Justin writes:
> Brian, take my word, there's a lot to be learned from
Hegel.
Okay. Though I think I would have to be in masochist headspace to read him. LOL
Mike writes:
> For the record, I'm not interested in throwing people
into jail because they choose to practice pretend
sadism and masochism.
One important point: what I practice is not pretend sm. The welts I raise are real. The difference is that my partners have given informed consent to engage in these practices.
> I'm for stopping real torture, real harm to other human
beings.
The problem is that consensual sm involves real harm. The distinction has to be drawn along the line of consent/non-consent. I (and many, if not most, sm'ers) reinforce it further with the concept of informed consent. Not only is a yes sought, but a yes given as free from coercion as any human action can be.
> I think that one of the reasons that we're still living in
a class society is the way we are socialized to accept
dominance and submission rituals.
I would argue that there are genetic markers for dominance and submission which are exploited by capitalists for their own advantage. Capitalists didn't invent D/s rituals; they just figured out how to turn them to their advantage.
Joanna writes:
> I think what bothers me most about these topics is
that discussion is actually not allowed by folks who call
other folks repressive.
I was called sick and diseased, but that did not deter me from discussion. Why should my pointing out the sexual reactionary nature of certain ideas deter others? I am sure that if I said that the Iraqi people deserved harsh treatment because of the lack of respect that they have shown toward George Bush, I would be challenged. Why can't people be challenged on their attitudes toward sex? I was.
I think some listmembers are thinking with their icks rather than their brains.
> There are a lot of loaded terms in "consensual sex that
hurts no one."
Can you unpack them for us?
> So what's wrong with consensual discussion on these
topics? It hurts no one. We discuss any number of socially
constructed/defined/shaped activities. Why not sex?
I agree. I posted a lot of questions that were just brushed off.
Kelley writes:
BD: >the desire for a woman is genetic.
> not all of us who are queer consider this to be true.
Could you explain this further for me. Thanks.
Doug writes:
> A favorite of the late Danny Thomas, it's said.
Also, the reason for the quick demise of the marriage of Ernest Borgnine and Ethel Mermam (June 26, 1964 - July 28, 1964). Mermsie got more than she bargained for.
One good thing though: when anybody says something is impossible, I tell them: Ethel Merman married Ernest Borgnine. Anything is possible.
Curtiss writes:
> From what I know about consensual S/M--safewords,
knowing what sorts of knots are safe or not, the extensive
predetermination of what elements can or cannot go into a
scene--it seems distressingly wholesome.
Okay, that's it. I was called sick/diseased and took it in stride. But I will NOT be referred to as wholesome!
Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resister