Re: [UUPoly-L] Report from PNWD AGM

Victor Raymond <vraymond@iastate.edu> · Fri, 02 Mar 2007 02:49:06 -0000

Dear Laura,
One introductory note: please go to the bottom of this email and read 
that first before starting at the top.  I've discovered that we're 
focusing on two different (but related) things (or so it seems to me now).
At 07:49 PM 3/1/2007, you wrote:
On 3/1/07, Victor Raymond <vraymond@iastate.edu> wrote:
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?

I am suggesting that there are social boundaries that are suggested 
from within the BDSM community that might be useful for others to be 
aware of.  I incidentally noted that *some* BDSM folks *might* choose 
different expressions of their relationship in different times and 
places as a sign of clarity about consent (and yes, I noted that 
there are other issues, such as lack of acceptance that also fosters 
this behavior).
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.

Okay - from my perspective, people in a 24/7 BDSM relationship may be 
that all the time, but there are certain kinds of behavior that would 
constitute a scene.  Under *those* circumstances, that would be 
something that would reasonably suggest checking in with others about 
their consent.  And I would further suggest that the line for 
determining that is *unclear* - which is why people who are non kinky 
might want to understand what consent means.  Otherwise, there's a 
strong risk of misunderstanding and negative reaction (as Desmond has 
pointed to).
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.

Actually, I would suggest that it is a very *clear* display of a D/s 
relationship (which is something other than "a display of a power 
exchange" or "just what they do").
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.

Here's where we keep missing one another.  I'm not suggesting that 
incidental observers need to be explicitly consensual to people 
identifying or claiming an identity as BDSM per se.  I am (and have 
been) saying that *certain kinds* of BDSM behavior in public would 
suggest to someone in that community that they might want to check in 
with others before continuing.
>  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!

That's reductio ad absurdum.  The analogy is mistaken on the grounds 
that there's no equivalence between "kissing" and "gay rape" whereas 
consent is a significant bedrock issue within the kink community.
Let's put it another way:  would you have sex in public at 
fellowship?  Probably not.  Would you kiss your SOs?  Maybe.  In 
between those two circumstances is a LOT of grey area.  As I said 
before, speaking not from within a UU perspective, but more a BDSM 
perspective, there's a suggestion of using consent as a useful guide 
to consider what sorts of behavior would be okay in public.  And as 
others have already pointed out, that's a hard line to define and 
probably requires on-going interaction to really figure out.
> >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?

The discussion we've had so far has made me think about that.  I 
would agree that visible signs of a BDSM relationship are not in and 
of themselves really any different from other sorts of behavior, and 
that a good point.  I'll step back from my initial post, since it 
suggests that they would be.  But as I suggested above, there's a lot 
of grey area past that, which is what I was pointing to.
>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"?

Here's what I said before about that:
"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)."  It's about having clarity about what's 
appropriate behavior based on context.
> > > >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.

I'm not sure what you are concluding about "involvement" save a 
difference perhaps more of degree than of kind.
  You say you've had an
inherrently D/s relationsip.

Um, ***NO*** I haven't said that.  Someone *else* might have 
suggested that, but I haven't.  And while I do not object to D/s 
relationships, this does seem to be a sign that you aren't reading my 
posts very closely.  That's unfortunate, because I've appreciated the 
discussion we've been having so far.

 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.

Laura, ****again**** you're not reading me clearly.  I'm not 
suggesting that BDSM people follow some *outside* standard; I'm 
suggesting that the BDSM community has its own standards, and it is 
worthwhile to know what they are, regardless of whether or not you 
are a member of that community.
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.)

It certainly seems that way to me, as well.
>  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.

GOT IT!
I think we're talking about two different things!!!  If I understand 
you, you're talking about relatively modest expressions of identity - 
and I would agree with you about those things.  The expression of 
personal identity, whether as kinky or LGBT or poly, is something we 
ought to welcome, if at all possible.  What I am thinking about is 
that "grey area" past that, where there *is* a lot of 
misunderstanding between kinky and non-kinky people.  One thing to 
keep in mind is that there is BDSM behavior that is not necessarily 
sexual, but is as intimate as sex.  Put another way, not all scenes 
are sexual, some are, some are not.  What I'm talking about - which 
sounds quite distinct now from the circumstance you are looking at - 
is that engaging in a scene without ensuring consent is 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.
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.

Oh, dear.  I believe *now* that we're in general agreement.  I think 
I'm really talking about something else that is related, but not the 
same thing.  I'll go back and check.
-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.)

I would agree with you; it's the same reason I use them, as 
well.  You wouldn't perchance have a background in forensic debate, 
would you?  :):):)

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