Re: [UUPoly-L] Report from PNWD AGM

"Laura Stewart" <mathlaura@gmail.com> · Fri, 02 Mar 2007 01:49:25 -0000

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

Saying "People should follow this principle because this principle is
correct" would be begging the question.  Saying "People should follow
this principle because it is accepted by X community" would be appeal
to authority.
Once again, are you saying why someone would choose to not be public
with their relationship, or are you saying that it's inappropriate for
them to be public with their relationship or that it's OK for people
to tell them to not be public with their relationship at church?  If
you're saying something that is related to both of these, I honestly
don't understand.  I haven't seen anything you said as relating to a
reason why it would be OK to tell someone to not be public at church
or why it would not be OK for someone to choose to be public.
>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.

Sorry, to clarify I meant "everyone involved in the neverending scene
should consent to said scene [or else the scene should not happen]"
rather than "every person should be obliged to consent to neverending
BDSM scenes"
>(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).

I am aware of what "scene" means in BDSM parlance.  I maintain that if
something is what people do ALL THE TIME that the term "scene" does
not seem applicable.  For example, if someone never goes anywhere
other than work withut being with their dom and being on a leash, then
them being on a leash really isn't a scene.  It's not a specific
display of a power exchange; it's just what they do.  (I don't know
anyone like this.  I'm just saying that if you're BDSM all the time,
then doing what you always do is not a scene.)
 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

Yes.  Since my emotional reaction to this whole thing is at odds with
my logical beliefs about it, I'm only interested in the technical on
the topic.  YMMV
 , 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.

Yes, but again, the community has no authority over anyone's personal
choices if they don't associate and choose to measure themself against
a community's norms.  Again, you haven't put forth a
non-self-referrential explanation of why incidental observers would
need to be explicitely consensual to BDSM as opposed to other
non-traditional relationships.
 Frankly, if someone was pursuing what they
called "kink" and it wasn't consensual, I would have serious
questions about their behavior.

The strawman is quite beaten now.  I never said anything about the
persons involved in the kink not being consensual.  Rather, I have
asked why it is more necessary for non-involved parties to consent to
one form of expression of the type of a relationship someone has but
not have to consent to expressions of other types of relationships
that people have.  This seems to me quite analagous to an exchange
that goes like this:
I think gays should be able to kiss at church!
Well no one should have to look at gay kissing if they haven't consented!
Why not?
Oh, well I'm not OK with gay rape!  That's wrong!
>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.

But again, what inherrently makes observers of someone on a leash be
more "involved" than observers of gay or poly canoodling?
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.

No one has made the least overture for saying the people who are
involved should not have to be consenting.  What I want to know is
what makes observers inherrently "involved"?
> > >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

Not at all.  Quite the opposite, I would guess.  You said you're
involved in the BDSM community.  I am not.  You say you've had an
inherrently D/s relationsip.  The thought of that emotionally
horrifies me.  I'm pretty clear that I'm probably far more critical of
such a style of relationship than you are.
 (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.

Yes, people in communities often think people outside of those
communities should conform to their own standards.  Fundies think that
I should go to church and marry a Christian man and pop out some
babies.  I understand WHAT the standards of the community are, and
even why people choose to follow them.  That does not in any way
answer the question of "What right does anyone have to tell someone to
not be public with non-sexual displays of their relationship style?"
>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).

So... I'm still totally unclear on whether you're disagreeing with me
about anything then.  And again, if you're still trying to explain why
people choose to not be public, I totally understand that and do not
require explanation.  (I apologise if I seem obtuse; I am seriously
trying to understand what you are saying to the best of my ability.
It seems to me that you are being obtuse with clearly-phrased
questions, but I realize I might seem the same way to you.)
 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.

OK.  I'm talking about a very very specific social situation, and
displays which are to the persons involved not considered sexual more
than kissing and snuggling would be considered sexual.  If we're
talking about more sexually-titilating practices, it is outside the
scope of what I am discussing.
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.

I'm not trying to make a generalization from your statements.  I am
definitely looking at a very specific set of fine points, and I am
wondering if people have an argument against my tentative decision
about those very specific circumstances and fine points.  I would like
to hear specifically your thoughts on the specific set of fine points
of which I am speaking.
-Laura
(And to let you know, rereading this, my tone seems really harsh, but
it's not intended to be.  I apologise if I come across as
condescending, or angry, or otherwise negative.  I realize the quoting
of formal fallacy names can be obnoxious, but I find it to be the
easiest way to express my issues with reasoning rather than
reinventing the wheel by explaining the problem that I'm seeing.)