Joanna Writes:
> Who you have sex with (male or female) is different from
what you do during sex.
But both are included in the concept of sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is no longer just a question of the sex of your partner(s).
> It could be argued that taking a shit on someone as a sexual
act, is actually not a sexual act, but a confusion/a fixation.
If the people involved in scat play are getting erotic pleasure, there is no confusion. There is only confusion if a person believes that people should not get sexual pleasure in this fashion. In this case, the confusion is on the part of the observer, not the participants.
As for fixations: all sex involves fixations. You never get away from them, even it is only the societally approved fixation of missionary position heterosex.
> But then a person making that judgement would be a sexual
reactionnary and not worth listening to.
As Charles says: if a person makes an argument that is promoted by sexual reactionaries, why wouldn't I assume that this person is one as well? Do racists normally promote racist arguments/beliefs?
> Just because Hegel was wrong about the African character doesn't
mean he was wrong about everything.
He was wrong about a whole continent and its peoples. That is not a minor mistake.
> Most would agree that his master/slave discussion was insightful, even
brilliant.
Most also used to agree that homosexuality was a disease.
Did Hegel specifically apply his ideas about master/slave to bdsm and other queer sexualities or was that done later by others?
> No one is disputing the reality of desire -- we are suggesting that its
manifestations can be culturally controlled.
I agree that there is a cultural element in the manifestation of desire.
> For example, the desire of a male to have sex with a woman whose vagina
has been sewn shut is culturally conditioned.
Are you arguing that it is solely culturally conditioned?
> The desire of a man for a virgin is culturally conditi> oned.
Again, are you arguing that it is solely culturally conditioned?
I would say that straight men are hardwired to desire women. Now, there may be a cultural element in whether a woman is a virgin or has her vagina sewn shut, but the desire for a woman is genetic.
> Some are arguing that S/M is similarly conditioned.
And they are wrong if they are arguing that all bdsm is culturally conditioned. Getting pleasure from pain is part of hardwiring. Now, the particular ways you like to receive pain may be in part culturally conditioned, but the underlying desire for pain is genetic.
I think part of the problem is that bdsm is not something you can learn about from an academic text or analysis. You have to live it. At least when you criticize you speak from lived experience. I wonder if anyone else on the list who has labelled me sick and diseased has been as bold as you.
Sidenote: it is worth noting that the only sm agonist who has actual experience (and the integrity and courage to say so to the list) is a woman, while all of the other naysayers are men who remain coyly silent. Curious.
These demure detractors can say: "Well, I never tried sm since I knew it wasn't for me." But that is the same thing I say about vaginal sex with women: "I always knew it wasn't for me." How can you know pain isn't for you, like I know vagina isn't for me, unless there is a genetic component to sm?
How would you explain my friend Freddie who started getting tied up at 4?
How can you argue that something you read in a book is more accurate than a person's own experience? Some people on the list read/quote Hegel the way fundamentalists do the Bible. LOL
Lastly, however desire arises, through genetics, culturally conditioning, or a combination of both, if its manifestation causes no harm, what is the problem?!?
Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resister