Re: [UUPoly-L] Report from PNWD AGM

"Laura Stewart" <mathlaura@gmail.com> · Fri, 02 Mar 2007 17:18:44 -0000

On 3/2/07, Victor Raymond <vraymond@iastate.edu> wrote:

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.

And I'm saying that
IF
(Behavior X is ongoing and contatn)
THEN
(Behavior X is not part of a scene)
Also,
IF
(Behavior X is not part of a scene by the participants' standards)
THEN
(Behavior X is not 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.

NO NO NO NO NO
I am SPECIFICALLY SAYING that KISSING IS NOT AT ALL LIKE RAPE, even if
the people who witness the kissing do not consent to witnessing the
kissing.
> > 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.

So no matter how many times I say that I'm specifically talking about
behaviro that would not be considered part of a scene/is not
considered sexual in nature by the participants, you'll keep saying
that it's not OK to do scenes in public or have sex in public?  Fine.
I've said it explicitely many times.  I grow tired of repeating
myself, but I'll probably do it again.
>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).

And I think that that is ridiculous for the very reason that
NON-SEXUAL DISPLAYS are NOT EQUIVALENT TO NON-CONSENSUAL SEX/KINK.  I
see absolutely no reason why not being OK with non-consensual kink has
anything whatsoever to do with being OK with non-consensual displays.
 I'm not talking about
displays of identity here as "non-sexual" -

Well I am, so I guess we're not arguing.  Except no matter how many
times I say I'm talking about non-sexual displays, you keep arguing
like I'm talking about sexual displays.
 I'm talking about BDSM
activities that may not involve sex but do involve a power
exchange.

And I'm saying that if someone's entire relationship - not just sex or
scenes or specific fun activities at the dungeon or the playspace or
in the bedroom or on the kitchen table - involves a power exchange, in
ways that are not related to sex, then I don't have the right to say
that it's sexual and belongs away from my delicate virgin eyes.
 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.

Not at all.  I'm saying there's lots of things that are "intimate"
which are non-sexual, and I'm certainly not OK with telling people
they can't be "intimate" in public even given the premise that it's
not OK to be sexual in public.  I'm saying you can't compare a
non-sexual display to a sexual display.  Also, kissing is intimate,
cuddling is intimate.  Feeding one another pudding is intimate.  I'm
100% fine with those things happening in public.
>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.

You're not actually making an argument here.
> > >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)

I didn't mean to imply "Hooray for you agreeing with me!" but rather
"Hooray for something I said having made someone think!"
>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?

Yes.  And WHETHER OR NOT I AM COMFORTABLE WITH SOMETHING HAS NO
BEARING AT ALL UPON WHETHER SOMETHING IS RIGHT OR APPROPRIATE.  There
are people who are uncomfortable (or even outraged) at seeing me kiss
my girlfriend in a restaraunt or a park.  There are people who are
uncomfortable (or outraged, or totally surprised and staring) at
people seeing me kiss my boyfriend and my girlfriend and them kiss one
another in a public place.  Whether people are uncomfortable with
something inherrently says nothing about a) whether the thing that
makes them uncomfortable is sexual or b) whether the people doing the
behavior making other uncomfortable should or should not (in a value
judgement way) cease and desist in said behavior.  This is my whole
point.
(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?

I'm saying, the standard of behavior that the behavers think is right,
in this case.  Or rather, I'm saying that I can't distinctly draw a
line for any logical reason that says non-sexual BDSM behavior is not
appropriate only given the premise "sexual behavior in this context is
not appropriate."  If the premise is "intimate behavior in this
context is not appropriate" and "this context" is at a UU gathering,
then I just totally disagree.
 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.

Who the hell are you or I to tell someone that something "belongs in a scene"?
>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.

No, I'm using a random example of presenting the argument.  I'm saying
me even THINKING that "we believe in the democratic process!" is not
appropriate.  Any way in which I present that someone should believe
in that because UUs do when they don't identify as UU is not
appropriate.
 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?

And I'm saying OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN and very explicitely, that
I'm talking about behavior which is not "a scene", which the behavors
do not consider to be "a scene", and which cannot be objectively shown
to be more intimate than kissing or cuddling.  And I'm saying that you
or I have no right to tell someone what does and does not belong in a
scene, and that if we're uncomfortable with their behavior then boo
boo hoo, because our comfort level should have nothing whatsoever to
do with value judgements on other people's behavior.
 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.

Same-sex and poly kissing makes people uncomfortable too.  I've said
this a million times now.  Unless you can demonstrate in some logical
and objective manner that me being uncomfortable about some sort of
non-sexual BDSM behavior is not the same as some old Baptist lady
being uncomfortable about me kissing and snuggling my girlfriend, then
you're continuing to just make an assertion and not back it up.
> >  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.

Who gets to define "intimate" or what is "as intimate as sex"?  I
engage in behavior with my SOs in public all the time that's far more
intimate than when they have casual sex with someone else.
Let's be clear on one thing: I understand perfectly well why people
would not choose to engage in BDSM in public.  I also understand
perfectly well that some people (including me!) would be uncomfortable
witnessing non-sexual BDSM behavior.  My point is: so what?  What does
our comfort level have to do with the price of tea in China, or
whether we would accept someone's non-sexual behavior?
-Laura