Re: [UUPoly-L] Report from PNWD AGM

Victor Raymond <vraymond@iastate.edu> · Fri, 02 Mar 2007 14:42:14 -0000

At 11:36 PM 3/1/2007, you wrote:
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.

I'm not suggesting that a scene is on-going and constant.  I'm saying 
that if someone engages in behavior that properly belongs in a scene 
(by their own standard), that's about the same as having sex in public.
> >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.

Yes, and I'm saying that for rhetorical purposes, it's a false 
analogy and an example of reductio ad absurdum (kissing=gay 
rape).  As a former debater, I'm quite familiar with what I said and meant.
> 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.

Okay, I'll try this one more time.  For public displays of BDSM 
behavior that would otherwise belong in a scene - that's the sort of 
thing that isn't consensual for observers, unless everyone is in a 
space where it is commonly agreed that such behavior is 
acceptable.  Put another way, doing a scene in public is like having 
sex in public.
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.

Actually, what I am saying is that if you aren't okay with the 
latter, then I would suggest that you might not want to be okay with 
the former (and NOT the other way around).  I'm not talking about 
displays of identity here as "non-sexual" - I'm talking about BDSM 
activities that may not involve sex but do involve a power 
exchange.  I think where you might be getting hung up is in assuming 
that ALL non-sexual BDSM is somehow not intimate - I assure you 
that's not at all the case, some of the time.
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.

Right, which is why there needs to be the distinction between 
"activities that belong in a BDSM scene, sexual or otherwise" and 
"activities that are not part of a scene, sexual or otherwise."  What 
belongs in a scene requires consent.  Kissing, etc., does not fall in 
that category.  As for activities that fall into a grey area, then 
that suggests more communication and negotiation.
> >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!

:/  Except that it's made me more aware of *how* to draw that 
distinction, which is not the same as agreeing with you.  (wry grin)
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.)

So what you are saying is that there is BDSM behavior that you would 
be uncomfortable witnessing in public, right?
(snip)
> 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.

But if you are in a shared space which has members of many 
communities, what standard of behavior applies?  What I am saying is 
that that's not clear, and people engaging in BDSM behavior that 
properly belongs in a scene are making an assumption that everyone is 
okay with that, when that's tacky at best.
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.

Hmm.  You're making an assumption about how the argument would be 
presented.  And it's a flawed application of what I've suggesting 
anyway.  What I'm suggesting is that if someone is engaging in BDSM 
activity that belongs in a scene, and they haven't checked with 
people around them, then there's a basis for checking in with them 
about having obtained consent from everyone - did they do that?  If 
they didn't get consent from observers, and it's not a play space or 
dungeon, that's pretty tacky.  It's a kind of exhibitionism that 
makes other uncomfortable.
>  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.

But you are talking about it anyway, when trying to look at what 
constitutes BDSM behavior.
>  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.

But because there is specific BDSM behavior that is as intimate as 
sex, being clear about when and where it is appropriate to engage in 
it is important.

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