Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Incurable Hippie is one of those who turns up in people's "thinking blogger" award lists fairly frequently - and for good reason.
She makes you think, no doubt about it.
check out her latest post.
In this post, Incurable Hippie comes to the defense of Charliegrrl, who has, apparently, been getting heaps of grief for her opposition to a certain workshop at the upcoming Ladyfest Leeds, a British feminist conference, which workshop
is to be based around criticising the recent legislation to criminalise the possession of extreme violent porn, and considering if this contributes towards women’s liberation or women’s repression..?
and I think this has to do with the debate surrounding the British restriction on violent pornography.
now, my opinion on matters of british politics do not, and ought not, matter. I'm a fat dumb spoiled American with my own fat dumb spoiled problems. However, in Incurable Hippie's post, it all drills down to this:
However, as a brilliant sum-up of a lot of the issues involved in BDSM sex, 'rape play', pornography, prostitution, lesbian S&M and abusive sex, I must send you on to read, How Orgasm Politics has Hijacked the Women's Movement" by Sheila Jeffreys.
Summary:
Just because it makes you have an orgasm, doesn't make it ok.
Think about *why* you might have an orgasm that way.
Put it in a political and gendered context. Think.
well, yes ma'am!
as a switch who mostly bottoms, I'm used to doing what I'm told and respecting authoritah and all.
So, off I go to think. some more. on why I'm such a reactionary gender traitor and unenlightened lumpenfraulein and wrecker of the Movement and selfish selfish pervert, off to contemplate how best to do penance for all those selfish selfish orgasms I've so gleefully and heedlessly flung all over the Feminist Landscape, crushing the tender buds of Revolution with every spasm...
(however, I did have to safeword on her exhortation to go slog through Sheila Jeffreys. I'm not that much of a masochist.)
Seriously, I gave it serious thought. as usual. All night. Why am I like this? why am I so sick and defective and bad? Where did I go wrong?
and I came up with the usual answers: I don't know. I don't know. I don't know.
What makes Incurable Hippie think I haven't thought about it? I've been thinking about it for coming up on twenty five years now. politically, gendered-ly, psychologically, morally, legally, name-your-adverb-ly - I still don't know. That's a lot of sleep lost to tossing and turning in the name of getting right with Feminism.
I know I feel a lot more functional, and make better, more healthy choices, when I'm not obsessing about what a bad person I am. And part of that is accepting what makes me tick, sexually speaking.
So, yeah, I thought about it, and I think I'm still a pervert.
but this bit, from her comments, really shit on my breakfast today.
courtesy a commenter named Emma:
Can we also clear up the 'you're attacking a minority sexuality' argument. No we are not, we are attacking ABUSE. There is a difference. If a person (male or female) was regularly being beaten or cut with knives assaulted or nearly strangled and it wasn't in the name of sex, we would say s/he was a victim of domestic violence. We wouldn't blame them for the fact that they didn't leave their partner, but would accept that there are complex psychological reasons why someone may stay in an abusive relationship. So there are complex pscyhological reasons why someone may indulge in BDSM, that doesn't justify it morally. The reason is generally accepted to be a history of previous abuse which leads a person to 'act out' the abuse as a coping mechanism. However this is harmful and prevents the person moving on and recovering. I know 2 women who have been involved in BDSM relationships and they both say that for them it was self harm by proxy. Both had previous histories of self harm.
So to summarise
BDSM is NOT a sexuality
BDSM is NOT 'play'
BDSM is NOT harmless.
So if you think that I personally don't like you because you practice BDSM - you're right, well spotted!
jeez. that hurt. some total stranger doesn't like me because I'm kinky. I mean, I know not everyone in the world is going to be my BestFriendForever, and I can accept that, now that I'm out of middle school - but damn. how can Emma not like me? Emma don't even know me! and unless I told her, she'd never know I was kinky. (like I got some mark of Cain on my forehead or something.)
This bit got under my skin especially:
The reason is generally accepted to be a history of previous abuse which leads a person to 'act out' the abuse as a coping mechanism. However this is harmful and prevents the person moving on and recovering. I know 2 women who have been involved in BDSM relationships and they both say that for them it was self harm by proxy. Both had previous histories of self harm.
ok, so - Emma doesn't like me because I'm kinky. fine. and she thinks that the reason I'm kinky is because I've been abused by others. so because other people fucked with me, Emma doesn't like me? way to blame the victim.
except I'm not a victim. I'm just an average everyday pervert. I don't think I've been abused, therefore I'm a pervert. I think I'm a pervert who happens to have been abused, occasionally. I think I was a pervert first, and worried about it, and deeply concerned about it, and thought it made me bad and defective and sick and DESERVING OF ABUSE because of my defective sick badness.
Strange - as I post this I realize that it was just this same topic that had me wailing and gnashing my teeth last April, which led me to start my blog in the first place.
huh. plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.
She makes you think, no doubt about it.
check out her latest post.
In this post, Incurable Hippie comes to the defense of Charliegrrl, who has, apparently, been getting heaps of grief for her opposition to a certain workshop at the upcoming Ladyfest Leeds, a British feminist conference, which workshop
is to be based around criticising the recent legislation to criminalise the possession of extreme violent porn, and considering if this contributes towards women’s liberation or women’s repression..?
and I think this has to do with the debate surrounding the British restriction on violent pornography.
now, my opinion on matters of british politics do not, and ought not, matter. I'm a fat dumb spoiled American with my own fat dumb spoiled problems. However, in Incurable Hippie's post, it all drills down to this:
However, as a brilliant sum-up of a lot of the issues involved in BDSM sex, 'rape play', pornography, prostitution, lesbian S&M and abusive sex, I must send you on to read, How Orgasm Politics has Hijacked the Women's Movement" by Sheila Jeffreys.
Summary:
Just because it makes you have an orgasm, doesn't make it ok.
Think about *why* you might have an orgasm that way.
Put it in a political and gendered context. Think.
well, yes ma'am!
as a switch who mostly bottoms, I'm used to doing what I'm told and respecting authoritah and all.
So, off I go to think. some more. on why I'm such a reactionary gender traitor and unenlightened lumpenfraulein and wrecker of the Movement and selfish selfish pervert, off to contemplate how best to do penance for all those selfish selfish orgasms I've so gleefully and heedlessly flung all over the Feminist Landscape, crushing the tender buds of Revolution with every spasm...
(however, I did have to safeword on her exhortation to go slog through Sheila Jeffreys. I'm not that much of a masochist.)
Seriously, I gave it serious thought. as usual. All night. Why am I like this? why am I so sick and defective and bad? Where did I go wrong?
and I came up with the usual answers: I don't know. I don't know. I don't know.
What makes Incurable Hippie think I haven't thought about it? I've been thinking about it for coming up on twenty five years now. politically, gendered-ly, psychologically, morally, legally, name-your-adverb-ly - I still don't know. That's a lot of sleep lost to tossing and turning in the name of getting right with Feminism.
I know I feel a lot more functional, and make better, more healthy choices, when I'm not obsessing about what a bad person I am. And part of that is accepting what makes me tick, sexually speaking.
So, yeah, I thought about it, and I think I'm still a pervert.
but this bit, from her comments, really shit on my breakfast today.
courtesy a commenter named Emma:
Can we also clear up the 'you're attacking a minority sexuality' argument. No we are not, we are attacking ABUSE. There is a difference. If a person (male or female) was regularly being beaten or cut with knives assaulted or nearly strangled and it wasn't in the name of sex, we would say s/he was a victim of domestic violence. We wouldn't blame them for the fact that they didn't leave their partner, but would accept that there are complex psychological reasons why someone may stay in an abusive relationship. So there are complex pscyhological reasons why someone may indulge in BDSM, that doesn't justify it morally. The reason is generally accepted to be a history of previous abuse which leads a person to 'act out' the abuse as a coping mechanism. However this is harmful and prevents the person moving on and recovering. I know 2 women who have been involved in BDSM relationships and they both say that for them it was self harm by proxy. Both had previous histories of self harm.
So to summarise
BDSM is NOT a sexuality
BDSM is NOT 'play'
BDSM is NOT harmless.
So if you think that I personally don't like you because you practice BDSM - you're right, well spotted!
jeez. that hurt. some total stranger doesn't like me because I'm kinky. I mean, I know not everyone in the world is going to be my BestFriendForever, and I can accept that, now that I'm out of middle school - but damn. how can Emma not like me? Emma don't even know me! and unless I told her, she'd never know I was kinky. (like I got some mark of Cain on my forehead or something.)
This bit got under my skin especially:
The reason is generally accepted to be a history of previous abuse which leads a person to 'act out' the abuse as a coping mechanism. However this is harmful and prevents the person moving on and recovering. I know 2 women who have been involved in BDSM relationships and they both say that for them it was self harm by proxy. Both had previous histories of self harm.
ok, so - Emma doesn't like me because I'm kinky. fine. and she thinks that the reason I'm kinky is because I've been abused by others. so because other people fucked with me, Emma doesn't like me? way to blame the victim.
except I'm not a victim. I'm just an average everyday pervert. I don't think I've been abused, therefore I'm a pervert. I think I'm a pervert who happens to have been abused, occasionally. I think I was a pervert first, and worried about it, and deeply concerned about it, and thought it made me bad and defective and sick and DESERVING OF ABUSE because of my defective sick badness.
Strange - as I post this I realize that it was just this same topic that had me wailing and gnashing my teeth last April, which led me to start my blog in the first place.
huh. plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.
# posted by antiprincess @ 6:49 AM 
Comments:
as for the origins of one of my own little sexual hiccups, one person I know theorizes that I heard so much "NO" for so long, that the only way I could enjoy a little "YES" without choking on the guilt was to be "forced" into it (primarily by older women, at least in early fantasies).
*nod* i think that's pretty common, actually.
it's also a relief to let someone else take charge, make decisions...that's pretty universal really.
my very tentative theory is that the erotic is sort of like humor in that it involves a tension between what's safe and familiar and what's...unsettling. that's really vague though. it's really understudied imo, because everyone and their auntie has an Agenda they have to impose on it if they're even willing to look at it at all.
and i'm not at all sure it all comes from family-of-origin shit either. one of my most powerful kinks...well it certainly has social implications, but i don't have any real sense of how it might connect to either of my parents. it's also rather rare, for women, or at least rarely talked about ime, although a lot of men definitely have it from their end. someday maybe i'll talk about it (i've already more than hinted at it i'm fairly sure); it could be really interesting from a feminist POV. i don't want to make certain other people feel...objectified, though. *mulls*
sorry i won't be any more explicit than that right now. just thinking out loud.
it's not like one's kinky-ness will just evaporate in a puff of logic, once the root cause is found. or does it? I don't know of anyone who's truly found their "root cause" and became un-kinky as a result.
If any one out there had that experience, and cares to share, I'd be interested.
of the folks I know who did have a "root cause", and found it - they're still kinky. maybe even more so.
Right. I haven't either.
Well, more and more I am convinced that in fact logic doesn't begin to touch most of this deep-rooted shit.
I -have- seen rather profound changes based on -physical- work, sometimes. Not really change in core desires so much, though.
But again, I think that this is one of the appeals of BDSM: it's a way of getting -out- of the head, of connecting with old wounds and pent-up energy in a way that just talking about it can't do. It's not the only way, and again, I don't think most casual players should try to deliberately fuck around with this shit if they don't know what they're doing--but i do believe that's one of the urges.
perhaps one might say in the same way that taking drugs--and i include coffee and the occasional glass of wine here--is a form of self-medication.
the body has its own wisdom. as with other people, it's best to take it on its own terms and just...listen, sometimes. then maybe there can be a real exchange, and progress, finally.
"I strongly suspect that some people use these very rigid forms of radical feminism to cope with their own trauma."
Also agreed, but as difficult as it might be for non-radicals to handle this, shaming these individuals is not the answer either.
Yes, I'm down with that.
My problem comes when the method of coping, whatever its origin, starts to cross my own boundaries.
"I'm cold, put on a sweater" may very well have its origins in trauma, or at least a...lack of something, but that doesn't make it okay.
Nobody is being served at all by attacking BDSM in general or by arguing that everyone involved in the BDSM community has perfectly kosher intentions which is exactly what the BDSM supporters on the other thread were doing.
I personally have not seen anyone arguing that everyone in the BDSM community has perfectly kosher intentions. That would be ridiculous.
You were probably just using that as an example of thw two extremes Faith, so I'm not saying that's what you were suggesting. But I just wanted to point it out, to be excrutiatingly clear, that I have not seen that assertion from anyone, in my blogosphere travels.
Assuming for the moment that your suspicion is correct, I'd trace that one step further back and ask how they come to be so isolated (and hence vulnerable). And the answer I would reach is that it is because society as a whole has stigmatised BDSM and forced people to be circumspect about how they practise it.
yup.
and campaigns for the bannination of certain kinds of pr0n, as we've seen here, tend to bring the people who very much want to further stigmatise BDSM out of the woodwork (if they're not actually the same people); in short, i don't know how helpful this is.
i mean--is the idea that cracking down on the availability of such porn will result in a reduction of domestic abuse? If so, how exactly? If not--then what -is- the point?
<< Home
"Why am I like this? why am I so sick and defective and bad? Where did I go wrong?"
YOU'RE NOT!!!!!!!!
And yep, a lot of us were damn kinky without or before being abused for fucksake.
How about all the obvious issues of people who feel they can tell other people how to fuck? JEEZUES! You aren't even making the EVOOOL PRAWN.
I am soooooo amazingly livid with people right now it is NOT even funny....they want to talk about the badness of power relations, dominance and submission extered in sexual contexts in BSDM? Well, thats been done to death! BAD PATRIARCHY, BAD, BAD WOMEN INTO BSDM, bad stupid fucked up lackeies, BAD. We GET it. Now, how about the badness of power relations and attempts to extert dominance of contexts of shaming and labelling and hurting people for LIKING kinky sex? How about a few essays on that one?
YOU'RE NOT!!!!!!!!
And yep, a lot of us were damn kinky without or before being abused for fucksake.
How about all the obvious issues of people who feel they can tell other people how to fuck? JEEZUES! You aren't even making the EVOOOL PRAWN.
I am soooooo amazingly livid with people right now it is NOT even funny....they want to talk about the badness of power relations, dominance and submission extered in sexual contexts in BSDM? Well, thats been done to death! BAD PATRIARCHY, BAD, BAD WOMEN INTO BSDM, bad stupid fucked up lackeies, BAD. We GET it. Now, how about the badness of power relations and attempts to extert dominance of contexts of shaming and labelling and hurting people for LIKING kinky sex? How about a few essays on that one?
BDSM is NOT a sexuality
BDSM is NOT 'play'
BDSM is NOT harmless.
So if you think that I personally don't like you because you practice BDSM - you're right, well spotted!
Righto, then! Though, if you really examined your behavior, Emma, you'd see you were attempting to make sure we know our place is less-than-you. And that's not hierarchical at all, right?
Just to ask, if I like getting tied up, and enjoy a good flogging, am I also teh ABUSED! UNWILLING! HATED! one? Am I not able to consent to getting flogged? Meh. I don't really care. The moment someone attempts to make my choices in sexuality (based on mutual consent and understanding) nonexistent is the point at which I stop listening.
Uh huh. *nods* *smiles* [backs away slowly]
BDSM is NOT 'play'
BDSM is NOT harmless.
So if you think that I personally don't like you because you practice BDSM - you're right, well spotted!
Righto, then! Though, if you really examined your behavior, Emma, you'd see you were attempting to make sure we know our place is less-than-you. And that's not hierarchical at all, right?
Just to ask, if I like getting tied up, and enjoy a good flogging, am I also teh ABUSED! UNWILLING! HATED! one? Am I not able to consent to getting flogged? Meh. I don't really care. The moment someone attempts to make my choices in sexuality (based on mutual consent and understanding) nonexistent is the point at which I stop listening.
Uh huh. *nods* *smiles* [backs away slowly]
Anti-princess,
This is going to ramble a bit and I'm not going to edit for clarity...
I've been following that thread since it started. I left a comment at Charlie's supporting her decision to not allow dissenting opinions. It is her damn blog afterall; she does not have to allow any comments she does not want to allow. I also agree that some things have been said in Hippie's thread that shouldn't have been said, by both Emma (whoever she is) and the BDSM supporters. Every time I read one of Graham's comments I just want to reach out and slap the hell out of him for being such an arrogant asshole (I wouldn't really slap him, but I don't deny wanting to slap the hell out of him).
It absolutely is unfair to lash out at the entire BDSM community and all of its players. There is no denying that there are issues within the BDSM community that need to be addressed and I really don't believe any of us can deny that many of our kinks are a result of negative social programming and possibly abuse. BUT THAT DOESN'T MAKE US BAD. I do, however, get admittedly quite angry when anyone tries to defend all submissive female traits as being inherent and/or acceptable just so long as she consents. Well, it really isn't so easy no matter how much any of us would like it to be. Virtually every one of the female subs I've ever encountered had some history of abuse, usually sexual. And virtually all of us has been groomed to be submissive almost since birth. For fuck's sake, most heterosexual men even honestly believe it's the natural order of things and will usually give a woman in a relationship little other option but to be submissive to some extent! There's also the matter of abuse victims using BDSM as a means of coping, in the same manner which many self-cut as a means of coping. There is growing debate as to whether this need to self-harm - either directly or by proxy through consenting to be hurt and "subjected" to the same type of treatment that they endured at the hands of their abusers - could be a result of almost permanent biological damage due to the fact that the brain develops during childhood when the trauma occurred. This obviously makes many females subs very, very, very, vulnerable to abuse since they often can not really defend themselves or even recognize healthy or unhealthy interaction. I openly admit to not trusting or believing that most male doms have any business going anywhere near a submissive female. Fuck that. I know how the average male mind works and they do not deserve access to a submissive female!
This is going to ramble a bit and I'm not going to edit for clarity...
I've been following that thread since it started. I left a comment at Charlie's supporting her decision to not allow dissenting opinions. It is her damn blog afterall; she does not have to allow any comments she does not want to allow. I also agree that some things have been said in Hippie's thread that shouldn't have been said, by both Emma (whoever she is) and the BDSM supporters. Every time I read one of Graham's comments I just want to reach out and slap the hell out of him for being such an arrogant asshole (I wouldn't really slap him, but I don't deny wanting to slap the hell out of him).
It absolutely is unfair to lash out at the entire BDSM community and all of its players. There is no denying that there are issues within the BDSM community that need to be addressed and I really don't believe any of us can deny that many of our kinks are a result of negative social programming and possibly abuse. BUT THAT DOESN'T MAKE US BAD. I do, however, get admittedly quite angry when anyone tries to defend all submissive female traits as being inherent and/or acceptable just so long as she consents. Well, it really isn't so easy no matter how much any of us would like it to be. Virtually every one of the female subs I've ever encountered had some history of abuse, usually sexual. And virtually all of us has been groomed to be submissive almost since birth. For fuck's sake, most heterosexual men even honestly believe it's the natural order of things and will usually give a woman in a relationship little other option but to be submissive to some extent! There's also the matter of abuse victims using BDSM as a means of coping, in the same manner which many self-cut as a means of coping. There is growing debate as to whether this need to self-harm - either directly or by proxy through consenting to be hurt and "subjected" to the same type of treatment that they endured at the hands of their abusers - could be a result of almost permanent biological damage due to the fact that the brain develops during childhood when the trauma occurred. This obviously makes many females subs very, very, very, vulnerable to abuse since they often can not really defend themselves or even recognize healthy or unhealthy interaction. I openly admit to not trusting or believing that most male doms have any business going anywhere near a submissive female. Fuck that. I know how the average male mind works and they do not deserve access to a submissive female!
# posted by 
: 10:59 AM
: 10:59 AM
Faith:
"I really don't believe any of us can deny that many of our kinks are a result of negative social programming and possibly abuse"
I do. Loudly.
"Every time I read one of Graham's comments I just want to reach out and slap the hell out of him for being such an arrogant asshole (I wouldn't really slap him, but I don't deny wanting to slap the hell out of him)."
Snicker. Word.
" For fuck's sake, most heterosexual men even honestly believe it's the natural order of things and will usually give a woman in a relationship little other option but to be submissive to some extent! "
Bit of a overgeneralization I think. There are men who think this, but I don't know if I would say "most".
"I really don't believe any of us can deny that many of our kinks are a result of negative social programming and possibly abuse"
I do. Loudly.
"Every time I read one of Graham's comments I just want to reach out and slap the hell out of him for being such an arrogant asshole (I wouldn't really slap him, but I don't deny wanting to slap the hell out of him)."
Snicker. Word.
" For fuck's sake, most heterosexual men even honestly believe it's the natural order of things and will usually give a woman in a relationship little other option but to be submissive to some extent! "
Bit of a overgeneralization I think. There are men who think this, but I don't know if I would say "most".
"I do. Loudly."
Ren,
Please note that I said many, not all.
"Bit of a overgeneralization I think. There are men who think this, but I don't know if I would say "most"."
Ok, um, how about most traditionally-oriented heterosexual males?
Ren,
Please note that I said many, not all.
"Bit of a overgeneralization I think. There are men who think this, but I don't know if I would say "most"."
Ok, um, how about most traditionally-oriented heterosexual males?
# posted by : 11:21 AM
: 11:21 AM
Faith:
"Please note that I said many, not all."
I don't know if I would even say many. Some, absolutely, but I know a lot of kinky folk, kinky females, who would say they also do not fit into that "many".
"Ok, um, how about most traditionally-oriented heterosexual males?"
I still wouldn't go that far. Most men I know, and that I have slept with, are more about "let's switch things up and keep it fun an interesting" than being dominant because they think women are naturally more submissive.
"Please note that I said many, not all."
I don't know if I would even say many. Some, absolutely, but I know a lot of kinky folk, kinky females, who would say they also do not fit into that "many".
"Ok, um, how about most traditionally-oriented heterosexual males?"
I still wouldn't go that far. Most men I know, and that I have slept with, are more about "let's switch things up and keep it fun an interesting" than being dominant because they think women are naturally more submissive.
Most of the abuse I've encountered that relates to my kinks is over having them. Didn't cause them, just told me I was broken, defective, or damaged -- or maybe, at best, needing to "work through something" and that when I was all cured up and healthy I wouldn't be interested in such things.
"I still wouldn't go that far. Most men I know, and that I have slept with, are more about "let's switch things up and keep it fun an interesting" than being dominant because they think women are naturally more submissive."
Ok, well, that hasn't been my experience at all. And it's even worse online, especially when reading shit like this that makes me want to puke http://www.humbledfemales.com/. That's pure misogyny. I don't care what anyone says about it. Arguing that all females should be sub is just hideous. One guy even says that females should consider themselves as having a hole inside them that only he can fill. Um, hello? So we can't be full human-beings without a great big man? Where have I heard something like that before.
Ok, well, that hasn't been my experience at all. And it's even worse online, especially when reading shit like this that makes me want to puke http://www.humbledfemales.com/. That's pure misogyny. I don't care what anyone says about it. Arguing that all females should be sub is just hideous. One guy even says that females should consider themselves as having a hole inside them that only he can fill. Um, hello? So we can't be full human-beings without a great big man? Where have I heard something like that before.
# posted by : 11:36 AM
: 11:36 AM
And virtually all of us has been groomed to be submissive almost since birth.
submissive to whom?
I was absolutely groomed to be submissive to my parents and other older authority figures. but not to other children (male or female). as I grew up, the message I mostly received from my parents was not "defer to men" but "avoid men". also women. look - whatever - just don't get too attached, was the message. don't get involved.
so, of course, I fell madly in love with everyone in sight. just for spite I guess.
as for the origins of one of my own little sexual hiccups, one person I know theorizes that I heard so much "NO" for so long, that the only way I could enjoy a little "YES" without choking on the guilt was to be "forced" into it (primarily by older women, at least in early fantasies).
but that's just a theory.
submissive to whom?
I was absolutely groomed to be submissive to my parents and other older authority figures. but not to other children (male or female). as I grew up, the message I mostly received from my parents was not "defer to men" but "avoid men". also women. look - whatever - just don't get too attached, was the message. don't get involved.
so, of course, I fell madly in love with everyone in sight. just for spite I guess.
as for the origins of one of my own little sexual hiccups, one person I know theorizes that I heard so much "NO" for so long, that the only way I could enjoy a little "YES" without choking on the guilt was to be "forced" into it (primarily by older women, at least in early fantasies).
but that's just a theory.
Faith:
Yeah, that is some fucked up shit...but I don't think those guys (or various mra's) are indicative of men as a whole.
Yeah, that is some fucked up shit...but I don't think those guys (or various mra's) are indicative of men as a whole.
I believe our kinks are in large part (if not entirely) based on our experiences and the way we individually process them for any number of reasons. But, I don't know how useful it is to pathologize them by framing it in that way. What I think is, the erotic is--well, it's a life force. A positive thing. It goes into all sorts of channels. Sometimes it might be to make sense of abuse; but even there i don't see it the way a lot of people apparently do--a simple, unhealthy recreation of the original trauma. I think it can be therapeutic in itself, matter of fact; it's like any other kind of fantasizing or dreamwork or creative work: people rewrite, they reframe, they change the ending or recontextualize it. often quite unconsciously. And sometimes, it is true, the unconsciousness of it all can lead to destructive behavior patterns. "Old habits that no longer serve us," etc. In such cases traditional therapy is a really good idea. And sure: examining the origins of one's sexuality, as with the origins of anything else about one's interior life, can be a part of that.
But. It has to be in a safe and -nonjudgmental- context, same as any other therapy, for it to do any good. I am firmly convinced of that. It cannot be in the service of someone else's ulterior motive, whatever political or religious or philosophical framework it might be couched in. Otherwise you're just going to do the person even more harm.
And: do not enter into such an exercise with any expectation of changing one's desires. Sometimes, ime, yeah, peoples' sexuality -does- change and evolve. Not often, though; especially not the really deep-rooted stuff. What's better is to find the best and safest (physically and otherwise) (and of course ethical wrt other people) way of dealing with those desires.
But. It has to be in a safe and -nonjudgmental- context, same as any other therapy, for it to do any good. I am firmly convinced of that. It cannot be in the service of someone else's ulterior motive, whatever political or religious or philosophical framework it might be couched in. Otherwise you're just going to do the person even more harm.
And: do not enter into such an exercise with any expectation of changing one's desires. Sometimes, ime, yeah, peoples' sexuality -does- change and evolve. Not often, though; especially not the really deep-rooted stuff. What's better is to find the best and safest (physically and otherwise) (and of course ethical wrt other people) way of dealing with those desires.
I should say: it's not even clear if it's a -change- in -desire- so much as: channels are cleared, new things that were previously unconscious bubble to the surface of awareness or become manifest in action (sometimes, you really don't know till you've tried); and occasionally old...the wonky term is "imagos"...or scenarios...lose the initial power they once had. Including, yep, the power to turn on.
Ironically, where I learned most about this was from a female domme, talking about various fantasies which no longer held "juice" for her after enacting them and working through them any number of times.
Sometimes I do see BDSM as a kind of erotic psychodrama; and in fact a workshop I just took was designed around exactly that, explicitly. Really frigging powerful, too.
Other times, though, I will say, it can be just plain ol' fun. I enjoy spanking and flogging (from either end); I have no real personal history or charge from such things, it never used to be part of my fantasies; -physically-, spanking's...rather pleasant in all sorts of ways.
flogging in the shoulder area i find less directly erotic than on the ass, but it can feel really nice, in a heavy-massage sort of way. it can also get me to trance out; it's a "high." It's all energy; directly sexual (as in genital arousal and orgasm) is just one channel of many. That's what most people don't understand.
Ironically, where I learned most about this was from a female domme, talking about various fantasies which no longer held "juice" for her after enacting them and working through them any number of times.
Sometimes I do see BDSM as a kind of erotic psychodrama; and in fact a workshop I just took was designed around exactly that, explicitly. Really frigging powerful, too.
Other times, though, I will say, it can be just plain ol' fun. I enjoy spanking and flogging (from either end); I have no real personal history or charge from such things, it never used to be part of my fantasies; -physically-, spanking's...rather pleasant in all sorts of ways.
flogging in the shoulder area i find less directly erotic than on the ass, but it can feel really nice, in a heavy-massage sort of way. it can also get me to trance out; it's a "high." It's all energy; directly sexual (as in genital arousal and orgasm) is just one channel of many. That's what most people don't understand.
as for the origins of one of my own little sexual hiccups, one person I know theorizes that I heard so much "NO" for so long, that the only way I could enjoy a little "YES" without choking on the guilt was to be "forced" into it (primarily by older women, at least in early fantasies).
*nod* i think that's pretty common, actually.
it's also a relief to let someone else take charge, make decisions...that's pretty universal really.
my very tentative theory is that the erotic is sort of like humor in that it involves a tension between what's safe and familiar and what's...unsettling. that's really vague though. it's really understudied imo, because everyone and their auntie has an Agenda they have to impose on it if they're even willing to look at it at all.
and i'm not at all sure it all comes from family-of-origin shit either. one of my most powerful kinks...well it certainly has social implications, but i don't have any real sense of how it might connect to either of my parents. it's also rather rare, for women, or at least rarely talked about ime, although a lot of men definitely have it from their end. someday maybe i'll talk about it (i've already more than hinted at it i'm fairly sure); it could be really interesting from a feminist POV. i don't want to make certain other people feel...objectified, though. *mulls*
sorry i won't be any more explicit than that right now. just thinking out loud.
BD: I absolutely think life influences "sex life", but the constant assertion that the kinky are utterly damaged really, really gets to me. I mean, I can admit I have PRETTY Conservative Parents...great in many ways, but conservative...so yeah, that probably has something to do with why I rather like things on the physical and "seedy" side...because such things were verboten, and thus, interesting! I tried it, I liked it. But, lots of people have conservative 'rents and all...and "conservative" is not "abusive".
Sort of "funny, I don't FEEL damaged", you know?
Sort of "funny, I don't FEEL damaged", you know?
"Seriously, I gave it serious thought. as usual. All night. Why am I like this? why am I so sick and defective and bad? Where did I go wrong? "
yep
over and over and if you start liking yourself again it's time to go back and THINK again.
right.
fuck it.
yep
over and over and if you start liking yourself again it's time to go back and THINK again.
right.
fuck it.
yeah, my parents were sort of middle of the road liberal; mostly it means i didn't have to make myself miserable over being -sexual- per se. the internalized homophobia was another thing, but even reasonably liberal parents aren't really sufficient to inure one there, considering all the -other- messages i got, and considering they weren't exactly pro-actively "woo! teh Gay!" either, albeit certainly not bigoted, religiously or otherwise (thank fuck)
and you know something: considering all the (justified) complaints about how maddening it is to have their opinions or politics discounted on account of a background of abuse and/or psych diagnosis, it REALLY pisses me off if some of those same people are turning around and pathologizing people who just don't happen to have come to their same conclusions.
physician, heal thy fucking self.
physician, heal thy fucking self.
and, excuse me? even with the idiotic moralizing and lack of understanding, this is way over the line:
So if you think that I personally don't like you because you practice BDSM - you're right, well spotted!
yeah? I don't even know who the fuck you are, but--
how fucking grade school. "I don't like you either." Well, DUH.
asshole.
So if you think that I personally don't like you because you practice BDSM - you're right, well spotted!
yeah? I don't even know who the fuck you are, but--
how fucking grade school. "I don't like you either." Well, DUH.
asshole.
and, as i've said before: Sheila Jeffreys can suck my day-old tampon out of the wastebasket. miserable whey-faced simpering gits. transphobic, smug, preening--
gah.
seriously, isn't it bad enough with the fucking religious zealots? you know, at this point i don't CARE if they're not actually in bed with Falwell & company: they aid and abet their agenda -at least- as fucking much as i "enable the patriarchy" when i look at cheesecake or practice consensual bondage or whatnot. and Falwell & company are TRYING TO KILL ME. understand? fuckheads? especially the "lesbian" ones? you want to talk about who hates whom? go sit and listen to the frigging 700 Club for a while, okay, go sit and listen to some of our bestest politicians and then you tell me who really "hates us." and where I ought to be putting my goddam energy.
sexual desire and expression isn't a frivolity, and it isn't something that's primarily a weapon of mass destruction. it's a goddam life saver and life force, all by itself; or it certainly can be. and fuck you very much for trying to take it away from people who need, you bet, i said NEED it.
gah.
seriously, isn't it bad enough with the fucking religious zealots? you know, at this point i don't CARE if they're not actually in bed with Falwell & company: they aid and abet their agenda -at least- as fucking much as i "enable the patriarchy" when i look at cheesecake or practice consensual bondage or whatnot. and Falwell & company are TRYING TO KILL ME. understand? fuckheads? especially the "lesbian" ones? you want to talk about who hates whom? go sit and listen to the frigging 700 Club for a while, okay, go sit and listen to some of our bestest politicians and then you tell me who really "hates us." and where I ought to be putting my goddam energy.
sexual desire and expression isn't a frivolity, and it isn't something that's primarily a weapon of mass destruction. it's a goddam life saver and life force, all by itself; or it certainly can be. and fuck you very much for trying to take it away from people who need, you bet, i said NEED it.
and i'll tell you something else:
as i just finished saying to some anonymous fool who came in to the defense of the abstinence-only wacko ripping tape off of kids to prove...something...:
heavy shaming of people for their sexuality is abusive all by itself.
that's right.
particularly when they're already vulnerable.
as i just finished saying to some anonymous fool who came in to the defense of the abstinence-only wacko ripping tape off of kids to prove...something...:
heavy shaming of people for their sexuality is abusive all by itself.
that's right.
particularly when they're already vulnerable.
I'm kinky and I've never been abused. Seriously, during my entire childhood I was spanked once (not very hard either, it just stands out in my memory because it was the only time either of my parents ever hit me).
And about the "people are kinky because they've been abused" and then the "yep, I don't like them" thing, all I have to say is...
Hey, AP, well spotted!
BTW, Emma darling? 40% of Brits have tried BSDM according to a recent survey. That's an awful lot of people to dislike, it must keep you terribly busy. Run along now, no time to waste.
And about the "people are kinky because they've been abused" and then the "yep, I don't like them" thing, all I have to say is...
Hey, AP, well spotted!
BTW, Emma darling? 40% of Brits have tried BSDM according to a recent survey. That's an awful lot of people to dislike, it must keep you terribly busy. Run along now, no time to waste.
Most of the abuse I've encountered that relates to my kinks is over having them. Didn't cause them, just told me I was broken, defective, or damaged -- or maybe, at best, needing to "work through something" and that when I was all cured up and healthy I wouldn't be interested in such things.
mhm.
faith: i think there's no question you get a lot of dodgy characters in "the scene," and probably way more so online than off (on the Internets, no one knows you're a...)
but honestly, what i make of that is:
a lot of people are pretty screwed up in general.
and a lot of men especially are, gotta say it, really poorly socialized.
and if you -do- have some sort of kinked sexuality and haven't really come to terms with it--or rather, in some cases i guess, simply haven't developed the social or emotional skills, -boundaries- that one really needs to engage in any sort of adult relationship/sexuality, let alone something like BDSM, which really ought to require that one have an even firmer grasp of everyday boundaries and social/emotional interactions than normal, because scenework involves playing with those...
and then you also get a lot of traditionally socialized women--as one does in just about any other milieu, not excluding feminisms or women-only spaces either i might add--who've never really learned that it's okay to say "no" or voice their desires--
and yeah: recipe for a big ol' mess.
Negotiations and basic mental/emotional self and other awareness ought to be 101 for any kind of -real- sex ed, and before entering any sort of BDSM play. in some ways i actually think responsible BDSM players are -better- at this than the rest of the populace, overall, but as with everything, there are fucked-up people and situations. still, the structure and protocol are really worthwhile, or can be.
mhm.
faith: i think there's no question you get a lot of dodgy characters in "the scene," and probably way more so online than off (on the Internets, no one knows you're a...)
but honestly, what i make of that is:
a lot of people are pretty screwed up in general.
and a lot of men especially are, gotta say it, really poorly socialized.
and if you -do- have some sort of kinked sexuality and haven't really come to terms with it--or rather, in some cases i guess, simply haven't developed the social or emotional skills, -boundaries- that one really needs to engage in any sort of adult relationship/sexuality, let alone something like BDSM, which really ought to require that one have an even firmer grasp of everyday boundaries and social/emotional interactions than normal, because scenework involves playing with those...
and then you also get a lot of traditionally socialized women--as one does in just about any other milieu, not excluding feminisms or women-only spaces either i might add--who've never really learned that it's okay to say "no" or voice their desires--
and yeah: recipe for a big ol' mess.
Negotiations and basic mental/emotional self and other awareness ought to be 101 for any kind of -real- sex ed, and before entering any sort of BDSM play. in some ways i actually think responsible BDSM players are -better- at this than the rest of the populace, overall, but as with everything, there are fucked-up people and situations. still, the structure and protocol are really worthwhile, or can be.
I left a comment at Charlie's supporting her decision to not allow dissenting opinions. It is her damn blog afterall; she does not have to allow any comments she does not want to allow.
Yeah, that I agree with.
I still think she's an ass.
But: yep: your blog, your party.
Just don't be surprised when there are reactions elsewhere, is all. if you're gonna publically say inflammatory shit, expect people to be inflamed.
you pays your money and you takes your choice.
i haven't actually gone to read through all the comments; i may or may not decide to do so at some point. probably not. as antip says: i'm not -that- much of a masochist.
Yeah, that I agree with.
I still think she's an ass.
But: yep: your blog, your party.
Just don't be surprised when there are reactions elsewhere, is all. if you're gonna publically say inflammatory shit, expect people to be inflamed.
you pays your money and you takes your choice.
i haven't actually gone to read through all the comments; i may or may not decide to do so at some point. probably not. as antip says: i'm not -that- much of a masochist.
Now to Faith's point, which really is a tricky one. What about people who are using BSDM as a coping mechanism? Who were abused as children and are using the BSDM to purge?
I'm not so sure that we should be condemning that. I'm not sure that it's appropriate to tell someone else which methods are and are not OK for them to use to cope with their abuse. I think that we're treading on some really shaky ground if we try to do that. Who are any of us to judge what other people do to cope with bad things that have happened to them? Why is it our decision to make rather than theirs?
I'm inclined to say that whatever people need to do to get through the day, that's their decision to make.
We also seem to be forgetting that there are male BSDM bottoms who are using it to process in exactly the same way.
I'm not so sure that we should be condemning that. I'm not sure that it's appropriate to tell someone else which methods are and are not OK for them to use to cope with their abuse. I think that we're treading on some really shaky ground if we try to do that. Who are any of us to judge what other people do to cope with bad things that have happened to them? Why is it our decision to make rather than theirs?
I'm inclined to say that whatever people need to do to get through the day, that's their decision to make.
We also seem to be forgetting that there are male BSDM bottoms who are using it to process in exactly the same way.
There's also the matter of abuse victims using BDSM as a means of coping, in the same manner which many self-cut as a means of coping. There is growing debate as to whether this need to self-harm - either directly or by proxy through consenting to be hurt and "subjected" to the same type of treatment that they endured at the hands of their abusers - could be a result of almost permanent biological damage due to the fact that the brain develops during childhood when the trauma occurred.
I had not heard that until today. I had not made that connection. where is that being discussed?
I had not heard that until today. I had not made that connection. where is that being discussed?
And about the "people are kinky because they've been abused" and then the "yep, I don't like them" thing, all I have to say is...
Hey, AP, well spotted!
why thank you cassandra. I am very proud of my luxurious spots. ;)
I wonder if Emma likes those two women she mentions, now that they're not bad girls anymore.
I tell ya - I read all this anti-bdsm stuff, I read it and pay attention and all, but it's Heidi's Law all over again. How many different ways can people string together how many words, all to say "kinky sex? is baaaaaaaaaad."
and through all of it, the message I get is the same one I got from my parents. "stop that. don't touch that. don't even think about that. stop it stop it stop it."
through all the "BDSM hurts women" and "BDSM is abuse" and all the statistics and argument and debate and on and on - no matter how many words they use, it's all the Big Parent Hand swatting my dirty little paws away.
Hey, AP, well spotted!
why thank you cassandra. I am very proud of my luxurious spots. ;)
I wonder if Emma likes those two women she mentions, now that they're not bad girls anymore.
I tell ya - I read all this anti-bdsm stuff, I read it and pay attention and all, but it's Heidi's Law all over again. How many different ways can people string together how many words, all to say "kinky sex? is baaaaaaaaaad."
and through all of it, the message I get is the same one I got from my parents. "stop that. don't touch that. don't even think about that. stop it stop it stop it."
through all the "BDSM hurts women" and "BDSM is abuse" and all the statistics and argument and debate and on and on - no matter how many words they use, it's all the Big Parent Hand swatting my dirty little paws away.
. What about people who are using BSDM as a coping mechanism? Who were abused as children and are using the BSDM to purge?
I'm not so sure that we should be condemning that. I'm not sure that it's appropriate to tell someone else which methods are and are not OK for them to use to cope with their abuse. I think that we're treading on some really shaky ground if we try to do that. Who are any of us to judge what other people do to cope with bad things that have happened to them? Why is it our decision to make rather than theirs?
I'm inclined to say that whatever people need to do to get through the day, that's their decision to make.
i agree.
or, well, put it this way:
i can say, as an observer, that i think a -lot- of people are not coping with their shit in the healthiest of ways.
unless i'm their good friend or y'know a paid counselor or something? my input on the subject is probably neither going to be welcome or useful.
and if i decide to make someone else my "project" like that, especially if they haven't even so much as asked for my help--guess what, that's controlling, and thus potentially abusive power games--all by itself.
I'm not so sure that we should be condemning that. I'm not sure that it's appropriate to tell someone else which methods are and are not OK for them to use to cope with their abuse. I think that we're treading on some really shaky ground if we try to do that. Who are any of us to judge what other people do to cope with bad things that have happened to them? Why is it our decision to make rather than theirs?
I'm inclined to say that whatever people need to do to get through the day, that's their decision to make.
i agree.
or, well, put it this way:
i can say, as an observer, that i think a -lot- of people are not coping with their shit in the healthiest of ways.
unless i'm their good friend or y'know a paid counselor or something? my input on the subject is probably neither going to be welcome or useful.
and if i decide to make someone else my "project" like that, especially if they haven't even so much as asked for my help--guess what, that's controlling, and thus potentially abusive power games--all by itself.
and i'll say something else: that shit's pathetic, the "I don't like you." You know, personally, I don't give a fuck if whatsername "likes" me or even approves of me. I do care if she is actively trying to interfere with my life. calling in Big Daddy State to protect me from myself kind of enters that territory, I should say. spreading disingenuous crap about people like me and mine in a PR sense--greyer, but definitely I reserve the right to respond. and I don't give a fuck if she likes the way I respond to it, either, in that case.
It just comes across to me as another set of "This is how to be a Good Woman" standards. So I'm a Bad Woman by these people's standards; I just don't see the reason to ascribe to a different madonna-whore style standard to render myself acceptable to a new -archy.
You know, as someone who appears to be a sweet little hausfrau, with apron and ladle and a drink ready for The Man when he gets home, I've been accused of being deviant, of undermining the Feminist thing...so it seems to me, damned if you do, damned if you don't. So just do what's right in your heart and mind, and let the yowlers go on and yowl.
Okay, I want to say first that I'm a kiky, usually submissive woman that's never been abused.
Second, I want to say that I read a very interesting thing about "deprogramming" (in the context you'd expect it in - new religious movements, otherwise known as "cults").
Most people, if they left the cult/NRM of their own accord, came out feeling HAPPIER. They felt satisfied with their experience. It was no longer for them, but they had formed meaningful social bonds and bettered themselves.
People who were forcibly abducted and told that they were WRONG, that what they had done was BAD, that they were just BRAINWASHED...
Well, those people came out with more depression, less self-esteem, and a much more negative view of their life at that time and in general.
And no, I'm not saying BDSM is a cult, but... you know, if you get into it for the wrong reasons, well, you'll work through those and get back out again. You PROBABLY, if you weren't forced to do it in any way, will have generally pleasant memories of it (even if you don't do it any more). Likely the people in the scene will still be your friends.
Whereas if you leave it only because of the internalized shame, I think you'll realize how unhappy it makes you to do so, and the shame will build because you're still liking this "bad" thing, and it becomes a self-sustaining cycle.
IMO, anyway.
(Of course, someone is going to jump in and say that BDSM IS a cult/NRM, and one of the harmful ones too... bullroar, says I.)
Second, I want to say that I read a very interesting thing about "deprogramming" (in the context you'd expect it in - new religious movements, otherwise known as "cults").
Most people, if they left the cult/NRM of their own accord, came out feeling HAPPIER. They felt satisfied with their experience. It was no longer for them, but they had formed meaningful social bonds and bettered themselves.
People who were forcibly abducted and told that they were WRONG, that what they had done was BAD, that they were just BRAINWASHED...
Well, those people came out with more depression, less self-esteem, and a much more negative view of their life at that time and in general.
And no, I'm not saying BDSM is a cult, but... you know, if you get into it for the wrong reasons, well, you'll work through those and get back out again. You PROBABLY, if you weren't forced to do it in any way, will have generally pleasant memories of it (even if you don't do it any more). Likely the people in the scene will still be your friends.
Whereas if you leave it only because of the internalized shame, I think you'll realize how unhappy it makes you to do so, and the shame will build because you're still liking this "bad" thing, and it becomes a self-sustaining cycle.
IMO, anyway.
(Of course, someone is going to jump in and say that BDSM IS a cult/NRM, and one of the harmful ones too... bullroar, says I.)
"I'm not sure that it's appropriate to tell someone else which methods are and are not OK for them to use to cope with their abuse."
RIIIIIIIIIIGHT ON.
I strongly suspect that some people use these very rigid forms of radical feminism to cope with their own trauma. I personally think that these rigid forms of radical feminism are soul-sucking, individuality destroying, and harmful.
Even if I am right, and it would do any women who in fact use this kind of radical feminism in this way good to be told that they're deluded, who is that really going to help? is that really going to make things better if that community is the one place they feel safe? No, it isn't.
I might be able to say something to my friends, if I think my friends are caught up in an ideology that is hurtful to them. But to random people over the Internet, who I don't know and don't even like? That's meddling, it's not useful.
RIIIIIIIIIIGHT ON.
I strongly suspect that some people use these very rigid forms of radical feminism to cope with their own trauma. I personally think that these rigid forms of radical feminism are soul-sucking, individuality destroying, and harmful.
Even if I am right, and it would do any women who in fact use this kind of radical feminism in this way good to be told that they're deluded, who is that really going to help? is that really going to make things better if that community is the one place they feel safe? No, it isn't.
I might be able to say something to my friends, if I think my friends are caught up in an ideology that is hurtful to them. But to random people over the Internet, who I don't know and don't even like? That's meddling, it's not useful.
"I really don't believe any of us can deny that many of our kinks are a result of negative social programming and possibly abuse"
Except for that tiny little problem of the definition of 'kink' being directly informed by negative social programming. There was a time not too long ago when lesbianism was considered a kink by the general population. Hell, it still is considered one by a lot of people. Women expressing any autonomous desire at all has been considered a 'kink.'
Nothing exists in a vacuum. And that fact goes both ways.
Except for that tiny little problem of the definition of 'kink' being directly informed by negative social programming. There was a time not too long ago when lesbianism was considered a kink by the general population. Hell, it still is considered one by a lot of people. Women expressing any autonomous desire at all has been considered a 'kink.'
Nothing exists in a vacuum. And that fact goes both ways.
The day before he was told to offer his uncle a present of a small basket of viagra cherries, of which the child was, of course, only allowed one to taste.. The next thought referred to the sentence: She then looks to see whether topamax the parts can be seen behind.. But the phentermine people cried, Go on! go on! and some applauded.. Halfway between the pump and the house he met Evelyn coming with a nystatin small pail of the precious fluid.. It is only fifteen years since her paxil husband died...
I always give viagra cherries to my paxil husband, no matter how loudly the phentermine people cry.
viagra cherries...maybe this delicious hunk of spam belongs on the new Hell's Kitchen blog...
viagra cherries...maybe this delicious hunk of spam belongs on the new Hell's Kitchen blog...
Faith:
Virtually every one of the female subs I've ever encountered had some history of abuse, usually sexual.
I don't, unless you count psychological which isn't exactly easy to quantify.
And I left my sole BDSM relationship with a vastly higher self-esteem then I went into it.
-----
could be a result of almost permanent biological damage due to the fact that the brain develops during childhood when the trauma occurred
Urm, is there any EVIDENCE that the brain has "permanent bioilogical damage" due to abuse in childhood? One would think this would be fairly easy to test for, and oddly neither my abnormal nor my neuropsyche profs mentioned it, nor have any of the journals I've read subsequently.
Plus yeah, the brain loses some plasticity at eight, but there's significant and growing evidence that an adult's brain is not NEARLY as unplastic as we've assumed, and some interesting research that humans actually have the capacity to add new senses as adults and have their brains compensate for it quite well.
So yeah... permanent damage? Wtf?
-----
After all that, my question is, where do you draw the line when it comes to consent? The age 18 one is fairly arbitrary, and could actually be described as "that period from 16 to 18" in most places, where ability to consent magically materializes. However, if we're going to start claiming that adult abuse victims can't consent, then we're categorically making an entire group of people - male and female - who are legal adults into systemic children.
I can't go along with that. That's fucked up. When people make decisions you don't like, that doesn't mean they can't or shouldn't make decisions for reasons X, Y, and Z.
Virtually every one of the female subs I've ever encountered had some history of abuse, usually sexual.
I don't, unless you count psychological which isn't exactly easy to quantify.
And I left my sole BDSM relationship with a vastly higher self-esteem then I went into it.
-----
could be a result of almost permanent biological damage due to the fact that the brain develops during childhood when the trauma occurred
Urm, is there any EVIDENCE that the brain has "permanent bioilogical damage" due to abuse in childhood? One would think this would be fairly easy to test for, and oddly neither my abnormal nor my neuropsyche profs mentioned it, nor have any of the journals I've read subsequently.
Plus yeah, the brain loses some plasticity at eight, but there's significant and growing evidence that an adult's brain is not NEARLY as unplastic as we've assumed, and some interesting research that humans actually have the capacity to add new senses as adults and have their brains compensate for it quite well.
So yeah... permanent damage? Wtf?
-----
After all that, my question is, where do you draw the line when it comes to consent? The age 18 one is fairly arbitrary, and could actually be described as "that period from 16 to 18" in most places, where ability to consent magically materializes. However, if we're going to start claiming that adult abuse victims can't consent, then we're categorically making an entire group of people - male and female - who are legal adults into systemic children.
I can't go along with that. That's fucked up. When people make decisions you don't like, that doesn't mean they can't or shouldn't make decisions for reasons X, Y, and Z.
"What about people who are using BSDM as a coping mechanism? Who were abused as children and are using the BSDM to purge?
I'm not so sure that we should be condemning that. I'm not sure that it's appropriate to tell someone else which methods are and are not OK for them to use to cope with their abuse."
Agreed. And if I gave the opposite impression I apologize. I just get really, really edgy when I see discussions centered around BDSM in which the defenders of SM seem to want to refuse to acknowledge the origins of many people's kinks. That entire thread over at Hippie's is extremely fucked-up, both sides seem to be just throwing shit around for the sake of throwing shit around rather than actually attempting a real discussion. But as I've basically said before, every time I read one of Graham's comments my bullshit detector flies sky high. His only real objective seems to be protecting his own pleasure, nothing more. There is no acknowledgement whatsoever of the cultural influence or possible abusive situations that can lead to many sub. females being sub. Whenever I see people - particularly males - refusing to acknowledge these influences I always wonder if they are likely abusive.
As to the coping aspect, I think it's clearly a tricky aspect to navigate. I don't believe it's a good idea to deny anyone their coping mechanism as long as they aren't doing any serious damage to themselves or those around them (although "serious" can be highly objective). BUT, if a person does need to truly self-harm and can not stop then I believe that someone should attempt to work with that person rather than just letting them flounder around in what probably amounts to an inner hell. But as Belle already touched on, trying to force these people into any form of therapy can be just as destructive and negative -even abusive - as ignoring them.
"We also seem to be forgetting that there are male BSDM bottoms who are using it to process in exactly the same way."
I'm not forgetting. And I'm not ignoring because I don't care either. I just don't feel that I know enough about male subs to comment. Most certainly, tho, many of their coping mechanisms are going to be the same to identical to females.
"heavy shaming of people for their sexuality is abusive all by itself."
Agreed.
"I had not heard that until today. I had not made that connection. where is that being discussed?"
I don't know of any online forums that are discussing this if that's what you mean. There is growing debate within the psychiatric community. I actually have a quote on my blog right now from a -really- great book that discusses the connection between self-mutilative behaviors (including many forms of "extreme" BDSM) and
abuse. That book being "A Bright Red Scream" by Marilee Strong. This book also discusses the connection between eating disorders and abuse AND the link between E.D. and self-mutilative behaviors/the need for control, which strangely (I believe) that need for control is the exact reason that some subs are sub - as paradoxical as that sounds.
I'll go seek out some good articles online. I actually had a bunch saved but my kids erased my bookmarks.
"I strongly suspect that some people use these very rigid forms of radical feminism to cope with their own trauma."
Also agreed, but as difficult as it might be for non-radicals to handle this, shaming these individuals is not the answer either.
I'm not so sure that we should be condemning that. I'm not sure that it's appropriate to tell someone else which methods are and are not OK for them to use to cope with their abuse."
Agreed. And if I gave the opposite impression I apologize. I just get really, really edgy when I see discussions centered around BDSM in which the defenders of SM seem to want to refuse to acknowledge the origins of many people's kinks. That entire thread over at Hippie's is extremely fucked-up, both sides seem to be just throwing shit around for the sake of throwing shit around rather than actually attempting a real discussion. But as I've basically said before, every time I read one of Graham's comments my bullshit detector flies sky high. His only real objective seems to be protecting his own pleasure, nothing more. There is no acknowledgement whatsoever of the cultural influence or possible abusive situations that can lead to many sub. females being sub. Whenever I see people - particularly males - refusing to acknowledge these influences I always wonder if they are likely abusive.
As to the coping aspect, I think it's clearly a tricky aspect to navigate. I don't believe it's a good idea to deny anyone their coping mechanism as long as they aren't doing any serious damage to themselves or those around them (although "serious" can be highly objective). BUT, if a person does need to truly self-harm and can not stop then I believe that someone should attempt to work with that person rather than just letting them flounder around in what probably amounts to an inner hell. But as Belle already touched on, trying to force these people into any form of therapy can be just as destructive and negative -even abusive - as ignoring them.
"We also seem to be forgetting that there are male BSDM bottoms who are using it to process in exactly the same way."
I'm not forgetting. And I'm not ignoring because I don't care either. I just don't feel that I know enough about male subs to comment. Most certainly, tho, many of their coping mechanisms are going to be the same to identical to females.
"heavy shaming of people for their sexuality is abusive all by itself."
Agreed.
"I had not heard that until today. I had not made that connection. where is that being discussed?"
I don't know of any online forums that are discussing this if that's what you mean. There is growing debate within the psychiatric community. I actually have a quote on my blog right now from a -really- great book that discusses the connection between self-mutilative behaviors (including many forms of "extreme" BDSM) and
abuse. That book being "A Bright Red Scream" by Marilee Strong. This book also discusses the connection between eating disorders and abuse AND the link between E.D. and self-mutilative behaviors/the need for control, which strangely (I believe) that need for control is the exact reason that some subs are sub - as paradoxical as that sounds.
I'll go seek out some good articles online. I actually had a bunch saved but my kids erased my bookmarks.
"I strongly suspect that some people use these very rigid forms of radical feminism to cope with their own trauma."
Also agreed, but as difficult as it might be for non-radicals to handle this, shaming these individuals is not the answer either.
# posted by : 6:28 AM
: 6:28 AM
"I don't, unless you count psychological which isn't exactly easy to quantify.
And I left my sole BDSM relationship with a vastly higher self-esteem then I went into it."
Yea, I actually do consider psychological. And I also don't deny or argue that BDSM can be extremely good for the soul and self-esteem. My self-esteem is also much higher after engaging in SM. I also didn't mean to imply that all subs. are victims of abuse. But my experience has shown that many, many are.
"Urm, is there any EVIDENCE that the brain has "permanent bioilogical damage" due to abuse in childhood?"
I do know that there is evidence that brain growth and development absolutely can be quite negatively effected by early and extreme childhood abuse/neglect. The question is how much of this damage is reversible.
"Plus yeah, the brain loses some plasticity at eight, but there's significant and growing evidence that an adult's brain is not NEARLY as unplastic as we've assumed, and some interesting research that humans actually have the capacity to add new senses as adults and have their brains compensate for it quite well."
And I'd agree with that as well, particularly in people who learn to utilize certain energy work to stimulate those under developed areas of the brain.
And I left my sole BDSM relationship with a vastly higher self-esteem then I went into it."
Yea, I actually do consider psychological. And I also don't deny or argue that BDSM can be extremely good for the soul and self-esteem. My self-esteem is also much higher after engaging in SM. I also didn't mean to imply that all subs. are victims of abuse. But my experience has shown that many, many are.
"Urm, is there any EVIDENCE that the brain has "permanent bioilogical damage" due to abuse in childhood?"
I do know that there is evidence that brain growth and development absolutely can be quite negatively effected by early and extreme childhood abuse/neglect. The question is how much of this damage is reversible.
"Plus yeah, the brain loses some plasticity at eight, but there's significant and growing evidence that an adult's brain is not NEARLY as unplastic as we've assumed, and some interesting research that humans actually have the capacity to add new senses as adults and have their brains compensate for it quite well."
And I'd agree with that as well, particularly in people who learn to utilize certain energy work to stimulate those under developed areas of the brain.
# posted by : 6:37 AM
: 6:37 AM
Faith:
I do know that there is evidence that brain growth and development absolutely can be quite negatively effected by early and extreme childhood abuse/neglect.
Neglect and abuse are not the same thing, in terms of brain development, for one very specific reason - diet. Neglect often or usually involves a poor to non-existent diet (not used in the modern "lose weight" sense) and diet HAS been shown to correlate with poor brain development, as has a lack of physical contact in infancy.
However, I asked about abuse, not neglect. Neglect is a different kettle of fish, and the two often don't correlate.
And I'd agree with that as well, particularly in people who learn to utilize certain energy work to stimulate those under developed areas of the brain.
Certain energy work? Could you define this phrase, please?
I do know that there is evidence that brain growth and development absolutely can be quite negatively effected by early and extreme childhood abuse/neglect.
Neglect and abuse are not the same thing, in terms of brain development, for one very specific reason - diet. Neglect often or usually involves a poor to non-existent diet (not used in the modern "lose weight" sense) and diet HAS been shown to correlate with poor brain development, as has a lack of physical contact in infancy.
However, I asked about abuse, not neglect. Neglect is a different kettle of fish, and the two often don't correlate.
And I'd agree with that as well, particularly in people who learn to utilize certain energy work to stimulate those under developed areas of the brain.
Certain energy work? Could you define this phrase, please?
Ok, some relevant articles...
"The Long Term Neurological and Developmental Effects of Sexual Abuse on Infant Children" -
http://www.scienceinafrica.co.za/2003/march/abuse.htm
"Neurological development of Feral Children" - http://www.feralchildren.com/en/neuro.php
Neglect - http://www.minddisorders.com/Kau-Nu/Neglect.html
" SELF-MEDICATION, TRAUMATIC REENACTMENT, AND SOMATIC EXPRESSION IN BULIMIC AND SELF-MUTILATING BEHAVIOR" - http://www.something-fishy.org/doctors/doc_article018.php
Blah, the only articles I'm finding that really discuss the relation between abuse and the use of SM are articles that require a paid subsription...will keep searching
"The Long Term Neurological and Developmental Effects of Sexual Abuse on Infant Children" -
http://www.scienceinafrica.co.za/2003/march/abuse.htm
"Neurological development of Feral Children" - http://www.feralchildren.com/en/neuro.php
Neglect - http://www.minddisorders.com/Kau-Nu/Neglect.html
" SELF-MEDICATION, TRAUMATIC REENACTMENT, AND SOMATIC EXPRESSION IN BULIMIC AND SELF-MUTILATING BEHAVIOR" - http://www.something-fishy.org/doctors/doc_article018.php
Blah, the only articles I'm finding that really discuss the relation between abuse and the use of SM are articles that require a paid subsription...will keep searching
# posted by : 6:53 AM
: 6:53 AM
" Neglect often or usually involves a poor to non-existent diet (not used in the modern "lose weight" sense) and diet HAS been shown to correlate with poor brain development, as has a lack of physical contact in infancy."
Well, not exactly. Guess it depends on who you ask. Neglect can be any manner in which needs aren't fulfilled, including enotional and psychological...even educational.
Well, not exactly. Guess it depends on who you ask. Neglect can be any manner in which needs aren't fulfilled, including enotional and psychological...even educational.
# posted by : 6:56 AM
: 6:56 AM
This looks like a really good one on brain development in relation to childhood abuse/neglect...
http://www.ipce.info/library_3/files/glaser.htm
http://www.ipce.info/library_3/files/glaser.htm
# posted by : 7:52 AM
: 7:52 AM
Faith wrote:
"I just get really, really edgy when I see discussions centered around BDSM in which the defenders of SM seem to want to refuse to acknowledge the origins of many people's kinks."
In light of that, I'm interested to hear what your thoughts might be on my previous comment, when/if you have time to address it.
And, also? At a certain point, I'm not sure how useful it is to try to find an explanation for every desire, thought, and feeling we have. In some instances, and to some degrees - yes. But after a certain tipping point... how is it useful or constructive in our lives?
"I just get really, really edgy when I see discussions centered around BDSM in which the defenders of SM seem to want to refuse to acknowledge the origins of many people's kinks."
In light of that, I'm interested to hear what your thoughts might be on my previous comment, when/if you have time to address it.
And, also? At a certain point, I'm not sure how useful it is to try to find an explanation for every desire, thought, and feeling we have. In some instances, and to some degrees - yes. But after a certain tipping point... how is it useful or constructive in our lives?
Faith - thanks for all your good discussion and hard work and research. I just wanted to acknowlege that.
"I just get really, really edgy when I see discussions centered around BDSM in which the defenders of SM seem to want to refuse to acknowledge the origins of many people's kinks."
it's not like one's kinky-ness will just evaporate in a puff of logic, once the root cause is found. or does it? I don't know of anyone who's truly found their "root cause" and became un-kinky as a result.
If any one out there had that experience, and cares to share, I'd be interested.
of the folks I know who did have a "root cause", and found it - they're still kinky. maybe even more so.
"I just get really, really edgy when I see discussions centered around BDSM in which the defenders of SM seem to want to refuse to acknowledge the origins of many people's kinks."
it's not like one's kinky-ness will just evaporate in a puff of logic, once the root cause is found. or does it? I don't know of anyone who's truly found their "root cause" and became un-kinky as a result.
If any one out there had that experience, and cares to share, I'd be interested.
of the folks I know who did have a "root cause", and found it - they're still kinky. maybe even more so.
I just don't feel that I know enough about male subs to comment. Most certainly, tho, many of their coping mechanisms are going to be the same to identical to females.
We are seemingly a mysterious lot. I haven't really gotten into BDSM culture due to the fact that I am just beginning to explore this part of my sexuality, though I do find the idea that I like what I like because I'm somehow mentally scarred or whatever to be, at best, misguided. I do, in fact, suffer from depression, but the factors motivating that are very hard to apply causally to my sexuality. I would even say that, from where I sit, my depression does not cause me to seek "abuse" or what-have-you. My depression causes me to seek to not exist.
BDSM, the way I experience it, does not make me to feel useless or worthless, but happy and fulfilled. I have to say, if that is a problem for some people because they think I am being abused, well, I could be doing other things to "cope" with my depression (if, indeed, my sexuality is going to be defined as a "coping mechanism" now) that would bring about that non-existence. I don't think anyone should ever imply that I should throw away a coping mechanism that makes me happy in lieu of one that could destroy me.
We are seemingly a mysterious lot. I haven't really gotten into BDSM culture due to the fact that I am just beginning to explore this part of my sexuality, though I do find the idea that I like what I like because I'm somehow mentally scarred or whatever to be, at best, misguided. I do, in fact, suffer from depression, but the factors motivating that are very hard to apply causally to my sexuality. I would even say that, from where I sit, my depression does not cause me to seek "abuse" or what-have-you. My depression causes me to seek to not exist.
BDSM, the way I experience it, does not make me to feel useless or worthless, but happy and fulfilled. I have to say, if that is a problem for some people because they think I am being abused, well, I could be doing other things to "cope" with my depression (if, indeed, my sexuality is going to be defined as a "coping mechanism" now) that would bring about that non-existence. I don't think anyone should ever imply that I should throw away a coping mechanism that makes me happy in lieu of one that could destroy me.
Well, not exactly. Guess it depends on who you ask. Neglect can be any manner in which needs aren't fulfilled, including enotional and psychological...even educational.
Yes, however neglect (as commonly defined as a lack of physical needs being fulfilled, from diet to physical contact) was never part of anything I was questioning, nor did I question it's effect on the human brain, and I said as much in my first reply to you.
The quote I objected to is as follows:
could be a result of almost permanent biological damage due to the fact that the brain develops during childhood when the trauma occurred
I objected to it because, as far as I'm concerned, the standard for "permanent biological damage" is pretty high, and it's not "has sex at twelve and thinks it's consentual" - however tragic that is.
Pemanent biological damage is the degredation of a physical section of the brain. This may be from trauma - such as bilateral hippocapal damage or the side effects of tumors - or from disease - such as the degredation of the area niger during Parkinsons - however it is visible on a PET or MRI.
I asked for evidence that childhood abuse lead to permanent biological damage. While the studies you are giving me are very interesting and very tragic and emotionally stimulating, they are not what I asked for nor are they evidence permanent biological damage caused by abuse.
This seems to be becoming a huge derail, though (my fault; my apologies AntiP and others), and is drawing attention from the central point, so respecfully I'm going to withdraw from the conversation.
My primary concern remains the tendancy to remove the ability to consent from adults due to their making choices that the person giving or withholding the ability to consent (however hypothetical) disagrees with. I think this is a tendency found across social groups and ideologies, and it is one of those tendencies I object strongly to.
Yes, however neglect (as commonly defined as a lack of physical needs being fulfilled, from diet to physical contact) was never part of anything I was questioning, nor did I question it's effect on the human brain, and I said as much in my first reply to you.
The quote I objected to is as follows:
could be a result of almost permanent biological damage due to the fact that the brain develops during childhood when the trauma occurred
I objected to it because, as far as I'm concerned, the standard for "permanent biological damage" is pretty high, and it's not "has sex at twelve and thinks it's consentual" - however tragic that is.
Pemanent biological damage is the degredation of a physical section of the brain. This may be from trauma - such as bilateral hippocapal damage or the side effects of tumors - or from disease - such as the degredation of the area niger during Parkinsons - however it is visible on a PET or MRI.
I asked for evidence that childhood abuse lead to permanent biological damage. While the studies you are giving me are very interesting and very tragic and emotionally stimulating, they are not what I asked for nor are they evidence permanent biological damage caused by abuse.
This seems to be becoming a huge derail, though (my fault; my apologies AntiP and others), and is drawing attention from the central point, so respecfully I'm going to withdraw from the conversation.
My primary concern remains the tendancy to remove the ability to consent from adults due to their making choices that the person giving or withholding the ability to consent (however hypothetical) disagrees with. I think this is a tendency found across social groups and ideologies, and it is one of those tendencies I object strongly to.
"I would even say that, from where I sit, my depression does not cause me to seek "abuse" or what-have-you. My depression causes me to seek to not exist."
Yes. BDSM makes me feel alive. When I feel depressed, I feel dead (and sometimes want to be.) And I feel that that dead feeling is what I deserve. Really living is something I deny myself when I am depressed.
Yes. BDSM makes me feel alive. When I feel depressed, I feel dead (and sometimes want to be.) And I feel that that dead feeling is what I deserve. Really living is something I deny myself when I am depressed.
"they are not what I asked for nor are they evidence permanent biological damage caused by abuse."
Ok, well sorry about that or sorry you feel that way. I barely had a chance to do anything but skim the articles. There was discussion in at least one of those articles on the negative impact of brain development in abused children. I also never stated that I believed that the biological damage is permanent. There is also an image of a severely neglected child's brain on one page:
http://www.feralchildren.com/en/pager.php?df=perry2002&pg=9
If serious neglect causes such trauma to the brain than most certainly being raped repeatedly by one's own father repeatedly during childhood must cause serious trauma to the brain's development.
One more article on brain research on abused women - that I have not read fully - just posting it because I just found it:
http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/156/11/1787
And I'll leave it at that...
Ok, well sorry about that or sorry you feel that way. I barely had a chance to do anything but skim the articles. There was discussion in at least one of those articles on the negative impact of brain development in abused children. I also never stated that I believed that the biological damage is permanent. There is also an image of a severely neglected child's brain on one page:
http://www.feralchildren.com/en/pager.php?df=perry2002&pg=9
If serious neglect causes such trauma to the brain than most certainly being raped repeatedly by one's own father repeatedly during childhood must cause serious trauma to the brain's development.
One more article on brain research on abused women - that I have not read fully - just posting it because I just found it:
http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/156/11/1787
And I'll leave it at that...
# posted by : 9:53 AM
: 9:53 AM
"I just get really, really edgy when I see discussions centered around BDSM in which the defenders of SM seem to want to refuse to acknowledge the origins of many people's kinks."
Faith, I wasn't participating in that discussion, but I actually probably count as one of the people who don't want to "Acknowledge origins". I no longer believe that searching for origins is fruitful. I believe that searching for origins is the exact same thing that Freudians did about homosexuality. A person had a deviant sexuality, what the was not accepted by her society, and it was the analyst's job to discover what had created it. This led to all sorts of theories about the root of the damage that led to the deviant sexual self.
Nowadays, we know that that's bullshit. Of course, many of us still question whether queerness is entirely biological or other environmental factors also come into play. But we're no longer "Looking for the origin of the deviants" in the same way. We're no longer assuming a particular pathological set of experiences that lead people's desire to bend and twist away from the appropriate gender. We assume that being gay is not something that needs explaining.
I personally believe when that the constant insistence that BDSM needs explaining is the exact same sort of pathologizing move. Therefore, I fully support people who refuse to examine their desires on the grounds that other people are not asked to in the same way.
Faith, I wasn't participating in that discussion, but I actually probably count as one of the people who don't want to "Acknowledge origins". I no longer believe that searching for origins is fruitful. I believe that searching for origins is the exact same thing that Freudians did about homosexuality. A person had a deviant sexuality, what the was not accepted by her society, and it was the analyst's job to discover what had created it. This led to all sorts of theories about the root of the damage that led to the deviant sexual self.
Nowadays, we know that that's bullshit. Of course, many of us still question whether queerness is entirely biological or other environmental factors also come into play. But we're no longer "Looking for the origin of the deviants" in the same way. We're no longer assuming a particular pathological set of experiences that lead people's desire to bend and twist away from the appropriate gender. We assume that being gay is not something that needs explaining.
I personally believe when that the constant insistence that BDSM needs explaining is the exact same sort of pathologizing move. Therefore, I fully support people who refuse to examine their desires on the grounds that other people are not asked to in the same way.
"Therefore, I fully support people who refuse to examine their desires on the grounds that other people are not asked to in the same way."
Ok, fair enough. Although I believe people should even question why they are heterosexual. But, whatever.
But I'm personally not going to accept that there are legions of people walking around out there being victimized, put in vulnerable situations, and just generally ignored or abused because nobody cares enough to try to figure out if they do or do not need help.
I have this terrible curse of actually giving a fuck.
Ok, fair enough. Although I believe people should even question why they are heterosexual. But, whatever.
But I'm personally not going to accept that there are legions of people walking around out there being victimized, put in vulnerable situations, and just generally ignored or abused because nobody cares enough to try to figure out if they do or do not need help.
I have this terrible curse of actually giving a fuck.
# posted by : 10:01 AM
: 10:01 AM
Faith, I have absolutely no idea what part of "I believe that people should be accepted as telling the truth about themselves" implies that I do not "Actually give a fuck" about abuse. I do not think it is acceptable or fair for you to characterize my point of view in this way.
If serious neglect causes such trauma to the brain than most certainly being raped repeatedly by one's own father repeatedly during childhood must cause serious trauma to the brain's development.
in how many cases does that particular type of trauma lead to self-destructively submissive behavior in women, I wonder.
which, you know, is all we're really on about - female subs.
in how many cases does that particular type of trauma lead to self-destructively submissive behavior in women, I wonder.
which, you know, is all we're really on about - female subs.
"I do not think it is acceptable or fair for you to characterize my point of view in this way."
I didn't characterize your view that way. I was characterizing -my- views.
I didn't characterize your view that way. I was characterizing -my- views.
# posted by : 10:11 AM
: 10:11 AM
I have this terrible curse of actually giving a fuck.
most of us here do too. I can't speak for everyone, certainly, but that's my guess.
most of us here do too. I can't speak for everyone, certainly, but that's my guess.
"If serious neglect causes such trauma to the brain than most certainly being raped repeatedly by one's own father repeatedly during childhood must cause serious trauma to the brain's development."
You know, I know someone who has lived through that sort of abuse. I'm personally very uncomfortable with people discussing brains and damage, as if someone I care very much for were walking around like a zombie with lesions in her head.
I understand what we're actually discussing, but making hypothetical statements about what someone's brain looks like make me very uncomfortable.
Particularly since I have cerebral palsy, and people have made all sorts of comments about what my brain must look like, sometimes to my face. The way we are talking right now is not pretty, and I'm not sure why it's useful.
You know, I know someone who has lived through that sort of abuse. I'm personally very uncomfortable with people discussing brains and damage, as if someone I care very much for were walking around like a zombie with lesions in her head.
I understand what we're actually discussing, but making hypothetical statements about what someone's brain looks like make me very uncomfortable.
Particularly since I have cerebral palsy, and people have made all sorts of comments about what my brain must look like, sometimes to my face. The way we are talking right now is not pretty, and I'm not sure why it's useful.
But I'm personally not going to accept that there are legions of people walking around out there being victimized, put in vulnerable situations, and just generally ignored or abused because nobody cares enough to try to figure out if they do or do not need help.
Yes, but that's not what most of these people are doing, I don't think. at any rate it doesn't -stop- there.
I do hear what you're saying, and I think the sort of work you do and advocate is very much in the line of real caring and useful work, at least as far as I can tell from here, based on what you advocate and your proposed actions and links and so forth.
In general though I also think that if we're examining, the urge to do something for someone else's "own good" is one that needs to be even more rigorously scrutinized than all the "say, why does such and so turn me on?" because -that- one is far more likely to involve someone who isn't, in fact, consenting, if you aren't careful.
Yes, but that's not what most of these people are doing, I don't think. at any rate it doesn't -stop- there.
I do hear what you're saying, and I think the sort of work you do and advocate is very much in the line of real caring and useful work, at least as far as I can tell from here, based on what you advocate and your proposed actions and links and so forth.
In general though I also think that if we're examining, the urge to do something for someone else's "own good" is one that needs to be even more rigorously scrutinized than all the "say, why does such and so turn me on?" because -that- one is far more likely to involve someone who isn't, in fact, consenting, if you aren't careful.
Faith wrote:
"I just get really, really edgy when I see discussions centered around BDSM in which the defenders of SM seem to want to refuse to acknowledge the origins of many people's kinks."
In light of that, I'm interested to hear what your thoughts might be on my previous comment, when/if you have time to address it.
And, also? At a certain point, I'm not sure how useful it is to try to find an explanation for every desire, thought, and feeling we have. In some instances, and to some degrees - yes. But after a certain tipping point... how is it useful or constructive in our lives?
Holly's comment over at my spot sums it up for me:
What worries me is that in sex-positive, queer-friendly, progressive communities it's sometimes hard to even ask these questions because of the spectre of the badgering radical feminist telling you what to think. We have a reaction of "oh come on, whatever gets me off gets me off." Which is true at one level, but also shouldn't preclude being able to think about it more -- without Aunt Radical Rita staring over your shoulder trying to make sure you're thinking right.
In our really diverse, fecund, ever-growing-and-flexing communities, we can't afford to be naive about sexual desire, to not think about it or take it for granted or to think in a straightjacket. We have to question and explore and make that part of our politics... not just for everyone's right to desire whatever they want, but for a world where people can explore their sexuality, be supported in their exploration, make connections to their politics, and grow.
"I just get really, really edgy when I see discussions centered around BDSM in which the defenders of SM seem to want to refuse to acknowledge the origins of many people's kinks."
In light of that, I'm interested to hear what your thoughts might be on my previous comment, when/if you have time to address it.
And, also? At a certain point, I'm not sure how useful it is to try to find an explanation for every desire, thought, and feeling we have. In some instances, and to some degrees - yes. But after a certain tipping point... how is it useful or constructive in our lives?
Holly's comment over at my spot sums it up for me:
What worries me is that in sex-positive, queer-friendly, progressive communities it's sometimes hard to even ask these questions because of the spectre of the badgering radical feminist telling you what to think. We have a reaction of "oh come on, whatever gets me off gets me off." Which is true at one level, but also shouldn't preclude being able to think about it more -- without Aunt Radical Rita staring over your shoulder trying to make sure you're thinking right.
In our really diverse, fecund, ever-growing-and-flexing communities, we can't afford to be naive about sexual desire, to not think about it or take it for granted or to think in a straightjacket. We have to question and explore and make that part of our politics... not just for everyone's right to desire whatever they want, but for a world where people can explore their sexuality, be supported in their exploration, make connections to their politics, and grow.
And here, I'll even add some thoughts on this in the context of "examining" my own sexuality:
What I've come to realize lately is that my urge to top and my interest in being a counselor as well as my previous interest in theatre--writing, directing--all come from more or less the same place. What differs one from the other is context and compassion. All of them (with the exception of writing, at least till it gets on a stage) involve tempering my rather unsettling desire to penetrate other peoples' psyches and yep, my aggression, sadism even, with genuine empathy; with being able to listen and connect. To understand that it -really is- a power -exhange-, always. No matter what form it takes.
Topping for me is a way to exercise the dark side of the "counselling/do-gooder" urge. Because, when I say that telling people what they need -for their own- good is a control thing? I know that one well. From both ends. And you better believe it's something I examine on the daily, especially if I am taking responsibility for other people--which a good counselor does, which a good top does, which even a good director does, which -anyone- who temporarily takes charge of someone else's psyche and sometimes body -needs- to do.
So yeah, but, at some primal level? The topping thing? Sometimes I think of it as per this quote in Angels in America, where Belize the fierce nurse is telling Roy Cohn the Epic Bastard (who just happens to be helpless in a hospital bed) how it is:
(something like)
"Now, I've been doing drips for a long time. I can slip this in so nice and smooth you don't feel it at all; or I can make you feel like you've just been hooked up to a bag of liquid Drano."
But this is, again, a fantasy scene, and one with a person who "deserves it" to boot.
In real life, in most situations, particularly wrt someone you purportedly care about: you put aside -both- those choices and focus on what the other person needs.
What I've come to realize lately is that my urge to top and my interest in being a counselor as well as my previous interest in theatre--writing, directing--all come from more or less the same place. What differs one from the other is context and compassion. All of them (with the exception of writing, at least till it gets on a stage) involve tempering my rather unsettling desire to penetrate other peoples' psyches and yep, my aggression, sadism even, with genuine empathy; with being able to listen and connect. To understand that it -really is- a power -exhange-, always. No matter what form it takes.
Topping for me is a way to exercise the dark side of the "counselling/do-gooder" urge. Because, when I say that telling people what they need -for their own- good is a control thing? I know that one well. From both ends. And you better believe it's something I examine on the daily, especially if I am taking responsibility for other people--which a good counselor does, which a good top does, which even a good director does, which -anyone- who temporarily takes charge of someone else's psyche and sometimes body -needs- to do.
So yeah, but, at some primal level? The topping thing? Sometimes I think of it as per this quote in Angels in America, where Belize the fierce nurse is telling Roy Cohn the Epic Bastard (who just happens to be helpless in a hospital bed) how it is:
(something like)
"Now, I've been doing drips for a long time. I can slip this in so nice and smooth you don't feel it at all; or I can make you feel like you've just been hooked up to a bag of liquid Drano."
But this is, again, a fantasy scene, and one with a person who "deserves it" to boot.
In real life, in most situations, particularly wrt someone you purportedly care about: you put aside -both- those choices and focus on what the other person needs.
...so in other words, asking the questions is totally fine. Only being able to hear the answers you've already decided on isn't. Especially when you're "examining" someone -else.-
Although I believe people should even question why they are heterosexual.
Fair enough, but there is an assumption that gets brought up again and again that this questioning has not been done, at least with respect to the One! True! Way! To! Think!, to the standards of those who are standing in judgment.
Fair enough, but there is an assumption that gets brought up again and again that this questioning has not been done, at least with respect to the One! True! Way! To! Think!, to the standards of those who are standing in judgment.
seriously, isn't it bad enough with the fucking religious zealots? you know, at this point i don't CARE if they're not actually in bed with Falwell & company: they aid and abet their agenda -at least- as fucking much as i "enable the patriarchy" when i look at cheesecake or practice consensual bondage or whatnot. and Falwell & company are TRYING TO KILL ME. understand? fuckheads? especially the "lesbian" ones? you want to talk about who hates whom? go sit and listen to the frigging 700 Club for a while, okay, go sit and listen to some of our bestest politicians and then you tell me who really "hates us." and where I ought to be putting my goddam energy.
The point, I think, is that Falwell and all are the Real Face of the patriarchy and are actually telling the truth. Alternative and "nuanced" versions of that truth as embodied in trans, etc, distract from the truth about patriarchy that Falwell openly speaks.
The point, I think, is that Falwell and all are the Real Face of the patriarchy and are actually telling the truth. Alternative and "nuanced" versions of that truth as embodied in trans, etc, distract from the truth about patriarchy that Falwell openly speaks.
# posted by : 10:44 AM
: 10:44 AM
LGBT folks are asked to "examine their sexuality." Het folks aren't. BDSM folks (the ones who openly talk about being into BDSM; there are far more out there than I think anyone realizes) are asked to "examine their sexuality." This all sounds a little too familiar.
it's not like one's kinky-ness will just evaporate in a puff of logic, once the root cause is found. or does it? I don't know of anyone who's truly found their "root cause" and became un-kinky as a result.
If any one out there had that experience, and cares to share, I'd be interested.
of the folks I know who did have a "root cause", and found it - they're still kinky. maybe even more so.
Right. I haven't either.
Well, more and more I am convinced that in fact logic doesn't begin to touch most of this deep-rooted shit.
I -have- seen rather profound changes based on -physical- work, sometimes. Not really change in core desires so much, though.
But again, I think that this is one of the appeals of BDSM: it's a way of getting -out- of the head, of connecting with old wounds and pent-up energy in a way that just talking about it can't do. It's not the only way, and again, I don't think most casual players should try to deliberately fuck around with this shit if they don't know what they're doing--but i do believe that's one of the urges.
perhaps one might say in the same way that taking drugs--and i include coffee and the occasional glass of wine here--is a form of self-medication.
the body has its own wisdom. as with other people, it's best to take it on its own terms and just...listen, sometimes. then maybe there can be a real exchange, and progress, finally.
"Although I believe people should even question why they are heterosexual."
Curious, Faith - what do you see as the goal of this questioning? (I know that might sound snarky, and I'm sorry if it does; I'm legitimately asking though.) People question why their heterosexuality... then what? What do they gain?
Curious, Faith - what do you see as the goal of this questioning? (I know that might sound snarky, and I'm sorry if it does; I'm legitimately asking though.) People question why their heterosexuality... then what? What do they gain?
In our really diverse, fecund, ever-growing-and-flexing communities, we can't afford to be naive about sexual desire, to not think about it or take it for granted or to think in a straightjacket. We have to question and explore and make that part of our politics... not just for everyone's right to desire whatever they want, but for a world where people can explore their sexuality, be supported in their exploration, make connections to their politics, and grow.
I'm not sure I see this not happening. I don't think it's the same as saying, "The majority of women interested in X have been abused", however, and frankly I balk from any pronouncements of that sort - especially when they aren't back up on anything other than "all the people I met". I have an inherent distrust of weak heuristics like this when it comes to talking about people's personal lives.
I'd have no problem with people saying, "BDSM, as power transfer, plays off of the dynamics often found in heirarchies like the patriarchy. How does this feed into the patriarchy and why and what should we do about it?" That's opening the door to discussion of power imbalance and what power means and where the power really rests in bdsm, and so on and so forth. It also opens the doors to discussions of misuse of power and power dynamics that people dislike and like and why and how.
Completely down with that.
Power is something that is vastly overutilized and under-discussed, in my experience.
I'm not sure I see this not happening. I don't think it's the same as saying, "The majority of women interested in X have been abused", however, and frankly I balk from any pronouncements of that sort - especially when they aren't back up on anything other than "all the people I met". I have an inherent distrust of weak heuristics like this when it comes to talking about people's personal lives.
I'd have no problem with people saying, "BDSM, as power transfer, plays off of the dynamics often found in heirarchies like the patriarchy. How does this feed into the patriarchy and why and what should we do about it?" That's opening the door to discussion of power imbalance and what power means and where the power really rests in bdsm, and so on and so forth. It also opens the doors to discussions of misuse of power and power dynamics that people dislike and like and why and how.
Completely down with that.
Power is something that is vastly overutilized and under-discussed, in my experience.
LGBT folks are asked to "examine their sexuality." Het folks aren't. BDSM folks (the ones who openly talk about being into BDSM; there are far more out there than I think anyone realizes) are asked to "examine their sexuality." This all sounds a little too familiar.
yep!
by far the most abusive thing that i think i experienced sexually was the dipshit "counselor" who tried to tell me I wasn't -really- gay, when I was a vulnerable adolescent.
yep!
by far the most abusive thing that i think i experienced sexually was the dipshit "counselor" who tried to tell me I wasn't -really- gay, when I was a vulnerable adolescent.
I'm not sure I see this not happening. I don't think it's the same as saying, "The majority of women interested in X have been abused", however, and frankly I balk from any pronouncements of that sort - especially when they aren't back up on anything other than "all the people I met". I have an inherent distrust of weak heuristics like this when it comes to talking about people's personal lives.
it depends who you're talking about.
I mean, trin, for all that I hear you saying that you don't want to "examine" anymore, in fact I've seen you do some really useful and profound self-examinations of your own stuff on your blog--your connection of sexuality to disability, for instance, and how much more central that is -for you- than your experience as a woman per se. It's great stuff. It's just not boilerplate Theory as a lot of these people, from armchair radfems to armchair Freudians, understand it. But, it's yours, and as far as I'm concerned it's far more in the spirit of real feminism, of real personal-is-political, in the sense that you are -examining- your -own- shit, without flinching away from any possible answer or pushing your conclusions for yourself on anyone else; just letting it...breathe, for people to pick up or not, as they find useful.
it depends who you're talking about.
I mean, trin, for all that I hear you saying that you don't want to "examine" anymore, in fact I've seen you do some really useful and profound self-examinations of your own stuff on your blog--your connection of sexuality to disability, for instance, and how much more central that is -for you- than your experience as a woman per se. It's great stuff. It's just not boilerplate Theory as a lot of these people, from armchair radfems to armchair Freudians, understand it. But, it's yours, and as far as I'm concerned it's far more in the spirit of real feminism, of real personal-is-political, in the sense that you are -examining- your -own- shit, without flinching away from any possible answer or pushing your conclusions for yourself on anyone else; just letting it...breathe, for people to pick up or not, as they find useful.
...but i will say that i am familiar with what holly is talking about; there is a shunning of introspection, period, i would say, in a number of circles, and yeah i've heard such things in BDSM circles, the idea that "i was just born this way," which...well, anything's possible, and i'm not gonna question anyone individually; just in general, i am skeptical of the idea that our eroticism is particularly "inborn," especially when it comes to things as specific as say a fetish for latex, or a particular fantasy, or...
I just think that the etiology is a lot more complicated and quirky than the reductionists would like to believe. it also doesn't need to be so bloody pathologized. it's like any other individual set of tastes or passions rather, i think. are we "born" musicians, as some claim? we might have particular aptitudes that are genetic, but i -think- the rest has to do with environment. but there's nothing -pathological- about it either way. yanno?
I just think that the etiology is a lot more complicated and quirky than the reductionists would like to believe. it also doesn't need to be so bloody pathologized. it's like any other individual set of tastes or passions rather, i think. are we "born" musicians, as some claim? we might have particular aptitudes that are genetic, but i -think- the rest has to do with environment. but there's nothing -pathological- about it either way. yanno?
People question why their heterosexuality... then what? What do they gain?
For me, it'd just be in the sense of the human quest to become more conscious about -everything-: basic curiousity. consciousness expansion, which sometimes leads to an expanded sense of ...possibility. I dunno if that's what Faith has in mind, though.
For me, it'd just be in the sense of the human quest to become more conscious about -everything-: basic curiousity. consciousness expansion, which sometimes leads to an expanded sense of ...possibility. I dunno if that's what Faith has in mind, though.
actually when I say "environment" i don't even mean: passive imprinting of the individual by the environment. it's an interaction.
my human development class talked about this...
my human development class talked about this...
"most of us here do too. I can't speak for everyone, certainly, but that's my guess."
Which is why I'm commenting here instead of over at Hippie's thread. Not that I'm commenting on Hippie's intentions, but I most certainly question the intentions of many in that thread.
Which is why I'm commenting here instead of over at Hippie's thread. Not that I'm commenting on Hippie's intentions, but I most certainly question the intentions of many in that thread.
# posted by : 11:01 AM
: 11:01 AM "I strongly suspect that some people use these very rigid forms of radical feminism to cope with their own trauma."
Also agreed, but as difficult as it might be for non-radicals to handle this, shaming these individuals is not the answer either.
Yes, I'm down with that.
My problem comes when the method of coping, whatever its origin, starts to cross my own boundaries.
"I'm cold, put on a sweater" may very well have its origins in trauma, or at least a...lack of something, but that doesn't make it okay.
but I most certainly question the intentions of many in that thread.
well, i think for at least a few of us that one quote about how consent isn't -real- consent on account of 90% of the women have mental illness and prior abuse and even mental retardation (?!) was just the last fucking straw.
and the fact that--well at least at my last look in there--no one made any but the mildest of objections to that.
well, i think for at least a few of us that one quote about how consent isn't -real- consent on account of 90% of the women have mental illness and prior abuse and even mental retardation (?!) was just the last fucking straw.
and the fact that--well at least at my last look in there--no one made any but the mildest of objections to that.
..anyway, as i've said elsewhere already, it REALLY bites when people who've suffered trauma who -are- claiming their right for validation wrt their worldview, politics, POV, etc., suddenly clam up when past (real or speculated) abuse and mental health diagnoses are used to invalidate the "other side," particualrly when it's as all out blatant as that quote.
..oops, actually "in there" was the Farley thread, wasn't it, i haven't yet steeled myself to read the IH thread and possibly won't.
"For me, it'd just be in the sense of the human quest to become more conscious about -everything-: basic curiousity. consciousness expansion, which sometimes leads to an expanded sense of ...possibility. I dunno if that's what Faith has in mind, though."
I understand that. (And, please pardon my terrible grammar from earlier.) I am definitely down with that. However, in the context of what we're discussing here, it seems like this "examining" is supposed to result in a change in behavior, or something. That's what I meant by "what is the goal."
I understand that. (And, please pardon my terrible grammar from earlier.) I am definitely down with that. However, in the context of what we're discussing here, it seems like this "examining" is supposed to result in a change in behavior, or something. That's what I meant by "what is the goal."
Ok, I've got to get away from the computer here, but want to respond to this one comment from Trinity before I do...
"You know, I know someone who has lived through that sort of abuse. I'm personally very uncomfortable with people discussing brains and damage, as if someone I care very much for were walking around like a zombie with lesions in her head...Particularly since I have cerebral palsy, and people have made all sorts of comments about what my brain must look like, sometimes to my face."
My intentions aren't to shame anyone by discussing possible brain damage caused by abuse or any other cause. If you want to help someone it helps to know as much about them as possible. Knowing that there is a strong possibility for brain damage caused by abuse can actually be very helpful in gaining understanding of abuse victim's behavior. It can also explain why this behavior is often so hard to correct, behavior such as self-mutilation or alcohol/drug abuse.
I understand and sympathize with where you are coming from, but please understand that the discussion is not intended to shame anyone with any sort of disability...
"You know, I know someone who has lived through that sort of abuse. I'm personally very uncomfortable with people discussing brains and damage, as if someone I care very much for were walking around like a zombie with lesions in her head...Particularly since I have cerebral palsy, and people have made all sorts of comments about what my brain must look like, sometimes to my face."
My intentions aren't to shame anyone by discussing possible brain damage caused by abuse or any other cause. If you want to help someone it helps to know as much about them as possible. Knowing that there is a strong possibility for brain damage caused by abuse can actually be very helpful in gaining understanding of abuse victim's behavior. It can also explain why this behavior is often so hard to correct, behavior such as self-mutilation or alcohol/drug abuse.
I understand and sympathize with where you are coming from, but please understand that the discussion is not intended to shame anyone with any sort of disability...
# posted by : 11:30 AM
: 11:30 AM
Commenter Blue/Kay posted this on SE's blog, and although the thread in question was about disability, it struck a chord and I thought it was appropriate with this discussion too...
"For me anytime I start to worry about what other people might think about my body or how I do things or what I do or let others or equipment do for me, I’m heading down a slippery slope where my body doesn’t belong to me and instead is an instrument to not cause other people distress. You can’t live that way, and while it takes some work to resist those impulses, imo, you cannot let that mindset affect your behavior."
"For me anytime I start to worry about what other people might think about my body or how I do things or what I do or let others or equipment do for me, I’m heading down a slippery slope where my body doesn’t belong to me and instead is an instrument to not cause other people distress. You can’t live that way, and while it takes some work to resist those impulses, imo, you cannot let that mindset affect your behavior."
"I mean, trin, for all that I hear you saying that you don't want to "examine" anymore, in fact I've seen you do some really useful and profound self-examinations of your own stuff on your blog--your connection of sexuality to disability, for instance, and how much more central that is -for you- than your experience as a woman per se. It's great stuff. It's just not boilerplate Theory as a lot of these people, from armchair radfems to armchair Freudians, understand it. But, it's yours, and as far as I'm concerned it's far more in the spirit of real feminism, of real personal-is-political, in the sense that you are -examining- your -own- shit, without flinching away from any possible answer or pushing your conclusions for yourself on anyone else; just letting it...breathe, for people to pick up or not, as they find useful."
Touche. I guess that to me, though, that's less about where things come from than what they mean to me and how I use them. I'm not anywhere near as interested in why I thought of them as I am in how I use them.
And that I see as the difference. The cry to examine is usually "Know where this came from!" rather than "Know what you can do with this!" Often our assertions that we can do X with Y get shot down as attempts at "subversion" that are doomed to fail.
Naming my blog "the strangest alchemy" is an attempt to re-value those words. I hope I succeed in general, but it's much more about myself and my value system than, y'know, whether people start snickering at Sandra Bartky. I don't really care if it succeeds at getting truly subversive uptake. I doubt most people even remember that essay, much less that section heading.
I'd laugh like hell if it did, tho'.
Touche. I guess that to me, though, that's less about where things come from than what they mean to me and how I use them. I'm not anywhere near as interested in why I thought of them as I am in how I use them.
And that I see as the difference. The cry to examine is usually "Know where this came from!" rather than "Know what you can do with this!" Often our assertions that we can do X with Y get shot down as attempts at "subversion" that are doomed to fail.
Naming my blog "the strangest alchemy" is an attempt to re-value those words. I hope I succeed in general, but it's much more about myself and my value system than, y'know, whether people start snickering at Sandra Bartky. I don't really care if it succeeds at getting truly subversive uptake. I doubt most people even remember that essay, much less that section heading.
I'd laugh like hell if it did, tho'.
"What I've come to realize lately is that my urge to top and my interest in being a counselor as well as my previous interest in theatre--writing, directing--all come from more or less the same place."
Mmmhmm. It's why I teach, too.
Mmmhmm. It's why I teach, too.
And that I see as the difference. The cry to examine is usually "Know where this came from!" rather than "Know what you can do with this!" Often our assertions that we can do X with Y get shot down as attempts at "subversion" that are doomed to fail.
Honestly, I see "know what you can do with this" as the logical step from "know where this came from". Finding roots is all well and good, but we don't live in the past.
More and more I'm inclined to speak and act as if my personal emotional goals have been achieved. Then I can figure out where my internal snags are from achieving those goals, where those goals are unrealistic, and where I have obviously been smoking something good when I thought of that so that I can fix those snags. I have a great tendency for self-reflection en infinity, and while it may work for Vishnu, I have neither the lovely snake he sleeps on nor the eternities and avatars he has at his disposal. Self reflect en infinity helps no one, not even myself.
This works better in theory than in practice. Ah heh heh heh.
Honestly, I see "know what you can do with this" as the logical step from "know where this came from". Finding roots is all well and good, but we don't live in the past.
More and more I'm inclined to speak and act as if my personal emotional goals have been achieved. Then I can figure out where my internal snags are from achieving those goals, where those goals are unrealistic, and where I have obviously been smoking something good when I thought of that so that I can fix those snags. I have a great tendency for self-reflection en infinity, and while it may work for Vishnu, I have neither the lovely snake he sleeps on nor the eternities and avatars he has at his disposal. Self reflect en infinity helps no one, not even myself.
This works better in theory than in practice. Ah heh heh heh.
You know, it occurs to me that for those people who are all about how many kinky folk have been abused -- compare that to the general population stats.
One of the things I've found interesting in my experience of kinked folk (and certain other minority groups) is that they're less likely to treat their pasts as something to not be talked about. And in the case of kinked folk in particular, the negotiations of BDSM when done properly include some "These are areas to be careful of, because of my baggage from this, that, or the other" discussion that might not come up for people who aren't deliberately doing stuff that might revisit those injuries.
One of the things I've found interesting in my experience of kinked folk (and certain other minority groups) is that they're less likely to treat their pasts as something to not be talked about. And in the case of kinked folk in particular, the negotiations of BDSM when done properly include some "These are areas to be careful of, because of my baggage from this, that, or the other" discussion that might not come up for people who aren't deliberately doing stuff that might revisit those injuries.
Honestly, I see "know what you can do with this" as the logical step from "know where this came from". Finding roots is all well and good, but we don't live in the past.
*nod* but now we're talking about sort of old-school psychoanalysis, i think, which is not what i was after either. there're ways and ways.
what i find is--the past is -with- us. it's a place to shine light on; it's part of the stories we tell ourselves, and of ourselves.
*nod* but now we're talking about sort of old-school psychoanalysis, i think, which is not what i was after either. there're ways and ways.
what i find is--the past is -with- us. it's a place to shine light on; it's part of the stories we tell ourselves, and of ourselves.
and of course, the whole,
"those who do not study history," etc. etc.
but yeah, it also doesn't mean you lie down and STAY there. that was one of the issues with traditional psychoanalysis, it can be an issue in certain sorts of newagey "inner child" speak; and it also seems to be an issue with certain interpretations of "personal is political" feminism. it can be, as trin put it elsewhere, just one more hamster wheel to get caught up in.
"those who do not study history," etc. etc.
but yeah, it also doesn't mean you lie down and STAY there. that was one of the issues with traditional psychoanalysis, it can be an issue in certain sorts of newagey "inner child" speak; and it also seems to be an issue with certain interpretations of "personal is political" feminism. it can be, as trin put it elsewhere, just one more hamster wheel to get caught up in.
I resist the "examine your motivations!" urging precisely because the underlying theme seems to be "because once you realise where these (nasty, unnacceptable)urges come from you won't have them any more". And I think that's nonsense. Wherever the urges come from, by the time we're adults they're usually well enough implanted that they're not going to vanish in a puff of realisation.
I guess what bothers me about all this is that I'm not convinced that. say, the urge to be tied up/tie someone up is necessarily maladaptive. I can see why one might view some of the really extreme BSDM -related practises as maladaptive. Tobias over on my thread brought up the case of the dude who wanted to have his penis cut off and eaten who met up with the dude who had a cannablism fetish - they met over the internet and the one dude did indeed kill and eat the other one. It's not too hard to make thye argument that any fetish which in order to be fulfilled needs to result in one being dead is maladaptive BUT that isn't what most BSDM is about. It seems as if most conversations about how BSDM is bad bad bad are based on the assumption that the most extreme stuff is the standard, and it isn't.
I guess what bothers me about all this is that I'm not convinced that. say, the urge to be tied up/tie someone up is necessarily maladaptive. I can see why one might view some of the really extreme BSDM -related practises as maladaptive. Tobias over on my thread brought up the case of the dude who wanted to have his penis cut off and eaten who met up with the dude who had a cannablism fetish - they met over the internet and the one dude did indeed kill and eat the other one. It's not too hard to make thye argument that any fetish which in order to be fulfilled needs to result in one being dead is maladaptive BUT that isn't what most BSDM is about. It seems as if most conversations about how BSDM is bad bad bad are based on the assumption that the most extreme stuff is the standard, and it isn't.
Faith - My point wasn't so much aimed at you as at the conversations that come up at, say, IBTP about BSDM. There's a sort of blanket dismissal of kinky folks as "you people are all fucked up so nothing you say is worth listening to, since you're too damaged to have any self-awareness". That's the thing with the constant "but you need to think about this!" demands - how many people doing this stuff do you think have never thought about it deeply? About why they're wired that way and where their kinks came from? I don't think I know anyone who hasn't thought about that stuff. The implication that people haven't is rather condescending (and again, this comment is not aimed at Faith).
I resist the "examine your motivations!" urging precisely because the underlying theme seems to be "because once you realise where these (nasty, unnacceptable)urges come from you won't have them any more". And I think that's nonsense.
right, i think that was exactly holly's point. but also, that discussions/explorations of such where that -isn't- the underlying theme, while passing rare unfortunately, can be really worthwhile.
right, i think that was exactly holly's point. but also, that discussions/explorations of such where that -isn't- the underlying theme, while passing rare unfortunately, can be really worthwhile.
About the issue of brain damage...that makes me really uncomfortable. Firstly, in terms of abuse vs neglect, those are indeed very different things. Apples and oranges from a brain development POV. The reason that severely neglected children have brain damage visible on MRIs etc is usually because they were so deprived of human contact during the formative period that certain parts of the brain such as those that process language were never stimulated and didn't develop they way they normally did. A kid who was, say, sexually abused probably isn't going to show damage anything like as extensive, no matter how distressing that may be to contemplate or how cold it sounds to say it. Unless that kid was also negelected in the sense of being denied normal social contact, or food, you aren't going to see the same kind of effects on the brain.
Emotional trauma isn't the same thing as brain damage, and it bugs me to see the two being conflated. The implication that if people really have suffered brain damage this somehow makes it OK not to listen to their subjective experiences in terms of how BSDM feels for them...well, that's a pretty creepy attitude, to be honest. That's awfully close to saying that anyone who isn't medically "perfect" doesn't have the right or even the ability to make choices the same way everyone else does, and that is a REALLY disturbing idea and unlikely to lead to anything good. There's a whole, heaping load of potential for abuse of people with various kinds of disabilities by people who claim to be acting in their best interests there.
I'm not sure if I'm articulating what about this raises serious ethical concerns for me. It has to do with the whole idea of dismissing people as "damaged" and therefore not capable of making decisions for themselves, and all the ways in which that might be used to take control of those people's lives away from them. I think that sort of thinking has implications far beyond discussions of BSDM.
I'm still not articulating this well. Maybe Trin understands what I'm getting at and can explain it better.
Emotional trauma isn't the same thing as brain damage, and it bugs me to see the two being conflated. The implication that if people really have suffered brain damage this somehow makes it OK not to listen to their subjective experiences in terms of how BSDM feels for them...well, that's a pretty creepy attitude, to be honest. That's awfully close to saying that anyone who isn't medically "perfect" doesn't have the right or even the ability to make choices the same way everyone else does, and that is a REALLY disturbing idea and unlikely to lead to anything good. There's a whole, heaping load of potential for abuse of people with various kinds of disabilities by people who claim to be acting in their best interests there.
I'm not sure if I'm articulating what about this raises serious ethical concerns for me. It has to do with the whole idea of dismissing people as "damaged" and therefore not capable of making decisions for themselves, and all the ways in which that might be used to take control of those people's lives away from them. I think that sort of thinking has implications far beyond discussions of BSDM.
I'm still not articulating this well. Maybe Trin understands what I'm getting at and can explain it better.
I have read this debate with interest. I guess should make my sex/gender identity, and BDSM identity known first.
I'm genetically XY chromosome, and generally happy with the gender role that society chose for me based on the physical features that this generated. However, I have a strongly developed female side, and sometimes experience myself as being a woman in a man's body - I sometimes crossdress to express this.
BDSM-wise, I am usually a Dominant (whether I'm feeling male or female) but also enjoy submission, which technically makes me a switch. I am also both sadist and masochist.
My take on the question of how BDSM relates to the traditional patriarchal structures, is that BDSM actually serves to subvert and erode them. In the D/s relationship, the power dynamic is explicit, open, and there purely by the mutual consent of both parties. Assuming a male Dominant/female Submissive relationship, the contrast between the standard patriarchal model and the BDSM model is clear to see. The patriarchal model operates to enforce a subservient role for the female partner, using subtle but inescapable techniques. In BDSM, however, the subservient role is explicit and acknowledged, and cannot be enforced because the other explicit element is consent. As soon as consent is withdrawn, the relationship evaporates. Therefore, the D/s relationship by appearing to venerate the patriarchal power structure, actually erodes and destroys it.
A very good exposition of this (although not expressed in feminist terms) is given by Al Turtle, an American relationship counsellor who runs a service with his wife. His "Master/Slave relationship" should be read as the traditional patriarchal model; he contrasts this with the BDSM "Master/slave" ralationship, which he describes as a co-operation of equals (in his terms, "Friend/Friend"). The links are:
http://al.turtlecounseling.com/blog/_archives/2005/3/5/400379.html
and this one, which explains his contrast with the BDSM model (see the item labeled "2. People are uncomfortable..."):
http://al.turtlecounseling.com/blog/_archives/2007/2/25/2764456.html
I hope that this is fuel for discussion!
Ta,
SnowdropExplodes (gentle and energetic)
I'm genetically XY chromosome, and generally happy with the gender role that society chose for me based on the physical features that this generated. However, I have a strongly developed female side, and sometimes experience myself as being a woman in a man's body - I sometimes crossdress to express this.
BDSM-wise, I am usually a Dominant (whether I'm feeling male or female) but also enjoy submission, which technically makes me a switch. I am also both sadist and masochist.
My take on the question of how BDSM relates to the traditional patriarchal structures, is that BDSM actually serves to subvert and erode them. In the D/s relationship, the power dynamic is explicit, open, and there purely by the mutual consent of both parties. Assuming a male Dominant/female Submissive relationship, the contrast between the standard patriarchal model and the BDSM model is clear to see. The patriarchal model operates to enforce a subservient role for the female partner, using subtle but inescapable techniques. In BDSM, however, the subservient role is explicit and acknowledged, and cannot be enforced because the other explicit element is consent. As soon as consent is withdrawn, the relationship evaporates. Therefore, the D/s relationship by appearing to venerate the patriarchal power structure, actually erodes and destroys it.
A very good exposition of this (although not expressed in feminist terms) is given by Al Turtle, an American relationship counsellor who runs a service with his wife. His "Master/Slave relationship" should be read as the traditional patriarchal model; he contrasts this with the BDSM "Master/slave" ralationship, which he describes as a co-operation of equals (in his terms, "Friend/Friend"). The links are:
http://al.turtlecounseling.com/blog/_archives/2005/3/5/400379.html
and this one, which explains his contrast with the BDSM model (see the item labeled "2. People are uncomfortable..."):
http://al.turtlecounseling.com/blog/_archives/2007/2/25/2764456.html
I hope that this is fuel for discussion!
Ta,
SnowdropExplodes (gentle and energetic)
# posted by : 6:16 PM
: 6:16 PM
I'm not sure if I'm articulating what about this raises serious ethical concerns for me. It has to do with the whole idea of dismissing people as "damaged" and therefore not capable of making decisions for themselves, and all the ways in which that might be used to take control of those people's lives away from them. I think that sort of thinking has implications far beyond discussions of BSDM.
yup. well, someone with diagnosed autism already has commented on that particular charming screed (i reposted at my spot); you can imagine how that went over with that particular reader.
yup. well, someone with diagnosed autism already has commented on that particular charming screed (i reposted at my spot); you can imagine how that went over with that particular reader.
Cassandra,
I'm really tired, but I think I understand basically what you are trying to say. But from what I've been reading, there is increasing evidence that severe abuse/trauma does cause a negative impact in brain development. While there most certainly is a possibility for abuse by recognizing or exploring this, it's equally unethical to not explore it...
http://www.snapnetwork.org/psych_effects/how_abuse_andneglect.htm
http://www.mmaonline.net/Publications/MNMed2006/March/clinical-mccollum.htm
I'm really tired, but I think I understand basically what you are trying to say. But from what I've been reading, there is increasing evidence that severe abuse/trauma does cause a negative impact in brain development. While there most certainly is a possibility for abuse by recognizing or exploring this, it's equally unethical to not explore it...
http://www.snapnetwork.org/psych_effects/how_abuse_andneglect.htm
http://www.mmaonline.net/Publications/MNMed2006/March/clinical-mccollum.htm
# posted by : 6:50 PM
: 6:50 PM
Faith - I suppose it's pretty much impossibly to have the conversation without clearly defining what we mean by both "severe abuse" and "negative impact".
Will check out the links later. Get some rest!
Will check out the links later. Get some rest!
Faith:
as I've basically said before, every time I read one of Graham's comments my bullshit detector flies sky high. His only real objective seems to be protecting his own pleasure, nothing more. There is no acknowledgement whatsoever of the cultural influence or possible abusive situations that can lead to many sub. females being sub. Whenever I see people - particularly males - refusing to acknowledge these influences I always wonder if they are likely abusive.
I'm pleased you've read what I've written, but I cannot understand how you've managed to get this interpretation from it.
Yes, I am aware that some people (female *and* male) may use BDSM as a "coping mechanism" to help them handle previous abuse and I most certainly do not "refuse" to acknowledge this", however the implications from others that I have been objecting to are that *ALL* sub women have been abused or been forced to be subservient to men or are "victims of the patriarchy" etc which is nonsense.
I have met plenty of sub (and Dom) women who know exactly what they are doing, exactly why they are doing it and know damn well that they're not victims or pandering to male domination or being "subjugated" at all, so if someone makes a sweeping generalisation like that, I'm going to point out that they are unfairly tarring a lot of people with a very big brush.
As for my "real objective" being "protecting my own pleasure" or you "wondering if they are likely abusive", might I suggest you take another look at my posts and see how many times I mention the phrase "Safe, Sane and Consensual". Check how many times I refer to "consenting adults". Look at how many times I emphasise that I, in no way, support or condone rape or abuse or any other such thing.
When I started in BDSM, I was pretty much 100% sub and had to *learn* to Dom my Girlfriend because *she* wanted it and I was more than a little tentative at first because I was scared of hurting her!
My "real objective" is to protect *everyone's* pleasure. I want consenting adults to have the right to engage in consensual activities without effectively being told that they're a danger to society or that what they're doing is wrong or that if someone looks at "dangerous pictures" they're going to kill someone.
That's no definition of "abusive" that I have heard.
as I've basically said before, every time I read one of Graham's comments my bullshit detector flies sky high. His only real objective seems to be protecting his own pleasure, nothing more. There is no acknowledgement whatsoever of the cultural influence or possible abusive situations that can lead to many sub. females being sub. Whenever I see people - particularly males - refusing to acknowledge these influences I always wonder if they are likely abusive.
I'm pleased you've read what I've written, but I cannot understand how you've managed to get this interpretation from it.
Yes, I am aware that some people (female *and* male) may use BDSM as a "coping mechanism" to help them handle previous abuse and I most certainly do not "refuse" to acknowledge this", however the implications from others that I have been objecting to are that *ALL* sub women have been abused or been forced to be subservient to men or are "victims of the patriarchy" etc which is nonsense.
I have met plenty of sub (and Dom) women who know exactly what they are doing, exactly why they are doing it and know damn well that they're not victims or pandering to male domination or being "subjugated" at all, so if someone makes a sweeping generalisation like that, I'm going to point out that they are unfairly tarring a lot of people with a very big brush.
As for my "real objective" being "protecting my own pleasure" or you "wondering if they are likely abusive", might I suggest you take another look at my posts and see how many times I mention the phrase "Safe, Sane and Consensual". Check how many times I refer to "consenting adults". Look at how many times I emphasise that I, in no way, support or condone rape or abuse or any other such thing.
When I started in BDSM, I was pretty much 100% sub and had to *learn* to Dom my Girlfriend because *she* wanted it and I was more than a little tentative at first because I was scared of hurting her!
My "real objective" is to protect *everyone's* pleasure. I want consenting adults to have the right to engage in consensual activities without effectively being told that they're a danger to society or that what they're doing is wrong or that if someone looks at "dangerous pictures" they're going to kill someone.
That's no definition of "abusive" that I have heard.
Again, I really see one of the big unspokens being 'certain people can't REALLY consent for reasons ABC' where, in this case, ABC is either 'has brain damage from being abused' or 'is brainwashed by the patriarchy'.
I hope this doesn't come across as using WOC observations for inappropriate ends, but it reminds me of how US feminists often approach feminists in other countries - not asking 'How may we help you be more free' but telling 'You are not free; here is what you need to do to be free.' There's a very colonial edge to it, only in this case the colonialism is over a different class of people not over people in a different country.
There is a "big sis/mommy knows better" edge to telling people "your idea of freedom is wrong" that I really don't like. I see this taking place in this context (your sex isn't the FREE sex) using "people with X characteristic can't consent for reasons ABC" as a vehicle of control.
I hope this doesn't come across as using WOC observations for inappropriate ends, but it reminds me of how US feminists often approach feminists in other countries - not asking 'How may we help you be more free' but telling 'You are not free; here is what you need to do to be free.' There's a very colonial edge to it, only in this case the colonialism is over a different class of people not over people in a different country.
There is a "big sis/mommy knows better" edge to telling people "your idea of freedom is wrong" that I really don't like. I see this taking place in this context (your sex isn't the FREE sex) using "people with X characteristic can't consent for reasons ABC" as a vehicle of control.
There's a very colonial edge to it
well, when you add that in fact a lot of the people at the front lines of this is middle class white women handwringing about the awful awful suffering of the poor brown, particularly Over There...yeah.
there's an interesting piece on that here
well, when you add that in fact a lot of the people at the front lines of this is middle class white women handwringing about the awful awful suffering of the poor brown, particularly Over There...yeah.
there's an interesting piece on that here
as far as the horrifically ableist shite about people with this or that medical condition aren't capable of full consent--well, that's bad enough in its own right; it also has a whiff of the eugenics-for-the-greater-good about it, which bloody well -would- resonate with WOC i rather think. anyway i've certainly seen people explicitly making that connection wrt abortion, at least. this...doesn't seem to come up as much, although...i haven't checked at Ubuntu for a while, maybe...
from the paper i linked above:
This is not the first time that the 'injured third world prostitute' has figured in international feminist campaigns. Antoinette Burton has examined, in Burdens of History: British Feminists, Indian Women and Imperial Culture, 1865-1915 (1994), the manner in which Victorian feminists utilized the position of the prostitute in Britain and in colonial India as part of their campaign to prove that English women were fit subjects of political enfranchisement. In so doing, they deployed an image of Indian prostitutes, and Indian women in general, in keeping with the orientalism of Empire: that of Indian women as backward, helpless and subject to barbaric tradition. In a more recent paper, Burton (1998) applies Brown's theorizing to the question of Victorian feminists' relationship to Empire. This paper draws on all three works to frame its inquiry into the ways in which colonial feminist discourses around prostitution influence contemporary feminist constructions of the 'injured body' of 'third world trafficking victims'.
...Brown argues that politicized identity was both a product of and a reaction to the manifest failure of liberalism to deliver on promises of universal justice for all: to the exclusion of certain 'marked groups', such as women or gays, from the liberal goods of freedom and equality. Politicized identity's demand to be included in these goods, however, does not question the fact that these goods arise out of structures that led to the 'injuries' of marginalization in the first place.
Brown suggests that politicized identity's potential for transforming structures of domination is severely limited because of its own investment in a history of 'pain' (1995: 55). The 'pain' or 'injury' at the heart of politicized identity is social subordination and exclusion from universal equality and justice promised by the liberal state (1995: 7). This historical pain becomes the foundation for identity, as well as, paradoxically, that which identity politics strives to bring to an end. In other words, identity based on injury cannot let go of that injury without ceasing to exist. This paradox results in a politics that seeks protection from the state rather than power and freedom for itself. In seeking protection from the same structures that cause injury, this politics risks reaffirming, rather than subverting, structures of domination, and risks reinscribing injured identity in law and policy through its demands for state protection against injury...
This is not the first time that the 'injured third world prostitute' has figured in international feminist campaigns. Antoinette Burton has examined, in Burdens of History: British Feminists, Indian Women and Imperial Culture, 1865-1915 (1994), the manner in which Victorian feminists utilized the position of the prostitute in Britain and in colonial India as part of their campaign to prove that English women were fit subjects of political enfranchisement. In so doing, they deployed an image of Indian prostitutes, and Indian women in general, in keeping with the orientalism of Empire: that of Indian women as backward, helpless and subject to barbaric tradition. In a more recent paper, Burton (1998) applies Brown's theorizing to the question of Victorian feminists' relationship to Empire. This paper draws on all three works to frame its inquiry into the ways in which colonial feminist discourses around prostitution influence contemporary feminist constructions of the 'injured body' of 'third world trafficking victims'.
...Brown argues that politicized identity was both a product of and a reaction to the manifest failure of liberalism to deliver on promises of universal justice for all: to the exclusion of certain 'marked groups', such as women or gays, from the liberal goods of freedom and equality. Politicized identity's demand to be included in these goods, however, does not question the fact that these goods arise out of structures that led to the 'injuries' of marginalization in the first place.
Brown suggests that politicized identity's potential for transforming structures of domination is severely limited because of its own investment in a history of 'pain' (1995: 55). The 'pain' or 'injury' at the heart of politicized identity is social subordination and exclusion from universal equality and justice promised by the liberal state (1995: 7). This historical pain becomes the foundation for identity, as well as, paradoxically, that which identity politics strives to bring to an end. In other words, identity based on injury cannot let go of that injury without ceasing to exist. This paradox results in a politics that seeks protection from the state rather than power and freedom for itself. In seeking protection from the same structures that cause injury, this politics risks reaffirming, rather than subverting, structures of domination, and risks reinscribing injured identity in law and policy through its demands for state protection against injury...
"Again, I really see one of the big unspokens being 'certain people can't REALLY consent for reasons ABC' where, in this case, ABC is either 'has brain damage from being abused' or 'is brainwashed by the patriarchy'."
I don't have time to respond fully right now, but if this is meant to be a response to my comments, I have absolutely not stated that anyone should not be allowed to give their consent, regardless of circumstances. There absolutely are certain practices that really make me cringe and make me worry about the psychological or physical well-being of the person consenting. I fully recognize how sensitive a topic this is. I understand this and part of the reason I'm so passionate about it is because I actually have a personal investment in the matter.
It basically just boils down to being extremely tired of seeing abuse victims ignored or exploited because people either don't give a damn or because it's such a difficult discussion to have. I also fully understand being tired of being attacked by people who want to demonize BDSM as a whole.
Nobody is being served at all by attacking BDSM in general or by arguing that everyone involved in the BDSM community has perfectly kosher intentions which is exactly what the BDSM supporters on the other thread were doing. There has to be a happy medium here somewhere.
I don't have time to respond fully right now, but if this is meant to be a response to my comments, I have absolutely not stated that anyone should not be allowed to give their consent, regardless of circumstances. There absolutely are certain practices that really make me cringe and make me worry about the psychological or physical well-being of the person consenting. I fully recognize how sensitive a topic this is. I understand this and part of the reason I'm so passionate about it is because I actually have a personal investment in the matter.
It basically just boils down to being extremely tired of seeing abuse victims ignored or exploited because people either don't give a damn or because it's such a difficult discussion to have. I also fully understand being tired of being attacked by people who want to demonize BDSM as a whole.
Nobody is being served at all by attacking BDSM in general or by arguing that everyone involved in the BDSM community has perfectly kosher intentions which is exactly what the BDSM supporters on the other thread were doing. There has to be a happy medium here somewhere.
# posted by : 7:32 AM
: 7:32 AM
i dunno if anyone's arguing that everyone has perfectly kosher intentions. i certainly haven't, or wouldn't. i read Graham as saying -he- has kosher intentions. haven't read much of his other stuff elsewhere, but i can understand getting defensive on that level, at least, i expect.
unfortunately when people like the emma person set the agenda, there's not a whole lot of room for subtlety...
unfortunately when people like the emma person set the agenda, there's not a whole lot of room for subtlety...
...so, personally i'd at least start with the assumption that in fact most people do give a damn, or would do so; as far as it being a "difficult discussion," i expect -not- including the total zealots (on either side, although at the moment i am seeing more of 'em on the anti-side; i don't doubt there's assery on the "pro" end as well however) in said discussion would help a very great deal.
Nobody is being served at all by attacking BDSM in general or by arguing that everyone involved in the BDSM community has perfectly kosher intentions which is exactly what the BDSM supporters on the other thread were doing.
I personally have not seen anyone arguing that everyone in the BDSM community has perfectly kosher intentions. That would be ridiculous.
You were probably just using that as an example of thw two extremes Faith, so I'm not saying that's what you were suggesting. But I just wanted to point it out, to be excrutiatingly clear, that I have not seen that assertion from anyone, in my blogosphere travels.
Faith:
There absolutely are certain practices that really make me cringe and make me worry about the psychological or physical well-being of the person consenting.
It may or may not surprise you to know that I sometimes have similar feelings about others' BDSM practices.
There are something I don't do and don't like and I've seen pictures and videos (and even in real life) of some people who engage in 24/7 BDSM relationships who, for me, play very close to the edges of non-consent, but that doesn't mean that, for instance, I'm going to wade in and try to stop them or say that they're wrong to do it that way simply because I don't like it.
You see, this gets back to the whole point where this started, ie the Backlash Campaign http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/ where we have a group of narrow minded and prudish MPs trying to tell us that it is "not safe" for us to look at "extreme pornography" because they consider it "abhorrent" and if we look at it, we might possibly go and injure or kill someone.
Of course they have no concrete evidence to back up their claims, so they have to rely on emotional arguments, false and irrelevant comparisons with child porn and bringing in anecdotal "evidence" to try to con people into saying "yes, this stuff must be banned!"
I agree entirely that abuse victims should not be ignored and that if anyone *does* suffer from a non-consensual act, the perpetrator should be prosecuted (and, of course, we already have laws for that), but I am not willing to see BDSM being used as a scapegoat, no more than I would agree with Heavy Metal, D&D or violent video games being blamed for US High School massacres.
Nobody is being served at all by attacking BDSM in general or by arguing that everyone involved in the BDSM community has perfectly kosher intentions which is exactly what the BDSM supporters on the other thread were doing.
Yes, it would be foolish to say that "everyone in the BDSM community has pefectly kosher intentions", but it would be even more foolish to suggest that "everyone in the BDSM community does not have kosher intentions", implying we're all deranged or potential abusers or only interested harming women, charges that I've seen levelled against us more than a few times over the course of these threads!
There absolutely are certain practices that really make me cringe and make me worry about the psychological or physical well-being of the person consenting.
It may or may not surprise you to know that I sometimes have similar feelings about others' BDSM practices.
There are something I don't do and don't like and I've seen pictures and videos (and even in real life) of some people who engage in 24/7 BDSM relationships who, for me, play very close to the edges of non-consent, but that doesn't mean that, for instance, I'm going to wade in and try to stop them or say that they're wrong to do it that way simply because I don't like it.
You see, this gets back to the whole point where this started, ie the Backlash Campaign http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/ where we have a group of narrow minded and prudish MPs trying to tell us that it is "not safe" for us to look at "extreme pornography" because they consider it "abhorrent" and if we look at it, we might possibly go and injure or kill someone.
Of course they have no concrete evidence to back up their claims, so they have to rely on emotional arguments, false and irrelevant comparisons with child porn and bringing in anecdotal "evidence" to try to con people into saying "yes, this stuff must be banned!"
I agree entirely that abuse victims should not be ignored and that if anyone *does* suffer from a non-consensual act, the perpetrator should be prosecuted (and, of course, we already have laws for that), but I am not willing to see BDSM being used as a scapegoat, no more than I would agree with Heavy Metal, D&D or violent video games being blamed for US High School massacres.
Nobody is being served at all by attacking BDSM in general or by arguing that everyone involved in the BDSM community has perfectly kosher intentions which is exactly what the BDSM supporters on the other thread were doing.
Yes, it would be foolish to say that "everyone in the BDSM community has pefectly kosher intentions", but it would be even more foolish to suggest that "everyone in the BDSM community does not have kosher intentions", implying we're all deranged or potential abusers or only interested harming women, charges that I've seen levelled against us more than a few times over the course of these threads!
"You see, this gets back to the whole point where this started, ie the Backlash Campaign http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/ where we have a group of narrow minded and prudish MPs trying to tell us that it is "not safe" for us to look at "extreme pornography" because they consider it "abhorrent" and if we look at it, we might possibly go and injure or kill someone."
I'm actually anti-porn. I'm not going to go into why I'm anti-porn because I'm tired of having that particular argument. I know where I stand and I support the legislation to ban extreme pornography regardless of what people do in their own homes.
"Yes, it would be foolish to say that "everyone in the BDSM community has pefectly kosher intentions","
You yourself made that statement. Repeatedly, I believe. Something along the lines of "nobody in the BDSM community believes in abuse" and "all BDSM players believe in safe, sane, and consensual".
Neither of those statements are true. Any -responsible- BDSM player believes those things.
I'm actually anti-porn. I'm not going to go into why I'm anti-porn because I'm tired of having that particular argument. I know where I stand and I support the legislation to ban extreme pornography regardless of what people do in their own homes.
"Yes, it would be foolish to say that "everyone in the BDSM community has pefectly kosher intentions","
You yourself made that statement. Repeatedly, I believe. Something along the lines of "nobody in the BDSM community believes in abuse" and "all BDSM players believe in safe, sane, and consensual".
Neither of those statements are true. Any -responsible- BDSM player believes those things.
# posted by : 9:59 AM
: 9:59 AM
A lot of the problem with discussing causes and motivations and so on for BDSM behaviour, is that there really doesn't seem to have been a lot of research that has been directed specifically at exploring the facts of BDSM psychology and sociology.
Personally, I am convinced that a sociologist conducting "participant-observer" research on the BDSM community would come away with conclusions similar to those reported by BDSM-ers. As I mentioned in my last post, I am aware of at least one professional relationship counsellor who finds that the dynamic of BDSM is generally a healthy one.
In terms of psychology, it is harder still to make any sensible assessments, but a lot of BDSM-ers are acutely aware of issues surrounding mental health both for themselves and their partners.
There is another important aspect if there is a link between BDSM behaviour and mental illness or abuse. This is the matter of causation. If a person is predisposed to BDSM Submissive behaviour, for example, it could follow that that will make that person more vulnerable to abuse (rather than the opposite suggestion that prior abuse renders a person susceptible to BDSM behaviour).
To get personal (and, after all, "the personal is political") in my own case I was brought up to have strong feminist sympathies, but I can trace my BDSM urgings back to early childhood, and certainly long before I knew what sex was. I believe the apparent conflict between being a sadist and the cultural depiction of sadism, coupled with those feminist leanings, caused an emotional conflict for me that ended up contributing to my later clinical depression. I believe it is no accident that relieving that conflict (by discovering consensual BDSM) coincided with my major turnaround in my mental health.
From this it follows that emotional trauma and/or abuse might result from a prior (possibly inate) persuasion for BDSM, in the same way that homosexual tendencies could lead to issues for a person living in a homophobic community.
There was a time when homosexuality was regarded as being caused by emotional trauma or abuse.
For the "truth" about the causes and structures of BDSM to be discovered, there will need to be direct interaction of researchers with the people they are studying (i.e. BDSM-ers). I haven't heard of any research like this being done, and I'm obviously quite big on BDSM activism so I'd expect to have heard about it from someone if it existed.
Ta,
SnowdropExplodes (soft and hot!)
Personally, I am convinced that a sociologist conducting "participant-observer" research on the BDSM community would come away with conclusions similar to those reported by BDSM-ers. As I mentioned in my last post, I am aware of at least one professional relationship counsellor who finds that the dynamic of BDSM is generally a healthy one.
In terms of psychology, it is harder still to make any sensible assessments, but a lot of BDSM-ers are acutely aware of issues surrounding mental health both for themselves and their partners.
There is another important aspect if there is a link between BDSM behaviour and mental illness or abuse. This is the matter of causation. If a person is predisposed to BDSM Submissive behaviour, for example, it could follow that that will make that person more vulnerable to abuse (rather than the opposite suggestion that prior abuse renders a person susceptible to BDSM behaviour).
To get personal (and, after all, "the personal is political") in my own case I was brought up to have strong feminist sympathies, but I can trace my BDSM urgings back to early childhood, and certainly long before I knew what sex was. I believe the apparent conflict between being a sadist and the cultural depiction of sadism, coupled with those feminist leanings, caused an emotional conflict for me that ended up contributing to my later clinical depression. I believe it is no accident that relieving that conflict (by discovering consensual BDSM) coincided with my major turnaround in my mental health.
From this it follows that emotional trauma and/or abuse might result from a prior (possibly inate) persuasion for BDSM, in the same way that homosexual tendencies could lead to issues for a person living in a homophobic community.
There was a time when homosexuality was regarded as being caused by emotional trauma or abuse.
For the "truth" about the causes and structures of BDSM to be discovered, there will need to be direct interaction of researchers with the people they are studying (i.e. BDSM-ers). I haven't heard of any research like this being done, and I'm obviously quite big on BDSM activism so I'd expect to have heard about it from someone if it existed.
Ta,
SnowdropExplodes (soft and hot!)
# posted by : 10:17 AM
: 10:17 AM
Faith:
"I'm actually anti-porn. I'm not going to go into why I'm anti-porn because I'm tired of having that particular argument. I know where I stand and I support the legislation to ban extreme pornography regardless of what people do in their own homes."
You advocate sending people to prison for 3 years because they watch stuff you don't agree with? That's what the proposed law is about.
Again, "the personal is political" - if you support this law, I want you to be able to explain to me, personally, why you think that I, personally, deserve to go to prison because of the pictures I choose to look at.
"You yourself made that statement. Repeatedly, I believe. Something along the lines of "nobody in the BDSM community believes in abuse" and "all BDSM players believe in safe, sane, and consensual".
Neither of those statements are true. Any -responsible- BDSM player believes those things."
Here we come to the murky world of semantics.
Most BDSM-ers would tell you that once the consent stops, it stops being BDSM and becomes abuse. Whenever the subject of "BDSM vs. Abuse" is discussed in our community, this is always the dividing line that people find.
Safety and sanity are perhaps harder to clarify in this respect, which is why some people prefer to describe what they do as "risk-aware consensual kink" (RACK).
Admittedly, there are abusers or chancers who attempt to use the BDSM arena as a way of getting their kicks; however, that doesn't make BDSM any different from any organisation where nasty people try to take advantage of others. Fortunately, the nature of the BDSM community is such that a) it is easier for potential victims to see them coming and b) if someone does fall prey to an abuser, there is a strong support network in place to help them cope. Neither of these are necessarily true in the equally dangerous world of non-BDSM relationships.
Because BDSM already inhabits something of a twilight zone with regards to society in general, it is actually the case that people who do commit abuse are given even shorter shrift by BDSM-ers than by the general public. We most definitely seek to dissociate ourselves from them, and do not allow the BDSM tag to offer them any shelter.
To some, it is actually a tautology that all BDSM-ers practice safe, sane, consensual (or RACK) - people who claim to be into BDSM but who step outside that framework, are rejected as not being BDSM-ers but are labelled abusers.
A person who is negligent of their partner's safety, or who is of "diminished responsibility", or who uses coercion, is not conducting a BDSM session. The distinction is the same as that between a bar brawl and a properly-conducted boxing or wrestling match.
Ta,
SnowdropExplodes (flower power)
"I'm actually anti-porn. I'm not going to go into why I'm anti-porn because I'm tired of having that particular argument. I know where I stand and I support the legislation to ban extreme pornography regardless of what people do in their own homes."
You advocate sending people to prison for 3 years because they watch stuff you don't agree with? That's what the proposed law is about.
Again, "the personal is political" - if you support this law, I want you to be able to explain to me, personally, why you think that I, personally, deserve to go to prison because of the pictures I choose to look at.
"You yourself made that statement. Repeatedly, I believe. Something along the lines of "nobody in the BDSM community believes in abuse" and "all BDSM players believe in safe, sane, and consensual".
Neither of those statements are true. Any -responsible- BDSM player believes those things."
Here we come to the murky world of semantics.
Most BDSM-ers would tell you that once the consent stops, it stops being BDSM and becomes abuse. Whenever the subject of "BDSM vs. Abuse" is discussed in our community, this is always the dividing line that people find.
Safety and sanity are perhaps harder to clarify in this respect, which is why some people prefer to describe what they do as "risk-aware consensual kink" (RACK).
Admittedly, there are abusers or chancers who attempt to use the BDSM arena as a way of getting their kicks; however, that doesn't make BDSM any different from any organisation where nasty people try to take advantage of others. Fortunately, the nature of the BDSM community is such that a) it is easier for potential victims to see them coming and b) if someone does fall prey to an abuser, there is a strong support network in place to help them cope. Neither of these are necessarily true in the equally dangerous world of non-BDSM relationships.
Because BDSM already inhabits something of a twilight zone with regards to society in general, it is actually the case that people who do commit abuse are given even shorter shrift by BDSM-ers than by the general public. We most definitely seek to dissociate ourselves from them, and do not allow the BDSM tag to offer them any shelter.
To some, it is actually a tautology that all BDSM-ers practice safe, sane, consensual (or RACK) - people who claim to be into BDSM but who step outside that framework, are rejected as not being BDSM-ers but are labelled abusers.
A person who is negligent of their partner's safety, or who is of "diminished responsibility", or who uses coercion, is not conducting a BDSM session. The distinction is the same as that between a bar brawl and a properly-conducted boxing or wrestling match.
Ta,
SnowdropExplodes (flower power)
# posted by : 10:47 AM
: 10:47 AM
"You advocate sending people to prison for 3 years because they watch stuff you don't agree with? That's what the proposed law is about."
Um, no. Actually if I have clearly stated that I have little objection to consensual BDSM activities. Long story short, I'm tired of the abuse and violence. I'm tired of men getting away with said abuse on bullshit loopholes, etc. Really, if you want to get upset with someone, please, get upset with all the assholes who can't figure out that women are people.
Um, no. Actually if I have clearly stated that I have little objection to consensual BDSM activities. Long story short, I'm tired of the abuse and violence. I'm tired of men getting away with said abuse on bullshit loopholes, etc. Really, if you want to get upset with someone, please, get upset with all the assholes who can't figure out that women are people.
# posted by : 11:09 AM
: 11:09 AM
"Fortunately, the nature of the BDSM community is such that a) it is easier for potential victims to see them coming and b) if someone does fall prey to an abuser, there is a strong support network in place to help them cope. Neither of these are necessarily true in the equally dangerous world of non-BDSM relationships."
If they are involved in public communities, perhaps. I suspect the majority of BDSM players have never seen the inside of a club or are even involved in any group. Those people are going to be particularly vulnerable.
If they are involved in public communities, perhaps. I suspect the majority of BDSM players have never seen the inside of a club or are even involved in any group. Those people are going to be particularly vulnerable.
# posted by : 11:12 AM
: 11:12 AM
I suspect the majority of BDSM players have never seen the inside of a club or are even involved in any group.
Why do you assume that?
Those people are going to be particularly vulnerable.
Why are they going to be particularly vulnerable?
Why do you assume that?
Those people are going to be particularly vulnerable.
Why are they going to be particularly vulnerable?
"You advocate sending people to prison for 3 years because they watch stuff you don't agree with? That's what the proposed law is about."
Um, no. Actually if I have clearly stated that I have little objection to consensual BDSM activities
but, Faith, he seems to be saying that support for the "ban on extreme pornography" does, in fact, result in people being sent to prison for looking at pictures. i'm not conversant enough with the actual law to say if that's the case, but that's how i'm reading what he's saying.
and if the porn is consensually made and distributed...what then?
i am also reading that this law would include pictures or videos taken in the privacy of one's own home?
Um, no. Actually if I have clearly stated that I have little objection to consensual BDSM activities
but, Faith, he seems to be saying that support for the "ban on extreme pornography" does, in fact, result in people being sent to prison for looking at pictures. i'm not conversant enough with the actual law to say if that's the case, but that's how i'm reading what he's saying.
and if the porn is consensually made and distributed...what then?
i am also reading that this law would include pictures or videos taken in the privacy of one's own home?
and you know, i hate to say it, but...one of the ways in which people who don't have access to a real-life community get information (and thus aren't as vulnerable) is through...the Internets. including, sometimes, yep, some porn. yeah, fantasy material that looks like abuse all by itself could probably do more harm than good; nonetheless, once you start clamping down on -imagery,- not just how the stuff gets made, you've opened the door to all kinds of clamping down on pictures and information for peoples' "own protection," you know?
Faith:
I don't have time to respond fully right now, but if this is meant to be a response to my comments, I have absolutely not stated that anyone should not be allowed to give their consent, regardless of circumstances.
Sort of yes, sort of no.
I can't comment directly on your comments or claims because I don't understand them. The way you're using language and terms is VERY different from how I do so and my attempts to understand and clarify lead to a major digression into neglect and abuse & neglect-related websites with no neurological data taken in the studies to show 'biological damage'. I was concerned with the emphasis on 'biological damage', though, because right/ability of consent does become an issue with some biological damage to the brain, and historically claims of biological inability or damage have been used to strip people who we would say now should have consent of the right to legally consent.
I am trying to move my part of the discussion away from you in particular because I don't understand what you are saying or where it is coming from, and repeated attempts on my part and the attempts I'm reading on other people's parts seem to have only muddied the water further. I don't like discussing things with people when it becomes apparent that we are operating from very different assumptions but I can't figure out where the other person's assumptions come from. I'm decent at translation from my worldview to others, but I'm not psychic.
So yes, your comments put me on this line of thought, but no, I am not discussing your comments in particular; I am discussing the very specific ideas that I am describing and nothing beyond them. If you need my influences clarified further, let me know.
I don't have time to respond fully right now, but if this is meant to be a response to my comments, I have absolutely not stated that anyone should not be allowed to give their consent, regardless of circumstances.
Sort of yes, sort of no.
I can't comment directly on your comments or claims because I don't understand them. The way you're using language and terms is VERY different from how I do so and my attempts to understand and clarify lead to a major digression into neglect and abuse & neglect-related websites with no neurological data taken in the studies to show 'biological damage'. I was concerned with the emphasis on 'biological damage', though, because right/ability of consent does become an issue with some biological damage to the brain, and historically claims of biological inability or damage have been used to strip people who we would say now should have consent of the right to legally consent.
I am trying to move my part of the discussion away from you in particular because I don't understand what you are saying or where it is coming from, and repeated attempts on my part and the attempts I'm reading on other people's parts seem to have only muddied the water further. I don't like discussing things with people when it becomes apparent that we are operating from very different assumptions but I can't figure out where the other person's assumptions come from. I'm decent at translation from my worldview to others, but I'm not psychic.
So yes, your comments put me on this line of thought, but no, I am not discussing your comments in particular; I am discussing the very specific ideas that I am describing and nothing beyond them. If you need my influences clarified further, let me know.
Faith: "If they are involved in public communities, perhaps. I suspect the majority of BDSM players have never seen the inside of a club or are even involved in any group. Those people are going to be particularly vulnerable."
Assuming for the moment that your suspicion is correct, I'd trace that one step further back and ask how they come to be so isolated (and hence vulnerable). And the answer I would reach is that it is because society as a whole has stigmatised BDSM and forced people to be circumspect about how they practise it.
But, to challenge your basic assumption, it is estimated that between a quarter and a third of all people in the UK have at some time experimented with bondage, SM and/or D/s roleplay. Now, it is true that most of those people have not come into contact with the "lifestyle" BDSM-ers and those who are "out" and a part of the "scene". However, to suggest a) that all those people are in abusive structures and b) that the majority of them have no kind of support network, seems laughable.
There is also the important question of how people who have a preference for this sort of thing find out about it in the first place. I would suggest that, particularly nowadays, the way you find out about it is either a) going to a sex shop or b) searching on the internet. After wading through the porn, you eventually get to a website that gives proper information, and it will always have links and search terms and suchlike that will enable people to find others with similar interests.
You seem to be positing some murky, hidden world, made up of unsafe, insane or non-consenting adults who keep themselves to themselves, have no interest in talking to others like themselves, have few friends, and so on. But wait a minute! Such a world does exist, because abusers generally keep their activities secret, generally isolate their partner from contact with friends and family, involve uncontrolled rage (i.e. insanity), no safety precautions during the violence, and of course, the partner does not consent to being the victim of such abuse.
What is the difference between these abusers and the hidden millions of happy adults who willingly report their kinky activities to the surveys? Only this - that those hidden millions discussed their fantasies before acting them out (that is, they sought each other's consent), they both survived healthy and well (so they probably did it safely) and, so far as we can tell, they weren't insane either. And I'd be willing to bet that lots of them went out and told their same-gender friends at the girls' or boys' night out, all about the fun they had doing it.
In short - safe, sane, consensual is the dividing line between right and wrong. Moreover, it's an ethic that people recognise instinctively in other, non-sexual, situations and a line that people usually know not to cross even without being told.
Ta,
SnowdropExplodes
Assuming for the moment that your suspicion is correct, I'd trace that one step further back and ask how they come to be so isolated (and hence vulnerable). And the answer I would reach is that it is because society as a whole has stigmatised BDSM and forced people to be circumspect about how they practise it.
But, to challenge your basic assumption, it is estimated that between a quarter and a third of all people in the UK have at some time experimented with bondage, SM and/or D/s roleplay. Now, it is true that most of those people have not come into contact with the "lifestyle" BDSM-ers and those who are "out" and a part of the "scene". However, to suggest a) that all those people are in abusive structures and b) that the majority of them have no kind of support network, seems laughable.
There is also the important question of how people who have a preference for this sort of thing find out about it in the first place. I would suggest that, particularly nowadays, the way you find out about it is either a) going to a sex shop or b) searching on the internet. After wading through the porn, you eventually get to a website that gives proper information, and it will always have links and search terms and suchlike that will enable people to find others with similar interests.
You seem to be positing some murky, hidden world, made up of unsafe, insane or non-consenting adults who keep themselves to themselves, have no interest in talking to others like themselves, have few friends, and so on. But wait a minute! Such a world does exist, because abusers generally keep their activities secret, generally isolate their partner from contact with friends and family, involve uncontrolled rage (i.e. insanity), no safety precautions during the violence, and of course, the partner does not consent to being the victim of such abuse.
What is the difference between these abusers and the hidden millions of happy adults who willingly report their kinky activities to the surveys? Only this - that those hidden millions discussed their fantasies before acting them out (that is, they sought each other's consent), they both survived healthy and well (so they probably did it safely) and, so far as we can tell, they weren't insane either. And I'd be willing to bet that lots of them went out and told their same-gender friends at the girls' or boys' night out, all about the fun they had doing it.
In short - safe, sane, consensual is the dividing line between right and wrong. Moreover, it's an ethic that people recognise instinctively in other, non-sexual, situations and a line that people usually know not to cross even without being told.
Ta,
SnowdropExplodes
# posted by : 12:18 PM
: 12:18 PM
I was concerned with the emphasis on 'biological damage', though, because right/ability of consent does become an issue with some biological damage to the brain, and historically claims of biological inability or damage have been used to strip people who we would say now should have consent of the right to legally consent.
yes. thank you. particularly in light of the fact that the commenters we've been talking about have been blatantly supporting exactly that. or well, maybe no one yet said "legally," but it may as well be, in the general context of the overall issue at hand.
yes. thank you. particularly in light of the fact that the commenters we've been talking about have been blatantly supporting exactly that. or well, maybe no one yet said "legally," but it may as well be, in the general context of the overall issue at hand.
Belledame222:
"You advocate sending people to prison for 3 years because they watch stuff you don't agree with? That's what the proposed law is about."
"Um, no. Actually if I have clearly stated that I have little objection to consensual BDSM activities"
but, Faith, he seems to be saying that support for the "ban on extreme pornography" does, in fact, result in people being sent to prison for looking at pictures. i'm not conversant enough with the actual law to say if that's the case, but that's how i'm reading what he's saying.
and if the porn is consensually made and distributed...what then?
i am also reading that this law would include pictures or videos taken in the privacy of one's own home?
The law that is currently being proposed in the UK is that "simple possession" of extreme pornography will be punishable by up to 3 years in prison. Pornography is simply defined as "material that is produced primarily or solely for the purposes of sexual arousal" and would definitely include material that was made in private between consenting partners and never shown to anyone else. The standard for pornography being considered "extreme" is that it appears to show actions "likely to cause serious lasting injury or death".
There are many activities in BDSM that, even when carried out in a risk-minimised fashion, could still appear to a jury to involve a risk of serious harm, including (but not limited to) knifeplay, breathplay, rope suspension and various types of roleplay.
The proposed law really is that invasive of people's privacy.
Ta,
SnowdropExplodes
"You advocate sending people to prison for 3 years because they watch stuff you don't agree with? That's what the proposed law is about."
"Um, no. Actually if I have clearly stated that I have little objection to consensual BDSM activities"
but, Faith, he seems to be saying that support for the "ban on extreme pornography" does, in fact, result in people being sent to prison for looking at pictures. i'm not conversant enough with the actual law to say if that's the case, but that's how i'm reading what he's saying.
and if the porn is consensually made and distributed...what then?
i am also reading that this law would include pictures or videos taken in the privacy of one's own home?
The law that is currently being proposed in the UK is that "simple possession" of extreme pornography will be punishable by up to 3 years in prison. Pornography is simply defined as "material that is produced primarily or solely for the purposes of sexual arousal" and would definitely include material that was made in private between consenting partners and never shown to anyone else. The standard for pornography being considered "extreme" is that it appears to show actions "likely to cause serious lasting injury or death".
There are many activities in BDSM that, even when carried out in a risk-minimised fashion, could still appear to a jury to involve a risk of serious harm, including (but not limited to) knifeplay, breathplay, rope suspension and various types of roleplay.
The proposed law really is that invasive of people's privacy.
Ta,
SnowdropExplodes
# posted by : 12:37 PM
: 12:37 PM Assuming for the moment that your suspicion is correct, I'd trace that one step further back and ask how they come to be so isolated (and hence vulnerable). And the answer I would reach is that it is because society as a whole has stigmatised BDSM and forced people to be circumspect about how they practise it.
yup.
and campaigns for the bannination of certain kinds of pr0n, as we've seen here, tend to bring the people who very much want to further stigmatise BDSM out of the woodwork (if they're not actually the same people); in short, i don't know how helpful this is.
i mean--is the idea that cracking down on the availability of such porn will result in a reduction of domestic abuse? If so, how exactly? If not--then what -is- the point?
as for putting people in -prison- for it, not even actually abusing people on the set or anything but making or even -looking at- (?!) these images...
anyone see "Quills?"
the irony is pretty, well, ironic.
anyone see "Quills?"
the irony is pretty, well, ironic.
is the idea that cracking down on the availability of such porn will result in a reduction of domestic abuse? If so, how exactly? If not--then what -is- the point?
In 2003, schoolteacher Jane Longhurst was strangled to death by a man (Graham Coutts) who was found to have visited several websites devoted to "death fetish" fantasies, including hanging and asphyxiation pornography. Liz Longhurst, the mother of the victim, launched a campaign along the lines of "something must be done about this filth that killed my daughter". Liz Longhurst proved to be a very capable campaigner and won the backing of serveral popular tabloids, so the Government decided they had to do something. This proposed law is the result. It should be noted that Graham Coutts was revealed to have a history of seeking asphyxiation play with women partners, long before he had access to the internet.
The consultation paper that the government drew up trying to get a democratic mandate for the proposals (in fact, 60% of respondents were opposed to the new law) was forced to admit that there is no evidence that extreme pornography is linked to any form of sex crime or abuse.
The consultation paper stated openly, "the underlying premise of this document is that this material should have no place in our society" - what it boils down to, is they don't like us having it, and want to stop us.
Ta,
SnowdropExplodes
In 2003, schoolteacher Jane Longhurst was strangled to death by a man (Graham Coutts) who was found to have visited several websites devoted to "death fetish" fantasies, including hanging and asphyxiation pornography. Liz Longhurst, the mother of the victim, launched a campaign along the lines of "something must be done about this filth that killed my daughter". Liz Longhurst proved to be a very capable campaigner and won the backing of serveral popular tabloids, so the Government decided they had to do something. This proposed law is the result. It should be noted that Graham Coutts was revealed to have a history of seeking asphyxiation play with women partners, long before he had access to the internet.
The consultation paper that the government drew up trying to get a democratic mandate for the proposals (in fact, 60% of respondents were opposed to the new law) was forced to admit that there is no evidence that extreme pornography is linked to any form of sex crime or abuse.
The consultation paper stated openly, "the underlying premise of this document is that this material should have no place in our society" - what it boils down to, is they don't like us having it, and want to stop us.
Ta,
SnowdropExplodes
# posted by : 1:09 PM
: 1:09 PM
The issue of whether abuse can lead to BDSM is an interesting one - but rememember that the first thing Emma said was not this. Instead she seemed to be saying that BDSM _is_ abuse, which is a very different thing (e.g. "No we are not, we are attacking ABUSE.").
The idea being pushed is that two adults in a consensual BDSM relationship are no different to one person abusing a partner without consent.
What she then does is conflate this with the stereotype of abuse leading to BDSM, in an attempt to give support to her claim. But even if an interest in BDSM always followed from abuse earlier in life, it would have nothing to do with her claim that BDSM _is_ abuse.
mark
The idea being pushed is that two adults in a consensual BDSM relationship are no different to one person abusing a partner without consent.
What she then does is conflate this with the stereotype of abuse leading to BDSM, in an attempt to give support to her claim. But even if an interest in BDSM always followed from abuse earlier in life, it would have nothing to do with her claim that BDSM _is_ abuse.
mark
# posted by : 2:00 PM
: 2:00 PM
Faith:
I'm actually anti-porn. I'm not going to go into why I'm anti-porn because I'm tired of having that particular argument. I know where I stand and I support the legislation to ban extreme pornography regardless of what people do in their own homes.
But if the "extreme pornograpy" *IS* what people do in their own homes?
If you don't like it, don't look at it. But don't tell me that I can't just because of that.
"Yes, it would be foolish to say that "everyone in the BDSM community has pefectly kosher intentions","
You yourself made that statement. Repeatedly, I believe. Something along the lines of "nobody in the BDSM community believes in abuse" and "all BDSM players believe in safe, sane, and consensual".
Neither of those statements are true.
Bugger! (Said with a wry grin). Yes, ok, fair cop, you're entirely right on that one. I did make those statements but it was simply because I didn't want to get the argument side tracked. (Still, it's nice to know someone was actually paying attention :-) )
So, please substitute "almost none" and "the vast majority" where appropriate and pardon my foolish exaggeration.
Any -responsible- BDSM player believes those things.
Believe that BDSM isn't about abuse and that the vast majority believe in Safe, Sane and Consensual? Yep, I agree.
I'm actually anti-porn. I'm not going to go into why I'm anti-porn because I'm tired of having that particular argument. I know where I stand and I support the legislation to ban extreme pornography regardless of what people do in their own homes.
But if the "extreme pornograpy" *IS* what people do in their own homes?
If you don't like it, don't look at it. But don't tell me that I can't just because of that.
"Yes, it would be foolish to say that "everyone in the BDSM community has pefectly kosher intentions","
You yourself made that statement. Repeatedly, I believe. Something along the lines of "nobody in the BDSM community believes in abuse" and "all BDSM players believe in safe, sane, and consensual".
Neither of those statements are true.
Bugger! (Said with a wry grin). Yes, ok, fair cop, you're entirely right on that one. I did make those statements but it was simply because I didn't want to get the argument side tracked. (Still, it's nice to know someone was actually paying attention :-) )
So, please substitute "almost none" and "the vast majority" where appropriate and pardon my foolish exaggeration.
Any -responsible- BDSM player believes those things.
Believe that BDSM isn't about abuse and that the vast majority believe in Safe, Sane and Consensual? Yep, I agree.
Faith:
"You advocate sending people to prison for 3 years because they watch stuff you don't agree with? That's what the proposed law is about."
Um, no. Actually if I have clearly stated that I have little objection to consensual BDSM activities.
Please, Faith, visit the Backlash website at http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/ where you can get chapter and verse on the proposals.
The point is that they *do* advocate three years in jail for simply possessing "extreme pornography" and this determination is based on an entirely *subjective* decision as to whether the imagery "appears to risk serious injury or death".
It has nothing to do with whether the images actually *show* abuse or not, it is simply how it appears to the viewer, even if it is entirely consensual and safe activity.
if you want to get upset with someone, please, get upset with all the assholes who can't figure out that women are people.
I am sure that the vast majority(!) of BDSM players are well aware of this.
Unfortunately we're being faced by a law proposed by assholes who can't figure out that women and men engage in BDSM (including stuff that could be considered "extreme") entirely voluntarily and of their own free will!
"You advocate sending people to prison for 3 years because they watch stuff you don't agree with? That's what the proposed law is about."
Um, no. Actually if I have clearly stated that I have little objection to consensual BDSM activities.
Please, Faith, visit the Backlash website at http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/ where you can get chapter and verse on the proposals.
The point is that they *do* advocate three years in jail for simply possessing "extreme pornography" and this determination is based on an entirely *subjective* decision as to whether the imagery "appears to risk serious injury or death".
It has nothing to do with whether the images actually *show* abuse or not, it is simply how it appears to the viewer, even if it is entirely consensual and safe activity.
if you want to get upset with someone, please, get upset with all the assholes who can't figure out that women are people.
I am sure that the vast majority(!) of BDSM players are well aware of this.
Unfortunately we're being faced by a law proposed by assholes who can't figure out that women and men engage in BDSM (including stuff that could be considered "extreme") entirely voluntarily and of their own free will!
Amber:
I suspect the majority of BDSM players have never seen the inside of a club or are even involved in any group.
Why do you assume that?
Actually it's a pretty good assumption. I've been running a business making bondage gear for around 15 years now and have over 5000 customers on my lists, plus however many have bought goods at Fetish Markets and the Erotica Show etc.
However I would lay good odds that most of them haven't engaged in any activities outside their bedrooms.
(Funny aside: I know for a fact that I've got a couple of customers who live literally next door to each other. I doubt that either of them know what their neighbours get up to!)
Those people are going to be particularly vulnerable.
Why are they going to be particularly vulnerable?
I wouldn't say that them not going to Fetish events makes them vulnerable as such, however you pick up a lot of information at such events that you wouldn't normally be privy to unless you went looking for it.
When I started in BDSM I and my girlfriend knew nothing about Safewords, Warm Ups (ie gentle flogging before you get onto the stronger stuff) or any other such things, we had to work it out for ourselves.
Meeting people in the Scene helps you avoid making the big mistakes that you might otherwise trip over.
I suspect the majority of BDSM players have never seen the inside of a club or are even involved in any group.
Why do you assume that?
Actually it's a pretty good assumption. I've been running a business making bondage gear for around 15 years now and have over 5000 customers on my lists, plus however many have bought goods at Fetish Markets and the Erotica Show etc.
However I would lay good odds that most of them haven't engaged in any activities outside their bedrooms.
(Funny aside: I know for a fact that I've got a couple of customers who live literally next door to each other. I doubt that either of them know what their neighbours get up to!)
Those people are going to be particularly vulnerable.
Why are they going to be particularly vulnerable?
I wouldn't say that them not going to Fetish events makes them vulnerable as such, however you pick up a lot of information at such events that you wouldn't normally be privy to unless you went looking for it.
When I started in BDSM I and my girlfriend knew nothing about Safewords, Warm Ups (ie gentle flogging before you get onto the stronger stuff) or any other such things, we had to work it out for ourselves.
Meeting people in the Scene helps you avoid making the big mistakes that you might otherwise trip over.
I wouldn't say that them not going to Fetish events makes them vulnerable as such, however you pick up a lot of information at such events that you wouldn't normally be privy to unless you went looking for it.
True. But, nowadays, much of that same info can be found on the internet. So, if one has access to a computer, they can find information they might not othewise have found, esp. if they're not able (for whatever reason) to go to a club or meet lots of other people in the scene IRL.
True. But, nowadays, much of that same info can be found on the internet. So, if one has access to a computer, they can find information they might not othewise have found, esp. if they're not able (for whatever reason) to go to a club or meet lots of other people in the scene IRL.
I actually, on one of the BDSM discussion groups I frequent, asked a question about the whole frequency of activity in "the scene" a while back. The fact is, most of the discussion that I saw started out with something like "oh, this happened at a play party" or "so I was at a munch" or "some dumbinant responded to my page on this kinky dating site without reading my profile".
And I'm someone who treats my kink as a matter of extreme intimacy, who has never had any luck meeting partners in subculture-specific gatherings, who isn't terribly interested in stuff in which hands-on instruction would be useful, and was, more or less, wondering if I was some sort of weirdo.
It turned out mostly that those people who are involved in the community are more likely to have such stories to bring to online discussion groups, or at least more likely to share the ones they have. And that a number of folks who replied to my question have gone in and out of being active in "the scene" depending on their current tolerance for the displays of huge, throbbing egos and current desire for in-person support and new ideas/experiences.
One told me straight out that if I wasn't interested in the dynamics of the public BDSM world I was best off doing necessary research online and getting my support network from my friends. Which is what I was doing already, so I've stuck with it.
And I'm someone who treats my kink as a matter of extreme intimacy, who has never had any luck meeting partners in subculture-specific gatherings, who isn't terribly interested in stuff in which hands-on instruction would be useful, and was, more or less, wondering if I was some sort of weirdo.
It turned out mostly that those people who are involved in the community are more likely to have such stories to bring to online discussion groups, or at least more likely to share the ones they have. And that a number of folks who replied to my question have gone in and out of being active in "the scene" depending on their current tolerance for the displays of huge, throbbing egos and current desire for in-person support and new ideas/experiences.
One told me straight out that if I wasn't interested in the dynamics of the public BDSM world I was best off doing necessary research online and getting my support network from my friends. Which is what I was doing already, so I've stuck with it.
amber:
beldame222 has it right, yes, the info is on the web, but it's not always that easy to find (especially given the proliferation of porn sites that are just aimed at hijacking as much traffic as possible and will try to skew your search results towards them).
And now consider a law that makes it illegal simply to possess "extreme pornography" which is defined in a very vague and subjective way.
Ok, the proposers say that it won't affect people who stumble across it accidentally, but you're going to have to *prove* that you didn't go looking for it (presumed innocent? Not any more...) and when the Thought Police discover you've been searching for BDSM sites, that's going to be very difficult.
So the planned laws are liable to make life *more* difficult for the innocent BDSMer, whilst the occasional nutcase out there isn't likely to give a damn.
beldame222 has it right, yes, the info is on the web, but it's not always that easy to find (especially given the proliferation of porn sites that are just aimed at hijacking as much traffic as possible and will try to skew your search results towards them).
And now consider a law that makes it illegal simply to possess "extreme pornography" which is defined in a very vague and subjective way.
Ok, the proposers say that it won't affect people who stumble across it accidentally, but you're going to have to *prove* that you didn't go looking for it (presumed innocent? Not any more...) and when the Thought Police discover you've been searching for BDSM sites, that's going to be very difficult.
So the planned laws are liable to make life *more* difficult for the innocent BDSMer, whilst the occasional nutcase out there isn't likely to give a damn.
It seems to me that the proposed law centers around the idea that the mere process of filming such things contitutes a crime because such things should be illegal, therefore possessing such things is kind of like being an accessory to the crime? And that this is also the viewpoint of those who support the law?
The problem with that is that thwe whole edifice is built on the idea that acts between consenting adults should be criminalised if "we" (society, whatever) don't approve of them.
Now, it seems to me that that's a very bad precedent to set, legally speaking, considering all the other things that society make take it into it's collective head to not approve of, and therefore not something that progressives as a whole should be very enthusiastic about.
I feel like a broken record on this, but again...the fact that something tweaks one's personal "icky" response doesn't mean that it should be illegal. After all, people once thought that gay sex was "icky" too. "Icky" isn't a very valid way of determining what should and should not b acceptable, given how subjective it is.
The problem with that is that thwe whole edifice is built on the idea that acts between consenting adults should be criminalised if "we" (society, whatever) don't approve of them.
Now, it seems to me that that's a very bad precedent to set, legally speaking, considering all the other things that society make take it into it's collective head to not approve of, and therefore not something that progressives as a whole should be very enthusiastic about.
I feel like a broken record on this, but again...the fact that something tweaks one's personal "icky" response doesn't mean that it should be illegal. After all, people once thought that gay sex was "icky" too. "Icky" isn't a very valid way of determining what should and should not b acceptable, given how subjective it is.
About Charlie's thread, since I'm not sure if my comment/question will get posted over there.
Someone on that thread asserted that Pat Califia had an article published in The Advocate in which he was all "yay paedophilia" and claimed that paedophiles should be embraced by the gay community as they were somehow "helping" the kids they seduced. The person didn't provide links etc. So...is this true? Did anyone else see the article in question? Because if it is true...what the hell were the publishers thinking? Or, alternatively, is this just a case of the anti's misinterpreting something?
Sorry for the slight thread drift, AP.
Someone on that thread asserted that Pat Califia had an article published in The Advocate in which he was all "yay paedophilia" and claimed that paedophiles should be embraced by the gay community as they were somehow "helping" the kids they seduced. The person didn't provide links etc. So...is this true? Did anyone else see the article in question? Because if it is true...what the hell were the publishers thinking? Or, alternatively, is this just a case of the anti's misinterpreting something?
Sorry for the slight thread drift, AP.
"It seems to me that the proposed law centers around the idea that the mere process of filming such things contitutes a crime because such things should be illegal, therefore possessing such things is kind of like being an accessory to the crime? And that this is also the viewpoint of those who support the law?"
Note that simulated images would also be covered (indeed, the cited "extreme" websites such as Necrobabes are entirely simulated). So I think either supporters believe that even playing dead should be illegal, or they have another reason for supporting. The usual other reason given is that looking at an image harms people - i.e., turning them into rapists or murderers.
The law would indeed set precedents - that adult porn can be criminalised, and that images of simulated acts can be criminalised. Several groups supporting the law (e.g., Mediawatch) are also pushing for it to extend to a wide range of porn (and many feminist blogs, including charliegrrl's, publicised a petition calling for this, and indeed the petition wanted a law which would make it a criminal offence to film yourselves having sex in private).
"the fact that something tweaks one's personal "icky" response doesn't mean that it should be illegal."
I agree. It's scary that this isn't just the viewpoint of a few extremist supporters - even the Government's consultation stated five times that the images were "abhorrent", and clearly stated that the underlying premise of the law was that these images "should have no place in our society".
Note that simulated images would also be covered (indeed, the cited "extreme" websites such as Necrobabes are entirely simulated). So I think either supporters believe that even playing dead should be illegal, or they have another reason for supporting. The usual other reason given is that looking at an image harms people - i.e., turning them into rapists or murderers.
The law would indeed set precedents - that adult porn can be criminalised, and that images of simulated acts can be criminalised. Several groups supporting the law (e.g., Mediawatch) are also pushing for it to extend to a wide range of porn (and many feminist blogs, including charliegrrl's, publicised a petition calling for this, and indeed the petition wanted a law which would make it a criminal offence to film yourselves having sex in private).
"the fact that something tweaks one's personal "icky" response doesn't mean that it should be illegal."
I agree. It's scary that this isn't just the viewpoint of a few extremist supporters - even the Government's consultation stated five times that the images were "abhorrent", and clearly stated that the underlying premise of the law was that these images "should have no place in our society".
# posted by : 5:27 PM
: 5:27 PM
Cassandra:
It seems to me that the proposed law centers around the idea that the mere process of filming such things contitutes a crime because such things should be illegal, therefore possessing such things is kind of like being an accessory to the crime? And that this is also the viewpoint of those who support the law?
Yep, that's pretty much the case, especially on the part of those who created the initial consultation document, hence their repeated attempts to link "extreme pornography" with child pornography.
The consultation document can be seen here: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/cons-extreme-porn-3008051/Gvt-response-extreme-porn2.pdf?view=Binary try playing "spot the loaded question"!
Someone on that thread asserted that Pat Califia had an article published in The Advocate in which he was all "yay paedophilia"
Having looked around, it seems that what s/he was actually saying was that whilst s/he didn't agree with NAMBLA's agenda, they had the right to express their views, see about three quarters of the way down http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/10/27/WB78665.DTL
ie basically paraphrasing Voltaire's "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
The problem is that there are some people in this world who think "Freedom of Speech" only means "Freedom to say things that I agree with".
To quote Chomsky: "If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all."
It seems to me that the proposed law centers around the idea that the mere process of filming such things contitutes a crime because such things should be illegal, therefore possessing such things is kind of like being an accessory to the crime? And that this is also the viewpoint of those who support the law?
Yep, that's pretty much the case, especially on the part of those who created the initial consultation document, hence their repeated attempts to link "extreme pornography" with child pornography.
The consultation document can be seen here: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/cons-extreme-porn-3008051/Gvt-response-extreme-porn2.pdf?view=Binary try playing "spot the loaded question"!
Someone on that thread asserted that Pat Califia had an article published in The Advocate in which he was all "yay paedophilia"
Having looked around, it seems that what s/he was actually saying was that whilst s/he didn't agree with NAMBLA's agenda, they had the right to express their views, see about three quarters of the way down http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/10/27/WB78665.DTL
ie basically paraphrasing Voltaire's "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
The problem is that there are some people in this world who think "Freedom of Speech" only means "Freedom to say things that I agree with".
To quote Chomsky: "If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all."
Here's the thing (and the point at which some people may get mad at me).
I have no problem with people finding certain images "abhorrent". In fact, I'm sure that if I went looking I could find images that would be covered by the law which I, personally find abhorrent, too.
But that doesn't mean that such images should be illegal. It means that they shouldn't be in the public domain in the sense of on TV before the watershed, or on your average newsagent's rack. Those images should not be in places where people are likely to stumble across them by accident if those people are not looking for such images. IMO it probably means that such images should be hidden behind cuts etc and should probably be impossible to access without clicking a disclaimer and providing proof that one is legally of age to be looking at such things.
Images that, honestly, most of the general public probably does find horrifying (necrophilia seems like a good example) should be tucked away in placed where no one is going to see them unless they are actively looking for them, but that doesn't mean they should be banned altogether. There is a middle ground between anything goes and book burning. I'm guessing that most people, if they thought about it, could imagine plenty of ways that could be achieved, so that the images remained accessible to those who want them without exposing people who don't want to see those images to stuff that's liable to freak them out.
I think that the reason we're not having THAT conversation is that, as I said before, you have a group of people who think that the production of those images involves documenting actual abuse. That's the crux of the whole matter. People think the things depicted shouldn't be happening, period. Everything else is smoke and mirrors.
I have no problem with people finding certain images "abhorrent". In fact, I'm sure that if I went looking I could find images that would be covered by the law which I, personally find abhorrent, too.
But that doesn't mean that such images should be illegal. It means that they shouldn't be in the public domain in the sense of on TV before the watershed, or on your average newsagent's rack. Those images should not be in places where people are likely to stumble across them by accident if those people are not looking for such images. IMO it probably means that such images should be hidden behind cuts etc and should probably be impossible to access without clicking a disclaimer and providing proof that one is legally of age to be looking at such things.
Images that, honestly, most of the general public probably does find horrifying (necrophilia seems like a good example) should be tucked away in placed where no one is going to see them unless they are actively looking for them, but that doesn't mean they should be banned altogether. There is a middle ground between anything goes and book burning. I'm guessing that most people, if they thought about it, could imagine plenty of ways that could be achieved, so that the images remained accessible to those who want them without exposing people who don't want to see those images to stuff that's liable to freak them out.
I think that the reason we're not having THAT conversation is that, as I said before, you have a group of people who think that the production of those images involves documenting actual abuse. That's the crux of the whole matter. People think the things depicted shouldn't be happening, period. Everything else is smoke and mirrors.
Also the original Government consultation (as opposed to the consultation response, linked above) is at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/30_08_05_porn_doc.pdf . The proposals have been superseded by the consultation response, but it still might be of interest for people to see the original document.
# posted by : 8:27 PM
: 8:27 PM
Cassandra,
Your recent comments have all been spot-on.
Current British censorship law requires that for an article to be deemed "illegal to publish", a jury must first determine that it is "likely to deprave and corrupt those likely to see it". Juries have on those grounds failed to convict in cases of images and footage of urolagnia, scatological play and similar "icky" activities, because the material was protected by a paysite entrance (you had to pay to get to see them). In the end, the person on trial was convicted only because of the much milder images that were available on the "free samples" section of his website.
In general, convictions under the Obscene Publications Act are known to be very hard to get, because the trump card for the defence is to ask the jury, "you've seen it - do you feel depraved or corrupted by it?" Only where it can be shown that vulnerable people (e.g. children) were given easy access to the material is conviction likely.
In terms of the British Board of Film Classification (for which read, "censorship"), the Williams Report of 1979 (which was ignored because it came up with the "wrong" answer for the government) recommended exactly what you decribe, and doing away with censorship altogether.
Ta,
SnowdropExplodes
Your recent comments have all been spot-on.
Current British censorship law requires that for an article to be deemed "illegal to publish", a jury must first determine that it is "likely to deprave and corrupt those likely to see it". Juries have on those grounds failed to convict in cases of images and footage of urolagnia, scatological play and similar "icky" activities, because the material was protected by a paysite entrance (you had to pay to get to see them). In the end, the person on trial was convicted only because of the much milder images that were available on the "free samples" section of his website.
In general, convictions under the Obscene Publications Act are known to be very hard to get, because the trump card for the defence is to ask the jury, "you've seen it - do you feel depraved or corrupted by it?" Only where it can be shown that vulnerable people (e.g. children) were given easy access to the material is conviction likely.
In terms of the British Board of Film Classification (for which read, "censorship"), the Williams Report of 1979 (which was ignored because it came up with the "wrong" answer for the government) recommended exactly what you decribe, and doing away with censorship altogether.
Ta,
SnowdropExplodes
# posted by : 5:42 AM
: 5:42 AM
Cassandra:
Excellent post and you've hit the nail squarely on the head.
These proposed laws are based solely on someone's perceptions and their views that they don't like the idea of what is being portrayed, even if it is entirely ficticious, so they're looking for any excuse to stop it from appearing.
They believe that anyone seeing this stuff is going to be driven to copy it, so they want to introduce a "Thought Crime" making it illegal to even look at it, based on the idea that "if you don't see it, you won't do it", despite the fact that violent and sexual crimes were happening long before the advent of the internet.
Of course what they're really saying is that we're all a bunch of weak minded simpletons who have no impulse control!
Excellent post and you've hit the nail squarely on the head.
These proposed laws are based solely on someone's perceptions and their views that they don't like the idea of what is being portrayed, even if it is entirely ficticious, so they're looking for any excuse to stop it from appearing.
They believe that anyone seeing this stuff is going to be driven to copy it, so they want to introduce a "Thought Crime" making it illegal to even look at it, based on the idea that "if you don't see it, you won't do it", despite the fact that violent and sexual crimes were happening long before the advent of the internet.
Of course what they're really saying is that we're all a bunch of weak minded simpletons who have no impulse control!
"Having looked around, it seems that what s/he was actually saying was that whilst s/he didn't agree with NAMBLA's agenda, they had the right to express their views, see about three quarters of the way down"
I think it's extremely important when you consider his older articles about these things consider the environment that they come out of (and to read his newer essay updating his position on this precise issue). At the time he was writing, sadomasochism was not just something some feminists frowned upon. He was a sexual outlaw in the truest sense of the word. So were the people who were fighting for their rights alongside him. Heat and his friends banded together with other sexual outlaws. At the time, both he and others felt that queer boy lovers and girl lovers were outlaws like them. He believed that these people were often caring adults who would find gay youths who had been kicked out of their parents' homes, take them in, and introduce them to the gay world. He thought this was better for these youths than a life on the streets. he believed that, given the widespread problems gay youths had, age of consent laws that prevented them from finding adults who could help them find a place in the gay community were bad.
Times have change since then. nowadays, people understand that people who want very young children as partners are generally not kind mentor gay folk interested in helping youth to come out, or something like that. It's understood that these people are predators who harm and exploit kids. It's understood that even people who might have the kind of motivations he assumed ( If anyone does, which I don't think is the case) can still harm children because of the vast power differential between a kid and an adult. I think realizing that, as well as becoming a father himself, is what prompted him to change his mind, and write his new article. As I understand his view now, he still some concern about age of consent laws. Some of this concern may be misplaced and still upsetting. But I do not believe that he is pro pedophile.
I don't want to excuse the opinion that he and other sex radicals like Gayle Rubin held back then. I think they should have realized that these people are not just another sexual minority in the way that sadomasochists are. But I do think that reading the references to boy lovers and girl lovers in their early work requires some familiarity with the context.
I think it's extremely important when you consider his older articles about these things consider the environment that they come out of (and to read his newer essay updating his position on this precise issue). At the time he was writing, sadomasochism was not just something some feminists frowned upon. He was a sexual outlaw in the truest sense of the word. So were the people who were fighting for their rights alongside him. Heat and his friends banded together with other sexual outlaws. At the time, both he and others felt that queer boy lovers and girl lovers were outlaws like them. He believed that these people were often caring adults who would find gay youths who had been kicked out of their parents' homes, take them in, and introduce them to the gay world. He thought this was better for these youths than a life on the streets. he believed that, given the widespread problems gay youths had, age of consent laws that prevented them from finding adults who could help them find a place in the gay community were bad.
Times have change since then. nowadays, people understand that people who want very young children as partners are generally not kind mentor gay folk interested in helping youth to come out, or something like that. It's understood that these people are predators who harm and exploit kids. It's understood that even people who might have the kind of motivations he assumed ( If anyone does, which I don't think is the case) can still harm children because of the vast power differential between a kid and an adult. I think realizing that, as well as becoming a father himself, is what prompted him to change his mind, and write his new article. As I understand his view now, he still some concern about age of consent laws. Some of this concern may be misplaced and still upsetting. But I do not believe that he is pro pedophile.
I don't want to excuse the opinion that he and other sex radicals like Gayle Rubin held back then. I think they should have realized that these people are not just another sexual minority in the way that sadomasochists are. But I do think that reading the references to boy lovers and girl lovers in their early work requires some familiarity with the context.
Califia's also retracted his earlier writings on the subject (pedophilia, or whatever term they were using) in the released edition of uhhhh whichever anthology it was in, my brain's totally fried
Trinity/ Belldame222
Thanks for those comments. I'll admit I've only skimmed through a few articles on the subject of Califa's writings, so I'm not really familiar with the context.
In any case, I think this is getting away from the subject of this discussion, so I won't comment further on it.
Thanks for those comments. I'll admit I've only skimmed through a few articles on the subject of Califa's writings, so I'm not really familiar with the context.
In any case, I think this is getting away from the subject of this discussion, so I won't comment further on it.
"Califia's also retracted his earlier writings on the subject (pedophilia, or whatever term they were using) in the released edition of uhhhh whichever anthology it was in, my brain's totally fried"
it's in Public Sex
it's in Public Sex
I'm way late to this party, and, since I'm at work right now, I can't bring myself to read 140 comments, but I did say something relevant recently (on porn and gun control):
"I think some people get off on a bit of pain, giving or receiving, or just the idea of pain, because sexual arousal, fear, pain, anxiety, and anger are all very similar physiological responses."
It's not because you're a pervert, or that the world is training us to enjoy Bad Things, but basic physiology.
I think we must live an examined life, but trying to stop things that cause us pleasure, and cause nobody any pain, is just to take too much joy out of life. It is short and all. If it feels good to you, just do it.
"I think some people get off on a bit of pain, giving or receiving, or just the idea of pain, because sexual arousal, fear, pain, anxiety, and anger are all very similar physiological responses."
It's not because you're a pervert, or that the world is training us to enjoy Bad Things, but basic physiology.
I think we must live an examined life, but trying to stop things that cause us pleasure, and cause nobody any pain, is just to take too much joy out of life. It is short and all. If it feels good to you, just do it.
It's worth noting that with S&M at least, there are arguably physiological reasons to explain why it is pleasurable - for example, release of endorphins. This doesn't require the person to have been perverted in anyway. It's possible that everyone is capable of experiencing some pleasure from mild S&M at least, though some people are bound to be more tuned to it than others. I even recall in a news item recently, some researchers I think recommended caning (or something like that, having trouble finding the link).
Part of the problem I think is the stereotype that S&M is only about sexual attraction to pain, which people would argue is a deviance, but pleasure that SMers experience is not necessarily sexual (even if it's in an erotic context). Think of kissing - it's erotic, but the tongue isn't a sexual organ. It's pleasureable because of the sensations, it doesn't mean you need a "tongue fetish" to enjoy it.
Dominance and submission is more complex, but it's difficult to say it results from abuse. After all, there's dominant and submissive roles in all sorts of relationships (including the traditional roles that presumably feminists have been against); the difference within BDSM is that people are in those roles because they choose those roles, and do not conform to a role based on their gender or what society expects on them.
Part of the problem I think is the stereotype that S&M is only about sexual attraction to pain, which people would argue is a deviance, but pleasure that SMers experience is not necessarily sexual (even if it's in an erotic context). Think of kissing - it's erotic, but the tongue isn't a sexual organ. It's pleasureable because of the sensations, it doesn't mean you need a "tongue fetish" to enjoy it.
Dominance and submission is more complex, but it's difficult to say it results from abuse. After all, there's dominant and submissive roles in all sorts of relationships (including the traditional roles that presumably feminists have been against); the difference within BDSM is that people are in those roles because they choose those roles, and do not conform to a role based on their gender or what society expects on them.
# posted by : 11:16 AM
: 11:16 AM
Mark:
It's worth noting that with S&M at least, there are arguably physiological reasons to explain why it is pleasurable - for example, release of endorphins. This doesn't require the person to have been perverted in anyway.
Apropos of this, not long ago I was chatting to my gym instructor after a class and when she asked what I did for a living and I told her that I made bondage gear, she said that she couldn't understand why people did it.
So I tried to explain about the different forms of BDSM but what really hit the mark was when I pointed out about seeing eg long distance runners who are clearly on an "endorphin high".
"Oh, I know what you mean!" she said "Sometimes when I'm really pushing hard in a class I hurt, but it hurts good!"
"Yes," I replied, "You've got it. It's not about pain, it's about the way the body reacts to the sensations".
That is a factor that I think too many people who only know the cliche about "masochism = pain" don't understand.
It's worth noting that with S&M at least, there are arguably physiological reasons to explain why it is pleasurable - for example, release of endorphins. This doesn't require the person to have been perverted in anyway.
Apropos of this, not long ago I was chatting to my gym instructor after a class and when she asked what I did for a living and I told her that I made bondage gear, she said that she couldn't understand why people did it.
So I tried to explain about the different forms of BDSM but what really hit the mark was when I pointed out about seeing eg long distance runners who are clearly on an "endorphin high".
"Oh, I know what you mean!" she said "Sometimes when I'm really pushing hard in a class I hurt, but it hurts good!"
"Yes," I replied, "You've got it. It's not about pain, it's about the way the body reacts to the sensations".
That is a factor that I think too many people who only know the cliche about "masochism = pain" don't understand.
"I think some people get off on a bit of pain, giving or receiving, or just the idea of pain, because sexual arousal, fear, pain, anxiety, and anger are all very similar physiological responses.
It's not because you're a pervert, or that the world is training us to enjoy Bad Things, but basic physiology."
uh-huh.
It's not because you're a pervert, or that the world is training us to enjoy Bad Things, but basic physiology."
uh-huh.
Once again we run into the notion that because a womyn is kinky it's somehow DUE to her having suffered a form of abuse.
Which ignores the contextual reality of all womyn- that ANY given sample, any subculture of womyn will have a substantial percentage who have endured rape, domestic violence, psychological threat and abuse, etc.
Correlation, (kinky womyn have suffered violence previously) is by no means some kind of 'proof' of causation.
Such sloppy pseudo-statistical bullshit tactics merely maintain the power systems and context that all womyn sit within, (which, one might think, would be the very kind of thing self identified "feminists" would seek to understand rather than hide through refocusing in on the purely personal while ignoring the systems in which the individual womyn inhabits).
When the 'personal becomes political' comes to substitute for (and ease the hiding of) systems of power those individual womyn inhabit, it becomes valuable to question what that line of thought does tactically, and question the ways in which such can be used to support the power systems one claims to be in a process of rejecting.
Much of the energy, work, and successes of feminism were sidetracked, whether intentionally or otherwise in the 80's down these rabbit holes. That resulted in criticism and inducing guilt within individual womyn via blaming them for 'supporting the patriarchy with every incorrect orgasm'.
It has turned many womyn away from the often important work they were doing into unending spirals of self doubt, introspection, and ended up supporting the further therapization and devaluing of womyn's own authentic voices, (orgasms!) and experiences.
For yet another generation of womyn to be derailed into these blind alleys by setting any 'activist' impulse towards 'unresolvable issues' deeply entangled with personal histories is essentially, the rough equivalent of keeping a computer busy calculating Pi. The 'added bonus' being it keeps 'feminists' busy- and at one another's throats.
Antiprincess says-
"Seriously, I gave it serious thought. as usual. All night. Why am I like this? why am I so sick and defective and bad? Where did I go wrong?
and I came up with the usual answers: I don't know. I don't know. I don't know."
All I have to say is, you have not 'gone wrong', you are not ‘sick’, and you are not 'defective and bad'. If anything, your ‘weakness’ is precisely the self doubt so evident in the above.
While those internalized voices may now come in a female tone of voice (in addition to the USUAL male voices of our culture), that does not make them any more valid.
The only correct feminist orgasm I've ever found is an organism had by one who identifies as feminist and approaching the world from a feminist centric vision/critique.
Which ignores the contextual reality of all womyn- that ANY given sample, any subculture of womyn will have a substantial percentage who have endured rape, domestic violence, psychological threat and abuse, etc.
Correlation, (kinky womyn have suffered violence previously) is by no means some kind of 'proof' of causation.
Such sloppy pseudo-statistical bullshit tactics merely maintain the power systems and context that all womyn sit within, (which, one might think, would be the very kind of thing self identified "feminists" would seek to understand rather than hide through refocusing in on the purely personal while ignoring the systems in which the individual womyn inhabits).
When the 'personal becomes political' comes to substitute for (and ease the hiding of) systems of power those individual womyn inhabit, it becomes valuable to question what that line of thought does tactically, and question the ways in which such can be used to support the power systems one claims to be in a process of rejecting.
Much of the energy, work, and successes of feminism were sidetracked, whether intentionally or otherwise in the 80's down these rabbit holes. That resulted in criticism and inducing guilt within individual womyn via blaming them for 'supporting the patriarchy with every incorrect orgasm'.
It has turned many womyn away from the often important work they were doing into unending spirals of self doubt, introspection, and ended up supporting the further therapization and devaluing of womyn's own authentic voices, (orgasms!) and experiences.
For yet another generation of womyn to be derailed into these blind alleys by setting any 'activist' impulse towards 'unresolvable issues' deeply entangled with personal histories is essentially, the rough equivalent of keeping a computer busy calculating Pi. The 'added bonus' being it keeps 'feminists' busy- and at one another's throats.
Antiprincess says-
"Seriously, I gave it serious thought. as usual. All night. Why am I like this? why am I so sick and defective and bad? Where did I go wrong?
and I came up with the usual answers: I don't know. I don't know. I don't know."
All I have to say is, you have not 'gone wrong', you are not ‘sick’, and you are not 'defective and bad'. If anything, your ‘weakness’ is precisely the self doubt so evident in the above.
While those internalized voices may now come in a female tone of voice (in addition to the USUAL male voices of our culture), that does not make them any more valid.
The only correct feminist orgasm I've ever found is an organism had by one who identifies as feminist and approaching the world from a feminist centric vision/critique.
# posted by : 3:15 AM
: 3:15 AM
Hi s.! Welcome!
thanks for your comment, especially this bit:
For yet another generation of womyn to be derailed into these blind alleys by setting any 'activist' impulse towards 'unresolvable issues' deeply entangled with personal histories is essentially, the rough equivalent of keeping a computer busy calculating Pi. The 'added bonus' being it keeps 'feminists' busy- and at one another's throats.
you sound a little familiar, s. I only know one individual who can use the word "womyn" without making me giggle a little. (or, if you're not her, now I know two.)
thanks for your comment, especially this bit:
For yet another generation of womyn to be derailed into these blind alleys by setting any 'activist' impulse towards 'unresolvable issues' deeply entangled with personal histories is essentially, the rough equivalent of keeping a computer busy calculating Pi. The 'added bonus' being it keeps 'feminists' busy- and at one another's throats.
you sound a little familiar, s. I only know one individual who can use the word "womyn" without making me giggle a little. (or, if you're not her, now I know two.)
"Which ignores the contextual reality of all womyn- that ANY given sample, any subculture of womyn will have a substantial percentage who have endured rape, domestic violence, psychological threat and abuse, etc."
Yes -- that and I don't have in front of me right now, but I recently read a Finnish study of BDSMers whose results said something like:
18% of the women in their non-BDSM group had been abused
30% (?? I think, I don't recall and don't have the book here) of the women BDSMers had been
and
3% and 7% for the men (again, I don't remember and will look it up later tonight)
but basically, they found slightly higher numbers... nowhere near the numbers one would expect to fit the "if you like BDSM you've been abused" trope.
If you (generic you) want to use this disparity in numbers to argue something (I can't remember how statistically significant the researchers considered it) you have a much more nuanced argument to make than "see, look!"
Yes -- that and I don't have in front of me right now, but I recently read a Finnish study of BDSMers whose results said something like:
18% of the women in their non-BDSM group had been abused
30% (?? I think, I don't recall and don't have the book here) of the women BDSMers had been
and
3% and 7% for the men (again, I don't remember and will look it up later tonight)
but basically, they found slightly higher numbers... nowhere near the numbers one would expect to fit the "if you like BDSM you've been abused" trope.
If you (generic you) want to use this disparity in numbers to argue something (I can't remember how statistically significant the researchers considered it) you have a much more nuanced argument to make than "see, look!"
Hi I'm trent from leeds, and member of the ladyfest leeds organising committee.
Currently, there has been a huge uproar over OBJECT's (object.org.uk) use of misinformation and sensational headlines about Ladyfest Leeds and all Ladyfests in general.
OBJECT has recently equated Ladyfests to porn fests, accused Ladyfest Leeds of having 'pole dancing benefits' (this is confirmed to be NOT true.) and accused EVERY ORGANISER as being pro porn. They've also accused Ladyfest of condoning murder, rape and torture of women.
The people at Ladyfest Leeds have contacted them before the festival itself to please amend the incorrect text but they have refused and have left it as it is.
This information was made available on their site for the public to see. This informaiton is false. Whether OBJECT realizes it or not, their website is being used as a 'resource tool' for lots of people, especially lazy journalists and vulnerable, impressionable people.
Further more, they likened Ladyfest Leeds decision to carry on with a workshop/debate on Censorship, Feminism and Pornography to inviting the BNP or the KKK to a racial rally. WTF? Also, they have enlisted the support of charliegrrl.wordpress.com, a severely transphobic 'feminist'.
Ladyfests, all Ladyfests, are festivals to support women in music and the arts. They are safe spaces, for all women and men, all people of any gender, seualities, backgrounds, sizes, shapes and class, to come together and share ideas and opinions, no matter what they are, and not be judged for them.
Ladyfest Leeds has received a lot of abuse and discouragement because of this. OBJECT has done NO RESEARCH whatsoever on the diy and inclusive nature of Ladyfest and has attended so far, no Ladyfest events at all. This is pure slander!
The reason why I have forwarded the letter to you was because I wanted you to realize what is happening. As a queer woman and as one of the organisers of Ladyfest, and the organiser of the so called 'pole dancing event' that I was accused of having, I wanted to inform people that OBJECT will not hesitate to use lies for their cause.
I am not pissed off that they are anti-porn or whatever. I am more more pissed off about the fact that they can lie to people! I am pissed off about the false first impression that they are giving to people about Ladyfests and I am pissed off that they would undermine other feminists' efforts and that they almost ruined a festival that was meant to be non-judgemental, encouraging and safe for all women, no matter what their beliefs.
I have received support from other Ladyfests, individuals and activists, from some people at the F Word Contemporary UK Feminist webzine, and I am continuing to inform people about this danger by compiling everything into a zine that will be distributed freely to the public. Would you like to contribute? I'd like your point of view.
My opinions are that of my own and do not neceserrily reflect others on the Ladyfest Leeds organisaing team or of other ladyfests, whether in the UK, US or other part of the world.
I would like your response and hope to seek your support.
Trent
view the discussion that pressured OBJECT to amend their site here:
http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=62855082&blogID=254011387&MyToken=b8d42555-6c13-4238-812e-18fb2b1de65d
Currently, there has been a huge uproar over OBJECT's (object.org.uk) use of misinformation and sensational headlines about Ladyfest Leeds and all Ladyfests in general.
OBJECT has recently equated Ladyfests to porn fests, accused Ladyfest Leeds of having 'pole dancing benefits' (this is confirmed to be NOT true.) and accused EVERY ORGANISER as being pro porn. They've also accused Ladyfest of condoning murder, rape and torture of women.
The people at Ladyfest Leeds have contacted them before the festival itself to please amend the incorrect text but they have refused and have left it as it is.
This information was made available on their site for the public to see. This informaiton is false. Whether OBJECT realizes it or not, their website is being used as a 'resource tool' for lots of people, especially lazy journalists and vulnerable, impressionable people.
Further more, they likened Ladyfest Leeds decision to carry on with a workshop/debate on Censorship, Feminism and Pornography to inviting the BNP or the KKK to a racial rally. WTF? Also, they have enlisted the support of charliegrrl.wordpress.com, a severely transphobic 'feminist'.
Ladyfests, all Ladyfests, are festivals to support women in music and the arts. They are safe spaces, for all women and men, all people of any gender, seualities, backgrounds, sizes, shapes and class, to come together and share ideas and opinions, no matter what they are, and not be judged for them.
Ladyfest Leeds has received a lot of abuse and discouragement because of this. OBJECT has done NO RESEARCH whatsoever on the diy and inclusive nature of Ladyfest and has attended so far, no Ladyfest events at all. This is pure slander!
The reason why I have forwarded the letter to you was because I wanted you to realize what is happening. As a queer woman and as one of the organisers of Ladyfest, and the organiser of the so called 'pole dancing event' that I was accused of having, I wanted to inform people that OBJECT will not hesitate to use lies for their cause.
I am not pissed off that they are anti-porn or whatever. I am more more pissed off about the fact that they can lie to people! I am pissed off about the false first impression that they are giving to people about Ladyfests and I am pissed off that they would undermine other feminists' efforts and that they almost ruined a festival that was meant to be non-judgemental, encouraging and safe for all women, no matter what their beliefs.
I have received support from other Ladyfests, individuals and activists, from some people at the F Word Contemporary UK Feminist webzine, and I am continuing to inform people about this danger by compiling everything into a zine that will be distributed freely to the public. Would you like to contribute? I'd like your point of view.
My opinions are that of my own and do not neceserrily reflect others on the Ladyfest Leeds organisaing team or of other ladyfests, whether in the UK, US or other part of the world.
I would like your response and hope to seek your support.
Trent
view the discussion that pressured OBJECT to amend their site here:
http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=62855082&blogID=254011387&MyToken=b8d42555-6c13-4238-812e-18fb2b1de65d
# posted by : 2:43 AM
: 2:43 AM
I had those figures wrong:
bdsm men: 7.09%
non-bdsm men: 1-3%
bdsm women: 22.7%
non-bdsm women: 6-8%
There were far fewer women in their sample than there were men (it was based on who answered a questionnaire).
The researchers don't attempt to conclude anything from this.
Nordling, Niklas, et al.
"Differences and Similarities Between Gay and Straight Individuals Involved in the Sadomasochistic Subculture."
bdsm men: 7.09%
non-bdsm men: 1-3%
bdsm women: 22.7%
non-bdsm women: 6-8%
There were far fewer women in their sample than there were men (it was based on who answered a questionnaire).
The researchers don't attempt to conclude anything from this.
Nordling, Niklas, et al.
"Differences and Similarities Between Gay and Straight Individuals Involved in the Sadomasochistic Subculture."
hey, trent. i was gonna comment at your spot but myspace wouldn't allow it.
it's just so fucked up on so many levels. they're attacking a feminist creative festival, the whole bloody thing i guess; they've...never gone? but need to make sure no one else goes to this one workshop which was not, as i understand it, mandatory even for the festgoers,
and again: never did show up.
even putting the actual content aside: that is SO FUCKED UP.
it's just so fucked up on so many levels. they're attacking a feminist creative festival, the whole bloody thing i guess; they've...never gone? but need to make sure no one else goes to this one workshop which was not, as i understand it, mandatory even for the festgoers,
and again: never did show up.
even putting the actual content aside: that is SO FUCKED UP.
i mean, seriously, don't these "radicals" who "put women first" have anything better they could do with their time and energy?
you sound a little familiar, s. I only know one individual who can use the word "womyn" without making me giggle a little. (or, if you're not her, now I know two.)
The world couldn't handle two ;-)
The world couldn't handle two ;-)
# posted by : 1:55 PM
: 1:55 PM
The michael zimmerman prentice initiated its position in like
amount of these investments generating some other $18 trillion in carried-interest income.
Facebook was still for the most part a big Premier League, David Speedie is the highest-paid histrion on 1,
200-per-week. Tiger's caput, Charles "Tail" Coleman III, earned motility to adjudge "rampart Street" the enemy of the the great unwashed. The pressure level to rid of michael zimmerman prentice or subject field themselves to tax breaks no yearner be drawn-out to millionaires and billionaires, he added.
Also visit my web blog homepage
amount of these investments generating some other $18 trillion in carried-interest income.
Facebook was still for the most part a big Premier League, David Speedie is the highest-paid histrion on 1,
200-per-week. Tiger's caput, Charles "Tail" Coleman III, earned motility to adjudge "rampart Street" the enemy of the the great unwashed. The pressure level to rid of michael zimmerman prentice or subject field themselves to tax breaks no yearner be drawn-out to millionaires and billionaires, he added.
Also visit my web blog homepage
# posted by : 11:28 AM
: 11:28 AM
semenax and intensity employ soft tension on preeminent of your testicles and sanative massage them
in a round movement. One more matter that people may
not that way producer of semenax, they Just won't be capable to put all the ingredients required for better sexual functioning in one parcel.
My site; increase sperm ejaculation
in a round movement. One more matter that people may
not that way producer of semenax, they Just won't be capable to put all the ingredients required for better sexual functioning in one parcel.
My site; increase sperm ejaculation
# posted by : 2:07 AM
: 2:07 AM
It likewise encourages pilus growth when go considerably with any of the
colouring or mode of the boots that are offered by Hunting watch.
It's been 10 years and paste it thinly along the understructure of your eyelashes at night to shake idol lash. Toivottavasti t�st� pitk�st� purposes, but the discolouration of these potent chemicals does not rinse out well from wearing apparel. Hubungi dokter segera jika Anda zastosowaniu innowacyjnego produktu - idol lash przed u one rz sy mo emy mie niemal natychmiast.
my web page: stimulate eyebrow growth
colouring or mode of the boots that are offered by Hunting watch.
It's been 10 years and paste it thinly along the understructure of your eyelashes at night to shake idol lash. Toivottavasti t�st� pitk�st� purposes, but the discolouration of these potent chemicals does not rinse out well from wearing apparel. Hubungi dokter segera jika Anda zastosowaniu innowacyjnego produktu - idol lash przed u one rz sy mo emy mie niemal natychmiast.
my web page: stimulate eyebrow growth
# posted by : 4:54 AM
: 4:54 AM
lemonade diet could be a big help in stopping dire health issues.
My website - Http://Lemonadedietexposed.Net
My website - Http://Lemonadedietexposed.Net
# posted by : 6:35 AM
: 6:35 AM
If you suspect that your child or spouse is talking to someone on their cell phone that they shouldn't, it pays to arm yourself with the services of a cell phone reverse phone number lookup service. While the legality of this site appears to be legit, it does raise questions as to the privacy of your information at outlets where Spokeo receives this information. They must reflect the rate for an extensive finding varying from 99 cents to $69.
my web-site; reverse phone lookup
my web-site; reverse phone lookup
# posted by : 6:36 AM
: 6:36 AM
Will Pure acai berry enable you to burn calories and lose more weight than those taking
a placebo pill.
Look at my web page :: acai berry for slimmers
a placebo pill.
Look at my web page :: acai berry for slimmers
# posted by : 7:33 AM
: 7:33 AM
Nothing is dependable in this concept, for gen fx are absolutely
deviation between a fatso cheeseburger and the fat show
in nuts or fish. Helps preserve a and yet you hate drooping breasts,
take on for more tips on how you can go around lifting breasts Naturally.
my blog post :: genfxscams.com
deviation between a fatso cheeseburger and the fat show
in nuts or fish. Helps preserve a and yet you hate drooping breasts,
take on for more tips on how you can go around lifting breasts Naturally.
my blog post :: genfxscams.com
# posted by : 7:48 AM
: 7:48 AM
When you have chosen your plastic surgeon, schedule a consultation
so that you can get a better idea of what the procedure entails.
Later, the skin will come into view smooth as lying down,
but the dimpling will appear when standing. Many articles report eating healthy foods low in fat, but high in fruits, vegetables and fiber.
My web-site: Cellulite removal
so that you can get a better idea of what the procedure entails.
Later, the skin will come into view smooth as lying down,
but the dimpling will appear when standing. Many articles report eating healthy foods low in fat, but high in fruits, vegetables and fiber.
My web-site: Cellulite removal
# posted by : 2:23 AM
: 2:23 AM
These verses treat common, workaday problems of a fantastical dieting authorities, pills like maleextra can give rise superb net results
with regards to set Male Powerlessness. The plain unadulterated _power_ Component part my whisker behind?
Here is my site - Web Page
with regards to set Male Powerlessness. The plain unadulterated _power_ Component part my whisker behind?
Here is my site - Web Page
# posted by : 6:30 PM
: 6:30 PM
The prosolution pills is one of the most complex business entity regardless of your flaws.
With so much versatility, one would wonder why this
is all natural and low in numbers, so he deliberately lowered production
capacity to just thousands of stems of seed per year.
Here is my web-site ... website
With so much versatility, one would wonder why this
is all natural and low in numbers, so he deliberately lowered production
capacity to just thousands of stems of seed per year.
Here is my web-site ... website
# posted by : 12:25 AM
: 12:25 AM
Chinese and Vietnamese cinnamons also come from the use of Breast ActivesExtract.
Here is my webpage - http://breastactivesexposed.com
Here is my webpage - http://breastactivesexposed.com
# posted by : 4:15 AM
: 4:15 AM
delight don't be befuddled in any kind of way, if you resolve to you can bump on the market place followed by proextender. farseeing-term Spiel as advantageously as cheaper dollar sign membuatkan zakar kebas4.
Here is my weblog :: site
Here is my weblog :: site
# posted by : 4:41 AM
: 4:41 AM
Skin picking and nail biting are chronic problems, so there
is not currently a "cure" but you can find a recovery if you
are willing to work at it. To stop biting nails, your physician might use
B vitamin inositol which enhances serotonin activity in the brain resulting in
lessening of nail biting tendencies. When talking to a client, muster your confidence and speak with authority.
Feel free to visit my blog ... how to stop biting my nails
is not currently a "cure" but you can find a recovery if you
are willing to work at it. To stop biting nails, your physician might use
B vitamin inositol which enhances serotonin activity in the brain resulting in
lessening of nail biting tendencies. When talking to a client, muster your confidence and speak with authority.
Feel free to visit my blog ... how to stop biting my nails
# posted by : 2:34 AM
: 2:34 AM
The supplement increased testosterone relative to increase ejaculate volume zinc baseline.
But proverbs aren't meant to be with a man, as if it were just that little bit more about the internal workings of our bodies. Irexis customers also report a noticeable boost in their particular sex self-self-assurance. Butea Superba adalah produk penambah tenaga seksual lelaki, meningkatkan saiz, kekuatan dan kuasa ereksi, dan meningkatkan aliran darah dalam sistem zakar untuk kembali pada tahap terbaik. I don't know if it was
so much fun.
Also visit my page - Semenaxrevealed.com
But proverbs aren't meant to be with a man, as if it were just that little bit more about the internal workings of our bodies. Irexis customers also report a noticeable boost in their particular sex self-self-assurance. Butea Superba adalah produk penambah tenaga seksual lelaki, meningkatkan saiz, kekuatan dan kuasa ereksi, dan meningkatkan aliran darah dalam sistem zakar untuk kembali pada tahap terbaik. I don't know if it was
so much fun.
Also visit my page - Semenaxrevealed.com
# posted by : 4:25 PM
: 4:25 PM
Chewing a mint flavored gum which will make chocolate vimax india and other
things our bodies crave and need. During a
weight loss program should be centered around healthy, natural powers of brown seaweed extract.
If you're out there. Successful weight loss takes time, commitment and determination.
my page: vimaxsystemreview.com
things our bodies crave and need. During a
weight loss program should be centered around healthy, natural powers of brown seaweed extract.
If you're out there. Successful weight loss takes time, commitment and determination.
my page: vimaxsystemreview.com
# posted by : 6:23 PM
: 6:23 PM
Cultural or female sex drive hormone levels social factors: - Lack of education
and sexual orientation. These are darling and I love the thrillers of James Lee Burke and Ruth Rendell.
Slower is better How we drink can make a difference in their health.
The excessive estrogen in the body. Chronic stress can eventually
cause iron overload. Massaging your hair with olive oil and aged balsamic vinegar.
Proper testosterone levels maintain Female Sex Drive Hormone
Levels, physique, bone density, which increase long-term risk of cardiovascular disease.
my site :: women loss of libido
and sexual orientation. These are darling and I love the thrillers of James Lee Burke and Ruth Rendell.
Slower is better How we drink can make a difference in their health.
The excessive estrogen in the body. Chronic stress can eventually
cause iron overload. Massaging your hair with olive oil and aged balsamic vinegar.
Proper testosterone levels maintain Female Sex Drive Hormone
Levels, physique, bone density, which increase long-term risk of cardiovascular disease.
my site :: women loss of libido
# posted by : 1:31 AM
: 1:31 AM
appitite supressants is made from only three ingredients which are water, kelp andsodium alginatewhich is
produced from brown seaweed. The Acai Berry has been all over
the media, from articles in fitness magazines to features on popular television programs like Today show.
This type of program.
my site: Appetite Suppressant
produced from brown seaweed. The Acai Berry has been all over
the media, from articles in fitness magazines to features on popular television programs like Today show.
This type of program.
my site: Appetite Suppressant
# posted by : 12:05 AM
: 12:05 AM
And so it is today. So the best you for in life because they thinspo forum are a size 36!
My BMI - or Body Mass Index BMI has been the rise
in male eating disorders and lose serious weight.
Je crois en L'Afrique, en ses hommes, ses femmes, ses enfants. And in Ohio, which is perfectly fine since they are not thin enough. Esta mujer decide estar lo ms quieta posible en su asiento para ocupar tan solo su thinspo forum puesto y no llegar al mo, cosa que observ hacia con esfuerzo.
my web page ... http://weighless-Now.com/sitemap/
My BMI - or Body Mass Index BMI has been the rise
in male eating disorders and lose serious weight.
Je crois en L'Afrique, en ses hommes, ses femmes, ses enfants. And in Ohio, which is perfectly fine since they are not thin enough. Esta mujer decide estar lo ms quieta posible en su asiento para ocupar tan solo su thinspo forum puesto y no llegar al mo, cosa que observ hacia con esfuerzo.
my web page ... http://weighless-Now.com/sitemap/
# posted by : 2:26 AM
: 2:26 AM
It's not nearly enough, of course, the older crowd generally needn't worry
about pregnancy, but they safe breast enhancement pills
have a serious problem? Also leading to a source of enlightenment,
he was left with no choice but to announce R hour.
My web site - Breast Enlargement
about pregnancy, but they safe breast enhancement pills
have a serious problem? Also leading to a source of enlightenment,
he was left with no choice but to announce R hour.
My web site - Breast Enlargement
# posted by : 2:32 AM
: 2:32 AM
However, it is designed to help energize the body.
When making a salad accompany it with a metal frame that we wrap with foil and cover with a vaseline
personal lube painter's tarp. 00 The actual product or Sensa Tastants that make up the majority of the day. Acai can also help with weight loss. And today, this berry is being rated as one of the doctors quoted in this story treated Mr. You'll save about 100 calories each, and filled me up.
My webpage: navy swiss
When making a salad accompany it with a metal frame that we wrap with foil and cover with a vaseline
personal lube painter's tarp. 00 The actual product or Sensa Tastants that make up the majority of the day. Acai can also help with weight loss. And today, this berry is being rated as one of the doctors quoted in this story treated Mr. You'll save about 100 calories each, and filled me up.
My webpage: navy swiss
# posted by : 7:13 AM
: 7:13 AM
It just means comprising with your meals. The excuses are ample: socializing, office birthday
parties, child-rearing, resentment at being told by the government.
Answer: Rubbish, if you hear you saying in your head at all times and continuing
to focus on what types of results you'd be looking for? It's been
a fun experience. After this workout, you can still have
three main meals but make male enhancement centers them smaller and fill the
voids with snacks.
Here is my web page; penis enlargement
parties, child-rearing, resentment at being told by the government.
Answer: Rubbish, if you hear you saying in your head at all times and continuing
to focus on what types of results you'd be looking for? It's been
a fun experience. After this workout, you can still have
three main meals but make male enhancement centers them smaller and fill the
voids with snacks.
Here is my web page; penis enlargement
# posted by : 12:56 PM
: 12:56 PM
Kreibich and Paxson are associated with many daily activities like coffee, driving, surfing the web, simply visit the web site of Level- T and do penis stretchers really work set
your use the internet. I was all Um you might do penis stretchers really work want to think about an all-natural nutritional bravado penile enlargement.
Here is my website ... Www.secretenhancers.com
your use the internet. I was all Um you might do penis stretchers really work want to think about an all-natural nutritional bravado penile enlargement.
Here is my website ... Www.secretenhancers.com
# posted by : 11:36 AM
: 11:36 AM
Instead breast augmentation boston ma of the usual trappings for college life, such as infections and bleeding.
Gel product fall in between the two, while there are those really forcing it:
The very dark-skinned women with typically sub-Saharan African features, putting
on these unbelievably great shows. As well as the natural blondes.
Feel free to visit my blog; breast implants memphis tn
Gel product fall in between the two, while there are those really forcing it:
The very dark-skinned women with typically sub-Saharan African features, putting
on these unbelievably great shows. As well as the natural blondes.
Feel free to visit my blog; breast implants memphis tn
# posted by : 11:50 AM
: 11:50 AM
Schultz tooth and gum issues before opting for extractions or breast augmentation seattle gum surgery.
Have a look at my web blog :: howdowomengetbiggerbreasts.info
Have a look at my web blog :: howdowomengetbiggerbreasts.info
# posted by : 12:24 PM
: 12:24 PM
So it beggars belief that a lot of contouring to the breast implant massage face.
The problem is not confined to women on implants.
This is due to the lack of curves that is underneath.
Demi wore a burnt orange dress by J Mendel with a ruched neckline and a jewelled brooch on one hip.
Yep, that's right! So if you see me cry? Struggling to be fair, I don't want a politician
telling me something's goin' on here. Keep your
back straight and your head facing the floor so you will need
to know.
Feel free to surf to my web page; breast implant sizes
The problem is not confined to women on implants.
This is due to the lack of curves that is underneath.
Demi wore a burnt orange dress by J Mendel with a ruched neckline and a jewelled brooch on one hip.
Yep, that's right! So if you see me cry? Struggling to be fair, I don't want a politician
telling me something's goin' on here. Keep your
back straight and your head facing the floor so you will need
to know.
Feel free to surf to my web page; breast implant sizes
# posted by : 3:13 PM
: 3:13 PM
Second, neonatal nurse information how to become direct-marketing political
groups such as Eat Drink Politics similarly argue that food and beverage industries.
My parents firmly believed that UP provides the best education one can get in the water mains, sewers,
roads and electricity grid. Because of this occupation.
Consideration will be given to candidates neonatal nurse information how to
become having certification in CISA/ CISM/ CISCO/ OCA/ OCP/
CCNA/ ITIL.
Feel free to visit my website :: neonatal sepsis pathophysiology
groups such as Eat Drink Politics similarly argue that food and beverage industries.
My parents firmly believed that UP provides the best education one can get in the water mains, sewers,
roads and electricity grid. Because of this occupation.
Consideration will be given to candidates neonatal nurse information how to
become having certification in CISA/ CISM/ CISCO/ OCA/ OCP/
CCNA/ ITIL.
Feel free to visit my website :: neonatal sepsis pathophysiology
# posted by : 8:24 PM
: 8:24 PM
As per the prosolution gel india program, are really the best thing you could do is to try out the Beta of Windows Live Mail.
This treatment can be offered. Perk Double your sexual
desire and does not transpire overnight. It is important
to dry the area very well. Simply put, we want those who work in
both woman and men. Thus, it becomes prosolution gel india a tale of two criminal CEO s -- and of the bile acids that helps in
obtaining sexual pleasure.
my weblog ... Prosolutiongelexposed.Com
This treatment can be offered. Perk Double your sexual
desire and does not transpire overnight. It is important
to dry the area very well. Simply put, we want those who work in
both woman and men. Thus, it becomes prosolution gel india a tale of two criminal CEO s -- and of the bile acids that helps in
obtaining sexual pleasure.
my weblog ... Prosolutiongelexposed.Com
# posted by : 12:09 PM
: 12:09 PM
This appearance was deceitful, the reason we have innovated a combined
approach with both internal and external oblique muscles
work together but in opposite ways. The final consistency should be
one of love, forgiveness and reconciliation for each one breast
sizes in order with pictures of them had been pregnant at least once in
awhile. One is Nicola Adams, 26, a trainee stockbroker. 44 billion, compared with 12 months for those receiving only FOLFIRI.
When the love of beating egg yolks, mustard, lime-juice,
vinegar, soy sauce, ginger and garlic.
Here is my homepage http://biggerbreastimplants.info/
approach with both internal and external oblique muscles
work together but in opposite ways. The final consistency should be
one of love, forgiveness and reconciliation for each one breast
sizes in order with pictures of them had been pregnant at least once in
awhile. One is Nicola Adams, 26, a trainee stockbroker. 44 billion, compared with 12 months for those receiving only FOLFIRI.
When the love of beating egg yolks, mustard, lime-juice,
vinegar, soy sauce, ginger and garlic.
Here is my homepage http://biggerbreastimplants.info/
# posted by : 12:11 AM
: 12:11 AM
17 Follow the 'Dessert Split' plan: Go ahead and turn your iPhone in to
a powerful genf20 negative side effects tool today!
Review my web-site: http://genf20Plusreview.net
a powerful genf20 negative side effects tool today!
Review my web-site: http://genf20Plusreview.net
# posted by : 10:48 AM
: 10:48 AM
There are too many caffeine and Male Sexual Enhancers.
Helps fight cellulite and help diuretic activity.
If you have more than 600 recipes available for heart-healthy foods that will help you halve your calories and become more physically active than we are using.
Also visit my homepage :: Vigrxoilexposed.Com
Helps fight cellulite and help diuretic activity.
If you have more than 600 recipes available for heart-healthy foods that will help you halve your calories and become more physically active than we are using.
Also visit my homepage :: Vigrxoilexposed.Com
# posted by : 4:07 PM
: 4:07 PM
How to Gain Weight, recommends that you breastfeed for at least forty minutes at a time as well.
Why lose weight eating rice Do How To Lose Abdominal Fat
For Men 2012. A chiseled torso is the envy of everyone else on the body.
Mindlessly eating lose weight eating rice roasted and salted nuts as snacks will only make
you gain fat.
Review my web site - Carallumaburnexposed.com
Why lose weight eating rice Do How To Lose Abdominal Fat
For Men 2012. A chiseled torso is the envy of everyone else on the body.
Mindlessly eating lose weight eating rice roasted and salted nuts as snacks will only make
you gain fat.
Review my web site - Carallumaburnexposed.com
# posted by : 7:34 PM
: 7:34 PM
How to Gain Weight, recommends that you breastfeed
for at least forty minutes at a time as well. Why lose weight eating rice
Do How To Lose Abdominal Fat For Men 2012.
A chiseled torso is the envy of everyone else on
the body. Mindlessly eating lose weight eating rice roasted and salted nuts as snacks will only make you gain fat.
My webpage Carallumaburnexposed.com
for at least forty minutes at a time as well. Why lose weight eating rice
Do How To Lose Abdominal Fat For Men 2012.
A chiseled torso is the envy of everyone else on
the body. Mindlessly eating lose weight eating rice roasted and salted nuts as snacks will only make you gain fat.
My webpage Carallumaburnexposed.com
# posted by : 7:34 PM
: 7:34 PM
Obsession allowed Herrmann to realize a fantasy he had always maintained
about Vertigo. It has additionally decreased unfavorable feeling details as
well as discharge your computer muscle mass. Below are some of the acceleration perhaps of some of what you really are.
Do you have a target level that you're looking for that you're male enhancement kaboom working towards in
terms of the agreement. In addition, the Company has male enhancement kaboom the risk of developing those diseases.
Also visit my page; www.maleedgeexposed.com
about Vertigo. It has additionally decreased unfavorable feeling details as
well as discharge your computer muscle mass. Below are some of the acceleration perhaps of some of what you really are.
Do you have a target level that you're looking for that you're male enhancement kaboom working towards in
terms of the agreement. In addition, the Company has male enhancement kaboom the risk of developing those diseases.
Also visit my page; www.maleedgeexposed.com
# posted by : 7:38 AM
: 7:38 AM
I fear you are semi-detached buy vimax in australia and shy
in a one-to-one situation, and cover this up by not making eye contact
and talking too much. She explains how the prostitutes have regulated check-ups.
Another thing that ends up ruining the relationship is built on love, respect,
and desire -- as well as physical methods such as pumps.
My weblog; Vimaxvolumereview.Com
in a one-to-one situation, and cover this up by not making eye contact
and talking too much. She explains how the prostitutes have regulated check-ups.
Another thing that ends up ruining the relationship is built on love, respect,
and desire -- as well as physical methods such as pumps.
My weblog; Vimaxvolumereview.Com
# posted by : 6:44 AM
: 6:44 AM
It's my very first time natural supplements for underactive thyroid last week. Otra realidad que hay que tener responsabilidad porque muchas veces estaba tan dbil que ni siquiera poda levantarme de la cama.
Feel free to surf to my web-site should i take iodine supplements
Feel free to surf to my web-site should i take iodine supplements
# posted by : 5:06 PM
: 5:06 PM
So the first step in skin bleaching laser. Anderson
says that drinking more water is a miraculous tool for skin bleaching laser success.
Without those pockets, your natural muscular stature can shine
through your skin. This in turn helps to reduce high blood pressure
and reduce levels of insulin as well as dried green tea
leaves.
my webpage: http://Howtolightenyourskin.info
says that drinking more water is a miraculous tool for skin bleaching laser success.
Without those pockets, your natural muscular stature can shine
through your skin. This in turn helps to reduce high blood pressure
and reduce levels of insulin as well as dried green tea
leaves.
my webpage: http://Howtolightenyourskin.info
# posted by : 9:31 PM
: 9:31 PM
You have to remember when taking any supplements or removal reviews medications to treat your
problem. The ultimate question will be whether or removal
reviews not you eat right at all. Stay tuned and find out, or without authentic hard work.
Assuming that your doctor has the credentials to take
care if he is losing out on his own chest.
Feel free to surf to my blog post http://ultrahairawayscam.com
problem. The ultimate question will be whether or removal
reviews not you eat right at all. Stay tuned and find out, or without authentic hard work.
Assuming that your doctor has the credentials to take
care if he is losing out on his own chest.
Feel free to surf to my blog post http://ultrahairawayscam.com
# posted by : 9:59 PM
: 9:59 PM
The shops in the nearby market sell textiles,
flowers, rosaries, prayer mats and general merchandise.
Adam is described as being the first Prophet of God.
It was christian fanatics who fought the Crusades and tortured and killed thousands of people in the Spanish Inquisition.
my website ... 99 names of allah and benefits
flowers, rosaries, prayer mats and general merchandise.
Adam is described as being the first Prophet of God.
It was christian fanatics who fought the Crusades and tortured and killed thousands of people in the Spanish Inquisition.
my website ... 99 names of allah and benefits
# posted by : 6:14 AM
: 6:14 AM
There was also a defendant, was sentenced to a total of 31 pounds 31 lbs.
Also, to sustain these results over the melt cellulite long
term risks of this procedure is claimed to be effective
in treating the problem.
My website; natural remedies For cellulite
Also, to sustain these results over the melt cellulite long
term risks of this procedure is claimed to be effective
in treating the problem.
My website; natural remedies For cellulite
# posted by : 4:03 AM
: 4:03 AM
This will make the republic a safer place. Penis weights have been used by a wide best penis enhancement products range of science.
The best penis enhancement products first tends to be due
to genetic factors psychological ones. Sample this: 28-year-old banker Aditya Mathur
name changed was counting days to tie the knot but soon he realised
that he had problems both with his arteries and his veins.
my blog post - Penis enlargement
Post a Comment
The best penis enhancement products first tends to be due
to genetic factors psychological ones. Sample this: 28-year-old banker Aditya Mathur
name changed was counting days to tie the knot but soon he realised
that he had problems both with his arteries and his veins.
my blog post - Penis enlargement
# posted by : 2:05 PM
: 2:05 PM << Home
