> If the only thing that separates an oppressive relationship form non-oppressive one is the so-called consent of the subjugated part - this is a really flimsy defense indeed.
How is consent flimsy? I usually add the modifier "informed" before consent, but consent is powerful in my experience.
> It would not hold much water if we applied the same reasoning to non-sexual situations . . .
But we are talking about sexual situations. What difference does it make how the reasoning works in non-sexual situations?
> . . . e.g. labor relations (workers "consent" to work under exploitative capitalist conditions) or political regimes (people "consent" to autocratic rule).
But here you put the word consent in quotes which indicates to me that you do not regard these as examples of consent as it is understood in a bdsm context.
> I am not sure if it is possible to make a *good* lefty argument in defense of SM sexual relations, i.e. argument that is both convincing and consistent with left principles (egalitarianism, non-abusive, non-exploitative human relations).
Egalitarian: each person is equal in the right to express her sexuality in any way that does not force the participation of unwilling persons (or something to that effect).
Non-abusive: Surely, you are not one of Charles' poor unfortunates who allow any superficial similarities between bdsm practice and abuse cloud their minds, making distinguishing between the two impossible.
Non-exploitative: How are two (or more) adults practicing consensual bdsm engaging in exploitative behavior?
And isn't sexual liberty (in fact liberty of many types) a left principle?
> I/we oppose denouncing this practice while not condoning the practice itself.
Hate the sin, love the sinner. How papal of you.
> Kelley (under one of her many aliases):
Scarlet woman that she is.
> I met *some* men who talk about women as "sex objects" (especially in their absence) - but that usually has nothing to do with women.
Sometimes it is so lovely to be thought of as a sex object. My body adores being worshipped (especially my fist).
> And this is precisely what I find most frightening and uncomfortable (most other practices I can live with).
And what is so frightening? That a woman has her own response to bondage free of societal dictates? That she she might not be able to differentiate between being tied up by a sex partner and being tied up by a burglar who has broken into her home? Where does your problem lie Woj?
Yoshie:
> Capitalism can, and to a certain limited extent has, democratized what was probably once only a ruling-class fantasy, so that working-class men and women -- though probably predominantly of better-off and/or better-educated strata -- can embrace it.
Why would experiencing pleasure from having your nipples twisted and/or bitten have started out as a ruling class fantasy? Are the nipples of the working class less sensitive? In my experience, I have never seen a correlation between class staus and nipple sensitivity.
> If a fantasy of aristocracy remains an important element in working-class BDSM fans' imagination, that is because an image of aristocratic life can represent a fantasy of life beyond not only exchange value but also use value.
But working class people (or any people as a matter of fact) can be bdsm'ers without engaging in these fantasies. Role play is not a requirement for bdsm.
> That said, to enjoy BDSM fantasy and practice, your life has to be free from a chance of your fantasy -- e.g., getting flogged without your consent -- becoming reality.
I know plenty of people who want their bdsm fantasies to become their realities (and some who have made it so).
> If many Black folks, like Charles, tend to have much more trouble embracing such a fantasy than white folks, that is probably because getting flogged was a part of the relatively recent and politically remembered history of Blacks.
Is that Charles' issue with flogging? I did not get that from his posts. What say you Charles? Is Yoshie correct in her understanding of your position and its genesis?
Charles:
> In what sense ? This sounds fishy.
In the sense that supporting a woman's quest to express and seek the fulfillment of her desires would be a feminist act in my opinion. If a woman wants to get flogged or mummified or pissed on, and pursues the satisfaction of that desire, and finds a man she wants to do the flogging/mummifying/pissing, and he obliges her and stays within the limits they negotiate, that for me is a powerful example of female autonomy which I thought was a goal of feminism. What is not to like/support about women expressing and seeking the satisfaction of their desires? Are there some desires you think it is wrong or unnatural for women to have?
> Why else would Jim Straub complain that he has to "explain" it so much?
Because many people are dense and hung-up over sexual issues. I think the difference here is that you see the confusion as occurring because of deep similarities between bdsm and domestic abuse, and I see the confusion arising because of people's fucked-up relationship to their own sexuality. Since they will not/cannot deal with sexuality in any clear-headed, honest fashion, they lump bdsm in with domestic violence and call it a day.
> I don't see where you have demonstrated that the similarity is entirely superficial, either this time or the last times we discussed it.
If you do not (or choose not to) understand the power of consent and what a huge difference it makes, then I cannot help you Charles.
> As to criticism of BDSM, I think you two ignore the fact that there is a big problem of domestic violence against women in the world, certainly in the US.
What gave you that impression?
> So, it might help if you explained in detail how BDSM is actually only superficially similar to or actually not at all like domestic violence against women.
CONSENT (sorry for the caps. I realize that if a person is blind to an answer in lower case, capitalization is no solution, but the truth is what it is).
> Have you really proven that there is this absolute distinction between the two?
To my satisfaction and the satisfaction of many people I know. To yours, no. But then I do not know if you are capable of being satisfied in this regard. You seem just to want to hate on bdsm (for whatever private reasons).
> That celebrating flogging doesn't interact with male privilege, rape and domestic violence?
As far as I know, there is no evidence that celebrating flogging enhances either a person's sense of male privilege or the likelihood of their commiting an act of rape or domestic violence. A person who rapes or abuses another person is mentally ill.
What about women flogging women or men flogging men or women flogging men or group flogging? Do these practices interact with domestic violence and male privilege?
> Maybe not with you, but can you really speak for all BDSMers, or those who do variations on your principles of BDSM?
I am only speaking for myself and those who (after hearing my argument) share my concept of bdsm (or some mutually agreeable variation thereof).
> Can you really be sure that no rapists or domestic abusers get some justification in their minds for their practices from the public broadcast of celebration of BDSM culture and ideology?
As I said above, I do not think that celebrating bdsm increases the incidence of domestic abuse and rape. As for what goes on in people's minds: I am not a mind reader so I cannot answer the question.
> Are you working on eliminating male privilege? Or are you just feigning concern about that?
As much as I am working on eliminating heterosexual privilege (among other disreputable, crippling privileges). What gives you the impression that I am feigning concern?
Andie:
> I can learn about lots of things without experiencing them firsthand or practicing them myself.
Yes, but we are at a point of disagreement we have reached before on this subject.
> Anyway, I think someone can learn a lot about kink by reading the few intelligent things written about it.
I disagree. In my experience, the gulf between the knowledge gained through books and that gained through practice with regard to kink is greater than any other knowledge gulf I have experienced, i.e., the London I read about for years was remarkably close to the London I visited, but the kink I read about was but an indistinct and smudged rendering of what I have experienced.
Chuck:
> Uh, Yoshie, do you understand the difference between flogging and whip play?
Not to beat a dead horse, but dealing with bdsm theoretically often leads people to reach outside the sexual arena for examples of what they regard as bdsm behaviour in an effort to understand it. I do not think this is the most helpful way of proceeding.
The difference between flogging and whip play may be clear to practitioners, but difficult to grasp by those on the outside. What the non-practitioner misses in my view is the intense, transformative power of bdsm practice.
John:
> Too many B&D practitioners I have met were deeply conservative people.
How many is too many (percentage and number wise)?
> Sex play does not make one more politically radical. I wish it did, but there is certainly no evidence this is so.
There is only the evidence of my experience of people who have been radicalized by sex play. I acknowledge your experience of politically conservative kinksters. Will you do the same in return?
Brian