Re: [UUPoly-L] Report from PNWD AGM

"Laura Stewart" <mathlaura@gmail.com> · Thu, 01 Mar 2007 16:50:35 -0000

On 3/1/07, Caldwell Stephen R Civ 49 TES/DTO
<Stephen.Caldwell.Ctr@barksdale.af.mil> wrote:

On 27 February 2007, Laura wrote to the UUPoly-L email list:
-snip-
<<Unless someone wants to wear a collar and chain to church and
introduce someone as their "slave" because thats pervades the entirety
of their relationship (and maybe someone does want to do that?) I just
can't see much equivalence.>>
Laura,
Dan Savage addressed this in a recent column.  His take on this came
from the "consensual sexual acts" perspective.
The "slave" in the relationship described viewed his degradation as
sexually pleasurable and so did the "master" in the relationship.  This
was consensual.
However, Dan didn't think that the family relatives who were bystanders
to this public BDSM activity were involuntary passive participants in
the degradation.  Keep in mind that this is coming from a sexuality
advice columnist who is very kink-friendly.

I'm sorry, but I'm unclear as to in what way this was a response to my
comment?  Was it more of a tangent, or am I missing something?
I agree that bystanders to public BDSM activity are not participants
in the degredation.  I also understand that people who enter into 24/7
slave relationships find it sexually pleasurable.
What I was saying that unless someone's relationship involves 24/7
BDSM including public displays, I don't see kink/BDSM as equivalent to
polyamory or homosexuality as far as needing acceptance.  Otherwise it
would fall under the umbrella of acceptance of people's abilities to
decide what they want to do privately - no matter what that is - and
talk about it to people who are interested, but has nothing to do with
family or relationship structure.
I suppose I'm fine with people who want to be in a public 24/7 BDSM
relationship introducing people at church as their slave.  I have a
personal distaste for BDSM relationships rather than just BDSM
practices, but if that's what people want to do, then that is their
choice.  It's not a moral failing, or a bad example.
On a tangential note, I think Dan Savage has displayed himself to be
very much the bigot several times.  Most notable would be his many
prior negative statements about bisexuality.  Though he reversed his
opinion on that (in what I consider to be a very condescending
manner), it was hardly an isolated incident.  He can have witty
writing, but I certainly do not consider him a lighthouse of
acceptance or even tolerance.
-Laura