YKINOKism revisited (was: Bigotry and Hatred. . .)
Laurelie
Rosie wrote in the middle of a much longer post:
>>> According to Janet Hardy, all kinks are not created equal, and we
who have sexual relationships that do not meet her high standards should
be called demeaning names (or perhaps even hounded off the newsgroup, if
you happen to be new and unestablished, the way Marisa Wright, Verdant's
recent target of bullying, was).>>>
Very deliberately choosing *not* to address the larger and personal
message of Rosie's post to Verdant, I'd like to make three points
of possible total irrelevance to anyone but me:
1. If you can say that the kinks of murder, rape, non-consensual
abuse are not ok (and there are people with these kinks!), then
you too, believe that all kinks are not created equal.
2. If you want to redefine the word 'kink' to mean only the consensual
kind, people are still going to question what constitutes consent.
This is a question that has been debated for centuries. We're
unlikely to solve it here. Because the issue of consent in the
case of S&M is so very fundamentally personal to us, it's very
easy to think of it as an issue of bigotry. I think though,
that it's more appropriately considered to be a philosophical
question on the alienability (or lack thereof) of human rights.
3. My recollection of the Marisa Wright situation is not that of
anyone bullying, but of defensiveness in the extreme on the part
of a person who didn't think she should be posting to the newsgroup
in the first place.
4. I don't know that/if/whether Janet believes that subs in situations
such as Jon Jacobs describes should be called names. I do notice
that her post is rather remarkable in it's lack of qualifiers.
(Which, to me, seems to be the *real* high crime on asb. . .resulting
in posts that are about 3-10 times longer (depending on the author)
than they should be, due to the constant need to cover one's ass
with qualifying words, phrases, and paragraphs that probably should
have been assumed and implicit in the first place. In this, however, asb is not
much different than legal scholarly debate, except, possibly, in
the openly rude and hostile chorus with which such posts are greeted
here. (Qualifier: and in making this general observation about the
use of qualifiers I should not be understood to be calling Rosie
hostile or rude. Also, I should not be understood to be saying
there are implicit or assumed qualifiers in Janet's post that should
have been noted.))
Sincerely,
Laurel
who, after one punctuation lesson from Rosie, actually
went and got her Random House Handbook to make sure those subordinate
clauses were punctuated correctly within the parentheses. :)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to he...@anon.penet.fi.
Due to the double-blind, any mail replies to this message will be anonymized,
and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned.
Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to ad...@anon.penet.fi.
Peter McDermott
an12...@anon.penet.fi (Laurelie) wrote:
>Mr. McDermott wrote:
>
>> >Very deliberately choosing *not* to address the larger and personal
>> >message of Rosie's post to Verdant, I'd like to make three points
>> >of possible total irrelevance to anyone but me:
>>
>> That was four points, Laurel. ;)
>
>Why Mr. McDermott, what a remarkable post! You have my
>congratulations for finally writing something about/to me that
>is true or worthy of response. This is a rare find this week!
Hmm. I see that your still in the habit of making statements
without any citations to back them up, perhaps because their
accuracy matches your ability to count?
--
pe...@petermc.demon.co.uk Cool as fuck!
Sara aka Perrrfect
(Laurelie) wrote:
> 1. If you can say that the kinks of murder, rape, non-consensual
> abuse are not ok (and there are people with these kinks!), then
> you too, believe that all kinks are not created equal.
>
My only problem with an otherwise excellent, well-written, and beautifully
punctuated post is this. Murder is a KINK? Perhaps I need a definition here
of kink.
Granted, the dictionaries may not be too much help here, but the Webster's
9th defines it (in our context) as "2. a mental or physical peculiarity:
eccentricity, quirk, whim, 3. a clever unusual way of doing something"
I'm just not certain I can view murderers and rapsist as merely people with
different kinks than mine.
Can we get a good definition, Laurelie?
Thanks!
Laurelie
Sara aka Perrrfect responded to me:
> > 1. If you can say that the kinks of murder, rape, non-consensual
> > abuse are not ok (and there are people with these kinks!), then
> > you too, believe that all kinks are not created equal.
> >
>
> My only problem with an otherwise excellent, well-written, and beautifully
> punctuated post is this. Murder is a KINK? Perhaps I need a definition here
> of kink.
Oooh. Sara. . . good. Thank you for making me examine my
own dancing with definitions :) Let me see. I always thought
of a kink as something that made you wet, hard, or turned you on
in some deeper way.
And. . .unfortunately, there are those people who get turned on
by murder. Watching it and/or doing it (and yes I believe there is
a qualitative difference between watching and doing). Ted Bundy
is but one example.
there are countless others, but he's a famous one.
> Granted, the dictionaries may not be too much help here, but the Webster's
> 9th defines it (in our context) as "2. a mental or physical peculiarity:
> eccentricity, quirk, whim, 3. a clever unusual way of doing something"
Yeah I'm not sure that definition suits me cause it doesn't really
seem to jive with how people use the word 'kink' around here.
Like: "My Kink is vanilla sex". . . well. . .that's not really
unusually clever, or peculiar. But I guess, "My kink is having
someone beat me until I orgasm" might be. . . I guess being beaten is
an unusual way of reaching climax. Unfortunately, so is murder or
rape. . .hrm. . .
> I'm just not certain I can view murderers and rapsist as merely people with
> different kinks than mine.
It is unsettling, but how do *you* distinguish them? (I'm not
challenging you here, I'd like to hear another way)
> Can we get a good definition, Laurelie?
Good?! Uhh. . . redefining words isn't my kink :)
Best I can do is point out my interpretation of common usage: That
which arouses on a physical or mental level.
Sincerely,
Laurel
Janet W. Hardy
: who have sexual relationships that do not meet her high standards should
: be called demeaning names (or perhaps even hounded off the newsgroup, if
: you happen to be new and unestablished, the way Marisa Wright, Verdant's
: recent target of bullying, was).>>>
Gosh, you leave town for a couple of days and look what you find when you
get back.
Just for the record: Marisa initiated contact with me. She described
the nature of her relationship. I told her I did not understand that
type of relationship and had genuine concerns about her personal growth
as a human being under such circumstances. We exchanged about four
rounds of very interesting private e-mail. At no time did I call her a
name or attempt to belittle her. If she is still reading this and will
give permission, I will publicly post my side of our correspondence if
anybody cares.
I may be a judgmental bitch, but I'm not a bully.
Verdant