At 03:28 PM 3/1/2007, you wrote:
>On 3/1/07, Victor Raymond <vraymond@iastate.edu> wrote:
> > From a BDSM perspective, I would think that the maxim of "safe,
> > sane, and consensual" would apply. I would venture to guess that the
> > reason why making a visual statement of a 24/7 relationship might be
> > considered not the best idea is that it extends the scene into public
> > view, and the public has not been given a chance to provide or
> > withhold consent to their tacit participation in the scene. Granted,
> > in some spaces - like BDSM clubs - simply being there is a sign of
> > providing consent. But I would venture to say that many public areas
> > are not thought of that way.
>
>Why do people need consent to be exposed to a person on a leash, but
>do not need to consent to being exposed to two men kissing, or three
>people all kissing one another? Why is an incidental observer
>"participatint" in a "scene" if someone is on a leash, but not
>participating in PDA?
From an outside perspective, you are right - there is little
difference. But from within a kink perspective, ensuring that people
have consented to whatever is going on in a scene is a bedrock
principle. So if you haven't checked with the people around you in a
non-dungeon space to see if it is okay to engage in explicit BDSM
behavior is, well, tacky and inconsiderate.
> > This is not to imply that all situations *ought* to provide tacit
> > consent; I would suggest that making such an assumption would miss
> > why the idea of consent is important. And with all due respect to
> > distinguishing between sexuality and what people "do in bed", people
> > in a 24/7 BDSM relationship are likely to think of it as much more
> > than sex (and probably more basic than sex, too).
>
>That's exactly why I can't find a logical functional difference in a
>BDSM relationship, a homosexual relationship, or a poly relationship.
>Some people say "Eww! You just want to have threesomes/have sex with
>more than one person/not be commited!" Poly people know that, indeed,
>it's not [just] about sex.
Yup, insofar as these things are viewed from outside. *ALL* of them
are more than just about sex. The difference between the specific
example I am talking about - an ostentatiously visible BDSM
interaction - and the others is the specific kind of emphasis placed
on consent by the kink community. It's one of the reasons why I have
a great deal of respect for some BDSM folks; they are very very good
about some issues that many others are not so aware of.
> > And what I am trying to do here is explore how this might look from
> > within the kink community, and less so from an explicitly UU
> > perspective. Put another way, ostentatious displays of a 24/7 BDSM
> > relationship might look kinda tacky, more than anything
> > else.
>
>I agree that they look tacky. Looking tacky isn't sufficient reason
>for me to say someone shouldn't do something that they want to if it
>doesn't explicitely involve me. (Though I am on the topic of "is this
>acceptable to be in public as a UU" and not "what does the kink
>community think of it".)
And that last bit is my point. This isn't about whether or not you
or I think it's okay - it's the principle of checking in first BEFORE
doing it. If you start from the perspective of not knowing if
everyone present consents, then that's where more negotiation needs
to take place. This is one of the reasons why many BDSM groups make
a point of setting up "play spaces" or "dungeons" and making sure
people know about the boundaries involved (i.e. signs of doors saying
"play space" and letting people know that entry means providing
consent to seeing what's going on).
> > There's a lot more negotiation involved,
>
>A lot more negotiation involved than what? Than negotiation involved
>in an only-while-doing-it BDSM scene? Than negotiation in a poly
>relationship?
See my comment above for a more clear explanation of what I mean.
> > and therefore I
> > suspect that there are more people out there who are in 24/7 BDSM
> > relationships than any of us realize from a surface observation. On
> > the surface, this is not unlike sexual orientation, which is not
> > always visible - but there are much deeper functional differences as
> > to *why* it is not visible.
>
>So please, expound upon exactly what that "much deeper functional
>difference" is.
The deeper functional difference is that LGBT people who may not be
visibly LGBT might be doing it to pass, or simply don't want to
attract attention to their sexuality, or simply find that their
sexual orientation just isn't that big a part of their
self-presentation. Whereas people in the kink community may be less
visible as a matter of practicing their beliefs more consistently
(and yes, they might also be doing it for similar reasons as LGBT
people, but this specific reason is, I would suggest, a particularly
functional aspect of the kink community).
>Just asserting that there is a deeper functional
>difference as to why a BDSM relationship is not or should not be
>visible and why a gay or poly relationship is or should be visible is
>just begging the question.
Sorry if I made it sound that way; I thought some of the discourse
would have provided more context as to why I thought that. I was
wrong. :) I hope I've made this more clear.
>I'm certainly not saying people who ARE in a DS relationship SHOULD
>tell everyone about it. I think usually they don't want to, and I'm
>peachy keen with that. However, IF they indeed want to be totally
>open about it including taking themselves to church on a leash, I
>can't come up with a good argument that they shouldn't.
Different people have different comfort levels about BDSM; there are
some feminists who might object to a visible D(male)/s(female)
relationship on the grounds that it is or seems degrading to women,
for example. Or simply the confusion of distinguishing between
"good" bruises and "bad" bruises - which is more an observation about
the quick trigger modern society has about dealing with abuse, than
it is about BDSM, I think. But like you, I have a difficult time
coming up with a really good reason for not allowing visible markers
of BDSM. It is when people begin to act out their relationship in a
particularly visible way that issues of consent become salient. Do I
know exactly where that line is? Nope. But I do think that the
considerate kinky person will check in with the people around them
before they swing that crop, or even show up with someone else on a leash.
> > Just a few thoughts, and not intended as anything other than my
> own thinking.
>
>Well Victor, I tend to ask people why they hold their thinking and to
>justify their conclusions, so hopefully you won't be offended.
Nope, not at all - but I do think you need to look at this from both
sides, and not just from outside (because I think if you don't,
you'll end up missing my point - I might be wrong though! :) ).
>-Laura
>_______________________________________________
>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
>
>
>
>--
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.5/706 - Release Date:
>2/28/2007 4:09 PM
>
>
>
>
>--
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.5/706 - Release Date:
>2/28/2007 4:09 PM
Victor J Raymond
vraymond "at" iastate.edu
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.5/706 - Release Date: 2/28/2007 4:09 PM
_______________________________________________
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