Re: [UUPoly-L] Report from PNWD AGM

"Laura Stewart" <mathlaura@gmail.com> · Fri, 02 Mar 2007 05:36:15 -0000

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

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).

Yeah, that's why I tried to clarify if we were talking about the same
thing at all 2 or 3 posts ago, as the things you were saying didn't
seem to have much to do with what I was talking about.
(As such, I'm snipping large portions of what you wrote.)
>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").

I don't think of a scene as something that is ongoing and constant.  I
think I'll just agree to disagree on this one.
> >  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.

You do realize that reductio ad abusrdum is a type of logical
argument, not a fallacy, right?  Also, this is not reductio ad
absurdam, but is an analogy.
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.

Consent is an inherrent part of all non-abusive sexuality.
I am arguing exactly that there is no equivalence between kissing and
gay rape, just as there is no equivalence between public displays of
BDSM and non-consensual kink.
I quote:  "if someone was pursuing what they called "kink" and it
wasn't consensual, I would have serious questions about their
behavior."
No one said anything about the people involved being non-consensual.
You seemed to imply that me questioning whether observers needed to
consent to non-sexual displays of BDSM suggested that I might be OK
with someone engaging in non-consensual sexuality.
*I think gays should be able to kiss at church!  || I think peopple
should be able to display non-sexual indications of a BDSM
relationship at church.
*Well no one should have to look at gay kissing if they haven't
consented!  || People should not be involved as observers in a scene
if they haven't consented
*Why not?  || Why not?
*Oh, well I'm not OK with gay rape!  That's wrong!  || Non-consensual
kink is bad!
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.

Well since I used the terms "non-sexual" and "not inherrently sexual"
repeatedly, I don't see how you missed that I was clearly talking
about things that are not equivalent to having sex.
I think the whole needing consent from observers is a HORRIBLE
guideline, because what people are and are not comfortable with can
just as easily be applied to people not wanting to see same-sex
kissing or poly families or anything else that people just aren't
comfortable with.
>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.

Hooray!
 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.

Sure.  And I'm also fine with kissing in public/at a UU event, or
snuggling, but am not really up for breast-squeezing or stealing
underwear (or, in my case, any sort of BDSM display WHATSOEVER that is
visible to anyone else because for me personally there is no BDSM in
which I engage which is not inherrently sexual.)
But I am pleased that I seem to have gotten my point across.  And
there is much rejoicing and clanging of cymbals.
>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.

Again, this is an explanation of why certain people do certain things
and draw certain boundaries, which was never in question and which I
repeatedly stated that I was neither questioning nor talking about.
>   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.

I'm sorry, I must have mistaken another person's post as being from
you.  Apologies.
> >  (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.

You're suggesting that people who engage in BDSM activities or
relationships should take into account the standards of the BDSM
community "whether or not you are a member of that community".  If you
don't consider yourself part of a community, that community's
standards are just as much an "outside standard" as any other
community's standards, even if you have something in common with that
community.  If you're not part of a community, you're not "BDSM
people" in any way that means the community standards have anything to
do with you.
So I was being purposefully inflamitory with my fundy example.  Let's
say there's a person involved in social justice, respects all
religious beliefs that bring people hope, believes that people should
find their own path based on science and reason... but is not a UU.
And they believe in an oligarchy of some sort as the ideal .  I can't
then tell that person "But we believe in the democratic process!"
That person is no part of "we", even if they seem to follow many UU
beliefs.
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.

Ding ding ding!
 What I am thinking about is
that "grey area" past that, where there *is* a lot of
misunderstanding between kinky and non-kinky people.

Yep, that's not what I'm talking about at all.
 One thing to
keep in mind is that there is BDSM behavior that is not necessarily
sexual, but is as intimate as sex.

There is lots of behavior of many descriptions which is as intimate as sex.
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?  :):):)

Nope, I'm afraid not.
-Laura