Re: [UUPoly-L] Appropriate behavior and affirmation of relationships

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

On 3/1/07, Cynthia Armistead <cyn@technomom.com> wrote:
> Laura Stewart 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.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > 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.
>
> We have a fairly solid societal standard that says that sex should be a
> private thing. I happen to think that's good. I'm all for having it stay
> that way. It isn't shameful or dirty, just private.
>
> That doesn't mean that relationships are private, but that we carry out
> the sexual parts of relationships that include sex in private. While we
> may well acknowledge in some way that we are involved in a sexualoving
> relationship with someone while in public, acting in an overtly sexual
> manner is rude.

I'm very explicitely talking about things that are not overtly sexual,
specifically that the participants do not consider to be sexual.

> Whether or not someone has agreed to be your slave, or you her master or
> mistress, is to most people's thinking (and mine, honestly - and yes, I
> do have first-hand experience in that realm, so please don't assume that
> I'm ignorant about it or prejudiced against it) something that belongs
> in that private sexual space. It should stay there with information
> about preferred sexual positions, how vocal one is, predilections for
> voyeurism or exhibitionism, use of common kitchen implements in unique
> ways, intimate measurements, astounding statistics, and erotic
> fantasies/goals/achievements.

For me personally, I agree.  To me, BDSM is just about sex, I'm not
comfortable with the idea of it not being just about sex, it's just
like being a screamer or an exhibitionist or into geriatric German
grandmas spanking Spanish men.

I assume that for people who have a D/s RELATIONSHIP and not just a
BDSM sex life, it's not just about sex.  And as much as that freaks me
out on a personal level, that's what I'm talking about.

> Namaste,
> Cyn
> --
> --
> cyn@technomom.com

Unreatedly, I think that I am e-friends with your SO (Sambear?)

-Laura