> BUT, given the big problem of domestic violence against women (and rape), I'm not sure that it's such a great idea to publically broadcast endorsements of these cults.
People who engage in consensual bdsm are not part of any cult that I know of. As for endorsing bdsm practice: you have yet to show any link between such endorsement and harm to others, specifically women. Since part of bdsm is a strong emphasis on consent, the only way for a person to get from bdsm approval for non-consensually abusing someone would require a huge act of distortion. Unfortunately, people willfully distorting what other people say is something that cannot be defended against (I can even think of a few recent examples of such behavior).
> My thought being it might aggravate the problem.
How does it aggravate the problem?
> Basically, as far as the burden of proof, I'd say, no, it's on you.
You want to place the burden of proof on bdsm'ers and their supporters because you are asking the impossible: to prove a negative. This way you insulate yourself from ever having to grapple with the issue.
> So, if that's what you want, then the burden of proof is on you . . .
The burden is no more on bdsm'ers than it is on queers to prove that homosexuality causes no harm. It is up to those who wish to oppress to demonstrate that such oppression is necessary to prevent a great harm from occurring.
> And it is because there _is_ an obvious similarity between the two, _at least_ on the surface.
Once the concept of consensuality is introduced and understood this surface similarity is shown to be negligible. You may disagree.
> Again, it is obvious and common sense that BDSM is a little bit weird, "weird" being defined as what most people think is weird.
Weird today, normative tomorrow.
> Instead of admitting that ,and making a respectful argument as to why it's shouldn't be considered weird, you take the path of trying to make out that BDSM is just obviously wonderful
Again, it is not my responsibility to prove why bdsm or homosexuality is not weird, but rather the job of those who wish to oppress us to demonstrate a) why we are weird and b) why this alleged weirdness should result in prohibition.
Chuck:
> What do you do when your partner--who you like and love for many reasons--shows no interest in your sexual practices?
Find someone who does and have sex with them.
> So I think that it is important for people to be honest about their sexual interests, pursue them, and be tolerant and open-minded about the interests of your partner.
It also helps to not get hung up about letting your partner pursue their interests with other people if you are not interested.
Yoshie:
> Isn't the reason why a majority of straight men who are into BDSM enjoy humiliation rather than domination that, in the real world, straight men are in the dominant position (relative to women and gay men) and therefore they enjoy temporary reversal of reality in fantasy?
Could be, but I think figuring out why someone is a bdsm'er is not any more useful than figuring out why someone is gay: nice to know in an academic sense (if it can ever be truly known), but the reality is that kinksters and queers exist and the relevant question is: how should they be treated?
I often wonder whether an interest in the origins of kinky desires is just an alternate path some people take (not you Yoshie) in their attempt to pathologize behaviors they do not like, i.e., people are gay/into kink for these disreputable reasons, so therefore their claims for equality/liberty have no merit.
> Now, it's common to fantasize about what's missing in the real world, and there's nothing wrong with it, but there's probably nothing particularly liberating about it either in most cases.
I think it depends on the person.
> But I'd say that it doesn't seem to be the case of the more, always the better.
But maybe better in the sense of having had diversity in the range of one's partners. In my life, I found tremendous value in the erotic intimacies I have shared with transmen, lesbians, bisexual men and straight women who were not (for whatever reasons) potential life partners. More certainly proved to be better for me.
dd:
> What I'm interested in is the close first-cousin relationship between the desire of minority-sexual-preference communities to have their rights respected (which is entirely achievable and laudable), and their desire to have the practices themselves taken seriously (which is entirely impossible and probably not laudable).
But wouldn't it be odd to ask for rights over an issue/practice that should not/cannot be taken seriously?
Dr. Brothers:
> Didn't Kurt Vonnagut mention something about sexual identity being a spectrum? I don't remember how he put it but it made sense to me.
Made sense to me as well. I have always believed that it was possible for a person to fall along various points of the sexual continuum during her life. I used to say that for some people, the coming out process never stops.
Yoshie:
> So, it's unreasonable to demand that everyone have authentic regard for all of others' beliefs, practices, and identities, but it is not unreasonable, in many cases including this one, to demand that all sincerely act as if they did for most of them.
If that approach encompasses a rejection of the "hate the sin, but love the sinner" stance, I am all for it.
Chris:
> Note to Self: Do not have sex with Brian! :)
What makes you think you're my type.
Wait a minute -- I just posted that being my type didn't matter.
Well, you're in Moscow anyway.
Doug:
> What would the Buddha say?
That my body being worshipped is the same as it not being worshipped. There is a great article in a book called Queer Dharma about the connection between leather sex and Buddhist practice.
Also, spiritual fisting is a subset among handballers that is attracting growing interest
n.b. The worship my fist aside referred to my fist as in fisting/handballing not as in punching (though there is punch fisting, but . . . nevermind).
ravi:
> It is also possible that a person who was abused as a child seeks out similar treatment, perhaps to their psychological detriment.
I know several people who overcame the trauma of their abusive childhood through bdsm practice.
Charles:
> I'm so glad you sent the above. Your sending it brings out of the closet an idea that seems to be in some gay liberationists' minds: that they are more sexually "sophisticated" than straights!
Fabulous is as fabulous does Charles. LOL
Seriously: you put the word sophisticated in quotes and maybe we need to interrogate it: you have a sophisticated knowledge of the law; Doug has a sophisticated knowledge of Marx (and piss poor appreciation for musical comedy); Queer Dewd has a sophisticated knowledge of feminist history; one lboster (sorry I forgot who it is) has a sophisticated knowledge of gaming; I have a sophisticated knowledge of sexuality.
What is so bad about acknowledging expertise where and when it exists?
> Ah yes, we're going to let researchers for the Journal of Homosexuality set the standard of sexual "sophistication". What a "weird idea" of unbiased opinion that is.
The researchers were almost all straight.
Brian