Re: [UUPoly-L] RE: UUPoly-L Digest, Holy Cow Bondange?! Dominance & Submission

["Andrew Somers" <alsomers@execpc.com>]

Please unsubscribe me -thanks for the info

Dear Desmond, Elizabeth et all,
> 
> Wow, I am so straight, simple and 'vanilla' I guess in my sexual tastes.
> Geez!
> 
> Anyways: there is something significant to the matter of dominance and
> submission in romantic involvements and in intimate attachments in general.
> 
> Recently, I have had a Muslim man tell me that God's official position on
> this is that a woman should only be with a man with whom she is comfortable
> being submissive to....think about the implications of this...they are more
> complex than you might at first imagine.
> 
> Many relationship experts and therapists indicate that a natural feeling of
> equality exists in healthy romances and marriages- and I might argue at
> times in many healthy relationships.
> 
> Hierarchies:  Hm, well, from working life to family through religions,
> governments, money, power...simplistically put: Good Guys & Gals have
> Leaders who are chosen by their followers; the relationships are rooted in
> mutual trust.  Bad Guys & Gals have dominance and submission relationships
> based on fear and coercion instead of on trust, and the leaders are
> generally selfish people and the followers are people who are only too
> afraid to escape or defeat them.
> 
> I think the nature of real love when it is healthy often involves both
> dominance and submission...and feelings of equality that are real, but are
> often based on a kind of 'summation' of inequalities...except that in some
> cases this might really not be true.
> 
> I definitely have both Dom & Sub. Tendencies within myself...controlling
> others, controlling only myself, and allowing myself to be controlled by
> others...most of us do.
> 
> I have tended to have more power struggles with Dom men, but have also
> tended to feel that it important to me that my male partner be a powerful
> and willful man, not just a Submissive push over.
> 
> This was a strange but great listing. I enjoyed reading everyone's comments,
> a lot!
> 
> Miriam
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: uupoly-l-bounces+miriam_s_pia=hotmail.com@uupa.org
> [mailto:uupoly-l-bounces+miriam_s_pia=hotmail.com@uupa.org] On Behalf Of
> uupoly-l-request@uupa.org
> Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2006 12:00 PM
> To: uupoly-l@uupa.org
> Subject: UUPoly-L Digest, Vol 17, Issue 24
> 
> Send UUPoly-L mailing list submissions to
> 	uupoly-l@uupa.org
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	http://www.uupa.org/mailman/listinfo/uupoly-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	uupoly-l-request@uupa.org
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	uupoly-l-owner@uupa.org
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of UUPoly-L digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>    1. Re:Female Submissives (Stanley Forrester)
>    2. Re:Female Submissives (Desmond Ravenstone)
>    3. Polyamory BDSM and OUUCH (Ken Haslam)
>    4. RE: Poly Relationships, Sexism, and Cultural	Diversity
>       (Richard Keenan)
>    5. RE: Poly Relationships, Sexism, and	CulturalDiversity
>       (Richard Keenan)
>    6. Re: Nuance and the Church of LDS (Richard Keenan)
>    7. RE: Nuance and the Church of LDS (Richard Keenan)
>    8. Re: Vol 17, Issue 21 - LDS remarks (Richard Keenan)
>    9. Re:Female Submissives (Richard Keenan)
>   10. Re: Nuance and the Church of LDS (Elizabeth Gish)
>   11. Risk (Was Re: Nuance and the Church of LDS) (JasmineGld@aol.com)
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 10:08:21 -0800 (PST)
> From: Stanley Forrester <sforrest@lifshitz.physics.ucdavis.edu>
> Subject: Re:[UUPoly-L] Female Submissives
> To: uupoly-l@uupa.org
> Message-ID:
> 	
> <Pine.LNX.4.44.0602240915000.968-100000@lifshitz.physics.ucdavis.edu>
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
> 
> O.K.  Let me phrase it differently.  If I were to demand that someone
> critically examine anything, how is that different from my issuing
> an order to that same individual, "Woman get me coffee?"  How it is 
> that one is offensive and the other not?  Perhaps for you personal is 
> political.  That may not be true of someone else.  The interviews I have 
> heard are with VERY ARTICULATE people who know exactly what they want.  
> While I don't understand exactly what they get out of the experience I do 
> understand that there is something very personal and intimate there.  
> (Please note the selection bias, anyone who can handle podcasting, audio 
> and webcasting software and who are comfortable speaking on the subject 
> are quite possibly not a representative sample of the whole population)  
> As a male I've learned the hard way not every one wants to be saved in 
> accordance with my personal notions of what is best.
> 
> > I don't think it is an either-or proposition. I don't think women
> > maintaining a critical consciousness while taking a submissive role 
> > keeps
> > women (or men) from being free to be submissive? Rather, I think it is 
> > being self-aware. The question really isn't, "Should I not be submissive 
> > because I grew up in a sexist society that coerces women into be 
> > submissive?" but rather "Do I desire being submissive? Is this in my 
> > best 
> > interests? How has culture and my upbringing influenced these choices? 
> > How 
> > does that affect me in making this choice?" and if the woman chooses a 
> > male partner, "Why is he interested in being a Dom? Does he respect my 
> > boundaries? Does he value consent? What is his relationship with women 
> > and 
> > femininity? Is he committed to anti-sexism?" Stuff like that.
> 
> I can't speak to the male Dom motivation.  (Any male Doms out there 
> care to add your two cents?)  There are fewer interviews with Doms than 
> with submissives and proportionally fewer interviews with males than
> females.  
> Two strikes which combined leave me with very little to go on.  What I 
> have gotten out of this is the emphasis on communication and informed 
> consent.   
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 13:58:40 -0500
> From: "Desmond Ravenstone" <gentlemonster@lycos.com>
> Subject: Re:[UUPoly-L] Female Submissives
> To: uupoly-l@uupa.org
> Message-ID: <20060224185841.0941E86B12@ws7-1.us4.outblaze.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> 
> > I can't speak to the male Dom motivation.  (Any male Doms out there
> > care to add your two cents?)
> 
> OK I'll take this on.  Male doms, and doms in general (which also includes a
> few transgender doms I know who like to switch gender roles/personae) have
> many different styles and motivations.  There are the "artist" types, who
> primarily see being a dom as a craft with a focus on skill and imagination.
> There are the "lover" types, who see giving/sharing erotic pleasure and
> fulfilling fantasies as the primary motivation.  There are the "mentor"
> types, who are primarily motivated by teaching and guiding a submissive --
> and in many cases newbie doms as well -- in BDSM, self-discovery, etc.  Most
> doms I know draw from more than one such archetype, and have multiple
> motivations.  But the best all share a sense of responsibility in what
> they/we do.
> 
> I like to sum up how I interact with someone in a BDSM context this way:
> When a submissive entrusts me with power and control, that is her gift to
> me.  What I do with that power and control is my gift to her.
> 
> > Two strikes which combined leave me with very little to go on.  What I
> > have gotten out of this is the emphasis on communication and informed
> > consent.
> 
> Very true, and I like to call that the BDSM community's gift to the larger
> world.
> 
> Desmond Ravenstone
> 
> **********
> 
> LOOK FOR MY BOOKS ON http://www.lulu.com!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> Search for businesses by name, location, or phone number.  -Lycos Yellow
> Pages
> 
> http://r.lycos.com/r/yp_emailfooter/http://yellowpages.lycos.com/default.asp
> ?SRC=lycos10
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 14:39:16 -0500
> From: Ken Haslam <haslamk@dmv.com>
> Subject: [UUPoly-L] Polyamory BDSM and OUUCH
> To: uupoly-l@uupa.org
> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20060224143848.0230d490@dmv.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
> 
> Since the conversation has turned to BDSM and since there is 
> a  crossover between BDSM and Polyamory and Unitarian Universalists 
> some of you might find the Organized Unitarian Universalists for 
> Consenting Hierarchy of interest.   Don't you just love the acronym.
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OUUCH/
> 
> Ken Haslam  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 4
> Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 14:40:34 -0600
> From: "Richard Keenan" <RiKeena1@wsc.edu>
> Subject: RE: [UUPoly-L] Poly Relationships, Sexism, and Cultural
> 	Diversity
> To: <uupoly-l@uupa.org>
> Message-ID: <s3ff1af0.015@hermes.wsc.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
> 
> A snort is often a proper response to this kind of situation. 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 5
> Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 14:41:27 -0600
> From: "Richard Keenan" <RiKeena1@wsc.edu>
> Subject: RE: [UUPoly-L] Poly Relationships, Sexism, and
> 	CulturalDiversity
> To: <uupoly-l@uupa.org>
> Message-ID: <s3ff1b2e.018@hermes.wsc.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
> 
> Again, well spoken. 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 6
> Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 14:46:35 -0600
> From: "Richard Keenan" <RiKeena1@wsc.edu>
> Subject: Re: [UUPoly-L] Nuance and the Church of LDS
> To: <uupoly-l@uupa.org>
> Message-ID: <s3ff1c60.025@hermes.wsc.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
> 
> Interesting...what denomination and what divinity school? I'm making plans
> to go to divinity school myself in a while. How does your denomination view
> poly relationships?
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 7
> Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 14:48:46 -0600
> From: "Richard Keenan" <RiKeena1@wsc.edu>
> Subject: RE: [UUPoly-L] Nuance and the Church of LDS
> To: <lisamorgan@lairhaven.com>, <uupoly-l@uupa.org>
> Message-ID: <s3ff1cdb.029@hermes.wsc.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
> 
> Just to complicate the issue of women voting and the LDS church, they were
> among the first states to approve of women voting.  And the church
> authorities strongly oppose the equal rights amendment.
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 8
> Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 14:54:50 -0600
> From: "Richard Keenan" <RiKeena1@wsc.edu>
> Subject: [UUPoly-L] Re: Vol 17, Issue 21 - LDS remarks
> To: <debbie@dallashealing.com>, <uupoly-l@uupa.org>
> Message-ID: <s3ff1e4a.058@hermes.wsc.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
> 
> Debbie:  Bless your heart for being independent and thinking for yourselves.
> That makes the point about diversity within large groups. What would church
> authorities say about your openness?
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 9
> Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 15:08:38 -0600
> From: "Richard Keenan" <RiKeena1@wsc.edu>
> Subject: Re:[UUPoly-L] Female Submissives
> To: <uupoly-l@uupa.org>
> Message-ID: <s3ff2188.083@hermes.wsc.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
> 
> Very well spoken and articulated, Desmond.
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 10
> Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 20:59:48 -0500
> From: Elizabeth Gish <egish@hds.harvard.edu>
> Subject: Re: [UUPoly-L] Nuance and the Church of LDS
> To: uupoly-l@uupa.org
> Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20060224204920.00c4ef08@mail.hds.harvard.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
> 
> I'm replying to the list here because I thought I would respond to 
> Richard's question and raise another of my own.  I attend Harvard Divinity 
> School and I am a UU, so of course, most on here know my denomination's 
> stance on poly relationships.  I recently gave a sermon that involved 
> critique of the UUA's position on polyamorous relationships and I would be 
> happy to share it with anyone who is interested.  I also wonder what 
> discussion has taken place on this list previously about the argument (that 
> has been made to me in response to my sermon) that the risks, potential 
> negative publicity, and liabilities that would come with official UUA 
> support of polyamorous relationships outweigh the potential benefits to 
> society, polyamorous individuals, or families.  I'm sure this has been 
> discussed here before and I don't want to rehash the issues for those that 
> have already been through them likely many times, but any thoughts to the 
> listserve or individual emails would be helpful as I think about the future 
> of our denomination and my individual ministry.
> Blessings to all, Elizabeth
> 
> 
> 
> At 02:46 PM 2/24/2006 -0600, you wrote:
> >Interesting...what denomination and what divinity school? I'm making plans 
> >to go to divinity school myself in a while. How does your denomination 
> >view poly relationships?
> >_______________________________________________
> >The UUPoly-L mailing list has public archives.
> >Please keep that in mind when deciding how much to reveal about yourself.
> >UUPoly-L mailing list
> >UUPoly-L@uupa.org
> >http://www.uupa.org/mailman/listinfo/uupoly-l
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 11
> Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 11:31:43 EST
> From: JasmineGld@aol.com
> Subject: [UUPoly-L] Risk (Was Re: Nuance and the Church of LDS)
> To: uupoly-l@uupa.org
> Message-ID: <294.621cd9e.3131e06f@aol.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
> 
> Elizabeth egish@hds.harvard.edu writes:
> 
> > I recently gave a  sermon that involved 
> > critique of the UUA's position on polyamorous  relationships and I would
> be 
> > happy to share it with anyone who is  interested.  
> 
> I am interested.  Will you please send me a copy?  
> 
> > has been made to me in response to my sermon) that the risks,  potential 
> > negative publicity, and liabilities that would come with  official UUA 
> > support of polyamorous relationships outweigh the  potential benefits to 
> > society, polyamorous individuals, or  families.  
> 
> At the Service of the Living Tradition at GA 2005 in  Fort Worth, Rev. Dr. 
> Patrick O'Neill delivered a sermon entitled "Out of  Walden."  
> _http://www.uua.org/ga/ga05/2124_sermon.html_ 
> (http://www.uua.org/ga/ga05/2124_sermon.html) 
> Rev.  O'Neill's sermon responds to those very objections.  I wonder if he 
> noticed  that when preparing it. 
>  
> Instead of focusing on the potential benefits to society, polyamorous  
> individuals, or families, it is helpful to approach the question
> differently.  UUs 
> are not called to play it safe.  UUs are called to  ministry.  What is the 
> benefit to the UUA of ministering to people in need,  even when it involves 
> polyamorous families?  What is the benefit to the UUA  of living out our
> principles 
> in everyday practice, even when it involves  polyamorous families?  Even
> when 
> it is risky and frightening to do  so?  What is the benefit to the UUA of 
> facing our fears head on and  choosing our principles over our fears?  Of
> being 
> as fully UU as we can  possibly be?  
>  
> When I sing songs from _Singing the Living Tradition_, when I read readings
> 
> from the back of this same UU hymnal, I am struck again and again at the 
> wisdom  these songs and readings speak to the polyamory question.  They
> speak of  
> boldness, of daring to risk, of living up to our principles even when it is
> 
> difficult.  How does it benefit the UUA if our congregations step up to
> these 
> standards of excellence?  Live them out in the controversies of  today?  
>  
> Conversely, how does it benefit the UUA if our congregations sing of  
> boldness, daring, and principles, but cower in fear once we close the
> hymnal?  
>  
> Risks, potential negative publicity, and liabilities all need to  be 
> evaluated, weighed, and managed; they can't be ignored willy nilly.
> However, when 
> congregations or the UUA make decisions based primarily on these  risks, we
> are 
> looking in the wrong direction, and we lose sight of our  principles and our
> 
> raison d'jtre.  
>  
> Decisions that will stand the test of time, that we can look back on with  
> pride and satisfaction, will grow out of our principles and our calling to  
> ministry.  
>  
> Jasmine 
>  
>  
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> The UUPoly-L mailing list has public archives.
> Please keep that in mind when deciding how much to reveal about yourself.
> UUPoly-L mailing list
> UUPoly-L@uupa.org
> http://www.uupa.org/mailman/listinfo/uupoly-l
> 
> 
> End of UUPoly-L Digest, Vol 17, Issue 24
> ****************************************
> _______________________________________________
> The UUPoly-L mailing list has public archives.
> Please keep that in mind when deciding how much to reveal about yourself.
> UUPoly-L mailing list
> UUPoly-L@uupa.org
> http://www.uupa.org/mailman/listinfo/uupoly-l
> 
-- 
CoreComm Webmail. 
http://home.core.com