[UUPoly-L] Comfort Levels

[P O <wild_card@sbcglobal.net>]

Victor,

I just wanted to comment about your remark regarding
varying comfort levels.  I have had some experieince
with this myself.  My second is also my 'slave',
though we aren't 24/7 by any means (we're lucky to get
together once a week).  We've been together for over 2
years now, and her family is well aware of our
relationship, and the basic nature of it.  They have
in fact known about her interest in BDSM for some
time.  They seem okay with that, and even with the
idea that I'm married (though they find it weird that
my wife knows about my relationship with her and
doesn't mind a bit).  What's interesting is the fact
that her sister got very offended at her when she
first found out about her relationship with me, not
because I'm mariied, or the kinky part, but because of
my race.  She was offended at the idea of a black
woman calling a white man 'master'.  I can certainly
see her point (though it never occured to me until my
second told me about her sister's comments), but it
does go to show how people's perceptions can change on
the exact same issue with slightly different
circumstances (had I been black, her sister wouldn't
have had a problem).  

So, I agree that there are lines, but not only don't
you know where they are, you never will until you
cross them, because they are different for everyone. 
That's why I personally tend to prefer holding to the
idea of keeping most things low-key.  My second has
attended a few things at our UU church, and I've even
introduced her to a couple of people as my girlfriend.
 My wife refers to her as that all the time.  However,
I don't bother to mention the BDSM aspects of our
relationship, as I don't see a point in it, for us. 
The fact that no one has blinked twice at our
semi-open poly relationship is good enough for now.

Pat

>On 3/1/07, Victor Raymond <vraymond@iastate.edu>
wrote:
>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.