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

[BLoved]

no, I don't think so.

~smile~

Of course not.

Make enough assumptions and you can talk yourself into believing anything.

Clearly you do not want to understand my point of view. More fun to simply make accusations and assume guilt.

Kangaroo court.

And since it is obvious the mob have engaged in feeding frenzy, again, I'll just sit back and wait till it burns itself out, review the contributions and see if I can find anything intelligent amongst all the accusations/assumptions.

 

[Netzach]

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.

For straight M/f internet addicts.

 

[Netzach]

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.

this point

is
lost

losssst

 

[where]

Make enough assumptions and you can talk yourself into believing anything.
.

I think you have very ably demonstrated this from your own side.

anyway, take up the reading suggestions, they are all good.

adios.

 

[where]

this point

is
lost

losssst

heh... I'm coming at it from an outsider's perspective and I think he is just too wrapped up in some kind of weird formularised and ritualistic notion of not just bdsm, but sexuality, that he can't understand anything outside his own constructed reality. he's not just stuck in a rut, he's stuck in a fucking hole bigger than that one in guatamala.

 

[Stella_Omega]

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.

For men who want to top women. On the internet.


(ETA ) I see netzach has said the very same thing.

Actually the Gor gang has been around since the 80s as well. This message is dated 1990, and describes her life in the past tense;

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.books.gor/msg/0966d352414b2ba2

 

[CutieMouse]

I'm getting a bit bored of this, partly because I don't see you shifting even on iota, which is a bad place to be in.

false consciousness is a theory (marxist) that suggests that people don't accept they are being oppressed. It was used a lot in feminist writing way back and is just as applicable now for the new crop of bright young things who would argue that feminism has no meaning for them.

Now what is interesting with it being used in a feminist context is that it can directly be applied to submissives, the large part of which are female. this is why bdsm is seen as being inherently abusive by much of the 'nilla society. Subs are in a state of false consciousness and are therefore being oppressed by patriarchy etc etc etc... I think the feminism sub thing has been done to death here already.

So you are viewing what you call abuse as false consciousness on the part of the subs in the casual bdsm scene in the same way that the 'nillas call abuse as false consciousness on the ~whole~ bdsm scene, your version included.

now if you are claiming ~your~ type of bdsm is not actually abusive and there is no false consciousness on the part of the subs with whom you are interacting to the 'nillas, then it is just as feasible that the subs and doms who are on the casual scene can also claim that they are not in abusive relationships and there is no false consciousness.

another point to ponder. I'm guessing from what you have said you are probably a lot older than many people here. you must be aware that society changes. you did things as a young person that to your parents generation would be thought shocking. The same goes now. I listen to young people's views and attitudes to sex and I'm shocked at times. for many young people sex is not some kind sacred emotional bond. it's fun. it's sport and they treat it like that. So whilst casual sex of any kind may be anathema to you and subject to emotional damage, for much younger people there are not those hang ups about it any more.

whether that is a good thing or a bad thing I have no clue. instinct tells me it's a good thing. personally i would like to have sex that did not involve conflicting feelings of guilt and repression. I think I would be a lot happier.

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.

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.

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?

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--

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.

I kink I just had a kinky geekgasm.

 

[eastern sun]

It's a hell of an essay, I grant that. At the end of the day, though, I still feel like fetishizing male power over women is like having a socks-go-on-my-feet! fetish. No one's who's disapproving has life and death power over you for the most part, and the culture is still wired to normalize a lot of your kink.

That's an interesting statement, Netzach, which I understand to mean that there is no need to politicize the M/f dynamics.

But speaking simply in terms of the libido, in this feminist culture, there is still ample room for discussions of the choice.

And there is always the simple pleasure in wearing one's sexuality like a jewel-encrusted crown.

 

[Netzach]

That's an interesting statement, Netzach, which I understand to mean that there is no need to politicize the M/f dynamics.

But speaking simply in terms of the libido, in this feminist culture, there is still ample room for discussions of the choice.

And there is always the simple pleasure in wearing one's sexuality like a jewel-encrusted crown.

I get what you mean - female sexuality in all forms does hold some form of politicization and is oppositional just in its existence. I'm just uncertain if this IS "a feminist culture" to the extent that M/f is as aberrant as other forms, and I've found this to be a point of some division. I've been treated as though F/m sexuality has been legitimized because we had power puff girls and feminism won.

Wha?

Last I checked, the message about my correct sexual behavior is one of deference and passivity.

 

[Stella_Omega]

And for myself, that some people in D/s do it because they really believe that Woman is made to serve Man and Man is made to own Woman-- makes me nauseous. Like really, honestly, body-reaction want to vomit.

So does the correlary that I see so often, that Woman is made to Control Man because he just can't control himself (Preferably by means of a shiny black vinyl catsuit and a rabbit-fur flogger, but that's a different rant).

Hetero assumptions-- I can live with them, but sometimes I hate to have to confront them.

I know SO many straight folk who don't subscribe to these notions, too. Men who are driven to own-- and they want to own what they love best, which is women. Women who want to own what they love best, which happens to be men.

 

[where]

hey! I my shiny black vinyl catsuit!

 

[eastern sun]

And for myself, that some people in D/s do it because they really believe that Woman is made to serve Man and Man is made to own Woman-- makes me nauseous. Like really, honestly, body-reaction want to vomit.

So does the correlary that I see so often, that Woman is made to Control Man because he just can't control himself (Preferably by means of a shiny black vinyl catsuit and a rabbit-fur flogger, but that's a different rant).

Hetero assumptions-- I can live with them, but sometimes I hate to have to confront them.

I know SO many straight folk who don't subscribe to these notions, too. Men who are driven to own-- and they want to own what they love best, which is women. Women who want to own what they love best, which happens to be men.

But what about the reality of the sexual experience? Underneath all the language. Isn't that what we have in common?

 

[Stella_Omega]

But what about the reality of the sexual experience? Underneath all the language. Isn't that what we have in common?

Orgasms?

Is that enough for you? Because it isn't enough for me.

 

[Etoile]

he's not just stuck in a rut, he's stuck in a fucking hole bigger than that one in guatamala.

bwahahahaha

 

[where]

Orgasms?

Is that enough for you? Because it isn't enough for me.

I know, I'm crap at it. I can't even call my Dom my Dom because I'm not fucking well submissive enough

I need to be taken in hand in a loving and caring way and shown how to do it properly.

 

[Netzach]

But what about the reality of the sexual experience? Underneath all the language. Isn't that what we have in common?

You're talking to someone who's tight assed about derrida and foucault. I'm unsure there is anything under there, lol.

 

[eastern sun]

Orgasms?

Is that enough for you? Because it isn't enough for me.

Nope. Me, neither. It's much more complex than that.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I know, I'm crap at it. I can't even call my Dom my Dom because I'm not fucking well submissive enough

I need to be taken in hand in a loving and caring way and shown how to do it properly.

And, presumably, your master has to be a man, because your hetero, and you really love men. Maybe, one particular man.

But--and this is pretty crucial when you think about it-- You don't automatically assume that all men are masters of women. Some men do-- or claim they do-- or wish that were so...

 

[eastern sun]

You're talking to someone who's tight assed about derrida and foucault. I'm unsure there is anything under there, lol.

What do you mean?

 

[eastern sun]

And, presumably, your master has to be a man, because your hetero, and you really love men. Maybe, one particular man.

But--and this is pretty crucial when you think about it-- You don't automatically assume that all men are masters of women. Some men do-- or claim they do-- or wish that were so...

Anyone who over-generalizes risks being a fool.

 

[Netzach]

What do you mean?

I mean without language to articulate it, I'm not sure if my sexuality still works. Signs and signifiers and all that happy crap.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Anyone who over-generalizes risks being a fool.

In this instance, they risk holding the contents of my stomach on their lap

I am not kidding. I am not exaggerating. The idea of M/f as the "natural outcome" of the "natural relationship" of the sexes? Makes me want to puke.

 

[Netzach]

And for myself, that some people in D/s do it because they really believe that Woman is made to serve Man and Man is made to own Woman-- makes me nauseous. Like really, honestly, body-reaction want to vomit.

So does the correlary that I see so often, that Woman is made to Control Man because he just can't control himself (Preferably by means of a shiny black vinyl catsuit and a rabbit-fur flogger, but that's a different rant).

Hetero assumptions-- I can live with them, but sometimes I hate to have to confront them.

I know SO many straight folk who don't subscribe to these notions, too. Men who are driven to own-- and they want to own what they love best, which is women. Women who want to own what they love best, which happens to be men.

My favorite is when that peanut butter gets into my lesbian chocolate. Butches are top, femmes are bottom. What?

 

[Stella_Omega]

I mean without language to articulate it, I'm not sure if my sexuality still works. Signs and signifiers and all that happy crap.

We should test that... *hefts the gag harness meaningfully*

Oh-- wait-- sorry. I thought you meant...

Sorry.

 

[Netzach]

In this instance, they risk holding the contents of my stomach on their lap

I am not kidding. I am not exaggerating. The idea of M/f as the "natural outcome" of the "natural relationship" of the sexes? Makes me want to puke.

Do you think this reaction has to do with a somewhat Butlerian notion about gender as applies to you, though? I don't really care what people do as long as that dude isn't swingin' that thing AT ME, you know.