Re: [UUPoly-L] Report from PNWD AGM

Victor Raymond <vraymond@iastate.edu> · Fri, 02 Mar 2007 01:21:21 -0000

At 05:14 PM 3/1/2007, you wrote:
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.

But I'm not "begging the question" - I'm pointing to a fairly 
well-known principle within the kinky community of what is considered 
appropriate behavior.  I am then using that as a concept to show how 
certain kinds of behavior would be considered problematic from 
*within* the BDSM community.
If the "kinky community" generally agrees that everyone should consent
to a neverending "scene"

They don't, so I'm not sure what you are pointing to.
(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

The term "scene" has a specific meaning within the BDSM community, 
usually referring to a power exchange between a dominant and 
submissive partner (though that's an oversimplification).  The 
specific usage for me is when someone kinky might engage in a visible 
kind of power exchange when the ground rules of who is participating 
are not clear, that's a "scene" I would consider problematic for others.
), 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.

I would allow that you are *technically* right, though I would 
suggest that "safe, sane and consensual" is a sufficiently 
agreed-upon norm within the kink community to make it pervasive and 
generally agreed-upon.  Frankly, if someone was pursuing what they 
called "kink" and it wasn't consensual, I would have serious 
questions about their behavior.
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.

Hmmm.  I seem to be not very clear here - it's the fundamental 
emphasis on provision of consent on the part of ALL concerned; that's 
the "why" it is considered by most people in the BDSM community to be 
the "right" way of doing it.  It is the way in which BDSM is 
distinguished from physical abuse, as many people have told me and 
has been part of my own experience.
> >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.

I think where we might be getting hung up is that (a) you seem to 
think I am critiquing a relationship style when (b) I am suggesting 
that the standards within a community suggest that there are 
boundaries and limits worth knowing about, *regardless* if you 
consider yourself a member of that community or not.
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).

Ah.  Let me explain.  I'm NOT objecting to people being able to show 
their relationship in public (please reread my last message to the 
list where I attempted to make that clear).  What I am saying is a 
matter of negotiation and unclear social boundaries are *some* of the 
visible manifestations of a BDSM relationship, usually of the sort 
that are not unlike having sex in public.
I'm getting the impression that I'm looking a specific set of fine 
points and it seems like you may be overgeneralizing from that to the 
mistaken impression that I think being visibly kinky is 
wrong.  That's not true at all.
Victor

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