Wojtek writes:
> All I was arguing was that not everything can be reduced to sexual
rituals of one kind of another - there is life after sex, after all. I
tried to point out the non-sexual dimensions of the debate.
But how is selecting the right tool for sexual expression commodity fetishism? You assert that commodity fetishism is involved, but do not demonstrate how this is so. (Unless the purchase of anything involves commodity fetishism).
I can see how collecting Jordan sneakers or buying ever bigger SUV's is commodity fetishism, but I cannot flog someone without a flogger. I buy one that works for me and that is it. If I were to collect floggers simply in order to have them, then that would be commodity fetishism. But purchasing the tools needed for the manifestation of sexual orientation is not commodity fetishism. It is merely common sense.
Joanna writes:
> When we start confusing fixations with sexual freedom, we're in trouble.
What are you defining as a fixation? Being a masochist or dominant or sadist is just as much a part of sexual orientation as being gay or lesbian. or bisexual or heterosexual or pansexual is. It is not a fixation.
In order to manifest sexual orientation I need various objects -- lubricant, condoms, flogger, singletails, nitrile gloves, etc. Puchasing them is not a fixation. It is satisfying a simple need.
> NOBODY on this list has ever argued that people with sexual fixations
should suffer in any way whatsoever.....the only thing that happens on this
list, is that sometimes people speculate on what some of these fixations
might mean.
Defining natural sexual expression as a fixation is to condemn it and set the stage for suffering. My handy-dandy Webster's defines fixation as: "an exaggerated preoccupation, obsession." Are you saying that bdsm is an obsession? BDSM is only an obesession/fixation when it interferes with everyday living. But compulsive hand-washing can do the same thing. BDSM is not inherently obessive.
BDSM is just a matter of sexual orientation. I am a sadist. I get pleasure from inflicting pain. My partners are masochists -- they experience pleasure from receiving pain. That is all there is to it. No different from my getting pleasure from touching and kissing a man's body. It is how I am wired.
> We are talking about the social unconscious...or trying to.
What does the social unconscious have to do with bdsm? Society did not make me queer nor did it make me a sadist. I do not enjoy inflicting pain because I am compensating for the oppression I suffer in society. If that were the case, I'd be out beating every heterosexual ass I could find LOL. So let's not try to read Brian's mind and analyze his sexuality. Okay?
> I am using "fixation" as a descriptive term, not a derogatory term. I do
not think of homosexuality as a "fixation."
I think you are using the wrong term. The proper term (in the bdsm world) is fetish. The term is not one of opprobrium when dealing with sexuality.
> Also, I find it really, really weird that a Buddhist should write the way
you (Brian) do about the valid "self-expression" of people who are totally
conditioned by the forces that Woj describes.
As Wylie Coyote would say: "Not again." Here is a link that may help with the notion of no-self. The article also includes a discussion of Hume, so it may help explain the issue to non-Buddhists:
http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/james1.htm
I have no self. I also have a body which has a sexual component which needs manifestation. There is no contradiction.
Paul writes:
> prefer some types of jeans over others, that's probably a commodity
fetish, outside of cheaply made, poor quality jeans there's probably not
meaningful difference between brands of jeans.
Same with floggers. Getting the one that works for me is not a commodity fetish either.
> Just as being sexually progressive doesn't make you right all the time.
I never said it does. If I am wrong - fine. But show me how I am wrong, don't just assert it. How is selecting the implements of sexual expression any more of a commodity fetish than selecting the detergent you think cleans your clothes the best? My criteria in selecting objects is what works best for me. How is that commodity fetishism?
> Because the thought of grown women dressing up as described in that
article
gives me the creeps for a variety of reasons, some sexual, some not.
And these reasons are? I am especially interested in what your sexual reasons are. Doesn't it all come down to the fact that when grown women do not behave in ways that Paul thinks appropriate, he gets creeped out?
> Self-esteem issues, the tyranny of fashion trends among them.
What self-esteem issues? A women deciding on how she wants to dress and then doing so. Having a desire, recognizing it, validating it and then acting on it. Sounds like empowerment and self-esteem to me. Am I wrong? Or is a women only demonstrating self-estem when she acts according to the way Paul thinks she should? Why can't a women choose to dress is a way that conforms to male stereotypes? As long as she choses to do it, what is your problem? Sometimes my lover and I dress in our leathers and are the compleat leathermen -- living the stereotype and providing eye candy for many men. Where is the harm? Who has gotten hurt? Just happens to be the way we chose to dress that day.
A person can chose to go along with a trend or resist it. Going along with it does not mean one is tyrannized, does it? People can turn trends to their own purposes.
> Woody Allen creeps me out for having adopted a girl, then marrying her.
Sorry, it just does.
Was anyone harmed? Was Soon-Yi forced to act against her will? If it brings pleasure and causes no harm, why be creeped out?
> But that doesn't mean I'm not entitled to an opinion about it, good or
bad. Like sexual self expression, it's my right to be squicked, but I don't
have the right to dictate what others should or should not do.
You can have all the opinions you want. However, your casting her actions as a craven giving into to conformity and societal pressure is the first step in trying to proscribe that behavior. Next you call such behavior reactionary (again without ever saying why it is so). Then you say that progressives should discourage reactionary behavior. All without ever demonstrating any actual harm being caused by her actions.
Same thing Christians do. This action is giving into the Devil and going against God -- it must be proscribed. There is never any analysis of whether or not this action causes any actual harm.
> Yes, I think there is something weird with someone who relieves stress by
dressing as a child, in public. What you or I do in private is our business,
in public it's a different issue,
Why? A sentence ago you said "I don't have the right to dictate what others should or should not do." Now you change your tune. A person can do what she wants in private, but in public it is another matter. Again, why?
> presentation becomes a manifestation of societal values and Japanese
society values women who are vulnerable and child like.
Aren't progressives fighting for the right of people to present themselves in public as they please without fear of condemnation (unless their presentation causes harm to others)? If I want to walk one of my boys to the supermarket on a leash, what is the problem? Am I harming anyone? I can assure you that the boy and I will love it. My presentation is a manifestation of MY values. These values may be in accord with or contrary to society's, but I am the one who determines them.
> She's conforming to a negative, sexist stereotype.
So? A close friend of mine (black) liked to go to bars being led around on a leash by his lover (white). They were a devoted couple and there was great joy in their life (until one partner died of cancer) which they shared with all who knew them. Negative stereotype? No! Freedom to act as one pleased without restriction. Supreme gender/racefuck.
> It's her right to do that, just as it's my right to be bothered by it.
Right, but it is not your right NOT to be bothered by it and, consequently, try to stifle her expression by condemning it and labelling it "conforming to a negative, sexist stereotype". You are just trying to validate your small-mindedness by defining her actions in a negative way without any proof that they actually are negative.
> But as others have noted, her choice is not entirely free, just as my
choice of jeans isn't entirely free.
Why isn't it free? Who else is making it for her? People are only as free as they allow themselves to be.
> I wasn't talking about this being a race, I was talking about the issue of
equity. Fact is, you don't see any grown Japanese men dressed as school boys
and you probably never will.
And the problem is? You keep saying the same thing, but never explain anything. I think it is sad that Japanese men are not progressive/liberated/enlightened enough to engage in genderfuck. It is great that this woman is not so repressed.
> There are deeply rooted societal reasons why it's women doing this, and I
think those reasons are based on gender inequity.
An opinion, but not a fact. Just like mine. What is dangerous is that your view is disempowering. You posit people as mere robots. You discourage them from engaging in genderfuck by claiming that it is not what they think it is. You discourage freedom by opining that people are mere products of their environment.
> BD: Well, when my husband and I wear our leathers/uniforms we do so in an
unenlightened environment. Does that make us unenlightened? Should we
stop?
> Paul: I don't care, do what you want.
But you avoided the heart of the question. What difference does it make whether a person expresses her sexuality in an enlightened or unenlightened environment? I do not think there is an enlightened environment on the planet. Random acts of resistence and enlightenment are what will create enlightened environments, not your condemnation of them.
> A terrible situation I agree, but I don't see how my discomfiture with
what these women are doing affects my attitudes about what people do in
private laid out above. Especially if we're accepting that this is being
done in a non-sexual way, which frankly voids both our arguments.
Because your discomfiture leads you to posit that people who act this way are actually under the sway of societal forces, instead of just being who they are. Instead of looking at outcomes and seeing if there is any harm, you are trying to justify your discomfiture. You are looking through the wrong end of the telescope.
> I'm not shuddering at the genderfuck, I agree it's a tool of the left,
but dressing up to a damaging stereotype and supporting a fashion craze is
not a genderfuck
Yes it is. LOL. That is exactly what genderfuck is -- appropriating and turning to personal/subversive/liberating use societal norms -- defanging stereotypes.
> it's being bourgeois and reactionary in the worst possible way.
Nice theory, but not how it plays out in the real world. It is not reactionary to expand the boundaries of expression. What is reactionary and bourgeois is telling people how to act.
Wouldn't it be ironic if you were in a monogamous dyad relationship -- the ultimate in reactionary bourgeois conformity -- and then go about accusing others of being reactionary/bourgeois when they do not follow that path.
Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resister