> If the survey is correct and dominant men tend to be pro-feminist but straight men into BDSM prefer humiliation to domination, it doesn't seem as if the result would be an improvement for women or feminism.
Come on, Yoshie. Just imagine a world where straight men regularly submitted to and enjoyed erotic humiliation from women. Oh, the possibilities. LOL.
> Or could it be that quality can't be inferred from quantity?
I don't know. If I were a trained researcher I would be better able to answer the question, but in my experience quantity can often lead to a diversity of experiences that sticking with the tried and true does not afford. No matter the quality of sex with my husband, there are certain experiences we cannot have with each other.
WS: Don't you think that consistency with principles matters for people ostensibly concerned with the implementation of those principles.
Yes. I was merely pointing out that the dynamic of consent in bdsm is far different from the dynamic of consent in the area of wage labor. In the former it is rather straightforward and in the latter much more complex in my experience. Just because consent in the area of wage labor is often coerced consent does not mean that consent in bdsm is also often coerced. Personally, I think consent is of paramount importance and that practicing bdsm might help people realize just how vital it is.
> As I already said on this forum, you do not seem to be satisfied with people merely accepting forms of behavior that you hold in high esteem - you expect and insist that they accept your defintion and your justifiations of that behavior as well.
As I said before, I am not a fan of the "hate the sin, but love the sinner" approach. To me it is bogus and dishonest since hating the sin almost always results in laws/conventions/dictates that end up persecuting the sinner.
> Your obstinacy in this matter suggests to me that you may be a queer equivalent of the old fashioned prude who never just does things or accpets them for what they are, but always looks for their proper justification by conventional morality.
I am only obstinant because I want the persecution of sexual minorities to stop: it is one of my principles (which you may or may not share). Adopting a "hate the sin, but love the sinner" approach will not help to stop the oppression of sexual minorities.
Bill:
> Clearly you have to examine the context in which the person gave this consent.
Which is why I like the term informed consent. If a person is afraid to say no, then I would maintain that they are not giving their consent when they say yes. But in the bdsm world I exist in, no is no.
> 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.
Why?
> 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.
To quote the divine Tina:
What's love got to do, got to do with it What's love but a second hand emotion
> 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.
You may remain in your comfort zone by believing this, but do you have any evidence to support it?
Joanna:
> This year it reminded me of the fact that one man's kink maybe another man's vanilla, and that a good deal of kink is culturally defined.
Very true. Another one of the articles in that issue of the Journal of Homosexuality pointed out that the most common form of bdsm play is spanking (who knew?) and that many people who spank do not consider themselves kinky at all. For them, bdsm is what other people do.
> I think there are two good reasons to have sex with someone: 1) you love them and are sexually attracted to them or 2) there is a strong sexual attraction.
For me that is a script. Why do I have to love someone to have sex with them? Or even have a strong sexual attraction? What if I feel like fisting someone and a person feels like being fisted? Do I have to love him to fist him? Be sexually attracted to him? For me that is like saying I have to love someone or be sexually attracted to him to go to the movies with him.
> In either case, there seems to be sufficient motivation to have sex without there having to be a pre-defined set of things that have to happen (script).
But when actors are handed a script, aren't they always looking for their motivation?
John A:
> I do think consent is a thornier issue than I've seen pro-bdsm people acknowledge in this discussion. I don't think that means bdsm is wrong per se, just that saying "it's consensual" isn't necessarily the end of the story.
Can you be specific about what makes it thornier?
dd:
> I would be fibbing if I didn't admit that I also find the activities in question pretty risible as a way of getting your kicks, rather in the way that sucking poisonous smoke into your lungs is, objectively speaking, a pretty silly way to spend a tea break.
I agree that smoking causes cancer. But what terminal illness does bdsm cause?
Lastly a general question:
Is it possible that a person who has a) not experienced bdsm; b) tried it and was left nonplussed; c) has no desire to try it can be said to have (in a non-judgemental way) a limited erotic imagination? I ask because many of the posts in this thread seem to me to have a "those bdsm grapes must be sour" undertone to them.
I think most people are willing to admit failures of the imagination in the areas of art, music, writing, sports, etc., but are less willing to do so in the area of sexuality. The problem must be located in bdsm practice and not in the minds of those people who condemn it.
Also, if you substituted the word homosexuality for bdsm, many of these posts (and their anxieties) would have been right at home in the 1950's.
Brian