Encouraging women to attend group meetings.
Russell Turpin
If there were sufficient interest in regular meetings, the group
could have separate meetings before each mixed meetings. The
days of separate meetings, women and men would meet in two
different places. Only those (men?) who attend the separate
meeting would be invited to the coming mixed meeting, though one
could attend the appropriate separate meeting without any
obligation to mix. Thus, women have an opportunity to meet the
other women without the men around, and a new male participant
could not join the mixed meeting without first meeting the
regular male members.
The idea is to offer women a "safe" context, and to encourage new
men to form a camaraderie with the entire group, rather than just
targeting the women. This does not take into account the
dynamics of mixing in the other sense: het and gay. The proposed
rule also seems artificial, and may impose too much of a strain
in getting a group together at all. And there are other problems
with it. But if this proposal stimulates other ideas and
proposals, it will have done enough.
Russell
Rpp
In article <82...@cs.utexas.edu> tur...@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) writes:
Russell> If there were sufficient interest in regular meetings, the group
Russell> could have separate meetings before each mixed meetings. [...]
I like this idea!
Russell> This does not take into account the dynamics of mixing in the
Russell> other sense: het and gay. [...]
I, for one, would not mind being in a mixed het/gay male group. I have
so far been entirely heterosexual in my sexual expression (but have
identified as a bisexual). Maybe that could change? ;-)
---Kayvan
--
| Kayvan Sylvan @ Transact Software, Inc. -*- Los Altos, CA (415) 961-6112 |
| Internet: kayvan@{mrspoc.Transact.com, eris.berkeley.edu, largo.ig.com} |
| UUCP: ...!{apple,pyramid,bionet,mips}!mrspoc!kayvan "Imagine Cute Saying" |
Paul Traina
From: tur...@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin)
Summary: One impromptu idea.
If there were sufficient interest in regular meetings, the group
could have separate meetings before each mixed meetings. The
days of separate meetings, women and men would meet in two
different places. Only those (men?) who attend the separate
meeting would be invited to the coming mixed meeting, though one
could attend the appropriate separate meeting without any
obligation to mix. Thus, women have an opportunity to meet the
other women without the men around, and a new male participant
could not join the mixed meeting without first meeting the
regular male members.
I guess that the idea is that we ``safe'' men can check each other
out to make sure that there are no psychopaths are allowed into the
mixed group, thus protecting the womyn who attend the mixed meetings.
Umm, this may sound like a dumb question, but besides being
incredibly parochial(sp?), don't you think it would be rather
difficult to determine if someone is a psychopath from just meeting
them for a few minutes at one of the men-only meetings? I would tend
to think that the most sucessful sickos are the ones who pass
themselves off as completely normal people.
To back up my point, how many people out there are _lurkers_ who
would never post to this newsgroup? To the mundanes, _we_ are the
sickos. :-(
--
I want a VEGETARIAN BURRITO to go.. with EXTRA MSG!!
Andy Frazer
is in a public (and quite crowded) place! The chances of getting
molested in El Torrito's are about the same as getting molested
in the supermarket, regardless of who you are meeting or talking to.
Andy
Tim Maroney
Ever hear of a place called New Bedford?
--
Tim Maroney, Mac Software Consultant, sun!hoptoad!tim, t...@toad.com
"Starting in a hollowed log of wood -- some thousand miles up a river, with an
infinitesimal prospect of returning! I ask myself 'Why?' and the only echo
is 'damned fool! ... the Devil drives!"
-- Sir Richard Francis Burton in correspondence to Monckton Miles, 1863
Andy Frazer
>In article <8...@elle.nsc.com> fra...@elle.UUCP (Andy Frazer) writes:
>>I still don't see what harm could come to anyone if the meeting
>>is in a public (and quite crowded) place! The chances of getting
>>molested in El Torrito's are about the same as getting molested
>>in the supermarket, regardless of who you are meeting or talking to.
>
>Ever hear of a place called New Bedford?
Yeah. Have you ever *seen* the inside of New Bedford? That's *we* met in
El Torrito's.
Andy
Tim Maroney
>>>I still don't see what harm could come to anyone if the meeting
>>>is in a public (and quite crowded) place! The chances of getting
>>>molested in El Torrito's are about the same as getting molested
>>>in the supermarket, regardless of who you are meeting or talking to.
In article <10...@hoptoad.uucp> t...@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes:
>>Ever hear of a place called New Bedford?
In article <8...@elle.nsc.com> fra...@elle.UUCP (Andy Frazer) writes:
>Yeah. Have you ever *seen* the inside of New Bedford? That's *we* met in
>El Torrito's.
I don't know what the inside of a geographical location is supposed to
mean. I also don't know what your terminal sentence is supposed to
mean; perhaps you should rephrase it in English.
I have no sympathy for male twits who tell women that they have nothing
to fear with respect to sexual harassment. Women generally have a much
better understanding of the risks involved. The arrogance of assuming
otherwise is truly remarkable.
--
Tim Maroney, Mac Software Consultant, sun!hoptoad!tim, t...@toad.com
"This signature is not to be quoted." -- Erland Sommarskog
Andy Frazer
>
>I have no sympathy for male twits who tell women that they have nothing
>to fear with respect to sexual harassment.
Try reading the original posting again. Nobody ever said, or implied, that
women have nothing to fear with respect to sexual harassment. The point
was that we met in a busy restaurant, instead of an out-of-the-way sleazy
bar, so that everyone would feel more comfortable and to minimize any
anxieties that anyone, especially women, might have. You seem to feel
that women should stay in their homes behind locked doors twenty-four
hours a day?
>Women generally have a much better understanding of the risks involved.
True. Again, nobody ever said that there is no risk to a woman whenever
she is in a public place. You seem to be one of the people who likes
to read only what you want to think people wrote, regardless of what they
actaully wrote.
>The arrogance of assuming otherwise is truly remarkable.
True, as is the arrogance of assuming that what is written is what you
want to believe was written.
Andy
The Leather Menace
>I have no sympathy for male twits who tell women that they have nothing
>better understanding of the risks involved. The arrogance of assuming
>otherwise is truly remarkable.
Ya got that right.
Yo, people who believe that it is not dangerous to meet a group of men you
don't know in a public space, or that the fact that the group is from a board
dedicated to bondage doesn't affect the danger: bull-shit.
I don't want to discourage anyone from attending our little gathering next
Friday - i think the danger is minimal. But it is there. Danger is everywhere
for a woman, and don't forget it. If you think being in a public place protects
you remember Big Dan's. And remember that you can be followed *out* of the
public place.
I don't think real SMers are any more likely to be rapists than the general
public. But there is always danger to a woman admitting interest in anything
sexual, because there are some members of the Male Species who feel that
women who like sex with some people like and want sex all the time with anyone.
And some perverted members of the same species who feel that a woman who
enjoys being "forced", as he see's it, by some people will enjoy being "forced""
by him. And there are some people who will take presence at a sexually-
oriented gathering as being an announcement of availability.
And the courts have this strange idea that a woman being admittedly sexual
gives liscence to have sex with her without her consent.
So really - men who don't understand the danger, shut up. You have no idea.
Women - I don't want to discourage attendence. But I would rather that all
decisions be made with full awareness of risks, no matter how minimal.
D!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| d_ca...@tle.enet.dec.com | Copyright (c) 1990: You may copy freely if your|
| | recipients may, and if you credit the |
|"I'm *nigh* invulnerable!" | author and include this copyright notice. |
STella
there might be out of town women interested in attending (and I'll
give extra weight to the times an out-of-town woman could attend when
I figure out the date and time), and in any case, the security issues
are NOT limited to the bay area.
Haydee (and other women who may have attended if justifiable concerns
hadn't gotten in the way) here's my plan.
If you are a woman interested in attending a women-ONLY gathering,
reply to this note by email, giving me your phone number (if you feel
comfortable doing that) or asking for mine (if you're still not sure
I'm not some guy with a taste for writing in drag or something). Tell
me which days would be most convenient for an early-afternoon (so we
have daylight when we split up) gathering in the mid-peninsula
(somewhere between Palo Alto and Belmont would be best for me, and
anyway, not as far from the city as Sunnyvale, since that's a real
drag for public-transport folks from the city), and what
travel-constraints you have (like, LET me KNOW where you can get to,
and suggest a place to meet. I'll start the day with a tank of gas,
and can pick up folks from stations, or whatever.)
After I get your email, I'll be calling you up, and asking a few
questions (and some of them might be a little far off (I once caught a
guy pretending to be a woman (had the voice down COLD) by asking how
often he had to change his Cervax during his period, so if I'm a
little weird on the phone, well, that's why. And I have a deepish
voice myself, and sometimes strangers call me sir on the phone, but
you can ask someone you trust from the CHOMP mailing list, or a local
nethead, or someone who knows me, if you're in doubt. I am, I admit,
a weirdo with a strange sense of humor, but I am a _female_ weirdo who
would like to encourage your attendance at such gatherings). When I
know about who's interested, and when is best time and place, I'll get
back to all the women who contacted me, and invite them to meet me at
a specific place.
I HOPE to avoid leaking the location and time of this gathering to
non-attendees. However, it's likely that some women will be more
comfortable attending if they tell their husbands or lovers where they
will be, so if they're late getting home.... And I'm not sure what to
do about that -- open to suggestions....
I am thinking in terms of something like Harry's Hofbrau, a Denny's,
or the like, a place that's busy enough that we won't be conspicuous,
but quiet enough that we can talk, eat a bite or two (without coffee,
I don't function very well), and rap about how we might feel safest
attending a subsequent meeting to which we can invite men.
In article <98...@shlump.nac.dec.com> d_ca...@tle.enet.dec.com (The Leather Menace) writes:
>you remember Big Dan's. And remember that you can be followed *out* of the
>public place.
I think it's likely that a lot of folks who weren't living in the
Boston area don't remember the incident we refer to as Big Dan's. A
woman went into a local bar, Big Dan's, for a pack of cigarettes
(people keep telling me they're dangerous....) and a quick beer. She
ended up being raped on the pool table by a grinning gang of louts who
were more amused than discouraged by her cries of "NO" and "STOP".
The other bar attendees either left quietly or watched and took their
turns.
Perhaps one of the reasons I'm interested in the SM game is just this,
however: in forty-some years of being a woman, I've come to the
decision that the only person who can reliably ensure my safety is ME.
When I play the games we discuss here, my safety depends directly on
my ability to judge whether or not this particular partner will play
according to my limits (including pushing them, but only up to the
limit (if that sounds paradoxical, it needs to be another posting,
'cause this is getting a little long and parenthetical)).
If you want me to take all responsibility for making this gathering
safe, UNFUCK you, I won't do it. I'm thinking as carefully as I can
about the problems, and offering as many possible solutions as I can
devise, but the responsibility for MY safety's ultimately in my hands,
and yours is in yours. I will help in any way I can, but I'm
suggesting this gathering, not offering to top it, so it's YOUR job to
keep YOU safe. Let me know how I can assist, and you've got it, but
it's your ass, so second-guess me, tell me what you think I've
forgotten, and MAKE your OWN SAFETY. I'll help, but I neither could
nor would do it all myself.
>So really - men who don't understand the danger, shut up. You have no idea.
>Women - I don't want to discourage attendence. But I would rather that all
>decisions be made with full awareness of risks, no matter how minimal.
Exactly right. I am confident that I have anticipated most of the
most likely problems. I am CERTAIN that if some loon wants to, he can
create a problem I have not anticipated. I am confident that I can
say NO in a clear, audible, and possibly blood-thirsty voice, if it
becomes necessary. I am certain that only if each of us is concerned
for, and takes responsibility for our safety, will this be a happy,
no-problem gathering that might lead, in a week or few, to a gathering
at which asb-men are also invited. And for both this proposed
gathering and that hypothetical one, I am quite willing to pick women
up from whereever they feel safe parking their cars, and ferry them to
the meeting. But it's not my sole responsibility -- we share that!
And I sure hope my mailbox fills with notes from women asking for my
number, or trusting me with theirs. But even if there's only one or
two other women interested, let's do it anyway!
STe...@xanadu.com 1016 E. El Camino Real, #302, Sunnyvale, CA 94087
Stuart Rubio
>In article <10...@hoptoad.uucp> t...@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes:
>>In article <8...@elle.nsc.com> fra...@elle.UUCP (Andy Frazer) writes:
>>>I still don't see what harm could come to anyone if the meeting
>>>is in a public (and quite crowded) place! The chances of getting
>>>molested in El Torrito's are about the same as getting molested
>>>in the supermarket, regardless of who you are meeting or talking to.
For the sake of clarity, why can't most of the group simply bring
someone else?
In some of the "parties" that I have attended, singles brought
potential partners, who were not necessarily interested in the
orientation of the group. This worked well if the "party" became
boring, or out of control. In this way, someone always had a
safty net. And, generally, those not interested in the group
remained only a short while, anyway. It always seemed a useful
tool, used by people who use people.
Stuart
Sharon Lynne Fisher
To people who are concerned: I will vouch for the fact that
Stella is indeed of the female persuasion.
--
"I just know that something good is gonna happen
I don't know when
But just saying it could even make it happen..."
Spencer Garrett
> To people who are concerned: I will vouch for the fact that
> Stella is indeed of the female persuasion.
Does that make us guys female persuaders?? Yeah, that's the ticket! :-)
She's had me convinced for a long time, but what do I know?
Not that you've asked, but I think it's a great idea for the wimmin
to get together on their own once in a while. Guys, too. You can
get so wrapped up in *playing* the games that you don't get a chance
to see them. Sort of like "cleansing the palate" at a wine-tasting.
Strawberry Jammer
{This is being posted to a general distribution, because D!'s right --
{there might be out of town women interested in attending (and I'll
{give extra weight to the times an out-of-town woman could attend when
{I figure out the date and time), and in any case, the security issues
{are NOT limited to the bay area.
An excellent idea, despite the obvious concerns.
{me which days would be most convenient for an early-afternoon (so we
{have daylight when we split up) gathering in the mid-peninsula
{(somewhere between Palo Alto and Belmont would be best for me, and
{anyway, not as far from the city as Sunnyvale, since that's a real
{drag for public-transport folks from the city), and what
I might also suggest some place where the police actually SHOW UP if called!
I understand there are places in the bay area where that is to say the least
iffy. Hopefully wouldn't be needed, but it never hurts to have a last resort.
*Mike Waters AA4MW/7 wat...@dover.sps.mot.com *
Reality--what a concept!
The invertebrate punster, so slug me.
retrospect, did any of the wonderful females who _did_ attend either
gathering (from experience I can only vouch that the ones here on the
east coast were/are wonderful, but I can assume ... ) feel that sense
of discomfort with the company after breaking the innitial ice (no not
cyberIce, the initial discomforts found in any normal group ... ) and
geting to know the people there?
Jest cur'ous
Dave
--
Beverly T Block
> In reference to the discussion about females being uncomfortable, in
> retrospect, did any of the wonderful females who _did_ attend either
> gathering (from experience I can only vouch that the ones here on the
> east coast were/are wonderful,
Why, thank you! :-)
> but I can assume ... ) feel that sense
> of discomfort with the company after breaking the initial ice and
> geting to know the people there?
I personally felt no discomfort, apprehension, or other negative
emotions at all, the entire evening (well, maybe a twinge when the
waitress served Chris his soup while he was tying my wrists :-). I
didn't get any bad vibes at the gathering itself; the people who sat
back and watched seemed to be interested, but not at all threatening.
I didn't walk out to my car alone (as Dave knows, since he's one of the
people I left with), but unless I felt I was being followed, I think
even that wouldn't have been a problem.
Beverly
STella
>In article <82...@cs.utexas.edu> tur...@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) writes:
> different places. Only those (men?) who attend the separate
> meeting would be invited to the coming mixed meeting, though one
> could attend the appropriate separate meeting without any
> obligation to mix. Thus, women have an opportunity to meet the
> other women without the men around, and a new male participant
> could not join the mixed meeting without first meeting the
> regular male members.
>I guess that the idea is that we ``safe'' men can check each other
>out to make sure that there are no psychopaths are allowed into the
>mixed group, thus protecting the womyn who attend the mixed meetings.
No, I took it that the idea for a men's gathering first is that the
person be willing that someone other than the object of his
afflictions be able to describe him afterward. But there are other
important reasons for doing it, too, and I'll get to them after
explaining that first sentence, OK?
If I were going to a group to find someone to exploit, I would be
uneasy at the idea that folks other than my latest victim would be
able to give my description to the police along with the descriptions
of every other attendee, if one of the group's members disappeared for
a week and turned up dead. But if I'm NOT intending to disassemble
another person for kicks, the faint chance that, after such a
gathering, and such a tragedy, I would be described, would not bother
me greatly. Sure, I'd rather not get my name and photo entered in a
Bay Area database of "known leatherfolk", but if one of our number
showed up missing, getting scum out of the community would be top
priority.
>Umm, this may sound like a dumb question, but besides being
>incredibly parochial(sp?), don't you think it would be rather
>difficult to determine if someone is a psychopath from just meeting
>them for a few minutes at one of the men-only meetings? I would tend
>to think that the most sucessful sickos are the ones who pass
>themselves off as completely normal people.
If someone's clever enough to pass, SHe is also clever enough to
realize that some of us might be able to describe the car, the tats,
the regional accent, or some other trait that would help FIND the
sumbish, too late to help his unfortunate "choice", but before he
found another. There is no absolute safety, but it might well be that
the knowledge that you MUST meet the members of your own gender first
would discourage a few predators.
Me, I'm inclined to think the men's gathering would be a good thing
because I did not notice much (any?) discussion of male submission in
the El Torrito's meet, yet I KNOW there are sub-men out there. Would
such discussion be freer, and more likely, if you hadn't had a couple
potential Mistresses present? Probably not for the first gathering in
any case, but maybe?
It's NOT just that we frail flowers of womenhood need protection from
the badnasty men, it's not even mostly that (you who've met me may now
giggle at the concept of me as a frail flower of womanhood -- not my
personal style, since I tend to dress a bit more butch than I am,
rather than the other way round) -- but women and men have differing
views on sexuality (their own, and that of the Other), and I think a
mix of meetings, some celebrating our commonalty, and some our
differences, is most likely to build a community in which we can
safely play. Which is why, though I've joked in email (and perhaps
been misunderstood) about not attending the Radical Faery gathering
because I'm a genetic reject, I do not feel _excluded_ from male-only
gatherings. I cannot observe my CATS behaving as they do alone
without a video camera -- my presence interferes with the phenomena I
would like to observe. I cannot observe the way my husband treats a
lover other than me when they're alone together (Do not bother
suggesting ways I could spy -- I'm aware of all manner of techniques,
and not interested in interfering. If he finds the right woman,
eventually I'll find out how she treats a co-wife, which is all I
_really_ need to know!) -- again, my presence would be
(unintentionally) disruptive. Part of my motivation in attempting a
women's gathering (and I want to interject an apology for not having
made those phone calls yet -- I've gotten more than half-a-dozen bits
of mail, but my personal fan has recently had a close encounter of the
turd kind, and I got distracted) is to make a safer space for women
who were reluctant to attend, and a much larger part (for my own
selfish self) is a desire to meet other _women_ who play as I choose
to play.
So, no, gentlemen, I'm not asking for a separate meeting to get you to
assume responsibility for our safety -- but I'm suggesting it as a
Good Thing that would, among other good things, tend in that
direction. IMH(h)O. YMMV. ARR. NA.*
STe...@xanadu.com 1016 E. El Camino Real, #302, Sunnyvale, CA 94087
*In my humble (ha!) opinion; Your mileage may vary; All rights
reversed; 'Nuff Acronyms?