Re: [UUPoly-L] Report from PNWD AGM

["Laura Stewart" <mathlaura@gmail.com>]

On 3/1/07, Victor Raymond <vraymond@iastate.edu> wrote:
> At 04:13 PM 3/1/2007, you wrote:
>
> >Before I even begin to respond in detail to your post, let me clarify
> >what I am saying.  My point is this:
> >
> >I can see no logical reason to not tolerate and accept someone being
> >visible about a 24/7 D/S relationship at church.
>
> ...except that - depending on the behavior involved in such a
> relationship - it is perfectly reasonable to *remind* people in such
> relationships that consenting to witnessing it is not a good thing to
> *assume*.  In a sense, there is a distinct courtesy involved
> here.  All I was trying to do was to show how this might affect
> people who are not kinky and give them some basis for interpreting
> and interacting with people who are.

I disagree 100% unless you can provide some item other than begging
the question that shows that it is inherrently different to be in a
d/s relationship than to be in some other sort of non-traditional
relationship, which shows that witnessing non-sexual signs of a
sexually BDSM relationship inherrently requires some consent that
witnessing non-sexual signs of some other form of sexually
non-traditional relationship does not.

If the "kinky community" generally agrees that everyone should consent
to a neverending "scene" (and I would have to argue that the term
"scene" is hardly applicable when it is a 24/7 way that people live
their lives), so what?  That does not make it appropriate to admonish
someone who doesn't take their relationship rules from the
agreed-upons of the community.  Someone can enjoy BDSM or be in a 24/7
BDSM relationship without having anything whatsoever to do with a
group of other BDSM enthusiasts on a social or subcultural level.

Saying "this is the right way to do a neverending D/s relationship"
and thus it's OK to tell people that's how they have to do it does not
say WHY that is the right way to do it.

> >You seem to be explaining why people are not visible with their 24/7
> >D/S relationships.  This was not a topic that I was at all in
> >ignorance about.  It is also 100% irrelevent to my point.
>
> I'm sorry if it seems that way to you - I see your point and the
> point I am attempting to make as complementary to one another.

I'm trying to understand how indeed your point - if it is indeed
explaining why people choose not to be public with their BDSM
relationship style - is complementary to my point that people should
not be judged for their relationship style no matter what that is.

> >If you have some point that contradicts or disagrees with my point,
> >please let me know, and I will respond to it.  Otherwise it seems that
> >we're talking about totally different things.
>
> I'm sorry that you see this as totally different things.  I see them
> as being completely intertwined with one another, and deserve more
> consideration and thought.  I'm sorry if I offended you, and it may
> be that we'll have to agree to disagree about this.

You have not offended me.  I just didn't see the point in responding
to your specific points if we were not talking about the same thing.

My challenge to you remains thus:

Explain to me WHY other than "the kinky community thinks this is the
right way to do a relationship" (which is Appeal to Authority) or "it
shouldn't be public" (which is Begging the Question) a relationship
which is BDSM in nature and whose participants wish it to be public in
nature should not in fact be public in nature, or why someone who
witnesses the public nature of said relationship should be right in
saying that it should not be public or should be kept out of church
(or kept out of whatever other social setting).

-Laura