Meaning, abuse, D/s
The Reverend F-Squared
Damn, Boy! You're Good! Now, let's see if I can measure up...
In article <163412Z...@anon.penet.fi>, an7...@anon.penet.fi (Rage.) says:
>Where does one draw the line between BDSM and abuse?
For quite awhile, I thought that this very Q could be difficult to answer.
But in the past coupla' months, The Eulenspiegel Society (TES) has been
handing out flyers at every meeting entitled (I beleive) "Abuse and the
S/M Commuity".
I picked it up and read it. As I was reading the "Are you...?", "Have you...?" Qs
I was thinking, "Yeah, right! I see this as part of a BDSM relationship and *I*
don't consider this abusive".
And then I read a Q that squicked me: "Do you have a problem knowing when a
scene begins or ends?".
Personally, I think that's a cool place to draw a line.
>Most of the responses to this that I've seen were of the "yes, but the
>submissive should know his dominant well enough to know she would ask
>this of him."
>
>We're talking ideals here, people.
Hear! Hear!
>Even in an ideal world, when a
>submissive gives permanent consent to a dominant that he thinks he
>knows extremely well, he's submitting to an *idea* of his dominant.
And, I would add, an *idea* of the dominant at THAT POINT IN TIME.
Remember, boys and girls, people change...
>I think it's irresponsible to advocate or encourage a lifestyle D/s
>without safewords to a group of hundreds of thousands of people.
Well, DUH!
> Yes,the choice ultimately falls in each of their own hands, but billing
>one form as "true" and another as "faux" or "fake"
... is just a variation of YKINOK.
>It seems more likely to me that those people who claim that they are
>in a consensual D/s relationship where the submissive cannot leave and
>where the dominant claims total power over the sub--they are the ones
>deluding themselves.
I tend to think so, but that's just my kink....
>Why can't you leave? If you don't want to, then you're just saying
>you like it. If you do want to, then you're saying that either you
>cannot or that you will not. If you will not leave, than you're
>making a decision to stay--a decision that must be in your power, not
>the dom's. If you cannot leave, there must be something tangible
>stopping you. What? You cannot leave because your dominant will
>physically keep you there? The dominant has some strength of will
>that keeps you there against your own wishes?
Since you use an anon server, I don't know what country you're
in, My Friend, but here in America, the victim is never at fault.
If you don't like the situation you're in, it's always somebody else's
fault! (Yes, I'm being sarcastic. ;-)
>In the total power relationship described above, what's stopping the
>sub from going out for groceries and never coming back? Does the dom
>really control the sub, or is the sub *necessarily* deluding himself
>about the nature of the relationship he's in?
See above! :-(
>Starting to ramble, so I'm outta here.
You and me both, pal....
The Reverend F-Squared
Spyral Fox
totally gut, keeping only the bits most relevant to my response.
I apologize in advance <I'll tell my Owner myself if you complain ;-)
> and hope I haven't altered the sense of the post:
<snip>
> Where does one draw the line between BDSM and abuse? I think there
> are a lot of people among the 200,000+ who lurk here who are very
> concerned with that question. People, like Laurel's curious best
> friend, who want to know what this means is it safe? is it healthy?
<more deletions>
>It seems more likely to me that those people who claim that they are
>in a consensual D/s relationship where the submissive cannot leave and
>where the dominant claims total power over the sub--they are the ones
>deluding themselves.
>
> Why can't you leave? If you don't want to, then you're just saying
> you like it. If you do want to, then you're saying that either you
> cannot or that you will not. If you will not leave, than you're
> making a decision to stay--a decision that must be in your power, not
> the dom's. If you cannot leave, there must be something tangible
> stopping you. What? You cannot leave because your dominant will
> physically keep you there? The dominant has some strength of will
> that keeps you there against your own wishes?
<gutted again: go read the original!!!>
> If the dom has such force of personality as to make the sub unable to
> leave, what's to say he didn't acquire her consent with that force?
> If he did, was it meaningful consent? Informed consent?
Questions like these are one of the main reasons I can't see myself
coming out to *my* parents anytime in this lifetime. They're pretty
reasonable folk, but I have the feeling if I ever said "I like being hit
when I've transgressed because I feel cared for, and besides, it gets me
really hot and bothered" I would soon be wearing a jacket with extra long
sleeves arranged to ensure I hug myself... You know what I mean. ;-)
I was raised to believe that I am a worthwhile person, that women and
men should have equal rights and opportunities under law. I _knew_ that if
a man EVER hit me, I was leaving, because I deserve much more than that.
It bothered me when I realized that my fantasies generally center on being
controlled by a man, and the first time I admitted out loud to my Owner
that I *wanted* Him to hit me (well, I guess if I'm being factual it would
be more accurate to say I was _begging_ Him to hit me) I woke up the next
morning feeling that the bottom had dropped out of my universe. I have
since managed to reintegrate my sexuality into my self, and still consider
myself to be a "feminist."
Like many of us, I know people who have been and who are in abusive
relationships, and on the surface there have been some similarities to what
I *enjoy* doing (I can't speak for the rest of you, can I? :-> ) - - a
resultant slight stiffness in walking, twinging muscles, a few bruises.
The causes may even look the same on the **surface**: "I failed to obey,
and I was hit."
But beyond that, the similarity STOPS.
I see my actions and His as fully consensual. I generally
enjoy what has happened to me (with my high pain threshold skyrocketing
under D/s circumstances, I'm often surprised at how I feel later).
Contrary to what we sometimes see on television, the injuries of the abused
may not look different from mine. Women do not always have their eyes
blacked and their noses broken. I know that some heavy players may have
worse injuries than I do, and may also be more visibly hurt than someone
who is being abused. I knew one abused woman who told me she was beaten
with the iron's cord, on her back so it wouldn't show when she was dressed.
I know someone who had her arm broken by her "loving" spouse.
I have never been in a situation with my Owner which involved drug or
alcohol use. Nor has He ever hit me in anger - - that would end things
just as surely as my having sex with another man would. In contrast, when
an abuser behaves violently it is often when sie is under the influence
ofdrugs or alcohol. Not always, though, sometimes it is jealousy or anger.
The anger may not even have anything to do with the partner from the
viewpoint of an outsider.
If something ever happened to destroy the trust between my Owner and
myself, I believe that it would be OVER. I cannot imagine Him trying to
keep me in chains if I _wanted_ freedom. But, leaving an abusive partner
*is* difficult. The women I know who have done so have been followed by
pleading husbands (who swear it will "never happen again" with the same
fervor as they did the last time this happened). I've heard of women
"recaptured" by angry men, and hurt worse as a result. I don't want to
repeat the obvious too "loudly", but statistically, your chances of being
seriously injured or killed are *greater* if you try to leave an abuser.
(I don't want to leave out economic grounds for staying with an abuser
- - people who have lack skills to earn enough money to support themselves
(and their children) in a small apartment in a safe neighborhood *with* a
roomie may feel trapped into staying with an abuser, feeling that it is
better than living on the streets. Those of you earning minimum wage, you
know what I mean.)
I am NOT disagreeing with anything Rage has said - - I not
only agree, but I would strengthen his argument that people who say they
"they are in a consensual D/s relationship where the submissive cannot
leave and where the dominant claims total power over the sub" are indeed
deluding themselves.
In *my* opinion anyone who is in a relationship with someone who is
using physical violence (or the threat of it) to keep hir in that
relationship IS BEING ABUSED. I would NOT consider such a relationship to
be CONSENSUAL. I would urge the sub to get out quick and to seek help
immediately. Rage mentions (later, not quoted) "going out for groceries
and never coming back" and that strikes me as an *excellent* idea under
those circumstances. There are shelters with anonymity gauranteed for
battered women. I admit that it may be more difficult if you are a
battered man, but there must be somewhere you can go. Men as well as women
can be abused. Sexual orientation is also irrelevant.
Sidenote: One of the reasons I won't play certain types of mind games
is that I believe that if something is repeated often enough ("you are
stupid" "you are ugly" or "you are worthless") it may be integrated into
how someone sees hirself. Research I have read about abuse often includes
the victim's belief that sie caused the violence by being bad or unworthy.
Well, I'm afraid I've ridden this hobby horse to the point where I'm
rambling now. Someone elses turn? If anyone wants to flam me, you can
skip the anon server by sending it to Spyral F...@aol.com. I'm posting from
work because the newsserver here is free. :-)
If anyone knows how I can post with the program "NewsWatcher" and still
keep my anonymity (I work with school-age children) I'd love to hear from
you.
sf
"What makes you think I'll do as you say without a direct order from my Owner?"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Jon Jacobs
[quoted material is from Rage]
>I think it was Laurel who started qualifying "consent" as being
>"meaningful" or not. I think it's an important distinction, and in my
>recent thread-scanning, I haven't seen anyone investigate *why*.
>
>Where does one draw the line between BDSM and abuse? I think there
>are a lot of people among the 200,000+ who lurk here who are very
>concerned with that question. People, like Laurel's curious best
>friend, who want to know what this means is it safe? is it healthy?
>
>When a submissive gives one-time all-encompassing absolute-power
>consent to a dominant, when a submissive gives informed consent to a
>relationship in which he has no course of escape, is he telling her...
> "I'll do anything you tell me."
> "I'll let you kill me."
> "I'll take the life of another if you ask me."
> "I'll let you throw me away like so much garbage."
>
>Most of the responses to this that I've seen were of the "yes, but the
>submissive should know his dominant well enough to know she would ask
>this of him."
>
>We're talking ideals here, people. Even in an ideal world, when a
>submissive gives permanent consent to a dominant that he thinks he
>knows extremely well, he's submitting to an *idea* of his dominant.
>He's submitting totally to a limited version of what he knows. "I
>know you well enough to trust that you won't make me kill myself, so
>I'll consent to anything you want."
>
>I think it's irresponsible to advocate or encourage a lifestyle D/s
>without safewords to a group of hundreds of thousands of people. Yes,
>the choice ultimately falls in each of their own hands, but billing
>one form as "true" and another as "faux" or "fake" sends out a strong
>message that one is better than the other, that one is less than
>desirable, or even that you're getting ripped off if you go the "fake"
>route.
>
>Am I saying everyone has to play with safewords? No, of course not.
>Am I telling people that there's something wrong with giving
>unquestioned, unlimited submission to a dominant? No.
>
>
>I will say, with the expectation of a few flames, this:
>
>It seems more likely to me that those people who claim that they are
>in a consensual D/s relationship where the submissive cannot leave and
>where the dominant claims total power over the sub--they are the ones
>deluding themselves.
>
>Why can't you leave? If you don't want to, then you're just saying
>you like it. If you do want to, then you're saying that either you
>cannot or that you will not. If you will not leave, than you're
>making a decision to stay--a decision that must be in your power, not
>the dom's. If you cannot leave, there must be something tangible
>stopping you. What? You cannot leave because your dominant will
>physically keep you there? The dominant has some strength of will
>that keeps you there against your own wishes?
>
>In the rollercoaster analogy, the rider gives consent and is unable to
>withdraw it. However, he knows that the coaster will be over in a
>minute.
>
>In the total power relationship described above, what's stopping the
>sub from going out for groceries and never coming back? Does the dom
>really control the sub, or is the sub *necessarily* deluding himself
>about the nature of the relationship he's in?
>
>If the dom has such force of personality as to make the sub unable to
>leave, what's to say he didn't acquire her consent with that force?
>If he did, was it meaningful consent? Informed consent?
>
>Starting to ramble, so I'm outta here.
The above contains a lot of interesting stuff. Let's try to untangle
some of it. In a sense, it's a fine boiled-down version of the points
that have been made over and over by those here in asb who have been most
outraged and threatened by discussion of total exchange of power.
Really, there are three main points above. The first is the old saw: the
submissive can leave any time she wants to:" people who don't understand
that are fooling themselves." Those who are living full power-exchange
relationships or who have done so have tried in many ways to explain why
this is not true. I know that these explanations have enlightened many
people, both from posts in this news group and from email that has come to
me and to others. So whether the most dug-in, like Rage, understand it or
ever could understand it is immaterial. I think that part of the
explanation for the loud gnashing of teeth on this subject is the fact
that those who deny its reality are aware that a lot of people _are_ being
affected and enlightened by this discussion. It's nice to know that
continual denial of the possibility of real ownership cannot eliminate
that effect.
The second point above is sinister: [direct quote] "I think it's
irresponsible to advocate or encourage a lifestyle D/s without safewords
to a group of hundreds of thousands of people" [those who need to can read
the rest, included above]. The first immense problem with this I have
already pointed out in several posts, so I'll only allude to it here: the
idea that people should be protected from ideas is fascist.
But there's another matter about the second point that should be talked
about, another matter that I don't believe that Rage will ever be able to
understand. He imagines that the idea of full power exchange is dangerous
because suggesting that it is a fine thing for many people might cause
some people to experiment with it without taking the requisite
precautions. This is an obvious danger and one that he understands. What
he and some others here don't understand, however, is the danger of
omission. Some people _need_ that kind of life very badly, need it to be
happy and fulfilled people. Such people have probably fantisized about
it--maybe not, some of them--but at best few realize that it is possible.
Coming to this place as it was months ago would not have informed any of
them that what they most need is possible and, in fact, is being lived now
by some people. I wonder why some of the folks around here don't see the
danger in that, in such people spending--wasting--their lives in either
denying their needs or in trying to have them fulfilled in abusive
relationships or worse. That's a real danger, my friends, and a very
serious one. A place like asb, supposedly dedicated to sexual freedom,
needs to provide support and information about the possible for those
people. I intend for it to continue to do so.
The third main point above is most interesting because, although it is
hardly original, it does seem to represent the new consensus of the main
teeth-gnashers here on asb about total exchange of power. Unable to
convince everyone that it cannot exist--although they still make weak
attempts at this--they are falling back to the "if it's permanent, it's
abuse" dogma. If a dominant has actually created a situation where the
submissive really cannot leave, Rage says, then the "consent" must not be,
er, consensual, having been obtained in some devious or, shall we say,
nonconsensual, way (of course, as many have explained to him, it's not the
dominant who does this alone).
There are a couple of fascinating things about this contention. First, as
noted, it has become the main line of defense against the onslaught of the
idea of permanence. The gang of seven or eight most engaged in the
resistance has been busily chatting about their agreement on this--as well
as their agreement on JJ's pollution of asb, etc. It's as if they believe
that if they chat it up among themselves sufficiently, that both I and the
idea will go away. More interesting, however, from a personal point of
view, is the way that what I have been saying has been related to the
teachings of Even Steven when, amusingly, it is the main teeth-gnashers
who are taking an Even Steven position.
Apparently, the main justification for comparing what I say to what ES
says has been my contention that total power exchange is possible and,
apparently, that the play-party paradigm is not real power exchange
(ignoring the fact that ES asserts that full power exchange is abuse,
while I assert that for many people it is positive, desirable, etc.). And
there's the rub! The same folks who have been dishonestly associating
what I say with what ES says are now busily promoting precisely his
point: that genuine exchange of power, complete exchange, is abuse! Doncha
just love it?
Of course, connection or nonconnection to what ES says is tangential to
everything. I'm just amused, that's all. And by much more than the ES
connection.
So is that you guys's final defense? Full power excange is not
possible, but when it nevertheless occurs, it is abuse? OK, that's fine
by me. Some will see how silly that is, and some will not.
As this discussion winds down, there's no doubt it has polarized asb, and
largely in a good and important way (not altogether good, of course; I am
sad to see that some relative newbies are among the teeth-gnashers). I
apologize for some of the heat generated, but not for the light shed that
could not have been shed without the heat. The terms of debate have
shifted in asb because of this long series of threads: from a consensus
that full exchange of power is impossible and that what I call kinky
swinging is real power exchange to serious discussions about the
implications of full power exchange and serious (sometimes) debate about
the real nature of kinky swinging. I thank all of you who chimed
in--either by opposing or supporting what I have been saying--for helping
me to do this.
I intend to participate less in these threads from this point on, since I
think that little new is arising (if it does, I'll chime back in). I am
going to spend some time, I think, working on how the full-exchange
perspective can be reflected as an alternative in the FAQ (I thank, as
always, the honest and serious Jellinghaus for giving me the opportunity).
Anyone who might like to help in this small project, please email me.
Jon Jacobs
Peter McDermott
jac...@crl.com (Jon Jacobs) wrote:
>I intend to participate less in these threads from this point on, since I
>think that little new is arising (if it does, I'll chime back in). I am
>going to spend some time, I think, working on how the full-exchange
>perspective can be reflected as an alternative in the FAQ (I thank, as
>always, the honest and serious Jellinghaus for giving me the opportunity).
>Anyone who might like to help in this small project, please email me.
Funnily enough Jon, I only suggested the same thing today. For some time
now, I think that people seem to think I present your arguments in a
much more palatable form so on one thread I suggested the idea of an
interview -- a kind of "what Jon Jacobs really thinks about power
exchange" where I could get you to clarify the statements that I
believed would be contentious or would cause unnecessary dissent --
without watering down or misrepresenting what you have to say.
It would certainly make a pleasant change from debating with the half-wits
We could do it in e-mail and then post the final document as an interview
form - then either re-edit or use it as it is either in Rob's FAQ or in
a seperate 'Power Exchange' FAQ.
What do you think?
Peter
--
pe...@petermc.demon.co.uk Cool as fuck!
Mighty Morphin' Power Exchangers - fighting faux submission!
ke...@netcom.com
: In article <163412Z...@anon.penet.fi> an7...@anon.penet.fi writes:
(apologies, snipping lots of this post)
: The second point above is sinister: [direct quote] "I think it's
: irresponsible to advocate or encourage a lifestyle D/s without safewords
: to a group of hundreds of thousands of people" [those who need to can read
: the rest, included above]. The first immense problem with this I have
: already pointed out in several posts, so I'll only allude to it here: the
: idea that people should be protected from ideas is fascist.
: But there's another matter about the second point that should be talked
: about, another matter that I don't believe that Rage will ever be able to
: understand. He imagines that the idea of full power exchange is dangerous
: because suggesting that it is a fine thing for many people might cause
: some people to experiment with it without taking the requisite
: precautions. This is an obvious danger and one that he understands. What
: he and some others here don't understand, however, is the danger of
: omission. Some people _need_ that kind of life very badly, need it to be
: happy and fulfilled people. Such people have probably fantisized about
: it--maybe not, some of them--but at best few realize that it is possible.
: Coming to this place as it was months ago would not have informed any of
: them that what they most need is possible and, in fact, is being lived now
: by some people. I wonder why some of the folks around here don't see the
: danger in that, in such people spending--wasting--their lives in either
: denying their needs or in trying to have them fulfilled in abusive
: relationships or worse. That's a real danger, my friends, and a very
: serious one. A place like asb, supposedly dedicated to sexual freedom,
: needs to provide support and information about the possible for those
: people. I intend for it to continue to do so.
Jon, I agree with you somewhat. All perspectives are valuable and
should be presented here. And people can be harmed by repressing what, to
them, is a natural state -- total power exchange as you describe it.
But I believe the relative dangers of yours and Rage's position are in no
sense equal, for the following reasons.
Much of what I've read from your perspective seems to imply that if
you're playing with safewords, without full power exchange you define it,
you're Not Doing It Right. There is a strong implication in each post I'v
read from your perspective that you're either in full exchange, or you're
a kinky swinger.
For newcomers to the scene, this provides an immense risk. I have met or
heard of several relative newbies already who are questioning themselves
as a result of this implication, questioning their 'fit' with the scene
and asb, wondering if they're reduced to the status of mere dabblers or
swingers simply because they use safewords.
Safewords are an integral part of the learning process when one enters
bdsm. Someone runs a much larger risk of being harmed if they feel they
should not safeword, or if they feel safewording somehow disvalues their
submission, than does a person who desires to play from your perspective
and cannot find the information they need here.
The other thing I just don't understand here is the continual implication
that power exchange must be permanent and continual to be valid. Why
can't we accept that it is possible to submit profoundly and completely
within the space of a scene which has a distinct beginning and end? I am
not currently involved in a fulltime lifestyle relationship, although the
idea appeals to me. However, when I do submit to one of my playpartners,
it is a very real power exchange regardless of the fact that the scene is
finite. Within the space of the scene, I am giving total power to my
dominant. Sometimes we play with safewords. Sometimes we do not. When we
don't, then especially, the power exchange is total in spite of its
impermanence.
Simply because every ds encounter I have doesn't result in a
permanent exchange does not mean that deeply significant power dynamics
are not afoot.
I think there is a state between kinky swinging ds and what we're calling
full power exchange these days. This state is equally profound, equally
sacred. Do not dismiss this.
You are correct. ASB should not disassociate itself from those who
practice a more total exchange of power than many believe is possible. It
can be said with equal strength that anything less than that deserves
every bit as much respect.
Kelsa, not a kinky swinger, not a newbie, just an infrequent poster
Jon Jacobs
Well, Peter, writing an alternative FAQ, or an addition to the current
one, would be a snap (remember, the way I introduced the ideas bit by bit
here was intentional, not a limit of my ability to write clearly [g]).
But I'd be more than happy to have your help with it. Let's take it to
email.
Jon Jacobs
Steven S. Davis
References: <163412Z...@anon.penet.fi>
Newsgroups: alt.sex.bondage
jac...@crl.com (Jon Jacobs) writes,
: This is an obvious danger and one that he understands. What
: he and some others here don't understand, however, is the danger of
: omission. Some people _need_ that kind of life very badly, need it
: to be happy and fulfilled people. Such people have probably
: fantisized about it--maybe not, some of them--but at best few realize
: that it is possible. Coming to this place as it was months ago would
: not have informed any of them that what they most need is possible
: and, in fact, is being lived now by some people. I wonder why some
: of the folks around here don't see the danger in that, in such people
: spending--wasting--their lives in either denying their needs or in
: trying to have them fulfilled in abusive relationships or worse.
: That's a real danger, my friends, and a very serious one. A place
: like asb, supposedly dedicated to sexual freedom, needs to provide
: support and information about the possible for those people. I
: intend for it to continue to do so.
That there are people who need such relationships is a good point.
I'm tempted to say that perhaps the answer for anyone wondering
about whether such a life is for them should get the answer sometimes
given to people considering careers in the arts: if you don't need
to do it, don't. But I'll not, because I fear that, should anyone
be so immensely unwise as to listen to me, it might undermine their
willingness to experiment to determine what is right for them, and
I don't wish to share the responsibility for someone making such a
decision.
But I would like to ask you if you believe that the many examples that
are offered on ASB (and were before this campaign) of people living in
committed D/S relationships, wouldn't have shown people the possibility
of the life that they wanted ? Was it necessary to so denigrate as many
people and their lifestyles as you did because the details of those
relationships don't match your ideal ?
And as laudable as it is that you sought to inform one group of the
existence of what they needed (which IMO, obviously not shared by you,
could have been accomplished with much less heat and hurt), what about
the effect of your campaign on other groups ? What about the effect
on all those who have a need for D&S in their lives but find the total
power exchange you advocate frightening, and have now concluded that
they can't attain what they crave because they don't feel they can or
should make the kind of commitment they've been told is required, or
those who will feel pushed to levels of submission that are not for
them because they've been told that it's an all or nothing choice ?
While you have been clear - well, actually, no, you haven't been
"clear", because of your frequent failure to provide context in your
answers, but you have "acknowledged" - that there is such a thing as
limited power exchange (even if you're pretty limited in the forms
of limits you accept), you've also been suggesting that limited power
exchange doesn't work in long term relationships, despite all the
examples of people in longterm D/S relationships w/o TPE, so the
people looking for more from their D&S than occasional scenes have
been told that TPE is the only way.
A balanced campaign for recognizing that there are levels of
submission appropriate to people's needs, and one of these is
total power exchange, would have been an undeniably good thing.
I hope the campaign you've conducted has helped a lot of people.
I'm sure it's educated some, I know that I've learned from it.
But it has, IMO, caused a lot of avoidable pain, and I fear it's
done a lot of needless damage.
*******************************************************************
Steven S. Davis * sdup...@delphi.com * ssd...@dpsc.dla.mil
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Before you post to Usenet, read the articles in news.announce.newusers
Before you post to alt.sex.bondage, Read "Welcome to ASB!" and the
ASB FAQ available by anonymous ftp from:
rtfm.mit.edu /pub/usenet-by-group/alt.sex.bondage.
DO NOT post personals to ASB. Personals belong on alt.personals.bondage.
- no really!
Steven S. Davis <ssd...@dpsc.dla.mil> wrote:
>In Message-ID: <3gthdn$p...@crl8.crl.com>
> References: <163412Z...@anon.penet.fi>
>Newsgroups: alt.sex.bondage
>jac...@crl.com (Jon Jacobs) writes,
>
>
>: This is an obvious danger and one that he understands. What
>: he and some others here don't understand, however, is the danger of
>: omission. Some people _need_ that kind of life very badly, need it
>: to be happy and fulfilled people. Such people have probably
>: fantisized about it--maybe not, some of them--but at best few realize
>: that it is possible. Coming to this place as it was months ago would
>: not have informed any of them that what they most need is possible
>: and, in fact, is being lived now by some people. I wonder why some
>: of the folks around here don't see the danger in that, in such people
>: spending--wasting--their lives in either denying their needs or in
>: trying to have them fulfilled in abusive relationships or worse.
>: That's a real danger, my friends, and a very serious one. A place
>: like asb, supposedly dedicated to sexual freedom, needs to provide
>: support and information about the possible for those people. I
>: intend for it to continue to do so.
>the effect of your campaign on other groups ? What about the effect
>on all those who have a need for D&S in their lives but find the total
>power exchange you advocate frightening, and have now concluded that
>they can't attain what they crave because they don't feel they can or
>should make the kind of commitment they've been told is required, or
>those who will feel pushed to levels of submission that are not for
>them because they've been told that it's an all or nothing choice ?
This latter point really bugs me. People need to be responsible for
their own egos. If something someone tells you (on Usenet for crying
out loud --- USENET!!) makes you believe you're "doing it all wrong",
and it makes you feel like shit, well. Frankly, I don't think you
_have_ got the ego strength necessary to maintain a healthy, committed
full-time d/s relationship, "True", "False", or 'Maybe".
>A balanced campaign for recognizing that there are levels of
>submission appropriate to people's needs, and one of these is
>total power exchange, would have been an undeniably good thing.
And this here is where I think I would agree with you. It is after
all for most peple a journey, especially if you're a real serious
hardcase like me. Merely calling someone "sir" (or "ma'am") to their
face takes a boat-load of emotional fortitude for me at the moment.
HARDLY a "true power exchange" by any wild stretch of the imagination,
but closer than I was 9 months ago. I've come a long way in merely
acknowledging these desires period. Whether I have the guts to
ultimately act on my d/s desires, who knows? In any case, I"m sure as
hell not going to metamorphose into the best littlel sub in the world
overnight, if ever. (I see a few cronies rolling in the aisles at the
very thought...P
>I hope the campaign you've conducted has helped a lot of people.
>I'm sure it's educated some, I know that I've learned from it.
>But it has, IMO, caused a lot of avoidable pain, and I fear it's
>done a lot of needless damage.
And I still say, these are only words on a screen, and people whose
buttons are being pushed need to sit back and figure out exactly why.
I _know_ I"m not doing it how Jon Jacobs thinks is the one true way
and I don't give a flying fuck; his theories are interesting and in
fact actually come close to what I find I'm seeking for myself, but
he's not the fucking lord high judge dominant sorcerer supreme of ASB;
I'm gonna keep right on with my quest for Master Right (thanks Verdant
;-) and screw what anyone else thinks. I have ex-kinky ex-friends who
think I'm sick and totally fucked up. Screw 'em too.
It's my observed opinion that people on _both_ sides of the
issues are going ballistic because they're being hit right in their
insecurities.
"Oh jeezis am I really being brainwashed?"
"Oh God maybe I really _do_ crave 'soul-sucking' submission"
And thats all I"m going to say on this topic, it is way past time to
clean up the broken bottles and go back to sleep.
=Bill=
--
Billy Joe Bob Bohrer,
Pope WeaselBoy XVIII.LIX, Church of the Former Day Emacs
"We shall use no software that is not backward compatible"
Nyani-Iisha Martin
: >the effect of your campaign on other groups ? What about the effect
: >on all those who have a need for D&S in their lives but find the total
: >power exchange you advocate frightening, and have now concluded that
: >they can't attain what they crave because they don't feel they can or
: >should make the kind of commitment they've been told is required, or
: >those who will feel pushed to levels of submission that are not for
: >them because they've been told that it's an all or nothing choice ?
: This latter point really bugs me. People need to be responsible for
: their own egos.
(FWIW, I agree with this point. But working on how one feels has to
predate not feeling anything. Or should someone give up as worthless
because something makes them feel bad?)
: If something someone tells you (on Usenet for crying
: out loud --- USENET!!) makes you believe you're "doing it all wrong",
: and it makes you feel like shit, well. Frankly, I don't think you
: _have_ got the ego strength necessary to maintain a healthy, committed
: full-time d/s relationship, "True", "False", or 'Maybe".
*sigh* And someone else says "you aren't good enough, you aren't worth
it." I said in another post that, for some people, criticsm gets inside
really easily. Now, I'm working on pulling it back out and on screening
it before it can get in, deciding what's constructive criticsm and what's
junk, but I do have to work on it. For some people, negative comments and
insults just roll off them like water off a duck, but not all of us have
your tough invulnerability, Bill, and I don't think that someone who has
to consciously say to themself, "no, what they say doesn't matter" when
what they read _does_ affect them, is a weak little nothing who doesn't have
the ego strength to be in a relationship. As you said later in this post,
things (life, BDSM, etc) are a journey, and some people might just not
have arrived at that invulnerable stage yet.
: >A balanced campaign for recognizing that there are levels of
: >submission appropriate to people's needs, and one of these is
: >total power exchange, would have been an undeniably good thing.
: And this here is where I think I would agree with you. It is after
: all for most peple a journey, especially if you're a real serious
: hardcase like me.
I definetely agree here. I look at things that used to terrify and disgust
me, and they look, not less dangerous, but less bad. I'm growing as a
person, and a sub (and, it seems, to some extent, a top *wave to someone
who knows who he is*) and I don't see how anyone could expect someone to
just say, "OK, I'm into BDSM, I now know exactly what I want to do." It
must take time to realize one's desires, time to develop a relationship
where they can be put in place, time to develop *that* part of the
relationship. After all, for example, something as big as a 24/7
relationship must, it seems to me, grow and develop, be a process and a
journey. It can't just appear out of thin air between acquaintances, can
it?
So, the person who does X activity this year might be doing Y next
year-----or they might not. And, either way, if they are doing what is
fine for them, I can't see what could be wrong.
: Whether I have the guts to
: ultimately act on my d/s desires, who knows? In any case, I"m sure as
: hell not going to metamorphose into the best littlel sub in the world
: overnight, if ever.
Exactly. I very much agree. (In general. I don't know Bill personally.)
: >I hope the campaign you've conducted has helped a lot of people.
: >I'm sure it's educated some, I know that I've learned from it.
: >But it has, IMO, caused a lot of avoidable pain, and I fear it's
: >done a lot of needless damage.
: And I still say, these are only words on a screen, and people whose
: buttons are being pushed need to sit back and figure out exactly why.
Well, I for one am trying to analyze my reactions, and control them, and
flatten that button, but I do resent the implication that there is
something irredemably wrong with me for even having the button to be
pushed that you make in the first paragraph I responded to.
[some stuff I agreee with deleted]
: It's my observed opinion that people on _both_ sides of the
: issues are going ballistic because they're being hit right in their
: insecurities.
Well, probably. Definately, for me. But I think insecurities make us
human, not bad or weak. After all, one way to find out where the
insecurities are and start working on them is to analyze the reaction when
one is hit in them----but first one has to be hit in them, and get upset.
But, also, remember, that people also get mad simply because they feel
they are being lied about. Do you think that's wrong, too?
: "Oh jeezis am I really being brainwashed?"
Jon Jacobs
You're right about that, of course. But you're missing a subtle but
important extension of your insight.
A large part of the reason for the aghast, irrational response to the
things I have been saying is that many people, including some of the
noisiest protesters, have had their belief systems about themselves and
what they do shaken. Ego strength, as you characterize it, is not always a
good thing, especially when the ego involved is the brittle, self-serving
ego that is often developed by people to keep them from dealing with
things in their pasts and presents that feel are too dangerous to deal
with. It's usually--not always, certainly--a good thing when such
self-protective, self-deluding egos crumble. But it's a wrenching
process, and some of it has been going on as a result of these
discussions.
There are lots of people, including many here, who seek power exchange
for strong emotional reasons but who for various reasons can't approach
full exchange of power--can't even admit that it is possible, as we have
seen here. It's not that they are insincere--just that the idea, let
alone the reality, scares them to death. Some of these folks have
convinced themselves that their kinky swinging, their play parties, their
puerile "polyamory" are really on the edge where they so badly want
themselves to be, really taking the risks and receiving the rewards that
they want.
These threads have shaken that belief in quite a few people. And for
most of them, it'll be a good thing in the long run. Breaking down that
brittle, self-protecting, self-serving ego--which keeps them from
committed and real d&s relatonships as much as anything else--is
an inevitable result of this sort of discussion for some people.
>>A balanced campaign for recognizing that there are levels of
>>submission appropriate to people's needs, and one of these is
>>total power exchange, would have been an undeniably good thing.
>
>And this here is where I think I would agree with you. It is after
>all for most peple a journey, especially if you're a real serious
>hardcase like me. Merely calling someone "sir" (or "ma'am") to their
>face takes a boat-load of emotional fortitude for me at the moment.
>HARDLY a "true power exchange" by any wild stretch of the imagination,
>but closer than I was 9 months ago. I've come a long way in merely
>acknowledging these desires period. Whether I have the guts to
>ultimately act on my d/s desires, who knows? In any case, I"m sure as
>hell not going to metamorphose into the best littlel sub in the world
>overnight, if ever. (I see a few cronies rolling in the aisles at the
>very thought...P
But you're apparently being n\honest with yourself. The metaphor of a
journey is a fine one, among other reasons because it does not deny that
there are real places where you have not been and where you may go. The
Gang of Eight Or So has denied that.
>And I still say, these are only words on a screen, and people whose
>buttons are being pushed need to sit back and figure out exactly why.
>I _know_ I"m not doing it how Jon Jacobs thinks is the one true way
>and I don't give a flying fuck;
That's sad. I have never said thing one about any One True Way. You
ought to know that. Ah, well.
his theories are interesting and in
>fact actually come close to what I find I'm seeking for myself, but
>he's not the fucking lord high judge dominant sorcerer supreme of ASB;
>I'm gonna keep right on with my quest for Master Right (thanks Verdant
>;-) and screw what anyone else thinks. I have ex-kinky ex-friends who
>think I'm sick and totally fucked up. Screw 'em too.
Correct. What I say is powerful because it hits home hard to people.
>It's my observed opinion that people on _both_ sides of the
>issues are going ballistic because they're being hit right in their
>insecurities.
>
>"Oh jeezis am I really being brainwashed?"
>
>"Oh God maybe I really _do_ crave 'soul-sucking' submission"
Those two sentiments are on one side of the issues. I suspect you'd be
hard pressed to find anything ballistic on the other side.
Jon Jacobs
Jahwar
> A large part of the reason for the aghast, irrational response to the
> things I have been saying is that many people, including some of the
> noisiest protesters, have had their belief systems about themselves and
> what they do shaken.
What is the basis of this claim? How do you know why *anyone* who
disagrees with you does?
> Some of these folks have
> convinced themselves that their kinky swinging, their play parties, their
> puerile "polyamory" are really on the edge where they so badly want
> themselves to be, really taking the risks and receiving the rewards that
> they want.
And how do you know that even one person is like this?
Jahwar
Charles Haynes
- no really! <boh...@news.eden.com> wrote:
>People need to be responsible for
>their own egos. If something someone tells you (on Usenet for crying
>out loud --- USENET!!) makes you believe you're "doing it all wrong",
>and it makes you feel like shit, well. Frankly, I don't think you
>_have_ got the ego strength necessary to maintain a healthy, committed
>full-time d/s relationship, "True", "False", or 'Maybe".
This caused me to reflect a bit, because while true it seems limited.
Once upon a time ("no shit - here I was..." "I'm not making this up
you know.") a.s.b. was a place where people who were worried that
perhaps they were the only one who... got together with other folks
who... and reveled in the realization that yes indeed their kink was
not only ok, but shared by a bunch of other fun interesting
people. "Their kink" being very widely defined indeed. I felt, and
feel, a definite connection with the Bottiers who told joyously of
their love affair with stringent bondage. Even though I'm not
particularly into bondage myself. I could cite many other examples. I
feel much less connectino with people who come in and complain that
a.s.b. doesn't have enough about bondage - for example.
Now it seems a.s.b. is a place to get told that "your kink is not good
enough" or perhaps "My kink is better than yours."
-- Charles
--
http://www.best.com/~haynes/
- no really!
>A large part of the reason for the aghast, irrational response to the
>things I have been saying is that many people, including some of the
>noisiest protesters, have had their belief systems about themselves and
>what they do shaken. Ego strength, as you characterize it, is not always a
>good thing, especially when the ego involved is the brittle, self-serving
>ego that is often developed by people to keep them from dealing with
>things in their pasts and presents that feel are too dangerous to deal
>with. It's usually--not always, certainly--a good thing when such
>self-protective, self-deluding egos crumble. But it's a wrenching
>process, and some of it has been going on as a result of these
>discussions.
Oh absolutely correct. I'm pigheaded enough to not listen to anything
I'm not ready to hear, ten years ago friends who told me I was insane
and suicidal picking up psychos around NY and NJ, while absolutely
right in retrospect, were quickly chalked in to the ex-friend
category.
I"m a little less public with my "spazzing", when things are in flux,
i.e. when my belief system is metamorphosing. I do that with friends,
move it onto small mailing-lists, on up to big mailing lists, and when
I"m comfy with my new skin, out onto asb. It's not a pretty process,
though occasionally damned amusing.
>>>A balanced campaign for recognizing that there are levels of
>>>submission appropriate to people's needs, and one of these is
>>>total power exchange, would have been an undeniably good thing.
>>
>>And this here is where I think I would agree with you. It is after
>>all for most peple a journey, especially if you're a real serious
>>hardcase like me. Merely calling someone "sir" (or "ma'am") to their
>>face takes a boat-load of emotional fortitude for me at the moment.
>>HARDLY a "true power exchange" by any wild stretch of the imagination,
>>but closer than I was 9 months ago. I've come a long way in merely
>>acknowledging these desires period. Whether I have the guts to
>>ultimately act on my d/s desires, who knows? In any case, I"m sure as
>>hell not going to metamorphose into the best littlel sub in the world
>>overnight, if ever. (I see a few cronies rolling in the aisles at the
>>very thought...P
>
>But you're apparently being n\honest with yourself. The metaphor of a
>journey is a fine one, among other reasons because it does not deny that
>there are real places where you have not been and where you may go. The
>Gang of Eight Or So has denied that.
And places I may not ever get to, or for that matter, want to explore.
I *also* am quite happy to freely admit that it's perfectly ok to stop
along the way and explore the scenery in a particularly comfortable
place. But "Im honest enough to admit that cancun is not nirvana.
The end result may *not* be worth the struggle. Who knows?
>>And I still say, these are only words on a screen, and people whose
>>buttons are being pushed need to sit back and figure out exactly why.
>>I _know_ I"m not doing it how Jon Jacobs thinks is the one true way
>>and I don't give a flying fuck;
>
>
>That's sad. I have never said thing one about any One True Way. You
>ought to know that. Ah, well.
>
Apologies, totally rude and uncalled for, and yeah, inaccurate.
Trying to make the point that I"m chugging along in my little engine
and I'm not much concerned these days with what anyone thinks about
where I'm going or how I get there, be it you or the rest of ASB.
AND, as I"ve infrequently bellowed in the din of these discussions,
that exactly as you've pointed out, people are only being stirred up
because they're being broadsided in their self-image. People have
called ME all sorts of disgusting names that cause me to laugh my ass
off (assuming they're not carrying lethal weapons or have legal and or
political power over me) it's only the ones I worry might be _true_
that make me go ballistic and demand that they take it back. And I"m
not foolish enough to announce my hot buttons...
>>It's my observed opinion that people on _both_ sides of the
>>issues are going ballistic because they're being hit right in their
>>insecurities.
>>
>>"Oh jeezis am I really being brainwashed?"
>>
>>"Oh God maybe I really _do_ crave 'soul-sucking' submission"
>
>Those two sentiments are on one side of the issues. I suspect you'd be
>hard pressed to find anything ballistic on the other side.
MMmm, perhaps what I"m observing is a 3-way pitched battle? I"ll be
honest, the melee has been at times, less than interesting, except as
a means of cataloguing people's buttons for future reference when I"m
feeling particularly sadistic, and I"ve been skimming as fast as I can
in between getting a life.
No safeword full-time types feeling attacked (perhaps rightfully so?)
by the playing-without-safewords-is-a-sign-of-mental-imbalance crowd
all feeling attacked by you?
Whatever. I"ll wait for "McDermott on Jacobs" for the full poop on
the True Power Exchange War of '95. <g>
=Bill
--
***************** Billy Joe Bob Bohrer, *****************
Pope WeaselBoy XVIII.LIX, Church of the Former Day Emacs
The Gospel according to Stahlman
Xiphias Gladius
>A large part of the reason for the aghast, irrational response to the
>things I have been saying is that many people, including some of the
>noisiest protesters, have had their belief systems about themselves and
>what they do shaken.
I'm not sure about that.
I think that many people are like me -- completely confident in what
we do, yet intensely annoyed at you personally.
>There are lots of people, including many here, who seek power exchange
>for strong emotional reasons but who for various reasons can't approach
>full exchange of power--can't even admit that it is possible, as we have
>seen here.
Really. And there are many more who are perfectly happy with whatever
it is they have -- be that the full-time submission that Rosie has, or
the casual silliness that I have, or the temporary and palpably real
experiences I have.
> It's not that they are insincere--just that the idea, let
>alone the reality, scares them to death.
'Course it scares me. That doesn't mean I don't *do* it.
>Some of these folks have
>convinced themselves that their kinky swinging, their play parties, their
>puerile "polyamory" are really on the edge where they so badly want
>themselves to be, really taking the risks and receiving the rewards that
>they want.
"Puerile polyamory". So, are you stating that my feelings for Ny, for
Lis, for Pookie, for Kero, are somehow not real? Are somehow
immature?
I *am* where I wish to be, for the nonce. I am taking the risks I
want to take. I am getting the rewards I want.
Why is this so hard for you to understand, Mr Jacobs? Why can't you
accept that the people arguing against you are doing so because we
consider you wrong, offensive, logically inconsistent, and morally
reprehensible in conduct and manner, deceptive, malicious, and crude,
and just a general nusiance?
>These threads have shaken that belief in quite a few people.
They've made me analyze my responses -- this is true. And I found
that I am what I always suspected I was.
They've strengthened my belief. Not surprising, really -- I engage in
this sort of introspection regularly, so it comes as no shock to
realize that my basic beliefs haven't shifted much in the past week or
so. . .
> And for
>most of them, it'll be a good thing in the long run. Breaking down that
>brittle, self-protecting, self-serving ego--which keeps them from
>committed and real d&s relatonships as much as anything else--is
>an inevitable result of this sort of discussion for some people.
You're here saying that we:
A: Can't have commited and real D&S relationships
B: That this is true because of, in large part, something
wrong with us
C: That you are so graciously helping us fix ourselves.
Let me take this point-by-point.
First, I would suspect that my subs would be truly surprised to find
that they were not commited to me, or I to them.
Second, I would think that those people I've played with who have
found themselves unable to refuse to obey me, incapable of resisting
my will, would think it somewhat odd to say that what they experienced
wasn't real.
Third, why do you assume that there's something wrong with people who
*don't* want that? Why must you hypothesize a "brittle,
self-protecting, self-serving ego" that "keeps them from commited and
real d&s relationships"?
For that matter, what's wrong with an ego that serves and protects the
self? Isn't that the point of an ego?
Finally, how the heck is spewing your offal helping people?
>>[ . . .] I've come a long way in merely
>>acknowledging these desires period. Whether I have the guts to
>>ultimately act on my d/s desires, who knows? In any case, I"m sure as
>>hell not going to metamorphose into the best littlel sub in the world
>>overnight, if ever. (I see a few cronies rolling in the aisles at the
>>very thought...P
>But you're apparently being n\honest with yourself. The metaphor of a
>journey is a fine one, among other reasons because it does not deny that
>there are real places where you have not been and where you may go. The
>Gang of Eight Or So has denied that.
However, the metaphor of a journey *can* be limited by the implication
that there *is* a final destination.
I don't think there, always, is. I think that, certainly, there can
be, and that destination, for some people, is exactly this sort of D&S
relationship that you're talking about, Mr Jacobs. But it is foolish
to state that there is an implied destination for *all* of us.
ASB is about a lot of things, a lot of modes, a lot of models. It's
as much about Mr Martelli's style, my style, Mr Jacobs's style,
Rosie's style, and about the style of that nice young couple who
thought it might be kinda fun and kinky if one of them could tie the
other to the bed, and they want ideas what to do next.
By the way, who the heck are the Gang of Eight Or So?
[. . . ]
>>It's my observed opinion that people on _both_ sides of the
>>issues are going ballistic because they're being hit right in their
>>insecurities.
Naw. I'm going balistic, 'cause I got fed up with Mr Jacobs calling
me names. It's childish, but, heck -- I figure I can act childish
until I'm old enough to drink (eleven more days, I think).
Anyway -- my excuse for acting childish is that I'm still a child.
What's *your* excuse, Mr Jacobs?
- Ian. If he's gonna call my polyamoury "puerile", I'm gonna
take my subs and go home. . .
- no really!
Hmmm.
How about we form alt.sex.bondage.support?
When I first delurked here about 3 or so years ago, I was told to
crawl back under the rock I came from by a then well-known poster
who's since left this space. I started a ridiculous flamewar when I
posted about interesting things I"d done with lightbulbs, adding the
generous disclaimer that it was suicidally dangerous to try these
things, ever, but that didn't stop people from telling me that I was a
dangerous lunatic who ought to be shut-up so that some stupid kid
wouldn't go try these things. When I started posting stories lots of
people told me I was as sick fuck who oughta be locked up and there
was another large contingent who encouraged me to speak up. I also
got a lot of interesting wannas. Unfortunately all from women.
I guess my experience with ASB has not been the same as yours -- I get
plenty of support knowing there ARE other people like me out there,
and there are plenty of people who DON'T think I"m a sick fuck. I
ALSO grew an even thicker skin than I already had, the flamewars are
what shore up your ego, learning how to defend yourself against
vitriolic attack.
I really have no patience with blanket moral relativism and ASB as a
support group for pervs where we're not supposed to say anything
negative about someone else's kink. Personally, me and my friends
keep our snotty opinions about other people's kinks between us,
because having opinions like that, on ASB, is one kink that's
*definitely* not ok.
For me, this whole extended flamewar has not been so much about (a)
Whether Jon Jacobs is right [I mostly think he is about a lot of
things] (b) whether Jon Jacobs can be a really big asshole [also imho
true] but about why on earth anyone *cares* what this one guy, or any
of the rest of us, think about their lifestyle? Is it because he's
got his name on the spine of a book?? Big deal, Isaac Asimov had his
name on the spine of *lots* of books and I still wrote him a nice
ranty letter years ago that he bothered to respond to personally in
the letters column; I have a known habit of speaking my mind, I really
don't care who or how famous you think you are, I"ll pop off a letter
in care of a publisher if something really got me thinking (or
ranting 8) and it's started some interesting dialogs over the years.
I dunno where I went with this?
I"d say I haven't seen much of a change in ASB but that's not true.
Until Jon JAcobs started coming around telling people what he thought
about what they wre doing, [YEs I *know* he claims he is not passing
judgement on people's kinks, or telling them how to "do it right";
correct me if I'm wrong, but he IS laying claim to the term d/s and
saying if one isn't doing it by his definition ofo d/s, one isn't
doing d/s period. I don't know what else one can infer but that he is
saying you're doing it wrong?]
It has always felt to *me* like there was this undercurrent of
sentiment along those lines on ASB, a feeling of YKBM (your kink bores
me) but we'd all agreed to Be Nice. I know, I wasn't here in The Golden
Age of ASB, so Idon't really know whatup. 8-P
Whether the end of the Be Nice era is good or bad, I don't know.
I hope I don't lose friends over the fact that I basically agree with
someone who can be a real asshole; I *certainly* don't agree with his
discourse methods, I've been attacked by him in the past myself; so
long as he doesn't call me "junior" I can deal with it rationally.
Doesn't feel like change to me, more like someone just shouted that
the emperor's butt-naked and everyone is running around like chickens
with their heads cut off trying figure out how the hell to cope,
should we go back to pretending he's really not, should we quickly
stuff him into a suit of clothes, or should we wallow in his naked
glory or what?
Whatever, I seem to have rambled. Back to getting a life.
=Bill
Everyone's kink is fine by me so long as all parties are consenting.
Don't MAKE me define consent!!!
--
***************** Billy Joe Bob Bohrer, *****************
Pope WeaselBoy XVIII.LIX, Church of the Former Day Emacs
The Gospel according to Stahlman
Steven S. Davis
partway through my reply when those delightful words "NO CARRIER"
appeared. When I logged on again, I was surprised to see that my
half done post had been saved, which was partly pleasant (when Delphi
decides to go down when I'm on the tenth page of a eleven page post,
the whole thing is lost) as I could download what I'd written already,
saving me the trouble of restarting from scratch. and partly embarassing,
as I know my cancellation of the message won't remove the post from all
sites.
In Message-ID: <3hg0kc$k...@matrix.eden.com>
Newsgroup: alt.sex.bondage
boh...@news.eden.com (- no really!) writes
> In article <3hb09g$5...@decaxp.harvard.edu>,
> Nyani-Iisha Martin <nfma...@husc7.harvard.edu> wrote:
> >But, also, remember, that people also get mad simply because they
> >feel they are being lied about. Do you think that's wrong, too?
> Not wrong. But it means they care way to much about one cantankerous
> old fart's opinion of them; the smart people read critically and will
> decide _for_themselve_ whether or not what X says about you is true
> or not.
Or they may care about what people think about "what it is
that they do". They may care as much about people recognizing
that it's perfectly alright to play as they do, with safewords
and limits and with consent that can be withdrawn at any time,
as Jon cares about people seeing that it's OK for people to play
without safewords and limits and with consent that may not be
withdrawn once given.
When engaged in activities that involve higher than normal
risk, as does much of wiitwd (an excellent coinage), one thing
to be avoided, IMO, is letting doubt or pride or a need to fit in
or the thought that "I must do 'X' or I won't get 'Y'" push one
(or push those you play with) into things which they don't really
want and/or for which they aren't ready. We should make it plain
that this isn't a competition, or at least it's not a competition
in which we compete against anyone but otherselves (and it's
perfectly OK not to compete against oneself; pushing limits is
not a requirement of wiitwd, it's OK to just do what's fun).
It's very true that we shouldn't allow what someone says, or what
other people do, effect how we feel about ourselves or what we do.
It's doubtless a sign of a weak and unreflective personality that
such impacts occur. Do you think it bothers me that there are
scenes my Liege wants and needs to do with some very experienced
and heavy players that she wouldn't do with me because she knows
it's more than I could handle ? She's absolutely correct, and
I'm grateful that she wouldn't put me through something I'm not
ready for, and just as grateful that there are people she knows
who can offer her what she needs, and I want her to do whatever
she needs to do to maximize her happiness, so it shouldn't
bother me in the least. But it does. The rational part of
my being knows all of the above, and agrees completely. And
certainly doesn't feel any need to compete with anyone else
(especially not in a competition that I would lose). The
nonrational part, however, doesn't like it that I can't do for
her what a "real bottom" could do. Fortunately for me, I'm an
overly analytical type, so my nonrational side doesn't get heard
from very much.
By saying that when "what we do" doesn't match some criteria, it's
fake, a lot of buttons get pushed, and a lot of people will either
either not play, or play at levels that aren't right for them, and
either consequence is something that people who care about wiitwd
do may seek to prevent on principle. It need not have anything to
do with caring about the opinion of a "cantankerous old fart".
Yes, I know, no one has to respond to what someone says about them.
But as we all know, people do. They take stupid dares because someone
says they're chicken. They fight strtngers whose capabilities they
do not know because they feel the stranger showed them disrespect.
If we know people will react in a certain way (and some have seen
evidence of the reaction, so it's not pure conjecture), there's good
reason for trying to counter it. To imply that if you object to what
someone says about what it is that you do, it just shows that you're
deluding yourself (obviously, or you wouldn't be doing what it is you
do) and proves how wrong you are is quite offensive. Though by now
we should all be accustomed to that tactic.
I don't understand any more than you do why so many people seem to
be so effected by what Jon says. I suppose a lot of time spent in
journalism and agitprop accounts for Jon's skill with a strategy
of short simple statements released in controlled sequence and
stated aggressively and repeatedly, with a measure of abuse tossed
in to intimidate some and agitate others (who will then stir the pot).
But it's more than technique. Much of the agitation had to do with
the implication (yes, I know that it was never explicitly stated)
that most of us were "fake".
I'm not sure why the charge of "fake" has the impact it does (but
I doubt Jon's frequent use of "faux" was unconsidered). There's
been a lot written about how people, even successful, accomplished
people, continue to feel that they're fakes who are unworthy of the
good things in their lives, and fear that they might be recognized
as such at any time. That may be a part of the reaction. It may also
be - and there's probably a corrolary to Ugol's law stating that no
statement will apply to all the members of a class - that submissives
are especially vulnerable to the accusation, because many of us,
somewhere in our hearts, feel that our submission is less than worthy
of our doms. To which the cheap and easy reply will be that "maybe
it's not worthy". Perhaps in some cases it's not. But I don't think
that answer accounts for all of it.
In any event, perhaps one beneficial side effect of this debate will
be to have desensitized SQO people to the effects of the word "fake".
Jon Jacobs
>jac...@crl.com (Jon Jacobs) writes:
>
>>A large part of the reason for the aghast, irrational response to the
>>things I have been saying is that many people, including some of the
>>noisiest protesters, have had their belief systems about themselves and
>>what they do shaken.
>
>I'm not sure about that.
>
>I think that many people are like me -- completely confident in what
>we do, yet intensely annoyed at you personally.
Note in your reproduction of my statement above that I said "a large
part." That leaves plenty of room for anyone who doesn't like my manner
as opposed to my content. That's not a comment, of course, in whether
you are right or not.
>
>>Some of these folks have
>>convinced themselves that their kinky swinging, their play parties, their
>>puerile "polyamory" are really on the edge where they so badly want
>>themselves to be, really taking the risks and receiving the rewards that
>>they want.
>
>"Puerile polyamory". So, are you stating that my feelings for Ny, for
>Lis, for Pookie, for Kero, are somehow not real? Are somehow
>immature?
Yes and no. Your feelings may or may not be real. Your "polyamory,"
however, is certainly both immature and a pathetic attempt to create some
sort of philosophical or moral underpinning for your messing around and
your unwillingness or inability to commit.
>Why is this so hard for you to understand, Mr Jacobs? Why can't you
>accept that the people arguing against you are doing so because we
>consider you wrong, offensive, logically inconsistent, and morally
>reprehensible in conduct and manner, deceptive, malicious, and crude,
>and just a general nusiance?
Because you are demonstrably wrong in most of that. I am not logically
inconsistent. I can be offensive, but that has little to do with this.
And I am neither deceptive or malicious. Enormous attempts to
demonstrate that I am have fallen utterly flat--except to the already
convinced.
What's more, I reject it for all the reasons already stated in these long
threads.
And finally, who says that I find anything hard to accept? I find many
things preposterous, but I certainly accept them. As so many have
pointed out and I do so again gleefully, if I am all of the above, why
not just shut up? I do not appear to be the one who finds anything hard
to accept.
Jon Jacobs
Bob Forman
<snip>
: Yes and no. Your feelings may or may not be real. Your "polyamory,"
: however, is certainly both immature and a pathetic attempt to create some
: sort of philosophical or moral underpinning for your messing around and
: your unwillingness or inability to commit.
That's it. That's all I can stand, cause I can't stands no more. I am
going to jump in here if only to go on record. Mr Jacobs, you should
perhaps take your own advice and look at "denial" a little more closely.
Many people have an enormous capacity for love. Love and committment are
not limited to any specifically defined relationship. Loving two people
at the same time is not immature; is not pathetic; except perhaps in the
eyes of those who are afraid to experience such a deep and profound love;
except for those who follow a religious dogma that has created a
philosophical and moral attitude that love is and must be limited to a
monogamous relationship.
I am continually amazed at people, you included, who are unable to see the
intense willingness, the unique ability, that others have to commit to
to a polyamorous relationship. If we break the molds of society,
government, and religions, then we are labeled immoral, unable to commit,
and a whole bunch of other garbage, by you and those of your ilk who
<snip>
: ....... I do not appear to be the one who finds anything hard
: to accept.
in fact find it hard to accept, if not impossible to accept, other
people's lifestyles and relationships. When you and others slam the
committment and love that Toppazzz, Marchessa, Alex, and others have, you
are demonstrating that you do in fact find alternatives to your paradigms
"hard to accept". Deny it you wish, but that is exactly how you appear to me.
Bob aka Pet
who really doesn't give a shit
if others think I am immoral.
+"A submissive reality is giving your fantasy to the Dominant so that+
+She can use it Her way...Mistress Cybelle, Sandmutopia Guardian,+
+**Chosen and Owned by Mistress Eden**+
!!Who has my trust. May she use it well for both our pleasure!!
=btm...@crl.com*btm...@aol.com*an75902*an148754=
Jahwar
> Your "polyamory," however, is certainly both immature and a pathetic
> attempt to create some sort of philosophical or moral underpinning
> for your messing around and your unwillingness or inability to
> commit.
Jon, does the term *plonk* mean anything to you?
Jahwar
Peter McDermott
In article <3hhfjb$7...@news.cs.brandeis.edu>,
i...@cs.brandeis.edu (Xiphias Gladius) wrote:
>I *am* where I wish to be, for the nonce.
What does _this_ mean?
(A nonce is British prison slang for 'child molester'.)
Alan Smith
><3hd7i3$9...@crl10.crl.com> <3hhfjb$7...@news.cs.brandeis.edu>
>In article <3hhfjb$7...@news.cs.brandeis.edu>,
>i...@cs.brandeis.edu (Xiphias Gladius) wrote:
>>I *am* where I wish to be, for the nonce.
>What does _this_ mean?
>(A nonce is British prison slang for 'child molester'.)
This gets my vote for funniest thing said on asb in the past month. The
universe alwasys was a better sillyopheran than I was.
Anyway, translate ian's sentance to read:
"I am where I wish to be,for the time being."
Big Al. WHo'll never use the word 'nonce' the same way again...
Nyani-Iisha Martin
[What I said]
To which Bill Bohrer said:
[what he said]
Tala then said:
[what she said]
And I now can only say:
What Tala said.
Ny
Xiphias Gladius
>In article <3hhfjb$7...@news.cs i...@cs.brandeis.edu (Xiphias Gladius) writes:
>>jac...@crl.com (Jon Jacobs) writes:
>>> A large part of the reason for the aghast, irrational response to
>>> the things I have been saying is that many people [ . . .] have
>>> had their belief systems about themselves and what they do shaken.
>> [ . . .]
>> I think that many people are like me -- completely confident in what
>> we do, yet intensely annoyed at you personally.
> Note in your reproduction of my statement above that I said "a large
> part." That leaves plenty of room for anyone who doesn't like my manner
> as opposed to my content.
Okay -- then I ammend it. I think that the overwhelming majority of
the people against you in this flamewar are against you for personal
reasons.
I mean, seriously -- you ever notice that whenever Mr McDermott
restates what you say, everyone sorta nods and says, "Okay, that makes
sense", but when *you* say things with the same content, everyone gets
upset?
See, I'm really amused, bemused, and confused by all this. I can't
really understand why someone would want to make hir points in a
manner that guarantees that they won't be listened to. I only assume
that you do it because you like flame wars as much as I do.
Which is why I enjoy flaming you so much -- because I'm certain that
you're having as much fun as I am.
>>>Some of these folks have
>>>convinced themselves that their kinky swinging, their play parties, their
>>>puerile "polyamory" are really on the edge where they so badly want
>>>themselves to be, really taking the risks and receiving the rewards that
>>>they want.
>>
>>"Puerile polyamory". So, are you stating that my feelings for Ny, for
>>Lis, for Pookie, for Kero, are somehow not real? Are somehow
>>immature?
>
>Yes and no. Your feelings may or may not be real. Your "polyamory,"
>however, is certainly both immature and a pathetic attempt to create some
>sort of philosophical or moral underpinning for your messing around and
>your unwillingness or inability to commit.
This is gonna be fun . . .
I'm gonna break this into chunks to reply to. . .
>Yes and no. Your feelings may or may not be real.
Let me start by assuring you that my feelings for these people are
entirely real. That out of the way, let's go on to the meat of this.
I think I'm going to take your attack one adjective at a time.
> Your "polyamory,"
> however, is certainly both immature [ . . . .]
Let's start with "immature". You seem to assume that polyamory is not
a fully-realized way to express love, or to live one's life. Your
evidence for that appears to be "proof by assertion."
Now, I'd say that the burden of proof in this case falls on you, Mr
Jacobs -- in order to call polyamory "immature", you'd have to
demonstrate that it is a stage that people go through, and that they
then grow to another level.
However, even if you chose to place the burden of defense on me, I
think I could handle it; I think I am quite able to demonstrate that a
mature, fully-realized person can love, wholeheartedly, more than one
person -- can be commited to more than one person.
In email, a friend of mine compared it to having more than one child.
Just because you have a second child doesn't mean that you care about
the first one less, doesn't mean that you have less commitment to the
first. People do not have a finite capability for commitment and for
love.
We know that, among mammals, there are animals, like wolves, that mate
monogamously for life. We know that there are animals, like
housecats, that make no long-term commitments of any sort. We know
that there are animals, like horses, in which the males maintain
harems. We know of many other groupings, sexual styles, and whatnot.
Humans, of course, come in all these varieties.
Human beings, with our intelligence, free will, and unique
relationship to the world, have a greater diversity in manner and
goals than any other being in nature. Some of us are called to
monogamy, some to casual sex, some to deep commitment to more than one
person.
This is not immature. These are the variations in mature, healthy
human adults.
True -- people change, people's desires change, people's styles
change. It may be that at some point in the future I desire monogamy.
However, if that happens, it will be part of the ongoing lifelong
process of flux that all humans go through -- *not* part of a
maturation cycle.
To say that polyamoury is immature is logically unfounded.
> Your "polyamory," however, is certainly [ . . . ] a pathetic attempt
> [ . . .]
Now let's go to "pathetic."
Why should my sexual choices inspire this reaction?
Even if you can find fault with the preceiding argument (and I do
invite you to try), and even if polyamory is "immature", then wouldn't
it follow that it's a normal part of development, and not pathetic?
Just a thought. . .
> Your "polyamory," [...] is [...] a[n..] attempt to create some sort
> of philosophical or moral underpinning [ . . .]
The philosophical an moral underpinnings of my actions are not
"created". I believe in those underpinnings, and choose my actions
based on them. I don't base my philosophies or my moralities on my
actions.
Polyamory isn't something I chose, isn't something I made up. It's
part of me. It's something I happened to notice inside me.
It's not philosophical or moral. It's not immoral. It's just there.
>Your "polyamory,"
> [ ...] is an [ . . . ] attempt to create some
>sort of philosophical or moral underpinning for your messing around and
>your unwillingness or inability to commit.
Nope. My messing around is a seperate issue. That's not part of my
polyamory. I'm not messing around with the people in my harem and
with Pookie. I'm dating them.
My unwillingness or inabillity to commit? True, I'm not yet ready to
swear a vow of lifetime fealty, but that's seperate from my polyamory,
too. It may well be that when I *am* ready, I'll be ready to swear
lifetime vows with more than one person.
Inabillity to commit? What definition of commitment are you using, Mr
Jacobs? As far as I know, I am commited to everyone I'm dating. As
far as *they* know, I'm commited to them. As far as anyone who's seen
us together knows, we're commited.
Can you tell me why, Mr Jacobs, you'd disagree?
>> Why is this so hard for you to understand, Mr Jacobs? Why can't you
>> accept that the people arguing against you are doing so because we
>> consider you wrong, offensive, logically inconsistent, and morally
>> reprehensible in conduct and manner, deceptive, malicious, and crude,
>> and just a general nusiance?
>
> Because you are demonstrably wrong in most of that. I am not logically
> inconsistent.
I've given several examples. Jahwar's given more.
> I can be offensive, but that has little to do with this.
No -- I was saying that people are arguing against you because you're
offensive. Mr McDermott is less offensive and is not getting flamed.
>And I am neither deceptive or malicious.
Deceptive == deliberately logically inconsistent. I admit that I've
not proved "deliberately" -- every example I've given *could* be
produced by incompitence.
Malicious == deliberately offensive and hurtful.
Your frequent insults are evidence.
> Enormous attempts to
> demonstrate that I am have fallen utterly flat--except to the already
> convinced.
On ASB, that's like saying, "except to carbon-based life forms."
> What's more, I reject it for all the reasons already stated in these long
> threads.
You reject what?
"Whatever it is, I'm against it! And even if you've rewritten and
condensed it, I'm against it!" -- Professor Wagstaff, _Horsefeathers_
> And finally, who says that I find anything hard to accept? I find
> many things preposterous, but I certainly accept them.
You seem to find the existence of polyamory hard to accept.
Anyway, "preposterous" -- adj, "unbelievable". "Accept" -- v,
"believe".
So, you just said, "I find many things unbelievable, but I certainly
believe them."
Sir -- I think you just lost any claim you had to logical consistency.
> As so many have pointed out and I do so again gleefully, if I am all
> of the above, why not just shut up?
Because you're so much fun to flame!
> I do not appear to be the one who finds anything hard to accept.
Then who is?
- Ian
Jon Jacobs
>boh...@news.eden.com (- no really!) writes:
>
>>AND, as I"ve infrequently bellowed in the din of these discussions,
>>that exactly as you've pointed out, people are only being stirred up
>>because they're being broadsided in their self-image. People have
>>called ME all sorts of disgusting names that cause me to laugh my ass
>>off (assuming they're not carrying lethal weapons or have legal and or
>>political power over me) it's only the ones I worry might be _true_
>>that make me go ballistic and demand that they take it back. And I"m
>>not foolish enough to announce my hot buttons...
>
>of my loved ones names, and so forth.
OK, junior. This is just too juicy and too dishonest to pass up. I have
nothing against insulting your or anyone else's religion. Happens in
this case that I haven't done it, though. Nor most of the other trash
you mention.
Suppose you show me where I have insulted your religion, eh?
Jon Jacobs
Jon Jacobs
>Mr Jacobs writes:
>>In article <3hhfjb$7...@news.cs i...@cs.brandeis.edu (Xiphias Gladius) writes:
>>>jac...@crl.com (Jon Jacobs) writes:
>
>>>> A large part of the reason for the aghast, irrational response to
>>>> the things I have been saying is that many people [ . . .] have
>>>> had their belief systems about themselves and what they do shaken.
>
>>> [ . . .]
>>> I think that many people are like me -- completely confident in what
>>> we do, yet intensely annoyed at you personally.
>
>> Note in your reproduction of my statement above that I said "a large
>> part." That leaves plenty of room for anyone who doesn't like my manner
>> as opposed to my content.
>
>Okay -- then I ammend it. I think that the overwhelming majority of
>the people against you in this flamewar are against you for personal
>reasons.
>
>I mean, seriously -- you ever notice that whenever Mr McDermott
>restates what you say, everyone sorta nods and says, "Okay, that makes
>sense", but when *you* say things with the same content, everyone gets
>upset?
>
>See, I'm really amused, bemused, and confused by all this. I can't
>really understand why someone would want to make hir points in a
>manner that guarantees that they won't be listened to. I only assume
>that you do it because you like flame wars as much as I do.
Yes, almost seems as if McDermott and I are working together, does it
not? Maybe he's Even Steven, eh?
I've answered this one before, but what the hell? I do it this way
because it works. More than 10 years on the various nets during which
I've tried all sorts of approaches has taught me definitively that this
is the way that gets the most of the results that I want: that people
question themselves and see possibilities that they had not seen before.
I'll not go into chapter and verse as to why this is so, which I have,
after all, done before.
It's also fun, which is no small thing.
>Which is why I enjoy flaming you so much -- because I'm certain that
>you're having as much fun as I am.
Oh, much more. Because I have the saisfaction of success. This comes in
many forms and formats.
Jon Jacobs
jessie
>Last, I think that there is a gendered element to this dynamic.
>Most of the people posting on the "I have trouble dealing with
>limit setting and/or real or imagined or net or wherever criticism"
>have been self identified sub/bottom/masochist/slave women. And
>the majority of the folks saying "Take responsibility and just
>deal" have been men (both "pitchers" and "catchers").
>
>I don't think any of the women who have been saying these issues
>are difficult for are saying that we don't want to take the
>responsibility. We're saying it's difficult. We're scared.
>We think we're going to come across as bitches. "Just do it"
>isn't very helpful advice. What would be helpful is if the
>men and women here who have experienced someone setting a limit
>with them effectively, would post about those experiences.
Does it have to be a gender issue? Can't it be an age issue, or
an experience issue, or a self-confidence issue? I'm a submissive
woman, owned by Mr. Warlock. And I certainly believe that anyone
who posts to ASB should be prepared to deal with criticism --
lest this turn into a useless forum for mutual validation,
("useless" from my perspective), as ASAR was last year when I was
reading.
I just hate to see people blaming their insecurities on the fact
that they are women ... I have plenty of insecurities, and so
do most of the men I know. But as I've grown older, I've developed
coping mechanisms.
Some of the ones which work for me:
A) Not caring if I come across as a bitch.
B) Reflecting on my personal beliefs, until I know where I stand
(I find that makes it easier to *take* a firm stance.)
C) Avoiding situations that I don't enjoy. (Not always, obviously.)
D) Having my master make my refusals for me. (Or, in his absence,
pointing to my collar and saying it's not my decision.)
E) Keeping Miss Manners' recommendations firmly in mind. If one
stays polite (and she gives clear guidelines as to what is polite),
one can express most any opinion clearly and firmly.
F) Keeping my eyes open. If a situation looks bad, or looks like
it might turn bad -- I take preventive measures, such as leaving.
I think of it like "defensive driving." Sure, *his* car drove
through a red light -- doesn't mean I want to end up dead, just
because he was in the wrong. I would turn into a one-way street
in order to avoid a reckless driver: there are times when following
the rules is a really stupid thing to do.
I could come up with more if I put some thought into it. And, no,
I don't mean to come across as unsympathetic. But I feel very strongly
that people shouldn't be silenced (or silence themselves) *merely*
because what they have to say might cause offense.
(OTOH, if they're just spouting to hurt people, or to hear themselves
speak ... I have no objection to them silencing themselves.)
/jessie
Billy Beaupre
>of my loved ones names, and so forth.
>
>because they're delusions. They're hot buttons because they're things
>that I consider to be worth fighting for.
Well yeah, but people have, like, called me a fucking faggot, like to
my face, and it doesn't make me go ballistic... I laugh back at 'em,
ask 'em if they're trying to piss me off, maybe they're looking for a
little rough trade, hmm, but don't know how to ask for what they want?
Usually works, I love that greenish white hue they turn... and of
course, I"m clever enough to weigh my odds of getting killed before
using this line.
There's a diff between _fighting_back_ and going bug-nuts, eh? I"ve
observed a whole lot of the latter, and not a whole lot of the former.
>Besides, and more importantly, I'm having fun. I *like* flamewars.
>
Well yeah, of course. I neglected the set of us that just really
*enjoy* a bare-knuckled verbal brawl...
>Like I said, I'm having fun. I'm getting a chance to formulate my
>ideas and defend them. It's good practice for life.
>
Well go for it, I'm with ya on that. I"ll say it again, if you can't
learn to defend yourself in this safe little sandbox, what on earth
ARE you going to do when some asshole attacks you on the street and
calls you a bunch of hateful names, tells you its YOUR fault the het
population is seeing a ballooning increase in AIDS, blah blah blah...?
=Bill
--
**************** Billy Joe Bob Bohrer, *****************
Pope WeaselBoy XVIII.LIX, Church of the Former Day Emacs
Advocating Peace and Harmony through Improved Verbal Firepower
Mary Malmros
: Make you a deal, bob the pet who really doesn't give a shit. Come back
: in four years and count how many of the people in those wonderful,
: committed, loving polyamorous relationships are still in the same ones.
: Then come and see me.
Can I get a piece of that action?
Two years and counting,
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Mary Malmros Very Small Being mal...@id.wing.net
Who needs viruses when you've got fear?
- Geoff Ryman
Nyani-Iisha Martin
: Does it have to be a gender issue? Can't it be an age issue, or
: an experience issue, or a self-confidence issue?
Or just a personality one. Although I agree with Thea on who's saying
that they feel this way, I do see Jessie's point that we might not be the
only ones.
: I'm a submissive
: woman, owned by Mr. Warlock. And I certainly believe that anyone
: who posts to ASB should be prepared to deal with criticism --
: lest this turn into a useless forum for mutual validation.......
This is what I thought to reply to.
What's the difference betweem constructive criticsm and destructive
criticsm? To me, the dividing line lies between, "well, since you asked,
I don't consider what you described slavery because......" and "you
are not a slave and are incapable of being one" (to use one of the
debates that spawned this discussion.)
: I could come up with more if I put some thought into it. And, no,
: I don't mean to come across as unsympathetic. But I feel very strongly
: that people shouldn't be silenced (or silence themselves) *merely*
: because what they have to say might cause offense.
Neither do I. But I don't think Thea or I said they should. I also think
that they should consider that they might cause offence; I don't think
that they oughtn't to care a whit. Even though I don't follow a lot of my
parents' advice, I do not disregard it; I act with much of it (maybe too
much) in mind. And so I would act if I were going to say something
hurtful; I might still say it, but without either a lack of caring for the
hurt caused or a rejoicing in it.
Ny
Discord
In article <3hoisf$7...@crl11.crl.com>, Jon Jacobs <jac...@crl.com> wrote:
>
>Make you a deal, bob the pet who really doesn't give a shit. Come back
>in four years and count how many of the people in those wonderful,
>committed, loving polyamorous relationships are still in the same ones.
>Then come and see me.
> Jon Jacobs
My beloved Master and his wife have been together for nearly 7 years.
Throughout that 7 years, they have had several additional partners, both
singly and together. While none of these partnerships lasted your 4
years, I might also point out that a good many people who date do so for
a great deal less than 4 years, whether they are poly or monogamous.
My Master and I have been together just shy of one year (anniversary in 2
weeks). His wife and her lover have been together about the same length
of time.
I'll get back to you in 3 years, if you like.
In addition to this example, I have a number of groups of friends who are
polyamorous in nature. While in some cases the secondary relationships
have not lasted, one group I have in mind has the primary marriage (which
has been, I'm not even sure how long, but certainly greater than 4
years), as well as a 3rd person, who is mainly the female's lover, who
has been with them for over 3 years. (September 1991 was when they began
seeing each other.)
Polyamory may not work for everyone, but that doesn't mean it doesn't
work for anyone. This is yet another point on which you seem unable to
compromise, Jon.
wi....@wizvax.com
> >Last, I think that there is a gendered element to this dynamic.
> >Most of the people posting on the "I have trouble dealing with
> >limit setting and/or real or imagined or net or wherever criticism"
> >have been self identified sub/bottom/masochist/slave women. And
> >the majority of the folks saying "Take responsibility and just
> >deal" have been men (both "pitchers" and "catchers").
jessie replied:
>Does it have to be a gender issue? Can't it be an age issue, or
>an experience issue, or a self-confidence issue?
By "does it have to?" I assume you mean, "is there any other likely
interpretation?" not "must all people a particular gender share your
experience?"
I think that age, experience, and self-confidence may also be relevent
variables when we look at these questions. But I think gender is
relevent in this discussion. The particular response I was responding
to was Pope Weaselboy Bill Bohrer's. If I recall bio threads correctly,
he and I have comprable--limited--experience with BDSM. I don't know
most of your ages--I'm in my mid 20s. And self-confidence develops
or does not develop in ways which are dramatically influenced by
gender. I'd rather call the duck a duck.
>I'm a submissive
>woman, owned by Mr. Warlock. And I certainly believe that anyone
>who posts to ASB should be prepared to deal with criticism --
It sounds like you think I was saying "women don't think anyone
should be criticized on asb." I was NOT saying that. When I was
writing, I was thinking much more about the rl implications of the
"leather ettiquette" connections to this thread. Anyone who posts
here must deal with criticism of their posts, although I find the
criticism of individual experiences with wiitwd fairly pointless,
except for hurting the poster. Or hir partner(s).
>lest this turn into a useless forum for mutual validation,
>("useless" from my perspective), as ASAR was last year when I was
>reading.
I *can't* quite picture that happening here.
>I just hate to see people blaming their insecurities on the fact
>that they are women ...
I don't "blame" my insecurities on the fact that I'm a woman. But
in analyzing the ways in which I experience insecurity, the only
reasonable analysis is gendered. I'm not insecure about the gender
neutral aspects of my life--my intellect, my other skills and talents.
I'm insecure about aspects of my sexuality, about asserting my needs
or desires...and gender plays a role in that. It doesn't mean that
no men experience similar insecurity. But my body self conciousness
developed because the boys in my neighborhood sexually harassed me
as a kid, and because the mainstream media images of women are
thinner and taller than healthy, normal range, young women, but we
are defined against them, even in our own eyes. Men's experiences,
however negative, are _different_.
>But as I've grown older, I've developed coping mechanisms.
Thanks for sharing this. This, generally, is the kind of thing I
was hoping would come out of reaction to my post.
>A) Not caring if I come across as a bitch.
Good goal! I'm not there though.
>B) Reflecting on my personal beliefs, until I know where I stand
> (I find that makes it easier to *take* a firm stance.)
UGOL! That's why I'm not insecure about talking politics or arguing
about intellectual issues. When I'm secure and confident in my
knowledge, I have no trouble. The sex thing is completely different for me.
>C) Avoiding situations that I don't enjoy. (Not always, obviously.)
Good goal, again.
>D) Having my master make my refusals for me. (Or, in his absence,
> pointing to my collar and saying it's not my decision.)
Those of us who are single, or single for all practical purposes,
have to either lie or come up with something else. It sounds lower
stress, though.
>E) Keeping Miss Manners' recommendations firmly in mind. If one
> stays polite (and she gives clear guidelines as to what is polite),
> one can express most any opinion clearly and firmly.
Good suggestion. I'll have to check her out.
>F) Keeping my eyes open. If a situation looks bad, or looks like
> it might turn bad -- I take preventive measures, such as leaving.
With this, your example was easy to agree with. *Of course* I'll
leave if I'm in _danger_. But what about a situation that doesn't
look "bad" but I still don't want to deal with it? I'm thinking of
the example of refusing to hug one person out of a large group.
>I could come up with more if I put some thought into it. And, no,
>I don't mean to come across as unsympathetic. But I feel very strongly
>that people shouldn't be silenced (or silence themselves) *merely*
>because what they have to say might cause offense.
I completely agree! And I'm distressed that something I wrote made
you think I wanted to censor someone!!! I *do* want people to think
FIRST, BEFORE talking. If self-censorship then looks like a good idea,
fine.
YMMV,
~Thea
--
a...@wizvax.com (Automated help)
wi.a...@wizvax.com (ACS Administrator)
uunet!wizvax.com!wi.admin
To reply to this, email to the wi number in the from line.
Xiphias Gladius
><3hd7i3$9...@crl10.crl.com> <3hhfjb$7...@news.cs.brandeis.edu>
>In article <3hhfjb$7...@news.cs.brandeis.edu>,
>i...@cs.brandeis.edu (Xiphias Gladius) wrote:
>>I *am* where I wish to be, for the nonce.
>What does _this_ mean?
>(A nonce is British prison slang for 'child molester'.)
Now *that* puts a spin on it I didn't intend . . . it's *also* Obscure
New Englander for "the time being. . . "
I kinda like the other interpretation, though. . .
- Ian
Billy Beaupre
>: It has always felt to *me* like there was this undercurrent of
>: sentiment along those lines on ASB, a feeling of YKBM (your kink bores
>: me) but we'd all agreed to Be Nice. I know, I wasn't here in The Golden
>: Age of ASB, so Idon't really know whatup. 8-P
>
>: Whether the end of the Be Nice era is good or bad, I don't know.
>
>Classic nostalgia, Bill -- were the Good Old Days that good?
Nope. I was trying to make that point; I was more than a little
shocked to see one of the original individuals that I got in a good
knock-down dragout with years ago when I wnet off on a sideways rant
on somebody who'd involved some non-con bystanders in some little
exhibitionist scene of theirs, telling me how *nice* it used to be
around here... Im like say WHAT? Hence the speculation that maybe he
was remembering an ASB that predates ME, cuz I sure never got a warm
fuzzy ykiok greeting...
[flamewars 1-6]
And don't forget "Women don't REALLY have rape fantasies..."
>I think that Charles is somewhat right, but I'd put it down to another
>trend: the growth of various SM mailing lists whose membership and
>objectives are somewhat more focused. Many old posters have departed ASB
>altogether for other forums where they find something that suits their
>specific needs a little better. A lot of my "content", these days, is
>showing up places other than ASB, and I'm sure that is true of others as
>well.
Yep. Mailing lists have become the reservations of the internet,
where the natives and original settlers have retreated as a haven from
the invading hordes. I find myself occasionally cruising ASB mostly
to find out if anyone new with a clue has shown up, and perhaps rescue
them.
And plus, yeah, I find when I wanna share idears with people out on
the net I"m much comfier on more specialized spots on irc, though the
public spaces there are being killed by clueless wankers who obviously
cant read a fucking topic line or at least can't comprehend the
meaning of it... but again, even there it's a matter of hanging out,
meeting people, and forming your own private space with those you find
clueful.
>Ah, gotta question for you, though, Bill. Which emperor are we talking
>about here? I know which one I think YOU mean, but...another one comes to
>mind.
? I was metaphorically speaking of the thin veneer of tolerance of
other people's kinks that seems to have been ripped off in the last
couple months. Its what everyone wants to *Believe* they believe, and
it's utter and complete horseshit. In my very obnoxious opinion.
=Bill
--
**************** Billy Joe Bob Bohrer, ******************
Pope WeaselBoy XVIII.LIX, Church of the Former Day Emacs
"Advocating Peace and Harmony through Improved Verbal Firepower"
********* http://io.com/user/casper/ **************
Jon Jacobs
>In article <3hokjp$8...@crl11.crl.com>,
>jac...@crl.com (Jon Jacobs) wrote:
>
>>>I mean, seriously -- you ever notice that whenever Mr McDermott
>>>restates what you say, everyone sorta nods and says, "Okay, that makes
>>>sense", but when *you* say things with the same content, everyone gets
>>>upset?
>>>
>>>See, I'm really amused, bemused, and confused by all this. I can't
>>>really understand why someone would want to make hir points in a
>>>manner that guarantees that they won't be listened to. I only assume
>>>that you do it because you like flame wars as much as I do.
>>
>>
>>Yes, almost seems as if McDermott and I are working together, does it
>>not? Maybe he's Even Steven, eh?
>
Not at all! More likely I'm confusing Martelli with Inquisitor. Easy to
do, since I am a terrible bird watcher and sometimes confuse chicken
hawks with.... Oh, never mind.
Jon Jacobs
Mary Malmros
: I think it is possible--barely--for what might be described as a
: polyaorous relationship--albeit not by me--to be successful. In this
: context I am defining success as permanence for all concerned.
Permanence for ALL concerned? But what if permanence is not what all
want?
: However,
: this is extraordinarily rare.
I'd go along with that, at least within contemporary Western society.
: What's more--and perhaps I should have
: spent more time explaining this--I think that the invention of polyamory
: as a concept meant to be taken seriously is preposterous. I know that
: some people take it seriously. Some people think that there are saucer
: people among us. I say to you and to them, in the friendliest possible
: fashion, come back here in five years and tell me what you think.
I would offer to take you up on that, but it seems to me that in your
words above, you have defined me as not polyamorous. Not
surprising...that IS your MO, after all.
Charles Haynes
>: Make you a deal, bob the pet who really doesn't give a shit. Come back
>: in four years and count how many of the people in those wonderful,
>: committed, loving polyamorous relationships are still in the same ones.
>: Then come and see me.
>Can I get a piece of that action?
>Two years and counting,
Grin. I'll take a piece of that action too...
18 years. Still counting. See you in four years.
topazzz
>>Two years and counting,
I'd like to get in on this too, having been slave to Marchesa for eight
years and with my beloved Lord Alex for two. See you at the party in 4
years:)
*there are TWO keys to my heart*
Babalon
SD | But I would like to ask you if you believe that the many examples
| that are offered on ASB (and were before this campaign) of people
| living in committed D/S relationships, wouldn't have shown people
| the possibility of the life that they wanted ? Was it necessary to
| so denigrate as many people and their lifestyles as you did because
| the details of those relationships don't match your ideal ?
|
| <snip>
|
| A balanced campaign for recognizing that there are levels of
| submission appropriate to people's needs, and one of these is total
| the campaign you've conducted has helped a lot of people. I'm sure
| it's educated some, I know that I've learned from it. But it has,
| IMO, caused a lot of avoidable pain, and I fear it's done a lot of
| needless damage.
BRAVO!!!!!
*babalon*
***send any email to: an16...@anon.penet.fi***
___
# Babalon # That's all I wanted to say. Really...
---
# JABBER v1.2 #
Bill Beaupre
I didn't archive it, but you DID make some rather rude remarks about
the rabbis that wrote the Torah.
=Bill
--
**************** Billy Joe Bob Beaupre ******************
E. A. Ed Graham Jr.
ars...@holly.ACNS.ColoState.EDU (Alan Smith) wrote:
> pe...@petermc.demon.co.uk (Peter McDermott) writes:
> >i...@cs.brandeis.edu (Xiphias Gladius) wrote:
> >>I *am* where I wish to be, for the nonce.
> >What does _this_ mean?
> >(A nonce is British prison slang for 'child molester'.)
>
> This gets my vote for funniest thing said on asb in the past month. The
> universe alwasys was a better sillyopheran than I was.
>
> Anyway, translate ian's sentance to read:
>
> "I am where I wish to be,for the time being."
>
> Big Al. WHo'll never use the word 'nonce' the same way again...
Noncense!
+ + + +
Reality is a nice place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there.
============================crac...@io.com==========================
Ed/Equus | "Looking for puns --
Casey's Pet Horsie and Dishwasher | in all the wrong places."
Christa Heuser
>
>I think it is possible--barely--for what might be described as a
>polyaorous relationship--albeit not by me--to be successful. In this
>context I am defining success as permanence for all concerned.
I haven't posted here before, but I have a serious question about
this. Why on earth should "success" in anything be defined as
permanence? Is everything that doesn't last forever necessarily
a failure?
I used to be a college student. Did quite well while I was there,
and graduated some time ago. My college career didn't last forever.
Did I therefore fail? I wouldn't say so, because it's inherent in
getting a college degree that success is finishing. Anyone who
was trying to get a degree, yet stayed in college permanently, would
in fact be failing in that objective.
Now I have a job. For various reasons, I might at some point
want to leave this job and get another one. If I do that, will
I have failed at this job? I don't think so, because success
for me at this job entails doing my work well while I am here.
If I leave, I won't have failed to do my job.
So what is it that makes a relationship (polyamorous or
otherwise) different from a job or going to college, with respect
to success or failure? To my mind, if each person is getting
what he or she wants and needs from the relationship, it's a
success...whether it lasts a lifetime or a day. If each
participant wants the relationship to be permanent, then *and
only* then is permanence a condition for success. Otherwise,
I don't think permanence is a necessary *or sufficient*
component of a successful relationship.
Everybody dies. A human life, by definition, is not permanent.
Are we all, therefore, failures? And if so, who's doing the
judging?
Regards,
chr...@io.com
oh my! I just delurked!
Christa Heuser
>In article <3hto41$6ki@pe chr...@pentagon.io.com (Christa Heuser) writes:
>>
>>So what is it that makes a relationship (polyamorous or
>>otherwise) different from a job or going to college, with respect
>>to success or failure? To my mind, if each person is getting
>>what he or she wants and needs from the relationship, it's a
>>success...whether it lasts a lifetime or a day. If each
>>participant wants the relationship to be permanent, then *and
>>only* then is permanence a condition for success. Otherwise,
>>I don't think permanence is a necessary *or sufficient*
>>component of a successful relationship.
>>
>>Everybody dies. A human life, by definition, is not permanent.
>>Are we all, therefore, failures? And if so, who's doing the
>>judging?
>
>
>hope) human relationships, then my definition won't mean a thing to you.
>Do you really believe that (rhetorical question)?
Well, I'll answer it anyway. I'm not sure what I think about loving
relationships, as compared to any other kind of relationships or
things people do. I really, honestly, wanted to know what you think
about it, because the idea of "success = permanence" struck me as
particularly odd. Of course anything is comparable to anything
else; the comparison may not be a particularly good one, but it's
still a comparison. It was an honest, sincere question: To you,
what specifically is the difference between loving human relationships
and all the other important things that humans do, with respect to
success and failure? I didn't ask it because I already knew the
answer.
>Loving relationships not meant to be permanent may please some people,
>particularly the ones who are incapable of more. As I've said, such
>people may wish to cobble up the imaginary polyamory to justify their
>inabilities.
Why "incapable" and "inabilities"? And why "more"? Why is a permanent
relationship better--more--than one that doesn't last forever? Why
isn't it just different?
>But I choose to define success in marriage or loving
>relationships or whatever you'd like to call them as permanence. I
>wonder if anyone here would be silly and self-exposing enough to claim
>that, let us say, marriages that end before the death of one of the
>partners have not been failures. My guess is probably. Another guess is
>that this is another one of those things where someone, probably many
>someones, will have a delightful time misrepresenting what I said
>above--just more of the ever-popularasb circle jerk (tm P. McDermott).
Well, I've never been married, and probably won't be for some time.
Not because of an inability to commit, or even an unwillingness to
commit, but basically because I haven't found the right one yet.
But I have had significant others. I suppose I'm already a failure,
because I'm not married to the first guy I fell in love with in
high school. But I wouldn't say that. I wouldn't even call that
relationship a failure, just because it ended. It was a good
relationship. It was worth having. It taught me some things about
relationships, and people, and life in general that I wouldn't
have otherwise known. On the other hand, if he and I had chosen
to continue this relationship, get married, not go to college,
stay in the hometown and eke out a living by whatever means possible,
I think *that* would have been a failure. Even if we were still
married now, even if we stayed married until one of us died.
I guess my point is that some relationships, particularly
relationships among young people, just ought not to last forever.
And I don't think that makes them less real, or less important,
or less successful than any other kind of relationship. OTOH,
if I get married or make a lifetime commitment, then I would
consider breaking it a failure. This is one of the reasons I'll
be thinking very carefully before I do such a thing. But I don't
think that I should be cutting myself off from all human loving
relationships just because I haven't found one that I think should
be permanent. It may be that I never find one, and I continue
to have relationships that aren't meant to be permanent. I don't
think this makes me a failure. I don't think this makes my
relationships fake. It just makes them...well, impermanent.
I can live with that.
One more question: You define success in a relationship as
permanence. Do you mean that permanence is a necessary condition
for success, or a sufficient condition for success, or both?
I know a couple who were married for over 50 years, until the
husband died. They didn't like each other very much, and
frankly I don't know why they stayed together; I suppose it
must have been "for the kids" to start with, and then maybe
they were unwilling to divorce precisely because of the
"success = permanence" ideal. But I can tell you, both of them
were very unhappy. They must have loved each other at some
point, but it was so far in the past that I don't think either
of them could remember it. Was their relationship, according
to your judgment, successful?
Because I can tell you right now, if that's success, I'll
take failure and be happy with it.
Regards,
Daniel B. Holzman
>
>I think it is possible--barely--for what might be described as a
>polyaorous relationship--albeit not by me--to be successful. In this
>this is extraordinarily rare. What's more--and perhaps I should have
>as a concept meant to be taken seriously is preposterous. I know that
>some people take it seriously. Some people think that there are saucer
>people among us. I say to you and to them, in the friendliest possible
>fashion, come back here in five years and tell me what you think.
And, of course, people have come back pointing out that they have already
lasted your five years and more. No doubt, you want to see 5 more years
from them as well. In the final analysis, your mind is made up, and
you're not going to let a little thing like facts dissuade you.
--
Daniel B. Holzman -- Love does not subtract, it multiplies. -- All acts of love
and pleasure are Her rituals. -- An it Harm none, do what you Will. -- They
took my name and stole my heritage, but they didn't get my goat. -- The
word is all of us. -- Remember the Twelth Commandment and keep it Wholly.
Peter McDermott
an4...@anon.penet.fi (jessie) wrote:
>Oh, sure, I'll bite. I do indeed claim that *some* marriages that
>end before the death of either of the partners have *not* been
>failures.
I can make a pretty good stab at guessing you've never been married,
jessie.
>People change. I know this goes against everything you hold dear
>in your CIS set-up, but I feel that people can call a marriage
>"successful," even if they split amicably at some later point.
Uh-huh. What proportion of marriages do you believe end in an
'amicable seperation'? I'll answer for you. Not very any at all.
For a time, my wife worked as a divorce lawyer. She did so because
she felt that she could help people reach 'amicable settlements'
(unlike most divorce lawyers, who are simply out to screw the
other side for the most money possible.) She left that line of
work because she could no longer take the continual stream of
bitter, angry and unhappy people she saw every day.
And even of those who seperate 'amicably', (a tiny proportion
of the whole) I doubt that many of those would regard the
enterprise as a 'success'. I've certainly never come across
any.
>OTOH, I don't believe in an objective standard of "success" or
>"failure" for things like marriages. So, since I can't propose
>an alternative objective definition, you will no doubt simply
>shrug off my claim. More power to you.
You dont need an objective standard. You just need to know why
people get married. Most people to it in an attempt to give their
relationship some permanence - to make some sort of commitment.
Otherwise, why bother?
>Two friends who married in order to avoid having the military know
>that one partner is gay -- their marriage is successful for them.
This is hardly the accepted concept of a marriage, and is really a
'marriage of convenience'. Hardly what we are talking about here.
>A couple who marries to raise a family together is successful if
>it does that ...regardless of whether they stay together during
>the retirement years.
Well, they are if they feel they are, but your criteria for deciding
success have no more or no less validity than Jons or mine or
anyone elses.
>A couple who marry for economic reasons have no reason to feel
>that they have failed if they divorce once the economic hardships
>are past.
Once again, a couple who marry for economic reasons and who are
not in love are engaged in a marriage of convenience. If the sole
reason for the relationship is to accrue money and they do that, then
yes, they have been successful. However, they are hardly typical, and
such financial relationships are not exactly the kind of thing we
are discussing.
>Not everyone marries for love, and of those who do, some fall
>out of love. At which point, their previous happy years do not
>retrospectively turn into failures; rather, they are succeeding
>in getting on with their lives. More power to them.
Absolutely. The failure of a marriage does _not_ negate the happy
years. However, it doesn't alter the fact that the marriage _has_
failed. Ended. Ceased to exist.
>Feel free to argue, if you like, Jon, that people do not change
>their feelings... or that if they do, they should ignore their
>new feelings in favor of an outdated and non-binding promise...
I think that this is really what is at the core of Jon's thinking
around all this. Sure, some people's feelings change. We live in a
culture where ideas like commitment and the need to honour promises
mean very little to some people. Given that, many people _are_
quite happy to make promises with only a very superficial commitment
to that promise (and I'm not levelling accusations here, I've been
guilty of this in the past myself.)
The core of it is, what do you want from your life, from your
relationships?
Do you want a series of temporary, transient relationships, or do you
want something more substantial. A relationship within which both
partners can grow together. One that is based upon trust, where you
know you can count on your partner being there in 10, 15, 20 years
time.
You're currently in your 20's jessie, and the end of a relationship
might not seem so traumatic to you. You don't have many years invested
in it, and you can probably find another without having to wait around
for too long. Come back when you're 40 and you have a couple of kids
to take care of, and your partner's feelings have 'changed'. He no
longer feels you are sexually compatible and has decided he'd rather
have a relationship with someone whose tits are firmer, whose cunt is
tighter, whose skin has more elasticity and who is better able to recognize
his Godlike qualities than you are, and tell me then that you think that
the end of a marriage is a success.
If you don't choke on the words, that is.
>or that if they act on their new feelings, their divorce turns
>their previous marriage into a failure, in your eyes.
>
>I don't think a marriage is like a campaign for election,
>or a fund-drive, where it's so obvious from the outside what
>standard should be used for defining "success." I think a marriage
>is like any relationship, and success needs to be defined
>by what the participants want.
And I say once again, if commitment isn't what they want, then
it isn't what most people understand as a marriage.
Charles Haynes
Billy Beaupre <boh...@news.eden.com> wrote:
>I was trying to make that point; I was more than a little
>shocked to see one of the original individuals that I got in a good
>knock-down dragout with years ago when I wnet off on a sideways rant
>on somebody who'd involved some non-con bystanders in some little
>exhibitionist scene of theirs, telling me how *nice* it used to be
>around here...
Hey, let me wallow in it a bit, ok? Besides, from my point of view I
was going off on some YKINOKism. I *like* public sex. Anyway...
>Im like say WHAT? Hence the speculation that maybe he
>was remembering an ASB that predates ME, cuz I sure never got a warm
>fuzzy ykiok greeting...
It did predate you somewhat. Not much though. Did you really not feel
like you got a ykiok greeting? There were a lot of us defending Mark E
Dassad as I recall. But then I'm getting old and senile and my glasses
must be covered with vaseline.
>And don't forget "Women don't REALLY have rape fantasies..."
Grin.
>Yep. Mailing lists have become the reservations of the internet,
>where the natives and original settlers have retreated as a haven from
>the invading hordes. I find myself occasionally cruising ASB mostly
>to find out if anyone new with a clue has shown up, and perhaps rescue
>them.
Yeah. Besides with trn I can customize asb so that I really only see
people and topics I'm interested. I auto-kill about 90% of asb...
>? I was metaphorically speaking of the thin veneer of tolerance of
>other people's kinks that seems to have been ripped off in the last
>couple months. Its what everyone wants to *Believe* they believe, and
>it's utter and complete horseshit. In my very obnoxious opinion.
I'm pretty sure I'm still agressively tolerant of other peoples'
kinks, but even that kink has it's opponents. Inquisitor quite
cogently explained why we have a responsibility to judge. I agree with
him to a large degree, but still...
Whatever. I guess I'm saying "it's all ones and zeros now" and I'm sad
for the time when it was more than ones and zeros. It's not going to
destroy my life, or even slow me down, but still.
wi....@wizvax.com
First, thanks for the many useful suggestions for handling the
theres-someone-I-don't-want-to-hug situation. Again, these
are the kinds of suggestions and ideas I'm finding *helpful*
from this thread.
>In my experience, the honest examples are better options than the
>dishonest ones -- more likely to let you move on from this awkward
>situation into more fun situations.
Seems reasonable. I'm bad at non-honesty, myself.
>But the honest examples demand that you then "deal with it." And you
>had indicated that you didn't feel comfortable "just dealing with it."
>To which I can only say (semi-facitiously), "Deal."
>As far as I know, "deal" doesn't mean "handle the situation with
>joy and delight." It means "get through the situation as best
>you can, without adding to the inevitable discomfort."
When I first said "suggestions that I just deal with it aren't
helpful" I didn't really mean that I didn't want to cope with
the situation at hand and get on with my life. I meant that
this is an area I struggle with, and telling me not to struggle
with it wasn't helpful. *Practical* suggestions, such as yours,
are helpful. I read your post as a "Deal--here are 10 suggested
ways" which both emotionally and mentally, I appreciate much more.
>So, perhaps it's a question of being able to handle feeling uncomfortable.
>And, yes, perhaps that only comes with age and experience. I'm 25,
>myself. Not as good as I'd like to be, when it comes to handling
>awkward, uncomfortable situations, but better than I used to be.
Nod. Me too, on all of the above. The more I've thought about this
thread, the more important the age variable seems to me. I don't
think I intimidate people who are older than I am, but I've lately
learned that I *do* intimidate my peers and people younger than me,
especially the men. While it's made the hug-avoiding scenario
easier, it's had it's own interesting set of developments.
>Does that seem like a reasonable goal?
More like a process, but yeah. The constant attempt to handle
things in ways you feel good about.
jessie
>Loving relationships not meant to be permanent may please some people,
>particularly the ones who are incapable of more. As I've said, such
>people may wish to cobble up the imaginary polyamory to justify their
>inabilities. But I choose to define success in marriage or loving
>relationships or whatever you'd like to call them as permanence. I
>wonder if anyone here would be silly and self-exposing enough to claim
>that, let us say, marriages that end before the death of one of the
>partners have not been failures. My guess is probably.
Oh, sure, I'll bite. I do indeed claim that *some* marriages that
end before the death of either of the partners have *not* been
failures.
People change. I know this goes against everything you hold dear
in your CIS set-up, but I feel that people can call a marriage
"successful," even if they split amicably at some later point.
OTOH, I don't believe in an objective standard of "success" or
"failure" for things like marriages. So, since I can't propose
an alternative objective definition, you will no doubt simply
shrug off my claim. More power to you.
My dictionary(Websters) helps me explain the distinction I see:
_succeed_: (2) a) to turn out well; b) to attain a desired object
or end.
Seems like JJ is arguing from (2a) -- marriages only succeed if
they turn out well in the end; ie, if they endure.
Whereas I think it is perfectly legitimate to argue for
(2b) -- marriages succeed if they attain a desired object or end.
Then it depends how you define that "desired object or end," which
must surely be up to the bride and groom, rather than up to JJ.
Two friends who married in order to avoid having the military know
that one partner is gay -- their marriage is successful for them.
A couple who marries to raise a family together is successful if
it does that ...regardless of whether they stay together during
the retirement years.
A couple who marry for economic reasons have no reason to feel
that they have failed if they divorce once the economic hardships
are past.
Not everyone marries for love, and of those who do, some fall
out of love. At which point, their previous happy years do not
retrospectively turn into failures; rather, they are succeeding
in getting on with their lives. More power to them.
Feel free to argue, if you like, Jon, that people do not change
their feelings... or that if they do, they should ignore their
new feelings in favor of an outdated and non-binding promise...
or that if they act on their new feelings, their divorce turns
their previous marriage into a failure, in your eyes.
I don't think a marriage is like a campaign for election,
or a fund-drive, where it's so obvious from the outside what
standard should be used for defining "success." I think a marriage
is like any relationship, and success needs to be defined
by what the participants want.
JJ's mileage would seem to vary.
Charles Haynes
However, to be fair to Jon, he is simply implying that few poly
relationships last. That's true, but not entirely relevant. Even
opposite sex couple relationships, which have the benefit of societal
support and official sanction have troubles. That non-traditional
relationships often fail should come as no surprise. The surprise is
that any survive at all.
On the other hand calling them "puerile" seems like a deliberate
slam. While I do try to be child-like in many ways, I don't think
that's what Jon was trying to say. Regardless, I'll go on enjoying my
puerile relationships, and wish Jon as much joy in his relationships
as I have in mine.
Dr. Benway
amusement:
In article <3hrla6$m...@news1.WING.NET>, mal...@id.wing.net (Mary Malmros)
wrote:
> Jon Jacobs (jac...@crl.com) states his position on polyamory:
> : Some people think that there are saucer
> : people among us. I say to you and to them, in the friendliest possible
> : fashion, come back here in five years and tell me what you think.
Yeah, you wouldn't know a Cuisinart if it jumped up and bit you on the ass.
I am a happy mitochondrium. yes yes I am! what were those horrible punks
saying 20 years ago... "no dog's body"? something like that...
Without a doubt, JJ is the L. Ron Hubbard of power exchange! His editorial
prowess is probably only surpassed by his hypothetical fectionalizing
abilities. (so what's happening in 5 years that hasn't happened in the last
5?) That's truly humorous the "..to you and to them..": kind of like "god
willing" from a Marxist... extinct species, that.
--
Dr. Benway
m3...@halcyon.com
Jon Jacobs
>In article <3hr6ns$r...@crl2.crl.com>, Jon Jacobs <jac...@crl.com> wrote:
>>
>>I think it is possible--barely--for what might be described as a
>>polyaorous relationship--albeit not by me--to be successful. In this
>>context I am defining success as permanence for all concerned. However,
>>this is extraordinarily rare. What's more--and perhaps I should have
>>spent more time explaining this--I think that the invention of polyamory
>>as a concept meant to be taken seriously is preposterous. I know that
>>some people take it seriously. Some people think that there are saucer
>>people among us. I say to you and to them, in the friendliest possible
>>fashion, come back here in five years and tell me what you think.
>
>And, of course, people have come back pointing out that they have already
>lasted your five years and more. No doubt, you want to see 5 more years
>from them as well. In the final analysis, your mind is made up, and
>you're not going to let a little thing like facts dissuade you.
And, of course, you seem to have missed the point that I said, as you
quote but apparently cannot read above, that it may be possible--barely.
I am not surprised that a few here claim wonderful success for it. I
would not even be surprised if one or two actually had success with it
for a time. Has no effect, however, on the basic premise. Sorry.
Jon Jacobs
topazzz
>> Jon Jacobs (jac...@crl.com) states his position on polyamory:
>> : Some people think that there are saucer
>> : people among us. I say to you and to them, in the friendliest possible
>> : fashion, come back here in five years and tell me what you think.
>Yeah, you wouldn't know a Cuisinart if it jumped up and bit you on the ass.
>I am a happy mitochondrium. yes yes I am! what were those horrible punks
>saying 20 years ago... "no dog's body"? something like that...
>Without a doubt, JJ is the L. Ron Hubbard of power exchange! His editorial
>prowess is probably only surpassed by his hypothetical fectionalizing
>abilities. (so what's happening in 5 years that hasn't happened in the last
>5?) That's truly humorous the "..to you and to them..": kind of like "god
>willing" from a Marxist... extinct species, that.
That was the most delightful response to "The JJ Way" that I have seen yet.
Using absurdity to point out the absurdity of his "all knowing" positiion
is just wonderful, and the comparison between he and L. Ron Hubbard couldn't
be more perfect unless you Werner Erhardt (the founder of EST, whose real
name I think is John Smith or something like that.)
Yes fanatics can be amusing when seen in the right light, and you Dr. Benway
have shone that light perfectly. Thank you.
topazzz
Queen of the Saucer People
Leigh Ann
>ina...@netcom.com (Leigh Ann) writes:
>
>>Hey, Mr. McD ....wanna play "Trespassers will be persecuted"?
>Isn't that, "Trespassers will be violated?"
Isn't that a cliche'? Boorrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrring.
*giggle*
--
ina...@netcom.com | Travel consulting for special
wi....@wizvax.com | interest communities. For more
Truth is the Dare. | info, finger ina...@netcom.com.
Steven S. Davis
References: <014318Z...@anon.penet.fi> <3hr6ns$r...@crl2.crl.com>
<3i05hm$c...@huitzilo.tezcat.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: crl12.crl.com
Newsgroups: alt.sex.bondage
jac...@crl.com (Jon> Jacobs) writes,
> Has no effect, however, on the basic premise. Sorry.
Jon, when was the last time any fact had an effect on your premises ?
Jon Jacobs
When the fact was relevant to the premise. Straw men, red herrings,
etc., don't count.
Jon Jacobs
Andrew Kelly
Forty years old, married, separated, two kids (that I know of) - my
credentials for offering an opinion, Peter.
Peter McDermott (pe...@petermc.demon.co.uk) wrote:
PM| In article <115310Z...@anon.penet.fi>,
PM| an4...@anon.penet.fi (jessie) wrote:
[ Lines starting with "PM" are Peter. Those with "JS" are Jessie's.
JS| Oh, sure, I'll bite. I do indeed claim that *some* marriages that
JS| end before the death of either of the partners have *not* been
JS| failures.
PM| I can make a pretty good stab at guessing you've never been married,
PM| jessie.
I can make a pretty good stab at guessing that you've never had a
relationship that ended "successfully", Peter.
I have, including my marriage. This view is also held by my wife. We
are separated, not divorced, as a matter of convinience. (She lives
with her boyfriend).
My support of my wife and kids was agreed between us with the help of
a good friend who is not a lawyer. Our relationship is so amicable and
good natured, that she is still the most trusted person in my life
(which is good, because she is taking care of our two children),
and I am held in similar esteem by her. Her birthday is on Sunday,
and she is getting flowers and some CD's that I know she'll like.
Not saying we didn't have problems before, during, or after the
separation - but we did resolve them. Amicably (there was that
flower pot that got smashed on the wall two inches from my head,
by I *did* deserve that one... she's so darn cute when she's
angry)
JS| People change. I know this goes against everything you hold dear
JS| in your CIS set-up, but I feel that people can call a marriage
JS| "successful," even if they split amicably at some later point.
PM| Uh-huh. What proportion of marriages do you believe end in an
PM| 'amicable seperation'? I'll answer for you. Not very any at all.
^^^^^^^^
Was the "very any" a typo (did you mean very many)? If you are saying
that no marriages end in an amicable separation - then - wrong.
Read above. And this is true of a couple of friends of mine
as well.
PM| For a time, my wife worked as a divorce lawyer. She did so because
PM| she felt that she could help people reach 'amicable settlements'
PM| (unlike most divorce lawyers, who are simply out to screw the
PM| other side for the most money possible.) She left that line of
PM| work because she could no longer take the continual stream of
PM| bitter, angry and unhappy people she saw every day.
Sure, that's most of what goes on. There are people out there,
however, who are going beyond the norm. Exploring non-exclusive
relationships so as to satisfy needs that we have that cannot
all be supplied by one single partner. Learning to deal with some of
the complex and sophisticated *human* reactions to these situations.
Learning to deal with anger and jealousy and hurt in ways that
do not include, in turn, the expression of anger, hatred, and revenge.
Learning to call it quits when and if it is appropriate without
declaring a world war over it. Not many, but we exist, and we are
growing in numbers daily.
PM| And even of those who seperate 'amicably', (a tiny proportion
PM| of the whole) I doubt that many of those would regard the
PM| enterprise as a 'success'. I've certainly never come across
PM| any.
Wrong. Here's one. Me.
For the record, I consider my relationship with my wife, as
well as a couple of other relationships I've had which have ended,
as a "success". There are numerous reasons for this which I won't
go into. Most major, though, is the fact that all the mistakes I
made, and all of the insights I've had, and all the hurt and pain
that I have felt (as well as caused) in that relationship, are far
outweighed (for me) by the fact that these have forged the person
who I am today.
I did hurt some people who loved me, and had I known then what I
know now, I wouldn't have. But I didn't. And it *did* happen. And
I learned from it, as did they. And I consider it a success.
JS| OTOH, I don't believe in an objective standard of "success" or
JS| "failure" for things like marriages. So, since I can't propose
JS| an alternative objective definition, you will no doubt simply
JS| shrug off my claim. More power to you.
PM| You dont need an objective standard. You just need to know why
PM| people get married. Most people to it in an attempt to give their
PM| relationship some permanence - to make some sort of commitment.
PM| Otherwise, why bother?
Are you kidding? And why do they look to marriage to give their
relationship permanence (I know a lot of people do, but why)?
Is it insecurity? And if so, is that marriage going to last without
some basic foundation of love, caring, commitment, desire to become
part of a long-lasting union? And will any of that stand without some
agreement on the part of both partners as to whether or not *they* feel
individually that the marriage or relationship is "successful"?
Of course you cannot have an objective standard. You need a subjective
but up-front one, though, and this, I believe is what Jessie is after.
JS| Two friends who married in order to avoid having the military know
JS| that one partner is gay -- their marriage is successful for them.
PM| This is hardly the accepted concept of a marriage, and is really a
PM| 'marriage of convenience'. Hardly what we are talking about here.
Accepted where, and/or by whom? Of course this is part of what we *are*
talking about.
JS| A couple who marries to raise a family together is successful if
JS| it does that ...regardless of whether they stay together during
JS| the retirement years.
PM| Well, they are if they feel they are, but your criteria for deciding
PM| success have no more or no less validity than Jons or mine or
PM| anyone elses.
True, but.
This is coming close enough to "You are not *really* married unless
you do X (fill in the blank), that warrants a severe upword motion of
my eyebrows. Luckily, however, as opposed to power exchange, slavery,
submission, and other topics we have discussed, marriage is a legal
institution in most countries, and if the judge says you're married,
and the marriage certificate says you're married - then you are,
regardless of what JJ says, or you for that matter, Peter. Deal with
it. People do get married for a variety of reasons. Those marriages
*can* end amicably, for whatever reason, regardless of whether *you*
consider those marriages to be true of faux. And the people involved
in these relationships that have ended *will* have a sense of "success"
and/or "failure" and/or a combination of both. And that's just real
life. What's the problem?
JS| A couple who marry for economic reasons have no reason to feel
JS| that they have failed if they divorce once the economic hardships
JS| are past.
PM| Once again, a couple who marry for economic reasons and who are
PM| not in love are engaged in a marriage of convenience. If the sole
PM| reason for the relationship is to accrue money and they do that, then
PM| yes, they have been successful. However, they are hardly typical, and
PM| such financial relationships are not exactly the kind of thing we
PM| are discussing.
That's an opinion. Can't argue with that. I just happen to think that
the number of marriages that *are* indeed consumated for financial reasons
are higher than you suspect. As a matter of fact, it is those marriages
that are consumated for financial reasons under the guise of romance
which are more likely to "fail", for obvious reasons. Much better if it
is up-front, I say. (Why, just like BDSM...)
JS| Not everyone marries for love, and of those who do, some fall
JS| out of love. At which point, their previous happy years do not
JS| retrospectively turn into failures; rather, they are succeeding
JS| in getting on with their lives. More power to them.
PM| Absolutely. The failure of a marriage does _not_ negate the happy
PM| years. However, it doesn't alter the fact that the marriage _has_
PM| failed. Ended. Ceased to exist.
In your opinion.
In my opinion, "ended", or "ceased to exist" does not equal "failed".
JS| Feel free to argue, if you like, Jon, that people do not change
JS| their feelings... or that if they do, they should ignore their
JS| new feelings in favor of an outdated and non-binding promise...
PM| I think that this is really what is at the core of Jon's thinking
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
(contradiction in terms here, but I'll let it pass)
PM| around all this. Sure, some people's feelings change. We live in a
PM| culture where ideas like commitment and the need to honour promises
PM| mean very little to some people.
You are claiming "some" people above, and extrapolating to "many"
people below. Sorry to be knitpicking, but I disagree. More below.
PM| Given that, many people _are_
PM| quite happy to make promises with only a very superficial commitment
PM| to that promise (and I'm not levelling accusations here, I've been
PM| guilty of this in the past myself.)
I would say some people do this, not many. I have seen many people who
are affected in the opposite direction. In other words, I have seen many
young people who have noticed this kind of trend in some people, and
are committed to serious and committed relationships themselves, as a
result.
PM| The core of it is, what do you want from your life, from your
PM| relationships?
PM| Do you want a series of temporary, transient relationships, or do you
PM| want something more substantial. A relationship within which both
PM| partners can grow together. One that is based upon trust, where you
PM| know you can count on your partner being there in 10, 15, 20 years
PM| time.
Is this what you want, Peter? If it is, then say so, and I will cheer you
on (seriously). What I've seen myself, however, tells me that there are far
too many relationships that are cemented in concrete before either partner
knows enough about the other - and more difficult, knows enough about
themselves. Therefore, for a person in their 20's (or 30's, and for some
people in their 40's or even 50's) it might be appropriate to try out
different things, rather than chasing "prince charming" or "princess
charming" as the case may be.
PM| You're currently in your 20's jessie, and the end of a relationship
PM| might not seem so traumatic to you. You don't have many years invested
PM| in it, and you can probably find another without having to wait around
PM| for too long. Come back when you're 40 and you have a couple of kids
PM| to take care of, and your partner's feelings have 'changed'. He no
PM| longer feels you are sexually compatible and has decided he'd rather
PM| have a relationship with someone whose tits are firmer, whose cunt is
PM| tighter, whose skin has more elasticity and who is better able to recognize
PM| his Godlike qualities than you are, and tell me then that you think that
PM| the end of a marriage is a success.
PM| If you don't choke on the words, that is.
Now now, Peter. Not fair. This may be true in some relationships - but if
this (a firm butt, firm tits, and a firm well lubricated pussy) is the
reason for the marriage, then I could equally claim that it should end
sooner rather than later anyways for the best of all concerned, and,
depending on the individuals involved, this may even be a good lesson
learned in life (i.e. what I would call a "success").
Some of the options that are beginning to open to people who no longer
in the "firm butt/flat-stomach/penis-hard-on-demand/muscular-bulging-'pecs-
and-biceps" variety, as well as those of us whose tits hang down a bit,
and whose tummy is slightly bulging from carrying kids, and whose hips
are slightly wider than would fit in Penthouse Magazine -- is to have
some sexual relationships with someone whose skin is smooth, and whose thighs
are firm, and whose penis/pussy is different (bigger/smaller/wetter/hotter,
whatever), *without* this endangering the major relationship in our lives.
The problem with marriage as an institution is that it usually *does not*
allow for this. I would fix the institution, rather than the individuals
involved. Just one man's opinion.
JS| or that if they act on their new feelings, their divorce turns
JS| their previous marriage into a failure, in your eyes.
JS|
JS| I don't think a marriage is like a campaign for election,
JS| or a fund-drive, where it's so obvious from the outside what
JS| standard should be used for defining "success." I think a marriage
JS| is like any relationship, and success needs to be defined
JS| by what the participants want.
PM| And I say once again, if commitment isn't what they want, then
PM| it isn't what most people understand as a marriage.
In your opinion. Not mine, and not, obviously Jessie's. So far, that's
two against one. You lose :-)
PM| --
PM| pe...@petermc.demon.co.uk Cool as fuck!
You know, I wonder if some of these differences of perception about
relationships and marriages are a side effect of the different cultures
that we were brought up with, and within which we live.
Just a thought.
Andrew Kelly
ake...@netcom.com
jessie
anything to you. All I had done was posted that:
>>Oh, sure, I'll bite. I do indeed claim that *some* marriages that
>>end before the death of either of the partners have *not* been
>>failures.
Which is to say that NOT ALL marriages that end before the death
of either of the partners ARE failures.
How did you get from there to your implication that I think
marriages that end in divorce are NEVER failures?
And why did you have to take this to a personal level?
Fuck you very much.
>I can make a pretty good stab at guessing you've never been married,
>jessie.
And I make no claim to having been married. Nevertheless, I am
going to be married in a year -- and yes, I'm promising "till
death do us part." For me, FOR ME, if this marriage falls apart,
then, yes, it will have failed. Mr. Warlock and I are entering
this bond with the understanding that it will last till death --
anything else is a failure.
That's for ME.
That doesn't eliminate the fact that NOT EVERYONE promises
"till death do us part." I'm yelling, because you so blatantly
misread what I wrote last time.
FOR SOME PEOPLE, marriage can be a success, if it fulfills other
goals than seeing one of the partners die.
>
>>People change. I know this goes against everything you hold dear
>>in your CIS set-up, but I feel that people can call a marriage
>>"successful," even if they split amicably at some later point.
>
>Uh-huh. What proportion of marriages do you believe end in an
>'amicable seperation'?
This wasn't about percentages. This was about Jon's absolute
statement that from the outside, not knowing ANYTHING about the
people involved, not knowing their reasons for getting married,
he could say that their marriage was a failure if it ended.
I grant you that most divorces are accriminous. That has nothing
to do with my point.
>
>And even of those who seperate 'amicably', (a tiny proportion
>of the whole) I doubt that many of those would regard the
>enterprise as a 'success'. I've certainly never come across
>any.
You've never met anyone who could say: "I'm not sorry we got
married; after all, we had some great years together -- but
now we're moving on"? And because you've never met such
people, they don't exist?
>You dont need an objective standard. You just need to know why
>people get married. Most people to it in an attempt to give their
>relationship some permanence - to make some sort of commitment.
>Otherwise, why bother?
People get married for a lot of reasons. And people have gotten
married historically for a lot of reasons. This love-thing has
only been around for a couple of centuries, even as an ideal --
and most people even during the last couple of centuries have
used economic reasons at least as much as emotional reasons
to ground their marriages.
>>Two friends who married in order to avoid having the military know
>>that one partner is gay -- their marriage is successful for them.
>
>This is hardly the accepted concept of a marriage, and is really a
>'marriage of convenience'. Hardly what we are talking about here.
For you to ignore the economic as a trivial reason for marrying,
one which is "hardly what we are talking about here" is ridiculous.
>
>>A couple who marries to raise a family together is successful if
>>it does that ...regardless of whether they stay together during
>>the retirement years.
>
>Well, they are if they feel they are, but your criteria for deciding
>success have no more or no less validity than Jons or mine or
>anyone elses.
I wasn't saying my criteria were more valid; I was saying that
*their* criteria were more valid than Jon's. Or yours.
>
>>A couple who marry for economic reasons have no reason to feel
>>that they have failed if they divorce once the economic hardships
>>are past.
>
>Once again, a couple who marry for economic reasons and who are
>not in love are engaged in a marriage of convenience. If the sole
>reason for the relationship is to accrue money and they do that, then
>yes, they have been successful. However, they are hardly typical, and
>such financial relationships are not exactly the kind of thing we
>are discussing.
They are too typical. How can you ignore the economic as irrelevant?
Why are *your* standards the most important?
>Absolutely. The failure of a marriage does _not_ negate the happy
>years. However, it doesn't alter the fact that the marriage _has_
>failed. Ended. Ceased to exist.
If you define failure that way. But (as you snipped out of
my last post when you quoted it), there's more than one way
to define "succeed" -- and one of those ways is that you
met your goal. Whatever your goal.
>
>I think that this is really what is at the core of Jon's thinking
>around all this. Sure, some people's feelings change. We live in a
>culture where ideas like commitment and the need to honour promises
>mean very little to some people. Given that, many people _are_
>quite happy to make promises with only a very superficial commitment
>to that promise (and I'm not levelling accusations here, I've been
>guilty of this in the past myself.)
You sure sound like you're levelling accusations here. And in whay
follows:
>
>The core of it is, what do you want from your life, from your
>relationships?
>Do you want a series of temporary, transient relationships, or do you
>want something more substantial. A relationship within which both
>partners can grow together. One that is based upon trust, where you
>know you can count on your partner being there in 10, 15, 20 years
>time.
>
>You're currently in your 20's jessie, and the end of a relationship
>might not seem so traumatic to you. You don't have many years invested
>in it, and you can probably find another without having to wait around
>for too long. Come back when you're 40 and you have a couple of kids
>to take care of, and your partner's feelings have 'changed'. He no
>longer feels you are sexually compatible and has decided he'd rather
>have a relationship with someone whose tits are firmer, whose cunt is
>tighter, whose skin has more elasticity and who is better able to recognize
>his Godlike qualities than you are, and tell me then that you think that
>the end of a marriage is a success.
>
>If you don't choke on the words, that is.
How can you say this with a straight tone? Fuck you very much.
My marriage is not going to end. Our goal from our marriage is
that it last. We made that decision quite consciously. Knowing
full well that we could decide to have other goals for our
marriage. Who are you to tell me about how my relationship
could end and it wouldn't be that traumatic? It would be
damn traumatic. I'm promised to him for life.
God, I can't even think straight.
I have to free up the computer now, so I can't edit this and
calm my tone of voice down. I just needed to express my
fury that Peter would misrepresent my post so much that
it would appear that I wasn't committed to marriage... that
I was one of those people who could casually slip in and
out of a marriage to my master. I'm not, and I resent
the implication.
Alex Martelli
...
>>Loving relationships not meant to be permanent may please some people,
>>particularly the ones who are incapable of more. As I've said, such
>>people may wish to cobble up the imaginary polyamory to justify their
>>inabilities.
>Why "incapable" and "inabilities"? And why "more"? Why is a permanent
>relationship better--more--than one that doesn't last forever? Why
>isn't it just different?
My take is on this is very different from both yours and JJ's. You
both have stated that a relationship meant to be permanent is a failure
if it doesn't happen to be; I don't see this as a crucial determinant.
But, I do see the _meant to be permanent_ part as important in itself
while the relationship lasts.
Let's take the first part first. All flesh is grass. "Permanence",
at best, when human beings and our observation are concerned, means
"until death" -- a random event, sure to happen eventually but not
predictable in avdance. Whether a person will happen to die tonight,
or whether they will once again happen to see the light of the day,
cannot retroactively influence the worth of whatever it is that they
are doing *right now*. Causation is not retroactive.
Suppose a person is, right now, in a relationship: well, either that
relationship IS, right here and now, "working", to some extent, or, it
isn't. Now, if they never wake from their next sleep, the relationship
will have happened to be "permanent"; if they do wake, it might or
might not be. Nothing in their sudden death enhances retrospectively
the worth of what they're living today; thus, if the relationship is to
be considered "successful" in the case in which it's terminated by that
death, then it must have been successful *today* _independent of that
random unpredictable event_ -- i.e., even if they survive the night (and
no matter what happens thereafter).
A strange thing happened to me two nights ago as I was walking to
catch my bus home from work -- I crossed on the sidewalk a woman
who was getting off the bus, and suddenly she stared at me, stopped,
and exclaimed "Alessandro!". I stared right back and instantly
recognized her, exclaiming her name in turn. A high-schoolmate,
which I hadn't seen for upwards of 20 years. She happens to live
about 30 meters from where I work, and we'd just never happened
to cross in the last few years despite that.
I *had* heard about her and another schoolmate from other friends,
though. They had married very young, spent a few wonderful months
of love -- then, suddenly, out of the blue, leukemia had claimed
him in the space of a couple of months, at the age of 25.
So, *that* marriage DID turn out to be "permanent". A success?
She tells me that, had she known he was to die so young, she would
have married him all the sooner -- she did manage to have his child,
at least, and has raised it since; her only regret, their years of
engagement in University, when they could have been living together
instead, had they known. So, yes: a *permanent*, *successful*,
6-months long marriage.
Now, suppose that, instead of leukemia, what had struck so suddenly at
that young man had been, for example, the teaching of some holy
preacher from Nepal. Instead of being a cold body on a bier, in this
alternate Universe he would be rushing off to Everest, leaving wife and
child as Buddha himself did, to live in meditation and prayer in some
remote convent. Here, since it is religious conversion and not death
to snip the thread of the relationship, the latter is not "permanent";
but, what is the essential difference? What is it that makes those
few months, according to your evaluation, retrospectively "a success"
in one case, and not in the other?
Me, I do see an important difference in what's happening *right now*
in a relationship meant to be permanent, versus one not so meant.
To quote once more my favourite Austrian engineer, "He lives eternal
who lives in the present"; moreover, there IS no other eternity but
"right now", for human beings as observable and talkable-about in
rational discourse (and, as he wisely observed though violating his
own precept, of what one cannot speak, one must be silent:-).
*Commitment* to permanence _here and now_ means, to me, "no mental
reservations" of the kind ``if anything bad happens I'm outa here'',
for example. No matter what happens tomorrow, this, to me, does
have some worth. Such mental reservations and holding-back may be
practically prudent, but I see them as subtracting from the present
moment, from living it to the fullest. (Note that, as I indicated
shortly ago, I believe that taking practical precautions to minimize
bad stuff if it happens IS quite reasonable and need not interfere;
at least, for SQO people -- other apparently need to *have* no
safety net whatsoever, to be able to live life to the fullest).
You're probably right in taking JJ to task for his usual abrasive
language and judgmental expression (not that it will make much of
a difference, of course), but there is some psychological reality
there, for some of us; those of us who feel able (and in the right
circumstances willing) to make that sort of commitment, can feel it
as more powerful than uncommitted relationships can be for us.
You're also quite correct in pointing out that the key element to
consider is not "a person" ``diacronichally'' (i.e. through all time),
but rather "a person in a given instant" -- as they grow and change, at
a given time they may, or may not, be able, ready, willing, desirous of
commitment. There's nothing intrinsically wrong or inferior about not
being any or all of that at one given time, of course.
A further observation is that this really has nothing to do with
polyamory, i.e. the ability to love ("romantically", i.e. as in "eros"
as opposed to "agape") more than one person. I see long-term,
committed relationships as being quite feasible under both poly
and mono -- and viceversa, the "serial monogamy" that is so common
in practice may in some cases not differ substantially from a model
of several simultaneous uncommitted relationships.
To take just one example from a frequent poster to this group: Bill
Majors appears to be living several committed, long-term relationships
at the same time, with many women who identify as his slaves; and he
(and they, when they post) give me the impression that they are indeed
loving relationships, one and all. This is one example of a poly
model, quite similar in fact to poligamy as traditionally practiced in
many cultures.
A very different model is the long-term committed couple (often a
married one), unambiguously primary, but not averse to having other
secondary relationships with other individuals or couples where sexual
love can and does enter the picture. If the secondary relationships
are also committed ones, this, too, is poly.
And, of course, there are many others. Monogamy and long-term
commitment can thus be seen to be essentially "orthogonal" issues;
each is interesting, and so is their intersection, but *confusing*
them is just the sign of fuzzy thought and expression.
Alex
--
____ Alex Martelli, Bologna, Italia -- mailbox permanently overfull!
\SM/___
\/\bi/ For everything that lives is holy, life delights in life;
\/ Because the soul of sweet delight can dever be defil'd.
Leigh Ann
>For what it's worth, Mr Porn Artist Who Was Formerly Known As Mark E
>Dassad, I think that any definition of Who We Are has to include,
>among others, you, has to include Leigh Ann *and* Inanna (and I am
>including them as separate entries), davo, me, Mr Jacobs, Rosie, Alex
>Martelli, Elle, Will O The Wisp, the gators, Amoret, Charles Haynes,
>and my little sister.
Ian? Why? I mean, what are you attempting to say by "including them as
separate entries?
Just wondering...
Leigh Ann
Xiphias Gladius
>In article <3hogfm$7...@news.cs. i...@cs.brandeis.edu (Xiphias Gladius) writes:
>>I can't
>>really understand why someone would want to make hir points in a
>>manner that guarantees that they won't be listened to. I only assume
>>that you do it because you like flame wars as much as I do.
>Yes, almost seems as if McDermott and I are working together, does it
>not? Maybe he's Even Steven, eh?
No, no, no. He's Judas, and you're the Anti-christ. Haven't you been
paying attention?
Or maybe you're both demon lords of Hell -- I've not really been
paying attention.
ES was, of course, actually Hitler, posting from his secret base in
Argentina, and I'm actually Elvis.
That explains my stupid hairdo.
>I've answered this one before, but what the hell? I do it this way
>because it works. More than 10 years on the various nets during which
>I've tried all sorts of approaches has taught me definitively that this
>is the way that gets the most of the results that I want: that people
>question themselves and see possibilities that they had not seen before.
>I'll not go into chapter and verse as to why this is so, which I have,
>after all, done before.
As far as I've been able to tell, it basically boils down to --
"They're yelling at you, therefore, they're paying attention," and
you're hoping for enough integrity on the part of All Of Us to
actually *read* that which we are flaming you for.
Okay, makes sense -- heck -- it *does* seem to have worked. Lots of
people *have* listened to you, and lots of people have tried to
understand.
I do question whether there is anyone who actually *believes* any
differently than at the beginning of the flamewar, but people *are*
talking about a paradigm of D/s that doesn't normally get as much
airtime.
Frankly, though -- the bits of what you are saying that people agree
with are the bits that they already believed. That is, as far as I
could tell, *most* people here believed at the beginning of all this
that lifestyle D/s is an appropriate and healthy way for some people
to live (Janet Hardy nonwithstanding). I don't think anyone,
including you, Mr Jacobs, believes that lifestyle D/s is in some way
"better" than what you choose to call "playparty D/s".
>It's also fun, which is no small thing.
Absolutely.
>>Which is why I enjoy flaming you so much -- because I'm certain that
>>you're having as much fun as I am.
>Oh, much more. Because I have the saisfaction of success. This comes in
>many forms and formats.
See, aren't flamewars fun? BOTH of us can claim victory.
- Ian
Xiphias Gladius
> I"ll say it again, if you can't
>learn to defend yourself in this safe little sandbox, what on earth
>ARE you going to do when some asshole attacks you on the street and
>calls you a bunch of hateful names, tells you its YOUR fault the het
>population is seeing a ballooning increase in AIDS, blah blah blah...?
Knife them and hide the body?
Well, it's an idea, at least; maybe not a good idea, but it's an
idea.
- Ian
Elisabeth Riba
>>Yes, almost seems as if McDermott and I are working together, does it
>>not? Maybe he's Even Steven, eh?
i...@cs.brandeis.edu (Xiphias Gladius) writes:
>No, no, no. He's Judas, and you're the Anti-christ. Haven't you been
>paying attention?
>Or maybe you're both demon lords of Hell -- I've not really been
>paying attention.
>ES was, of course, actually Hitler, posting from his secret base in
>Argentina, and I'm actually Elvis.
>That explains my stupid hairdo.
And that thing he does with his pelvis... ;}
--
-------------------> Elisabeth Anne Riba * l...@netcom.com <-------------------
"Love wouldn't be blind if the braille weren't so damned much fun."
- Armistead Maupin, "Maybe the Moon"
Xiphias Gladius
> . . . [Polyamory] may be possible--barely.
That's what I said. I'm glad you finally agree with me, Mr Jacobs.
> I am not surprised that a few here claim wonderful success for it.
Neither am I.
> I
> would not even be surprised if one or two actually had success with it
> for a time.
Neither am I. Actually, *several* have actually had success.
> Has no effect, however, on the basic premise. Sorry.
Since the basic premise was that certain people can have wonderful
sucess with polyamory, I think that the idea that certain people can
have wonderful sucess with polyamory does, indeed, relate to the basic
premise.
- Ian
Midnight Writer
CH > chr...@pentagon.io.com (Christa Heuser) and
JJ : Jon Jacobs (address not available from these quotes - sorry)
:
: Loving relationships not meant to be permanent may please some
: people, particularly the ones who are incapable of more. As I've
: said, such people may wish to cobble up the imaginary polyamory to
: justify their inabilities.
CH > Why "incapable" and "inabilities"? And why "more"? Why is a
> permanent relationship better--more--than one that doesn't last
> forever? Why isn't it just different?
AM | My take is on this is very different from both yours and JJ's. You
| both have stated that a relationship meant to be permanent is a
| failure if it doesn't happen to be; I don't see this as a crucial
| determinant. But, I do see the _meant to be permanent_ part as
| important in itself while the relationship lasts.
OK - my take is different still from everybody else's, so far.
AM | [...] Whether a person will happen to die tonight, or whether they
| will once again happen to see the light of the day, cannot
| retroactively influence the worth of whatever it is that they are
| doing *right now*. Causation is not retroactive.
I agree so far, Alex.
AM | Suppose a person is, right now, in a relationship: well, either
| that relationship IS, right here and now, "working", to some
| extent, or, it isn't. Now, if they never wake from their next
| sleep, the relationship will have happened to be "permanent"; if
| they do wake, it might or might not be. Nothing in their sudden
| death enhances retrospectively the worth of what they're living
| today; thus, if the relationship is to be considered "successful"
| in the case in which it's terminated by that death, then it must
| have been successful *today* _independent of that random
| unpredictable event_ -- i.e., even if they survive the night (and
| no matter what happens thereafter).
Yup. I don't particularly care if a relationship is current, or happens
to last 'until death do us part' - if it's hate-filled, deadening, and
causes more pain than joy to its participants, IMO, it's not successful,
no matter how long it endures.
<story of Alex's friend, widowed after only months of marriage, snipped>
AM | Now, suppose that, instead of leukemia, what had struck so suddenly
| at that young man had been, for example, the teaching of some holy
| preacher from Nepal. Instead of being a cold body on a bier, in
| this alternate Universe he would be rushing off to Everest, leaving
| wife and child as Buddha himself did, to live in meditation and
| prayer in some remote convent. Here, since it is religious
| conversion and not death to snip the thread of the relationship,
| the latter is not "permanent"; but, what is the essential
| difference? What is it that makes those few months, according to
| your evaluation, retrospectively "a success" in one case, and not
| in the other?
Based upon the intent of 'until death do us part', I'd consider his
leaving to pursue other interests (whatever those interests may have
been) as a failure of the 'until death do us part' clause of the
relationship. I'd be willing to bet that the wife in question would
have different feelings about the success of the relationship, had her
husband chosen to leave, rather than died. She may yet consider the
relationship a success because of other factors - but the reason for the
end of the relationship *does* make a difference.
<more snippage - are the bandwidth ghods getting full yet?>
AM | *Commitment* to permanence _here and now_ means, to me, "no mental
| reservations" of the kind ``if anything bad happens I'm outa
| here'', for example. No matter what happens tomorrow, this, to me,
| does have some worth. Such mental reservations and holding-back
| may be practically prudent, but I see them as subtracting from the
| present moment, from living it to the fullest. (Note that, as I
| indicated shortly ago, I believe that taking practical precautions
| to minimize bad stuff if it happens IS quite reasonable and need
| not interfere; at least, for SQO people -- other apparently need to
| *have* no safety net whatsoever, to be able to live life to the
| fullest).
It's much different for me. I've exchanged "until death do us part"
vows twice, and both times, that vow has been broken. The first time,
my primary reaction to her leaving was relief - that relationship was
*not*, in any fashion, to me a success. The second time, the breaking
of the vow was caused by factors external to our relationshp, beyond our
control. While I was *not* happy to see the end of the relationship, I
could understand the necessity of the premature end, and consider the
relationship successful for the time it lasted. Since there are, to me,
many more factors of a relationship more important than duration, I can
only view the success or failure of the relationship when considering
all of those factors, taken as a whole.
I consider my relationship with Babalon as potentially permanant, as
neither of us has any plans to end it. Yet, I'll never again exchange
vows that include a 'until death do us part' clause - it's unenforcable,
leads in too many cases to a level of complacency that is actually
harmful to the relationship, and is in my experience, an unrealistic
expectation.
The clause I'll use instead will be 'until we can no longer make this
relationship valuable for both of us' - honestly acknowledging that
people change, not always together, but implying responsibility on both
sides to work toward a successful relationship. When I take this vow
with Babalon, it will simply be formalizing my own intention - I already
feel this way, without any formal exchange of vows.
AM | You're probably right in taking JJ to task for his usual abrasive
| language and judgmental expression (not that it will make much of a
| difference, of course), but there is some psychological reality
| there, for some of us; those of us who feel able (and in the right
| circumstances willing) to make that sort of commitment, can feel it
| as more powerful than uncommitted relationships can be for us.
I disagree with your use of the term "uncommitted", here - I do not
believe that a committment must be permanant to be valid.
AM | A further observation is that this really has nothing to do with
| polyamory, i.e. the ability to love ("romantically", i.e. as in
| "eros" as opposed to "agape") more than one person. I see
| long-term, committed relationships as being quite feasible under
| both poly and mono -- and viceversa, the "serial monogamy" that is
| so common in practice may in some cases not differ substantially
| from a model of several simultaneous uncommitted relationships.
Good point. A committment to a relationship need not necessarily be a
committment to monogamy.
<examples of polygamy and polyandry snipped>
AM | And, of course, there are many others. Monogamy and long-term
| commitment can thus be seen to be essentially "orthogonal" issues;
| each is interesting, and so is their intersection, but *confusing*
| them is just the sign of fuzzy thought and expression.
That particular fuzzy thought is awfully widespread in our culture -
widespread enough for some people to confuse it with "the way it's
*always* been" - which is simply wrong, as any historical study on the
topic will show quickly. There are even many examples of non-monagamous
marriage within Judeo-Christianity - the Mormon practices and Solomon's
many wives, to name the two most obvious examples.
-=<MIDNIGHT WRITER>=-
Email sent to Dan....@tcl.mmbbs.com gets to me, mostly. Email sent
to Midnigh...@tcl.mmbbs.com never has, nor do I expect it to.
---
# -=<M W>=- # Immorality: the morality of those who are having a better
time.
Christa Heuser
>In article <3hvme5$bqb@pen chr...@pentagon.io.com (Christa Heuser) writes:
>
>>>Loving relationships not meant to be permanent may please some people,
>>>particularly the ones who are incapable of more. As I've said, such
>>>people may wish to cobble up the imaginary polyamory to justify their
>>>inabilities.
>>
>>Why "incapable" and "inabilities"? And why "more"? Why is a permanent
>>relationship better--more--than one that doesn't last forever? Why
>>isn't it just different?
>
>commitments and risks and necessary and with the potential gain, both in
>genetic terms and in terms of our happiness and satisfaction and
>fulfillment as individuals.
Genetic terms I'll grant (although in real genetic terms, couples
only need to stay together long enough to raise a child, which is
a far cry from forever.) How do you know what brings happiness
and satisfaction, etc., and why do you think that permanence
is a necessary condition for such a thing? Again, I bring up the
couple I mentioned in my last post; married for over 50 years,
until the husband died. And neither was happy. Is that success?
>
>>>But I choose to define success in marriage or loving
>>>relationships or whatever you'd like to call them as permanence. I
>>...
>>Well, I've never been married, and probably won't be for some time.
>>Not because of an inability to commit, or even an unwillingness to
>>commit, but basically because I haven't found the right one yet.
>>But I have had significant others.
>
>It's odd that you believe that there's necessarily a difference between
>an inability or unwillingness to commit and the idea that you haven't
>found the right one yet. Many people manage to avoid the right one all
>their lives.
Yeah, so I *should* have married that highschool sweetheart, right?
My god, I'm 23 years old and haven't made a lifetime commitment.
What a pathetic, incapable failure I am. Yeah right.
>I wonder where you got the idea that I think that any relationship that
>is transitory is a bad relationship.
Above you say, "I choose to define success in loving relationships
as permanence." Fair enough. So are transitory relationships not
loving relationships, or are failed relationships not bad?
>OTOH,
>>if I get married or make a lifetime commitment, then I would
>>consider breaking it a failure.
>
>Well, then we agree.
No, I don't think so. I didn't say "I necessarily will get
married or make a lifetime commitment." I also didn't say
"And if I don't, I'm a failure and my relationships are
meaningless." So no, I don't think we agree.
Regards,
Lamont Granquist
>In article <3iabmh$1...@crl3.crl.com>, Jon Jacobs <jac...@crl.com> wrote:
>> These relationships are also more fundmental to our mental and
>>emotional health than any other type, at least for almost everyone.
>>Unlike many of our other activities, they are coded specifically into us
>>genetically, part of the process of regenerating the species in a way
>>that nothing else is.
Oh, Lord, not this again.
What makes you think that our relationship styles are entirely genetically
coded, and what makes you believe that everyone is necessarily programmed
to exactly the same (presumably het mono) style of relationship?
/me taps lightly on his flamethrower, awaiting a response...
--
Lamont Granquist (lam...@u.washington.edu)
Discord
>In article <3hvme5$bqb@pen chr...@pentagon.io.com (Christa Heuser) writes:
>of emotion and much else in a way that no other type of relationship
>does.
I assure you, Mr. Jacobs, that a polyamorous relationship no less
requires committment or risk than a monogamous one. If anything, it may
involve _more_ emotional risk, for you carry with you the additional fear
that your partner, who is the partner of someone else, may choose to
become monogamous at any time, and you may not be the partner chosen.
This is not unlike a monogamous relationship, where one can fear that the
partner shall decide to move on to another relationship, but as it is in
addition to that fear, it constitutes are greater emotional burden.
> These relationships are also more fundmental to our mental and
>emotional health than any other type, at least for almost everyone.
>Unlike many of our other activities, they are coded specifically into us
>genetically, part of the process of regenerating the species in a way
>that nothing else is.
Explain to me from whence you get "reproductive drive" = "committed
relationship". The two are biologically distinct (the latter not even
being a biological drive); many species of animal do not mate for life
(although some do). Some species are polyamorous. If you are going to
make a biological argument, you would do well to examine these things.
If anything, that biological drive to reproduce would seem to NATURALLY
lead to polyamory; on the part of women, more men to protect one's
offspring would be desirable; on the part of men, more women to plant
one's seed in would be desirable.
In addition to this, by bringing the biological imperative to reproduce
into it, you then seem to be implying that non-heterosexual
relationships, whether monogamous or polyamorous, are ALSO uncommitted
ones, that are somehow not as up to your artificial standards of what
constitutes a successful relationship. Is this what you wish to imply?
Or do you wish to withdraw the "biological urges" argument?
>>Why "incapable" and "inabilities"? And why "more"? Why is a permanent
>>relationship better--more--than one that doesn't last forever? Why
>>isn't it just different?
>
>For many reasons. the most important ones have to do with the
>commitments and risks and necessary and with the potential gain, both in
>genetic terms and in terms of our happiness and satisfaction and
>fulfillment as individuals.
You, Jon, cannot define what I, Discord, sometimes known as Tina
Sikorski, (or for that matter, my Master, his wife, and her lover)
would find fulfilling, necessary to my (our) happiness, and/or biologically
rewarding. Or, rather, while you can (and just attempted to, IMO, by
making the above blanket statement), you not only look rather foolish
in doing so, but you prove yourself to be the arrogant, self-centered,
egotistical ass that you deny and others claim of you.
To you, Jon, polyamory goes against the ideals you feel are necessary in
a relationship to make it a success. That is fine, and I have no problem
with people who wish to remain monogamous. I don't have an objection to
your definition of a successful relationship, provided that you make it
clear that you only apply said definition to your own relationships.
However, that is not what is happening here. You are attempting to tell
ALL of us, that YOUR definition is correct, and the rest of us who
believe that polyamory is actually a legitimate choice of style of
relationship are not going to be fulfilled, happy, rewarded, whatever,
and moreover, in other notes [which the denizens of alt.polyamory have
been lucky to miss], you have implied and at times outright stated that
people in poly relationships are childish.
That goes beyond egotistical, and well into appalling.
>It's odd that you believe that there's necessarily a difference between
>an inability or unwillingness to commit and the idea that you haven't
>found the right one yet. Many people manage to avoid the right one all
>their lives.
This is just incredible.
That is to say, I am unable to believe that you have said such a thing,
despite evidence to mine own eyes contrarily placed above.
Are you equating dating with deliberately overlooking one's potential
mate? Have you truly not realized that the purpose of dating is indeed to
determine whether you HAVE found a (or the) person you feel you could be
compatible with, if not forever, at least as long as mortal life shall
allow?
And, by your statements above, I would guess that you hold the opinion
that there is such a thing as "several people who would be sufficiently
compatibile with someone for that one to make a committment" (which, by
the way, is something I believe).
If you do, in fact, believe that that is true, why then do you scoff at
polyamory?
And, if you do not believe it is true, why then do you scoff at those
still searching for their ultimate companion?
>>[not a failure because]
>>because I'm not married to the first guy I fell in love with in
>>high school. But I wouldn't say that.
>
>Neiter would I. In fact, neither did I.
No, but you said the next closest thing to it, which I believe may still
be quoted in this post; you said that non-permanent relationships are, in
fact, failures; that is to say, to never have had a failed relationship,
one must marry the person one first dates. You have also, in other
notes, implied (if not outright stated) that people who have
failed relationships are somehow inferior, or at least childish.
>
>I wonder where you got the idea that I think that any relationship that
>is transitory is a bad relationship.
By your terming of non-permanent relationships as failures, perhaps.
Nonetheless, I have said what I wish to say; undoubtedly, you will go on
to restate your position, claim that I have put words into your mouth
(fingers), distorted what you have said, misunderstood it completely, am
making arguments that have little to do with what you said, and all the
other things I have seen you claim of others' responses.
== ti...@tezcat.com == er...@io.com == Discord, mundanely Tina ==
"You protest? YOU protest? You PROTEST?" "Indeed, Sire. But only once"
======================== http://www.tezcat.com/~tina ==================
"Fast friends? And yet, Sire, I am told that they have threatened to
murder one another no less often than once each day since they have met."
The Emperor shrugged. "Well? They are Dragonlords; wherefore does this
mean they are not friends?"
==== quotes from Steven Brust's _Five Hundred Years After_. Read it.
Mark Evans
: ti...@tezcat.com (Discord) writes:
: >In article <3iabmh$1...@crl3.crl.com>, Jon Jacobs <jac...@crl.com> wrote:
: >> These relationships are also more fundmental to our mental and
: >>emotional health than any other type, at least for almost everyone.
: >>Unlike many of our other activities, they are coded specifically into us
: >>genetically, part of the process of regenerating the species in a way
: >>that nothing else is.
: Oh, Lord, not this again.
: What makes you think that our relationship styles are entirely genetically
: coded, and what makes you believe that everyone is necessarily programmed
: to exactly the same (presumably het mono) style of relationship?
Even if this was the case humans would not be expected to behave in
a lifelong monogamous manner. Such behaviour is very unmamalian.
Richard Caley
me> Even if this was the case humans would not be expected to behave in
me> a lifelong monogamous manner. Such behaviour is very unmamalian.
Ah, but 55% or so of us are birds...
[I know, I know, a joke almost as un-PC as it is bad, but sometimes I
just can't resist]
--
r...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk _O_
|<
Spyral Fox
(i...@cs.brandeis.edu) wrote, in part, in Message-ID:
<3hogfm$7...@news.cs.brandeis.edu>, while responding to something that was
written by Jay Jacobs (I forget the reference)
>We know that, among mammals, there are animals, like wolves, that mate
>monogamously for life. We know that there are animals, like
>housecats, that make no long-term commitments of any sort. We know
>that there are animals, like horses, in which the males maintain
>harems. We know of many other groupings, sexual styles, and whatnot.
>
>Humans, of course, come in all these varieties.
Well, actually, my training is as an animal behaviorist, and I can tell
you one thing for sure: neither wolves nor any other species contains
*only* members which mate for life. When given a chance, male wolves will
quite happily have sex with other females. It may *appear* that they mate
for life; in many canids only the alpha-male and the alpha-female mate.
Unless you watch them long enough to notice a change in the pecking order,
you will assume that it is the same two each year. The alpha-male
generally prevents other males from breeding, the alpha-female asserts her
dominance in a similar way -- it makes sense not to bring too many puppies
into the world when you need to kill your dinner.
As long as I'm at it, geese also are alleged to mate for life and the way
they carry on would embarress <sp?> the writers of a soap opera.
Interestingly, even so-called lesbian sea gulls cheat on each other.
Which reminds me that homosexuality is also not found soley in humans (a
good fact for the non-hets amongst us to throw in the faces of those who
claim they are "unnatural"). For that matter, even rape occurs in
animals.... boars are notorious for it.
I'll be happy to provide some references to anyone who wants to explore
the wide world of ethology!
- - - Spyral Fox <- - helical, but cute...and *very* monamorous
"What makes you think I'll do as you say without a direct order from my
Owner?"
Stef Jones
Mark Evans <eva...@mb4714.aston.ac.uk> wrote:
>Lamont Granquist (lam...@u.washington.edu) wrote:
>: What makes you think that our relationship styles are entirely genetically
>: coded, and what makes you believe that everyone is necessarily programmed
>: to exactly the same (presumably het mono) style of relationship?
>Even if this was the case humans would not be expected to behave in
>a lifelong monogamous manner. Such behaviour is very unmamalian.
*Chuckle* Humans do a LOT of things that are "very unmammalian."
-- Stef
rational/scientific/philosophical/mystical/magical/kitty
st...@netcom.com
In the force if Yoda's so strong, construct a sentence
with words in the proper order then why can't he?
Michael Rios
(Richard Caley) writes:
>
>In article <D4F64...@aston.ac.uk>, Mark Evans (me) writes:
>
>me> Even if this was the case humans would not be expected to behave in
>me> a lifelong monogamous manner. Such behaviour is very unmamalian.
>
>Ah, but 55% or so of us are birds...
>
And a study was just released proving that even among "monogmous" birds
(those thought to mat e for life), at least 20% of the offspring are the
result of extra-marital affairs!
fairest one
: In article <D4F64...@aston.ac.uk>, Mark Evans (me) writes:
: me> Even if this was the case humans would not be expected to behave in
: me> a lifelong monogamous manner. Such behaviour is very unmamalian.
: Ah, but 55% or so of us are birds...
And the rest of us are Martians. <nod fervently>
b.
--
we get a little further from perfection/each year on the road
i think that's called character/i think that's just the way it goes
better to be dusty than to be polished/like some store window mannequin
touch me where i'm rusty/let me stain your hands
--ani difranco, imperfectly
Mark Evans
: In article <D4F64...@aston.ac.uk>, Mark Evans (me) writes:
: me> Even if this was the case humans would not be expected to behave in
: me> a lifelong monogamous manner. Such behaviour is very unmamalian.
: Ah, but 55% or so of us are birds...
Well terms such as "lovey dovey" and "love birds" reflect that
monogamy is a far more typically avian behaviour than anything
else.
Dryada
Sorry I missed Mr. McDermott's first "pass" on this, it NEEDS my
input desperately...
>pe...@petermc.demon.co.uk (Peter McDermott) sez:
>PM | The core of it is, what do you want from your life, from your
> | relationships? Do you want a series of temporary, transient
> | relationships,
> | or do you want something more substantial. A relationship within
> | which both partners can grow together. One that is based upon
> | trust, where you know you can count on your partner being there in
> | 10, 15, 20 years time.
>PM | You're currently in your 20's jessie, and the end of a relationship
> | might not seem so traumatic to you. You don't have many years
> | invested in it, and you can probably find another without having to
> | wait around for too long. Come back when you're 40 and you have a
> | couple of kids to take care of, and your partner's feelings have
> | 'changed'. He no longer feels you are sexually compatible and has
> | decided he'd rather have a relationship with someone whose tits are
> | firmer, whose cunt is tighter, whose skin has more elasticity and
> | who is better able to recognize his Godlike qualities than you are,
> | and tell me then that you think that the end of a marriage is a
> | success.
> |
> | If you don't choke on the words, that is.
>what an incredibly sexist thing to say, Peter.
Ditto! Yo, Peter --- I am 41...
>you see, jessie, you have to be monogamous and you have to be willing to
>really *commit* to one man til death do you part because otherwise
>look what'll happen to you. well, it might happen anyway, but, at least
>then you can feel like the injured party...
>yes, Peter, i'm only 32 and only invested 13 years in a relationship and
>only have two kids to take care of, so i can't possibly understand what
>you mean... after all, i'm female, so obviously *i* couldn't have chosen
>to end the relationship, and we couldn't possibly have decided together
>that we wanted to end the marriage... nah, that kinda stuff never
>happens in real life.
Oh dear, us poor pathetic *helpless* 40 year old (and older!) women,
with sagging breasts and all...
I ended my marriage (I got married at 21) after 8 years of crying and
throwing a temper tantrum once a month to maybe get some very bad sex.
About 2 years before that, I "opened" it --- no negotiation, I figured
I had suffered enough under feeling like a sexual reject, and when I
discovered OTHER people were interested, even if he wasn't, that tore
it....
I have since led a VERY interesting life, and no, things are NOT slowing
down. I have met the males who want 20 year olds with firmer breasts, but
frankly, most of them are dreaming, and as far as I can tell they definitely
don't represent all that's out there. I have also met men 10 to 15 years
my junior, and women, who are DEFINITELY interested, and not at all put
off by my "sagging breasts," and no, they aren't married and they aren't
losers. Seriously, Peter, I get to pick and choose. No, my life doesn't
belong in the soap operas, it is not THAT sex focused, but I have not been
living a life bereft of love or bereft of "real relationships." I am
currently considering the possibilities in taking a visit north, to see a
"sick friend." Dear child (a younger one) came to visit me about 6 weeks
ago, in his leathers on his motorcycle, and we had a wonderful time. I
rode to the "event" we were scheduled to attend in his sidecar. Then, he
was supposed to show up at a ritual at my house, and he ended up in a car
accident. The hospital has had him for about a month now, they just let
him loose. We've been discussing b&d stuff, I get that I get to top
first...nursing duty and all. I have witnessed women fighting over this
one, yet he was the one who "offered himself" to me, in our initial
meeting.
One who I have just said "goodbye" to for a while (though he says he will
take another short visit within the month) has been a close friend for a
while, and for several months before he left town it became more. My
relationships are not "second choice" --- I live my fantasies, and my
fantasies are not tawdry or cheap, trust me. Women are a little more
difficult, but I take my time and look for what I want, and sometimes
find it. If I lowered my standards a bit, I could have a lot more sex,
but it just wouldn't be as fun. My (dear, sweet, loving) friend who left
town helped a lot in "reminding" me what I do want, and what I won't put
up with. No, his "reminding" me of what I won't put up with wasn't by
example, rather by contrast to some half-baked choices that didn't meet
the test of my truly caring about them. Since it is remotely possible
he might be lurking, I won't embarrass him any more now....
For several years I had a "three way" relationship with a man and a
woman, and we brought a child into the world. Just a few years ago I
sadly ended a relationship with a woman who wanted things a little
weirder in a few areas than I could deal with. Oh well. I learned a
lot, even if it was an unheralded disaster in the blow-up.
Love,
Dryada
--
*************************************************************************
kc...@ripco.com
....You can do what you want....
...You will get what you create....
@}->-@}->-@}->-@}->-
@}->-@}->-@}->-@}->-
topazzz
>Peter McDermott (pe...@petermc.demon.co.uk) wrote to jessie:
>"The core of it is, what do you want from your life, from your
>relationships? Do you want a series of temporary, transient
>relationships, or do you want something more substantial. A
>relationship within which both partners can grow together. One that is
>based upon trust, where you know you can count on your partner being
>there in 10, 15, 20 years time."
>Babalon (Bab...@mmbbs.com) replied:
>"you see, jessie, you have to be monogamous and you have to be willing
>to really *commit* to one man til death do you part because otherwise
>look what'll happen to you. well, it might happen anyway, but, at
>least then you can feel like the injured party..."
>Dryada (kc...@ripco.com) further responded to Peter:
>"Oh dear, us poor pathetic *helpless* 40 year old (and older!) women,
>with sagging breasts and all... ... I have since [my divorce] led a
>VERY interesting life, and no, things are NOT slowing down. ...
>Seriously, Peter, I get to pick and choose."
>Black Silk here with my resounding agreement with Babalon and Dryada:
>At the age of 38, I've been divorced 4 years and counting. Like
>Dryada, I'm having a helluva lot more fun and enjoying a helluva lot
>more meaningfulness and growth now than I *ever* did in my "committed
>relationship" which lasted 13 years. I too can pick and choose, and I
>most certainly don't settle for lovers who are second-best. I am
>prepared to enjoy both transient and long-term relationships. I *also*
>want meaningful, trusting, and substantial relationships.
Add one more to the 40+ females with sagging tits and spreading hips
and even achy joints - who feel younger than ever, and are more alive than
I ever was in my "committed relationship" of 17 years which was stagnant
at best. Now I have both an 8 year and and a 2 year relationship that, to
my mind are an eternity. Time is completely irrelevant when the relationship
is fulfilling, rewarding, and makes every day a new adventure in growth, in
love, and life is a glorious challenge.
I'll take these "shorter" relationships over and above almost 20 years of
stagnation and emptiness anytime. And its clear to me that the "shorter"
ones are the most succesful. Even if they ended tomorrow, nothing would
ever change that.
topazzz (born when the earth was cooling, younger than the first crocus)
Beloved, devoted, proud, obedient, adoring, powerful, growing
slave of Marchesa Megan and Lord Alessandro
Jon Jacobs
Oh, joy! Somebody's host is posting old messages again!
JJ
Spyral Fox
In article <D4II...@aston.ac.uk>, Mark Evans wrote:
> Well terms such as "lovey dovey" and "love birds" reflect that
> monogamy is a far more typically avian behaviour than anything
> else.
Alas, birds are not nearly so monogomous as they are pictured in the
popular media. While some mate for life (like some humans) it is far more
common for there to be serial monogamy in most birds which raise their
young in couples. Each breeding season, new pairs bond. And even then,
the male is not always raising his own young - - "adultery" still happens.
Heck, even lesbian seagull pairs often raise young. For that matter, if
anyone wants to see the ugly side of life, watch what happens if a bunch of
drakes get a (female) duck cornered. Humans aren't the only ones to
practice gang rape.
- - - Spyral Fox <- - rather twisted, and well-versed in animal behavior.
Standard Disclaimer: This message is being sent via anon from my work
address.
Please conserve bandwidth; unless you need an anon ID, please direct your
replies to my home address: Spyral F...@aol.com
"What makes you think I'd do as you say, without a direct order from my
Owner?"
John E. Clark
+In article <RJC.95Fe...@daiches.cogsci.ed.ac.uk> r...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Caley) writes:
+>> Even if this was the case humans would not be expected to behave in
+>> a lifelong monogamous manner. Such behaviour is very unmamalian.
+
+
+Not true. Many mamalians :) mate for life with a single mate. Many do not.
+Each speices has it's own way of doing things. Humans ain't no different
+in this respect. In humans being monoganmous works great for some. Being
+polyamous works great for others. We are a complicated bunch, are we.
It really does not matter what 'other mamalians' do... 'other mamalians'
do not do quite a bit of what humans do, and seem to think natural...
Of course we do not know if dolphins have large cities, and world wide
communications networks, but those dolphins that we have observed
closely do no seem to be able to tell us about any such things.
Similarly with near by mamalian neighbors such as non-human primates....
So, fortunately, or perhaps to some, unfortunately, human mamalians
seem to be afforded a sense of choice about things that are believed to
be 'genetically required' in the form of instinctual behavior seen in
'other mamalians'.
With that in mind, eschew 'genetic' or 'natural' arguments and pursuit
the idea that as humans, we have choice in a wide variety of behaviors,
and why limit relatinships to the minimal one of heterosexual, life long
monogamy.
Michael Rios
writes:
>+Not true. Many mamalians :) mate for life with a single mate.
This is a classic fallacy, probably a case of proving what one wants to
prove, and is clearly sexual-politically motivated. In any case, most
examples of monogamous animals were birds (& we all know about
bird-brains!); the few mammals involved have notoriously little
brainpower. Recent studies have shown that even among the species that
were thought to be monogamous, 20% of the offspring are *not* fathered
by the "life-mate".
IMO, there's lots to be learned by understanding human behavior in the
context of animal behavior and natural selection; but it becomes *very*
important to get the science right.
Angi Long
>With that in mind, eschew 'genetic' or 'natural' arguments and pursuit
>the idea that as humans, we have choice in a wide variety of behaviors,
>and why limit relatinships to the minimal one of heterosexual, life long
>monogamy.
From a presentation I recently gave to a class:
"Our tendency to seek a 'proper' or 'natural' family type in history
flies in the face of the historical and cross-cultural record, which
reveals an astonishing variety of 'successful' family arrangements.
... Cross-culturally, families vary so greatly in their gender,
marital, and child-rearing arrangements that it is not possible to
argue that they are based on universal psychological or biological
relations."
(Stephanie Coontz, *The Social Origins of Private Life*)