What to do when the Majority can't handle a Minority of One

[PhaonsBrother]

Holy Shit! Total Power Exchange did NOT begin with that faggot Jon Jacobs. Michel Foucault is the source material for all 'playing at' within BDSM. Jacques Derrida gave us 'the gift' in The Gift of Death, Responsibility to the Other. Fuck that nonsense vanity shit from wikipedia.

 

[chy_girl]

Just a heads up ... apprently the persecution now extends to the BDSM Personals:

I hate to be a stick in the mud about Bloved, but there is a bit of information those who talk here might need to know. Primarily, he's a troll.
*snip*

Persecution? From Kikori?!?

*dies laughing*

You really need to work on that whole "know your audience thing." Seriously.

 

[Netzach]

Holy Shit! Total Power Exchange did NOT begin with that faggot Jon Jacobs. Michel Foucault is the source material for all 'playing at' within BDSM. Jacques Derrida gave us 'the gift' in The Gift of Death, Responsibility to the Other. Fuck that nonsense vanity shit from wikipedia.

 

[Netzach]

And where were you when we were arguing TPE, Netzach?

93?

96?



Reading this, I'm pretty sure.

It's true, while you were emotionally blackmailing women into drinking your pee, I was deciding if this all spoke to me by reading first-person writings.

 

[where]

I disagree.

A 'bdsm' relationship not built on love and respect is abusive.

A bdsm relationship built on love and trust is not, nor can it be abusive.

Whereas relationships not built on love and trust are selfish, those that are built on love and trust are selfless.

These are distinguishing characteristics which make it easy to tell the two apart.

a relationship in which one party is less than the other is not respectful, it is abusive. you can dress it up as love and trust, but if your woman does not have the very same rights, both legally and domestically as you, then that relationship is abusive. You do not 'selflessly' punish your woman because she has displeased you, you do it because a) you can and b) you get a kick out of it.

because you have made your woman subject to you, you abuse her by the very definition of denying her autonomy. you are are abusive, no matter how you pretend you do it for selfless reasons or out of some warped and perverted idea of 'love'.

 

[BLoved]

Holy Shit! Total Power Exchange did NOT begin with that faggot Jon Jacobs. Michel Foucault is the source material for all 'playing at' within BDSM. Jacques Derrida gave us 'the gift' in The Gift of Death, Responsibility to the Other. Fuck that nonsense vanity shit from wikipedia.

Care to find anything about bdsm or submission in this write up on Derrida?

Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Derrida

Doesn't look likely, and the book came out in '96.

I was talking of the gift of submission in '94.

Can't seem to find any linkage between Foucault and Total Power Exchange as practised in bdsm, either.

 

[Netzach]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[where]

Care to find anything about bdsm or submission in this write up on Derrida?

Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Derrida

Doesn't look likely, and the book came out in '96.

I was talking of the gift of submission in '94.

Can't seem to find any linkage between Foucault and Total Power Exchange as practised in bdsm, either.

if you have read any of Foucault's work you would see the connection between sex and power . just because he doesn't spell it out in nice easy little pieces doens't mean it isn't there. maybe you could try reading it for yourself?

 

[BLoved]

a relationship in which one party is less than the other is not respectful, it is abusive.

Correct.

you can dress it up as love and trust, but if your woman does not have the very same rights, both legally and domestically as you, then that relationship is abusive.

Correct.

You do not 'selflessly' punish your woman because she has displeased you, you do it because a) you can and b) you get a kick out of it.

I do not punish.

because you have made your woman subject to you,

Incorrect.

First, she is not "your woman", she is her own woman.

Second, I do not make her subject to me, she chooses freely to make herself subject to me.

you abuse her by the very definition of denying her autonomy.

I deny her nothing within my power to give.

you are are abusive, no matter how you pretend you do it for selfless reasons or out of some warped and perverted idea of 'love'.

~smile~

You're failure to understand is due to all the assumptions you've made.

If you want to know why you're wrong, feel free to ask.

 

[YourCaptor]

Interesting that you use childhood as a model, considering the fact adults are supposed to be tolerant of views that differ from theirs whereas children have yet to develop that capacity.

Considering "making friends" here requires those of us who reject the 'ethics' of casual 'bdsm' to pay lip-service to it, no matter how insincere, I fail to see the point.

This is a public board devoted to bdsm. Why should anyone who practises bdsm subscribe to the group-think of casual 'bdsm'?

Unless casual 'bdsm' is the One True Way and the fanatics won't let anyone post in peace unless they also subscribe to the 'ethics' of casual 'bdsm'.

It is nothing more than abusive coercion.

So tell me, how does one post to a forum where the majority believes abusive coercion is a viable method for keeping a forum free of any other point of view regarding bdsm?

Come on, we both know adults act immature.

The new guy is always gonna be out. You are literally up against a force of nature here, that force being human social behavior, which is all about organizing the group. Homogeneity is the ultimate goal here, so you figure out your odds.

Heres the point

BIG GROUP vs you

Which do you think will require more finesse in order to influence the other? You may not like it, but that’s life.

We have a poster here, whose lifestyle I would guess about 9% of the forum would consider wrong, abusive, not fit for this society, etc. However she is very patient, sweet, and intelligent. So much so that she has won over just about everybody here, the forum now sees her to be a good exception to the rule. Many even value her opinion so much now, that they work her lifestyle into many of their perceptions on BDSM. She’s like the golden example of “a minority of one” that everyone has accepts and loves. Mind you she doesn’t step back on issues either, I’d guess about 95% of her post are purely about conveying her lifestyle and view to other members.

Point is, when you are up against something bigger, you may want to approach it indirectly. If you just jump in, you’re gonna get squashed.
How about this, picture the forum as some huge half gorilla dude, he’s now pissed at you, and you’re trying to convince him of something. What do you do. Maybe talk him out of his rage first, offer something to show you have good intentions, etc.

I tried to help you out, but this is as much as I'm giving. Now you're on your own.

 

[BLoved]

if you have read any of Foucault's work you would see the connection between sex and power.

I have and I do.

just because he doesn't spell it out in nice easy little pieces doens't mean it isn't there. maybe you could try reading it for yourself?

Maybe the reason it isn't in his works is because he didn't apply himself to the bdsm dynamic.

That was what Jacobs did, and that is why he is linked to TPE and not Foucault.

 

[BLoved]

Heres the point

BIG GROUP vs you

Which do you think will require more finesse in order to influence the other?

~smile~

Who says I am trying to influence them?

 

[Netzach]

I have and I do.



Maybe the reason it isn't in his works is because he didn't apply himself to the bdsm dynamic.

That was what Jacobs did, and that is why he is linked to TPE and not Foucault.

Wait what?

Foucault was IN LEATHER in the 70's. It's a well known part of his bio. Are you seriously intimating that Jon Jacobs is the more important theorist on SM?

 

[Netzach]

Come on, we both know adults act immature.

The new guy is always gonna be out. You are literally up against a force of nature here, that force being human social behavior, which is all about organizing the group. Homogeneity is the ultimate goal here, so you figure out your odds.

Heres the point

BIG GROUP vs you

Which do you think will require more finesse in order to influence the other? You may not like it, but that’s life.

We have a poster here, whose lifestyle I would guess about 9% of the forum would consider wrong, abusive, not fit for this society, etc. However she is very patient, sweet, and intelligent. So much so that she has won over just about everybody here, the forum now sees her to be a good exception to the rule. Many even value her opinion so much now, that they work her lifestyle into many of their perceptions on BDSM. She’s like the golden example of “a minority of one” that everyone has accepts and loves. Mind you she doesn’t step back on issues either, I’d guess about 95% of her post are purely about conveying her lifestyle and view to other members.

Point is, when you are up against something bigger, you may want to approach it indirectly. If you just jump in, you’re gonna get squashed.
How about this, picture the forum as some huge half gorilla dude, he’s now pissed at you, and you’re trying to convince him of something. What do you do. Maybe talk him out of his rage first, offer something to show you have good intentions, etc.

I tried to help you out, but this is as much as I'm giving. Now you're on your own.

How long would this thread have been if it was like "hi, I'm BLoved and I only practise SM in the context of a romantic monogamous relationship."

But there's no glory in that is there?

 

[Stella_Omega]

No and no.

TPE predates the hell out of the internet, as evidenced by an established M/s subculture in gay leather, with documents and a whole stinking Chicago based archive to prove that B is talking out his ass when he's claiming Jacobs invented this wheel.

Submission as Gift has been crapping up the internet for as long as there's been SM discussion on it. Maybe Wulf IS the progenitor, but for someone who says that TPE began with JJ - I doubt it highly.

Anne Rice, who with her husband were seminal members of the Janus Society, mentions the concept of giving up all power to one's dominant, in her 1985 novel "Exit from Eden."

She's not in favor of it. But the concept was around.

 

[PhaonsBrother]

Care to find anything about bdsm or submission in this write up on Derrida?

Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Derrida

Doesn't look likely, and the book came out in '96.

I was talking of the gift of submission in '94.

Can't seem to find any linkage between Foucault and Total Power Exchange as practised in bdsm, either.

FuckTard. History of Sexuality, Discipline and Punish etc. -Michel Foucault

BDSM, open acceptance and exploration of any and all fetish represents the end of the Sexual Revolution. Your world is one where you spend so much time on discourse, obsessive exploration of "sexuality" that you've no time to actually live a human life. We live on the flip side of Victorian obsessive repression, yet we've become as deluded. Evidence: these threads.

You're going to look in an Internet encyclopedia for Derrida on 'the Gift'? I gave you the fucking answer --The Gift of Death--

 

[where]

Correct.



Correct.



I do not punish.



Incorrect.

First, she is not "your woman", she is her own woman.

Second, I do not make her subject to me, she chooses freely to make herself subject to me.



I deny her nothing within my power to give.



~smile~

You're failure to understand is due to all the assumptions you've made.

If you want to know why you're wrong, feel free to ask.

~smile~ your woman/women are subject to their socialisation and therefore are in a state of false consciousness. they only think they have chosen to subject themselves to you and if you truly loved them, you would help them by making them see that they can actually have full autonomy and do not need to be subject to you. but you won't do that because it suits your deviant purpose to have the woman subject to you. you are basically being selfish otherwise you would help her to self actualise and become a fully autonomous free agent.

I have and I do.



Maybe the reason it isn't in his works is because he didn't apply himself to the bdsm dynamic.

That was what Jacobs did, and that is why he is linked to TPE and not Foucault.

Foucault is pretty well known for having an 'interesting' private life which encompassed bdsm. if you can't see that reflected in his work, then you need to read it again.

 

[BLoved]

Wait what?

Foucault was IN LEATHER in the 70's. It's a well known part of his bio. Are you seriously intimating that Jon Jacobs is the more important theorist on SM?

When it comes to bdsm, it would appear so.

I've read "The History of Sexuality, Volume I" and there is nothing in it resembling TPE that I can recall.

I've not read volumes 2 or 3, but judging from the summaries provided by Amazon they are also unrelated to bdsm.

Product Description
In this sequel to The History of Sexuality, Volume I: An Introduction, the brilliantly original French thinker who died in 1984 gives an analysis of how the ancient Greeks perceived sexuality.
Throughout The Uses of Pleasure Foucault analyzes an irresistible array of ancient Greek texts on eroticism as he tries to answer basic questions: How in the West did sexual experience become a moral issue? And why were other appetites of the body, such as hunger, and collective concerns, such as civic duty, not subjected to the numberless rules and regulations and judgments that have defined, if not confined, sexual behavior?

Product Description
The Care of the Self is the third and possibly final volume of Michel Foucault's widely acclaimed examination of "the experience of sexuality in Western society." Foucault takes us into the first two centuries of our own era, into the Golden Age of Rome, to reveal a subtle but decisive break from the classical Greek vision of sexual pleasure. He skillfully explores the whole corpus of moral reflection among philosophers (Plutarch, Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius, Seneca) and physicians of the era, and uncovers an increasing mistrust of pleasure and growing anxiety over sexual activity and its consequences.

 

[BLoved]

~smile~ your woman/women are subject to their socialisation and therefore are in a state of false consciousness. they only think they have chosen to subject themselves to you and if you truly loved them, you would help them by making them see that they can actually have full autonomy and do not need to be subject to you. but you won't do that because it suits your deviant purpose to have the woman subject to you. you are basically being selfish otherwise you would help her to self actualise and become a fully autonomous free agent.

You are still coming to erroneous conclusions as a result of your assumptions.

 

[Stella_Omega]

In other words, it's another argument by definition. Since bloved controls his definition of bdsm, he can say that Foucault is not part of bdsm-- in the teeth of other people's contentions.

Are we surprised?

 

[Netzach]

When it comes to bdsm, it would appear so.

I've read "The History of Sexuality, Volume I" and there is nothing in it resembling TPE that I can recall.

I've not read volumes 2 or 3, but judging from the summaries provided by Amazon they are also unrelated to bdsm.

Product Description
In this sequel to The History of Sexuality, Volume I: An Introduction, the brilliantly original French thinker who died in 1984 gives an analysis of how the ancient Greeks perceived sexuality.
Throughout The Uses of Pleasure Foucault analyzes an irresistible array of ancient Greek texts on eroticism as he tries to answer basic questions: How in the West did sexual experience become a moral issue? And why were other appetites of the body, such as hunger, and collective concerns, such as civic duty, not subjected to the numberless rules and regulations and judgments that have defined, if not confined, sexual behavior?

Product Description
The Care of the Self is the third and possibly final volume of Michel Foucault's widely acclaimed examination of "the experience of sexuality in Western society." Foucault takes us into the first two centuries of our own era, into the Golden Age of Rome, to reveal a subtle but decisive break from the classical Greek vision of sexual pleasure. He skillfully explores the whole corpus of moral reflection among philosophers (Plutarch, Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius, Seneca) and physicians of the era, and uncovers an increasing mistrust of pleasure and growing anxiety over sexual activity and its consequences.

I'm not talking about dust jackets. Nor cliffs notes. Both of which are more informationally sound than what you said.

You said Foucault didn't apply himself to the BDSM dynamic. Clearly he did.

His theory of it is quite the left turn from JJ's who was basically a self aggrandizing dude on the internet with a following, but it has a little more impact on how we theorize sexuality. A leeetle.

You show you have no idea what you are saying the more you go on.

 

[where]

You are still coming to erroneous conclusions as a result of your assumptions.

no, I don't think so. I think it is clear that you are refusing to accept that your actions, along with every other form of bdsm, is abusive. the very fact that you are willing to have a person subjugate themselves, illustrates this.

In other words, it's another argument by definition. Since bloved controls his definition of bdsm, he can say that Foucault is not part of bdsm-- in the teeth of other people's contentions.

Are we surprised?

I'm actually feeling a bit sorry for the poor old fucker. I may have to stick him back on ignore though because these threads are never ending and it's like talking to an automaton.

 

[LaRocha]

Derrida: Women in the Beehive, The Animal that therefore I am, the writing of the body. Power relations and sexual fetishism are covered extensively. BLoved doesn't know how to read books, he lives in message board world.

 

[BLoved]

Anne Rice, who with her husband were seminal members of the Janus Society, mentions the concept of giving up all power to one's dominant, in her 1985 novel "Exit from Eden."

She's not in favor of it. But the concept was around.

And John Norman was talking about it in his Gor series, which first saw print in '66.

The point is Jacobs was the one who formalized a bdsm lifestyle around Total Power Exchange.

 

[LaRocha]

And John Norman was talking about it in his Gor series, which first saw print in '66.

The point is Jacobs was the one who formalized a bdsm lifestyle around Total Power Exchange.

TPE is a fantasy discourse, dear. It's always a play at power, a play at dominance, a play at submission, something aside from Life Itself.