The short version of the consent argument is that you have given no reasons to think that the consensual relationships being discussed are oppressive, and the null hypothesis is that consent is legitimating unless special conditions that underline the legitimation that consent confers are shown to apply. Thee bare possibility that consent may in some circumstances not legitimate is irrelevant unless the special conditions are shown, or at least argued, to apply.
Your ignorance and its invincibility comes through in two ways: (1) your misguided medicalization or moral discourse -- it may be evil to be cruel, but that does not make the bad people sick, and (2) your complete unwillingness to absorb the extensive discussions of the phenomenology of kinky behavior, including the kind of pain some of it involves inflicting, and the difference between that and harm, This has been extensively discussed, and I refer you again to Brian and my Domme friend's long discussion in the archives from a couple of years ago if you can;'t get the point here. You and Charles, mainly, don't seem to grasp the distinction between what does on being consenting BDSM partners and the torture chambers of the Spanish Inquisition. This is willful blindness. After all this discussion, it practically amounts to intentional stupidity.
Pardon the harsh language, but I find that subtlety and civility don't get across to you. I am not sure that bluntness and rudeness do either. You are a guy who can't get an idea out of your head once it gets in, who cannot express a tentative hypothesis instead of a flat declarative announcement, and who never admits that he might be wrong. It makes you a bit dull to talk to, actually, despite your obvious intelligence.
--- Bill Bartlett <billbartlett at aapt.net.au> wrote:
> Now that you mention it, I agree that it seems the
> more intelligent a
> person is, the more invincible their ignorance can
> be. I'm flattered
> you believe that applies to me. So much so that you
> won't even reveal
> your arguments (about why the limitations of consent
> don't apply).
>
> But flattery will get you nowhere. Consent, even
> informed consent, is
> no guarantee that a relationship is not oppressive.
> To remind a
> person that they answered "I do", doesn't justify an
> oppressive and
> exploitative marriage. Clearly you have to examine
> the context in
> which the person gave this consent.
>
> And regardless of the issue of consent, I still
> wouldn't accept the
> notion that someone who gets their kicks out of
> inflicting pain
> and/or humiliation is entirely sound mentally.
> Perhaps I'm old
> fashioned or perhaps it is simply wishful thinking
> on my part to
> reject the idea that this is a normal and healthy
> way to interact
> with someone you love. But I don't like the
> implications and prefer
> to believe that it is a symptom of either a
> psychological, or more
> likely a deeper social, problem.
>
> Bill Bartlett
> Bracknell Tas
>
> At 8:48 PM -0800 9/1/07, andie nachgeborenen wrote:
>
> >As usual, Bill, you are talking bullshit about
> things
> >you know nothing about. I wrote a lengthy
> >philosophical excursus on the limitations of
> consent
> >theory and how they didn't apply here, but decided
> you
> >don't deserve to have it. I'll post it another time
> if
> >other people think it's worthwhile. What astounds
> me
> >is how amazingly arrogant and invincibly ignorant
> an
> >apparently intelligent person can be. You obviously
> >missed a calling as a professor, where those traits
> >could have been put to good use and probably gotten
> >you a good position.
> >
> >--- Bill Bartlett <billbartlett at aapt.net.au> wrote:
> >
> >> At 5:21 PM -0500 9/1/07, BklynMagus wrote:
> >>
> >> >WS:
> >> >> 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.
> >>
> >> Bullshit. People consent to many things they'd
> >> prefer not to consent to.
> >>
> >>
> >> > > 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).
> >>
> >> Consent does not exclude the possibility of
> >> exploitation.
> >>
> >>
> >> >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.
> >>
> >> And a person who gets a thrill out of
> humiliating or
> >> inflicting pain
> >> on others, is not? I find that a bit difficult
> to
> >> accept at face
> >> value.
> >>
> >> Bill Bartlett
> >> Bracknell Tas
> >> ___________________________________
> >>
>
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> >>
> >
> >
> >__________________________________________________
> >Do You Yahoo!?
> >Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> protection around
> >http://mail.yahoo.com
> >___________________________________
>
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
____________________________________________________________________________________ Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business. http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/r-index