The Abbreviated JJ <would have been Re: Jejune, Juvenile>
Steven S. Davis
Newsgroups: alt.sex.bondage
wi....@wizvax.com (Chloe) writes,
> I logged on to asb this morning. 39 messages. Of these, twenty
> were by or about Jon Jacobs. Fifteen in Slave Names, where a
> whole messofolks are arguing about what Jon argued, and about
> who misrepresented his arguments and who merely argued with his
> arguments. All ole JJ has to do is step in and stir the pot
> every now and then. The thing has a life of its own.
[snip]
> So why don't we appoint Inquisitor (who at least has stayed out of
> this so far and none of whose acolytes has been sent baying into
> the fray to bite on behalf of hir master) to do the following for
> each JJ post:
^^^^
Last time I heard, Inquistor was not a masochist.
> Strip it of hackle-raising epithets and insults
> Analyse and summarise its content
> Post it back to asb for discussion
It wouldn't work, because the problem in discussing JJ's pet
topics is that one most have read all his posts (a not entirely
reasonable attitude on JJ's part, IMO, given the vagaries of
the net and the volume of posts). Well, it might work if
the analysis included bringing in the kind of context Jon does
not often deign to supply.
> This way we will be able (perhaps) to discuss some of the substantive
> issues without all the antler-waving, snorting and pawing at the ground
> that's been going on. Perhaps there'll even be room for some other
> topics of discussion. By some other people.
> And Peter McD, please don't do a cop-out snarl by saying (as you just
> did to someone feeling lonely in their kink) if you want it, post it,
> dick-head. It's marginally clever, maybe, and it tends to silence
> the opposition. But it's neither fair nor constructive.
It did seem inappropriate; how freely one offers one's dick is one's
own business, but one should probably wait until one knows a person
better before offering one's "dick-head".
But I'll render that partiular point moot by "posting it myself".
Much of the hostility of these threads stems from JJ's arrogantly
dismissive attitude and from lack of context. What follows is my
reading of JJ's basic position, which may supply some context, and
will have a minimum of attitude. I hope it may be of some help in
focussing the debate on positions and not personalities.
I know, it's very presumptous to speak for some else, but hey,
I once got ES's position summarized in a couple paragraphs that
even Even thought were OK, so I can try one for Jon's position.
Of course, I had the advantage of understanding ES's position.
Doubtless Jon will advise of my errors.
*********************
Jon Jacobs on Power Exchange (abbreviated)
JJ believes that most people who are interested in what he calls
D&S, what I call "our thing" and Bill Borher calls wiitwd (what
it is that we do) and most people on ASB call BDSM, are interested
in power exchange. Though people tend to think of power exchange
in terms of the DS component of BDSM, it can occur within any
kind of encounter in which one person cedes power to another.
For example, if you allow someone to bind you and give them the
sole power to decide how you are to be bound or when you will be
untied, or go into a painplay event in which you are restrained
and helpless and you've allowed the person topping you to act with
complete freedom (which includes the freedom to disregard anything
you say during the duration of the event, which can be set for a
fixed time), you've engaged in power exchange.
However, it seems to me that Jon sometimes speaks of "power exchange"
as something that includes these relatively simple cases, and
sometimes in reference to a rarified state in which the
submissive's offered power is taken and used by a dom with the
skill and force of personality in such a way as to make the
sub experience the feeling of being totally controlled and no
impediment exists to the exercise of the dom's power (slave
contracts serve as impediments to the dom's power and therefore,
in Jon's view, undermine the power exchange). It also appears
that this later state is very difficult, though not necessarily
impossible, to achieve outside of a longterm lifestyle
relationship.
Jon does not believe that everyone seeks power exchange, conceding
that pure sensation players exist, though he deems them rare, based
on his own experience and on interviews with people experienced in
counseling people in BDSM. He has not, so far as I know, ventured
an opinion as to the frequency of such individuals. He does believe
that there are many BDSM people who are interested in power exchange
but deny it, and that there are many others who would be interested
in power exchange if they were exposed to it. Jon is quite clear
in believing that for most people power exchange is superior to
other "things that we do", while conceding that there are SQO people
who have no interest in power exchange, and SQO people (it appears
that he believes the later quantity larger, though he has not
actually said so, to my knowledge) who are not capable of it.
Because power exchange requires that the catcher not be able to
control the conduct of the pitchers, Jon is vociferously opposed
to safewords, which leave the catcher with some control. He also
believes that the levels of trust and intimacy that are required
for the more advanced forms of power exchange are very unlikely
to develop at playparties, and considers them to be both examples
of faux D&S (which is not inherently a bad thing, save when mistaken
for power exchange) and an impediment to the experience of real
power exchange. Playparties impede the experience of real power
exchange both by not showing participants, especially new ones,
the possibilities of power exchange, and by inculcating a set of
rules and attitudes (e.g. safewords and negotiated limits) that
serve in playparties to restrict the potential for harm but in
longtern relationships serve to restrict the exploration of
power exchange. A better means of learning D&S is through
association with experienced practicioners in intimate settings.
And that covers Jon's essential position, or as much of it as
I have been able to discern in the months of reading his posts.
Jon Jacobs
>I know, it's very presumptous to speak for some else, but hey,
>I once got ES's position summarized in a couple paragraphs that
>even Even thought were OK, so I can try one for Jon's position.
>
>Of course, I had the advantage of understanding ES's position.
>
>Doubtless Jon will advise of my errors.
Doubtless.
>Jon Jacobs on Power Exchange (abbreviated)
>
>JJ believes that most people who are interested in what he calls
>D&S, what I call "our thing" and Bill Borher calls wiitwd (what
>it is that we do) and most people on ASB call BDSM, are interested
>in power exchange. Though people tend to think of power exchange
>in terms of the DS component of BDSM, it can occur within any
>kind of encounter in which one person cedes power to another.
>For example, if you allow someone to bind you and give them the
>sole power to decide how you are to be bound or when you will be
>untied, or go into a painplay event in which you are restrained
>and helpless and you've allowed the person topping you to act with
>complete freedom (which includes the freedom to disregard anything
>you say during the duration of the event, which can be set for a
>fixed time), you've engaged in power exchange.
Correct so far, except that I'm not sure whether you mean to imply that I
consider all power exchanges, including the ones that occur when you pass
someone on the street, to be relevant to this discussion. They are not.
I am talking about intentional, self-aware power exchange.
>However, it seems to me that Jon sometimes speaks of "power exchange"
>as something that includes these relatively simple cases, and
>sometimes in reference to a rarified state in which the
>submissive's offered power is taken and used by a dom with the
>skill and force of personality in such a way as to make the
>sub experience the feeling of being totally controlled and no
>impediment exists to the exercise of the dom's power (slave
>contracts serve as impediments to the dom's power and therefore,
>in Jon's view, undermine the power exchange). It also appears
>that this later state is very difficult, though not necessarily
>impossible, to achieve outside of a longterm lifestyle
>relationship.
No, you're a little confused here. Power exchange is, in fact, rather
simple. It occurs, as noted above, when someone actually and awarely
cedes power to another, who accepts (or takes, to be more exact) that
power. I don't conjfuse that general exchange with its ultimate form:
total and permanent exchange of power. One, to adopt for a moment the
pedantic vocabulary preferred by some folks around here, is a subset of
the other. I do not think that that final exchange is good for most
people involved in d^s, certainly, but it is important that people
realize that such a thing is possible in real life and think about what
that fact means for their desires and needs.
My objection to "slave contracts" is not that they reduce anyone's power
but, rather, that they represent part of the "play" paradigm of d&s.
>Jon does not believe that everyone seeks power exchange, conceding
>that pure sensation players exist, though he deems them rare, based
>on his own experience and on interviews with people experienced in
>counseling people in BDSM. He has not, so far as I know, ventured
>an opinion as to the frequency of such individuals.
Correct. I have no idea of the absolute numbers of such people; nor does
anyone else.
He does believe
>that there are many BDSM people who are interested in power exchange
>but deny it, and that there are many others who would be interested
>in power exchange if they were exposed to it. Jon is quite clear
>in believing that for most people power exchange is superior to
>other "things that we do", while conceding that there are SQO people
>who have no interest in power exchange, and SQO people (it appears
>that he believes the later quantity larger, though he has not
>actually said so, to my knowledge) who are not capable of it.
Close enough for folk music.
>Because power exchange requires that the catcher not be able to
>control the conduct of the pitchers, Jon is vociferously opposed
>to safewords, which leave the catcher with some control. He also
>believes that the levels of trust and intimacy that are required
>for the more advanced forms of power exchange are very unlikely
>to develop at playparties, and considers them to be both examples
>of faux D&S (which is not inherently a bad thing, save when mistaken
>for power exchange) and an impediment to the experience of real
>power exchange. Playparties impede the experience of real power
>exchange both by not showing participants, especially new ones,
>the possibilities of power exchange, and by inculcating a set of
>rules and attitudes (e.g. safewords and negotiated limits) that
>serve in playparties to restrict the potential for harm but in
>longtern relationships serve to restrict the exploration of
>power exchange. A better means of learning D&S is through
>association with experienced practicioners in intimate settings.
Yes, with one addition. There is an ideology associated with the
play-party paradigm--and it's one that's expressed strongly by many of
the regular posters here--that play parties _are_ d&s. That's a strong
deterrent to further experimentation.
>And that covers Jon's essential position, or as much of it as
>I have been able to discern in the months of reading his posts.
You missed one major element: consensuality. One of the ideological
assumptions associated with people who participate in the play-party
paradigm and also expressed strongly by many here is that consensuality
must be constantly given and reiterated to be valid and that
relationships in which consent is given once at the beginning and never
needs to be reiterated are either (a) nonconsnsual or (b) impossible.
Both of these ideas are nonsense.
Really, you did a great job of boiling down several hundred messages.
You have worked my assertions into a kind of manifesto, for which I thank
you. FWIW, if I had wanted to issue a manifesto, I would have done it
myself weeks age (g). Messy as they are, these discussions are in the
end more illuminating.
Jon Jacobs