ought, methinks, to be sticking his dick in people's mouths thx.)


Hello.

Kink and porn aren't the same, no. otoh, people do tend to object to this type of feminists' position on both for the same reasons--i.e. it's not concern wrt pr0n primarily for how it's made in any realistic sense, i.e. more socialistic concerns really; it's more the same kinf of sensationalistic OMG HIDE THE WIMMIN AND THE KIDDIEZ the more traditional opponents of such things use coupled with rigid interpretation of some second wave feminist doctrine.

Trinity said...

"Hello."

was is das hello?

belledame222 said...

"agreed, yo."

EthylBenzene said...

" just have trouble not scoffing, as I knew I liked erotic dominance long before I had any inkling what pornography even was."

Honestly, I have to wonder who all these anti-BDSM radfems are talking to. Because nobody I've ever met IRL or online matches any of these preconceived notions of how/why/when we've gotten "this way."

The majority of people I know into one kind of kink or another (myself included) knew about these interests long before they ever even had any sexual feelings or fantasies, long before their bodies even had the ability to have sexual feelings as such. I used to have fantasies about being tied up by the "bad guys", about being pinned down, etc., from literally as early as I can remember... I'm taling five, six years old. It used to make me feel ... tingly, but I in no way could have associated that with sex (I'm one of those invisible kinksters who never was abused and actually had great parents and a good childhood and went to a "nice" school where I wasn't sexually harassed). When I started thinking about "sex" as such, it had all those domination aspects to it that my childhood fantasies had, except now I had a different context to put it in.

Many of my kinky friends say much the same thing -- even ones who were abused. So...who are these strawBDSMers? Where do they live?

Trinity said...

"It used to make me feel ... tingly, but I in no way could have associated that with sex (I'm one of those invisible kinksters who never was abused and actually had great parents and a good childhood and went to a "nice" school where I wasn't sexually harassed)."

YES.

From the LiveJournal post of mine I mention above:

"But one literary quote about good pain was the one thing that made me have a memorably strong bodily response. And that wasn't about people's things (or at least I never thought of that) so that couldn't be sex. It must have been some other attraction, and I was asexual and weird.

....I just couldn't seem to find what others found sexy "sexy." And then I'd go home and listen to Phantom of the Opera over and over and my body would tingle as I heard them singing about possession, control, inability to resist.

I didn't make the connection for a LONG time. I mean after a while I gathered that was sexual arousal, but not at first. Because I thought sexual arousal was about looking at people, wanting to do certain things that were called "sex" and I rarely felt that. I started to, listening to Point of No Return which is explicitly about sex and dominance (actually about a rape), and it began to click, but it still took a long time for me to figure out that that was sexual, that that was this "sex" thing everyone was becoming fascinated with, and that I had a libido too apparently. (At which point it became voracious and distracting in that "libido of teenager" way.)"

Trinity said...

and ethyl, I think the argument would likely be that if we never saw porn we got it from advertising, or something. (Which I don't agree with either.)

But that doesn't quite make sense to me, as it doesn't give us any reason to be suspicious of porn... advertising gets to us far younger.

Richard said...

As a pansexual switch who want to enjoy his sexuality and includes his partners' enjoyment of their own erotic self-expression as a given part of that I can only feel something akin to pity for those people who for religious or political reasons - that may reflect failures in their own lives - inability to my attempts at shared happiness.

Renegade Evolution said...

Oh, while porn and BDSM are not at all the same thing it's just so EASY to lump them both into the "we don't like that so it's icky and wrong pile"...

The plight of these people is like the womyn-centered version of that historical wonder known as the "white man's burden"...you know, bringing the European Christian god to the "savages", for their OWN good, of course.

rolls eyes, spits, wanders off....

SnowdropExplodes said...

"It’s as if porn is some sort of ‘unholy’ textbook for them. Sad really, that they need a picture book to know what to do — perhaps because it actually is unnatural and therefore they need instruction in its practise?"

Curious - by this logic, for me ordinary, het. sex is "unnatural", because I didn't have a clue about how that was supposed to work until they explained it all in sex ed. in Biology classes. And, I'm pretty sure I'd have had a hard time figuring out what to do all by myself (which suggests I'd have been a bit rubbish as a vector for my genes without those classes!)

BDSM, on the other hand, I conjured those thoughts and feelings straight out of my own head and heart long before I ever plucked up the courage to buy my first dirty book (which was, of course, BDSM-oriented).

So, if needing pictures and movies to act as a "textbook" makes something unnatural, then for me BDSM is natural and het. sex is - well - unnatural. Go figure!

Trinity said...

"The plight of these people is like the womyn-centered version of that historical wonder known as the "white man's burden"..."

Yes.

Trinity said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Trinity said...

"Curious - by this logic, for me ordinary, het. sex is "unnatural", because I didn't have a clue about how that was supposed to work until they explained it all in sex ed. in Biology classes. And, I'm pretty sure I'd have had a hard time figuring out what to do all by myself (which suggests I'd have been a bit rubbish as a vector for my genes without those classes!)

BDSM, on the other hand, I conjured those thoughts and feelings straight out of my own head and heart long before I ever plucked up the courage to buy my first dirty book (which was, of course, BDSM-oriented)."

YES. I knew what PIV was as an adolescent with pubertal sexual stirrings, but never got why it was supposed to be so interesting.

Anything about pleasant pain or about one person becoming a slave/indentured consort/etc. of another, THAT got me tingly and intrigued.

It took me a while to realize that tingling was sexual desire though, because I didn't really connect it with genitals meeting or being touched or licked or whatever until sometime later (at which time genital sex of various sorts began to seem quite niftmous as well... *g*)

Trinity said...

lots and lots of king/queen and consort. :) which of course Egalitarian Feminism made me feel shitty about because as a good socialist, one is not supposed to fantasize about the opulent life of the king.

Took me a long time to be okay with my fantasies again after that. Blergh. Yeah, I really believe that we should go back to the time of feudalism *snort*

Dw3t-Hthr said...

I'm actually watching a 'love the sinner, hate the sin' discussion elsewhere at the moment, which is being interesting to me, because a lot of the people there are far more forgiving than I am about it (and some of the more forgiving ones are gay).

A number of people said something like, "Enh, I have a lot of friends who do things I disapprove of", which ... doesn't feel at all comparable to me. Being is not doing, for all that being a particular way often goes to performing that thing....

And someone who pulls "love the sinner, hate the sin" on me doesn't sound like, "I love you, but I hate the stuff you do"; they sound like, "I love you, but I hate who you are", which just pushes all my "Wow, way to not sound believable!" buttons.

Trinity said...

"A number of people said something like, "Enh, I have a lot of friends who do things I disapprove of", which ... doesn't feel at all comparable to me. Being is not doing, for all that being a particular way often goes to performing that thing...."

Right, but these people's artful dodge is "THE G4Y is not being, it's behaving based on bad patterns"

which, same for the radfems and BDSM. Except they're in some ways more likely to admit that some of us have a fetish in a creepy clinical sense: it's seeped so far in that we're just broken.

"And someone who pulls "love the sinner, hate the sin" on me doesn't sound like, "I love you, but I hate the stuff you do"; they sound like, "I love you, but I hate who you are", which just pushes all my "Wow, way to not sound believable!" buttons."

Yeah, it's not "hey, I don't like that you do that, but you've got rights," it's "I HATE THAT SO MUCH I CAN'T SHUT THE FUCK UP AND YOU JUST HAVE TO DEAL, BITCH."

(yeah, I used a misogynistic slur there... because I think a lot of the condemning *women for being pro-BDSM* rather than condemning *BDSM* reveals, well, something interesting indeed.)

Cassandra Says said...

I am buying the comparison with the religious right, actually, mostly because of the reflexive "I know that this is just wrong" thing. The underlying framework is so, well, unexamined. Isn't that ironic?

And yes - if I honestly believed that being a dom automatically meant abusing people I would never have manacled a single person to my bedposts. The idea that they really think that we KNOW that we're being abusive and doing it anyway, blithely ignoring the trail of terror we leave behind...wow. It's like she thinks I'm Idi Amin or something.

And the thing is that there ARE doms who are abusive assholes, but there are abusive assholes who are totally vanilla too. The reason for the abuse is the fucked-up person, not the particular way they choose to fuck.

Cassandra Says said...

Trin - If you're up for it I'd LOVE to see some exploration of yaoi and what that means RE women's sexuality. Hell, I WRITE yaoi.
(Rather well, actually. Someone recently got in touch with me asking for permission to translate my fic into Russian, which is a lot of hard work for her to be willing to undertake for free.)

Also, for the lurkers who keep assuming that we're all totally pro-porn just because we're not actively anti...(raises hand)
Hi, my name is Cassandra. I LOVE BSDM but I'm mostly indifferent to porn. There are even some things about it I actively dislike.
Of course this is mostly because most porn completely fails at catering to my tastes, but still. As has already been pointed out, sometimes people stay out of conversation because they're simply not interested. Silence isn't always a ringing endorsement, most of the time it's just indifference.

Myca said...

The reason for the abuse is the fucked-up person, not the particular way they choose to fuck.

Right, exactly . . . and speaking just for myself, I think I've encountered a greater concentration of those fucked-up people outside the scene than inside.

My results may be atypical, but to the degree they're not, my theory is that it has something to do with BDSM culture actively promoting negotiation, communication, and consent, which is sadly lacking in most dominant culture discussions of sexuality

---Myca

Trinity said...

"Trin - If you're up for it I'd LOVE to see some exploration of yaoi and what that means RE women's sexuality. Hell, I WRITE yaoi.
(Rather well, actually. Someone recently got in touch with me asking for permission to translate my fic into Russian, which is a lot of hard work for her to be willing to undertake for free.)"

mmm yaoi...

*blink*

oh what were you saying? I was distracted by the impossibly wide-eyed pouting uke over there... *ahem*.

Heh... hmm. I'm perfectly willing to babble about it next time I write a long post, but I'm not sure I can draw any generalizations. I mainly just lurk on one lj comm that posts scanlations and gawk at the pretty, so I can't say I'm deeply knowledgable or anything.

But yeah, saying something is good. Because women's thirst for yaoi and slash... well, it's just beginning to be widely recognized. Whereas the truism was "men gawk at dykes because porn means they objectify, and women would never... gawk at gay men (or rather a particular conception of gay men designed for their consumption, just as the faux-lesbian porn is really for het men.)

Cassandra Says said...

Trin - And as usual, the truism is in reality not true. Or at least not entirely.

I'm actually sort of meh about the seme/uke thing, and resent the idea that the uke always has to be the one who's more feminine. Which is why I started writing it, actually - I wanted to flip the script, and I was little bothered by the idea of young girls learning to equate feminine with submissive in such an obvious way. Or maybe it's just my nature to want to flip conventions on their heads.


But yeah, an article would be good.

Trinity said...

"I'm actually sort of meh about the seme/uke thing, and resent the idea that the uke always has to be the one who's more feminine"

eh. I'm... eh. I understand the critiques and I agree with them (and tend to most enjoy the manga people post wherein those roles are a little twisted up.

but on the other hand, actually I'm a masculine-ish top who likes feminine-ish bottoms (well, at least as far as men go, with women I'm weird and complicated and it depends. I didn't used to like femme women but lately I am all about them, yay!) so... that being the norm is kind of nice, when it's not so overblown as to be ridiculous (unless the ridiculousness is acknowledged as such).

So... yeah. I get it. I really do. But I also feel like escaping into a fake world where everyone is a top or a bottom feels good and comfortable to me. Because it allows me to put aside all the social critiques of those roles, all the people who say they're fake or unhealthy or not natural or blah blah and just feel like: here it's not complicated. It doesn't have to be.

It's like relaxing with a warm glass of tea, sometimes, for me.

(and herein I went and got some tea. because Yay, Tea!)

So... talking about it in a way that deals with both the critiques and the way that makes me feel... calm and good... is a bit hard to navigate.

Trinity said...

I guess that I'm so used to being a top, and getting confusion from people from all sides, the feminist side, the vanilla we don't think beyond heteronormative M/f side, the GOD IT'S A FREAK side that... for me I don't really take media that has tops and bottoms in it as instructions for other people. I take it as someplace I can hang my hat. Not that that makes it perfect... but I think I'm a lot less concerned about it as a teaching medium, in a way.

Cassandra Says said...

Trin - I think my issue critique-wise is that within the fandom I spend much of my time in people really are using it as an instruction manual. The fact that most readers/writers are of an age where they don't have any actual sexual experience does not help in this regard. And the fact that most of the readers are girls in their early-mid teens...well, feminine = submissive is just not a message that I'm happy about them getting.

I mean, I can see why you like it, and I'm glad it exists, but...a little more diversity would be nice. And the genderfuck possibilities of making the femmey boys the tops is so obvious I wonder why so few people think of it.

Trinity said...

"I mean, I can see why you like it, and I'm glad it exists, but...a little more diversity would be nice."

Definitely! I'm with you there 100%. Actually part of the reason I so liked Under Grand Hotel was that Sen's masculinity and what it meant for him to be someone's "woman" in prison was actually part of the character development.

Not that it was really ubercomplicated or fabulously nuanced or anything, but it was an issue and treated as one.

"And the fact that most of the readers are girls in their early-mid teens...well, feminine = submissive is just not a message that I'm happy about them getting."

Yeah, I see your point. In fact there's a rather icky kerfuffle in one of the LJ comms right now over this one SM-y manga in which everyone is leather yet glamorously femme.

Male prodoms with dangly earrings, woo! I find it yummy.

Anyway... a lot of people are huffy at "everyone being so femme", which I strongly suspect actually means "the semes need to be more masculine."

I'm not happy about that. At the same time, I think people are warming up to the idea the more of it gets posted.

Cassandra Says said...

I really don't follow manga at all, so I don't recognise the series you're talking about, but that was the kind of thing I was getting at. The stories that are just sort of a conventional hetero relationships with a guy playing the "girl" role are incredibly boring to me, and it really does seem sort of traditional paradigm-reinforcing in a way that irks me. Why bother writing about gay men if you don't explore the issues that brings up?

Funny story RE the SM manga that people are getting huffy about...the first time posted a story in which I took a traditional pairing and flipped the seme/uke roles I actually got people complaining, and then when I flipped them back again later the same people wrote to thank me for "restoring character X to his rightful position". Which was hilarious, really. The interesting part was that for every person who complained there were at least 10 others who wrote to say "wow, you flipped them, that's so fucking hot!". So the readership may be a bit more openminded than most people assume. It may well simply be that hardly anyone has thought to try marketing something less stereotyped.

And I love femmey male doms. The world needs more of those.

Trinity said...

Under Grand Hotel is a manga about a young man who goes to prison for murder and gets claimed by one of the big gang bosses. Many smutty prison rape scenarios ensue, as well as his submission (in that prison bitch kind of sense) to the other man.

It's not really so much that he's extremely masculine as that the setting is one in which everyone is wearing the macho mask of heterosexuality, and here he is very clearly and obviously the new obsession of the gangleader. There's a bit more there than just "ah, I am uke *instant swoon* -- there's bitterness at his new role, confusion at falling in love with a man, the weirdness for both of them of actually falling in love, etc.

It's quite good.

Emma said...

As the author of the remarks quoted I'd just like to say there is nothing quite like being quoted out of context from a post that has now been removed by its author because she got so sick of the links to her blog.

However for the record:

1)The use of "love the sinner, hate the sin" was in quotation marks to indicate its use was ironic. This is common English usage as I understand it. You would go a long way to find a less religious person than me.

2)The remarks were in response to someone who asked on the original post why feminists were unwilling to take part in the Ladyfest Leeds debate. My response was that I have found that when I have challenged BDSM activists in what was advertised as a discussion group they have been unwilling to accept any such challenges and that instead their appearance seems aimed at proselytising about BDSM - hence the 'Mormon' remark quoted. Their answer to my challenge if I remember correctly was 'I don't care what you think' which makes me wonder why they bothered to take part in a discussion group. Surely the aim is to discuss things? Your response that you don't want to debate proves my point unfortunately.

3)In the post above this you are criticising Christian groups for indulging in fully consensual 'Christian Domestic Discipline'. Pots and kettles spring to mind. Is it 'cos they is Christians?

EthylBenzene said...

Holy crap, Emma. You could not be more wrong about, well, pretty much everything, but this comment:

"3)In the post above this you are criticising Christian groups for indulging in fully consensual 'Christian Domestic Discipline'. Pots and kettles spring to mind. Is it 'cos they is Christians? "

Shows that you either haven't read or haven't understood anything that was written. I dare say it is reading comprehension skills like that which tend to undermine anyone's willingness to debate with people like you.

verte said...

(in Stockholm, but moved to post when I read that particular comment)

Emma:

Any (non-abusive) challenges you have for BDSM activists are welcome on this blog and were absolutely welcome at the Ladyfest discussion and any other feminist event I speak at. I am also perfectly happy to discuss your issues with BDSM individually if ever our paths should cross. If that doesn´t disgust you too much, of course.

Trinity said...

"My response was that I have found that when I have challenged BDSM activists in what was advertised as a discussion group they have been unwilling to accept any such challenges and that instead their appearance seems aimed at proselytising about BDSM"

Dear Emma: If by "don't like being challenged, you mean 'don't like being called abusers," well, re-read this bit from my post:

"Well, duh. If I thought that the way I fuck were inherently abusive, I would not fuck. I would choose celibacy. (Shades of the "good Christian gays and lesbians are called to celibate lives...") As would any decent human who "accepted" that her fetish meant, unavoidably, abusing others.

The idea that we'd still be doing it, that we'd nod our heads accepting "yeah, that us being abusers thang, you really have a point there!" is ludicrously illogical."

If what you want is a free pass to call people's consensual behavior abusive, don't be surprised when people's response is "Fuck off" rather than debate.

And as far as the Christian DDers -- did you notice that they claim NONconsensual DD *should* be okay but only *isn't* because it's illegal?

If you don't understand how that differs from the attitudes of the people here, who represent a more mainstream view, I'm not sure how to help you.

Trinity said...

"Any (non-abusive) challenges you have for BDSM activists are welcome on this blog"

Verte: Do we really want to go that route, or are we going to be true to the blog title? I'm fine if we're not, but I'd personally prefer this to be a safe space and discussions/debates to be hosted somewhere else.

if all agree, I'll open up a thread at my own blog.

EthylBenzene said...

"And as far as the Christian DDers -- did you notice that they claim NONconsensual DD *should* be okay but only *isn't* because it's illegal?

If you don't understand how that differs from the attitudes of the people here, who represent a more mainstream view, I'm not sure how to help you. "

Yeesh, no kidding. I wish I would've written something less hostile and more well-thought-out, but I was rushing out the door to work!

As far as answering "non-abusive" challenges to BDSM here? I dunno. I could be ok with it (not that you care much about my opinion!), but doesn't that seem like it's opening the doors to a whole slew of annoying trollage? And like you said, this is supposed to be a "safe space," so maybe not...

Trinity said...

"As far as answering "non-abusive" challenges to BDSM here? I dunno. I could be ok with it (not that you care much about my opinion!), but doesn't that seem like it's opening the doors to a whole slew of annoying trollage? And like you said, this is supposed to be a "safe space," so maybe not..."

I care about your opinion. Like I said, as far as I'm concerned if the majority isn't interested in safe space, fine with me. :)

I just like the idea of a place to hang our hat without people coming in and saying things like this:

http://notafeministbut.blogspot.com/2007/04/two-questions-for-fellow-anti-porners.html#comment-8569477771261822101

"When is violence not violence..?

When someone consents do you think? Well apply that to domestic violence- women returning to abusive men for example and the consent argument doesn't hold because there are very complicated issues surrounding consent.

Or maybe in BDSM? Still treating a fellow human unethically and eroticising torture and slavery."

I see that presumed of us just about everywhere. I'd rather not start seeing it here.

Like I said, Emma, if you'd like a place to argue against BDSM and people here do agree with me, I'll gladly open up a post at my blog and allow any and all comments from anti-BDSM feminists. :)

Dw3t-Hthr said...

Yoi.

So this evening, after watching a movie to unwind with the extended family, my liege asked me if I wanted to go upstairs, because I've been eight kinds of fucked up this week and we haven't had any time.

And we talked a little, I repeated what it was that was wrong, we worked through a communication snag that came up in that, and he said he was thirsty; I offered to get him some water, he said he had been about to ask, I got him some water.

When I got back with it, he curled his hand around the side of my neck quickly enough that the shell of twitchy defensiveness I've had all week didn't snap in and stop the reaction, and I dropped about three notches down into subspace. He held me and stroked me, easing me down into this serene space where I was able to let go and accept his love and support, occasionally twining his fingers into my hair and holding it or using that leverage to pull me into a kiss, making sure I felt secure by that touch.

The sex was full of more of the same, and murmurings of satisfaction and occasional direction and appreciation for me as a partner and a lover. There was a bit where he said, "You're carrying too much tension" and insisted on several small spastic near-orgasms (I'm really not sure how to refer to those) before going back to holding me and eventually murmuring into my ear, "I expect you to come before I do."

Funny definition of "treating another human being unethically". (And I have some sanity now. Yay sanity. I hug my sanity. Because my master takes care of me and my needs to the best of his ability, so I'm better now. Damnit.)

Oh, also, he said my flogger is pretty. The flogger was not even touched for any of this; I don't really file it as BDSM stuff, quite, in any case, and I should write about it over at my place at some point. I'm not sure that aesthetic appreciation of my possessions is unethical either. (I told him "Necessary tools should be beautiful." Which I also say about my cane.)

Dark Daughta said...

Hi,
We haven't met in blogland...I don't think. I'm really, really tired of "radical" feminists who are anti-porn and anti-BDSM. Their erotophobia is stank and backward. They don't understand, that's one thing. But to basically label what they don't understand and conflate it with men's sexual oppression of wimmin and with rape is just ludicrous. Do you mind if I mention this post on my blog? I'm so pissed about this. It's just plan STOOpid.

Trinity said...

dd,

No, I don't mind. Though, personally, I'm a bit tired of the drama, and rather convinced it isn't worth pursuing. These people will never get it -- and unless they're actively hurting us, actively preventing us from doing things, from being taken seriously in feminist space, etc. -- I'm not sure I care much that they won't, lately, really.

Dark Daughta said...

I won't argue your point as this is your blog spot and you'r entitled to have opinions. Just one point of clarification, though, what they're doing is about perpetuating oppression in the lives of people who have to walk in fear of their guardianship of their children, fear of losing jobs, fear of being refused housing, fear of being targeted by police. So, when they spout off in the ways that they do, and direct the ire of people who may be just as misinformed as they are, toward people in the porn industry, people in sex work, people who are in BDSM communities, they are causing serious, recognizable harm.

Trinity said...

dd,

I'm not so sure. I think these particular people don't have much influence. They seem to me to be a small clique that sees itself as the last vanguard of a dying radical feminism.

While I do agree with you that conservatism about sex does actual, measurable harm, I'm not entirely sure that people like this are the ones with the actual power. Right-wing conservatives seem to me to have a lot more actual influence than these folks, who seem to me to be a small pocket of particularly Internetty crazy.

Now, things like the attempt to interfere with BDSM-related discussion at a feminist convention (the Ladyfest Leeds thing in the UK) seem to me a much more important and real source of actual interference.

Though, Heart for one *has* been published in off our backs, so there is that. I don't know about this particular "hate the sin" commenter and her actual influence on feminist activism, though.

*shrug*

Dark Daughta said...

Understood.
I'm not sure if I asked already, but would you be interested in letting me repost one of your old/er posts in my oldie but goodie carnival - Reloaded? The basic idea is that most of the interesting and articulate bloggers probably have really hard hitting posts in their archives that only got to see the light of day around the time they were posted. I want to re-circulate some of the really useful and insightful ones again. I've been doing it with my older posts on Sundays under the title Refried/Remix Sundays. Last Sunday I opened it up to other bloggers. Tomorrow will be the second one. If you're interested, please leave a comment with a link somewhere on my blog or email me. Thanks again for this post. darkdaughta

Trinity said...

Sure DD, go ahead. :)

hexyhex said...

*waves* Kinky. Not a porn user. Never have been, never will be. Not how I'm wired, even if the ethical considerations were resolved.

Anonymous said...

UnlessCheap GW2 Gold you get off on asserting your Buy Diablo III itemspatriarchy by slapping your